Subject:
|
Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:53:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3627 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ryan Farrington writes:
> What I meant by that was that I inherently have a *very* strong tendency to
> sin. My parents had to teach me to do right, because I did wrong by
> default. That's the case with everyone.
Don't you agree, however, that's a broad assumption based on an even more
broad definition of sin? Keep in mind that sin is relative to a culture, not
a hard and fast rule to all cultures and creatures. Eating pork is a sin for
Hebrews and Moslems, but Christians are cool with it. Suicide is a sin in
Christianity, but for other cultures it's the will and right of the
individual. So, one group's sin is another group's virtue, and each group
will swear the other is wrong. So, who is right? Well, they both are
according to their society.
Unfortunately, the concept of "might makes right" takes over and violence
settles the issue. The group that survives ends up being right by default
because they stomped the opposition. All religions (especially Christianity)
are guilty of destroying other civilizations in the name of God, Christ or
whomever. The facts speak for themselves:
North America: total genocide by white Christians
Central and South America, West Indies: hundreds of thousands murdered,
native populations forced into slavery and Christianity, hundreds of
cultures extinct
Africa: hundreds of thousands stolen from Africa and enslaved and murdered
by white Christians, and forced into Christianity; colonialism chokes off
rest of Africa, hundreds of thousands murdered by white Christian colonists
In the last century, we saw hundreds of thousands of Bosnian Moslems
butchered, raped and murdered by Serbian Christians. In the end, none of the
murderers had the notion that they were sinning. No, they were upholding
their cultural and religious identity (at least that's what they must have
told themselves). THAT's sin!
Dan
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| (...) Daniel: In the spirit of avoiding sweeping generalizations that due a disservice to one's arguments, I believe that your statements above need clarification. I'll not excuse the atrocities committed in the name of religion, but a great deal (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| (...) Were I in the debate, that'd be exactly my point :) 'Course then we'd be on to defining morality which is my little pet topic, so I'd better steer clear :) (...) By my book, not *necessarily*, though I would argue that it probably was indeed (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| (...) When Adam sinned, He incurred the punishment for sin: "in the day that you eat from it [the forbidden tree] you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17). Adam did not drop dead then, but the biological tendency to die started working and nine hundred (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
137 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
