The Exodus. How real was it?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I saw a snake in the grass the other day.  It could not seem to stop wriggling and absolutely could not move straight, but always in zigs and zags.  It was in it's nature I suppose.

 

 

This is good.  You understand the snake's limitations.  It doesn't move in a straight line; because it can't move in a straight line.  Did you give it a friendly wave?

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

This is good.  You understand the snake's limitations.  It doesn't move in a straight line; because it can't move in a straight line.  Did you give it a friendly wave?

 

 

 

I tend to avoid snakes when possible.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

31 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I tend to avoid snakes when possible.

 

 

I'm not suggesting that you go looking for snakes.  Still, even chance encounters might as well be friendly.  At least, neutral.

 

I've met some skunks over the years.  They are placid creatures.  They went peacefully about their business and I did nothing to alarm them.  It worked out.

 

 

[Dan56]

22 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

There is no arguing with someone who takes a book for 100% accurate. Arguing implies arguments used in argumentations, not the statement of something someone beloieves to be 100% accurate. That is a monologue... 

 

All true... It would be like arguing over a Rules of the Road Drivers License Manual. Nothing to argue about because its accepted as factual and true. So when I accept the bible as 100% true, any argument against it is automatically deemed false. But consider that those who oppose everything it says, are as closed-minded as I am. None of us no anything to be certain, but we're all absolutely positive that we're right.

 

18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

If a man has a stiff and rigid mind, due to a condition such as religious belief,  we make allowances.  We do not expect him to think like a man of mental agility and dexterity.  He simply can't.  There is no point in being mean about it.  He has limitations. 

 

That being said, we can still be friendly and wave.  Like this.       If the religious man -- who is shocked and appalled by us -- also responds by waving  (  ) we at least have a friendly space.

 

It comes to perspective.  From Dan's vantage point, we are faithless and Godless.  If he can live with us -- then we can live with him.   

 

 

I'm not appalled by anyone, just semi-fascinated by the one dimensional close-mindedness of those who are so opposed to something that they automatically reject an absolute fact, just because it comes from a book they despise. That's why none of you could even acknowledge that Jews occupy Israel today. Your too proud to admit that the 4000 year old promise to Abraham was realized. Talk about a stiff & rigid mindset.. 

 

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I tend to avoid snakes when possible.

 

I've always been consistent and move in a very straight but narrow line. I don't think your avoiding snakes anymore more than Eve avoided the Serpent.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

All true... It would be like arguing over a Rules of the Road Drivers License Manual. Nothing to argue about because its accepted as factual and true. So when I accept the bible as 100% true, any argument against it is automatically deemed false. But consider that those who oppose everything it says, are as closed-minded as I am. None of us no anything to be certain, but we're all absolutely positive that we're right.

 

 

I'm not appalled by anyone, just semi-fascinated by the one dimensional close-mindedness of those who are so opposed to something that they automatically reject an absolute fact, just because it comes from a book they despise. That's why none of you could even acknowledge that Jews occupy Israel today. Your too proud to admit that the 4000 year old promise to Abraham was realized. Talk about a stiff & rigid mindset.. 

 

 

I've always been consistent and move in a very straight but narrow line. I don't think your avoiding snakes anymore more than Eve avoided the Serpent.

 

 

A one dimensional anything is only a single point.  It is the two dimensional mind that lacks depth.  That must be what you intended.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

On 6/8/2019 at 4:07 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

A one dimensional anything is only a single point. 

 

That was my point, a single solitary point of view. What can be seen and heard is all there is. Judging everything from only what can be physically observed. The material world is all that can be known. It doesn't mean a one dimensional mind isn't intelligent, but that its inflexible and isn't open to anything but the obvious. Whereby, God cannot exist on a different plane because there is no spiritual realm. There can be nothing that science can't explain, stable anti-matter does not exist in our universe,  a parallel universe is science fiction, etc. 

 

A two dimensional mind has more imagination and considers unproven possibilities, its open to creative thinking, of which one dimensional thinking cannot accept. A single minded person doesn't wonder about anything.. If it can't be perceived,  if it can't be understood, if it can't be proven, then it can't be known, and what can't be known cannot possibly exist. 

 

But there's more to life, a belief is the hope of something more, something that's not physically perceivable. Maybe its an emotional aspiration that's missing in the singular black & white mindset,  which seems void of purpose or curiosity, and prevents a person from considering anything new or beyond what they can comprehend. 

 

If someone gave you something for nothing, I doubt you could understand the logic behind it. That's because there is no logic behind it, it wouldn't make sense because you couldn't perceive of it. That's what Christ did, and that's what speaks to people more than physical evidence, its an emotional demonstration of divine love, and it doesn't exist in our physical universe. Sorry if all this crap sound preachy

 

Many moons aloft, a semi-wise man posted this non-biblical parable which illustrates my point:

 

A wise woman who was traveling in the mountains found a precious stone in a stream.

The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, and the wise woman opened her bag to share her food.

The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him.

She did so without hesitation. The traveler left rejoicing in his good fortune.

He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime.

But, a few days later, he came back to return the stone to the wise woman.

I’ve been thinking, he said. I know how valuable this stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me

something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me this stone.

– Unknown

 

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by Dan56

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

That was my point, a single solitary point of view. What can be seen and heard is all there is. Judging everything from only what can be physically observed. The material world is all that can be known. It doesn't mean a one dimensional mind isn't intelligent, but that its inflexible and isn't open to anything but the obvious.

 

1.  Whereby, God cannot exist on a different plane because there is no spiritual realm. There can be nothing that science can't explain, stable anti-matter does not exist in our universe, 

 

1.1  a parallel universe is science fiction, etc. 

 

A two dimensional mind has more imagination and considers unproven possibilities, its open to creative thinking, of which one dimensional thinking cannot accept. A single minded person doesn't wonder about anything.. I

 

2.  If it can't be perceived,  if it can't be understood, if it can't be proven, then it can't be known, and what can't be known cannot possibly exist. 

 

But there's more to life, a belief is the hope of something more, something that's not physically perceivable. Maybe its an emotional aspiration that's missing in the singular black & white mindset,  which seems void of purpose or curiosity, and prevents a person from considering anything new or beyond what they can comprehend. 

 

If someone gave you something for nothing, I doubt you could understand the logic behind it. That's because there is no logic behind it, it wouldn't make sense because you couldn't perceive of it. That's what Christ did, and that's what speaks to people more than physical evidence, its an emotional demonstration of divine love, and it doesn't exist in our physical universe. Sorry if all this crap sound preachy

 

Many moons aloft, a semi-wise man posted this non-biblical parable which illustrates my point:

 

A wise woman who was traveling in the mountains found a precious stone in a stream.

The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, and the wise woman opened her bag to share her food.

The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him.

She did so without hesitation. The traveler left rejoicing in his good fortune.

He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime.

But, a few days later, he came back to return the stone to the wise woman.

I’ve been thinking, he said. I know how valuable this stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me

something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me this stone.

– Unknown

 

 

 

 

I was determined to respond to you, only with the friendly wave.  I will now, briefly, break my own rules.

1.  Whereby, God cannot exist on a different plane because there is no spiritual realm.

 

According to every Christian Apologetic that I have seen, God -- the unbounded, limitless -- has to be in all planes.  It goes with being omnipresent.

 

1.1  a parallel universe is science fiction,

 

I really like the idea of the multiverse.  It has great appeal for me.  Until we have much better evidence for the multiverse -- than we currently have -- yes.  It's fiction.  Just because I like the idea, does not make it true.

2.  f it can't be perceived,  if it can't be understood, if it can't be proven, then it can't be known, and what can't be known cannot possibly exist. 

 

You still don't understand my position, regarding God.  Alright.  One more time.  Maybe this time, it will penetrate.

 

God could exist.

• I think God's existence is unlikely.
• I think God's existence is implausible.
• I think the evidence for God's existence is lacking.
• I think that God's existence -- until proven -- is unimportant.
• But yes.  God could exist.

You also seem to think, that God beliefs are the only beliefs that matter.  You seem to think that my attitude towards God, makes me a hard core materialist.  In fact -- you say I have a one dimensional mind.  That I lack imagination.  You are mistaken.  I have my own beliefs that I can not prove.  I would rather not go into detail here.  I practice Reiki and Qi Gong.  I am comfortable with realities, that you know nothing about.  Unproven, but real to me.

 

I said more than I intended.  As you were.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mark 45]

On 6/8/2019 at 3:27 AM, Dan56 said:

That's why none of you could even acknowledge that Jews occupy Israel today.

actually,they may be israelits,they may be palestinen,or any other number of other back grounds.they may not all be jews living there.

[Dan56]

33 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

But yes.  God could exist.

I said more than I intended.

 

That's enough.... Sometimes we accidentally reveal more than we intended. Under that crisp exterior, your just a big softy. Congratulations, your making progress, I'm quite certain that you'll be professing Christ in no time. 

 

4 minutes ago, mark 45 said:

actually,they may be israelits,they may be palestinen,or any other number of other back grounds.they may not all be jews living there.

 

True, but Judaism rules, the Israeli flag flies, the Prime Minister is Jewish...Besides the West Bank and Gaza, Israel is the reclaimed promised land. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

16 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

That's enough.... Sometimes we accidentally reveal more than we intended. Under that crisp exterior, your just a big softy. Congratulations, your making progress, I'm quite certain that you'll be professing Christ in no time. 

 

 

True, but Judaism rules, the Israeli flag flies, the Prime Minister is Jewish...Besides the West Bank and Gaza, Israel is the reclaimed promised land. 

 

 

Don't hold your breath.  If I did revert to my earlier God beliefs -- it would be the Jewish version.  It is a huge leap, to go from Judaism to Christianity.  You are making a lot of invisible assumptions.

 

For the rest -- try to understand this one point.  There is a difference between -- I don't believe in God -- and "I believe there is no God".  I know you can't tell the difference.  There is a difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

That's enough.... Sometimes we accidentally reveal more than we intended. Under that crisp exterior, your just a big softy. Congratulations, your making progress, I'm quite certain that you'll be professing Christ in no time. 

 

 

True, but Judaism rules, the Israeli flag flies, the Prime Minister is Jewish...Besides the West Bank and Gaza, Israel is the reclaimed promised land. 

 

A slightly deeper response:

 

Over the years, I have changed my understanding and gone off in different directions.  None of it has been linear.  There were periods in my life when I was devoutly, religiously, Jewish.  I have also gone to Jewish Atheism.  (There is no God and we are his people.)  Jewish humor.  What do you call a Jewish Atheist?  Jewish.  I don't expect you to get it.  Different labels at different times.  Pantheist -- Agnostic -- Atheist -- Apatheist.  Some people on this board, might remember my Pantheist days.

 

I have never been Christian.  Please.  Not even in jest.  If I were to revert to my earlier God belief -- it would be the Jewish God.  There is a gigantic leap between Judaism and Christianity.  This is a leap that I'm never going to make.  Or I could possibly revert to Pantheism.  That is also unlikely at this point.

 

The general drift of my personal development, these days, is Apatheism.  It just doesn't matter.  Even if God could be demonstrated to exist -- it still wouldn't matter.  A God that neither helps nor hinders is irrelevant.  At least -- to me.  At minimum, I am done with arguing metaphysics.  Life is too short.

 

Enjoy the day.  In your particular case -- Enjoy the Dei.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Over the years, I have changed my understanding and gone off in different directions.  None of it has been linear. 

 

I have never been Christian.  Please.  Not even in jest.

 

The general drift of my personal development, these days, is Apatheism.  It just doesn't matter.  Even if God could be demonstrated to exist -- it still wouldn't matter. 

 

 

Oh no, one step forward and two steps back... Your slipping into your empiricist ways again 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

53 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Oh no, one step forward and two steps back... Your slipping into your empiricist ways again 

 

 

And finally getting it right.  It's long past time to give up childish things.

 

 

 

[Pete]

It is pointless accusing an agnostic of inflexibility because it's very nature is flexibility in the face of evidence. Unlike fundamentalism which says a thing is despite the evidence to the contri or lack of evidence. Agnosticism is flexible.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

19 minutes ago, Pete said:

It is pointless accusing an agnostic of inflexibility because it's very nature is flexibility in the face of evidence. Unlike fundamentalism which says a thing is despite the evidence to the contri or lack of evidence. Agnosticism is flexible.

 

 

You're arguing -- about flexibility -- and Agnosticism -- with Dan.     

 

Which part do you think is going to work?  Reason?  Facts?  Reality?  Against Dan's all consuming faith?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

It is pointless accusing an agnostic of inflexibility because it's very nature is flexibility in the face of evidence. Unlike fundamentalism which says a thing is despite the evidence to the contri or lack of evidence. Agnosticism is flexible.

 

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You're arguing -- about flexibility -- and Agnosticism -- with Dan.     

 

Which part do you think is going to work?  Reason?  Facts?  Reality?  Against Dan's all consuming faith?

 

 

Agnosticism is indecisiveness, because there is no objective evidence, its also inflexible. "Show me and I'll believe" is not a flexible position. Agnostics don't know anything so they can't commit to anything.  That's living in a constant state of  ❔❓.. How can you be flexible when you can't decide whether something is true or not. To me its a state of confusion. its like asking a woman to marry you and she has no answer.  I suppose if Christ came and smacked an Agnostic between the eyes with a 2x4, then they would change their mind and make a decision. So in that regard, they are flexible. But accepting God is all about faith, so when an Agnostic rejects faith, they are inflexible. 

 

Granted, faith is not flexible, you believe without evidence.. Atheism is not flexible either, they don't believe no matter the evidence. jmo

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

Agnosticism is indecisiveness, because there is no objective evidence, its also inflexible. "Show me and I'll believe" is not a flexible position. Agnostics don't know anything so they can't commit to anything.  That's living in a constant state of  ❔❓.. How can you be flexible when you can't decide whether something is true or not. To me its a state of confusion. its like asking a woman to marry you and she has no answer.  I suppose if Christ came and smacked an Agnostic between the eyes with a 2x4, then they would change their mind and make a decision. So in that regard, they are flexible. But accepting God is all about faith, so when an Agnostic rejects faith, they are inflexible. 

 

Granted, faith is not flexible, you believe without evidence.. Atheism is not flexible either, they don't believe no matter the evidence. jmo

 

 

     

 

 

Pete:  There is no arguing with faith.          Certainly, not with Dan's faith.          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

I know Dan will stick to his rigid position. Agnosticism is ready to change given evidence to believe else wise. Fundamentalism will never change. Agnosticism is not indecisive, it is being open to facts and not just going with some whimsical unprovable belief system.  

However, Jonathan I do not expect an open talk with Dan. All he believes is believe his view or your wrong. How credible is that for open honest debate. Frustrating!

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

I know Dan will stick to his rigid position. Agnosticism is ready to change given evidence to believe else wise. Fundamentalism will never change. Agnosticism is not indecisive, it is being open to facts and not just going with some whimsical unprovable belief system.  

However, Jonathan I do not expect an open talk with Dan. All he believes is believe his view or your wrong. How credible is that for open honest debate. Frustrating!

 

The basic point of contention with Dan, is not the nature of our non-belief.  It is the meaning of different words.  Since Dan only cares about the nature of his belief -- and he is tone deaf to the nuance of words -- further discussion is pointless.  I know.  I've tried.

 

Agnosticism is beyond Dan's understanding.  The idea that God's existence is not knowable -- that nothing about God is knowable or known -- is beyond Dan.  There is no point in arguing.  The idea is beyond his ability.  No matter what we say, he will be convinced, that we can't make a simple decision.  It isn't worth arguing about.  Certainly, not with Dan.     

 

Atheism is beyond Dan's understanding.  He can not grasp the simple idea -- that we do not believe, because there is no reason to believe.  At least, no good evidenced based reason.  Dan will always insist that we hate God --or Jesus -- or religion -- or the Bible -- or something.  Another distinction that is beyond Dan's ability is -- I don't believe in God and  I believe there is no God.  Trust me.  I've tried.        You know Dan's beliefs.  So far as Dan is concerned, if we don't believe as he believes -- then we are wrong and nothing else matters.  Not the details of how we are wrong and not the nuances.

 

That covers not knowing and not believing.  I have since gone on to not caring, which is Apatheism.  That is, I don't care whether or not God exists.  Even the question is a waste of time.  A God which neither helps, nor hinders, is irrelevant, and does not matter.  Dan actually helped me get there.  I doubt that  this is what he intended, but he was an influence.  I thought that this was an idiot proof term.  I was mistaken.  Dan found ways.  Still, I rather like Apatheism as a label.  It removes all that stupid arguing based on metaphysics.  A true waste of time and effort.

 

You do have Dan's number.  He cares only about his beliefs, which of course are right.  He engages us, only to explain how right he is -- and how wrong we are.  Yes.  This is frustrating for us.  Also pointless and silly.  That is why I have stopped arguing with Dan.      It is both pointless and futile.  I can't be bothered.  Life is too short.

 

Still, I don't like being rude.  So I give Dan a friendly wave.        From the side of reason, across the huge gap, to the side of faith.

 

It's time to let go -- and stop.  It's time to disengage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

RabbiO's advice was wise, indeed...though i come to accept it belatedly.