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?

[1213]

...I already know your position. If God commands it, it is just. PERIOD! Even if it makes no sense at all logically, we humans have no basis to judge against God. Am I close?

No. I think God is just, because that is how it is, logically and sensibly.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I already know your position. If God commands it, it is just. PERIOD! Even if it makes no sense at all logically, we humans have no basis to judge against God. Am I close?

No. I think God is just, because that is how it is, logically and sensibly.

Youmay delude yourself, but you are deluding nobody else (other than the equally deluded).

It has become painfully and abundantly clear that you operate on Faith (at least in the religion debate, probably not in everyday life just like other Believers, but the faithbased denial of science, evidence and even what is in the Bible, and the attempt to tell others (i.e me) that it isn't in the Bible either will have made everyone (but other deniers) the extent of the denial going on and why your arguments are only of value in showing how bad Bible apologetics are.

But that's ok, because the other Bible apologists do it, too.

[POI]

...I already know your position. If God commands it, it is just. PERIOD! Even if it makes no sense at all logically, we humans have no basis to judge against God. Am I close?

No. I think God is just, because that is how it is, logically and sensibly.

Then please start by responding to post 11. How are the claims of God being "just" in these asserted situations? I already gave you my take. Whatever he says or does, IS just. It does not need to make sense to us. Okay, your turn. Why is God logically and sensibly just, regarding the passages from post 11?

[TRANSPONDER]

It's almost an axiom or meme that the Flood was not 'just'. It is also similar to argue that Eden was not 'just'. Nor was the crucifixion or the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple as God's punishment.

I have seen various attempts at excuses, like 'God has a different moral code', in which case human morality is what we actually have) and nobody knows what morality is, or God can do whatever he likes, which amounts o the same thing. Such a god does not deserve worship or respect, even if it brandishes Hellthreat or withholding heaven as corcion. Which is also not 'Just'.

Luckily there is no good reason to believe any of it, and we can just get on trying to make the best of it.

[1213]

Then please start by responding to post 11. How are the claims of God being "just" in these asserted situations?

Jealous and vengeful:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

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

Is there some good reason why God should not be jealous, if jealous means one wants to keep what is His?

"punishing children for the iniquity of parents", if the children do the same, is in my opinion just. That does not mean God punishes them for something they have not done. It would be unjust to not punish everyone with the same principle.

Murderous and cruel:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner who was in the dungeon and all the firstborn of the livestock.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen lurched. 7 The anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him there,[e] and he died there beside the ark of God.

Murder is unjust killing. God has given life, therefore He has also right to decide how long life He gives. That is why He is not murderer. Also, if God would kill an innocent person, the person would be in eternal life and death of the body is not a problem. That is why I don't see a problem, if God kills. And I think even a short life is a great gift and no one has done anything to deserve even that.

But, is He cruel? That seems to be a subjective matter. You may think He is. I don't think so.

War mongering and supports slavery and rape:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people.”

9 The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive, and they plundered all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods.

15 Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? 16 These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

There is nothing in that that supports rape. I think it is interesting how you can come up with that idea.

Do you support mandatory taxation? If so, then you also support slavery.

I don't think slavery is a problem, if people would obey all he rules in the Bible. Because people don't really do so, why should they take the one right from there, while ignoring everything else?

I don't think God is warmongering. But, it is true that He will end all evil eventually. So, it would be better to not be evil. I don't think it is unjust, if God kills, or allows evil people to be killed. however, I think it would be best, if people would live by this:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Matt. 5:44-45

[benchwarmer]

Is there some good reason why God should not be jealous, if jealous means one wants to keep what is His?

I was simply pointing out what is written. Readers are free to interpret as they see fit.

"punishing children for the iniquity of parents", if the children do the same, is in my opinion just. That does not mean God punishes them for something they have not done. It would be unjust to not punish everyone with the same principle.

Yes, that's exactly what it means. You are now inserting your own 'scripture' into the text because you don't want to believe what it plainly says and must now excuse this God for what is written.

I see this all the time. Bible apologists who don't want to read what's actually written because that would mean admitting there are problems. The most likely problem of course is not that there is a god with these attributes, but that humans have made all this up and pretended it's the actual words of a god. If there is an actual god, then I would imagine it's not too happy with humans putting words in it's mouth like this.

Murder is unjust killing. God has given life, therefore He has also right to decide how long life He gives. That is why He is not murderer. Also, if God would kill an innocent person, the person would be in eternal life and death of the body is not a problem. That is why I don't see a problem, if God kills. And I think even a short life is a great gift and no one has done anything to deserve even that.

This is just the usual "God is God and can do no wrong" argument. It only works on believers and is entirely unconvincing. It makes the God of the Bible out to be a "do what I say, not what I do" kind of god. How do we view people who act like that? Why the double standard?

In short, this apology fails miserably, but if it helps you sleep better, then I guess use what you think works best for you.

But, is He cruel? That seems to be a subjective matter. You may think He is. I don't think so.

I just quoted scripture that indeed paints this God as cruel by pretty much any standard. Needlessly killing first born livestock (did they sin?) even if one swallows the whole 'every human is a sinner' argument to excuse killing all the first born humans is definitely cruel. Killing Uzzah for simply reaching out his hand to steady the important cargo from crashing down off the donkey is likewise cruel. The poor guy was just trying to be protective of God's cargo. What was his reward? Instant death.

I'm a little worried you don't see the cruelty here. I am, however, happy that you are displaying the usual responses for all readers to see. Basically, God can do no wrong, anything that might be perceived as wrong is either the fault of humans or us not understanding. i.e. blame the imperfect creation of the perfect creator (which itself is an oxymoron, but hey, it's the only out left)

War mongering and supports slavery and rape:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people.”

9 The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive, and they plundered all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods.

15 Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? 16 These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

There is nothing in that that supports rape. I think it is interesting how you can come up with that idea.

I am again worried that you don't see how that supports rape. Do you even know what the word 'rape' means?

What exactly do you think the warriors were going to do with the young virgins they were to keep for themselves? Bring them home and serve them tea and cookies and then send them on their way?

Do you support mandatory taxation? If so, then you also support slavery.

This almost doesn't deserve a response. The blind equivocation, change of subject, and attempt at misdirection should be enough for readers to see who is desperately trying to make scripture not say what it actually says.

Yes, I support mandatory taxation. That's how we have roads, hospitals, fire and police services, etc.

No, I don't support one human owning another human. I certainly don't support slave owners beating their slaves as long as they don't kill them. If you know your Bible at all then you should know where this is going.

The fact that you think these two things are the same thing only shows your hand. You have to try and equivocate something people do to keep a society running (pool money together for common infrastructure) with owning other humans. If you think this tactic actually works (I guess you do, you just used it), then trust me, you are fooling no one except those also willing to try the same trick.

I don't think slavery is a problem, if people would obey all he rules in the Bible. Because people don't really do so, why should they take the one right from there, while ignoring everything else?

Alright, I guess I'll quote it:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Now I'm definitely worried. You support beating other humans as long as they are your slave and as long as they can recover within a day or two. What a glorious God you follow.

I don't think God is warmongering. But, it is true that He will end all evil eventually. So, it would be better to not be evil. I don't think it is unjust, if God kills, or allows evil people to be killed. however, I think it would be best, if people would live by this:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Matt. 5:44-45

Thank you. you've just unintentionally shown the double standard. You pointed out that people should love their enemies, bless them, and do good to them. God, on the other hand, does what I already quoted. Let's let readers decide what's going on here.

We have what's actually written in the Bible versus all manner of attempts to explain away why it doesn't mean what it actually means.

[TRANSPONDER]

It was a horrible evasion (just to take one point) to say that if the children do the same crimes, evil or sins as the fathers, punishing then is just. Not if they are being punished for the sins their fathers' committed, but only for their own sins. So their children will be punished for the crimes of all their fathers? Or just the ones before them? To pile up the punishment would surely not be just. And to Not punish the children from the fathersof their own fathers means the scripture fails,even before we get to the third generation.

That even without punishing those children who do not do the same kind or degree of sins. Why should they be punished? Either they tough it out and say 'God can do what he likes', which is the act of a bully and dictator. not of a just ruler, or they risk an evasion and possibly say: "Oh no, God only punishes them for their father's crimes if they are the same crimes, but not if they do not do those sins."

In which case, another fal because that is just what would happen if there was no God there...as we so often find we end up.

[1213]

"punishing children for the iniquity of parents", if the children do the same, is in my opinion just. That does not mean God punishes them for something they have not done. It would be unjust to not punish everyone with the same principle.

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

It says: "of those hating Me and doing kindness to thousands, to those loving Me, and to those keeping My commandments". I think that means, punished are those who hate God and don't keep His commandments. It does not mean children that don't hate and who keep the commandments.

What exactly do you think the warriors were going to do with the young virgins they were to keep for themselves? Bring them home and serve them tea and cookies and then send them on their way?

Righteous warriors would have loved them and taken care of them. They would not need to rape anyone.

The fact that you think these two things are the same thing only shows your hand. You have to try and equivocate something people do to keep a society running (pool money together for common infrastructure) with owning other humans. If you think this tactic actually works (I guess you do, you just used it), then trust me, you are fooling no one except those also willing to try the same trick.

You speak like a slave owner. they could as well say, the slaves are needed to keep the society running.

You support beating other humans as long as they are your slave and as long as they can recover within a day or two.

Why you think I support beating of anyone? How do you think the beating slaves rule differs from beating non slaves?

[TRANSPONDER]

"punishing children for the iniquity of parents", if the children do the same, is in my opinion just. That does not mean God punishes them for something they have not done. It would be unjust to not punish everyone with the same principle.

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

It says: "of those hating Me and doing kindness to thousands, to those loving Me, and to those keeping My commandments". I think that means, punished are those who hate God and don't keep His commandments. It does not mean children that don't hate and who keep the commandments.

I'll have to look at that. You may have a point there, if it is in the same context.

Ok. The sins of the fathers is from Deuteronomy 9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. The other bit seems to be from Ezekiel 18 but seems to pretty repeat the same message.
And the context of both or either does seem to be comprehensible in that the intent is to excuse (show mercy) those who have Faith in God and do not do sins beyond which they can be forgiven (it's always contentious that Believers are supposed to be beyond serious sinning) and the punishments apply only to sinners.

But it's the same problem. The sinning is not anything to do with morality but Faith in God and doing his orders, which as has been shown are not always moral. The assumption that those who are not God - believers and do not use a morality based on that religion (1) do not deserve mercy.

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.

But I guess we already knew that, didn't we?

What exactly do you think the warriors were going to do with the young virgins they were to keep for themselves? Bring them home and serve them tea and cookies and then send them on their way?

Righteous warriors would have loved them and taken care of them. They would not need to rape anyone.

How excusing the Bible effectively means that one loses sight of morality. Those women were not given the choice. They became the property of the men who had killed their people. I don't believe that Bible apologists really do lose any understanding of right and wrong (though I sometimes wonder) and it's just a game played to escape recognising anything is wrong with their Holy Book even when it is obvious that there is.

The fact that you think these two things are the same thing only shows your hand. You have to try and equivocate something people do to keep a society running (pool money together for common infrastructure) with owning other humans. If you think this tactic actually works (I guess you do, you just used it), then trust me, you are fooling no one except those also willing to try the same trick.

You speak like a slave owner. they could as well say, the slaves are needed to keep the society running.

You support beating other humans as long as they are your slave and as long as they can recover within a day or two.

Why you think I support beating of anyone? How do you think the beating slaves rule differs from beating non slaves?

Because beating non slaves means that person has the right to protect temselves or recourse to law. A slave is the property of the owner and has no such rights.

(1) a serious part of the Problem has of course been that those who believe in an Abrahamic religion but the wrong one and even wrong denomionation are sinners and deserve no mercy, nor their children for 3 generations. This is why religion -based morality is invalid and should not be used in society.

[benchwarmer]

"punishing children for the iniquity of parents", if the children do the same, is in my opinion just. That does not mean God punishes them for something they have not done. It would be unjust to not punish everyone with the same principle.

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

It says: "of those hating Me and doing kindness to thousands, to those loving Me, and to those keeping My commandments". I think that means, punished are those who hate God and don't keep His commandments. It does not mean children that don't hate and who keep the commandments.

I notice you fail to actually link and quote scripture so we can call see what you are referencing.

Here is the full context of what I originally quoted and it doesn't help your case:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

The Ten Commandments
20 Then God spoke all these words,

2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3 you shall have no other gods before[a] me.

4 “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?

The real problem here is that if it were to mean what you want it to mean, then there would be no point mentioning the punishing of children. It would simply say something like "Those who <insert sin> shall be punished." Full stop.

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

What exactly do you think the warriors were going to do with the young virgins they were to keep for themselves? Bring them home and serve them tea and cookies and then send them on their way?

Righteous warriors would have loved them and taken care of them. They would not need to rape anyone.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

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 think that selecting young virgins from the spoils of war does not involve slavery and rape then I have a bridge to sell you. You are going to have to do much better than this to make any sort of convincing argument. Or I guess don't and show everyone what Christian apologetics is really about.

The fact that you think these two things are the same thing only shows your hand. You have to try and equivocate something people do to keep a society running (pool money together for common infrastructure) with owning other humans. If you think this tactic actually works (I guess you do, you just used it), then trust me, you are fooling no one except those also willing to try the same trick.

You speak like a slave owner. they could as well say, the slaves are needed to keep the society running.

That is hilarious.

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?

You support beating other humans as long as they are your slave and as long as they can recover within a day or two.

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.

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

Read your Bible and find out I guess. I think both practices are abhorrent and don't condone either. Your God has other ideas according to what is written.