My biggest problem with less(1) is that the regex engine is unreasonably slow. When processing large files, I frequently need to search with grep (or more recently, rip-grep) with large -A/-B buffers, and then pipe that through less, because the regex engine in less won't find what I want on any reasonable time scale.
It is most definitely not an overstatement. I have over 425 hours in Hollow Knight. I stopped playing Silksong in 8 because it felt like unfun masochism.
This contradicts the most common view of Christians throughout history, especially since the simplest reading of Romans 1 expresses exactly the opposite view: "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
i am not representing a christian viewpoint. but i also do not see the contradiction. the claim that they are without an excuse to reject god does not negate the fact that they have the freedom to reject him. if we didn't have that freedom we could not even have this argument because we would all unquestionably believe in the existence of god.
> Many times I've asked that I'm told "he was 100% human and also 100% God."
Does this surprise you? The council of Nicea where this was defined as the orthodox claim happened in A.D. 325.
> I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different for
The _vast majority_ hold that, because the vast majority affirm Nicea. The only major denominations not holding to the orthodoxy here are (in descending order of size) Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and Christadelphians. They represent approximately 1.6-2.4% of the Christian population.
> you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question
The real (orthodox) answer depends on a metaphysics of substance that most Christians, even those who hold the orthodox view, are ill-prepared to elaborate on.
My experience in Australia and India is that increasingly commonly people, especially but not exclusively laity, don't really believe the Nicene Trinity, but more ignore the Father and make Jesus God. That’s a particularly common view among Hindus, too (I remember a school textbook saying the Christian god was named Jesus), which is almost weird given that their notion of “avatars” isn’t too bad a fit for the trinity.
There are just as many problems or difficulties with viewing Jesus as the only god as with the trinity, but comparatively few professing Christians are all that critical about it.
this is the first time I've heard of Christadelphianism. I looked it up, expecting it to have cult-like beliefs, but it really seems pretty unobjectionable to me. I would feel more at ease around you and your Brethren than with Presbyterians, since while you don't subscribe to universal salvation, nor do you seem to believe in Predestination or a Hell of eternal torment.
My experience has been the opposite. The number of customer service representatives I speak with that simply can't comprehend the NATO phonetic alphabet never ceases to surprise me, somehow. More than half the time I'm nearly finished with my last name ("foxtrot india november charlie hotel...") when my interlocutor just says "whoa whoa whoa, what?" and I have to fall back to the annoyingly slow and frustrating "eff as in foxtrot..." form while effortfully disguising my palpable disappointment. It's just one more way for humanity to disappoint me.
"Synoptic" is simply the adjectival form of "synopsis": Matthew, Mark, and Luke all strive to give a synopsis of Jesus' life, organized primarily around a chronological retelling of his approximately three-year ministry. Matthew and Luke include details of his birth and genealogy.
John, on the other hand, is organized around theological and moral themes, rather than the totality of Jesus' ministry and teachings. That's why it's not considered a synoptic gospel.
I was about to assert the same as you with as much confidence, but the etymology source I trust most (EtymOnline) nearly agrees with OP [0]:
> 1763, in reference to tables, charts, etc., "pertaining to or forming a synopsis," from Modern Latin synopticus, from Late Latin synopsis (see synopsis). It was being used specifically of weather charts by 1808. Greek synoptikos meant "taking a general or comprehensive view."
> The English sense "affording a general view of a whole" emerged by mid-19c. The word was used from 1841 specifically of the first three Gospels, on notion of "giving an account of events from the same point of view." Related Synoptical (1660s). The writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are synoptists.
The subtle change vs OP's is that EtymOnline does include some sense that the word 'synoptic' should be understood to describe the way in which the works relate to one another. But they do say that the connection to 'synopsis' is, in fact, part of the original intent of the usage.
To my knowledge, the term "synoptic gospels" originates from an edition of Matthew, Mark and Luke arranged in tables of three columns for each of this gospels made by the German scholar Johann Jakob Griesbach[1]. This was originally part of what is generally considered to be the first critical edition of the New Testament, published in 1774/1775. In 1776 he republished it independently under the title "Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci et Lucae"[2] ("evangelium" = "gospel"). This became a very prominent tool for studying the details of the textual relationship between these three closely related gospels.[3] As a consequence biblical scholars started to speak of the "synoptic gospels" as a shortcut if the wanted to point out the contrast between Matthew, Mark and Luke on the one hand and John at the other.
The usage of "synoptic" in reference to charts is also attested in other contexts from this time. For the English language, the Online Etymology Dictionary mentions 1763 as the date of the earliest usage of the term "synoptic" (from Greek syn- "together" + opsis "sight, appearance") in "reference to tables, charts, etc.", also used in other contexts such as wheather charts.[4]
Today, a synopsis of the gospels typically also includes the gospel of John, see for example Kurt Aland's 'classical' "Synopsis of The Four Gospels"[5]. However, the term "synoptic gospels" stuck to the original set of just Matthew, Mark and Luke.
The term ‘synoptic’ in relation to the Gospels is thus derived from a technical term in connection with charts and tables, not from the more general meaning ‘summary’.
[3] Matthew as based on Mark + Q + extras, Luke as based on Mark + Q + extras. However there is one longer passage in John 7:53–8:1 ("Jesus and the woman taken in adultery"), that is not included in the oldest manuscripts of John, but nevertheless became canonical, that is sometimes refered to as a "synoptic" interpolation into John, although it is not from any of the synoptic gospels, but similar in style to them.
So the reason it's not synoptic, is because it literally isn't synoptic. I love when the definition of a word explains what it means. No offense to the parent commenter but it's great when the answer to "why isn't x this thing with a definite meaning" answered by "because that definite meaning doesn't apply to x". I suspect most people have never considered that Synoptic might have a real definition and not just some hand-wavy religious one.
"The vast majority of people" would use words without thinking they have etymology and meaning?
Maybe you're only thinking about religious people who would have encountered this one in such a context?
I don't frequent any so I am clueless, but if true I would suspect there could be more than correlation to the aptitude to use words without meaning and religiosity.
The vast majority of people learn the definition of words by hearing them used in context repeatedly. Very few people look up the definition of words, and nobody looks up the definition of most words they know.
In this case I doubt many people have heard the word "synoptic" in any other context. That makes it a rather meaningless word.
>In this case I doubt many people have heard the word "synoptic" in any other context. That makes it a rather meaningless word.
This and that's sorta what I found interesting, most people don't realize a word they've only heard in the context of religion actually has a definition outside of, and predating, that context and that definition more or less explains the religious usage.
I know when I first heard it, my mind went to "canopic jars". Canopic is from Canopus, a name from Greek mythology. I mean, who's to say that there wasn't a guy or place named Synoptus? The Nicene Creed is named after the Council of Nicea, which took place in the city of the same name.
The fact that synopsis is a Greek word makes it even harder to discern because a lot of names and terms of early Christianity are Greek, just as much as Latin names and terms come along later. I don't think it's a religious thing at all. I think it's going to be common to anything that has a lot of terminology that is rooted in a foreign language and culture.
>"The vast majority of people" would use words without thinking they have etymology and meaning?
That mostly seems to be true whenever you talk to people who don't specifically have some interest in linguistics.
>Maybe you're only thinking about religious people who would have encountered this one in such a context?
Yeah, presumably the original questioner (and myself because it's not something I've ever given much thought towards) didn't realize synoptic had a definition outside of religion, because knowing the definition would have answered their question.
> knowing the definition would have answered their question.
This is often untrue, though—words will evolve along parallel tracks and often diverge quite significantly in how they're used across different contexts. In those cases the homonyms make for fun etymological deep dives but don't help much for deriving the specialized meaning from the more general one.
>This is often untrue, though—words will evolve along parallel tracks and often diverge quite significantly in how they're used across different contexts.
Sure that happens, but mostly when they are borrowed from language to language. Mostly in the english language, if you have a situation where you have synopsis and synoptic, it's more often than or not that they are different forms of the same word or closely related. I think it doesn't immediately register for people because those 'sis' words from Greek origin aren't used a ton in general speech. Genesis and genetic is a similar situation that many people probably don't realize they are related unless they are familiar with abiogenesis or such from science.
> it's more often than or not that they are different forms of the same word or closely related
Correct, but what I'm saying is that frequently etymologies are nothing more than fun exercises that would actually mislead you as to the modern definition because the word has changed so much. In those cases it's amusing to identify the shared root but you should be careful about blindly translating from one to the other. The original sense is often somewhere in the middle of the two modern meanings.
Taking your example of Genesis: if I know that Genesis means "the first book in the Bible" that doesn't help me derive the definition of "genetic" all by itself. Likewise if I know the "genetic" means "relating to the structures that encode traits in living organisms", I won't be able to arrive at "the first book in the Bible". At best I might come up with some folk etymology explaining that Genesis has to do with life, which is close but not fully accurate.
The correct understanding of the shared root of "creation" is only possible if you understand both concepts and triangulate to what they have in common. It cannot be derived from only one of the two definitions.
Word document metadata shows the bill's proposed text was written in circulated in a .docx file created by a lobbying firm that's paid $90k/month by the Malaysian owner of a local casino.
Not bad for 30 seconds dedicated to a first blind attempt!
reply