Well, 7% Jewish versus 6% Islamic, so my title is a bit out there. But it certainly should make one think about terrorism perception versus reality.
quote:On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005.
According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.
It seems like another case of the media just sucking at their job, and of people hearing what they want to hear.
quote:If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.
This data is just for terrorists attacks on U.S. soil, and I don't really have a good idea what the global picture is, but I still find this an interesting piece of data.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Very interesting. I haven't checked out the original source article, but I'd be curious to see not just a comparison of percentage of attacks, but also a comparison of the amount of lives lost relative to the different groups' attacks, as well as maybe an estimated projected death toll for failed attacks.
i.e. - Do Islamic terrorists account for 6% of attacks, but 80% of deaths? adjusted for both successful and failed attacks. The answer may be no, but I think that the size of the intended target(s) is a factor to be considered.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Second in terms of casualties seems to be crazy, white, Christians.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Strider, why don't you think that Jews can be successful terrorists? Are you an anti-Semite?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: ... These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company ...
QFT
As for the rest, I'm not sure there is a double-standard (well, yes in the crummy US media, I'll grant that).
But elsewhere, after all, Israel is often referred to as a rogue or pariah state, Israel is at the bottom of the world reputation pile neck-and-neck with North Korea, and for my part I've certainly contended that US support of Israel and its bombing Iran is probably what is going to get us all into the next major war.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I happen to find the way these results are being framed unnecessarily inflammatory, but the study makes an excellent point that many people are deliberately oblivious to.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
King of Men, are you joking?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, so the instant someone calls you on your anti-Semitism, it must be a joke, right? Because there can't be a serious discussion of these issues.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I happen to find the way these results are being framed unnecessarily inflammatory, but the study makes an excellent point that many people are deliberately oblivious to.
I generally agree with you but I'm not sure which specific point you're referring to.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I've always been a fan of supporting the broad perspective rather than focusing on terms such as "rogue nation" or "pariah state."
I grew up in a religion that was the minority between two giants - a billion Christians and a billion Muslims. So it always weighed heavily on me - how could I be correct when the vast majority of the world ISN'T Jewish.
Well, logically, A billion Muslims think a billion Christians are wrong and vice versa - I rejected the value of "majority" as a valid form of evidence.
But it also left me with an important lesson learned - we, as humans, have a HUGE bias for whatever group we are a part of. And we think everyone else is insane.
Of course I grew up with anti-Mulsim and anti-Arab rhetoric. But I always knew that if I grew up as a Palestinian, I'd hate Israel, and if they grew up as Israelis they'd be just like me.
The only cure for that is perspective.
I decided to be a history major because the psychology of the masses fascinated me. Whenever you study history you learn context and perspective - why people acted the way they did, and why they couldn't get along.
On Hatrack, in our discussions, we have these biases. The only way out is to consider opposite perspectives, realize that you both come from mutual truth, and to build a new perspective that encompasses the validity of both sides.
I think that this article is poor. And sensationalist. Muslim terrorism is the real threat out there, it's so much bigger, so much more focused, and so much a greater reflection on a large segment of the world's population. But that doesn't really mean anything anyways. You're not going to stop terrorism by condemning it. Terrorism is an act of desperation on those who have other means to achieve their goals. If our politicians understood that, and had the full support of their governments, then we could sooner achieve peaceful coexistence.
What bothers me about Mucus's comments is that it just makes me bow my head in sadness. I'm Jewish. My parents are Israeli. We obviously don't perceive ourselves as members of a rogue or pariah state. We see ourselves as striving so hard for the world's recognition and respect, and at the same time really upset and frustrated that the world ties our hands at our attempts to defend ourselves. It just seems like your comment so sorely lacks perspective.
Israel doesn't bomb Iran for funzies. It did it because it felt that Iran was a threat.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
King of Men, no, I am not an anti-semite. I'm actually Jewish (though i guess I can be a self hating jew). I was raised in a conservative Jewish environment, and though I am no longer religious, I still identify culturally with Judaism to a strong degree.
But to get to the root of your question, it's not that I don't think Jewish terrorists can be as effective as Muslim terrorists. I'm just trying to point out a distinction between types of terrorism. If I'm not mistaken, terrorist acts can be acts in which no harm is done to human beings, correct? A terrorist act can be blowing up an empty building, correct? While certainly all terrorism needs to be addressed and stopped, and since the point of terrorism is to cause fear in the citizenry, you can certainly make an argument that terrorist acts that don't intend to harm people, are just as bad as terrorist acts that purposely target and attempt to murder people. I'm not sure I agree with that. Lets say you have limited resources and have to choose between fighting terrorists who attack and kill people, and terrorists who destroy property, but don't harm people, what would you do?
So my question was an expression of that curiosity, not really having anything to do with Jews vs. Muslims at all (in fact, at the time i was shocked by the 24% of the pie chart representing left wing groups), but just saying that given my view on the greater harm caused by the death of human beings, those statistics alone (while certainly opening our eyes to some really important data that points out the difference between fact and perception) are somewhat meaningless in the sense that they don't relay actual damage done.
My questioning of whether you were joking was because I couldn't figure out how my question somehow portrayed me as an anti-semite.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm not sure which specific point you're referring to.
Islamic terrorists are not the overwhelming problem that the media often portrays them as. That is, they are far from the worst/most dangerous element out there.
Strider, KoM is just being a jerk. No need to take him seriously. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Strider, you're getting trolled
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not trolling anyone, I just think it's very important to acknowledge that Jews can be as good at terrorism as Arabs, or indeed Germans, if they work hard and stick to their passion. "Hath not a Jew gunpowder / to hoist the Doge sky-high", Shakespeare makes Shylock ask, and then "if you wrong us, will we not revenge?" Clearly Shakespeare was a bit ahead of his time here, but in this twenty-first century I think we should all acknowledge that all ethnic groups can make good terrorists.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Strider, you're getting trolled
He seemed hungry. I didn't want him to starve. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Clearly Shakespeare was a bit ahead of his time here
Charming. Just charming.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Funny what they call terrorism. So they have the Earth Liberation Front back in 2002 committing "vandalism and destruction of property". But when four synagogues and Jewish schools in Chicago were attacked and Muslims were arrested for it, that apparently wasn't enough to make the list. Maybe whoever the ELF attacked had better connections.
Also, <yawn>
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Well, logically, A billion Muslims think a billion Christians are wrong and vice versa - I rejected the value of "majority" as a valid form of evidence.
There are potential reasons why the majority can be wrong, but there's no reason for a conflict in this case. A billion Muslims and a billion Christians can *both* be right in thinking that the other is wrong (Assuming your numbers, 5 billion-odd non-Muslims and 5 billion-odd non-Christians, whatever)
quote:My parents are Israeli. We obviously don't perceive ourselves as members of a rogue or pariah state ... Israel doesn't bomb Iran for funzies. It did it because it felt that Iran was a threat.
*shrug* I suspect very few perceive themselves as a rogue/pariah state. But that doesn't mean there aren't any! And who IS happy about the upcoming Iran war? (Aside from, well, maybe 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran McCain') "They made me hit them" is not exactly an uncommon excuse for starting wars.
But whatever, this is as Lisa points out, a well trodden-path.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: But elsewhere, after all, Israel is often referred to as a rogue or pariah state
Libya, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Bahrain and Uganda (just to name a few) are on the U.N. Human Right Council. I am proud to be considered a rogue or pariah state in such a context.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Funny what they call terrorism. So they have the Earth Liberation Front back in 2002 committing "vandalism and destruction of property". But when four synagogues and Jewish schools in Chicago were attacked and Muslims were arrested for it, that apparently wasn't enough to make the list. Maybe whoever the ELF attacked had better connections.
Also, <yawn>
That Chicago attack was in 2009. This data extends from 1980 to 2005. How quickly you jump to convenient conclusions.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Frankly, the notion that terrorism is scary is ridiculous to begin with. I don't live in constant fear of getting killed in a car accident, I'm not going to freak out over something orders of magnitude less likely. (I recall a statistic that after 9/11, a lot of people avoided planes out of fear. And as it turned out, traffic fatalities bumped up for the next few months).
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I remember a bit in the book Predictably Irrational, where he gives a statistic that people are willing to pay much more for airline insurance that protects against death by terrorism than they are for airline insurance that protects against ALL types of death.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Possibly you meant "reimburses for" rather than "protects against", eh?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: But elsewhere, after all, Israel is often referred to as a rogue or pariah state
Libya, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Bahrain and Uganda (just to name a few) are on the U.N. Human Right Council. I am proud to be considered a rogue or pariah state in such a context.
*shrug* I hardly limit my remarks to such a context.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Well, logically, A billion Muslims think a billion Christians are wrong and vice versa - I rejected the value of "majority" as a valid form of evidence.
There are potential reasons why the majority can be wrong, but there's no reason for a conflict in this case. A billion Muslims and a billion Christians can *both* be right in thinking that the other is wrong (Assuming your numbers, 5 billion-odd non-Muslims and 5 billion-odd non-Christians, whatever)
quote:My parents are Israeli. We obviously don't perceive ourselves as members of a rogue or pariah state ... Israel doesn't bomb Iran for funzies. It did it because it felt that Iran was a threat.
*shrug* I suspect very few perceive themselves as a rogue/pariah state. But that doesn't mean there aren't any! And who IS happy about the upcoming Iran war? (Aside from, well, maybe 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran McCain') "They made me hit them" is not exactly an uncommon excuse for starting wars.
But whatever, this is as Lisa points out, a well trodden-path.
1) Not really. There you don't have a majority to say that they are both wrong, since they believe they are right. It could be that they are both wrong, and I think that they are, but the point is that it leads to the conclusion that people can be so sure that they are correct when surrounded by what they perceive is a majority. We have the ability to blur contexts and perspectives and it's a dangerous bias.
2)What is the point of looking at another state as rogue or pariah? I find that living witht he fundamental assumption that people are a lot more similar to you than you think brings you a lot closer to the truth. Also I find that instead of physically forcing you to do what I want, it's easier to manipulate another person by manipulating their desires. Those are ugly and technical terms for it, but in actually, when you are using someone else's desires to acheive your own desires, you are, in effect, achieving both of your desires.
Applied in this context, I am suggesting that the sides misunderstand one another and/or are unwilling to achieve a resolution.
Mucus - assume you were in charge of the world, what would you do? You can do anything that you want. Godly powers.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: But elsewhere, after all, Israel is often referred to as a rogue or pariah state
Libya, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Bahrain and Uganda (just to name a few) are on the U.N. Human Right Council. I am proud to be considered a rogue or pariah state in such a context.
*shrug* I hardly limit my remarks to such a context.
You think you don't.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You think I do.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Funny what they call terrorism. So they have the Earth Liberation Front back in 2002 committing "vandalism and destruction of property". But when four synagogues and Jewish schools in Chicago were attacked and Muslims were arrested for it, that apparently wasn't enough to make the list. Maybe whoever the ELF attacked had better connections.
Also, <yawn>
That Chicago attack was in 2009. This data extends from 1980 to 2005. How quickly you jump to convenient conclusions.
And for that matter, were they merely arrested, or arrested, tried and convicted?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Thanks for this post! This has definitely given me a reality check like whoa.
I'm most surprised not at the fact that Jewish terrorists outnumber Muslim ones, but that both of them together comprise such a small percentage of the total. Latinos at 42%, really? I'm not surprised at the numbers for left wing extremist groups though.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Drive by shootings, gang violence- all of that probably counts towards terrorist attacks.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
I don't think that accounts for it. See the piechart on the nature of the attacks.
Out of 318 attacks, 209 are bombings, 43 are arsons. Only 16 shootings.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But gang violence/ war on drugs kind of stuff is more than just shootings. I just listed drive by shootings cause it was my first example. I have read some stuff on the war on drugs that is just terrifying.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Oh, the war on drugs. That makes sense. I thought you were talking about random drive by shootings and such. I'm curious, what were some of those terrifying things you read?
[ August 19, 2010, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Well, most of it was more in South America/ Mexico. Just lots of kidnapping, murder, cities controlled by drug cartels, immunity, police inaction. Also, lots of claims that in Mexico, there is a lot of self censoring going on in the media because the reporters are afraid to say just how violent it is (for fear of reprisals). While a lot of that is on the other side of the border, some stuff does spill over. I wish I had links, but I don't and my brain is being very pregnant (which is my excuse for being extremely stupid).
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Not sure how we're miscommunicating on the numbers issue, but lets' leave that aside.
My question about rogue or pariah was part of my larger point - labels can be very harmful in limiting perspective and in affirming the biases that we often have that prevent us from making sound decisions.
I'm not sure if we should have this discussion in gchat because I'll ask a lot of follow-ups, but yea - I'm sure Ill enjoy whatever answer you give, I don't really know what gods you were talking about, but I'm looking to see how you would change things if you were in charge.
Edit - Mucus, did you delete your post?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sorry, yeah, it took me answering point by point to realize that I really didn't feel like going point by point. Bad timing I guess.
Edit to add: IIRC, I was trying to clarify the question about which kind of god with what kind of godly powers we're talking about. As in Gao'uld-like (mere power to boss people around by force), Vorlon (time travel and more insidious but more power), or Q (pretty much equivalent to the Christian god, except fun).
And are we talking about the US homeland security situation with terrorists or about the middle east situation with Israel?
[ August 20, 2010, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Go with the Biblical God. Middle East situation.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Still pretty broad.
But as a start, maybe create two new Earths exactly the same as ours, that should take 2*7=14 days. Transplant Israel into one world and the Palestinians into another. Replace the transferred land with a new gulf, maybe put in a few coral reefs, some sea life. Irradiate the area ala Chernobyl so the wildlife is reasonably protected until people get over losing the area.
*shrug* As long as the situation isn't pushing or pulling world powers into a potential WWIII over a country the size of a couple provincial parks with as many people as a medium Chinese city, I think that would be a plus.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Okay, so in your ideal conception, the desires of the two or three groups in question are irrelevant.
You are using your own conception of morality and logic to determine that the groups who are arguing are unreasonable in their desires, and yet they still have them. Like the parent of children who desire things that are harmful for them, you remove the harm and expect the children to adjust.
This correct?
If so, can you convey how you feel each group involved (Palestinian, Israeli, and if you like, Christian) is unreasonable?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:*shrug* I hardly limit my remarks to such a context.
The context, it seems to me, is 'the world', which appears at times to be much more concerned with Israeli transgressions, real or otherwise, than with other things such as genocides or farces such as Lisa mentioned.
'Rogue state' usually says as much about the person or state using the term as it does about the state mentioned, and people using it for Israel but not elsewhere is certainly a pretty clear-cut example of that, or do you disagree, Mucus?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I would disagree. In fact, if you mind the context, I'm making a bit of a tangential point. I was talking about the article which seems to claim that Islamic terrorism is unfairly hyped over Jewish terrorism. I was actually making the case that in my judgment Jewish terrorism has been *adequately* hyped and that is why Israel is in the dumps today.
Anyways, I have little interest in going point-by-point on this matter. I think this particular thing will work itself out from like so to so, although the day-to-day details will always go back and forth.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: This correct?
If so, can you convey how you feel each group involved (Palestinian, Israeli, and if you like, Christian) is unreasonable?
I'm not sure "reasonable" or "unreasonable" even factor into my decision. I guess I'm role-playing me with biblical god powers but not biblical god history, meaning I see that all three groups religious claims are obsolete and irrelevant.
I'm not sure the children analogy works that well because I'm removing them not just to protect them but to also protect the rest of us 'from' them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Go with the Biblical God. Middle East situation.
I would start by showing up and stating clearly and undeniably that all peoples are equal with no group that has requirements or privileges that other people don't have per Me. Tell them if you were going forward with that idea, you cut it out now.
That would go a long way down the road to getting people to get along without having to babysit them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: In fact, if you mind the context, I'm making a bit of a tangential point. I was talking about the article which seems to claim that Islamic terrorism is unfairly hyped over Jewish terrorism. I was actually making the case that in my judgment Jewish terrorism has been *adequately* hyped and that is why Israel is in the dumps today.
Adequately hyped, hm? Well, I can see some reasons why you wouldn't want to go point by point on that matter. I certainly agree Israel has screwed up, quite badly and egregiously in fact, over the years on many things. But 'adequately hyped'? Heh. Well, as I said, statements like that say as much about the speaker as the subject. If only the US would take a fairer line on Israel, we would not be so roundly hated in the Middle East!
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Samp AND Mucus - you are both making a similar point. Religion is obsolete, irrelevant, or just plain wrong.
I understand you are taking the Atheist position. In order for you to solve the middle east crisis, in discussions, it would be best to discover how to convince others that there is no god, or that their current conceptions of religion are incorrect.
You perspective is one where you are entirely removed of the situation. You do not consider these people's religions as being their perspectives on the truth of existence - but rather you think they're all wrong, and that they're going to continue to perpetuate trouble until they realize the error of their ways.
So you, as Samp or Mucus, how do you propose to go about actually changing their opinions? -----
Secondly, I know, for me at least, my religious perspective comes from an honest look at reality. I am not religious because I was born into a religious family, I'm religious because I think it is true. There are Christians and Muslims who believe this as well. You believe in your truth - that there is no god. Assume we cannot convince one another that our truth is the real truth - what is the solution?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh: Awfully American-centric of you, I've said nothing about how the US is viewed That would be a whole different conversation.
Israel is hanging out in the neighbourhood of North Korea with 19 and 17 respectively. But say we take out all the Middle Eastern countries that are "unfair" to Israel meaning Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan, what happens to Israel then?
Israel only moves up to 21 without affecting any rankings (20 without the US). This is pretty much noise. Say we take only Asia (minus Pakistan) an area with little at stake in the conflict? Israel's score actually goes *down* to 17.
I think that pretty clearly shows that Israel has problems with its reputation that clearly go far beyond "hostile" countries in the Middle East or the countries on Lisa's UN council (which don't even show up in the survey). (All numbers referring to % that view Israel as a positive influence)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: We're talking about Israel's reputation and I think the effect of the Middle East is overplayed...
Ah. I wasn't suggesting that Middle-East opinion skews it unfairly one way, actually-I was suggesting much of world opinion is pretty oddly biased and inconsistent when viewing Israel, independent of Arab opinion.
quote: Israel is hanging out in the neighbourhood of North Korea with 19 and 17 respectively.
Sure they are.
quote:
I think that pretty clearly shows that Israel has problems with its reputation that clearly go far beyond "hostile" countries in the Middle East or the countries on Lisa's UN council (which don't even show up in the survey). (All numbers referring to % that view Israel as a positive influence)
Well, I'll certainly agree with that. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Samp AND Mucus - you are both making a similar point. Religion is obsolete, irrelevant, or just plain wrong.
What? no. Wait, how did you get that?
quote:Secondly, I know, for me at least, my religious perspective comes from an honest look at reality. I am not religious because I was born into a religious family, I'm religious because I think it is true. There are Christians and Muslims who believe this as well.
So under your perspective, a muslim, who is wrong about reality, is getting their perspective from an 'honest look at reality.' And to a muslim, your being wrong about reality is also from an 'honest look at reality.' I think what you mean but are not comfortable with is that your religious perspective comes from, obviously, faith in a specific version of the truth that you expect you are faithfully interpreting.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why do you think he's somehow uncomfortable with that, Samprimary? I see that said not infrequently about religious people. "You're not comfortable with the fact that it's just your faith." There are certainly religious people like that, but religious folks are hardly strangers to doubt and uncertainty, however much you might like to think otherwise.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... I was suggesting much of world opinion is pretty oddly biased and inconsistent when viewing Israel, independent of Arab opinion.
Then thats where I'd have to see proof otherwise we're heading into conspiracy theory territory. I can see how one could ascribe antisemitism to biasing opinion in historically Muslim or Christian areas. But we can already account for that by observing that Asia while lacking that, isn't significantly different.
We really need a mechanism that can affect countries as disparate as China, Japan, India, and so forth and I'm just not seeing one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't say anti-Semitism, though I feel that certainly plays a part in some areas-particularly European areas. I don't see how similar public opinion in non-Christian/Islamic areas means that those areas that do have that background are straightforward and legitimate in their opposition, though.
When I say it's oddly biased, I mean that it appears to be willing to tolerate insurgency while not tolerating military responses to insurgency. Now, you can cry 'American-centric' all you like, and that's certainly true, but it's not actually a rebuttal:)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Eh, maybe thats the root of our miscommunication. I wouldn't call that "bias." If the world (or a specific area) has a certain opinion on the morality of insurgency (or torture or preemptive war, etc.), then as long as it applies it consistently, I wouldn't really call it bias. I would only call it bias if say, all things being equal, Asia were extra willing to tolerate insurgencies by Europeans as opposed to Africans for example. That *would* unfairly skew the rankings with European countries moving up. But that doesn't appear to be the case here.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So my question was an expression of that curiosity, not really having anything to do with Jews vs. Muslims at all (in fact, at the time i was shocked by the 24% of the pie chart representing left wing groups), but just saying that given my view on the greater harm caused by the death of human beings, those statistics alone (while certainly opening our eyes to some really important data that points out the difference between fact and perception) are somewhat meaningless in the sense that they don't relay actual damage done.
This is a really important point. The FBI terrorism data base places acts like nuns defacing missile silos with their own blood, ALF releasing lab animals, and ELF vandalizing ski resorts in the same category with bombing embassies and murdering hundreds of innocent people. Does anyone find that in the least bit reasonable.
The last time I looked into it, there had no American had every been killed in an act of "eco-terrorism" and yet "eco-terrorist" groups were at the top of the FBI terrorism list.
I'm not saying that I think vandalism is OK, but vandalism is not murder and the two should not be classified together. When painting missile silos with your own blood and mass murder are all lumped under the same category as "terrorism" the statistics become utterly meaningless.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why do you think he's somehow uncomfortable with that, Samprimary? I see that said not infrequently about religious people. "You're not comfortable with the fact that it's just your faith." There are certainly religious people like that, but religious folks are hardly strangers to doubt and uncertainty, however much you might like to think otherwise.
It's because of how armoth specifically denies that his religion is faith-based, like all of them. armoth wants to put it in terms of it being based on evidence/evidentiary processes.
IIRC armoth will say things like "My faith is a product of my having proved for myself that what I believe is real" and "My belief is evidence-based" I actually think it was actually literally said by armoth, essentially, "my religion is based on knowledge, not faith"
If I have armoth confused with someone else, sorry, but if these things were said, then yes, that's obvious discomfort with the idea that his religious perspective absolutely can be classified as a product of faith.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Samp is correct. Faith is stupid. Why would anyone chose to believe something just because they choose to believe it? I mean, it makes them happy - but as long as it makes other ppl sad, then why not chose to believe in something that makes everyone happy?
Leaps of faith and all that is nonsense, in my opinion.
Samp is 100 percent correct that I believe in Judaism based on knowledge and evidence. Evidence that I think is a lot more valuable than "searching my feelings" or the like.
Samp - perhaps I misunderstood your post. You said that you would show up and declare that all were equal - but in the current vision of things, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not believe that - not in the way you were offering. Judaism has different roles for Jews and non-Jews, men and women, believers and non-believers. Christianity and Islam definitely have different roles for believers and non-believers. Not sure if "roles" are the right words here, but it's not all equal - and it's at the root of the dispute.
In my hypo, you picked a path that is untenable with the current reality - changing religion.
Which brings me back to the reiteration of the previous post, exactly how do you propose to do this, and barring that, maybe a different approach is necessary.
-----
As for your response to my post - If pushed to it, I might say that a Christian, Muslim, or Atheist (or most Jews for that matter) are NOT taking an honest look at reality - but that doesn't matter. The point I'm trying to make is that an Atheist is so convinced that faulty logic is the root of the world's problems. I think that assume that everyone's logic is going to be faulty - now what do you do?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samp is correct. Faith is stupid. Why would anyone chose to believe something just because they choose to believe it?
I think what you'll have to come to terms with is that faith is not just how you describe it, especially considering how your description is a bald tautology unrelated to the many mechanisms and reasons why people have faith in ideas. Your religion is a matter of faith.
quote:Samp - perhaps I misunderstood your post. You said that you would show up and declare that all were equal - but in the current vision of things, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not believe that - not in the way you were offering.
You bet I'm showing up and declaring that all peoples are equal with no God's Specialist People who have extra prohibitions and privileges. No matter what, I am telling the truth. Now that I get to play God, there is no longer any reason to be beholden to the notion you can't eat pork and you have to occupy a certain region of the middle east, etc etc etc. I can show everyone that it is not so. Even if it were so for some unlikely reason, I have willed it out of the universe, and you are now all free. More likely, I am merely correcting misinformation, via my new ultimate authority and complete knowledge on the matter.
And that is an excellent way to start my job of keeping the world from being such a miserable, intolerant place.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:If pushed to it, I might say that a Christian, Muslim, or Atheist (or most Jews for that matter) are NOT taking an honest look at reality
What evidence do you think that they (myself included) are missing? If the evidence is as overwhelming as you are claiming, why are so many rational people not persuaded by it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's because of how armoth specifically denies that his religion is faith-based, like all of them. armoth wants to put it in terms of it being based on evidence/evidentiary processes.
This is a conversation that's been had around here before, so I won't go into again except to say that 'faith-based' and 'based on evidence' need not be mutually exclusive outlooks.
quote: If the evidence is as overwhelming as you are claiming, why are so many rational people not persuaded by it?
This is a strange argument in favor of the virtues of rationality: "Not enough people believe it."
[ August 20, 2010, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's a perfect argument over the persuasiveness of the supposed evidence, however.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Judaism has different roles for Jews and non-Jews, men and women, believers and non-believers. Christianity and Islam definitely have different roles for believers and non-believers. Not sure if "roles" are the right words here, but it's not all equal - and it's at the root of the dispute.
I don't know about Islam, but you are wrong about Christianity (at least the versions of Christianity with which I am most familiar). Christianity does not teach that God has different commandments for believers and non-believers. Christianity does not teach that believers have different responsibilities to other believers than non-believers.
One of the key teachings of Christianity is that God is impartial. He judges us on our choices and faithfulness not based on our race, ethnicity, or heritage. If God expects more from some people than others (or more accurately forgives some less readily than others) it is because they have a greater knowledge and understanding of his commandments or (in some cases) because they have made promises to do certain things, not because they belong to a particular family. Furthermore God expects the same of us. That is, he expects us to treat all people with the same kindness, compassion and fairness regardless of their ethnicity or beliefs. I will admit that Christians have very rarely lived up to that ideal, but that IS the ideal we are expected to strive for.
It's not just a semantic difference.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Samp - can you elaborate on the faith point?
Amanecer - I would approach our conversation differently depending on the perspective you are coming from. I'm sorry I don't know, are you Atheist? Christian? Muslim?
Much has been posted already - but there are many biases out there that prevent people from confronting truth. I'm comfortable that a person can use all of his abilities to pursue truth and not actually reach it, and I'm comfortable with the moral value of that pursuit, but I'd also probably say that most people don't actually engage in that pursuit to the extent of their abilities.
Rabbit - I mean, yea, but you still have the same God that we do. Let me quote from another post: Our God wrote this:
Deuteronomy 23:20-21
Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.
The Hebrew word for foreigner is "Nochri" and is used in other places as well as here to refer to a non-Jew.
I'm assuming this verse exists in the Christian OT, right? It's not an exclusively Jewish question to answer in terms of the fact that we both share the same God who has different laws for Jews and non-Jews.
And to clarify - in that statement above, I wasn't saying that Christianity has different commandments for Christians or non-Christians, I would say that Christianity believes that non-Christians are in big trouble. So not everyone is "equal".
---- Samp - the point of the thought experiment is to point out that your peace and harmony can only be achieved by wiping out religion. How do you plan to achieve that?
(And just to throw it in because I feel it should be said - Judaism doesn't believe in equality of roles, but it does believe in equality of moral value - which makes a lot of sense, considering that we are all, in actuality, unequal physically, and in abilities, etc.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samp - the point of the thought experiment is to point out that your peace and harmony can only be achieved by wiping out religion.
Then that point has failed. I haven't wiped out religion. I haven't done that at all. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
You've wiped out the current religions of mankind.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: You've wiped out the current religions of mankind.
I've actually done no such thing in the slightest, but I'm interested in hearing why you think I have from your reading of my posts.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Do you mind explaining how you haven't because Christianity, Islam and Judaism do not view believers and non-believers equally.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I haven't wiped out the current religions of mankind at all. I didn't show up and say 'no moar religion, kthx.' All I've started with doing is making sure that everyone recognizes that there's no Special People in the universe's cosmic affairs anymore, so please continue forward under that revelation.
This doesn't cause religion to wink out of existence.
As I said, I'm interested in how you came to the conclusion that it did.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
You keep changing the line of thought I want to approach. I'm not alleging that you've wiped out religion, only that you've wiped out the actual current religions of mankind. The thought experiment was to show you what the constraints we are dealing with nowadays. Your ideal conception of reality may include religion, but not the current conception of the religions that exist now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
...
quote: I'm not alleging that you've wiped out religion
preceded by
quote:Samp - the point of the thought experiment is to point out that your peace and harmony can only be achieved by wiping out religion.
so, there we go!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: You keep changing the line of thought I want to approach. I'm not alleging that you've wiped out religion, only that you've wiped out the actual current religions of mankind.
And I haven't done that either! There's still jews, muslims, christians, buddhists, zoroastrians, shintoists, hindus, confucianists, jainists, etc. They are still religions of mankind. They are not wiped out. They're still going. They're better informed. They don't get wiped out as the 'actual current religions of mankind' any more so than Mormonism gets wiped out as an actual current religion of mankind every time they receive a new revelation that changes a lot about the religion, or Catholicism gets wiped out as an actual current religion of mankind when the Pope brings down a new godly ruling changing how the church works.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...
quote: I'm not alleging that you've wiped out religion
preceded by
quote:Samp - the point of the thought experiment is to point out that your peace and harmony can only be achieved by wiping out religion.
so, there we go!
When I said wiped out religion i mean wiped out religion in the world we currently exist. That quote game is unnecessary.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ya. I get what you're trying to say. Stop trying to win the thought experiment. It wasn't a game. It was a demonstration of the fact that in order for peace and harmony to be achieved, you have to do major surgery on the religions of mankind.
It was something I thought was worth exploring because the beginning of this thread was particularly frustrating.
I'm trying to make the point that we all live with one another and come from very different perspectives. You can't really do surgery on other people's religion. You have to understand and compromise, seek out and convince, or destroy.
If you don't see those as choices, you try a little of all 3, and continue to live your life. That's what every country does. Israel doesn't choose one of the three options, it chooses all 3. What's unfortunate is that others don't understand that Israel is put in the position where they choose the destroy option more often than others do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:When I said wiped out religion i mean wiped out religion in the world we currently exist. [/QB]
This doesn't make sense. But for what it's worth, I haven't done that either. Any permutation of "wiping out" religion you can come up with, I have not done. I don't know how many more ways I have to reinforce this fact for you.
quote:Ya. I get what you're trying to say. Stop trying to win the thought experiment. It wasn't a game.
If I was trying to 'win' this as a game I would just say "I am God so I fix everything without leaving religion tampered with. I'm God so I can do that."
I answered in a way I honestly think would be the best way to start work on the situation under the terms of the test as presented.
quote:What's unfortunate is that others don't understand that Israel is put in the position where they choose the destroy option more often than others do.
No, I actually think people are well aware of Israel's proclivity to elect for destructive options. I don't think that a lack of understanding that they do that is the problem.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Wow. I don't understand why we can't communicate. Specifically you and I. I know I communicate with others and I'm pretty sure you're successful at communicating with others as well.
This is one of those times where I think a face to face would be a lot more valuable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm telling you my starting response to your hypothetical is in no way, shape, or form 'wiping out religion' and when I point out contradicting and confusing elements I'm getting in return, it gets called playing games.
You really seriously said that the purpose of your thought experiment was to show that our peace and harmony can only be achieved by wiping out religion. Then you said that you weren't alleging I had done any such thing. But that I had done something else, which is fundamentally indistinct but presented with more confusing wording:
quote:When I said wiped out religion i mean wiped out religion in the world we currently exist.
If you are wondering why there's such a communication problem going on, start with this. It's confusing. It really doesn't make sense. But right now it's really probably that you are misusing the idea of 'wiping out' religion. Wiping out a religion doesn't mean changing it, or adding to it, or better informing its adherents of something which is true about the actual nature of existence. To wipe it out means to destroy it, to purge it from existence. Bad way to put it.
Let's say I just do one thing. Let's say that in the hypothetical, whilst possessing the powers of God, I do one thing. Just one. Let's say that there actually IS some strange thing in existence which actually DOES make it a Really Bad Thing for certain groups, in this case, let's say the jews and the muslims, from eating pork. What a really weird thing to have encoded into the whole of Reality, but whatever. I have the power, so I reach into the Cosmos and just change that so that there's no such prohibition anymore. Then I give the people of the world absolute and true knowledge of the fact that I have done so.
Everything else, absolutely everything, I leave intact. Have I 'wiped out religion' by doing this in my hypothetical? By 'wiped out,' do you really mean 'altered in a way which I don't believe we have the luxury of having done in the real world?'
How about my original proposal, complete with the divine proclamation that all peoples are equal and nobody's God's Special Group of People anymore, if ever they were at all? Do you mean 'altered in a way which I don't believe we have the luxury of having done in the real world?'
Is the real purpose of the hypothetical to say that we can't bring about peace without altering the way religions are really are now? Because that's false, too. I have God powers. I just leave the religious conceptions intact, with no regard as to who, if anyone, has the right idea. I give everyone the land that they want, with overlapping contradictory real states if necessary, and ensure that no harm comes between peoples due to conflict or competition for resources.
In the end, interpretations like this from you about my position:
quote:You do not consider these people's religions as being their perspectives on the truth of existence - but rather you think they're all wrong, and that they're going to continue to perpetuate trouble until they realize the error of their ways.
Are just completely incorrect. Flat out. I can only hope I can get you to the point where you understand why nothing I've said validates this statement.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
also lol @ me for ending up with so many words over this
i have been wordier about more trivial issues, but not often.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:'m assuming this verse exists in the Christian OT, right? It's not an exclusively Jewish question to answer in terms of the fact that we both share the same God who has different laws for Jews and non-Jews.
Yes, this verse exists in the Christian OT but Christians (at least most Christians) believe this commandment has been superseded by a new law that there are no more strangers and foreigners, that all human beings are brothers and sisters and should be treated as such. I recognize that Christians rarely ever live up to that ideal, but it is the ideal we are taught we should strive for. Having grown up learning that ideal, it is quite shocking to me to learn that some people believe God commands them to treat people differently based on their heritage.
quote:And to clarify - in that statement above, I wasn't saying that Christianity has different commandments for Christians or non-Christians, I would say that Christianity believes that non-Christians are in big trouble. So not everyone is "equal".
First off, its extremely dangerous to start talking about what "Christians" believe since their are more variations of Christianity than flavors at Basking Robbins and in no case is this more true than when talking about what Christians believe will happen to non-Christians. Most of the Christians I know (which probably isn't a representative sampling), believe God will be more forgiving to non-Christians than Christians (depending of course on the reasons they have for being non-Christians). But even among those Christians who do believe that all non-Christians are in big trouble there are major differences between that belief and yours that make the comparison problematic.
The first difference is that being Christian is a matter of personal choice, not a matter birthright. It is one thing to say God expects and rewards different things for different people based on their choices, abilities and experiences and quite another say God expects and rewards people differently because of who their parents are. Let's put it in the secular realm so you can see what I mean. Consider two laws. One says people who have more money have to pay more taxes, the other says people of northern european ancestry have to pay more taxes. Would you argue that both laws are equally just?
The second difference is that even those Christians who believe all non-Christians are going to hell, are expected to treat those people the same as they treat fellow Christians. I would find it highly offensive if a Christian owned bank or business offered special deals for Christians only.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
samp - I'm happy to take credit for the communication errors.
"wipe out" may not be the best choice of words. But yes, if you fundamentally alter the religions of the world in a way that cannot be achieved in our world, then your hypo may be nice but it doesn't really help.
Same with giving everyone what they want. My dad likes to talk about how navigators work. GPS. They don't send you in a straight line through buildings and fields - the GPS calculates the best route given constraints that exist. One of the constraints in this world is that there is only one land of Israel, and two or three peoples with a claim on it. How do you now translate your solution from the hypothesis to this world?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Rabbit -
1) As I mentioned, you still have this verse. That means that for a thousand years of the world's history, God had different rules for a chosen people and non-chosen people. Does that trouble you? He actually HAD a CHOSEN people! AND he had a system for non-Jews as well, where they needed only keep the 7 Noahide commandments. It doesn't matter what Christianity now believes, Judaism is a part of Christianity, and at one point, according to you, it was God's religion.
2) Birthright. Again, worth pointing out that anyone who wants to convert to Judaism can convert. Many of the reasons for Jewish choseness have a lot to do with the fact that there was a niche in God's plan for a chosen people, just like there is a niche for priests, and there is a huge advantage to selecting the people for filling that niche by heritage. God originally chose firstborns to be His priests, and then chose the tribe of Levi.
3) I also want to reiterate what I said in the Q/A thread. The reason for the interest law is to promote a familial sense among Jews, a familial sense that is important in the furthering of their particular role in the world. Taking interest is not immoral. Taking interest from your son or daughter, your brother or sister, is.
4)I never said God rewards people differently based on their heritage. Men, women, Jew, non-Jew are not equal in their roles. But they ARE equal in terms of reward and punishment. The extent to which one puts in effort is the extent to which one will be rewarded. A tremendous Torah scholar with a long white beard whom everyone perceives to be a saint, may just be born with wonderful abilities - and is actually not a saint because he barely puts any effort into his life. If one is intellectually honest, defines good and evil for oneself, and puts in effort to achieve that good - as long as that person was serious abut that effort, they'll be looked at by God favorably.
5) It's false to say that we believe everyone is equal. We don't. Some people pay higher taxes than others. People under the age of 18 cannot vote. Illegal aliens don't enjoy the same rights we do. Legal aliens don't enjoy the same rights we do. The laws are not equal but they are also just. Why? Because the laws were created to account for the inequalities that exist - we don't treat everyone equally when they are, in fact, not equal. The laws do their best to facilitate equality for those who are indeed equal, but for those who are not, they try to be just, in the sense that they are logical as upholding legal rights and obligations for those who are best suited for them.
In the context of Judaism - In Judaism, the roles are unequal. Jews are given a specific role that is meant to match their specific abilities that are largely a result of the fact of their specific historical (not genetic) heritage. And again, the proof for that is that if one feels that they would like to be a Jew, they may convert. However, the moral value (as mentioned above) is NOT unequal.
6) Your second difference wasn't always true. For almost two thousand years it wasn't true. And for many, it still isn't true. I've been told multiple times by Christians that I'm going to hell if I don't accept Jesus. And although it doesn't exist as much in this country, it exists in others that Jews are treated differently than non-Jews in the workplace. Maybe not different laws for Jews and non-Jews, but discriminatory hiring practices or an unwillingness to do business.
7) As a Christian - do you have a conception of a mission for your life? What about for the world, and for Christianity?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's a perfect argument over the persuasiveness of the supposed evidence, however.
I wasn't aware that one of the tenets of a strictly empirical, logical approach to the world was, "Look at what like-minded people think as a gauge." Did the scientific method get an addition at some point?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Rakeesh, he said "persuasiveness." If evidence is persuasive, many of the people exposed to the evidence will be persuaded by it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Amanecer - I would approach our conversation differently depending on the perspective you are coming from. I'm sorry I don't know, are you Atheist? Christian? Muslim?
I'm not religious but I'm not looking for an argument tailored to me. I want to know what you think is so inherently dishonest about a Christian/Muslim/Atheist world perspective.
Frankly, I find the idea that people are being dishonest to be incredibly offensive and untrue. I've heard it bandied about by Atheists, Christians, and now a Jewish person, so I don't think it's unique to any one group. I do think that it is destructive to civil and productive discourse. I think most people think the way they do because that is what their world view and experiences seen through the perspective of their world view have taught them. To throw dishonesty in to the equation is to question character. Why have you reached this conclusion?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Armoth: Not to disparage your religion, I have enormous respect for it. But Mormons do not view the Law of Moses as God's law for his chosen people in the same way you might.
For us, as far as I understand it, Adam and Eve had the essential gospel we currently espouse, but through apostasy and restoration followed by more apostasy it was gained and lost again. Mormons believe that Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Melchizedek, and even Moses all knew about Jesus' role down the road and taught of him. In Moses case for example I believe his raising of the bronze serpent was a symbol of the messiah that the Jews should look to and live.
We believe that initially Moses tried to share this gospel that had been lost to some extent by the Hebrew slaves while they toiled in Egypt, but that they weren't ready for it as evidenced by their complaining in the desert, the golden calf, and especially their refusal to come up on the mountain to converse with God and instead having Moses do it for them.
God since the Isrealites did not want this higher law of the gospel gave them the Law of Moses as a preparatory law for regaining the higher principles of the gospel that Jesus would reintroduce.
Back in 500BC where the Book of Mormon starts with its description of Lehi living in Jerusalem, there are many references to the people of the Book of Mormon discussing this dynamic where the Law of Moses must be observed strictly but that followers should not lose sight of its purpose, and believe the law should be followed in of itself.
Again, I'm not trying to push the idea that I've got it right and you're stuck in the past, but I hope you can see why for a Mormon, a requirement like not permitting usury amongst believers but allowing it amongst unbelievers does not particularly bug Mormons, as we believe the whole of the law was an attempt at preparing the Israelites for greater principles.
In the New Testamant after Jesus has departed almost immediately we read about Peter the new head of the church receiving a commandment directly from God that he needs to start teaching the gospel to the gentiles not just the Jews. So as far as Christianity is concerned I agree with Rabbit insofar as God does not have separate requirements for unbelievers, but he does have separate standards for judging them, and they are more forgiving than what Christians will get.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Amanecer - I chose my words carefully. I didn't think that the Christian/Muslim/Atheist world is inherently dishonest. All I said is that a lot of people are dishonest. I included Jews as well.
In my experience, people tend to lie to themselves to make themselves happy. We all do it. I think people do it in areas that are fundamental to their identity.
It bothers me when my coreligionists refuse to look at the world from another perspective. Honesty demands the considering of alternative possibilities and the willingness to chose that which is most truthful.
I don't mean to offend, I'm simply trying to relate my impression based on my experience with people. The desire to deceive one's-self is incredibly strong.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
BB - no offense taken.
I mean, it's thoroughly interesting. I just don't understand a whole lot...
A lot of the issues in the desert in Judaism explain a very important principle that we are meant to correct. Religion is largely about finding the truth, but once you find it, it is also about living the truth. The human ego is so strong and the selfish desire is so powerful, even when the Israelites had a knowledge of God, they witnessed miracles, and prophecy - God was too much for them. Most of the sins of the desert is a people with too much ego to be able to bear the obligations and humility required of a nation living with God in their midst.
I don't mean to offend when I offer this - but your religion's take on Judaism is very similar to a good fantasy novel's take on history - where major events in history are explained by magic or some other plot that didn't exist - but artfully and cleverly ties together major point, fitting a framework on top of history in an entertaining way.
Judaism's truth is affirmed by the mass revelation. God did not reveal Himself to one person and then had him convince others (Like in Christianity, Islam and Mormonism). God revealed Himself to the entire nation - Judaism was never about believing in God - He showed up to the entire nation. It was about adhering to His commandments.
(This is a huge aspect of self-perfection and of growth. When one realizes that their struggles come from adhering to truth - how insane it is that humans can know truth and not actually take it to heart enough to live it. How a smoker can smoke, how people with health risks don't lose weight, and how a religious person can sin).
Christianity, Islam and Mormonism do not have mass revelations. They base themselves off the mass revelation in Judaism. However, Each one of those religions fundamentally alters the original Judaism.
"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy 13:1–5 NIV)
That is in the original Judaism. I feel we are left with a contradiction - you have the original Judaism with its test for a false prophet - one who interferes with the keeping of the commandments is a false prophet.
Perhaps if God had changed His mind, whatever that means, isn't a new mass revelation in order, one that could actually supersede the previous word?
What do Mormons do with the entire OT? Is it considered corrupted? False? Not accurate versions of God's will? If not, I have a whole bunch of questions - some of them having to do with how they treat the entirety of the OT and how God relates to Israel - why God extended his covenant to people who were not ready, etc.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: "wipe out" may not be the best choice of words. But yes, if you fundamentally alter the religions of the world in a way that cannot be achieved in our world, then your hypo may be nice but it doesn't really help.
I don't know who didn't understand that going in, though. But one fun thing is that the religions of this world make it so that alteration of them towards new forms is not only possible, but guaranteed in some way or form over time. No religion's laws, practices, or teachings remain unchanged between generations, and religions don't stay cohesive. They break into sects that believe profoundly different things about what used to be a unified religion.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: "wipe out" may not be the best choice of words. But yes, if you fundamentally alter the religions of the world in a way that cannot be achieved in our world, then your hypo may be nice but it doesn't really help.
I don't know who didn't understand that going in, though. But one fun thing is that the religions of this world make it so that alteration of them towards new forms is not only possible, but guaranteed in some way or form over time. No religion's laws, practices, or teachings remain unchanged between generations, and religions don't stay cohesive. They break into sects that believe profoundly different things about what used to be a unified religion.
Have we identified your calling? Will you be the undercover Rabbi or Imam who Pastwatchedly alters Judaism and Islam for the peace of all mankind?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It's a perfect argument over the persuasiveness of the supposed evidence, however.
I wasn't aware that one of the tenets of a strictly empirical, logical approach to the world was, "Look at what like-minded people think as a gauge." Did the scientific method get an addition at some point?
What paul said. We're talking about persuasiveness, but the only correlation towards being seriously likely to be persuaded by the 'evidence' is if you grew up indoctrinated to it. And you can be indoctrinated into practically anything as a child, so ..
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It's a perfect argument over the persuasiveness of the supposed evidence, however.
I wasn't aware that one of the tenets of a strictly empirical, logical approach to the world was, "Look at what like-minded people think as a gauge." Did the scientific method get an addition at some point?
What paul said. We're talking about persuasiveness, but the only correlation towards being seriously likely to be persuaded by the 'evidence' is if you grew up indoctrinated to it. And you can be indoctrinated into practically anything as a child, so ..
I think you'll find that this works the other way as well. People don't often leave Christianity for Islam, not because Islam is not persuasive, but because they were indoctrinated. Same with Atheists. It's not a disproof to whether or not something is compelling evidence to one who intellectually honest.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Armoth: I can see how our version of events sounds like a fantasy novel in that we somehow manage to weave a narrative on top of a complicated history where it doesn't seem to fit all the time.
That is part of why we find modern day revelation to be so crucial as in addition to teaching us what God's will is today, it sheds light on the mysteries of the past and demonstrates to us that God really is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. He's always had a consistent message.
There were many holy men and women before Moses, and they needed God as much as any of us do. Why should God's plans for them be fundamentally different? I confess that much of say Adam, Eve, Abraham, etc knowing about Christ is found in our uniquely revealed scripture. But to us that merely reveals how much God loves us, he recognized that we were going to lose a lot of information as his word was passed on through the ages and he prepared other records so as to help the studious disciple harmonize that message.
But beyond all that, I still believe that the Old Testament can be viewed by itself and still lead one to honestly conclude that Jesus was fulfilling scripture all the way back to Adam's promise that God would give man the power "crush" the serpents head, though the serpent would bruise man's heel.
quote:Judaism's truth is affirmed by the mass revelation. God did not reveal Himself to one person and then had him convince others (Like in Christianity, Islam and Mormonism). God revealed Himself to the entire nation - Judaism was never about believing in God - He showed up to the entire nation. It was about adhering to His commandments.
It is here we have to part ways. God was known hundreds of years before Moses drew breath. Even Moses referred to him as the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. This knowledge of God was passed down through families and through missionary work all the way until Moses day.
Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt was certainly based in God's desire to establish a nation, fulfilling his promise he'd made to their forefathers.
As to your scripture about false prophets, I think it all falls into what how you define "other God's." To me, the God who created Adam, was the God who told Noah there would never be another flood, who told Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars of the heavens, who told Moses to part the waters of the Red Sea, who told Isaiah to write these prophecies detailing the messiah's life, who preserved Daniel's life, who told Lehi to leave Jerusalem and to take his family to the American continent, who commanded Ezra to read the book of the law to all the people gathered together from exile, who came down as promised, who repaired the path that separates us from him spiritually and physically, who stopped Saul on the road to Damascus, who appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove, who will always command his people.
What else God has done in this world is something I think each individual person must discover for him/herself. But I do not believe that Jesus fulfilling the Law of Moses necessitates a departure from God.
As for mass revelation being necessary if we are to supersede something he has already commanded, Mormons already believe in a sort of mass revelation. Ignoring that Jesus himself appeared to mass of people in the Book of Mormon and revealed himself to them, he also sojourned in Jerusalem and it's environs for three years. Beyond that, each individual is promised personal revelation on the topic if they will but read God's words and speak to him on the matter. Each individual being given personal revelation is as impressive to me as a bunch of people being grouped together and being given the exact same experience as a group.
Ignoring all that, Christians do believe the Jews are in for a mass revelation down the road. We believe the entire world will be arrayed against them, and that just as it seems all hope is lost God will destroy the wicked, the messiah will appear again, and explain to the Jews just who he is.
As for the OT entire, corrupt is an ugly word but not entirely inaccurate. Men scuffed up what God wanted said to various degrees. God lets men alter the books that are supposed to contain only his words just as he lets men lie about their contents. Sometimes it was an honest mistake, others it was an intentional alteration because the person didn't like the original text. It's unfortunate but unavoidable. Even in the Book of Mormon a text we believe has the maximum level of clarity possible as only trusted prophets wrote it, and translated it, some of it's meaning is garbled and lost. We read not a few times the prophets themselves griping that were they writing in Hebrew instead of a type of reformed Egyptian they would be able to write clearer and more powerfully.
Fortunately God is still really effective, and despite man's shortcomings, even if we tossed out all the other books and stuck with the OT, we'd have a masterpiece of religion. Going back to modern day revelation, only God himself can tell us how the texts from the past originally read. So if the scriptures did have mistakes, how else could they be fixed?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I don't mean to offend, I'm simply trying to relate my impression based on my experience with people. The desire to deceive one's-self is incredibly strong.
I think that when there is a conflict between the way one feels they should behave\be\live\think and how they actually do\are, that there is a temptation to self deceive. I do not think that people typically deceive themselves in to their most basic beliefs though (belief in God, belief in no God, belief in Christ, etc). Those things are so fundamental to most people who hold them, that once held they don't even arise as genuine questions.
I suppose what I found most offensive was the idea that you are using your own beliefs as the barometer for whether or not people are taking an honest look at reality. Perhaps I misinterpreted.
quote:People don't often leave Christianity for Islam, not because Islam is not persuasive, but because they were indoctrinated. Same with Atheists.
I do not have numbers to back this up, but this does not hold to my experience. I have met many atheists and none were raised that way.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Hm. BB - you're right about the fact that God was known to others before the mass revelation. I meant that the mass revelation is the source for Judaism's truth in 2010 (and the foundation for other religions to base their truth on as well).
Let me ask you a different question. I'm not Mormon. I have natural phenomena and the wealth of human experience to look at to draw my conclusions to determine whether or not to believe in God, and which religion to belong to. Every religion has its position on the past - what is compelling about Mormonism as opposed to Islam, Judaism, or Christianity?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Amanecer - I'm not so much using my belifes as the barometer, but I am using my own experiences. That's the only tool I have. If pushed to it, I can never prove someone is being dishonest, ever. At best I can prove someone is consciously choosing to relate in dishonest ways, but that someone is dishonest with themselves? I can only surmise.
As for Atheists - correct. Many atheists were not raised Atheist. But I would argue that many if not most have a specific set of circumstances that led to their becoming Atheist. Two of my friends who are atheist also happen to be gay. Another atheist friend of mine became an atheist only after an affair that he had became public - and this guy was the most religious guy I've ever seen...
There are also a lot of Atheists who don't have that kind of baggage, but some of the circumstances that influence could have to do with the elitism many atheists can claim for shedding the "silliness" of religion.
Again, I don't mean to be offensive - and I'm sure there are honest atheists - I'm just pointing out that even Atheists don't always reach their conclusions because of an honest search - there are oftentimes other motivations and self-deceptions that are a package deal. Same as with those who are religious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I think you'll find that this works the other way as well. People don't often leave Christianity for Islam, not because Islam is not persuasive, but because they were indoctrinated. Same with Atheists. It's not a disproof to whether or not something is compelling evidence to one who intellectually honest.
You would still have more people being compelled from a non-religious upbringing into Judaism than you would have religious jews dropping out of the faith because they just don't find it credible.
You would also not see Judaism bottoming out on lists of religious growth by percentage, and there's few way to explain that in lieu of abandoning the 'persuasiveness' argument unless you want to confront the idea that other sects like the Bahá'í Faith seem to be at least four times as persuasive per active practicing member, and what that would mean for the implications of 'validity' for a given religion.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Not true. We're focusing on motivations. People do things because of desire. Honesty is just not all that high up on the motivation list. Pleasure, meaning, those are pretty high up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Have we identified your calling? Will you be the undercover Rabbi or Imam who Pastwatchedly alters Judaism and Islam for the peace of all mankind?
Ha. No, I'm actually semi-confident that both religions will be forced to work out their own problems and ignoble tendencies over time. And with each there will be a small subset that desires to keep these ignoble tendencies, but who will become irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Not true. We're focusing on motivations. People do things because of desire. Honesty is just not all that high up on the motivation list. Pleasure, meaning, those are pretty high up.
that leaves it in the same position. If judaism were actually more persuasive than other religions by people who are 'intellectually honest' about faith, you would have more people joining it relative to its current exposure, and you would see the highest levels of induction from intelligent people who grew up in secular surroundings and good education.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, the majority of ba'alei teshuva (Jews who grew up non-religious but became Orthodox Jews as adults) ARE "intelligent people who grew up in secular surroundings and good education".
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Again, I don't mean to be offensive - and I'm sure there are honest atheists - I'm just pointing out that even Atheists don't always reach their conclusions because of an honest search - there are oftentimes other motivations and self-deceptions that are a package deal. Same as with those who are religious.
Pretty much any significant change in world view (which religion is part of) comes about because some series of events has led a person to find that their current world view isn't working for them. I don't understand how that is dishonest. In the example with your gay friend, an alternate explanation to his loss of religion could be that he genuinely felt there was nothing wrong with his being gay and that countered with his faith. This prompted a search for truth in which he came to the conclusion that his faith was wrong. I could see how it's possible that he still truly believed in his faith and just deceived himself in to thinking otherwise, but that strikes me as less likely and a bit of a presumptuous conclusion.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Samp - I meet people all the time, like Rivka described, who grew up in secular culture with a good education who become Orthodox. I'm currently involved in discussions with a woman who identifies herself as a Noahide and is looking to convert. Also a very smart woman.
Amanecer - yes, that is an alternate explanation. BUt take what you said - "a series of events has led a person to find that their current world view isn't working for them." - I mean, there's LOADS of room for dishonesty in that perspective. Is it not working for them because they can't fulfill all the desires they want to fulfill? Is it not working for them because it is irrational? Or is it entirely logical but demands a higher amount of effort than one is willing to give?
No one makes that choice - we don't say - I didn't do well in school because it demands a higher amount of effort than what I was willing to give - we say we weren't smart enough, or that it was stupid, or that we didn't try becaue it wasn't worth it because we had other things going for us. Humans have the fundamental attribution error, and tons of other biases that make it really difficult to be honest about our life decisions and especially about the fundamental core choices that are at the center of our identities. Those are the ones you are willing to be honest about the least.
If you prove to a man of faith that their religion is wrong you've practically UNDONE him. And when you introduce God to an atheist, same deal.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Is it not working for them because they can't fulfill all the desires they want to fulfill? Is it not working for them because it is irrational? Or is it entirely logical but demands a higher amount of effort than one is willing to give?
I'd say it is not working for them because they have two or more competing views that they hold to be true but that are incompatible. People don't change their core beliefs out of laziness- such a change in itself is an incredible amount of mental effort as you yourself admit to.
It's not comparable to not trying your hardest at school because generally speaking people that don't do well at school because they're not trying do not highly value doing well in school.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: ... I have met many atheists and none were raised that way.
*offers hand* Glad to meet you
Edit to add: Being a bit glib, being raised non-religious is perhaps a better description
[ August 23, 2010, 03:48 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Actually, the majority of ba'alei teshuva (Jews who grew up non-religious but became Orthodox Jews as adults) ARE "intelligent people who grew up in secular surroundings and good education".
Do we have anything we can cite that shows us this is true?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Do we have anything we can cite that shows us this is true?
Strange that you would ask for this, Samprimary, when you did not offer it yourself in the statement responded to.
What a ridiculous, transparent double-standard.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Actually, the majority of ba'alei teshuva (Jews who grew up non-religious but became Orthodox Jews as adults) ARE "intelligent people who grew up in secular surroundings and good education".
Do we have anything we can cite that shows us this is true?
There are studies. None online (that I know of), and all conducted by groups I expect you'd accuse of bias.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Do we have anything we can cite that shows us this is true?
Strange that you would ask for this, Samprimary, when you did not offer it yourself in the statement responded to.
What a ridiculous, transparent double-standard.
There's no double standard at play here at all. Anyone is welcome at any time to ask if I would have anything to contribute data-wise or source-wise if they're not sure that what I'm saying is true. And if, conversely, I'm curious as to whether or not there's data that can be presented that could easily change my perspective on matters like this, jumping to calling this act a 'double standard' is premature.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There's no double standard at play here at all. Anyone is welcome at any time to ask if I would have anything to contribute data-wise or source-wise if they're not sure that what I'm saying is true. And if, conversely, I'm curious as to whether or not there's data that can be presented that could easily change my perspective on matters like this, jumping to calling this act a 'double standard' is premature.
Sure there is. You responded to a statement about a group by asking for some citation, and in support of your response offered up a completely uncited observation of your own. That seems pretty double-standardy to me, but I suppose you could have some data you haven't shared yet that would support your claim the way you asked rivka to support hers, in which case now would be an excellent time to provide it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Hm. BB - you're right about the fact that God was known to others before the mass revelation. I meant that the mass revelation is the source for Judaism's truth in 2010 (and the foundation for other religions to base their truth on as well).
Let me ask you a different question. I'm not Mormon. I have natural phenomena and the wealth of human experience to look at to draw my conclusions to determine whether or not to believe in God, and which religion to belong to. Every religion has its position on the past - what is compelling about Mormonism as opposed to Islam, Judaism, or Christianity?
So how do you feel about this mass revelation in light of all these previous prophets? Do you feel Abraham for example was not ready to accept the law so God waited until Moses? Why was this law given in the first place?
What is compelling about Mormonism's take on the past as opposed to other religions? Well for one it recognizes that God really was busy in many parts of the world. We have a records of people stemming back to the Tower of Babel, as well as just prior to the Babylonian captivity, who knew God, and wrote down their histories. Their histories present facts about God's work that other books do not cover.
Mormonism accepts that there are almost certainly other records that God has not revealed to us yet that will describe still other societies (such as the lost 10 tribes) where God had dealings with them. There are not many religions that discuss a God who really is God of the whole world but isn't isolated to just one geographic location in terms of his direct influence.
Most important of all at least to me, is it's true. The things it describes really happened, and a person who believes that must undertake certain obligations a person who does not believe does. But at this point I'd rather not continue at least in this vein as I feel I'm proselyting and I have agreed not to on this board, but I'm happy to go into more detail on email.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:*offers hand* Glad to meet you
*shakes extended hand*
I'll correct my statement to "few were raised that way".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Most important of all at least to me, is it's true. The things it describes really happened...
Hee. "My made-up historical events are realer than your made-up historical events!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There are also a lot of Atheists who don't have that kind of baggage, but some of the circumstances that influence could have to do with the elitism many atheists can claim for shedding the "silliness" of religion.
I just want to note something.
The "silliness" of religion has nothing to do with atheist baggage. It has everything to do with the fact that religion is silly. I don't think it's possible for anyone to be honest with themselves about their religion and not acknowledge that, yes, their religion is full of all kinds of silliness; the only thing that makes it seem serious is that they believe it to be true, in the same way that silly things sometimes happen in real life but nonetheless happened.
Religious doctrine is often -- arguably mostly -- ridiculous. If you happen to believe that doctrine, you generally rationalize away the ridiculousness of your own beliefs but often maintain an awareness of the ridiculousness of other religions' beliefs. If you, like an atheist, believe no such doctrines, you simply have no reason not to acknowledge the universal silliness of religion; there is no layer of "yes, it doesn't make sense, but I know it's true" that protects the doctrine from your evaluation.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Tom, it's a game of perspective. I believe my religion looks silly, but silliness is oftena feeling only experienced by a foreigner. The rituals of my religion, the commandments and precepts are all rational and are vessels for utter depth and meaning.
I'm not making an argument that my religion is true because it's meaningful, but humanity has the ability to imbue almost any activity with meaning. Saying that a religion is silly and only rationalizations make it meaningful is to approach the very concept of human meaning with a cynical and inaccurate perspective.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Hee.
Haa?
Or am I playing your game wrong?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
BB - We should continue this in email, since I am genuinely interested.
As for the perspective on the prophets before mass revelation - again mass revelation isn't the source of prophecy - it's the reason why any of us standing here today should believe anything that is written in the Bible. Just because something is written doesn't mean it's true. Just because your book has more details or a more comprehensive history doesn't mean I should pay any attention to it or believe the words inside it. The mass revelation that exists in the Bible and the knowledge of people in every generation back to that original mass revelation makes it a compelling argument that the events in the Bible were true - how else could someone have convinced an entire nation that they or their ancestors had heard prophecy from God? The Bible itself makes that point - that God spoke to the people directly so that they would be aware and fear God, and so that they would believe the prophecy of Moses.
Although I don't think Christianity and Islam are successful, they both try to continue the valid chain of prophecy that stems from Judaism. They use Judaism as the origin. What does Mormonism use, if not the Torah, and why is it compelling that it is true, other than it is a comprehensive story?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Saying that a religion is silly and only rationalizations make it meaningful is to approach the very concept of human meaning with a cynical and inaccurate perspective.
Why? Grant me for a moment that your silly rituals are in fact without a basis in intrinsic truth, and that God does not exist to imbue them with purpose. What meaning is built into them that is not provided by the rationalizations for them?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
None. All meanings are provided by rationalizations for them. Humans have that ability.
Family is meaningful because we make it so. A sunrise is meaningful because me make it so. We have to STOP to smell the flowers because if we didn't we wouldn't take the effort to make it meaningful. Marriage is only meaningful because me make it so. Nationalism, cultural identity, etc.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All meanings are provided by rationalizations for them.
Well, okay. Then what's your objection? Are you seriously suggesting that it's not silly simply because some people have chosen to take it seriously?
If someone actually established a Ministry of Silly Walks, would the walks become less silly as a consequence?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: that leaves it in the same position. If judaism were actually more persuasive than other religions by people who are 'intellectually honest' about faith, you would have more people joining it relative to its current exposure, and you would see the highest levels of induction from intelligent people who grew up in secular surroundings and good education.
We discourage converts. And we don't believe that you have to be Jewish in order to be good with God.
And as far as "intelligent people who grew up in secular surroundings and good education", I grew up in a secular household, being told, "As long as you don't hurt anyone, you can do anything you want." I have a double major in Economics and Jewish/Near East Studies from Washington University in St. Louis. I had a B average (3.027, IIRC), but I never took notes, and never studied other than during the 6-12 hours prior to an exam, rarely did homework, and was generally very lazy. I did, however, play a lot of video games and read a lot of science fiction.
The house I'm living in right now, we bought from a Yale alum (a Syrian who is descended from Mohammed's great-grandfather Hashim). He's a convert to Judaism, and he and his wife and 6 or so children are extremely religious Jews.
Never assume.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So how do you feel about this mass revelation in light of all these previous prophets? Do you feel Abraham for example was not ready to accept the law so God waited until Moses? Why was this law given in the first place?
We believe that Abraham discovered God on his own via the watchmaker's proof. And that it was only subsequent to that that he learned from Shem and Eber, who had the tradition of a great deal of knowledge passed down from Adam. But the Torah wasn't meant to be given to a single person. It was meant to be given to a nation. As a nation. In fact, it made us a nation. Prior to that, there was no such thing as being "born Jewish" (I'm using the word "Jewish" anachronistically, of course). Abraham made his own choice. Isaac choose to follow him in this, but Ishmael chose otherwise. Jacob chose to follow Isaac and Abraham, but Esau chose otherwise. It wasn't until Sinai that the reality of being born into this connection came into being.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Samp is correct. Faith is stupid. Why would anyone chose to believe something just because they choose to believe it? I mean, it makes them happy - but as long as it makes other ppl sad, then why not chose to believe in something that makes everyone happy?
Leaps of faith and all that is nonsense, in my opinion.
Of course, one can choose to believe good things.
As far as I am concerned, there is no evidence possible that can prove or disprove God. All of it is subject to interpretation and can lead us one way or another. Plenty of people have seen the same evidence as you and reached different conclusions. You choose what you believe whether you admit it or not.
Nor would I base my faith on something as changeable as feelings.
I am therefore responsible for my faith. If I believe something that harms other people, I am responsible for that.
As to your question about scripture and the Christian understanding of Deuteronomy. Many Christians believe that scripture - old and new - is the inspired record of people and their relationship with God and that it contains truth. That does not meant that they always got it right or that they got the whole truth.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Never assume.
The personal peacocking and anecdote is exactly that, so it's not worth much. I'd be very interested to see if, by and large, the converts to judaism fit a demonstratable pattern that deviates from what I would expect.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That seems pretty double-standardy to me, but I suppose you could have some data you haven't shared yet that would support your claim the way you asked rivka to support hers, in which case now would be an excellent time to provide it.
Rivka brings up an entirely localized subset: Secular jews converting to orthodox judiasm, as opposed to all converts in sum. So since I don't know about that (and there's a host of guessable sociocultural pressures and relationship-based requests for people born jewish to be observant), I ask about that.
Apparently, there's nothing on that subject that can be cited, so there's little else to be said? And this is a double standard now.
interesting. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Asking about it is fine, Samprimary. That's not what I was taking issue with.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Asking about it is fine, Samprimary. That's not what I was taking issue with.
I know what you're taking issue with. I'm contrasting it with what actually happened on my part and how it's not a double standard.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The data here is too broad to draw any conclusions about specific religions, but I still think it can be mildly interesting. Looks like the biggest factor is race/ethnicity.
quote:Who Changes Affiliation? The most significant demographic differences in rates of affiliation change are found among the different racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. For example, about a third (35%) of Latinos and a similar number of Asians (37%) report having changed their religious affiliation from that in which they were raised. These rates are significantly lower than those seen for both blacks (42%) and whites (45%).
Though the rates of change in affiliation among the different age groups are fairly comparable, there are interesting generational differences in the types of affiliation changes people undergo. Among people age 70 and older, for instance, more than half of people who have changed affiliation have switched affiliation from one family to another within a religious tradition (e.g., from one Protestant denominational family to another). Among those under age 30, by contrast, roughly three-quarters of those who have changed affiliation left one religious tradition for another (e.g., left Protestantism for Catholicism) or for no religion at all.
With respect to other demographic characteristics, the Landscape Survey reveals few major demographic differences in the rates of religious change. For instance, men are only slightly more likely to switch affiliation than women (45% vs. 42%). Similarly, there are few differences among adults with different educational backgrounds. Americans with a high school education or less are only somewhat less likely to have switched affiliation from the religion in which they were raised (41%) than people with at least some college education, college graduates and people with a post-graduate education (46%, 45% and 47%, respectively).
You can calculate your odds of converting based on gender, age, immigration status, and parental religion Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Rivka brings up an entirely localized subset: Secular jews converting to orthodox judiasm, as opposed to all converts in sum.
1) It's not conversion if they were born Jewish. Not according to the way Judaism uses the term, anyway. 2) Remember that being born Jewish may or may not mean that a given individual has any connection (cultural, social, religious, or other) with Orthodox Judaism. Many have none, especially in the City of Angels. 3) It certainly is a localized subset. I think I was pretty clear on that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That seems pretty double-standardy to me, but I suppose you could have some data you haven't shared yet that would support your claim the way you asked rivka to support hers, in which case now would be an excellent time to provide it.
Rivka brings up an entirely localized subset: Secular jews converting to orthodox judiasm, as opposed to all converts in sum. So since I don't know about that (and there's a host of guessable sociocultural pressures and relationship-based requests for people born jewish to be observant), I ask about that.
There is very strong sociocultural pressure on non-Orthodox Jews not to become Orthodox (it isn't converting, incidentally). It's a common sentiment among Reform Jews that they'd rather their kids join a cult than become Orthodox.
I have a friend who converted to Judaism. She was raised Catholic, and she came up with a list of questions she gave to the priest. She received exactly zero logical answers. She's a chemist.
I'm sure there are unintelligent people who convert to Judaism. For all I know, I may have met one, too. But people don't generally identify as converts after they've converted, so it's hard for me to say. And it's also hard to see how there could be studies like the ones you're asking for.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Rivka brings up an entirely localized subset: Secular jews converting to orthodox judiasm, as opposed to all converts in sum.
1) It's not conversion if they were born Jewish. Not according to the way Judaism uses the term, anyway.
I know. I'm not using the specifically Jewish definition.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I know what you're taking issue with. I'm contrasting it with what actually happened on my part and how it's not a double standard.
Your contrast smacks of cop-out, though. You asked for citation on a subject on which you couldn't offer any, but then expressed skepticism based on your own statement that was also without citation. Maybe I need to check the encyclopedia again, but that seems a straightforward example of a double-standard to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There is more than one purpose to asking for citation. It doesn't always mean "I don't believe you, I dare you to back yourself up" In this case, I'd be curious to know if there's data I can look at to fill in more actual data about what demographics fill in religious jewish populations from formerly nonreligious jewish populations. Which, while not exactly what I'm talking about, would be fun to know.
That I did not provide data on other postulations prior to this doesn't make me doing what you think I'm doing. Sorry if I come off that way.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(Assuming your numbers, 5 billion-odd non-Muslims and 5 billion-odd non-Christians, whatever)