The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[athrock]

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?

For starters:

1 John 4:16
So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

[robvalue]

What does this matter?

A Christian only need convince themselves that the God character lines up with what they want it to be. What difference does it make what atheists think of the character?

[athrock]

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.

And who, pray tell, made those students?

Your analogy would be apt if I had made those students in an Act of Special Creation. That condition not obtaining, your objection is stripped of value.

God's creation was "good", but man is a free agent, Thump. That he means he can screw up if he chooses to do so. You seem to be suggesting that God could have made perfect students who played the music God wanted played perfectly every single time without deviation. Well, He could have done that...but then we'd be robots merely carrying out God's orders according to how we were programmed. Is that the kind of artistry you'd want in a music student? Just another player piano bang out the notes punched into a roll of paper?

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.

I was asking about his timeless morality.

But since you brought it up, do you consider your God's expression of love by killing all but eight humans a loving attribute, really?

Perhaps. More on why momentarily.

First, the flood was an act of justice. The people sinned against God, and He punished them. When a killer commits a murder, we punish them. Sometimes, with capital punishment. And we don't have the benefit of being God when we exercise that authority. (I;m not even sure we legitimately have such authority, btw.)

Now, as to your question: it may well have been an act of love. Would it have been loving to allow the sin and corruption to continue? Remember, if the people were wickedly engaging in murder, rape, theft, etc., there were victims of these acts who were suffering. By destroying the wicked, those who MAY have merited heaven would have immediately entered into the joy of God's presence. No more pain. They would have given no more thought to the horror of the flood than you would give to the sweat of a good workout at the gym after taking a hot shower.

An act of love? Sure, if it meant that more children would not be brought into a world that would rape them, abuse them, sacrifice them to idols or even to pervert and twist their thinking to the degree that they themselves became the perpetrators of such evil deeds.

So, yeah, I can see wiping out an evil generation as an act of love because it ends current suffering and prevents future suffering.

I'm a father. If my son were to misbehave, would you think it loving if I killed him as punishment? Would you think it moral?

If so, you're the last person to be delivering lectures on morality. And if not, you've just bought into moral relativity.  

No, I would not consider YOUR act of murder to be an act of love. YOU are not God.

[athrock]

It doesn't take much time to understand it; it takes longer to accept and embrace it - especially in light of the fact that every other nation (as highlighted by Jorm) was not only practicing slavery but enslaving the Israelites themselves (cf. the Babylonian captivity).

I mean, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is easily understandable, but do you think that it vanished overnight? 

How about ever?

Yet that was thought so important that it was enshrined in the Law, as well as a host of ritual commandments that were obviously less morally significant than slavery or genocide.

Yeah, not buying it.

Or not understanding it.

The Ten Commandments was only a part of the total package known as Mosaic Law. The Israelites were obligated to the whole of the Law.

I hope your misguided moral indignation is not getting in the way of your comprehension of this.

[Expired]

You people would find a way to justify any of the despicable acts carried out by your god, there are two reasons for this.
You ARE brainwashed, and you ARE scared of death.

[Crossless2.0]

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.

Where do you get the idea that the "Immoral God" argument has anything to do with atheism? It seems to me that those who invoke the argument do so as a finger jab in the eye of those believers who think they have a corner on morality -- even more, that their god-based morality is objective and eternally unchanging.

I agree that it should be discarded as an argument for atheism, but I don't often see it used in that way. The poor quality of theists' evidence and arguments are really all one needs to argue for atheism. The alleged immorality of God goes more to the point of believers' inconsistency and dishonesty when defending their holy book(s). In that sense, it's a GOOD argument.

[athrock]

Which might actually mean something if we could not ignore natural law and do those things which even our own consciences tell us are wrong.

But perhaps I should not presume...tell me, Mr. Wizard: Do you ever do things that you know in your heart are wrong?

That is not the point, the point is I cant come to conclusions on what is right or wrong by my own experience because according to you god has already programmed me, that is not free will.

Incorrect.

But first, have you ever consciously done something that you knew you should not do but you chose to do it anyway?

Taken a parking place when someone else had their turn signal on first? Glanced at another student's test paper? Snapped at a family member when you had a bad day at work or school? Failed to deliver on a promise to a friend?

My question is, when you do these things that you know are wrong...without anyone telling you...where does that judgment of right and wrong come from?

That voice of conscience which we all have is an example of the Natural Law that God has "programmed" us with. And we are free to obey or disobey that internal voice.

"These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in." -C.S. Lewis

[athrock]

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.

No, YOU'LL love it:





(This Brittany is hotter than the original Britney.)

[Crossless2.0]

Yet that was thought so important that it was enshrined in the Law, as well as a host of ritual commandments that were obviously less morally significant than slavery or genocide.

Yeah, not buying it.

Or not understanding it.

The Ten Commandments was only a part of the total package known as Mosaic Law. The Israelites were obligated to the whole of the Law.

I hope your misguided moral indignation is not getting in the way of your comprehension of this.

Speaking of comprehension, I suppose it wasn't lost on you that I implicitly invoked the whole of the Mosaic law in addition to the ten commandments -- you know, the bit you quoted that mentioned ritual commandments? Did you really think I had the stone tablets in mind there?

But don't let your misguided sense of adequacy get in the way of understanding the plain meaning of another person's post.

And still not buying it.

[athrock]

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.

Biblically?

Oh, geez, I dunno...maybe:

Luke 6:31
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.