Subject: Re: [lojban] lo Jesus

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:50:23 -0400

Invent Yourself writes:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>> Invent Yourself writes:
>> >If a Christian really believes there is only one True God, it behooves
>> >them to use "lo" to indicate their absolute belief. It is not a relative,
>> questionable point of debate for them. The fact that you don't happen to
>> >agree is irrelevant to them.
>> 
>> Preciesly my point. And I'd be just as offended by that assumption in
>> english.
>> 
>> >If we restrict lo for points which are never debated then lo can never be
>> >used, since a trivial nonexistence argument can be raised for anything
>> >(although I will not participate in a discussion fleshing this out).
>> 
>> <nod> I'm not saying it _shouldn't_ be used in that case, just that I
>> reserve the right to get all bitchy about it.

OK, first of all, this is way, way, way off topic. Any followups to
e-mail, please.

>If you agree that lo (in this sense) 

which apparently not the sense that it is actually for, oops.

>is a logical consequence of being a Christian, then you are reserving
>the right to be bitchy to a Christian because of their religion. 

Incorrect. I reserve the right to be bitchy if some Christian
_tells_me_ that they believe this, with the intended implication that
everyone who doesn't believe it is deluded and/or going to hell. If
they politely keep their beliefs to themselves, it's not a problem.
Even if they don't, I almost always manage to stay shut up. Unless it's
online. I'm much nicer in person. :)

It also depends on _how_ it's done. If we're having a discussion about
religion, sure, whatever. If I'm crossing the street and someone
accosts me to tell me I'll burn in hell if I don't accept Jesus as my
personal saviour, not OK. There's a whole gray area in between. Say,
for example, that I say, in an unrelated conversation, that
such-and-such a bad thing is happening in my life, and a person
responds, "Well, why don't you pray about it? Put it in God's hands.".
Further investigation shows that they are Christian, have assumed I am,
and are talking about praying to the Christian God. That's going to
piss me off. It would piss me off just as much Allah was used, or
Buddha, or Krishna. The difference being that I've only ever seen
Christians make this type of assumption. Granted, this may have to do
with having lived in North America almost all my life, but I never had
Shinto evangalists accost me in the streets in Japan.

>Do you hate Christians that much? 

I do not hate anyone _because_ they are Christian, unless my only
contact with a person has been as a result of them trying to convert me.
I loathe most forms of the religion (for a wide variety of reasons;
e-mail if you must know), the primary exception being Universalists,
whether they call themselves that or not.. A person is not their
religion.

>Or do you prefer they would question their beliefs because they are
>talking to you?

I certainly wouldn't mind. but I've found that a very, very large
proportion of adherents of _any_ religion are unconsidered adherents;
adhererents by default. I tend to lose them very quickly when arguing
about the underlying philosophies and how I see those philosophies
extending to the real world. So I usually don't bother.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest.
... stripped of our uniqueness as human beings by Darwin, exposed to our
own inadequacies by Freud, ... Power -- "the ability to bring about our
desires" -- is all that we have left. --- Michael Korda, _Power!_