Using the Bible as strict moral code actually makes you a better human being than most people are in my opinion. With that said, some parts (for example the one about homosexuality) are no longer relevant from a theolgical standpoint, so if someone tries to justify their hatred using the Bible it’s on them. I don’t say everyone should convert to Christianity, but the Bible might just be the greatest compilation of ethical guidelines to ever exist.
I think it’s less the community and more the complete lack of logic based on what the text is their holy book says. If you use the Bible as a moral code, you are a horrible person
Exactly, I murder and rape as much as I want. Which is zero. Because I’m not fucked up.
If the only thing stopping me from doing stuff like that is the words in an old book… There may be another problem there.
Whaaaaat? You saying I should have charged an extra goat for my 12 year old daughter?!?
This user, instead of thinking critically about his views after so many users present evidence against his claims, moans that he “didn’t realize what community [they] commented on”. Not attempting to interact with or even counter the information and arguments presented, he simply ignores it because his beliefs cannot hold against consideration and reason.
he simply ignores it because his beliefs cannot hold against consideration and reason.
To me it look like the quality of discussion here is not really worth spending time with, they probably didn’t bother responding
Do you realize that there has been a great wealth of ethical discussion in the 1700 years since the Bible was compiled?
And you’re seriously going to tell me that the BIBLE, which condones genocide, slavery, the murder of homosexuals, etc, is more moral or ethical than ANYTHING that has been compiled in that time? Half of the Bible was written by litteral genocidal warmongers.
You could put two random children’s books together, and it would be a far superior compilation of morals than the Bible.
The bible is different texts wrote by different people. Many people refer the canonical gospels as the bible, halvar is probably talking about that part
The canonical gospels, where thought crime is first introduced into the religion? Where the founder of the religion declares that everyone who doesn’t agree with him is doomed to eternal torture? Are you sure that’s an argument you want to make?
Just curious, have you actually read the gospels?
“not that part, this part”
Written*
So then explain to me why it was ok for God to order his followers to destroy the Tower of Babel and slaughter those building it? I believe God’s logic was, “If they complete this tower, it’ll show the world they don’t need me, and we can’t have that.”
How exactly was that ethical? Or should we discuss being allowed to beat your slave, so long as they don’t die within three days, you haven’t commited murder because they are your property? Is that the ethics and morality you’re speaking of?
Or maybe it’s the “an eye for an eye” part, where revenge is completely justified? I believe it took a Hindu nationalist to add “makes the world blind” to actually make that statement ethical.
Or maybe you’re trying to discuss one of the many, many instances of rape that occurs in the bible, but it’s completely justified and ethical because God said so?
Personally, if you base your morals and ethics off of the Bible, you’re a piece of shit who justifies their immoral behavior using an outdated text as some kind of shield because you think, so long as you repent riiiiiiiiight before you eat the big one, you’re good. 🙄
This feels like satire, and that’s saying a lot
In my opinion, people who don’t need the threat of eternal damnation to be “good” people have better morals because they aren’t motivated by anything other than just not being a piece of shit. They’re naturally good people
You’re telling me if someone has the urge to murder, but this fairy tale sky daddy is telling them they’ll be in eternal pain for doing so, that they’re morally better than someone who doesn’t have the urge to murder? “I would love to kill someone but I’m a selfish evil asshole and I myself don’t want to be in pain so I won’t kill this person, not out of empathy, but out of selfishness”
You gotta be trolling
“Removed by mod”
The guy shared his opinion and didn’t wrote anything offensive. The mods here are being as bigots as the fanatics they hate
So do you have a copy of the comment…?
I have no idea why anyone would come here and think it’s okay to defend any religion.
I remember when it was posted, it should be in the modlog anyway
My problem with what you said comes entirely from my personal experience. Most of the worst people I’ve come across in life have been theological Christians. Atheists tend to be bound by their own ethics, which I’ve found to be far more powerful than someone telling you how to behave.
So if you ignore all the bad stuff, it’s full of good stuff? Brilliant!
The bible is real. And very useful, to roll blunts with in a pinch.
Stay away from the gilded edges, though.
…or so I’ve heard.
They knew what they were doing with those super thin pages. 😉
Yes, folks who don’t read Bible don’t realize how much bible says about money, trade and economy. Proverbs book is my favorite, the deuteronomy book I leave for older brothers in fath ( kidding :-) )
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.
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?
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.
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.
If you fat shame a person, it could bring motivation to become healthier.
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.
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
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.
Right?
Like maybe she wants to be able to dress comfortably without the rules of some goat herder’s book of fairytale and moral values.
Or the right to speak without a man to speak for her.
Or to open a bank account without her husband or father being on the account too.
Or one of the other thousands of things women have had to deal with, outside of fucking sexual freedom, or still deal with thanks to this holy book.
Also, she should be able to have sex freely with other consenting adults without shame too.
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.
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.
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.
If you don’t care about people’s views, why should I care about yours?
You misunderstood my post. I don’t care what people choose to believe in as long as they don’t try to stamp those beliefs onto me. Live and let live.
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 your faith.
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
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.
Why are you being so weird?
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.
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.
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.
The answer is: because she doesn’t benefit from it.
What does this imply about those who agree with it?
Nice mansplain.
Ah, I see. I just posted in an atheist community.
My bad.
So do you see that your religion is bullshit? Or do you believe in all of it? Or do you just pick and choose what you want to believe that fits your narrative to make you feel good at night?
Just curious.
Why would my religion be bullshit? Are you atheist?
I’ve studied the Bible. I think it’s useful, but it doesn’t answer everything.
I don’t believe in religion. It’s bullshit. I could go on for weeks pointing out passages that are ignored now (why? it’s gods word right?) What makes your “god” the god? It’s all a scapegoat and really I believe it was just an early form of government. It has NO business in schools or our government and should 100% should be paying taxes.
Geez, it’s obviously impossible to live exactly by the book. Of course, passages are going to be ignored.
I think God is simply a mean to give people’s life meaning and purpose.
Any group, government, society, organization, family, community, etc. has their own rules and beliefs.
You’re choosing to believe in something, but clearly not religion. I hope you can still be moral and ethical, though.
I don’t need an angry sky guy to threaten me with hell to be moral and ethical. I also don’t need him to give me meaning and purpose. I can do that all on my own. I believe in karma, be a good human.
I’d say the same thing in a memes community since this showed up in my “Everything” feed.
Your response came off very mansplainy and a little misogynist and overlooked a ton of shit and at the end went to, “lol, she wants to have sex!”.
What else is it then?
Maybe, just maybe, she doesn’t believe in that book and doesn’t want your values shoved down her throat.
Maybe she wants to be able to dress comfortably without the rules of some goat herder’s book of fairytale and moral values.
Or the right to speak without a man to speak for her.
Or to open a bank account without her husband or father being on the account too.
Or one of the other thousands of things women have had to deal with, outside of fucking sexual freedom, or still deal with thanks to this holy book.
And lastly the freedom to have sex with whatever another consenting adult or adults as she pleases without your fucking judgment.
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mathew 7:1-2
You game me a bible verse, let me give you one:
An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. Proverbs 31:10
It doesn’t matter, I don’t believe or live by your book. Neither does she.
But your book doss say that, you, as a believer, shouldn’t force your beliefs down somebody else’s throat by judging them.
So kindly, fuck off with this shit and let people live their lives however they want unless it impacts you. Just like I’ll do.l, but I’ll do it because I’m a descent fucking person.
Actually no. People read a book and then behave the irrational ways, all of which is okay, but the problem is that their actions make our lives worse. We have a problem with their actions. We care about their actions. We don’t care about the book they read.
Removed by mod
That’s not very Satanic, friendo.
IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own.
Shut the fuck up
The paradox of tolerance at its finest.
Aw, you kiss your mother with that tongue, sweetums?
Removed by mod
The Temple of Satan =/= Church of Satan, but thanks for trying.
It’s a good idea to double check what one’s reading before replying, in the future. 🤗🤪
Amen!
No.
Ramen!
Wo
amen*
She forgot to address them as “you bitches”.
Schizophrenic, Bronze Age, fan fiction has a lot to answer for.
So is new atheism back?
I only care insomuch as stupid people use it as a guide for repression.
Hail, Satan.
May you be touched by thy noodley appendage
Ramen
Ok, boomer. 🤣
Oh, yeah… I must be a boomer because I think worshipping a make believe deity is stupid. Makes perfect sense.
All of them are make believe. Put down the cane and sit down, FFS. You’re gonna miss Wheel Of Fortune.
Hail seitan!
One of the most frustrating things of dealing with bible people is when the request for proof comes up. They just point at the Bible. Like it’s some text that has deep references to verifiable and cross referenced historical fact. Like Pontious Pilate’s administration leaving records of some guy doing magic on the regular, him getting in fights with rich people, or even just a criminal docket of hanging a magical guy.
Nope. They just point at their book as proof of itself.
what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence
And when they still point to that bible of theirs, start quoting your favorite incest story.
Which you can find in their book, BTW
Can’t tell if Atheist or American Christian
oh, you don’t think the bible is real? let me throw some bible verses at you, that’ll change your mind
This was one of my issues when I was a Christian. There is no external authority that the Bible was the inherent word of God and no way to ensure that the words within it were transcribed or even translated within the Authority of God.
There is a whole study of Bible hermeneutics that is about finding authority within the Bible.
You know how in the show Community Abed was always trying to meta the show? Imagine that, but really not funny and it’s taken seriously.
Another problem with Bible (and other similar books) is that it doesn’t make sense that omnipotent god would communicate to humans trough vague book that would have many different interpretations and possibly have it’s meaning changed a bit with translations to different languages. At least there are Christians who accept that events from Bible never happened.
transcribed or even translated within the Authority of God.
on that topic, in case you haven’t seen it, i recommend biblical scholar bart ehrman’s presentation on problems with the bible.
His Misquoting Jesus podcast is fantastic. Definitely listen if you enjoy Ehrman.
the Bible is real. like you can go buy it at Walmart.
Am I allowed to throw all of the Bible verses at someone? Like at the same time.
Legally or physically allowed?
What if I say “heads up” while fastballing that bad boy? Then say oops right after
Only if it’s shrink wrapped, I’d imagine.
or harry potter. if you’re throwing books at people, it probably doesn’t matter what the books are.
Removed by mod
Racist or satire?
book clubCult. It’s a cult.
Cults are small. Christianity is big. And it was Christians who, during the satanic panic, created a false association in pop culture between cults and abuse. See, back in the 60s, the hippie movement was turning young people away from Christianity and towards new age spiritualities like wicca and thelema. The christians had to put a stop to these cults, so they created a myth that cult=abuse.
Eh, I’m gonna go ahead and keep calling any group with charismatic authoritarian leaders/councils a cult. The word “cult” is inherently tied to worship which involves giving up some of your own agency or, at least, taking things on blind faith or admiration.
Any time you have adherents giving up their free will/agency, that’s abuse and manipulation, to me.
Cult - charismatic leader is still alive. Religion - charismatic leader is no longer alive. That’s how I see it, at least.
Okay, why don’t you go ahead and explain why thelema, one of the cults I mentioned, is abusive. And to help, here’s a comprehensive list of the rules of thelema as described by Alistair Crowley:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
That’s it. That’s the entire rules. Okay go!
I’ll bite, lol.
There are differences between the letter, the interpretation, and the on the ground practice or manifestations of any “law”. Here, the manifestations of this self proclaimed axiom lead to power imbalances, abuse, and conflict.
Without getting too deep into the issues of power dynamics and the abuse of positive and negative rights/freedoms inherent in laissez faire philosophies, Crowley’s pithy statement immediately runs into problems whenever any person’s “will” runs contrary to another’s. At that point, the person with the greater resources (be they procured through grift, gab, inheritance, hard work, or a combination of these or similar traits) will usually dictate what happens and definitely has the stronger hand.
I agree that Crowley’s philosophies and a lot of the esoteric writings and movements of the time and those that inspired them are very interesting. What we have passed down to us through record merits study/can help us learn more about human interaction and the ways in which people think.
In the case of Crowley, he was certainly afforded quite the set of silver cutlery at birth with which to lord his ideas and will over others throughout his life. That (combined with his upbringing, learned social viewpoints, and personal psychology which those informed) led to him producing manifestos and, eventually, codifying his thoughts and whims into his writings on Thelema and magical practices.
Already, when a figure shrouds their thoughts and goals in mystery and designedly inaccessible or mutable language (based on that figure’s preference at any point in time), I become wary and at least a little interested in the state of mind of such a person.
Looking into Crowley’s personal history, as I have over the years, it is apparent that he is a product of his environment and really sought to reinforce his worldviews to overcome trauma and justify his own desires. Regardless of your take on the man, I think we can all agree that he was an eccentric and someone who, today, we would call a “weirdo”.
Weird can be good, weird can be bad, but, most of all, what I see with Crowley’s eccentricities is a desire to live his life on his own terms by any means possible and to enforce his will upon others. As with any person, his eccentricities do not excuse his failed responsibilities to those he had the power to support and nurture (his family and progeny), nor does it excuse his predation on those of lesser means or will in order to further his own personal desires and goals.
Now, can we glean some good out of the ideas penned by such a troubled and eccentric figure? Sure. Any person’s work is subject to critique, interpretation, and integration into our own worldviews. Do I like the seemingly reactionary and petulant take on personal advocacy that Crowley’s philosophies can inspire? At times, I do. I see it’s value as an initial reaction that can spur further thought and introspection and I think that looking into philosophies like this has definitely broadened my own education and worldview.
What I think is most important with cult or cult like figures like this is to put everything into context and read between the lines. No reasonable, sane, or caring person is going to ask someone else to strictly adhere to standards and tenets they have not set for themselves and threaten significant consequences for nonadoption of those principles.
When you have a leader, follower, or council asking others for such rigorous adherence to their worldview or preferential dogma, it’s a good sign that you have a cult on your hands.
Edit: Cleaned this up as I had a duplicated word and an autocorrect misspelling thanks to mobile.
Okay good analysis. I’m certain Thelemites have come up with solutions to some of what you describe, but I’m not a Thelemite so I can’t say what they are.
But it seems to me that your complaint with cults is essentially that they are religions, and that religion must always be abusive. If so, I see no need to pin the abuse on the word “cult”.
Take Dalmatians. Dalmatians are black and white with spots, make for popular firefighter companions, and are all dogs. Because Dalmatians are dogs, we also know that they have four legs, fur, sensitive noses, wagging tails, and loyalty to humans. But these traits aren’t traits of being a Dalmatian, they’re traits of being a dog. If you point at a golden retriever and say “that thing has four legs and a tail! It must be a dalmatian!”, you’re wrong. It’s a dog, and it shares dogness with Dalmatians, but not dalmatian-ness.
Likewise, if your complaint with cults is that they are religions and religions are abusive, there’s no use calling religions cults just to point out their abuse. You’d be better off calling them religions.
Please peddle your AI yap elsewhere.
I’m not an AI, I’m just really good at the English language.
Cults can be small. They are not necessarily only small by definition.
If cults can be big, then there’s absolutely no difference between a religion and a cult. Personally, I define a cult as either an NRM (The more common use in the 20th century) or a local sect (the more common use in antiquity). Christianity is clearly neither. I am politically motivated not to consider Christianity a cult, because I believe it makes unjust apology for Christianity. Cults are, politically speaking, groups which have been targeted by the Satanic panic. The fact that Christianity is not a cult, and that anti-cult religious leaders have not labelled Christianity a cult, is historically important. We can’t go using words in a way that implies Christianity is the victim and confuses the history. I object to calling Christianity a cult precisely because I think ill of Christianity.
Cool story bro
It’s a cult
there is absolutely no difference between a religion and a cult
OMG, you’re starting to get it!
And they’re making an argument for using the oppressive, big business, cult’s definition of what a cult is? Lol
Personally, I define a cult as either an NRM (The more common use in the 20th century) or a local sect (the more common use in antiquity)
Sure, but that’s a fairly narrow definition that ignores a large proportion of the actual dictionary definitions.
I am politically motivated not to consider Christianity a cult, because I believe it makes unjust apology for Christianity
A somewhat subjective take that doesn’t really explain how the term cult would imply “unjust apology”
Cults are, politically speaking, groups which have been targeted by the Satanic panic
Not true, by any commonly accepted definition of the word.
The fact that Christianity is not a cult
Christianity does in fact meet many of the dictionary definitions of the word “cult”.
You could argue that the normalisation of christianity excludes if from adhering to the definitions that mention “unorthodox” or “small” but those definitions are relatively few.
and that anti-cult religious leaders have not labelled Christianity a cult, is historically important.
How so ?
Other than power and money i mean.
We can’t go using words in a way that implies Christianity is the victim and confuses the history. I object to calling Christianity a cult precisely because I think ill of Christianity.
I can’t find any reference to the word “cult” that, when applied to christianity. would absolve them of the egregious historical shitfuckery perpetrated by and for them.
Swoon lol
And her opinion on the sign only adds to it.
Haha that’s the part that made me swoon. She’s beautiful, but her ideas are what took me off my feet lol.
I would listen, rapt and locked in.
Glad I’m not the only one… She is extremely attractive
