(January 25, 2016 at 7:27 am)athrock Wrote:(January 25, 2016 at 12:10 am)Crossless1 Wrote: See? I stand corrected.
I also stand by the observation that your insistence on explaining away a glaring moral shortcoming of your holy book and its god character is weak and reveals you as a relativist when it suits your apologetic needs.
My insistence?
Perhaps it is simply the insistence of atheists that God is immoral which demands a response. I mean, it's not like believers are sitting around anxiously discussing this amongst themselves.
As I have said repeatedly in this forum, if you're going to be an atheist, be a good one. If you're going to argue with believers, do it well.
Attempting to paint God as a moral monster because He gave guidelines for the treatment of slaves (v. prohibiting slavery outright) is a lame argument that fails to make the case atheists are trying to win. It is entirely possible that God could both permit slavery and be a perfect, loving God at the same time.
In the absence of a proof of contradiction, the "Immoral God" argument does nothing to advance the atheist's position that God does not exist, and therefore, it should be discarded.
It's a BAD argument.
Do you consider slavery immoral?
