There is more than one definition of "myth". The commonly used one is like a lie.

The one used by religious(or other stories) academics. Is something like "story" or "legend". It is perfectly possible to be a Christian and talk about Christian mythology. Of course, many Christians don't know this, will get angry, and say "our stories are TRUE!"

For a while, I paid for cable, while gradually watching more shows from torrents. It was easier to control what I watch. This included very old shows and current ones. Some copied from VHS, some from digital sources.

I never cared about watching shows NOW, but did consider it a minor benefit that I got to watch the new Battlestar Galactica before my friends in the US-if I recall correctly, it was broadcast in Australia first. But, for me, it just came up on my list of shows to watch.

At one point, I moved to another apartment. I didn't really see the point in paying for cable anymore.

There is disagreement among language theorists about this. Some consider language to be prescriptive, some descriptive. I think it's both. There IS clearly a concept of "bad English", which is not the same as incomprehensible, though.

I teach English to non-native English speakers, and I'm not going to teach my students to say "Where he at?".

However, some of the mishmash of rules in English come from attempts to insert the rules of Latin into English.

Few Christians argue that non-human animals have moral rules or penalties applied to them. So, Christians don't really care whether non-human animals "choose to be gay".

(I am not a Christian.)

Natural is a badly defined word. Living in houses is not "natural".

While the current gay community promotes the idea of a biological cause for homosexuality, the Nazis did, too. The Nazis reaction to this view was not the one desired by the gay community.

Natural is irrelevant to morality in current society, too. Sociopathy has biological causes, but we don't consider serial killing morally acceptable.

disclaimer: I'm not a Christian, and while I have plenty of negative to say about the religion, I won't say it here.

Christ hung out with sinners, for the purpose of showing them the error of their ways. He did so with compassion.

Some Christians would not allow people to attend their church because they are concerned with "encouraging the sin". These Christians might find it acceptable for a gay person to attend their church, as long as they at least feel bad about being gay. Like, if they TRY to not give in to their desire.

Just thought of this. I think the bigger problem with "colored" is that it makes people "white/everyone else". Yellow and red are colors, too racially. And, as is mentioned in my other email and often ignored, so is white.

I don't think it is a double standard. The white slurs are considered insults and rude. But, I've never heard a white person get upset about them. They were created for that purpose, but they don't have the history necessary for people to really care. The word "nigger" has a lot of history(whites beating/killing blacks) associated with it-this history gives the word weight/context. If white people start getting upset about the use of the racial slurs, they will become stronger insults, and closer in treatment to the word "nigger".

To me, someone expecting me to get angry about being called "cracker" seems funny. It's like someone yelling "White person! Bad!". Yes, I'm white. Your point? Oh, I'm bad. OK

White people don't care about the slurs, so they are not taboo.
Black people do care about the slurs, so they are taboo.

It's stupid from the reverse side, too. I've met quite a few South Africans. All the ones I've met have been white. But, if they move to the US, they become African-Americans?

The only people I hear calling someone "African-American" are people worried about offending someone.

I don't know what the situation was with "negro". It stopped being popular before I was born. It's intent seemed not to be negative.

"Colored" is problematic because it shows a common sociological bias. The idea that people are "white by default". You take take a white person and color them, and they are "colored". For examples of this, consider how many shows that are prominently white discuss race. Consider the same with prominently black shows. And, consider the prominently white show that has the "very special episode" with a black character(often new) discussing race.

"Nigger" was(and to a lesser extent is) a word used by whites to control/abuse blacks. This is why it is taboo for whites to use it. Since blacks are not on the same part of that history, there is disagreements among blacks about how/whether to use it. Some blacks use it similar to the way whites tend to use it-something like stupid, lazy, violent person(who is black). Some blacks think it is a negative word, and should be erased from our current vocabulary. Some blacks think if blacks control it and use it in a different way, it can remove the power of the word-for these people it means something like friend.

Black is the standard term.

Oh, the kid crying-I don't think it was due to the parents. They seemed to react about the same to me as the fascinated kids. Well, one of those parents were saying "don't bother him". The kids were just interested(negatively or positively) in the different person.

Yeah, I (adult white male) live in Taiwan. Very few whites or blacks here. I've had children very interested in me because I'm white. Just wanting to touch me-it also helps that I'm hairy. I've also had a child cry when I smiled at her. This is segregation, but only of the kind that exists because people don't move across the planet often.

Illegal? Is that relevant, given that you probably have your graduation date on your resume? If you graduated college before the guy hiring you was born, you AREN'T 25.

1. It's good to understand people. Religion has affected the world a lot, and still does.
2. It may have useful ideas in it. It's possible to like an idea without agreeing with it.
3. It's good to know your enemy. (that's half joke)

I tend to like comparative religion. Karen Armstrong, Joseph Campbell for religion. I also like a lot of Zen stuff, but the things I like are often labelled philosophy.

I also like the psychology of religion. I liked Jung, but think I need to reread it before I say I got enough out of it. Jung was a student of Freud, but not so absolutist about religion.

I try to mix it up. I used to just read "what I felt like". But, I almost always wanted to read SF, sometimes fantasy. Now, I make sure to alternate between SF/fantasy and "other stuff". I also try to balance out "light" and "heavy".

"Other stuff" includes history, philosophy, religion(mostly eastern), classics of literature, and generally things that have a strange point of view

History: Just finished the second in a trilogy about the Third Reich by Richard Evans.

Philosophy/(religion?): Currently reading a novel by Hermann Hesse. He usually writes a sort of Western view of Eastern philosophy/religion. This novel(Narcisuss and Goldmund) discusses a philosophy of duality, though maybe like Steppenwolf the main character may change his viewpoint.

Classics of literature: most recent was Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov.

"strange point of view stuff": while my taste in SF/fantasy tends toward this, the best example of it I can think of is Freakonomics. I like to get my mind blown.

Science Fiction/Fantasy: I either like to laugh or get my mind blown. Books don't often do both. Currently reading Old Man's War by Scalzi. The main characters are all the same, otherwise ok. Last great one I read was Olympos by Simmons.

My "light" tastes might be something like Pratchett. Some old school SF fits this, but a lot of old school SF writers can't do characterization. Some are too linear in plot development, too. My "light" is almost always SF/fantasy.

My "heavy" might be something like Dostoyevsky/Frank Herbert.