dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (11/05/84)
A well-known and internationally respected expert (:-)) on language said
"When *I* use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither
more nor less."
Humpty Dumpty was right. The words we use are just verbal noises. They
only mean what we intend them to mean. We can communicate with each other
only because we more-or-less agree on what each word means. The
reason I say "more-or-less" is that the agreement is not perfect. For
example, you and I will almost always agree whether some object is a chair
or not -- but we may disagree about bean bag chairs or toilet seats. The
meanings of words, such as you find in a dictionary, are the meanings agreed
upon by the majority of English-speaking people.
In view of this, let's look at some of the things that Christianoids* say:
1) God is just.
God puts us into a world with "n" different religious belief
systems ("n+2", if you include atheism and agnosticism), and provides
us no evidence favouring any one over the others. One belief system
is the right one, and those who hold some other set of beliefs,
however honest their mistake, are punished. God has rigged the
game against us, and punishes the losers. This is *not* just.
2) God is merciful.
The punishment for losing the aforementioned rigged game is to be
tortured forever. The way God treats people for, basically,
guessing wrong, is *not* merciful.
3) God loves all mankind, including the sinners.
And he shows his love for the sinners by punishing them forever.
This doesn't even *resemble* love.
Christianoids frequently counterargue with statements like "God's justice
is not like human concepts of justice." If God's justice is not like human
concepts of justice, then God's justice *is* *not* *justice*. The *meaning*
of the word "justice" does not include God's actions, as described above.
PLEASE USE SOME OTHER WORD. Similar comments apply to "mercy" and "love."
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
*Christianoid n., One who believes that anybody who doesn't accept Jesus
Christ as his saviour is doomed to eternal damnation, and further
believes that the god who does all this damning is just and merciful.
Yes folks, I'm attempting to invent a new word here. The words "laser",
"astronaut", and "sexism" were invented within my own lifetime. If enough
people adopt my word, it, too, can become part of the language. If, in 10
or 20 years, I find "Christianoid" in a dictionary, I will look back on this
day with pride.
David Canzirlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/05/84)
> *Christianoid n., One who believes that anybody who doesn't accept Jesus > Christ as his saviour is doomed to eternal damnation, and further > believes that the god who does all this damning is just and merciful. > > Yes folks, I'm attempting to invent a new word here. The words "laser", > "astronaut", and "sexism" were invented within my own lifetime. If enough > people adopt my word, it, too, can become part of the language. If, in 10 > or 20 years, I find "Christianoid" in a dictionary, I will look back on this > day with pride. [DAVID CANZI] There's a word I had thought that I made up, but it turns out it's already in the dictionary: christocentric. Although the meaning of the word does not convey the intended meaning (it seems to be meant to be used as "Christianity is a Christocentric religion because it is centered around Christ"), the word itself is more descriptive of the type of *-ocentric thinking so prominent in such minds (included ethnocentrism and the dreaded anthropocentrism). -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (11/07/84)
>*Christianoid n., One who believes that anybody who doesn't accept Jesus > Christ as his saviour is doomed to eternal damnation, and further > believes that the god who does all this damning is just and merciful. > >Yes folks, I'm attempting to invent a new word here. The words "laser", >"astronaut", and "sexism" were invented within my own lifetime. If enough >people adopt my word, it, too, can become part of the language. If, in 10 >or 20 years, I find "Christianoid" in a dictionary, I will look back on this >day with pride. I love it! Congratulations. I will start using this word as of today! -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/07/84)
You know, I've said all this before, but, > 1) God is just. > God puts us into a world with "n" different religious belief > systems ("n+2", if you include atheism and agnosticism), and provides > us no evidence favouring any one over the others. One belief system > is the right one, and those who hold some other set of beliefs, > however honest their mistake, are punished. God has rigged the > game against us, and punishes the losers. This is *not* just. > 2) God is merciful. > The punishment for losing the aforementioned rigged game is to be > tortured forever. The way God treats people for, basically, > guessing wrong, is *not* merciful. > 3) God loves all mankind, including the sinners. > And he shows his love for the sinners by punishing them forever. > This doesn't even *resemble* love. > > David Canzi The problem with these arguments is that you are trying to make man's definition of these words be the standard for your discussion. In my system the standards of these words are much higher that a human standard. Regarding one above. There is plenty of evidence given that shows the way to be saved. It is just what you choose to believe about the validity of this evidence that determines your destiny. I'm afraid you can't take the faith out of Christianity. There is a degree of faith necessary to take the first step, that of accepting the evidence. After you have taken that leap, it becomes *very* obvious as to the truth of the evidence given. As to justice. As I find myself tired of saying, if God's only attribute was perfect justice, this planet wouldn't exist. The human race as a whole has chosen to set themselves up against God. This is enough to deserve death. God's *great*, *great* love causes Him to be patient and to give us a way of escape, if we will only take it! The same is true for God's mercy. We get more mercy than we deserve for living another day. And He gives even more than that in providing the way to come to Him. The 'game' is not rigged, it is just so simple that it's hard to see. Christianity is not a guessing game either. It is a free will decision. Once you have made the choice, it becomes more and more obvious every day that you have made the right one. I know, subjective evidence. I'm sorry, that's the way it is. God shows His love for sinners by sending His only Son to die for us. If that isn't love, I don't know what is. Christ took the punishment for our sins on the cross. All we need to do is accept that fact, and ask to have our lives put under His control. You see, I do believe in the love of God. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken -- 'Eternal life', that is. ---------------------------
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (11/08/84)
> > *Christianoid n., One who believes that anybody who doesn't accept Jesus > > Christ as his saviour is doomed to eternal damnation, and further > > believes that the god who does all this damning is just and merciful. > > > > Yes folks, I'm attempting to invent a new word here. The words "laser", > > "astronaut", and "sexism" were invented within my own lifetime. If enough > > people adopt my word, it, too, can become part of the language. If, in 10 > > or 20 years, I find "Christianoid" in a dictionary, I will look back on this > > day with pride. [DAVID CANZI] > > There's a word I had thought that I made up, but it turns out it's already in > the dictionary: christocentric. Although the meaning of the word does not > convey the intended meaning (it seems to be meant to be used as "Christianity > is a Christocentric religion because it is centered around Christ"), the word > itself is more descriptive of the type of *-ocentric thinking so prominent in > such minds (included ethnocentrism and the dreaded anthropocentrism). > -- > Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr > The word "christocentric" just doesn't have the meaning I'm trying to convey, though the people I'm describing as "christianoid" are most definitely christocentric. Either I have to content myself with using some windy phrase or make up a wholly new word... David Canzi "f u cn rd ths, itn tyg h myxbl cd."
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (11/09/84)
'> ' represents Ken Nichols > The problem with these arguments is that you are trying to make man's > definition of these words be the standard for your discussion. In my system > the standards of these words are much higher that a human standard. The most important point I was trying to make in that article is that *we* determine the meanings of the words we use. There is no relationship between the word, "dog", and those furry, four-legged beasts that chase cars and bite mailmen. The word "dog" has no meaning in itself. It's just a noise. But we agree among ourselves to use this particular verbal noise to represent the aforementioned beasts. That is *all* the meaning of a word is: an agreement among its users as to what they will use it for. God's actions do not conform to *our* meanings of justice, love or mercy. If you choose to describe God as just, loving or merciful, then you are making up new meanings for these words. And if you don't define your new meanings, then what you're saying will mean no more to others than "The Gostak distims the doshes". You would do better to inform us as to what *you* mean by these words, or better still, use other words. I will try to respond to the rest of your article when I have more time, but it's damned hard to respond rationally to irrationality. David Canzi "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?"
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (11/11/84)
'> ' represents Ken Nichols > The problem with these arguments is that you are trying to make man's > definition of these words be the standard for your discussion. In my system > the standards of these words are much higher that a human standard. The point I was trying to make in my previous two postings on this subject is: ---> Man's definitions of words are *the* *only* definitions of words. <--- The above is *THE* point of this article. Below is just more of the usual Christians-vs.-non-Christians shouting match, and nothing new will be said in it. Experienced readers of net.religion may skip it, confident in the knowledge that they are not missing anything important. -------- FINAL WARNING: HIT 'Q' KEY *NOW* -------- > There is plenty of evidence given that shows the way > to be saved. It is just what you choose to believe about the validity of > this evidence that determines your destiny. I'm afraid you can't take the > faith out of Christianity. There is a degree of faith necessary to take the > first step, that of accepting the evidence. After you have taken that leap, > it becomes *very* obvious as to the truth of the evidence given. I think there is plenty of evidence that the evidence you talk about is not all that plentiful. A sizeable majority of the human race are non-Christians (and therefore damned from your point of view), and I suspect that from your point of view, the majority even of Christians are damned, because they aren't Christian enough. If the evidence was so plentiful, would there be so many people living in error? > As to justice. As I find myself tired of saying, if God's only attribute was > perfect justice, this planet wouldn't exist. The human race as a whole has > chosen to set themselves up against God. This is enough to deserve death. > God's *great*, *great* love causes Him to be patient and to give us a way of > escape, if we will only take it! The human race as a whole has made no such decision. If your statement has any truth in it at all, the decision was made individually by each person. (Such admirable unanimity. If only all humans could spontaneously agree on some other things, like nuclear disarmament, for instance.) Is it possible for people to decide to rebel, without being aware that they are rebelling? > The same is true for God's mercy. We get more mercy than we deserve for > living another day. And He gives even more than that in providing the way > to come to Him. The 'game' is not rigged, it is just so simple that it's > hard to see. Christianity is not a guessing game either. It is a free will > decision. Once you have made the choice, it becomes more and more obvious > every day that you have made the right one. I know, subjective evidence. > I'm sorry, that's the way it is. It *is* a guessing game. The Bible, as far as I can tell from looking at it, is just a book. It contains ordinary words written with commonplace ink on mundane paper. Just like the Koran. Just like the Bhagavad-Gita (did I spell that right?) Just like the Books of Bokonon. Pick one. If you guess wrong, God will demonstrate his infinite mercy by torturing you forever. > God shows His love for sinners by sending His only Son to die for us. If > that isn't love, I don't know what is. Christ took the punishment for our > sins on the cross. All we need to do is accept that fact, and ask to have > our lives put under His control. Nothing can be much of a sacrifice for an omnipotent God, who can surely send a million "only sons" to die for us with less effort than it takes me to move my eyeballs. And the result of this effort is that a way has been provided to escape from Hell. Pity there are no road signs pointing to it. Pardon me for thinking that this indicates that your God doesn't give a shit. > You see, I do believe in the love of God. "Pssst. Hey, buddy! Wanna buy a bridge?" David Canzi "THE WORLD WILL END AT MIDNIGHT. (12:30 IN NEWFOUNDLAND)"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/12/84)
> The problem with these arguments is that you are trying to make man's > definition of these words be the standard for your discussion. In my system > the standards of these words are much higher that a human standard. > [KEN NICHOLS in response to David Canzi's followup] Ken's "higher standard" is nothing more than his own assumptions and presumptions about what he feels a deity should be like. Nothing more. (Since Ken has offered to answer all points/questions, I hope he will have a response to this.) -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/15/84)
I have to disagree with Ken: the language of men is not the language of God. God may have invented Meaning; we are the ones who give meanings. Is this not the significance of the statement in Genesis that God had Adam name the creatures of the earth? On the other hand, I must object to the way Rich Rosen is always telling us what we mean when we use this or that word. We have generally been quite willing to say what we mean by a particular word, and if we have used the word inconsistently used the word, I have no problem with him pointing out the inconsistency. What has done instead is to flatly state that we mean something different from what we have defined, without any evidence of a difference from our own arguments. This shows, as Screwtape might say, "a promising streak of intellectual dishonesty". (Being a mathematician by training, I notice the mathematicians have no problems with redefining things all the time; perhaps it is only Rich who has this problem.) Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe