Who is the pigeon?
(If you do not know, it is you...)
Monday, April 11, 2011
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...)
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...)
Sunday, April 3, 2011
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...
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...
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.
(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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)