Opus, I personally am a Christian Agnostic. If seeing those two words
together causes you to stupidly giggle, then read the book that launched
this religion: The Christian Agnostic, published in 1940 by Lesley D.
Weatherhead, a semi-defrocked Episcopalian Bishop found guilty by many of
actually thinking & making sense. His book is long out of print, but is
still sought-after & available for many bucks... I just purchased another
copy from Amazon.com.

To cause you even more giggles, my being a Christian Agnostic has caused me
to understand, accept & appreciate Judaism, Muslimism, Buddhism, & all other
sincere faiths. To openly state what I have been hiding, I am now severely
terminal, having been sent home to die by my doctors on Oct. 31st. But... my
doctors have been declared me terminal before but my faith keeps me going as
if tomorrow was a sure thing, and for me it is!

Bob Rickard

PS: Don't be too cheap you buy the book, Opus... you have a lot to learn.
.................................................. .................................................. ......................................


"Opus" wrote in message
...

"johnval1" wrote in message
.. .

Well, this is the nut of the discussion. Words are the colors and shapes
we give to thoughts, ideas, and concepts. That is why war is not peace,
and love is not hate. When you change the words, you change the
conceptual framework of the discussion. Words are not interchangable
parts.

No they don't always and if the meaning of the word itself is not the crux
of the argument, it really doesn't matter.

I believe my point was that Christianity and PETA were not
interchangable. I have no problem with the use of either word, but not as
a substitute for one another in the context of our discussion.

Okay, I can accept that you don't believe the two words are
interchangeable. However, for the purposes of this argument, I do believe
do believe them to be interchangeable and without changing the meaning of
the oveall context of the disscussion.

The words I used are the words I would accept.

Well that seems reasonable enough for you, I'm not so certain for me?

I do understand your point of view. And I still will not accept free
exchange of one word for the other, which would mean that I don't believe
words have meaning.

Okay, let me see if I can try this one last time.

PETA's organization is antehetical to fishers and hunters, and therefore
it would seem a hunter/fisher can't rationally identify/support PETA.

The Christian faith is antethetical to agnostics and atheists, and
therefore it would seem that agnostics/atheists can't rationally
identify/support the Christian faith.

The meanings of these two statements is the same, conceptually. This
isn't to say that either statement is true or false.

If you can say that one group which is diametrically opposed to another
group can't rationally support the other, then you can say that for all
other groups that are the mirror opposites of one another, or you can say
it about none.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of the words used,
except that they must be words that will meet the criterion of the overall
context.

Unless you are trying to contend that there is a certain degree of
animosity greater between PETA and hunter/fishers groups than there is
between the Christian and agnostic/atheist groups? I'd have a hard time
agreeing with that argument.


What I gain from this discussion, and please correct me if I am wrong, is
that you have little use for either Christianity or PETA, and so are
willing to consider them conceptually the same. I do not. To me they are
not the same.

You are certainly wrong. What I said was,
"I don't support PETA anymore than I support Christians that tell me I am
going to HELL because I don't believe in their god."
This was to show that I believe them (Christians who tell me that I am
going to Hell) to be diametrically opposed to my beliefs, and has noting
to do with what use I have for either group. I actually have a great deal
of use for Christians--my mother happens to be one. And as I stated
previously, I do support some Christian activities. Which brings us full
circle, because my original contention was that if I can support one group
that is my polar opposite, I can certainly support another group that may
be my polar opposite.

Op