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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

We did this and surely we know this. Slaves (In Greek and Roman times) and indeed in the Grand Old party of the confederated slave states, we know they were bought, sold, treated like property, worked to gain top efficiency. Mostly if your business relies on work animals (I apologise for the analogy) the idea is not to beat them to death but to teach them a lesson if they do not do the job expected of them.

But we know what's going on here. The Bible apologists cannot bear it that the Bible condones slavery when a Good God (never mind the sainted Jesus) should say 'No slaves' just once, each. That's all tat is needed in the pages of endless verbiage we actually get.

So the meanings, the excuses and even what the text actually says has to be examined, discussed and represented in the hope that some other result than 'Bible condones slavery' will turn up.

It won't and to claim it says anything else is faithbased denial, which is why anyone with Biblefaith is not worth listening to.
,
Sorry

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Absolute pot -kettleprojection. The OT absolutely says lifetime slavery for non Hebrew slaves (Hebrew ones had to be let go - aside the ear - skewing trick) and you could beat the (like all other slaves from Ancient Greek records to good 'Ol Confederate Virginia). And the NT is culpable by omiting to say 'no slaves'. All the denial in on your side.

But don't feel bad (said he rhetorically since you would never admit the fats proved you wrong) because this has been the common apologetics excuse, ever since someone first saidf "Hey...it says here it's ok to own slaves..."

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Still pretty disgusting. Almost as bad as if you were excusing actual slavery by calling it something else. The correct burden of proof (to show that what says slavery isn't slavery) is on you, and the failure of the Bible to say 'Now slaves' is argument from silence by the apologists.

You juggling rhetoric and semantics is the fiddling you accuse POI of. The OT is quite simple. It is ok to own slaves and the non - Hebrew ones are slaves for life and beating is specifically permitted. The rhetorical fiddling to excuse the Bible from what it says in plain print is all of the apologetics side, because at least they accept that human morals has moved on.

Your excuse that the awl through the ear was merely a handshake agreement by the (Hebrew) slave to become property for life.When the slave's wife and kids are kept by the owner and the swindle is, the slave leaves free without them, or can submit to being branded a lifetime chattel slave for life and no Bible get out applies The Bible (at least|) is utterly disgusting and yet again I am truly thankful I am atheist and don't have to sell my own integrity down the river to excuse it.

[POI]

You are claiming God was okay with that.

God is okay with slavery because he weighed in on the topic and gave specific instructions and how to do it the right way, God's way.

It is your burden to show God is okay with that.

For which I have been doing ad nauseum, and effectively without rebuttal.

Arguments from silence

The only argument from silence is to instead claim God is not okay with slavery. In fact, you will hear "crickets" where this position is concerned. This is because God only expresses his instruction on how to do slavery properly, and never later abolishes it anywhere. Only humans do, thousands of years later, to spite God's complete sanctioning of this topic.

and shifting the burden by asking your opponent to prove the negative is not carrying your burden rationally.

I have more than met my burden. It is you who's argument, that God is not okay with slavery, is silent. This is because God IS okay with slavey, pure and simple.

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

This would be a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. God classifies groups. Chattel slaves are deemed property, by God. Their masters can beat them with immunity and keep them for life.

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

LOL! Okay? So, if I tag your ear, and claim you as my property for life, you are not 'branded?' Like I've been stating, God is not the inventor of these tasks, but instead the innovator.

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.

Let the readers decide which position is more logical:

POI - No such God was driving these rules at all. Either because the existing God does not exist (or) this God was not part of the 'slavery' topic. Humans wrote such laws to 'legalize' slavery practices for themselves. And apparently, the Israelites wanted to tell readers how to maximize chattel slave production.

The Tanager - God is not okay with slavery. And because the Israelites were too dang stubborn, God wanted to progress them away from slavery slowly. Even though God had no problem slamming them for disobedience in Ezekiel, again and again?

[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"?

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

My position is that it's safe to say that being a chattel slave "sucked." Are you glad it was abolished by most societies, or not?

[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?

We did this and surely we know this. Slaves (In Greek and Roman times) and indeed in the Grand Old party of the confederated slave states, we know they were bought, sold, treated like property, worked to gain top efficiency. Mostly if your business relies on work animals (I apologise for the analogy) the idea is not to beat them to death but to teach them a lesson if they do not do the job expected of them.

What the US did to slaves was shameful but that is not in the discussion.

But we know what's going on here. The Bible apologists cannot bear it that the Bible condones slavery when a Good God (never mind the sainted Jesus) should say 'No slaves' just once, each. That's all tat is needed in the pages of endless verbiage we actually get.

Ah contrar! The atheists can’t stand it that slaves in Israel had rights unlike the US.

So the meanings, the excuses and even what the text actually says has to be examined, discussed and represented in the hope that some other result than 'Bible condones slavery' will turn up.

It won't and to claim it says anything else is faithbased denial, which is why anyone with Biblefaith is not worth listening to.
,
Sorry

Glad you’re sorry. That’s a start.

[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.

“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.

Being you have no response to my conclusion; my position stands unattested.

[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.

Being you have no response to my conclusion; my position stands unattested.

You refuse to see what is presented so it’s pointless. You are in error but that is your preferred position.

[Mae von H]

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

Of course not but it varied and only 1/4 of the southern American had slaves at all. The US slave trade was horrible.

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

My position is that it's safe to say that being a chattel slave "sucked." Are you glad it was abolished by most societies, or not?

Of course. Notice it was abolished from within in the west, although it’s not gone from the earth.

[Mae von H]

The weird thing is, otherwise fairly intelligent atheists are aghast that war and slavery are mentioned in the Bible as though it’s supposed to be some kind of Polly Anna child’s book with flowers and butterflies an everyone is sweet. That it describes real people in real life escapes the expectations.

Wars fought in ancient times were fought to the death or slavery for the losers. Those were the only options. Wars in the last centuries were no longer fought to the death or slavery so modern people don’t seem to understand this. Indian wars in the Americas were the same. Tribes fought and wiped out whole tribes taking a few of them to be slaves. The whole world was that way. The winners didn’t just govern the new territory. That’s only in modern warfare.