A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The perpetual calendar



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 27th 10, 11:08 PM posted to sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Trond Engen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default The perpetual calendar

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
  #12  
Old February 27th 10, 11:15 PM posted to sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Trond Engen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default The perpetual calendar

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
  #13  
Old February 28th 10, 06:30 AM posted to sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Peter T. Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default The perpetual calendar

On Feb 27, 4:58*pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in

in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english:

On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, " 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.


When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what constitutes
a Christian, it certainly is.
  #14  
Old February 28th 10, 08:20 AM posted to sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Brian M. Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default The perpetual calendar

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:30:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in

in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english:

On Feb 27, 4:58*pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:


On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in

in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english:


On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, " 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.


When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what
constitutes a Christian, it certainly is.


It never does. Individual brands of Christianity can have
official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, but
since those definitions don't all agree, the notion that
Christians in general have an official definition of what
constitutes a Christian is patently absurd.

Brian
  #15  
Old February 28th 10, 08:57 AM posted to sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default The perpetual calendar

On Feb 27, 3:48*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
On Feb 27, 1:40*pm, " wrote:



On Feb 27, 9:57*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
On Feb 27, 2:29*am, " wrote:


On Feb 27, 12:20*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, " wrote:
At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians".


Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene
Creed.


That is a different statement than the original, and would appear to


It may be a different "statement," but it conveys the obvious intent
of the original statement.


No, it conveys a different intent, which is obvious if you reread your
original question: "Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the
Nicene Creed? (With or without the _filioque_.)" *That's clearly


Since it's my question, I think I am entitled to state what its intent
was.


Whatever you might have meant, your words didn't convey it. With an
ambiguous statement, it's certainly reasonable to admit that you were
wrong and revise your statement--I've certainly made ill-formed
statements in this thread and others, and altered them.

In this case, though, it's pretty obvious from the wording what you
meant by the original question, and if you're now asserting that you
didn't mean to ask whether all Christians actually use some real
wording of the Nicene Creed then I absolutely believe you're lying. I
have no further interest in continuing this thread if you're going to
insist otherwise (and several other people in this thread also took
your words to mean what they meant to me, so I don't feel that's an
idiosyncrasy of mine).

(I gather, from the sources you cite, that you are some sort of
conservative Catholic, the type that in Chicago flocked to the one
parish in the city that had dispensation *from Rome to say Mass in
Latin, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't know anything about
such questions.)


Have fun with that (Fwiw, I'm a liberal atheist).
  #16  
Old February 28th 10, 11:49 AM posted to sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Cheryl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46
Default The perpetual calendar

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in

in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english:

On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, " 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.


When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what constitutes
a Christian, it certainly is.


Some Christians take the view that the final determination of whether
someone is or is not a Christian will take place at some later date,
when the sheep are separated from the goats by Christ Himself.
Therefore, any official definitions in the here and now are of
distinctly secondary importance.

I know, I know, a lot of others can't let go of the desire to know Right
Now, and particularly want to know whether or not that really irritating
neighbour is In or Out. And some people who aren't Christians by any
definition of the word like to know for some reason or other, probably
ranging from simple curiosity to the wish to identify a group to study
or poll, who is and is not Christian.

--
Cheryl
  #17  
Old February 28th 10, 03:10 PM posted to sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Peter T. Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default The perpetual calendar

On Feb 28, 2:20*am, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:30:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in

in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english:





On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in

in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english:
On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, " 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.

When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what
constitutes a Christian, it certainly is.


It never does. *Individual brands of Christianity can have
official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, but
since those definitions don't all agree, the notion that
Christians in general have an official definition of what
constitutes a Christian is patently absurd.


Where did I say "Christians in general"?

Why is there an epidemic of people (all of whom appear to be
mathematically oriented, incidentally) assuming that unquantified
nouns have only universal reference, as opposed to the normal
interpretation that the omitted quantifier is an existential?
  #18  
Old February 28th 10, 03:13 PM posted to sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Peter T. Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default The perpetual calendar

On Feb 28, 5:49*am, Cheryl wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in

in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english:


On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, " 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.


When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what constitutes
a Christian, it certainly is.


Some Christians take the view that the final determination of whether
someone is or is not a Christian will take place at some later date,
when the sheep are separated from the goats by Christ Himself.
Therefore, any official definitions in the here and now are of
distinctly secondary importance.


That's not about whether individuals are Christians, but about whether
individuals are granted salvation. There are indeed some bigots who
insist that no one who isn't a "Bible-believing Christian" can do so,
but that assertion is not consistent with Scripture.

I know, I know, a lot of others can't let go of the desire to know Right
Now, and particularly want to know whether or not that really irritating
neighbour is In or Out. And some people who aren't Christians by any
definition of the word like to know for some reason or other, probably
ranging from simple curiosity to the wish to identify a group to study
or poll, who is and is not Christian.

  #19  
Old February 28th 10, 03:15 PM posted to sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Peter T. Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default The perpetual calendar

On Feb 28, 2:57*am, " wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:48*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:





On Feb 27, 1:40*pm, " wrote:


On Feb 27, 9:57*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
On Feb 27, 2:29*am, " wrote:


On Feb 27, 12:20*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, " wrote:
At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians".


Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene
Creed.


That is a different statement than the original, and would appear to


It may be a different "statement," but it conveys the obvious intent
of the original statement.


No, it conveys a different intent, which is obvious if you reread your
original question: "Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the
Nicene Creed? (With or without the _filioque_.)" *That's clearly


Since it's my question, I think I am entitled to state what its intent
was.


Whatever you might have meant, your words didn't convey it. *With an
ambiguous statement, it's certainly reasonable to admit that you were
wrong and revise your statement--I've certainly made ill-formed
statements in this thread and others, and altered them.

In this case, though, it's pretty obvious from the wording what you
meant by the original question, and if you're now asserting that you
didn't mean to ask whether all Christians actually use some real
wording of the Nicene Creed then I absolutely believe you're lying. *I
have no further interest in continuing this thread if you're going to
insist otherwise (and several other people in this thread also took
your words to mean what they meant to me, so I don't feel that's an
idiosyncrasy of mine).


See recent posting on mathematicians' restrictive interpretation of
unexpressed quantifiers in English.

(I gather, from the sources you cite, that you are some sort of
conservative Catholic, the type that in Chicago flocked to the one
parish in the city that had dispensation *from Rome to say Mass in
Latin, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't know anything about
such questions.)


Have fun with that (Fwiw, I'm a liberal atheist).-


Then why on earth are you not familiar with recent (i.e., less than a
century and a half old) scholarship on topics on which you pontificate?
  #20  
Old February 28th 10, 06:09 PM posted to sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Brian M. Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default The perpetual calendar

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:10:40 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in

in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english:

On Feb 28, 2:20*am, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:


On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:30:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in

in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english:


On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:


On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in

in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english:
On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, " 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.


When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what
constitutes a Christian, it certainly is.


It never does. *Individual brands of Christianity can have
official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, but
since those definitions don't all agree, the notion that
Christians in general have an official definition of what
constitutes a Christian is patently absurd.


Where did I say "Christians in general"?


The discussion has been about who qualifies as Christian
tout court, not about who qualifies as Christian by the
definition of a particular sect. If you weren't talking
about something more general than that, your comment was
pointless.

Why is there an epidemic of people (all of whom appear to
be mathematically oriented, incidentally) assuming that
unquantified nouns have only universal reference, as
opposed to the normal interpretation that the omitted
quantifier is an existential?


That isn't the normal interpretation. And despite my
profession, I'm far more verbally than mathematically
oriented.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The perpetual calendar Andrew Usher Astronomy Misc 1189 August 9th 11 07:43 PM
The perpetual calendar Peter T. Daniels Astronomy Misc 32 March 3rd 10 06:16 AM
Perpetual Gregorian Calendar Mr. Emmanuel Roche, France Astronomy Misc 22 November 24th 09 10:34 PM
(More) Perpetual Motion Machines G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 3 November 9th 09 03:35 PM
Perpetual motion... gb6726 Astronomy Misc 5 November 12th 07 04:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.