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]

The slave master isn’t immune from punishment, but must pay for the loss of time and provide for his healing (Exodus 21:19)

This chapter flip/flops between the free and the enslaved. If the verse is not speaking about a slave, it is not referencing slaves, as slaves have differing rule verses the free. See Exodus 21:18 and then read Exodus 21:20 then onto Exodus 21:22. In verse 20-21, the slave master is commanded to be immune from punishment, provided the slave lives.

and if he even knocks out a tooth, he must set the slave free. Yes, that is better treatment than having no consequences whatsoever.

This is, in part, why slave beatings have almost always been in the form of whipping them on the back. You cannot knock out eyes/teeth this way. If they are a purchased slave, it would make no sense to kill them. You need them working your land for all hours of the day. Rough them up a little, to keep them in line. Beatings are fine, and unpunishable. Maybe they reserved beating them in the front, and knocking out their eye when they were deemed too old, too sick, or injured. Then sure, they can "go free."

Christians led the fight to end the slave trade and slavery (and still do) because of teachings like everyone being made in the image of God, seeking justice for the oppressed, love of neighbor, and passages like Exodus 21:16 that condemn man stealing and 1 Timothy 1:10 which names slave traders in its list of sinners.

As the video points out, the ones who wanted to keep slavery could also appeal to the same book(s).

So, you agree that some progress is better than no progress?

The video already acknowledged this. The video also states that 'progression' was sometimes in spite of God's law. This is why I asked about God's position on the (3) topics of homosexuality, rape, and slavery. And this is why we have landed on slavery, so far. You state God is not okay with it, while I say God is instead okay with it.

Prove that this means the actions in which God expressed his direct abolition for was to create less effective change versus the level of how much something is ingrained can affect the methods for effective change.

I've already started to explain. You have the OT, which gives readers a how-to on how to enslave people for life, and treat them as your property, and beat them with impunity. You then have the NT, which merely tells the slaves to obey their masters. And then the book collection ends, with no more follow up on the topic. Maybe a 'Newer Testament' is lurking in the mist?

[POI]

Not so. Twelve people can see and hear the exact same evidence at the same time and some believe it and some don’t. Your position lays it all on the evidence itself, but that’s not how human decisions work in real life.

You failed to mention how the Bible tells the reader to use faith. If enough evidence is there to convince the believer, faith is no longer necessary or required. So, which one is it? Apply faith <or> seek the evidence?

Further, I think you missed my point. In high school, my best friend told me my girlfriend was cheating on me. I did not believe him. I would not believe him. But then he forced me to see the evidence. I then had no choice but to believe him. I have asked countless theists to give me convincing evidence for their believed upon God, to no avail. I doubt you are going to provide anything in which I have not already been given. If the evidence is this compelling, then it would matter not of my doubt.

Would a video be acceptable? I doubt you’ve never heard any and there is the wisdom i’m not sharing pearls with those who’ve decided to trample them.

Bring your best. If it's a video, so-be-it.

[The Tanager]

This chapter flip/flops between the free and the enslaved. If the verse is not speaking about a slave, it is not referencing slaves, as slaves have differing rule verses the free. See Exodus 21:18 and then read Exodus 21:20 then onto Exodus 21:22. In verse 20-21, the slave master is commanded to be immune from punishment, provided the slave lives.

Well, we’ve got to go back to verse 16 at least to see everything it is saying here about slavery. There it condemns being a slave trader. These are about how to treat servants, which is different from chattel slaves.

You are right about verse 19 not specifically being about a slave (thanks for helping me to see that), but verses 20-21 mirror it all the same, so we can’t just discard what it says as a flip/flop. The main point seems to be that there are different levels of punishment for killing another versus striking them in a way that harms them on a small scale. The punishment for the master who disciplines his servant too hard is at least that he’s lost the work he needed the servant to do and can even be the servant’s immediate freedom (for something like even losing a tooth). That is a vast improvement on having no consequences to not only slave trading, but hired servants.

This is, in part, why slave beatings have almost always been in the form of whipping them on the back. You cannot knock out eyes/teeth this way. If they are a purchased slave, it would make no sense to kill them. You need them working your land for all hours of the day. Rough them up a little, to keep them in line. Beatings are fine, and unpunishable. Maybe they reserved beating them in the front, and knocking out their eye when they were deemed too old, too sick, or injured. Then sure, they can "go free."

Yes, people will use whatever texts they or society deem authoritative to justify their views to themselves and others. They will read the Bible as ridiculously literal, instead of using common critical thinking skills, because it allows them to justify what they want. That doesn’t justify their interpretations. The whole context shows that these are regulations meant to keep people from harsher treatment of each other. They use specific body parts because the people of the day had critical thinking skills to note that it wasn’t just about a tooth.

So, you agree that some progress is better than no progress?

The video already acknowledged this.

Okay, so then since we agree that complete progress wasn’t going to happen anyway, it makes more sense for God to try to get some progress (via things like regulating the treatment of servants instead of completely abolishing that) than getting no progress (because people will just reject God outright for such a drastic move). Why do you think it makes more sense for God to state his moral ideal and get no progress within human society?

The video also states that 'progression' was sometimes in spite of God's law. This is why I asked about God's position on the (3) topics of homosexuality, rape, and slavery. And this is why we have landed on slavery, so far. You state God is not okay with it, while I say God is instead okay with it.

I’m glad you’ve brought this back up because neither you nor Transponder has had a good answer for this. Subjectivism and “progress” cannot logically co-exist. So, either give an objective grounding for this progress (that isn’t God) or drop this point because there can’t be progression in spite of God’s law. Don’t sidestep this any more.

Prove that this means the actions in which God expressed his direct abolition for was to create less effective change versus the level of how much something is ingrained can affect the methods for effective change.

I've already started to explain. You have the OT, which gives readers a how-to on how to enslave people for life, and treat them as your property, and beat them with impunity. You then have the NT, which merely tells the slaves to obey their masters. And then the book collection ends, with no more follow up on the topic. Maybe a 'Newer Testament' is lurking in the mist?

While I’ve addressed why your interpretation of the OT and NT is incorrect, I don’t see the relevance of this to my statement you quoted. I said progressive change in ingrained areas could be more effective in producing progress. You then said that this means that any statements calling for radical change would be ineffective. To which I said, no, different situations call for different methods. Please either correct my misunderstanding of what you meant or support why what you said is correct. This is a question about principles that will get applied to the OT/NT, but isn’t necessarily attached to them.

[Mae von H]

Not so. Twelve people can see and hear the exact same evidence at the same time and some believe it and some don’t. Your position lays it all on the evidence itself, but that’s not how human decisions work in real life.

You failed to mention how the Bible tells the reader to use faith.

Can you please quote the passage you’re referring to? I read when they asked Jesus if he really was the son of God, he told them to examine the evidence.

If enough evidence is there to convince the believer, faith is no longer necessary or required. So, which one is it? Apply faith <or> seek the evidence?

Does a jury KNOW the accused is guilty or innocent or do they believe? You seem to think there is evidence that leads to knowing. Generally evidence leads to believing.

Further, I think you missed my point. In high school, my best friend told me my girlfriend was cheating on me. I did not believe him. I would not believe him. But then he forced me to see the evidence. I then had no choice but to believe him.

So suddenly evidence leads to faith.

I have asked countless theists to give me convincing evidence for their believed upon God, to no avail. I doubt you are going to provide anything in which I have not already been given. If the evidence is this compelling, then it would matter not of my doubt.

Why don’t you listen to the presentations of Dr Craig or John Lennox? The fact that you will find no amount of evidence convincing is not a problem with the evidence.

Would a video be acceptable? I doubt you’ve never heard any and there is the wisdom i’m not sharing pearls with those who’ve decided to trample them.

Bring your best. If it's a video, so-be-it.

Have you seen any already? Do you desire the truth and have therefore searched?

[POI]

If you want to agree that these verses, along with the verses about "rape" and "homosexuality" were inspired by men alone and have absolutely nothing to do with a 'human loving' God, then we can be done right here. Otherwise, off into the weeds we go.

Well, we’ve got to go back to verse 16 at least to see everything it is saying here about slavery. There it condemns being a slave trader. These are about how to treat servants, which is different from chattel slaves.

Well, we can go back further in Exodus 21, in regard to the topic of "slavery". There are all sorts of stuff to vet out. If we need to do that, we can.

You are right about verse 19 not specifically being about a slave (thanks for helping me to see that)

but verses 20-21 mirror it all the same, so we can’t just discard what it says as a flip/flop.

Not sure what you mean here?

The main point seems to be that there are different levels of punishment for killing another versus striking them in a way that harms them on a small scale. The punishment for the master who disciplines his servant too hard is at least that he’s lost the work he needed the servant to do and can even be the servant’s immediate freedom (for something like even losing a tooth). That is a vast improvement on having no consequences to not only slave trading, but hired servants.

As I stated prior, there exists no consequence if the slave is no longer deemed useful. The point of the slave is to be cheap labor for the master. If they are not producing, then the master probably does not want to feed them, as that costs money. So, get rid of them. God made it easy. If the slave becomes too old, gets injured during work, keeps refusing to produce, etc, they are no longer productive, and the master no longer wants them. The slave master can give them one last 'good beating' and send them 'free', with no actual punishment for the master. Which is what they were already going to do with the slave anyways. Just because some were slave masters, does not also mean they were murderers. Your only line of defense is maybe to say things were instructed in the "right direction", because they were not allowed to kill them. But I see little relevance here.

Yes, people will use whatever texts they or society deem authoritative to justify their views to themselves and others. They will read the Bible as ridiculously literal, instead of using common critical thinking skills, because it allows them to justify what they want. That doesn’t justify their interpretations. The whole context shows that these are regulations meant to keep people from harsher treatment of each other. They use specific body parts because the people of the day had critical thinking skills to note that it wasn’t just about a tooth.

As the video explains, do the laws simulate our laws, or do we have to conform to Him? The 'laws' look to resemble what these (slave master) folks were already doing and wanted ' official permission' to do it without punishment. They whipped them from the back. Whipping them still allows for the slave to be productive. They needed to keep them in line to remain fully productive. Which is the entire point of having slaves.

Okay, so then since we agree that complete progress wasn’t going to happen anyway, it makes more sense for God to try to get some progress (via things like regulating the treatment of servants instead of completely abolishing that) than getting no progress (because people will just reject God outright for such a drastic move). Why do you think it makes more sense for God to state his moral ideal and get no progress within human society?

We can discern what he 'inspired', and he inspired a book which simulated the existing behaviors of slavery practices. I've already explained above why things remained as the already existing status quo, vs. claimed "progressive revelation."

I’m glad you’ve brought this back up because neither you nor Transponder has had a good answer for this. Subjectivism and “progress” cannot logically co-exist. So, either give an objective grounding for this progress (that isn’t God) or drop this point because there can’t be progression in spite of God’s law. Don’t sidestep this any more.

As I already stated many responses ago, I am not addressing this topic from a "moral" standpoint, but instead a logical one. We are still on "slavery". You would argue that God's goal is to ultimately reduce slavery, yes? (Rhetorical). And I instead argue the Bible instructs how to do slavery properly. God gave his rules for proper slavery, and never expressed his intent to abolish slavery later. We instead completely abolished it, on our own, thousands of years later. This is in spite of God's wishes to make slavery a-okay, with no other later updates to the contrary.

I said progressive change in ingrained areas could be more effective in producing progress.

The 'progressive change' you speak of is/was in spite of God's instruction. Meaning, it's not okay. And we did so when slavery was every bit as ingrained as it was when you claim God needed to conform to their wishes.

[POI]

(U) Can you please quote the passage you’re referring to? I read when they asked Jesus if he really was the son of God, he told them to examine the evidence.

POI You see, the confusion continues. Is it faith or evidence? One does not require the other. Faith is used in place of evidence, and evidence no longer needs faith. I can provide all sorts of verses. But I would first like to know what (your) definition of faith is, so I can give you the right one(s).

(U) Does a jury KNOW the accused is guilty or innocent or do they believe? You seem to think there is evidence that leads to knowing. Generally evidence leads to believing.

POI Each court case is different. We now know why OJ was acquitted. And it wasn't because there was lack in evidence to convict him Can evidence lead to knowing? I'd say yes, unless you wish to argue we cannot really know anything, which then poisons the well completely. But the jury decided to acquit OJ for other reason(s).

(U) So suddenly evidence leads to faith.

POI Being convinced of a thing, because of evidence, is not what I would call faith. Is that your definition?

(U) Why don’t you listen to the presentations of Dr Craig or John Lennox?

POI I've watched countless debates. In fact, I watch both sides. Which point(s) seems the most compelling for you?

(U) The fact that you will find no amount of evidence convincing is not a problem with the evidence.

POI I could say the exact same thing about why you are not convinced of some alternative conclusion. My prior point is that I have changed my mind about many things, due to evidence, but the Bible God is not one of them. I've likely already heard the best evidence(s) in which you might think is compelling. But I'm ready and willing for you to give them to me. If they are convincing, then I will of course have no choice but to be convinced. To do otherwise would only be a lie to myself.

(U) Have you seen any already? Do you desire the truth and have therefore searched?

POI Before I started in debate forums, I watched countless debates, and still watch new ones from time to time. After a while, I see nothing new under the sun. What topic(s) do you find most compelling and why?

[The Tanager]

If you want to agree that these verses, along with the verses about "rape" and "homosexuality" were inspired by men alone and have absolutely nothing to do with a 'human loving' God, then we can be done right here. Otherwise, off into the weeds we go.

I don’t agree to that.

Well, we can go back further in Exodus 21, in regard to the topic of "slavery". There are all sorts of stuff to vet out. If we need to do that, we can.

If you feel it pertinent to make your case, then go ahead.

As I stated prior, there exists no consequence if the slave is no longer deemed useful. The point of the slave is to be cheap labor for the master. If they are not producing, then the master probably does not want to feed them, as that costs money. So, get rid of them. God made it easy. If the slave becomes too old, gets injured during work, keeps refusing to produce, etc, they are no longer productive, and the master no longer wants them. The slave master can give them one last 'good beating' and send them 'free', with no actual punishment for the master. Which is what they were already going to do with the slave anyways. Just because some were slave masters, does not also mean they were murderers. Your only line of defense is maybe to say things were instructed in the "right direction", because they were not allowed to kill them. But I see little relevance here.

You are jumping to conclusions on a lot of issues the passage doesn’t address. It doesn’t say anything about consequences or no consequences if a slave is no longer deemed useful. It doesn’t condone just throwing them aside, beating them one last time and then sending them free.

And the point of this servanthood isn’t cheap labor, but people paying their debts and surviving when they were unable to do so on their own, selling themselves into servitude. The master did have to feed and house them.

As the video explains, do the laws simulate our laws, or do we have to conform to Him? The 'laws' look to resemble what these (slave master) folks were already doing and wanted ' official permission' to do it without punishment. They whipped them from the back. Whipping them still allows for the slave to be productive. They needed to keep them in line to remain fully productive. Which is the entire point of having slaves.

This is just speculation, where is support for these claims?

The 'progressive change' you speak of is/was in spite of God's instruction. Meaning, it's not okay. And we did so when slavery was every bit as ingrained as it was when you claim God needed to conform to their wishes.

Servants and slavery were not as ingrained because of God’s instructions to the Israelites regulating their behaviors within their socio-economic situation being critically applied by Christians within their societies, which were more ready for such a change because of the Christian teachings that undergirded those societies.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to POI in post #226]

Faith is the result of considering the evidence and accepting the logical conclusion. You said you “believed” your girlfriend was being unfaithful. You BELIEVED based on evidence. Do you see that you don’t stick to your own definition? Only blind faith (foolish) has no evidence. Believers in Christ, alone among people of religious faith, stand on the evidence.

It also needs to be pointed out that you could not find any scripture where Jesus told them to believe sans evidence. I asked for one and you didn’t present any. I can present examples of God showing evidence so that they believe the truth.


Glad we’ve cleared up the matter of you being aware of the evidence and in spades. You’re heard countless debates from the best. What more can I add? The evidence is the same. It has been sufficient for billions of people down through time so the evidence is not the problem.

The only thing I can add is my own journey. As a child I asked God to prove himself to me, The proofs I no longer remember but once convinced He is real, I didn’t require more but adjusted my life accordingly. Once a man is convinced of a matter, he doesn’t go back to square 1 again but proceeds from there. But everything I’ve seen since has confirmed that choice.

In the debates I’ve seen, except Ken Hamm, I’ve seen that the Christians were intellectually superior as well as more polite and respectful whereas the atheists very commonly and quickly sunk to jeering and ridicule. I’ve seen this tendency in short clips from ordinary people as well. The formulation of OP questions proposed here reflect that freedom to insult. I can’t deny that some branches of theology also produce very similar distain for others so atheists don’t have a corner on the lack of love or respect market. It’s usually the same theology that allows unsavory behavior towards those who don’t share that theology though.

The problem with changing your mind about God, is that it is NOT an intellectual exercise like deciding Vit D is a good supplement. It requires a radical change of behavior. If one decides God is real, then facing Him one day is real. It means that the guilt for the wrong deeds one has done springs to the surface. It means there is Heaven or Hell waiting, It means a whole host of radical realizations that endanger one’s freedom to enjoy forbidden pleasures. It’s easier not to start down that road…..for now.

[POI]

If you want to agree that these verses, along with the verses about "rape" and "homosexuality" were inspired by men alone and have absolutely nothing to do with a 'human loving' God, then we can be done right here. Otherwise, off into the weeds we go.

I don’t agree to that.

Why not?

If you feel it pertinent to make your case, then go ahead.

Then I guess we'll address various parts of the Torah, when needed or necessary.

You are jumping to conclusions on a lot of issues the passage doesn’t address. It doesn’t say anything about consequences or no consequences if a slave is no longer deemed useful. It doesn’t condone just throwing them aside, beating them one last time and then sending them free.

But you are not "jumping to the conclusion" that God was trying to slowly steer them away from slavery?

And the point of this servanthood isn’t cheap labor, but people paying their debts and surviving when they were unable to do so on their own, selling themselves into servitude. The master did have to feed and house them.

I'm not speaking about the male Hebrews who were in debt. I'm speaking about the chattel slaves. They weren't cheap labor?

This is just speculation, where is support for these claims?

Are you then denying that masters whipped their slaves on the back?

Servants and slavery were not as ingrained because of God’s instructions to the Israelites regulating their behaviors within their socio-economic situation being critically applied by Christians within their societies, which were more ready for such a change because of the Christian teachings that undergirded those societies.

As I alluded to in my prior response... When the civil war broke out, slavery was quite the thing, and was not going anywhere. It wasn't until it was abolished that things changed. God never offers this resolution. God instead sanctions it. Humans went against God's command, (that it is okay), and instead stated it is not okay to own others as slave property for life.

[Mae von H]

i agree. My reasons don’t come from feelings.

All the ones I've heard so far do. I'm willing to hear other reasons.

cue "Experiences in my life"

What experiences have I given you that have no intellectual component? You say all the reasons I give are feeling and I cannot recall doing this once. So can you give me an example of my reasons that came from feelings, please?

I am wondering if you can distinguish between reasons from feelings and reasons from intellectual evidence.