Bnai-Noach

[dauer]

But there are opinions of others that I do not agree with.
This is due to privileged information which I have access to and you do not as it is a result of direct experience.

Okay but, as we discussed earlier, that privileged information is by nature subjective and therefore, although you may find it persuasive, it's no more valid than anyone else's subjectively informed opinion. You may believe it's more likely true but it would be inconsistent for you to state that it's not just belief; it actually is more likely true.

As for discernment, that is something that an individual cultivates, like a virtue.
This is developed through direct experience.

I disagree. That's similar to the statement that wisdom comes with age. Through direct experiences a person's biases may be reinforced. Earlier biases may be challenged, but eventually some get reinforced. Those biases may be correct but they may also only appear correct due to a tendency to interpret situations in particular ways. It's partially an issue of confirmation bias. To repeat an example I gave earlier, my friend came to believe very strongly in capital punishment based on his experiences. Nobody could convince him otherwise. Is he right? Maybe he is. But there are a lot of people who, for similar reasons of personal experience, would insist that he's wrong. Getting wine from grapes, if you will, takes something more than the direct experience.

As a tradesman I can read all the books I want to on a trade, but unless I practice it I will remain skill-less, although knowledgeable.
There is a huge difference between theory and practice, or book-learning and the school of reality.
I have met very smart sounding people who when faced with real crisis weren't worth a damn as they had no relevant experience which helped. and I have met some rather simple people who surprised me with their depth and capabilities which came from experience and not the ivory towers.

I get the sense that you're saying this because you know I'm book-smart and want to maintain some sense of having more access to the type of knowledge that matters most to you, or to end on some note that would cast you as the life-wisened older man to my know-it-all and library-bound twentysomething, or perhaps to teach a misplaced lesson. I've been through a lot of intense and unpleasant experiences in my life and understood them all from a very early age as opportunities to learn and grow. One of my friends has taken me as an unwilling mentor/teacher of life lessons (he goes so far as to read deep meanings into the way I eat french fries smothered in hot sauce) and other friends consult me regularly about difficulties they're having with intrapsychic and interpersonal issues because I have insight into life, people, living happily and meaningfully. I consider all of my gifts a responsibility, not a privilege, and have cried before to my girlfriend because I feel like I must give back in equal measure to the world for everything that I've been blessed with. I often dislike when people speak highly of my intelligence because it reminds me of the weight that I feel on my shoulders, the fire under my butt, if you will, that pushes me forward. At the same time I don't consider there to be anything humble about denying one's capabilities.

I've met some amazingly insightful people who weren't book smart by any means but I've also met book smart folk who were incredibly wise. I've met simple people who didn't have much insight at all and very learned scholars who were equally clueless. Although you haven't explicitly made the argument, it doesn't seem reasonable to say that book-learned individuals know very little about life and those who aren't tend to have an amazing depth of insight. I think sometimes it's easier to think in terms of those stereotypes because it makes life seem a little more fair and because, if your experiences of people match your expectations, then you may get confirmation bias and, if they don't, then it'll stand out and either that person was an exception to the rule or that whole class of people is really very different than you'd originally thought, you end up with a new stereotype and you're back at confirmation bias.

If we are discussing the relevance of my OP within the context of Abrahamic religion, then the statement of can one be a Christian Noach-ide would not be necessarily incorrect.

The problem is we could just as correctly say: "If we are discussing the relevance of my OP within the context of Abrahamic religion, then the statement of can one be a Christian Noach-ide would not be necessarily [correct]." You have made the stronger claims about definite meaning. I have only challenged them. In the context of Abrahamic religion we have both types of opinions. If you're looking for an escape clause, were we speaking in the context of the modern Noahide movement then I don't think there's any disagreement as Noahides, at least those I've known, are people who've rejected Christianity for themselves and the Jews who've helped them are far-right folks who maintain that perspective.

Not one of us here has got the truth in its objective and absolute form.
Including me and even you.
But we do have some interesting opinions

I mostly agree and never argued otherwise. The point that I would differ is that it's possible one of us does have the truth in its objective and absolute form, but we'd have no way to verify that's the case. Either way it ends up looking the same to us. At the same time, epistemic privilege is still an important concept that I don't think you'd deny. It's too easy to say that opinions are like asses. We all have them. They all stink. And it's not something that most people really agree with. Some opinions are regularly granted greater epistemic privilege than others, like my doctor's opinion if I have an odd growth on my back.



-- Dauer

edit: Glad you clarified about intending commoners. Changes the way what you've said reads.

 

[shawn]

Originally Posted by dauer
Okay but, as we discussed earlier, that privileged information is by nature subjective and therefore, although you may find it persuasive, it's no more valid than anyone else's subjectively informed opinion. You may believe it's more likely true but it would be inconsistent for you to state that it's not just belief; it actually is more likely true.

I could paraphrase all my statements with It is my belief, or, It is my opinion, if you like. As I mentioned previously, I have stated many times that It is my opinion that all we have regarding religious and spiritual knowledge is opinion and speculation, and this is true whether one is a commoner or a scholar.
But the scholars speculations tend to be more wordy and more effort needs to be applied to get what they are saying.
I agree that it is needed for us to arrive at an objective and absolute set of principles in our spiritual arena. This would be most helpful for our world.
But until that is achieved, all we have are our own insights and understandings.
And, it is easy to challenge anyone in such a setting as what absolutes can one pull to defend one's point of view?
All anyone is left with is their subjective opinion, or they can say that they have based it upon a long and lengthy tradition (pick any religion) and start quoting learned clerics from that tradition to support their opinion.

dauer
I disagree. That's similar to the statement that wisdom comes with age. Through direct experiences a person's biases may be reinforced. Earlier biases may be challenged, but eventually some get reinforced. Those biases may be correct but they may also only appear correct due to a tendency to interpret situations in particular ways. It's partially an issue of confirmation bias. To repeat an example I gave earlier, my friend came to believe very strongly in capital punishment based on his experiences. Nobody could convince him otherwise. Is he right? Maybe he is. But there are a lot of people who, for similar reasons of personal experience, would insist that he's wrong. Getting wine from grapes, if you will, takes something more than the direct experience.

I get what you are saying, but I do not agree that it is totally correct either
Not all biases are wrong, just because we can label them as a bias.
You know all of your most important knowledge based upon your direct experiences and from that you can expand it to include the theoretical.
My dad was an air traffic controller and a motto they had for air safety was
"Learn from the mistakes of others as you will not live long enough to make them all yourself".
But the point you make is valid in that people do get opinionated and their experience can reinforce their biases and some of those biases may be faulty. I have met many people who have that problem, so I get it.
I know also that no one is exempt from that tendency either and so I work at it in my own way.
Getting people to think about the issues then is important, and not just the superficial obvious parts, but the deeper mainbeams of the ideas.

dauer
I get the sense that you're saying this because you know I'm book-smart and want to maintain some sense of having more access to the type of knowledge that matters most to you, or to end on some note that would cast you as the life-wisened older man to my know-it-all and library-bound twentysomething, or perhaps to teach a misplaced lesson.

You are reading too much into what I said. Don't take it personal as I didn't intend it that way.

Quote:
If we are discussing the relevance of my OP within the context of Abrahamic religion, then the statement of can one be a Christian Noach-ide would not be necessarily incorrect.

I am not looking for an escape clause.
The statement was obviously a red flag for you and you challenge it.
And we have beat around the bush for pages already, but you haven't really offered much of substance as to your opinions on the matter other than to challenge mine.
That is ok for a while, as the mental exercise is good, but maybe you could offer some relevant counter-point other than saying, bias and subjective opinion.

 

[dauer]

I get what you are saying, but I do not agree that it is totally correct either
Not all biases are wrong, just because we can label them as a bias.

I never said all biases are wrong. As you have just agreed, people become convinced of biases that are wrong and biases that are right in equally strong ways. Both make the same types of claims about the legitimacy of their beliefs. That our experiences confirm our biases through extensive life experience alone doesn't support the thesis that our beliefs are more correct.

You are reading too much into what I said. Don't take it personal as I didn't intend it that way.

Okay.

And we have beat around the bush for pages already, but you haven't really offered much of substance as to your opinions on the matter other than to challenge mine.
That is ok for a while, as the mental exercise is good, but maybe you could offer some relevant counter-point other than saying, bias and subjective opinion.

I have offered a relevant counterpoint. You're treating it as a non-issue because it works at a meta- level. Within the context of the Abrahamic traditions other opinions do exist. If all religious beliefs are equal then you aren't on solid ground in asserting that a noahide christian most certainly dishonors God. The other Abrahamic opinions operate as equally valid counterpoints to your own. I could go further and state that, by speaking with authority on an ambiguous matter, you could mislead people into believing that this is an issue with a clear answer. It isn't. This isn't about mental exercise. I see the way you expressed your OP as both a misrepresentation of the issue and as presenting a barrier to real dialogue. As I said before, the issue is more nuanced and broader than the way that you've presented it.

 

[shawn]

I could go further and state that, by speaking with authority on an ambiguous matter, you could mislead people into believing that this is an issue with a clear answer. It isn't. This isn't about mental exercise. I see the way you expressed your OP as both a misrepresentation of the issue and as presenting a barrier to real dialogue. As I said before, the issue is more nuanced and broader than the way that you've presented it.

Well, I am not here to convert people to my way of thinking.
And I am here for the exercise as I get very little of this type of interaction in the daily grind.
If you think that my statement is a misrepresentation then perhaps if you could restate it in terms that fit into your way of looking at it, since mine doesn't seem to work for you.

 

[dauer]

Gladly. If you rephrased it by saying:

[It is my opinion that]...
To say that one is a Christian Noach-ide is to be in a position of dishonor regarding the original covenant as that person has created an arbiter between themselves and the other party of the covenant (GOD) and is violating the first caveat which is to have no other gods.

then it would not sound like an attempt to make authoritative claims and would, imo, create a greater potential for dialogue.

 

[shawn]

Gee Dauer, thanks.
I would make you a latte, but a little tough given the distance.

 

[dauer]

You're welcome.

 

[Raksha]

What would be your understanding of the word OLAM then?

OLAM is like the Greek AEON, right? It can mean either a world (sphere) or a period of time, possibly both. At least I think so.

--Linda

 

[shawn]

According to what I have read on it olam means perpetual or basically neverending, but it also has a connotation that is not common which means a period of time but that is nonspecific.

 

[Avi]

So as not to derail the conversation in the other department I thought it sensible to start it here.

It seems that there is some familiarity with Noach-ides (never much cared for the name) by some, and much confusion as well.
But given the lack of organization within the movement itself, this is understandable.

The basic idea is that God made a covenant with the survivors of the deluge which is perpetual and includes all their future generations of children.
So everyone is (even unknowingly) involved in this covenant.
There were further additions to this covenant with the Abrahamic and then the Mosaic covenants which were refinements of the system.
To say that one is a Christian Noach-ide is to be in a position of dishonor regarding the original covenant as that person has created an arbiter between themselves and the other party of the covenant (GOD) and is violating the first caveat which is to have no other gods.

Comments?
Questions?

Shawn, I have a question for you, coming back to the OP. You say:

"There were further additions to this covenant with the Abrahamic and then the Mosaic covenants which were refinements of the system".

I would like to get a better sense about what you believe these "refinements", which Avraham and Moses made were ? Do you think they were minor "tweaks" on Noah ? Or do you think these refinements were significant changes in the essense of Judaism ?

 

[Raksha]

According to what I have read on it olam means perpetual or basically neverending, but it also has a connotation that is not common which means a period of time but that is nonspecific.

Shawn,

I think somebody already mentioned this, but in Hebrew you often hear the phrase olam ha-zeh (this world), which is contrasted with olam ha-ba (the world to come), which usually means the afterlife but sometimes seems to refer to the Messianic Age. In any case, the primary meaning is a sphere of existence or state of consciousness and not a period of time.

--Linda

 

[dauer]

Raksha,

I think those examples are less definitive. One could say that olam hazeh and olam haba refer to this time and a time to come. Melech HaOlam, one could stretch it and say that it refers to the the king of timeless time. It becomes more difficult when referring to something like Olam HaAtzilut or tikkun olam or even Chei HaOlamim. It does seem to have the dual connotations and I don't think a direct translation from Hebrew to English is possible for that reason. The most we seem to be able to accomplish is the contextual translation of the word.

 

[shawn]

Shawn, I have a question for you, coming back to the OP. You say:

"There were further additions to this covenant with the Abrahamic and then the Mosaic covenants which were refinements of the system".

I would like to get a better sense about what you believe these "refinements", which Avraham and Moses made were ? Do you think they were minor "tweaks" on Noah ? Or do you think these refinements were significant changes in the essense of Judaism ?

According to Torah, the whole system was established by G*d, from the beginning and with a purpose in mind.
Like the stages of a rocket.
Or levels of a building.
Each was built on the back of the previous one, but did not abrogate or negate its predecessor.
The deal is they are progressive covenants which define different levels of a relationship, or perhaps a mindset would be a more accurate way of looking at it.
This, IMO has been done so as to establish a framework for us human beings to build a just world society based on monotheism and standards of righteousness which enable us to build a world court for justice which works.
Of course we need to complete our end of the building as all G*d provided was the framework for us to embroider upon.

IMO this defines the "essence" of Judaism more clearly as well as its purpose for existing in the world.

 

[shawn]

Shawn,

I think somebody already mentioned this, but in Hebrew you often hear the phrase olam ha-zeh (this world), which is contrasted with olam ha-ba (the world to come), which usually means the afterlife but sometimes seems to refer to the Messianic Age. In any case, the primary meaning is a sphere of existence or state of consciousness and not a period of time.

--Linda

I haven't been into the books for many years now and would have to spend some time researching it to answer properly which I don't really have time for just now, but Dauer has been doing some extensive research into things of this nature for a while now.