Forums | MacLife

I believe the word you're looking for is "Catholic."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

"Papist" would be, at best, archaic and outdated, not unlike referring to a Muslim as a "Mohammedan." At worst, "papist" is a slur.

Last edited by Bren (2009-10-15 1:20 am)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Conservatives aim to delete "liberal" parts from the Holy Bible

They may call themselves conservatives, but religious conservatives would never dream of altering the Bible.

Now, if what they are really doing is fixing translational issues and the article is just putting a spin on the project, that's different.
However, I'm not aware of any "liberal bias" translation issues in the standard scholarly translations (RSV, NRSV, NASB) - but the NIV, what most churches use because it is easier to read, has expressed interest in doing future versions that do things like more gender neutral translations when the source is not gender neutral, so perhaps they aim to produce an easy to read translation to take the place of NIV.

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

jerwin wrote:

No. I'm not looking for the word "Catholic". "Catholic" refers to the Church Universal. I'm looking for the word "Papist."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … helemy.jpg

Real theological differences existed between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches. Blood was shed. Luther believed that the Pope was the antichrist.

And don't forget the sack of Magdeburg, 20 May 1631. Only 16% of the citizens survived. Done to a Protestant city, by a Protestant army under the direction of a Catholic King. It was a watershed in Europe, and established a standard of not talking about religion.

This book would seem to offer a balanced treatment of Catholic and Protestant literacy rates

Last edited by jerwin (2009-10-15 9:29 am)

jerwin wrote:

This book would seem to offer a balanced treatment of Catholic and Protestant literacy rates

I didn't know that there were a lot of Protestant countries in

Bren wrote:

pre-Shakespearian times

Last edited by Tallgeese (2009-10-15 9:38 am)

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Conservatives aim to delete "liberal" parts from the Holy Bible

They may call themselves conservatives, but religious conservatives would never dream of altering the Bible.

Now, if what they are really doing is fixing translational issues and the article is just putting a spin on the project, that's different.
However, I'm not aware of any "liberal bias" translation issues in the standard scholarly translations (RSV, NRSV, NASB) - but the NIV, what most churches use because it is easier to read, has expressed interest in doing future versions that do things like more gender neutral translations when the source is not gender neutral, so perhaps they aim to produce an easy to read translation to take the place of NIV.

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

They're not fixing any translational issues - they're altering from the KJV and not using actual original sources or any sort of scholarly methods.
If you want your questions answered, you can check out the primary source.

I thought Conservapedia was shown to be a hoax site.

Just FYI - hoax site or not, it is at most fringe group, and altering the Bible does not fit the classic definition of conservative.

Last edited by resedit (2009-10-15 9:59 am)

JakeTheTall wrote:

"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"

American please, I'm not familiar with that phrase.

btw - it looks like conservapaedia itself is not a hoax site, just numerous articles on it are - admittedly written by liberals to mock the site, which is funny but also makes the site useless as an indicator of what they really believe.

What's the deal with jerwin? He seems to be channeling the 17th Century today.

Rember St. Bartholomew's Day, chum! Don't let those catlicks off the hook!

It think he's indicating that some people are feel their education need not go beyond what is needed to draw from the bible.

ScifiterX wrote:

It think he's indicating that some people are feel their education need not go beyond what is needed to draw from the bible.

That would be interesting to see actually documented.
If they could read the Bible, they could read most other text, which would be a huge benefit to productivity in many fields of employment.

resedit wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

It think he's indicating that some people are feel their education need not go beyond what is needed to draw from the bible.

That would be interesting to see actually documented.
If they could read the Bible, they could read most other text, which would be a huge benefit to productivity in many fields of employment.

Yes. After finishing Northhanger Abbey I feel enormously more productive.