The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 3: The 10 Plagues of Egypt
For Part 3 in my series on the fallacies of biblical stories, A few individuals have suggested I explore the veracity of the 10 plagues of Egypt, as it seems quite fitting since we are all dealing with a modern day plague in the form of Covid-19. As far as biblical stories go, the plagues of Egypt story is probably one of the more likely possible occurrences. Although, probably not in the way the bible or biblical proponents describe. Many of the plagues are also easily explained. Taken as a whole, the plagues of Egypt also show God as He is oft depicted in the Old Testament, that of a malevolent deity with little concern for anyone caught in his retributive blast radius. So lets get into it. The 10 Plagues of Egypt story goes something like this:
In ancient Egypt, the ancient Hebrews were enslaved and ruled over by a rather cruel Pharaoh. Moses, who apparently won a lottery to be God's representative (why does god need a middleman?), asked the Pharaoh to allow all the Hebrews to be set free and return to their homeland. Naturally, the Pharaoh didn't want to give up his free labor force (after all, building pyramids is an expensive project when one has to pay the laborers). As a result, God decided to show off his cosmic vanity by unleashing 10 plagues on Egypt to show everyone just how powerful he is (talk about overkill). Because a single, precision lightning bolt strike to the Pharaoh somehow would not have been an effective demonstration. Apparently, God also decided to "harden" the Pharaoh's heart (so much for free will) which cause the Pharaoh to refuse to release the Hebrew people, even after each plague occurred, until the 10th plague hit. At that point, the Pharaoh would be free from God's mind control and decided that the Hebrew slaves were too much trouble to have around. Even free pyramid construction just wasn't worth it.
Now let's look at each of the 10 plagues and see the evidence for them and how plausible they are. Bibleinfo lists the Plagues in the bible, as I will briefly address each below. A report in Time Magazine , suggests a volcanic eruption on the island of Santorini in the south of Greece around 1620-1600 BCE resulted in the chain event of the plagues:
Winds would have carried the volcanic ash to Egypt at some point over the summer, and the toxic acids in the volcanic ash would have included the mineral cinnabar, which could have been capable of turning a river a blood-like red color.... The accumulated acidity in the water would have caused frogs to leap out and search for clean water. Insects would have burrowed eggs in the bodies of dead animals and human survivors, which generated larvae and then adult insects. Then, the volcanic ash in the atmosphere would have affected the weather, with acid rain landing on people’s skin, which in turn caused boils. The grass would have been contaminated, poisoning the animals that ate it. The humidity from the rain and the subsequent hail would have created optimal conditions for locusts to thrive. Volcanic eruptions could also explain the several days of darkness — which means nine plagues are accounted for.
Well, that does explain things. But I'll look into the plagues a little bit deeper and try to offer other logical possibilities.
1. Turning water into blood : Two words to easily explain this one: "Red Tide." A red tide is an algae bloom which occurs when conditions are favorable to the algae growth. The ancient Egyptians may have been fantastic engineers to design and build the pyramids. But apparently, they knew little about ecology. So to them, a red algae bloom would have looked like the water turning to blood. Red algae blooms can also be toxic to local marine life, as well as release toxic fumes that can affect people and animals nearby. There is another possible explanation: The Ethiopian highlands are made up of red clay. So it was possible that torrential rains could have started a mud-red flood that turned the Nile red and choked out the fish, which got infected with disease.
2. Lots and lots of frogs : The second plague involves vast quantities of frogs that effectively swarmed everything. This is not an unknown phenomenon. It occurs even today. Thousands of frogs have been known to emerge from their watery habitats in search of food or due to ecological changes. There's nothing to suggest this could not have been a similar occurrence in ancient Egypt. It's possible that the "blood water" from the first plague caused all these frogs to flee from their altered environment, where they subsequently died from the toxins.
3. Lice and Gnats : The third plague involved lots of insects. This is also an easy explanation: Once all the frogs were dead, the bugs had a smorgasbord feasting on the dead frogs (and later dead livestock and dead humans. But I'll get to that soon). And there were no frogs left to keep the bug population in check. In addition, the insects might have been vectors for the transmission of disease, which infected people and animals. Insects causing the effects of disease as described in the 10 Plagues story is supported by science, in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine (2008).
4. A plague of flies : This one could have been combined with the third plague. I suppose biblical writers needed to pad the numbers a bit to get 10 plagues (which follows George Carlin's thoughts on the number 10, ala the 10 Commandments). Still, dead frogs and rotting frog (and later cattle) flesh means more flies. It's quite simple really. In addition, flies could also have been vectors for disease transmission, which also contributed to the later pestilences.
5. Pestilence that killed livestock : The fifth plague saw lots of cattle bite the dust. Which isn't really surprising considering the previous three plagues contributed to it either by livestock becoming infected with disease and/or their grazing areas turning toxic. There was a real viral disease called Rinderpest ("Cattle Plague" in German), which is known to have devastated livestock in Europe and Africa in the 18th-19th centuries. The disease is thought to have originated in Asia and spread to Egypt around 5000 years ago. As a side note, the resulting mass death of livestock could also contribute to starvation and death of the populace. Notice how each plague seems to segue into the next naturally? No magic required or necessary.
6. Boils : So what happens when you have diseased, dead, and rotting animals around, with insects travelling between them and people? Yep, you get diseased people. And boils are a sign of a person infected with a disease. Boils are commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus, which is naturally on the skin. However, there are strains which can cause severe illness and even death. Boils are also famously associated with the appearance of smallpox , which is thought to have affected communities in Egypt at least 3,000 years ago, based on evidence of smallpox scars found on several mummies dating back to that period. The boils could have been the symptoms of the same disease which infected livestock or other animals.
7. Hailstorm : This one is explained by the aforementioned volcano eruption. Volcanic ash could have mixed with storm clouds above Egypt and result in a destructive hailstorm. That must have been quite a sight.
8. Locusts : While locusts are a "plague," they are hardly "biblical." Swarms of locusts are common in the world today, including Egypt, especially after storms in in high humid conditions. It's not surprising this plague would occur right after a hail or thunder storm. The Weather Channel recently reported the threat of a large swarm of locusts in the Middle East. If locust swarms occur today in the region, it should come as no surprise that it might have occurred during the Plague events too.
9. Who turned out the lights (Darkness) : Uh, maybe it was just simply nighttime? Ok, I'm kidding. But there are a couple explanations for this one, again including volcanic activity. Ash clouds from a volcano would certainly block out any sunlight and cause darkness. Another is the possibility of a large dust storm. Winds may have blown dust and sand from neighboring regions and made worse by the loss of crops (i.e. Dust Bowl). Another possible explanation, put forth in a study by Iurii Mosenkis , states that the darkness coincided with an eclipse on March 5, 1223 B.C., which is supported by NASA . If an eclipse was the case, then that might explain the 10th and final plague (see below), as ancient cultures often viewed solar eclipses as an ill omen or harbinger of doom.
10. God commits infanticide : Now this shows just how evil god really is. He orders the death of all the firstborn infants (and some people take issue with abortion?). Apparently, God had some angels swoop down and kill first born babies. But the angels couldn't distinguish friendly "targets" from enemy ones without lamb blood smeared on the doors of the Hebrews' houses, indicating a no-kill zone. Why God couldn't do this himself is anyone's guess. Although, it's probably better that way, as God has biblically historic bad aim and doesn't worry so much about collateral damage. I mean, just look at the previous plagues. God doesn't take out the one guy responsible. Instead, he takes out the country. But looking at this objectively, one possibility is that when all the other plagues are going on (especially the darkness plague), the Egyptian people probably thought it best to sacrifice their newborn children in the hope that it would appease the angry god/s (human sacrifice was practiced in various cultures throughout history). Another might be the possibility that infant mortality was raised to new levels, considering all the plagues that happened before it.
Unlike Part 1 or Part 2 of the Fallacy of Biblical Stories series, which has empirical evidence to contradict the veracity of those respective stories, The 10 Plagues of Egypt story is actually explained and supported by logical and scientific analysis. However, that does not mean that God was the cause of the plagues or directly controlled them. Each of the plagues has occurred and been observed naturally over time and even today. No divine intervention needed or required. To the ancient Egyptians, it may have seemed to them that some deity was super pissed off at them. But in reality, it was probably just natural world occurrences.
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
Part 3 of the series is now ready for your reading pleasure. If you haven't already, check out Part 1 and Part 2 of the series. Thanks.
The Science of the 10 Plagues | Live Science
First Published
By Live Science Staff
The Plagues
(Image credit: Shutterstock)Every spring, Jewish people the world over celebrate Passover, a holiday that recounts the Exodus, when, according to the Torah (the Old Testament of the Bible), the Jews left Egypt for Israel.
However, before Moses could lead the 40-year journey through the desert, he needed the Pharaoh's permission to free the Jews, who were slaves in the land of Egypt, according to the Torah. But the Pharaoh had a hard heart, prompting the Lord to send down 10 plagues until the Pharaoh changed his mind, the Torah reports.
Could any of these plagues have occurred through natural phenomena? Live Science looks at possible scientific explanations behind each of the 10 plagues.
Blood
(Image credit: Credit: ESA/Getty)To unleash the first plague upon the Egyptians, Moses struck the river Nile with his staff, turning its waters to blood. At the same time, his brother Aaron performed an identical transformation in the canals, tributaries, ponds and pools throughout Egypt.
After the water turned to blood, "thefish in the Nile died, and the Nile stank, so that the Egyptians could not drink water," according to the Bible, Exodus chapter 7, verse 21, English Standard version.
The sudden appearance of red-hued waters in the Nile could have been caused by a red algae bloom, which appears when certain conditions enable a type of microscopic algae to reproduce in such great numbers that the waters they live in appear to be stained a bloody red.
This phenomenon is known as "red tide" when it happens in oceans, but red algae are also well-represented in freshwater ecosystems. And these algae blooms can certainly be harmful to wildlife, as the algae contain a toxin that can accumulate in shellfish and poison the animals that feed on them. Fumes from densely-concentrated algae blooms can also disperse toxins in the air, causing breathing problems in people that live nearby.
Frogs
(Image credit: Hulton Archive/Getty)What do you do next, after turning a nation's water supply into blood? If you're following Moses' playbook, you inundate them with frogs.
For the second plague, Moses allegedly conjured vast quantities of frogs that swarmed into people's homes — even finding their way into the Egyptians' beds, ovens and cookware.
As it happens, the phenomenon of "raining frogs" has been reported multiple times throughout history and in a range of locations around the world. A report published July 12, 1873 in Scientific American described "a shower of frogs which darkened the air and covered the ground for a long distance," following a recent rainstorm. The account was one of dozens of similar anecdotes collected in "The Book of the Damned" (1919), though its somewhat skeptical author suggested that the frogs may have simply dropped from trees.
And in May 2010 in Greece, thousands of frogs emerged from a lake in the northern part of the country, likely in search of food, and disrupted traffic for days, CBS News reported.
Lice
(Image credit: Shutterstock)The third plague, lice, could mean either lice, fleas or gnats based on the Hebrew word (Keenim). If a toxic algal bloom led to the first plague, and a pile of dead frogs followed, it's not surprising that a swarm of insects of some sort would have followed. That's because frogs typically eat insects; without them, the fly population could have exploded, Stephan Pflugmacher, a climatologist Leibniz Institute for Water Ecology and Inland Fisheries in Berlin, said in a television special about the plagues that aired on the National Geographic Channel in 2010. Interestingly, both body lice and fleas can theoretically transmit the bacteria Yersinia pestis, which causes bubonic plague, according to a 2010 study published in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases. If so, then an infestation with lice could have set the stage for the later plagues, such as boils, a 2008 review of plague science found. Scientists have also argued that the sickness that killed the beasts of the field for Egyptians in later plagues might have been Bluetongue or African horse sickness, both of which can be spread by insects from this plague, according to a 2008 Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.
Wild beasts
(Image credit: Shutterstock)Once again, the Hebrew word for the fourth plague, arov, is ambiguous. It roughly translates to a "mixture," and over the years, rabbis had interpreted that word to mean either wild animals, hornets or mosquitoes, or even wolf-like beasts that prowl in the night, according to biblical commentary found in the Exodus Rabbah 11:3; Tanchuma, Va'eira 14. Most commonly, people interpret the text to mean wild animals such as venomous snakes or scorpions, or even lions or bears. However, according to a 1996 study published in the journal Caduceus, which attempts to explain the plagues as epidemiological problems caused by an initial climate disturbance, J.S. Marr and C.D. Malloy argue that the fourth plague represents a swarm of flies such as the stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans). Bites from these flies could have led to the boils that occurred later on in the story, according to that study.
Diseased livestock
(Image credit: PRISMA ARCHIVO/Alamy)The fifth plague called down on Egypt was a mysterious and highly contagious disease that swiftly killed off the Egyptians' livestock. This biblical scourge is reminiscent of a real plague known as rinderpest, an infectious and lethal viral disease that decimated populations of cattle and other ruminants across Africa and Europe from the 18th through the late 19th centuries.
Rinderpest was caused by a virus in the same family as canine distemper and measles; infected animals developed a high fever, diarrhea and ulcers in their mouths and noses, according to a manual diagnosing rinderpest, produced by the Food and Agriculture Association of the United Nations.
The disease is thought to have originated in Asia, and traveled to Egypt 5,000 years ago along prehistoric trading routes, the New York Times reported in 2010. Its mortality rate was exceptionally high, often exceeding 80 percent. It killed an estimated 200 million cattle in the 18th century, according to a study published in the journal Medical History in 1997, and when rinderpest emerged in Africa in the 19th century, it killed 5.2 million cattle, causing one-third of the population of Ethiopia to die of starvation, a study published in the journal Science reported in 2008.
Rinderpest was last diagnosed in Kenya in 2001, and was declared completely eradicated in 2010, according to the New York Times.
Boils
(Image credit: Shutterstock)Shortly after the Egyptians' livestock died off, they were distracted by the sixth plague — an extremely uncomfortable plague of boils that covered their bodies. Boils are painful bumps usually surrounded by red, swollen skin, and are typically caused by Staphylococcus aureus, a type of bacteria commonly found on the skin's surface, according to the Mayo Clinic.
An outbreak of the highly infectious disease smallpox, which caused distinctive raised blisters, could result in a large number of people simultaneously coming down with rashes and welts. Smallpox is thought to have affected communities in Egypt at least 3,000 years ago, based on evidence of smallpox scars found on several mummies dating back to that period — including the mummy of Pharaoh Ramses V, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Fiery hail
(Image credit: Michael Folmer/Alamy)The seventh plague brought a heavy hail accompanied by thunder and streaming fire. The chaotic weather struck down people, livestock and trees, although the area of Goshen, where the Israelites lived, was spared, according to the book "Tanakh, A New Translation of The Holy Scriptures" (The Jewish Publication Society, 1985).
A nearby volcanic eruption about 3,500 years ago on Santorini, an island north of Crete in the Aegean Sea, may explain this plague, as well as others. It's possible that the volcanic ash mixed with thunderstorms above Egypt, leading to a dramatic hailstorm, Nadine von Blohm, from the Institute for Atmospheric Physics in Germany, told the Telegraph.
Locusts
(Image credit: Keystone/Getty)When the Pharaoh once again refuses to let the Jewish people go, hungry locusts descend as the eighth plague. Moses warns the Pharaoh: "They shall cover the surface of the land, so that no one will be able to see the land." Such a pestilence would devour all the remaining plants that the hail did not destroy, Moses said, according to the "Tanakh."
The volcanic eruption on Santorini may have created favorable conditions for the locusts, said Siro Trevisanato, a Canadian molecular biologist and author of "The Plagues of Egypt: Archaeology, History and Science Look at the Bible" (Gorgias Press, 2005).
"The ash fallout caused weather anomalies, which translates into higher precipitations, higher humidity," Trevisanato told the Telegraph. "And that's exactly what fosters the presence of the locusts."
Darkness
(Image credit: Shutterstock)The plague of darkness may have been a solar eclipse or a cloud of volcanic ash, scholars say.
According to the Old Testament, a darkness so thick that "people could not see one another" descended on Egypt for three days. However, the "Israelites enjoyed light in their dwellings," according to the book "Tanakh, A New Translation of The Holy Scriptures" (The Jewish Publication Society, 1985).
Perhaps the darkness coincided with an eclipse on March 5, 1223 B.C. — you can see the path here on NASA's website — according to a study written by Iurii Mosenkis, an archaeoastronomy researcher who lives in the Ukraine. However, the fact that Israelites had light in their homes might mean "lights out" for the eclipse hypothesis, as it doesn't make scientific sense why some people, but not others could overcome the darkness.
Another idea is that a volcanic eruption about 3,500 years ago on Santorini, an island north of Crete in the Aegean Sea, spewed ash that caused the darkness, according a to National Geographic special, as reported by the Telegraph. However, the eruption happened about 500 miles (800 kilometers) from Egypt and before the exodus event, according to the Christian Courier.
Killing of the firstborn
(Image credit: Shutterstock)In the 10th, and last plague, Moses tells the Pharaoh that all the firstborns in the land of Egypt would perish.
Perhaps, the algal bloom that turned the rivers blood red released mycotoxins, poisonous substances that can cause disease and death in humans, according to a 2003 review in the journal Clinical Microbiology Reviews. Grain contaminated with these mycotoxins could have been deadly, and could explain the death of the firstborn children, said epidemiologist John Marr, who was the chief epidemiologist at the New York City Department of Health, as reported by Slate.
The firstborn might have been the first to pick the grain, and thus would have fallen victim to it first as well, according to the Telegraph. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/58638-science-of-the-10-plagues.html
Okay, so you offer another explanation of the 10 plagues from a scientific / logical perspective. Not sure what point you are making since you came here accusing Gordy of things (that were moderated out) and then post an analysis that is also an analysis.
What is your point (I am sure I am not the only one interested in what you are thinking here)?
That's just a cut and paste, which is similar to the article itself. So what's your point?
Whatever the point, he seems to be corroborating your analysis.
Indeed. How kind of him to acknowledge the science and reasoning behind it.
That the 10 plagues really happened as described by the Bible even if science can now rationalize away how God did it.
How does your comment show that these plagues really happened?
It turns out that this is the same source that Perrie mentioned below...
Again, how does your comment show that these plagues really happened ... and by God no less?
Science can explain how the plagues might have happened. But it's an entirely different matter to claim "god did it," especially since there is no evidence of that, or of a god period.
Tracking...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Yssx4W11k
We already know what the bible says about the 10 Plagues. I explained what science had to say about it.
The 10 plagues in the book of Exodus
01 Blood
The waters were turned to blood – the fish in the river died and the Egyptians couldn’t drink the foul water.
02 Frogs
Frogs swarmed forth, covering every inch of land and entering houses and bedrooms.
03 Lice
All over Egypt, bugs crawled forth from the dust to cover the land.
04 Wild animals
Hordes of wild animals destroyed everything in their path.
05 Pestilence
A fatal pestilence killed most of the domestic animals of the Egyptians.
06 Boils
The Pharaoh, his servants, the Egyptians and even their animals developed painful boils all over their bodies.
07 Fiery hail
Hail struck down all the crops in the fields and shattered every tree.
08 Locusts
The locusts covered the face of the land and swallowed up every crop and all the fruits of the trees.
09 Darkness
A thick darkness over the land of Egypt, so total that the Egyptians had to feel their way around.
10 Death of the first-born
All firstborn Egyptian sons (and firstborn cattle) died. Israelites marked lamb's blood above their door and were passed over. https://thebiomedicalscientist.net/science/ten-plagues-egypt
All that was covered in the article. So again, what's the point of relisting all the plagues again?
Are you trying to make the point that the plagues were good theater? Very imaginative and scary stuff? Other than that I am at a loss since this article is about those very plagues and described them in detail.
How is the parting of the waters to allow the Hebrews to cross the sea, and the flow back to drown the Egyptian soldiers chasing after them explained scientifically?
"...a coastal phenomenon called a " wind setdown "—very strong winds, in other words—could have blown in from the east, pushing the water to create a storm surge in another part of the lake, but completely clearing water from the area where the wind was blowing."
Of course, crossing the Red Sea does not mean the actual Red Sea itself was crossed. It's more likely the "crossing" occurred at the Eastern Nile Delta region.
Read this hypothesis a few years ago. makes a certain amount of sense.
Exactly. Once again, science can logically explain with real world observations what might have occurred in the past that ancient people could not understand. No God required or necessary.
Of course the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea was not actually a plague. That the Egyptians followed them into an artificially parted sea after the actual 10 plagues befell them shows the typical unbelievers arrogance toward God.
The parting of the Red Sea was not actually a miracle either. It supposedly happened after the plagues. That's why I didn't include it in the article.
And you base that on what exactly?
[[Off topic]]
[deleted]
Way off topic! And borderline taunting.
That's just mere belief. The plagues were natural phenomenon, nothing more. One can call anything a sign. But that designation is meaningless and irrational.
God gave them the signs and wonders that deniers today demand and yet they still didn’t believe until they lost their first born. Some things just never change.
It was the Pharaoh that wouldn't change, and mainly because god wouldn't let him. And I thought theists claim god allows free will? Well that's a joke, as god clearly removed it from the Pharaoh just to prove a point, regardless of anyone whom might have been affected, including those that might have believed.
BTW, Did you take note of quote by Carl Sagan at the top of the article? Your post proves his point perfectly.
Nothing like censoring a Direct reply to your question because you didn’t like the answer. Talk about seeking confirmation bias...
God uses natural phenomena to achieve his ends. No one denies that.
You were off topic, plain and simple.
No one proves that either.
Sorry I caused all that fooferaw with my "off topic" question about the parting of the sea. LOL
Don't worry about it Buzz. It's not your fault. Some just don't like their beliefs or dogma being challenged, especially with scientific evidence, and they react emotionally. Besides, a little "fooferaw" makes things more interesting.
[deleted]
[Sweeping Generalization]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well, There's this.
There's an app for that!
Here we go [again.,,[Meta]]
Disagreement and/or critical analysis is not hatred.
It seems in their worldview, it is.
[Deleted]
No, that’s your world view.
Oh, what "view" is that?
You certainly love your meta. It's funny how you erroneously presume to know my "motivations." Especially since I explicitly made it known in the article. Perhaps if you actually bothered to read it, you would have seen it. Or are you just going to continue to complain and not offer any rational rebuttal or discourse?
Spare us the meta commentary. Either address the article and its points, or don't bother posting!
See 1.1
What about it? Do you have a point?
The article had some points? What were they? Have you convinced yourself that the points made are valid?
Well, I did.
Read the article. Or are you just trying to be obtuse about it?
The evidence validates the points, not I.
Still waiting on your point.
Nicely done. I like how you provided explanations for the plagues presuming that they all actually happened as described.
To me, the plagues are just part of the collection of stories. Ancient men writing tales will draw from their experiences when creating imaginative stories to show that their God is the best God. They certainly would have common knowledge of smaller versions of these plagues and conditions such as red bloom.
Given the Bible is errant and self-contradicting, I am entirely convinced that it is simply the words of ancient men with pens operating under their current political conditions and naturally using the power (fear) of God to help achieve cooperation by the masses. It is historical fiction with a main character that cannot possibly exist by virtue of the contradiction in its definition.
Thank you.
I tend to agree. The 10 Plagues strike me as a compilation of various other "plagues," all packaged together in one story.
As am I. Even if the specific plagues described occurred at some point, it's doubtful they all occurred at the same time in the exact same location, or in the exact level of "severity." They were only written that way.
Well the stories had to sell. Ordinary events are not sufficiently exciting so naturally they will be exaggerated and embellished to be exciting, scary and interesting to discuss with others.
Indeed. Toss in a pissed off god that will smite you mercilessly and you have a best seller on your hands, Lol
Here is an interesting article about how the 10 plagues could be very true:
Thank you Perrie. I saw that while doing my research for this article. Once again, science delivers logical explanations over "magic."
No one said anything about magic. God uses natural laws and science as He knows them to act in the manner He does.
Invoking god is akin to using magic. "God did it" or something like that is like casting a magic spell. It certainly doesn't explain anything, much less rationally or logically.
That's nice. Prove it!
You prove what he did was magic and not using natural law and science to achieve His will for His people.
You made the claim, so the onus of proof is on you! Of course, you'll have to start by proving there's a god to begin with, as your claim rests on that factor.
Okay that is demonstrably wrong. What are the natural laws / science that enable resurrection of the dead, talking animals, flooding the entire planet, extemporaneous fluency of various natural languages (Babel), walking on water , etc.?
Uh, magic! Right?
Well, as a start, I would love to see the rules of physics that allow the feet of a grown man to displace sufficient water to maintain bouyancy for the entire weight of the man's body.
The only way that would be scientifically possible, without the aid of equipment or technology, would have to be webbed feet with a large enough surface area to maintain buoyancy. Jesus would need to have freakishly large feet to pull that off. But I doubt Jesus had sandals large enough to accommodate a size 100 shoe, Lol
I doubt that image appears on any church walls.
If it did, church might be a little more interesting.
Hallucinogens - Mushrooms, peyote, salvia, Jimsonweed, poppy, or Ayahuasca could alter reality and make people hallucinate. Hell... there's even a plant that makes people act as though they're a "zombie"; when a pulse is sought after, it's so faint or heart-rate is so low that it's not "found," therefore, buried. And upon the effects wearing off [if quick enough after being determined as "dead"], they "rise from the dead."
There's science behind a lot of things... I like the History channel and various science shows about the strange and macabre.
Nope I’m just saying it and stating it as fact and the historical record and leaving it at that. There will be no signs and wonders for those demanding such “so that they might believe”.
Nope forever more I’m going to maintain that God is real, that His existence and His Word are real and inerrant and I’m going to say it is based only on faith and belief but am always every time going to state it as fact and the only truth.
When you get to Heaven you can ask him what the science was that He used to accomplish all those historical facts that happened.
Then you're just talking BS and lack any credibility.
Then you're just intentionally flat out lying and/or being misleading and you will be called out on it every time!
It's meaningless platitudes like that which shows your claims are essentially BS!
Better living through chemistry?
..... and all of it based upon nothing that can be established by data, facts, or scientific method.
Just to reiterate..... Humans by study of history, have invented/created at a minimum 2,400 different gods, with the upper range being 28,000,000 using statistical extrapolation.
Based upon these very simple historical and mathematical details, and for the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support existence of any god, one has to conclude that man created god C4P.....
What's the saying: man is not the creation of God. God is the creation of man.
I wonder if, far in the future, Hollywood movies will be treated as being gospel as the bible is by some today.
I would hope that at that point in the future, we would be collectively intelligent and rational enough to see movies for what they are, just like with biblical stories, as just stories. Some are meant to entertain. Some are meant to inspire. And some are meant to frighten.
[deleted]
Hell yeah it was personal Perrie. What's wrong with asking Buzz if he participates in his faiths rituals? If he didn't want to answer he could simply say NOYB, The deletion of my comment was unwarranted
Yeah... notice women didn't write these stories.
That reminds me of something George Carlin once said (paraphrased):
"If there is a God, I am convinced God is a he. Because no woman would ever fuck things up this bad."
Exactly.
On Ridiculousness, the majority of those videos are of boys / men. *shrug*
We'd also not write ourselves of ever being subservient. Just sayin'.
I heard something similar to that regarding the Three Wise Men. If there had been 3 wise women they would have gotten soon enough to help with the delivery, done the clean up, and brought casseroles not fancy perfumes
Or wander the desert for 40 years cuz Moses didn't want to ask for directions?
Well, Moses was a man after all. And men hate asking for directions, right? Lol
Wellll....the 3 Wise Men did stop and ask for directions...and then all hell broke loose
Yep... my hubby & I have that running joke when we are on rode trips. I start calling him Moses.
My hubby trusts me with the map!!!
And we have PAPER MAPS! Gotta love Rand-McNally!
I got pretty good with a paper map (Love Rand McNally) but now we use our Navigators in our vehicles
I love the Road Atlas. We usually plan out route & I tell him when to turn....
I use that with my sister after we plot our road trips with the atlas, but hubby hates the electronic gadgets (as he calls them).
Exactly. Our Road Atlas has yet to take us the wrong way.
I own a 2012 Fiesta [no nav. system], a 1979 Firebird, and the hubby owns a 1973 F250. So, we are "old school." I've been directed the wrong way with nav. systems before.
Oh...we have, too, especially when we went to Florida. Sometimes those things are tricky and you have to go with your gut
The 40 year wander was to let the old ways learned from Egypt to die out and to build an army because there would be resistance to them moving into someone else's territory.
That reminds me of a funny Israeli commercials for a GPS device:
That's a good one alright, Lol
And you know that how? Are you assuming that Ruth and Esther didn’t write their stories? Or that Deborah didn’t contribute anything to what was written about her time as a Judge over Israel?
The same can be asked of you and your claims!
Don't recall any women being invited to the first council of Nicaea.
Calm down. It was a joke to begin with, but seriously? You believe that any woman had any part of writing the stories of the bible? One of the most male-centric book in the world? I'm very much assuming that women had nothing to do with the stories in the bible.
I second what Gordy asked; how do you know that they did?
Reminder... it was a joke and this particular discussion had nothing to do with Ruth, Ethyl, or Deborah.
As I believe I mentioned previously, there is one defense of these stories that makes perfect sense to me. (I'm not sure if i believe it or not-- but its hard to argue with).
And that is, simply this: these stories are not meant to be taken literally. Rather, they are allegories (that's perhaps the more common word although personally I prefer the word "symbolic". They are symbols used to represent certain concepts and happenings--not to be taken literally).
I have known some people in various religions who feel their holy books contain the literal words of Gods (or perhaps in some cases his prophets). But there are some people-- often devout followers of a religious tradition*-- who insist these stories are not literal but rather symbolic.
____________________________________
* One except = Islam. In that religion you must believe the Holy Koran is the literal word of God-- as dictated to Muhammed (PBUH) by the Archangel Gabriel-- and not one word, not on comma has been changed. Basically if you don't accept that as fact you are not a MUslim
Interpreting the Bible as allegorical literary works conceived by ancient men with pens is a highly defensible position.
It might be a little early to bring up Part 4. But I'm thinking doing Jonah and the Whale story. Considering the outright absurd nature of that story on the surface, that one might be brief, as scientifically speaking there is really nothing to back it up. But still worth a look. Of course, I always take suggestions too.
[Spam]
Are you 'arguing' that the plagues came from God or that they were natural disasters?
Your repeated pasting of other people's words without any editorial comments from you is starting to look like nothing more than spam.
Indeed. And that's how I'm going to treat it from now on.
More like censoring any viewpoint that even agrees with you because I seeded it. Readers Digest to good for you?
This is the link to the scientific explanation as to how God directed the 10 plagues at Egypt.
Possible Scientific Explanations for the 10 Plagues of Egypt
Were they divine intervention—or something more earthly?
Were the 10 plagues real?
In the Hebrew Bible book of Exodus, Moses and Aaron try to convince Pharaoh that there is only one God, but Pharaoh counters that there are many Gods—and he refuses to free the Israelite slaves. The one true God proves his power by smiting Egypt with 10 plagues. But did God have help? Biblical scholar Ziony Zevit of American Jewish University posits, “The most sophisticated attempt to relate the Egyptian plagues to natural phenomena does so in terms of Egypt’s ecosystem. This ecological explanation of the plagues does not prove that the biblical account is true, but only that it may have some basis in reality.” Here is each of the 10 plagues, along with Zevit’s theory as to how it may have occurred (other than the obvious one: that God did it). .. . Clearly God did it and He used methods that our understanding of science now can try to explain how God did it.
Did you read Gordy's article?? You keep posting content from other articles that are supporting what Gordy wrote. Hello?
Then what the freak are you complaining about?
I am not complaining, I have been asking you what point you think you are making? How can you be posting agreement with Gordy's article while claiming that this means that God actually exists and made these plagues happen?
He did cause them to happen. He used naturally occurring elements to carry out His will when Pharaoh wouldn’t comply and let His people go.
I’m saying that God exists, that he used natural methods to create and time the plagues to effect the release of His people of that era. Just because science can now theorize or rationalize how God did it doesn’t mean that they can in any way at all deny that he did do it.
Then back that up with facts and reason. Show where you think Gordy is wrong rather than merely repeat your beliefs.
You cut and paste something (multiple times now) which is already presented in the article, but offer no commentary, no editorial, no analysis, and bring nothing new or insightful to the discussion! On top of all that, you don't seem to answer questions or challenges posed to you based on your posts!
See previous statement.
The Pharaoh didn't, or couldn't comply because God wouldn't allow it until the plagues were completed.
Then prove it! We see these same "plagues" in some form or another even today. We can explain how or why they occur. But no one is suggesting divine intervention as a cause for them. So what makes the plagues of Egypt different? Prove that god was the cause of them! Simply saying "god did it" is neither convincing or persuasive and is just an intellectual cop out which can be used for practically anything.
We know not only that the plagues were real acts of nature directed by God but that they are a type for what will happen in the future. They will again be directed at a people who have hardened their hearts against God so that no minds will change and that they too will be punishment for some that won’t affect others and that the end of the 7th and final one will result in no human life left on earth. So believers will never believe the plagues of Egypt didn’t happen because they are a reminder of what is to come.
More prostheytizing tripe without a lick of evidence and one which completely deflects from the question/challenge!
Although his name has changed many times over the years both here and on the vine, the song remains the same.
I remember the "get smarter here" slogan of the vine. Some never did.
As we have repeatedly seen, both on the vine & here, some prefer emotional comfort and willful ignorance to rational and logical thinking.
Basking in the warm glow of faith rather than standing in the harsh light of reality?
It's easier
Yeah, pretty much. What's the saying: a reassuring lie is more emotionally satisfying than an inconvenient truth.
The bottom line is that God did it. Now matter how secular science explains how it was that God did it. God is the author of science and the creator of the universe. He did what He did for His reason and it’s great that modern science can now try to explain how He did.
Stating grand claims without any supporting facts or argument is pointless.
I don’t care what you think about it. I’m going to express my point of view on the subject regardless of what you think about it. Don’t like it? Too darned bad. God did it and used naturally occurring elements.
You have been simply repeating your belief that God caused these plagues. No supporting facts or reasoning, just the declaration of certainty. We all know your beliefs. Constantly restating them is not discussion, it is simply proselytizing.
Actually there's a name for that-- its called proselytizing.
It is indeed; almost wrote that myself.
You two have been proselytizing that He didn’t do it since the article was seeded. Proselytizing for secularist religion.
Wrong again. Unlike you, some of us examine the evidence to logically to arrive at a conclusion, rather than merely accepting the words of ancient men with pens. And there is no evidence to suggest god did anything, much less there actually being a god to begin with. But your attempt to turn proselytization around on us and deem secularism a religion is not only an obvious and weak tactic, but is also comical too.
How many times has it been explained that lack of belief in a god is not the same as ' there is no god '?
While I understand that it is extremely difficult to support the claim of ' God did it ', making up lame, false allegations is not the way to go.
Too often TiG, too often! How some cannot seem to grasp that simple concept is beyond me.
The difference between you stating "it happened" and what Gordy presented is that Gordy provides evidence of what happened and why. You, on the other hand, are doing nothing but making an unfounded statement.
Provide evidence of what happened and why. Until then, you won't be taken seriously.
We already know what happened. The issue now is whether God caused those things to happen to persuade the Egyptian king to release his people or if as Moses was seeking the release of the people from slavery, random chance made all this stuff happen and the king believed it was caused by a higher power mad at him and then he let them go.
I think you are missing the point. And for the record, I am not anti-religion, but I am also not anti atheist.
You BELIEVE that god brought those plagues using Moses as his tool. But you have no way to PROVE that he did that. That is what is the crux of the discussion.
Given that science has already proven that they are naturally occurring instances, the idea that it was "gods will" is nothing more than blind faith / opinion. Neither factually supported.
We know how the plagues happen. Back then they didn't. So it being "gods will" would have made sense. But with the technological advances of today, why still attribute these things to "god"? Because a heavily embellished and edited book tells you? Really doesn't make sense.
I, too, believe that religion serves a purpose for many, whatever the religion, but I also believe that its ancient stories are allegorical at best and should not be taken as literal truths. Better to look for guidance in those stories that are more current and actually recorded such as the life of Mother Teresa as an example.
Therein lies the problem: some people do take it as literal and reject anything which challenges or contradicts those beliefs. Even as allegories, there can be many different ways to interpret those stories.
I'm only going to ask one question:
Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God need to use natural occurrences to do His "dirty work" to "teach" a lesson?
It's like I said, a precision lightning strike would have made an effective message and demonstration. Less fuss and muss, and effectively eliminates the problem.
I'm still waiting on an answer from 1776 TA. I think it's a pretty valid question. I believe miracles happen, but it's still a BELIEF, which again is the operative word here.
You'll be lucky if you get an answer.
I know. I try to simply ask careful and well-thought out questions. They usually do go unanswered.
I admire your optimism in the hope they'll actually be answered.
One of the most common defenses I've heard of belief in these these religious myths are that they cannot, in fact, be proven scientifically-- but that they must be taken "on faith".
And that works for the "believer".
The problem with that, however,is that while it works for the person who believes them-- it doesn't convince anyone else.
(Well, unless they are looking something unproven to believe in-- some people are OK with that.)
Which is little more than wishful thinking and emotionally driven.
It can be a form of self delusion. But also, positing religious beliefs as fact is misleading at the very least.
Most all Observant Jews and practicing Christians believe the Exodus account.
So why did the Pharaoh keep interacting with Moses during this time? Why did he capitulate before God and let them go after all the first born were killed in Egypt? Why did the people of Egypt suddenly give the Israelites much of their wealth to get them to leave quickly because of their fear? How do you explain why the king finally let them leave if there was nothing to influence that decision and he’d always refused before?
The bible makes it clear God did influence the pharaoh's judgement, which also goes against the concept of God granting free will.
and that is another thing that is confusing. I recall the Bible says something about God hardening Pharaoh's heart. God causes plagues to get Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go but then makes him stubborn?
Exactly. So much for free will, right? Looks like it's another logical contradiction in the bible. The Bible sure seems chock full of them. Maybe when the biblical writers were coming up with that story, they needed a plot device to keep the story going and more exciting. After all, the Pharaoh might have changed his mind on his own after 1 or 2 plagues. But that wouldn't have been as entertaining. I also wonder how biblical adherents justify God's murder of newborns, all to make a point?
You know, now that I think about it, the idea of god causing the plagues does away with the idea that this is an "all forgiving, loving god".
"He" annihilated his creation with a flood, brought plagues upon the world. Sounds more like a vindictive child more than a "god".
Vindictive and incompetent, as he couldn't get his creation to turn out the way he wanted-TWICE. I'm reminded of something the late Gene Roddenberry once said: "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
Why is that a problem? And why should they concern themselves with challenges to their beliefs?
It isn’t a problem and they are just going to have to learn to live with the fact that there is nothing they can say or do to change the beliefs or the manner of expression of believers no matter how much they protest.
So intellectual laziness and dishonesty is not a problem for to you? Or the willful misleading when beliefs are attempted to be passed off as fact?
You prove my point perfectly.
People who hold the Bible to be literal divine truth will ipso facto defer to the writings of ancient men. In my view, deeming homosexuals to be abominations because of biblical positions is a problem. But there is more. Take organizations like Answers In Genesis who hold the Bible literally true and divine. They are one of several key forces working to, in effect, dumb down the next generation with nonsense such as scientific dating methods are all bullshit, evolution is bullshit, the Earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs coexisted with human beings, Noah's flood actually took place, languages actually came from the Tower of Babel divine act, slavery is not condemned as immoral, woman are virtually property of men, etc. And for some drawing from the OT, it is perfectly fine to kill infidels, kill daughters who dishonored the family, etc.
The problem is suppressing critical thinking in deference to ancient writings of men.
Those two things are not necessarily connected. People who want to discriminate against homosexuals (or anyone else for that matter) will find a way to do that. But if they are taking the Bible literally, they have no Biblical reason to do so. It doesn't mean much to say you take a writing literally if you don't know what it is you are reading. Just because assholes cite to the Bible, that doesn't mean the Bible actually teaches the shit they do.
Tacos!, taking the Bible literally means reading the words with minimal interpretation. Those who hold that what they literally read in, say a King James Bible, is the actual word of God (truth) will encounter passages such as these:
Now what does the literal read of the above state (note, the context is that this came from God)? The words are crystal clear.
If you were to instead argue that most people do not hold the Bible (even those passages which claim to be the word of God) literally true then I am inclined to agree with you. But those, per my comment, who do indeed 'hold the Bible to be literal divine truth', will (must) consider homosexual acts an abomination that God deemed to be so extreme as to demand the death penalty.
Note, again, this is but one example of literalism. I mentioned several to more fully answer the question you posed.
Agreed. But that is now a very different matter because I was talking about literal interpretation of the Bible as truth (as the word of God).
The problem I raised was the suppression of critical thinking in deference to the words of ancient men.
No they aren't. Most people who think those words mean being gay is evil have no idea what they mean.
No, because that's not the history of that passage. It doesn't mean what you are saying it means. Even you aren't taking it literally. For example you decided (or you accepted someone else's interpretation) that
means "homosexual." It doesn't. But even if it did, that's not literally what it says. The word "homosexual" wasn't even coined until the 19th century and it didn't appear in any Bible before the 1940s. So it can't possibly be that the ancient Hebrews were saying "homosexual."
The passage does describe something, though. Something that was understood to the people of the time. It's up to us to figure out what it is. It turns out we have a pretty good idea, and it's not ordinary homosexuality. And even if it were, it still wouldn't apply to most people.
But all of this is probably off-topic.
This is just one example of why you can't just pick up a 20th century english translation of the Bible, "take it literally," and think you are following what the Hebrews or the first Christians were talking about. There is way more to it than that.
Similarly, people who think they can read these passages and condemn these religions for promulgating certain beliefs or ideas, usually have no idea what they are talking about.
There is probably a bigger problem with victorian men or 20th century men. This obsession with homosexuality wasn't really a thing a few centuries ago. Renaissance-era bibles throughout Europe translated those passages in multiple languages very differently from what you see today, and it had nothing to do with being gay.
Leviticus 20:13 — If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Like not eating pork because a disease/demon came with eating under-cooked pork, as with a man with another man there were demons that came with that that was also transmitted to the women and other men and the way to do the ultimate quarantine, to nip the demon in the bud, was death, a warning to others not to engage in it.
I think it was more about procreation than worrying about disease. There probably were STD's in ancient times but STD's also passed around with men sleeping with lots of women
So, which STD is transmitted by same-sex sexual interactions, but isn't transmitted by having sex with concubines (apparently permitted, as per King Solomon)?
So STDs & food borne illnesses were called "demons" back then? Well, ancient people were quite ignorant of such things back then. Fortunately, our modern knowledge can explain such things and negate the need for terms of ignorance like "demons."
Yes. Any other questions?
The smallest thing a person could see back then was the smallest building block of everything, they didn't get the microscope out to see what the pathogen was, virus, bacteria, and/or parasite.
There probably were STD's in ancient times but STD's also passed around with men sleeping with lots of women
Probably the reason to avoid such cities as Sodom.
Concubines were private property no other man was allowed to touch them and therefore clean.
You know that makes no sense, right? Ancient peoples could not see things like atoms, viruses, or bacteria.
Do you honestly believe a horn dog like Solomon kept only to his concubines and wives?
Like I said, people were quite ignorant back then. Some still are today, as there are those who actually believe disease and such (including DNA degredation) is still caused by "demons" or even "sin."
Unless they were sold, and they could be.
The words are not crystal clear??
Hold on there Tacos!, you are jumping to (one of many) non-literal interpretations. We are discussing the literal interpretation of the words in the King James Bible (as an example). So let's first consider the words themselves:
Literally now:
This is one of many examples where a literal interpretation of scripture yields a ' will of God ' that most civilized people understand as flat out wrong. It connotes that God disapproves (abomination) of any male having intercourse with another male.
If you are going to make that case then supply the actual history. For example, we can go to the Torah too:
Merely claiming that this is not original intent needs supporting facts. You need to actually make your historical case.
I did not write ' homosexual ', I ( intentionally by the way ) wrote ' homosexual act '. Here is what I wrote:
A literal interpretation.
Well now you are making my general argument that literally interpreting the Bible is problematic. Now, extend that by removing the constraints of originalism and allow for the myriad looser interpretations and this passage can be read (incorrectly) in all sorts of ways. And, as we know, it is. So, per my general point, those who accept their interpretation of the Bible (literal or loose) as truth — as the divine word of God — are likely to be wrong . Reading the Bible for truth is a flawed practice.
Indeed. In fact, I would suggest that everyone who reads these passages thinking they are revealing the accurate, divine word of God have no idea what they are talking about.
Again, I wrote 'homosexual acts' which you incorrectly translated (in your mind) into 'gay' or 'homosexual'. And again, if you are to make a case for historical interpretation then provide some supporting facts rather than simply argue by implication that it meant something different originally.
That is a non-literal interpretation. We are discussing the literal interpretation of the words in scripture.
Your suggestion that this rule was established for health reasons is, IMO, perfectly reasonable. Many of the Mosaic laws were designed to encourage people to avoid what, at the time, were unhealthy practices (such as eating shellfish). But that is a different point.
Note thateven using your non-literal interpretation, if the concern is venereal disease then that applies to women too. A single rule: have intercourse only with your spouse (possibly with more specific instructions) would address that. Leviticus 20:13 specifically focused on male homosexual intercourse and does not do the job you have suggested.
Like I have been trying to tell you: You have the words wrong. If you pulled out a Bible from say, four hundred years ago, it would read more like:
That is not remotely the same thing. You can't take a fucked up translation with no context or understanding and be taking the text literally.
You ignored your critical mistake and just doubled down with an unsupported allegation.
I showed in my comment how you translated 'homosexual act' (what I wrote) into 'gay' in your mind and then attributed it falsely to my words. You got it wrong and your entire post was based on your mistake. You refuse to acknowledge your mistake and instead simply claim I am wrong without any supporting facts.
First, deliver the Bible that translates Leviticus 20:13 into male-male pedophilia. Also note that your claim goes against the Torah and pretty much every Bible variant I have seen. So what is the source of your scripture? Link? And why, if you have a source, does this override the myriad other sources?
Well here you are supporting my argument. The literal interpretation of the Bible is indeed problematic. And that is the starting point for all exegesis. So as one adds context and analysis does one produce the quintessential truth of the passage?
Well, no. Demonstrably, the interpretations are all over the map. So, per my general point, trying to read the Bible (literally or loosely) to gain truth is a flawed process.
Which interpretation is correct? Not knowable.
Which source is correct? Not knowable.
Where is the original source? Mostly not available.
TiG please stop. I am not interested in this nonsense where you try to turn a conversation into a fucking contest. If you ever want to actually learn something about this let me know, but peddle your games and prejudice somewhere else, ok?
Still refusing to acknowledge that you translated my words 'homosexual act' into 'gay' and then used that as the basis for your argument.
There is nothing to be learned from someone who merely makes claims, is challenged to support those claims with facts, and then runs away claiming that his interlocutor is peddling games and prejudice.
Stop. I asked you to stop. The distinction you think you are making is a meaningless one. Stop. Again, if you want to learn something, I'm right here. I am not interested in making this into some kind of contest. Change your approach and stop harassing me.
There is a profound difference between a homosexual act and being homosexual (gay). Hell, you even attempted to school me on how to read Leviticus 20:13 because you failed to see that I wrote 'homosexual acts' and did not write 'homosexual'. So if you see no distinction then your original rebuttal was entirely confused. Note what you wrote:
Exactly! See, you even realized the difference between homosexual acts and homosexuality when you 'misunderstood' what I wrote. Leviticus 20:13 does not speak of homosexuality, it speaks of male-male intercourse, a homosexual act — not the orientation of homosexuality. Now you think the distinction is meaningless. Pick a position.
I am not going to let you misrepresent what I wrote without correction. Further, I am responding to your comments. I am not the one substituting 'gay' for 'homosexual acts' and 'evil' for 'abomination' and then with that strawman in place, claim to be teaching me something.
You have the choice to acknowledge what I claimed:
Literally now:
You also have the choice to honestly rebut the claim.
And you have the choice to not respond.
But do not expect me to silently allow you to misrepresent my words.
Your right after rereading that it may have been a little confusing, it should've been "The smallest thing a person could see back then was considered the smallest building block of everything." I wasn't stating they knew of atoms and such, but that a speck of dust was the smallest thing out there.
horn dog like Solomon
Which is why he had so many, so he didn't have to wander and because of so many no time to wander.
Did he buy them back? Once their no longer his property they, if sold, they become another's property and live by their rules.
The point is, these sex slaves weren't always monogamous for life. And men weren't prohibited from having sex with women other than their own wives or concubines, anyway. Adultery was defined differently for men and women. Men committed adultery only when they had sex with other men's wives. The sex men had with women was as capable of spreading disease as sex they had with other men. The health angle fails here.
That's nice. Prove it!
Burying your head in the sand and ignoring scientific evidence in favor of your own dogmatic bias only shows you have no valid argument to make, much less any credibility for your claims.
No, we are only assuming it happened at this point, and based mostly on what the bible describes. But the bible is hardly a reliable history book. Scientific evidence can collaborate that the plagues could have happened in Egypt and how. Not that it necessarily did happen as described or within the timeframe of the plague event.
You're the one purporting that god caused it. So prove it! Provide some evidence to back your assertion up!
That's fine.
However while you have the right to express your "point of view" (opinion, belief)--- other folks have the right not to be convinced-- in fact most won't be.
The main problem I've seen in many of these instances is when people become overly attached emotionally to their beliefs-- and then they feel the obsessive need to get other people to believe the same thing.
And sometimes when other people don't accept those beliefs as truth-- they become angry. (And sometimes while its the proselytizer becomes angry-- sometime its the target person who does).
And sometimes when other people don't accept those beliefs as truth-- they become angry. (And sometimes while its the proselytizer becomes angry-- sometime its the target person who does).
And of course while often its a religious "believer" who does the proselytizing-- sometime "Atheist proselytizers" appear as well.
And in my experience, sometimes these "Evangelical Atheists" can be every bit as self-righteous and condescending as the standard religious proselytizer)
And some will challenge or poke logical holes in said "point of view" too.
Or they simply reject anything contradictory (like scientific evidence) that might take them out of their emotional comfort zone.
Some seem to become angry just at the mere challenge to their beliefs and react accordingly.
I really don't give a damn what other people believe, but if they try to proselytize their religion and belief, foisting it on others, I really don't give a damn what happens to them, whether they are banned or get the shit kicked out of them..
I’ll take His word for it.
I'll look at actual evidence.
But you really aren't, you are taking the word of ancient men.
Not only taking the word of ancient men, but also taking it sans evidence and a rejection of any actual evidence or argument to the contrary.
Yeah... I noticed I was never answered, which is an answer in itself, now isn't it?
Indeed it is.
How do you know that? Did you see him do it? Or-- did he appear to you in a vision?
Or did you in some other way actually experience it?
The bible told him so.
BTW, many years ago I had a friend who did a few Acid trips (LSD). After one he said he saw the heavens open up, God appeared, and spoke to him.
BTW this was over 40 years ago so I don't remember the details of what God said to him.
I neither believe nor disbelieve his account. Yes-- after all I've experienced and all I've learned over the years, I am neither sure that he really saw God (or for that matter that God exists.. or not)-- or if this was really just a Fig Newton of his imagination!
(Although at this point I am sooo beyond Newtonian Physics-- after all, Newtonian Physics is soooo 1700s!)
Isn't it interesting that god sent me here to refute every statement you ever typed?
It's also interesting to note that whenever religious claims or stories are refuted or otherwise challenged, you're then labelled "anti-religion," "anti-god," or some nonsense like that. It's as if some think religion & it's claims are above scrutiny. Go figure.
So god told man to extract and burn fossil fuels to the point that we destroy the planet?
[Taunting]
First, the flood was a fallacy because it was physically impossible, improbable, there was insufficient evidence, and no one has ever seen anything like that.
But now the plagues are a fallacy because they can all be explained scientifically and happen naturally all the time.
That is so illogical and inconsistent that it boggles the mind anyone would try and present it as a legitimate series of arguments.
Also, this anti-religion article - one of a series of anti-religion articles - brought to you by the same person who claimed they rarely do this kind of thing. Talk about having it both ways!
Indeed. Well said, and I agree with your analysis of the situation.
Well then, that just means you are both wrong!
Coming from the most prolific seeder of far right wing propaganda to ever come down the pike, I find that laughable. (I refuse to use lol).
Help me out here. How are "militant atheists" trying to have it both ways? As far as I can tell, the article lays out how the plagues were / are naturally occurring and that how they are described int he bible are fiction.
See 8.2.1
See 8.3
I did explain that, but I'm happy to reiterate it. First, in the Flood seed they made the argument that a miracle recorded in the Bible is impossible because that kind of thing can't happen. Then they make the argument here that other miracles are impossible because they could happen naturally.
They have therefore made the argument that no miracles are possible. You just have to decide whether or not you think a thing could happen naturally and then pick the appropriate attack. But none of it is logical. It's just confirmation bias. This technique guarantees that no matter what we're talking about, you can "prove" God had nothing to do with the events or they didn't happen at all.
No, it says such a thing could occur naturally, which is to say the article tells us nothing. It doesn't show that the specific plagues in the specific places and times mentioned in the biblical account did or did not happen and it doesn't tell us anything about whether or not God was the immediate cause of those events. Go back and skim the article and you'll see it's thick with words like "it's possible," "it could be," "might be," "maybe" and so on.
There is no evidence of any actual "miracles" that supposedly occurred. Miracles are nothing more than unexplained unusual phenomenon (often attributed to fortuitous events). For something to be a "miracle," one would first have to prove there's a supernatural agent behind the so called miracle.
Not at all. It's all about the evidence. Provide evidence that something is indeed an actual, divine based miracle, then we can talk. As far as the flood goes, t's just assumed it's a miracle or caused by divine intervention. How one considers drowning the world and killing everything a "miracle" is beyond me.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Bear in mind we only have the bible to go by. The plagues supposedly affected Egypt (Hence the "10 plagues of Egypt) and was probably centered around the Pharaoh's location. The times can vary considerably and I explicitly stated in a previous post the plagues likely did not occur all at the same time. Most biblical adherents (especially those who take the bible literally) probably believe that God was the cause of the plague event, as it's explicitly described in the bible. Although there is no evidence outside the bible to suggest that being the case.
Is that a problem? I've made no declaration of certainty. I've dealt with the probabilities of causes and occurrences.
None? You are literally discussing evidence. i.e the Biblical account.
You don't appear to be open to the idea that something in your argument might be flawed.
So you believe the Biblical account is possible?
Um, how strong do you really think that evidence is?
The evidence suggests natural occurrences. Not miracles or divine influence. How do you not get that?
Then demonstrate and explain what is flawed. Provide evidence to support your assertion. All you've done is made an empty declaration.
I don't go by belief. From a probability standpoint, based on the evidence, it is mathematically possible for the sequence of plague events to occur. But very highly unlikely. Even then, there is still nothing to suggest a divine cause of events.
Again, that is not Gordy's argument (and Gordy is not plural). You continue to push a ridiculous argument and claim it is Gordy's. As I explained @9.4, Gordy is not saying the plagues are a fallacy because they are natural, he is saying the belief that plagues necessarily are acts of God is fallacious: this is the divine fallacy. Another example of this fallacy is concluding that a volcanic eruption is necessarily the result of an angry Vulcan or that a thunderstorm is necessarily the result of an angry Zeus.
Since when is Gordy plural? And where does this article make the claim that no miracles are possible? Strawman after strawman ...
The article explains, in terms of science, how these various phenomena could manifest (at least in the small) and thus be witnessed by ancient men (who then went on to wrote tales using this phenomena as inspiration).
Correct, Gordy did not claim these plagues are impossible.
Correct. Gordy does not claim that God did not cause these events. That was not his point.
Are you able to rebut what Gordy actually wrote instead of playing this strawman game?
Not only did I not claim the plagues are impossible, I specifically acknowledged in the article they are possible, based on the evidence and what we know from observed natural occurrences. I'm glad somebody here gets it. Thank you.
Strawman or just complaining? Some people seem to start out feeling attacked for no good reason, and respond in kind.
It is much easier to make up allegations and strawman arguments than to do the work of thoughtfully rebutting your argument.
Both actually. The main strawman argument is the claim that you are saying that because these phenomena have scientific explanations (at least in the small) then God could not have 'done it'. Why bother reading what you write when one can invent a bullshit argument and attribute it to you? Recently, one example (of several):
Pure strawman.
Pure BS too. Or maybe just an outright lie, as we ("they") never made such an argument. The statement: "other miracles are impossible because they could happen naturally" also has a logical flaw: if a "miracle" occurs naturally, then it's not really a miracle, is it? Miracles (as the term is commonly used in a theistic context) are supposedly caused by or at least implied to be caused by a supernatural agent or source, which by definition means it cannot be natural.
It's evidence. That's the point.
Quality matters.
Then you can build an argument that it's poor evidence and explain why. But you must also acknowledge the use of similar evidence as sufficient in many other instances and explain why this is somehow different. Simply saying there is "no evidence" is false.
And now the goalposts will move, but the movement is arbitrary.
Such has already been built, repeatedly, on this site.
The Bible has been demonstrated by empirical evidence to be wrong on many points, right from its first words. Why should we be expected to accept it as reliable?
Deliver the evidence then that these acts were divine. The biblical account is only evidence that ancient human beings wrote the plague stories; not that they were true and certainly not that they were divine acts. Show the evidence that these plagues actually happened and that they were divine acts. I would really love to see that.
Even with your incredibly loose usage of the word 'evidence', if you could 'evidence' these as divine acts you would have finally accomplished something that countless billions have wanted to accomplish over thousands of years. Good luck.
What do you think the bible is evidence of exactly? Using the bible as evidence for biblical stories is circular logic. I didn't use the bible as evidence for anything. I used the bible as a reference for the story it tells. I used actual scientific evidence to support or refute that story.
See first statement!
And they are not wrong. It. Physically. Cannot. Happen.
These have happened and have been scientifically explained how they happen.
There is no "attack". What you perceive as an attack is logical dismissal of a fictitious story (flood) and natural occurring events (plagues).
If you can't fathom that these could and have happened then you need to do a lot of research.
Which I think I mathematically demonstrated using the volume of water required. I also included geological and paleontological evidence which suggests it could not have happened.
Which I also explained with science. But some seem upset that I did not include "miracles" or "god did it" as a possibility.
Some seem to interpret a challenge or dismissal of a belief or story as an "attack."
Fortunately, I provided some research. Apparently, some either didn't read it or understand it.
You did. [deleted] Both this and Part 1 are dead on. Now some "believers" are feeling threatened by provable fact.
Ah, of course [slaps forehead]. Silly me.
Thank you.
Indeed. That assertion is also supported by some of the emotional based replies here.
Seems kind of meta.
Because it is...
It’s their mutual admiration society...
That's nice. Prove it!
Back in the day, everything that happened locally was considered to happen globally. Point of reference.
Not to mention that many cultures explained phenomenons occurred due to their various gods. The Greek/Roman gods are a prime example. The Abrahamistic God is no different. Just more streamlined. It's amazing that in this modern day and age, with all the amount and easy access to information, that some people still resort to god/s as an explanation (or excuse) for various things.
Exactly. I propose we ban articles on astronomy claiming that the Earth's rotation causes the sun to seem to rise and set. Such are clearly an anti-religion screed bashing Apollo and his golden chariot.
Next they're going to tell us lighting is the result of charged ions in the atmosphere, which is a slap in almighty Zeus' face. It's blasphemy I tells you! Blasphemy!
Do what you like, but I never suggested banning anything. I guess it's pretty upsetting when an atheist point of view is challenged, but when the Bible is challenged we should all just obediently nod and agree, hmm?
Do you consider it "challenging" Greek mythology to accept that the Earth's rotation gives rise to sunrises and sunsets, or it that being unfair to Apollo?
Your comments seem to indicate that accepting science is fine, so long as it challenges mythologies other than the Judaeo-Christian ones. Why the distinction?
What atheist "point of view" has been offered for challenge? Go ahead and challenge such views if you like. You'll just need objective evidence to mount a successful challenge.
Not at all. This isn't an echo chamber. You should consider the evidence presented. But I've noticed certain people become quite emotional and irrational when the bible and/or its claims are challenged. I wonder why that is?
You seem to be talking to yourself, what with asking and answering your own questions. Have fun with that, but I see no reason to direct it at me.
Pretty sure that's just because you don't like my replies, and recognize that calling science an attack on your mythology but not other mythologies is a pretty weak position.
[Taunting]
Judaeo Christian ideas are not a mythology. Their God is actually real.
[Meta]
[Enough with the Meta! Stick to the article and the points made!]
Please provide evidence. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe your god is any more real than any other god.
Ad hom and whining aren't evidence.
That's nice. Prove it!
All god/s have an equal chance of actually existing. Of course, that chance is probably near zero. But it's an equal chance.
That depends on how the god is defined. For example, consider these gods:
There are no attributes offered other than sentient and creator and there is no evidence to suggest these are contradictions. So a sentient creator might exist.
Thor (the god of thunder) has plenty of mythology (claims) that lack any evidence. The lack of evidence after all this time suggests Thor is more likely not real than real. But worse, as defined Thor is the god of thunder yet we know all too well that thunder is not the result of Thor banging his hammer. The evidence suggests Thor is a character of fiction.
The Christian God is heavily attributed with omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, eternal, perfect, etc. In addition there are stories galore of God's exploits (all with ancient human beings). The stories, however, contradict the definition of God. Notably, an omniscient entity cannot learn, cannot regret, cannot be surprised yet God is said to have those experience. The Christian God, as defined, is a contradiction and does not exist (again, as defined).
True. But I was speaking in general.
What do you mean? Remember when he fought Loki or Thanos? And he has a big hammer. What more evidence do you need?
Quite logical.
Banning materials and sources is a tool of the cancel culture and the intolerant
Everybody knows that lightning is the result of gods throwing bolts of energy at dart boards and that thunder is gods bowling. Please grow up and accept reality.
Of course. It all makes sense now. Silly me.
Entering with guns-a-blazin' and making it personal with the opening sentence.
Exactly. Did you have a rebuttal argument for that?
Not quite Gordy's point.
Gordy notes that the plagues as described in the Bible are stories conceived by ancient men who (as we see throughout the Bible) likely took what they have seen or heard of and wove them into sensational stories through dramatization. It is akin to thriller/suspense movies such as 'Dante's Peak', 'San Andreas','2012', ... which build on the seed concept of ordinary, naturally occurring volcanoes, earthquakes, solar flares, etc. to create an exaggerated thriller movie. The fallacy is believing that plagues of these types are necessarily divine acts. This is not a contradiction-based fallacy as per his other articles; it is what is known as the 'divine fallacy'. Yes, it is a different fallacy; this story is different from the others.
Gordy even offered his perspective in his summary paragraph:
He is not saying the plagues are a fallacy because they are natural, he is saying that belief that plagues necessarily are acts of God is fallacious: the divine fallacy. This is akin to believing that a volcanic eruption is the result of an angry Thor or that a thunderstorm is the result of an angry Zeus.
Now this is just funny. These articles were actually inspired in part by you . You attempted to show that religious critical analysis articles were not occasional as I had noted and wound up proving me correct. Gordy, realizing by your statistics how infrequent these articles are decided to write his series. You were wrong in your challenge (proven so by your own stats) and now you come back after the fact and try to claim: ' see, I told you so '. Slimy sophistry.
Exactly. And?
Did you even read the article? The plagues were never described or declared a fallacy, as the evidence support they could have happened. Where the story gets murky is when it's deemed that "god did it." That means the plague event was a supernatural occurrence and not a natural one.
Then go ahead and refute it with facts and reason. Empty declarations mean nothing!
Exactly how is it "anti-religion?"
I have you to thank for that actually. I rarely posted such articles, which you somehow considered a "series." So you inspired me to write an actual series of articles. Thanks for that.
People should Google the 'divine fallacy' since that is the underlying fallacy offered by this article.
I.E. "God did it." Note how easy and convenient it is to use. It can be used for just about anything and doesn't require a neuron of extra or rational thought.
Well, that's not true. I actually posted links to several such articles and you know it.
"God did not do it" is no better.
Which is why I objectively analyzed the story and provided scientific evidence and explanation rather than simply declaring "God didn't do it." Those that declare "god did it" often leave it at that and offer nothing empirical to support that assertion.
That bothers you? Why??
Are you really going to try to claim that you are not anti-religion and these articles are not the product of that?
I've posted only a few articles specifically dealing with religious topics. Other articles had religion incorporated into them, but religion was not the focus. Apparently you failed to make the distinction.
I didn't say it bothers me. I'm curious why you would claim this is "anti-religious?"
Yes! I've explained before these articles are objective analyses of religious stories. That does not mean they are "anti-religion" by default.
Who here has ruled out the possibility that God did?
Nobody.
Straw man.
Over a three year period you were able to find 7 articles from Gordy that had something to do with religion. Yet you continue to push a ridiculous claim that an average of 1 article every 156 days (1 every 5 months) is NOT infrequent.
Fascinating. Don't let the facts get in the way of a desired allegation.
I don't understand why it's such a big deal to begin with? Whether I publish a religious based article every several months or every day, what difference does it make? We see some people here on NT who post political or pro/anti Trump articles on a daily basis. But somehow, when I supposedly do the same, it's an issue? Who cares?
You did not. You assumed it to be false and set about supporting that assumption. There is zero analysis on the possible validity of the story itself. No exploration of oral traditions, ancient texts, alternative sources. Nothing.
You arbitrarily limit acceptable evidence to empiricism when you know very well that believers have reached their conclusions using other means. You engage with the question in a way that supports your preexisting bias. You don't deal with the matter on its own terms with your mind open to other possibilities.
I also reference two dozen other articles I did not link to.
So, right back at you.
It goes to bias. You claim an objective analysis, but you neither admit your bias nor acknowledge it in your discussion. That's kind of dishonest, even if only via omission, and it makes it harder to accept your claim of objectivity as legitimate.
No, he didn't. He has said the plagues could have happened. That's not assuming it's false. You want him to accept the assumption that God did it, with no evidence for the existence of God.
What other means?
Are you actually (now) claiming Gordy has written or seeded 24+7 or 31 articles on religion on NT? If so, that is a demonstrable lie. Not even close. And any member can just look at Gordy's article history to see this for themselves.
Funny, even if your false claim were true (and it is not even close to the truth) that would not even be one article per month.
You know this? How? How could you know that Gordy, during his lifetime, has not come to a reasoned conclusion that the biblical stories are likely false? You presume that he has not conducted this analysis and that he just mindlessly assumes they are not true.
How many dimensions should an author try to address in a single article? You continue to grasp at straws.
If you want to try to prove/evidence that these plagues were acts of God then write an article. (Good luck.)
Wrong! I didn't start with a conclusion and then worked with the evidence to fit in. I started with the story itself and examined the evidence using empirical scientific evidence and explanation.
Empirical evidence is the most objective and reliable means of evidence. Mere belief is just that, a belief, and often lacking any empirical evidence. At best, it is subjective and anecdotal, which is the lowest form of "evidence." Why would I use lesser "evidence" over stronger evidence?
If you want to propose other ideas, go for it. Just back it up with empirical evidence. Because saying it's a belief is hardly convincing or persuasive. More likely, it shows a lack of actual evidence and is just wishful thinking or dogmatic bias.
Feel free to point out where I have not been objective or otherwise biased! I didn't start out saying "this story is false!" I started out telling what the story says and then looking at the available evidence (with links to some sources) to determine its veracity. I offer my conclusion at the end, based on an analysis of the evidence. And if you'll notice, I did state the plague story was possible based on the evidence. The only part I took issue with is the biblical account of the story itself, namely divine influence or intervention as depicted, as there is no empirical evidence to support such an assertion.
I can’t wait to watch the deniers deny the biblical descriptions of the 2nd coming as it is happening before their very eyes...
Is it Christ-like to enjoy imagining misfortunes befalling others?
As soon as it happens and you have evidence for it, let me know. Until then, that is nothing more than a fantasy story.
Right?! Isn't it awesome how "Christians [aka Christ-like]" think as mean as us "heathens" that question the stories?
Why is it so terrible to question the words written by "ancient men" but then be okay for the "Christians" to wish ill upon those that do the questioning?
"Ancient men", those "ancient men" were just as smart as we are now, the only difference is we have learned much since then. You could take one of the "ancient men", bring them into the future and after learning the language differences and getting over culture shock, they would be texting and driving like the best/worst of us. Now let me know when in the past do you think that "ancient men" ceased being "ancient men".
Well, they were smart enough to know how to con or control people with religious BS. Although, invoking god as an explanation or reason for anything and everything doesn't seem very smart.
So, you're saying that today's men and women are the same as they were then?
I am the financial provider for my family. That would NEVER have been allowed by "ancient men." If men and women were the same as they ever were, I'd also have 10+ children and probably been dead by this age, because I've been divorced and would've likely been labeled a witch or a prostitute because I wasn't "married" before having relations. I'd have been stoned or burned to death for my modern actions and not being subservient to men.
Yes, I believe future generations will feel the same way I do regarding "ancient men" when it comes to our current way of life. The Ancient Men thought process doesn't hold to our modernized society. A lot of fighting occurred for the way our society is today. Do you think that women should still be subservient?
The ancient men who wrote the Bible were typically learned and imaginative. They demonstrate exceptional writing skills and, given the by-committee nature of the Bible, held it together rather well.
The comment is NOT that these men were stupid, but rather that they were products of their time. They only knew what was knowable by human beings back then. Thus, relative to modern human beings, they were naive.
Critically, this is one of the evidences that the Bible is man-made. God (omniscient, omnipotent, ...) would surely know more than the men of ancient times. He could have imparted wisdom that they would reflect in the Bible (for example, the wisdom that owning another human being as property is immoral). He could have provided insight that was beyond what they could see with their eyes and hear with their ears; for example, the knowledge that the Earth (although it seemed this way to ancient human beings) was NOT the center of the universe and that it actually orbited one of those orbs of light (the sun) and that the other tiny lights in the night sky were other planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
There simply is nothing in the Bible that even hints at a sentient intelligence that goes beyond the abilities and knowledge of scholarly ancient men. But there exist plenty of errors and contradictions in the Bible; just what one would expect if written by ancient men over a thousand years and subjected to numerous transcriptions sans a divine editor.
There's a whole series of books by Mark Henricksson (think that's his name) that's about aliens crash landing on Earth because they were shot down during a war in space. Anyway...it goes all the way from Biblical times to the modern age.
It's called "Origins" and each subsequent book has "Origins: (insert time period)"
I voted you up because you seem more open minded to the possibility of God or something beyond us, and then with that sentence, how do you know God didn't?
Where I'm coming from, Noah knew a flood was coming and prepared without knowing about tsunamis, A&E could've been God created Adam and in the same way created Eve but instead used a "rib" why? And now we have Moses knowing about the coming plagues and using them to his advantage to, as Gordy put it, control his people into following him.
I am working right now and need to get back to it.
Most every atheist accepts the possibility of a supreme entity; it is simply that we are not persuaded by what we have observed / experienced in our lives to actually believe this is true.
And I do not know that ancient men operated sans a supreme entity guiding their hands; it is simply that the evidence strongly leads one to hold that they were educated, errant, motivated men writing stories to influence the masses based on what they knew and imagined without the insight of a deity.
So, I'm guessing that bccrane does believe women should be subservient considering you were answered, but I wasn't.
I already have. You dismiss all criticism.
The TITLE literally calls the story a fallacy and you came up with the title before you wrote the story. So, you figuratively did start out by saying the story is false.
That is your personal philosophy and it limits your ability to analyze these things.
[deleted]
Empirical evidence isn't the most objective and reliable means of evidence?
Didn't you teach math or something? I thought you were a numbers person of some kind. Numbers people rely on empirical evidence don't they?
Because your "criticism" seems overly emotional and downright false! You complain about how I analyze the story, but offer nothing empirical to debate the points made, much less refute them.
The title is the same for all stories in the series. But apparently you didn't notice where I acknowledged the plagues were indeed possible based on the evidence. The fallacy rests in how they are presumed to have occurred.
No, that is a scientific position used in real world experiments and observational analysis. But since you seem to disagree with it, then explain what is a better, more objectively reliable form of evidence than empirical evidence!
Maybe you are more intimidating.
Looks like it does not matter how many times this is explained to you; you are going to just keep repeating your original claim.
The fallacy here is known as the divine fallacy. To be a divine fallacy one must claim that a natural event necessarily is the result of a deity. When presenting a divine fallacy, it is best that the presumed act of a deity has already been established as something that can indeed occur naturally (without any divine act).
Anyone besides Tacos! not understand what I have written here? If so, please give me a hint as to where the confusion lies.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to argue something that I never claimed.
In the A&E seed, something similar happened, when pointing out what I believed the missing "rib" meant, I typed in man and woman, I thought about it when I did it and almost typed male and female, but I had a feeling what would happen so left it man and woman. Sure enough, the argument was going to be that I was saying that only humans had the XY and XX in their DNA which I never claimed in the first place.
Understood. Any comments on my reply to your inquiry?
Indeed. However, that is not the topic of your seed. No real world experiment or present day observational analysis is possible for something God may or may not have caused to happen 3,000 years ago. That's why it's of no use to answering the question "Did God do it?" You need to consider other methods of reaching an answer to a question. Science cannot help you.
Might as well accept it then. You are free to simply disagree and stop trying to attack me for it.
This is where my observations and experiences tell me there is a supreme entity and I realized that the "ancient men AND women" were having the same observations and experiences and writing them down as best they could understand them.
For instance, I have related something that happened to me a couple times here in NT and NV, I have no other explanation,a the time the one incident, of many, kind of freaked me out, but now I find it fascinating.
You 'disagree' yet offer no supporting argument as to why. You have claimed that this article is trying to 'have it both ways', that it is illogical and inconsistent and not a legitimate argument based on your entirely confused repeated premise that Gordy is arguing (in your words):
Ignoring the explanation @9.4 @9.2.8 @9.5.1 and @9.5.37 as to why your repeated allegation missed the point (completely misses the concept of the divine fallacy) while offering no rebuttal or even a basic explanation as to why you disagree, illustrates that your allegation is meritless and gratuitous.
Your comment is interesting as a frame, but you provide no details. So I am at a loss as to a response.
If you living when it does happen you'll be shitting in your pants
A baseless assumption.
Science explains how the plagues might have occurred and uses observable, real world explanations too. Any claim of "God did it" is merely a baseless religious claim with no supporting empirical evidence beyond mere belief or story. But I'm not asking if God did it. That's the claim adherents to the story make. But there is nothing to support such a claim. Therefore, there is no reason to accept or use such an explanation. It would be no different than saying fairies, leprechauns or gnomes caused the plagues. But using any tripe just for the sake of reaching an "answer" is intellectually dishonest and lazy. Fortunately, science gives the best possible answers.
Not everyone understands that 'God did it' refers to the divine fallacy. Although once informed, it is difficult to continue to give one the benefit of the doubt.
Also, not everyone understands that "God did it" is not really an explanation for anything. Its a failure to explain, albeit a possibly emotionally satisfying one.
And the key reason why is because it kicks the can down the road. Declaring 'God did it' offers an explanation for the question at hand but then opens up an even greater question: the existence of a supreme entity. Posing a more complex problem as the solution for a problem is ridiculous.
A downright lazy and poor "explanation" to boot.
Not to mention no one seems able to provide any evidence or proof of said supreme entity.
I have yet to see any other "method" or evidence that can more effectively and accurately reach an objective, rational answer than science.
What misfortunes? It’s not really and can never happen, right?
That would be nice...
You implied that today's men and "ancient men" are no different and I quote "ancient men" because I didn't men MALE, I mean the human species. I asked a question based on that; I'm not arguing. I am asking a question. I answer questions when they're asked because it's rude not to answer if you ask me... I suppose you didn't ask me though. I find it interesting that you're purposely ignoring or neglecting to respond to a question that I directed specifically to you.
It's worth noting that the Abrahamistic religions are quite patriarchal in their tenets and practice.
Agreed, but somehow I've insulted bccrane by asking him if he feels that females should be subservient still. To me, his implied thoughts on ancient beings [men, women, whatever] are the same as they ever were, suggest that the thought processes of said ancient beings have never changed really... so, that's why I posed the question if he thought in the same manner as said former / ancient / previous generations [however one wants to state it]. I think it's a pretty valid question, because I'm a woman that has fought very hard to get where I am today because of that thought process. Unfortunately, many religions still maintain the mentality that women [FEMALE] should be subservient to man [MALE]. That premise is insulting to modern women. How long do we have to fight for equality? My opinion, as long as Abrahmistic religions exist, we will have to fight for equality. But that's just my opinion. Maybe some women [FEMALE] are okay with that, but I'm not one of them.
I have told what happened, about a dream in the morning about my family and I in a parking lot with a huge hot dog and talking to a man I hadn't seen in three years, I thought well that was a weird dream only to have it happen later that day.
I listened to one of my co-workers explain what was bothering him about a fight with his wife that morning about what he said in his sleep that she was so pissed off about and the last thing he said to her, as he slammed the door behind him, was what he said in his sleep less the five first words "For the last time, there's 'No Mary, let it go'".
One morning I woke up with a start, I had dreamed that the washing machine had sprung a leak and damaged the wood floor, seeped through and was rotting the 2x12 floor joists, and was heaving the 5 block basement wall in. When I got up I went into the bathroom/laundry and pulled the washing machine out, my son asked what I was doing, I said I had a dream that it was doing water damage and was just checking, well our floor is a waterproof ceramic tile, so no wooden floor damage, I went to the basement, our floor joists are engineered BCI not 2x12 pine, and the basement wall is a poured reinforced concrete 11 block tall not 5 block, so it was just a dream. My son and I went to my shop and my brother walked in stating that he needed the house jack, we helped find and asked why, he had just come from a friend of his house and apparently the washing machine had sprung a leak that they didn't know about, what alerted them something was wrong was the room was sloping to the wall, my brother pulled the machine to fine the wood floor ruined, he went into their 5 block crawl space and the joists were rotted and the water, being this happened in the winter, had drained down the outside of the house and the freeze/thaw cycle had heaved the block wall in. I looked at my son and said that was my dream this morning.
My take on it is this isn't just happening to me, the co-worker experience, it happens to everyone/thing, what is that dog actually dreaming about?, and ancient men AND women were also experiencing this.
There sure seems to be similar mentalities between ancient thinking and modern thinking, no doubt largely due to religious influence.
Maybe that will be an article I write; why in many societies women are still expected to be subservient to men and the connotations in relation to religions.
I look forward to reading it, should you decide to write it.
That would be a great article. I would enjoy reading your take on the subject.
I believe I've just decided to write it.
That's great. Provide a link when you're done and I'll check it out. Thanks.
Will do.
Can't wait to read it!
What do you conclude from these experiences?
Well, there's no way logically to know the future. Say God exists, then the phrases Alpha & Omega and the Father (past), Son (present), & Holy Spirit (unknown future) means to me that time means nothing to God and visions of future events are statements of "I Am". Now say God doesn't exist then it could be as simple as memories of the future that somehow the subconscious is tuned into.
I do know one thing that when I realize the dream is actually occurring, in real time, I cannot change it.
Written. See link in my reply to Gordy.
Written. Link is in my reply to Gordy.
Thank-you, Ma'am
I'm there, thank you
You're avoiding the central point of the comment you responded to. So I will say it again. Science cannot help you. Until you can admit that to yourself, you are stuck.
And you're avoiding providing anything better than science! And considering science can and does explain how the plagues could have happened, then I'd say that helps. So what do you have to offer?
Science can absolutely tell you if those event could happen naturally. But your inquiry is supposed to be about whether or not God did it, not whether or not it could happen under any circumstances. That's the "divine fallacy" you keep claiming is the central thesis of your seed.
I never inquired whether "god did it." That was not the point of the article. I examined the plagues to determine if they could have actually happened. The science shows that it could have. Others have claimed there was a divine cause. But there is nothing to support that being the case.
So you think it's possible God did do these things?
I never said it wasn't possible. But since there is no evidence to suggest god actually did anything (or that there's a god to begin with-but I digress), then there is no reason to assume, believe, feel, ect., that to be the case. So any claim of "God did it" is unconvincing at best.
Generally speaking, one must hold that anything is possible unless it has been proven impossible. Very few things can be proven impossible. One method is to find a contradiction in how something is defined (e.g. a perfect, omniscient entity that learns, is disappointed, is surprised). Another is a situation within a formal system (e.g. arithmetic) where formal proof is possible.
The existence of a supreme entity causing plagues cannot be ruled impossible. Extremely unlikely based on myriad factors, but it remains possible.
Note: it is the certain claim of: 'God did it' (i.e. these plagues necessarily are acts of God) that is the divine fallacy. Thus if one were to claim that the plague story is true for no reason other than belief the Bible is divine, we have the divine fallacy.
You are one of the reasons Gordy chose to do this set of articles.
Well, he did accuse me of writing a "series" of religious themed articles. And I didn't want to disappoint.
So you made him right by doing so.
I love it!
Well, I didn't want to make him a liar after all.
No, I did not. That is a lie. I accused you of seeding anti-religious articles and of commenting in pro-religious articles. And, in fact, when you tried to claim I said "writing" instead of seeding, I corrected you. I have also explained to you multiple times that I feel your seeding and commenting history is relevant to bias in your analysis, so I know you know better than to spread this falsehood.
Furthermore, I am not supposed to be the topic.
An accusation which itself is false!
Oh well, since we are going by your feelings.... >sarc<
Looks like your claim has withered ...
Well, yes Tacos!, Gordy (me too) has indeed seeded some articles that critically review religion and presented faults with same. And indeed Gordy (me too) has commented heavily on religious articles seeded by others which make grand claims of certainty with zero supporting evidence.
If that is all you are accusing then you should have just said that upfront instead of trying to disprove my absolutely demonstrably factual and indeed proven observation that religious articles from Gordy (and from me) have been infrequent.
Imagine how heads will explode when I get to the Jesus story
Unfortunately I expect no contrary comments will be thoughtful. Just more complaining and feeble attempts at trivial ‘gotcha’s.
I think so too. At least, that seems to be the pattern emerging here.
Neither am I. So stop with these asinine attempts at assessing my motivations or intentions behind my articles and replies in others.
So you're "offended" about a series of articles that disprove your belief. You have 2 options:
The author has just as much right to post these articles as anybody else posting religious articles. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong or illegal.
Nope. never said I was offended.
Never said the author didn't have that right. Never even implied it.
I never even said I didn't like it and I sure didn't say it was wrong or illegal. Got anything else you want to pretend I said?
So you are claiming no one has a right to examine your bias in your analysis? That's fine. At least we all know it now.
Do you truly not comprehend that ‘examine the bias’ of an author is going personal? No problems if one honestly debates / refutes the content.
It would be refreshing to read an honest rebuttal based on facts, reason and without all the emotion.
Imagine how your head is going to explode when you stand in front of Jesus to be judged.
You're going to have to do better than some platitude.
Except you haven't demonstrated any bias. Only an empty claim of one. You certainly haven't addressed the points and analysis of the article with any rational, evidence based rebuttal.
I don't need to imagine. As it won't be Jesus that will be my judge. Unlike your beloved Trump, the Creator does not slough off his own responsibilities to a lower court when it comes to making such important judicial decisions.
Oh come on MonsterMash, don't threaten people. It is perfectly reasonable to NOT be convinced that the Bible is divine (or even correct).
Yes but remember-- NT is, after all, a Social Media site.
Oh, how quaint!
That evokes a feeling of nostalgia-- reminds me of a past era....
You're assuming that what Gordy writes about Jesus will not be complimentary.
But what if Gordy's analysis of Jesus' personality is that Jesus was one really cool dude! In fact totally fitting to be the Saviour of us all!
That’s pretty much it. Spot on and perfectly said!
That is something to hold on to as our faith and beliefs are held up here for mocking and ridicule. We have a blessed assurance...
[deleted]
[deleted]
That it is....
LOL, a swing and a miss
That's what I say about Jesus! Stop messing with my mind!
Is that supposed to be one of those thoughtful response you like to claim you want? This whole article is a representation of your feelings. But no one else has a right to theirs, eh?
No, it's actually legitimate inquiry and highly relevant to any examination of a person's analysis.
For example, if you own a tobacco company and produce a scientific paper saying cigarettes don't cause cancer, any sensible person will point out the obvious bias. You don't get to hide behind "but it's science!"
Another example: If you're a conservative legislator with a history of being against abortion, you can't produce a law requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges and expect people to believe you are just acting in the best interests of medical science.
Similarly, if you have a well-documented history of bashing religion and faith, it's pretty ridiculous to produce an allegedly objective analysis of religion and not expect people to consider your well-known bias.
If you think this article is about feelings, then you just didn't get it. I offered scientific and logical analysis and evidence. Not mere feeling or belief. Not surprisingly, some did respond rather emotionally.
So, you are claiming that you came into this analysis with no preconceptions or conclusions about God, religion, or faith? You had a totally open mind, examined all available evidence and the result could have gone either way? You really expect people to believe that? You have to be kidding.
I don't care what you or anyone believes. I care about what the evidence shows. If someone claims (and has claimed) god did it, fine. Show me the evidence. So far, there has been none offered or forthcoming.
Not on this site; that is making the author the subject. If an author writes or seeds an article, commenters are to focus on the content, not on the author/seeder.
So if someone seeds a pro-religious article or a Trump bashing article or anything else that makes it easy to psychoanalyze the author/seeder it is against the CoC to analyze the author/seeder. But it is perfectly okay to rip the content of the article to shreds.
Focus on the content, not the person.
Public figures who are not members are fair game. If you want to analyze how Trump thinks or psychoanalyze what gets into nutcases like Ken Ham or how anyone like Kenneth Copeland can live with himself or to try to understand how Dr. Francis Collins can be such an accomplished geneticist and still believe in the Christian God then that is all cool.
And if you were to write an article on how Penguins survived Noah's flood by floating on icebergs then it would not be fair game to criticize you, the author, based on what we think we know of how you think. But it would be fair to rip your hypothesis to shreds.
No it’s not.
That pretty much sums them up and if they don’t like what you say the cancel culture calls.
That last point is so spot on. 🎯
I don’t believe it at all...,
See 9.6.35.
It is indeed perfectly reasonable to NOT be convinced that the Bible is divine (or even correct).
The examples are many so I just will pick one. God is held to be the arbiter of objective morality. Yet God condones the act of owning other human beings as property. Never did God (Yahweh) or God (Jesus) ever condemn, as immoral, the practice of slavery. And for a couple thousand years now, not a single word from God that slavery is immoral. Luckily society has evolved to the point where most people understand the immorality of slavery.
I could go on about similar logical problems, errors and contradictions. Those factors are clearly sufficient for someone to reasonably be NOT convinced that the Bible is divine and that it is, rather, the work of ancient men reflecting the times in which they lived.
And?
You didn't get it the first time?
Why? Because she stated what her beliefs are regarding the afterlife and they don't match up with yours?
How is that a swing and a miss?
True. And not a happy one at all.
Well, now that we (finally) have gotten around to discussing subjects like "What is the true nature of reality" I have a question for you-- do you think that the Universe and everything in it is composed of particles-- or is it all just actually wave energy?
Or-- could it possibly be both?
(Maybe a bit of a trick question-- but ultimately it does touch on some important concepts-- even perhaps the question of "If God exists-- what is the nature of God"?)
Gets down to the meaning of ' exists '. Which then raises the question: what is the most primitive substance of existence ... what is quintessential existence? If God exists then God either is ALL of existence or God is a complex form of existence ... a complex arrangement of quintessential existence. Take a toke and contemplate.
Probably a good topic for an article.
Let me know when you decide to write it. I'll save it for a weekend and finish off that half a joint I have left
I don't believe the Hebrews were slaves, they were a warrior people who lived on the eastern side of Egypt and were tolerated by the pharaohs because of the protection from the east the Hebrews provided. The problem started to arise when the pharaoh, who considered himself a god, started demanding that the Hebrews worship him and as all the other Egyptians did during the off seasons, start helping building temples to him and the Egyptian gods. Moses didn't take well to this being there is only one God and he seen some of his people start doing as the pharaoh wished, he needed to get the people to move elsewhere as a society. He saw his chance when he foresaw what was coming with the plagues. It wasn't working and he was making enemies of the Egyptians and also his own people, until the last one, now the pharaoh was so pissed that he was going to end it all by just wiping out the Hebrews even the ones sympathetic to him, now that was the kick in the butt to get the whole Hebrew society to move and move they did.
Coming soon! The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 4: Jonah & the Whale.
Why not do one on Exodus 20 too?
George Carlin already covered that one.
The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 4: Jonah and the Whale , is now posted. Comments and thoughts welcome.
He orders the death of all the firstborn infants
I thought that was Herod.
To be fair, There is a lot of murdering going on in the bible.
And a lot of murdering even in today's world going on that is done in the name of the Bible. And there is nothing 'Holy' about it.
George Carlin once said more people have been killed by religion than anything else. In religion, murder is negotiable.
I guess it depends on who, in which part of the Bible commanded you to do it.
The Bible can be used to justify just about anything