A Real and Significant Biblical Contradiction?

[CliveStaples]

Ok, clarification is required. I don't believe in god. My use of the term god is for convenience and is taken to mean the god of the bible. To be precise, when I use god I mean to say the fictional character created by ignorant Palestinian Jews in order to explain natural phenomena in the absence of scientific inquiry and to exercise a measure of crowd control. For this reason I have nothing to say about god's obligations. In fact, arguing that god does not have any obligations makes the Christian position more bizarre.

Who has argued that God doesn't have any obligations? How would the Christian position be more bizarre if that were the case?

Based on your argument we can conclude that god is under no obligation to tell people the truth since he lied about the cure for leprosy. I'll get to the counterfactual bit in a moment, but he specifically gave them a useless prescription for curing the disease; therefore, a lie. How am I now supposed to take anything else in the bible as serious mandates from god? How am I to differentiate between a lie and truth from god?

Your conclusion is unwarranted. My argument (more of a challenge, really, than an argument) was that God might not necessarily have all the same obligations as us. And you think it's safe to conclude, "God is under no obligation to tell people the truth"? Because of one example where His obligation to tell the truth is different from ours, He must never have any obligation to tell the truth ever?

Horrible logic.

Let me get this straight. According to you, god had the foresight to not give his chosen people the cure for leprosy because of an unexplained alternate history, but didn't station the lightsaber wielding cherub until after the fall.

Erm, are you suggesting that God was surprised by the Fall?

If God has omniscience, then He knows all possible futures, and He knows which possible future will be actualized (if Molinism is true).

It seems possible to me that in one circumstance, giving certain people certain information might lead to worse outcomes, justifying witholding the information--while in another circumstance, installing a guard before a certain action would also lead to worse outcomes, justifying not installing the guard.

I'm not sure what the connection is that you're asserting between stationing the guard and informing people about leprosy. Can you explain it a bit more?

Why didn't god just remain silent regarding leprosy? What could possibly have been the purpose for the lie?

Perhaps it would lead to better outcomes. Since people might act differently with different information, it's possible that given one specification of information (for example, telling the truth about leprosy), people will make worse choices than given another specification of information (for example, not telling the truth about leprosy).