The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[drfuzzy]

Anyway, why was god afraid of telling the hebrews slavery was wrong, period? Ah politics.

There it is - my first thought.  Beat me to it, LastPoet.       Why didn't god tell his chosen tribe that slavery is wrong?  Why didn't he tell them that killing each other is wrong, or rape, or taking each other's land, killing all the men of other tribes then taking all the virgin females for themselves was wrong - - - actually, if you believe the wholly babble and if you believe that a god exists, he TOLD them to kill and steal and rape.  After all, it's not a crime when its done to somebody who worships those OTHER gods, you know.  

The god who made countless billions of galaxies, spanning distances so vast that the human mind can't even fathom the distance from here to Saturn - can't manage to tell a scruffy little tribe that slavery is wrong.

[Mr.wizard]

The free will argument and objective morality don't seem to jive to me. If I am not free to decide right and wrong for a moral dilemma that I encounter, do I really have free will? I realize that I can choose what action to take but I can't choose whether I think it's right or wrong? Someone tell me where I'm going wrong.

I don't see what the conflict is, personally. Free will doesn't mean you get to decide what is and isn't actually real. It means you get to decide on your actions.

What's real when it comes to morality? Is there something written down somewhere, where do we find these objective truths?

[Minimalist]

So let me get this straight, there is an all powerful god who gives an objective morality that we don't know about, gives commands that contradicts it,  gives us free will to subjectively make our own moral decisions, then sits and waits to punish us for not getting it right?

Yes.  God's a dick.

[athrock]

Would you, dear atheist, have been happier if God had forced the Israelites to obey him?

Would you prefer that He force YOU to obey?

Because God chose to "woo" the Israelites by degrees, you say this proves He was not omnipotent; but if He had used force on them (or you), He would have been the "moral monster" to which you object by trampling on your free will.

This is a classic attempt to have it both ways.

You need to remember, to us, this is all fantasy. Delusion. Woo or force, it doesn't matter. It's only a fantasy story.

Of course. I haven't forgotten. 

However, when atheists attempt to debate issues like this with believers, they need to do it well.

Trying to have it both ways doesn't work even when discussing fantasy.

[athrock]

Since Christians have been at the fore-front of the abolitionist movement throughout the course of history, you have that much in common with them, at least.

Isn't it interesting how the seeds planted in the book of Exodus bore fruit in the Emancipation Proclamation?

They where also at the fore front of starting the African slave trade.

Right. 'Cause nobody from Africa had ever been enslaved before that.

Oh, wait...there was that whole slavery in Egypt thing...

[athrock]

Nope. Incrementalism.

Think it through.

Why don't you? Are you seriously trying to tell me that the god who will drown the entire world when he's not being obeyed, will turn Lot's wife to salt for turning around when he told her not to, and will, indeed, raze Sodom and Gomorrah completely for not obeying him, suddenly has to walk on eggshells around what humans want when it comes to this one specific issue, and no others? That's seriously your position?

Methinks you're retrofitting shit into the text that was never there before. 

Walking on eggshells is your characterization, not mine.

But you have mixed up the punishments of some people with the forming of another people.

God basically rebooted the planet at the flood, so that's in a class by itself. Lot's wife (and the dude who touch the Ark, btw) were pegged as a warning that God is not to be trifled with. We're still talking about them 3,000+ years later, so I think the lessons were pretty memorable. Sodom and the Canaanites were obliterated because they were perverse and needed killing.

I'm a bit annoyed with your failure to grasp basic concepts, so forgive me if I come across as unfeeling. I get that people were killed, but frankly, people on death row are executed routinely in the United States and in other countries. Sometimes, you just have to pull up the bad weeds so that the healthy plants can flourish.

So, there are three things here:

1. Zapping of individuals as a warning to others.
2. Punishment of peoples and nations which were steeped in sin.
3. The slow, methodical formation of an obstinate group of "bronze age goat herder" who eventually became the nation of Israel.  

THAT is my position.

Incidentally, am I going to have to go through all your citations in the OP and point out each and every lie of omission you told there? I've done it before- you people aren't exactly original when it comes to your vile slavery apologetics- but I'd much prefer it if you'd just be honest for once. Can you do that, or am I going to have to hold you accountable for your dishonesty?

Sure, Ex-Lax. Show me where I lied.

[athrock]

Sure He cares. Hence the "upgrade" in what was and was not allowed with regard to the treatment of slaves.

Alternatively, God could have imposed 19th century abolitionist-style laws...against which the Israelites would have simply rebelled.

Much as the south did during the Civil War of the United States.

Is this not obvious?

Look into history brother.  The Bible was used on both sides to justify or vilify slavery.  What decided the outcome was war not God.
I believe we do have free choice but then again there is no need for a god to explain why we have free choice.  Thus no need to submit to the rediculous rules of a primitive culture.

Were there Christians in the North fighting to end slavery? Were there Christians in the South trying to maintain it?
Were there atheists in the North fighting to end slavery? Were there atheists in the South trying to maintain it?

I venture that the answer to all these questions is "yes".

[Cecelia]

So let me get this straight, there is an all powerful god who gives an objective morality that we don't know about, gives commands that contradicts it,  gives us free will to subjectively make our own moral decisions, then sits and waits to punish us for not getting it right?

No, No, no.  You've got it all wrong!

There's an all powerful god who gives an objective morality.  Part of that objective morality states that slavery is perfectly fine, but eating shellfish or having sex with someone of the same gender isn't.  You can't judge these things by today's standards because people today just have it all wrong.  We need to go back to the days where you stoned people for behaving against the will of god.  Because that was objectively moral.  What we have today is nothing more than subjective morality.  I mean women are considered more than property, homosexuals are expected to be treated with dignity, and working on the Sabbath doesn't get you several dozen rocks to the head.  I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this (she said with sarcasm)

Of course some will tell you that God had to work with the people of the time.  I mean this makes absolutely no sense.  I mean God could have chosen any group of people, and it's not all that difficult to understand if God says "NO SLAVES" he means NONE.  These are the same people willing to sacrifice their children for god.  Are we to really believe that these people wouldn't sacrifice their slaves (without killing them, gasp! The horror)? 

How hard would it be for Jesus to say "Slavery is bad.  All slavery.  Everybody is human, and enslavement is an abomination against God."

How hard would it be for him to say "Women are not to be treated as property.  They are human beings, and it is an abomination against God to consider them property."

Apparently pretty hard.  So either God doesn't have these things as moral values, or Jesus wasn't God.  If these weren't values of God, then God's morality states that Women are property, and that slavery is absolutely fine.

[Heat]

Just because it was socially acceptable does not make it morally acceptable. When women's rights were established, that does not mean it only just then became immoral for women to have inequal rights, it was always immoral, however we simply decided to change it at that moment, realizing this fact.

You're a moron if you think that a different time period can excuse decades upon decades of organized slavery conducted by your own holy book. I guarantee you wouldn't extend that same reasoning to anyone from another religion killing someone of yours during the same time period for a reason of going against the opposition's religious text, simply because it was socially acceptable to put someone to death for that type of thing. Same principle.

[athrock]

You keep forgetting athrok, our position is that he's fictional.

He's not real.

We're only entertaining your beliefs that he is real, and the consequences for you on your own beliefs.

I don't think you're at all interested in honest debate, so I'm not going to waste any more time.

I have not forgotten the majority view of the forum membership. 

However, you seem to be missing the point:  Many atheists argue that God is a moral monster unworthy of worship, etc. Dawkins said it. Hitchens said it. Cecelia repeats it every chance she gets.

But here's the thing, rob, and there's really no getting around this: when you begin to examine these issues objectively and one at a time, it becomes clear that the predominant characterization of God in the Bible - OT and NT alike - is love.

And why can't you and Cecelia and others get this message? Well, imagine you are standing in an electronics store showroom. Dozens of televisions, stereo systems and portable CD players are blaring different stations and CD's at full volume. Can you actually appreciate the fidelity of any of the speakers when they are all on at once? The Internet (and this forum) are like that, rob.

You have to turn off all the cacophony of noise and focus on listening to one speaker at a time. Filling your head with the thoughts of mighty intellects such as Minimalist and dyresand and rhythm will not accomplish much for you. You've heard their songs so many times you know the words by heart.

But there are other voices that are singing a different tune. Have you noticed? Do you care?

So, who are you listening to, rob?