The Immoral God

[Miles]

.


I only say "immoral" because I don't feel god's actions as described below are moral.


Question 1: is owning other human beings as property moral?
Question 2: is accepting a burnt human offering to oneself moral?

God says "Yes."

1) Leviticus 25:44-46
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.


2) Judges 11:30-32:
30 Jephthah made this vow to the Lord: “If you in fact hand over the Ammonites to me, 31 whoever comes out the doors of my house to greet me when I return safely from the Ammonites will belong to the Lord, and I will offer that person as a burnt offering.”
32 Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them, and the Lord handed them over to him. [God accepts and keeps his part of the bargain]

and

Judges 11: 34-39
34 When Jephthah went to his home in Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with tambourines and dancing! She was his only child; he had no other son or daughter besides her. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, “No! Not my daughter! You have devastated me! You have brought great misery on me.[a] I have given my word to the Lord and cannot take it back.”
36 Then she said to him, “My father, you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me as you have said, for the Lord brought vengeance on your enemies, the Ammonites.” 37 She also said to her father, “Let me do this one thing: Let me wander two months through the mountains with my friends and mourn my virginity.”
38 “Go,” he said. And he sent her away two months. So she left with her friends and mourned her virginity as she wandered through the mountains. 39 At the end of two months, she returned to her father, and he kept the vow he had made about her. . . . . [Jephthah keeps his part of the bargain ]

Now,

if you don't feel I've properly understood either of these pieces of scripture please clue me in.
if you do feel I've properly understood both of these pieces of scripture do you feel the god of Abraham is still moral or not? If so, why?



.

[1213]

…No I don't. People are evil, not nations. Just because Donald Trump is dumb beyond belief doesn't mean the United States of America is dumb beyond belief.

I don’t think Trump is dumb, but, by what I know, America is a democracy and it was its people who chose Trump. So, if Trump is dumb, so is the nation that chose him.

…Guess who "the people are." And you have only one guess.

Obviously, the man who sells is from other nation, because it was not allowed for Jews to sell anyone, as shown in the scriptures I quoted.

[Goose]

There are various arguments to establish this premise.
Argument 1a.

i. Animal ownership prevents the untimely death of animals.
ii. Preventing the untimely death of animals is moral.
iii. Therefore, animal ownership is moral.

Please establish that (i) is a fact.

Millions of animals are destroyed in shelters every year because no one takes ownership of them. Animal ownership prevents these animals from being prematurely destroyed. Go to a shelter and take ownership of one of the animals there and you prevent that animal from being destroyed thus preventing it from meeting an untimely death.

I could further argue this applies to animals not found in shelters. Many of these un-owned animals experience an existence characterized by brutality, hardship, hunger, pain, and so on. Most of these animals, if left un-owned, will eventually experience an untimely death from either starvation or something worse such as a gruesome death from a predator.

By extension of your argument not owning animals is surely immoral.

That could be an implication of the argument. What of it?

Argument 1b.

i. Actions permissible by law are approved actions.
ii. Animal ownership is an action permissible by law.
iii. Animal ownership is an approved action (from i & ii).
iv. Approved actions are moral.
v. Animal ownership is moral (from iii & iv).

Are all actions permissible by law necessarily moral?

Well that depends on who is approving the action. If it is God approving it then I would say yes. If it is you or me approving it then I would say no.

If morality is grounded in human opinion why wouldn’t they be necessarily moral? If an action is permissible by law, then it is approved. If it is approved, then it is moral. If you deny the consequent – it is moral - then you are tacitly affirming an objective moral standard. Put another way, how could you objectively prove iv. Approved actions are moral is false without appealing to a standard outside of human opinion?

I gather from that argument that you must consider that abortion is a moral action. Do you?

No I don’t think it’s a moral action because it contradicts God’s moral law.

What about you? If you think abortion is immoral you tacitly affirm human opinion is an unreliable means of determining morality. If human opinion is unreliable then why should I accept human moral opinion? If you think it’s not immoral then why on earth would you think it’s immoral to own a human if it’s not immoral to kill unborn babies?

[Goose]

But your conclusion doesn’t follow from those two assertions or the supporting evidence.

Then I await your explanation.

I gave it. But allow me to be more explicit. The structure of your argument does not logically guarantee the truth of the conclusion given the truth of the premises. Thus it is invalid.

Heck, you explicitly conceded this yourself when you said...

“it isn't an actual argument”

and...

“[it] doesn't really lend itself to an analysis of validity”

If there is no valid argument then there's nothing to argue. You've merely presented a string of disconnected assertions and trotted out some scriptures. What am I supposed to do with that?

Okay but your evolutionary world view implies human ownership is moral.

Why? Your two linked fallacious arguments aside, make your argument.

I did make the argument and you ignored it. So what fallacy did I commit? Name it and explain why. The initial argument is clearly valid so your only alternative is to dispute at least one premise. So which premise do you dispute and why.

[Miles]

"How about you? do you find selling one's daughter, or anyone else, into slavery to be moral or immoral? "

That would depend on what such slavery would entail.

How about as it's commonly understood.

"Slavery and enslavement are the state and condition of being a slave. A person is enslaved when a slaver coerces him or her into working for them and is deprived of the opportunity to leave. In chattel slavery, the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.

As a social institution, chattel slavery (traditional slavery) denies the human agency of people, by legalistically dehumanising them into chattels (personal property) owned by the slaver; therefore slaves give birth to slaves; the children of slaves are born enslaved, by way of the legalistic philosophy of partus sequitur ventrem (That which is brought forth follows the belly) They are also bought and sold at will, as a result.

Forced labour, or unfree labour, is sometimes used to describe an individual who is forced to work against their own will, under threat of violence or other punishment, but the generic term unfree labour is also used to describe chattel slavery, as well as any other situation in which a person is obliged to work against their own will, and a person's ability to work productively is under the complete control of another person
source: Wikipedia

The above has been addressed under the second heading: ABUSIVE OPPRESSIVE SLAVERY in my initial answer see above (post #44)
viewtopic.php?p=1020900#p1020900

YOUR

ABUSIVE OPPRESSIVE SLAVERY

Sadly, throughout history manmade systems of slavery, as well as various slave trades have exisisted and these have more often than not been marked by the worst of abuses, something abhorrent to God and morally repugnant to any decent person. The bible indicates that while God has allowed such evils, he has never condoned cruelty to others or abuse of their person. The bible contains promises that soon God will put to an end all human government, unjust systems and evil greedy individuals so abusive slavery will happily be a thing of the past.

But that's exactly the cruelty and abuse he condones. And isn't it nice that god allows such evils, even to the extent of ruling them to be acceptable.

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."
[Of course beating a slave within a day or two of imminent death is never cruel, which is why JWs are free to practice it. Cruel or abusive? Nope! Not at all. ]

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."
[Let's say YOUR father sells YOU, as his daughter, into slavery. I can only conclude you'd thank him for it. Cruel or abusive? Nope! Not at all. ]

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling,"
[How nice to be so intimidated by your master that you live in fear and tremble at his very orders. Cruel or abusive? Nope! Not at all. ]

"If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. "
[Yet not a thing about compensating the gored slave. Cruel or abusive? Nope! Not at all. ]

“ When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone."
[ So, as such a married slave, after six years you have the option of remaining a slave for life, OR leaving the scene, including your enslaved wife and children, forever. Cruel or abusive? Nope! Not at all. ]

GIVE ME A BREAK. You'll never save your god from his immorality. Why? Because he obviously likes it. "Hey, Jesus, How's about you and I having a burnt human offering tonight before dinner?" "Sounds good, dad."


.

[Miles]

I did make the argument[/url] and you ignored it. So what fallacy did I commit? Name it and explain why. The initial argument is clearly valid so your only alternative is to dispute at least one premise. So which premise do you dispute and why.

The fallacy I referred to were the two categorical syllogisms you attempted to create and linked to in post 41. But first: "There are infinitely many possible syllogisms, but only 256 logically distinct types and only 24 valid types." Yours were not one of the 24. To check out the valid forms click HERE

To continue:

As a shorthand, syllogisms use three letters to represent the statements in their construction M – Middle, S – subject, P – predicate.

In your Argument 1a. we have:

i. Animal ownership prevents the untimely death of animals.
ii. Preventing the untimely death of animals is moral.
iii. Therefore, animal ownership is moral.

Wherein

"Animal ownership" is M
"prevents the untimely death of animals." is P
" is moral." is S

which gives us the following syllogism.

All M are P
P is S
_________

∴ M is S

Is this one of the 24 valid forms? It is not, so your argument carries no weight.

Then we have Argument 1b.

i. Actions permissible by law are approved actions.
ii. Animal ownership is an action permissible by law.
iii. Animal ownership is an approved action (from i & ii).
iv. Approved actions are moral.
v. Animal ownership is moral (from iii & iv).

Actually, all we need concern ourselves with here are that last three statements

iii. Animal ownership is an approved action (from i & ii).
iv. Approved actions are moral.
v.[Therefore] Animal ownership is moral (from iii & iv).

Which can be converted to read as

All M is P
P is S
_________
∴ M is S

Gee, the same invalid form as Argument 1a. Guess what that means.


So while you may be able to point to sources on Validity and Soundness: Thus it is valid, you obviously don't know what's in them.



.

[Goose]

I did make the argument[/url] and you ignored it. So what fallacy did I commit? Name it and explain why. The initial argument is clearly valid so your only alternative is to dispute at least one premise. So which premise do you dispute and why.

The fallacy I referred to were the two categorical syllogisms you attempted to create and linked to in post 41. But first: "There are infinitely many possible syllogisms, but only 256 logically distinct types and only 24 valid types." Yours were not one of the 24. To check out the valid forms click HERE

To continue:

As a shorthand, syllogisms use three letters to represent the statements in their construction M – Middle, S – subject, P – predicate.

In your Argument 1a. we have:

i. Animal ownership prevents the untimely death of animals.
ii. Preventing the untimely death of animals is moral.
iii. Therefore, animal ownership is moral.

Wherein

"Animal ownership" is M
"prevents the untimely death of animals." is P
" is moral." is S

which gives us the following syllogism.

All M are P
P is S
_________

∴ M is S

Is this one of the 24 valid forms? It is not, so your argument carries no weight.

Okay so it seems you are disputing the premise 1. Animal ownership is moral. And you seem to be disputing it by virtue of the supporting arguments of that premise not taking a valid syllogistic form. First, I will point out you aren't disputing the main argument. But it’s a fair charge that an argument does not take a valid form. Easily rectified in this case, but a fair charge. In fairness, though, these supporting arguments weren’t presented as formal syllogisms. There is, nevertheless, a logical connection between the premises and conclusion. Allow me to reconstruct the argument to take a valid syllogistic form. We can simply rearrange the order of the premises.

i. Preventing the untimely death of animals is moral.
ii. Animal ownership prevents the untimely death of animals.
iii. Therefore, animal ownership is moral.

Or, if you aren't happy with that I can formerly restate the argument in the valid form Modus Ponens:

1. If animal ownership prevents the untimely death of animals, then animal ownership is moral.
2. Animal ownership prevents the untimely death of animals.
3. Therefore, animal ownership is moral.

Then we have Argument 1b.

i. Actions permissible by law are approved actions.
ii. Animal ownership is an action permissible by law.
iii. Animal ownership is an approved action (from i & ii).
iv. Approved actions are moral.
v. Animal ownership is moral (from iii & iv).

Actually, all we need concern ourselves with here are that last three statements

iii. Animal ownership is an approved action (from i & ii).
iv. Approved actions are moral.
v.[Therefore] Animal ownership is moral (from iii & iv).

Which can be converted to read as

All M is P
P is S
_________
∴ M is S

Gee, the same invalid form as Argument 1a. Guess what that means.


So while you may be able to point to sources on Validity and Soundness: Thus it is valid, you obviously don't know what's in them.

Okay same situation easily rectified. Just rearrange the order of the premises once again.

iii. Approved actions are moral.
iv. Animal ownership is an approved action.
v.[Therefore] Animal ownership is moral.

Or I can once again restate the argument in the valid form Modus Ponens:

1. If animal ownership is an approved action, then animal ownership is moral.
2. Animal ownership is an approved action
3. Therefore, animal ownership is moral.

Okay, now that we’ve got that sorted out, which premise do you dispute and why?

Furthermore, if you really do reject the premise that animal ownership is moral, can I ask are you a pet free and dairy-free vegan? Because if you have ever owned a pet, or eaten a strip of bacon, or had an egg, or had a hamburger, or had cheese on your pizza, or drank a glass of milk, or visited a zoo you’ve tactility affirmed animal ownership is moral.

[bjs1]

Both Jephthah's oath and (more significantly) his fulfillment of that oath were immoral acts which were not approved by the Lord.

Need to show your work.

Ok.

Judges 11:
1 Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior. His father was Gilead; his mother was a prostitute.
2
Gilead's wife also bore him sons, and when they were grown up, they drove Jephthah away. "You are not going to get any inheritance in our family," they said, "because you are the son of another woman."
3
So Jephthah fled from his brothers and settled in the land of Tob, where a group of adventurers gathered around him and followed him.
4
Some time later, when the Ammonites made war on Israel,
5
the elders of Gilead went to get Jephthah from the land of Tob.
6
"Come," they said, "be our commander, so we can fight the Ammonites."
7
Jephthah said to them, "Didn't you hate me and drive me from my father's house? Why do you come to me now, when you're in trouble?"
8
The elders of Gilead said to him, "Nevertheless, we are turning to you now; come with us to fight the Ammonites, and you will be our head over all who live in Gilead."
9
Jephthah answered, "Suppose you take me back to fight the Ammonites and the LORD gives them to me--will I really be your head?"
10
The elders of Gilead replied, "The LORD is our witness; we will certainly do as you say."
11
So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and commander over them. And he repeated all his words before the LORD in Mizpah.
12
Then Jephthah sent messengers to the Ammonite king with the question: "What do you have against us that you have attacked our country?"
13
The king of the Ammonites answered Jephthah's messengers, "When Israel came up out of Egypt, they took away my land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, all the way to the Jordan. Now give it back peaceably."
14
Jephthah sent back messengers to the Ammonite king,
15
saying: "This is what Jephthah says: Israel did not take the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites.
16
But when they came up out of Egypt, Israel went through the desert to the Red Sea [1] and on to Kadesh.
17
Then Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, `Give us permission to go through your country,' but the king of Edom would not listen. They sent also to the king of Moab, and he refused. So Israel stayed at Kadesh.
18
"Next they traveled through the desert, skirted the lands of Edom and Moab, passed along the eastern side of the country of Moab, and camped on the other side of the Arnon. They did not enter the territory of Moab, for the Arnon was its border.
19
"Then Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon, and said to him, `Let us pass through your country to our own place.'
20
Sihon, however, did not trust Israel [2] to pass through his territory. He mustered all his men and encamped at Jahaz and fought with Israel.
21
"Then the LORD, the God of Israel, gave Sihon and all his men into Israel's hands, and they defeated them. Israel took over all the land of the Amorites who lived in that country,
22
capturing all of it from the Arnon to the Jabbok and from the desert to the Jordan.
23
"Now since the LORD, the God of Israel, has driven the Amorites out before his people Israel, what right have you to take it over?
24
Will you not take what your god Chemosh gives you? Likewise, whatever the LORD our God has given us, we will possess.
25
Are you better than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever quarrel with Israel or fight with them?
26
For three hundred years Israel occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the Arnon. Why didn't you retake them during that time?
27
I have not wronged you, but you are doing me wrong by waging war against me. Let the LORD, the Judge, [3] decide the dispute this day between the Israelites and the Ammonites."
28
The king of Ammon, however, paid no attention to the message Jephthah sent him.
29
Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites.
30
And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands,
31
whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."
32
Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands.
33
He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
34
When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter.
35
When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."
36
"My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites.
37
But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."
38
"You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry.
39
After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. From this comes the Israelite custom
40
that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.


At no point does God condone Jephthah's oath or him fulfilling it.

God forbid the practice in Deuteronomy 12:30-32, which says, “do not fall into the trap of following their customs and worshiping their gods. Do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations worship their gods? I want to follow their example.’ You must not worship the Lord your God the way the other nations worship their gods, for they perform for their gods every detestable act that the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters as sacrifices to their gods. “So be careful to obey all the commands I give you. You must not add anything to them or subtract anything from them.”


As for the general theme of increasing wickedness during the time of the judges I would point you to “A critical and expository commentary on the book of Judges” by A.R. FAUSSET , or to “Book of Judges: New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT)” By Barry G. Webb, or to “The Book of Judges” by James D. Martin.

Or you could just read the original text yourself. The theme is clear and agreed upon by virtually all scholars.

[JehovahsWitness]

ABUSIVE OPPRESSIVE SLAVERY

Sadly, throughout history manmade systems of slavery, as well as various slave trades have exisisted and these have more often than not been marked by the worst of abuses, something abhorrent to God and morally repugnant to any decent person. The bible indicates that while God has allowed such evils, he has never condoned cruelty to others or abuse of their person. The bible contains promises that soon God will put to an end all human government, unjust systems and evil greedy individuals so abusive slavery will happily be a thing of the past.

The above has been addressed under the second heading: ABUSIVE OPPRESSIVE SLAVERY in my initial answer see above (post #44)
viewtopic.php?p=1020900#p1020900

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."
[Of course beating a slave within a day or two of imminent death is never cruel, which is why JWs are free to practice it. Cruel or abusive? Nope! Not at all. ]

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."
[Let's say YOUR father sells YOU, as his daughter, into slavery. I can only conclude you'd thank him for it. Cruel or abusive? Nope! Not at all. ]

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling,"
[How nice to be so intimidated by your master that you live in fear and tremble at his very orders. Cruel or abusive? Nope! Not at all. ]

"If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. "
[Yet not a thing about compensating the gored slave. Cruel or abusive? Nope! Not at all. ]

“ When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone."
[ So, as such a married slave, after six years you have the option of remaining a slave for life, OR leaving the scene, including your enslaved wife and children, forever. Cruel or abusive? Nope! Not at all. ]

I see nothjng cruel or abusive in any of the laws outlined above. If you would like to state clearly what you see as cruel and WHY (in anything but sarcasm and axiom ) I will certainly consider reading your post(s).



Regards,



JW




RELATED POSTS

Does the bible say slave owners were allowed to beat their slaves to death?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p764027

Does the Mosaic law that allowed a father to sell his daughter into slavery amount to permission for her to be sexually or physically abused?
viewtopic.php?p=1020859#p1020859

Why does the bible say slaves should obey their masters?
viewtopic.php?p=1020929#p1020929

Was it cruel to expect a slave to leave his wife and children under the ownership of his Master once his period of servitude was terminated?
viewtopic.php?p=1020969#p1020969

[JehovahsWitness]

WAS IT CRUEL TO EXPECT A SLAVE TO LEAVE HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN UNDER HIS MASTERS OWNERSHIP ONCES HIS PERIOD OF SERVITUDE WAS TERMINATED?

EXODUS 21:2-6 NWT

“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he will serve as a slave for six years, but in the seventh year, he will be set free without paying anything. If he came by himself, he will go out by himself. If he is the husband of a wife, then his wife must go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children will become her master’s, and he will go out by himself. But if the slave should insist and say, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my sons; I do not want to be set free,’ his master must bring him before the true God. Then he will bring him up against the door or the doorpost, and his master will pierce his ear through with an awl, and he will be his slave for life.

No, it was perfectly reasonable. The law in question did not concern a family that the slave had prior to his servitude but to a wife the Master himself provided him with from his (the masters) own household. A single man that came into servitude without a family left (after a maximum of 7 years) the same way. In agreeing to take a bride provided to him by his Master*, rather than going out and finding his own, the slave was effectively agreeing to join his master's "clan" and agreeing to add to the prosperity and subsequent strength of that group.

* logically the slave did not have to pay the woman's bride price which meant that in actuality the woman still legally belonged to the household of the master anyway.

The slave was not obliged to agree, but once he did, he would understand that a man did not give his daughter or slavegirl to be taken away by a slave. This served as a protection for her and any children she might have as evidently the slave was financially disadvantaged and did not necessarily (at least in the short term) have the means to support them. There is nothing cruel about households staying together and building prosperity together on the contrary it served as a security. A native slave understood he got himself a wife under his own volition or pledged allegence to the family of the bride.

.





JW


Why is there no mention of compensation for the slave in Exodus 21:32?
viewtopic.php?p=1020981#p1020981

[JehovahsWitness]

"If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. "
[Yet not a thing about compensating the gored slave. Cruel or abusive? Nope! Not at all. ]

Are you asking why the dead slave isn't given compensation ...for being dead? Isn't that like a filling a cavity in a tooth that has been pulled?