On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:41:14 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:


I guess people are free to interpret "IHS" any way that is personally
meaningful.

Of notable interest; the Catholic church had pretty much a monopoly on
organized Christianity for the longest time, especially during the
middle ages. According to their encyclopedia, the translation noted by
the author of the Wiki article is a "wrong understanding". Doesn't
mean that some folks don't see it the same way as the Wiki writer,
however.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07649a.htm

OK, Chuck!

I will pray that you, Harry, and Larry share a room in the afterlife. That
should make you happy. You won't have to put up with us lowlifes that may
have some beliefs you would like to belittle.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


What a bizarre remark.

Tom dropped some cite about the hidden meaning of IHS.

I noted that the Catholic encyclopedia disagreed with his reference.

How does that belittle your belief? Good grief man, I referred to the
Catholic Encyclopedia as a probable authority on the matter!

Catholic traditions offer one of the better insights into orthodox
Western spiritual beliefs of the middle ages- Catholicism was the only
major game in town, and pretty well ran the government. The Roman
church can be credited with preserving some carefully selected schools
of thought and knowledge during a time of rampant illiteracy and when
Europeans placed little value on a classical eduation.

I can't believe you read my post carefully or bothered to follow the
link.
It seems like you are (over) reacting to what you presume I am going
to
state rather than what I actually post. If you kneel to pray in the
next few days, try to do so on the knee that doesn't jerk as
badly. :-)

A Joyous Yuletide to you and all your house.

You know what? You are correct. I read Tom's reference to 'Jesus H.
Christ', which I took to be jocular, and then saw your reference to IHS. I
saw *no* connection between Tom's comment and your comment, simply because
I didn't read Tom's reference much beyond the first paragraph.

I did not bother to follow your link, thinking that it would be the same as
your other 'religious' links, designed to belittle or ridicule a religious
belief. I now see that, in this case, I was wrong. My apology is proffered.

Thanks for the wishes. Merry Christmas to you and yours and wishes for a
great New Year.


--
John H