Continuing this conversation from the Russia/Ukraine thread, because it's more relevant here. Not that it deserves to be talked about more.
| COKTOE said: You said: "Maybe there would be less degradation of Christian values if Christians actually did half of what they're supposed to believe in." Do YOU understand English? It's one sentence. You say that the sentence in question meant: ""I wasn't calling out Christians as being all the bad guys in the room or something." You were clearly referring to all Christians when you said "Maybe there would be less degradation of Christian values if Christians actually did half of what they're supposed to believe in." By any reasonable interpretation of the English language. But you said you that's not what you meant. So I gave you the benefit of the doubt. And waited for you to say what you actually meant. Are you seriously questioning my English here? |
1.) If I say "Cars go fast", does that mean "Every car goes fast", "Most cars go fast", "A lot of cars go fast", "Some cars go fast", "No cars go fast"?
You're insisting that my comment must mean the first one. I think it's reasonable to assume it's one of the first three from a linguistic standpoint. It's obviously not the last one, it probably isn't the second to last one. There is an ambiguity of quantity there, but I think you'd find that most native English speakers would have the line somewhere in the first three, certainly not the last 2, but the first 3 are reasonable interpretations.
2.) "if Christians actually did half of what they're supposed to believe in" is also not the same thing as "Christians are bad/evil." Heck, admitting that Christians aren't perfect and aren't always doing the things that they're supposed to believe in, is pretty much a requirement for being Christian. It's like half the basis of the religion (that all people are sinful/imperfect/etc.)
3.) I will definitely say it was a jerk move to question your English. It's a very broad internet, and it's pretty easy for people to have different interpretations on what something means. There are even religions built on that. But I have to ask, because you're making strange rigid interpretations while completely ignoring large parts of text; and if it were some kind of language barrier it might be helpful for me to try phrasing things differently.
| COKTOE said: I think, if the-pi-guy had a dream, and in that dream, he typed out "If only the Hindu's were able to live up to 67% of the things they believe in, the world would be a better place", or X thing with, with X religion, that ISN'T a Christian denomination, he would wake up from that dream, his balls would turn charcoal black, fall off, and float into space. He would then totally ignore the incredible, normally traumatic events that had just transpired, and run to his nearest internet connected device to make sure he didn't actually type them out. That's an accurate assessment of the power structure in the US as it pertain to expressing opinions on religion. |
I probably wouldn't even think about it a second time. Because it's a pretty obvious statement. Quite a few people are hypocrites, and the world would be a better place if people actually acted on the things that they claimed to believe in.
Same goes for NIMBY liberals and socialists, if only they were able to live up to 75% of the things they claimed to believe in, instead of being selective and saying they want those things, but not in their area.
Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 22 August 2023
