[Editor's note: debaters' words are in black. Darrell Conder's words are in blue throughout.]
----- Original Message -----
From: H B vintagedoc@hotmail.com
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Cc: sadduqim@sadduqim.org
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 11:10 AM
Subject: Debate-part I
Darrell:
Thank you for your responses! I must admit that my initial response to you was with the intent of vindicating both Mr. ben Lewi and my own religion/faith. For separate and various reasons, I no longer feel the need to do either. I was also of the mind that you were some fanatical religious skeptic bent on destroying the religions that worship the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. My interactions with you thus far have not borne out my initial impression! I have found you to be honest and forthcoming, polite and thoughtful, as well as quite knowledgable. I would like to debate the of "Is the Tanack the word of G-d?, based upon the fact that G-d is infallable and therefore His word should be infallable", with you. I do not agree with, as I told ben Lewi, with 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' and so I don't believe that the further premise that if the Tanack is not the word of G-d (either in part or totallity), one can also assume that G-d does not exist. I will discuss the Torah and any/all apparent contradictions and fallacies with you. Let us discuss as friends and colleagues on a quest for truth and understanding!
A little about myself: I'm a forty-something convert to Judaism (previously Southern Baptist) and founder of Judaisms most recent movement (American Orthopraxy). I am fully observant and believe the laws of the Torah (611 in my estimation) are almost all eternal, barring those having to do with the Temple, sacrifice and the early transition from a nomadic to a territorial existence. My beliefs are closest to Modern Orthodoxy, but I do have some Karaite overtones. I accept the Torah as Divine, and the rest of the Tanack as historical and literary. It can sometimes be difficult to understand which portions of the Torah are to be taken exactly literally and which appear more allegorically inclined. Even the great Sages (see writings on the subject by Saadia Goan and the RamBam) had varying opinions. Outside of Genesis (which I consider G-d's literary works), this is no longer a problem. Married, father, professional (Doctorate).
One thought before we get too deep into the subject at hand, but which I think will prevail upon us throughout our discussion is G-d's actual writing of Scripture as opposed to dictating and inspiring Scripture. To the best of my knowledge, the only part of the Hebrew Scriptures that was actually written by G-d (as stated therein) is the Decalogue. I'm curious if you find any problem with this portion of the Scriptures, "Written by the Finger of G-d"?
I promise to not be as long winded in future posts!!! Let us begin with
"In the beginning"
Before starting there are two points I want to raise. First is that I still don't know who you are. Since you first challenged me to a debate, you've consistently signed your e-mails "Ovadiah" with no indication as to your identity. I was hoping you would reveal your identity in your biography. You didn't. My name and history are here for all to see, so how about coming out of the closet, so to speak?
The second point I want to raise is fundamental to this debate. Before we seriously consider the book of Genesis, I want to know who wrote it. From page one to the last, there isn't one hint as to the author's identity. In chapter one, verse one he merely launches into a fantastic tale which you are asking me to swallow as divine. There is one thing that we may glean from the book, which is that it isn't God writing, but a man (this is deduced because the book has a Jewish origin, and Judaism's prejudice against women precludes a female author; also because we are clearly reading a third person narrative). As a mere human, the author can't possibly have witnessed the events he describes, so his evidence is at best hearsay—and it's hearsay from someone who doesn't have the nerve to reveal his identity (but then, who can blame him when his yarn includes talking snakes?). This anonymous teller of tales doesn't once say that he is commissioned by and speaking for God. There is, in fact, nothing in the book of Genesis to indicate divine inspiration. I will remind you that in a court of law in most parts of the world (one exception perhaps being Communist China), such a document could not be submitted as evidence, and yet you ask that we treat it as such. Very well, for the sake of argument, I will do that—for what it's worth.
ben Lewi said, "You pointed out that Adam and Eve were commanded not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And you asked why would G-d not want man to know the difference between good and evil? Good question. I don't have an answer for you. You pointed out that Adam and Eve were punished for this sin, yet they did not know the difference between good and evil, so how could they be held accountable for it? Another question I had never thought of before and cannot answer.
Ovadiah, don't you think these questions go right to the heart of Genesis? I mean, what kind of a being is revealed in this tale? Even more to the point, if all this is a true story, then what does it say about humanity's destiny?
Why did G-d not want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and yet he put them in a garden with it? And G-d also put a serpent in the Garden and allowed the serpent to influence them. Contrary to Christian claims it never says the serpent was HaSatan it portrays the serpents as a talking animal and says he "was craftier than all the beasts of the field." So much for the "Satan did it" theory!
You don't see the absurdity of this tale? A talking snake with god-like powers to reason? Okay, maybe you don't, but at least you should answer the question you so clearly state.
Satan is seen in the serpent myth because the tale is known outside the Tanakh and the New Testament in far older myths, which I've covered in my Satan study. Also, I will point out that elsewhere in the Tanakh Satan is a servant of the god of Genesis, who sends him on errands to tempt righteous servants and cause death and destruction among his chosen people, which is why it is easy to deduce that the Genesis tale is the prototype for God and Satan's later misdeeds. (More about this later.)
And when they disobeyed how could He punish them, as they did not know the difference between good and evil yet before they ate of the tree? Also why was woman given more pain in childbirth something her descendants would bear as well when they did not commit her sin, and the Bible claims each is punished for their own sin [we'll come back to this in a future discussion]? Man was punished with work. So was G-d going to let humanity live naked in a garden forever not working but Adam and Eve messed up the plan?"
Before passing from this onto your attempted answers, let me ask you why the human body experiences pain? You and I both know the answer to that, so it's absurd to say that women suffer pain in childbirth because Eve ate a piece of fruit 6,000 years ago in Eden. Surely you will concede that point—a point that should cause any logical person to question this tale.
My response: If you are familiar with Rabbi Kushner's book, "How good do we have to be", you will see some of his ideas in the following parable, which sheds some light on much of the above:
A certain man had a young, innocent child who did not know right from wrong (1). He puts his child in a chair in the kitchen and tells the child that he may eat anything in the kitchen he desires (there are chips, ice cream and numerous treats) except a box of chocolate chip cookies: hot and freshly baked. The child has never tasted a cookie, but they smell and look delicious (2). The man knows when he places the child there that he will succumb to temptation and eat at least one of the delicious cookies. He tells the child that if he does eat a cookie he will "surely die". The father secretly, however, plans not only to 'punish' the child, but also his children, his children's children, and so on, throughout the ages (3). The babysitter, who knows the whole story/plan, tells the child that he will not die, but rather will become like his father and understand right from wrong.
Did the father act in good faith and in a manner consistent with the best interest of the child? Does the Father in this story appear to you to be The Creator of the World, The Master of Compassion and Ever Forgiving? Or rather did he act vindictively and purposely set up his child to fail and thus justify his wrath?
May I submit that neither this parable, nor the traditional interpretation of the Garden of Eden story depicts G-d in a light consistent with His omnipotent compassion and goodness (G-d does have, as some of His Names depict, apparently less compassionate sides as we may discuss in a future post). The traditional interpretation also places G-d in the position of contradicting His own word (Deut.24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin".) Further, I submit that there is another possible angle to the story.
First of all, which God of "omnipotent compassion and goodness" are you talking about? Perchance, is it the God who led the Jacob family down into Egypt so that he could enslave their descendants for 400 years—for no apparent reason? Is he the God who brings plagues on pharaoh and his people for enslaving the Israelites (which he foreordained), when he endorses slavery against other races (don't forget Sarah's Egyptian slave, Hagar, who was given to Abraham as a sex partner)? Is he the God who continued to harden pharaoh's heart so that he could torment, torture and slaughter the Egyptian people and devastate their land, simply because he chose them as part of his torturous plan for Israel? Are we talking about the God who caused David to number Israel, who then turns on the nation with a civil war, bringing about the deaths of thousands for something he caused in the first place? (II Sam. 24) Is it the God who commands the slaughter of Canaanite infant babies and the wholesale rape of captive "heathen" virgin women for the enjoyment of his chosen ones? (Why didn't this "compassionate" God simply send a prophet to the Canaanites and reveal his word and thus avoid such horror?) Is this the same God who says he creates good and evil (Isa. 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Is he the God who sends lying spirits to work evil: (Kings 22:22: "And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.")?
I just want to have it clear as to your definition of God's compassion and goodness during this debate! Also, let me point out that your rabbinical quotation didn't answer anything about Adam and Eve's treatment in Eden by a supposedly loving God, nor have you. All I see is the smoke of avoidance.
It appears to me that G-d loved us so much that He offered us the choice of remaining angelic creatures, incapable of sin or of becoming human and thus obeying G-d out of choice, rather than out of ignorance and instinct. Our Father gave us a choice and then, after we had made our decision, gently nudged us out into the real world, after caringly fashioning clothes for us and giving us a method for providing for ourselves (that "curse" called 'work'- also a topic for future discussion).
A gentle nudge? According to the story, he personally drove them out of Eden! I don't know about you, but if my father had treated me like God treated Adam and Eve, and then had a homicidal flaming angel chased me away from home, I would have never looked back! And what choice of remaining angelic beings are you talking about here? You are reading things into the story that aren't there. Isn't Genesis a fantastic enough tale without adding more? Besides, "we" didn't make that decision—I don't have any recollection of being there (at least I'm not mentioned in the tale). And this "loving" God of yours is supposedly still punishing billions because Adam and Eve fell into his cunningly-devised talking snake trap way back there in Eden. Moreover, speaking of clothes, notice that God slaughtered some innocent animals to make those garments. One would think that this "compassionate" God of "goodness" would have spared these innocent living creatures and wove something out of cotton or (better yet) silk. (Did you ever wonder about God's preoccupation with blood and killing?) You mention that God gave us a means to provide for ourselves, the implication being that it was the act of a kind, loving father. Well, let's see what this kind, loving father bequeathed to his children: Gen. 3:17: ". . . cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
I don't know about you, but I could live without the "love" of this kind of father!
Further evidence of this premise can be found in the fact that the word 'sin' is never used in this narrative. The Hebrew Scriptures do not call what Adam and Eve did sin! The word, however, is not foreign nor unknown to the scriptures; it is used in Genesis 4:7, just one chapter after our present text.
If what they did was not "sin," then what was it that sent God into a frenzy? I know that the God of the Hebrew scriptures is notorious and petty, punishing people for things that he caused, but really, isn't this a bit much? He creates two innocent babes, sets a talking snake on them, and then condemns them to death for what you say wasn't a sin! God only knows what he'd have done if they had actually sinned!
Jews believe that we are all born with both evil and a good inclinations. Throughout life, these two internal forces (4) battle for dominance. Only rarely does one side dominate completely, but there is usually a give and take relationship, with the good inclination (hopefully) being more dominant that the evil one. The evil inclination is indeed a necessary component of life: procreation, self defense and preservation, and many of our deepest motivations depend upon it. We simply must learn to "subdue" it (5) so that it does not rule our lives and so that the good outweighs the evil.
The rabbis rationale is based upon their blindly accepting the Genesis myth as the divine word of God, so their opinions are of no comfort. (Indeed Hasidic Judaism teaches that Satan is but the extension of the left side of God himself.) But let me ask you this: If the god of the Jews is God, and he created evil, then why must we fight against it? I mean, are not he and his ways perfect? And what do you mean that procreation is evil? Did God make a mistake when he put sexual desire in humans? Why did he put a penis and testicles on Adam and breasts and other reproductive apparatus on Eve? Was it for mere ornamentation? Also, when was the instinct for self defense created inside man? If it was before Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden for what you say wasn't a sin, then God must have known their fate before he created them (which the story of the two trees makes clear was the case). If you say it was after their non-sin action, then you are adding to the story and I want to know your source.
The Garden story, in addition to giving man an explaination of how he came into existence, also provides us with purpose: To, as closely as is humanly possible, to return the Earth to the Garden of Eden, but this time purposefully (not instinctually) obeying G-d and loving Him with all our power and not doing what we find offensive to others.
Again, God isn't talking in Genesis, it is from the pen of a nameless, faceless man, who is writing millions of years after the fact. Undoubtedly you accept his tale, with all the inconsistencies, on faith. I can't argue with your faith, illogical as it may be. As for humans returning to Eden, is it too much to ask that God should help in this quest? I don't know anyone who wouldn't want the kind of idealistic life portrayed in Eden, except for the part about a prowling deity who set a talking serpent on his children so that he could kill them and curse their children. But when is this God of yours going to lend a hand? He's not only lied, tortured and slaughtered his creation over the millennia, he's given us a book that is shot through with lies, inaccuracies, contradictions and unhistorical, unscientific events—and you say we need to obey this being and love him with all our power?
Is the story meant to give an exact scientific explaination of creation? I think not. However, it is interesting to note that the order in which the living creatures are created by G-d is the same as that of the evolutionists. I'm curious how you would explain Stone-age man knowing such a fact, without any "Higher Power" input?
If Genesis is not a scientific explanation of creation, then it couldn't have been written by the "finger" of the one who created the universe, whose creation is scientific perfection. Indeed, I charge that if it weren't for your predisposition to believe this tale divine, you'd see in it ample evidence that it is from the quill of a scientifically ignorant Jewish priest. Further, your curiosity should be how the created animals of Genesis survived God's great blunder, since he created the plants and seeds before he created the sun, which means their food source immediately froze solid, and thence was destroyed. Besides, if the Genesis account isn't a scientific explanation, as you state, then your curiosity is made void. However, since you raise the question of the order of creation, with the suggestion that the account was divinely inspired, let me point out that in Gen chapter 1, we have God creating animals before he created Adam, but in chapter 2 he creates Adam, then the animals, brings them to Adam to name, then looks among these beasts to find Adam a mate, after which he decides to create Eve—apparently forgetting that he had already created a female back in chapter one (or maybe one of the starving Eden animals, lacking anything else, ate her)! Most people know that a man can't reproduce by mating with an animal, so you'd think God would have also known that, and avoided the embarrassing episode with Adam and the animals. So much for your order of creation suggestion.
Notes:
(1) Remember, this knowledge ("good and evil") came about only after the "fall", not before. Yet curiosity is an instinct not a intuitive function. My cat is curious yet, except after teaching, does not know human right from wrong. Adam and Eve were curious, not necessarily calculating, in our narrative.
(2) The fruit was very appealing to the senses.
(3) The concept of "original sin", which is in no way even alluded to in the Scriptures.
(4) Notice the word "internal". This is not a "devil made me do it" concept. Yes, there is a Tempter (an angel [not fallen but directly under the power of G-d Himself]) who may put into our minds, from time to time, thoughts of evil or disobedience. The bottom line, however, is that we (not Satan) are responsible for our actions!
(5) As quoted by G-d to Cain when told that "sin croutches at his door", thus giving him the knowledge that he can indeed overpower sin.
* permission is granted for one-time use on Mr. Conder's site. Any other use is expressly prohibited by copyright laws and the author. Copyright 2000, 2003 by author.
P.S. I want to make it clear that my hard-hitting remarks and observations are not meant as a personal attack on "Ovadiah," but reflect my deep feelings about the bible and the horrific harm it has caused through the millennia.
Round Two
[Editor's note: disregard the below discussion of colors. Darrell and Ovadiah are discussing Darrell's original comments from the first part of the debate. Darrell's original comments will continue to be in blue, Ovadiah's commentary will be in bright blue and Darrell's secondary commentary will be in red.]
----- Original Message -----
Darrell:
Thank you for your reply and your decision to discuss these issues with me! For clarity, your responses are in black and mine in blue. I did not include my initial post, except in one area, so as not to repeat everything and take up too must space.
From: H B vintagedoc@hotmail.com
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Debate-part I
And mine will be in red.
Before starting there are two points I want to raise. First is that I still don't know who you are. Since you first challenged me to a debate, you've consistently signed your e-mails "Ovadiah" with no indication as to your identity. I was hoping you would reveal your identity in your biography. You didn't. My name and history are here for all to see, so how about coming out of the closet, so to speak?
My Jewish name is Ovadiah. I do not, however, want my name or e-mail address blasted all over cyberspace; a request the opening on your correspondence page seems to understand. This is your site and you have chosen to handle your identity as you have. That is certainly your right. Mine is likewise.
Well, by hiding your identity, you and the author of Genesis and the rest of the Torah, have something in common! However, I'm curious why you feel the need to hide? It doesn't bode well for your religious efforts, especially as you are the founder of a new religion. To be blunt, I have a problem having a relationship with a faceless, nameless e-mail. Indeed, if it were not for a mutual acquaintance (Sedeq ben Lewi), who assured me you were for real, I wouldn't have given serious consideration to your initial contact.
The second point I want to raise is fundamental to this debate. Before we seriously consider the book of Genesis, I want to know who wrote it. From page one to the last, there isn't one hint as to the author's identity.
(Tradition holds that Moses wrote it, but you are correct, the author is un-named).
Of course anyone with an ounce of logic can read the Torah and tell that Moses didn't write these books. As in the creation account, the author speaks of Moses in the third person, even detailing his death. So we are back to the problem of who wrote the Torah, which you declare is divine, i.e., from God. When I read any book, especially historical or scientific works, I want to know the author's credentials. That is logical. Is this too much to ask of the bible?
In chapter one, verse one he merely launches into a fantastic tale which you are asking me to swallow as divine. There is one thing that we may (choose to) glean from the book, which is that it isn't God writing, but a man (this is deduced because the book has a Jewish origin, and Judaism's prejudice against women precludes a female author (actually there is good evidence that at least one if not more of the books of the Tanack were written by women); also because we are clearly reading a third person narrative).
"Good evidence" you say? If you are willing to consider such evidence, which is commendable, then why don't you consider the evidence of scholars like Israel Finkelstein and Neill Asher Silberman's The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts? Here you will find scientific evidence of the Tanakh's Canaanite pagan origins. Why not read this book and answer some of its information? Speaking for myself, I would like your insight on the information. (Finkelstein is director of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University. Silberman is director of historical interpretation for the Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation in Belgium and a contributing editor to Archaeology magazine.)
As a mere human, the author can't possibly have witnessed the events he describes, so his evidence is at best hearsay—and it's hearsay from someone who doesn't have the nerve to reveal his identity (but then, who can blame him when his yarn includes talking snakes?
(perhaps his identity is not the important thing here. I know some darn good quotes with fantastic principles that are simply labelled "Anon")
Hey, these "darn good quotes" haven't been responsible for thousands of years of slaughter, torture, destruction and misery. If they had, I would demand to know who wrote them, and why they were written before I went around acting as a self-appointed disciple, which takes us back to the same question: Who wrote this book you are promoting? I ask you how any logical person can put their faith in a collection of anonymous writings? I mean, God doesn't seem to have a problem taking credit for killing babies, or any number of other despicable acts, so why, if he wrote any part of this book (or inspired it) does he not take the credit right up front?
This anonymous teller of tales doesn't once say that he is commissioned by and speaking for God. There is, in fact, nothing in the book of Genesis to indicate divine inspiration. I will remind you that in a court of law in most parts of the world (one exception perhaps being Communist China), such a document could not be submitted as evidence, and yet you ask that we treat it as such.
(I ask no such thing. A second hand narrative has no place in criminal or civil proceedings. You are requiring evidence of a book that, IMHO, was never meant to be introduced as literal evidence.)
Not literal evidence? Previously you wrote: "The Garden story, in addition to giving man an explaination of how he came into existence, also provides us with purpose:" In your introduction, you wrote: "I accept the Torah as Divine, and the rest of the Tanack as historical and literary." Genesis is the first book of the Torah, and even if you have personally relegated it to the status of "literary", you previous statement appeals to Genesis as a book of fact. Moreover, call it "literary" if you want, but you are still promoting it as a book from God! Your self-appointed authority to accept bits and pieces of the Tanakh as divine, or reject them as man-made, makes this exchange a no-win situation. Anytime you wish to excuse God's actions, or a contradiction, you merely have to fall back on one of your master excuses.
You don't see the absurdity of this tale? A talking snake with god-like powers to reason? Okay, maybe you don't, but at least you should answer the question you so clearly state.
Ovadiah, you skip over this question, as I've noticed you do throughout this exchange. How about answering all my questions?
Satan is seen in the serpent myth because the tale is known outside the Tanakh . . . (Ah, the chicken or the egg question! Many other cultures have creation, flood and even triune god myths. Does this mean that Judaism copied them (the first two)? Or, could they have been common knowledge, passed down in each individual culture in slightly different ways?)
This is not the "chicken and the egg" question because Judaism came along countless centuries after these myths had achieved divine status in the ancient world. In other words, Sumer, Babylon and other ancient nations had this "truth" of yours before the ancient world had ever heard of Israel! Further, unlike Judaism, the creation and flood myths of Mesopotamia are literally carved in stone, and may be examined in the British Museum, whereas the original of the Jewish myths are fragmented among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here is the prototype of the Jewish scriptures, so why aren't you worshiping Baal-Marduk and embracing the Babylonian Creation Tablets as divine? I'll tell you and my readers why: It is because you were indoctrinated in a Christian society that has brainwashed you with its "God's unquestionable holy word" hype! I know, and I sympathize because I've been there.
. . . and the New Testament in far older myths, which I've covered in my Satan study. Also, I will point out that elsewhere in the Tanakh Satan is a servant of the god of Genesis, who sends him on errands to tempt righteous servants and cause death and destruction among his chosen people, which is why it is easy to deduce that the Genesis tale is the prototype for God and Satan's later misdeeds. (More about this later.)
More skipped questions Ovadiah!
Before passing from this onto your attempted answers (by some this might be considered inflammatory), let me ask you why the human body experiences pain? You and I both know the answer to that, so it's absurd to say that women suffer pain in childbirth because Eve ate a piece of fruit 6,000 years ago in Eden. Surely you will concede that point—a point that should cause any logical person to question this tale.
But this passage only speaks of labor pain (and perhaps, allegorically of the pain of child-rearing), not of all pains known to man. Similarly, the explaination of the rainbow does not include an explaination of why clouds form. We should come back to the curses again later too...a fascinating subject!
I am not addressing the pains of mankind, but showing that the reason the human body feels pain is self-preservation mechanism, which is why a woman feels labor pains. But this bit of biology apparently goes over your head, as you refer to it as a curse. So, let me bluntly ask you: Do you really think that Eve's "sin" is the reason women experience labor pains?
First of all, which God of "omnipotent compassion and goodness" are you talking about? Perchance, is it the God who led the Jacob family down into Egypt so that he could enslave their descendants for 400 years—for no apparent reason? Is he the God who brings plagues on pharaoh and his people for enslaving the Israelites (which he foreordained), when he endorses slavery against other races (don't forget Sarah's Egyptian slave, Hagar, who was given to Abraham as a sex partner)?
(I don't believe G-d endorses slavery, but it was a terrible sign of the times, which G-d addressed by requiring decent treatment of slaves)
Wait a minute here. Either God has the power to stop slavery, or he doesn't. I mean, he never had a problem killing off whole nations or indeed the world, when they didn't obey commands of which he never bothered to inform them. Instead of outlining "fair" treatment of slaves (from a moral perspective, that's an absurd concept), he should have forbidden slavery and threatened death, as he does for far less offenses. Of course we both know why "God" allowed slavery. It was because this book was written by men who owned and trafficked in slaves. I say that if your god is God, then he had no part of this book and any attempt by you to excuse slave-owners by connecting him to the book, is base!
Is he the God who continued to harden pharaoh's heart so that he could torment, torture and slaughter the Egyptian people and devastate their land, simply because he chose them as part of his torturous plan for Israel?
(He knew He would do this, but didn't actually do so until the fifth plague [if memory serves me correctly], thus giving Pharaoh ample time to exercise his free will)
What "free will" are you talking about here? God set this whole thing up, as he did in the Garden of Eden incident, and when pharaoh tried to get rid of the Israelites and their god, true to his nature, the god of Israel "hardened" pharaoh's heart so that he could continue his murderous fun! Besides, how can you speak with any authority for God's reasoning, since you concede that the Torah is from the quill pens of anonymous authors? All you are doing is making excuses.
Are we talking about the God who caused David to number Israel, who then turns on the nation with a civil war, bringing about the deaths of thousands for something he caused in the first place? (II Sam. 24) Is it the God who commands the slaughter of Canaanite infant babies and the wholesale rape (please provide the verse that demands the women be raped. Also, at what age did women generally marry during this time of history?) of captive "heathen" virgin women for the enjoyment of his chosen ones? (Why didn't this "compassionate" God simply send a prophet to the Canaanites and reveal his word and thus avoid such horror?) Is this the same God who says he creates good and evil (Isa. 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Is he the God who sends lying spirits to work evil: (Kings 22:22: "And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.")?
(--nack, not Torah, thus outside the realm of our discussion)
(Ovadiah reference to "--nack" means the Nevi'im and Kethuvim, the other two divisions of the Old Testament.) I beg your pardon! How dare I quote from a portion of your holy book that you've declared invalid! I will point out that your picking and choosing from the Tanakh what, in your self-made theology, seems right to you, is a perfect example of how this "holy book" of yours came to be in the mess in which we find it. A few thousand years of tampering and interpretation by other self-appointed holy men, is why I can expose the bible for the fraud it is. For that I must sincerely thank you and those who have gone before, or else I might still be wallowing in this deceptive mire.
I just want to have it clear as to your definition of God's compassion and goodness during this debate! Also, let me point out that your rabbinical quotation didn't answer anything about Adam and Eve's treatment in Eden by a supposedly loving God, nor have you. All I see is the smoke of avoidance.
I think I made clear that G-d does have some apparently different sides. I will not even attempt to explain G-d's actions to you. This is not an act of avoidance nor defiance, simply my ignorance. However, this changes nothing. Good, bad or misunderstood, "G.W." is still the President and Hashem is still G-d!
What you are saying is that you don't care how ridiculous the excuses become for the contradictions, or how many unanswerable questions that arise, you will cling to the mess and continue to promote your new religion. May I ask why it was that you abandoned Jesus and the New Testament? You could have used your lack of reason and stayed a member of the Lamb's fold. After all, there's a lot more fertile hunting ground among Christian sheep than among Jews!
A gentle nudge hell! According to the story, he personally drove them out of Eden! I don't know about you, but if my father had treated me like God treated Adam and Eve, and then had a homicidal flaming angel . . .
(perhaps I'm not the only one embellishing here a bit-LOL)
What do you mean "embellishing"? The story teller says that God drove them out of Eden and one may easily presume that the angel with the flaming sword was prepared to skewer poor old Adam and Eve if they came near that tree! (Hey, it wasn't me that wrote this nonsense, I'm just repeating it!)
. . . chased me away from home, I would have never looked back! And what choice of remaining angelic beings are you talking about here? You are reading things into the story that aren't there. Isn't Genesis a fantastic enough tale without adding more? Besides, "we" (our ancestors) didn't make that decision—I don't have any recollection of being there (at least I'm not mentioned in the tale).
(perhaps we are feeling a bit flippant today after a hard day's work?)
It's hard to take this stuff seriously, let alone anyone who promotes it! So far it's been like debating the meaning of a Three Stooges film (no disrespect intended to Moe, Larry and Curly, as they never made a misrepresentation about their work).
And this "loving" God of yours is supposedly still punishing billions because Adam and Eve fell into his cunningly-devised talking snake trap way back there in Eden.
(I addressed this in the parable)
You did not. You offered some nonsense from a rabbi and frankly I saw no point to it, except to reinforce the absurdity of the Genesis snake myth.
Moreover, speaking of clothes, notice that God slaughtered some innocent animals to make those garments.
(you are a vegetarian? I was unaware. Not me! Once we got the green light after the flood I'm a meat and 'taters' man! Seriously, we were given dominion over the animals, yet we must respect the sacrifice they make for us)
With your 611 man-made laws, I'm surprised that you can eat meat and potatoes in the same meal—or is that meat and cheese that's against your law? Or perhaps you are allowed to eat these together, but only on alternating Tuesdays as long as there's a new moon and you do a wave sheaf offering beforehand. Anyway, who gave us this "dominion" over the animals? According to you, it wasn't God because he only wrote the Decalogue. You want to kill animals? That's fine. But ascribe it to humanity's killer instinct because that's the impetus behind your "holy scriptures."
One would think that this "compassionate" God of "goodness" would have spared these innocent living creatures and wove something out of cotton or (better yet) silk. (Did you ever wonder about God's preoccupation with blood and killing?) You mention that God gave us a means to provide for ourselves, the implication being that it was the act of a kind, loving father. Well, let's see what this kind, loving father bequeathed to his children: Gen. 3:17: ". . . cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
I don't know about you, but I could live without the "love" of this kind of father!
What kind of answer is this? How about clarifying, and how about addressing the issues I raised in the above statement?
If what they did was not "sin," then what was it that sent God into a frenzy?
(I honestly do not see a frenzy. Look at how G-d 'finds' Adam. Very non-confrontational)
Well, perhaps "frenzy" is not the right word. It was more like a cold, calculating killer (Al Capone comes to mind here) stalking a victim. I mean, God knew that Adam and Eve ate that forbidden apple, but he slyly feigns ignorance all the while knowing that he's going to kill them for falling into his trap. That's cold! Again I say, I can live without the "love" of this kind of "father."
I know (read believe) that the God of the Hebrew scriptures is notorious and petty, punishing people for things that he caused, but really, isn't this a bit much? He creates two innocent babes, sets a talking snake on them, and then condemns them to death for what you say wasn't a sin! God only knows what he'd have done if they had actually sinned!
The rabbis rationale is based upon their blindly accepting the Genesis myth as the divine word of God, so their opinions are of no comfort.
(I don't believe it is blind acceptance at all. I may be "educated beyond my intelligence", but I too have accepted these as from G-d. Whether the purpose of the Genesis narratives are literal or figurative, there's the rub! One could just as easily say that you are turning a blind eye to the Scriptures)
So, this fantastic story is from God after all? Which is it? Is only the Decalogue from God and the rest of man, or is it all inspired by God, which is essentially the same thing? If the latter, then the Tanakh is divine and therefore it should be infallible! And what is this "figurative" nonsense? For thousands of years a few billion people have lived and died being taught by you "holy men of God" that this is "his word." Now that it is no longer a capital crime (read burning at the stake or stoning here) to translate the bible into common languages, and for people to publically question the bible, suddenly you "men of God" are spinning yarns about "figurative" meanings. God, is there no shame?
. . . (Indeed Hasidic Judaism teaches that Satan is but the extension of the left side of God himself.) But let me ask you this: If the god of the Jews is God, and he created evil, then why must we fight against it?
(certainly you would not recommend sexual intercourse 24/7? Maybe I should join your group! He-he. We must not let the negative (or mortal) side dominate. We made the choice to know good from evil. All that is was created by G-d. Once again, I shant try to explain His motives or understanding to you)
Your sexual remark is quite meaningless to this exchange, and I suspect a clumsy attempt by you to gloss over the fact that your god claims responsibility for the world's evil. As for your refusal to "try to explain His motives or understanding", that is because you have no answer, as you've elsewhere admitted.
I mean, are not he and his ways perfect? And what do you mean that procreation is evil? Did God make a mistake when he put sexual desire in humans?
(the term evil inclination is unfortunately not easily understood in the English mind-see previous comment)
So to understand what "God" means in his "holy word" (which was supposedly meant for our instruction) we must become proficient in ancient Hebrew? Hey, even the most scholarly among the rabbis don't know what this book means in many places—how can you? Now, instead of glossing over my other question, how about you explaining to our readers why you consider sexual intercourse as evil?
Why did he put a penis and testicles on Adam and breasts on Eve? Was it for mere ornamentation? Also, when was the instinct for self defense created inside man? If it was before Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden for what you say wasn't a sin, then God must have known their fate before he created them (which the story of the two trees makes clear was the case).
(Yes, I believe G-d knew which choice they would make. Perhaps, just as parents do today, however, we, on one hand, hope they will change their mind and not leave the nest, while at the same time know that is what is really best for them)
As I've been saying, this was a trap sprung by a vicious being who relishes torture, death and destruction (read the history of Israel for endless examples). Speaking as a father, never once did I set up a situation to tempt my children so that I could punish them. (What a damnable, cruel thought!) In this case "our father" knowingly set out to kill Adam and Eve and curse their progeny for the next 6,000 years, which you say was for the purpose of "gently" pushing them out of the nest. As I said earlier, I can live without the "love" of that kind of father! Besides, if, as you claim, this tale isn't divine, then why are you defending it on God's behalf?
If you say it was after their non-sin action, then you are adding to the story and I want to know your source.
Again, God isn't talking in Genesis, it is from the pen of a nameless, faceless man, who is writing millions of years after the fact. Undoubtedly you accept his tale, with all the inconsistencies, on faith. I can't argue with your faith, illogical as it may be (in my opinion). As for humans returning to Eden, is it too much to ask that God should help in this quest?
(Do you have evidence that He does not?)
Well, let's see: In the past 100 years, how about World War One, the Russian Revolution, World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, and George Bush's latest oil war for an answer? And speaking of millions of years after the creation, how about addressing the fact that the earth is millions of years old, and therefore, following the Genesis account of creation, so are humans? How does this fit your bible's 6,000 year chronology?
I don't know anyone who wouldn't want the kind of idealistic life portrayed in Eden . . .
(I disagree! 'We' definately made the right choice....go Adam...go Eve...!!)
Here's this "we" again. You and I weren't there. (Neither were the mythical Adam and Eve, nor your Yahweh, nor a talking snake, etc.—unless you accept the authority of ancient pre-Israelite mythology as divine.) At any rate, are you saying that God's deception and cunning were for our good, as was Adam and Eve's rebellion? Let me also note that you've skipped many of the points raised in my last set of answers. By ignoring them, they don't go away and they still need to be answered. I remind you of this because you boasted to our mutual friend that you could answer these questions. I and my readers are waiting. (I'm serious here: If you can disprove what I've posted on my web site, I'll repent and turn to your Lord.)
. . . except for the part about a prowling deity who set a talking serpent on his children so that he could kill them and curse their children. But when is this God of yours going to lend a hand? He's not only lied, tortured and slaughtered his creation over the millennia, . . .
(Perhaps it is due to our own misdeeds and inadequacies that such has befallen us. It is interesting to note that G-d Himself does not explain Himself in the Scriptures, rather they just begin, "In the beginning G-d..", so, once again, I won't speak for Him)
Here we go again! You have boasted that you have answers to my questions, but continually skip or gloss over them with things like this. The fact is that those who wrote the Tanakh don't "explain" God because the monster they created with their quill pens defies reason. No amount of blind faith and man-made religions will make him real. Besides this, you might as well speak for God—everyone else does!
. . . he's given us a book that is shot through with lies, inaccuracies, contradictions and unhistorical, unscientific events—and you say we need to obey this being and love him with all our power?
(once again, you are stating opinion as fact. This is your site, so I must indulge you...he-he)
Listen, you came to me and challenged me to a debate with the boast that you can answer my questions. Instead, you've been giving me this kind of response. My entire site is full of evidence to back my statements. Why not go there, find something wrong, and show me some concrete evidence of my error? I challenge you to do so, and I'll post your answers!
If Genesis is not a scientific explanation of creation, then it couldn't have been written by the "finger" of the one who created the universe,
(actually, it was His word that created the Universe) Well, maybe "His word" did what you claim, but "your word" is not sufficient evidence for the occasion. I want something concrete.
. . . whose creation is scientific perfection. Indeed, I charge that if it weren't for your predisposition to believe this tale divine, you'd see in it ample evidence that it is from the quill of a scientifically ignorant Jewish priest. Further, your curiosity should be how the created animals of Genesis survived God's great blunder, since he created the plants and seeds before he created the sun, which means their food source immediately froze solid, and thence was destroyed.
(actually the sun was created before the animals, so the grass would have thawed by then. Geology clearly bears out the fact that greenery now thrives where a frozen Ice Age wasteland once existed. Additionally, the concept of grass and the DNA/germ seed may have been created [much like a zygote in the womb, not yet ready to burst forth as a fully developed human neonate] awaiting the sunlight to nourish it)
Good God! Like all those Christian apologists, you offer these absurd, worn "how-it-could-have-happened" scenarios, instead of admitting what any astute first year college science major would know. Don't you think God should have known at least that much about science before he started on his creation? Besides this, I've not even gone into the other problems with that so-called creation week. Would you like to tackle these too? I'll say this again: The Genesis creation account was written by a scientifically-ignorant Jewish priest, and the book amply demonstrates the fact.
Besides, if the Genesis account isn't a scientific explanation, as you state, then your curiosity is made void.
(I don't understand this point)
I'm saying that if you don't accept Genesis as a scientific book, which you state, then there's no reason for you to satisfy your curiosity by asking questions.
However, since you raise the question of the order of creation, with the suggestion that the account was divinely inspired, let me point out that in Gen chapter 1, we have God creating animals before he created Adam, but in chapter 2 he creates Adam, then the animals, brings them to Adam to name, then looks among these beasts to find Adam a mate, after which he decides to create Eve—apparently forgetting that he had already created a female back in chapter one (or maybe one of the starving Eden animals, lacking anything else, ate her).
(The two narratives are, in my opinion, complementary, not exclusive or all-encompassing.)
Then you need to reread these two accounts without your old Christian blinders in place. They are not "complementary", but contradictory. Indeed, if this exchange continues, I'll be showing you these contradictions and a whole lot more.
Most people know that a man can't reproduce by mating with an animal, so you'd think God would have also known that, and avoided the embarrassing episode with Adam and the animals.
(do you find that the best lessons taught your children come from telling them something or from letting them figure it out for themselves? I can see Adam, "Whoa, Big Guy, that's what I'm going to call a horse and sorry, but it aint a happening thing!")
We are not talking about my children or yours. We are not even talking about Adam. We are talking about God apparently not knowing that Adam was unable to mate with an animal, and forgetting that he had already created a woman in Genesis chapter 1? The point: What happened to her?
So much for your order of creation suggestion.
P.S. I want to make it clear that my hard-hitting remarks and observations are not meant as a personal attack on "Ovadiah," but reflect my deep feelings about the bible and the horrific harm it has caused through the millennia.
(no offense taken on my part! I would agree with you that much harm has been prepetrated upon mankind in the name of G-d. No question! But this generally results from interpretation ("there's a sect for every nut", and undoubtably a passage too!), rather than the Bible's teaching itself.)
You're missing the point: The bible cannot teach itself, because it's a jumble of contradictions. That's why there are so many "nuts" out there preaching their 611 laws, for which they are prepared to make war on their fellow man. That's why "nuts" have been founding religions for thousands of years, dragging people down into the most destructive quagmires imaginable. You seem like an intelligent person. For "God's" sake, how about reading your bible without your preconceived notions and agendas, and just use a bit of common sense!
Speaking of "the smoke of avoidance", you brushed right over my fundamental question: "One thought before we get too deep into the subject at hand, but which I think will prevail upon us throughout our discussion is G-d's actual writing of Scripture as opposed to dictating and inspiring Scripture. To the best of my knowledge, the only part of the Hebrew Scriptures that was actually written by G-d (as stated therein) is the Decalogue. I'm curious if you find any problem with this portion of the Scriptures, "Written by the Finger of G-d"?"
I wasn't aware that I "brushed right over" your question. I don't believe anything/anyone supernatural wrote or inspired the bible. Furthermore, at this point I'm still unclear as to what you believe. At one time you claim to accept only the Torah as divine, but then turn and reject Genesis, which is the first book of the Torah. Then you say that God inspired the other divisions of the Tanakh, but that they are not divine. If this god of yours "inspired" the Nevi'im and Kethuvim, then they are from him and therefore divine. In other words, if God inspired this mess, then he is answerable for its contents. More than this, if it was inspired by the one who designed and created the universe, then it must be infallible. That is the question, pure and simple! As to the so-called Decalogue, yes, I do find a problem with it—but that's a topic for another time.
In closing tonight, let me just say that both of us have pretty much made up our own minds how we see Scripture and G-d. It is not my intent to try to convert you to my way of thinking and I trust the reverse is likewise true. I do believe, however, that your readers deserve the whole picture such that they can make an informed decision as we both did. Providing that information, as well as some wholesome sparring, is my goal. Whether we see the glass as half empty or half full, we must both acknowledge the glass's existence. You find what you consider to be evidence of contradictions, atrocities and so forth and declare the Holy Scriptures as invalid. However, I dare say there are many truths therein as well: the plant kingdom was indeed created before the animal kingdom; the rainbow comes out after a torrential rain; it is moral to not murder your neighbor nor lust after his wife; and so on. As such, the premise that there is much good in the Scriptures and therefore G-d exists and the Scriptures were given by Him holds just as much water as your premise.
But, if the glass is cracked, we must admit that as fact—don't you agree? And if the glass is cracked, it is useless! You rattle on about the Tanakh holding some truths. Yes it does. But any such truths were known ages before the Jews produced this book, which doesn't prove your argument. If you have a car repair manual that is riddled with misinformation, would you continue to use it because it had a few things right? Or would you toss it out and search for a more reliable book? That's the logical way to look at any thing that purports to be holy. It's that simple. Indeed, there are many "holy" books that contain truth. Why don't you accept one of these as God's word? I'll tell you why: It's because you were born into and reared inside of a society that revered the bible as "God's Word." Had you been born in India and brought up inside one of their countless faiths, I might now be debating you about god-knows-what, and you'd be defending it as "divine!"
As to your point that the plant kingdom was created before the animal kingdom, let me say that to make this assertion you must first prove that the Genesis account was inspired or written by the one who did the creating. So far you've only offered your opinion about the Torah. I and my readers are still waiting for your touted "evidence." You mention the rainbow and imply that this is a scientific truth contained in the Torah. Surely you know that this is not so. According to that "divine" source, the rainbow was a sign of God's promise to Noah that he would never again drown humanity in yet another of his murderous tirades—an ancient Babylonian myth, by the way, the Jews borrowed during their Babylonian captivity. As far as morality is concerned, many cultures, both ancient and otherwise, and which have their own holy books, have or had upright rules and decalogues. God-less communist societies have upright, moral laws. None of these peoples knew/know your God, so where did they get their sense of morality?
Thanks! Ovadiah
ps I'm not yet a Rabbi :)
I was told this by our mutual friend/acquaintance.
Rabbi Ovadiah Calls Conder
a 'Fanatic' and Bails Out
----- Original Message -----
From: H B vintagedoc@hotmail.com
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Cc: sadduqim@sadduqim.org
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: Debate 2
Darrell:
It appears you are more interested in having a shouting match than debating in a civil manner. You have clearly, as any reader will readily see, violated the terms of our debate. You said: "If you decide to debate, I promise to be polite and professional in my responses...". Your responses have been far from either polite or professional. Instead, you have hurled insult after insult and constantly reminded your readers of your superior knowledge over the rest of us. This may not be entirely your fault: from reading the letters you get, it appears people either hate you or love you....there seems little in between. Perhaps you are not accustomed to speaking with others who have neither emotion for you. If you wish to continue, however, I must insist that you modify your tactics to treat me with the same respect and politeness that I've afforded you.
To get back to the premise of our debate (your position: The Bible is not perfect. G-d is a perfect being. Therefore the Bible is not of G-d and the latter does not exist).
This is our debate, not proving the Tanack via scientific means as was your debate with ben Lewi. I am interested in debating these so-called fallacies and some of the theories that do not simply "throw the baby out with the bath water".
IMHO, your premise has several major flaws:
1) Philosphically and logically, whether the Bible is G-d's word or not does not negate (nor prove) that G-d exists.
2) You are looking for scientific proof in a Book that most people would agree was not designed to give such. Truly, "There is nothing new under the sun". Others have had similar arguments in the past and, undoubtably will continue to do long after "grass grows from both our cheekbones". St. Augustine raised similar issues against the validity of the Bible before his conversion. He did convert, and understood that much of the Bible is best understood allegorically. This dimension shows the Scriptures to be much richer and deeper than the superficial view St. Augustine (and yourself) had previously held. You assume that the primary intention of the Bible is to convey accurate historical and scientific facts, when most people would say that the primary intention of the Bible is to convey insight into the nature of our relationship with G-d. You also assume that G-d was interested in writting a precise document. Whether you chose "Whosoever wishes to err, let him err", or "Seek and ye shall find", the meaning is the same: You generally find what you search for. In your case, this is error and contradiction. In my case, it is wonder, amazement and spiritual truth.
3) Your argument anachronistically places 21st century morales and values on a prehistoric culture. This leaves you with a skewed perception of Biblical history. Thus, taking 12 year old girls as captive wives does not seem so taboo, when one considers the fact that the average girl was married by this time in her life back then. While the Bible is loaded with eternal truths, we must remember that it was written to be understood by It's first readers: thus the 'days' of creation, 'the great lights', etcetera.
I will leave the decision of whether to continue or end our discussion to you.
Peace! Ovadiah
Come on Ovadiah, I'm not the only one who has tossed a few insults in our exchange. And speaking of professional, your occasional "he,he,he"'s are not the stuff of which intellectual debates are made. I respect you as a person (despite your refusal to reveal your identity), but I have no respect for the book you are trying to defend, nor the religious hate it has spawned. My occasional sarcasm is directed to this. You read my previous debates before challenging me, and therefore know my style. I will not change this because you have a thin skin about your religion (although I suspect your anger has more to do with the unanswerable points I've raised).
As to the debate, so far your debating skills and your selective use of the TNK has been a disappointment to me and the readers from whom I've heard. You promised to answer my points in my debate with Sedeq ben Lewi, and this you've not done. So let me simplify things for you. The heart of the matter is this: Is the Tanakh (the Old Testament for my Christian readers) the word of God? If you say parts of it are, and parts are not, then you've negated the entirety of the bible. If you say yes, then we have something to continue to debate.
Regards,
DWC
P.S., I can't let your example of taking 12-year-old girls as "captive wives" pass without comment. Do you actually know what you are advocating? Let's forget the age question for now, and consider that the girls in your example were living in the peaceful, loving embrace of their families when a hoard of "Yahweh's servants" came charging into their village, slashing the throats of their fathers and baby brothers, ripping open the pregnant bellies of their mothers and sisters, and then finally dragging them back to some foreign village where they were handed over to god-knows-what to be raped for entertainment and "reward" because the victors had the good fortune to be born members of Yahweh's chosen tribe! Defend this if you please, but I see nothing holy about the situation, nor anything worth defending.
----- Original Message -----
From: H B vintagedoc@hotmail.com
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Debate 2
Darrell:
If you would be honest enough to review your previous e-mail (labelled "Round 2"), I think you would see more than just a bit of sarcasm. But, since you are perfect and the rest of us are not, I can see how you would be ignorant of your own misdeeds.
When I ask you to do what you said you would so ("polite and professional"), you simply label it 'thin religious skin'. When I tell you I can't explain G-d, you label it as a cop out. When I make a point, you'd rather get caught up in some other issue than to admit anything. As such, I see no point in continuing. I do not conceed my point, only my patience in dealing with a know it all fanatic.
Take care!
You're most welcome, who ever you are!
