We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices?

Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend, that you comb thru annals of history but not a single annal? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preacher praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? If you wrote a letter, perhaps you bote your tongue?

Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and wise guy are opposites? How can overlook and oversee be opposites, while quite a lot and quite a few are alike? How can the weather be hot as hell one day and cold as hell another?

Have you noticed that we talk about certain things only when they are absent? Have you ever seen a horseful carriage or a strapful gown? Met a sung hero or experienced requited love? Have you ever run into someone who was combobulated, gruntled, ruly or peccable? And where are all those people who ARE spring chickens or who would ACTUALLY hurt a fly?

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which an alarm clock goes off by going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race (which, of course, isn't a race at all). That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible. And why, when I wind up my watch, I start it, but when I wind up this essay, I end it.

I hesitate to put this grid up only because I do not want to needlessly assail the Catholic belief system in an offensive manner. However, I cannot help but see the similarities between Catholicism and some of the cults.

Do I think Catholicism is a cult? No. But I do think it has some very serious theological problems, bordering on apostasy, imposed upon itself through its history of letting traditions seep into the fabric of biblical truth.

There are many good things in the Catholic Church, but I find it disturbing to see the similarities between itself and the cults--in regard to a final earthly authority, non biblical teachings, claims to be the one true church, exaltation of Mary to semi-goddesshood, the use of images, and adding works to salvation. The Catholics, of course, will complain that this chart is not fair or does not focus on the dissimilarities. Well, they are right in that it does not focus on the dissimilarities which are many. But that isn't the point of this comparison, is it?

The Protestant Reformation happened for a reason: to get back to biblical theology and to be rid of extra-biblical teaching. The counter-cult movement has happened for a reason, to get back to biblical theology and to be rid of extra-biblical teaching.

Eternity is a long time to be wrong.

Reference:
Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry http://www.carm.org/