O-Trap;1551568 wrote:

believer;1551696 wrote:

I'm curious what truths are being silenced by what is referred to as political correctness.

O-Trap;1551755 wrote:I'm curious what truths are being silenced by what is referred to as political correctness.

Racist!!!

cruiser_96;1552012 wrote:Racist!!!

Devils Advocate;1552822 wrote:

Sounds a lot like a case of not hating a person while hating their beliefs and actions.

Where have I heard this before ...?

Ah, yes:



The parallel is strikingly apt.

I guess there could be no sin per SE if there were no religion. rules broken yes, but the term sin is rooted in theism.

I would go one step farther and say that religion is semi self imposed, although indoctrination has a large part in it. And Cancer (while could be self inflicted) has been around for eons.

Devils Advocate;1552915 wrote:I guess there could be no sin per SE if there were no religion. rules broken yes, but the term sin is rooted in theocracy.

I would go one step farther and say that religion is semi self imposed, although indoctrination has a large part in it. And Cancer (while could be self inflicted) has been around for eons.

Religion, technically, acknowledges sin, but that doesn't mean something can't exist apart from it being acknowledged. I can trick myself into thinking that my elbow is perfectly functioning, and perhaps I could convince everyone else as well, but that doesn't take the tendonitis away.

Sin, at its fundamental level, is rooted in the concept of intended function in humans ... similar to something like a "purpose" for life, but the antithesis in a way. If purpose outlines what a life ought to be, the concept of sin outlines what a life ought not be. This "oughtness" is the root of the concept of sin.k

Religious practice ... that is the intentional recognition of non-natural things ... is certainly self-imposed. However, if we include the worldview, then I would contend that, for many, it's as involuntary as believing that particular stars are X light years away.

All of what we're discussing is proposed to have been around for eons as well.

My point in the whole comparison is that if one is reasonable, the other is equally reasonable, because the same logic is being applied. That's all.

And in keeping with the thread:

ernest_t_bass;1553586 wrote:

Al Gore?

justincredible;1539612 wrote:

LJ;1553571 wrote:

Evil Obama

Boom!

The sad part is these sickos really want all of this stuff.

IggyPride00;1554074 wrote:

The sad part is these sickos really want all of this stuff.

I don't see a problem with some of them. Nothing wrong with renewable energy, a cure for AIDS, and if Neil Degrasse Tyson wants to frolic, more power to him.

I personally wouldn't mind a few war crime trials, either, but there would be both sides of the aisle represented in the defendants.