[fappenhosen]

I shall be nice enough to post you the full text of Chapters 19 and 20 of the Book of Exodus according to the Jewish Bible.

No need to copy pasta the whole Bible, we can all google.

It doesn't change the fact that god, as described in that one passage of that one account is at once shy, petty and vindictive. These are all qualities shared with Flank L Baum's character in the Wizard Of Oz. All the bawwing in the world cannot change this fact.

Anyone who believes this is suitable behaviour for a divine being needs to see a psychologist. I mean this in the nicest possible way. I'm sure you're a good guy apart from the books full of crazy.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Ah, well, hm. How do I answer that one diplomatically? Here is where the weakness of Judaism starts. We know what God has said to the Jew, & what he expects of the Jew. As far as what he has or has not said to the Gentile, & what he expects, or does not expect, from the Gentile, we simply don't know. I don't think that you're missing anything that our great Sages & Rabbis of Blessed Memory haven't been missing for 2500 yrs. God has simply not made us Jews privy to that information. When the time comes, we shall know. But @ the moment, that's a preliminary answer.

[fappenhosen]

The Orthodox don't write the Name of God on paper, for fear that it could end up in a waste bin, thus profaning it.

This makes absoultely zero sense. Words are just an optical representation of ideas. There is no Name of God. They're a fabrication of a culture that needs to represent its thoughts in a physical medium so that they can be (largely) understood by everyone with the capacity to read. The symbols of God represents (to most people) a personal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. I could just as easily decare that "Kuku" represents that same thing. If enough people stick with me then this becomes the accepted representation.

If you put the symbols "G-d" on a piece of paper then throw that paper in the bin, you've still put a representation of the idea of God, the personal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, in the bin. God must be pretty angry at that. Cos he gets like that. Like he has eyes in all the bins and he unscrunches the bits of paper at night and looks for his name. This is normal behaviour for a omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being

The only possible solution is to write "G--". No wait that's not right.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

My, my, Fap. I thought you were above simple name-calling & blasphemy. Do you not recall that man cannot see the face of God & live? My Land of Goshen, I'd rather deal w/ this than see the true Face of God, thank you. @ least this is something a human can work with.

[fappenhosen]

My, my, Fap. I thought you were above simple name-calling & blasphemy.

I didnt call anyone any names. The concept of blasphemy has no meaning.

Do you not recall that man cannot see the face of God & live?

(Presuming the existence of a god) The Bible disputes such claims.

But it is strange that a loving omnipotent God would choose to kill anyone who saw him. Don'cha think?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Lets see. The concept of blasphemy is the idea of insult to deity. Ergo, the concept has meaning. As far as seeing the face of God & living, what does being all-loving & yet so powerful that one can't be looked @ directly have about it that is so hard to understand?

[fappenhosen]

Lets see. The concept of blasphemy is the idea of insult to deity. Ergo, the concept has meaning.

Incorrect. If the deity does not exist there is no insult. You can of course baww and say "you hurt my feelings", regardless of whether the deity in question exists or not. The point is that you don't get to kill people when you're feelings get hurt. People who believe in Bigfoot don't have a special word for people who say Bigfoot doesn't exist. And they don't get to execute those people for suggesting Bigfoot doesn't exist. Or saying "If Bigfoot exists then he must be an ass for mutilating all those cows".

As far as seeing uhe face of God & living, what does being all-loving & yet so powerful that one can't be looked @ directly have about it that is so hard to understand?

Let's be clear. It's not hard to understand. It just doesn't make sense. There's a subtle difference: Particle physics is hard to understand. "Danced Cauliflower reaches yesterday roof the below bulldozer parade" doesn't make sense. There's no further meaning that can be gained if I just study harder.

To address the point directly. God is assumed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent. Nothing happens that he doesn't allow to happen. Therefore god chooses to kill people when they look at him. He could choose to have a normal face. He could just say "Oh hi I was just having a nap can you come back in 5?". Rather than killing them. That would be a nice friendly god.

[Particle Person]

As far as seeing the face of God & living, what does being all-loving & yet so powerful that one can't be looked @ directly have about it that is so hard to understand?

I understand that you're so familiar with your own religious beliefs by now that it's difficult to know how they're perceived by outsiders. You'll just have to take my word for it when I say this question is hilarious.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

The idea that blasphemy exists is obvious. Its definition is 'the act of insulting a deity'. It does not specify which one. If I call Krishna an a--hole, I have committed blasphemy. {note: I did NOT call Krishna that. The statement was rhetorical.} It doesn't matter whether the deity IS a deity, actually exists or not. In some countries, like Russia, their laws are framed as 'insulting the religious feelings of the public'. So insulting the Russian Orthodox Church or its deity, or the Jews or their deity, or several other recognised groups, are all equally criminal acts. Whether it is in the State's interest to punish blasphemy is another question to be debated aside, but the existence of blasphemy is obvious.

[Pete Svarrior]

It doesn't matter whether the deity IS a deity, actually exists or not.

So if I proclaim myself a deity right now, regardless of the fact that I'm not one, insulting me would be blasphemous?

[fappenhosen]

The statement was rhetorical.} It doesn't matter whether the deity IS a deity, actually exists or not.

So you don't like getting your feelings hurt? Sorry, you don't have the right not to be offended.

Why aren't people who insult Bigfoot punished? Why aren't people who insult fairies punished? Why aren't people who insult homeopaths punished. Etc etc.

And edit: In case you cave and say "those things aren't real but my god is":

Why aren't people who insult the hit 70s detective series "Colombo" punished? Why aren't people who insult the government punished? Why aren't people who insult weathermen punished? Etc etc.

[The Terror]

People who believe in Bigfoot don't have a special word for people who say Bigfoot doesn't exist

Actually there is a word, it is Bigfoot-wurr-wamm. It roughly translates to "Those who deny the existence of Bigfoot".

[Rama Set]

It doesn't matter whether the deity IS a deity, actually exists or not.

So if I proclaim myself a deity right now, regardless of the fact that I'm not one, insulting me would be blasphemous?

Inb4ascension a- hole

[Snupes]

The idea that blasphemy exists is obvious. Its definition is 'the act of insulting a deity'. It does not specify which one. If I call Krishna an a--hole, I have committed blasphemy. {note: I did NOT call Krishna that. The statement was rhetorical.} It doesn't matter whether the deity IS a deity, actually exists or not. In some countries, like Russia, their laws are framed as 'insulting the religious feelings of the public'. So insulting the Russian Orthodox Church or its deity, or the Jews or their deity, or several other recognised groups, are all equally criminal acts. Whether it is in the State's interest to punish blasphemy is another question to be debated aside, but the existence of blasphemy is obvious.

I'm kinda curious as to your reply to this bit:

To address the point directly. God is assumed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent. Nothing happens that he doesn't allow to happen. Therefore god chooses to kill people when they look at him. He could choose to have a normal face. He could just say "Oh hi I was just having a nap can you come back in 5?". Rather than killing them. That would be a nice friendly god.

It's a pretty good point, I think, and was exactly what I was wondering as well.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I shall happily reply to all questions in my next post when I have some time. It may be a bit, as today has been busy, & tonight may be also.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Please note that blasphemy, as a crime, usually involves insulting the religious feelings of the public in some capacity. If you declare yourself a deity, you are certainly not going to have people being charged with blasphemy for insulting you. In fact, since you are manifestly NOT a deity, nor is there anyone in the world who thinks you are, such that their religious feelings would be insulted, it is far more likely that you will be escorted to the nearest State Mental Hospital.

As far as God being a nice guy and saying, "Hi, there. I was having a nap. Come back in five," or some other inanely stupid remark, or being a happy and cheerful God who would never kill anyone for looking at him, I don't think it works like that. It is not God who kills you. It is the power that emanate from the holiness of God. It is like the Priest who touched the Ark of the Covenant and was fried to a crisp for it. I don't think God particularly wanted him to die. I think it was simply a natural response to unauthorised contact with the holy.

In the early 1960's, at MIT, there was a professor and his class that tried to build a replica of the Ark of the Covenant. They ended up having to destroy their creation. Why? Because the thing started to conduct electricity and was very nearly exploded. Had it actually done so, it is estimated that it would have taken out a whole city block. What did Moses have that this professor did not? The blessing of God, and the fact that God sat on the Mercy Seat of the Ark and spoke to the Children of Israel. The Ark was no different. It is the use of the Ark that made the difference. The first Ark HAD a use that was blessed and sanctified by God. The replica did not. It is that simple.

[Particle Person]

As far as God being a nice guy and saying, "Hi, there. I was having a nap. Come back in five," or some other inanely stupid remark, or being a happy and cheerful God who would never kill anyone for looking at him, I don't think it works like that. It is not God who kills you. It is the power that emanate from the holiness of God. It is like the Priest who touched the Ark of the Covenant and was fried to a crisp for it. I don't think God particularly wanted him to die. I think it was simply a natural response to unauthorised contact with the holy.

Is God unable to control the effect his power has on those around him?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I suppose he could do anything he liked, including causing people who saw his face break out in bright blue polka dots, but he has chosen to demonstrate his power by this method. Why, I don't know. I don't question it, however. It is what it is.

[Particle Person]

Spoken like a true scholar.

[DuckDodgers]

In the early 1960's, at MIT, there was a professor and his class that tried to build a replica of the Ark of the Covenant. They ended up having to destroy their creation. Why? Because the thing started to conduct electricity and was very nearly exploded. Had it actually done so, it is estimated that it would have taken out a whole city block. What did Moses have that this professor did not? The blessing of God, and the fact that God sat on the Mercy Seat of the Ark and spoke to the Children of Israel. The Ark was no different. It is the use of the Ark that made the difference. The first Ark HAD a use that was blessed and sanctified by God. The replica did not. It is that simple.

I'm mildly curious about this one.  I have incredible doubt this actually happened and a cursory google search has lead to zilch.  Do you have a source for this claim?