homey [h#601;#650;mi:]Aadjective1 homelike, homely, homey, homy having a feeling of home; cozy and comfortable; "the homely everyday atmosphere"; "a homey little inn"
Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Sorry Gustl, Homey doesn't buy this either. > Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does > conveniently alter meanings with time. "Conveniently?" Sure, definitions may occassionally need to be modified with time to reflect changes in contemporary usage. But "conveniently" changed? That implies something akin to overnight change rather than a progressive change. True accademecians loathe outside manipulation. Perhaps you can point to a "for instance?" Brooke Allen used contemporary definition, in a contemporary writ. Are you proposing that she should have dusted off an aged dictionary of two and one-quarter centuies and use that meaning, when all of the contemporary world is using a different reference book? Perhaps she should have written the article in the King's English as well? Doubtful that such a measure would somehow convey the message more clearly, much less more accurately. Do we even have at hand's length an exact reproduction of the century old definition of "religious?" If so, or even if not, my bet is that it's not that much different than what exists today. And substituting personal interpretation of a word with the "standardized" contemporary interpretation isn't exactly a fair exchange. Doing so would force everyone to adopt hundreds of different definitions for the same thing. 1) The generally accepted definition in the public space, and 2) the personal interpretation of any and all, slightly nuanced and tweaked to suit the purpose of each. If you don't much care for double standards, why would you advocate double meanings when none are necessary? > Besides this, you know that I > make a clear distinction between religion-religious and > organized-religion-religious Okay. So pray tell, exactly which religions aren't organized? I can't think of one, certainly none within the mainstream of the past four centuries. > Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't > say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are > arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. You declared Brooke Allen's statement to be patently or "absolutely" false. That point is what I took contention with and still do.She lent far more substance to her arguement than others have to the contrary. Beyond that, I don't see anyplace in my response where I interjected any comment as to your personal beliefs or what you personally advocate. The matter of "religious" relative to the founding fathers was left to reside strictly within their practical exhibition and the definition of the word. If somehow you interpret that as a matter of me directing my remarks against you personally or your personal beliefs, I'll leave that up to you. It's not what was written and the exception which you have taken and/or your apparent umbrage is certainly not warranted. Todd Swearingen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gustl Steiner-Zehender" To: "Appal Energy" Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:00 AM Subject: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution > Hallo Todd, > > Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 20:02:00, you wrote: > > AE> Gustl, > > AE> If you'll notice, the exception that I took was to the absolutism > AE> that you expressed. > >>>>>> The Founding Fathers were not religious men, >>>>> This bit is absolutely false. > > Yes, responding in kind to her absolutist remark. Perhaps if not > probably not a wise choice, but I did limit it to ONLY that remark and > hers is a false premise. > >>> The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting >>> others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's >>> dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality >>> by controlling the language. > > Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does > conveniently alter meanings with time. Besides this, you know that I > make a clear distinction between religion-religious and > organized-religion-religious and you also know that I believe in > individual liberty and a reasonable separation of church and state. > Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't > say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are > arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. > > It is not a far reach to declare that at least 13 of them were > religious, and that makes the "they" portion of Allen's proposition > false. It would be a far and impossible reach however to declare that > the advocated any specific religion. > > The drive towards religious thought may be as innate as the drive > towards personal survival. Religion comes from the inward out and has > been with us since before words. I will not allow the Holy Roman > church or the Baptist church or any "religious authority" to define > for me what is possibly my most fundamental urge. I will certainly > not allow Webster's to do so nor will I allow another to control the > definitions. To control the definitions is to control the argument > which is why, in debate, definitions are first agreed upon. > > I believe the founding fathers viewed religion much the same as I view > religion and that is strictly personal and subjective and not imposed > by some outside "authority". Ones religion defines for that person > ones relation to the cosmos. It is just a person and their > relationship to the "other". It begins before we are able to > understand and once we have that ability we realize how much we will > never be able to understand. Perhaps that is where the organized > church started...taking this bit and that bit and claiming this is all > there is and they know because they have religious authority. Who > knows? But I haven't bought that lie and I won't bend over and allow > any "authority" to stick definitions which control my thoughts and > world up where the sun doesn't shine. I also will not reject > everything any religion says out of hand just because I have found > some or even most of their teachings to be false. The baby doesn't go > out with the bathwater. I have learned to be selective and to keep > the flowers growing in the manure and let the manure lay. > > We have been on this list for a while and I believe you are aware of > how I define religion and that I make a distinction between religion > and organized religion. I also believe that you know that Allen was > not making that distinction and that the founding fathers do fall into > the category of religious men under the terms of my definition and at > least for the 13 Freemasons under their terms. So Todd, with whom are > you arguing? It appears to me that you are arguing with your own > religious background. I have defined my terms from day one here and > those men fit my definition which is broad but specific. It allows > for anyone regardless of affiliation or lack thereof. It gives one > breathing space and allows for differences of not only opinion but > also in understanding, discernment, apprehension and definition. > Allen would have everyone painted with the same brush and I do not > accept that. > > To go back to an old subject. There are places in this world where > cows are sacred and some where they are not. Are those who revere > cows religious or not? And those who don't? How about the proverbial > ascetic living in the cave in the mountain? Would you be willing to > let Webster's narrow and erroneous definition define you? How about > if they put "Todd Swearington" in the dictionary and then put down > what they thought described you? That wouldn't float. But we > constantly let "authorities" shape and control our world by accepting > how they define it and fitting ourselves into their mold. It boggles > ones mind. This is why I keep repeating myself. We are not talking > about religious differences we are talking about sectarian, creedal > differences. Differences in our cultures and upbringing and how we > are taught to express our understanding. If three people are speaking > and one speaks about this, another that and the third the other and > all are referring to the same thing what we have is a difference in > perhaps name, form or expression but the substance remains the same. > Same same religion. But it is a case of Schein und Sein, what it > appears to be and what it is. > > Enter the "authorities". "This is what it is. They say it is that. We > are right and they are wrong. They're heathens and going to Hell." > There's your definition brother. I know you're not buying that so why > would you let them continue calling a cow a duck without an argument? > For me these things are fundamental matters and stand in the way of > our truly understanding one another and cooperating with one another > to build a better world. To accept definitions which we know to be > fundamentally flawed and incorrect is to be manipulated despite and > perhaps particularly because of current popular usage. The urge toward > inward religion is innately cohesive, inclusive and universal. It is > the manipulation of that innate urge for partisan purposes which is > fundamentally flawed and wrong. > > I may be wrong about all of this but I don't believe so. So far it > works for me and I guess that is what matters. If my beliefs cause me > to do wrong, evil or harm to others and this amazing world we live in > then I will be the first to get up off them, repudiate the and walk > another path. But so far they haven't let me down. They keep me > concentrated on substance while recognizing that name and form may > differ and allow me to communicate with others and cooperate with > others without prejudice or penalty. They help keep my mind open and > my judgements charitable. They lead me to call for mercy when justice > is what is deserved. They urge me to find points of agreement rather > than disagreement. They show me that love, kindness, gentleness and > peace may suffer in the short run but over the long run they will > triumph. They engender hope and service as I am able to the community > in whatever manner I am able and that the community is humankind > without the artificial restrictions we have burdened ourselves with. > These are my personal beliefs, my religious beliefs, my religion and I > own them. Not the church. Not the government. Not Noah Webster. It > is at our core and the same for everyone. We may call it something > different but the substance remains the same. The world may take > everything else from us but it cannot take this although it can be > given up by oneself. > > You know that I have a great respect for you and your abilities Todd. > I also believe that when all is said and done that you understand what > I am saying and that there is no real, meaningful disagreement about > this. We may disagree now and then on which turn in the road to take > but I think our paths are leading to the same place. > > Happy Happy, > > Gustl > > AE> Well? Just exactly how do you propose that humans communicate if > AE> there aren't some ground rules and consistencies, such as > AE> definitions? Websters isn't exactly the same fount of > AE> mis-understanding as Rush Limbrain, Tom Reed, Bill O'Really, Haley > AE> Barber, Donald Rumsfeld, et al, who conveniently alter their > AE> definitions on the turn of a dime to suit their ends. > > AE> Surely the proposal wouldn't be to discontinue the use of > AE> relatively static definitions and throw the doors open to whatever > AE> interpretation anyone wants to offer at any given second. Would > AE> it? > >>>From Websters New World, Third College Edition: AE> religious - >>>adjective - 1) characterized by adherence to religion or a AE> >>>religion; devout; pious; godly. 2)of,concerned with, appropriate to, > or AE> teaching religion. 3) belonging to a community of monk, nuns, > etc. 4) AE> conscientiously exact; careful; scrupulous > > AE> Only line item one of these definitions is applicable relative to > AE> the founding fathers' personal dispositions toward religion(s), > AE> with the operable words being "adherence." and "religion." While > AE> most of these gentlemen acknowledged that there was almost surely > AE> something bigger than they, and by and large held to the principal > AE> tenants of healthy human behavior found in the doctrines of many > AE> religions, none of them appear to have exhibited "adherance to > AE> religion" in any other fashion than it held occassionally (or > AE> perhaps more frequently) to be constructive in societal stability > AE> and the development of individual character. > > AE> adhere - intransitive verb - 1) to stick fast; stay attached. 2) > AE> to stay firm in supporting or approving > > AE> Take a look again at the definitions. Then take a look at Brooke > AE> Allen's statement. The founding fathers certainly valued the > AE> rights of others to adhere to their doctrine/dogma of choice. They > AE> were firm in a belief that religions held value in society. They > AE> were equally as adherant to the belief that no people or person of > AE> any religion(s) should ever possess the right from a podium of > AE> national influence to disenfranchise others of their right to > AE> pursue differing spiritual beliefs, or any "lack" of spiritual > AE> belifs for that matter. > > AE> That's not to say that anyone of any religious persuasion should > AE> not hold office, only that the office should not be used to > AE> pillory and/or subjugate any person or people. These were not > AE> pious, necessarily devout or godly men. Certainly they were > AE> reasonably intelligent, well aware of the inevitable chaos of > AE> permitting either church or state to achieve authority or > AE> superiority over the other. > > AE> Couple that with their personal biographies and you have a > AE> collective of men who certainly weren't thrilled in the slightest > AE> with religion from the sectarian perspective, nor what the zeal of > AE> sectarian pursuit can do to the offense of human kind. And while > AE> they appeared to hold respect for the better principles of > AE> religions in general, none of them appear to have "adhered" to any > AE> religion in specific - unless, perhaps, attending Sunday service > AE> at the same church two weekends in a row constitutes "adherance." > > AE> What could be said is that these men may have been spiritually > AE> inclined or perhaps "adherant," but by definition it's a far reach > AE> to declare that they were "religious." > > AE> Todd Swearingen > ...snip-it's all there in the archives :o)... > -- > Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. > Mitglied-Team AMIGA > ICQ: 22211253-Gustli > ******** > The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, > soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, > without signposts. > C. S. Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters" > ******** > Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Straße liegen, > daß sie gerade deshalb von der gewöhnlichen Welt nicht > gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. > ******** > Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't > hear the music. > George Carlin > ******** > The best portion of a good man's life - > His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. > William Wordsworth > > > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 > -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
