A Levite and his concubine

[Lek]

Whoa, I'll stop you right there. You're wrong. According to the bible, god is asserted to be allowed to do what he wants to his creation. But an assertion is not justification of itself, and it does not automatically mean that god is morally justified in doing whatever he wants with his creation, because not every use of a creation is moral. For example, I may own a huge amount of food, but if I take it over to some hungry orphans, pretend to give it to them, and then burn it in front of them, I am acting immorally.

Additionally, you are working from the unjustified assumption that property rights of this nature carry over on every type of creation, and this also is not true; my parents created me, but if they harm me they are doing something immoral and I will be taken away by the state. The right of ownership is not automatically granted every time. A privately owned nuclear power plant cannot be driven intentionally into meltdown, even though it is someone's creation. If you're about to argue that this is because it harms others.... well yes. And god isn't when he commits genocide?

Also, one could argue that self awareness and consciousness, at a given threshold of complexity, represents something that should morally be exempt from ownership, given our need for self determination and how that informs our morality.

You're applying your human standards to God. 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? Do the civil laws you referenced apply to those under those laws or everybody in the world?

Now let's talk about free will. Does god not interfere with that? If he doesn't, then he clearly had no creative hand in the existence of any living human being ever, beyond Adam and Eve, as the procreative act is something freely chosen by one or more individuals, and if god so much as nudged that then he is necessarily interfering with free will. You might try to argue that god created the raw materials for humanity and so gains the rights there, but that's also not exclusively the case; increasingly we are recognizing the legal rights of ownership of people who remix the works of others. You don't really have any leg to stand on in just asserting that god has property rights over 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.

No doubt you're just going to argue, at base, that god is special somehow and because he's so magic, he gets all these special rights anyway. But that's not actually an argument, that's just an assertion of authority. In moral systems, authority is granted, not taken by fiat- don't bring up parents or I'll bring up child welfare- and if your only line of defense is "well, that's just the way it is!" then you've effectively given up on any sense of rational argument.

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.

Blaming all this on man's sins just reeks of rationalization. It's shifting the blame to the victims, but you've yet to actually establish how our sins are harmful to god, nor that lethal capital punishment is a morally justified action, nor that killing babies is morally correct given the sins of their parents. You have a lot of work to do before you can go "oh, but you don't understand! The sins!"

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?

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

Ditto.

So what context is there, beyond the fiat assertions that it's really okay, actually, do you have that excuses these acts? Because "It's okay because god says it's okay!" is not an argument, it's a circular tailspin into tautology.

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

Really? If I want to make sense of the bible, then I've got to just assume that everything is morally correct in the bible, as that's what the writers did?

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

No can do, Lek. The bible wasn't written as some morality play, if we're taking it as a factual account of events then the gloss the writers put onto it does not change the actual moral status of the events. Not to Godwin, but you can find plenty of Nazi propaganda extolling the virtues of the final solution, and just because I won't go along with the egregious moral lies of the authors does not mean I'm somehow missing the point. It means that the writers have asserted something that I find factually incorrect, and can support with much more than the simple "It's god, so it's fine!" nonsense you can support your view with.

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.

Sure. And if you inserted your opinion that all those evil acts were actually extremely good, would I be missing the point if I didn't agree with you?

Again, the bible writers in the story presented in this thread didn't insert their opinion as to whether the acts were morally correct or not. People committed many immoral acts in the bible.

[rexbeccarox]

In other words, your authority is your own conscience, but someone else's conscience may justify it. Actually, if you look at evolution, it appears that the fittest survive. If you're the one committing the genocide, it may benefit you greatly. But there is no hard scientific evidence showing that genocide is unjustified. I get my ultimate morality from the bible. The bible tells me that genocide is immoral, but it also tells me that governments have the authority to punish wrongdoers by treating them in ways that would be otherwise be immoral. God is our creator and ultimate authority and he has the right to punish us for our wrongdoings. The greatest thing is that because of his love for us, instead of the penalty of eternal death that we should suffer, he paid the price for us. So now, instead we have eternal life, even though we must suffer certain consequences for our sin, such as living in this messed up world.

(bold mine)

He paid the price? To whom? And how much was it?

[SteelCurtain]

He suicided himself to pay the price to himself in order for himself to forgive the sins that he himself bestowed upon us with the original sin that he created knowing Eve (that bitch) would eat the magical fruit that the talking snake tricked her (typical woman) into eating.

Bitches, right?

[abaris]

He paid the price? To whom? And how much was it?

That's one of the paradoxes they always try to dodge. According to their belief, there's the trinity. Father, son and divine spirit are one. So Jesus is god.

According to this premiss, God, in the guise of Jesus, sacrificed himself to himself.

[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.

[Mudhammam]

You're applying your human standards to God. 1) Where did your moral standards come from. 2) Is there an ultimate moral authority that governs human beings or are your standards something you picked from your parents and society? 3) Is somebody else required to accept your moral standards? 4) Do the civil laws you referenced apply to those under those laws or everybody in the world?

There are only human standards by which to judge any moral statement; our standards are grounded in the rationalization of certain evaluations that are generally innate to our species, as they naturally proceed from experiences in a world that includes mental suffering. Yours are too. The difference is that you think appealing to a God as the source of your intuitions automatically makes them unique... absolute... objective. It doesn't. You can no further justify this than I can justify that 2+2=7 in other-worlds. So, to answer your questions that I've numerically labeled in your quote:
1) Human beings, guided by natural selection.
2) No. Your standards are yours. No one else can take credit for you.
3) No. Nobody's required to do anything.
4) They apply to the commonwealth that has adopted and demanded the enforcement of said law.

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.

Yet, you apply the same linguistic rules (per "human standards") when formulating even the word "God" and framing his (oops) characteristics in communication. And of course, every other feature of God can maintain its "specialness" in discussion among us poor humans, including God's "love" and (moral) "goodness"; so ask yourself, then why cannot God's special capacity to commit grave evil be appreciated too?

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?

Man. Just...no.
Death, decay, the destruction of objects--a re-occurring feature of the Universe long before "sin" entered the scene, and that effects a lot more than living beings--is also creation, re-birth. There's nothing remotely connected between a person's actions towards another and the physical or biological phases of material entities. Btw, what sins have kittens committed to deserve death? Stars? Is all of the death in the Universe, prior to the arrival of Homo sapiens, punishment for our natural (and future) shortcomings too?

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

It deprives a human being of their fundamental needs. Being human means that we can deduce certain facts about ourselves and determine what is conducive or destructive to our well-being. That is the basis for any moral judgement. If it doesn't reflect on a sentient being, it's not an ethical question. The more generic our framework, the more universal consent is found.

Saying that something is good because it's God is the same as saying something is good because it's good.

[Aoi Magi]

The OT god interacted and interfered with the world pretty much whenever he wanted, so he could've condemned all of those atrocities anytime he wanted to. During wars, as per the bible, he picked sides and instead of stopping the war he pretty much caused them himself. So if those are his standards, then why change them after sending in JC? Why try to appear moral and teach morality when he himself doesn't give a rat's ass about it?

Oh and about him interfering with freewill, it's not just with the pharaoh, he indirectly violated the freewill of countless people each time he interacted with the world. Each time he picked a side in a war, he violated the freewill of the opposition to have a fair battle. Turning a woman to salt violates her freewill to live. Supporting slavery violates the freewill of those 'slaves' to have a decent life.....

[Esquilax]

Incidentally Lek, questioning me about my moral standards is not a defense of your argument. What you're doing there- and I can't believe I indulged it for as long as I did- is the "tu cuoque" or "you too" fallacy; even if I had no authority with which to judge, that doesn't suddenly make you right.

Argument and evidence for your position will make you right, which you didn't really bother to give, there.

[Lek]

Incidentally Lek, questioning me about my moral standards is not a defense of your argument. What you're doing there- and I can't believe I indulged it for as long as I did- is the "tu cuoque" or "you too" fallacy; even if I had no authority with which to judge, that doesn't suddenly make you right.

Argument and evidence for your position will make you right, which you didn't really bother to give, there.

You're judging the morality of God and people in the bible, so I'd like to know where you get your authority to judge others by your moral standards. It doesn't make me right, but it shows by what authority you judge. Is it by an ultimate moral authority that you are judging or is just your individual preference?

[vorlon13]

So, trying to get a little serious on this bizzaro bible story, is there some special significance into hacking up a corpse and sending the pieces all over Israel ?

And how is that accomplished? There wasn't really an analog of Fedex back then, so presumably the Levite had 12 friends and 12 donkeys and he sent them out on a delivery job.

And then, what of the recipients? Is each piece to be venerated ? Are the pieces to be construed as a call to arms ? Suggested show and tell item for the next religious service ?

Are the recipients accustomed to receiving such items ? I was under the impression corpses might merit some consideration above what happened to this one, and additionally, not all the pieces are equivalent. Would some recipients be offended receiving a left arm segment as opposed to a right ? Who got the head, and why ? Considering the appalling circumstances of the story up to verse 29, the question arises is the pelvic piece to be availed of sexually upon receipt ?

Whatever moral qualms arise prior to verse 29, verse 29 stands as a profoundly fucked up piece of scripture, unless and until some apologist throws some light on it.