• 0 Posts
  • 45 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 10th, 2023
  • Classy@sh.itjust.workstoMemes@lemmy.ml•Don't blame Satan if things don't work out. It's God's plan right?
    2·
    20 days ago

    A major problem I’ve always had with that story is the fact that it is predicated on the fact that Adam and Eve acted disobediently by eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. But what is disobedience? Is disobedience a form of evil? To disobey God would be evil if it was done with knowledge, correct? How could Adam and Eve have possibly known that what they were doing was evil if they had no knowledge of such? Why would God set the situation up to necessitate that Adam and Eve would eventually disobey his wishes if they had no knowledge of good and evil, and therefore no knowledge of how their actions would have an impact or how their actions would be considered wrong. If a 2 year old disobeys their parents it’s easy to brush off their behavior as just being ignorant, and Adam and Eve are effectively like the cosmic 2-year-old, totally incapable of understanding consequences, or righteousness, or disobedience. Fundamentally, the God that created the Garden of Eden must be evil because what he did is akin to me putting an infant in a room with a loaded bear trap and telling them not to touch it. They don’t understand the consequences, nor do they really understand what commands mean. Is it really the baby’s fault for getting caught in a bear trap if I am the one with superior agency and knowledge and I was the one that set the whole thing up in the first place? Who is really the evil one here?

    God is often referred to as the Father, and if he is truly a father I would say that he fails miserably in that duty by the very fact that he put his children directly In harm’s way. Yes, it is the responsibility of the parent to put obstacles in the way of their children so that they can grow, but at the same time it is also the responsibility to protect them from grievous harm, and clearly he didn’t do this according to Genesis.

  • Classy@sh.itjust.workstoGreentext@sh.itjust.works•Anon self-improves
    4·
    24 days ago

    a script / rough idea that has/is hiding aspects of your relationship

    I guess I can respect that when one accepts a worldview that it will have an inherent impact on one’s relationships, and if one generally has views on life that are anarchistic that it would follow that they would want to seek such openness in other aspects of their life, too.

    When I describe myself as traditionalist, a lot of it is in things like, as the man in the relationship, I feel a deep desire to sacrifice financially and physically to ensure my family is well provided for, and my partner as the woman generally orients herself towards caring for our child in ways that I might not. It’s inherent to our relationship, and neither of us has talked about it nor had any issues for the times we’ve broken from these roles. That ‘traditionality’ fits us well and I feel like we do a good job raising our child compassionately but also with structure and respect.

    I ultimately don’t care what people do if they’re not hurting others. If whatever you’re doing works well for you and your partner I’m happy to hear that. I wouldn’t say I align with your views but it’s a big world, isn’t it?

  • Classy@sh.itjust.workstoGreentext@sh.itjust.works•Anon self-improves
    2·
    24 days ago

    I consider myself relatively traditional in my relationship views, even as an atheist, but I also just talk to my partner and we figure out what makes us both happy with each other and ourselves. How is this any different from “relationship anarchy” without carrying the baggage of describing my personal relationship with political philosophy? I’m a guy and I like some traditionally feminine things like cooking and sewing, but I don’t think I’m “smashing the patriarchy” for it.

  • Classy@sh.itjust.workstoGreentext@sh.itjust.works•Anon self-improves
    5·
    24 days ago

    Sounds like an unnecessary way of complicating simpler and more universal concepts like “communication” and “healthy boundaries” to me. It’s really cool if a couple comes to terms with their own personal desires in a relationship but I don’t see why we have to shove political philosophy into it.

    “I don’t want to do dishes”

    “No, you’re a modernity anarchist fighting heteronormativity!”

    Please

  • Classy@sh.itjust.workstoGreentext@sh.itjust.works•gigadee
    32·
    1 month ago

    The technologies required to deal with the logistical challenge of moving five men into position every ten seconds would be impressive. That would be 108,000 men entering and leaving the fucking area on a regular rotation for sixty hours a week, plus they’re already all pricked up and lubed.

    This doesn’t even account for the philosophical aspect which is that, does merely penetrating for ten seconds max and skedaddling really constitute of a proper, quantifiable fuck? And if that is already dubious, the grounds for the ten-second handy are even shakier. New disciplines of philosophy would have to be erected (heh) to tackle such a quandry.