Theistic morality

[rjh4 is back]

It seems fairly obvious that saying beating slaves is acceptable is a tacit acceptance of slavery. How could it not be?

Sure...but in what sense. Certainly in the sense that it was tolerated. Not necessarily in the sense that it is accepted as a good thing.

As for its being good, you would've thought that the Bible, being a moral guide, would have something to say on the issue. Yes, tolerance doesn't imply approval, but in a moral guide it probably would.

Well there is Biblical evidence that what you say is not the case. The evidence is what it says about divorce. Clearly the OT and the Mosaic law allows divorce. You say this would imply approval or that it is good because the Bible is a moral guide. However, the NT indicates otherwise. See Matthew 19:3-9.

Furthermore, the Bible is clear that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and treat others as we want to be treated, both of which when applied to others in the context of personal relationships would indicate that slavery is not good.

So, you are effectively saying that God's nature is not arbitrary, but you provide no argument for this position.

I did say that I didn't see anything necessitating the conclusion that God's nature is arbitrary.

If God is not created (as he's surely not), then his attributes serve no purpose; they just are. Therefore, how could they not be arbitrary?

How does it follow that if God is not created then His attributes serve no purpose? On the other hand, it seem to me that it would follow that if God is not created and God created the universe, He would have done so in such a manner that His attributes do serve a purpose.

Arbitrary as you seem to be applying it to God's nature or attributes seems to imply that God can and will act in an arbitrary way. If I have characterized your position correctly, what is your basis for this? If I have not, please try to clarify your application of the word "arbitrary" as it relates to God.

Basing morals on such an assumption seems dangerous to me.

I bet this statement could be applied to just about everyone since everyone has some presuppositions (primary assumptions) that they use for their worldview which they use for their morals.

I base my morals on the principles taught in the Bible and particularly the teachings that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and treat others as we want to be treated. Do I always succeed? Sadly, no. But that is what I strive for.

Assuming that we could verify it to be God's command to a degree of probability as near to certain as possible -say, if a huge crowd witnessed God poking his head down and making the command, and if the incident were caught on camera- then would you do it? Of course, your reasons for trusting the Bible as God's commands seem less than watertight, and we've already seen that God tolerates slavery in the OT, so I'm surprised that you'd be so sceptical if he did. Nevertheless, it's a hypothetical situation, so whether you can fathom it or not, what would you do

I don't know about your verification example ...but assuming that the command is of God and I knew this to be true...I still don't know for sure what I would do. I can only guess.

You see...I do know that God commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves and treat others as we want to be treated. Yet I do not always follow those commands as I know I should.

So...in terms of the hypothetical...I would certainly want to follow the command as it is from God but I cannot be sure that I would. Given all of that, I will guess that I would follow it but will reiterate that I think the hypothetical is silly and really serves no relevant purpose, at least as far as I can see.

What would you do Omni? You get this verification the God exists and He commands you to kill grannies. Would you then become a follower of God? Would you do it? Why or why not?