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]

I was sorely tempted to comment but this is a good place to pause. The name of the game is to constantly demand answers of the secularists but never answer.

I put my theist hat on and the only one I can come up with id 'Jesus made it all different.

Fine, so jettison the OT, which is progress. But even the NT falls short. The pronouncement of Jesus on marriage led to decades of misery with the Catholic church being the worst offender against what is Good and Moral as it still is. Notably in the ban on contraception. It is one the most profoundly distressing situations that former Spanish colonies are still beholden to and supporting the vile and corrupt global business and shrugging off the covering up of abuses.

But coming onto protestantism where it cosily rolls in millions of dollars in Europe,. never mind the ongoing scam and swindle it becomes in the US. Even without the horrific grip it has on politics.

It is not good and heaven known how religion has managed to persuade so many that it's a force for good when it actually is not, quite apart from it isn't actually true.

And thus we can put the adherents on the spot by asking where they stand on moral issues. Have they moved on from the awful Bible morality or they have not, either of which is an embarrassment to them.

Which is perhaps why we do not get answers but posts dickering about the meaning of this or that word.

[POI]

Is your critique that God has the 1) wrong standards or that those standards are correct, but 2) conveyed ineptly?

I don't know yet, because you never answered my prior inquiry. What is God's objective position on the following topics?

a) gay sex (okay or not okay)?
b) rape (okay or not okay)?
c) slavery (okay or not okay)?

Not okay. Now, which critique are you making?

For now, 2) conveyed ineptly. I am not making a moral assessment, but instead a logical one.

Based upon your answer, let's start with the topic of c) slavery. If he is (not okay) with it, then why did he not instead just abolish it, like he did with many other topics he does not think are okay?

[The Tanager]

For now, 2) conveyed ineptly. I am not making a moral assessment, but instead a logical one.

Based upon your answer, let's start with the topic of c) slavery. If he is (not okay) with it, then why did he not instead just abolish it, like he did with many other topics he does not think are okay?

Perhaps he knows that first getting people to treat their slaves with more care will be more effective in the short and long term of moving humans away from enslaving others.

[TRANSPONDER]

For now, 2) conveyed ineptly. I am not making a moral assessment, but instead a logical one.

Based upon your answer, let's start with the topic of c) slavery. If he is (not okay) with it, then why did he not instead just abolish it, like he did with many other topics he does not think are okay?

Perhaps he knows that first getting people to treat their slaves with more care will be more effective in the short and long term of moving humans away from enslaving others.

That is stretching excuses to snapping point. It doesn't really matter because of course you are thinking (in the usual apologetics fallacy) that you only have to think up an excuse,no matter how far -fetched to keep faith that the Bible is True in its' claims,dogmas and exhortations. But in fact it is really that the argument that the OT gives rules about how badly you can treat your slaves as property because that's 'just how it was back then' which the Bible apologists admit themselves, and God didn't tell them any different because there was no god having anything to do with it.

'The simplest explanation that explains the facts is the one to be preferred'.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well - being is an instinct we all have. Of course how to achieve that varies with the individual and indeed groups. This is why reciprocation and discussion is a way of getting past the selfishness you point to as the apparent only result of a 'subjective'man - made morality.

People disagree on what constitutes “well-being” not just how to achieve it. Some have thought enslaving others adds to well-being (even for the slaves themselves), others have disagreed, for instance. Subjective morality is all about making rules work for one’s own preferences and those with the most power get their preferences. The rest have to deal with it. There is no right/wrong, just differences.

This is why the Bible is not a good moral guide (though I agree it tried to be, back in the day'. Society moved on from slavery to emancipation, for reasons of empathy and reciprocity (an instinct improved by reasoning) and not through the Bible which was rather quoted to argue that it was best for the slaves anyway.

I would hate (and so I believe would you) to be as cynical in supposing that 'preferences' are just about personal benefit. We don't (1) feel happy to see others in misery and want and because we want to feel good, we want to see others doing good, too (or at least put it out of our minds). You are still confusing the problems (which as I said are not solved by religion) of effecting the just and beneficial society we (generally) want with whether the ideals are valid without the diktat of a god, which as I argue above, are not that good in any case.

(1) unless we are the kind of Christian who relishes the idea of peering over the heavenly balustrade to watch the enemies of the true Faith on the infernal barbeque.

[The Tanager]

I would hate (and so I believe would you) to be as cynical in supposing that 'preferences' are just about personal benefit. We don't (1) feel happy to see others in misery and want and because we want to feel good, we want to see others doing good, too (or at least put it out of our minds). You are still confusing the problems (which as I said are not solved by religion) of effecting the just and beneficial society we (generally) want with whether the ideals are valid without the diktat of a god, which as I argue above, are not that good in any case.

I never said subjective moral preferences are just about personal benefit. I said only the preferences of those in power matter with subjective morality. These could include allowing some freedoms to others to pursue some of their own preferences (as long as those in power deem them “good” which isn’t really good but simply “what we in power like”). But when preferences collide, those in power win out. Subjective morality leads to the tyranny of the majority (which will change throughout time), not any right/wrong.

That’s not the case with my theistic moral system. In that, there is a true right/wrong, based on how we are made (not arbitrary dictates). Only with a system like that could the Nazis be wrong. In your moral system, the Nazis were just different from us. Sure, we don’t like their preferences, but morality is subjective, so we just have to fight it out and hope we win so that our preferences can be met.

In all of that, I’m not making a judgment. If you think the Nazis were not just different and needed to be fought so you could have your preferences in this world (which include more freedom for Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc.), but that they were actually wrong, then you aren’t a real subjectivist. If you are a real subjectivist, then you would agree with all of this and see no problem with it, rationally.

[POI]

For now, 2) conveyed ineptly. I am not making a moral assessment, but instead a logical one.

Based upon your answer, let's start with the topic of c) slavery. If he is (not okay) with it, then why did he not instead just abolish it, like he did with many other topics he does not think are okay?

Perhaps he knows that first getting people to treat their slaves with more care will be more effective in the short and long term of moving humans away from enslaving others.

Perhaps God is okay with slavery.

[The Tanager]

For now, 2) conveyed ineptly. I am not making a moral assessment, but instead a logical one.

Based upon your answer, let's start with the topic of c) slavery. If he is (not okay) with it, then why did he not instead just abolish it, like he did with many other topics he does not think are okay?

Perhaps he knows that first getting people to treat their slaves with more care will be more effective in the short and long term of moving humans away from enslaving others.

Perhaps God is okay with slavery.

Perhaps, but that would go against your critique of him being inept in explaining it, right?

If he is not okay with it, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that God would know if it would be more effective (short and long term) to first get people to try to treat their slaves with more care than they were, rather than try to immediately abolish the whole thing. If you disagree, why?

[POI]

Perhaps, but that would go against your critique of him being inept in explaining it, right?

Perhaps you are now in between a rock and hard place. You state God is not okay with slavery. If God is okay with slavery, then his communication with you is not only inept (since you argue he isn't okay with slavery), but God also presumably disagrees with <your> view on slavery.

If he is not okay with it, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that God would know if it would be more effective (short and long term) to first get people to try to treat their slaves with more care than they were, rather than try to immediately abolish the whole thing. If you disagree, why?

Nah, it seems more logical and reasonable to just abolish it, like he did with other topics he is not okay with...

[The Tanager]

Perhaps, but that would go against your critique of him being inept in explaining it, right?

Perhaps you are now in between a rock and hard place. You state God is not okay with slavery. If God is okay with slavery, then his communication with you is not only inept (since you argue he isn't okay with slavery), but God also presumably disagrees with <your> view on slavery.

Why wouldn't the ineptness be on my part if this were the case? You are saying the Bible is pro-slavery and so if God is and the Bible is, then it would be straightforward and the error would be mine.

If he is not okay with it, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that God would know if it would be more effective (short and long term) to first get people to try to treat their slaves with more care than they were, rather than try to immediately abolish the whole thing. If you disagree, why?

Nah, it seems more logical and reasonable to just abolish it, like he did with other topics he is not okay with...

I'll assume you mean that if he did it with other topics, it would make sense to do it here, too. But correct me if I am misrepresenting you there. If I understood you correctly, then what other topics are you referring to?