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 are talking about the Israelites and, even more so, what God said to them, are we not?

Yup. The OP video explains how the Bible borrows from existing cultures. My position is that the 'Bible-God' is telling the Israelites how to do slavery the right way. Not to instead get them to move away from it. This is because God thinks it is okay, and simply wants to assure they do things HIS way, the right way. He agrees with the whipping and branding, as already laid out by other tribes and cultures. But, just don't kill them or maim their faces, as this ruins productivity. The Bible-God is a pioneer. He is an innovator. This is why he sanctions the chattel slave beatings, because it is necessary to keep them working hard. This is also why he later offers words of encouragement for the otherwise hopeless chattel slaves, in telling them to work their hardest to please God. Otherwise, many of them may decide to off themselves or maybe even revolt against their masters. The Bible God knew what he was doing. But now, slavery is abolished. You, and much of society, does not think chattel slavery is okay, which is not God's position to instead fine-tune and innovate chattel slavery.

I’m saying the way God is pleased is in us treating others as beings made in God’s image, which will look differently in different socio-economic situations the world creates for each other.

I've already answered this many times. Differing rules for differing groups.... Based upon context and analysis, chattel slaves rank somewhere in between women and livestock.

It probably would be included in setting them free if you knock their tooth out. The Egyptians were criticized for using violence to compel the Israelites to slave labor (e.g., Exodus 1:13). The Sabbath was to extend to everyone in Jewish society, including slaves (Deut 5:15). Much of the treatment is prefaced with “but you are to remember that you were a slave…” (e.g. Deut 15:15). Moses didn’t like masters beating their slaves (Exod 2:11-12). Foreigners were still to be taken care of. The poor were to be taken care of. This is counter cultural (not just going along with the times or what's good for business), but it also isn't God imposing ideal views on slavery that work in our time but not the times of the ancient Israelites.

You failed to answer the quiz question. The answer is (no). Why? Because the slave is their property.

*********************

To address what you stated above...

Why do I care what Moses liked or disliked? We are concerned with what God likes. We already likely agree that damaging their faces would hinder work production. A tried and true gold standard was already set by existing cultures to whip them on the back. Keep them working really really really hard to please God, ala the NT!

No, it doesn’t. The Judeo-Christian heritage is that the Bible is meant to be deeply studied, bringing people to reflect and find deeper truths than surface, hyper-literal readings. Those who read the text hyper-literally are making a mistake and should use (or gain) critical thinking skills.

Correction... When the believer reads a passage as a being uncomfortable, spin it to taste.

[POI]

Where do you get the idea that colonial slaves were bought and killed? From what I’ve read, slaves were expensive and even received medical care. It’s like saying successful tyrants kill off their generals.

Is your position that colonial chattel slaves were treated "well"?

[POI]

The ancient Hebrews had rights for slaves.

Right, because the "Bible-God" said so.

And what you forget, is that the Bible tells masters that they will answer to God as to how they treated other people, something missing in Roman and might as well as Middle eastern slavery. Roman way of life was anything but the “gold standard” as the New Testament deploys how Roman behaved.

Well, God already weighed in on the beatings, that such actions are not to be deemed punishable. So, if the masters beat their slaves on earth, it would logically also follow not to be punishable in Heaven either.

God's objective was to instruct slavery, the right way. Beatings, brandings, and telling the slaves to work their hardest, was God's way. It's clear the objective is/was to maximize productivity from the chattel slaves.

[The Tanager]

Yup. The OP video explains how the Bible borrows from existing cultures.

The video claims that but doesn’t show good reasons that it is true.

He agrees with the whipping and branding, as already laid out by other tribes and cultures.

What Bible verses are you talking about here?

But, just don't kill them or maim their faces, as this ruins productivity.

How does knocking a tooth out ruin productivity, while whipping them over and over not ruin productivity?

You failed to answer the quiz question. The answer is (no). Why? Because the slave is their property.

No, I did answer the question as a yes. We disagree on the answer. We’ve shared our reasons why.

Why do I care what Moses liked or disliked? We are concerned with what God likes.

You should care about context to understand texts. God is talking to a people led by this Moses, so He knows what they disliked when they were slaves and He prefaces various commands with “remember you used to be a slave…” so treat others better than what you disliked. So, unless there are verses that say beat your slaves, this kind of context should be a part of one's understanding, if they want to be rational. But instead of verses saying to beat your slaves, we get verses saying don’t discipline them to a level that would knock a tooth out…a beating...that, with a small bit of critical thinking extends beyond just a literal tooth.

We already likely agree that damaging their faces would hinder work production. A tried and true gold standard was already set by existing cultures to whip them on the back.

We don’t agree to that. Whipping seems more hindering to me than hitting someone in the face. As to what the existing cultures did, the Bible doesn’t say to do it and we are analyzing “God’s chosen communication”.

Correction... When the believer reads a passage as a being uncomfortable, spin it to taste.

Anybody can claim that the other side spins the text or event to their taste. What matters is the reasoning we offer for our views.

[POI]

The video claims that but doesn’t show good reasons that it is true.

I showed you. The Romans were already doing it. Whipping and branding were concepts borrowed from other tribes and societies.

What Bible verses are you talking about here?

Exodus 21:6 endorses the 'branding' of slaves. This was already a thing. The Bible-God was not the inventor, but the innovator.

How does knocking a tooth out ruin productivity, while whipping them over and over not ruin productivity?

The same way whipping some work animals gets them to work harder.

No, I did answer the question as a yes. We disagree on the answer. We’ve shared our reasons why.

??Are you saying the passage below doesn't exist in the Bible??

"21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

You should care about context to understand texts. God is talking to a people led by this Moses, so He knows what they disliked when they were slaves and He prefaces various commands with “remember you used to be a slave…” so treat others better than what you disliked. So, unless there are verses that say beat your slaves, this kind of context should be a part of one's understanding, if they want to be rational. But instead of verses saying to beat your slaves, we get verses saying don’t discipline them to a level that would knock a tooth out…a beating...that, with a small bit of critical thinking extends beyond just a literal tooth.

Yes, and God clarified his orders in Exodus 21. Beating them is not to be punished, because they are deemed the master's property. They are to be releases if their face is injured, which is irrelevant anyways because whipping them on the back was already the golden standard, which was already tested and verified by the already existing cultures around them. God also told slaves, in the NT, to work really hard so they can please him, to avoid their possible revolt, suicide, and/or hopelessness - (which may also lead to a non-productive chattel slave). Remember, a non-productive slave is a worthless slave.

We don’t agree to that. Whipping seems more hindering to me than hitting someone in the face. As to what the existing cultures did, the Bible doesn’t say to do it and we are analyzing “God’s chosen communication”.

As stated above, we did/do whip work animals too. We don't hit them in the face to get them to work harder.

Anybody can claim that the other side spins the text or event to their taste. What matters is the reasoning we offer (or don’t offer).

Yes, and my reasoning is sound, while your reasoning is wishful thinking.

[The Tanager]

I showed you. The Romans were already doing it. Whipping and branding were concepts borrowed from other tribes and societies.

And I responded to that already. What verse in the Bible says you should whip your slaves?

Exodus 21:6 endorses the 'branding' of slaves. This was already a thing. The Bible-God was not the inventor, but the innovator.

This verse speaks about a ceremony of piercing the slave’s ear because the servant loves his master and doesn’t want to go free.

The same way whipping some work animals gets them to work harder.

Humans are not animals; they respond differently. Getting whipped on the back for disobedience injures the person so that they won’t be as effective while they are healing. Losing a tooth does not seem as counterproductive as that.

??Are you saying the passage below doesn't exist in the Bible??

"21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

No, I’m saying your assumptions about that verse, what it means and implies is wrong.

[POI]

What verse in the Bible says you should whip your slaves?

Likewise, what verse in the Bible says it is not okay to own chattel slaves?

Like you have explained, I use critical thought, context, and analysis. As I've stated many times now, whipping your slaves is the gold standard. God sanctions beatings, as long as they do not get injured in the face or die. Since whipping a chattel slave's back was already tried, tested, and approved, this is why God's law also allowed for it. As I stated prior, beating = whipping. Please remember, the objective was to maximize chattel slave production. God tweaked prior habits and traditions to optimize the goal of chattel slave productivity.

This verse speaks about a ceremony of piercing the slave’s ear because the servant loves his master and doesn’t want to go free.

Was piercing their ear not a form a 'branding'? "Branding" was already a thing. Like I stated, God was not the inventor, but instead the innovator. He took existing concepts and adjusted them accordingly.

Humans are not animals; they respond differently. Getting whipped on the back for disobedience injures the person so that they won’t be as effective while they are healing. Losing a tooth does not seem as counterproductive as that.

Right. Animals and humans are different. Animals do not respond to reason. Which is why when the NT tells slaves to work harder, to please God more, humans may sometimes do it. But when that was still not enough, whip, oops, I mean beat them, with impunity -- per the Bible.

No, I’m saying your assumptions about that verse, what it means and implies is wrong.

POI's position - God is okay with slavery. God provides folks the "best" way to maximize chattel slavery production. Which is to tell them God is watching them. And if that does not work, it is okay to beat them.

The Tanager's position - God is not okay with slavery?

If you wish to continue, we can. Otherwise, I re-offer an out. As the video suggests (at the closing), ancient humans operated as if there was no God guiding them at all. Let me know?

[Mae von H]

Where do you get the idea that colonial slaves were bought and killed? From what I’ve read, slaves were expensive and even received medical care. It’s like saying successful tyrants kill off their generals.

Is your position that colonial chattel slaves were treated "well"?

Is your position that colonial chattel slaves were bought and then killed or beaten to death?

[The Tanager]

Likewise, what verse in the Bible says it is not okay to own chattel slaves?

You are claiming God was okay with that. It is your burden to show God is okay with that. Arguments from silence and shifting the burden by asking your opponent to prove the negative is not carrying your burden rationally.

Like you have explained, I use critical thought, context, and analysis. As I've stated many times now, whipping your slaves is the gold standard. God sanctions beatings, as long as they do not get injured in the face or die. Since whipping a chattel slave's back was already tried, tested, and approved, this is why God's law also allowed for it. As I stated prior, beating = whipping. Please remember, the objective was to maximize chattel slave production. God tweaked prior habits and traditions to optimize the goal of chattel slave productivity.

No, this is you using speculation, arguments from silence, and focusing on minority and philosophically uncharitable psychologizing.

Was piercing their ear not a form a 'branding'? "Branding" was already a thing. Like I stated, God was not the inventor, but instead the innovator. He took existing concepts and adjusted them accordingly.

It sounds more like a covenant, with both parties agreeing, not one person “branding” another like they would cattle.

If you wish to continue, we can. Otherwise, I re-offer an out. As the video suggests (at the closing), ancient humans operated as if there was no God guiding them at all. Let me know?

I’ll continue as long as there is new content for me to respond to. If this is the end, thanks for sharing your thoughts and allowing me to share mine. I will definitely not take your ‘out’ as it concerns what the Bible offers.

[Mae von H]

The ancient Hebrews had rights for slaves.

Right, because the "Bible-God" said so.

And what you forget, is that the Bible tells masters that they will answer to God as to how they treated other people, something missing in Roman and might as well as Middle eastern slavery. Roman way of life was anything but the “gold standard” as the New Testament deploys how Roman behaved.

Well, God already weighed in on the beatings, that such actions are not to be deemed punishable. So, if the masters beat their slaves on earth, it would logically also follow not to be punishable in Heaven either.

God's objective was to instruct slavery, the right way. Beatings, brandings, and telling the slaves to work their hardest, was God's way. It's clear the objective is/was to maximize productivity from the chattel slaves.

“Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.” Since you desire to accuse God of evil, wrongly, there’s no way to show you your error. You’re wearing the glasses to see what is really not there.