The Exodus. How real was it?

[Pete]

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

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totally agree. He help me go from liberal Christian to Agnostic too. I just got to the point where I thought arguing semantics over a 2-3 thousand year old dodgy highly edited set of scripts was ridiculous. In the end I just thought "I just don't care". However I believe that if there is a God then the bible is no proof of that.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

42 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

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

 

 

 

Yes.  RabbiO gave us excellent advice.  I have come to embrace it with a whole heart.

 

Another good bit of wisdom, though I don't know the source.

 

"Never try to teach a pig to sing.  The attempt is doomed to fail -- and it annoys the pig."

 

Well, the horse is dead.  The stink is deep and the flies are busy.  It's time to let go and walk away.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

7 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!

 

My point was that there will never be efficient evidence for an Agnostic to believe else wise, which is why they are not flexible. And if there ever were that kind of evidence, belief becomes a moot point, because you don't need to believe what's known. Your correct, fundamentalism will never change, it can't, so I am inflexible too. "I don't know" is practically the definition of indecisiveness, its the inability to make a decision based on the absence of facts. While I understand the need to know the certainty of something prior to embracing it, the biblical God wants us to accept his Word by faith. You first hope its true, then believe its true, and finally have faith its true. There's no absolutes, because obedience to God is not based on what's known, but what's accepted. Adam and Eve knew not to touch the forbidden tree, but they did it anyway. Do you know why? Faith trumps knowledge.

 

 

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

 

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.

 

 

The "nature" of my belief is simply the bible. We know God through his Word, so in that since, God is knowable..I know what Agnosticism is, but there's no riding the fence, when a person says that they'll only accept what's known and proven to their satisfaction, they have technically made a decision and are not flexible. Christians are called by faith, so a person without faith is stagnant without that trust. When a person "does not care", they are spiritually dormant because no one can make them care. Sorry if that makes me sound inconsiderate, but there's no empathy for apathy. And of course I believe my belief is right, that's why I hang onto it. Connecting with God is a spiritual endeavor, not the result of scientific confirmation that He exist. Do you believe murder and theft are okay? Neither does God, so perhaps what you think isn't so far apart from the God you dismiss?

 

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

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

 

Likely so,  there can no agreement between believers and nonbelievers, there is no convincing either, but my interest is really in biblical discussions, and this thread on Exodus just seem to fit the bill.. Perhaps not? But you must admit, the forum is pretty boring without any religious or moral debate.

[Pete]

  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 minutes ago, Pete said:

Totally agree. He help me go from liberal Christian to Agnostic too. I just got to the point where I thought arguing semantics over a 2-3 thousand year old dodgy highly edited set of scripts was ridiculous. In the end I just thought "I just don't care". However I believe that if there is a God then the bible is no proof of that.

 

 

If you still want God in your life, there are options that have nothing to do with Scripture.  Or Religion.

 

Deism:  The God of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote our Constitution --  and Thomas Paine, author of "The Age of Reason".   Deism posits a God behind Creation -- who started everything up -- and stopped.  No revelation.  No involvement.  No Scripture.  No response to prayer.  We are on our own.

 

Pantheism:  The God of Spinoza and Einstein.  The God of Nature.  The God of the Universe.  God is everything and everything is God.  God without Anthropomorphism.  Without primitive mythology.  The Universe is sacred.

Taoism:  The wisdom of Lao Tzu, expressed as poetry.  A set of contemplations on the nature of reality.  "The Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao."

 

Jediism:  Warmed over Taoism, for the modern age.  It's amazing how much the movies got wrong.  Still, the idea of The Force, has a lot of appeal for people.

 

All of this overlooks the obvious.  The God of your truth.  Search your heart.  What do you believe?  What do you really believe?  Not my belief system and not Dan's.  Your beliefs.  Your true beliefs.  No need to put it into words.  It's your beliefs.  Not anybody else's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

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

 

 

If you still want God in your life, there are options that have nothing to do with Scripture.  Or Religion.

 

Deism:  The God of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote our Constitution --  and Thomas Paine, author of "The Age of Reason".   Deism posits a God behind Creation -- who started everything up -- and stopped.  No revelation.  No involvement.  No Scripture.  No response to prayer.  We are on our own.

 

Pantheism:  The God of Spinoza and Einstein.  The God of Nature.  The God of the Universe.  God is everything and everything is God.  God without Anthropomorphism.  Without primitive mythology.  The Universe is sacred.

Taoism:  The wisdom of Lao Tzu, expressed as poetry.  A set of contemplations on the nature of reality.  "The Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao."

 

Jediism:  Warmed over Taoism, for the modern age.  It's amazing how much the movies got wrong.  Still, the idea of The Force, has a lot of appeal for people.

 

All of this overlooks the obvious.  The God of your truth.  Search your heart.  What do you believe?  What do you really believe?  Not my belief system and not Dan's.  Your beliefs.  Your true beliefs.  No need to put it into words.  It's your beliefs.  Not anybody else's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In thorough self examination and knowledge I have come to a point where right is easily decided and acted upon...which of course means it's time to reexamine it all😁

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

22 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

My point was that there will never be efficient evidence for an Agnostic to believe else wise, which is why they are not flexible. And if there ever were that kind of evidence, belief becomes a moot point, because you don't need to believe what's known. Your correct, fundamentalism will never change, it can't, so I am inflexible too. "I don't know" is practically the definition of indecisiveness, its the inability to make a decision based on the absence of facts. While I understand the need to know the certainty of something prior to embracing it, the biblical God wants us to accept his Word by faith. You first hope its true, then believe its true, and finally have faith its true. There's no absolutes, because obedience to God is not based on what's known, but what's accepted. Adam and Eve knew not to touch the forbidden tree, but they did it anyway. Do you know why? Faith trumps knowledge.

 

 

 

The "nature" of my belief is simply the bible. We know God through his Word, so in that since, God is knowable..I know what Agnosticism is, but there's no riding the fence, when a person says that they'll only accept what's known and proven to their satisfaction, they have technically made a decision and are not flexible. Christians are called by faith, so a person without faith is stagnant without that trust. When a person "does not care", they are spiritually dormant because no one can make them care. Sorry if that makes me sound inconsiderate, but there's no empathy for apathy. And of course I believe my belief is right, that's why I hang onto it. Connecting with God is a spiritual endeavor, not the result of scientific confirmation that He exist. Do you believe murder and theft are okay? Neither does God, so perhaps what you think isn't so far apart from the God you dismiss?

 

 

Likely so,  there can no agreement between believers and nonbelievers, there is no convincing either, but my interest is really in biblical discussions, and this thread on Exodus just seem to fit the bill.. Perhaps not? But you must admit, the forum is pretty boring without any religious or moral debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

In thorough self examination and knowledge I have come to a point where right is easily decided and acted upon...which of course means it's time to reexamine it all😁

 

 

Yes.     

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

27 minutes ago, Pete said:

  

 

 

Yes.  I know.  It hurts, doesn't it?            Really.  I think it's time to let go.          It's Dan.          For all your good intentions, reality does not need defending.        In the end, reality prevails.     

 

Let it go.

 

 

 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Yes.  I know.  It hurts, doesn't it?            Really.  I think it's time to let go.          It's Dan.          For all your good intentions, reality does not need defending.        In the end, reality prevails.     

 

Let it go.

 

 

 

What is, I can relate too. Beyond that I use the word "if" a lot. I just do not see beyond that or see any real evidence. Dan has his beliefs but I cannot share it or want too. We are at opposite ends of the universe. 

Edited June 16, 2019 by Pete

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

What is, I can relate too. Beyond that I use the word "if" a lot. I just do not see beyond that or see any real evidence. Dan has his beliefs but I cannot share it or want too. We are at opposite ends of the universe. 

 

That's cool... I once felt the same way as you do, so I completely understand that what floats my boat doesn't ring true for others. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

A blogger -- with much to say about the true and false in Bible history.  Mostly false.  Here is a hint.  The Exodus never happened.  Or a lot of other things.

 

 

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2019/08/20/episode-12-none-of-this-really-happened/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Imagine+No+Religion&utm_content=44

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

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

A blogger -- with much to say about the true and false in Bible history.  Mostly false.  Here is a hint.  The Exodus never happened.  Or a lot of other things.

 

 

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2019/08/20/episode-12-none-of-this-really-happened/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Imagine+No+Religion&utm_content=44

 

 

 

Interesting. Plausible, as well.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Key said:

Interesting. Plausible, as well.

 

 

It brings out my Agnostic impulses.  What objective, verifiable facts or information, do we have about God?  None.  None at all.  God could still exist -- but there is no reason to believe, based on this material. 

 

 

 

 

 

In fairness, I hasten to add -- IMO     

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

On 8/26/2019 at 2:32 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

It brings out my Agnostic impulses.  What objective, verifiable facts or information, do we have about God?  None.  None at all.  God could still exist -- but there is no reason to believe, based on this material. 

 

 

 

 

 

In fairness, I hasten to add -- IMO     

 

 

 

As I am well familiar by all this time here. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Key said:

As I am well familiar by all this time here. 

 

 

Thank you.  It's nice to know that my attempts at fairness are understood.  The thing is -- when I'm expressing my deep opinion -- I have to remember that not everybody agrees with me.  I'm not always fair -- but I try.