posted
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."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not with all that jello. All things considered, I'd definetly go Kosher before going Mormon, from a culinary standpoint.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always assume that someone who is strident in insisting on their godliness is compensating.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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")
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone should just calm down, sit down, and have some tea. The Mormons can have carefully selected bubble tea as a substitute.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
This thread makes me sad.
