Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Meanings of Words
Message-ID: <631@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 02:43:30 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.631
Posted: Fri Nov  9 02:43:30 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 07:41:58 EST
References: <606@watdcsu.UUCP>, <294@qantel.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 27

'> ' 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?"