| b |
| Terminology page |
 |
| "Biblical" Jesus or "biblical" Yahweh-- Meaning that I'm referring to the characters in the bible, just as if I said that 'god' was as strong as a biblical unicorn (KJV). The point of the "biblical" word usage is to provide no ambiguity about the fact that I am not implying these characters are objectively existing beings. As far as I can tell and am concerned, they are purely fictional characters. Biblical Jesus would be Jesus as described in the bible. Historical Jesus would be an actual man who existed once upon a time in a land far, far away. |
| 'god' (in single quotes). Meaning to be read as alleged or 'so called' god. ['god'] does not imply existence. I typically don't capitalize 'god' unless I'm typing a quote from someone else as it's not a proper name (although 'Yahweh' is) and I don't know that it is naming an actual object or being and a fictional reference to 'gods' is not capitalized in English. As Thor is a 'god', so is Yahweh as far as I can tell. |
| "Inspired scripture"-- Meaning that any given "scripture" that is included in the canonized bible (the one of your biased choice of course) is "god inspired". "Inspiration" is the Christian word for the Holy Ghost (holey ghost?) invading your heart and making you write "perfect" scripture. How does anyone know which books are inspired? A self proclaimed "Illuminated" (see below) bureaucratic committee decides its the word of 'god'. Of course, there are problems with this idea, such as, if it is the "perfect" word of 'god' then how can it be testament (testimony) from the guy who wrote it; and secondly, if it is so perfect, why are all known books of the bible rife with errors? See "autographs" below. See also The bible is not the word of 'god' in my sister site that addresses these problems. |
| Exegesis: A critical examination and explanation of text, especially of the bible. Used in tandem with terms like "inspired" and "regenerate mind" Christians will sometimes pretend and claim that THEIR exegesis is magically insightful and the non-believer just can't understand written English for some unknown reason. (Note that "Paul said so" is not to be confused with 'reason'.) |
| Hermeneutic; Hermenutical, Hermeneutics--
Interpreteive, explanitory. (Why theologens don't use "normal" words like "interpretive" and "explanitory" is anyone's guess.) |
| Homepage |
| Lambs/sheep: A particularly unintelligent and uninquisitive animal who's most notable characteristics amount to flocking, standing around with nothing apparently on their minds while waiting to be fleeced, sacrificed or otherwise exploited. ;-) |
| Illuminated understanding, Illumination: This is where the 'holey ghost' gets in your heart and allows you to magically understand common writ better than other people, no matter how intelligent or well educated they may be. Where "Inspired" is supposed to let you write or otherwise record 'perfect' "mind of 'god'" information, Illumination is supposed to give you "perfect" deciphering abilities or "exegesis" (see above). What about when Bob and Stan both have the holey ghost in their hearts and yet interpret Original Sin differently? Christians don't want to talk about that. In the case of the Catholic Church(es), they appeal to the latest "perfect" illumination of the latest still living pope. |
| "Regenerate mind": A regenerate mind is "illuminated". (see illumination). |
| The Autographs: The supposedly perfect "'god' breathed" first folios of the gospels. When fundamentalists refer to the bible being "perfect word of 'god'", they are supposedly referring to the autographs. The catch is, of course, that the autographs don't exist (or don't currently exist) and since fundamentalists can't claim that the current bible is really perfect (it doesn't stand up to any critical scrutiny) they then blame it on YOUR lacking understanding OR on "translation errors". If hard pressed, they will admit that THEIR bible is not perfect, and yet they will still proclaim (while wagging around their bible in the air) that the bible is the "perfect word of 'god'". Of course it makes no sense, it's cult-think in action. Such is the insidious "cult-think" effect of faith (see below). |
| Crucifix: The symbol of the Christian cross that represents the torture and execution device that killed their martyr-'god' that sometimes adorns the walls of believers or that they wear on a chain around their throats like a collar ;-) . Note that biblical Jesus' cross is not a crucifix. A crucifix is only a representation and paying homage to the humans sacrifice that believers worship and allegedly find salvation in by accepting Jesus as their "vicar" or vicarious stand in to take their "deserved" punishment for not being born perfect and sinnless. It was 'god's' plan that they, the self-professed guilty get to go free while an innocent man pays their "atonement" price with his blood. Isn't that just the sweetest thing you've ever heard of? |
| Faith: Faith is the absolute conviction without supporting evidence or reason that 'X' and 'Y' are not false, even if 'X' and 'Y' are contrary, self-contradictory, unintelligible or mutually exclusive to one another. In other words, faith is the conviction that 'X' and 'Y' are not false even if they must be. Faith is belief BECAUSE of belief. Faith is picking yourself up by your bootstraps and swinging yourself about the room without any visible means of support. Some believers will try to argue that faith and reasonable belief are the same thing, but reasonable belief cannot have the characteristics previously mentioned, and in fact, if one has reasonable belief about 'X', then one has no purpose for faith. If I eat apples often, then the belief that apples are edible is not faith. Faith is insidious and subversive. It destroys one's ability to think rationally. One of the worst things a person can do is to defend the unjustifiable with either fluff, rationalizations or deceit, and this is what faith is all about. People often misunderstand faith. They think it's romantic and "mysterious". No, it's just a touch of insanity. I consider it a neurotic pathology. (See 'Some of my pet theories and speculations'). If someone asked me, "well, don't you have 'faith' that your father loves you?" No, I don't. That is demonstrable, proclaimed and reasonable, not "faith". Either we have good reason to believe something or we don't. To be absolutely convinced of something for no reason is to think badly. To short-circuit our ability to reason and instead defer to imaginings as a means of thinking is to not think at all. |
| Child sacrifice: A particularly vile action where someone in authority, typically the child's ostensibly loving father decides to sell their child for a price or trade the life of their child for a favor or bigger payoff of some sort. See Jephthah's human sacrifice of his virgin daughter in Judges 11 and see Yahweh planning the torture and death of Jesus just so he can offer his future flunkies the sadistic choice of accepting Jesus torture and death as a vicarious blood atoning payment to pay for their sins OR to go to hell and be tortured themselves. |
| LOGOS' hypothesis:
"All Christians are either mentally incompetent or liars, explicit or implicit." The reason for this is that if one defends or meaningfully discusses something as actual that is inconsistent, then one's own assertions must become inconsistent. The Christian in question may be a 'very good person' but still is a "victim" of the position they choose to defend. |
| Redact, or Redactor: re·dact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-dkt) tr.v. re·dact·ed, re·dact·ing, re·dacts To draw up or frame (a proclamation, for example). To make ready for publication; edit or revise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Middle English redacten, from Latin redigere, redct-, to drive back : re-, red-, re- + agere, to drive; see act.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- re·dactor (-dktr, -tôr) n. |
| Talking snake two-step: A euphemistic term I use to describe the metaphorical "dance" around the truth that theists will invariably engage in, in order to avoid coming to terms with the errant inconsistency of Christianity. I often follow a method of introducing a point that will elicit the "talking snake two-step" and is demonstrably an error in Christian theology, (such as Jesus telling us in Mark, Matthew and Luke that his second coming and the end of the world will come within the lifetimes of some of his immediate audience; a point that the Preterism apologetic doesn't adequately address), then pose the question "Does 'The Truth' (a euphemism Believers use for the alleged divinity of biblical scripture) require one to lie to defend it, and if so, does this REALLY seem like 'truth' to you?" This usually gets no response from the vessels of "The Truth" with "regenerate minds". Imagine that! I assume that every question that theists (especially Christians) "religiously" avoid answering must be hitting home on some level or I would be getting the usual inane clap-trap as a response. |
| Troglodyte, or "Trog" for short: A pejorative term for an inexcusably dishonest & or stupid person. Those who are mentally disabled due to physiology or physical mishap are not Trogs, nor are those who suffer from emotional trauma or are otherwise are emotionally disturbed beyond their own acquiescence or druthers. One who suffers from a mental disease and who requires the assistance of a medical professional is arguably not a "Trog". "Trog", being a pejorative term, is reserved for the WILLINGLY stupid and dishonest, or who know (and have been told, no doubt) of their propensity to be stupid and/or dishonest and apparently doesn't care to correct the situation. An example would be a Christian stating that atheists believe that humans come from monkeys after he or she has stated it several times before and has been corrected on their erroneous comment. Each "Trog-confirming" episode only serves to make the Christian appear even more stupid than the last. Rather than helping any alleged point the Christian might have had, it only serves to hinder or even harm said "point" by being associated with the Trog. "Trogs" are so at home with logical fallacies that they even 'poison their own well' so to speak. Trogs would rather state something stupid than to remain silent until they have a legitimate 'non-Trog-like' point. In fact, Trogs seem to relish being demonstrably stupid but seem to think the joke is not they themselves.
(Note that "Trog" isn't to hold certain disagreed with or unpopular ideas. It is understandable for people who are part of a primitive society to have primitive thoughts, or for people to speculate, but to call it "speculation" and not "certain knowledge" when it isn't by definition. But for an adult out on their own in 21st century modernity to repeatedly set out to tell (what are demonstrably) lies and do the "talking snake two-step" about biblical issues (as an example) is to be a Trog). |
| Cynic: The proper categorical name for assholes. Example: "Diogenes was an asshole." |
| "Nigel": A name I jokingly call "clueless" people who seem to not have the ability to think abstractly and are thus shut off from appreciating certain arguments or subtle points. (See "Nigel") |
| Irresponsibility Gap:
Christians often "quantum leap" between subjects. If I talk about Jesus, they may respond about 'god' the father, and if I talk about 'god' the father, they often respond about Jesus, even though it is THEY who maintain that the trinity is composed of three distinct persons. They do the same "quantum leaping" in regards to 'god' the father's responsibility. Within theory, 'god' is responsible for setting up all the metaphysical rules, and then suddenly in a blink of an eye becomes not responsible for the necessary consequences of him following his own rules. According to Acts 4 and the gospels Gethsemane scenes, Jesus was put into a catch-22 situation, either he agreed to be tortured and die and eventually go to heaven himself (codename: "The Passion"), or everyone else on earth would die and spend eternity or nearly eternity suffering in hell. Christians will often retort to comments regarding the injustice of killing the innocent (Jesus) for the profit of the guilty (sinners) with "so, you think it would be better for 'god' to "have to" send sinners to hell?" (Notice how suddenly, 'god' is not responsible for his own actions, it was a combination of "The Rules" and our actions that made him do it). Of course, it would be "better" for any existing 'god' to not blame us for not choosing to be slaves to its will. Problem solved. No heaven, no hell, no sin. People have an innate sense of right and wrong; moral instinct, if you will. Carrots and sticks are for dumb animals, not human beings. |