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?

[Purple Knight]

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?

Maybe the burning is not for to show her, but for the others? Probably for her it doesn't matter much is she going to die by stones or fire.

I think this is a decent interpretation just as I think the death penalty really does scare people. They had an episode of Star Trek like this, where a utopia was bought on a certain planet because the penalty for every last crime, even a minor one, was death, so nobody commits that crime. Then of course Wesley falls on something and destroys property and now deserves death, and there we have our hook. But the point is, harsh punishments scare people into being good and the writers of that story certainly thought so, so we wouldn't be alone in thinking that.

And you can say, well, what is the value of being scared into righteousness?

I agree, for those who are scared into it, perhaps it has little to no value. But for those who now can choose righteousness because they want to, and because enough others choose righteousness that righteousness is a legitimate option, as it would not be in, for example, pre-flood world, or Sodom and Gomorrah, because when everybody is evil you are forced to become so just to get by.

So harsh punishments make enough people good out of fear that others can be good out of their hearts. And there is the value.

Show others what?

That when you become a priest, you take harsher responsibilities on not just yourself, but your family, to evince morality, and perhaps, if you can't take the fire, get out of the priesthood.

He could be righteous and do nothing but torture and lie to us, if he wanted.

No, that would not be loving, so no a God of LOVE cannot torture nor can he lie.

Does this mean he can do anything he wants and have it not count as torture, or does this mean God has limits - things he cannot do?

[JehovahsWitness]

He could be righteous and do nothing but torture and lie to us, if he wanted.

No, that would not be loving, so no a God of LOVE cannot torture nor can he lie.

Does this mean he can do anything he wants and have it not count as torture, or does this mean God has limits - things he cannot do?

Neither, it means he can do anything He likes but he doesn't like to lie or torture so he never does.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #20]

I was defending the view that if someone believes this command came from God, how they might proceed to defend it. The daughter of the priest by playing the whore puts doubt in people's hearts as to if the priest is a man of God. If he is a man of God, why didn't he raise his daughter right? Why is she a whore?

It is for the same reason during voting we try to show how the person's children are bad people. Look at so and so's son. He molested a child. Good luck with that person winning the votes.


But I personally do not think God commanded this. Jews invented commands because they took the faith on themselves. They wanted an earthly king and kingdom, so they got it. In doing so, they lost touch with God and did not apprehend his will correctly anymore.

I can know that he would command the eternal laws because we can know them by the natural law in philosophy, such as don't kill, rape, steal, etc. These extra ceremonial laws, criminal laws etc were how Jews ran their society.

If one is convinced of the incarnation and resurrection, then they would be convinced of Jesus' law.

[POI]

I was defending the view that if someone believes this command came from God, how they might proceed to defend it. The daughter of the priest by playing the whore puts doubt in people's hearts as to if the priest is a man of God. If he is a man of God, why didn't he raise his daughter right? Why is she a whore?

It is for the same reason during voting we try to show how the person's children are bad people. Look at so and so's son. He molested a child. Good luck with that person winning the votes.

Well, then I won't waste my time countering such an "argument", since you apparently were able to discern that your god would never "inspire" such a passage In the future, it would be nice if you lead with what you stated below. It would have saved our audience, and us, much time I'm interested in what the person believes, who is responding. Not what they speculate others might argue, for which they, themselves, do not think themselves.

But I personally do not think God commanded this. Jews invented commands because they took the faith on themselves. They wanted an earthly king and kingdom, so they got it. In doing so, they lost touch with God and did not apprehend his will correctly anymore.

How exactly do you determine which OT commands are even from YHWH, if ANY?.?.?.?.?.?

I can know that he would command the eternal laws because we can know them by the natural law in philosophy, such as don't kill, rape, steal, etc. These extra ceremonial laws, criminal laws etc were how Jews ran their society.

Is your argument that YHWH did not command/offer ANY ceremonial and/or criminal laws, or just some of them, or other?

Further, do we need a God to tell us killing, rape, and theft are wrong? How do you know your believed god commanded ANYTHING at all?.?.?.?.? Maybe all of it, was like you indicated, merely projecting what a god would think, based upon what they already wanted/believed. Meaning, whatever the author wrote, or was told to write, were the beliefs of the person writing or the ones telling them what to write.

If one is convinced of the incarnation and resurrection, then they would be convinced of Jesus' law.

Jesus apparently did not write down hardly anything. It was later scribes. Many of which, we do not know exactly where they obtained their source information. But, Jesus is apparently reported to have also said:

"until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." --- You know the "NT" was not a thing yet, right?

If you can so easily conclude that OT writers had their own personal agendas, why could you not just as easily conclude this of anything from the NT? Why not just dismiss all of it?

Further, apparently, Jesus references stuff from the OT as well. How do you discern that Jesus now rebukes some of it??? And, which parts exactly? Maybe he is a-okay with burning a priest's daughter?

[Purple Knight]

Neither, it means he can do anything He likes but he doesn't like to lie or torture so he never does.

So he can, he just chooses not to. That's my original point. He could. He could do nothing but torture us and have that be righteous, because he's the exclusive source of right and wrong to begin with, so if he did (whether or not he would) it would be right and good.

This isn't a formal logical if-statement, where I could say something like, "If there were blue elephants then the moon would be made of green cheese." That's a true statement in formal logic but there's no real connection there, and it doesn't mean that something about a blue elephant would lead the moon to change. My if-statement about if God chose to torture us for kicks, is implying the real connection, simply absent the antecedent happening to be true. I actually shouldn't have to explain this, but because you and I are both very intelligent, I do.

[JehovahsWitness]

He could do nothing but torture us and have that be righteous, because he's the exclusive source of right and wrong to begin with, so if he did (whether or not he would) it would be right and good.

No it would not be good and right, it would be perverse and bad. Calling something right doesnt make it so, no matter who does it. If the effects of something is, in reality negative, then declaring it positive would just make him a liar.

[POI]

No it would not be good and right, it would be perverse and bad. Calling something right doesnt make it so, no matter who does it. If the effects of something is, in reality negative, then declaring it positive would just make him a liar.

Good to know... Say it is universal, that fornication is 'bad'. The Bible also declares that the correct punishment for a fornicating priest's daughter is burning them to death. In (WHAT context) is this command, for punishment, actually not "perverse and bad"?

[1213]

Show others what? If we agree that there were not many priest's daughters out there, to begin with, as the majority populous were not priests.... And further, there would be even less priest's daughters who actually sought out to practice fornication.... Further still, that the ones doing so might never have been discovered.... And even further still, it's also possible the accused daughter's fornication might have actually been an act of rape, or being seduced, or being coerced....

Show to everyone else that fornication is wrong.

Obviously righteous judge investigates the case and gives right judgement. If it was a rape, it was not fornication.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #24]

How exactly do you determine which OT commands are even from YHWH, if ANY?.?.?.?.?.?

The ones that are from Yhwh are the eternal laws, which we derive from natural law in philosophy. Burning a daughter cannot be derived from the natural law, thus it is not an eternal law.

Is your argument that YHWH did not command/offer ANY ceremonial and/or criminal laws, or just some of them, or other?

I am not sure if he commanded any of them.

Further, do we need a God to tell us killing, rape, and theft are wrong? How do you know your believed god commanded ANYTHING at all?.?.?.?.? Maybe all of it, was like you indicated, merely projecting what a god would think, based upon what they already wanted/believed. Meaning, whatever the author wrote, or was told to write, were the beliefs of the person writing or the ones telling them what to write.

I don't know, but one can trust in the resurrection of Jesus and thus what Jesus commanded.

Jesus apparently did not write down hardly anything. It was later scribes. Many of which, we do not know exactly where they obtained their source information. But, Jesus is apparently reported to have also said:

Even more so. Jesus wrote nothing. But that is not very important because we have a historical account of Jesus, which is why most all historians believe that Jesus existed and was crucified.

"until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." --- You know the "NT" was not a thing yet, right?

Yes, Jesus was speaking of the eternal law not the collection of Jewish laws.

If you can so easily conclude that OT writers had their own personal agendas, why could you not just as easily conclude this of anything from the NT? Why not just dismiss all of it?

It is not that they had some agenda. They had their own views of the world. If they apprehend the will of God, then they must fit in within those world views. It is not like they heard God talking to them or something. Prophets apprehended the will of God in their intellect.

Further, apparently, Jesus references stuff from the OT as well. How do you discern that Jesus now rebukes some of it??? And, which parts exactly? Maybe he is a-okay with burning a priest's daughter?

Jesus said he is the truth the way and the life, so we only need to follow his commands. I know he disagreed with much of the Jewish law because he said love your enemies and bless those who persecute you.

[brunumb]

[Replying to POI in post #24]

How exactly do you determine which OT commands are even from YHWH, if ANY?.?.?.?.?.?

The ones that are from Yhwh are the eternal laws, which we derive from natural law in philosophy. Burning a daughter cannot be derived from the natural law, thus it is not an eternal law.

That pretty much makes YHWH redundant. We make up all our laws and some of us just attribute them to God, perhaps to give them added authority.