Yes, I am a long-time atheist who dismisses religions as little more than colossal myths Nevertheless, I love Jesus, for Jesus preached love, ethics, and concern for all mankind. He never strived for material reward. He was a consummate idealist, and he advocated courageously against venal authority. Jesus was the most famous and influential person who ever existed on this planet. Emulating Jesus then I deem a worthy aspiration. It seems to me liberals should have high esteem for Jesus.
Humans both know in advance and fear their demise, so creation of myths about deities is found in all cultures. The myths are easily debunked by both science and logic. Past religions which did not promise an afterlife have been long forgotten supplanted by others that did. Interestingly the same phenomenon was true in the creation of life insurance which was a failure when it was first named death insurance.
Islam is of course the worse religion in that it is inherently radical and fosters violent behavior. Islam has spread carcinogenically, and is responsible for global mayhem because it is also engenders a political agenda. Insofar as ethics are concerned, Islamic doctrines are ethically inferior to those found in Christianity. Curiously, the spread of Islam is perhaps the greatest threat both in the West and in Russia to dismantling Western Civilization which is far superior in numerous ways to that of others. I do not consider Muslims as intrinsically evil. It’s their faith that is most certainly evil and inspires an estimated ten percent of Muslims to become radicalized.
The US has been at war for 225 of the 243 years of its existence, 93% of the time. With regards to body count, Christians are to have chalked up roughly 50 times the violent deaths than Muslims across the past century. Now, that could be due to efficiency, though. The West was the first to industrialize war. Of course, nationalism would be more to the ideology than religion, but are nationalism and religion not tied? The British monarch is the head of the Church of England, and during the first half of the 20th century, that still meant something. Was Spain really unconnected to Catholicism? So…16 million in WW1, 60 million in WW2, Belgium in the Congo…8 million…1.5 million by Russia in Central Asia 1916-1930, half a million to a million in Algeria. Religion terrorism crosses the spectrum as well…Zionists in British Mandate Palestine were active in the 40s, while the FBI considered the Jewish Defense League among the most active US terrorist groups between 1965-1980. Now that they are getting their way, less terrorism from them. Weird how that works, huh?
You mean like Paul Weyrich, Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, Billy James Hargis, Father Conklin, Ted Cruz and most the GOP?
That’s curious considering they use many of the same books. Which ethics are you discussing, specifically?
False. First, there is no US and Russia. Secondly, Russia’s biggest threat is that they’re a corrupt gas station who thinks it’s a country. The biggest threat to the US is people like you.
What counts as “radicalized”? Is it fundamentalism? What % of Christian GOPers are “fundamentalist”? Tell me, what are the tenets of the Council for National Policy, the lead directing organization for the GOP since the 70s and from which they get their messaging and organization, along with being the leading voice in the Trump Presidency…what’s their focus, point, single direction?
Are you suggesting it’s the Bible’s fault that it’s been misused? Are you suggesting it’s the Bible’s fault that people have misinterpreted it and as a result done terrible things?
Your questions are loaded a bit, as they are coming from the perspective that the Bible is without fault, moral, and only its interpretations are the negative. I would dispute that.
The words, themselves, are the immorality I am talking about. I cannot think of a worse guide for morality, to be honest. So, no…it’s not that the Bible was misused, but that it is not a guide for morality in general.
Some basics…usually in a civilized, legal system…suffering of the innocent is the essence of injustice. However, the Bible teaches that God repeatedly violated this moral precept by harming innocent people. He damned the entire human race and cursed and entire creation because of the acts of 2 people (Gen 3:16-23, Romans 5:18); he drowned pregnant women and innocent children, animals at the time of the flood (Gen 7:20-23); he tormented Egyptians and their animals with hail and disease bc a pharaoh refused to let the Israelites leave Egypt (Exodus 9:8-11,25) and killed Egyptian babies at the time of Passover (Exodus 12:29-30). After Exodus, he ordered the Israelites to exterminate the men, women and children of seven nations and steal their land (Duet 7:1-2); he killed King David’s baby bc of David’s adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:13-18); required the torture and murder of his own son (Romans 3:24-25); and he promised to send non-Christians to eternal torture (Rev 21:8).
Besides some of the basics like that, you have tons and tons of heinous tales that are opposed to civilized standards of morality. Quite a few Bible passages portray “God” as ordering or approving the extermination of various people, including children and the elderly
At I Samuel 15:3, the prophet Samuel gives King Saul this commandment from the Lord: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
Ezekiel 9:4-7 has this harrowing account: “And the Lord said unto him, Go through . . . the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark. . . .”
Hosea 13:16 describes a punishment from the Lord: “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”
Deuteronomy 32:23-25 says that after the Israelites incited God’s jealousy by worshiping other gods, he vowed: “I will spend mine arrows upon them. . . . The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.”
In Numbers chapter 31, the Lord approves of these instructions that Moses gave to the Israelite soldiers about how to treat certain women and children captured in war: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
Isaiah 13:9,15-18 contains this message from God: “Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger. . . . Every one that is found shall be thrust through. . . . Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes . . . and their wives ravished. Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them. . . . [T]hey shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes will not spare children.”
The God of the Bible is sadistic, cruel, a pure sociopathic mass murderer
He caused the earth to open and swallow entire families (Numbers 16:37-32); he used fire to devour people (e.g., Leviticus 10:1-2; Numbers 11:1-2); and he punished the Israelites with wars, famines, and pestilences (e.g., Ezekiel 5:11-17).
He sent wild animals such as bears (II Kings 2:23-24), lions (II Kings 17:24-25), and serpents (Numbers 21:6) to attack people; he sanctioned slavery (e.g., Leviticus 25:44-46); he ordered religious persecution (e.g., Deuteronomy 13:12-16); and he caused cannibalism (Jeremiah 19:9).
we can go on and on and on and on…
If you were in a world with no Bible, and you received this book today…you’re the guy…the WORD comes through you…this is your book. An angel brought it to you and handed it over for the first time in human history. Wouldn’t you be embarrassed to try and pass this off as the “standard of morality”?
How far could you read before you found a passage that immediately struck you are heinous, violent, even evil? I suggest that you wouldn’t have to read too long before that occurrence.
I, you, anyone outside can improve upon the Bible’s morality in seconds. It would literally only take one of us a few seconds to change one passage, somewhere, and immediately improve upon its morality. I suggest that, itself, proves the point.
Looking at primitive history is a poor way to make judgments about the world today. Western civilization has created the most ethical societies found on this planet
You cannot change a single word of the Koran, for it’s the word of Allah, and Allah cannot be mistaken
There so much supposition in this and it’s all errant supposition.
Firstly, God’s law isn’t binding on God. Not because he can choose to obey or disobey his own command, but because anything that god does IS moral.
There used to be an old problem in antiquity called the “ Euthyphro dilemma.” It asked “do the gods love good action because it is good, or is good action good because it is loved by the gods?” (“Good action here is defined as “the moral good”)
If the gods choose it because it’s good, then there is something greater than the gods. If they simply love the good and choose it, it’s arbitrary and non binding.
But there’s a 3rd way. “The Good” is God’s nature itself. And if that’s the case, then anything that God does, by definition, is moral and has a reason for its purpose that’s rooted in a good or just cause.
So with all of your examples stated Warden (and please let’s keep this discussion mature and above board), God had a good reason (whether it was explicit or hidden…. Whether we know it or don’t know it, to take the actions he took and therefore, they are moral.
For instance, you bring up the Pharaoh’s’ of Egypt and say they “ refused to let the Israelites leave Egypt” instead of “they enslaved, tortured and killed Jews for hundreds of years.”
It’s a nice slight of hand.
You also talk about the flood, but God explains his reasons explicitly. The men and women of that day were so violent, so corrupt, and so evil he punished them.
The more fundamentalist a religious person is, the less I agree with that person. Islam, as you know, moved backwards into more fundamentalist in nature with the Muslim Brotherhood’s push in the 20s and onward. Though, I don’t think them more naturally violent or the book itself more good or bad than the Torah or New Testament, their religion as it stands today is more fundamentalist and thus more violent than today’s Christianity. We could have an argument about Judaism vs Islam being more violent today…I’d have to think about it. Not sure.
But, as a general rule…the more fundamentalist, the less I support and agree. Essentially, everything classical liberalism stands on is the antithesis of modern Islam as practiced in governments.
Ironically, MAGA’s Dominionist majority is more similar to Islamic governments than the classical liberalism by which we are built on.
I would think most Christians think their book hasn’t been changed either…despite overwhelming historical evidence and earlier copies of different cannons
Translating the Bible from Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew to modern day English as well as other languages is a very tall task. Bible Scholars have updated the translations/versions several times over the years with the reasoning of trying to be as accurate as humanly possible with what the scriptures are actually saying. That’s why some versions don’t have verses that may be included in others such as the KJV, which has also been updated over the years. That’s why I’ve always said, “It’s important to know what the Bible says, but it’s more important to know what the Bible means.” The only/best way to do that be in a relationship with God. It’s not about religion, it’s about relationship. Spending time in prayer and studying the Bible is how you get to know God. Proverbs 3: 5-6 states that we should trust in the Lord and not lean on our own understanding. It states that we are to acknowledge Him in all of our ways so that He can direct our paths.
He will not impose Himself on anyone. If you choose not to believe in Him or serve Him, that is your free will. Carry on, but I will continue to stand in the gap and pray for you.
Will it make you feel better if I do? I will put it this way. I would rather live my whole entire life believing in God and find out He doesn’t exist, than to live my whole entire life living as if God was not real and then find out that He is when it’s everlasting too late. So I could be wrong, but I highly doubt it. My faith and answered prayers as well as the evidence all around me is all the proof I need.
Thank you for your honesty, nice to see it. as the grandchild of a pastor, I could be wrong and burn in hell for eternity. From someone who was raised in the church, witnessing those whom attended, I doubt my place will be that far down the line tho.
All assertions of morality, at their core, are beholden to the concept of if it is good for thee, it is good for me. That does not line up with your principle that anything God does is moral in itself, but only for God.
“if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil. In fact, one of them, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something’s right for me, it’s right for you; if it’s wrong for you, it’s wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow”
I assume that is why you are so beholden to Trump types, or Nixon, who believe that if a President does it, it makes it legal. You do not hold your God to any standard, but instead justify any action because he is God. Therefore, your God could command or do literally any atrocity and you’d cheer it on, regardless of your morality, and to you that becomes “good” or “right.” History is riddled with the worst acts by humanity on humanity using this justification. In fact, you take it a step further and state that anything he does is “moral” or is “good.” I don’t believe I’ve come across to many who believe those words, outside of some fundamentalist Muslims out there and a few Christian terrorists. Typically, God is outside of moral law and is not bound by his commanded “moral law” is the angle taken. Trying to state that genocide, slavery, slaughtering children, the elderly, etc. is moral because of who commanded it is quite a leap.
Again, your chosen line of reasoning is historically the worst possible interpretation of man’s responsibility to his fellow man and morality in general. You clearly state you have no morality, do not acknowledge morality as a concept. When we repeatedly say you are immoral, you prove us correct regularly.
I would contend that if God’s law is not binding on God, he is not God.
From your perspective, God commanded genocide and anything God does is moral, then to you…genocide is moral. God commanded babies to be bashed against rocks, slaughtered, so you contend that infanticide is moral. God condoned slavery, so you, slavery is moral.
From the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to slavery, to several genocides…all in the name of your God. All used the same justification you are trying to use. My contention is that if your God cannot even act as moral as we expect a 3 yr old to act, he’s not God. From an objective POV, if someone handed you that book today, I would like to think you, and most people, would view the God of the Bible was wholly immoral, juvenile, jealous, obsessed with himself, nihilistic outside of his belief he is the all powerful and rules don’t apply, etc. The God of the Bible would represent the very worst qualities we can imagine, all encompassed into one single being.
Again, I can improve upon the morality of the Bible in mere seconds. I can make a single or a few adjustments and make the entire book more moral than it was before without hardly any effort. I don’t think you can do that with a Dr Suess book, even. It would take more thought than it does to improve upon the morality and ethics of the Bible. If that doesn’t disqualify your book, I am not sure what would.
The dilemma is not just an old problem, it’s still being debated today. However, your representation of it is incorrect. Euthyphro and Socrates asks whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is pious only because it is loved by the gods. You then cited a third option, which actually is encompassed by the 2nd leg, pious or good action is good or pious because it is loved by the Gods.
That’s the same thing you’re trying to say with your third option, of course, having never once ever been entered into the debate…again, because it is the 2nd leg or 2nd option. An action is good because the Gods or God chose it to be.
This is more to your need for authoritarianism. You appear to be built to be a subject to someone else, deriving your ethics, good and bad, from that person or being.
Your only justification in any way is God is not subject to his own laws. Morality doesn’t exist outside of what God says it is, no good or bad without God himself or herself. To me, that is the most weak of arguments possible. In no example, throughout human history, is the notion of “good for thee and not for me” of any merit or “good.” Not once. Also, the notion you have that anything God does is moral in itself, regardless of whether that contradicts his own laws, our perception, or our collective knowledge is again, remarkably weak. Again, a 5 yr old can improve upon God’s morality in a mere moment. Even the slightest, weakest, and most criminal are more moral than the God of the Bible. If that, in itself, doesn’t stir you away, nothing will. Some people are built that way, having given away their own intellect and character to subject themselves to a lesser being, a lesser standard of ethics and morality. To me, you’ve chosen the weakest path, the least strenuous and the least objectively moral.
Again, your only defense is to say we just don’t understand but its right because it just has to be. This point is being hammered but only because you’re making it so…the very weakest possible response. We just don’t know and understand but the magic man in the sky who acts wholly immoral but we say is perfect so nothing he does is immoral despite us holding basic morality in our belief window on a daily basis is simply a poor justification. It’s weak and for the weak minded.
While I consider your response cute, it is without merit…again. First, there is literally zero evidence the Egyptians ever held Jewish slaves as described in the Bible. Even if we take the earliest possible date for jewish slavery that the Bible suggests, the Jews were enslaved in Egypt a good 300 years AFTER the 1750BC completion date of the pyramids. Secondly, we have burial evidence that slaves didn’t build the pyramids. Of course, that is if the Jews were slaves at all in Egypt. The reality is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever enslaved by the Egyptians. There is literally zero archeological evidence that 600,000 families (around 2 million people) crossed the entire Sinai, absolutely none…not even the slightest shard of pottery with Hebrew writing on it. The Egyptians, who kept hella records, make no mention of a sudden migration of what would have been a quarter of their population, nor has any evidence been found for any effects of an exodus, no economic downturn or labor shortages mentioned. There is no evidence in Israel that shows a sudden influx of people from another culture at the time, no rapid departure from traditional pottery or surge in population. Nada.
Now, there were Jewish soldiers stationed there as par of a frontier garrison for the Achaemenid Empire, but no evidence of being held as slaves, no evidence Moses ever existed, etc. It’s a fairy tale.
So, the only “slight of hand” is you trying to pass it off as real.
Well, not quite. According to the words, he slaughtered everything of flesh. He killed the babies, the unborn, the elderly, everything…because humanity was wicked. Of course, knowing sin and wickedness would emerge again, he chose to annihilate every living thing except 1 family…who then wanted to fuck their dad.
First, seems like a spoiled child who’s a psychopath. Secondly, God of the Bible, himself…is more wicked than any single human to have ever lived. Third, God chose to reveal basic moral truths to Noah AFTER the flood. How is he holding them accountable for something he never told them?
I do understand the notion you’ll respond with that beforehand he provided them with a conscience, and the story, itself, proves that we need God and his set of moral standards for mankind to not be wicked, a kind of attack on secular humanism, I suppose. However, that lends to the idea that the only support or proof is that of a visibly jealous, vicious God who, himself, doesn’t show the slightest element or morality or goodness at any point of any of the stories.
What details? You mean the ones that prove your story is just a story and the precepts of your question rely on a fairy tale to begin with?
Face it…your God, according to his words and actions, is the least of all of us. The worst human to have ever lived is more just, good, and moral than the God of the Bible at any point in history as listed in the Bible itself.
I like this theory. It is like your great grandad using the N word. Everybody excuses it even tho it is fucking wrong but his morality was good for the times, but shit for modernity.
Dude, I wish it went so far back I had to say “grandad.” If I went to my family this weekend, I’d hear it. I grew up hearing it almost daily from my parents. I’m from Oklahoma and Texas, folks. Not sure about ya’ll, but when I come from…the Confederacy is still held in VERY high regard by quite a few.
Honestly, my family lived in or just outside of Tulsa during the Tulsa Massacre. If I had to bet money, I’d bet some of those doing the burning and killing shared the same blood I have now. Nobody would ever own up, but odds are…one side of my family are pretty brutal people.
Religion and science have been at swords’ points throughout history. The Bible is an anthology of many writers of what in my mind are myths. Historically, religion has been perhaps the greatest excuse for human tyranny of any other manifestation. Arguing against gods certainly has a lethal history. That God can be inconsistent about murdering humans is certainly not justified by the BELIEF that God is always morally correct. History is replete with gods, most of whom are long forgotten. In the future, the fatuity of humans out of ignorance creating deities will be regarded as the remarkably naive susceptibility of humans to believe in the supernatural. Religion is doomed by the power of reason. One day, all religion will likely be like communism dwelling on the ash heap of history.
Hmmm- that’s not true at all. Explain to me how altruism fits into this definition? Example:
I see a another person’s baby crawling across the busy highway. I get out of my car and die in the process of saving the baby’s life.
What I did certainly wasn’t good for me, but it was definitely good for thee. But it was moral for me to do it.
2nd example:
Dallas calls you and tells you he committed a murder. It was done in cold blood but because he’s been your best friend your entire life, you don’t report him to the authorities. You did the wrong thing right? But it was good for you and good for he right? He doesn’t go to jail and you don’t have any pressure on you to involve yourself. Wrong- it’s immoral.
Well when your premise is wrong your conclusions will be too.
Noam Chomsky? Lol. Noam Chomsky is a linguist.
Universality is a bad moral theory. It is overly broad in its application. For instance is abortion morally wrong? Well, I think it is, unless there’s a justified reason for the abortion. A mother’s life is at risk. The woman was raped by her father. Etc….
Yea n fact Jesus himself rejects Universalism by fulfilling and releasing us from the law.
An eye for an eye became love thy neighbor
You have another fatal flaw here. I’ve seen you do this over and over. You have this tendency to anthropomorphize God and completely dismiss his divine nature. God didn’t start out as a man. He became a man to save humanity and to be the standard.
In fact, I believe God did so because if he didn’t, humans would always have 1 excuse they could use against God’s ultimate judgement.
“Lord, you can’t judge me, you don’t know what it’s like to be human! You created a bunch of rules and laws that are impossible to follow! You implanted us with desires we can’t control!”
An amazing excuse if God couldn’t look you back in the face and say “My child, I became human for you. I had those same laws applied to me. I had those same desires. I was faithful to them. And you still condemned me to death!
I get chills writing that.
God is the greatest conceivable being. He is beholden or inferior to nothing. Even the laws of the universe bow to him. Even logic itself.
Can God create a stone so heavy he can’t lift it?! I say yes. In our reality it is an absurdity, but god could, if he wanted to, create a new logical framework where this preposition is true. He simply doesn’t choose to.
You have this a bit backward by defining the alleged crime before understanding the action.
God didn’t commit genocide. God commanded the armies of Israel to kill their enemies who committed atrocities against them. In fact God spared the Canaanites for 400 years before he decided to exact his punishment (a punishment they earned) upon them.
It is not murder if the punishment is earned. Killing doesn’t equal murder.
This is incorrect. I’m not saying something is good because God chose it or loved it lol.
I’m saying something is good because it is an extension of God’s own nature. God didn’t choose his nature. God IS his nature.
For instance, one of the natures of God is that he is the embodiment of Truth. What do I mean by this? I mean that this is a property of God. It would be similar to saying, Warden is Flesh.
It is something that we know is true about God that we can’t divorce him from.
So because God IS truth (or said another way, because a property of God is reality itself) we can therefore deduce or infer that truth is an objective moral standard and anything that purposefully deviates from truth is an objective moral evil because, and this is the most important part…
Because God cannot be divided into simpler parts, every aspect of God is God Himself…. Therefore, to deny or pervert truth is to deny or pervert God himself.
This just isn’t true. Even in this recent post I go through pains to explain the logic. You’re rejection of it isn’t my problem. It’s valid and sound.
You on the other hand… your argument is tantamount to “I don’t know the answer so I’ll just continue in ignorance.” That’s fine. I can’t force you to believe something or to acknowledge facts. You are the master of your own mind.
I’ll make 2 points to your “there never was a Jewish Captivity and there was no exodus argument.
First the fast point….
IF you’re correct then you’re entire argument that God committed an atrocity by punishing the Egyptians is completely invalid. You can’t hold this belief and make that charge.
But the more salient point. There is evidence of the captivity and of the exodus. Once again, you simply do not accept it.
Firstly, Exodus itself is a testament to the event and is considered primary evidence. Secondly, every other book of the Bible that references the captivity or Exodus serve as evidence because the Bible isn’t 1 book written by 1 author in 1 brief time period. It’s a multiplicity of books written over a millennia that confirm one another. You can’t just dismiss these evidences because your anti Christianity. It would be like dismissing Roman sources of Caesar because your anti Roman.
Additionally, there are extra biblical evidences of the captivity. For instance, there are Egyptian Stele’s that mention the Israelites
this last one is an amazing read and hopefully you aren’t so hardened you reject it out of hand.
—
Let me conclude with a sad reality of most atheists or former angry believers.
Usually no amount of evidence will convince you because you don’t want to be convinced. I can tell by the way you wrote about the topic that YOU want to be your own god.
That’s fine. God will allow you to be. The only downside is that you have to be able to save yourself.
Says the guys who can’t prove anything beyond blind faith with nothing rational backing it up.
Look, I don’t make decisions about things without studying them. I studied your religion for years and was as faithful to it as I could be. You guys chose to believe Ina fairy tale, I’m fine with that. That GSCl wn pretends to be a christian and comes in here habitually lying in every thread he posts, is exactly the reason why your religion is a fucking joke.
You remind me that people actually think things like the Creation Museum with Ken Hamm are real. I forget how dense people can be; thank you for reminding me.
First - let’s do the sources.
Pharoah’s Tribune - written by a GOP Republican county judge
It lists several sources in there as fact. Let’s just hit them in sprinkles
According to Lennart Moller of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and the author of The Exodus Case, human and animal remains and chariot wheels litter Nuweiba Beach and evidence that Nuweiba Beach is the site of an ancient disaster. As to what that disaster was, the biblical account of God parting the Red Sea found in Exodus 14 is the only reasonable explanation. How else can you explain human and horse skeletal remains and chariot wheels, axles and boxes and an eight-spoke Egyptian chariot wheel from the 18th Egyptian Dynasty littering the bottom of the Red Sea?
Signatory to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, issued by the Discovery Institute - a conservative Christian think tank in Seattle WA
Regarding his book Exodus Case
A review by Swedish archaeologist Martin Rundkvist stated that “Möller emphasizes that he is neither a theologian, a historian nor an archaeologist.” and concludes with “The Exodus Case is such an extreme example of pseudo-science that any reasonably well-informed reader will wonder if Möller is joking.”
A review on the Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen (Study Community Word and Knowledge) website, whose members take a literal approach to the Bible, stated that it contained such “serious substantive and methodological errors” that it could not be recommended while agreeing that the Exodus took place. Peter van der Veen and Uwe Zerbst specifically criticized his identification of Jabal al-Lawz with Mount Sinai and a number of the geographical locations he thought to be part of the Exodus route.[14]
However, the information in the book is not really new in that the English version was published in 2000. Shortly thereafter, the Hänssler-Verlag and the Brockhaus-Verlag rejected a publication in German. Why this reluctance when the book promises important information about the correctness of the Bible, especially for Christians who are faithful to the Bible? The reason for this is quite simply that the book contains such serious errors in terms of content and methodology that one cannot in good conscience recommend it. Even if the German publisher Martin Severin has repeatedly emphasized that the main issue is the geographical location of Mount Sinai (which Möller does not believe to be in the Sinai desert, as usual, but in northern Arabia), yet many other arguments occupy a considerable part of the book. And not even the position of the mountain proposed by Möller is convincing, because in the light of Egyptian texts the sites of the Exodus are much closer to the eastern border of Egypt (see point 4 below).
This stuff is so basic. I’m not even going down the line anymore…you can do so, except you won’t, because you have no integrity. You’re literally throwing those 1970’s scam artists even people like Art Bell wouldn’t let on his show. What a joke. You literally do zero research other than cut and pasting confirmation bias articles from overwhelmingly questionable sources.
Again, there is zero archeological or historical evidence that Exodus occurred, the Jews were slaves in Egypt as described, or that Moses ever lived. You’re a joke
How ironic…you provided the equivalent of Ken Hamm’s Creation Museum as proof. It’s not a surprise that every single source you seem to use in every single argument has a long history of being considered a scam artist and hoaxer. Though, shouldn’t be surprised from a guy who thinks NASA is fake and he’s smarter than Galileo and Copernicus.
I mean, look at some of this shit…
Seriously…the lack of basic logic on this is, well, expected from you.
False, unless the stories of Greek Gods that say they’re true also act as proof. it’s hilarious to watch you say things like its true because it says it is.
The mind of a child…
Like I said before…you mindset is that of a psychopath and our history riddled with pure evil logic like this
Really think about this guy writing this…it’s not murder if the punishment is earned, and using logic like this…
Steve steals 2 dollars from you…you wait 400 years to exact “punishment” (revenge) on all his descendants and you think it’s cool, justified, earned. I mean, just wow…you can’t build immorality like this. You couldn’t even write it into a screenplay. Nobody would believe the level of immorality and lack of basic humanity and logic involved in a mindset like this.
I’m watching The Patient…about a serial killer who kidnaps his therapist. The therapist keeps explaining you don’t have to slaughter people for pissing you off in a moment of one day, out of happenstance…they can change into different people over time, even later that night. Not for GSC…
Again…the justifications are outlandish and wholly immoral in every sense of the word. More and more, daily…GSC shows the flimsy philosophies he’s chosen to build his life upon, and that he’s fully withdrawn from any sense of right and wrong, any sense of morality. These fundamentalists have always, throughout history, been the very worst of us. The worst atrocities in humanity’s history lay at their feet, the blood on their hands.
wn pretends to be a christian and comes in here habitually lying in every thread he posts, is exactly the reason why your religion is a fucking joke.
