FrostBlazer

No need to steal, they should pay out what they owe through taxes, which should be a considerably higher sum than it is currently.

This helps explain Ranked Robin better than I could, but it’s a great starting point for electing leaders from third parties and for helping to change the media landscape for winning elections.

RCV specifically is worse than say Ranked Robin voting, STAR voting, or score voting which all would make the least liked candidate winning less likely compared to RCV or FPTP.

Most countries stopped at RCV, but Ranked Robin or STAR would be a big upgrade.

Fixing the voting system is just one of the key things that needs to happen though. Education desperately needs reforms. Our media desperately needs reforms such as the Fairness Doctrine coming back and being expanded to all media and social media influencers/podcasters as well.

Choosing not to participate is how you become dominated by one of the parties, possibly the one you like the least. The way to actually be able to participate is by trying to change the system itself. By that I mean changing First Past the Post voting in each state, as this is the means through which other political parties would be able to spring up. Another option is to run for government yourself as an actor for change within one of the major political parties.

Make no mistake, changing the system is possible. Alaska and Maine have both done it already. Other states can do it too. I think trying alternative voting systems such as ranked robin voting, STAR voting, score voting, or even ranked choice voting would be a major step towards other political parties and to move away from the most the least liked candidates winning elections.

I’m not sure why this was voted down, real lasting solutions require hard work and organizing to make change. Mind you, changing the system of how we vote alone isn’t the end step, but a starting place for change.

That’s the sad truth unfortunately. I don’t even approach sarcasm these days since the absurd might take it as validity.

It’s harder to tell when people in this very chain are saying similar without any sarcasm.

It’s not an attack on you, I say as a straight cis white guy. It’s for people that are othered to not be excluded. It’s saying that every person is uniquely themself as well. How someone identifies is their identity after all. I have friends that are gay, straight, trans, and queer. If I can do little things like acknowledging my friends for who they are, then I am helping make their lives just a little bit better in an often cold and uncaring world.

I agree, since all the animals are seemingly posed as being remade on the ark and suddenly you have the first people walking the earth again after the flood.

Note: this is not a me thinking the ark exists, it’s a commentary of the story being retold.

From my perspective, the Bible should have continued to been written forward, and included pieces of the issues Christians sought to address in their current times. I think an updated one would have spoken of the poorly of the actions taken by the church and followers alike through the ages, and would have followed people trying to do good in hard times.

I’m not saying that people don’t have free will or that it’s not talked about in the Bible, but free will is not something presented as a gift, yet alone God’s greatest gift to humanity as the meme says.

From my perspective, once God set the universe in motion he has mostly taken a step back from direct action. I would say life is a test of sorts for us, to see if we can make earth resemble the good of heaven, on a humanity wide scale. But it’s also an individual test for each person’s willingness to use their obtained knowledge to still be good unto others. We are all the children of God, from my own perspective we are learning to become like God, who is the Bible is shown as loving and kind.

I would add that not every author is writing unbiased in the Bible. We know now for instance that some books near the end of the Bible attributed to Paul may not have been written by him, but by some of the people under Paul in the early church. So adding parts about women not holding positions of authority within the Church more or less served to cement their own positions and authority for the early-Christians that were formalizing the religion.

I think it’s a misread to say it gave us evil. The garden is portrayed as being a paradise with a tree of knowledge. The man and the women, as they self-identified themselves to be, were both allowed agency to be themselves and be blessed without the burden of knowledge, so long as they did not eat the forbidden fruit. Both the man and the woman independently made the conscious decision to break the rule given to them to not eat the fruit of knowledge. The actual sin was both the man and woman breaking their covenant with God, through the eating of the fruit. My take on this is that story is meant to show that God can help you and will help you, but if you choose to go against his will you have the face the consequences of that decision on your own. However, you can still seek forgiveness for your decisions and even be forgiven, but this doesn’t magically put everything back to the way things were before.

The story is more or less a cultural device to explain good and evil from the perspective of the early Israelite society. The story itself is rippled throughout the Bible in this way: God gives instructions, the people follow the instructions at first but then grow complacent, bad things happen because people stop following God’s instructions, and then one of the leaders of the tribe of Israel steps in to help get people back on the right path of following God’s instructions.

I’ll add that functionally Genesis is three serparate creation stories that were pulled into one book. Culturally, the early Israelites borrowed some of the elements of other creation stories of their time seen in other cultures such as the Babylonians. The first creation story is the seven days, the second is what we know as the story Adam and Eve, and the third was the story of the great flood.