Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher

Is it really more believable to you, netslave, that a burning bush had the voice of god and talked to someone, than them (maybe accidentally) ingesting some sort of hallucinogen? Really?
 
Is it really more believable to you, netslave, that a burning bush had the voice of god and talked to someone, than them (maybe accidentally) ingesting some sort of hallucinogen? Really?

There is an obvious blind spot with some "people of faith" when it comes to rational, critical thought and religion.

The psychological need to remain faithful to their God is pretty strong.
 
I have presented, or at least implied, a third option: that of a medical affliction affecting his pre-frontal cortex.

But your hamhanded way of only offering two options (much like C.S> Lewis's false trichotomy) only serves to prove my point. Did God himself speak to Moses? Or are there better, more reasonable, alternative explanations? Occam's razor, anyone?
 
I don't recall anyone saying "welp, that settles it."

It's a very interesting and plausible theory, but a theory nonetheless. I sure as hell believe that before believing god spoke through a burning bush.
 
For Christians and observant Jews, this is really no more of an issue than the whole surrender-at-the-Alamo bruhaha from a few years ago. Does the possibility that the last few remaining defenders surrendered and were executed by the Mexicans shake my admiration for the men there and/or my pride as a Texan? Not a bit. Does the theory that Moses was under the influence of a drug when God spoke to him shake my faith? Nope. Christianity and Judaism are rooted in faith, not empiricism, which really bothers non-believers. That's ok, as my actions and arguments are not likely to convert the likes of Perham (hey Perham
wink.gif
) and he's not likely to sway folks like netslave or myself.
 
I think Anastasis said it best, and with the fewest words for you Occam's Razor fans.
wink.gif


There are more plausible reasons out there. This should have been laughed off the Internet.
 
I think Anastasis said it best....

Are you sure about that? How far are you willing to go?

Notice the selectivity, lack of consistency, and ever-changing evidentiary (is that a word?) thresholds employed (if not here, then by many Christians in general). The threshold "you" have to supply for, say, evolution is very high; the threshold I have to supply for "my" views is that it's written in a very old book cobbled together by committee.

Not a flame against Christians, necessarily, a lot of people do the same thing.

What is it that makes otherwise rational people turn off their brain? This is especially prevalent among the biblical literalists. And seems to be a much more common view in the last few decades.
 
...enlighten us ....
The role of religion as major component of a society's culture is endlessly fascinating (as is culture in general). Reminds me of a quote by Clifford Geertz:

Best known for his theories of culture and cultural interpretation, Mr. Geertz was considered a founder of interpretive, or symbolic, anthropology. But his influence extended far beyond anthropology to many of the social sciences, and his writing had a literary flair that distinguished him from most theorists and ethnographers.

He won a National Book Critics Circle Award for “Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author” (1988), which examined four of his discipline’s forebears: Bronislaw Malinowski, Ruth Benedict, E. E. Evans-Pritchard and Claude Lévi-Strauss.

Drawing on history, psychology, philosophy and literary criticism, Mr. Geertz analyzed and decoded the meanings of rituals, art, belief systems, institutions and other “symbols,” as he defined them.

“Believing with Max Weber that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning,” he wrote in his 1973 book, “The Interpretation of Cultures” (Basic Books). The Times Literary Supplement called the book one of the 100 most important since World War II.
The Link
 
Its been my belief for some time that all of this Christian stuff is completely made up from some people who were tripping their balls off. As a believer this article proves me right.
 
99.9% (my number, though i doubt too far off) of people in the history of the world have thought that someone within their culture had a real religious experience with the supernatural. the .1 are represented here, mocking virtually all other humans in history for believing such.
there are people who engage in a genuine debate of ideas and then there are some of you who act like condescending asses. hey, if that makes you feel better!
 
...mocking virtually all other humans in history for believing such.

Wow, that's a lot of mocking going on. All other humans in history?

So you're comfortable with the Hindu guy having an experience with his Hindu god and accept that as being as valid as some guy's experience with his Christian God in Texas?
 
If somebody says that they have an experience, either he's lying, or he had an experience (of some kind). Which would you pick?


What? Are you trying to create an algorithm here?

They may have had an "experience", whatever that means, or they may be lying. Other than the televangelists I would probably choose the option that they had an "experience". But you see that doesn't mean that God actually spoke to them, don't you?

Just because you think you were abducted by space aliens doesn't mean you were.
 
Hey to you, too, dark_arts.

Does the theory that Moses was under the influence of a drug when God spoke to him shake my faith?

But couldn't it be said that you're kinda missing the entire point here?
That God really didn't speak to Moses?
 
Just found the youtube clip showing Moses puffin' some green. Oh wait this is just another half baked theory on something the researcher has no actual data on just assumptions and inuendo. The real point isn't whether God spoke to Moses or not, the point is what the hell does this guy know about the practices of the Isrealites from 2500 years ago when he has no direct evidence. It is like proving that Stonehenge was made by aliens, because the rocks were really heavy.
 
Nope. Christianity and Judaism are rooted in faith, not empiricism, which really bothers non-believers.

Not quite right. What bothers me is when they try to use "empiricism" to prove their faith. Like say, creationism. Religion by its very nature is rooted in faith. That doesn't bother me at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top