You're arguing chicken vs egg, but that falls flat when you consider that historically there are far more degenerate and outright evil religions out there than not. Take islam for example, they're genuinely depraved, and engage in pretty much 90% of the same degenerate sexual behavior as the sodomites of the west.
And they ostensibly are an abrahamic religion. Why haven't they achieved this cultural zeitgeist you're talking about?
Or the Hindus, where raping actual babies is a thing and human sacrifice was only outlawed in the 90s. The 1990s. They're nearly as degenerate as the mud slimes, so they haven't gotten the memo either and they've been around even longer.
This fails to address my point. Why is it that the only societally and civilizationally beneficial religion is genuine Christianity? (As opposed to fake Christians like Methodists)
It's asking to believe a greater coincidence than the existence of a deity, to believe that all of these Christian men but only them, bothered to devise a useful religion and everyone else not only did not, but are still happily snowed by their leaders.
Not buying it. Especially because we aren't talking about dietary restrictions here(pardon the fish pun, that's a red herring), we're talking about morality and moral foundations.
You're arguing chicken vs egg, but that falls flat when you consider that historically there are far more degenerate and outright evil religions out there than not. Take islam for example, they're genuinely depraved, and engage in pretty much 90% of the same degenerate sexual behavior as the sodomites of the west.
And they ostensibly are an abrahamic religion. Why haven't they achieved this cultural zeitgeist you're talking about?
Or the Hindus, where raping actual babies is a thing and human sacrifice was only outlawed in the 90s. The 1990s. They're nearly as degenerate as the mud slimes, so they haven't gotten the memo either and they've been around even longer.
It's not just pattern recognition.
Don't mind them they're just coping with cognitive dissonance
This fails to address my point. Why is it that the only societally and civilizationally beneficial religion is genuine Christianity? (As opposed to fake Christians like Methodists)
It's asking to believe a greater coincidence than the existence of a deity, to believe that all of these Christian men but only them, bothered to devise a useful religion and everyone else not only did not, but are still happily snowed by their leaders.
Not buying it. Especially because we aren't talking about dietary restrictions here(pardon the fish pun, that's a red herring), we're talking about morality and moral foundations.