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]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #350]

Notably and notoriously.

Relating to the topic, the evidence is that the Bible was written by men, with the mental mindset of their own time. And Bible apologists say so too, when excusing things that don't look good. Though they refuse to do that with things that look wrong. They simply deny the science.

We have all heard the excuse that ...sure the |Bible was written by men but 'Inspired' by God. Which is brilliant for blaming the mistakes on men but claiming everything that can be excused, wangled or denied into,, in the apologetic eyes at leas, credibility or at least possibility, a true and reliable record, whether or not inspired by a god.

We all know what's going on here and can see it plainly unless the smoked glasses of denial are worn. Evolution, geology and cosmology proves Genesis is wrong, unless one denies the science. Tyre proves that prophecy failed, unless one denies the evidence, and the contradictions of the resurrections as well as the nativities as a test case and precedent (contradictions are real and discredit One account if not both, since neither make sense).and scuppers the credibility of the whole gospel.

If one has an open mind willing to consider rather than dismiss, excuse or ignore the evidence in the bible itself, and all the reasonable person needs is the evidence put in front of them, not just the misrepresentation, fiddlement and propaganda of Christian apologetics.

"Why do people laugh at Creationists?" Well some of their excuses have been a hoot. A Triceratops turning a wheel to activate a conveyor belt on the Ark to deal with the tons of animal waste. And the best - volcanoes blasting Koalas to Australia to explain how they got there. No wonder some Christians give up say 'Ok, Genesis is metaphorical (didn't actually happen)' and it just reflects the condition of man'.

Which is where we came in, as they say. It is the writing of men of their time and cannot be blamed on God (though of course this doesn't wash with slavery as it comes too close to the point - to say men (not God) decided on those rules, which is just trying to be just with the norm for the time - comes too darn close to saying 'it was written by men and is not God's chosen communication'. So God has to be made to have at least the ability to say 'no slaves'; 'No, the sun was made first and caused day and night'; 'No, Tyre will be rebuilt and the Macedonians will have to siege it again'; and 'No, listen, the resurrection actually went like this', but (so the excuse goes) He cannot, as that would be ..interfering..somehow. so to anyone with mind still open, willing to listen and not determined to deny everything (Let's have it again )



... for their 'Blind (indeed blinkered) Faith', they are going to have to admit there is no credible way this is the work, communication, or even opinions of a god, just of men. Just as the hypothesis best fitting the evidences; and far - fetched excuses, making stuff up and denial - even of what the Bible plainly says, never mind of what 'science' says, are not the 'best explanation'. And, IF we goddless can get the facts out there rather than only the swamp of apologetics lies, frankly, they will have to rely on denialist Faith. And we haven't had another Pew' survey, but I will be surprised and disappointed if goddlessness hasn't shot up in the US.

[Mae von H]

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.

Death isn’t the only consequence of sin. It’s fairly common knowledge that children of abusive (a sin) parents or alcoholic (a sin) parents suffer. They don’t die from their parents sin but it’s naive to think they don’t suffer.

(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.

True. But There is still living between sinning and death.

[Mae von H]

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.

Thanks for the kindness. This popular theology, inherited sin from Adam, was invented by Augustine. Was never a consideration before him and so is not in the thinking of the Bible writers. “Sin is outside of us and wants in” is the Biblical view. There’s no contradiction. Sin is at large in the world but not in us until we do sin.

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

The verse says punishment is passed down, not sin. As I said, it is commonly known that abusive, addictive parents have troubled their children’s lives. Good parents benefit their children’s lives. God isn’t angry so that’s the result. Why do you guys find it necessary to cast aspersions?

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

Well, honest people don’t.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Thanks for the kindness. This popular theology, inherited sin from Adam, was invented by Augustine. Was never a consideration before him and so is not in the thinking of the Bible writers. “Sin is outside of us and wants in” is the Biblical view. There’s no contradiction. Sin is at large in the world but not in us until we do sin.

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

The verse says punishment is passed down, not sin. As I said, it is commonly known that abusive, addictive parents have troubled their children’s lives. Good parents benefit their children’s lives. God isn’t angry so that’s the result. Why do you guys find it necessary to cast aspersions?

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

Well, honest people don’t.

Which is why honest people admit the Bible is wrong, flawed and in fact immoral...once the facts are pointed out to them rather than Biblical apologetics.

Such as the evasion that the consequences of 'sin' (wrongdoing) affect those nearby including children. True, but that is a humanist reason not to do wrong, it is nothing to do with Biblical punishment handed down by God for some infraction of his rules and is (unjustly) inflicted on the children. Either this is done by God, unjestly, or it is is a natural consequence of wrongdoing, in which case the Bible its' god and the religion are irrelevant.

To say otherwise is not cherry -picking but it is evasive apologetics and is just as short of being honest.

[Mae von H]

Which is why honest people admit the Bible is wrong, flawed and in fact immoral...once the facts are pointed out to them rather than Biblical apologetics.

Ah the “true Scotsman Fallacy.” “Agree with your personal opinion or you’re dishonest!” Employed when rational arguments fail.

Such as the evasion that the consequences of 'sin' (wrongdoing) affect those nearby including children.

What? Do wrong and children nearby suffer. You think this is merely a Biblical concept? Really? Throw a bomb into a school and the children suffer and you blame God??

True, but that is a humanist reason not to do wrong, it is nothing to do with Biblical punishment handed down by God for some infraction of his rules and is (unjustly) inflicted on the children.

So far the atheist humanist don’t have a good record of being motivated not to abort children and so on.

Either this is done by God, unjestly, or it is is a natural consequence of wrongdoing, in which case the Bible its' god and the religion are irrelevant.

You’re not qualified to know the difference.

To say otherwise is not cherry -picking but it is evasive apologetics and is just as short of being honest.

Ignorance is a fairly valid reason.

[TRANSPONDER]

Which is why honest people admit the Bible is wrong, flawed and in fact immoral...once the facts are pointed out to them rather than Biblical apologetics.

Ah the “true Scotsman Fallacy.” “Agree with your personal opinion or you’re dishonest!” Employed when rational arguments fail.

Such as the evasion that the consequences of 'sin' (wrongdoing) affect those nearby including children.

What? Do wrong and children nearby suffer. You think this is merely a Biblical concept? Really? Throw a bomb into a school and the children suffer and you blame God??

True, but that is a humanist reason not to do wrong, it is nothing to do with Biblical punishment handed down by God for some infraction of his rules and is (unjustly) inflicted on the children.

So far the atheist humanist don’t have a good record of being motivated not to abort children and so on.

Either this is done by God, unjestly, or it is is a natural consequence of wrongdoing, in which case the Bible its' god and the religion are irrelevant.

You’re not qualified to know the difference.

To say otherwise is not cherry -picking but it is evasive apologetics and is just as short of being honest.

Ignorance is a fairly valid reason.

What are you qualified for when you don't even know what the 'No True Scotman' fallacy is? It seems it is used like 'strawman' menn any atheist argument you don't like. .

You seem to misunderstand, too, the problem about mundane consequences of wrongdoing. That is nothing to do with the Biblical idea of God doing it to generations of children.If God is doing it, God is doing wrong (by any morality we were supposedly given), if it merely what happens, God, the Bible and religion is nothing to do with it.

The abortion topic is equally irrelevant. This is a moral matter and Biblical directives are irrelevant, though opposition to womens' rights (I would have thought you were on their side) is more often driven by religious cultism than by real concern.It is rather a meme that the Religious Right get into a froth about a bunch of stem cells but don't care about children (apart from indoctrinating them) after they are born.

Ignorance (of any part of the debate - let's say not knowing the archaeological reasons why the Tyre prophecy fails) is excusable. Denial of the information when given is not.

[Clownboat]

Death isn’t the only consequence of sin.

No one has argued that death is the only consequence of sin. There is religious promotional material that makes this claim, but surely you would not argue that religious promotional material is a legitimate mechanism to arrive a truths. Right?

It’s fairly common knowledge that children of abusive (a sin) parents or alcoholic (a sin) parents suffer. They don’t die from their parents sin but it’s naive to think they don’t suffer.

Except for when they do die from their parents alcoholism. Sin is just a religious concept and has nothing to do with abusive parents though.

True. But There is still living between sinning and death.

As mentioned already, sin is 100% a religious concept. You might as well be threatening your fellow humans with a banana.

We live between bananas and death! Refute that!
(I kid about you refuting this. Just trying to get you to understand that bananas nor sin are scary, unless one has been coerced into believing that they are).

You are religious and convinced that sin is a thing. Sin is your banana. The only difference is that we can show that bananas are real and not something to be feared. Sin is whatever a human believes it to be and varies from one human to another. It's sad, but far too many religious people of all types use it as a club. In reality, bananas don't make for good clubs though.

[TRANSPONDER]

Death isn’t the only consequence of sin.

No one has argued that death is the only consequence of sin. There is religious promotional material that makes this claim, but surely you would not argue that religious promotional material is a legitimate mechanism to arrive a truths. Right?

It’s fairly common knowledge that children of abusive (a sin) parents or alcoholic (a sin) parents suffer. They don’t die from their parents sin but it’s naive to think they don’t suffer.

Except for when they do die from their parents alcoholism. Sin is just a religious concept and has nothing to do with abusive parents though.

True. But There is still living between sinning and death.

As mentioned already, sin is 100% a religious concept. You might as well be threatening your fellow humans with a banana.

We live between bananas and death! Refute that!
(I kid about you refuting this. Just trying to get you to understand that bananas nor sin are scary, unless one has been coerced into believing that they are).

You are religious and convinced that sin is a thing. Sin is your banana. The only difference is that we can show that bananas are real and not something to be feared. Sin is whatever a human believes it to be and varies from one human to another. It's sad, but far too many religious people of all types use it as a club. In reality, bananas don't make for good clubs though.

Yes.Sin is a religious concept and a common one in many religions unconnected with the Abrahamic religions. Many of the concepts like offending the gods, misfortunes that are explained as having offended some divine being and having o somehow get Right with them, and of asking the divine power for some favour is what humanity does in trying to understand and handle (at least) what they cannot understand or control. And of course not doing what the priests tell them to do, which is so often, give them money, is made one of those sins.

Sure, they will adopt and adapt the ethical codes the humans work out to try to regulate society, but Religifying that does not help us to understand what 'Sin' is, even if it might coerce people into doing right out of fear of not being right with God.
I would rather deal with morality open eyed than have to rely on supernatural threats or bribes.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #357]

There is an element of truth in what you wrote but also an element that needs to be expanded. The word “sin” has become a religious word. There is no one modern word to substitute. “Wrong” is close but too mild. The easiest way to clarify this is to pick particular sins and substitute them into your sentence, “sin is not scary.”

How about “murder?” Murder is not scary. Hmmmm is that true? What about “rape?”Rape is not scary…..do you still think sin isn’t scary? What about kidnapping? Kidnapping is not scary….agree?

You see, what you’re doing is rendering the word a different meaning (violating some religious edict) instead of the meaning intended. Using the word as intended shows up this fallacy.

Second, the fact that children (and others) suffer because of the wrong others do is exactly what the Bible describes. The Bible describes real life. That’s why I believe it. It matches what we see in real life. You seem to think the Bible establishes this. It doesn’t, it accurately describes it.

[Mae von H]

Death isn’t the only consequence of sin.

No one has argued that death is the only consequence of sin. There is religious promotional material that makes this claim, but surely you would not argue that religious promotional material is a legitimate mechanism to arrive a truths. Right?

It’s fairly common knowledge that children of abusive (a sin) parents or alcoholic (a sin) parents suffer. They don’t die from their parents sin but it’s naive to think they don’t suffer.

Except for when they do die from their parents alcoholism. Sin is just a religious concept and has nothing to do with abusive parents though.

True. But There is still living between sinning and death.

As mentioned already, sin is 100% a religious concept. You might as well be threatening your fellow humans with a banana.

We live between bananas and death! Refute that!
(I kid about you refuting this. Just trying to get you to understand that bananas nor sin are scary, unless one has been coerced into believing that they are).

You are religious and convinced that sin is a thing. Sin is your banana. The only difference is that we can show that bananas are real and not something to be feared. Sin is whatever a human believes it to be and varies from one human to another. It's sad, but far too many religious people of all types use it as a club. In reality, bananas don't make for good clubs though.

Yes.Sin is a religious concept and a common one in many religions unconnected with the Abrahamic religions. Many of the concepts like offending the gods, misfortunes that are explained as having offended some divine being and having o somehow get Right with them, and of asking the divine power for some favour is what humanity does in trying to understand and handle (at least) what they cannot understand or control. And of course not doing what the priests tell them to do, which is so often, give them money, is made one of those sins.

Exactly what I said, you think of “sin” as offending God. That’s not the point. Sin is mainly wrong we do to others. Murder is sin. Rape is sin. Stealing is sin. Those who do so are perpetrators.

Sure, they will adopt and adapt the ethical codes the humans work out to try to regulate society, but Religifying that does not help us to understand what 'Sin' is, even if it might coerce people into doing right out of fear of not being right with God.
I would rather deal with morality open eyed than have to rely on supernatural threats or bribes.

Well, without God, as many wise men have concluded, moral codes become only that which you cannot get away with. Humans historically don’t care about society, just themselves. If they can steal freely, they do. Modern laws in California demonstrate this clearly. Macys is closing as are CVS and other pharmacies in SFO. Old people living there will have no pharmacy. People don’t care about society, clearly. So every test of man being moral for the sake of society fails.