Questioning God's Chosen Communication

[POI]

(1) Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in? (2) Why would God care more about making scientific knowledge available in these texts versus addressing how He wanted humans to live?

For debate: Does the provided video below answer the above two questions sufficiently? If not, why not? If so, then I guess God is inept?

[POI]

We are speaking about a simple binary position. God (is or is not okay) with slavery. If you hired me to write instructions regarding my binary position on various topics, and the people who display clear logic, (like you), are not getting it, would you blame my hired writing instruction(s) <or> the recipient - (you in this case who displays clear logic)? Well, you just, again, demonstrated your logic directly above. So, it would then be logical to blame the writer. Hence, the title of this thread is further justified. (i.e.) Questioning God's Chosen Communication

What is missing in your reasoning is that you are saying I’m logical in Y because I showed myself to be logical in X. That doesn’t logically follow.

No. What is missing is your answer to the last response. If I was hired to convey an axiomatic and binary position on a topic, and the smart people, (such as you), were not able to discern my given axiomatic and binary position of (it's okay or it's not okay), would one blame the hired writer, (me), or the one reading the written position, (you)? Please stop throwing yourself under the bus to defend this book. Why not instead question God's chosen communication methodology?

But doing it slowly does make a difference. It gets individuals and societies closer to the standard in the short term and the long term. Why is all-or-nothing more reasonable?

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If doing it slowly works better, as opposed to all-or-nothing, (as commanded in many spots in the Bible), then apply this concept to all said 'moral' topics. And regardless, the standard will still never be reached anyways.

[The Tanager]

What is missing in your reasoning is that you are saying I’m logical in Y because I showed myself to be logical in X. That doesn’t logically follow.

No. What is missing is your answer to the last response. If I was hired to convey an axiomatic and binary position on a topic, and the smart people, (such as you), were not able to discern my given axiomatic and binary position of (it's okay or it's not okay), would one blame the hired writer, (me), or the one reading the written position, (you)? Please stop throwing yourself under the bus to defend this book. Why not instead question God's chosen communication methodology?

Why do you think the Bible is God’s listing of his responses to binary positions? It’s God’s interactions with specific people. In the context of this conversation, that involves moving specific people forward in the most effective way. With a wrong starting point, your conclusion doesn’t follow.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If doing it slowly works better, as opposed to all-or-nothing, (as commanded in many spots in the Bible), then apply this concept to all said 'moral' topics.

As an aside, why can't one have a cake and eat it, too? That's the only way you can eat it; you have to have it first. Shouldn't it be the reverse? You can't eat your cake and have it, too, because it will be gone from you eating it. Obviously, your point is understand and still remains, just something I've never gotten about that phrase .

To your point, why is it not situational? Why can’t parts of society that are deeply ingrained and those that aren’t have different solutions?

And, once again, what specific issues are you talking about that should be treated the same? Yes, the video says them, so share them if you want them to be a part of your case.

And regardless, the standard will still never be reached anyways.

Progress towards the end is still better than no progress.

[POI]

Why do you think the Bible is God’s listing of his responses to binary positions?

Being (okay or not okay) with slavery is a binary position. I already asked you if God is (okay with slavery or not), and you stated God is not okay with slavery. Now you seem to want to backtrack a bit, by asking an irrelevant question. You think God's position is against slavery. When I explore, you then drop yourself under the bus, by claiming maybe you are inept to his given axiomatic position, rather than to admit his position is either not actually clear or you do not agree. Thus, which one is it? 1) Is God trying to exclaim his axiomatic position, or, 2) you are inept about his given axiomatic position, or, 3) (as the video points out), he is instead maybe purposefully ambiguous about a topic in which he does have a set position about?

Maybe after you pick one, we can proceed?

As an aside, why can't one have a cake and eat it, too? That's the only way you can eat it; you have to have it first. Shouldn't it be the reverse? You can't eat your cake and have it, too, because it will be gone from you eating it. Obviously, your point is understand and still remains, just something I've never gotten about that phrase .

I agree, just like when someone says they are going to 'take a dump', you don't take it, you give it Ending aside...

To your point, why is it not situational? Why can’t parts of society that are deeply ingrained and those that aren’t have different solutions?

The video already explains why. Did you watch and listen to the reasoning? If so, why is the video wrong? Remember, the OP asks if THE VIDEO answers your questions. I think it might.

Progress towards the end is still better than no progress.

Wait a minute... You are assuming God (is not okay) with slavery. Have we resolved this conclusion yet -- (by selecting options 1,2 3 above)?.?.?.?

[The Tanager]

Being (okay or not okay) with slavery is a binary position. I already asked you if God is (okay with slavery or not), and you stated God is not okay with slavery. Now you seem to want to backtrack a bit, by asking an irrelevant question.

You are confusing various contexts here to make you think I’m backtracking when I haven’t one bit. You have tried to use my view of God’s answer to the binary question to conclude that the Bible presents that answer unclearly. I’ve noted that the Bible isn’t about presenting that answer in that way, but that it is about God interacting with and engaging a particular people in a way to (among other things) most effectively move humans most towards that desired answer. How is that irrelevant to your critique? The Bible can't present a position unclearly, if it wasn't designed to present that position.

You think God's position is against slavery. When I explore, you then drop yourself under the bus, by claiming maybe you are inept to his given axiomatic position, rather than to admit his position is either not actually clear or you do not agree.

Another confusion of context. I said I would be inept, if God was for slavery (like you surmised), the Bible taught God was for slavery (like you seem to be arguing), and I concluded that the Bible says God was against slavery. That’s the context. Don’t take it out of that context and then think you understand me. I don’t think I’m inept at giving God’s axiomatic position. I don’t think his position is unclear. I agree with what I think God’s position is.

Thus, which one is it? 1) Is God trying to exclaim his axiomatic position, or, 2) you are inept about his given axiomatic position, or, 3) (as the video points out), he is instead maybe purposefully ambiguous about a topic in which he does have a set position about?

Maybe after you pick one, we can proceed?

None of the above. God isn’t trying to give His axiomatic position in scripture. I don’t think I’m inept about giving His axiomatic position. There is no good reason to think God is purposefully ambiguous about the topic. I choose (4), like I’ve been saying all along, that the Bible records God interacting with a particular group in ways that will move that society forward in the most effective way for God’s purposes.

The video already explains why. Did you watch and listen to the reasoning? If so, why is the video wrong? Remember, the OP asks if THE VIDEO answers your questions. I think it might.

I did. What specific claims does the video make that you think answers my questions? I've responded to the points I saw it make that I felt were flawed. Did you watch and listen to it? If so, since you think it makes such a good case, make it.

Progress towards the end is still better than no progress.

Wait a minute... You are assuming God (is not okay) with slavery. Have we resolved this conclusion yet -- (by selecting options 1,2 3 above)?.?.?.?

Keeping here so that when you understand my position better, we can return to this key move of your reasoning: that no progress is better than some progress.

[TRANSPONDER]

Crickets indeed. I find it hard to get my head around it. Like quantum physics, I can put it on paper but cannot get a picture in my head. So I know Faith allows them to pretend refutations and serious Bible problems don't exist and crickets is ignoring the problems and pretending they don't exist. After, of course, they have jumped through all the hoops ransacked the apologetics websites and pulled all the bad lawyer tricks they can.

We who know what it is to admit we have faith know your explanation rings hollow. What did Einstein say, he cannot image a real scientist without faith. Faith in the validity of science because if a man doesn’t BELIEVE science is repeatable and rational, he cannot even do science. No man can be a good lawyer without faith in the justice of the system. No man can trust anyone without faith. And yet you categorize all faith as “pretending.”

I can post how I think the faithbrain works (1) but I cannot get my head around it and I am very glad I don't think that way.

You only pretend you can. Those of us who understand the nature of faith, all faith, know you do not understand it but pretend it is something it is not.

Right back at you. But I have evidence.Just for one thing, others with the samesortof faithbrain believe in different faithclaims.

(1) "there is some reason Bible is all true, even if nobody knows it". Which we actually see in the 'Perhaps evidence to prove (Bible claim) will turn up in the future".

Here’s a good example. You wrote “for some reason” despite the fact that we who believe have solid reasons.

Yes but logically the idea is to not believe a claim or hypothesis until the evidence turns up. But Faith (a priori God) skews the thing into inverted logic 'The faithclaim is tru until disproven'.100%, and I admit it which they will never do, for the reasons above including crickets.

The man seeking truth does not approach it with assuming the logical point is to refuse to believe until convinced. This man will never be convinced as the mind is already closed off demanding evidence “turns up.”

Whether you like it or not that is the logic - to NOT assume anything is true until there is good reason. Now I know there is the Bible but getting ideas in the head and having Faith they are right is not reasonable, logical and worth anything.

It would be better if you didn’t pretend you understand those who walk with God. Just stick to the argument instead of imaging reasons. The matter is outside your experience.

No, I need no 'shut up and go away' advice from you. T have reasons for thinking I understand those people who think they walk with God, when really they make their imaginary god walk behind them. They create and re -create God in their own image. I know this because of those who maintained a doctrine claiming it was validated by God. But they changed their opinion and hey presto,so did the god in their head.

[POI]

The Bible can't present a position unclearly, if it wasn't designed to present that position.

But he does present his position. (Slavery is a-okay, as long as you <X, Y, Z>. Otherwise, you are to be punished). But you instead state he is not okay with slavery. Since he never expresses his direct abolition for such slavery practices, and instead weighs in on the topic, he is okay with it.

I don’t think I’m inept at giving God’s axiomatic position. I don’t think his position is unclear. I agree with what I think God’s position is.

Then you are clearly at odds with yourself. See above....

I choose (4), like I’ve been saying all along, that the Bible records God interacting with a particular group in ways that will move that society forward in the most effective way for God’s purposes.

Hmm. God is not okay with slavery, but gives all kinds of permission(s) for it anyways? How do you know?

I did. What specific claims does the video make that you think answers my questions? Did you watch and listen to it? If so, since you think it makes such a good case, make it instead of playing this game.

Please do not shift the burden. And I'm not playing games. If you watched the video, you would know why the answers do or do not correctly/logically answer your question, and you would have critiqued it accordingly, (assuming you do not agree). I do not care to type in a text wall, and spoon feed these responses from you, when you can instead simply watch the video and get your answers yourself. The response/answer, from the video, is there.

Keeping here so that when you understand my position better, we can return to this key move of your reasoning: that no progress is better than some progress.

Keeping it here, since you demonstrate to be at odds with the God you believe in.

[The Tanager]

But he does present his position. (Slavery is a-okay, as long as you <X, Y, Z>. Otherwise, you are to be punished). But you instead state he is not okay with slavery. Since he never expresses his direct abolition for such slavery practices, and instead weighs in on the topic, he is okay with it.

Allowing it because he wants to make some progress in their society does not mean his answer to the binary abstracted question is “I’m okay with slavery”. That’s a key distinction you haven’t been making. So, on allowing it in Israel (which is what the Bible depicts), why do you think no progress is better than some progress.

Please do not shift the burden. And I'm not playing games. If you watched the video, you would know why the answers do or do not correctly/logically answer your question, and you would have critiqued it accordingly, (assuming you do not agree). I do not care to type in a text wall, and spoon feed these responses from you, when you can instead simply watch the video and get your answers yourself. The response/answer, from the video, is there.

I did watch the video and responded to points that I felt were relevant. If you think a point I haven’t addressed is relevant, then share it because I must have missed it. This isn’t shifting the burden or spoon feeding anything; it’s a part of a discussion when you think I’ve ignored something.

[POI]

Allowing it because he wants to make some progress in their society does not mean his answer to the binary abstracted question is “I’m okay with slavery”.

1) How do you know this is/was God's intent for the topic of slavery (i.e.) "getting them to progress in the right direction -- (away from slavery)"?

2) How to you know God is not instead okay with slavery, as long as it's done a certain way?

3) Did the Bible ever later express direct abolition to the topic of slavery? If not, why not?

So, on allowing it in Israel (which is what the Bible depicts), why do you think no progress is better than some progress.

Before I address this response, by regurgitating the video's response, I'll await an answer to question 1) above.

I did watch the video and responded to points that I felt were relevant. If you think a point I haven’t addressed is relevant, then share it because I must have missed it. This isn’t shifting the burden or spoon feeding anything; it’s a part of a discussion when you think I’ve ignored something.

Is your position that if a society is deeply ingrained in specific practice(s), which God does not like, he should instead present some type of progressive revelation, rather than to just tell them it's flat-out wrong and maybe also explain why, as a bonus?

[The Tanager]

1) How do you know this is/was God's intent for the topic of slavery (i.e.) "getting them to progress in the right direction -- (away from slavery)"?

2) How to you know God is not instead okay with slavery, as long as it's done a certain way?

I consider the context and the principles present in the Bible (as well as arguments for God’s existence, the historicity of the resurrection, and the reliability of the Bible to present Jesus’ teachings if you want to go that far back) to come to my conclusion.

3) Did the Bible ever later express direct abolition to the topic of slavery? If not, why not?

No, because God was engaging particular people to bring them into relationship with Himself, not laying down an abstract moral guidebook.

Before I address this response, by regurgitating the video's response, I'll await an answer to question 1) above.

Okay, now that you have it, why do you think no progress is better than some progress?

Is your position that if a society is deeply ingrained in specific practice(s), which God does not like, he should instead present some type of progressive revelation, rather than to just tell them it's flat-out wrong and maybe also explain why, as a bonus?

That seems a more effective way to create change to me, yes.

[POI]

1) How do you know this is/was God's intent for the topic of slavery (i.e.) "getting them to progress in the right direction -- (away from slavery)"?

2) How to you know God is not instead okay with slavery, as long as it's done a certain way?

I consider the context and the principles present in the Bible (as well as arguments for God’s existence, the historicity of the resurrection, and the reliability of the Bible to present Jesus’ teachings if you want to go that far back) to come to my conclusion.

Your answer is too broad/vague. It leads one to chase many topics and rabbit trails. I will re-issue and consolidate my question(s), to induce a more concise answer:

How do you know the OT God wanted to direct these folks away from slavery, rather than to instead tell them how to perform slavery practices correctly, (as demonstrated in the Bible)?

why do you think no progress is better than some progress?

When did I say "no progress is better than some progress"? Besides, I have not yet read a valid justification to support your position, that the Bible-God is/was trying to direct them away from slavery practices, rather than to merely instruct them on how to perform slavery practices correctly.

That seems a more effective way to create change to me, yes.

I guess this means the actions in which God expressed his direct abolition for were to create a less effective change?

Also, if God instead abolished slavery in the Torah, and expressed it was punishable by death, slavery might have been more prevalent?