Koyaanisqatsi

So, it's considered "historically accurate" to be inspired by a god?

Wouldn't that qualification alone mean that it should be more accurate than any other piece of writing? So accurate, in fact, that it could not possibly be critically assailed in any way?

Or does this fall under the all too convenient capitulation of Paul? If a god made wisdom foolish then how could any theist derive any kind of wisdom at all from this god's alleged words? The benchmark is "belief," which is no kind of benchmark at all, since your level of belief is in question at all times. You (as a theist) could never know anything about anything, including whether or not you actually exist, which puts the theist into the insolvable problem of solipsism at all times.

The theist can never know anything ever, including that which is allegedly "revealed", since the admonition to accept all wisdom as foolishness must necessarily apply to "revealed" wisdom. How could you possibly differentiate?

This is the whole point of "faith;" to never, ever know anything at all about anything.

The Christian theist is instructed to never, ever know anything accept his or her own faith, which is an untenable contradiction. The theist is instructed to always be completely and utterly ignorant of all things (to be, literally, "child like"), so it's the same paradox of Buddhism; if you ever think you know the Buddha, you are instantly wrong. And if you ever think you see the Buddha, kill him, because the Buddha is always within.

Thus, by arguing anything, the Christian theist is indirectly admitting their lack of faith. The very second the Christian theist makes any kind of argument is the very second that they betray that they are not subscribing to the tenets of the dogma as laid down by the allegedly "god inspired" authors of their faith.

In other words, the second any Christian theist makes any kind of remotely logically based argument is the very second they betray that they are not a "true" Christian.

Indeed, according to scripture, even consorting with any of us heathens means the Christian theist is doomed, yet they are also instructed to "prove all things."

Once again, freethinking is supperior to theist dogma.

rlogan

Really? I'm curious if this was a "we haven't found them yet" assertion or "we will never find them" assertion.

gosh, Leonarde - that is an overstatement about if "X" occurred it should have been written about.

The slaughter of first borns certainly rises to the level of notoriety. Seems to me they were taking killing seriously then.


If your thinking is not anachronistic like those in these precincts here, perhaps you would care to explain why slaughtering first borns would not be considered important.

Postcard73

I probably come pretty close to leonarde's point, though I'm not sure that ancient scribes necessarily should have written this stuff down. I just find it hard to believe none of them actually did. Every single first born dies, 600,000+ slaves make a run for it, an entire army gets destroyed while it is charging across the bed of the Red Sea; I find it amazing that none of this stuff was worth recording to the ancient Egyptians. Their culture was obsessed with death. It strikes me as a bit anachronistic to suggest their society wouldn't record the death of each first-born and perhaps even be heavily altered by the event...

leonarde

Why "anachronistic"? Anachronistic=tending to judge things of a particular era not by the standards of that era but by those of another (frequently subsequent) one. Like by today's standards.

Today if all the first borns of Egypt or the US under a certain age died suddenly there surely would be a historical mention of it in centuries to come. But we have literally thousands to tens of thousands of full-time historians. And they aren't writing primarily to curry the favor of the Pharoah......Or of Caesar.

Cheers!

Postcard73

I said "anachronistic" because I feel you may be ignoring the fact that ancient Egyptian culture was thoroughly obsessed with death to a degree far beyond anything I am aware of in any major modern society. I do not think it would be possible for that particular civilization to experience a calamity of the scale we are discussing and not record it somewhere in writing. In addition, whether the bodies were buried in mass graves, family tombs, or tupperware bowls, they still had to be buried. Where are they?

This story was not told by the ancient Egyptians, and the bodies haven't been found, because it did not happen. It makes sense that early oral tradition and eventually Hebrew scribes would choose Pharoah to be God's whipping boy: Egypt had been powerful for centuries. Nobody would care about a deity who beat up on some little upstart nation state, but if God kicked Egypt's butt, then that would be impressive.

leonarde

I have NO IDEA what you mean by this. All ancient Egyptians are dead. And are buried somewhere (in most cases). That tells us nothing about when and how they died. You seem to expect some SEPARATE and discernible burial grounds for people who died in this (alleged) event. Why? The people who have died of AIDS in North America in the past 25 years are spread out over the cemeteries of North American and, if they chose not to mention cause of death on their tombstones, there's nothing to indicate what they died of. Ditto with cancer, heart disease.
It is your EXPECTATIONS which are unrealistic. Whether the death of the first borns happened or not.

Malachi151

The basic point is that evidence of any of the natural phenomena described in the Bible is no proof at all of any of the supernatural claims of the Bible.

For years everyone said that the Illiad and the Odessy were pure fiction, THEN Troy was found! Does that then prove that all of the supernatural events in the Illiad and Odessy relly happened and that the Greek Gods ar real?

[Ad hom statement removed by moderator]

leonarde

Speaking of 'level of stupidity' you might want to re-read this thread.......

Postcard73

It may not be able to pinpoint the exact date of death, but archaeology can discern a great deal about when people died based on a number of types of evidence, such as how they were prepared, artifacts that were buried with them, carbon dating, etc. Moreover, archaeology can sometimes determine the cause of death. This is particularly true if the person died from a debilitating disease that caused a recognizable deformity. I do feel that this point is somewhat arbitrary to this discussion though, because I'm not sure the actual cause of death is all that important.

In this specific case, there should also be archaeological evidence of a sizeable decline in the estimated population of the civilization; and the decline should probably appear as almost an anomaly due to its instantaneous nature.
The key here is that those people have died over a span of 25 years. Exodus 11:4-5 reads: Perhaps you disagree, but I get the impression that all of these people died in an extremely short amount of time, maybe even simultaneously. It certainly wouldn't be much of a miracle if the deaths occurred over too wide a time-span. Thus, the survivors would have been required to dispose of all the bodies at once. Situated as it is along the equator, Egypt is not exactly the place you want to let a bunch of corpses pile up.

And since you are using modern examples (i.e. being anachronistic ), I'll do the same. The AIDS pandemic has hit Sub-Saharan Africa far harder than North America. Many heavily populated regions of Africa have specific cemeteries created for AIDS victims because there are so many of them. In some major African cities, they are actually running out of room.Death certificates and obituary columns often mention cause of death. Again, I'm not sure the actual cause of death is that important to the discussion.
If I admit my expectations are unrealistic, will you admit the event never happened?

Oh, and Malachi- I agree that an individual piece of evidence would not validate the entire Bible. However, it might provide some indication that certain stories were inspired by actual events and provide insight into those stories.

Postcard73

Oh, BTW, I know Egypt isn't on the equator. I'm not really sure where that line came from...