56 réponses à ce sujet

[Somehing]

Jonp382 wrote...

Somehing wrote...

Am I missing something..?
I'm straining to see what you mean...is that not what I just said??

Well, you defined apathy. But 'emotional apathy'(what we are talking about) is an oxymoron.

What! Because that is an oxymoron I deduced the only logical meaning could be the other way, as in using the word 'emotional' to make clearer (even if only by introducing through comparing it is the complete opposite of itself) 'apathy'. Is that not what the OP of that phrase meant????
(Edit: Still trying to figure out within context of the post how emotional apathy could be a sin in the way you interpret it..I mean unless it's a sin BECAUSE it's impossible and for it to exist would make non-sense of the universe..)

Modifié par Somehing, 11 décembre 2009 - 04:08 .

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Somehing, religions do evolve. It takes time, especially with big ones like the Catholic Church, but I don't think any of their priests would try to exorcize a depressive disorder out of you anymore (or, failing at that, punish you for it).

Oh, and by the way.

Wikipedia says:

Gradually, the focus came to be on the consequences of acedia, rather than the cause, and so, by the 17th century, the exact deadly sin referred to was believed to be the failure to utilize one's talents and gifts. In practice, it came to be closer to sloth (Latin, Socordia) than acedia. Even in Dante's time there were signs of this change; in his Purgatorio he had portrayed the penance for acedia as running continuously at top speed.



The modern view goes further, regarding laziness and indifference as the sin at the heart of the matter. Since this contrasts with a more willful failure to, for example, love God and his works, sloth is often seen as being considerably less serious than the other sins, more a sin of omission than of commission.

So while you're not wrong, Orogun01, we still can enjoy our sloth.

[Skye Kross]

sloth, if im not lazy i would look like a body builder lol

[Somehing]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Somehing, religions do evolve. It takes time, especially with big ones like the Catholic Church, but I don't think any of their priests would try to exorcize a depressive disorder out of you anymore (or, failing at that, punish you for it).

It's okay, I know, I know that's why you don't see people still being trialled through ordeal of fire or water just for being different/more intelligent than others. The majority attitude has changed (I think? I was made unsure by others seemingly judging themselves too harshly, as if also slightly old fashioned), I just thought, like Ravenclaw said:

Amberyl Ravenclaw wrote...
"Many philosophies and religions that have canonical teachings of some sort (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc) have certain core texts that people like to fall back on and use as guidelines for daily living. As you said, though, the problem is determining whether these standards are universally and timelessly applicable. if you want to convince people to change their stance on this, though, it's quite a task when you are debating with folks who believe that a text is so sacred and divinely inspired that nothing can be changed (i.e. if God / the gods ordained it, then surely it must be perfect and it would be an insult for humans to impose their own interpretation for it). After all, who can argue with God / gods / the founder of said philosophy or religion?"

Some traditional views will always remain 100% dependent on the text, and if the text says a sickness is a sin, well, you know..it just makes me uneasy people are effectively being taught such a notion - from a sacred text, no less. I was a bit shocked to see it.

Oh, and by the way.

Wikipedia says:

You love your wiki, don't you :9 Anyone can see that's one of your favourite favourites!

[Templar Vilmon]

Mine is gluttony (which if I'm not mistaken also includes drinking too much) followed by lust. D#@n those forsaken beer goggles!

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Somehing wrote...
Oh, and by the way.

Wikipedia says:

You love your wiki, don't you :9 Anyone can see that's one of your favourite favourites!

Hm. cannot deny that it is a handy source for basic information.

If you positively need to know, it's not the right choice though, so one is better off using different sources, when it is not just to put some footing under one's bolder statements (which may or may not be completely based on fiction and chance).
As it stands, I do not condemn usage of wikipedia, but I do have to express regret as to your accusation.

[Trajan60]

Gluttony. The deadly sin I most often commit.