• Raltoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      $20 says it implies “intended by god”.

      These asshats tend to try and hide their religious bias, but it comes out like this every now and then, and they often don’t realize.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 hours ago

        If god intended for women to hold eggs, but many don’t have the capability, did he fuck up?

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 hours ago

          honestly the idea of god being real but just… kinda not being very good at what he does… almost makes more sense than either him being real and perfect or not existing at all

          like up until the abrahamic religions got it in their heads that god is perfect, it was quite standard for religions to 1) see their gods as imperfect and probably kind of being mercurial assholes who you moreso try to appease than worship, and 2) not be overly worried with the existence of other religions and whether their theologies are compatible

      • slappypantsgo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        It doesn’t need to be intended by God. It can be intended by nature. It’s kind of like saying that homosexuality is unnatural because nature intended for male-female reproduction. That whole nonsense. Seems the same here.