Was Moses insane?

[marco]

Moses chattered with God. He pulled a big rock down a hill and said: "God wrote on this." He said he had seen God's hindquarters because God flashed through the sky, showing his back quarters to the old man.

The reasonable reaction is to say: "Rubbish." If we read these reports in the present age should we deduce
(a) Moses was mad? (b) Moses was a liar? (c) Moses was favoured by God?

Any of these answers can be chosen, but what would influence our choice?

[marco]

To your defense, true satire is very hard to achieve as a debater. G.K. Chesterton was very gifted at it; and for some time I attempted to follow in his footsteps until it became abundantly clear that his footprint was ridiculously too big for my own.

Well we must pick ourselves up and keep trying, as Bruce did. I am gratified that I fall short of Chesterton in my ability to communicate; God forbid I should come close. Thanks for explaining the differences between sarcasm and satire. The OP is "Was Moses insane?" and I am struggling to see how a digression about my ineffective use of satire advances that discussion.

[Mithrae]

Your presentation is indeed implausible

Sometimes, Mithrae, as with the child and the Emperor's clothes, we have to view things as they are, not in the magical light of divinity. I was showing that it is a short step from religious grandeur to the ridiculous.

Assuming the conclusion you want to argue? That's a logical fallacy I'm afraid, and one of the more obvious ones at that!

Virtually none of what you have said - God crouching, a child's game, a 'quick chat,' or reducing God to the level of a six-year old - is found anywhere in the Torah as far as I recall. In fact you're directly contradicting the story on some key points.

So is making up some feeble strawman to laugh at really the best you can accomplish?

In recasting the scenario in different words I am not employing a strawman but very much sticking to the point. God seems to be hiding; Moses seems to be chatting; the scene looks like hide-and-seek, a game to impress the gullible. That is how my unworthy eye sees it; I can do no better than report what I observe, just as Moses allegedly did.

You have snipped part of my comment without any indication of doing so, a tactic which is almost as disingenuous as the point which I made in the line you snipped. Yes, creating a caricature which not only fails to match but indeed directly contradicts the position under discussion is the very definition of inventing a feeble strawman. Your communication might be more effective were you able to understand that.

Would you suddenly find the story plausible if it portrayed the Almighty as an entity so small and weak that every Tom, Dick and Harry can "chat" with it while performing their morning ablutions, rather than needing a commissioned intermediary like Moses?

And this grandiose title is in the Torah? We see the tale through different eyes and use words appropriate to what we see. We may be wrong, but then perhaps some modern intermediary will correct us.

I don't know about 'grandiose,' but yes that is exactly how Moses' role is described:

• Deuteronomy 18:15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 This is according to all that you asked of the Lord your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’

What you persist in describing as God playing "hide-and-seek" is explicitly and unambiguously an attempt to convey the greatness and majesty of that being. However you - seemingly not very well-informed about the subject you are pontificating on - have tried to suggest that this is the very feature which is a "reduction of the Almighty to the level of a six-year old."

You failed to answer my question about how you would view the alternative perspective, I note; another indication perhaps that an actual consideration of what the story does and does not portray was never the intention here.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 26 by Willum]

Quote:
So again, Moses does not fit well from the modernist perspective within any of the categories listed.

How can you say this?

With the same ease you can say that Rome fabricated Jesus and then forgot they fabricated him and so punished his adherents.

Objectively he easily had delusions about God.

What we call begging the question.

He had fits of violence.

You above all members here need to provide actual references. I see zero incidents where Moses' frustration and behavior was not quite normal.

His behavior (such a smashing the 10 commandments) was irrational.

This is ridiculous. I have sometimes felt the urge to throw my phone across the room on grounds as trivial as an airline giving me the runaround. I cannot take your arguments seriously.

I am sorry, brother Liam, avoiding and misdirecting the issues, confirms, not rejects the premise of his madness.

It means there is no better answer.
Marco gives us three alternatives.
A liar.
A madman.
A holy man.

I think that a liar would not be sincere enough to stand the test of time.
Which leads myself, at least, to choose between the second two.

A mundane madman, or divinely inspired.
Given the lack of physical evidence, and a propensity for madmen to delude evidence, and with no other substance I see NECESSITATING something other than madness, madness it is...

Views of others?

[marco]

Assuming the conclusion you want to argue? That's a logical fallacy I'm afraid, and one of the more obvious ones at that!

You are being misled by the word "ridiculous" and probably suppose I am using reduction ad absurdum, assuming God does not exist to illustrate he does not exist. Suffice to say, I'm not. There is no intention here to argue God's existence; the ridiculous comes from the scenario depicted around Moses. To make fun of this may be unkind; it is certainly not a logical fallacy.

Your communication might be more effective were you able to understand that.

It is common courtesy to accept somebody understands what a straw-man argument is. You think I've used one. You are wrong. As I said, I am describing the scene.
One could display the text: "And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon" and await laughter. There is no need to alter this rubbish, so forget a straw-man. I took the situation of God behind a dark cloud, crowds terrified, and Moses being asked to go himself and talk. There is a touch Edward Lear in this without my clumsy tinkering.

You don't happen to think it's nonsense; good for you. I do. Address that point and avoid ad hominem arguments.

What you persist in describing as God playing "hide-and-seek" is explicitly and unambiguously an attempt to convey the greatness and majesty of that being.

Then it is of course a failed attempt. The game of hide-and-seek is a good description of the ludicrous scene.

However you - seemingly not very well-informed about the subject you are pontificating on - have tried to suggest that this is the very feature which is a "reduction of the Almighty to the level of a six-year old."

The creature that slinks out the the pages of Exodus seems to have the ways of a child. If you are somehow able to transform the script into a fine Shakespearean play, well done.
Incidentally I did not TRY to suggest - I succeeded in suggesting it.

You failed to answer my question about how you would view the alternative perspective,

I chose not to since it made no sense.

[Mithrae]

Your communication might be more effective were you able to understand that.

It is common courtesy to accept somebody understands what a straw-man argument is. You think I've used one. You are wrong. As I said, I am describing the scene.
One could display the text: "And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon" and await laughter. There is no need to alter this rubbish, so forget a straw-man. I took the situation of God behind a dark cloud, crowds terrified, and Moses being asked to go himself and talk. There is a touch Edward Lear in this without my clumsy tinkering.

It is common courtesy to address others' actual comments rather than snipping and editing to present something that you want to address. You created a scenario which directly contradicted the story - the most obvious and egregious example being in describing the forty days Moses spent on the mountain as a "brief chat" - and have now twice refused to even acknowledge that this has been pointed out. It was and still remains a blatant, feeble strawman that you invented, and yet you still profess not to realize that fact. Apparently you find it offensive of me to point this out, and yet rather than even attempting to deal with that issue you're instead trying to skip over to some other part of the story which, for some unclear reason, seems to amuse you.

You don't happen to think it's nonsense; good for you. I do. Address that point and avoid ad hominem arguments.

What you persist in describing as God playing "hide-and-seek" is explicitly and unambiguously an attempt to convey the greatness and majesty of that being.

Then it is of course a failed attempt. The game of hide-and-seek is a good description of the ludicrous scene.

However you - seemingly not very well-informed about the subject you are pontificating on - have tried to suggest that this is the very feature which is a "reduction of the Almighty to the level of a six-year old."

The creature that slinks out the the pages of Exodus seems to have the ways of a child. If you are somehow able to transform the script into a fine Shakespearean play, well done.
Incidentally I did not TRY to suggest - I succeeded in suggesting it.

You have presented opinions, based on the demonstrably distorted (if not dishonest) way in which you characterize the story. If that is your personal standard as to what passes for 'debate,' then fair enough; you'd hardly be the only one. Starting a brand new thread topic of your own just to wave this flag is a curious decision, to say the least, but again hardly unique.

I myself have not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the story, but if and when I choose to do so I'd like to think that it will be the actual biblical text that I address, not some fanciful caricature I've dreamed up.

You failed to answer my question about how you would view the alternative perspective,

I chose not to since it made no sense.

My apologies: To put it into smaller words, the story clearly states that Moses went to the mountain because God's glory terrified the people. In your own mind, you have chosen to warp that into a somehow belittling, childish portrayal of God. So I want to know if you would find the alternative more plausible - if God was portrayed as nothing special, a being that anyone could "chat" with at will?

If you are unable or unwilling to answer that question, or if your answer is that you'd find the alternative just as "laughable," the only probable conclusion is that your mockery is based purely on the fact that it involves God rather than the specifics of the actual story itself.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 35 by Mithrae]

Hey Mithrae

Super quick interruption, then I'll happily keep watching the Marco v Mithrae with much enjoyment.

I'm almost completely certain you don't accept any of the story you two are arguing about as having actually occurred, picking of nits aside.

Am I mistaken?

[marco]

You created a scenario which directly contradicted the story - the most obvious and egregious example being in describing the forty days Moses spent on the mountain as a "brief chat" -

You require me to treat a children's game like a scientific dissertation. Moses took no food or water for forty days. How do we know that and why do we believe that? I view the entire scenario as rubbish. To use a straw-man would be to set up some false nonsense and reset it as the one given; I have simply presented the same nonsense in other words.

You have presented opinions, based on the demonstrably distorted (if not dishonest) way in which you characterize the story.

It would be hard to make a silly story sillier. I have emphasised the silliness.

I myself have not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the story, but if and when I choose to do so I'd like to think that it will be the actual biblical text that I address, not some fanciful caricature I've dreamed up.

Your commendation of the tale is clear. I didn't comment on a caricature - you did. I made a caricature, which is a valid resource.

My apologies

Well we sometimes get ourselves into an ad hominem. No problem.

So I want to know if you would find the alternative more plausible - if God was portrayed as nothing special, a being that anyone could "chat" with at will?

I think I said this question made no sense. You want me to express an opinion on the character known as Yahweh as he might be written by, say, another panel of playwrights. If he smiled more, didn't worry about nudity, used better materials than stone, didn't expose himself ... would he be a nicer God?

Yes, I think we shall simply say this line of pursuit isn't full of meaning. Let us mercifully pass on to discussing the OP, shall we?

[marco]

Given the lack of physical evidence, and a propensity for madmen to delude evidence, and with no other substance I see NECESSITATING something other than madness, madness it is...

Views of others?

He did go for forty days without food and water. I think a week without water is the maximum that is thought possible, so perhaps poor old Moses was delusional. He wasn't lying about meeting God, just mistaken. If people can see an oasis or a city where there is none, then they can have a chat with Yahweh. Sorry, A LONG conversation.

[H.sapiens]

Moses chattered with God. He pulled a big rock down a hill and said: "God wrote on this." He said he had seen God's hindquarters because God flashed through the sky, showing his back quarters to the old man.

The reasonable reaction is to say: "Rubbish." If we read these reports in the present age should we deduce
(a) Moses was mad? (b) Moses was a liar? (c) Moses was favoured by God?

Any of these answers can be chosen, but what would influence our choice?

The question contains the logical (and legal) fallacy of assuming facts that are not in evidence.

[marco]

Moses chattered with God. He pulled a big rock down a hill and said: "God wrote on this." He said he had seen God's hindquarters because God flashed through the sky, showing his back quarters to the old man.

The reasonable reaction is to say: "Rubbish." If we read these reports in the present age should we deduce
(a) Moses was mad? (b) Moses was a liar? (c) Moses was favoured by God?

Any of these answers can be chosen, but what would influence our choice?

The question contains the logical (and legal) fallacy of assuming facts that are not in evidence.

The question, being a question, assumes no facts. If you think that Moses did not exist, that's an answer. If you think we have no evidence to suppose Moses was mad, that's an answer. If you simply want to use the phrase logical fallacy, then fair enough, but it's wrongly applied. Check your list of fallacies and come back with a specific title.