<some snipped just because>
read with a smile, k?
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 07:15:33 PDT Matthew Armstrong
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
>>Sorry, you're wrong. You need a more thorough reference than a
>>dictionary. I certainly wouldn't use the OED.
To which you replied:
>Why not? Is there something wrong with the OED?
In a word, yes. The acronym stands for the "Oxford English Dictionary" -
quite literally the English language as it is used in the UK. When
Webster set out to print the first dictionary in the US more than a
century ago he deliberately began a deliberate departure from our former
rulers in Britain, to make our use of the language as distinct as our new
nation (German was even considered as the official language). Spellings
and usages were different as well as additions and omissions of whole
lists of words. In short, our language is similar, but not identical
enough to rely upon "their" interpretation of it. The OED is an
interesting reference, but the official usage of English in the US is
Webster's Unabridged. Being American, I use Webster's.
W A R N I N G !
DISCLAIMER: The following contains stuff of a controversial religious
nature. If you are easily offended or like to argue endlessly regarding
the particular concepts of your particular denomination, don't read this.
I must state that I am not now a practicing Catholic or Protestant. I am
a former scholar of religious philosophy. Even recognizing that this
country (US) was founded on the novel concept of freedom of religion
where any simpleton can erect a spire and worship his particular idol
under it, I am not inviting lengthy debate. What follows is fairly much
off the cuff. If I have to get out a book I charge by the charachter ...
[: ) Having said that :
With regard to the New Testament:
>>The Greek was written by Catholics. You sure you want to go there?
To which you interjected:
>Actually, the Catholics wrote the Latin versions... Vulgate, etc. The
>Greek manuscripts were written by the 'eyewitnesses' and first-century
Ha!!! I'm ROTFLMAO !!! Boy, I don't know why I continue to be surprised
by such as
this. Just WHO do you imagine the "'eyewitnesses' and first-century
They were ALL Catholics.
The Catholic church was instituted by Jesus of Nazareth. He appointed one
of his beloved disciples (followers) head of his new church by renaming
him. The man was originally named Simon. Jesus changed Simon's name to
"Kephas", the greek word for a substantially sized "rock". The Latin
translation for this was "Petras" the English is "Peter". Jesus told the
other disciples ... upon this "rock" (Peter) I build my church ... He
was the first leader - the founding "mortal" as it were, thus the title
equating to "father" which is "Pope" (It comes from the Greek for father:
pappas. As an aside I should mention that even priests in the Orthodox
Church are called "Pope"). All power and authority passed from Jesus to
Peter and through Peter to his successors - the following Popes. Jesus
gave Simon (Peter) the power of his authority on earth, telling him
whatever they (the Popes) endorse he (Jesus) would endorse in heaven.
They called the church "catholic" because catholic means (from the Greek)
"complete, whole" thus the meaning was that it was to be the only - or
"universal" - church of the christians - the followers or believers in
Jesus as Christ as opposed to the old Jewish beliefs. Simon (Peter)
eventually moved his "headquarters" to Rome as it was the governmental
center of the civilized universe at the time. This proved to be a mistake
as he was eventually executed by Nero (probably crucified). Once there,
the geographic association stuck when the church split East - West, hence
"Roman Catholic". An ObCelt: St. Andrew was also crucified; on a "X"
shaped cross as the story goes. This gave rise to St. Andrew's Cross and
him being the patron saint of Scotland.
(Some notes here: the word catholic derives from the Greek "katholikos"
meaning "complete or whole" *through* the Latin 'catholicus" - meaning
"universal" in the same sense, *through* middle English "catholik with
the same meaning. The word "Catholic" as a specific and official name for
the church was not fully codified until sometime after it's use by St.
Ignatus around 107 A.D. The word "church" is a recent invention, being
Middle English in derivation from "chirche" which was taken from the
Greek "kyriake" meaning "Lord's" - inferring the "Lord's House".)
ALL of the other authors of the "gospels" were members of this first
catholic congregation initiated, described and endorsed by the Christ -
in person. All were "apostles" (messengers) - personally chosen by Jesus
to spread his teachings and make converts to the new religion. Thus, all
of those apostles were the first "priests" - or proto-priest if you
prefer - of the Catholic Church. The writers, St. Matthew, St. Mark, St.
Luke, St. John, St. Jude, St. Thomas, St. Paul, etc. were *ALL* Catholic
priests. Their teachings, stories etc, were eventually collected and
written down IN GREEK between the FIRST and SECOND CENTURY **AFTER** the
founding of the Catholic Church (many scholars of that and later times
used Greek as an "officious" language). The "church" as you can see from
the above, operated for nearly two centuries *WITHOUT* any official
written material. The church, at that time, was a place to gather for the
common purpose of the daily mass (end of prayer) and to partake of the
eucharist (other prayers were offered throughout the day). The written
Greek scriptures were not given the consideration as "holy word" until
about the fourth century - by the "Catholic church". As fewer priests
understood Greek over time, a newer translation in a more modern language
was eventually undertaken. The language was Latin, the author, St. Jerome
- a "Catholic priest."
>>Not true. Haven't you ever read Exodus; Leviticus ? Lots of capital
>Are we arguing capital punishment or violence. ...
*WE* weren't *discussing* it, but since you want to join in, why not . .
By simplest definition, capital punishment IS violence (physical force
used to damage or destroy).
More from you:
> ... I thought the current
>thread o' thought was about violence. The Torah gave permission to
>deal an equal amount of harm in retaliation. It limited ...
More retort from me:
*LIMITS* ... it is in current tense, it is still a living document. The
"Torah" is nothing more than the Pentateuch, the first five books of the
Old Testament. As such it is held in current regard by Jews, Christians
> ... But Christ gave a new spin on revenge and violence . . .
If one is able to absorb the sum total of the teaching, the "new spin"
was a slight
modification that essentially says that one should go farther than had
been the custom in the past in tolerating bad behavior before addressing
it and then to be "merciful". The implication of "mercy" is plain. He was
also clear in endorsing the majority of the teachings of the Old
Testament when he said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy ..." . The "law" was the Torah,
the prophets, the Jewish prophets.
> . . . I'm not saying that the
>Old Testament is obsolete or outdated or even nec. replaced by the New
>Testament. I guess I'm just saying that maybe we should look at _all_
>references dealing with a subject, not just the ones that back up
>one's particular theological bent.
Well, yes, of course one should. One should begin by wearing out a
library card or two.
>>Occam is an excuse to not think. In my work I have found the "razor" to
>be untrue more often than true.
>Why doesn't it work? I thought that Occam's Razor allowed you to take
>the quick route to Grandma's House. Not trying to be a smartmouth...
>I was a philosophy minor in college... just wondering why you think it
>fails. The ever continuing search for truth or something like that...
Occam's [sic] Razor was a concept offered by one William of Ockham, a
Roman Catholic priest of the fourteenth century. He was a "nominalist",
one who did not accept the concept of realism. He thought that "classes"
of things had no independent reality. He was also, evidently, a simple
minded man. The philosophy he espoused was pretty much defunct by the
fifteenth century and he is considered something of a rube by today's
standard's. The only remnant of value is a concept to begin a theorem
from the simplest approach. One must have the initiative to "work up from
>If we can quote Ghandi, maybe we should throw in some Martin Luther
>King Jr. : "Eye for and eye leaves everybody blind"
I wouldn't. King was a notorious plagiarizer ... Gandhi was more
original. His oversimplified quote would leave mostly just criminals
blind, and those who had been their victims ...
>P.S. Two posts in less that a week... does this mean i'm no longer a
I agree and encourage:
If one goes to a pool, why sit and watch? One must jump in to get the
idea of swimming.
Bruce L. Jones
The Mojave Desert - The Geographic Center of Nowhere