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?

[Mae von H]

[
You position rests on the assumption that the supposed god (name your own) is just, when the problem of evil questions the assumption of a just god, or even whether there is an intervening god at all, and that's even before we get the god of the Bible, which is demonstrably unjust by any moral code we use and has to be excused by the 'God can do what he likes' overrule.

But I thank you for perfectly displaying the basic, inherent and underlying fallacy of assuming as a Given what is being debated (God's goodness) that renders pretty much all Biblical apologetics irrational and invalid from the start.

I do not thank you for assuming the point of discussion, that God is not good. You continue with the inherent fallacy of assuming facts not in evidence but do not see it. People who live in glass houses……

[TRANSPONDER]

[
You position rests on the assumption that the supposed god (name your own) is just, when the problem of evil questions the assumption of a just god, or even whether there is an intervening god at all, and that's even before we get the god of the Bible, which is demonstrably unjust by any moral code we use and has to be excused by the 'God can do what he likes' overrule.

But I thank you for perfectly displaying the basic, inherent and underlying fallacy of assuming as a Given what is being debated (God's goodness) that renders pretty much all Biblical apologetics irrational and invalid from the start.

I do not thank you for assuming the point of discussion, that God is not good. You continue with the inherent fallacy of assuming facts not in evidence but do not see it. People who live in glass houses……

I understand that you are unable to see very good reason to doubt that the god depicted in the Bible is either not good, incompetent or is not there in any way that affects us.

The Bible and thus Christianity is, on evidence wrong, in many respects. The Biblical and doctrinal claim that the god depicted in the Bible is good is one of those things that are wrong.

[1213]

They are the ones that are credited to a god (name your own) and the obvious one is the principle of reciprocity or the golden rule, which is of course found in many cultures before the Bible did its' own version and in some cases the NT changed it to to excuse interfering with others because you think it would be to their benefit, and never mind what they want.

By what I see, very few follow that rule. But, in any case, all the evidence points to that the golden rule comes from God and humanists seem to have copied that from believers.

[Mae von H]

[
You position rests on the assumption that the supposed god (name your own) is just, when the problem of evil questions the assumption of a just god, or even whether there is an intervening god at all, and that's even before we get the god of the Bible, which is demonstrably unjust by any moral code we use and has to be excused by the 'God can do what he likes' overrule.

But I thank you for perfectly displaying the basic, inherent and underlying fallacy of assuming as a Given what is being debated (God's goodness) that renders pretty much all Biblical apologetics irrational and invalid from the start.

I do not thank you for assuming the point of discussion, that God is not good. You continue with the inherent fallacy of assuming facts not in evidence but do not see it. People who live in glass houses……

I understand that you are unable to see very good reason to doubt that the god depicted in the Bible is either not good, incompetent or is not there in any way that affects us.

The Bible and thus Christianity is, on evidence wrong, in many respects. The Biblical and doctrinal claim that the god depicted in the Bible is good is one of those things that are wrong.

You are very much alone in this view. Millions and millions see clearly the goodness of God down through the millennia. So you are actually alone in your view.

Now numbers do not a truth make. But accusing a Being billions see and have seen as overwhelmingly good to be evil, is unusual.

[TRANSPONDER]

[
You position rests on the assumption that the supposed god (name your own) is just, when the problem of evil questions the assumption of a just god, or even whether there is an intervening god at all, and that's even before we get the god of the Bible, which is demonstrably unjust by any moral code we use and has to be excused by the 'God can do what he likes' overrule.

But I thank you for perfectly displaying the basic, inherent and underlying fallacy of assuming as a Given what is being debated (God's goodness) that renders pretty much all Biblical apologetics irrational and invalid from the start.

I do not thank you for assuming the point of discussion, that God is not good. You continue with the inherent fallacy of assuming facts not in evidence but do not see it. People who live in glass houses……

I understand that you are unable to see very good reason to doubt that the god depicted in the Bible is either not good, incompetent or is not there in any way that affects us.

The Bible and thus Christianity is, on evidence wrong, in many respects. The Biblical and doctrinal claim that the god depicted in the Bible is good is one of those things that are wrong.

You are very much alive in this view. Millions and millions see clearly the goodness of God down through the millennia. So you are actually alone in your view.

Quite apart from appeal to numbers being a fallacy, millions and millions have seen the same thing in different religions and different gods. And many (if still in a minority) have come to see no need to believe in a god, good or not.

You are going to need far better arguments than trying to buy the argument with numbers.

[benchwarmer]

Ummm, how were the first born animals supposed to kill some lambs and save themselves? What about the slaves? You think they were free to go out and find a lamb to kill?

The Hebrews were slaves and had animals. Didn’t seem to be a problem. Animals are not humans. We even eat them.

You have missed my point. Unless the animals in question were residing in the house with lamb blood on it, the cows in the field would be losing their first born to this mass killing. How were these cows supposed to spare their first born? Your answer seems to imply you don't care, it's just animals and we eat them so whatever? It seems to me like a massive waste of life because God is 'mad' and can't figure out how to simply kill those who 'wronged' Him. Rather he only passes over those with blood over their doorways.

In case it still isn't clear, I'm pointing out the ridiculous method of 'judgement' here. In a nutshell "I'm going to blindly kill stuff unless you first kill stuff and paint your doors with some blood". Truly a master plan.

Leaving all that aside, you are tacitly admitting this God has no clue about what really resides in any of these human's hearts and minds. He requires them to slaughter some lambs and paint their doorways to signal to Himself that these people don't deserve the coming slaughter.

There is no logical step between what I said and God’s not knowing the human heart. Can you please paint a bridge in there as to how you drew that conclusion. Or maybe you’re unaware that this was a visible picture of the coming lamb of God for them.

I thought the bridge was pretty clear, but let's break this down.

1) God wants to pass some judgement right? Yes, we've already agreed on this.

2) God's method of judgement in this story is to kill every first born in the land right? Yes, it's right there in the Bible and quoted in previous replies.

3) In order to avoid this judgement, God's method is to ask the people to kill a blemish free lamb, paint their doorways with it's blood, and eat the lamb in a very particular way. See Exodus 12 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

Now, my contention is this is patently ridiculous for an all knowing, compassionate, loving God.

4) Can the God of the Bible figure out which people deserve to die due to whatever judgement He wants to pass? Yes, see Genesis 6:5. He knows all our thoughts and what is in our hearts. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

5) Can the God of the Bible instantly kill someone that does something wrong? Yes, poor ole Uzzah simply tried to steady the Ark: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

So, we have a God that knows the hearts and minds of men and can certainly selectively kill people when He feels like it. Why do we have this mass killing of first borns then? Some sort of 'sign' I can guess will be the response?

Do you know what would have been the most spectacular 'sign' and show of true power? During daylight, in plain sight of everyone, strike down every person that is currently deserving of this divine judgment (in this case related to Pharoah not letting the Israelites go and according to you some baby killing).

What do we instead have? Indiscriminate killing of first borns (including babies and livestock) if someone failed to kill a lamb and paint their door. Wow, what an awesome story!

On top of that, the people/animals actually killed in this charade of justice are NOT necessarily the ones that had any choice! You do realize that infants would have been swept up in this right? What did the first born calf of every cow in Egypt have to do with any of this? Surely if you step back for a second you can at least see the punishment is not just for those who committed a crime?

When we sin, our offspring are affected. When we go right, our offspring are affected. It’s the way it is.

This is a ludicrous apologetic, but we all know where you got if from so I can't fault you for that.

However, please explain to the class how the first born of all the livestock sinned? This should be interesting. Please provide Bible quotes, not personal opinions on this one. I've never seen how livestock somehow inherits the sins of men.

Let's take this full circle now and show the hypocrisy on display here:

Your very first response to me in the previous reply was:

No, because he murdered countless babies.

So Pharoah deserves judgment because he murdered countless babies correct? I assume so since you made a point about me missing that.

Now, how many babies did your God kill in this divine judgement while killing every first born?

This seems to be yet another case of "Do as I say, not as I do" coming from this Bible God. We're right back to "God can do no wrong" even if He is doing exactly what He is judging others for doing.

The chances to escape punishment were available. The Hebrew men and women who saw their young boys murdered for no just reason saw the murderers suffer the same for just reasons. But you just don’t see it. And God was so kind as to provide an escape to anyone taking it, something the Egyptian soldiers didn’t do. But you don’t see it. Have we finished this point?

I think I'm not the one who isn't seeing it, but we will let readers decide.

God is mad because Pharoah killed babies (you pointed this out).

God's response is go kill some babies (and livestock and every first born regardless of age).

Your response to this hypocrisy is "They had a chance to escape punishment". Well my question is why was God using such a ridiculous punishment to begin with? Just kill the sinners and avoid the needless bloodshed. I know, I know, we are all sinners and somehow you are going to paint this as wondrous mercy.

And some people wonder how Christians deconvert with such mighty apologetics available.

[Mae von H]

Ummm, how were the first born animals supposed to kill some lambs and save themselves? What about the slaves? You think they were free to go out and find a lamb to kill?

The Hebrews were slaves and had animals. Didn’t seem to be a problem. Animals are not humans. We even eat them.

You have missed my point. Unless the animals in question were residing in the house with lamb blood on it, the cows in the field would be losing their first born to this mass killing. How were these cows supposed to spare their first born? Your answer seems to imply you don't care, it's just animals and we eat them so whatever? It seems to me like a massive waste of life because God is 'mad' and can't figure out how to simply kill those who 'wronged' Him. Rather he only passes over those with blood over their doorways.

Do you think those who eat veal cruel? Do you eat animals yourself? If the former answer is not “yes” and the latter “no,” it’s hypocritical to mourn for a cow losing its calf, which are constantly being slaughtered for meat and no one thinks it’s horribly evil. Do you support abortion? Are baby cows of greater value?

In case it still isn't clear, I'm pointing out the ridiculous method of 'judgement' here. In a nutshell "I'm going to blindly kill stuff unless you first kill stuff and paint your doors with some blood". Truly a master plan.

Since you deem yourself morally superior and weep for the perpetrators of baby killers, what more is there to say?

Leaving all that aside, you are tacitly admitting this God has no clue about what really resides in any of these human's hearts and minds. He requires them to slaughter some lambs and paint their doorways to signal to Himself that these people don't deserve the coming slaughter.

There is no logical step between what I said and God’s not knowing the human heart. Can you please paint a bridge in there as to how you drew that conclusion. Or maybe you’re unaware that this was a visible picture of the coming lamb of God for them.

I thought the bridge was pretty clear, but let's break this down.

1) God wants to pass some judgement right? Yes, we've already agreed on this.

No, but at all. You’ve conveniently and dishonestly down graded the matter to “some” judgement not the judgement on a nation that sent its soldiers to murder young boys.

2) God's method of judgement in this story is to kill every first born in the land right? Yes, it's right there in the Bible and quoted in previous replies.

No, God, the judge killed no one. The spiritual being was dispatched to execute justice on anyone unwilling to sacrifice a lamb.

3) In order to avoid this judgement, God's method is to ask the people to kill a blemish free lamb, paint their doorways with it's blood, and eat the lamb in a very particular way. See Exodus 12 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

Fresh roasted meat…. doesn’t sound bad.

Now, my contention is this is patently ridiculous for an all knowing, compassionate, loving God.

Since you change the description to fit the conclusion you WANT, it’s likely you’ve done this during your studies.

4) Can the God of the Bible figure out which people deserve to die due to whatever judgement He wants to pass? Yes, see Genesis 6:5. He knows all our thoughts and what is in our hearts. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

5) Can the God of the Bible instantly kill someone that does something wrong? Yes, poor ole Uzzah simply tried to steady the Ark: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

How would any person there know why people suddenly stopped dead?

So, we have a God that knows the hearts and minds of men and can certainly selectively kill people when He feels like it. Why do we have this mass killing of first borns then? Some sort of 'sign' I can guess will be the response?

Because NO ONE would have understood why some suddenly died and do you really think if God killed every one who’d ever had a wrong thought that anyone would be left standing?

Do you know what would have been the most spectacular 'sign' and show of true power? During daylight, in plain sight of everyone, strike down every person that is currently deserving of this divine judgment (in this case related to Pharoah not letting the Israelites go and according to you some baby killing).

How would anyone KNOW why so
many suddenly died with NO WAY to obtain salvation. Why is this morally superior???

What do we instead have? Indiscriminate killing of first borns (including babies and livestock) if someone failed to kill a lamb and paint their door. Wow, what an awesome story!

On top of that, the people/animals actually killed in this charade of justice are NOT necessarily the ones that had any choice! You do realize that infants would have been swept up in this right? What did the first born calf of every cow in Egypt have to do with any of this? Surely if you step back for a second you can at least see the punishment is not just for those who committed a crime?

When we sin, our offspring are affected. When we go right, our offspring are affected. It’s the way it is.

This is a ludicrous apologetic, but we all know where you got if from so I can't fault you for that.

Your solution is terribly cruel, unjust and totally lacking in mercy. No warning, no hope, and killed for your thoughts!!

However, please explain to the class how the first born of all the livestock sinned? This should be interesting. Please provide Bible quotes, not personal opinions on this one. I've never seen how livestock somehow inherits the sins of men.

Do you eat animals? Do you weep over the aborted babies?

Let's take this full circle now and show the hypocrisy on display here:

Your very first response to me in the previous reply was:

No, because he murdered countless babies.

So Pharoah deserves judgment because he murdered countless babies correct? I assume so since you made a point about me missing that.

Now, how many babies did your God kill in this divine judgement while killing every first born?

This seems to be yet another case of "Do as I say, not as I do" coming from this Bible God. We're right back to "God can do no wrong" even if He is doing exactly what He is judging others for doing.

The chances to escape punishment were available. The Hebrew men and women who saw their young boys murdered for no just reason saw the murderers suffer the same for just reasons. But you just don’t see it. And God was so kind as to provide an escape to anyone taking it, something the Egyptian soldiers didn’t do. But you don’t see it. Have we finished this point?

I think I'm not the one who isn't seeing it, but we will let readers decide.

God is mad because Pharoah killed babies (you pointed this out).

WRONG!!! He wasn’t mad. Stop casting aspersions.

God's response is go kill some babies (and livestock and every first born regardless of age).

Your response to this hypocrisy is "They had a chance to escape punishment". Well my question is why was God using such a ridiculous punishment to begin with? Just kill the sinners and avoid the needless bloodshed. I know, I know, we are all sinners and somehow you are going to paint this as wondrous mercy.

And some people wonder how Christians deconvert with such mighty apologetics available.

Wow! You in your magnanimous mercy want him to strike people dead…suddenly …because they had bad THOUGHTS!!! And you find this fair so animals, no joke ANIMALS, might be spared.

[benchwarmer]

Do you think those who eat veal cruel?

No.

Do you eat animals yourself?

Yes.

If the former answer is not “yes” and the latter “no,” it’s hypocritical to mourn for a cow losing its calf, which are constantly being slaughtered for meat and no one thinks it’s horribly evil.

No, it's not hypocritical. I fully support killing animals to eat them to survive.

Let me ask you a question:

Do you kill animals for no reason other than they happen to be <insert whatever qualifier you want - maybe first born?>

Do you think it's moral to simply kill animals for no reason?

Do you support abortion?

This is a gray area for me and I'm sure you'll gleefully twist my words around it. In general, I support the rights of women to control their own bodies and terminating an early pregnancy is in line with this. HOWEVER, I don't condone abortion as a means of 'birth control' and it should not be used 'casually'. I realize there is no black and white here.

If a pregnancy is going to cost the life of the mother I absolutely support the mother's choice of what to do.
If the mother was raped, I respect the mother's choice, but would prefer she terminates as early as possible. Have fun trying to hold my feet to the fire and define 'early', but this is my opinion.
If the mother had sex with consent then I still repect the mother's choice, but would have preferred if she chose proper birth control and definitely terminate as early as possible.

If the mother leaves the pregnancy until late term and her life is not in danger then I become less and less alright with it if the baby would be able to survive on it's own at the time the mother is contemplating abortion.


Have at it, I know you will have some righteous words for me

Are baby cows of greater value?

No, but we should also not just randomly kill baby cows for now reason. Is life that worthless to you? If it's a cow who cares? If it's being killed to consume, then I have no problem with it. If it's being killed to lie in the field then I have a problem.

1) God wants to pass some judgement right? Yes, we've already agreed on this.

No, but at all. You’ve conveniently and dishonestly down graded the matter to “some” judgement not the judgement on a nation that sent its soldiers to murder young boys.

I'm going to borrow a phrase from one of my previous debate opponents here. GOOD GRIEF!

Are you really going to pick nits that I use the word 'some'? Do you know what this works means? It means an amount.

I think readers can judge for themselves what's happening here and that is perfectly fine with me.

2) God's method of judgement in this story is to kill every first born in the land right? Yes, it's right there in the Bible and quoted in previous replies.

No, God, the judge killed no one. The spiritual being was dispatched to execute justice on anyone unwilling to sacrifice a lamb.

Please open your Bible to this passage and let me know how it goes:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

I'm sure we will now get into translation fights. Regardless, whether God (as shown above) or one of His angels did it, it was at the order of God. God certainly has killed people directly (poor Uzzah), why wouldn't He do it here? Doesn't want to get His hands dirty??

Now, my contention is this is patently ridiculous for an all knowing, compassionate, loving God.

Since you change the description to fit the conclusion you WANT, it’s likely you’ve done this during your studies.

4) Can the God of the Bible figure out which people deserve to die due to whatever judgement He wants to pass? Yes, see Genesis 6:5. He knows all our thoughts and what is in our hearts. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

5) Can the God of the Bible instantly kill someone that does something wrong? Yes, poor ole Uzzah simply tried to steady the Ark: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

How would any person there know why people suddenly stopped dead?

Fine, let's update this since you are correct. God should take credit. God should at the same moment (or maybe 5 minutes earlier to gather the crowds for more impact) clearly speak from the clouds in a booming voice and explain what's happening. He can do that:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

9 Then the Lord said to Moses, “I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, in order that the people may hear when I speak with you and so trust you ever after.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud;
they kept his decrees
and the statutes that he gave them.

Any more updates? We are definitely narrowing in on a much more logical narrative here.

So, we have a God that knows the hearts and minds of men and can certainly selectively kill people when He feels like it. Why do we have this mass killing of first borns then? Some sort of 'sign' I can guess will be the response?

Because NO ONE would have understood why some suddenly died and do you really think if God killed every one who’d ever had a wrong thought that anyone would be left standing?

See above, solved.

Your solution is terribly cruel, unjust and totally lacking in mercy. No warning, no hope, and killed for your thoughts!!

You are really trying to wriggle out of this aren't you?

A solution that only kills the problem people is 'terribly cruel, unjust, and totally lacking in mercy'. Yet having a mass killing of first borns - not necessarily the people (or animals) that did the terrible things is not? Seriously? How are you saying this with a straight face?

I'll let readers decide which method seems more logical. Clearly I'm not trying to convince you.

However, please explain to the class how the first born of all the livestock sinned? This should be interesting. Please provide Bible quotes, not personal opinions on this one. I've never seen how livestock somehow inherits the sins of men.

Do you eat animals? Do you weep over the aborted babies?

Now who is ignoring questions? (see our other discussion). You did not answer my question, but side stepped it because you know there is no logical (or even Biblical) answer. Readers take note of what is happening.

I'm going to stop here. We are going in circles and we can let readers decide who has put forth the better arguments and questions. I will continue to engage if you have something new. At this point we are apparently just talking past each other.

[Clownboat]

we sin, our offspring are affected. When we go right, our offspring are affected. It’s the way it is.

Not according to the Bible.

Deuteronomy 24:16 New King James Version (NKJV)
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.

(For context)
Romans 6:23
King James Version
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[benchwarmer]

we sin, our offspring are affected. When we go right, our offspring are affected. It’s the way it is.

Not according to the Bible.

Deuteronomy 24:16 New King James Version (NKJV)
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.

(For context)
Romans 6:23
King James Version
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

To be fair to Mae and likely infuriating at the same time (since there is contradiction), the following implies sin is inherited from Adam:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

18 Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.

The following implies that in some cases sin does pass down (depends on how badly you upset God I guess, don't make Him jealous!)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me

In other words, the Bible is a wonderful tome. You can cherry pick pretty much whatever moral position or picture of God you like.