The first question alone begs the question of where the idea for and ability to create prosthetic limbs comes from. Is it any more logical to believe that it was a random idea from a randomised brain than to believe that it was an idea inspired by a loving God?
The concomitant comment - that 'God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles' - seems to ignore the fact that we have prosthetics. Why I as a Christian should have to create an 'excuse' for God - as the speaker calls it, seems illogical. So, question 1 considered and deemed undefinitive.
Question 2 - Starvation. It is generally agreed that the world produces enough food to feed every person currently alive. That may well not be at the level of consumption that we have here in the West - but probably also sets aside the level of waste that we have here in the West.
What are the causes of starvation/deprivation of this sort? Greed, corruption, natural disaster - ad that's just three.
So, within the space of two 'questions that every intelligent Christian must answer', the speaker posits explanations that are so far from the way that most Christians think as to make them somewhat pointless.
Question 3: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people? Firstly, what does the speaker mean by 'innocent'? We may no longer sentence people who do wrong to death, but we still punish them - and in each example that the speaker gives the death penalty is for breaking the law. That punishment may extent to incarceration or may be limited to the grounding of an individual. In the context of a nomadic people - as the Jews were when such laws were set down, where would they have kept a wrong-doer? They wouldn't have had a place to incarcerate them and if the wrong-doing was such that it damaged the fabric of society, what else could they do? Incidentally, each of the 4 passages quoted - Exodus 35:2, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and 22:13-21 are taken out of context as far as the comments associated with them are concerned.
Each of the issues dealt with in these passages are wilful acts of disobedience that wouldm lead to damage of the society - the Exodus passage points to behaviour that would break the bonds of a society that was based on the worship of a deity that had saved them from slavery; the Leviticus passage comes in the middle of a longer passage that lists a number of sexual behaviours which could easily lead to the unravelling of that same society; the passage about the 'disobedient son' is clearly dealing with a child who has been persistently and wilfully disobedient and whose parents have tried on several occasions to discipline them and get them to toe the lines that society set out, whilst the passage about killing girls who are not virgins when they marry also comes in the middle of a longer passage about how to deal with sexual immorality. In fact the first example in the 'list' is how a man who accuses his wife of having not been a virgin - and accuses her wrongly, should be treated. Further on in the list, there is an example where a man who is already betrothed 'abducts' a young woman and rapes here. That man has to die; and nothing should be done to the girl as she is innocent of anything.
In fact, all the passages so conveniently picked so as to give a good sound-bite are actually parts of far more balanced passages.
Whilst I hadn't seen this particular clip before, I have seen several very similar ones - all of which raise the same concerns as to selective reading, twisting and misrepresentation of what is actually said and applying 20th century understandings (and, in some cases, lacks of understandings) to events that took place anything up to 3,500 years ago.
This smacks, in my mind, to a lack of intelligent argumentation, be that intentional or otherwise.
