Does god have morals?

[nobspeople]

Morality is highly subjective to time and geography as well as the individual:
some say stealing is immoral while others make exceptions for what's stolen and the reason;
some say being gay is immoral while others say it's only the act while others say neither is immoral and still others say it's immoral (or at least unacceptable when it's men with men, but not women with women);
at one point, some said it immoral to marry a different race when today, it's mostly seen as a non-issue.
The list continues, but you get the point.

This makes me wonder if god is moral?
The quick answer is either yes (normally said by the faithful because that's what they're supposed to say) or no (mostly by 'the others'). But isn't that judging god's actions by human standards?
What if god has its own moral code, different from humanity's? After all, god didn't think it immoral to wipe out a whole city or drown 99.99% of the population (including babies and women in the middle of giving birth - what did those babies do to you, o god?!?!) as well as almost all living land animals. And god didn't see it immoral to kill various armies in the bible.

For discussion:
Is god, by human standards, moral or no?
Or does god have its own moral code which we can't access?

[JehovahsWitness]

Then it's moral to own other human beings (slaves) and pass that ownership down to one's children (Leviticus 25: 44-46).

- Yes, I believe so. [EDIT : Under the conditions stipulated in the referenced scripture

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

And an owner of a salve may beat his slave, male or female, without consequences as long as the slave recovers after a day or two (Exodus 21:20-21).

-- No. IMHO, there are always consequences for actions, especially sinful ones.
Does the bible say slave owners were allowed to beat their slaves to death?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p764027

Moreover, one can even sell his own daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7)---

Under the Mosaic law, yes.
Is it immoral to sell your children?
viewtopic.php?p=1060495#p1060495

"We can always count on you to know what the loving thing to do is"

No, I believe would be God's * job.

* NOTE: Presuming for the saké of argument He exists:

I usually use conditionals ( ... or suppositions, hypothesis etc ) when discussing God in this subforum in order to respect forum guidelines while also avoiding making any absolute claims in this regard.This hopefully avoids being sidetracked by challenges to prove God's existence when that is not the point of discussion.

Then, of course, there's god's moral order to kill practicing male homosexuals. (Leviticus 20:13)

13 “If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death. They are responsible for their own death."

It was under the Mosaic law.

Should homosexual acts still be punishable offenses?
viewtopic.php?p=993341#p993341



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

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

THE MOSAIC LAW , SLAVERY and HOMOSEXUALITY

[JehovahsWitness]

Moreover, one can even sell his own daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7)---

Under the Mosaic law, yes one could.

IS IT IMMORAL TO SELL YOUR CHILDREN INTO SLAVERY?

That would depend. The Hebrew system of slavery was a perfectly legitimate and morally sound way to protect one's children against absolutely poverty and ensure they had the best chance possible of regaining financial security.

Under the Mosaic law, Israelites could not sell their fellow Hebrews to a foreigner and their servitude lasted a maximum of 7 years. After which the slave could return to their own properly with enough financial funds to start a new life. Further, if a member of the family (or the slave himself) obtained the means, their freedom could be bought back at any time. The slave retained all their basic rights under the law.

If a family head could not support his family, rather than letting them starve or prostituting his daughter so she could keep alive, selling her into servitude was a way for her to have honest work to cover her basic needs until she could either marry and be once more considered a free woman or be bought home under better circumstances.

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

WOMEN, SLAVERY and ... THE MOSAIC LAW

[Diogenes]

Then it's moral to own other human beings (slaves) and pass that ownership down to one's children (Leviticus 25: 44-46).

- Yes, I believe so.

In this post and your next, you qualify some of your answers by referencing MOSAIC law. I assume you'd agree that Jehovah is the author of Mosaic law. In any event, you make no qualification for your assertion that slavery, and the inheritance of slaves are moral acts.
In addressing all the acts listed in your last two posts as "moral," and assuming you make this judgment based on the Bible, I suggest you have made the best case possible that God as portrayed in the Bible is immoral, that he provides an inherently fallible guide to moral conduct.
You are also suggesting that simply because your god tells you so, you would follow his commands no matter how immoral or illegal the rest of society considers them. You have made an excellent argument for the folly of following your chosen religion and for having utter contempt for the 'god' you call 'Jehovah.'

[JehovahsWitness]

... you make no qualification for your assertion that slavery, and the inheritance of slaves are moral acts.

The scripture is in the question, it is given the context implied I am refering to the slavery mentioned in the assertion. To clear up and confusion : Yes, under the conditions stipulated in the referenced scripture I believe it to be so. - see edit

You are also suggesting that simply because your god tells you so, you would follow his commands no matter how immoral or illegal the rest of society considers them.

Where did I suggest that? [direct quotation please]

[Purple Knight]

Religion might have organized and enforced moral codes alongside rulership and a police -force, but it can no longer claim any moral authority. Morals are a matter of human thought and reason, not a divine command, even if the command was good and made sense, which it doesn't.

Then what do you do when people disagree about morality? The image I posted is of a fellow's post who thinks it's good to kill people who disagree with him politically. For all I know he's right.

I think you're short-changing religion here. It deserves a lot of credit for Western civilisation, even if Western civilisation and its values turn out to be evil. People who thought laws were wrong cited God's moral authority and made their own laws. Without that leg to stand on, I'm not sure what the basis for objecting to laws is. You could cite your own moral authority, as the person I'm referencing does, but if I'm supposed to just agree with that, then I have to let people poison political opponents. If I have to let people poison others for voting wrong, I don't see how I could object to tyranny.

Under the Mosaic law, Israelites could not sell their fellow Hebrews to a foreigner and their servitude lasted a maximum of 7 years. After which the slave could return to their own properly with enough financial funds to start a new life. Further, if a member of the family (or the slave himself) obtained the means, their freedom could be bought back at any time. The slave retained all their basic rights under the law.

If a family head could not support his family, rather than letting them starve or prostituting his daughter so she could keep alive, selling her into servitude was a way for her to have honest work to cover her basic needs until she could either marry and be once more considered a free woman or be bought home under better circumstances.

I think sometimes people who attempt to sit in judgment of the past don't really internalise just how much the past sucked. I don't think they lack any specific information, just that there's possibly a disconnect between our easy lives and how easy it is to adopt moral stances when we have the resources to easily keep up with them.

It would be a little bit like being angry at a protohumanoid animal for being naked. They're evolving as fast as they can. They're working on it. Chill.

[Diogenes]

... you make no qualification for your assertion that slavery, and the inheritance of slaves are moral acts.

The scripture is in the question, it is given the context implied I am refering to the slavery mentioned in the assertion. To clear up and confusion : Yes, under the conditions stipulated in the referenced scripture I believe it to be so. - see edit

You are also suggesting that simply because your god tells you so, you would follow his commands no matter how immoral or illegal the rest of society considers them.

Where did I suggest that? [direct quotation please]

You wrote that you agreed slavery moral because god said it is. You wrote that god's law is absolute, even if men think something is immoral [consider incest, rape, murder, slavery, husbands' right to abuse their wives].

You fail to address the central example, that God told Abraham to murder Isaac to show Abraham's obedience to God even to the extent of violating God's law. Your response was, "God's law is absolute [apparently even when he violates his own laws]. You failed to address my claim that 'God' prefers obedience to HIM, to obedience to moral laws.

[Miles]

Then it's moral to own other human beings (slaves) and pass that ownership down to one's children (Leviticus 25: 44-46).

- Yes, I believe so. [EDIT : Under the conditions stipulated in the referenced scripture

Yikes!

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

Yup. Do you HONESTLY feel it's alright for any man to treat any woman as their property; SLAVES? How about treating men as their property, SLAVES? God seems to be just fine with that, now doesn't he.

And an owner of a salve may beat his slave, male or female, without consequences as long as the slave recovers after a day or two (Exodus 21:20-21).

-- No. IMHO, there are always consequences for actions, especially sinful ones.
Does the bible say slave owners were allowed to beat their slaves to death?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p764027

Yup, if the slave lives for one or two days after the beating there won't be any consequences. Says so right there in your NWT bible

Exodus 21:20-21 (NWT)
"20 If a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one dies by his hand, that one must be avenged.+ 21 However, if he survives for one or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is someone bought with his owner’s money."

Moreover, one can even sell his own daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7)---

Under the Mosaic law, yes.
Is it immoral to sell your children?
viewtopic.php?p=1060495#p1060495

"Mosaic law" just like the Ten Commandments. It's doesn't matter who enunciated the laws, they're all laws from god. Your god's law. But it is interesting, sad, really, that you see nothing wrong with parents selling their children. Thankfully, today we have laws against such barbarism.

Then, of course, there's god's moral order to kill practicing male homosexuals. (Leviticus 20:13)

13 “If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death. They are responsible for their own death."

It was under the Mosaic law.

So what? You favor killing such homosexuals? Of course you do. . . . . . what a silly question.

To repeat myself: "It's doesn't matter who enunciated the laws, Moses or his cousin Bob, they're all laws from god. Your god. And again, thankfully, today we have laws against such barbarism. Secular law that has gone a long way in replacing the primitive religious morals of bygone eras. Long live secular law.




.

[JehovahsWitness]

Do you HONESTLY feel it's alright for any man to treat any woman as their property; SLAVES?

Well, that would depend on what is meant and what that entailed. Mistreatment and abuse of a person is of course abhorrent to me but if what is being referenced was protective and beneficial then yes.




JW


RELATED POSTS

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

What kind of slavery was permitted under the Mosaic law?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p333895

Is it wrong to sell your children into slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=1060495#p1060495

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

WOMEN, SLAVERY and ... THE MOSAIC LAW

[JehovahsWitness]

You favor killing such homosexuals? Of course you do. . . . . .

Please be so kind as to not speak on my behalf; I don't presume to tell you what you do or not favor and expect the same courtesey from my fellow posters on this forum.

You may of course quote what I have posted on the subject and voice you own assumptions, conclusions, opinions and guesses. If you are in the mood for evidence based assumptions rather than hysterical rhetoric and fact-starved sarcasm, you can reference the Jehovahs Witness website for the official religious position.

Do Jehovahs Witnesses support the death penalty for homosexuals?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 61#p993261

If you would like to know my own personal opinion you have but to ask me a direct question in the appropriate subforum.





JW

[brunumb]

Well, that would depend on what is meant and what that entailed. Mistreatment and abuse of a person is of course abhorrent to me but if what is being referenced was protective and beneficial then yes.

One can be protective and offer beneficial treatment without requiring that someone else be owned as personal property. It is called being loving. I find the defense of any form of slavery abhorrent.