Christianity exemplifies moral relativism masquerading as objectivity. Despite claiming access to unchanging divine moral truths, Christian positions on fundamental issues have consistently evolved to match prevailing cultural attitudes. Slavery was once defended with extensive biblical justification, women's subordination was presented as God's eternal design, and lending at interest was condemned as sinful - yet all these positions were quietly abandoned when they became socially untenable. This pattern reveals that Christian morality is essentially reactive, adapting to secular moral progress while retroactively claiming these changes represent deeper understanding of unchanging principles. The very fact that interpretations of supposedly clear divine commands shift so predictably with social attitudes exposes the relativistic nature of the system.

What makes Christianity's relativism particularly problematic is its simultaneous denial of this reality. By claiming moral objectivity while practicing moral flexibility, Christianity avoids the intellectual honesty that explicit relativism requires. True relativists acknowledge that moral judgments are contextual and changeable; Christianity makes contextual, changeable moral judgments while insisting they reflect eternal, absolute truths. This allows believers to feel morally superior to relativists while actually being relativists themselves - they simply lack the self-awareness or honesty to admit it. The result is a moral system that combines the dogmatism of absolutism with the inconsistency of relativism, creating the worst aspects of both approaches while claiming the virtues of neither.

>>24578348 (OP)
Wow, humans are imperfect and unable to maintain an unmaintainable law?
Have you read the Bible anon?

>>24578352
Yes, humans are imperfect but Christianity claims divine perfection, not just human effort. If God’s law is perfect and eternal, why does it conveniently evolve with every new cultural shift?

Either God changed His mind on slavery, women's rights, and usury… or humans rewrote His law to stay socially relevant. Pick one.

And don’t hide behind “muh fallen world” that excuse wears thin after 2,000 years of theological U-turns.

>>24578355
His law doesn't change, humans do. You're getting filtered bruh

>>24578355
Nta. Second one, humans fault. Gods Law and Will are unchanging by definition. I am open to the idea that all religions, and all human statements about the divine, have been wrong, reflective of human biases or needs, not truth

>>24578361
Right, “His law doesn’t change,” but somehow the Church went from burning heretics to rainbow flags on the altar, must’ve been a long game of divine telephone.

Every time the culture shifts, suddenly Christians “reinterpret” eternal truth to match it. Amazing coincidence. Almost like it was never divine to begin with.

You're not defending God's law, you're defending institutional gaslighting with cope-tier semantics.

If you need a god that updates patch notes every few centuries, just admit you worship relevance, not truth.

>>24578348 (OP)
Christianity is the objective truth, Cope and seethe

>>24578365
So God's will is “unchanging by definition,” but every interpretation, scripture, prophet, and moral teaching turns out to be wrong or distorted by human bias?
Then what exactly are you following, a wordless abstraction nobody can hear, see, or understand?
Sounds like a fancy way to say “no one knows anything, but I’ll still pretend there’s a perfect law in the sky.”
You admit every religious claim has been flawed, but still kneel to the idea of an infallible will? That’s not humility, it’s metaphysical Stockholm Syndrome.
Let go. You're chasing the ghost of a rulebook no one has ever read.

>>24578366
“Objective truth” that somehow changes every century to fit new social norms.
“Objective truth” that can’t be proven, demonstrated, or agreed upon even by other Christians.
“Objective truth” that crumbled under the weight of science, history, and basic honesty.
If your god was real, you wouldn’t need to seethe “cope and seethe” like a 15-year-old Redditor with a crucifix.
Your faith is a dead meme wearing a moral superiority complex. Keep LARPing.

>>24578368
That's a lot of imputation and motive on to me. You don't know what my beliefs are.
For those who believe in a monotheistic God, God's law is unchanging by definition. So, if humans are changing their interpretation, it says something about humans, not God's law.

>>24578376
Then God’s law is useless in practice.
If every generation rewrites its interpretation, what good is this “unchanging” law?
Christians once swore slavery was divine will, now they say the opposite, still quoting the same book.
Women went from property to pastors. Usury went from sin to business model.
Every change blamed on “human error” but never on the possibility that the whole framework is flawed.
If an “unchanging truth” leads to endless contradiction, maybe it was never truth.
You’re not serving God, you’re using Him to launder your own opinions.

>>24578370
Seethe more and Cope, Jesus shall win

If some begins debating ethics to me I instantly assume they're retarded. Is there a more juvenile thought trajectory? Why not ponder the nature of how the sky is light in the day, and dark at night?

>>24578383
I dont attribute my own opinions to divine law. I would imagine divine law is probably unknowable, until you experience it's consequences in each unfolding second of your life. Whatever the gulf between what you wanted and expected to happen, and what's actually happening, is; thats God's law.
I'm unsure as to why you think the Law has to be "useful" to your purposes, to be a valid concept

>>24578383
>Then God’s law is useless in practice.
Retard, IT IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL

>>24578388
So divine law is unknowable, invisible, and only retroactively felt through suffering? Sounds less like a moral framework and more like gaslighting with cosmic aesthetics. If you can't define the law, you can't claim moral clarity, you’re just spiritualizing your confusion and calling random suffering divine order.

>>24578395
>So divine law is unknowable, invisible, and only retroactively felt through suffering
KNOWABLE IN THE BIBLE

>>24578383
>slavery
In Paul's letter to Philemon, he asks Philemon to forgive his runaway slave, Onesimus, and to receive him back not as a slave, but as a "beloved brother" in Christ.
>women pastors
Yeah that shits stupid. Women deacons are perfectly fine but they are not instructed to be the head of the church.

>>24578395
I never claimed moral clarity. At least, not in any objective sense.
And random suffering...at that point we are having a metaphysical dispute, not a moral one.

>>24578348 (OP)

function

>>24578352
>"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
>"25 Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment? 26 Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they?"
>"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."

Jesus explicitly and numerously said to give up all possessions and wealth and to follow him. The Bible, Jesus himself, objectively tells you not to own possessions. But I'm sure you will have a subjectively chosen reason why that doesn't apply to you, right?

>>24578361
So slavery, genital mutilation, execution via stoning for honor crimes, the genocide of babies, and polygamy, these are all objectively moral, right?

>>24578366
kek

>>24578398
The god of the Bible is a laughable bumbling fool