Hotpokk, do you have a resorse? and also possibly the verses being portreyed in the movie? i know thats alot to ask, but im having to take a long time to reply while i consider points and do my own research in the bible to gather my thoughts. i cant just reply off the top of my head, id mess up too often. i apalogize and i havnt forgotten all the others in the middle. give me some time for Pegasi though....his vocabulary overloads my ability to think. and Nitrous, hes not punishing you for a thought crime, i dont know if i said he was doing that up there in the last couple statements, but its more along the lines of a living a lifestyle against what he believes is acceptable faith in him, which would be to show loyalty -what he admires and respects, and what earns a right to heaven. and you bet its a totalitarianism. youd like to have democracy with god? and the punishment is one befitting the sin, if the baby commited something deserving of a rape, then the father would only be a good father then to allow this, for the child to learn, and to not continue the mistake. but this seams a little harsh of a subject, babies getting raped is not something id like to be thrown around. its like if you cheat in a game of cards, and get alot of extra money, then to be punished by it, then, perhaps then having a huge losing streak would befit it, where as losing a 5 dollar bill would be too small, and becoming bankrupt too large. the punishment is befitting the sin. death and going the hell being the ultimate last punishment of someone deserving of it so in gods eyes, where god then allows satan to run things with those he is given.
First off, to Zstrike:::: My post was not aimed to belittle you. If I sought to belittle you, I would do so more simply. I spoke "down" to you because you honestly seemed to believe what you posted. It was a poor, poor understanding of the Bible and Christianity, and I called you out on it just like anyone else would have. Shoot me. To define love? Alrighty. The simplest I can compile is, "to put another's best interest or well-being above your own." That is only my own version, though. The Bible, of course, offers the definition which I feel to be the truest. That is found in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 13. To answer your last question:: I feel the definition I use to be superior because of, again, the whole inspiration thing. It is not my definition. Right quick, I'd like to say that I disagree with one of your opening statements. I believe folks in that day were not as advanced, but more intelligent. At this point, I wish I had the link. I will say it for good measure, but I saw it years ago and forget just where. It said that, while excavating parts of ancient Rome, a parchment (or something of the sort) was found that listed all the symptoms of cancer. Ironically enough, shortly after a cure was discussed, the parchment was too detiorated or damaged to read. Anywho, about that silly unwavering business. I'll give you as applicable an example as I can, and trust you to make what you will of it. To keep things as simple as possible, we'll base it on love. A man loves a woman. Subsequently, he buys her nice things. He takes her out to dinner as frequently as he is able. Ya know, standard things you would expect. Anyways, for whatever reason, he doesn't do this for around a month. She, being the insecure person she is, develops a bit of distrust. She questions his love for her because he quits doing "nice things." A course of events takes place, and she ends up distrusting his love for her to the extent that they break up. She no longer claims love for him. Naturally, he is taken by surprise. When he asks why, she responds by saying that he no longer did things for her. To this he then asks why he must do "special things" to prove that he loved her. They started by allowing Lindsay Lohan on a television screen. It then spiraled out of control when that other chick tried to take Regis' spot on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? OH, how jolly! I like how you had me there, and then you all switched it up. *offended* Humans penned the Bible. We cannot agree that it was (entirely) written by humans. There was a donkey who spoke once. As I've never seen record of God whispering, I would most definitely not trust those scientists. There was this one guy named Joseph Smith. Perhaps, you've heard of him. He did something similar, and the people were all like, "whoa." And he was all like, "here's the Kool-Aid, doods." /no.thought.process.whatsoever
Actually, outside of the Bible, there is not one tiny spec of evidence that people of Jewish faith were even enslaved in Egypt during that time. There were no markings on walls, no Jewish cultural items found there, nothing. You would think that if thousands of people were enslaved in Egypt there would be more than one source of the story. And no one has seemed to even bothered contemplating that the Bible has been altered and manipulated over the years.
You said it before and it seemed to slip through unnoticed, I'm glad you chimed back in, you raise an extremely valid and pertinent point. The fact is that a common assumption seems to be that the only issue of trust involved in religion is trust in God, but (especially when it comes to the christian establishment, and scripture such as the bible) in fact the only trust here is in other people. A personal relationship with God is understandable, faith granted, and absolute trust in that sense is obvious. But, simply by by way of believing in God, are you therefore bound to do anything that anyone tells you is associated with believing in him? If a random man comes up to you and says "You believe in God, eh? Well, I happen to know for a fact that God really wants you to walk around on your hands for 3 and a half hours of every day to show your dedication and faith.", then how is that any different from being told by a religious leader that you must go to church on sunday? Apart from the latter being an established and widely held tradition which gives people that oh-so warm feeling of security and precedent. Just because a church may be established and huge (I mean, look at the Catholic Church), doesn't mean that it's not ultimately a human institution, though inspired, as it may or may not be, from a faith in God. It's hardly deniable that people in history have abused the faith of others, acting in a supposed divine position of authority or not, to their own ends, to exploit and use those with faith. We know God will not stop this, he has given us free will, and we act as we will without his intervention. There may be punishment after death (and, as I've said before, this is where my real gripe comes in), but even for a church, God would not step in and negate the free will of a human to protect an institution held even in his name. I'm not saying you shouldn't trust people, nor am I saying that all churches exist solely on the basis of exploitation or ulterior motive, far from it. I'm just saying that the only relationship that can be had with God is a personal one, that's the nature of faith in God. Faith on God should not be confused with faith in the honesty of a person talking to you, who claims to have the same relationship with God. The bible, words of preachers/priests etc, and all religious doctrine fall under this category, and again I'm not saying they should be disregarded completely. Faith in humanity is great, and gathering to share your faith and rejoice in it is a wonderful thing when that's what it really is. But such faith in humanity should not be confused with, or put on a level with, faith in God. You have your personal relationship with God and, in terms of what you can truly draw from faith, that's it, everything is just people talking and writing, and should be regarded as such.
Source? Second, Lets think here as a thought to be Greatest Power of its time What did Egyptians Write down? DO you even think that recording the beliefs of there slaves was that important? And also Not even American's During there Slavery Period really sat down and even cared about the Beliefs of the slaves they owned. So What history Facts would you like them to record? THEY DIDN't WRited down how they build the ****ING Pyramids ... KINDA important from My point of view Its Key to there King-God like Figure? See DTL from a certain point of view it holds view but Take into account what we know about the Egyptians.... They only wrote down what they wanted to write. Side note.... why would the Jews want to make up a lie about being enslaved for so long? It kinda seems like a bitter break up ... Jews have a point of view These people enslaved us... and the others side of view was... O those people who? So does it remove that fact they could have been there? Or that idea that Slaves in general did not exist in Egypt? ... Careful.... So Peg.. Hold water before a mans debate is a proved. I hope you can trust my point of view .... because I'm being quite passive about my beliefs in this forum and focusing on facts....And Nitrous Sig ..why?
Here is a little information, it'll take more time to dig up scientific journals if I really must. You wouldn't expect the Egyptians to leave documents of their slaves, but the slaves themselves should have left some sort of evidence of their existence, whether it be cultural or even physical. There are many, many pieces of evidence that slavery existed in America. We have physical evidence through slave ships, and countless documentation about the event. There was also a culture generated from the slavery. Songs and stories developed from those events. Now while the enslavement of the Jewish people happened many, many years ago, you'd expect 2.5 million Jewish people would leave some sort of footprint of their existence outside of the Bible.
And the Jewish people will not tell you that they were enslaved? I mean what more of a foot print do you need then the Dino that made it telling you? Are you suggesting that they had enough freedom as Slaves to have big holy places or a land mark that would show that they are there? .... there is not Tons of lank marks still showing slavery happened in America besides our culture and our few saved historic sites.... I don't think the Egyptians had as many choices on what to save and what not ... and you also avoid that fact Egyptians were invaded how many times.... Destroyed how many times? Many Man's feet from Many years ago could have been easily buried ....and long lost....all these said relics.... Let me know when ifs and questions to this hard core THERE isn't any research ...or evidence of something existing should stop... Simply if a people said they existed as a tribe or w/e at a certain time... and it was passed threw time... would it change much to argue NO you were not there... because you forget to leave a paper trail?... Or even anything .... because your a slave and all? as well your source doesn't answer anything but it does bring up a few of my points ...
I think there is a god.No one never seen him but you never know he or she can be everywhere.We just dont notice.I believen the Jesus Christ and god but i think the way we can tell if god is real is if something like the arrageden happens he would take us.But i do believe god is real.
I'm Agnostic. I just have one major question, which I've never had a clear answer on before. If there is a God who created Man to worship him/her, why doesn't he/she reveal themself to us? I mean, being an all-powerful being, it shouldn't be too hard to pop down and walk around like, "Hey, guys, I'm God. What's up?" That would settle all disputes on religion and create a world-wide religion based on that event. I cannot base a religion on faith. To me, it is illogical.
Even if there is a possibility that Jews were enslaved, it still doesn't support the notion that Moses led people out of Egypt the way the bible says it (if such an event even occurred). Maybe God is not what we think "it" is, if anything like it even exists.
So your saying i'm only half right? but why? State your thoughts and debate don't make one liners...because I think its totally possible....remember the Kings Mages were able to preform the same miracles.
Many people believe that there was a translation error in the Bible concerning the word "Red Sea" with "Reed Sea", which during low tide has a narrow passageway which can be crossed.
It's also totally possible that Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster exist. I'm just saying that even if there were enslaved Jews, the story in the bible is probably not right. It can't be justified with anything other than faith; faith is technically not a resource, so I don't think you can use it to back up your argument. I'm not saying faith is bad, just that it doesn't prove anything to people without this "faith".
Alright did you see DTL points Learn from him... till then I'm ignoring you. DTL the only issue with that is how would the high tide destory the army following them? I mean Light little translation errors ...? Point out this place on a map some where and make the story work ...would be a better prove that it is a translation... orgehub could be easily an error but till you actually prove it as a type- o you have to stay with the current situation... in this case of history Defender wins....
Why are you ignoring me? I am only using simple logic to pick apart your argument. You say that the story of Moses is true because "it could have happened". That is not proof; that is speculation. Just as the stories of mythical creatures are just speculation. Is Bigfoot real? Possibly. Was the story of Moses real? Possibly. In your last post, you assume there was actually an army following Moses and his people out of Egypt. However, you have not even justified how that story is true. For all we know, that story could simply be a parable. Parables ≠ History Here is a site that actually brings up some good points. You wanted facts? Here they are. Funnily enough, there are no facts supporting Moses, yet you criticize me for using just logic. =) The only known "recordings" of Moses' story (and many other biblical tales) are in the bible. As you might agree, the bible has been around long enough for people in power to tamper with it. You might respond by saying, "Well you're just saying that because it could have possibly happened." True, true, but you must remember that the church has a history of being corrupt with power. Friars and nuns would beg for money for themselves in the Medieval times; the church prosecuted those who went against them as can be seen in the Scientific Revolution period. Common images of God look like Zeus because the church wanted to attract people who believed in pagan gods.
Stories are exaggerated all the time, and with one as old as this, its easy to imagine that the story has been embellished. The army may not have been destroyed at all, just prevented from following them. The Sea of Reeds was once directly next to the Red Sea, but has since dried up entirely. It supposedly lies right where the path of the Exodus supposedly takes place. I couldn't find an image of its exact location, and apparently many scholars still discuss its specific location, but it lies somewhere on the Sinai Peninsula.
So could they be one and the same? I mean could it have been a northern part of the Sea of Rea(Red Sea)... btw remember your dealing with a Different' lang error of translation so i am also untrusting of that.... But I could agree there is a type-o or a Confusion of the both.... as for the Destruction of the army ... I still feel some where along the lines That army was Annihilated....Thou I have no facts to back that claim. The claim is more of a name base issue as appose to a conflict of the Exodus ever happening.
I don't believe this is a case of a simple typo error; this is rather about a purposeful change in the bible, or even downright inaccuracy from the start. Keep in mind, I came to this site as a Catholic; I know what your side stands for.
Man who believes in God has infinite to gain, while man who doesn't believe in God has nothing to lose.