Moral progress, as much it might have been informed by Christian belief, was actually enacted by people. Outstanding people of intellect, commitment and determination. I submit that such individuals or groups would have done very much the same withn the framework of any religion.

Christians, or those who profess Christianity, have been prominent, often simultaneously, on both sides of innumerable moral, political and cultural movements over the centuries. Quite often the 'regressives' have been those 'Christians' who align themselves with an Old Testament view of a stern and wrathful God demanding adherence to ancient tribal Law. Meanwhile the 'progressives' align themselves with the benevolent teachings of Jesus, based on love and charity.

What a tangled mess!

It is to be noted that adherents of other faiths have also been benevolent and supportive of moral progress, equally as other proponents have been regressive and malevolent.

It is this duality, this ability of believers to justify their actions in terms of their faith and theology whilst others, of the same faith, act in directly opppsing ways and also claim thrological justification, that is the central problem of religion.

Any set of sacred writings which can be used to both support institutionalised slavery (for example) and at the same time to justify its abolition, surely cannot be the product of a single, perfect Mind. Nor can the all-too-human authors make any reasonable claim to direct inspiration from God, unless they were all inspired by different gods!

It also remains regrettably true that many relgiously-decreed customs and practices are, in this day and age, "more honoured in the breach than the observance".

It was for these reasons that I discarded religious practice and belief. That and the fact that I find most relgious people to be incredibly annoying!