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]

[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?"