According to What or Who?

[POI]

Otseng has asserted the following: "God also has many other attributes - love, patient, just, merciful, etc."

For debate: By what standard(s) does one measure these above said attributes of love, patience, being just, and being merciful? In other words, how do we know God actually possesses all these attributes?

[TRANSPONDER]

We seem to see the same problem in looking at the context rather than the familiar quote - picking. While punishment is reserved for the evil-doer and (arguable) the children of evil doers who are not themselves sinners get excuse the 3 generation punishment.

But then the whole threat becomes pointless.It is is simplyu "Wrongdoers get punished, those who do no evil do not get punished".

The rest was not only absurd but immoral - if it worked.

But it gets worse. It contains preferential treatment for believers. The sinning is simply not being part of the Believer club. That sees punishment for those who don't beleive right and their children. It is what is wrong with religion. It is, at base, divisive and tribalistic.

At best, I think many Christian apologists know better than that and (of course) follow the humanist morality as it is now (give or take religious resistance to change) which is why they have to pretend what the Bible says is really not what it says.

[1213]

... “You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Your attempted apologetic is that we should only pay attention to verse 6 and ignore verse 5. Is that correct?

No, I think nothing from Bible should be ignored.I think it all should be understood as it was intended to be understood.

Let's face it, according to what is written, children will be punished or why bother mentioning it?

Yes, I think they would be punished, if they would do wrongly.

But, maybe i am wrong. In a way children always suffer from parents wrong actions. That doesn't necessary mean God send something bad, wrong actions just have bad consequences usually.

Are you really that naive? How exactly do you see 'taking care of them' to play out? Their village has just been attacked and all men and all women who are not virgins (never mind the problem of determining that) are to be killed. i.e. the parents of these virgins were just slaughtered (likely in front of them) and now you think the virgins want to go with the warriors? That's the slavery step. Do you also think these woman are not going to be forced to have sex? Clearly you are not very familiar with history or war or human nature in general.

If you would rape in that situation, it does not mean everyone else would do the same.

Do you not tithe at church in order to pool money together to help others? If so, then by your contorted logic you are also a slave owner. What about charitable giving to organizations? Slave owners?

By what I know, those are voluntary. If someone is forced to pay, I think it is wrong.

Why you think I support beating of anyone?

Because you are a Bible believing Christian and thus you fully believe Exodus 21:20-21 is just fine.

I believe the Bible, but I don't support beating anyone. And i don't think Bible tells people should beat others. On the contrary, it tells to love others and do no harm to others.

But, what do you think, has governments right to beat and jail people, who don't obey them?

How do you think the beating slaves rule differs from beating non slaves?

Read your Bible and find out I guess.

I have done that. And it is interesting, that there seems to be no meaningful difference, which is why it is interesting that you don't see a problem in other cases.

[1213]

...
Which was the problem I hinted at in an earlier post. It is false and evil to suppose that Non believers are sinners because of their non -belief, and deserve no mercy nor their children (unless they turn from evil - which means become Believers in the context).

So the problem is that the moral code is not what one does, but what one believes. Doing good and evil, being punished or meriting mercy depends not on actions but on beliefs.
...

What one believes is the foundation for what one does. There is no actions that don't come from what person believes. But, in any case, people should not do anything evil.

[benchwarmer]

No, I think nothing from Bible should be ignored.I think it all should be understood as it was intended to be understood.

Let's face it, according to what is written, children will be punished or why bother mentioning it?

Yes, I think they would be punished, if they would do wrongly.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but that's not what it clearly says.

But, maybe i am wrong. In a way children always suffer from parents wrong actions. That doesn't necessary mean God send something bad, wrong actions just have bad consequences usually.

Except that's exactly what verse 5 says. God will punish. Not natural consequences, God. Why are you trying to add to scripture here?

I get it, it doesn't actually make sense, so you likely have 2 options:

1) Realize this passage does not fit with a loving, compassionate god. Therefore, it must be either wrong (human invention) or right (God of the Bible really is not so compassionate or loving).

2) Pretend it doesn't say what it actually says and try to insert your own interpretation to excuse the obvious problem.

You seem to be choosing (2). I clearly have chosen (1). If you have another option, please add to my list.

Are you really that naive? How exactly do you see 'taking care of them' to play out? Their village has just been attacked and all men and all women who are not virgins (never mind the problem of determining that) are to be killed. i.e. the parents of these virgins were just slaughtered (likely in front of them) and now you think the virgins want to go with the warriors? That's the slavery step. Do you also think these woman are not going to be forced to have sex? Clearly you are not very familiar with history or war or human nature in general.

If you would rape in that situation, it does not mean everyone else would do the same.

1213, I thought you were above that type of comment.

Where did I say I would rape anyone? Link and quote please?

I would not take a young girl as a spoil of war, therefore I would not be raping anyone. The point is that right there in the Bible we have that very behaviour being condoned. It seems at the very least you are agreeing with and condoning the slavery.

Are you now going to argue all these virgins were asked if they would like to return with the warriors? If you think that, again you are not reading the text as written, but inserting your own desired text to make an excuse for the obvious problem.

Do you not tithe at church in order to pool money together to help others? If so, then by your contorted logic you are also a slave owner. What about charitable giving to organizations? Slave owners?

By what I know, those are voluntary. If someone is forced to pay, I think it is wrong.

No one is forced to pay taxes. They can always move to a place that doesn't collect taxes. Clearly you still don't see the difference between voluntarily deciding to take part in a society versus forcefully owning other humans. If this is the best apologetic you can come up with, then I don't have to worry about you convincing anyone on the fence about the issue.

Why you think I support beating of anyone?

Because you are a Bible believing Christian and thus you fully believe Exodus 21:20-21 is just fine.

I believe the Bible, but I don't support beating anyone. And i don't think Bible tells people should beat others. On the contrary, it tells to love others and do no harm to others.

Again, you are ignoring the Bible. Please read Exodus 21:20-21. It clearly condones beating slaves as long as they recover. Yes, it doesn't say "You shall beat your slaves!". The Bible also doesn't say "Wear pink socks!", but it's ok with that (well, as long as they don't run afoul of Leviticus 19:19).

You seem to be attempting to excuse what the Bible condones, by pointing out the Bible does not directly command to do something. It's not convincing in the least, but I guess that's all you can do.

But, what do you think, has governments right to beat and jail people, who don't obey them?

The government no. The police force that we pay for (through taxes which you clearly don't like) has been tasked (at least in my country) with detaining people that are harming our society (breaking laws). They are also given the right to use appropriate force when required. i.e. if a criminal is pointing a gun at them, they are allowed to respond in kind. They are absolutely NOT allowed to just randomly beat people. I get that some governments and police forces in some places in the world are morally bankrupt and/or corrupt and allow/encourage that type of behavior. I absolutely do not condone that. I do condone a police force that acts appropriately.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Which was the problem I hinted at in an earlier post. It is false and evil to suppose that Non believers are sinners because of their non -belief, and deserve no mercy nor their children (unless they turn from evil - which means become Believers in the context).

So the problem is that the moral code is not what one does, but what one believes. Doing good and evil, being punished or meriting mercy depends not on actions but on beliefs.
...

What one believes is the foundation for what one does. There is no actions that don't come from what person believes. But, in any case, people should not do anything evil.

Yeah...but ...that is so accepting of what is handed down culturally, without thinking about it. That would be ok id religion did not step in and claim that it all comes from them.

So we have to look and see whether that is the only explanation, let alone the right one. And it isn't. Bottom line; even if religion did make people behave better than (say) secular social mores, it is not worth believing it if isn't true. In fact, I think that religion may have had its' uses back in the day, when pleasing a god who would send you to Hell if you didn't was more important than doing what was right, but I think we have moved on so much that Religion causes more problems with divisions, social interference and pulling back against progression that is not in line with religious thought.

Our beliefs do affect how we act, but we can do better with secularist beliefs than with religious ones.

Cue :Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.

response, Putin, Xi, Kim and Iran, with which Right wing religious politics in the US (if not Europe) seem to be aligned. i

[1213]

...In fact, I think that religion may have had its' uses back in the day, when pleasing a god who would send you to Hell if you didn't was more important than doing what was right, but I think we have moved on so much that Religion causes more problems with divisions, social interference and pulling back against progression that is not in line with religious thought.

What problems religions cause to you?

And it is interesting how being righteous has been turned into "pleasing" God. In away it is sad that people have been scared to pretend to be something, when in the Bible it is about much deeper than faking to be something.

...we can do better with secularist beliefs than with religious ones.

I don't see that to be true.

[1213]

No, I think nothing from Bible should be ignored.I think it all should be understood as it was intended to be understood.

Let's face it, according to what is written, children will be punished or why bother mentioning it?

Yes, I think they would be punished, if they would do wrongly.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but that's not what it clearly says.

So, the "but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments" means nothing to you?

Where did I say I would rape anyone?

Ok, so, if you would not rape, why do you think someone else would? If you don't like to be accused of wanting to rape others, why it is ok for you to accuse other people for that, without any evidence and without knowing the people?

Are you now going to argue all these virgins were asked if they would like to return with the warriors? If you think that, again you are not reading the text as written, but inserting your own desired text to make an excuse for the obvious problem.

I think you are inserting rape there, even though the scriptures don't speak of rape. I just try to point out that it comes from your mind, not from the text.

Again, you are ignoring the Bible. Please read Exodus 21:20-21. It clearly condones beating slaves as long as they recover.

It condones beating everyone as much as it condones beating slaves. There is no punishment for beating anyone, if there is no damage. This doesn't mean it is then ok to beat, only that there is no direct punishment for it.

The government no. The police force that we pay for (through taxes which you clearly don't like) has been tasked (at least in my country) with detaining people that are harming our society (breaking laws). They are also given the right to use appropriate force when required. ...

Yes, and police does what government orders it to do. So, the situation is basically the same as with slave owners. Of course you can claim that governments hit men do it only with good reasons, but one could as well say that also slave owner did so, only with good reasons.

[TRANSPONDER]

...In fact, I think that religion may have had its' uses back in the day, when pleasing a god who would send you to Hell if you didn't was more important than doing what was right, but I think we have moved on so much that Religion causes more problems with divisions, social interference and pulling back against progression that is not in line with religious thought.

What problems religions cause to you?

And it is interesting how being righteous has been turned into "pleasing" God. In away it is sad that people have been scared to pretend to be something, when in the Bible it is about much deeper than faking to be something.

...we can do better with secularist beliefs than with religious ones.

I don't see that to be true.

By now anyone will understand that what you see and what you don't see is just doen to your faithbased bias. And your person approach to everything only flags up how Christianity makes it about the opinion of the individual, not the good of the community.

It isn't about what problems Christianity causes for me, personally but about the problms it causes communally, interfering in education, politics and even work and science, notably in the US where an effortwas made to pass legislation that would allow Christianity to rule on what science even was. If the next election goes badly, we'll see that just being passed by a loaded Court.

It is an old meme about pleasing God.

Believers always protest they Believe and do all the required stuff to show Christian virtue signalling ( ain't it grand how the Woke hate - cult provides all the trappings of religious faith?) and we godless say: "You only do this to please God (so as to be sure you get to heaven)"

The believers protest "No,we don't; we do Good because it's the right thing to do."

"That's what atheists do, too."

cue the accusation that atheists cannot do good because they lack morality, but that's where we cam in. Secular morality beats Biblical and has done so for 200 years.

[1213]

... how Christianity makes it about the opinion of the individual, not the good of the community...

Isn't the good of the community only your opinion? It seems to me that you have elevated your opinion larger than just one person's opinion.

Secular morality beats Biblical and has done so for 200 years.

In your mind. What makes your mind the supreme mind?

[TRANSPONDER]

... how Christianity makes it about the opinion of the individual, not the good of the community...

Isn't the good of the community only your opinion? It seems to me that you have elevated your opinion larger than just one person's opinion.

Secular morality beats Biblical and has done so for 200 years.

In your mind. What makes your mind the supreme mind?

Don't fo a moment think that my mind works like yours, where your Opinion replaces not only what the evidence says, but what mainstream Christianity says (Faith, not works) or even what the Bible says.

No, where I have my own opinions (Jesus = Barrabbas, for example) I say it's my pet theory, as also perhaps my view of gospel construction and indeed contradictions, which I haven't seen elsewhere, but I'm following the evidence there, not my own suspicions. But otherwise, the arguments I put forward are the database of wisdom. Do you suppose that I worked out that the sun was made before the earth? That Luke's Nativity must have happened a near decade after the date for Matthew's? Or that whales were evolved from a land - critter? No, this is what we call 'scientific knowledge' and to suppose that is 'My opinion' shows the flaws in your thinking.

The same with morality. True, like many apologetics that are used now, the Morality argument only fell flat after the 80's when I got started. But it is not my mind or opinion that makes the Bible an immoral book, but the minds of better thinkers whose brains I pick, constantly. Rather, it is you who elevates your own mind, opinion and Understanding (caps intent.) above science, mainstream Church dogma and the general meaning of the Bible , apparently because you think you have better understanding of all of that, or rather - and I'd bet all my petrodollars on this - that you think Godfaith is allowing God to download the True facts (which deny everything we know, if you don't like it) into your head, alone of all the rest of humanity, other than those who agree with you, I suppose, if you can find any.