The prevailing scholarly view is that both Exodus and Genesis were written between the 6th and 5th Centuries, during a time of profound crisis during which the Hebrews were marked for cultural annihilation by one of the cruelest and most ruthless civilizations in human history. The notion that the priests who wrote down the stories knowingly recorded conflicting conceptions of their own divinity is absurd.

I'll stick with the scholarly view. You believe whatever you like.

I think you mean lysergide, lysergine is, unless I am mistaken, a different chemical altogether. — Janus

Hey I’m trying to be discrete. :yikes:

and I think the idea of an invisible being is rationally indefensible. — Janus

As do I. But the rhetorical point I was making is that this is how ‘God’ is often depicted by atheism.

Sorry about that. :wink: You do realize that by saying you were trying to be discrete you have made yourself more conspicuous?

*discreet

:razz:

I guess. Hey I'm a grand-dad now, don't want to corrupt the youth.

Ah yes, well spotted.

I'll stick with the scholarly view. — frank

The information I provided is from scholarly sources. Even if the dates are accurate this does not resolve the issue in question. When the stories were compiled does not tell us when, where, and by whom the stories were first told.

The notion that the priests who wrote down the stories knowingly recorded conflicting conceptions of their own divinity is absurd. — frank

Not at all. You seem to have missed the point. "Their own divinity" was the result of the joining of beliefs and practices of different groups. The twelve tribes of Israel, the families of the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel, did not settle together in one place as one united group. The theme of the reuniting of the tribes is a familiar one in the Hebrew Bible. The uniting of the peoples of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel required the stories of each group be represented. This is why we see the two stories of the Flood with their different details woven together. This is laid out clearly by Richard Friedman (a well regarded Biblical scholar) in "Who Wrote the Bible".

You can, of course, believe whatever you want. I am going to leave it there.

Ah yes, well spotted. — Wayfarer

I know. I’m an ass.

I guess. Hey I'm a grand-dad now, don't want to corrupt the youth. — Wayfarer

You seem like you have a lot of wisdom to impart. You must be a cool grandpa! :cool:

Ah, right...

When the stories were compiled does not tell us when, where, and by whom the stories were first told. — Fooloso4

We'll never know what the content of oral traditions was, so it's irrelevant to the question of whether Genesis and Exodus depict the same divinity.

Not at all. You seem to have missed the point. "Their own divinity" was the result of the joining of beliefs and practices of different groups. The twelve tribes of Israel, the families of the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel, did not settle together in one place as one united group. The theme of the reuniting of the tribes is a familiar one in the Hebrew Bible. The uniting of the peoples of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel required the stories of each group be represented. This is why we see the two stories of the Flood with their different details woven together. This is laid out clearly by Richard Friedman (a well regarded Biblical scholar) in "Who Wrote the Bible". — Fooloso4

So you changed from maintaining that Genesis and Exodus depict different divinities to holding that the Israelite tribes had different divinities.

What's this about unification? Don't you know what happened to Israel and Judah in the 6th and 5th Centuries?

I love Nerd Wars.

So, putting it another way let's say that when it comes to believing 'x', the alternative is to believe 'not-x'. There is no third alternative when it comes to believing. — Janus

I agree no third option, but "I believe 'not-x'" is a little specific (it doesn't seem to include 'a lack of belief in x'...or does it? For me, and this may be a bit of our problem, 'I believe 'not-x' requires knowledge of 'x' where as a lack of belief in 'x' automatically exists in absence of knowledge).

But there is an alternative to believing either 'x' or 'not-x' and that is to believe neither 'x' nor 'not-x'. If this sounds like you are still believing something, it is a false impression brought about by the way it is expressed 'I believe neither 'x' nor 'not-x'', but you are not believing anything. It is like saying 'I ate neither cheese nor fruit'; you are not eating anything that is cheese or fruit, nor necessarily anything else either. — Janus

I do not think what I wrote above refutes this. However, if I cherry pick a line out of context, it shows the semantic problem I am having:

but you are not believing anything. — Janus

Exactly. So the answer to do you believe 'x' can be simplified to 'no'...??? How could I believe 'x' if I do not believe anything?

I think this just shows we are both understanding the same words in SLIGHTLY different (but meaningful) ways. I count a lack of belief as 'not believing', where as you view 'not believing' as requiring intent...I think?

The example concerning Trump colluding I gave earlier explains this clearly, I think. I don't have any belief either way as to whether Trump colluded, because I don't have sufficient evidence to hold a belief either way. I hope that clears it up for you. — Janus

This helps (I think). Does this mean you think the question "Is there a god" is an empirical question with a definite answer? My understanding of history along with some understanding of the definitions of gods in varying religions means that I have to ask several clarifying questions before I can even begin to answer that question. The question itself is nonsense without A LOT of explanation as to what one means when they use the word 'god'.

Your Donald Trump example HAS an answer, so withholding judgement makes sense. Until meanings are clarified, "is there a god" does NOT have an answer...so withholding judgement is meaningless. If I ask, "do you think Avengers is better than Die Hard" then you can reasonably answer, "I am planning to see those movies next week, then I will let you know." However, if you have no intention of seeing the movies then "I don't know" doesn't really work as the question asks about your thoughts or beliefs not knowledge (yes I am being very nitpicky on grammar here). So the semantically accurate (although possibly incomplete) answer has to be "no, I don't think Avengers is better." (notice said person would also be able to answer a related question with "No, I do not think avengers is worse either.")

It is a matter of felling, not of propositional ideas — Janus

Assuming 'felling' above means "feeling" then I entirely agree. And know that I suck at poetry as much as I do religion. I keep trying to make sense of the words when I guess I am just supposed to feel their meaning, ugh.

And thanks for attempting to clarify your reasoning. It seems our disagreement just boils down to a few very nuanced differences in our FEELINGS (?haha) about certain words. It is actually rather interesting, of course it is also a little frustrating :smile:

When you say, “I don’t know,” you are avoiding belief. Right? — Noah Te Stroete

Nope. I answer "I don't know" to knowledge questions. I answer "I don't think so" or "I don't believe so" to thought/opinion questions (to be fair, in a normal conversation 'think' and 'know' are interchangeable. But we are talking about belief in a philosophical setting and we get the added buffer of typing our responses so I can be extra careful about EXACTLY what I mean.)

All I can say is that one can experience things that do not seem natural. Interpretation of these experiences (such as thinking that people were drugging me) do not rise to the requirements of knowledge, but one can feel wonder or awe or Oneness while withholding judgment as to what the cause is. — Noah Te Stroete

This seems fair. But it also takes discussion/debate off the table. All we can do is wait for me to have an experience of wonder or awe that leads me to feel the "Oneness".

Thank you for your consideration. — Noah Te Stroete

So polite :grin: I will try to emulate the behavior, but I often get caught up in the argument and forget there is another human involved.

So polite :grin: I will try to emulate the behavior, but I often get caught up in the argument and forget there is another human involved. — ZhouBoTong

:grin:

Nope. I answer "I don't know" to knowledge questions. I answer "I don't think so" or "I don't believe so" to thought/opinion questions (to be fair, in a normal conversation 'think' and 'know' are interchangeable. But we are talking about belief in a philosophical setting and we get the added buffer of typing our responses so I can be extra careful about EXACTLY what I mean.) — ZhouBoTong

How is that different than what I said?

Sorry. I don’t believe that I was thinking about the right thread. You’re right about being precise about language.

Hi, as someone who has been studying Christianity for over a year or two (was an atheist philosopher who had recently converted). Before I respond, I would like to recommend all the skeptics to examine the biblical narrative through it ANE background and the New Testament's Second Temple Jewish background, as well as some recent findings from the New Perspective of Paul which drastically alter many traditional medieval conceptions, interpretations and hermeneutics of the bible (like those from the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches that interpret scripture in light of either the reformation, the great schism and the byzantinization of the early church). I mean what's the point of criticizing something if you don't have a proper framework through which to interpret such things? As those who are serious in understanding the bible accurately through modern scholarship, I'd recommend essentially almost all of the works by Dr. Michael Heiser, although some Messianic Jewish scholarship have a first century understanding of the scriptures, such as understanding the meanings behind certain practices, idioms, and the general narrative of scripture.

As to why doesn't the biblical God lead by example? It is not at all obvious that God directly causes many of the events that are many times attributed to him as scripture does use anthropomorphic (and ancient jewish interpretation) language when describing God and his actions since he is "other wordly". Although I have my personal interpretations which sometimes seems to attribute direct causation to God when in reality he was indirectly responsible, such as Psalms 7:12-16 describing this quality, and also what soteriological interpretation one takes such as whether one is a calvinist, arminian, open theist, compatibalist, a traditionalist/provisionalism, or molinist, I'll bite the bullet and assume for the sake of argument that God did directly cause the flood and killed many people. For starters, God didn't capriciously flood the world in a random fit of anger, most people seem to ignore the context which was Genesis 6:1-4 (which correlates with the book of enoch and the epic of gilgamish, but through a different perspective with the watchers, the sons of God or the Anunnaki that gave mankind technology, and corrupted them through missing with their genetics, which was the second fall of mankind, the fall from the event of Mount Hermon, which the other two are the one in the Garden of Eden and the one in the Tower of Babel) and Genesis 6:5, as well as the universal moral code that God commands to all people (which aren't the 613 laws he gave to Israel through their covenant), which he judged Cain by and gave to Noah, which Paul also discusses this moral law that all creation will be judged by (in a retributive sense) which was the "light" given to them, and that those not given enough revelation will be judged by what light they have been given by the universal creator, and perish due to their ignorance through a works based salvation system which only brings condemnation (which goes to a different debate, but for the sake of argument, just focusing on this point about the moral law or the natural rights/laws of man [which western law and civilization essentially rests on]).

Because mankind was becoming corrupted and committing sins, God in order to save mankind, as well as being morally consistent with his own nature (which William Lane Craig does a fantastic job on dispelling the old euthyphro "dilemma" HERE) and utilizing a justified ritributivist's means in order to achieve a greater consequentialist end, he had judged righteously those who were destroying mankind, much like a doctor kills a cancerous cell in order to preserve a human life, which in this case is all of humanity being saved by God. And in your post, you equivocate killing with the command of Exodus 20:13 which is not condemning killing, but murder (taking a life justifiably isn't murder, God takes life as long as it is consistent with his nature, as though he was The Good personified dealing with free willed agents). And lastly he does lead by example, when you take the flood or the destruction of the Canaanites, along with his self sacrifice in the cross, the greatest conceivable being who is entitled to be self righteous and destroy anything imperfect, decides to empty himself and be mocked and ridiculed by self righteous indignant and ignorant individuals in order that mankind might be reconciled with him, which you wont find God reconciling and humbling himself with any other beings of creation in the bible, nor do you see this great humility and ultimate sacrifice, or a god paying the ultimate price/an impossible debt in any other religion or conception of God outside of Christ.

First, you're saying the same thing I am only with a different conclusion. That is, we perceive God according to our human perspectives but we interpret according to our expectations of our ideals. It doesn't answer the question of what the right perspective is and why.

Secondly, you haven't shown God to be absolute in power and wisdom, why?

Thirdly, why do people keep saying that God has saved humanity. In what way is the salvation manifest? Because, even after the flood, sin is still a part of humanity.

Lastly, William Lane Craig isn't applying logic to his "Euthyphro Dilemma" because he has premises with no foundation which he gives his own subjective interpretations of. For, example, from that link you've given, he says that,

(6) Therefore God’s nature is good neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of goodness.

which is analogous to a previous statement,

So, the theist tries to split the horns of the dilemma by saying that God is necessarily good, and that the source and standard of the Good is God’s very nature.

and

(5) So, by (1), (3) & (4), it follows that God has the same moral character in every possible world.

So, my question is this,

God is good. And that goodness is by His nature. And He always acts in accordance with that nature. Therefore, when He sets down laws one assumes they must be directed towards that goodness. Why then would He not obey such laws? If God's standard of goodness is His own nature, by not abiding by them, He is showing that, either His laws aren't divine or He just overestimated himself beyond His true capabilities.

Now, supposing those laws are for humans to follow but not God, how are we supposed to learn the value of those laws or of the goodness in them when God doesn't seem too concerned to abide by them?

My point is, it seems we (humans) value humanity more than God does.

My point is, it seems we (humans) value humanity more than God does. — BrianW

Yes, this point of us out-thinking 'God' surfaces again and again, and all the blah, blah, blah from religious scholars can't overcome it. The contradictions bear the hallmark of a 'God' made up.

Further to my response of 8 days ago, Fooloso4's response of the same day, and the responses of many other contributors.

As the questioner's concern was mainly whether the god of the Hebrews and Christians had set a good enough example or not, I am trying to highlight what I think is, in God's mind, supposed to be the essence of the issue for present day Christian believers.

Fundamentalism doesn't do any religion favours.

Autonomous responsibility-takers have got to grow personally and use diligence in deducing issues.

If you attempt to join a church and they are anything like the following:

- dumbing down in their own terms
- no genuine channels (only pretend ones)
- don't pray
- don't keep each other company (but hold barbecues, and overload the table with chocolate brownies)
- brownie point hunting in a show of good deeds
- serious subjects of conversation can't be raised
- passivity
- excessive deference to authority - which latter makes great show of acting casual
- lack of individuality

then don't touch them, and incidentally their deceptiveness is the same as characters in the Bible anecdotes about deceptive people.

To abuse credulity and credence, is an offence in thoughtful people's eyes and that is why we should deduce it is an offence in any worthwhile god's eyes.

The Bible stories show up the character of the men and women in the stories.

We have got to critique the quality of the "tradition" (handed-down meaning) that goes attached to the stories - as we all know this is often trashy and that is why we have got to research something better.