This isn't a yes or no question. It's a question that's been going through my mind as I watched my sauerkraut mature over the past few weeks.
My father and his two best friends used to have a 4th of July clambake. Each of them got married and had two boys. Growing up, my "uncles and aunts" were closer to me than most of my biological family, and although Uncle Shelly and Aunt Debbie have died and Uncle Marty moved away, I still see my Aunt Ruth, and I call her oldest son my cousin "by affection," because somehow it doesn't feel right to call him my friend. He's more than that.
Of course, clams aren't Kosher, and neither are shrimp, lobster, cheeseburgers and Italian sausage. Virtually everyone there was Jewish, except for me and my mother and brother. It became a joke that the "Trayf Bake" was a sort of anti-kosher bacchanal. It was tradition that different people brought certain foods, or performed certain tasks, and that we had to argue over how to share the cost of the food.
When one of my "cousins" got married, his parents came. They said they didn't keep kosher, but they wouldn't eat trayf. I brought lamb for shish-kebab, but they wouldn't eat it. They had brought beef-kebabs of their own. I got into a chat with her father, and I said something about how I believed that even if you didn't keep kosher, it's a good idea to practice being kosher over Passover, as a reminder, and also because kosher law had a lot of good rules regarding things like trichinosis, and other bacterial diseases.
At some point he got furious over this. From his standpoint, you don't keep kosher because it keeps you from getting sick, you keep kosher because God told you to. I didn't understand, and tried to explain; it seemed obvious to me that God must have reasons to make such rules. It didn't help. Eventually I gave up.
When I started making sauerkraut I looked up a few recipes, and they all talked about skimming the "scum" or the "bloom" off the top. Eventually I found that this means the mold. Of course, many foods are moldy, especially cheeses, and lots of foods are fermented and so forth. I got to thinking that it must be weird to invent a kind of food that is essentially rotten. And my mind wandered back to that day, and my feeling that kosher law makes sense, whether the religious perception is dominant or not, because it's important to know what kinds of food can make you sick.
So on the one hand, I wonder how "rotten" food can be kosher, and also, I'm wondering if someone can explain whatever it was that made this guy so mad, because I still don't understand. Don't ask me why the two are interrelated in my mind, but they are.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Sauerkraut exists in kosher form. That is, there are brands that are certified kosher.
Jews who keep kosher, we have several on here, will tell you that indeed they don't keep kosher for any health benefits that may or may not exist, they do it because God commanded it.
Kind of the same reasons I, as a Mormon, don't consume tea, coffee, tobacco, etc. (Okay, I wouldn't use tobacco anyway. But I used to drink tea.)
I do get irritated when Mormons try to justify every restriction. I don't have to understand why I'm not supposed to eat something. If I was told not to, that's good enough for me. And in my mind, justifying it leads to not following it fully. That may be why he got angry with you for trying to argue it.
I'm sure one of our resident kashrut experts can explain why sauerkraut exists in kosher form and what must happen for it to be so.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Mormons can't drink tea?! Really?
BlackBlade, if you're reading this, you did missionary work to China right? How did Chinese converts react to having to give up tea?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I have several friends who served missions to Japan.
Herbal and other non-tea-plant teas (barley, etc.) are allowed. Just not tea from the tea plant (except where prescribed by a doctor.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is that specific to the tea plant or is it more a godly condemnation of unprescribed caffeine?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: When one of my "cousins" got married, his parents came. They said they didn't keep kosher, but they wouldn't eat trayf. I brought lamb for shish-kebab, but they wouldn't eat it. They had brought beef-kebabs of their own. I got into a chat with her father, and I said something about how I believed that even if you didn't keep kosher, it's a good idea to practice being kosher over Passover, as a reminder, and also because kosher law had a lot of good rules regarding things like trichinosis, and other bacterial diseases.
At some point he got furious over this. From his standpoint, you don't keep kosher because it keeps you from getting sick, you keep kosher because God told you to. I didn't understand, and tried to explain; it seemed obvious to me that God must have reasons to make such rules. It didn't help. Eventually I gave up.
I would have been with him. Yes, God had reasons. No, we don't necessarily know the reasons. And it doesn't matter to us what the reasons are. Sometimes, we speculate, but we never say that something is the reason; only a reason. Maybe.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: When I started making sauerkraut I looked up a few recipes, and they all talked about skimming the "scum" or the "bloom" off the top. Eventually I found that this means the mold. Of course, many foods are moldy, especially cheeses, and lots of foods are fermented and so forth. I got to thinking that it must be weird to invent a kind of food that is essentially rotten.
Pretty much all wine and all fermented beverages... fermented anything, really. Hell, mushrooms are fungus.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: And my mind wandered back to that day, and my feeling that kosher law makes sense, whether the religious perception is dominant or not, because it's important to know what kinds of food can make you sick.
Kashrut has nothing to do with that, though. You can get just as sick from kosher food. Keeping food safe is important completely aside from kashrut.
If you think kashrut "makes sense", then try and explain why we can't mix meat and milk. Why chickens (filthy creatures) are kosher, but cats, which do a great job of keeping themselves clean, are not.
(There's got to be a great LOLcat in that somewhere).
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: So on the one hand, I wonder how "rotten" food can be kosher, and also, I'm wondering if someone can explain whatever it was that made this guy so mad, because I still don't understand. Don't ask me why the two are interrelated in my mind, but they are.
The mad thing... well, I don't know how persistent you were about your views. If he knew you weren't Jewish and you were going on to a Jew about a point of Jewish law, that's probably enough to set a lot of people off. It's sort of like if I were to pontificate (pardon the term) about whether crackers or wonderbread were legitimate substitutes for communion wafers. It's kind of chutzpahdik.
As far as "rotten" goes, one man's foulness is another man's delicacy. I think macaroni and cheese is one of the nastiest things ever invented. I hate mangos; they smell to me like something that went bad.
Food can undergo changes. Labeling some of them as "good" or "bad" is pretty subjective, really.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Is that specific to the tea plant or is it more a godly condemnation of unprescribed caffeine?
The official wording is "hot drinks." This has been clarified to mean "coffee and tea." There is no official prohibition on caffeine, though many Saints do avoid caffeine.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Including iced tea?
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Is there a rational for the "hot drinks" prohibition? (I realize that the statements about faith also apply here but still.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I have several friends who served missions to Japan.
Herbal and other non-tea-plant teas (barley, etc.) are allowed. Just not tea from the tea plant (except where prescribed by a doctor.)
I dunno, Japan might be kinda different. I just know that tea drinking is pretty central to Chinese culture. Having to give that up must be pretty painful. It would be like telling a Canadian to give up Tim Hortons, except much much weirder.
I mean, going out for lunch (dim sum) is literally "yum cha" or to drink tea. Tea ceremonies are used from everything from getting married to ripping off tourists. The saying literally goes "all the tea in China" and its not off, there are probably as many types of teas in China as there are types of beer in Germany.
However, if the restriction is on specifically the tea plant species than that would wipe out almost every type of tea I can think of from long jing to pu'er tea. Jasmine tea is the only common tea I can think of that might escape, but it sometimes uses green tea as a base. Ginsing tea is uncommon, but it would escape too.
Maybe they can use the doctor angle, many Chinese teas have some sort of medical effect in Chinese traditional medicine. Does that count?
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: The official wording is "hot drinks." This has been clarified to mean "coffee and tea." There is no official prohibition on caffeine, though many Saints do avoid caffeine.
Or maybe thats how they get around it. Most Chinese teas can technically be served lukewarm or cold. In fact there are special shops that sell various deserts including chilled tea.
(No, I'm not referring to bubble tea)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
God said so.
Sterling, most of us include iced teas and coffee, yes, since by further revelation that was clarified to refer to the substances coffee and tea, not the temperature.
My Bishop had to speak to the ward once because he said, "Something's wrong when people complain to me that their neighbor is drinking Coke, but they start their day with decaffienated coffee!" I always found that funny. And edifying.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(HollowEarth, sorry, that was kind of a grumpy answer. I suppose some people make rationalizations about caffeine, or drink temperature, or etc. I don't like that. The real reason is that God said so.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I guess the Japanese have to give up green tea ice cream too. Its practically like a food massacre.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Mucus, as Saints we are instructed not to consume the product of the tea plant. Period. There aren't many Mormons in China but the ones that are there presumably do not drink tea. As I have said, other herbal teas are acceptable. Tea drinking is very central to Japanese culture, too, and many converts have a hard time giving it up-- but many faithful Saints in Japan do give it up. Alcohol has come to play a central role in Japanese work culture, too, and I've heard that while people are usually okay with you asking for a different "kind" of tea (in Japan it's all called tea, if it's an infusion) people get passed over for promotions and even fired sometimes because they refuse to participate in office drinking parties.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
No traditional Hangzhou-style shrimp!
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
What you have here is the difference in how one looks at faith.
If you come to dietary requirements, or any requirements there are two ways to look at them.
You can question God, or the Faith, or the Church and say, "Why did God ask us to do this?"
Or you can stop questioning and say, "God said so."
One groups looks at the questioning of God as a blasphemy. The other looks at not questioning of the practices as relinquishing ones free will.
The same goes for Muslims of various schools and sects. Why do they prey 5 times a day? Why do the woman put on the Burkah? For most its not about politics or power. Its because God said to.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(This thread reminds me a bit of an article that I think someone Jewish (Lisa?) introduced on one of these forums link regarding Jews and the consumption of pork in Chinese food.)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The mad thing... well, I don't know how persistent you were about your views. If he knew you weren't Jewish and you were going on to a Jew about a point of Jewish law, that's probably enough to set a lot of people off. It's sort of like if I were to pontificate (pardon the term) about whether crackers or wonderbread were legitimate substitutes for communion wafers. It's kind of chutzpahdik.
Well that's kind of the thing. My point wasn't trying to explain Jewish law, my point was that even if you don't have any religious motivation, it's still worthwhile to be aware of kosher law, because a lot of it makes sense.
As to the "God has a reason" thing, I recognize that it would be presumptuous to say that you know what god's actual reason is, but why is it presumptuous to say that the trichinosis thing just plain makes sense?
quote:If you think kashrut "makes sense", then try and explain why we can't mix meat and milk.
Actually (not trying to explain it, just quoting something I heard somewhere) I had heard that bacteria that frequently colonized certain (raw) meats can become quite virulent if it's allowed to incubate in milk. I don't know if it's true, but bear in mind that I don't even believe in God, yet I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt that there is a legitimate reason.
And maybe that's why this subject continues to bother me. From my perspective I was giving credence to religious doctrine and dogma, rather than dismissing it as superstition, yet rather than saying: "wow, I never thought this might have meaning for a gentile," he got mad at me.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: My point wasn't trying to explain Jewish law, my point was that even if you don't have any religious motivation, it's still worthwhile to be aware of kosher law, because a lot of it makes sense.
. . .
Actually (not trying to explain it, just quoting something I heard somewhere) I had heard that bacteria that frequently colonized certain (raw) meats can become quite virulent if it's allowed to incubate in milk. I don't know if it's true, but bear in mind that I don't even believe in God, yet I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt that there is a legitimate reason.
And maybe that's why this subject continues to bother me. From my perspective I was giving credence to religious doctrine and dogma, rather than dismissing it as superstition, yet rather than saying: "wow, I never thought this might have meaning for a gentile," he got mad at me.
I have to agree with Lisa on this one, Glenn. The rules of kashrut aren't sensible. They aren't some acane kind of health code. And it is presumptuous and condescending for you, who really are ignorant in the subject matter, to be explaining it to people who are conversant with it and live by its precepts.
It just cracks me up that you are willing to take this stand based on "something you heard somewhere" that you have no idea of whether it is correct or not, but disregard people who are telling you straight out, based on expertise, that you are mistaken.
As an observant Jew who is serious about keeping kosher, no, I wouldn't be flattered that some non-Jew told me that I wasn't just being superstitious but that he was able to see some reasonable explanation for my faith. I, too, would be annoyed at the condescension.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He might have taken it to mean you needed a secular reason to follow spiritual law...which is what it sounded like to me as well....and that defeats the purpose of faith.
Or maybe not. I am not Jewish, so I don't have the cultural context to say.
I like Lisa's comparison about communion as well.
More than likely it wasn't just the message as much as the delivery. Even if you didn't mean to insult his faith, something about the way the discussion went upset him.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I have several friends who served missions to Japan.
Herbal and other non-tea-plant teas (barley, etc.) are allowed. Just not tea from the tea plant (except where prescribed by a doctor.)
Eh, now that to me makes the whole thing silly. If it's forbidden, by God, then why is it ok if a doctor says so? If it's ok when a doctor says so, what if the scientific community in general concluded that tea is good for you and should be drunk regularly by everybody? I understand the part where it's forbidden, but *why*? If it's good enough that your religion just says so, then in what other ways is your life governed by your attachment to a religious institution- couldn't your religion demand that you do anything?
Of course, I don't think that's possible, which is why I find the tea thing particularly odd. Ditto for all food-related religious practices- Mormons are not alone, and they don't have an edge on what I think of as the wackiest ideas about food.
I'd say I think I understand how these particular taboos and practices arise, but I don't know quite why they are so powerful in religion. Of course, you can see food taboos and practices across all cultures and subcultures. I'm from Northern California, where social capital is all about what you like to eat. I've known people from time to time who are fascinated with the idea of "toxins." My aunt never stops talking about the toxin du jour, about mold, about god knows what in the food she eats.
There seems to be something deeply personal about food that makes people equate their eating habits with the quality or health of their souls. While I try to be healthy, most of the time, I wonder if I have underlying prejudices myself about things that might hurt me in some invisible way. But mostly I'm the kind of person who can and will eat virtually anything you put before me. I can't think of a food I won't eat. Not one. Does that have something to do with being an athiest? It would be an interesting thing to study.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: He might have taken it to mean you needed a secular reason to follow spiritual law...which is what it sounded like to me as well....and that defeats the purpose of faith.
For many people, this is indeed the reason why faith has no meaning.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Orincoro, it's allowed because the Word of Wisdom, where we are told not to use it, specifically allows for medicinal uses of forbidden substances. And because preservation of life and health overrides most other commandments.
A doctor prescribing tea is rare; I have been told to use it to stop bleeding from a mouth wound. That's the only time I've used it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I have several friends who served missions to Japan.
Herbal and other non-tea-plant teas (barley, etc.) are allowed. Just not tea from the tea plant (except where prescribed by a doctor.)
Eh, now that to me makes the whole thing silly. If it's forbidden, by God, then why is it ok if a doctor says so?
And this seems decidedly NOT silly to me. Judaism has a similar precept -- the commandments are meant for us to live by, not to die from. So, if it is necessary to violate a commandment in order to preserve or restore health ("prescribed by a doctor") then it is not only permissible to violate the commandment, but necessary to do so. For instance, I will eat only kosher food, and if none is available, I will go without until I can get something that is (even if it just a piece of fruit). However, if going without would jeopardize my health (not just being uncomfortably hungry for a while, but suffering malnutrition, starvation, or even hypoglycemic shock) then I would have to eat what food is available, even if it wasn't kosher.
I have no idea what health conditions would require tea consumption, but, if a doctor deems it necessary in order to preserve or restore health, then I can understand it being acceptable. G'd is a law-giver, it's true, but there is also mercy and kindness involved.
Why does that seem silly to you?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Does that have something to do with being an athiest?
You couldn't pay me to eat coconut.
Well, okay, I'd do it for money. But it would have to be a fairly significant amount.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: As an observant Jew who is serious about keeping kosher, no, I wouldn't be flattered that some non-Jew told me that I wasn't just being superstitious but that he was able to see some reasonable explanation for my faith. I, too, would be annoyed at the condescension.
Does it bother you less to have people think (or say) that your beliefs are just ridiculous?
Personally I agree with you- I like that some religious people think I'm crazy for being an Athiest. It's preferable to having them tell me that they can understand why Christ hasn't touched me, or whatever the case might be. That person just wouldn't understand how useless that would be.
On the other hand, if there is no logical explanation for your beliefs, then I don't understand how you think either. I just know that on any side of the issue the opposition doesn't seem to even have the ability to be empathetic. I don't have real empathy for religious people because I don't have faith; they don't have real empathy for me because they don't think the way I do. While that's going on, you get these kinds of conflicts, where everybody involved can never *really* be sure that they are at complete odds with the other. I can't know the quality of faith in someone else's life because I can never experience it. But a person who had faith couldn't abandon it to see how I can stand being the way I am. I think if we could do that, it would be pretty interesting. But, on the other hand, who would want to?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote: Does that have something to do with being an athiest?
You couldn't pay me to eat coconut.
Well, okay, I'd do it for money. But it would have to be a fairly significant amount.
See?
quote: I have no idea what health conditions would require tea consumption, but, if a doctor deems it necessary in order to preserve or restore health, then I can understand it being acceptable. G'd is a law-giver, it's true, but there is also mercy and kindness involved.
Why does that seem silly to you?
Well aside from the idea of God seeming silly to me, your explanation makes more sense. Essentially, a "grandfather clause" for lack of a better word. You're saying there is a hierarchy duties to God. If you think that, I can understand it. Now, trying to reconcile that with what KQ said about following the religious law without *any* rationale is a problem.
You are talking in rational terms: "If I were to die, that would serve no purpose to God, therefore I can eat non-kosher food if it means not starving." Now, if the religious law can be discarded in favor of a greater law "don't die," then what is the real value of the first law? It leads to a reductio ad absurdum: what if not eating meant a severe deterioration of your health, but not death? A slight deterioration? A deterioration of your relations with your neighbors, which affects mental health? As you say, the law that takes precedence is the one that keeps you healthy- so at what point is a sacrifice in favor of a kosher lifestyle one that is allowable?
So with the tea: it is shown in some studies, although I don't believe a consensus has been reached, that Green Tea is generally beneficial to health due to its antioxidant properties, and may be related to the lower incidence of colon and other cancers in East Asian populations. Now, given that it is allowable for Mormons to drink tea when prescribed by a doctor, or one might assume also to take pain medications, or caffeine in the case of asthma attacks, etc, at what point has the person prescribed that medication reached the threshold of allowable use? What if the doctor suggested that a Mormon drink green tea for general health? What if the benefit for a specific malady was only possible, or even slightly likely?
The fact of the compromise seems, at least to me, to suggest that the law which is compromised has questionable value.
Now, having said that, I am reminded of something OSC wrote about euthanasia. He employed the same argument I am using to imply that atheists placed no value on human life. But by observation, I can rule this out- I see atheists placing value on human life. And I see religious people placing value on their obedience to religious law, and I see a function in that. Just as OSC sees faith in the value that athiests place on life, I see logic in the ways that religious people eat- I see value in it as that value is apparent to me: culture, history, identity, family. Now that is not meant to condescend, it is meant ultimately to point out that I think we have many means to the same ends. We are even allowed to see those ends differently, as we obviously do.
[ August 13, 2008, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Does it bother you less to have people think (or say) that your beliefs are just ridiculous?
Sigh. So, my only choices here are in which way I prefer to be disrespected? If that's the case, then I opt out of choosing, and will just go on doing what I am doing -- showing respect to people whose beliefs are different than mine and expecting the same respect in return.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Orincoro makes a distinction between respect for a person and respect for that person's beliefs.
If you don't make that distinction then this is another one of those situations where mutual understanding just doesn't seem possible.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
What? You can't see how I'd take his post to be insulting?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I do. As best as I can, anyway - I tend to agree with him. But I probably wouldn't have posed a question like that to a person I knew would find it nonsensical.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Does it bother you less to have people think (or say) that your beliefs are just ridiculous?
Sigh. So, my only choices here are in which way I prefer to be disrespected? If that's the case, then I opt out of choosing, and will just go on doing what I am doing -- showing respect to people whose beliefs are different than mine and expecting the same respect in return.
Yeah, I added a lot to my previous post just now to reflect the same idea- I have a bad habit of posting, and then deciding I'm wrong.
Edit: and for the record I have the utmost respect for you and your opinion, which is why I engaged in the discussion. Were it someone else, I wouldn't.
[ August 13, 2008, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: A doctor prescribing tea is rare; I have been told to use it to stop bleeding from a mouth wound. That's the only time I've used it.
It is rare for a Western doctor. However, there are like a bajillion occasions for a Chinese traditional doctor to prescribe various types of tea, herbal or not.
I practically grew up on ginseng tea since I had frequent nosebleeds.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I do. As best as I can, anyway - I tend to agree with him. But I probably wouldn't have posed a question like that to a person I knew would find it nonsensical.
Well it's not a nonsense question. The fact is there are people who think keeping kosher is nonsense. I expressed, right after asking the question that I am in essentially the same position- there are people who think being an athiest is crazy, and a sign of an untrustworthy person. I also agreed- I think I'd rather be thought of as crazy than be pittied or condescended to.
So on this issue, Tante doesn't like understanding or contempt. Not surprising! Which is what the rhetorical question was meant to illustrate- that unbelievably enough, religious and non-religious people have a lot in common.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
This thread confirms my belief that there are three things that you shouldn't discuss at family parties:
Religion Sex Politics
Making fun of Aunt Millie's ludicrous hairpiece is also on shaky ground.
Of course, the skeptic will reply that only when you discuss those topics do you really have a good discussion. However I respond that I only go to family parties to show willing, not for good discussions, for that we have Hatrack.
Personally I feel that when discussing another's faith, you have to do so from a position of profound respect. If the other party begins to feel offended (and for whatever reason) it is time to back off and apologise.
I am sure that those who follow religious diets are aware that they would not be struck down by lightning if they munched a cheeseburger or had a nice hot cup of tea, but G'd specifically asked them not to do it, so that's how it stands. If you follow the teachings you take the rough with the smooth.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Orincoro, you handled this far better than I would have.
Tante Shvester, what I think Orincoro was asking was, if put in my words, and from my perspective, not Orincoro's is: Do you prefer it if I were to simply say "I find your religious customs silly." over "I find many of your customs silly, however I see a rational basis for the implementation of your kosher food, albeit generally outdated in its necessity."
From me, those are the two options you would have if I were giving a statement about what I think of Judaism and kosher food at the present time. (Note: I do not proclaim that I could not be further informed about kosher food, and jewish practices, but that this statement is based on my current feelings of Jewish custom and Kosher practices)
The rhetorical question hopes to show that in my mind the second has at least a glimmer of respect for what would otherwise be an outright dismissal of the whole thing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Starsnuffer, I'd prefer for someone to say that they find my religious customs silly. Because that's just simple ignorance of the subject, which doesn't bug me.
Telling me about the silly after-the-fact rationalizations like trichinosis also amuses me, unless someone is determined that he's being a wonderful person by condescending to find something that he finds of value in kashrut.
See... we don't need your approval. We don't need Glenn's approval. There's a reason why Tante used the term "condescending" before. It's an appropriate term. And I get that Glenn had no malicious intent, but it doesn't really make it less irksome.
Nor, btw, is it the case that there's no reason for the laws of kashrut. We just don't know what it is. I can't speak for Tante, but what I have isn't the kind of "faith" you're thinking of. On the contrary. I've seen enough in the Torah to convince me to give God the benefit of the doubt, and assume that He's got valid reasons for it.
Again, I understand that you and Glenn would say such things in the belief that you were actually being more respectful. But even if you didn't realize it, what's really going on is that you're so unwilling to respect our choices for what they are that you have to put your own explanations on them in order to treat us respectfully about it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The Jewish tradition is ancient. The Jewish people have maintained their unique culture and language for thousands of years -- without proselytizing -- despite the view of the majority that in these "modern times", there is no place for such superstitious claptrap. The argument that these backward traditions have no place in an age of science and reason was put forth in ancient Greece and Rome, in renaissance Europe, and in contemporary times. Yet, the Jewish people refuse to disappear and have their cultural distinctiveness absorbed into the prevailing culture. Part of this has to do with laws, like Kashrut, that set the Jewish people apart. While it is possible to be a lone Jew in a city, and to adhere to Jewish law, it would mean having no easy access to kosher food, a minyan, and a mikveh. If a Jew wants to be able to have access to kosher food, he really needs to be a part of a Jewish community. Thus, Jews aggregate, and pass on their traditions of Torah study, Talmud scholarship, and their culture to the next generation. The system has worked for thousands of years, through a chain of my ancestors stretching back farther than I can trace. I respect that tradition, and am proud to be a part of it and to continue the chain in raising my son to our traditions.
You can call it silly. You can tell me it is all about some primitive way to prevent trichinosis. But I will respectfully disagree. I believe that the practice has value beyond what you see. And I also believe that the ancient traditions of my people may be worth more than a mere "glimmer of respect". Forgive me for not being grateful for that crumb.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: Do you prefer it if I were to simply say "I find your religious customs silly." over "I find many of your customs silly, however I see a rational basis for the implementation of your kosher food, albeit generally outdated in its necessity."
I'm still not understanding why it would be remotely helpful to say either.
I went out to dinner with relatives who do not keep kosher last night. In the town they live in and I had last been in several years ago. So we checked a website, found which of the local places met my criteria (luckily, the primary contender was actually a place near them that they like), and went there.
They didn't get insulted that I don't eat in their home, there was no discussion about kashrus (except when my aunt confirmed that I am as strict as my mother and my other aunt), there was simply mutual acceptance and accommodation. (Sort of like how when my uncle wouldn't let me pay the check, I stopped arguing. Even though I had invited them and had every intention of paying.)
Oh, and the food was delicious. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Tante hints at a rationale I've seen many Jews use: that one of the most important "reasons" for kashrut, beyond the obvious "God said so," is to keep Jews different and thus relatively isolated from the rest of the world. You can argue that most successful religions have similar rituals and traditions that serve a similar purpose.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Orincoro makes a distinction between respect for a person and respect for that person's beliefs.
In my experience this distinction is almost totally theoretical and academic, since I've known almost no one who disrespects someone's deepest held beliefs and yet respects that person.
Edit: Something from Porter "If you think somebody's beliefs are ridiculous, in general, the best way to show respect to them is to REFRAIN from saying so.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That's redonkulous. You can tell Porter I said so, too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Starsnuffer,
quote:The rhetorical question hopes to show that in my mind the second has at least a glimmer of respect for what would otherwise be an outright dismissal of the whole thing.
C'mon, man. It can't possibly be difficult to understand why someone would find this irritating and condescending.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Tante hints at a rationale I've seen many Jews use: that one of the most important "reasons" for kashrut, beyond the obvious "God said so," is to keep Jews different and thus relatively isolated from the rest of the world.
I would call it a side benefit of most aspects of kashrus, rather than a reason for it. (As opposed to certain related rabbinic commandments, which have preventing intermarriage by limiting socialization as a specific reason.)
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
There are religious groups that believe there are health reasons behind the clean/unclean laws in the Bible--specifically, the Seventh-day Adventists. Most Adventists are vegetarians, but some eat "clean" meat. I don't know any Adventists who actually keep Kosher, although many, myself included, find the Kosher labels on products convenient when trying to determine whether something contains products we don't eat, like pork.
Personally, I believe that the reason behind food laws was/is primarily health because God cares about us and wants us healthy. That is my personal belief and by holding it I certainly don't mean to insult someone who believes differently. There are some in my church who believe that eating unclean meat (or sometimes meat in general) is a sin, but I tend to think it's healthier so therefore highly recommended--although sometimes I do tend to drift into the sin category--old habits die hard.
My point in posting is that some people who follow food laws (albeit much less stringently than the Jewish people) would not be bothered by an atheist making the observations that Glenn Arnold and others made--simply because we've made the same observations and tend to agree with them.
I can, though, understand how such reasoning could be insulting. It reminds me of the part in Enchantment where circumcision suddenly makes perfect sense to Ivan--that there's no logical reason for it, but you do it anyway because God said to. If you try to give reasons to other things God asks you to do, it kind of defeats the purpose of doing them simply because you're asked.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Tante hints at a rationale I've seen many Jews use: that one of the most important "reasons" for kashrut, beyond the obvious "God said so," is to keep Jews different and thus relatively isolated from the rest of the world.
I would call it a side benefit of most aspects of kashrus, rather than a reason for it. (As opposed to certain related rabbinic commandments, which have preventing intermarriage by limiting socialization as a specific reason.)
As a Mormon, I am convinced that often commandments are there to "keep us different". I'm not as convinced about the "isolated from the world" part. Dress conventions, food and drink restrictions, sabath practices etc. remind me that I am different, "in the world but not of the world". They help me "Remember Who I Am" as my Momma used to say. I don't have to wear a sign. I don't even especially care if persons with whom I interact know I'm Mormon. But, I know and am reminded often.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Orincoro makes a distinction between respect for a person and respect for that person's beliefs.
In my experience this distinction is almost totally theoretical and academic, since I've known almost no one who disrespects someone's deepest held beliefs and yet respects that person.
Yes, but that's a tautology. I suspect that if someone were to tell you that they respected a person even though they had no respect at all for that person's beliefs (in one area, at least), you'd assume that they weren't telling the truth, and didn't really respect the person.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
I have never heard of an "exception" for using tea if prescribed by a doctor. I suppose medicinal marijuana is ok also??
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Glenn, try this for an analogy: suppose you went up to someone who'd been happily married for 40 years, commented on the design of his wedding ring, and then said "you know, I think even people who aren't married should wear wedding rings each year during the week of your anniversary. They create a little space between your fingers that helps you keep them clean and aired out so you're less likely to get a fungal infection.
Getting "furious" might have been an excessive reaction, but I can understand why someone would be miffed by you taking one of the outward signs of an important relationship that you are not a part of and generalizing it as a health benefit for everyone with a reason that's irrelevant to the relationship in question.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I have to say that, Glenn, don't take this the wrong way, but your persistence in insisting that what you said shouldn't have engendered bad feelings suggests that you might have been kind of persistent with the guy you were talking to as well. Did he start out furious, or did he get madder as you kept trying to explain what you were trying to say?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Anybody else seeing an ad for Brooklyn Pork Store at the bottom of the page?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Nope. JewishCafe.com.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And now Delta 7, the novel, available at Amazon.com. Huh?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And Solitary Rush. And while the page was redirecting back, it had something about "On August 22, Let Sexy Jesus Rock You". Seriously.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Beach Bag Books.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm seeing an add for something called "Bella Lara", which includes the text "Collect, Activate, Play", "Beauty Comes from Within", and "Discover the Magic", and features a white horse, what looks like a bit of a rainbow, and stars on a purple field. Very strange.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
It's "Bella Sara." Jen is a fan and contributes to their market share.
Edit: to clarify, Bella Sara is collector cards (similar to pokemon, I understand) that feature horses in all their real and imagined variety. Each card has a code th kids can enter online to get another virtual horse in their online stable, and each card has "horseshoes," points they can use to "purchase" stories, decorations for their "rooms," etc.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
This has been a very interesting thread.
I think it's in our nature to try to relate to other people. If one avenue of relation is shut down - such as shared religious beliefs - I think it's normal to see if there's another avenue open. I think that's what Glenn was trying to do. Saying, "I think I can see why those beliefs might beneficial even if someone doesn't share your reasons for holding them. This might be some kind of common ground!" For the other person to disagree that there's any shared ground there is fine, i suppose, but for the other person to claim that this is condescendingly "explaining it to people who are conversant with it and live by its precepts" might not be justified. I don't think that's what Glenn was trying to do.
I think there is a difference between saying "I think I understand the underlying reason for your superstition" and "I think I can see some benefits from your beliefs even though I do not share them." That someone got angry suggests to me that they perceived Glenn's comments to be more like the former statement. From Glenn's statements here I think he meant it more like the latter.
If Lisa or Tante are saying that they don't appreciate any outside perspective on their beliefs at all, and that any such commentary is disrespectful...then I think they are being needlessly prickly and a bit unrealistic. I don't think that's quite what they are saying though.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Tante hints at a rationale I've seen many Jews use: that one of the most important "reasons" for kashrut, beyond the obvious "God said so," is to keep Jews different and thus relatively isolated from the rest of the world. You can argue that most successful religions have similar rituals and traditions that serve a similar purpose.
Do you really think that I am isolated from the rest of the world?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A bit, yeah. You're "artificially" limited in where you can live, when you can interact with people, what you can do when you interact with them, etc. If the connotative meanings of "isolation" don't work for you, though, I'm okay with another word. I believe that some Mormons find "set apart" to be complementary.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Along with the cookies and punch.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A bit, yeah. You're "artificially" limited in where you can live, when you can interact with people, what you can do when you interact with them, etc. If the connotative meanings of "isolation" don't work for you, though, I'm okay with another word. I believe that some Mormons find "set apart" to be complementary.
*snort* That ain't isolation, Tom. That's just a different set of rules. I don't like popcorn. In fact, I can't stand to eat it. Now that I think about it, everyone I know when they go to the movies will (sometimes, at least, and assuming it's good popcorn) get a bag and chow down every so often, whereas I never do.
I'm not isolated from the world.
For all my life, I've never been a smoker-even when it was often regarded as popular. I didn't hang around smokers, and didn't smoke myself. Was I isolated from the world?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I live in an integrated, multicultural small town, work in an urban area with people from all backgrounds, count among my friends Jew and non-Jews, religious Christians and atheists, wealthy and working class, married and single and civilly unioned, straight, gay, lesbian. I spend way too much time on the internet with people from different backgrounds and beliefs.
But because I value and want to honor my cultural heritage I'm isolated?
Huh. For some definitions of "isolated", I suppose. Just not mine.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That ain't isolation, Tom. That's just a different set of rules.
In China, not drinking tea is isolation. From another perspective, imagine how isolating it would be to be the only person trying to keep completely kosher in a small town in Alabama where none of the restaurants are kosher-certified and none of the groceries carry more than a handful of kosher products; as previously noted, the demands of kashrut (and similar social rituals in other groups) are largely responsible for the continuance of Jewish neighborhoods.
quote:For all my life, I've never been a smoker-even when it was often regarded as popular.
Try not wearing garments to a job interview in Provo. The "goal" here is isolation from the mainstream -- which is why so many of the more casual rules lose importance once a culture gains regional dominance.
-------
quote:For some definitions of "isolated", I suppose. Just not mine.
*nod* "Isolated" doesn't have to mean "unhappy," or even "isolated from everything."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmm...how about "set apart"?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
"Live in the world but not of the world?"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Try not wearing garments to a job interview in Provo.
What kind of job interviews are you going to where they demand you strip down to your underwear?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've seen enough people make comments about "panty lines" to recognize that it doesn't take nakedness to recognize garments. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: The Jewish tradition is ancient. The Jewish people have maintained their unique culture and language for thousands of years -- without proselytizing -- despite the view of the majority that in these "modern times", there is no place for such superstitious claptrap. The argument that these backward traditions have no place in an age of science and reason was put forth in ancient Greece and Rome, in renaissance Europe, and in contemporary times. Yet, the Jewish people refuse to disappear and have their cultural distinctiveness absorbed into the prevailing culture. Part of this has to do with laws, like Kashrut, that set the Jewish people apart. While it is possible to be a lone Jew in a city, and to adhere to Jewish law, it would mean having no easy access to kosher food, a minyan, and a mikveh. If a Jew wants to be able to have access to kosher food, he really needs to be a part of a Jewish community. Thus, Jews aggregate, and pass on their traditions of Torah study, Talmud scholarship, and their culture to the next generation. The system has worked for thousands of years, through a chain of my ancestors stretching back farther than I can trace. I respect that tradition, and am proud to be a part of it and to continue the chain in raising my son to our traditions.
Noow you've made the point you disliked so much before, haven't you? I mean, I agree with you, I can see all of those reasons why religious laws have survived, and those are all very functional in keeping the jewish community and faith alive. It seems perfectly logical to me. Would it insult you for me to see all those same things in the jewish law and say: "ok, yeah, I get that."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Try not wearing garments to a job interview in Provo.
It's not *that* bad. I live in Provo and am an atheist and while I know there are some people here that would note absence of garments as a negative for prospective employees, they are in the minority.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
I went out to dinner with relatives who do not keep kosher last night. In the town they live in and I had last been in several years ago. So we checked a website, found which of the local places met my criteria (luckily, the primary contender was actually a place near them that they like), and went there.
They didn't get insulted that I don't eat in their home, there was no discussion about kashrus (except when my aunt confirmed that I am as strict as my mother and my other aunt), there was simply mutual acceptance and accommodation. (Sort of like how when my uncle wouldn't let me pay the check, I stopped arguing. Even though I had invited them and had every intention of paying.)
Do you find that your keeping kosher affects your relationships outside of family? It is one thing for Jewish, or non jewish family members to accommodate your needs, but this practice surely guides your life choices in many ways. You couldn't ever share an apartment with someone who didn't keep kosher, you couldn't live in a dorm at a university that didn't keep kosher, you couldn't visit a country where kosher foods are not available, etc. Do you pick your friends according to who will be able to accommodate you? I don't know what that's like, so I don't know if it's easy or difficult to live according to that set of rules.
I can see how it would set a person apart, but at the same time I know vegetarians who you never notice because they're not loud or picky about cuisine. Then there's my aunt, who has an unknown number of rotating allergies, that correspond, I suspect, to how much attention she needs at any given time.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't have a problem being friends with rivka and eating dinner with her, even though it means we go to her part of town and she doesn't come to us. It's sometimes a slight inconvenience, but I value her friendship enough to respect her beliefs and accomodate them by eating kosher when I eat with her.
And she doesn't serve us desserts with coffee or tea or wine in them, which is good of her. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I've seen enough people make comments about "panty lines" to recognize that it doesn't take nakedness to recognize garments.
I've heard several talks on modesty from ward and stake leaders that say, "If someone can tell you're wearing garments, you're not modest enough." Either the clothes are too tight, too low- (or high-) cut, or too thin.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I live in an integrated, multicultural small town, work in an urban area with people from all backgrounds, count among my friends Jew and non-Jews, religious Christians and atheists, wealthy and working class, married and single and civilly unioned, straight, gay, lesbian. I spend way too much time on the internet with people from different backgrounds and beliefs.
But because I value and want to honor my cultural heritage I'm isolated?
Huh. For some definitions of "isolated", I suppose. Just not mine.
I believe these are some of the reasons that Jewish intellectuals were vilified as "separate" from the European Romantic tradition at the turn of the century. Because they lived not in isolated or rural enclaves, but among urban multicultural populations, they were thought to have rejected or been always out of touch with the "soul" I guess you could say, of the mystic-romantic world of Germany and Austria, and other places that so embraced the idea of traditional, rural living at the time.
Now, the same things that distinguished some of these people as great artists and thinkers was the very thing they became hated for. They seemed to be part of a strict group, but their art and thinking said otherwise- they borrowed much of the style and flourish of the romantic world and turned it into something else. As an athiest, I can see so many similarities between the two groups: how they seek out the same things, think in so many of the same ways, and do so all because they must be, in some respect, in a place with people who they can live with comfortably.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I don't want to fruitlessly annoy more people just to explain a point that sci fi bum and orincoro will make anyway.
Also, I never said I could not see how someone would view my comment as condescending.
[ August 13, 2008, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Starsnuffer ]
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
to go back to the initial confusion, I have to express that I agree with scifibum in that the comments (as explained by Glenn) could have been misinterpreted, but when viewed in the second manner seem at worst neutral.
The wedding-ring example presented makes an interesting point, though I see some important differences. The wedding ring is a symbol of a greater concept, and so I can see people opposing someone wearing a plain gold ring for hygiene reasons, because that in some way lessens the impact of that symbol. However, the important distinction here is that the wedding ring is a human invention intended only to be a symbol.
When it comes to complying with divine law (at least in my mind) you can't sully that compliance by others complying for other reasons. If you're keeping kosher because G*d told you to, then the fact that I may or may not keep kosher because it happens to be more healthy (imo) should have no impact on your actions.
So take another example of divine law: Thou shall honor your mother and father (or whatever exact wording is appropriate). If an atheist started talking to you about how he thought that was a good idea because it generally betters society by creating a more respectful populous would that be taken as offensive or condescending? What if instead it was a Christian (who believes that they also are called to comply with that precept because G*d said so)?
Admittedly, if someone tried arguing that whatever reason absolutely was the reason G*d set forth that law, then I can see taking offense, but if it's just a statement that apart from whatever divine logic was present the law makes sense, then the offense seems misplaced.
Do you (Rivka, Tante, Lisa etc) think you're more likely to take conversations on Kosher laws in a bad light because you feel that it is misunderstood and/or needlessly justified? Or would you similarly lean towards being put-off by discussions of any other divine law?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: He might have taken it to mean you needed a secular reason to follow spiritual law...which is what it sounded like to me as well....and that defeats the purpose of faith.
For many people, this is indeed the reason why faith has no meaning.
And for even more it is why the word faith needs no definition.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Mormons can't drink tea?! Really?
BlackBlade, if you're reading this, you did missionary work to China right? How did Chinese converts react to having to give up tea?
Really sorry it took me this long to see this post Mucus. I didn't read anything after it either so somebody may have answered your question already.
First off I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of what constitutes the state of China.
Joking aside yes I did missionary work in Taiwan. Tea was certainly one of the more difficult things for potential converts to understand. Both because tea is a quintessential element of Chinese culture, and because there are traditional beliefs concerning it's healthy properties as well as some published studies extolling some of the benefits of tea.
But of course the Chinese are too polite to say a belief no matter how unconventional is crazy to your face.
But it's really not as bad as you think. Church guidelines concerning abstaining from tea refer only to tea made from leaves, so green and red teas. Grain, flower, and fruit teas are perfectly acceptable. Fortunately in China they have a jillion teas based on all these things and they are delicious, so giving up green tea is only difficult IMO insofar as socially it's tough to explain to friends and family why you don't drink green tea. Green tea is certainly still "the tea" that everyone serves to all guests. I spent a considerable amount of time coming up with ways to politely stop a host from serving me the wrong tea without embarrassing them.
It was also difficult for potential converts to give up tea prior to baptism. Parents come over and expect green/red tea and then question why their child is not drinking it with them. It's easy to see Mormonism as a "Western Religion" when it required converts to give up something that is seen as so Chinese. I actually did have potential converts who needed only to give up tea in order to receive baptism and just could not take that step. Either intellectually it did not make sense, or the social pressure was too great for them.
edit: Root teas are also OK provided they are not mixed with leaf teas. Ginseng tea would be permissable. I remember getting a box of ginseng tea with ginger flavoring and giving it to the security guard at my apartment complex. He LOVED me after that.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:It just cracks me up that you are willing to take this stand based on "something you heard somewhere" that you have no idea of whether it is correct or not, but disregard people who are telling you straight out, based on expertise, that you are mistaken.
While the emphasis on something I heard somewhere was yours, it could have been mine. I put it there on purpose, not because I'm "taking a stand," but because I'm willing to give it credence. That is, I don't dismiss it just because my source isn't authoritative. I thought I made that clear enough.
quote:Sigh. So, my only choices here are in which way I prefer to be disrespected?
quote:I wouldn't be flattered that some non-Jew told me that I wasn't just being superstitious but that he was able to see some reasonable explanation for my faith. I, too, would be annoyed at the condescension.
Once again, I find this confusing. It seems weird that an attempt to understand and validate a tradition can be seen as condescension. You choose to see that as being disrespected, but it seems to me that respect is in the eye of the respector, not in the eye of the respected. From my perspective I am being respectful, not disrespectful.
quote:Again, I understand that you and Glenn would say such things in the belief that you were actually being more respectful. But even if you didn't realize it, what's really going on is that you're so unwilling to respect our choices for what they are that you have to put your own explanations on them in order to treat us respectfully about it.
This is a good synopsis, I guess, except that if it's true, then it essentially means I'm not being allowed to try, which I feel is like laying a trap. It's not that I'm unwilling to accept your choices. It's that I don't understand them. And it's one thing if my attempts are based in pure ignorance and don't deserve validation. But it's another thing to act as though I was being intentionally rude.
quote:I have to say that, Glenn, don't take this the wrong way, but your persistence in insisting that what you said shouldn't have engendered bad feelings suggests that you might have been kind of persistent with the guy you were talking to as well. Did he start out furious, or did he get madder as you kept trying to explain what you were trying to say?
Let me divide this into two sections, and answer the second question first. As far as I could tell his fury came out of nowhere. It didn't feel like he sent me any signals that I'd strayed into uncomfortable territory, he was just suddenly angry that I'd even consider that there might be a health reason behind it. At that point I knew that I needed to extricate myself from the situation, but because the concepts are so foreign to me, everything I said just dug me in deeper. And I couldn't understand why he didn't see that I was trying to apologize and extricate myself from the conversation. If he'd just dismissed me, I could have walked away, but because he was confrontational, I didn't know how to, which just made it worse.
As for my insistence that what I said shouldn't have engendered bad feelings, well first, my insistence comes from an attempt to understand. People are driven to find answers, and this is a problem that evades my understanding.
Now, I understand that I will never understand what it means to believe in God, unless I come to believe in God. And that's different than if a theist but gentile attempted to understand the same thing about Jews. But if there's a concept that replicates religious feeling in me it is that people should attempt to understand each other. That's what I'm trying to do. And if being persistent in that regard is seen as rude, all I can do is apologize.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: I have never heard of an "exception" for using tea if prescribed by a doctor. I suppose medicinal marijuana is ok also??
I had always heard the exception for medical use as why it's ok for me to have nyquil (which contains alcohol). So, I would vote yes on medicinal marijuana- however, I have no actual knowledge on that front and would say that someone should meet with their bishop to make that decision.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We are instructed to follow the law of the land. Since marijuana is illegal even when prescribed by a doctor, that would not be allowed.
Cocaine is legal when prescribed, so that would be allowed.
BB, I thought red tea was the same as bush tea? Bush tea is not tea, it's an herb, and is allowed (AFAIK.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: BB, I thought red tea was the same as bush tea? Bush tea is not tea, it's an herb, and is allowed (AFAIK.)
Not that I know of, I was under the impression red tea was made from a red tea leaf. At least that is how Chinese folks described it to me.
^^ Wikipedia seems to agree with me.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Okay, different from what they call "red tea" in Japan, then.
Red tea in China is black tea in America, apparently.
Red tea in Japan (and sometimes in America) is Roobios, aka "Bush tea."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BB: Sorry, I thought you did some missionary work in China proper, I might have mixed it up with some recreational travel.
The description you gave is pretty interesting, I was curious and I think that covers it.
ketchupqueen: I think red tea is just green tea but more fermented. (nvm, covered now)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
What about yerba matte? Is that ok for mormons to drink? It does contain caffeine and a number of other stimulants.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: For many people, this is indeed the reason why faith has no meaning.
quote:And for even more it is why the word faith needs no definition. [/QB]
I don't allow my opinions to be ruled by consensus. This is the stupidest of all religious arguments, and it defines the fundamental problem with religion, in my humble opinion. I can understand and accept and be tolerant of many many things, but this is beyond the pale.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: What about yerba matte? Is that ok for mormons to drink? It does contain caffeine and a number of other stimulants.
Yes, the Saints in Argentina drink it. Though the missionaries are not supposed to, that is clarified to them that it's because drinking it can be an all-day social affair, not because it's not compliant with the Word of Wisdom.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
How do you know this stuff, KQ? Never even heard of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mate is one of the favorite drinks of the Davidson adults. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: BB: Sorry, I thought you did some missionary work in China proper, I might have mixed it up with some recreational travel.
The description you gave is pretty interesting, I was curious and I think that covers it.
ketchupqueen: I think red tea is just green tea but more fermented. (nvm, covered now)
The LDS church is very strict on cooperating with the Chinese government in regards to proselyting and making arrangements for members who move to the mainland. I see the wisdom in it, and in fact it actually bugs me now when I read about protestants getting arrested for smuggling bibles in or for secretly preaching. I know there is a long precedent for this, but it definitely sets back the efforts of everyone else.
It seems our church is using the strategy of doing service in China, cultivating, "guan xi" in the hopes that sooner than later the door will open because the Chinese open it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:How do you know this stuff, KQ? Never even heard of it.
I'm friends with lots of folks who served foreign missions and we discuss it quite often. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... It seems our church is using the strategy of doing service in China, cultivating, "guan xi" in the hopes that sooner than later the door will open because the Chinese open it.
Hmmm, how do I put this delicately?
I for one also look forward to the day that China won't have any barriers to outside religions. However, we probably have different hopes for what that result will ultimately look like, religion-wise.
But in the meantime, I respect your efforts and what seem to be our shared ideals Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'll say I find the idea of causing family division over silly issues like what kind of tea a person can drink to be less than encouraging. If it's ok to drink matte, I am surprised that Mormons are not disturbed by the inconsistency. Any child, when confronted with the terms of this rule, when be right in asking: "why?"
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
That's the whole point of faith. They teach their children that we shouldn't try to understand God's motives, but trust that he's got good ones and follow his rules in good faith.
I was always taught to question, so religion and me haven't really worked out.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I was taught to question, too.
However, I also believe that I can recieve confirmation of anything I need confirmation on through the Holy Spirit.
Personally, I feel that following the Word of Wisdom has provided me with more spiritual and mental and emotional benefits than physical. That's JMO, though.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I was always taught to question . . .
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I was taught to question, too.
Well, me too. In fact, Talmudic scholarship is all about questioning. For me, though, I've been for the most part satisfied with the answers to my questions. I do not come from a religious background, and my family of origin does not keep kosher, but, in my own search for the right way to live my life and in the questions I've asked and the answers I've gotten, it seems like the right thing for me. I've never tried to convince anyone else that they ought to follow the same life choices I have made, but I feel that my choices are right for me. I have a lot more to learn, it is true. But I don't think it is fair to say that I follow the religious law because I am not willing or able to question it, or because I am incapable of free and independent thought. It was a conscious decision, freely made and considered.
Respectfully, if you feel that it is a decision that makes no sense for you, well then, I'd say you ought not to live by it. We are all free to make our own choices and abide by them, as long as they don't harm other people. That's part of what is so puzzling to me about the reaction I've gotten here. Why do you care what I eat or don't? If you don't like it, then eat what you want. I don't see how I'm hurting anyone. I'm certainly not demanding that the rest of the world cater to my preferences, as has been implied here. If there is any hardship, it is entirely my own, and, therefore, really nobody's business but my own.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Church guidelines concerning abstaining from tea refer only to tea made from leaves, so green and red teas
Woe, That's a novel interpretation of church guidelines that I've never heard before. There are lots of herbal teas made from leaves (mint tea for example) which are considered "legal" for mormons.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, I've never heard "made from leaves" as the defining line. I've always heard "made from the tea plant."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm certainly not demanding that the rest of the world cater to my preferences, as has been implied here.
In fairness, Tante, I don't think anyone here has implied that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I know vegetarians who you never notice because they're not loud or picky about cuisine. Then there's my aunt, who has an unknown number of rotating allergies, that correspond, I suspect, to how much attention she needs at any given time.
I don't know, that sounded kind of like an implication to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What do you think it was meant to imply? As I understand it, Orincoro's point was that dietary needs aren't necessarily enough to set someone apart, but that he could understand how they do. I don't know how you get from there to "people with special dietary needs demand that the world cater to them."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Church guidelines concerning abstaining from tea refer only to tea made from leaves, so green and red teas
Woe, That's a novel interpretation of church guidelines that I've never heard before. There are lots of herbal teas made from leaves (mint tea for example) which are considered "legal" for mormons.
Could be a function of the language. I know herbal teas are OK, for some reason that branch of teas did not enter my mind when I wrote out my explanation. We were simply told as missionaries to instruct members and potential converts not to drink tea made from "cha ye" meaning "tea leaves." For some reason in Chinese herbal teas do not fall under that category.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think mint tea comes from the mint plant, as opposed to red and green tea which come from the tea plant. As far as I can tell from this thread, it seems like the ban as far as tea is concerned is on leaves from the actual tea plant, i.e. Camellia sinensis
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Respectfully, if you feel that it is a decision that makes no sense for you, well then, I'd say you ought not to live by it. We are all free to make our own choices and abide by them, as long as they don't harm other people. That's part of what is so puzzling to me about the reaction I've gotten here. Why do you care what I eat or don't? If you don't like it, then eat what you want. I don't see how I'm hurting anyone. I'm certainly not demanding that the rest of the world cater to my preferences, as has been implied here. If there is any hardship, it is entirely my own, and, therefore, really nobody's business but my own.
Tante, I don't think that anyone here believes that you impose your religious rules on anyone else. Lots of other people do or try to, though. I think that makes people wary of what seem to be arbitrary rules. Sadly, the world in general is not as "live and let live" as the Shvestercrats.
Also, people are just bugged by stuff that doesn't make "sense".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That's the whole point of faith. They teach their children that we shouldn't try to understand God's motives, but trust that he's got good ones and follow his rules in good faith.
*snort* That's not the 'whole point of faith'.
Whoever taught you to always question apparently stopped the lesson before the part about getting the right answers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It isn't the point of faith for me but it is for many people.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Thankfully, Odin allows me to eat and drink anything I like. I can't see the point of following a religion which makes your life worse. For me, having arbitrary, unfathomable, restrictions, which by definition serve no known purpose, would make me very sad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It isn't the point of faith for me but it is for many people.
I very much doubt that if you asked just about any religious person, they would say that the point of faith was to not attempt to understand God's, and just follow the rules.
quote:I can't see the point of following a religion which makes your life worse. For me, having arbitrary, unfathomable, restrictions, which by definition serve no known purpose, would make me very sad.
Fortunately, just not be permitted to do something does not make one's life worse. Furthermore, it's not as though all the rules are unfathomable, arbitrary, and purposeless, either.
Here's an obvious example: Thou shalt not murder. There's a big ole rule right there. Please, tell me how that's arbitrary, unfathomable, restrictive, and purposeless:)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Here's an obvious example: Thou shalt not murder. There's a big ole rule right there. Please, tell me how that's arbitrary, unfathomable, restrictive, and purposeless:)
To play devil's advocate--when a few pages later he has the grown children of those God gave that rule too slaughter every man, woman and child in a city that they invade.
"Thou Shalt not murder. Killing innocent slave children of those who live where I want you to live is not Murder though."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It isn't the point of faith for me but it is for many people.
I very much doubt that if you asked just about any religious person, they would say that the point of faith was to not attempt to understand God's, and just follow the rules.
Goodness, for generations that was just about the motto of the Catholic Church!
Seriously. The laity were not supposed to question - we still have a hard time with it. Understanding was for the priests and the scholars, not for regular people.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What do you think it was meant to imply? As I understand it, Orincoro's point was that dietary needs aren't necessarily enough to set someone apart, but that he could understand how they do. I don't know how you get from there to "people with special dietary needs demand that the world cater to them."
When taken in context with the rest of the post, I thought it implied, "You may be making yourself a burden to your friends."
Which is what I responded to.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven:
quote:Here's an obvious example: Thou shalt not murder. There's a big ole rule right there. Please, tell me how that's arbitrary, unfathomable, restrictive, and purposeless:)
To play devil's advocate--when a few pages later he has the grown children of those God gave that rule too slaughter every man, woman and child in a city that they invade.
"Thou Shalt not murder. Killing innocent slave children of those who live where I want you to live is not Murder though."
Yep. Murder is killing that God didn't say is appropriate. Execution (the Torah kind) isn't murder, and neither is genociding the Canaanites. Particularly when we first gave them the options of leaving or surrendering.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
quote: quote:I can't see the point of following a religion which makes your life worse. For me, having arbitrary, unfathomable, restrictions, which by definition serve no known purpose, would make me very sad.
Fortunately, just not be permitted to do something does not make one's life worse. Furthermore, it's not as though all the rules are unfathomable, arbitrary, and purposeless, either.
Here's an obvious example: Thou shalt not murder. There's a big ole rule right there. Please, tell me how that's arbitrary, unfathomable, restrictive, and purposeless:)
Come on man, do you really think he would go so far as to say that a restriction on murder is an unfathomable, restrictive, and purposeless rule? I think it was exceedingly clear that he was referring to the issue at hand, which is kosher eating habits. My disbelief at how rude and stupid that comment is leaves me at a loss for words. I also did not appreciate when you implied that I had said I was trying to not be condescending. sigh. Please don't insult someone by saying, implicating, or otherwise suggesting that they would argue that in most cases, a rule against murder is unfathomable, restrictive, and purposeless. Honestly.
Also, I'd like to point out that "Fortunately, just not be permitted to do something does not make one's life worse." is certainly untrue if you consider how broad that statement is...
Lisa, murder is ok if condoned by God? at what level must it be condoned? How many people must be aware of his condoning? I can almost guarantee you that if I had a feeling that god wanted me to kill my neighbors that nobody I know would say "well, it was appropriate, God condoned it." Sigh...
I would like to add a disclaimer, as I so often feel the need to do, that i truly truly truly do not mean to be rude, but I simply want an answer to my question, or an explanation of the rationale that goes behind supporting "Murder is not ok, unless... god says so(aka it is convenient for our people at that point in time)" (this same reasoning we saw at one point in recent times as George Bush said god told him war was ok.
This thread makes me sad.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven:
quote:Here's an obvious example: Thou shalt not murder. There's a big ole rule right there. Please, tell me how that's arbitrary, unfathomable, restrictive, and purposeless:)
To play devil's advocate--when a few pages later he has the grown children of those God gave that rule too slaughter every man, woman and child in a city that they invade.
"Thou Shalt not murder. Killing innocent slave children of those who live where I want you to live is not Murder though."
Yep. Murder is killing that God didn't say is appropriate. Execution (the Torah kind) isn't murder, and neither is genociding the Canaanites. Particularly when we first gave them the options of leaving or surrendering.
Well even beyond that, there is at least one instance where there was fighting purely because the Canaanite king refused to let the Israelites cross through his lands.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Fortunately, just not be permitted to do something does not make one's life worse.
I agree.
I was not raised in a kosher tradition. It is something that I decided to do in adulthood. I really can't say that following the rules of kashrut has made my life worse. In fact, I have found unexpected benefits.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What do you think it was meant to imply? As I understand it, Orincoro's point was that dietary needs aren't necessarily enough to set someone apart, but that he could understand how they do. I don't know how you get from there to "people with special dietary needs demand that the world cater to them."
When taken in context with the rest of the post, I thought it implied, "You may be making yourself a burden to your friends."
Which is what I responded to.
Well to set your mind at ease, I meant to show that there seems to be a spectrum of motivations for people's eating habits. Some people do it to set themselves apart, some have other reasons, and they compensate for them. I happen to think that my aunt's foibles have to do with her need to control her environment (thus all a rotating list of food issues that no one can keep track of). But I have known vegetarians, as I said, who I sometimes forget are vegetarians because they just find ways of making it work that don't involve me having to do anything special.
Kosher seems considerably more difficult from my perspective, so I would speculate that it at least affects a person's relationship choices. How people actually manage being Kosher, I don't know– it seems like a pretty big challenge to me.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
I was not raised in a kosher tradition. It is something that I decided to do in adulthood. I really can't say that following the rules of kashrut has made my life worse. In fact, I have found unexpected benefits.
Like what? I'd be interested to know.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
It teaches me self-control and restraint and limits. It makes me aware that sometimes you just can't have everything you want when you want it. It reminds me that food can do more than just nourish the body. And it teaches me to be a bit more creative in my cooking.
Those may not be the "real reasons" behind the rules of kashrut, but they are unexpected benefits to me.
Also, my hair is extra-glossy and my teeth are straight and white.*
.
.
.
*OK, I just made up that last bit.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Rakeesh: Please re-read for content. Having rules which make good sense, and which nearly everyone can agree on is perfectly fine. It's the arbitrary, nonsensical ones I disagree with.
Lisa: Is it then OK when someone else's God commands them to kill your people? I'm guessing most people are going to go with no on that one.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Also, my hair is extra-glossy and my teeth are straight and white.*
*OK, I just made up that last bit.
So your teeth are yellow and crooked?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Lisa: Is it then OK when someone else's God commands them to kill your people? I'm guessing most people are going to go with no on that one.
Oh snap. And there it is. Reductio ad Absurdum. But in this case, valid.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Also, my hair is extra-glossy and my teeth are straight and white.*
*OK, I just made up that last bit.
So your teeth are yellow and crooked?
Not that white, alas. I drink lots of black coffee, and a fair amount of red wine, too. I'm guessing the Mormons are going to have me beat on the white teeth rubric.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Not with all that jello. All things considered, I'd definetly go Kosher before going Mormon, from a culinary standpoint.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It's not the Jell-o that stains your teeth, it's the babies. Duh!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Green babies?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
They're tastier when ripe, though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I didn't realize they were kosher.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Erm . . .
<_<
>_>
Uh . . . these aren't the 'droids you're looking for?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Move Along, move along.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Lisa: Is it then OK when someone else's God commands them to kill your people? I'm guessing most people are going to go with no on that one.
Oh snap. And there it is. Reductio ad Absurdum. But in this case, valid.
Since there's only One God, the question is a non-starter.
Just because two people make conflicting claims doesn't mean they're both wrong. We're right.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
quote:Originally posted by Despots Through The Ages:
Just because two people make conflicting claims doesn't mean they're both wrong. We're right.
Ahem...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
at this point you could make a sitcom called That's My Lisa! Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Starsnuffer,
Geeze man, no need to whine so much.
quote:Come on man, do you really think he would go so far as to say that a restriction on murder is an unfathomable, restrictive, and purposeless rule? I think it was exceedingly clear that he was referring to the issue at hand, which is kosher eating habits. My disbelief at how rude and stupid that comment is leaves me at a loss for words. I also did not appreciate when you implied that I had said I was trying to not be condescending. sigh. Please don't insult someone by saying, implicating, or otherwise suggesting that they would argue that in most cases, a rule against murder is unfathomable, restrictive, and purposeless. Honestly.
I know what he was referring to, but I alos know what he actually said. So I pointed out that the rules aren't just the way he was describing. I didn't imagine for a moment that he would think the rule against murder was those things. Talk about stuff that should have been obvious.
quote:Also, I'd like to point out that "Fortunately, just not be permitted to do something does not make one's life worse." is certainly untrue if you consider how broad that statement is...
No, it really doesn't. My life is not made worse by restrictions that you find stupid; nor is Tante's. Therefore, just being disallowed something does not in itself make life worse. Unless you're going to say that my life is worse and I just don't know it.
Which is certainly possible in these sorts of discussions.
------
Mightycow,
No need. Why don't you edit for content, instead? Because what I responded to was definitely there. And for that response, see above.
As for the rules almost everyone likes...there's really few things as pointless as having a rule that nearly everyone already agrees with and thinks is great.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven:
quote:Originally posted by Despots Through The Ages:
Just because two people make conflicting claims doesn't mean they're both wrong. We're right.
Ahem...
Again, so what? They were wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I always assume that someone who is strident in insisting on their godliness is compensating.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Rakeesh: There's no need to edit, here's what I wrote: "For me, having arbitrary, unfathomable, restrictions, which by definition serve no known purpose, would make me very sad. "
As you can see, I said that the arbitrary, unfathomable restrictions are they ones which would make me sad. I made no mention of logical, consistent, obviously good rules. I like those ones.
Having a rule that nearly everyone agrees with is not pointless at all! What world are you living in? Just about everyone agrees that murder, theft, rape, assault, and blackmail (for example) are wrong. Would you suggest that those rules are pointless?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So on the one hand, I wonder how "rotten" food can be kosher?
and
quote:As far as "rotten" goes, one man's foulness is another man's delicacy. I think macaroni and cheese is one of the nastiest things ever invented. I hate mangos; they smell to me like something that went bad.
Food can undergo changes. Labeling some of them as "good" or "bad" is pretty subjective, really.
I recognize that this comment is a long way from the direction this thread has taken but I feel compelled to say it any way.
It is not even remotely justifiable to compare fermented food to "rotten" food. Not all micro-organisms are harmful. In fact, many of them are essential to us. Fermentation processes have been used since ancient time to keep food from becoming rotten. The micro-organisms used to ferment yoghurt, wine, sauerkraut and so on produce products that inhibit the growth of harmful bacteria. Up until 200 years ago when canning was discovered, fermentation perhaps the only processes available to keep foods from spoiling.
Whether food tastes good or bad is a matter of opinion. Whether botulism, tomain, samonella, and trichinosis are bad, is not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As you can see, I said that the arbitrary, unfathomable restrictions are they ones which would make me sad. I made no mention of logical, consistent, obviously good rules. I like those ones.
Well, OK. If you're going to cherry-pick. And obviously I dispute the adjectives you're using.
quote: Having a rule that nearly everyone agrees with is not pointless at all! What world are you living in? Just about everyone agrees that murder, theft, rape, assault, and blackmail (for example) are wrong. Would you suggest that those rules are pointless?
Actually it is, given that what stops most people from doing those things isn't just that they're against the rules. Murder, for example.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Lisa: Is it then OK when someone else's God commands them to kill your people? I'm guessing most people are going to go with no on that one.
Oh snap. And there it is. Reductio ad Absurdum. But in this case, valid.
Since there's only One God, the question is a non-starter.
Just because two people make conflicting claims doesn't mean they're both wrong. We're right.
Lisa, This argument works just fine if you are not concerned about any ones views but God, but with that kind of attitude don't be surprised if you engender hatred and persecution from those who don't share your beliefs.
Since I do not share your believe, I consider the slaughter of canaanites by Jews to be no different from the slaughter of Jews by Muslims. To me, they are morally equivalent and you can expect me and most others who do not share your belief to continue to treat them as such.
Like I said, if you don't desire my support for your causes or even my respect for your countries sovereignty, then I see no problem with your argument.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I always assume that someone who is strident in insisting on their godliness is compensating.
<shrug> So who's being strident? Sheesh, it's not like I'm yelling or anything. I'm just saying things. Do I have to get all weepy and regretful about things to be seen as non-strident?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Rakeesh: Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I'm not really interested in trying to make sense of the strawmen you keep making of my arguments, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt one more time.
I made a clear, simple statement, and you're trying to twist it to something else. I'll simply further: I like good rules. I abhor ridiculous, arbitrary rules which serve no purpose.
Rules that make sense are the best kind. Rules that most people naturally want to follow are the best kind. If a rule serves an obvious purpose, there's a very good reason to follow it and enforce it.
It's the rules that don't make any sense and serve no useful purpose which are pointless to follow and even worse to try to enforce in others.
Now some people will argue that rules which seem nonsensical and purposeless to me are actually very meaningful and important to them. I accept that to be the case, but that leads to an entirely different discussion.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Lisa, This argument works just fine if you are not concerned about any ones views but God, but with that kind of attitude don't be surprised if you engender hatred and persecution from those who don't share your beliefs.
So do you hate Muslims?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Since I do not share your believe, I consider the slaughter of canaanites by Jews to be no different from the slaughter of Jews by Muslims. To me, they are morally equivalent and you can expect me and most others who do not share your belief to continue to treat them as such.
Well... I guess if I cared a lot about what people thought in this instance, I suppose I'd be glad that God hasn't commanded us to do anything like that for the past 3000 years. That way I wouldn't have to deal with the tragic disapproval of Europeans about something that happened back when most Europeans were living in caves and trees and painting themselves blue.
On the other hand, I catch a lot more flak here on Hatrack for saying what I said, when I've never taken the life of anything bigger than my fist than most of y'all are willing to give to Hamastan and Fatahstan.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Like I said, if you don't desire my support for your causes or even my respect for your countries sovereignty, then I see no problem with your argument.
Oh, I think everyone should take the moral stance. I'm just not going to cry about you not doing so if that's the way you feel.
(<--- added so that I won't be accused of "stridency")
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Since there's only One God, the question is a non-starter.
Just because two people make conflicting claims doesn't mean they're both wrong. We're right.
You're right, and that One God is Allah. So all Allah's followers are doing right, while all YHWH's followers are actually terrible murderers.
My hope is that you'll be able to, just for the briefest moment, step outside your worldview and see why the above statement is exactly the same as yours, that both are equally valid, and that neither hold any logical weight beyond, "I'm right because I said so."
One can hope, right?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Since there's only One God, the question is a non-starter.
Just because two people make conflicting claims doesn't mean they're both wrong. We're right.
You're right, and that One God is Allah. So all Allah's followers are doing right, while all YHWH's followers are actually terrible murderers.
My hope is that you'll be able to, just for the briefest moment, step outside your worldview and see why the above statement is exactly the same as yours, that both are equally valid, and that neither hold any logical weight beyond, "I'm right because I said so."
One can hope, right?
It's semantically the same. But it's different.
Let's try this. I have an orange wristband on my left wrist. You have an orange wristband on your left wrist.
You see how those two statements are the same in precisely the same way you were pointing to, right? To anyone here on Hatrack other than you and me, both statements are obviously going to be taken with a grain of salt, because they can't see me and they can't see you.
And yes, they're liable to take the statement about you having that wristband with a much bigger grain of salt, because there's an objective reason to find that claim marginally less reliable. The fact that you haven't said anything about such a thing, and that I don't know you in real life, or even know where you're located geographically.
But both statements could be true. Both of them could be false. One could be true and the other false, and vice versa. Four possibilities. The existence of the four possibilities doesn't rule out any of them being true. Or false.
So yes, I get that from your point of view, you see no difference between me saying that God told us to wipe out the Canaanites and some middle eastern death cultist saying that Allah told him to blow up a school bus. But the fact that you don't see a difference between the two doesn't mean that there isn't a difference between the two. It just means that you don't see a difference between the two. If Hatrack had a webcam interface and both of us had webcams, that'd be a source of information that would allow people to determine to a greater degree of certainty which, if any, of the statements I made about orange wristbands was true. And maybe if you knew more about certain subjects you'd have information that would allow you to better distinguish between what I said and what some murderer says.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
What's the difference between a Muslim who murders Jews and a Jew who murders Canaanites?
This is just a textbook example of how religion can be turned to a force of evil. Two people both believe that their invisible space father told them it's ok for them to murder someone else, and neither is willing to see that they're both just murderers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My hope is that you'll be able to, just for the briefest moment, step outside your worldview and see why the above statement is exactly the same as yours, that both are equally valid, and that neither hold any logical weight beyond, "I'm right because I said so."
It'd be nice if you could step outside your worldview for the briefest moment and see that, if one is actually right and the other wrong, then the statements are not identical. It's true they are both equally logically valid. But if the underlying premises have different truth values, then one is sound and one is not.
You've essentially posted a fine example of why logic is at most one half of truth-finding.
(And this isn't to express agreement with either of the worldviews you've used in this example.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Everyone should just calm down, sit down, and have some tea. The Mormons can have carefully selected bubble tea as a substitute.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I've never met a bubble tea that didn't have tea. Do they make that?
I'd prefer herbal tea, just to be safe. Or hot chocolate. Or just plain soda. Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
*going to Google "bubble tea"*
The taste image that came to my mouth was a memory of when I was little and had a bubble pipe full of bubble solution, and accidentally drank some bubble solution.
*gack*
So far bubble tea sounds awful.
ETA: But it looks yummy. Like a giant caviar milkshake. Mmm, mmm.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I've seen bubble tea shops in Honolulu that sell non-tea bubble drinks, but I'm not sure whether they call them bubble tea. I've never had one... they look kinda weird to me. I prefer Dr Pepper myself (it's the only true and living soft drink.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag, I think that MightyCow's point may be that in a free and just society that "rightness" should be demonstrable to at least a significant number of people that don't share the "right" person's worldview. At least before that "rightness" is made compulsory.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:At least before that "rightness" is made compulsory.
Where do you get this part out of his posts? I don't see anything that suggests this factored into it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Maybe that's just me. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lisa has been quite forthright in the past about excluding the types of considerations she's been discussing here from use in determining legality of particular actions in this society. Coupled with the fact that she hasn't even broached the subject of morality in the exchange I commented on, it's pretty clear to me she hasn't advocated any such thing.
I'd still like to see the specific parts of MC's posts that made you think that he was referring to compulsion of "rightness."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that anyone in this thread has advocated such a thing. I do think that the antipathy many people feel for "God says so" rules is that as a society we have often given those rules the force of law.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Or, as a nod to peek-a-boo from the other side of the forum, we could have a "teredew". That would be Yerba Mate made by putting cold Mountain Dew into the yerba instead of cold water. Opps: I was responding to Maui Babe, forgetting that the world ran on.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What's the difference between a Muslim who murders Jews and a Jew who murders Canaanites?
Nothing whatsoever. But that's not what we're talking about.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that anyone in this thread has advocated such a thing. I do think that the antipathy many people feel for "God says so" rules is that as a society we have often given those rules the force of law.
And yet everyone here (including MC) knows that I'm very outspoken in my opposition to giving such things the force of law in the US.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, I don't think that if it were you and only you "you" meaning people in this thread, it mightn't be so frightening.
The "in the United States" part may make us safe, but it doesn't make imposing arbitrary rules moral elsewhere.
Except for the part about people being bugged by things that make no sense.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Or, as a nod to peek-a-boo from the other side of the forum, we could have a "teredew". That would be Yerba Mate made by putting cold Mountain Dew into the yerba instead of cold water. Opps: I was responding to Maui Babe, forgetting that the world ran on.
That just sounds incredibly nasty.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Again, I don't think that if it were you and only you "you" meaning people in this thread, it mightn't be so frightening.
The "in the United States" part may make us safe, but it doesn't make imposing arbitrary rules moral elsewhere.
Except for the part about people being bugged by things that make no sense.
kmboots, I'm confused by your point here. MC has made extensive and explicit objections to Lisa's point here, none of which seem to relate to enacting moral choices into law.
You brought this line of thinking up to respond to an objection I made to one of MC's posts - an objection that had nothing to do with such compulsion.
Now we've gone so far from that that I can't quite figure out what we're talking about any more.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It'd be nice if you could step outside your worldview for the briefest moment and see that, if one is actually right and the other wrong, then the statements are not identical.
I've added emphasis to the crux of the situation there. Unfortunately, NOBODY can prove that their side is actually right to uninterested third parties, let alone to the opposition, which holds completely contradictory views.
So if neither side is demonstrably right, then it's impossible for us to ever find out which of the statements is non-identical. This means that from a logical and moral standpoint, they ARE perfectly and completely identical.
The only way in which they are non-identical is within the mind of the individual, and in that case, it breaks down into, "I can kill anyone I like, because in my mind it's OK for me to do so." I sincerely hope that you realize it is impossible to have a society in which we allow that.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And yet everyone here (including MC) knows that I'm very outspoken in my opposition to giving such things the force of law in the US.
You're equally outspoken in your belief that some people deserve to die because your Invisible Space Father seems to have told you that they're in you spot. Even though their view is identical, if opposite.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unfortunately, NOBODY can prove that their side is actually right to uninterested third parties, let alone to the opposition, which holds completely contradictory views.
So if neither side is demonstrably right, then it's impossible for us to ever find out which of the statements is non-identical. This means that from a logical and moral standpoint, they ARE perfectly and completely identical.
You seem to be saying that something can't be true if it can't be proven true. Is that what you're saying?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
KQ, regular terere is great. In Paraguay, they usually flavor the water like this I haven't heard of teredew in Paraguay. It is more of an LA thing. I personally prefer te lemon or lemon peal in the water. My daughter perfers mint.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Dag, he's not* inferring what can't be true so much as what can't be known to be true. Of course, the validity of that point depends on your definition of knowledge.
*edited to include "not." Also deleted the separate post.
[ August 15, 2008, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: rollainm ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I like mint. I just don't like Mountain Dew to begin with. Eeeeew.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Typical mistake....confusing logical with correct.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I like mint. I just don't like Mountain Dew to begin with. Eeeeew.
Here I thought you were an LA girl now!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Dagonee: I'm saying that if something cannot be proven to be true, then using its assumed truth is of no value.
Saying, "God says I am allowed to kill people" is meaningless, because I can just say, "No, God says you are NOT allowed to kill people", and since neither of us can show that one argument is better than the other, they're both meaningless.
Further, if we cannot show any evidence for God actually giving a message, then saying, "God says it's OK for me to kill people, but only I know this for sure" is equal to saying, "I have decided that it is OK for me to kill people."
Clearly the second statement is no justification for murder. If it's equal to the first statement in truth value though, we can see that claiming God's command without being able to actually show the proof of such a command is no different than just deciding that you want to do something.
In fact, religious folks frequently point to other religious folks who are doing bad things, and claim that they're not ACTUALLY following God's commandments, even though the people doing the bad stuff will swear that they are.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Unfortunately, NOBODY can prove that their side is actually right to uninterested third parties, let alone to the opposition, which holds completely contradictory views.
So if neither side is demonstrably right, then it's impossible for us to ever find out which of the statements is non-identical. This means that from a logical and moral standpoint, they ARE perfectly and completely identical.
You seem to be saying that something can't be true if it can't be proven true. Is that what you're saying?
I hope he isn't. I mean, I have no way to prove to any of you that I just got out of the shower, but it's a fact anyway.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Dagonee: I'm saying that if something cannot be proven to be true, then using its assumed truth is of no value.
Saying, "God says I am allowed to kill people" is meaningless, because I can just say, "No, God says you are NOT allowed to kill people", and since neither of us can show that one argument is better than the other, they're both meaningless.
This may be true, in a vacuum. But my claim doesn't exist in a vacuum. Yours does.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I like mint. I just don't like Mountain Dew to begin with. Eeeeew.
Here I thought you were an LA girl now!
I am. Mountain Dew has always been seen as kind of a hick drink where I grew up (my part of L.A.) That, or for med students who have to stay up for 50 hours at a time. Diet Coke is more chic (but I prefer Dr. Pepper.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Saying, "God says I am allowed to kill people" is meaningless, because I can just say, "No, God says you are NOT allowed to kill people", and since neither of us can show that one argument is better than the other, they're both meaningless.
No, they're both unprovable. That's a different thing than meaningless.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: This may be true, in a vacuum. But my claim doesn't exist in a vacuum. Yours does.
Yeah, in your case the claim comes from you, which, for what it's worth, lends credence to the notion that you really believe it. On the other hand, I think you're a religious extremist, and I think there are about 1,000 things more important to religious extremists than God, even if they say that God is number 1.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: This may be true, in a vacuum. But my claim doesn't exist in a vacuum. Yours does.
No, yours does
How long do we have to do that before you see how pointless it is?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, they're both unprovable. That's a different thing than meaningless.
They're not meaningless from a linguistic standpoint, but they're meaningless from a truth standpoint, or a utility standpoint, because since they both have equal value, and they're completely contradictory, neither has any rhetorical, moral, or real weight.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They're not meaningless from a linguistic standpoint, but they're meaningless from a truth standpoint, or a utility standpoint, because since they both have equal value, and they're completely contradictory, neither has any rhetorical, moral, or real weight.
To a third party, that's true. That's not what they're relevant to.
quote:How long do we have to do that before you see how pointless it is?
The pointlessness stems not from your simply parroting back slightly altered versions of what Lisa says. The pointlessness arises because you continue to try to assert your version of what the "point" is of someone saying God commands X.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
When two parties say "God wants me to do X" and that X is different, they're both just making up a justification to do what they want to.
If that's murder, ethnic cleansing, slavery, or any other thing which we would be morally opposed to without a "command from God", then we must be equally opposed to it with this "command from God", since the command cannot carry any weight except to the person who wants to do the immoral act.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When two parties say "God wants me to do X" and that X is different, they're both just making up a justification to do what they want to.
No, they're not. When you understand that, you will get what the point actually is.
That doesn't mean they're correct. But saying they're "just making it up" isn't accurate.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, it could be accurate though, couldn't it? I mean, there's always that possibility.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It could be accurate in the specific. It was stated, however, in the general.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...since the command cannot carry any weight except to the person who wants to do the immoral act.
This is nonsense not only for the reasons Dagonee has pointed out, but because it assumes that people only follow commands they want to follow.
That's only somewhat true, and it's a pretty hazy situation. Being willing to do something and wanting to do it are two very different things.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:When two parties say "God wants me to do X" and that X is different, they're both just making up a justification to do what they want to.
No, they're not. When you understand that, you will get what the point actually is.
Yes they are. When you understand that, you will get what the point actually is.
I can see how fruitful this conversation is going to be too. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I can see how fruitful this conversation is going to be too.
Now you're not even trying to understand.
You say it's pointless because neither one can prove their side of it. That's only true if the only point of saying it was to convince someone who doesn't believe it that it's true.
That's not the only point of saying something. This is trivially basic stuff. As long as you insist they're trying to make the same point you would be making if you asserted something, you're essentially arguing about something else.
Edit: And the reason your clever little trick of just flipping the statements around doesn't work in this case is that you are the one whose position relies on defining the point of others' speech. I'm not doing that, so your cute little flip is basically meaningless.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
You know, the only thing I can get out of this argument is that if it's true, it's true.
Big deal. If you can't know it's true then you've got no business saying you know it's true.
It could also be true that there is no God. But I'd never assert that as knowable.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Except many people believe it is knowable and that they know. Lisa for instance, or many Mormons.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You know, the only thing I can get out of this argument is that if it's true, it's true.
Could you explain that to MC, then? He seems to keep missing it.
quote:Big deal. If you can't know it's true then you've got no business saying you know it's true.
There are certain things I know to be true but can't prove to you. I'm not asking you to believe them. I will, however, treat them as true when making decisions about how I choose to act.
That's not pointless as MC asserts, and it actually is a big deal.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Glenn, try this for an analogy: suppose you went up to someone who'd been happily married for 40 years, commented on the design of his wedding ring, and then said "you know, I think even people who aren't married should wear wedding rings each year during the week of your anniversary. They create a little space between your fingers that helps you keep them clean and aired out so you're less likely to get a fungal infection.
I've been trying to get my mind wrapped around this analogy, and I can't make it work.
First of all, it would only work if there was something obvious about the fact that it makes sense. Trichinosis in pork is obvious. Clams with typhoid is obvious. This analogy maybe works for circumcision, where there is no proven benefit. But then I wouldn't have made that claim.
The other part is that the inclusion of "wearing the wedding ring during the week of your anniversary" is missing an important part, and I realize I didn't make this explicit, but remember that there were 8 Jews there that were actively engaged in eating trayf. My comment about keeping kosher during passover was with reference to them. My comment about following kosher law because it could prevent disease came slightly after. Again, I can't remember the events and timing precisely, because it happened about 15 years ago.
If my father had still been alive, then perhaps I could have talked to him about it. I could have talked to Uncle Shelly before he died too, but I'm pretty sure I can tell what his reaction would have been, and it wouldn't make anything more understandable. I still wonder whether it would be worth it to broach the subject with Aunt Ruth or Steve, but judging from some of the reactions I've gotten here, I'm even less likely to.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Except many people believe it is knowable and that they know
That's just it. They believe they know it, that's not the same as knowing it. I believe that God doesn't exist, but there's a step between believing something and believing you actually know it. Without a kind of proof that exists outside your own mind, it really isn't justifiable to claim you have actual knowledge.
quote:There are certain things I know to be true but can't prove to you. I'm not asking you to believe them. I will, however, treat them as true when making decisions about how I choose to act.
You're welcome to use them for your own decision making, but claiming they're true to others is a different matter. Lisa is not asking others to believe her version of truth, she is insisting that her version is true. She has no basis on which to support that, other than her own state of belief.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:That's just it. They believe they know it, that's not the same as knowing it. I believe that God doesn't exist, but there's a step between believing something and believing you actually know it.
But they don't have that step. In the LDS church every month they have a special meeting were people from the congregation are invited to come up to an open mike where they, without exception, share the fact that they know that their church is true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc. Mothers even whisper these things into the ears of their kindergarten-aged children who repeat it verbatim to the congregation over the microphone.
At one meeting a brave young man declared that he didn't think it was necessarily possible to know these things but that he believed them very strongly and hoped that they were true. He was corrected by the next gentleman who said that yes, he really did know these things.
Many of these people know these things that you are I consider unknowable with the same conviction that you know the sun will rise tomorrow and that I know that I hate black licorice.
[ August 16, 2008, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Dagonee: I'm making a distinction between things which are true in the reality of the world at large, and things which individuals may believe is true, but which have no external truth value.
For example: You may think that for you, it's OK to kill brown people, because they aren't actually human, even though you can't prove that to me. To you, that may be entirely self-evident, but to everybody else, it's just murder. That's the point I'm trying to make.
One person saying, "This is true. No, it really is. No, you're wrong, it really is true, even though I can't show you, but I know it myself." Doesn't provide justification for anything, except to the person saying it.
So it's meaningless when Lisa says, "It was OK for the Jews to kill the Cannanites, because God told them to." Because to anyone else, it wasn't OK. What her words actually mean is, "I think this is OK, for no reason except that I have decided to believe that it is."
I'm just trying to establish intellectual honesty in the conversation.
Similarly, when you say, "There are certain things I know to be true but can't prove to you." What you actually mean is, "There are certain things which I believe." Not know, think.
If you can't show it, you don't know it. Maybe you're just making it up. If Nobody else can see the person you're talking to, maybe he's not really there.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:But they don't have that step. In the LDS church every month they have a special meeting were people from the congregation are invited to come up to an open mike where they, without exception, share the fact that they know that their church is true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc. Mother even whisper these things into the ears of their kindergarten-aged children who repeat it verbatim to the congregation over the microphone.
I'm not sure which point you are trying to make here. This is absolute denial of the value of logic. Even the most absolute mathematical proof relies on axioms. This kind of social pressure to make an unprovable claim is frightening to me no matter how innocuous the claim is.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
MC,
I know I exist. Do you? Can you?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm not sure which point you are trying to make here.
The point is that there is a distinction between knowledge from an external perspective and an internal one. You and I agree that, for instance, Lisa doesn't know that there is a God behind her theology. But she experiences knowing that fact just the same.
When she says "I know x", she is correct. She has such a high confidence in the proposition x that she is willing to state that it is accurate without qualification. When we say she does not know x, we are also correct - she cannot demonstrate to the satisfaction of an critical observer that what she knows actually represents reality.
We might argue that she is wrong, but it's hard to argue about what she knows without some very careful defining of what know means. Not all definitions of know require that the subject of that knowledge represent a discernible truth.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
rollainm: If I meet you, I can know that you exist. You could bring up brain in a jar or some other philosophical nonsense, but if we accept that there exists a real world and that we are all not just figments of your imagination, then yes, I can know that you exist.
Within that same real world framework, multiple people can make mutually exclusive claims about God, and what God Wants, and none of them can prove that their version is right. Logically, we cannot accept any of them with any reliability.
Hence, we cannot accept that an immoral act becomes moral if "God says it's OK", because it is impossible to actually know if indeed God says it's OK.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I agree with you in principle. I think the major disconnect with others like Dagonee and Lisa, though, is in the universal conviction with which you assert your claims (yes, the same could be said of Lisa as well, possibly Dagonee). Supporting your rigorous logic are premises and assumptions that, at some point, eventually, are just as unverifiable as hers. Your insistence on only considering your perceived reality as real, I think, is a prime example of that. This is important to consider because your concept/defintion of knowledge is directly affected by how you define your reality. Lisa's God, by definition, doesn't adhere to your "real world framework," and so you're already arguing past each other at this point.
Anyway, my point is that if gaining common ground is at all your goal, you're going to have to come to some agreement on the concepts of knowledge and reality. The problem with that is that's a whole new can of worms.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I've never met a bubble tea that didn't have tea. Do they make that?
The Wikipedia gives a good general thrust.
quote: The original bubble tea consisted of a hot Taiwanese black tea, brown large pearl tapioca, condensed milk, and honey. As this drink became more popular, variations were created. Initially iced versions with a hint of peach or plum flavoring began to appear, then more fruit flavors were added until, in some variations, the tea was removed entirely in favor of real fruits. These fruit versions usually contain colored pearls (and/or "jelly cubes" as in the related drink taho), the color chosen to match whatever fruit juice is used. Popular flavors include strawberry, passion fruit, mango, chocolate, and coconut, and may be added in the form of powder, fruit juice, pulp, or syrup to hot black or green tea, which is shaken in a cocktail shaker or mixed in a blender with ice until chilled. Cooked tapioca pearls are addded at the end.
I think the tapioca pearls are the only real constant (and even then not quite, because there is a popular variant that uses lychee jelly).
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
rollainm: I'm sure you're right about that.
If we draw all the way back so that we're not even talking about the world and reality, we can approach it from a purely logical standpoint though.
Person one says, "X" Person two says, "Not X" There is no way of verifying either position.
If that is the case, then we must use some other method to determine any conclusions which rely on knowledge about X, because these two people's assertions are of no value to anyone apart from themselves.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee: I'm making a distinction between things which are true in the reality of the world at large, and things which individuals may believe is true, but which have no external truth value.
And I am protesting your insistence that the former doesn't change the essential character of the latter.
quote:You're welcome to use them for your own decision making, but claiming they're true to others is a different matter.
No, it's not a different matter. I claim that the Catholic faith is true.
quote:You may think that for you, it's OK to kill brown people, because they aren't actually human, even though you can't prove that to me. To you, that may be entirely self-evident, but to everybody else, it's just murder. That's the point I'm trying to make.
But you went far beyond that, claiming there's no difference between a true statement and a false statement if one can't prove either. That's ludicrous. Two statements are different if one is true and one is not.
quote:One person saying, "This is true. No, it really is. No, you're wrong, it really is true, even though I can't show you, but I know it myself." Doesn't provide justification for anything, except to the person saying it.
Which is far, far different than the things you were saying earlier. One person justifying their actions to themselves is not pointless. Every single person does that with unprovable premises every single day.
quote:I'm just trying to establish intellectual honesty in the conversation.
Which is my essential problem with you here: you're claiming that someone is being intellectually dishonest when they rely on truths that are not justifiable to others.
quote:Similarly, when you say, "There are certain things I know to be true but can't prove to you." What you actually mean is, "There are certain things which I believe." Not know, think.
Nope. If I see someone fly away, I can't prove to you that it happened. You would be well justified in disbelieving me. But that doesn't mean I don't know it happened.
quote:If you can't show it, you don't know it. Maybe you're just making it up. If Nobody else can see the person you're talking to, maybe he's not really there.
Again, this is wrong.
quote:Within that same real world framework, multiple people can make mutually exclusive claims about God, and what God Wants, and none of them can prove that their version is right. Logically, we cannot accept any of them with any reliability.
Which brings us right back to my principle problem with your line of reasoning - the premise that a statement that someone else cannot accept reliably is pointless.
quote:Hence, we cannot accept that an immoral act becomes moral if "God says it's OK", because it is impossible to actually know if indeed God says it's OK.
True. If someone kills someone because God says so, we should put them in prison if we can't confirm their story. But that's not the same as the moral statement being pointless. It had a huge point.
Let's say they've been given a justification by God that, if true, would convince you of the morality of their act. If the person is right - whether or not they can prove it to you - then their action was actually moral. Which, again, doesn't mean we don't punish them absent such proof.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Now I'm all intrigued and want to try bubble tea. Er, bubble non-tea. Whatever.
What is it like, the big tapioca pearls, after you've drunk it? Do you stab them with the straw and suck up their innards, or do you take off the drink lid and and drink them like the strawberry dregs of a strawberry lemonade? Is it like trying to suck up Jell-O through a straw?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Nope. If I see someone fly away, I can't prove to you that it happened. You would be well justified in disbelieving me. But that doesn't mean I don't know it happened.
More accurately, you would know that you perceived someone flying away. Since you also know that this is very unlikely, it would not be remiss of you to second-guess your own perceptions in this case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fine. Change that to "Nope. If I see someone wearing a brown coat walking down an otherwise deserted sidewalk, I can't prove to you that it happened. You would be well justified in disbelieving me. But that doesn't mean I don't know it happened." The point remains the same.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sachiko: I've never really thought of it much. I think people tend to eat it while having the drink. They are sort of jelly-like, harder than jello. They are very easy to suck up the straw and it might be a bit of an acquired taste. I normally prefer the lychee jelly, but the pearls are worth a try.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The point remains the same.
I actually think the distinction is pretty important.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I actually think the distinction is pretty important.
Not to the point I was making. It might be important to some other point.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I actually think the distinction is pretty important."
Do you see it as two points on a continuum, or as something else?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And yet everyone here (including MC) knows that I'm very outspoken in my opposition to giving such things the force of law in the US.
You're equally outspoken in your belief that some people deserve to die because your Invisible Space Father seems to have told you that they're in you spot. Even though their view is identical, if opposite.
Listen, MightyCow, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm whistling this post. I think your repeated use of "your Invisible Space Father" and other jibes isn't all that much different from an ethnic slur.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Suddenly I am thinking of things like pots and kettles.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Fine. Change that to "Nope. If I see someone wearing a brown coat walking down an otherwise deserted sidewalk, I can't prove to you that it happened. You would be well justified in disbelieving me. But that doesn't mean I don't know it happened." The point remains the same.
This is a "tree fell in the woods" argument. If there is only one observer, that observer knows what they saw.
But believing in God, or believing in biblical events, follow different mechanisms than simply being the only observer of an event. People often make the claim that "God has made himself known" to them, but this follows a very different mechanism than sensory observation. Whether it's observation of coincidence, or a cumulative sense that the world is too miraculous, or that god's existence "makes sense," you're not observing, you're just infering a schema.
That may be good enough for you to believe that you know something, but the logical/scientific criteria for knowledge aren't satisfied.
Another way of looking at it is that if it's possible that you are wrong, you don't know it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Um, didn't you refer to Islamic suicide bombers as Death Cultists earlier in this thread? If that's acceptable, I have a hard time thinking MC's comment isn't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* Lisa, if your whistle sticks, how will you be able to participate in any political discussion concerning the Middle East?
Perhaps I should support this whistle...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Lisa is not asking others to believe her version of truth, she is insisting that her version is true.
Very true. Of course, now I'll get pilloried for not caring if other people agree or not.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: She has no basis on which to support that, other than her own state of belief.
Well... I don't think that's the case. I do think that the basis is involved enough that it can't exactly be given over on an online forum.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Listen, MightyCow, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm whistling this post. I think your repeated use of "your Invisible Space Father" and other jibes isn't all that much different from an ethnic slur.
lol @ irony
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: So it's meaningless when Lisa says, "It was OK for the Jews to kill the Cannanites, because God told them to." Because to anyone else, it wasn't OK. What her words actually mean is, "I think this is OK, for no reason except that I have decided to believe that it is."
Nope. It's not meaningless. You happen to lack the background knowledge to appreciate that, so it is meaningless to you. Particularly because you not only lack that knowledge, but intend to maintain that state of affairs indefinitely. It's the difference between ignorance (which isn't a cause for scorn) and willful ignorance (which is).
But I don't really scorn you much for it, because your opinion really matters so little to me. It's not important enough to make me feel that way.
There's a particular kind of solipsism that makes a person say "If it's meaningless to me, it's meaningless". I'm a little disappointed to see that sort of narrowmindedness on Hatrack.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm just trying to establish intellectual honesty in the conversation.
Heh. Savor the irony.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If you can't show it, you don't know it.
Nah. If you can't show it on an online forum while standing on one foot, it might mean that it requires a somewhat more serious study. And I'm no Hillel.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I'm not sure which point you are trying to make here.
The point is that there is a distinction between knowledge from an external perspective and an internal one. You and I agree that, for instance, Lisa doesn't know that there is a God behind her theology. But she experiences knowing that fact just the same.
I think you have that backwards. At least in my case. I have never, not in my entire life, experienced God or experienced knowing that God exists. It'd be nice, I guess, but it's never happened. I'm convinced of His existence intellectually. Not 100%... maybe 85-90%. Close enough for rock and roll, though. Certainly it's high enough for me to act on it.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: When she says "I know x", she is correct. She has such a high confidence in the proposition x that she is willing to state that it is accurate without qualification.
Bingo.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Suddenly I am thinking of things like pots and kettles.
We really need a "yawn" graemlin.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Um, didn't you refer to Islamic suicide bombers as Death Cultists earlier in this thread? If that's acceptable, I have a hard time thinking MC's comment isn't.
Really? Insulting someone for thinking differently is the same as insulting a murderer? Note that I didn't use the term "death cultists" for Muslims in general; I used it for the actual murderers.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I think you have that backwards. At least in my case. I have never, not in my entire life, experienced God or experienced knowing that God exists. It'd be nice, I guess, but it's never happened. I'm convinced of His existence intellectually. Not 100%... maybe 85-90%. Close enough for rock and roll, though. Certainly it's high enough for me to act on it.
This is very interesting to me. I would never assert anything with as much conviction as some of Lisa's statements (the Canaanite one, e.g.) if I were only 85 - 90% convinced of their veracity. Unless perhaps if it was something that didn't matter much to me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Possibilities have weighted probabilities. The 10-15% contains ideas that are pretty unlikely.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
So when you say 85% you really mean 99.7%? There's something here that I'm not understanding.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I'm a little disappointed to see that sort of narrowmindedness on Hatrack.
lol @ irony x2
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Now I'm all intrigued and want to try bubble tea. Er, bubble non-tea. Whatever.
What is it like, the big tapioca pearls, after you've drunk it? Do you stab them with the straw and suck up their innards, or do you take off the drink lid and and drink them like the strawberry dregs of a strawberry lemonade? Is it like trying to suck up Jell-O through a straw?
It depends on the size of the boba. (That's what it's called around here, boba, not bubble tea. But same thing. no one here sells it without tea in it, although I know in some parts of the world it exists in herbal or other drink form, but here it's always been tea when I've seen it, but I drank it once before i converted and have friends who love it; I sometimes used to do karaoke with them at a place that sold it, before I married and had kids, or they'd get it when we were out shopping. Anyway, onward with the explaination.) Sometimes you get an extra-large staw, if the boba are pretty small. Sometimes if they're large boba they give you a spoon. Sometimes you take the lid off and drink it becauase they don't give you anything but a regular straw.
I find the texture to be quite like the tapioca pearls in tapioca pudding, maybe a little softer though. Which is why I only drank it once; I hate tapioca pudding and all things with a texture reminiscent of it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: When she says "I know x", she is correct. She has such a high confidence in the proposition x that she is willing to state that it is accurate without qualification.
Bingo.
I know you're wrong. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That may be good enough for you to believe that you know something, but the logical/scientific criteria for knowledge aren't satisfied.
I disagree with the "logical" portion of your statement. As for the "scientific" portion, I'm quite happy to acknowledge this. However, I have never granted science the sole arbitorship of knowledge.
That's pretty much the only reason I came into this thread: I'm not going to concede the definition of "know" to those who would try to claim it solely for their own worldview.
quote:Another way of looking at it is that if it's possible that you are wrong, you don't know it.
I doubt either MC or Tom would agree with this, simply because it would remove the word knowledge from ever being used (see "brain in the box").
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Um, didn't you refer to Islamic suicide bombers as Death Cultists earlier in this thread? If that's acceptable, I have a hard time thinking MC's comment isn't.
Really? Insulting someone for thinking differently is the same as insulting a murderer? Note that I didn't use the term "death cultists" for Muslims in general; I used it for the actual murderers.
See, but I would call his comments highly disparaging, and certainly rude, sure, but I don't think you can get ethnic slur out of it. I could easily see him saying the same thing to Occasional, say, or Jay if he were still around. Insulting people isn't against the TOS. And I didn't whistle your death cultists post, I'm not saying it violates, either. But as far as hate language goes, I think you're walking a much finer line than he is.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
<shrug> You're entitled to your beliefs.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Whenever I've had bubble tea, it's involved a wide straw to suck the pearls and the tea up together. There seems to be a standard size for the pearls so they fit the straw properly. It's definitely an acquired taste. I love it when it's in an ice cream slushie tea ("Icy Swirl") and the pearls start to freeze a bit. Yummmm.
Just be careful if they get stuck in the straw. Blow them back out the other end, DO NOT keep sucking and hoping it will get loose. It will. And tapioca pearls sucked up your nasal passages at high velocity are incredibly painful. Trust me on this one.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There's a couple of standard sizes; some places around here use the "giant boba" size that is eaten with a spoon. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Do you find that your keeping kosher affects your relationships outside of family?
To some degree. Remember, that's one of the side-effects, as I mentioned.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It is one thing for Jewish, or non jewish family members to accommodate your needs, but this practice surely guides your life choices in many ways.
I have no idea why you think non-kosher-keeping relatives are different than other non-kosher-keeping folks in this regard, but whatever.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You couldn't ever share an apartment with someone who didn't keep kosher
Not impossible, but awkward enough that it wouldn't be something I'd want to do for more than a few days.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: you couldn't live in a dorm at a university that didn't keep kosher
Not necessarily. I know people who do it.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: you couldn't visit a country where kosher foods are not available
Did you want a list of such places I've been to? Canned tuna and peanut butter can travel anywhere, fresh fruit and veggies can be bought just about anywhere, and these days there are all sorts of shelf-stable kosher meals available. It does take more planning.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Do you pick your friends according to who will be able to accommodate you?
Yes. Yes, I do. In fact, I send all potential friends a 27-page questionnaire to evaluate their suitability.
kq
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
The taste of a bubble tea with green tea and plum flavoring--I'm sure this is off, but my mouth is thinking maybe it's reminiscent of azuki bean-filled mini mochi?
(I'm not sure how many hyphens are required for "azuki bean filled mini mochi".)
I'd have to try it; I'm back and forth on the jelly eyeball feeling of tapioca.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Sachiko, I find azuki bean and plum very different flavors. Personally. The texture is very different from mochi.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Everyone assumes that the reason why some religious groups proscribe tea and coffee is because of the caffeine content. There is nothing in the Bible that proscribes these beverages. Seventh-day Adventists officially discourage use of tea and coffee (though it is not a real high priority) solely because Ellen G. White, whom most SDAs regard as having been a genuine prophet, said we should not use tea or coffee. But she never said why. I doubt that Mormons or very conservative Nazarenes, or whatever, give any specific reasons either. There are also alot of basically secular vegan type "health nuts" who eschew coffee and tea too, for reasons not clearly spelled out. It may be a matter of tradition. Some traditions are rooted in something valid.
Caffeine could be considered unhealthful, but if it is so bad, why did God create so many different kinds of plants that contain it? (In addition to coffee and tea, there are chocolate, cola, mate, gotu kola, and I think betelnut, to name a few.)
Here's a thought: Maybe what is wrong with coffee is that it is always roasted, and the roasting process could produce carcinogenic compounds. As for tea, it may be the curing process that turns the tea leaves black that is the real cause of health concerns. Green tea is exactly the same plant, it just is not cured. And I think it tastes better. White tea is good too, with an even milder taste. Same plant, just younger leaves.
It is funny that discussion of coffee and tea have been a persistent part of a thread about whether sauerkraut is kosher.
As for keeping kosher, I think the advisability of keeping kosher depends upon your reasons for it. Orthodox Jews probably feel they have to in order to be obedient. Some even seem to revel in how deprived they are, because it helps validate their identity as the favored people of God.
As a Christian, and particularly as a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, I believe that followers of Christ are the true inheritors of all the blessings promised to Abraham, because we prove we are the children of faith by receiving the Promised Seed of Abraham. I would suggest, based on this view, that it is reasonable for all Christians to view things like the dietary restrictions in Levitcus 11 as blessings meant to facilitate our health, not as restrictions meant to make us feel deprived and "different." After all, isn't it reasonable that the Creator would know what foods are less desirable than others for human consumption? If God had never given us such counsel in the Bible, I would wonder why not! It is great that the Creator cares enough about us to let us know these things.
Any Jews who find themselves stuck in a strange city with no ready means for providing a kosher meal for themselves, might do well to look up an Adventist family--or better still, if it is Saturday around noon, look up an Adventist church and see if they are having a fellowship dinner after church service. Such dinners are always completely free of any meats deemed unclean by Leviticus 11. They are usually vegetarian, as well. And such fellowship dinners are always free and open to visitors, even non-Christians. Persecution may rise again in the last days. Keep it in mind.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Do you pick your friends according to who will be able to accommodate you?
Yes. Yes, I do. In fact, I send all potential friends a 27-page questionnaire to evaluate their suitability.
There is a waiting list, too. I have been waiting for mine for 3 years now.
That really wasn't too bad of a question, really, at least in my mind. I don't keep kosher, of course, but what people are willing to do for me as a friend DOES factor into how good a friend I consider them. If I was a vegetarian and I had a friend who mocked it and was always insisting we eat at the Outback I doubt I would hang with him very much at dinnertime.
It isn't quid pro quo by any means, but if someone was a really close friend they would have to understand and respect my beliefs. That doesn't mean they could laugh once and a while, but if I thought it was disrespectful I probably would stop being friends with them after a while.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I doubt that Mormons or very conservative Nazarenes, or whatever, give any specific reasons either.
Nope. That's why caffienated drinks are not forbidden, but decaf coffee is.
Were I to speculate, I could list several substances that are in both coffee and tea but are not in a Coke. But I won't.
Now, because we feel that the spirit of the Word of Wisdom is that we should not become dependent on any substance, many of us do avoid all or most caffiene, or only indulge occasionally. But that's a personal choice.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Any Jews who find themselves stuck in a strange city with no ready means for providing a kosher meal for themselves, might do well to look up an Adventist family...
I'm almost certain that an Adventist family would not be able to provide a kosher meal to the standards of an Orthodox Jew, for a variety of reasons.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:That's pretty much the only reason I came into this thread: I'm not going to concede the definition of "know" to those who would try to claim it solely for their own worldview.
Who is claiming that knowledge is only possible for their own worldview? I certainly have never claimed to know that God doesn't exist. I don't even think KoM has done that.
quote:
quote:Another way of looking at it is that if it's possible that you are wrong, you don't know it.
I doubt either MC or Tom would agree with this, simply because it would remove the word knowledge from ever being used (see "brain in the box").
I don't think it's necessary to go so far as to question reality or the senses. But I've heard too many people give reasons why they "know" God exists, and what it comes down to is that they "feel" they've experienced God in some intangible way, or merely that "it makes sense" that god exists based on the complexity and beauty of the world, which they take as a miracle. That's enough for belief, even strong belief, but I can't see how it can be taken as strong enough evidence to claim actual knowledge.
How about this? Would you swear to God that you know God exists? What would God think of you if you used his name as an affirmation, if he knows that he hasn't actually given you adequate proof to make any claim beyond the claim that you believe in Him?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Do you pick your friends according to who will be able to accommodate you?
Yes. Yes, I do. In fact, I send all potential friends a 27-page questionnaire to evaluate their suitability.
Question number one: You are a person who deals well with endless snippy sarcastic remarks.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Do not Agree.
Question number two: You value patience in your friends
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Do not Agree.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: ...And tapioca pearls sucked up your nasal passages at high velocity are incredibly painful. Trust me on this one.
The mental image of how one determined this for the first time is sheer awesome.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Who is claiming that knowledge is only possible for their own worldview? I certainly have never claimed to know that God doesn't exist. I don't even think KoM has done that.
That's not at all what I meant.
quote:I don't think it's necessary to go so far as to question reality or the senses. But I've heard too many people give reasons why they "know" God exists, and what it comes down to is that they "feel" they've experienced God in some intangible way, or merely that "it makes sense" that god exists based on the complexity and beauty of the world, which they take as a miracle. That's enough for belief, even strong belief, but I can't see how it can be taken as strong enough evidence to claim actual knowledge.
This is what I meant by claiming the word "knowledge" for your own worldview.
Edit: To expand, it's clear that there's a line-drawing function to be made in determining what one "knows" or not. The line-drawing is not, for anyone I've ever met, one that actually encompasses "if it's possible that you are wrong, you don't know it." Therefore the line must be drawn short of no possibility of being wrong.
The position of that line is not one I'm willing to concede to a particular worldview.
quote:How about this? Would you swear to God that you know God exists?
Yes.
Edit: To expand again, because I trust that God knows what I mean by the word "know."
[ August 18, 2008, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: How about this? Would you swear to God that you know God exists? What would God think of you if you used his name as an affirmation, if he knows that he hasn't actually given you adequate proof to make any claim beyond the claim that you believe in Him?
I wouldn't swear that, because I do think that God exists, and if I'm right, I don't think He'd be pleased at me swearing something that isn't true in His name. Because I don't know that He exists. I'd be very surprised if it turned out that He didn't, though.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Any Jews who find themselves stuck in a strange city with no ready means for providing a kosher meal for themselves, might do well to look up an Adventist family
Yeah, I don't think so. I'd eat at a Catholic home before I'd eat by Adventists. Because the Catholics wouldn't be under the misapprehension that their practices had anything to do with the laws of kashrut. The very fact that Adventists have this incorrect belief would make them the last place I'd be willing to eat.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: ...And tapioca pearls sucked up your nasal passages at high velocity are incredibly painful. Trust me on this one.
The mental image of how one determined this for the first time is sheer awesome.
Yeah, my friends thought so too. After I got it out and my eyes stopped watering, I had to smack a few. Laughing at my pain after the fact is one thing, but laughing at me while I'm desperately trying to expel a tapioca pearl from my nose in HURTY PAIN...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orthodox Jews probably feel they have to in order to be obedient. Some even seem to revel in how deprived they are, because it helps validate their identity as the favored people of God.
*sigh*
Two strikes. Wanna try again?
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Do you pick your friends according to who will be able to accommodate you?
Yes. Yes, I do. In fact, I send all potential friends a 27-page questionnaire to evaluate their suitability.
Question number one: You are a person who deals well with endless snippy sarcastic remarks.
I'll tell you what. You stop posing "when did you stop beating your wife" questions, and I'll direct less sarcasm in your direction.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Actually, I make choices based on who can or will accommodate my needs and preferences. I'm probably not going to spend a lot of time at the house of someone who owns a cat, since I'm allergic. I'm squeamish about things like double-dipping food or eating from the same plate so I'm less likely to eat with people who won't make allowances for what is more or less an irrational phobia.
Do you hang out with people who won't make small allowances for things that are important to you?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Edit: To expand, it's clear that there's a line-drawing function to be made in determining what one "knows" or not. The line-drawing is not, for anyone I've ever met, one that actually encompasses "if it's possible that you are wrong, you don't know it." Therefore the line must be drawn short of no possibility of being wrong.
I'm still not following. It seems like you need to draw a Venn diagram.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: How about this? Would you swear to God that you know God exists? What would God think of you if you used his name as an affirmation, if he knows that he hasn't actually given you adequate proof to make any claim beyond the claim that you believe in Him?
I wouldn't swear that, because I do think that God exists, and if I'm right, I don't think He'd be pleased at me swearing something that isn't true in His name. Because I don't know that He exists. I'd be very surprised if it turned out that He didn't, though.
It seems that Lisa and I are using the same definition of "know." And it seems to be perfectly reasonable to believe something without actual knowledge, provided you've thought it through based on the information you've got.
I have two problems with Dag's definition. First, I don't understand it. And second, each time he explains it, I interpret his definition as being intellectually dishonest, except that I'm not sure he's ever actually described it, only implied that it's a definition that makes sense to him. Dag is pretty good with words. It seems to me like he ought to be able to come up with a description that actually explains his position.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, it's good to know when future discussion is pointless.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I don't think it is. Let me be clear, I don't think you're being intellectually dishonest. I think you're not explaining yourself well. But I think you're capable of doing better.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you for clarifying that - I apologize for misinterpreting you.
I'll need to contemplate for a while how to explain.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It's also worth noting: there's a difference between how we use the word "Know" in casual conversation and how we use it in logical debate.
When l ask my friend "You know how there's this new Batman movie everyone's raving about?" it's generally implied that what I really mean is "You know how according to all sensory data you currently remember experiencing there's a new Batman movie that everyone's raving about." And usually that's fine. But when you start talking about absolutes and how other people should live their lives, you need to be clear about what is knowledge and what is belief.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Question for Lisa: you're both adherent to kashrut and a Objectivist by philosophy, aren't you? I'm imagining some tension between the two.
quote: My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniversary
Do you mind if I ask how you reconcile Rand's expression of man's purpose with the decision to obey divine instructions when their purpose/benefit is not clear?
This is an interesting (difficult) problem in my mind, but I might be missing something simple (perhaps you simply believe Objectivism is only applicable in interactions between mortals? Still I'd be interested to know.)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
BTW
Everyone, allow me to introduce my son, who just recently has begun posting here on Hatrack. It's actually his fault I came here in the first place, as he is the original OSC fan in our house. Except that he doesn't live at our house anymore.
Raymond Arnold said:
quote:But when you start talking about absolutes and how other people should live their lives, you need to be clear about what is knowledge and what is belief.
Strangely enough, it's usually Lisa that I accuse of speaking in absolutes, while Dagonee deals more in specifics. And as I've said, Dag is very good with words, (and formidable with references).
Dag and I often find ourselves on the opposite side of arguments, which I find unfortunate, because I've got a lot of respect for him, and I don't think we disagree as much as it feels like we do.
While I'm at it, Lisa has been gaining my respect lately also. Perhaps she's been getting better at explaining her position. And she speaks in fewer absolutes, which makes her arguments much more tenable.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: I'll need to contemplate for a while how to explain.
Dag, I'd also be very interested in your response. If you have the time and inclination, please poke your head into my knowledge thread and give your input on that specific topic as well (that goes for everyone else, too, of course). You make a very good point about the ambiguity of the "knowledge" line. I agree that most of us fall short of "if it's possible that you are wrong, you don't know it," but I think it is the discrepancy in where that point lies for each of us that is hampering further discussion - particularly the one you and Glenn are having.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Was it Michael Polanyi who came up with the term "personal knowledge" to denote things that you are reasonable certain about but can't prove to others? I'll try to look it up, but I don't have gobs of time for personal research right now.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Question for Lisa: you're both adherent to kashrut and a Objectivist by philosophy, aren't you? I'm imagining some tension between the two.
quote: My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniversary
Do you mind if I ask how you reconcile Rand's expression of man's purpose with the decision to obey divine instructions when their purpose/benefit is not clear?
This is an interesting (difficult) problem in my mind, but I might be missing something simple (perhaps you simply believe Objectivism is only applicable in interactions between mortals? Still I'd be interested to know.)
Well, I'd say that in practical terms, Objectivism is only relevant to issues between human beings, but in principle, it's relevant globally. If God created us and the world, He has a creator's right of ownership.
Consider a young child's ownership in her parents' home. It's limited. A parent is entitled to take things away from a child if the parent deems it necessary, even if the things "belong" to the child.
If my daughter is reading one of her books when she's been asked to help set the table, I'll take the book away from her without a qualm -- Objectivist or otherwise -- in the world. My daughter has been given money gifts by various relatives. I've taken those gifts and put them away for her without so much as a by-your-leave, because her ownership only exists within the context of my greater ownership.
And the difference between me and my daughter pales next to the difference between God and me.
When I eat something, I say a bracha, which is (a) an acknowledgement that I know I got the food -- ultimately -- from God, and (b) a proclamation that the food itself is a demonstration of God's power.
The rabbis say "One who eats without first saying a bracha, it is as if he stole from God."
Everything I own, up to and including my life, liberty and property, ultimately belongs to God. My ownership exists within that, just like my daughter's exists within mine.
As far as God's motives... Well, I have to acknowledge that the main source I have for God being just is God. Then again, even I, as quixotic as I am, wouldn't get anywhere if He weren't. And the evidence I've seen bears out the idea that He's just.
Am I always happy about it? Not even close. God has put obstacles in my life that truly suck. Maybe there's some greater good in them, but I don't have to be happy about it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I enjoyed reading Rand when I discovered her, she made a lot of sense.
I was 14 at the time. Now I am less than impressed. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I hope this doesn't veer into an argument about Objectivism. I was just curious. And I think I've been answered well, thanks Lisa.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I enjoyed reading Rand when I discovered her, she made a lot of sense.
I was 14 at the time. Now I am less than impressed.
That's because you read her with a 14 year old's mistaken views. When you grew out of those views, you threw out Objectivism as well, since the two were so intertwined in your mind.
Almost all the serious Objectivists I've ever met first read Rand's works when they were already grownups.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
This thread makes me sad.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
kq
![[Wink]](wink.gif)