(January 25, 2016 at 7:41 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 7:27 am)athrock Wrote: 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?

Yes, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. 

Seriously, if someone wants to make a case that benevolent slavery (one of the many degrees of slavery which Jorm brought to the table last night) was actually a win-win scenario, I would consider the argument open-mindedly.

Being a well-treated slave in order to work off a debt and then going free sounds better than the alternative of debtor's prison.

(January 25, 2016 at 8:14 am)Irrational Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 7:27 am)athrock Wrote: 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.

Don't be so butthurt. If people believe that the character of God as depicted in the Old Testament is that of a monster or a deranged psychotic narcissistic being, then that is because the character behaves exactly like one.

It seems to you a good atheist is one who nods in agreement with all the things you want them to agree with.

No, people judge one another erroneously all the time. We hear things like, "I thought John was a jerk at first, but he's really a nice guy when you get to know him."

If we do that with people we know in person, imagine how much easier it is for people to misjudge a God whom they don't know through the pages of a book they do not understand.

(January 25, 2016 at 8:18 am)robvalue Wrote: What does this matter?

A Christian only need convince themselves that the God character lines up with what they want it to be. What difference does it make what atheists think of the character?

Because if atheists thought of God's character accurately, rob, they might not choose to be atheists any more.

In some instances, the Hebrews represented incremental moral improvements; in others, they are slightly worse. But anyone who compares the laws of the Hittites with that of the Hebrews can clearly observe the latter to be far more barbaric.

(January 25, 2016 at 8:45 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 7:27 am)athrock Wrote: 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.

Where do you get the idea that the "Immoral God" argument has anything to do with atheism? It seems to me that those who invoke the argument do so as a finger jab in the eye of those believers who think they have a corner on morality -- even more, that their god-based morality is objective and eternally unchanging.

I agree that it should be discarded as an argument for atheism [emphasis added], but I don't often see it used in that way. The poor quality of theists' evidence and arguments are really all one needs to argue for atheism. The alleged immorality of God goes more to the point of believers' inconsistency and dishonesty when defending their holy book(s). In that sense, it's a GOOD argument.

Wow. Thanks for that second. All in favor say, "Aye."

It's more than a poke at believers, C1...it's an obstacle to knowing God as He really is. I mean, it's pretty hard to accept that someone loves you when all you've ever heard is all the terrible things he (allegedly) did in the past.

A person can be prejudiced against another race or against all Muslims because of terrorism, etc. Letting go of that prejudice requires replacing negative opinions (which are often based on misrepresentations and bad information) with positive ones.

I'm not sure someone like Cecelia, for example, can ever hear that God loves her until she stops repeating that God is "sexist, homophobic, racist, misogynist..." to herself. You've seen her rants, so you know what I mean.

The evidence just doesn't support her prejudiced views. Calling God immoral on the basis of his precepts on slavery gives no clearer picture of his character than she would have of a man whom she happens to see swatting the backside of a mouthy child in a parking lot. She has no depth, no context, for understanding why the kid needed to be swatted or what had transpired between father and child in the past to bring them to that moment. And, frankly, she's certainly not in a position to impose her views of proper child rearing techniques on another family. So, while the guy might actually be a wonderful family man and a model father, Cecelia drives home fuming over what she calls "child abuse".

See my point? The guy is NOT an abusive father any more than God is a moral monster.

Cecelia is simply ignorant of all the facts and attempting to impose her own values on someone else. God.

She isn't alone; atheists do this all the time, and it's not helping.

(January 25, 2016 at 9:09 am)athrock Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 8:18 am)robvalue Wrote: What does this matter?

A Christian only need convince themselves that the God character lines up with what they want it to be. What difference does it make what atheists think of the character?

Because if atheists thought of God's character accurately, rob, they might not choose to be atheists any more.

I can't let this slide.

This is exactly why I can't take discussion with you seriously.

1) Atheism is not a choice

2) Whether something is real or not has nothing to do with whether I like it or not

You really need to at least try to understand what being an atheist is, if you ever hope to convince one of anything.

Consider me trying to tell you Skeletor from He-man is real, and you choose to not believe he's real because you think he's evil. Hopefully you will see that is absolutely ridiculous.

I'll be leaving you alone again, but I sincerely hope you take some time to think this over.

(January 25, 2016 at 8:54 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 8:33 am)athrock Wrote: Or not understanding it.

The Ten Commandments was only a part of the total package known as Mosaic Law. The Israelites were obligated to the whole of the Law.

I hope your misguided moral indignation is not getting in the way of your comprehension of this.

Speaking of comprehension, I suppose it wasn't lost on you that I implicitly invoked the whole of the Mosaic law in addition to the ten commandments -- you know, the bit you quoted that mentioned ritual commandments? Did you really think I had the stone tablets in mind there?

But don't let your misguided sense of adequacy get in the way of understanding the plain meaning of another person's post.

And still not buying it.

Hey, you're right. I did mis-read your post. For this, I apologize.

BFF?

(January 24, 2016 at 10:24 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: God had to work with what He had and progress from there.

If god is as omnipotent, omnipresent and as all knowing as Christians believe, then one could very easily argue that such a god would have no need for slavery. He could just have the necessary things people of that time needed, just appear ( you know, like that mana from heaven). There would be no need for people to do work for others because god could, with all his powers, just provide everything for everyone.

Another point - If he is supposed to be an all loving God, then why would he force bondage and slavery on those he supposedly loved? That doesn't sound like a very loving god to me.

(January 25, 2016 at 9:28 am)Nestor Wrote: In some instances, the Hebrews represented incremental moral improvements; in others, they are slightly worse. But anyone who compares the laws of the Hittites with that of the Hebrews can clearly observe the latter to be far more barbaric.

The Wikipedia entry for Child Sacrifice mentions this regarding the Canaanites:

"According to Diodorus Siculus, "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire."(Bib. Hist. 20.14.6)

Sites within Carthage and other Phoenician centers revealed the remains of infants and children in large numbers; some historians[citation needed] interpret this as evidence for frequent and prominent child sacrifice to the god Baal-hamon."


So, I dunno, Nestor. What, specifically, from your studies has given you reason to believe that the Hebrews were worse than this?

(January 25, 2016 at 9:34 am)robvalue Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 9:09 am)athrock Wrote: Because if atheists thought of God's character accurately, rob, they might not choose to be atheists any more.

I can't let this slide.

This is exactly why I can't take discussion with you seriously.

1) Atheism is not a choice

Of course it is. You can choose today to go down to the local Christian bookstore and buy a Bible and read it. You can decide right now whether you want to study good theology and try to comprehend things which are a mystery to you now. You can choose to seek God and not give up until you have found him.

Or you can simply go with the idea that "What I can see is all there is."

YOUR. CHOICE.

Quote:2) Whether something is real or not has nothing to do with whether I like it or not

You really need to at least try to understand what being an atheist is, if you ever hope to convince one of anything.

Man, I wish I had a dollar (pound note? Euro?) for every time someone has used that line on me.

Quote:Consider me trying to tell you Skeletor from He-man is real, and you choose to not believe he's real because you think he's evil. Hopefully you will see that is absolutely ridiculous.

I'll be leaving you alone again, but I sincerely hope you take some time to think this over.

There wasn't much meat on the bones to chew on, Rob.

Are you leaving to go to the bookstore, then? Choose wisely.