• n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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

        • Raverbunny@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          See, that’s the problem, at least in the USA, the religious nuts who are too scared of their own mortality feel the need to push their narrow minded religious views on others, so people are not actually free to reject it, it is being forced into others, but I guess that’s the Christian way.

          Funny thing is the Christians wanna act like they so high and mighty and point out the evil things people are doing in the name is Islam but they are exactly the same anyway. From my views as an atheist not living in a religiously opressed society, Islam and Christianity both have extremist followers that do the most evil deeds in the name of their own belief which Boone outside of their circle jerk gives a fuck about. Religions are more responsible for death and hardship than anything else in history, and that’s by a large margin.

          So I don’t care what others believe in, just don’t keep trying to push your views on others.

        • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          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

    • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      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 your faith.