Is anyone concerned by the redefining of words RE: Agenda's? [Christian Only]

JimiTime

This is something that is of concern to me. It was evident more than ever for me in the recent 'smacking' threads here and A&A.

People, driven by their agenda's, strong feelings or whatever, introduce pejorative terms that nobody would want to be associated with. It can work the other way too, like introducing things on the basis of 'protection' or 'security' which are more an infingement on us. My fear, is that we live in a very 'intellectual' age but IMO an age of little wisdom.
Christianity is now associated with the word 'homophobia'.
Parents who love their children and smack them when appropriate are being called 'violent' and 'abusive'.

Is there anything we can do as Christians to prevent these dishonest, agenda driven people redefining language to make us into 'violent, child abusing, homophobes'?

PDN

Unfortunately there are certain people who will abuse the English language if they think it helps them score points against another person's point of view.

To be fair, it is not just confined to non-Christians. We have one or two posters on this side of the fence where I just stop posting in a thread once they apppear in it, because the whole thing's going to go downhill in nonsense and semantics from there.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately there are certain people who will abuse the English language if they think it helps them score points against another person's point of view.

To be fair, it is not just confined to non-Christians. We have one or two posters on this side of the fence where I just stop posting in a thread once they apppear in it, because the whole thing's going to go downhill in nonsense and semantics from there.

I suspect PDN you are referring to me as one of thise people on this side of the fence.
I don't recall ever having posted whether I am a believer or not since I post almost entirely with respect to other people's claims. Nor do I post about my medical history . I do not seek any preferential treatment for any disability or personal belief i may have. My background comes from posting skeptical groups and challenging those who claim things to provide evidence and if they can't do so to destroy their argument. I accept ther are problems with the Socratic method. Look what happened to him
I don't like the smug "I know better" attitude of many fundamentalists particularly fundamentalist atheists.
My posting style consists of dismantling the posters claims. The reason is so they can't back peddle later on and say they meant or were claimed something else. I have been banned from the atheism group for doing this. Atheists who post here asking or claiming about what people posted in the past haven't been banned from here. I supply definitions for what I mean by a word when I use it.

As regards JimiTimes post above I can say that I am not dishonest. I don't lie about anything and I admit when I have made any errors in logic or attribution. Jimi mentions the use of language and how people misuse it. I have some experience in media and I am aware of this . It is another reason why at the beginning I forensically analyse what people are claiming. They won't get off the hook later on when they try to change the claim. In my experience there is usually a hidden motive. Yes you are correct if you are saying there is a different agenda to the one on which they are posting. Just as there is in the media. I would claim I don't abuse the English language. The "newspeak" element do that. But I'm open to accept any examples and retract anything that was a misuse of language. I don't think you will get that offer from fundamentalists. Anyway that is just my way of dealing with it . Get them to define what people mean by "abuse" or "violence" early on and when they slip in a slightly different meaning refer them back to their own definition and show them the contradiction. They are left with changing the definition or admitting they were wrong. Anyone who does admit they are wrong can move on but the fundamentalist cant deal with accepting their position might ever be wrong and will twist and turn to try to find a way to justify themselves. anything but confront the fallacies they are shown.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately there are certain people who will abuse the English language if they think it helps them score points against another person's point of view.

Certainly. Dishonesty is quite confusing. It makes no sense that someone would simply argue for the sake of it Of course, this kind of forum dishonesty can be ignored etc. However, in relation to smacking and homosexuality, there is a very sucessful campaign of propaganda which aims to use pejorative terms to ostracise any differing views.

To be fair, it is not just confined to non-Christians.

I'm sure its not. As a matter of interest though, what comes to mind when thinking of christians doing it?

We have one or two posters on this side of the fence where I just stop posting in a thread once they apppear in it, because the whole thing's going to go downhill in nonsense and semantics from there.

TBH, posters in a forum are posters in a forum. We'll come across idiots in all walks of life, of all faiths and none. My particular concern here, is the world beyond the internet. I se it manifested here alright, but I'd usually just ignore it. Its just that I see it happening in the real world that raises my concern.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

It makes no sense that someone would simply argue for the sake of it

But some people do argue for the sake of it. Whatever the reasons, I don't think that you have to look very far in life to come across somebody who not only rejects X, they reject almost everything that stems from it.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But some people do argue for the sake of it. Whatever the reasons, I don't think that you have to look very far in life to come across somebody who not only rejects X, they reject almost everything that stems from it.

I absolutley know that. I'm not so naive:) Its just confusing that people do it. We can all get caught up in arguement, and stubborness is one thing. However, dishonesty is quite another.

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But some people do argue for the sake of it. Whatever the reasons, I don't think that you have to look very far in life to come across somebody who not only rejects X, they reject almost everything that stems from it.

Im reminded of:

Do you reject satan?
And all his works?
And all his empty promises?
...

Splendour

JimiTime wrote: »

It makes no sense that someone would simply argue for the sake of it

Jimi, I commented to a Christian friend of mine once that 'he would argue with God himself' as he is so opinionated and just won't let go of a discussion if other's opinion's are not in line with his.He laughed and agreed with me. If I weren't a Christian before I met him and he'd attempted to evangelise me, I think he'd have put me off Christianity because of his need to argue to the enth degree.
That's just the way some people are I suppose...

lmaopml

JimiTime wrote: »

This is something that is of concern to me. It was evident more than ever for me in the recent 'smacking' threads here and A&A.

People, driven by their agenda's, strong feelings or whatever, introduce pejorative terms that nobody would want to be associated with. It can work the other way too, like introducing things on the basis of 'protection' or 'security' which are more an infingement on us. My fear, is that we live in a very 'intellectual' age but IMO an age of little wisdom.
Christianity is now associated with the word 'homophobia'.
Parents who love their children and smack them when appropriate are being called 'violent' and 'abusive'.

Is there anything we can do as Christians to prevent these dishonest, agenda driven people redefining language to make us into 'violent, child abusing, homophobes'?

I don't know how anybody could stop people using perjorative language Jimitime, I guess we just have to put up with it, and roll our eyes a few times..lol...I pick the battles to engage in carefully, can't fight them all, whether it's religion or politics etc. All I do know is that I try to be objective when reading through something, whether it's a thread or a news article. The more discerning will probably know when they are being 'led' however subtly by an author...of course some are as subtle as a sledge hammer too..lol...

Actually, I think the results of that particular poll speak volumes , and on the 'up' side I was pleasantly suprised by a number of posters maturity and honesty too....

JimiTime

Splendour wrote: »

Jimi, I commented to a Christian friend of mine once that 'he would argue with God himself' as he is so opinionated and just won't let go of a discussion if other's opinion's are not in line with his.He laughed and agreed with me. If I weren't a Christian before I met him and he'd attempted to evangelise me, I think he'd have put me off Christianity because of his need to argue to the enth degree.
That's just the way some people are I suppose...

Would they conciously argue dishonestly to further their position? As I said, we can all get sucked into an arguement and loose sight of purpose, but being dishonest is another story. Its the stuff of propaganda, a means to an end. That would be the concern I would be stressing.

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't know how anybody could stop people using perjorative language Jimitime, I guess we just have to put up with it, and roll our eyes a few times..lol...

Of course.:) Its when it becomes almost like a 'campaign' of sorts that it raises my concern.

I pick the battles to engage in carefully, can't fight them all, whether it's religion or politics etc.

Would you mind me asking how you engage such things?

All I do know is that I try to be objective when reading through something, whether it's a thread or a news article. The more discerning will probably know when they are being 'led' however subtly by an author...of course some are as subtle as a sledge hammer too..lol...

Its simple word association. Before you know it people are dragged into a debate about 'Is it right to use violence to discipline children'. A loaded premise that can't truly be reasoned.

Actually, I think the results of that particular poll speak volumes , and on the 'up' side I was pleasantly suprised by a number of posters maturity and honesty too....

The thing is, people who are happy with the status quo, will not have any interest in campaigning for the status quo, its those who wish to change it will mobilise, you know what I mean?

vodafoneproblem

I have definitely, definitely found that liberals are shifting the word fundamentalist to mean mainstream Christian in the last couple of years. Mainly on the internet but that can proliferate elsewhere and that is their goal, imo.

JimiTime

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

I have definitely, definitely found that liberals are shifting the word fundamentalist to mean mainstream Christian in the last couple of years. Mainly on the internet but that can proliferate elsewhere and that is their goal, imo.

I think thats phase two you are describing tbh. Phase one was sucessfully associating the word 'fundamentalist' with crackpottery.

brickmaster

edit

JimiTime

brickmaster wrote: »

edit: Sorry not christian

Hi Brickmaster, and thank you for your respect of my request. If you think you have something to add that is not an 'anti-christian' type post, but relevant to the topic, please feel free to post.

brickmaster

JimiTime wrote: »

Hi Brickmaster, and thank you for your respect of my request. If you think you have something to add that is not an 'anti-christian' type post, but relevant to the topic, please feel free to post.

Thanks JimiTime, I didn't see the title request until after I had posted.

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

I have definitely, definitely found that liberals are shifting the word fundamentalist to mean mainstream Christian in the last couple of years.

I fully agree with the above point.

I just wanted to point out that conservatives, particularly American conservatives (sometime christian, often not), have shifted the term liberal to be limp-wristed, lacking morals, and/or devious.

I think that people who have an agenda will try further their agenda, irrespective of the facts, and that it is not just people attacking christianity who are guilty of this.

Fanny Cradock

brickmaster wrote: »

I just wanted to point out that conservatives, particularly American conservatives (sometime christian, often not), have shifted the term liberal to be limp-wristed, lacking morals, and/or devious.

The word conservative is similarly loaded.

brickmaster

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The word conservative is similarly loaded.

Agreed

USA = Gun toting southern redneck
UK = Born with a silver spoon.

But I think the problem applies to all terms.

Go to A&A and you'll see that alot of posters dislike the term athiest due to its implied conations.

Go to The ladies Lounge and you will see that many posters dislike the implied characteriastics of the term feminism.

But enough of me dragging the discussion off topic. Thanks for allowing me to post in a christian only thread.

JimiTime

ha ha, theres no end to it all:) Fanny and Brickmaster I completely agree. I suppose the real frustration in all of this is lack of honesty. Man o man it would be so nice if more people were honest:(

I've been watching the political debates from the UK, and its just so dishonest. Dishonesty just seems to be so acceptable. Means to an end, ahhh its just so frustrating.

JimiTime

brickmaster wrote: »

Thanks for allowing me to post in a christian only thread.

Thank you for your input. the whole 'christian only' thing is more to stop the noise that can come about when some folk come in and start giving certain opinions from a non-christian POV. Alot of the time the thread 'can' just become Christians trying to fight some misconceptions a poster may have about Christianity. Having the Christian only thing can usually gurantee that sort of thing not happening when the thread is trying to deal with something concisely.

Again, thanks for your respect and your input.

twinQuins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The word conservative is similarly loaded.

How often do you hear the term "conservative agenda"?

I mean, even this:

and that is their goal, imo.

Eludes to some "agenda", as if liberals are one monolithic group that all share identical ideals and are united in an attempt to tear down society.
If you want people to take you seriously and engage with you civilly it helps when you don't immediately attempt to misrepresent them.

I would have thought, as Christians, you'd be familiar with being unfairly assumed to be some crazy radical.

Fanny Cradock

Morkarleth wrote: »

How often do you hear the term "conservative agenda"?

I mean, even this:



Eludes to some "agenda", as if liberals are one monolithic group that all share identical ideals and are united in an attempt to tear down society.
If you want people to take you seriously and engage with you civilly it helps when you don't immediately attempt to misrepresent them.

I would have thought, as Christians, you'd be familiar with being unfairly assumed to be some crazy radical.

Is that directed at me?

twinQuins

The first line is, the rest is for those who'd get along with conspiracy theorists.

Fanny Cradock

I never mentioned any type of agenda.

twinQuins

Then you missed my point; "conservative" is a loaded term but I'd argue that "liberal" has much worse connotations associated with it. Particularly considering how often you hear about a "liberal agenda" as opposed to a "conservative agenda".

iUseVi

Morkarleth wrote: »

Then you missed my point; "conservative" is a loaded term but I'd argue that "liberal" has much worse connotations associated with it. Particularly considering how often you hear about a "liberal agenda" as opposed to a "conservative agenda".

Only in the U.S.

twinQuins

Aye, true but I've noticed this trend of people disparaging liberalism over here, now.

Maybe I should just shut up.

Fanny Cradock

Morkarleth wrote: »

Then you missed my point; "conservative" is a loaded term but I'd argue that "liberal" has much worse connotations associated with it. Particularly considering how often you hear about a "liberal agenda" as opposed to a "conservative agenda".

No, I didn't miss your point. Rather, I am denying that it has anything to do with my post. You assumed that I was arguing something that I wasn't. In fact, I merely pointed out that the word conservative also has negative associations. This is true.

Quite aside from this correction, I find your reasoning for declaring that the word liberal has "worse connotations", which seems to hang on the use of the pejorative phrase "liberal agenda", to be quite unconvincing. You haven't given a definition for liberal or conservative - are we talking about certain perspectives and approaches to politics, religion, art, social issues? You have also failed to outline what the phrase "worse connotations" actually means or how you went about measuring these "connotations". Did you propose we account for country, age, race, gender, sexual orientation, wealth, etc, etc?

ISAW

Morkarleth wrote: »

If you want people to take you seriously and engage with you civilly it helps when you don't immediately attempt to misrepresent them.

I would have thought, as Christians, you'd be familiar with being unfairly assumed to be some crazy radical.

Are the instances of "you" above in reference to the poster Fanny Craddock or to Christians in general as in "you people" . If you Morkarleth are referring to Christians why are you posting this thread?

Incidentally on the "liberal" think I would consider myself liberal. I would also consider many so called "Liberals" as left wing authoritarians.

Splendour

JimiTime wrote: »

Would they conciously argue dishonestly to further their position? As I said, we can all get sucked into an arguement and loose sight of purpose, but being dishonest is another story. Its the stuff of propaganda, a means to an end. That would be the concern I would be stressing.

Dishonestly is too strong a word, maybe. Ignoring the truth would be closer to the mark. Half way through a debate, he may realise he's wrong but he'll twist and turn the argument to try and prove his point regardless. I believe this is called pride :pac: .

ISAW

Morkarleth wrote: »

Aye, true but I've noticed this trend of people disparaging liberalism over here, now.

In the EU there are many people who would say Fox News is a terrible depiction of US conservatism and the Conservative Agenda or PNAC. By "terrible" I don't mean invalid I mean doing terrible things and using the media to facilitate it.