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]

7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Are you suggesting there is something wrong or immoral in the above statement, if so what? If not, why is it in your "list"?

Clarification appreciated,

In case it means anything to you, "maidservant" as used in the verse is a synonym for "slave." That said, I regard selling others into slavery to be immoral.

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


.

[JehovahsWitness]

7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Are you suggesting there is something wrong or immoral in the above statement, if so what? If not, why is it in your "list"?

Clarification appreciated,

In case it means anything to you, "maidservant" as used in the verse is a synonym for "slave." That said, I regard selling others into slavery to be immoral.
...
.

So, correct me if I am mistaken, your only reason for citing the extract is that is mentions selling ones daughter into slavery is of itself and that you deem of itself to be immoral. Nothing more.




JW

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

SLAVERY, CHILD ABUSE and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

[Miles]

.


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

That’s not much of a moral argument but your feelings are noted.

Which is why I didn't say it was an argument.

One wonders why you said it then when under naturalistic evolution a valid, if not sound, argument can be made that it is moral. Do you not hold to naturalistic evolution?

Question 1: is owning other human beings as property moral?

It’s just as easy to make the argument it is moral given the assumption of naturalistic evolution.

• 1. Animal ownership is moral.
  2. Humans are animals.
  3. Therefore, human ownership is moral.

Or, as a Christian, to cut to the chase:
...........1. Human ownership is moral

But how did you get to that conclusion? Go ahead and give me the argument.

Sure. First of all, the Bible says god is a good guy

Exodus 33:19
19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy

Nahum 1:7
The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; he knows those who take refuge in him.

Secondly, Christians say god is the source of morality

"God is a legislator of morality; he decides what's right or wrong in the same way in which the state decides what's legal and what's illegal."
source

"[God] truly is the source for all moral values and duties."
source

"The Bible, which contains God’s revealed moral will in His law and commandments, is His revelation to His people."
source

So the question, ‘Did God create morality?’ becomes one which can only be answered affirmatively from within a faith position. It is then no longer a theoretical question for someone, but an authentically concrete issue, which will impact on how they view the world and fulfil their lives within it.
soutce

With this in mind, god, having approved of selling one's daughter into slavery whereupon the daughter would become the property of someone else, human ownership, he must feel it's morally correct. i.e. "1. Human ownership is moral."


.

[Miles]

7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Are you suggesting there is something wrong or immoral in the above statement, if so what? If not, why is it in your "list"?

Clarification appreciated,

In case it means anything to you, "maidservant" as used in the verse is a synonym for "slave." That said, I regard selling others into slavery to be immoral.
...
.

So, correct me if I am mistaken, your only reason for citing the extract is that is mentions selling ones daughter into slavery is of itself and that you deem of itself to be immoral. Nothing more.

Please rephrase. This is a bit garbled.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

Please rephrase. This is a bit garbled.


.

Is your only objection to the passage that it endorses slavery which you believe is essentially immoral?




JW



RELATED POSTS

Is it wrong for men to treat women as "property"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 57#p977057

[otseng]

Just because Donald Trump is dumb beyond belief

Moderator Comment

Please avoid attacking others, including anyone off the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[brunumb]

It’s just as easy to make the argument it is moral given the assumption of naturalistic evolution.

1. Animal ownership is moral.
2. Humans are animals.
3. Therefore, human ownership is moral.

Please show where you established that animal ownership is moral.

[theophile]

All of these horrible things - slavery, human sacrifice, etc. - must be read in the context of a fallen world, as symptoms of a world that has departed from the path that God intended, and as having no part in either the original design or end of creation.

Specifically, what was God's original plan and where do we find the details outlined? It also seems to me that God is something of a numpty if his plans can be so easily thwarted by a barely intelligent ape.

Where are the details laid out? Those would be peppered across the various books of the bible... But again, Genesis 1 is probably the best source. Call God a numpty if you will, but it is made pretty clear that God's plan involved handing the work of creation over to us, and putting us in charge. So apparently God saw more in the barely intelligent ape than you do...

Clearest expression of God's plan would be something like:

So God created mankind in his own image ... and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.

This has two parts to it that are relevant to the conversation at hand.

1) That humankind was meant to image God, and not just in nature or appearance but in role and action. Humankind was to take up the mantle and continue the work that God had started, in the same manner that God had shown us to that point (a manner evinced by God working with the elements of creation - the land, the sea, the air, versus forcing them to God's will - i.e., enslavement).

2) That the earth is to be filled with life and subdued as a result of our efforts.

This gets echoed in Genesis 2:15 where Adam is set the task of "working and taking care of the garden," and where we are given the image of a garden in the middle of a wilderness as a metaphor for a world filled with life / subdued. i.e., It is not a world subdued by the whip, but by the tending hands of a gardener who ensures the right conditions and place for each inhabitant to live and thrive.

Yes, this plan goes off the rails. And yes, we can question God's wisdom in that. But that was the plan and goal: a world where life of every kind can be itself, and flourish. And where we are the ones that help make it so, and guide it all to that end.

theophile wrote:
Does a law that condones slavery have a place in God's ultimate plan? Absolutely not. But in a fallen world where slavery has become the norm, we can perhaps see the wisdom in a law that, while condoning slavery, is more importantly about trying to make life better for slaves, e.g., by granting them rights, or term limits, or days of rest and celebration.

Somehow God managed to lay down the laws about not killing, stealing, coveting, wearing mixed fibres and so on, but neglected to say don't own other people. Perhaps if he had been a bit more specific and forceful, slavery would not have become the norm. Yahweh sure comes across as a rather ineffectual god, particularly when pesky humans seem to thwart his plans at every turn.

If I put you in charge of my household, can I then tell you how to run it? Or how to further develop it so that it doesn't languish or fall into disrepair?

I could, and as we see God does (by advising, giving laws, intervening here and there..). But ultimately any power I had over the house would have passed to you, along with the responsibility for the decisions made.

The only alternative, should I not like the job you are doing, would be to revoke your authority and call my plan bust. I could do that as well, and as we see God struggles with that very point throughout scripture, i.e., whether to call it quits on humankind (see the story of the flood for example). But clearly God never gets to that point (again, God maintains faith in the "barely intelligent ape").

So, we can debate the effectiveness of the measures taken...
We can also debate whether God should have done away with us as ruler...
We can lastly debate whether God was wise to put us in charge in the first place...
But all the slavery, burnt offerings, and other horrible events throughout our history, that is on us. No debate to be had there that I can see.

God's "immorality," if it is to be found, is to be found in the first three.

[Difflugia]

The only alternative, should I not like the job you are doing, would be to revoke your authority and call my plan bust. I could do that as well, and as we see God struggles with that very point throughout scripture, i.e., whether to call it quits on humankind (see the story of the flood for example). But clearly God never gets to that point (again, God maintains faith in the "barely intelligent ape").

Just so we're clear here, "revoke your authority" and "drown you" aren't synonymous.

But all the slavery, burnt offerings, and other horrible events throughout our history, that is on us.

We've already seen in this thread that the Bible disagrees with you.

Leviticus 27:29:

No one devoted, that shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.

27:34:

These are the commandments, which Yahweh commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.

[Goose]

.


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

That’s not much of a moral argument but your feelings are noted.

Which is why I didn't say it was an argument.

One wonders why you said it then when under naturalistic evolution a valid, if not sound, argument can be made that it is moral. Do you not hold to naturalistic evolution?

Question 1: is owning other human beings as property moral?

It’s just as easy to make the argument it is moral given the assumption of naturalistic evolution.

• 1. Animal ownership is moral.
  2. Humans are animals.
  3. Therefore, human ownership is moral.

Or, as a Christian, to cut to the chase:
...........1. Human ownership is moral

But how did you get to that conclusion? Go ahead and give me the argument.

Sure. First of all, the Bible says god is a good guy

Exodus 33:19
19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy

Nahum 1:7
The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; he knows those who take refuge in him.

Secondly, Christians say god is the source of morality

"God is a legislator of morality; he decides what's right or wrong in the same way in which the state decides what's legal and what's illegal."
source

"[God] truly is the source for all moral values and duties."
source

"The Bible, which contains God’s revealed moral will in His law and commandments, is His revelation to His people."
source

So the question, ‘Did God create morality?’ becomes one which can only be answered affirmatively from within a faith position. It is then no longer a theoretical question for someone, but an authentically concrete issue, which will impact on how they view the world and fulfil their lives within it.
soutce

With this in mind, god, having approved of selling one's daughter into slavery whereupon the daughter would become the property of someone else, human ownership, he must feel it's morally correct. i.e. "1. Human ownership is moral."

The argument is quite convoluted so allow me to summarize for my own clarification. Please correct me if I have mischaracterized your argument or if there are any missing premises but as far as I can tell your argument goes something like this?

1. the Bible says god is a good guy
2. Christians say god is the source of morality
3. god...approved of selling one's daughter into slavery
4. the daughter would become the property of someone else
5. [God] must feel it's morally correct
6. Therefore, human ownership is moral.

Does that accurately represent your argument? Because if it does, it’s not a valid argument.

By the way, you did not answer my question. Do you not hold to a kind of naturalistic evolution?