Gray Posted July 6, 2018 Posted July 6, 2018 On 7/5/2018 at 3:32 PM, Robert F. Smith said: I assumed that you knew that early Christianity was a Jewish sect. Am I mistaken? Of course. But the earliest teachings of the Jesus movement have little to do with Mormon theology. Or mainstream Christian theology. That is precisely because Jesus was so thoroughly Jewish. The next few decades of Christian develop don't line up well with Mormon theology either. On 7/5/2018 at 3:32 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Atheism is a belief system based on faith. Research shows that atheists tend to be closed-minded, which is the opposite of the claims they make for themselves. It has nothing to do with scholarship. Yes, but what does that have to do with critical scholarship? On 7/5/2018 at 3:32 PM, Robert F. Smith said: The notion of the supernatural is only part of Mormon folklore, and has nothing to do with normative Mormon theology. Few Mormons realize that. It's certainly not consonant with the fundamentals of Mormonism. But who drives normative Mormon theology, if not its modern leaders? Has Mormon naturalism become an outdated form of Mormon fundamentalism? (I say that as a naturalist). Maybe a topic for another thread. On 7/5/2018 at 3:32 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Yes, faith is a subjective matter and is non-transferrable, and non-verifiable and non-falsifiable as a scientific matter. The content of faith itself may be that an objective reality exists, but proving it by secular means may not be possible. So, there is no means by which one can verify or falsify a subjective cosmic experience. One can only describe it. Does the Holy Spirit exist? Does Mara exist? I may say "yes," and Lord Siddhartha may say "yes," even though Mara is only illusion. So, our illusions may be deeply meaningful to us, but possess no objective reality. Others claim that they have objective existence. Neither claim can be proved. Inferred perhaps, but not proved. Indeed.
clarkgoble Posted July 6, 2018 Posted July 6, 2018 43 minutes ago, Gray said: That's a really thin connection. That holds true for any number of Axial age theologies, including Greek theology. There is no equivalence in Christianity with ritual impurity. The closest modern analog I can think of is cooties. Well yes. Exactly. And the point being Nephi came out of that Axial age. So I'm not sure why you think that thin. We'd expect the Judaism from before the reforms and centralization to be more like those typical axial age theologies including especially Canaanite. (Recall that most scholars see Judaism developing out of Canaanite religion) As for ritual impurity, if you're talking of the period of Christianity when there were few Jews of course you're correct. If you're talking early Christianity when most were Jews of course you're wrong. The controversy with Peter over gentiles is entirely tied to ritual purity. Again I think most scholars see sin as a concept developing partially out of ritual impurity combined with the unique Hellenistic elements that Augustine made use of a few centuries later. 52 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, atonement is reconciliation. But it's not reconciliation through suffering of an innocent victim, as the Christians came to believe. At least it's not in Jewish thought. You're trying to smuggle in Christian concepts into Judaism under the cover of some shared terminology. Except that we see exactly that among the Canaanites. So it's not exactly that speculative to suggest this was removed from Judaism (which even according to the Bible was syncretic at times) by Deuteronomists and Priestly reformers. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 10 hours ago, Gray said: Of course. But the earliest teachings of the Jesus movement have little to do with Mormon theology. Or mainstream Christian theology. That is precisely because Jesus was so thoroughly Jewish. The next few decades of Christian develop don't line up well with Mormon theology either. You are not only misinformed about early Jewish Christianity (the primitive church), but likewise about Mormon theology. In such case, it is impossible for you to make a legitimate comparison. 10 hours ago, Gray said: Yes, but what does that have to do with critical scholarship? Depends on whether you have any inkling of what scholarship is. I hope that you are not confusing ends with means. You seem to prefer the former. 10 hours ago, Gray said: It's certainly not consonant with the fundamentals of Mormonism. But who drives normative Mormon theology, if not its modern leaders? Has Mormon naturalism become an outdated form of Mormon fundamentalism? (I say that as a naturalist). Maybe a topic for another thread........................ Perhaps you believe that Mormon leaders are trained theologians, and that you also believe that to have been true of Jesus and the Twelve. It is so easy to confuse folklore and traditional outward appearances with the Grundlage, and you will continue to be confused until you engage with some scholarly sources on the subject.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 11 hours ago, Gray said: .............................................Yes, atonement is reconciliation. But it's not reconciliation through suffering of an innocent victim, as the Christians came to believe. At least it's not in Jewish thought. You're trying to smuggle in Christian concepts into Judaism under the cover of some shared terminology. You are quite wrong. You might want to spend some time in the deep study of Judaism, and read Jewish commentaries on the New Testament. A good place to start would be with Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd ed. (Oxford Univ Press, 2017).
cacheman Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 On 7/5/2018 at 3:32 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Research shows that atheists tend to be closed-minded, which is the opposite of the claims they make for themselves. Hi Robert, Could you please provide a citation or link for this research? Thanks! cacheman
Nevo Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You might want to spend some time in the deep study of Judaism, and read Jewish commentaries on the New Testament. A good place to start would be with Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd ed. (Oxford Univ Press, 2017). This is a good resource. Marc Zvi Brettler's essay, "The New Testament Between the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and Rabbinic Literature," notes that "there is much in the New Testament that is not anticipated in the Tanakh, such as the core idea of a divine messiah who brings redemption by dying for Israel's sins." He continues: Quote Some of these ideas exist separately in the Hebrew Bible—a messiah (though that term is never used there of the future ideal Davidic king), a future ideal king who has some supernatural or at least hyperbolically described characteristics (see Isa. 11.1–5), though he is never called divine, and a suffering servant (see esp. Isa. 53), though the identity of this servant is very unclear, and it is uncertain if the Hebrew Bible intends an individual or a group, and if this servant lives in the past, present, or future. Thus, some of what is new in the New Testament reflects a bringing together of separate ideas found in the Tanakh. Some of the New Testament themes draw not directly upon the Tanakh but upon Hellenistic Jewish literature. For example, the concept of the martyr, put to death by the state, whose sacrifice has salvific meaning for fellow Jews, begins to be developed in the apocryphal book 2 Maccabees. . . . The shift of Satan from a member of the heavenly court to a personification of evil likewise develops in this milieu. In Lee Levine's essay, "The Synagogue," he notes that "synagogues in Judea are first attested in the first century BCE, and in one case (Modi'in) perhaps as early as the second century" (compare 2 Nephi 26:26). In her essay, "Afterlife and Resurrection," Martha Himmelfarb observes that "most of the writings that eventually became part of the Tanakh say nothing about reward and punishment after death. Rather, they envision the dead, righteous and wicked together, enduring a shadowy existence in Sheol, an inhospitable place often described as a miry pit . . . . The blessings and curses that attach to Israel's covenant with God play a central role in the Torah and prophetic writings, but they are typically experienced collectively by the people of Israel as a group, and they take place in this world. The only strand of the Tanakh to emphasize the reward and punishment of the individual is Wisdom literature, but these texts locate rewards and punishments in this life" (compare 2 Nephi 9:15–18). Himmelfarb notes that the first Jewish text to describe a final judgment and reward and punishment after death is the Book of the Watchers, which is dated to the end of the third century BCE. From there, she traces the idea through the second-century BCE books of Daniel (ch. 12) and 2 Maccabees (ch. 7) to the New Testament and beyond. Edited July 7, 2018 by Nevo 2
mfbukowski Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 8 hours ago, cacheman said: Hi Robert, Could you please provide a citation or link for this research? Thanks! cacheman I don't need if research is necessary to show that living one's life in the pursuit of that statement "X does not exist" makes one NOT open minded to the possibility that X does in fact exist, which shows me at least that one is a priori not "open minded" to at least that possibility. Pretty dang clear to me. But there have been studies showing that- all debatable as usual- what isn't? Oh I know- the statement "God doesn't exist" is not debatable! Oh silly me! I forgot to be close minded. 😣
Robert F. Smith Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 3 hours ago, Nevo said: ......... Martha Himmelfarb observes that "most of the writings that eventually became part of the Tanakh say nothing about reward and punishment after death. Rather, they envision the dead, righteous and wicked together, enduring a shadowy existence in Sheol, an inhospitable place often described as a miry pit . . . . ...............The only strand of the Tanakh to emphasize the reward and punishment of the individual is Wisdom literature, but these texts locate rewards and punishments in this life" ............ Himmelfarb notes that the first Jewish text to describe a final judgment and reward and punishment after death is the Book of the Watchers, which is dated to the end of the third century BCE. From there, she traces the idea through the second-century BCE books of Daniel (ch. 12) and 2 Maccabees (ch. 7) to the New Testament and beyond. Himmelfarb is correct to a point here, but ignores much else: 1 Samuel 2:6 “The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.” Job 19:25-26 :”For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:” Ezekiel 37:1-14 Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones, taken as attestation that the dead would rise at the End of Days. Daniel 12:3 "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” Jewish scholar Julia Blum has explored the "Hidden Savior" pattern at Qumran, and has found much which matches Jesus Christ -- Blum, “Who Was Melchizedek? (3),” Israel Institute of Biblical Studies, Sept 14, 2017, online at https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/jewish-studies/who-was-melchizedek-3/ . Aside from that, Josephus discusses the controversy over the afterlife in the Judaism of his day. Yet all of that and much more was presaged at Ugarit, and in Canaanite religion generally, in the second millennium BC. Nearly everything we are familiar with in Israelite religion was already being practiced in Canaan (see Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit, 2nd ed., trans. W. Watson [Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014]), and before that in Mesopotamia. In Mesopotamian and Israelite religion generally, note the following:: (1) Hittite nakuššiš “scapegoat, substitute,” which was borrowed from Hurrian, and which reflects the Hurrian itkalzi purification ritual and azazhum scapegoat/cathartic sacrifice – used like Hebrew ʻAz’azel, to assuage the "anger of the god," (2) cathartic bird sacrifice, (3) the rules of redemption in levirate marriage, (4) requirement of surrogacy in case of a barren wife, (5) "the right of daughters to share in the father's estate" (6) remission of debt (Hurrian use of durarum [Sumerian AMARGI, Akkadian andurarum] = Hebrew dror "release from servitude, amnesty, liberty," typically granted at a Jubilee), More later. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, cacheman said: ............................Could you please provide a citation or link for this research? Thanks! .......... Greg Wilford, “Atheists are less open-minded than religious people, study claims,” Independent, Jul 2, 2017, online at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-agnostic-religion-close-minded-tolerant-catholics-uk-france-spain-study-belgium-catholic-a7819221.html . Quote Religious people are more tolerant of different viewpoints than atheists, according to researchers at a Catholic university. A study of 788 people in the UK, France and Spain concluded that atheists and agnostics think of themselves as more open-minded than those with faith, but are are actually less tolerant to differing opinions and ideas. This jibes with research showing that well-educated LDS members are more faithful and less likely to apostatize than the poorly educated members. Edited July 7, 2018 by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Nevo said: ..................... Three Days & Three Nights Gregorio del Olmo Lete says that strongly Hurrian “KTU 1.111 belongs to the corpus of mlk-mythology,”18 i.e., ritual and myth are united to explain that the king’s divinization “was celebrated for three days and three nights (the end of the lunar month) by means of burnt sacrifices and communion sacrifices,”19 but also with a sacred marriage rite and ascension.20 Del Olmo Lete takes note that these three days and three nights Quote inevitably brings to mind Christ’s “three days” in the tomb, in the Gospel. In fact, in Ugaritic mythology, the journey to and from the other world lasts three days, as is evident from KTU 1.20-22.21 Samuel Noah Kramer had already alerted us to this motif as merely one of a constellation of such parallels to Jesus Christ in Sumerian mythology (the dying-and-rising Dumuzi-Inanna cycle): a. three days & three nights in Netherworld b. thirty shekels as term of contempt c. epithets "shepherd," "anointed," and "carpenter" (Sumerian NAGGAR = Hebrew naggar) d. agony suffered; scourged and beaten e. bound and pinioned f. undressed g. vicarious substitute for all mankind h. virginity of Mother-goddess22 Seven-Day Festivals There is a seven-day festival pattern at Ugarit,25 and in Ugaritic epic.26 This matches the seven-day festival pattern at Emar in north Syria,27 not to mention of the Israelites. Also at Ugarit, there are seven rpʼum kings, seven sacrifices, and seven greetings,28 in addition to seven star-gods (ilm kbkbm), and seven Baˁals (below). Indeed, one should note that both Baˁal-Hadad and YHWH arrive in a great thunderstorm, with seven thunders or seven lightnings (Ps 29:3-9; KTU 1.101.3-4 = Ugaritica V.3.3-4).29 Calendar at Ugarit30 1. rʼiš yn, raʼšu yêni “First Wine” (Akkadian rêš karāni / yāni) (KTU 1.41, 1.87) – time of Great New Year festival and Great Atonement liturgy in autumn (Sept/Oct), and KTU 1.41 even “mentions (lines 50ff.) a ritual reminiscent of Hebrew sukkôt.”31 (Old Israelite ’tnm) Canaanite Feast of Tents “On the thirteenth (day) the king shall wash himself (becoming) purified” btlt ˁšrt.yrtḥș.mlk. br[r] (KTU 1.41:3 1.87:54-55 in the month of šaʼiya), in preparation for the Offering of Firstfruits (r’iš. ʼargmn), etc., on the 14th of First Wine.32 Then, “on the roof on which there will be four huts of branches at each side” (KTU 1.41:51 1.87), for which del Olmo Lete observes that Quote the initial location of the rite bgg (“the roof”) is surprising, a “sacred” place where the eight “huts (made) of branches”, “cabins” or “shacks” are set up. This ritual requirement is surprising, both for the number, the “ogdoad”, . . and for the cultic installation, which inevitably brings to mind the “huts” (sukkôt) also installed on the “roof” during the Hebrew New Year Festival, which occurs precisely on the new moon of the first month at the end of the grape harvest.”33 At the close of this Feast of Tents, Quote at sunset the king shall remain desacralized and, being splendidly robed and with a clean face, they shall enthrone him in the palace and, once there, he shall raise his hands to heaven,34 which is an act of intercession and invocation, and is “always . . . made from profane space and time in contrast to the act of sacrifice.”35 Thus, this ritual implies Quote that the king intervenes at some stage “stripped” of his royal robes and with his face “stained” or “disfigured” , in a context of religious symbolism reminiscent both of the Hebrew feast of sukkôt already mentioned and of the Mesopotamian ceremony of bît rimki and the frequent occurrence of ritual “huts” in that liturgy. One could even see here an echo of the “New Year” ritual, which features the “suffering king” re-instated, as staged in the late akītu-festival.36 A Canaanite Yôm Kippûr “(And?) the king shall sit, purified (and there will be) atonement (?) . . . and proclamation of the (feast) day” ytb.brr.wmḥ[y ]x wq[rā] (KTU 1.41:7 1.87), with which del Olmo Lete compares “The great atonement ritual KTU 1.40 may belong to this context as a sort of Canaanite yôm (hak)kippûr,”37 in that “’he atones’ for the community and ‘proclaims’ the festival.”38 In his lengthy discussion of KTU 1.84, del Olmo Lete defines it Quote as a “liturgy of national atonement”, a sort of Canaanite yôm kippûr in which the “list” of every possible sin by the people—residents, citizens and sovereigns—is combined with the proposal for and carrying out of a sacrifice.39 "The biblical parallels, in connection with the month of tišri are striking.”40 However, it “does not mention, in this context, the Hebrew ritual of the ‘scapegoat’, which bears the sins of the people (Lv 16,20ff.).”41 For that we must turn to Hittite nakuššiš “scapegoat, substitute,” which was borrowed from Hurrian,42 and which reflects the Hurrian itkalzi purification ritual and azazhum scapegoat/cathartic sacrifice – used like Hebrew ˁAz’azel, to assuage the "anger of the god."43 Rites and Ordinances Incubation rite – libation-offering, robing, and prostration (Epic of Kirta, KTU 1.17 I 11-16).44 Funeral rite – lamentation, burial, and incisions (KTU 1.19 I 38-42, II 9-15, IV 9-15).45 Banquet – “offering to the gods in the king’s house which can be understood as a cultic expression of sacrifice.”46 New Year Festival – “enthronement of the god-king . . . and the ascent to the throne of a new king.”47 Del Olmo Lete says that Quote “the cry for help of / to Šapšu”, as a prototype of resorting to magic which KTU 1.100 develops; cf. the Hebrew construction weșidqātekā yerannēnû, Ps 145,7.48 Sacrificial Banquet In commenting upon KTU 1.91 (RŠ 19.015), del Olmo Lete observes that Quote The consumption of wine has a particular cultic function and sense (marziḥu wine is drunk in honour of the patron god (in this connexion, note the presence of wine in Jewish and Christian liturgies, and in the Bacchic cult of Greece), so that ritual consumption and offering go together . . . .49 18 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 168. 19 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 161. 20 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 166,168. 21 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 172, citing K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Kevelaer, 1986), 170. 22 Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite (Bloomington: Indiana Univ., 1969), 133; cf. W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd ed. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday-Anchor, 1957), 193-194, 397-398, n81; D. W. Young, “With Snakes and Dates: A Sacred Marriage Drama at Ugarit,” UF, 9 (1977):291-314; Ezk 8:14, Tammuz = Dumuzi (= Dionysus; W. Burkert, GRBS, 7:101, n. 30); J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough, one-volume abridged ed. (Macmillan, 1922), 376-456, and A. E. P. Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity (London: Hutchinson, 1928), 67-119, provide broader discussion of later dying-and-rising god motifs-in-common with that of Jesus. 25 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., ?? 26 S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Seven Day-Unit in Ugaritic Epic Literature,” Israel Exploration Journal, 15 (1965):121-133. 27 Z. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 46, citing D. Fleming in Revue biblique, 116:13,15-19,163-164,169. 28 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 156 n67; cf. seven days of banqueting in KTU 1.22 I 22-25. 29 John Day in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, I:548-549. 30 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 19; Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt, eds., Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, HdO (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 301-302; V. E. Koffmahn, “Sind die altisraelitischen Monatsbezeichnungen,” Biblische Zeitschrift, 10/2 (July 1966):216-217. 31 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 19 n52, citing J. de Moor, New Year with Canaanites and Israelites, part 1 (Kampen, 1972); cf. KTU 1.40, 1.41, 1,87. 32 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 82. 33 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 97, citing del Olmo Lete, “Sukkôt: de Ugarit al Talmud. Pervivencia de un ritual ‘en el terrado’,” in Festschrift Pérez, 249-269 (Homenaje al professor Miguel Pérez Fernandez [Granada, 2004]). 34 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed.,98, 245 (quote), citing KTU 1.41:50-53. 35 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 245. 36 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 98-99, citing Pritchard, ANET, 331ff. 37 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 85 and n85. 38 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 91. 39 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 127. 40 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 91, citing R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 495-502, 507-510. 41 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 127 n251; “It is a sort of penitential psalm.” 42 William W. Hallo, “Leviticus and Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” in B. J. Bamberger, ed., Leviticus, The Torah: A Modern Commentary, III (N.Y.: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1979), XXVI-XXVII, citing O. R. Gurney, “Magic Rituals: The Scapegoat,” in Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (1976-1977), 47-52. 43 Wilhelm, Hurrians, 75, citing Lev 16:8-22 (Syriac ˁzz’jl), magical impurity and divine anger being equated. Wilhelm notes that the azaz-stem is a semitic loanword in Hurrian (Akkadian "to be angry"). 44 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 279. 45 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 280. 46 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 278. 47 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 277. 48 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 323 n153. 49 del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 376; a libation and toast? Edited July 8, 2018 by Robert F. Smith 2
cacheman Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I don't need if research is necessary to show that living one's life in the pursuit of that statement "X does not exist" makes one NOT open minded to the possibility that X does in fact exist, which shows me at least that one is a priori not "open minded" to at least that possibility. Pretty dang clear to me. But there have been studies showing that- all debatable as usual- what isn't? Oh I know- the statement "God doesn't exist" is not debatable! Oh silly me! I forgot to be close minded. 😣 I'm not an athiest, but I'm not sure that your characterization in your first paragraph describes many (most?) athiests. For example....in the study that Robert referenced, the Christian population was the most dogmatic on the existence of God issue. I think I many of us, regardless of our religious beliefs are close-minded in various degrees, each in our own way.
mfbukowski Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 (edited) 57 minutes ago, cacheman said: I'm not an athiest, but I'm not sure that your characterization in your first paragraph describes many (most?) athiests. For example....in the study that Robert referenced, the Christian population was the most dogmatic on the existence of God issue. I think I many of us, regardless of our religious beliefs are close-minded in various degrees, each in our own way. Sorry I did not know there was a true and objective scale for "dogmatic". And the point was that what DEFINES an atheist is that it is a certainty that God does NOT exist. I don't know how you can get more dogmatic than absolute belief in anything. But I have not read the study- so perhaps I should not comment Edited July 7, 2018 by mfbukowski
cacheman Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Greg Wilford, “Atheists are less open-minded than religious people, study claims,” Independent, Jul 2, 2017, online at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-agnostic-religion-close-minded-tolerant-catholics-uk-france-spain-study-belgium-catholic-a7819221.html . If you get a chance, you should read the research paper. The authors measured 3 things. 1. Dogmatism: This measure is meant to show "openness to the possibility of reassessing and changing their opinions" . The Christian group in this study was the most dogmatic....ie. less open to the possibility of reassessing and changing opinions compared to atheists and agnostics. 2. Intolerance of contradictions: "difficulty in accepting the seemingly contradictory findings as equally true". Participants were given two contradictory statements and asked to rate them based on their validity. Athiests and agnostics were a little more likely to privilege one statement over the other. 3. 'Myside bias': Participants were given these 3 opinion statements and asked to rate their agreement, (1) “Child adoption by homosexual couples is a positive advance for society”; (2) “The meaning of life is something entirely personal”; and (3) “In a house, rooms must be painted with light colors”. Then they were asked to generate arguments in support of and against the opinion, and then report how convincing their arguments were. The atheists and agnostics were a little more confident of the arguments supporting their opinions. That's it. It would have been interesting to see how a highly religious population would score (Their Christian group was on average moderately religious and liberal). Also, it would have been nice to see how they specifically define 'close-mindedness'. For example, they appear to be saying that the integration of contradictory statements demonstrates open mindedness.... But is that necessarily a positive thing? This study is interesting, but I'm not sure it justifies your claims of atheists being 'very close-minded'.... at least any more than other groups. Like I said to MB, everyone varies in terms of how open they are to certain things. We are all close-minded to some extent. I think it's easier for us to see close-mindednesd in others.
cacheman Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Sorry I did not know there was a true and objective scale for "dogmatic". And the point was that what DEFINES an atheist is that it is a certainty that God does NOT exist. I don't know how you can get more dogmatic than absolute belief in anything. But I have not read the study- so perhaps I should not comment I thought athiesm was a belief that God doesn't exist. Maybe we can let the atheists clarify.
cacheman Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Sorry I did not know there was a true and objective scale for "dogmatic". I don't know of any. I simply provided an example from the research he cited.... which of course, is imperfect as all research is.
Glenn101 Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 28 minutes ago, cacheman said: This study is interesting, but I'm not sure it justifies your claims of atheists being 'very close-minded'.... at least any more than other groups. Like I said to MB, everyone varies in terms of how open they are to certain things. We are all close-minded to some extent. I think it's easier for us to see close-mindednesd in others. Are you sure about that??? 😎 Glenn
cacheman Posted July 8, 2018 Posted July 8, 2018 4 hours ago, Glenn101 said: Are you sure about that??? 😎 Glenn Glenn.... they older I get, the less sure I am about a lot of things! I used to know a lot more than I do now. Lol. 2
Nevo Posted July 8, 2018 Posted July 8, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Himmelfarb is correct to a point here, but ignores much else: 1 Samuel 2:6 “The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.” Job 19:25-26 :”For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:” Ezekiel 37:1-14 Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones, taken as attestation that the dead would rise at the End of Days. When 1 Samuel 2:6 is read alongside other poetic passages such as Psalm 30:3–4 ("O LORD, you brought up my soul from Sheol, restored me to life from among those gone down to the Pit") and Psalm 86:13 ("You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol"), it is clear that descriptions of being "raised up" or "delivered" from "Sheol" can also refer to deliverance from near death or other serious adversity. It is not an unambiguous reference to resurrection. Resurrection almost certainly isn't in view in Job 19:25–26. David J. A. Clines translates this passage as follows: "But I know that my champion lives and that he will rise last to speak for me on earth, even after my skin has thus been stripped from me. Yet, to behold Eloah while still in my flesh--that is my desire..." According to Clines, Job desires to see God while he is yet alive "so as to confront God with his unanswered claim for justice" (Job 1–20 [WBC 17; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989], 469). Job's kinsman-redeemer/vindicator in this passage isn't God, since Job at this point considers God to be his adversary (see, e.g., 6:4; 10:8–14; 13:24; 16:7–14; 19:7–12). Clines further observes: "Against any view of bodily resurrection it need only be noted that it contradicts everything the book has said previously about the finality of death (7:9; 10:21; 14:10, 12) and, in case it should be argued that this is some kind of new revelation of an existence beyond death, it needs to be noted that it is totally ignored in the remainder of the book (cf. 21:23–26; 30:23)" (Clines, Job 1–20, 464). Regarding Ezekiel 37:1–14, the consensus among critical scholars is that it is a metaphor of national restoration. Marvin Sweeney puts it succinctly in The Jewish Study Bible: "Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones symbolizes the restoration of the people Israel. Ezekiel is speaking metaphorically in this vision; he was not envisioning an actual physical resurrection of the dead." So also Walther Zimmerli: "It must now once more be finally and unambiguously stated that Ezek 37:1–14 . . . expresses the event of the restoration and the regathering of the politically defeated all-Israel. There is no thought of a resurrection of individuals from the dead" (Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48 [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979], 264). Edited July 8, 2018 by Nevo 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 8, 2018 Posted July 8, 2018 5 hours ago, cacheman said: If you get a chance, you should read the research paper. The authors measured 3 things. 1. Dogmatism: This measure is meant to show "openness to the possibility of reassessing and changing their opinions" . The Christian group in this study was the most dogmatic....ie. less open to the possibility of reassessing and changing opinions compared to atheists and agnostics. 2. Intolerance of contradictions: "difficulty in accepting the seemingly contradictory findings as equally true". Participants were given two contradictory statements and asked to rate them based on their validity. Athiests and agnostics were a little more likely to privilege one statement over the other. 3. 'Myside bias': Participants were given these 3 opinion statements and asked to rate their agreement, (1) “Child adoption by homosexual couples is a positive advance for society”; (2) “The meaning of life is something entirely personal”; and (3) “In a house, rooms must be painted with light colors”. Then they were asked to generate arguments in support of and against the opinion, and then report how convincing their arguments were. The atheists and agnostics were a little more confident of the arguments supporting their opinions. That's it. It would have been interesting to see how a highly religious population would score (Their Christian group was on average moderately religious and liberal). Also, it would have been nice to see how they specifically define 'close-mindedness'. For example, they appear to be saying that the integration of contradictory statements demonstrates open mindedness.... But is that necessarily a positive thing? This study is interesting, but I'm not sure it justifies your claims of atheists being 'very close-minded'.... at least any more than other groups. Like I said to MB, everyone varies in terms of how open they are to certain things. We are all close-minded to some extent. I think it's easier for us to see close-mindednesd in others. Filip Uzarevica, Vassilis Sarogloua, and Magali Clobert, “Are atheists undogmatic?” Personality and Individual Differences, 116 (1 October 2017):164-170, online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.046, and at ScienceDirect, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886917303070 , Highlights • In 3 secular countries, we compared nonbelievers to Christians on aspects of rigidity. • Non-believers were lower in self-reported dogmatism, i.e. certainty in beliefs. • But [Non-believers] were higher in subtly measured intolerance of contradiction and myside bias • Results were similar for atheists and agnostics and across the three countries. • Religious believers seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives. Abstract Previous theory and evidence favor the idea that religious people tend to be dogmatic to some extent whereas non-religious people are undogmatic: the former firmly hold beliefs, some of which are implausible or even contrary to the real world evidence. We conducted a further critical investigation of this idea, distinguishing three aspects of rigidity: (1) self-reported dogmatism, defined as unjustified certainty vs. not standing for any beliefs, (2) intolerance of contradiction, measured through (low) endorsement of contradictory statements, and (3) low readiness to take a different from one's own perspective, measured through the myside bias technique. Non-believers, at least in Western countries where irreligion has become normative, should be lower on the first, but higher on the other two constructs. Data collected from three countries (UK, France, and Spain, total N = 788) and comparisons between Christians, atheists, and agnostics confirmed the expectations, with agnostics being overall similar to atheists. ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric W. Dolan, “Study finds the nonreligious can be more close-minded than the religious,” PsyPost, June 23, 2017, online at https://www.psypost.org/2017/06/study-finds-nonreligious-can-close-minded-religious-49182 , The researchers found that Christian participants scored higher on a measure of dogmatism than nonreligious participants. The Christian participants, for instance, were more likely to disagree with statements such as “There are so many things we have not discovered yet, nobody should be absolutely certain his beliefs are right.” But two other measures of closed-mindedness told a different story. Atheists tended to show greater intolerance of contradiction, meaning when they were presented with two seemingly contradictory statements they rated one as very true and the other as very false. They also showed less propensity to be able to imagine arguments contrary to their own position and find them somewhat convincing. “In our study, the relationship between religion and closed-mindedness depended on the specific aspect of closed-mindedness,” Uzarevic told PsyPost. “The nonreligious compared to the religious seemed to be less closed minded when it came to explicitly measured certainty in one’s beliefs. However, and somewhat surprisingly, when it came to subtly measured inclination to integrate views that were diverging and contrary to one’s own perspectives, it was the religious who showed more openness. In sum, closed-mindedness (or at least some aspects of it) may not be reserved only for the religious. Moreover, in some aspects, the nonreligious may even ‘outperform’ the religious.” 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 8, 2018 Posted July 8, 2018 48 minutes ago, Nevo said: When 1 Samuel 2:6 is read alongside other poetic passages such as Psalm 30:3–4 ("O LORD, you brought up my soul from Sheol, restored me to life from among those gone down to the Pit") and Psalm 86:13 ("You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol"), it is clear that descriptions of being "raised up" or "delivered" from "Sheol" can also refer to deliverance from near death or other serious adversity. It is not an unambiguous reference to resurrection. Resurrection almost certainly isn't in view in Job 19:25–26. David J. A. Clines translates this passage as follows: "But I know that my champion lives and that he will rise last to speak for me on earth, even after my skin has thus been stripped from me. Yet, to behold Eloah while still in my flesh--that is my desire..." According to Clines, Job desires to see God while he is yet alive "so as to confront God with his unanswered claim for justice" (Job 1–20 [WBC 17; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989], 469). Job's kinsman-redeemer/vindicator in this passage isn't God, since Job at this point considers God to be his adversary, not his advocate (see, e.g., 6:4; 10:8–14; 13:24; 16:7–14; 19:7–12). As Clines observes, "against any view of bodily resurrection it need only be noted that it contradicts everything the book has said previously about the finality of death (7:9; 10:21; 14:10, 12) and, in case it should be argued that this is some kind of new revelation of an existence beyond death, it needs to be noted that it is totally ignored in the remainder of the book (cf. 21:23–26; 30:23)" (Clines, Job 1–20, 464). Regarding Ezekiel 37:1–14, the consensus among critical scholars is that it is a metaphor of national restoration. Marvin Sweeney puts it succinctly in The Jewish Study Bible: "Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones symbolizes the restoration of the people Israel. Ezekiel is speaking metaphorically in this vision; he was not envisioning an actual physical resurrection of the dead." So also Walther Zimmerli: "It must now once more be finally and unambiguously stated that Ezek 37:1–14 . . . expresses the event of the restoration and the regathering of the politically defeated all-Israel. There is no thought of a resurrection of individuals from the dead" (Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48 [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979], 264). While it is true that most scholars explain away those texts, they don't adequately explain the translation-ascension of Enoch (Gen 5:24), and Elijah (2 kings 2:1-15). Cf. Isa 53:8, Pss 49:16, 73:24, Wisdom 2:22-24, 3:1-9, 4:7-11. They also ignore Isaiah 26:19 “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.” Cf. Isa 53, Wisdom 2:12-20 Based on what we know of ancient Near Eastern lore, there are clearly several traditions at odds here. This is particularly true of ancient Egyptian tradition on the afterlife, which is found in the BofM.
cacheman Posted July 8, 2018 Posted July 8, 2018 59 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Filip Uzarevica, Vassilis Sarogloua, and Magali Clobert, “Are atheists undogmatic?” Personality and Individual Differences, 116 (1 October 2017):164-170, online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.046, and at ScienceDirect, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886917303070 , Highlights • In 3 secular countries, we compared nonbelievers to Christians on aspects of rigidity. • Non-believers were lower in self-reported dogmatism, i.e. certainty in beliefs. • But [Non-believers] were higher in subtly measured intolerance of contradiction and myside bias • Results were similar for atheists and agnostics and across the three countries. • Religious believers seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives. Abstract Previous theory and evidence favor the idea that religious people tend to be dogmatic to some extent whereas non-religious people are undogmatic: the former firmly hold beliefs, some of which are implausible or even contrary to the real world evidence. We conducted a further critical investigation of this idea, distinguishing three aspects of rigidity: (1) self-reported dogmatism, defined as unjustified certainty vs. not standing for any beliefs, (2) intolerance of contradiction, measured through (low) endorsement of contradictory statements, and (3) low readiness to take a different from one's own perspective, measured through the myside bias technique. Non-believers, at least in Western countries where irreligion has become normative, should be lower on the first, but higher on the other two constructs. Data collected from three countries (UK, France, and Spain, total N = 788) and comparisons between Christians, atheists, and agnostics confirmed the expectations, with agnostics being overall similar to atheists. ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric W. Dolan, “Study finds the nonreligious can be more close-minded than the religious,” PsyPost, June 23, 2017, online at https://www.psypost.org/2017/06/study-finds-nonreligious-can-close-minded-religious-49182 , The researchers found that Christian participants scored higher on a measure of dogmatism than nonreligious participants. The Christian participants, for instance, were more likely to disagree with statements such as “There are so many things we have not discovered yet, nobody should be absolutely certain his beliefs are right.” But two other measures of closed-mindedness told a different story. Atheists tended to show greater intolerance of contradiction, meaning when they were presented with two seemingly contradictory statements they rated one as very true and the other as very false. They also showed less propensity to be able to imagine arguments contrary to their own position and find them somewhat convincing. “In our study, the relationship between religion and closed-mindedness depended on the specific aspect of closed-mindedness,” Uzarevic told PsyPost. “The nonreligious compared to the religious seemed to be less closed minded when it came to explicitly measured certainty in one’s beliefs. However, and somewhat surprisingly, when it came to subtly measured inclination to integrate views that were diverging and contrary to one’s own perspectives, it was the religious who showed more openness. In sum, closed-mindedness (or at least some aspects of it) may not be reserved only for the religious. Moreover, in some aspects, the nonreligious may even ‘outperform’ the religious.” I think I understand why you chose to bold the portions you did, but I hope people give equal weight to the rest of what you posted. Better yet... read the paper. When you broadly ascribe negative characteristics to a category of people (grouped solely on their religious views) you might want better supporting evidence than you've offered here. The authors of this study acknowledged the limited scope and uncertainty of interpretations. They pointed out seemingly contradictory results from other recent studies. In the discussion section, they were careful to not overstate their case, and instead offered it as one piece of research contributing to the larger body of work in this area.
mfbukowski Posted July 8, 2018 Posted July 8, 2018 6 hours ago, cacheman said: I thought athiesm was a belief that God doesn't exist. Maybe we can let the atheists clarify. That is exactly what I said. And I can clarify it myself- I used to be one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Robert F. Smith Posted July 8, 2018 Posted July 8, 2018 2 hours ago, cacheman said: I think I understand why you chose to bold the portions you did, but I hope people give equal weight to the rest of what you posted. Better yet... read the paper. When you broadly ascribe negative characteristics to a category of people (grouped solely on their religious views) you might want better supporting evidence than you've offered here. The authors of this study acknowledged the limited scope and uncertainty of interpretations. They pointed out seemingly contradictory results from other recent studies. In the discussion section, they were careful to not overstate their case, and instead offered it as one piece of research contributing to the larger body of work in this area. Our discussion is valuable for presenting a variety of views on what sort of conclusions were reached -- even if only tentative. It points up the value of Socratic dialogue in getting to something like the truth, even if we never quite get there. That is what this board is supposed to be about. I look forward to additional studies along the same lines. 3
cacheman Posted July 8, 2018 Posted July 8, 2018 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: That is exactly what I said. And I can clarify it myself- I used to be one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism You said "And the point was that what DEFINES an atheist is that it is a certainty that God does NOT exist". If that's what defines an athiest, then even Richard Dawkins wouldn't be one. Then you mentioned that "absolute belief" was dogmatic. I'm not exactly sure how you define 'absolute belief '.... But if you mean believing that the non-existence (or existence) of God is an incontrovertible or indisputable fact, then I agree that would be dogmatic.
cacheman Posted July 8, 2018 Posted July 8, 2018 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Our discussion is valuable for presenting a variety of views on what sort of conclusions were reached -- even if only tentative. It points up the value of Socratic dialogue in getting to something like the truth, even if we never quite get there. That is what this board is supposed to be about. I agree. I joined in this discussion simply to point out that your statement; "atheists are very close-minded" is not supported with any certainty by the research you said your statement was based on. I think we need to be careful making negative declarative statements about broad categories of people grouped solely by their religious views.
Recommended Posts