Crosswords0 min ago
Food and Religion
69 Answers
Why don't Muslims and Jews eat Pork?
I'm not having a pop at anyone - I just don't know much about different Religions
Thanks
I'm not having a pop at anyone - I just don't know much about different Religions
Thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by thegasgooner. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Everton, I am a contrarian, what can I say?
Seriously though, while I'm sure I'm not always sucessful, you may not like how I say things but while I can and do happily call ideas and arguments ignorant, and I certainly express myself robustly, I do try not to call people ignorant.
Please feel free to now post a thousand examples of me ad hom'ing people.
Seriously though, while I'm sure I'm not always sucessful, you may not like how I say things but while I can and do happily call ideas and arguments ignorant, and I certainly express myself robustly, I do try not to call people ignorant.
Please feel free to now post a thousand examples of me ad hom'ing people.
Waldo I appreciate the fact you say something you believe in (rather than say purely what you don't believe in or just plum disagree) all the same you would probably win more (neutral) observers to your point of view if you exercised a more moderate tone, Theland pointed out with some surprise that you enjoy the debate, it rarely if ever comes across that way. You appear via your postings to be in a permanent state of tormented anger and anguish, you call people liars when you're own "truths" are hypothesis (Stephen Weiburg for instance) and other truisms you espouse are highly questionable.
This site is froth and bubble, the very notion that you or I or any of we humble petitioners will establish the truth absolutely is risible, the truth is where you find it and how you interpret it, if you believe and experience God then that's proof enough for the individual (it does not mean they are delusional), once we as a human race can accept all philosphies as legitimate when expressed platonically then the world we be the better place we all aspire to.
Lighten up. ;-)
This site is froth and bubble, the very notion that you or I or any of we humble petitioners will establish the truth absolutely is risible, the truth is where you find it and how you interpret it, if you believe and experience God then that's proof enough for the individual (it does not mean they are delusional), once we as a human race can accept all philosphies as legitimate when expressed platonically then the world we be the better place we all aspire to.
Lighten up. ;-)
Lighten up? I flick the Vs at the very notion that I either need to or that I will. I shall continue to post as I post, and people can like it as they please; I care not a jot whether people think I'm vexed or not.
As for Mr Weinburg, his little aphorism is cute, but hardly a deal breaker vis a vis what is true, merely a pithy observation.
I absolutely reject your notion that all philosphies are legitimate, they manifestly do not have equal weight, and if that's what being moderate is about, it can go do something anatomically adventurous to itself. The fact remains that if group x's beliefs were a private matter for their own homes, it would be one thing, but they're not and moreover, there is no way of accomodating all positions. Either ID is intellectually bankrupt guff of the highest order whose proponents are repeatedly shown to be ignorant and mendacious (and it is and they are), or it is a valid explanation of life and should be taught to school children alongside evolution (it isn't).
I particularly reject the idea that personal exerience of deities should be given any credence whatsoever. That way lies people who murder prostitues with claw hammers because God told them to, and while I'm sure you're no Peter Sucliffe, I remain unconvinced why personal experience should count for anything outside of the individual's head. I can accept you may believe it, but what light does your credulity or madness or whatever throw on the issue?
As for Mr Weinburg, his little aphorism is cute, but hardly a deal breaker vis a vis what is true, merely a pithy observation.
I absolutely reject your notion that all philosphies are legitimate, they manifestly do not have equal weight, and if that's what being moderate is about, it can go do something anatomically adventurous to itself. The fact remains that if group x's beliefs were a private matter for their own homes, it would be one thing, but they're not and moreover, there is no way of accomodating all positions. Either ID is intellectually bankrupt guff of the highest order whose proponents are repeatedly shown to be ignorant and mendacious (and it is and they are), or it is a valid explanation of life and should be taught to school children alongside evolution (it isn't).
I particularly reject the idea that personal exerience of deities should be given any credence whatsoever. That way lies people who murder prostitues with claw hammers because God told them to, and while I'm sure you're no Peter Sucliffe, I remain unconvinced why personal experience should count for anything outside of the individual's head. I can accept you may believe it, but what light does your credulity or madness or whatever throw on the issue?
Naomi, how do you explain a 7 stone boy holding back 12 tonne bus with his ar5e? Mathematical probability would put him in the ground. You believe in ghosts, but you've never seen one, if you did see one then you'd know they exist, that would be based on your own personal experience, others would scoff at you all the same. If I see, feel or interpret an event as an experience with God then that's what it is, the whole world exists in my head in much the same way it exists in yours or Waldos. We all just relate to it differently. Ghandhi said "if you save one life you save the world." The burden of proof is a personal one, how do you know your husband loves you? Based on your own personal experiences and how you interpret them, someone else might look at his actions differently. If they doubt his affection for you, would it make his love any less true to you? It's all perception.
If ever someone tells you God told them to do something (especially harmful) they're mad! How they interpret their madness is different, in the absence of religion they'd utilise politics, mysoginy, racism, economics or just plain sadistic pleasure to abuse and kill, all sin is founded in reason and to say "God told me to" is just as big a cop out as "I was just following orders."
What are your views on vivisection? One only has to look at Dr. Mengele to see what evils can be done in the name of "science".
As a human race creationist or atheist we none of us can claim any "moral" high ground, as morality is a subjective notion not an objective appraisal.
All philosphies are valid, as it's no skin off my nose what you or anyone else believes in, whether it's Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, flying spaghetti monsterism or even Wizard66ism etc. Good luck to us all in our endeavour to try and make our lives and our world a happier more varied place to live in
If ever someone tells you God told them to do something (especially harmful) they're mad! How they interpret their madness is different, in the absence of religion they'd utilise politics, mysoginy, racism, economics or just plain sadistic pleasure to abuse and kill, all sin is founded in reason and to say "God told me to" is just as big a cop out as "I was just following orders."
What are your views on vivisection? One only has to look at Dr. Mengele to see what evils can be done in the name of "science".
As a human race creationist or atheist we none of us can claim any "moral" high ground, as morality is a subjective notion not an objective appraisal.
All philosphies are valid, as it's no skin off my nose what you or anyone else believes in, whether it's Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, flying spaghetti monsterism or even Wizard66ism etc. Good luck to us all in our endeavour to try and make our lives and our world a happier more varied place to live in
123 You're mistaken. I have seen a ghost, and I know they exist. I have had many spiritual experiences, which I 'know' to be truth. However, whilst I can say I 'believe', what we term 'the supernatural' exists, I cannot prove it, I have no factual evidence to present to the world, and therefore I cannot claim it to be 'truth'. What you are saying is when you encounter things you cannot explain you 'assume' and believe they are attributable to your God, and therefore your God truly exists, but a personal assumption, or a belief, no matter how strong, isn't necessarily 'truth'. Part of your rationale for your God's existence is your inability to explain that which you don't understand, but that's not indisputable evidence for his existence.
You've actually defeated your own argument with your reference to madness. Someone who murders and claims that God told him to do it, is no doubt utterly convinced that that is the truth, but is it? He truly believes it, but do you, or I? Clearly not, and therefore it is not necessarily 'truth'.
Madmen have done many horrendous things in the name of science, but that's no reason for science to stop searching for the truth. Madmen have done many horrendous things in the name of religion, but it hasn't stopped you believing in that.
The burden of proof, to me, is not a personal one. Truth is truth, with no ifs and buts. Faith is personal, belief is personal, and each to his own if doesn't affect anyone else. However, if you claim something to be the 'truth', and expect others to accept it as 'truth', then your claim must be irrefutable.
By the way, I don't know how we got here - this doesn't have much to do with food! Sorry thegasgooner. :o)
You've actually defeated your own argument with your reference to madness. Someone who murders and claims that God told him to do it, is no doubt utterly convinced that that is the truth, but is it? He truly believes it, but do you, or I? Clearly not, and therefore it is not necessarily 'truth'.
Madmen have done many horrendous things in the name of science, but that's no reason for science to stop searching for the truth. Madmen have done many horrendous things in the name of religion, but it hasn't stopped you believing in that.
The burden of proof, to me, is not a personal one. Truth is truth, with no ifs and buts. Faith is personal, belief is personal, and each to his own if doesn't affect anyone else. However, if you claim something to be the 'truth', and expect others to accept it as 'truth', then your claim must be irrefutable.
By the way, I don't know how we got here - this doesn't have much to do with food! Sorry thegasgooner. :o)
But scientists disagree wildly about the interpretation of evidence,take global warming anyone who does'nt espouse the same line as the others is shouted down and ridiculed.A bit like the arrival of a new popular religion or political ideology,ask yourself are these new save the worlders that much different to Elizabethan puritans?The new scientific religion warning of the impending flood.
In matters revolving around ones personal life and experiences one can only prove it to oneself.I did'nt see the boy go under the bus but I knew the driver very well the fire brigade did have to lift the vehicle off the child as he was wedged under it,I'm sure some mathematicion could produce an equation to make it so but I believe and I've experienced the saying that there are greater things on heaven and Earth than we will ever truly know.
As a believer in free will,free expression and free thinking what you are suggesting is that I allow other peoples disbelief to govern my own personal philoshphy.
With regard to madness people kill and abuse for their own reasons and produce their own excuses,as I've said repeatedly all sin is founded in reason.The defence would call it mitigation, the prosecution would call it motive and the victim would call it an excuse.
How many people were working towards the Fuhrer when they acted in Hitler's name?The truth is they could act against others without fear of reproach,they could kill,rape and loot to their hearts content the law and the people around them said they could said they could. Psychologists did a test in the 60s,they got members of the public to administer electric shocks to an unseen person every time they got a question wrong,the shock got bigger and bigger every time they got it wrong.The subject would beg for no more shocks,but the scientists would tell them to continue the test,and they did.Iit was a set up.It's a facet of human nature,the very moment you allow someone else to think for you,is
In matters revolving around ones personal life and experiences one can only prove it to oneself.I did'nt see the boy go under the bus but I knew the driver very well the fire brigade did have to lift the vehicle off the child as he was wedged under it,I'm sure some mathematicion could produce an equation to make it so but I believe and I've experienced the saying that there are greater things on heaven and Earth than we will ever truly know.
As a believer in free will,free expression and free thinking what you are suggesting is that I allow other peoples disbelief to govern my own personal philoshphy.
With regard to madness people kill and abuse for their own reasons and produce their own excuses,as I've said repeatedly all sin is founded in reason.The defence would call it mitigation, the prosecution would call it motive and the victim would call it an excuse.
How many people were working towards the Fuhrer when they acted in Hitler's name?The truth is they could act against others without fear of reproach,they could kill,rape and loot to their hearts content the law and the people around them said they could said they could. Psychologists did a test in the 60s,they got members of the public to administer electric shocks to an unseen person every time they got a question wrong,the shock got bigger and bigger every time they got it wrong.The subject would beg for no more shocks,but the scientists would tell them to continue the test,and they did.Iit was a set up.It's a facet of human nature,the very moment you allow someone else to think for you,is
Everton 123 - I am 100% with you, but I think you are wasting your time with these people. They want to see, what air looks like, you do not see it you feel it. And if someone comes out of his or her inability to accept the truth only then they can see the truth. People who try too much to use their brain to find God they always loose the track. Because God has created man as the best of the creations but still you can not be as good as creator himself. Everyone is aware that people who get their brain over flowed with knowledge they often end up in mental hospitals. Because they start thinking about things which God has not given us the power to know about. Otherwise One of Muhammed's (pbuh) companion and his uncle said "I recognised Allah (God) by the way I could not fulfil my plans" That means ther is someone who has given us only limited control on ourselves.
A man (an atheist ) said that I have three questions if anyone answer I would start believing in God.
1.If I can not see God, how can I believe he is there.
2.God says that on the day of judgment Satan (Devil) would be burnt in the fire of Hell. But as he is made of fire himself how fire will give him any pain.
3.If God decides every thing someone does, then why do you punish someone when he commits a crime, you should punish God.
For a while no one could answer his questions. Even the prominent Scholars could not come up with any thing. One day he was walking through a street and he saw a person sitting there wearing rags and that sort of things. When he got closer to him, that saint called him, and said �I am here to answer your questions�.
That man taunted him by saying that most educated people could not answer what you are trying to answer, you do not look that knowledgeable. That saint picked up a brick and hit him at the back between shoulder blades. That man twirled with pain and started shouting that this mad man almost killed me. In short things got worse and people took him to local court, Judge asked him why did you hit him, �I answered his questions� he said. But how. First man claimed that pain is so much that he should be punished for that.
Saint said, �this person is a liar tell him to show the pain�. He said �How can I show the pain�?
Saint said, these are the answers to your questions.
1.If you can not see pain how can you prove it is there, just like that you do not have to see God to believe in him.
2.You are a creation of clay (mud) and the brick I hit you with is of the same material. If that gave you pain then Fire of hell would burn Satan.
3.If you believe God is responsible for what I did then why did you bring me to court, go and sue God. Because God does give us control within our limits and that
1.If I can not see God, how can I believe he is there.
2.God says that on the day of judgment Satan (Devil) would be burnt in the fire of Hell. But as he is made of fire himself how fire will give him any pain.
3.If God decides every thing someone does, then why do you punish someone when he commits a crime, you should punish God.
For a while no one could answer his questions. Even the prominent Scholars could not come up with any thing. One day he was walking through a street and he saw a person sitting there wearing rags and that sort of things. When he got closer to him, that saint called him, and said �I am here to answer your questions�.
That man taunted him by saying that most educated people could not answer what you are trying to answer, you do not look that knowledgeable. That saint picked up a brick and hit him at the back between shoulder blades. That man twirled with pain and started shouting that this mad man almost killed me. In short things got worse and people took him to local court, Judge asked him why did you hit him, �I answered his questions� he said. But how. First man claimed that pain is so much that he should be punished for that.
Saint said, �this person is a liar tell him to show the pain�. He said �How can I show the pain�?
Saint said, these are the answers to your questions.
1.If you can not see pain how can you prove it is there, just like that you do not have to see God to believe in him.
2.You are a creation of clay (mud) and the brick I hit you with is of the same material. If that gave you pain then Fire of hell would burn Satan.
3.If you believe God is responsible for what I did then why did you bring me to court, go and sue God. Because God does give us control within our limits and that
Just realised the end of my answer was cut off!
Contd.
The moment you allow someone else to think for you is the very moment you are lost.
Further to it (although it was'nt my original intention) I find it interesting to note (Naomi) that you can experience something on a personal level that confirms a belief you hold, but because you don't understand it you dismiss it. I'd forgotten, your ability to suspend your belief in anyththing is exceded only by your ability to express your disbelief in everything Perhaps you need someone else to tell you what to think, although I doubt it. You have the evidence to prove to your satisfaction that your beliefs are valid, why should you need others to agree with you? Why would you want others to agree with you? Why do you need to prove it to them? Celebrate the fact that you have found a philosophy that gives you enlightenment and allows you to relate to the world in a positive way, by your example in living a full and happy life you will achieve that end in establishing "truth".
I think when you see the name "God" you automatically assume it means Christianity, I'm not a doctrinal Christian I also accept that if I grew up in a different culture I'd (hopefully) be a non-doctrinal Hindu etc. (I've browsed through the others, Christianity is for me) if you want to espouse your own faith system of perhaps "Naomism" do it! You have my full support, let the others laugh, so what?!!
Contd.
The moment you allow someone else to think for you is the very moment you are lost.
Further to it (although it was'nt my original intention) I find it interesting to note (Naomi) that you can experience something on a personal level that confirms a belief you hold, but because you don't understand it you dismiss it. I'd forgotten, your ability to suspend your belief in anyththing is exceded only by your ability to express your disbelief in everything Perhaps you need someone else to tell you what to think, although I doubt it. You have the evidence to prove to your satisfaction that your beliefs are valid, why should you need others to agree with you? Why would you want others to agree with you? Why do you need to prove it to them? Celebrate the fact that you have found a philosophy that gives you enlightenment and allows you to relate to the world in a positive way, by your example in living a full and happy life you will achieve that end in establishing "truth".
I think when you see the name "God" you automatically assume it means Christianity, I'm not a doctrinal Christian I also accept that if I grew up in a different culture I'd (hopefully) be a non-doctrinal Hindu etc. (I've browsed through the others, Christianity is for me) if you want to espouse your own faith system of perhaps "Naomism" do it! You have my full support, let the others laugh, so what?!!
K90, thanks, I enjoyed that story, but you could offer an apology to amycope00 she only wanted to help and be included in the debate, and rightly so, this is a froth and bubble website (we none of us will change anything) her input is valued (by me at least).
I pop into R and S periodically and find the usual suspects talking amongst themselves, Waldo rabidly raving against religion, Chaka and Brionon agreeing (quietly behind), Naomi disagreeing, me (by no means a theologian or an anthropologist) trying to espouse tolerance (not always successfully!), theland giving a doctrinal view and Octavius trying to rise above it all. The amount of respect I have for Octavius his insights and philosphy makes it all worthwhile.
I pop into R and S periodically and find the usual suspects talking amongst themselves, Waldo rabidly raving against religion, Chaka and Brionon agreeing (quietly behind), Naomi disagreeing, me (by no means a theologian or an anthropologist) trying to espouse tolerance (not always successfully!), theland giving a doctrinal view and Octavius trying to rise above it all. The amount of respect I have for Octavius his insights and philosphy makes it all worthwhile.
Saint: "1.If you can not see pain how can you prove it is there, just like that you do not have to see God to believe in him. "
Atheist: "Firstly, we can actually 'see' pain, as nociceptor activity, secondly, the cause and effect of your throwing a brick at my back and my suffering pain is not contentious. Moreover, we can conduct experiments to determine whether the throwing of a brick at a person's back results in pain. God is supposed by his followers to interact with the natural laws of physics in ways that we know would create evidence, yet there is no evidence beyond heresay, and only a fool would accept heresay as a credible form of evidence."
Saint: "2.You are a creation of clay (mud) and the brick I hit you with is of the same material. If that gave you pain then Fire of hell would burn Satan."
Atheist: "I am not made of clay, I am a human being, made of flesh and blood. Didn't they do biology at your school or something?"
Saint: "3.If you believe God is responsible for what I did then why did you bring me to court, go and sue God. Because God does give us control within our limits and that is where we are different from Angels."
Atheist: "I don't believe in God, or that he's responsible for what I do. I'm an atheist, aren't I? Good grief, it's your supposedly pithy and instructive tale and you can't even remember the only detail that we have about my character, and you're my inventor! I believe you're responsible for throwing the brick, and frankly, though it's tragic, I can well understand why you ended up on the streets, because you're a bit of a mentalist. Now, f___ off, and count yourself lucky I haven't called the police. And take your mate Everton with you. If he doesn't like the pavements around here, suggest he go somewhere where he does."
Atheist: "Firstly, we can actually 'see' pain, as nociceptor activity, secondly, the cause and effect of your throwing a brick at my back and my suffering pain is not contentious. Moreover, we can conduct experiments to determine whether the throwing of a brick at a person's back results in pain. God is supposed by his followers to interact with the natural laws of physics in ways that we know would create evidence, yet there is no evidence beyond heresay, and only a fool would accept heresay as a credible form of evidence."
Saint: "2.You are a creation of clay (mud) and the brick I hit you with is of the same material. If that gave you pain then Fire of hell would burn Satan."
Atheist: "I am not made of clay, I am a human being, made of flesh and blood. Didn't they do biology at your school or something?"
Saint: "3.If you believe God is responsible for what I did then why did you bring me to court, go and sue God. Because God does give us control within our limits and that is where we are different from Angels."
Atheist: "I don't believe in God, or that he's responsible for what I do. I'm an atheist, aren't I? Good grief, it's your supposedly pithy and instructive tale and you can't even remember the only detail that we have about my character, and you're my inventor! I believe you're responsible for throwing the brick, and frankly, though it's tragic, I can well understand why you ended up on the streets, because you're a bit of a mentalist. Now, f___ off, and count yourself lucky I haven't called the police. And take your mate Everton with you. If he doesn't like the pavements around here, suggest he go somewhere where he does."
Thanks Ev 123 - I am very new to R & S but have already started learning that we can only give our opinion, and that is what I have done so far. Few people, well I will agree with you that you did explain all of them very nicely,The only one person you forgot "Wizard 66". What are your views on him?
123 Ah, there's the rest of it. Right. Firstly, this is only a discussion, but it seems you are coming very close to resorting to personal insults again, and before we go any further I would say that I hope you're intelligent enough to steer away from that, otherwise the debate isn't worth continuing.
I think you're missing my point. If we believe something to be true, but have no solid evidence, we can only say we 'believe' it. If something is proven, then we can say we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that it's true. There's a big difference between the two. I'm not suggesting for a moment that you allow anyone's opinions to sway you. Why should I? Unless I come to the conclusion that someone else's opinion is valid, then I wouldn't allow anyone to influence me in any way whatsoever.
Global warming is a good example for this discussion on 'truth'. Is global warming going to destroy our planet, or will nature take care of it? Some 'believe' one thing, others 'believe' another, but what is the truth? The truth is that nobody knows, which is why scientists are in disagreement. By the same token, Christians argue about the meaning of biblical texts. One group believes one interpretation, another thinks differently. Take, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses and Anglicans, and their opposing views on blood transfusions. Who is right? People of religion can 'believe' whatever they want to, but none can honestly say they know the truth, because none of it, not one jot, can be proven.
....cont
I think you're missing my point. If we believe something to be true, but have no solid evidence, we can only say we 'believe' it. If something is proven, then we can say we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that it's true. There's a big difference between the two. I'm not suggesting for a moment that you allow anyone's opinions to sway you. Why should I? Unless I come to the conclusion that someone else's opinion is valid, then I wouldn't allow anyone to influence me in any way whatsoever.
Global warming is a good example for this discussion on 'truth'. Is global warming going to destroy our planet, or will nature take care of it? Some 'believe' one thing, others 'believe' another, but what is the truth? The truth is that nobody knows, which is why scientists are in disagreement. By the same token, Christians argue about the meaning of biblical texts. One group believes one interpretation, another thinks differently. Take, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses and Anglicans, and their opposing views on blood transfusions. Who is right? People of religion can 'believe' whatever they want to, but none can honestly say they know the truth, because none of it, not one jot, can be proven.
....cont
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News8 mins ago
Food & Drink11 mins ago
Technology24 mins ago
