>>13208542Following reality to the letter is an ideology that exists, it's called social Darwinism, which is what i endorse and i think is the logical outcome of non-abrahamic theology (especially Deism as it doesn't acknowledge revelation at all). However a lot would find it immoral due to out moral system being rooted in jewish rejection of nature, which has been the case pretty much since Rome converted to christianity (you have the occasional Hitler or Napoleon, and of course Nietzsche openly advocates for a rejection of jewish slave morality, but that's about it).
Theology, philosophy, ideology, politics, history, geography, morallity, science etc are pretty much all linked together, which is why it's hard for most people to get the full picture of this stuff because society encourages people to only be an expert on a single field, which creates a blind men and an elephant situation.
>>13208547I'm not saying maternal instinct is bad of course, i'm saying it might explain why christianity appeals to women or people who think like women.
In the west monogamy is a product of christianity, in Rome men could marry multiple women. Other countries might have switched to it with no influence from christianity though, i'm not sure.
Islam came after christianity and allows men to have up to 4 women. Mormonism which is also based on christianity also allows polygamy. What's interesting is that both islam and mormonism are non-jewish takes on a jewish doctrine (so, while still being rooted in jewry, they have some stuff that doesn't follow jewish morality), and they both allow polygamy. That might indicate enforcing monogamy is in fact inherent to jewish philosophy and when people of another race change jewish doctrines they usually get rid of this element.
