Alternate slogans:
Love Trump’s Hate
Trumps Love Hate
5 Likes
Point, very much point, although the 7th Day people’s whole shtick is going “back” to Jewish practices in opposition to what they saw as being a Christian inaccuracy, and the Mormons, well, I’m sure @SlyBevel has some comments there. I would argue that they’re non-representative of the general Christian structure towards food restrictions. [quote=“renke, post:39, topic:85943”]
a small study (“Muslim consuments in Germany: Knowledge and importance of the halal label”) (only 93 probants, but this was the best I could find without access to an uni bib) says that muslims in Germany have this buying behaviour when it comes to halal food: 11.7% never or rarely, 16% sometimes*, 43.6% occasionally*, 28.7% solely.
this correlates more or less with my experiences - one in four of my Muslim acquaintances are strict followers of the food restrictions, the rest ignore them more or less often
[/quote]
Which essentially corroborates my statement on a general majority observe some level of adherence to halal. I will admit to honest surprise that it is that low there, however, and I’m wondering if there is a selection bias in that, similar to how Reform Judaism was able to establish itself in the USA before Orthodox Judaism was, because the necessary kosher infrastructure for Orthodoxy took time to establish. I.e. in Germany’s case, the first wave of immigrants from, IIRC, Turkey, a few decades back, not having halal food available, made the best of what they could in terms of observance.
And call me a snob on this (and I probably deserve it), but I don’t see a general tradition of “don’t eat fish on Fridays” as being analogous to the omnipresence of kashrut in Jewish life enough to call it an actual religious-based dietary restriction.
4 Likes
If it’s a sincere belief, then it absolutely is. Having a bunch of books or even a long tradition doesn’t make something somehow more valid in religion. Religion is just what people say it is, what they believe. That’s it.
3 Likes
Both his sign and his mind were too small.
6 Likes
it would be interesting to find figures for other European/developed/rich countries. I wouldn’t be surprised if those would also surprise you - the US is kind of an outlier, in similar rich countries religion has a much lower significance
the morality thingy is interesting and baffles me all the time (I discussed this at length with one of Jehova’s witnesses until I was bored), I will never understand why someone can be deeply convinced that only the existance of Bearded Sky Man enables ethical behaviour
(charts stolen here)
7 Likes
That argument right there is a perfect illustration of the adjective “jesuitical”.
Another is one that I heard from a Jesuit priest himself, that “celibate” actually referred to marriage, and so a priest couldn’t get married, but he certainly could have sex with other consenting gentlemen if he had a mind to.
5 Likes
You mean he left off a 3.5mm jack from his sign?
Or that the result of his encounters with the criminal justice system have given him courage?
The c-word is being more and more devalued every day, it seems.
1 Like
You’re right, and it was poor phrasing on my part. What I meant was “I would say at least he’s a business owner who has the courage of his convictions if he had any”.
It would be just as indefensible if he admitted he meant all Muslims but at least it would have been honest.
2 Likes
No, no, nothing wrong with your phrasing, just my observation that nowadays the word “courage” suddenly seems to mean “anti-customer business decision.” As with the 3.5mm jack. So attributing “courage” to this guy is entirely correct, for an Apple interpretation of courage.
There is the medieval story of the abbot passing through the kitchen where capons were being roasted on a Friday for the next day. The smell was so tempting that he went and got a supply of holy water, baptised one of the capons “carp” and ate it.
I have been noticing quite a tendency recently for posters to tell other posters what people of a different religion from theirs ought to believe, both on bb and another site I infest. Is this the result of some miasmic exudate from the rough beast currently slouching towards Bethlehem? I mean, I have my faults, many of them, but I don’t go telling Jehovah’s Witnesses what they ought to think, I just tell them they lost me right at “Jehovah”.
3 Likes
I’m still gobsmacked that the Jesuit concept of “mental reservation” was ever considered legitimate in any way. The idea that it’s not lying if you speak a lie but think the truth to yourself is just dumbfounding. In some ways, it’s religion in a nutshell. It’s grown ass men taking preschool level thanking, such as crossing your fingers when you tell a lie, but dressing it up in the mental contortions, obfuscations and rationalizations of academically trained adults and calling it divine.
2 Likes
We may be judging this thing all wrong.
In this neck of the woods, we talk about “getting out” when we need to put a little zip in our social life. He could be urging Muslims to “get out” and enjoy themselves…at his restaurant.
Yeah, that’s the ticket…
1 Like
That is a really weird argument because most orders take chastity vows which means no extramarital sex. That’s why Eucharistic ministers can be married when they take orders but can’t get married or get remarried after taking orders. I guess there could be a loophole if the particular vows say celibacy but never mention chastity, but I believe that most do mention chastity.
Plus extramarital sex is just a regular sin in Catholicism even if it doesn’t break holy orders in this argument.
1 Like
This was a Jesuit we’re talking about, and I guarantee you he would be able to cite chapter and verse to support his interpretation. Guarantee.
That’s the thing about religion. You are going to be able to find something in it, however tortuously you need to pick and choose, to defend any belief you happen to have. Celibacy, monogamy, polygamy, bestiality, mass murder, you will find support for it if you look closely and cleverly enough.
1 Like
Well yes one can argue anything, but in this case he would have also had to make an argument excusing extramarital sex for everyone since the vows are not actually the main issue. And actually the Jesuit vows do seem to mention chastity which is explicitly about extramarital sex.
1 Like
I suspect that it would be very easy to construct an argument that “extramarital” only refers to procreative heterosexual sex.
1 Like
Catholic priests are forbidden from marrying because back in the day, the Church didn’t want a wife and kids muddying things up with their claims to his money and/or property: a man had to sign over all of his present and future belongings to the Church before becoming a priest.
So the Jesuit in question could argue, among other things, that because there was no marriage and no chance of offspring to risk counterclaims for the priest’s belongings, man-on-man action was just fine, and besides, it would help relieve his urges so that he could more fully focus his attentions on God and his parishioners. I’m sure he had a dozen such arguments lined up and I’m sure he could argue and defend them dextrously.
3 Likes
Yeah there are almost no solid biblical arguments against homosexually, it gets very little specific mention. Especially if one rejects Paul which one probably should.
The no marriage rule is indeed a later stance based on more practical concerns.
I was mostly reacting to the vows argument. It would have to be an afterthought to a more general rejection of the current catechism. And it does require a redefining of chastity, that would have to also cover non reproductive, or at least non intercourse sexual activity between men and women as well.
Just saying the argument opens a much bigger can of worms.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
