quote:

---

You can either believe in the God of the Bible or you can go to Hell. If you don't like the nature of God, that's fine, you're still going to Hell. That's how I see it.

---

The bible makes alot of claims. Some metaphysical that have to be taken on faith, some archealogical and some factual that can be tested. The Egypt business that you posted has no evidence in archeology and in fact there is much evidence that the isrealites were a long way away at that time. The point is that its hard to believe in something that makes such claims that are demonstrably false.

No evidence does not mean demonstrably false.

Repeating it over and over in different threads doesn't make true.

In regards to the OP, the concept of fairness and good or bad, is only valid in human to human interactions, as has been stated in various ways in previous postings. You should be in search of one thing, and that is truth.

And truth is a funny thing, if we take the worldview of the typical scientist-humanist. How many times have we heard the following:

"I know it must be true, because it is the only solution that is BEAUTIFUL."

The truth does not care about your concept of beauty, even if it is beauty within mathematics. Even the human concept of a beautiful mathematical solution is subjective. You may say that 0 (simplicity) is a beautiful mathematical solution, but what if I think that complication is beautiful. God does not care what your concept of truth is. He, if he is all-knowing and all-powerful, created truth. The fact that you do not understand what his methods, his truth, are, is irrelevant.

So simply the fact that you feel that pain is unfair is not his concern. So your feeling that he is a gangster does not change the truth. Why can atheists/humanists/scientists not understand that truth is not truth because it is beautiful. Even in science, you cannot discount results because they didn't fit your concept of beauty. Relativity didn't simplify the world, it complicated it. It isn't a beautiful solution...yet scientists want to try and marry quantum and relativity, so that there is a "grand" (beautiful) united theory. One theory to expalin them all. The motivating factor is all screwed up.

[This message has been edited by derek22 (edited 4/5/2012 10:51a).]

Science relies on verifiable facts in a controlled environment. Show me how science can verifiably show that it is the only answer, or can answer all things...

I know this is beat to death, but honestly, why is it impossible for scientists to accept the limitations of science as a tool and not a universal truth?

@ShootBoyDang, are you an archaeologist or something? I'm not and I've never been east of London so I don't have any first-hand knowledge. I do have a couple of other things though...the internet, and the Bible. I have found several sites that suggest evidence does exist suggesting the existence of Moses/Jews in Egypt...not sure how credible they are...but then again, I'm not sure how credible the ones are that suggest otherwise either.

Here is an example of one of the sites:
http://www.levitt.com/essays/joseph

I also have the Bible. I believe Jesus actually existed (the secular historian Josephus wrote a lot about him and there are several more people who wrote about him and you can find their books in the Bible) and I believe he is who he says he was. I therefore believe the entire Bible to be true. Therefore, I believe the accounts of the Jews in Genesis through the Chronicles (and probably further, not quite sure how far that history goes in the Bible) to be true.

[This message has been edited by vm_boy (edited 4/5/2012 10:07a).]

quote:

---

Science relies on verifiable facts in a controlled environment. Show me how science can verifiably show that it is the only answer, or can answer all things...

I know this is beat to death, but honestly, why is it impossible for scientists to accept the limitations of science as a tool and not a universal truth?

---

scientists constantly admit there are things they don't know. Your entire premise is false.

quote:

---

I do have a couple of other things though...the internet, and the Bible

---

I have those too, and the internet can't seem to find anything outside of the bible that supports Isrialites being in egypt before they were exciled in 587 BC.

Diehard, you ignored the part of my post where I said there was evidence they were somewhere else entirely. Ignoring things over and over doesn't make them untrue.


[This message has been edited by ShootBoyDang (edited 4/5/2012 11:08a).]

VM boy, that article is hardly scholarly, and makes claims that are not backed up with archeology.

If you think Josephus had "a lot" to say about Jesus, you clearly haven't read Josephus (ignoring for the moment that everything he said on the subject is in question and very few think the entire section is reliable).

quote:

---

the internet can't seem to find anything outside of the bible that supports Isrialites being in egypt before they were exciled in 587 BC.

---

Perhaps you should read the essay at the link I posted earlier. It does exactly that.

diehard,

quote:

---

First paragraph: moral equivalence cannot exist, as it requires us to agree on what moral is. This is a long debate that never gets anywhere. You have an arbitrary (or societal based) morality and I have a deity-based morality.

---

I think we can probably both agree that the actions of a gangster are wrong, by pretty much any non-psychotic conception of morality, be it religious or secular. If I have demonstrated that the actions of the gangster are wrong, and you agree that God acts in the same manner, then God is equally wrong. If one can demonstrate how they are fundamentally (operationally?) different, I’m all ears.

If one cannot, one must face the many problems of divine command theory and Euthyphro’s dilemma, which I have not read a convincing defense of yet. Maybe we can discuss that in another thread.

quote:

---

Second paragraph: my point was merely that these hypothetical gymnastics distract from your strongest case as an atheist. There's no reason for even entertaining this line of proof for your beliefs. Also, I did not mean that you are moving the goalposts...but that this argument leads to this because we don't agree on the field dimensions.

---

Thanks for the clarification. Again, my point with this hypothetical is not to say that God doesn’t exist. It’s certainly possible that he does. If anything, it’s an attempt to show how God cannot be considered a moral being, whether or not he is real.

How is my premise false? I know that science consistently admits that it can not know everything (it's unfortunate, by the way, that many do not understand that). That wasn't the premise, but rather justification for it. My premise was the statement that Christians cannot view their worldview from a different perpective is inaccurate. It is actually atheists which have trouble with perspective. Though science is clearly limited, which most are capable of admitting, they refuse to accept the fact that something which they cannot verify could provide what is missing. That is closed-minded, which is what the quote above claims of Christians. Seems hypocritical to me.

Why must everything be verifiable? I understand, as an engineer, that in order for me to design a piece of equipment, I must use the laws of science, as I am human and my mind works in a logical manner. That doesn't limit me from understanding that the tool I employ, science, is limited and does not necessarily govern all of the metaphysical truths which are at play in the universe and in my life. This seems easy for me to understand, but it is true that I was a believer before I came to understand this, so I am somewhat biased. That doesn't make it less valid.

Edit for Typo

[This message has been edited by derek22 (edited 4/5/2012 12:01p).]

quote:

---

...science, is limited and does not necessarily govern all of the metaphysical truths which are at play in the universe and in my life.

---

What metaphysical truths?

quote:

---

Which leads me back to one of the most fascinating things about Christians. It's a religion based on faith which means it should not be possible to prove it however Christians seem determined to invent ways to prove it.

---

Which reminds me of one of the funniest things about scientists. It is a religion based on finding the truth through verifiable facts, yet despite the understanding that it cannot provide all of the answers much less prove, verifiably, that it could, many scientists seem intent on proving everything using it.

See how that works? Why not try talking to the religious rather than mocking them?

[This message has been edited by derek22 (edited 4/5/2012 12:08p).]

If I used the term universal truth, would that make it easier? The bible makes some claims to the metaphysical, which Christians claim to be true...as well as explanatory of the universal truths that fuel these discussions.

Two different terms, but okay, what does universal truth mean?

quote:

---

Perhaps you should read the essay at the link I posted earlier. It does exactly that.

---

Perhaps you should as it does not do that.

What does it matter macarthur? Do you have some objection to my post? I substituted the words so that you would understand my point, though I really did not need to. So what is your real question?

Is asking me the definition of universal truth going to prove your point?

Not too stray too far from the subject of the OP, but to answer your question...

Something which is factual and absolute, but again, does not make or break my point?

Quotes from the essay:

quote:

---

It is important to understand that the Biblical chronology does not put the Exodus at 1300 BC, but rather some 150 years before that, around 1450 BC. What a difference a couple of hundred years make! At that time period, there is evidence of a massive Semitic occupation of Goshen. Until recently, though, Egyptologists have claimed that this could not be the Hebrew occupation described in the Scriptures, because it is too early. They ascribe this occupation to other type Semites, such as the Hittites. However, there is a small but very vocal group of Egyptologists, led by British scholar David Rohl (author of Pharaohs and Kings), that is vehemently challenging the conventional chronology. They assert that there are numerous fallacies in the assumptions of the accepted chronology, and they have established a new chronology based on what they believe are more sound Egyptian archaeological grounds. Having done this, these secular scientists were astonished to discover that the new chronology supports the Biblical chronology, and the once mute Egyptian evidence is alive with testimony to the validity of Biblical history.

---

And then it provides some of that evidence:

quote:

---

The Historicity of Joseph
One case in point is the historicity of Joseph. By looking for Hebrew occupation in the several hundred years before 1450 BC (instead of around 1300 BC), there is much evidence. There are large peasant-type cities in Goshen, with a Semitic culture obviously different from that of their Egyptian hosts. There are also some mass graves with numerous bodies, very unusual in Egypt, indicating some kind of plague that struck the land, as indicated in the Book of Exodus. In the upper Nile River, where the water flows between high cliffs, there are markings by the Pharaohs of the high levels of the river. There are several years in a row in this early time frame, when the level was marked as extremely high. This would cause excessive flooding along the Nile, making it impossible to plant crops until it was too late for the growing season, ruining the harvest. The new breed of Egyptologists thinks that the seven bad years in Egypt in Joseph’s time were caused by this type of flooding action, rather than by a lengthy drought.

There is other evidence of Joseph in Egypt during this time period. An artificial lake was made in ancient times called Lake Moeris. It was formed by a canal running off the Nile River called to this day the Canal of Joseph. Beside the lake, which still exists (although smaller in size), there are ruins of a massive building, which contained a labyrinth, and was considered one of the greatest structures of its time by the Greek historian/traveler, Herodotus. The building had twelve sections (reminiscent of the twelve tribes), and might well have been an administrative headquarters for Joseph’s agricultural program. The Pharaoh of the time was obviously very proud of the lake and the massive building, because he built his own pyramid at the site for his burial. Nothing like this complex exists anywhere else in the vast ruins of ancient Egypt. Again, the new Egyptologists suggest that this complex is stunning evidence for a remarkable foreign assistant to Pharaoh, and occurs in the correct time frame for Joseph.

---

And more:

quote:

---

The Possible Palace, Tomb and Statue of Joseph
One last stunning piece of evidence for Joseph exists, and that brings us back to his burial in Goshen, and his bones that were removed by Moses at the time of the Exodus. In this same area in Goshen, where a large contingent of Semites lived, a great palace has been discovered, with a garden and a tomb, curious in its combination of Egyptian and Semitic styles. Rohl and his colleagues believe the palace is that of Joseph, perhaps his retirement villa after many years of service to Pharaoh. It has two apartments in front, suggesting the living quarters of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. In the rear are the more spacious living quarters of the prime occupants, perhaps Joseph and his Egyptian wife.

Adjacent to the ruins of the palace, there is an elegant garden area, and in the garden was an unusual tomb. The tomb was in the shape of a small pyramid, but it is clear that the vault was broken into and the remains removed. However, the damage to the tomb was not like that done by the all too common grave robbers of Egypt. It appears to be a careful and methodical removal of bricks from the tomb, as one would expect where the bones of Joseph were carefully removed from his long-used grave by Moses. Could it be that we have here the very tomb of the great patriarch Joseph? The evidence certainly takes it out of the realm of mythology, even for the hardened scientist, and into the realm of accurate history.

But there is more. In the tomb complex, there are ruins of an ancient statue, also unusual in its design and subject matter. It has been violently smashed almost beyond recognition, but enough of it has been found to piece together a possible identification. The statue is of a man who had obvious stature in the Egyptian power structure, with the symbol of Pharaoh’s authority, the throw-stick, on his chest. Yet he also has an unusual Semitic hairdo, with flaming red hair, and wears a coat with variegated colors. The statue has been deliberately smashed and defaced, with an obvious attempt to destroy the head and face. It is as though the remaining Egyptians were so angry with the Semitic inhabitants that, when the Semites left, the Egyptians tried to destroy any trace of their occupation.

One could well imagine this to be the reaction of the Egyptians after suffering the plagues and the Red Sea destruction at the hand of the Hebrews and their mighty God. The similarities between this ruined statue with the Biblical account of Joseph are so striking, that Rohl has an artist’s conception of what this statue might have looked like on the front cover of his book.

The new Egyptologists are persuaded that they have not only corrected some of the most glaring errors in understanding the history of ancient Egypt, but that they have constructed a marvelous bridge between the histories of Egypt and Israel that demand further study and appreciation. Not least in this consideration is the possibility that the artifacts of the unique person of Joseph have been discovered in the stone ruins of Egyptian archaeology.

---

What part of any of those quotes is evidence from the Bible? Granted, it doesn't necessarily explain the Exodus, but it does explain that Jews were in Egypy in 1450 BC. It also suggests that the some of the original theories from archaeology are incorrect.

quote:

---

I think we can probably both agree that the actions of a gangster are wrong, by pretty much any non-psychotic conception of morality, be it religious or secular. If I have demonstrated that the actions of the gangster are wrong, and you agree that God acts in the same manner, then God is equally wrong. If one can demonstrate how they are fundamentally (operationally?) different, I’m all ears.

---

How again, have you demonstrated that this is wrong? In addition, your question need not be answered, because God does not relate with humans as humans relate with humans, just as a child is not free to punish or discipline another child as thier parents are. God, THE FATHER, is parenting his children.

The issue is that there are deep problems with the analogy. It is not a proper analogy.

quote:

---

What part of any of those quotes is evidence from the Bible? Granted, it doesn't necessarily explain the Exodus, but it does explain that Jews were in Egypy in 1450 BC. It also suggests that the some of the original theories from archaeology are incorrect.

---

None of what this preacher claims is accepted. Can you point to an arcaologist or egyptologist that actually thinks what this preacher claims?

From your excerpts:

quote:

---

What a difference a couple of hundred years make! At that time period, there is evidence of a massive Semitic occupation of Goshen

---

Link?
Even if this is true, it gives no credence that the isrealites were enslaved in egypt? and that there was a mass exodus. You have all of your work still in front of you. I would like to study this evidence. If you don't mind can you provide a link to it?

quote:

---

There are also some mass graves with numerous bodies, very unusual in Egypt, indicating some kind of plague that struck the land, as indicated in the Book of Exodus

---

Some kind of plague? Is that the same as the 7 plagues? Not the same.

The rest of it goes on the same way, making suggestions and with no evidence.

Here is what the Internet says about Zola Levitt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FZola_Levitt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Zola_Levitt

So a fundamental religious nut preacher writes an article with nothing to back it up and you post it here as evidence. you have your work cut out for yourself.

http://youtu.be/qnrJVTSYLr8

Well the essay references the book by David Rohl. So here is the reference-full wikipedia version of that, The New Chronology. We can read to our hearts content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Rohl)

Not that I'm backing down from a fight, but I think we've had our fun on this side discussion, so let's leave it at that and we can get back to the main topic, which is God as a Gangsta. If you feel like offering one last shot, have at it, but I'm gonna move on.

quote:

---

Diehard, you ignored the part of my post where I said there was evidence they were somewhere else entirely. Ignoring things over and over doesn't make them untrue.

---

You can apply what I said to this part too.

To answer this directly, evidence that they were elsewhere doesn't mean they weren't in the place we think they were either.

This also is not demonstrably false. You can say there's no evidence. You can say its not likely...but you can't say its false.

quote:

---

I think we can probably both agree that the actions of a gangster are wrong, by pretty much any non-psychotic conception of morality, be it religious or secular. If I have demonstrated that the actions of the gangster are wrong, and you agree that God acts in the same manner, then God is equally wrong. If one can demonstrate how they are fundamentally (operationally?) different, I’m all ears.

---

But we can't agree on this without all the facts. Take killing someone. Sure, on a base level, we can agree that's wrong. But what if we find out that's done during war (on the battlefield), or in defense of yourself or someone else...then is it wrong? And what about things like abortion or assisted suicide where its completely plausible for people to disagree on the morality of it?

Without knowing the reasons for God bringing hitler into the world, how can you declare it immoral?

"What is hell, then? It is God actively giving us up to what we have freely chosen-to go our own way, be our own "the master of our fate, the captain of our soul," to get away from him and his control. It is God banishing us to regions we have desperately tried to get into all our lives. J.I.Packer writes: "Scripture sees hell as self-chosen . . . [H]ell appears as God's gesture of respect for human choice. All receive what they actually chose, either to be with God forever, worshipping him, or without God forever, worshipping themselves." (J.I.Packer, Concise Theology p.262-263.) If the thing you most want is to worship God in the beauty of his holiness, then that is what you will get (Ps 96:9-13.) If the thing you most want is to be your own master, then the holiness of God will become an agony, and the presence of God a terror you will flee forever (Rev 6:16; cf. Is 6:1-6.)

Why is this so extremely important to stress in our preaching and teaching today? The idea of hell is implausible to people because they see it as unfair that infinite punishment would be meted out for comparably minor, finite false steps (like not embracing Christianity.) Also, almost no one knows anyone (including themselves) that seem to be bad enough to merit hell. But the Biblical teaching on hell answers both of these objections. First, it tells us that people only get in the afterlife what they have most wanted-either to have God as Savior and Master or to be their own Saviors and Masters. Secondly, it tells us that hell is a natural consequence. Even in this world it is clear that self-centeredness rather than God-centeredness makes you miserable and blind. The more self-centered, self-absorbed, self-pitying, and self-justifying people are, the more breakdowns occur, relationally, psychologically, and even physically. They also go deeper into denial about the source of their problems.

On the other hand, a soul that has decided to center its life on God and his glory moves toward increasing joy and wholeness. We can see both of these 'trajectories' even in this life. But if, as the Bible teaches, our souls will go on forever, then just imagine where these two kinds of souls will be in a billion years. Hell is simply one's freely chosen path going on forever. We wanted to get away from God, and God, in his infinite justice, sends us where we wanted to go." - Tim Keller

"We must come to grips with the fact that Jesus said more about hell than Daniel, Isaiah, Paul, John, Peter put together. Before we dismiss this, we have to realize we are saying to Jesus, the pre-eminent teacher of love and grace in history, "I am less barbaric than you, Jesus--I am more compassionate and wiser than you." Surely that should give us pause! Indeed, upon reflection, it is because of the doctrine of judgment and hell that Jesus' proclamations of grace and love are so astounding." - Tim Keller

diehard,

quote:

---

How again, have you demonstrated that this is wrong?

---

Forcing someone to give you something (“love,” money, tribute) at the risk of grave of bodily harm (stabbing, shooting, eternity in hell) is morally wrong. This is instantiated in any plausible moral system. Do you or anyone else doubt this? I can’t imagine a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Scientologist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Pagan, consequentialist, virtue theorist, rights-based theorist, or anyone else objecting to this.

quote:

---

In addition, your question need not be answered, because God does not relate with humans as humans relate with humans, just as a child is not free to punish or discipline another child as thier parents are. God, THE FATHER, is parenting his children.

---

I think any intellectually honest person would think that it does need to be answered. Are parents not morally culpable when they cause grave bodily harm to their offspring? I’m sure you would agree that they certainly are.

quote:

---

The issue is that there are deep problems with the analogy. It is not a proper analogy.

---

I think it is the proper analogy, and certainly not the parental analogy that you cite, as I’ve shown that it is not the same in regards to degree of harm involved.

As I mentioned previously, I think the theist’s best argument at this point is just to admit that yes, God is acting like a gangster, but he is justified in doing so because he is God.

on my cell, so please excuse my being short. I think morality is subjective, and to this end, I can only truly say that I know wrong from right based on the ten commandment and other scriptural references, such as the parables. But given that divine guidance, I think we can both agree on some moral issues. I do not agree that you are capable of knowing proper punishment as you are not the Judge. I also dont agree that your analogy is enlightening, as God tohuman /= human to human

Another problem with the analogy...God is not holding a gun to our head. You are attempting to veil a poor understanding by name calling...in this case you portray God as a gangster. It really is a poor analogy.

I don't think it's a proper analogy. You are assuming in both situations that you have done no wrong to the one harming you (or potentially harming you).

For the gangster situation, it is right to assume you have done nothing wrong to him and therefore his attack on you is unjustified.

However, with God, you are not innocent. You have sinned, just as it says in Romans 3:23. The punishment for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). Therefore, God is justified to punish you with Hell. However, God loves us and demonstrated that to us by sending his son, Jesus, to pay that price for us. (Romans 5:8).

***A more proper analogy for God is the sheriff who is supposed to hang you for being a gangster, but rather than hanging you, he puts his son in the noose instead so that he can have you over for dinner and treat you as his son instead. If you decide you'd rather die than have the son fill in for you...well then, you're gonna die.***

[This message has been edited by vm_boy (edited 4/5/2012 6:42p).]

quote:

---

in this case you portray God as a gangster. It really is a poor analogy.

---

Should make it easy to refute. Glad to see you offer nothing. Classic lemming christian. You have no idea why you are right. You just believe you are.

It has blown my mind how demonstrably stupid christians are.

I thought NA was a unique form of stupid. Apparently not.

quote:

---

. I have found several sites that suggest evidence does exist suggesting the existence of Moses/Jews in Egypt...not sure how credible they are...but then again, I'm not sure how credible the ones are that suggest otherwise either.

---

The exodus didn't happen. Archaeologist have looked and found nothing. And there isn't just a lack of evidence where evidence would be expected. The biblical tale contains anachronisms-the jews visit cities that don't exist yet and flee to a place inside the Egyptian empire. Of course the egyptian empire didn't extend that far and those cities actually did exist at a later point in time when the bible was actually written.

[This message has been edited by Aggrad08 (edited 4/5/2012 7:28p).]

Sigh.

Unless you're making the case that they've excavated the entire desert, then you cannot say that they've proven it false by not finding anything.

you know, its perfectly acceptable to say that you don't believe because you want to see evidence of it first. But its a leap of faith to claim that it is false or disproven. Its also intellectually dishonest to deny us our leap of faith while taking yours.

Edit: as far as the towns go, I don't see that as a deal breaker as they could have been named to give the audience context.

[This message has been edited by diehard03 (edited 4/5/2012 8:57p).]