So let me try and start again, because you are absolutely right, all the laws are not about looking after the poor and needy.
So there.
If you look through the laws in the Old Testament there is a radical care for the poor and the needy. Farmers are not to carefully make sure they gather all their crops, but should leave some for the poor and foreigners. Debts should be forgiven every 7th year. Every 7th 7th year all property should be returned to it's orginal owner. There is an attempt to bring about care and equality.
The Nazis banned vivisection, pushed for animal conservation, went against tobacco, carried out one of the best welfare programmes in history for Germans, introduced an affordable car for all citizens to buy, built a comprehensive road network across the country, invented rockets, innovated film making (the first magnetic tape film ever was with Hitler's speech), founded Adidas, brought about medical advancements.
Our problem when we look at the law is we try to apply them into a 21st century world and we say, well they are barbaric.
So once again this god is only limited to that era, not the 21st century. Or he is unable to either see through time, or brought about progressions.
The best analogy I could think of as I lay awake last night thinking it over is this. Almost 20 years ago Australia has a terrible shooting masacre, so strict gun laws were brought in, the assumption was that people should not have guns, and laws were made for those who needed one. On the other hand USA have had numerous masacres, but their assumption is that everyone has the right to bare arms, so they need to make different laws because the assumption is that people have guns. In the 21st we are like Australia if you change the thing to slaves, people should not have them. But the context of the Old Testament law is like USA, there were slaves, so they needed laws about what to do, but these laws were about caring for the slaves.
So this god cannot abolish slavery or just tell people slavery is wrong, or even try to advocate for the abolishment of such (notice that there are anti-gun lobbying in the States? The Hebrew god didn't even do things a random human could do)? He either thinks slavery is not really that bad, or that he is enable to do anything about it.
God doesn't want people just doing the sacrifices and keeping the law. He wants them to do justice, to look after the needy and the vulnerable.
The key is all those laws can be violated. The only unforgivable sin is to not believe in that god.
When the people come to Mount Siani God shows up on the mountain, and the people clearly tell Moses, you go and talk to God, we are too scared of him. So that is their choice not to engage with God. That probably then impacts how they see God from then on, because now God is the one that Moses talks to, not them.
But they believed that it is god. The messages were carried out arguably more effectively, if not just as effective as Jesus did.
God is at a distance, so there is not the deep trust that could have been.
Again, something apparently out of his power to do so.
God does indeed find ways to communicate with people, be it through a burning bush or through becoming a human. And we have different records of that, but then again you chould wonder, how many times could you record that God tried to talk to people and they ignored him. (There is no way of knowing that one, just throwing out a thought).
This brings us to another point: Why would you not believe any lunatic who said god(s) talked to them? That is, if you believe that god did talk to Moses.
I think your second point is true, maybe it is easier to listen to a God who turns up in a burning bush, but you know will disappear, than a man who is walking around every day?
If he is all-powerful, he can make the burning bush burning, floating, and appear everywhere all at the same time.
I don't know, perhaps the difference though is the God in the bushes is calling people to follow him and give them power, Jesus is challenging the institution. It should also be said Jesus had a great number of people who followed him.
Because Jesus was a human who either was mad or very smart, to claim himself to be a son of god to do what he wanted to do. Much like the Emperor of the Taiping rebellion in China who claimed to be a younger brother of Jesus's.
But I think we need to be careful not to look at the worst of the institutions and say that every believer, or every church within that faith is like that. There is difference, and we need to acknowledge that.
I have always acknowledged that. So as militant as I am, I will never advocate to BAN religions (you cannot ban a faith). In a liberal society people can believe whatever they want. But, these beliefs and churches should not be able to influence anything politically, and should hardly influence anything socially. They should not be considered any more superior than any other organisation in the society.
I was listening to a Muslim speker and he said his wife challenged him. She told him, "You compare the best of the Muslim faith with the worst of the other faiths. Instead you should compare the worst of our faith, with the best of the others." When we want to point out our faith is best, we look at the best people from ours, and compare them with the worst.
I see all faiths as equal, and I am against all of them. Faith by definition is believing without evidence, that leads to problems. I am against people who say there's a 100% chance that there isn't anything that could have been called 'god' or the first cause at any given time in any given form(s).
So i might say, look at how great Mother Teresa was, look at how terrible Stalin was. Obviously Christianity is greater than anti faith.
This isn't your point I know, but:
Mother Teresa: 'There is something beautiful in watching the poor suffer', 'abortion is the biggest threat to peace', not giving the people in her Home proper medical care, refusing to use the money her fund had gathered for the people.
Stalin: He was trained to be a catholic priest actually, and during the Second World War, against Adolf Hitler (who of course is a Roman catholic), he occasionally went to the prayer room himself. Of course he may not have been praying, but we don't know. He also said something in line with 'god is on our side' when he met Sir Churchill, then-British prime minister during one of their meetings, to Churchill's surprise.
If you substituted Stalin with Mao, and Teresa with Carrie Underwood, then yeah.
Some things are just history and they tell us how things were, that is what i believe the case is with that material.
There are obviously political reasons as to why a lot of books were not taken away but you and I should both know that so let's not go there.
But I'd also like to point out that, if anything, most of
The Bible wasn't history. The creation story? The Egyptian story? The Noah's story? The ridiculously long age of those people? Even the birth story of Jesus couldn't be true as there wasn't a census at that time, and all the historical facts are wrong. Like who the King should be at that time.
God is all powerful, it is just to experience being fully human, he must give up some of those powers.
Well first of all, he does not need to 'experience' being fully human. Secondly, being all-knowing, he should already know how it would be like to experience being fully human. Thirdly, again it shows that he cannot be fully human while also fully god. That's something he obviously cannot do.
I came up with another analogy last night, this will probably suck as much as the last one. I can look at a dog and think, well I know what their life is like. But if I've never tried to be a dog, then I don't really. I don't see the world from their perspective, I don't have their issues.
You are saying that this all-powerful and all-knowing god is not more powerful or knowing than you are, or could be, in this regard.
I guess in my mind, the differences are there, but can be explained as different witnesses.
Which again brings to the problem of then how could it be considered reliable? Especially when it had been edited for centuries.
All I can say is that in my view, God has given us free will, this allows us the option to do the wrong thing. It is not that God wants us to do the wrong thing, but he must allow us that option. Sorry that obviously doesn't meet your standard, so guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Which is why I said it is impossible for 'free will' and 'god being all good' to co-exist. They just can't be.
But if we can only choose the good option, is that free will. Surely free will is that we can pick any option, not just the one God wants?
If a robber comes to you and said, give me your money or I will kill you. Is he or she not taking away your free will? Well, I mean, you still have the choice of not giving him or her any money, it's just that you will be killed.
Does God plan absolutely everything that is going to happen, I don't believe so.
Then it's plain and simple, he just isn't all-knowing.
The analogy I always use is that when we go out for dinner, I know that my wife is going to get the chicken snitzel. She has the choice of the whole menu, I don't force her, but at least 9 times out of 10 that's what she will have. I know that because I know her. God knows what we will do, because he knows us, not because he makes us do that.
Again, you are saying that god is not more powerful or knowing than you in this regard.
The point abour free will if we get punnished, people murder knowing they will go to jail for life, or in some countries be executed. Do those laws inhibit their free will?
Yes.
How did you find the Catholic school system? (if you don't mind me asking).
You have to do a lot of random things that waste a lot of time. Also, believers are privileged in the schools always. I was also asked to 'tone down' my homosexuality.
