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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
