Exodus 4:24

Originally posted by Suzianne
It's a tangent because in my statement, it was a given that it was God talking and that one would know it was God. Certainly Moses knew it was God.

You say to twitehead that he would do X if Y is true. X is the murder of a child; and for you discussion of what Y is, is a "tangent"?? Well, well. Is THAT how you reach your stances on things?

Originally posted by FMF
You say to twitehead that he would do X if Y is true. X is the murder of a child; and for you discussion of what Y is, is a "tangent"?? Well, well. Is THAT how you reach your stances on things?

The discussion of what Y is, is a tangent because what Y is, is a given. Since it is a given, there should not be any discussion of it, and therefore it is a tangent.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The discussion of what Y is, is a tangent because what Y is, is a given. Since it is a given, there should not be any discussion of it, and therefore it is a tangent.

And as further proof, all this time that is being spent on this question is time that could be spent on my POINT, instead of on the tangent.

But this is your SOP for debate. Distract and deflect.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The discussion of what Y is, is a tangent because what Y is, is a given. Since it is a given, there should not be any discussion of it, and therefore it is a tangent.

Well, I reckon declaring "there should not be any discussion of" something that is absolutely central to someone responding to a hypothetical, gets to the heart of how how the religionist mind works. I don't think it is a "tangent" when discussing something like the ritualized murdering of children. Perhaps to you X is "a given" because Y is "a given". Does that seriously constitute a "discussion"?

Originally posted by Suzianne
And as further proof, all this time that is being spent on this question is time that could be spent on my POINT, instead of on the tangent.

Well, so that I can understand your "POINT", tell me, how would you know that the person telling you to your face to do something was in fact God?

Originally posted by Suzianne
It's good that you recognize that the child was innocent. As such, if he was killed, he'd probably get an express trip to Heaven. The time the kid spent on Earth wouldn't even be a blip in his memory before too long.

So should the father be thankful to God for giving his child an express trip to heaven? I thought the father was being punished?

Originally posted by Suzianne
It wouldn't have been the first time, nor the last.

I think if God told you to your face to do something, you should probably do it.

It's good that you recognize that the child was innocent. As such, if he was killed, he'd probably get an express trip to Heaven. The time the kid spent on Earth wouldn't even be a blip in his memory before too long.

that's not an excuse. nor is it a reward for the child. the purpose of all souls is to experience life on earth, otherwise what is the point of all this life fiasco? why do souls get sent to earth? for torture? for the sadistic enjoyment of god?


it is much more reasonable to assume this is just another of those stories invented by men and put in the holy bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Moses beleived the One telling him to do something was God because of the fact of His miraculous appearing and the fact that God told him who He was. However, that might not be good enough for some people.

stranger: "Hello I'm God"
Moses: "Really?"
stranger: "Yep. Cross my heart"
Moses "OK .. thats good enough for me"

Originally posted by FMF
Well, so that I can understand your "POINT", tell me, how would you know that the person telling you to your face to do something was in fact God?

Moses knew it was God. Period. This makes your question not only tangential, but it borders on stupid.

But that was abundantly clear to begin with. I shouldn't have wasted this much time with this.

Nitpicking at tangents. I'm sure you won't mind me going to threads where you try to make a point and asking bizarre questions about the color of your shoes, and then demanding answers.

It's called derailing a thread. You do have a gift for it, though, so I guess I can't fault you for sticking with what you know.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that's not an excuse. nor is it a reward for the child. the purpose of all souls is to experience life on earth, otherwise what is the point of all this life fiasco? why do souls get sent to earth? for torture? for the sadistic enjoyment of god?


it is much more reasonable to assume this is just another of those stories invented by men and put in the holy bible.

Reasonable?

Are you saying it is reasonable for a Christian to assume the Holy Bible is fictitious invention?

Are you really saying this is reasonable?

You did say you were Christian, yes? All I ever see from you is evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Moses knew it was God. Period. This makes your question not only tangential, but it borders on stupid.

"Moses knew it was God"... so twhitehead also "knows" it's God in your question? Me drawing attention to this clumsy rhetorical device is not "stupid". It gets to the very heart of the kind of thought games religionists use to convince themselves of things. Try this one, for example: "I [Suzianne] think if God told you [twhitehead] to your face to do something, you should probably do it [notes: where Suzianne thinks it is a "given" that it is God, but it is in fact a "given" that it isn't God, something twhitehead realizes, although it is also a "given" that Suzianne doesn't realize this]". This is how "givens" work in a gimmicky thought game.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It's called derailing a thread. You do have a gift for it, though, so I guess I can't fault you for sticking with what you know.

What if it was your Satan figure who wanted Moses' son murdered and not your God figure?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So should the father be thankful to God for giving his child an express trip to heaven? I thought the father was being punished?

As I said to Agerg earlier, I spoke out of turn with my comment.

As I now understand God's circumcision covenant with Abraham, the child was disobeying God by not being circumcised. In that covenant, God clearly laid out the result of breaking the covenant. He even warned Moses about it. Moses clearly not only slacked in his responsibility, but he was fully prepared to do nothing about what was going to happen. Moses' wife had to step in to protect her son. It would have been a punishment to Moses' for shirking his responsibility, but the way the covenant is worded, the one not getting the circumcision is the one who is sinning before God. This makes the child not entirely innocent, but Moses must retain responsibility for the sin.

As one poster said earlier, I think this was more about Moses' relationship with God at this point. God showing Moses who's boss and Moses' passive-aggressive response to that.

EDIT: I just realized that we also do not know the age of Moses' son at this time. Was he a child? I don't know.

EDIT: A re-reading of the covenant says that a male child 8 days old shall be circumcised. We do not know how long God waited before taking action on the offense. It's likely he was a child, but still not 100% sure.

Originally posted by FMF
What if it was your Satan figure who wanted Moses' son murdered and not your God figure?

Moses knew it was God. I do not know how much more clear I can be.

Go ahead, keep up the derailing attempts. From here on you'll be barking at the wind.

Originally posted by FMF
"Moses knew it was God"... so twhitehead also "knows" it's God in your question? Me drawing attention to this clumsy rhetorical device is not "stupid". It gets to the very heart of the kind of thought games religionists use to convince themselves of things. Try this one, for example: "I [Suzianne] think if God told you [twhitehead] to your face to do something, ...[text shortened]... doesn't realize this]". This is how "givens" work in a gimmicky thought game.

The "you" I was using was a generic "you". It was not the 2nd person (twhitehead) "you". I was saying that certainly Moses knew it was God. Again, this shows how you are expert at twisting words and bringing emphasis to something unconnected and unimportant and off the topic at hand, yet making it appear to the casual observer that you are merely "partaking in the discussion". You've done this to me before. I told you then I wasn't going to fall for it again.

Keep going. From here, though, it will appear as the famous "sound of one hand clapping".