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?

[The Tanager]

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)?

I didn’t say God wanted to direct them away from slavery, but that He wanted to direct them to a better treatment of slaves, waiting to move human societies away from slavery until later. I come to this conclusion (like you) by making decisions about the context including wider principles that would come into play in one’s interpretation.

When did I say "no progress is better than some progress"?

You implied it. There are three logical options: complete progress, some progress, no progress. You said (and I agree) complete progress wasn’t going to happen. That leaves two options. Since you disagreed with my view that God rightly sought some progress, that leaves you as choosing no progress (and simply stating His ideal instead).

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

It could also mean that those ideas weren’t as ingrained in society and, therefore, could be moved effectively by expressing direct abolition.

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

Worse treatment of slaves could have been more prevalent, yes, because they would have just written God completely off as a guide for their society, losing that influence there and other areas.

[POI]

I didn’t say God wanted to direct them away from slavery, but that He wanted to direct them to a better treatment of slaves,

God's instructed "better treatment" includes (lifetime slavery for all non-Israelite male slaves, being treated as property of sorts, and also the instructed immunity from punishment for the slave masters if they should beat their slaves - as long as the slave does not die or lose eyes/teeth). These are his instructed objective allowances for 'better treatment'? I guess he liked to go really slowly in his "progression process"?

waiting to move human societies away from slavery until later.

When and how exactly did the 'Bible-God' move folks away from slavery later?

You implied it. There are three logical options: complete progress, some progress, no progress. You said (and I agree) complete progress wasn’t going to happen. That leaves two options. Since you disagreed with my view that God rightly sought some progress, that leaves you as choosing no progress (and simply stating His ideal instead).

Negative. You have not demonstrated that God wanted progression towards eventually having no slavery, verses to instead merely instruct the proper way to do it. Ex. 21 and Lev. 25 explains how. The NT never expresses the abolition of this topic either, and instead tells slaves to "buck up" and obey their masters. Not seeing any progression here.... Then, the Bible ends, so now what?

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

It could also mean that those ideas weren’t as ingrained in society and, therefore, could be moved effectively by expressing direct abolition.

God's stance is (paraphrased) - if the society is really stubborn about slavery, allow them to do it and direct them away from slavery very slowly? Prove it.

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

Worse treatment of slaves could have been more prevalent, yes, because they would have just written God completely off as a guide for their society, losing that influence there and other areas.

Aaah, so being allowed to beat them with impunity and treating them as lifetime property, was God's early plan. Got it In order to retain their worship of him, God instructed what he instructed in Exodus and Leviticus. Makes total sense now.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #205]

Like it it not, we believe BECAUSE we have excellent reasons to do so. The closed mind demands a great deal and insists reasons sufficient for others are no reasons. The open mind asks what the reasons are. Like it or not, we believe because sufficient reasons were presented, same as why any honest man believes as he does.

[POI]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #205]

Like it it not, we believe BECAUSE we have excellent reasons to do so. The closed mind demands a great deal and insists reasons sufficient for others are no reasons. The open mind asks what the reasons are. Like it or not, we believe because sufficient reasons were presented, same as why any honest man believes as he does.

If the evidence was that compelling, the Bible would not stress the importance of faith. Further, if the evidence really was that compelling, it would matter not of one's state of mind. I myself change my mind about all sorts of things, based upon the presented evidence. However, I have been debating theists for years now, and have yet to receive any compelling cases for the God you believe in.

Care to share your "excellent reasons"?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #205]

Like it it not, we believe BECAUSE we have excellent reasons to do so. The closed mind demands a great deal and insists reasons sufficient for others are no reasons. The open mind asks what the reasons are. Like it or not, we believe because sufficient reasons were presented, same as why any honest man believes as he does.

If the evidence was that compelling, the Bible would not stress the importance of faith. Further, if the evidence really was that compelling, it would matter not of one's state of mind. I myself change my mind about all sorts of things, based upon the presented evidence. However, I have been debating theists for years now, and have yet to receive any compelling cases for the God you believe in.

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.

There is also the reality of people believing a lie. This is quite common.

Care to share your "excellent reasons"?

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.

[The Tanager]

God's instructed "better treatment" includes (lifetime slavery for all non-Israelite male slaves, being treated as property of sorts, and also the instructed immunity from punishment for the slave masters if they should beat their slaves - as long as the slave does not die or lose eyes/teeth). These are his instructed objective allowances for 'better treatment'? I guess he liked to go really slowly in his "progression process"?

The slave master isn’t immune from punishment, but must pay for the loss of time and provide for his healing (Exodus 21:19) and if he even knocks out a tooth, he must set the slave free. Yes, that is better treatment than having no consequences whatsoever.

When and how exactly did the 'Bible-God' move folks away from slavery later?

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.

You implied it. There are three logical options: complete progress, some progress, no progress. You said (and I agree) complete progress wasn’t going to happen. That leaves two options. Since you disagreed with my view that God rightly sought some progress, that leaves you as choosing no progress (and simply stating His ideal instead).

Negative.

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

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

It could also mean that those ideas weren’t as ingrained in society and, therefore, could be moved effectively by expressing direct abolition.

God's stance is (paraphrased) - if the society is really stubborn about slavery, allow them to do it and direct them away from slavery very slowly? Prove it.

I’ve offered more support above, but your response ignores my above critique. 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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #205]

Like it it not, we believe BECAUSE we have excellent reasons to do so. The closed mind demands a great deal and insists reasons sufficient for others are no reasons. The open mind asks what the reasons are. Like it or not, we believe because sufficient reasons were presented, same as why any honest man believes as he does.

What I like doesn't matter. The validity of your reasons does. All I have heard so far is Faith that the feelings we get in our heads - which I concede are still a bit of a mystery - are as likely just to be feelings, impressions and ideas in the head individually, different from others and as often wrong as right.


As the video (Open Mind which I will resist posting yet again) says 'It is not the skeptic who should ask for less evidence, but the believer who should ask for more".

I have heard all the arguments (at least, all the ones I've head ) and none of them validate feelings in the head as evidence for a god.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #205]

Like it it not, we believe BECAUSE we have excellent reasons to do so. The closed mind demands a great deal and insists reasons sufficient for others are no reasons. The open mind asks what the reasons are. Like it or not, we believe because sufficient reasons were presented, same as why any honest man believes as he does.

What I like doesn't matter.

Same here. But you don’t like it when others use the same arguments you use, do you?

The validity of your reasons does. All I have heard so far is Faith that the feelings we get in our heads - which I concede are still a bit of a mystery - are as likely just to be feelings, impressions and ideas in the head individually, different from others and as often wrong as right.

What others tell you their faith is comprised of, I cannot answer to. My faith is from reason, not feelings, as I keep repeating.

As the video (Open Mind which I will resist posting yet again) says 'It is not the skeptic who should ask for less evidence, but the believer who should ask for more".

That makes no sense. It’s like saying the man has had his questions answered should ask for more answers, not the man who has received no answers. The man who has no answers shouldn’t ask for some.

I have heard all the arguments (at least, all the ones I've head ) and none of them validate feelings in the head as evidence for a god.

i agree. My reasons don’t come from feelings nor are feelings the measure nor do they require validation as though they are chief. Feelings come and go and are an unsteady source for deciding truth from the false.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #205]

Like it it not, we believe BECAUSE we have excellent reasons to do so. The closed mind demands a great deal and insists reasons sufficient for others are no reasons. The open mind asks what the reasons are. Like it or not, we believe because sufficient reasons were presented, same as why any honest man believes as he does.

What I like doesn't matter.

Same here. But you don’t like it when others use the same arguments you use, do you?

What I like or don't is irrelevant. I a person's argument is valid, I'll say so whether it's one I use or not. If it has flaws, I'll say so.

The validity of your reasons does. All I have heard so far is Faith that the feelings we get in our heads - which I concede are still a bit of a mystery - are as likely just to be feelings, impressions and ideas in the head individually, different from others and as often wrong as right.

What others tell you their faith is comprised of, I cannot answer to. My faith is from reason, not feelings, as I keep repeating.

But - as you implied above - they can say the same as you do. Because of that, your claim is based on Faith that your beleifs (interpretations) are right and theirs are wrong. I just disbelieve one more faithclaim than you do.

As the video (Open Mind which I will resist posting yet again) says 'It is not the skeptic who should ask for less evidence, but the believer who should ask for more".

That makes no sense. It’s like saying the man has had his questions answered should ask for more answers, not the man who has received no answers. The man who has no answers shouldn’t ask for some.

It makes perfect sense - except to those who reject the further questions the questioner has on the grounds that they have Faith that their beliefs are right and similar but different beliefs others hold are wrong. The 'Reasons' you hold adequate are not because the skeptic (which hat I am currently wearing) asks valid questions, which you dismiss on the grounds that you think your reasons are quite enough.They are not, even if you wave away my points.

I have heard all the arguments (at least, all the ones I've head ) and none of them validate feelings in the head as evidence for a god.

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"

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #205]

Like it it not, we believe BECAUSE we have excellent reasons to do so. The closed mind demands a great deal and insists reasons sufficient for others are no reasons. The open mind asks what the reasons are. Like it or not, we believe because sufficient reasons were presented, same as why any honest man believes as he does.

What I like doesn't matter.

Same here. But you don’t like it when others use the same arguments you use, do you?

What I like or don't is irrelevant. I a person's argument is valid, I'll say so whether it's one I use or not. If it has flaws, I'll say so.

The validity of your reasons does. All I have heard so far is Faith that the feelings we get in our heads - which I concede are still a bit of a mystery - are as likely just to be feelings, impressions and ideas in the head individually, different from others and as often wrong as right.

What others tell you their faith is comprised of, I cannot answer to. My faith is from reason, not feelings, as I keep repeating.

But - as you implied above - they can say the same as you do. Because of that, your claim is based on Faith that your beleifs (interpretations) are right and theirs are wrong. I just disbelieve one more faithclaim than you do.

As the video (Open Mind which I will resist posting yet again) says 'It is not the skeptic who should ask for less evidence, but the believer who should ask for more".

That makes no sense. It’s like saying the man has had his questions answered should ask for more answers, not the man who has received no answers. The man who has no answers shouldn’t ask for some.

It makes perfect sense - except to those who reject the further questions the questioner has on the grounds that they have Faith that their beliefs are right and similar but different beliefs others hold are wrong. The 'Reasons' you hold adequate are not because the skeptic (which hat I am currently wearing) asks valid questions, which you dismiss on the grounds that you think your reasons are quite enough.They are not, even if you wave away my points.

I have heard all the arguments (at least, all the ones I've head ) and none of them validate feelings in the head as evidence for a god.

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"

I don't suppose my observation of Jesus healing a lame woman would have any impact, would it? It was not a show. There was just her, me and my partner at her home. She could not walk but scooted around as they could not afford a wheelchair. She got up and ran around the room. My feelings were not involved in any way.