she doesn’t care about the Bible but people forcing religion and their religious rules on everyone else is why she’s out there with that sign; she’s fighting for her freedom from religion and her personal rights.
Jesus is an important part of the Bible, but it’s not entirely about him.
Overall, I’d say that the Bible provides universal guidance and principles in the affairs of human life. It’s up to you to accept or reject the guidance.
You missed the 1943 part of that. 2000 years of knowledge has been gathered and put down so we can advance humanity and you idiots are still looking for answers of a 2000+ year old book
I very much doubt that nuclear was even a word when the shit was invented.
Seriously you have had too much bible it is rotted your brain
she’s also promoting the decline of the nuclear family, because sexual freedom also means relationship instability.
“We find little evidence that having non-marital sexual relationships with multiple partners signals a disruption
[…in] marriage, or signals the future disinclination of singles to marry eventually” (1)
A woman that is sexually free also means that fatherhood with such a woman isn’t asured because a man can’t tell if the kids are his or not.
Wanting sexual freedom outside marriage is in no way similar to infidelity within existing relationships.
Men are substantially more likely to cheat than women. (2)
This also means that kids are more prone to be fatherless, lack proper guidance and get into crimes and delinquency.
This would only be affected by the initial personal freedom argument if the prior statements were true, which they are not.
Yes, the Bible and religions are restrictive, but they are somewhat useful and served purposes.
Certain individuals may find its restrictions useful to them.
Others may find them stifling.
You are arguing for morals based entirely on the writings of humans who witnessed unprovable events to be applied to all in society regardless of their current faith or beliefs.
If you find the Bible’s restrictions to be useful, then that’s perfectly fine for you, but don’t attempt to say they should apply for everyone, because of yourfaith.
What I don’t get is why you automatically assume that just because she doesn’t agree with what’s in the Bible that she’s promiscuous. Where does she mention sexuality?
Everything you ranted about was predicated on your assumption that she’s a slut and it all falls apart when you realize that your assumption is could be wrong.
It has been explained repeatedly why someone might oppose the teachings of the Bible. They have nothing to do with sexuality. You just choose to ignore it because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
“exposure to weight bias triggers physiological and behavioural changes linked to poor metabolic health and increased weight gain.”
“The more people are exposed to weight bias and discrimination, the more likely they are to gain weight and become obese, even if they were thin to begin with”
“Fat shaming is also linked to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, eating disorders and exercise avoidance”
What you are advocating for directly leads to higher rates of obesity.
Everybody is prone to sins and misconducts, me, you and priests too.
Should the people actively preaching against sin, supposedly following religious best practices, actively steeling themselves against sin not be substantially less likely to ever engage in such misconduct?
You’re not actually making a point here, you’re putting the very real threat of abuse by religious officials using their power in religious institutions as a means to groom children on the same level as the average person.
But one of the issue of extreme morality like these is that deep down, everyone crave basic human desires. Reproduction/sexuality being one of them, and priests usually have oaths to fulfill.
And when you suppress these craving for too long, I believe they turn into weird, dark and repressed fantasies. Priests grooming children is one of them.
Your entire argument here is around discouraging sexual promiscuity (which is exclusively being advocated for specifically with consenting adults) and yet you also argue that a lack of reproduction/sex directly leads to grooming.
You can’t have both sides.
On top of that, many aspects about the church can lead to grooming that aren’t sexual repression, namely the power dynamics of religious officials, and the idea that those who are religious are more inherently “ethical” or “good” than others, and are thus less likely to do wrong.
Just for the sake of an open response to this, in the case you’re not actually trolling. Do you really believe this woman does care about the contents of the bible? Or can you see the imo more logical point that she cares about certain political movements not agreeing to the seperation of church and state, leading to actual policy based on a religious book you don’t believe in or agree with?
In that case, where is the need to actually believe in the bible or it’s teachings just to put in the effort of making a sign and protesting? At that point you’re protesting the consequences of a select group of people pushing their religious dogmas on everyone under the veil of politics. Which unfortunately still seems to happen in current times imo.
I agree that religious beliefa are generally on the decline, but that’s not objectively a good or bad thing.
The word virtue unfortunately has too many meanings in this context:
However virtue, if defined as moral excellence, simply does not exist in a fully objective sense. The best definition I can try to personally approximate is to “choose your own actions in such a way as to minimize negative and maximize positive effects on the people they affect”. If I use that definition to reason about the virtuousness of being sexually liberal, I cannot see it as anything other than a virtue, other than hurting others by e.g. being promiscuos within a relationship.
On a more general note, monogamy was not always the norm. Historically a lot of cultures have thrived under polygamy or similar systems. The most well-known one (assuming you’re from North America) are the Mormons, which accept and encourage polygyny.
If you take the time to make this poster and walk around the streets for everybody to see,
Then you do care a lot about what’s in the Bible.
You simply don’t agree with it.
Now, we may ask: why?
The answer is: because she doesn’t benefit from it. She probably wants to be a promiscuous without being ashamed for it.
the fuck’s wrong with you?
she doesn’t care about the Bible but people forcing religion and their religious rules on everyone else is why she’s out there with that sign; she’s fighting for her freedom from religion and her personal rights.
Yes, right. So courageous.
As side effect, she’s also promoting the decline of the nuclear family, because sexual freedom also means relationship instability.
A woman that is sexually free also means that fatherhood with such a woman isn’t asured because a man can’t tell if the kids are his or not.
This also means that kids are more prone to be fatherless, lack proper guidance and get into crimes and delinquency.
I could get into more details, but I don’t feel I’m in the right community to do so.
Yes, the Bible and religions are restrictive, but they are somewhat useful and served purposes.
The nuclear family is bad, all the fuckin radiation has to be bad for you.
Any credible sources for any of those ludicrous claims?
How about you make your own research
Funny to bring up research in a discussion about religion.
So “no” then, got it
Purpose - control large groups of idiots whom can’t be bothered to think for themselves
Please elaborate on nuclear family then how nuclear fits into the bible as it was harnessed 1943 years after the death of your so called Messiah
Jesus is an important part of the Bible, but it’s not entirely about him.
Overall, I’d say that the Bible provides universal guidance and principles in the affairs of human life. It’s up to you to accept or reject the guidance.
You missed the 1943 part of that. 2000 years of knowledge has been gathered and put down so we can advance humanity and you idiots are still looking for answers of a 2000+ year old book
I very much doubt that nuclear was even a word when the shit was invented.
Seriously you have had too much bible it is rotted your brain
“We find little evidence that having non-marital sexual relationships with multiple partners signals a disruption […in] marriage, or signals the future disinclination of singles to marry eventually” (1)
Wanting sexual freedom outside marriage is in no way similar to infidelity within existing relationships.
Men are substantially more likely to cheat than women. (2)
This would only be affected by the initial personal freedom argument if the prior statements were true, which they are not.
Certain individuals may find its restrictions useful to them.
Others may find them stifling.
You are arguing for morals based entirely on the writings of humans who witnessed unprovable events to be applied to all in society regardless of their current faith or beliefs.
If you find the Bible’s restrictions to be useful, then that’s perfectly fine for you, but don’t attempt to say they should apply for everyone, because of your faith.
I really love having the tag feature. It’ll help me remember in the future when I’ve met someone that slut shames people to defend Christianity
Well, maybe slut shaming can be a good thing.
Just like fat shaming can also be a good thing.
What I don’t get is why you automatically assume that just because she doesn’t agree with what’s in the Bible that she’s promiscuous. Where does she mention sexuality?
Everything you ranted about was predicated on your assumption that she’s a slut and it all falls apart when you realize that your assumption
iscould be wrong.Yes, I assumed it was about sexuality.
Marriages and religions have been optional for many generations. Most of the time that I hear about religions, it’s always related to some sin.
I don’t see much what else could it be.
It has been explained repeatedly why someone might oppose the teachings of the Bible. They have nothing to do with sexuality. You just choose to ignore it because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
Maybe it is. By curiosity, I studied the Bible for many months, maybe years, without identifying myself as a Christian.
It probably shaped many of my worldviews.
You are a total piece of shit
Sometimes, being an asshole has its advantages and can be useful. If you fat shame a person, it could bring motivation to become healthier.
Being fat is objectively bad for your health. Sure. But being sexually active is objectively good for your health.
Shaming anyone though, rarely leads to any positive change. Probably the opposite.
Nothing in excess is ever good.
That goes for religion too, lay off that shit m8, your brain is FUCKED
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6565398/
“exposure to weight bias triggers physiological and behavioural changes linked to poor metabolic health and increased weight gain.”
“The more people are exposed to weight bias and discrimination, the more likely they are to gain weight and become obese, even if they were thin to begin with”
“Fat shaming is also linked to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, eating disorders and exercise avoidance”
What you are advocating for directly leads to higher rates of obesity.
God is made up and the bible was written by dillusional human. Who are you to shame promiscuity when priests around the world fuck little boys.
You can fuck off with you high and mighty beliefs
When you die you rot in the ground that’s it
Everybody is prone to sins and misconducts, me, you and priests too.
Sinners die and rot too.
Should the people actively preaching against sin, supposedly following religious best practices, actively steeling themselves against sin not be substantially less likely to ever engage in such misconduct?
You’re not actually making a point here, you’re putting the very real threat of abuse by religious officials using their power in religious institutions as a means to groom children on the same level as the average person.
Ideally, yes. They should.
But one of the issue of extreme morality like these is that deep down, everyone crave basic human desires. Reproduction/sexuality being one of them, and priests usually have oaths to fulfill.
And when you suppress these craving for too long, I believe they turn into weird, dark and repressed fantasies. Priests grooming children is one of them.
Suppressing them.
Your entire argument here is around discouraging sexual promiscuity (which is exclusively being advocated for specifically with consenting adults) and yet you also argue that a lack of reproduction/sex directly leads to grooming.
You can’t have both sides.
On top of that, many aspects about the church can lead to grooming that aren’t sexual repression, namely the power dynamics of religious officials, and the idea that those who are religious are more inherently “ethical” or “good” than others, and are thus less likely to do wrong.
Just for the sake of an open response to this, in the case you’re not actually trolling. Do you really believe this woman does care about the contents of the bible? Or can you see the imo more logical point that she cares about certain political movements not agreeing to the seperation of church and state, leading to actual policy based on a religious book you don’t believe in or agree with?
In that case, where is the need to actually believe in the bible or it’s teachings just to put in the effort of making a sign and protesting? At that point you’re protesting the consequences of a select group of people pushing their religious dogmas on everyone under the veil of politics. Which unfortunately still seems to happen in current times imo.
Yeah, religions and the Bible aren’t taken very seriously anymore. At that point, I think it can be difficult to differ politics from actual virtue.
I agree that religious beliefa are generally on the decline, but that’s not objectively a good or bad thing.
The word virtue unfortunately has too many meanings in this context:
However virtue, if defined as moral excellence, simply does not exist in a fully objective sense. The best definition I can try to personally approximate is to “choose your own actions in such a way as to minimize negative and maximize positive effects on the people they affect”. If I use that definition to reason about the virtuousness of being sexually liberal, I cannot see it as anything other than a virtue, other than hurting others by e.g. being promiscuos within a relationship.
On a more general note, monogamy was not always the norm. Historically a lot of cultures have thrived under polygamy or similar systems. The most well-known one (assuming you’re from North America) are the Mormons, which accept and encourage polygyny.
What does this imply about those who agree with it?
deleted by creator
Maybe it is because there is no hard proof for it, and its adherents are using their unproven bible to tell her what to do?