Moses, the most Evil man who ever lived

[Just_me_Mike]

So pointing out logical fallacies and injustice makes me indoctrinated?

You continue to dodge any substance I posted in my threads.
Are you certain the term rape and slavery would be the same as it is used today? Have you done the work to find out, or are you just spouting to spout?

 

[fallingblood]

I'm not defending Moses; however, if one takes the Bible story at face value, as the OP did, then one must also accept that the Egyptian pharaoh was hardly better. He had all the Hebrew male infants massacred simply because it was a possibility a mighty one would arise. He was just as much at blame for the death of the Egyptian first borns as he knew that Moses was serious and just let it happen after being asked over and over again to have them spared. He forced his slaves to death. He was responsible for having a large portion of his army destroyed because he acted out of hatred and forced his troops into the middle of the Red Sea where they perished.

The Egyptians, if looked at in this perspective, are neither civilized or cultured. So the original post becomes moot unless one wants to be selective in which part of the story one wants to believe. If you're going to dismiss the part about the atrocities of the Egyptians, then you have little right to focus on just Moses.

More though, times are different. If one wants to look at the case rationally, one has to study the civilization they were in. One has to study the culture that produced such a character. One can not judge them by today's standards, and standards drastically change over time, and over cultures.

Finally, if Moses never existed, as was suggested by the OP, then why a debate at all? Why a discussion about Moses being the most evil man who ever lived if he never lived? It seems to me like a wasteful discussion. I can think of many other evil fictional people as well. Voldermort comes to mind as I just watched one of the Harry Potter movies.

 

[EtuMalku]

The Egyptians, if looked at in this perspective, are neither civilized or cultured. So the original post becomes moot unless one wants to be selective in which part of the story one wants to believe. If you're going to dismiss the part about the atrocities of the Egyptians, then you have little right to focus on just Moses.

More though, times are different. If one wants to look at the case rationally, one has to study the civilization they were in. One has to study the culture that produced such a character. One can not judge them by today's standards, and standards drastically change over time, and over cultures.

I am assuming you are talking about the Egyptians during Moses' time and not all of Egyptian history? Because predynastic Egypt was very civilized and extremely cultural.


EM

 

[fallingblood]

I am assuming you are talking about the Egyptians during Moses' time and not all of Egyptian history? Because predynastic Egypt was very civilized and extremely cultural.


EM

I'm not talking about all of Egyptian history. I'm talking about the supposed history of the time of Moses. I'm not even saying that it is true, just that if one wants to except the story of Moses, then one must accept that the Egyptian history is all marred.

 

[tarasan]

So pointing out logical fallacies and injustice makes me indoctrinated?

no attacking the poster and not the post to enforce your own belief system makes you indoctrinated view the post mike sent up above me you have tackled nothing just spewed some New athiest propaganda in our faces.

 

[EtuMalku]

I'm not talking about all of Egyptian history. I'm talking about the supposed history of the time of Moses. I'm not even saying that it is true, just that if one wants to except the story of Moses, then one must accept that the Egyptian history is all marred.

I thought that is what you meant, but wanted to be sure.

That said, the Pharaoh during Moses' time was Akhenaten. This Pharaoh was the person that first introduced the concept of Monotheism to the World. Upon His death Egypt immediately denounced the extremely unpopular religion and reinstated the older favorable Egyptian religion.

It is excepted by scholars and archaic writers alike, that Moses (Egyptian name Osarsiph) took this Monotheistic concept and expanded on it, turning it into Judaism, then Christianity and finally Islamic.


EM

 

[Father Heathen]

no attacking the poster and not the post to enforce your own belief system makes you indoctrinated view the post mike sent up above me you have tackled nothing just spewed some New athiest propaganda in our faces.

So calling out someone for attempting to excuse and justify the rape and slavery condoned and advocated in the bible = "new atheist propaganda". That's both wacky AND zany!

 

[Father Heathen]

You continue to dodge any substance I posted in my threads.
Are you certain the term rape and slavery would be the same as it is used today? Have you done the work to find out, or are you just spouting to spout?

I don't give a damn about the cultural context, "owning" another human being or forcing oneself upon them is morally wrong.

 

[tarasan]

So calling out someone for attempting to excuse and justify the rape and slavery condoned and advocated in the bible = "new atheist propaganda". That's both wacky AND zany!

he gave reasons why he thought this way, you tackled none, you merely attacked him and not the substance of his arguement, you made assumptions which he showed to be false and yet you still refused to tackle the arguement and attacked him again.

This isnt a mature way to act, and only shows you to be a fool.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I don't give a damn about the cultural context, "owning" another human being or forcing oneself upon them is morally wrong.

Whine whine whine... Need some cheese?

The fact is, you are not interested in dialog. I have made several points, and you have addressed none of them.

I'll try another way as to maybe lower the level of conversation for you. Are you aware that there would have been times in our history to where it would be much safer for women to remain in the homes more often than outside roaming freely? If a husband believed his wife could easily be stolen or harmed by going out often, is he a barbarian for wanting her to stay in, and in fact insisting upon it?

In case you are not aware there certainly were times like this. If you need examples I can help you with that too.

Point is, you are being childish by ranting about "not giving a damn about culture", in many cases culture is what kept many innocent people alive. Not sure why this little idea can't penetrate your head, but at least I tried...

 

[rusra02]

My responses are in bold color.

Dueteronomy 22:28 If a man rapes a young woman who is a virgin 29 he that lay with her must pay her father fifty shekels and marry her, and never divorce her as long as he lives (Good idea Moses)

Actually, this Law was for the good of the young woman. The Mosaic code had a provision allowing a man to divorce his wife for certain reasons. (Deuteronomy 22:13-19; 24:1; Matthew 19:7, 8) But what we read at Exodus 22:16, 17 and Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 shows that the option of divorce disappeared after premarital fornication. This, then, might cause a man (or a virgin woman) to resist a temptation to share in fornication. A man could not feel, ‘She is pretty and exciting, so I’ll have a good time with her even though she is not the sort I’d like to marry.’ Rather, this law would deter immorality by causing any would-be offender to weigh the long-term consequences of fornication—having to stay with the other party throughout his life. There are other compelling benefits from this Law if you think about it.

Leviticus 20:13 If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. :no:

This law shows clearly how God, not Moses, feels about homosexual acts. In these wicked days, people don't want to be reminded of God's laws, but they still have force today. (Romans 1:26,27)

Dueteronomy 13:15 Thou shalt forthwith kill the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, and shalt destroy it and all things that are in it, even the cattle. (even the innocent animals?)

This law dealt with false worshippers committing apostasy against Jehovah. The apostate city that allowed this false worship was utterly destroyed and never rebuilt. Thus, apostasy would not infect God's people and spread.

Duet 27:26 Cursed be he that abideth not in the words of this law, and fulfilleth them not in work: and all the people shall say: Amen.

Yes, the Law put people under a curse, thus showing the Israelites (and all mankind) that they could not by works of law be righteous. This led right-hearted Israelites to Jesus as the one who lifted this curse. (Galations 3:10-13)

Could anyone possibly be any worse then this Moses?

Moses was a faithful servant of Jehovah, one who faithfully transmitted the Law of God to the Jews. Actually God's Law greatly benefited the nation of Israel and is far superior to any man-made laws. Christians are no longer under the so-called Mosaic Law, but we can continue to learn and benefit from the righteous principles upon which this divinely supplied Law are based.

 

[Twig pentagram]

My responses are in bold color.

The color is'nt the only thing bold about your responses.

 

[fallingblood]

I thought that is what you meant, but wanted to be sure.

That said, the Pharaoh during Moses' time was Akhenaten. This Pharaoh was the person that first introduced the concept of Monotheism to the World. Upon His death Egypt immediately denounced the extremely unpopular religion and reinstated the older favorable Egyptian religion.

It is excepted by scholars and archaic writers alike, that Moses (Egyptian name Osarsiph) took this Monotheistic concept and expanded on it, turning it into Judaism, then Christianity and finally Islamic.


EM

Do you have some sources for that? As far as I have seen, Moses never existed. I would be interested in reading more.

 

[fallingblood]

I think a lot of people are missing a very important point. In order to understand what Moses was fully (supposedly) saying, one has to put the ideas into a historical context.

Deuteronomy 22:28 makes very logical sense if put into a historical context. To put it simply, women were not seen in very high regards. They were treated, in many cases, like property. Once raped, no man would marry her. She was seen as tarnished. Her only real option would be to become a prostitute, and live in poverty.

They were living in a very different time and culture. By having the rapist marry the woman, it insured that she would be taken care of. It insured that she would have a husband who would provide for her, so she would not have to become a prostitute or the like.

No where does Moses condone rape. He is simply reacting to the culture that was present at that time, and trying to make something good out of a horrible act.

If taken out of a historical context, yes, it is ridiculous. But the fact is we live in a very different culture. Women are not considered property anymore, and premarital sex is not frowned upon as much.

 

[EtuMalku]

Do you have some sources for that? As far as I have seen, Moses never existed. I would be interested in reading more.

fallingblood,
I have looked and looked (I have an extensive library of 50 years), I have spoken with scholars and Egyptologists that I am in contact with and you know what?

YOU are correct, there is absolutely NO historical evidence that Moses is anything more than a mythic figure. :foot:

Thank you for providing the inertia that led me to research this further :bow:


EM

 

[Father Heathen]

he gave reasons why he thought this way, you tackled none, you merely attacked him and not the substance of his arguement, you made assumptions which he showed to be false and yet you still refused to tackle the arguement and attacked him again.

This isnt a mature way to act, and only shows you to be a fool.

He was grasping for straws in futile desperation to justify the savage barbarity of those who authored the bible. There is no rational reasoning behind it, nor is there any substance in being an apologist for rape and slavery.

 

[Father Heathen]

Whine whine whine... Need some cheese?

The fact is, you are not interested in dialog. I have made several points, and you have addressed none of them.

I'll try another way as to maybe lower the level of conversation for you. Are you aware that there would have been times in our history to where it would be much safer for women to remain in the homes more often than outside roaming freely? If a husband believed his wife could easily be stolen or harmed by going out often, is he a barbarian for wanting her to stay in, and in fact insisting upon it?

In case you are not aware there certainly were times like this. If you need examples I can help you with that too.

Point is, you are being childish by ranting about "not giving a damn about culture", in many cases culture is what kept many innocent people alive. Not sure why this little idea can't penetrate your head, but at least I tried...

Okay, give me a plausible and detailed scenario where rape benefits the victim. Giving you a chance here to redeem yourself.

 

[tarasan]

He was grasping for straws in futile desperation to justify the savage barbarity of those who authored the bible. There is no rational reasoning behind it, nor is there any substance in being an apologist for rape and slavery.

to be honest with all i see is someone dodging the material of the post and just attacking the man I calls it how i sees it.