The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[athrock]

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.

I see. How can I say this more clearly...

1. God could force His will upon us since He is more powerful than we are, but if he did so, it would result in our loss of free will because we would would be coerced into serving him. Given the frequent objections to any and every mention of hell as a "threat", I'm surprised you are not more sensitive to this.

2. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not change. Neither does His morality. This does not prevent Him from revealing his will to us progressively.

3. If we look back at some past instructions that God gave to Israel, we cannot fall into the trap of judging His actions as falling short of our present understanding of morality.

Now, I've tried more than once, but if this is still insufficient, please re-state your objections.

[athrock]

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.

Cute.

But I didn't mention hell, you did.

I simply said if you want to get away from God, you will be allowed to do so.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

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

No, Pigeon. You've shat up the chessboard and claim a victory you haven't earnt.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I see. How can I say this more clearly...

1. God could force His will upon us since He is more powerful than we are, but if he did so, it would result in our loss of free will because we would would be coerced into serving him. Given the frequent objections to any and every mention of hell as a "threat", I'm surprised you are not more sensitive to this.

2. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not change. Neither does His morality. This does not prevent Him from revealing his will to us progressively.

3. If we look back at some past instructions that God gave to Israel, we cannot fall into the trap of judging His actions as falling short of our present understanding of morality.

Now, I've tried more than once, but if this is still insufficient, please re-state your objections.

You've ignored the point that a choice made under duress is not "free".

You've ignored the point that if your god is perfect, then by definition so should be his revelation ... and creations such as students of his morality, for that matter.

You've ignored the point that a timeless objective morality should not look any different from any historical vantage.

Until you address those objections, your "argument" -- if I may dignify it as such -- is vapid. Not to mention that said "argument" is merely a set of unfounded assertions.

Over to you.

[athrock]

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?

Ever try to teach someone to play the guitar who simply wasn't going to get it? Tone deaf...no rhythm...one arm...unwilling to practice...whatever. Now, multiply this times millions of people who made up the nation of Israel. The problem isn't always with the teacher.

It's a challenge to find that point at which the strongest, most willing and eager are challenged while the weakest are not discouraged. Looking at the history of Israel and Christianity, I think God has found the right balance.

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?

God expresses love in the Old Testament while Jesus re-affirms the existence of hell in the New. They are fully compatible with some differences in emphasis.

With a good concordance, I think you could find examples of all of God's attributes in both testaments.

And I think that claims of these differences are overblown by people who WANT discrepancies...so they find them where they really do not exist.

[athrock]

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.

You ignorant little bitch. Look at you moving the goalposts. I said all along that the Mosaic Law was an improvement in Ancient Near East morality. Now, you want to bring in India and China and Greece. Like those cultures radically impacted the views of the Hebrews before, during or after they were themselves enslaved in Egypt.

God isn't restricted to the Middle East, but the people He chose to covenant Himself with, the Israelites, clearly were.  

Come back when you've gotten your assignment done properly.

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?

LOL.

Dodged the question, didn't you? And we both know that you didn't answer because once you admit that you would rather be married to an Israelite than a Hittite, the game is OVER.

And sure, it would have been better to live with a people that did not practice slavery at all, but as you have so conveniently pointed out to my advantage, that was not easily done was it? Slavery has been almost universally practiced throughout the course of human history. Greece, China, India, Egypt, Israel, Rome, oh, hell...it might be faster to try to name the nations that did not practice slavery at one time or another.

Further, I never made anything like an attempt to justify even "a little bit of evil." What I have said, repeatedly, is that given the universality of slavery, God moved the Israelites incrementally toward its abolition.  

So, get over yourself. Your pathetically transparent moral self-righteousness exposes the intellectual dishonesty you've tried to hide just behind it.

[Angrboda]

You ignorant little bitch. Look at you moving the goalposts. I said all along that the Mosaic Law was an improvement in Ancient Near East morality. Now, you want to bring in India and China and Greece. Like those cultures radically impacted the views of the Hebrews before, during or after they were themselves enslaved in Egypt.

God isn't restricted to the Middle East, but the people He chose to covenant Himself with, the Israelites, clearly were.  

Come back when you've gotten your assignment done properly.

Ha ha. You're a joke. God isn't restricted. But he is. Isn't. Is. Isn't. Can't make up your mind where to draw the lines around your carefully constructed rationalization.

Dodged the question, didn't you? And we both know that you didn't answer because once you admit that you would rather be married to an Israelite than a Hittite, the game is OVER.

And sure, it would have been better to live with a people that did not practice slavery at all, but as you have so conveniently pointed out to my advantage, that was not easily done was it? Slavery has been almost universally practiced throughout the course of human history. Greece, China, India, Egypt, Israel, Rome, oh, hell...it might be faster to try to name the nations that did not practice slavery at one time or another.

Further, I never made anything like an attempt to justify even "a little bit of evil." What I have said, repeatedly, is that given the universality of slavery, God moved the Israelites incrementally toward its abolition.  

So, get over yourself. Your pathetically transparent moral indignation exposes your intellectual dishonesty.

LOL.

God moved the Israelites incrementally forward on the backs of the slaves he could have saved. It's balls obvious you don't see how that is immoral. Absolutely ridiculous. Don't lecture me when you can't even understand basic morals.

[athrock]

I see. How can I say this more clearly...

1. God could force His will upon us since He is more powerful than we are, but if he did so, it would result in our loss of free will because we would would be coerced into serving him. Given the frequent objections to any and every mention of hell as a "threat", I'm surprised you are not more sensitive to this.

2. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not change. Neither does His morality. This does not prevent Him from revealing his will to us progressively.

3. If we look back at some past instructions that God gave to Israel, we cannot fall into the trap of judging His actions as falling short of our present understanding of morality.

Now, I've tried more than once, but if this is still insufficient, please re-state your objections.

You've ignored the point that a choice made under duress is not "free".

You've ignored the point that if your god is perfect, then by definition so should be his revelation ... and creations such as students of his morality, for that matter.

You've ignored the point that a timeless objective morality should not look any different from any historical vantage.

Until you address those objections, your "argument" -- if I may dignify it as such -- is vapid. Not to mention that said "argument" is merely a set of unfounded assertions.

Over to you.

Not intentionally. Promise. I'm a bit peeved at a few other posters, but not you. So let's continue.  

"You've ignored the point that a choice made under duress is not "free"."

I agree. Where is our conflict?

"You've ignored the point that if your god is perfect, then by definition so should be his revelation ... and creations such as students of his morality, for that matter."

God's revelation IS perfect, but that doesn't mean that He gives it to us all at once, does it?

"You've ignored the point that a timeless objective morality should not look any different from any historical vantage."

I don't play the guitar, but I'll stick with guitar analogies - at least until they completely fail me.  

As a teacher, you COULD give your student a difficult song to play...let's take one of the classics like "Free Bird" or "Stairway to Heaven"...by simply handing him the sheet music and wishing him well. Or, you could give him the chords, the riffs, whatever, a little at a time until he had all the skills in place to play the song. And the whole time when he's simply practicing chord changes without really knowing why you're having him practice them, the Song Remains the Same. (see what I did there?)

THEN you give him the sheet music, and say, "Play this." If you've put the pieces in place first, playing the solos should be easy with a little practice. 

Does this help?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

IS GOD A MORAL MONSTER - SLAVERY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
 
Many people argue that the portrayal of God in the Old Testament exposes Him as a “moral monster”, and they cite the existence of slavery in Israel as one example of God’s immorality. In their view, it would have been proper for God to outlaw slavery altogether.
 
This perspective suffers from the fallacy of presentism—the interpretation of past events in terms of modern-day morals and attitudes. Instead, the historical accounts of Israel as recorded in the Bible should be judged within the context of the Ancient Near East (ANE). Specifically, the Mosaic Law of Israel may be compared with other ANE codes of law such as that of Hammurabi. Such comparisons will highlight the incremental advancement of ideals for human behavior which God embedded in Mosaic Law.
 
There are three primary texts pertaining to the treatment of slaves in the Old Testament: Exodus 21, Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15. From these, we can extract the following specific instructions:
 

1. Enslavement of others by kidnapping was prohibited. (Ex. 21:16)
   “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.”
   
2. A Hebrew slave was to be set free after six years of service if the slave chose freedom; they were not slaves for life (Ex. 21:2-6). Non-Hebrew slaves purchased from neighboring nations could be slaves for life. (Lev. 25:46)
   
3. If a female slave was chosen to be a wife of the owner’s son, the owner was to treat her as his own daughter. The husband was obligated to provide her with food, clothing and sex (which would result in the blessing of children). If he failed to provide these things, she was free to leave. (Ex. 21:7-11)
   
4. Slave owners were to be punished for killing their slaves. (Ex. 21:20)
   
5. Under some circumstances, slaves were to be set free if they were severely injured by their owners. (Ex. 21:26-27)
   
6. Slaves were to be given a day of rest. (Ex. 23:12)
   

 
Paul Copan, author of Is God a Moral Monster?, notes the following incremental improvements in the treatment of slaves required by Mosaic Law when compared with other ANE codes:
 

What specific improvements could we highlight? Regarding slavery, Christopher Wright declares: "The slave [in Israel] was given human and legal rights unheard of in contemporary societies." Mosaic legislation offered a radical advance for ANE cultures. According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, "We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters." Kidnapping a person to sell as a slave was punishable by death: "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death" (Exod. 21:16; see also 1 Tim. 1:10). This biblical prohibition presents a marked repudiation of the kidnapping of Africans that ushered in the era of more recent Western slavery. Yet the new atheists seem given to blur any such distinctions. While other ANE cultures may too have prohibited kidnapping, the Mosaic Law stands out in sharp moral contrast to their standard extradition treaties for, and harsh treatment of, runaway slaves. Hammurabi called for the death penalty to those helping runaway slaves. Israel, however, was to offer safe harbor to foreign runaway slaves (Deut. 23:15-16).
 
Indeed, Hebrew slaves were to be granted release in the seventh year (Lev. 29:35-43) - a notable improvement over other ANE law codes. Furthermore, masters had to release them from service with generous provisions, all conducted with the right attitude for the slave's well-being as he enters into freedom: "Beware that there is no base thought in your heart . . . and your eye is hostile toward your poor brother" (Deut. 15:9). The motivating reason for all of this is the fact "that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today" (Deut. 15:12-18, esp. v. 15). The overriding goal in Deuteronomy 15 is that there be no slavery in the land at all (vv. 4, 11). Gordon McConville calls this "revolutionary."
 
Another marked improvement is in the release of injured slaves themselves (Exod. 21:20-1). This is in contrast to their masters merely being compensated, which is typical in the ANE codes. Elsewhere in the OT, Job recognizes that he and his slaves have the same Maker and come from the same place-their mother's womb (Job. 31:15). Later in Amos (2:6; 8:6), slavery is again repudiated. Thus, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris notwithstanding, such improvements-or pointers back to Genesis 1:26-27-can hardly be called "a warrant for trafficking in humans" or treating them "like farm equipment."

From this, we can see that the New Atheists argument that the God of the Old Testament results from fallacious thinking - specifically, presentism - and that God was actually moving the Israelites forward incrementally toward more enlightened thinking. Consequently, any justifications for atheism that are based upon objections to God as a moral monster are unfounded.

Who gives a fuck about ancient Israelite slaves when the modern Jews helped finance modern slavery that resulted in over 65 million people spending their lives in miserable slavery?

[athrock]

You ignorant little bitch. Look at you moving the goalposts. I said all along that the Mosaic Law was an improvement in Ancient Near East morality. Now, you want to bring in India and China and Greece. Like those cultures radically impacted the views of the Hebrews before, during or after they were themselves enslaved in Egypt.

God isn't restricted to the Middle East, but the people He chose to covenant Himself with, the Israelites, clearly were.  

Come back when you've gotten your assignment done properly.

Ha ha. You're a joke.  God isn't restricted.   But he is.  Isn't.  Is.  Isn't.  Can't make up your mind where to draw the lines around your carefully constructed rationalization.

Dodged the question, didn't you? And we both know that you didn't answer because once you admit that you would rather be married to an Israelite than a Hittite, the game is OVER.

And sure, it would have been better to live with a people that did not practice slavery at all, but as you have so conveniently pointed out to my advantage, that was not easily done was it? Slavery has been almost universally practiced throughout the course of human history. Greece, China, India, Egypt, Israel, Rome, oh, hell...it might be faster to try to name the nations that did not practice slavery at one time or another.

Further, I never made anything like an attempt to justify even "a little bit of evil." What I have said, repeatedly, is that given the universality of slavery, God moved the Israelites incrementally toward its abolition.  

So, get over yourself. Your pathetically transparent moral indignation exposes your intellectual dishonesty.

LOL.

God moved the Israelites incrementally forward on the backs of the slaves he could have saved.  It's balls obvious you don't see how that is immoral.  Absolutely ridiculous.  Don't lecture me when you can't even understand basic morals.

Night, kiddo.