Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

random linguistic, cultural, and religious trivia (Announce)

posted by marcov(R), 04.10.2018, 23:09

> > Here they recently are upping the commercial break frequency, after
> > American model. Annoying.
> Strange to me that people use AdBlock while watching YouTube when
> over-the-air tv has always been way worse! Yeah, I just mute (sound)
> tv commercials because they're so nonsensical.

I think radio is more often passive than TV.

> > >(TBN hispanic english) thought it a good idea! Isn't that weird??
> >
> > Very weird. If not language it must be cultural.
> It's the same exact gospel, so how do you infuse extra cultural stuff into
> that?

It's how you present it. Culture does matter, not just language. Otherwise you might as well be a Brit.

> (The main dude on OSNews website is Dutch, and he's in love with
> IMO, that's just slang, not a separate dialect, but even that heavily
> varies based upon region.)

I looked at that article, and seemed to lump Caribbean (read: Barbados, and I assume other islands too) with mainland US slang (and assume it is constant throughout the US too).

I'm no expert on American slang, but I find that hard to believe it is that uniform.

> Speaking of programming, apparently D and Modula-2 are still trying to get
> integrated into GCC proper eventually.

Still no life in GPC. Lessons from the past :-)

> > > Obviously you know that the Latin Vulgate was Catholic
> >
> > Latin. The Latin Church is a subdivision of the Catholic Church. Some
> > Easter Mediterranean and Middle Eastern churches are Catholic but not
> > Latin.
> Yes, so I've heard, but I've had little interaction with them because I'm
> in the "West".

Quite some Syrian refugees lately, as well as Ethiopian Christians, I live in a city center, and quite some minor churches now serve such foreign congregations.

> Anyways, Latin is more or less obsolete,

Amen to that.

> But the Vulgate is still the "official"
> Bible though most people just use an approved (imprimatur?) English
> translation or whatever (often directly from Hebrew/Greek, not from
> Latin).

Is there an approved Catholic English translation at all? King James is Anglican.

Afaik there was never a definitive decision that puts Vulgate bibles over the original (Hebrew/Greek/Arameic) bibles.

> > This was clarified by Pius-I-Forgot-his-number-but-during-WII.
> Pius XII, presumably. A bit before both of our times, obviously.
> Or were you referring to
> Divino afflante
> Spiritu? I've heard of it, barely, but I'm not directly familiar with
> it. I think they just went back to the original languages once the Dead Sea
> Scrolls were discovered.

Afaik those were differing aspects of the same encyclical publication. Elsewhere he confirms that the original translations are no less that the vulgate one.

> > No. Luther originally wanted to reform the church, not create a schism.
> No, he definitely wanted reform and changed many things for no good reason.
> I'm surprised he thought he could get away with it. Excluding books from
> the Bible, diminishing the number of sacraments, ignoring celibacy, and
> calling the Pope the Anti-Christ? No, that's definitely schism, not minor
> fixes.

Keep in mind that he translated the bible after he put up his position on the church in Wittenberg, and was banned for it by Charles V.

You can't really support Catholic institutions then, when they have been ordered to kill you on sight.

> Even if they couldn't literally read the Bible, translating it to German
> (whatever dialect) doesn't help the rest of the "Catholic" world.

You got to start somewhere. Best it be something you know.

> The
> Anglicans also translated the Bible to English but with so-called
> "corrections" ("obey your elders" instead of "presbyters"). They too
> deprecated some of the books, aka Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical, which were
> eventually removed.

The Anglicans were less about reform, and more about cutting loose from Rome, so that Henry VIII could have his divorce.

> Latin was dying, and even Catholics had vernacular translations in English
> (e.g. Douay-Rheims). Latin was at least mostly universal. It's hard work
> verifying every potential translation error or misuse. The reason for
> authority/tradition (bishops and priests) is to stay consistent. Having
> everyone make their own private interpretations is ridiculous. There's only
> one truth, and you can't change it. Otherwise you don't believe in truth at
> all, just ambiguity (moral relativism?), and that doesn't work.

If all priests are good natured bible scholars, sure. Reality is and was different. Bishoprics were commonly bought as occupation for second sons.

(and of course the best religious persons are Trappist monks, but that is a different story).

> > (what is the correct English for this? I meant a formal Church Ban here)
> Excommunication.

No. A Papal ban (back then) was afaik a bit more, more or less a moral obligation of everybody of good faith to kill the heretic. Luther had to go into hiding because of it.

> > Part Lutherian, larger part Calvinist (Presbyterians are Anglo Saxon
> > Calvinists), which was also state religion of the Republic. Contra
> > reformation by Spain (combined with a vast military offensive)
> I assume you mean Counter-Reformation (mostly by Jesuits)? The Council of
> Trent did indeed fix, or at least clarify, many points of contention.

Yes and no. That was a paper reaction of the Church. This was a large (20000 headcount. Quite significant for the time) army led by the Duke of Alva/Alba that traveled from Spain through Italy, Austria and Germany to the Low Countries(primarily Belgium BTW). The detour because those were Habsburg lands. (IOW avoid France)

He instituted a martial law council (called the blood-council, for good reason) to judge heretics, and, like all inquisition, a lot of Jesuits were involved.

> Augustine's mother, St. Monica, was Berber. He called himself Punic. Of

Well, if you know Latin, you know the term "Punic" :-)

> course, here in America, I've heard him called "black"! Who the hell knows,
> maybe it's all true, none of it, who knows. "A rose by any other name
> ....")

Well. You could call him "Canaanite", which is the biblical term for Eastern Punics.

> > If you go to a church here on a Sunday service, it will mostly be
> elderly
> > people. And a lot REALLY elderly (like 80+, the baby boom generation is
> > already heavily secularized)
> Parochial schools would disagree, but obviously not all children know what
> they're doing (nor care). Yes, it's a secular world overall, but there are
> still many faithful.

Parochial schools generally admit non Christians here, and have only a single hour of religion education a week. (I went to one myself, and my secondary school was a "Bishopric college"). The exact law about such schools differ from country to country.

> > > It's weird when reading about random people like Job Cohen (whom
> > Wikipedia > described as a "Jewish atheist").
> >
> > Well, I'm a catholic one :-)
> "Catholic atheist"? Sorry if I just lump you in with Job Cohen.

Please don't. It is a religious thing. He favors Ajax, I favor PSV, naturally.

> (Agnosticism isn't much better, even Darwin was lapsed Anglican/agnostic.
> Funny/sad that people treat him as some kind of solitary prophet. And his
> wife was Unitarian, ugh. Messy world.)

And his cousin on the Wedgwood side. But indeed Darwin was quite religious afaik.

> But worse is constant "change", i.e. rebellion on any- and everything that
> exists, which is psychotic. It's hard to believe (almost) that some people
> don't know their own weaknesses! They rally so hard against the system but
> constantly change their mind, constantly find a new battle, make new people
> enemies, can never rest, are never happy!

Or is that just a spin? The current debate about sexual misconduct of a Supreme Court judge does have some echoes in the past. (Clarence Thomas?)

Except for some over eager press, it might not be constant change, that is just a perception. It is more a lid on a cesspit that people tried to keep on so long that is finally overflowing.

> > You do realize that Normandy is a terribly small piece of France? I
> > wouldn't be surprised that the Norman invasion was like 200 people or so.

> Well, that one autobiography implied it was a noticeable difference. But
> the world (before airplanes) was a smaller place.

History is quite strange there. Some major battles of the past had impressive numbers of troops, some were overrated skirmishes. Rule of thumb is that army sizes in the Dark ages (400-1500) are generally smaller, despite big numbers in the few records.

I looked it up and estimates range from 7000 to 12000. Not clear if that are combatants only or not. Estimated size of French population: 9-11 million (France had the largest population in medieval times, at least among Western countries. Maybe Poland-Lithuania was larger though)

> > And then I'm not even counting football teams high percentage of people
> > with non European roots. (Nothing wrong with that, but they probably
> don't
> > trace back to 11th century Normandy)
> Well, it's the least surprising thing in the world. People move around a
> lot these days. It's stranger (almost) to be nationalistic, but maybe
> that's easier to avoid for Europeans (and/or Catholics).

Certainly here with Belgium 20km away, and Germany 5km. But that traditional weariness of polarization is diminishing, with extreme right wing on the move, and previously thought principles that were core to democracy violated.


Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
16016 Postings in 1483 Threads, 271 registered users, 4 users online (0 registered, 4 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum