The deaths of the Egyptian fristborns

[NowAgnostic]

The problem I have with Atheists is: They try to rationalize God’s actions to their own limited abilities of comprehension. They do not acknowledge man’s ineptness at comprehending the mind of God.

This is what the theist falls back on when argued into a corner.

It’s a red herring, for the claim “God was justified in slaying the firstborn” is every bit as much a claim to understand the “mind of God” as the claim “God was not justified in slaying the firstborn”.

Anyway, philosophically, it’s impossible that God kill anyone. It’s impossible He could positively will evil, and death is an evil. Therefore, I can be 100% positive that that story in Exodus didn’t happen as it is literally written. (Archaeologists have found no, or almost no, evidence that the Exodus really happened anyway.) So, if Exodus really is divine revelation, it’s kind of literary form, just like Genesis.

 

[kimmielittle]

**If you can’t understand God, then why do you worship him? **

Hiyas
Do I need to understand the warmth from the sun…to enjoy it’s benefits?
Do I need to understand the mind of my puppy…to love it?

Indeed, how do you know that God meant to reveal anything to you through what you call “revelation?” Maybe you’re projecting your own “inferior” deductive skills onto God’s actions as you claim atheists are doing.

That is something, after much deliberation my deductions ], I’m willing to live and die with. It is based on Historical facts… places in the Bible being newly found…etc]…Witnesses who were martyred… It takes a lot for a human to know death awaits in the most horrible means possible…to stay their convictions …that alone, IMHO; holds great weight in logic ]… etc.

Actually, I think, logically, there is much more evidence for God’s being…than simple denial.

As always, the Christian argumentation is this: Cry “FAITH!” when something good happens and cry “IGNORANCE!” when something bad happens. When something terrible happens, you say we can’t know why, but when something good happens, you claim to magically know why.

IMHO…And atheists…can not cry anything… either way…huh?

As always, just my thoughts

 

[kimmielittle]

So then the use of logic to show the existence of god is inherently invalid?

This was the question.

But the firstborns did not do anything. Killing every firstborn logically means He ordered the death of innocent infants. If He were just, He’d have killed the guilty, not their kids who didn’t do anything. All of that just to get the Jews to trust Him…yet, He could have just told them. He could have appeared as a colossal golem and introduced himself as God, then told them of his power. This circumstance does not warrant killing babies.

It was about the mind of God…not the existence of God.
I addressed it as such

The problem I have with Atheists is: They try to rationalize God’s actions to their own limited abilities of comprehension. They do not acknowledge man’s ineptness at comprehending the mind of God.

This is why we get these type of answers from Atheists:

In their mind, it doesn’t warrant…and this seems acceptable to most of us…because we are judging / comprehending the mind / Will of God…from a mortals perspective.

Logic…says if we knew the Mind and Will of God…We would be God.

So his argument, logically, fails muster.

We can only ‘reason’ God’s will by what He allows us to know of His will…not from a mortals perspective. God is far from simple or definable…

We are simple and can ONLY “reason” what WE comprehend.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[kimmielittle]

This is what the theist falls back on when argued into a corner.

And this is the type of argument that atheist use when backed “into a corner”…is it not?

But the firstborns did not do anything. Killing every firstborn logically means He ordered the death of innocent infants. If He were just, He’d have killed the guilty, not their kids who didn’t do anything. All of that just to get the Jews to trust Him…yet, He could have just told them. He could have appeared as a colossal golem and introduced himself as God, then told them of his power. This circumstance does not warrant killing babies.

It’s a red herring, for the claim “God was justified in slaying the firstborn” is every bit as much a claim to understand the “mind of God” as the claim “God was not justified in slaying the firstborn”.

I made no claim…I do not know the mind of God.

Anyway, philosophically, it’s impossible that God kill anyone. It’s impossible He could positively will evil, and death is an evil.

Please prove this, above.

Therefore, I can be 100% positive that that story in Exodus didn’t happen as it is literally written. (Archaeologists have found no,** or almost no, evidence that the Exodus really happened anyway**.) So, if Exodus really is divine revelation, it’s kind of literary form, just like Genesis.

Then how can one be 100% positive if ‘or almost no, evidence that Exodus really happened anyway’…if there is ‘some evidence’?

As always, just my thoughts

 

[bridgeforsale]

This was the question.

It was about the mind of God…not the existence of God.
I addressed it as such

Why not just admit that ordering the mass murder of innocent new born infants is grossly inconsistant with love? Sorry, I just don’t get it

 

[bridgeforsale]

Then how can one be 100% positive if ‘or almost no, evidence that Exodus really happened anyway’…if there is ‘some evidence’?

As always, just my thoughts

At this point mainstream archeology has taken the view that the event did not happen as described (whether it happened at all, but in some different way is probably an entirely different topic). Archeologists at this point would say it’s not within the reasonable range of historical possibility. Obviously there’s some who dispute this, but they’re pretty much exclusively religious partisans of one stripe or the other.

 

[NowAgnostic]

And this is the type of argument that atheist use when backed “into a corner”…is it not?

Um, no. You’re the one in the corner, resorting to saying “we do not know the mind of God” when faced with evidence apparently contradictory to our notion of God.

I made no claim…I do not know the mind of God.

Then you will say you do not know if it was justified or not? Therefore you will admit the possibility it was not?

Please prove this, above.

God is perfect. He is therefore omnibenevolent. He will not directly (positively) will evil. He may permit evil if it is logically necessary for a greater good. Slaying the firstborn is directly willing evil.

Look, if Christ was allegedly incarnate today but he hijacked airplanes and blasted away with Uzis in shopping malls, and the justification offered is that this is what these people, or our society, deserved for its sins, and that He, being God, had the “right” to take away human life at whatever moment he deemed fit, would you accept this? Well the situation in Exodus is exactly analogous.

Then how can one be 100% positive if ‘or almost no, evidence that Exodus really happened anyway’…if there is ‘some evidence’?

Philosophically, the argument is 100% conclusive. It is supported by archaeological evidence, which however is inductive and inferential and cannot rise to absolute certainty.

 

[kimmielittle]

Why not just admit that ordering the mass murder of innocent new born infants is grossly inconsistant with love? Sorry, I just don’t get it

Hiyas

I agree, to our subjective humanistic perspective, it would be inconsistent with our definition of love.

‘Death as an evil’…is a subjective perspective, again, of humankind.
Was Jesus’ death an evil? Mary’s? Martyrs? Moses’? etc…

But again we are trying to define God’s mind and will…to our minds.

side note] Albeit, infants were killed…it was all the first born, as I understand it, including adults and animals… I’m open to correction on this, if I’m mistaken ].

As always, just my thoughts

 

[kimmielittle]

Why not just admit that ordering the mass murder of innocent new born infants is grossly inconsistant with love? Sorry, I just don’t get it

Hiyas

I agree, to our subjective humanistic perspective, it would be inconsistent with our definition of love.

‘Death as an evil’…is a subjective perspective, again, of humankind.
Was Jesus’ death an evil? Mary’s? Martyrs? Moses’? etc…

But again we are trying to define God’s mind and will…to our minds.

side note] Albeit, infants were killed…it was all the first born, as I understand it, including adults and animals… I’m open to correction on this, if I’m mistaken ].

As always, just my thoughts

 

[NowAgnostic]

‘Death as an evil’…is a subjective perspective, again, of humankind.

No, it’s a philosophical truth - if life is a proper good for humans, privation of that good is an evil.

Was Jesus’ death an evil? Mary’s? Martyrs? Moses’? etc…

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, etc…

But again we are trying to define God’s mind and will…to our minds.

I’m not defining God’s mind. I’m saying it is logically and philosophically impossible for Exodus to have occurred the way it was literally stated.

 

[kimmielittle]

Um, no. You’re the one in the corner, resorting to saying “we do not know the mind of God” when faced with evidence apparently contradictory to our notion of God.

Actually, I’m not in a corner…I would have to be trying to convert you…OR allowing you to convert me. I have no intention of either.

Then you will say you do not know if it was justified or not? Therefore you will admit the possibility it was not?

No, I said, I made ‘no claim’…please refrain from telling me what I should think.

Because I don’t know the mind of God…doesn’t equate with denying God’s justification. It simple means I don’t understand.

God is perfect. He is therefore omnibenevolent. He will not directly (positively) will evil. He may permit evil if it is logically necessary for a greater good. Slaying the firstborn is directly willing evil.

He is perfect as God…not as you or I think He should or shouldn’t be. …again, what you or I think He should / shouldn’t do or be …that is completely subjective and humanistic.

Look, if Christ was allegedly incarnate today but he hijacked airplanes and blasted away with Uzis in shopping malls, and the justification offered is that this is what these people, or our society, deserved for its sins, and that He, being God, had the “right” to take away human life at whatever moment he deemed fit, would you accept this? Well the situation in Exodus is exactly analogous.

Ya really think it’s a good analogy?

Philosophically, the argument is 100% conclusive. It is supported by archaeological evidence,

Actually, If archaeology wasn’t ever changing it would be conclusive.
Examples:The recent find of Mary’s well …the Dec finding of the home in Bethlehem…

As always, just my thoughts

 

[NowAgnostic]

Because I don’t know the mind of God…doesn’t equate with denying God’s justification. It simple means I don’t understand.

Correct, it means being agnostic about that justification then.

He is perfect as God…not as you or I think He should or shouldn’t be. …again, what you or I think He should / shouldn’t do or be …that is completely subjective and humanistic.

Um, no. It’s not in the least “subjective and humanistic” to claim God can’t do the logically impossible, create round squares and married bachelors, and worlds in which 2 + 2 = 5.

Ya really think it’s a good analogy?

Yep. Who are we to think we can understand the mind of God, and He has the “right” to do with human life whatever He wills. This society deserves judgment just like the Egyptians did - our society kills countless unborn babies every year. So, would you hypothetically bow down and worship the hijacker Jesus with an AK-47? You should if your position is going to be logically consistent.

Actually, If archaeology wasn’t ever changing it would be conclusive.
Examples:The recent find of Mary’s well …the Dec finding of the home in Bethlehem…

So what about it? The existence of Bethlehem was never disputed by archaeology.

 

[kimmielittle]

No, it’s a philosophical truth - if life is a proper good for humans, privation of that good is an evil.

Philosophy is the love of humankinds wisdom. It is subjective. It is humanistic. it is ever changing because of these traits. What is wisdom, by humans, continues to be shattered. Thus it is only a ‘truth’ at that time, by human definition.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, etc…
Open to interpretation. however, Jesus thought it was a good thing for his death to bring about our salvation. As bad as his murder was…it was glorified.

I’m not defining God’s mind. I’m saying it is logically and philosophically impossible for Exodus to have occurred the way it was literally stated.

You might be correct. However, we aren’t asked to address whether the literal writing of Exodus is correct and i haven’t breached the subject.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[Bob_Crowley]

To babies? Really? I don’t think that would fly for your pope now, if all christians were suddenly slaves for a long time and mistreated. Would he say, Glory be to God! He has just slaughtered all the babies of the ones who enslaved us!! OR would he be rightfully sick to his stomach?

Pharaoh had a lot of warning. There were ten plagues, and God didn’t carry out his threat till Pharaoh had set his mind in concrete. And even then he still chased the Israelites once he’d settled down. As leader he’s responsible for what happens to his people.

God’s not soft. I sometimes think He sent the SE Asian Tsunami five years ago yesterday to stop a lot of the violence that was going on - in Aceh, in Sri Lanka etc. The number of people killed in the tsunami was around 230,000 so I believe.

For a while it did stop the violence. But human nature being what it is, it eventually flared up again, although I think the worst of the violence in Aceh has not resumed.

The record is there, whether we like it or not. There are times, even as a Christian, when I don’t like God much. But I do know that He’s not soft. All the talk about Heaven, and it’s counterpart of Hell, is not fiction.

Atheists expect God to be some sort of grandfather if He’s there at all. He’s there, and He’s the author of the human family, the gentle butterfly, the beautiful sunset and the balmy day at the beach. He’s also the author of the black hole, the cyclone and hurricane, the earthquake and the tsunami, the crocodile and the stonefish, and everything else.

There are two sides to Him, includng a formidable wrath.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Hiyas

I agree, to our subjective humanistic perspective, it would be inconsistent with our definition of love.

‘Death as an evil’…is a subjective perspective, again, of humankind.
Was Jesus’ death an evil? Mary’s? Martyrs? Moses’? etc…

But again we are trying to define God’s mind and will…to our minds.

side note] Albeit, infants were killed…it was all the first born, as I understand it, including adults and animals… I’m open to correction on this, if I’m mistaken ].

As always, just my thoughts

With all due respect, this is just too outrageous for me. You’re making god sound like Bill Clinton (what is - IS anyway)! There is no subjective perspective about it, killing newborn infants who are guilty of nothing is evil. Mass murdering a whole bunch of them is even more evil. I am extremely glad archeology has acquitted god of this horrible crime

Nonetheless, obviously I take a different perspective toward religiosity. Basically, I have none, although I’m not quite an atheist. I think if there is a god he’s not the super-god most imagine. I think he’s a god who whispers, not shouts, and not because he prefers to whisper, but because he’s unable to shout (although he might also prefer to whisper, I don’t know).

 

[kimmielittle]

With all due respect, this is just too outrageous for me. You’re making god sound like Bill Clinton

I’m sorry, I was trying to make us sound like Mr. Clinton…Not God

 

[Oreoracle]

Hiyas
Do I need to understand the warmth from the sun…to enjoy it’s benefits?
Do I need to understand the mind of my puppy…to love it?

You’re comparing things with totally different magnitudes. Loving a puppy isn’t going to lead to deaths. On a lesser note, I suppose loving the sun without understanding what it is could lead to skin cancer, so it’s important to know that radiation from the sun can harm us.

Anyway, worshipping God just because he makes you feel good is like following Hitler because he gave rousing speeches. You have to understand a leader and his intentions before following him, or else you’re just begging for trouble.

It takes a lot for a human to know death awaits in the most horrible means possible…to stay their convictions …that alone, IMHO; holds great weight in logic ]… etc.

The majority of these people had nothing to lose when they became religious, and then they were sentenced to death. What else could they have done but cling to their comforting beliefs? In any case, believing strongly isn’t the same as knowing. Many cults throughout history “just knew” that they were doing the right thing when they killed others and committed suicide all for their god of choice.

Actually, I think, logically, there is much more evidence for God’s being…than simple denial.

And I suppose that would follow, logically, if you had a pitiful standard of evidence. Logic doesn’t tell us how much evidence we need though, so that’s up to us. Right now, it seems you’re saying that if ancient documents attest to the existence of leprechauns and people strongly believed they exist, then they must exist. Puh-lease.

IMHO…And atheists…can not cry anything… either way…huh?

No, atheists can cry about things. However, I prefer deliberation and action to “crying” or groupthink. You?

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

You’re comparing things with totally different magnitudes. Loving a puppy isn’t going to lead to deaths. On a lesser note, I suppose loving the sun without understanding what it is could lead to skin cancer, so it’s important to know that radiation from the sun can harm us.

Anyway, worshipping God just because he makes you feel good is like following Hitler because he gave rousing speeches. You have to understand a leader and his intentions before following him, or else you’re just begging for trouble.

I think you’ve mistaken me for someone you can sway easy. With all due respect, I’d rethink that notion.

The majority of these people had nothing to lose when they became religious, and then they were sentenced to death. What else could they have done but cling to their comforting beliefs? In any case, believing strongly isn’t the same as knowing. Many cults throughout history “just knew” that they were doing the right thing when they killed others and committed suicide all for their god of choice.

You are aware that many think agnostics and atheists are cults, aren’t you?

And I suppose that would follow, logically, if you had a pitiful standard of evidence. Logic doesn’t tell us how much evidence we need though, so that’s up to us.

Your signature says it well;

I want everyone to be wary of what seems to be a popular fallacy I call the congressman’s fallacy. It goes like this: “Your argument is only valid/sound if you regard my similar argument as valid/sound.” This isn’t politics. There’s no “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” in logic.

Please respect mine.

note ] The topic isn’t about God’s existence OR you converting me - OR I… you. Please quit trying to make it so.

Right now, it seems you’re saying that if ancient documents attest to the existence of leprechauns and people strongly believed they exist, then they must exist. Puh-lease.

No, atheists can cry about things. However, I prefer deliberation and action to “crying” or groupthink. You?

 

[Oreoracle]

I think you’ve mistaken me for someone you can sway easy. With all due respect, I’d rethink that notion.

No, I think I’ve correctly identified you as a person who doesn’t want to argue with someone who can see through childish comparisons.

You are aware that many think agnostics and atheists are cults, aren’t you?

You are aware that most people throw logic, definitions, and all sensibility out the window when it comes to religion and politics, aren’t you?

An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in any gods*, and an agnostic (as it is usually defined) is a person who believes that knowledge of gods is impossible to obtain. It is possible for agnostics to be part of a cult, though most religious people believe that their god of choice can be known insofar as it is convenient for them. However, there’s no such thing as a “cult of agnosticism.” You can’t form a religion, an establishment whose goal is to worship a deity, with either atheism or agnosticism. Theism and the appropriate politics are the only requirements.

*There are two variants of atheism: weak or implicit atheism, and strong or explicit atheism. The former only lacks belief in gods, while the latter definitively declares that they don’t exist. I am the former, so no burden of proof is required of me, since I don’t have to prove anything to lack belief.

Your signature says it well;

Please respect mine.

???

I don’t see how the fallacy I mention in my signature is applicable here. The point of the fallacy is that the merit of an argument is founded only on the rules of inference and the evidence supporting its premises, not the validity of unrelated arguments. This has nothing to do with our situation.

The topic isn’t about God’s existence OR you converting me - OR I… you. Please quit trying to make it so.

That’s true. I first posted saying that you shouldn’t follow someone you don’t understand, but then you persisted by contradicting yourself and claiming you do understand God and have evidence that he exists. Either he’s understood or he isn’t, you can’t have it both ways.

 

[Cristian_B]

I must say… I’ve noticed that you say that killing is “evil”. Is self defense evil?

WHAT IS THE BIBLE DEFINITION OF MURDER?

God knew when He created men with free wills that not all would follow and obey Him. However, He also knew that many would want to love and serve Him. In giving men free will, He also had to establish laws for men to live by. When we look at the Ten Commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, we can see that these laws were given for the good of mankind. One of these laws is in verse 13: “Thou shalt not kill.” You may wonder if God said “do not kill,” why He would then decree that governments could send men to war to kill other men. The reason is that the Hebrew meaning of the word translated as “kill” actually means “murder” or “to slay someone in a violent manner unjustly.” So, in the Ten Commandments God is saying, “Thou shalt not murder.” Unjust premeditated killing with the wrong motives of hatred, vengeance, greed, jealousy, etc. is murder. Killing in self defense to protect oneself is not murder nor is executing condemned killers. The very founders of this nation were known to carry a Bible in one hand and a musket in the other in order to defend the freedom they sought here. The freedom to worship God was one of those freedoms they fought for and died for.

bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=219

“…nor is executing condemned killers.” -the only part I disagree

Killing is not evil, murdering it is. What God did was some sort of self defense. As someone previously said, the Egyptians enslaved the Jews for hundreds of years, thus they had to be punished.

God does not murder, but that doesn’t mean He doesn’t kill. Killing is not murdering. The firstborns where killed, not murdered.