The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Feb 2010 00:16 On Feb 24, 3:27 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 2:08 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 7:07 pm, António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > > > > Hatunen wrote (23-02-2010 22:47): > > > > > I believe that a great many of the churches which once split away > > > > from the church of Rome considered themselves the true catholic > > > > chuch. > > > > > Certainly the Anglicans do. The Anglican covenant says, > > > > > "(1.1.1) its communion in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic > > > > Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy > > > > Spirit." > > > > Of course they do. But when it comes to self-identify, only one church on > > > this planet consistenty refers to itself simply as 'the Catholic Church' (it > > > also uses other names, namely 'the Church', and where pragmatism requires > > > 'the Roman Catholic Church' - but the 'Roman' adds nothing, unlike 'Old' or > > > 'Polish National' - the RC doesn't see any added value in Roman, it doesn't > > > contribute to the meaning with anything that wasn't there before). > > > > Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal ('catholic') > > > vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not as a central structuring > > > element. Notice the RC was never 'the Italian Church' even when popes were > > > italian for centuries long. > > > Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or > > without the _filioque_.) > > Not at all. The Nicene creed was explicitly designed to advocate a > Trinitarian position and to brand non-Trinitarian sects (the Arians in > particular) as heretics. It quite intentionally defines one subset of > Christianity (and not every Trinitarian sect uses the Nicene Creed-- > Quakers, for instance, explicitly reject using any creed). > > Some examples of modern-day non-Trinitarians, who would reject the key > Nicene doctrinal tenets: Then they are, by definition, not Christians. The wannabes don't get to say who is a member of the club; the gatekeepers do. > USA: The Adventists (not just Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day, but > also Christadelphians, Church of God, etc) and the Oneness > Pentecostals > China: True Jesus Church and many others (pretty much every Chinese > protestant sect doesn't use the Nicene creed) > Africa: Apostolic Church of Ethiopia > Ireland: Christian Conventions > Russia: Doukhobors, Molokans > Switzerland, Italy, Germany and surrounding areas: the Friends of Man > Sweden: Swedenborgians > North and South America: Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ > Jesus > Phillipines: Iglesia ni Cristo > > There are plenty of others, too. > > Some of those have only a few tens of thousands of members (Molokans); > others, like the AAFCJ, True Jesus Church, Iglesia ni Cristo, and > Apostolic Church of Ethiopia have a million members or more. > > Many famous devout Christians (e.g. Isaac Newton, John Locke) drew > from Arian-inspired faiths such as the Polish Brethren and would > certainly not believe in the Nicene Creed.-
From: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Feb 2010 00:18 On Feb 24, 3:43 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Feb 24, 10:04 am, Evan Kirshenbaum > > <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > [...] > > >> What's "reportage" is the "I've heard it commented". > >> If Dave, living in Arizona, has heard it told about > >> Indians, then that's the tale he's reporting having > >> heard. And the choice of ethnicity is an interesting > >> part of the tale, giving insight into the attitudes of > >> those who tell it (as distinct from those who merely > >> report having heard it). > > So ... that Dave has a prejudice concerning American > > Indians is something he thought we all should know? > > No. It's an asinine unjustified inference on your part. So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? Or is it that you have no problem with mocking groups? Or with negative attitude toward groups?
From: Joachim Pense on 25 Feb 2010 00:41 Hatunen (in sci.lang): > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:15:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >>On Feb 23, 8:07 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Indeed, indexing is not the same thing as counting. If I were creating >>> a non-computer _indexing_ system, I would start from 0 as well. >> >>What would you be indexing? Books, for instance, don't have a p. 0. > > That comes down to the question of whether the cardinal numbers > include zero. > Indexing is about _ordinal_ numbers. Joachim -- My favourite # 83: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwbzpU9SRN4> My favourite # 47: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKDAbp9m5yw>
From: Jerry Friedman on 25 Feb 2010 01:22 On Feb 22, 10:52 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:32:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in > <news:ad442cf6-ce22-4ffe-b05b-786b865fb3fc(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> > in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > > On Feb 22, 10:55 pm, "Brian M. Scott" > > <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > > [...] > > >> I can't imagine why you think that I'd change my mind. As > >> far as I'm concerned, DST has no disadvantages at any time > >> of year in any climate at any latitude. In winter at higher > >> latitudes its advantages are minimal, but it still has no > >> disadvantages. I couldn't care less how dark it is in the > >> morning; it's in the afternoon and evening that I want the > >> benefit of as much daylight as possible. > > The point is that the kiddies shouldn't go off to school > > in the dark. > > I hadn't noticed that DST would make much difference to that > in many of the places that I've lived. Is that because you don't stay up that late? It sure made a noticeable difference to me the winter we kept DST--was that 1973-74? I was living in Shaker Heights, not far from where you live now (or where your email address suggests you live, anyway). It wasn't a big problem, though, since all I had to do was walk to the corner and wait for the schoolbus. -- Jerry Friedman
From: sjdevnull on 25 Feb 2010 01:27
On Feb 25, 12:16 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Feb 24, 3:27 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:08 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 23, 7:07 pm, António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > > > > > Hatunen wrote (23-02-2010 22:47): > > > > > > I believe that a great many of the churches which once split away > > > > > from the church of Rome considered themselves the true catholic > > > > > chuch. > > > > > > Certainly the Anglicans do. The Anglican covenant says, > > > > > > "(1.1.1) its communion in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic > > > > > Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy > > > > > Spirit." > > > > > Of course they do. But when it comes to self-identify, only one church on > > > > this planet consistenty refers to itself simply as 'the Catholic Church' (it > > > > also uses other names, namely 'the Church', and where pragmatism requires > > > > 'the Roman Catholic Church' - but the 'Roman' adds nothing, unlike 'Old' or > > > > 'Polish National' - the RC doesn't see any added value in Roman, it doesn't > > > > contribute to the meaning with anything that wasn't there before). > > > > > Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal ('catholic') > > > > vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not as a central structuring > > > > element. Notice the RC was never 'the Italian Church' even when popes were > > > > italian for centuries long. > > > > Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or > > > without the _filioque_.) > > > Not at all. The Nicene creed was explicitly designed to advocate a > > Trinitarian position and to brand non-Trinitarian sects (the Arians in > > particular) as heretics. It quite intentionally defines one subset of > > Christianity (and not every Trinitarian sect uses the Nicene Creed-- > > Quakers, for instance, explicitly reject using any creed). > > > Some examples of modern-day non-Trinitarians, who would reject the key > > Nicene doctrinal tenets: > > Then they are, by definition, not Christians. > > The wannabes don't get to say who is a member of the club; the > gatekeepers do. > FWIW, after looking at Merriam-Webster, the OED, and Wikipedia, all of the above seem to fit squarely within the definition of Christianity. I'll certainly state my biases ahead of time, and say that although I was raised in the Catholic tradition all of the churches I described seem to sit clearly within the bounds of what "Christian" means--even when used by Catholic priests. I intentionally tried to avoid any faiths where I thought there was even a remote chance of controversy (e.g. Mormonism, Jews for Jesus, Unitarians, etc). I'd suggest that if you actually have a definition of Christianity that excludes Quakers, Adventists, the various Apostolic Churches and Churches of Christ, Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the like that you should state it and explain why it's superior to what most recognized lexicographers have settled on. |