Problems - The Root Cause

[Hockeycowboy]

But you show that it partly works and imply that it used to work well.

Whereas God never says or does, lets noxious folk like Putin and Trump flourish, does nothing about Covid,.

No wonder the former fans are quitting in their droves.
No, it doesn't account for reality. Otherwise the authors of the bible would have got the basics right, such as a spherical earth, heliocentry, gravity, orbits, deep space. Instead in the bible the sky is a hard dome you can walk on and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll all fall to earth. And God used to be afraid of those new-fangled iron chariots, you'll recall. And you'll recall where [he] murdered children for observing correctly that one of [his] ingroup had alopecia, instead of fixing the alopecia. Nasty, ignorant, lazy, piece of work, that God of yours. How many did [he] kill with Covid in the last year or two?

Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22

 

[blü 2]

Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22

The cosmology of the bible is pretty much the cosmology of Babylon, so in terms of when it was written, it was right up to date. The only real uncertainty is whether the earth is flat like a plate (disk) or flat like a table (square or oblong).

I posted >this summary of the biblical evidence< some while ago now ─ goodness, five years back!

 

[Polymath257]

And how do you think that’s working out?

Peoples’ attitudes are worse than ever before

Oh, I disagree. We no longer consider slavery to be normal. We no longer consider torture to be acceptable. Yes, many people still do it, but it is no longer universally accepted.

We are much better with the rights of women. We are much better at tolerating opposing viewpoints. Again, far from perfect, but definitely improving.

In terms of violent crime, we are way, way down from a century ago (some fluctuations not withstanding) and that was much improved from 300 years ago.

Yes, there are still those like those ruling Iran, or those in ISIS, or the Taliban, or white supremacists, or religious fundamentalists that long for days when everyone agreed with their little group, but overall attitudes are going away from that.

But in general, people are appalled at the thought of requiring a woman to marry her rapist, or the concept that a man owns a woman, or that disobedient children should be killed, or that adulterers should be stoned to death.

And that is a change in attitudes in the right direction.

 

[Alien826]

Then I think you don't understand the illustration with real and counterfeit money.

Obviously not. Do you want to try again?

By "population", I assume you mean group. However, the truth is made available to all people.
It's only hidden from those who don't want it. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 Why? John 6:6
The verses following shows that it is available to all who are seeking.

No, I was referring to the totality of humans. Please explain how a Bushman in Africa before colonization could know anything about Judaeo/Christian theology? And how likely is it that someone raised in, say, a strict Muslim country would come to the same conclusions as you?

How is that any different to what we do?

Good question. I would say the vast majority of Christians don't approach their belief in that way, though some do. Scientists pretty much have to, given the environment in which they work.

They do. They make claims based on what they believe.
True Religion does not claim stuff. They reach reasonable conclusions based on available data and testing.
This can go on until...

I said "[scientists] don't just claim stuff ...".

We'll get nowhere trying to make one seem inferior to the other.
While I know both science and religion use different methods, I do see them having many similarities,

I think there is a huge difference between how the average "person in the pew" approaches their faith and someone like yourself.

When people try to make science the only and correct method, and try to lower the usefulness and significance of religion, you have a problem, and you're going to meet a very hard place, because you are making science a religion.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

Interesting selection of people on that poster. I'm not familiar with all of them but most seem to be pretty extreme. This is a very old claim (that science is like a religion) and I'm not sure I want to go through it all again. I'd say that you have to be careful to distinguish between science and scientists. We are all human and have bias to a greater or lesser extent. I would say with some certainty though that the scientific method is superior to any so far invented for investigating the physical world.

Including scientist... I agree.
That's the point I am making also.
What's the point of you saying that?

Indeed. I said that in response to your saying that lots of people having believed things proves something.

"You can't use the Bible to prove itself", is a very interesting argument to me.
Why would a person say that?
I can only think of two reasons. Either they don't know what the Bible is, and or, they don't believe there is any evidence supporting the "claims" of the Bible.

We can look at both of those.
#1. The Bible is a collection of books, written over a 1600 year period. Which means that the last author is 16 centuries from the first.
If the 40 or so writers agree... for example, somewhere down the line, we find confirmation for an event 8... 10... 12... centuries in the past...
Of course we can "use the Bible to prove the Bible".

Better yet, if the 40 or so writers agree, and they are harmonious... agreeing on one message that is like a thread that binds the first writing to every book, down to the last... which is what we have in the Bible...
Of course we can "use the Bible to prove the Bible".

#2. There is both external and internal evidence supporting the reliability of the Bible.
For example, centuries before evidence was found to satisfy critics who claimed there was no evidence for King Hezekiah, the Bible gave details about this king, and events surrounding him... and that's only one case out of many.
Archaeological discoveries confirmed what was written centuries ago... in the Bible.
List

Based on the evidence supporting the reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible, that's good reason to "use the Bible to prove the Bible".
It can be trusted.

Do we expect every piece of evidence to be found? That would be like finding every fossil of every creature that ever walked on earth.
No one could be that unreasonable.
We don't even ask scientists to produce that kind of evidence... but people accept their claim.
When it comes to the Bible, reason seems to leave the room of skeptics.

Like any historical document, the Bible has value. Like any historical document, it is subject to criticism. The problem arises when you start claiming that the Bible is the inerrant word of God or some such, because then you are stuck with supporting a claim that everything in the Bible is true. Do you put as much weight on the existence of King Hezekiah as that the sun literally stood still so Joshua could finish a battle? I will admit that some skeptics' claims are just as silly.

There is a general principle though that I was referring to. I'll make a claim now ... all elephants live in Africa. If you dispute that and mention Indian elephants and zoos, and I respond "it's true because I wrote it", you'd think I was very stupid. To return to the Bible, simply because somebody wrote something years ago and someone else wrote something similar in the same book just points to internal consistency and not external proof. It actually does add some weight, but the fact remains that they could both be mistaken. We need external evidence to prove something that is written in a document. Agreed, we do accept such as the best we have to go on, but that still leaves plenty of room for doubt.

I did. The two examples I gave. You didn't see them?
Or, are they not good examples?

They weren't good examples of what I was referring to. As far as I can see they say that an aggressive form of debate can be valuable. Maybe so in the honor/shame society of the times.

I was simply saying that if A is wrong, then saying B is wrong doesn't change the fact that A is wrong, and doesn't add anything to the discussion of A.

 

[Alien826]

Yes, God is neither male nor female, but accepts the masculine gender. Would you like to guess why?

I'd say the highly patriarchal society of the times the Bible was written would not have considered a woman to be a candidate for authority, and thus God had to be male.

You're going to mention Esther, I know it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Oh, I disagree. We no longer consider slavery to be normal. We no longer consider torture to be acceptable. Yes, many people still do it, but it is no longer universally accepted.

We are much better with the rights of women. We are much better at tolerating opposing viewpoints. Again, far from perfect, but definitely improving.

In terms of violent crime, we are way, way down from a century ago (some fluctuations not withstanding) and that was much improved from 300 years ago.

Yes, there are still those like those ruling Iran, or those in ISIS, or the Taliban, or white supremacists, or religious fundamentalists that long for days when everyone agreed with their little group, but overall attitudes are going away from that.

But in general, people are appalled at the thought of requiring a woman to marry her rapist, or the concept that a man owns a woman, or that disobedient children should be killed, or that adulterers should be stoned to death.

And that is a change in attitudes in the right direction.

Your not-so-subtle attack on those ancient standards for the Israelites, is missing the point…. Those were penalties for those behaviors.

Such stiff penalties, kept the Israelites from pursuing wicked courses. They acted as a deterrent.

When the law was applied, there were very few adulterers….very few rebellious children.

You’ve ever heard of ‘enabling’? It’s supposed to be a bad thing, but that’s what this society has become.
Ecclesiastes 8:11

Selfishness reigns, the quickest way to gratification is condoned, and people are getting hurt, especially children. Growing up unloved…

Are you aware of how mental health issues are rising? Even in developed countries.

Ever been to Sudan, or Chad? People’s natural rights and needs are being abused all over the world.

Worldwide, 2 Timothy 3:1-5 fits in these times better than ever before.

And now, the Earth is being ruined, as was prophesied. Revelation 11:18.

It’s interesting that, when denigrating the Bible, many always choose to focus on the ancient Mosaic Laws, but they (conveniently?) ignore the guidelines for Christians in the Greek Scriptures (NT), for them to love others, and put other people’s feelings ahead of their own. - John 13:34; Matthew 5:44; Philippians 2:2-3; Colossians 3:12-14.

Unfortunately, as a group Christendom has set a bad example in these matters… they are no shining beacon.

But that’s not the Scripture’s fault.

IMO.

 

[Polymath257]

Your not-so-subtle attack on those ancient standards for the Israelites, is missing the point…. Those were penalties for those behaviors.

Such stiff penalties, kept the Israelites from pursuing wicked courses. They acted as a deterrent.

When the law was applied, there were very few adulterers….very few rebellious children.

Sorry, but the punishment is far worse than the crime.

You’ve ever heard of ‘enabling’? It’s supposed to be a bad thing, but that’s what this society has become.
Ecclesiastes 8:11

Selfishness reigns, the quickest way to gratification is condoned, and people are getting hurt, especially children. Growing up unloved…

Are you aware of how mental health issues are rising? Even in developed countries.

Ever been to Sudan, or Chad? People’s natural rights and needs are being abused all over the world.

Yes, they are. And I agree that things are far from perfect. But they are better than they were in the past. And part of the reason they are better is that people are moving away from basing their morality on religion.

Worldwide, 2 Timothy 3:1-5 fits in these times better than ever before.

And now, the Earth is being ruined, as was prophesied. Revelation 11:18.

It’s interesting that, when denigrating the Bible, many always choose to focus on the ancient Mosaic Laws, but they (conveniently?) ignore the guidelines for Christians in the Greek Scriptures (NT), for them to love others, and put other people’s feelings ahead of their own. - John 13:34; Matthew 5:44; Philippians 2:2-3; Colossians 3:12-14.

Yet another example of improvement.

Unfortunately, as a group Christendom has set a bad example in these matters… they are no shining beacon.

But that’s not the Scripture’s fault.

IMO.

Actually, I think it is. It gives very bad punishments for minor 'crimes', supporting the type of totalitarian societies we see, for example, in Iran.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sorry, but the punishment is far worse than the crime.



Yes, they are. And I agree that things are far from perfect. But they are better than they were in the past. And part of the reason they are better is that people are moving away from basing their morality on religion.



Yet another example of improvement.


Actually, I think it is. It gives very bad punishments for minor 'crimes', supporting the type of totalitarian societies we see, for example, in Iran.

Again, they are penalties. When people know there are stiff penalties (which all Israelites were taught), and they will be enforced, crime goes down.

In cases where it’s needed, instituting Martial Law, (an extreme measure, granted) has what purpose? To “reestablish law and order.” It works.

Of course, Martial Law infringes on peoples’ rights.

Among the Israelites though, Jehovah’s laws didn’t infringe on any rights…as a whole, it kept people from hurting others.

That’s why Paul could say at Romans 13:9-10, “Love is the Law’s fulfillment.”

​

When they followed the Mosaic Law, the Israelites for the most part lived happy lives… they weren’t restricted from anything beneficial.

I agree, Iranian & other MidEast laws based on religious texts are outrageously restrictive (for women.)

IMO

So long.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, they are penalties. When people know there are stiff penalties (which all Israelites were taught), and they will be enforced, crime goes down.

Forcing a woman to marry her rapist is a penalty for whom? And why? It just seems unnecessarily cruel to the woman.

And why not just have the death penalty for ALL crimes? That would quickly solve any crime problem. At the very least, it would ensure people obey the speed limit.

In cases where it’s needed, instituting Martial Law, (an extreme measure, granted) has what purpose? To “reestablish law and order.” It works.

And if there was a lot of violence and destruction, that might be justified. But a kid fighting with their parent is far from being that. Similarly for other 'crimes'.

Of course, Martial Law infringes on peoples’ rights.

Among the Israelites though, Jehovah’s laws didn’t infringe on any rights…as a whole, it kept people from hurting others.

That’s why Paul could say at Romans 13:9-10, “Love is the Law’s fulfillment.”

​

When they followed the Mosaic Law, the Israelites for the most part lived happy lives… they weren’t restricted from anything beneficial.

I agree, Iranian & other MidEast laws based on religious texts are outrageously restrictive (for women.)

IMO

So long.

And the laws in the OT are not all that different than the ugly ones seen today in Iran. They are an example of why theocracies are never a good idea.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Forcing a woman to marry her rapist is a penalty for whom? And why? It just seems unnecessarily cruel to the woman.

First of all, it was seduction. Rapists were (you guessed it) killed. Rape was the same as murder. - Deuteronomy 22:25-26
And it was her father’s decision. (Do you think a father who loves his daughter, would allow her to marry a rapist?)

But a kid fighting with their parent is far from being that. Similarly for other 'crimes'.

When reading the account at Deuteronomy 21:18-21, it becomes clear that this is not a young kid… it says the father takes him to city elders, & calls him a “drunkard.” (Among other behaviors.) So he’s grown up, and the father does it. It must be an extreme situation!

And the laws in the OT are not all that different than the ugly ones seen today in Iran.

Only when not applied correctly.

 

[nPeace]

great. I can see that.

Question: do you think that selfish-pride is the same or very similar to vain-glory? are they, in your view, essentially the same thing?

Interesting question.

My understanding is that whereas pride is an inner quality of the heart - something that one possesses, glory is something that must either be given, or taken.
One can seek after glory, long for it, demand it, etc.
Pride, on the other hand, is something that is a part of one's self. It's not gained from outside of self.

If I am missing something though, feel free to share your thoughts.
It's always good to look at all the angles, in case one overlooked something.

 

[nPeace]

Firstly, I want to note that I didn't get an answer to my question here.

You didn't get an answer? Are you certain about that?
Your questions were...
Before such things become automatic and unquestioned, they ought to be questioned and reasoned out, don't you think? So again, how do we decide what the rules should be?

My answer was...
Well, if I thought like that when my dad told me not to run across the road, I probably wouldn't be alive today.
There is no need to question a dad that proves trustworthy... or do you disagree?

That looks like an answer to me.
It says this basically...
Not every stated law is questioned, nor needs to be, especially if it's been demonstrated that the stated law is from a trustworthy and reliable source.

In a lot of cases, people do not even demand that the source be reliable or trustworthy before they accept..
For example, most people don't require they carry out any tests of their own to verify the truthfulness of claims of scientists. They just accept.

How did you determine that the major moral problem of humanity is people "deciding to be their own god" when that demonstrably contradicts all the available evidence that most humans through history have been theistic? And particularly in the West, have derived their morals from what they think their God has declared as right and wrong?

Does being theistic mean that one will not be or is not against God?
I think if we believe that, we will also have to believe that someone working for the C.I.A. will never betray or act against the C.I.A.
Do you believe that?
Claiming to be something does not mean you actually are.
Being among or in a group doesn't mean you actually are with the group in your thoughts and ideas.

That's what I mean about lumping all religion as one.
Some people don't seem to think that religions can belong to a system that is actually against what they claim to be for.

Does it just boil down to "because the Bible says so?" If so, please just say that because it'll save a lot of time in the conversation.

When my dad commanded that I not run or play in the street, I might not have fully understood... or even agreed, but as I gained more understanding and experience, I came to see for myself that his law was good - sound, practical. So that I even repeated it to others.

In this same way, I have come to experience for myself, that God's stated laws are indeed good... always.
That experience, coupled with the fact that his word has time and again proved trustworthy, I see no need to question things that may seem to be at odds with reason.
Again and again, later understanding based on acquired wisdom, have proved that I was the one behind in thinking.
Proving this fact...

“For my [God's] thoughts are not your thoughts, And your ways are not my ways,” declares Jehovah. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So my ways are higher than your ways And my thoughts than your thoughts.
(Isaiah 55:8-9)​

I did have a conversation with you on this.
The subject was centered around the data showing the results of living promiscuous lives.
I'd have to search for it, but there is this one.
I have seen that living by God's laws always prove to be the best choice.

Obviously you don't, but you'll have to be able to provide evidence to the contrary.
I'll be happy to consider it.

As to your question, I don't lump all religion together as "bad," personally. So I don't really want to speak for people who would. Similarly, I could ask an analogous question back to you. Since there is "good and bad in everything," does it not then stand to reason that there is also good and bad in people determining their own morality apart from authoritarian religious dictates? Some people will make wise, healthy choices and some people won't. Much like religions do, really.

Yes, but why?
Why do they make good decisions?
I'll suggest it's because of what you said earlier.
"...all the available evidence [is] that most humans through history have been theistic... And particularly in the West, have derived their morals from what they think their God has declared as right and wrong..."

So, in a nutshell, the reason people make morally good decisions is due to they having a conscience which has been trained and guided by "theistic" tenants that have been passed down through generations... which has some roots from the beginning of "theism".

You most likely disagree, so what do you suggest is the reason why?

I have two thoughts here. First, one of the quintessential elements of growing from child to adult is learning to question and even challenge the authority figures in our lives. When we are helpless and clueless as young children, we really have little choice but to unquestioningly obey our parents. Yet as we intellectually mature and develop, we begin to realize that the rules, and even the values, of our parents are sometimes flawed or irrational or unfair or have harmed and stymied us in various ways. And we realize our parents are really not all-wise and all-knowing and actually make mistakes and commit immoral acts just like we do and everyone else does. And so as adults we hopefully unlearn the crappy rules and values we were expected to obey without question as children. Imagine the tragedy of an adult who never did so and went his whole life just blindly, unquestioningly obeying whatever his parents dictated!

It depends on what kind of parents we have, would you agree?
Because while you were saying "we begin to realize that the rules, and even the values, of our parents are sometimes flawed", I couldn't help but think of the millions of people who are living examples, who say the complete opposite... "we begin to realize that the rules, and the values, of our parents were right, and ours were often flawed".

That, demonstrates, it matters where our teaching comes from.
Is it from those who submit to God's thinking, or think that their thinking is "Oh so right".

There exists a way that is upright before a man, but the ways of death are the end of it afterward.
(Proverbs 14:12)​

Secondly, the key phrase in your question is "a dad that proves trustworthy." A dad who is trustworthy, from my perspective, is a guy who can explain his reasons for what he does with his kids. He can morally reason in a thoughtful, non-authoritarian way. He is nonplussed by suggestions of how he might parent better, and willing to try new ways of doing things because he realizes he is imperfect.

Agreed.
Actually, if you had to ask me how many times we discuss at the meetings I attend at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, the fact that though Jehovah is almighty and superior... and perfect, he condescend to listen to persons question him, his actions, and decisions, and even listens to suggestions, I couldn't give you a number.
Just last midweek meeting, we discussed that in 1 Kings 22:19-22

So again, when it comes to setting up these rules, how do they actually get decided? What is the reasoning behind them?

Answered. Hope you got it.

 

[nPeace]

My location is right in my profile. I'm quite morally opposed to many of the things the American military has done, yes indeed.

So, you think no soldier should fight and kill anyone. It's immoral to do so, in your view. Yes?

Well first of all, yes, I think you should be extremely skeptical of what random anonymous people on the internet claim. And I wouldn't fault you for one second if you were! But also, the stakes of you accepting or rejecting that I am who I say I am are extremely low. It has little to no bearing on your offline life. That's quite different from what you're asking vis a vis God. You want me, and every other non-JW of the world, to accept that your holy book is literally from the creator of the universe and your organization has the correct interpretation of said book and that we should all reorganize our whole lives to follow your rules for precisely that reason. Those are quite different stakes, and any reasonable person would quite understandably want much stronger evidence for your claim than for mine if that's what the stakes are. As would you I'm quite sure, for any other God claims that you don't accept.

No. I think you misunderstood really.
I do not simply want anymore to accept anything.
I think a person should only accept something, if they are convinced it is the truth... even if they are fighting tooth and nail against it.
However, that's only because I'm concerned about them hurting themselves.

Secondly, if you want evidence that I am a real person who you're really talking to, I have ample ways to prove that if you're actually serious about it. We could connect on another platform, we could have a Skype call and you could see and hear me. You could watch me log in and type a post and watch it post to the website as I've typed it. If you were so motivated, I could give you my physical address and you could literally come see me in person. Any reasonable person could conclude from the evidence that...I'm me.

I'd trust the physical address, and the in person meet.
The others could still be faked.

We have not one iota of that level of evidence for God.

False.

Now yes, you could go the solipsist route and claim that we can't "know" anything outside our own heads. But I personally don't find that a very reasonable position and I don't think that's what you actually think anyway. So I don't think it's really worth the time to entertain it seriously.

True.

They? God's pronouns are they/them?

They, singular... as in "they said".

Prove it.

I can demonstrate it... and we have.
Can I prove that you and I are not in someone's mind? No.
Some things cannot be proven. They can only be supported by evidence - strong solid, reliable evidence, or weak evidence.
There is solid evidence that God is.
To them, it's convincing 'proof'.

So now, that prompts me asking a question... or two.
We know that a blueprint for a design is drafted by intelligence beings. This we know to be a fact.

Do you know of any other way a blueprint is drafted for a design?
If you do, could you please explain what it is, and how that works?

I asked, because the cell is a marvel of design, containing functions at every level being carried out according to plan.
Alter any one of those, and you interupt the cell's function, even causing its breakdown.

Why do you think no intelligent agent was responsible for the planning that we see in all the designs in nature?

If we're playing a numbers game here, vastly more people think you've gotten the wrong message from God than those who think you've gotten the right one. And those numbers are not trending in your direction. I don't think you want to walk down that line of reasoning.

Huh?
I'm only responding to your 'if' statement.
And secondly, if she is advanced in all these ways, then she ought to be able to explain her reasoning behind her various rules and why they're the best ones. If she can't do that...yeah, people aren't just going to accept "because I said so." They're going to require an explanation. And a demonstration. I'm sure you can understand that reasonable request.

Isn't that like someone saying, if the sea doesn't reach the shore, then...
I'm showing that there is no if.

Is that really what you think? Is that what you think of me? You think I'm not a Jehovah's Witness because...I just don't want to hear what the creator of the universe thinks about things? Or is it more likely that I just honestly don't buy what you're selling and don't find it convincing?

Hold up. Wait a minute.
Why did you make that personal?
In fact, I asked another atheist this before, so maybe you can answer.
Why do atheist take every statement personal, as in, applying to them?
Your answer please.

So you know, I don't know aything about you, except that you are an atheist.
The atheist I speak to here, do seem to hide their head in the sand.

However, I do not know what any of you will do, or will not do.
You could become a Jehovah's Witness at any time... or not.
I don't think you won't, or don't want to.
That's not my job.

 

[nPeace]

Since I can't with objective reason, logic and evidence show what God/objective reality is, I have blind faith.
I have no arguments to justify my faith, that isn't subjective and isn't based on how it makes sense to me.

So blind faith is a made up expression? No doubt to misrepresent true faith.
However, I am aware that many people have the faith you described, and seem proud of it.
I don't think they realize what role they are playing in the grand scheme of things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So blind faith is a made up expression? No doubt to misrepresent true faith.
However, I am aware that many people have the faith you described, and seem proud of it.
I don't think they realize what role they are playing in the grand scheme of things.

I have a different faith than you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, it was seduction. Rapists were (you guessed it) killed. Rape was the same as murder. - Deuteronomy 22:25-26
And it was her father’s decision. (Do you think a father who loves his daughter, would allow her to marry a rapist?)


When reading the account at Deuteronomy 21:18-21, it becomes clear that this is not a young kid… it says the father takes him to city elders, & calls him a “drunkard.” (Among other behaviors.) So he’s grown up, and the father does it. It must be an extreme situation!


Only when not applied correctly.

Sorry, but you did not understand you own verse. That only applied to a woman that was engaged to be married Betrothed in the language of the verse. And this shows that you lack an understanding of the Bible. You can't afford to understand it. Raping a betrothed woman is a property crime in the Bible. It is a crime against both the father and the person that was going to marry the woman. That was why it carried such a severe penalty. There is nothing about the rape of an unmarried woman being a seduction in the Bible. That is an addition that you made because you could not deal with it. If the woman was not betrothed the man had to pay the father the brides price and he could not divorce her. It was a "you broke it you bought it" situation. If you understand the Bible you will see that women were for the most part property. First of their father and then of their father. If a man died the wife would pass on to a brother as property. There is nothing in the Bible about it being a choice.

 

[joelr]

Fair enough.
First of all, they have, explained that they are not a "she", "lady", "female", or any of the other things skeptics choose to use in identifying 'him'.

Yahweh is a him. OT Hebrew Bible professor Fransesca Stavrakopoulou has a new book out exploring the original Hebrew text and descriptions of the body of Yahweh.

God: An Anatomy by Francesca Stavrakopoulou
"In Stavrakopoulou's stunning dissection of historical religious texts, the real back-story and context of the God of Judaism and Christianity is revealed . . . Where pious theologians have abstracted him into emptiness, Stavrakopolou gives him back his substance, and he’s so much more interesting in this bodily form! Both scholarly and accessible, and full of fascinating stories - I guarantee you’ll never think of this God the same way again."—Alice Roberts, author of Ancestors

"God: An Anatomy is a tour de force . . . Extraordinarily rich and nuanced . . . Stavrakopoulou has taken to heart the biblical injunction to seek the face of God, and what emerges is a deity more terrifyingly alive, more damaged, more compelling, more complex than we have encountered before. More human, you might say.”—New Humanist

“This is an extraordinary book. It’ll rewire your thinking, and it’s so readable you won’t notice till it’s too late.”—Tim Whitmarsh, author ofBattling the Gods

“Well-researched . . . A refreshing look at ancient Scripture and the people behind it, reminding readers that the concept of ‘God’ in the 21st century is a world away from that of the earliest people of Israel. A challenging, engaging work of scholarship that sheds new light on ancient Hebrew conceptions of the divine.” —Kirkus Reviews

“Refreshing . . . The sheer amount of primary evidence examined is staggering . . . Excellent . . . Stavrakopoulou’s argumentation is intellectually penetrating, analytically robust, and sophisticated . . . Respectful and intrigued . . . Stavrakopoulou’s book, and her public-facing scholarship, demonstrate what makes an outstanding biblical scholar.”—Church Times

Second of all, God has explained his rules, and why they are good... to all who are willing to listen.
He does not remove fingers from ears, or shout that the willful death hear.

So, yes, God both explained, and demonstrated, and people get it... millions have.... and millions more are.... and millions more will.
Millions won't, but that's not because they can't. They don't want to.

You haven't shown any God gave any messages or even exists. Proverbs (wisdom) is exactly like other wisdom in nearby religions who are older. One is a verbatim copy of an Egyptian book.

Book of Proverbs - Wikipedia
The "wisdom" genre was widespread throughout the ancient Near East, and reading Proverbs alongside the examples recovered from Egypt and Mesopotamia reveals the common ground shared by international wisdom.[
The second, chapters 10–22:16, carries the superscription "the proverbs of Solomon", which may have encouraged its inclusion in the Hebrew canon. The third unit, 22:17–24:22, is headed "bend your ear and hear the words of the wise". A large part of this section is a recasting of a second-millennium BCE Egyptian work, the Instruction of Amenemope, and may have reached the Hebrew author(s) through an Aramaic translation.

Egyptians also believed (every culture did) that their deity gave laws. There ancient beliefs are no longer needed. Men wrote them. Men wrote the Bible.
3 The emergence of law in ancient Egypt

The organisation of the legal system in ancient Egypt was governed by religious principles and it was believed that the law had been handed down from the gods to mankind at the time of creation and that the gods were responsible for maintaining the concept of law.11 Egyptian law was based on a common-sense view of right and wrong, following the concept of maat.12

Religion was present in every aspect of the Egyptians' life; it was embedded in society, rather than being a separate category.3 Every aspect of the world was seen as being governed by a divine power which established and maintained order.4 Their beliefs and practices assisted the ancient Egyptians to understand and respond to events in their lives.5 It was religion, and the cult actions deriving from those beliefs, that held ancient Egyptian society together and allowed it to flourish for more than three thousand years.6 Addendum A (at the end of this article) gives a summary of ancient Egypt's timeline.



2 Religious background

The law stood above all humans and was personified by the goddess Maat, with the concept of maat representing truth, justice, righteousness, the correct order and balance of the universe.7 Egyptian law was essentially based on the concept of maat, which was about morality, ethics and the entire order of society.8 The goal of maat was to keep the chaotic forces at bay, with the idea of order as the Grundlage of the world, upon which the legal system was based in turn.9 The ancient Egyptians saw no difference between human and divine justice.10Maat represented a sense of moral responsibility.

 

[joelr]

They do. They make claims based on what they believe.
True Religion does not claim stuff. They reach reasonable conclusions based on available data and testing.
This can go on until...

We'll get nowhere trying to make one seem inferior to the other.
While I know both science and religion use different methods, I do see them having many similarities,

When people try to make science the only and correct method, and try to lower the usefulness and significance of religion, you have a problem, and you're going to meet a very hard place, because you are making science a religion.

Religion is inferior. It's pretending deities exist to make one feel better. The only truth is aspects of wisdom and psychology, most of which are common sense or have changed since scripture was written. Science is superior at learning new things about the universe. Including hard sciences, medical advancements, psychology and the rest can be dealt with by philosophy.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

That isn't a real thing. We also have philosophy and many branches of psychology.

"You can't use the Bible to prove itself", is a very interesting argument to me.
Why would a person say that?
I can only think of two reasons. Either they don't know what the Bible is, and or, they don't believe there is any evidence supporting the "claims" of the Bible.

We can look at both of those.
#1. The Bible is a collection of books, written over a 1600 year period. Which means that the last author is 16 centuries from the first.
If the 40 or so writers agree... for example, somewhere down the line, we find confirmation for an event 8... 10... 12... centuries in the past...
Of course we can "use the Bible to prove the Bible".

Better yet, if the 40 or so writers agree, and they are harmonious... agreeing on one message that is like a thread that binds the first writing to every book, down to the last... which is what we have in the Bible...
Of course we can "use the Bible to prove the Bible"..

You 100% cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. The Romulus mythology, the mythical founder of Rome also had a biography set in Rome with real Kings and real places. But it's fiction. Osirus was also set in an Earthly story, killed and resurrected on Earth with real Egyptian kings. Insiders were told the true story took place in the celestial. realm.
So real people and places in a myth is not unusual.
Archaeologists can demonstrate many of the Biblical narratives are not true.
Israelites came from Canaan, peacefully, not at war.
The kingdoms were much smaller than suggested.
Some books like Daniel are accepted as written in many phases far apart and largely fiction.

The NT and OT are not harmonious. Mark did use Psalms and Kings and re-write the story with Jesus so of course there will be some connection but the NT is Persian and Greek theology, not found in the OT except for a prediction of a savior because of the Persian invasion being in 500 BCE.
The NT does not agree with the OT, it's a Hellenistic document using Greek theology not found in the OT.
Same with Persian theology. redeemed souls getting to heaven from a savior, not OT theology. Heaven was only for Yahweh. It was Greek mythology.

The OT used Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Babylonian myths along with very similar language fro Yahweh as Inana.

The NT is completely Greek, Persian versions of Judaism.

All you can prove from that is religious syncretism. There is no proof any supernatural beings existed just as there is no proof Romulus existed.

#2. There is both external and internal evidence supporting the reliability of the Bible.
For example, centuries before evidence was found to satisfy critics who claimed there was no evidence for King Hezekiah, the Bible gave details about this king, and events surrounding him... and that's only one case out of many.
Archaeological discoveries confirmed what was written centuries ago... in the Bible.
List

Based on the evidence supporting the reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible, that's good reason to "use the Bible to prove the Bible".
It can be trusted.

Do we expect every piece of evidence to be found? That would be like finding every fossil of every creature that ever walked on earth.
No one could be that unreasonable.
We don't even ask scientists to produce that kind of evidence... but people accept their claim.
When it comes to the Bible, reason seems to leave the room of skeptics.


I did. The two examples I gave. You didn't see them?
Or, are they not good examples?


It doesn't make a difference? Yeah, best we drop it then.

Again, that is not evidence. Romulus also founded Rome. Rome it turns out is a real place also, with real kings who were associated with Romulus. Yet Romulus is still fiction.

Archaeology shows Israel did not all come from Egypt but Canaan. Yahweh had a girlfriend and many other differences than what is claimed, here:
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

Rome existing does not prove the Romulus story is true and Egypt existing does not prove the Osirus story was true. There is evidence of an Israelite nation who split into tribes, were occupied over and over and combined their myths with invaders religions. Zero evidence and of the gods, demigods or divinities were real.'

In the biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of God, born of a virgin, an attempt is made to kill him as a baby. He is saved and raised as a shepherd. He becomes beloved by the people, hailed as a king and is killed by the conniving elite, then he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news and ascends to heaven to rule. Just like Jesus.

Romulus was murdered by a conspiracy of the senate. The sun went dark and the body vanished. People wanted to search for him but were told by the Senate "he has risen to join the gods. Much as a mysterious young man tells the women in Marks gospel. Most were happy but some doubted. Just as the later gospels say Mt. 28.17...
Soon a friend - Proculus meets Romulus on a road and asks why have you abandoned us? Romulus says he has been a God all along but came to earth and became incranate to establish a great kingdom and now must return home in heaven. Romulus tells his friend to tell Romans if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power.

There were several other savior gods, before Jesus, who became incarnate, underwent sufferings, deaths, resurrections. None of them actually existed. All were placed in history and given detailed biographies.
In fact it's highly possible given the coincidences Mark was transvaluing the Romulus narrative. Taking a savior for Rome who was militant and made a story about a peaceful savior for Israel. A technique known and done by the Greek school of the time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religion is inferior. It's pretending deities exist to make one feel better. The only truth is aspects of wisdom and psychology, most of which are common sense or have changed since scripture was written. Science is superior at learning new things about the universe. Including hard sciences, medical advancements, psychology and the rest can be dealt with by philosophy.




That isn't a real thing. We also have philosophy and many branches of psychology.
...

Lists of problems:
There is no single science, there are different schools of what science is.
There is no single philosophy, there are different schools of what philosophy is.
And then there is the everyday limit of all variants of objective truth, proof, evidence and logic:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

So for the bold one, there is no evidence as it is a subjective belief in you.

 

[joelr]

Lists of problems:
There is no single science, there are different schools of what science is.
There is no single philosophy, there are different schools of what philosophy is.
And then there is the everyday limit of all variants of objective truth, proof, evidence and logic:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

So for the bold one, there is no evidence as it is a subjective belief in you.

That's the point, many branches of science, many branches of philosophy. Some deal with ethics, morals and such. Philosophy also deals with faith and why it's a bad model to base belief on.
Psychology and similar are enough to deal with the other issues. The article tries to lump spirituality into religion. Spirituality has nothing to do with religion or spirits. It's an emotional, moral, ethical, pursuit.
It also says science cannot tell you what to do with science. That is psychology and philosophy. If any religious thing is real it has to have some effect on emotional, moral and such. That is just psychology and philosophy?
Religion takes issues we are already dealing with and pretend a deity came up with the things we actually came up with. It's Ad hoc and not needed.

This idea about science not dealing with "non-physical" things? There are no non-physical things? Even in religion. The parts of religion that matter are the laws, which are not "non-physical" but just ethics. Fantasy concepts like original sin is fiction. If one wants to believe it fine. I can believe in alien abductions but it isn't related to the basics we are talking about.
These articles should stop with talking about "faith" like it's a thing. It isn't. ISIS has faith that they are doing the will of God. It's an excuse to believe false things or fool yourself.
















































































.....