It’s a perfect storm situation: My mother-in-law posted her first Quick Takes last Friday, and I’m in need of a catch-all for a number of bloggable items that have accumulated. Will this be my last, or just the last for a good while? I don’t know, but it’s my first. Here goes.
Let’s start with a question. Was Moses humbler than Jesus? Read Numbers 12:3, discuss. (Bear in mind the author of Numbers.)
“No offense, but that was a stupid question. First, it’s apples and bananas. Second, Numbers 12:3 only refers to humans alive at Moses’s time. Third, even if we could figure out an answer, what would be the benefit? There’s no reason to spend time on that question.”
“Lord knows I’m not perfect, but I don’t see how I did anything wrong by asking. It’s a perfectly legitimate and logical question!”
So, questions number two to six: Does the speaker of the first statement mean offense? Is the statement offensive? Will the hearer be offended? Is the second speaker perfect? Does he believe he is, or at least so close that he needs to point out he isn’t?
We all say things that contradict what we say or how we say it. I have to continually remind myself that what I say gains its meaning not just from the naked words I use, but from context, tone of voice, body language, and other factors on my end. And that’s the part of the conversation I can more or less control.
Today is World Standards Day. The motto is “Creating Confidence Globally,” and the presidents of the three main standards organisations begin their address as follows: “In today’s world we need to have a high level of expectation that things will work the way we expect them to work.” They go on to mention things like telephones, cars, and healthcare equipment to make their case.
Considering Quick Take #2, maybe we should work on ISO 137353 Speech Protocol for Human Oral/Aural Interaction.
Or maybe there’s a better way. Maybe we can take solace that even Jesus struggled with communication: many couldn’t or wouldn’t understand his message. And maybe we can be inspired by his consistent willingness to reach out to everyone who made even the smallest effort to understand. Jesus said: “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side,” and not “Come on, Thomas, don’t you trust me?”
And then there’s Paul’s command to “love [my wife], just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Jesus didn’t only die for the church, he loved it in many other ways, too. Why do I have the hunch I’m more likely to die for Janet than wash her feet?
And now for something completely different.
Amazon.com has introduced a Universal Wish List. This is not a new or original idea, but because I already have a wish list on Amazon, it’s convenient. Convenient, that is, if you live in the US.
I installed the button add-in for my Firefox browser and tried to use it for an item on a Swiss website. It turns out the “Add to list” button redirects to the UK Amazon site instead of the US Amazon site. I tried with the following sites, just for fun:
Basel T-Shirts on a German website — redirected to UK
A Spitz CD on rakuten.co.jp — redirected to UK
The book I meant to add — redirected to UK
A Basel T-Shirt on Cafepress — redirected to UK
and the kicker
Amazon.com’s own kindle — redirected to UK
So I can’t use the Universal Wish List until they fix the button. It’s taken me three e-mails to Amazon to get the problem across, and another to get someone to not just suggest alternate products. I’m curious to see if they fix the button, and stop deciding for me where I ought to have my wish list.
Speaking of deciding for me, the EU has re-issued its Toy Safety Directive. One item on it has been making the rounds: the EU is requiring all manufacturers of latex balloons to warn against letting children under the age of eight blow them up without adult supervision (see page 36 of 174 in the slightly older copy I found). Newspapers are talking about the EU banning balloons – but the warnings are apparently neither new, nor stricter than in the US.
So what’s the take-home message here? First, fact-check your newspaper, and second, remember that “international standards for products and services underpin quality, ecology, safety, reliability, interoperability, efficiency and effectiveness,” so those 174 pages clearly are 174 pages of all-around blessing.
For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!
From my own sad experience, I know that there are certain phrases that when I speak (or more likely write) them, ought to flash big, red, “DANGER! SHOALS AHEAD!: signs:
“No offense, but…” — I’m about to say something offensive.
“Lord knows I’m not perfect, but” — I’m about to imply that He also knows I’m a whole lot more perfect than you are.
“I don’t mean to imply…” — I’m about to say something that implies exactly that.
About #6 – sometimes I think it just the effort to standardize everything that makes communication with help desks so difficult. Often I’ve wanted to scream, “Are you listening to me? Or just following the script in front of you?” (I never do, though.)
Balloons. Let’s see: children are old enough to blow up balloons at just about the age when that becomes a chore rather than fun. The directive made for a discussion over at Free-Range Kids, and a German reader wrote to the effect that Americans take such warnings too seriously: “Here, we just ignore them.”
Cool that you’re doing Quick Takes. I look forward to more.
I could add and confirm, but most of the good stuff has been said already. I’ll just add that I, too, just ignore warning labels, but there are times when I would like some advice, especially when picking age-appropriate toys. I know the labels always have ages too old, but then I have to guess at why and trust my guess and choose to buy something anyway. I’d rather know why they think it’s dangerous and make my own decision then be told “don’t do it” and be left in the dark. I do trust my intuition and brains quite a bit, but why bother with warnings if they don’t actually help anyone?!
Amen. The multiplication of warnings is dangerous simply because the important ones get lost amongst the ridiculous. If you buy an electrical device, at least in the U.S., it comes with a long list of warnings, most of which are of the order of “Do not use this device while standing in the shower.” Thus I don’t bother to read any of them, and one day I fear I’ll miss something important. And what lawsuit decreed that a store-bought, frozen pizza must include the instruction, “Remove plastic before putting pizza in oven”? The other danger, as someone at FRK pointed out, is that people get so accustomed to seeing warnings on toys that if they don’t see one, they assume it’s completely safe and they don’t use any judgement of their own.
Oh, I forgot to add another of my favorite warning signs that I’m about to say something I’ll regret: “I don’t mean to complain, but…” — is sure to be followed by unmistakable whining. I remembered that one as I was just about to include it in a post about my latest computer problems….
Thanks for adding the two other disclaimer phrases, Sursumcorda! All of them indicate two things: that we’ve got enough wisdom to realize the likely effects of what we’re about to say, but not enough humility to refrain from saying it.
I don’t know how often I use those disclaimers, but I don’t remember a single time I’ve said: “No offense intended, but – you know what, never mind. I don’t need to say that.” Or, “I don’t mean to complain… so, let me tell you about the cool stuff Joseph has recently discovered.”
How right James is: “Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check.”
It’s tempting to say the fault with those disclaimers that they aren’t honest. After all, they are denied by what follows, ergo they are lies. That’s true, but we shouldn’t fix that by merely dropping the disclaimer and taking pride in our “pure” honesty and “faultless” speech. For, as mentioned, the disclaimer phrase indicates that we know what follows isn’t really fit for consumption, and should only pass across our lips after careful consideration (and probably editing). James again: “The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.”
Lord, have mercy.
I’ve wondered about #1 also. The KJV has “meekest” instead of “humblest” which makes it better (for me) considering the authorship.
I seriously hope no one I know said the above answer to #1.
Jon’s fire suit came with a thick booklet full of warnings, starting with “Firefighting is an ultrahazardous, unavoidably dangerous activity.” Basically, “Don’t rely on this suit to keep you from dying in a fire.”
Janet, I think most of the toy warnings are for choking. The other guidelines (over 3) are for ability, and then you just have to know the kid you’re buying for.
The ESV, too, has “meek” – a word the NIV uses only once, probably because it’s not that common in today’s usage anymore. A cursory study of my concordance shows that the word in Numbers 12:3 is also used in Psalms 9:12, 10:17, 25:9, 146:7, and 149:4, as well as Proverbs 3:34, Isaiah 29:19, and Zephaniah 2:3. The KJV nearly always renders it “meek” when the NIV renders it “humble,” but often renders it “humble” when the NIV renders it “afflicted.” The related verb in e.g. Exodus 10:3 is often translated “humble” even in the KJV, but again (at least in the NIV) covers the range of meaning from “afflicted” to “humble” to “raped.”
You hope with good reason. Nobody at all gave the above answers. I made them up to make a point, but had my first inklings I should have declared that when Janet said it was neat I’d found a real example online – I think she had a forum or discussion board in mind. I hope you don’t know any serious candidates for giving such an answer!
I think by and large you’re right, but the balloon directive is also for choking, and that for children up to eight. There are a few isolated examples of kids accidentally aspirating balloon bits, and that latex makes for a lovely seal.
Ok, I’m going to make this “better than perfect” since it’s been sitting in my reader for almost two weeks waiting for me to respond…
Thanks for the mini-word study.
I didn’t think I knew any serious candidates, but I’m glad of the reassurance.
I think the same of the balloon thing as the nut thing. My kids (not including the baby) have as likely a chance of aspirating a balloon fragment or choking on a nut as I do. We know it happens, even to adults (though possibly the larger airway of an adult does make a difference) and so we can keep it in mind, but not let fear get in the way of enjoyment.
Better than perfect? Awesome! We don’t want no perfect on this here blog anyway. 😉
“Mini” is the operative word here. I think it might be interesting to pursue it, compare translations, and follow up the Hebrew and Greek words, but – you know, “better than perfect”… Though, at the risk of adding to your to-do list, why does the word “meekest” instead of “humblest” make Numbers 12:3 better?
Balloons and nuts: absolutely. Let’s not go nuts.
The definition of “meek” as I know it is “strength under control” – it is related to humility, but to me it doesn’t get the same undoing by stating yourself to have the quality as it does “humble”
Yes, I’ve heard that definition before as well. Merriam-Webster it is not, nor dictionary.com – I suspect it is a “Christian” definition, as I’ve only heard it in Christian circles (though I just now also found it on a Brazilian jiu jitsu training center website). I think the definition works well for what we believe Jesus to be and also describes a character trait we should strive for, though it seems to me like a subcategory of self-control, so why bother with the extra word? Also, what would the superlative mean with this definition? Would “meekest” mean “most strength and most control” or would “most control” suffice for the honors? If I remember correctly, “meek” has also changed meaning over the course of the last few centuries, so it may mean something different now from what it meant in 1611.
Again, I think neither of us has the time to follow up those questions, unfortunately. And I think musing on the meaning wasn’t your main point, anyway. Calling yourself “humblest” is, of course, immediately self-contradictory – but calling yourself “meekest” isn’t much better, since if you really had that control of your strength one might also expect a little control of the tongue…
hmm. I see your point. I suspect that there is something about Moses’ words being inspired by God himself that makes it better, since it’s really overall God reporting that Moses was the meekest/humblest man in the world.
Yup, I guess that’s our only hope.
God: “And write that you were the humblest person on earth. Go on, write it down.”
Moses: “Come on, God, that’s embarrassing! It’s not even necessary!”
God: “But you are humble, and writing this will keep you humble. Write it down, Moses.”
I’m late to this discussion, but I’ve thought that the statement referred not to how Moses thought about himself, but to what he was. More along the lines of “lowly.” A bit like “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”
Yes, I think we’d all agree it’s a description of fact, not the author’s opinion. But wouldn’t a normal person writing that sentence in normal circumstances have left out at least the second half? I mean, writing about himself, as tradition has it?