Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to Following God's Love
oops-I mean ad "Matre" dedecor gomedomes
posted by
AnCatubh
on June 27, 2004 at 3:13 PM
| link to this | reply
What?
Homonumon is Greek & means "same name". Homonymum starts as with Greek, then Latin,then French and means "same name"(there is no "y" in Latin). Onyma, nym, numon are all forms of the Greek word name.
The prefix "homo" in homosexuality is Greek, not Latin. Where "homo" is used in Latin as a prefix(such as homonimum) it is borrowed from Greek and means same. It only means "man" or" mankind" when it stands alone.
Ergo, homosexuality means attraction, coupling or sexual encounter with the SAME gender, regardless of species. It works for all species.Get it now?
Ad majoem Dei gloriam? No, it stands for Ad Materis Dedecor Gomesdomes (est). Now go busy yourself with your online English/Latin Dictionary, but remember to read for a while longer this time. "A little learning is a dangerous thing, Drink deeply or taste not.."
_Alexander Pope
A pax on you.
Amdg
posted by
AnCatubh
on June 27, 2004 at 1:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Well thanx Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
I appreciate being tutored in Latin and Greek ...really I do. Though the Greek word for same is actually Hom^numon with the Latin version being Hom^nymum. You would be correct in saying the word homonym is derived from these two words. Homo as I stated refers specifically to man or mankind. The Latin word is simply Homo but that was not the jist of my enquiry. I was implying that there must be or should be a better word specifically for same sex coupling of animals other than the same word used for humans. Homnysexual would do quite nicely.
posted by
gomedome
on June 25, 2004 at 7:38 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome- do you wanna learn something else?
The "homo" in homosexuality is from the Greek meaning "same". Like homonym.
Homo in Latin means man in the broad sense, like mankind; human beings.
The Latin word for man, as opposed to woman, is "vir".
posted by
AnCatubh
on June 24, 2004 at 11:48 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives -- and I'm a fine one to talk
I've left " War and Peace " length comments many times.
posted by
gomedome
on June 24, 2004 at 7:19 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
You've never talked with him face to face.
He can go on at times.
Just giving you a hard time old man.
posted by
kooka_lives
on June 24, 2004 at 6:49 PM
| link to this | reply
and westwend
there was almost one more book written on the subject if your comment had gotten any longer ---ha ha .
posted by
gomedome
on June 24, 2004 at 6:47 PM
| link to this | reply
we're talking christianity here
Paul basically said you have to accept people where they are -- respect their beliefs. Early Christianity was inclusive -- that's why it grew so much so quickly.
Christians now are more exclusive. They feel that you must be "saved by the name of Christ", misunderstanding, I think, the scriptures on that subject.
there is one major denomination though that is exclusive on the outside -- their dogma says all others are not going to paradise and certain dogmatic doctrines must be adhered to -- yet individual congregations bring in new members with the addage, "you're all right where you are." and for centuries have incorporated the local pagan beliefs into their liturgical practices just for conversion purposes.
many of the world's religions practice this same kind of exclusivism -- and many of their followers believe in such. All others are infidels.
with Christians it's because they interpret the scriptures as meaning that only if a person is or becomes a Christian can that person be saved and go to heaven.
if there's is something that someone wants to add to this, it would educate all of us.
but they misunderstand "Christ", which is not a person, but a concept. I know this will generate discourse. Christ is salavation is knowing that you are all right and not condemned anywhere by anybody, not even god --god? -- i mean if you believe in god -- but if you don't salvation says you're saved nevertheless -- salvation is feeling secure that you won't go to hell -- and if there's no god then there's no hell right? -- doesn't matter whether you believe in god or not -- you're not going to hell.
salvation is -- all you have to do is understand. this is accepting "Christ" because this is Christ.
we don't need a person or THE Son of God -- the idea is that we are and have been already sons of god -- that was the original message -- we keep on not hearing it.
kid= I'm sorry if I'm rambling --
but I think Christians (ok I'm stereotyping -- and I'm labeling -- but we'll say Christians as an icon ok? -- not every "Christian" and I'll tell you there are a lot of different types -- Christians feel that Christianity is the only true religion -- they see those outside as not participating in the joy they have and the reward they see --
but they want those outside to do so, so they proselytize.
you could write a book, or two or hundreds or thousands about this -- hey wait a minute, thousands of books have already been written.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 24, 2004 at 5:06 PM
| link to this | reply
of course the reason for banning certain meats was that those particular animals seemed to store up poisons of several sorts in their bodies.
like Catfish, for instance, oysters -- now it is known that they have such high levels of modern day industrial-generated chemical pollutants in their bodies that governments issue warnings about eating them.
the "clean meats", with cloven hooves and chewing the cud -- with scales and fins -- with toes that are three in the front and one in the back (birds) -- the idea was to label clearly clean meats so that the poisons would be avoided.
this was mainly because of the nature of the society -- couldn't prepare or watch animals well enough.
it was made into a religious proscription to make it more effective.
and of course the question is whether or not it is a religious dogma today -- and how about Jewish holy days?
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 24, 2004 at 10:08 AM
| link to this | reply
westwend --- I learned something today
I was not aware that birds had a Homosexual element. Always thought it was limited to mammals. There must be a proper term for this as " homo " refers specifically to man.
As for the relevency of banned foods today. The old testament clearly bans pork. On would assume that a book written before the advent of refrigeration would place prohibitions on the meats and food substances with naturally high bacteria gestation. The problem with it having any modern day relevance is that pork for example comprises 50% of the world's major source of daily protein. That number is fairly accurate and for most of the world's populace the selection or choice in what they eat to sustain themselves is not a luxury they have..
I find it extremely comical when someone from one of the wealthy, industrialized Western Nations begins blathering on about how the rest of the world should observe this ban on pork or any other food for that matter....as if to say so what if starving is the only other option.
posted by
gomedome
on June 24, 2004 at 8:57 AM
| link to this | reply
bilogist and anthropolilgists will tell you
homosexuality is common among the species they have observed.
"10% of seagulls (or albatrosses) are homosexual"
sub-dominant baboon males present themselves for sex with the more dominant males.
genetic makeup produces varieties of genders and mixing of sexual organs in individuals.
as far as Leviticus is concerned -- those detractors of the passage are right -- if you take one passage out of the book and don't accept the rest, you have a problem there.
if the entire Bible is inspired, then the entire book of Leviticus is inspired -- in my blog TRANSCENDING, etc, I quoted a verse from that book and asked if people thought it was applicable today.
Just like clean and unclean meats and the Jewish Holy Days -- those are in Leviticus -- would you take one verse and discard all the rest? Is it only partially relevant?
I figure if one part is valid, the entire book is valid, so we should not be eating pork and shrimp and clams and such and go to the nearest synagogue to learn how to celebrate Yom Kippur.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 24, 2004 at 7:01 AM
| link to this | reply
The_Friar -- I knew I was going ot get heat for putting it that way
how about : " a commonly occuring anomoly within all mammalian species. "
posted by
gomedome
on June 24, 2004 at 6:39 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome, you are wrong...
homosexuality is not natural.
posted by
Friar__Tuck
on June 23, 2004 at 11:52 PM
| link to this | reply
gome- one word: valium
posted by
AnCatubh
on June 23, 2004 at 11:29 PM
| link to this | reply
amdg --- ha ha ha ha ha
thanx man. That's my laugh of the evening.
posted by
gomedome
on June 23, 2004 at 8:19 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome-you are so full of the hate ..
you like to accuse Christians of.
posted by
AnCatubh
on June 23, 2004 at 8:08 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka_ lives -- when the bible thumping dribble gibblers come out with
the chapter that denounces homosexuality from Leviticus I like to beat them over the head with this one :
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he [the slave] continue [to live] a day or two, he [the slave owner] shall not be punished: for he [the slave] is his money [property]."
Slavery is okay but a natural thing like homosexuality is not ? I think it illustrates what you are saying in this posting about selective reasoning. It's also enormous fun whomping a bible thumper with the very book they would try to throw in our faces continuously.
posted by
gomedome
on June 23, 2004 at 7:21 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka-you're right
There should be no hostility toward anyone. This is one reason you don't think highly of Christians, understandably. Any fool who reads the Gospel knows that Christ advises us to love all. I don't have one, but I know a few people who have a WWJD bracelet, key chain, etc. and they mean it. Your indictments are too broad.
posted by
AnCatubh
on June 23, 2004 at 6:51 PM
| link to this | reply
I respect a leader who will take care for the well being of the
vast majority, saying to those who would lead them into despair, conflict and deep trouble with long-lasting consequences, that they simply are not welcome amongst the group. That, to me, is a respectable form of leadership. Too much sympathy for the every urge of the wayward individual would leave the innocent in contact with the corrupt. In such situations, there is no leadership present.
We would have our leaders to be watchful for the young ones who expect good things from those to whom they are exposed. If we choose to feed them experimental foods that have proven to contribute to bad health and even death, why would we make such a choice?
posted by
TARZANA
on June 23, 2004 at 5:30 PM
| link to this | reply