PDA

View Full Version : Good Friday



Desmond
06-04-2007, 12:20 AM
Interested in your meat-eating habits on this particular day.

Capablanca-Fan
18-06-2010, 02:22 PM
Interested in your meat-eating habits on this particular day.
Would have voted for "I am a Christian and will NOT be abstaining from meat."

antichrist
15-07-2010, 11:24 PM
For years I did not eat meat on Fridays, and the Lebo custom is not to eat meat three days a week. But being a Catholic there is a great contradiction. We are supposed to believe that the communion host becomes the body and blood of Christ i.e., meat - and yet we consumed it on Friday!!! You work that one out Jono.

And as a health fanatic does the wafer become genetically modified when turning in the body and blood of Christ?

Rincewind
15-07-2010, 11:30 PM
For years I did not eat meat on Fridays, and the Lebo custom is not to eat meat three days a week. But being a Catholic there is a great contradiction. We are supposed to believe that the communion host becomes the body and blood of Christ i.e., meat - and yet we consumed it on Friday!!! You work that one out Jono.

And as a health fanatic does the wafer become genetically modified when turning in the body and blood of Christ?

As far as I know only Catholics put much store in the whole transubstantiation so your ribbing is waaay off if you are looking for a rise from almost all the outspoken Christians here.

Regarding the not eating meat, it isn't a hard rule, don't eat meat without reason, it was a mark of respect and obviously doesn't apply to the sacrament of communion regardless of your position on transubstantiation.

Regarding the genetics, transubstantiation is a dogma and not open to scientific enquiry.

antichrist
15-07-2010, 11:38 PM
As far as I know only Catholics put much store in the whole transubstantiation so your ribbing is waaay off if you are looking for a rise from almost all the outspoken Christians here.

Regarding the not eating meat, it isn't a hard rule, don't eat meat without reason, it was a mark of respect and obviously doesn't apply to the sacrament of communion regardless of your position on transubstantiation.

Regarding the genetics, transubstantiation is a dogma and not open to scientific enquiry.

But your response is only 20th century relativism. A few hundred years ago Catholics would accuse Jews of stabbing the host (the child Jesus) and the host would cry and bleed - this would set off a pogrom.

So it all depends on time and place as to how these aspects are treated.

And eating meat was certainly a hard rule in my school. Sister Mary Michael of the Sacred Heart Convent School promised us we would burn in Hell if we ate meat on Friday. No dilly dalliness in those days.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2010, 06:23 AM
But your response is only 20th century relativism. A few hundred years ago Catholics would accuse Jews of stabbing the host (the child Jesus) and the host would cry and bleed - this would set off a pogrom.
Not so: as the book The Myth of Hitler's Pope by Rabbi Dr David Dalin documents, the medieval popes denounced this "blood libel" and "host desecration libel". Pope Gregory the Great's Sicut Judaeis ("As for the Jews") explicitly forbade vilification of the Jews and affirmed their property rights. Pope Callixtus V condemned physical attacks on the Jews, forced conversions, and destruction of the synagogues, and promised to defend them. Pope Gregory X declared that any testimony against the Jews without a Jewish witness was invalid. Pope Clement VI issued a bill absolving Jews for any blame for the Plague, and urged bishops, priests and monks to take Jews under their protection. Later popes had Jewish physicians, including Joseph Sarfati (d. 1577), personal physician and medical adviser to Pope Clement VII, considered by the Jews as a "favourer of Israel"; his father Samuel Sarfati had successfully treated a serious illness of Pope Julius II. Pope Sixtus IV quashed the vile rumour that Jews had drained the blood of a Christian child to mix with their unleavened bread (the "blood libel", stupid on the face of it since Jews abstain from blood). Alexander IV (Borgia) sheltered Jews who fled from the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions. Leo X treated Jews so well that they thought that it presaged messianic times. Pope Clement XIV wrote one of the most comprehensive refutations of the "blood libel". Pope Leo XIII, quite a strong chessplayer, defended the Jews in general and Captain Dreyfus in particular.


So it all depends on time and place as to how these aspects are treated.

And eating meat was certainly a hard rule in my school. Sister Mary Michael of the Sacred Heart Convent School promised us we would burn in Hell if we ate meat on Friday. No dilly dalliness in those days.
Who cares about superstitious nuns? They are more legalistic than the church requires.

In any case, as RW says, many Christians (including me) don't accept transubtantiation, so the point is irrelevant.

antichrist
17-07-2010, 02:04 PM
Jono, am very busy these days but will get back next week

Desmond
04-10-2010, 10:45 AM
Anyone want to guess what they call the day after Good Friday in South Australia? "The Day After Good Friday". I kid you not. Fine name for a holiday if you ask me.

http://www.safework.sa.gov.au/show_page.jsp?id=2483

Rincewind
04-10-2010, 11:23 AM
Anyone want to guess what they call the day after Good Friday in South Australia? "The Day After Good Friday". I kid you not. Fine name for a holiday if you ask me.

http://www.safework.sa.gov.au/show_page.jsp?id=2483

Makes sense. BTW although that sites says that it is commonly referred to as Easter Saturday, according to Wikipedia (and I'm inclined to agree), it is incorrect to do so. Easter Saturday is the Saturday of Easter Week which starts on Easter Sunday. A more correct name is Holy Saturday or simply The Day After Good Friday. :P

The good news is next year we have a 5 day Easter holiday because Easter Monday falls on ANZAC day and thus Easter Tuesday has been proclaimed a public holiday.

Adamski
04-10-2010, 11:24 AM
Anyone want to guess what they call the day after Good Friday in South Australia? "The Day After Good Friday". I kid you not. Fine name for a holiday if you ask me.

http://www.safework.sa.gov.au/show_page.jsp?id=2483What's wrong with Easter Saturday?

Desmond
04-10-2010, 11:38 AM
The good news is next year we have a 5 day Easter holiday because Easter Monday falls on ANZAC day and thus Easter Tuesday has been proclaimed a public holiday.
I'd like to say "you beauties" but in Qld it seems it is not necessarily going to happen:

link (http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/fair-and-safe-work/industrial-relations/public-holidays/public-holiday-dates-for-2008-2013)


^ The Queensland Government is currently considering whether a substituted public holiday should be appointed for either Easter Monday or Anzac Day 2011.

Desmond
04-10-2010, 11:43 AM
What's wrong with Easter Saturday?
Nothing, I was being facetious.

Garvinator
04-10-2010, 12:31 PM
I'd like to say "you beauties" but in Qld it seems it is not necessarily going to happen:

link (http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/fair-and-safe-work/industrial-relations/public-holidays/public-holiday-dates-for-2008-2013)


^ The Queensland Government is currently considering whether a substituted public holiday should be appointed for either Easter Monday or Anzac Day 2011.
I contacted the relevant government authorities attempting to try and confirm whether the Tuesday will be a public holiday and they said a decision would be made in a month or so. That was a month ago though :hmm:

Will ACT be observing a Tuesday public holiday as that could change the dates and structure of Doeberl?

Rincewind
04-10-2010, 03:49 PM
What's wrong with Easter Saturday?

Easter Saturday is the Saturday of Easter Week, that is the Saturday AFTER Easter Sunday. The Saturday before Easter Sunday is Holy Saturday.

Desmond
04-10-2010, 04:23 PM
Victorians (http://www.vic.gov.au/Victorian-Public-Holiday-Dates.html) call it "The Saturday before Easter Sunday"

Rincewind
04-10-2010, 05:46 PM
Victorians (http://www.vic.gov.au/Victorian-Public-Holiday-Dates.html) call it "The Saturday before Easter Sunday"

NSW call it "Easter Saturday".

http://www.industrialrelations.nsw.gov.au/About_NSW_IR/Public_Holidays.html

So do NT (http://www.ocpe.nt.gov.au/legislation/holidays) and ACT (http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/communication/holidays).

antichrist
05-10-2010, 05:07 PM
well at the original event (it didn't occur mind you) they would not known have known that JC was going to rise from the dead and that Easter would occur (actually wasn't easter something about rabbits being naughty?), it should be called something like Tomb Saturday.

But compared to the miners in South America being entombed for about 2 months already Jesus' feat was nothing. We have had earthquake victims buried for longer than 3 days and survived.

And BTW I make a point of having a big juicy steak to make up for all ruddy Fridays I kept meatless due to the RCC. But Friday did not stop their priests being naughty on that day.

Desmond
21-04-2011, 08:28 PM
happy 5-day weekend

1701

antichrist
21-04-2011, 08:34 PM
does JC get double time for being strung up on public holidays? And triple time for not getting a break in 24 hours?

antichrist
22-04-2011, 02:48 PM
go the roman soldiers - crucify him let his blood be upon us and upon our children

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2011, 04:08 PM
happy 5-day weekend
Only 3 in America, and that's if you're lucky!

antichrist
22-04-2011, 09:00 PM
Only 3 in America, and that's if you're lucky!

that is because they are right wing mean capitalists, instead being of a bit more socialistic like genuine Aussies are, and more humane by the way, a fair go so to speak and not too much had yakka, get a deceny break occasionally

antichrist
24-04-2011, 07:22 AM
Julia’s tax: rejected by voters and unions, and now business says no (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/julias_tax_rejected_by_voters_and_unions_and_now_b usiness_says_no/)
Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, April 20, 11 (05:52 am)

The Business Council of Australia declares war on Julia Gillard’s carbon dioxide tax in this letter (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/julias_tax_rejected_by_voters_and_unions_and_now_b usiness_says_no/)to the Prime Minister

It’s astonishing that the BCA should only now — years too later, when Gillard cannot retreat — point out the bleeding obvious about this tax. First. that it’s suicidal for Australia to lead a reluctant world in slashing our emissions and giving up the competitive advantage of cheap coal-fired electricity. Second, that it’s is madness to do something so expensive that will do zero to cut the world’s temperature.

well the same could be said Jesus' crufixion on the cross, was all in vain and people are still sinning and going to Hell.

So hear this Jesus, Jono thinks that you are a wanker for getting crucified

Desmond
29-03-2013, 08:03 AM
any Friday is good when you start the day with bacon :D

antichrist
29-03-2013, 09:48 AM
this Jesus was a confused fella, he was supposed to be God but did not know he was going to be strung up, and it was supposed his ole man, also the same God, who arranged it all - sounds more like a funny buggers getting together and not sorting out which one was Athur and which one was Martha

not that....some of my best friends are .....

Adamski
29-03-2013, 10:32 AM
Read the Gospels, AC. You are the confused one.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
29-03-2013, 07:25 PM
any Friday is good when you start the day with bacon :D

and when we dont have to go to work !! :clap:

Rincewind
29-03-2013, 07:42 PM
any Friday is good when you start the day with bacon :D

Roger, Francis or Kevin?

antichrist
29-03-2013, 07:53 PM
Roger, Francis or Kevin?

any of them I prefer to Meatloaf

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
29-03-2013, 08:02 PM
any of them I prefer to Meatloaf

a strip of bacon is usually more entertaining than meatloaf. it can also hold a tune much better.

Adamski
29-03-2013, 10:27 PM
a strip of bacon is usually more entertaining than meatloaf. it can also hold a tune much better.
LOL! Two out of 3 aint bad!

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2013, 12:07 AM
Does Easter have a pagan derivation? Was Jesus really crucified on a Friday? (http://creation.com/easter-and-good-friday-questions-and-answers)

antichrist
30-03-2013, 10:05 AM
Does Easter have a pagan derivation? Was Jesus really crucified on a Friday? (http://creation.com/easter-and-good-friday-questions-and-answers)

as Jesus is not an historical figure all the essence should not be considered seriously, because without substance it is just a waste of our precious time. If you want to preach then preach contraception, population control, pollution control and social justice for people who are suffering because of Biblical racism

antichrist
30-03-2013, 10:11 AM
furthermore if you believe in Creationism than you are admitting that evolution is a stronger force than creationism. Because God would have created man without imperfections of homosexuality (according to Christian fanatics) - but man has evolved into wretched sinful disease-ridden homosexuals (according to fanatical Christians). Did God get the receipe wrong?

exactly what kind of sin was there in Sodom and Gamorrah(?) to draw God''s wrath -I can't remember exactly how the Catholic priest described what they were supposed to be doing?

Adamski
30-03-2013, 01:37 PM
as Jesus is not an historical figure all the essence should not be considered seriously, because without substance it is just a waste of our precious time. If you want to preach then preach contraception, population control, pollution control and social justice for people who are suffering because of Biblical racism
Show me one reputable historian who does not believe that Jesus was an historical figure. Not Josephus, Pliny the Younger,....

antichrist
30-03-2013, 05:27 PM
Show me one reputable historian who does not believe that Jesus was an historical figure. Not Josephus, Pliny the Younger,....

well from what I have read high Catholic scholars in that area of expertise concede that the enteries are interpolated by Catholics after Josephus met his maker. Also isn't Josesphus account just a matter of fact mention, not making it sound like some thing wild and wonderful. And isn't that account out of context of surrounding texts.

Don't mention Tacitus, he mentions about 6 prophets and none of them sound like Jesus of Nazareth - unless Jesus is a composite figure make up of all 6

Adamski
30-03-2013, 08:26 PM
Josephus makes quite a few references to Jesus.

Rincewind
30-03-2013, 09:16 PM
Josephus makes quite a few references to Jesus.

Josephus was *born* around 37 AD and so was born after Jesus' death and writing in the late 1st century and therefore was working off secondary sources. Also the most important sections of Jesephus with regards the authenticity of Jesus, particular the section describing the sentencing of Jesus to death under Pilate, is at least partially not authentic and contains interpolation by Christians made much later.

All you can definitely say based on Josephus is that some people living in the 1st century believed that someone called Jesus existed in the recent past whose followers called the Christ and that he probably had a brother called James.

antichrist
30-03-2013, 09:47 PM
I wonder why Jesus did not hang around a lot loonger, performing party tricks around the place, would have been popular with the ladies, but the fish and bakery shops would have detested him. He should have been named Sue coz his father was not around

Adamski
30-03-2013, 10:23 PM
On the Cross Jesus said "It is finished". I.e. the work He had to do as a man on earth was complete. So no need to "stay around longer".

antichrist
30-03-2013, 10:30 PM
On the Cross Jesus said "It is finished". I.e. the work He had to do as a man on earth was complete. So no need to "stay around longer".

we have had Holocaust since, Cambodia killing fields, Stalins efforts etc and he reakons his job was complete here - he only cured about 3 bods

also he did not want to go, he yelled Father why has thou forsaken me,his old man done him in - the old man did same as he commanded Abrahim to do, be responsible for his own son's death

Adamski
30-03-2013, 10:33 PM
we have had Holocaust since, Cambodia killing fields, Stalins efforts etc and he reakons his job was complete here - he only cured about 3 bods

also he did not want to go, he yelled Father why has thou forsaken me,his old man done him in - the old man did same as he commanded Abrahim to do, be responsible for his own son's death
Many more than three. He had demonstrated he was the Son of God. The "why have You forsaken me?" was quoting Psalms. Straight after he said :
"not my will but Thine be done" to God the Father.

Adamski
30-03-2013, 10:35 PM
we have had Holocaust since, Cambodia killing fields, Stalins efforts etc and he reakons his job was complete here - he only cured about 3 bods

also he did not want to go, he yelled Father why has thou forsaken me,his old man done him in - the old man did same as he commanded Abrahim to do, be responsible for his own son's death
Many more than three. He had demonstrated he was the Son of God by doing many miracles. The "why have You forsaken me?" was quoting Psalms. Straight after he said : "not my will but Thine be done" to God the Father.

antichrist
31-03-2013, 10:26 AM
Many more than three. He had demonstrated he was the Son of God by doing many miracles. The "why have You forsaken me?" was quoting Psalms. Straight after he said : "not my will but Thine be done" to God the Father.

then why was he racist and only saved the Hebrews or whoever, what about the Cambodians, Jews, USSR minorities etc. as as God is everywhere this evil must exist in him, therefore he is evil! And it is not if he has to put on his wings and fly to Earth, Earth is inside him.

At least his flying does not leave a carbon footprint like those big jets

Adamski
31-03-2013, 02:39 PM
Jesus was a God for all peoples, as many Bible verses show. Start with John 3:16.

Capablanca-Fan
18-04-2017, 05:36 AM
Atheist historian Tim O'Neill on the “Easter is Pagan” nonsense on many gutter atheopath websites. He notes that a lot of it comes from the moronic claims of 19th-century Protestant minister Alexander Hislop, beloved by the Chick tracts, both of which these atheopaths would despise:

Ishtar = Easter: Get real
Eostre: one uncorroborated reference to such a goddess
Easter eggs: celebrating end of Lent
Easter bunny: really a hare, since spring is where these normally solitary animals become very active

Easter, Ishtar, Eostre and Eggs (http://historyforatheists.blogspot.com/2017/04/easter-ishtar-eostre-and-eggs.html), History for Atheists, 16 April 2017

One comment below the article says:


Comical, isn't it, that the same people who cling to Jesus mythicism ("there's not enough evidence to prove he existed") will carry the Oestre [typo for Eostre] fable to their graves based on a single reference by Bede?

One sentence by Bede? QED!

Rincewind
18-04-2017, 06:29 AM
Atheist historian Tim O'Neill on the “Easter is Pagan” nonsense on many gutter atheopath websites. He notes that a lot of it comes from the moronic claims of 19th-century Protestant minister Alexander Hislop, beloved by the Chick tracts, both of which these atheopaths would despise:

Ishtar = Easter: Get real
Eostre: one uncorroborated reference to such a goddess

Ishtar is nonsense and Hislop's argument is plainly silly. Bede is harder to discredit since he was writing only a few centuries after the conversion England and the word Easter does not derive from the Latin or Greek word for the Christian festival. As even ONeill admits the word for Easter is associated in dawn and spring.

For example ONeill (and the real historian Hutton) is forced to admit...

"It is therefore quite possible to argue that Bede’s Eostre was a German dawn-deity who was venerated at this season of opening and new beginnings. It is equally valid, however, to suggest that the Anglo-Saxon “Estor-monath” simply meant “the month of opening”, or the “month of beginning”, and that Bede mistakenly connected it with a goddess who either never existed at all, or was never associated with a particular season, but merely, like Eos and Aurora, with the Dawn itself." - Hutton

Which I'm happy with. I note that O'Neill, in his haste to prove everyone wrong, has thrown his weight behind the idea that Bede was just making things up since that suits his narrative. Bede may have been but since Jono normally venerates the writing of early Churchmen it is somewhat amusing that he is quick to rubbish this 8th century monk.

Desmond
18-04-2017, 07:02 AM
Atheist historian Tim O'Neill ...
Is he an historian? I thought he was a blogger with a penchant to respond to memes.
While his profile (https://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980) says he is interested in history, he does not claim there to being an historian, rather self describes as: "Wry, dry, rather sarcastic, eccentric, occasionally arrogant Irish-Australian atheist bastard."

TimONeill
18-04-2017, 07:57 AM
Is he an historian? I thought he was a blogger with a penchant to respond to memes.
While his profile (https://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980) says he is interested in history, he does not claim there to being an historian, rather self describes as: "Wry, dry, rather sarcastic, eccentric, occasionally arrogant Irish-Australian atheist bastard."

I have never claimed to be a historian and always try to correct people who call me that. And I have a "penchant to respond to memes" because many of the New Atheists who regularly bungle history have a penchant for communicating their pseudo history via memes. I'm afraid you can't blame me for their choices.

TimONeill
18-04-2017, 08:05 AM
Ishtar is nonsense and Hislop's argument is plainly silly. Bede is harder to discredit since he was writing only a few centuries after the conversion England and the word Easter does not derive from the Latin or Greek word for the Christian festival. As even ONeill admits the word for Easter is associated in dawn and spring.

For example ONeill (and the real historian Hutton) is forced to admit...

We're "forced"? We're "admitting" something?


"It is therefore quite possible to argue that Bede’s Eostre was a German dawn-deity who was venerated at this season of opening and new beginnings. It is equally valid, however, to suggest that the Anglo-Saxon “Estor-monath” simply meant “the month of opening”, or the “month of beginning”, and that Bede mistakenly connected it with a goddess who either never existed at all, or was never associated with a particular season, but merely, like Eos and Aurora, with the Dawn itself." - Hutton

Which I'm happy with.

Oh, I'm sure Dr. Hutton will be so relieved to hear that. I bet he was worried what your opinion might be.


I note that O'Neill, in his haste to prove everyone wrong, has thrown his weight behind the idea that Bede was just making things up since that suits his narrative.

I've done no such thing. I simply noted caution about accepting what Bede says at face value, precisely as Hutton does. Nowhere do I say Bede was wrong, let alone that he was definitely "making things up" - I simply note that these things are possible given the complete lack of any other reference to this supposed goddess.



Bede may have been ...

Which is exactly what both myself and Hutton say. Is English your first language? You seem to struggle with comprehension issues.

Desmond
18-04-2017, 08:23 AM
I have never claimed to be a historian and always try to correct people who call me that. And I have a "penchant to respond to memes" because many of the New Atheists who regularly bungle history have a penchant for communicating their pseudo history via memes. I'm afraid you can't blame me for their choices.

Cool cool I'm sure Capa Fam will happily stand corrected. As you were soldier.

Rincewind
18-04-2017, 03:03 PM
Which is exactly what both myself and Hutton say. Is English your first language? You seem to struggle with comprehension issues.

Blind Timmy can see that Hutton is more neutral giving the existence of a Eostre cult at 50-50 odds whereas you are more sceptical and tending to discredit Bede's testimony. As Hutton says we don't know very much about Saxon mythos; the evidence being scant and the lack of cognates in Norse is not a silver bullet.

In any case the thrust of my argument was that "the reason for the season" meme is particularly weak in the case of Easter since the English word for the festival has non-Christian origin which is true whether Bede made up the Eostre cult or not.

TimONeill
18-04-2017, 04:21 PM
Blind Timmy can see that Hutton is more neutral giving the existence of a Eostre cult at 50-50 odds whereas you are more sceptical and tending to discredit Bede's testimony.

I'm sorry - I must have missed the bit where Hutton gave those very precise odds. Where is that? Here's what Hutton says:

" It is therefore quite possible to argue that Bede’s Eostre was a German dawn-deity who was venerated at this season of opening and new beginnings. It is equally valid, however, to suggest that the Anglo-Saxon “Estor-monath” simply meant “the month of opening”, or the “month of beginning”, and that Bede mistakenly connected it with a goddess who either never existed at all, or was never associated with a particular season"

And here's what I say in conclusion:

"So "Eostremonath" could refer to an otherwise totally unattested goddess, a goddess not associated with Easter or it could be a reference to the month when the sun shines again as winter gives way to spring. We simply don't know."

We are saying exactly the same thing. I give more emphasis to the reasons we could doubt Bede, but that's only because I'm addressing claims that assert that there definitely was a goddess "Eostre". Both Hutton and I are noting there are several possibilities and no way of determining between them.

Rincewind
18-04-2017, 10:14 PM
" It is therefore quite possible to argue that Bede’s Eostre was a German dawn-deity who was venerated at this season of opening and new beginnings. It is equally valid, however, to suggest that the Anglo-Saxon “Estor-monath” simply meant “the month of opening”, or the “month of beginning”, and that Bede mistakenly connected it with a goddess who either never existed at all, or was never associated with a particular season"

My bolding.

Capablanca-Fan
19-04-2017, 05:50 AM
Bede may have been but since Jono normally venerates the writing of early Churchmen it is somewhat amusing that he is quick to rubbish this 8th century monk.
I have praised Bede elsewhere because he believed in a spherical earth (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14708-Religion-and-Science-of-Cosmology-(s-f-Science-Stories)&p=358253&viewfull=1#post358253), and provided quotes. RW whinged even about that (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14708-Religion-and-Science-of-Cosmology-(s-f-Science-Stories)&p=358394&viewfull=1#post358394) on the ground that it's a not geometrically perfect sphere, although the deviation from perfect sphericity is about a third of one percent (due to an effect that no one predicted until Newton and observed even later, and I don't mean what one of the "Chasers" on the quiz show The Chase (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chase_(UK_game_show)) claimed: the flattening by the weight of the poles, when in reality it's due to the earth's spin).

In the same thread, I pointed out that Bede correctly pointed to the moon as a major source of the tides, something that Galileo bungled.

Capablanca-Fan
19-04-2017, 06:05 AM
Is he an historian? I thought he was a blogger with a penchant to respond to memes.
While his profile (https://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980) says he is interested in history, he does not claim there to being an historian, rather self describes as: “Wry, dry, rather sarcastic, eccentric, occasionally arrogant Irish-Australian atheist bastard.”

OK, how about ‘history writer’? He says:


Given that I'm an amateur, I don’t. I read the work of the professional historians who do and present the mainstream, agreed, consensus positions they come to. (reply to comment on The Great Myths 2: Christmas, Mithras and Paganism (http://historyforatheists.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-great-myths-2-christmas-mithras-and.html), January 11, 2017 at 9:38 PM)

Rincewind
20-04-2017, 09:49 AM
I have praised Bede elsewhere because he believed in a spherical earth (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14708-Religion-and-Science-of-Cosmology-(s-f-Science-Stories)&p=358253&viewfull=1#post358253), and provided quotes. RW whinged even about that (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14708-Religion-and-Science-of-Cosmology-(s-f-Science-Stories)&p=358394&viewfull=1#post358394) on the ground that it's a not geometrically perfect sphere, although the deviation from perfect sphericity is about a third of one percent

Bede used the word perfect sphere probably motivated by theological or magical reasoning. Hardly whnging to point out a bona fide mistake.

Rincewind
20-04-2017, 09:51 AM
OK, how about ‘history writer’?

Amateur history blogger and serial Beetlejuicee is probably more accurate.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2017, 02:26 PM
Bede used the word perfect sphere probably motivated by theological or magical reasoning. Hardly whnging to point out a bona fide mistake.

There are degrees of perfection. Bede of course knew that there were mountains and valleys and deep oceans, so knew that it wasn't technically a geometrically perfect sphere. But those small deviations were minute, so the deviation from perfection was at most one part in a thousand. Where is your evidence that Bede was motivated by anything but the knowledge of his day?

Rincewind
20-04-2017, 04:55 PM
There are degrees of perfection. Bede of course knew that there were mountains and valleys and deep oceans, so knew that it wasn't technically a geometrically perfect sphere. But those small deviations were minute, so the deviation from perfection was at most one part in a thousand. Where is your evidence that Bede was motivated by anything but the knowledge of his day?

Your confusing roughness and eccentricity again. Please come back when you have understood the problems with your argument the first time around.

Capablanca-Fan
21-04-2017, 01:34 PM
Your confusing roughness and eccentricity again. Please come back when you have understood the problems with your argument the first time around.

Not at all. The deviation from sphericity due to roughness is about 0.1%, and that due to eccentricity about 0.3%. So quit whinging about Bede's estimation of the sphericity of the earth, which is still a good approximation for most purposes today, and was certainly excellent when no one knew about the equatorial bulge.

Rincewind
22-04-2017, 12:44 AM
Not at all. The deviation from sphericity due to roughness is about 0.1%, and that due to eccentricity about 0.3%. So quit whinging about Bede's estimation of the sphericity of the earth, which is still a good approximation for most purposes today, and was certainly excellent when no one knew about the equatorial bulge.

I had stopped talking about this when I showed your inconsistency the first time. For some reason you saw fit the revisit the scene of you last loss.

BTW 0.3% is not "at most one part in a thousand" so you have repeated your mistake from last time and BTW "perfect" doesn't even allow for one part in a thousand. That you want to keep flogging this dead horse is beyond surprising.

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2017, 12:54 AM
I had stopped talking about this when I showed your inconsistency the first time. For some reason you saw fit the revisit the scene of you last loss.

BTW 0.3% is not "at most one part in a thousand" so you have repeated your mistake from last time and BTW "perfect" doesn't even allow for one part in a thousand. That you want to keep flogging this dead horse is beyond surprising.

Again, the one part in a thousand was due to the difference between mountains and ocean bottoms, and 0.3% was the deviation due to oblateness. You mixed up the things that you accused me of confusing.

There are degrees of perfection as there are degrees of accuracy. Your fellow atheopath Isaac Asimov pointed out in The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm):


when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

Rincewind
22-04-2017, 01:23 AM
Again, the one part in a thousand was due to the difference between mountains and ocean bottoms, and 0.3% was the deviation due to oblateness. You mixed up the things that you accused me of confusing.

Check again I didn't confuse them but pointed out that you did and your earlier claim (post #59) was that the deviation from perfection was one part in a thousand. You then changed to using percentages perhaps to gloss over the inaccuracy of your earlier claim. As pointed out to you the first time around the eccentricity of the approximate spheroid is the bigger issue and the surface roughness is doubtless something Bede was aware of.


There are degrees of perfection as there are degrees of accuracy.

That is neither the dictionary or mathematical definition of perfection. Accuracy is "the degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard". Whereas perfect means "having all of the required or desirable elements, qualities or characteristics as good as it is possible to be".

Now Bede clearly knew what a sphere was as he describes on in the passage the surface generated by all the points some distance from a fixed centre. However the eccentricity means the earth is not such an object. (Interestingly the bulge is a good reason to conclude that the earth spins on axis and is not stationary and most people in the 8th century thought).

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2017, 01:37 AM
What I said was:


Bede of course knew that there were mountains and valleys and deep oceans, so knew that it wasn't technically a geometrically perfect sphere. But those small deviations were minute, so the deviation from perfection was at most one part in a thousand.

See, this was about the deviations that were knowable at the time. The deviation due to oblateness is greater, about 0.3%, but that wasn't known to Bede or to anyone else at his time.

Yes, Newton predicted oblateness from the earth's rotation.

Your hyper-literal understanding of "perfect" is beside the point. Bede and his readers understood it differently, so he could call the earth a perfect sphere even with the deviations he was aware of.

Rincewind
22-04-2017, 01:44 AM
What I said was:


Bede of course knew that there were mountains and valleys and deep oceans, so knew that it wasn't technically a geometrically perfect sphere. But those small deviations were minute, so the deviation from perfection was at most one part in a thousand.

See, this was about the deviations that were knowable at the time. The deviation due to oblateness is greater, about 0.3%, but that wasn't known to Bede or to anyone else at his time.

The point is Bede had no reason to think the ball was a perfect sphere other than his incorrect beliefs that it was of divine origin and immoveably located at the centre of the universe.


Your hyper-literal understanding of "perfect" is beside the point. Bede and his readers understood it differently, so he could call the earth a perfect sphere even with the deviations he was aware of.

It isn't "hyper-literal" it is the dictionary definition. I didn;t cite but both quoted sections from post #64 are from the Oxford English Dictionary.

It is hypocritical to praise Bede for over-stating the perfection of the geometry of the earth for mystical reasons while at the same time deriding Bruno for doing essentially the same thing.

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2017, 10:55 AM
The point is Bede had no reason to think the ball was a perfect sphere other than his incorrect beliefs that it was of divine origin and immoveably located at the centre of the universe.
The perfection (with a deviation of 0.1% as far as he or anyone else at the time thought, or 0.3% as discovered a millennium later) was argued from the earth's shadow in a lunar eclipse. Aristotle and Ptolemy believed in a spherical earth immoveably located at the centre of the universe for non-biblical reasons.


It isn't "hyper-literal" it is the dictionary definition.
What did it mean in Bede's Latin? Clearly, given that he allowed for the imperfections of mountains and valleys, not total hyper-literal perfection.


It is hypocritical to praise Bede for over-stating the perfection of the geometry of the earth for mystical reasons while at the same time deriding Bruno for doing essentially the same thing.
Where is your evidence that Bede's reasons were mystical? Is it OK that he correctly explained the tides, unlike Galileo?

Rincewind
22-04-2017, 11:51 AM
The perfection (with a deviation of 0.1% as far as he or anyone else at the time thought, or 0.3% as discovered a millennium later) was argued from the earth's shadow in a lunar eclipse. Aristotle and Ptolemy believed in a spherical earth immoveably located at the centre of the universe for non-biblical reasons.

You seem unaware that Bede addressed the issue of roughness in the original (see below). The only issue I have with him is the eccentricity which goes against his description of a perfect sphere provided by the divine.


What did it mean in Bede's Latin? Clearly, given that he allowed for the imperfections of mountains and valleys, not total hyper-literal perfection.

He addresses the issue of mountains in the original. He did not address the issue of eccentricity because (as you point out he didn't know about it). But instead claimed the perfect sphere (discounting roughness) which it clearly is not.


Where is your evidence that Bede's reasons were mystical? Is it OK that he correctly explained the tides, unlike Galileo?

Since you are keen on the Latin here is the relevant paragraph (ex Caput XXXII) from De Temporum Ratione (with mystical/theological reasoning bolded by me)


Causa autem inaequalitatis eorundem dierum terrae rotunditas est; neque enim frustra et in scripturae divinae et in communium literarum paginis orbis terrae vocatur. Est enim re vera orbis idem in medio totius mundi positus, non in latitudinis solum giro quasi instar scuti rotundus sed instar potius pilae undique versum aequali rotunditate persimilis; neque autem in tantae mole magnitudinis, quamvis enormem montium valliumque distantiam quantum in pila ludicra unum digitum tantum addere vel demere crediderim. Talis ergo schematis terra mortalibus ad inhabitandam data, solis circuitus semper in hoc mundo lucentis certa ratione constitutionis Dei, alibi diem exhibet, alibi noctem relinquit. Et quia, sicut Ecclesiastes ait, Oritur sol, et occidit, et in locum suum revertitur, ibique renascens gyrat per meridiem, et flectitur ad Aquilonem, necesse est circumiens Orientalibus quibusque prius quam Occidentalibus sub eadem linea positis mane, meridiem, vesperam adducat, eiusdem tamen longitudinis dies utrisque toto anno, sicut et noctes, faciat, item necesse est omnibus sub Aquilonis et Austri plage contra invicem et eadem linea positis, per totum annum vertentis circuitum, uno eodemque temporis puncto

He mentions holy scripture, God and preachers in his description of the roundness of the earth (so as to explain why daylight hours vary by season and locale).

Capablanca-Fan
23-04-2017, 09:15 AM
You seem unaware that Bede addressed the issue of roughness in the original (see below). The only issue I have with him is the eccentricity which goes against his description of a perfect sphere provided by the divine.
Still on about the 0.3% deviation?


Since you are keen on the Latin here is the relevant paragraph (ex Caput XXXII) from De Temporum Ratione (with mystical/theological reasoning bolded by me)
So were is the evidence that Bede meant perfection in a 21st-century mathematical sense. as opposed to something which can have degrees.


He mentions holy scripture, God and preachers in his description of the roundness of the earth (so as to explain why daylight hours vary by season and locale).
So much for your ilk that claims that Scripture, God, and preachers (actually the one preacher who authored the book of Ecclesiastes) harms science. By apparently relying on these, Bede deduced the shape of the earth to within 0.3% accuracy.

Rincewind
23-04-2017, 10:25 AM
Still on about the 0.3% deviation?

Still trying to argue that an oblate spheroid in a perfect sphere?


So were is the evidence that Bede meant perfection in a 21st-century mathematical sense. as opposed to something which can have degrees.

The word perfect was in the translation into English that you provided in post #1 of this thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14708-Religion-and-Science-of-Cosmology-(s-f-Science-Stories)). It's a bit late to be whining about your translator now.


So much for your ilk that claims that Scripture, God, and preachers (actually the one preacher who authored the book of Ecclesiastes) harms science. By apparently relying on these, Bede deduced the shape of the earth to within 0.3% accuracy.

Not at all and characterising the difference as 0.3% inaccurate is misleading. He got the shape completely wrong which leads to difference of 1 part in 300 in the difference between the equatorial and polar radii.

To demonstrate your fallacy - would it have been better if he said a right-circular cylinder of radius 3678 km and height of 2x3657 ? Then he would have gotten those two dimensions correct and by your logic been accurate to within 0.001%. Much better? No, Bede's magical thinking caused him to claim a perfect sphere which is simply wrong. End of story. Please feel free to continue to flog this dead horse for as long as you like.

Capablanca-Fan
25-04-2017, 08:46 AM
Still trying to argue that an oblate spheroid in a perfect sphere?
No, obviously, as anyone with any sense would realize, that the earth's oblateness is only 0.3% deviation from perfection, so stop whinging.


The word perfect was in the translation into English that you provided in post #1 of this thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14708-Religion-and-Science-of-Cosmology-(s-f-Science-Stories)). It's a bit late to be whining about your translator now.
You are the one dogmatically claiming that there are no degrees of perfection when anyone uses the term now, let alone in Bede's day.


Not at all and characterising the difference as 0.3% inaccurate is misleading. He got the shape completely wrong which leads to difference of 1 part in 300 in the difference between the equatorial and polar radii.
Completely wrong? No, just 0.3% wrong. You're now committing the same fallacy that your fellow atheopath Asimov lambasted.


To demonstrate your fallacy - would it have been better if he said a right-circular cylinder of radius 3678 km and height of 2x3657 ? Then he would have gotten those two dimensions correct and by your logic been accurate to within 0.001%. Much better? No, Bede's magical thinking caused him to claim a perfect sphere which is simply wrong. End of story. Please feel free to continue to flog this dead horse for as long as you like.
You're the one flogging a mere 0.3% error that no one else would pick up for about a millennium.

Rincewind
25-04-2017, 11:24 AM
No, obviously, as anyone with any sense would realize, that the earth's oblateness is only 0.3% deviation from perfection, so stop whinging.

As already pointed out the 0.3% is only in one direction (polar). Bede was wrong in every direction except one because the earth is not a sphere.


You are the one dogmatically claiming that there are no degrees of perfection when anyone uses the term now, let alone in Bede's day.

You have failed to provide even a shred of support for this insane assertion. Perfect means without flaw it is an absolute term not a relative one. You can talk about degrees of accuracy until the cows come home but accuracy does not equal perfection.


Completely wrong? No, just 0.3% wrong. You're now committing the same fallacy that your fellow atheopath Asimov lambasted.

Again 0.3% is just a measure of the inaccuracy of Bede's claim in one direction. My reductio ad absurdum seems to have escaped you so perhaps you should read my previous post with your brain switched on this time.


You're the one flogging a mere 0.3% error that no one else would pick up for about a millennium.

The point it it is not 0.3% wrong - it is entirely the wrong shape. Bede describes a sphere as an ideal object that is the same distance in every direction from a centre (that is how Bede describes it in the "original" Latin). If we say that he has the equatorial distance correct then fine (though we really can't give him any credit here since he doesn't give a physical value) but he is wrong in every other direction. This the 5 degree latitude, the 10 degree latitude and indeed every latitude other than the equator is NOT the same distance from the centre as the equator. So he has the shape completely wrong.

Capablanca-Fan
25-04-2017, 03:12 PM
As already pointed out the 0.3% is only in one direction (polar). Bede was wrong in every direction except one because the earth is not a sphere.
What are you rabbiting on about now? You're out of touch with reality. 0.3% is in the oblateness, which is the largest deviation from geometrically perfect sphericity. I.e., as an approximation to within 0.3%, the earth is a perfect sphere. A cylinder doesn't even come close to the real shape, while sphere definitely does.

If Bede got the shape "completely wrong", then so have most people in history and even in the present day when they call the earth a "sphere".


You have failed to provide even a shred of support for this insane assertion. Perfect means without flaw it is an absolute term not a relative one. You can talk about degrees of accuracy until the cows come home but accuracy does not equal perfection.
You can talk about degrees of perfection too, as well as strict and loose definitions. One dictionary definition of perfect is accurate. The classical concept was of completeness.

Rincewind
25-04-2017, 06:14 PM
What are you rabbiting on about now? You're out of touch with reality. 0.3% is in the oblateness, which is the largest deviation from geometrically perfect sphericity. I.e., as an approximation to within 0.3%, the earth is a perfect sphere. A cylinder doesn't even come close to the real shape, while sphere definitely does.

Just pointing out that it is a question of shape and not of oblateness. Bede's claim of a perfect sphere equale in dimension in every direction is just wrong. It isn;t 99.7% right since it is not the same in every direction it is different for every latitude. He got the azimuthal symmetry correct but due to his magical thinking asserted a polar symmetry which is not physical. So on a measure of symmetry you could say was was 50% correct.


If Bede got the shape "completely wrong", then so have most people in history and even in the present day when they call the earth a "sphere".

Since it is not a sphere, yes.


You can talk about degrees of perfection too, as well as strict and loose definitions. One dictionary definition of perfect is accurate. The classical concept was of completeness.

Completeness is also an absolute term. You seem to be digging yourself a hole.

Capablanca-Fan
27-04-2017, 01:53 AM
You're just being silly, holding Bede to one 21st-century definition of a word like ‘perfect’, or ‘complete’, and decreeing that neither term admits to degrees.

In reality of course, an oblate spheroid with very low eccentricity approximates a sphere. Similarly, an ellipse with very low eccentricity approximates a circle. By your ‘reasoning’, a low-eccentricity ellipse approximates a rectangle with a base = major axis and height = minor axis. So in most cases, I see no need to correct anyone who claims that the earth is spherical.

Rincewind
27-04-2017, 07:11 AM
You're just being silly, holding Bede to one 21st-century definition of a word like ‘perfect’, or ‘complete’, and decreeing that neither term admits to degrees.

I believe your translation was made inthe 20th century so you are just arguing that the translation you provided is inaccurate?


In reality of course, an oblate spheroid with very low eccentricity approximates a sphere. Similarly, an ellipse with very low eccentricity approximates a circle. By your ‘reasoning’, a low-eccentricity ellipse approximates a rectangle with a base = major axis and height = minor axis. So in most cases, I see no need to correct anyone who claims that the earth is spherical.

That is not my argument at all. My argument is that characterising the discrepancy by a number of 0.3 percent is misleading as this only takes into account the error in one direction.

Capablanca-Fan
02-05-2017, 01:19 AM
I believe your translation was made inthe 20th century so you are just arguing that the translation you provided is inaccurate?
No, just that your understanding of "perfection" is too rigid.


That is not my argument at all. My argument is that characterising the discrepancy by a number of 0.3 percent is misleading as this only takes into account the error in one direction.
Still the earth is nearly spherical, more so than its orbit is nearly circular (0.3% vs 3%).

Rincewind
02-05-2017, 11:33 AM
No, just that your understanding of "perfection" is too rigid.

Well perhaps you could support you idea by providing a dictionary definition that supports your idea that perfection is a relative term.


Still the earth is nearly spherical, more so than its orbit is nearly circular (0.3% vs 3%).

They are different things. The orbital path is effectively a planar curve when we are talking about the shape of the earth it is the discrepancy of a surface from some ideal sphere. It is difficult to argue with you when you don't understand the issue of how to best measure that discrepancy. Your continual insistence that 0.3% is "close enough" to perfection is wrong on two grounds. Firstly perfection means that these is no discrepancy and secondly 0.3% is not the whole game.

Capablanca-Fan
03-05-2017, 12:30 AM
Well perhaps you could support you idea by providing a dictionary definition that supports your idea that perfection is a relative term.
Try "lacking in no essential detail", so a 0.3% deviation qualifies for most purposes.


They are different things. The orbital path is effectively a planar curve when we are talking about the shape of the earth it is the discrepancy of a surface from some ideal sphere.
Yes, a very small perturbation from sphericity, so small that even today many astronomers simply call earth a "sphere".


It is difficult to argue with you when you don't understand the issue of how to best measure that discrepancy. Your continual insistence that 0.3% is "close enough" to perfection is wrong on two grounds. Firstly perfection means that these is no discrepancy and secondly 0.3% is not the whole game.

The 0.3% is the biggest deviation from sphericity. There are other deviations that are even less.

Rincewind
03-05-2017, 08:44 AM
Try "lacking in no essential detail", so a 0.3% deviation qualifies for most purposes.

Sorry but a sphere by definition is a surface where every point on the surface is a fixed distance from a common centre. So deviation from that is an essential detail. In fact it is the only detail which is essential.

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2017, 07:36 AM
Sorry but a sphere by definition is a surface where every point on the surface is a fixed distance from a common centre. So deviation from that is an essential detail. In fact it is the only detail which is essential.

So you are determined to be out of step with almost everyone, including top astronomers, who are happy to call the earth a "sphere" while being perfectly aware of the 0.3% oblateness? So unlike you, World-famous astronomers celebrate the Venerable Bede (http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/world-famous-astronomers-celebrate-venerable-bede-4487815), and the late Sir Patrick Moore called him "the first great British astronomer".

Yet on another thread recently (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?12302-Science-and-the-past-sf-current-scientific-research&p=422949&viewfull=1#post422949), you agreed that before Newton, it was reasonable not to make Aristarchus link of the sun's great size to its centrality. I.e. in that thread, you more reasonably judged people on the basis of what was known at the time.

Rincewind
10-05-2017, 10:26 AM
So you are determined to be out of step with almost everyone, including top astronomers, who are happy to call the earth a "sphere" while being perfectly aware of the 0.3% oblateness? So unlike you, World-famous astronomers celebrate the Venerable Bede (http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/world-famous-astronomers-celebrate-venerable-bede-4487815), and the late Sir Patrick Moore called him "the first great British astronomer".

You continue to miss the point which I have been graciously putting down to deliberate obtuseness however now I am not so sure.

The point is Bede mystical thinking lead him to believe and state as a fact that the world was a perfect sphere. After all, what else would a perfect being place at the centre of the universe (as Bede believed it to be). This is exactly the sort of Natural Philosophy that you and Beetlejuice used to pillory Bruno and yet hypocritically you celebrate Bede and his accuracy. It is a sideline that you have to abuse the definition of perfection to do this but as has been pointed out many times they are not the same word and have different meanings. Just a sphere means exactly as Bede described a surface which is the same distance from a single central point, the misspeaking of modern astronomers does not change that.

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2017, 12:57 PM
The point is Bede mystical thinking lead him to believe and state as a fact that the world was a perfect sphere.
Who doubted it at the time?


After all, what else would a perfect being place at the centre of the universe (as Bede believed it to be).
But if you understood the medieval worldview, the centre was the worst place to be. Just check out Dante's Divine Comedy.


This is exactly the sort of Natural Philosophy that you and Beetlejuice used to pillory Bruno and yet hypocritically you celebrate Bede and his accuracy.
Bruno was a new-age kook, while real scientists are saying, “But Bede, one of the leading scholars in 8th Century Europe, was also an outstanding scientist.” Patrick Moore appreciated Bede as an astronomer, and he was the first to publish the right theory of tides, being caused by the moon's orbit. If Galileo had heeded Bede, he wouldn't have made his blunder that undermined his (correct) case.


It is a sideline that you have to abuse the definition of perfection to do this but as has been pointed out many times they are not the same word and have different meanings. Just a sphere means exactly as Bede described a surface which is the same distance from a single central point,
Which even Bede didn't think, given the observable roughness.


the misspeaking of modern astronomers does not change that.
How many modern astronomers calling the earth a "sphere" would it take to disabuse you of your fallacious reasoning?

Rincewind
10-05-2017, 05:18 PM
Who doubted it at the time?

Someone must have or else there was no reason to write it down in the first place?


But if you understood the medieval worldview, the centre was the worst place to be. Just check out Dante's Divine Comedy.

Dante was around 5 centuries after Bede.


Bruno was a new-age kook, while real scientists are saying, “But Bede, one of the leading scholars in 8th Century Europe, was also an outstanding scientist.” Patrick Moore appreciated Bede as an astronomer, and he was the first to publish the right theory of tides, being caused by the moon's orbit. If Galileo had heeded Bede, he wouldn't have made his blunder that undermined his (correct) case.

Neither were scientists, both were Natural Philosophers. Both said correct things and less correct things. They both used their spiritual beliefs to inform their interpretation of the physical world (which is what Natural Philosophers do).


Which even Bede didn't think, given the observable roughness.

Bede accounts for the roughness but still claims there is an ideal inscribing sphere if you read the original.


How many modern astronomers calling the earth a "sphere" would it take to disabuse you of your fallacious reasoning?

One reputable textbook that says that would be a start. But we know if if such a text book exists it would simply be wrong.

Desmond
30-03-2018, 09:43 PM
Not a good Friday for shopping.

antichrist
31-03-2018, 06:21 AM
Not a good Friday for shopping.

fantastic as far as I am concerned, the missus can't make me get my credit card out

Desmond
31-03-2018, 07:08 AM
fantastic as far as I am concerned, the missus can't make me get my credit card out

True but on the way home from a long hot day of walking around the Sydney Easter Show, I wanted to get beer. Couldn't find anywhere open. Which doesn't make much sense to me, since didn't someone hand JC a sponge of wine while he was on the cross? Maybe he's more of a do as I say kinda guy.

antichrist
31-03-2018, 08:13 AM
True but on the way home from a long hot day of walking around the Sydney Easter Show, I wanted to get beer. Couldn't find anywhere open. Which doesn't make much sense to me, since didn't someone hand JC a sponge of wine while he was on the cross? Maybe he's more of a do as I say kinda guy.

As an altar boy my brother used to knock off the priest's altar wine - wasn't a bad drop he reckoned. He was smart enough to crack the safe where the Communion hosts were also stored but he wasn't interested in them.

Adamski
31-03-2018, 09:45 AM
I am not surprised you couldn't get a beer, RR. Even Coles wasn't open yesterday. Indeed, Good Friday is the only day of the year that our local Coles is not open. BTW Jesus being handed a sponge with alcoholic drink when nearly dead is no argument for drinking such drinks. Also BTW, I am not a total teetotaller and on a hot day I will occasionally have a beer.

MichaelBaron
31-03-2018, 09:54 AM
I find it interesting that while many people are not celebrating Xmas, some are celebrating Xmas but not all day long and some are not Christian - not that many store are open. I think it may also be due to ''tradition'' rather than religious reasons.

Adamski
31-03-2018, 10:44 AM
I find it interesting that while many people are not celebrating Xmas, some are celebrating Xmas but not all day long and some are not Christian - not that many store are open. I think it may also be due to ''tradition'' rather than religious reasons.
It is, of course, now Easter not Christmas. But for many shops the same does apply for Christmas Day.

MichaelBaron
31-03-2018, 11:00 AM
It is, of course, now Easter not Christmas. But for many shops the same does apply for Christmas Day.

Yes, so I do not think it is difficult for supermarkets to find staff to work on this day (particularly given that penalty rates would apply). As for small shop owners, at least some would arguably be Ok to work.
Actually many people (including myself) love working on public holidays. Unis now tend to postpone classes that fall on public holidays but up till 10 years ago, CQU used to run classes and paid lecturers double. I can recall these times with great pleasure - particularly the semester when i had many contact hours on these days. It resulted in in about $3,500 extra - so I do miss those times. I can imagine that many others are equally enthusiastic about working on such days.

antichrist
31-03-2018, 11:45 AM
We could not eat meat on Good Friday but Jewish chess players could not write down their chess moves on the Sabbath so they had a stand by (probably a gentile) do for them - does that mean the gentile would be punished?

Desmond
31-03-2018, 01:58 PM
I am not surprised you couldn't get a beer, RR. Even Coles wasn't open yesterday. Indeed, Good Friday is the only day of the year that our local Coles is not open. BTW Jesus being handed a sponge with alcoholic drink when nearly dead is no argument for drinking such drinks. Also BTW, I am not a total teetotaller and on a hot day I will occasionally have a beer.

One of the crazy things I found is that some restaurants/pubs were open. I could buy a beer and drink it in the pub, but not buy a 6'er and take it home. One even had a bottle shop open, and when they asked if I was going to drink it there or take away, they wouldn't sell it to me when I said the latter. I gave up at that point.

antichrist
31-03-2018, 03:50 PM
One of the crazy things I found is that some restaurants/pubs were open. I could buy a beer and drink it in the pub, but not buy a 6'er and take it home. One even had a bottle shop open, and when they asked if I was going to drink it there or take away, they wouldn't sell it to me when I said the latter. I gave up at that point.

sounds like they were making you do the Stations of the Cross, now if Mel Gibson had been there you would have been whipped all the way to the pub with no beer

Desmond
20-04-2019, 02:01 PM
What's the difference between a cow and a crucifixion?

You can't milk a cow for two thousand years.