I’m going to respond to a back and fourth regarding the nature of is God evil from Inspiring Philosophy and Mindshift. Slow and steady wins the race. Understanding is key. I need not just to understand the response itself, but WHY the response was given and the hidden implications/motives behind each responses. There are multiple dimensions necessary to look at for each response, I need to look at the logic, and the emotions. I need to look at the direct statement and the hidden motives behind the statement.

Video 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeTUmQu6luE

Girl: “so to me, the Bible is very clear about the power dynamics here, not only that but we see these Godly men in the Bible like Moses and lot using women as objects”

Hello there, you don’t have a name, so let’s call you “Lady”. What kind of claim is being made here? This is where it all starts, so understanding the basic premise here will be essential for laying out the foundation for everything else. Lady seems to be arguing over the power dynamics between Men and Women, showing that since many Godly men treat women as garbage, the Bible and/or God must agree with the mistreatment that Godly Men give to women as either ethical, or at least amoral.

Now does this logic make sense? Let’s grant the assumption that God did not directly express approval, nor direct disapproval of the action, since if he did, that response would end the debate surrounding Lady’s point right then and there. My answer is yes. The reason is because there are many sinful actions that God’s people do, in which God himself seems to almost respond immediately. Determining that an action isn’t even worth a response, indicates that an all knowing and all powerful God has an increased tolerance for an action than other actions that he decided were worthy of a response.

I wonder what approach IP will take to this base claim. Will he respond that Lot and Moses never mistreated women? Or maybe God never even approved of Lot’s and Moses actions? Or even worse, God DID approve of Lots and Moses’ actions, AND he declares them Good?

IP: they most certainly do, but don't confuse descriptions in the, Bible with prescriptions Romans 3:23 says all have sinned and fallen short of, the glory of God these men were not, perfect and they made numerous mistakes

Alright then IP, so Lot and Moses did their actions, but God never even approved of them. Let’s give that to IP then. God decided that Moses giving total mistreatment of women was not worth A. directly speaking out against (because if God did speak out against this behavior, you would be the first one to show where in the Exodus story God does.) and B. Directly endorsing (because this would immediately end disagreement to Lady’s point). This leaves the only possibility being nor direct approval nor direct disapproval, which I will call “nonreaction.” God, in all his wisdom, decides that the mistreatment of women deserves nonreaction, while actions such as speaking to a rock the wrong way, are worth a heavy reaction. This shows how messed up God’s priorities are regarding what actions he will tolerate and what actions he will not tolerate.

Theoretical argument: God can show implied disapproval without showing direct disapproval to an action.

Response to theoretical argument: We have no Objective means to determine what words of God can be considered “implied” disapproval. Nonreaction to an action shows implied approval. Implied approval in other areas of the Bible may contradict whatever applied disapproval you present. Actions such as speaking to a rock are worth direct disapproval, while other actions such as the mistreatment of women are only worth “implied” disapproval.

Lady: it's concerning to me that these are seen as men of God it makes me question where their God would stand on this issue.

Me too Lady. Maybe God should speak up on the issue. Not speaking up gives me the same suspicion as a person who refuses to answer questions during a trial because he is hiding an action he did, or the endorsement of an action.

IP: again just because the Bible narrates the sin of the patriarch AR s and Prophets that doesn't mean it endorses their behavior

Well, you are right! Nonreaction to a behavior doesn’t mean the endorsement to a behavior. But you know what it does endorse? EXACTLY NONREACTION to a particular behavior. God isn’t necessarily endorsing a behavior (although he absolutely could be and we simply don’t know,) but God IS endorsing NONREACTION to said behavior. Again, what does it say about a God who decides mistreatment of women is worth nonreaction, but does decide speaking incorrectly to a rock is worth a reaction?

IP: God worked through imperfect people because there are no perfect people and all this points to the need for Christ to save us from our sins there is no one that is righteous not one

IP believes that Lady’s position is that God is not allowed to work through imperfect people. This is not Lady’s position. Lady’s position is God implies endorsement of the actions of his own men “it makes me question where their God would stand on this issue” This is an important distinction. We don’t assume Men of God are more righteous then the rest of us, (although maybe that’s true in other religions,) we assume that Men of God are held to higher standards of accountability when they do fall short. And they ARE held to higher standards of accountability, when it comes to mistreating rocks, but not the mistreatment of women that is. This is exactly why the question “where their God would stand on this issue” is asked. It’s not about the Man’s sin. It’s about God’s reaction or nonreaction to Man’s sin. Now, please stop taking a problem pointed to God, and redirecting it to Men.