The deaths of the Egyptian fristborns

[Cristian_B]

Oh, so *that’s *the problem you wanted to solve. I thought you just wanted Pharaoh to “get what he deserves” by how you were talking.

Why not prevent the births of leaders who would enslave any group of people? Come to think of it, why not only allow the birth of peaceful, cooperative people who will lead happy lives? That way, we can have happiness and free will, however you choose to define “free will.”

How do the doctors say it? “Prevention is better than the cure (or treatment).” I couldn’t agree more. God could just use his infinite foresight to prevent problems instead of solving them as they occur.

You see… some good people are good because they saw evil’s consequences. Some angels were let to rebel so the other angels might know why not to rebel. The same for us. Read 1 Corinthians 10:5-11

Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry.” We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.

These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.
-1 Corinthians 10:5-11

 

[kimmielittle]

This is a popular tactic I see from the religious all the time: “He doesn’t care about the truth, therefore he can’t discover it.” However, if it is true that I only care about winning, and it certainly isn’t, then knowing the truth is instrumental to winning arguments, so I must care for it to some extent.

Here again, you misconstrue what was said. I said nothing about seeking truth. I was referring your claim at enlightening us.

Anyway, if I had to choose between loving winning and loving a certain outcome I have faith in, I would rather love winning. At the very least, I won’t be afraid to deny something that isn’t likely given the evidence, i.e., I won’t be religious. If the world were filled with arrogant intellectuals, then at least we would have progress. If we only had passionate superstitious sheep, then we’d still be in the Dark Ages.

Ah, but we arent in the dark ages…and it wasn’t rude atheists who brought us out.

How old do you think I am?

Did you state your age correctly?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m not sure the Dark Ages were as dark as we think they were now. There were many things that happened during that time, and not all of it was ugly.

1 cent

 

[SunnaB16]

Oreoracle:
Let`s call a truce for a few minutes.

Sometime after I posted those last comments, after the blood pressure had dropped back down, it finally sank into this thick skull that the language that I used on both posts was exactly what you wanted to see, so that you could issue yet another one of your broadsides.

I cant help feeling that you have some massive inner issue which has to be constantly fed. You get your kicks out of getting under peoples skin, and driving them into a frenzy. You don`t argue just for the sake of winning; you argue because you like to create strife. It gives you a sense of power?

Admit it: no normal, balanced person carries on the way you do. If you don`t stop feeding this malignant thing, it will consume you, and eventually destroy you, just the way the Ring finally destroyed Gollum.

Be honest with yourself; we all should be praying for you, but, it`s you who have to act…

Even if I`m totally wrong re your motives, you sure as hell have some sort of problem.

Laugh, as you probably will, but please accept these words in the spirit with which they were given. They don`t apply only to you, but to anybody else who acts the same way.

No one here wishes you any ill.

No folks; I`m not particularly proud of those first two posts.

Spirithound: thanks.

 

[Oreoracle]

You see… some good people are good because they saw evil’s consequences. Some angels were let to rebel so the other angels might know why not to rebel. The same for us. Read 1 Corinthians 10:5-11

So you’re saying that God allows evil to happen so that we can recognize evil, or at least its consequences, and then prevent it? God creating problems for the sake of fixing them later hardly makes him look heroic. Why not just cut evil out of the picture entirely? Again, he doesn’t even have to control us, he can just create us so that we will always exercise our will in positive ways.

 

[Oreoracle]

Ah, but we arent in the dark ages…and it wasn’t rude atheists who brought us out.

But we only came out of the Dark Ages as the Church’s grip on society loosened. Before that, people like Galileo were killed. Scientists were killed, secular literature was banned and destroyed, non-Christians were killed during the Inquisition, and the list goes on.

Did you state your age correctly?

Yes. I am 16, as I said.

Sometime after I posted those last comments, after the blood pressure had dropped back down, it finally sank into this thick skull that the language that I used on both posts was exactly what you wanted to see, so that you could issue yet another one of your broadsides.

Yes, the tone of your response made your own criticisms of my writing applicable to yourself. But truly, I would rather someone be honest with their anger than dishonest with a facade of politeness. Political correctness is overrated.

You get your kicks out of getting under people`s skin, and driving them into a frenzy. You don’t argue just for the sake of winning; you argue because you like to create strife.

All too true! If I feel I’m actually making them unhappy, I back down, but I’m all for creating excitement otherwise. Strife makes the gears in your head turn. I believe Aristotle said that necessity was the mother of invention. He was right: People only think when they’re threatened with some danger, even if the danger is only fear of inferiority.

It gives you a sense of power?

No, but it does amuse me and, occasionally, gives me a sense of accomplishment when a breakthrough is made under the strife you seem to hate.

Admit it: no normal, balanced person carries on the way you do.

Well I’m certainly not normal. I’m not sure what you mean by balanced, though. “Balanced” according to what?

If you don`t stop feeding this malignant thing, it will consume you, and eventually destroy you, just the way the Ring finally destroyed Gollum.

These thoughts, feelings, biases, preferences, memories…all of these are me. There’s no “me” being attacked by these things. I am experiencing them, building upon them, and coming to understand them as best I can. Indeed, my own idea of what is “malignant” and “benevolent” is produced by them. Myself is not attacking myself, I assure you.

 

[bridgeforsale]

If the world were filled with arrogant intellectuals, then at least we would have progress. If we only had passionate superstitious sheep, then we’d still be in the Dark Ages.

Nicely stated, but we also can’t forget the complexities of real life just aren’t amenable to a philosophy full of bright line rules, whether secular or religious. Why do you think theologians have given us all sorts of nifty exceptions to religious doctrines. But even where we have exceptions to any particular dogma, historical experience shows us we will always inevitably need more. I’ve read many great philosophers, but most of them have something in common with religion. They try to assess human nature and create a system of rules or principals that sets out to improve our condition.

In my experience the best systems are the most flexible and the least centralized. For instance the common law, with an inferred purpose of facilitating ordered progress. It is a body of very general principals (operating under broad concepts like fairness and equity) that was designed as an evolving instrument. In other words change and progress is itself one of its underlying principals; and numerous incentives are designed into the system (such as advesarial features) to ensure this steady progress.

Philosophers often wonder whether humans can really be altruistic, whether we’re exclusively inclined toward our self interest, etc. It’s obviously natural to try and categorize; and most of the time it’s appropriate. But with regard to human nature, I think we’re far too complex to categorize using rigid rules, which is why flexible instrumentalities such as the common law, decentralized government, market capitalism, etc. work so well. They can adapt to our evolving nature.

Randomness rules, so much so that if there is a god, even he used it as his primary tool of creation

 

[SunnaB16]

Oreoracle:

I pity you. At least I tried, and the “politeness” was an attempt to get you to be the same.

Theres a good book which you really should read; its called “Theology and Sanity”. The author is Frank Sheed, and the book is published by Ignatius Press. On page 339, he says: “…the majesty of God is an intolerable affront to self- love grown so monstrous.”. That seems to fit you petfectly. Narcissism, and Heaven knows what else.

More than a bit of malice there,too, don`t you reckon? Ever wondered where the malice comes from?

At least you`re honest, and admit it.

And you showed us your fangs.

 

[Oreoracle]

At least I tried, and the “politeness” was an attempt to get you to be the same.

In other words, you didn’t really mean it, you were just trying to win my civility. Forced civility is a fantastic way to bandage a problem.

That seems to fit you petfectly. Narcissism, and Heaven knows what else.

I’m not sure what makes you think I’m narcissistic. Narcissism is characterized by the inability to consider other perspectives. If I’m not mistaken, you were the one who responded vehemently when I spoke of broadening perspectives. Perhaps the label fits you more than I?

More than a bit of malice there, don`t you reckon?

What? From you? Yessir. It’s all veiled malice, of course, but I know how you’re feeling about me now.

At least you`re honest…

More so than you.

 

[AlbertBall]

Oreoracle:
Let`s call a truce for a few minutes.

I cant help feeling that you have some massive inner issue which has to be constantly fed. You get your kicks out of getting under peoples skin, and driving them into a frenzy. You don`t argue just for the sake of winning; you argue because you like to create strife. It gives you a sense of power?

Admit it:** no normal, balanced person carries on the way you do. **If you don`t stop feeding this malignant thing, it will consume you, and eventually destroy you, just the way the Ring finally destroyed Gollum.

Be honest with yourself; we all should be praying for you, but, it`s you who have to act…

Even if I`m totally wrong re your motives**, you sure as hell have some sort of problem.**

I pity you. At least I tried

“I pity you. At least I tried”

I don’t agree.

 

[Oreoracle]

Nicely stated, but we also can’t forget the complexities of real life just aren’t amenable to a philosophy full of bright line rules, whether secular or religious.

I agree entirely, so much so that sometimes I feel that the #1 vice is certainty. Humans in general seem to have the idea that any answer is better than no answer, and that’s why you see all of these reductionistic theories with their rigid rules and theoretical sciences with their guesswork (and yes, religion too). Sometimes we just need to take a step back and admit that we don’t know.

 

[SunnaB16]

Oreoracle:

My politeness was genuine, but youre so far gone that your troubled mind just couldnt see it. The bit about the source of your malice still worries me, though. You really should consider the possibility that the Father of Lies is involved.

You`re honest, all right, and with each new post, you reveal your true self (shudder) more and more.

By the way, Im a wee bit slow witted, as stated on that third post; in what way am I dishonest? Dont think Im falling into your trap; its good to see the other chap`s point of view on some things, so…please explain my dishonesty.

 

[Oreoracle]

please explain my dishonesty.

For one, your politeness. I’m not just going to sit and believe that you are truly a polite person after reading your first two posts, reading your third post that said you were being polite to make me polite (and not for its own sake), and hearing you label this rubbish about me being some Satanic horror “polite” in the first place. Your methods are crude, and you only used politeness in a vain attempt to keep me in check.

Secondly, you would rather believe that I’m being possessed by a demon than imagine that another person could possibly have a perspective different than your own. That’s just dishonest, narcissistic, and childish of you. You must imagine that every non-Christian is possessed at some point or another. It must make you lonely, being so narcissistic. The only two personalities that exist in your world view are yourself and some imagined demonic rival.

And that’s pretty much it. How badly you’ve overreacted to my honest expositions shows how isolated from other perspectives you must be, and when you do actually encounter someone with a different perspective, you immediately dismiss theirs as being a deception of Satan. Again: To you, the only beings that exist in this world are yourself and Satan. Have fun battling your imaginary friend for the remainder of your life.

 

[SunnaB16]

Oreoracle:
if you had bothered to read the second last line of that third post, you would have read something to the effect: "No, folks; Im not particularly proud of those first two posts.", plus, at the start of that third post, something about some time after posting the second post, and after the blood pressure had dropped back down. Your command of logic should have allowed you to come to the correct conclusion. Have you ever thought that those of us who love our Faith dearly can get more than a bit stirred up when our Faith is attacked? That was actually a pointless question, because youve already told us that you get pleasure out of baiting people.

Of course, you know as well as I do, that it`s not so much the content of your arguments which is offensive, but the way you word them.

GK Chesterton was good mates with HG Wells and George Bernard Shaw. Chesterton and Wells, and Chesterton and Shaw used to go for each other hammer and tongs, but there was no mean-spiritedness.

I didnt say that youre possessed; a person doesnt have to be possessed to do the wrong thing. The Church teaches that the fallen angels can tempt us; nothing to do with possession. They know our weaknesses, and attempt to exploit them. We all have faults; one of my own is a very short fuse, as youve already noticed, if only you`d acknowledge that. Problems with sexual lust? You bet!

Its bloody well tragic that, because you treat us with contempt and sarcasm, as just something to bait, you take for granted that were the same.
You seem incapable of treating us with courtesy so, when someone tries to treat you with courtesy, you take it for granted that he`s a hypocrite. BLOODY HELL!!! WAKE UP!!!

Can`t remember what else you accused me of…

PLEASE: COME TO YOUR SENSES!

 

[bridgeforsale]

I agree entirely, so much so that sometimes I feel that the #1 vice is certainty. Humans in general seem to have the idea that any answer is better than no answer, and that’s why you see all of these reductionistic theories with their rigid rules and theoretical sciences with their guesswork (and yes, religion too). Sometimes we just need to take a step back and admit that we don’t know.

Indeed. Moreover, the more we do discover, the more questions we generate; but also the more unlikely this classical idea of a god is. I’m not necessarily saying the broader concept of a god or a creator, or even a soul of some sort, is an unreasonable idea or even for that matter unlikely. But can we really imagine a god who can create things perfectly and ex nihilo (from nothing) but instead chose a drawn out, inefficient process like evolution or the big bang?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m past arguing over this issue, because there’s not much of a point really. I certainly don’t view western Christianity as threatening (most of my family at least nominally identifies as Christian). But, when I hear stories of miracle cures, isn’t it proper to wonder why god never seems to cure amputees, and only seems to cure illnesses that could have gotten better on their own (even if the chances were small)? Does god hate amputees?

Isn’t it proper to wonder how we could call a god “all loving” who allegedly murdered all the male infants in ancient Egypt? When mainstream archeology says the Exodus narrative is outside the range of reasonable historical possibility, should I ignore it? Or should I assume all the worlds scientists are colluding in a mass anti-god conspiracy?

Sure I could say there’s no god, but I think there’s some very interesting phenomena out there that science cannot explain, which does leave the door open to that sort of thing. So I say if there is a god, then it seems virtually impossible to think he’s omnipotent. It’s much more logical to think he doesn’t cure amputees because he can’t cure amputees. If there is anything to these stories of miracles and prayer then maybe god is able to bolster our spiritual energy, or whatever, and somehow enhance our ability to recover from illness, but within the parameters of nature. In other words there’s no evidence god can cure what cannot be cured, like for instance spontaneously regrowing a limb, or create using a process other than what we see in nature. I think, therefore, if there’s a god these facts imply limits on how the spiritual realm (or whatever you want to call it, if it exists) can interact with the physical world.

Anyway, I blabbering! In other words, I have no clue what might exist. I can only take what science knows through observation and match it up the best I can against the human idea of a god, what we see in medical science and the world more generally; and try to come up with something that might make a little bit of sense (or at least has scent of logical constistency)

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Egyptologists, like many other specialists, must depend on surviving evidence, and my guess is that in this matter, they depend finally on the written record. If any such black events occurred, in which the gods of Egypt were defeated, would the regime record the events or try to erase all memory of it?

 

[bridgeforsale]

Egyptologists, like many other specialists, must depend on surviving evidence, and my guess is that in this matter, they depend finally on the written record. If any such black events occurred, in which the gods of Egypt were defeated, would the regime record the events or try to erase all memory of it?

From what I understand they base their opinion on the lack of archeological evidence (considering the very specific account we’re given in Exodus, including very specific geographic and time references, there are certain things archeologists should have found, but apparently haven’t). I’ve heard some arguments by apologists on this, which try and refute the archeology, but I personally don’t find any of it compelling. Having read a bit into this the science is pretty solid (it’s been a little while, but I can try and dig up some links when I have some time if you like). But I also concede, it’s not 100% (certitude is a rare commodity, especially in this sort of thing)

 

[Spirithound]

Chariot wheels (possibly) found at the bottom of the Red Sea.

truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm

 

[bridgeforsale]

Chariot wheels (possibly) found at the bottom of the Red Sea.

truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm

Ron Wyatt’s claims are universally dismissed by biblical scholars, historians, archeologists, and even leaders of his own church (Seventh Day Adventist). This guy has claimed to discover everything from the site of Noah’s Ark, a sample of Christ’s blood, the Tower of Babel, the Ark of the Covenant, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the “second set” of the original ten commandments.

If you believe Ron Wyatt you might also be interested in placing a bid for a bridge I have for sale?

 

[alongexpected]

!. As the author of life, God can take it when he so chooses.
2. Taking many of the firstborn, may have been an act of mercy in that it could have been the only way any of them could have been saved. Remember, this is the Old Testament
3. Through Divine Mercy, we learn that God desires mercy, not justice. This would have been a merciful act for those not yet entrenched implacably in paganism. .

Your #2 reason is very scary reasoning, indeed. Talk like that has been used by religious extremists to justify murder.

Please. THINK about what you just said!!! “Killing the firstborn (we have to assume that many of these were infants, 4-year-olds, etc.) may have been the only way they could have been saved.”

It’s reasoning like this that is turning many people away not just from Catholicism, but organized religion as a whole.