For me, it is the way I live in relation to others: trying to behave with kindness, compassion, mercy, fairness, unselfishness, helpfulness, understanding. Like everyone else, I am not always successful. I pay much less attention to the rituals of my faith and do not focus so much on prayer. Sometimes I don’t consider myself a “good Jew” because of my lack of attention to these things even though I strive to live a righteous (not self-righteous) life in keeping with the moral values of Judaism, as I interpret them.
What are the important criteria for you with respect to your religion, or non-religion?
Thanks for your very useful question!
My understanding is that there is a Universal Truth that is the source of all rleigions, and that religions differ for the same reasons that food or language differs. So let’s sthat the Source of religion is like that idea of nourishment and that religions are like different foods that are available because of what is locally available. But everybody need nourishment.
So everybody who grows up, eats. First, it is milk, as everybody has just a presence in the world that id pretty much the same. We are all here, darned if we ain’t. But then the qualities of where and what we grow up with start to kick in. We eat beans, or pork, or rice, or sl blubber, or yak fat. Who knows. but that’s what we grow up with, and learn to feel is “normal.” And of course there are people everywhere who are a bit inovative even with a rice ball. Or ar moe in to where it came from of how it got on their plate, Or how to cook it.
So, many years ago it took a bit of doing to find other people’s food. And that food was strange. And the peoeple who found it judged it by how it tasted, not by whether it was nourishing or not. Or they judged it by whether a particualr ingredient, like wheat or salt was in the mix. So some people who tried other foods liked them because they were simply nutritious and avaiable and could adapt, the nutrition being first priority. But other folks were more interested in how closely “other” food looked, smelled, and tasted like their own. They felt that they had “The True Food.”
Of course, many folks who were interested in form rather thatn nutrition claimed theirs to be the “True Food.” So there were food fights, you might say. So there were people who though, or think, that food is about nutrition. and there are folks who think that food is about form: taste, smell, texture, ingredients, preparaation, etc, etc. So there are levels of comfort with other people’s food. So even though I understand that grubs and grasshjoppers are actually nutritious, and even worms, it is not my preference to eat them. The idea even revolts me a little bit.
But I personally do not think that someone who eats that diet is therefore bad, evil, or doesn’t understand about nutriton. I just don’t like their version of what theyu put in theri mouth. But I would sitll play pool with them, or watch and opera, or go fishing with someon who does that, even if we have very different lunch boxes. I maight even offer them some of muy pb&j sammmich, while declining a scoop of fried pine borers. But I would not think less of my friend if they didn’t like my offering, and would hpe they wouldn’t be offended if I don’t eat bugs. But what is fasicnating is that we both eat
something, and are both therefore alive.
Now if we think of atheists or agnostics, we might remember the little girl in NYC who in all sincerity asked if chicken is a vegetable. She lived in a city and had never seen a ranch or a farm. So similarly some people just don’t know, care, or are not interested in wher food comes from, whatever kind is offered. It’s a stretch of the analogy, but you get what I mean, I’m sure.
So for my part to answer your question, that person is “good” in their religion who understands that it is about nutrition, and not what’s on the plate and its appearance. And what they might look for in others is their need or interest in nutrition, and make serving suggestions as apprpriate. And even taste other’s food as long as it isn’t poison in fact as distinct from opinion.
Now there are a few people who are interested in nurtion itself without reference to its form, or even the particular Chef who originated the recipe. they are interested in the talent and essence of relationship to the principles of nutrition as Universals that are the substrate of any presentation of food. Those are the folks I personally am interested in, and they are in pretty much every faith and non faith that ever popped up. So I tend to leave arguments about what the plate appears to be to the varous diners, I’m interested in how nutrition works, and how different Chefs arrived at their knowledge before it got into the hands of a short order hash slinger or a barbecue guy.
So to me the answer to the question has to do with what nourishes, not what’s laid down with ink and paper. You can’t eat a cook book, and no two use it the same. It may seem simple to make JELL-O, but some frineds of mine who run a kind of self improvement course do an experiment: They have the people in the class make JELL-O exactly according to the instructions on the box. Not one person in twenty years has succeeded in doing it exactly right. Now go hand those people a Bible, a Koran, the Sutras, or Upanishads, whatever, and see what ends up on the plate. Edible or not, is it what’s “in” the Book? Do we get adamantly critical about that? Or shall we just enjoy our meal together and experience Nutrition?
