?

Log in

No account? Create an account

in a web of glass, pinned to the edges of vision

New word! (or not...)

I'd forgotten how often we saw Magritte

mucha mosaic

New word! (or not...)

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
bad grammar
So up the hill from my apartment building is a church. This church is OK by me, generally: seems to generally be an older congregation, composed of people who've been in the neighborhood forever. They usually aren't blaring a lot of noise at me even on Sundays, & the congregation (when I encounter them) are polite and friendly neighbors, who ask how my day is, invite me to join them, don't get pissy when I say no-thank-you...
Now, my landlady doesn't want me smoking anywhere near the building, so when I smoke, I generally go stand in front of the church, as most of the week nobody's there to be bothered by the smoke. Today, after reading some particularly repugnant 'Christian' nonsensical knee-jerk conservativism masquerading as logic on the intertubes, I went out for a smoke and noticed something about the building's signage, which I hadn't really had jump into my forebrain.

The sign refers to the church as 'C.O.G.I.C.' I'm assuming this stands for 'Church of God In Christ' (no, not in Christ that way, can't you people read anything without thinking of sex?).
However, my new word of the day is 'cogic'- definition, 'that paralogia to which the devout are prone which says that the word of God is infallibly true despite any evidence to the contrary'. Cogic is why there's a Creationism museum somewhere in Midwestistan. Cogic is why the 'Reverend' Phelps stands around with signs declaring that God hates a portion of His creation.
Please use 'cogic' in good health.

Actually, please don't use 'cogic' as a term for faith-based reasoning- see comments as to why.
  • Re: Um, no.

    While 'lolgic' is out there, I found myself thinking there's need of a term that's specifically for crazy not-actually logic with a religious basis.
    I can understand finding this particular adaptation troubling, though- and thanks for speaking up. My use of the acronym as a word was not intended as a commentary on any particular church- but I can certainly see that it was interpreted thus. Apologies.
    • Re: Um, no.

      And you continue to miss the point.

      http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/race/060400sack-church-side.html

      But perhaps most importantly:

      "Something I've learned is that if I want religious people to respect my absence of faith, I should respect their abundance of it. This doesn't mean I can't be critical of religion's many flaws (flaws that are not, by the way, exclusive to religion but manifest in most any dogma or organization), but insulting people simply because they are religious is foolhardy. It alienates and dehumanizes them and makes me look mean and small-minded.

      -- Me, 4/22/2010"
      • Actually, no: I'm acutely aware there are millions- even a few billions- of perfectly reasonable, coherent, admirable people who have faith as part of their lives. There are people doing things like rebuilding homes in New Orleans after Katrina, feeding the hungry, or housing the homeless and helping them get back on their feet (all of which are things undertaken in the last year by people of faith, to wit: my parents & the church they belong to).
        So, faith works for some- perhaps even most- people, and good! Faith doesn't work for me, as I've learned over the years since departing seminary- and there's nothing wrong with that, either.

        That said... are you possibly confusing 'I would like to have a generic term for the sort of crazy nonsense that is represented as having a basis in reality or the Bible, when it has neither' with 'religious people should all go drink lye'? It seems that way, from over here. But again: thanks for pointing out the inappropriateness of my initial coining, there.
        • Are you really this dense, dude?

          'I would like to have a generic term for the sort of crazy nonsense that is represented as having a basis in reality or the Bible, when it has neither'

          This is you attacking a straw man by mocking a religious tradition about which your are painfully and obviously ignorant to draw a connection to the vile discrimination of the WBC. If you had any inkling as to the history of the COGIC and its founding, much less its actual tenets, you'd realize how misplaced that is.

          I'm not confusing anything. You're being an ass and defending your behavior, which is, you know, your prerogative. But if you're trying to appear witty, intellectually superior, or enlightened, you might want to climb down off that ladder of fail first.
          • First off: this discussion has been a very good illustration of one of the major reasons I'd like to have a word to call such nutjobs other than 'Christian', which was the whole point of the initial post.
            I 100% agree with you that everyone in the COGIC doesn't merit association with people who represent their brand of crazy as being relevant to Christianity. The difference between Christ's teachings and some of the crazy that comes out of people's mouths unthinkingly is exactly what's had me thinking that it would be convenient to have a word that means 'crazy so-called Christians' but doesn't risk painting the various stripes of sane reasonable Christians with the same brush at the whack jobs. And, as you pointed out, referring to the insane troll logic here as 'cogic' is certainly incorrect.

            Second, with all the above said? As far as painting the COGIC accurately, someone else pointed this out, in another comment: National Organization for Marriage Honors COGIC Presiding Bishop and Mother Willie Mae Rivers. That's @ cogic.net, on which they present a face to me that specifically says 'You, over there. We don't think you merit the same rights as we get'.
            That's a COGIC bishop being lauded by an organization who believes I am intended to be treated unequally, by virtue of being who I am, because of their faith. And this is exactly why I want a word that means 'supposedly faith-based craziness indulged in by persons of faith, which is actually not any part of the teachings of Christ'- to differentiate it from 'actually being a Christian'.
            • And you are looking for a generic term because you think that's more fun and worthwhile than being specific and nuanced in your discussion of what's wrong and illogical about religion. What happens on the national front doesn't necessarily reflect what's going on in the church across the street from you. It's not like it's any surprise that politics and religion intersect at that level.

              Seriously, dude. Climb down off the cross. Everyone's religious beliefs aren't about you, so stop making them about you.
              • And you are looking for a generic term because you think that's more fun and worthwhile than being specific and nuanced in your discussion of what's wrong and illogical about religion.
                I'm sorry: you seem to have misunderstood what I said, above. To rephrase the reason I'm inclined to look for a generic term, it's because I would like to more clearly draw a line between the statement 'this behavior isn't appropriate, and crops up in a community of faith' and the statement 'this inappropriate behavior is the behavior of all members of a community of faith'.

                Seriously, dude. Climb down off the cross. Everyone's religious beliefs aren't about you, so stop making them about you.
                Uhm... a religious belief that I should be afforded different treatment under the law because I am one of a class of people... is about me and the rest of that class of people, isn't it? I'm sorry that picking an issue to which I have a personal connection, as an example of the kind of error that religious communities can be prone to, is apparently inappropriate. In my defense, I'll just say that it was right there on the page I was commenting on, brought there by someone who wasn't me, from the COGIC site. I didn't write it, I didn't find it, and I even pointed out at length that it clearly isn't everything these folks do with their time.
                • Whatever, dude. It doesn't just affect you. Like I said, come on down off that cross.

                  And honestly? This is the second thing in a week you've written that pissed me off. Maybe if I'd said something about your earlier ponderings about Tagalog and whether or not Filipinos traditionally have any concept of masculinity (!?), I'd be less annoyed with you now. But, frankly, this is just seeming like the week you've decided to be that Annoying White Guy Making Flippant Comments About Other People and Cultures You Know Nothing About.
                  • I'm sorry reading my LJ makes you angry.
                    • Man, reading this thread makes me want to say nasty things.

                      But I have a specific opinion about one side, and a much different opinion about the other side, and it would come off as mean-spirited and small-minded.

                      As opposed to intolerant and arrogant enough to assume aspersions cast a small subset of a given group imply that the whole of the given group is the target.

                      So I won't.
                      • I'm slightly proud of myself for not just saying 'fuck it' and aiming to be a dick in the face of such a concerted effort to paint me into a corner, really. Once it became apparent that race issues were the unannounced new topic, as opposed to continuing talking about my wish for a word to talk about where organized religion goes wrong without saying Christianity- well.
                        • Well, I don't think that's a brush you can paint with. Other religions have their fair share of "organized religion going wrong." So, saying Christianity is the cause is inaccurate. Organized religion in the hands of extremists is really the cause. I'm with you, if you want to practice religion, go for it. Just don't you fucking dare to tell me how I should or shouldn't practice religion. Coz I will eat your lunch with mayonnaise if you do.
                          • Ooops! Yeah, the idea of 'it's not just Christians, too' is important, too: I'm glancing at Japanese state-mandated Shintoism in the 30s, for instance (which still has a pretty strong tie to the right wing in Japan, even today). Hence, me wanting a word for it other than 'this/that/the other particular thread of religiousness'.
Powered by LiveJournal.com