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.
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
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.
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.
I think for my friends it's just what we have been using for literally a decade since we were kids, combined with apathy towards privacy - although of my friends does use duckduckgo. I don't judge them for that since I've been pretty bad with privacy. I do worry if we get into more activism that we will need to secure our privacy
2 pillows stacked on each other most nights. Sometimes I just have the one. Very rarely I will have none because for some reason that is whats needed to sleep
Anything that isn't sanctioning the shit out of Israel won't be effective. If Belgium, Canada, UK, etc. were serious, all trade would be cut to Israel until they stopped the genocide
The Australian labor government didn't have age verification as one of their core policies. Also the specifics in Australia is being done by the esafety commission rather than through parliament. This whole age verification stuff is very undemocratic in nature
Brain drain in America. Incredible stuff really