• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 23rd, 2025

help-circle



  • floopus@lemmy.mltoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldBible rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Thats interesting. The history does explain why it jumps around a lot.

    My main thinking however is from the point of view that God intended to bring about his message to the world, whatever that would be. If the Bible is humanities’ attempt at interpreting whatever that message is, we didn’t appear to do a very good job at all. I understand and agree that there are many things to be learned from the Bible, but its only humans teaching other humans in my view.


  • floopus@lemmy.mltoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldBible rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    If a part of the Bible condones Genocide, the whole book condones it. Its inspired from God himself. Did God change his mind from chapter to chapter? Happy to do critical analysis of it, but you must forgive fundamentalists believing Genocide is ok in certain contexts due to it being written in the bible


  • floopus@lemmy.mltoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldBible rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    8 days ago

    Romans 1:26-27 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

    Clearly homosexuality is wrong according to the bible. Sorry, you simply aren’t going to convince a fundamentalist to agree let LGBT folk be, when you have quotes like this in the book. Saying “jesus said love” isn’t going to do it. Best strategy is the one that has been working. Education, so that people don’t take religion so seriously or literally.








  • floopus@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlGuns good
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 month ago

    I am quite conflicted. On the one hand this is extraordinarily bad for American democracy, but there is a feeling in me that said democracy farce at this point.

    I also believe that this will justify further violence from the right towards lgbt/left/immigrants etc. But would that happen anyway?


  • While there is the argument of not contributing to overpopulation, in my view anti-natalism is the application of moral utilitarianism to an absurd degree. I also think it can (not will of course) lead to eugenics policies. Indeed, a poor person birthing a child more immoral than a rich person. Certainly the rich child is much more likely to live a better life than the poor. Should we therefore be more willing to regulate the reproductive capabilities of the poor? I think this is where anti-natalism breaks down - forcing it on anyone, or creating policy to support it, is in my view will always be deeply immoral.