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 know humans write stuff. We do not know that any 'higher power' also aids in such writings? What is more likely and why?

a) Such ancient writings were given by men alone?
b) They were also aided from 'above'?

Oh, this is what you meant. This whole thread is based on assuming God has revealed Himself through these writings and questioning the way He did so. This is an entirely different critique. This is moving the goalposts.

Nope. I'm giving you an out, and you have opted not to take it. So, I will continue to demonstrate that the Bible God, for which you believe in, is a-okay with slavery while you, and much of the rest of society, is not.

What I said above has nothing to do with talking about the other specific topics rather than slavery. It is specifically addressing your reasoning concerning slavery, which was to read a minority psychological motivation into a specific text. I did not do anything like that, instead taking in the wider philosophical and theological context since the specific verse doesn’t address the question you are asking of me.

But your reasoning is unfounded and unsupported. Face it, the God you believe in is okay with slavery. You are not, and I get that. But you need to reconcile that the God you believe in does not agree with you. Nowhere in the NT mentions it's abolition. The NT also weighs in on slavery, (hundreds of years later), and merely tells slaves to obey their masters. No "progression" towards no slavery. And then the Bible ends.

Yes, they are going to be cheaper labor

That's my point. They were cheap labor. They were cheap and were to work, like 'slaves', with no regulatory work restrictions. Slaves worked likes slaves. 16-hour days, 7 days a week. Hurting them too badly would be dumb. But whipping them on the back, to keep them in line, was already much a thing. Enough so for God to have had to weigh in on it, and let the readers know that such beatings are to receive no punishment. This is how I look at the wider philosophical context and scope of things These practices were already in effect, and God merely sanctioned/permitted it, by rubberstamping it and making it 'legal'. And the reason God did so is that he was afraid they would reject him if he abolished slavery. I guess sacrificing many humans, via condoning chattel slavery, is fine in order to retain worship.

my point is they had more rights than you are giving them credit for in Israel’s law.

I doubt that. They were not allowed to be worked like slaves? Oh, wait a minute, they were slaves. Where do you think this phrase came from?

Part of that passage in Exodus 21 outlaws slave trading (v. 16)

I'm not so sure that verse has to do with slaves. Remember what I stated prior about differing rules for differing groups. When you reference (Lev 25:44-46), where this verse speaks specifically about slaves, it reads that some slaves were traded on the open market.

and also focuses on various kinds of personal injury, including on one’s servants. It is not a section outlining all the rights servants and slaves have. It calls for their freedom for losing a tooth, which isn’t just literally about losing a tooth, as though they only cared about teeth or that they need their face to work well, but a way to talk about the severity in general.

No, it's about allowing masters to whip their slaves. As stated prior, it's stupid to kill your labor, or to even hurt them badly. A productive slave is a "good" slave. But if they start lagging:

What is the logical connection to make that move?

The given laws were merely to keep them from doing stuff they were never going to do anyways, unless they were really dumb. You don't maim or destroy your free or cheap labor silly. Just whip them into shape, as needed. The rules in Exodus 21 conveniently revolve around these implied rules. No new restrictions were added, which were not already the norm. Sorry.

God states there is no punishment (beyond what they’ve lost in work from the servant because of the owner’s action) if the severity is small. God wanted to make sure the Israelites were treating their slaves and servants well because they were once slaves themselves and knew how bad it could be. God was trying to curb any attempts to use their new positions of power to oppress others.

I'm speaking about the chattel slaves. I'm not referring to mere volunteers working off deft. I'm speaking about the ones listed as lifetime property. As stated prior, God gives differing rules for differing groups. Israelites servants and chattel slaves had differing rules, per Ex 21 and Lev 25.

Yes, they appealed to the same books, so we must look at the reasoning. Slave owners read the Bible hyper literally, while abolitionists read more critically and contextually. I’ve already said God doesn’t abolish all forms of servitude (although Exodus 21:16 does forbid slave trading). We Christians, with God’s help, led the charge for abolition.

No, you did it in spite of God's help. God sanctioned it. Face it, he is okay with slavery. Most of you are not.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #241]


You got him. Even if the point our pal Tanager made was correct (I suspect it only applied to Hebrew slaves - and not to the evasive 'servants') it was at best putting a limit on what your could do to foreign slaves that were owned as property, for life, and could be willed to children or sold off and was absolutely chattel slavery as was the norm at that time.

There are two excuses - it wasn't Really 'slavery' (it was - where foreign slaves were concerned) and it was but God couldn't really do anything to stop the Hebrews doing it (which is the point made in the OP). There is no valid reason why a god (and there is a Bible passage that has God reminding them, they were slaves themselves, so God and his people all know what slavery is and is not) could not just say "You shall not own another human being as property". It isn't hard. No more than to tell the truth rather than mislead the people with stuff about the sun made after daylight, Noah being a peal person, and illness not being caused by demons.

The evidence is unmistakable and the latter excuse really recognises it - the Bible, society and indeed the world, looks like it would look if there was no God there.

[The Tanager]

That's my point. They were cheap labor. They were cheap and were to work, like 'slaves', with no regulatory work restrictions. Slaves worked likes slaves. 16-hour days, 7 days a week. Hurting them too badly would be dumb. But whipping them on the back, to keep them in line, was already much a thing. Enough so for God to have had to weigh in on it, and let the readers know that such beatings are to receive no punishment. This is how I look at the wider philosophical context and scope of things

Where in the Bible (or other Jewish historical documents) does it say there are no regulatory work restrictions? That they are to work 16-hour days and 7 days a week (especially with the Hebrew practice of Sabbath)? Where does the Bible say you can whip your slave/servant on the back and not get punished?

my point is they had more rights than you are giving them credit for in Israel’s law.

I doubt that. They were not allowed to be worked like slaves? Oh, wait a minute, they were slaves. Where do you think this phrase came from?

Where did I say they were not allowed to be worked like slaves/servants? I said how you think they were worked as slaves/servants is built on your biased speculation, not fact.

I'm not so sure that verse has to do with slaves. Remember what I stated prior about differing rules for differing groups. When you reference (Lev 25:44-46), where this verse speaks specifically about slaves, it reads that some slaves were traded on the open market.

Chattel slavery doesn’t involve kidnapping people and either selling them or keeping them for yourself? Sounds like slavery fits perfectly for Exodus 21:16.

And in referencing Lev 25:44-46, you’ve got to look at the context beyond those verses. Starting with verse 45, the reason talked about with people going into slavery is that they have become poor and sold themselves into servitude. You aren’t to do that with people in Israel. You are to sustain them (v. 35), don’t profit from loaning money or providing food for them (37) because God saved the Israelites from slavery. If the person tries to sell himself to you as a servant, you are to hire him as a servant for a set amount of time (40) and then released. But this isn’t just for Israelites, it’s for foreigners in the land as well (35).

They can acquire slaves/servants (not a different word from the rest) from other nations, but this would involve taking them out of possibly harsher situations (depending on how that culture treated slaves) and bringing them into the Israelite culture with its regulations. The difference of treatment is only that foreigners can (but don’t have to) remain a servant for life, while you can’t do that with Israelites, because of this being their homeland.

No, it's about allowing masters to whip their slaves. As stated prior, it's stupid to kill your labor, or to even hurt them badly. A productive slave is a "good" slave.

If it was about allowing masters to whip their slaves, it would have said something like “Masters, you are allowed to whip your slaves.” You are arguing from silence. It’s not a treatise on every action masters can and cannot take. It is irrational to then conclude that everything not mentioned is explicitly being allowed.

[TRANSPONDER]

Disgusting. "We are shipping Mandingos across to be slaves and so doing rescuing them from the terriblel;ife they had in Africa."

Haven't we heard that sort of thing before? The excuses Bible apologists employ to get around the fact that Chattel slavery (ownership of people for life) is endorsed and not denounced by the Bible, even though God (if he was a god at all) would have known humans secular morality would ban it themselves a thousand plus years later.

It isn't just that of course. Genesis is wrong - unless one does science denial. All knowledge and science is leftout. I know that (as the video argues) the Bible was not intended to teach science (except in Republican America) But if it is going to say something touching on science,couldn't it have told the truth?

The video makes the point that even given the limitations of the time, it could have got much more right where it could.

Like another video says.



The thing is not so much to disprove privatim et seriatem the Bible is all wrong, never mind changing the mind of Faith -based beleivers (they will have to do it themselves) but to get to those who may be open to doubt and question, and the point is that it makes much more sense if the Bible not just not the chosen communication of a god, but is not even all that reliable as a human record. And I'd say that is becomi g nore of a question all the tim.

I really do think now that Exodus (not seriously questioned until...coincidentally..just about the time there was a long debate on my Other Forum and the long -presented Evidence for it didn't amount to much and the attempt to put it into a valid timefell apart.

Now it really is firming up that the story was written in Babylon during the Exile which explains the Mesopotamian elements (in Genesis, too) and I am
seriously thinking that it was indeed loosely based on the expulsion of the Hyksos (which Bible apologists have also suggested) but with Ahmose I changed into Moses.

Point is, that is actually a better explanation than the Biblical exodus being real. The point on the point being that more and more it looks like a manmade book of errors tall tales and fabrications...oh, and failed prophecies, too.

[POI]

Where in the Bible (or other Jewish historical documents) does it say there are no regulatory work restrictions? That they are to work 16-hour days and 7 days a week (especially with the Hebrew practice of Sabbath)? Where does the Bible say you can whip your slave/servant on the back and not get punished?

Like you, I look at the "the wider philosophical" context. Slaves were there to work. Nothing else. "My boss works me like a slave." Such phrases are there for a reason. There existed no such slave labor laws. There existed no work unions. You are bred or purchased as the master's property. You have one job, to work. And work they did. Otherwise, expect a good whip'n, (to the back of course to remain in the line with the laws of the Torah).

Where did I say they were not allowed to be worked like slaves/servants? I said how you think they were worked as slaves/servants is built on your biased speculation, not fact.

If the Bible did not weigh in on the matter, I could maybe agree. But God weighed in on it. Beatings were granted immunity. God had to weigh in on it because it was probably going on often and God had to step in and make it right. Beatings are fine, just don't kill them or hit their face. Which was already fine, because the slave masters merely wanted to hurt them just enough to likely increase their productivity. Further, being whipped probably sucks. They probably did it publicly so the other chattel slaves could see how much it looked to suck to keep them working harder too. And again, a smart slave master is not going to beat a very productive slave. If the chattel slave puts in lots of work, no beatings. Yeah!

Chattel slavery doesn’t involve kidnapping people and either selling them or keeping them for yourself? Sounds like slavery fits perfectly for Exodus 21:16.

As I stated prior, if the Bible does not specifically mention the slave(s) or servants, or other, it's not including them. The Bible issues differing rules for differing groups. And the rules differed for all of them. Heck, the male Hebrew servants alone had differing rules than female Hebrew servants. But EVEN IF you were right, you could still breed them and/or trick people into lifetime chattel slavery, per God's rules.

And in referencing Lev 25:44-46, you’ve got to look at the context beyond those verses. Starting with verse 45, the reason talked about with people going into slavery is that they have become poor and sold themselves into servitude. You aren’t to do that with people in Israel. You are to sustain them (v. 35), don’t profit from loaning money or providing food for them (37) because God saved the Israelites from slavery. If the person tries to sell himself to you as a servant, you are to hire him as a servant for a set amount of time (40) and then released. But this isn’t just for Israelites, it’s for foreigners in the land as well (35).

"45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Different strokes for different folks. I guess this also means, if you are not an Israelite, you can be treated ruthlessly? You can also make them your chattel slaves for life. By them, this means foreigners. I never understood why God showed favoritism, based upon bloodline? Sounds like a mere tribal human thing alone to me.

They can acquire slaves/servants (not a different word from the rest) from other nations, but this would involve taking them out of possibly harsher situations

LOL! This statement reminds me of that game kids like to play, called "this or that." "Would you rather....?" (Fill in the blank, but both options 'suck').

If it was about allowing masters to whip their slaves, it would have said something like “Masters, you are allowed to whip your slaves.” You are arguing from silence. It’s not a treatise on every action masters can and cannot take. It is irrational to then conclude that everything not mentioned is explicitly being allowed.

Nope. They whipped them. You did not deny this. This was implied. Masters whipped their slaves on the back. The Bible sanctioned it by navigating the rules accordingly to allow for it.

[POI]

the Bible, society and indeed the world, looks like it would look if there was no God there.

Nailed it. If you watch the last part of the video, that is almost exactly what the "video maker" says. This is why I wanted to offer The Tanager an out. He opted not to take it and instead stated I'm moving the goal posts. Oh well....

[TRANSPONDER]

the Bible, society and indeed the world, looks like it would look if there was no God there.

Nailed it. If you watch the last part of the video, that is almost exactly what the "video maker" says. This is why I wanted to offer The Tanager an out. He opted not to take it and instead stated I'm moving the goal posts. Oh well....

The goalposts moving is part of the mindset (1). Assuming it's not just doing whether is necessary to try to win, and I think it is more the genuine mindset.

We-all think (general atheist apologetics) that all we need is a valid alternate hypothesis as that makes the god -hypothesis unnecessary. But Theists (Bible apologists) don't think like that - God is the default unless 100% disproven.

Logically an equally valid alternate hypothesis would mean the God - claim has no force. Let alone a hypothesis that makes better sense for the way the world is than a god who has to be excused from not making an effort. And those excuses are manifold from giving Satan charge of the world, God can't do anything (at least so you'd notice) to it would turn us all into Robots without freewill, or just 'God knows best'.

Excuses.

That's without a secularist theory that comes close to showing that This or That concept of God cannot be true (if you debunk This one the believer says he believes in some other one) and a theory that explains the world as well or even better becomes (logically) the default because the world and how it works is known, without a god needed. God is multiplying the logical entities without good reason. The existence of various religions and scriptures not being good reasons.

But the theist mindset is not tuned that way. It is tuned to believe God is the default and remains the default (all other gods being dismissed as our pal posted recently "I think we should keep to just one". No reason given) until utterly debunked, and we have seen what faithbased dismissal of the hardest evidence anyone could ask as in the cetan sequence looks like. Just dismissed on little or no reason.

This is the Faith - based mindset and I am thankful not to have that weighing my cranium down. I can't imagine what it must be like rejecting pretty undeniable evidence just because it raises questions about what the Bible says.

(1) I might be mistaken here but I recall it seemed to be the theist trying to move the entire goal to the philosophical semantics part of the field and saying your kicks all missed and accused you of shifting the goal when you wanted it moved back. But I might be misremembering.

[The Tanager]

Like you, I look at the "the wider philosophical" context. Slaves were there to work. Nothing else. "My boss works me like a slave." Such phrases are there for a reason. There existed no such slave labor laws. There existed no work unions. You are bred or purchased as the master's property. You have one job, to work. And work they did. Otherwise, expect a good whip'n, (to the back of course to remain in the line with the laws of the Torah).

But what reason do you have to impose colonial ideas of slavery on the ancient Israelites? Where is your source for that?

As I stated prior, if the Bible does not specifically mention the slave(s) or servants, or other, it's not including them.

You use this principle when it benefits your desired conclusion, but ignore it when it doesn’t (such as your claims that the Bible allows whipping your slave in the back...why don't you conclude there that if the Bible doesn't specifically mention whipping a slave in the back, it's not saying anything about that?). You should reject this principle entirely because it is an irrational argument from silence.

Different strokes for different folks. I guess this also means, if you are not an Israelite, you can be treated ruthlessly? You can also make them your chattel slaves for life. By them, this means foreigners. I never understood why God showed favoritism, based upon bloodline? Sounds like a mere tribal human thing alone to me.

Here you do the same thing. Why not say that since the Bible doesn't specifically mention being able to treat non-Israelite servants ruthlessly, it's not saying anything about that? No, it doesn’t mean that you can be treated ruthlessly, it only means that foreigners from other nations can be servants for life (there isn’t a different word used in the passage between the Hebrew servants/slaves and the foreign ones.

[POI]

But what reason do you have to impose colonial ideas of slavery on the ancient Israelites? Where is your source for that?

Aside from common sense alone? Were slaves ever anything more that cheap labor, treated like property, and intended for the sole purpose of working? I don't think so. The Bible bothers to outright sanction beatings, as long they do not die or get hit in the face. As already stated, a couple times now, because God needed to weigh in on it, due to frequency. I reckon, it was established, quite early on, even thousands of years ago, that whipping their backs was the standard, maybe even the gold standard, to insure a slave's subordination and obedience. This was further secured by the NT merely telling slaves to be sure and obey their slave masters and work hard. There was not progression from the Bible. And then it ends. The Bible's instructions supply all the ingredients for assuring their slaves worked, which again, was their only purpose.

You use this principle when it benefits your desired conclusion, but ignore it when it doesn’t (such as your claims that the Bible allows whipping your slave in the back...why don't you conclude there that if the Bible doesn't specifically mention whipping a slave in the back, it's not saying anything about that?). You should reject this principle entirely because it is an irrational argument from silence.

Oh, you mean like you assuming these folks were going from harsher situations to less harsh ones? Lifetime chattel slavery is 'better', while not actually knowing what their prior situation really was? But seriously, it does not take a rocket scientist to see what was going on. Such passages were written to 'sanction' the legality of chattel slave ownership. Most likely, the people who agreed with slavery practices wrote those passages, (maybe even slave owners themselves), not instead an "all-loving" God. And the best rebuttal you can muster is to indicate that God wanted continued worship and did not want to infringe upon their stubbornness. Thus, he sacrificed countless humans, in allowed chattel slavery, to assure the beloved (slave owners) would not reject him

Here you do the same thing. Why not say that since the Bible doesn't specifically mention being able to treat non-Israelite servants ruthlessly, it's not saying anything about that?

Because this verse specifically singles out which group NOT to treat ruthlessly. Which implies the chattel slaves can be. I would reckon you and I would consider 'beatings', as long as they do not die, as "ruthlessly", right? The Bible is saying the Israelites are off limits for that type of treatment. Don't "beat" them. Such behavior is reserved for the chattel slaves.

No, it doesn’t mean that you can be treated ruthlessly, it only means that foreigners from other nations can be servants for life (there isn’t a different word used in the passage between the Hebrew servants/slaves and the foreign ones.

You forgot to mention, or left out the part, where they are the master's lifetime PROPERTY. Maybe not to the same level of property as a stick or a shovel, but probably more on the level of property in between that of women and cattle, again, based upon context and analysis.

[The Tanager]

Aside from common sense alone?

Assuming all slavery/servanthood is the same is not common sense.

You use this principle when it benefits your desired conclusion, but ignore it when it doesn’t (such as your claims that the Bible allows whipping your slave in the back...why don't you conclude there that if the Bible doesn't specifically mention whipping a slave in the back, it's not saying anything about that?). You should reject this principle entirely because it is an irrational argument from silence.

Oh, you mean like you assuming these folks were going from harsher situations to less harsh ones? Lifetime chattel slavery is 'better', while not actually knowing what their prior situation really was?

I don’t just assume it. We know there was ancient slavery that was generally pretty harsh. The regulations on slavery in the Bible for the Israelites are less harsh.

But seriously, it does not take a rocket scientist to see what was going on.

I’m not asking for rocket science, but good philosophy.

And the best rebuttal you can muster is to indicate that God wanted continued worship and did not want to infringe upon their stubbornness.

That’s not what I said at all. God wanted humanity to move closer towards what they were made to be, but needed to use a method that would produce some change instead of just being outright rejected, leaving the poor in a worse state.

Because this verse specifically singles out which group NOT to treat ruthlessly. Which implies the chattel slaves can be. I would reckon you and I would consider 'beatings', as long as they do not die, as "ruthlessly", right? The Bible is saying the Israelites are off limits for that type of treatment. Don't "beat" them. Such behavior is reserved for the chattel slaves.

It implies slaves/servants from other nations can be treated differently, but that doesn’t mean anything goes. The beatings (which aren’t just about slaves/servants from other nations) aren’t “as long as they don’t die” to try to get away with as much as one can, but about discipline not going too far, including stuff like knocking a tooth out, which doesn’t mean whipping them on the back is fine because the scriptures are not meant to be read hyper-literally.

You forgot to mention, or left out the part, where they are the master's lifetime PROPERTY. Maybe not to the same level of property as a stick or a shovel, but probably more on the level of property in between that of women and cattle, again, based upon context and analysis.

Yes, they are called property in the sense of them having ultimate control over their freedom. They don’t have to keep them for their lifetime, but can. As context shows, many people (including Israelites) desired to stay in this kind of servanthood. Seems like many felt it better than the alternative of being on their own because that would mean death for them.