The story of Passover

the change from winter to spring in my northern Celtic heritage on the timing of these dates

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."

<snip>

Now the rovin' gambler he was very bored
He was tryin' to create a next world war
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor
He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before
But yes I think it can be very easily done
We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun
And have it on Highway 61.

Kudos to Robert Zimmerman:

http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/highway61.html

"israelites" (the term was first employed 1 300 BC) were enslaved by Egyptians... it's only a story. Some people think that they descend from a giant turtle - which seen from an evolutionary perspective - is probably more accurate...

interspersed with some moving poetry and nice allegorical books like Ecclesiastes. A lot of good advice too. And I always like the parts with the concubines and the dancing girls. So did Cecil B. deMille!!

I remember back in 1958 when the Bridge on the River Kwai flick just came out. It was old Sis Caesar show and they were doing a skit take-off off the movie and someone asked what the hurry was in building the bridge and one of the chracters said it was for the Japanese Passover!

a king.

Bible stories are not good in the sense of enjoyable;

they are not good in the sense of wholesomeness.

Many are just boring and/or vulgar.

How about Judges 3:16-22, where G-d's servant Ehud stabs the shit - literally - out of King Elgon. Is that a story that should be told to children?

Judges 3
16 But Ehud made him a dagger which had two edges, of a cubit length; and he did gird it under his raiment upon his right thigh.
17 And he brought the present unto Eglon king of Moab: and Eglon was a very fat man.
18 And when he had made an end to offer the present, he sent away the people that bare the present.
19 But he himself turned again from the quarries that were by Gilgal, and said, I have a secret errand unto thee, O king: who said, Keep silence. And all that stood by him went out from him.
20 And Ehud came unto him; and he was sitting in a summer parlour, which he had for himself alone. And Ehud said, I have a message from God unto thee. And he arose out of his seat.
21 And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly:
22 And the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and the dirt came out.

But I did like stuff about Wise King Solomon and all his wives. Things seemed to go downhill pretty much after that.

I believe Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberstein took the more literal readings of the narrative apart comprehensively and convincingly in "The Bible Unearthed".

As a compilation of various collective memories predating the advent of writing, it's a thing of beauty, though. 'Blood rain' is a once-in-a-lifetime regional phenomenon but said to be extremely impressive when it happens.

As an allegory of a portion of the individual person's Spiritual Journey of mystical religion, it is extremely vivid and clear and instructive, as well as rightly placed between the experience of the Burning Bush and the experience at Mount Sinai.

They didn't enslave the Israelites. It was only the ruling class who would have been responsible for that, yet all those plagues were visited upon peasants as well as Pharaoh. Although if you look at a lot of stories in the bible, punishment of innocents is pretty standard for Yahweh, so I guess it's a silly question to ask. God loves to torture innocents.

Funny how an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing god would need blood smeared on a door to know that he WASN'T supposed to slaughter someone inside. :eyes:

How were the Egyptian first born killed? Did some mysterious black wind sweep through the houses like a cartoon? Or did the Egyptians themselves kill their first born in offering to their gods in an effort to stave off further catastrophe? (Others have tied the plagues of Egypt to natural events including the explosion of Thera.) If the people of Israel instead obeyed Yahweh by offering lambs and marked that sacrifice by smearing their lintels with the blood those lambs, the story all makes sense.

I rejoice in this Passover by which we all were freed.

Is there a record of Egyptians of the time sacrificing first borns to their gods? Or are you just making up a possible stretch of an explanation?

and knowing the customs of the time, that's my best explanation of what may have happened. It makes a lot more sense to me than the blood thirsty Yahweh postulated above. Human sacrifice is mentioned in Greek mythology as well as the story of Abraham and Isaac, so I have to believe that it was in the air, so to speak, in desperate times. A country facing the series of disasters described in Exodus may have resorted to desperate measures.

Is that what you're saying?

Exodus 12:29-30


Based on their reaction in verse 30, I highly doubt the Egyptians did this to themselves.

Of course the explanation that gets you out of any difficulties is just to admit none of this really happened, it's all myth concocted by an ancient nomadic tribe in the Middle East.

and there was no Troy or Trojan War

and Ireland was never inhabited by the Firbolg or invaded by the Tuatha de Dana

Calling something a myth doesn't mean that there isn't a kernal of truth at the bottom.

Speaking as a daughter of the Firbolg, I am forever grateful to a certain ancient nomadic tribe in the Middle East for bringing the truth of Yahweh to all of us.

as events actually happening, or the reason given for them being true.

Were there a couple of plague-like events that happened in Egypt around that time frame? Maybe. Locusts, hail, disease, all were known in ancient times as well as modern.

Is there any record whatsoever of Egypt having Jewish slaves, or of Pharaoh's army being drowned in the Red Sea, or any of that among the meticulous Egyptian record-keepers? Nope.

Our view of the net benefit/harm from the "truth" of Yahweh being brought into the world obviously differs.

But I think it's important to acknowledge that you're just trying to make up an unsupported explanation so as to get your god "off the hook" for brutality.

Either there were Jewish slaves in Egypt and a Passover event

or

they made up the entire event out of whole cloth.

How they interpreted events is subject to their world view and culture. They lived in harsh and vengeful times and looked for vengence. They told the story as they saw it. How we interpret events is subject to our understanding of the living One, Blessed be His Name.

There may (probably are)be elements of the story that were exaggerated, elaborated, etc. And of course, it is so long ago that we have to accept the whole thing is myth. It does seem to me that the actual history of the Jewish people is unique and amazing and the Exodus is at the very least, an appropriate allegory for their history.

So I hope everyone has a blessed, happy and healthy seder meal.

T-Grannie

I'm saying that if you believe that there were really Jewish slaves in Egypt, and there was really a Passover event, you have a difficult chore ahead of you to reconcile the only accounts available with the notion of a fair and loving god.

You have chosen to make up a possible explanation with no actual historical support.

The only other way out of the quandary is to admit the story is fiction.

Look at what I said above. Event get distorted and misinterpreted over time. Apparent motivations are especially susceptible to misinterpretation. Metaphor can be interpreted as literal fact.

What I mean by the rest of the story is the message of the prophets. When people talk about a blood thirsty god, they are usually referring to an interpretation of a historical victory. "God told us to kill all those people and steal all their land" (Sound familiar?) If you read what the prophets tell us, over and over they tell us, honor God, take care of the poor, give the working man a fair wage and honest measure, take care of the widow and orphan, protect the foreigners who live among you, take care of the land. Doesn't exactly sound bloodthirsty to me.

In your mind, the god you believe in could NEVER do nasty things, so you come up with a rationalization to explain away things in the bible that on their face are absurd or disturbing. That's fine, but you need to realize that's what you're doing.

And you're ignoring other things prophets have said, too.

I don't remember hearing about any Norwegians being forced to build the pyramids!!

going viking into recent historical times which included a lot of looting and kidnapping. In Christian parlance, that's called sin, and the Passover is a step in freeeing mankind from sin.

it's a judeo-christian invention to make people feel guilty and have control over them

beyond sex when it comes to sin. (At least that's what I infer from your reference to gaining control by making people feel guilty.)

What about all the crimes mentioned in the post above?

The path to freedom is open, but no one is forced to take it.

"sin" is a behaviour that strides against the rulers "morals". Freedom of speech is the first sin. They call it blasphemy.

Clearly we are using two different definitions for "sin". You are speaking of political control.

I'm not aware that the Europeans really changed their behavior much after they got "saved", at least not outside of Europe. Let's recall how those "good Christians" behaved in Africa and the Americas.

I make no excuses for the behavior of my Viking ancestors, but it seems that subsequent Europeans behaved even worse, at least outside of Europe with people they could regard as "savages", and used their religion as a justification for it.

the Israelis ("Jews") can only be identified historically as an ethnic group 2000 years AFTER those events supposedly happen.

Egyptians kept record of everything (that's why we have such a good knowledge of their civilisation) but nowhere is mentioned such an event, at least that "Jews" were kept as slave labour.

it's a founding myth, that's all : the Swedes before Christianity believed they all descended from a big original tree called Yggdrasil...

Today we all know that we started as a onecellular blue-green algae in some fucking pond on a continent that no longer exist and when atmosphere was poisonous and the moon half the distance to Earth than it is today.

There are at least plenty of clues about the latest story, which is far better than apples and snakes, killing babies and split seas.

Run right out and build a big monument to be certain to record for all of posterity all about how I got my ass whupped by a bunch of no'count slaves who ran off into the desert.

of aliens helping build the pyramids. Does that mean they did?

There's also no record of Navajo Indians invading and conquering Egypt. I guess that must have happened, too.

http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050408-051324-4388r

Moses and Akhenaten

During his reign, the Pharaoh Akhenaten was able to abolish the complex pantheon of the ancient Egyptian religion and replace it with a single god, the Aten, who had no image or form. Seizing on the striking similarities between the religious vision of this "heretic" pharaoh and the teachings of Moses, Sigmund Freud was the first to argue that Moses was in fact an Egyptian. Now Ahmed Osman, using recent archaeological discoveries and historical documents, contends that Akhenaten and Moses were one and the same man.

In a stunning retelling of the Exodus story, Osman details the events of Moses/Akhenaten's life: how he was brought up by Israelite relatives, ruled Egypt for seventeen years, angered many of his subjects by replacing the traditional Egyptian pantheon with worship of the Aten, and was forced to abdicate the throne. Retreating to the Sinai with his Egyptian and Israelite supporters, he died out of the sight of his followers, presumably at the hands of Seti I, after an unsuccessful attempt to regain his throne.

Osman reveals the Egyptian components in the monotheism preached by Moses as well as his use of Egyptian royal ritual and Egyptian religious expression. He shows that even the Ten Commandments betray the direct influence of Spell 125 in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Moses and Akhenaten provides a radical challenge to long-standing beliefs concerning the origin of Semitic religion and the puzzle of Akhenaten's deviation from ancient Egyptian tradition. In fact, Osman's discovery is that many major Old Testament figures are Egyptian origin.

Every story like this is an invitation to reflect on the world as it has been and as it is -- including the fact that the version of events ultimately repeated may not entirely reflect the reality that it allegedly reports.

But what are the important ingredients in this story?

Yes, it is true that the story tells about doors painted with blood. Perhaps there were more bloodly doors in the morning than the night before, and in such circumstances both innocent and guilty may suffer ...

The oppressed casting off their yoke of bondage and escaping from their captors doesn't speak to you? Then what is your stand on Nat Turner, or Denmark Vesey, or Gabriel Prosser ... ?

My support for slave rebellions has nothing to do with my disgust at a story, if true, which shows punishment of innocents in order to force a king (who, if we recall, had his heart "hardened" by Yahweh) to let slaves go.

Including the murder of innocent children?

(Edited to add: even if you ignore the rest of the not-so-tidy details, this isn't really a story about ending slavery per se as it is a story about the ending of supposed Jewish slavery. Other peoples were still enslaved, and even Jesus himself gave instructions on proper slave-beating techniques centuries later.)

Luke 12:42-48

He was speaking in contemporary language rather than endorsing a particular practice. We don't often drown child molesters, either, as suggested in other verses.

Why not speak out against slavery, once and for all? Jesus had plenty of other moral edicts to issue, why not come out against slavery too?

If you get to pick & choose which parts of the bible can be ignored, why can't Falwell & Robertson?

Peter said, "Lord, do you mean this parable for us, or for everyone?" The Lord replied, "What sort of steward, then, is faithful and wise enough for the master to place him over his household to give them their allowance of food at the proper time? Happy that servant if his master's arrival finds him at this employment. I tell you truly, he will place him over everything he owns. But as for the servant who says to himself, "My master is taking his time coming," and sets about beating the menservants and the maids, and eating and drinking and getting drunk, his master will come on a day he does not expect and at an hour he does not know. The master will cut him off and send him to the same fate as the unfaithful.

Luke 12: 42-48

The passage condemns the unfaithful steward who beats the servants. It does not advocate slave-beating.

Where it explains what exactly to do with the "unfaithful streward who beats the servants." I.e., beat him.

Heh, yeah, I'd say I've read the bible more than a lot of Christians have.

Nevertheless, you're persisting in misreading the passage. The first part clearly condemns abuse of servants, or by extension, of others for whom one is responsible. All that 46-48 says is that those who fail in their responsibilities will be punished. Unfortunately, the time out hadn't been invented in the first century CE, and the metaphor used is beating.

I find it interesting that the only two classes of people who persistently interpret the Bible utterly literally are militant fundamentalists and militant "debunkers." Perhaps we need to go back to Zhade's thread: the only thing that separates the two is belief in a single god.

The reason why I point these things out is not because I believe in a literal reading of the bible (though I do so love being compared to fundamentalists as an insult), but because I honestly cannot see the the rationalization for why you get to pick & choose the parts you say are literal, but no one else can. We've been through this before, and though you claim you are not a Christian, you are doing the exact same thing every Christian does: picking & choosing what you think is valid and what is not.

You do it.

Martin Luther King Jr. did it.

Jerry Falwell does it.

Fred Phelps does it.

This thread was started about the Passover story. Some individuals held it up as an example of a wonderful story of an enslaved race being freed. Problem is, there's lots of other details in that story, and most of them aren't quite as noble. All the punishments that god inflicted on innocent Egyptians, and then to add insult to injury, he goes and "hardens" Pharaoh's heart, thus HIMSELF making it necessary to inflict even MORE punishment. For what? In this story, god sounds like a sick sadistic fuck, and people want to hail it as some wonderful example?

"and though you claim you are not a Christian, you are doing the exact same thing every Christian does: picking & choosing what you think is valid and what is not."

Well, yes. I would think that's fairly obvious. I approach the Bible the same way I do the Iliad. Taken as a work of literature, then you don't get to "pick and choose" which parts of the text relate and which don't. If you're doing Homer as literature, then Zeus and Athena are as much a part of the story as the Achaian attack on Troy. If you're doing the Bible as literature, then you take Jonah in the belly of the great fish at its face value in the story, and you accept the virgin/otherwise mysterious birth of Jesus as part of the structure of the hero tale.

If you're looking at the works in an historical context, on the other hand, then Zeus and Athena become irrelevant, and what matters is Troy's crucial position on trade routes and the competition of the early Greek city-states with the Hittites for dominance in the Agean. It is quite possible to accept, on the basis of modern archaeological evidence, that Homer accurately described the boar's tusk helmet several hundred years after it fell out of use, and quite possible to accept that there was indeed a prince/king/Hittite vassal named Alexandros ruling Troy who corresponds roughly to Homer's Paris (aka Alexandros.)It's possible to accept that the ruins of Troy VII corroborate the destruction of the city in a siege. And it's possible to accept all that while doubting firmly that anyone named Helen had anything at all to do with the war.

If you're looking at the Gospels, or other parts of the Bible, in an historical setting, then you have to "pick and choose" to get at the history. And to do that, as with the Iliad, you have to look at the work in its historical, cultural, linguistic and textual milieu. Some parts--going back to the virgin birth, for instance--are clearly not history at all. On the other hand, the atmosphere of political unrest in Judea and the messianic expectations of the Jews of the time are clearly historical. Pick and choose, of course. As for beating servants--it has only been illegal to beat a servant/slave in the United States for the last 150 years. There are parts of the world where that's still current. Certainly it was current throughout the ancient world. Of course Jesus said that the unfaithful servant would be beaten because that's what happened to unfaithful servants in his time and place. It wouldn't have made a whole lot of sense for him to say that the boss will pink slip the slacker and cut his 401(K).

I stand by what I said about the similarities between fundamentalists and "debunkers." Both insist that every word in the Bible be taken literally; both insist that it has to be taken all of a piece, nothing rejected, despite the fact that the various books were composed over a period of at least 700 years by, quite possibly, hundreds of different writers and under very different standards of historical accuracy than those we apply today. The fundamentalist at least has the excuse of believing that the Bible is the literal word of God. Why the "debunker" insists on treating it the same way escapes me.

And in the process trying to lump me in with the fundamentalists that would hang us both if given the chance. I know that's a convenient box for you to place me in, but I think you are terribly wrong.

I am trying to get people to take a good long look at this book they consider to be an example of an ultimate moral code. Examine just why it is they reject certain parts but accept others. And maybe in the process, learn a little bit about why religion has the divisive and hurtful role it has had throughout history.

Regarding the specific example of Jesus telling people it was OK to beat your servant, no of course pink slips or "time outs" weren't an option. But dismissal could have been. Or some other kind of non-corporal punishment. The servant is as much a human being as the master, yet Jesus clearly endorsed the unequal relationship. I do not consider that to be a particularly good example from someone who is supposed to be god incarnate and the ultimate champion of that which is decent and good.

The "debunker," as you so graciously dubbed me, seeks to illuminate what factors cause a person to accept versus reject certain parts of the bible. Sometimes this is accomplished by causing believers (and even the most liberal of believers has to take at least SOME parts of the bible literally) to examine their own minds for the external reference they are using to evaluate moral lessons in the book that they purport to BE that external reference in the first place.

These are difficult issues and they cause people to get fairly emotional. Enough to blast others with the same broad brush as Christian fundamentalists.

and these verse were not meant as management instructions. The Bible is such a complicated collection of writings with roots going so far back that inevitably there's plenty of stuff in there that doesn't make sense or that we might wish were left out. It's the story of real people in relationship with a living G-d, so there is a lot of learning taking place. We have trouble trying to comprehend how Jefferson could have written the Declaration of Independence yet still have held slaves, and he's only two hundred years from us. You are asking us to explain every line from a book molded and handed down by who knows how many people over millennia. I have no idea why Jesus cursed the fig tree. Maybe I will someday. In the meantime, I do know and seek to apply the Greatest Commandment.

of it being OK to beat another human being?

I am asking you to take a good look at this text and understand why there's a lot of us who really don't see it as divinely inspired, or even a moderately decent book on which to form a moral code.

"Sunday School" answers won't work here. You want to discuss the bible without input from those who don't accept it as the word of a god, go to a protected Group. In the meantime, whenever anyone holds the bible up as something on which we should base our lives, or - GOD FORBID - public policy, I'll be there to point out the problems.

day as if it were your last. It was not meant as a management seminar. As pointed out above, the reference to beating a sevant was meant as illustration, not instruction

You could hurt yourself reaching that far.

I am trying to get people to take a good long look at this book they consider to be an example of an ultimate moral code. Examine just why it is they reject certain parts but accept others. And maybe in the process, learn a little bit about why religion has the divisive and hurtful role it has had throughout history.

Okay, I have no problem with that. I think that's both a worthy and a workable goal. But you're not going to be able to examine why they reject certain parts and accept others while telling them, in effect, that they can't do that honestly or that acknowledging metaphor and allegory are somehow a "convenient" way of avoiding the question.

The answer to your second line of inquiry isn't that hard. Begin with the alliance of political and coercive religious power, especially monotheistic power, and you end up with persecutions and dead "heretics." That started with Akhenaten and it's still going on today in the Middle East. Thank Goddess, you should pardon the expression, for the First Amendment.

Regarding the specific example of Jesus telling people it was OK to beat your servant, no of course pink slips or "time outs" weren't an option. But dismissal could have been. Or some other kind of non-corporal punishment. The servant is as much a human being as the master, yet Jesus clearly endorsed the unequal relationship. I do not consider that to be a particularly good example from someone who is supposed to be god incarnate and the ultimate champion of that which is decent and good.

Context. First, the "servant" and "master" in this parable are not both human beings. What Jesus is saying is that the person who abuses his worldly authority over others, starves and beats them, will in turn be punished by God for his inhumane treatment of his "fellow servants." (GW needs to pay more attention to this one.) Second, take Jesus in his setting. He's a first century Gallilean rabbi talking to Jews under Roman rule and on the brink of revolution. Most of these people are poor. Most of them are powerless under the dual oppression of the Roman occupiers and the Temple priesthood. Why on earth should he tell them that these tyrants are going to get a pass when the Kingdom of Heaven is inaugurated? Particularly if he is--or believes he is--the heir of David and that Kingdom has a political, earthly component, and he wants them to follow him? Of course he's going to tell them that the bad guys are going to get theirs, and justice will be done.

The "debunker," as you so graciously dubbed me, seeks to illuminate what factors cause a person to accept versus reject certain parts of the bible. Sometimes this is accomplished by causing believers (and even the most liberal of believers has to take at least SOME parts of the bible literally) to examine their own minds for the external reference they are using to evaluate moral lessons in the book that they purport to BE that external reference in the first place.

I chose "debunker" because it is more accurate and more specific than "atheist." My writing partner, for example, is an atheist, yet has no such interest.

You're making the assumption here that the Bible is the sole reference for all Christians. Now, for fundamentalists and even non-fundamentalist evangelicals, that's true--the "sola scriptura" crowd. But for other churches, say Catholics and Episcopalians, there's a triad of Scripture, patristic writings and church teaching. Thus, Episcopalians believe that slavery and racial oppression are wrong per the doctrine of the church, even though Paul is copacetic with both and has been used to justify them.

You can do what this other person is not - consult sources other than a holy text for moral answers. And these sources are... da da DA... other humans! No divine intervention or dictum necessary! You are morally reasoning just like atheists, and doesn't that feel good? You have your own moral code, and when a holy text disagrees with it, you trust YOUR moral code over that of the text's. Now if you can just help convince others here to do that, we'd go far in fighting the religious right. I don't think the answer to a supposedly incorrect reading of a text is another reading of the text. Just how well has that worked for us lately?

Thank Goddess, you should pardon the expression, for the First Amendment.

But gods and goddesses had nothing to do with that. It was secularly enlightened human beings who gave us the First Amendment. You won't find guarantees like freedom of speech or certainly freedom of religion in any holy text. Human beings created those concepts, and they should get our thanks, not non-existent gods.

First, the "servant" and "master" in this parable are not both human beings. What Jesus is saying is that the person who abuses his worldly authority over others, starves and beats them, will in turn be punished by God for his inhumane treatment of his "fellow servants."

So you're saying that it's not OK for a master to beat his slave, but that it's OK for a god to essentially "beat" humans. I'm sorry, but I still find that repulsive. An all-powerful god should not have to resort to punishment for correction.

Second, take Jesus in his setting. He's a first century Gallilean rabbi talking to Jews under Roman rule and on the brink of revolution. Most of these people are poor. Most of them are powerless under the dual oppression of the Roman occupiers and the Temple priesthood. Why on earth should he tell them that these tyrants are going to get a pass when the Kingdom of Heaven is inaugurated?

Yes, let's take Jesus in his setting. A first century Jew will hear a story about a master and a slave and compare it to what in his live? Oh I don't know, how about masters and slaves? At best it would be tyrants and the overlords they assign to rule over the Jews. Jesus' parable then addresses only the deeds done by the overlords, not the tyrant himself. In the parable, the tryant goes right on beating.

Spin all you want, it's still morally repulsive.

You can do what this other person is not - consult sources other than a holy text for moral answers. And these sources are... da da DA... other humans! No divine intervention or dictum necessary! You are morally reasoning just like atheists, and doesn't that feel good? You have your own moral code, and when a holy text disagrees with it, you trust YOUR moral code over that of the text's. Now if you can just help convince others here to do that, we'd go far in fighting the religious right. I don't think the answer to a supposedly incorrect reading of a text is another reading of the text. Just how well has that worked for us lately?

Acting on an informed conscience is something I learned from my old-style Baptist (Bill Moyers, Jimmy Carter) mother and the nuns who taught me from grades 3-12. Conscience trumps authority, whether it's the authority of a text or of the hierarchy. It's something Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists, etc., all do. It's by no means peculiar to atheists.

That said, it's acceptance of rigid authority--not so much of the text as of what they're told that text says--that makes the religious right a danger. The RR begins not with religion per se but with authoritarian personalities and those who are susceptible to them. There are those followers for whom the establishment of "true" religion is the object, and there are those leaders whose object is simply power. Religion is a tool to them, nothing more. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are prime examples.

Thank Goddess, you should pardon the expression, for the First Amendment.

But gods and goddesses had nothing to do with that. It was secularly enlightened human beings who gave us the First Amendment. You won't find guarantees like freedom of speech or certainly freedom of religion in any holy text. Human beings created those concepts, and they should get our thanks, not non-existent gods.

Here's where you're sounding like a fundie again-- you just can't resist "correcting" someone else's "errors," for their own good, of course. There was an elderly acquaintaince of my mother's who was horrified when my parents opted to send me to Catholic school because, as she insisted, "Catholics pray to pictures and statues." Nothing, including eyewitness testimony, would convince her otherwise, and every time she showed up at our house, she went through her number about praying to pictures and statues. Because, you see, she knew Catholics pray to pictures and statues. You're starting to remind me of her.

So you're saying that it's not OK for a master to beat his slave, but that it's OK for a god to essentially "beat" humans. I'm sorry, but I still find that repulsive. An all-powerful god should not have to resort to punishment for correction.

Second, take Jesus in his setting. He's a first century Gallilean rabbi talking to Jews under Roman rule and on the brink of revolution. Most of these people are poor. Most of them are powerless under the dual oppression of the Roman occupiers and the Temple priesthood. Why on earth should he tell them that these tyrants are going to get a pass when the Kingdom of Heaven is inaugurated?

Yes, let's take Jesus in his setting. A first century Jew will hear a story about a master and a slave and compare it to what in his live? Oh I don't know, how about masters and slaves? At best it would be tyrants and the overlords they assign to rule over the Jews. Jesus' parable then addresses only the deeds done by the overlords, not the tyrant himself. In the parable, the tryant goes right on beating.

I think that the Jews of Jesus' day would get the message about the Romans and the Temple priesthood without any problem. We're talking about a people whose wisdom literature is rich with parables and indirection; the story of the mustard seed isn't about growing salad greens, after all. And we're talking about people who couldn't criticize their occupiers publicly, or they'd wind up crucified. It's pretty clear from what historical records we do have from the period that revolt was in the air for decades before it actually broke out, and part of the intellectual and spiritual ambiance was the coming of the Messiah ben David--the divinely appointed king who would liberate Israel from its oppressors and establish the Kingdom of Heaven. Part of the king's job was to do justice. Justice, unfortunately, sometimes involves punishing people.

A question: are you opposed to punishing criminals? Specifically, are you oppposed to punishing tyrants who commit mass murder, tax oppressively, rule through fear and the threat of torture, and generally create the conditions of a police state? And if you're against punishing them, what do you think should be done with them?

You're missing the point about the "tyrant." The figure you're calling the "tyrant" is the defender of the people against their oppressors, not their oppressor himself.

Acting on an informed conscience is something I learned from my old-style Baptist (Bill Moyers, Jimmy Carter) mother and the nuns who taught me from grades 3-12. Conscience trumps authority, whether it's the authority of a text or of the hierarchy.

And again, that conscience comes from human sources. Most religious people can't bring themselves to acknowledge that. Their conscience is, to them, an internalization of their god's laws, or some such.

It's by no means peculiar to atheists.

But what's peculiar to us is, we acknowledge its solely human origin.

Here's where you're sounding like a fundie again-- you just can't resist "correcting" someone else's "errors," for their own good, of course.

Come again? Pointing out that gods had nothing to do with the First Amendment is "correcting" you for your own good? Sheesh, I'm not sure how I can disagree with you without being labeled a "fundie" now. :shrug: Whatever you feel you need to label me, go right ahead. I would imagine you would bristle if I reciprocated, though. Love that smell of hypocrisy.

I think that the Jews of Jesus' day would get the message about the Romans and the Temple priesthood without any problem.

Sure, and of course would notice that the "Romans" in the parable escape any sort of punishment. You honestly think the rantings of a harmless street preacher would have garnered all the work of a crucifiction?

Part of the king's job was to do justice. Justice, unfortunately, sometimes involves punishing people.

and the ridiculous question:

A question: are you opposed to punishing criminals?

Again, we're not talking about human kings or humans punishing criminals, we're talking about a god punishing humans. Totally different arena. Humans have no way of getting inside each other's minds - we have to inflict punishment on someone who breaks the rules. But doesn't god have a better way? Is he just a really powerful human being who can only discipline his "children" by beating them, i.e. sentencing them to eternal punishment?

I know that you claim not to be a Christian, though you expend considerable effort defending Christian theology. But do you still believe in hell? Do you think that atheists go to hell? Do you feel that eternal torture is a suitable punishment for any finite sin?

Specifically, are you oppposed to punishing tyrants who commit mass murder, tax oppressively, rule through fear and the threat of torture, and generally create the conditions of a police state?

Another silly question, and one that totally misses the point. Let's go back to the parable and note that the tyrant doesn't get punished, he does the punishing of those he entrusts over others. So since you evidently support the model of the parable, your question would be better directed at yourself. In the parable, the tyrant never gets his due. Are you OK with that?

Here's where you're sounding like a fundie again-- you just can't resist "correcting" someone else's "errors," for their own good, of course.

Come again? Pointing out that gods had nothing to do with the First Amendment is "correcting" you for your own good? Sheesh, I'm not sure how I can disagree with you without being labeled a "fundie" now. Whatever you feel you need to label me, go right ahead. I would imagine you would bristle if I reciprocated, though. Love that smell of hypocrisy.

Now, that's disingenuous. One of the most frequent complaints of atheists in this forum is that believers of whatever stripe insist on informing them of their errors. You're doing the same thing, here. I'm comfortable with my beliefs and opinions, thank you very much, just as you are with yours. I'd consider it bad manners to tell you--or a Presbyterian, or a Hindu or anyone else with whom I have a difference of religious opinion--that you're mistaken. I'd like to have that reciprocated.

You honestly think the rantings of a harmless street preacher would have garnered all the work of a crucifiction?

But what if he wasn't a "harmless street preacher?" What if he had taken considerable pains to present himself as the Messiah ben David, rightful King of Israel and a potential focus of rebellion? That's all there in the Biblical narrative, not a hypothetical at all. He'd have been crucified in a heartbeat. As for "all the work"--the Romans had it down to an art. Josephus tells us that the Romans crucified half the population of Jerusalem during the revolt that ended in the fall of the city in 70 CE. Six thousand were crucified along the Via Appia by Crassus after Spartacus' rebellion. They could do one Jewish rebel with their eyes closed.

Again, we're not talking about human kings or humans punishing criminals, we're talking about a god punishing humans.

We're talking about a divinely ordained but human king, the heir of the line of David, punishing criminals--or at least the text is. And yes, he's a conduit for divine punishment, but he's still a human agency.

Is he just a really powerful human being who can only discipline his "children" by beating them, i.e. sentencing them to eternal punishment?

Where is the equivalency between beating and eternal punishment established in this text?

I know that you claim not to be a Christian,

I take you at your word that you're an atheist. I'd appreciate the same courtesy in return.

though you expend considerable effort defending Christian theology.

Actually, much of what I've said here is directly contrary to traditional Christian theology. Traditional Christian theology is grounded in the identification of Jesus as God, and I haven't so much as implied such a thing. My interpretation is grounded in what we know of the history of the period and the Jewish expectations of a Messiah.

But do you still believe in hell? Do you think that atheists go to hell? Do you feel that eternal torture is a suitable punishment for any finite sin?

Actually, I can't recall ever believing in hell. Why would I believe atheists--or anyone else, for that matter--would go to a place I don't think exists? And I think torture of any kind is a crime that a just ruler would punish.

Let's go back to the parable and note that the tyrant doesn't get punished, he does the punishing of those he entrusts over others. So since you evidently support the model of the parable, your question would be better directed at yourself. In the parable, the tyrant never gets his due. Are you OK with that?

But the tyrants do get their due. That's what you were objecting to. The figure you identify is not, in the context of the story, the villain. You're making an a priori identification of master-god-and therefore-tyrant out of your own preconceptions.

Gods didn't create the First Amendment. People did. Just as I'm not going to humor the freeper that wants to put his creationism story in the science classroom, I'm not going to humor people who think gods are responsible for some of the greatest human accomplishments.

This is the Religion/Theology forum - specifically created to take theist-atheist discussions out of General Discussion. There will be disagreement. If you can't handle that, I suggest you avoid posting here.

But what if he wasn't a "harmless street preacher?" What if he had taken considerable pains to present himself as the Messiah ben David, rightful King of Israel and a potential focus of rebellion?

Considering that his own people purportedly mocked him, I have to wonder how anyone could have taken him seriously as an instigator of rebellion. But then again, you're probably just picking & choosing the parts of the bible you need. Sorry to say, there is no conclusive historical evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone was crucified. (Not to mention that problem with the bodies of crucifiction victims being dumped out in the open, not buried in a grave few people could have afforded back then. But let's not get too sidetracked here.)

We're talking about a divinely ordained but human king, the heir of the line of David, punishing criminals--or at least the text is. And yes, he's a conduit for divine punishment, but he's still a human agency.

Gods can beat humans, as long as they take over the form of a human first? Um, OK.

Actually, much of what I've said here is directly contrary to traditional Christian theology. Traditional Christian theology is grounded in the identification of Jesus as God, and I haven't so much as implied such a thing. My interpretation is grounded in what we know of the history of the period and the Jewish expectations of a Messiah.

Humor me here - So, do you believe a person named Jesus lived, and that he was crucified? Do you believe he was resurrected from the dead?

Actually, I can't recall ever believing in hell.

Not even when you were Catholic?

But the tyrants do get their due. That's what you were objecting to.

Let's go over this again.

One interpretation of the parable is: Romans = master, priest class = lead servant, everybody else = other servants. The lead servant beat and abused the other servants, so the master came and beat him. In this interpretation, the overall tyrant (Romans) go unpunished.

The second interpretation is God/Jesus = master, bad leaders/Christians = lead servant, everybody else = other servants. In this interpretation, you have the beating of humans by a god. Which you say is OK because it's actually a god in human form. But you don't believe that. Do I have that right?

What I find most disturbing is that right here in this thread was a person (actually a couple of people) who quite sincerely thought that the mass murder of innocent children in Egypt was A-OK, because the net result was to end the slavery of the Hebrews. Instead of helping to politely lecture that person into a non-literal reading of the text, you instead chose to engage the atheist who was trying to point out the inherent problems in using a literal reading. Crazy stuff.

Common pattern in here, though. Theists ignore the examples of religious fundamentalism right in front of them, and instead choose to attack atheists as their "substitute" fundamentalists. A lot like real life in that regard. Blame the atheists for losing elections rather than looking in the mirror at faith & religion. I pointed out how that attitude of "well, innocents were killed but the ends justify the means" is EXACTLY what the Bushies and their supporters use to justify Iraq. THAT'S what feeds the Republican agenda - the concept that divine might makes right. Surely that's something other progressives might want to help fight?

No, you attack the atheist for pointing out the problem.

Just as I'm not going to humor the freeper that wants to put his creationism story in the science classroom, I'm not going to humor people who think gods are responsible for some of the greatest human accomplishments.

This is the Religion/Theology forum - specifically created to take theist-atheist discussions out of General Discussion. There will be disagreement. If you can't handle that, I suggest you avoid posting here.

Okay, so I take it you're fine with being told you're wrong every time you mention you're an atheist or why you believe your position is correct. We'll give it a try, and if you cry foul, I'll cry hypocrite.

See your own comment about disagreement. I believe there's an atheist/agnostic group where you can pontificate to your heart's content without opposition.

Considering that his own people purportedly mocked him, I have to wonder how anyone could have taken him seriously as an instigator of rebellion. But then again, you're probably just picking & choosing the parts of the bible you need.

You wouldn't be picking and choosing there, now would you? Like leaving out the bits about the "multitudes" following him around Galillee and the rather spectacular parade we're told he put on when he entered Jerusalem. You know, the thing with the waving palm branches and the crowds proclaiming him "Son of David"--i.e, King of Israel. That was overt rebellion; the Romans would have noticed, more especially because they'd recently put down riots in the city.

Sorry to say, there is no conclusive historical evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone was crucified.

But there is, in my opinion, a preponderance of evidence in favor of his existence.

(Not to mention that problem with the bodies of crucifiction victims being dumped out in the open, not buried in a grave few people could have afforded back then. But let's not get too sidetracked here.)

Not always. Josephus tells us that in the aftermath of the rebellion he retrieved three crucified rebels from their crosses upon appeal to the Roman governor. He buried two and actually managed to save the third man's life. For another, archaeologically corroborated instance, Google "Yohanan,crucified,ossuary."

Gods can beat humans, as long as they take over the form of a human first? Um, OK.

Something I never said.

Humor me here - So, do you believe a person named Jesus lived, and that he was crucified? Do you believe he was resurrected from the dead?

Yes, yes, and no.

Not even when you were Catholic?

I've never been Catholic, nor said I have been. Do feel free to continue to invent, though.

Let's go over this again.

Let's do. Master=Messiah; servant who abuses fellow servants=Romans and Temple priesthood; abused fellow servants=common people of Judea. The Messiah is not a god in human form; he is a king. Part of his job is to do justice--you know, like punishing tyrants for killing innocents.

What I find most disturbing is that right here in this thread was a person (actually a couple of people) who quite sincerely thought that the mass murder of innocent children in Egypt was A-OK, because the net result was to end the slavery of the Hebrews. Instead of helping to politely lecture that person into a non-literal reading of the text, you instead chose to engage the atheist who was trying to point out the inherent problems in using a literal reading. Crazy stuff.

Well, you'd have a little more cred there if you weren't so given to literal readings yourself. As for the Passover story, there's no evidence that any large numbers of Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt, or that they staged a mass break-out such as described in Exodus. But if there was a slave rebellion of some sort, and ifit coincided with a series of natural disasters such as locusts, etc., then there are a couple possible explanations for large numbers of deaths among the Egyptians. One: Large numbers of people generally die in famines and plagues. If Egypt's crops were destroyed, the cattle died of an epidemic, the fish killed in the Nile, etc., then large numbers of human deaths would naturally follow. Later scribes then enhanced their foundation story by extending those deaths to all the first born and attributing the deaths directly to Yahweh as a sign of his favor toward Israel. Two: There was a slave rebellion, in the course of which the Hebrew slaves massacred a fair number of Egyptians. They marked their own doorways with the blood of a sacrificial lamb so that the rebels, not Yahweh, would pass over their fellow slaves' families. Again, the scribes revamped the story to attribute the deaths to Yahweh.

What you seem to be losing sight of is that all but fundamentalist Christians, as well as non-Christians who have an interest in Biblical studies, regard the Bible not as the literal words of God but as a record of human perception of God in a small area of Western Asia. A fairly primitive understanding of divinity gives us the angry storm/sky/mountain god of Psalm 18 and the slayer of the Egyptian first born, but that perception changes radically by the time we get to Isaiah's vision of the Peaceable Kingdom and the holy mountain. Hedgehog--if that's the person you're labelling a "fundamentalist" (who doesn't look much like one to me)--never used the Passover story to justify the killing of innocents in Iraq. Can you point to anyone who actually has?

I pointed out how that attitude of "well, innocents were killed but the ends justify the means" is EXACTLY what the Bushies and their supporters use to justify Iraq. THAT'S what feeds the Republican agenda - the concept that divine might makes right. Surely that's something other progressives might want to help fight?

Now there, you have a point. Why are you attacking fellow progressives instead of Bush, though?

Okay, so I take it you're fine with being told you're wrong every time you mention you're an atheist or why you believe your position is correct.

If someone says that fairies make electrons go through wires and create electricity, they're wrong. If someone objects to how they're being labeled, they have a point. See the difference? I'm guessing not, but there's always a chance.

That was overt rebellion; the Romans would have noticed, more especially because they'd recently put down riots in the city.

Sorry but all I can think about there is scenes from Life of Brian. The only documentation we have of "multitudes" praising Jesus (and then turning around 7 days later and condemning him - odd, that) is from biased accounts. Just as the rest of the story of his life - there's no independent confirmation whatsoever. No proof he actually existed - that's a matter of faith.

Josephus tells us that in the aftermath of the rebellion he retrieved three crucified rebels from their crosses upon appeal to the Roman governor. He buried two and actually managed to save the third man's life. For another, archaeologically corroborated instance, Google "Yohanan,crucified,ossuary."

I hope it's a section of Josephus that ISN'T known to be a forgery. Interesting thing, Google. Doing your search turns up:

http://www.lifegoeson.net/InTruth/crucifix.htm


Thanks for that search! It seems to support my position, not yours.

>Gods can beat humans, as long as they take over the form of a human first? Um, OK.

Something I never said.

You said "And yes, he's a conduit for divine punishment, but he's still a human agency." Sorry that I misinterpreted. Perhaps you could explain why it's OK for this beating to occur, and whether it's a physical or spiritual one, and who exactly is administering it?

I've never been Catholic, nor said I have been. Do feel free to continue to invent, though.

My mistake - didn't you say you had been taught by nuns, and/or weren't your parents Catholic?

Master=Messiah; servant who abuses fellow servants=Romans and Temple priesthood; abused fellow servants=common people of Judea. The Messiah is not a god in human form; he is a king. Part of his job is to do justice--you know, like punishing tyrants for killing innocents.

You know, this got way off track. You very skillfully brought in that red herring. The meaning of the parable isn't the issue, it's the example Jesus chose - the beating of slaves - that is the problem. "Hey, you guys, don't worry about how bad you have it, because I will beat your oppressors just like you beat your slaves. Many lashes for the really bad ones, not as many for the ones who aren't knowingly bad." Stated matter-of-factly. The son of god, with his one opportunity to promote equality and justice, and instead he just endorses the status quo.

Well, you'd have a little more cred there if you weren't so given to literal readings yourself.

Umm, I'm trying to show the absurdity of literal readings. That's hard to do without performing a literal reading, ya know?

As for the Passover story, there's no evidence that any large numbers of Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt, or that they staged a mass break-out such as described in Exodus.

Yep. Totally agree. So why don't you tell that to the bible-believing literalists instead of me?

But if there was a slave rebellion... (followed by your two how-it-could-have-been scenarios with lots and lots of IFs)

Those are plausible stories. But they're not in the bible. Again, why not present them to the believing literalist instead of me? Maybe it was space aliens that killed the Egyptians! That could explain it too.

What you seem to be losing sight of is that all but fundamentalist Christians, as well as non-Christians who have an interest in Biblical studies, regard the Bible not as the literal words of God but as a record of human perception of God in a small area of Western Asia.

Wrong. I'm fully aware of that. But in trying to address the fundies in their language, you jump in and start attacking me instead of them. Thanks for the help.

Hedgehog--if that's the person you're labelling a "fundamentalist" (who doesn't look much like one to me)--never used the Passover story to justify the killing of innocents in Iraq.

I also know that. I was making the comparison. Hedgehog endorsed the murder of innocents because it brought about a divine plan. That's exactly the same attitude war supporters have, and it's in the exact same context (God is on our side). Got it yet?

Why are you attacking fellow progressives instead of Bush, though?

Maybe you can answer that one too?

I'm trying to point out how the institutions and thinking that support Bush are present right here on DU, and if we don't address them, nothing will change. The answer to a religious problem isn't more religion. That would be like suggesting that when New Orleans was flooded, the only problem was that the water was dirty. If we could just replace all the dirty water with clean water, New Orleans would be saved. No it wouldn't, it would still be flooded.

didn't enslave Blacks????????

had more in common with the slaves than the slave owners, even if they weren't aware of it. Joe Schmoe Egyptian had as much to do with who his leaders enslaved as a lamppost.

Might as well blame those damn pseudo-intellectual non-believers. Even though I don't "LIVE IN EITHER THE "I-95 CORRIDOR" OR THE "I-5/US 101 CORRIDOR".

(By the way, POSTING IN ALL CAPS tends to piss people off.)

there are plenty of Republicans who are interested in historical facts versus folktales as well.

Trying to come to grown-up terms with the stories we are told as children is a part of grappling with our faith. And understanding why stories were written down and passed on is as important as knowing the details of the stories.

So stop with the wounded histrionics. Anti-intellectualism is a big part of what got this country, including the parts not around I-5 and I-95, into this huge mess.

because I feel that nothing is created in a vaccuum. But I don't feel it is anti-intellectual to have faith. It is way more complex than just deciding "did it happen," "could it happen," etc. There are cultural forces, intuitive forces, etc. Just like the saying you can be so open minded your brain falls out, I also think you can be so closed minded your brain jams up. I'm trying to stay someplace in the middle.

T-Grannie

I agree with you 100%, sorry if I gave any other impression. Grappling with faith is a vital part of maintaining it, and I don't think knowing about how things came to be puts the central tenants of a religion into jeopardy. There are truths that exist outside the realm of human history - that doesn't mean we have to be ignorant of history.

I don't know the formula, but it all works together.

T-Grannie

or attend temple on Saturdays. The rest run the gamut from religious-but-non-service attending to avowedly atheistic. In other words, Democrats are simply the average American.

Anonymous people posting religious opinions on DU should not be construed as a representation of any group's opinion -- especially that of Democrats'. Sounds like "Big" Ed Schultz has drunk the Karl Rove propaganda kool-aid and doesn't realize it.

as long as you are sincere about it.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.
-Karl Marx.

Well, of course, Marx is wrong here. Religion AND television are the opiates of the masses. Ike is right about being being sincere as far as he goes but I go further and an a sincere non-theist.

Look this up, old chap.

otherwie known as patent medicine.

Yes, very commonly used.

Prominent Republicans who aren't afraid to honestly speak their minds without regard to GOP or anyone else have gone the way of the dinosaur. (Then again, there are getting to be fewer and fewer Democrats like that, too).

and character.

... Religious suffering is both an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed, the heart of a heartless world, the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people. Calling for the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people amounts to demanding people’s real happiness. To call on people to abandon their illusions about their condition is to call on them to abandon a condition that requires illusions ...

Introduction to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1844)
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/marx-hegel.htm


As a Christian, I do not see how any serious religious thinker can ignore Marx's profound insights in this passage: it says that religion must be understood in the context of oppression, both as an expression of the fact of oppression and as a reaction to oppression, and it says religion has been used to further oppression.

It has been popular in the West to sneer at the "opium of the people" line.

But of course Marx as a political economist was writing as the British, having won the Opium Wars, blasted China open with the 1842 Treaty of Nanking, allowing the British merchants to sell their drugs freely to the population there. A delightful feature of opiates, for the capitalist, is their addictive quality, which (as William Burroughs noted) makes these chemicals the ideal product: "Junk is the ultimate commodity; the merchandise is not sold to the consumer, the consumer is sold to the merchandise."

The profit-taking, by which free marketeers sold the Chinese into narcotic slavery, was accompanied by a missionary force whose preaching had a related effect, nicely described by Desmond Tutu: "When the missionaries came, they had the Bible, and we had the land. And they said, Let us pray, so we closed our eyes and we prayed. And when we opened our eyes, we had the Bible and they had the land."

While I consider Marx's statement over-simplistic, the statement is very informative and challenging, and certainly we should not simply dismiss it as "wrong." Marx's comparison of religion, to a dangerous and stupefying pain-killer, seems significant to me. Of course, there are acceptable medical prescriptions involving opiates. Similarly, I consider there are legitimate uses of religious sentiment.

Some Mistakes Of Moses
Robert Green Ingersoll
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/some_mistakes_of_moses.html

Preparations were accordingly made for carrying this frightful
threat into execution. Blood was put on the door-posts of all
houses inhabited by Hebrews. So that God, as he passed through that
land, might not be mistaken and destroy the first-born of the Jews.
"And it came to pass that at midnight the Lord smote all the first-
born in the land of Egypt the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on the
throne, and the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon.
And Pharaoh rose up in the night, and all his servants, and all the
Egyptians, and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a
house where there was not one dead."

What had these children done? Why should the babes in the
cradle be destroyed on account of the crime of Pharaoh? Why should
the cattle be destroyed because man had enslaved his brother? In
those days women and children and cattle were put upon an exact
equality, and all considered as the property of the men; and when
man in some way excited the wrath of God, he punished them by
destroying all their cattle, their wives, and their little ones.
Where can words he found bitter enough to describe a god who would
kill wives and babes because husbands and fathers had failed to
keep his law? Every good man, and every good woman, must hate and
despise such a deity.

Upon the death of all the first-born Pharaoh sent for Moses
and Aaron, and not only gave his consent that they might go with
the Hebrews into the wilderness, but besought them to go at once.

Is it possible that an infinite God, creator of all worlds and
sustainer of all life, said to Pharaoh, "If you do not let my
people go, I will turn all the water of your country into blood,"
and that upon the refusal of Pharaoh to release the people, God did
turn all the waters into blood? Do you believe this?

Do you believe that Pharaoh even after all the water was
turned to blood, refused to let the Hebrews go, and that thereupon
God told him he would cover his land with frogs? Do you believe
this?

Do you believe that after the land was covered with frogs
Pharaoh still refused to let the people go, and that God then said
to him, "I will cover you and all your people with lice?" Do you
believe God would make this threat?

Do you also believe that God told Pharaoh, "If you do not let
these people go, I will fill all your houses and cover your country
with flies?" Do you believe God makes such threats as this?

Of course God must have known that turning the waters into
blood, covering the country with frogs, infesting all flesh with
lice, and filling all houses with flies, would not accomplish his
object, and that all these plagues would have no effect whatever
upon he Egyptian king.

Do you believe that, failing to accomplish anything by the
flies, God told Pharaoh that if he did not let the people go he
would kill his cattle with murrain? Does such a threat sound God-
like?

Do you believe that, failing to effect anything by killing the
cattle, this same God then threatened to afflict all the people
with boils, including the magicians who had been rivaling him in
the matter of miracles; and failing to do anything by boils, that
he resorted to hail? Does this sound reasonable? The hail
experiment having accomplished nothing, do you believe that God
murdered the first-born of animals and men? Is it possible to
conceive of anything more utterly absurd, stupid, revolting, cruel
and senseless, than the miracles said to have been wrought by the
Almighty for the purpose of inducing Pharaoh to liberate the
children of Israel?

Is it not altogether more reasonable to say that the Jewish
people, being in slavery, accounted for the misfortunes and
calamities, suffered by the Egyptians, by saying that they were the
judgments of God?

When the Armada of Spain was wrecked and scattered by the
storm, the English people believed that God had interposed in their
behalf, and publicly gave thanks. When the battle of Lepanto was
won, it was believed by the Catholic world that the victory was
given in answer to prayer. So, our fore-fathers in their
Revolutionary struggle saw, or thought they saw, the hand of God,
and most firmly believed that they achieved their independence by
the interposition of the Most High.

Now, it may be that while the Hebrews were enslaved by the
Egyptians, there were plagues of locusts and flies. It may be that
there were some diseases by which many of the cattle perished. It
may be that a pestilence visited that country so that in nearly
every house there was some one dead. If so, it was but natural for
the enslaved and superstitious Jews to account for these calamities
by saying that they were punishments sent by their God. Such ideas
will be found in the history of every country.

For a long time the Jews held these opinions, and they were
handed from father to son simply by tradition. By the time a
written language had been produced, thousands of additions had been
made, and numberless details invented; so that we have not only an
account of the plagues suffered by the Egyptians, but the whole
woven into a connected story, containing the threats made by Moses
and Aaron, the miracles wrought by them, the promises of Pharaoh,
and finally the release of the Hebrews, as a result of the
marvelous things performed in their behalf by Jehovah.

In any event it is infinitely more probable that the author
was misinformed, than that the God of this universe was guilty of
these childish, heartless and infamous things. The solution of the
whole matter is this: -- Moses was mistaken.

Thanks for posting that.

...why would anyone in their right mind worship a god that practices collective punishment?

I know 'God'win's Law is about to strike me for this, but I can't help pointing out that the NAZIS also used collective punishment.

Truthfully, if the alleged god of the Old Testament existed, and as described, my conscience would never allow me to bow to such a murderous thug.

Killing off innocent babies, just because those babies' ruler (who they couldn't and didn't chose to be master over them) did something terrible, strikes me as profoundly unjust, and exactly the opposite of any supreme being I'D want to associate with.

I have Jewish friends, and I think I'll ask one of them tonight about the whole ignoring-the-bloodthirsty-madness-of-god-during-Passover thing.

I mean, I really don't want to offend you, BtA, or any Jewish DUers, but seriously? THANKING god for just killing off innocent Egyptian babes and sparing Jewish ones? That puts Jewish people in a bad light, and it's one of the most celebrated stories of the Jewish faith.

Mind-boggling, IMHO.

Again I am compelled to quote the great Robert Ingersoll, who analyzed the Pentateuch in exacting detail in his monumental "Some Mistakes of Moses".

Some Mistakes of Moses
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/some_mistakes_of_moses.html


As soon as the
flies were gone, Pharaoh again changed his mind, and concluded not
to permit the children of Israel to depart. The Lord then directed
Moses to go to Pharaoh and tell him that if he did not allow the
children of Israel to depart, he would destroy his cattle, his
horses, his camels and his sheep; that these animals would be
afflicted with a grievous disease, but that the animals belonging
to the Hebrews should not be so afflicted. Moses did as he was bid.
On the next day all the cattle of Egypt died; that is to say, all
the horses, all the asses, all the camels, all the oxen and all the
sheep; but of the animals owned by the Israelites, not one
perished. This disaster had no effect upon Pharaoh, and he still
refused to let the children of Israel go. The Lord then told Moses
and Aaron to take some ashes out of a furnace, and told Moses to
sprinkle them toward the heavens in the sight of Pharaoh; saying
that the ashes should become small dust in all the land of Egypt,
and should be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon
beast throughout all the land.

How these boils braking out with blains, upon cattle that were
already dead, should affect Pharaoh, is a little hard to
understand. It must not be forgotten that all the cattle and all
beasts had died with the murrain before the boils had broken out.

This was a most decisive victory for Moses and Aaron. The
boils were upon the magicians to that extent that they could not
stand before Moses. But it had no effect upon Pharaoh, who seems to
have been a man of great firmness. The Lord then instructed Moses
to get up early in the morning and tell Pharaoh that he would
stretch out his hand and smite his people with a pestilence, and
would, on the morrow, cause it to rain a very grievous hail. such
as had never been known in the land of Egypt. He also told Moses to
give notice, so that they might get all the cattle that were in the
fields under cover. It must be remembered that all these cattle had
recently died of the murrain, and their dead bodies had been
covered with boils and blains. This, however, had no effect, and
Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven, and the Lord sent
thunder, and hail and lightning, and fire that ran along the
ground, and the hail fell upon all the land of Egypt, and all that
were in the fields, both man and beast, were smitten, and the hail
smote every herb of the field, and broke every tree of the country
except that portion inhabited by the children of Israel; there,
there was no hail.

Some Mistakes of Moses
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/some_mistakes_of_moses.html

this is one time the little guy won. Isn't that reason enough to celebrate?

Um, no, I'm not going to celebrate that.

1. First born would also include adults.

2. According to the same source, the Egyptians were engaged in a slow motion genocide by killing all new born Hebrew males.

3. This story is either a complete folk tale or it has some basis in a historical event. Either way, it would be normal to expect people of that time to want a little vengeance. More subtle moral concerns are developed and expressed in later books of the Bible. You apparently are insisting that if G-d had anything to do with the original Passover, we must all believe that G-d had a direct hand in slaying all the first born of Egypt, that that phrasing is in no way a metaphor for actual events. So

It didn't happen, what's the fuss?

It happened, but G-d didn't kill the first born; again, no harm, no foul.

It happened exactly as written; celebrate the good (freeing the slaves) and go argue with G-d about the parts you don't get. That's what we do all the time. (What, you think we don't argue with G-d? Boy, have you been missing out!)

1. First born would also include adults.

That's supposed to make things better? :wtf:

2. According to the same source, the Egyptians were engaged in a slow motion genocide by killing all new born Hebrew males.

Well that was kind of stupid of them, wasn't it? Killing off their slaves? Why would they do such a dumb thing as to eliminate their free workforce? Even so, not every Egyptian family was taking part in this, yet every Egyptian family WAS punished by god by him murdering someone they loved. How is this reciprocal at all?

3. This story is either a complete folk tale or it has some basis in a historical event.

That much I can agree with. And since there is absolutely no historical record of the Hebrews ever having been slaves in Egypt, I think it's pretty clear which option is true.

(If) It didn't happen, what's the fuss?

Because people like you hold your god and your text up as some kind of special code that the rest of us should revere or at least respect. I'm sorry, but I can't respect a god or a code that thinks it's EVER OK to kill innocents. It leads to, well, things like the current situation in Iraq where a lot of Christian Americans don't have much problem with us killing innocents. Don't you see how that all ties together? You are excusing the capricious killing of children, and then we wonder how Republicans can sleep at night thinking about all the killing we've done in Iraq. Well, you've laid out the explanation right there. Killing children is perfectly justified for the greater good. That's the lesson of Passover, as you are framing it. And that's how many people feel about Iraq.

(If) It happened, but G-d didn't kill the first born; again, no harm, no foul.

Eh? Oh, this is your made-up story about the Egyptians having all killed their firstborn children (and grown children, and cattle) themselves, and then being woken up in the night screaming to discover what they just did. Again I point you back to the passages noting that your god "hardened Pharaoh's heart", thus necessitating this carnage in the first place - no matter who did it.

It happened exactly as written; celebrate the good (freeing the slaves) and go argue with G-d about the parts you don't get.

Sorry, not an option. My atheistic moral code can't celebrate something good that comes out of something atrocious like the murder of innocent children. I guess that's why things like the Iraq invasion upset me.

(What, you think we don't argue with G-d? Boy, have you been missing out!)

I tried once, but the guy can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag.

Many Jews and Christians would tell you that Bush is following his own self-made idol. Bush's form of Christianity is just another Golden Calf. (If you don't believe me, check out what Jeremiah has to say on the subject.)

In any case, tonight we Catholics celebrate our Passover. We too, are People of the Book, but we are also a sacramental people. You will never understand us until you understand that as well. We will celebrate with a bonfire, bless water with a candle, use oils and incense, share brad and wine. Our churches will be full of flowers and music. Tomorrow we will have dyed eggs everywhere. (Yes. I know where these customs come from. What, you expected us to leave perfectly good customs behind when we chose to follow the Christ?) You're welcome to join us tonight. Many of our fellow Christians will be having dawn services tomorrow, and they will welcome you, too. Be careful though. We're a tricky bunch and may lure you into our cult.

Broke free many years ago. I wish you had answers instead of platitudes. Hopefully you'll understand that the ease with which you dismiss the murder of innocents in the bible is the SAME ease with which Bush and his base dismiss the murder of innocents today. All part of god's plan. Same reasoning for both of you. And you both scare me.

No "Mensch" shall ever hear or read any disrespect from me. Jews have suffered enough in this world.
They don't try to convert...they tend not to be conquerers. If there has to be a religious majority in our country, I'd rather it be Judaism.

Even thought its 8 days out of the year, it's still very hard to live off no risen bread :cry:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.