Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

[Justin108]

Little Lucy was told by her mother to make her bed. Lucy didn't listen to her mother and decided to go play outside instead. Lucy committed a sin

Timmy wanted to have a cookie but his mother said no. Timmy sneaked into the kitchen and grabbed one out of the cookie jar. Timmy committed a sin

Billy's friend Jimmy brought his new Megaman action figure to school. Billy's family is poor and can't afford to buy Billy any toys. Billy covets Jimmy's new toy. Billy committed a sin


Do these three deeds deserve death?

[Justin108]

Suffering and death is the wages of sin.
No innocent suffers.
Suffering and death proves the sinfulness of the person.

The fact we do not know what sins they might have done pre-earth and their human experience does not mean that because their bodies are new, so are their spirits.

Peace, Ted

OR

The Bible claims suffering and death is due to sin.
Innocent people suffer.
Suffering and death of innocent people proves Biblical claims are false.

Aside from your presupposition that we existed pre-earth, a child with cancer is proof of an innocent person suffering. Your inclusion of a pre-earth explanation is an ad hoc attempt to save your religion from immorality and inconsistency

[ttruscott]

...

Maybe I misinterpreted your claim that God "hid" himself and that he "hid" his divinity and power to mean that he appeared as one of the guys. Maybe he was a disembodies voice? I don't know

Maybe you did. Isaiah 45:15 Truly you are a God who has been hiding himself, the God and Savior of Israel. However we knew HIM, whether like we do here on earth as a mysterious spiritual force or as another spirit in the telepathic link, (no bodies remember...please) I don't remember. How do spirits like angels recognize each other in the spirit realm?

However much He hid, YHWH certainly did not display HIS divinity and power until after our free will decisions to accept HIM as our GOD and HIS promise of salvation OR to reject HIM as a false, lying god with no power to provide a heaven, salvation or hell.

But immediately castigating me for saying He appeared to us as an ordinary human when you know I believe there were no humans at this time is a waste of my time here and sets a bad tone.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

So you believe the aforementioned sins deserve death then? So if a child is caught lying to their parents, it would be justice to have them executed?

....

Every sin is under the judgment of death. There are no big or small sins - all sins send the sinner to hell or Christ to the cross in the sinner's stead.

Executed is a human expression. GOD's word is 'judgement.' But some sinners are judged and some are saved and since we humans do not know which is which and we all hope we are never judged, we err on the side of mercy, a characteristic YHWH loves.

By claiming that our knowledge of their judgement implies we must look forward to their execution or even being their executioner is an emotionally driven leap of logic that defies reason.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

Aside from your presupposition that we existed pre-earth, a child with cancer is proof of an innocent person suffering.

...

Again you misrepresent me - imCo, only sinners are born on earth so there are NO INNOCENT HUMANS on earth.

[lefillegal]

What does anyone deserve? Secondly, life itself isn't just, but God is.

God designed life. If life isn't just then God isn't just.

You must first prove God designed life to be either just or unjust, before one can argue if the designer is at fault. An example would be take an inventor. Lets say he invented a cure for cancer. His creation was intended as a cure for cancer. Now lets same someone took that same creation and used it to destroy people, is the oroginal designer unjust? You must first prove that his invention was designed to be just or unjust. Life itself, might possibly just be a conduit for justness to manuever in. You cant prove it one way or another, yet you state that if life isn't just then God isn't. I contend that life isn't proved to be a function of justness. You have yet to affirm how
Iife is dependent on justness. What you do affirm is your position, as I affirm mine.

Not your definition but Gods. If we can't even agree on what justice is, how could you possibly serve it? And since we are now talking shoulds, should you ignore that life is unjust, in preference of your "in a just world" scenario?

justice
ˈdʒʌstɪs/Submit
noun
1.
just behaviour or treatment.
"a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people"
synonyms: fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, equitableness, even-handedness, egalitarianism, impartiality, impartialness, lack of bias, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, lack of prejudice, open-mindedness, non-partisanship;

Arguing that God has a different definition of "justice" is special pleading. Humans invented language. We get to decide what words mean. If God has a different definition in mind then he shouldn't be using the word "justice" in the first place. If you disagree with "justice" meaning "fairness" then it suggests you don't believe fairness is a good thing. Do you believe fairness is bad?

Why should I ignore that life is unjust?

Using your definition, how does life have "a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people"? And what of animals and plants, which also have life? If according to the definition above, justice appears partial to people, is that truly just? And again where is your proof mankind invented language? According to you, what were the first words spoken? As for just being fairness, that in itself is illogical. For what's unfair to the criminal, in many instances, is also fair to the law. Does a gazelle believe its fair to be the lions lunch? Does the lion find it unfair that the gazelle is his lunch? It already appears as if justice is a "function" of fairness, while at the same time being a fumtion of unfairness. This forces me to refute your definition of justice. That required no special pleading.

What christian believes one can escape Gods authority? Even beyond that, we arrive at, what exactly is justice to God? How do you know whether or not he's employing his justice, if you don't understand it? How can you employ his justice if you have your own perception of what justice is?

"I guess God has a different idea of justice and I suppose it's better than our own" is special pleading and an empty argument. Can you explain God's justice to me or do you just assume he has a better system of justice than our own?

Gods justice is whatever he says it is. I've already demonstrated how your definition can't even stand up to its accusations of "fairness". I would not expect his justice to be "fair" to anyone but him, for it is his justice. You don't accept my definition of justice, and I'm sure animals and plants don't accept yours.

Is not Jesus the end of the law, especially most of the Leviticus laws?

That's not the point. The point is your supposition that God would not order us to kill in his name is wrong as there are examples of him doing so in the past. It is something God would do. If your argument is "yes but God changed all that when Jesus ended the law" - if God can change his mind about the law then what's to say he won't change his mind again?

Wrong, my supposition was God did not order me to kill, he ordered me to love my enemies. He ordered old testament followers to kill. Also my point never inferred God changed. I understand what the law IS for. If all men are sinners, (which men seem to question) then all men needed a standard to understand why God states such. The law was introduced as a standard to show the faults that all people carry. Therefore no one could deny what God had proclaimed about all are sinners. If ALL are sinners, even unto this day, how then did God change by continuing to allow sin? The problem you have is that God allowed men to stone, kill,etc. Yet you fail to mentioned that he still allowed "sin" itself to continue. God then, obviously had a specific purpose for these actions taking place. After all, men were sinning, and continued to sin before, during, and after these events. Although sin played a significant role in these actions, The real focus SHOULD be on GOD IS WORKING. For sin had proof of itself and its works all around. What the old testament followers persistently sought after was some sort of verification that God was working. We that have the testimonies of both the Old and New Testament KNOW God is working, we know his words come to pass. God does not have to go through the same extremeties with us as he did for our ancestors. We have to oppertunity to learn from the mistakes they made. For most, it is not needed that God demonstrate himself in the same manner as before. That is to say, if we now know who and what status Michelle Obama holds, there is no longer a need for her title "first lady". Whether she presents herself as Mrs. Obama or First Lady, she no longer has to demonstrate the power she holds. Did she lose any authority by dropping the title? I think not. What you are trying to do is equivilate God actions with evil. You'd be hard pressed to find any theologian who agrees. Only intellects come to this equivication.

What you really want to know is why, if I was born during old testament times, commit these seemingly unjust acts? The answer is simple and one intellects consider foolishness. I believe in God and would have tried my best to follow his instructions. Nothing more and nothing less. Us Christians often refer to this type of commitment as faith. My faith to do as God said is the same always. In the past, that faith would have called for stoning, etc,but as of now that faith doesn't. Iim sorry if that bothers you, but I! Trying to please God, not man

That you admit you would kill children in the name of God is disgusting. I hope you realize that this mentality is what fuels Muslim extremists to kill in the name of Allah.

What do you think God would have thought as disgusting, obeying his command or disobeying it? I don't care what we as men think, i care about what God thinks, as I believe that he is in charge of my soul, im only concerned with pleasing him. You can be disgusted all you like, but meat is still meat. What is good to one, disgusts another. Lastly, the mentality that feuls Muslims, is just that, a Muslim's extremist's mentality. Notice the possessiveness. I am not Muslim!, neither do I share THEIR extremeties. That "mentality" belong solely to a person who is both Muslim and an extremist. I sir, am neither. What they do with their faith, is not a negative reflection on mine, just as the way you spend your money can not be a negative reflection of my spending habits. Your spending habits may not be mine. The same way you spend your money how you chose, I do. The psame can be said of faith. How the Muslims spend their faith can not be equivilated to mine. Again, the truth that bothers intellects, is how someone of any faith, can adhere to its "system of truth" with no verifiable proof. For in the intellects mind, all truths are verifiable. In the theologians mind, proof is the exact opposite of faith, for faith requires no proof. This my friend is why you and I, will never agree on these matter. We both enter this investigation from the opposing position. Positioms that can only be reconciled when the truth is fully revealed. Until then, it is of your opinion that God calling for death is disgusting, it is of my opinion that it is not.

[Justin108]

So you believe the aforementioned sins deserve death then? So if a child is caught lying to their parents, it would be justice to have them executed?

Nope. Why don’t you provide the scripture that says Christians should execute their children for not making their bed, taking a cookie, or coveting a toy.

I never said the Bible gives direct instruction to kill children. I'm saying the Bible claims that children deserve to die.

If I said "Kim Jong-Un deserves to die" is it the same as saying "go kill Kim Jong-Un"?
No. But if Kim Jong-Un does en up being killed, justice would be served. If a child dies, is justice being served?

In 6:23 he is talking about spiritual death otherwise he’d be saying he literally died from sin in Romans 7:7-13.

I agree. Roman's 7 clearly refers to metaphorical death. But Romans 6:23 is not so clear. But I'll meet you half way. These children are still deprived of eternal life due to their petty sins. In the grand scheme of things, this is like depriving these children from an antidote to a deadly virus. They all end up "dying" from not receiving salvation.

You're contradicting yourself. Here you clearly stated that...

How is acknowledging Leviticus 20:9 is a physical death contradicting myself?

That was a typo. My bad. I was referring to a different contradiction in the text.

My reference to Leviticus is an argument against your assumption that Paul didn't mean physical death on the grounds of it sounding too appalling to be true.

No where have I argued or even assumed that, "Paul didn't mean physical death on the grounds of it sounding too appalling to be true."

Do really think Paul meant children deserve to die because they didn't make their bed when told too? You really think that's the simplest answer?

You're not giving me any logical reason to immediately reject the notion of Paul damning the slightest sin to death. My point in posting the Leviticus laws is that petty crimes have "deserved" death in the Bible before, so why not now?

I referenced Leviticus to show you that appalling commandments are not uncommon in the Bible.

But by appealing to Leviticus you cut the already very wobbly legs out from underneath your own argument since there are violations of Levitical law which did not have physical death as a punishment.

Again, you're missing the point I make by referencing the Leviticus laws. Leviticus doesn't support my claim that "all wrong-doing deserves death". I does however support my claim that even petty wrong-doings (cursing your parents, not being a virgin, being a homosexual) deserves death. Then there's Exodus 31:14 that kills people for working on a Saturday. My point is, the Bible sentences the pettiest of crimes (half of which aren't even crimes) to death. So killing a child for not making his bed is not beyond something the Bible would say.

Thereby falsifying your argument that all sin deserves physical death. You can’t refute this counter argument so you are left appealing only to the five or six metaphorical words of Paul in Romans 6:23.

I already responded to this...

According to most Christians, Jesus did away with the Old Testament laws which is why Christians are perfectly fine with eating pork, mixing fabrics and working on the Sabbath. In which case, Paul's claim that sin deserves death would not be a contradiction as it could simply be a part of the New Testament laws.

Another possibility is that this is a contradiction in the Bible. Interpreting it in such a way as to deliberately avoid contradiction is selective interpretation. If you wish, I can list the contradictions of the Bible? It's not at all unlikely that this is just another one.

Speaking of which you entirely ignored my counter argument that your argument is itself based upon a metaphorical reading of Romans 6:23 even though ironically you claim a literal reading is to be preferred. Are you conceding the point that your interpretation is not literal either?

How is my reading of Romans 6:23 not literal? I am consistently stating that he is referring to a LITERAL death. I have never said otherwise.

Yes there is a difference. Lev 20:9 deals with cursing one’s parents, your analogy deals with not making the bed when told to.

Ok so if a rebellious teenager yells at her father that she hates him, you would be perfectly fine if he had her hanged for it?

According to most Christians, Jesus did away with the Old Testament laws which is why Christians are perfectly fine with eating pork, mixing fabrics and working on the Sabbath.

Just as a side note, these are all violations which did not have physical death as a punishment.

Exodus 31:15 - For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death.

In which case, Paul's claim that sin deserves death would not be a contradiction as it could simply be a part of the New Testament laws.

Paul didn’t claim “sin deserves death.� That’s your metaphorical interpretation of a passage you want to be read literally. If it were read literally it would be an incoherent scenario where sin is an employer which pays out death for wages.

This is just a ridiculous reading of my claim. "Sin deserves death" is said in the same manner as claiming "theft deserves imprisonment". If this is your idea of refuting my claim that Paul meant physical death because "look you're using 'sin' in a metaphorical sense" then you're just being desperate. I never said metaphor doesn't exist and I never said Paul never speaks metaphorically. I'm saying that Romans 6:23 lacks any indication that it is meant as metaphorical.

Another possibility is that this is a contradiction in the Bible. Interpreting it in such a way as to deliberately avoid contradiction is selective interpretation. If you wish, I can list the contradictions of the Bible? It's not at all unlikely that this is just another one.

Red Herrings are generally a good sign one's opponent has run out of cogent counter arguments. You haven’t even come close to establishing that Paul meant all sin deserves physical death. Perhaps you should finish doing that before you start arguing this is a contradiction?

red herring
noun
a clue or piece of information which is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.

How is interpreting information contrary to your interpretation misleading or distracting? The Bible, as you yourself are arguing, is very much open to interpretation. My interpretation is that this may be another contradiction within the Bible

[Justin108]

...

Fair enough. Regardless, I don't see why it matters if they mean the same? So Adam and Eve were subtle as well? What's wrong with being subtle?

The word subtle is to point us to the craftiness of the serpent, that is, his disingenuous evil or it has no meaning in the context. And if it means evil for one then it means evil for others in this cojoined context.

This does not follow. Genesis 3:1 calls the serpent subtle (crafty, clever, etc.). This points only to one of his traits. It doesn't therefor conclude that everyone that shares this trait (cleverness, craftiness) also shares the serpent's other traits. Yes the serpent is crafty and evil. But Genesis 3:1 exclusively refers to his craftiness.

If I said that Hitler was a great leader, are all great leaders evil? Or am I merely stating a single trait of Hitler in isolation to his other traits? The context of Genesis 3:1 shows that in that instance his craftiness was used in an evil manner, but your argument is merely that Genesis 3:1 and Genesis 2:25 uses the same word. That's it. They share a word, not a context.

"Subtle" does not mean "evil" as you claim.

Your use of the English language to express the necessary meaning of the Hebrew language is ....what?

I never said the devil was a good guy... I'm merely saying the word "subtle" does not mean "evil"

I reject all apologies for th e devil and need not listen to them...

This is amusing. "How dare you say the devil is anything less than pure evil!? I'm not listening! Lalalala!"[/quote]
You sound like a prude mother who instinctively rejects any claim that Rock & Roll isn't pure evil.

So upon sinning, we suddenly grew an amygdala, a limbic system, orbitofrontal cortex and a pineal gland? ... Did all of these structures sprout out of nowhere the moment we sinned?

Ride your straw horse elsewhere - you know this answer to this and are just baiting me. I contend we were not human and had no bodies when we first sinned.

This isn't a strawman. I just want to be absolutely sure I understand what you're saying. I get that we didn't have a body when we first sinned, but we now have bodies that drive us to sin. This drive is the result of complex neural biology. Either this neural biology was designed by God (thereby giving us a sinful earthly body) or these complex neural structures sprouted on their own.

I was waiting for this. I have known hundreds of Christians, almost all of whom claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, yet I have never heard of your version of Christianity. Why did the Holy Spirit not reveal this truth to them as well?

Why did HE wait 2000 years to give the Law? Why did HE wait another 2000 years to show the Christ? That is that same reason that HE waited another 2000 years to teach PCEC!

1 Corinthians 3:2 I have fed you with milk and not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able,

John 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.

2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

Your scorn for this method of a periodic revelation to HIS sinful Church or scorning the the need for this method does not prove it was not HIS method nor that it is a deficient method for HIS purposes.

Peace, Ted

I'm not scorning the periodic revelation. I'm scorning the notion that you are the "chosen one" for this new revelation as I have yet to hear this revelation from anyone else. You are his new prophet to this new revelation of PCEC

[Justin108]

...

Aside from your presupposition that we existed pre-earth, a child with cancer is proof of an innocent person suffering.

...

Again you misrepresent me - imCo, only sinners are born on earth so there are NO INNOCENT HUMANS on earth.

I'm not misrepresenting you. I'm just stating that your claim that there are no innocents on earth is based on your PCEC presupposition.

Answer this question. If a child dies of cancer,would you think to yourself "well the child deserved it"?

[Justin108]

...

So you believe the aforementioned sins deserve death then? So if a child is caught lying to their parents, it would be justice to have them executed?

....

Every sin is under the judgment of death. There are no big or small sins - all sins send the sinner to hell or Christ to the cross in the sinner's stead.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=27762

Executed is a human expression. GOD's word is 'judgement.' But some sinners are judged and some are saved

Hardly seems fair.

By claiming that our knowledge of their judgement implies we must look forward to their execution or even being their executioner is an emotionally driven leap of logic that defies reason.

A few premises

- God does only good
- We ought to rejoice when good things happen
- Since God is good, his judgement must be good
- A child that dies is a result of God's judgement

Conclusion
- We ought to rejoice when a child dies

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 73 by lefillegal]

lefillegal wrote:

What does anyone deserve? Secondly, life itself isn't just, but God is.
justin108 wrote:

God designed life. If life isn't just then God isn't just.

You must first prove God designed life to be either just or unjust, before one can argue if the designer is at fault.

I think you must first prove the existence of a god who would design things in the first place . We nontheists run into problems debating/discussing the particulars of a god (such as did he design life to be just or unjust) who can't be shown to have an active, evidential role in life on this planet.

I learned here that the person with the 'positive claim' (in this case, that a god exists) carries the burden of proof, ie, has the responsibility to provide evidence regardless of the particulars being debated or discussed -- UNLESS the nontheist claims NO god exists (which would be a positive claim).

We both, atheist and theist alike, forget to keep one foot on the original claim (there is evidence/there is not evidence for God). You have every single right to challenge the claim of an atheist who denies God's existence. Most nontheists on this forum are very aware we cannot prove that God does NOT exist, so we get mixed up with agnostics. I avoid the 'atheist' term altogether, too much baggage and misunderstanding on both sides.

An example would be take an inventor. Lets say he invented a cure for cancer. His creation was intended as a cure for cancer. Now lets same someone took that same creation and used it to destroy people, is the oroginal designer unjust? You must first prove that his invention was designed to be just or unjust.

That sounds fair. It reminds me of the Manhattan Project, and the ethical dilemmas noted by the folks who led the project. Nuclear fission is like your cure for cancer. In fact, I worked in oncology for 7 years recently as an RN and would say that the analogy very much carries through!

Can it be 'proven' that nuclear fission was intended for just or unjust reasons? No. It was like discovering how to make fire. Current cures for cancer too often kill the patient instead of curing them. It seems fair to me to call the intention for both neutral. I think it was you that used a good analogy with knives that fits in here.

So are we nontheists accusing God of having a cruel intention versus a just one? It is no wonder that we do for the following reasons -- theists routinely attribute intention to God that when reversed or examined for logical soundness fail the test!

For instance; if miracles are attributed to God, what about the tragedies and disasters? All we nontheists have are your words and your Bible to provide us information about your God. In your Bible, God's own words about himself claim he's created everything, good, bad, ugly, evil, beautiful and wonderful.

What were God's intentions behind that? This is a question for theists, and it would be inappropriate for me as a nontheist to attempt an answer.

So I offer you a chance to answer as a believer, how God's own words (well, what the writer claims God said) say he's made it all, how believers seem to only attribute the miracles to God but not the disasters. Well, unless you are a member of the Westboro Baptist Church . . . .

Life itself, might possibly just be a conduit for justness to manuever in. You cant prove it one way or another, yet you state that if life isn't just then God isn't. I contend that life isn't proved to be a function of justness. You have yet to affirm how life is dependent on justness. What you do affirm is your position, as I affirm mine.

We nonbelievers can't affirm or deny God's justice, that is a believer's job to explain that to us. Nontheists may speculate and pick apart what doesn't seem to logically or naturally follow (why tragedies are not attributed to God, for instance). We nontheists can't lay any claims or prove much of anything about something we deeply doubt is even true.

Now your speculation -- that life itself might possibly just be a conduit for justness to maneuver in -- that is a possibility, but does it fit in with the evidence for God (the bible, experiences of believers) or not?

Leaving a god out of the formula, I would deny that 'justness' has a thing to do with anything. Justness is a human construct, not an objective fact of life.

(first sentence snipped for focus) Also my point never inferred God changed. I understand what the law IS for. If all men are sinners, (which men seem to question) then all men needed a standard to understand why God states such.

Aside from dismissing the notion of 'sin', and conceding human beings are imperfect and capable of great awfulness, a god providing a standard (the Law) makes sense. However, I don't see much in the way of explanation, just 'don't do this'.

The law was introduced as a standard to show the faults that all people carry. Therefore no one could deny what God had proclaimed about all are sinners. If ALL are sinners, even unto this day, how then did God change by continuing to allow sin? The problem you have is that God allowed men to stone, kill,etc. Yet you fail to mentioned that he still allowed "sin" itself to continue. God then, obviously had a specific purpose for these actions taking place. After all, men were sinning, and continued to sin before, during, and after these events. Although sin played a significant role in these actions, The real focus SHOULD be on GOD IS WORKING. For sin had proof of itself and its works all around.

I got lost when you went from "God had a specific purpose for [allowing sin] these actions to take place to 'the real focus should be on God is working.'

What the old testament followers persistently sought after was some sort of verification that God was working. We that have the testimonies of both the Old and New Testament KNOW God is working, we know his words come to pass. God does not have to go through the same extremeties with us as he did for our ancestors.

I'd have to disagree strongly with that LOL. Still not sure what you mean by "God is working". Anyway, the above is a rationalization that hopes to explain God's lack of direct intervention in modern times. Yet most Christians I know claim miracles and intervention today, so you can see why we're confused.

We have to oppertunity to learn from the mistakes they made. For most, it is not needed that God demonstrate himself in the same manner as before. That is to say, if we now know who and what status Michelle Obama holds, there is no longer a need for her title "first lady". Whether she presents herself as Mrs. Obama or First Lady, she no longer has to demonstrate the power she holds. Did she lose any authority by dropping the title? I think not. What you are trying to do is equivilate God actions with evil. You'd be hard pressed to find any theologian who agrees. Only intellects come to this equivication.

This is where we disagree. As a civilization we are moving beyond a focus on 'obedience' to generating thoughtful ethical standards from which to derive morals and laws from.

Besides, Michelle Obama is right in our face! There's no question she exists, and for 5 billion (roughly) of the world's denizens, your God's existence is not taken for granted. See again how this all goes back (in the nontheist mind) to being only meaningful *IF* your God exists at all? I have to concede God's possible existence to even converse with you here, but I sincerely don't believe it, it's completely hypothetical to me. If your God were as obvious and active in the world as Michelle Obama, we'd be having a different discussion.

Equivocate God's actions with evil. Is this impossible to do or does it just seem offensive, or both? From Wikipedia:

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

If theologians were experts, which I guess we have to assume, then their lack of agreement wouldn't necessarily be an ad populum fallacy. Since what they are expert in seems to be imaginary, I can't use that information as convincing at all.

There is nothing deliberately misleading or squirrely about comparing God's purported actions to ethical and moral standards and calling some of Yahweh's antics evil.

I don't regard a god as a source of such things, but if we use the Bible as evidence that God is the source of morality and ethics, then we'd have to agree that it is moral and ethical to kill in the name of God, and shun and discriminate to the detriment of nonbelievers. I'm fine with "God" of the OT condoning war and rape and slave taking, considering I see this God as a human projection, a tribal war God of ancient Mesopotamia. That was human life back then, but haven't we come a very long way since?

But that's what we have, written down in a book claimed to be the word of God and then claimed to be as relevant today as back then. No, MORE relevant because these texts are all we are left with now that God is no longer available.

I don't see an equivocation here, just a loyal defense of your God. Genocide, slavery and women as chattel are considered immoral and reprehensible nowadays, what else is a person supposed to think? And let's not forget to mention a cosmos designed by an immaterial transcendent being who demands worship and 'faith' from a particular species of puny bald apes -- and then denies them the human heart's greatest wish -- to avoid death for ourselves and our loved ones. It doesn't get any more real and heartfelt than that, and unless you 'believe', whatever the hell that means, you are either goin' in the lake of fire or you just die die when you die. The whole picture is not appealing at all.

These are not insults to God. These are glaringly obvious problems that get right in one's face and won't go away. The solution of 'believing' in this God to resolve the absurdity is not very appealing . . . considering how MANY many gods there are claimed to be, why would I 'worship' one like Yahweh? There are much 'better' gods, if I needed one, much kinder and gentler gods.