The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[athrock]

You've yet to do anything of any real substance.  You've convinced absolutely nobody of anything.  You haven't proven your invisible friend as moral.  If anything you've helped reinforce my understanding that Yahweh is nothing more than an invention of the Hebrew people, because his morals matched theirs.  Pretty simple stuff really.  The only thing you'll be mopping up is the bullshit you're spreading around here.

No surprise to see you attack feminists though.  Your misogny is showing.  Especially since you don't attack specific feminists, but groups of feminists.  And you do it very emotionally.  You want to talk about bad advice, I'd say bad advice is right up the alley of the bible.  Bad advice written by goat herders who knew less about the world than a 7 year old today does.

I don't think they come here to do anything of substance. They come here and find people who know more about the bible than they do and there's really nothing they can do  regurgitate nonsense in the hope of...I don't know what..

Of all people in this forum to be crowing about knowing the Bible...Rhonda, that's just too good.

[athrock]

Yeah, weird, isn't it?

Dawkins and Hitchens spent all that time railing against the supposed immorality of a god who doesn't even exist.

Imagine that.

Well Dawkins and Hitchen's normally clarified when they were talking about the character Yaweh from the bible. That's a different subject that talking about 'God' which could mean any number of things other then the Judeo Christian character.

Fair enough, Capn. I appreciate your comment. 

[athrock]

No, it's still a HUGE step up in morality for those times.

Firstly, it wasn't a huge step.

Secondly, you've imputed a limitation to your god's powers. Do you think he was unable to teach the Israelites morality?

Thirdly, how can a perfect being experience progress?

1. That appears to be a matter of opinion. You have yours...
2. Incorrect. It's not that God was unable to teach the Israelites morality; it's being argued by me that the limitation was their ability (read willingness) to accept it all at once.
3. I have not said that it could. Perhaps we agree but have a simple miscommunication?

[athrock]

Because He chose to give us free will rather than force us to think and act a certain way. I'm sure He could have if He wanted to, but He chose not to.

The fact that your story asserts eternal damnation for sin means that our alleged souls are held hostage.

This abrogates any free will we might have.

By your logic, the armed robber ought to be found innocent because his victim chose to surrender his wallet ... never mind the gun pointing at the victim's head.

God continues to honor your free will after death. If you have wanted to get away from him in this life, he's not going to force you to remain in his presence in the next.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Funny, he seemed very keen to wipe all life on earth at some point or a few. I guess he was testing the right method to subdue those creations of it. What a moral dude huh? It changes method, yet not changing. It is timeless, yet acts over time.

How awesome is your god. Tell me more... (You don't even deserve a willy wonka meme)

You're really grasping at straws now, aren't you? Having been shown the reasons why you cannot pin the "moral monster" charge on God, you are swinging wildly...hoping that by your hyperbole you can continue the charade.

Sorry. The game is over.

Behold the strutting pigeon, having convinced himself of his rectitude.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Odd that an allegedly omnipotent being couldn't simply enforce his wishes.

Odd that an allegedly perfect being should experience moral progress himself. Even more that he is incapable of setting a better example.

Odd that a timeless being should have followers appealing to "presentism" to defend his immorality.

He could, but not without trampling on free will.

God does not experience "progressive" morality. Not sure where this is even coming from. 

Presentism is a fallacious way that humans can misinterpret actions taken in the past. It is not correctly applied to those actions themselves.

None of this actually addresses my objections, it merely restates the bunk you've already blathered.

Answer the objections, don't restate your flawed claims.

[Athene]

The fact that your story asserts eternal damnation for sin means that our alleged souls are held hostage.

This abrogates any free will we might have.

By your logic, the armed robber ought to be found innocent because his victim chose to surrender his wallet ... never mind the gun pointing at the victim's head.

God continues to honor your free will after death. If you have wanted to get away from him in this life, he's not going to force you to remain in his presence in the next.

Threat of Hell clocking in at.....#184.

I'll have to check the numbers, but I'm fairly certain that's an average time.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Firstly, it wasn't a huge step.

Secondly, you've imputed a limitation to your god's powers. Do you think he was unable to teach the Israelites morality?

Thirdly, how can a perfect being experience progress?

1. That appears to be a matter of opinion. You have yours...
2. Incorrect. It's not that God was unable to teach the Israelites morality; it's being argued by me that the limitation was their ability (read willingness) to accept it all at once.

A Perfect Teacher would find no problem in so doing, don't you think?

3. I have not said that it could. Perhaps we agree but have a simple miscommunication?

So your God's morality is timeless. How then do you explain the differences between NT and OT?

[Angrboda]

Moral standards for slavery in the ancient world were all over the map.  Hebrew slavery standards weren't so much a step forward as a lateral move into more of the same.  

Can you document this, Jorm? Cause it sounds like puffery to me.

Status of slaves

The Greeks had many degrees of enslavement. There was a multitude of categories, ranging from free citizen to chattel slave, and including Penestae or helots, disenfranchised citizens, freedmen, bastards, and metics.[85] The common ground was the deprivation of civic rights.

Slavery in India is evidenced since ancient times.[1] Manu the Lawgiver, in his Manu Smriti lists seven different kinds of slaves.[1] The nature of slavery in India was extremely complex and cut across boundaries of caste, gender, kin, religion, and role.[

Slavery throughout pre-modern Chinese history has repeatedly come in and out of favor. Due to the enormous population and relatively high development of the region throughout most of its history, China has always had a large workforce.

Slaves, like anywhere else in the world, were war prisoners or inherited through their parents. But in ancient Egypt, (David 1998 Pg. 91) 80% of the population were slaves or servants, people could become slaves if they fail to pay their debts; other people sold themselves to slavery because they were unable to have a shelter or to eat. Some slaves were better off than being freemen, since they had food and shelter. They only attempted escape if they were treated harshly. Unlike the rest of the world, "slaves" or what people think they were, in ancient Egypt had some right, for example, young boys should not have been put in harsh jobs and were brought up by mistresses.

Tell you what, you do your homework...come up with some examples of how other ANE civilizations had laws pertaining to slavery that were so similar to those of the Mosaic Law as to be virtually indistinguishable, and I will concede that the Hebrews were simply making a "lateral move".

You squirrely little fuck.  Look at you move the goalposts.  I said ancient civilizations, not ancient near eastern.  What does it matter whether the standard of slavery from the period came from the near east or elsewhere?  Is your god restricted to the middle east?  Whether the laws were identical to those of the Israelites is immaterial to the question of whether they were better, worse, or about the same.  This demand that I find a "virtually indistinguishable" set of slavery standards is nothing but you grabbing the goalposts and running away as fast as you can.

And you here are trying to sidestep the immorality of your god by claiming that a little immorality isn't a bad thing so long as its justified by a small amount of progress.  You haven't stepped between the horns.  You've just stepped in the shit. Teaching the Israelites a slightly immoral set of slavery practices is still immoral.   What 'progress' the Israelites made does not morally offset the cost to foreign slaves as well as Hebrew ones.  If that isn't clear to you, I don't think you grasp the nature of morals.  A good done to one set of people does not make a harm to another set of people moral.

If you had been what Ex-Lax insists was a SEX-slave in the ANE, Jorm, would you have preferred to be the wife of an Israelite who was bound by Law to treat you well or that of a pagan Canaanite who might offer your children as burnt offerings to his false gods?

(I am seriously hoping you have the courage to answer truthfully with all of your forum buddies watching.)

What on earth does that have to do with the point?  Can't face the truth, can we?  Go back and bury your head in Copan's book.  Your rationalizations for preserving slavery in the ANE are as chuckleheaded and empty as his were.  If you had understood my point at all, the preference would be to live with a people who did not practice slavery.  Are you really that morally clueless? "Oh, but it's just a little bit of evil...." Something has rotted your mind. Would you care to actually answer the point, or are red herrings more your style?

[athrock]

You're really grasping at straws now, aren't you? Having been shown the reasons why you cannot pin the "moral monster" charge on God, you are swinging wildly...hoping that by your hyperbole you can continue the charade.

Sorry. The game is over.

Behold the strutting pigeon, having convinced himself of his rectitude.

It's penguin, not pigeon, and I take a moment for myself...