To my fellow Jews who are celebrating Passover, Do you realize the story never happened?

[edhopper]

As a no longer practicing Jew, I still join family sometimes at Seder. I don't disrupt it with my atheist pronouncements, and enjoy the company of my relatives (which is why I go). I don't feel the need to be as polite here :-)
So I wonder if those who celebrate Passover realize that Moses never existed, and there was no biblical slavery in Egypt nor an Exodus. These stories, like much of the pre-Israel Old Testement, are Babylonian in origin. (Where Jewish people actually were enslaved.)
Passover, like Easter, is just another dressed up pagan Spring Festival.

[amyrose2712]

1. Hmmph...

I am just the opposite. I feel the need to be polite here, but not with my family. (not Jewish just Agnostic)

[sam sarrha]

12. he wasnt impolite, ..or angery.. i enjoyed it, i do the same with my Xing family they know im a

Buddhist..

[amyrose2712]

14. No no, he said HE is polite with his family....

I didn't think the Op was impolite.

[Meshuga]

22. I didn't think the OP was impolite either

And I consider myself an observant Jew.

[amyrose2712]

32. Oye, I didnt say he was. nt

[Meshuga]

38. I know. I thought I was agreeing with you. n/t

[amyrose2712]

39. Oh, sorry...

I've been being beat up all day. I'm a little jumpy.:hide: :hide:

[Silent3]

49. Look! Cake!

Sorry, I just had too. :)

[Meshuga]

50. Hey now!

:-)

[Warpy]

43. I was polite to my parents

about religion but they knew they weren't going to move me with anything less than dynamite and that they weren't rich or well connected enough to get acquitted afterward.

So I was polite and they didn't harangue.

Oddly enough, they died unbelievers. Go figure.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. still it's a good time to get together!

[Cassandra]

3. Yeah but,...

it beats crucifying the Easter Bunny. ;-)

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

4. Politeness matters

you may not know what the hell you're talking about.

[pnwmom]

5. Do you realize that your snide question is probably no more welcomed here,

among observant Jews, than it would be around your dinner table?

What do people feel okay about insulting others here when they wouldn't have the nerve to do it in person?

Has it even occurred to you that practicing Jews don't have to believe in the Scriptures as literal truth -- the way Christian fundamentalists do -- and, without that literalist belief -- they can still find meaning and value in the stories there?

[edhopper]

26. I do realize my question is provocative.

And my question is, if you are celebrating Passover, are you celebrating a deliverance by God which never occurred?
And yes I do know that practicing Jews can find meaning without literalism. But it seemed to me last night at Seder that the whole ritual was to praise God for deliverance from slavery. If it didn't occur, why are we praising him.
(And to be snarky, why did an omniscient God need lambs blood to tell him where the Jews lived ;-)

[Warren Stupidity]

31. that would depend on your practicing jew

there are fundamentalist jews just like there are fundamentalist christians and muslims. Religious irrationality is interdenominational.

[pnwmom]

71. And how many fundamentalists of any stripe do you think

he's likely to find on DU? I think he was addressing practicing Jews in general, not a tiny group of fundamentalists.

[rd_kent]

83. How is it insulting to point out something that seems to be false?

What is more insulting, is that people blindly believe things without any factual support.

[hendo]

114. much like how you disbelieve without factual support. NT

[rucky]

6. eh, so what?

It's a good story, a good excuse to drink cheap wine, and matzo ball soup rules!

I like mythology. Every culture has their set of it.

[T Wolf]

8. Manny and MadDog are NOT wine, though they are cheap. nt

[rucky]

11. Four glasses of ceremonial hooch!

that does sound much better.

[Meshuga]

20. No kidding!

I see it as a religious drinking game. We find an excuse to drink the 5th glass of wine.

[laconicsax]

65. There's no reason you can't.

At every seder I've been to, we were free to drink as much wine during the actual meal as we wanted.

In fact, I went to a community seder at my temple a few years ago and each table had two sets of wine bottles--one for the ceremonial glasses and another for the meal. The caterers did a very good job making sure that no table went dry.

[Meshuga]

70. You can, I don't think there is a limit

I was just making a little joke about the seder itself being like a drinking game.

[laconicsax]

73. I hope you don't mind if I use your joke with my family.

It's a good one.

[Meshuga]

80. Not at all n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

21. actually it is not such a good story

it has a couple of serious problems, such as adonai slaughtering all the first born egyptian male children, the absurdity of moses, a member of an enslaved nomadic tribe, instructing egyptian civilization on the merits of granaries, and the eventual conquest and slaughter of the inhabitants of what became Israel after all that desert wandering. We see the good parts and are quite blind to the crap that surrounds them.

[edhopper]

27. My reason

for going too. I like the soup.

[tishaLA]

7. Happy Pesach

it doesn't matter whether a story happens literally or not--I don't think anyone believes the Red Sea parted, after all--but what the story represents. And the Seder itself is a metaphor about events that are themselves metaphorical. It's not such a bad thing that holidays inhabit a kind of catechrestic space.

[zipplewrath]

9. Look inward in your question

Although I am sympathetic to your point of view, what you wrote says as much or more about you than anyone else.

This is hardly a forum for a lengthy discussion of what you are attempting to broach, but suffice it to say, there are many things you believe you know that may be wrong. Considering why you are more concerned with what they might be getting wrong than what you might be, is where much of the answer to your question exists.

The secular version is:

There's what we know, what we believe we know, and what is real. These are frequently three non-intersecting sets for anyone.

[hlthe2b]

18. Yup..

:thumbsup:

[edhopper]

29. I've spent my life questioning

that's how I became an atheist.
If not here, where?
If not now, when?

[zipplewrath]

36. So what do you know that's wrong?

How does it go?

There's what you think is right, that's wrong.

There's what you thing is wrong, that's right.

There's what you think you don't know, that you do.

There's what you think you do know, that you don't.

And this goes way beyond religion and spirituality. But it affects our value judgements just as much.

[MADem]

37. Indeed.

:thumbsup:

[sarge43]

10. It's never a bad idea to celebrate freedom, says the agnostic. n/t

[peace13]

13. At Christmas I hope you don't tell us that it was all a story.

He was born in a manger in winter, right? Just kidding. Probably not good to poke sticks at people. Never good to remind the believers that it might not be true. Let's live together in peace and harmony. Peace, Kim

[edhopper]

30. Why I put it here

and not at family gatherings.

[rd_kent]

84. Screw that!!!

When the folks who freely choose to believe something THEY KNOW COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, especially without any proof, and then try and enforce their view on me, I reject the notion that we can "live together in peace and harmony."

[rrneck]

15. I'm not Jewish, but I have several

friends that are and I have had the pleasure of attending a few Seders etc. The practice of the Jewish faith is the best I've seen so far. (I'm from a Southern Baptist background, so anything might be a refreshing change) I've been to Temple a few times and found that service not all that different from any other, but observances in somebody's home around a dinner table seem very rejuvenating, open and engaged, even if Moses didn't actually part the Red Sea.

[hlthe2b]

16. I never enter into arguments where I have to prove a negative...

Especially one as linked to emotion as religions teachings or traditions--and, especially not at Passover or Easter. That, to me is pushing the civil limits of being provocative. :shrug:

[rd_kent]

85. Whats provocative is someone knocking on my door

uninvited and telling me I'm going to a mythical lake of fire for eternity if I don't follow what they have to say.

[stray cat]

17. Maybe we could all use more celebrations that promote thankfulness, humility, sacrifice

discipline,and group unity, none of which are in abundant supply.

[Meshuga]

19. I don't believe it happened

And I celebrate it as we attended a seder on Wednesday had our own family seder last night. I don't know why it would be a big deal to say it did or did not happen. What matters is what the story represents and our family celebrates as part of our folkways. Last year I attended a seder at a Conservative Rabbi's house and he did not believe it happened either. The symbolisms were discussed and we had an interesting time. And there are also people who believes it happened and others who see it is an exaggerated version of an actual event.

The same goes with other holidays since have been part of our heritage for centuries. You know, Esther and Mordechai may be based on Babylonian gods Ishtar and Marduk but that does not stop me from celebrating Purim.

[stray cat]

23. Very well expressed

[TZ]

25. Funny...all these years...in a secular household

with at least ONE very vocal atheist (my Dad) and never has the topic of whether or not the story actually happened ever come up..I've never even thought about it much to tell you the truth..:shrug:

[Meshuga]

40. At my house we just do it without discussing historicity

And I never discussed it until this year since I think my son is old enough to understand that the story we are telling during Pesach is our story as opposed to our history.

[MissMarple]

33. Exactly. Religious traditions and lore often mirror each other across religious lines.

Most have holidays at the same points on the calendar. The Christian holidays follow the older European pagan holidays quite closely. One dogma piggybacks onto another. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. But it is definitely a human trait. The trouble comes when one dogma tries to assert itself and deny the others credibility. Why more people cannot see the commonalities of our religious traditions and must focus and promote the differences is a curious thing, but I suppose it is a human trait, too. Sadly, it has less to do with spirituality and more to do with the need to dominate.

The original poster is correct, the facts may be in doubt, but the underlying purpose is to help us connect with the divine and maintain strong communities of good people. Religious extremists pervert that.

[JerseygirlCT]

68. Exactly!

I'm always surprised that people expect absolute historical accuracy or else consider beliefs meaningless. Human beings have always lived with ritual and stories - factual, partly factual, whatever - and have always found truth in them.

Life without ritual and ceremony and shared celebrations would be pretty sterile, I think.

[Meshuga]

72. Yep

I feel the same way so that's why I do it. :-)

[MineralMan]

24. Well, that's what you believe.

Others believe something else. What is the point of telling someone that hisher beliefs are nonsense? I'm an atheist, but I have zero interest in telling religious folks that their beliefs are superstition.

I expect them to leave me alone with regard to beliefs, so, by example, I leave them alone. Unless there's a reason, I don't discuss my lack of belief.

However, your post is a good way to stir up argument, if that was your plan.

[Silent3]

54. It's his belief that it's a good thing to make others questions their beliefs.

Why are you questioning that belief?

[sam sarrha]

28. there was a special on the History channel, there was a moses, /his people immigrated from Sumeria

cause of famine.. climate change/ they became paid mercenaries trained by the Egyptians to protect the north east Nile delta from invasion... they were there for generations as an army, a new Pharaoh decided he'd get more for his money and put them to work building roads..infrastructure.

they didn't think much of hard labor being a warrior culture and left north, looting Egyptian villages as they went for provisions. that pissed off the Pharaoh who went after them, moses had been an army scout and knew a place to cross the delta where at that time high tides came inland. the land was sun dried over muck. people could walk on it but the wheels of the chariots sunk.. then the tide came in and it all turned to muck.. no Sea was parted, the Egyptians had to dig out their carts and wash off the mud


allowing the rebels to flee North where they went on a campaign of genocide clearing the area of potential future threat, killing off the men and selling off the women and children as slaves thru much of the conquested lands.. living well till they pissed off the Roman Empire.

the bible version is just embellishment thru the ages being retold around a roaring camp fire of dried goat turds.

this version is much more reasonable.

[sarge43]

41. As a matter of fact, it wasn't milk and honey until the Romans showed up.

Following the reign of Solomon, things went ugly early. Babylonian captivity, the First Diaspora. They barely got settled back in after the Persians let them go when Alexander the Great stopped by. A couple of hundred years of foreign occupation until the Maccabees suited up to celebrated Hanukkah. A few decades of home rule, then some guys in the western Med had a disagreement over this Egyptian dame and Judea as usual got caught in middle and the Felix Legions were marching down Main Street Jerusalem. Some years and much horror later, Second Diaspora.

You may live well at the epicenter of the Middle East; you seldom live peacefully for very long.

[rrneck]

60. Ain't that the truth.

Here's an interesting flash map I ran across. It's a tough neighborhood.

Who has controlled the Middle East over the course of history? Pretty much everyone. Egyptians, Turks, Jews, Romans, Arabs, Persians, Europeans...the list goes on. Who will control the Middle East today? That is a much bigger question.

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

[sarge43]

69. Yeah, with the exception of the Chinese, Aztecs and Incas, just

about every empire and street gang ran through the place.

[sam sarrha]

61. Palestine is at the Cross Road of the old Silk Road, probably better off than further out, i believe

jesus was exposed to Buddhism from travelers on the silk road from india, where else would unconditional love for others even enemies come from in a culture that stoned to death friends and family for really stupid shit.

only he got a copy with some chapters missing

[aquart]

75. "Milk and honey" is much more complicated than you think it is.

Remember that Abraham came from Ur. And if you think the Romans brought the Pax Romana to Israel, you haven't spent a minute with Josephus.

[zipplewrath]

42. And could be as equally wrong

We have a relatively modern concept of "truth". It is one that did not even exist at the time of the telling of these stories. The people who created them and passed them on wouldn't even understand the question "is it true". Their answer would be, "yes, the knowledge imparted in these lessons is good and useful". Ever notice Moses doesnt' get there? One of the pieces of knowledge that passed on was "don't go looking for him, he ain't there". At the time they wouldn't have thought any significance in explaining why he wasn't there.

We study, pass on, and use knowledge by accepting certain "lies" or false assumptions. Alot of mechanical engineering often presumes friction doesn't exist. We study, and use "the ideal gas law", even though there are no ideal gases. Euclidian geometry presumes parallel lines don't ever intersect, even though they can. Engineers frequently use 1/0 = infinity even though it does not. Knowledge is passed around by a wide variety of means.

There is nothing wrong with considering these issue of "truth". However, most folks looking to falsify these stories, do so to attempt to undermine the knowledge contained therein. That can be a serious mistake. I tend to think more in terms of "what is the truth in these stories?"

[sam sarrha]

62. the History chanel was based on archeology, egyptian texts spanning 100's of years, not goat herders

stories and blind faith

[zipplewrath]

63. Yes, it was

But look at the level of detail you put in your story and realize that it had a certain amount of conjecture in it. Just because you find a stone from some period, with some writing on it, doesn't mean it is right, or true, or accurate. Have you ever seen anyone here misunderstood? Think that can happen when the writer and reader are 2000 years apart? Go over to snopes and see all the stories that are presented as fact, for decades, that are pure bunk. (No, there was no rocket car).

[sarge43]

67. And Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander, Antiochus IV, Pompey and Titus

are mentioned only in the Torah? What I outlined are historical events, not goat herders stories and, as noted in another post, I'm not a person of faith, blind or otherwise. I didn't dispute your post about the Exodus, only your statement that everything was smooth sailing for the Jews once they settled in Judea and Israel.

[sam sarrha]

81. the Buddhist view is Samsara.. suffering is a given.. few in those times got off easy. but now its

there time to dish it out

[Occam Bandage]

34. So what?

[MADem]

35. And you KNOW this because you fired up your time machine?

Here's a suggestion--if you don't believe it, don't play it.

I think it's rude, and really, a bit cowardly, to go cadge a lovingly prepared meal from your family, and then come here and insult their faith and put down others who practice it. Why not live your convictions and make do with a peanut butter sandwich instead?

I'm smart enough to KNOW that I "know" nothing for certain about what happened way back when. For all we know, some version of those stories happened, and they got "amplified" and "made more dramatic" down the years. I don't KNOW this, though, because I wasn't there. And unless you were there, you don't know it either. These are simply your "beliefs."

[Warren Stupidity]

44. I'm pretty sure it is a myth with very little in the way of historical supporting evidence

and a whole lot of magical nonsense, just like many other religious myths. I may not know what happened 3300 years or so ago, but I am certain there were no talking burning bushes, the seas did not part for the israelites, some supernatural deity did not first allow the egyptians to slaughter all the male jewish babies and then turn around and magically slaughter all the egyptian male babies after first making the sun stop shining for a week or so, etc. If the Israeli tribes were in fact enslaved in egypt, which is possible, it is fairly certain that the already ancient and advanced egyptian civilization did not learn about the miracle of granaries from Moses, but rather that this enslaved nomadic tribe instead learned a bit of civilization from egypt and then later reversed the information flow relationship as they developed their mythology.

Why shouldn't the foundation myths of religions which claim to have divine knowledge be challenged? Why should their nonsense be 'hands off'? The religious seek to impose their nonsense, divine or otherwise inspired, on society and then demand that nobody dare analyze their fairy tales for accuracy consistency or sanity.

[MADem]

46. If Moses was high, that bush might have been talking to him.

Maybe a "person of short stature" was hiding in the next bush over and goofing on Moe. Maybe Moses crossed that mud flat at low tide. Maybe two tribes took turns killing babies. Maybe a volcano erupted, blocking out the sun.

We don't know. All I said is that a tale that started out small and simple could have been embellished over the years. I don't know for sure, and neither does the OP. Unless, of course, he had a time machine.

You ask the questions: Why shouldn't the foundation myths of religions which claim to have divine knowledge be challenged? Why should their nonsense be 'hands off'?

Well, I'll ask these questions: Why must any challenges to foundation claims (not myths--that's predetermining) of religions which claim (or don't claim) to have divine knowledge be made with snark, rudeness, incivility, and a deliberate effort to raise the hackles and bait those who subscribe to the faith? Why is is almost a requirement that said questioners behave like inciting, immature, taunting assholes?

And of course, it's always important to fuck with these people just as they celebrate their little holidays.

Why is it that I think if anyone made fun of Wiccans or the Native American "Great Spirit" faiths that the "tolerance lecture" would be hauled out by all and sundry? And if anyone came after the "committed atheists" in the same fashion as the OP and other jerky posts I've seen here this morning the "How DARE you tell others how to live their lives" diatribe would be brought forth?

It's only those poor conventional bastards that get "the business."

Nothing wrong with a discussion--but a discussion, a reasonable one, in the RELIGION/THEOLOGY forum, and not a drive-by point-n-shoot ha-ha/ho-ho at the expense of these faithful is just a cheap and cowardly shot.

And, FWIW, I'm not an adherent of these faiths. I really don't give a fuck what people believe, so long as they don't get in my face and try to make me do what they do. I just find the gratuitous snark way too easy and cheap.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. The OP was not rude or snark. It stated the obvious - that the story

is mostly fiction.

I have as little tolerance for Wiccan or Native American whooey as all other whooey, however neither Native Americans nor Wiccans are nuked up with god on their side, so I don't feel quite as compelled to point out the irrationality and absurdity of their belief systems. I find myself in a world lead by dangerous men who claim to believe in total nonsense and I think it is my responsibility to point that out at times.

[MADem]

48. It's only "obvious" with an eyewitness. We don't have one of those.

And you justify dumping on these people by saying that >>>>they<<<< "are nuked up with God on their side."

Well, I don't think all of them are. Some of them live and let live, just like I do.

That broad brush shit is ugly.

[Occam Bandage]

59. I entirely agree. It is possible to challenge the rational basis of beliefs without

the apparent joy some seem to take in undermining people's enjoyment of cultural traditions. There's nothing inherently rude about challenging religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean that one ought go out of one's way to ensure such challenges are done in a rude manner.

[edhopper]

53. K & R!

[MineralMan]

55. And so, that makes it OK?

"Why shouldn't the foundation myths of religions which claim to have divine knowledge be challenged? Why should their nonsense be 'hands off'? The religious seek to impose their nonsense, divine or otherwise inspired, on society and then demand that nobody dare analyze their fairy tales for accuracy consistency or sanity.
"

Why would you care what someone else believes with regard to deities and other such supernatural things? I haven't noticed that Judaism spends a lot of time trying to impose anything on anyone with regard to religious beliefs.

To call out people based on their beliefs regarding religion is rude. It's that simple. Beleive or disbelieve, as you wish, then leave others to do the same. How hard is that?

[Warren Stupidity]

57. The Israelis are nuked up and fighting a sectarian battle with their neighbors.

So indeed their belief system is just as much fair game as any other religion. They don't get a free ride. The entire basis for the rightwing expansionist political faction in Israel is a biblical claim to have superior rights to the region than other people.

I'm not calling out people based on their beliefs, I am agreeing with the OP that the story of exodus is a fairy tail, a myth, and a bloody tribal myth at that. (Although as one of my offspring noted, tribal religions are at least self limiting, unlike universal religions which dangerously lay claim to all of humanity.)

Why do I care? Why do I bother? Why am I so rude as to note that myths are myths? Because religion and irrational religious belief systems have proven themselves to be a dangerous enemy of progressive secular society. There are of course exceptions, not all religious people, and not all religious organizations are a danger, but the post cold war world has been defined by the re-emergence of religion as a basis of conflict, and the world is now overrun with fundamentalist loons who, in my opinion, threaten civilization itself.

Thanks for asking.

edit: usual typos.

[Occam Bandage]

58. Why is it rude to challenge religious beliefs, when it is not rude

to challenge political beliefs? If I were to say, "I think blacks are inferior to whites," would it be rude to challenge those beliefs? No, of course not; any decent person would challenge me when I said that. But if I were to say, "I believe that God has created whites as superior to blacks," does that suddenly make things better? No, not really.

Now what if I were to say, "I believe that God has granted this land for whites, and so we must fight any attempt by nonwhites to take any sort of political or economic power in this land." Would you challenge me, or would you accept that statement as an unassailable statement of faith?

Now what if I were to replace the word "whites" with "Jews," and the word "this land" with "Israel?" Would that statement be a protected statement of faith?

Now what if I were to then give you a long and fabricated background story about how it came to be that Israel was given to the Jews by God? Would that statement be a protected statement of faith?

Where in that chain do you draw the line between unacceptable lie and acceptable statement of faith?

[MineralMan]

64. When religion affects people's lives who do not follow that

religion, then it should be subject to criticism. That's the answer. Politics always affects people who may not agree with political views.

In the examples you offer, religion has become political, affecting people's lives who are not followers of a particular religion.

In the instant case, we started out talking about whether or not Moses existed or some such thing. A person's belief in such stuff does not directly affect other people. For example, if my Jewish neighbor believes that Moses historical and that the waters were parted, it doesn't affect me in any way, nor does it affect anyone else. I don't believe he's correct, but that's of no concern to me.

If, however, that neighbor extends his statement to claim my property because he's one of the chose, then it becomes political. It affects me materially. Then I will dispute with him.

Religion has generally to do with the superatural. When it strays from that to the political, then all bets are off. That was not the case with this thread when it began.

[edhopper]

52. Nice try

according to you then, there is no history. All things could have happened, from Jason slaying the Hydra to Atlantis inhabited by aliens. Why bother with archeology and historical evidence?
My family full well knows my religious leanings. They still invited me and I did not return their hospitality with challenging them.
This is an open forum where debate about these issues is the purpose.

[MADem]

56. You didn't return their hospitality by challenging them--you came here and snarked about them

behind their backs.

Your very OP is a throw down. Not a discussion. And you used your own FAMILY to make your point.

I am not a follower of these religions I see put down here on DU, but I do have to wonder why people get so angrily personal about what other people "believe."

I don't get pissed at you because you "believe" a particular story that makes you feel special and superior. I say live and let live, is all. There's no need to be condescending, and when you personalize it with that gratuitous poke at your own family, who were nice enough to feed you, why, I simply find that petty and mean.

But go ahead--knock yourself out. I just don't think much of your "discussion" methodology.

[struggle4progress]

45. We had a long discussion of this last year. Link to thread follows:

The question of the historicity of the Egyptian exile
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=167930

I'll simply summarize my views:

The story dates roughly from the era in which horses were introduced into the Middle East from Asia. This introduction of the horse made possible the invasion of the Nile valley, which had previously been rather isolated. Subsequent adoption of the horse and chariot by the Egyptians made it possible for the Egyptians to repel the invaders and to establish a large empire that included the area of modern Jerusalem. This empire produced war captives and a documented slave trade. At the height of the empire, something peculiar happened: one of the pharoahs suddenly became a monotheist, stopped supporting the war-god, and relocated the capitol of Egypt. This led to a contraction of the empire and a conservative backlash. The new capitol was abandoned, and the heretic pharoah was erased from official Egyptian history: he was not rediscovered until 1922. With the subsequent restoration of empire, the Merneptah Stele was erected, proclaiming that the Israelites had been completely eradicated.

Whether or not the Biblical narrative is literally true, it may accurately incorporate historical elements and attitudes. The Joseph narrative tells of a monotheist sold into slavery in Egypt who becomes preeminent there. And in fact, at the height of the Egyptian empire, there was a sudden monotheistic period: at a time when imperial Egypt was swarming with slave-captives, the dynastic head of state suddenly abandoned the dominant religion and became a monotheist, outraging the establishment. This period is followed by a conservative backlash and associated political struggle lasting several generations, with Horemheb's tomb left unfinished. The Exodos narrative is consistent with such a conservative backlash, since it essentially tells about persecution of the monotheistic slave foreigners; it is also suggestive of political struggle, since Moses is represented as the child of slaves raised as a son in the royal household. The conservatives finally regained control and felt obligated to announce that they had exterminated the Israelites -- which is not only consistent with revenging some national humiliation but also reminiscent of the Exodos account that a pharoah ordered slaughter of the male children of the Hebrews. Nor is it unreasonable to suspect that, during a period of imperial contraction and internal political struggle, some slaves of the Egyptians sought their freedom by escaping to the fringes of the empire

[dmallind]

51. For their own sense of faith I hope so

I mean after all that story, if true, would reveal a hideously cruel genocidal god with no possibility of the excuses offered for other genocides like the Amelekites (who were supposedly descended from the Nephilim and therefore not human - not like that's ever been an excuse offered for wars or slaughter before or since but hey). Not only does it posit a god who would slaughter an entire generation of innocents, but remember too that it is repeatedly stated that the Pharaoh wanted to release the Israelites but Yahweh himself "hardened his heart" intentionally to prolong the torture of the plagues. Thus not only do we see a genocidal god, but one who had to interfere with human thoughts (so much for Ramses' free will!) in order to even vaguely justify that genocide.

Of all the faiths I come into contact with, I'd put Jews at or near the top in average level of knowledge and introspection about the history of their faith, so I am sure there is some pretty detailed defensive exegesis to explain this particular horror story.

[laconicsax]

66. I do, but that doesn't make a difference.

I don't celebrate the holiday as a religious event, I commemorate it as a cultural event.

[aquart]

74. And?

Passover is a re-scripted Mediterrannean messianic fish meal. It was written to contain resonating messages of unity, freedom, and compassion. And four full glasses of wine. Did you miss the part where the Jews rejoice over the drowning of the Egyptians and God has a fit because the drowned Egyptians are his children, too? Did you miss where we are reminded to care about those oppressed because we were slaves in Egypt?

Slavery was a different institution back then. It often took the place of Social Security. And freedom meant something different, too.

But a yearly reminder to be compassionate and grateful is not the worst thing that can happen to a people.

Sorry if you think it is.

[struggle4progress]

76. I think Passover is not a fish meal but a lamb meal

[JerseygirlCT]

77. Brisket is often on the menu at

my ILs...

Me, I fill up on matzoh ball soup. I love that stuff!

[struggle4progress]

78. Yes, actually my reference to lamb may have been rather ignorant

[Warren Stupidity]

79. No - the traditional ritual starts with a lamb sacrifice. nt.

[struggle4progress]

82. There seems to be some diversity of opinion about when or if lamb or roasted meat can be served

I'm not competent to sort it out

[MADem]

86. The internet tells us that the "traditional" menu is lamb

There are a number of foods eaten during the ritual Seder family meal partaken on the first two nights of Passover. Family customs may vary the items served at the Seder, but the following food items traditionally appear on the Seder plate:

• Matzoh: Three unleavened matzohs are placed within the folds of a napkin as a reminder of the haste with which the Israelites fled Egypt, leaving no time for dough to rise. Two are consumed during the service, and one (the Aftkomen), is spirited away and hidden during the ceremony to be later found as a prize.

• Maror: bitter herbs, usually horseradish or romaine lettuce, used to symbolize the bitterness of slavery.

• Charoses: a mixture of apples, nuts, wine, and cinnamon, as a reminder of the mortar used by the Jews in the construction of buildings as slaves

• Beitzah: a roasted egg, as a symbol of life and the perpetuation of existence.

• Karpas: a vegetable, preferably parsley or celery, representing hope and redemption; served with a bowl of salted water to represent the tears shed.

• Zeroah: traditionally a piece of roasted lamb shankbone, symbolizing the paschal sacrificial offering

• Wine: four glasses of wine are consumed during the service to represent the four-fold promise of redemption, with a special glass left for Elijah the prophet. Further Passover References:

http://homecooking.about.com/od/foodhistory/a/passoverfoods.htm

[struggle4progress]

87. "... the Pascal lamb has disappeared from the Ashkenazi table ..."

The Culinary Traditions of Passover
By Oded Schwartz
http://www.gemsinisrael.com/passover.html

[struggle4progress]

88. "... Sephardim and Ashkenazim also differ on Passover when it comes to meat. The sacrifice of

the lamb on Passover was permitted until the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E. by the Romans. Since the destruction of the Second Temple, Ashkenazim have been forbidden to eat lamb meat, but some Sephardim permit lamb to be served as the feature dish at their Passover seder meals ..."

http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/passover/sephardicandashkenazicpassover.html

[Meshuga]

89. While the lamb is symbolic in the seder plate

The Afikomen is eaten in its place. I am sephardi who follow ashkenazi tradition. :-)

But as far as the meal (at least traditionally in the US - and JerseyGirlCT pointed out above), brisket is usually served with matzo ball soup.

The afikomen is eaten after.

[struggle4progress]

90. Thanks for the clarification!

[JerseygirlCT]

109. LOL - at our seders, the afikomen is usually crushed into

dust after the kids have their search!

matzo ball soup.... mmmmmm....

[Meshuga]

110. The competition to find the afikomen gets pretty crazy

Sometimes the afikomen pays the price. :-)

[humblebum]

91. Plenty of evidence to suggest the Exodus did happen. It is

common atheist propaganda these days to deny those bits of information that don't fit their picture of reality. Incidentally do you realize that by using ANY epistemology to determine the existence of a diety, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove or disprove diety. Can't be done. All you have is educated guesses based on circumstancial evidence. Therefore, you cannot say positively it did nor did not exist.

[edhopper]

92. No there really isn't plenty of evidence.

"Incidentally do you realize that by using ANY epistemology to determine the existence of a diety, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove or disprove diety."
That's a nice sentence that is completely meaningless.

[humblebum]

93. I do have to say that I respect the way that you handle your own family gatherings.

But the truth is firmly established,especially in science, that deity can neither be confirmed nor denied. Philosophy can point to the existence of God but not PROVE it. Philosophy can also be used to lend credibility to the atheistic view. Metaphysics, history - the same outcome. Just because atheists say something isn't, doesn't prove anything. The only way the atheist viewpoint can be justified is by denying anything that goes against the grain of their argument. Theists are equally at a disadvantage when they claim that science or anything else ABSOLUTELY PROVES GOD. Can't be done.

[edhopper]

95. If there is no evidence one way or the other

then Life, the Universe and Everything exist and runs just fine without a deity. A deity becomes an unnecessary addition not needed for any explanation, therefore Occam's razor would have us leave out the overly complex for the simpler explanation. QED, God does not exist.

No need to offer proof when one is not making a claim that something exist, like a deity. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

[humblebum]

96. Except for the fact that that is vacuous reasoning

with a little ad hoc thrown in to tidy it up. Some atheists (and some theists) have a habit of discounting anything that spoils their tidy little stories. The word "unnecessary" really is opinion - nothing more. Names are unnecessary when everyone could just have a number. Would be much simpler. Totally unnecessary.

[edhopper]

97. You misunderstand Occam's razor.

It isn't about making everything simpler it's that the simplest explanation to a phenomenon is most likely the right one and that necessary complexity is superfluous.

"Some" theists burn people at the stake for being witches, so what. Most atheist I know simply ask for a shred of evidence to support the notion of a God. Their "tidy little story" is called a materialistic Universe.

[humblebum]

99. Yes I'm familiar with Occam's razor, but a flagrent violation of

this simplicity principle happens when Ad Hoc reasoning is injected into the mix and if your hypothesis is empirically empty then it becomes vacuous. Then it's back to the drawing board.

[edhopper]

100. But if my reasoning is not ad hoc

and empirically sustainable, then Occam's razor applies and my conclusion of the nonexistence of God holds.

[humblebum]

101. The trouble with that reasoning is that one cannot empirically prove nor disprove

God simply because empiricism is totally restricted to information gained through the 5 senses- nothing more. If you are comfortable saying that "If I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something then it doesn't exist", then for you God doesn't exist. However, if you broaden your ideas to philosophy,and history,and metaphysics,and psychology, etc., you can definitely increase the probability of diety. The bottom line is that no matter how a person reasons, it is still impossible to prove or disprove diety to the point of being an absolute. It can't be done. The theists who find "proof" of God in viewing nature and the universe are only interpreting what they observe, and the same holds true for atheists who claim just the opposite. What they see is what they see and nothing more. The debate has been going on since day one and will continue.

[edhopper]

102. So it's a God

who has absolutely no influence, input or control over anything I can measure, verify or even sense in any real way outside of some nebulous subjective metaphysical way.
Talk about ad hoc arguments.

I'll stay with Occam's razor. Looks like unnecessary complexity to me.

[humblebum]

103. Many famed philosophers would disagree with you. But what the hey?

That's the difference between the positivists' view (Dawkins) and the integrationists'(Whitehead,James, etc.). To each philosophic point of view, the other guy's argument appears to be ad hoc reasoning. Each can use Occam's Razor to their advantage also.

[edhopper]

104. Point

And I'm just getting snarky now. I do understand your point , even if i disagree with it.

[edhopper]

105. One more thing.

When you wish to argue against the atheist materialistic view with the counter argument of a metaphysical construct. Using condescending terms like "atheist propaganda" and "tidy little stories" doesn't really advance your argument.

[humblebum]

106. Life's kinda funny that way .

[humblebum]

108. But seriously, point

taken. If one wants respect then one needs to show respect.

[Silent3]

111. Invisible pink unicorns

You can't empirically prove that they exist, and you can't empirically prove they don't exist. The fact that neither proposition can be absolutely proven does not make professions of belief or disbelief in invisible pink unicorns equally valid positions.

[humblebum]

112. Boy you're sharp. NT

[Silent3]

115. Instead of just being flip...

...since I'm sure you're very sharp yourself, why don't you explain the trouble you have with the analogy?

Or, perhaps, you are just as studiously neutral on the existence of invisible pink unicorns as you are about the existence of God? Would you decry someone who says they don't believe in invisible pink unicorns for being insufficiently open-minded?

I can assume, yes, that an intelligent person such as yourself understands the essential different between the two statements "I don't believe X exists" and "I believe X does not exist"?

[humblebum]

117. You're right. I was being flip and you deserve a better response.

I was trying to point out in my previous posts that positivistic thinkers(scientists and others)only arrive at their conclusions by applying the epistomology of empiricism, which is limited only to information gathered by the senses. This means that it is impossible to even consider the existence for or against diety (or pink unicorns). However there are other schools of thought(Integrationists) that use other epistemologies. These are more inductive and subjective in their recognition of data, and they are used to add probability to the outcome, while at the same time excluding things like pink unicorns.

[Silent3]

118. I think I'm rightfully suspicious of these "other epistemologies".

If asking for evidence is out of the question, what else recommends the products of these "other epistemologies"? What distinguishes the things believed this way from believing nonsense?

What else besides the fact that you know I'm being sarcastic when I bring up invisible pink unicorns (let's call them IPUs) differentiates various ideas about deities from IPUs? Since asking for evidence would be, apparently, missing the point about these wonderful "other ways of knowing", am I supposed to lend an idea more credence just because someone else "feels" that something is believable?

[charlie]

94. Common Jewish propaganda too

if you want to take that silly tack. The historicity of the Exodus isn't a settled matter among Jews either.

[Meshuga]

107. Well said. n/t

[BurtWorm]

98. What is that evidence for the Exodus?

From what I've read of recent research by Israeli archaeologists in Egypt and Israel, there are not the kinds of evidence you'd expect to find--Hebrew cemeteries of any consequence in Egypt from any of the periods the Exodus might have taken place, for example, or evidence of any Hebrew culture of any consequence in Egypt, either in the ground or in the pharaohnic records--if something like the Exodus occurred.

As for proof of God's existence or nonexistence, atheists agree with you. Which is why we don't believe in deities. What's the excuse for believing in them?

[kwassa]

113. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I know you believe otherwise.

"evidence you'd expect to find". A non-argument.

[TechBear_Seattle]

116. However, absense of evidence must be taken into consideration

The Egyptians bordered on neurotic when it came to creating accurate historical records. The fact that there is no Egyptian source for any part of the Exodus story -- no mention of the plagues, no mention of a massive exodus of Egypt's slave labor force, no mention of the pursuit of this departing slave labor force, no mention of how the vast bulk of the Egyptian army was killed while pursuing this slave labor force, no mention of Egypt ever having a large slave labor force to begin with -- this absence must be noted and weighed. Likewise, there are no Ethiopian records of the plagues or exodus or conquest of Canaan, no Meroean records, no Elamite records, no Canannite records, despite the fact that these civilizations were literate and recorded just about everything else of note. Applying Occam's Razor, it is a reasonable conclusion that the complete lack of supporting evidence anywhere puts the Exodus into the realm of myth and legend rather than historical fact.

[BurtWorm]

119. How would explain the lack of physical evidence of mass Hebrew enslavement by Egypt?

[spin]

120. Some feel the Hebrews were the Hyksos...

A look at all the archaeological evidence shows that the best fit of the data is to identify the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1570-50 BC The most important discovery is the Merneptah stele that mentions Israel which forced the revision of a number of liberal theories. Before the discovery of this stele scholars placed the date of the exodus and entry into Canaan much later. They were now forced to admit that Israel was already in Canaan at the time of Merneptah. This puts a terminus ante quem date of 1210 BC for the exodus.

The execration texts which date back to at least 1630 BC mention city-states like Jerusalem, Shechem, and Hazor, but no mention of Israel. Another inscription of Khu-Sebek mentions Shechem, but not Israel.

Most scholars will place the Jews, pro-Israelites, or even Jacobites in Egypt at the time of the Hyksos. There are many scarabs with the name "Jacob-El." This seems most likely to refer either directly or indirectly to Jacob of the Old Testament.
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Note that quite often myths are based on an actual event. Myths are the smoke of history.