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?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #158]

How about just show a verse you believe is God saying rape is good. I will wait.

Typical apologetics here... I stated that the Bible god has sanctioned rape. Do you disagree?

You can claim whatever you like, but how can we conclude either way without a verse?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #158]

How about just show a verse you believe is God saying rape is good. I will wait.

Typical apologetics here... I stated that the Bible god has sanctioned rape. Do you disagree?

You can claim whatever you like, but how can we conclude either way without a verse?

You've read the Bible, right? Did the Bible god ever sanction rape? Yes or no?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #158]

How about just show a verse you believe is God saying rape is good. I will wait.

Typical apologetics here... I stated that the Bible god has sanctioned rape. Do you disagree?

You can claim whatever you like, but how can we conclude either way without a verse?

You've read the Bible, right? Did the Bible god ever sanction rape? Yes or no?

Don't know. Why not show the verse you have in mind?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #158]

How about just show a verse you believe is God saying rape is good. I will wait.

Typical apologetics here... I stated that the Bible god has sanctioned rape. Do you disagree?

You can claim whatever you like, but how can we conclude either way without a verse?

You've read the Bible, right? Did the Bible god ever sanction rape? Yes or no?

Don't know. Why not show the verse you have in mind?

Sigh.... If your commander told you "Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.". What would you make of that?

Or how about.... "But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

[Clownboat]

I did answer. We all know murder and rape is wrong. It comes down to how much we ignore it because of conditioning or other factors.

You are litterally being shown an existing culture that is Ok with some child rape. Therfore, it is illogical for you to claim we all know that rape is wrong unless you can explain how the Sambia know it is wrong, but choose to maintain it in their culture.

For them, it is not wrong as it is litterally part of their culture. No amount of you or myself projecting our own feelings on the subject is going to change the facts you have been presented.

You and I know that rape is wrong. The Sambia people's feelings on the matter do not match our own. You need a better defense then just claiming we all know rape is wrong. Do you have any evidence like I do (the Sambia) to support your claim?

[Clownboat]

Sigh.... If your commander told you "Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.". What would you make of that?

Or how about.... "But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

As has been demonstrated time and again here IMO, it is the skeptic that seems to know the book best.

I wonder if Aquinas is familiar with the story of Jephthah? As a believer for 2 decades, that story was unknown to me until I read the book on my own. Obviously, pointing out rape and/or child sacrifice in the Bible would not be something churches would want to focus on.

[William]

Sigh.... If your commander told you "Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.". What would you make of that?

Or how about.... "But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

As has been demonstrated time and again here IMO, it is the skeptic that seems to know the book best.

I wonder if Aquinas is familiar with the story of Jephthah? As a believer for 2 decades, that story was unknown to me until I read the book on my own. Obviously, pointing out rape and/or child sacrifice in the Bible would not be something churches would want to focus on.

Jephthah(יִפְתָּח) , appears in the Book of Judges as a judge who presided over Israel for a period of six years (Judges 12:7). According to Judges, he lived in Gilead. His father's name is also given as Gilead, and, as his mother is described as a prostitute, this may indicate that his father might have been any of the men of that area.[1] Jephthah led the Israelites in battle against Ammon and, in exchange for defeating the Ammonites, made a vow to sacrifice whatever would come out of the door of his house first. When his daughter was the first to come out of the house, he immediately regretted the vow, which bound him to sacrifice his daughter to God. Jephthah carried out his vow.

Traditionally, Jephthah ranks among the major judges because of the length of the biblical narrative referring to him, but his story also shares features with those of the minor judges, such as his short tenure—only six years—in office. {SOURCE}

re The evolution of god-concepts

...swearing oaths to YHVH is considered by bible-Jesus to being derived from evil.

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. KJV {SOURCE}

I see this - not as Jesus saying that YHVH was evil, but that to swear oaths such as the vow Jephthah swore to YHVH only served to give YHVH a bad name as an entity with evil intent.

Sceptics may indeed know the book better than the average run-of-the-mill Christian, but this does not mean that they are any more clued-up regarding the Ipsissimus of YHVH.

[Clownboat]

I see this - not as Jesus saying that YHVH was evil, but that to swear oaths such as the vow Jephthah swore to YHVH only served to give YHVH a bad name as an entity with evil intent.

No one argued that Jesus was saying that YHVH was evil.

Sceptics may indeed know the book better than the average run-of-the-mill Christian,

That does appear to be the case here.

but this does not mean that they are any more clued-up regarding the Ipsissimus of YHVH.

Unless you can propose a mechanism, this escapes us all and need not be mentioned here. Especially since I was referring to a book that is available to us all and not some undetectable entity that some humans seem to enjoy speculating about.

[POI]

Sigh.... If your commander told you "Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.". What would you make of that?

Or how about.... "But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

As has been demonstrated time and again here IMO, it is the skeptic that seems to know the book best.

I wonder if Aquinas is familiar with the story of Jephthah? As a believer for 2 decades, that story was unknown to me until I read the book on my own. Obviously, pointing out rape and/or child sacrifice in the Bible would not be something churches would want to focus on.

But in this case, I have a feeling "AFG" knows these passages are there, but applies apologetics 101 --> (aka -- spin) We shall see... He will likely either spin it, or ignore it.

[William]

I see this - not as Jesus saying that YHVH was evil, but that to swear oaths such as the vow Jephthah swore to YHVH only served to give YHVH a bad name as an entity with evil intent.

No one argued that Jesus was saying that YHVH was evil.

So what? Some seem to be arguing that YHVH is evil. If that is not you personally, then what is the problem?
I was using what is available to argue otherwise.

Sceptics may indeed know the book better than the average run-of-the-mill Christian,

That does appear to be the case here.

In some cases, perhaps. Some argue that YHVH is evil on account of things done is the name of YHVH.

but this does not mean that they are any more clued-up regarding the Ipsissimus of YHVH.

Unless you can propose a mechanism, this escapes us all and need not be mentioned here.

I mention it for contrast. Those interested will find which mechanisms are appropriate, and which are not.

Especially since I was referring to a book that is available to us all and not some undetectable entity that some humans seem to enjoy speculating about.

Those who know the book also know that it consists of stories about an entity which is difficult, but not impossible to detect and even relate to.
As with your mention of Jephthah from the book, some speculation on Jephthah's part re YHVH, causes some readers to assume that YHVH is therefore evil.