Religion in CRPGs

[Sarvis]

I don't think Catholocism says "lol ure gonna do it anywayz have fun!"

Dry sex! Wonderful!

The entire basis of Catholicism is that people are sinners, and can only be redeemed through Jesus.

This is the most basic precept of the religion.

It doesn't mean they laugh and say have fun, it means they lament their own existence as being sinful.

However, as long as they are going to believe no one is capable of following their rules then there is no good reason they should not work to save the body from diseases transmitted by actions our spirit is too weak to prevent.

 

[kingcomrade]

The point isn't that people aren't going to follow "their rules" (religious people are the only people capable of restraining themselves?), it's that without a system of morals like Christianity, people are a lot more likely too. The "fallen" state of man. I'm not even a Christian, it's not that hard to understand.
The point is that people CAN resist themselves and their impulses. For Catholocism, it's about BEING Catholic that gives you tha powa to redeem yourself etc.
Like I said, it's not so hard to not fuck random people, and I seriously doubt that rape is a major vector. Just because Africans aren't Christian doesn't mean Catholics should expect less of them.

 

[Shagnak]

I read somehting recently (it may have been in one of the links above) that one of the reasons that AIDS is so "successful" in Africa is due to the deep-seated proclivities of the tribal Africans re: number of sexual partners at any one time.

Even though the number of partners over a lifetime for a tribal African is less than, say, a typical American, they have a lot more concurrent partners within their early breeding lifeltime. And these partners they were loyal to over a period (i.e. not one night stands).
The study suggested that due to this, and the obvious overlapping of sexual sets you would get over the whole African population, it meant something like an 10x larger "uptake" of AIDS/HIV.

I really think the whole issue is still the problems you have with a very different cultural outlook on sex, and mass ignorance/denial. Not religion or condoms directly (well, not to the extent to which some people may or may not be suggesting).

I think with education and condoms you are more likely to have an effect than if you try to change a deep seated cultural way of thinking about sex and polygamy.

 

[Sarvis]

Like I said, it's not so hard to not fuck random people, and I seriously doubt that rape is a major vector. Just because Africans aren't Christian doesn't mean Catholics should expect less of them.

No, it is not expecting less of anyone. In fact, expecting people to NOT screw around (ie. not commit sins) would be expecting BETTER of them than their beliefs allow for! Catholics do not believe humans are capable of living without sin. It is impossible for a human to do so. Therefore, whether they are christian or not, you must expect them to have sex outside of marriage.

As for not fucking random people... well, aside from what Shagnak just said there's the little matter of education. These people aren't going to school, they don't have sex ed classes and there's no TV out there to get messages out. The short version is: If you've got people telling you that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS, what do you think the chances actually are that they know how it spreads?

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Sarvis, the Catholic church doesn't believe anyone other than Jesus is going to live without sin. That doesn't mean that people can't strive to sin less. Nobody says "Well, some people are going to murder, so rather than focusing on telling people not to murder other people we should make sure it is done in a more orderly manner". The Catholic Church can't stop other countries from sending condoms, but that doesn't change the fact that condoms are unpopular in Africa.

 

[Sarvis]

Sarvis, the Catholic church doesn't believe anyone other than Jesus is going to live without sin. That doesn't mean that people can't strive to sin less.

No, it doesn't but it does mean that it is unrealistic to expect them not to sin. It is unrealistic to expect people not to have sex under their belief system, yet <i>that is what they are depending upon to fight AIDS.</i>

How can you depend on people leading sin-free lives to fight AIDS when you don't think people can live without sinning?

Nobody says "Well, some people are going to murder, so rather than focusing on telling people not to murder other people we should make sure it is done in a more orderly manner".

Actually they do do that, we call it war.

 

[yipsl]

Okay, since this has devolved into a religion thread, instead of a "Religion in CRPGs" I'll put my two cents in. My religious tradition sees sin as simply missing the mark, it's an archery term and has been used that way in the Hebrew Bible. What this means morally is that everyone has the potential to not sin intentionally and can work to avoid it. When the text says all men sin, it's a reference to unintentional sins due to thoughtlessness or ignorance.

We don't believe that people are born damned and must be saved. Everyone has a natural good impulse and a natural evil impulse. All religions include morals, but disagree on specifics at times. For example, murder is wrong in all religions. No society builds itself on having murder as an ideal. They simply define certain acts as not murder for ideological reasons.

That's how the homicide bombers justifiy their actions, they would not murder a child for profit, but they have no problems with children dying along with adults when they blow themselves up for religious/political reasons.

The evil impulse is natural and necessary. It's an old aphorism that were it not for the evil impulse, there would be no weddings, no building of houses or business and no insights derived through scholarly rivalry. The ideal is to use the evil impulse in the service of good. Thus, if one really liked bloodshed, they should not become a murderer, or even join the military because they might abuse their roles out of desire for bloodshed. They should instead become a butcher and slaughter animals everyday instead of occasionally slaughtering humans.

As for being born in sin and damned without Jesus as is the Christian view most of the time, we believe that, if there is an afterlife, that everyone is born with a right to it but can do things that might lose them their share in the world to come.

In other words, this world is like a cradle, some people need to be in it longer (ie returning through gilgul) but it's just the beginning and not a sad ending of being expelled from the garden. The important thing is to not do to others what is harmful to oneself, the basic law of reciprocity that's in all the world's religions.

Social conditions and tolerance for behavior change from society to society, but the essential ideals that people should live in peace, not harm others, not murder and not steal are universal. The ideal is to hit the mark, not to miss the mark.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Sheesh, Sarvis. Let's review. All pre-marital sex is sin. Not all sin is pre-marital sex. All bestiality is sin. Not all sin is bestiality. All worshipping of idols is sin. Not all sin is worshipping idols. From the Catholic Church's point of view, all of their members are going to sin. But they are not all going to commit any one specific sin. Selecting a commonly committed sin, we could reasonably assume that some will commit it. Does this invalidate advocating that people not commit the sin? No, especially not when it is simply IDIOTIC to believe that anyone would engage in sexual activity absolutely forbidden by the church but decide not to use condoms because they're catholic. The disease we're discussing is AIDS, which kills fewer American men through heterosexual sex than breast cancer. It's not because they're all avid condom users, its because their behavior is generally considerably less risky, even if we're talking about "serial monogamy".

War isn't regular murder more organized. Its the extension of politics through other means, and doesn't actually require that anyone die. Death is just a very commond side effect of war.

And on a lighter note, the term "homicide bomber" is stupid. Most people don't assume the term "bomber" to mean someone who only damages property. The term "suicide bomber" arose to distinguish those idiots from people smart enough to live to bomb another day. It conveys meaningful information.

 

[Sarvis]

We don't believe that people are born damned and must be saved.

Then what is baptism for?

They simply define certain acts as not murder for ideological reasons.

The Bible does not way "Thall shall not murder," it says "Thou shall not <i>kill</i>."

The evil impulse is natural and necessary. It's an old aphorism that were it not for the evil impulse, there would be no weddings,

Huh!?! Why wouldn't there be weddings?

The important thing is to not do to others what is harmful to oneself, the basic law of reciprocity that's in all the world's religions.

Of course things like consentual sex are not harmful to oneself as long as they are practiced safely.

Social conditions and tolerance for behavior change from society to society, but the essential ideals that people should live in peace, not harm others, not murder and not steal are universal. The ideal is to hit the mark, not to miss the mark.

Like in the Spanish Inquisition?

The church has never shown any reluctance to kill through war or torture, or to rape and protect the rapists.

Worse yet, they continue to kill through inaction when they fail to educate Africans about sex and condoms.

Sheesh, Sarvis. Let's review. All pre-marital sex is sin. Not all sin is pre-marital sex.

I never said all sin was sex. Sex is, however, probably the most popular sin ever. People who would never steal, kill, rape, worship another God or any other sin STILL have sex!

Selecting a commonly committed sin, we could reasonably assume that some will commit it. Does this invalidate advocating that people not commit the sin?

No, but it also fails to justify letting people contract a fatal disease when they DO commit the act.

No, especially not when it is simply IDIOTIC to believe that anyone would engage in sexual activity absolutely forbidden by the church but decide not to use condoms because they're catholic.

I think the problem is that no one is really telling them using a condom when they have sex can save their life. Look how unpopular condoms were in the US, pretty much up until AIDS hit many men just didn't want to use them for non-religious reasons. Meanwhile you've got the Catholic church telling people only to not have sex, and a few government agencies trying to tell people that AIDS is transmitted through casual sex... and people just figure that as long as I stay faithful to my one or two partners I'll be fine.

It's just a messy situation, and the church could be helping a lot more by advocating condom use and even distributing condoms like the Anglicans are.

The disease we're discussing is AIDS, which kills fewer American men through heterosexual sex than breast cancer.

REally? How men men are dying from breast cancer? :shock:

It's not because they're all avid condom users, its because their behavior is generally considerably less risky, even if we're talking about "serial monogamy".

No, no it isn't less risky at all. Your average college student getting laid every weekend is taking considerably more risk than a guy who only sleeps with 3 women his entire life, even if he is sleeping with all 3 at the same time. The difference is that the college guy will probably use a condom, and if he doesn't the woman will probably insist on it.

War isn't regular murder more organized. Its the extension of politics through other means, and doesn't actually require that anyone die. Death is just a very commond side effect of war.

As amusing as that story is, I find it pretty hard to believe that indiscriminate shelling of an island didn't result in any deaths.

In any case, is there really a strong difference to you between the word "murder" and the word "kill?" It's somehow ok if it's killing for politics, unless it's an assassination of a world leader... unless of course it's a leader people consider a tyrant, unless it'sm a tyrant we control.

Sorry, but this is all just rationalization for the act of killing another person.

The religion says Thou shall not kill. Not, thou shall not kill except when...

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Yes, the commandment does say, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but from other things God commands we can refer many excepts: eating many animals is A-OK (sorry, PETA), many crimes are punishable by death, and sometimes God wants war.

Africans do sometimes have fewer partners-per-year than your average American skank, but the concurrent nature of things has a very large impact. Let's assume that the man is sleeping with three women (this could very well be on the low side, 50 wives is not considered extravagant for village "Big Men"). And each of those three women are sleeping with three men (this isn't middle-eastern style polygamy, a lot of these guys expect their wives to be fooling around). And so on. Now, the American skank exposes their next partner to whatever their previous partner had, but the previous partner is safe from the next one. This isn't the case with concurrent partners.

 

[yipsl]

Then what is baptism for?

The Bible does not way "Thall shall not murder," it says "Thou shall not <i>kill</i>."

Huh!?! Why wouldn't there be weddings?

Baptism is Christian. I'm Jewish, I'm not a Christian. Baptism is loosely based on ritual immersion, which isn't/wasn't done once in a lifetime, but before holidays mandated in the Torah, after menstruation before having sex, and at other voluntary times. Some traditional Jews immerse themselves before the start of every Sabbath, whether in ritual baths or outside in isolated streams fed by spring water.

We don't have Original Sin. That's a different interpretation of the Garden of Eden story and the Jewish view is that people miss the mark, but it's not anything like the mortal sin of the Catholics or being born into sin like the Protestants.

We don't gain a share in the world to come through a ritual act or through a belief in G-d, even circumcision only brings males into the covenant, females are brought in through a naming ceremony.

Instead, everyone, Jewish and non-Jewish, who strives to be moral has a share in the world to come, which can be lost by immoral and unethical actions without repentance.

I'd say Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and various murderous dictators and seriel killers and others who are coldly amoral have lost their share because they destroy whole worlds when they murder; ie they destroy all the possible descendents, both good and bad that would have descended from the person murdered. So, Stalin's quip about one murder being a tragedy but thousands being a statistic does not hold in my tradition.

Exodus and Deuteronomy do say, thou shalt not murder in the list of the ten commandments.The Hebrew clearly says "lo tirtsah" which means "don't murder". Most of the time ratsah, from which tirtsah is taken means murder, it does not mean kill, which would be taharog. There are some texts where what might be considered murder is instead killing, with ratsah used, but those involve the few cases of revenge killing allowed at the time by Near Eastern societies.

Why wouldn't there be weddings? Without the "evil impulse" there would be no sex drive. A story relates that Rabbis prayed to remove the evil impulse and G-d answered their prayers for one week. Not even an egg was laid as neither animals nor human beings had any desire. That folklore story, as well as commentaries on the Hebrew Bible show that we view evil (ie selfishness) and good (altruism) as balancing forces, both of which are necessary for a healthy existence.

For people who are sticklers on RPGs, you'd think you'd be sticklers in regards religious beliefs too, especially what it actually says in the original text, and not what a translation claims. I'll never argue the New Testament with Christians, well not since a few years ago when I realized they can believe what they want about their religion, but I'll argue the Hebrew Bible when I see misinterpretations made through theology or ignorance.

 

[Sarvis]

Baptism is Christian. I'm Jewish, I'm not a Christian. Baptism is loosely based on ritual immersion, which isn't/wasn't done once in a lifetime, but before holidays mandated in the Torah, after menstruation before having sex, and at other voluntary times. Some traditional Jews immerse themselves before the start of every Sabbath, whether in ritual baths or outside in isolated streams fed by spring water.

Sorry, we were talking about the Catholic church and it's beliefs. I did not realize you were talking about a completely different religion.

We don't have Original Sin. That's a different interpretation of the Garden of Eden story and the Jewish view is that people miss the mark, but it's not anything like the mortal sin of the Catholics or being born into sin like the Protestants.

Which is what I was talking about. The Jewish church would then have reason to expect people to abstain from sex, but the Catholic church which is under discussion here does not because they believe people are inherently sinful and can only be redeemed through Jesus.

Instead, everyone, Jewish and non-Jewish, who strives to be moral has a share in the world to come, which can be lost by immoral and unethical actions without repentance.

The Christian view being that you don't need to strive to be moral, you just have to believe in Jesus and be repentant, correct?

I'd say Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and various murderous dictators and seriel killers and others who are coldly amoral have lost their share because they destroy whole worlds when they murder; ie they destroy all the possible descendents, both good and bad that would have descended from the person murdered. So, Stalin's quip about one murder being a tragedy but thousands being a statistic does not hold in my tradition.

As opposed to warmongers like Bush who actually destroy whole worlds on false pretenses, but invoke God so it's ok?

Why wouldn't there be weddings? Without the "evil impulse" there would be no sex drive. A story relates that Rabbis prayed to remove the evil impulse and G-d answered their prayers for one week. Not even an egg was laid as neither animals nor human beings had any desire. That folklore story, as well as commentaries on the Hebrew Bible show that we view evil (ie selfishness) and good (altruism) as balancing forces, both of which are necessary for a healthy existence.

But marriage is supposed to be about love and friendship and trust, not sex! (Or power and ownership and property rights of course.)

I still don't see why sex is, or even should be considered, an evil impulse. Love is one of our highest ideals, yet love itself is largely based on sexual desire... which is of course why the weddings would have stopped. (Why buy the cow if it's not going to give any milk, right?) So why is an evil desire responsible for on of our greatest goods?

 

[Sarvis]

Yes, the commandment does say, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but from other things God commands we can refer many excepts: eating many animals is A-OK (sorry, PETA), many crimes are punishable by death, and sometimes God wants war.

Because of course the Bible is a Perfect book which never contradicts itself!

"Thou shall not murder"

"You, go kill those guys over there or I'll turn you into a pillar of salt!"

Gotta love a perfectly compassionate God who commands his people not to kill AND commands them to go slaughter entire cities.

Africans do sometimes have fewer partners-per-year than your average American skank, but the concurrent nature of things has a very large impact. Let's assume that the man is sleeping with three women (this could very well be on the low side, 50 wives is not considered extravagant for village "Big Men"). And each of those three women are sleeping with three men (this isn't middle-eastern style polygamy, a lot of these guys expect their wives to be fooling around). And so on. Now, the American skank exposes their next partner to whatever their previous partner had, but the previous partner is safe from the next one. This isn't the case with concurrent partners.

It's a little debatable. The amount of sleeping around could certainly skew things against the college "skank." If she sleeps with one guy who has aids, catches it and then sleeps with 10 more guys over the next year she's transmitted it to 10 people. Those 10 people then sleep with 10 more people and it's suddenly 100 people, whereas even your village Big Man would only spread it to his 50 wives, and their 3 partners each for 150.

So then go one more step, each of the 100 americans sleeps with 10 more people... suddenly it's 1000 infectees. The 150 africans sleep with 3 more people each (really it should be 2, but heyt) and it's 450!

The big difference is that of the 10 Americans who the "skank" originally slept with, 9 probably would have used condoms so it stops right there.

 

[yipsl]

The Christian view being that you don't need to strive to be moral, you just have to believe in Jesus and be repentant, correct?

As opposed to warmongers like Bush who actually destroy whole worlds on false pretenses, but invoke God so it's ok?

But marriage is supposed to be about love and friendship and trust, not sex! (Or power and ownership and property rights of course.)
[/quote]

Actually, Christians believe people need to strive to be moral, they just believe that only Christians have the spiritual help to do it, but we believe that anyone can avoid intentional sins, but no one can avoid unintentional sins.

Bush is a Halliburton stooge, but even his unjust reasons to go to war were against a tyrant who gassed women and children and taught his oldest son to be a torturer. I consider the ousting of Saddam to be something that should have been done in the first Gulf War. I think we've stayed too long in Iraq and that North Korea is a greater threat to us than any Middle Eastern country. The terrorists can be isolated and Syria and Iran contained, but S. Korea is into international drug dealing, money laundering, counterfeiting and they will attack the south and Japan eventually.

Marriage exists for pleasure and love, sex is part of that, but the actual drive to have sex is neutral towards love. Few people have only had sex with others they love. Keep in mind that when I say evil impulse I don't mean cosmic evil, but natural human selfishness and biological impulses, and when I say good impulse, I mean natural human altruism and enlightened self interest.

If we're not for ourselves, who will be? If we're only for ourselves, what are we? If not now, then when?

 

[Sarvis]

Bush is a Halliburton stooge, but even his unjust reasons to go to war were against a tyrant who gassed women and children and taught his oldest son to be a torturer. I consider the ousting of Saddam to be something that should have been done in the first Gulf War.

Keep in mind that we put Saddam in power, much like how we trained Osama and Al'Qaeda.

Not saying we should have let Saddam remain in power, just that all the bloodshed eventually gets traced back to us.

Marriage exists for pleasure and love, sex is part of that, but the actual drive to have sex is neutral towards love. Few people have only had sex with others they love.

Other way, love is not necessary for sex... but sexual desire is a large component of love. I don't think you really love someone, in the romantic sense anyway, obviously not the familial sense, unless you desire sex with them. This is why marriages ceased to occur without the "evil impulse." No lust, no love... just friendship.

Keep in mind that when I say evil impulse I don't mean cosmic evil, but natural human selfishness and biological impulses, and when I say good impulse, I mean natural human altruism and enlightened self interest.

Why exactly are bioligical impulses evil?

If we're not for ourselves, who will be? If we're only for ourselves, what are we? If not now, then when?

If we're not only for ourselves, then the first question is answered.

 

[Ausir]

Actually, the original Hebrew wording is closer to "thou shalt not murder" than "kill". Killing in the name of God is not "murder", of course!

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

You people really overestimate the influence of the U.S government. Countries do a fine job of getting dictators on their own without help from us, thank you very much. What the U.S did do is support Saddam against Iran. Saddam only seized power after the Baath party was already in charge, and they seized power from a regime put in place by the British. And Al-Qaeda was not created by the U.S either. We funneled money through Pakistan's intelligence service to Afghans. The Saudis were flooding the place with money in support of their own favorites, and bin Laden was wealthy to begin with. Zawahiri has an autobiography publicly available in which he makes it very clear that there was no connection between them (MAK, which al-Qaeda arose out of) and the U.S government, which isn't all that surprising considering how much they hate us and that bin Laden and his supporters had the co-founder of MAK assassinated so the focus would be on attacking the U.S rather than regional issues.

 

[Section8]

I'm not arguing the point, but http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html is hardly an unbiased source of info.

USINFO delivers information about current U.S. foreign policy and about American life and culture. This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs.

Personally, I'd trust it about as much as I trust the former Iraqi Minister for Information.

 

[kingcomrade]

Personally, I'd trust it about as much as I trust the former Iraqi Minister for Information.

Im hoping that's exaggeration.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Biased? Sure. But the only people who knew what really happened are MKA and the government, so as long as both deny it, all we've got left is conjecture.

 

[Sarvis]

Biased? Sure. But the only people who knew what really happened are MKA and the government, so as long as both deny it, all we've got left is conjecture.

Is this by any chance the same source that tried to pass off a book sales list as the literacy level in the US?


Maybe you should check some non-biased sources, or multiple sources:

he origins of al-Qaeda can be traced to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when a cadre of Muslim fighters joined the largely United States and Pakistani-funded Afghan mujāhidīn resistance movement. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_qaeda#H ... f_al-Qaeda

 

[Section8]

Im hoping that's exaggeration.

Why is that? It makes sense to me that USINFO and the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs would have an agenda of painting the US in a positive light. And it's not paranoia on my part, I just see it as an extended version of the "salesmanship" you'd see in a classified ad.

"Mechanically sound, needs some body work done." = Well, it runs, but it's almost falling apart due to rust, etc.

"Shapely mid twenties female with bubbly personality" = annoying 29 year old fat chick, etc.

Maybe I'm jaded and cynical, but believing what a government says is about the height of naivety. Boy who cried wolf and all that.

 

[kingcomrade]

Im hoping that's exaggeration.

Why is that? It makes sense to me that USINFO and the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs would have an agenda of painting the US in a positive light. And it's not paranoia on my part, I just see it as an extended version of the "salesmanship" you'd see in a classified ad.

"Mechanically sound, needs some body work done." = Well, it runs, but it's almost falling apart due to rust, etc.

"Shapely mid twenties female with bubbly personality" = annoying 29 year old fat chick, etc.

Maybe I'm jaded and cynical, but believing what a government says is about the height of naivety. Boy who cried wolf and all that.

Yes thank you for pointing out that the State Department is in charge of the government's image and wishes to promote that image in a positive way. Nobody is saying they aren't.
But comparing the State Dept. to Baghdad Bob? I would, actually, trust the State Dept. a lot more than Baghdad Bob, not because I'm a dumb bigoted sheeple but because I'm not a moron. Baghdad Bob was lying to our faces, knew that we knew he was lying, and did it anyways. He wasn't about propoganda, he was about lies. The State Dept. doesn't exactly have evil Chimpy McHitlerburton's best interests in mind, anyways. Except for some of the top cronies, it's one of the most liberal bureaucracies. So's the CIA, as a matter of fact. I wonder why the hippy retards are always so afriad of the CIA, when it as an organization of people is practically "on their side." They should rather be afraid of the police or the FBI who would arrest them for growing weed in their basement.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Maybe you should check some non-biased sources, or multiple sources:

he origins of al-Qaeda can be traced to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when a cadre of Muslim fighters joined the largely United States and Pakistani-funded Afghan mujāhidīn resistance movement. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_qaeda#H ... f_al-Qaeda

My source was the source for that wikipedia article, and as the source I linked to points out Afghan (who the U.S funded) != "Afghan Arab" (bin Laden & friends).

As stated eariler, there are only a select number of people that actually know what really happened, and those people say MKA had nothing to do with the U.S government. Is it possible they're all lying? Yes, but we don't have anything else to dispute them.

 

[yipsl]

Why exactly are bioligical impulses evil?

Not evil, but selfish. Selfishness often leads to actions that are evil towards others. The big problem in explaining the traditional Jewish concept is that evil has slightly different connotation in Christianity. There it's a cosmic thing relating to the change in nature caused by the Fall of Man and acerbated by a cosmic rebellion of angels.

In the Jewish view, evil and good are both natural impulses we have and even an evil impulse can be used in a constructive way that furthers good. Just replace evil with selfish and good with altruistic and you have an explanation that's based more on observation of human nature and biology than theology.

As far as TheGreatGodPan's example that "all premaritial sex is sin" but that "not all sin is sex", that's similar to the hierarchy of transgressions in an old Jewish saying:

All are liars,
Most are thieves,
Many are adulterers,
Some are idolators,
A few are murderers

The worse the sin, the fewer people intentionally do it, the lesser the sin, the more likely is it that it will be committed, with the seriousness related to whether it was intentionally committed with forethought or an unintentional lapse.