Even my freezer is “Woke”

Magical sky wizard will probably be happy with those not going out of their way to be an arse

There seems to be a distinct correlation (and I suspect causation) between those overly restrictive religions and “Being an Arse” both in the macro and micro senses.

Not only is my freezer woke, it’s also a snowflake.

Surely at some point of rule manipulation its best just to ask god for an updated copy covering modern life and when she doesnt deliver give up on any which dont obviously apply.

Surely at some point of rule manipulation

I think at this point it’s been explained why it’s not manipulation and anyone still saying this has not bothered to follow any of my explanations or looked at the links. Or of course, I’m useless at explaining :-p

ask god for an updated copy covering modern life

Exactly missing the point that the original copy is intended to cover every occasion for all time, there is no updated copy needed because the laws DO cover modern life (what you call manipulation or loopholes). I cannot speak for any other religion but with Judaism people often miss the fact that the Old Testament is only half the Torah and it’s not always to be taken literally.

give up on any which dont obviously apply

See Reform or Conservative.

I think at this point it’s been explained why it’s not manipulation and anyone still saying this has not bothered to follow any of my explanations or looked at the links

Or perhaps we have and arent convinced by your explanation and the links? Since, frankly, its a rather hard sell.

Exactly missing the point that the original copy is intended to cover every occasion for all time

Which is a problem for the original rules. Why didnt it have something covering LEDs and electricity in general so we know how to respond rather than needing lots of interpretation?

Or perhaps we have and arent convinced

Embracing the diversity of human cultures isn’t everyone’s thing* I realise, but I accept this.

* It is the fridge’s bloody thing, obv.

Excuse my ignorance but  is using your freezer against religious law? I’ve worked with church goers and Jehovah’s Witnesses and never heard of this.

Amish may not have freezers in their homes.

This is as they don’t have electricity in their houses. However, they may rent freezer space from an “Engish” (non-Amish) neighbour. The lab-tech during my post-doc, in rural Ohio, rented freezers to her neighbours for this reason. Depending on the exact instructions from the church elders they could run electricity to the corner of their land, and you would then see a cluster of sheds around an electrical pole. Very much varied from church to church.

No cars so everything was horse-drawn (but you hire an English driver to drive a minibus, or scrounge a lift to work in the lumber yard etc). The MacDonalds in Millersburg had a horse hitch for this reason.

It was based around keeping the outside world from your home and keeping the family and church together.

I can’t think of anything more bizarre than atheists debating the interpretation of rules that, one way or another, have no impact on their lives and by definition they don’t believe in

I’m exaggerating, i probably can. But it’s an expression

the original copy is intended to cover every occasion for all time, there is no updated copy needed because the laws DO cover modern life
…
the Old Testament is… not always to be taken literally.

These two statements would seem to be at odds with each other.

I can’t think of anything more bizarre than atheists debating the interpretation of rules that, one way or another, have no impact on their lives and by definition they don’t believe in

Discussion Bad? Talking about things we don’t understand is how we learn things.

Discussion is good. But I’d say the language in many posts here isn’t along the lines of “help me understand” but more along the lines of “ridicule”

I can’t think of anything more bizarre than atheists debating the interpretation of rules that, one way or another, have no impact on their lives and by definition they don’t believe in

How about CofE bishops being able to debate (and legislate) rules that do have an impact on my life, simply because of their affiliation to a regional denomination of a religion following a deity that I don’t believe exists. That’s pretty bizarre.

but more along the lines of “ridicule”

Yes

I fully understand but it still worthy of ridicule when you stop and think about it for longer than a second.

Stop being paranoid. It’s just a piece of iron man.

I’m exaggerating, i probably can.

Wait until you hear about these people who want special fridge modes because someone has interpreted a bronze age text as saying so.

How about CofE bishops being able to debate (and legislate) rules that do have an impact on my life, simply because of their affiliation to a regional denomination of a religion following a deity that I don’t believe exists. That’s pretty bizarre.

That would not fit

debating the interpretation of rules that, one way or another, have no impact on their lives

Or perhaps we have and arent convinced by your explanation and the links? Since, frankly, its a rather hard sell.

Fair enough 🙂

These two statements would seem to be at odds with each other.

How so? If it’s not taken literally, then its laws (or at least the details and practical applications of the laws) are interpreted according to the knowledge and technology of each generation.

I’m not trying to convince anyone. Just to defend that maybe it’s not as ridiculous as it may appear at first glance (yes yes, we know, all religion is ridiculous so everything in it is also….)

Basically, the difference between:

Perception from the outside – “ancient verse says X, those who claim to follow it but not to the letter are cheating, they should do X”

And reality – “ancient verse says X, the rest of the law traditionally passed down orally and now filling many bookshelves has plenty of rules on how to interpret X, has many nuances and plenty of very intelligent people have spent the last couple of thousand years learning and discussing it”

Why didnt it have something covering LEDs and electricity in general so we know how to respond rather than needing lots of interpretation?

Wait until you hear about these people who want special fridge modes because someone has interpreted a bronze age text as saying so.

Somewhat answered by the response to Cougar above, interesting question though, which can really be rephrased as “why didn’t it just tell us about LEDs etc instead of us needing to discover/invent it for ourselves?”

…I think I’ve mixed up the quotes in this post somewhat, lost track of who they all belong to :-p

There must surely, surely come a point where you think to yourself, “what the actual **** am I doing?”

Apparently not.

That would not fit

I know, they’re granted the right to debate rules that really do affect people’s lives. It’s bizarre!

“Even my freezer is Woke”

Really!  Cool

I fully understand but it still worthy of ridicule when you stop and think about it for longer than a second.

You can find it strange, sure. You can think it pointless, obviously, But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who believe it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it. And there’s no need for that.

 That’s pretty bizarre.

It’s no more bizarre than getting to do that because of who your ancestor is, or you’re mates with some-one who can get you appointed.

But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who believe it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it.

Dunno about the “being a dick” thing – we’re happy to say it’s stupid to not lne your tyre logos up with your valves, but suddenly it’s forbidden to question whether it makes sense to define how your freezer works?

Saw this quote on a Halloween article on the Graun, which seems quite relevant to this thread….live-and-let-live and all that..

HL Mencken defined puritanism as “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy”.

Dunno about the “being a dick” thing – we’re happy to say it’s stupid to not lne your tyre logos up with your valves, but suddenly it’s forbidden to question whether it makes sense to define how your freezer works?

Hang on, I’ll try something

You can find that not lining up your valves with your tyre logos is strange, sure. You can think that not lining up your valves with your tyre logos is pointless, obviously, But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who do that it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it. And there’s no need for that.

Yep, still works.

And no-one said it’s forbidden to question, indeed there’s been some interesting questions and responses in this thread. Questionning with the aim of learning about people’s beliefs and customs can only be a good thing. If you don’t hold those beliefs, that’s fine. However, and I don’t know how to make this any clearer, there’s no need to be a dick about it.

It might be being a dick, but it doesn’t make it any less true…. ( Valves)

You can find that not lining up your valves with your tyre logos is strange, sure. You can think that not lining up your valves with your tyre logos is pointless, obviously, But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who do that it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it. And there’s no need for that.

I’ve obviously missed the posts where you popped up on valve threads to defend the integrity of the non-liner-uppers. But you are making a leap from people pointing out that something is bonkers to a claim that people are accusing others of “stupidity”. That’s a bit of a straw man.

However, and I don’t know how to make this any clearer, there’s no need to be a dick about it.

Ooh la la. Le repassage.

 But you are making a leap from people pointing out that something is bonkers to a claim that people are accusing others of “stupidity”. That’s a bit of a straw man.

Hang on, I didn’t make a leap from anything, the post that I was initially referring to literally said the beliefs were worthy of ridicule.

Anyway, this has now reached the point where it’s just middle-aged men arguing on the internet, so I’m going to bow out gracefully.

You leaped to “stupid”

ChatGPT:

“Ridiculous” and “stupid” have different nuances, so which is “worse” depends on the context.

•Ridiculous generally implies something absurd or laughable. When we call something ridiculous, we’re saying it lacks sense or reason to the point of being almost laughable, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s unintelligent or harmful.

•Stupid has a harsher tone. It suggests a lack of intelligence, good judgment, or reasoning and can feel more like a personal criticism. Calling someone or something “stupid” tends to carry more judgment.

If you’re looking to avoid offense, “ridiculous” is usually milder. However, if you’re looking to highlight a lack of intelligence, “stupid” is definitely the sharper word.

this has now reached the point

…where we all need to chill.

(Valves and logos ffs? I’m happy if I get the knobbles pointing in the right direction.)

There’s a direction ?

?

Is Sabbath mode better suited to bread and fishes? Asking for a friend…

Works a treat on headless bats.

And reality – “ancient verse says X, the rest of the law traditionally passed down orally and now filling many bookshelves has plenty of rules on how to interpret X, has many nuances and plenty of very intelligent people have spent the last couple of thousand years learning and discussing it”

… which is where it falls down for me.

Most religions are based around ancient texts. These are at their core supposed to be god’s instruction manual to man, no? But a lot of it is incompatible with 21st Century life in the Western world either due to societal norms or increased knowledge, which presents a quandary. So do we:

a) go “this is the word of god so lump it and do as you’re told,”

b) cherry-pick which bits are the word of god and which bits were allegorical all along honest guv,

c) have apparently very intelligent men try to unpick the vagaries of dead languages over several centuries to try to tell everyone else what they think it probably meant, then mandate that folk can’t have chilled food on the sabbath because it’s what god would have wanted. Also, whilst god is infallible he ****ed up with foreskins so they’ll have to go.

…where we all need to chill.

Oh very good. *applause*

@Cougar all of the above, kind of. Did I mention it’s complicated?

which bits are the word of god and which bits were allegorical

All are both. But you can’t just cherry-pick. Did I mention it’s complicated?

foreskins so they’ll have to go.

I thought we’d established it’s not good to be a bit of a dick?

Most religions are based around ancient texts. These are at their core supposed to be god’s instruction manual to man, no?

That’s a sweeping assumption, and a moment’s thought will reveal that.

The Bible is a collection of ancient writings that were selected to be included in one volume at some point in the past. That’s why all the parts are called ‘books’ because they aren’t one book. It’s obvious that they are pretty diverse and cover all sorts of different things. They deliberately included four re-tellings of the same story that don’t agree, and the compilers knew this full well. They were simply deemed important texts that you may wish to study. For Christians, Jesus’ teachings are important, and they are simply recounted in part of the Bible and the authors are even credited so you know it’s not God or Jesus who wrote them. Now – some fanatics have taken things a bit too far, but that’s what fanatics do.

There are a few books which were meant to be dictated directly to a person from God, but I can only think of two – the Quran and the book of Mormon. I know the Quran is still subject to interpretation, as it obviously must be, because times have changed and unless God comes down and chooses another prophet, it’s all we’ve got.

Some folk will get together and adopt a particular interpretation, and they will have followers and also people who disagree. That’s why we have multiple churches within Christianity, and multiple sects etc. You seem to be pouring scorn on the idea of having an open mind and trying to understand something, which I think is probably not what you really want to be doing 🙂

There must surely, surely come a point where you think to yourself, “what the actual **** am I doing?”

Apparently not.

Well yes, because there are multiple sects. The members of the less restrictive groups are the ones who objected to the stringent interpretations. People leave and join these groups for those very reasons.

It’s highly ironic but also kind of satisfying that a bunch of atheists are now having a debate about the interpretation of scripture 🙂 satisfying because this is a very important topic in terms of how we relate to our fellow humans. I bet most of you are probably horrified that they have RE in schools, but this is exactly why we need it.

b) cherry-pick which bits are the word of god and which bits were allegorical all along honest guv,

The answer has always been B, from the day after any – in this case as we’re discussing biblical texts,  book was written, the answer has been B all along, and this isn’t a modern thing. Which is why all the denominations, sect and religions that share an Abrahamic tradition have a version of an Apocrypha 

Also, whilst god is infallible he ****ed up with foreskins so they’ll have to go

It’s OK to say “I don’t know why religious groups do some things”, rather than make up straw-man arguments  – that probably work well in your head but don’t survive contact with an anthropologist let alone a theologian

Thank you for a less flippant/facetious response than I’m capable of at this point 😉

But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who believe it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it.

Can I just check if it’s still ok to ridicule David Icke? Scientology? Must we now acknowledge that those Heaven’s Gate cultists are on the spaceship hidden behind Hale-Bopp?

I think there is a difference between mainstream religion and cults.

Did I mention it’s complicated?

I don’t believe you did.

In which case though, is this not in itself inherently flawed? Why isn’t it simple? Surely it should be.

Actually, I suspect I know the answer to that. There’s an Internet meme stating something like “if I want the answer to a problem, I post a wrong answer on the Internet.” If a religion were simple, it’d die out. What perpetuates it is the People’s Front of Judea butting heads with the Judean People’s Front. By having god moving in mysterious ways we can debate it until the cows evolve into Bovine Sapiens rather than going “completed it, mate” and getting bored.

Even if your holy books are the literal word of god, they’re translated into modern-day language by men potentially with an agenda, and are wildly open to interpretation. It’s a castle built on sand, even if it’s all true the system is flawed.

[molgrips]

molgrips

Free Member

I think there is a difference between mainstream religion and cults.

Tax exemption? bigger budgets. cant think of anything else?

I think there is a difference between mainstream religion and cults.