The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[Mr.wizard]

Anyone who thinks slavery of any kind is moral, is a moral monster.

Careful...that sounds like an argument for the existence of objective moral values. 

No it sure isn't, obviously there are people who think slavery is moral like you and your god, I just think its sick.

[Catholic_Lady]

People have to keep in mind that as awful as slavery is and has always been, this was still a huge step up in morality for those times.

I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the OT, but I can see the point trying to be made here. God had to work with what He had and progress from there.

[robvalue]

No, Yahweh doesn't exist. If he did exist, as described, most civilised people today would not approve of the things he condones. This just shows that the book represents only the morality of the time. If that's the excuse, then you can throw the rest of the book out with it.

See: Stockholm syndrome.

[Catholic_Lady]

Careful...that sounds like an argument for the existence of objective moral values. 

No it sure isn't, obviously there are people who think slavery is moral like you and your god, I just think its sick.

If it is actually true that Athrock and God both think slavery is ok (which I am certain is not the case), then how can you say they are monsters for believing it if there is no such thing as real right and wrong?

[Chad32]

Anyone who thinks slavery of any kind is moral, is a moral monster.

Careful...that sounds like an argument for the existence of objective moral values. 

No, there are people who would argue for it. Likely mostly slave owners, or people who have never been slaves.

[Catholic_Lady]

This just shows that the book represents only the morality of the time.

No, it's still a HUGE step up in morality for those times.

[Mr.wizard]

No it sure isn't, obviously there are people who think slavery is moral like you and your god, I just think its sick.

If it is actually true that Athrock and God both think slavery is ok (which I am certain is not the case), then how can you say they are monsters for believing it if there is no such thing as real right and wrong?

Because I can think slavery is sick without it having to be objective.

[robvalue]

Why was god's power limited by the people around him? If he wanted them to behave to a certain standard, surely he had that power. The fact that he didn't means he is happy with what they were doing.

He was quite happy to impose other rules on pain of death, the idea that he didn't like slavery but forgot to make a rule about it is rather a stretch I think. He does the opposite and tells them, and us, how to regulate it.

The fact that you reject what it says just shows you're morally superior to the author (with regard to human wellbeing).

[Mr.wizard]

Why was god's power limited by the people around him? If he wanted them to behave to a certain standard, surely he had that power. The fact that he didn't means he is happy with what they were doing.

He was quite happy to impose other rules on pain of death, the idea that he didn't like slavery but forgot to make a rule about it is rather a stretch I think. He does the opposite and tells them, and us, how to regulate it.

The fact that you reject what it says just shows you're morally superior to the author (with regard to human wellbeing).

Ya, it seems completely ridiculous that the creator of all things could only "work with what he had".

[Catholic_Lady]

If it is actually true that Athrock and God both think slavery is ok (which I am certain is not the case), then how can you say they are monsters for believing it if there is no such thing as real right and wrong?

Because I can think slavery is sick without it having to be objective.

So just because YOU think slavery is wrong, doesn't mean it inherently is, according to you. So why would someone else be a monster for disagreeing with you on it? No one is a monster or an evil, bad person for believing anything if nothing is inherently immoral and it's all just up to personal opinion.