| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| A 1956 encyclopaedia's view on the computer |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-06-08 23:07:13 |
| Two weeks ago, my grandmother passed away - the last grandparent I had left. As those of you with experience in dealing with deceased family members know, the funeral is only the start; the next part is taking care of the deceased's affairs, which includes going through all their belongings to determine what to do with them. I took care of my grandmother's extensive book collection, and while doing so, I hit something that fascinated me to no end: a six-volume Christian Encyclopaedia from 1956. In it, I found something I just had to share with OSNews. |
|
| RE: Dankjewel! |
| By Neolander on 2012-06-09 11:33:59 |
|
I wonder, are all Germans able to guess what a Dutch text means and vice versa ? The vocabulary of the two languages looks very similar from a foreigner's point of view... Edited 2012-06-09 11:38 UTC |
 - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Sorry for the religious discussion |
| By spudley99 on 2012-06-09 11:46:57 |
|
> > There's a passage in the New Testament where the character of Jesus basically says that he's wiping away all the laws and teachings of the past, and replacing them with one: "Love one another as the Lord loves you". There is also a passage where Jesus says he didn't come to abolish any of the rules of the old testament. You can get anything from the bible if you want to. You should view it as an interesting book that shows a lot of how people throughout the ages thought about things. You should not treat it as an encyclopedia. Uh, the encyclopedia we're talking about is a separate book. But re the passage you mention: Jesus actually says "I have not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it." This is a very key point for Christians, and basically says what @3rdalbum said which you replied to. You got it wrong because you only quoted half of the sentence. In these things, context is everything; most of the wacky sects and cults out there start this way by taking a quote from the bible (or wherever) out of context, and making a big thing of it. |
| - Score: 2 |
| Thank you all |
| By Sodki on 2012-06-09 12:23:50 |
|
I must make a few comments: 1) Thank you Thom, for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I feel for your loss, since all my grandparents are also gone, but on the other hand I still have some of my wife's grandparents to talk to. I like to know how things came to be and so talking with someone who has been there before can be a great experience. 2) Thank you OSNews readers. Even when talking about religion the discussion is still civilized. This is still my favourite tech-related website by a long shot. |
| - Score: 6 |
| RE[2]: You know Thom |
| By M.Onty on 2012-06-09 12:34:22 |
|
> In fact, I dislike being called an atheist because atheism has become quite militant and poisonous since the rise of the web. There's a handy neologism to distinguish plain old atheism from that newer, more aggressive strain of atheism; New Atheism. The New Atheists (Dawkins, the late Hitchens &c.) consider religion as something virulent which needs to be combated whereever it is observed to exist; in someone else's mind, for example. An exact parallel is conservative and Neo-Con. The former is essentially personal, the latter is essentially aggressive. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Sorry for the religious discussion |
| By Fergy on 2012-06-09 13:34:48 |
| http://bible.cc/matthew/5-17.htm |
| - Score: 2 |
| Comment by Anonymous Penguin |
| By Anonymous Penguin on 2012-06-09 14:45:44 |
|
Very nice article Thom :) My mother has a more recent and large encyclopaedia, probably printed in sixties or in the early seventies. Tonight when I go for dinner with her I'll have a look. Edited 2012-06-09 14:54 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Sorry for the religious discussion |
| By skeezix on 2012-06-09 15:35:37 |
|
Good response; I like how you framed and the issue. From a person who tries to be a Christian but often finds himself feeling like he should be a New Jew instead -- not by desire, but by some sort of misplaced sense of obligation. |
| - Score: 1 |
| Great Article |
| By weebnuts on 2012-06-09 15:55:57 |
| Thanks for sharing. |
| - Score: 1 |
| Comment on Religion and Evolution |
| By reez on 2012-06-09 17:13:37 |
|
> I looked up "Evolution", and to my surprise, I was completely and utterly wrong - the topic was described in great scientific detail, explaining how evolution works, who contributed to the subject, and some of the aspects of it that still required further study because scientists didn't yet understand them fully (we're talking 1956, after all). No dogmas, no ridicule, no disparaging words or other forms of negativity. In fact, it could've come from any strictly secular science book and it'd be perfectly acceptable. Well all this science vs religion nonsense is a new thing. Gregor Mendel for example was monk and even though we Charles Darwin is the father of the evolution theory Mendel discovered how inheritance works and described it in great detail. People somehow started to mix up science with believe. There are a lot of scientists that are theist, the Vatican even has their own observatory and they add a lot to science. One also shouldn't mix up Christianity with Creationism. There are a lot things that go wrong with church and I don't believe in a god either, but saying that someone who does isn't able to do science is just completely wrong. It even goes further than that. Saying there is no god without proving it is from a scientific point of view just as wrong as stating their is one without proving it. Also people, scientist, priest or both are in general wrong about most of the stuff they find out, even if they consider them proven. Basing your moral decision on any of these, at least for me doesn't sound rational (if moral decisions can be rational at all). Nevertheless. Great article! (and sorry about your loss) |
| - Score: 3 |
| Evolution |
| By Modafinil on 2012-06-09 17:31:47 |
|
> I looked up "Evolution", and to my surprise, I was completely and utterly wrong - the topic was described in great scientific detail, explaining how evolution works, who contributed to the subject, and some of the aspects of it that still required further study because scientists didn't yet understand them fully (we're talking 1956, after all). No dogmas, no ridicule, no disparaging words or other forms of negativity. In fact, it could've come from any strictly secular science book and it'd be perfectly acceptable. Evolution was first documented by the great Shia Muslim scholar Nasir al-Din al-Tusi in his book "Akhlaq-e Nasri" 700 years before Darwin "discovered" it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nas... |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |