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?

[brunumb]

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

Can we really? The great creator and fine-tuner of universes did a rather botched up job of organising this great lynchpin event of Christianity given that there is so much doubt surrounding its occurrence.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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?

I know it is convenient for you to nit pick the Bible and point out stuff within it that will allow you to justify your continual unbelief.

But of course, it is never convenient to point out the countless scriptures where God shows grace, mercy, love, kindness...and shows people with blessings beyond measures.

[Purple Knight]

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 doesn't 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.

Would you say that this following answer is analogous to your answer here, about whether God has the power to harm us and have that be righteous?:

Q: Can God make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?
A: No, and that's no failing of God, but of the language used to describe him.

[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 doesn't 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.

Would you say that this following answer is analogous to your answer here, about whether God has the power to harm us and have that be righteous?:

Q: Can God make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?
A: No, and that's no failing of God, but of the language used to describe him.

Apples and oranges. The first is dealing with an observable reality (the natual law of cause and effect); the second with a logical impossibility.

[Miles]

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 doesn't 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.

Would you say that this following answer is analogous to your answer here, about whether God has the power to harm us and have that be righteous?:

Q: Can God make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?
A: No, and that's no failing of God, but of the language used to describe him.

I fail to see any failing of the language used to describe him. Rather, the problem lies in believing the assertion that god is all powerful, omnipotent. Once one drops this silliness the answer becomes quite apparent.

.

[POI]

Show to everyone else that fornication is wrong.

The only way people would know fornication is wrong, is if you burn a priest's daughters??? Seems odd?

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

Nah. Humans are fallible. In times of trouble, some freeze. Some may also not scream, because the rapist may tell them to remain quiet, or he will kill them and their family. Further, I doubt a woman's testimony was worth much, back in the bronze age. The engaged man ain't going to want her anymore. She's "damaged goods".... Case/point:

"If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to deaththe young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another mans wife. You must purge the evil from among you."

[POI]

I know it is convenient for you to nit pick the Bible and point out stuff within it that will allow you to justify your continual unbelief.

But of course, it is never convenient to point out the countless scriptures where God shows grace, mercy, love, kindness...and shows people with blessings beyond measures.

Does this mean you concede the stuff mentioned in the OP does not show "grace, mercy, love, kindness....and does not show people with blessings beyond measures."?

[POI]

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.

Living and dying means what exactly?

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

Interesting?.?.? Again, the verse says: "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" Seems pretty clear the verse says it all applies; not just what you suggest.

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.

Why couldn't the same be said for the "NT"? Just dismiss it all, and be done with it....

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.

Ooooh, Jesus says "He's the truth"... Got it. Well then... There you go... Can't argue with that reason now, can you....?

Sounds like you're cherry picking.... For starters, He does not denounce <slavery>. In fact, he re-enforces the fact that it's still a-okay. This was also a Jewish thing....

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #38]

Living and dying means what exactly?

I don't see how this question is relevant to the topic. We could discuss it in another thread, though if you open one.

Interesting?.?.? Again, the verse says: "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" Seems pretty clear the verse says it all applies; not just what you suggest.

All you did was repeat yourself. My answer remains the same. The law there is the eternal law which is found in the OT.

Why couldn't the same be said for the "NT"? Just dismiss it all, and be done with it....

The NT is built around eye witness accounts of Jesus resurrecting. Either we are convinced God incarnated and resurrected or we are not. If we are, then the NT has significantly more importance. What could be more important that God himself incarnating and resurrecting in order to set up his kingdom on earth, i.e. the living Church?

Sounds like you're cherry picking.... For starters, He does not denounce <slavery>. In fact, he re-enforces the fact that it's still a-okay. This was also a Jewish thing....

I disagree. It is Paul that says slaves obey your masters, because what else was he supposed to tell Christians? Revolt against Rome and all get killed?

Jesus actually speaks against slavery when he says love your neighbors as yourself, and love God. And when he talks of the goats and sheep.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Does this mean you concede the stuff mentioned in the OP does not show "grace, mercy, love, kindness....and does not show people with blessings beyond measures."?

I meant "showering people with blessings beyond measures". My bad.

Besides that, I do not understand what you are asking.