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?

[otseng]

Ignorant people attack the Bible constantly. The educated just roll their eyes as the answers are easy. I guess it shows that ignorance of one’s ignorance doesn’t stop people from talking. It does, however, prevent them from learning.

Moderator Comment

It's best not to assume people are ignorant.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

I left that thread, for the most part, long ago, as there is too many subtopics which get lost in the shuffle. I have laid out a case that the Bible permits chattel slavery here, if you are interested. (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=190)

As for chattel slavery, in my thread I've accepted it does exist:

Unlike many other apologists, I accept chattel slaves existed and were even owned by the Israelites.

Slaves as property
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."(Leviticus 25:44-46)

Yes, I agree this passage is referring to chattel slaves.

[POI]

I left that thread, for the most part, long ago, as there is too many subtopics which get lost in the shuffle. I have laid out a case that the Bible permits chattel slavery here, if you are interested. (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=190)

As for chattel slavery, in my thread I've accepted it does exist:

Unlike many other apologists, I accept chattel slaves existed and were even owned by the Israelites.

Slaves as property
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."(Leviticus 25:44-46)

Yes, I agree this passage is referring to chattel slaves.

In post 21, you state "Anybody here want to debate me on slavery in my thread?"

What then exactly is <your> position on slavery. as it pertains/relates to the Bible God?

As the video suggests, in the OP topic of this tread, the logical conclusion is 'slavery', as written in the Bible is yet another example of humans writing what they think and are instead passing them off as God pronouncements, where in reality, there may not be any actual Bible God.

[Clownboat]

The Bible is only obscure to those who don’t understand it.

What a silly thing to say.
All books not understood by the person reading them would be obscure.

Many find it quite clear on points it wishes to communicate

The Bible is clear to read. I have read it. The problem comes when humans then try to decide what it means that they just read. What are we at now, abut 40,000 denominations of Christianity?

although as in any field of knowledge, considerable background is needed for understanding.

If you stand by this, then please don't ignore this valid question a 2nd time: "Why do you think that a god would write a message for the entire world, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to then interpret said message (and we all can see how many denomination that ended up getting us)? Surely you agree that, that would be silly, right?"

There are scientific books and articles completely obscure to those without the background. The fault is with the reader, not the book.

False. A poorly written book would in fact be the fault of the book (or whoever is behind its writing), not the fault of the person reading it.
The Bible does not take magic or special understanding in order to read it. It may be a mostly boring/immoral read, but it is not hard to read it and understand until we get to making assumptions about the god concepts desires and wants.

If it’s ambiguous to you, you don’t get it.

It means you are doubtful or uncertain or capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways, not that you don't understand it. You now argue with the English language that includes the word understanding in the definition itself. You should really correct your understanding of this word you use incorrectly.

Since you admit it’s ambiguous to you, that’s the evidence.

Then your evidence isn't valid as I understand the Bible. I have read it and was a believer for over 2 decades.

I see you don’t understand that one cannot critique a book they don’t understand

False. A person can critique a book that they don't understand. Their critique may not be accurate, but that is not your claim. Your claim is a false one, but I don't expect you to amend your thinking about this, nor the meaning of ambiguous sadly.

Ignorant people attack the Bible constantly. The educated just roll their eyes as the answers are easy. I guess it shows that ignorance of one’s ignorance doesn’t stop people from talking. It does, however, prevent them from learning.

Nothing but poisoning of the well! Anyone attacking the Bible is ignorant and if you understand the Bible, you are educated. What poor reasoning!
It is obvious to me that you do not have a god concept helping you with your replies.

[Diogenes]

The Bible is only obscure to those who don’t understand it. Many find it quite clear on points it wishes to communicate although as in any field of knowledge, considerable background is needed for understanding. There are scientific books and articles completely obscure to those without the background. The fault is with the reader, not the book.
....
Anyone who tries to attack a book he doesn’t understand[/quote]
Now this assumes facts that are not in evidence.
....
Since you admit it’s ambiguous to you, that’s the evidence.

....I see you don’t understand that one cannot critique a book they don’t understand and expect to be taken seriously or have anything important to say. Ignorant people attack the Bible constantly. The educated just roll their eyes as the answers are easy. I guess it shows that ignorance of one’s ignorance doesn’t stop people from talking. It does, however, prevent them from learning.

These are not just among the oldest of fallacious arguments, they are insults. One could make one's point much better by pointing out (if true) the thing one claims their debating opponent is ignorant of or fails to understand.

What 'Mae' is claiming is just another way of saying, "You disagree with me, so you are ignorant."

Tho' there may be many (both believers and non believers) who are ignorant or do not understand the Bible, there are many here that understand the Bible very well, who have read it carefully and still reject it as coming from 'God,' or are able to point out its inconsistencies.* Even some believers who understand the Bible well are honest enough to admit there are problems with it, errors that a perfect writer would not have made. Some still believe in the god of the Bible, tho' they understand the 'scriptures' have errors and that some passages only apply to a certain time and place in the past.

One may still be honest and understand [for example] that slavery was permitted and even ordered by a tribal god, but that, those were the words of men, not a true God. Or, one may have exactly the same knowledge and understanding and reject that tribal god and all gods as the creation of people.

___________________________
* See the Guidelines for this section of the forum, "6. Realize that most participants here are strong debaters and have a vast knowledge of Christianity and the Bible (including non-theists). If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked. Non-Biblical evidence would go far among non-theists."
viewtopic.php?t=9741

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #28]

Moderator Comment


Please share your thoughts on the topic without the addition of uncivil personal attacks. Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. And yet, I do understand the thinking. Or the apologetics at least. We have seen amny variants of it. 'We need to understand what the Bible says' and then see that this really means 'As I interpret it'. I think what happens is an apologist and beleiver get an idea in their heads. It can be anything from a Cosmic imitation daylight before the sun was made to Mary Magdalene running off by herself without hearing what the angel had to say (to get over the contradiction in John). It is of course Faithbased - it must be true, no matter how it reads.

This is what translates into unbelievers, Bible -skeptics and atheist critics 'don't understand' the Bible. It is theist -speak for 'atheists do not have Faith the Bible is true and do not Interpret it to make it work'. You betcha.

[otseng]

In post 21, you state "Anybody here want to debate me on slavery in my thread?"

What then exactly is <your> position on slavery. as it pertains/relates to the Bible God?

I'm building up a case for my position in the thread. Again, I welcome any skeptic to debate me on slavery in my thread. If skeptics believe they have such a strong case, join the debate.

[Mae von H]

The question assume facts not in evidence and the clip demonstrates poor understanding of the Bible further underscored by the speaker saying the Bible is ambiguous which really means “he doesn’t get it.”

It appears you are mistaken.

Ambiguous
a. : doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness.

The Bible is only obscure to those who don’t understand it. Many find it quite clear on points it wishes to communicate although as in any field of knowledge, considerable background is needed for understanding. There are scientific books and articles completely obscure to those without the background. The fault is with the reader, not the book.

Ambiguous in fact does not mean "doesn't get it". You are now free to amend your thinking.

If it’s ambiguous to you, you don’t get it. I think you don’t get that point.

Anyone who tries to attack a book he doesn’t understand

Now this assumes facts that are not in evidence.

Since you admit it’s ambiguous to you, that’s the evidence.

just proves he’s too ignorant to even recognize that not understanding a book renders you incapable of attacking it.

Not understanding a book does not render one incapable of attacking it, but it doesn't matter because the facts you presented are not in evidence. Irony much?

I see you don’t understand that one cannot critique a book they don’t understand and expect to be taken seriously or have anything important to say. Ignorant people attack the Bible constantly. The educated just roll their eyes as the answers are easy. I guess it shows that ignorance of one’s ignorance doesn’t stop people from talking. It does, however, prevent them from learning.

Dear oh dear. Unfortunately I suspect that 'Understanding' the Bible does not mean being able to speak Greek, Hebrew and a smatterring of Aramaic, knowing the long latin words used in Theology or even a knowledge of the history or customs of the time, but Faith based interpretations. Or that's been my experience.

I agree. Those studies are not necessary and those who have that education are not more likely to understand it.

And Fortunately one does not have to be a Bible Expert or even a better than average brain to see the gaping flaws in the Bible. If I can see that that the Nativities cannot both be true, anyone can, and in my experience, the response has not been to bring better Understanding to the discussion (though there have been many who trot out the usual 2nd census excuse or variants) but to dismiss it and ignore the matter.

Those who choose to not want to understand will always find “reasons” not to do so. Those who came to personally know the One inspiring the work chose differently. One of their rewards is understanding. And what is more, those who have taken that path, particularly against hardships, become sharper in intellect, deeper in wisdom and impressive in character. But communicating this understanding requires something in the recipient that cannot be overridden.

“Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.”

[The Nice Centurion]

I see you don’t understand that one cannot critique a book they don’t understand

False. A person can critique a book that they don't understand. Their critique may not be accurate, but that is not your claim. Your claim is a false one, but I don't expect you to amend your thinking about this, nor the meaning of ambiguous sadly.

What I always say is the following:

Only experts in Reformed Egyptian are allowed to critique the Book of Mormon