1: religion is not a sentient being, so it can't be impaired intellectually
2:religion is hardly developing later than desired or expected as it was with us for our entire history
3: religion is not socially inappropriate in almost every society, and it is by no means "foolish", and if you wanr to say otherwise it is up to you to prove it is.
Yes, gods are different in different religions, but why would you, to determine whether something is a god in christianity use pagan standards?
My point is, that within the logic of christianity you can not say there is more than one god, it is unreasonable to say that christianity is polytheistic.
Also, "one divinity appearing in multiple forms" is not a polytheistic thing, since you only have one divinity. The trinity does not consist of three gods, but of three hypostases of the same god. My point is that it can only seem like those are three gods, but if you have more deep knowledge of christianity you will never say that.
Ok, I will concede to you that pop culture should be considered, however I would not say angels are gods.
The christian God is the supreme power, he is the monarch of the universe, so to speak, everything is under his authority. An angel is not a god, because he is a creature, not the creator, he is subordinate. He is not all-powerful, he is a servant. Within the logic of christianity there is absolute difference between god and everything else.
In greek paganism Zeus was the king of the gods. However, he was not allpowerful(there were some henoteistic tendencies, however), other gods were still powerful in their own right, and there were gods he was afraid of(in a famous passage from the Iliad that I do not quite remember, it is mentioned that he was afraid of Nyx). There was a revolution when Kronos was overthrown, as you mentioned. So those two religions are quite different.
In Jainism, the so called "gods" are a different thing altogether, no need to mention it.
I do not know much about mormons, aren't they christians? I thought they were.
He is clearly an American, as he used "we" in the first paragraph talking about Americans.
This is a classic case of Americans thinking they are a uniquely big and culturally diverse country, despite the fact there are a number of countries that are bigger(including mine), and the US is not culturally diverse at all compared to many, many other countries(including mine).
Well, the way Satan is depicted in pop culture has little to do with actual christianity, and I am not sure why you felt the need to include him, despite the fact he is a very minor character in christianity, and also even in the popular depiction he is not nearly on the same level, as he was created by God, is not omnipotent, omniscient, unlike God, etc.
The continuous US states are 8,080,460 square kilometres.
Europe is 10,186,000 square kilometres.
I am not sure if maths has reached north america yet, but saying that "Europe can fit in the continuous us states with room to spare" does not increase the percieved intelligence of the average american.
Europe is actually bigger than the entirety of the US, including alaska and overseas territories, but who cares about facts, right? If you can manufacture ridiculous reasons to feel better than others, who needs them?
Only their goal isn't simply to destabilise everyone for the sake of it, believe it or not.
And you most certainly can understand it if you try. I don't agree with a lot of things that were done, but I certainly can at least vaguely see the rationale. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Your approach is very condescending and dehumanising. You must understand, that there are both sides to every conflict, and the other side has some reasons that seem moral to them. Ignoring that is counterproductive.
In my previous comment I said that thinking Russia does evil things just because it is evil for no real reason is ridiculous and he just proved my point by doubling down on it and making it seem even more silly.
In any case, I can't help but wonder how a sane adult individual can actually believe that. This is not lord of the rings, and Russia is not Mordor.
This person(and you, presumably) says that a civilian aircraft, belonging to a nation that Russia wants to keep in it's sphere of influence and has no reason to offend was shot down on purpose, despite the fact that any such case is a cause for suspicion and apprehension just because they are evil, basically.
That is what they meant, I'm pretty sure, that there is no point trying to understand what Russia does, it just does stuff because they are evil, so every fact should be interpreted in a way that makes them the most evil.
In any case, why shouldn't their motives make sense to anyone else? They are not aliens, are they?
It was a matter of time until the public found out about this. They couldn't think in the long term, by not accepting a bit of backlash, exposing the scam they unknowingly participated in they only opened themselves up for more later.
They are not only evil, they are stupid too, which is worse.
I understand that idiots can misunderstand something if it is ambiguous, but that does not mean that ambiguity should be forbidden. If at the end of "American Psycho" there was a title saying "this film is a criticism of capitalist culture and its effect on people", it would be worse as a film, a work of art and a statement than it is now. It would be ridiculous and disrespectful towards the audience.
It's literally in the name, "american psycho", it is almost stated explicitly, but they STILL do not get it. What is it that you want exactly? Our media and discourse to be made with only unintelligent people in mind?
Ok fine, I can accept this can be used SOMETIMES when you need to make something completely unambiguous, but more often than not you want the opposite - amd most things don't have anything to do with nazism, and sarcasm can be picked up easily usually as well.
By all accounts it is not:
1: religion is not a sentient being, so it can't be impaired intellectually 2:religion is hardly developing later than desired or expected as it was with us for our entire history 3: religion is not socially inappropriate in almost every society, and it is by no means "foolish", and if you wanr to say otherwise it is up to you to prove it is.