• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Exodus

RabidAlpaca said:
Yes. He's omnipotent, which means absolutely EVERYTHING is within his control. Therefore every single ounce of human suffering is 100% avoidable and 100% of his construction.

That is, if you believe in him at all.
Click to expand...

You really have never had the concept of Jewish/Christian free will explained to you?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Sure, I agree with that. There is even some explanation for the lack of evidence, in that the Egyptians did not record military defeats, and they certainly wouldn't have recorded the loss of a tribe of slaves.
Click to expand...


Did the Exodus Really Happen? Rabbi David Wolpe on the Passover story - Beliefnet.com

Did the Exodus Really Happen?

Knowing the Exodus is not a literal historical account does not ultimately change our connection to each other or to God.

BY: Rabbi David Wolpe

We have found Sinai evidence of other people who predated the Israelites, and while it is improbable that 600,000 men crossed the desert 2,500 years ago without leaving a shard of pottery or a Hebrew carving, it is not impossible. (Together with women and children, that makes a couple of million, who could actually fill the distance between Egypt and Israel by standing in line.) One rabbi quoted to me the mystical tradition that one tribe was deputized to clean up every trace, which at least shows the Jewish tradition's unease with Sinai's preternaturally clean slate.

However, the archeological conclusions are not based primarily on the absence of Sinai evidence. Rather, they are based upon the study of settlement patterns in Israel itself. Surveys of ancient settlements--pottery remains and so forth--make it clear that there simply was no great influx of people around the time of the Exodus (given variously as between 1500-1200 BCE). Therefore, not the wandering, but the arrival alerts us to the fact that the biblical Exodus is not a literal depiction. In Israel at that time, there was no sudden change in the kind or the volume of pottery being made. (If people suddenly arrived after hundreds of years in Egypt, their cups and dishes would look very different from native Canaanites'.) There was no population explosion. Most archeologists conclude that the Israelites lived largely in Canaan over generations, instead of leaving and then immigrating back to Canaan.

continued.........
 
Therefore the best explanation for all of the archaeological evidence seems to be that Israel is a confederation of Hapiru tribes in the hill country of Canaan, that formed the nation of Israel in the Iron Age. Originally, Abraham was part of an Amorite migration south into Canaan from Mesopotamia which continued down to Egypt climaxing in the Hyksos rule. The exodus is to be identified with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt by Ahmose (1570-50 BC; Frerichs and Lesko, 1997, 82, 96). Then they wandered in the wilderness being included among the Shasu, and caused the fall of MBIIIC cities in Canaan (the conquest). The Conquest was not total but just in the highlands for Egypt controlled the lower lands and coast. They were called Hapiru (from which the name Hebrew originates) in the Amarna period (time of the judges) until their league was consolidated into 12 tribes which became the nation of Israel in the Iron Age.
Click to expand...

One of the most important discoveries that relate to the time of the Exodus is the Merneptah stele which dates to about 1210 BC. Merneptah, the king of Egypt, boasts that he has destroyed his enemies in Canaan. He states: Plundered is the Canaan with every evil; Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; (ANET 1969, 378).The word "Israel" here is written in Egyptian with the determinative for people rather than land (ANET 1969, 378 note 18). This implies that Israel did not have a king or kingdom at this time. This would be the time of the judges. The text also implies that Israel was as strong as the other cities mentioned, and not just a small tribe.
Click to expand...

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

I'm guessing that's a Christian source, and there is a ton of indecipherable (for me) stuff in the paper.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
You really have never had the concept of Jewish/Christian free will explained to you?
Click to expand...

Sure I have. So he creates a system in which the majority of people on earth are inherently disadvantaged and have a high probability of going to hell. Hell, his construct, a place where he will eternally punish the majority of his creations for being part of the world that he created.

Anyone that calls him a loving and caring god has never actually considered what's going to happen to the non-believers.

If he does exist, it's quite obvious that he's a sadist.
 
sharon said:
Fascinating and confusing with such disparities in times and names... I can't sort it out either... and apparently all the experts disagree.
Click to expand...

I saw one article that said moving the date back to 2400BC causes ~"everything to line up nice".
 
ecofarm said:
I saw one article that said moving the date back to 2400BC causes ~"everything to line up nice".
Click to expand...

Doesn't work.. puts the flood only 500 years earlier.
 
sharon said:
Doesn't work.. puts the flood only 500 years earlier.
Click to expand...

I bet they had an answer to that (perhaps not YEC), but I wasn't about to explore such a 'theory'. I think it's mostly the religious (not religion) experts who push sketchy 'evidence' into the confusion.

I'd say we cannot be 100% sure either way.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
If God created everyone and everything, isn't it within his right to destroy everyone and everything?

God destroys the entire world during the great flood. He destroys entire cities (Sodom and Gomorrah).

According to the Bible, man only knows the difference between good and evil because we engaged in an act of evil (eating the apple). How, then, can you expect our moral understanding (knowledge between good and evil) to rival God's?

A good Christian/Jew would not question God's morality, because one would have the humility to know our own understanding cannot rival God's.

A non-believer would think the whole story is make-believe anyway, so debating it would be inconsequential.
Click to expand...

If by right, you mean the power...then yeah. If by right, you mean it's right for him to do it...then no, unless you don't don't care about the suffering and lives of innocent children. This story is especially horrifying because he targeted innocent children after forcing the pharoah to keep the jews as slaves.

Or you can explain why the act of creating something justifies torturing or murdering it, even if it's conscious and self aware, instead of just saying "well he created it so he can do whatever he wants right?". You have to demonstrate why that makes it a good thing to do instead of a horrible thing otherwise.
 
ecofarm said:
You really have never had the concept of Jewish/Christian free will explained to you?
Click to expand...

According to this story, god stripped the Pharoahs free will.
 
Misbelief said:
According to this story, god stripped the Pharoahs free will.
Click to expand...

God tests, but you decide. God knew how he would react to the tests, thus "God made him stubborn". Note, stubborn implies free will - he didn't HAVE to be that way. Just like I can "make" someone angry, but we all know that anger is within the control of the person and not others.


Have you ever had Biblical free will explained? It's very involved, touching on many aspects of the Bible, from Adam to The Gospel. Adam chose to disobey God (eating from the tree of knowledge to 'know' right from wrong himself), thereby questioning His sovereignty, just as Lucifer did and thus bringing the heavenly conflict to be decided on earth. Jesus kinda fixed what Adam did (sorta in the 'second son' motif), by giving God His due sovereignty (that being, the right to decide good and bad, right and wrong, etc). Jesus (despite being tested just as we are) bridged the gap between Adam and God, between us and God, ending the hopeless damnation of the Law, so that belief in Him can bring salvation and everlasting life.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
God tests, but you decide. God knew how he would react to the tests, thus "God made him stubborn". Note, stubborn implies free will - he didn't HAVE to be that way. Just like I can "make" someone angry, but we all know that anger is within the control of the person and not others.


Have you ever had Biblical free will explained? It's very involved, touching on many aspects of the Bible, from Adam to The Gospel. Adam chose to disobey God, thereby questioning his sovereignty (just as Lucifer did, thus bringing the struggle to be decided on earth). Jesus kinda fixed what Adam did, by giving God his due sovereignty (that being, the ability to decide good and bad, right and wrong, etc).
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense. God forced him to do something he was already going to do? ...why do that? The fact it didn't have to be that way was the point, god forced him thereby taking away his free will. Also stubborn doesn't imply free will...if someone is stubborn that means they are less likely to accept something is true, if something is effecting your decisions then your will is not free. Making someone more stubborn is the opposite of free will. It's like you ignore all of the data that's been gained on human behavior.
 
Misbelief said:
That makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

I edited a lot. Try reading it again?

If you still don't get it, well, I'm no preacher (I'm atheist) but I tried. I think I explained it pretty well, but it's rather esoteric.
 
ecofarm said:
I edited a lot. Try reading it again?

If you still don't get it, well, I'm no preacher (I'm atheist) but I tried. I think I explained it pretty well, but it's rather esoteric.
Click to expand...
The problem is that what you are saying is incorrect, I'm not misunderstanding you.
 
sharon said:
Did the Exodus Really Happen? Rabbi David Wolpe on the Passover story - Beliefnet.com

Did the Exodus Really Happen?

Knowing the Exodus is not a literal historical account does not ultimately change our connection to each other or to God.


We have found Sinai evidence of other people who predated the Israelites, and while it is improbable that 600,000 men crossed the desert 2,500 years ago without leaving a shard of pottery or a Hebrew carving, it is not impossible. (Together with women and children, that makes a couple of million, who could actually fill the distance between Egypt and Israel by standing in line.) One rabbi quoted to me the mystical tradition that one tribe was deputized to clean up every trace, which at least shows the Jewish tradition's unease with Sinai's preternaturally clean slate.

However, the archeological conclusions are not based primarily on the absence of Sinai evidence. Rather, they are based upon the study of settlement patterns in Israel itself. Surveys of ancient settlements--pottery remains and so forth--make it clear that there simply was no great influx of people around the time of the Exodus (given variously as between 1500-1200 BCE). Therefore, not the wandering, but the arrival alerts us to the fact that the biblical Exodus is not a literal depiction. In Israel at that time, there was no sudden change in the kind or the volume of pottery being made. (If people suddenly arrived after hundreds of years in Egypt, their cups and dishes would look very different from native Canaanites'.) There was no population explosion. Most archeologists conclude that the Israelites lived largely in Canaan over generations, instead of leaving and then immigrating back to Canaan.

continued.........
Click to expand...

BY: Rabbi David Wolpe

Dr Rabbi Wolpe is a leading Jewish scholar a biblical historian. If he is saying that WOW thats a real shocker. It bears heavy consideration. No doubt
 
Misbelief said:
The problem is that what you are saying is incorrect, it's not a misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

I believe you'll find that Christians agree with my interpretation. Like I said, it's rather esoteric and without some basic Bible understanding it may easily escape someone.
 
Who are we to determine what is right and what is wrong?

Nearly every organized religion on the planet begins by teaching that one must learn to check their ego. A person must be humble before God.

Innocent children die every day. You don't need to look in the bible for stories, it's all around you. Does that make it God's will?

Perhaps.

Neither you nor I are wise enough to understand the grand plan. Neither you nor I know where we come from, how long we will be on this earth, or what happens to us after we die. We weren't there when the universe was formed. We weren't there when God formed our minds, or gave us the power to reason.

So be humble. Humility is, after all, at the root of all wisdom. According to Plato's accounts, Socrates once brilliantly said "I know one thing, that I know nothing." In a sense, this is the purest foundation of truth man has at his disposal.

If God says it is right, then it is right.


Misbelief said:
If by right, you mean the power...then yeah. If by right, you mean it's right for him to do it...then no, unless you don't don't care about the suffering and lives of innocent children. This story is especially horrifying because he targeted innocent children after forcing the pharoah to keep the jews as slaves.

Or you can explain why the act of creating something justifies torturing or murdering it, even if it's conscious and self aware, instead of just saying "well he created it so he can do whatever he wants right?". You have to demonstrate why that makes it a good thing to do instead of a horrible thing otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
Who are we to determine what is right and what is wrong?

Nearly every organized religion on the planet begins by teaching that one must learn to check their ego. A person must be humble before God.

Innocent children die every day. You don't need to look in the bible for stories, it's all around you. Does that make it God's will?

Perhaps.

Neither you nor I are wise enough to understand the grand plan. Neither you nor I know where we come from, how long we will be on this earth, or what happens to us after we die. We weren't there when the universe was formed. We weren't there when God formed our minds, or gave us the power to reason.

So be humble. Humility is, after all, at the root of all wisdom. According to Plato's accounts, Socrates once brilliantly said "I know one thing, that I know nothing." In a sense, this is the purest foundation of truth man has at his disposal.

If God says it is right, then it is right.
Click to expand...

Considering we're the most intelligent beings known to exist, I would say we're THE MOST qualified to determine right and wrong. You also weren't there....So why are you telling me that you know what happened? I am humble, I admit I don't know what "started" the rapid expansion, you are the opposite. You believe you know the answer yet have absolutely no evidence to demonstrate your belief.

How about...you be humble?

This is what just happened, I questioned the murder and torture of innocent children and you told me to be humble. Not convincing.
 
Since the subject of our debate is the morality of God, we are necessarily assuming that God exists. A non-existent God can be neither moral nor immoral, thus rendering the discussion pointless.

Therefore, we can assume that we are not the most intelligent beings, and we are not the most qualified to determine right from wrong.

In that context, I remain committed to my point, whether you choose to believe it or not.

Also, it wasn't my intention to insult you by telling you to be humble, but to educate you on a basic religious teaching: "Right" is defined as doing God's will, and "wrong" is defined as breaking His will. As you have seen, it is often difficult to do this, however it is still required.


Misbelief said:
Considering we're the most intelligent beings known to exist, I would say we're THE MOST qualified to determine right and wrong. You also weren't there....So why are you telling me that you know what happened? I am humble, I admit I don't know what "started" the rapid expansion, you are the opposite. You believe you know the answer yet have absolutely no evidence to demonstrate your belief.

How about...you be humble?

This is what just happened, I questioned the murder and torture of innocent children and you told me to be humble. Not convincing.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Misbelief said:
I just wanted some clarification

You'll notice that the old testament said that God hardened the pharoahs heart so he wouldn't release the jews....Does this mean god set the situation up so he can purposely kill and torture a bunch of innocent people?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. The god of the old testament was pretty much a dick.

I like the Tower of Babel story to highlight A) God is a dick B) God fears man C) Man's united potential can overcome the gods.
 
Ikari said:
Pretty much. The god of the old testament was pretty much a dick.

I like the Tower of Babel story to highlight A) God is a dick B) God fears man C) Man's united potential can overcome the gods.
Click to expand...


After having read this entire thread I find that while the language isn't quite what I would have used, the sentiment in this particular post, more than accurately describes the deity described in the Old Testament. I have heard pastors saying for years that we live in a 'different dispensation' so what we were required under Levitical Law isn't the same now. Yet lets look at a few Logic problems related to the Exodus and the OT. Notwithstanding the fallacy that most religious individuals claims Ramses II ,ie... Ranses the Great, was the alleged Pharoah during the supposed Exodus. Also the Bible claims not only did the Pharoahs army drown during the sudden rush of waters closing in but no trace of them were left. Now assuming the Pharoah had an Army large enough on hand to defeat 600,000 pissed off Hebrew men who just got their freedom, notwithstanding the women and children, why is there absolutely NO record of an army that large being completely wiped out. Now I realize the Pharoahs were fond of 'altering reality' in their stories and writings as seen with Ramses and his Battle with the Hittites where at best it was a draw but he claimed utter victory, Yet it would have taken AT LEAST 150,000 Egyptian warriors to even begin to attack the Hebrews who allegedly left Egypt yet there is no record of that many soldiers being defeated. Not even from outside sources. There IS a few very vague references to a people refered to as Habiru that some believe MAY be references to the Jews of the Egyptian exodus yet the problem with this line of reasoning is they THEY were long gone and lived in the Fertile Cresant of the Tigris and Euphrates Area and were slaves of the Summerians and Assyrians. NOT the Egyptians.I honestly believe that religious fervor and zeolotry over the centuries has led to artistic license with the stories took from other religions, altered them to suit their need and submitted them as from 'God'. IF God exists then perhaps He or she as the case may be, needs to look into hiring a better PR firm because his/her case has been badly mishandled over the last 6 millinea.
 
ecofarm said:
I bet they had an answer to that (perhaps not YEC), but I wasn't about to explore such a 'theory'. I think it's mostly the religious (not religion) experts who push sketchy 'evidence' into the confusion.

I'd say we cannot be 100% sure either way.
Click to expand...

I think we can be sure its a fiction, maybe based on the tale of Sinhue.. In any case its definitely a morality tale about redemption.. and snakes.

I have always wondered about the details.. like why they ate manna instead of roasting a few goats... and where they got sufficient water and pasture for their livestock..

And WHY.. after so many miracles on their behalf, did they revert to Baal worship in less than 30 days??
 
sharon said:
I think we can be sure its a fiction, maybe based on the tale of Sinhue.. In any case its definitely a morality tale about redemption.. and snakes.
Click to expand...

It fits with Hykos in Egyptian history. The Bronze Snake bothers me. How is that not an idol. People say because God, basically, made it and approved. I'm not satisfied with that.

I have always wondered about the details.. like why they ate manna instead of roasting a few goats...
Click to expand...

"I am the living bread" - Jesus. It was a foreshadow. And other symbolism feeds into it. For example, Jesus did not make manna fall from the sky when he fed 5000. Instead, he took some bread from disciples and turned that into much bread - symbolizing that what is given to God will be multiplied.

and where they got sufficient water and pasture for their livestock..
Click to expand...

Presumably springs that no longer exist? Dunno.

And WHY.. after so many miracles on their behalf, did they revert to Baal worship in less than 30 days??
Click to expand...

Man is weak.
 
ecofarm said:
It fits with Hykos in Egyptian history. The Bronze Snake bothers me. How is that not an idol. People say because God, basically, made it and approved. I'm not satisfied with that.



"I am the living bread" - Jesus. It was a foreshadow. And other symbolism feeds into it. For example, Jesus did not make manna fall from the sky when he fed 5000. Instead, he took some bread from disciples and turned that into much bread - symbolizing that what is given to God will be multiplied.



Presumably springs that no longer exist? Dunno.



Man is weak.
Click to expand...

2 million people with probably 5 million sheep and goats. There's little water in Sinai.. and the population can't support those numbers even now.

Remember also the dueling snakes before Pharaoh... until Moses' snake ate the snake of the court magician.
 
sharon said:
2 million people with probably 5 million sheep and goats. There's little water in Sinai.. and the population can't support those numbers even now.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But why didn't they eat animals instead of manna? They were hungry, right? They almost surely only ate manna, as they complained specifically about such. That implies that the animals didn't make it far.


Remember also the dueling snakes before Pharaoh... until Moses' snake ate the snake of the court magician.
Click to expand...

How does that fit with the Bronze snake? I don't see it off-hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom