Subject:
|
Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:38:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3465 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Don't you agree, however, that's a broad assumption based on an even more
> broad definition of sin?
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 :)
> 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!
By my book, not *necessarily*, though I would argue that it probably was
indeed sin after all is said and done...
Darn... I was gonna steer clear, wasn't I?
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
