The Biblical God - Evolution or Revolution?

[Henry IX]

The other difference between the Israelites and the Assyrians was that the Israelites carried the Arc of the Covenant into battle. From the description, a box of a specific type of wood, lined inside and out with gold leaf, it makes a decent example of a "Leyden jar", such as Benjamin Franklin experimented with in the Philadelphia area several thousand years later. Connect the Leyden jar to a metal head on a long wooden pole via a chain, and have that at the forefront of your army. The first soldier in the opposing army to hit or be hit by that metal head gets a real surprise, and if the army has its shields firmly locked for mutual protection against sling bullets and stones, the whole front line draws an "arc" from the Arc.....and then your troops charge them. The descriptions of the "Holy of holies" and the strange lights can be easily explained if the priests are dealing with extremely high voltage electricity and attempting to capture lightning bolts to recharge the Arc.

A Leyden Jar is a form of capacitor - it required an external voltage to charge it. Unless we assume the Israelites had access to batteries or generators as well then it is unlikely it would work. In addition, the chage a primitive Layden jar can hold is quite limited - not enough to incapacitate enemy soldiers. Finally, shields are almost always made of wood - which is an extreamly poor conductor, so even if you had a massive capacitor you still wouldn't electricute the guy holding it, let alone his friends.

Its a cute theory, but sadly the physics just doesn't stack up.

 

[Kovax]

A capacitor's ability to hold a charge is dependent to a significant degree on its area, as well as how close you can place the two plates to create a stronger magnetic field, and the characteristics of the dialectric material. The specific type of wood used makes a passably decent dialectric. Something like a glass jar you can hold in one hand probably doesn't provide enough area (and capacitance) to cause a severe shock to multiple troops, but something large enough that it needs to be carried on poles by 4-8 "bearers" may be. Lightning would have been the likely source of power, and it doesn't take a lot of capacitance to hurt you if the voltage is high enough.

Finally, shields are largely made of wood in Europe, and wicker or leather (or leather over wicker) in parts of the middle east, often with metal rims or straps/handles. Conductivity from person to person would likely be sporadic, but possible with high enough voltages, again assuming a lightning-based charge.

The point is that the Isrealites claimed to have never lost a battle while the Ark of the Covenant was carried at the front of the army. Whether this is due to its nature as a "secret weapon", due to the morale boost it gave the Israeli troops, due to indimidation of the opponents and "shock value" (zap one guy and the ones around him are likely to panic and run), or some combination of the above, is open to speculation.

 

[Herbert West]

That's not how electricity works.

 

[Kovax]

It is, if you provide a contact to ground for the one pole (in this case, literally "the ground").

 

[Herbert West]

I refer you to the following concepts:

• Breakdown voltage of a capacitor
• Arc length
• Conductivity, or lack thereof, of air, wood, and dry leather

 

[SirNat]

It's not even the Pharaoh who sins really, all through the whole plagues episode of Exodus it is clearly stated that it is God that "hardens Pharaoh's heart". God is essentially engineering a situation that allows him to show off his might to the Hebrews and smite a whole lot of Egyptians.

Exodus 7:3–4
“But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my people the Israelites.”

There is much discussion among us Christians as to the interpretation of the 'harden the Pharaoh's heart' in Exodus. Many atheists point to this passage in glee as indication of God infringing upon our freedom.
Except that the Pharaoh was a sinner anyway in character and failed to recognize the wonders and signs that God performed (replicated when by man when Jesus walked). He wasn't engineering a situation, he was keeping his promise to Abraham and was delivering the Israelites out of slavery. The passage does not specifically say that because God hardened the Pharaoh's heart he would refuse to listen to Moses

[quote/]And notice that such a passage is basically at odds with the later development of Rabbinical Judaism, Christianity and Islam, because if sins are inherited, then the notion of a personal judgement in the Day of Judgement is worthless. The Quran even specifically states that in that final day, God will only judge every one for their own sins, and not for anybody else's. Which is what could be expected philosophically from a fully developed notion of a Monotheistic, omniscient God.[quote/]

Are you not aware of the concept of original sin? When Adam ate that apple it is a metaphor for mankind eating the apple. Once he ate that apple he endowed man with sin. We cannot avoid sin, it is one of our defining characteristics of being human, alongside the freedom that God gave us. Whilst being made in the image of God (Gen 1:27) we are not alike to him. We are sinful beings by nature and the Bible affirms this throughout the Old Testament as even God's Chosen people, the Israelites turn their backs on him time and time again. Only through Christ can we re-initiate our relationship with God. The Day of Judgement is not God judging whether we are sinful or not , because we all are but rather he is judging whether we have accepted Christ as our saviour.

 

[Semper Victor]

Are you not aware of the concept of original sin? When Adam ate that apple it is a metaphor for mankind eating the apple. Once he ate that apple he endowed man with sin. We cannot avoid sin, it is one of our defining characteristics of being human, alongside the freedom that God gave us. Whilst being made in the image of God (Gen 1:27) we are not alike to him. We are sinful beings by nature and the Bible affirms this throughout the Old Testament as even God's Chosen people, the Israelites turn their backs on him time and time again. Only through Christ can we re-initiate our relationship with God. The Day of Judgement is not God judging whether we are sinful or not , because we all are but rather he is judging whether we have accepted Christ as our saviour.

Yes, I was raised as a Catholic and I'm aware of the notion of original sin. Which again is not accepted by all Abrahamic religions, as I wrote above the Quran rejects it expressly, and for once I think that from an internally logical point of view, that position makes much more sense than the notion of original sin. If one is born carrying an inherited sin, what's the point of being judged in the Day of Judgement? Even if one made no sinning in life, that sin would be there anyway. Augustine of Hippo carried this doctrine to the extreme and even in his time he awoke some very heated answers from other Christians, like Priscillian, later condemned as an heretic at Augustine's instigation.

I don't want to offend anybody, but from a purely theological point of view, and within an Abrahamic doctrinal frame, sustaining the doctrine of free will on one side and then the doctrine of original sin on another makes very little sense to me. I think that they make little sense each on their own, but combined, it's even worse. It makes God look like a sadistic creator who enjoys watching the spectacle from above (my personal opinion).

 

[Avernite]

Yes, I was raised as a Catholic and I'm aware of the notion of original sin. Which again is not accepted by all Abrahamic religions, as I wrote above the Quran rejects it expressly, and for once I think that from an internally logical point of view, that position makes much more sense than the notion of original sin. If one is born carrying an inherited sin, what's the point of being judged in the Day of Judgement? Even if one made no sinning in life, that sin would be there anyway. Augustine of Hippo carried this doctrine to the extreme and even in his time he awoke some very heated answers from other Christians, like Priscillian, later condemned as an heretic at Augustine's instigation.

I don't want to offend anybody, but from a purely theological point of view, and within an Abrahamic doctrinal frame, sustaining the doctrine of free will on one side and then the doctrine of original sin on another makes very little sense to me. I think that they make little sense each on their own, but combined, it's even worse. It makes God look like a sadistic creator who enjoys watching the spectacle from above (my personal opinion).

I find the issue is too specifically focused on the word original sin.

The more "acceptable" doctrine to me (which may be quite heretical) is that, prior to the fall in Eden, Adam and Eve were not truly human in the current sense of the word, but were beings that were in eternal bliss and innocence by lack of knowledge. However, they had already had free will and as such were already capable of sin.
After the fall, humans were truly created, and now were a death-dominated race, frail, knowledgeable, and free-willed. Knowledge and frailty are explicit results of the fall in Eden, and these ARE inherited. Sin follows from the mixing of frailty, knowledge and will.

What Christ adds is salvation and mercy to offset the frailty and knowledge to again let will choose freely.

This may also be because I think Tolkien had a pretty good showing of how death made men choose, time and again, to turn to artifice and sin.

 

[nerd]

I find the issue is too specifically focused on the word [-]original[/-] sin.

sin is a purely religious concept, inseparable from the particular doctrines and moral axioms of that particular religion.

in essence it is a curious list of haram, with a few
"Look out kid
It's somethin' you did
God knows when
But you're doing it again"
items thrown in for general confusion.

outside of each persons very personal religion, the whole concept of "sin" becomes an authoritarian excuse to bully others.


<quote from Dylan>

 

[Boblof]

The passage does not specifically say that because God hardened the Pharaoh's heart he would refuse to listen to Moses

It says exactly that, it litterally says that God will harden Pharaohs heart so that he won't let them go. That is litterally what that passage says.

 

[Avernite]

It says exactly that, it litterally says that God will harden Pharaohs heart so that he won't let them go. That is litterally what that passage says.

There's a good reason some mainstream churches have let go of "the bible is exactly 100% correct all the time", is all I would think about that. Because, yeah, that's a pretty sad (and repeatedly emphasised) point.

 

[Semper Victor]

It says exactly that, it litterally says that God will harden Pharaohs heart so that he won't let them go. That is litterally what that passage says.

Perhaps we should clarify that what we're discussing here is what the Tanakh/Old Testament textually says, not later exegesis about it done by Christian churches or rabbinical schools. Otherwise, the thread would be quite pointless, because we'd get lost in endless discussions about symbolical interpretations of its text.

 

[Avernite]

Perhaps we should clarify that what we're discussing here is what the Tanakh/Old Testament textually says, not later exegesis about it done by Christian churches or rabbinical schools. Otherwise, the thread would be quite pointless, because we'd get lost in endless discussions about symbolical interpretations of its text.

But relying on later exegesis kind of obviates the discussion.

The discussion is if the bible itself is a revolutionary text about the relation between man and God. If we ignore all the evolutionary aspects that only become revolutionary through exegesis, it gets to be a discussion if Christianity/Judaism/Islam as currently practiced is vastly different from BC Canaanite polytheism.

 

[Semper Victor]

But relying on later exegesis kind of obviates the discussion.

The discussion is if the bible itself is a revolutionary text about the relation between man and God. If we ignore all the evolutionary aspects that only become revolutionary through exegesis, it gets to be a discussion if Christianity/Judaism/Islam as currently practiced is vastly different from BC Canaanite polytheism.

The way I see it, the purpose of this thread is to evaluate the Tanakh as the people who wrote it conceived it and understood it. Not as it was done by later Pharisees, Rabbinical Judaism, Christianity or Islam, because in their exegetical traditions they project (anachronistically) their own values and religious concepts onto a collection of texts several centuries older. And if we get embroiled in different exegetical lectures of the Tanakh, then there's no point in this thread, because they are endless.

 

[Boblof]

Perhaps we should clarify that what we're discussing here is what the Tanakh/Old Testament textually says, not later exegesis about it done by Christian churches or rabbinical schools. Otherwise, the thread would be quite pointless, because we'd get lost in endless discussions about symbolical interpretations of its text.

I just thought that was obvious.

 

[Kovax]

The concept of "original sin" may also refer to the difference between "sin" and "ignorance". Before Adam, man did not understand the difference, and so could not be condemned for intentionally "sinning". Afterwards, there was no excuse. The act of sin would still be a personal thing, but the ABILITY to sin (and the all-but inevitability) was now linked with intent.

This may refer to man's relatively rapid expansion in intellectual powers and fore-brain functions over early primates. At some point (over a rather short span of evolutionary time), man became "aware" of his own actions, and the effects of his actions either for or against other humans. An animal can do something harmful, but it's not "sin", it's an instinctual response. A human can INTEND or PLAN to do harm. At that point, it ceased to be a natural process of simple survival and turned into a rational action, which COULD be intentionally harmful, and therefore "sinful".

It comes down to a question of conflict between personal needs/wants and societal or species needs/wants. Where does one's own wants or needs supercede those of the society or species?

 

[nerd]

The concept of "original sin" may also refer to the difference between "sin" and "ignorance". Before Adam, man did not understand the difference, and so could not be condemned for intentionally "sinning". Afterwards, there was no excuse. The act of sin would still be a personal thing, but the ABILITY to sin (and the all-but inevitability) was now linked with intent.

This may refer to man's relatively rapid expansion in intellectual powers and fore-brain functions over early primates. At some point (over a rather short span of evolutionary time), man became "aware" of his own actions, and the effects of his actions either for or against other humans. An animal can do something harmful, but it's not "sin", it's an instinctual response. A human can INTEND or PLAN to do harm. At that point, it ceased to be a natural process of simple survival and turned into a rational action, which COULD be intentionally harmful, and therefore "sinful".

It comes down to a question of conflict between personal needs/wants and societal or species needs/wants. Where does one's own wants or needs supercede those of the society or species?

i think you vastly underestimate the complexity of animal behaviour, especially the degree of "awareness". Hunting activity, pack or solo, requires a high degree of time and future effects of actions.

 

[Semper Victor]

I just thought that was obvious.

So did I, but apparently it did not apply to everyone.

 

[Eusebio]

The doctrine of original sin was mainly developed by Augustine and partly influenced by his former Manicheanism. None of the Orthodox churches accept it IIRC.

 

[Semper Victor]

The doctrine of original sin was mainly developed by Augustine and partly influenced by his former Manicheanism. None of the Orthodox churches accept it IIRC.

Augustine of Hippo and other Christian theologians formalized it, but the conceptual root of the doctrine of original sin is an integral part of the teachings of Paul of Tarsus:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Without Adam's fall "mysteriously" affecting the nature of all humans, there's no need for redemption through the risen Christ, according to Pauline theology. Augustine of Hippo and others merely developed this original thread into a full-bodied doctrine.

It should be said that before Paul of Tarsus, Jewish religious scholars attached little or no importance to Adam's sin; and the notion of "original sin" is totally alien to Judaism. Most probably, Paul developed on his own an ancient idea, present in ancient Judaism and ancient polytheist religions (both Semitic and Graeco-Roman) that the son inherited the sin of the father, and that of collective guilt and collective punishment by the gods (or YHWH). Although in doing so he was shooting himself in the foot by downgrading the notion of divine Justice and the value of the Last Judgement as the trial of an individual soul by God for his/her own sins. There's a good reason why neither Judaism, nor Islam, nor some Christian churches ever accepted this notion.