frosbel:

It is getting worse, the original article stated Moses was a Pharaoh and your Wikipedia source says he was a Priest , which is it Sir

Delafruita:
what you really want to hear is that everybosy needs god as an authoritative figure.sorry to burst your bubble bro,but thats just not the case

plaetton:

There are tons of literature on this subject.

Notable among them is one written by Sigmud Freud, titled "Moses, King Of Egypt".

plaetton:

No one is sure. The Hebrew scribes went to great lenghts to hide and completely erase it from their books.

Enigma:





You are being silly and you (should) know it. The inconsistency is with your atheism and holding cannibalism to be "universally immoral". The two are incompatible as I have shown you before; and as atheist "intellectuals" like Nietszche, Sartre etc acknowledged as I have also pointed out to you previously.

Akhenaten and Judeo-Christian monotheism
The idea of Akhenaten as the pioneer of a monotheistic religion that later became Judaism has been considered by various scholars.One of the first to mention this was Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, in his book Moses and Monotheism.Freud argued that Moses had been an Atenist priest forced to leave Egypt with his followers after Akhenaten's death. Freud argued that Akhenaten was striving to promote monotheism, something that the biblical Moses was able to achieve.Following his book, the concept entered popular consciousness and serious research.
Other scholars and mainstream Egyptologists point out that there are direct connections between early Judaism and other Semitic religious traditions. They also state that two of the three principal Judaic terms for God, Yahweh, Elohim (morphologically plural, lit. "gods", and Adonai (morphologically plural, lit. "my lords" ) have a connection to Aten. Freud commented on the connection between Adonai, the Egyptian Aten and the Syrian divine name of Adonis as a primeval unity of language between the factions; in this he was following the argument of Egyptologist Arthur Weigall. Jan Assmann's opinion is that 'Aten' and 'Adonai' are not linguistically related.
Akhenaten appears in history almost two centuries prior to the first archaeological and written evidence for Judaism and Israelite culture is found in the Levant.[citation needed] Abundant visual imagery of the Aten disk was central to Atenism, which celebrated the natural world, while such imagery is not a feature of early Israelite culture.However, pottery found throughout Judea dated to the end of the 8th century BC has seals resembling a winged sun disk burned on their handles. These are argued to be the royal seal of the Judean Kingdom.
Ahmed Osman has claimed that Akhenaten's maternal grandfather Yuya was the same person as the Biblical Joseph. Yuya held the title "Overseer of the Cattle of Min at Akhmin" during his life.[66]
He likely belonged to the local nobility of Akhmim. Egyptologists hold this view because Yuya had strong connections to the city of Akhmim in Upper Egypt. This makes it unlikely that he was a foreigner since most Asiatic settlers tended to cloister around the Nile Delta region of Lower Egypt.[67][68] Some Egyptologists,[69] however, give him a Mitannian origin. It is widely accepted that there are strong similarities between Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten and the Biblical Psalm 104, though this form is found widespread in ancient Near Eastern hymnology both before and after the period[citation needed] and whether this implies a direct influence or a common literary convention remains in dispute.
Others have likened some aspects of Akhenaten's relationship with the Aten to the relationship, in Christian tradition, of Jesus Christ with God - particularly in interpretations that emphasise a more monotheistic interpretation of Atenism than henotheistic. Donald B. Redford has noted that some have viewed Akhenaten as a harbinger of Jesus. "After all, Akhenaten did call himself the son of the sole god: 'Thine only son that came forth from thy body'." James Henry Breasted likened him to Jesus, Arthur Weigall saw him as a failed precursor of Christ and Thomas Mann saw him "as right on the way and yet not the right one for the way".
Redford argued that while Akhenaten called himself the son of the Sun-Disc and acted as the chief mediator between god and creation, kings for thousands of years before Akhenaten's time had claimed the same relationship and priestly role. However Akhenaton's case may be different through the emphasis placed on the heavenly father and son relationship. Akhenaten described himself as "thy son who came forth from thy limbs", "thy child", "the eternal son that came forth from the Sun-Disc", and "thine only son that came forth from thy body". The close relationship between father and son is such that only the king truly knows the heart of "his father", and in return his father listens to his son's prayers. He is his father's image on earth and as Akhenaten is king on earth his father is king in heaven. As high priest, prophet, king and divine he claimed the central position in the new religious system. Since only he knew his father's mind and will, Akhenaten alone could interpret that will for all mankind with true teaching coming only from him.
Redford concluded:
Before much of the archaeological evidence from Thebes and from Tell el-Amarna became available, wishful thinking sometimes turned Akhenaten into a humane teacher of the true God, a mentor of Moses, a Christlike figure, a philosopher before his time. But these imaginary creatures are now fading away one by one as the historical reality gradually emerges. There is little or no evidence to support the notion that Akhenaten was a progenitor of the full-blown monotheism that we find in the Bible. The monotheism of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament had its own separate development—one that began more than half a millenium after the pharaoh's death.
However, Greenberg argues that Judaism shows signs that in its early forms it had Henotheistic characteristics and that it later was refined into a monotheism around the time of King Josiah, relegating that which previously were considered gods, into gods that ought not be worshipped, i.e. angels.

Enigma:

Therefore:

- cannibalism can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

- genocide can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

What then is your problem with "God" again?

plaetton:

All clues point to Pharaoh Amenhotep 111, who later changed his name to Anhk-Aten and 17 yrs later was forced to abdicate his throne by the power army and preisthoods of Amen Ra. Thereafter, all records relating to Amenhoteb were erased from Egyptian records.
It is most likely that after many years in the sinai area, he came back to Egypt with his half brother Anhk[b]-Ara-On[/b] to reclaim his throne and family dynasty after his heir, Tutenkhamun(the famous boy king Tut) had been murdered (probably) in a palace coupe.

He was obviously unsuccessful and probably negotiated the release of the Hebrews as a condition of his acquiesence.

The greaful Isrealites saw him as their leader and called him the "Mosis" or the rightful king.
However, later on intheir history, the decided to obfuscate the egyptian origins of their reliion and culture by hiding the real identity of Moses and his lineage.

The fairy tale of the birth and rescue of moses in the river is borrowed from the legend of king Sargon the great, King of Akkad. pls google it.

puskin:

kk......when we enter nite vigil nah, I go try explain the one wey u no understand....i.e. That is when we are waiting for a bet to expire ooooh....and not when we are watching the currencies to place a bet on.

Enigma:

First of all, I am not sure you are right as there are probably still cannibalistic societies out there.

More importantly in any event, you are saying cannibalism was moral yesterday but it is not today.

Genocide was moral in Rwanda only a few years ago but maybe it is not moral there anymore.

So "morality" to you is basically dependent on place and time!

I'll quote myself from another thread. This is what I said:

".........I will go on to say that for anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.

2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive

3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.

4. It's laws must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.

6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)

7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent that our legal systems meet these criteria that we justify them.

Anthoniuf: please should i place the bet now

Avicenna:

And the authoritative source is.....??
As usual, I expect divine nonsense.

Enigma:

If you mean your own question, my answer is that "morality" is not possible without an objective reference point which may possibly be what you mean by an "authoritative source".

I have placed "morality" in quotes very deliberately because another issue would be whether you regard "morality", as you are using it, as universal or relative/local/individual etc.

For example, the logic that many atheists have presented here is that cannibalism is not immoral insofar as it is acceptable in a/the particular society where it is practised.

Can we say cannibalism is always and universally immoral?

Mr_Anony:
Oh I have actually, look at the post again

There cannot be a morality without an authoritative source.

Anthoniuf: please i need alerts on bom today

easycopyrh: got a call frm SEYI yestanite i say a very BIG thanks to you and in a week's time i shall dey our HOME wella

Ihedinobi: Mkmyers45, I'm really sorry about my exit. I'm concerned about running my battery down again. I've been doing that consistently for the past few days. I actually hope to start a thread to address some of the objections atheists and skeptics have about the God of the Bible. Look out for it.
Delafruita, when I do start that thread, I hope you don't come and commend my writing skills again lol. Shoot holes in it if you can or accept its arguments as irrefutable.
Cheers y'all.

Enigma: ^^^ It is the same question that I asked in a different way: what is the basis of anything being moral or immoral?

And I gave the examples of cannibalism and genocide.

Mr_Anony:




Oh my God! This is so funny! It's happening all over again!

Mymyers45 asks if morality is truly possible without an authoritative force,
Zodiac creates a strawman by deciding that he knows what mkmyers45 is asking better than that mkmyers45 himself.
From then on, everyone throws in their biases and the real question is ignored.

Una too much! obfuscation-a-plenty!

cyrexx:

can you tell us what is your authoritative source of morality and let us see his morality instead of dancing around.

frosbel:



For starters , Moses was never Pharoh - Fact 1





Stop racing to the Internet to copy articles, verify them first.

I will be back to debunk the rest in their rightful historical and biblical context.

Ihedinobi:

This is an adequate response to everything you all raise as objections to the Bible and God. I have said elsewhere that if God is a reality, then He is One that can be tested out as to the integrity of His reality. My effort in argument (which I feel rather sorry that I moderated) is to show the futility of it when the subject of argument is God.
In argument, everyone is showing off their intellectual prowess by trying to overwhelm the other. I do not subscribe to that. I maintain that God is a reality and that the Bible is His Own Writing. If anyone doubts me, I say "ask Him yourself". If you say to show Him to you, I tell you that the only way you can see Him for yourself is in asking Him to show Himself to you, and I hope my life and ways is sufficient encouragement for you to do so.
If your determination however is to show me that I'm incredibly stupid to believe in God, it's really a waste of your energy. You see, I know what and Whom I have seen and that is enough for me. If you do not believe, it's very much your problem or lack of it, not mine.
If you were insistent on knowing the truth, you will find it and know it. But if you think you do, it doesn't matter what arguments I marshal, I might as well be shouting at the moon for all you care.
Delafruita, all the foregoing means I am refusing to answer your objections. If this means that I have lost the argument and you are thereby proved right, so be it.
Mkmyers45, I'm glad I amused you. I am very much tempted to answer your comment but I choose not to. My argument is simple, God is a testable reality. You can test Him out for yourself or refuse to. I wish you would, but my life does not revolve around whether or not you do.

emöfine2: Is morality inherent or learnt?

Just inches before I was to press the submit button I was to vote for the latter however I just remembered a little article I read a while back. It detailed the bond developed between twins in the womb, and it showed an ultrasound where one twin was reaching out to comfort the other twin and in other cases there are twins that struggle with each other in the womb.
Now I don’t believe such behaviour was learnt or necessarily inherent but perhaps environmentally influenced or an adaptation.
However I believe an “authoritative source” elicits our ability to discern. And discernment influences our moral conduct.

plaetton:

Absolutely.
The clues are in the bibles.
His so-called miraculous birth by unanyimous parents, his rescue by an unnamed pharoah's daughter, his adoption as a prince in the royal house of Egypt(an imposibility), his exile from Egyptian royalty after killing an egyptian guard(another absurdity).
You can see that it sounds too much like a hastly made up fairy tale.

If you read genesis carefully, you would also notice that Moses never ever refered to Yahweh and the isrealites as his god and people respectively. Rather, when talking to Yahweh about the Isrealites, he would use the phrase "your people", [/b]and when talking to the Isrealites about yahweh, he would use the phrase [b]"Your god" . This clearly shows that he never considered himself to be an Isrealite.

Again, it strikes as strange that Moses was not allowed to lead the Isrealites into the promised land.I would guess beacause he was a foreigner who was forbiden to do so.

However, most shocking to me, even at a tender age, was the fact the sons of Moses were not automatic inheritors of the preisthood as would have been expected. After the death of Moses, all mention of his children and lineage completely dissapear in the bible.

So, you can say that the bible stole moses from his Egyptian heritage, mainly because the hebrews wanted to obfuscate the Egyptian origins of their religion and culture.

Good work Jantavanta

frosbel:

Of course not , they are not Christian by any stretch of the human imagination.

mkmyers45: You haven't answered my question..if marxism and stalinism is atheism then is rastafari/Lord's Resistance movement glorified christainity?

frosbel:

The presence of GOD is what sustains the universe young man , the gravity, the life, the energy , we are simply beneficiaries of God's goodness and kindness.

The same breath that gives you life actually belongs to God and were he to withdraw it , all your noise and ill conceived notions will cease and perish forever.

Better give him glory now when you can see the blue sky, a time comes when we must all die and after that judgement.

No second chances, stop pushing your luck.

"Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire," says the LORD Almighty. "Not a root or a branch will be left to them." - Malachi 4:1

frosbel:


Not brainwashed at all with vague , unproven , impossible to decipher gibberish called evolution and other atheist ambiguous notions and ideas

I base my analysis on facts , well most of the time , anyway.



Our problems in Nigeria are caused by greed and corruption and to an extent militant ISLAM not religion generally.

Peaceful Muslims and Christians just want to get on with their lives like everyone else, but we are under the oppressive governance of selfish and greedy men, many of whom use religion as a guise to achieve wicked ends.

Indeed there is also an increase in the malpractice of Christianity. which is why we spend a substantial amount of time on this forum trying to direct people back to the BIBLE and not the personal interpretations or whims of Men.




Sorry in the case of Russia it was caused by the lack of GOD, communism destroyed not just the moral fabric of society , but also the worth and dignity of MAN .

And yes communism is state funded atheism - Fact.