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?

[POI]

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

(POI) Allow me to clarify....

A historical account of a man living and dying is significant, why?

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

(POI) Right, and you still do not seem to be picking up what I am putting down You need to demonstrate that when Jesus says 'the Law', it does not mean every law --- (like the law to burn priest's daughters, if found fornicating).

(AFG) 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?

(POI) Your response sounds very subjective, and/or convenient. It all could be equally important. Remember, you cannot have a NT without the OT How do you know what to dismiss from any of it? I mean, do you dismiss the creation story, the Tower of Babel, the flood, the Exodus, some of the commandments, the "prophecies", etc....? Where do you start/stop?

(AFG) 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?

(POI) Where did Paul get his opinions?

Paul also has no problem laying down the law. However, heresy was also punishable by death, right? I mean, didn't Paul also die, as a martyr, for believing in the "wrong god"? And again, what does the NT say? It says to look to Jesus. I mean, didn't Jesus know many would be martyred, if they did not merely denounce Him?

So yea, neither Jesus, or Paul, denounces slavery.

(AFG) 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.

(POI) The same type of argument can be had from the OT: Lev 19:34 for example....

[POI]

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

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

I already admit there is some 'good' stuff in there. Nothing profound, but at least it also regurgitates some 'good' stuff too. It's the 'bad' stuff which turns people away. It's not like going to your typical Sunday morning service, where the pastor/other cherry picks specific parts, and awaits donations. I'm addressing the 'bad' stuff. And the fact that you answered, in the way in which you did, seems to suggest you too think that what I mentioned iis "bad". How exactly do you reconcile these command(s), while retaining faith? I mean, do you ignore them, spin them, other? Inquiring minds want to know?

[Purple Knight]

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..

Well it's a flat contradiction to say being all-powerful would include the ability to do something contradictory. So we can either have a definition of omnipotence that makes the very word ridiculous and impossible or we can have a definition that at least has a potential use and application.

It may be that something omnipotent would have the power to twist logic, but if it did, we couldn't understand it, so the best way to understand it would be the definition that remains within logic.

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

The common thread, the way I see it, is the limitations of language. An all-powerful being would be able to move any rock, so the "could not do" to describe creation of a rock so heavy no one can move it, is an artefact of language. At least, you can see it that way. All actions can be done with omnipotence. The question is twisting our language to make a can seem like a can't. You can even make it simpler to illustrate: "Can God fail to lift a pebble?" Oh, no he can't? You've just admitted he's not omnipotent then.

The way it's common is that we describe things that hurt us as negative, we have definitions of things like torture and meanness and inflicting pain that apply, intrinsically, from our perspectives. Someone who is hurting us cannot simply say "no I'm not hurting you" because he doesn't get to decide that; that's not how hurting works. Now one can be lying that he's being hurt, but assuming honesty, the person saying he's being hurt is correct and that's the end of it.

So the child saying, "That hurts me!" is correct, but the parent may still have a greater view and the shot, or whatever else it is, can still be for the child's ultimate benefit. So the child's very correct description has, in a way, failed, because the child's understanding failed.

[Clownboat]

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.

Makes me wonder what the claimed god would think about priests, who themselves commit child rape. Death by fire because of who your father is... What kind of death should a child raping priest get from this god I wonder? Would this god approve of the Catholic church and how it has handled such things? Makes me wonder why it seems to be inactive in this regard. Any thoughts?

[We_Are_VENOM]

I already admit there is some 'good' stuff in there. Nothing profound, but at least it also regurgitates some 'good' stuff too. It's the 'bad' stuff which turns people away.

Well, when you pray for rain you got to deal with the mud, too.

It's not like going to your typical Sunday morning service, where the pastor/other cherry picks specific parts, and awaits donations. I'm addressing the 'bad' stuff. And the fact that you answered, in the way in which you did, seems to suggest you too think that what I mentioned iis "bad". How exactly do you reconcile these command(s), while retaining faith?

First of all, you are digging yourself a hole.

When you say "bad" stuff, you are presupposing "good" stuff. So, your standard of what you consider "bad", who gave you this standard and how is this standard objectively bad?

I mean, do you ignore them, spin them, other? Inquiring minds want to know?

I let go, and let God.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #44]

Makes me wonder what the claimed god would think about priests, who themselves commit child rape.

This would be because there is [perhaps] no mention of it re law and punishment/Bible.

Death by fire because of who your father is... What kind of death should a child raping priest get from this god I wonder?

We could make up all sorts of things to alleviate our wonder, but the fact of the matter is, no punishment is enacted if no law has been made.

Would this god approve of the Catholic church and how it has handled such things?

Is lack of action by a god, a sign of approval?

Makes me wonder why it seems to be inactive in this regard. Any thoughts?

Lots - but are they relevant to truth, and how can I tell?

The options would be?

Any inactive god would likely have sensible reasons for not intervening in the manner where it is obvious, and we would not easily understand what the reasons are or why they would be sensible.
Our lack of knowing enough to understand leaves us in the position of working to solve problems without any god visibly intervening.
The act of us working to solve problems may be the same thing as an invisible god intervening, but we wouldn't be able to know this either way, with any certainty.

If the laws we make to help us solve such problems, are not adequate enough to be effective, then our laws are at fault.

[POI]

When you say "bad" stuff, you are presupposing "good" stuff. So, your standard of what you consider "bad", who gave you this standard and how is this standard objectively bad?

LOL! And here we go again... Apologetics 101 here... Theists seem to often bring up the 'moral argument', when they are backed into a corner. The fact you will not fess up to thinking these commands are 'bad', is quite telling....

Further, if your god is all 'good', why would he ever command something that you think is 'bad'? Just admit it, burning fornicating daughters is always overkill.

I do not believe any external agency 'gave' me a moral standard. My 'morals' derive from homeostasis (Maslow's hierarchy), consequentialism, cooperation, game theory, empathy, evolution (tribalism), reciprocal altruism, humans being extremely altricial, and elders teaching the younger ones how to co-exist in society.

Further, I do not require an external agency to distinguish one extreme to another. Meaning, I do not need to directly experience rape, to know I do not like it, or that it is 'bad' for that person and/or humans.

Further still, If god gave both you and I our morals, then why do we not agree?

I do not believe any external agency "gave" me any standard.

I let go, and let God.

Ah, so you do the first option; ignore it. Got it....

[JehovahsWitness]

The way it's common is that we describe things that hurt us as negative, we have definitions of things like torture and meanness and inflicting pain that apply, intrinsically, from our perspectives.

That is true but perspective is still seeing a reality, just from a different angle. Whether we say the tree is tall or small, its still a tree, not a kangourou.

If a botanist renames a tree a kangourou, he is still refering to the reality of a rooted woody plant with branches and leaves. While it is true God has a wider vision that may have Him judge a situation differently from a human, he is still assessing reality, not a hypothetical situation that defies logic and language.

When the child cries that his parents are torturing him because they authorize a life saving medical procedure, the child is wrong. His limited experience and knowledge have lead him to mislabel his parents actions. The parents are not renaming waterboarding, they are not ignoring the distress but if torture is inflicting pain for some nefarious reason, they know that is not what they are doing.

Whether humans are right or God is right, whoever is declaring reality something other than what it is, is a liar or mistaken , even if they are God.

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #48]

Whether humans are right or YHVH is right, whoever is declaring reality something other than what it is, is a liar or mistaken , even if they are YHVH.

I and indeed YHVH might declare that reality is a simulation we are experiencing.

How would anyone be able to verify that calling it such, is "declaring reality something other than what it is" in order to flush out the mistake or lie?

[We_Are_VENOM]

LOL! And here we go again... Apologetics 101 here... Theists seem to often bring up the 'moral argument', when they are backed into a corner. The fact you will not fess up to thinking these commands are 'bad', is quite telling....

"Theists often bring up the "moral argument". Laughable. Is not the question for debate of this thread is "..

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?

Is not the question for debate of the thread relates to God's moral character???

Or am I in the twilight zone?

Further, if your god is all 'good', why would he ever command something that you think is 'bad'? Just admit it, burning fornicating daughters is always overkill.

Straw man. I am not presupposing God's commands to be "bad". That is your job, not mines.

I do not believe any external agency 'gave' me a moral standard. My 'morals' derive from homeostasis (Maslow's hierarchy), consequentialism, cooperation, game theory, empathy, evolution (tribalism), reciprocal altruism, humans being extremely altricial, and elders teaching the younger ones how to co-exist in society.

Funny, you claim that you do not believe any external agency gave you a moral standard...yet, you just admitted that your standard comes from external sources outside of yourself.

An external source is a external source, no matter how you slice it.

I call my external source God...and you call yours whatever it is you call it. Either way, it is external...so my question remains, how is your external sources more superior than mines when it comes to what we ought/ought not do.

Further, I do not require an external agency to distinguish one extreme to another. Meaning, I do not need to directly experience rape, to know I do not like it, or that it is 'bad' for that person and/or humans.

Yeah but rape is good for the rapist. Catch my drift?

Further still, If god gave both you and I our morals, then why do we not agree?

We do agree...I am willing to bet we agree that things like rape, murder, stealing is wrong.

The difference is, I believe that I am held accountable to a Holy God for my actions, you don't.

And there lies the contention.

I do not believe any external agency "gave" me any standard.

Yeah, and I do not believe any external, non-sentient natural processes gave me mines.

So hey.

Ah, so you do the first option; ignore it. Got it....

I let God do what he do with the creation that he made.