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]

Why wouldn't the ineptness be on my part if this were the case?

Sure, maybe it is you who are inept, and God is also really okay with gay sex and rape too If this is how you want to play it, then so-be-it. But I recommend you instead do not insult your own demonstrated intelligence, in favor of the claimed God you believe in.

What other topics are you referring to?

You watched the video, right? The video explains.

[The Tanager]

Why wouldn't the ineptness be on my part if this were the case?

Sure, maybe it is you who are inept, and God is also really okay with gay sex and rape too If this is how you want to play it, then so-be-it. But I recommend you instead do not insult your own demonstrated intelligence, in favor of the claimed God you believe in.

If I want to play logically, then so-be-it? I'm good with that. If God is okay with slavery and the Bible says God is okay with slavery and I think the Bible is true and God is not okay with slavery, then I am obviously inept; there'd be no way around that. That's clear logic. And that conclusion would follow no matter what demonstrations of intelligence I've shown in other areas.

What other topics are you referring to?

You watched the video, right? The video explains.

Then summarize it for us and support your claim, so this discussion can move rationally forward. What other issues did God do an immediate, drastic change that supports that He should have done it with slavery as well.

[POI]

Why wouldn't the ineptness be on my part if this were the case?

Sure, maybe it is you who are inept, and God is also really okay with gay sex and rape too If this is how you want to play it, then so-be-it. But I recommend you instead do not insult your own demonstrated intelligence, in favor of the claimed God you believe in.

If I want to play logically, then so-be-it? I'm good with that. If God is okay with slavery and the Bible says God is okay with slavery and I think the Bible is true and God is not okay with slavery, then I am obviously inept; there'd be no way around that. That's clear logic. And that conclusion would follow no matter what demonstrations of intelligence I've shown in other areas.

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 other issues did God do an immediate, drastic change that supports that He should have done it with slavery as well.

You are missing the point of the video. Regardless of whether you progressively 'reduce' or not, humans are still going to fail regardless. God has no problem laying down THE law. Doing it slowly ain't gonna make any difference. Reaching THE standard is still impossible either way. So just abolish it, like he clearly did with so many other laws.

[TRANSPONDER]

Effectively, yes. Tanager did not watch the video. It scuppered the excuse that the Bible is so morally bad because God had no way to explain better morals to the people of the time. But like the video says, why explain slavery while telling them to change what they eat - no prawns on the barby, see? I am The Lord! (1) Never mind no bacon. It is proof that God is Real but not Biblegod that he invented Bacon (and that's a good an apologetic as some I've heard seriously proposed).
It Does Not Wash that God could not have said 'No Slaves',in place of one of the 4 commands to worship nobody but Kim..I mean, Him..


(1) and just in case anyone missed it...

[The Tanager]

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.

You are missing the point of the video. Regardless of whether you progressively 'reduce' or not, humans are still going to fail regardless. God has no problem laying down THE law. Doing it slowly ain't gonna make any difference. Reaching THE standard is still impossible either way. So just abolish it, like he clearly did with so many other laws.

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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

You are missing the point of the video. Regardless of whether you progressively 'reduce' or not, humans are still going to fail regardless. God has no problem laying down THE law. Doing it slowly ain't gonna make any difference. Reaching THE standard is still impossible either way. So just abolish it, like he clearly did with so many other laws.

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?

Yet again, I have to say 'Denial does not wash'. This is not even a bad excuse, it is denial. And it has to be pointed out that there is no reason that anyone would accept it who does not (for reasons of Faith) desire to accept it, that God could not have said with other radical commands 'No owning people as slaves'. No reason why Jesus couldn't have said, while telling people to mutilate themselves if it 'offended them' 'No owning of slaves'.

The Bible is a work of the time and has the moral attitudes of the time, and that is all it is.

Human morals moved on, first slavery, then women's votes (1) and then gender rights, where the Church was by no means always leading the way in moral improvements...assuming you agree they ARE improvements. If you go by the Bible, you may be one of those who don't.

But I think you are a good person (I have a feeling ) and you follow the humanist morals while excusing the Bible for not. In part by not watching any videos that might express a different view.

(1) just as a sideline, Prohibition was rather religion -backed and pushed by women, if they were not indeed the instigators. There was good reason to try it; a social experiment to rid humanity of the problems that go with drinking.

But of course, the cure was worse than the disease, and women led the repeal.The Church said nothing much, from all I have seen. It's just a sideline about human problems and the efforts to move forward. They don't always work, but at least 'we' try. Religion only issues orders and blames everyone else when they don't work.

[The Tanager]

Yet again, I have to say 'Denial does not wash'. This is not even a bad excuse, it is denial. And it has to be pointed out that there is no reason that anyone would accept it who does not (for reasons of Faith) desire to accept it, that God could not have said with other radical commands 'No owning people as slaves'. No reason why Jesus couldn't have said, while telling people to mutilate themselves if it 'offended them' 'No owning of slaves'.

What am I denying? And saying there is no reason for my position except faith ignores the actual reason I gave, simply dismissing it without supporting one’s own alternative position. That’s not rational.

The comparison to Jesus asking people to mutilate themselves, which was hyperbole of course, isn’t a good one. As to the dietary laws, how drastic would they have been, and even if they were, why is that on par with changing the whole socio-economic system?

And which of the first four commandments should not have been given? They can worship other gods? That would have gotten God’s primary aim and moral desires across more effectively? Being able to create and worship idols? Not honoring God’s name? Not resting and trusting in God through the Sabbath? All of these things that the Israelites were prepared for already through the previous miracles, so it’s not that drastic anyway.

Human morals moved on, first slavery, then women's votes (1) and then gender rights, where the Church was by no means always leading the way in moral improvements...assuming you agree they ARE improvements. If you go by the Bible, you may be one of those who don't.

As the objectivist here, I’m the only one between us that could see it as a real improvement. There are absolutely no real improvements on your supposed subjectivism. Society can come closer to the way you want it to be, but that is just a difference from others, not an improvement, if your moral system is true. You were trying to maintain it can be an improvement, but you’ve avoided that part of our conversation for a few posts now and are back to just assuming it is.

But I think you are a good person (I have a feeling ) and you follow the humanist morals while excusing the Bible for not. In part by not watching any videos that might express a different view.

Why do you think I didn’t watch the video? Because POI won't summarize the points from the video that support the case POI is trying to make? Or because I disagree with you by thinking its points aren’t good ones? I watched the whole thing. It wasn’t convincing. I’m ready to discuss any claim it made.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yet again, I have to say 'Denial does not wash'. This is not even a bad excuse, it is denial. And it has to be pointed out that there is no reason that anyone would accept it who does not (for reasons of Faith) desire to accept it, that God could not have said with other radical commands 'No owning people as slaves'. No reason why Jesus couldn't have said, while telling people to mutilate themselves if it 'offended them' 'No owning of slaves'.

What am I denying? And saying there is no reason for my position except faith ignores the actual reason I gave, simply dismissing it without supporting one’s own alternative position. That’s not rational.

The comparison to Jesus asking people to mutilate themselves, which was hyperbole of course, isn’t a good one. As to the dietary laws, how drastic would they have been, and even if they were, why is that on par with changing the whole socio-economic system?

And which of the first four commandments should not have been given? They can worship other gods? That would have gotten God’s primary aim and moral desires across more effectively? Being able to create and worship idols? Not honoring God’s name? Not resting and trusting in God through the Sabbath? All of these things that the Israelites were prepared for already through the previous miracles, so it’s not that drastic anyway.

Human morals moved on, first slavery, then women's votes (1) and then gender rights, where the Church was by no means always leading the way in moral improvements...assuming you agree they ARE improvements. If you go by the Bible, you may be one of those who don't.

As the objectivist here, I’m the only one between us that could see it as a real improvement. There are absolutely no real improvements on your supposed subjectivism. Society can come closer to the way you want it to be, but that is just a difference from others, not an improvement, if your moral system is true. You were trying to maintain it can be an improvement, but you’ve avoided that part of our conversation for a few posts now and are back to just assuming it is.

But I think you are a good person (I have a feeling ) and you follow the humanist morals while excusing the Bible for not. In part by not watching any videos that might express a different view.

Why do you think I didn’t watch the video? Because POI won't summarize the points from the video that support the case POI is trying to make? Or because I disagree with you by thinking its points aren’t good ones? I watched the whole thing. It wasn’t convincing. I’m ready to discuss any claim it made.

You are the objectivist? Through insisting there has to be an objective cosmic (if not divine) moral code? The Objective view is that there is no such and we are having to work out a system for ourselves.

You say Jesus was using hyperbole. As is giving your mobile phone, bank card and car keys to a mugger. or giving your stuff away and following Jesus. The problem is that some may take it literally and regard those who dismiss it as 'hyperbole' as just excusing themselves from what Jesus says to do. The problem is as soon as you start picking which bits are so and which just so - so, the system collapses into personal preference not Objectivity.

But the Actual point is not whether you should cut off your nose if it is offended by your brother's after - shave but that Jesus did not clarify in the beatitudes that one should not own slaves as property. That failing puts the NT into a work of the time, not for all time, just as surely as the OT, and the upshot is that human moral codes (with all the flaws) is better. No matter how you try to deny it, while also (it seems) agreeing it is generally better, which on evidence it is, as I showed. Lifestyle, health and longevity, and if you claim this is not 'better' just 'different' then your moral sense is flawed. Not that I reckon you even really believe what you say, but use it as a bat to swipe away the conclusion - Bible morality is passe, not to say invalid.

You have an excuse for not watching the video. Ok, but I (at least) summarised it: God could have given some better laws than the ones we got and the Objective (and rational) view is that what we actually have is just another human moral code, using a religion as authority. Whether your denial about that (and denial it is) there is no reason why anyone should credit a god being behind human efforts to make a fair (contributing to well -being) moral system work as well as possible and that is why the argument from Morality failed in the 80's and still fails now.

[The Tanager]

You are the objectivist? Through insisting there has to be an objective cosmic (if not divine) moral code? The Objective view is that there is no such and we are having to work out a system for ourselves.

I have not insisted there has to be an objective moral code. I do believe there is one, (although I haven’t argued for why here). I know you disagree. Since you do, stop talking about “improvements” as though your system allows for that term to be something different than just “differences”. You have not shown any sound reasoning that things are getting better and you cannot because of your own moral system being subjective.

It is logically impossible for subjective morality to lead to something getting better rather than just different, no matter the semantics you are tricking yourself with. If that is what you think is my denial, then show it rationally instead of just dismissing it without support by calling it a denial or pop-psychologizing about why I’m saying it so you don’t have to deal with the logic of it.

You say Jesus was using hyperbole. As is giving your mobile phone, bank card and car keys to a mugger. or giving your stuff away and following Jesus. The problem is that some may take it literally and regard those who dismiss it as 'hyperbole' as just excusing themselves from what Jesus says to do. The problem is as soon as you start picking which bits are so and which just so - so, the system collapses into personal preference not Objectivity.

It’s not all or nothing. Jesus (and pretty much everyone in existence ever) speaks literally at times and metaphorically at times. Our job is to distinguish that to the best of our abilities, not based on what we want to be true but on the context. Yes, we will get it wrong at times, but that doesn’t mean the truth is no longer objective or that we aren’t at fault for getting it wrong. The vast, vast majority of people throughout history have not taken supposed self-mutilation commands literally which doesn't mean it was, but tells us that this passage's interpretation being metaphorical isn't really that difficult to reach. Yes, I know grasping on to the possibility it could be literal works better for the conclusion you want to be true, but it's not reasonable.

You have an excuse for not watching the video. Ok, but I (at least) summarised it: God could have given some better laws than the ones we got and the Objective (and rational) view is that what we actually have is just another human moral code, using a religion as authority. Whether your denial about that (and denial it is) there is no reason why anyone should credit a god being behind human efforts to make a fair (contributing to well -being) moral system work as well as possible and that is why the argument from Morality failed in the 80's and still fails now.

Do you read all of my posts? I watched the entire video. And I’ve responded to your summary as to why it is poor reasoning.

[Mae von H]

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.

(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.”


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.