I think the urge to assume that good and bad are going to be answered accordingly is stronger than to be confined to the teachings of one specific religion.
Greeks and Romans believed in a drab afterlife for almost everyone, except heroes and those the gods specifically picked. And a special place of torture. But it wasn't as binary as Zoroaster and friends.
It would make sense, since Islamic mythology is generally based on Jewish and Christian mythology combined with Arabic folk religion?
> Chinese religions have a variety of sources, local forms, founder backgrounds, and ritual and philosophical traditions. Despite this diversity, there is a common core that can be summarised as four theological, cosmological, and moral concepts:[4] Tian (天), Heaven, the transcendent source of moral meaning; qi (氣), the breath or energy that animates the universe; jingzu (敬祖), the veneration of ancestors; and bao ying (報應), moral reciprocity; together with two traditional concepts of fate and meaning:[5] ming yun (命運), the personal destiny or burgeoning; and yuan fen (緣分), "fateful coincide…
@Mitch Even so, it doesn't really exist as such in most religions...
@Mitch I think that's Wikipaedia's interpretation of some important generalised ideas and concepts: Chinese religion has always been a bit of a patchwork in practice.
I am trying to translate the title of my thesis that spells the following:
"Establishment of Political Parties in Georgia (at the conjunction of 80s and 90s)"
I am no sure about the part in bold. There, I want to express the time period spanning the last 2 years of 80s 1888, 1889 anდ first two...
Some time ago, I watched a video appeal, and while I definitely felt sympathy for the speaker, I cannot say that when pressed to make a decision about his cause I would support it.
I understand why the position that is opposite to the speaker's exists, and it makes more sense to me logically.
Is...
I'm looking for a term that describes when a person is pretending to be offended in order to end a confrontation. The key here is that the offense is perceived only because the person wishes to use it as leverage to leave the discussion.
Below is a poor example, but it's the best generic one I c...
@Mitch Didn't they?! It was an honorable loss for us, I would say.
We did too a couple times, to be fair. But after the only goal was scored we owned the game. But we didn't win the game.
There's still Portugal.
@Cerberus Consider this sentence:
> Dance your way round the floor with the mop to keep you from thinking too much.
Do you still find the infinitive felicitous?
If not, why?
BTW, men and women watched the game tonight in the Azadi (=freedom) Stadium TOGETHER.
It may sound pointless and stupid to you, but this is the first time in decades that everyone have sat together in a football stadium free of segregational regulations.
@Cerberus Yes, but unless some conditions are fulfilled, using the infinitive as "an adverbial phrase of purpose to the entire praedicate" would be infelicitous, if not wrong.
One of those conditions is that the subject of the infinitive be the same as the subject of the main predicate.
Compare:
> You should work to support your mother.
> You should work to keep you healthy.
The second one is just off, isn't it?
There may be other conditions.
@Cerberus I'm not aware of any official law that would prevent women from entering public places of entertainment. Women go to concerts and cinemas and theaters along with men.
That they mustn't go to sports venues with men started from some religious leaders considering it inadvisable, because men too much abuse would be flying around and that would be a disrespect to those women.
Or something like that. I believe it started from a stupid argument like that.
And then it got out of hand and turned into this contested controversial problem and everyone started to draw battle lines.
@Færd The problem in (2.) is that the object of the infinitive (you) is the same as the subject of the main clause, in which case I would write yourself.
So I suppose, yes, yourself would be an improvement in the original sentence as well.
Maybe it's not grammatical, but it's less conspicuous because there is more space in between?
@Færd When did that happen? And were women no longer allowed to attend matches together with men from that time onwards?
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…