×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。

美国自然杂志第443期文章:旧约暴力文字可导致犯罪。有心理学家客观试验在此,有圣经上杀人放火的白纸黑字,言之凿凿,还有什么可狡辩的?

本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Nature 446, 114-115 (8 March 2007) | doi:10.1038/446114b; Published online 7 March 2007

Scriptural violence can foster aggression
Heidi Ledford

Elements of religious texts seem to inspire bad behaviour

There once was a man and his concubine from the Israeli tribe of Ephraim who were travelling in the land of Benjamin, another Israeli tribe. As the couple dined in the city of Gibeah, a mob assembled outside and pounded on the door. The mob captured the concubine, then raped and beat her to death. The man collected her corpse the next day and travelled home. The other tribes of Israel were outraged at the crime, assembled an army and razed several Benjamite cities, killing every man, woman, child and animal they could.

Around 500 students recently read a version of this story, which is based on a passage from the Old Testament, as part of a psychological study. For half of the participants the tale contained an additional passage: when the man returned home, his tribe prayed to God and asked what they should do. God commanded the tribe to "take arms against their brothers and chasten them before the Lord".

After reading the story, the students participated in another exercise intended to measure aggression. About half of the study participants came from Brigham Young University, a religious university in Provo, Utah, and almost all were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The other half came from the Free University in Amsterdam. Only 50% of the Dutch group believed in God and 27% in the Bible. But for both groups — whether the students were based in the Netherlands or the United States, and believed in God or not — the trend was the same: those who were told that God had sanctioned the violence against the Israelite were more likely to act aggressively in the subsequent exercise.

The study is indicative of a growing interest among psychologists and sociologists in the origins of religious violence. That subject was taboo until recently for many psychologists, and past research tended to focus on the role of religion in psychological healing. But heightening concern about religious terrorism has pushed negative uses of religion to the forefront. "People often use God as a justification for committing violent acts," says Brad Bushman, a social psychologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and lead author of the study. "And that just bothers me, I guess."

The results of Bushman's study, to be published in the March issue of Psychological Science, do not indicate that religious people are more aggressive than non-religious people (B. J. Bushman et al. Psychol. Sci. 18, 204–207; 2007). Furthermore, the story used was an isolated example of scriptural violence taken out of context, and thus does not reflect the experience of reading the Bible as a whole. But it does suggest that selective exposure to violent passages in a scriptural canon can promote aggression.

If violence is presented as the authoritative voice of God, it can increase the possibility of more violence.

That response probably reflects a long-standing finding in psychology that people respond more aggressively to a depiction of violence that they feel is justified, says Robert Ridge, a social psychologist at Brigham Young University and a co-author of the study.

Sociologist Mark Juergensmeyer of the University of California, Santa Barbara, says his research has also pointed to the motivational power of scriptural violence, but that the context of the message is key. "If violence is presented as the authoritative voice of God, it can increase the possibility of more violence," says Juergensmeyer. "But everything depends on how it is presented." The same passage placed in a non-threatening, historical context might not promote aggression, he argues.

God's sanction can be a motivator for aggression
Nevertheless, when scriptural violence is used to promote hostility, it is extremely effective, Juergensmeyer adds. Invoking religious justification allows a political leader to believe in promises of immortality and spiritual rewards that can be powerful motivators. "Religion is not the problem," he says. "But it can make a secular problem worse."

People often choose to ignore the violent side to religion, says John Hall, a sociologist at the University of California, Davis, and they tend to dismiss those who commit religiously inspired violence as members of the fringe. "There are built-in cultural lenses that we use to dissociate religion from violence," he says. "When we see religious movements that are prophetically inspired and engaged in violence, there's a cultural tendency to say 'oh, they're not really religious'."

That view represents a misleading, selective interpretation of most religious canons, agrees theologian Hector Avalos of Iowa State University in Ames. "People who choose the violent interpretation are no less arbitrary than those who choose the peaceful one," he says. Avalos has proposed a radical solution to theologically inspired violence — cut the violent passages out of the scripture.

It's a wildly controversial idea that ought not to be, he says, because spiritual leaders effectively do that on a regular basis. "A lot of churches have a series of passages that they read during the year," says Avalos. "And usually they don't choose the passages involving genocide."更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下拾英 / 心灵感悟 / 再次强调,一切以事实为依据。让我们来看看,到底是拜偶像导致自我膨胀呢?还是拜圣经导致自我中心?以基督教新教几位祖师大德为例!
    • 马丁路德是新教的开山祖师,地位堪比玄奘。这位祖师对异己言论有着极端的仇恨。他说重洗派应该被侵死。他劝犹太人信耶稣被拒后,对犹太人生出无边的仇恨。他说:我只想给出由衷的建议。第一,得有人把犹太人的教堂或者学堂用火点着,如果有点不着的,就用土把他们掩埋。。
      我只想给出由衷的建议。第一,得有人把他们的教堂或者学堂用火点着,如果有点不着的,就用土把他们掩埋,这样人们永远也不会再看到一块砖头,一坨铁疙瘩[...]另一方面,则要有人把他们的房屋捣毁。”
      “第七,要有人把连枷、斧头、铁锹、纺锤分发给年轻力壮的犹太男女,让他们用自己脸上的汗水来挣得他们的面包。”这一对集中营和对犹太人灭绝的诉求最终由纳粹付诸实施。
    • 加尔文是另一位鼎鼎大名的新教祖师,地位堪比六祖惠能。且不说加尔文把异端塞维特斯送上火刑。他本人碰到任何对他的教义提出问题的人,都是怒气冲天,一系列的粗鲁词语脱口而出,“驴”,“渣滓”,“狗东西”,“蠢才”,“臭气熏天的野兽”。
      • 另外,我再请大家想想美国的几宗校园枪击事件,还有人体炸弹,或者是恐怖分子。奇怪的是,这些人全都认为自己在某种程度上代表了上帝。为什么不拜偶像的一神教徒,能做出这种极端自我中心的举动?美国自然杂志给出了答案!
      • "加尔文是另一位鼎鼎大名的新教祖师,地位堪比六祖惠能。" 这就是你认为基督教的信仰么? 圣经明说 “世人都犯罪,一个义人都没有,全然败坏”,为什么还要到世人那里找好人呢?你所定义的加尔文我不熟悉,但是我知道你我里面的罪恶恐怕还不如他呢,是么?
        • 譬如当我指责一位医生是庸医的时候,他叫我从众人中举出一个绝对健康的人。这种诡辩有何意义?灾难到来上帝袖手不管,你们诡辩。圣灵没用基督徒堕落,你们还是诡辩。干脆改名诡辩教得了!
          • 为什么把加尔文当作医生呢? 在我们的比喻里,他也是病人之一,跟你我一样。 偷换概念是诡辩。无理给别人扣帽子,这不是正常的争辩。
            • 我说的医生不是加尔文,是圣灵和圣经!
              • 你为什么强调圣灵?莫非你去的什么不读圣经的所谓圣灵"教会"?机场路那儿还有间很出名的所谓圣灵教会,有人自称圣灵,其实是邪灵。
                • 看看整个基督教的历史,圣灵到底是不是有效?一目了然!千年前保罗把人类的不虔归为不义,开了个信耶稣的药方。结果吃下去的人继续不义,我们只能说,药方不灵,药开错了!
                  • 明明是内服药,你却外敷。 里面不悔改,外面假装变好,里面却是一样,继续不义。真正内服的,无法不义。不是药错了,是你服药方式错了,别怪医生。你自己做不到,吃不下去,良药苦口,别怪别人。
                    • 内服外敷,倒立着敷,随便你怎么敷,这副药什么时候灵过?
    • 美国自然杂志第443期文章:旧约暴力文字可导致犯罪。有心理学家客观试验在此,有圣经上杀人放火的白纸黑字,言之凿凿,还有什么可狡辩的?
      本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Nature 446, 114-115 (8 March 2007) | doi:10.1038/446114b; Published online 7 March 2007

      Scriptural violence can foster aggression
      Heidi Ledford

      Elements of religious texts seem to inspire bad behaviour

      There once was a man and his concubine from the Israeli tribe of Ephraim who were travelling in the land of Benjamin, another Israeli tribe. As the couple dined in the city of Gibeah, a mob assembled outside and pounded on the door. The mob captured the concubine, then raped and beat her to death. The man collected her corpse the next day and travelled home. The other tribes of Israel were outraged at the crime, assembled an army and razed several Benjamite cities, killing every man, woman, child and animal they could.

      Around 500 students recently read a version of this story, which is based on a passage from the Old Testament, as part of a psychological study. For half of the participants the tale contained an additional passage: when the man returned home, his tribe prayed to God and asked what they should do. God commanded the tribe to "take arms against their brothers and chasten them before the Lord".

      After reading the story, the students participated in another exercise intended to measure aggression. About half of the study participants came from Brigham Young University, a religious university in Provo, Utah, and almost all were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The other half came from the Free University in Amsterdam. Only 50% of the Dutch group believed in God and 27% in the Bible. But for both groups — whether the students were based in the Netherlands or the United States, and believed in God or not — the trend was the same: those who were told that God had sanctioned the violence against the Israelite were more likely to act aggressively in the subsequent exercise.

      The study is indicative of a growing interest among psychologists and sociologists in the origins of religious violence. That subject was taboo until recently for many psychologists, and past research tended to focus on the role of religion in psychological healing. But heightening concern about religious terrorism has pushed negative uses of religion to the forefront. "People often use God as a justification for committing violent acts," says Brad Bushman, a social psychologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and lead author of the study. "And that just bothers me, I guess."

      The results of Bushman's study, to be published in the March issue of Psychological Science, do not indicate that religious people are more aggressive than non-religious people (B. J. Bushman et al. Psychol. Sci. 18, 204–207; 2007). Furthermore, the story used was an isolated example of scriptural violence taken out of context, and thus does not reflect the experience of reading the Bible as a whole. But it does suggest that selective exposure to violent passages in a scriptural canon can promote aggression.

      If violence is presented as the authoritative voice of God, it can increase the possibility of more violence.

      That response probably reflects a long-standing finding in psychology that people respond more aggressively to a depiction of violence that they feel is justified, says Robert Ridge, a social psychologist at Brigham Young University and a co-author of the study.

      Sociologist Mark Juergensmeyer of the University of California, Santa Barbara, says his research has also pointed to the motivational power of scriptural violence, but that the context of the message is key. "If violence is presented as the authoritative voice of God, it can increase the possibility of more violence," says Juergensmeyer. "But everything depends on how it is presented." The same passage placed in a non-threatening, historical context might not promote aggression, he argues.

      God's sanction can be a motivator for aggression
      Nevertheless, when scriptural violence is used to promote hostility, it is extremely effective, Juergensmeyer adds. Invoking religious justification allows a political leader to believe in promises of immortality and spiritual rewards that can be powerful motivators. "Religion is not the problem," he says. "But it can make a secular problem worse."

      People often choose to ignore the violent side to religion, says John Hall, a sociologist at the University of California, Davis, and they tend to dismiss those who commit religiously inspired violence as members of the fringe. "There are built-in cultural lenses that we use to dissociate religion from violence," he says. "When we see religious movements that are prophetically inspired and engaged in violence, there's a cultural tendency to say 'oh, they're not really religious'."

      That view represents a misleading, selective interpretation of most religious canons, agrees theologian Hector Avalos of Iowa State University in Ames. "People who choose the violent interpretation are no less arbitrary than those who choose the peaceful one," he says. Avalos has proposed a radical solution to theologically inspired violence — cut the violent passages out of the scripture.

      It's a wildly controversial idea that ought not to be, he says, because spiritual leaders effectively do that on a regular basis. "A lot of churches have a series of passages that they read during the year," says Avalos. "And usually they don't choose the passages involving genocide."更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
      • 现在你要去攻打亚玛力人,彻底毁灭他们所有的一切,不可怜惜他们。无论男女、孩童,或吃奶的婴儿,牛羊、骆驼、驴子,都要杀死。
      • 民数记31:他们就照耶和华所吩咐摩西的,与米甸人打仗,杀了所有的男丁。掳了米甸人的妇女孩子,并将他们的牲畜,羊群,和所有的财物都夺了来。摩西向打仗回来的军长发怒,对他们说,你们要存留这一切妇女的活命吗?你们要把一切的男孩和所有已嫁的女子都杀了。
    • 转载一条新闻:美教會稱校園槍擊案「上帝傑作」。想想看,有没有人会称枪击案是佛菩萨杰作?为什么?显而易见,旧约中的确隐含着暴力和血腥,他就会诱发人犯罪!
      本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛美國康湼狄格州紐敦市日前發生校園槍殺案,事件中20名學童、6名教職員被殺,兇手最後吞槍身亡。事件震驚國際,美國全國舉哀。但在這傷慟時刻,偏偏有一間教會揚言要為此「讚美神」。

      槍殺案於上週五(12月14日)發生後,美國總統奧巴馬在翌日立即前赴康州慰問死者家屬。總統到訪當地的消息傳出後,美國威斯特布路浸信會(Westboro Baptist Church,WBC)領袖 Shirley Phelps-Roper 在 twitter 留言,表示槍手是上帝派來的,為了要懲罰美國人進行同性戀婚姻,並指這只是「上帝憤怒的開始」。幾小時後, Shirley Phelps-Roper 又在 twitter 發言,暗示 WBC 會在奧巴馬出席當地的追悼會場外巡守,高歌讚美上帝,因為神施行了審判。除 Shirley 之外,教會其他領袖也相繼發表「惹火」言論,例如鼓勵信眾帶著「神痛恨同志」的示威牌、又指美國人反對上帝是自招懲罰等。

      他們的言論惹來網民強烈批評,指他們冷血、涼薄,更有人指他們是最令人作嘔的人。此外,亦有網民拒絕稱他們為一間教會,認為他們只是一群散佈仇恨者。

      美國網民除了聲討外,更發動聯署,希望法院禁制WBC 成員不能前往追思會會場。面書網民亦發起反對WBC運動,希望保持追思會的肅穆氣氛,不希望有人進行抗議。結果,天從人願,追思會順利進行,WBC成員並沒有到場。

      WBC向來以激烈的反同志言論聞名,他們經常前往不同類型的喪禮現場抗議,他們也開宗明義地反猶太教、反 Lady Gaga,在美國已經聲名狼藉,早前被法院禁制他們出席某些場合。更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
      • 假借上帝之名行罪恶之事,你都知道是罪恶,难道上帝不会审判么? 有人借爱之名,性侵自己子女,你就否认真正的父母之爱? 你可以举例子,是发生的事实,但却不是你要否认的那个事实。
        • 上帝审判不审判,你我都不知道。我们只知道,这个世界不少暴力事件是由旧约的暴力文字引发的,这就是旧约对于人类的影响。恰好回应了功夫茶兄弟防微杜渐的观点。请问拜偶像和读杀人放火的文字相比,哪个微哪个渐?显然易见的事实看不见,这不是比拜人手制作的偶像更愚痴?
          • 旧约律法明确规定不可杀人,不可贪恋别人财物,你没读过? 旧约暴力文字?你看到胳膊就联想到裸体,引发犯罪,所以不能看是么?你跟中东让女人蒙头露双眼的逻辑一样吧?
            • 他们就照耶和华所吩咐摩西的,与米甸人打仗,杀了所有的男丁。掳了米甸人的妇女孩子,并将他们的牲畜,羊群,和所有的财物都夺了来。
              • 很清楚地回答你了啊(#8473032@0),你不愿意我提你 “科学是为了满足人的好奇心产生的”这样愚昧的话,为什么自己还抱着自己断章取义误导别人的话不放?
                • 我为什么不愿意你提?可以提啊,继续辩论。上次你除了喊口号我错了,就是拿了本马列主义小学课本啊!欢迎提,看看谁愚蠢!
                  • 不敢了,您都跟我要电话号码,私下见面谈了,我哪敢啊,家里三个娃嗷嗷待哺啊。
    • 你说的事情完全不是以事实为根据,你自己还常常说自己去教会,也信主,冒充基督徒,然后有人就可以得出结论说看 “问号也是基督徒呢,他最反对基督徒了”。
      • 你说马丁路德和加尔文,哪位是冒充的?谢谢!
        • 我说你是时常冒充基督徒的。
    • 好了,现在我们来请教功夫茶弟兄,有何根据说明信耶稣就比拜偶像更不自我中心?尤其看看今天你周围的基督徒,除了周末上教会有个娱乐活动,基本上该过什么日子还过什么日子,基本上就等于赚了张白白的天堂券。如何预防人不自我中心?靠肚子里视之不见抟之不得的圣灵?
      • 为什么你看人呢,每个人都要单独面对上帝,那时候你可以挺胸说“看,那个去教会的,他还不如我呢!”么? 他被审判责罚,你可以因为别人做得不好,自己就可以逃罪么?
        • 我看人干什么?我是从基督徒的堕落,看出了圣灵的虚幻!哦!顺便提一句,干犯圣灵的必被治死,知道这句话在历史上导致了多少人的死亡吗?拜圣经能拜出道德?拜耶稣能拜出道德?肚子里的圣灵真能管教你少想腌螃蟹多想天堂?
          • 我从人的堕落,看到上帝拯救方式的必要。这就是说的你心是什么,看到的是什么。也顺便说一句说在手术台上多少病人死亡,就说医生是屠夫这样的逻辑是很滑稽可笑的。
            • 有趣,居然能从病人病情的恶化,看出医生的高明。我想你可能内心从来不承认自己真的有病,只是图一张免费天堂入场券罢了!
              • 【耶稣听见了,就对他们说:“健康的人不需要医生,有病的人才需要。我来不是要召唤义人,而是要召唤罪人。”】 我正是承认自己是个罪人,无法靠自己的道德,行为,努力得救,我需要耶稣。 在上帝面前,我的灵是生病的,需要医治,不是我承认与否而改变。
    • 你难道只读旧约没读旧约,为什么只提旧约上帝对罪的不容忍,不提新约上帝对罪人的救赎?就算旧约,也是上帝慈爱的一面胜过他严厉公义的一面。 只相信旧约的,只是犹太教,如果你要反的话,请明确指明犹太教好了。
      • 你去饭店里吃饭,上一盘炒虾仁,上一盘大便,你会不会对大便视而不见,仅仅对炒虾仁赞不绝口?
        • 我可以质疑你的论点,但是我不能说你脑子里都是大粪,这是基本做人的素质。 你老婆给你做了一盘菜,她正吃着,你这么过去质疑一下,看她怎么反应;或者你走进一个饭馆,你这么说说看看。把别人当成傻子的,处处怀疑别人用心的,恐怕是最需要看医生的吧。