An Atheist's "right to be angry"

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by tsig

You mean raising the dead, walking on water and making instant wine?

That would be a good starter. But simply acting like Christ was supposedly* supposed to act would be a big improvement.


*Cherry pickers make all kinds of "Christs" out of what's in the NT, of course.

[CynicalSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Pup

And yet when atheists want to claim they have the same sense of morality that all humans have, the Christians want to make that human trait exclusive to Christians.

Some do, some take an alternate stance. I've often seen the bumper sticker that reads "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven". An uncharitable interpretation of that phrase could be "I can do whatever I want and get away with it because God loves me". A slightly more charitable interpretation is "I know I'm no better than anyone else, but I'm still going to heaven because I've accepted Jesus".

[Flo]

Originally Posted by Pup

And yet when atheists want to claim they have the same sense of morality that all humans have, the Christians want to make that human trait exclusive to Christians.

Originally Posted by RSLancastr

And here you are, taking something said by one Christian (and misquoted by a second), and making it sound as though all Christians ("the Christians") say it/believe it.

Unfortunately, it is one of the basic meme for an extremely vast number of religious people, regardless of religion, denomination and country, that is consistently spread at every occasion ("wedding for gays ? Contraception ? family laws ? euthanasy ? We should be allowed to interfere with the laws because we, the religious, know about morality". .

I'd even go as far as to assert that it is one of the few point where all religions agree: better a believer in even the worst "false" religion or cult than an atheist : The former is never as big a danger as the latter, who may instill doubt and reason, the worst ennemies of faith religious certainty.

[Max_mang]

Originally Posted by RSLancastr

And, to be fair, not all Christians do, just some.

Yet the one's that do often seem to be in leadership positions.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Max_mang

Yet the one's that do often seem to be in leadership positions.

And they're like drivers. The good ones are no problem, the bad ones are a hazard to everybody.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

And they're like drivers. The good ones are no problem, the bad ones are a hazard to everybody.

Unfortunately the bad drivers seem to be the ones driving the biggest buses.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by tsig

Unfortunately the bad drivers seem to be the ones driving the biggest buses.

Or their flippin' HOUSE. Those ranch-style homes going down I-44 make me a bit nervous. They seem to think they're in a SmartCar with a bit more room.

[xterra]

Robert,

Have you had any furter communication with or from the pastor or Jim?

Please keep us informed about what happens, especially on Sunday, when you might see them in church.

[RSLancastr]

Both, xterra.

I saw Pastor Jeff (who, by the way, is the Associate Pastor, which is, as I understand it, the most senior among several Assistant Pastors. Sort of the Vice Pastor, which is not to say, a Pastor of Vice) on Wednesday. I had gone to the church to volunteer in their library (some 10,000+ books) and was wandering the halls when Jeff came looking for me (word had evidently gotten out that the library was closed and that I was wandering the halls).

He found me in the CLC (Community Learning Center), perusing pamphlets about the missionaries church funds.

He knew that Susan was in her Women's Bible Study class for another hour, and asked me if he could gfet me some reading material to pass the time, or if we could continue our conversation from last week.

I wanted to discuss with him a point someone raised here, but could not remember what it was! (I remembered later: the post about someone who does not murder, etcetera, because they feared eternal punishment, was NOT being moral, but were simply acting out of self-interest, whereas someone (say, a non-believer) who does not murder, etc, because they believe it to be...I don't know...WRONG or something, WAS being moral.

But I remembered it too late for that conversation, and so told him that I was thinking of checking out Lee Strobel's The Case for the Creator (I had recently been loaned Strobel' The Case for Christ, but wanted to "start at the top", so to speak.

Jeff said that he thought he had a copy in his office, and if he didn't, he had the key to the library. I said that I would wait for him, and he left. He came back a few minutes later with a "Student Edition" of the book, which he loaned to me.

We then discussed Evolution and Creationism, and I told him about the FSM.

Susan came out of her class, and we headed for home.

I saw Jim (the teacher of the "Christian Worldview 101" class) at a dinner thrown for a couple who are moving out of the area after having attended this church for the past fifty years (have I mentioned that the church has existed, in various buildings, for 150+ years?).

I still do not think that Jim has read my email (quoted in the OP), or he would probably have mentioned it.

[xterra]

Well, DARN, Robert!

The post about who is moral and who is not, was from me. And here I had a chance for you to make me famous and you didn't cooperate.

As I have gotten older, I find that I need aides memoires; you might, too. I suggest that you jot down in a pocket-size notebook the things you want to discuss. In the case of my post, which can be found here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...63#post9007263

you could copy and paste it into a word-processing program and print it. (I just tried it, and the entire formatting copied over, including the bold text.)

I would be very interested in discovering what Jeff thinks of that argument.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Atheists do have an outside objective standard by which to define morality. It's called Science.

There are reams of explanations of the role of altruism and co-operation in nature, biology and evolution.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

But there are also reams of explanations and justifications for the role of sociopathy, killing the disabled and feeble-minded as well as cheating others for the benefit of your offspring.

Suffice to say, evolution isn't really a good source of morality.

True, but then neither is Christianity or the Bible.

Perhaps the argument that we all get our morality from society is the best one.

[RSLancastr]

Originally Posted by xterra

Well, DARN, Robert!

The post about who is moral and who is not, was from me. And here I had a chance for you to make me famous and you didn't cooperate.

Well, I did cut/paste that post (or perhaps I merely paraphrased it, I don't recall) into an email which I sent to Jeff several days ago. If/when he replies to it, I will paraphrase his response here.

Quote:

As I have gotten older, I find that I need aides memoires; you might, too. I suggest that you jot down in a pocket-size notebook the things you want to discuss.

I've been doing that for years. Problem nowadays is how to keep such notes with me, given my limitations, in such a way as to leave my one functioning hand free to steer my chair. I am hoping to get some sort of shirt/vest with lots of pockets where I can keep stuff handy.

I would have brought along even a two-or-three-word note, jotted down on my hand if neccesary, had I known I would run into Jeff that day, but I did not expect to.

[xterra]

Originally Posted by RSLancastr

[...]

I've been doing that for years. Problem nowadays is how to keep such notes with me, given my limitations, in such a way as to leave my one functioning hand free to steer my chair. I am hoping to get some sort of shirt/vest with lots of pockets where I can keep stuff handy.

I would have brought along even a two-or-three-word note, jotted down on my hand if neccesary, had I known I would run into Jeff that day, but I did not expect to.

Have you tried safari shirts, or photographer's vests? I recall that my brother had a vest with more pockets than any one person could possibly use.

ETA, You could buy a vest and have a tailor or seamstress add extra pockets.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

True, but then neither is Christianity or the Bible.

Perhaps the argument that we all get our morality from society is the best one.

Generally, science and reason is very good at informing morals - we know what the consequences of our actions are, and may act thereupon (information could, for instance, change one's stance on the Death penalty).

But it can't reach those underlying values. Not only what we desire and despise, but also how we manage the internal hierarchy of what we prefer to another thing, in endless combinations with frequently contradictory results.

A lot of the most vital things get cemented into society. Society, ultimately, determines what the value of many important things like a person's life are, and what the consequences of taking them away are.

But, every day we go on, every decision we make, is a significant moral value judgment. Why do you do this or that with your time and resources, instead of useful thing xyz, which someone thinks would be more moral of you? Well, because you value doing that stuff with your time more than you value the good done by useful thing xyz (You can take it to the extreme and say that one thing gives you a greater feeling of satisfaction than the other, and you'll decide to do the one that gives you the most).

It's tough stuff. Ultimately I think society should leave as much of it as possible up to the individual, without sacrificing the necessities.

[Minarvia]

Robert, do you think it is possible that Jeff did read your email and is not yet prepared to respond to it? Maybe he didn't want to acknowledge it at the time because he is still thinking of how to speak with you about it.

Unless he is VERY swamped (and, of course, that is quite possible), most people at least read their email even if they don't have the time to respond immediately.

Well, either way, I think he'll speak with you soon enough and likely enjoy the discussion. I personally enjoy challenging conversations and the viewpoints of others who are genuinely interested in the topic.

I

[RSLancastr]

Originally Posted by Minarvia

Robert, do you think it is possible that Jeff did read your email and is not yet prepared to respond to it? Maybe he didn't want to acknowledge it at the time because he is still thinking of how to speak with you about it.

I think it quite likely, Minarv.

Quote:

Unless he is VERY swamped (and, of course, that is quite possible), most people at least read their email even if they don't have the time to respond immediately.

Well, he IS pretty swamped (Susan volunteers in the church office and can attest to how incredibly swamped he is), but he does tend to respond to my emails within a day or two, and has responded to a few I sent AFTER the one he has yet to reply to, so perhaps he doesn't know what to say, or - more likely - perhaps he feels the reply is one which would be better made face-to-face rather than via email. (He seems to be more comfortable with in-person discussions, as are many people.

Well, either way, I think he'll speak with you soon enough and likely enjoy the discussion. I personally enjoy challenging conversations and the viewpoints of others who are genuinely interested in the topic.

I[/quote]

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

"Puts two naked teenagers in an amusement park with no chaperones. Then tells them to never, ever touch two trees He plonked down in the middle of the park. Guess what happened next? (The Angel with the flaming sword? That was a horse/barn door thing.)

Not to mention that it is a test with no win condition, only a 'lose' and infinite duration since they are meant to be immortal at this point. (I'm not sure if the bible gives any indication of how long they resist the lure of the fruit for before the big 'Gocha' moment?)

RSL- In terms of atheists not having the external fixed source of morality, have you asked him about the massive difference in OT and NT morality? Either OT rules still apply to Christians or God's absolute morality is changable.

[truethat]

I've often encountered this sort of sentiment but not in regards to "anger" but rather "morality and decency." I wrote a post about it a while ago, it's quite simplistic but I think it explains it well. Feel free to forward this to your instructor

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=245130

[RSLancastr]

At the next (and final) session of the "Christian Worldview 101" series of classes, a few inbteresting things happened.

First, Jim (the instructor) seemed much more open to my input during the class, and did not just brush off my questions.

This final session was devoted to examining the Christian worldview, using the same set of questions as we had used to examine the other world views.

The final question was "Is this world view livable?" (Meaning, evcidently, was it possible to actually live by that world view's precepts. In each of the preceeding sessions, as he led us through the questions for the other worldviews, Jim would answer the "Is it livable?" question with "No", and would give his reason as to why he felt they were not livable (usually some internal inconsistency he felt existed within that world view), and ending with him saying that he could not live that way (the other worldview).

So, when he answered that question for the Christian worldview, I was pleasantly surprised when he said "The Christian world view is not perfectly livable, as none of us can truly be perfect like Christ."

Then he added "...but we can definitely strive to live up to the Chrsitian worlview, so yes, it is livable".

My hand went up immediately, and he called on me. I said

Quote:

You've said that all of the other worldviews were not liveable. Now you say that the Christian world view isn't either, but that since we can "strive for" it, it is livable.

Don't you think there are people who are "striving" to live by those other world views? Wouldn't that make those worldviews "livable" by the same logic you just gave Christianity a free pass?

Also, if you think that your worldview is livable, don't you think people with other world views thihnk that theirs is livable too?

After a moment, he said that I was right, and dismissed the class after a prayer.

After the class, someone who I did not recognize came up to our table and gave a clipping from a magazine to someone at our table, whereupon it got passed around.

It was a cut-out of a one-panel comic from "Religion Today" magazine.

Titled "Heaven for Agnostics", it showed a man standing in front of the Pearly Gates, talking with Saint Peter.

Quote:

Man: So, do I get in or not?

St. Peter (shrugging his shoulders): Ya know, I'm not sure.

I don't know if the man brought it to our table because he had heard that I was Agnostic, or if he had just brought it to class because it was about a world view, and had just happened to start passing it around at our table, or what.

[Recovering Agnostic]

RSL, that was a really nice takedown. Nothing aggressive, just calling him out on his special pleading.

Originally Posted by RSLancastr

After the class, someone who I did not recognize came up to our table and gave a clipping from a magazine to someone at our table, whereupon it got passed around.

It was a cut-out of a one-panel comic from "Religion Today" magazine.

Titled "Heaven for Agnostics", it showed a man standing in front of the Pearly Gates, talking with Saint Peter.

Quote:

Man: So, do I get in or not?

St. Peter (shrugging his shoulders): Ya know, I'm not sure.

I don't know if the man brought it to our table because he had heard that I was Agnostic, or if he had just brought it to class because it was about a world view, and had just happened to start passing it around at our table, or what.

I hate this sort of thing, because it works on two levels. On the one hand, it's "just a joke", and to be fair, it's not the worst one I've ever heard. But on the other hand, it's pretty clear from the context that it's meant to be making a point. Did you say anything, or did you just ignore it?

[Brown]

I find it interesting that there is something referred to as "the Christian worldview," as if there were only one.

I submit you cannot find an agreed-upon "Christian worldview," no matter how that term may be defined, from denomination to denomination. Often you cannot find it if you go from church to church within a single denomination. You would also have no difficulty finding disagreements from congregant to congregant.

It has been claimed that "the Christian view" includes such notions as: the Bible is infallible and should be read in an entirely literal fashion; dark-skinned people are naturally inferior to light-skinned people; young-Earth creationism is valid science; governmental preference ought to be given to Christian religious symbols and practices; unbaptized people all are condemned to Hell without regard to any personal fault; the USA is a "Christian Nation"; global warming is a hoax; homosexuals are evil and cannot be good; the Almighty brings or allows disasters to teach people lessons; wealth is a sign of God's love; the metric system is satanic; and so on. There are people out there who deem themselves Christians who reject every single one of these propositions, but nevertheless, those who promoted this sort of stupidity and bigotry did so in the name of ALL Christians.

My guess is that your church rejects most of these propositions, or does not deem them to be integral to a "Christian worldview."

It is a fair inquiry, I think, to ask what the (or a) "Christian worldview" entails, since there seem to be so many damned definitions. The definition need not be exhaustive; a good start might be to ask for (say) ten principles that ought to be a part of a "Christian worldview."

And since the question is whether a "Christian worldview" is "livable," whatever principles are named must have an impact upon how people live their daily lives. Thus, a principle that "Jesus was born of a virgin" would not be a valid principle, since this belief has no effect on how reasonable people live their lives.

[RSLancastr]

Here is that magazine clipping:

[Filippo Lippi]

Looks like a passive-aggressive threat from the holier-than-thou brigade

[Brown]

One possible point of the cartoon is that it is better to have unquestioning faith than intellectual honesty. On that point of morality, I take serious issue.

There are other possible points to the cartoon, but some of them are even more morally objectionable: that we should mock those who are unfortunate or facing torment; that unbelievers justly deserve what's coming to them; that the Almighty is not compassionate nor merciful nor understanding; and so on.

[RSLancastr]

Although I think that the cartoon is meant to show that Agnostics will get their comeuppance, but I have a different, possibly a "glass-is-half-full" take on it:

The tite "Heaven For Agnostics" leaves it open to the interpretation that the cartoon shows a Heaven where EVERYONE (even St. Peter) is agnostic (meaning, "without knowledge") on something.

[Brown]

In a sense, the cartoon is a variation of an old joke:

Originally Posted by Brown

Old joke:

When a Unitarian dies, he doesn't go to heaven. Instead, he goes to a place where he learns about heaven.

Originally Posted by Brown

At one time, a very good friend was a Unitarian. She liked this joke: "When a Christian dies, he goes to heaven. When a Unitarian dies, he goes to a class to learn about heaven."

The take on "Heaven for Everyone" is charming, and I agree it would be more palatable in some respects. But I doubt that most Christian believers actually think there are multiple heavens. When push comes to shove, they tend to say that there is one and only one heaven, and they have an absolute monopoly on the proper way to get in. And everyone else goes to hell.

An agnostic sees insufficient evidence to believe in a deity or a heaven or a religion while on Earth, and cannot bring him/herself to believe a particular way in the absence of evidence (especially on a question of such importance). So when the agnostic dies, he finds that the Christians were right all along! NOW he has his evidence! But NOW it is too late. What eludes me is, WHY is it too late? What moral justification is there for saying that one cannot enter paradise because one honestly evaluated the evidence and found it unconvincing, yet formed a belief when the evidence was compelling?

What I'm leading up to here is that there could be a second panel to the cartoon, and the second panel might make a moral point.

For example: St. Peter laughs and swings open the gate, saying "I'm just messing with you, man! Go on in, everybody's welcome!"

Or, for example: St. Peter says, "Let's see, you didn't persecute anybody, you didn't start any religious wars, you didn't try to blame any of your own bigotry and faults on the Big Guy ... so yup, in you go!"

[iknownothing]

Originally Posted by RSLancastr

But I remembered it too late for that conversation, and so told him that I was thinking of checking out Lee Strobel's The Case for the Creator (I had recently been loaned Strobel' The Case for Christ, but wanted to "start at the top", so to speak.

Have you started reading it yet? It would be interesting to read your take on it.

I read one of those "Case for" books maybe 10 years ago. I was very much non religious at the time, but had a love/hate thing for listening to Christian talk radio. I heard it recommended so enthusiastically, by many different radio shows, I thought I'd try it. I really expected it to be...decent, at least.

I was surprised at how very, appalling bad all of the arguments were. Basically, IMO if Lee Strobel were to post here,he would embarrass himself badly. But like I say, I'd be interested in your take.

[RSLancastr]

Originally Posted by iknownothing

Have you started reading it yet? It would be interesting to read your take on it.

Not yet, unfortunately. My desk is a mess, and I think the book is buried in that mess somewhere...

When I do get around to reading it, I will most likely sdtart a thread about it here.

[RSLancastr]

This past Sunday evening, My Better Half and I attended a special presentation hosted by the church.

Titled "Christian Worldview: The Fall of Satan and the Fall of Man", it was a lecture given by a Dr. Bain, with whom we were not familiar.

Despit the "worldview" in the title, it was not related to the "Christian Worlview 101" sessions we had been attending.

We heard lots of positive things about the presenter, but were disappointed (especially me) in his presentation.

The next day I received the latest in a series of emails I had been recveiving from Pastor Mark (the church's senior Pastor). He had seen us at the presentation, and closed his email with this:

Quote:

So I hope you enjoyed last night. Is the problem of evil something you have
discussed much in your circles?

blessings to your day
Pastor Mark

Here is the portion of my reply concerning the above:

Quote:

<< So I hope you enjoyed last night. Is the problem of evil something you have
discussed much in your circles? >>

As for last night: I can't say that I enjoyed it, but I am glad that I went.

I felt that much of it was...intellectually dishonest. Not because of his conclusions/assertions, but because of the way that he presented them, by going rapid-fire through a series of steps which supposedly backed up his assertion, but which went by so fast that his audience did not have a snopwball's chancxe in Phoenix to absorb them, let alone consider them. This type of delivery is often a symptom of someone trying to force an ill-backed assertion past their audience.
And I found his "God did not create satan, He created Lucifer, who became Satan when he sinned" to be intellectually dishonest semantical games - at best.
Throwing in the bit about "you'd have trouble proving, aerodynamically, that a Bumblebee can fly" was also dishonest, I feel. It was a reference to a long-disproven Urban Legend which traveled in Christian circles ten or fifteen years ago, that it is scientifically unproveable tha a bumblebee can fly. This allowed Christians who believed this lie to snicker at the mean old scientists.
It was disproven years ago, and the fact that he would allude to it in his presentation does not speak well of him.

<<blessings to your day
Pastor Mark >>

Back atcha,
Congregant Robert

In a followup email I said this:

Quote:

Pastor Mark:

A bit more on why I felt Dr. Bain's "God did not create Satan, he created Lucifer, who BECAME Satan when he sinned" assertion to be intellectually dishonest semantic games at best:

If God created Lucifer, and if God knows everything that is going to happen, then God KNEW that he was creating a being who would become evil. Furthermore, it was evidently God's PLAN that evil come into existance, via Lucifer/Satan, because EVERYTHING happens according to God's Plan, right?

So, for Dr. Bain to try to distance God from creating Satan was, to my way of thinking, an intellectually dishonest attempt to resolve a thorny scriptural issue by using semantics.

-Robert Lancaster

[xterra]

Robert,

First, with respect to the cartoon, note that it contains an a priori assumption of a heaven, and equally a priori, that it is a Christian heaven. That by itself vitiates the point of the cartoon.

Second, Brown, in post #144, makes some valid criticisms even if one doesn't want to dismiss the cartoon on the grounds in my first point.

More importantly, it seems to me, for you to accept the discussion in the way Jeff or Jim present it is to concede part of the argument before it starts. Is Jeff willing to start from a clean slate -- to discuss whether there is a Prime Mover?

If he is not, why is he so sure (other than "The Bible tells me so") that his version of the Christian god is the right one -- or even that the basic Christian version is correct rather than the Norse or Foré or Navajo version?

In the end, if he says that he believes because he believes, you're justified in pointing out that people who don't believe have better arguments than he has.

xterra

[pgwenthold]

Robert has nicely pointed out a very common yet surprising apologetic approach - the implication of the impotence of God.

Expect a response that mumbles something about free will, but that has already been pre-empted nicely. Even if God cannot control Lucifer's choice to become Satan (begs the question, but whatever), the creation of Lucifer was not an issue of free will at all, unless you bury free will all the way down to the level of biology and the question of which sperm fertilizes the egg.

Of course, if controlling nature suddenly becomes an issue of violating free will, then all of a sudden, it becomes not so sacred anymore, because he has had no problem running around causing miracles to occur, which, by definition, are extra-natural.

It really is amazing how often you can find the impotent God excuse show up in xtian apologetics.

[RSLancastr]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

It really is amazing how often you can find the impotent God excuse show up in xtian apologetics.

shouldn't that be "xian? After all, it is "xmas", not "xtmas".

Side note:

I recently told my Men's Bible Study group that Christians should NOT take offense to the term "Xmas". It is NOT, as some persnickety Christians will say, "crossing out Christ". It is using "X" to represent the word "Christ", or actually, "XRISTOS", the Latin word for "Christ". It has been in use from at least as far back as the 1500s, some say as early as 100 AD) as can be seen in many religious depictions of the crucifixion, where a sign above Jesus' head reads "IXOYE" - an initialism wherein "IX" stands for "IESUS XRISTOS".

"IXOYE" stands for Latin for something like "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior".
It is also said that the "X" abbreviation for "Christ" was started by early Christians as a secret symbol for Christ, to avoid persecution (the same is sometimes said of the "fish" symbol), but I don't know that there is any credible evidence of this.

After I explained all of this, one of my classmates said "Well, I've always been told that it was "crossing out Christ", and we sghouldn't do it".

Another said "Yeah, most of us don't speak Latin!"

Oh well, I tried.

[Finster]

Originally Posted by RSLancastr

After I explained all of this, one of my classmates said "Well, I've always been told that it was "crossing out Christ", and we sghouldn't do it".

How Bizarre, I've never heard that before. I always figured it was just an abbreviation used out of laziness or an attempt to save space when writing.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by iknownothing

Have you started reading it yet? It would be interesting to read your take on it.

I read one of those "Case for" books maybe 10 years ago. I was very much non religious at the time, but had a love/hate thing for listening to Christian talk radio. I heard it recommended so enthusiastically, by many different radio shows, I thought I'd try it. I really expected it to be...decent, at least.

I was surprised at how very, appalling bad all of the arguments were. Basically, IMO if Lee Strobel were to post here,he would embarrass himself badly. But like I say, I'd be interested in your take.

I've read most of them. Taken in toto, they don't seem very honest. Each one is touted as "A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections", but each and every time the obvious questions go unasked and unanswered.

The books are clearly meant to reassure the faithful, or to make them confident that they could find within the answers to the doubts they have, but it's all softballs and cream puffs inside.

[Brown]

Originally Posted by RSLancastr

"IXOYE" stands for Latin for something like "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior".
It is also said that the "X" abbreviation for "Christ" was started by early Christians as a secret symbol for Christ, to avoid persecution (the same is sometimes said of the "fish" symbol), but I don't know that there is any credible evidence of this.

Actually, the "O" is a Greek theta, and the "E" is a Greek sigma. The word, spelled Iota Chi Theta Upsilon Sigma (ΙΧΘΥΣ), means "fish," but it is an acronym for "Jesus Christ, God, Son, Savior."

The oft-told story is that this acronym is part of the reason why the fish was one of the early symbols of Christianity.

That "X" refers to the cross, or to Christ, has a long history. Some illiterate non-Christians refused to use the "X" as their mark, because of the association with Christianity. There is even a story on Ellis Island that illiterate Jewish immigrants used a circle instead of an X to make their marks. The Yiddish word for "circle" is "kikel," and from this came the no-insult-intended reference to Jews as "kikes." (Those wonderful folks at Ellis Island supposedly also were responsible for labeling many Italian immigrants, who traveled to the USA without proper documentation, as "WOPs" (without papers).)

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Brown

Actually, the "O" is a Greek theta, and the "E" is a Greek sigma. The word, spelled Iota Chi Theta Upsilon Sigma (ΙΧΘΥΣ), means "fish," but it is an acronym for "Jesus Christ, God, Son, Savior."

The oft-told story is that this acronym is part of the reason why the fish was one of the early symbols of Christianity.

That "X" refers to the cross, or to Christ, has a long history. Some illiterate non-Christians refused to use the "X" as their mark, because of the association with Christianity. There is even a story on Ellis Island that illiterate Jewish immigrants used a circle instead of an X to make their marks. The Yiddish word for "circle" is "kikel," and from this came the no-insult-intended reference to Jews as "kikes." (Those wonderful folks at Ellis Island supposedly also were responsible for labeling many Italian immigrants, who traveled to the USA without proper documentation, as "WOPs" (without papers).)

You know, if that is true (no offense, but hey, you can't always trust "I read it on-line", even here; especially from a former Iowegian living in Canada...) then that is really interesting.

The immigrant issue is fascinating. For example, there are probably three or four variants of my last name in the US, but they all come from the same name in the old country. The only difference is how the immigration official wrote it down when the (illiterate) immigrant said it when they arrived. In principle, it's possible that brothers could end up having different last names in the US if they immigrated at different times (I'm not aware of that in my family, though)

[Brown]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

You know, if that is true (no offense, but hey, you can't always trust "I read it on-line", even here; especially from a former Iowegian living in Canada...) then that is really interesting.

Actually, I didn't read it on-line. It was part of a CBS report aired after Ellis Island reopened (which sources on-line--GAAAACK!--say was in 1990). The report was by Charles Osgood, if I remember right. Now, having said that, and having visited Ellis Island, there's a lot of stuff on the Island that is anecdotal and not necessarily reliable as history. The fact that something is read on-island doesn't necessarily make it so.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Brown

Actually, I didn't read it on-line.

Yeah, but I did

[RSLancastr]

Originally Posted by Brown

There is even a story on Ellis Island that illiterate Jewish immigrants used a circle instead of an X to make their marks. The Yiddish word for "circle" is "kikel," and from this came the no-insult-intended reference to Jews as "kikes." (Those wonderful folks at Ellis Island supposedly also were responsible for labeling many Italian immigrants, who traveled to the USA without proper documentation, as "WOPs" (without papers).)

Chrles Osgood or not, both stories sound very much like Urban Legends to me.

I'm going to check Snopes...

Can't find it there, but from dictionary.com:

kike/kaɪk/ Show Spelled [kahyk] Show IPA
noun Slang: Disparaging and Offensive.
a person of Jewish religion or descent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1900–05; of obscure origin; the popular belief that it derives from a Yiddish word for “circle” is dubious


wop/wɒp/ Show Spelled [wop] Show IPA
noun Slang: Disparaging and Offensive.
an Italian or a person of Italian descent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

slang , derogatory a member of a Latin people, esp an Italian

[C20: probably from southern Italian dialect guappo dandy, braggart, from Spanish guapo ]

wop 2 (wɒp)

— vb , — n , wops , wopping , wopped
a variant spelling of whop

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source
EtymonlineWord Origin & History

wop

derogatory for "Italian," 1912, Amer.Eng. slang, apparently from southern It. dialect guappo "dandy, dude, stud," a greeting among male Neapolitans, said to be from Sp. guapo "bold, dandy," which is from L. vappa "sour wine," also "worthless fellow;" related to vapidus (see vapid). Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

[xterra]

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
-----------------------

Pronunciation: /kaɪk/

Etymology: Said to be an alteration of -ki (or -ky), a common ending of the personal names of Eastern European Jews who emigrated to the U.S. at the turn of the 20th cent.

slang (orig. U.S.).

A vulgarly offensive name for a Jew. Also attrib. or as adj.


1904 R. L. McCardell Show Girl & Friends 49 And what do you think? He had the impudence to tell me that Louie Zinsheimer was a kike!

1912 McClure's Mag. 39 230/2 ‘It's a mascot, be-dad! Jam it, ye kike!’ screeched Tracy.

1919 F. Hurst Humoresque 211 A little red-haired kike like her!

1919 H. L. Mencken Amer. Lang. 115 An Englishman..knows nothing of our common terms of disparagement, such as kike..and rube.

1924 P. Marks Plastic Age xviii. 201 You go chasing around with kikes and micks.

1932 J. Dos Passos 1919 164 The little kike behind the desk had never been to sea.

1940 R. Stout Over my Dead Body vi. 84, I don't care if the background is wop or mick or kike..so long as it's American.

1956 D. Karp All Honorable Men 74 If you repeat that lie, I'll wring that skinny kike neck of yours with my own hands!

1963 V. Nabokov Gift iii. 179 My better half..was for twenty years the wife of a kike and got mixed up with a whole rabble of Jew in-laws.

1963 Spectator 21 June 815 He knocks down Stern's wife, calls her a kike.

1972 National Observer (U.S.) 27 May 17/3 When kikes are shrewd and dagos or wops are sly and murderous, it is only one step from the epithet to contempt.

------------------

To many (most?) Jews, the use of "Jew" as an adjective, as in the Nabokov quotation, is also offensive.