Fork
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
Fork.jpg
| Table of contents |
English
Noun
fork (plural: forks)
South_Fork_Trinity.jpg
- A utensil with spikes used to put solid food into the mouth (see image)
- A tool with spikes used for digging
- An intersection in a road or path where one road is split into two
- A point where a waterway, such as a river, splits and goes two (or more) different directions (see image)
- An event where development of some free software or open-source software is split into two or more separate projects
- (UK): Crotch (British usage)
Related terms
Translations
- Breton: fourchetez f -ioù pl (1), forc'h f ferc'hier pl (2)
- Chinese Characters: 歧 (3)
- Dutch: vork
- Finnish: haarukka (1); talikko (2); haara (3); forkki (4) (slang)
- French: fourchette f (1); fourche f (2)
- German: Gabel f (1, 2, 3), Fork m (4)
- Italian: forchetta f (1), biforcazione f (3)
- Latin: furca f (1, 2)
- Lithuanian: šakutė f (1); šakės f, pl (2); išsišakojimas m (3); dvišakuma f (5)
- Polish: widelec m (1), widły pl (2), rozwidlenie n (3)
- Romanian: furculiţă f (1) furcă (2), bifurcaţie (3)
- Slovak: vidlička f (1), vidly f pl (2), obojsmerné spojenie n (3)
- Slovene: vilice f pl (1)
- Spanish: tenedor m
Verb
to fork (third-person singular simple present forks, present participle forking, simple past forked, past participle forked)
- To use a fork to move food to mouth.
- To split a (software) project into several projects.
- (with "over"): To pay, to contribute.
- (UK): To kick someone in the crotch
Translations
- Finnish: haarukoida (1); forkata (2) (slang)
This word is a Wiktionary:Basic English Word List word.
In article <173.53.11.05.406554000@srcbs.org>, lsenders@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
>Gary McNees wrote:
>> Two Calvinists, Bob and Loren, and one Lutheran, Bart, on this list
>> have asserted that I do not understand Calvinism. They further assert that I
>> misrepresent Calvinism, and malign Calvinism unjustly.
>>
>Whaaaaa! Whaaaa! Whaaaaaa!
Such a mature response, Loren!
But of course, I don't really expect better from anyone so addicted to Reform
eisegesis.
[snip]
--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
In article <091.34.08.05.202286000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>
[snip]
>> Ah, now you have moved the topic to the really
>> interesting question: which one
>> of these is the true Church?
>
>I think you're framing the question in terms that preclude an answer.
That is more your practice than mine, Bob.
>The Church is not a set of doctrines, or particular structure of
>government.
I never said it was either of these. Why are you setting up a straw-man?
>Rather, the Church is the group of people chosen by the Lord Jesus.
No. That is an ancient heresy. The Church is represented by the Parable and the
wheat and tares, which shows that even up to the end times, there will always be
wicked people in the Church -- making life harder for the righteous.
And indeed: Judas was an example of this during Christ's time, Simon and "the
cutters" an example in Acts, Marcion and Novatian examples in the third century
etc.
>That makes it hard to define, because He doesn't always consult us on
>who He has chosen.
But you can get this 'definition' from Scripture only by eisegesis. It is NOT
the definition Paul gave. Paul even addressed _some_ of "the cutters" as
Christian brethren -- even if as misguided ones.
>> It can't be all of them.
>
>Not the way you seem to have defined it. I gave you the defintion of
>"Church" that I use; what's your definition?
I already gave it to you: the Body of Christ.
>> But the descent of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem on Orthodox Easter is a
>> pretty strong hint, even though I have heard of many Catholics who see
>> this miracle and believe it really is a miracle, and _still_ stubbornly
>> cling to Rome!
>
>I've never heard of this before. Can you give me a citation? I'd very
>much like to learn more.
Put "holy fire sepulchre Pascha" into your favorite search engine and poke
around: I still haven't made up my mind which reference I like best, but
http://www.eastern-orthodoxy.com/miracles/holyfire.htm looks good (except I am
not convinced the light is 'uncreated': that sounds like runaway pious
enthusiasm). http://www.holyfire.org/eng/ is also good, but they _really_ need
an editor to go over their English language page! Only the Russian is
well-edited. And they don't switch character coding correctly, either.
But they at least include some professional-quality images, such as those from
Russian Television (RTR - it looks like 'PTP'). Many other sites have only
amateur images, which are not always as convincing.
>And how does this square with Jesus' words: "Believe me, woman, a time
>is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor
>in Jerusalem. ... Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true
>worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are
>the kind of worshippers the Father seeks." [John 4:21, 23 NIV]
It squares quite well with these words: for you do not _have_ to be there to
worship Him in spirit and truth. But if your faith is weak because the wonders
Christ promised us (Mk 16:17-1) are so rare these days, then a trip to Jerusalem
for Orthodox Holy Saturday might be just what you need.
>> >> and teaches this wrong doctrine in opposition to and defiance of the
>> >> Church runs afoul of another problem: stiffnecked refusal to submit to
>> >> the Body of Christ, the Church. Such stiffnecked refusal _is_ a refusal
>> >> to believe in Christ. This is what condemns a man.
>> >
>> >Ok. I don't believe that man has free will; you do. Which one of us is
>> >stiffnecked and refusing to submit to the Body of Christ?
>[note: I took the liberty of correcting my typos in the previous
>sentence. "the Bod of Christ" is too much, even for me.]
Good idea!
>> You obviously!
>
>So does that mean I don't believe in Christ? Am I damned?
That is a question you have to settle with your own conscience. If I try to
answer it for you, it will do no good to anyone.
>> That Man has free will follows not just from the local council of Orange,
>> but more importantly, from the sixth _Ecumenical_ council, where all the
>> teachings of Augustine were thoroughly taken into account. Yet they did
>> decide on Man having free will -- even if the 'freedom' is still very
>> limited.
>
>What in the world does "limited free will" mean?
It means you are free, but not free to do anything whatsoever. Stop confusing
free will with omnipotence! That is an _old_ fallacy of the so-called
'Reformers'. You can never understand either the Scriptures or the Fathers as
long as you insist on this confusion.
>>>> Denying the life-saving doctrine of the Trinity is exactly such an example.
>> >
>> >What makes the DoT life-saving? Paul wrote, "If you confess with your
>> >mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from
>> >the dead, you shall be saved." [Rom 10:9]
>> >
>> >I could argue that this applies to JW's as well as it does to you and
>> >me.
>>
>> But JWs clearly equivocate on what "Jesus as Lord" means. Whereas you and I
>> should agree: it means Lord GOD.
>
>We do agree. But will Jesus condemn someone who holds that "Jesus as
>Lord" means "Jesus as master"?
If he is simply ignorant of the Trinity when reaching this conclusion, no. But
if he is stubbornly resisting, then yes.
> In both cases, Jesus is still followed.
Not necessarily. In fact, it is one of the tragedies of modern 'Christian' life,
that even many who _do_ confess the Trinity with their lips are NOT following
Jesus.
>I have to give BB credit; while he is so wrong as to defy description,
>he is in here slugging away, trying to convince us of the truth as he
>sees it. He's trying to fish, as our Master commands, even though he's
>using rancid bait.
But you are making a mistake by giving him this credit. He is "trying to fish"
his _own_ way, instead of in the way our Master commands. Why would our Master
reward him for that? Remember: it is _obedience_ to His commands He calls us to,
not doing things our own way.
Another example: remember the Parable of the Talents? One servant insisted on
doing things his own way, instead of obeying his master: he hid the talent in
the ground. And his 'reward' was to be cast out!
>> So they are not saying the same thing as the Apostle, so why should their
>> false confession have anything to do with the _real_ sense of Rom 10:9?
>> Therefore it has no saving power.
>
>So Jesus saves based upon correct knowledge, leading to correct
>confession, of the individual. How is this not gnosticism, leading to
>salvation by works?
You may as well ask: "how is Rom 10:9 _ever_ not gnosticism"? In fact, just the
fact that you even _ask_ this leaves me doubting that you know what gnosticism
is. Perhaps you had to supress the knowledge in your own mind, since the debt of
Protestantism to Gnosticism is so very large -- and embarassing.
[snip]
>I agree that their doctrine is to be opposed, but on different grounds.
No surprise there.
[snip]
>> Well, Bob, some of us noticed this 'wall' many years ago. And although we
>> recognize that yes, _argument_ cannot scale it, we realize that what
>> _really_ puts that wall up is the sinful tendency to exalt one's own
>> interest or opinion. It is the spiritual battle against that sinful
>> tendency that scales it (not w/o the help of grace).
>
>A battle you never have to fight?
What did I say that lead you to _this_ conclusion?
>If you have to fight this battle and
>yet are redeemed, why is it that they, who fight the same battle, are
>not redeemed?
I never said this either. How can you hope to understand the answers to these
competely off-base hypothetical questions when you have misunderstood so much of
the simpler, more direct answers, such as to what the Church is? I have had to
repeat myself here, I should not have.
--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
