Eye for an eye

How do you evaluate a religious law? I propose a good question is:

- What would I do if the law had not been given?

Consider, for example, an eye for an eye. If the law were not given, and I were injured would I just forgive and demand nothing in return in either punishment or compensation? Not likely. Would my demand be proportional to the harm done. Not likely either.

I do not need a law to make me demand at a least proportional response. I need one to limit me to a proportional response. I suspect that humans like to pretend that they (as a group) would be peaceful and just if only religion (or G-d) had not told them to be vengeful. I was *going* to be peaceful and just, G-d, but you made me be violent and vengeful. Sounds like Adam...

Questions of a minister in Africa

I know of a man who is from Africa, who ministers there and currently has a university there. A few years ago he gave a talk at a conference where he posed very difficult questions that are worth knowing:

- What do I do when my neighbors become my family's killers?

- What do I do when relatives are suffering with HIV/AIDS?

- When my land and my wealth are taken away?

- What is Freedom? Justice? Mercy? Shame? Guilt?

- Where is God when I suffer?

This man also explained:

"Suffering is part of life, or should I say part of the African ethos. The North taught us how to win, but you did not teach us how to loose. You taught us how to be strong, but you did not teach us how to be weak; you taught us how to smile and laugh, but you did not teach us how to cry and weep; you taught us how to give, but you did not teach us how to receive; you taught us how to live, but you did not teach us how to die. God is teaching us to how to live and how to die. The North can learn from us. It brings out endurance and patience, prayer, faith and worship; a thankful heart and simplicity in life."

How can you tell if a political movement is a form fascism?

Fascism is often used in talking about politics, and often seems to mean little more than "something I do not like". So the question is how can you tell if a political movement is actually fascist? I submit that a good first question would be:

How much does a movement embody the idea of "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." (Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)?

This was a slogan of Mussolini and IMO captures an essential aspect of fascism.

(You may ask why I did not take a quote from Hitler. This is because no discussion of anything dealing w/ Hitler can be separated from his hatred and mass murder of Jews, nor should it be. This is why he is the most infamous of fascists. Talking about him would simply turn fascism into a synonym for hatred of Jews. Unfortunately, hatred of Jews is not uniquely fascist, and requires other questions.)

Operations Research and Statistics

As it turns out, I am in the field of Operations Research, and have studied the related field of Statistics. So, the next natural question is - What is the question for these? I submit:

The question for Statistics is: "Given what we know, what should we believe?"

The question for Operations Research is: "Given what we believe what should we do to get what we want?"

What is the first question to ask when gambling?

Who is the pigeon?

(If you do not know, it is you...)

What is the first rule of gambling?

Always be the house...

When is your marriage a success?

How can you tell if it is a success until after it is over? When does a marriage end?

Therefore, my answer is:

When one of you is dead. :)

(Ok, so my wife thought of the answer first, but it is a good answer...)

Why do women like shoes?

I have no idea.

I have a daughter. When she was little, shoes were of no concern. Then one day she became a teen-ager and shoes became important. I do not even know the right question to ask...

How do you know someone is a bigot?

The question I ask for this one is "Is there an egregious double standard?" Specifically, does the person hold the target group up to a higher standard than others so that that group is subject to frequent or constant condemnation that others are not. For example, say a white person is quick to denounce a violent crime when the perpetrator is black but slow to denounce the same crime when the perpetrator is white then there is a double standard. Even more, if that same person is quick to condemn a black person for even a minor offense and slow to condemn a white person for the same, then that person is a bigot. It is true that someone can just be concerned with crime, but the double standard reveals that crime is merely a mechanism to condemn and not the issue itself.

I also apply this same test to someone being anti-Muslim, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-American...

How can you tell if two religions are in fact different religions or variations (or sects) of the same religion?

I submit that a good question for this one is "How well can members of the two religions argue?" This is similar to a test for "Are two languages really just forms of the same language?" where the test is can people speaking the two languages understand each other? Someone speaking "Bostonian" and someone speaking "San Franciscan" can understand each other, so we say they both are speaking English. Someone speaking Japanese and someone speaking French cannot understand each other, so we say Japanese and French are two different languages.

(And then there are ones where this test is of limited use - e.g. Spanish and Portuguese or Mexico City Spanish and Chilean small town Spanish.)

Similarly, Presbyterians and Baptists can argue. A Presbyterian will say "The Bible says such and such" and the Baptist will have to respond with something like "You are not applying the Bible correctly, what that passage means is this and that.” So Presbyterians and Baptists follow two forms of the same religion.
But, if a Presbyterian says "The Bible says such and such" to a Muslim, the Muslim will respond with something like "So what, the Bible is not a reliable." Then when the Muslim says "The Koran says this and such" the Presbyterian can respond with "So what, the Koran is not authoritative". Presbyterians and Muslims follow two different religions.

Again there are some cases where this question is less useful. Presbyterians and Roman Catholics for example. On the one hand both can and will quote the Bible to each other, and neither can say "So what". But Roman Catholics also have Papal Authority and Tradition to which the Presbyterian can say "So what". I do not know enough to know how that works out since I am not sure exactly how Papal Authority and Tradition work in Roman Catholicism.

On the other hand, it does appear that Mormonism is a different religion than either Presbyterianism or Roman Catholicism. The Book of Mormon (and the teachings from Joseph Smith and others) seems to be too important to Mormons. This does not necessarily mean Mormons are bad or that Mormonism is false, just that neither Presbyterianism nor Roman Catholicism are the same religion as Mormonism.

How should you evaluate a religion?

If you are asking in terms of possibly converting, I submit "Is it true?" is a good question to use. ("Is it good?" and "Is it beautiful?" are not bad supporting questions.)

If you are asking in terms of a religion that you will not convert to, but have to live around people that adhere to that religion, then I submit "How does that religion teach its adherents to treat unbelievers?" is a good one. And this does cover those who are unbelievers because they have not chosen to join, unbelievers because they have explicitly rejected, and unbelievers who used to believer and have left.
And not how does it say unbelievers will be treated by G-d, angels, etc. but how *followers* are instructed to treat unbelievers. If I do not believe in a religion, then I do not believe in the supernatural beings that that religion describes or at least I do not believe that those supernatural beings act the way that religion describes. However, no matter what I believe the adherents of a religion *do* exist, so it is the instructions for the adherents that I am concerned with.

Do you have to respect all religions?

This is related to the question "Can a religion be bad?". First, note that the question is how a religion is treated, not a person. A religion is a set of ideas, including ideas such as "Action XYZ is how you should act." I contend that respecting an adherent, a follower, or a member of a religion is different from respecting a religion.

What makes one a liberal?

There are many positions associated w/ Liberal and many associated with illiberal leftists that call themselves Liberal. I would contend that the degree that one is a liberal can be judged by how they treat people that are wrong. IMO that determines whether you have the right to call yourself a Liberal.

And I do not mean people that you "think" are wrong, where you give a gesture to fact that you might actually be the one that is wrong, but those that you *know* are wrong. How you answer "Does error have rights?" or "Do people whose views are in error have rights?" and the related "Should I respect people whose ideas are in error?" is key.

What would I do if I never got the credit for it?

There are a number of questions that people ask themselves as they try to live lives of character. Two common ones are:

- What would Jesus do?

- Would I still do this if other people found out?

I have one that I think is worth considering to add:

- Would I do this if no-one knew it was me - if I never get the credit for it?

This is the opposite of the question that checks to see if you would only do something if you knew you would not get caught or seen. This one asks if you only do something in order to get recognition for it. I have a larger problem with ego than with shame, so this is an appropriate one for me. A wise man once said "There is no limit to what you can do if you do not care who gets the credit."

And I think the example is worth following of "He must increase, but I must decrease" - from one whose task was not to draw praise for himself but to point to someone fundamentally more important.

How can I succeed?

I know a man who's personal quest is t obe good at succeeding, and is always asking what needs to be done in order to succeed. Not in the Machiavelli sense, but in the practical wisdom sense (chokhmah). He will take steps to make an action plan, seek out people for advice and guidence, and determine how to evaluate his progress. The good thing is that this is applicable to a wide range of goals, so this is a good question to borrow from him.

What shall we enjoy for lunch?

I once knew a man who's question is difficult to put into English, especially American English. The best I can render it is "What shall we enjoy for lunch?"  Though he was not French (or Italian) he viewed food as something to be *enjoyed*. To set aside the worries of life, and the burden of ambition, and just enjoy well made bread.

What can you do?

I once met a man who was giving a seminar and this was his question. He was a 10th degree black belt - founder of his own style of martial arts. He would put a student in a difficult spot - some kind of hold or restraint - and then ask "What can you do?"

An impressive question. The way he asked it was not "What can you do?" as in

"Oh well, nothing can be done"

or even:

"Show off or prove something to me"

but rather:

"Think! Be creative! Do not give up!"

The question captured the essence of always having an active mind and an indomitable spirit.

Vorlons and Shadows

I confess that I like J Michael Straczynski's ploy of defining some of his races in Babylon 5 by a question.

 

- The Shadow question: What do you want?

- The Vorlon question: Who are you?


Just for fun, let's make up a list for groups on earth:

 

- The American question: Does it work?

 

- The French question: Does it work - in theory?

 

- The German question: Is it in order?

 

- The Chinese question: Are we in harmony?

 

- The Dutch question: Is it clean?

 

Any suggestions for more to add...

How can God know the future?

I once had a job where I to sit for long hours monitoring a machine that required minimal attention. So, I time to ponder this one. I think there are four questions that would need to be answered to make sense out of "How can God know the future?". (This would also apply to understanding predestination since one aspect of predestination is how God and the future relate.)

1) What is God's velocity and His distance from the nearest gravitational bodies?

How time flows is a factor of velocity and gravity, therefore to understand how God perceives time you must know His velocity and the gravitational fields He is in. (The velocity and gravity part is a well establish part of Einstein's theories.)

2) Before God created anything how much time passed?

Time is measured by events. What does it mean to say time passed if there were no events?

3) How does an uncreated being differ from a created being?

4) How does a creator differ from His creation?

Note that this is a little different from 3) which asks about the difference in natures. This question goes to the relationship as it regards the existence.


I cannot tackle these four questions, so I am quite sure that I cannot tackle the primary question. My best answer is that mixing God and time leads to confusion.

Why do Xians and Jews seem to talk past each other?

I have seen a number of conversations (mostly on the web) where Xians and Jews are discussing religious things. My impression is that they frequently talk past each other, like two skew lines neither intersecting or running in parallel. After pondering this, I submit that the reason is that the core question in each religion is different:

The Xian question: How can I be saved?

If you are not up on Xian-speak, this could also be rendered – How can I be made right with God? It could also less accurately be asked as – How can I get to heaven? Or How can I have a place in the World to Come?

I have seen on a Roman Catholic site - "How can I receive God's grace?" and I submit that the nuances between "How can I be saved?" and "How can I receive God's grace" illustrate some of hte differences between Evangelicals and Catholics.

The Jewish question: How should I live?

I think that part of this comes from the fact that in Xianity people are born outside of a covenant with God and must enter. In Judaism, Jews are already in a covenant and have been for a long time. It is not that Jews never ask about being right with God or the World to Come, and it is not that Xians never ask how they should live. It just seems that the default question of each is not the same. Xians spend much time, energy, and focus on witnessing, converting, being born again, etc. Jews (well religious Jews) seem to spend a great deal of time on figuring out exactly how they should observe Torah.

I know far less about Islam than either Xianity or Judaism, so I am still trying to figure out their question. My best shot right now is:

The Muslim question: Will you submit?

And just for fun, if I had to pick a question for Jesus, it would be: Who do you say that I am?

Jesus had this fascinating characteristic to be both humble and meek while at the same time He acts as though it is all about Him. And He does it so matter of factly. He does not seem boastful or arrogant, yet He still seems to regard Himself as the center of all things.

Why this blog?

Finding a good question can be better than getting an answer. I collect questions and like a zillion other people felt like putting my thoughts in a blog. Who will read this? I have no idea.