*Note*: This question has been inspired by the related question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99867/61679* --- I'm intrigued by the prospect of tailoring apologetics strategies specifically to effectively present a compelling case for the truth of Christianity to those who adhere to pagan beliefs. While traditional apologetics often focuses on persuading atheists and agnostics, such as in works like "[I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist](https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615) ," there is a unique challenge when engaging with individuals who already accept beliefs in deities, miracles, the supernatural, and similar concepts within a pagan or non-Christian framework. What arguments and approaches does Christian apologetics employ to effectively persuade individuals holding such perspectives? Delving further into pagan theology unveils intriguing concepts such as [theurgy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy) and [thaumaturgy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaumaturgy) . Theurgy, commonly linked with [Neoplatonism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism) , encompasses rituals and practices aimed at invoking the presence of divine entities. Thaumaturgy, on the other hand, often pertains to the use of magical acts or miracles for practical ends. Additionally, one may encounter related terms such as [Western esotericism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism) , [Eastern Esotercisim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_esotericism) , [Perennial philosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy) , [Kabbalah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah) , [Hermeticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism) , [Occult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult) , [Modern paganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_paganism) , [Shamanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism) , [Spiritualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism) , [New Thought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought) , [Theosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy) , [Witchcraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft) , [Druidism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druidry_(modern)) , [Yoga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga) , [Reiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki) , [Astrology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology) , and [New Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age) . > Theurgy (/ˈθiːɜːrdʒi/; from Greek θεουργία theourgía), also known as divine magic, is one of two major branches of the magical arts, the other being practical magic or thaumaturgy. Theurgy describes the ritual practices associated with the invocation or evocation of the presence of one or more deities (also called "godforms"), especially with the goal of achieving henosis (uniting with the divine) and perfecting oneself. (Source: [Theurgy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy).) > Thaumaturgy is the purported capability of a magician to work magic or other paranormal events or a saint to perform miracles. It is sometimes translated into English as wonderworking. > >A practitioner of thaumaturgy is a "thaumaturge", "thaumaturgist", "thaumaturgus", "miracle worker", or "wonderworker". A 'saint', being one who is variably defined as having an exceptional degree of holiness, enlightenment, or likeness or closeness to God, may be claimed to have performed miracles; these generally being defined as exceptional events or deeds not within the normative means of natural or human power, instead being of some supernatural or preternatural manner. Although the definition of a 'miracle', like the definition of a 'saint', will vary yet further among separate religions, sects, and schools. > > **Buddhism** > See also: *Abhijñā* and *Miracles of Gautama Buddha* > In the introduction of his translation of the "Spiritual Powers (神通 Jinzū)" chapter of Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, Carl Bielefel refers to the powers developed by adepts of Buddhist meditation as belonging to the "thaumaturgical tradition". These powers, known as siddhi or abhijñā, were ascribed to the Buddha and subsequent disciples. Legendary monks like Bodhidharma, Upagupta, Padmasambhava, and others were depicted in popular legends and hagiographical accounts as wielding various supernatural powers. > > **Hinduism** > See also: *Godman (India)* > Godman is a colloquial term used in India for a type of charismatic guru. They usually have a high-profile presence, and are capable of attracting attention and support from large sections of the society. Godmen also sometimes claim to possess paranormal powers, such as the ability to heal, the ability to see or influence future events, and the ability to read minds. > > (Source: [Thaumaturgy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaumaturgy).) When exploring these concepts, I'm intrigued to know if apologists have crafted arguments or techniques specifically designed to resonate with followers and practitioners of pagan religions. For example, are there instances where apologetics has been meticulously tailored to address the beliefs of modern New Agers or adherents of the *perennial philosophy*? Analyzing specific instances across different religions can provide valuable insights into how apologetics effectively navigates the nuances between Christianity and the diverse viewpoints found within pagan traditions, especially in the context of engaging with and proselytizing a pagan audience.

I found this claim in a Protestant Christian web-site (which prompts this question): "In just about every part of the world, glossolalia can be observed. Pagan religions all over the world are obsessed with tongues. These include the Shamans in the Sudan, the Shango cult of the West Coast of Africa, the Zor cult of Ethiopia, the Voodoo cult in Haiti, and the Aborigines of South America and Australia. Murmuring or speaking gibberish that is construed to be deep mystical insight by holy men is an ancient practice." Glossolalia is the term for what is more usually called 'speaking in tongues' as practiced in some charismatic / pentecostal denominations. The quote came from https://www.gotquestions.org/glossolalia.html but there was nothing more about the non-Christian practice, because the page was out to present a biblical view. It was just that claim that I wanted to ask about, preferably getting answers from Christians sympathetic to what they view as modern-day Holy Spirit speaking in tongues. Would they readily admit to that non-Christian (and, therefore, non-Holy Spirit) phenomenon? Or would they deny such a thing went on in non-Christian religions? (Which is NOT to invite arguments for their practice being authentic while non-Christian practices were a sham.) I'm not asking for theological explanations about glossolalia but **whether it goes on in non-Christian circles and, therefore, whether that presents a challenge to Christians sympathetic to its practice in their ranks, or not.**

I have a background involving the worship of Ganesha, the Hindu elephant-headed deity, and I’ve recently begun exploring Christianity. Since this transition, I’ve faced troubling experiences and feelings of torment by this pagan deity, especially on days significant to Ganesha like tuesdays or 4th day after full moon or new moon, leading to deep depression and frustration. While I believe in Jesus, my family continues to honor Ganesha, complicating my situation. I feel that the influences of this pagan god are affecting my life and mental well-being. My questions are: Can Jesus deliver individuals from the torment of pagan gods like Ganesha? Additionally, can Jesus deliver these pagan gods themselves from any spiritual influences

Abraham was from a pagan family, separated by his call to God. His families I supposed weren't different from the Canaanites in pagan worship. In some instances, the Canaanites proved more morally upright than Abraham and Isaac by instructing their fellows not to interfere with Isaac and Abraham's wives (family), meting with dire consequences anyone who does break such binding law. Genesis 26: 6-11 If this proves true, why did Abraham and Isaac instructed the heirs of the covenant never to marry from the Canaanites (pagans) but should marry from their families (pagans) in Padan-aran?

Here, I would like to conjure an excercise, as I am well schooled in history and theology of Judeo-Christianity as a side-kick to my Graeco-Roman theological studies and other comparative systems of thought, religion, and philosophy. How would you convince a Heathen to your religion, if: His faith is completely reasonable, not faith-based, namely: claiming hypothesis, building arguments upon arguments of pillar-like soundness that are rock-solid as Parthenon, that reach a conclusion that Polytheism is a natural outcome of the intelligent, and the Monadic "One" is an abstract formula of Pythagorean progressions and theology of arithmetic and geometry. It is therefore a reason-based theology that moves Gods closer, and the remote "En To Pan" is unreachable by the human intellect, reason, anyone claiming to impersonate "objective truth" is a charlatan-guru and realizations of Divinities are approached by establishing ratio and intervals of understanding that correspond with Plotinian "notions" of the metaphysical worlds. Moreover, the aformentioned claims that all religions are man-made, but that does not refute the existence of spiritual worlds, they may be approximated in the eye of the beholder - to a limited extent; there was no reveleation as such, the Gods may or may not reveal themselves, metaphysics and the transcendent realms can do without human belief-systems, a mortal is merely "measuring Heavens and metaphysical realities" with himself, herself, but "heavens and stars are not brought for the sake of a mortal animal" (Iamblichus of Chalcis). His theology relies solely on antique studies, vast literature that is oft ignored by Christians, apart from living experience bestowed by the Providential Gods, starting from Parmenidian doxology, throughout careful understanding of Egypto-Hellenic theologies, into multiple mystery and initiatory cults, psychopompic, psychagogic and otherwise transformative both aretorolically, up to Plotinian Enneads and into Mithraism. He may and understand the cults and their purpose well, which was an effective deification, heroization and epitomization of the soul. Moreover, he is a practicioner of the methods and schools and receives "Theion Ergon", or work of the Divinities upon him, subverting any form of reliance on the Essene Gnostic Jesus and his ecclesiastikoi (the Church). His angelology and bestiaries of spirits are related strictly to Republican and Imperial cults of the Graeco-Romans, avoiding the ideas contained in Dionysos Aeropagite of later "hierarchizations" that was strictly Judeo-Christian. His aretology is based on twenty private and public virtues of Rome and paideic standards of the Hellenes. He doesn't believe in sin or baptism, as an "inventio" of Judaism in face of the dream to be liberated from the Romans, therefore his hamartiology is based not on a "fatal flaw" of birth into nature, but gigantomachia, the battle and overcoming of nature and responsible life, the only transgression is that not to take sculpting in the nature, ethos as a rewarding, heroic enterprise that results in deification posthumously. On top of that, he may be a blatant, openly effective Heathen theurgist and practicing necromancer, an excorcist etc. avoiding all the Judeo-Christian methods of act, belief, and submission. He believes morality is relative, humaneness is difficult to define, and it is by the virtue of his daimon that he becomes noble, bearing, strong and righteous, moreover that human nature - following Plato - is neither good nor evil - every beastiality and idyll may be found amongst nature and the problem of "evil" is that of conflicting natures, war of the elements and inclinations, to be solved first and foremost within by a noble, strong conduct, overcoming suffering not being conquered by it. Is there any argument to convert such a person, or merely "believe because so" is the answer provided to a reasoned, educated Heathen that does not accept the Abrahamic god, nor an Essene gnostic "Jesus" as a figure of any relevance, apart from the creed that professes suhc a belief?

In Galatians 4:9-10 we see St Paul sending a terse message to the faithful abhorring their observance of days, months, seasons and years terming them weak and beggarly elements. Unfortunately, he does not specify what those elements are. In fact, Jewish traditions mandated the observance of feasts and spells of prayer, determined by the days, seasons etc. Jesus followed them . Evidently, St Paul was referring to something else. My question therefore is ; what were the practices observance of which was abhorred by St Paul in Gal 4:9-10 ? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

Are there any passages in Early Christian literature that discuss angels and pagans? Are there any statements that suggest that angels were created specifically by God only for Christians and not for the pagans? Are there any claims that state that angels only protect Christians and not pagans?

I saw a TikTok video saying that *"The Catholic church is a pagan mixture"* accusation entirely came after the **19th century** and none of the **16th-century original reformers** make that argument. Is that true, or did any of the **original reformers** make that argument?

**Hell** Christian theology invokes a very frightening image of Hell, which is quite close to how the ancient Greeks envisaged Tartarus. Wikipedia > In Christian theology, Hell is the place or state into which, by God's definitive judgment, unrepentant sinners pass in the general judgment, **Hades** According to the Britannica encyclopedia Hades was the word used to describe Hell in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and it is quite clear that it is from the infernal regions of ancient Greek mythology that Christians get the image of Hell being a place of fiery gloom and punishment. Britannica encyclopedia > In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the word Hades is used for Sheol, denoting a dark region of the dead. Tartarus, originally denoting an abyss far below Hades and the place of punishment in the lower world, **Sheol** However, The original word used in the Hebrew Bible to describe Hell, was Sheol, which according to (Job 10:21) simply meant a place where "all" the dead go, with no other connotations and the horrific images they conjure up, implied. Britannica encyclopedia > (Job 10:21). In Sheol, the good and the wicked shared a common fate, much as they had in the Babylonian underworld. The place did not conjure up images of an afterlife, for nothing happened there. It was literally inconceivable, and this is what made it frightening: death was utterly definitive, even if rather ill-defined. **Question** It would appear to be quite clear from the above that Christians today get their image of Hell from ancient Greek mythology, and not from the original Hebrew Bible. Is it not paganism to believe in polytheistic ancient Greek religion? Why do Christians use ancient Greek polytheistic connotations when defining the literal meaning of Hell?

Apart from Catholicism (and, in the past, Anglo-Saxon Christianity), are there any other confessions that allow or encourage the cult of Saints? Can it be considered as a sort of paganism? Edit: I explicitly mentioned the Roman Catholic church. I thought you are aware that in Italy, the nation of Catholicism, the vast majority of people are devoted to, lay their faith in and address their prayers not to the Lord and to HEAVEN, but to ordinary men like San Gennaro , San Nicola, whose blood and shins they venerate and trust. This is the cult of Saints, which has substituted the faith in The Lord

I have commonly come across the belief that "newer" religions integrate existing customs and traditions into their own. So what traditions and customs in Christianity can be traced back (with the help of proper references) to Paganism?

This picture and the answer at https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5144/why-is-christmas-on-december-25th seems to explain the biblical basis of the date. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D11jAEKgB2o , the topmost answers however on https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/46227/how-did-christianity-replace-roman-paganism-and-other-ancient-religions and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/44832/is-christmas-not-a-christian-festival speak of adoption of Saturnalia and absorption of Paganism and also how the celebration of Christmas was probably a combination of "probably a combination of pagan solstice holidays, early Catholic church assignment of saints days, and the desire of northern Germanic tribes (for whom winter was much more arduous) to have a celebration for home and hearth." https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/69613/could-december-25-as-the-birthday-of-jesus-have-come-from-pagan-influences even talks about how there is no biblical basis for the birthday of Christ to be set on 25th December. This also seems to go against the information in the picture. So is there a basis for Christmas on 25th December just being a rebranding of a Pagan tradition given that there is a biblical basis for it? Or was the biblical scriptures interpreted only much later to cater as reasoning to the 25th December date?

Continuing with a series of questions on the eternal fate of the unreached (see [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86233/50422) , [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86263/50422) , [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86218/50422) and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/79245/50422)) , I would like to ask a question now about the possibility of God Himself reaching unconverted pagans, who had never heard of Christ or the gospel up to that point, through supernatural means, such as dreams, visions, audible voice, an angel, an apparition, etc., before any human missionary physically arrived to the place. Are there any accounts of something like this ever happening in church history? _____ **Note**: positive answers to this question could be regarded as counterexamples to the premise of my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/82931/50422

It is a fact of history that many unfortunate people have been born in conditions where it has been pretty much impossible for them to even dream of having a chance to hear the message of salvation -- the gospel of Christ -- preached to them. Thus, when death suddenly comes, they have no other option than to die in their sins and in their unreached state. And regarding the fate of the unreached, there are Christians who believe that no other outcome can be expected than irrevocable condemnation, eternal damnation, no hope of salvation whatsoever for the unreached (see e.g. [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/86219/50422) and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/79266/50422)) . **Question**: According to believers in the inexorable damnation of the unreached, isn't it unfair of God to arbitrarily have someone be born in unreachable conditions, where no matter what they do they will never be morally perfect and won't ever have a chance to hear the gospel either? How is it fair for those unlucky individuals to be eternally punished when they didn't even have a chance to repent and receive forgiveness of sins in Christ, as nobody came to preach the gospel to them? **Note**: by unreached I mean "unreached with the gospel", "unevangelized", "unlearned" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned) .

Inspired by a thought-provoking comment section discussion about an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/86261/50422) to my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86233/50422 , I would like to ask a follow-up question: According to those who believe in the inexorable damnation of the unreached, why is punishing the unreached in Hell (possibly for all eternity) a better deal than other more merciful and compassionate alternatives, such as having the unreached go through an afterlife rehabilitation program, preaching the gospel to the unreached in the afterlife so that they may at least have a genuine chance to decide if they want to get saved or not, etc. I mean, any alternative other than being born in the wrong time and place, only to be surprised at the time of death with a boarding pass to eternal damnation, without any chance to revoke it whatsoever.

Many individuals have died and continue to die without ever having heard the message of salvation. Illustrative examples of this are everyone who was born before Jesus, individuals contemporary to Jesus but too far away at the time to even have a chance to hear about Him in their lifetimes (e.g. Native Americans and all tribes from the Pre-Columbian era before the first missionaries arrived), isolated jungle tribes in Africa and the Amazon, and [uncontacted peoples](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples) in general. What did the Early Church Fathers believe about the fate of the unreached? Is there any hope for them to get saved, according to early patristic writings? Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/79245/50422

The Old Testament alludes to--and utterly condemns--the sacrifice of children and other condemnable pagan practices that were widespread among the Canaanite nations, for which God decided to punish them by taking their land away from them and handing it over to the nation of Israel. Below some passages that attest to this fact: Deuteronomy 18:9-14 (ESV): > 9 “When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. 10 **There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering**, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer 11 or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, 12 for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, 14 for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this. Leviticus 18:19-25 (ESV): > 19 “You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. 20 And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor's wife and so make yourself unclean with her. 21 **You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech**, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. > > 24 “**Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean**, 25 and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. Jeremiah 32:33-35 (ESV): > 33 They have turned to me their back and not their face. And though I have taught them persistently, they have not listened to receive instruction. 34 They set up their abominations in the house that is called by my name, to defile it. 35 **They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech**, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. Sacrificing innocent children is a horrendous and condemnable practice which is obviously wrong however one looks at it. However, I find the practice itself very mysterious and perplexing, as I'm having a hard time trying to wrap my head around the practice. My educated guess would be that Baal, Molech and other pagan deities were not mere imaginary entities, but actual, powerful demonic beings that are ranked very high in the demonic hierarchy of Satan's kingdom, and by sacrificing children as an offering to these deities, some underlying spiritual laws or principles are at play by which the demons are able to receive some benefit and the individuals sacrificing the children receive some benefit as well -- like some sort of macabre "win-win" contract between the demons and the humans performing the ritual. In other words, the sacrifice becomes a "key" in the spiritual realm to "unlock" benefits from demons, and the demons would gain something in return as well, although I have no clue as to what these "benefits" might be and why the sacrifice would be required in the first place. But again, these are just my own speculations, and I'm aware that I may be completely missing the mark on this. **Question**: What happens in the spirit realm during a ritual child sacrifice? Are there spiritual laws/principles that are tapped into when a ritual child sacrifice to Molech, Baal or any other pagan deity is performed? *Note: this is a topic that has me very puzzled, and I have no preference for any particular denomination on the matter. Therefore, answers from all denominational viewpoints are welcomed.*

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I am avid watcher of the History Channel series on the Templar Knights. In one episode, the character playing the Pope announces that stories like the Holy Grail were really mysticism invented by the Catholic Church to attract Pagans to Christianity. Is there any evidence of this or was this simply poetic license?

I first encountered this notion on p. 30 of R.S. Sugirtharajah's book *The Bible and the Third World: Precolonial, Colonial and Postcolonial Encounters* (2001, Cambridge University Press). In reference to the ancient Roman territories of the African continent, he says (with my own emphasis added below) that: > The Christianity which came to Africa was initially hellenized and > eventually adapted itself to Egyptian language and culture. This > adaptation was facilitated by the infusion of native religion and > rituals. It contained elements from non-Christian religions. > **Augustine, in one of his tracts, mentions that in the fifth century Christians believed that God was Saturn re-christened.** The > Christianity practised both by sophisticated thinkers like Tertullian > and ordinary people had as much in common with the practices of their > indigenous religion as with the new faith. This paragraph is footnoted with: "See Susan Raven, *Rome in Africa* (London, Routledge, 1993), p. 168." A look into the cited page of Susan Raven's book *Rome in Africa* supplies the following (again with my own emphasis): > But the Christianity of the African poor—and even of intellectuals > like Tertullian—had much in common with the religion it displaced. The > new Semitic God was, for the superstitious Africans, the old Semitic > Saturn-Baal writ large: a God of Vengeance to be feared and > propitiated, rather than a loving Father. It was 'a transformed > popular religion, rather than ...conversion to a new religion'. > **Indeed, one of St Augustine's tracts suggests that many fifth-century Christians believed that God was Saturn re-christened**; > and the old god's nickname, *senex*, the Old Man, may have been > applied by extension to Christian bishops, even though the name of > Saturn seems to have vanished more than a century earlier. In the context of the region's religious history, Raven (and Sugirtharajah by extension) seems to be here implying that the Christianisation of the area was, especially at the popular level, an additional veneer of syncretisation which had been occurring since the Phoenicians landed in Africa centuries previously, bringing with them the worship of Ba'al-Hammon, with whom the Roman Saturn was later identified once the Romans had colonised Phoenician Africa. Of what I have been able to find, the closest to what these authors are talking about, is an argument made by Augustine in his work *De Consensu Evangelistarum*, "On the Harmony of the Evangelists" (which I have also seen referred to as *De Consensu Evangeliorum*, "On the Harmony of the Gospels"), specifically in Book 1 (particularly around Chapters 22-25). In this text Augustine does indeed address syncretisation, but he nowhere, so far as I can tell, accuses Christians of such a practice. He is arguing against the Roman custom or doctrine of ensuring to worship all the deities that one encounters, and he cites certain Roman poets and other writers as equating the God of the Hebrews with their own Saturn or Jupiter. For the most part, however, he is engaged in a debate positing the apparent contradictions of identifying two or more deities with each other, such as was done, e.g. with Jupiter and Saturn, of whom there exist stories about the two gods actually being each other's enemies. A big part of his argument follows the complaint that it doesn't make sense to claim that the deity worshipped by Jews and Christians is the same as Saturn (or Jupiter), primarily because the former demands exclusive veneration. As for the divine nickname of *Senex*, this also receives a mention (at the end of Book 1, Chapter 23) but it is in regard to Carthaginians apparently shying away from calling their deity specifically Saturn and opting rather to call him the Ancient or Old One. **Is there anything in the corpus of Augustine's literature in which this African writer says that Christians themselves during his time (or, really, at any point in history) equated their God with the Roman Saturn (or some other deity)?** Or is what Sugirtharajah quotes from Raven maybe simply an inaccurate representation of statements made in *De Consensu Evangelistarum*? (It could be that I'm looking in the wrong place among the prodigious number of works which I've heard that Augustine penned.)

God is omnipotent and loves his human children. If that is the case why does he allow the continued propagation and existence of other religions. Does this signify that there is in fact no reason for God to mind the existence of other fictional Gods, which further implies that God actually doesn't care about us and that we are just created and left to our own devices?