The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Adam Funk on 24 Feb 2010 06:08 On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): >> On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: >>> From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple churches. There's >>> only one. To say that there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a >>> matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a religious matter. The >>> multiplicity of churches is anathema and downright sin. >> >> Well, they would say that, wouldn't they... > > It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and Christ > did found one Church, or it isn't. To endorse the idea of multiple churches > is like endorsing the idea of apartheid. Mainstream Protestants consider > themselves part of the one Church, the Orthodox who are known for thinking > everyone else is a heretic even agree (most of them) that any church is part > of the one Church to the extent of its orthodox doctrine, and the RC holds a > similar view. Yes, right. I misunderstood what you wrote. -- The three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency. Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978]
From: Adam Funk on 24 Feb 2010 06:04 On 2010-02-23, R H Draney wrote: > Adam Funk filted: >> >>On 2010-02-22, R H Draney wrote: >> >>> (Comments are denoted by the "lamp" character, made by overstriking "jot" and >>> "up-shoe")....r >> >>As an emacs user, I'm not going to mock someone else's mnemnonics. > > (Not as long as the word "hexlify" appears in the standard command set, you're > not....) Thanks for the tip. I wasn't familiar with that command, and from now on it will save me the trouble having to drop out to hexedit (not very often, I admit). -- Unix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about its friends.
From: Adam Funk on 24 Feb 2010 06:05 On 2010-02-24, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> writes: > >> I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose >> of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits > > I suspect that it may be more successful than you know. LOL, and yes. -- And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a sucker you are. [Rufus T. Firefly]
From: Cheryl on 24 Feb 2010 06:28 António Marques 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. The Anglicans did and do. There may have been that little disagreement with the Pope a few hundred years ago, but that doesn't mean we aren't part of the universal church, and haven't been preaching the fact from that day to this. I found it very confusing as a child that I was supposed to say every Sunday that I belonged to the catholic church, when I knew that the Catholic church was the one down the road some of my friends went to, so I asked about it and had it explained to me that we were part of the 'small-c catholic', meaning world-wide, universal church. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of the other Protestant churches also had the conviction that their bit of the universal church also had a universal vocation. But I agree with you that in common speech, at least in parts of the world where there are lots of Roman Catholics, people tend to refer to the 'Catholic church' and mean the 'Roman Catholic church'. There are, or have been within living memory, Anglicans who invariably use 'Roman Catholic Church' to refer to the followers of the Pope in Rome, because they (the Anglicans) refer to themselves as members of a Catholic church, and to use the term for the RCs was confusing. As I said, in my childhood, I wasn't taught this; but I was taught to distinguish the two groups with a capital or lower-case 'C'. -- Cheryl
From: Cheryl on 24 Feb 2010 06:40
Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 23, 8:12 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >> Adam Funk wrote: >>> On 2010-02-23, Ant�nio Marques wrote: >>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. >>> Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s >>> Roman Catholic Church" or "St ____'s R. C. Church" on their signs, >>> newsletters, websites, etc., to tell them that they are wrong? (I >>> think this is common in much of the USA too.) >> I won't try to claim such signs don't exist, but I don't remember ever >> seeing one. The only way I can tell a church is RC is by the >> architecture and usually by the name (saint I've never heard of or >> long-winded way of saying Mary). > > Do you only visit villages so small that they have only one church, or > so homogeneous that they only have a sprinkling of Protestant churches? I think that's probably the key - the size and/or homogeneity of the location. I associate signs saying "St. So-and-So's Roman Catholic Church" with Toronto, which is a big enough and heterogeneous enough that it's a pretty good bet a good proportion of the population doesn't know which church is which. On the other hand, even in quite small towns, I've seen signs like "TownName United Church" or "St. So-and-So's Anglican Church", so that can't be the entire explanation. One of my families' old stories is about the time that my father's very devout uncle came to visit him in his new home, a small town with something like 4 or 5 churches serving various denominations. My father knew that although none of them were Methodist (the denomination to which his uncle, and, nominally at least, my father belonged) but that one of them was pretty close theologically. It took him about three tries to hit the right one - eliminating some, such as the Salvation Army and the Roman Catholic one by cues from the architecture. Fortunately, his uncle had a great sense of humour and no illusions about my father's religious practices. -- Cheryl |