The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[CapnAwesome]

Actually God isn't an immoral monster, he's not even real! Imagine that.

[athrock]

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?

Uh...no?

If He "gives an objective morality" then how could we not know about it? We would have had to receive it.

He has given no commands that contradict His own morality.

He has given us free will.

And yes, he will ultimately judge and punish those who choose poorly.

But you (and those reading this thread) are not completely ignorant of all this since you have deigned to make the case you posted above.

So, it won't be like you didn't know...

[Angrboda]

You can't have it both ways athrock. Either God's message was progressive and thus open to rejection, or it was simply reflective of the times. You have no objection to this god introducing a truly progressive morality in the New Testament, yet at the same time being impotent to deliver a similar message on slavery. You want to have it both ways, god being both potent and impotent to dictate morals to his people. That's nothing but special pleading on the issue of slavery.

[drfuzzy]

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?   

---

You have got to be freakin' kidding.  That woman-despising, genocidal war god who will even torture one of the most obedient and worshipful of his followers to prove a point to Satan is LOVE?  The god who screwed up creating the human race and had to kill 'em all and start over is LOVE?  (Thankfully, the flood didn't happen.)  The god who supposedly sends plagues and murders newborns, to prove a point to a king (when in the same story it claims that god can influence that king's thoughts) - and then goes on to gleefully destroy the king's entire army, is LOVE?  (Thankfully, the Exodus didn't happen.) The god who orders his little scruffy desert tribe to commit theft, genocide, and rape of a people because they worship other gods, is LOVE?  (Other gods that he names in some verses and claims don't exist in others.) This god of love who won't even show himself to any of the millions of other people and nations at that time - - only to a tiny tribe inhabiting a county-sized scrap of land - - because, obviously, a war god needs other people to kill.  Have you even READ that book?  I'm thankful every day that Yahweh never existed.  He was a complete psychopath - made even worse if you do think of this monster as all-knowing and all-powerful.  (shudder)

[Mr.wizard]

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?

Uh...no?

If He "gives an objective morality" then how could we not know about it? We would have had to receive it.

He has given no commands that contradict His own morality.

He has given us free will.

And yes, he will ultimately judge and punish those who choose poorly.

But you (and those reading this thread) are not completely ignorant of all this since you have deigned to make the case you posted above.

So, it won't be like you didn't know...

Ah so if we are programmed with this objective morality doesn't that violate our free will? We are not free to determine right from wrong god has already done it for us.

[Lemonvariable72]

Because I can think slavery is sick without it having to be objective.

So just because YOU think slavery is wrong, doesn't mean it inherently is, according to you. So why would someone else be a monster for disagreeing with you on it? No one is a monster or an evil, bad person for believing anything if nothing is inherently immoral and it's all just up to personal opinion.

No its not. It is immoral because of the demonstratable harm it causes.

[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?

Hmm since slavery was a ok by Christians until the 1800s so "throughout the course of history" is a bit strong when for the vast majority of christian dominence there  not only were Christians slavers but they were using the bible to justify it. 
Despite what you US certric education would have you believe the people who drove the anti-slavery cause were British, particularly the Clapham sect led by William Wilberforce who interpreted the religion in a way that is very different from other believers and more humanist that anything. These people led to Britain banning slavery and sailing round the world enforcing it on others, a sort of great Britain world police, but for good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_fi...liam.shtml

I am familiar with William Wilberforce. And I just watched Amistad last night, btw. Great movie if you haven't seen it.

[downbeatplumb]

Hmm since slavery was a ok by Christians until the 1800s so "throughout the course of history" is a bit strong when for the vast majority of christian dominence there  not only were Christians slavers but they were using the bible to justify it. 
Despite what you US certric education would have you believe the people who drove the anti-slavery cause were British, particularly the Clapham sect led by William Wilberforce who interpreted the religion in a way that is very different from other believers and more humanist that anything. These people led to Britain banning slavery and sailing round the world enforcing it on others, a sort of great Britain world police, but for good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_fi...liam.shtml

I am familiar with William Wilberforce. And I just watched Amistad last night, btw. Great movie if you haven't seen it.

I have seen it a looonnng time ago, it was ok but I preferred his work with dinosaurs.

[athrock]

<sigh>

No, Cecelia, that isn't exactly what happened. 

God chose to reboot the planet because mankind had gone astray. It's His computer, He wrote the program, and He can ctrl-alt-del if He wants to. The fact that He wanted to shows just how bad things had become. Later, He used a different plan - sending His son - to redeem sinners. Why no second flood? Clearly, He thought the situation was salvageable.

Now, you ask why Jesus didn't give more specific instructions. Well, this would have required that he provide a clear guideline for every conceivable issue that mankind had or would ever face. Abortion? What did Jesus say? Gay marriage? What did Jesus say? Stem cell research? What did Jesus say? A gospel the size of a set of encyclopedias wouldn't have been sufficient to hold all the possible rules and regulations we'd need to cover every eventuality. And we'd still be arguing over what a particular verse meant, how it should be applied in modern society, and whether we could really be sure that the terabyte-length scriptures weren't just a bunch of corrupted fairy tales told by "bronze-age goat herders" anyway.

Instead, He gave us two rules to focus on:

1. Love God. 
   
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
   

It's a good thing that Jesus didn't bury us with more specific rules as you demand. 

We seem to be having enough trouble following these two.

Enforced love, coz that always works[/sarcasm]

BINGO!

THAT is why God respects your free will, downbeat! He doesn't coerce your love or force you to believe that he exists.

Man, I love it when things come together like this!

[athrock]

I'm a stupid person, Jormungandr?

Do I not compose my sentences and paragraphs in a manner which suggests that I am of at least average intelligence? 

cre·tin
ˈkrētn/
noun
noun: cretin; plural noun: cretins

   1.
   informal offensive
   a stupid person (used as a general term of abuse).
   2.
   Medicine dated
   a person who is deformed and mentally handicapped because of congenital thyroid deficiency.

It was figurative usage, moron.

The first definition is "a stupid person".

So, like I asked, "I'm a stupid person?"