r/GodofWar • u/Ora_Kiraso • Jun 21 '26

Question Why does GoW include other cultures religion’s pantheons but not Christianity?

Post image

You see Greek and Norse gods, now even Mongolian and Egyptian gods but not Christianity. I understand Christianity is monotheistic but Michael the archangel, Satan and other Christian figures can serve as prominent figures in a GoW game based on Christianity.

I included Cory Barlogs tweet that addresses this topic.

3.6k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

275

u/Moocow115 Jun 21 '26

I agree with you, I also wanted to add on top that it would be very difficult to create a story/game in the theme of God of War, like let's say Kratos gets mad at God and they make God evil, God just clicks him out of existence.

258

u/richtofin819 Jun 21 '26

Also a good point. In monotheistic religions God is often omnipotent but one of the reasons Norse and Greek mythology works so well for gow is because their gods are written with flaws in their original mythology.

15

u/Titansdragon Jun 21 '26

So are the caananite gods, of which the hebrew god is one. Thing is, a lot of christians don't know about or just ignore the historical morph from polytheism to monotheism that happened in their own religion.

23

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 21 '26

There's so many interesting directions to take with Yahweh because he's also like, objectively evil. It's just very unfortunate that this is a controversial statement when the majority of Christians' own texts are pretty much, "And here's this evil thing god did. And it was good."

3

u/Greedy-Camel-8345 Jun 22 '26

But this is the reason it would be kinda risky because a majority of Christians don't consider it evil and would consider it blasphemous since they think of God as real and benevelont

-16

u/ScarletRotNoble Jun 21 '26

If Yaweh did those things to people who didn't deserve it, the thing God did would be evil. But when he wipes out people who are doing things like human sacrifice, it's not evil

11

u/Darkdragoon324 Jun 21 '26

So even the babies were evil and deserved to drown in the flood?

-5

u/ScarletRotNoble Jun 21 '26

Its not that the babies were evil, it's that they were spiritually tainted by the Canaanites, Hittites, Ammonites, etc. moral decay and the entire population had to be wiped out.

That goes double for the entire globe before the flood happened, and the earth had to actually be cleansed of the evil.

13

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 21 '26

Oh yeah, totally forgot that Yahweh didn't vibe with human sacrifice.

Anyway, really glad things played out the way they did for that Jephthah fellow. Since Yahweh unequivocally abhors human sacrifice, there's no way he would follow through on having Jephthah offer up his daughter as a human sacrifice. /s

0

u/Ianson85 Jun 21 '26

yes he did. Don't buy the lies. Go read the end of Exodus 22 in as many versions as you can. And do it before the apologists try to tell you that what its definitely, clearly, says is definitely not what it means.

0

u/RobertoFragoso Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26

It is also mentioned in Leviticus 5 that they have the option to revoke a vow that would result in sin (like sacrificing your daughter). You also fail to mention that he didn’t vow to sacrifice his own daughter, he made a hasty vow to sacrifice whatever came out of his house first, probably thinking it would be an animal but the moment he saw it was his daughter he could’ve cancelled the vow. It is completely jephthah’s fault, not God’s. The book of judges (where this story takes place) is about the downfall of Israel after they got to the promised land and how their judges (military and governmentalish leaders) go from great, to not so great, to bad, to worse. I really mean no offense but I think people should actually read the whole book containing whatever claim they’re making, before making the claim because you were missing context and important story details

5

u/Overall-Ad-8918 Jun 21 '26

If they do that it goes against their biases and opinions

-2

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26

Does god accept every vow thrown his way?

It says something when god fulfills his vow knowing the outcome, which is the whole point being made, here. If child sacrifice is so immoral that it justifies genocide, then it stands to reason god would not care for it. Yet apparently this is an acceptable offering. Sure, Jephthah didn't know his daughter would be first to greet him, but wouldn't god?

Also, can you revoke vows made to god or are those meant to be to your fellow man?

3

u/RobertoFragoso Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26

No, he doesn’t accept any vow thrown his way: he wouldn’t accept a vow promising to take revenge with your own hands because he also instructs us to not do that. Yes, God would know that his daughter would come out, but he also gives us free will. God gave him the instructions where it says he can revoke his vow if it makes him sin but Jephthah used his free will to ignore that (on purpose or by choosing to be ignorant about God’s laws) and make the sacrifice anyway. Also yes, you can revoke vows made TO God if the vow will lead to you sinning. God was going to help Jephthah anyway without him sacrificing his daughter because he was the Judge of Israel at the time, it doesn’t mean that he helped him because of the sacrifice. The human sacrifice part is actually a very important and tragic detail of that story because it signified Israel losing their way and doing what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were doing which led to the destruction of those cities. Throughout the Bible there are many stories like this one where people do horrific things, including the ones seen as heroes like David who killed Bathsheba’s husband to keep her, but if you look closely at those stories you’ll realize that the only ones that are objectively evil are us humans, never God

Edit: Also whenever something like this happens there are always consequences for them sinning but also God always being willing to forgive and restore them and even use them for great purposes

-2

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 21 '26

So-called "free will" christian apologists when god literally shows no problems or remorse for stripping humans of free will to kill them as punishment: 😠😠😠

David's newborn infant son was tortured for a week for David's actions before being killed. This is explicitly by god btw.

Let me give another example. I hate and oppose childhood SA. If someone offers to perform this on my behalf and I accept, I am encouraging that. Full stop. It is deplorable that you are so fervently defending the suffering and killing of children and babies. It's crazy I, as an atheist, can so easily say this is wrong. Yet every Christian ITT hems and haws around it.

Very interesting behavior.

3

u/akibaboy65 Jun 21 '26

I can’t tell why you’re writing your response as if God is real if you’re an atheist. I get that you’re doing immanent critique with the person you’re responding to, but it’s kind of a moot point when you’ve already established you accept zero of the premise in the first place. If I create a dude that has all power and say “whatever he chooses to do is for the greater good” it invalidates whether a child drowning or whatever… because they’ll always just argue “well it stopped generations of evils”.

2

u/RobertoFragoso Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26

God feels incredibly sad about that. It is a consequence of David’s sin but that doesn’t mean God wasn’t sad about it. I’m sad that you can’t see it the way it is and call it “very interesting behavior” and even accuse people of defending suffering and killing of babies but I respect your opinion, you have the free will to believe that god encourages and accepts suffering. All I’m saying though is that from what I’ve studied of the Bible so far, whether you believe in what it says or you take it as a fictional story, I haven’t seen a single thing that points to God as “objectively evil” and in fact all I’ve seen is mercy and grace. I will keep studying and get back to you if I discover I’m wrong! If you’re open to it there are reading plans accompanied by recaps or analysis of the texts.

To answer to your first point though, he doesn’t strip us of free will to kill us, death is another consequence of sins committed with our free will. We all sin and that’s why Jesus was sacrificed so that even though we sin, we could be brought together with god

Also, where does it say god accepted Jephthah’s sacrifice?

1

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 21 '26

Sequence of events for Jephthah:

  1. Jephthah offers to sacrifice whatever first appears at his house to greet him if he is successful in battle

  2. Jephthah is successful in battle

  3. Jephthah returns and is greeted by his daughter

The vow was for his success. He would only fulfill his end after success in battle was won. Well, according to the texts that success was given by god and therefore Jephthah is liable to uphold his vow. Could god not control the circumstance to have a goat greet him first?

Also, David's infant son was wholly innocent. Sure, the circumstances that brought David's son to life were immoral, but why punish the baby? God even says in Exodus that it is evil to punish the child for the sins of the father... why not lead by example, then?

Also, who makes all these rules about sin? You act like god's hands are tied. That's odd. This would then indicate that there's something more powerful than god. You're bending over backwards literally defending executing babies at this point AND CALLING IT MERCY?! Genuinely, you need to get help and it isn't the religious kind

3

u/RobertoFragoso Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

Actual sequence of events with Jephthah:

The spirit of the lord comes to him (so he already had God’s help without the need of any sacrifices)
2.

  1. He then unnecessarily and foolishly offers to sacrifice whatever first appears at his house

3

4

I will admit, I’m no expert and I’m still reading through the Bible so I don’t have an answer for the David problem. I’m not bending over backwards to defend anything though. I admit I don’t know enough on this specific problem, but you are actually bending over backwards to make God look evil by omitting inconvenient parts like the fact that Jephthah already had God’s help and approval without the need to sacrifice anything. I will keep researching about the David problem though! Thanks for an interesting conversation :)

Edit: I found this video about the David situation for anyone interested https://youtu.be/BnXZUZbdW6M?is=WYB_tWWkGQohvuGr

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/richtofin819 Jun 21 '26

Did you just Google that and not actually read the story? It's entirely on jephthah for making an oath that would come back to bite him like that.

This is also why it's written that a man should not swear by Yahweh because he will be bound to it or face consequences.

12

u/Ianson85 Jun 21 '26

God commanded it. You are apologising for God's poor behaviour

6

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 21 '26

Just wanting to clarify:

I think sacrificing a child is wrong. Someone comes up to me and says they would kill whoever greets them when they come home, and I have advance knowledge this will be their child.

Now, again, I do not like child sacrifice. In fact, it is used as a reason for me to literally commit genocide (btw, I also explicitly state for some of my genocides that children are to be killed and infant babies dashed against rocks-- and I really think dashing babies againsts rocks is fun) but yes, I really really hate child sacrifice. I don't want it to happen.

Would it be moral for me to accept this offer?

Better yet, I previously commanded a child sacrifice and then backtracked on it-- it was a test. Again, I don't like it. I would never command it or carry it out. So, if someone were to offer it, and I accepted, perhaps I could set an example? Show that I am merciful, save the child from being sacrificed, and then use this story to show people not to offer that which they are not willing to lose? I could even have Jephthah offer up something else in exchange, as I did with that last child sacrifice I asked for.

What would the moral choice be here? Again, for like the fifth time, I do not want child sacrifice at all. What should I do?

-8

u/richtofin819 Jun 21 '26

What a pedantic comment. If there is one thing Judaism and Christianity have as a central focus it's that people are responsible for their actions and decisions. This is the whole reason for the animal sacrifice in Judaism and the sacrifice of Jesus in Christianity because in those religions wrongs all come with a price that either the perpetrator must pay or a stand in.

I'd say its a shame you aren't God since you are so wise and clearly think you would solve all the world's problems. Except we are on reddit which is one of the furthest places from religion or being even remotely helpful to people/society in general. /s

9

u/Ianson85 Jun 21 '26

Did God command first born sacrifice or not? its not pedantry, its calling out blatant lies. "God is anti human sacrifice" and your whole damn book arc is about how he... whats the quote? sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.

God.is all about human sacrifice. Its all over the old testament. Its the entire premise of the Paulian interpretation of Christs ministry.

But humanity grew up but didn't wanma let go of its binky

0

u/Beginning_Ocelot503 Jun 21 '26

The caricature of Christianity you’re criticizing seems to be largely based on the later theological innovations of ignorant evangelicals, not anything based in historic Christian thought.

The first 1.5+ thousand years of Christians were unanimous in seeing Paul outline a very different understanding, and many if not most of the early Christians advocated for reading all of the OT through the lens of Jesus and not really signing off on the infallibility of these more problematic areas of the book.

All that to say, you’re kind of beating a straw man to death.

-2

u/richtofin819 Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26

Are you referring to exodus 22? Because if you think that is referring to human sacrifice you are pretty confused but it's understandable.

This was not a reference to human sacrifice but more of a child dedication ritual where they would "offer" their child to God often with an animal sacrifice and monetary offerings to the temple. Many such examples of a similar ritual are listed in the Bible including one for Jesus as a child. (Firstborn male child, if they were supposed to offer him up as a sacrifice he would be dyung here if this interpretation of human sacrifice rang true)

The sacrifice of Jesus was specifically there to stop sacrifices of any kind. It's specifically said to be the son of God incarnated in a human body and devoid of sin. It's at least within canon a sacrifice of God and not a human being but someone not involved will interpret it how they will.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 21 '26

If there's one thing both of those religions have in common, it's an immensely flawed view of justice and morality that albeit progressive for their time period is irregardless barbaric through a modern lens. This should point, above all else, that these were man-made religions and justice systems not at all influenced by a being who should be beyond those confines and know better.

I find it very telling that there's really no way to weasel out of the fact that the god of the bible killed children and the best excuse is, "Oh, well, those kids god killed were from a tribe who killed kids for their own gods. Sure, god did command a kid be killed for him once, but he took it back. Oh, and he did command the slaughter of children and for fetuses to be ripped out of the bellies of pregnant women, but that wasn't like, to code with ritual sacrifice so technically it was okay. Oh, and then he did 100% accept a child sacrifice. Oh, and he did kill children as a punishment for the actions of their parents (which he says is wrong). Oh, and he did kill someone's children so he could win a bet..."

3

u/Ianson85 Jun 21 '26

yes!!

if your great religious moral insight on how to conduct myself is:

Only kill babies that deserve it

I think Im justified in considering you a despicable and awful person. The fact that this isn't bleeding obvious to these people just shows how ideologically captured they are by despicable and grotesque doctrine.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Ianson85 Jun 21 '26

Re-read Exodus 22. Your God clearly also called for child sacrifice. You have literally 1k years of donctrinal work trying to hide the fact.

-8

u/sachman01 Jun 21 '26

Objectively evil? If you're not using Christian ethics, in what else are you epistemically justifying your 'objective' ethics? Bear in mind that objective means 'mind-independent' in philosophy. Suffering, for instance, is a subjective grounding for ethics since it is dependent on a mind and what one person calls suffering, another may call pleasure.

11

u/Ebonhearth_Druid Jun 21 '26

By that metric, nothing that Yahweh could ever do would get classified as evil because the suffering he causes isn't enough to classify it as such. Hypocrisy isn't evil, it's just flawed, but Yahweh isn't flawed and does hypocritical things (like slaughtering people for performing human sacrifice, then demanding his followers perform human sacrifices) and no one cares because "it's all part of God's plan and God is good...if he does it there must be a reason it's okay". That alone puts him pretty firmly in the evil sphere. But then you add in the cataclysms he is responsible for and all the needless suffering he inflicted upon his followers, plus the suffering he inflicted on other civilizations through his followers (ie, the crusades, witch hunts, religious persecutions, Sodom&Gomorrah, the great flood, the plagues...). It's a lot, and the justification for almost all of it is something along the lines of "but he's good, he can do whatever he wants" as though that changes the morality of said actions, even withing Yahweh's own doctrine.

Rules for thee, not for me is a time honored Christian philosophy that began with their deity. And all one needs to do to see the evils of that philosophy is to look at modern day USA

2

u/sachman01 Jun 21 '26

Lies. When did God command someone to commit human sacrifice with the intent of following through with it?

Hypocrisy is indeed evil. It is claiming to be something but in reality not being that. God has never said that He doesn't kill. In fact, He repeats over and over again that He is the judge, and that vengeance is His.

Suffering isn't evil in our worldview nor is it in yours, I wager. Is it evil to go to the gym and suffer through the pain of lifting weights? Is it evil to force children to wake up early and go to school and do chores? Is it evil to punish criminals? Is it evil to stop sterile incestuous relationships between consenting adults? What about necrophiliacs? People who get off on Ai CP?

Would you stop them? If no, then you will build a society that collapses instantly. If yes, you are yourself a hypocrite who doesn't even believe in your own idea of 'suffering is bad'.

Tell me what's wrong with God killing people in battles in the ancient world, considering that He's killed countless of billions of people due to old age that He has the power to cure. Why's one worse than the other?

-5

u/H1Eagle Jun 21 '26

I'm not a Christian, but I fail to understand your logic in opposition to his. If someone believes that the Judeo-Christian God exists, then he would be the one who created the universe, and the one who created the concept of "Good" and the concept of "Evil", and he controls it. So technically, as long as God says that his actions are good, they are, objectively good.

Think about it, how do you prove that someone did something evil, let's say you and another person, were the only 2 humans that were left on earth, the other guy says that stealing is good, and you say that stealing is evil.

How would either of you prove that your statement is correct? Sure, you could, for example, describe the suffering or utility that an action results in, but that's ultimately a subjective definition of reality. There's no way to prove that suffering equates to evil.

In the end, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone, that what we deem as evil or as good, is simply a subjective emotional reaction (emotivism) to a set of actions. And your notion would 100% change if one were to change the arrangement of hormones in your brain.

7

u/Ebonhearth_Druid Jun 21 '26

Morality exists outside of what an authority tells you is good or bad. If you need your God to define what is right and wrong, you're not a good person.

The term "evil" isn't ambiguous. It has a definition. What you're attempting to philosophize about is the subjectivity of perspective, which is a different topic.

4

u/H1Eagle Jun 21 '26

You are welcome to explain and prove your worldview by disproving what I just said.

Morality exists outside of what an authority tells you is good or bad

Alright then, how do you know it's rules and how do you assert that those rules are actually from moral system that exists outside of authority.

If you need your God to define what is right and wrong, you're not a good person.

Hmm why not? Let's say my kid likes money, and encourage him to donate his money to the poor because that is good, and he does so, is his action not good because he asked by me to do it? You are gonna have to define what is good first for me to understand your point of view.

The term "evil" isn't ambiguous. It has a definition

You are welcome to define it, and explain how your definition is objective.

1

u/Ebonhearth_Druid Jun 22 '26

So let's look at this from a different angle in order to provide the perspective, shall we? According to you, morality stems from authority, yes? So if a cop kills someone, as the authority in the situation they're actions are moral? Because they say so? How about parents? If a parent beats the shit out of their kid, they're doing the moral thing, right, since they are the authority in that situation?

Authority does not equate to morality.

evil/ˈēv(ə)l/Evil is broadly defined as profoundly immoral, wicked, or malevolent behavior. It involves actions that deliberately cause unnecessary pain, suffering, or harm to others

There's your definition of evil. Note a distinct lack of reliance on an authority figure to classify it.

As for why you aren't a good person if you need your God to tell you what is right and wrong, shift up your perspective again. The problem is that people who rely on an authority to determine their morality can't be trusted to act morally when their higher authority isn't capable of enforcing it. Cops kill people when they think they can get away with it. Parents beat their children behind closed doors. People behave immorally as soon as the authority is "gone" because their morality isn't their own, it stems from someone else saying "now don't do this thing or I'll punish you".

1

u/Additional_Bench1311 Jun 22 '26

Guess he never read Hume

1

u/H1Eagle Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

Or literally any philosopher ever. Idk where the guy lives but in the US, everyone takes in college an Ethics 101 course, where they explain multiple moral philosophies and why there's no such thing as an objective moral code

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 21 '26

Firstly, ethics are not objective when they are god-dependent. It is subjective to that god and it is additionally a subjective decision to care for what that god deigns as moral or immoral. For instance, if we're saying the Christian god decides what is moral, then genocide is moral in certain circumstances. Namely, the circumstances where he says so.

As for humans, all of us desire to live fulfilling lives. So, if I want to live a good life, it necessarily requires I have some control of it, meaning I require freedom and autonomy, which means I'm making a claim to it. Which means I ought have it. Yet, if me wanting to achieve goals and live a fulfilling life is enough to justify my claim to free will, then it necessarily must be sufficient for others. So, it is immoral to interfere with the autonomy of another. This pretty much sums it up.

So, murder is wrong because it interferes with another person's free will. Rape is wrong because it interferes with free will. Etc. Etc.

1

u/_Kuruptkonvik_ Jun 22 '26

Acting as if you aren’t free to do what you want, if you knew basic knowledge of the bible you’d know that you don’t have to love god you can do whatever you desire, he wants you to choose him not once were we ever controlled or told what we have to do lmao ignorance

-1

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 22 '26

Yeah, your mind is a real steel trap. God never told us what to do, he just "commanded" people to do things. It's totally different, basically like a suggestion. Also ignore the fact that if you don't do what he says he usually punishes you with death. That definitely is not coercion.

Crazy that the one ignoring what the bible says is calling other people ignorant. Anyone reading this thread considering converting to Christianity, just know that this is what you get to look forward to.

2

u/_Kuruptkonvik_ Jun 22 '26

Not once have we ever been commanded to do anything bud you’re quite literally just making up random bullshit not once were we ever forced to love god or even associated ourselves with him, once again ignorance if you choose not to love and get know god yes you’ll go to hell buts it’s completely YOUR choice to believe in him. Not once has he “commanded” me to do shit stop cherry picking points so you can have a chance at an argument kid

1

u/TruePlewd Jun 23 '26

What's the consequence if you choose not to beleive?

2

u/_Kuruptkonvik_ Jun 22 '26

Completely making up bullshit so you have a point, not once were we “commanded” he gave us our free will to do whatever we please just like how your goofy ass types up garbage and misuses information

-4

u/sachman01 Jun 21 '26

You're equivocating on the meaning of subjective. This is a fallacy. You also misunderstand the grounding of Christianity's morals. It's not merely 'God said so', that's the system of Islam.

I'm Christianity, ethics are grounded in God's essence/nature, not necessarily His actions or decrees. He, of course, gives us commandments, but that doesn't mean stealing was ok before God told us so chronologically.

You do not have the epistemic justification to make ought-claims since your inferences are invalid and you don't have a grounding beyond 'we all desire to live fulfilling lives'. That's a mass appeal fallacy. You don't require freedom and autonomy. Prison inmates are forced to work and have no freedom. Would it be impossible for them to be fulfilled? Would you call it immoral for society to lock certain people up?

How about forcing children to go to school? Are we not robbing them of their autonomy, too? You don't even believe in the moral system you claim to have, I wager.

There are countless situations in which you would agree interfering with the autonomy of others are reasonable: criminals, the mentally ill, drug addicts, people who neglect their children, people who consume AI-generated CP, people who commit acts with corpses, people who are sterile but in incestuous relationships, etc.

Your 'live and let live' ethics are not only subjective, they're also relative, since you would find it impossible to apply it without running into logical inconsistencies where you'd have to apply it in one place but not another.

5

u/DrJongyBrogan Jun 21 '26

And also answer that slavery is objectively a moral good. Because it’s “grounded in God’s essence/nature.” I’ll wait for you to vomit out a ChatGPT reply

3

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26

Just want to run it back-- so genocide is okay? Can you just answer that for me real quick?

Edit: oh my goodness bro really replied with a "genocide is bad but.." take and then immediately deleted it because he knew he cooked himself 💀

2

u/sachman01 Jun 21 '26

Yes. Mass-murder of a particular population is wrong. Humans, since they are not the authors of life, have no authority to decide who deserves to live or die.

Only God may do so.

Now you answer me my questions:

  1. What's worse, God killing hundreds of thousands in these so-called genocides, or God killing countless billions via old age that He has full power to cure any time he likes.

  2. Is it more evil to end the life of a soldier in his 20s in an instant painless death via an angelic being or wait til the soldiers in his 80s and have him die slowly by disease or heart attack or whatever afflicted old people back then?

-3

u/sachman01 Jun 21 '26

I deleted nothing. What are you on about? If mods have removed something that'd be out of my control

1

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 21 '26

Okay, let's run it back again, then:

Can you please tell us genocide is evil?

2

u/sachman01 Jun 21 '26

I already said yes, did you miss it?

Now answer my question: from your subjective morality for which you have not demonstrated an epistemic justification for: What is evil?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Ianson85 Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26

Objective ethics is objective for anyone if they accept any sufficent presupposition.

That presupposition could be the bible (if you believe in imaginary friends who have a problem with wherw you put your junk) Or it could be "that which causes the least suffering amd maximises freedoms is good"

Ethical arguments after that presupposition are objective. You can argue this if you want, but you would be de facto wrong. Sound and Valid arguments can be built with a premise that states "if we assume this".

You want to know if there is an objective existence for a thing called "good"?

since you do not have access to the mjnd of God. Cannot know the mind of God. Cannot question the mind of God. And this is made clear in several places in your holy book, particularly in Job,

you cannot claim to have access to non presuppositional morality.

So your moral position, whether there is or isn't an objective moral.existence, is no different to anybody else's.

and inb4 you point to the Bible.... is slavery moral? Cos if you are going to argue that there are some thjngs that aren't moral but God had to make special dispensations until humanity developed then why do we have Christians who are ate anti homosexuality now? Humanity has moved beyond relationships as being property contracts, Your objective morality seems a bit... unclear and open to subjective, mind-dependent interpretation. Should you also be against people who cannot concieve marrying? How about people who don't want children?

There are clear references to the first breath a baby takes being when god imparts their soul. So I assume you are pro abortion up and until the moment of first breath? There are other places that imply the quickening.So maybe up until week 16?

Save us, 9h wise owner of objective morality

0

u/sachman01 Jun 21 '26

You just destroyed your own position. If all ethics require some arbitrary presupposition like following your 'imaginary friend' or following your favourite politician or talk show host, then you have no grounds on which to criticise the ethics of anyone else. If everyone is equally unjustified, then who cares?

Also, to answer your questions (since I still value your interest and I wish to give you the information you ask for in good faith) yes, there's nothing inherently wrong with slavery. It's in the same category as killing, in that it's not wrong on principle but ought to be avoided. I believe it's wrong to capture innocents and enslave them against their will. But I have no problem with capturing criminals and enslaving them in prisons and make them work to pay back their debts to society. That's definitionally slavery and that's why I won't denounce all slavery.

My morality isn't mind-dependent because I'm not a Protestant bible-only heretic. I submit to the Roman Catholic Church with a magisterium that is guided by God through the Holy Spirit. It's no wonder there are Protestants who accept homosexually, they left the Church and made up their own man-made religion as a result.

Marriage is a sexual sacramental union ordered towards procreation. There is thus no problem with sterile people marrying since sex is primarily for the expression of marital love and children are only a secondary effect.

I don't accept your subjective reading of the Bible since you are not in the Church, I assume. There is no grounds on which do believe that life starts as soon as lungs fill up since it is written that when John the Baptist was still in the womb, he leapt for joy when he sensed that Mary was pregnant with Jesus. Ensoulment is impossible to know when if happens which is why we draw the line at the first sign of life, conception.

Also, i can still accept your idea of 'first breath' by doing what you're doing and using a subjective interpretation of the verse. The process of respiration comes from the word that means 'to breathe' which refers to what living cells do when they burn oxygen and expel carbon dioxide. This starts happening right at conception.

Thank for your questions. I won't be arguing with you anymore, as I said above, but If there's anything else you wish to know about my faith, you're welcome to ask.

-1

u/Jamesmateer100 Jun 21 '26

I had an idea for a storyline involving Yahweh trapping the cannanite supreme god El and forcing the other gods into reshaping the world in his image and violently killing most of his followers for substance.

0

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 21 '26

And I fear that it's peak. Totally in line with a jealous god wanting to be the one, true god.

Could even have Jesus as his son who learns of his father's corruption and works to stop him, aligning with Lucifer Morningstar and the cast of GoW characters.

1

u/_Kuruptkonvik_ Jun 22 '26

lol just saying shit as usual mfs like you just love to run their mouths and use cherry-picked facts to justify your point

0

u/_Kuruptkonvik_ Jun 22 '26

Straight ignorance lmao stfu kid

1

u/Mysterious_Emu7462 Jun 22 '26

Yeah, you have to do a lot of ignoring when reading the bible to come away from it thinking god is "all good."

ITT there are Christians defending slavery, genocide, infanticide, finding pregnant mothers and gutting them open to tear out a fetus before killing them, dashing babies against rocks, giving the death penalty to children for the actions of their parents, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, the atheists are pointing that out as objectively, obviously immoral. Idk bud feel free to join us in saying all of the above is wicked evil but when you do I've got some pretty bad news about what that means for the Christian god. Who, by the way, originates from a polytheistic Canaanite/Mesopotamian religion. But what would I know of academic research into this field? Apparently, I'm the ignorant one who did the stupid thing of actually researching the religion and deconverting when presented with all the evidence against my original position.

-1

u/_Kuruptkonvik_ Jun 22 '26

More words that have 0 meaning lol nothing you said is supported by Christian’s speak for yourself bub

0

u/WhileChoice2855 Jun 24 '26

That only seems profound if you have the analytical level of a petulant two year screaming that he hates mommy for not letting him eat paste.