-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Equality
- Thread starter Irenicas
- Start date
civilcynic
Member
Tolerance and respect would go along way in developing equality. In this world, it seems that there is far too little tolerance and respect for those who are different or who hold different beliefs, thoughts or have a different culture.
trishtrish10
Active Member
in our minds we can be equal. societies classify us but we don't have to accept stereotypes. we can only treat others good and fight for equality of the masses, but there will always be stereotypes as not everyone accepts us or themselves.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Those are all good points. Irenicas, would you mind sharing these 'radical' ideas of yours?
Lightkeeper
Well-Known Member
Humans are so competitive that I think it would be impossible to have complete equality. Someone will always be vying for the top position. So, maybe what we want is peace in the fact that all things are not equal. Celebrating the differences may be the key.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
This all definately explains why Communism doesn't work.
Irenicas
high overlord of sod all
Ok, I will do. Bear with me.
True equality can only be reached by ignoring the differences between people. To this end, we can only reach equality when there is a state that does not have prejudice against anyone. By anyone I mean not only homosexuals, heterosexuals, difference races, religions, and so on, but also criminals, peodophiles, gluttons, and so on. We cannot actually have true equality when we are "prejudiced" against groups like these.
Also, our very language prohibits us from being equal. That may seem a little odd, but let me explain. Built into our very language system is the fact that we must refer to someone by either male or female pronouns. There is no neutral pronoun other than "it", and I doubt people would be terribly impressed if you refered to them as "it". So our very language makes it impossible for us to be utterly equal.
Another problem people have is between using adjectives - when something is used as a descriptive, and when it is bein used to seperate people. Let me give you an example: If I was picking someone out of a group and said "Dan's the tall black guy", no problems. If, however, I said "our new postman is very good - he's black" there is a little... uhh... difficulty there. Also, look at the words I am forced to use! "postman" - I am instantly forced to seperate the two sexes, when often there would be no need to. It's so built into our society that Microsoft word doesn't recognize "postperson".
So, there you are.
True equality can only be reached by ignoring the differences between people. To this end, we can only reach equality when there is a state that does not have prejudice against anyone. By anyone I mean not only homosexuals, heterosexuals, difference races, religions, and so on, but also criminals, peodophiles, gluttons, and so on. We cannot actually have true equality when we are "prejudiced" against groups like these.
Also, our very language prohibits us from being equal. That may seem a little odd, but let me explain. Built into our very language system is the fact that we must refer to someone by either male or female pronouns. There is no neutral pronoun other than "it", and I doubt people would be terribly impressed if you refered to them as "it". So our very language makes it impossible for us to be utterly equal.
Another problem people have is between using adjectives - when something is used as a descriptive, and when it is bein used to seperate people. Let me give you an example: If I was picking someone out of a group and said "Dan's the tall black guy", no problems. If, however, I said "our new postman is very good - he's black" there is a little... uhh... difficulty there. Also, look at the words I am forced to use! "postman" - I am instantly forced to seperate the two sexes, when often there would be no need to. It's so built into our society that Microsoft word doesn't recognize "postperson".
So, there you are.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
I think there's a bit of a difference here. We are 'prejudiced' against criminals and pedophiles because they harm society and the people in it. By discouraging this sort of behavior, we are working to improve our way of life. Prejudice against these groups can even be said to be necessary I think. As far as prejudice against race, sexual orientation, etc.--this sort of prejudice doesn't improve society in any way, and in fact harms it by causing issues and stress.
Having a neutral language is an interesting idea. Personally, I don't mind the separation of male and female--it doesn't suggest inequality, just diference.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say with this one.
trishtrish10
Active Member
the one thing we all have in common an equal to is our minds. no one can enslave our minds but us if we take illegal drugs which poison the mind and is evil tho it may derrive temporary pleasure.
Irenicas
high overlord of sod all
Well, thank you for that trishtrish. I'm not ENTIRELY certain of the relevence, but that's cool.
In answer, what I was talking about was not practical equality but a theoretical "true equality" (so many of my ideas are only theoretical). To achieve complete equality we would have to ignore these boundaries, that's what I was saying.
The idea of a neutral language is something I believe most utterly in. However, it would incredibly difficult to edit English to be neutral, so the best way would to be to start a new language entirely.
What I mean in my last statement is that there is presently no opportunity to use neutral language in English. The fact that postperson (the neutral term - not gender specific) is not recognised as a word gives us some idea how far we have to go.
In answer, what I was talking about was not practical equality but a theoretical "true equality" (so many of my ideas are only theoretical). To achieve complete equality we would have to ignore these boundaries, that's what I was saying.
The idea of a neutral language is something I believe most utterly in. However, it would incredibly difficult to edit English to be neutral, so the best way would to be to start a new language entirely.
What I mean in my last statement is that there is presently no opportunity to use neutral language in English. The fact that postperson (the neutral term - not gender specific) is not recognised as a word gives us some idea how far we have to go.
Runt
Well-Known Member
Abolish poverty, and people will find other ways to differentiate between the "elite" and the "inferior": race, gender, religion, ethnicity, IQ, physical shape, etc etc etc
Equality is a nice concept, but illogical. There will always be inequality. The trick is seeing that everyone is "better" than others at some things, and everyone is "worse" than others at some things. That is the closest I think anyone will ever come to equality.
Equality is a nice concept, but illogical. There will always be inequality. The trick is seeing that everyone is "better" than others at some things, and everyone is "worse" than others at some things. That is the closest I think anyone will ever come to equality.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Irenicus-- your idea on eliminating 'unequal' words from language is a disturbing parallel to Orwellian doublespeak. Also, have you considered that forcing equality in such a radical way would simultaneously threaten basic freedom of speech and thought?
trishtrish10
Active Member
thankyou for the complement irenicus. equality is only in the mind. good people make good impressions. humble people make good friends.
good post runt.
the roman catholic church used latin which is a dead language, not spoken by any nation anymore. they retained it in their mass because the definitions of the words never changed meaning as do live or spoken languages. with the level of education the world now has the church changed the latin to venacular, or the language of each dialect in every country. they just change the biblical translations when necessary as the language changes, which is slow and seldom.
many roman catholics were upset when this vatican 11 change in language ocurred, but the mass is the same no matter what the dialect. it didn't outlaw latin masses and sometimes it is still celebrated in latin.
i wish we all spoke the same language, but different languages convey different concepts indiscribable in other languages. it has to be experienced to understand.
i like one of the popes poems in which he states, until u can describe the problem u can't easily solve it.
good post runt.
the roman catholic church used latin which is a dead language, not spoken by any nation anymore. they retained it in their mass because the definitions of the words never changed meaning as do live or spoken languages. with the level of education the world now has the church changed the latin to venacular, or the language of each dialect in every country. they just change the biblical translations when necessary as the language changes, which is slow and seldom.
many roman catholics were upset when this vatican 11 change in language ocurred, but the mass is the same no matter what the dialect. it didn't outlaw latin masses and sometimes it is still celebrated in latin.
i wish we all spoke the same language, but different languages convey different concepts indiscribable in other languages. it has to be experienced to understand.
i like one of the popes poems in which he states, until u can describe the problem u can't easily solve it.
Irenicas
high overlord of sod all
Now I see where you're coming from. That is an interesting idea - but how do you define a good person? And we aren't just descriminating on good and bad people, are we?
Hah. Orwellian double speak. yes, I see the parallel. Well, I'm not saying get rid of those words entirely, just put in new ones so we don't have to defferentiate if we don't want to.
Hah. Orwellian double speak. yes, I see the parallel. Well, I'm not saying get rid of those words entirely, just put in new ones so we don't have to defferentiate if we don't want to.
trishtrish10
Active Member
no one but God is totally Good and no one but the Evil Ones are totally bad. everyone has a free-will to do as he sees fit. that's why we have laws both human and Divine, to protect us and guide us. only Divine law is perfect and only Jesus and Mary never did any harm to anyone. the ten commandments are the guideposts for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. all others rely on instincts and innate or infused knowledge. of course ethics or traditions are different for each individual, city, government(politics), religion, institution, community, etc. one must be true or loyal to one's culture unless it conflicts with the Divine Morality. that's determined by apostolic successsion in the Roman Catholic Church, namely the Pope, and his infallibility on morals(difference between right and wrong), faith(our beliefs), and dogma(how we celebrate the sacraments), Infalibility comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit who won't let the Pope decree official statements and/or documents that conflict with the Divine only in these three areas. otherwise the pope can be fallible. the Pope is the successor of Peter who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and earth. what he binds on earth is bound in heaven.
since we aren't perfect we must be purged of our sins by our own volition and with the help of priests who counsel us in confession and by the forgiveness of others and God.
all good comes from God. everyone wants love which is a craving for attention by him and others and suffering for our and others salvation. a good man and a bad man usually have much in common. those are just stereotypes that we label friends and enemies. it has nothing to do with their perception necessarily of themselves.
since we aren't perfect we must be purged of our sins by our own volition and with the help of priests who counsel us in confession and by the forgiveness of others and God.
all good comes from God. everyone wants love which is a craving for attention by him and others and suffering for our and others salvation. a good man and a bad man usually have much in common. those are just stereotypes that we label friends and enemies. it has nothing to do with their perception necessarily of themselves.
trishtrish10
Active Member
then where do u think u will go after u die? heaven, hell and purgatory are all on earth. but u can only see earth while alive. purgartory is when u suffer, heaven is when u find joy or have it not to mention many other feelings and thoughts(pleasant or critical), and hell is when u are hurt or wounded. God is awesome isn't he.
trishtrish10
Active Member
we aren't equal in our gifts just in God's eyes when in heaven.
trishtrish10
Active Member
everyone and thing was created by God and he callled it Good. he didn't create evil but allowed it to happen. he brings good out of evil.