quartodeciman

The worst problem with this tale starts just ahead:


Numbers 22:20 And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do.
Numbers 22:21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.
Numbers 22:22 And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.


What is going on there? God said GO and then God was mad because he WENT!

Kosh

Maybe God really IS a woman!

fatherphil

i think balaam went with the expectation of being able to do the job that balak wanted him to do when God had made it pretty clear that this was not possible. that's what i think pissed God off about ballam's enthusiastic departure.

Demigawd

There's a phrase which reconciles all of you:

He was talking out of his ass.

Rick Sumner

I'm somewhat surprised that the Balaam Inscription has managed to escape notice in this thread thus far:

The Balaam Inscription proclaims Balaam bar Be'or to be a "seer of gods." He appears to have been regarded a cultic prophet.

Why would the author have used this cultic prophet in his writings on the Israelites? I'd venture that it was intended to lend credence--"We must be right, even Balaam said so." This would also explain why Balaam is treated so harshly in Jewish traditions.

Regards,
Rick

fatherphil

i don't think a good propagandist would bother to try to make such a subtle point. i just figure it was written the way it happened. this story points to many issues which a "christian fundamentalist" would have problems with and if given the freedom i'm sure they would edit the heck out of it or certainly anything which would run counter to their idea of God. but for me it just shows God to be deeper than our superficial understanding of Him.

ballam falls into deep discredit for things he does well after this little episode.

malookiemaloo

If Jesus dying on the cross is not interventionist, I don't know what is.

Is it not the case that we get mad at God because he does not do what WE think he should do?


m

malookiemaloo

Belief of itself does not have any influence on probability. But if God does exist the probability God causing a donkey to talk, or someone rising from the dead very high. The question is, therefore, not whether the ass talked but whether God exists. A much more basic question.

Evidence for miracles? I think the word miracle ha to be defined but, on any view, Jesus healing the Roman centurion's servant would qualify. Whetherv it's enough 'evidence' for the Sec. Web.................................


m

Vinnie

I accept the creeds only on a functional basis. That is the beauty of panentheism for me. But I asked Meta a similar question not to long ago:

Vinnie: But how could God literally come to earth as man when God is alread here (panentheism). Does a literal incarnation presuppose a "God out there who come here? I take it your answer will be no but i would like some more info on this

Meta: Are we to believe that Jesus' very flesh was devine? Or is it some connection with his spirit that is deivine? I don't know, but I suspect that the latter is more like it and that explains how he could be divine while God is already "everywhere." It's not that God left the rest of reality and concentrated in Jesus, but that he had some unique connection to the divine such that his spirit and his nature and will shared in the divine origin. The Logos became flesh, was in a fleshly life as a manifestation of divine presense.

Get what you will out of that.

I believe in an "intervening" God of sorts but not the interventionist God of supernatural theism.

Vinnie

Vinnie

That was already demonstrated to be false.

Vinnie