-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abraham should have said, 'No.'
- Thread starter Galateasdream
- Start date
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Nobody denies that jews can be grouped through genetics. In fact it is well known. That's what you get after millenia of inbreeding. So much so that there are unique genetic deseases that only exist within jewish communities.
The claim I was referring to, is the claim that therefor Aaron and Moses are real historical figures.
They talk about Y-chromosome Aaron, sure. They also talk about Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve. But that doesn't make the biblical characters real.
Ah yes, but that Adam and Eve thing is a different beast.
It's about the last common ancestor of humans. The
haplotype is just a subtle genetic variation that can help
identify families or traits in common humanity.
I suspect that if scientists started doing DNA on Jewish
graves in Israel that they could eventually identify all
of the 12 tribes and how much admixture of each is in
modern Jews.
3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
You call it bullying. I call it being honest and loving. If I was not being honest and loving I would agree with the nonsense put forward in the OP. Sometimes it is hard to tell the truth as people do not want to hear it. I speak the truth because I care about people and love God and his Words.
Galateasdream
Active Member
I speak the truth because I care about people and love God and his Words.
It's interesting that we can share such similar motivations and arrive at such differing places, with such differing ways of expressing ourselves.
nPeace
Veteran Member
It seems to me the poster of the OP created some sort of Monopoly Game, and they hold many "Get Out Of This Argument Free" cards.I guess so if you cannot address my posts to you that prove why your OP is a sham you do not have to. All your OP proves is that you do not know God or his Word IMO, but hey you are free to believe you you wish you should know as a "christian" we all answer to God come judgement day *JOHN 12:47-48
So rather than saying, "Well that's an alternative way of looking at it, but I don't agree with it", the poster prefers to say, "You don't understand my argument, so let's agree to disagree." or "You haven't read the thread, where I addressed that." That way, they can carry on their argument, and claim that no one challenged it.
To me, that really translates to, "I don't have a counter argument for your argument, so... Bye Bye."
Galateasdream
Active Member
It seems to me the poster of the OP created some sort of Monopoly Game, and they hold many "Get Out Of This Argument Free" cards.
So rather than saying, "Well that's an alternative way of looking at it, but I don't agree with it", the poster prefers to say, "You don't understand my argument, so let's agree to disagree." or "You haven't read the thread, where I addressed that." That way, they can carry on their argument, and claim that no one challenged it.
To me, that really translates to, "I don't have a counter argument for your argument, so... Bye Bye."
I don't believe this is a fair, true or even charitable assessment.
I have posted many posts on this thread - mostly repeating the same points to people - and have agreed to disagree with most.
Just because I think, based upon your posts, that you specifically have failed to understand my case it doesn't mean I have used that as some sort of blanket excuse.
I think you are upset because you feel as though I've impugned your intelligence by saying you haven't understood me, and are now trying to attack my character by claiming I have made a wholesale assertion that no one has understood me.
I encourage you to read through this whole thread and note my patience in dealing with repeating the same points again and again to people.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I am not upset with you, so please don't get upset with me for speaking what I conclude from my observations. Is it wrong to give my opinion on the situation? I am not the only one you said did not understand your argument. This is not about me, and I have not set out to offend you. We disagree even on this, but let's agree to disagree... without getting upset.
Galateasdream
Active Member
I am not upset with you, so please don't get upset with me for speaking what I conclude from my observations. Is it wrong to give my opinion on the situation? I am not the only one you said did not understand your argument. This is not about me, and I have not set out to offend you. We disagree even on this, but let's agree to disagree... without getting upset.
I think the difference is that I spoke directly to you about you not understanding it, and then you weaponised that comment by turning it into a blanket assessment of my dealings with others and expressed it in a snarky fashion to others. That is not ok.
However, I'm willing, tired as I am of this merry-go-round, to take another stab at it.
What do you think my argument is for why Abraham should have said, 'No'?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No, it's not.
And Y-chromosome aaron refers to the last common ancestor of Kohanim / Cohen in the male lineage
Y-chromosomal Aaron - Wikipedia
That's nice.
But the claim in question was Moses etc.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You call it bullying. I call it being honest and loving. If I was not being honest and loving I would agree with the nonsense put forward in the OP. Sometimes it is hard to tell the truth as people do not want to hear it. I speak the truth because I care about people and love God and his Words.
You mean, you speak what you believe is truth.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Thank you for your willingness to reconsider (sorry if that's not a good choice of words. i can't think of the right phrase right now).
However, I only logged on for a minute, but I don't have the time right now to go into a lengthy discussion, and I don't know if I will get back into this one. I'll think about it though. So thanks.
Just in case you didn't realize though, so that you know, I am not making this up, here is another user, you said did not understand your argument.
Maybe I will see you another time. Take care.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Where the Moses things comes into it (considering Moses was a nomad and we
have little evidence for any nomad figures.) is the circumstantial evidence around
him. Now if you have evidence of people living by the Levitical laws 1200 BC and
you have evidence for the tribe of Levi (Moses' brother Aaron's line) AND you have
evidence for the other eleven tribes - it begins to look like the myth of Exodus has
a ring of truth to it.
nPeace
Veteran Member
@Galateasdream by the way, I will answer your question, as it is the perfect question. See you later.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It's not the first time I have observed such behaviour in @nPeace 's posts.
I think the problem here is that nPeace has problems with taking a step back and looking at the issue through anything but bible goggles.
It's the exact same problem I observe in threads about evolution.
They review the evidence from the perspective of YECs while assuming there is no way they are incorrect about their beliefs.
If you can't bring psychologically yourself to a position where it is remotely possible that the bible is in error somewhere, or that certain things are misunderstood, or that certain things claimed to be moral aren't really all that moral... then it becomes impossible to properly follow an argument like you laid out in the OP, or at least look at it from another perspective.
This is the problem of dogma.
If you don't allow for the possibility that you might be wrong about something, then any discussion is going to be a dead end even before it started.
Galateasdream
Active Member
Thank you for your willingness to reconsider (sorry if that's not a good choice of words. i can't think of the right phrase right now).
However, I only logged on for a minute, but I don't have the time right now to go into a lengthy discussion, and I don't know if I will get back into this one. I'll think about it though. So thanks.
Just in case you didn't realize though, so that you know, I am not making this up, here is another user, you said did not understand your argument.
Maybe I will see you another time. Take care.
Yes, I have said the same directly to another poster. Out of how many?
I don't think it fair to claim that because I don't think two out of a score of posters didn't understand me that I use it as a blanket excuse to cover up (ie lie) that others just disagree.
Do you see the difference between telling someone directly that you think they don't understand you, and someone telling someone else they think a person is deliberately acting deceptively?
You also see that even now, I'm willing to go through it again, starting with your own understanding of my argument so we can iron this out if need be.
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
There is a big difference between a dictator and God! God made his goodness known from the beginning, as the Creator. His creation was a positive act, and one that God saw as 'good' [Genesis 1:12, 21, 25] There has never been reason to describe God's work as anything less than just and right [Deuteronomy 32:4].
If seems odd to suggest that the Creator of everything should submit Himself to objective standards, when God by definition is totally objective; as the scripture says, 'all his ways are judgment'.
How can an omniscient being not be objective? It is God that sets the standard of morality, and it is God who said that murder was unacceptable, punishing Cain for murdering his brother Abel [Genesis 4:13].
Without God as the absolute standard of morality, we are left with man's relative mess! is it not better to set all judgment before the highest standard of good, and then to seek mercy?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
According to the mythology, Moses was anything but some random nomad. I'm sure you are aware of that. The whole "let my people go" and plagues and exodus and what-not and all that. These would have been incredibly impactfull events that would not have gone unnoticed by Egypt nore by neighbouring nations.
But somehow, for some reason, supposedly only the hebrews found it mentionworthy. In religious scripture, of all things.
And even if nobody, for soe inexplicable reason, found it mentionworthy, it would have also left evidence that couldn't have been covered up. Like a ginormous economic collapse in Egypt. Such an amount of slaves walking away overnight, is not nothing.
This entire story is obvious myth. It is not in evidence anywhere. And the data we do have from those periods, don't fit the narrative at all.
By that logic, Romulus and Remus were real and raised by a she-wolf.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Well if Romulus and Remus were founders of Rome, and they have certain practices
and passed on their genes with high fidelity and detailed how Rome slowly came
together out of the Etruscan society then maybe there could be a case to be had for
their existence.
But now, two writers gave us this fantastic Roman story and I am not sure I can
believe it - they said an African General drove an army with elephants over the Alps
and invaded Rome. A bit like Australians going by canoe to America and marching
up and down the country for 12 years, untouchable. It's just too far fetched when
there is no archaeological evidence.
Galateasdream
Active Member
Side points for those struggling to get my POV/argument:
Because my case is based on universally applicable points many of the story specifics can be changed as a thought experiment with no damage done to my argument.
For example, it doesn't matter if it was Abraham or anybody else; it doesn't matter what kind of prior relationship had been developed with the deity-claimant; it doesn't matter who the deity-claimant was; it doesn't matter what the surrounding historical and cultural context was; and so long as the command was to do something obviously grossly immoral (on a par or worse than ritual child murder) it doesn't matter what the specific command was.
The only key points that have to remain the same are: we are assuming from the start that some things are truly wrong; that the deity claimant commands an obviousy grossly immoral act that we would all agree is normally wrong on the face of it; and that the deity claimant offers no justifying reason for the command.
With that in mind, we can run a number of different but analagous scenarios to see where the real issues lie.
Hypothetical Analogous Scenario (trigger warning: sexual violence):
Steve has a close relationship with a deity claimant called Jesus, and has seen Jesus perform many amazing miracles and do many good deeds. Steve therefore has good warrant for accepting that Jesus is divine.
Steve lives in a somewhat barbaric society with terrible sexual ethics. Nothing that would repulse us sexually would be suprising to Steve because of his cultural environment.
One day Jesus commands Steve to rape to death a thousand children.
Should Steve say, 'Yes?'
Because my case is based on universally applicable points many of the story specifics can be changed as a thought experiment with no damage done to my argument.
For example, it doesn't matter if it was Abraham or anybody else; it doesn't matter what kind of prior relationship had been developed with the deity-claimant; it doesn't matter who the deity-claimant was; it doesn't matter what the surrounding historical and cultural context was; and so long as the command was to do something obviously grossly immoral (on a par or worse than ritual child murder) it doesn't matter what the specific command was.
The only key points that have to remain the same are: we are assuming from the start that some things are truly wrong; that the deity claimant commands an obviousy grossly immoral act that we would all agree is normally wrong on the face of it; and that the deity claimant offers no justifying reason for the command.
With that in mind, we can run a number of different but analagous scenarios to see where the real issues lie.
Hypothetical Analogous Scenario (trigger warning: sexual violence):
Steve has a close relationship with a deity claimant called Jesus, and has seen Jesus perform many amazing miracles and do many good deeds. Steve therefore has good warrant for accepting that Jesus is divine.
Steve lives in a somewhat barbaric society with terrible sexual ethics. Nothing that would repulse us sexually would be suprising to Steve because of his cultural environment.
One day Jesus commands Steve to rape to death a thousand children.
Should Steve say, 'Yes?'
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
The argument is a false analogy.
Child sacrifice was the norm in Abraham's day, obviously.
God asked him to do it - but prevented the act.
No Hebrew, as far as we know, ever sacrificed a child for the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants.
God gave us an example of unwavering faith and obedience, God gave us an example of
something He doesn't want His people to do. God gave us an analogy of what He would do
with His own Son.