The perpetual calendar
in [Math]
|
Prev: THE MIND OF MATHEMATICIANS PART 7 " SPATIAL MATHEMATICS , VALUE OF 1 and 3
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: Yusuf B Gursey on 27 Feb 2010 16:32 On Feb 27, 4:02 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:37:52 -0800 (PST), Yusuf B Gursey > <y...(a)theworld.com> wrote in > <news:a8c3d99e-1ed2-460b-8546-93e517dd2ed2(a)f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> > in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > > On Feb 27, 9:57 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > [...] > > >> Gnostics aren't Christians. (Not that there have been any for about > >> 1500 years.) Did you miss the great outpouring of secondary literature > >> that followed on the long-delayed publication of the "Gnostic > >> Gospels"? > > isn't it better to go along with self-identification? > > Of course. thanks. I agree with you. it would be different if the illegal immigrant merely declared himself as ethnically an "American", since ethnicity is primarily a matter of slef-identification. citizenship isn't. if one doesn't consider religiion a matter of self- identification, one goes the way to morally legitimizing institutions like the Inquisition. > > Brian
From: Brian M. Scott on 27 Feb 2010 16:58 On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote in <news:02dc31c7-bbee-4dd6-8c8f-f915da3acdab(a)g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Feb 27, 1:40�pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [...] >> Until you offer a definition of "Christian" with an >> explanation and evidence as to why it's superior to >> those generally accepted by lexicographers, there's not >> really much left to discuss.- > Again I point out, as a linguist, that lexicographers have > no special handle on truth, especially as concerns > technical terminology. But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a technical term. Brian
From: Trond Engen on 27 Feb 2010 17:08 Yusuf B Gursey skrev: > Brian M. Scott: > >> Yusuf B Gursey: >> >>> Peter T. Daniels: >>> >>>> Gnostics aren't Christians. (Not that there have been any for >>>> about 1500 years.) Did you miss the great outpouring of secondary >>>> literature that followed on the long-delayed publication of the >>>> "Gnostic Gospels"? >>> >>> isn't it better to go along with self-identification? >> >> Of course. > > thanks. I agree with you. it would be different if the illegal > immigrant merely declared himself as ethnically an "American", since > ethnicity is primarily a matter of slef-identification. citizenship > isn't. if one doesn't consider religiion a matter of self- > identification, one goes the way to morally legitimizing institutions > like the Inquisition. Amen. Here, though, we're discussing 'Christian' as a technical term for a set of beliefs and belief systems, so we're on a more theorethical level than the persuasion of the individual. But even then, or even more then, it's a dead end to adopt the gatekeeping routines of one or more of the groups or some particular interpretation of an internal theological subtlety. For sci.lang. and a.u.e. readers it should be obvious that the defining feature must be the common origin of the religious traditions and mytho- and theologies. And that their diverting developments, including loans and substrates, is a field of study. -- Trond Engen
From: Trond Engen on 27 Feb 2010 17:15 Trond Engen skrev: (Oops, cut too much) > [..] For sci.lang. and a.u.e. readers it should be obvious that the > defining feature must be the common origin of the religious > traditions and mytho- and theologies. And that their diverting > developments, including loans and substrates, is a field of study. .... and that one should leave the self-identification to the selves, and the question of whether or not something is a system of it's own or part of something else to those who care. -- Trond Engen
From: Skitt on 27 Feb 2010 17:16
Peter T. Daniels wrote: > "Skitt" wrote: >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>> I wonder whether sjedvnull would be satisfied with, If you're >>> baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then >>> you're a Christian. >> >> Naah, I was baptized when I was sixteen (for convenience's sake, so >> as not to disappoint those who were helping our family immigrate >> into the USA), and for the same reason, I was confirmed in the >> Lutheran church after arrival in the States. I don't believe in any >> of that stuff, but what are you gonna do? > > But you said that you did, at either Baptism or Confirmation or both. Yeah, well, when necessary I say all sort of things, especially when I don't take the happenings seriously. You know -- religious hocus-pocus and such. > If you had "mental reservation," as it's sometimes put, then > presumably the sacraments were not legitimately performed. And yet, I keep on living. >> It made our helpers happy, and no believers were harmed in the >> process. Why, I even joined the YMCA, as it was our official >> sponsor. The YMCA had great pool tables and a table tennis facility, >> so all was not lost. > > I don't think you have to be Christian (or Young) to use the YMCA ... Not to use, but there was some sort of commitment that had to be expressed to join the Y. > you certainly don't have to be Jewish (or male) to use the YMHA; the > 92nd St. Y is one of New York City's great cultural institutions. > (They don't seem to use the MHA in their name any more.) I used to play table tennis also at Newman Hall in San Jose. Also at some sort of an Episcopal facility, when I was kicking around with the son of the then San Jose Police Chief (Blackmore). -- Skitt (AmE) What? Me religious? |