|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 20, 2011 8:27:27 GMT -5
"Where there are no oxen, the manger is empty,
but from the strength of an ox comes an abundant harvest."
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 20, 2011 8:09:28 GMT -5
Number 1600! =D
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 20, 2011 2:25:50 GMT -5
Why should a Hindu (indeed, anyone who is unfamiliar, from any part of the world) be deprived of a chance to meet our God? If we only preached God's words to ourselves, we would be acting grossly discriminatory in not allowing anyone else a chance to experience the faith that we consider true and real.
I certainly do not approve of the way that those missionaries have acted in your post, yoyote. The part about the Chinese black minstrels sounds especially disturbing, even freakish and exploitative.
But abuse is not an essential element of conversion. Heck, that is downright hostile to allowing someone to make a rational and informed decision to follow Jesus.
Leading soomeone to conversion is leading someone to a point where they can choose, "yes, I want to know more about God personally, for my own good and for the good of others and to make this God happy", or "no, I've made my informed decision and I don't want this." It is their decision to make, and no one can make it for them. But they can't make that decision at all if they don't even get the chance.
I have known and met several missionaries who are the polar opposite of the missionaries mentioned in the above post. This couple were kind-hearted, respectful and above all, loving. They went to Thailand to help put children who otherwise would not get a primary education into schools, so they can have a chance at life. The couple also preached the gospel to the children and their mothers, and whatever family they had, and a very great number of those families and children have welcomed Christianity into their lives. There has been a huge swell of gratitude from the people in that poor Thai community, not just for building the school but also of informing them of Jesus whom they wouldn't know about if it weren't for this couple.
So I don't buy that conversion=destruction.
It's not only Christians who will like Christianity. And it's not only white people who can benefit from it. Christianity is for everyone to enjoy. To say that such and such a people who have such and such a religion should be restricted from having a chance to enjoy Christianity even if they might actually want it, would be discriminatory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 19, 2011 21:42:52 GMT -5
Monstruosus quoque partus ille tempore regis Alexandri de munere profusus, cujus superior pars hominem proterebat, inferior vero bestiarum formas diversarum viventiumque protulerit.
“Also, a monster was born in the time of King Alexander’s reign whose upper part crushed a man, and his lower half in fact brought forth the appearance of various living beasts. I’m very puzzled over what “proterebat” (=crush??) is really meant to mean in this sentence. My dictionary tells me it means trample on or crush, but I feel like the sentence should really say “his top part looked human, his bottom part looked beastly”. Maybe the word is means something different in Medieval Latin, but neither my normal dictionary nor my online dictionary can confirm that for me, and I haven’t been able to find a different version of the Latin text to check if it was even some kind of typo. So, with nothing better to be sure of, I’m sticking with these guns, for now.
I was tempted to translate “diversarum” (=different, various) as “disparate”, because there’s that sense from the word of how the jumble of creatures is a conflicting and unnatural sight. But “various” sounded less awkward. Nec tamen bestias illas, licet humano semine procreatas, rationalem habuisse animam, nisi rationis expers, unquam puto praebebit assensum.
“But although these beasts were born of human origin, I wouldn’t ever think that they had a rational mind, unless I’m lacking reason – this is evident through observation. Qua de re nec hos de quibus res agitur, propterea quia duxerant originem ex hominibus, eos continuo rationali pollere mente crediderim, si non vel ea quae scripsistis, vel quae leguntur et feruntur de iis talia, quomodo sentirem, moverent.
“On this subject, this notion is not of our concern: because they originated from humans, I would have believed that they necessarily had the power of rational thought, if weren’t for what you wrote and what is read and spoken of about such things. That changed how I thought. The first clause was very tricky. “res agitur” is a phrase that means, “the matter is at stake”; the “nec” makes it negative, i.e. “the matter is not at stake”, but what is the matter? “de quibus”, “about which things”, is not very descriptive, but it leads into the next clause, so the next statement is the thing which isn’t being argued. “res agitur” is also found in a famous line from Horace, which is commonly translated, “It is your concern when your neighbour’s wall is on fire.” And that helped me phrase “the matter is not at stake” in a more natural way like “it’s not of our concern”.
The last part after “if” was a bit too longwinded a sentence for my liking when I stuck to the Latin phrasing – “if either these things you wrote or such things which are written and spoken about didn’t change how I thought”. So I broke it up a bit. Nunc autem tanta tamque fortia videntur esse quae super his dicuntur, ut his vel fidem non adhibere, vel contradicere velle, pervicacia potius videatur esse quam prudentia.
“But now, those things which are said about these [creatures] seem to be so copious and so compelling that to either not give credence to them or wishing to oppose them would seem like stubbornness rather than discretion. “tanta” (=so much) I interpreted as making the evidence “copious”, and I translated “fortia” (adj.=strong, sturdy) with the sense of having strong evidence, i.e. “compelling”. Otherwise, this sentence is relatively straightforward, with a result clause.
------------------------------------------------ Do you get the sense that sometimes Ratramnus isn't exactly happy with all he hears about these monsters? He seems to only grudgingly accept the "facts" for the sake of the abundance of the accounts. But I don't know how rare it is for a philosophery kind of person to give up their theory of how they think the world ought to work in order to accept what has apparently been observed. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 19, 2011 20:25:29 GMT -5
Sae, you're taking a very positive step. You seem a lot calmer than before. And I think that you really are listening to what we've been saying about how to respond in a mature way to what is said about you on the internet.
I would disagree when you say everyone here has a character so pure and bright - because "everyone" includes me - and personally I know that I'm not as radiant and perfect and pure as you make it sound. But thank you, anyway, Sae.
Just one more thing before I go: the way I see it, your worth is not linked to your character. Say if you did something wrong, and feel it has ruined your character, you should not be questioning your self worth (you should instead try to find ways of refining your character). Conversely, if you think you're flawless and universally kind and everything you do is right, your worth is still not greater than it ever was. A person's character will continually grow and will never be completely perfect. But a person's worth is inalienable, it's just always there, in every human, despite the flaws. Make sense?
So it's good to see that you are showing confidence in your self-worth. I think what a lot of people are worrying about - what Dju and I are concerned of - is that you might be thinking that your character is, must be, has to be, gotta be, perfect down to the last sparkles. This is concerning because character can fail you. And, arguably, part of life is in the mistakes that you can learn from to help your character grow. But never forget even in your darkest moments - and you will have dark moments, sooner or later in life - that you are still worth fighting for. Even if you have doubts about yourself, you still are worth the growing pains of character building.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 19, 2011 2:15:27 GMT -5
(I have not read any of the replies in this thread, but I did read a couple in the how much education is enough thread)
I just read the argument that "recess for highschoolers could never work". Whoa! I'm very surprised that in an American high school you don't get a recess break, and can't even imagine having one, because in all the major high schools in Melbourne (and probably the rest of Australia too, but it's not very often I speak to someone from interstate) everyone in high school gets recess. And in years 11-12 we do all have completely different subjects and timetables, but they all manage to fit between the recess and lunch times and the logistics seem to work.
As for which one I would prefer, I'm somewhat apathetic. I've experienced the latter in university so I know that sometimes classes just go overtime and you end up not getting much of a buffer at all. But it's harder to destroy a 20-minute recess. Then again, I don't see anything too horribly wrong with buffer times, so my argument would be that whatever the institution has been doing, just keep the system the same because it wouldn't really be that much worth the stress of a changeover for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 19, 2011 2:12:33 GMT -5
It depends on what you want to do after school. If you're unsure of what job you'd like to have, and if you can at all afford to have a higher education, I'd suggest you go to university. Because who knows, you might really need it when a future employer has to make the decision about who to hire. In general, I would reccommend a person to stay studying through high school, through your undergraduate, even maybe have a try at doing a graduate study - and leave at the point where you can find your way into having a suitable job for you.
I have a friend of mine who plays double bass like a star, and she left high school without finishing year 11 to pursue her career as a performing double bassist. It was a tough decision for her to make (and she regrets missing out on Latin classes), but as far as I can still tell, she's doing really well at her musical career. She took her first ripe opportunity. And she wouldn't be able to practice for 10 hours a day if she was still going through school.
So, I'd say keep studying until you have a sensible and feasible reason not to, then start working soon as you can. Because as Hunty said before, work experience is really valuable, sometimes much more valuable than your actual degrees. But until you know what area you're going to work in, until working is a reality - study, and keep a sharp lookout.
I guess I should probably mellow that though by saying my brother turned down a couple job opportunities in order to prolong his stay at uni and do a year of honours in finance. He did great in his marks, considering how competitive honours is, and it then took him some more worrying and anxiety afterwards to find a job opening the next year (all the while knowing he could've taken what he had last year). But he did get himself a great job with a nice working environment and he really likes it there. So, there is that option to continue further studies if you really really want to. It was a calculated risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 18, 2011 20:31:48 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Sarn. Sorry for Scar's grandmother and for not replying. And I'm sorry that my silence has led you to feel that you weren't heard, or cared for, or prayed for.
I guess I don't check this thread often enough, and when I see that there hasn't been a post in a while, I sometimes think that it's all been resolved and it might be awkward to bring it up again? Maybe I'm just being silly. I usually pray for all the people who need prayers on this thread even though I don't always find the right words to say in reply on this thread.
But thank you for bringing the issue to light, Sarn. From now on I'll be checking this thread more regularly and posting more support, because - and it sounds so obvious now - that's what Jesus wants all us brothers and sisters to do. How can I think that I could just post when I need prayers, and not when other Christians are in need of support??
Sarn, can you imagine me putting my hands on you? Because that's what I would do if you were right here.
Sarn, I pray that God will give you the strength to fight your depression. He knows that you've been suffering from it for a long time, but it is also His will that you will not be fighting alone. I pray that the Spirit of God will enter into your heart and give you the encouragement you need to keep studying, keep battling, keep living. Because we did not inherit death but Eternal Life, the glory of God's goodness. I pray that you will be able to taste that glory and that peace of God even in your darkest moments. In the name of the Lord Jesus, our sheild and strength, I pray. Amen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 18, 2011 19:41:51 GMT -5
I'm studying a Bachelor of Arts at the University of Melbourne, with a major in Classics. "Classics" in this case means the stuff written about or by the ancient Romans and Greeks, and my favourite subject in this course is Latin. <3 Gosh I love that Latin. Then I'll be planning to take a Masters in Teaching, and try to teach some secondary school students Latin and ancient history. We'll see how it goes.
Up until my final year at school, I was planning to be a visual artist, I had two folios ready, and I was looking at art universities... but in the last few months before uni started I changed my decision, into wanting to do a Bachelor of Arts and then study to be a teacher. Right now almost all the subjects I'm doing have a sort of historical/humanities flavour to them, which was almost totally opposite to the subjects I elected at school. But I love this course and I'm doing really well and I don't regret this decision at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 18, 2011 10:14:44 GMT -5
Thanks Sarn! Yeah, the 8-year old tribe sounds really bizarre. I guess it'd be impossible to be a grandmother in that society if a person took 5 years to reach sexual maturity and then lived only a further 3 years before dying. Everything would be in such a rush... and you'd spend 62.5% of your life as a kid.  (Although, I guess in some high density slums around the world where there isn't good sanitation, that proportion would be pretty close to the reality of life expectancy... sadly.) Yay Nimras, it's great that you'll be starting Latin soon. I wouldn't call it a beautiful-sounding language like Italian, but there's something elegant about those intricate grammar rules, that firm literary rigidity. <3 The way Latin gets taught usually stresses the logic of how everything in the sentence is supposed to work, so that when you come to translation, it's like deciphering a puzzle. Oh yeah and there are soooo many Latin words for "to kill" and "die". xD And it's a good point you raised there, Nimmy. The Greeks, the Romans, classically-educated medieval scholars, 19th century antiquarians and modern scholars have all had biases, but these were not always the same prejudices from age to age (or from author to author). At any rate, there had been foreign-born emperors who even led the Roman empire and were still well spoken of in the centuries afterward, like Trajan. Anyway, I need to speed up my translating thing because I suddenly realised it's the last week of the winter holidays for me! They went lightning-fast, and I didn't even go away anywhere. (But I have been playing a lot of pokemon. Darn those extremely entertaining games. Oh yeah, and I played viola in a couple of concerts too, which is draining.) But anyhow, lets read some more Ratramnus! (He's valorous! He's fab'lous! Heeee's... Ratramnus!) ------------------------------------------------------ De Gigantibus vere qui inter haec portenta numerantur, homines fuisse de hominibus natos nemo fere qui dubitet, quandoquidem divinarum auctoritate litterarum, hoc astrui non ignoremus.
“Indeed, in regards to the Giants who are counted among these monsters, almost no one doubts that these people were born from humans, and since [these creatures] are supported with the authority of divine scripture, we should not omit them. Remember Goliath from the Bible? He was nine feet tall. And I’m pretty sure there were a handful of other Giants in scripture too, which would be what Ratramnus is alluding to.
Before I smoothed it over, the final phrase was literally “let us not neglect to add these.” I had been really confused by the word “astrui” (I thought it had to mean “star” or something) until I saw a little note in my dictionary and realised it was just a variant spelling of “adstrui” (=to be added), which made a lot more sense. Quibus Cenocephali dum connumerantur, hoc etiam et de istis sentiendum esse putatur, maxime si illa constiterint quae de sancto Christophoro leguntur, ut quae fama de eis vulgaris dispergit.
“While the Cynocephali are numbered together with these monsters, they are even thought to be sentient, certainly if the things which are read concerning Saint Christopher were established, seeing that this well-known rumour about them spread. Literally, “ hoc etiam et de istis sentiendum esse putatur = regarding them, it is even thought that they are for thinking,” but because gerunds come out awkward in English I rendered it “they are even thought to be sentient”. The sentence has too many parts to it that it’s confusing me, and it’s hard to tell which one is the main clause, so let me try to work out how it all fits: - Quibus Cenocephali dum connumerantur, [“While the Cynocephali are numbered together with these monsters,”] = a DUM/TEMPORAL clause (meaning “while...”)
- hoc etiam et de istis sentiendum esse putatur, [“they are even thought to be sentient,” ]= either the MAIN clause or a continuation of that TEMPORAL clause (probably the main, because there would be no main clause otherwise, but that “et” [=and] keeps making me think it’s more of the “while...” clause)
- maxime si illa constiterint quae de sancto Christophoro leguntur, [“certainly if the things which are read concerning Saint Christopher were established”] = the IF part of a CONDITIONAL clause (also called the protasis; the apodosis or main part would then have to be hoc...putatur above)
- ut quae fama de eis vulgaris dispergit.[“seeing that this well-known rumour about them spread.”] = CAUSAL clause because “ut...” is explaining why the Cynocephali are said to be sentient.
Ehhh it’s like picking apart the tentacles of a dead and slimy octopus, this sentence. But I think that helped. Nec tamen ista dicentes vel sentientes, consequitur ut quidquid de homine procreatur, hominem quoque esse humanaeque rationis ingenio praeditum.
“But although we may say or think as much, it does not follow that whatever is produced from a human being is also human and has been granted with the genius of human reason. I translated the participles “dicentes” and “sentientes” with a concessive sense of “although”. Verbi gratia, cum legitur vitulus ex muliere procreatus, aut serpens editus de femina. Proinde tamen neque vitulum, neque serpentum illum, humanam animam vel rationalem habuisse consenserim.
“For instance, it is read that a calf [or foal] was born from a lady, or that a serpent emerged from a woman. But consequently, I would agree that neither the calf nor the serpent had a human or rational mind. “vitulus” could either mean a calf or a foal (or a seal at that), but since I’ve never heard of this tale of a woman pregnant with a calf or foal I don’t know which specific beast it should be (or if there even is a regular pattern to the folktale). I have heard of the stories of a woman giving birth to a snake though. So I guess Ratramnus is saying, “well, apparently animals can come out of human wombs but the simple fact of their origin doesn’t guarantee them human sentience.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 17, 2011 9:40:37 GMT -5
I never got why there's such a pervasive notion that digital art - really anything made in photoshop, or especially in any 3D rendering program - is somehow drawn by the computer and not by the human user. It's like when people used to say that photographers are not artists because they make images with the help of a "machine". (And as if our computers had an imagination.)
A tool is a tool. Is it cheating to use a ruler to draw a straight line? Is it cheating to smudge your pencil shading with your finger to make the gradient look smooth? Granted, using these techniques doesn't always produce the result that you really want. (Sometimes the finger-smudged pencil shading looks tacky, IMO). And sometimes when you use digital effects like brushes and textures, it ends up looking not the way you intended, or just icky and fake. But as an artist you learn how to use your tools properly, and once you've gotten the hang of it, these techniques must surely enrich your art-making ability, rather than detract from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 16, 2011 8:26:06 GMT -5
I love the Neopian Music idea! Is that something to do with whatever musicians and bands there are in Neopia? Writing songs and having a musical theme would be awesome, actually.
I never really got the fuss about the Theives Guild, but then again, I don't think I was around for whatever plot that they were in so I don't really know them well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 16, 2011 7:48:04 GMT -5
My guess is that the "ink" cartridges would be pretty expensive, too. (Even regular 2D printers tend to gouge you on the ink, but at least you can buy counterfeit inks for a fraction of the price, whereas the formula for this special resin is patented). But considering how freaking cool this personalised 3D printer concept is, I think it'll be awesome to see these things at work in universities and in commercial design studios and stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 16, 2011 3:09:51 GMT -5
The Starleap Squadron
The Cometeers
The Lightshaft Defenders (Oh. That came out funny.)
Stellatory Command
The Starchrome Protectors
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 15, 2011 9:38:40 GMT -5
For a possible real-life example of a benevolent dictator, you could look towards Singapore. If you walk down a road there, you'll find the public transport system is amazing, people are well dressed, you can feel safe walking around at night, and the place has a world-renowned zoo and bird-park. It's a very pleasant place to live, and I stayed there about five years or so. Unfortunately, no government is without its faults, and I'm sure there are issues people have with the Singapore government being a bit heavy-handed at times. (Chewing gum is a banned substance, unless you have a doctor's proscription. But then, is chewing gum really a necessity? The streets are so clean without squished bits of gum sticking to them...) The bad thing about a dictatorship is that the people have no real way to feel that their voice has been heard, without resorting to angry demostrations. Even when people are pampered (or especially when they're pampered?), they don't want to feel like their opinion doesn't count. A working voting system gives people a chance to vent their opinions on the government in a more productive, peaceful way. I agree with what Sarn said about the governments being there to serve the people, and not the other way around. It may cost the population to be funding some silly expenditures that government workers take out (and I wish they'd do less of that), but sometimes you lose a little bit to gain something more valuable. Stability, order, a good standard of living for all, upholding those universal human rights. That's what a good government should acheive, or try to. And when problems arise, as they inevitably do, there ought to be some way for the people or anyone aware of the problem to prod the leaders into the right direction again. I should probably interject, since, well, I live here and all. XD Singapore's a democracy, not a dictatorship, complete with a Cabinet-esque (called the Parliament here). The British colonised it at first, and I doubt they'd have left it in the hands of a dictator. There are, to be honest, very few political issues (there will always be some in any governement, especially during election times), but the culture's rather... conserative. And competitive. For instance, I doubt gay marriage would be legalised here for decades. It's not because people are intolerant, but because it's really mired in tradition, and when you have such a rich conglomerate of cultures and religions in a small area, what would be minorities in the States becomes a very focal percentage of the people's voices. It means everyone's opinion will probably be heard, which would both be a good and a bad thing. As for the chewing gum thing... that was in response to people sticking it in train doors, not spitting them onto floors.  Ah. I apologize for saying this all too quickly without checking my own accuracy. Normally I'm not very attentive of the nuances of politics, and since I was rather young when I was living in Singapore for those five years, my main source of information about Singaporean politics are my parents. And they do have a bias. But, with that in mind, the way that my parents see it is that the ruling party in Singapore can't really be voted out. The People's Action Party has been continuously in power since 1959, starting with the first Prime Minister. And they've won every election since then, generally with large margins of support. It's not that it's a bad idea to vote for them, but for a very long time they have not had a viable opposition party. That makes the PAP the best choice and also the only choice, for four decades. Now I don't know if the political climate has changed since we left Singapore in 2000, but if they are still the only real party in Singapore, then what might be a democracy in theory would in practice be viewed as a single-party dictatorship. Again, though, I can see that my sources of information may not be the most objective ones. (But, when I did a uni subject last year entitled "Understanding Asia" Singapore's political status as an effective dictatorship was raised too. Not that this helps me much.) Um, if I sounded insensitive to the current Singaporean political system it would mostly be because I learned about it indirectly. |
|
(Although, I guess in some high density slums around the world where there isn't good sanitation, that proportion would be pretty close to the reality of life expectancy... sadly.)
