>>Firstly, you just conceded. No I didn't. Weak tactic. >>Secondly, moral absolutism That'd work if there was one Christian sect, and it was consistent through time. Instead you've got hundreds of sects, and they vary wildly through time. To the point that Lutherans reject Martin Luther's last book, Catholics reject hundreds of years of doctrine, and you've got faggot priests dancing on tiktok from all over. And at any sign of disagreement, the churches split and now there's another group with different moral rules. Why do they do this? Because when they did act with moral absolutism, they created religious civil wars that devastated Europe for hundreds of years, depopulating entire regions of Germany, France, Bohemia and others. Religious tolerance was hard won, but without intolerance Christianity wouldn't exist, since they could only spread and dominate through intolerance of the Greco-Roman or Germanic pagan religions of their ancestors or the naturalist philosophies (like Epicureanism) of their learned scholars.