Israel as "occupiers" and other bull poop

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Was there an actual Moses who was an actual prophet?

Maybe. I can handle that possibility. I have no problem choosing to believe that Moses was a real person. (It's pretty difficult to exclude the existence of an ancient Hebrew leader named Moses.) It's also difficult to 100% exclude the possibility of Jewish captivity in Egypt, but I think the evidence suggests that it's extremely unlikely to have occurred in the way the Bible says it occurred, if it occurred at all.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

Maybe. I can handle that possibility. I have no problem choosing to believe that Moses was a real person. (It's pretty difficult to exclude the existence of an ancient Hebrew leader named Moses.) It's also difficult to 100% exclude the possibility of Jewish captivity in Egypt, but I think the evidence suggests that it's extremely unlikely to have occurred in the way the Bible says it occurred, if it occurred at all.

Perhaps if we can just ascribe myth or symbolism to everything in the scriptures, we can truly make God in our own image.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Perhaps if we can just ascribe myth or symbolism to everything in the scriptures, we can truly make God in our own image.

Maybe some people refuse to see that scriptural authors sometimes incorporated their own views and made God in their own image (hence the multiple personalities of God in scripture).

Have you ever noticed contradiction in scriptures? What's your explanation? Mysterious nature of God? Mysteries that we will understand someday but cannot understand today?

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

Maybe some people refuse to see that scriptural authors sometimes incorporated their own views and made God in their own image (hence the multiple personalities of God in scripture).

Have you ever noticed contradiction in scriptures? What's your explanation? Mysterious nature of God? Mysteries that we will understand someday but cannot understand today?

The interesting thing is that you are doing exactly what you are accusing the scriptural authors of doing. You're incorporating your own view and making God in your own image, thereby limiting what he is "capable" of.

Why is it so hard for you to accept the probability that God is beyond your understanding? That his view, which includes the immortal life, is different from yours, and that therefore what is moral to him may seem immoral to you? Is it not logically possible that the genocide of Canaan was, in an eternal perspective, good for the canaanites?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yes. And it cuts both ways. Which is why the Canaanite genocide shouldn't be used as a justification for any modern day action. (Responding more to Indy's post than yours.)

You're absolutely right - that genocide shouldn't be used as justification for anything. On the other hand, the Canaanite genocide doesn't change the Divine claim Israel has to the area.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Spaz

You're absolutely right - that genocide shouldn't be used as justification for anything. On the other hand, the Canaanite genocide doesn't change the Divine claim Israel has to the area.

So what means do you believe are justified in exercising the "divine claim" on the land?

The Palestinians believe they have a divine claim also. Are you not bothered by the concept of a "My God is greater than your God" game resulting in violence?

[Oxcoug]

I think I BELIEVE it on some level - I think that there is something in Israel's covenant with G-d that gives them a special bond with the lands surrounding Jerusalem. But I don't stake that as the case for their current possession of Israel. And I don't think it's required to justify the state of Israel.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

So what means do you believe are justified in exercising the "divine claim" on the land?

The Palestinians believe they have a divine claim also. Are you not bothered by the concept of a "My God is greater than your God" game resulting in violence?

Before I answer, let me make clear that I wasn't trying to apply the 'divine claim' as a justification for ANYTHING Israeli's have done.


Since I don't believe a current prophet resides in Israel, I don't believe violent means are justified in exercising their Divine claim on the land. Does that answer your question?

I am, indeed, bothered by violence in the name of religion. At the same time, as a Mormon, I accept the God of Israel is my God. Further, I believe that He did indeed give the Holy Land to Israel, and I therefore believe Israel does indeed have a "more correct" claim to the land.

Still, I recognize that to the Palestinians, their claim is "more correct", and I don't believe violence is the way to resolve the dispute.


Am I conflicted on this issue? You bet.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Pompous archeology profs who like to make declarative statements aside, saying there is no evidence for is not the same as saying there is any evidence "against."

Isn't that pretty much what I was saying?

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

It's also difficult to 100% exclude the possibility of Jewish captivity in Egypt, but I think the evidence suggests that it's extremely unlikely to have occurred in the way the Bible says it occurred, if it occurred at all.

I didn't say there was evidence against it. But a complete lack of evidence for such a massive event does call the event into question. Lack of evidence is a very good reason to doubt something (and also a bad reason to completely exclude something). I won't exclude the exodus, but I don't see a reason to believe in it.

The only reason I would choose to believe in Moses is to make my fellow Mormons feel at ease with having me in sunday school.

[Oxcoug]

You've stated grounds to be neutrally agnostic about it. I don't think you've stated any persuasive grounds for actively doubting it.

There is simply no reason to disbelieve the existence of Moses. There may be no corroborating source to confirm it, but it's far more of a stretch to say that the Israelite elders concocted this elaborate character in such full color and detail than it is to accept that he existed.

As you are probably aware - there is nearly zero evidence for Jesus Christ outside the Bible. And yet there is about as much documentary evidence for Christ as there is for Socrates. And no one ever questions the existence of Socrates.

I think it's a fairly shortsighted thing for anyone to say "the workings of our academy have not provided us with multiple points of corroboration for X historical claim, I will therefore dismiss it as a fairy tale." I thought the discovery of Troy might have got us past that impulse.

The point is - the workings of our academy have also not provided us with any positive cause to DOUBT the Exodus. More importantly, they have not provided any alternative explanation for Israel's origins. There is no plausible case to make that runs "we can confirm Israelite historicity back to Solomon... but before that it's myth." Why? Solomon is only a few hundred years after Moses. How does Moses become myth? Just because some professor can't find his signature on anything?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

You've stated grounds to be neutrally agnostic about it. I don't think you've stated any persuasive grounds for actively doubting it.

What if the same author claims that people once lived to be 900+ years old and that God kills people who practice coitus interruptus? Is that a good reason to question his credibility?