posted
You're wrong about that, too. I stopped on sake because your blatant hypocrisy was finally so obvious that further drawing out was not necessary. You as emperor are flapping in the breeze.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it's not rudeness now that's bothering you? But some imaginary hypocricy? Do you know what the word means?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with opinion that he is a Jew. I don't even have a problem with the opinion that he is a bad Jew. Although he doesn't seem to think so. I do have a problem with the implication that we can't believe his own statements about what his faith is and what he wants his faith to be. That we "know better" for him.
This is, for me, the same issue with baptism by proxy. "Surely he would choose this if...", especially in the case of someone who has clearly examined the options and made informed choices, is what bugs me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: My real point it that any time someone claim something for another person, particularly if it is something that person hasn't chosen for himself, it can be construed as offensive.
Can be, but doesn't have to be.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: You don't just claim jurisdiction over one generation, but over all their descendants, none of whom have any chose in the latter!....and then you have the balls to be offended over a ritual for the dead that the Mormons do?
No balls, sorry. And I didn't make the rules. Don't blame me for saying what they are. That's like equating the person who put Wiesenthal's name in the Mormon system with the person who found it. Or with Joe Mormon on the street who didn't do anything at all.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Because the dead can't choose....just like the descendants of Jews can't.
Except that in the case of the Mormons, they can choose not to deprive those dead of their choice. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a Jew remains a Jew regardless of what choices he may make. I'm not God, Kwea, and you blaming me for what He said is kind of silly.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: (((edited to say I posted this before reading Dag's post....but am now pissed that he said what I meant before I did! Stop it man, you're stealing my thunder!!! )
Thunder? I thought that was gas.
No Lisa...the smell is all you.
YOU claim x and y. I don't. You saying your faith believes GOD claims it, and you are merely the mouthpiece doesn't make it any less offensive, Lisa.
Nor does you lack of respect for others.
Remember, I agreed with you about finding it offensive. I still do, as I knew what it involved before this thread was ever started. But I understand why they feel it is necessary.
I just don't agree, at all.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in your own position.
You first statement says it all about BOTH set of beliefs, Lisa....
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: My real point it that any time someone claim something for another person, particularly if it is something that person hasn't chosen for himself, it can be construed as offensive.
Can be, but doesn't have to be.
I find it highly educational that you don't see the potential similarities between these two sets of beliefs.
Paul.....you would be right if I was trying to get Lisa to admit being wrong. I'm not.
I am just pointing out discrepancies. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Except that we've been saying it for forever, and have yet to harm someone because of it, let alone kill someone. Your comparison is odious and shows a serious lack of judgement.
The lack of killing is covered by the "hop and skip" part. Don't really see why the comparison itself is odious. By implication of my statement, many Islamic faiths also believe "once a Muslim, always a Muslim" without killing.
This would seem to be amusing if a Jew converted to Islam and then to atheism. They would then be considered to be both a Jew and Muslim, while really being neither.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a long list of things you are doing wrong. Pointing out one does not deny the existence of others.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't have a problem with opinion that he is a Jew. I don't even have a problem with the opinion that he is a bad Jew. Although he doesn't seem to think so. I do have a problem with the implication that we can't believe his own statements about what his faith is and what he wants his faith to be. That we "know better" for him.
You're reading that into it. I'm saying that he is a Jew in every way. I don't care what his faith is. I don't care what he believes. That doesn't change who he is.
Sheesh.
Edit: I suspect that the reason you don't get the distinction is that your religion is a matter of faith. So you look at things that way. I don't, though. Don't assume that I mean what you'd mean if you said the same thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Except that we've been saying it for forever, and have yet to harm someone because of it, let alone kill someone. Your comparison is odious and shows a serious lack of judgement.
The lack of killing is covered by the "hop and skip" part.
Nice to know the value you put on human life. Killing is a small thing. Just a hop and a skip. Gah.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: This would seem to be amusing if a Jew converted to Islam and then to atheism. They would then be considered to be both a Jew and Muslim, while really being neither.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No arguments. He'd also be an atheist.
So? And my point would still be that despite his atheism, he's still bound by Jewish law just like any other Jew. His freedom of choice doesn't change that. It merely means that he has the freedom to choose to refuse his responsibility.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would the atheist care if he were truly an atheist? I don't think he/she would find it offensive in the least.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't have a problem with opinion that he is a Jew. I don't even have a problem with the opinion that he is a bad Jew. Although he doesn't seem to think so. I do have a problem with the implication that we can't believe his own statements about what his faith is and what he wants his faith to be. That we "know better" for him.
You're reading that into it. I'm saying that he is a Jew in every way. I don't care what his faith is. I don't care what he believes. That doesn't change who he is.
Sheesh.
Edit: I suspect that the reason you don't get the distinction is that your religion is a matter of faith. So you look at things that way. I don't, though. Don't assume that I mean what you'd mean if you said the same thing.
I am not assumning that you mean he is Jewish as a matter of faith. I am bothered by the implication that the family that took him in forced something on him that he doesn't want. Assuming those people did him a disservice, when he, as an adult who has givin it a great deal of informed thought, does not think so, is the arrogance that bothers me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That question sounds a lot like the ones several Mormons were asking at the beginning of this thread, Stephan.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: What does a trivial difference in religious doctrine have to do with my values?
For someone that is religious, it is a short walk from believing that someone that converted away from your faith is not as moral as you (which even you do not believe) to someone that is less than human. Then it is a short walk to believing that you can do anything you want to them, including killing them.
Some Muslims are doing it now, some Christians did it during the Inquisition, Jews just never got around to it since they never got the upper-hand. Just because "your people" (your words) never got a chance to practise repression does not mean the seeds of it are not there.
Stephan: He wouldn't, he would rightfully just find both sides to be absurd.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No arguments. He'd also be an atheist.
So? And my point would still be that despite his atheism, he's still bound by Jewish law just like any other Jew. His freedom of choice doesn't change that. It merely means that he has the freedom to choose to refuse his responsibility.
Why should he be bound by Jewish law anymore than Islamic law?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
If she said she liked a flavor of ice cream, and it happened that she liked the same as me, OF COURSE she would be right. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That question sounds a lot like the ones several Mormons were asking at the beginning of this thread, Stephan.
The difference in my mind is because family members WILL find it offensive, I know I would even though I know offense is not meant, if the deceased were baptized. However someone who makes the choice to give up religion, or change religion here on Earth? Why would they be offended?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why should he be bound by Jewish law anymore than Islamic law?"
According to judaic theology, if you are a jew, you are subject to the laws of judaism. Once you are a jew, that is binding for the rest of your life. THe rightness or wrongness of your actions, in god's eyes, depends on how closely you follow the laws that you are subject to.
The doctrine itself is similar, as far as I understand it, to catholic doctrine.
I think its just as rude to tell someone that "you are really jewish," as it would be for one christian to tell a christian of another sect "thats not really christianity."
But I do think that the doctrine is substantially different then practicing posthumous baptism. The doctrine lisa is talking about is what we believe god thinks and does, and does not require any human action.
The way she expresses this understanding of god's will isn't really any less offensive then posthumous baptism, though.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Assuming those people did him a disservice, when he, as an adult who has givin it a great deal of informed thought, does not think so, is the arrogance that bothers me.
So I'm arrogant. But I stand by what I said. If he is Catholic with full consent, then he's an unrepentent idolator. But if he's a victim to a degree, due to the way he was raised, then there are mitigating factors.
I'm not making this up. Google "tinok shenishba" if you like. And it doesn't apply only to people like Aaron Lustiger. It applies to people like Paul, and even to people like me, since we were both raised without understanding what Judaism really is.
My religion views him as a victim. So I say he was a victim. You don't like it because you don't like the fact that the church has been doing this kind of thing for centuries and centuries. Aaron was far from the only Jewish kid this happened to.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Lisa: What does a trivial difference in religious doctrine have to do with my values?
For someone that is religious, it is a short walk from believing that someone that converted away from your faith is not as moral as you (which even you do not believe)
Are you so sure about that? It would depend on the circumstances and the context, and I probably wouldn't think the person was less moral than I am, but don't jump to conclusions. You don't know me.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: to someone that is less than human. Then it is a short walk to believing that you can do anything you want to them, including killing them.
So speaks an anti-religious bigot, who views all religion as basically lethal. Not interested.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Lisa, your blindness concerning your own hypocrisy makes your opinion on everything suspect.
Ah. That'd be the "hypocrisy by declaration" that you think has some validity because you've said it several times? Gotcha.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't like it because you don't like the fact that the church has been doing this kind of thing for centuries and centuries.
kmboots was pretty darn explicit about why she didn't like it:
quote:the implication that we can't believe his own statements about what his faith is and what he wants his faith to be. That we "know better" for him.
posted
I don't like it because calling him a victim assumes that, as a grown adult, he is incapable of making an informed choice for himself. He isn't a kid anymore. He has endorsed this choice - and for all we know it may have been a choice freely made - over and over again as an adult who knows his own mind.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you disagree with something that my religion says. I disagree with a whole lot that your religion says. Should I badmouth you personally because of it?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: For someone that is religious, it is a short walk from believing that someone that converted away from your faith is not as moral as you (which even you do not believe) to someone that is less than human. Then it is a short walk to believing that you can do anything you want to them, including killing them.
So speaks an anti-religious bigot, who views all religion as basically lethal. Not interested.
I expanded the quote since you clearly are fudging the context. From the whole sentence, it is clear that I have no beef with someone that is religious and yet doesn't look down on people of other faiths. It has also been clearly demonstrated (by kmboots and...well yourself at the beginning of the thread) that believing that a person who has made an informed choice as to their religion (or lack of it) is actually wrong and should convert to your religion is deeply disrespectful and foul.
By telling them, condescendingly they are really still a X (where X is Jewish or Muslim) and immoral by disregarding the law of their former faith, is the first step along the path.
I'm just glad that not all religions practice this sort of thing.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't like it because calling him a victim assumes that, as a grown adult, he is incapable of making an informed choice for himself. He isn't a kid anymore. He has endorsed this choice - and for all we know it may have been a choice freely made - over and over again as an adult who knows his own mind.
But denying that he is a victim makes him fully culpable. I don't believe that he is.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So you disagree with something that my religion says. I disagree with a whole lot that your religion says. Should I badmouth you personally because of it?
I dunno, but so far you've said that my comparisons are odious, stem from bad judgment, and that I'm an anti-religious bigot.
So far, all I've discussed is religion in general (making pretty sure that my points apply equally to Jews and Muslims). I don't think you have the high ground when it comes to badmouthing.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: For someone that is religious, it is a short walk from believing that someone that converted away from your faith is not as moral as you (which even you do not believe) to someone that is less than human. Then it is a short walk to believing that you can do anything you want to them, including killing them.
So speaks an anti-religious bigot, who views all religion as basically lethal. Not interested.
I expanded the quote since you clearly are fudging the context.
That's an odd lie, considering that anyone can look at what I posted and see that I didn't omit anything. Or did you not notice that I'd merely added a comment in the middle of that paragraph? If that's the case, you might want to be a little more careful in the future before you accuse someone of fudging anything.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: From the whole sentence, it is clear that I have no beef with someone that is religious and yet doesn't look down on people of other faiths. It has also been clearly demonstrated (by kmboots and...well yourself at the beginning of the thread) that believing that a person who has made an informed choice as to their religion (or lack of it) is actually wrong and should convert to your religion is deeply disrespectful and foul.
Who on earth ever claimed any such thing? If Aaron Lustiger asked to convert to Judaism, we'd say no. We'd welcome him back, and probably throw a party for him. But he can't convert to Judaism, because he never stopped being Jewish.
We don't seek converts, Mucus. We discourage them, in fact.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand of Mormon theology those who deny Jesus and the gospel (I assume including those who were once Mormon) will end up in the same place as adulterers, murderers, and thieves. How is that different from Jewish belief?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It's very different, Steven. We don't have hell.
Stephan, not Steven.
I know, but I'm trying to perceive both religions from the outside. Having your soul destroyed, or spending up to a year in punishment is pretty hellish to me.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So you disagree with something that my religion says. I disagree with a whole lot that your religion says. Should I badmouth you personally because of it?
I certainly haven't tried to badmouth you personally. If you point out where, I will amend it.
Rivka, I imagine that God will end up taking "mitigating circumstances" into consideration for all of us.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From what I understand of Mormon theology those who deny Jesus and the gospel (I assume including those who were once Mormon) will end up in the same place as adulterers, murderers, and thieves.
I disagree with that statement.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:From what I understand of Mormon theology those who deny Jesus and the gospel (I assume including those who were once Mormon) will end up in the same place as adulterers, murderers, and thieves.
I disagree with that statement.
Correct me if I'm wrong please, I'm always fascinated by other religions. Do you have a source to contradict it?
I'm just working off of wiki and the description of the Telestial Kingdom and the Spirit Prison it mentions.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Who on earth ever claimed any such thing? If Aaron Lustiger asked to convert to Judaism, we'd say no. We'd welcome him back, and probably throw a party for him. But he can't convert to Judaism, because he never stopped being Jewish.
Thats just playing with semantics. In the case of that theoretical atheist, the only simple thing to say would be that he was a Jew who converted to Islam, and then to atheism. As far as he is concerned, he would have to convert back to Judaism to become a Jew. Otherwise, imagine the mess that would result if there were a thousand religions that followed the same policy of "once an X, always an X" and he switched to each in turn.
And them imagine that he was also responsible for the religion of every one of his ancestors...
You'd get exponential growth in the number of his religions, a clearly unmanageable mess.
The only clear thing to to is just take their actual choice, what they say they believe is what they really are. A simple and non-condescending classification method.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Otherwise, imagine the mess that would result if there were a thousand religions that followed the same policy of "once an X, always an X" and he switched to each in turn.
It wouldn't matter. The others would be mistaken. This is the same argument I've heard often from atheists. "Your religion claims to be true, and this contradictory religion claims to be true. They can't both be true, therefore, they're both false." Fallacious.
Your objection isn't to me, Mucus. It's to what my religion says. Fine. Duly noted.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Of course, in this situation, it is you who is wrong.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction. A: It can be. M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. A: No it isn't. M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction. A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position. M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.' A: Yes it is! M: No it isn't! A: Yes it is! M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. (short pause) A: No it isn't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in fact, I have. I've debunked your claims, I've mocked you for accusing me of hypocrisy without backing it up, I've taught Ron that Judaism is more than just a religion, I've actually seen more than one post thanking me for having explained something. See? It's possible to disagree with someone without doing it like a parrot and just saying, "You're wrong". You should try it sometime.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know whether to cheer or boo at seeing Lisa treated with the sort of tactics she uses against everybody else.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Otherwise, imagine the mess that would result if there were a thousand religions that followed the same policy of "once an X, always an X" and he switched to each in turn.
It wouldn't matter. The others would be mistaken. This is the same argument I've heard often from atheists. "Your religion claims to be true, and this contradictory religion claims to be true. They can't both be true, therefore, they're both false." Fallacious.
Your objection isn't to me, Mucus. It's to what my religion says. Fine. Duly noted.
A) Hmmm, sorta. With two religions you'd be right. It is possible for one to be right even if both claim to be true. However, with a thousand religions, the probability of any one religion being true is 1/1000. If we assume that the human race will live forever (well, until the heat death of the universe) and that a new religion can be created everyday. Then the probability of each religion being correct can be described as a kind of limit, lim x->infy 1/x = 0 Granted, there may be one of this infinite array of religions that is correct, but the probability of picking the one that is correct is essentially 0. Thus, any rational classification scheme cannot rely on the hope that you picked the one religion that is correct and follow their naming scheme. Rather, you have to define one that can treat all equally and fairly.
B) Indeed. That we can agree on.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, with a thousand religions, the probability of any one religion being true is 1/1000. If we assume that the human race will live forever (well, until the heat death of the universe) and that a new religion can be created everyday. Then the probability of each religion being correct can be described as a kind of limit, lim x->infy 1/x = 0
This is just silly.
With six billion people on earth, the probability of of meeting a person who happens to be me is 1/6,000,000,000 per person met.
And yet, many people have managed to meet me, despite the staggering odds.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Short explanation: Read the next sentence. But substitute "person" for "religion", and "someone you met" for "correct"
Lengthy explanation: There is nothing in what you said that contradicts me. There are six billion people on Earth. Randomly, each has a 1/six billion chance of meeting you. However, each of those six billion people does meet someone. Let's assume on the low end that every person meets only 10 people in their life. Then the expected number of people that have met you is (1/six billion)*(six billion)*(10) = 10.
However, what I said was is more akin to meeting one specific person. (e.g. what is my probability of meeting you specifically randomly), that would be (10 * 1/6,000,000,000) which for all pragmatic intents and purposes in my life is zero. Meaning it is much more rational to live my life expecting to never meet you, then hoping that one of the people I randomly meet happens to be you.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
