Judging God

[Guest shiloh357]

If you think the claims about Christ are not true, the onus is on you to provide reasons to reject the credibility of Bible. Why should we reject what is claimed by Scripture?

If someone or something makes a claim [especially extraordinary] is the default position to believe or to be skeptical? If I say I have an invisible dragon in my garage is the onus on ME to provide proof or YOU to show that I'm wrong?

The problem here is that I am not asking for "proof" from you, nor have I ever claimed to be able to "prove" anything. I can demonstrate why I believe and that my acceptance of the claims of Scripture have an evidentiary basis.

If one is going to claim that the Bible is an unreliable historical record, they have to support that claim. You have to account for your claims just like we do. I provided an entire thread (which you have posted on) that gives ample support to my beliefs and why I believe the Bible to be true. I have met the burden required of me, and then some. If you are going to say that the Bible cannot be trusted, it is up to you to show why.

[Guest shiloh357]

You've ignored my challenge on slavery because you know that a Christian can't base their objection to it on the Bible and that must be an awfully odd/bizarre spot to be in.

What we object to is the race-based slavery that existed in the United States. Luftwaffle has pointed that out to you. The Bible does not condemn slavery at all. It regulates it. But the slavery that existed in the Bible is not at the kind of slavery that existed in the United States. Slaves in the US were often treated inhumanely and were seen as nonhuman based on their ethnicity. In the Bible slavery was a part of the world. Every country had slaves. WE don't have a point of reference for much of the culture of the ancient near east and their worldview. They would see our opposition to slavery as odd.

We can easily ground our opposition to the kind of slavery that exists that is cruel, race-based and so on in the words of Scripture because it provides a moral framework for slaveowner conducted and the slave-master relationship.

Let's take the two challenges I provided and deal with them [so far you guys are just ignoring what's written clearly in the bible]

Exodus 21:20-21

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Let's key in on verse 21. What this is telling us is that if the intent was to kill the slave then the slave owner is to be punished. If the slave owner accidentally killed the slave [got too zealous with punishment] then no biggie, after all it's his loss since he now just lost one of his workers and has to buy another. What was it you were saying about they weren't beating their slaves? Why would they need to publish a law like this if they were not beating the slaves to begin with.

We have yet another section of the Bible that clearly refers to slaves as property.

Leviticus 25:44-46

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Interestingly here Jewish slave owners aren't supposed to treat their Jewish slaves as harsh as they do people from other nations. The Bible directly mentions 'slaves for life' and it even refers to them as property.

I have shown two things...slaves COULD be owned for life and even handed down as property. Slaves could be beaten but just not killed outright, however if they died a couple days later due to injuries the slave owner isn't punished. I'll await your response on how this is not cruel treatment of other human beings and how this is not "slavery" as we commonly refer to it.

Slaves as property. So what? Why is that wrong in the context of ancient near-eastern culture where such was perfectly acceptable? Why was it wrong for that society and that culture to determine its own moral code that made slavery an acceptable practice? Slavery was a universal practice in the world at that time. Who are you to say that slavery was wrong?

Slaves could be beaten but just not killed outright, however if they died a couple days later due to injuries the slave owner isn't punished.

That is not what the text says. In fact you have failed read a few more verses down in that same chapter. Verses 20-21 are talking about bona fide chastisement of a slave. If the slave owner beats the slave inordinately resulting in the slave's death, it was to be considered homicide, thus humanizing the slave. It goes on to say that if the slaves is still alive a couple of days it proves that the slave owner was not trying to kill the slave. It does not say, "if the slave dies couple of days later from his injuries..." that is something YOU penciled into the text. If the slave is injured in that chatisement, he goes free. That was meant to be a deterrant to beating a slave rather than regular disciplinary action.

Verses 26,27 prevent the slave from being assaulted by the slave owner. If the slave is assaulted and injured, the slave goes free. The Bible regulates genuine chastisement, but does not allow the slave owner unlimited authority to abuse or mistreat slaves. Chastisement was not to be brutual, life threatening or injurous. In fact, the text implies that if murderous intent could be shown the slaveowner could be punished (see v. 14). The same rules applied in terms of homicide whether slave or free.

[Guest shiloh357]

I've stated before that I don't believe in an absolute morality, there is nothing above or beyond us that provides this. You guys are the ones that claim an absolute morality, I do not. I think we define our own moral codes but I believe we can use reason and logic to filter through which ones promote survival, safety and happiness and which ones don't.

The problem is that it leaves it up to me to decide what makes me happy. What if what makes me happy infringes on your happiness? Whose moral code wins out?

[LuftWaffle]

I'm careful in my definition in order to avoid equivocation.

Since you believe there are no moral absolutes, on what basis do you condemn Biblical slavery? On the notion that freedom is somehow preferable? Why is freedom preferable and why should anybody care?

I've ignored your numerous posts of Old Testament scripture as I said I would since it's irrelevant in this discussion. With no basis upon which to ground morality you're only cutting down the branch you're sitting on by making moral judgements. Lets first establish by what authority you judge and then we can deal with the judgements. If you're impatient, there are many Christian resources dealing with specifically this issue, since it's an atheist favourite.

You've ignored my challenge on slavery because you know that a Christian can't base their objection to it on the Bible and that must be an awfully odd/bizarre spot to be in. You are willing to knock me claiming that I have no grounds to show why slavery is immoral yet you have no ground either. Apparently you believe that a worldview can't have any gaps where there is mystery or unknowns...we're obviously not going get very far in our discussion.

The big difference here is that you cannot even get to saying anything is wrong in any real way, based on your worldview. I have asked you valid questions related to this topic, which you weren't able to answer, and as Shiloh and Isaiah 6:8 rightly observed you seem to be trying to change the topic to something else now. Trying to make inadequacies in your worldview into virtues and victim-blaming, because we're insisting on staying on topic, isn't reasonable or rational at all.

In the end as with many others it seems you've sunk down to "mere atheism"; once the intellectual pretenses and sophistications have evaporated, what remains is a litany of rants and peaves against a God and a worldview that you can't stand, can't stand against and can't stop thinking about.

I too don't like playing games.

Blessings

[Guest shiloh357]

I've stated before that I don't believe in an absolute morality, there is nothing above or beyond us that provides this. You guys are the ones that claim an absolute morality, I do not. I think we define our own moral codes but I believe we can use reason and logic to filter through which ones promote survival, safety and happiness and which ones don't.

The problem is that it leaves it up to me to decide what makes me happy. What if what makes me happy infringes on your happiness? Whose moral code wins out?

In the society I live in, my moral code would probably "win out". In my society if you unnecessarily harm someone you are deemed as immoral and will probably be punished in the process.

But if we each make our own moral codes as you claim, then what happens when my moral code infringes on yours? When my happiness means I have to make you unhappy, by what standard is it wrong for me to make you unhappy? As long as I am fulfilling my moral code, why should care about you, or your happiness? That seems to be the problem with your argument. You can't really idientify right and wrong, so it comes down to what makes us "happy."

What if child molestation makes some guy happy? What if raping a woman makes another guy happy? If they are operating off of their own moral code, who gets to say they are wrong? Your approach leaves morality at the mercy of personal whim. What makes eating a bowl of icecream any less wrong than lying, murder, stealing, rape and child molestation if we can each make up our own moral code as you suggest?

I didn't answer your questions because my answer would be meaningless to you. God, by right of creation is the moral Lawgiver and eternal Judge of the universe. He has established laws that he has given to us. He is the source my moral code. God tells us what good and evil (sin) look like. He did not leave it up to us to decide that.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Stargaze.

Why do you ignore me. I will be shutting down this thread, as I started it if you continue to avoid the question I have asked. Where do you get your own private moral code. That is the question. You keep avoiding it, and judging my moral code by your own. Yet you do not say where you get your code and why it is better then mine and why you are able to judge mine.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Stargaze.

Why do you ignore me. I will be shutting down this thread, as I started it if you continue to avoid the question I have asked. Where do you get your own private moral code. That is the question. You keep avoiding it, and judging my moral code by your own. Yet you do not say where you get your code and why it is better then mine and why you are able to judge mine.

You can shut down the thread if you'd like. I've answered where I get my code, I've admitted that there is nothing outside of humanity that will point to one or another is define which is "better". To me, what is "better" is defined as what promotes survival, along with a measure of freedom, safety, comfort etc.

I am told the Bible is the source of absolute morality yet some of the behaviors of God and his people are deemed as immoral today. If these behaviors are "immoral" today then they must have not been "good" then, therefore this "absolute" morality isn't very absolute.

Ahh good I finally got you to reply. I must have missed that part, where did you say you got your moral code again?

[Isaiah 6:8]

Ahh good I finally got you to reply. I must have missed that part, where did you say you got your moral code again?

Primarily the culture [social group] I was raised in, only I don't assign an invisible author to it.

Okay, good that was the main point of my op.

So where do you think your society got it?

[Isaiah 6:8]

Okay, good that was the main point of my op.

So where do you think your society got it?

I think often it would be by learning from what are viewed as failures or mistakes from the past. Ultimately we can decide to live in a society where survival is difficult and unpleasant or work towards one that allows us to refine our standards and create an environment where not only can we survive but we can experience an existence with less pain, suffering and strife. Through reasoning and social discourse, we've defined our morality based on what allows the most human freedom while ensuring the least amount of unnecessary pain and suffering. If you look at human history, you can see the evolution of our standards on what is "right" or "wrong".

At one time society would declare someone guilty until proven innocent, thanks to era's such as the Salem Witch trials we now have learned that it's "better" to declare someone innocent until proven guilty. We didn't need a God to tell us this, we were able to figure this out for ourselves, I believe the same is true for morality.

Okay good, you see that is the type of answer I was looking for! Lets not debate if there is a moral code by a moral law giver, that is better addressed in a different thread. This thread was one of discovery and a chance to see where the other side is coming from on this issue!

[Isaiah 6:8]

Okay good, you see that is the type of answer I was looking for! Lets not debate if there is a moral code by a moral law giver, that is better addressed in a different thread. This thread was one of discovery and a chance to see where the other side is coming from on this issue!

Understood.

Thanks.