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 Rugxulo(R) Homepage, Usono, 05.10.2018, 05:54

> I think radio is more often passive than TV.

Both radio and tv can be quite painful re: advertisements. So YouTube is tons more pleasant (for now!). I think a lot of big tv companies have paid their way into YouTube (begrudgingly, resentfully) in recent years. I do think that some influential people want more power, control, money, and resent YouTube and its creators for success they have outside of them.

> > (The main dude on OSNews website is Dutch, and he's in love with AAVE
> I'm no expert on American slang, but I find that hard to believe it is that
> uniform.

I don't fully know. Maybe I'm naive, but I assumed everyone locally talks (roughly) the same, plus some slang. Maybe some speak differently to others? I don't. (I do live in a big city, but I'm not gregarious.) Whatever, it's not worth even accidentally going near psychological b.s., so I'll avoid that. (I don't know what "code switching" is and don't care.)

My whole point of mentioning Thom wasn't to denigrate anyone or make generalizations about the Dutch. But he was too sensitive to one other guy's snide comments, taking offense to something that was weak at best. I just thought him odd for treating it like a separate, protected species rather than accidental slang (not universal). Whatever, he overreacted, IMO.

Some divisions are imaginary (or trivial), and it's not worth dividing people up (splitting hairs).

> 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.

Half of Syria was basically displaced due to fighting (since 2011?), but IIRC, most Christians come from Lebanon (which has its own problems, I guess). Also, there have been many Ethiopian Jews moving to Israel in recent years.

> > Latin is obsolete
> Amen to that.

"De gustibus non est disputandum." (Common saying.)

> Is there an approved Catholic English translation at all?

Yes, many over the years, esp. with such schisms being so problematic (and omitting several books).

I already mentioned Douay-Rheims.

My own brother (not a scholar, nor am I) recently got a New Revised Standard Version: Catholic Youth Bible.

NABRE (2011?) is one such, but it's basically a continuation of older versions. Although, technically, that's not 100% what is used in Mass here, for whatever reason.

The British use (or used to use?) Jerusalem Bible (but not the "new" one, inclusive language?, bah I have no idea, it gets complicated fast). One famous semi-local nun around here preferred that original one, too.

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

AFAIK, the Vulgate (in various minor revisions) trumps everything else because of its historical accuracy. But others (translated from original languages) have been approved, too. Both are often acceptable (assuming good faith).

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

He was given the chance to recant, but his stubbornness led him to put his personal "conscience" and private interpretation well above those with whom he worked, the hierarchy, etc. I don't know the full history, of course (Diet of Worms), but I'm not sympathetic to him.

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

They already knew Latin.

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

He already had special permission just to marry his first wife. "Be careful what you wish for!"

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

Martin Luther was a priest himself! Why did he go through such arduous training if he was just going to forsake it anyways? I swear, half the reason people listen to him is because of that (minimal) authority. But he wouldn't even have it without his predecessors. For freak's sake, he said "there are no saints" (certainly he wasn't!), but he was named after one! If there are no saints, why listen to this guy? What did he ever do that was so miraculous? Why do people rebel against their own parents? Only a fool thinks he's smarter than everyone who came before him, and that everyone else is always wrong. "Pride comes before a fall." The Wikipedia page for Luther Bible is very strange indeed.

Sorry, clearly I am "biased" against some things. We can't believe in literally everything and be sympathetic to all contradictory ideas. Just some people really go off the deep end. How is that "normal" or "good"?

> > 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.

I have no idea, I'm out of the loop (at least regarding ecclesiastical judgments). Maybe you mean something weird like interdict? No idea, ignorance is bliss!

> > Augustine's mother, St. Monica, was Berber. He called himself Punic.
> Well, if you know Latin, you know the term "Punic" :-)

Loosely. "Phoenician" is pretty vague, ambiguous, useless these days. (So is "black" or "white" or similar tripe, "Caucasian" or whatever. Useless in almost any context, but some still hold onto such divisions as a pseudo-political tactic. But the U.S. is generally too stir-crazy from its own isolation. We do honestly probably need more immigrants just to cleanse our palate!)

> > 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.

It was so long ago that I could call it anything and still not know the difference. (Ten fingers, ten toes, what a weirdo!) Of course, it's trivial anyways, so who cares. "I yam what I yam." -- Popeye

> Parochial schools generally admit non Christians here, and have only a
> single hour of religion education a week.

Yes, you can attend even if non-Catholic. And even Catholics aren't forced to attend (but are forced to go to CCD instead). But "normally" it's only Catholics who go to Catholic school (and it's more expensive, plus they still have to cater to secular standards).

> > "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.

Obscure "football" reference? Well, they do here locally say (American) football is the state religion! (But I dislike most sports except very rarely watching baseball.)

> > (Agnosticism isn't much better, even Darwin was lapsed Anglican/agnostic.
> > And his wife was Unitarian, ugh. Messy world.)
> And his cousin on the Wedgwood side. But indeed Darwin was quite religious
> afaik.

Yeah, he was unduly worried his children would be sickly since he married his first cousin! Not a popular custom anymore, and I'll bet his more fervent supporters would be embarrassed by that fact. (That kind of thing is an oft-touted insult, mostly by immature people on the Internet.) Of course, even Albert Einstein was purveyor of that, too. (What a world!)

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

It's totally a tactic to stop any pro-life judges. His opponents truly don't care, they've had worse scandals. (Sorry, but any feminist that had issues with Trump also had issues with Slick Willie. Either way, one of them was going [back] into the White House.)

> 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.

No, most of it is lies or exaggerated for sensationalism, hit pieces/character assassination, and just plain dirty underhanded manipulation of emotions for keeping or gaining power. It's very toxic.

Radicalism is very destructive, psychotic even. People who shout "Revolution!" or "To the streets!" are not what I'd call upstanding citizens. They think it's their duty to rebel, but rebellion never comes from a good place. (MLK is one rare example of peace and goodness, but even he nowadays is entirely watered down into a secular hero only for political purposes, ugh.)

> 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.

There are radicals who hate almost everything (long lists), they want to destroy certain people they deem "deplorable". They will use any tactic they can to do it. It's a bit psychotic. Some people respect no rules except their own passions and hatred.

I'm not really interested in politics (pointless and destructive only), but the U.S. is pathetic. Too many divisions over useless things. You know, "united we stand, divided we fall", "a house divided cannot stand". Ugh.


Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
16015 Postings in 1483 Threads, 271 registered users, 7 users online (0 registered, 7 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum