Bible Club: Exodus

[madnak]

Yes, I'm bad. I haven't finished it yet. Also I've pretty much given up on being a "nice guy."

The plagues of Egypt were awful.

Ostensibly, God is trying to convince Pharaoh to let his people leave. And yet, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." It sounds almost like he wants to drop as many plagues as possible. To impress the Egyptians? Why wouldn't God soften Pharaoh's heart, instead of hardening it? And hey, why bother with the Pharaoh at all? We know God is powerful enough to ferry the Israelites away without Pharaoh's permission. It seems like God just wants to torture the Egyptians.

First the Nile turns to blood, the fish die, and the water becomes undrinkable. That's famine. The upper classes might not be affected too much, because they have plenty stored up, but the lower classes (especially the slaves) will likely begin to starve. Then come the frogs - at least there's something to eat! Then the flies devastate the land and bring disease to the people. Many are certainly dying at this point. But God's not through yet - all the livestock have to die. Conditions are now absolutely torturous in Egypt. Then the boils - it sounds like severe, festering networks of them. Then the hail that destroyed anything left after the insects and plague. You wonder what the locusts had to eat. But it was clear that after them "nothing green was left on tree or plant of the field through all the land of Egypt." Half the population must be starving at this point, the economy is shattered beyond repair, Egyptians will be living in misery for decades to come (the lucky ones that live, anyhow). BUT AGAIN THE LORD HARDENS PHARAOH'S HEART! Yes, again, God himself decides he's not through yet, and hardens Pharaoh's heart to make him refuse Moses and Aaron. God really wants to keep this song-and-dance routine going. The darkness is just a teaser, everyone's probably delirious from hunger anyhow. The main event - he kills off every firstborn, from the Pharaoh's to the slave girl's. A tragedy for old Pharaoh, but absolute doom for the farmers and slaves, who depend on the firstborn son to get much of the necessary work done - Egypt is in pandemonium, the people are suffering torment upon torment... God's work is finally done.

But hey, at least he decided not the harden Pharaoh's heart this time. Joy?

This is one of the cruelest and most absurd stories in the whole book, and I challenge anyone to explain the "moral" to me. Other than, "when God wants his fireworks, God damn well gets his fireworks."

Leviticus is another fun one - since I'm not done with Exodus I'm going to postone Leviticus until two weeks from now.

[New001]

Not much to add except that I agree with this here and I'll be hopping on board once you get to Numbers (where I've kinda left off).

[CallMeIshmael]

let my people go, ftw

[jogsxyz]

Moses lived 120 years. The oldest person on earth now is only 114 years. Been having a new oldest person every two or three weeks lately.
How could Moses live that long?

[jogsxyz]

Does Exodus acknowledge the existence of the Greeks?
Maybe the bible is just a history book written by peoples with a extremely narrow view.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the cruelest and most absurd stories in the whole book, and I challenge anyone to explain the "moral" to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the story starts a little earlier with the burning bush. There's the message from God to Moses when He gives His name as I AM THAT I AM. And basically tells Moses to go rescue His people, who then become "The People of the I AM" or Israel, from their misery.

So we have the, "I Am" which when looked at from a personal level is essentially the core of our being, that in this story is being held captive and it's (the I Am's) enslavement is causing the person's misery. Then there's the rational arguments, pleas, etc., none of which work and then the ruthless destruction of all those elements causing the enslavement that is met with a great deal of stubbornness and resistance from the captor. It all finally ends with the I Am freeing itself and vowing never to return to the captivity.

That's the short version, but looked at from this perspective the "moral" of the story is pretty clear.

[vhawk01]

I have a question that hopefully NR will answer, although its obviously open to everyone. How does God's 'hardening of the Pharaoh's heart' jive with all of this free-will, God can't make a Bible that is more easily understood business? I mean, didn't he directly interfere with Pharaoh's free will, making it far harder for him to be moved by the displays? Of course he didn't FORCE him to be unmoved, but he did the next best thing. How much meddling with our free will is God allowed?

[Silent A]

If you take the biblical time line seriously, this would have happened sometime around 1300 BC, or several centuries before the Greeks became significant.

The main problem with this story from a historical perspective is that we can find archeological evidence for much smaller and older events but can't find a trace of anything approximately like this horror ... Nevermind the complete lack of any evidence the Jews were ever a nation of slaves in Egypt in the first place.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course he didn't FORCE him to be unmoved, but he did the next best thing. How much meddling with our free will is God allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the way I read it, God makes it literally impossible for Pharaoh to be moved.

I also find this quote from the beginning of Exodus 14 to be most telling (NIV):

Exodus 14

1 Then the LORD said to Moses,
2 "Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp near Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. They are to encamp by the sea, directly opposite Baal Zephon.
3 Pharaoh will think, 'The Israelites are wandering around the land in confusion, hemmed in by the desert.'
4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD."

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question that hopefully NR will answer, although its obviously open to everyone. How does God's 'hardening of the Pharaoh's heart' jive with all of this free-will, God can't make a Bible that is more easily understood business? I mean, didn't he directly interfere with Pharaoh's free will, making it far harder for him to be moved by the displays? Of course he didn't FORCE him to be unmoved, but he did the next best thing. How much meddling with our free will is God allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

there are a couple of answers (which you can google fairly easily if you really care), but i know that none of them will satisfy you (i can even admit they can be a bit reaching), so let's not waste everyone's time.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Nevermind the complete lack of any evidence the Jews were ever a nation of slaves in Egypt in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much do you know about the work of Manfred Bietak?

[Silent A]

The best stadard reply that I have seen is the one that says God restored Pharoah's heart to what it would have been if it hadn't been weekened by these horrible events. At best this suggests that Pharoah was under the equivalent of torture and would thus agree to anything, but God increases Pharaoh's tolerance for pain allowing him to make the decision he really wants. At worst this confuses what free will actually means.

This is the only argument I've seen that doesn't ignore the issue (ones that say, Pharoah got what he deserved anyway) or ignore what the book actually says (by insisting God didn't harden Pharoah's heart).

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nevermind the complete lack of any evidence the Jews were ever a nation of slaves in Egypt in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much do you know about the work of Manfred Bietak?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're talking about what I think you are, this is about a ruined city that probably had some Hebrew's living in it who may or may not have been forced to leave it, a far cry from the events that are described in Exodus.

I wouldn't be one bit surprised though if this is the seed upon which the Exodus legend was constructed, but the massive scope of what's described in Exodus should be far more obvious in the archeological record.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're talking about what I think you are, this is about a ruined city that probably had some Hebrew's living in it who may or may not have been forced to leave it, a far cry from the events that are described in Exodus.


[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, maybe not.

Given that it's there, though, isn't the phrase "complete lack of evidence" a bit misleading?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're talking about what I think you are, this is about a ruined city that probably had some Hebrew's living in it who may or may not have been forced to leave it, a far cry from the events that are described in Exodus.


[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, maybe not.

Given that it's there, though, isn't the phrase "complete lack of evidence" a bit misleading?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I put in the "nation of slaves" for a reason. There is no evidence that a few million Jews/Hebrews (or anything remotely close) were living in Egypt at any stage.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the cruelest and most absurd stories in the whole book, and I challenge anyone to explain the "moral" to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the story starts a little earlier with the burning bush. There's the message from God to Moses when He gives His name as I AM THAT I AM. And basically tells Moses to go rescue His people, who then become "The People of the I AM" or Israel, from their misery.

So we have the, "I Am" which when looked at from a personal level is essentially the core of our being, that in this story is being held captive and it's (the I Am's) enslavement is causing the person's misery. Then there's the rational arguments, pleas, etc., none of which work and then the ruthless destruction of all those elements causing the enslavement that is met with a great deal of stubbornness and resistance from the captor. It all finally ends with the I Am freeing itself and vowing never to return to the captivity.

That's the short version, but looked at from this perspective the "moral" of the story is pretty clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose this works to a degree. I can stretch all the symbolism into that framework. But I also see no indication anywhere that this was the intended meaning of the author, and even if I did it would be a stretch. There are much better ways to express concepts like this, frankly. And the idea that the culture could have appreciated the story at that level seems unlikely to me. Moreover, the imagery itself is very brutal and violent, and the words of God are similarly "bad."

It sounds like a Buddhist interpretation applied to a Hebrew myth, as though a Buddhist were looking at what happened and describing it in his terms. But those aren't the terms the Bible uses. I suppose I'm coming around that if everyone did interpret the Bible in that way, it'd be alright. But to me this puts an absurd spin on things.

I really can interpret virtually anything in a profound way, but that doesn't make the work itself profound.

[madnak]

So txag, o literalist, you wanna have a go at explaining why God tortured millions of Egyptians to death? We know it wasn't to convince the Pharaoh, God actually hardened the Pharaoh's heart against letting the Israelites go. And he could have simply teleported them away, put everyone in Egypt to sleep, softened the pharaoh's heart (instead of hardening it), or used any number of other techniques to save the Israelites without killing innocent people.

So why? Why did God do that?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question that hopefully NR will answer, although its obviously open to everyone. How does God's 'hardening of the Pharaoh's heart' jive with all of this free-will, God can't make a Bible that is more easily understood business? I mean, didn't he directly interfere with Pharaoh's free will, making it far harder for him to be moved by the displays? Of course he didn't FORCE him to be unmoved, but he did the next best thing. How much meddling with our free will is God allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

there are a couple of answers (which you can google fairly easily if you really care), but i know that none of them will satisfy you (i can even admit they can be a bit reaching), so let's not waste everyone's time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Waste everyone's time? Isn't this almost exactly the purpose of this thread? Sorry if I am too thick-headed and set in my ways for you, I guess?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose I'm coming around that if everyone did interpret the Bible in that way, it'd be alright. But to me this puts an absurd spin on things.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes me pretty happy. I'm going to harp on the point that we need to fight against fundamentalism and literal interpretation again.

[ QUOTE ]

I really can interpret virtually anything in a profound way, but that doesn't make the work itself profound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But the bible is profound to a lot of people, even if it is really outdated. I figure we should just let them have it.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose this works to a degree. I can stretch all the symbolism into that framework. But I also see no indication anywhere that this was the intended meaning of the author, and even if I did it would be a stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want you to take my words too literally, but there's no "intended meaning" in the Bible. The meaning is in your mind and the Bible just mirrors back what you already believe. That's why there's the disparity of interpretations over what the Bible says. If someone believes God is an evil, spiteful being, the Bible will just reflect that belief back onto him. Or if someone believes God is a loving, compassionate being that belief will get reflected back.

You might think you're reading the book, but I think it would be closer to the truth to say The Book is reading you. I seriously doubt if reading the Bible caused anyone to believe in God. What I think happened is someone made the decision to believe in God in their mind and the Bible just reflected that belief back. I know from personal experience that there was nothing in the Bible that lead me to believe God is a Loving God. I just decided to believe it was so, and the Bible all of a sudden started reflecting that belief back. Stories that had one meaning or made no sense, like the one you mentioned in Exodus, took on entirely different tones and meanings.

..................................

on a side note: I know I've been harping a lot about religion over the last few weeks, but I have a reason for it. I hope in some way you and others have seen what religion is to me, and can possibly make a distinction between what I feel religion is and what religion has become with the evangelist/fundamentalist movement. I feel religion's true role in a person's life or it's place in society has been hijacked by extremists, and I'm just as concerned about the consequences of this as anyone else. I just make a distinction between what I feel religion truly is and what it's currently being exploited for.

My whole point with all this, is that religion is personal to me. When I got out of the Marines after fourteen years I was a pretty aggressive, confrontational, bloodthirsty killer, and I credit religion and the Bible with a great deal of personal change I experienced since then. Yeah, maybe philosophy or psychology could've helped change the way I thought, but I don't know if it would have changed the way I feel inside. I can't honestly say I needed religion and the Bible, but I can say without reservation that I'm glad they were there for me.

All I'm asking here is to turn the fight away from my religion and focus it on the nut-jobs and extremists. They're the enemy - I'm not.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone believes God is an evil, spiteful being, the Bible will just reflect that belief back onto him. Or if someone believes God is a loving, compassionate being that belief will get reflected back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Total denial of what is, unless you don't expect you god to have a modicum of human morality and empathy. There is NO way to interpret the god of the bible as loving unless you are in total denial.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone believes God is an evil, spiteful being, the Bible will just reflect that belief back onto him. Or if someone believes God is a loving, compassionate being that belief will get reflected back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about this. I mean, I certainly didn't have that opinion about God the first time I read the Bible. I was fairly indifferent about the whole thing, but definitely more sympathetic to Christianity than atheism. And then I read it, and that is what I saw. I don't see how I could have already been harboring this deep, dark presupposition of what God was like.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone believes God is an evil, spiteful being, the Bible will just reflect that belief back onto him. Or if someone believes God is a loving, compassionate being that belief will get reflected back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about this. I mean, I certainly didn't have that opinion about God the first time I read the Bible. I was fairly indifferent about the whole thing, but definitely more sympathetic to Christianity than atheism. And then I read it, and that is what I saw. I don't see how I could have already been harboring this deep, dark presupposition of what God was like.

[/ QUOTE ]
It also seems to contradict any claim of divine authorship or inspiration. If all the meaning comes from us, where is the input from God?

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question that hopefully NR will answer, although its obviously open to everyone. How does God's 'hardening of the Pharaoh's heart' jive with all of this free-will, God can't make a Bible that is more easily understood business? I mean, didn't he directly interfere with Pharaoh's free will, making it far harder for him to be moved by the displays? Of course he didn't FORCE him to be unmoved, but he did the next best thing. How much meddling with our free will is God allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

there are a couple of answers (which you can google fairly easily if you really care), but i know that none of them will satisfy you (i can even admit they can be a bit reaching), so let's not waste everyone's time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Waste everyone's time? Isn't this almost exactly the purpose of this thread? Sorry if I am too thick-headed and set in my ways for you, I guess?

[/ QUOTE ]

like i said, use google to find your answer, if you can find an answer you are satisfied with, then please post it here. I'm fairly certain you won't, so it seems pointless to spiral into another "agree to disagree" argument.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
like i said, use google to find your answer, if you can find an answer you are satisfied with, then please post it here. I'm fairly certain you won't, so it seems pointless to spiral into another "agree to disagree" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this attitude bizarre. You're basically saying that you know that the "answers" are so weak that they won't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. Why then do you (presumably) accept them?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like i said, use google to find your answer, if you can find an answer you are satisfied with, then please post it here. I'm fairly certain you won't, so it seems pointless to spiral into another "agree to disagree" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this attitude bizarre. You're basically saying that you know that the "answers" are so weak that they won't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. Why then do you (presumably) accept them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the nice way to interpret what he is saying. The alternative is that the answers ARE convincing, I am just either too stupid to comprehend them or too dishonest and close-minded to accept them.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like i said, use google to find your answer, if you can find an answer you are satisfied with, then please post it here. I'm fairly certain you won't, so it seems pointless to spiral into another "agree to disagree" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this attitude bizarre. You're basically saying that you know that the "answers" are so weak that they won't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. Why then do you (presumably) accept them?

[/ QUOTE ]

weak? i'm not sure where i said that. i said "far fetching", but the reason i say that is because a lot of times, in order to understand something in the bible, you must have at least some holistic understanding of the bible. In addition, in order for you guys to accept an answer, it basically has to be up to some standard that I do not think ANY answer (and actually to ANY question) will satisfy. So like i said, if you REALLY want an answer, do your own DD and try to find it yourself. I'll help you if you cant find it, but v's question is such a common question that a simple search in google will yield many answers you can look into. If none of them satisfy you, then why do you need to me rehash what you can already find online to only have you reject it outright? Like i said, waste of all of our time. Find an answer you would like to discuss, and we can discuss. Otherwise lets skip the unnecessary bickering, and just agree to disagree.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like i said, use google to find your answer, if you can find an answer you are satisfied with, then please post it here. I'm fairly certain you won't, so it seems pointless to spiral into another "agree to disagree" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this attitude bizarre. You're basically saying that you know that the "answers" are so weak that they won't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. Why then do you (presumably) accept them?

[/ QUOTE ]

weak? i'm not sure where i said that. i said "far fetching", but the reason i say that is because a lot of times, in order to understand something in the bible, you must have at least some holistic understanding of the bible. In addition, in order for you guys to accept an answer, it basically has to be up to some standard that I do not think ANY answer (and actually to ANY question) will satisfy. So like i said, if you REALLY want an answer, do your own DD and try to find it yourself. I'll help you if you cant find it, but v's question is such a common question that a simple search in google will yield many answers you can look into. If none of them satisfy you, then why do you need to me rehash what you can already find online to only have you reject it outright? Like i said, waste of all of our time. Find an answer you would like to discuss, and we can discuss. Otherwise lets skip the unnecessary bickering, and just agree to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure have wasted a lot of time in this thread. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like i said, use google to find your answer, if you can find an answer you are satisfied with, then please post it here. I'm fairly certain you won't, so it seems pointless to spiral into another "agree to disagree" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this attitude bizarre. You're basically saying that you know that the "answers" are so weak that they won't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. Why then do you (presumably) accept them?

[/ QUOTE ]

weak? i'm not sure where i said that. i said "far fetching", but the reason i say that is because a lot of times, in order to understand something in the bible, you must have at least some holistic understanding of the bible. In addition, in order for you guys to accept an answer, it basically has to be up to some standard that I do not think ANY answer (and actually to ANY question) will satisfy. So like i said, if you REALLY want an answer, do your own DD and try to find it yourself. I'll help you if you cant find it, but v's question is such a common question that a simple search in google will yield many answers you can look into. If none of them satisfy you, then why do you need to me rehash what you can already find online to only have you reject it outright? Like i said, waste of all of our time. Find an answer you would like to discuss, and we can discuss. Otherwise lets skip the unnecessary bickering, and just agree to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure have wasted a lot of time in this thread. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah i know =)

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
weak? i'm not sure where i said that. i said "far fetching", but the reason i say that is because a lot of times, in order to understand something in the bible, you must have at least some holistic understanding of the bible. In addition, in order for you guys to accept an answer, it basically has to be up to some standard that I do not think ANY answer (and actually to ANY question) will satisfy. So like i said, if you REALLY want an answer, do your own DD and try to find it yourself. I'll help you if you cant find it, but v's question is such a common question that a simple search in google will yield many answers you can look into. If none of them satisfy you, then why do you need to me rehash what you can already find online to only have you reject it outright? Like i said, waste of all of our time. Find an answer you would like to discuss, and we can discuss. Otherwise lets skip the unnecessary bickering, and just agree to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know if it's just me, but I find it useful to hear what answers people here find acceptable or persuasive. Of course I can find answers elsewhere, but why bother posting anything then? When NotReady, RJT or txag007 give an answer I can fit it into the hundreds of other posts of theirs I've read and build up an idea of their position, rather than just a googled snippet which is unlikely to be completely satisfactory. Similarly with the atheists - I often have no clue what luckyme or madnak (for example) are talking about if I read a post of theirs in isolation, but taken as a group they have both given me profound insights.

I dont think this board is a good place to come for answers, but it is an excellent place to come for passionately defended positions, imo.

[ChrisV]

A little Googling turned up this (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/pharaoh.html). I don't really like this explanation, mostly for complicated reasons that go into questions of determinism versus free will. If God knows in advance what any of us will do in a given situation, then how are we any better than computers and how do we have free will?

Anyway, the major question is left unanswered: why should the Pharaoh's intransigence be an excuse to send plagues against the populace, when God presumably has much more targeted methods available? It would be as if the US reacted to Iran's nuclear weapons program by carpet-bombing Iranian villages.

[txag007]

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? Romans 9:14-24

[ChrisV]

I don't really see how txag intended us to interpret that post other than "God is allowed to be an evil sadist if he wants to be, because he's God, yo". That way of thinking may have flown a couple millennia ago, when the idea of lords and servants was considered OK, but it blows my mind that anyone can find it a convincing moral argument these days. If a person were to create sentient beings and then abuse them for no reason, on a whim, we'd call him a monstrous psychopath. I don't see why God gets a pass in the same situation.

Take this verse, for instance:

[ QUOTE ]
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'. Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a concrete example, imagine a woman who deliberately takes teratogenic drugs during pregnancy. Should the deformed child be content with an excuse like "Well, I just felt like making you like this"?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
As a concrete example, imagine a woman who deliberately takes teratogenic drugs during pregnancy. Should the deformed child be content with an excuse like "Well, I just felt like making you like this"?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you are discounting the existence of evil.

Secondly, if God for some reason wants that child to be born deformed, then it is because he intends to use that for His glory.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
There is NO way to interpret the god of the bible as loving unless you are in total denial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I don't agree with your conclusion, but I can accept it. And I'd add to it saying, denial ultimately manifests itself in delusional behavior or acts, or in this instance interpretation of meaning.

Accepting your conclusion, the only inference I can draw is that the Bible isn't the problem, people in denial or delusional behavior is the true culprit. For example, if a delusional person read Romeo and Juliet, they might conclude it advocated teen suicide and want to ban it from high schools. Is the book the problem or the delusional person? I really don't think you can have it both ways.

[PLOlover]

I think part of it has to do with why the jews were in egypt in the first place. they got into debt against their god's advice, and sold themselves into slavery.

Maybe god had to put on a show for them so that maybe they wouldn't disobey him (again) in the future.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, you are discounting the existence of evil.


[/ QUOTE ]

What if he is? Evil is a point of view. its a judgement. Its not a force or an object.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, if God for some reason wants that child to be born deformed, then it is because he intends to use that for His glory.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is the kind of thing that only a theist can say. This is the kind of thing that makes nonbelievers think beleivers are mental. This reminds me of the article posted on this forum where some religious folks were having a kid who was going to be born with a condition that would kill their infant within months of it being born. They considered themselves blessed because, this only happened to like 1 in 500,000 parents... and God chose them! How lucky they were.

Religious cognitive dissonance at its greatest. "Our child will die. What a blessing!"

"Our child is deformed. It must be part of God's glory!"

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone believes God is an evil, spiteful being, the Bible will just reflect that belief back onto him. Or if someone believes God is a loving, compassionate being that belief will get reflected back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about this. I mean, I certainly didn't have that opinion about God the first time I read the Bible. I was fairly indifferent about the whole thing, but definitely more sympathetic to Christianity than atheism. And then I read it, and that is what I saw. I don't see how I could have already been harboring this deep, dark presupposition of what God was like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some would argue that you allowed your intellect to either over-ride your beliefs or form them. Objectively, I think this is where this entire debate ultimately centers. In the battle for supremacy over our being do we place our intellect/reason or belief/feeling at the top?

It's apparent that a typical atheist would choose the intellect over belief and a typical theist places belief above the intellect. I'm not saying either side completely rejects the input of the other, but as sole judge over pressing questions some choose to follow reason and some feeling. As I mentioned earlier, I chose to believe that God is love; conclude that love is a feeling; and allow that belief/feeling to reign supreme in my being. And no matter how much I tried to reconcile the two "judges" I always ran into situations where I had to make a decision in favor of one or the other. Or as the Bible says, "No man can serve two masters."

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone believes God is an evil, spiteful being, the Bible will just reflect that belief back onto him. Or if someone believes God is a loving, compassionate being that belief will get reflected back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about this. I mean, I certainly didn't have that opinion about God the first time I read the Bible. I was fairly indifferent about the whole thing, but definitely more sympathetic to Christianity than atheism. And then I read it, and that is what I saw. I don't see how I could have already been harboring this deep, dark presupposition of what God was like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some would argue that you allowed your intellect to either over-ride your beliefs or form them. Objectively, I think this is where this entire debate ultimately centers. In the battle for supremacy over our being do we place our intellect/reason or belief/feeling at the top?

It's apparent that a typical atheist would choose the intellect over belief and a typical theist places belief above the intellect. I'm not saying either side completely rejects the input of the other, but as sole judge over pressing questions some choose to follow reason and some feeling. As I mentioned earlier, I chose to believe that God is love; conclude that love is a feeling; and allow that belief/feeling to reign supreme in my being. And no matter how much I tried to reconcile the two "judges" I always ran into situations where I had to make a decision in favor of one or the other. Or as the Bible says, "No man can serve two masters."

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should work harder at applying your creativity. You put tremendous effort into resolving Bible stories, but still view intellect and emotion as inherently contradictory.

I think it's a false dilemma. Neither can work in isolation.

[madnak]

Who is your target audience, txag? You realize you're only making us more disgusted with Christianity, don't you?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Religious cognitive dissonance at its greatest. "Our child will die. What a blessing!"

"Our child is deformed. It must be part of God's glory!"

[/ QUOTE ]
God works through a weak person so that it will be known that He had a part in that person's accomplishments. It's for His glory! See Moses as an example.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Religious cognitive dissonance at its greatest. "Our child will die. What a blessing!"

"Our child is deformed. It must be part of God's glory!"

[/ QUOTE ]
God works through a weak person so that it will be known that He had a part in that person's accomplishments. It's for His glory! See Moses as an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, your posts only make sense if you are speaking to someone equally blinded by your personal irrational beliefs.

You could write, "God works through serial killers to make sure his accomplishments are known. See OT for example. His love is endless." It would probably seem no different to us then what you wrote.

Just curious... in the case of the religious family that had their child born sick and it died right after it was born. The parents were excited that they were chosen by God to have their infant die right after it was born. "Thank You, God!!!"

What are the accomplishments here that we're supposed to marvel over? (not in Biblical mumbo jumbo... in layman's terms.)

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should work harder at applying your creativity. You put tremendous effort into resolving Bible stories, but still view intellect and emotion as inherently contradictory.

I think it's a false dilemma. Neither can work in isolation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I was implying isolation. More of an ordering, or putting each in their respective place. It's the old, "follow my head or follow my heart," problem, and I'm not sure if that would be considered a false dilemma.

I'm not implying one way is right or the other wrong; I feel that's a personal decision. But I am suggesting that a great deal of the conflict that occurs over this issue is when one side says one perspective is "better" than the other. I don't think that case can be made, and to apply some creativity:

Look at Thomas Paine and Mother Teresa. It would be hard to find two people with more divergent interpretations of the Bible. And I think it would be pretty easy to conclude that Paine placed his head/intellect/reason in position of ultimate arbitrator, and Mother Teresa placed her heart/faith/feeling at the top. But despite the polar opposite views of the Bible, and their own self-governing hierarchy, they both managed to make valuable contributions to mankind.

As far as what's best for society, I don't think how a person governs their own being, whether head or heart, or The Book really factors in - it's the person. Ultimately, I would say that it's rarely the beliefs of a group of people that lead to horrible things in society, but more often the inability of that group to "tolerate" differing beliefs. And I don't believe it is proper to assign the civic responsibility of "tolerance" to any group - I feel it should fall solely on the shoulders of the individual, both the responsibility for being tolerant and the blame when they're not.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at Thomas Paine and Mother Teresa. ... But despite the polar opposite views of the Bible, and their own self-governing hierarchy, they both managed to make valuable contributions to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to hijack this thread, but the jury's still out on Teresa.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a concrete example, imagine a woman who deliberately takes teratogenic drugs during pregnancy. Should the deformed child be content with an excuse like "Well, I just felt like making you like this"?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you are discounting the existence of evil.

Secondly, if God for some reason wants that child to be born deformed, then it is because he intends to use that for His glory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. The woman has the role of creator here. By your reference to "existence of evil", I assume you would consider a woman who did this evil. But when God does the same thing - deliberately brings a deformed child into the world - that's OK. Why?

You're also assuming that God's glory is a legitimate end in itself. Assuming God exists, he doesn't deserve worship for being the creator any more than a child should be obliged to worship his parents. Creating deformed children for the purpose of his own glorification probably wouldn't be the way to convince me that he deserves worship.

In fact, your final statement above sounds completely insane to non believers. Try on this similar statement as an "explanation" of the mother's actions above:

[ QUOTE ]
If a mother wants their child to be born deformed, then it is because she intends to use that for her glory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see? Insane.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if I was implying isolation. More of an ordering, or putting each in their respective place. It's the old, "follow my head or follow my heart," problem, and I'm not sure if that would be considered a false dilemma.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can be hard to put them in their proper places. But I believe that both have largely free reign if that's accomplished. Of course, there are those times when a person must force themselves to take an action despite the fact their feelings are against it, and those when an action that is irrational in terms of objective metrics must be taken due to an internal compass. But those situations aren't exactly clear-cut, anyhow.

If I were to see a person trapped in a burning building, and run in to save them, most people would say I put my heart above my head. Most people would be very wrong. My feelings in such a situation would be screaming "run away" at the top of their lungs, but my hope is that my mind would be clear enough to control the fear. In general I only find conflicts between my thoughts and feelings when my heart or mind is turned against itself. And when my heart is turned against itself, thankfully my mind can haul it up again. When my mind is turned against itself, my heart can cut through the tangle. They work together, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not implying one way is right or the other wrong; I feel that's a personal decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think breaking it into two "ways" is a false dichotomy.

[ QUOTE ]
But I am suggesting that a great deal of the conflict that occurs over this issue is when one side says one perspective is "better" than the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that, of course. But I think you misinterpret the atheist position. It's not that reason should prevail over emotion. It's that when your emotions tell you a vicious tyrant is worthy of worship, something is wrong with them. They've turned against you, and only your reason can set things right. Reason here is the good friend who holds the intervention for the desperate addict. It's not that you should listen to reason above emotion, but to entirely dismiss reason is to toss yourself into denial just as surely as any addict ever has.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at Thomas Paine and Mother Teresa. It would be hard to find two people with more divergent interpretations of the Bible. And I think it would be pretty easy to conclude that Paine placed his head/intellect/reason in position of ultimate arbitrator, and Mother Teresa placed her heart/faith/feeling at the top. But despite the polar opposite views of the Bible, and their own self-governing hierarchy, they both managed to make valuable contributions to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many atheists believe Mother Teresa was a horrible person. I am one of them. She did many underhanded things and dealt with many villainous people to get her money, and her stated goal was to increase suffering in the world. It's not a clear-cut case, but anyone who thinks her goal was to eliminate suffering is just plain wrong. She made it very clear that she valued suffering greatly as a gift from God and wanted to spread it in order to help people become closer to him. I also think she was very "reason" and not at all "emotion." So this analogy isn't very effective as far as I'm concerned.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as what's best for society, I don't think how a person governs their own being, whether head or heart, or The Book really factors in - it's the person. Ultimately, I would say that it's rarely the beliefs of a group of people that lead to horrible things in society, but more often the inability of that group to "tolerate" differing beliefs. And I don't believe it is proper to assign the civic responsibility of "tolerance" to any group - I feel it should fall solely on the shoulders of the individual, both the responsibility for being tolerant and the blame when they're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's conventional in this society, when a person's behavior and thought patterns indicate potential harm to himself or to others, to consider the person seriously troubled. In most states that's sufficient for hospitalization in a mental institution.

Do you believe that such an approach is mistaken, and that the beliefs of the suicidal or criminally psychotic are irrelevant? Perhaps intervention isn't justified?

I'm not sure you accept the authenticity of my statements that I think religion is worse than these things. I assure you, I mean it quite literally. I don't believe that religious people should be incarcerated, of course, but in terms of raw severity I think the problem of religion is worse.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldn't God soften Pharaoh's heart, instead of hardening it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or melt his heart with a cool island song....no wait...

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Mother Teresa placed her heart/faith/feeling at the top.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, although it seems like she was finding it difficult to squash the nagging voice of reason (http://www.cyberindian.com/mother-teresa/does-god-really-exist.php):

[ QUOTE ]
Mother Teresa, put on the fast-track to sainthood by the Pope after her death five years ago, was tormented by a crisis of belief for 50 years, her writings reveal.....

Mother Teresa, who worked among the poor of Calcutta, wrote in 1958: "My smile is a great cloak that hides a multitude of pains." Because she was "forever smiling", people thought "my faith, my hope and my love are overflowing and that my intimacy with God and union with his will fill my heart. If only they knew"

Mother Teresa said in another letter: "The damned of hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God. In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist."

[/ QUOTE ]

A pity this ambivalence towards faith didn't extend to having a less dogmatic attitude towards contraception for the poor in slums. I guess when you believe that "The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering (http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm)", then helping people out of this plight isn't on your agenda. None of Mother Teresa's clinics stock strong analgesics, because it would ruin the experience of watching all that noble misery and suffering. When Mother Teresa got sick herself, though, she preferred to fly to expensive medical clinics in California. Apparently the nobility of suffering didn't extend to her own suffering.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldn't God soften Pharaoh's heart, instead of hardening it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or melt his heart with a cool island song....no wait...

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that such an approach is mistaken, and that the beliefs of the suicidal or criminally psychotic are irrelevant? Perhaps intervention isn't justified?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a general litmus test of whether a person poses immanent danger to himself or others, which seems to be somewhat functional.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure you accept the authenticity of my statements that I think religion is worse than these things. I assure you, I mean it quite literally. I don't believe that religious people should be incarcerated, of course, but in terms of raw severity I think the problem of religion is worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're talking about the Taliban rule in Afghanistan and overall societal structure, I could see your point. But in modern Western democracies, I really can't see the issue or quite frankly the magnitude of the threat you feel religion is posing. All powers to control the life or liberty of a person are vested solely with the government. Not that I don't think there are problems, I do. But I really can't see your point that religion is the sole cause of the problems any more than if a group of UFO-oligists were lobbying Congress or basing their votes for candidates that would support building a federally funded alien welcome center. The problem isn't the Trekker organization it's the Trekkies.

As far as Mother Teresa, when they pull her Noble Peace Prize, I'll think of someone else for the analogy.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as Mother Teresa, when they pull her Noble Peace Prize, I'll think of someone else for the analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Nobel Peace Prize isn't exactly an indication of an untarnished soul. Previous recipients also include Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho and Yasser Arafat. An Australian journalist once quipped that the best way to win a Nobel Peace Prize was to kill a lot of people and then promise to stop.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
But in modern Western democracies, I really can't see the issue or quite frankly the magnitude of the threat you feel religion is posing. All powers to control the life or liberty of a person are vested solely with the government. Not that I don't think there are problems, I do. But I really can't see your point that religion is the sole cause of the problems any more than if a group of UFO-oligists were lobbying Congress or basing their votes for candidates that would support building a federally funded alien welcome center. The problem isn't the Trekker organization it's the Trekkies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really understand that analogy at the end. If people are voting to abrogate liberties because they hold religious beliefs, then our options are either to overturn democracy, which would be unwise given all other systems of government are worse, or to fight the spread of those beliefs. To put it another way, imagine all the Wahhabi Sunnis in the world moved to Australia. They would be in the majority and I'd be living under sharia law. Should I be comforted by the fact that the power to control my liberty is vested in the government?

The magnitude of the threat of religion is because religious beliefs can be (and in the past have been) used to justify just about any insane policy. If "rapture ready" type Christians ever become a majority in the US, we're all in deep trouble. Furthermore one need not even live in the same country as religious fanatics in order for one's life and liberty to be in peril, as New Yorkers found out on the morning of September 11th 2001.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with that, of course. But I think you misinterpret the atheist position. It's not that reason should prevail over emotion. It's that when your emotions tell you a vicious tyrant is worthy of worship, something is wrong with them. They've turned against you, and only your reason can set things right. Reason here is the good friend who holds the intervention for the desperate addict. It's not that you should listen to reason above emotion, but to entirely dismiss reason is to toss yourself into denial just as surely as any addict ever has.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I will say that emotions need to be educated. Where I think we're disagreeing is when I say religion - not solely, but also - can serve this purpose.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
If "rapture ready" type Christians ever become a majority in the US, we're all in deep trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this as even a remote possibility. What you seem to be suggesting is that the Christian Coalition could become so powerful they could orchestrate a Constitutional Convention. And like I said, there's no way I can even imagine such a thing happening. I'm thinking more along the practical lines of removing the religious influence from civic affairs in areas like stem-cell research, creation science being taught in school, etc…

But I guess if you and others want to take on and demolish religion, oh well, it's been attempted before. It seems like every so often a generation decides to kill God, but at the end of the day God isn't dead - Nietzsche is. In the story from the OP in Exodus, legend has it that the Pharaoh had an inscription removed from the temples: the inscription read, "Nuk-pu-Nuk," which when translated reads, "I am that I am". I don't know if the legend is true or not, but I do know it's very, very old. Like I said people have been trying to kill that particular God for a long, long time.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're talking about the Taliban rule in Afghanistan and overall societal structure, I could see your point. But in modern Western democracies, I really can't see the issue or quite frankly the magnitude of the threat you feel religion is posing. All powers to control the life or liberty of a person are vested solely with the government. Not that I don't think there are problems, I do. But I really can't see your point that religion is the sole cause of the problems any more than if a group of UFO-oligists were lobbying Congress or basing their votes for candidates that would support building a federally funded alien welcome center. The problem isn't the Trekker organization it's the Trekkies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose we just have to disagree here. I think the entrenched alienation of Western society is the biggest problem the world is facing right now, and I think religion is one of the main causes.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with that, of course. But I think you misinterpret the atheist position. It's not that reason should prevail over emotion. It's that when your emotions tell you a vicious tyrant is worthy of worship, something is wrong with them. They've turned against you, and only your reason can set things right. Reason here is the good friend who holds the intervention for the desperate addict. It's not that you should listen to reason above emotion, but to entirely dismiss reason is to toss yourself into denial just as surely as any addict ever has.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I will say that emotions need to be educated. Where I think we're disagreeing is when I say religion - not solely, but also - can serve this purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. I can see it with Buddhism, but Christianity? It's too sour to be sweet, I think.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like every so often a generation decides to kill God, but at the end of the day God isn't dead - Nietzsche is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche wasn't trying to kill - he was mourning. It was the religious who killed God, in a backward frenzy of mob rule. And we all feel the loss.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems like every so often a generation decides to kill God, but at the end of the day God isn't dead - Nietzsche is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche wasn't trying to kill - he was mourning. It was the religious who killed God, in a backward frenzy of mob rule. And we all feel the loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took a little poetic license, when I said God… I should have said religion.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see this as even a remote possibility. What you seem to be suggesting is that the Christian Coalition could become so powerful they could orchestrate a Constitutional Convention. And like I said, there's no way I can even imagine such a thing happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

A constitutional convention is not necessary - a foreign policy driven by fundamentalism would be bad enough.

[ QUOTE ]
But I guess if you and others want to take on and demolish religion, oh well, it's been attempted before. It seems like every so often a generation decides to kill God, but at the end of the day God isn't dead

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an easy task, but that's no reason to be a fatalist about it. This generation is the best-armed to fight against religion there has ever been, and next generation will be even better armed. I certainly don't expect the battle to be won within my lifetime.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not an easy task, but that's no reason to be a fatalist about it. This generation is the best-armed to fight against religion there has ever been, and next generation will be even better armed. I certainly don't expect the battle to be won within my lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I wish you a limited success. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

But I have a question for you or others who are familiar with the meme complex or religion/God is a meme virus line of thinking. Have you considered the possibility that it may run even deeper in the human psyche than someone like Dawkins suggests?

Consider a point back into our primitive ancestral history, when what we consider as consciousness first began to appear in humans. Now whether that consciousness began to appear in a very gradual process over millennia or it happened to occur in a person's lifetime, I don't think really applies. At some point in time some individual began to feel a sense of self as we do now. I'm not saying it was verbalized, just that at some particular moment the concept/thought/feeling that "I am" arose in someone's mind for the first time.

Now going back to the name of God given to Moses, "I am that I am," what if that's true? What if that "I am" is the same "I am" that first appeared into the mind of primitive man? And I use the term "appeared" here, because in the mind of that primitive man, I think that's exactly the impression he would have had, but in a slightly different way. What appeared wasn't something outside of him, it was his own being that he now stood apart from - and there was something within him that wasn't there before - the I am.

The idea I'm trying to get at is, if things happened in a way similar to what I just described, and what we now call God is really that first awareness of the "I am" within, it's deeply woven into our conscious being. In a sense, it's really who we are. And whether we now refer to that process as emergence or awakening really doesn't matter too much. What matters is that it's who we are. And I feel it's a part of us we should try to understand, rather than an external parasitic virus that needs to be killed.

[MidGe]

John21,

I think I agree with you here, unless I misunderstand what you are saying.

To me, both "I" and "god" are delusional concepts, egotically rooted and dissociated, although the "I" has a function in, whereas the "god" one is totally superfluous to functioning as, a human being.

[madnak]

When we view the "I am" as a brutal bloodthirsty entity, it's a sickness. Religion is just a symptom of that sickness, admittedly. Sometimes attacking the symptom really can touch to the root of a thing. Regardless, the manifestation of a disease or deformity deserves no respect. It can't be killed; that doesn't mean it has to remain distorted. And religion twists the "I am" into nightmare shapes. (Or results from such a twisting, it becomes semantic at a certain point.)

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious... in the case of the religious family that had their child born sick and it died right after it was born. The parents were excited that they were chosen by God to have their infant die right after it was born. "Thank You, God!!!"

What are the accomplishments here that we're supposed to marvel over?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming God exists, he doesn't deserve worship for being the creator any more than a child should be obliged to worship his parents.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong.

[txag007]

If concrete evidence that 600,000 Jews lived in Egypt at some point prior to 1250 B.C. was discovered, would you become a Christian?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If concrete evidence that 600,000 Jews lived in Egypt at some point prior to 1250 B.C. was discovered, would you become a Christian?

[/ QUOTE ]

No! Why should I?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming God exists, he doesn't deserve worship for being the creator any more than a child should be obliged to worship his parents.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain? Or is this another one of those junctures where you're going to vaguely imply im not well-read enough and refuse to supply references?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea I'm trying to get at is, if things happened in a way similar to what I just described, and what we now call God is really that first awareness of the "I am" within, it's deeply woven into our conscious being. In a sense, it's really who we are.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that were the case, I should experience severe difficulty in being an atheist. But I don't experience even the slightest problem believing what I believe.

[txag007]

The woman is not the child's creator.

The woman's motivation was not to create a deformed child.

[txag007]

I wasn't asking you.

EDIT: But it illustrates my point just the same.

A person doesn't believe the Bible is true because of a lack of archaelogical evidence.

(Nevermind that no archaelogical evidence has ever contradicted the writings in the Bible).

When I bring up archaelogical evidence that supports the Bible, this person says, "Well, that's not enough evidence."

When I ask if this person would become a Christian if archaelogical evidence was discovered that confirmed a particular passage of the Bible as being true, this person answers with an emphatic no.

Sounds to me like this person isn't honestly searching for the truth.

[kurto]

Let me rephrase-
ME:
[ QUOTE ]
in the case of the religious family that had their child born sick and it died right after it was born. The parents were excited that they were chosen by God to have their infant die right after it was born. "Thank You, God!!!"


[/ QUOTE ]

TXAG:
[ QUOTE ]
God works through a weak person so that it will be known that He had a part in that person's accomplishments. It's for His glory!

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the Glory here? What are the accomplishments you are referring to here?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
A person doesn't believe the Bible is true because of a lack of archaelogical evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm... that's just one of many fantastic reasons to believe the Bible isn't true. Its better to look at it the other way. There's really no GOOD reason to beleieve the Bible is real.

[ QUOTE ]
(Nevermind that no archaelogical evidence has ever contradicted the writings in the Bible).


[/ QUOTE ] Not true. Every dinosaur bone contradicts the Bible. Also- there's plenty of evidence the entire earth was never flooded.

[ QUOTE ]
When I bring up archaelogical evidence that supports the Bible, this person says, "Well, that's not enough evidence."


[/ QUOTE ]
No archeological evidence supports the truth of the Bible. Even if every town mentioned in the Bible is real. If every war mentioned in the Bible happened. If 90% of the figures mentioned are real. It doesn't prove ANYTHING about the truth of the Bible.

[ QUOTE ]
When I ask if this person would become a Christian if archaelogical evidence was discovered that confirmed a particular passage of the Bible as being true, this person answers with an emphatic no.


[/ QUOTE ] As they should. The existence of a group of people existing doesn't prove anything about Christianity. It boggles the mind that you don't get this.

If I write a book which states that Napolean's was possessed by an alien and his campaign was an attempt for alien's to conquer the Earth... and I get all the historical details right and all the characters are real historical figures. If I can prove that there was a Napolean and all the other people in the book are real, would you then logically have to believe that Aliens tried to take over the world?

According to Txag Logic... if some details of a book are real, they all must be.

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds to me like this person isn't honestly searching for the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds to me like you would fail out of logic 101 as taught in a local community college.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds to me like you would fail out of logic 101 as taught in a local community college.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not Argumentative Writing, apparently.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

[ QUOTE ]

(Nevermind that no archaelogical evidence has ever contradicted the writings in the Bible).


[/ QUOTE ]

lol.


http://www.nazarethmyth.info/myth

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me rephrase-
ME:
[ QUOTE ]
in the case of the religious family that had their child born sick and it died right after it was born. The parents were excited that they were chosen by God to have their infant die right after it was born. "Thank You, God!!!"


[/ QUOTE ]

TXAG:
[ QUOTE ]
God works through a weak person so that it will be known that He had a part in that person's accomplishments. It's for His glory!

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the Glory here? What are the accomplishments you are referring to here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, there is something you need to understand before we can start talking about this. What is that? Life is a GIFT from God, not a right. In the same light, we somehow have placed "life" on a pedestal, and consider death to be the worst possible thing. So to Christians, our understanding is that our life (and the life of others) is a blessing from God. If God chooses to end our life (or make our life suffering, or great, or whatever) who are we to complain?

In the example you bring up with the child who was born sick and died soon after, where does God receive glory from this? Well from that fact that even despite this terrible tragedy, the parents continue to worship God. What does that mean? It means the parents consider God more important than life itself. (scary, isn't it?).

Now you may be asking, how can God be so cruel! well if you remember, life is a gift, it is God's to give and to take. But secondly, because God wants to test us (baptism in BOTH water and fire), to prove our faith to Him. But yeah, this probably all sounds like pyscho mumbo jumbo to you, so i'll end with an evil laugh: WAHHAHAHAH!!!!!

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, there is something you need to understand before we can start talking about this. What is that? Life is a GIFT from God, not a right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you need to understand that you can't start with the premise that life is a GIFT from God because you can't even rationally begine any premise with the assumption that there is God.

If we want to be hypothetical and say "let's pretend that there is a God and he grants life and that life is a gift", then we have to figure out how a child born in pain to then die quickly... how exactly that is a gift? Is a brief life of physical suffering really much of a gift? Certainly not by any standard we know of.

[ QUOTE ]
So to Christians, our understanding is that our life (and the life of others) is a blessing from God. If God chooses to end our life (or make our life suffering, or great, or whatever) who are we to complain?


[/ QUOTE ] But your understanding doesn't make sense. Let's say you can impregnate a dog. And you have some chemicals that you can inject in the mother that you know will make the puppy be born with a painful condition where it will come out of the womb suffering... let's say its bones are fragile and it comes out with its bones broken, its lungs are weak and it struggles for air. Within a day it will die. If you did this on purpose, only a psychopath would say you were "blessing that puppy with a life of suffering." Yet Christians decide it is their understanding that God is blessing a human with a life of suffering. This makes NO sense.

[ QUOTE ]
In the example you bring up with the child who was born sick and died soon after, where does God receive glory from this? Well from that fact that even despite this terrible tragedy, the parents continue to worship God.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, if a person say you birthing puppies born to short lives of pain... and people continued to praise you, you would say this is a good thing?

It really is bizarre, the logic of Christians. The way they defy reason to explain the absurdities of their beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
What does that mean? It means the parents consider God more important than life itself. (scary, isn't it?).


[/ QUOTE ]

No. It means they're irrational. They are suffering a tragedy. And as many religious folk do, their congitive dissonance takes hold and they tell themselves that they are blessed. (Imagine if they weren't blessed by God. There child may have been born healthy and they would have raised it in their home. But because they were blessed, they were so lucky that they got to watch their kid be born, live a very brief sickly existence and then die. How LUCKY. They did the only natural thing. They praised God for being lucky. Most people are cursed by having to raise their children. Not this lucky couple! God singled them out!)

[ QUOTE ]
Now you may be asking, how can God be so cruel! well if you remember, life is a gift, it is God's to give and to take.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if you realize that your nothing more then an insect and God's plaything then this sounds okay!

[ QUOTE ]
But secondly, because God wants to test us (baptism in BOTH water and fire), to prove our faith to Him.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. I sometimes beat my wife and torture her favorite cat in front of her. I want to test her love. Cause that's the loving thing to do.

You are describing a very sick and cruel God.

[ QUOTE ]
But yeah, this probably all sounds like pyscho mumbo jumbo to you, so i'll end with an evil laugh: WAHHAHAHAH!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

You got that right. I've said it before... there are times on this forum when it seems that Christians are trying to drive people away from Faith.

[dknightx]

im not going to respond to your post point by point because you won't understand where i'm coming from because you don't believe the same premises that i do which is namely:

1. there is an afterlife
2. our physical life is just a "blink of an eye" compared to enternity.

to expound on your dog example, let's say that i had the ability to take the dead dog, and bring his soul (let's just assume he has one, ok?) to DOGGIE HEAVEN (let's just assume there is a doggie heaven, ok?), which is full of delicious food, bones, and hot female dogs (let's just assume that this is how doggie heaven is like, ok?). Now let's say that for dogs that are born with this suffering condition, and only survive for a short amount of time still get to go to doggie heaven! As for the other dogs that lived a full, normal life, they only get to doggie heaven if i feel like they deserve to.

Finally, 1 > 0, you may consider being "blessed with a sick child" as -1, but a lot of people (both atheist and theist alike) would disagree. So let's just agree to disagree (again)

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
to expound on your dog example, let's say that i had the ability to take the dead dog, and bring his soul (let's just assume he has one, ok?) to DOGGIE HEAVEN (let's just assume there is a doggie heaven, ok?), which is full of delicious food, bones, and hot female dogs (let's just assume that this is how doggie heaven is like, ok?). Now let's say that for dogs that are born with this suffering condition, and only survive for a short amount of time still get to go to doggie heaven! As for the other dogs that lived a full, normal life, they only get to doggie heaven if i feel like they deserve to.

[/ QUOTE ]

This still doesn't explain why you willingly decide to make it suffer. You still are willingly inflicting intense suffering on helpless creatures (to which some Christians pretend is a blessing).

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, 1 > 0, you may consider being "blessed with a sick child" as -1, but a lot of people (both atheist and theist alike) would disagree. So let's just agree to disagree (again)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm.... blessed with a sick child that has a decent life maybe. I don't think many people if given the choice between "no child" or "you can have a child who will be born suffering, live 6 miserable months in pain and then die"... you think a lot of people are going to say having the child is the better?

People who lose their babies are often traumitized for life. They are not thinking what they had was better then nothing.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't asking you.

[/ QUOTE ]

My answer would have been, "No, but at least the Exodus story would stand a chance of becoming credible". Also, IIRC, it was 600 000 adult men in Exodus. That means at least a few million Jews.

Finally, evidence supporting the Exodus account really only directy helps Judaism. Even if I was to somehow become 100% convinced that the OT is true I'd still need a lot of evidence supporting the NT before I could call myself a Christian.

[ QUOTE ]
A person doesn't believe the Bible is true because of a lack of archaelogical evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone else already said, this is only one reason. I admit though that this is a big one for me. The shear scale of the Exodus story and it's lack of support anywhere else is a major problem with the OT for me. Add to that the problems with Genesis (which is even worse) and the post Exodus accounts.

[ QUOTE ]
(Nevermind that no archaelogical evidence has ever contradicted the writings in the Bible).

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to have very selective vision to argue this. At a miniumum there is significant evidence that Solomon was never a great king and that most of the ruins attributed to him by early 20th century Christian archeologists were actually built by others.

Dinosaur bones is actually palentology of course but these absolutely destroy Genesis.

[ QUOTE ]
When I bring up archaelogical evidence that supports the Bible, this person says, "Well, that's not enough evidence."

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is arguing that every last word of the OT is false. Of course there is some archeological support for many things in the Bible. The problem is that most of this evidence just supports banal things like Town X existed here and King Y lived then. But when it comes to the big and important stuff like Genesis, the Exodus, the wandering in the desert, and the conquering of Judea/Israel/Palestine the Bible fails miserably.

[ QUOTE ]
When I ask if this person would become a Christian if archaelogical evidence was discovered that confirmed a particular passage of the Bible as being true, this person answers with an emphatic no.

Sounds to me like this person isn't honestly searching for the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible has so many questionable passages that it'll take a lot more than just one to convince me. You need to realize that many stories in the Bible should have left massive evidence behind but instead left so little that we can't find a single shread (outside the Bible itself). This is a fantastically major problem that can't be addressed by a single piece of evidence for a single passage.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea I'm trying to get at is, if things happened in a way similar to what I just described, and what we now call God is really that first awareness of the "I am" within, it's deeply woven into our conscious being. In a sense, it's really who we are.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that were the case, I should experience severe difficulty in being an atheist. But I don't experience even the slightest problem believing what I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know about that. It sounds like you are experiencing problems with what you believe. Maybe I'm making assumptions I shouldn't be, but it would seem that if you had "no problems," you wouldn't even be posting. So would I be wrong in saying that when your beliefs encounter txag007's beliefs, you experience a slight problem that you wouldn't experience if you didn't hold those beliefs?

[Magic_Man]

In an effort to bring some discussion back to Exodus, my thoughts:

1) The OP pretty much summed up most of my thoughts. The god of the old testament is getting worse and worse. When I read the "hitleroonism" thread I thought it was a little far-fetched in some parts, but now I have little choice but to think that the OT God was an evil sadistic being. It's almost like he is having fun with pharoah, showing him amazing things but then hardening his heart to stop him from giving in. In some cases, pharoah even wants to give in, but he can't because God won't let him. And why do you have to kill the firstborn of someone in the dungeon? This is psychokiller at its worst. He made a covenant with Noah not to commit mass slaughter again, but he seems to have forgotten about that little promise. Should have gotten it in writing instead of just a rainbow. After all, it's hard to have rainbows in the desert.

2) I find it strange that the supposedly omniscient God needs the jews to put blood on the doors so that he knows where they live. In fact, between Genesis and Exodus, I'm having a very hard time understanding where the concept of an O3 God came from in the first place.

3) I've always thought that kosher laws were silly and outdated, especially when I hear the reasons for them. "Don't boil a calf in its mother's milk" HARDLY translates to "don't eat meat with dairy" to me. But beyond that, I was always told that the reason for the unleavened bread at passover was because the jews didn't have time to make the bread rise. NOT SO. God specifically told them NOT to leaven their bread, and it was just a coincidence that they didn't have time to leaven it. Now, of course some people are going to claim that God planned it all that way, but the order in which the story is told seems strange. 1 - God says "don't leaven your bread." 2 - They try to leaven it anyway but have to leave before they're done. Weird.

4) Along the same lines as (3), God is making up some weird rules again. First, in Genesis, you have to show your love for him by cutting off part of your penis. Now, you show your love by not leavening your bread, or by making all kinds of weird sacrifices and wearing specific pieces of clothing. I can just imagine Moses sitting on the mountaintop trying to write all this down. "Ok, the curtains are supposed to be blue? Wait, back up. How many gold rings? Where does the silver go again?" Given the scarcity of paper back in those days, he either had a great memory or an Easy Button sitting around somewhere.

5) I will forever have a new view of Passover as a celebration of the slaughter of the Egyptians.

6) Possibly the worst part of the story for me came right after the jews escaped from SLAVERY, and God tells them WHAT THEY SHOULD DO WITH THEIR OWN SLAVES. So not only is he a sadistic killer who for some reason shows favoritism to the jews because of a promise he made to a few of them years ago, but now he is a fantastic hypocrite as well. Also, their slaves can only participate in things if they cut off part of their penis. More weird demands. Maybe God is setting up for an insanity plea?

7) The language that was used to refer to "other gods" was strange to me. It almost gave the impression that there ARE other gods. Take ch. 20: "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth." In addition, he tells Moses on several occasions not to worship the gods of other people. No mention that the reason for this is because those gods are false, but only that the Jealous God is the one who should be worshipped.

8) In related news, I find it amusing that idols are not allowed, but that a ridiculous amount of gold and craftsmanship is required to worship God. Why can't we just pray meaningfully? Why all the nonsense and shennanigans?

9) The people in the bible are once again being idiots. The jews have SEEN the power of God so many times on their escape, and they are still so impatient. Their reaction to "we don't know where Moses is" is to worship a golden calf? Where the hell did Aaron get that idea??


That's all of my quick notes for now. More thoughts to come.

~M^2

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
The language that was used to refer to "other gods" was strange to me. It almost gave the impression that there ARE other gods. Take ch. 20: "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth." In addition, he tells Moses on several occasions not to worship the gods of other people. No mention that the reason for this is because those gods are false, but only that the Jealous God is the one who should be worshipped.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would make sense if the people creating this religion actually believed in other Gods. Remember when the Romans adopted Christianity, they still worshipped their Gods.

[ QUOTE ]
The people in the bible are once again being idiots. The jews have SEEN the power of God so many times on their escape, and they are still so impatient. Their reaction to "we don't know where Moses is" is to worship a golden calf? Where the hell did Aaron get that idea??


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you listed this. I remember many years ago being puzzled by this. (It may have been while watching the film the 10 commandments) Trying to figure out why the Jews suddenly decided worshipping some other God when it was pretty clear the 'other God' was the real deal. But you really have to stop looking for logical consistancy in the Bible if you're going to read it. I don't believe I've ever seen anyone express their confusion at this though. I'm glad that you posted this thought.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The language that was used to refer to "other gods" was strange to me. It almost gave the impression that there ARE other gods. Take ch. 20: "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth." In addition, he tells Moses on several occasions not to worship the gods of other people. No mention that the reason for this is because those gods are false, but only that the Jealous God is the one who should be worshipped.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would make sense if the people creating this religion actually believed in other Gods. Remember when the Romans adopted Christianity, they still worshipped their Gods.

[ QUOTE ]
The people in the bible are once again being idiots. The jews have SEEN the power of God so many times on their escape, and they are still so impatient. Their reaction to "we don't know where Moses is" is to worship a golden calf? Where the hell did Aaron get that idea??


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you listed this. I remember many years ago being puzzled by this. (It may have been while watching the film the 10 commandments) Trying to figure out why the Jews suddenly decided worshipping some other God when it was pretty clear the 'other God' was the real deal. But you really have to stop looking for logical consistancy in the Bible if you're going to read it. I don't believe I've ever seen anyone express their confusion at this though. I'm glad that you posted this thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another weird thing about it is the way Aaron describes it to Moses. "I threw the gold into the fire, and out came this calf." Almost like it was magic or the work of other gods. When they describe the making of the calf the first time though, it seems like he molded it himself. Was Aaron lying to avoid the whole MASS-MURDER thing that followed?

[madnak]

Good stuff. I think I'm going to start taking notes as I read so I can point out all the silly stuff - the whole book is really rife with it.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Good stuff. I think I'm going to start taking notes as I read so I can point out all the silly stuff - the whole book is really rife with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the other rules are some of the silliest stuff. Why God makes all these crazy demands is beyond my comprehension. Also, something I never realized before - I got the impression that the "tablets" did not just contain the 10 commandments, but all the other laws as well (stuff about goats and bulls and whether someone shall surely be put to death). Is that true?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about that. It sounds like you are experiencing problems with what you believe. Maybe I'm making assumptions I shouldn't be, but it would seem that if you had "no problems," you wouldn't even be posting. So would I be wrong in saying that when your beliefs encounter txag007's beliefs, you experience a slight problem that you wouldn't experience if you didn't hold those beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? This is a very literalist interpretation of what I said. By "have no problem" I mean that it takes no effort of will for me to disbelieve in God, which presumably it would if religion were embedded in our psyche.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP pretty much summed up most of my thoughts. The god of the old testament is getting worse and worse. When I read the "hitleroonism" thread I thought it was a little far-fetched in some parts, but now I have little choice but to think that the OT God was an evil sadistic being.

[/ QUOTE ]


M^2,
So it just summed up what you already thought? Don't we have a name for that? When you're reading these stories do any alarm bells go off that maybe there's some type of "moral to the story," other than summing up your preconceived notions?

I mean at one point we have the children of Israel who are slaves in Egypt. Then God performed a series of dazzling miracles and gets them out. Now they have their freedom and are heading for the Promised Land.
(Warning! Plot Spoiler) But they never got there. Why not?

Well, they griped about the food - they had just been delivered from slavery and they are complaining about the food?!
They whined and cried and griped about the water. In the desert they HAD water to drink, but... it didn't taste that good?!
They whined and complained about the leadership... that had just delivered them from slavery?!
They complained that it was too hot, too cold, too far, too difficult, too rocky.
They whined and cried for years - forty to be exact.
Finally, God said, "that's it - I've had it - Trip Cancelled!"

Can you find any moral to this story at all?

I know this sounds facetious, but I'm really not trying to be. This is just boggling my mind.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP pretty much summed up most of my thoughts. The god of the old testament is getting worse and worse. When I read the "hitleroonism" thread I thought it was a little far-fetched in some parts, but now I have little choice but to think that the OT God was an evil sadistic being.

[/ QUOTE ]


M^2,
So it just summed up what you already thought? Don't we have a name for that? When you're reading these stories do any alarm bells go off that maybe there's some type of "moral to the story," other than summing up your preconceived notions?

I mean at one point we have the children of Israel who are slaves in Egypt. Then God performed a series of dazzling miracles and gets them out. Now they have their freedom and are heading for the Promised Land.
(Warning! Plot Spoiler) But they never got there. Why not?

Well, they griped about the food - they had just been delivered from slavery and they are complaining about the food?!
They whined and cried and griped about the water. In the desert they HAD water to drink, but... it didn't taste that good?!
They whined and complained about the leadership... that had just delivered them from slavery?!
They complained that it was too hot, too cold, too far, too difficult, too rocky.
They whined and cried for years - forty to be exact.
Finally, God said, "that's it - I've had it - Trip Cancelled!"

Can you find any moral to this story at all?

I know this sounds facetious, but I'm really not trying to be. This is just boggling my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jews are whiny? We should be thankful to God for the good things he does for us and completely ignore all of the horrible things he does TO us?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP pretty much summed up most of my thoughts. The god of the old testament is getting worse and worse. When I read the "hitleroonism" thread I thought it was a little far-fetched in some parts, but now I have little choice but to think that the OT God was an evil sadistic being.

[/ QUOTE ]


M^2,
So it just summed up what you already thought? Don't we have a name for that? When you're reading these stories do any alarm bells go off that maybe there's some type of "moral to the story," other than summing up your preconceived notions?

I mean at one point we have the children of Israel who are slaves in Egypt. Then God performed a series of dazzling miracles and gets them out. Now they have their freedom and are heading for the Promised Land.
(Warning! Plot Spoiler) But they never got there. Why not?

Well, they griped about the food - they had just been delivered from slavery and they are complaining about the food?!
They whined and cried and griped about the water. In the desert they HAD water to drink, but... it didn't taste that good?!
They whined and complained about the leadership... that had just delivered them from slavery?!
They complained that it was too hot, too cold, too far, too difficult, too rocky.
They whined and cried for years - forty to be exact.
Finally, God said, "that's it - I've had it - Trip Cancelled!"

Can you find any moral to this story at all?

I know this sounds facetious, but I'm really not trying to be. This is just boggling my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jews are whiny? We should be thankful to God for the good things he does for us and completely ignore all of the horrible things he does TO us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which reminds me of something I thought about in class today. Why is no one worried that prayer might be CAUSING cancer? Surely its possible. God likes to punish whiny, needy people. Help yourselves, he always said. So how come we don't worry about prayer causing cancer?

If you are worried about the mechanism, surely it could use some fashion of the 'cancer-curing' pathway thats already been well-established. Of course I can't prove prayer causes cancer, but you can't prove it doesn't. Shouldn't priests take this into consideration when they pray for sick people, and ask the sick people and their families to pray as well?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Which reminds me of something I thought about in class today. Why is no one worried that prayer might be CAUSING cancer? Surely its possible. God likes to punish whiny, needy people. Help yourselves, he always said. So how come we don't worry about prayer causing cancer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny you should mention that - Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion cites (p63) a double blind experiment to determine the efficacy of prayer in curing cancer patients. In most groups there was no change, but among the group of patients who knew they were being prayed for, there was a statistically significant increase in complications. God really does move in mysterious ways.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
So it just summed up what you already thought? Don't we have a name for that? When you're reading these stories do any alarm bells go off that maybe there's some type of "moral to the story," other than summing up your preconceived notions?

[/ QUOTE ]

What abstract moral do you think we should draw from the Exodus story? That the just thing to do if a country has an evil dictator is unleash destruction on the populace?

You can't even draw the moral that God will look after his own, since this immediately begs the question of why an omnipotent God allowed his chosen people to become enslaved in the first place. Taking a siesta, maybe.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP pretty much summed up most of my thoughts. The god of the old testament is getting worse and worse. When I read the "hitleroonism" thread I thought it was a little far-fetched in some parts, but now I have little choice but to think that the OT God was an evil sadistic being.

[/ QUOTE ]


M^2,
So it just summed up what you already thought? Don't we have a name for that? When you're reading these stories do any alarm bells go off that maybe there's some type of "moral to the story," other than summing up your preconceived notions?

I mean at one point we have the children of Israel who are slaves in Egypt. Then God performed a series of dazzling miracles and gets them out. Now they have their freedom and are heading for the Promised Land.
(Warning! Plot Spoiler) But they never got there. Why not?

Well, they griped about the food - they had just been delivered from slavery and they are complaining about the food?!
They whined and cried and griped about the water. In the desert they HAD water to drink, but... it didn't taste that good?!
They whined and complained about the leadership... that had just delivered them from slavery?!
They complained that it was too hot, too cold, too far, too difficult, too rocky.
They whined and cried for years - forty to be exact.
Finally, God said, "that's it - I've had it - Trip Cancelled!"

Can you find any moral to this story at all?

I know this sounds facetious, but I'm really not trying to be. This is just boggling my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't lost on us. Yes, it has a similar structure to a fable in some ways. But the ant didn't vivisect the grasshopper, the tortoise didn't commit genocide on hares. Let me tell you the story of the fox and the grapes.

The fox raped the hen. Then he broke her neck, but she was still alive. He ripped her innards out while she squirmed. Then he found the monkey and asked to meet his family. The monkey showed the fox to his home, and the fox barricaded the door and burned the whole house down with the monkey family inside it. Then the fox saw some grapes, but he couldn't get them. Then the fox lined up all the hen's chicks and swallowed them up one by one. They died in his stomach. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention - when the fox didn't get the grapes, he said they were sour or something.

Isn't that just the most pleasant fable?

You can't arbitrarily omit some elements, string together others, and clarify ambiguities, and then claim that you have the message of the original work. Particularly when the original work is full of gratuitous atrocities.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it just summed up what you already thought? Don't we have a name for that? When you're reading these stories do any alarm bells go off that maybe there's some type of "moral to the story," other than summing up your preconceived notions?

[/ QUOTE ]

What abstract moral do you think we should draw from the Exodus story? That the just thing to do if a country has an evil dictator is unleash destruction on the populace?

You can't even draw the moral that God will look after his own, since this immediately begs the question of why an omnipotent God allowed his chosen people to become enslaved in the first place. Taking a siesta, maybe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they disobeyed him then, too. In fact, that's pretty much all they ever did. God didn't choose his people too well.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
What abstract moral do you think we should draw from the Exodus story?

[/ QUOTE ]
With the last example I gave, I'd say the moral would be that for people who are not grateful for what they have, and spend all their time complaining about what they don’t have, things don't work out well for them.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't arbitrarily omit some elements, string together others, and clarify ambiguities, and then claim that you have the message of the original work. Particularly when the original work is full of gratuitous atrocities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you agree that the interpretation's you've made are dramatically different than the interpretation of any religious person?

Are you saying the problem with religious people is that they're not accurately interpreting the Bible?

I really must be missing something here.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't arbitrarily omit some elements, string together others, and clarify ambiguities, and then claim that you have the message of the original work. Particularly when the original work is full of gratuitous atrocities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you agree that the interpretation's you've made are dramatically different than the interpretation of any religious person?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I think a large majority of people who've read the Bible, including (perhaps especially) Christians, come to similar conclusions. Most Christians (at least in the US) believe that people like me (and other unbelievers) will be tortured eternally, and that this is the way things should be.

Are you missing something? Well, I sure am. I don't see how anyone could possibly believe such a terrible thing. But they do.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying the problem with religious people is that they're not accurately interpreting the Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many problems with religion. I think one common problem of religious people is that they've never even read the Bible (I'd wager 90%+ of Christians). Another is that they put the cultural myth of compassionate Christianity over the actual scriptures. And another is that they have a strong and disturbing ability to "look the other way" when awful things happen (not just in fiction, but in real life as well).

World War 2 proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the pressures of authority and society can drive large groups of ordinary people to do (not just stand by for, but actually take part in) sickening things. I think Christians are comparable to the Nazis. Most of whom were not horrible monsters, but decent people who (due to the peculiarities of human psychology) believed horrible things and acted in horrible ways.

The Bible directly describes rape, murder, torture, genocide, and disease as desirable things and deserved punishments (directly delivered by God himself). This is a fact. Whatever message the Bible is designed to express, unless it's something very subtle, intricate and ironic (think de Sade) it could be expressed without such barbaric content. And certainly without the direct advocation of such content. At best, the Bible is a deeply flawed and horribly inept attempt at a good message. At worst, it's a stellar example of a bad message. Either way, it has no place being held up as an example, much less an ideal.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP pretty much summed up most of my thoughts. The god of the old testament is getting worse and worse. When I read the "hitleroonism" thread I thought it was a little far-fetched in some parts, but now I have little choice but to think that the OT God was an evil sadistic being.

[/ QUOTE ]


M^2,
So it just summed up what you already thought? Don't we have a name for that? When you're reading these stories do any alarm bells go off that maybe there's some type of "moral to the story," other than summing up your preconceived notions?

I mean at one point we have the children of Israel who are slaves in Egypt. Then God performed a series of dazzling miracles and gets them out. Now they have their freedom and are heading for the Promised Land.
(Warning! Plot Spoiler) But they never got there. Why not?

Well, they griped about the food - they had just been delivered from slavery and they are complaining about the food?!
They whined and cried and griped about the water. In the desert they HAD water to drink, but... it didn't taste that good?!
They whined and complained about the leadership... that had just delivered them from slavery?!
They complained that it was too hot, too cold, too far, too difficult, too rocky.
They whined and cried for years - forty to be exact.
Finally, God said, "that's it - I've had it - Trip Cancelled!"

Can you find any moral to this story at all?

I know this sounds facetious, but I'm really not trying to be. This is just boggling my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you must have misread my original quote; I meant that the OP (original post) summed up the thoughts that I had after reading Exodus, so I didn't feel compelled to repeat those thoughts in detail. I did have some preconceived idea that the OT god might be evil, but I specifically did not think him worse than, say, Hitler. AFTER reading Exodus, I don't see how you couldn't think so, so this is pretty much the opposite of bias. I do agree that you can see a moral in the story, but part of the problem is that this is one of the passages that many Christians seem to think really did happen. Even if it is completely metaphorical or hyperbole, Madnak has pointed out above that this is a horrible way to tell a fable.

[txag007]

1. Archeology indicates Nazareth existed as far back as the 7th century B.C. (I know your link referred to a "gap" before resettlement, but it wouldn't let me read anything about this "gap" without purchasing the reports, and I'm certainly not going to do that).

2. The Anchor Bible Dictionary contains evidence in the form of Herodian tombs that show Nazareth being settled at the time of Jesus.

3. The name of Nazareth shows up on a first century synagogue inscription at Caesarea.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Dinosaur bones is actually palentology of course but these absolutely destroy Genesis.


[/ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't, but I'll certainly give you the opportunity to show me how.