A Levite and his concubine

[Esquilax]

You're applying your human standards to God.

If your only argument is "he's special!" without justifying it, then you don't have an argument. Tell me, why is it moral for god to do something, when you would have no trouble calling a human who did the same thing immoral? Please note, you can't just reference back to god's authority, or righteousness, or what have you, without justifying it, as that would be circular reasoning in the former case, and irrelevant in the latter. If you appeal to his authority then your argument would just be "it's okay for god to do that because god says it's okay for god to do that," and if you appeal to righteousness, that's not an inherent trait, but something that is displayed through actions... and we've just established that for a human those actions would be immoral.

Where did your moral standards come from. Is there an ultimate moral authority that governs human beings or are your standards something you picked from your parents and society? Is somebody else required to accept your moral standards?

This is a diversion, but I'll answer it; there is no moral authority, but that's true for both of us, even if your god exists. Because, again, god's "authority" leans solely on a fiat assertion that he has it, nothing else. You might accept it, but there is no reason given why anyone else should. If, as you say, my moral system is weak because there's no obligation for anyone else to follow it, then yours is likewise. Don't pretend you've got some leg up here, when all you really have is a demand, in a book, that we treat these particular moral claims with some kind of reverence.

As it happens, what I do have is an objective framework for morality, which is something you don't have, if you're content to follow your old book. That objective framework is reality, and our attendant nature as evolved, biological entities. By considering our requirements as humans, the world we live in and how we react to it, and actually thinking about the consequences and logical repercussions of my actions in a fair, non-special pleading manner, I can construct a rational, objectively based moral system that can be justified with demonstrable evidence and argued effectively to anyone, at any time. Whether or not they accept my morality is not the issue; nobody is obliged to accept any moral system, even yours, so don't even start there.

The important part is that at no point do I need to simply assert, based on nothing real, that it's okay for a blatantly immoral act to have occurred because of some nebulous authority... the nature and roots of which also come only from that book. One of us is special pleading here, Lek. And it's not me.

Do the civil laws you referenced apply to those under those laws or everybody in the world?

Your christian moral laws don't apply to everyone in the world either. If you want to argue that they do, then please establish the existence of the power that is going to enforce those laws. What you can't do is appeal to magic, while expecting everyone else to work within the framework of reality.

The bible teaches it and christians believe that we and all creation belong to God. I believe that my wife, kids, house, car, etc, all belong to God. Whatever I have has been given me to be used for serving God. We have the free will to do with our gifts whatever we want. I'm trying to think of a time when God has interfered with someone's free will. Some argue that he did so with Pharaoh in Exodus and I've argued that here before. Of course, he could if he wanted.

"God can do it because god says god can do it" is a circular argument. Try again.

Well, he is special. If God is who the bible says he is, I can'y say that the same rules apply to God as to us.

Sure you can! If your morals are well justified and you can argue them, why shouldn't they also apply to god? Because god says they shouldn't? That's not morality, that's authoritarian fiat. Because he's more powerful? That's just might makes right. Because he created us? Second verse, same as the first!

What actual reason do you have for exempting god from common morality, without referring back to a command that god himself has made?

But see, we do believe that death is just punishment for our sins. By what moral authority do you base your opinion that this punishment is not just?

Reality. The death penalty serves no purpose, provides no benefit, and results in a potentially rehabilitated moral agent being lost to sate some petty revenge fantasy. Therefore, there is no justification one could give for why that could be a just punishment.

What reason do you have for proclaiming death to be a just punishment for sins, beyond "god said so"?

Fiat assertions aren't particularly compelling, to someone not working from the same unjustified presuppositions as you.

Ditto.

Maybe try a real argument then?

Okay. What do you have besides flat assertions that these acts are morally wrong--or any other acts as well?

Reality, again. In the cases in which these sins are harming nobody, then there is no negative impact by which one could judge them immoral. In the cases in which there is harm, god is in a unique position to provide rehabilitation, or at least direction to the people for how that can come about and a reasonable justification for this. Therefore, even in cases in which there was immorality that required redress, there was an alternative scenario, beyond genocide by flood, that maximized benefit and minimized harm, without any loss of life. There was, in fact, a moral pinnacle easily in reach, but instead god chose to inflict needless suffering and death upon the earth, including on those- animals and babies, let's say- who bore no responsibility for the immoral acts n question.

Given that a better solution was easily in reach and god opted to take a morally inferior route that maximized harm and minimized benefit, he is guilty of an immoral act.

What reason do you have, beyond "god says so," to say that god's actions were moral? If your morality comes from god, doesn't that make his own judgments of his actions horrendously biased?

The writers didn't assume that everything in the bible was morally correct. It's just that after relating a certain story they didn't always make a statement at the end as to whether or not the actions of those involved were morally correct

By fiat assertion, not objective justification.

Again, I'll agree with you about immoral actions being in the bible, but tell me where you get to the authority to make moral judgments on these things.

You don't need authority to judge moral actions, because the morality of an action isn't based upon the authority of the person observing it. Or are you actually saying that the moral content of an action changes depending on who is judging it?

It sounds like you're arguing for subjective moral relativism here, but I don't buy that; an act is moral or immoral regardless of who's judging it.