Originally posted by twhitehead
It just doesn't make sense to me. What am I missing?

The Holy Spirit.
(Or maybe a few glasses of Scotch}

Originally posted by DeepThought

Given your apparent level of emotional commitment to your faith you're hardly likely to agree to the arguments given.

Let's just take this statement of yours, and related to THIS topic of "Some backround for slavery".

Let me assume that what I am being asked to agree with is that God's law was unrighteous and unjust. Let me assume that I am being urged to adopt a position that the laws governing slavery in Israel revealed an abject morally inferior nature of the God Who gave them. Let me assume that I am being asked to condemn as immoral some law of God. Subsequently, I am being asked to recognize that God is immoral and unrighteous in Himself to have delivered the law.

What is my response? It is simple.

All things considered and in light of the whole plenary revelation of the entire Bible, I don't think condemning God for being inferior to man in ethics is the right way for me to go.

But I am more inclined to believe that the Creator could not bestow upon His creation a higher level of morality which He Himself did not possess.

The answer to that from some people would be -

"Why not just take a position that God doesn't exist in the first place?"

No. That's not a good answer to me. I think I have met God and know God is real through Jesus Christ. I would be lying indeed if I said I did not meet God in Jesus Christ.

So being bothered by some of the slave laws in the OT is not strong enough ground for me to assume atheism.

Then some would say "Why not recognize that your God is bad?"

This is not a good answer because the Person MOST qualified to pass judgment upon God was, I think, Jesus. And He did not condemn God as unrighteous for any OT law.

Only one last matter. You spoke of my "emotional" commitment.
I have found that the experience of God involves my entire being - intellect, will, emotion, and conscience. His word was to love the Lord with all our heart and all our mind and all out will etc.

So there is no reason why, WITH an intellectual commitment to God there should not also be an emotional commitment of love to God. His love for me touches EVERY part of my human make up. So an accompanying "emotional commitment" to a commitment of the spirit, the conscience, the intellect, the deciding will power, is appropriate and balanced,


The whole matter of slave laws in the OT simply doesn't turn me back from trusting God. He is still to me " a Being for Whom a greater cannot be conceived," and worthy of worship and love and service.

Originally posted by sonship

Given your apparent level of emotional commitment to your faith you're hardly likely to agree to the arguments given.

Let's just take this statement of yours, and related to THIS topic of [b]"Some backround for slavery".

Let me assume that what I am being asked to agree with is that God's law was unrighteous and unjust. Let me ...[text shortened]... " a Being for Whom a greater cannot be conceived," and worthy of worship and love and service.[/b]

Let me assume that what I am being asked to agree with is that God's law was unrighteous and unjust. Let me assume that I am being urged to adopt a position that the laws governing slavery in Israel revealed an abject morally inferior nature of the God Who gave them. Let me assume that I am being asked to condemn as immoral some law of God. Subsequently, I am being asked to recognize that God is immoral and unrighteous in Himself to have delivered the law.

That was how I read the argument, I think you gave is a reasonable statement of it. My summary of what I think they were getting at goes as follows:

1) If God exists then the laws related in the bible are those of God.
2) Those laws are immoral.
3) Therefore God is evil.
4) By definition God is good.
5) So there is a contradiction and therefore God does not exist.

I don't think the argument works particularly either. It's possible to knock the first sentence on the grounds that it insists that all the laws in the Bible are God given. So the argument depends on what the status of the laws are. Further they are not necessarily intended to be for all time. They may have been the most practical option at the time, as a more ethical legal system could find itself being ignored. So it ignores the possibility of slow improvement over time.

If one is going to base one's argument around utilitarianism, as googlefudge seemed to me to be, it becomes easy to justify slavery in societies without food security on the basis that the outcome of being enslaved is better than the outcome of starving to death, provided there are some rules about the treatment of slaves. So on average his utility function can actually be maximised by slavery, provided the cost to the slave is smaller than the benefit to the master. This means that the step from (2) the laws were immoral to (3) God is evil is faulty, at least with the arguments given.

The third objection is that if those are the laws of God and God is the source of all morality then it is our moral judgements that are at fault and not his. So the argument fails to my mind. The defining of what is good and what is evil begs the question.

All things considered and in light of the whole plenary revelation of the entire Bible, I don't think condemning God for being inferior to man in ethics is the right way for me to go.

This is a coherentist argument, basically you are saying that there is no point picking out individual bits and criticising, one has to judge it as a whole. There's a certain amount of quality to that point. With the added rhetorical advantage of forcing your debating opponent to read the entire bible before they can present an argument. Or are you saying something else?

This is not a good answer because the Person MOST qualified to pass judgment upon God was, I think, Jesus. And He did not condemn God as unrighteous for any OT law.

Well, unless you are a Unitarian, it would be self-criticism. I don't think this argument adds anything. As an aside what Jesus pointed out, when challenged over healing someone on the Sabbeth, was that the laws were made for our well being and not for their own sake, which seems to imply they are contingent on circumstances. Which is evidence for the first of my objections.

Only one last matter. You spoke of my "emotional" commitment.
I have found that the experience of God involves my entire being - intellect, will, emotion, and conscience.

Sure, what I was saying was not intended to exclude that, but it is the emotional part that will most strongly resist counter-arguments. If it were solely an intellectual commitment then you would have no reason to not accept his axioms. The premises these things are based on are selected emotionally, where there is no empirical evidence to rely on, so it's the emotional part of your commitment that is key to preventing you accepting his arguments.

Originally posted by DeepThought
My summary of what I think they were getting at goes as follows:

1) If God exists then the laws related in the bible are those of God.
2) Those laws are immoral.
3) Therefore God is evil.
4) By definition God is good.
5) So there is a contradiction and therefore God does not exist.

I have not followed the entire thread, so I am not sure whose arguments you are summarizing. But the thread OP, and many of the theists in this thread are arguing that the OT does not show approval of slavery, in fact the OP goes further and states that the OT does not condone slavery.
The fact that they wish to show this, suggests they themselves see a problem if the OT does condone slavery. So there is really no need to argue over whether or not it is a problem. The only question is: does the OT condone slavery?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have not followed the entire thread, so I am not sure whose arguments you are summarizing. But the thread OP, and many of the theists in this thread are arguing that the OT does not show approval of slavery, in fact the OP goes further and states that the OT does not condone slavery.
The fact that they wish to show this, suggests they themselves see a ...[text shortened]... to argue over whether or not it is a problem. The only question is: does the OT condone slavery?

This seemed to be the line googlefudge and vivify were taking a few pages back. With regard to the rest of your point - does the OT condone slavery? Without reading the whole thing, which I'm not going to do, I can't reliably say. However, the presence of laws concerning slavery do not entail that the OT condones it. It's possible for a legislator to desire to ban a practise outright, but for practical reasons limit him or herself to merely regulating it.

For example, suppose it is 1990 and Alice, a UK citizen, is pro-life, so in her view the 1968 Abortion Act is an abomination. Clause (a) allowed abortions until 28 weeks on the grounds of emotional distress. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, amended the Abortion Act to reduce the time span where abortions can be legal under clause (a) to 24 weeks. Alice would not be inconsistent in supporting the 1990 amendment despite it not banning abortion completely. Her support for the Act would be a recognition that it was all she could get at the time and would not imply any support for abortion. So by the same argument laws concerning slavery in the OT do not, of themselves, imply support for slavery. I am pro-choice, to avoid any confusion on that issue.

Originally posted by DeepThought
With regard to the rest of your point - does the OT condone slavery? Without reading the whole thing, which I'm not going to do, I can't reliably say.

I cannot reliably say either. But it is patently obvious that the theists think it does, which is good enough for me.

However, the presence of laws concerning slavery do not entail that the OT condones it. It's possible for a legislator to desire to ban a practise outright, but for practical reasons limit him or herself to merely regulating it.
That argument just doesn't stand up when you are dealing with the OT. We are not talking about a citizen supporting or not supporting a law, we are talking about what is essentially a dictatorial government creating the law. And this is a God that had no qualms about punishing his people quite severely for disobeying other laws, I see no reason why he would be afraid of a revolt if he banned slavery. Or do you see other practical reasons for allowing slavery?
Can you think of any practical reasons for allowing slavery that would keep the overall result a moral one?

Originally posted by DeepThought

Sure, what I was saying was not intended to exclude that, but it is the emotional part that will most strongly resist counter-arguments. If it were solely an intellectual commitment then you would have no reason to not accept his axioms. The premises these things are based on are selected emotionally, where there is no empirical evidence to rely on, so it's the emotional part of your commitment that is key to preventing you accepting his arguments.

How is it that you are so sure that the "emotional commitment" is not being made by those with an intense feeling to rationalize that God has no authority or even existence ?

I display emotional feelings sometimes. But quite a few posts from the regular atheists on this Forum have displayed an intense emotional revulsion at the idea there could be God.

Don't you think this strongly worded post from googlefudge displayed some hefty "emotional commitment" to assuring that God comes out looking evil ?

Googlefudge: (my bolding)

Excuse me.

I have a f*****g great big problem with "indentured servitude" thank you very much.

Because it's a fancy way of saying slavery.

A little powerful "emotional commitment" there, to accuse God of wrong ?

I can only recall one post in this thread where I emoted so-what saying God was worthy of my love and service and worship. And that was in response to YOUR comment about my "emotional commitment".

Anyway, strong emotions or no, I trust God as being righteous in His instructions to Israel.

The nation had recently witnessed His righteous deliverance from 430 years of slavery in Egypt. Baby boys were killed. Work was made harsh. Servants were killed by Egyptian masters. Pharaoh proposed that families be broken up - the adults going to feast in the wilderness while leaving the children in Egypt. He knew full well that the adults would not be at peace separated from their children.

The God of Exodus saw through all this and more in the evils of slavery. He justly caused the Egyptians to recompense Hebrews. The liberated Hebrews "plundered" the Egyptians obtaining reparation for four centuries of slave labor.

Now I am being asked to believe that somehow in making laws concerning slavery for Israel, God got sudden amnesia about the exploitation that can occur between master and slave.

No DeepThought, I'm sorry. The same God who righteously liberated the Hebrews in the Exodus is the God commanding just treatment in the liberated nation's own customs.

In fact God reminded them not to oppress because they KNEW what it was to BE oppressed -

"And you shall not oppress a sojourner, for you know the feelings of a sojouner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. " (Exodus 23:9;22:21)

God remembered what oppression was and commanded Israel to remember. The arguments about unjust slave laws are arguments that He forgot or held a different attitude about it afterwards.

When I spoke of the whole revelation of the Bible, I think you have to at least consider the minor prophets. The frequent rebukes to Israel concerning social injustice reveal His nature and heart. Why should I not consider as a whole the denunciations of breaking the law of Jubilee and other social ills against God's warnings.

IE. Amos 5:21-24

"I hate, I despise, your feasts, And I will not delight in your solemn assemblies. For if you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your meal offerings, I will not accept them, Nor will I regard the peace offerings of your fatted animals.

Take the noise of your songs away from Me, For I will not hear the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, And righteousness, like an ever-flowing river."

This the same God. This another of His prophets speaking His words.
God did not JUST begin to be more concerned for justice and righteousness in the Israelite society. The very same God was concerned for these in the instituting of the laws.

But we don't even have to go this far. In the five books of Moses we see God's concern for justness to the servant, the widow, the orphan, the slave, the sojourner, and the foreigner. And we haven't even included Jesus' words in the New Testament yet.

From before the Exodus and afterwards in the giving of the law, God wanted JUSTICE to roll down as waters and RIGHTEOUSNESS to flow as a great river through their society.

I'm placing my bet with God being completely just and fully righteous in the enactment of those laws for Israel. If this is too "emotional" for someone, I am willing to bear that criticism.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This seemed to be the line googlefudge and vivify were taking a few pages back. With regard to the rest of your point - does the OT condone slavery? Without reading the whole thing, which I'm not going to do, I can't reliably say. However, the presence of laws concerning slavery do not entail that the OT condones it. It's possible for a legislator to ...[text shortened]... f themselves, imply support for slavery. I am pro-choice, to avoid any confusion on that issue.

At least on my part you have my argument wrong... that's not at all what I was saying.

My summary of what I think they were getting at goes as follows:

1) If God exists then the laws related in the bible are those of God.
2) Those laws are immoral.
3) Therefore God is evil.
4) By definition God is good.
5) So there is a contradiction and therefore God does not exist.

1) No, I would argue that if a god exists then the bible is still unbelievably unlikely
to have been written or inspired by that god, it's to badly written, inaccurate, and immoral.

2) Yes.

3) No, it would be valid if I was arguing 1, but I am not arguing 1.

4) Huh? By who's definition?

5) This argument has been made in inductive form before here, and I think it's a strong
argument against the existence of a good and moral god... But as I don't think many, if
any, god depiction has ever been particularly moral and certainly never perfectly so...
I don't generally make this argument.


My argument is with people holding the bible up as a source and guide to morality.
And claiming that the fictional god in it is the source of [and in some cases the only possible
source of] morality.

Originally posted by DeepThought
[quote]Let me assume that what I am being asked to agree with is that God's law was unrighteous and unjust. Let me assume that I am being urged to adopt a position that the laws governing slavery in Israel revealed an abject morally inferior nature of the God Who gave them. Let me assume that I am being asked to condemn as immoral some law of God. Su ...[text shortened]... t's the emotional part of your commitment that is key to preventing you accepting his arguments.

If one is going to base one's argument around utilitarianism, as googlefudge seemed to me to be, it becomes easy to justify slavery in societies without food security on the basis that the outcome of being enslaved is better than the outcome of starving to death, provided there are some rules about the treatment of slaves. So on average his utility function can actually be maximised by slavery, provided the cost to the slave is smaller than the benefit to the master.

Either I am not very clear, or you are too keep to jump to conclusions, or both.

I am not a utilitarian.. I haven't claimed to be utilitarian, and haven't given sufficient
information to conclude I am utilitarian.

That said... I think you would have to be barking mad or utterly incompetent to conclude
slavery to be a valid optimisation in ANY [plausibly realistic] society.

Even more so when the supposed optimisation is allegedly being done by a god.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I cannot reliably say either. But it is patently obvious that the theists think it does, which is good enough for me.

[b]However, the presence of laws concerning slavery do not entail that the OT condones it. It's possible for a legislator to desire to ban a practise outright, but for practical reasons limit him or herself to merely regulating it. ...[text shortened]... nk of any practical reasons for allowing slavery that would keep the overall result a moral one?[/b]

Well, on the basis that he's giving people free will it's possible for people to choose not to obey the laws. So it makes sense to make the laws close to what is likely to be observed. Bear in mind that the people at the time had a completely different world view to us. The difference in outlook between me and one of the theists is small compared with the difference between us and them. These are pre-enlightenment cultures. You can apply modern standards if you want, it's just you'll end up condemning every person whose lived from the end of the mesolithic era until the enlightenment.

The more simple approach is to ask "Why set up the garden of Eden, stick a tree in the middle and say don't eat that.". It does seem to contradict the "Lead us not into temptation.", plea in the Lord''s prayer.

Originally posted by googlefudge
At least on my part you have my argument wrong... that's not at all what I was saying.

[quote]My summary of what I think they were getting at goes as follows:

1) If God exists then the laws related in the bible are those of God.
2) Those laws are immoral.
3) Therefore God is evil.
4) By definition God is good.
5) So there is a contradiction and ...[text shortened]... fictional god in it is the source of [and in some cases the only possible
source of] morality.

Why is it immoral?

Originally posted by googlefudge
[quote]If one is going to base one's argument around utilitarianism, as googlefudge seemed to me to be, it becomes easy to justify slavery in societies without food security on the basis that the outcome of being enslaved is better than the outcome of starving to death, provided there are some rules about the treatment of slaves. So on average his utilit ...[text shortened]... istic] society.

Even more so when the supposed optimisation is allegedly being done by a god.

You said "maximise human well being" (final post on page 6) this sounds like utilitarianism to me. Maximising a utility function, in this case human well being, is the defining feature of utilitarianism.

The problem lies with trying to maximise well being. You can do that by making one person's life better at the cost of making another's worse. As long as the improvement in the masters well being outweighs the cost to the slave. That can happen quite easily in a society without food security as enslavement is objectively better than starvation, provided that there are some regulations. Unless you have some side constraints to prevent it then its fairly easy to provide logical arguments for all sorts of atrocities.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, on the basis that he's giving people free will it's possible for people to choose not to obey the laws. So it makes sense to make the laws close to what is likely to be observed. Bear in mind that the people at the time had a completely different world view to us. The difference in outlook between me and one of the theists is small compared with ...[text shortened]... t.". It does seem to contradict the "Lead us not into temptation.", plea in the Lord''s prayer.

This argument is stupid.

You are arguing that god cannot change peoples world view, or make laws
that reflect good moral values, because the people were too primitive???

You don't think god could teach these people???

What kind of a pathetic god are you imagining?

Originally posted by RBHILL
Why is it immoral?

Why's what immoral, slavery?

There's a number of possible arguments, one is that freedom is a natural right. Slavery violates that right and is therefore immoral.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You said "maximise human well being" (final post on page 6) this sounds like utilitarianism to me. Maximising a utility function, in this case human well being, is the defining feature of utilitarianism.

The problem lies with trying to maximise well being. You can do that by making one person's life better at the cost of making another's wors ...[text shortened]... nts to prevent it then its fairly easy to provide logical arguments for all sorts of atrocities.

Wow...

The fact that a society with slavery might be better than a predefined worse
society doesn't mean that that society is MAXIMALLY optimised for wellbeing
given the available technology and resources. And I cannot believe I had to
say that.

And again, we are in this argument, talking about the commandments of a GOD.

Do I have to hit you over the head with that till it sinks in?

Nothing worth calling a god, should have any trouble making society better and
more moral than the tribe in the OT [or the NT for that matter].

You are currently digging yourself into a massive hole arguing otherwise.

Stop doing that.

The bible is indefensible, stop trying to defend it.