The Euthyphro Has Finally Been Destroyed. Now What?

[Paulomycin]

There's no bargaining in truth. You agreed with me all along. You just did not want to admit it... I had to ask you 15 times, to get and honest answer.

Okay, fine.

 

[cvanwey]

Okay, fine.

This will be my last response to you. I trust you will respond again. But you will be typing to yourself...

You must concede that God sanctions/allows/instructs His readers that a master can beat their slaves. If they are not Israelites and are not converted, they are also to be kept for life. If a master beats his slave, and the slave dies as a direct result, and the slave lives passed day two, the master IS NOT to be punished [at all].

This outcome is hardly 'classified' as manslaughter. But even IF it was, why would God not punish the person for beating them (at all), which ultimately caused their death? (rhetorical question). You will likely not give your real gut answer anyways. Nor, am I going to stick around to answer regardless...

I doubt you agree with the rule, as God gives. I would ask how you square that conclusion, but it looks like you already have. And I will again use your own words against you:

"It's like people who are flat-earthers, the incredulity is necessarily forced, because the highest priority is their refusal to see proof or evidence, even when it is right in front of them."

As you stated above, rather than reconcile an obvious Command, for which you disagree with, you instead rationalize. If you agreed, you would not have spent so much time in contest against my statements.

You want to state I'm uneducated. Do whatever you'd like.

But please note that you too agree with my subjective moral opinion, that beating slaves is wrong. And furthermore, beating slaves, where they die, would be punishable (at some level) by any God either of us would want to think actually exists. I doubt such a God would sanction such actions. It's like that of my two points, as addressed in the OP, which are likely nothing more than man made.

Please remember, you also brought up Occam's Razor.

Which option requires more assumption:

A: Such passages were man made alone
B: Such passages were not man made alone?

Anywho... It's another rhetorical question.

Tata

 

[Paulomycin]

You must concede that God sanctions/allows/instructs His readers that a master can beat their slaves.

Your generalized and painfully vague use of "beat" = hype

If they are not Israelites and are not converted, they are also to be kept for life. If a master beats his slave, and the slave dies as a direct result, and the slave lives passed day two, the master IS NOT to be punished [at all].

1. Because it is manslaughter.
2. You admit that conversion is an escape option.
3. Literal escape itself is also an option (Deuteronomy 23:15, which you gave no indication of actually reading).

This outcome is hardly 'classified' as manslaughter.

Because you're subjectively trying to "proof by assertion" your way out of this. It's still purely accidental death, according to the scenario you proposed. And you can't intimidate me with that.

But even IF it was, why would God not punish the person for beating them (at all), which ultimately caused their death?

Because it was an honest accident. It can be safely assumed that the master's punishment will become more than apparent in his reputation and circumstances, when everyone finds out what he did, and he will no longer be able to keep any more slaves without that stigma upon him for the rest of his life.

And again, like I said before, his investment is on the line here. If I wouldn't want to damage my automatic dishwasher, how much more loathe would I be to damage a dishwasher that could cry, or possibly run away??? He's punishing himself with his own foolishness.

(rhetorical question). You will likely not give your real gut answer anyways.

That really is my gut answer, and you can't guilt-trip me into whatever lame "gotcha" you wanted to lay out for me.

As you stated above, rather than reconcile an obvious Command, for which you disagree with, you instead rationalize. If you agreed, you would not have spent so much time in contest against my statements.

What's obvious about it? You refused to agree on any hard specifics like manslaughter.

You want to state I'm uneducated. Do whatever you'd like.

"We" are uneducated. As-in all of us. We're all techno-barbarians now; living in a new digital dark ages.

But please note that you too agree with my subjective moral opinion, that beating slaves is wrong.

According to what objective standard of "wrong?" All moral claims are in-themselves objective claims. But you admitted to your own sense of subjectivism, so there's nothing you can possibly "get me" with.

And furthermore, beating slaves, where they die, would be punishable (at some level) by any God either of us would want to think actually exists.

Well then that sounds like murder to me. Pick a lane, already. "SHEESH!"

Please remember, you also brought up Occam's Razor.

This is proof you were skimming my posts, which doesn't earn my respect at all. The record shows I brought up Hitchens' Razor, which is very-very different.

Which option requires more assumption:

A: Such passages were man made alone
B: Such passages were not man made alone?

Anywho... It's another rhetorical question.

And merely rhetorical at that, because my argument still applies even when the Bible is read as complete fiction. You're an atheist. Of course I don't expect you to take it as actual history.