Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Tsaphah, Mar 3, 2013.
I appreciate the efforts of our mono-lingual posters too...
This is going back several years. One morning I was working in the garden and a cat that I used to own, came running up to me. Puss had really large eyes and was meowing very loudly. I knew right away that something was going on (this cat was very laid back and relaxed in nature.)
Puss ran back to the front of the house and looked around the corner and then raced towards me again, continuing to meow loudly. ("Hurry up, will ya!")
I continued to walk to the front of the yard and then I could hear the sound of footsteps as I got closer. The cat was beside itself!
It was a salesman. We talked for a couple of minutes. I noticed that Puss was still glaring at the salesman. I gave Puss a pat on the head and reassurance ("it's OK, soldier - at ease!") The salesman laughed and asked if it was my "watch-cat."
â€œIf you aren't fired with enthusiasm, you will be fired with enthusiasm.â€ - Vince Lombardi (1913 - 1970)
FIRE. (The Imperial Bible Dictionary, 1866, Vol. 1-Pg. 588) Symbolical and idiomatic uses
Of fire as a natural element, or as employed in domestic operations and the processes of art, there is no need for discoursing here. In these respects the student of Scripture has no difficulty to encounter, or any peculiarity to meet. The only thing respecting fire which calls for explanation is its symbolical use.
In this we may distinguish a lower and a higher sense: a lower, when the reference is simply to the burning heat of the element, in which respect any vehement affection, such as anger, indignation, shame, love, is wont to be spoken of as a fire in the bosom of the individual affected, Ps. 39:3, Jer. 20:9; and a higher, which is also by much the more common one in Scripture, when it is regarded as imaging the more distinctive properties of the divine nature. In this symbolical use of fire the reference is to its powerful, penetrating agency, and the terrible melting, seemingly resistless effects it is capable of producing. So viewed, fire is the chosen symbol of the holiness of God, which manifests
itself in a consuming hatred of sin, and can endure nothing in its presence but what is in accordance with the pure and good. There is a considerable variety in the application of the symbol, but the passages are all explicable by a reference to this fundamental idea. God, for example, is called â€œa consuming fire,â€ Heb. 12:29; to dwell with him is to dwell â€œwith devouring fire,â€ Isa. 33:14; as manifested even in the glorified Redeemer â€œhis eyes are like a flame of fire,â€ Rev. 2:18; his aspect when coming for judgment is if a fire went before him, or a scorching flame compassed him about, Ps. 97:3, 2 Th 1:8:â€”in these, and many similar representations occurring in Scripture, it is the relation of God to sin that is more especially in view, and the searching, intense, all-consuming operation of his holiness in regard to it. They who are themselves conformed to this holiness have nothing to fear from it; they can dwell amid its light and glory as in their proper element; like Moses, can enter the flame-enwrapping cloud of the divine presence, and abide in it unscathed, though it appear in the eyes of others â€œlike devouring fire on the top of the mount,â€ Ex. 24:17-18.
Hence, we can easily explain why in Old Testament times the appearance of fire, and in particular the pillar of fire (enveloped in a cloud, as if to shade and restrain its excessive brightness and power) was taken as the appropriate form of the divine presence and glory; for in those times which were more peculiarly the times of the law, it was the holiness of God which came most prominently into view; it was this which had in every form to be pressed most urgently upon the consciences of men, as a counteractive to the polluting influences of idolatry, and of essential moment to a proper apprehension of the covenant. But in the new, as well as in the old, when the same form of representation is employed, it is the same aspect of the divine character that is meant to be exhibited.
Thus, at the commencement of the gospel era, when John the Baptist came forth announcing the advent of the Lord, he spake of him as coming to baptize with fire as well as with the Spirit, not less to burn up the chaff with fire unquenchable than to gather in the wheat into his garner, Mt. 3:11-12. The language is substantially that of an Old Testament prophet, Mal. 3:2; 4:1 and it points, not as is often represented, to the enlightening, purifying, love-enkindling agency of Christ, but to the severe and retributive effects of his appearance. He was to be set for judgment as well as for mercy; for mercy indeed first, but to those who rejected the mercy, and hardened themselves in sin, also for judgment. To be baptized with the Spirit of light, holiness, and love, is what should ever follow on a due submission to his authority; but a baptism with fireâ€”the fire of divine wrath here, Jn 3:36, growing into fire unquenchable hereafterâ€”should be the inevitable portion of such as set themselves in rebellion against him.
nice one Tsaphah ...
evidence that animals have a very high level of sensory recognition.
I guess since I am pretty aware of how animals can "read people" I
suspect the hairs on the back of my neck would have come to play
if my cat had reacted so ...
We studied with a young man and his lady (this was over 30years
back) he hated animals and was open about it ..our new pup would
go into long and protracted growling sessions when he came over to study
and finally we had move the study due to the dogs temper when he
was there ...turns out the man was actually pretty violent as when
we started the study with his girlfriend ( a stunning beauty who
when I had her with me anywhere every head in the lot would turn)
and confided he regularly got violent with her ...now since then I
have always paid attention to the animals we owned as like very
young children untainted with habitual violence they read humans
pretty well . I used to tell people if I introduced my children to
someone and they didn't like them I probably shouldn't either
the same goes for animals ...
Enigma cipher simulator
Lorenz cipher simulator
US SIGABA aka ECM Mark II or M-134
Fuhgeddaboudit: New York Accent On Its Way Out, Linguists Say
There are some cities you can identify with just an accent, including New York.
But linguists say that those who speak in the classic New York tongue are part of a dying breed.
To find them, filmmaker Heather Quinlan went accent hunting around the city, holding a sign that reads, "Do you have a New York accent? Then talk to me." She directed If These Knishes Could Talk: The Story of the New York Accent, a documentary about the decline of many of New York's well-known accents.
You may have heard about the "Brooklyn accent" or "Bronx accent" (or seen comedian Fred Armisen's impressions), but Quinlan says New York's accents are defined more along ethnic lines than by boroughs or neighborhoods.
"What differentiates the accents is not geographic so much, especially nowadays, because people don't stay put in one neighborhood their whole lives," she says. "It's ethnic."
Quinlan says some of the best examples come from movies: James Cagney's Irish New York accent, Woody Allen's Jewish accent in Annie Hall, and the Puerto Rican accent portrayed by Rosie Perez in Do The Right Thing.
But these iconic ways of speaking are becoming more rare on the island of Manhattan in particular, says linguist Dan Kaufman, who co-curated "Mother Tongues," a new exhibit about the decline of New York accents at the City Lore gallery.
Kaufman says part of the reason why these accents are fading is that more well-to-do outsiders are moving into Manhattan proper.
"Wealthy people, or middle-class people even, from all over the country, speak quite similarly to each other," he says. "Working-class people really are the ones who maintain the local dialects."
Kaufman adds that social pressure to sound more like "Middle America" has flattened out many accents.
"People used to say 'Toidy-toid Street' for '33rd Street,' 'goil' for 'girl' in New York City English, and that is actually almost completely dead," he says.
Well, not quite, says 79-year-old Donald Semenza.
Semenza's accent is typical of many of his generation who grew up in working-class, Italian-American neighborhoods in Manhattan. It's a way of speaking that he says may have put him at a disadvantage when he worked with Wall Street stockbrokers who had middle-class accents.
"I could read the look of their faces, like, 'Where's this guy coming from?' " Semenza says. "So a person may view me as a person who can't think. I think that's a mistake 'cause I know how to think."
Semenza says he's proud of his accent, which his daughters, he adds, didn't pick up.
"If no one ever speaks like me again, who cares?" he says. "There's always a time to move on. Cultures change, traditions change."
Semenza says he is looking forward to hearing other immigrant communities redefine the New York accent that had been prevalent in neighborhoods in Manhattan.
But on Manhattan island, linguists say, the high costs of living are keeping many immigrants and other newcomers from settling down. That's cutting off new accents before they can emerge and pushing them into the outer boroughs. It's creating a more linguistically homogenized Manhattan, says City Lore's founding director, Steve Zeitlin.
"If people speak the same way they do everywhere else and if the neighborhoods are really not distinctive, then we're losing a sense of place and we're losing a sense of who we are," he adds.
Scott Jon of Brooklyn says nowadays, you're more likely to find strong New York accents if you leave Manhattan or even the state.
"All the people that had New York accents, they're moving away," he says. "My sisters moved to New Jersey, and all my friends are moving to New Jersey, so their kids talk differently. They pronounce their R's now."
This is a change that worries Bronx resident Valerie Lauda, who says she is sad that the accent is fading.
"We need to save it 'cause it's so distinct," she says. "You can go anywhere in the country and tell, 'Hey, that's a New Yorker,' no doubt."
Years ago, I was travelling on the subway in New York. Sitting just a few seats away was a bloke who had a Californian accent - I recognised the accent as I had already spent a few days on the west coast.
There was also a bloke who had the Boston accent. I recognised that from working with someone who was from Boston and who was on a business trip in Australia for 6 weeks.
Oxymoron:1650s, from Greek oxymoron, noun use of neuter of oxymoros (adj.) "pointedly foolish," from oxys "sharp" (see acrid) + moros "stupid" (see moron). Rhetorical figure by which contradictory terms are conjoined so as to give point to the statement or expression; the word itself is an illustration of the thing. Now often used loosely to mean "contradiction in terms." (Online Etymology)
Of the 100 â€œawfully goodâ€ examples of oxymorons, â€œcriminal justiceâ€ was not listed.
Or, â€œdry iceâ€ and â€œvirtual realityâ€. One of my favorites was â€œsound of silenceâ€, which I used in a T.V., radio advertisement for Mercedes Benz. I made this for the media/communications class in college.
The professor didnâ€™t get it. She argued that there is no â€œsound of silenceâ€. I had to argue my point that there is no point. It was a contradictory term used to equate the feel of riding in a Benz. The class argued in favor of my point and she finally gave me an â€œAâ€ for the project.
Another subject that we must learn to deal with in language is â€œfigures of speechâ€, â€œmetaphorsâ€, and "euphemisms". One that many people use is, â€œthe skyâ€™s the limitâ€, and, â€œhe kicked the bucketâ€, or â€œHeâ€™s not the sharpest knife in the tool box.â€ The parables/illustrations tha Jesus used were combinations and examples of these terms.
For example, what is the difference between the good seed and the weeds? What determines a flower from a weed?
Another phrase that I use: "I don't think that the lift goes all the way to the top floor."
Someone used the word "struth" on the forum. That's part of the Aussie language......LOL!
It is an expression of surprise or dismay. (I sometimes swap that with "curl my hair!")
....haha that was me wallflower...as you know it means .....Gods truth......so it's frowned on......in the truth I mean ....yet it's quiet appropriate in many instances I reckon....fair dinkum mate!
Your presence here is as usual a "bouffÃ©e d'oxygÃ¨ne" ! = revivifying like a puff of oxygen (or like a breath of fresh air) !
Interesting thread about English language
[h=3]4: Youâ€™ve got another thing coming vs. Youâ€™ve got another think coming[/h] This is one of those phrases where the incorrect usage actually does make sense and has become its own phrase. But itâ€™s still technically wrong. In fact, most people donâ€™t even know the correct phrase unless they look it up (I sure didnâ€™t). The correct version really only makes sense if you use the entire sentence â€œif thatâ€™s what you think, youâ€™ve got another think coming.â€
[h=3]9: He did good vs. He did well[/h] The phrases good and well get interchanged so much that some people think they are actually interchangeable words. Theyâ€™re not. If youâ€™re ever confused about which to use, hereâ€™s a tip: Use â€œwellâ€ as an adverb (words used to describe verbs) and â€œgoodâ€ as an adjective (words used to describe nouns). For example:
The dog runs well
He is a good dog
Thank you Utuna for that lovely compliment...I did reply but it didn't come up so let's hope this one works.....I hope my Australian humour does not appear to rough for some here...as sometimes when we have had visitors from overseas they say our sense of humour is very raw.......there is so much sorrow and heaviness in this world that humour is a must to survive,
At one stage in our cong...we had five nurses...our humour was ..we'll lets just say..really .raw.....sometimes we would tell some stories which we thought were hilarious but the elders hairs would stand on end......haha....we would do this to a prissy self righteous elder from time to time...of course we would take our 'rawness' to the limit just to see his reaction....lol.....not very sisterly really but boy it was sure satisfiying.
just think of the Angels and what they see...I bet at times they have laughed their heads of at some of the antics man and the animals have gotten up to....
i think humour is one of the most endearing qualities that Jehovah has...thank goodness he shared it with us
The following was taken from the book; â€œHow to Speak How to Listen, Appendix 1, by Mortimer J. Adler - 1983. This is a portion from a speech â€œdelivered at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, April 1982.â€ I wanted to discuss the subjects here because it deals with the difference of the terms brain and mind. It also deals with angels and spirit. Under the subheadings below, he talks about defining kind and degree, to begin with, and then to angels and humans. His approach is from a view of psychology and philosophy verses Neurophysiology, Brain Mechanisms and Intelligence.
DIFFERENCES IN KIND AND IN DEGREE
1. A difference in degree exists between two things when one is more and the other is less in a given specified respect.
a. Thus, for example, two lines of unequal length differ only in degree.
b. Similarly, two brains of unequal weight or complexity differ only in degree.
2. A difference in kind exists between two things when one possesses a property or attribute that the other totally lacks.
a. Thus, for example, a rectangle and a circle differ in kind for one has interior angles and the other totally lacks them.
b. So, too, a vertebrate organism that has a brain and central nervous system differs in kind from organisms that totally lack these organs.
3. A difference in kind is superficial if it is based upon and can be explained by an underlying difference in degree.
a. Thus for example, the apparent difference in kind between water and ice (you can walk on one and not the other) can be explained by the rate of motion of their component molecules, which is an underlying difference in degree.
b. Similarly, the apparent difference in kind between humans and other animals (things that human beings can do that other animals cannot do at all) may be explainable in terms of the degree of complexity of their brains. If that is so, then the apparent difference in kind is superficial.
4. A difference in kind is radical if it cannot be explained in terms of any underlying difference in degree, but only by the presence of a factor in one that is totally absent in the other.
a. Consider the difference between plants and the higher animals. This appears to be a difference in kind, for the animals perform operations totally absent in plants.
b. If this difference in kind can be explained only in terms of the presence in animals and the absence in plants of brains and nervous systems, then it is a radical, not a superficial, difference in kind.
ANGELS AND HUMAN BEINGS
Let me begin by saying that I wish you to consider angels only as possible beings-as purely hypothetical entities. Whether or not there is any truth in the religious belief that angels really exist need not concern us.
a. As possible beings, angels are purely spiritual. Our interest in them here arises from the fact that they are conceived as minds without bodies.
As minds without bodies, angels know and will and love, but not in the same manner that we do.
(2) Their lack of bodies has a number of striking consequences.
(a) They do not learn from experience.
(b) They do not think discursively for they have no imaginations and memories.
(c) Their knowledge, which is intuitive, derives from innate ideas implanted in them at the moment of their creation.
(d) They speak to one another telepathically without the use of any medium of communication.
(e) Their minds, which are infallible, never go to sleep.
b. In all these respects, minds without bodies differ from the human mind precisely because the latter is associated with a body and depends upon that body for some or all of its functions.
2. You may question the possibility of angelsâ€”of minds without bodies, minds without brains. If so, let me defend the possibility of angels against the materialists who think they have grounds for denying that angels are possible. I do so because, as you will see presently, the error of the materialists has a critical bearing on the course of my treatment of the problem of minds and brains.
a. The argument of the materialists runs as follows.
(1) They assert that nothing exists in reality except corporeal things, from elementary particles up to the most complex organisms, from atoms to stars and galaxies.
(2) But angels are said to be incorporeal.
(3) Therefore, they conclude, angels are impossible, as inconceivable and impossible as are round squares.
b. The argument is weak in one respect and faulty in another
(1) Its initial premise (that nothing except corporeal things exist) is an unproved and unprovable assumption. It may be true, but we have no grounds for asserting its truth, neither with certitude nor even beyond a reasonable doubt. It is as much a matter of faith as the religious belief in the reality of angels.
( 2 ) Even if we were to grant the truth of that initial premise, the argument is faulty, because the conclusion does not follow.
(a) If the premise assumed were true, the valid conclusion to be drawn from it is that angelsâ€”incorporeal beingsâ€”d0 not exist in reality.
(b) But the conclusion that angels cannot existâ€”that they are impossibleâ€”does not follow at all.
c. There are many positive arguments to support the conceivability and possibility of angels, but I am not going to take the time to set them before you. For our present purposes, let it suffice for us to recognize that the exponents of materialism cannot validly deny the possibility of angels.
d. This being so, neither can they deny that the human mind may be a spiritualâ€”an immaterial factorâ€”associated with the brain as a corporeal factor, both of which are needed to explain human thought.
This brings us to a view at the opposite extreme from materialism, a view that looks upon the human mind as an immaterial substance, an immaterial power, that does not need a brain for its unique activity, which is rational thought.
This is the view taken by Plato in antiquity and by Descartes at the beginning of modern times.
It commits what I have called an angelistic fallacy, for it regards the rational soul or human intellect as if it were an incarnate angelâ€”a mind that, in humans, may be associated with a body, but one that does not depend upon or need a body for its intellectual operations.
c. I do not have to persuade you, in the light of all you know about the dependence of human mental operations upon brain functions and processes, and all you know about the effects of brain pathology upon human thought, that this Platonic and Cartesian view of the human mind as an incarnate angel flies in the face of well attested evidence, and must therefore be rejected.
d. I wish only to add that, on purely philosophical grounds, the dualism of mind or soul and body does not stand up.
(1) It denies the unity of the human being. It makes us a duality of two independent substancesâ€”as independent as a boat and person who is rowing it. Either one of the two can cease to exist without the other ceasing to exist. They are existentially distinct and separable, as our mind and our brain are not.
( 2 ) It leaves us with an inexplicable mystery of why the human mind should have any association with a human body.
(How to Speak How to Listen - Mortimer J. Adler, Appendix 1-Pgs. 206-211)
The most important thing we must know is how to read. There are some scripture translations which can be confusing if we are not aware of the main subject being spoken of. Here is a good example: â€œSee what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.â€ (1 Jo 3:1 NIV) What is the main subject here? There are three references; Father, God, and him. Before we can go any further, we need to understand; who is â€œthe Fatherâ€, who is â€œGodâ€, and who is â€œhimâ€?
Are they the same subject, or are they each different subjects? One problem in the translation is from Greek to English, and the Greek does not have punctuation marks. It also has a verb noun placement in a sentence that differs from English. Greek and Hebrew also have different word spellings that change the tense, whether past, present, or future. Autos, in Greek, does not mean an automobile. It is a pronoun and can mean: he, his, him, her, hers, them, these, it, etc., depending on the subject and context.
Here is where this sentence can be used to confuse a person. Paul is saying that the love of the Father[God] has called us children of God[God the Father]. The world does not know him[Jesus the Son=God]. This can be confusing because God in Greek is theos. Even when speaking of other gods, it is theos. â€œ; for passing through and looking up at the objects of your worship, I also found an altar on which had been written, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Not knowing, then, whom you worship, I make Him known to you.â€ (Acts 17:23 LITV) The Greek used here is agnostos (ag'-noce-tos') theos (theâ€™-os) = unknown God. The first word is where we get the English, agnostic = unknown/donâ€™t know.
What Paul says next can also be confused. â€œNot knowing, then, whom you worship, I make Him known to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, this One being Lord of Heaven and of earth,â€ (Acts 17:23-24 LITV) Are we to understand that Paul was speaking of â€œHimâ€, and â€œGodâ€, and â€œLordâ€, as a triune god as some Greek gods we known to be? Is that how to read that sentence? It all depends on how you interpret the words. How do you refute that logic? In most cases, you canâ€™t. It all depends on true heart condition. â€œOnly time will tell.â€
Think of this song as a person leaving the church of trinity.
Who said that languages were barriers between people....? This guy learned many thousands of words in 9 weeks and definitely knows more French words than I'll ever know.... Granted, he mustn't know their meaning but it's quite a feat for sure !
New Zealand's Nigel Richards wins French Scrabble crown
The French-language Scrabble world championship has been won by a New Zealander who does not speak a word of French, competition organisers say.
Nigel Richards defeated a rival from French-speaking Gabon in the final in Louvain, Belgium, on Monday.
Mr Richards is said to have memorised an entire French Scrabble dictionary in nine weeks earlier this year.
A previous English Scrabble champion, he originates from Christchurch, New Zealand, and is now based in Malaysia.
He beat Gabon's Schelick Ilagou Rekawe two games to nil in Monday's final.
Separate names with a comma.