|
NikkolasKing posted:This is a very funny story I've been thinking about lately. I don't get it? I mean I get that the second thing he said was also 'what he believes', is that what it is?
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
HopperUK posted:I don't get it? I mean I get that the second thing he said was also 'what he believes', is that what it is? I heard the story in a philosophy lecture and I don't remember if the speaker gave his read on what it was about but my impression of the story is it was a satire of the perceived lazy relativism of today. You can read a whole book on it if you're interested called After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, But anyway, the point (as I understood it) was that nobody really cared if what the person said was true or not, just that "hey, it works for you and makes you feel good, so it's good."
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:I don't get it? I mean I get that the second thing he said was also 'what he believes', is that what it is? try looking at it with your Buddha nature instead of with your logical mind
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I heard the story in a philosophy lecture and I don't remember if the speaker gave his read on what it was about but my impression of the story is it was a satire of the perceived lazy relativism of today. You can read a whole book on it if you're interested called After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, You call it satire I call it stdh.txt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:try looking at it with your Buddha nature instead of with your logical mind I used to have a logical mind but it fell off
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Good call. They came back again as planned and they are from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Very nice people as are all my experiences with them. Something to keep in mind particularly with the Mormon missionaries is that they're basically kids who are drafted into doing that. They're mostly 18-20 and it's a hard requirement in their church that they do it for a year, and they don't really get a choice of where they go. I just have a lot of sympathy for people dragooned into unpaid labor like that, and whenever they knock on my door I make it clear I"m not interested, but I'll also offer them a sandwich and a non-caffeinated beverage or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Yeah, the two Mormon guys I chatted video games with looked fresh out of high school, and I felt pretty bad for them being made to bike through the humid rear end summer where I lived in those outfits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 01:03
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Something to keep in mind particularly with the Mormon missionaries is that they're basically kids who are drafted into doing that. They're mostly 18-20 and it's a hard requirement in their church that they do it for a year, and they don't really get a choice of where they go. That makes a lot of sense. I did not get the impression they really wanted to be here or that they had a lot of familiarity with "public speaking" I guess you can call it. Like I said earlier, not the first time this has happened, and these kids seemed pretty....going through the motions. I didn't even think to offer them anything to eat or drink.... I think I only have soda, anyway. Still, this does make me feel bad for them, too. I'll keep this in mind, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
I don't think Mormons have an issue with non-caffeinated soda, do they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 07:01
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I just have a lot of sympathy for people dragooned into unpaid labor like that, and whenever they knock on my door I make it clear I"m not interested, but I'll also offer them a sandwich and a non-caffeinated beverage or whatever. when i was a kid i had to go around selling "scout-o-rama" tickets which, believe it or not, is something people are even less interested in than religion
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't think Mormons have an issue with non-caffeinated soda, do they? They don’t have issues with any soda. They used to but changed it in the 80s to only apply to coffee and tea. The actual scriptural thing is against “hot drinks” and was interpreted to refer to caffeine. Whether coffee and tea which is both iced and decaffeinated is allowed is actually controversial as I recall
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
I've known a couple who still abide by the caffeine issue, and rationalize it as being a stimulant. Same way they don't like tobacco. Some people take this to mean that caffeine-free coke is OK, while others hold that if there's a caffeinated version available they should still stay away, so no decaf coffee of decaf coke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Are we still sharing recipes? My Bubby just compiled a synagogue cookbook of 175 recipes contributed by 66 different families! Anyone want a recipe for... Chopped herring? Vegan chopped liver? My husband's kosher beef *bourgogne recipe? My rosemary chocolate chip shortbread?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I've never, ever met a door to door catholic. Really? I didn't have this experience with my local JW missionaries. Telling them I was raised and practicing Catholic seemed like something they were prepared to encounter, as if they were going down the path of Another Wrong Christian Sect in their missionary flowchart. TOOT BOOT posted:I always thought the JW thing about blood transfusions is weird. Rules concerning blood aren't really a big Christian thing to begin with, and even if you accept the idea that getting a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, the same set of rules that prohibits eating blood would make an exception because it's saving a life. I read a JW tract about blood transfusion that tried to make an analogy which I felt didn't work. They said that if a doctor told an alcoholic not to drink alcohol, would it be okay for the alcoholic to inject the alcohol instead? And that, in their mind, that is the same attitude to take with blood. But for me, it's more like telling an alcoholic not to drink alcohol, but I've never seen an alcoholic told to also avoid alcohol-based hand sanitizers. It's a matter of appropriate use. I will say that my experience talking with JWs wasn't totally negative. At some point it was too tiring for me to keep interacting with people whom I knew had a proselytizing agenda whenever they interacted with me, and that's not quite a firm relationship foundation to start with. However, I felt the missionaries I spoke to were quite knowledgeable about what parts of mainstream Christian practices were actually extra-Biblical in origin, much more so than I think most mainstream Christians are aware of. This is quite sly, since I think they can catch several unaware mainstream Christians with this knowledge and potentially convert them. I also did admire that they were not caught by the way political and sometimes business leaders will use Christian symbols to promote themselves. I remember years ago reading a headline about JW-persecution in Russia, and thought that was shameful for a state of crack down on a group like that, ostensibly because this group is actually kind of a dissident group towards the dominant national religious-political order. However, that gets to one of my top criticisms of JWs: they're quite good at being critical and warry of how powerful and governing bodies have tried to co-opt Christianity, but there's a big blind spot in their critique for their own governing body, or else I think they'd be much less keen to obey the ostracization of their own dissidents and internal critics. On the other hand, my local Mormon missionaries were comparatively flakey in their follow-through. At least two couples of young Mormons have stopped by my door in my lifetime, and I have been friendly with them. There's an exchange of contact info, and I think they say something like an elder will be in touch with me, but then I've never had anyone from the Latter Day Saints follow-up. Just goes to show, you can't rely on Millennials/Zoomers to get the job done, even when they're Mormon missionaries. Just kidding, of course. WrenP-Complete posted:Are we still sharing recipes? I will always take a vegan recipe, especially a vegan baking recipe, especially a simple, easy, vegan baking recipe that doesn't make me think I need to go out and buy a bunch of strange ingredients/tools that I will use once and struggle to use again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 01:12
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Are we still sharing recipes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I've known a couple who still abide by the caffeine issue, and rationalize it as being a stimulant. Same way they don't like tobacco. Don't let them find out about caffeinated water! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Are we still sharing recipes? Got any kneidlach ones? I'm always interested to compare to the one we use!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 05:10
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Are we still sharing recipes? +1 more for the shortbread recipe!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
Shortbread! Shortbread! Shortbread!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 06:33
|
|
|
I have no idea what shortbread is (gotta Google next I guess), but rosemary and chocolate sounds so weird a combination that I simply must see what it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 11:33
|
|
|
Rosemary is the best surprise dessert herb. Good in an Old Fashioned too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 14:52
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:I used to have a logical mind but it fell off I would suggest consulting your pineal gland, then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 06:31
|
|
|
This is gonna sound silly but I'm rewatching Buffy the Vampire Slayer and this quote really spoke to me Giles: To forgive is an act of compassion, Buffy. It's not done because people deserve it. It's done because they need it. I consume a lot of fiction and I mostly talk that fiction with people. However we put ourselves in our fiction and talk of forgiveness and redemption is a popular topic. I usually see it broken down as redemption is something you do, forgiveness is something others do. A person can redeem themselves but, and this is the kicker, nobody owes them forgiveness, ever. This is a sentiment I see a lot nowadays. I think the late Christopher Hitchens sums up the spirit of our age with "love your own drat enemy." There's an indignance combined with a belief in the righteousness of anger. People feel put upon, like they're being called bad people if they don't offer universal forgiveness. But I never took it as an obligation, even in Christianity. There's a dissertation I have on the ethics of Jesus that begins by recounting the story of a young girl who was raped and set on fire. She forgave the man who did this to her because that was what Jesus would want. Not command - if it was a command, this girl would be a bad person if she didn't forgive. I think this is a distinction people miss. It's an ideal, not an imperative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:There's a dissertation I have on the ethics of Jesus that begins by recounting the story of a young girl who was raped and set on fire. She forgave the man who did this to her because that was what Jesus would want. im not a christian so maybe thats why im having trouble seeing how that is ethical at all to me its perfectly ethical to not forgive one's attacker. and while i can understand there are various reasons why someone might forgive someone who attacked them, which of course will vary tremendously based on the individual and the situation, saying its ethical to do so because thats what a third party would want seems kind of weird, even when that third party is a god
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Divine grace transcends ethics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
my conception of it is something like if someone is repentant and has done what they can to rectify the wrongs theyve committed then they are in a position to genuinely ask for forgiveness from God (i.e. theyre not just trying to get off the hook). and of course a Christian would like to follow in Jesus's example and teachings and offer forgiveness to those who are regretful of their wrong actions and have done their best to mitigate them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
For Christians, it doesn't really make sense not to factor in what Jesus would want. God isn't just a third party, but objective reality itself, the source of all being, and the final judge for all humanity. The entire goal is to conform to his will. And Jesus does seem to mandate a proactive approach to forgiveness: resist anger, don't retaliate, love your enemy, pray for your persecutor, don't judge others, and if you don't forgive others their sins, your sins won't be forgiven. Then he put that into practice by forgiving his own executioners. I'm not sure that the other party's repentance is fully necessary. I don't earn God's forgiveness by repenting; it's how I open myself up to it and strive to live up to it. The way I see it, forgiveness is important because the alternative is holding a grudge, which could fester into a thirst for vengeance and eventual retaliation, or even projecting that hatred onto someone who wasn't even involved. If the offending party isn't sorry, then at least I benefit from letting them go. Keromaru5 fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Mar 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
The great teacher Maimonides writes in Mishneh Torah that to achieve forgiveness for a sin committed against another, Teshuvah (repentance, lit. "turning") is not enough - you must make meaningful and sincere restitution to the wronged party, and three of your friends will ask their forgiveness on your behalf. If they refuse forgiveness not once, not twice, but three times, then and only then should you move on, since clearly this is never going to happen, and God knows you made the effort. But to earn forgiveness, you have to do both - you have to sincerely regret your action and make an effort to change, and you have to try to make it up to them. So in the instance of the girl described above, I can't speak for what Jesus would feel, and I certainly can't speak for what she should personally do, but I can't imagine God as conceived of here giving two hoots about whether she forgives him or not, because (I imagine) he neither regrets his actions nor feels the need to make amends for them. TL;DR - divine forgiveness is for those willing to be forgiven; if you want to forgive people beyond that, then that's your choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:The way I see it, forgiveness is important because the alternative is holding a grudge, which could fester into a thirst for vengeance and eventual retaliation, or even projecting that hatred onto someone who wasn't even involved. If the offending party isn't sorry, then at least I benefit from letting them go. an interesting point. I suppose then the genuineness of the wrongdoer in pursuing forgiveness from another person is between them and God
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
This is a difficult topic to talk about with something as heinous as rape. It's much easier to talk about forgiveness of wrongdoing when the wrongdoing is less horrible. When the trauma is so extreme, it becomes incredibly important to be sensitive to the needs of the victims. I think when the wrong committed is as heinous as rape, it can cause a kind of moral injury to those who are just around the situation or even just reading/hearing about it.Freudian posted:The great teacher Maimonides writes in Mishneh Torah that to achieve forgiveness for a sin committed against another, Teshuvah (repentance, lit. "turning") is not enough - you must make meaningful and sincere restitution to the wronged party, and three of your friends will ask their forgiveness on your behalf. If they refuse forgiveness not once, not twice, but three times, then and only then should you move on, since clearly this is never going to happen, and God knows you made the effort. But to earn forgiveness, you have to do both - you have to sincerely regret your action and make an effort to change, and you have to try to make it up to them. So in the instance of the girl described above, I can't speak for what Jesus would feel, and I certainly can't speak for what she should personally do, but I can't imagine God as conceived of here giving two hoots about whether she forgives him or not, because (I imagine) he neither regrets his actions nor feels the need to make amends for them. This reminds me of what I heard at last week's Torah study. The rabbi was talking about this subject. She's involved in a lot of the local leftist circles, and something she notes is that there's much discussion in those circles about justice, social justice, racial justice, environmental justice, and so on. But as a Jewish teacher, something she reflects upon from her spiritual lineage is the need to temper justice with compassion, mercy, and love. Sometimes she notes that this is missing from the discussion, and she feels it's her moral duty as a Jewish person to promote the cause of compassion, even if it draws some heat on her. I hear this a lot from Cornell West (who quotes others whose names I forget), too, that justice is what love looks like in public, but that a society that practices justice only for justice's sake soon devolves into something less than just if it is not combined with something else, namely love. My own thought is that to be merciful to someone, though, they kind of have to be at your mercy. That is, to grant mercy to someone means that you must have power over them. It could be spiritual power, material power, or likely it will take both. Otherwise, I feel it's not really mercy that you can extend to the wrongdoer; it's more like a white peace or even a surrender. When someone who has done wrong makes restitution and begs for forgiveness, that is showing that they acknowledge the power the victim should have. Without these acts, the mercy feels less genuine and less possible. Earwicker posted:im not a christian so maybe thats why im having trouble seeing how that is ethical at all From one non-Christian, namely a more Buddhist perspective, there is the practice of seeing with non-discrimination. That is to say, we can look at the world with our day-to-day sense that things are distinct objects (I am not you, this desk is not a cloud, a dog is not a Buddha), and we do this because it is practical. But we can also look deeper with the practice of non-discrimination to also see that no thing is its own separate self-entity. I am in you, there is a cloud in my desk, and a Buddha in the dog. This type of deep-looking is done to encourage compassion and equanimity in the practitioner. Generally, I've seen this insight introduced with pleasant and neutral things first, since that's going to be easier for people to get into. But gradually this looking is introduced to things that are less pleasant both inside and outside the person. At some point if the practice is continued, one will have to meditate on the interbeing between oneself and the one who causes harm. Some may remember that years ago, I talked about being a victim of childhood sexual abuse from a family member, specifically an older sibling. There was a long time I simply disassociated from that abuse. Then in early adulthood, I accepted that it was an abuse and a crime, and I was full of overwhelming anger at my sibling, and also a bit less extreme anger at my parents for failing to protect me and then failing to do anything when I told them about the abuse. I spent a long time nursing that anger. In a way, I feel that anger was helping to protect me from more harm. With therapy and spiritual direction, the anger I've felt grew calmer over a long period of time. And during my retreat at Deer Park, it gave me time to reflect on the whole situation. The last dharma talk at the retreat was about the mind's (manas') tendency to seek only pleasant things and avoid unpleasant things, and its tendency to ignore the dangers of pleasant things and the value of unpleasant things. I knew my parents wanted me to reconcile with my sibling. They did make amends for their role in neglecting to see the abuse when it happened and for reacting poorly to it coming out, and they begged for forgiveness for themselves and for my sibling. I also knew that as they get older, it would be harder and harder to handle their aging while not speaking with my sibling. So after the retreat, I told my parents I was ready to speak with my sibling again. I have to acknowledge that my therapist, my Catholic spiritual director, my Deer Park dharma teachers, my loved ones, none of them pressured me to start speaking to my sibling again. They all treated me with a tremendous amount of gentleness and patience, which I think is the appropriate way to approach a victim of trauma. Cornell West says further that if justice is what love looks like in public, then tenderness is what love feels like in private. The years I spent not speaking to my sibling was also time I spent growing stronger both spiritually and practically. I'm a grown adult now, able to take care of and defend myself better than when I was a child, and I have loved ones I can trust to be vulnerable around. My parents put more pressure towards reconciliation, which I think actually slowed the process down, but eventually they relented and acknowledge that it must happen at the pace that was right for me. I have not formally made a declaration of forgiveness to my sibling, largely because they have not asked for forgiveness. I'm told by my parents that my sibling acknowledged the abuse to them, but they've not done so to me. I suppose I could press the issue to them, but I imagine I would get kind of a lukewarm apology at best, ("I'm sorry if I hurt you,") which would not be worth much. It's enough at this time that the abuse was acknowledged and now documented. I think not everyone will agree with my decision to reopen communication with my sibling, and that is okay. I'm doing the best that my conscience can discern from this messy situation, and even I have uncertainty that this path is the best path. For anyone in a similar boat, I'd just have to repeat that I was fortunate that none of my spiritual teachers pressured me to reopen the lines of communication. I feel that it would be unhelpful, even harmful to use guilt, shame, judgment, or other negative methods to coerce people into reconciling with those who've wronged them heinously. I think my spiritual teachers understood this, that even with their insight into what ultimate reality would say about compassion towards wrongdoers, my teachers also knew that each person has limits that only they can overcome organically. To force it would be a mistake. To be insensitive would worsen the situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
I am so sorry that happened to you; so glad you found a kind of peace despite it; and, truthfully, a little enviousness of the clear-sightedness you have on the subject. I'll probably be thinking over your thoughts on mercy for some time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
Caufman posted:
I think you're right on this. Forgiving someone doesn't necessarily mean you have to trust them or reestablish a relationship. On Fr. Stephen Freeman's blog, a commenter once shared some advice her confessor gave her about forgiving an abusive husband she'd gotten away from: You can forgive a rattlesnake for biting you, because that's its nature; you don't have to go back and pet the rattlesnake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:On Fr. Stephen Freeman's blog, a commenter once shared some advice her confessor gave her about forgiving an abusive husband she'd gotten away from: You can forgive a rattlesnake for biting you, because that's its nature; you don't have to go back and pet the rattlesnake. forgiving an attacker "because thats its nature" makes sense when talking about a non-sentient animal attacking someone out of instinct, but i have a lot harder feeling that way about an abusive human being. abusers are people who choose to abuse, not some unchangeable unthinking force of nature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:forgiving an attacker "because thats its nature" makes sense when talking about a non-sentient animal attacking someone out of instinct, but i have a lot harder feeling that way about an abusive human being. abusers are people who choose to abuse, not some unchangeable unthinking force of nature. Of course. It's antithetical to Orthodoxy to suggest people can't change. The point is, forgiving someone doesn't mean you necessarily have to reconcile, especially if it could put you at personal risk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
I think my rosemary chocolate shortbread recipe (from Deb Perelman's book, originally from another cookbook) didn't make it into my own Bubby's cookbook! (Maybe it's listed as a side dish or bread instead of a dessert) I made this with strawberry jam for mishloach manot this year. Happy Purim and Shabbat shalom! Here's the recipe:   (The green post-it is my note to myself, but I'm in a mountain range so I'm not sure it applies to people closer to sea level. ) WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Mar 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 03:19
|
|
|
Here's my new husband's recipe...  If that's too hard to read, I'll get a digital version from my ~new husband~ or Bubby. Other requested recipes to follow; I just don't want to spam the thread! May the Master of the Universe bless this world with peace, speedily in our days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 03:29
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Here's my new husband's recipe... The Dictionary posted:schmaltz TIL definition #3. I figured in the recipe it was a Jewish joke along the lines of "a dash of love". 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 04:02
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:im not a christian so maybe thats why im having trouble seeing how that is ethical at all My standpoint at well. God is all-forgiving, and as one who is all powerful, able to grant mercy to all. I am but a mortal being, and do not have God's strength or mercy, so the best I can do with one who has harmed me and is unrepentant is not seek vengeance and try to forget said person exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 04:48
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:My standpoint at well. That's totally fair. Christians are called to attempt forgiveness but nobody expects perfection. And forgiving doesn't mean forgetting and it doesn't mean opening yourself up to further harm. It's more internal, an attempt to release anger and hatred for your own sake, more than for theirs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:My standpoint at well. As Lily Tomlin put it, "Forgiveness means giving up all hope for a better past." Letting go of the bitterness and desire for vengeance frees you from the hold the transgressor has on your life. It lets you move on despite what happened and look forward rather than backward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 04:57
|
|
