Random News not worthy of own thread

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Bishop149 » Wed, 20. Feb 19, 11:25

Not sure if this deserves its own thread or not. The following story has been leading many of the headlines in the UK.

IS teenager to lose UK citizenship

It's a complicated case and frankly I'm a little surprised by the antipathy this story generates even among supposedly lefty progressive types.
Opinion seem pretty unanimous that she should be left to rot in the consequences of her own actions. Things to consider:

- She made her decision to join IS at 15 having been extensively groomed.
- Now as an adult she appears fairly unrepentant, despite her experiences.
- There is an issue of child welfare, she recently had a 3rd child the previous two having been killed.

Personally I'm unsure what to think, other than that any criminal acts she may have committed should be investigated tried by the appropriate court.
One thing I am sure on, however, is that the government should not have the power to revoke citizenship.
1) The function of a government is to protect and look after the best interests of it's citizens, WHOEVER they are. It should not be allowed to simply wash it's hands of any citizen it deems too big of a problem.
2) The revocation of citizenship in this case unquestionably a punishment meted out in response to perceived wrongdoing. Crime and Punishment is a matter for the Judiciary, not the Executive . . . . a basic issue of separation of powers.

I think the government is going to find itself in legal hot water very quickly over what was likely an exercise in grabbing some positive PR.
Legal challenges I've seen so far:
- You can't make someone stateless, you can only revoke citizenship if they have another one.
- They did this after the birth of the child, who therefore (at least arguably) still a British citizen. The government will be left with a choice between: Arguing they shouldn't have to protect a baby or removing a newborn from its mother. . . . somehow. :(
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by pjknibbs » Wed, 20. Feb 19, 13:17

It's a complicated issue. Yes, the government has a responsibility to protect *all* its citizens--but what happens with a citizen who has belonged to an organisation devoted to harming other citizens? Especially when she shows no particular remorse for the actions of that organisation, even calling them justified? I guess what it comes down to is this: if she were still resident in this country, having done the things she's done, then she'd be prosecuted in court and her guilt or innocence determined there. She would not have her citizenship revoked. This is only an action the government can even consider because she's not currently resident in the UK, and I don't think that should make a difference.

So, my opinion: let her come home, make sure she's interned somewhere where she can't possibly harm anyone while she waits for trial, and then let the court determine what happens to her.

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Bishop149 » Wed, 20. Feb 19, 13:24

pjknibbs wrote:
Wed, 20. Feb 19, 13:17
Yes, the government has a responsibility to protect *all* its citizens--but what happens with a citizen who has belonged to an organisation devoted to harming other citizens? Especially when she shows no particular remorse for the actions of that organisation, even calling them justified? I guess what it comes down to is this: if she were still resident in this country, having done the things she's done, then she'd be prosecuted in court and her guilt or innocence determined there. She would not have her citizenship revoked. This is only an action the government can even consider because she's not currently resident in the UK, and I don't think that should make a difference.

So, my opinion: let her come home, make sure she's interned somewhere where she can't possibly harm anyone while she waits for trial, and then let the court determine what happens to her.
I basically agree with your analysis, this is a decision made on the basis of convenience and gaining political capital
Having citizens intent on harming other citizens and/or destroying the state to which they belong is hardly a new issue, see Northern Ireland. . . I don't recall our stripping citizenship from any IRA or UVF terrorists.

Edit:

Ha! Oh this gets better.
This document: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... .0_WEB.pdf

Outlines SPECIFICALLY how to deal with a ISIS returnee to the UK who is pregnant / a mother (page 50-51) and represents a common sense approach.
Forewords by Theresa May and Sajid Javid
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 20. Feb 19, 16:16

Bishop149 wrote:
Wed, 20. Feb 19, 11:25
Not sure if this deserves its own thread or not. The following story has been leading many of the headlines in the UK.

IS teenager to lose UK citizenship

It's a complicated case and frankly I'm a little surprised by the antipathy this story generates even among supposedly lefty progressive types.
Opinion seem pretty unanimous that she should be left to rot in the consequences of her own actions. Things to consider:

- She made her decision to join IS at 15 having been extensively groomed.
- Now as an adult she appears fairly unrepentant, despite her experiences.
- There is an issue of child welfare, she recently had a 3rd child the previous two having been killed.

Personally I'm unsure what to think, other than that any criminal acts she may have committed should be investigated tried by the appropriate court....
I agree that it's difficult to justify revocation of citizenship unless it is specifically "awarded" by a government. Most governments, however, state that's the case in some way. It's one of those loopholes that could only be exploited in the most extreme cases and it's left there on purpose, in my opinion. (It is not an easy subject to unravel, though.)

I think it appears she made a mistake when she was a minor. A child. Even worse, a teenager, who is armed with just enough power and mental capacity, even if ill-used, to make some pretty darn big whoppers of mistakes.

Now, it appears she regrets her decision. There's still a bit of brainwashing there in the nooks and crannies, but it doesn't appear that she agrees with many things IS has done.

Is it a case of "Holy Clap, I'm in some deep falafel, now" or is it a case of true regret and love for her former country?

/shrug

To be very honest, I think consideration here should go far beyond the instances of this particular case. The U.K. People need to decide how they are going to view minors, their choices, and how far the adult can be held responsible for their choices as a child. They also need to decide whether or not a child can subsume the power of the U.K. Government and can determine whether or not a person is a citizen of the U.K. while keeping in mind she would not have been free to travel or free to make a contrary decision once arriving in the gentle, caring, hands of IS.

But, when people get angry and just want to feed that anger and add a healthy dose of righteous indignation for good measure, they're capable of extreme deficiencies of compassion and empathy. They also tend to disregard common sense.

Grimmrog
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu, 6. Dec 18, 13:17
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Grimmrog » Wed, 20. Feb 19, 16:24

pjknibbs wrote:
Fri, 8. Feb 19, 08:42
red assassin wrote:
Thu, 7. Feb 19, 22:10
I mean, I'd definitely be more upset about losing Dwarf Fortress than a bunch of cryptocurrency types losing their money, to be fair...
You wouldn't be "losing" Dwarf Fortress, you'd just be losing the chance of it getting updated beyond where it is now. If you like it fine how it is now, then no problem.
If toady is gone, how long would we be ble to play DF until the lack of maintenance would make it unplayable on new systems and OS? Doubt anyone else could continue that.

User avatar
felter
Posts: 6961
Joined: Sat, 9. Nov 02, 18:13
xr

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by felter » Wed, 20. Feb 19, 19:07

Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 20. Feb 19, 16:16
Now, it appears she regrets her decision. There's still a bit of brainwashing there in the nooks and crannies, but it doesn't appear that she agrees with many things IS has done.
She has shown know sign of regret, she has shown no sign of compassion, she has shown that she disagrees with our lifestyle and does not agree with our values on life. She made it clear that she thought that IS did some things wrong, but that she still agreed with their lifestyle and life values and that she would join up with them at the drop of a pin, if the chance arises again. She made her bed and now she should have to sleep in it. I have no compassion for her at all but I do feel sorry for her child. If she wants she can give the child up it can be raised her in the UK, so long as it is not with her own family or anyone involved with her family.
Florida Man Makes Announcement.
We live in a crazy world where winter heating has become a luxury item.

User avatar
red assassin
Posts: 4613
Joined: Sun, 15. Feb 04, 15:11
x3

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by red assassin » Thu, 21. Feb 19, 00:29

felter wrote:
Wed, 20. Feb 19, 19:07
She has shown know sign of regret, she has shown no sign of compassion, she has shown that she disagrees with our lifestyle and does not agree with our values on life. She made it clear that she thought that IS did some things wrong, but that she still agreed with their lifestyle and life values and that she would join up with them at the drop of a pin, if the chance arises again. She made her bed and now she should have to sleep in it. I have no compassion for her at all but I do feel sorry for her child. If she wants she can give the child up it can be raised her in the UK, so long as it is not with her own family or anyone involved with her family.
She's nineteen. She was groomed as a child. I agree in principle that there's a point at which somebody who's effectively defected to a hostile (wannabe) state can have de facto relinquished citizenship in the state they left, but I'm uncomfortable with that being an executive decision, and I'm particularly uncomfortable with that decision being applied to someone who would almost certainly be rightly considered to have reduced culpability for any other crime she might have been induced to commit as a child.
A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise, a morning filled with 400 billion suns - the rising of the Milky Way

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Morkonan » Thu, 21. Feb 19, 20:24

felter wrote:
Wed, 20. Feb 19, 19:07
...I have no compassion for her at all but I do feel sorry for her child. ...
Let's forget all the possible reasons you'd lack compassion for her for a sec'. Forget that she was just a child when she made the "decision." Forget what she "chose" for a sec. Forget that, though she chose to support a terrorist organization as a child and approved of many of the things they did, she didn't actually do those things herself...

At what point can a nation take away the "citizenship" of a citizen? When can a nation deny the citizenship of a person?

Let's say someone doesn't like something about you. Let's say it's a bunch of people. You've committed no crime that you could be legally charged with because you're just a child. Even so, you've decided that you love Punk Furry Metal Pistachio-New-Age Fusion Jazz and have run off to join a radical Boy Band organization that promotes their genre of music by burning down puppy hospitals... You don't participate in such things, but you end up marrying one of the band members and you have lots of babies. Then, one day, you realize your mistake! They are, in fact, a Punk Furry Metal Pistachio-New-Age Fusion ROCK band and not, as you thought, a Punk Furry Metal Pistachio-New-Age Fusion Jazz band! Disappointed and disillusioned, you seek to return to your home.

But, your home country hates both kinds of music and the only way they can prevent you from returning is to deny your citizenship. Or, at the very least, they get embroiled in an argument about it.

Where is your "due process" under "the law?"

What is the law on this? And, where are the laws that state that she, as a child, can deny her citizenship and elect to become a citizen of another state? Does the UK have such a law? A child can do this? Are all children in the UK emancipated?

IMO, regardless of the personal feelings of anyone and regardless of what she believes now or did in the past, due process must still be provided under the law. If it isn't, and if the government cedes the Rule of Law to the unwashed, screaming and outraged, masses, then it has left the path of reason and every citizen in endangered of being persecuted and their citizenship revoked if they don't like the "right kind of music..."

If she committed a crime, then in what cases of crime can the UK revoke the citizenship of a citizen? Is that a legal punishment in the UK? Sure, reducing or denying certain liberties is a punishment, but a person's citizenship???

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Bishop149 » Fri, 22. Feb 19, 10:25

Morkonan wrote:
Thu, 21. Feb 19, 20:24
What is the law on this? And, where are the laws that state that she, as a child, can deny her citizenship and elect to become a citizen of another state? Does the UK have such a law? A child can do this? Are all children in the UK emancipated?

If she committed a crime, then in what cases of crime can the UK revoke the citizenship of a citizen? Is that a legal punishment in the UK? Sure, reducing or denying certain liberties is a punishment, but a person's citizenship???
Under law the government certainly has the power to do this, I don't know under exactly what circumstances but I suspect its essentially just on the authority of Home Secretary alone.

It is illegal (not sure under what law, British or International) to deliberately make someone stateless, they can only remove citizenship if the person in question has another one.
Its gets questionable around the interpretation of that, the British government have interpreted this as "We can do it if the person has a CLAIM on another citizenship" regardless of whether the person has taken up that claim or not.
In this case the girl in question has a right to Bangladeshi citizenship, but she hasn't claimed it and Bangladesh has since come out saying they would refuse to grant it anyway.
So like it or not, shes ours.

As for the child the law is clear, British by birth by virtue of being born to a British citizen.

I don't know if removal of citizenship is a punishment that can be doled out directly by a court.
I suspect not, I think what would like happen in that case is that the court might make a recommendation to the Home Secretary suggesting that they might want to consider it.

Someone made a exceptionally good point on Twitter yesterday.
The whole "we can do it if they have a claim" is an extremely dangerous precedent because it is almost by definition racist.
Who will have such claims? Naturalised Foreigners almost entirely. . . . and you know who would be the MOST easily targeted by such a policy? Anyone Jewish.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by RegisterMe » Fri, 22. Feb 19, 18:59

I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 23. Feb 19, 02:21

Bishop149 wrote:
Fri, 22. Feb 19, 10:25
...Who will have such claims? Naturalised Foreigners almost entirely. . . . and you know who would be the MOST easily targeted by such a policy? Anyone Jewish.
And, right there, you've hit the "nail on the head." This is a clear demonstration of how something that people think is so easy to do and should be done can turn an entire country on its ear... That's exactly how dangerous an abuse of a power or a law can become, even if people think it's something they want to happen because they are "outraged."

People have to "think." I know it's difficult and distasteful, but it has to be done if the rights and lives of others are to be rescued from the unjust anger and outrage of future generations.

Feel free to escape the rest of my rant, below...

A child made a mistake and, as a result, was subjected to radical religious and outrageously reinforced cultural brainwashing. Now, her views as a young adult are suitably warped and she lives in what must be a confusing "reality." The "people" look at her as a symbol of the problem and a surrogate for some idealized "radicalized person." Obviously, such a thing can not be allowed to exist and the only politically correct thing to do is to refuse that existence by expunging it from their midst... They're not willing to execute her, since she hasn't actually committed a violent offense, so they'll just... exile her as soon as the opportunity exists to do so while still being able to claim it being a "righteous act." ie: Legal

And, if she is exiled and her citizenship revoked, that just sets the stage for the next time. And the next. I realize some would claim this as a false "slippery slope" but what system of Law does not consider precedent and what system of legitimate Law does not first hold to the convictions and good faith of "The People?" We have to guard against those things becoming something that were never intended no matter how strongly we may feel about them at the time. It's either act conscientiously or consign ourselves to anarchy.

I dunno... Maybe people don't understand what being a "citizen" of a State means? Maybe they're a bit complacent or apathetic? Maybe they don't understand that, while they are part of their State, their State is the one that acts on their behalf with other States?

Unless provided for by the State that claims sovereignty over the ground that one is standing on, a stateless person is basically "nobody" with only the barest "Rights" provided for under UN treaties that the State in question happens to have signed. That's why she's not had her citizenship revoked yet, but that tell people who are arguing for her exile something very significant about how important being a "Citizen" is.

Revoking someone's citizenship as a "punishment" for them holding to an unpopular creed or religion or approving of "the wrong things" is a terrible consideration. States don't even do that for the most heinous of criminals even if they do reduce their rights and privileges as a "citizen." All those people in prison are typically still citizens of their host nation, just with certain basic rights under suspension during incarceration. In some cases, reinstatement of certain rights is curtailed, but their fundamental nature as being a "citizen" is not put into question.

Sorry for the length of the response, but seeing people get outraged over the actions of a child and condemning the evolved young adult to what is effectively a life-long punishment simply because they don't agree with that child's choices.... I'm flabbergasted. :)

Edit:Add - Just to let the UK know they're not alone, here: Alabama woman who joined IS sues to return Slightly different circumstances, but it's still close.

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Bishop149 » Wed, 27. Feb 19, 11:30

Well, I just found out that it’s pretty likely that “Jesus” is a mistranslation of Hebrew to English via Latin.

A more accurate English translation of Jesus’ name would be “Joshua”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua

Damn, for someone raise under a Christian social tradition this seemed like a BIG thing for me not to know.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 27. Feb 19, 18:55

Bishop149 wrote:
Wed, 27. Feb 19, 11:30
Well, I just found out that it’s pretty likely that “Jesus” is a mistranslation of Hebrew to English via Latin.

A more accurate English translation of Jesus’ name would be “Joshua”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua

Damn, for someone raise under a Christian social tradition this seemed like a BIG thing for me not to know.
It's not quite new knowledge... :)

That's OK. I don't think he minds.

By the way, in certain denominations of the Abrahamic faith, knowing the difference is truly critical.

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Bishop149 » Thu, 28. Feb 19, 14:52

Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 27. Feb 19, 18:55
It's not quite new knowledge... :)

That's OK. I don't think he minds.

By the way, in certain denominations of the Abrahamic faith, knowing the difference is truly critical.
It was new to me . . . . . which I found surprising given the amount of Christianity I've been exposed to in my 30 odd years of life.
It got me wondering how many other "Christians" (practising or otherwise) don't know the name of their saviour is a translation error.

I'm aware that the "names of God" are a thing in both Judaism and Islam, but know very little beyond that.
There's a 100 of them in Islam?
The names of God represent some kind of code in Judaism?
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Morkonan » Thu, 28. Feb 19, 20:15

Bishop149 wrote:
Thu, 28. Feb 19, 14:52
It was new to me . . . . . which I found surprising given the amount of Christianity I've been exposed to in my 30 odd years of life.
It got me wondering how many other "Christians" (practising or otherwise) don't know the name of their saviour is a translation error.

I'm aware that the "names of God" are a thing in both Judaism and Islam, but know very little beyond that.
There's a 100 of them in Islam?
The names of God represent some kind of code in Judaism?
There's a lot of apocrypha and cultural/traditional stuff wrapped up in some practices of the Abrahamic faiths. In Judaism, AFAIK, the name of God can not be spoken and/or is sacred. "Code" related words in Judaism probably originate in some kind of hermetic/mysticism practices, seeking further revelations. Christian "code-breakers" exist as well, earnestly believing that "truths" can be found through even deeper study of the Bible. (Numerologist in Judaism and Christianity. I don't know about Islamic numerologist, but I'd assume they exist there, too. Then, there are the Judeo-Christian "mystics" that might have such beliefs that coincide with some experiential focus. IIRC, there are also mystics in Islam.)

IIRC, there was even a sort of Christian monastic order that believed if the 100 names of God, or 100, or 10,000, or however many they believed existed, were spoken aloud, the Universe would End with a "capital "E."" :) They had a list... I can't remember, atm, where their monastery was. Jordon? Syria, maybe? Then again, a tiny little place in the Mediterranean comes to mind. ie: Island monastery? Oh well, it doesn't matter, since it doesn't appear they've finished reading them, yet. :)

User avatar
Usenko
Posts: 7856
Joined: Wed, 4. Apr 07, 02:25
x3

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Usenko » Sat, 2. Mar 19, 06:19

"Translation error" isn't quite the right term, in that there is no real problem with ambiguity. Jesus is identified clearly in the Gospels, and we know exactly who it is.

The problem here is the sort of problem you always get when you translate a name from one language to another to another. Obviously no two languages have the same sounds, so you always have subtle differences. Concepts translate more easily; I say "chaud" in French, you say "hot" in English, and then we translate that to "Heiß" in German. There's no need to preserve the sounds, you just keep the meaning. But proper names are another matter. Often instead of trying to translate names, you transliterate the sounds.

So in this case, the man in question was known by his friends, family and associates as ישוע (Y'shua) in Hebrew (the traditional ethnic language of Jews; the same name is used in Aramaic, the language people generally spoke in daily life in Judea during the 1st Century).

The Gospels were written in Greek, which was the main language spoken in the Roman Empire. The name "Y'shua" didn't previously have a Greek counterpart, and some of the sounds lacked Greek equivalents (e.g. "sh" was not used in Greek). Therefore the evangelists[1] did the best they could, transliterating it as "Ιησούς" (Iesous).

By the middle ages, Latin was becoming a more popular language than Greek, so most readers used the Latin equivalent. In Latin, the usual transliteration from Greek was "Jesus". The J sound was typically pronounced closer to a "Y" than the modern J, and the last letter was often not voiced, so "Yesu" is a pretty approximation of how their version sounded. But when we get to modern English, we simply use the Latin lettering with English sounds - so the name becomes "Jesus".

So where does the name of the Biblical hero Joshua come into it? Well, there's another peculiarity here. Hebrew is written without vowels in its ancient form. There are little hints that teach you how to pronounce things, but they're complex (my first year Hebrew at Bible college not really being up to the job. :) ) and not 100% reliable. So whilst you can translate concepts with as good fidelity as any other language (better than most ancient languages), actually reproducing the SOUNDS of ancient Hebrew is problematic. Therefore, the most accurate rendering of the name is "Y - sh - w - 'h". "Yeshua" and "Yehoshua" are both acceptable variants. In Latin, "Yehoshua" is mostly transliterated "Joshua". But the added Greek step leads to a slightly different transliteration of the same name (Jesus).

[1] In this context, the word "evangelist" means "one who wrote a Gospel," rather than the current-day meaning of "A person attempting to convert others to a different religion or viewpoint."
Morkonan wrote:What really happened isn't as exciting. Putin flexed his left thigh during his morning ride on a flying bear, right after beating fifty Judo blackbelts, which he does upon rising every morning. (Not that Putin sleeps, it's just that he doesn't want to make others feel inadequate.)

User avatar
Usenko
Posts: 7856
Joined: Wed, 4. Apr 07, 02:25
x3

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Usenko » Sat, 2. Mar 19, 06:31

Morkonan wrote:
Thu, 28. Feb 19, 20:15
Bishop149 wrote:
Thu, 28. Feb 19, 14:52
It was new to me . . . . . which I found surprising given the amount of Christianity I've been exposed to in my 30 odd years of life.
It got me wondering how many other "Christians" (practising or otherwise) don't know the name of their saviour is a translation error.

I'm aware that the "names of God" are a thing in both Judaism and Islam, but know very little beyond that.
There's a 100 of them in Islam?
The names of God represent some kind of code in Judaism?
There's a lot of apocrypha and cultural/traditional stuff wrapped up in some practices of the Abrahamic faiths. In Judaism, AFAIK, the name of God can not be spoken and/or is sacred. "Code" related words in Judaism probably originate in some kind of hermetic/mysticism practices, seeking further revelations. Christian "code-breakers" exist as well, earnestly believing that "truths" can be found through even deeper study of the Bible. (Numerologist in Judaism and Christianity. I don't know about Islamic numerologist, but I'd assume they exist there, too. Then, there are the Judeo-Christian "mystics" that might have such beliefs that coincide with some experiential focus. IIRC, there are also mystics in Islam.)

IIRC, there was even a sort of Christian monastic order that believed if the 100 names of God, or 100, or 10,000, or however many they believed existed, were spoken aloud, the Universe would End with a "capital "E."" :) They had a list... I can't remember, atm, where their monastery was. Jordon? Syria, maybe? Then again, a tiny little place in the Mediterranean comes to mind. ie: Island monastery? Oh well, it doesn't matter, since it doesn't appear they've finished reading them, yet. :)
You're correct, Mork - you're not supposed to pronounce the Most Holy name of God in Judaism (in fact Modern Jews still prefer to write "G_d" as an homage to this tradition). This name is supposed to be written as יהוה (YHWH), but traditionally the Jews would replace it with "Adonai" (Lord) when reading it aloud. This leads to a little weirdness - when vowels started to be added to Hebrew script, the word "YHWH" was written with the vowels for "Adonai" as a not-so-subtle hint to the reader that they should do this replacement.

Roman scribes were unaware of this nuance (and frankly there was a lack of willingness to listen to Jewish scholars, so such things didn't really get transferred to Christian scholarship until much later). Therefore early Christian translations of the Bible used the word "Jehovah," which is a sort of Frankenstein's monster of both names.
Morkonan wrote:What really happened isn't as exciting. Putin flexed his left thigh during his morning ride on a flying bear, right after beating fifty Judo blackbelts, which he does upon rising every morning. (Not that Putin sleeps, it's just that he doesn't want to make others feel inadequate.)

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by pjknibbs » Sat, 2. Mar 19, 06:48

OK, both those posts were genuinely fascinating, thanks, Usenko. I knew the Hebrew name for God was Yahweh, but never knew how that became Jehovah.

User avatar
Usenko
Posts: 7856
Joined: Wed, 4. Apr 07, 02:25
x3

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Usenko » Sat, 2. Mar 19, 14:54

No problem!

(and aside from us theology nerds, I'm glad my M.Div is useful for someone else . . . ;) )
Morkonan wrote:What really happened isn't as exciting. Putin flexed his left thigh during his morning ride on a flying bear, right after beating fifty Judo blackbelts, which he does upon rising every morning. (Not that Putin sleeps, it's just that he doesn't want to make others feel inadequate.)

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Bishop149 » Mon, 4. Mar 19, 10:20

Usenko wrote:
Sat, 2. Mar 19, 06:19
By the middle ages, Latin was becoming a more popular language than Greek, so most readers used the Latin equivalent. In Latin, the usual transliteration from Greek was "Jesus". The J sound was typically pronounced closer to a "Y" than the modern J, and the last letter was often not voiced, so "Yesu" is a pretty approximation of how their version sounded. But when we get to modern English, we simply use the Latin lettering with English sounds - so the name becomes "Jesus".
This bit is interesting because I've also heard "Jesus" shortened to "Jesu" (pronounced: Jee-soo). Now this was mostly in hymns so I always assumed they did it for musical reasons such as rhyme or timing, but it seems from what you say that this might actually be yet another translational refinement.

Ah yes, the tetragrammaton . . . I think this is what my memory was dredging up when I reference codes, something to do with these letters being the key to all knowledge in kabbalistic tradition?
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”