The Conflict behind the Exodus: Forget about the Egyptians

The book of Exodus is an epic. It qualifies as an epic because it is a very old oral tradition that speaks of a foundational myth, with heroes, foes, war, destiny and divine intervention; especially the first 15 chapters, the famous chapters that tell how Moses escapes Egypt, was spoken by God in the desert, and returns to free the Hebrews. He becomes a sibylline that foretells catastrophes to fall on the Kingdom of Egypt, while the Pharaoh stubbornly denies freedom to the Hebrews, but eventually they break free. Everyone knows the story.

Among the ancient epics, it is a remarkable tale. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, and so forth, the main characters are mortal men and women, helped and burdened by divine beings. But in the Exodus, if we pay close attention, we discover that the main character is God and not a particular man. He is the hero who acts through Moses, His messenger. Moses is, in contemporary film culture, the Lord's avatar. And this we can legitimately say because, with a few exceptions, Moses never speaks his mind to anyone, but only to God, and when he is addressing anyone else, he is speaking the literal words that God spoke to him, so that his words are not his but the Lord's. And all the calamities that he foretells are not made by him but by God. Even the stubbornness of the Pharaoh is determined by the Lord's will, so that the story's evil force also springs from the Lord. The only thing that appears to be out of God's grasp is the faith of the Hebrews, the people He is trying to convince by all these spectacular signs.

The Exodus, as any other epic tale, tells us a lot about the people to which it belongs. The first remarkable feature is its theocratic nature. Whereas the Sumerian, Hellenic and Latin epics are centered on human beings aided by gods, the Hebrew story is how God is being assisted by a man. The former are humanists, because they center in the human hero's struggles against nature, and the deities around him are other aspects of his humanity and of nature (call them metaphors, if you wish). On the contrary, the Exodus is theocratic, because it centers on the history of how God convinces the Hebrews of his supreme nature. At first glance it appears to be the story of the Hebrew people against the Egyptians, led by Moses who is helped by the Lord, in a similar way as the Iliad is the story of the Achaeans against the Trojans, led by Achilles who is helped by Athena (broadly speaking). The problem is that Moses is no Achilles, and God is no Athena. Moses is an old man who cannot do anything by himself, not even having rhetorical skills he is aided by his brother Aaron, while Achilles is young, handsome, and the strongest of men. Contrariwise God can do anything, including manipulating the enemies emotions and decisions, whereas Athena is just one among a multiplicity of deities struggling between themselves to move their particular agendas with more or less success. In the Hellenic poem the gods are more like humans, and the heroes are demigods breeded with them. But in the Hebrew book humans are truly humans, and the Lord is truly a god. This is where the Hebrews break completely with all the peoples around them.

Even though it appears that the story of the Exodus is the tale between the struggle of Hebrews against Egyptians, when we realize that the Egyptians, and their king, are nothing more than tools in the Lord's plan, we come to understand that that conflict is set above a deeper dialectic. If God is already determining all the actions of the Egyptians, depriving them of free will, then the conflict is only apparent. God manipulates them in order to humiliate and destroy them, without them being able to fight back, not to speak of the inexistence of their gods. So, what is the true conflict in the Exodus? Let us explore Moses' role, and see if it guides us to solve this question.

Most of the tale consists in the Lord speaking to Moses, and actually telling him what is going to happen, because it is in God's will what is finally going to happen. In a way, God is the narrator of most of the story, because He is telling ahead what eventually happens (in narrative theory, something called prolepsis, commonly referred to as flash-forward), and Moses just goes out and foretells it. First, it means that Moses is a very successful augur. Second, because the Lord is just revealing to him what He is going to do, Moses and the Hebrews, as opposed to Pharaoh and Egypt, are only spectators of God's unfolding power. They are not doing anything; actions against the Egyptians are never taken by them, so they are not actors in this play. What is the play? God, the main character, destroying the Egyptians. This play (Hebrews watching God) is what seems to be played in the Exodus, because in the end the true spectator is the reader of the book, not the Hebrews. The conflict with the Egyptians is a play being watched by the Hebrews, where the Hebrews' narrator is Moses, and Moses' narrator is the Lord, the ultimate narrator. This passive relation between Egyptians and Hebrews is being beholden by the reader, the ultimate beholder. The true question to the ultimate beholder, that is "we", is: what is the play we are truly reading? God reveals it to us when he speaks to Moses as follow:

"Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and of your son's son how I have made sport of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them; that you may know that I am the Lord" (Exodus: 10: 1-2).

We should understand now what is the conflict at hand. The Egyptians are only there so that the Lord can make sport of them. They are not free actors. They can't fight back. And the Lord is doing this because he wants to show Himself to the Hebrews. Moses is the messenger in this showing, so that the Hebrews recognize that He is who He is. During the rest of the Exodus, the Hebrews are constantly questioning Moses, and God has to come all over to help him with all these miracles. The Hebrews believe for a time, and again they become skeptic, so God has to show Himself again, and Moses has to explain it to them. The only free actors are the Hebrews, who have the choice of not believing, and God is acting through Moses so that they may believe, by knowing who He is. The true conflict of the Exodus is the dialectic of faith and disbelief, whereas the calamities falling upon Egypt is just God literally showing off, so that the Hebrews may know His power, and believe. In sooth the Lord cannot make them believe out of His own will. He is convincing them.

Without human free will, this convincing action would be spurious, a mere act of appearances by God. So He gave them free will so that they may decide for themselves whether to believe or not. The rest of the story is simply destiny, and free will plays no role, so that there is no conflict. The Egyptians are destined to be obdurate so that they may be destroyed, and in this act, God shows Himself. The Hebrews are destined to escape and find their promised land in Canaan, but this destiny is only fulfilled when they truly believe, and as they decide to believe, they take one more step. In few words, if they don't believe, they perish. The fulfilling of their destiny requires their faith. In this way destiny and free will are linked, because the Lord makes them fulfill their predetermined end with the condition of deciding to believe in Him. This is the moral and theological teaching I find behind the book of Exodus.

Of course, there is a historical and anthropological background to it. I.e. that there is a historical migration of a people of Semitic origin from the Nile Delta to the western shores of the Dead Sea and the Jordan river, carrying with them a novel religion: monotheism. And that all the calamities occurring in Egypt must date to a time of troubles, like a crisis of central authority, maybe civil war, maybe the actual rebellion of the Hebrews, who in the very beginning of the book are increasing in population and it becomes a policy problem for the Egyptian central administration (an immigration problem, if you wish). Now the origin of the Hebrews' religious belief is still the topic of a long historiographical debate that I decide to ignore. Why? Because if we believe in God, then it is perfectly logical to think that Moses' role as a prophet is perfectly possible, and any scientificist doubt is cast as spurious.

However, the Exodus, and Moses as an epic character, tells us a lot of the Hebrew people, and of the very first origin of Christianity. First, political power and greatness is irrelevant to the sight of God, who can do anything. Second, the true hero is an augur with personal contact with God, and not a warrior, so that the ethos of this people is based on religious faith and not physical qualities. Third, the people concerned is not a warrior nor conqueror one, but a prophetic people, and their triumph over the rest of their neighbors rests on their faith and not on their might, because God's might makes war for them. (There is a warrior aspect of the Hebrews in the Deuteronomy and, of course, in Kings. But lets stay with the Exodus). Finally, lacking in any warlike virtues, the Hebrews believed in a God that redeemed them of this historically fatal weakness, and this belief has been the spring of the world's two major religions, whereas the religions of mighty warrior, the Sumerian Gilgamesh, the Hellenic Iliad, the Latin Aeneid, the Aztec Aztlan Myth, become mythological and epic literature.

In the end, in history, faith ultimately triumphs over physical and material qualities, and the knowledge on them. The Jews are still there, where the Egyptians, Philistines, Babylonians, Romans, etc. disappeared. Our nations and empires and economies rise and fall, where Christianity and Islam will endure for a lot more.

7 Principles on Public Debate

Debating is a great art, and a great enjoyment. Not all the people indulge in debating, but others with a democratic spirit do. I'm one of those, and in the process of reflecting on my own style of debating I've reached certain principles of debate. This applies more to social networks, the new public forum for the exchange of ideas, mostly political, but not excepting religious or philosophical or otherwise. But because religious is most of the time an extremely sensible topic, and for good reasons, I'm going to remain in the realm of political speech.

1: Debate is not an act of social agreeability. That is, don't debate for the purpose of being liked by others. Do it because you have an idea and you want to make its case against the opposition of others.
If you are too much concerned about what others might think of you, and you aim at leaving a good impression on other people's minds, then debating is not your art. Engaging in an exchange of political speech demands that you pay heed to your ideas first, and to the ideas of the others, second. Not to the opinions others might have of you personally. Aim at ideas and arguments, not at your self-esteem.

2: True debate demands that you begin by casting doubt on your own argument. That is, leaving a space of doubt from which the argument of another might come in. Otherwise you would never be open to what another might be saying, and debate becomes impossible. Always hear the argument of your opponent, and try to figure out in what aspects is it convincing, so that you might adapt those aspects into your own argument.

3: It follows that the aim of debating is "the best argument", not necessarily your first argument. You can change it as the debate moves forward, always having in mind that you want to perfect your first argument, if it still holds. If it does not hold in the end, then debate is over and you lost. But never forget that in debating, losing sometimes makes you win, because then you can wield the winning argument in another conversation.

4: In order for this to be possible, you need to abstract yourself to a certain extent. That is, never go personal. Debaters that go personal are only diverting the conversation because they are scared of being challenged in their ideas. Never do this. It is very easy to fall into this sin of debate, but you must recognize when it is happening to you and change your approach completely.
In the same way, when you see someone becoming too personally sensible, that person is not willing to honestly debate. Next point will expand on this.

5.0: Identify your opponent. This requires more extension.

5.1: Know if your opponent is making a self-righteous argument. It is really easy to identify this, because self-righteous arguments are usually one dimensional, simple minded and unrealistic. People that engage in these are, in my view, lacking in concrete data or intellectual background on the topic, but have passion for it, so they need to give their opinion. The easiest way to make an opinion is by wielding a normative claim. So a lot of people engage in this, especially in the social networks because I guess you wouldn't invite one of these for dinner.
Self-righteous people come from simple moral assumptions. They are easy to identify because usually they express them for themselves. The problem with speaking politics from moral assumptions is that, most of the time, they are crowded with ideology, and ideology is very difficult to cast out. People feel that they are in the right, and any kind of compromise means giving up to evil. And, of course, no one reasonable wants to give in to evil.  The first thing, and most important, eliminate any good/evil (manicheist) structure of argument from your own argument.
So, when you recognize a self-righteous debater, make him know: first, that he is naive and simple minded, and second, never give in to his/her sophistry. Attack it furiously and ridicule him/her, because there are few things worse than a self-righteous argument unconcerned for realistic and interesting debate. In sooth, they are not arguments, because they are not interested in being argued. Out of a self-righteous speech, an argument is impossible.

5.2: This is connected with the previous rule. Don't be politically correct. Move your argument if you think it's reasonable. How do you know if it's not reasonable? Because you might be using a manicheist structure of argument that cannot reach a final and better conclusion.
Remember, being politically correct breaks the rule of being concerned with ideas instead than with your self-esteem, or with opinions others might have of you. You don't care what others might think or say of you. You are only concerned with having the better argument. If others think you are being offensive, that's their problem and their Freudian complexes, not yours. Others should understand when you are moving a reasonable argument and not a manicheistic, ill-willed speech. If they cannot recognize this, don't waste your argument with those people.

5.3: Don't debate with people that don't want to debate back. This is a hard one, because it's easy to fall in the temptation of crushing someone with low self-esteem. But there are two basic types of these: a) the people with low self-esteem, frightened at the possibility of an argument. In this case it simply might not be Christian to castigate these people, even though the temptation is always present. Usually you will simply stop talking because the other is too frightened to say anything at all, and that is very discouraging. b) The arrogant that think that debate is a waste of time because their ideas are so perfectly right. These are much worse, because it's people that don't think you are worth having a good and interesting conversation. They simply don't answer back because they think low of you. It happens all the time in certain academic environments. Usually they just want to ridicule your speech, or hear you for a moment, while rejecting your specifics with small comments without framing their own argument, so that it is impossible for you to strike back. They hold what they think in order not to expose it to attacks. Cowardice, I know. But it's not infrequent.
I'm still not sure how to tackle this type, but my intuition tells me that the best way to handle them is to wield your argument so aggressively as to shake their space of comfort, and take some pleasure out of that small revenge.

5.4: There remains the good type of opponents, the kind you can go on debating for a life time. That is, those that have a similar approach than you. They don't get easily offended, they are willing to frame complex arguments, and answer back your attacks with good defense and competent counter attacks, so that you can learn from them. The exchange can appear to be very aggressive indeed, but as long as none of you gets personally offended, then you are doing fine.
Of course there will always be people you don't agree with, because as soon as you recognize their abstract principles, you acknowledge that they are formally opposed to yours. When both recognize this, usually the conversations run very deep and philosophical, but without much hope of reaching a final conclusion. You can still learn from the different arguments, but you must yield the possibility of convincing or being convinced in an absolute sense. So simply enjoy the debate.
There are others with a more pragmatic approach that are willing to trade off some of their principles and move forward to a new level of conversation. You must try to be the same way, and maybe, a final conclusion can be reached. However, that is unlikely.
In any case, these are the good guys, the ones you can really engage in long, interesting and fraternal conversations, however opposed the arguments might be.

6: Remember that all kinds of arguments, no matter what, have an intellectual background and a set of abstract principles. When hearing someone's case, you will hear a lot of specifics. Remaining in the realm of specifics never gives you the chance to reach a final, better carved argument, because you could go on debating at infinitum without true learning. Identify where the argument is coming from, by digging into its intellectual background, and by forcing your opponent to reach his/her abstract principles.
This is done by putting a lot of pressure on your opponent, asking uncomfortable questions and making bold statements. If you know some history of political thought, you may even identify the background of any argument by identifying its abstract principles. Then, you already know the family of arguments that are already part of that debate, and you can wield arguments from people smarter than you from previous times or better schools.

7: Try to argue from your own intellectual background and abstract principles without sounding too pedantic. It is true that by doing this, it is inevitable that you will distill some pedantry, but depending on the level of intellectual formation of your opponent, you may show more or less pedantry. It is very important not to sound too pedantic if you are debating with someone with much lower levels of knowledge than you, for two reasons: a) you don't want to alienate your opponent by instilling in him/her resentment and, b) you don't want to confuse him/her so as to appear that you are lecturing. Lectures are not debates.

Conclusion: these are principles better assumed in political and public debates, acknowledging that religion moves in a different direction (i.e. converting the other person into your religion without being converted back). Your aim is to find out the better argument, by assuming that your a priori ideas are not the better ones, and you want to learn from your opponent some things that might enhance your speech. It is done by contesting your opponnent's arguments to the level where you can be convinced of some of it, and integreate it to your own argument. This inevitably changes some aspects of your a priori ideas, but for the better.
Finally, wherever you hear or read self-righteousness or political correctness, make war on it like it is a jihad.

La Religión no pasa de Moda

La religión es el único tema que jamás pasará de moda mientras exista el género humano, 
Desafortunadamente para nuestros amigos los secularistas revolucionarios. 
Y no porque el ser humano necesite creer en algo, sino porque Dios sí existe, 
Y al género humano se va a seguir manifestando. 
Y como los creyentes, a diferencia de los secularistas revolucionarios, no somos tontos, 
En Él vamos a seguir creyendo, 
Y en Su honor vamos a seguir orando.