Theists, Some Vexing Follow-up Questions?.?.?

[POI]

In a recent topic ---- > here (viewtopic.php?t=38559&start=60), I posed the following question:

"when one reads this Verse, was the punishment commanded by the consensus of humans, or, god himself?"

Placing this into context, the interlocutor argues that God's moral don't change, but the assigned punishment does --- for whatever reason (undefined).... The above question has yet to be answered or addressed by my debate opponent. So I thought I would offer it here.

For debate:

1) Let's suppose God's morals do not change. Okay, great... Then why in the heck does god command that a priest's daughter is to be burned to death, if she loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father, with NO caveats?

2) If there exists caveats, why are they not mentioned?

3) Was this command ultimately issued/inspired by God, or humans? And how do you know?

4) Exactly when and WHY does this command no longer apply? Or is it still applied by God?

5) How can you distinguish if any passages, at all, are inspired by any god?

[1213]

...
4) Exactly when and WHY does this command no longer apply? Or is it still applied by God?

Are there still priests according to the rules in Old Testament? I don't think so. That is why we could not have that situation. Even if the rule is still valid, there would be no need for that rule anymore.

[POI]

...
4) Exactly when and WHY does this command no longer apply? Or is it still applied by God?

Are there still priests according to the rules in Old Testament? I don't think so. That is why we could not have that situation. Even if the rule is still valid, there would be no need for that rule anymore.

Why was this ever a command?

[1213]

...
4) Exactly when and WHY does this command no longer apply? Or is it still applied by God?

Are there still priests according to the rules in Old Testament? I don't think so. That is why we could not have that situation. Even if the rule is still valid, there would be no need for that rule anymore.

Why was this ever a command?

Why not? Why it is problem for you?

[POI]

Why not? Why it is problem for you?

Please note how this exchange has gone, thus far:

(Me) Exactly when and WHY does this command no longer apply? Or is it still applied by God?

(you) Are there still priests according to the rules in Old Testament? I don't think so. That is why we could not have that situation. Even if the rule is still valid, there would be no need for that rule anymore.

(Me) Why was this ever a command?

(You) Why not? Why it is problem for you? <=== ????

Thus far, you do not seem to have an answer. But, you are presenting as if you did/do have an answer.?.?.?.?

I'm essentially asking why god would ever command such a punishment for such said crime... You do not seem to have an answer, or maybe you do not want to answer....

Allow me to rephrase, for more possible clarification:

Does the assigned punishment fit the crime, ever? I'm not questioning whether or not it was a crime at all.... I'm questioning the punishment portion. I'm aware that over the ages of time, differing assigned punishments are issued for any deemed crime. Thus, I'm asking...

1) In WHAT context is the assigned punishment deemed (the one and only) punishment for dishonoring your priest father? And...

2) Why was this ever (the appropriate punishment) for such said crime?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #5]

He doesn't have to understand why God commanded what he did in order to believe that he did. He is asking you, what problem do you see with the commandment?


Jonathan Targum says Jews rule this law during the second temple period to mean if she is betrothed then she will be put to death. This is true even if she was the daughter of a layman. Deut 22:23.

However, because she is the daughter of a priest and her action of being a whore makes the priest look bad, her death will be by fire.

But maybe you will wish to ask, well why did God command a betrothed woman that plays the whore to be killed.

[1213]

...
1) In WHAT context is the assigned punishment deemed (the one and only) punishment for dishonoring your priest father? And...

2) Why was this ever (the appropriate punishment) for such said crime?

I don't see a problem in the punishment, because no one has to fornicate. If person does so anyway, it is her choice. If person does it regardless of anything, I think she is not righteous and as Bible tells, only righteous will have eternal life. I think also in this case the ultimate reason is the unrighteousness, not the act itself. And I have understood unrighteousness is the problem, because unrighteous person does things that are harmful for people and society, which is why there is death penalty for them.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

[POI]

He doesn't have to understand why God commanded what he did in order to believe that he did.

I'm not questioning his belief.

He is asking you, what problem do you see with the commandment?

If God gives us our morals, then we would all agree, in this context, that this is not an excessive form of punishment. However, I would like to know, that in what exact context the 'correct' punishment is to burn the daughter to death? I can't wait to see your rationale.

Jonathan Targum says Jews rule this law during the second temple period to mean if she is betrothed then she will be put to death. This is true even if she was the daughter of a layman. Deut 22:23.

I'm not asking about this law. The Bible states that many are to be put to death, for all sorts of deemed types of 'sin'. Though a death sentence may or may not still be excessive in some/many of these cases, I'm hyper-focusing on one command which appears excessive from any standpoint. Maybe you can enlighten all of us to the contrary?

However, because she is the daughter of a priest and her action of being a whore makes the priest look bad, her death will be by fire.

The rationale for her sentence of being burned alive hinges upon the priest's (vanity/appearance)? Seems kind of petty....

But maybe you will wish to ask, well why did God command a betrothed woman that plays the whore to be killed.

No. If it was simply that she must die, that would be one thing.... I'm instead asking why did this almighty god command that she burn? And so far, your rationale is because the priest got his feelings hurt and/or may not be as credible in the eye's of the public.

[POI]

...
1) In WHAT context is the assigned punishment deemed (the one and only) punishment for dishonoring your priest father? And...

2) Why was this ever (the appropriate punishment) for such said crime?

I don't see a problem in the punishment, because no one has to fornicate. If person does so anyway, it is her choice. If person does it regardless of anything, I think she is not righteous and as Bible tells, only righteous will have eternal life. I think also in this case the ultimate reason is the unrighteousness, not the act itself. And I have understood unrighteousness is the problem, because unrighteous person does things that are harmful for people and society, which is why there is death penalty for them.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

So if the daughter is not deemed "righteous", the best way to 'show' her is to not only kill her, but do it by way of burning her?

[Purple Knight]

4) Exactly when and WHY does this command no longer apply? Or is it still applied by God?

Here's the troubling but rather simple answer: God's commands apply when he wants, why he wants, and to whom he wants. If you believe he's the source of morality you simply follow, and it shouldn't be a problem as without God there would be no problems, because there would be no morality, and that's really what you're asking as to whether people should really have a problem with this. God is quite a bit nicer than he has to be, which we should take as gracious, because he doesn't have to be nice at all and it would still be righteous.

But this is really the reason I don't believe. I believe that when Bob hurts Amy, Amy, and her pain, and Bob, make that wrong, not some third party. I think that in 99% of cases, Bob would not like to be in Amy's place, would object if he were in her place, would say, no don't do that to me it's immoral and wrong, and yet he's doing it to her anyway, making it wrong, with the final puzzle piece being that Amy would not do that to the other person if she were in Bob's place.