Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

[orangebox21]

The difference being that God is the one both making the threat and distributing the punishment. Your outlet analogy doesn't really work as there is no being or agent controlling the eletricity to specifically zap you, whereas God is the one creating and controlling the entire punishment in the first place.

I do agree there is a difference in the analogy. In the analogy, electricity is not the one commanding the person. Does that difference alone cause the analogy to fail and the argument to be illogical? This leads to a couple lines of thought.

The hidden assumption in this argument is that because God is the one making the commands and He is the one setting and executing the punishment, He could simply change one or the other. Is this premise true? If true, it leads to another premise, namely that God is morally obligated to change one or the other. Is this true? Both of these premises must be supported by the arguer.

Is it true that God could change the punishment? Let's revisit the outlet analogy. In the analogy the command is to not put a fork in an outlet and the punishment is electrocution. What if there is no difference in the consequences portion of the analogy? What if the punishment isn't set by God in that He willfully sets what the punishment is, but rather it is 'inherently set by his nature' in the same way that electricity, by it's inherent nature, will cause current to flow through a complete circuit and thus electrocution? If it is true that the punishment is inherently set, then God would be under no moral obligation to change the punishment. In fact, I would argue that to ask Him to is to ask a logical impossibility.

This would also mean that the command is not a threat. If the punishment is inherently set, then the command cannot be a threat. It's not, do X or I will do Y to you (a threat), but rather if you do X, then Y will happen. The punishment is inherently a result of action X.

On the other hand, what if God set's the punishment willfully and not inherently. Does this mean that He is under a moral obligation to change the punishment?

Lastly, as far as the original analogy goes, if it is unsatisfactory, then let's change it. You cannot drive over 20 mph in a school zone when children are present [command] or you will get a ticket [threat]. Both the command and the punishment are set by society and could be changed by society. Is 'or you will get a ticket' a threat, or a warning of the consequences of your actions? If you were to drive over 20 mph and as a result get a ticket, would you bear the responsibility of the consequences of your choice or would society?

I accept the premise that a command does not equal coercion by itself.

What then is God's moral obligation?