NationStates Jolt Archive

When will people learn that we all are sinful and that we all are going to make mistakes, that we all are going to go out of our way to sin, that we all are going to use the sacred to support the profane?

I saw a thread about Christians being horrible because of the Crusades. Get over yourselves, really! It's not as though you have not sinned. The Christians (as a whole) have seen their sin in that venture/those ventures and have repented. That does not mean that there are not still those who claim the Christian creed or title as their own (which is not the same as being a Christian) who would not go back to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, or whatever. But Christians are still human: we will sin until death.

The atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, heathens, Satanists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Sikhists (What is the name for people who follow that ideology?), Taoists, or members of any other belief system are just as bad if not worse. We are all human and we will all sin.

It is hypocrisy to think otherwise. More than that, it is simply foolish. In a society where we are so "sophisticated" to believe that we have moved past the "barbaric" traditions of the past, we mere men still hold ancient sins against the children of today. Are you not the same people who speak of the wonders of rehabilitation and speak of second chances and required forgiveness? Are you not the same people who say that "I am I. Do not judge me by the sins of my ancestors. Do not even judge me by the me of yesterday!"?

If all you have are these ancient sins repented of for your argument, you are truly desparate.

Sin? Sorry, I reject your idea that all humans are fundamentally flawed and will always choose the bad over the good unless coerced by some invisible guy in the sky.

I don’t have a problem with Christians because of the Crusades. In fact, I don’t have a problem with Christians. I have a problem with those who ridicule my beliefs and hold back progress. Many of those people do happen to be Christians, but it is for their actions that I dislike them, not their religion.

Sin? Sorry, I reject your idea that all humans are fundamentally flawed and will always choose the bad over the good unless coerced by some invisible guy in the sky.

Whether you believe in a fundamentally flawed nature, or simply that things are done which are less pleasant than others, you must agree that this applies to all men, or all mere men at least.

How are you by the way? I haven't been here for a while. How are things going with you?

Whether you believe in a fundamentally flawed nature, or simply that things are done which are less pleasant than others, you must agree that this applies to all men, or all mere men at least.

I agree that it applies to all people. I reject antiquated notions of refering to humans collectively as "men"

Sin? Sorry, I reject your idea that all humans are fundamentally flawed and will always choose the bad over the good unless coerced by some invisible guy in the sky.

I reject that idea, too. Not even the invisible guy in the sky can correct humans' fundamental flaws. Just look at them today.

I agree that it applies to all people. I reject antiquated notions of refering to humans collectively as "men"

Well, I prefer such "antiquated notions"

But aside from preferences...

Whether you believe in a fundamentally flawed nature, or simply that things are done which are less pleasant than others, you must agree that this applies to all men, or all mere men at least.

How are you by the way? I haven't been here for a while. How are things going with you?

No. You said "We are all human and we will all sin," as if being human and sinning (doing wrong) were one and the same. I reject that categorically. The concept of sin has done more harm to the human race than almost anything I can think of.

As for how I am, do we know each other?

I agree that it applies to all people. I reject antiquated notions of refering to humans collectively as "men"

And I reject your pro-PC revisionist claptrap.

I am incapable of sin. If then implies that I am perfect, then so be it: I am perfect.

We all sin, its just matter how a person handles it. What I don't understand is how people know they sin and are proud of it. Some even mock Allah while they do this. I just dont understand that.

No. You said "We are all human and we will all sin," as if being human and sinning (doing wrong) were one and the same. I reject that categorically. The concept of sin has done more harm to the human race than almost anything I can think of.

Well, I'm sorry you think that. I think the disbelief in sin is one of the worst things to come out of the human race.

As for how I am, do we know each other?

Does anyone really know anyone on here?

I posted for a while and created a rather unlikable reputation (or rather others created such a reputation of me) and I'm starting over under a new name, trying to more accurately reflect my personality: being more myself rather than masking everything under some warped form of etiquette.

It depend on your idea for "sin"...

If you consider "sin" another definition to "evil", maybe yes... We all "sin"...

If you consider "sin" as going against the will of "god", whoever he\she is, then things are different...

Christian religion, used fear to gain power... In past christinianity killed people not only for being of another religion (As in the Crusades case...) but also for heresy and political gains... (And consider the number of scientist that was accursed of heresy and are now considered foundament of modern science...)

As well now even without the force of fear, christians priests tend to get involved into matter that doesn't belong to them forcing prejudice on peoples...

Those are no "sin", those are forceful imposition on other lives and without the "fear for divine retribution" the least christians should expect is the hate of the one that suffered because of them...

BTW: other religions do the same, still christians do it better...

And I reject your pro-PC revisionist claptrap.

so then you think only those with a penis count?

How uncivilized.

We all sin, its just matter how a person handles it. What I don't understand is how people know they sin and are proud of it. Some even mock Allah while they do this. I just dont understand that.

because there is no divine punishment for "sin" and Allah is a lie?

What I don't understand is how people know they sin and are proud of it. Some even mock Allah while they do this. I just dont understand that.

I understand, but I don't understand.

Same happens with Jesus. The "F*** God! If He's like that, He doesn't deserve my worship!" thing. I hate that with my very being (thank God that I do) and I can't think of any more heart-wrenching moment for me than when I read those words for the first time. :(

“Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).” Robert A Heinlein

Whether you believe in a fundamentally flawed nature, or simply that things are done which are less pleasant than others, you must agree that this applies to all men, or all mere men at least.


What scientific test qualifies a man as "mere"?

I understand, but I don't understand.

Same happens with Jesus. The "F*** God! If He's like that, He doesn't deserve my worship!" thing. I hate that with my very being (thank God that I do) and I can't think of any more heart-wrenching moment for me than when I read those words for the first time. :(

frankly, that version of god doesn't deserve my worship. I find it ironic that you "thank god" for hate.

Well, I'm sorry you think that. I think the disbelief in sin is one of the worst things to come out of the human race.



Does anyone really know anyone on here?

I posted for a while and created a rather unlikable reputation (or rather others created such a reputation of me) and I'm starting over under a new name, trying to more accurately reflect my personality: being more myself rather than masking everything under some warped form of etiquette.

Here's why I feel the way I do. Suppose a human parent were to subject his or her children to a constant barrage of "You're a bad, bad child, you'll never be perfect enough, you'll never live up to my desires for you, you'll always be back-sliding and doing wrong, but if you worship me and pray to me and always tell me how glad you are to be my child, I'll let you live." What do you think would happen to that parent? I'm thinking therapy and loss of custody and maybe even jail time. But because you read this in some ancient documents based on the tribal history stories of a nomadic desert tribe, you've decided it's a truth for the ages.

Not me, sorry.

What scientific test qualifies a man as "mere"?

Whatever is Man and Man alone: Jesus was fully God and fully Man. There are things like that in other religions as well: daemons and such.

So, no scientific test, really.

Rejecting the "notion of sin" is skirting around the point the original poster was making, I think. This isn't a topic about how everyone does "something wrong in the eyes of God," it's about how everyone does "something wrong" once in a while at the very least.

If you claim to have no concept of morality whatsoever, you're either lying or failing to understand that morality can be dictated by many things - including "the good of society." If you continue to say that you have no morals, as such... well, then, I hope I never sit next to you in a class or drive near you on the road. :)

frankly, that version of god doesn't deserve my worship. I find it ironic that you "thank god" for hate.

Well, I ought to hate sin, and it is only by the grace of God that I do anything I ought to do, so I ought to thank Him.

Now if I were hating anything, anything at all which were not sin, I would be in sin myself.

“Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).” Robert A Heinlein

But when you hurt yourself it causes others to worry over you. Stress caused by worry can be hurtful.

Well, I ought to hate sin, and it is only by the grace of God that I do anything I ought to do, so I ought to thank Him.

Now if I were hating anything, anything at all which were not sin, I would be in sin myself.

convenient loophole you've managed to try and slip through there, isn't it?

Awfully convenient that a lot of things that people tend to hate apparently are "sin" (homosexuality for example), so, after all, they're just hating the sin, and that all justifies it.

Rejecting the "notion of sin" is skirting around the point the original poster was making, I think. This isn't a topic about how everyone does "something wrong in the eyes of God," it's about how everyone does "something wrong" once in a while at the very least.

If you claim to have no concept of morality whatsoever, you're either lying or failing to understand that morality can be dictated by many things - including "the good of society." If you continue to say that you have no morals, as such... well, then, I hope I never sit next to you in a class or drive near you on the road. :)

Rejecting the Judeo-Christian (Western) notion of sin is not equivalent to rejecting morality. There certainly can be - there is morality without "God" or "Allah" or any imaginary friend. I reject the notion implied in the idea of sin that the human race is flawed at its base, despite what we see people do to each other every day in the news.

But when you hurt yourself it causes others to worry over you. Stress caused by worry can be hurtful.

And looking at it from a societal point of view, self-harming activities land people in tax-funded hospitals. I pay taxes. I sure as heck don't want to be paying so that people with self-destructive behaviours can waste my money. So in that sense, I'd call hurting yourself to be wrong.

so then you think only those with a penis count?

How uncivilized.

Cute. But it still doesn't make the use of "Men" as a collctive for mankind any less useful...or valid.

Well, I ought to hate sin, and it is only by the grace of God that I do anything I ought to do, so I ought to thank Him.

Circular reasoning.

The only sin is stupidity, anyway. At least in My religion. Then again, in My religion I'm the God, the Prophet, the Saviour, and the only worshipper, so feel free to dismiss my words just because I believe in an alternate religion.

because there is no divine punishment for "sin" and Allah is a lie?

Why are you filled with contempt and anger of the Almighty? I find it funny because your the type of person the Qur'an warns against. In a way its people like you that strengthen my faith.

convenient loophole you've managed to try and slip through there, isn't it?

Awfully convenient that a lot of things that people tend to hate apparently are "sin" (homosexuality for example), so, after all, they're just hating the sin, and that all justifies it.

Well, there's always the difference between the person and what that person has done. My grandfather committed adultery several times. I hate what he did very much (to be completely honest, that is usually an easy thing to hate) but I love him very much.

Another example: I am a homosexual. I hate that part of my life, that perversion of that part of my life. But I don't hate myself. Granted, I can be very angry with myself, but it's more an anger of pity than of anything else.

Rejecting the "notion of sin" is skirting around the point the original poster was making, I think. This isn't a topic about how everyone does "something wrong in the eyes of God," it's about how everyone does "something wrong" once in a while at the very least.

If you claim to have no concept of morality whatsoever, you're either lying or failing to understand that morality can be dictated by many things - including "the good of society." If you continue to say that you have no morals, as such... well, then, I hope I never sit next to you in a class or drive near you on the road. :)

rejecting the notion of sin is not the same as rejecting the notion of morality.

On the contrary, those who act like decent human beings because it's just the right thing to do are far more moral than than those who avoid "sin" out of fear of punishment, and thus do good only for self preservation

And looking at it from a societal point of view, self-harming activities land people in tax-funded hospitals. I pay taxes. I sure as heck don't want to be paying so that people with self-destructive behaviours can waste my money. So in that sense, I'd call hurting yourself to be wrong.

Where would you rather have those people? Out on the streets harming the people without self-destructive behaviors?

Why are you filled with contempt and anger of the Almighty? I find it funny because your the type of person the Qur'an warns against. In a way its people like you that strengthen my faith.

Yeah, I am the kind of person the Qur'an warns agains, a jew.

And to answer your question seriously, I have neither contempt nor anger towards god, that would require a belief in it.

You can not hate what you do not believe to exist. It would be as illogical as me hating unicorns.

Those uppity horned bitches

Where would you rather have those people? Out on the streets harming the people without self-destructive behaviors?

Wooooooosh, Over your head.

Wooooooosh, Over your head.

Really? Okay, it's late in the day. :p

Cute. But it still doesn't make the use of "Men" as a collctive for mankind any less useful...or valid.

and again you consider "mankind" to be a valid word.

Again why do you only count those with a penis?

Rejecting the Judeo-Christian (Western) notion of sin is not equivalent to rejecting morality. There certainly can be - there is morality without "God" or "Allah" or any imaginary friend. I reject the notion implied in the idea of sin that the human race is flawed at its base, despite what we see people do to each other every day in the news.

I agree that by rejecting the "Western" notion of sin isn't necessarily rejecting morality - but I don't think that the point made that "everyone does wrong things" isn't worth being taken into consideration because someone doesn't believe in that concept of sin. So posts like "I reject the concept of people with penises being the only oens who matter" or "I reject your religious notion of sin" are kind of fruitless to this discussion, in my opinion.

Out of curiousity, why DO you reject the notion that humanity is inherently "flawed?" I think that it's a reasonable assessment, based on years of human history and its own inability to live up to its standards, be they secular or religious. Even athiests embrace "no one's perfect." I'd like to think that individuals have the ability to live up to every little moral and ethical standard, but I don't realistically think that that ever happens.

Yeah, I am the kind of person the Qur'an warns agains, a jew.

And to answer your question seriously, I have neither contempt nor anger towards god, that would require a belief in it.

You can not hate what you do not believe to exist. It would be as illogical as me hating unicorns.

Those uppity horned bitches

You're a jew?

Yeah, I am the kind of person the Qur'an warns agains, a jew.

And to answer your question seriously, I have neither contempt nor anger towards god, that would require a belief in it.

You can not hate what you do not believe to exist. It would be as illogical as me hating unicorns.

Those uppity horned bitches

Watch it, some of my best friends are unicorns. No, wait, some of my best friends have corns ... yeah, that's it.

Side question - something came up in my last post saying that it must be reviewed by a moderator before it can be posted - is that usual? That's never happened to me before.

So we all "sin". Maybe, depending on what you consider a sin. Like lying, everyone tells lies. Like when some one asks "How are you?" and you say "fine" even when you aren't really fine.

I agree that by rejecting the "Western" notion of sin isn't necessarily rejecting morality - but I don't think that the point made that "everyone does wrong things"

Well what do you want me to say to that? What response to the statement "everybody does wrong things" is appropriate? Will "duh" suffice?

Out of curiousity, why DO you reject the notion that humanity is inherently "flawed?"

How do you define flaw? Flaw compared to what? How do you say something is broken if you have no unbroken sample to compare?

When will people learn that we all are sinful and that we all are going to make mistakes, that we all are going to go out of our way to sin, that we all are going to use the sacred to support the profane?

I saw a thread about Christians being horrible because of the Crusades. Get over yourselves, really! It's not as though you have not sinned. The Christians (as a whole) have seen their sin in that venture/those ventures and have repented. That does not mean that there are not still those who claim the Christian creed or title as their own (which is not the same as being a Christian) who would not go back to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, or whatever. But Christians are still human: we will sin until death.

The atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, heathens, Satanists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Sikhists (What is the name for people who follow that ideology?), Taoists, or members of any other belief system are just as bad if not worse. We are all human and we will all sin.

It is hypocrisy to think otherwise. More than that, it is simply foolish. In a society where we are so "sophisticated" to believe that we have moved past the "barbaric" traditions of the past, we mere men still hold ancient sins against the children of today. Are you not the same people who speak of the wonders of rehabilitation and speak of second chances and required forgiveness? Are you not the same people who say that "I am I. Do not judge me by the sins of my ancestors. Do not even judge me by the me of yesterday!"?

If all you have are these ancient sins repented of for your argument, you are truly desparate.

*death by irony*

You're a jew?

your point?

rejecting the notion of sin is not the same as rejecting the notion of morality.

On the contrary, those who act like decent human beings because it's just the right thing to do are far more moral than than those who avoid "sin" out of fear of punishment, and thus do good only for self preservation

Yes, they are far more moral. But you're generalizing a bit too much if you think that everyone who follows a moral code based on religious teachings is doing so to avoid punishment. I think that can happen religiously and secularly - there's a fear of hell or damnation or what have you, but there's also people who "live good lives" in order to stay out of jail, not get in trouble, and generally make their lives smoother. I'd call that a fear of punishment just the same - it's just that it's corporeal, instead of being based in a notion of the afterlife.

I agree that by rejecting the "Western" notion of sin isn't necessarily rejecting morality - but I don't think that the point made that "everyone does wrong things" isn't worth being taken into consideration because someone doesn't believe in that concept of sin. So posts like "I reject the concept of people with penises being the only oens who matter" or "I reject your religious notion of sin" are kind of fruitless to this discussion, in my opinion.

Out of curiousity, why DO you reject the notion that humanity is inherently "flawed?" I think that it's a reasonable assessment, based on years of human history and its own inability to live up to its standards, be they secular or religious. Even athiests embrace "no one's perfect." I'd like to think that individuals have the ability to live up to every little moral and ethical standard, but I don't realistically think that that ever happens.

Why? Because even with all the mayhem and destruction, there's more beauty come out of humanity than horror. The horror tends to be concentrated, the beauty more spread out over time, so it's much easier to pick out the bad things humans have done. No, humans aren't perfect, of course not, but I think most people will choose to do a kind thing, a good thing, over doing the opposite.

your point?

Do you have a grudge against Muslims?

and again you consider "mankind" to be a valid word.

Again why do you only count those with a penis?

I like it better when people say mankind. Instead of saying mankind and womankind. As if womankind was just an after thought.
Though better still is the word human.

Do you have a grudge against Muslims?

only those who have a grudge against me. Frankly I'm largely indifferent towards ones religion.

I do have a general intollerance towards bigoted assholes, regardless of whether they believe in a diety, and how they conceive of it if they do.

Do you have a grudge against jews?

I like it better when people say mankind. Instead of saying mankind and womankind. As if womankind was just an after thought.
Though better still is the word human.

"Human," yes. It's an easy enough habit to get into, substituting "human" or "humanity" for "mankind" or "man." And it isn't pro-PC claptrap. It's simply a matter of being thoughtful, is all.

I agree that it applies to all people. I reject antiquated notions of refering to humans collectively as "men"
He must mean the older definition, by which all humans were called men.

Rejecting the Judeo-Christian (Western) notion of sin is not equivalent to rejecting morality.
Why do people always put Judaism and Christianity together and not Islam? That had no less impact on western history, in fact probably more than Judaism.

Well what do you want me to say to that? What response to the statement "everybody does wrong things" is appropriate? Will "duh" suffice?



How do you define flaw? Flaw compared to what? How do you say something is broken if you have no unbroken sample to compare?

"Duh" should suffice, yes. I was making the point that rejecting the point Chietuste was making simply because of his syntax was a bit silly.

Flaw compared to the ideal that society and law create - the flawless human, never breaking the moral code of the society. There is no real sample to compare to (though you can have varying levels on the spectrum, obviously), but I would say that's what the concept of a flawed human is compared to.

Yes, they are far more moral. But you're generalizing a bit too much if you think that everyone who follows a moral code based on religious teachings is doing to to avoid punishment. I think that can happen religiously and secularly - there's a fear of hell or damnation or what have you, but there's also people who "live good lives" in order to stay out of jail, not get in trouble, and generally make their lives smoother. I'd call that a fear of punishment just the same - it's just that it's corporeal, instead of being based in a notion of the afterlife.

well certainly, many religious folks do good things because it's good things, not to avoid sin.

Likewise if I see you walk down the street and you drop your groceries, I won't steal them from you because I fear prison. But I have no legal obligation to help you and can walk right by without fear of any punishment what so ever.

I'll still help you out though, even though I have no fear of what will happen if I don't.

He must mean the older definition, by which all humans were called men.

Yes.

Why do people always put Judaism and Christianity together and not Islam? That had no less impact on western history, in fact probably more than Judaism.

Good point. I don't know. We could call all three of them the Desert Religions, because that's what their ultimate foundation is, the religous belief of people who would these days be called Beduins or - dare I say it? Arabs.

"Duh" should suffice, yes. I was making the point that rejecting the point Chietuste was making simply because of his syntax was a bit silly.

Well yes, but I think most people internally went "duh" to themselves and moved on to discussion that can actually be...well...discussed.

Flaw compared to the ideal that society and law create - the flawless human, never breaking the moral code of the society. There is no real sample to compare to (though you can have varying levels on the spectrum, obviously), but I would say that's what the concept of a flawed human is compared to.

If you defined unflawed as one who never breaks the moral code then yes, all humans are flawed, but I find that to be a rather self fulfilling definition.

In other words, if you define "breaking the moral code" as a flaw it works, but the question becomes, WHY is that a flaw?

Why? Because even with all the mayhem and destruction, there's more beauty come out of humanity than horror. The horror tends to be concentrated, the beauty more spread out over time, so it's much easier to pick out the bad things humans have done. No, humans aren't perfect, of course not, but I think most people will choose to do a kind thing, a good thing, over doing the opposite.

Well. That's my feel-good response of the day. And I don't mean that in a bad way at all. That legitimately made me smile.

I think I agree, idealistically... but it's difficult for me to overlook the horror that can seem as equally spread out, at times - couples fighting in the room over, road rage on the street, someone flipping you the bird... very minor things, but sometimes it's easy to focus on them and get pessimistic about humanity in general - the big things, like wars and mass murders and other things, aside.

Good point. I don't know. We could call all three of them the Desert Religions, because that's what their ultimate foundation is, the religous belief of people who would these days be called Beduins or - dare I say it? Arabs.

As well as I recall Muslim recognize the advent of the nazareth one but didn't consider it as "son of god"...

Maybe I'm wrong...

Yes.

well, in case you haven't noticed, it's the 21st century now (a good 7, or 8 depending on perspective, years into it by now).

Most modern folks have moved past such antiquated usage. You know, like calling black folks niggers in casual conversation.

only those who have a grudge against me.


I was wondering, because you seem to really not like me very much and I was jut wondering if it was because of my faith.


Do you have a grudge against jews?

Only those who support israel

Good point. I don't know. We could call all three of them the Desert Religions, because that's what their ultimate foundation is, the religous belief of people who would these days be called Beduins or - dare I say it? Arabs.

*GASP*:eek:

Burn, Heathen! Burn!

That's the problem with so many people, including me, though I am less guilty than most: a Christian must look this way, and be from this kind of home, and wear these clothes.... Same with other religions.

Jews and Arabs share the same ancestry! Get over it!

Christians are the spritual heirs of the Jews! Get over it!

Islam is an heir of Christianity! Get over it!

I was wondering, because you seem to really not like me very much and I was jut wondering if it was because of my faith.

No, mainly because you're an asshole. Your "faith", or rather how it comes to be expressed, merely reinforces that. There are plenty of non asshole muslims, and i respect them just fine. You're not one of them however

Only those who support israel

ipso facto.

If you defined unflawed as one who never breaks the moral code then yes, all humans are flawed, but I find that to be a rather self fulfilling definition.

In other words, if you define "breaking the moral code" as a flaw it works, but the question becomes, WHY is that a flaw?

I think it would be a flaw, in general, because the "moral code" is in place (typically) to provide incentive for not harming one another in any way. In general, breaking the moral code equates to the breaker doing harm to another in some way - either directly, through murder or theft or some such - or indirectly, through wasting tax dollars or making an environment more hostile for others.

well, in case you haven't noticed, it's the 21st century now (a good 7, or 8 depending on perspective, years into it by now).

Most modern folks have moved past such antiquated usage. You know, like calling black folks niggers in casual conversation.

Really? Thank you for informing me! I'll have to amend my ways immediately!

Sarcasm aside, have you ever read 1984?

It's a good example of how language affects thought and thought affects language. So, it is only natural that as I embrace traidional ideas I would adopt more traditional language, which would encourage the investigation of more traditional ideas, which in turn....

I think it would be a flaw, in general, because the "moral code" is in place (typically) to provide incentive for not harming one another in any way. In general, breaking the moral code equates to the breaker doing harm to another in some way - either directly, through murder or theft or some such - or indirectly, through wasting tax dollars or making an environment more hostile for others.

if I tell a girl "no you look great in that" when in fact she looks a bit frumpy, I have lied.

Is that a flaw? Is that immoral?

Really? Thank you for informing me! I'll have to amend my ways immediately!

Sarcasm aside, have you ever read 1984?

It's a good example of how language affects thought and thought affects language. So, it is only natural that as I embrace traidional ideas I would adopt more traditional language, which would encourage the investigation of more traditional ideas, which in turn....

Many times. You prove my point. Refering to humanity as "mankind" enforces the idea that it's the men who count, which in turn encourages a particular set of views i find repugnant.

Which is why most polite people have rejected the notion.

if I tell a girl "no you look great in that" when in fact she looks a bit frumpy, I have lied.

Is that a flaw? Is that immoral?

It depend on WHY you told that...

If it was to "be nice" is simply hypocrit...

If it was to hit on her is simply natural...

if I tell a girl "no you look great in that" when in fact she looks a bit frumpy, I have lied.

Is that a flaw? Is that immoral?

Well, depends on your point of view and your "code." It's hardly against the law anywhere I know of. As far as MY personal code of ethics is concerned, I'd feel a bit iffy about it... I feel like I have a responsibility to my friends to let them know how I really feel or think about something. If I think that the girl would make a fool out of herself in public because of bad clothing choice, I'd probably let her know. A moment of irritation or sadness is better than, say, finding out later what I REALLY thought and having the girl REALIZE she was lied to.

Hah, that said, I'm kind of blowing your point out of proportion... as far as "little white lies" go, sometimes a little artful tact is much better than cold hard truth. :)

Well. That's my feel-good response of the day. And I don't mean that in a bad way at all. That legitimately made me smile.

I think I agree, idealistically... but it's difficult for me to overlook the horror that can seem as equally spread out, at times - couples fighting in the room over, road rage on the street, someone flipping you the bird... very minor things, but sometimes it's easy to focus on them and get pessimistic about humanity in general - the big things, like wars and mass murders and other things, aside.

Always nice to make someone smile.

It is easy to see the minor bad things, you have to look a little harder for the minor good things ... the stranger going knee-deep in the snow to help push someone's car out, the drivers who don't run red lights of flip the bird but just yield the right of way, the person who steps aside on a snow-narrowed sidewalk to let a runner pass (we've had a lot of snow here lately), the person who finds a money order on the ground and goes to the trouble of mailing it to the address on it (and gets a nice little note back as a reward).

Hey, put me behind the wheel of my vehicle and I do a very good Jekyll-Hyde imitation. I find, however, that not letting it get to me makes for far fewer headaches.

Many times. You prove my point. Refering to humanity as "mankind" enforces the idea that it's the men who count, which in turn encourages a particular set of views i find repugnant.

Which is why most polite people have rejected the notion.

Emphasis on most.

Because it could also support the idea that it is the men who are in charge, who are the corporate heads, as Adam, and that it is the women are their helpers, as Eve. An idea which is not the same as an idea which says that men only matter; that women do not.

Of course, you would probably reject that idea as antiquated if not evil.

Refering to humanity as "mankind" enforces the idea that it's the men who countThat's preposterous, it enforces no such idea.
Would you really prefer "personkind", or dare I suggest, "hupersonity"? :headbang:

(btw You have the dubious honour of being the first person in 2193 posts to drive me to using that smiley)

"Humankind" would work, I think. Not that I personally care about the semantics, but hey. :)

Emphasis on most.

Because it could also support the idea that it is the men who are in charge, who are the corporate heads, as Adam, and that it is the women are their helpers, as Eve. An idea which is not the same as an idea which says that men only matter; that women do not.

Of course, you would probably reject that idea as antiquated if not evil.

Hmmmmmm, any men here ever had a female boss?

Hmmmmmm, any men here ever had a female boss?

Yes.

Emphasis on most.

Because it could also support the idea that it is the men who are in charge, who are the corporate heads, as Adam, and that it is the women are their helpers, as Eve. An idea which is not the same as an idea which says that men only matter; that women do not.

Of course, you would probably reject that idea as antiquated if not evil.

It depends. Will they let me ride their unicorn?

It depends. Will they let me ride their unicorn?

If there were a unicorn, I would let you ride it.



But not if you're using "ride" to mean "have sex with"

Emphasis on most.

Because it could also support the idea that it is the men who are in charge, who are the corporate heads, as Adam, and that it is the women are their helpers, as Eve. An idea which is not the same as an idea which says that men only matter; that women do not.

Of course, you would probably reject that idea as antiquated if not evil.

no...I consider it pretty damned evil in and of itself.

no...I consider it pretty damned evil in and of itself.

I thought you didn't believe in damnation.

That's preposterous, it enforces no such idea.
Would you really prefer "personkind", or dare I suggest, "hupersonity"? :headbang:

(btw You have the dubious honour of being the first person in 2193 posts to drive me to using that smiley)

"humanity" or "humankind" works just fine.

I thought you didn't believe in damnation.

I do, however, believe in colorful use of profanity when it suits me.

I do, however, believe in colorful use of profanity when it suits me.

"Damned" isn't very colorful, in my opinion.

"Damned" isn't very colorful, in my opinion.

would you prefer "fucking evil" instead?

"humanity" or "humankind" works just fine.

I prefer Human Beings... It seem more poetical...

I prefer Human Beings... It seem more poetical...

sure, but we were more discussing terms in the collective. "Human beings" works when you're discussing groups, but if you're talking about the totality of human beings, you have to say "all human beings" or just "humanity".

would you prefer "fucking evil" instead?

No, that word isn't very colorful either, but it is disgusting. Even the sound of the word is disgusting. "Short u's" shouldn't be a sound, much less when followed by a velar stop.

Some Shakespearean curse is what I would call colorful.

and again you consider "mankind" to be a valid word.

Again why do you only count those with a penis?

I don't. "Mankind" means all members of the species Homo Sapiens - and no amount of PC propaganda can change that.

I don't. "Mankind" means all members of the species Homo Sapiens - and no amount of PC propaganda can change that.


Then praytell why is it "MANkind"?

sure, but we were more discussing terms in the collective. "Human beings" works when you're discussing groups, but if you're talking about the totality of human beings, you have to say "all human beings" or just "humanity".

"All We Human Beings" Sound great...

Setting jokes aside I agree with you to the need that humankind need to learn to use terms that are valid for both sex...

Thinking a little more about how we speech will allow us also to think a little more about what we speech...

Then praytell why is it "MANkind"?

Because our ancestors weren't as oversensitive to small and meaningless details as so many of us today are. So, in English, "Man" has two meanings: a male of the species Homo Sapiens, and the species Homo Sapiens as a whole.

Because our ancestors weren't as oversensitive to small and meaningless details as so many of us today are. So, in English, "Man" has two meanings: a male of the species Homo Sapiens, and the species Homo Sapiens as a whole.

well if a word has two meanings in such a way, shall we invert it? Would you be just as comfortable if everyone started saying "womankind"? For some reason I doubt it. And if it's oh so small and meaningless, why do you INSIST on using it so much? For something so small and meaningless as a simple word you sure do put up a good fight. Methinks you doth protest too much.

And you're one of those "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman" types aren't you?

Apparently you missed the day when we all learned that languages change.

Apparently you missed the day when we all learned that languages change.

There is a difference between words changing and concepts changing. The people defending marriage are fighting against the change of a concept, not against the change of a word.

There is a difference between words changing and concepts changing. The people defending marriage are fighting against the change of a concept, not against the change of a word.

Which makes it even worse as a concept is a rather ephemeral thing and oft prone to change all by itself.

There is a difference between words changing and concepts changing. The people defending marriage are fighting against the change of a concept, not against the change of a word.

No, the people "defending" marriage are unclear on the concept. Marriage is a contract, nothing more.

No, the people "defending" marriage are unclear on the concept. Marriage is a contract, nothing more.

Strongly Agreeing.

No, the people "defending" marriage are unclear on the concept. Marriage is a contract, nothing more.

So they say, and in many cases, sadly, so it is.

What it is supposed to be is a union between a man and a woman with a commitment made between one another and to God that they will be faithful to one another and that they will build each other up in Christ, that they will hold each other accountable, and that they will raise the next generation to be God-fearing.

well if a word has two meanings in such a way, shall we invert it? Would you be just as comfortable if everyone started saying "womankind"? For some reason I doubt it.

And you're one of those "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman" types aren't you?

Apparently you missed the day when we all learned that languages change.

Actually, it wouldn't bother me much at all. I am not defined by terms. But I would not like it, because it is yet another unnecessary change.

As to the "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman", bit, no, I don't support that at all. Why do you assume that all conservatives are also out of touch with their basic humanity? I don't like change for change's sake. If it will honestly help people, that's another question entirely.

And yes, languages change. I simply oppose changes that make the language clumsier, less exact and more verbose. I see no good from Political Correctness, for anyone. By hiding the actual issues beneath layers of doublespeak, we avoid actually dealing with them.

Which makes it even worse as a concept is a rather ephemeral thing and oft prone to change all by itself.

Doesn't work. I found a flaw in my post: words are concepts. They are abstract. There is no connection between the sounds produced when we say the word marriage, the spelling of the word, and the idea represented by those sounds and symbols.

What they are trying to do is say that this idea is better than this one and are trying to maintain in society that the former idea is better than the latter and that the society ought to according to the former idea.

Why do you assume that all conservatives are also out of touch with their basic humanity?

all? No. You? Yes.

I simply oppose changes that make the language clumsier, less exact and more verbose.

How is refering to human beings in the collective as "human beings" clumsier, less exact, or more verbose?

Similarly how is refering to human beings in the collective as "MANkind" MORE exact, or less clumsy? If anything I think a general term "man" which means both man, and people, as opposed to "man" meaning man and "human" meaning human, would be the more precise, less prone to misunderstanding, and thus far less "clumsy" version.

I see no good from Political Correctness, for anyone. By hiding the actual issues beneath layers of doublespeak, we avoid actually dealing with them.

How is it "hiding" the issue in the slightest? My "issue" is that i think the term "mankind" diminishes women, even if unintentional, that's the issue. And by dealing with it I suggest we stop using the fucking word and instead use something more appropriate.

Really, are you always this obtuse?

What it is supposed to be is a union between a man and a woman with a commitment made between one another and to God that they will be faithful to one another and that they will build each other up in Christ, that they will hold each other accountable, and that they will raise the next generation to be God-fearing.

That is no more than a contract...

Without considering about your christian vision of the thing, you should second that doing that in presence of a priest and others reflect the act of subscribe a contract in presence of a judge as well as witness allowing one part to enforce the other to respect the contract if the case...

Also "civil" marriage is simply a contract to allow the partner to not suffer economically if one die...

Doesn't work. I found a flaw in my post: words are concepts. They are abstract. There is no connection between the sounds produced when we say the word marriage, the spelling of the word, and the idea represented by those sounds and symbols.

What they are trying to do is say that this idea is better than this one and are trying to maintain in society that the former idea is better than the latter and that the society ought to according to the former idea.

then you missed all the "let them have civil unions, but don't call it marriage as that's our word" bullshit that's been thrown around?

then you missed all the "let them have civil unions, but don't call it marriage as that's our word" bullshit that's been thrown around?

I haven't missed it.

I think that there should be marriage (as defined by Evangelical Christianity) or nothing.

I haven't missed it.

I think that there should be marriage (as defined by Evangelical Christianity) or nothing.

you must have also missed the first amendment.

you must have also missed the first amendment.

Well, you're assuming that the Constitution matters, which it really doesn't in determining what ought to be. And that phrase "separation of Church and state" (which by the way does not appear in the Constitution) can mean many things and was taken out of context to support something which the framers of the Constitution did not support. It wasn't even quoted from one of the framers: Thomas Jefferson wrote it to a church assuring them that these rights were not guaranteed by the state, but by God. And he was in Paris; he did not help to write the Constitution.

Well, you're assuming that the Constitution matters, which it really doesn't in determining what ought to be.

It is the supreme law of the land and as such matters a whole lot more in governing law than your personal belief.

And that phrase "separation of Church and state" (which by the way does not appear in the Constitution) can mean many things and was taken out of context to support something which the framers of the Constitution did not support. It wasn't even quoted from one of the framers: Thomas Jefferson wrote it to a church assuring them that these rights were not guaranteed by the state, but by God. And he was in Paris; he did not help to write the Constitution.

And backed up by decades of precident...just because someone who didn't write the constitution said it doesn't actually make him wrong.

It is the supreme law of the land and as such matters a whole lot more in governing law than your personal belief.

It is the word of mere men, and therefore just as valuable as my word.

And backed up by decades of precident...just because someone who didn't write the constitution said it doesn't actually make him wrong.

No, it doesn't make it wrong. But when we are trying to interpret the Consitution in light of the original intent of the framers (which, according to your blessed Constitution, is what the Supreme Court ought to do, interpret the law, not make or twist it) they should reference the framers, not someone else.

How is refering to human beings in the collective as "human beings" clumsier, less exact, or more verbose?

Similarly how is refering to human beings in the collective as "MANkind" MORE exact, or less clumsy? If anything I think a general term "man" which means both man, and people, as opposed to "man" meaning man and "human" meaning human, would be the more precise, less prone to misunderstanding, and thus far less "clumsy" version.

Using two words where one was previously acceptable is clearly more verbose. Likewise, the use of three syllables instead of one is clumsier and less elegant. As to precision, one of the strengths of English is that meaning is almost entirely dependent upon context, and the proper use therof. If absolute precision is needed, we can drop back to loan terms from Latin or Greek.


How is it "hiding" the issue in the slightest? My "issue" is that i think the term "mankind" diminishes women, even if unintentional, that's the issue. And by dealing with it I suggest we stop using the fucking word and instead use something more appropriate.

Really, are you always this obtuse?

I am not being "obtuse" at all - that term means deliberately remaining ignorant of the other person's argument. I am being stubborn. I understand your argument - I simply reject it.

As to how the use of PC terminology hides the real issues - well, the obvious point is monetary compensation for labour. The PC crowd is forever on the lookout for any use of "mankind", "man" as collective, "chairman", "ombudsman" etc., while utterly ignoring the fact that women are still being paid only 75% of their male colleagues on average, that women still have to deal with glass ceilings, that women cannot serve in combat arms. Do these inequities stir outrage? No. But let one politician use "Man" instead of "Human" and observe the furore.

Political Correctness helps no one, and harms both our language AND the struggle for equality. It would be better for all involved to grow a thicker skin and start to actually deal with the situation as it is, rather than the fantasy world PC terms would have us see it as.

No. You said "We are all human and we will all sin," as if being human and sinning (doing wrong) were one and the same. I reject that categorically. The concept of sin has done more harm to the human race than almost anything I can think of.

As for how I am, do we know each other?

How has the concept of sin done any harm to the human race? I totally DISAGREE with you! Firstly, as we are humans, WE WILL SIN! If we did not sin, we would be perfect! Think of Nero, Caesar, Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, etc.! Think how "perfect" they were! They slaughtered innocent people! Was that NOT wrong?! If you are correct, killing people in cold blood is absolutely fine, as well as robbery, assault, rape, kidnapping, etc. In fact, according to you, laws only exist to help the survival of the human race. Isn't it coincidental that these are things outlawed on principle by religion? Secondly, the concept of sin has NOT done more harm to humanity than almost anything! Think of major world powers in history: Eqypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, and Rome (all of which had Pagan religions) fell millenia ago. But nations such as Israel, Britian, France, America, etc. were founded on Judeo-Christian Principles and still hold strong. Also note that the loss of respect and power for the US coincides with the diluting of Christianity. Without the concept of sin, humanity would choke itself to destruction. Everything that gives you the rights and freedoms you have would be impossible without an understanding of sin.

and again you consider "mankind" to be a valid word.

Again why do you only count those with a penis?

Short linguistics lesson. It was taken, actually, from elsewhere on the NS boards.

Latin root men=to think, mind.
early germanic manwaz (later, mann, man)=person
From this, you get worman and wyfman, as wor=male and wyf=female
Worman=male person.
Wyfman=Female person.

Linguistic evolution shortened worman to man, leaving wyfman rather less adulterated. Thus, there is no gender bias inherent in those words. Elsewhere in the language, there may be, but not from words derived from "man".

How has the concept of sin done any harm to the human race? I totally DISAGREE with you! Firstly, as we are humans, WE WILL SIN! If we did not sin, we would be perfect! Think of Nero, Caesar, Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, etc.! Think how "perfect" they were! They slaughtered innocent people! Was that NOT wrong?! If you are correct, killing people in cold blood is absolutely fine, as well as robbery, assault, rape, kidnapping, etc. In fact, according to you, laws only exist to help the survival of the human race.

Yes yes, because those of us who don't believe in god are immoral thugs.

Nonsensical and frankly insulting. Morality is not the same as sin, very different concepts.

Isn't it coincidental that these are things outlawed on principle by religion?

Not at all, from a historical perspective. But you got the order wrong. Generally it is my belief that religion was invented to keep the people in line. In other words we started with the idea "murder is bad" and then that got codified in religion. Of course we can talk about the code of hammurabi which predates christianity by about 4000 years.

Secondly, the concept of sin has NOT done more harm to humanity than almost anything! Think of major world powers in history: Eqypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, and Rome (all of which had Pagan religions) fell millenia ago. But nations such as Israel, Britian, France, America, etc. were founded on Judeo-Christian Principles and still hold strong.

Egypt would be quite shocked to hear it's not around anymore. For that matter so would Greece and Rome.

Also note that the loss of respect and power for the US coincides with the diluting of Christianity. Without the concept of sin, humanity would choke itself to destruction. Everything that gives you the rights and freedoms you have would be impossible without an understanding of sin.

No. Perhaps without a concept of morality yes, but not without a concept of sin.

Sin? Sorry, I reject your idea that all humans are fundamentally flawed and will always choose the bad over the good unless coerced by some invisible guy in the sky.

If there is good and bad, then there must be an absolute moral standard. Saying there is no sin says there is no bad, and thus sin cannot be rejected on the grounds of fundamental goodness.
The majority of christians do believe in free choice, and it is precisely because of free choice that there is sin. Without the ability to choose between good and evil, an act of good becomes meaningless. People will not always choose bad over good, but they will at some point, because there is a choice and they are imperfect. It requires godly intervention to change, but not to make the choice to change. :D

I reject that idea, too. Not even the invisible guy in the sky can correct humans' fundamental flaws. Just look at them today.

The reason humanity is so messed up is most people aren't Christian. Certainly, Christians are not perfect, but a faith in Christ means you are forgiven because you ASK God to forgive you. True Christians, though imperfect, are allowing God to make them better people.:D
God wants to improve the world, but as he has given people free choice, they must choose to allow him to change them. If God changed people without their permission, we as humans would be perfect but also unable to choose to do good. We would be his happy, perfect little puppets, yet unable to understand goodness at all.:(

When will people learn that we all are sinful and that we all are going to make mistakes, that we all are going to go out of our way to sin, that we all are going to use the sacred to support the profane?

I saw a thread about Christians being horrible because of the Crusades. Get over yourselves, really! It's not as though you have not sinned. The Christians (as a whole) have seen their sin in that venture/those ventures and have repented. That does not mean that there are not still those who claim the Christian creed or title as their own (which is not the same as being a Christian) who would not go back to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, or whatever. But Christians are still human: we will sin until death.

The atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, heathens, Satanists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Sikhists (What is the name for people who follow that ideology?), Taoists, or members of any other belief system are just as bad if not worse. We are all human and we will all sin.

It is hypocrisy to think otherwise. More than that, it is simply foolish. In a society where we are so "sophisticated" to believe that we have moved past the "barbaric" traditions of the past, we mere men still hold ancient sins against the children of today. Are you not the same people who speak of the wonders of rehabilitation and speak of second chances and required forgiveness? Are you not the same people who say that "I am I. Do not judge me by the sins of my ancestors. Do not even judge me by the me of yesterday!"?

If all you have are these ancient sins repented of for your argument, you are truly desparate.

AGREED! Sin exists in every person. By the way, are you a Jew or a Christian? I am a Christian.:D

Short linguistics lesson. It was taken, actually, from elsewhere on the NS boards.

Latin root men=to think, mind.
early germanic manwaz (later, mann, man)=person
From this, you get worman and wyfman, as wor=male and wyf=female
Worman=male person.
Wyfman=Female person.

Linguistic evolution shortened worman to man, leaving wyfman rather less adulterated. Thus, there is no gender bias inherent in those words. Elsewhere in the language, there may be, but not from words derived from "man".

Oooo! That's interesting. One of those little things to tuck away.

AGREED! Sin exists in every person. By the way, are you a Jew or a Christian? I am a Christian.:D

Christian

Charismatic Presbyterian to be exact.

Anyone who only does the right thing (if they do the right thing at all) because of the threat of eternal punishment from God, rather than because it's the right, decent thing to do has the mentality of a four-year-old.

When will people learn that we all are sinful and that we all are going to make mistakes, that we all are going to go out of our way to sin, that we all are going to use the sacred to support the profane?

I saw a thread about Christians being horrible because of the Crusades. Get over yourselves, really! It's not as though you have not sinned. The Christians (as a whole) have seen their sin in that venture/those ventures and have repented. That does not mean that there are not still those who claim the Christian creed or title as their own (which is not the same as being a Christian) who would not go back to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, or whatever. But Christians are still human: we will sin until death.

The atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, heathens, Satanists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Sikhists (What is the name for people who follow that ideology?), Taoists, or members of any other belief system are just as bad if not worse. We are all human and we will all sin.

It is hypocrisy to think otherwise. More than that, it is simply foolish. In a society where we are so "sophisticated" to believe that we have moved past the "barbaric" traditions of the past, we mere men still hold ancient sins against the children of today. Are you not the same people who speak of the wonders of rehabilitation and speak of second chances and required forgiveness? Are you not the same people who say that "I am I. Do not judge me by the sins of my ancestors. Do not even judge me by the me of yesterday!"?

If all you have are these ancient sins repented of for your argument, you are truly desparate.

Why do you consider it sinful to make mistakes? As I define sin, It means something that I know is wrong, but I willfully do it anyway. A mistake implies that you inadvertantly did something, not willfully. In any case, I don't believe in the Christian notion of sin. I rather prefer the notion that each "occasion of sin" is really an opportunity to learn.

Why do you consider it sinful to make mistakes? As I define sin, It means something that I know is wrong, but I willfully do it anyway. A mistake implies that you inadvertantly did something, not willfully. In any case, I don't believe in the Christian notion of sin. I rather prefer the notion that each "occasion of sin" is really an opportunity to learn.

There are two types of mistakes.

One, where I don't do it on purpose, it's accidental, I don't realize what I was doing, I had no way of knowing... Not a sin.

Two, where I do do it on purpose, it was no accidental, I could have realized what I was doing, and I could have very well known whatI was doing had I taken the time to think about it. Very much a sin. Why? Because it is a result of carelessness and laziness, not of ignorance.

But isn't a Sin going against the will of God while you have choosen to follow it?

But isn't a Sin going against the will of God while you have choosen to follow it?

Is this addressed to me?

If yes, sin is any want of conformity unto or any trangression of the law of God. So just by saying "I refuse to follw the will/Law of God" you are sinning, because God has the right to require whatever He wants of you, because He is the Creator and you are the creature.

Is this addressed to me?

Addressed to whoever want to reply, so since you cared to do it (TY for that BTW) addressed also to you...

If yes, sin is any want of conformity unto or any trangression of the law of God. So just by saying "I refuse to follw the will/Law of God" you are sinning, because God has the right to require whatever He wants of you, because He is the Creator and you are the creature.

This however makes also you sinning in the eyes of whoever believe in a God different than your... Also make the whole concept of "sin" futile to the ones that didn't believe in any God...

I will not question or talk about your faith, but still I wonder if "sin" may be a convincing argument while discussing with other peoples...

Addressed to whoever want to reply, so since you cared to do it (TY for that BTW) addressed also to you...



This however makes also you sinning in the eyes of whoever believe in a God different than your... Also make the whole concept of "sin" futile to the ones that didn't believe in any God...

I will not question or talk about your faith, but still I wonder if "sin" may be a convincing argument while discussing with other peoples...

The only people who are convinced of anything are those whom God touches. But we are still required to speak of it and warn against it.

My sin is worse than the person who is not a Christian, because I know better.

so then you think only those with a penis count?

How uncivilized.

I think he thinks that the phrase "men" refering to humans as a species is not intended to suggest that only those with a penis count.

My sin is worse than the person who is not a Christian, because I know better.

And a person is Christian when he know about Christianity or when he choose to follow its Ideals?

I came from Catholics background, children are baptized before they grown 1 year old, did communion ad age of 6/8 and "Cresima" (I didn't know how translate) at age 18... Religion is teached into schools, that make them "Christians" because "they know"?

Then praytell why is it "MANkind"?

Something to do with german I imagine.

Anyway, doesn't all this hang on the now rather discredited Sapir-Worf hypothesis?

Honestly, I wish people would find something productive to do with their days rather than eating my tax money squabbling about petty bullshit at so-called institutions of 'higher education'.

I think he thinks that the phrase "men" refering to humans as a species is not intended to suggest that only those with a penis count.

So I attempted to point out. Unfortunately, Arthais101 appears only to be interested in the superficial, rather than deeper meanings.

And a person is Christian when he know about Christianity or when he choose to follow its Ideals?

I came from Catholics background, children are baptized before they grown 1 year old, did communion ad age of 6/8 and "Cresima" (I didn't know how translate) at age 18... Religion is teached into schools, that make them "Christians" because "they know"?

I know (know in the sense of "appreciate")because I am a Christian. But I am not a Christian because I know.

I am a Christian because I have repented of my sins (generally and specifically) and because I have dedicated my life to Christ.

To know better is an American idiom. It means to appreciate.

So I attempted to point out. Unfortunately, Arthais101 appears only to be interested in the superficial, rather than deeper meanings.

He should spell it womynkind or refer to it as huwomynity, so there can be no confusion.

I know (know in the sense of "appreciate")because I am a Christian. But I am not a Christian because I know.

I am a Christian because I have repented of my sins (generally and specifically) and because I have dedicated my life to Christ.

To know better is an American idiom. It means to appreciate.

Understood...

That make sense to me, thank for the explanation on American idiom...

He should spell it womynkind or refer to it as huwomynity, so there can be no confusion.

if "wo" or "hu" were recognized prefixes you'd have a point...doesn't really work in this context though, does it?

Is this addressed to me?

If yes, sin is any want of conformity unto or any trangression of the law of God. So just by saying "I refuse to follw the will/Law of God" you are sinning, because God has the right to require whatever He wants of you, because He is the Creator and you are the creature.

and that, right there, is why I can never be christian.

I am my own person. Nobody has the right to require of me, nobody has the right to demand of me. I am nobody's slave. I am nobody's puppet. I am nobody's creature.

Not yours, not gods, and if you believe I am the property of your god then, frankly, fuck your god.

Sin? Sorry, I reject your idea that all humans are fundamentally flawed and will always choose the bad over the good unless coerced by some invisible guy in the sky.


The masses are asses. No words could be more true.

Understood...

That make sense to me, thank for the explanation on American idiom...

Oh, you're quite welcome. I know how difficult idioms can be to grasp. I have a horrible time with them in my language classes.

and that, right there, is why I can never be christian.

I am my own person. Nobody has the right to require of me, nobody has the right to demand of me. I am nobody's slave. I am nobody's puppet. I am nobody's creature.

Not yours, not gods, and if you believe I am the property of your god then, frankly, fuck your god.

I really wish that you would think and pray about it. Please don't close your mind to it. No one is forcing you to do anything. You are not a slave, even if you were a Christian. Christians choose to obey: we are not forced.

I really wish that you would think and pray about it. Please don't close your mind to it. No one is forcing you to do anything. You are not a slave, even if you were a Christian. Christians choose to obey: we are not forced.

I am not a fool, I am not a child. I have done my research, I have thought about it, and don't you dare condescend me and assume I haven't, and don't you dare condescend me and presume that I've just been sitting here my whole life just waiting for you to come along on an internet forum and bring me to the light.

I know what your faith stands for, I know what it believes. I make my choices too, I CHOSE not to obey your version of god. I CHOSE to believe your version of god is warped and perverted. I CHOSE to believe your version of god is far more a creation in order to control the populace and resembles nothing of any real truth of the divine.

In short, I CHOSE to reject any notion that I am some being's plaything and property.

So to make it really simple, I repeat again, fuck your god.

I am not a fool, I am not a child. I have done my research, I have thought about it, and don't you dare condescend me and assume I haven't, and don't you dare condescend me and presume that I've just been sitting here my whole life just waiting for you to come along on an internet forum and bring me to the light.

I know what your faith stands for, I know what it believes. I make my choices too, I CHOSE not to obey your version of god. I CHOSE to believe your version of god is warped and perverted. I CHOSE to believe your version of god is far more a creation in order to control the populace and resembles nothing of any real truth of the divine.

In short, I CHOSE to reject any notion that I am some being's plaything and property.

So to make it really simple, I repeat again, fuck your god.

I will be praying for you. I truly hope you will accept Christ as the Lord, so you can be saved. Christianity is confusing when you don't believe, but you will understand it if you accept it. I repeat, I will pray for you. I pray that God will bless you.

if "wo" or "hu" were recognized prefixes you'd have a point...doesn't really work in this context though, does it?

Well, I imagine "wo" is: coming from the old english wif, meaning adult female. Hence wifmann - adult female, and werman, adult male.

Mann originally just meant person, though about seven hundred years ago its usage was expanded to also cover adult male. But that's why we say manslaughter in cases that both cover men and women, and not peopleslaughter or womanslaughter. Nobody finds that particularly objectionable, and nor should they.

I fail to see the point in complaining about it in any case. The meaning is well defined, its just a word and there is no inherently sexist way in which it evolved. (Unless you want to hang your hat on the Sapir-Worf hypothesis, which doesn't seem to have all that much currency these days).

I wonder what our idle anglosphere intellectuals would have done if english had only a masculine and feminine gender, like french, and they had a whole list of nouns with gender assignments to argue about. Oh what fun!

I will be praying for you. I truly hope you will accept Christ as the Lord, so you can be saved. Christianity is confusing when you don't believe, but you will understand it if you accept it. I repeat, I will pray for you. I pray that God will bless you.

No. For the third time in this thread, fuck your god.

And don't fucking talk down to me about how it's "confusing". What a ludicrus statement. "it's too hard to really understand rationally, so you just have to believe in it". I never asked anyone to "save" me. I didn't ask anyone to sacrifice themselves for me, I didn't ask anyone to help me.

I don't belong to anyone, I have no lord, I have no master. Fuck that.

Yikes.

...and I don't know what more I can say.

Yikes.

...and I don't know what more I can say.

if I have been a little too...verbose I apologize for the shock value. But frankly I'm sick of being told that if I just pray it'll be alright. I've had it happen too many times where someone has tried to convert me or think that if I just believed like they believed everything would be ok.

if I have been a little too...verbose I apologize for the shock value. But frankly I'm sick of being told that if I just pray it'll be alright. I've had it happen too many times where someone has tried to convert me or think that if I just believed like they believed everything would be ok.

If I'm taking offense on an internet forum, I'm the one who's in the wrong. Or at least being naiive at best. :)

I believe what I believe, and everything is not always okay. I've had plenty of issues and struggles, more than some, less than others. And while praying can give me a peace of mind that I can't seem to find anywhere else, I rarely think I find divine inspiration or understanding because of it.

If something logically doesn't make sense to you, or is irrational, or is self-contradictory, then I agree with the belief that just "praying about it" isn't going to change anything. I think some things are mysterious by nature or are too much for the human mind to really comprehend, but faith is NOT at all at odds with rational thought, and rightly so.

So... what am I rambling about? I guess I'm not sure. I don't come to all the same conclusions as you do, it seems, but I don't fault your skepticism or incredulity that "faith will just make things better." I believe in a God because that makes more sense to me than any other explanation I've heard, but I won't argue for a God's existence by saying that I have a really good feeling about it.

Hmm. Time for this particular post to end.

If I'm taking offense on an internet forum, I'm the one who's in the wrong. Or at least being naiive at best. :)

I believe what I believe, and everything is not always okay. I've had plenty of issues and struggles, more than some, less than others. And while praying can give me a peace of mind that I can't seem to find anywhere else, I rarely think I find divine inspiration or understanding because of it.

If something logically doesn't make sense to you, or is irrational, or is self-contradictory, then I agree with the belief that just "praying about it" isn't going to change anything. I think some things are mysterious by nature or are too much for the human mind to really comprehend, but faith is NOT at all at odds with rational thought, and rightly so.

So... what am I rambling about? I guess I'm not sure. I don't come to all the same conclusions as you do, it seems, but I don't fault your skepticism or incredulity that "faith will just make things better." I believe in a God because that makes more sense to me than any other explanation I've heard, but I won't argue for a God's existence by saying that I have a really good feeling about it.

Hmm. Time for this particular post to end.

And you know what? That's fine. You believe whatever it is you want to believe. That's your right, and I respect your right.

But your right, and the right of anyone else ends the moment it starts to push into MY right to disbelieve in everything you believe.

Yes you have a right to believe. And I have a right to profane everything you find sacred. Now generally as a "nice guy" I don't antagonize unless antagonized. however I find efforts to convert me, or show me the light, or comments like "i will pray for you" when I dare to voice my belief that I don't actually believe in god as pretty damned antagonizing

Hey! Take it as a compliment that you'd make a great convert, or something. ;)