The discussion at hand was about whether or not C is expressive enough, and the complaint was that C-style strings are painful to use. My point is that C provides you enough flexibility to create strings that work in whatever way you'd like them to work, up to and including a string class that completely hides its implementation structure, provides reference-counting and copy-on-write, has polymorphic variants for strings with different growth characteristics or usage patterns (e.g. ropes), etc. And all of that can be done in a way which is only slightly more cumbersome to use than similar classes in C++.
I'd call it more than "slightly more cumbersome". I'd call it painful. I think that this just comes down to a difference of opinion. I think that it is painful to have to create structures of this sort and use them. I feel that doing this is using a pair of pliers to hammer in a nail. I guess you don't.
Oh and the other thing that bugs me about C# is that all expressions in a conditional expression are evaluated, rather than exiting as soon the answer is known. This just results in code bloat. eg:
if (Var is null) {
if (Var.ToString().Length != 0)
{//....
} }
The same is true of C++ code. It's always possible to do whatever you want to a given C++ object. The only difference is that in C++ it has to be somewhat more "intentional".
This is more a question of degree. In C++, you can't do this without touching the source. What I mean is that if I hand you a class to use, unless you edit the code I have given you, you are limited to using the tools I have written and provide. In C there aren't the same constraints.
Likewise with C++. You can always manipulate the structure directly. If nothing else, there's always reinterpret_cast.
Once again, a question of degree.
What is OO? That's actually a non-trivial question. Proponents of "pure" OO languages would argue that C++ isn't OO, either, since primitives and classes are not objects. If you take the OO-in-C constructs to their logical limit, you get polymorphism, a sort of inheritance, and can even implement just as much data hiding as C++ does.
I do realise that. However I think that it is an accurate generalisation to call C++ an OO language and C a language that is not OO.
Plus C++ has a number of features that are quite difficult to implement cleanly in C, like exceptions, and I'm a huge fan of the very powerful static polymorphism provided by templates
Agreed. C++ remains my favourite language. At the moment I an coding mostly in C# and I and I particularly miss templates. That and not being able assign const members as part of the constructor. Oh and not having header files. Well designed headers are excellent documentation.
But you certainly can implement OO designs in C, and the result can be as clean and elegant as anything in C++. As I said, read the Linux source for some excellent examples.
It doesn't quite feel right. Sure it can be made to do it but it isn't what it is really designed to do it.
It just does not feel (to me) clean or elegant, in the same way that that same code implemented in C++ might feel.
That is no class. Yeah you can hack together some C that looks kind of like a class, but that is no class. I've written some C like that also.
What you have requires that I "behave". There is no information hiding. It requires that I call only the functions you provide to manpulate the string.
Sure that is a better way to write C, but it is not OO programming and that is not a class.
I'm not. Not encoding the value at the start of the string causes poor performance (aside from security issues). What is more, given that C is a procedural language, there is no neat way to fix it (eg just define new class).
Unless C has changed since I last read K & R, C doesn't have classes. C is not an OO language. I take it you mean C++, which is a different kettle of fish entirely. C++ has an excellent string class in the stl.
When you need something higher-level, user another language (java?), or write a wrapper class.
Unless C++ has changed since I last read K & R, C doesn't have classes. C is not an OO language. I take it you mean C++, which is a different kettle of fish entirely. C++ has an excellent string class in the stl.
I wouldn't call it a total troll. He does raise two points that I consider worth raising.
1. The pre preocessor. I really am not sure it was a good idea to make this as powerful as it is. It encourages people to put a lot of code in here.
2. Strings. There is *no* excuse for C style strings. Is it really such a problem to create a type that has a length encoded into the start? All you are saving at the moment is a tiny amount of memory which is more than offset by the fact you need to iterate through the entire string to find the end (that or hold another pointer to the end). And no, using a string library is not an answer, this should be built in as a fundimental part of the language, string processing is a part of life.
You accidently create a dozen instances of yourself and shoot them all in the foot. Providing emergency medical assistance is impossible since you can't tell which are bitwise copies and which are just pointing at others and saying "That's me, over there."
It is just that as someone who is not a USian, it always strikes me as strange to hear Americans refer to Left and Right. From my perspective (in Australia), they are both Right. One is just slightly more to the right than the other.
Reasons? Well, first of all Spotlight won't search the whole of your drive. Can't remember if it was in/usr/local/bin or/usr/bin? Tough. Spotlight won't help you, it doesn't look in those hierarchies.
Neither does XP. Pick a file in the C:\Windows\System32 directory (Assuming you have installed XP in the default path). Now try to find it. This annoys me no end.
Re:Microsoft has planned this for quite awhile.
on
The Death of Folders?
·
· Score: 1
I think you are a little old fashioned. That is not an insult. What I mean by that is that given the need to find files, you are disciplined in where you place them so that you can locate them again. I am the same. I have a highly structured system for storing files both at home and at work. Anyone who works with computers much ends up doing this.
On the other hand people who don't work computers as much don't get this. I get so frustrated with my fiance and my parents because they can't remember where they have put files. Or there are multiple versions floating around and they are not sure which one is most current.
This structured system has to be created because there are no other truly effective tools. I think what the article getting at is that other tools are now here.
This does not herald the death of the folder. It merely means that it is less important, as it is easier to find files. We can still organise things in folders. It will make life easier if we do. Just that there are other options that make life easier.
I would suggest that the reason you find them unpredictable and counter-intuitive is that you're used to the way your preferred Unix shell does things.
I find both of these things annoying also. I spent time on the windows command line before I touched the Linux CLI. It was refreshing to see the way it is done in Linux, the windows is (to me) counter-intuitive.
BTW it isn't just the Linux way. IIRC Matlab performs in the same way that Linux does with the up arrow.
Halalujah! Thank heavens Microsoft has seen sense on this one. One-based arrays never worked properly, particularly as you ended up interacting with Zero-base arrays anyway.
It seems that the Republicans elect far right wing xtian candidates and the Democrats elect far left wing candidates
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. *sniff*. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. *Wipes away tear*.
I have some information for you: 1. America's political spectrum is right of center as far as the rest of the world is concerned. All of America's mainstream politicians are right of center. 2. America's spectrum is awfully small.
I suggest that you travel and see some of the rest of the world some time.
The Dam buster bombs invented by Barnes Wallis. link.
They got it to bounce by flying very low (60 feet), and spinning it. One of the more interesting weapons of war.
Incidentally, if you read Paul Brickhill's book about it, the same squadron (617) went on to drop other bombs designed by wallis, including the tallboy and grand slam bombs.
These bombs had to be dropped from a high altitude (20K ft IIRC), with a high degree of accuracy. The 617 Squadron was able to get an average error of under 100 feet.
Thanks for the references. I agree about your proportions. Bush isn't as bad as Hitler, Stalin or Mao, for that matter. But he is more apocalyptic, given his power and apparent beliefs (projected or deconstructed).
Oh yes.
Identifying him as an antichrist could be very helpful in getting christians, millions of whom now support him on his "faith leader" basis alone, to at least examine his immoral acts. Even if it's just counterpropaganda, *I* am not a christian, so I have no qualms about merely reversing the polarity of his current false messianic aura, even if that's some kind of "taking the lord's name in vain". He'd have a lot more trouble bringing on an apocalypse, or just destroying Social Security, if his lock on blindly faithful christians were broken. And I do believe they'd be a lot better off thinking for themselves, or at least blindly supporting someone else who doesn't threaten the objects of their professed moral values.
Careful what you say there. You are sailing awfully close to the wind there. You are effectively saying that you dan't care whether what you are saying is right or wrong, just that it is a useful lever that might be used against Bush. This is the very "end justifies the means" philosophy that the Bush administration uses.
This is why I urge a sense of proportion and caution. If we demonise Bush, anything that we do is justified. We can lie, cheat, steal and murder, because he is worse than us. Until we are just as bad as he is.
As it turns out, it looks like Nero was really doing the right thing. Or at least as close to right as that sort of thing ever is. History or Discovery or one of those had a show recently that made it look like the people he was going against were actually rebels trying to overthrow the Emperor. Whether or not this was a good idea is irrelevant to the fact that when you try to overthrow the emperor and get caught you're fucked.
Really. I think you need to do a little more history. Nero used Christians as a scapegoat for his own mistakes. Christians were never trying to overthrow the emperor, but as they were unpopular they made a convenient scapegoat.
Next time someone covers you with tar, sticks you up on a pole in their garden, and sets you alight (as a night light) you make sure that you are telling them that they are doing the right thing. I'm sure that they will appreciate it.
I can't be bothered to read the rest of your comment if this is a sample.
The original topic that I picked up on was whether the Roman Catholic Church is an empire that is the continuation of the Roman Empire.
Russian Orthodox came to mind too, but I wasn't sure when/where they split from. Greek Orthodox at least was within screaming distance of Byzantium. Don't remember a thing about the Coptics.
The rough history as it stands WRT different churches from 0-1100 AD is as follows: - Constantine makes Christianity the offical religion of Byzantium as he establishes it - The Byzantime empire expands to cover most of Europe and Africa, and into Eastern Europe an Asia. It was huge. - The church recognises 5 partriachs: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and one I've forgotten. - In the process of all this, Russia while not (IIRC) part of the byzantine empire, establishes relations and becomes christian. - The West splits off from the Byzantine empire (a long a protracted process), although the churches are still at least nominally together. - In 1054 the patriachs of Rome and Constantinople excommunicate each other. The two halfs of the church have been moving apart, this completes the split.
The end result is that there is an Eastern and a Western church. The descendents of the Eastern church are the coptics (Egypt, remember Byzantium controlled most of Africa), Russian Orthodox and Greek Othordox. There are also the Orthodox churches in many of the eastern European countries (former Yugoslavia, Armenia, etc).
There is a fantastic series of books called Byzantium (3 volumes), written by John Julius Norwich. Very readable, very enjoyable. It is a section of history that, at least in my experience, is totally ignored.
It is also enlightening to see some different views. For example, in the West we have this strong tradition of rule being passed down to descendants. In Byzantium, while that happened, the Byzantines were equally happy with a ruler who managed to seize power. That sort of ruler was considered equally legitimate.
Do you know the exact text of the "oppressing christians" criterion for identifying "the" antichrist?
The main passage concerning this is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4. As for the other passages, they could be interpreted differently (generally Daniel and Revelations). It depends on whether they are also referring to the same thing.
Of course, it's probably translated into English from Latin, and probably from Greek to that, and possibly even from Aramaic to that. And every step introduces a translator's chance for mistake/bias/relevance interpretation.
Not this again. I am embroiled in a long argument on this at the moment. The short answer is it is not 'possibly translated'. The modern translations we have are translated from their original language, Hebrew for the OT, Greek for the NT. I think that the KJV was influenced by the Vulgate translation (Greek -> Latin), and I know that the vulgate translation was flawed, but I do not consider the KJV to be a modern translation.
But I'd like to know what christians *today*, who would be the oppressed, are prepared to expect from such a character. Specifically, whether the oppression would be exclusive to christians, and whether defined by their christianity, or a necessary correlate to it.
See 2 Thess 2.
Moreover, I believe (at least one) antichrist prophecy predicts that some christians would recognize "the" antichrist before the unmistakable havoc they cause, while some would recognize it later - and others would not at all, christian or otherwise. Do you know if that is consistent with the prophecy? And whether there are christians who might agree with me that Bush fits these prophecies? For example, I've read reports suggesting that the last Pope thought Bush could be "the Antichrist". I wonder how widespread is that belief. Because these characters, and their effect on the world, is composed entirely of that belief, in the minds of the people at that time.
I'd go back to 2 Thess 2 for the prophecies. The Daniel and Revelation things might be referring to something else. I guess that it would be possible for other people to see the Antichrist.
I've got to say that I don't know as much about this area as I would like, but I just wanted to point out that there was a primary characteristic that was missing.
I agree that Bush & Co are terrible at running the country. I agree that they have behaved amorally in defending and strengthening their power. It does appear that your administration is one of the more morally corrupt administrations, certainly more morally corrupt than any that I have studied (I have studied some US history: 1880s-1945). I also agree that they have abused their position of power in many ways.
I just don't agree that he fits the criteria of the antichrist.
I also feel that we need to try to keep a sense of proportion in this. Bush is not as bad as say, Mugabe in Zimbabwae. He has more power, and is therefore more dangerous, but he isn't as bad. I don't think that demonising the guy is particularly helpful.
My history has gone fuzzy over the decades too, and a lot of details have fallen out of my head. Maybe this is what they *really* mean by "ancient history":)
Mine too.
And yeah, Roman Empire to Catholic church was indeed a stretch, but is there any other entity which has a more direct line of descent? Hmm, well, maybe Greek Orthodox??
Well I think first of all, you need to make the jump from Empire to what the Catholic church is now. I'm not sure exactly what you call the catholic church now. Religion is probably the simplest definition. While it was almost a nation in itelf at some points (or at least the Vatican was), or was strongly allied/controlled by to an empire/nation (eg under the Franks in the 1300s), I don't think it can really be called an empire, if it every could have been. It more defined a loose confederation of nations, and even that might be going a bit far. I mean the fact that they were catholic didn't stop them from fighting each other.
That said you can trace threads from one to the other, which is what history is all about, but you are correct, Greek Orthodox has a more direct line of descent. Remember that the west was a split with Byzantium, after which Byzantium continued and the West went in a different direction. Equally Russian Orthodox and the Coptics have a strong line of descent as both descend from the Eastern othodox church.
How many people losing their liberties, being sent to jail, being executed, are christian? How many people killed in Iraq are christian? How many of the people oppressed by Bush's pro-pollution laws are christian?
The problem with this is the fact that they are christian is not the reason for the persecution. Compare this to say the way Christians were treated under Nero.
As for self-conflict of Christianity, how about the attacks, in the name of Christianity, on christians who disagree with some of Bush's sect's ethics, like stemcells, or even abortion? How about the threats to independence of Christians whose churches are now political organizations?
As I said, I just don't think we are seeing serious division yet. Sure there is division, but frankly there is always division in churches. No I don't like it. There are the seeds for more serious division, but we aren't seeing that right now. I am waiting to see where this goes.
I think just the killing and other serious sins, all claimed to be in keeping with the responses to his prayers, are really bad for Christians faith. I think he's past the point of no return, and will only get worse - indisputable oppression exclusively of unambiguous Christians will surely follow, as Bush runs out of other defined groups to oppress for his own gain.
Oh I'd agree with all of that. I seriously question whether he is a Christian at all. If he is, he is very deluded. The most charitable view I can take is that he is a stupid man who depends on his advisers excessively.
But that said, it does appear that there are some checks coming into play. One is that the rest of the world is treating the US with some serious caution. The US also appears to be over-extended with Iraq and Afghanistan. The resistance to Bolton has been heartening. Equally, the fact the Bush's social security changes seem to be hitting some resistance is quite positive.
It looks to me that we are seeing a slide in his power and influence. I could be wrong about that, and only time will tell. So no, I don't think it will get as far as oppressing Christians.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the Roman empire stretched quite that far back into history. My knowledge of history is more in the AD arena, so my apologies.
Constantine was proclaimed emperor and was in total control in around 324 AD. I would have counted this as the founding of the Byzantine empire, but I am not sure how you judge where one began and the other ended. I might have to go check my histories on this one though.
But whichever way you go on this one, it is quite a stretch to call the modern Roman Catholic church the Roman Empire.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd call it more than "slightly more cumbersome". I'd call it painful. I think that this just comes down to a difference of opinion. I think that it is painful to have to create structures of this sort and use them. I feel that doing this is using a pair of pliers to hammer in a nail. I guess you don't.
Oh and the other thing that bugs me about C# is that all expressions in a conditional expression are evaluated, rather than exiting as soon the answer is known. This just results in code bloat. eg:
The same is true of C++ code. It's always possible to do whatever you want to a given C++ object. The only difference is that in C++ it has to be somewhat more "intentional".
This is more a question of degree. In C++, you can't do this without touching the source. What I mean is that if I hand you a class to use, unless you edit the code I have given you, you are limited to using the tools I have written and provide. In C there aren't the same constraints.
Likewise with C++. You can always manipulate the structure directly. If nothing else, there's always reinterpret_cast.
Once again, a question of degree.
What is OO? That's actually a non-trivial question. Proponents of "pure" OO languages would argue that C++ isn't OO, either, since primitives and classes are not objects. If you take the OO-in-C constructs to their logical limit, you get polymorphism, a sort of inheritance, and can even implement just as much data hiding as C++ does.
I do realise that. However I think that it is an accurate generalisation to call C++ an OO language and C a language that is not OO.
Plus C++ has a number of features that are quite difficult to implement cleanly in C, like exceptions, and I'm a huge fan of the very powerful static polymorphism provided by templates
Agreed. C++ remains my favourite language. At the moment I an coding mostly in C# and I and I particularly miss templates. That and not being able assign const members as part of the constructor. Oh and not having header files. Well designed headers are excellent documentation.
But you certainly can implement OO designs in C, and the result can be as clean and elegant as anything in C++. As I said, read the Linux source for some excellent examples.
It doesn't quite feel right. Sure it can be made to do it but it isn't what it is really designed to do it.
It just does not feel (to me) clean or elegant, in the same way that that same code implemented in C++ might feel.
That is no class. Yeah you can hack together some C that looks kind of like a class, but that is no class. I've written some C like that also.
What you have requires that I "behave". There is no information hiding. It requires that I call only the functions you provide to manpulate the string.
Sure that is a better way to write C, but it is not OO programming and that is not a class.
I'm not. Not encoding the value at the start of the string causes poor performance (aside from security issues). What is more, given that C is a procedural language, there is no neat way to fix it (eg just define new class).
Ahhh darn. That should read:
Unless C has changed since I last read K & R, C doesn't have classes. C is not an OO language. I take it you mean C++, which is a different kettle of fish entirely. C++ has an excellent string class in the stl.
When you need something higher-level, user another language (java?), or write a wrapper class.
Unless C++ has changed since I last read K & R, C doesn't have classes. C is not an OO language. I take it you mean C++, which is a different kettle of fish entirely. C++ has an excellent string class in the stl.
I wouldn't call it a total troll. He does raise two points that I consider worth raising.
1. The pre preocessor. I really am not sure it was a good idea to make this as powerful as it is. It encourages people to put a lot of code in here.
2. Strings. There is *no* excuse for C style strings. Is it really such a problem to create a type that has a length encoded into the start? All you are saving at the moment is a tiny amount of memory which is more than offset by the fact you need to iterate through the entire string to find the end (that or hold another pointer to the end). And no, using a string library is not an answer, this should be built in as a fundimental part of the language, string processing is a part of life.
Yes I have written a fair bit of C.
Feel free to flame away.
You accidently create a dozen instances of yourself and shoot them all in the foot. Providing emergency medical assistance is impossible since you can't tell which are bitwise copies and which are just pointing at others and saying "That's me, over there."
Source
Fair enough.
It is just that as someone who is not a USian, it always strikes me as strange to hear Americans refer to Left and Right. From my perspective (in Australia), they are both Right. One is just slightly more to the right than the other.
Reasons? Well, first of all Spotlight won't search the whole of your drive. Can't remember if it was in /usr/local/bin or /usr/bin? Tough. Spotlight won't help you, it doesn't look in those hierarchies.
Neither does XP. Pick a file in the C:\Windows\System32 directory (Assuming you have installed XP in the default path). Now try to find it. This annoys me no end.
I think you are a little old fashioned. That is not an insult. What I mean by that is that given the need to find files, you are disciplined in where you place them so that you can locate them again. I am the same. I have a highly structured system for storing files both at home and at work. Anyone who works with computers much ends up doing this.
On the other hand people who don't work computers as much don't get this. I get so frustrated with my fiance and my parents because they can't remember where they have put files. Or there are multiple versions floating around and they are not sure which one is most current.
This structured system has to be created because there are no other truly effective tools. I think what the article getting at is that other tools are now here.
This does not herald the death of the folder. It merely means that it is less important, as it is easier to find files. We can still organise things in folders. It will make life easier if we do. Just that there are other options that make life easier.
I would suggest that the reason you find them unpredictable and counter-intuitive is that you're used to the way your preferred Unix shell does things.
I find both of these things annoying also. I spent time on the windows command line before I touched the Linux CLI. It was refreshing to see the way it is done in Linux, the windows is (to me) counter-intuitive.
BTW it isn't just the Linux way. IIRC Matlab performs in the same way that Linux does with the up arrow.
From the link:
* NB: Arrays are zero-based.
Halalujah! Thank heavens Microsoft has seen sense on this one. One-based arrays never worked properly, particularly as you ended up interacting with Zero-base arrays anyway.
It seems that the Republicans elect far right wing xtian candidates and the Democrats elect far left wing candidates
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. *sniff*. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. *Wipes away tear*.
I have some information for you:
1. America's political spectrum is right of center as far as the rest of the world is concerned. All of America's mainstream politicians are right of center.
2. America's spectrum is awfully small.
I suggest that you travel and see some of the rest of the world some time.
Dell style discounts.
The Dam buster bombs invented by Barnes Wallis.
link.
They got it to bounce by flying very low (60 feet), and spinning it. One of the more interesting weapons of war.
Incidentally, if you read Paul Brickhill's book about it, the same squadron (617) went on to drop other bombs designed by wallis, including the tallboy and grand slam bombs.
These bombs had to be dropped from a high altitude (20K ft IIRC), with a high degree of accuracy. The 617 Squadron was able to get an average error of under 100 feet.
There are other problems with spaces in file names, or at least the Microsoft way of doing spaces in file names.
See this article. I am posting the google cache because the page itself returns a database error.
I applaud your decision. Life is precious.
Thanks for the references. I agree about your proportions. Bush isn't as bad as Hitler, Stalin or Mao, for that matter. But he is more apocalyptic, given his power and apparent beliefs (projected or deconstructed).
Oh yes.
Identifying him as an antichrist could be very helpful in getting christians, millions of whom now support him on his "faith leader" basis alone, to at least examine his immoral acts. Even if it's just counterpropaganda, *I* am not a christian, so I have no qualms about merely reversing the polarity of his current false messianic aura, even if that's some kind of "taking the lord's name in vain". He'd have a lot more trouble bringing on an apocalypse, or just destroying Social Security, if his lock on blindly faithful christians were broken. And I do believe they'd be a lot better off thinking for themselves, or at least blindly supporting someone else who doesn't threaten the objects of their professed moral values.
Careful what you say there. You are sailing awfully close to the wind there. You are effectively saying that you dan't care whether what you are saying is right or wrong, just that it is a useful lever that might be used against Bush. This is the very "end justifies the means" philosophy that the Bush administration uses.
This is why I urge a sense of proportion and caution. If we demonise Bush, anything that we do is justified. We can lie, cheat, steal and murder, because he is worse than us. Until we are just as bad as he is.
As it turns out, it looks like Nero was really doing the right thing. Or at least as close to right as that sort of thing ever is. History or Discovery or one of those had a show recently that made it look like the people he was going against were actually rebels trying to overthrow the Emperor. Whether or not this was a good idea is irrelevant to the fact that when you try to overthrow the emperor and get caught you're fucked.
Really. I think you need to do a little more history. Nero used Christians as a scapegoat for his own mistakes. Christians were never trying to overthrow the emperor, but as they were unpopular they made a convenient scapegoat.
Next time someone covers you with tar, sticks you up on a pole in their garden, and sets you alight (as a night light) you make sure that you are telling them that they are doing the right thing. I'm sure that they will appreciate it.
I can't be bothered to read the rest of your comment if this is a sample.
What the heck was the original topic again? :)
The original topic that I picked up on was whether the Roman Catholic Church is an empire that is the continuation of the Roman Empire.
Russian Orthodox came to mind too, but I wasn't sure when/where they split from. Greek Orthodox at least was within screaming distance of Byzantium. Don't remember a thing about the Coptics.
The rough history as it stands WRT different churches from 0-1100 AD is as follows:
- Constantine makes Christianity the offical religion of Byzantium as he establishes it
- The Byzantime empire expands to cover most of Europe and Africa, and into Eastern Europe an Asia. It was huge.
- The church recognises 5 partriachs: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and one I've forgotten.
- In the process of all this, Russia while not (IIRC) part of the byzantine empire, establishes relations and becomes christian.
- The West splits off from the Byzantine empire (a long a protracted process), although the churches are still at least nominally together.
- In 1054 the patriachs of Rome and Constantinople excommunicate each other. The two halfs of the church have been moving apart, this completes the split.
The end result is that there is an Eastern and a Western church. The descendents of the Eastern church are the coptics (Egypt, remember Byzantium controlled most of Africa), Russian Orthodox and Greek Othordox. There are also the Orthodox churches in many of the eastern European countries (former Yugoslavia, Armenia, etc).
There is a fantastic series of books called Byzantium (3 volumes), written by John Julius Norwich. Very readable, very enjoyable. It is a section of history that, at least in my experience, is totally ignored.
It is also enlightening to see some different views. For example, in the West we have this strong tradition of rule being passed down to descendants. In Byzantium, while that happened, the Byzantines were equally happy with a ruler who managed to seize power. That sort of ruler was considered equally legitimate.
Do you know the exact text of the "oppressing christians" criterion for identifying "the" antichrist?
The main passage concerning this is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4. As for the other passages, they could be interpreted differently (generally Daniel and Revelations). It depends on whether they are also referring to the same thing.
Of course, it's probably translated into English from Latin, and probably from Greek to that, and possibly even from Aramaic to that. And every step introduces a translator's chance for mistake/bias/relevance interpretation.
Not this again. I am embroiled in a long argument on this at the moment. The short answer is it is not 'possibly translated'. The modern translations we have are translated from their original language, Hebrew for the OT, Greek for the NT. I think that the KJV was influenced by the Vulgate translation (Greek -> Latin), and I know that the vulgate translation was flawed, but I do not consider the KJV to be a modern translation.
But I'd like to know what christians *today*, who would be the oppressed, are prepared to expect from such a character. Specifically, whether the oppression would be exclusive to christians, and whether defined by their christianity, or a necessary correlate to it.
See 2 Thess 2.
Moreover, I believe (at least one) antichrist prophecy predicts that some christians would recognize "the" antichrist before the unmistakable havoc they cause, while some would recognize it later - and others would not at all, christian or otherwise. Do you know if that is consistent with the prophecy? And whether there are christians who might agree with me that Bush fits these prophecies? For example, I've read reports suggesting that the last Pope thought Bush could be "the Antichrist". I wonder how widespread is that belief. Because these characters, and their effect on the world, is composed entirely of that belief, in the minds of the people at that time.
I'd go back to 2 Thess 2 for the prophecies. The Daniel and Revelation things might be referring to something else. I guess that it would be possible for other people to see the Antichrist.
I've got to say that I don't know as much about this area as I would like, but I just wanted to point out that there was a primary characteristic that was missing.
I agree that Bush & Co are terrible at running the country. I agree that they have behaved amorally in defending and strengthening their power. It does appear that your administration is one of the more morally corrupt administrations, certainly more morally corrupt than any that I have studied (I have studied some US history: 1880s-1945). I also agree that they have abused their position of power in many ways.
I just don't agree that he fits the criteria of the antichrist.
I also feel that we need to try to keep a sense of proportion in this. Bush is not as bad as say, Mugabe in Zimbabwae. He has more power, and is therefore more dangerous, but he isn't as bad. I don't think that demonising the guy is particularly helpful.
My history has gone fuzzy over the decades too, and a lot of details have fallen out of my head. Maybe this is what they *really* mean by "ancient history" :)
:)
:).
Mine too.
And yeah, Roman Empire to Catholic church was indeed a stretch, but is there any other entity which has a more direct line of descent? Hmm, well, maybe Greek Orthodox??
Well I think first of all, you need to make the jump from Empire to what the Catholic church is now. I'm not sure exactly what you call the catholic church now. Religion is probably the simplest definition. While it was almost a nation in itelf at some points (or at least the Vatican was), or was strongly allied/controlled by to an empire/nation (eg under the Franks in the 1300s), I don't think it can really be called an empire, if it every could have been. It more defined a loose confederation of nations, and even that might be going a bit far. I mean the fact that they were catholic didn't stop them from fighting each other.
That said you can trace threads from one to the other, which is what history is all about, but you are correct, Greek Orthodox has a more direct line of descent. Remember that the west was a split with Byzantium, after which Byzantium continued and the West went in a different direction. Equally Russian Orthodox and the Coptics have a strong line of descent as both descend from the Eastern othodox church.
Crap, you made me break my own silly theorum
Glad to be of assistance
How many people losing their liberties, being sent to jail, being executed, are christian? How many people killed in Iraq are christian? How many of the people oppressed by Bush's pro-pollution laws are christian?
The problem with this is the fact that they are christian is not the reason for the persecution. Compare this to say the way Christians were treated under Nero.
As for self-conflict of Christianity, how about the attacks, in the name of Christianity, on christians who disagree with some of Bush's sect's ethics, like stemcells, or even abortion? How about the threats to independence of Christians whose churches are now political organizations?
As I said, I just don't think we are seeing serious division yet. Sure there is division, but frankly there is always division in churches. No I don't like it. There are the seeds for more serious division, but we aren't seeing that right now. I am waiting to see where this goes.
I think just the killing and other serious sins, all claimed to be in keeping with the responses to his prayers, are really bad for Christians faith. I think he's past the point of no return, and will only get worse - indisputable oppression exclusively of unambiguous Christians will surely follow, as Bush runs out of other defined groups to oppress for his own gain.
Oh I'd agree with all of that. I seriously question whether he is a Christian at all. If he is, he is very deluded. The most charitable view I can take is that he is a stupid man who depends on his advisers excessively.
But that said, it does appear that there are some checks coming into play. One is that the rest of the world is treating the US with some serious caution. The US also appears to be over-extended with Iraq and Afghanistan. The resistance to Bolton has been heartening. Equally, the fact the Bush's social security changes seem to be hitting some resistance is quite positive.
It looks to me that we are seeing a slide in his power and influence. I could be wrong about that, and only time will tell. So no, I don't think it will get as far as oppressing Christians.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the Roman empire stretched quite that far back into history. My knowledge of history is more in the AD arena, so my apologies.
Constantine was proclaimed emperor and was in total control in around 324 AD. I would have counted this as the founding of the Byzantine empire, but I am not sure how you judge where one began and the other ended. I might have to go check my histories on this one though.
But whichever way you go on this one, it is quite a stretch to call the modern Roman Catholic church the Roman Empire.