As part of theology I focussed a lot of my study on the 'texts of terror': the parts of scriptures that are explicitly and violently sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. There's plenty, and a number even worse than the one above. Holy scriptures shouldn't be treated like glorious unquestioning celebrations of a culture, but a harsh and painful witness.
I'm not saying that people do, but any genuine interaction with these texts has to involve rage and grief as well as praise.
This looks like an appeal to emotion, rather than logic, to me. But then I'm not sure any of this stuff actually happened as recorded; there's no clear evidence of the Exodus happening as the Torah claims it did
( ... )
There's a discussion of the emotion/logic issue in the replies to that comment. Grognor writes "Attempting to incite emotional/moral outrage is a valid form of argument. What is this "emotion is not logical" bullshit?". I'd say "can be valid" rather than "is valid", but I think it's valid here.
Yes, happily none of this really happened, though as Pinker observes it's probably representative of the violence of the time it is set. (If you haven't read The Better Angels of Our Nature, I very strongly recommend it btw
( ... )
There was a study done a while back that demonstrated how this works. Two groups of Israeli schoolkids were told the story of the siege of Jericho - where God commands the Israelites to kill every person and animal within the walls. One group was told it as it is in the Bible; the other group was told the same story but with the protagonist changed to 'a Chinese general'. They were then asked whether they thought the actions described were morally right.
The results were predictably depressing. The children told the Biblical version came up with all sorts of reasons to justify the Israelites' actions. The ones told the modified version almost universally declared that the massacre was wrong.
Hmm. Rejecting a religion because bad things have happened due to it sounds a little like the sunk cost fallacy in reverse. "We should not proceed with this action because a heavy cost has already been paid for it" (this argument) vs. "we should proceed with this action because a heavy cost has already been paid for it" (classic sunk cost fallacy). In both cases, the correct question is not whether something has been good/bad in the past, but whether it will be good/bad in the future.
That's not really the point AFAICT. It's unlikely that any of these events actually occurred. The point is that a book that contains passages like this is revered as a holy book.
That's only the point if you believe the fundiest interpretation of what "holiness" or "reverence" involves. It's not even consistent *within* religions, let alone between them
( ... )
Jew here; obviously anti-genocide and not particularly religious. I just want to say that seriously, there's more than enough negative feeling towards us already. It's possible to make your point re: religions without singling us out and adding to the endless stream of anti-Judaism
( ... )
The context is a discussion between people from a Jewish background about the content of the religion. I guess I could add a remark that obviously this argument applies to anyone who believes that Numbers is a holy book, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, but I hesitate to insult the intelligence of my readers that much. If this blog was widely read I think I would worry about what sort of ideas the casual reader might carry away, but it's mostly my friends, and when strangers do stop by they seem smart enough to pick up on the content of what I'm saying here rather than carrying the sorts of impressions you fear.
I use the word "Judaism" to refer to the religion, and I am anti-Judaism, just as I am anti-Christianity and anti-Islam. I don't want people to be attacked for their racial background or their beliefs, but giving the ideas themselves a free pass from being attacked can't be the right way to achieve that.
You're never going to have to deal with the consequences of promoting what is akin to blood libel, are you? So I'm sure you'll keep thinking there can be nothing problematic in this post because everyone who reads it is intelligent enough not to register - even unconsciously - the stuff about Jewish soldiers joyfully murdering innocent people, and anyone who worries is just failing to get the point. I don't appreciate your insinuation that everyone else who isn't bothered by this is just more intelligent than I am; being worried about yet more attacks on Jews as general attitudes towards us become openly more hostile is not an unreasonable response. I'm not basing my response on nebulous emotional or abstract intellectual ideas, I'm basing it on real-life consequences to me, my family and friends, and Jews all over the place who are at increased risk these days
( ... )
This is getting pretty long, so I may need to disengage soon, but let me answer a few specific points. First, I absolutely don't say you're unintelligent. I'm talking about the hypothetical reader you discuss, the "most people" who "wouldn't look past the initial...". You're worried about the effect this passage will have on other readers; it's their intelligence I'm discussing.
Since this was written by someone who I think is of Jewish background, and very highly praised by someone I know who definitely is, it is shall we say not clear that my position would be different if the same were true of me. I think it's pretty low of you to imply that, and is one reason I'm disinclined to argue much further.
Some of what you ask, the "why attack religion at all" questions, are fairly general atheism 101 questions. If you'd actually like to know the answers to those questions I recommend the great Greta Christina; I know her through her blog posts but she's just published a book that seems to be targeted at exactly what you're asking,
( ... )
Comments 36
I'm not saying that people do, but any genuine interaction with these texts has to involve rage and grief as well as praise.
Reply
Reply
Yes, happily none of this really happened, though as Pinker observes it's probably representative of the violence of the time it is set. (If you haven't read The Better Angels of Our Nature, I very strongly recommend it btw ( ... )
Reply
The results were predictably depressing. The children told the Biblical version came up with all sorts of reasons to justify the Israelites' actions. The ones told the modified version almost universally declared that the massacre was wrong.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I use the word "Judaism" to refer to the religion, and I am anti-Judaism, just as I am anti-Christianity and anti-Islam. I don't want people to be attacked for their racial background or their beliefs, but giving the ideas themselves a free pass from being attacked can't be the right way to achieve that.
Reply
Reply
Since this was written by someone who I think is of Jewish background, and very highly praised by someone I know who definitely is, it is shall we say not clear that my position would be different if the same were true of me. I think it's pretty low of you to imply that, and is one reason I'm disinclined to argue much further.
Some of what you ask, the "why attack religion at all" questions, are fairly general atheism 101 questions. If you'd actually like to know the answers to those questions I recommend the great Greta Christina; I know her through her blog posts but she's just published a book that seems to be targeted at exactly what you're asking, ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment