are you posting undated screenshots from crystal cafe and lolcow and calling them girlboss philosophy in a strange mating ritual with the female users of those horrific places?

>>83933397
>are you posting undated screenshots from crystal cafe and lolcow
it's 10 hours ago
>a strange mating ritual with the female users of those horrific places?
god no, it's just free content

>>83933411
why do they do that with timestamps? so stupid. it makes it look like modern social media.

>>83933428
don't ask me to puzzle out the minds of creatures that can't grasp the concept of "original sin"

>>83933435
it doesn't seem that they don't grasp it, they just disagree with and assess it as a male-created phenomenon rather than a god-created one.

>>83933451
viewing "original sin" as a male feeling of guilt rather than a theological answer as to why (apparently) good people suffer means you don't get what original sin is

>>83933457
i think they're framing this based on the knowledge that original sin is supposed to stem from eve's interactions with satan and adam in the garden of eden, anon, and discussing it as an antifeminist artifact of theological justification for male domination over women based on their reproductive anatomy (as the condemnation from god specifically cites eve's childbirth pains and desire for adam who shall rule over her), which is what they interpret as an inferiority complex. not a theological discussion of why good people suffer. the entire post seems to be centered around sexuality and male sexual inferiority.

she also spells "retarded" incorrectly.

>>83933493
and all that word salad has nothing to do with the concept of original sin
>The specific doctrine of original sin was developed in the 2nd century struggle against Gnosticism by Irenaeus of Lyons, and was shaped significantly by Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin".[3][4] Influenced by Augustine, the Councils of Carthage (411-418 AD) and Orange (529 AD) brought theological speculation about original sin into the official lexicon of the Church.
>He believed that prior to the Fall, Adam had both the freedom to sin and not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare), but humans have no freedom to choose not to sin (non posse non peccare) after Adam's Fall.

>>83933521
>the fall has nothing to do with the concept of original sin.
come on man.

>>83933551
the fall is the justification for original sin, it has nothing to do with the concept in itself. if you can't grasp the distinction then you're as dumb as that foid

>>83933521
It's a larger point in their argument about Nietzsche and philosophy created by men. Please do not make me have to defend that post by being even more idiotic than the person who posted it. It's clearly a blackpill radical feminist who dislikes all religion created by men, citing Roman Catholic papal doctrinal history at her that specifically centers around the exact moment she is critiquing as a faux historical invention to justify male domination as the moment that humans lose the ability to be able to choose not to sin is going to result in nothing but a "Loading..." screen on her face.

>>83933556
>the fall is the justification for original sin
>it has nothing to do with the concept in itself
read this again, out loud.

>>83933569
and it has an incorrect understanding of original sin. i would also argue that her misinterpretation of nietzsche is reductive and ignores the fact that he never saw his views as universal
>>83933574
>if you can't grasp the distinction then you're as dumb as that foid

>>83933578
>is justification
>has nothing to do with it
and yes, she is misinterpreting nietzsche. the entire post is stupid and incredibly reductive down to a gender war, just like your original post. i am not going on crystal cafe to tell her she is fucking stupid and certainly not going to screenshot a post found from lurking there to go post on here to complain. 4chan users asserting intellectual and moral superiority should have corresponding higher standards for coherent arguments. you have a million angles to attack her assertions from and chose the weakest possible one unprompted when the comment you were replying to was mocking the technical format of the website. you literally set yourself up for this.

>>83933593
lot of words to say you can't grasp the distinction between a concept and the justification for it and is repeatedly seething about his misinterpretation of a statement that is linguistically ambiguous

>>83933600
[This is a] lot of words to say you can't grasp the distinction between a concept and the justification for it and [are] repeatedly seething about his misinterpretation of a statement that is [etymologically] ambiguous.

>>83933615
>[This is a]
i was using slang
>are
typo
>[etymologically] ambiguous
linguistically ambiguous. apparently semantically ambiguous is even more correct

>>83933634
[I was truncating sentences and am referring to it as slang instead of just saying that.]
semantically pedantic would be the most correct. semiotics, how do they work?

>>83933646
how is it pedantic when i am the one who knows what i mean, you're the one wrongly misinterpreting what i'm saying

>>83933657
>what i mean
>what i'm saying
>>83933600
>his misinterpretation

>>83933671
yeah, his misinterpretation of MY statement where I know what I meant

>>83933676
and your statement was what?

>>83933685
>the fall is the justification for original sin, it has nothing to do with the concept in itself.

>>83933688
right. and who misinterpreted it?

>>83933698
him, because he thought i was saying the fall was unconnected from the concept of original sin. why the fuck am i spoonfeeding someone who cba to even read the thread

>>83933725
are you intentionally pretending to be stupid or?

>>83933725
>justification for
>nothing to do with the concept in itself

itt: r-r-r-recursive loops!

>>83933740
>>83933747
my point is that a concept and the justification for that concept are distinct and separate, they are different things

>>83933778
so a theological verdict that says humanity is doomed to sin no matter what they do and therefore end up in hell if they never receive absolution through the love and saving power of belief in god and enactment of his decrees through the works of mercy (which is only true if they are cognizant of the existence of the one true god and actively reject his divine grace) is unrelated to the fact that eve's choosing to defy god's prohibitions against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and sharing it with adam in her desire to know as god does is the reason for humanity being doomed to sin even though if she never had consumed said fruit she would not know the difference between good and evil and would therefore be incapable of sin? which is all, naturally, unrelated to the original image's assertion which is that "[men] made [original sin] up" - which you specifically acknowledged as correct with
>The specific doctrine of original sin was developed in the 2nd century struggle against Gnosticism by Irenaeus of Lyons, and was shaped significantly by Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin".[3][4]
while claiming that the image op "can't grasp the concept of 'original sin'" saying that she views it as "a male feeling of guilt rather than a theological answer as to why (apparently) good people suffer" and therefore "[doesn't] get what original sin is" when what she said was men made up original sin "as if it is just something they all feel, some inferiority complex they all have" and "they need to teach this to women, it doesn't seem to come naturally to women" and then went on some nonsensical tangent about nietzsche being a beta orbiter because her entire argument is clearly about eve being the source of original sin and sin originating from temptation, not a semantic breakdown of papal doctrine?

>>83933817
>is unrelated to
you're illiterate

>>83933825
oooh, got another sick burn for when you're backed into a corner and have to cover your tracks?

>>83933832
if you can't tell the difference between two things being different from one another and two things being unrelated then there is no point in talking to you

>>83933825
btw
>the fall is the justification for original sin, it has nothing to do with the concept in itself.
>nothing to do with
>the concept
>in itself
>is unrelated
>>83933521
>all that word salad
>>83933825
>illiterate
k.

>>83933844
what do you think "the concept in itself" means? it's the concept removed from justifications, causes, effects, etc.

>>83933843
yeah, you're leaving here with your dignity intact and i'm the illiterate one who doesn't know roman catholic doctrine or basic english. i heard "eucharist" means "the last thursday of november" in ancient greek which is itself a translation of hebrew.

>>83933849
is capital punishment removed from the fact it's a legal sentence?

>>83933849
address the discussion here, please:
>>83933817

>>83933857
i'll tell you what, the next time when you say eucharist and mean last thursday of november i'll accept that without sperging for an hour
>>83933870
the concept in itself of a capital punishment would be different for the reason why the capital punishment was carried out
>>83933876
see;
>>83933825

>>83933897
read.
>so a theological verdict that says humanity is doomed to sin no matter what they do and therefore end up in hell if they never receive absolution through the love and saving power of belief in god and enactment of his decrees through the works of mercy (which is only true if they are cognizant of the existence of the one true god and actively reject his divine grace) is unrelated to the fact that eve's choosing to defy god's prohibitions against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and sharing it with adam in her desire to know as god does is the reason for humanity being doomed to sin even though if she never had consumed said fruit she would not know the difference between good and evil and would therefore be incapable of sin?

you:
>the fall is the justification for original sin, it has nothing to do with the concept in itself.

>>83933343
I can't help but agree to an extent. Most male philosophers attributed the human female's behavior to hanlon's razor, which is a mistake and a massive cope. Women aren't misguided and they're not even that dumb, they are by their nature, willfully and consciously malevolent and act as men's natural enemies.

>>83933932
again;
>my point is that a concept and the justification for that concept are distinct and separate, they are different things
stop saying "it's unrelated to" when i've already explained that i meant the two concepts were distinct, not unrelated

>>83933897
>the concept in itself of a capital punishment would be different for the reason why the capital punishment was carried out
nonsensical. the comparison is the foundation of capital punishment as a legal principle, not a generic ruling of capital punishment.

>>83933948
take your penis out of your mouth to redirect blood flow back to your brain, briefly, please.

>so a theological verdict that says humanity is doomed to sin no matter what they do and therefore end up in hell if they never receive absolution through the love and saving power of belief in god and enactment of his decrees through the works of mercy (which is only true if they are cognizant of the existence of the one true god and actively reject his divine grace) is unrelated to the fact that eve's choosing to defy god's prohibitions against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and sharing it with adam in her desire to know as god does is the reason for humanity being doomed to sin even though if she never had consumed said fruit she would not know the difference between good and evil and would therefore be incapable of sin?

eucharist means thanksgiving as a transliteration of eucharistia from greek which is itself a translation of the hebrew berakhah, by the way. "eucharist means thanksgiving" is the first thing any catholic schoolchild learns in ccd or catholic school when readying themselves for confirmation. but thanks.

>>83933960
how can it be a legal sentence and a legal principle? what do you mean by a legal sentence-a generic ruling for various crimes or a specific legal sentence? it's not clear, is it? if it's a generic ruling then it's different from a specific concept like original sin-there not multiple potential original sins, there's only one original sin
>>83933978
>take your penis out of your mouth to redirect blood flow back to your brain, briefly, please.
yawn. unless you correct unrelated to to distinct from then there's no point in arguing with you, because you're misrepresenting my position
>eucharist means thanksgiving as a transliteration of eucharistia from greek which is itself a translation of the hebrew berakhah, by the way. "eucharist means thanksgiving" is the first thing any catholic schoolchild learns in ccd or catholic school when readying themselves for confirmation.
so you didn't mean "last thursday of november" and were just being a dick, unsurprising