CINO: Christian in Name Only

[Higgins]

As in Nominal Christians or unchristian christians or small rather than BIG christians.

In one post over in the BIG christian area we hear:

"...one of the Holy Spirit's jobs is to prick our consciences and direct us. And He never condones anything contrary to the Word. Any "Christian" who could engage in promiscuity without regret I'd say is a CINO. And God knows we have a slew of those around these days."

Evidently a HUGE potential market: promiscous CINOs. Probably larger than all religious "markets" combined.

[nancy02664]

It's an intriguing idea, but how would one locate this market?

I'd imagine that anyone seeking out & reading something xian would be a little more than 'nominally' xian.

Are there any particular books or magazines for this group?

[veinglory]

I think there are 'we are the only true Christians' groups, and 'we are the only real atheists' groups.

I mean I am absolutely an atheist but my culture is partly Christian in a way that does not bother me. Many might consider my Xmas tree a Christian symbol, I own religious art and I have quite a collection of gospel music.

I think the majority of people fall into the 'don't really care' group, or, more sympathetically, the 'live and let live, pass the eggnog' group--they are focussed on their day to day stuff rather than trying to perfect their own spiritual position or express, spread or impose it on their world.

[nancy02664]

the 'live and let live, pass the eggnog' group

I like this group! Especially if the 'nog is spiked. :)

I'm thinking CINOs might be akin to people who are political moderates: there are pubs for liberals, pubs for conservatives, but I don't think there are too many (or any?) for middle-ground types.

I agree with veinglory--If a person doesn't strongly identify with one side or the other, I don't think they'd care enough about the issue to read about it in their spare time. (I could be wrong, of course, but this just seems logical to me.)

[Cathy C]

I think a lot of people believe in the inherent goodness of humans and rely on that faith in humanity regardless of the "tag" it's given. Therefore, it doesn't bother me at all to throw myself into the Christmas season. One of the best things with being agnostic is the fundamental skepticism that EVERYBODY is wrong about religion and that the real truth is somewhere in the middle. I put up lights and a tree, and some years you might find a Mennorah at our house. I enjoy giving at this time of year. I do "angel" gifts for Salvation Army and our local shelter, I pass money out to homeless folks to go get a good meal (not just change, but tens and twenties!) and leave anonymous gifts at women's shelters and food banks.

If people wish to believe that I'm all filled up with "Christian charity," that's up to them. I'd do the good stuff regardless of what label you give it. I'm probably one of those CINOs, since I was confirmed into the Lutheran church in my teens. But I don't follow that religion anymore. I've read too many things to believe that just one book holds all the answers. :)

[Higgins]

It's an intriguing idea, but how would one locate this market?

I'd imagine that anyone seeking out & reading something xian would be a little more than 'nominally' xian.

Are there any particular books or magazines for this group?

As a market this population of CINOs is not very well identified at all.

I was more intrigued with the idea of a CINO. How clearly could a BIG Christian ( a BIT, Big in Truth) spot them? Would a CINO know when they had "gone CINO?" Would it be when the Holy Ghost stopped giving backseat driving advice and just spiritually said "I give up, you are kind of evil, aren't you?"...Would it be when the Holy Ghost offered some obviously insane advice and the proto-CINO said, "Good God, that's crazy, I'd rather be a CINO than tell Mary Sue that the Holy Ghost told me to keep my pants on?" Would a real, honest-to-God CINO ever even know they were CINOs? Would somebody who said, "I'm a CINO and proud of it," actually have crossed the line into being an ex-CINO?

A HUGE but puzzling area of human behavior or even a market of sorts....? I'm not really sure about any aspect of CINO-iality.

[veinglory]

In my experience the more obvious sort of big Christian (and I mean big in-your-face in expression of faith, not experience of faith) will not spot a CINO or even an atheist. I have indeed had a ladies bemoaning atheism to me as a fellow 'good Christian woman'. I really dare not tell her the whole horrible truth LOL. What confuses me that I think my appearance (unkempt, vaguely gothic) would in fact avoid this kind of casual misidentification.

Of course the obvious sort of Big Christian is like the obvious sort of American tourist, not necessarily representative. And I have, on occassion (sometimes embarrassingly) assumed acquaitances of mine were atheist when they were not. I think we are a little inclined to take 'they must be like me' as a default position.

[Higgins]

In my experience the more obvious sort of big Christian (and I mean big in-your-face in expression of faith, not experience of faith) will not spot a CINO or even an atheist. I have indeed had a ladies bemoaning atheism to me as a fellow 'good Christian woman'. I really dare not tell her the whole horrible truth LOL. What confuses me that I think my appearance (unkempt, vaguely gothic) would in fact avoid this kind of casual misidentification.

Of course the obvious sort of Big Christian is like the obvious sort of American tourist, not necessarily representative. And I have, on occassion (sometimes embarrassingly) assumed acquaitances of mine were atheist when they were not. I think we are a little inclined to take 'they must be like me' as a default position.

When people are trying to be polite or sociable or both, they generally make the gesture of assuming you are like them.
I used to make the same mistake: I would assume that all men who looked like they would at least try to acquit themselves well in a brawl must be left-wing like me. I thought anyone missing a few teeth could not possibly be a right-winger. I learned eventually that this was not particularly true....though it is slightly truer than you might think.
As for Big Christians. I think they are hard to spot until they invite you to church. But maybe the invitation is a question? Maybe I should dress like Jonny Cash...oh wait that would be even more confusing.

[veinglory]

I have een thinking about this and it seems to me that most markets in the newsagents (outside of the porn and gay magazines) are already small 'c' Christian. That is, what I think of a 'culturally Christian'. Nothing tends to absolutely specific it but there are a lot of implicit cues and respect for the Christian mainstream. I mean, heck, I couldn't even make myself spell Christian with that small 'c'.

[Cath]

I believe religion has historically been a way of sharing values within a culture. A way of defining right and wrong, to put it simply.

Now, right and wrong is learned through other means - school, television, magazines, books, internet, etc - means that have only been available to all for a relatively short period of time. With greater exposure to other cultures, beliefs and religions, our ideas about what is and is not acceptable have changed and diversified significantly from those taught through some traditional belief systems.

I think there's a real clash between what's accepted by the church and what's accepted by the wider community - hence, perhaps, the emergence of these CINO's.

It's something I find fascinating - I'm an athiest, but I often write about exactly this kind of conflict with religious belief.

I like the idea of christian with a small "c". Might borrow that one, if you don't mind Veinglory.

[just_a_girl]

If you ask me many "christians" are CINOs. Especially those in younger age groups. Example: I recently had a temp job, and the girl in the cubicle next to me overheard a conversation between me and another worker where we were discussing Tarot card readings. She told me that we should stop discussing this within earshot of her b/c it offended her christian beliefs. The next day, however, I overheard a conversation between this girl and someone where they were gleefully discussing the show Sex & The City. I mean, they weren't condemning it as fornication, rather they were talking about how much they liked the show. I think CINOs are probably pretty easy to market to as long as you don't mention anything "Pagan" or blatantly anti-Christian.


As in Nominal Christians or unchristian christians or small rather than BIG christians.

In one post over in the BIG christian area we hear:

"...one of the Holy Spirit's jobs is to prick our consciences and direct us. And He never condones anything contrary to the Word. Any "Christian" who could engage in promiscuity without regret I'd say is a CINO. And God knows we have a slew of those around these days."

Evidently a HUGE potential market: promiscous CINOs. Probably larger than all religious "markets" combined.

[Higgins]

If you ask me many "christians" are CINOs. Especially those in younger age groups. Example: I recently had a temp job, and the girl in the cubicle next to me overheard a conversation between me and another worker where we were discussing Tarot card readings. She told me that we should stop discussing this within earshot of her b/c it offended her christian beliefs. The next day, however, I overheard a conversation between this girl and someone where they were gleefully discussing the show Sex & The City. I mean, they weren't condemning it as fornication, rather they were talking about how much they liked the show. I think CINOs are probably pretty easy to market to as long as you don't mention anything "Pagan" or blatantly anti-Christian.

I wonder how you would target that immense audience? Are they just like everybody else? Or do they need subliminal "Holy Ghostly" messages telling them that Sex and the City is Okay? In a CINO way?

[small axe]

I have indeed had a ladies bemoaning atheism to me as a fellow 'good Christian woman'. I really dare not tell her the whole horrible truth LOL.

What confuses me that I think my appearance (unkempt, vaguely gothic) would in fact avoid this kind of casual misidentification.


I would think you might give those people credit ...

But you seem to be expecting them to judge you (the inside content of your soul) by your mere outward appearance. ;)

I think that's sort of ... noble of them, what?

Like a friend ustah say ... "Jesus is coming back. And He is pierced."

************************************************** *************

As for the spelling "christian" and "god" with the small "c" and "g" ... I understand the thread/forum I'm in, okay? I get you're talking writing markets. I get that I'd be out-of-place bringing up personal beliefs here ...

I'll state the obvious, though: when a Christian caps those letters, they're not coming after anyone else's beliefs, or picking a fight, and they're spelling the words (when they mean Christ and God) the way they're generally spelled in the language.

Somebody spells them lower case ... and then wonders "why am I getting friction over that?"
They need to understand who's violating the cultural neutrality there, who's making it an issue.

I got jumped on for wishing someone a "Merry Christmas" innocently ... and that was them picking a fight, really. Because y'know ... all that means is I was putting out a friendly vibe, and they were living in a live-and-let-live culture where they weren't branded with a hot iron to let me know "don't wish me a Merry Christmas" :)

CINO that's a good one, though, I like that.

heehee :)

[Melisande]

In my experience the more obvious sort of big Christian (and I mean big in-your-face in expression of faith, not experience of faith) will not spot a CINO or even an atheist. I have indeed had a ladies bemoaning atheism to me as a fellow 'good Christian woman'. I really dare not tell her the whole horrible truth LOL. What confuses me that I think my appearance (unkempt, vaguely gothic) would in fact avoid this kind of casual misidentification.


Maybe this happens to you because of your general behaviour. Acting in a so called christian way can lead others to believe that you are a Christian.

I find that it seems completely incomprehensible to some Christians that atheists actually do possess qualities like good moral, compassion, empathy, generosity etc. (And to all you Christians browsing here, I ask you not to take this as an insult. It just happens to be something I have noticed in my own life throughout the years.)

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Maybe this happens to you because of your general behaviour. Acting in a so called christian way can lead others to believe that you are a Christian.

I find that it seems completely incomprehensible to some Christians that atheists actually do possess qualities like good moral, compassion, empathy, generosity etc. (And to all you Christians browsing here, I ask you not to take this as an insult. It just happens to be something I have noticed in my own life throughout the years.)






I admit, I used to be that way myself. But part of the reason for this was that I had never really had any experience with atheists ... aside from debating them about the existence of G-d, Noah's Ark, the Parting of the Red Sea, etc.

On the same token, I used to think all people who were kind and generous had to be Christians. I've since come to the understanding that however the person is inside, regardless of religion (or lack thereof) is going to have a more direct impact on how they act toward others.

As for CINO, I would say I used to be what Sokal calls in this thread a 'Big Christian' and then I converted to a religion having little to do with Christianity. When I wrote as a Big Christian, I wrote for the secular market (never actually published though, at least not through a legit house). From what I have seen, I find the market for a CINO would probably be found in the vast secular markets. Instead of trying to find them in religious markets, which tend to be focused on Big Religion, if I may use that term, perhaps looking for the market for CINOs would have more effect if sought in the secular world.

[Devil Ledbetter]

I find that it seems completely incomprehensible to some Christians that atheists actually do possess qualities like good moral, compassion, empathy, generosity etc.
This is why I opt to be an "out" atheist even though there are sometimes consequences for that. When we allow people to make a knee-jerk assumption that our decency means we're Christian, the bad assumptions about atheists continue unabated.

[Higgins]

Somebody spells them lower case ... and then wonders "why am I getting friction over that?"
They need to understand who's violating the cultural neutrality there, who's making it an issue.

:)

"Violating the cultural neutrality?" Is this a convention about caps or the latest expression of the ever-present possibility that the non-CINO Christians are going to join the Romulans and show us who really owns Zeta Reticulum?

Wow...the bad Star Trek episode flashbacks are starting to come back:

"All is in readiness Hainar. If the unbelievers the violate cultural neutrality again, they will be destroyed."

[veinglory]

Giving god a small g is as much of an issue as the readship choose to make it. Anyone who really gets incensed is the one with the problem IMHO. I am sure any diety that may exist isn't judging us primarily on our grammar.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Giving god a small g is as much of an issue as the readship choose to make it. Anyone who really gets incensed is the one with the problem IMHO. I am sure any diety that may exists isn't fjudging us primarily on our grammar.Heh. It's a tiny, impotent god who's threatened by a lower case letter.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Heh. It's a tiny, impotent god who's threatened by a lower case letter.


Or more likely, one of the said god's followers.

I would tend to agree that using a lower-case 'g' in the word 'god' is nothing. If the deity in question really is omnipotent, then it most certainly will be thinking about much more important things than the case of a letter.

Things like controlling the Universe and watching the world of Humanity try desperately to figure it out, (I say 'it' because I know some gods are female, and I wish to be inclusive of all deities in this statement) would be more worrisome to any god than spelliing a word with a lower-case 'g'.

I mean, if a god really is the master of all things, it could very easily correct the mistake in someone's life without its followers becoming angry about it.


I'm amazed. This attitude has been around throughout much of human history, and many of us (I admit I've been guilty of this myself) still don't get it.

:Shrug:

[Higgins]

I would tend to agree that using a lower-case 'g' in the word 'god' is nothing. If the deity in question really is omnipotent, then it most certainly will be thinking about much more important things than the case of a letter.

:Shrug:

I can understand a caps problem, what puzzles me is "violating the cultural neutrality"...as if we were in a very bad sci-fi novel and the non-CINO-Christians were threatening to join the Bug-eyed monsters and wipe us from the Galaxy. I know that is what they really are threatening, but they are usually a little more careful about exposing who their Alien Allies really are. And I don't mean the Romulans, I mean the the ones with the...criss-cross energy field: the Tholians. They are obsessed with capital letters.

[small axe]

Okay, before anyone (and reading it carefully, you understand that includes me) spins this into a major issue:

By "cultural neutrality" (and don't it just flow off the tongue like honey?) all I meant was: a situation where no one is trying to cross the line or infringe on anyone else's beliefs or practices.

I'd offer standard grammar or spelling as the example here (since my comment was about when to use lower case or capitalize): using the standard grammar of a language needs to say nothing about your race, your faith, your politics ... unless someone is using it to grind an axe (yeah, I get it: grind an axe/small axe :) )

We're WRITERS here, yes? So all I meant to do was to appeal to our knowledge of standard American use: "God" versus "god"

I'll leave it at that.

People bothered to "correct" my spelling of the word "Atheist" (that it doesn't get the big A)

People usually get around to complaining about how I enjoy emphasis of words (well, some words if not all)

So yeah, that was something I said: people who insist on using "christian" or "god" where the standard American english would suggest "Christian" and "God" are politicizing their spelling where the Christians capping things are just ... being standard.

If I'm mistaken in my interpretation of how Christian is spelled, correct me.

Seriously, I'm asking a question as a writer here too. "God" refers to a specific being (whether you believe or not, just as when I write Zeus I'm not worshipping Zeus, I'm just capping a name) that "god" doesn't.

If my atheist girl (in another thread, we need not point to it) were arguing against the existence of God, I'd still be spelling it God, so we know she means God and not one of many false gods.*

Any takers?

Somebody here spells "God" as G-d ... in the interest of sisterhood I'd point out that atheists can write it "G-d" and no one will really think twice (because G-d can either be you not speaking God's name due to either RESPECT or DISDAIN. If it bothers you to let people think either ... maybe that proves my point about crossing the neutrality)

But again: I was only saying I think discussing the Christian God and spelling the proper name "god" is ... just poor use of lower case, as a point of writing.

If a school teacher ever told you that "god" gets capitalized according to use, I don't think you were being religiously oppressed.

I think she was remaining culturally neutral.

No need to take sides (or be assigned sides) in an unnecessary war. Neutral.

* It's an interesting dilemma for me, what the phrase "false Gods" might mean. :) If I read that by itself ... without context ... I'd wonder what the writer means.

[small axe]

Or more likely, one of the said god's followers.

I'd use that as an example of the vagueness I'm talking about, caused by the failure to cap.

"One of God's followers" isn't the same message as "one of god's followers"

Even adding "the" or "the said god" makes the reader have to refer to other places to pin down the meaning. I understand it's a comment in context with other comments ... but "God" is a specific god, where "god" isn't.

Boy, you got yer god followers who are taught to turn the other cheek, and you got the god followers who are taught to cut out the tongue of the blasphemer and feed the blood to the idol of the sun.

Who wants to get confused and insult the wrong crowd of god followers?! :D

[Melisande]

If I am referring to a specific god I tend to capitalize out of respect, not for the god, but for the followers of that faith. If I write in general terms about a god, I do not, because it can mean any god.

Same with followers of a faith. I would capitalize and write f.i. Muslim, or Christian, but would prefer not to capitalize using the word as a verb, i.e. like "...in the muslim or christian way...".

On the same token I would use this way of capitalizing almost any kind of labelling; Liberal / liberal way etc.

To me the capital letter simply represents a way for me to show that I respect people.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

If I am referring to a specific god I tend to capitalize out of respect, not for the god, but for the followers of that faith. If I write in general terms about a god, I do not, because it can mean any god.

Same with followers of a faith. I would capitalize and write f.i. Muslim, or Christian, but would prefer not to capitalize using the word as a verb, i.e. like "...in the muslim or christian way...".

On the same token I would use this way of capitalizing almost any kind of labelling; Liberal / liberal way etc.

To me the capital letter simply represents a way for me to show that I respect people.


That makes some good sense. I never really stopped to think words like 'Christian' and 'Liberal' could be written out without caps. But putting it the way you do, I can see now that they can be and possibly should be if only for the sake of grammar.

I have some serious thinking to do about how I capitalize my words. I hope you have a good evening.

:)

[small axe]

And, not to deflate anyone's zeppelin ... but I doubt anyone even suggested God cares how anyone spells His name.

(Actually, I think tradition says we're not even supposed to write it or speak it. I knew some Jewish kids who weren't supposed to even say "God" in English, and they knew the actual name in Hebrew) :)

[Higgins]

By "cultural neutrality" (and don't it just flow off the tongue like honey?) all I meant was: a situation where no one is trying to cross the line or infringe on anyone else's beliefs or practices.

If my atheist girl (in another thread, we need not point to it) were arguing against the existence of God, I'd still be spelling it God, so we know she means God and not one of many false gods.*

Any takers?


No need to take sides (or be assigned sides) in an unnecessary war. Neutral.


CINOs are the only true Neutrals. We get it from all sides. We are the majority in the US, but we have no rights. Our God-given inability to respect Christianity as it should Be is not respected. The atheists don't care about us and the Christians are going to have the Tholians transport us to a Distant Galaxy. We CINOs value neutrality above all else and yet when we wonder about "violating the cultural neutrality"....all we hear about is the fantasy athiests (naked in a bathtub in some scenarios described in the thread we "need not" point to) ie the "My athiest girl" mentioned above...

Sure the War is unnecessary even if we have to "violate the cultural neutrality" to avoid being shipped off to another Galaxy.

[Melisande]

CINOs are the only true Neutrals. We get it from all sides. We are the majority in the US, but we have no rights.


Oh, I think you are wrong when you say that CINO:s have no rights. You have the same right as anybody to defend your faith, and to express it. Question is, do you feel a need to missionary? If so, you need to accept being jumped on from all sides.

[veinglory]

Imagine a militant CINO.

Then again I couldn't really imagine a militant atheist and have now met several. Not a pleasant experience but at least it got rid of misconceptions that PLM (people like me) were all tolerant and non-hating.

[Higgins]

Oh, I think you are wrong when you say that CINO:s have no rights. You have the same right as anybody to defend your faith, and to express it. Question is, do you feel a need to missionary? If so, you need to accept being jumped on from all sides.

I'm not expecting any missionary efforts, exactly...quite the reverse.

In fact, I am thinking about writing a screenplay where a CINO girl confronts a
CINO boy with his laxity in finding out how Tholian Capitalization really works:

CINO GIRL: If you really thought the Tholians cared about capitalization all the science in the world would not be able to verify that you were wrong.
CINO BOY: Do the Tholians have an Alphabet? What if it starts with Z?
CINO GIRL: Do you really think the Tholians might have a backward Alphabet?
CINO BOY: Maybe its a ZetaYipsilon?
CINO GIRL: But they would still have Integers and Prime Numbers.
CINO BOY: And yet they may be as reluctant to use negative exponents as I am.
CINO GIRL: You are a coward, a C. O. W. A. R. D. coward.
CINO BOY: They may not be as good at spelling as you are.
CINO GIRL (sad): We will be sad when the Christians have us transported to the Tholian's Labor Camps for not thinking about God properly.
CINO BOY (sadder): I know I will be sad when I am transported to the Tholian Labor Camps.
CINO GIRL (even sadder): I know I will be sad if I heard that you were transported to a Tholian Labor Camp.
CINO BOY (the saddest): I would be even sadder if I heard that you had been transported to a Tholian Labor Camp.

So I guess things could be worse in this sad, unnecessary war.

[Higgins]

Imagine a militant CINO.

Then again I couldn't really imagine a militant atheist and have now met several. Not a pleasant experience but at least it got rid of misconceptions that PLM (people like me) were all tolerant and non-hating.

I tried, but it looks like the CINOs are doomed to be transported to the Tholian Labor Camps.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

It's interesting you should mention CINOs not having any rights in the U.S., Sokal. I used to listen to Christian radio and television, and I remember statements by Big Christians that basically say when the Founding Fathers said, "Freedom of Religion" and "Freedom of Speech", they were referring specifically to "Freedom of Big Christian Religion" and "Freedom of Big Christian Speech". Then the same people will say because that's how the Founding Fathers saw what they were saying, the United States has no right to believe its Constitutional Bill Of Rights means anything other than Pro-Big-Christianity when it gives the rights it gives.

So neither your faith nor mine would, according to some Big Christians, even be legal in the United States because the Bill of Rights refers only to Big Christians ... supposedly.

:rolleyes:

[Higgins]

It's interesting you should mention CINOs not having any rights in the U.S., Sokal. I used to listen to Christian radio and television, and I remember statements by Big Christians that basically say when the Founding Fathers said, "Freedom of Religion" and "Freedom of Speech", they were referring specifically to "Freedom of Big Christian Religion" and "Freedom of Big Christian Speech". Then the same people will say because that's how the Founding Fathers saw what they were saying, the United States has no right to believe its Constitutional Bill Of Rights means anything other than Pro-Big-Christianity when it gives the rights it gives.

So neither your faith nor mine would, according to some Big Christians, even be legal in the United States because the Bill of Rights refers only to Big Christians ... supposedly.

:rolleyes:

Odd that this keeps coming up. In the early congregational polities of New England, landholding was linked to whether you had a conversion experience that the elders of the congregation approved of...naturally as young men grew up and wanted to have their own farms...oddly enough the elders almost never approved of their conversion experiences and the younger generation never got any land within what the congretation controlled so they had to start new farms and either get along with the Indians or fight them as they pushed out to get land. These Intrepid CINOs were forced into the Frontier and that's the story.

[Melisande]

I'm not expecting any missionary efforts, exactly...quite the reverse.

In fact, I am thinking about writing a screenplay where a CINO girl confronts a
CINO boy with his laxity in finding out how Tholian Capitalization really works:

CINO GIRL: If you really thought the Tholians cared about capitalization all the science in the world would not be able to verify that you were wrong.
CINO BOY: Do the Tholians have an Alphabet? What if it starts with Z?
CINO GIRL: Do you really think the Tholians might have a backward Alphabet?
CINO BOY: Maybe its a ZetaYipsilon?
CINO GIRL: But they would still have Integers and Prime Numbers.
CINO BOY: And yet they may be as reluctant to use negative exponents as I am.
CINO GIRL: You are a coward, a C. O. W. A. R. D. coward.
CINO BOY: They may not be as good at spelling as you are.
CINO GIRL (sad): We will be sad when the Christians have us transported to the Tholian's Labor Camps for not thinking about God properly.
CINO BOY (sadder): I know I will be sad when I am transported to the Tholian Labor Camps.
CINO GIRL (even sadder): I know I will be sad if I heard that you were transported to a Tholian Labor Camp.
CINO BOY (the saddest): I would be even sadder if I heard that you had been transported to a Tholian Labor Camp.

So I guess things could be worse in this sad, unnecessary war.

I believe that a sense of humor can help us survive even a Tholian labor camp. Maybe, after having successfully survived it, you would have learned the Tholian ZetaYpsilon well enough to convince the poor earthlings, once you returned, that the error of their ways wasn't being able to figure out who the proper "god" was, but the proper way to capitalize His/Her name.

[small axe]

So neither your faith nor mine would, according to some Big Christians, even be legal in the United States because the Bill of Rights refers only to Big Christians ... supposedly.
:rolleyes:

Nor mine. At least not my freedom to express it.


But perhaps where others here see "Theists" as one big united group (whether actively "out to get you" or just indifferent to you to the point of failing to leave your seat at the table for you) ...

I have the luxury of seeing other Believers as nothing more "boogeyman" or no more threatening than ... other Americans with the right to vote.

I may not agree with othe Americans.
I may disagree how they vote.
I may fear who they elect and how those officials start wars (or fail to threaten war to stop worse things from happening)

But we share the same rights, and as long as we protect the same rights we're on the same side.

My point being: OK, so someone is saying something you disagree with, so balance the scales, express the counterpoint.

Here's my concern, though: Non-believers balance the scales when they understand that "Big Christians" represent only a certain (smaller) percentage of the folks you may be alienating by using the phrase "Big Christians."

If you (and by "you" lets all understand I mean the general "someone" not "you personally") shove a "Big" number of people over to the OTHER side of the scales, when they didn't want to be there ... you're the one who just screwed up the scale measurement, and made it a few of one versus many of the other.

If you put ME on the side of the bigots and the fundies (and those aren't the same group) ... that's a mistake. But it's your mistake. Because then I'd be looking at YOUR (again, no one here, personally) false assumptions and intolerance versus THEIR false assumptions and intolerance.

I'll tell you the side I'd choose then, BECAUSE you've made me choose.

THEIR side. Because I know I can appeal to THEIR deepest loyalty (it may be hard, I may have to dig deep, but I know it's there) -- The Sermon On The Mount. "Xtian Compassion" and "Xtian Forgiveness"

What do I know about the other guys? You shoved me away, you FORCED me onto the opposit side of the scale, you made me your enemy, you don't even want to allow that the GOOD thing I see findable in them is findable in ME.

See? That's not good. Even here in this thread, people are acknowledging that the "CINO" shouldn't be the enemy, need not be the enemy.

"Big Christians" sounds like needless name-calling. It sounds like it to (maybe, but imo) ALL Christians (and by that maybe I mean: You're a Christian if it pisses you off to hear Christians defamed. Like you're an American if it pisses you off to hear anti-America hate speech. It may not need logic, it just is, if it pisses you off)

C'mon: there's a difference whether I call atheists "atheists" or if I call them "godless" right?

Writers understand the power of words, the shaded meanings of words.

The orators of your enemies sure as heck do.

I realize the thread I'm in, that maybe very few worry about "Big Christians" as a word choice here. Cool.

I'm referring to the world. :)

Let your allies be your allies ... don't drive them into the enemy's camp if you don't have to.

If you're in a fist fight with another guy, and there's ten people standing around watching, and they just figure "those two must have a beef, but we don't need to choose sides ... let them work it out"

Only a fool insults the other ten people so now they have to choose sides, okay?

I'm not here to worry about who spells "God" with a cap or not (though I pointed out an issue, sure) ...

Others have taken issue with me over how I refer to "atheists" or with my "assumptions" about atheists ... so lemme play too.

"Big Christians" ... maybe that's not a neutral term, maybe that's a little loaded?

I said I got a tickle from "CINO" ... but even that's sort of ... throwing a label in somebody's face. Do you mean to goad a CINO into acting like ... something else? Do you WANT to make them put on another uniform?

(In defference to the Mods, let me warn the reader: the following is for dramatic illustration only, not an insult to anyone here or in general)

"Hey, Jew-boy! Are you a Good Jew? Are you a real Jew? A BIG Jew?!"
Is that gonna get a good response ... or offend someone who really wasn't not getting along with you until you challenged him?

[Melisande]

"Big Christians" ... maybe that's not a neutral term, maybe that's a little loaded?


Dear small axe

Please allow me to put a word in here. Even though I am a non-believer, I DO understand the need for people to relate to other people of their own conviction. I also think that the abbrevation CINO would sort of explain to non-believers, like me, that there is a large group out there who believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings, but do not necessarily feel an urge to conform to a specific religion (read church, if you like). The various reasons for this I will leave to the believers.

I myself, as a non-believer in Christ, still have an enormous respect for his teachings. That doesn't make me a CINO, though, because I am not even sure that He ever existed. I DO, however, think, that no matter who wrote the gospels, they represent a way of thinking that I can agree with.

Sometimes I imagine that the large group of CINO:s that is actually out there, have come to a conclusion not unlike mine, but they also prefer to believe that Christ has walked the Earth. And they choose to admit it.

I honestly think that the wording "Big Christian" is used here to describe the sort of fundamental Christian that one might find in for instance the Catholic church; someone who is so convinced he/she has all the answers that anything else sounds blasphemous. Or even the kind of Christian that feel the oh so annoying need to hit one over the head with the Bible at any moment.

To me it ulimately boils down to respect. Matthew 5-7 shows very clearly what I mean.

I have the luxury of seeing other Believers as nothing more "boogeyman" or no more threatening than ... other Americans with the right to vote.

Then why are you so insistent? What are you afraid of?

[Higgins]

Here's my concern, though: Non-believers balance the scales when they understand that "Big Christians" represent only a certain (smaller) percentage of the folks you may be alienating by using the phrase "Big Christians."



Alienating them? From the Tholians so that they turn Romulan?

Alienating them from what? So that they do what? Capitalize EVERYTHING?
send even people who ever associated with any CINOs to the Tholian Labor Camps? Invent a new category of deviance (bad CINOS or BINOS?)?

[Higgins]

If you put ME on the side of the bigots and the fundies (and those aren't the same group) ... that's a mistake. But it's your mistake. Because then I'd be looking at YOUR (again, no one here, personally) false assumptions and intolerance versus THEIR false assumptions and intolerance.

I'll tell you the side I'd choose then, BECAUSE you've made me choose.

THEIR side. Because I know I can appeal to THEIR deepest loyalty (it may be hard, I may have to dig deep, but I know it's there) -- The Sermon On The Mount. "Xtian Compassion" and "Xtian Forgiveness"

What do I know about the other guys? You shoved me away, you FORCED me onto the opposit side of the scale, you made me your enemy......

Now what are you supposed to be? You're offended because you are a CINO not a Big Christian and we've turned you into a Big Christian against your better judgement? Haven't we technically saved you? Given you the Big Christian Salvation that you refused to accept at the all-forgiving hands of something Bigger than even a Big thing? I mean, this really is BIG...you've been unintentionally rescued from sin by we the Ungodly.
Now I know that -- as the Ungodly -- we are not supposed to be able to extend salvation, but call it a lucky accident and thank your new-found enemies for saving your Big soul.

[Higgins]

See? That's not good. Even here in this thread, people are acknowledging that the "CINO" shouldn't be the enemy, need not be the enemy.

"Big Christians" sounds like needless name-calling. It sounds like it to (maybe, but imo) ALL Christians (and by that maybe I mean: You're a Christian if it pisses you off to hear Christians defamed. Like you're an American if it pisses you off to hear anti-America hate speech. It may not need logic, it just is, if it pisses you off)

C'mon: there's a difference whether I call atheists "atheists" or if I call them "godless" right?

Writers understand the power of words, the shaded meanings of words.

The orators of your enemies sure as heck do.

I realize the thread I'm in, that maybe very few worry about "Big Christians" as a word choice here. Cool.

I'm referring to the world. :)

Let your allies be your allies ... don't drive them into the enemy's camp if you don't have to.

If you're in a fist fight with another guy, and there's ten people standing around watching, and they just figure "those two must have a beef, but we don't need to choose sides ... let them work it out"

Only a fool insults the other ten people so now they have to choose sides, okay?

I'm not here to worry about who spells "God" with a cap or not (though I pointed out an issue, sure) ...

Others have taken issue with me over how I refer to "atheists" or with my "assumptions" about atheists ... so lemme play too.

"Big Christians" ... maybe that's not a neutral term, maybe that's a little loaded?


Okay, so let me get this straight. You are a CINO, expelled from all human goodness and whatnot by the Righteous and wandering the earth in search of ten people who will just let you fight about something ( capital letters, Big Christians, loaded terms, "the violation of cultural neutrality" that seems to have something to do with the imaginary Atheists you see everywhere) and who is the imaginary enemy? Sometimes it's you, sometimes it's not...and in what way are there enemies? Is this still the Tholian Labor Camp thing? I mean we the REAL CINOS, the STRICT CINOs have accepted all that....we are not afraid, we know the Big Christians have Alien Allies and that we are doomed. It's written in the word of the LORD that Aliens will help the Righteous send the CINOs to Tholian Labor Camp....and so on...and yet apparently you were our one chance not to have all this happen. Well, maybe you are a good CINO since by your inaction and laxity you have lost our only chance at avoiding all of that imaginary stuff.

[veinglory]

So will the Big Christian and the Big Atheist battle against a Tokyo skyline while poor CINO (wearing white gloves) looks on?

[Higgins]

Let your allies be your allies ... don't drive them into the enemy's camp if you don't have to.

(snippp)


I said I got a tickle from "CINO" ... but even that's sort of ... throwing a label in somebody's face. Do you mean to goad a CINO into acting like ... something else? Do you WANT to make them put on another uniform?

(In defference to the Mods, let me warn the reader: the following is for dramatic illustration only, not an insult to anyone here or in general)

"Hey, Jew-boy! Are you a Good Jew? Are you a real Jew? A BIG Jew?!"
Is that gonna get a good response ... or offend someone who really wasn't not getting along with you until you challenged him?


Hmmmm...maybe the Tholian Labor camps are not going to be quite as humane as we CINOs were hoping. All this being forced into camps and goaded and putting on uniforms and indulging in a little exemplary fascist nastiness seems to suggest the Tholian Labor Camps might be kind of rough.

[Higgins]

So will the Big Christian and the Big Atheist battle against a Tokyo skyline while poor CINO (wearing white gloves) looks on?

Luckily, I'm writing a screenplay where a Bad CINO girl (BINO) has a serious talk with a Good CINO boy (GINO):

GINO: I hope at least some of us survive the Tholian Labor Camps.
BINO: You seem to have rather optimistic view.
GINO: I was just hoping maybe a few of us would make it out alive.
BINO: Face the facts: No one has ever come back from a Tholian Labor Camp
GINO: (putting on his white gloves) I hope whoever does the dubbing for my part sounds really masculine.
BINO: (escaping in a pod): I hope this pod works.

[Melisande]

So will the Big Christian and the Big Atheist battle against a Tokyo skyline while poor CINO (wearing white gloves) looks on?

The Big Christian will carry a banner, the Big Atheist pretend to read it, and the CINO will watch the Tokyo skyline crumble and fall because a giant Tsunami just happend to hit the shore, the whiteness of his gloves intact, but I can hear all three of them mumbling something like "It was sooo much better in the Tholian Labor Camp, because there at least I got the chance to use the bathroom twice a day."

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Odd that this keeps coming up. In the early congregational polities of New England, landholding was linked to whether you had a conversion experience that the elders of the congregation approved of...naturally as young men grew up and wanted to have their own farms...oddly enough the elders almost never approved of their conversion experiences and the younger generation never got any land within what the congretation controlled so they had to start new farms and either get along with the Indians or fight them as they pushed out to get land. These Intrepid CINOs were forced into the Frontier and that's the story.


That I did not know. It kind of sheds a new light on the whole Rights issue. I wonder what would have happened if such a young man among them decided to convert to a totally different religion or to an atheist standpoint?

This is the kind of stuff that bothers me about Big Religion in general. If a particular religion becomes the State Religion, then basically the government has every right to take away the freedoms of and even threaten with legal action, those of different beliefs. I am always afraid when people start talking about how Big Christianity is the only right religion for the United States, because if any religion becomes the official religion of a nation, the rest of the people will not only be alienated, but heavily persecuted.

[Melisande]

This is the kind of stuff that bothers me about Big Religion in general. If a particular religion becomes the State Religion, then basically the government has every right to take away the freedoms of and even threaten with legal action, those of different beliefs. I am always afraid when people start talking about how Big Christianity is the only right religion for the United States, because if any religion becomes the official religion of a nation, the rest of the people will not only be alienated, but heavily persecuted.

I think that there is more to a nation, any nation, than religion alone. There is also politics, economics and so on. No nation is created through religion, even though some people gladly identify some nations by religion.

Considering the fact that economy and power (especially personal power and economy) historically has proven to be a recognizable force in politics, and also the fact that religion is often being used as a tool to gain the other two important parts of superiority, I wouldn't worry too much.

Religion (in my very own opinion) will only have a distinguished place in a state, when it suits the holders of power.

[small axe]

So will the Big Christian and the Big Atheist battle against a Tokyo skyline while poor CINO (wearing white gloves) looks on?

Well, they're wasting their time fighting each other ... because it's Big Brother and Big Oil that's dragging their world down into rubble. :D

Sokal can do whatever Trekkie riffs he wants. I'll stand by my sincere suggestion that little is gained by alienating the potentially tolerant Middle (those not interested in either extremist position) ...

I understand the definition some think they've drawn with "Big Christian" ... and I'm suggesting how it may sound like fighting words to people not looking for a fight. it makes 'em wonder "Are THEY picking a fight? Did THEY just insult my deeply-held position?"

What does anyone here gain by even making them wonder?

Same question goes with CINO:
Are you challenging them that they're not being "Christian enough" ???

Because that may not push them in the direction you think they should go. That LABEL might push them into the sway of ... um ... the extremists.

"In name only" might sound derisive.

Tolerant "in name only" ... Giving "in name only" ... Justice seeking "in name only" ...

Do you want to suggest the Tolerance, Giving, and Justice they show you isn't "enough" for you?

(And you were saying the CINO were acceptable, right? They're not the ones coming after you, forcing religion into Govt. or schools etc, right? They're the cool moderate ones?)

But being CINO ... that wasn't enough for you? That's not "real" enough, that's "in name only" ???

You'll be pushing them AWAY from their moderation, that's my concern.

But ... guys ... why should I care?
Why should I bother to suggest you're offending them, and shooting yourselves in the foot?

:Shrug:

In a world where too many people label others needlessly ... Have fun with your labels.

"Big Christian" ...
CINO ...

Tholian websturbation. :)

Knock yerselves out.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I think that there is more to a nation, any nation, than religion alone. There is also politics, economics and so on. No nation is created through religion, even though some people gladly identify some nations by religion.

Considering the fact that economy and power (especially personal power and economy) historically has proven to be a recognizable force in politics, and also the fact that religion is often being used as a tool to gain the other two important parts of superiority, I wouldn't worry too much.

Religion (in my very own opinion) will only have a distinguished place in a state, when it suits the holders of power.


True, but what I'm saying is, if any particular religion becomes the state official religion, people of other persuasions will most likely be persecuted, if not by the government then by the religious institutions that are endorsed by the country, themselves.

I know the idea, for instance, of Freedom of Speech (especially when used by Big Christianity) is a lopsided ideal. Whenever a religious group such as a Big Christian one, uses the term 'Freedom of Speech' positively, it's always in connection to their persuasion. But when it comes to someone else's persuasion, the right to Freedom of Speech is limited in their viewpoint.

My worry is, if such an endorsement of one persuasion above another became official law in a particular nation, people with other persuasions would suffer consequences because they do not hold to the official state ideal. Like what Sokal pointed out, so persecution of individuals with different ideals could still very easily be put down, if not by the state, then by the religious authorities that are endorsed by the state.

[Higgins]

What does anyone here gain by even making them wonder?

Same question goes with CINO:
Are you challenging them that they're not being "Christian enough" ???

Because that may not push them in the direction you think they should go. That LABEL might push them into the sway of ... um ... the extremists.

"In name only" might sound derisive.

Tolerant "in name only" ... Giving "in name only" ... Justice seeking "in name only" ...

Do you want to suggest the Tolerance, Giving, and Justice they show you isn't "enough" for you?

(And you were saying the CINO were acceptable, right? They're not the ones coming after you, forcing religion into Govt. or schools etc, right? They're the cool moderate ones?)

But being CINO ... that wasn't enough for you? That's not "real" enough, that's "in name only" ???

You'll be pushing them AWAY from their moderation, that's my concern.

But ... guys ... why should I care?
Why should I bother to suggest you're offending them, and shooting yourselves in the foot?

:Shrug:

In a world where too many people label others needlessly ... Have fun with your labels.

"Big Christian" ...
CINO ...

Tholian websturbation. :)

Knock yerselves out.

It's very odd that whatever people say you hear it all in the exact same way. You assume that everthing is intended to be a negative label if it is applied by the ungodly and you assume that all things done by the godly are seen as bad by the ungodly. The fact is that your basic way of categorizing things so that everything is a flipside of Godly Christianity is just going to lead you into endless confusion whenever you go outside of Godly Christianity.

[veinglory]

Obviously the way to win this one is with a label gun. Who needs flamethrowers! The pen truly is mighter!

[Cathy C]

Did I miss something where Scientology keeps getting shoved into this conversation? I don't particular care, mind you, but I feel like :Wha:

[Higgins]

What does anyone here gain by even making them wonder?

Same question goes with CINO:
Are you challenging them that they're not being "Christian enough" ???

Because that may not push them in the direction you think they should go. That LABEL might push them into the sway of ... um ... the extremists.

"In name only" might sound derisive.

Tolerant "in name only" ... Giving "in name only" ... Justice seeking "in name only" ...

Do you want to suggest the Tolerance, Giving, and Justice they show you isn't "enough" for you?

(And you were saying the CINO were acceptable, right? They're not the ones coming after you, forcing religion into Govt. or schools etc, right? They're the cool moderate ones?)

But being CINO ... that wasn't enough for you? That's not "real" enough, that's "in name only" ???

You'll be pushing them AWAY from their moderation, that's my concern.



CINOs are acceptable? What possible point would there be in being CINO if it were acceptable? Obviously the CINO phenomenon (if I can use that word for something unacceptable...and note the ruthless use of the subjunctive in the previous sentence) is unacceptable from every possible point of view.

[oscuridad]

If you put ME on the side of the bigots...

I think they should take all the bigots and ship them back to wherever they came from.

[veinglory]

CINO looks pretty acceptable to me. From a distance it looks like the Christian norm, right?

[Higgins]

CINO looks pretty acceptable to me. From a distance it looks like the Christian norm, right?

So true and yet so paradoxical.

There is more in CINO than is dreamed of in the Doxology.

Here beginneth the Wikkipedia (cue Monteverdi and remember the Shema of the Hebrews, our Heroic Instructors in the Heart of JeHoVaH):

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et in semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen. Glory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_%28religion%29) be to the Father (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father), and to the Son (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus), and to the Holy Ghost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit). As it was in the beginning, is now, and always, to the ages of ages. Amen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen). As well as praising God, has been regarded as a short declaration of faith in the co-equality of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Trinity).
"Saecula saeculorum", here rendered "ages of ages", is the translation of what was probably a Semitic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages) idiom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom), via Koine Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek), meaning forever. It is also rendered "world without end" in archaic English, which has the same meaning. It is present in the King James Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible) (cf. Eph. 3:21; Isa. 45:17). Similarly, "et semper" is often rendered "and ever shall be", giving the more metrical English version
... As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

CINOs are acceptable? What possible point would there be in being CINO if it were acceptable? Obviously the CINO phenomenon (if I can use that word for something unacceptable...and note the ruthless use of the subjunctive in the previous sentence) is unacceptable from every possible point of view.


Not necessarily, Sokal. To say every possible point of view would not accept the CINO ideals, by virtue of common sense and the fact there are so many points of view throughout Humanity, is a bit unrealistic.

Basically, what I see in the above quoted post, Sokal, is a statement that all humanity will look at the CINO belief as unacceptable. I cannot accept such a sweeping statement considering the massive differences and unimaginable diversity found within the Human Race. Just as there are many who will oppose the CINO ideals, so there will be many who will embrace them. I recently found out that a lot of Christians, for instance, do not hold to the ideas which proliferate throughout Big Christianity. Ideas such as eternal damnation, or the Holy Trinity, are not universal to all Christians. The fact that many Christians would hold to an idea that is completely contrary to Big Christian theology tells me that there will be many people, Christian or non-Christian, who would not only accept CINO ideas as legitimate, but would possibly even embrace them as their own.

The only thing I see possibly bad about the CINO ideas becoming widely accepted, would be the loss of effectiveness within the CINO movement. If mass amounts of people were to accept CINO ideals as legitimate, then the movement would, because of many people's needs to find something new and different in life, lose much of its appeal.

But I know this for certain: my own beliefs about God and about the Trinity, more specifically, are considered by most Big Christians to be complete heresy, despite the fact I can show those same people many, many Scriptures which back up my beliefs. One reason I cling so tightly to these beliefs -- which are very new to me -- is the very fact it is so unacceptable to Big Christianity.

What I'm saying is, if your beliefs become acceptable to the behemoth organization that is Big Christianity, I worry the CINO movement -- along with similar non-conformist movements -- would eventually lose its ability to attract people to it. If that happened, I am fairly much convinced that it would either die out, or barring that, would perhaps resort to the missionary activity that has so tarred the Big Christian reputation over the centuries.

In other words, perhaps being unacceptable to the so-called majority, is not a bad thing. A far worse thing than being unacceptable, would be suddenly becoming acceptable to those people -- speaking of Big Christians, specifically -- whose beliefs are incompatible with your own.

[Higgins]

Not necessarily, Sokal. To say every possible point of view would not accept the CINO ideals, by virtue of common sense and the fact there are so many points of view throughout Humanity, is a bit unrealistic.

Basically, what I see in the above quoted post, Sokal, is a statement that all humanity will look at the CINO belief as unacceptable. I cannot accept such a sweeping statement considering the massive differences and unimaginable diversity found within the Human Race. Just as there are many who will oppose the CINO ideals, so there will be many who will embrace them. I recently found out that a lot of Christians, for instance, do not hold to the ideas which proliferate throughout Big Christianity. Ideas such as eternal damnation, or the Holy Trinity, are not universal to all Christians. The fact that many Christians would hold to an idea that is completely contrary to Big Christian theology tells me that there will be many people, Christian or non-Christian, who would not only accept CINO ideas as legitimate, but would possibly even embrace them as their own.

The only thing I see possibly bad about the CINO ideas becoming widely accepted, would be the loss of effectiveness within the CINO movement. If mass amounts of people were to accept CINO ideals as legitimate, then the movement would, because of many people's needs to find something new and different in life, lose much of its appeal.

But I know this for certain: my own beliefs about God and about the Trinity, more specifically, are considered by most Big Christians to be complete heresy, despite the fact I can show those same people many, many Scriptures which back up my beliefs. One reason I cling so tightly to these beliefs -- which are very new to me -- is the very fact it is so unacceptable to Big Christianity.

What I'm saying is, if your beliefs become acceptable to the behemoth organization that is Big Christianity, I worry the CINO movement -- along with similar non-conformist movements -- would eventually lose its ability to attract people to it. If that happened, I am fairly much convinced that it would either die out, or barring that, would perhaps resort to the missionary activity that has so tarred the Big Christian reputation over the centuries.

In other words, perhaps being unacceptable to the so-called majority, is not a bad thing. A far worse thing than being unacceptable, would be suddenly becoming acceptable to those people -- speaking of Big Christians, specifically -- whose beliefs are incompatible with your own.


Well......I've tried to warn people against entering the problematic not-quite-cultural realm of the CINO (such as in this "Back to Lacan in a Turtleneck" epic thread in the Critical Theory subforum) :

Back to Lacan in a Turtleneck
I thought about taking up tobacco smoking in pipes as a really nasty introduction to writing about Lacan, but this special effect was beyond
even my resolute epic-defending spirit.

Anyway, I did find a turtleneck thing and I really think I will don the cultural thing and speak ex turtlenecki quite soon.

Anyway, lo, I went unto the modest library of the local agriculture and mining school (don't try this "lo, I went unto" at home; I warn you I am Christian in Name only and the things I do that don't offend God would keep a good person in hell for a few years). And I said unto myself: where is the Lacan? Well he is in the library of Congress BFs ( perhaps why BF skinner became so psychological)!

So, I think the lesson here is clear: any real CINO will warn others against taking up this difficult road. Moreover, any real CINO must always suspect that anyone else who seems CINO has merely fallen into the moral pitfall of being kind and good for no reason at all and has somehow accidently fallen back into the state of having a simple, childlike faith. A disturbing thought for any real CINO, who naturally has the problematic fantasy that only he can maintain the precise balance of indifference to Divine Vengeance and guilty efforts at not being hit by any stray bullets of destiny that God cheerfully flings at His uncomfortable admirers.
So...any real CINO has to work constantly to ensure that there is nothing acceptable about his tenderly treasured virtually complete lack of faith....otherwise...as I've said...what is the point?

[oscuridad]

this is all very complicated. Doesn't CINO mean just that - I say I am but I don't really beleive anything much, but this is what I grew up in so I'll stick with it?

I think it was Wittgenstien who said that the key issue around Christianity is that what it says is true is so remarkable (son of God, loaves and fishes, healing the sick, crucifixion and resurrection etc.) that you either have to accept it utterly or reject it utterly, there can be no 'partial' acceptance or belief.

According to this logic a CINO is a de facto atheist, isn't s/he?

[Higgins]

this is all very complicated. Doesn't CINO mean just that - I say I am but I don't really beleive anything much, but this is what I grew up in so I'll stick with it?

I think it was Wittgenstien who said that the key issue around Christianity is that what it says is true is so remarkable (son of God, loaves and fishes, healing the sick, crucifixion and resurrection etc.) that you either have to accept it utterly or reject it utterly, there can be no 'partial' acceptance or belief.

According to this logic a CINO is a de facto atheist, isn't s/he?

Well...you are basically correct, but I think CINOs like me or Wittgenstein (and apparently Wittgenstein was an absolutely classic CINO. see:

http://philosophy.missouri.edu/show-me/?p=123 )

will always offer some very illogical quibbles. Wittgenstein seems to venture (repeatedly) close to utter nonsense in his defense of some sort of Christian belief...and I hope to venture closer still...but still Wittgenstein does suggest there is something to belief:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/wittgenstein.html

And this on the meaning of Iconography:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4044/is_200507/ai_n15328817/pg_1

I think an athiest could quite correctly argue that Wittgenstein's special logic for Christianity is just an excuse for nonsense, but for me and other CINOs it suggests the possibility of being intelligible at least in one's taste for nonsense of that sort.

[dadburnett]

I’ve read with great interest the CINO commentary.
CINO is such an interesting "term," so judgmental in nature as to be of perhaps no real consequence - except perhaps to the writer (or speaker) who uses it. It should, IMHO always be accompanied by the gross assumption - YKWIM. The problem with labels like CINO is that they have no universal meaning (and I've not found one in this discussion). Any assumed meaning is, I think, specific only to the writer’s thoughts, within the moment of his or her writing.

What the heck is a Christian in Name only? What useful purpose does the label serve except to separate others from self? Casually used, its ambiguity muddies the waters of communication.

As you can imagine, I have an anti-label bias. In the course of my seventy plus years I have been variously labeled by a variety of people and institutions. Each label was “right-on” according to the labeler’s perceptions and needs. Each label was reality within the mind of the labeler and had, in fact, little or nothing to do with the personal reality of the one being labeled. Such labels are often little more than an ego-driven plea for agreement with one’s own judgments about someone else.

CINO is nonsense, a meaningless label. It is based on a word which itself has no universally accepted meaning … what is a Christian, anyway? A follower of Christ? Show me such a one … Mormons say they are Christians, as do Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and Christian Scientists … other Christians say that such are not Christians. Baptists question the Christianity of Catholics; Lutherans question that of Methodists, and on and on. Muslims lump all such together as being Christian. CINO appears to be little more that the most general of judgmental generalizations. I’m left with the question already asked - what is a CINO and, what purpose does such an ambiguous label serve? What does its use add to the quality and clarity of one’s writing or speech?

[Higgins]

What the heck is a Christian in Name only? What useful purpose does the label serve except to separate others from self?



It's the one thing I have in common with Wittgenstein so I treasure it.

[dadburnett]

About G-d, God or god … as a writer I’ve wrestled with this as well is with He or he when writing of Jesus. (Because of my present state of enlightenment, or un-enlightenment, I now refuse to use “He, he” or “Him, him” when referring to That which we call God.)

Personally, I like the message that I sense in the use of “G-d” however, I don’t use it because I don’t possess the deep reverence it seems to represent. I also feel that “God” is overused – put forth with so many different unspecified meanings as to be at best, confusing and at least, misleading. I am a believer on “One God” yet I often find myself asking “which God?” when reading or hearing about God. It seems that God has become as generic as has the word Christian.

The name or name variant I use is relevant, I hope, to the audience I choose to address. In some cases I use “names” like Father, Creator, First Cause, Master of the Universe … whatever seems appropriate to the moment and for the intended audience. I also like the O.T. practice of variously naming G-d’s aspects or manifestations - Elohim, El Shaddai, Adonai … As for capitalization, I generally fall back on my (long ago) fundamentalist, King James, upbringing and use capitals to denote deity – especially when addressing those who may be of like mind.

For what it's worth, that's my take on the question.

[rwam]

About G-d, God or god … as a writer I’ve wrestled with this as well is with He or he when writing of Jesus. (Because of my present state of enlightenment, or un-enlightenment, I now refuse to use “He, he” or “Him, him” when referring to That which we call God.)

Personally, I like the message that I sense in the use of “G-d” however, I don’t use it because I don’t possess the deep reverence it seems to represent. I also feel that “God” is overused – put forth with so many different unspecified meanings as to be at best, confusing and at least, misleading. I am a believer on “One God” yet I often find myself asking “which God?” when reading or hearing about God. It seems that God has become as generic as has the word Christian.

The name or name variant I use is relevant, I hope, to the audience I choose to address. In some cases I use “names” like Father, Creator, First Cause, Master of the Universe … whatever seems appropriate to the moment and for the intended audience. I also like the O.T. practice of variously naming G-d’s aspects or manifestations - Elohim, El Shaddai, Adonai … As for capitalization, I generally fall back on my (long ago) fundamentalist, King James, upbringing and use capitals to denote deity – especially when addressing those who may be of like mind.

For what it's worth, that's my take on the question.


Also, as far as the use of "G-d" goes, as I understand things, the Hebrews were not allowed to utter the name of God and some in the Jewish faith still hold to this tradition. Whenever I see "G-d", I never assume irreverance, but rather just the opposite.