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.

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.

Firstly, I would like to say that what happens in the animal world has no bearing on morality. You said it yourself, morality is a human thing. So a lion is not a moral agent, I would not judge it for eating a zebra, nor do I believe that we should try to prevent it from doing so. However, just because animals do something, it does not mean it is not immoral for us to do so, it is as natural for certain animals to eat humans, as it is to eat other animals. That does not mean that murder is moral now, suddenly. Similarly, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.

Secondly, the words direct/indirect do not mean intentional/unintentional. I do not think it is sensible to claim that the more removed you are from the consequences of your actions, the less moral responsibility you bear, but it seems to me like you are excusing the behavour of carnists(that word is, as another commenter put it, metal as fuck) by claiming that most of them are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but this has nothing to do with how “direct” the act is. I would like to add that the reason for the ignorance of most meaters(meat eaters) with regards to exact is their characters, they are keeping themselves in ignorance and are resistant to attemps to enlighten them.

Why do you think direct immoral actions are worse than indirect immoral actions? I don’t buy that. Hell, you are even saying that you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it, and not doing it personally. Most people just deny animal abuse happens at all, or come up with ridiculous excuses for it, but you admit it is immoral, but shift your blame on others along with the responsibility for murdering them so that you can eat them.

This is like saying "x has hired hitmen to killed seven people, but my parent forces me to eat broccoli every day, so since x is commiting a indirect immoral action, my parent is the worst one of them.

I am not a moral person. I, quite frankly, do not care about animals, and I would like to think I would be able to murder an animal myself(for food), since I am doing it now, albeit indirectly, and if you can’t live with the consequences of your decisions, why make them? Weigh the consequences of your actions. Do not run away from them like a coward(a lot of moralizing for a self-proclaimed immoral person).

I respect vegans. If you care about animal welfare, and are opposed to cruel treatment of animals you should not eat meat, and that’s what they do.