The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[robvalue]

The problem, I think, is that you see morality as being both about wellbeing and about what God wants at the same time. But it's a contradictory/redundant belief. If we already know what is good for wellbeing, what God says is unimportant. And if God ever says anything which isn't good for wellbeing, they are not the same thing. Clearly he does, in the only communication we have, and your reaction is to reject god's morality in favour of your own. Just like an atheist would do. It doesn't matter if God says it or not, we agree slavery is bad for human wellbeing.

[Mr.wizard]

But hurting people is wrong according to my morality, if you think its ok then that's your business, it doesn't change the fact that I think your a monster for it.

Again, what I don't get is why someone would be so upset about someone else having a different "opinion" than themselves, if it is merely an opinion. And why anyone would call someone else a monster for having a different "opinion" than themselves, if it is merely an opinion. 

That's what doesn't make sense to me. But then again, that's why I'm a theist and you're an atheist. If it made more sense to me to be an atheist, I would be one.

Really it has nothing to do with being an atheist. Why I would be upset that someone's opinion would differ than mine on issues such as slavery, is because I wouldn't want to live in a society that slavery is acceptable. Opinions that slavery was good led to some of the greatest horrors ever and that is something I detest.

[Mr.wizard]

You couldn't believe those things are good if morality is objective, because the right and wrong would be inherent.

Sure you could. 

A person can believe the earth is flat all they want. Truth is it isn't, and whoever thinks it is is just wrong.

Rob said what I was going to say.

[downbeatplumb]

Yes I think people who think slavery is moral are disgusting monsters, It doesn't have to be right, wrong, or objective.

I guess not, but it just seems silly. If morality is just as subjective and unreal as "the best color in the world", for example, then someone having a different favorite color than yourself shouldn't make them a disgusting monster.

Opinions on things that don't really affect others are not really analogous to morality. We are social creatures and have evolved empathy to smooth relations within the group morality is what is acceptable to the group at the time. The OT shows that what was moral is now abhorant to us, meaning that morality is subjective, but subjective as a group not individually.

[loganonekenobi]

i would approach this from a different direction. It is somewhat true that what was written in the bible was progressive for it's time. However, the fact remains that these progressive ideas could have been written by men of that time without insight from a deity. Occams razor says it is the most likely answer.

As time has gone on God has been given the credit for other progressive changes that have followed human history but from a completely objective point of view they simply reflect the human thinking of the time.
God is also given credit for many of the worst human rights ideas of the times IE; hanging gays in Africa.

This alone to me conveys the very real idea that he, like every other supernatural force, is a man made thing and nothing more.

If on the other hand the Bible would have said "in the end slavery must be put to an end" or "ultimatly woman is equal to man in the rights that should be enjoyed" or "tribalism is not the best form of government."
or that it would have been a flat lie to use the bible to instate laws that kill those who harm no one again like gays and those who renouce the faith that was forced upon them as a child.
then yes there might be some credence to the god made bible idea.

A book truly inspired by god would have been and still would be beyond our moral thinking at the time and today.

As it is the religious must do back flips like arguements to coerce the non-believer who challenges the doctrine.

[athrock]

Why was god's power limited by the people around him? If he wanted them to behave to a certain standard, surely he had that power. The fact that he didn't means he is happy with what they were doing.

He was quite happy to impose other rules on pain of death, the idea that he didn't like slavery but forgot to make a rule about it is rather a stretch I think. He does the opposite and tells them, and us, how to regulate it.

The fact that you reject what it says just shows you're morally superior to the author (with regard to human wellbeing).

Ya, it seems completely ridiculous that the creator of all things could only "work with what he had".

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.

[athrock]

We care about human wellbeing, that is the point of morality (as I see it anyway). If God also agreed with that, then slavery is not good for wellbeing. If in fact God thinks morality isn't about wellbeing, then it's just his arbitrary whims.

The fact that God set things up so that slavery is even possible in the first place makes him responsible should it happen.

God set it up so that you could freely choose to enslave someone else. Then, when mankind chose to do this evil, He set about teaching us that it was wrong. 

(One wonders why this was not intuitively obvious to all if moral values derive from an evolutionary process, but I digress.)

Would you have preferred life without free will, rob?

[athrock]

Whoops, free will! I'm out

Understandably.

Since the discussion is about to badly for you.

[athrock]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that I care about human wellbeing, and I'm asking if God does too. If he does, then slavery is bad. If he doesn't, then I don't care about what he thinks "morality" is.

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?

[brewer]

[edit] God had to work with what He had and progress from there.

What? This is god. Why would a limitless power limit its self? Work with what he had is human, not creator.

Edit: Oops, point made earlier. Please continue.