Thou Shalt Not Consume Peanut Butter Before Thy God!

by Swan 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Swan

  Here's what I don't get about some religions. Maybe someone could explain it to me.

  Okay, hypothetically, let's say you belong to a religion where one of the "rules" is that you shouldn't eat peanut butter. So that part I understand. I may not understand or agree with the reasoning behind this rule, but you do, and can quote scripture and verse to show why you cannot conscientiously partake of this particular item. But I accept that it is just part of your religious belief, and try to remember not to tempt you with my homemade peanut butter cookies, but instead bring out oatmeal chocolate chip, since I respect your beliefs.

  Here's what I don't get. Why do you feel the need to tell me why peanut butter is so bad for my health? Why do you need to substantiate your anti-peanut butter beliefs with studies that prove how toxic it is? Why do you ignore the studies that claim that peanut butter is a good source of protein or some other health benefit. Why do you tell me about the anecdotal evidence of the man who choked on a PB&J and point to that as a reminder of how deadly it can be?

  So this is what I've been thinking about lately. There's more, but that's enough to start a discussion.

  Tammy
• 

  mrsjones5

  I know people like that. They dont eat pork and I can respect that but I do eat pork and I'm not going to stop eating pork (unless there's some health reason why I should stop). I've had actual conversations as to why pork is evil, something about being the white man poison or some twisted way that the white man can lead the black man astray (Lord help me I dont understand it either ) and how the white man has hidden pork products in processed foods and how you have to be very careful to not be tricked into consuming the dreaded pork.

  wtf?!
• 

  Qcmbr

  I'm not allowed alcohol,tea,coffee,drugs (the illegal kind) and it seems pretty smart to encourage people not to take these things religion or not.
  
  The whole point about religion is that its supposed to be a way to being happier so you'd be pretty selfish not to encourage people to try out something that improved your life. There are also plenty of people who won't make up their mind unless science backs it up (there's a gaggle of them here) so when science shows that something is bad for you its worth keeping in your back pocket when challenged for evidence.
  
  I love peanut butter.
  
  Just in case anyone thinks I'm putting science lovers down - in this case I'm not :) it's a totally valid tool for making decisions.
• 

  jgnat

  Yes, religious abstension I can accept and accommodate. But like you, I can't stand it when these same people mix up their religious duty with pseudo-science. I don't think this was a common thing back say, in the first century, but rather a modern phenomena.

  People today really don't know much more about science as they did back in the dark ages. We treat scientists like witch doctors or the old priesthood, a mystery too deep to understand so we simply worship it. So, just like "the bible says", we say now, "a scientist says, or, a study showed", then quote an unsubstantiated, unrepeatable bit of crapola. My daughter, too, laps up anecdotal evidence as if it MUST be trusted. Or, *groan* those people who insist on broadcasting the latest e-mail urban legend or internet article. Such as "aspartame is poison" or, "pig vitamins cure Bipolar Disorder" and, "milk is bad for you". "It is printed, therefore it must be true." Or, as my daughter has said, "He has a website and everything. Why won't you even entertain that his claims might be true?"

  Sorry, but if vitamins could have emptied our mental hospitals, I'd think someone would have figured that out by now. The truth is, every claim has to be tested. It doesn't matter the source, the sincerity of the testimonials, the paper it is printed on. Do the claims stand up to objective testing? That is all I ask.

  So, back to peanut butter. I think the WTS deliberately muddies the issue with psedu-scientists, quoting white-robed gentlemen who claim that most people can survive surgery without blood transfusions. But that's not the point is it? Someone with a strong religious desire to abstain has to understand that this religious rule may become a life-or-death decision. It is intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise.
• 

  jst2laws

  Tammy,

  Great idea for discussion.

  To me the difference is not who's science is most valid but it is about religion being based on faith rather than science.

  Often the most unsupportable premise is most enthusiastically evangelized. It is difficult for true believers to separate their belief based on faith from rational deductions based on facts. Because of the SPIRITUAL nature of the belief system it seems extremely important for the believer to win converts. This is at least based in a good motive.

  However, when facts are presented to the Peanut Butter Evangelist that are contrary to their faith you can anticipate resentment, as well as a claim of religious oppression. However, knowing this to be so, it puts to burden on the peanut butter rationalist to be VERY careful in how they convey facts. You are not debating interpretation of evidence, but you are questioning a person's entire belief system, their WAY OF KNOWING. The religious way of knowing is "God says so" and the rationalist way of knowing is (theoretically) based only on facts.

  The difference is NOT about the facts but the source of what one views as facts.

  I hope I have not been too blunt in this analysis. This is not meant to be a suggestion that all religious people are blind to scientific evidence but their way of arriving at what is to be considered a fact is different. I am into science, but I also recognize that INTUITIVE knowledge has its place. It is just that the two must remain separate, science cannot claim to understand spiritual or intuitive meaning of things and religion should not claim to be scientific.

  Steve
• 

  Elsewhere

  I know people like that. They dont eat pork and I can respect that but I do eat pork

  I have to admit that when I come across people like that I have to fight off the overwhelming desire to "bless" them with Bacon Bits.

  I see myself shaking the container at them the way a Catholic Priest shakes his "Holy Water" at people.

  

  Hallowed are the Ori!

  Hallowed are the children of the Ori.

  A great holy army shall be gathered and trained to fight all who embrace evil. In the name of the God, ships shall be built to carry the warriors out among the stars and we will spread Origin to all the unbelievers. The power of the Ori will be felt far and wide and the wicked shall be vanquished.
• 

  Elsewhere

  Bow before Prior Elsewhere... servant of the Ori!!!!
• 

  Billygoat

  This is not meant to be a suggestion that all religious people are blind to scientific evidence but their way of arriving at what is to be considered a fact is different. I am into science, but I also recognize that INTUITIVE knowledge has its place. It is just that the two must remain separate, science cannot claim to understand spiritual or intuitive meaning of things and religion should not claim to be scientific.

  Steve,

  I really like this. I've never seen it worded quite like this and I appreciate what you're saying.

  Andi
• 

  Elsewhere
• 

  misspeaches

  darn you elsewhere! I was just about to post the exact same comic strip!!!