Johnny Skeptic

Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4, there weren't any eyewitnesses. Regarding claim 3, a miracle healing is a subjective claim, not an objective claim. Since millions of today's Christians cannot agree on what constitutes a miracle healing, why do you believe that it was any different back then?

GakuseiDon

I don't think it is possible for God to prove that He exists ("the technologically advanced aliens" scenario), nor what we should do (for the same reason). I see faith as an integral -- and inevitable -- part of how we live our lives. But that discussion is off-thread and off-topic to this forum. If you'd like to debate this, perhaps start a thread in GRD?

Gundulf

If I can toss one thought into the mix - and I'm not claiming expertise in either of the two topics - just random thoughts.

This is not something true across the board, but I was surprised when I visited various museums and the like in Japan, that the history of WWII is entirely glossed over, almost ignored. Not entirely, of course, but being a WWII scholar in Japan is not exactly the quickest route to win friends and influence people. As I remember, even the museums at Nagasaki and Hiroshima barely acknowledge that there was a war going on at the time.

Only point is that the idea that a country might not take great efforts to record their greatest defeats is not totally out of the realm of possibility. I have no idea if Egyptian history records other similar embarrassments and humiliations, but if it does not, then there could be at least something to the idea that you're only going to read about such humiliations in the ancient world from the "victor's" point of view.

I just don't see the king of Egypt commissioning his scholars to write an account of "And then their God killed all our livestock, and then all our kids, and then wiped out half my army... And all of this could have been prevented if I had just been not so stupid as to let them go from the beginning..."

On the other hand, sure, you might expect perhaps some propaganda that at least responded to the stuff...

John W. Loftus

Thanks for visiting my Blog at www.debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com, and for commenting on what DagoodS said.

Here's my own take on the whole topic, just from reading the Biblical text itself. The people in the story are extremely superstitious in an era before scientific literacy, which leads me to think these events didn't happen as written down, especially when we factor in Biblical criticism which tells us about the long process leading up to the finalized book of Exodus, and especially when we consider the findings of archaeology. Let me briefly explain.

When Moses confronted the Egyptian Pharaoh of his day we read: “Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake.” (Exodus 7:10-12). Never mind for the moment that we’re told that Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs, because whether or not this happened is in question. We’re told that the Egyptian magicians were able to turn a staff into a snake, turn water into blood (Exodus 7:19-22), and duplicate the plague of frogs (Exodus 8:18), just as Moses did. And the Egyptian sorcerers weren’t surprised at doing so. They weren’t surprised at all? Not even Moses nor Aaron were surprised by this, nor was the writer of this account, nor the ancient people who believed such a story. That’s very strange to modern ears, that these sorcerers weren’t surprised at doing this. But we would be if we heard such a tale.

After just being rescued out of Egyptian slavery, we read, that the people “have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’ “I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people.” (Exodus 32:7-9). This took place “on the third month after the Israelites left Egypt,” plus forty days and nights (Exodus 19:1; 24:18). So four months and ten days later these people (“all the people,” Exodus 32:3) wanted to worship a golden calf that Aaron said, “brought you out of Egypt.” How could they so quickly abandon the God of Moses? If the events all took place as described in Exodus, I doubt very much if anyone would dare take the risk to worship this calf against the God of Moses. If I was there I know I wouldn’t! This leads me to the conclusion that the reason they could so quickly abandon the Biblical God of Moses is that their history was itself built upon mythic stories. But because they did, Moses had the Levites kill ”his brother and friend and neighbor,” 3000 of them (Ex. 32:27-29)! It looks like Moses just intimidated the people to believe against their wills. They knew who delivered them out of Egypt—it was the gods of Egypt who revolted against the Egyptians themselves, allowing the Israelites to escape.

It just seems more likely to me that the Pharaoh of Egypt was himself superstitious. And because there were some strange natural phenomena going on in the land at the time, which he would have viewed as omens, he would’ve sent these foreigners away, while Moses received the credit for it all. So when Moses didn’t come down from Mt. Sinai, the Israelite people simply gave credit to the true god that had given them their freedom, in their minds. “The calf was probably similar to representations of the Egyptian bull-god Apis.” [Ronald Youngblood & Gleason Archer, in the NIV Study Bible]. They knew who had released them from Egypt, but Moses threatened them with death if they disagreed.

Although, the truth is that archaeology itself questions the whole presence of the Israelites as slaves in Egypt for 400+ years, as well as the conquest of Palestine in the time frame Exodus records.

After summarizing the archaeological findings about the Biblical conquest model, author William Dever [in The Anchor Bible Dictionary ("Archaeology and the Israelite Conquest")] concludes with these words: “Clearly, from our discussion the conquest model is ruled out. The founders of the Iron I villagers do not appear to have been newcomers to Palestine, much less settlers displacing Canaanites in the urban centers by military force. The few sites actually destroyed ca. 1200 B.C. were destroyed either by the Philistines, or by unknown agents; and none is resettled within a reasonable time by people who could be implicated in the destruction, or could otherwise be identified as “Israelites.”

“The peasants’ revolt (or “internal conquest”) model seems more compatible with current archaeological data and theory than any other. This model presumes that the early Israelite movement was made up of various dissident elements of late bronze age Canaanite society, mostly dispossessed peasant farmers, who colonized new areas in the hinterland and there adopted a less stratified social order better suited to an agrarian economy."

krosero

Johnny, as I suggested in my last post, we're very definitely talking at cross-purposes. Thanks for the exchange.

Kevin Rosero

Johnny Skeptic

Who ever said anything about proof? It is my position that it would be impossible for any being to prove who he is, including President Bush. For all we know, President Bush might be an advanced alien. My point is that assuming that you are who you say you are, requiring faith greatly limits the number of people who will accept you, with no possible benefits for yourself or for anyone else. That is most certainly true. If the God of the Bible exists, he could easily show up, state that he was the God is the Bible, say that he was going to create a new planet for everyone to see, and do so. He could also accurately predict any future events that peole asked him to predict. Some people would not be convinced that he was not who he said he was, including me, but some people surely would be convinced, and would become Christians. Wouldn't that be a good thing? I might become convinced that he was who he said he was, but only if he answered some questions to my satisfaction regarding the questionable character of the God of the Bible. No man can fairly be sent to hell for refusing to accept information that he would accept if he was aware of it.

John 3:2 says "The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." In that case, the eyewitnesses concluded that Jesus was from God based upon personal observation of Jesus' powers, not based upon faith.

Regarding "I see faith as an integral -- and inevitable -- part of how we live our lives", the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word "integral" as follows:

1 a : essential to completeness : CONSTITUENT <an integral part of the curriculum> b (1) : being, containing, or relating to one or more mathematical integers (2) : relating to or concerned with mathematical integrals or integration c : formed as a unit with another part <a seat with integral headrest>

2 : composed of integral parts

3 : lacking nothing essential : ENTIRE

Johnny: Today, since there is not sufficient evidence that tangible miracles are occuring, faith is essential, but requiring faith is counterproductive if your goal is to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. A loving and compassionate God would do everything that he could in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. The Bible says that God is loving and compassionate, but God has not nearly done everything that he could in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. Therefore, since the God of the Bible cannot possibly be loving and compassionate, a supernatural being might have inspired the writing of the Bible, but he cannot possibly be the being who is described as God in the Bible, that is, unless you wish to redefine the words "love" and "compassion".

I have already discussed this issue at the GRD Forum, and no Christian has come up with any resonable rebuttals. That is because no reasonable rebuttals are possible. I assume that you do not wish to discuss this issue at the GRD Forum.

GakuseiDon

Continued over in GRD.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, at the GRD Forum, the link that is titled 'Requiring faith is counterproductive if you want people to know that you exist' is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=190587.