Was there a real Moses? If so whoml was he? What did he really do?
>>1114743
Yes
Who the bible says
What the bible say
He's a legendary figure. If there was a real Moses the myth was based on he's been completely lost to time. Exodus didn't happen.
>>1114743
The Jews were never in Egypt.
>>1114749
Not true if I recall correctly
The first record of the Jews is by the Egyptians saying they took slaves from "the house of David"
I.e. The Jews
>>1114749
There is no evidence to back up your claim.
>>1114756
David was long after the Exodus though
There were Semites in Egypt however, the hyskos are the most likely candidate for something Jew-based there.
It should be mentioned, however, that Canaan was taken over by Egyptians, but that also means no Exodus.
>>1114756
The current consensus is that they were a group of Canaanites that developed a separate ethnic identity.
>>1114768
Fuck I wish I had seen that fight
Yes I know but the Jews were enslaved in Egypt
Idk about the time of Moses but they were enslaved
>>1114781
Forgive me if I don't believe
>the current consensus
>>1114784
See that's what I don't know though, the hyskos are the only feasible candidate and I'm unsure how strong their connection to Hebrews/Israelites are.
>>1114791
Not forgiven.
>>1114743
No. The earliest biblical figure we can say to be real is David, though he was probably a minor pastoral chieftain rather than a ruler of a kingdom.
The exodus story probably came together over several centuries in the kingdom of Judah, possibly based on distorted memories of Canaanite interactions with Egypt, including Egyptian rule in Canaan, the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile Delta and centuries of minor population movements between Canaan and Egypt.
The actual Exodus story is filled with anachronisms that make it impossible to have been completed before the 7th century BC.
>>1114768
Hyksos?
The flaw is they used chariots the jews didnt, not for battle formations
>>1114818
Well then fuck off
You are asking me to believe in some theory that will change in a couple years for my religious beliefs
Nah I'll hold off on your
>current consensus
>>1114854
>my religious beliefs
kek
>>1114743
Read Moses & Monotheism by Freud.
DO NOT believe Cecil B Demille.
Read Josephus.
AND Read Exodus. Sinai WAS A VOLCANO in Arabia. It's a no brainer. It erupted c. 1426 BCE.
AND Moses was the guy who wasn't happy with Joshua's decimation of the Midianites. He ordered Joshua to go back and kill the little boys and keep the virgin girls as war booty. I wonder where ISIS got the idea...
>>1114743
They made a documentary about him in Somalia.
>https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-XpUIOARk5g
Of course he is a real person, as real as my grandfather was.
>Egypt on the brink of collapse
>the Jews take the opportunity to kill Egypt
>write a fanfic about how their big daddy God killed all of the "oppressors"
>delude themselves into thinking they invented law
>Moses and Joshua fanfic of the brave and powerful Jews (name a few Jewish athletes please) conquered everyone around them against incredible odds
>WW2
>get kicked out of Europe again
>delude themselves into believing that 6,000,000,000 Jews were cooked in ovens
>Jewish writers in Hollywood write fanfic about the millions of brave Jewish-American soldiers that killed the "oppressors"
It's pottery. This is the MO of the Jewish people, they cry as they strike you.
>>1114854
>You are asking me to believe in some theory that will change in a couple years for my religious beliefs
Or in other words
>your empirical evidence ends where my feelings begin
>>1114828
The name david is not hebrew & was never used before his time.
Dwd is a compression of the sentence 'commander of the kings army'
In the book of kings there are two stories of david one good another bad so there was possibly two davids. One who served saul from a young boy, who saul eventually killed, & another who returned from exile after sauls death.
>>1114883
>The name david is not hebrew & was never used before his time
How do you know? How do we know what names were or weren't used in early iron age Judah?
>Dwd is a compression of the sentence 'commander of the kings army'
Isn't the earliest known use of Dwd in reference to the royal house of Dwd? I doubt there would be a dynasty called 'House of the commander of the kings army'.
>>1114743
An exile guiding exiles.
Its not that hard to imagine though the motives are hard to explain.
Anyway the jews still use this egyptian name today as well as seth, the negative confession & side locks
>>1114883
Respectfully...
Please cite your references. I would like to further research this.
>>1114865
Taking sex slave as war booty was a common practice back than, we can't judge them from today's standards.
>>1114881
>what are you saying that you can fall off the edge of the earth if you sail far enough
>moron we have evidence and science
>>1114919
Yes we can... The murdered innocent children at the behest of their leader who spoke with the authority of their God. That God CAN NOT be deserving of worship
>>1114919
Seriously... God said murder the innocent. That God and the people who follow him are unworthy of respect.
>>1114881
>empirical evidence
>history
lol
It amazes me that people think can prove definitively what did and do not happen thousands of years ago.
>>1114899
It is a created name & has no meaning.
This makes it posslbly foreign like el, baal, elyion, adoni which you probably know are all forms of the word lord.
>>1114928
> That God CAN NOT be deserving of worship
>Waaah people who were going to die eventually anyway, DIED! That's awful how could you do that God?!
Stop being a pussy.
>>1114919
>from today's standards.
This meme needs to end. A sober historical discussion and moral relativity are not the same thing.
>>1114951
Besides which, common practice and common standards were not taken to be the same thing.
>>1114951
What's the point of casting moral condemnation on people whose bones often don't even exist anymore because they died so long ago, who were simply acting in the same manner as everyone else that existed at the time?
>>1114908
1, kings - two stories of david make david seem like he's got bi-polar. Also there was disent during the early part of his reign so the bad david could be tradition stories from the supporters of sauls family notably benjimites
2, john romer, i think it might be testament
3, adopted words that mean lord, boss, big guy, top dog.
El, baal, al, adoni, elyion
4, why your at it find the meaning of the name aaron because i never have. Dump the constonants it becomes rn & that could come from anywhere. I'm guessing egyptian & it's a title for preist
>>1114792
Nope. They walked into an unguarded Egypt and took it over without a fight right after the Exodus, as the pharaoh and army lay dead at the bottom of the sea.
>>1114828
Maybe the earliest you can say, because you don't know anything about God's Word.
The earliest biblical figure we can say for sure is real is Adam.
>>1114908
Oops meant keep the cons & dump the vowels
>>1114883
No, no there is not.
>>1114908
Few modern Biblical archaeology discoveries have caused as much excitement as the Tel Dan inscription—writing on a ninth-century B.C. stone slab (or stela) that furnished the first historical evidence of King David from the Bible.
The Tel Dan inscription, or “House of David” inscription, was discovered in 1993 at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel in an excavation directed by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran.
The broken and fragmentary inscription commemorates the victory of an Aramean king over his two southern neighbors: the “king of Israel” and the “king of the House of David.” In the carefully incised text written in neat Aramaic characters, the Aramean king boasts that he, under the divine guidance of the god Hadad, vanquished several thousand Israelite and Judahite horsemen and charioteers before personally dispatching both of his royal opponents.
>>1114908
Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa says this is clearly the same regional ruler as the "Toi, king of Hamath" referenced in II Samuel 8:10, which records that when this king "heard that David had defeated the entire army of Hadadezer, he sent his son Joram to King David, to greet him and to congratulate him on defeating Hadadezer in battle --- for Hadadezer had been at war with Toi."
According to Prof. Galil: "We know for sure now that Toi of Hamath existed, and that he was indeed a historical figure. The biblical text in the Book of Samuel is therefore well supported by the historical reality of the 10th century BC."
>>1115036
Leading journals recently wrote on the discovery of eight significant sites in Turkey and northern Syria which revealed the existence of a large Philistine kingdom under the rule of Tai(ta) of Hamath.
Part 1 of 2, posted out of order.
>>1115022
I have a hebrew, celt & english name
& they all have a meaning.
What is the meaning david (dwd)?
Any combination of vowels still isnt hebrew.
But if there was al, el even ad would make its origen easier to track down.
Maybe it means "i am nothing" a pun given to david by saul, he was that type of king
>>1115028
I've read it & it only states that the title was used but not who is using it.
If it said david friend of johnathon, captain of saul then it would be a bingo find.
>>1114957
There's a point when modern people want to enact their moral and civil teachings on society as a whole.
>>1114954
You are aware that it has been almost entirely proven at this stage that Moses, at least in terms of the fictional biblical character, never existed?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html
There remains debate about whether there was some sort of leader that inspired a legend to spring up, someone who's real story would be entirely different to the bible Moses.
A bit similar to the debate over whether there was a King Arthur despite acknowledgement that the traditional stories about him are entirely fictional.
>>1115108
> There's a point when modern people want to enact their moral and civil teachings on society as a whole.
By all means point out the people who want to bring back massacres of the vanquished as an accepted practice in modern society.
Or were you making the ad hominem argument that since some people did mean things over a thousand years ago that means nothing those people ever believed could possibly be correct or applicable among 21st century people?
http://putlocker.is/watch-patterns-of-evidence-the-exodus-online-free-putlocker.html
This is an overly dramatic documentary that shills for Israel, you can start at 25 minutes in, you won't miss anything if you do. But it's worth watching. Basically the premise is that the dating for Exodus has been wrong, and it has been dated because Exodus mentions "the City of Ramses". This hypothesis is that it was written that way because the readers would be more familiar with it, or that it was a gloss later added (this has precedence in the OT, since the "City of Ramses" is used to refer to a location since Genesis). If you plug in a much earliest date for Exodus, than a lot of evidence shows up, but this evidence is almost universally rejected as evidence for Exodus because it doesn't agree with the common scholarly dating for the event.
>>1114765
There is no evidence that suggests they were in Egypt in the first place
>>1115320
But there is no evidence of them NOT being in Egypt
>>1115329
wut m8? you can't prove a negative
>>1115335
Precisely.
>>1115320
What is Avaris
>>1114746
>the bible
Not a credible source m8
>>1115320
There's a detailed account in the most historically vetted work in the existence of the earth.
>>1115367
It's the only holy book on the planet. You ignore it out of your own personal bias.
>>1115375
Muslims say the exact same thing about the Quran
>>1115395
As it directly contradicts the bible, only one of the two can be correct.
As the quran contains many scientific errors, and many internal inconsistencies, and many horrific sayings, it's hard for me to understand why you can't easily discern between the two claims.
Unless you think a 54 year old man who marries a 6 year old girl is "holy", and that the angel Gabriel staged a revolution against God 600 years after Jesus rose from the dead.
No, the simplest explanation for the quran is the best, and was known to Mohammad from the beginning.
His angelic inspiration was satan, the father of lies, and the arabs worship Ba'al, aka HaBaal, aka Hubel, the god of Mohammad's father, in the kaaba. Still in the kaaba.
The god of the Arabs has never been the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
>>1115350
Ridiculous.
Besides which, in this case, since Egypt is possibly the most heavily archaeologically researched place on the planet, a lack of evidence of vast population decline and a vast exodus of slaves and a large Jewish population that was there for hundreds of years is good evidence it never happened.
>>1115412
Where does Islam claim Gabriel staged a rebellion against God?
>>1115375
>it's the only holy book on the planet
>personal bias
Kek.
>>1115412
>As the quran contains many scientific errors, and many internal inconsistencies, and many horrific sayings, it's hard for me to understand why you can't easily discern between the two claims.
But that describes the bible too. Unless a universe being created in seven days is scientifically accurate, or killing kids for being disobedient isn't horrific.
>>1115412
>As it directly contradicts the bible, only one of the two can be correct.
Yes, or they're both fucking wrong
>As the quran contains many scientific errors
As does the Bible
>and many internal inconsistencies
As does the Bible
>and many horrific sayings
As does the Bible
>it's hard for me to understand why you can't easily discern between the two claims.
It really isn't. They're two piles of dogshit, all that's different is that the Quran smells somewhat worse
>>1115335
The responsibility to prove that the Jews were in Egypt lays with those who insist that they were indeed there despite having no evidence for it.
>>1115355
And how does that prove anything about Jews being in Egypt? I don't see the connection between the capital of Hyksos-ruled Egypt and somehow proving the Jews were enslaved in Egypt.
>>1115412
Muslim here. Literally every point you raise is false. The inconsistencies in the bible are dispelled after even little study : so are those in the qur'an. The age of aisha was most likely the same as that of mary at her pregnancy, djibreel never did anything of the sort, and Isa being god is a herecy you guys decided on hundreds of years after his death.
Stick with your books and be still on things that you only know a bit about from sources with an axe to grind. Or tell me, did you make a serious study of the tafseer of qur'an, and did you learn Arabic?
>>1115370
Yes, along with other detailed accounts of supernatural and paranormal feats taking place in addition to teachings about the creating of the planet and life on it that have been proven false, clearly we should take it at its word!
>>1115367
>not a credible source m8
But all the other spoopy legends and historiographies of the ancient world are amirite?
:^)
>>1115545
>historical fact
lol
>>1115524
No, not necessarily. The point is that there is no physical archaeological evidence for it that is taken seriously.
Claiming that word-of-mouth and religious texts can somehow be held up as evidence is no different then afro-american "WE WUZ KINGZ" or Hindus claiming Rama was real and did everything in the Ramayana.
>>1114978
Uh no they didn't because the exodus story is fictional.
>>1115524
>But all the other spoopy legends and historiographies of the ancient world are amirite?
Who the fuck thinks this except in your mind?
>>1115545
Show me one single solitary fact in the bible that does not fit reality.
>>1115582
No chariot wheels in Al Aqaba?
No monument made by Solomon on the other side?
No Illwur Papyrus detailing the plagues?
No Hyskos invasion that met zero resistance @ 1446 BC?
No pottery shards found in the land of Goshen?
No Jews celebrating the event each and every year since it happened?
Wake up dude.
>>1115563
What's so funny? Suddenly ''fact'' is a no no?
>>1115627
What you think is a fact is absurdity.
>>1115616
The flood and the ark
Adam and Eve
The burning bush
God
Is 4 enough?
>>1115639
>The flood and the ark
Happened as advertised @ 4500 years ago.
>Adam and Eve
First two human beings.
>The burning bush
The bush did not burn; it was a curiousity to draw Moses in to speak with God.
>God
God is I Am, and you will see Him with your eyes soon.
AND YOU ARE NOT READY.
>>1115634
No, what think or will accept as fact is any statement supported by credible sources
>>1115645
Yes, it's absolutely absurd for you to not consider the proven Word of God to be the most credible source on the planet. Absolutely absurd.
>>1115644
>Happened as advertised @ 4500 years ago.
Nope.
>First two human beings.
Nope.
>Burning bush
See a doctor about that, there are various treatments.
>>god is fictional and I am delusional
Fixed for reality.
>>1115644
If the earth is 6000 years old, then how can we see stars billions of light years away from us?
If the flood was real, how did the different continents of the world manage to get such different faunas, especially considering the one of the Australia and the pretty much defenseless dodo?
How are we finding fossils from sea creature at the tops of the mountains if the world is that young?
>>1115582
>The point is that there is no physical archaeological evidence for it that is taken seriously.
So what?
Just because no one has found any thousand year old trash supporting the occurrence if an event does not mean it did not happen.
To be honest this whole "we can't find forensic evidence so it didn't happen" line of reasoning is awfully reminiscent of the arguments used by Holocaust deniers.
>but we have forensic evidence to support the Holocaust
Yes but will we still have it in two thousand years? How certain could you be that archeologists in the far future after the collapse of multiple civilizations will be able to find evidence to support it?
>>1115627
The fact that you think you can treat history like science and talk definitively about the facts is hilarious.
>>1115659
You don't get to vote on what happened in the past.
You're delusional if you think you do.
>>1115668
There need be no evidence outside the bible for it to be true.
There need be no evidence inside the bible for it to be true.
Your generation has zero comprehension of the word "objective".
>>1115672
You don't. You see what happened on Day Four when God stretched out the universe.
Those stars are gone. They're not there. They burned out in their relative times. The heavens are collapsing towards us.
>>1115693
Well, hopefully people won't be using the holocaust to seriously alter the laws of various nations then.
People are kinda doing that with the exodus (You must help Israel or else God will punish your nation like he did with Egypt is one example I have seen)
>>1115725
God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse Israel.
That's been plain for 3500 years.
>>1115720
Where is it written God stretched out the Universe? All I can find is that he made the stars and stuff that day.
And why would they be dead if our sun is still burning?
And Scientists have "seen" stars getting born, which should disprove they are all dead.
>>1115733
Yeah, and we don't really have any proof he did curse Egypt to let the Jews out, so trying to use it to push for modern Political actions becomes rather pointless.
>>1115714
>There need be no evidence outside the bible for it to be true
Mkay. Im gonna stop debating you now.
>>1115725
Do you seriously believe any government is actually supporting Israel based solely on the Old Testament?
If anyone is attempting to change the law using historical revision, it's the people pointing to the "ahistorical" nature of the Bible as justification to encourage secularism and the abandonment of the Christian traditions of the West.
>>1115762
I understand you hate the Bible and Christianity and all that stuffy old time religion stuff but it is entirely possible for a historical event to be recorded in only one oral /written source.
>>1115767
>Do you seriously believe any government is actually supporting Israel based solely on the Old Testament?
No, but it's a pretty important part of some of it's hardcore supporters, like Christian Zionists.
>If anyone is attempting to change the law using historical revision, it's the people pointing to the "ahistorical" nature of the Bible as justification to encourage secularism and the abandonment of the Christian traditions of the West.
What's so wrong about secularism, really? Everyone gets to keep their faith, and should have no power to force it at others.
And most people I know of don't really want to drop all Christian traditions, just whatever ones that limits the rights of Women and Sexual minorities (Leviticus as an example))
>>1115714
What about expecting others to believe it rather than some work like, let's say, the Quran or the Hindu Texts?
>>1115779
but we don't assume that any other historical sources are 100% true. when we can we compare them to archeological data and other sources. archeology has shown that many parts of the bible are false and some parts of the bible are true. there is no reason to assume that it is 100% objectively true
>>1115779
I dont hate the bible or christians. And yes it is possible for a historical event to be recorded in only one oral /written source. But there are a lot of sources that contradict the bible. It is a priori very unlikely that ALL those sources are wrong on ALL counts and that one source is accurate on such a wide range if events.
But you are only willing to accept confirmations of your bible. Anything that contradicts it MUST be wrong, because the bible MUST be true. Right?
>>1115782
Christian Zionists are political nobodies and religious justifications are just smokescreen for realpolitik.
>what's wrong with secularism?
It has no moral authority and will inevitably crumble in the face of stalwart opposition that is adamant in their own moral authority. Furthermore there is nothing objectively good about defending the "rights" of Women and Sexual minorities.
Pedophiles and rapists are sexual minorities should their sexual "rights" be defended? Don't give me that "slippery slope fallacy" bullshit, we live in an age where you can be hit with a fine in NYC for deliberately "misgendering" someone or in other words for the act of calling a man a man.
Who knows where the overtones window will be shifted in fifty years?
>>1115840
>overtones window
Seriously hope that was an autocorrect error
>>1115693
>So what?
>Just because no one has found any thousand year old trash supporting the occurrence if an event does not mean it did not happen.
see the first half of this post >>1115470
>>1115621
>No chariot wheels in Al Aqaba?
>No monument made by Solomon on the other side?
>No Illwur Papyrus detailing the plagues?
>No Hyskos invasion that met zero resistance @ 1446 BC?
Can you provide links to credible sources documenting those things that aren't fringe blogs or pseudo-archaeology sites, I'm not sure what they refer to and google just brings up blogposts or Religious alex jones-type sites.
The last two are ridiculous though.
>No pottery shards found in the land of Goshen?
The existence of pottery shards in Egypt don't do anything at all to prove Jews lived there as other people have lived there for many thousands of years, especially when its unclear exactly where in Egypt "Goshen" is describing
>No Jews celebrating the event each and every year since it happened?
The notion that Jews celebrated it every year since it hypothetically occurred is an unsubstantiated assertion. Just because they may have been recorded as doing so in Roman/Classical times proves nothing about what may have hypothetically happened hundreds or a thousand years earlier.
>>1115840
>Christian Zionists are political nobodies
not in the U.S. They provide a lot of funding to the Israel lobby in the U.S. and are an important source of tourism for Israel. they are such a powerful force that the Republican party is sure to pander to them whenever the topic of Israel comes up
![4285d1786d5b0f8e92eeeae935c46c8e[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zh0W289.jpg "4285d1786d5b0f8e92eeeae935c46c8e[1].jpg")
Pic related
>>1115840
>It has no moral authority and will inevitably crumble in the face of stalwart opposition that is adamant in their own moral authority.
Hasn't happened yet. So far all we've seen is its opposition crumbling in the face of secularism.
This is what Creationists actually believe.
>>1115865
CRAWLLLLINGGGG IN MY SKINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
>>1115840
Excuse me for asking this, but does it matter for you any whenever we use the bible as an important part as our culture, or would some older sort of paganism do?
>It has no moral authority and will inevitably crumble in the face of stalwart opposition that is adamant in their own moral authority. Furthermore there is nothing objectively good about defending the "rights" of Women and Sexual minorities.
Sorry if I seem ignorant, but what objectively good things are there then?
>It has no moral authority and will inevitably crumble in the face of stalwart opposition that is adamant in their own moral authority. Furthermore there is nothing objectively good about defending the "rights" of Women and Sexual minorities.
The Slippery slopes work two ways my friend, if we goes with the way of tradition we may very well return to allowing wife and child beating, jailing or even executing Homosexuals and fined for heresy.
>>1115733
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/the-us-israel-special-relationship-timeline-that-aipac-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
truly a blessing
>>1115738
Isaiah 42
Thus says God the Lord,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it,
Who gives breath to the people on it,
And spirit to those who walk on it:
Isaiah 45
Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, And created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.
Jeremiah 10
Jeremiah 10:12 He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
>>1115821
>but we don't assume that any other historical sources are 100% true.
I'm not suggesting that you should treat the Bible as a 100% true historical source, I'm pointing out that dismissing the Bible as a source simply because it's the Bible is pretty stupid.
>>1115744
God wrecked the entire Egyptian pantheon with His plagues, then He wrecked the entire government, then He impoverished the people, and then He destroyed their entire army.
They have never recovered their superpower status.
>>1115870
Are you saying it is not true you fucking fedora commie bastard!?!
>>1115762
A hundred years ago, a butterfly died.
Do you need evidence for that statement in order to understand that it is true?
Don't kid yourself. You were never debating anyone.
>>1115794
I would urge anyone looking for God to study all of them, and see which one belongs to God, which one is a collaboration between a pedophile and the devil, and which one worships 330,000,000 demons in a rigid caste system.
>>1114865
>Read Freud
Literally why?
>>1115857
No, because you're not an honest person seeking information. If you were, you'd know about this thing called "Google". The truth is ridiculous to you.
>>1115870
Is that a komodo dragon? That dude should be careful. Those dinosaurs have poisonous bites.
>>1115902
What about the God that drowns babies?
>>1115710
Yeah no, there was no global flood, modern humanity is not descended from two people in the middle east, a burning bush either an STD or a figment of your imagination if you're talking about bible banger fantasy stories and your god is actually a fictional character.
>>1115890
If bible says X and other sources say Y, then what?
If bible says X and other sources also say X, then what?
>in both cases we can safely dismiss the bible
>>1115875
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t_bqqvJdik
On the self driving car:
Apply the trolley dilemma to a self driving car.
Should the self driving car sacrifice the driver, who did nothing wrong to save a more numerous group of pedestrians who did something wrong? /g/ had an interesting discussion on this.
>>1115900
>>A hundred years ago, a butterfly died.
So?
>>Do you need evidence for that statement in order to understand that it is true?
What is the malfunction in your brain that you are seriously comparing the death of a butterfly to blatantly absurd and unverifiable events in the bible?
>>1115888
Which don't quite deal with the problem that we have seen stars being born out there.
>>1115890
maybe you aren't the same person, but you replied to a response to >>1115714
which is showing a stance that the Bible is objectively true and should not be questioned. I agree that the Bible can be used as a source for history but I think it should be used in that regard cautiously, and not at all in regards to events such as Exodus and Joshua which archeology has proven to be not true.
>>1115914
God is as real as either of us.
>>1115881
> we may very well return to allowing wife and child beating, jailing or even executing Homosexuals and fined for heresy.
None of that would bother me in the slightest as I'm not a homosexual, woman, a child, or a fedora tipping atheist that can't go five minutes without spouting some heresy to piss of Christians. I am however disgusted by the prospect of being forced to pretend that men are women and if I have to choose between a society where witches get burned at the stake and a society where there are five lights I'll choose the one where witches get burned at the stake, at least that one has some concept of objective truth.
>>1115936
>which is showing a stance that the Bible is objectively true and should not be questioned.
No it isn't I suggest you reread it.
>>1115940
No actually, there is no real evidence for the existence of any sort of deity or group of deities. I have quite a bit of evidence for my own existence though, and the only real arguments against my own existence lay in solipsism and schizophrenia.
>>1115907
>If you were, you'd know about this thing called "Google"
I just said that I used google and it brought up blogposts and religious websites but no credible sources
from wikipedia
>A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[29] and archaeologists generally agree that the Israelites had Canaanite origins.[30] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains are in the Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite.[31] Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether even this is an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[31]
Most archaeologists and certainly the most respected and talented ones largely agree there is no serious evidence at all for the Exodus. This has been something that many many people have looked into and the world of professional (non-amateur) archaeologists have largely agreed there is no evidence.
Face the facts.
>>1115911
What about the God who takes all drowned babies to Himself and glorifies them to live with Him for eternity?
>>1115943
>None of that would bother me in the slightest as I'm not a homosexual, woman, a child, or a fedora tipping atheist that can't go five minutes without spouting some heresy to piss of Christians.
perhaps you should become more familiar with a certain poem of Martin Niemoller
>>1115914
Ouch. So edgy. Come back when you're 18 kid.
>>1115917
You will never go wrong trusting the bible over all other sources.
>>1115943
So it isn't really objective at all, just what you prefer?
>Objective truth
It's an objective truth to say homosexuals got a choice to become homosexual and are natural abominations? As well as some other things they used to say about other things.
>>1115928
Your disingenuous request for evidence, that's what. Your complete and utter lack of understanding that your beliefs don't change reality.
>Ctrl + F Osarseph
>0 results
The fuck?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osarseph
>>1115931
Not so much, no.
>>1115917
Only because you have a priori dismissed the Bible as false and the other source as correct, even though that other source was also written by superstitious bronze/iron age people.
>>1115952
Gee, the bible says that Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeas.
Nice to know wiki is catching up to the bible.
>>1115956
Yes, or the Hindu Gods that will let people be reborn in a better life if they deserved it.
>>1115959
I'm a legal adult actually, so nice try. You have the mentality of a child though, like most people who take the bronze age superstitions of hebrew goat fuckers seriously.
>>1115966
Yes, everything I told you was true.
Objectively true.
But you have no desire for that; you're basically a solipsist wanting everything handed to you on a platter, which you then upset onto the ground in a temper tantrum.
>>1115947
>Your generation has zero comprehension of the word "objective".
this seems pretty clear to me that the Bible should be considered objective truth. how could it mean anything else?
>>1115962
Are you trolling or just the product of an American education?
>>1115972
Demons have no such powers. They just lie and say there is such a thing as reincarnation. There is not.
It is appointed once for a man to die, and then the judgment.
>>1115962
This is nonsensical and asinine, even christians will tell you that the bible is not meant to be a science book nor do they consider the old testament to be literally true or all that historically accurate.
>>1115974
Emancipated, no doubt, as your parents "just didn't understand you, man".
>>1115967
Which you got to agree, do cause some problems for the claim all the stars are dead out there as well as God pushing them out there?
The last one because if they was created out there, and the world is just 6000 years old, we should not see them as they have been unaffected by god's stretching of the universe.
>>1115985
The bible has very little science in it because science is always wrong, and the bible is always right. What it does touch on is true.
Even if all of humanity collectively says it is not.
>>1115976
>Objectively true.
But not backed by any source other than the bible
>>1115982
Listen, now you are expecting me to judge the Hindu Beliefs through Bible googles.
If I look at it through Hindu googles, the bible God will just be yet another face of Krishna and Jesus one of his avatars.
>>1115985
are YEC's not Christians then?
>>1115987
No, I'm saying that the stars you see are gone. Burned out. Deceased. From the furthermost moving inwards to us.
For reference, the sun could have gone nova 8 minutes ago and we wouldn't know about it.
A star now 10,000 light years away, well, we won't know anything about it for 10,000 years.
>>1115993
You keep thinking that matters.
It doesn't.
>>1115978
There are plenty of products of american education who are arguing against him in this thread, just saying.
>>1115982
>>this other religion is false but mine is totally true you guys
See this? This is why you are stupid.
>>1115996
Yes, that is the lie that they will tell you. But Jesus was just as much man as though He were not God, and just as much God as though He were not man.
He is not an avatar of anyone or anything; He is God.
>>1116010
Yes, your post is why you remain ignorant, and proof you overvalue and overstate your own intelligence.
>>1115959
>>1115986
Kek.
It always amuses me when Mohammad and Mohammad start posting from Pakistan.
>ooooo not believing in magic is edgy!!!!!!
>I have no evidence that my belief in a wizard is real apart from storybooks but watch me shitpost on the Internet!!!!
>see me go Mummy!!!!
>>1115989
>>because science is always wrong
lol
>>using a computer to say this while being ignorant of all the medical advances that have allowed you to survive long enough to be able to spout this ignorant drivel onto 4chan
People like you make me feel good about being a positivist.
>>1116013
and how can I know that what you are saying isn't just a lie too?
>>1115951
There's plenty of evidence, it merely contradicts your worldview.
>>1116013
there is no more reason to believe your side then the Hindu side
>>1115957
Oh so now poems written by priests are an acceptable source of wisdom? How convenient.
>>1115963
Sure, why not?
Homos are an irrelevant minority and I don't give a shit what happens to them.
Once again if I have to close between supporting the right of two men to play make believe and pretend that they're married while simultaneously living in a 1984 dystopia where I get dragged to the gulag if I don't use the proper Newspeak, and a world where gays get beat with sticks but I can call a spade a spade, I choose the world where gays get beat with sticks.
>>1116001
Yes, and if we see a star that's being formed that is 10.000 years away, that means that star must be older than God's creation of the universe.
>>1116013
Jebus is a pile of dust somewhere in the middle east, not a deity. Your religion is as false as any other.
>>1116018
>takes the bible seriously and says this to people who don't
You are dumb, incredibly dumb.
>>1116037
>get dragged to the gulag
Yeah, that's happening, I'm sure.
>>1116035
There is no verifiable evidence for the god of the bible. There's fucktons of hearsay and nonsense, but those aren't actual evidence.
>>1116037
You got a persecution complex.
>>1116037
>Oh so now poems written by priests are an acceptable source of wisdom? How convenient.
Can I not find wisdom from religious people without accepting their religion?
I always thought that not only Moses, but Joshua, Samuel, Solomon, etc. were "Jewish Mythical Heroes". I believe that rather obscure Israelite kings such as Ahab existed, as well as possibly a small number of prophets such as Jeremiah and Malachi. But there actions have been greatly exaggerated and to a large extent, fabricated.
>>1116037
What if I get dragged to Gulag if I try to claim the bible is false?
>>1116055
We actually have an Assyrian source corraborating the Ahab's existence. He fought against the Assyrians as part of a coalition, interestingly it's not mentioned in the Bible
Jesus existed, and he was unjustly executed. But he was just a liberal rabbi who saw through the Pharisee's hypocrisy and preached against it.
No miracles, no casting out demons. Just an innocent Galilean rabbi who went against the establishment.
>>1116058
That obviously doesn't count as being oppression because you deserve it for being an edgy atheist.
Yes, this is how the mindset of quite a few xtians works. This is also why the backlash against "fedora atheists" was a mistake.
>>1116063
Indeed.
>>1116063
Is it possible that they aren't referring to the same Ahab?
>>1116000
YECs aren't the majority of christians by any stretch of the imagination, they aren't even the majority of protestants even.
>>1116088
we know from the source he was a king of Israel. also the battle happened on a date that falls in Ahab's reign according to the bible
>>1115982
They're not demons, though. They're real, actual gods unlike Yahweh.
>>1116058
Not my problem.
It's obvious now that discrediting the Bible leads to the adoption of moral relativism on a cultural scale, and so I see no problem with oppressing those agents of chaos who sow the seeds of our eventual destruction, even if they have done so for entirely innocent reasons.
>>1116106
Neat.
>>1115964
The hebrew fairy tales in the bible have absolutely nothing to do with reality.
Your god is fictional.
>>1116115
so you are supporting spooks just because you like the spooks?
>>1116115
Yeah no, if defending society means I get imprisoned for questioning obvious bullshit then society can go fuck itself.
>>1116155
so you admit that you have nothing supporting your position other than your personal opinion?
Does anyone think this is a serious, solid source?
>8 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron. 9 He said, “Pharaoh will say to you, ‘Do a miracle.’ When he does, speak to Aaron. Tell him, ‘Take your walking stick and throw it down in front of Pharaoh.’ It will turn into a snake.”
>10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh. They did exactly as the Lord had commanded them. Aaron threw the stick down in front of Pharaoh and his officials. It turned into a snake. 11 Then Pharaoh sent for wise men and people who do evil magic. By doing their magic tricks, the Egyptian magicians did the same things Aaron had done. 12 Each one threw down his walking stick. Each stick turned into a snake. But Aaron’s walking stick swallowed theirs up.
>>1116155
Keep dreaming christard, your religion is declining and your dreams of all us nasty unbelievers getting stomped on are never going to happen. The USA will majority non-religious in 50 years time.
Have fun being a dinosaur everyone with a brain laughs at christcuck.
>>1116146
I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't post that so why should I be bound to that person's comment? Again, why do you need to see the world in black and white? are you incapable of seeing religious and non-religious people of both have the potential to be wise?
>>1116162
No one does so what difference does it make?
We're talking about "spooks" right?
How are the rights of homosexuals and atheists any less spooky?
>>1116186
They're not, but supporting them over theocratic insanity is in our best interests, because a free society is one that's less likely to wind up oppressing or destroying us. When a society draws lines over who does and does not deserve to live in peace, there's good odds you'll eventually find yourself on the wrong side of such a line.
>>1116181
> Again, why do you need to see the world in black and white?
Because this is the world we live in. If you don't a priori reject the Bible as a potentially legitimate historical source clearly you must be young earth creationist christian who supports Israel because the Bible tells you so.
>>1116167
>>Does anyone think this is a serious, solid source?
Actual historians and archaeologists don't, hence why the fundie dumbfucks on here are so fond of quoting random crank blogs as sources.
>>1116111
There is only one true God, and His name is I Am, YHWH.
>>1116186
because there is no objective reason to punish people for their religious beliefs nor for having gay sex. there are nothing you can claim to be negative about homosexuals other than "degeneracy" which comes down to your opinion, not any actual harm to society that can be well defined and measured. I am not without my own spooks but I think I keep them simple: don't send people to fucking gulags unless you can prove they are doing actual harm to others
>>1116125
Frog posters.
>>1116167
Yes.
>>1116223
>I Am
What a dumb name.
>>1116223
No there isn't.
>>1116230
Are better then christians.
>>1116232
Do you think Harry Potter is real as well?
>>1116224
Let me put this in context for you.
God is fighting your enemies. You are winning. Suddenly, you start losing. You look for the problem, and it's two gay guys having sex.
Do you kill the two gay guys for having sex, or do you let your enemies kill all of you, since God is no longer fighting on your side?
And yes, this is the choice. And it's more than just God killing your enemies; it's your crops, and your animals, and your children; it's everything God promised, if you act right. And tolerating sodomites is not acting right.
Do you kill the two to save the nation?
>>1116240
Do you?
>>1115375
It's NOT the only holy book on the planet. You ignore it out of your own personal bias.
>>1116202
you are strawmanning what atheists have been saying in this thread. do you think this mocking sarcasm covers up the fact that you couldn't defend your attack on me saying a priest had said some wise things?
>>1116246
I can absolutely with 100% certainty say Harry Potter is every bit as real as Moses.
>20 Moses and Aaron did exactly as the Lord had commanded them. Aaron held out his staff in front of Pharaoh and his officials. He struck the water of the Nile River. And all the water turned into blood. 21 The fish in the Nile died. The river smelled so bad the Egyptians couldn’t drink its water. There was blood everywhere in Egypt.
>>1116243
If this was the case I would say fuck the god in question and go find a different one to worship.
Of course this assumes that deities of some sort actually exist, which they don't.
>>1116200
> When a society draws lines over who does and does not deserve to live in peace, there's good odds you'll eventually find yourself on the wrong side of such a line.
And in a society that doesn't even have the decency to lay out those strict lines and simply shifts it's power with the will of the mob the odds are even better.
The society in 1984 was arguably the most free society of all as there were no written laws and no concrete lines to delineate who lives in peace and who does not, even reality itself was malleable for the state. When a society doesn't "draw lines" then the statement that freedom is slavery becomes perfectly rational.
>>1116243
let's move beyond the fact that you can't prove said God exists. this God is demonstrably false. Jesus is a part of your omniscient God, yes? well he refers to Moses, Abraham and David as real people. archeologically disproves the story Moses and that of David and all three persons have stories full of anachronisms. your omniscient God knew less than we do now. therefore he wasn't God.
>>1116290
This still assumes homosexuals pose some sort of threat to you, which is both unsupportable and stupid.
>>1116290
>And in a society that doesn't even have the decency to lay out those strict lines and simply shifts it's power with the will of the mob the odds are even better.
Statements that don't match reality for 100, Alex. The most free nations on earth are also the safest, this has been observed again and again and again.
1984 was an example of a society where lines had been drawn willy nilly, and were used to remove anyone that didn't fit the ideal of orthodox. That was the reality of it, any action out of the ordinary could find you on the wrong side of such a line.
Orwell would have detested you and your ideals.
>>1116243
Now you have kinda go from "I do it because of my own opinions" to "I do it because of God"
Also Remember your opponents either don't believe in god or don't think he acts like that.
>>1116258
It wasn't an attack on you, and it's in no way a strawman as people in thjs thread have repeatedly assumed I'm some kind of fundamentalist Christian for not toeing the atheist line.
>>1116323
No, they assume you're a fundamentalist because you seem to be a biblical literalist, which is pretty much exclusively a fundie thing.
>>1116323
if it wasn't an attack on me then don't respond to me, respond to the comments that have said what you accuse them of.
>>1116224
All I know is that they keeping adding letters to what started out as just LGBT so clearly this is never going to end if we keep letting it happen, and the only reason it started happening in the first place is because we began to assume we knew better than the people who came before us and took the Bible seriously.
>>1116329
I have said nothing to support biblical literalism, and the fact that you assume I promote biblical literalism simply because I do not reject the Bible as a historical source out of hand is exactly what I'm taking about.
>>1116314
>The most free nations on earth are also the safest, this has been observed again and again and again.
For now.
We'll see how safe they remain after twenty years of unrestricted immigration from the third world.
>That was the reality of it, any action out of the ordinary could find you on the wrong side of such a line.
So exactly like today where the line was arbitrarily shifted and now a small business owner can be harassed and ruined for not baking a cake for an arbitrarily defined politically protected class and where entire states can be pressured with economic sanction by ammoral international corporations for not recognizing the right of mentally ill men to disrobe in front of little girls.
>>1116347
Well, we do have a bunch of reasons to assume we do know better than those that came before us. We do know quite a lot of things about biology that they didn't know.
And I still don't quite see how SJWism is any worse than the sort of traditionalism I have gotten the idea you want to apply.
And about that "ISrael" thing, my point wasn't that you have to support it, merely that it's rather wrong for people to try to base laws and politics on something they can't prove to be true. Not that you becomes a zionist simply bu not assuming the Bible isn't all wrong.
>>1116347
you are assuming that the gay movement is identical to the additional TQIDHXJSKSO on the acronym. gender identity bullshit has nothing to do with sexual attraction and has latched on to the gay rights movement like a parasite. you can be for not punishing people for gay sex and allowing gay couples to get similar legal privileges to straight couples through gay marriage without acknowledging all the other pure bullshit. gays claim to have sexual attractions which we have no reason to doubt. transgender people make claims about themselves that are nonsensicial at best. gay people don't want you to become gay while transgender people want you to redefine gender to fit their feelings
>>1116387
>So exactly like today where the line was arbitrarily shifted and now a small business owner can be harassed and ruined for not baking a cake for an arbitrarily defined politically protected class and where entire states can be pressured with economic sanction by ammoral international corporations for not recognizing the right of mentally ill men to disrobe in front of little girls.
And yet you have failed to give any reasons for why your ideal society is better.
>>1116394
This isn't about gay people for me.
I have nothing against gay people but it's abundantly obvious that the expansion of gay rights are going to serve as precedent for further shifting the overton window of acceptable political discussion, in the exact same way as the expansion of divorce rights has been used to justify gay marriage.
A line has to be drawn somewhere and if gays have to be on the wrong side of that line so be it, but t a line MUST be drawn.
>>1116413
Neither have you.
>>1116359
Nobody rejects the bible out of hand as a historical source. They just don't assume it's automatically true without some evidence backing it up. Kind of like how nobody just assumes that the Iliad is historically accurate without evidence. As was said in the thread earlier, archaeology supports some claims of the bible, doesn't support others, and discredits some others.
>>1116387
No, not at all like today. People voicing their displeasure and refusing to do business with them is not the same as them being abducted and brainwashed through torture before being eventually shot and erased from history, you histrionic idiot.
Also, immigration is hardly unrestricted.
>>1116387
We do have a raising amount of people opposing Immigration not coming from the religious camp though.
>>1116479
So you'd be fine with living in the 1984 society so long as they just relied on social pressure to enforce the arbitrary declarations of the state?
>>1116499
No, I just prefer a free society that isn't a theocratic shit-hole to one that is a theocratic shit-hole.
They aren't enforcing anything, they're doing exactly what I said. Freedom means that you're subject to other's freedom to call you a fuckface and refuse to do business with you.
You also forget how Chick-Fil-A got a huge surge in business from the religious right, so it's not like it doesn't cut both ways.
>>1116492
I never said you had to be religious to oppose mass immigration, I'm just saying that this "anything goes" culture is a direct result of our pursuit of secularism.
>>1116514
A). A theocratic state is not inherently a shithole
B). I only prefer a theocracy over a society that enforces the use of government mandated Newspeak.
C). We do not live in a free society. These social witch hunts are not manifestations of the organic will of the people but are in actuality the product of decades worth of state mandated indoctrination and social engineering.
>>1116522
While that may be true, it may just as well be true that your own end goals will lead to a nihilistic society where nothing else than salvation matters.
>>1116597
I hate to be a pedant but a society that believes in the pursuit of salvation cannot be nihilistic by definition.
>>1116608
Depends on how you view it.
I would say that a society where you are indifferent of your family and ancestors as well as the fate of the world as well as coming because you only care about your own personal salvation is pretty nihilistic.Where this world don't count but the coming one does.
>>1116592
>A). A theocratic state is not inherently a shithole
Every one that currently exists is an oppressive mess.
>B). I only prefer a theocracy over a society that enforces the use of government mandated Newspeak.
So you want church-mandated newspeak. Also, I don't give a shit what you prefer because you'll never have that kind of power.
>C). We do not live in a free society. These social witch hunts are not manifestations of the organic will of the people but are in actuality the product of decades worth of state mandated indoctrination and social engineering.
More free than any theocracy.
>>1114865
To be fair u where only aloud to keep ur slaves for 7years.
>>1116616
Nihilism means you believe in NOTHING. I get what you're saying but I'm just being a stickler.
>>1116616
Do you also think 2 + 2 is 5, black is white, and up is down?
>>1116636
Fine if I say "worldly Nihilism" then?
>>1116636
>Nihilism means you believe in NOTHING.
No it doesn't. There's countless forms of nihilism. Existential nihilism means you believe there is no objective meaning to the universe, moral nihilism means you believe there are no moral truths, etc.
>>1116647
>Whatever I think is real.
>>1116630
>every one that exists is an oppressive mess
The Vatican is an oppressive mess?
>Also, I don't give a shit what you prefer because you'll never have that kind of power.
Time will tell. :^)
>More free than any theocracy.
Why do you hate the idea of objective morality so much?
>>1115965
this
>>1116661
>The Vatican is an oppressive mess?
You got to agree that's a silly comparison.
The Vatican is small enough to fit inside a city and got a population of a few hundreds, none that are born there.
>>1116661
>The Vatican is an oppressive mess?
Considering it's a rigid, top-down command structure, yeah, actually.
>Time will tell. :^)
Indeed.
>Why do you hate the idea of objective morality so much?
To say I hate it would be a stretch. I just find the notion absurd. Find me an atom of good, or any proof of external moral truth and I'll gladly accept your position. But as far as we can see, good and evil are just products of our mind, and I don't see supporting your morals to be in my best interests, or really anyone's best interests, not even your own.
>>1116674
Irrelevant.
The claim was made that ALL existing theocracies are oppressive messes.
>>1116024
Your studies in any scientific endeavor cannot be very old if you do not know that science is continually "self-correcting".
When I am talking about science always being wrong, it is generally understood by rational people to mean historical science and metaphysical science, and not technology. Tool building.
>>1116678
>hierarchies are BAD
lol
>But as far as we can see, good and evil are just products of our mind, and I don't see supporting your morals to be in my best interests, or really anyone's best interests, not even your own.
How can you make any positive claims about self-interest when you admit that you don't even recognize the concepts of good and evil and therefore by extension better and worse?
>>1116723
>hierarchies are bad
No, rigid, top-down command structures are inherently oppressive.
Also I don't need to recognize good and evil as external truths to recognize what I consider my own interests. Better and worse are concepts that relate to me, they are tools for my utilization, my property, dumbass.
>>1116027
I have no idea how people go through life without being able to tell truth from lie. I really don't.
I have the Holy Spirit living in me, and I rely on Him for that.
>>1116036
Jesus really lived, really died, and really rose from the dead. He really is God.
It suffices.
>>1116042
Fourth time, Edgemeister, Jesus rose from the dead on the third day and is alive forevermore. He knew no corruption.
You know nothing but corruption.
