The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[Thumpalumpacus]

God's creation was "good", but man is a free agent, Thump. That he means he can screw up if he chooses to do so. You seem to be suggesting that God could have made perfect students who played the music God wanted played perfectly every single time without deviation. Well, He could have done that...but then we'd be robots merely carrying out God's orders according to how we were programmed. Is that the kind of artistry you'd want in a music student? Just another player piano bang out the notes punched into a roll of paper?

What I'm saying, not suggesting, is that your example is deeply flawed and you'd ought to abandon it for one that more accurately reflects the claims made about your god -- that he is perfect.

I am not saying that your god should have created perfect Israelites. I am saying that being a perfect communicator, and being their creator[/i], he should certainly be able to communicate his morality without having to take thousands of years.

Are you clear on my point now? I won't be entertaining this deeply flawed analogy any more, except to engage in mockery and shenanigans, perhaps.

I was asking about his timeless morality.

But since you brought it up, do you consider your God's expression of love by killing all but eight humans a loving attribute, really?

Perhaps. More on why momentarily.

Oh, this should be good.

First, the flood was an act of justice. The people sinned against God, and He punished them. When a killer commits a murder, we punish them. Sometimes, with capital punishment. And we don't have the benefit of being God when we exercise that authority. (I;m not even sure we legitimately have such authority, btw.)

Well, you realize that if you assign such authority to your god, while denying it to humans, that you're practicing moral subjectivity, right? Do you honestly think that morality is subject to the identity of the actor?

Now, as to your question: it may well have been an act of love. Would it have been loving to allow the sin and corruption to continue? Remember, if the people were wickedly engaging in murder, rape, theft, etc., there were victims of these acts who were suffering. By destroying the wicked, those who MAY have merited heaven would have immediately entered into the joy of God's presence. No more pain. They would have given no more thought to the horror of the flood than you would give to the sweat of a good workout at the gym after taking a hot shower.

I should think that an all-powerful god would have a more nuanced way of separating the wicked from their victims.

An act of love? Sure, if it meant that more children would not be brought into a world that would rape them, abuse them, sacrifice them to idols or even to pervert and twist their thinking to the degree that they themselves became the perpetrators of such evil deeds.

So, yeah, I can see wiping out an evil generation as an act of love because it ends current suffering and prevents future suffering.

Except that suffering is still endemic -- including slavery, to bring this back to topic.

And -- if your god didn't want children born into an evil world, couldn't he just fix that?

For an all-powerful being, he sure does have lots of limitations on his powers. It's almost as if you're pulling them out willy-nilly to explain the inexplicable.

I'm a father. If my son were to misbehave, would you think it loving if I killed him as punishment? Would you think it moral?

If so, you're the last person to be delivering lectures on morality. And if not, you've just bought into moral relativity.  

No, I would not consider YOUR act of murder to be an act of love. YOU are not God.

Ah, so you are a moral relativist. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think that's all the questions I have for you right now. I think Catholic Lady might have a question or two for you about why you don't believe in objective morality, though.