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?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #177]

It matters not what you think I appear to be doing. Focus on what I'm actually doing if you would be so kind.

That is my point Clownboat. That is why I write that the reader clearly has the opportunity to see I am forwarding what it is that I see as you appearing to be doing.
That gives you the opportunity to reply with explanation as to what you are actually doing, if indeed my perceptions are incorrect on this.

You now pretend as if post 174 didn't happen?:
"That would be odd. Until the god concept is shown to be true, we might as well be speculating that Santa Claus is evil or that Tinker Bell likes little boys.
Why you focus on YHVH being evil or not is lost on me, but continue on if it makes you happy, it just doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying."

So, I have already explained that I am not trying to paint the Christian god concept as being evil as for me to do such a thing would be like arguing that Santa is evil. You lead the readers astray and I wish you would stop.

Ah - Is that what it appears to you that I am doing? I am questioning your unspoken motives?

I have clarified my motives more than once and they are not in fact to show the Christian god concept as to be evil like you suggested.

Your motives are not a concern of mine Clownboat.

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."

If my motive was in fact to give YHVH a bad name, the story of Jephthah would not be the go to. IMO, the story paints Jephthah in a bad light. A person could argue that the god concept should have rejected the child sacrifice, but that it not something I have done, nor was that my motive.

There is no particular value in your mentioning that you know the bible better than the average Christian

Please show where I claimed to know the Bible better than the average Christian or retract this statement for being misleading or outright false.

My motive is simply to address the inconsistency a step further by notifying the reader of what is going down.

I wish you would have done such more accurately. Maybe your having an off day?

Here is what I responded to that started all of this. I shouldn't have to hold your hand in order for you to stop misresenting me though:
POI: "Did the Bible god ever sanction rape? Yes or no."
AFG: "Don't know. Why not show the verse you have in mind?"

William, it should have been obvious from the start as to why I made mention that it seems skeptics know the book better. Either AFG doesn't know these stories, or is ignoring them.

My motive was to point out AFG's dodge or lack of knowledge about where rape is sanctioned in the book. I see that this has escaped you and you mistakenly thought I was trying to paint the Christiand god concept as being evil. I trust this has been clarified. Do you think AFG doesn't know the relevant verses we are talking about, or that his statement was just a dodge?

[OneWay]

I never ever lie. Not even for the lust of my heart.
I place honor and God above all.

Well good for you.

I'm sure the god you can't show exists is a proud ya can't show he is.

You are wrong again.
All these words that I have posted to you is Him.
I am Him.

Delusions of grandeur are a sign of extreme psychological instability. To all who suffer such, please seek professional medical or psychiatric counsel.

I am waiting for you to prove it.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #191]

You now pretend as if post 174 didn't happen?:

Is that what you see my actions as doing?

"That would be odd. Until the god concept is shown to be true, we might as well be speculating that Santa Claus is evil or that Tinker Bell likes little boys.

Conflating YHVH concepts with Santa and Tinker concepts is what you are doing, am I correct in that Clownboat?

Why you focus on YHVH being evil or not is lost on me, but continue on if it makes you happy, it just doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying."

I think 'what makes me happy' is 'truth' - not just finding it, but pursuing it.

What you are saying overall, is not just what you are saying hereabouts [in this thread] as you ask vexing questions of theists in other threads - that is the truth.

I notice that truth and offer ideas which have helped me how to discover truth, where I can.

So, I have already explained that I am not trying to paint the Christian god concept as being evil as for me to do such a thing would be like arguing that Santa is evil.

I hear you telling the reader that you regard the idea of Santa and the idea of YHVH as "the same"
I am simply arguing that they are not. Whether this helps you to change you mind about that or not, at least the seed is cast upon the reader-field. Who knows what might become of that?

You lead the readers astray and I wish you would stop.

Wishing things away doesn't work in the real world Clownboat. One of the reasons that debate occurs is because wishing doesn't work. We are free to question each other's statements and even offer correction where necessary. [Often this occurs where 'debate' becomes 'discussion']

Ah - Is that what it appears to you that I am doing? I am questioning your unspoken motives?

I have clarified my motives more than once and they are not in fact to show the Christian god concept as to be evil like you suggested.

I did not suggest that at all...can you quote me where you think that has occurred as it would be helpful for the reader to see.

From my perspective, I was saying that the bible story mentioned, presents YHVH in an evil shadow and made an effort to inform the reader as to why that is the case and what can be done about that.

My critique was not aimed at you, but to the story you mentioned.

Your motives are not a concern of mine Clownboat.

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."

If my motive was in fact to give YHVH a bad name, the story of Jephthah would not be the go to. IMO, the story paints Jephthah in a bad light. A person could argue that the god concept should have rejected the child sacrifice, but that it not something I have done, nor was that my motive.

As I have explained above, it was the story of Jephthah, and many others within the bible, which show YHVH in a shadow of evil. If you are saying that you do not see YHVH in this shadow, then we agree together that this is the case for both of us, and there is no problem between us which is real.

There is no particular value in your mentioning that you know the bible better than the average Christian

Please show where I claimed to know the Bible better than the average Christian or retract this statement for being misleading or outright false.

I am not unobservant Clownboat. You obviously know a lot re the bible content and it shows around here when you are interacting with theists - most of whom call themselves Christians.
You also give the impression that this knowing is somehow an advantage to you in those interactions.

If this is a false impression - given the evidence, one can be forgiven for picking it up that way.

I am happy to retract my statement as it pertains to you, when you show me it is untrue.

In the meantime, my statement is true as it pertains to those who think there is particular value. There appears to be no particular value in knowing more biblical content than the average Christian knows, as far as the evidence shows, to date.

My motive is simply to address the inconsistency a step further by notifying the reader of what is going down.

I wish you would have done such more accurately.

What is with the 'wishing' Clownboat?

Maybe your having an off day?

Are you saying that I am usually more accurate than I was in this circumstance?

Perhaps I did have an 'off day' or perhaps what I wrote was a required thing.

William, it should have been obvious from the start as to why I made mention that it seems skeptics know the book better. Either AFG doesn't know these stories, or is ignoring them.

My motive was to point out AFG's dodge or lack of knowledge about where rape is sanctioned in the book. I see that this has escaped you and you mistakenly thought I was trying to paint the Christiand god concept as being evil. I trust this has been clarified. Do you think AFG doesn't know the relevant verses we are talking about, or that his statement was just a dodge?

If I want to converse with AFG or anyone else, then I will.

You have conflated my pointing out that YHVH is not evil, as somehow my questioning your motives.
I do not fully understand why you became defensive about that, but if you want the reader to be sure that this was not your motive, you can tell the reader that you do not think there is any evil in YHVH, and you would never so much as imply that there is.

Because that is the crux of the matter, is it not? That is why you mentioned Santa and Tinkerbell, is it not? To tell the reader that you treat the subject of YHVH in the same way? Because there is good in Santa and Tinkerbell likes young naughty boys and YHVH, is characterized by the stories of the bible...stories which invoke "vexing follow-up questions".

Isn't it apparent that while there is not found in the bible, anything that you can remember about YHVH ordering rape, BUT what can be found in the bible is something about YHVH ordering human sacrifice....sooooo...unless you think human sacrifice isn't up there with rape, why was it mentioned at all?

Yet, it was mentioned, and that is what I picked up on and offered the reader an alternative way of approaching the problem of an evil YHVH...



You took it personally, 'tis all.

There is nothing in my post which anyone should have taken personally Clownboat.

My Post:

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

I never ever lie. Not even for the lust of my heart.
I place honor and God above all.

Well good for you.

I'm sure the god you can't show exists is a proud ya can't show he is.

You are wrong again.
All these words that I have posted to you is Him.
I am Him.

Delusions of grandeur are a sign of extreme psychological instability. To all who suffer such, please seek professional medical or psychiatric counsel.

I am waiting for you to prove it.

I recommend folks who suffer delusions of grandeur not wait , but seek help immediately.

[OneWay]

I never ever lie. Not even for the lust of my heart.
I place honor and God above all.

Well good for you.

I'm sure the god you can't show exists is a proud ya can't show he is.

You are wrong again.
All these words that I have posted to you is Him.
I am Him.

Delusions of grandeur are a sign of extreme psychological instability. To all who suffer such, please seek professional medical or psychiatric counsel.

I am waiting for you to prove it.

I recommend folks who suffer delusions of grandeur not wait , but seek help immediately.

Then heed your own advice.

[JoeyKnothead]

I never ever lie. Not even for the lust of my heart.
I place honor and God above all.

Well good for you.

I'm sure the god you can't show exists is a proud ya can't show he is.

You are wrong again.
All these words that I have posted to you is Him.
I am Him.

Delusions of grandeur are a sign of extreme psychological instability. To all who suffer such, please seek professional medical or psychiatric counsel.

I am waiting for you to prove it.

I recommend folks who suffer delusions of grandeur not wait , but seek help immediately.

Then heed your own advice.

I have. Thinking one speaks directly from or as a 'supreme being' (my term) is a very dangerous mental condition. It's not to be taken lightly.

[OneWay]

I never ever lie. Not even for the lust of my heart.
I place honor and God above all.

Well good for you.

I'm sure the god you can't show exists is a proud ya can't show he is.

You are wrong again.
All these words that I have posted to you is Him.
I am Him.

Delusions of grandeur are a sign of extreme psychological instability. To all who suffer such, please seek professional medical or psychiatric counsel.

I am waiting for you to prove it.

I recommend folks who suffer delusions of grandeur not wait , but seek help immediately.

Then heed your own advice.

I have. Thinking one speaks directly from or as a 'supreme being' (my term) is a very dangerous mental condition. It's not to be taken lightly.

I would never ever
consider you for any source
whatsoever for any advice
whatsoever
no matter what
whatsoever
no exceptions.

[JoeyKnothead]

I would never ever
consider you for any source
whatsoever for any advice
whatsoever
no matter what
whatsoever
no exceptions.

Now maybe you understand why folks ain't buying whatever it is you're selling.

[OneWay]

I would never ever
consider you for any source
whatsoever for any advice
whatsoever
no matter what
whatsoever
no exceptions.

Now maybe you understand why folks ain't buying whatever it is you're selling.

I am not selling anything. In fact I do not want anyone who
reads anything I post to believe it. Instead of making all of these incorrect assumptions about me
why don't you just ask me first before you post them
and I will correct you. It will save you from dishonoring yourself with incorrect statements.

And if I were to be selling anything
NONE OF YOU COULD AFFORD IT.

[POI]

I disagree. They would not know rape is right ever. They might ignore that it is wrong and justify it, but they will know they are justifying it.

When people justify evil, they are aware they are doing so. Oh, this isn't that bad. I really have no choice. It is better this than something else, etc.

You've missed my point. If you went back to post 173, like I asked, you might see what I'm expressing here.

God justifies 'rape', where it comes to matters of (war and marriage). Hence, rape is not always wrong. Do you think it is always wrong? If so, why do you disagree with God?