That dude was my dad’s roommate in college; I remember visiting his family once or twice while I was a kid.
Talk of him sort of stopped after the Twin Towers stuff. I don’t think the Behold Hands stuff would have slowed my parents down much though - that sort of nonsense is within the boundaries of automatic credulity their religion has staked out in a way the 9/11 stuff wasn’t.
I think you’re missing the point here. The question is not whether these things happened, but whether religion somehow thinks proof of God is a problem versus faith. The passages cmkeller points to shows that this is not the case, and that G-d had no trouble “proving” his existence. In fact Moses was punished for striking the rock, which might allow some to doubt that a miracle occurred when the water ran out of it. Not striking the rock as Moses was supposed to do (or not do) offered more proof of G-d than striking it, which is what G-d wanted.
I know Christians think G-d changed his mind a lot, but this doesn’t seem to be something that G-d would change his mind about.
And to restate this, whether it happened or not has nothing to do with the message of these passages.
The Catholic Church learned its lesson and is excellent about being flexible enough about science to not look like idiots. I think they’ve gone from a geocentric universe proving god’s existence to a vast universe proving god’s existence.
Maybe the Baptists will figure this out some day.
One question: why this G-d convention instead of just writing God? It’s not like it’s a dirty word or something.
As I understand it, it’s something that’s practiced by some Jews. And, it’s not because it’s seen as a dirty word, but done out of deep respect:
Dammit; ninja’d.
I did it here so that if cmkeller wanted to quote what I wrote, he wouldn’t have to change anything.
IIR from Hebrew School, part of it is an adaptation of how you do it in Hebrew and part is to prevent God’s name from getting stepped on or dropped in the mud or something.
I don’t remember the erased bit, but they were no doubt keeping it simple for elementary school aged children.
I used to think it was because the early Hebrew alphabet, like most based on the Aramaic alphabet, didn’t have vowels, but I was corrected. I have/had a book on Egyptian hieroglyphs, which could be used as an alphabet, but that writing system had no vowels. He recommended substituting a schwa wherever you thought a vowel would belong. I think it was written by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, but what would he know about hieroglyphs? 
Maybe it has something to do with he fact that the Hebrews did not use vowels. Hence Yahweh was simply YHWH.
Ahem. 
Sorry! Didn’t read that before I posted. Ahem indeed! Or HM.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Actually, I’m glad that someone else made the connection so there could be some basis in fact. I almost made a lame joke about it, but I like and respect cmkeller and didn’t want to offend him . . . any more than I already have in this thread.
It does certainly meet any definition of analysis, unless you are able to listen while you intentionally avoid noticing that the symphony has any characteristics whatsoever.
The fact that your analysis will be rudimentary or preliminary or whatever, doesn’t change the fact that it is one.
Czarcasm:
Not really…belief without direct revelation is essential, but not without proof, if one thinks he or she can find it. If it is possible, in theory, to use science to prove the existence of G-d or the truth of the Bible, then one is not violating the essence of the religion by basing his beliefs on said proofs. (of course, it is important, then, that those proofs be unassailable)
dropzone:
There are numerous valid reasons why archaeology has found itself in conflict with Biblical narrative, and I’m not really interested in getting into the minutiae of it here. I see you have mentioned that you have a degree in archaeology, so I’m sure that a discussion of it will be lengthy and veer off the OP’s topic and the point in it that I came to this thread to address. Let me simply say that “easily” and “flatly did not” are more absolute statements than I think the context of Biblical-era archaeology warrants, and if one is pre-disposed to belief due to upbringing and tradition, he or she can find ways to explain the conflicts without getting too outlandish.
How well you know me! Veering with a smidgeon of lengthiness is what I do.
You don’t know archaeologists very well. Just be glad nobody’s thrown anything. 
However, would “there is no evidence whatsoever of the Exodus or the events before and after despite centuries of people looking to reinforce their upbringings and traditions” be less outlandish?
The Mormons haven’t fared any better looking for evidence that the North American events in the Book of Mormon happened. But we are kinda internet friends so I’ll lay off.
dropzone:
This is a statement I can certainly agree with. The thing about archaeology (or any scientific discipline) is that it does not deal well with reports of miracles in history/legend. Science is predicated on the notion that certain causes have certain expected results, but miracles by definition defy those laws. That there is no evidence of events described as miraculous is a statement I have no issue with. To state that they flatly, absolutely didn’t happen is something that I do.
I believe in God, but I don’t believe he is magic or any of the other things many religions attribute to him. I doubt we would know what to look for in looking for God and have little chance of recognizing evidence of him when we came across it. He certainly cannot be part of this universe or have any kind of connection to our physical laws. It is pointless to spend anytime trying to figure out what or even why he is. Believing in his existence is enough for me.
Never mind. I’m bowing out.
What if you, yourself, are God? What if we all are? Perhaps this collective consciousness we call humanity or even life is what God really is? Then God can certainly be a part of this universe.
What definition of “god” makes this possible, and where is there any evidence for this “collective consciousness”?