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]

So no, if there were a Moses, he was not certifiably mad.

I understand that insanity is a commendable feature among witchdoctors and shamans.

It is therefore hard to write Moses off as a charlatan.

I agree he seems less self-centred and crafty than Muhammad who got Allah to win battles for him, thus impressing the masses. But Moses was manipulative; he was using the fiction of a deity, perhaps, to persuade and overpower. He was a "bridge builder" as was the Roman pontifex, which actually means "bridge builder." We can only imagine with what he was building bridges.

And, most of all, Moses was clearly flawed, instanced on several occasions. This is not typical of fictional heroes.

It is indeed typical. Great heroes have their weaknesses, which makes them interesting. Achilles had a physical weakness and an emotional one in his love for Patroclus. Hercules foolishly donned a poisoned shirt. Paris, darling of heaven, was fatally attracted to Helen. Aeneas let poor Dido sacrifice herself because of his desertion.

[dianaiad]

I'd give much to have seen the original word-rock. Imagine the writing of a god. The penmanship. The attention to margins. Can you use calligraphy on Hebrew letters? I don't see why not. Does a god just sort of miracle the letters on there or is it forced to use some sort of implement? Maybe just uses its finger, like you do on some credit card swipers. And my "history" is rusty. Doesn't Moses take this unbelievable article, handwritten by the creator of the universe, and smash the **** out if it?

I'm not persuaded in the least. Now if this god had handed Moses a flash drive, or one of those hologram projecting doodads from Star Wars, we'd have something to be excited about.

Moderator Warning


Do not use scatological or other offensive terms when posting.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Mithrae]

We are told that the people asked Moses to penetrate the darkness where God was crouching, as in a child's game, have a quick chat, and report back. There is something slightly implausible about this reduction of the Almighty to the level of a six-year old.

Your presentation is indeed implausible, which makes me wonder why you so frequently stoop to that level? I for one sometimes enjoy the poetic flair you often put into your posts, but when you lose sight of the actual facts under discussion it becomes not only pointless but seeming disingenuous as well. 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?

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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by Mithrae]

Need I remind you that non-Existent all powerful things, are all-feeble?
Does it need to be pointed out to you that the way God acts in the Old Testament, is vindictive, petulant and childish?

Or that the best explanation for why we can't find God is that he is playing a game of hide-and-seek based on the supposition that faith is most important to him?

Be a little more careful with your presumptions, and need I remind you that the OP about Moses being nuts.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]

liamconnor wrote:

So no, if there were a Moses, he was not certifiably mad.

I understand that insanity is a commendable feature among witchdoctors and shamans.

Not sure what your point is, even less whether it is true. I doubt that those who sponsor witchdoctors and shamans consider them insane by our definition. They would probably use other descriptors: enlightened, touched, etc. My guess is shamans and witchdoctors have common characteristics which we regard as insane.

Liam wrote:


It is therefore hard to write Moses off as a charlatan.

I agree he seems less self-centred and crafty than Muhammad who got Allah to win battles for him, thus impressing the masses. But Moses was manipulative; he was using the fiction of a deity, perhaps, to persuade and overpower. He was a "bridge builder" as was the Roman pontifex, which actually means "bridge builder." We can only imagine with what he was building bridges.

I am confused. The OP listed three options for explaining MOses, but here one of them is assumed--Moses was a charlatan. Am I now required to assume Moses knowingly invented a deity to enslave his brethren? Or is that still one of the positions to be debated? Again, a charlatan does not usually place in the words of his fabricated deity a rebuke towards himself: e.g. God's rebuke at Moses' whining during the first revelation; God's banning Moses from the promised land for what appears to us a pretty innocent infraction.

liamconnor wrote:


And, most of all, Moses was clearly flawed, instanced on several occasions. This is not typical of fictional heroes.

It is indeed typical. Great heroes have their weaknesses, which makes them interesting. Achilles had a physical weakness and an emotional one in his love for Patroclus. Hercules foolishly donned a poisoned shirt. Paris, darling of heaven, was fatally attracted to Helen. Aeneas let poor Dido sacrifice herself because of his desertion.

I thought this might come up, but then I thought surely the obvious differences between characters and Moses would be, well, obvious. Moses was, quite frankly, a wuss. Whatever flaws in the heroes mentioned above, cowardice was not one of them.


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

[Willum]

[Replying to post 25 by liamconnor]

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

How can you say this?
Objectively he easily had delusions about God.
He had fits of violence.
He had fits of violence when his 'delusions' were disparaged.
His behavior (such a smashing the 10 commandments) was irrational.
He suffered despair so deep, he needed Aaron to do his work for him.

I mean the text is hardly robust, yet those key indicators of wellness read plainly enough.

The question is, does a miraculous answer trump the known, mundane one?

I cannot,objectively say that, given man's propensity for expansion and legend, that Moses' insanity could not reasonably be expected to be glamorized.

Leading, I suppose, to an entire mythology.

Whereas other myths do not have such "Beautiful Minds," in it, might just explain why anyone takes this one more seriously than Hercules and Megara.

[liamconnor]

[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.

[marco]

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.

My proposition is that Moses was anything but a messenger of God and satire is a legitimate means of demonstrating this.

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.

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.

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.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

My proposition is that Moses was anything but a messenger of God and satire is a legitimate means of demonstrating this.

Hmmm....

Now that another (at least) has commented on your rhetoric, I feel emboldened to call it into question yet again.

I suggest that the question, "Is it (satire) really a legitimate means" is worth re-asking;but really, I question whether "satire" is the right term for describing your style of rhetoric. I would describe it not as satire but as sarcasm, which is a very low form of humour, and an even lower form of debate.

Sarcasm assumes one's victory in an argument without making an actual argument; satire makes the argument in a humorous vein. Sarcasm is purely autobiographical; satire is objective.

Your arguments are, I am sorry to say, merely sarcastic. They express your opinion about something without furnishing the faintest rational grounds for others to share this opinion.

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.

[marco]

It is therefore hard to write Moses off as a charlatan.

]I agree he seems less self-centred and crafty than Muhammad who got Allah to win battles for him, thus impressing the masses. But Moses was manipulative; he was using the fiction of a deity, perhaps, to persuade and overpower. He was a "bridge builder" as was the Roman pontifex, which actually means "bridge builder." We can only imagine with what he was building bridges.

I am confused. The OP listed three options for explaining MOses, but here one of them is assumed--Moses was a charlatan. Am I now required to assume Moses knowingly invented a deity to enslave his brethren? Or is that still one of the positions to be debated? Again, a charlatan does not usually place in the words of his fabricated deity a rebuke towards himself:

I was replying to your assertion that Moses wasn't a charlatan and exploring the possibility he was. Ignoring the word "perhaps" has possibly contributed to your confusion. I didn't regard my three options as exhaustive. Because I argue along line B, you are obviously not required to believe what I say. You may happily dismiss it.

liamconnor wrote:

I thought this might come up, but then I thought surely the obvious differences between characters and Moses would be, well, obvious. Moses was, quite frankly, a wuss. Whatever flaws in the heroes mentioned above, cowardice was not one of them.


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

The "modernist perspective" would see Moses as a flawed hero, like many other heroes. I think an army of believers would disagree with his "wussification". I have no problem seeing him as a biblical hero, with an ability to lead his people and talk to the Almighty.