> I am a believer in taking something that is worn-out and making it new
> again. I would use the word "freemason" and attract the members of
> freemasonry (which is not a church) into your church. Just an idea. Even
> if the word is not appropriate, you have played on it's popularity and made
> an association from which people can contrast your church. But, I think
> that the word IS appropriate...and am on my way to search out old life forms
> (will research the term for you).
Thanks for the tip, but that wasn't really what I was after... I don't
anticipate a problem finding enough people[1]. What I really want is
some "neato, kewl" "handle" we can use to describe ourselves.
Criteria:
1) It has to *mean* something... be in some way related to the CS and
the basic ideas I'd like it to support (Responsible Freedom,
Imprefection, Spirituality as subjective, The Journey to Meaning, and
Circular Constructs)
(note ideas subject to change at any time... I think I'm going to
version number the main six essays, to remind me and others they are
subject to change and *deletion*)
2) "neato, kewl"... I've already coined enough phrases to make the CS
fairly impentetrable to outsiders. :-)
3) I can't decide whether I'd prefer it be something like a "secret
handshake" or like a "public handle"... or maybe something in between.
For now, I guess I'll look at all options.
4) As well as the issue of whether or not I *want* to label us (for to
label us is to simplify our Church members to *one* word -- not really a
good thing), there is an issue about ... about something. Sorry. Got
interupted and forgot.
damn
We can always call ourselves "freethinkers". Except, perhaps, that the
idea of a Church negates the concept of "freethinkers"... ahh, the
trials of semantics.
ERiC
[1] Maybe I'm wrong on this count, though. Certainly I've had no luck
even getting Evelyn to *consider* /helping/ with the Church, let alone
joining. I asked her brother, who plans some day to be a minister, to
help as well, but he said "sorry, too busy"... yea right! If you're too
busy to help a man who is actually going to do the job you are looking
forward to, I'd say you've got your priorities wrong! Not that it's any
of my business, of course. Just little annoying inconsistencies, that's
all...
By the way, here's my interesting link of the week:
"Should one beleive things merely becuase one wants to:
a game theory analysis"
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-revelation.html
Go check it out...
I have a few comments, of course. First, the entire thing is very
artificial. Second, given that both parties involved here are aware of
the situation, it would behove them to look at the "mutual benefit"
area... reveal and beleive. Both parties gain more that way. So why
doesn't God do it?
Must be because he's not rational. heh
Or it could be becuase he counts on us petty humans to be unaware of the
game, and thus unaware that beleif without evidence benefits God more
than us.
Anyway, a very interesting look at things.