God, Genocide and Slavery

[Tim]

@Ashwin_s

With God, it’s not just the act of creation, but also of sustenance. We continue to exist because of Him.

Even if I accepted the biblical basis for that claim (which seems to me rather an interpretive stretch), so what?

So God can turn out the lights any time he likes? Even without “sustenance”, he’s meant to be omnipotent, so could obliterate the universe any time he likes, so sustenance makes no real difference. You are talking about power not morality – might not right.

This will put a moral responsibility upon the creator to police the creation.

Given that I have just shown (in my last post) God, in his own voice, endorsing Chattel Slavery, I would suggest that there is little “moral” about the OT God.

Prove to me that this god exists, and it would seem that Misotheism is a more moral response than worshipping this monster.

Misotheism

[Ashwin_s]

@Tim

So God can turn out the lights any time he likes? Even without “sustenance”, he’s meant to be omnipotent, so could obliterate the universe any time he likes, so sustenance makes no real difference. You are talking about power not morality – might not right .

Its moral because everything belongs to Him. The fact that God does not turn the lights out and gives us oppurtunities to repent indicate His goodness.

@Tim

Given that I have just shown (in my last post) God, in his own voice, endorsing Chattel Slavery, I would suggest that there is little “moral” about the OT God.

I see these portions as God regulating an evil that already exists and coaxing humanity to better standards. Have you considered the probability that the alternative to slavery in those times would have been much worse?
Something like exile might have lead to starvation and death.
Also, imposing reforms on a society before its morally mature enough to accept it can be disastrous. Take for example, the attempts by America to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Overthrowing the guy just led to chaos, excessive causality etc. Even though, removing a dictator and instituting a democracy would be a benevolent goal.
The overall impact of the Judeo-Christian faith is the moral growth of human beings over several centuries to a more equal and just society. This was accelerated with Christ’s coming, however, the law and revelation to Israel have also played a beneficial role in transforming human society.

[Tim]

@Ashwin_s

Its moral because everything belongs to Him.

As I said, might makes right – God owns everything, so you claim that he can do what he wants – no matter how cruel, unreasonable or disproportionate.

Ownership does not entail full and unfettered rights. That is true even of pets (hence Animal Welfare legislation), so surely must be true of humans.

I see these portions as God regulating an evil that already exists and coaxing humanity to better standards.

That “an evil … already exists” (even if it is a real evil, instead of trumped-up one like an Israelite sleeping with a Midianite woman), does not seem to stop God in other situations. “Adultery already exists?” “Oh, I better not make a Commandment against it, but should rather just regulate it.”

Also God is not simply “regulating an evil”, he is actively endorsing it. He does not say “if you really must take slaves (and I’d prefer you didn’t) …”. He says “You may buy slaves”. That is explicit permission.

[Ashwin_s]

@Tim

As I said, might makes right – God owns everything, so you claim that he can do what he wants – no matter how cruel, unreasonable or disproportionate.

No, i am making the claim that him passing judgements that include death is within His rights.
You are assuming His Judgemets are “cruel, unreasonable or disproportionate”.

@Tim

That “an evil … already exists” (even if it is a real evil, instead of trumped-up one like an Israelite sleeping with a Midianite woman), does not seem to stop God in other situations. “Adultery already exists?” “Oh, I better not make a Commandment against it, but should rather just regulate it.”

The commandment to not commit adultery is a way to regulate the practise.

In this case, God also allowed divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of the people involved.

Some practices can be abolished without causing harm to others. Some can be punished in cases such as Adultery and murder.
More largescale changes require progressive reform. Is this hard for you to understand?

@Tim

Also God is not simply “regulating an evil”, he is actively endorsing it. He does not say “if you really must take slaves (and I’d prefer you didn’t) …”. He says “You may buy slaves”. That is explicit permission .

Ya regulating stuff involves some level of permission.
For example, if one wants to lead Saudi Arabia from being a monarchy with limited individual rights, one can start from where the community is and change things progressively through reforms.
Another way is to barge into the kingdom, kill the king, abolish all the laws and impose a democracy. That might not turn out well at all and lead to massive loss of life as seen from the example of Iraq i cited to you.
Its strange that you are judging God based on a morality that you largely received through the Judeo Christian influence on the western world. And somehow, The Judeo-christian God has no claim to guiding western civilization to where they are.

[Tim]

@Ashwin_s

You are assuming His Judgemets are “cruel, unreasonable or disproportionate”.

No. I am basing that description on a reasonable interpretation of the Midianites case. Please tell me exactly how his reaction was kind, reasonable and/or proportionate.

The commandment to not commit adultery is a way to regulate the practise.

And he could equally have made a commandment not take slaves. But he didn’t. Unless you are willing to claim that adultery is a worse evil than slavery, such that the former must be regulated-by-banning-it-outright, but the latter can be regulated-only-to-the-extent-that-its-harm-falls-mainly-on-non-Israelites, you have a problem.

Some practices can be abolished without causing harm to others. Some can be punished in cases such as Adultery and murder.

It is not clear how this statement of yours applies to slavery.

Ya regulating stuff involves some level of permission.

Not if you simply make a Commandment against it.

For example, if one wants to lead Saudi Arabia from being a monarchy with limited individual rights, one can start from where the community is and change things progressively through reforms.

1. I thought God was (i) omnipotent & (ii) willing to go ‘Wrath of God’ in order to get his way. Why is he emasculated on slavery, and only on slavery?

2. This passage has been used to justify slavery existing long after it might otherwise have died out, including in Antebellum United States. I would have expected an omniscient god to have taken the long view.

Its strange that you are judging God based on a morality that you largely received through the Judeo Christian influence on the western world.

Umm, no. Neither the OT nor the NT make any explicit disparagement of slavery. The OT codifies it and the NT endorses submission to it.

I saw the following quote in Wikipedia:

The pro-slavery South could point to slaveholding by the godly patriarch Abraham (Gen 12:5; 14:14; 24:35–36; 26:13–14), a practice that was later incorporated into Israelite national law (Lev 25:44–46). It was never denounced by Jesus, who made slavery a model of discipleship (Mk 10:44). The Apostle Paul supported slavery, counseling obedience to earthly masters (Eph 6:5–9; Col 3:22–25) as a duty in agreement with "the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness" (1 Tim 6:3). Because slaves were to remain in their present state unless they could win their freedom (1 Cor 7:20–24), he sent the fugitive slave Onesimus back to his owner Philemon (Phlm 10–20). The abolitionist north had a difficult time matching the pro-slavery south passage for passage. ... Professor Eugene Genovese, who has studied these biblical debates over slavery in minute detail, concludes that the pro-slavery faction clearly emerged victorious over the abolitionists except for one specious argument based on the so-called Curse of Ham (Gen 9:18–27). For our purposes, it is important to realize that the South won this crucial contest with the North by using the prevailing hermeneutic, or method of interpretation, on which both sides agreed. So decisive was its triumph that the South mounted a vigorous counterattack on the abolitionists as infidels who had abandoned the plain words of Scripture for the secular ideology of the Enlightenment.

https://web.archive.org/web/20071211214614/http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/043/Learning%20the%20Lessons%20of%20Slavery%20By%20William%20E.%20Hull_043_05_.htm

[Ashwin_s]

@Tim

No. I am basing that description on a reasonable interpretation of the Midianites case. Please tell me exactly how his reaction was kind, reasonable and/or proportionate.

Did we move away from a discussion of slavery in ancient times ?
Which case are you picking up now?

@Tim

It is not clear how this statement of yours applies to slavery.

It was a time without minimum wages, social security etc. A lot of people died of starvation (esp Women and children). Slavery would have been a better alternative than starving to death.
You would understand if you looked at examples where people forced reforms on a community such as what recently happened in Iraq.
The cultural and economic situation was different.

@Tim

• I thought God was (i) omnipotent & (ii) willing to go ‘Wrath of God’ in order to get his way. Why is he emasculated on slavery, and only on slavery ?

You thought wrong. God’s primary way of dealing with people has been persuasion.
The “wrath” incidents are comparatively few and far in between. And even the judgement’s serve a purpose of leading others who witness it towards Repentance.

@Tim

This passage has been used to justify slavery existing long after it might otherwise have died out , including in Antebellum United States. I would have expected an omniscient god to have taken the long view.

He did take the long view. It was christians who worked to abolish slavery. The concept of ALL men being created equal is a christian concept that has led to freedom and changed the fabric of human society all over the world.

The only way practices such as slavery would stay abolished is if people were changed enough. Jesus’ life changed the moral fabric of the earth, and that has had far reaching effects lifting up society over centuries.
Its still at work in the live’s of people inspiring acts of charity and love.

[Tim]

@Ashwin_s

Did we move away from a discussion of slavery in ancient times ?
Which case are you picking up now?

May I point your attention to the title of this thread, and to the sorta-OP (it’s the first post on this thread, but due to moderation, not the oldest). It deals with the Midianites, death penalties for minor offenses, and slavery.

It was a time without minimum wages, social security etc.

The slavery-as-social-welfare argument has been tried before. It’s never been compelling, and doesn’t come even close to justifying chattel (i.e. slavery-for-life, and your children can inherit your slaves) slavery. In particular, it does not justify allowing a harsher version of slavery for non-Israelites than for Israelites.

You thought wrong. God’s primary way of dealing with people has been persuasion.

Except for floods, plagues, ordering his chosen people to massacre and then compounding the massacre with further attrocities, etc.

Even if not God’s “primary way”, his secondary way is frequent enough that why he didn’t use it the case of an evil as severe as slavery remains an open question.

And why didn’t he simply use the ultimate “persuasion” of making a Commandment against it? (A point that I have already raised – without response.)

And I would point out that, wandering in the wilderness shortly after having escaped Egypt, they would not have been in the position to have many (any?) slaves at the time. So such a prohibition would hardly have been a great burden to them immediately.

He did take the long view.

As I have pointed out, his words ensured that slavery continued longer than it needed to. Also, as the quote points out, his words meant that pro-slavery Christians had a stronger biblical case than anti-slavery ones.

I would conclude that none of these arguments are, in my opinion, remotely compelling, and that this is why I, like many other atheists, dislike Apologetics – bad arguments presented with religious fervor.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Tim

@Mark10.45

I’ve just discovered that Leviticus also includes approval of chattel slavery in God’s own voice :

25 The Lord said to Moses at Mount Sinai …

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

I looked up this passage. In the previous section it’s talking about releasing slaves who had sold themselves because of poverty. That the owners should do so in the year of Jubilee. This is a specific section that talks about people who want to sell their children to the Israelites when they’re already living among them. It’s a foreshadowing of the Gentiles being grafted into the kingdom of Israel. The focus is on the inheritance.

@Tim

Umm, no . Neither the OT nor the NT make any explicit disparagement of slavery. The OT codifies it and the NT endorses submission to it.

Philemon is about telling a master that he should release a slave if he considers what God has done for him.

Jesus fulfilled the law, so there are no more nations outside of Israel. Of course, you can twist the Bible to support chattel slavery after Jesus fulfilled the law. And it’s not surprising because we are sinful. Why do you suppose African Americans are Christians if they believe the Bible subjugates them?

Also, do you believe the world would be more moral without any belief in God? What principles would we base morality on? Doesn’t might make right today in many countries anyway?

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

Also, do you believe the world would be more moral without any belief in God? What principles would we base morality on? Doesn’t might make right today in many countries anyway?

In order: Yes, the same ones we base it on now, and yes, regardless of their professed religious beliefs. Of course “might makes right” is the very justification for God-centered morality. Have you looked up the Euthyphro dilemma yet?

[Tim]

@thoughtful

I looked up this passage. In the previous section it’s talking about releasing slaves who had sold themselves because of poverty. That the owners should do so in the year of Jubilee. This is a specific section that talks about people who want to sell their children to the Israelites when they’re already living among them. It’s a foreshadowing of the Gentiles being grafted into the kingdom of Israel. The focus is on the inheritance.

The previous section is talking solely about Israelites: “If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you …” There is no indication that any of this applies to non-Israelites.

The section I quoted is the section that applies to non-Israelites. It states that “they will become your property” and that “you can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life” – i.e. explicit chattel slavery.

I have no idea what you mean by “It’s a foreshadowing of the Gentiles being grafted into the kingdom of Israel.” But there is nothing in the actual text to indicate that it is doing anything other than giving permission for slavery.

Philemon is about telling a master that he should release a slave if he considers what God has done for him.

Does Paul ever explicitly state that Onesimus is a slave? Does Paul ever explicitly ask for his freedom? As far as I can see the epistle is more than a bit ambiguous.

Jesus fulfilled the law, *so there are no more nations outside of Israel.*

Biblical basis for that (italicised) conclusion?

Also, do you believe the world would be more moral without any belief in God?

I think there is little evidence that the world is more moral because of belief in God. Can you provide any evidence that rates of murder, adultery, divorce, premarital sex, etc, etc are lower in areas with higher levels of Christianity than in those with lower?

What principles would we base morality on?

Evolutionary-derived instincts, combined with social conditioning and introspection.

Doesn’t might make right today in many countries anyway?

Yes. And in many of those countries, Christianity is the dominant religion.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Ashwin_s

Take for example, the attempts by America to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Overthrowing the guy just led to chaos, excessive causality etc. Even though, removing a dictator and instituting a democracy would be a benevolent goal.

But doing so without any actual plan for instituting a democracy was not a solid moral decision.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Tim

I think there is little evidence that the world is more moral because of belief in God. Can you provide any evidence that rates of murder, adultery, divorce, premarital sex, etc, etc are lower in areas with higher levels of Christianity than in those with lower?

@thoughtful, are you really not aware of the relevant data here?

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@John_Harshman

In order: Yes, the same ones we base it on now, and yes, regardless of their professed religious beliefs

How original. So the correct morality just happens to be the one you were born in. Like a Christian who says he or she is a Christian because he or she grew up that way.

@John_Harshman

Have you looked up the Euthyphro dilemma yet?

Very interesting. Thanks for the heads-up. But the dilemma is not hard. God commands that which is within his character - the questions aren’t the only options.

God cannot turn himself into a frog, for example. That’s outside the character of God.

So it’s kinda fun that I answered the question about slavery by pointing to God’s character and that was philosophically correct. I don’t mind being accidentally right.

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

So the correct morality just happens to be the one you were born in.

I said no such thing. Wherever did you get that?

@thoughtful

But the dilemma is not hard. God commands that which is within his character - the questions aren’t the only options.

I have no idea what you mean by that. But something like it is the usual response, and it doesn’t work. Is what’s good good because his character defines good or do we know his character is good because we have a standard of goodness to which to compare it? If you have no external standard by which to judge, how do you know what a God of good character would or would not do?

@thoughtful

I don’t mind being accidentally right.

In this case, you’re accidentally wrong in the same way a lot of theologians are wrong.

[AlanFox]

@thoughtful

I’m willing to discuss with anyone who also watches it completely.

It’s an hour long, Valerie. I’ve passed the threescore-and-ten milestone. Time is precious for me. We only have one shie at the coconut and then peaceful oblivion.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Tim

The previous section is talking solely about Israelites: “If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you …” There is no indication that any of this applies to non-Israelites.

The section I quoted is the section that applies to non-Israelites. It states that “they will become your property” and that “you can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life” – i.e. explicit chattel slavery.

I didn’t deny this.

@Tim

I have no idea what you mean by “It’s a foreshadowing of the Gentiles being grafted into the kingdom of Israel.” But there is nothing in the actual text to indicate that it is doing anything other than giving permission for slavery.

Here are some passages. First Exodus 12:44 notes that the slaves are able to partake of Passover. They are considered part of Israel then, even though not ethnically.

Psalm 2

“I will declare the [g]decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.

Isaiah 14:

For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will still choose Israel, and settle them in their own land. The strangers will be joined with them, and they will cling to the house of Jacob. 2 Then people will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them for servants and maids in the land of the Lord; they will take them captive whose captives they were, and rule over their oppressors.

Fall of the King of Babylon

3 It shall come to pass in the day the Lord gives you rest from your sorrow, and from your fear and the hard bondage in which you were made to serve, 4 that you will take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say:

“How the oppressor has ceased,
The golden[a] city ceased!
5 The Lord has broken the staff of the wicked,
The scepter of the rulers;

@Tim

Does Paul ever explicitly state that Onesimus is a slave? Does Paul ever explicitly ask for his freedom? As far as I can see the epistle is more than a bit ambiguous.

Philemon 15-18

15 For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave—a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. 17 If then you count me as a partner, receive him as you would me. 18 But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account.

@Tim

Jesus fulfilled the law, so there are no more nations outside of Israel.
Biblical basis for that (italicised) conclusion?

Galations 3

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

@Tim

Also, do you believe the world would be more moral without any belief in God?

I think there is little evidence that the world is more moral because of belief in God. Can you provide any evidence that rates of murder, adultery, divorce, premarital sex, etc, etc are lower in areas with higher levels of Christianity than in those with lower?

That’s not what I asked, though I’ll research your question. Communist countries taught atheism. Show me that they were more moral. Or any country where atheism has been the dominant morality.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@John_Harshman

I said no such thing. Wherever did you get that?

@John_Harshman

Yes, the same ones we base it on now,

@John_Harshman

Is what’s good good because his character defines good

His character does not define good; His character is good.

Stop giving me easy lay-ups John.

@John_Harshman

In this case, you’re accidentally wrong in the same way a lot of theologians are wrong.

I’m actually right; and if one follows logic, one finds God.

[AlanFox]

@thoughtful

Communist countries taught atheism.

Not sure this is true. When Stalin came to power in the Soviet Union, he became a cult, almost worshipped like a God. Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-un, Putin, Xi Jinping? The issue isn’t atheism, it’s power - total power. Totalitarians can’t permit rival gods. Yet Donald Trump enjoys support from Evangelicals. Go figure!

Has communism been tried yet? Cuba, maybe?

Kim Jong-un looking at things. I don’t know why this makes me chuckle.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@AlanFox

Not sure this is true. When Stalin came to power in the Soviet Union, he became a cult, almost worshipped like a God. Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-un, Putin, Xi Jinping? The issue isn’t atheism, it’s power - total power. Totalitarians can’t permit rival gods. Yet Donald Trump enjoys support from Evangelicals. Go figure!

Has communism been tried yet? Cuba, maybe?

Kim Jong-un looking at things. I don’t know why this makes me chuckle.

I haven’t researched it much tbh, but here’s a start if I should research it with others who want to. USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941) - Wikipedia

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

His character does not define good; His character is good.

Stop giving me easy lay-ups John.

If his character doesn’t define good, then we have a standard of good separate from his character, and we can judge his actions. In such a case, I judge that genocide is not good. How about you? Either God is not perfectly good or the flood didn’t happen.

@thoughtful

Stop giving me easy lay-ups John.

Such arrogance, I assume, is un-Christian.