Zloubida @ zloubida @lemmy.world

Posts

7

Comments

358

Joined

2 yr. ago

Once, I listened what some people said on the Internet, and I tried Arch. I came back to Manjaro, but I learned a lot so I'm not unhappy with the experience.

However, to say that there's no reason to use it over Arch (I don't know about Endeavour, I never actually used it) is just wrong. Maybe you don't like the differences, but they are important and useful for someone like me. When I installed Arch, I needed to tinker it for hours before having something usable. I don't want to tinker, I want my OS to work, even if it means other people made choices for me, as long as I can revert them; that's what Manjaro offers. For example, I love GNOME, but only with some plugins, like dash to dock. When I installed Arch, GNOME made an update which broke a lot of plugins, included dash to dock; while Manjaro waited for dash to dock to work to push the new GNOME. Some issues may be pushed, but a lot of others aren't. I prefer to have one big update twice a month instead of having to update and tinker again my OS possibly every day.

Manjaro is far from perfect, no distro is, but for people like me, it works very well, and better than Arch.

I don't get the hate for Manjaro, TBH. I never had any problem with it, and I used it as my main OS for a few years now.

I always marveled at just how many people would switch to English whether we were in Germany or Zimbabwe.

English is an official language of Zimbabwe, and German is in the same language family as English. Try to speak English to commoners in Egypt, Eastern Europe, Vietnam or even France, and it wouldn't be that easy.

High FOR is.like high wisdom, but without the need for a rope.

I guess there’s nothing new under the sun.

And that's some old hebrew wisdom 🙂

Android is exactly why I think it's important not to ditch GNU in GNU/Linux. I don't care about codelines, I care about the philosophy.

34 :-)

To be honest, big adult me just had…

…but I had to continue to work. Adulthood sucks.

For most of human history, slavery was a normal thing, I'm not sure your argument is a good one.

After all, he could have created us with free will and no suffering, but chose not to.

Could he? Like I said, omnipotence can't go against logic. Which free will would we have if we couldn't make bad and suffering-inducing decisions?

He is. But he also loves us thus he will not use his omnipotence to make us do something we do not want. And omnipotence can't go against logic.

You asked and answered. I agree with the question and not the answer.

Thank you for your comprehension.

I tried an answer there.

I'll try to explain what I think (it's of course my vision and not the Truth), but in advance sorry for my broken English.

I’ve always hated the idea of original/inherited sin. It’s such a cruel idea to me.

It depends on what you put behind these words. American Christianity (but it's of course not the case only there) is obsessed by the question of hell, thus the idea that everybody inherits the condamnation is indeed cruel. But as you said, one should understand the culture and history of the people who wrote Genesis 1 and 2 (two different texts that are in opposition if one takes them literally, by the way, a proof that it's not how the authors thought them), and to them, the question of the afterlife was if not irrelevant, at least not central. The oldest parts of the Old Testament even do not presuppose an afterlife at all. It comes later, first as the sheol, a place that welcomes everybody, and finally as a bodily resurrection of the just people only. Thus the original sin is not what condemns you to hell.

Sin is not about hell and heaven. Sin is an existential reality here and now. Etymologically, it's an archery terms which signifies "to miss the mark". Sin is the fact that we can't be what we should be. Our "mark", a life in communion with God, thus a life free of evil, can't be not missed. We are not able to attain it, and that's because of sin. But sin is not our fault, sin is original, it predates us, thus we can't be accused of sinning. Sin is not a moral question.

Why does sin exist? @ubermeisters@lemmy.world is right when they ask if God is responsible of the sin. Genesis does say that God created everything, thus he created, if not the original sin itself, at least the possibility of sin. Why would a good God do that? It's a mystery, but Genesis offers a part of the answer: because of freedom. God wants us free. God wants us able to refuse him. He loves us, and he wants us to love him too, but because he loves us he wants us to be autonomous. Without the ability to sin, we wouldn't be autonomous.

Thus, the doctrine of the original sin is not an accusation of everybody. It's a freeing doctrine: you're not responsible for the evil that inhabits you. It's not your fault. It's original, inherited. It's the price of your freedom. You can now walk freed of culpability (if a Church makes you feel more guilty than before, this Church is not teaching the Gospel). And God doesn't let us alone in that. It's not in Genesis 1-2 anymore, but the rest of the Bible is pretty clear about the fact that God accompanies us in our road, he suffers when we suffer, he walks with us, and he offers his presence in our lives. He helps us endure, if we make the decision to ask him. He asks the believers to fight against the consequences of evil, making the world a better place. It's not always the case, of course, but it's what he calls us to do.

The doctrine of the original sin changed my life, I do not fell guilty and I'm stronger to change the world.

Edit : it's very mature Lemmy to downvote a message you disagree with.

If you read Genesis as a historical account of real events, you're right not to take it seriously. But if you read it as a metaphor, it can change your life.

That's not how it works. Genesis is a myth, a story who puts chronologically an existential truth.

The original sin is original in that it predates us.

Yes it is.

I tried to learn English for years. At school, and then outside school, but I couldn't make any serious progress.

And then I learnt Esperanto. Because Esperanto is regular and almost logical, in a few weeks I was able to speak to foreigners in a language that wasn't my mother tongue. And that experience permitted me to speak English, even if I totally stopped to try to learn it. Something clicked in my brain. I'm still no Shakespeare, I'm sure there are tons of errors in this message, but I can now read (even novels), understand, write and speak English comfortably.

If one is raised in a monolingual environment, the brain begins to believe that there are no other other language it can speak as efficiently as the first language. And it's true. But this shouldn't be a barrier; and to make this barrier fall is one of the hardest parts in language learning. But the good news is that once it fell for one language, it fell for all languages. Of course there are other ways than Esperanto to make it fall, but it was the one which worked for me.