Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why does it sound like that to you? You are now imputing emotions to my belief?
You are confusing membership based on belief and membership based on the rules of membership regardless of belief. Believing you are a member of Mensa doesn't make you a member of Mensa.
Confusion, yes, on many levels, perhaps also demonstrating my point...
People believe all variety of things. Should others believe the same things? There's the essential question.
Ultimately the answer depends on whether we are talking about the right for anyone to believe as they wish, and of course we all have that right. Should we all believe what anyone believes? The answer to that is not an obvious yes.
What we should all believe as individuals is a personal choice. What we should all believe is right and truth for all concerned depends on generally accepted or agreed upon criteria that can establish that truth for all concerned, or we simply -- and peacefully -- agree we simply don't know.
Not sure I know a better way to put it, but that's another effort all the same. Another effort to clarify what it seems you are not able to understand too well. If that's my fault, my bad, but I am quite confident in the rational that makes what I am saying all but obvious!
PS: Of course believing whatever you wish does not make it so! Other than for you personally! If YOU believe you are a member of Mensa, then as far as you are concerned, you are a member of Mensa. Others may not agree with you for whatever good reasons, but if you don't agree with them, then you will believe what you like.
This is the dynamic we see clearly in play when it comes to so much in the way of religious beliefs, faith. No matter what others think, if you think God told you to ___________ (fill in the blank), then that's the truth, your personal truth. Not to be confused with universal truth that is determined by criteria going beyond one's personal beliefs.
This really so hard to understand or accept?
If you believe you are making sense, and I don't, then you are making sense as far as you are concerned, regardless what anyone else thinks including me. Ask yourself. How does that different belief get reconciled?
It doesn't, as long as you are free to believe whatever you like on a personal basis...
If interested in the truth for both of us regardless, to "reconcile the truth," we must turn to agreed upon criteria that will establish that truth (for example the use of DNA to determine whether you are a crocodile regardless whether you believe you are a crocodile, or an IQ test to establish the the truth about you being a member of Mensa), all independent and objective in terms of establishing our universal truth, regardless of differing personal opinion. Understand?
Are you Jewish? Depends on what criteria we choose or agree upon to establish that truth...
Of course believing whatever you wish does not make it so! Other than for you personally! If YOU believe you are a member of Mensa, then as far as you are concerned, you are a member of Mensa.
Then as far as I am concerned, I am president. And, as a member of Mensa (at least in my own mind) I can pontificate about Mensa and its stilted rules and teach others about Mensa.
Except that I'm not really in Mensa and I don't keep my personal beliefs to myself - -I present myself to the world as a member by saying, "Hey, I'm in Mensa." And the people in the world who don't know that I am only speaking from my personal self-evaluation, at odds with the organization's position, will take my statements as informed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
If interested in the truth for both of us regardless, to "reconcile the truth," we must turn to agreed upon criteria that will establish that truth
Unless I disagree with the objective value or authority of DNA. Then I can be a crocodile regardless of your personal belief that DNA says otherwise. If I don't agree that something is a test for objective truth, or that objective truth exists, then that's the reality of the situation. Personal opinion is, according to what you say, primary because it can sidestep the concept of objective truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Are you Jewish? Depends on what criteria we choose or agree upon to establish that truth...
Why should what we choose to agree upon have any effect on what the group itself uses to determine its own existence?
Unless I disagree with the objective value or authority of DNA. Then I can be a crocodile regardless of your personal belief that DNA says otherwise. If I don't agree that something is a test for objective truth, or that objective truth exists, then that's the reality of the situation. Personal opinion is, according to what you say, primary because it can sidestep the concept of objective truth.
I think we're getting there, slowly but surely...
Exactly correct. Until or unless there is an agreed upon criteria to establish answers to questions of truth, then "all bets are off," and we are all free to believe what we will regardless what anyone else says or thinks and/or what proof to the contrary may exist.
Personal opinion, however, is not "primary" according to me. Personal opinion is just what it is, personal opinion, as opposed to facts that are established as truth regardless of personal opinion.
Why should what we choose to agree upon have any effect on what the group itself uses to determine its own existence?
Whether we choose to agree upon criteria that establishes truth is dependent on first, our desire to know the truth regardless our personal biases, pre-conceived notions and outside influences, then second, our desire and ability to recognize the appropriate criteria to establish that truth, our universal truth, that applies to all of us.
Without either that desire and/or ability, people are more inclined toward beliefs that are simply a function of whatever they choose to believe or are taught to believe. This of course is quite prevalent around the world since the beginning of man, and why there are so many conflicting beliefs about our ultimate universal truths AKA different religions.
A prevalent inclination with the exception of alternative manner to determine truth also fairly well agreed upon by others, by way of science for example. Science is an agreed upon methodology and/or criteria to establish our universal truth regardless of personal opinion. The truth that can be proven by objective criteria (like DNA testing for example) and/or determined as yet unknown, theoretical.
I'm more inclined toward the alternative manner of determining truth, by way of science for example, regardless of personal bias, opinions and/or conflicting religious beliefs...
Science is an agreed upon methodology and/or criteria to establish our universal truth regardless of personal opinion. The truth that can be proven by objective criteria (like DNA testing for example) and/or determined as yet unknown, theoretical.
Science is not agreed upon. It is a set of theories that people argue over. It is no more objective than any other set of explanations. What we agree with we call objective. What we don't we call personal opinion. When someone expresses his personal opinion and claims it as something relevant or true beyond the scope of his personal existence, we recognize it as delusion. Membership in Judaism is decided by compliance with objective rules, otherwise it is a function of delusion.
LearnMe, why don’t you be respectful to the Jews in this forum and refrain from posting on the Shabbos, when it’s forbidden for Jews to be on a computer.
Science is not agreed upon. It is a set of theories that people argue over. It is no more objective than any other set of explanations. What we agree with we call objective. What we don't we call personal opinion. When someone expresses his personal opinion and claims it as something relevant or true beyond the scope of his personal existence, we recognize it as delusion. Membership in Judaism is decided by compliance with objective rules, otherwise it is a function of delusion.
On this we certainly do not agree, and again with all due respect, I believe you are wrong for a few reasons...
Beginning first and foremost with the notion that science is "not agreed upon."
If by this you mean that some will CHOOSE to ignore science, again on a personal level, well again yes of course. Anyone can CHOOSE to agree (or not) about anything, at that level.
However, what I am referring to is the effort on the part of those who adhere to a criteria that is entirely objective. A criteria that applies no matter where you are in the world, regardless what religion is prevalent, no matter personal opinion. Scientific methods, principles, practices are agreed upon by those seeking universal truth regardless of personal opinion, by way of empirical evidence.
If again you don't understand these differences and how they are important, distinctions that are important to make and understand, then I'm not sure I can help, but to explain further, a scientist may have a theory about this or that, but if the theory cannot pass the test of scientific verification, universally applicable verification, it is no more than a theory, very different from theocracy that requires no such process or verification. In fact quite the contrary.
To believe in Judaism is a matter of choice. Whether to believe in the laws of Judaism is a matter of choice. You may choose yes. Others obviously choose otherwise. Don’t have those sorts of choices when it comes to science and/or the scientific method. We are humans not crocodiles because of tests and empirical evidence that proves our universal truth in this regard, objectively.
Again, however, all depends on agreement with regard to criteria that determines truth; objective or subjective. Galileo, another example, chose the objective path. The church did not. Who was/is right and why?
Some even argue that science is a religion. Others believe the Earth is flat…
Intelligent discussion and proper conclusion with these sorts of people is a lost cause of course, pointless. If/when objective criteria and facts are usurped, not agreed upon or accepted, there is no reconciling reality with people who determine their truth subjectively instead, by whatever other means they choose for whatever reasons.
I suspect this may be our divide of agreement here -- and/or understanding -- that won’t likely be bridged by doing more circles about this…
LearnMe, why don’t you be respectful to the Jews in this forum and refrain from posting on the Shabbos, when it’s forbidden for Jews to be on a computer.
flipflop, I'm not sure if this is yet another effort to suggest disrespect where nothing could be further from the truth, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm thinking maybe just another dose of misunderstanding...
No matter who we are, social media (also just like texts, emails, etc), does not require that anyone participate other than as they see fit, when they see fit. I engage in this forum on whatever day I wish, just like everyone else can. I certainly don't expect you to visit this forum, let alone post, on the Shabbos for whatever your personal reasons.
I can't be held responsible for when you or anyone else decides to visit this forum or participate, nor should I be, right? I can certainly wait for you to reply (or not) when the time is also right for you! There are no rules about when anyone need post, reply or do any of the above, entirely up to you! Am I being disrespectful of people who want to go to bed early because I decide to post in the middle of the night?!? Please. Again let's be reasonable here...
How can you suggest I am being disrespectful of anyone, simply because I might post on a day you decide you won't for whatever your personal reason(s)? Not to mention that not everyone perhaps interested in this thread is necessarily Jewish.
Whatever interest, reading or reply can wait, in any case, until you are not "forbidden" to do so. Again, that's up to you, not me. Please...
If by this you mean that some will CHOOSE to ignore science, again on a personal level, well again yes of course. Anyone can CHOOSE to agree (or not) about anything, at that level.
And people can argue competing theories and understandings, science can change after new experiments have been performed (while some can argue that the experiments are not persuasive). What often happens is that each side then says that the other side is "not science" so that science can remain some monolithic set of agreements, even when it isn't. I was just reading an old article about whether viruses are alive. Science says they are, and science says they aren't. Well, actually, scientists do, but they are the lenses through which we know science. Sometimes, it seems, some scientists ignore what others claim to be empirical evidence, and others ignore what some think of as persuasive evidence. If you think of science as a singular and agreed upon set of principles at all times, then we have a rift which will not be solved. I was reading another article about the evolution of certain body parts. It seems that science has competing theories but not all scientists are on the same page. Unless whoever ends up in the future being proven wrong was actually not applying "science." At least until new evidence proves him right. This is all besides the point as the discussion is not about science as a process but about the uniformity and authority of scientific "law" as compared to that of Judaism. You think that a DNA test to ascertain species affiliation os persuasive but a maternal test to figure out Jewish affiliation is not because you see the scientists and their rule as one thing and Judaism and its rule as another. I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
To believe in Judaism is a matter of choice.
Very true. Just like believing in American citizenship. And believing one is a crocodile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Whether to believe in the laws of Judaism is a matter of choice.
Also true. Just like believing in the laws of the U.S. Or the laws of Judaism, or the laws of DNA. But in each case, whether or not one believes in them, those laws exist and apply to all people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
If/when objective criteria and facts are usurped, not agreed upon or accepted, there is no reconciling reality with people who determine their truth subjectively instead, by whatever other means they choose for whatever reasons.
Like unilaterally deciding that they are Jewish. But again, the problem isn't when the individual decides that he is Jewish (ignoring the laws) but when he advertises that as a truth using language, without qualification, that puts him on par with the status of those who conform to the laws. His self-delusion becomes deception.
flipflop, I'm not sure if this is yet another effort to suggest disrespect where nothing could be further from the truth, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm thinking maybe just another dose of misunderstanding...
No matter who we are, social media (also just like texts, emails, etc), does not require that anyone participate other than as they see fit, when they see fit. I engage in this forum on whatever day I wish, just like everyone else can. I certainly don't expect you to visit this forum, let alone post, on the Shabbos for whatever your personal reasons.
I can't be held responsible for when you or anyone else decides to visit this forum or participate, nor should I be, right? I can certainly wait for you to reply (or not) when the time is also right for you! There are no rules about when anyone need post, reply or do any of the above, entirely up to you! Am I being disrespectful of people who want to go to bed early because I decide to post in the middle of the night?!? Please. Again let's be reasonable here...
How can you suggest I am being disrespectful of anyone, simply because I might post on a day you decide you won't for whatever your personal reason(s)? Not to mention that not everyone perhaps interested in this thread is necessarily Jewish.
Whatever interest, reading or reply can wait, in any case, until you are not "forbidden" to do so. Again, that's up to you, not me. Please...
And maybe you should have read "A few forum rules--READ BEFORE POSTING (translation, religious, Sabbath)" at the beginning of this forum before you go against the grain of those in this forum. So yes you are responsible for your choices and actions you make. You sow discord wherever you post when it comes to Judaism and your posts in this forum are no different than those in other forums.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
