Now who’s putting forth unprovable hypotheses. You have no way of knowing
Might I suggest that you keep your doubts about your intellectual capabilities to yourself, and not project them onto others.
Just to be very clear on this - Pesach celebrates the escape of Israel from captivity. It in no way celebrates the death of anyone.
Um… what?
I said all along that mine was the unfalsifiable hypothesis:
I never said anyone else was throwing up unfalsifiable hypotheses. I readily acknowledge your hypotheses are testable. It’s mine that are not. I have said this since the beginning.
No.
And, QED, no. 
Voyager…are you able to address the question of whether or not the Hebrews were actually slaves in Egypt who were rescued…or merely visitors there who were expelled.
Obviously, anti-Semitism could play a part in wanting the story of a Hebrew captivity there to be debunked in favor of having the Hebrews be visitors who were expelled…but there is also the possibility of either story being the truth…or closer to the truth.
I do not know the scholarship genesis of the “they probably were visitors who were expelled” version…and haven’t been able to Google it.
If you have any info on it, could you share it.
If you say so…I have to consider it.
But I was relying on this…which reads:
The name “Pesach” (PAY-sahch, with a “ch” as in the Scottish “loch”) comes from the Hebrew root Pei-Samekh-Cheit , meaning to pass through, to pass over, to exempt or to spare. It refers to the fact that G-d “passed over” the houses of the Jews when he was slaying the firstborn of Egypt. In English, the holiday is known as Passover. “Pesach” is also the name of the sacrificial offering (a lamb) that was made in the Temple on this holiday. The holiday is also referred to as Chag he-Aviv , (the Spring Festival), Chag ha-Matzot , (the Festival of Matzahs), and Z’man Cheiruteinu , (the Time of Our Freedom) (again, all with those Scottish "ch"s).
So why would you assert that he has???
Thinking of the story as literature, this makes good sense. As reality, not so much. Mr. Bricker was worried about the economic considerations of freeing the Hebrews, but wiping out a good chunk of the future slave population doesn’t make a lot of economic sense also. And it is pretty clear that the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus was not the Pharaoh at the time of the birth of Moses - even though I don’t think Yul Brynner was involved. So, god took his sweet time getting revenge. There is also no indication of an imbalance of women over men you’d expect to have seen if this had happened.
When this was written destroying entire cities and killing their inhabitants was still fairly common. The Jews probably liked to think back to the good old days when they were have supposed to have been victorious, non-Jews np doubt didn’t give a crap, this being before the invention of comparative religion courses.
I’ve attended quite a few seders, thank you very much. I can manage the Mah Nishtahnah in passably-sung Hebrew. (Pronunciation-wise, that is. Horribly off key, but pronunciation passable).
I don’t know how much Torah you studied, but there is in my experience a strong underlying sense that G-d can be understood, running in tension to the explicit proposition that G-d cannot be understood. There’s even a rabbinical story of summoning Yahweh to a Beit Din - a distinctly Jewish sort of relationship with the Almighty in that.
But you’re correct – the focus of that story in the Jewish tradition is the escape from slavery, not the idea that G-d’s actions can be explained.
Why would I assert that who has what?
Oh, I get it. “Why would I assert that God has a rational explanation, if I don’t understand it.”
Right?
Because the fact that he has a rational explanation is part of what I cannot reliably explain, even if the details of it are not.
Would you mind describing it as a personal belief rather than a fact from now on, for the sake of clarification?
From reading the recent popular books on Bible history, it seems that the consensus is now that neither was true. There were no identified set of Hebrews that long ago, and thus no Exodus.
The Bible Unearthed is the book I read. It is fascinating. Biblical archeology is not one of my hobbies, so I don’t know what the modern view is now. I’m pretty sure it is not that the Exodus story has any credence. I’m not sure of the origin of the story either.
There must be a typo in there, as that last sentence doesn’t make sense.
Well put: Pro-life, conservative Christians are indeed hypocrites.
Oh wait, that wasn’t your point…
Yes, but celebrating our deliverance is in now way the same as celebrating the deaths of the Egyptians. You can celebrate escaping from a plane crash without being happy about the deaths of those who did not escape.
I recall a passage specifically mourning the deaths of the Egyptians, but I could be wrong, so I’ll not claim this until I find my copy of the Haggadah and look it up.
Of course.
It’s my belief that that God has a rational explanation, even if I don’t understand it.
No…not right.
Why would you assert that your god has a rational explanation if you do not understand that he has a rational explanation.
I am not interested in whether you understand the explanation…I am interested in how you know he does have a rational explanation for you to know or not know.
So…since you have already acknowledged that you are not capable of understanding that “he has a rational explanation”…why are you asserting that he does?”
“Because the fact that he has a rational explanation is part of what I cannot reliably explain, even if the details of it are not.
[/QUOTE]
Huh???
Perhaps I did not frame my question clearly enough for you.
You have asserted that your god has a rational explanation for doing this slaughter. I am asking you how you know your god has a rational explanation for it. Is it just that you are defining your god as having a rational explanation for everything (which would be a belief on your part) or because of some private bit of knowledge that you cannot share with us?
Okay. I’m not trying to nit-pick here, Voyager.
In my original remarks, I said: “…it really is the celebration of the Hebrew immunity from the final plague:; the slaughter of the first-born of all living things in Egypt.”
That still seems to be the case.
When I posed the hypothetical “What would you think it…” I grant I change things a bit.
Your hypothesis is not falsifiable, I’ll grant that - especially since it involves a God who can do anything and is not bound to any sort of rational framework.
But unless you worship a totally arbitrary god, one who you can sin against or worship by doing the same thing at different times, I say your hypothesis is testable. Given your limited understanding of god, you can predict at least something of his actions and desires. If not, I think you are wasting your time going to Church, since atheism might be the real sacrament. Even your inner knowledge might be a trick.
While we cannot imagine the true nature of the tesseract, we can imagine its projection onto 3 dimensional shape and even predict certain things about it. Flatland as usual is the perfect representation of this in 2D space.
The latter. This is the conviction that I have, internally, but cannot explain or suggest that you adopt, because I have no evidence for it that I can give you. I have evidence, mind you, but that evidence is experiential.
But since God doesn’t reliably interact with people, how could any theory be testable?
Of course my inner knowledge might be a trick. I’m convinced it isn’t but readily acknowledge I could be wrong.