Can you have several cultures if there is only one god?

Isn't it also important to take into consideration in how far this god presents himself/herself?
This goes to all guys comparing fantasy to real life Christian believe.
Now, I don't want to argue if God is real or not, but The Almighty Lord does not present himself any much more than those acts, which are interpreted by his followers as his actions.
Usually in fantasy gods present themselves or are in some way at least known to actually exist for certain, either by direct acts of theirs witnessed by people or through the existence of magic (however, we can only be certain this is an expression of a god, because in our world we don't have magic ... so that's a mood point).

Anyway, what I try to get at is that if a god is KNOWN to exist (not merely believed) then this might have profound effect on how differences in cultures emerge, i.e. the degree to which they occur.

This is wrong, those are not different interpretations or versions of the same religion.

For a real example, compare former protestant nations, orthodox nations, former catholic nations, and former catholic nations

Friendly reminder that unprovoked reverse /pol/-posting is still /pol/-posting.

>exposing the incorectness of a bigoted worldview is the same thing as shoving it down peoples' throats

Yeah. That's actually entirely correct for the effect that it has on the thread. Nobody fighting cares about your fucking cause you self important sponge.

>exposing the policatal correctness of the world is the same as shoving it down people's throats.

I don't even agree with the above statement. See how easy it is to argue? I'm just pointing it out that both sides are annoying because they give into the extremes to appear as different as they can from their opponent while ironically mirroring. This isn't pol and isnt anti pol, this is Veeky Forums. People don't want to talk about PC culture or Anti PC culture. It's just that pol slips out of its board and then people react to them giving them more reason to leave their echo chamber. People who hate pol and argue with pol are the ones who should be contained to /pol/ to argue with their equal opposite.

Yes

This guy gets it

It's a joke numbnuts.

I disagree. Human nature is such that people will interpret things in the way that most benefits them. Just look at real world religions. Most of them are about 20% hard and fast rules you have to follow and 80% loopholes to continue doing what you wanted to.
Any God that wanted to keep his followers all on the same page would be run ragged squashing minor heresies and clarifying the exact definition of various sins.

Actaually 5.
Roman catholic, Protestant, Greek orhodox, Russian orthodox, and Coptic.

>Abrahamic mythos interpretations are not interpretations

What did he mean by this

Shut up, you know full well

Aren't both russian and greek orthodoxy under the larger umbrella of the ecumenical patriarch?
To be fair, IIRC, Yazadis aren't abrahamic. It's just their religion is similar enough to abrahamic religion people use it as an excuse to accuse them of being satanists.

So far as I'm aware, they're seperate entities. They do come together under an ecumenical "umbrella" when needing to use combined number of worshippers as part of their bargaining with other denominations, eg. control of access to shrines in Bethlehem.

>See how easy it is to argue?
If your goal is simple namecalling, then it's as easy as swapping the words in any speech you find offensive until it says the reverse of what it originally said.

>Female birds lay eggs.
>Male birds lay eggs.

Arguing is easy when your goal is just to argue.

How fine do you want to split hairs because
>Methodist
>Mormon
>Anglican
>Baptist
>Ana-Baptist
>Calvinist
>Lutheran
>Evangelical
>Quaker
Just of the top of my head. All believing mostly the same thing but with their own unique subculture and interpretations

Technically six - there are Unitai. Rites of Greek orthodox, but answers to the cathalic pope.

Given how many different Abrahamic religions, subsects of said religions and subsects of those... yes.

>Arguing is easy when your goal is just to argue.

No it isn't.

Except this isn't about birds, it was about political social climate so I'd argue the flip was justifiable for that statement becuase they are two legimate views on politcal correctness in the world. Im just saying that it's easy to argue when there are two valid opinions that conflict with each other. And yes I agree it's easy to argue when your goal is to argue but unfortunately when two people have different opinions they can't play nice so without knowing it their goal becomes to argue becuase neither wants to relent or comprise. When has a discussion on real world issues ever been resolved peacefully on a tabletop game board for a Chinese rice farming image forum? Keep /pol/ in /pol/ both sides of it.

>So far as I'm aware, they're seperate entities
Well sure, that's how the orthodox church works. The various patriarchates are, for all intents and purposes, independent within their territories, but they're still all part of the same church.

Othodoxes/coptic are basically the same - otherwise you have to seperate out the fucking prot sects into at least general Episcopalian/Presbyterian/Congregationalist/nationalist groups, and then deal with autism related to seperating out non-prot groups by doctrine or region but prot groups just by organisational structure, leading to weird shit like essentially lumping evangelicals in with quakers and mormons with anglicans (I think - fuck, is latter day saints presbyterian or episcopalian? there are bishops but they ain't episcopalian bishops, yet the "elders" of the church are more episcopalian bishops than presbyterian elders...)

>Othodoxes/coptic are basically the same
Don't be silly, they're literally the first big christian heresy, the one that seperated the Ethiopian church from the Roman (As in the Roman Empire, not as in roman catholic) church

>trying to spam an emoji

Really? This is the level memes have fallen?

Fallen or returned?

But that was my point. A real god could actually do that. Such a real god could proclaim and enforce the rules it states and can be asked how it meant the words it spoke. If disagreement comes up, people could go visit it and ask.

In the case of real world religions, there is no absolute authority on the matter but a worldly one: other people, who may (intentionally or not) taint those words yet other people spoke to fit whatever their agenda might be.
In the real world it is up to people to interpret what other people thought was necessary to be handed down to the next generations, either in spoken or written words.

In fantasy, if an actual honest to god ... god exists, then that god is the last authority regarding the rules it set forth. It can even adapt them corresponding to the changes in culture from generation to generation, or, if it so choses, enforce them instead.

My point it: What sense does it make to compare real world religions to a fictitious religion with a real (as in, it shows itself) god backing it up?
(Of course, parallels can and should be drawn were appropriate.)

You missed Ethiopian Orthodox which is probably the first major branch of Christianity.

Except the roman is the heresy.

God, YHWH, and Allah are literally the same entity and yet Christians, Jews and Muslims have wildly varying cultures

>God, YHWH, and Allah are literally the same entity
>The Qu'ran specifically states that God has no children, is not triune in nature and it's impossible to have a personal relationship with God
What did he mean by this?

Actually, there's only two.

There's Catholicism, and then there's heretical practices that must be stamped out.

The problem such a hands on deity is it would leave very little room for human agency making such a setting rather dull for adventurers.
On a less meta level even with a clear unifying set of beliefs there are going to be cultural differences. People inn a fishing village are going to dress and talk and think differently than people that work in a mine even if they all agree to sacrife a goat every other full moon or whatever their God like his followers to do

Fair enough.
I just wanted to get the point across that given an actual god that makes itself available (in such a manner that any of its deeds and actions and laws can directly be related to it) any differentiation between religious sects would and should be (at least) less obvious than what we see in real world religions. Just because the god is there to back up its proclamations. (That is, if the god actually shows itself. Maybe it's "real", but refrains from any obvious interference.)

On a side note: any dullness in any setting is merely an artefact of one's own subjective taste and the ability of the storyteller. I believe such a setting (as discussed) could be entertaining if handled properly. Albeit, I'm not such a good storyteller, so I wouldn't know how it could be done. Plus, in how far such a setting is dull is off-topic.)

I think etheopians are considered copts.
All christians are actually just really weird jewish heretics

That Jesus is similar to mosis and other saints - not son of god, but one of the saints

Oh yeah. I didn't want to disagree. I concur, royalty will of course act differently than fisher folk, for example. Even if a god stands behind everyone of them and tells them how to properly behave.

>Luther
>not Jan Hus
baka senpai do you even history?

SeeArian church was closer to original, "catholic" just backed winning "emperor" during the decline of the western empire.

>Heretics actually believe this.

Not a heretic, because I'm a pagan.
"Know your enemy" applies to understanding those that would persecute me for my faith...

Nice strawman. Although it is pretty good b8, considering anyone who contradicts your retardation will be told to go back to /pol/ even though you're the one that brought /pol/ up.

Remember, God doesn't exist, but is also somehow "the same entity" as these two other deities from other religions even though the entirety of those religions claim the contrary.

Arianism was a relative minority, you're trying to paint it as a two-sided ideological conflict where one managed to gain the upper hand and totally stamp out the other.

>Saint Worship
>Mary Worship
>Not heretical.

sure you can. in fact you don't even need the one.

>what was a fringe political movement rapidly grows in support and makes it to the second round of a national election
y-yeah, b-btfo...

...you know that Christianity is a thing, right?

No Catholic worships saints. Only base and slanderous propaganda from heretical sects alleges such.

We venerate them due to their sanctity, and the fact that they were blessed by God himself. We attempt to imitate their devotion to the Lord and his teachings. But we do not worship them, as only God is to be worshiped by His people.

"Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith" (Heb. 13:7).