A Levite and his concubine

[abaris]

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?

There are certain standards to a human society. Wholesale slaughter isn't one of them. Rape isn't one of them. Stoning people isn't one of them. Owning slaves isn't one of them.

Knowing that a bronze age society had different standards doesn't make it any better. Knowing that previous societies owned human beings doesn't make it any better.

Truth is, god is supposed to be an all-knowing, all-powerful, unchanging being, benevolent, righteous. So we have to apply our standards to that being as described 3000 years ago. And by our standards he isn't any better than any other given deity of the times. He incarnates the values, the prejudices and the morals of the people of the time and the region.

I don't know anything about your stance on social issues, since you constantly hide behind your bible without revealing what you as a person think. But if you were to follow the moral code of the bible, you wouldn't cut your hair or your beard. You wouldn't eat shellfish, lobster or pork. You wouldn't have tatoos or piercings (Actually, I don't believe you have). You wouldn't were cloths of different fabrics.

So, instead of just questioning our sense of moral, or asking for any other autority than knowing from the core of our beings, some things are wrong, since they infringe on the fundamental human rights of others, tell us about yourself and your morals.

Is it OK to rape under certain circumstances? Is it OK to commit genocide, including women and children? Is it OK to own human beings, however you want to call it?

Don't hide behind your bible. Introduce yourself and your values, if there is a self.

[Esquilax]

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?

And as I've pointed out, not only is authority entirely irrelevant to morality, but to appeal to authority in the stead of an actual real world justification is entirely circular. I can easily point to a murder and detail the reasons why it's immoral: it has terminally harmed a person, chief among them. Your response seems to be that it's preferable to refer to god rather than those real world consequences, that "murder is immoral because god says so," is a better answer than mine, but why actually is that?

Who the hell is god, and what makes him such an authority? What makes his commandments necessarily better than my judgment? Because he says they're better? That's circular.

For that matter, from whence does god derive his moral judgments? Is a thing immoral just because god says it is? Is his authority the only justification on which the morality of an act leans? If that's the case, morality is just fiat declaration to you, and it's ultimately completely meaningless, as god's authority could be used to turn an act you understand to be immoral today, moral tomorrow. In that scenario no action is inherently good or bad, their moral status depends on god's opinion that day, and it is you who has no stable method of judging morality.

Or is it that god's moral judgments are based on something else, that god actually has reasons why certain acts are immoral and others are moral? If so, then we're left with another trio of options; the first is that god's moral judgments are based on his aversion to sins, but that's no better than fiat declaration, as it leaves morality solely down to god's personal opinions based on things he finds icky. Not a terribly wonderful basis for morality.

The second option is that god's moral judgments are based on real things, like the consequences, potential benefits and harms of an action. In which case, god has reasons which correspond to real world effects and realities, and they would be well within my ability to determine and analyze too, if they are truly moral. If god's morality really is limited to the sanitized, feelgood stuff that modern christianity pretends it is, and lacks the barbarism they make excuses for, then not only should I be able to determine what is and is not moral in the same way that god does, but my determinations should be entirely amenable to you because they would be the same ones that god came to, if our morals happen to align for reasons that are logical. In short, if I come to a moral judgment you happen to agree with (murder is wrong) and I list reasons why (it hurts people) wouldn't that reason be the same one god is using? Or isn't it good enough, and why?

The third option is that god has reasons, but we as human beings are unable to understand them. In which case I can dismiss all god related justifications for morality out of hand; if we can't understand them then you have no good reason to accept them beyond fiat demand, and we're done.

So what's the answer Lek? Where does god's authority come from, why should I recognize it, and what reasons does he have for coming to the decisions he has?

[rexbeccarox]

Lek, are you going to answer this?

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?

[abaris]

So what's the answer Lek? Where does god's authority come from, why should I recognize it, and what reasons does he have for coming to the decisions he has?

I for one am done with him giving another bible lecture. His god doesn't interest me the slightest bit.

I want to see the man behind the curtain. From now on I only accept his views on the issues. I want to know his stance on genocide, not the bible's or anybody else's. I wanna know his view on rape, I wanna know his view on holding people as slaves.

In short, I want to know his views on morality. What he considers good or evil.

There has to be a person somewhere. I am tired of being asked to present my authority on things that come naturally to any decent human being, without getting some real answer in return.

[Esquilax]

There has to be a person somewhere. I am tired of being asked to present my authority on things that come naturally to any decent human being, without getting some real answer in return.

That's all well and good, and I agree with you that if he absolutely had to, Lek could come up with some reasons why X, Y, and Z acts are immoral that aren't just "god told me so," but we do need to keep in mind that to a christian, "god told me so" is sufficient justification. The reason we end up getting so many bible quotes and so on is that it's an authority they have opted to accept, and because of this, that authority is plenty reason on its own.

The trick is to crack open why that authority is what it is, and what reasons underlie their acceptance of it. Because there's not much there.

[abaris]

That's all well and good, and I agree with you that if he absolutely had to, Lek could come up with some reasons why X, Y, and Z acts are immoral that aren't just "god told me so," but we do need to keep in mind that to a christian, "god told me so" is sufficient justification. The reason we end up getting so many bible quotes and so on is that it's an authority they have opted to accept, and because of this, that authority is plenty reason on its own.

You know, basically I want to know, if there's a human being there, I can respect though our views differ greatly. That's why I don't want to hear, god said this or that, I want to know what Lek says, what Lek's position is.

Also, if he's riding his high horse into asking us for our authority, he should at least return the favor by taking a stance that isn't a bible quote.

[Drich]

Apologies, I did not read the 30/30 rule closely enough. The argument that I make in the video is as follows:

I’m particularly interested in this story because it contains several examples in which presumably “moral” characters and even God himself act in ways that most people would consider to be reprehensible. The book begins with a Levite whose concubine was unfaithful to him, and had left him to return and live with her parents. After a few months, her husband sought her out to persuade her to come home with him, which she agreed to do. After staying with her parents a few days, the two of them and a male servant set out to go back to the husband’s home in the country. On the way, they stop in a city called Gibeah, inhabited by Israelites of the tribe of Benjamin. Here, an old man that they meet in the city square invites them to his house so they have a comfortable place to stay for the night. This is where it gets weird.

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”
23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing.
24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”
25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.
26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight."
27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold.
28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

Verse 24 is probably one of the best examples of extreme sexism in the bible, and even if it isn’t specifically praised as moral, God sure doesn’t seem to condemn it either. While the old man in this story is absolutely dismayed at the prospect of his male guest being raped, he readily offers his own daughter up to the crowd. It somehow would be less offensive for his own, innocent daughter to be abused by these thugs than for another man to suffer the same abuse.

The Levite himself is even worse. Although the old man was the one who made the offer, his guest is the one who took action and sent his concubine out to the men in his place. This is not only extremely sexist, but it is also an act of cowardice. Instead of standing up for what is right, this man is willing to force … now allow … force someone subservient to him to receive abuse in his place.

On a side note, I find it interesting that verse 26, the Levite is referred to as her master whereas before he was referred to as her husband, and described as staying with his father-in-law. This tells us a lot about the nature of the role of a concubine. They are essentially similar to wives in some aspects, but occupy a much lower station and obviously do not hold the same respect that a wife would. They seem to be more akin to sex slaves, which seems evident in this story since the man treats her like mere property, like giving a mugger your wallet.

And to put the bow on this package of callous disregard, we have his treatment of her in the morning. Verse 27 tells us that he “stepped out to continue on his way.” So he had no intention of even waiting to see what became of his property. The wording of this sentence suggests that he was just going to go about his trip home without even looking for the girl. But to his surprise, there she is passed out on the doorstep. So what does he do? Does he ask if she is ok? Does he try to take her to a doctor? No. He simplys commands her … “Get up, let’s go.” There is no indication that he was concerned for her in any way whatsoever. And when she doesn’t respond, he just tosses her on his donkey and heads out. These are not the actions of a moral man, or even a decent man.
The outrage in this story is supposed to stem from the rape and murder of the woman by the wicked men of the town, but I don’t think that’s the greatest moral outrage present in this narrative. The worst aspect of all of this is the blatant disregard for the value of human life by the man who would force his slave, his living property, to be raped, beaten, and ultimately murdered in his stead. And the author of this tale makes nary a note of the moral discrepancy of such an act.

This is just one example of the moral failure of the bible. Passages like this demonstrate that it is almost impossible for the bible to be a useful reference when trying to make moral decisions.

You said "morality" as if it were an absolute/standard in which to judge everyone by.

..ah, no.

"Morality" as your using it is nothing more than a pop culture term that describes what a given generation in a given soceity thinks is right or wrong... Did you happen to go into why this soceity's version of right and wrong is somehow superior to all others in your YouTube video?

[abaris]

You said "morality" as if it were an absolute/standard in which to judge everyone by.

..ah, no.

"Morality" as your using it is nothing more than a pop culture term that describes what a given generation in a given soceity thinks is right or wrong... Did you happen to go into why this soceity's version of right and wrong is somehow superior to all others in your YouTube video?

OK, let's have at it, hoss.

What's your moral standard on the issues above? What's your stance apart from the bible?

Slavery, yes or no?
genocide, yes or no?
rape, yes or no?

If that's pop culture, you should be able to come up with some interesting insights.

[Esquilax]

"Morality" as your using it is nothing more than a pop culture term that describes what a given generation in a given soceity thinks is right or wrong... Did you happen to go into why this soceity's version of right and wrong is somehow superior to all others in your YouTube video?

Drich, why do you expect that everyone will just automatically accept your moral relativist claim here? Is nobody else allowed to have a view of morality but you? Or are you just too lazy to defend your position with anything more than haughty dismissal?

[Drich]

You said "morality" as if it were an absolute/standard in which to judge everyone by.

..ah, no.

"Morality" as your using it is nothing more than a pop culture term that describes what a given generation in a given soceity thinks is right or wrong... Did you happen to go into why this soceity's version of right and wrong is somehow superior to all others in your YouTube video?

OK, let's have at it, hoss.

What's your moral standard on the issues above? What's your stance apart from the bible?

Slavery, yes or no?
genocide, yes or no?
rape, yes or no?

If that's pop culture, you should be able to come up with some interesting insights.

It's Real simple sport.

One can not judge the righteousness of God with a trivial standard of pop morality.

They are two seperate ways of judging right and wrong.

Man morality places 'moral value' on a given act. Therefore the acts themselves seem to dictate right and wrong. (But in reality it is man who assigns value to a given act giving man/pop culture the power over right and wrong.) in short 'pop morality' allows a fool the folly needed to allow him to think he is in a place judge God.

In Truth, God's righteousness places right and wrong at His/God's descression, which makes all acts neutral by nature. (Acts hold no intrinsic value in of themselves.) it is what God says concerning a given act, and where you are in accordance of where God wants you to be that determines Righteousness before God. That is why there is an instance in the OT that contradicts just about any given law, by those in whom God finds righteous.

In short, it is what God says about a given act that assigns its "moral value" and not what people think of a given act that makes it right and wrong.

---

"Morality" as your using it is nothing more than a pop culture term that describes what a given generation in a given soceity thinks is right or wrong... Did you happen to go into why this soceity's version of right and wrong is somehow superior to all others in your YouTube video?

Drich, why do you expect that everyone will just automatically accept your moral relativist claim here? Is nobody else allowed to have a view of morality but you? Or are you just too lazy to defend your position with anything more than haughty dismissal?

Give it time E-lax.

We started with a haughty proposal, I answered with a haughty dismissal. We are working at the OP's pace. I found if I do an info dump at the beginning most new guys will get lost or quickly loose intrest. So the only other option is to do the christian atheist dance the OP is looking for.

If however your ready to jump into the deep end, then give me some parameters and we see how deep you want to go.