Originally posted by FMFthese are classes FMF, they are not the description of individuals, a religionist is a class, a religionist class, a mother of two is a class, a class of mothers of two, etc etc etc I just dont think they help to view people as individuals, I think its simply better to think of people as humans. That she follows a particular religion is of course pertinent, as is the fact that she has two children, but they dont describe her personally. She is bright and vivacious, erudite etc etc would have been better.
I described my neighbour as [1] a religionist,[2] a mother of two, [3] she is very community-minded, and [4] she has a successful afternoon food stall.
What was it about my description of her that made you ask me if she was was "a human being"?
Originally posted by FMFPerhaps I will but if it makes you feel uncomfortable then i will leave well alone as moonbus advised me.
In that case,why don't you now go to Thread 158965 and explain there that you have decided not to refer to the Papuan Christians as "rice Christians" any more?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Atheists", "non-religionists" and "religionists" are all "humans". We shall see if you ~ from here on in ~ are always going to use the words "human" and "humans" every time you use terminology referring to individuals or groups of people.
whether it is being asked for or not i am giving it for its a valid point. When I am going from house to house it helps immensely to think of people as individuals and it always pains me when they have a ready made appellation. I sometimes hear. I am a Muslim? I always think, no you are first and foremost a human being, that you profess belief in Islam should not diminish that, surely? Perhaps I am splitting hairs here but i dont think so.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI thought you were complaining of feeling "uncomfortable" with doing things like referring to Papuan Christians as "rice Christians". It doesn't make me feel "uncomfortable" because I thought your usage of the term to express your contempt for them, and for the missionaries there, made it quite clear what the nature of your mind map is, and revealing our respective mind maps is one of the objectives of discussing things.
Perhaps I will but if it makes you feel uncomfortable then i will leave well alone as moonbus advised me.
Originally posted by FMFProper Knob is here, he remembers everything. Feel free to cast it up at any time, but if you are going to hold me to those lofty ideals then you too should also be held by them.
"Atheists", "non-religionists" and "religionists" are all "humans". We shall see if you ~ from here on in ~ are always going to use the words "human" and "humans" every time you use terminology referring to individuals or groups of people.
Originally posted by FMFactually no i feel quite easy thanks.
I thought you were complaining of feeling "uncomfortable" with doing things like referring to Papuan Christians as "rice Christians". It doesn't make me feel "uncomfortable" because I thought your usage of the term to express your contempt for them, and for the missionaries there, made it quite clear what the nature of your mind map is, and revealing our respective mind maps is one of the objectives of discussing things.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo. I am not going to use the words "human" and "humans" every time I attach descriptors to individuals or groups of people. It is you who has raised the issue of referring to people as "humans" not me.
Proper Knob is here, he remembers everything. Feel free to cast it up at any time, but if you are going to hold me to those lofty ideals then you too should also be held by them.
Originally posted by FMFthen you are going to have one standard for me and another for you?
No. I am not going to use the words "human" and "humans" every time I attach descriptors to individuals or groups of people. It is you who has raised the issue of referring to people as "humans" not me.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI wasn't trying to describe whether my neighbour is "bright and vivacious, erudite". I was describing a small number of other aspects of her as an individual. I was illustrating how the word "religionist" is a descriptor. And you have confirmed that it was pertinent.
That [your neighbour] follows a particular religion is of course pertinent, as is the fact that she has two children, but they dont describe her personally. She is bright and vivacious, erudite etc etc would have been better.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo I was inviting you to perhaps use the words "human" and "humans" in a way that would back up your two or three page effort to make me use them when it is clearly not necessary. I have no intention of using these words in this way. You may do so if you want to demonstrate your commitment to what you have been suggesting I do.
then you are going to have one standard for me and another for you?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyBUMP for Grampy Bobby.
Christ performed many miracles in many places before many people. Some believed His claims; others said, "Nah. No way".
Benny Hinn has supposedly performed hundreds or maybe thousands miracles which have been witnessed by tens of millions of Christians. This evidence is much stronger and more plentiful than the evidence of Christ's miracles. Why don't you believe in what Hinn does?