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]

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.

I'd hate to have as miserable a view of humanity as you do. The idea of loyalty, sympathy, the need for co - operation and organised just society is innate all over, outside of Christian cultures, even if sectarianism, religious squabbles, use of religion to exploit other and even interfere with Law, politics, education and society is just as strong.

But that is how we evolved - to survive in competition with others, other tribes and other countries, which is why quarrels, crime and wars are endemic, which is a poor show for a morality supposedly handed down by a god (name you own).

The fact is that, dodgy as things look right now, I think back to hope of the 90's - 2000 when Russia and China were nearly good guys, the crumminess of Communism evolving into capitalism if not quite democracy, with the communication, co - operation, interaction freedom, indeed and social progress, notably in Myanmar (where my wife came from since we are talking) and the military thugs that ran the place allowed the popular party to elect a president. It all looked so promising until increased crackdown by dictators and though it looks bad, oddly Myanmar is the first place where the military dictatorship seems to be neat to being overthrown. If that could be done, the future could look as bright as it did in the 90's.

All this of course to say it is human behavior based on evolved instinct but socially evolved through social philosophy, and if people don't obey the rules... well that was always the trouble with religious morality, only secular society doesn't need to make up excuses.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #361]

I read the first sentence of the ad hominem and that’s it. I suppose you think no one murders or rapes or steals. Wonder how that turns out for you, believing no one ever sins, i.e., does terrible wrongs to others. Maybe you live on a farm in Montana where these things don’t happen. Must be nice.

[Clownboat]

[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.

I'm sorry Mae, but sin is 100% a religious concept. It cannot be shown to be a real thing.

You make sin real for yourself by calling murder, which is a real thing a sin and you do the same with rape. Societies have known for thousands of years that to murder your fellow human is not good for the said society as a whole. Calling it a sin is redundant and completely meaningless unless you can convince said society to believe there is some god or gods that will punish them for committing the claimed sin of murder.

In reality, societies figured this out long before any god concepts were credited with the idea. Further evidence is that when a Christian loses their belief, they don't become murdering rapists. Calling bad acts 'sin' was never necessary. Ironically and sadly, if you want to find those that rape children, we all know where to look and it's not at atheists.

Second, the fact that children (and others) suffer because of the wrong others do is exactly what the Bible describes.

You obviously didn't think this one through. It does not take some religious holy book for humans to understand that people suffer when others do wrong. It's laughable to me that you try to credit a Bible with figuring this out.

The Bible describes real life.

Global Flood
Talking animals
Dead bodies returning to life
Sorcering up fish and bread
Walking on water
Predicting the future
Earth stopping its rotation

I do not wish to share in what you claim to be real life. You are free to hold any belief you want, but to call such things 'real life' is your fantasy.

That’s why I believe it. It matches what we see in real life.

I just cannot join you in this very odd belief statement you continue to make because reality doesn't agree with your faith claim.

If I believe in Big Foot, because I have faith that Big Foot is real, are you going to be tempted to share my faith? Of course not, but that is what you expect of others for some reason, which is not reasonable.

"You cannot reason a person out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place."

[Clownboat]

I read the first sentence of the ad hominem and that’s it.

You really need to learn your fallacies.
TRANSPONDER was addressing your position about humanity, noting that it is a miserable one.

ad ho·mi·nem
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

In place of showing how wrong he is (if he is) you hide behind a fallacy that has not been committed.

I suppose you think no one murders or rapes or steals.

This position of your is ridiculous and you know it, yet you still typed it.

Wonder how that turns out for you, believing no one ever sins, i.e., does terrible wrongs to others.

Some people do terrible things, we all understand and believe this. What many don't understand is the unnecessary need to call terrible things a sin.

Maybe you live on a farm in Montana where these things don’t happen.

Terrible things happen on farms too. Are you debating honestly?

Matthew 7:15-20
New King James Version
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

[Mae von H]

I read the first sentence of the ad hominem and that’s it.

You really need to learn your fallacies.
TRANSPONDER was addressing your position about humanity, noting that it is a miserable one.

Both of you need to learn that when an informed and intelligent person recognizes that wrong is done it is merely seeing the truth. The response of saying that because one sees that wrong is done at all means one has a dismal view (untrue) is a juvenile one and is associated with children who don’t know evil is done by people. This view is immature.

ad ho·mi·nem
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Now if only your side abided by this but it’s clear the choice to employ this is too great a temptation.

In place of showing how wrong he is (if he is) you hide behind a fallacy that has not been committed.

When an opponent can only employ the ad hominem argument, it’s fruitless to try to return to the argument. They’ve sunk into junior high tactics. Best move on to find mature adults.

I suppose you think no one murders or rapes or steals.

This position of your is ridiculous and you know it, yet you still typed it.

You seem mature. If he thinks those who know crimes are committed have a poor view of mankind, then it’s fair to say he thinks crimes aren’t committed and it’s just my warped view that says they are. Logic.

Wonder how that turns out for you, believing no one ever sins, i.e., does terrible wrongs to others.

Some people do terrible things, we all understand and believe this. What many don't understand is the unnecessary need to call terrible things a sin.

Fair enough, but why does this then bother you? So what different does the nomenclature make? What do you call crimes?

Maybe you live on a farm in Montana where these things don’t happen.

Terrible things happen on farms too. Are you debating honestly?

The poster thinks me mentioning that people do wrong comes from a warped view of people. It’s logical to assume these don’t happen where he lives.

Matthew 7:15-20
New King James Version
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

I know this, he doesn’t but thinks saying such is merely a warped view of mankind. It’s a typical ad hominem attack by atheists.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #361]

I read the first sentence of the ad hominem and that’s it. I suppose you think no one murders or rapes or steals. Wonder how that turns out for you, believing no one ever sins, i.e., does terrible wrongs to others. Maybe you live on a farm in Montana where these things don’t happen. Must be nice.

Yet again you have no response so you find a pretext for running away. No matter. You may run but you can't hide.

[TRANSPONDER]

I read the first sentence of the ad hominem and that’s it.

You really need to learn your fallacies.
TRANSPONDER was addressing your position about humanity, noting that it is a miserable one.

Both of you need to learn that when an informed and intelligent person recognizes that wrong is done it is merely seeing the truth. The response of saying that because one sees that wrong is done at all means one has a dismal view (untrue) is a juvenile one and is associated with children who don’t know evil is done by people. This view is immature.

ad ho·mi·nem
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Now if only your side abided by this but it’s clear the choice to employ this is too great a temptation.

In place of showing how wrong he is (if he is) you hide behind a fallacy that has not been committed.

When an opponent can only employ the ad hominem argument, it’s fruitless to try to return to the argument. They’ve sunk into junior high tactics. Best move on to find mature adults.

I suppose you think no one murders or rapes or steals.

This position of your is ridiculous and you know it, yet you still typed it.

You seem mature. If he thinks those who know crimes are committed have a poor view of mankind, then it’s fair to say he thinks crimes aren’t committed and it’s just my warped view that says they are. Logic.

Wonder how that turns out for you, believing no one ever sins, i.e., does terrible wrongs to others.

Some people do terrible things, we all understand and believe this. What many don't understand is the unnecessary need to call terrible things a sin.

Fair enough, but why does this then bother you? So what different does the nomenclature make? What do you call crimes?

Maybe you live on a farm in Montana where these things don’t happen.

Terrible things happen on farms too. Are you debating honestly?

The poster thinks me mentioning that people do wrong comes from a warped view of people. It’s logical to assume these don’t happen where he lives.

Matthew 7:15-20
New King James Version
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

I know this, he doesn’t but thinks saying such is merely a warped view of mankind. It’s a typical ad hominem attack by atheists.

That was a putrid misrepresentation of your point and mine. My point is that life is not perfect but any progress is not to be credited to a god nor failure to progress fast enough attributed to not having enough religion.I won't go into the trickery of trying to gain an advantage in finding insults where there were none, but rather observe that the whole point about 'sin' is not denying the problems humans have, but dragging God and religion into it. The assumptions about a cosmic law of morality is futile. It is no more than human attempts to devise moral codes and make them stick, and the natural is of course competition and co -operation, and recognising this rather than wailing over moral failings and appealing to have God back in our lives is not the answer. As you say if after 100 years, it hasn't worked, time to admit Christianity doesn't work.

[Clownboat]

Both of you need to learn that when an informed and intelligent person recognizes that wrong is done it is merely seeing the truth. The response of saying that because one sees that wrong is done at all means one has a dismal view (untrue) is a juvenile one and is associated with children who don’t know evil is done by people. This view is immature.

What I might find to be immature is to be shown that a mistake was made and not correct ones thinking. You were mistaken about your fallacy claim and you resorted to slander (bolded for you).

When an opponent can only employ the ad hominem argument, it’s fruitless to try to return to the argument. They’ve sunk into junior high tactics. Best move on to find mature adults.

To attack a position is not an ad hominem.
To the rest: When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates (Junior high tactics and additional notions of being immature).

You seem mature.

This reply wasn't.
"I suppose you think no one murders or rapes or steals." = Mae von H.

If he thinks those who know crimes are committed have a poor view of mankind, then it’s fair to say he thinks crimes aren’t committed and it’s just my warped view that says they are. Logic.

That is not his position (that crimes are not committed), therefore you would be guilty of the ad hominem. I would doubt that there is a sane human on this planet that doesn't think crimes are ever committed.

Some people do terrible things, we all understand and believe this. What many don't understand is the unnecessary need to call terrible things a sin.

Fair enough, but why does this then bother you? So what different does the nomenclature make? What do you call crimes?

Crimes are crimes and I call crimes, well... crimes.
Sin is fully a religious concept. Some religious people will interchange these words (sin/crime) in an attempt to try to give weight to this religious sin idea.

The poster thinks me mentioning that people do wrong comes from a warped view of people. It’s logical to assume these don’t happen where he lives.

You actually think it is logical that no wrong happens where TRANSPONDER lives?
Let's examine what you actually said: "Humans historically don’t care about society, just themselves. If they can steal freely, they do."
I am also of the opinion that this position of yours about humanity is a miserable one. This is addressing your position, not an ad hominem attack on you like you falsely claimed earlier.

I know this, he doesn’t but thinks saying such is merely a warped view of mankind.

Stop it. It is your position that is warped. Specifically that humans don't care about society, just themselves and that if they can steal freely, they do. This position is not one that is reflected in reality where humans formed societies and made theft a crime. You're not a victim here, your position just isn't being accepted and you are crying foul in place of trying to evidence that humans don't care about society. Humans do care about society. The degree varies.

It’s a typical ad hominem attack by atheists.

Attacking you would be an ad hominem, attacking a position that you supplied is not. I don't believe you are a victim here, but you have successfully avoided showing that you speak the truth about your claimed position by pretending to be. It isn't going unnoticed...

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #368]

There doesn’t seem to be any benefit in answering your individual points. You defend an ad hominem attack or don’t see it as such. I can supply ample evidence for my position despite your claim to the contrary. Sigh!

Perhaps we’ll exchange again in another thread. When the atheists reach the point in a discussion where reason is no longer applied and personal attacks on the character are used instead, further exchanges will not be of benefit. From such exchanges, however, I’ve come to deeply understand the atheist position. I could successfully verbalize your position in neutral or even positive terms as I see fairly clearly how your side thinks. This is something I’ve never ever seen an atheist do regarding the christian perspective.

[LittleNipper]

You all may wish to regard the following article. ALL sin is punishable by eternal separation from GOD. And ALL who do not repent and turn to CHRIST for their salvation will face eternal separation from GOD. HOWEVER, ALL who repent and trust in the LORD will be saved. That said, there comes the truth that the unredeemed sinners will face different levels of eternal punishment. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/no ... e-the-same