Sign in to follow this  
Jonathan H. B. Lobl

The Exodus. How real was it?

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

For the sake of clarity -- could you give an example of metaphysics being helpful?  More helpful than the social sciences?  

 

In fairness, I could be overlooking something obvious.  I'm still not seeing it.

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

The examples already given cover that; it's the social sciences in action (on metaphysical questions).... it's the overlap that makes it interesting...

Share this post


Link to post

In social science I think there are links between religion and qualitive evidence based based around an assertion and the benefits of the assertion.  Much of psychotherapy is also based around qualitative working. The problem it has is when one looks at quauntative science and having to prove the assertion and its benefits that religion falls flat where psychology rises. 

Mainly because beyond the assertion of a religion there is no credible evidence except the assertion. Any way that's how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Pete said:

In social science I think there are links between religion and qualitive evidence based based around an assertion and the benefits of the assertion.  Much of psychotherapy is also based around qualitative working. The problem it has is when one looks at quauntative science and having to prove the assertion and its benefits that religion falls flat where psychology rises. 

Mainly because beyond the assertion of a religion there is no credible evidence except the assertion. Any way that's how I see it.

 

 

I think the real question here, is invisible assumption.  Religious, philosophic or cultural.  Do our lives matter to us, because life has value unto itself?  Or because we are an image of God?  Invisible assumptions.  Is this, our current life, important to us, because it is the only life we can be certain of?  Or is this life nothing but pre-after-life existence?  What is more important?  Life?  Or After-Life?  Is life the same thing as Pre-Death?

 

I think that metaphysics comes out of those invisible assumptions.  Which is one reason to start with basic questions.

 

What do I believe?  Not, what I should believe, or want to believe.  What do I really believe?

 

Why do I believe that?  Do I have a good reason for that belief?  Am I motivated by fear?  Am I motivated by cultural pressure?  By a desire to fit in and belong?  Have I been intimidated?  Or do I really believe that?

 

Before we ask questions about -- How many angles can dance on the head of a pin -- we should ask if we believe in angles.  

 

Share this post


Link to post

The question is a strange one for me. Should I believe in something that has no tangible evidence or not. Given the possible things that could be believed that have no tangible evidence.  Differing religions,  UFOs, and the many conspiracy theories.  Why believe this one. I need much more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Pete said:

The question is a strange one for me. Should I believe in something that has no tangible evidence or not. Given the possible things that could be believed that have no tangible evidence.  Differing religions,  UFOs, and the many conspiracy theories.  Why believe this one. I need much more.

 

 

 

Basic reasoning applies to all these issues.  1.  There is the proven.  2.  There is the possible but not proven.  3.  There are high and low probabilities.  4.  There is the impossible.  5.  In addition, There are values.  Does it matter?

 

Obviously, I'm putting my own bias on display.  I won't pretend neutrality.  Truth is important.  When I have a bias, I'm upfront about it.  Pretending objectivity, does not serve Truth.

 

Something basic.  Does God exist?  God's existence is not proven.  God's existence is possible.  God's existence is not likely.  God's existence is not impossible.  God's existence is not important -- to me.

 

We can do the same with theses other questions.  I choose -- Is Earth being visited by alien spacecraft?  I assume this is what you mean by UFO.

 

Are such visits possible?  Yes.  Are such visits proven?  No.  Are such visits likely?  A split answer.  The bulk of such reports are very unlikely.  Earth would be getting more traffic than Grand Central Station.  Individual reports?  Still unlikely -- but less so.  Are such craft impossible?  No.  Does it matter?  Yes -- to me.

 

Regardless of the issue, if we follow the same rules for evidence and reason -- we come up with a responsible answer.

 

:whist:

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post

Yes! Values are important. The values change with each others assessment.  That said anothers values I may respect but not agree with.  I said it before that in my life and in my work as a Nurse I have witnessed a gut full of pain. This leads me to the conclusions if god exists he does not care in this life and the gods lack of interventions suggests to me the god if god does exist is helpless or just does not care. God is not good.

I am sure others will disagree but that is where values come in, yet values are not evidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yes! Values are important. The values change with each others assessment.  That said anothers values I may respect but not agree with.  I said it before that in my life and in my work as a Nurse I have witnessed a gut full of pain. This leads me to the conclusions if god exists he does not care in this life and the gods lack of interventions suggests to me the god if god does exist is helpless or just does not care. God is not good.

I am sure others will disagree but that is where values come in, yet values are not evidence. 

 

 

In my understanding, a god which neither helps, nor hinders, is irrelevant.  It changes the basic question.

 

The opening question is -- Does God exist?  From this, we go to a flat statement.  It doesn't matter whether or not God exists.  Even the question of God's existence, is meaningless.

 

It's a three part transition.  I don't know. I don't believe and I don't care.

 

 

:whist:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

A side issue.  At the 8 min. 45 sec. point -- the speaker specifies the lineage of Abraham, Issac and Jacob as being the line for God's people.  He does this based on Exodus.  Islam, of course, traces back through Ishmael.   A video, supposedly based on objective history should not be so blatantly culturally biased.

 

Taking the story at face value, as though it were history, there is a problem.  Ishmael was the older son.  In that culture, the older son always inherited.  That gives some weight to Ishmael's descendants.  By the rules of that culture -- of course, the older son inherited the Covenant.

 

:whist:

 

 

 

 

Quote

First half is informative... Evidence of the split rock (Numbers 20:11)  Split Rock at Horeb

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post

I remember a writing excercise in high school.  We picked out something in the room and made up a story about it.  Fiction based on real objects isn't proof of anything beyond a writing about something.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

I remember a writing excercise in high school.  We picked out something in the room and made up a story about it.  Fiction based on real objects isn't proof of anything beyond a writing about something.

 

 

I live in New York City.  Years ago, when they came out with the Beneath the Planet of the Apes movie -- I was fascinated to watch Taylor -- played by Charlton Heston -- find his way into the NYC subway system and emerge in Grand Central station.

 

Of course, the starting point of this journey, was the Statue of Liberty.

 

Did any of this constitute history?  Past or future?  No.  It did not.  These landmarks existed first.  Then, they made the movie.

 

:whist:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/1/2019 at 11:55 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

A side issue.  At the 8 min. 45 sec. point -- the speaker specifies the lineage of Abraham, Issac and Jacob as being the line for God's people.  He does this based on Exodus.  Islam, of course, traces back through Ishmael.   A video, supposedly based on objective history should not be so blatantly culturally biased.

 

Taking the story at face value, as though it were history, there is a problem.  Ishmael was the older son.  In that culture, the older son always inherited.  That gives some weight to Ishmael's descendants.  By the rules of that culture -- of course, the older son inherited the Covenant.

 

If you look at a map , God did give the land of Ammon, Edom, and Moab as a heritage to the Ishmaelites . This was twice the land mass as an inheritance (Jordan) that Issac got from inheriting the promised land (Israel).

"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21: 15-17)

 

 

image.png

Edited by Dan56

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

If you look at a map , God did give the land of Ammon, Edom, and Moab as a heritage to the Ishmaelites . This was twice the land mass as an inheritance (Jordan) that Issac got from inheriting the promised land (Israel).

"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21: 15-17)

 

 

image.png

 

 

Double the covenant?  Where does that leave Christians?  You do trace back through Abraham, Issac and Jacob; don't you?  Not if the Covenant passed through Ishmael.

 

As memory serves, Jacob cheats Esau.  It keeps getting better.

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Double the covenant?  Where does that leave Christians?  You do trace back through Abraham, Issac and Jacob; don't you?  Not if the Covenant passed through Ishmael.

 

As memory serves, Jacob cheats Esau.  It keeps getting better.

 

 

 

Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan... :no:

 

Dear Jonathan, let me help;

 

Hey Dan: :bye: !

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this