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?



.

[Miles]

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.

But your major premise is false. Not all approved actions are moral---as we're all well aware immoral actions have been approved by the truck load. In order for a syllogism to be sound, which is the object in creating it, the form has to be valid and both premises must be true.

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.

Yes the form is indeed valid, but . . . .

. . . your major premise contains the unwritten assertion of "all": 1. If all animal ownership is an approved action, then animal ownership is moral, which, of course, carries into your minor premise; "All Animal ownership is an approved action." So, is all animal ownership an approved action? Of course not. So your second argument fails for the same reason as the first: false premises.


.

[Miles]

“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).

No, banging my head against a brick wall has never gotten me anywhere.

Have a good day.


.

[Miles]

"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?

Yeah that's in Exodus 21:28, but Exodus 21:32, the one I referenced, only 15% of the Bibles I looked at say he was killed, all the rest say he was either gored, which means to be pierced; assaulted; assailed; or pushed.

[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?

Yeah that's in Exodus 21:28, but Exodus 21:32, the one I referenced, only 14% of the Bibles I looked at say he was killed, all the rest say he was either gored, which means to be pierced; assaulted; assailed; or pushed.

The context clearly indicates gored...-to death.

[Miles]

The context clearly indicates gored...-to death. There were no verses in the original text, we need to look to context for implied meaning.

It clearly does not! Verse 21:35 was inserted to cover the situation (not death) not covered in 21:28 (death). Other wise 21:35 would be a ridiculous repetition of 21:28, which came just seven verses earlier.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

WHY IS THERE NO MENTION OF COMPENSATING THE SLAVE IN EXODUS 21 VERSE 32?

ANSWER Because said verse is dealing with a fatality and dead men can't go shopping.

EXODUS 21:28-32 NWT


28 “If a bull gores a man or a woman and that one dies, the bull must be stoned to death and its meat is not to be eaten; but the owner of the bull is free from punishment. 29 But if a bull was in the habit of goring and its owner had been warned but he would not keep it under guard and it killed a man or a woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner is also to be put to death. 30 If a ransom* is imposed on him, he must give as the redemption price for his life* all that may be imposed on him. 31 Whether it gored a son or a daughter, it is to be done to the bull’s owner according to this judicial decision. 32 If the bull gored a slave man or a slave girl, he will give the price of 30 shekels* to that one’s master, and the bull will be stoned to death. .

Verse (28). introduces the new topic as being the punishment for human* fatalities due to negligence .Verse (29) Proof of negligence prior to said fatality.

*Exodus 21:33-36 Deals with the seperate case if loss of livestock (animal life) due to negligence

NOTE A : In discussing the question of negligence (verse 29). the observation is made "if the bull was in the habit of goring and its owner had been warned but he would not keep it under guard" the owner was deemed guilty of criminal negligence. Obviously the "goring" here in verse 29 is one that did not result in a fatality, and is being contrasted with the more serious (fatal) goring under the main discussion (as introduced in v28) . A non fatal goring did not impose the animal be put down, only constrained. Thus the killing of the animal is indicative a faltality had occured

Verse (30) The provision for repeal of the death penalty (imposed for the fatality) in favor of an monetary payment (presumably to the family). Verse (31). stipulation of who the aforementioned law (regarding compensation for fatality) applies to. Thus we come to the final point (32). which logically is a clause to the preceding directives. In verse 31. the compensation paid to the family for the death of a son or a daughter without a prededermined maximum and verse 32 for a slave with a prededermined maximum. Logically we are STILL dealing with fatality as indicated by

a) the lead up to the clause in the proceeding verses (see above)

b) the bull being put down rather than restrained (See above NOTE A )

c) the price imposed being the price of a slave (30 shekels) indicating the owner no longer has his slave.

CONCLUSION A careful reading of the context indicates Exodus 21:32 is dealing with compensation to the slave owner for the death of his slave due to criminal negligence.








JW



RELATED POSTS

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

How do various translations render Exodus 21:32?
viewtopic.php?p=1021025#p1021025

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

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SLAVERY, CHILD ABUSE and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

[Goose]

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.

But your major premise is false. Not all approved actions are moral---as we're all well aware immoral actions have been approved by the truck load.

You mean in your subjective personal opinion “Not all approved actions are moral” don’t you? Or do you mean “Not all approved actions are moral” is an objective moral fact?

Given moral subjectivism go ahead and objectively prove “Not all approved actions are moral.” You can’t do it. All you can do is express your personal disapproval. You have to appeal to an objective moral standard that holds regardless of human opinion in order to prove true “Not all approved actions are moral.” That assertion assumes there are actions which are objectively immoral regardless of the fact that there are people who approve of the action.

In order for a syllogism to be sound, which is the object in creating it, the form has to be valid and both premises must be true.

Yes, I’m aware of that. But we are dealing with morals truths so what are you suggesting here? Are you suggesting there are objective moral values that are true regardless of human opinion? I’m working within your world view and I’m assuming that view entails some kind of moral subjectivism since you have conceded your world view entails naturalistic evolution. So the objective of the argument is to show that your world view implies human ownership is moral. So when I assert as a premise, for example, that approved actions are moral I’m saying actions that one has approved are moral to that person because that person has approved of them. And you can’t show that premise false given your world view. Or maybe my assumption is wrong and you do hold there are objective moral values that are true regardless of human opinion?

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.

Yes the form is indeed valid, but . . . .

. . . your major premise contains the unwritten assertion of "all": 1. If all animal ownership is an approved action, then animal ownership is moral, which, of course, carries into your minor premise; "All Animal ownership is an approved action." So, is all animal ownership an approved action? Of course not. So your second argument fails for the same reason as the first: false premises.

No, you are knocking down a strawman here. The premise in that argument doesn’t commit itself to all. I don’t need to make that commitment in order to make the argument. So your objection fails.

But even if the argument did commit to all why is it false if, say, Bob holds all animal ownership is an approved action? Because you or others don’t personally approve?

Besides you’ve left supporting argument 1a on the table so even if we drop the above supporting argument of 1b I’ve supported premise 1 in the original argument.

And you didn’t answer my question. Are you a pet-free dairy-free vegan?

[Miles]

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.

But your major premise is false. Not all approved actions are moral---as we're all well aware immoral actions have been approved by the truck load.

You mean in your subjective personal opinion “Not all approved actions are moral” don’t you? Or do you mean “Not all approved actions are moral” is an objective moral fact?

Given moral subjectivism go ahead and objectively prove “Not all approved actions are moral.” You can’t do it. All you can do is express your personal disapproval. You have to appeal to an objective moral standard that holds regardless of human opinion in order to prove true “Not all approved actions are moral.” That assertion assumes there are actions which are objectively immoral regardless of the fact that there are people who approve of the action.

If this is the road you want to go down then it's up to you to establish the fact that "All approved actions are moral."

In order for a syllogism to be sound, which is the object in creating it, the form has to be valid and both premises must be true

es, I’m aware of that. But we are dealing with morals truths so what are you suggesting here? Are you suggesting there are objective moral values that are true regardless of human opinion? I’m working within your world view and I’m assuming that view entails some kind of moral subjectivism since you have conceded your world view entails naturalistic evolution. So the objective of the argument is to show that your world view implies human ownership is moral. So when I assert as a premise, for example, that approved actions are moral I’m saying actions that one has approved are moral to that person because that person has approved of them. And you can’t show that premise false given your world view. Or maybe my assumption is wrong and you do hold there are objective moral values that are true regardless of human opinion?

Good grief, not your ridiculous "naturalistic evolution = X" again.

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.

Yes the form is indeed valid, but . . . .

. . . your major premise contains the unwritten assertion of "all": 1. If all animal ownership is an approved action, then animal ownership is moral, which, of course, carries into your minor premise; "All Animal ownership is an approved action." So, is all animal ownership an approved action? Of course not. So your second argument fails for the same reason as the first: false premises.

No, you are knocking down a strawman here. The premise in that argument doesn’t commit itself to all. I don’t need to make that commitment in order to make the argument. So your objection fails.

It certainly does commit itself to "all." If it was "some" the premise would have to say so, just as in a Disamis syllogism:

Some M are P
All M are S
_______________
Some S are P

And why do you think all of the 24 valid syllogisms begin each of their three statements with "All," or "No," or "Some"?

Here, you seem to be really struggling with formal logic so let me suggest

You're welcome.


.

[Miles]

WHY IS THERE NO MENTION OF COMPENSATING THE SLAVE IN EXODUS 21 VERSE 32?

ANSWER Because said verse is dealing with a fatality and dead men can't go shopping.

EXODUS 21:28-32 NWT


28 “If a bull gores a man or a woman and that one dies, the bull must be stoned to death and its meat is not to be eaten; but the owner of the bull is free from punishment. 29 But if a bull was in the habit of goring and its owner had been warned but he would not keep it under guard and it killed a man or a woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner is also to be put to death. 30 If a ransom* is imposed on him, he must give as the redemption price for his life* all that may be imposed on him. 31 Whether it gored a son or a daughter, it is to be done to the bull’s owner according to this judicial decision. 32 If the bull gored a slave man or a slave girl, he will give the price of 30 shekels* to that one’s master, and the bull will be stoned to death. .

Well, there seems to be some dispute over just what verse 32 actually says. From the king James Version

Exodus 21:28-32

28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.

29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.

32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

NIRV
32 Suppose the bull wounds a male or female slave. Then the owner must pay the slave’s master about 12 ounces of silver. You must kill the bull with stones.

DRA
32 If he assault a bondman or a bond woman, he shall give thirty sicles of silver to their master, and the ox shall be stoned.

And, as I've pointed out before, "kill" in verse 32 occurs in only 15% of the 60 bibles I checked. All the others use the words "gore" (61%), which means to be pierced and not necessarily killed; "assault"; "assail"; "push"; or "wound."




.

[JehovahsWitness]

And, as I've pointed out before, "kill" in verse 32 occurs in only 15% of the 60 bibles I checked. All the others use the words "gore" (61%), which means to be pierced; "assault"; "assail"; "push"; or "wound."

That verse 32 refers to "gore" Hebrew nagach is not under dispute*; whether the victims were gored/ushed/wounded fatally or merely maimed is dependent on context. I have presented rationale in favor of the latter.
viewtopic.php?p=1020981#p1020981


JW




* You claim (but have not proven) that some translations translate nagach as "killed" but since no references for this have been provided I have no reason to accept this as true.