Quote: “There is no good reason for acronymaphobia.”
I strongly disagree. There is a very good reason for it. The tiresome superabundance of your joky little word puzzles slows down reading and repeatedly interrupts the flow of meaning from your keyboard to my brain.
Obviously none of your acronyms are “objectionable” in the sense of being offensive in themselves. The problem is that your use of all these abbreviations conveys the impression that you’re not prepared to take the trouble to make your posts readily intelligible, that is, to make them user-friendly. You’re signaling that it’s not worth your while to take your readers’ convenience into consideration. You’re dropping a heavy hint that you don’t give a hoot whether people read your posts or not.
Among the acronyms you’ve listed here, I would pick out four that are perfectly acceptable. OT, NT, and TULIP are entirely above suspicion. They are established abbreviations that have long been in widespread use in print and on the internet alike. To these three we can add CC, for obvious reasons. But, with all due respect, I think it might be a smart move on your part to leave it at that.
Thanks for that feedback, Barth, and I await seeing what others think,
but frankly, I think it is silly to object to learning such handy acronyms,
which should be learned by simply reading the list--they aren't rocket science!
Why would you not already be familiar with GW, HS and the opposite of TULIP, which is MFW after spending two days on CC?!
I admit that WB, SB, PC and SC are handy mainly when discussing baptism,
and UMI and DOD mainly when discussing apologetics, and TOJ and TOP when discussing the teachings of Jesus and Paul,
but GRFS is the most important information in life, so I encourage y'all to become familiar with its meaning.
And I realize y'all would not know the meaning of PP even when spelled out, but let me share it with you now while we wait for others to chime in:
An insight I would like to share is what I call
the “Propensity Principle” (PP). The PP points out that until proof is provided in the future at the eschaton, humanity’s existential need and desire for eternal life and ultimate justice (the duo of desirables or DOD) make it logical for truthseekers to have a propensity to hope and believe a God who provides the DOD exists, to determine the most credible revelation of God’s requirement for attaining heaven, and to cooperate with His revealed will. IOW, it seems logical–given the existential facts of death and imperfect justice–that
an unbiased truthseeker would have a propensity to hope the Christian view is correct, because there is no better (credible and desirable) way of attaining the DOD than NT theism. This PP restates Pascal’s wager in terms of comparison shopping (with all belief systems) instead of gambling.
The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:
1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.
2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.
3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek ways to become immortal in a heavenly existence (where there is love and justice for all forever, the DOD).
4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus.
5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible.
6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah.
Atheists deny the validity of this argument, but in the absence of disproof, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why
all truthseekers should agree on NT theism now rather than assume atheism is an unlucky guess.
As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and logic rather than of blind faith and fear. True love for God is evoked by His love for humanity and is a reflection of His loving Holy Spirit (1JN 4:7-12); it cannot be coerced, although it can be imitated (2CR 11:14 calls Satan an “angel of light”).
Heaven may not be a mirage!
A biblical illustration of the PP is the OT story about Naaman being told to bathe in the dirty Jordan River to cure his leprosy (2Kings 5:10-14). The Naaman Example teaches us not to let sinful pride prevent us from being cured of spiritual sickness by methods we think are silly or do not fully understand. Some people might not understand why God ordained Messiah to atone for humanity’s sins, so they think the Gospel seems foolish or silly (cf. 1Cor. 1:18-25). However, they accept physical reality without necessarily understanding very well how it works (cf. John 3:8), and Jesus said that those who seek salvation will find it, which indicates that God graces every sinful soul with the ability or opportunity to understand how to be saved (Matt. 7:7, cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4), which might be called “seeking grace”.
Those who reject the PP (and Naaman Example) apparently employ
a logical fallacy that might be called non praecedere (comparable to
non sequitur), making an unwarranted conclusion which precedes unknown facts, namely the cause for the universe “banging bigly”. Atheists assume a natural cause will be discovered, but their assumption is premature and thus inappropriate.
