The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

I agree. Where is our conflict?

It seems to lie in the fact that you don't see the threat of eternal torment as a form of duress. It is certainly such.

"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?

We're left to assume then that your god is fine with people suffering, considering that as a perfect communicator, he chooses not to reveal his true wishes on the immorality of slavery.

"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. 

You're once more equivocating an imperfect human teacher with the Perfect Creator of All That Is; but I'll humor this last attempt of yours in order to make my point.

Are you really arguing that your god couldn't not mount a cogent case against slavery simple enough to resonate with early Christians? I can: "Slavery is wrong because it hurts people and their ability to exercise the free will that I, your Maker, have given them." Or something along those lines. We're not writing an Yngwie Malmsteen solo here; we're talking about very basic stuff.

Certainly an all-knowing God would know how to communicate with his own creations.

Does this help?

Not really. It's unconvincing given the attributes accorded the god you worship.

[veoli]

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.

Which verses make you come to that conclusion?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

OK.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/...1830.shtml

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Slavery

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...razil.html
"In Dutch Brazil, Jews flourished in the sugar industry, tax farming and slave trade. Jews often purchased slaves and resold them at great profit."

The first is a link to a site promoting Louis Farrakhan.

The third references Jewish ownership of slaves in the 15th and 16th centuries and states in part, "Those they kept often preferred to work for Jews because both Shabbat and Sunday were rest days, whereas the Portugese only gave them Sunday off, and the Dutch worked their slaves seven days a week."

This seems to corroborate my argument that the Jews had been taught to treat their slaves better than they were treated by other nations. (Jorm and Equislax are going to be PISSED to read this.)

As for the second, I'll keep my eyes and ears open for corroboration. Thanks.

I want you to be my slave.  I will treat you in accordance with the biblical standards.  You'll love it.

[Foxaèr]

God in any part of the bible is nothing more than man's manipulation toward his own inadequacies.

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

There is no commandment, "Thou shalt not rape."  There is no commandment, "Thou shalt not fornicate."  There is no commandment, "Thou shalt not molest children."  So please explain how one would not be Biblically justified in taking a gentile girl of age 7 or so from a conquered nation as a slave, raping her over the course of 49 years for your own amusement, and then setting her free on the 50th year.

[robvalue]

Those things weren't immoral yet. And it's not like God can just communicate with us again to update the rules, is it?

I can't believe anyone is suggesting we are programmed with objective morality. We all disagree. I'd have thought that is plainly obvious. Sure, we generally agree about some things. But even then, we don't all agree. It's another obvious game of "Wow we all mainly sort of agree that some things are wrong! That's too amazing to have just happened so it's magic." It's not magic, it's not even surprising when you start to study evolution.

I'm not responding to or even reading what athrok says anymore, just so he doesn't waste time talking to me. He's welcome to reply anyhow of course.

This is all make believe. You have the liberty to construct whatever story you want to try and equate this fictional character in a book with another fictional character that you carry around in your head. The fact that this task appears to be impossible is rather telling. People may convince themselves through endless flawed analogies and goal-post shifting, but if they can't convince a single non-Christian of any of their points, even when we grant them full access to making stuff up, then surely that's worth stopping and thinking about. All atheists are dumb huh?

Seriously, make up whatever you want, my only criteria is that you keep your story straight. That seems too much to ask. But remember, from our point of view you are trying to argue that Sauron from lord of the rings is real. Instead of saying you're crazy and telling you to go away, we offer to have a conversation about it.

http://youtu.be/44ilZq3R900

[athrock]

See? I stand corrected.

I also stand by the observation that your insistence on explaining away a glaring moral shortcoming of your holy book and its god character is weak and reveals you as a relativist when it suits your apologetic needs.

My insistence? 

Perhaps it is simply the insistence of atheists that God is immoral which demands a response. I mean, it's not like believers are sitting around anxiously discussing this amongst themselves.

As I have said repeatedly in this forum, if you're going to be an atheist, be a good one. If you're going to argue with believers, do it well.

Attempting to paint God as a moral monster because He gave guidelines for the treatment of slaves (v. prohibiting slavery outright) is a lame argument that fails to make the case atheists are trying to win. It is entirely possible that God could both permit slavery and be a perfect, loving God at the same time. 

In the absence of a proof of contradiction, the "Immoral God" argument does nothing to advance the atheist's position that God does not exist, and therefore, it should be discarded.

It's a BAD argument.

[Mr.wizard]

See? I stand corrected.

I also stand by the observation that your insistence on explaining away a glaring moral shortcoming of your holy book and its god character is weak and reveals you as a relativist when it suits your apologetic needs.

My insistence? 

Perhaps it is simply the insistence of atheists that God is immoral which demands a response. I mean, it's not like believers are sitting around anxiously discussing this amongst themselves.

As I have said repeatedly in this forum, if you're going to be an atheist, be a good one. If you're going to argue with believers, do it well.

Attempting to paint God as a moral monster because He gave guidelines for the treatment of slaves (v. prohibiting slavery outright) is a lame argument that fails to make the case atheists are trying to win. It is entirely possible that God could both permit slavery and be a perfect, loving God at the same time. 

In the absence of a proof of contradiction, the "Immoral God" argument does nothing to advance the atheist's position that God does not exist, and therefore, it should be discarded.

It's a BAD argument.

Do you consider slavery immoral?

[athrock]

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

I agree. Where is our conflict?

It seems to lie in the fact that you don't see the threat of eternal torment as a form of duress.  It is certainly such.

Oh. Well, I can certainly understand your point here. My apologies...I did not know what you were referencing when you said "duress".

First, I want you to know that I will give your objection some thought. That might take days or weeks. But I have this simmering on my back burner now, so to speak.

Second, my quick response would be this: If you say to your child, "If you clean your room, I will take you see a movie. If you don't clean your room, you will be grounded while the rest of the family goes without you." does this really limit the child's freedom to choose? Some kids might say, "Fine. I'll stay home." which sort of calls your bluff because what YOU wanted was for her to clean her room. But sure, the child might clean her room simply to avoid being grounded.

Now, what if you say to that child, "Brush your teeth, or you will get cavities or gum disease"? Is the child going to brush but only "under duress"? I mean, life is chock full of "if...then" scenarios like this, and many of them are negative. "If you do X, then Y will happen to you."

God is basically doing the same thing, though the stakes a much higher. He offers eternal life and happiness if you follow His plan, but He warns of the consequences should you choose to follow your own.

Since we don't know each other, grant me a little lattitude for speculation. Were you raised in a strict, fundamentalist Protestant home? If so, could it be that the eschatology of that Protestant denomination was unbalanced or even wrong? And it has messed you up bad?

"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?

We're left to assume then that your god is fine with people suffering, considering that as a perfect communicator, he chooses not to reveal his true wishes on the immorality of slavery.

That doesn't follow, does it? Everyone suffers in various ways and to varying degrees. Is God responsible for all of that? Two things strike me. First, suffering bears fruit in the form of the development of our character. Frankly, it would be better to die as a noble slave than to live as a foppish prince. Removing all evil from the world would result in the loss of opportunities to learn courage, patience, forgiveness, and so on. Second, God has the end in mind...not the beginning. This life may be all we can see, but we can't even see that very well. What will happen to you tomorrow? Or next year? Your knowledge of this life is limited to the past and the present. But God see that as well as the future, and it is the eternal future that is most important.

Finally, God communicates perfectly that which we need to know. However, the fact that He keeps His own counsel does not mean that He is imperfect in any way.

"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. 

You're once more equivocating an imperfect human teacher with the Perfect Creator of All That Is; but I'll humor this last attempt of yours in order to make my point.

Are you really arguing that your god couldn't not mount a cogent case against slavery simple enough to resonate with early Christians? I can: "Slavery is wrong because it hurts people and their ability to exercise the free will that I, your Maker, have given them." Or something along those lines. We're not writing an Yngwie Malmsteen solo here; we're talking about very basic stuff.

Certainly an all-knowing God would know how to communicate with his own creations.

You will never hear me making an argument in favor of slavery. However, it is also likely that He could have placed a burden on the people that was so great, they would have simply said, "Screw it." I'm speculating here because I can't tell you WHY God acted as He did. I mean, if the authors of the "fairy tale" called the Bible REALLY wanted to give themselves a break, why prohibit adultery? Whose brain-child was that?

What is apparent from the writings of the OT is that God led His people along a path of progressive revelation - as much as they could handle. And while it may offend our modern sensibilities, the fact is that the Mosaic Law was both an imposition upon a wild, unruly people (the Jews) as well as a big improvement for the slaves themselves.

[GrandizerII]

As I have said repeatedly in this forum, if you're going to be an atheist, be a good one. If you're going to argue with believers, do it well.

Don't be so butthurt. If people believe that the character of God as depicted in the Old Testament is that of a monster or a deranged psychotic narcissistic being, then that is because the character behaves exactly like one.

It seems to you a good atheist is one who nods in agreement with all the things you want them to agree with.