The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 13:02 Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 17:03): > On Feb 23, 10:01 am, Yusuf B Gursey<y...(a)theworld.com> wrote: >> On Feb 23, 7:26 am, António Marques<antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: >>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 11:17): >>>> also Monophysite Churches (Armenian Orthodox, Jacobite Syrian, >>>> Coptic) reject Dec. 25 as the date of Christmass. >> >>> It's miaphysite! >> >> no, it's Monophysite (Mono, from one, Christ having only a divine >> nature). > > OK. Miaphysite is the term the Churches themselves use, but the other > Churches characterise them as Monophysites, as does most of the scholarly > historical literature. Nowadays only when being ignorant (in which case such literature probably isn't the best source of knowledge) or deliberately offensive. To be clear: the 3rd-4th century church met a serious christological problem. First some said Christ had two independent, orthogonal natures ('Nestorianism'). That was considered heretical. Then some went to the opposite and said Christ had only one nature (monophysitism). That was considered heretical as well. Orthodoxy always maintained that Christ had two natures, 'united but not confused'. 'Miaphysitism' is orthodox; in fact, the Roman or the Greek church are just as miaphysite. The actual reasons for schism were political, as ever: - First, the Assyrian Church was connotated with Nestorius, though it never actually followed the heretical parts of Nestorius's doctrine. More importantly, the ACE belonged to Persia and India afterwards, so contact was broken off by simple geographic distance. - Later on, the Copts et al were connotated with monophysitism, though they never actually were monophysites. More importantly, Alexandria and other peripherial parts of the Eastern Empire resented the dominance of the Greeks. Orthodoxy is wider than it may seem. Nestorianism and monophysitism are in fact unorthodox, but within orthodoxy it's possible to put the emphasis on different sides of the question. In fact, Nestorianism was orthodox in intent, if not in formulation, and miaphysitism is merely a reaction against Nestorianism. Not wholly dissimilarly, the filioque clause was first inserted into the Creed in Hispania not because of any wish to distort orthodoxy but as an orthodox clarification against Arianism. One needs to know the historical background and intent before knowing how to interpret such things. Of course, not all people in all sides necessarily knew/know their own doctrine. There's a thing called the 'us v. them' mentality.
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 13:11 Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 17:15): > On Feb 23, 10:22 am, António Marques<antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 15:01): >>> On Feb 23, 7:26 am, António Marques<antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: >>>> Again, the date of Christmas isn't religiously significant, other >>>> than being at that time of the year. The fact that different >>>> churches use different dates doesn't mean they are in disagreement >>>> (as your 'reject' implies), any >> >>> IIRC they considered Dec. 25 as having pagan implications. >> >> Only the Armenians use a different date, does that mean that the >> Copts, who they are in communion with, are under pagan influence? > > OK, maybe it's just the Armenians and the Copts just due to calendar, > but the Armenians did object (better word?) to Dec. 25. I know very well > in Turkey two different Christmas greetings (it's not a holiday there) > are issued by government. What I'm saying here is that such matters as the date of Christmas aren't religiously significant but arbitrary conventions (as opposed to Easter, which may be a convention but not an arbitrary one). For all I know a church could be considered orthodox while not even celebrating Christmas. 'Reject' in religious context usually applies to religiously significant things. (Now of course Christmas is significant for Christians, it's the date that isn't.)
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 13:19 Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 17:52): > On Feb 23, 6:39 am, Adam Funk<a24...(a)ducksburg.com> wrote: >> On 2010-02-23, Andrew Usher wrote: >> >>>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked >>>>> to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week >>>>> would be acceptable. >> >> ("Catholic" is a commonly used but imprecise abbreviation of "Roman >> Catholic".) >> >>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>>> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) >>>> hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. >> >>> 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to exactly one >>> organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been >>> longer than half a millennium if one includes the East. >> >> The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", and the >> "Polish National Catholic Church" are independent of each other. >> >> The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority but I don't >> think they describe themselves as "Roman Catholic". > > AFAIK that's correct. the Arabic name for the *Roman* Catholic Church > literally translates as "the Latin Catholic". "Rumi" Catholics are > Greek (or Byzantine) Catholics (under papla authority but using the > Greek rite). *How* is it correct? *How* does arabic 'roman catholic' for the eastern catholics vs 'latin catholic' for the western catholics support Adam's impression? > Latin rite Catholics are a very small minority in the > Middle East, though I knew a Palestinian whose father had a high rank > in Jerusalem (I think they are mostly centered about there, though > found elsewhere in diaspora) What I wonder is - are there 'old' latin-rite communities there alongside 'modern' ones (western migrants), or do they all mingle? It would be a tiny-minority within a tiny minority.
From: Yusuf B Gursey on 23 Feb 2010 13:39 On Feb 23, 1:19 pm, António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 17:52): > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 6:39 am, Adam Funk<a24...(a)ducksburg.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-02-23, Andrew Usher wrote: > > >>>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked > >>>>> to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week > >>>>> would be acceptable. > > >> ("Catholic" is a commonly used but imprecise abbreviation of "Roman > >> Catholic".) > > >>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >>>> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) > >>>> hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. > > >>> 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to exactly one > >>> organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been > >>> longer than half a millennium if one includes the East. > > >> The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", and the > >> "Polish National Catholic Church" are independent of each other. > > >> The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority but I don't > >> think they describe themselves as "Roman Catholic". > > > AFAIK that's correct. the Arabic name for the *Roman* Catholic Church > > literally translates as "the Latin Catholic". "Rumi" Catholics are > > Greek (or Byzantine) Catholics (under papla authority but using the > > Greek rite). > > *How* is it correct? *How* does arabic 'roman catholic' for the eastern > catholics vs 'latin catholic' for the western catholics support Adam's > impression? > > > Latin rite Catholics are a very small minority in the > > Middle East, though I knew a Palestinian whose father had a high rank > > in Jerusalem (I think they are mostly centered about there, though > > found elsewhere in diaspora) > > What I wonder is - are there 'old' latin-rite communities there alongside > 'modern' ones (western migrants), or do they all mingle? It would be a > tiny-minority within a tiny minority. well, I assume they would go to the same churches. in the main holy places Latin is used when Catholics have their turn.
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 23 Feb 2010 13:39
António Marques <antonioprm(a)sapo.pt> writes: > jmfbahciv wrote (23-02-2010 12:28): >> Andrew Usher wrote: >>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. >>> >> You always count items starting with 0? > > It's a matter of stupid perspective. Since the array's position is the > 'first', the 'first' element's position is the array's ('first') plus > 0. First plus 0 = first! Why would you assume that the position of the first element is necessarily identical to the position of the array? -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If a bus station is where a bus 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |stops, and a train station is where Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a train stops, what does that say |about a workstation? kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |