"Opus" wrote in message
No, you replaced one painting for another, thus changing the meaning of
the art. We have been talking about a conceptual framework, in which
meaning is not changed, only the words are changed.

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.


What is so special about the words Christian and diverse beliefs that
makes them unfit to be used?

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.

By the way, Christianity itself a very diverse lot.

What words would you use, since you "do not accept the substitution of
*those* words."

The words I used are the words I would accept.


So you do understand my point, but you are oppose to the use of my word
choice? And I'm not asking you to accept anything. I am asking if you
understand my point of view.

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. 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.