Goshujin-sama to Yuku Isekai Survival! - Ch. 50

[Ironclad]

Usually the MCs of these series are selfish assholes offended the world doesn't spin around them, and enable them to live a life of endless self indulgence.

 

[WhimsiCat]

I'm not buying it. Sounds awfully conveniently hair-splitting.
Mind, we had this trope before.

Well, you can always drop the series and go find something to your taste.
It's been pretty obvious this is going for harem, if you don't like that not sure why you kept reading it.

Also it's called good, consistent world building.
The setting is 1 man with multiple women is seen as normal in this world, MC doesn't introduce the concept of harem nor is he the only one with it because he's some kind of special boi.
He is more desirable because he's someone who can provide for many.

Also it's not that 'conveniently hair-splitting', shit's just basic biology.
A man can impregnate multiple women at once.
A women taking more dicks isn't gonna make her pregnancy any shorter.

 

[hitohito1]

Ejaculate and evacuate

 

[baconcat]

Well, you can always drop the series and go find something to your taste.
It's been pretty obvious this is going for harem, if you don't like that not sure why you kept reading it.

Wow, is it Ass-Umption Day again? Where did I say anything which one I preferred?

Also it's called good, consistent world building.

Didn't actually say anything about the quality of world-building as such. At least not this time.

The setting is

Yes, but maybe I'm not questioning the author, maybe I'm questioning in-game notions? I am allowed to find certain in-world customs disagreeable, yes? I am allowed to see things from MC's perspective, yes?

He is more desirable because he's someone who can provide for many.

Thanks, Captain Obvious, would never have guessed. But this isn't about desire alone, it's about the actions performed motivated by those desires.

A man can impregnate multiple women at once.
A women taking more dicks isn't gonna make her pregnancy any shorter.

Congratulations, you read and understood a third-grade's textbook trick question to determine the aptitude for reading comprehension. Your point?

Also it's not that 'conveniently hair-splitting',

It is. It's you picking and matching what you want to be understood literally and what figuratively and then asserting that as the accepted truth. Yeah, well, that's not how this works. You're not the only one to be liable to do that, characters, authors, and translators included; so, unless you are literally every person in that constellation, you can keep that "iMpLyInG" to yourself.

 

[orangerain7734]

Those are not valid examples. The "chaos and destruction" resulted not from the fact that they had many wives, but from crimes or other slights against the Old Testament deity commited by specific people, either a wife or a child of one. For example, David's daughter by one wife was raped by his son by another, which sparked a cycle of revenge - to say this is because of polygamy is just saying "had one or both not existed, there would be no problem", which is a nonsensical argument that entirely misses the point of the story.

I think what the story was trying to portray is the more wives a man takes in to his home, the more likely sin will ensue in that household, destroying everyone in it, and you just pretty much proved that point there with how those children from different wives get at each others' throats, going beyond what the man of the house, the father, David, could control. By taking in more wives, it affects everyone involved.

Like how gateway drugs will lead people into hard drug abuse problems, seemingly 'small' sins will lead to more sin. A man taking more than one wife, while it isn't described as not allowed in the bible, could be interpreted as a 'mild' form of adultery as he'll likely play favorites, which will not only displease the wives he favors less, but it will extend to the children, too. By that point, it all becomes a slowly boiling pot that builds up before everything spills over.

In short, polygamy may not be a 'direct cause' of chaos and destruction, but it's the first step, a catalyst, starting a chain reaction of events leading to it.

 

[orangerain7734]

My main point is that writers often highlight polygamy as a significant challenge for their main characters to understand and accept, which they struggle to overcome.

And by accepting polygamy, adapting to the world's norm, and proactively growing their own harems, the main characters will grow as individuals ... yeah, there are reasons why stuff like this should stay in fantasies, or just fiction in its entirety. Enjoying harem stories is fine, but I wouldn't find the main characters bettering themselves by taking on many love interests be good role models to set personal standards to, being how unrealistic such a scenario would be. At least writers are taking note of how radical shifts in culture can affect a main character's adaptation to it and how to 'do as the Romans do' in their own way.

The other examples have nothing to do with the prior subject, so I'll just stop here.

 

[Gilthwixt]

Wait, so the Adol God meant to deliver him to his believers but instead accidentally delivered him to the enemies of mankind? Talk about misplacing a nuke

Nah, MC got delivered right where he needed to be.

Spoiler: Plot Twist

It turns out the original, true sect of this religion was always about humans and demi-humans getting along, but somewhere along the way an anti demi-human sect seized power and used demi-humans as a scape goat for all of the world's troubles and claimed subjugating them was the kingdom's destiny, then suppressed the truth from future generations. MC is genuinely a messianic figure sent here to "fix" the church and purge it of the reactionary fascists in charge. Or at least that's how I remember the novel going, it's been a while since I read the details

 

[WhimsiCat]

Wow, is it Ass-Umption Day again? Where did I say anything which one I preferred?

Here I guess?

Remember the times when we just crafted gizma burgers and water bottles and were happy with it?

Also that you link to your previous comment on the same nature almost 20 chapters ago?
If that's not your preference, then I'm questioning why you keep mentioning it.

Yes, but maybe I'm not questioning the author, maybe I'm questioning in-game notions? I am allowed to find certain in-world disagreeable, yes? I am allowed to see things from MC's perspective, yes?

The chapter talk about polyamory in general, not that stealing another's husband is ok (again, they mentioned adultery is prohibited in the religion) as you said, so your question wasn't even on MC's mind?

But this isn't about desire alone, it's about the actions performed motivated by those desires.

Which so far is...proposing to him? Even Aira waited for him to accept before taking things further.

It is. It's you picking and matching what you want to be understood literally and what figuratively and then asserting that as the accepted truth. Yeah, well, that's not how this works. You're not the only one to be liable to do that, characters, authors, and translators included; so, unless you are literally every person in that constellation, you can keep that "iMpLyInG" to yourself.

Rather ironic since you keep "iMpLyInG" things about me, or even the story, then.
Shoulda kept those to yourself if you ACTUALLY practice what you preach.

 

[wakanana]

Here we go again with the issue of monogamy! Men need to dismiss the outdated beliefs stemming from the teachings of the European Church.
The truth is that polygamy has been the principle for men since the beginning of humanity. A man can choose to have one wife or several; it's entirely a matter of personal choice. The European Church was the one that imposed a monogamous view of marriage to serve the interests of Kings and Queens back then. It's not even mentioned in the Bible. SMH.

Nonsense. Practically all civilizations everywhere and anywhere evolved monogamy. Tribes that didn't died infighting.

 

[Chaos_Breaker]

The Harem grows ever larger
now the question persists: who's getting pregnant first?!?!?

 

[finalm]

I think what the story was trying to portray is the more wives a man takes in to his home, the more likely sin will ensue in that household, destroying everyone in it, and you just pretty much proved that point there with how those children from different wives get at each others' throats, going beyond what the man of the house, the father, David, could control. By taking in more wives, it affects everyone involved.

I don't think I "proved" such a point, since I specifically said that the actual core reasons were due to the actions of individuals, regardless of where they "came from". If God in this story truly did consider the real issue to be the existence of many wives, then his silence on the matter is more than questionable. After all, he was never shy of directly communicating the reasons for one's punishment in the Old Testament, nor of simply forbidding certain practises and calling it a day. Taking a "find out for yourself" approach without so much as a "told you so" is not only inconsistent with his character, it's also not educational in the way the Old Testament was supposed to be. It was written in a way that the "moral" was always to be confirmed by authority.

Also, if we take the stance that David is ultimately to blame for engaging in polygamy, then this way of reasoning leads to the conclusion that actually, it's God who's to blame. If one's to say that David "created" the situation by having children with more than one woman (though that is a horrible opinion to have, since it absolves the perpetrators and even states that the victims simply had it coming due to the circumstances of their birth), then it's only fair to blame God for creating David and not even forbidding him from doing so. It's especially the case due to the former not being omniscient, unlike the latter.

The only real stance the Bible takes on polygamy, that does not require building a mountain out of a molehill of overinterpretation is probably in the first chapters of Genesis and even that is indirect. I'm talking about how Adam and Eve can be considered a "divine model" for marriage. It's basically saying "this is how our deity likes it".

 

[vergotear]

Wait, so the Adol God meant to deliver him to his believers but instead accidentally delivered him to the enemies of mankind? Talk about misplacing a nuke

No, he placed him in the right place, with the demi-humans so he'd cement his affection for them and their cause first. Elen's really part of the sect that professes the teachings to live in harmony in the original Adolisms, the humans and demi-humans are brothers and sisters created by Adol. Unfortunately it's still the weakest minority of followers. There was always the risk of Kosuke falling for the main human-supremacist corrupted teachings if he'd been placed with the humans first. Adol plans and Kosuke's journey has been lead to fix Adolism and getting rid of the human-supremacists as Kosuke's correctly theorized in his musings

 

[goodhunter]

Yep, swore your love to someone wholeheartedly. Only for the panel to show Sylhpy, the cyclops, and nearly the entire harpy flock. He's already accepted having two, better get ready for that harem to get a lot bigger.

Technically, he didn't pursue any of them, and was neither the one who initiated anything. In fact, Sylphy was the one who allowed the harpies to utilize MC as their outlet. I think as much as Sylphy does want a more monogamous relationship, she understands that the lack of men requires a more open minded approach on her end, or else I think the others around her won't be too happy that she alone gets to monopolize a man while everyone else has to share whoever they can find.

 

[GodKing46]

Well, I like that they don’t go the route where all humans are evil no matter what. Just a certain nation that is evil, not the entire race.
I enjoy stuff like this better than generic shit.

 

[orangerain7734]

I don't think I "proved" such a point, since I specifically said that the actual core reasons were due to the actions of individuals, regardless of where they "came from". If God in this story truly did consider the real issue to be the existence of many wives, then his silence on the matter is more than questionable. After all, he was never shy of directly communicating the reasons for one's punishment in the Old Testament, nor of simply forbidding certain practises and calling it a day. Taking a "find out for yourself" approach without so much as a "told you so" is not only inconsistent with his character, it's also not educational in the way the Old Testament was supposed to be. It was written in a way that the "moral" was always to be confirmed by authority.

Also, if we take the stance that David is ultimately to blame for engaging in polygamy, then this way of reasoning leads to the conclusion that actually, it's God who's to blame. If one's to say that David "created" the situation by having children with more than one woman (though that is a horrible opinion to have, since it absolves the perpetrators and even states that the victims simply had it coming due to the circumstances of their birth), then it's only fair to blame God for creating David and not even forbidding him from doing so. It's especially the case due to the former not being omniscient, unlike the latter.

The only real stance the Bible takes on polygamy, that does not require building a mountain out of a molehill of overinterpretation is probably in the first chapters of Genesis and even that is indirect. I'm talking about how Adam and Eve can be considered a "divine model" for marriage. It's basically saying "this is how our deity likes it".

God didn't command obedience to follow His rules because He wanted us to love him willingly, hence why He granted us free will. His testaments weren't made so we'd be punished and sent to hell for disobeying Him, but so that we could live the best lives according to His wisdom. He could use His powers to make us do whatever He wanted, even if it meant for our sake, but that would go against the love He's trying to portray through the gift of free will He has granted us.

The same could be said for Adam and Eve, who He explicitly warned not to eat the apple of great knowledge in good and evil. Temptation by Satan was a factor, but they made the choice of turning their back on God, ignore His warning, and eat the apple, anyway. Could He have explained to Adam and Even why they shouldn't eat the apple? Probably, but then He'd have to lay out everything He had planned for them, a blueprint of their very lives, to fully explain why they shouldn't eat the apple, but even then, it's not a guarantee Adam and Eve would still listen to Him, anyway. How likely would you follow the blueprint of your own life in every waking second when it's laid out for you? Probably not a lot, I know I wouldn't.

To blame God for not enacting his authority on David to follow His wisdom, saying He should have done something to stop David from going against His laws, you're saying you want him to take control over every aspect of his life, to do everything for him, which goes against the very purpose of why He granted him free will. Blaming God for not stopping him from getting into polygamy is just what Satan wants, too, becoming a weak victim that won't stand up against the forces opposing him. That's not the kind of person God wanted David to grow into, to blindly obey His commands without question, doubt, or rebuttal, with no discipline necessary to toughen his resolve to face unexpected obstacles that are on his path. God could have taken down the goliath, himself, if he wanted to, not David. Even so, He loved David enough to grant him the strength to take down the goliath, instead, making him king, and lead the people under His worship. David would not have done all that if he didn't have the free will God gifted him to do it.

I know we've strayed quite far from the original polygamy topic, but I figured I'd point those out since they were brought up, to the best of my interpretation that I'll admit may not entirely be correct or accurate as I'm still studying the Bible, myself. The point is, though God didn't explicitly lay out all the details in His commands, the gift of free will He granted us means He trusts and loves us enough to understand the point He's making through His words as described in the Bible. Just as Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs, the two of them together, one man and one woman, become one flesh, and that's all that's really needed in a marriage under God.

 

[finalm]

God didn't command obedience to follow His rules because He wanted us to love him willingly, hence why He granted us free will. His testaments weren't made so we'd be punished and sent to hell for disobeying Him, but so that we could live the best lives according to His wisdom. He could use His powers to make us do whatever He wanted, even if it meant for our sake, but that would go against the love He's trying to portray through the gift of free will He has granted us.

Sorry but all that spiel about free will and love is a standard excuse. I've heard it a hundret times, because it's what people resort to when they realize the old and new testaments can not be reconciled in any way. It is not a thing in the Old Testament, where he's portrayed as a vengeful, petty deity not that different from the classical gods of Greek or Norse pantheons. Also, I'm afraid you're contradicting scripture with that bit about disobeying. Think about it: if he's so averse to giving commands, then what about all the other stories in which he just issued them? Hell, what about the 10 commandments? Are they just suggestions in your view? That would at least explain the behaviour of the church I guess. But I digress...

The same could be said for Adam and Eve, who He explicitly warned not to eat the apple of great knowledge in good and evil. Temptation by Satan was a factor, but they made the choice of turning their back on God, ignore His warning, and eat the apple, anyway. Could He have explained to Adam and Even why they shouldn't eat the apple? Probably, but then He'd have to lay out everything He had planned for them, a blueprint of their very lives, to fully explain why they shouldn't eat the apple, but even then, it's not a guarantee Adam and Eve would still listen to Him, anyway. How likely would you follow the blueprint of your own life in every waking second when it's laid out for you? Probably not a lot, I know I wouldn't.

I don't have to know every detail of how my life would unfold if I just avoided eating that one poisonous plant. All I have to know is why eating it would be harmful to me. You talk as if this is not how we've been taught as children not to stick dangerous things into our mouths - it seems to work fine for the overwhelming majority. If I'm literally unable to understand why eating it is bad without doing so first, then why create me with the urge to learn and understand? So that I struggle to supress it and be punished if I fail? How can anyone not consider that as horrible abuse?

To blame God for not enacting his authority on David to follow His wisdom, saying He should have done something to stop David from going against His laws, you're saying you want him to take control over every aspect of his life, to do everything for him, which goes against the very purpose of why He granted him free will. Blaming God for not stopping him from getting into polygamy is just what Satan wants, too, becoming a weak victim that won't stand up against the forces opposing him. That's not the kind of person God wanted David to grow into, to blindly obey His commands without question, doubt, or rebuttal, with no discipline necessary to toughen his resolve to face unexpected obstacles that are on his path. God could have taken down the goliath, himself, if he wanted to, not David. Even so, He loved David enough to grant him the strength to take down the goliath, instead, making him king, and lead the people under His worship. David would not have done all that if he didn't have the free will God gifted him to do it.

I never suggested he should directly intervene in any way. I said he that if polygamy is a sin in his eyes then he should have clearly stated so. You know, like all the other prohibitions that he had no problem communicating. Then the rules would have been clear, David would know that he was breaking them and thus could expect bad things to follow. How can you expect anyone to act in a proper way if you refrain from defining what is proper in full? Your "unexpected obstacles" is just a case of gaslighting in the worst way - it represents arbitrary punishment, like in an experiment where you want to know how a lab rat would react to a given stimulus. No, it's actually worse than that. At least when we test stuff on animals, it's out of genuine necessity in order to learn. An omniscient entity by definition already knows the result of any test...

I know we've strayed quite far from the original polygamy topic, but I figured I'd point those out since they were brought up, to the best of my interpretation that I'll admit may not entirely be correct or accurate as I'm still studying the Bible, myself. The point is, though God didn't explicitly lay out all the details in His commands, the gift of free will He granted us means He trusts and loves us enough to understand the point He's making through His words as described in the Bible. Just as Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs, the two of them together, one man and one woman, become one flesh, and that's all that's really needed in a marriage under God.

I haven't even intended to get into this kind of debate, that's why I initially engaged from a purely academic perspective on what was written in the OT, not what I thought about it. The problem here is that your response is pretty much purely interpretation from the perspective of the New Testament. I know that Christians are taught otherwise, but these two don't mix. Just like you can't intepret historical events from a modern worldview perspective, there's a similar chasm of time, culture and even religious doctrine between the two. It pays to remember that the Hebrews (as in, the guys who wrote the damn thing) never described God even remotely like you have. The best they had to say about him was that he was harsh, but fair. Personally, I can't begin to see why they'd claim the second one, but again: historical perspective.

 

[orangerain7734]

I haven't even intended to get into this kind of debate, that's why I initially engaged from a purely academic perspective on what was written in the OT, not what I thought about it. The problem here is that your response is pretty much purely interpretation from the perspective of the New Testament. I know that Christians are taught otherwise, but these two don't mix. Just like you can't intepret historical events from a modern worldview perspective, there's a similar chasm of time, culture and even religious doctrine between the two. It pays to remember that the Hebrews (as in, the guys who wrote the damn thing) never described God even remotely like you have. The best they had to say about him was that he was harsh, but fair. Personally, I can't begin to see why they'd claim the second one, but again: historical perspective.

I'm not going to answer the other ones before this because I'm still very new in studying Christianity and don't have the responses that will satisfy your academic perspective, but I'm going to close this topic with this: Jesus' coming in the New Testament has been foretold by Jewish prophets in the Old Testament, thousands of years prior He came to earth in human flesh. They knew how He was going to be crucified, put to death, and horrendously abused by man long before He came. They knew they were going to be judged, and not even the Jews, God's 'chosen', are exempt from that judgement. So not only is God from the New Testament and the Old Testament are one and the same, but even all the acts David, his children, and all others in the Old Testament that turned against Him are things He already accounted for, including his polygamy. He is more omniscient than you think, and nothing should be discounted from one testament or the other. They had their own roles to play, even if they hadn't known it.

We of today likely still don't know what God's intentions were back then, why He acted in some but not on others, I could be totally wrong of why He granted us free will, and I'm fine with that. I just know that most, if not all of what was described in the Bible are reflected in people's actions today. I don't need to be a history buff to know I'm still a sinner, and I'm in the process of repenting for my own sins. Still, I'll be studying the Bible with this perspective in mind, so thank you for this back-and-forth.

 

[finalm]

I'm not going to answer the other ones before this because I'm still very new in studying Christianity and don't have the responses that will satisfy your academic perspective, but I'm going to close this topic with this: Jesus' coming in the New Testament has been foretold by Jewish prophets in the Old Testament, thousands of years prior He came to earth in human flesh. They knew how He was going to be crucified, put to death, and horrendously abused by man long before He came. They knew they were going to be judged, and not even the Jews, God's 'chosen', are exempt from that judgement. So not only is God from the New Testament and the Old Testament are one and the same, but even all the acts David, his children, and all others in the Old Testament that turned against Him are things He already accounted for, including his polygamy. He is more omniscient than you think, and nothing should be discounted from one testament or the other. They had their own roles to play, even if they hadn't known it.

We of today likely still don't know what God's intentions were back then, why He acted in some but not on others, I could be totally wrong of why He granted us free will, and I'm fine with that. I just know that most, if not all of what was described in the Bible are reflected in people's actions today. I don't need to be a history buff to know I'm still a sinner, and I'm in the process of repenting for my own sins. Still, I'll be studying the Bible with this perspective in mind, so thank you for this back-and-forth.

There is no such thing as being "more omniscient than I think", look up the definition of the word. He either is, or isn't and yes, I'm aware of Christian doctrine, there's no need to repeat it. The thing is, there are no written accounts that corroborate all of this to any sensible degree (at least none that aren't part of the Bible and associated texts). Prophesies, especially old ones tend to be vague and catch-all, like a form of cold reading, it doesn't help that they only get more so after centuries of misreporting.

Since you mention intentions, I'll just put it out there that the church's official stance is that God's intentions are unknowable by their very nature. That means any attempt at understanding him or his goals is doomed to fail. Some people are fine with this, but to me it's problematic to say the least. That's because it serves to stifle rational approach towards the supposed words he left for humanity, which are full of inconsitencies both factual and logical (not surprising, the texts were written by different people over centuries). Not only that, but it also means studying those texts is itself pointless, since it'll never let you learn anything meaningful about the deity.

 

[Otaku-Sama]

So... next chapter is Flirt O'clock?

 

[AkiraZXE]

Did the author forget that the demihumans only accepted the MC because he's basically "one of the good ones?" Even the guards and leaders were willing to have dragged behind the tents in the magical favela and have him beaten to death by a mob.