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]

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?

You haven't made a case were Yhwh is okay with rape. When you finally posted a verse, it says nothing of the sort.

[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?

You haven't made a case were Yhwh is okay with rape. When you finally posted a verse, it says nothing of the sort.

More 'shifty' lawyer tricks. No problem. Here's some more for you....

“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." --- Deut. 22:28-29

For the ones who maybe have not read the Bible, or have skipped around, here is what this Verse suggests.

a) Females were not equal to men. It was the man's decision, as to what punishment was applied. In this case, the father of the raped daughter. The raped daughter had no say. Hence, the father was to decide.

b) In this case, the woman would no longer be deemed worthy-- (because she was "busted"). No man would want a 'busted' female for their wife. Even though the woman was raped, the would-be groom would then no longer have her. The woman would never be married and the father would be stuck taking care of her until the father dies. This is why he was to obtain money from the rapist.

c) In the daughter's 'best interest', from the father's perspective, he sometimes would probably give her to the rapist, due to more financial support.

d) Mind you, the daughter has no say. It's the father's decision. And since it is now a 'legal union', cough couch 'marriage', the rapist can continue to have sex with her 'legally'. The female would just keep her mouth shut. Because again, she really has no say in the matter. He is 'legally' able to penetrate her.

But yea, this is not 'rape' either

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #202]

“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." --- Deut. 22:28-29

I am starting to think you gave up even trying or you forgot what you set out to prove, which was that God approves of rape. Do you think this verse says God approves of rape?

The man is being punished and that is somehow God approving of rape? Also, this is practical law, clearly written by men for men of that time.

1. So think about the timeline first. Women could not easily take care of themselves then with a good job. They could be a whore, but that only last as long as the looks last, if she even has them to begin with, so that might not be much of an option for her.

2. People back then relied on children. They were a blessing. They were like a retirement fund. It is why the law says chop of the woman's hand if she grabs a man by his balls.
3. Virginity was prized and it could be difficult for her to find a husband now that her virginity has been taken.

So, she needs a way to care for herself. She needs a husband and children. But this rapists has made that difficult for her by taking her virginity. So what should be done back then? Kill her rapists then what? Force someone to marry her even though they don't want a non-virgin? Notice, there is nothing here about forcing her to mary him. Rather, it is forcing him to pay the father and pay her by getting married to her and supporting her. Now, the law allows for divorce, but part of his punishment is that he can never divorce her. Her must care for her all of his days.

This doesn't mean she has to marry him, but she is not left with a lot of options back then.

The Jews are practical, and so is there law for the time.

[Clownboat]

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?

I bolded the words for you above. You seem really focused on me.

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.

More of the same...

<Snipped claims of discovering truth>

I hear you telling the reader that you regard the idea of Santa and the idea of YHVH as "the same"

Then you continue to hear wrong.
"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."

I am simply arguing that they are not.

And you are not having this argument with me. You seem to be debating yourself here. I clarify my position and you continue on with your assumptions.

Whether this helps you to change you mind about that or not, at least the seed is cast upon the reader-field.

I trust the readers have noted my actual observation.

Wishing things away doesn't work in the real world Clownboat.

I have never claimed it did.

One of the reasons that debate occurs is because wishing doesn't work.

You're starting to lose me....

We are free to question each other's statements and even offer correction where necessary.

Uhhhhhh.....

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.

Yup:
I see this - not as Jesus saying that YHVH was evil (as if Clownboat implied such), 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.

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

When you used 'not as' above, it seems to imply that I do feel this way. If you were just wanting to tell us your feelings, you would have left out the 'not as' and just told us your feelings.
I see this as... is to inform on your feelings. This was not your use.
I see this not as... is to address external feelings. If not aimed a me, the person who brought up the story, then I'm unsure as to your use of 'not as'.

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.

Your opinion is noted.

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

It is now on record that you failed to show you spoke the truth when you said that 'I claimed' to know the Bible better than the average Christian.

In the meantime, my statement is true

Isn't it apparent that while there is not found in the bible, anything that you can remember about YHVH ordering rape,

The claim was never made that a god ordered rape. Ordering and sactioning are not the same thing. Are you also not aware of the Bible god allowing its soldiers to take virgin girls as the spoils of war? It's been brought up in this thread, yet you speak about some god that orders rape. Why are you doing this?

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?

Again, to point out that AFG is either playing dumb, or in fact doesn't know the story of Jephthah. That is why it was brought up.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #204]

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.

Yup:

I see this - not as Jesus saying that YHVH was evil (as if Clownboat implied such), 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.

Steady on there. It is important that you provide the reader with the source-link re the quote, so that one might go there and view the context.

[POI]

You either regurgitated some of what I said in my last response, and/or ignored other things I said. Please check out all I said in post #202, so I do not have to repeat them entirely.

Further, please continue to remember what the Bible also says, which refers to the OT; as the NT was not a thing.

A) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" - 2 Tim. 3:16
B) "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." - Prov. 30:5

Do you think this verse says God approves of rape?

When it comes to the topics of marriage and war, God is (a-okay, endorses, and/or does not condemn) "rape". Why? He legalizes 'rape', commanding that the rapist marry the rape victim, which no longer makes new sessions of his wanted sex 'rape'. Or, deems it the spoils of war, via 'virgins' and/or 'plunder'.

The man is being punished and that is somehow God approving of rape? Also, this is practical law, clearly written by men for men of that time.

Wrong. If a man sees a hottie, and she will not have him, rape her. If his intent is to marry her, where she refuses his advances, viola. He is awarded her after raping her. And once she is busted, and deemed no good by the would-be groom or any other marriage prospect, he then gets to keep banging her 'legally' after 'marriage'. Because remember what I stated in my last reply. The women have no say in the law.

1. So think about the timeline first. Women could not easily take care of themselves then with a good job. They could be a whore, but that only last as long as the looks last, if she even has them to begin with, so that might not be much of an option for her.

A truly loving God would never create such a law, via Deut. 22:28-29. See below for further details.

2. People back then relied on children. They were a blessing. They were like a retirement fund. It is why the law says chop of the woman's hand if she grabs a man by his balls.

Not all women could have children. Not all men were fertile either. Dumb law.

3. Virginity was prized and it could be difficult for her to find a husband now that her virginity has been taken. So, she needs a way to care for herself. She needs a husband and children. But this rapists has made that difficult for her by taking her virginity

I already explained this, as well, in post #202. "b) In this case, the woman would no longer be deemed worthy-- (because she was "busted"). No man would want a 'busted' female for their wife. Even though the woman was raped, the would-be groom would then no longer have her. The woman would never be married and the father would be stuck taking care of her until the father dies. This is why he was to obtain money from the rapist."

So what should be done back then? Kill her rapists then what? Force someone to marry her even though they don't want a non-virgin?

You're asking me for a better plan than God's plan? Okay...

1) Well, order the rapist to become the victim's/family slave for life. Order the rapist's possessions to all now become the victim's/family possessions. God also has NO problem condoning slavery practices either. His labor could continue to pay her way for life. Or, at least until he accidentally dies from God-sanctioned slave beatings, via Ex. 21:20-21.

2) Order that the church take care of them. They get plenty of donations.

Two better ideas, off the top of my head

Notice, there is nothing here about forcing her to mary him. Rather, it is forcing him to pay the father and pay her by getting married to her and supporting her. Now, the law allows for divorce, but part of his punishment is that he can never divorce her. Her must care for her all of his days.

It's as if you did not read my last response again.... "c) In the daughter's 'best interest', from the father's perspective, he sometimes would probably give her to the rapist, due to more financial support." Thus, if a man fancied a certain female, and she was not interested or the father would not pick him for her to begin with, rape her. He's then got a good shot at getting her.

This doesn't mean she has to marry him, but she is not left with a lot of options back then.

Right. She is not left with options, thanks to "God's laws". Remember, it was the father's decision. And if he was already dead, it would be another male's decision, not hers.

The Jews are practical, and so is there law for the time.

This excuse is quite telling. You are basically admitting that it was the Jews who made these laws, and not God. Even though I demonstrated two verses which indicates these are God's given laws. Did God make the rules, or men? And if these are man-made, what else is?.?.?.?

As I alluded to, in the bottom of post 202. It's no longer "rape", when the man wants to have sexual relations with the woman, in "marriage". Basically, these were sham marriages. And yes, the woman said 'yes', when asked if she would have this man. Why? Because she had no other options, thanks to God's rules. It basically comes down to the following dismal choices:

1) say yes to a rapist
2) live with daddy until he dies
3) starve to death

Great going 'god'!

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #206]

A) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" - 2 Tim. 3:16
B) "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." - Prov. 30:5

I will also take note it doesn't say scripture is history or science or historically accurate or without parables, etc.

When it comes to the topics of marriage and war, God is (a-okay, endorses, and/or does not condemn) "rape". Why? He legalizes 'rape', commanding that the rapist marry the rape victim, which no longer makes new sessions of his wanted sex 'rape'. Or, deems it the spoils of war, via 'virgins' and/or 'plunder'.

That is not really an answer to my question, which was does the verse say that God approves of rape? If the law approved of rape, why punish the rapist? That is rhetorical.

Wrong. If a man sees a hottie, and she will not have him, rape her. If his intent is to marry her, where she refuses his advances, viola. He is awarded her after raping her. And once she is busted, and deemed no good by the would-be groom or any other marriage prospect, he then gets to keep banging her 'legally' after 'marriage'. Because remember what I stated in my last reply. The women have no say in the law.

You like to add stuff that is not there. Can you show any verses that says women cannot refuse sex from her husband? Also, this point is very odd. A person would have to be a rapist in order to rape a woman. A non-rapist is not going to go hey, I can rape this chick and then I have to marry her. You forget also, that she doesn't have to marry him. That is not what it says.

A truly loving God would never create such a law, via Deut. 22:28-29. See below for further details.

That is not an argument.

Not all women could have children. Not all men were fertile either. Dumb law.

saying dumb law is not a counter point. It is not an argument. Jews then thought it was a good law. It seemed to work for their society.

I already explained this, as well, in post #202. "b) In this case, the woman would no longer be deemed worthy-- (because she was "busted"). No man would want a 'busted' female for their wife. Even though the woman was raped, the would-be groom would then no longer have her. The woman would never be married and the father would be stuck taking care of her until the father dies. This is why he was to obtain money from the rapist."

This is not a disagreement with what I said.

You're asking me for a better plan than God's plan? Okay...

I did not say it was God's plan. You did, and you have yet to demonstrate it is.

1) Well, order the rapist to become the victim's/family slave for life.

Alright, you are okay with forced slavery. Good to know. Not just forced slavery, but forced for life.

Order the rapist's possessions to all now become the victim's/family possessions.

And if he has no possessions, I guess slaver for life.

God also has NO problem condoning slavery practices either.

Jews had certain types of slaves, criminal slaves, like what you just mentioned above, but they were not for life. They were a slave until they paid for their crime. And they had indentured servants, people that signed a contract to be a slave until a certain debt was paid.

However, you would have to show me that God wanted slavery. Jews made practical laws for their time.

His labor could continue to pay her way for life.

So like child support.

Or, at least until he accidentally dies from God-sanctioned slave beatings, via Ex. 21:20-21.

If he died, how would he care for her?

2) Order that the church take care of them. They get plenty of donations.

I like this idea, although, it would have been the temple back then.

It's as if you did not read my last response again.... "c) In the daughter's 'best interest', from the father's perspective, he sometimes would probably give her to the rapist, due to more financial support." Thus, if a man fancied a certain female, and she was not interested or the father would not pick him for her to begin with, rape her. He's then got a good shot at getting her.

I do not see your interpolation in the text, sorry. It just doesn't say any of that.

Right. She is not left with options, thanks to "God's laws". Remember, it was the father's decision. And if he was already dead, it would be another male's decision, not hers.

God's laws are eternal. This is not an eternal law.

This excuse is quite telling. You are basically admitting that it was the Jews who made these laws, and not God. Even though I demonstrated two verses which indicates these are God's given laws. Did God make the rules, or men? And if these are man-made, what else is?.?.?.?

Same as above. God's laws are eternal, and this law is not eternal. God gave Jews eternal laws and he gave them brains to sort out the rest. They clearly failed in doing this, which is why Babylon took them.

As I alluded to, in the bottom of post 202. It's no longer "rape", when the man wants to have sexual relations with the woman, in "marriage". Basically, these were sham marriages.

You haven't shown this to be in the Jewish law. You need to show where they say the female must have sex with her husband when he wants it.

And yes, the woman said 'yes', when asked if she would have this man. Why? Because she had no other options, thanks to God's rules.

It has noting to do with God's rules. It was the society at the time, a society humans created.

It basically comes down to the following dismal choices:

1) say yes to a rapist
2) live with daddy until he dies
3) starve to death

All you are showing is that Jews did not create the best society. I agree. they were a failure. Now, where does God himself approve of rape or the society they created? We see later that God destroys the Jews because he doesn't like the society they made.

[POI]

AFG I will also take note it doesn't say scripture is history or science or historically accurate or without parables, etc.

POI You are missing my point. Is ALL OT scripture from God, or is some of it merely man-made alone? If it's all from God, then all of it carries god's seal of approval. If some of it is deemed man-made, then how do you distinguish which parts are from men and which parts are from God?

AFG That is not really an answer to my question, which was does the verse say that God approves of rape? If the law approved of rape, why punish the rapist? That is rhetorical.

POI Hahaha. I answered this question prior. Why are you making me go backwards? I'll answer again, and try to clarify even further. If a male wants a female for their bride, but she does not fancy his advances, or if the father has selected someone else for her, all this person need do is rape her. He may then very well get what he wants; since the women is now "spoiled-goods." Notice the 'punishment' implies that the 'rapist' is to marry her. This may very well be exactly what he wants. Getting exactly what you want is not a 'punishment'

So NO. A punishment would be what god commands in many places, like 'capitol punishment', or death, for erroneous things mentioned in the OT.

AFG You like to add stuff that is not there. Can you show any verses that says women cannot refuse sex from her husband? Also, this point is very odd. A person would have to be a rapist in order to rape a woman. A non-rapist is not going to go hey, I can rape this chick and then I have to marry her. You forget also, that she doesn't have to marry him. That is not what it says.

POI LOL! More "apologetics" here.... Show me the verse which states that if the bride refuses sex from the groom, and the groom advances anyways, it is deemed a "rape".

Further, the wanna-be groom, to this "hottie", need only rape his way into the 'hottie' he wants for himself.

You also keep forgetting that it was the father's choice, and not even hers. I explained why in the previous response. Show me where it suggests it is the daughter's choice at all. And to spoon-feed it to you, here is the verse again. And to be technical, seems as though god states it must be done. Stating "he MUST marry her" implies it MUST happen. If the daughter is an observer of 'god's' law, she will follow the law, as given by 'god."

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

AFG saying dumb law is not a counter point. It is not an argument. Jews then thought it was a good law. It seemed to work for their society.

POIYes it is. You stated "2. People back then relied on children.". Not all could have children. And encouraging that the father of the off-spring be of a known rapist is quite bizarre...

AFG This is not a disagreement with what I said.

POI I did not say it was. I asked why you regurgitated what I said, as if I did not already say it prior... It's useful to move forward; not sideways or backwards.

AFG I did not say it was God's plan. You did, and you have yet to demonstrate it is.

POI So you concede this 'law' may have absolutely nothing to do with 'god'? If so, what else can we ignore? And how do you know, being that "ALL scripture is from god?" If this verse too is in error, then I guess the Bible is just another non-authoritative book of fiction, like all the others we likely both deem works of religious fiction.

AFG Alright, you are okay with forced slavery. Good to know. Not just forced slavery, but forced for life.

POI LOL! God does not sanction/condone lifetime slavery either?

AFG And if he has no possessions, I guess slaver for life.

POI If the male were to realize that raping her would not possibly grant him marriage to her, then we would not be having this stupid conversation to begin with

AFG Jews had certain types of slaves, criminal slaves, like what you just mentioned above, but they were not for life. They were a slave until they paid for their crime. And they had indentured servants, people that signed a contract to be a slave until a certain debt was paid.

POI Great. So the rapist could be the daughter/family slave INSTEAD of being ordered to marry her. But in this case, she would never be able to provide for herself. Remember, she is now a busted and worthless female. No dude would want her. So he has to continue supporting her, likely for life.

AFG However, you would have to show me that God wanted slavery. Jews made practical laws for their time.

POI I'm not saying god commands that some MUST own other people for life, but god is not against such practices either. Meaning, he apparently 'rubber-stamps' his seal of approval. Unless this is another one of those man-made laws?.?.?.?.

"44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." - Lev. 44:44-46

AFG So like child support.

POI No silly, Raped-daughter support. Remember, unless his father supports her, she starves. If the rapist is not ordered to marry her, how would they have a child?

AFG If he died, how would he care for her?

POI Right. This is why slave were whipped from the backside. It's really hard to kill them, or knock out their eyes or teeth this way. Refer to Exodus 21 for details.

AFG I like this idea, although, it would have been the temple back then.

POI I guess we finally agree that such "law" was not very wise

AFG God's laws are eternal. This is not an eternal law.

POI Are the 10 Commandments eternal laws? Is working on the Sabbath still deemed a sin? Rhetorical question. My point being.... HOW in the heck do you pick/choose the "eternal" laws? Is this when you revert back to your own 'strong inclination' and/or "a priori"?

AFG God's laws are eternal, and this law is not eternal. God gave Jews eternal laws and he gave them brains to sort out the rest. They clearly failed in doing this, which is why Babylon took them.

POI If they failed, why are YOU any better. Are you saying YOU are more enlightened, verses the Jews who claimed to receive direct access from the source?

AFG You haven't shown this to be in the Jewish law. You need to show where they say the female must have sex with her husband when he wants it.

POI You keep twisting my words. God is (a-okay, condones, endorses) such practices. Further, again, if the female is to follow god's law, then she would know her godly duty is to have children. (i.e.) "be fruitful and multiply". And to do this 'legally', you must be "married."

AFG All you are showing is that Jews did not create the best society. I agree. they were a failure. Now, where does God himself approve of rape or the society they created? We see later that God destroys the Jews because he doesn't like the society they made.

POI We are right back to where we started. It also parallels the OP. Which parts of the OT can we reject as man-made? (i.e.)

5) How can you distinguish if any passages, at all, are inspired by any god?