Lots of laws

got to love religion

No, Leo. Just shut your face now. Plz!!!!

I guys are so right

People often make the mistake of assuming that what we think of as "slavery" today, due to the harsh African slave trade and other practices, is the same cultural phenomenon as the servitude that was practiced by the Israelites at the time of the Old Testament. But they're really apples and oranges.

This is ridiculous. Because the Bible bans ONE WAY of procuring slaves, we're supposed to forget the fact that slavery itself is JUST FINE, that beating a slave is okay, as long as the slave lives, that it's ok for a man to be given a choice between freedom and his family, because the slaveowner gets to keep the freed slaves wife and children? What the Bible ALLOWS in terms of slavery is despicable. and trying to distract from it by exalting the one thing it says that we all condemn, fails. Your argument fails.

I feel like you missed my main point, that the servitude of Old Testament times was a very different cultural practice to what we connote with slavery because of the harsh treatment slaves received in Africa.

But what you wrote brings up a bigger issue. You seem to be very quick to condemn the Bible's standard as "despicable," but you haven't provided any indication of what standard you are using to compare the Bible to.

It is you who have missed the point.

According to the Bible. it's okay for a slavemaster to physically abuse his slave, as long as he doesn't kill him.

According to the Bible, a slave's wife and children can be held by the slaveowner and the slave can go free, but if the slave wants to stay with his wife and children, he must be a slave for life.

Biblical slavery is morally repugnant on its own merits, not because of how it compares, favorably or unfavorably, to African slavery practiced in the colonies and United States of America.

The question of having to compare the Bible to another standard is laughable. When I compare MY morals to the Bible, I find my morals FAR superior. AND SO DO YOU.

I think I understand the point you're trying to get across, but you're just merely asserting your own position. You're just stating that you find your morals "FAR superior."

That doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. I'm a Christian and I count the Bible as the Word of God. So effectively it's like you're trying to claim to me that your moral standard (and mine) are superior to God's. It's not persuasive.

But you have no basis of disagreement. Your Bible orders a man's execution for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. You do not. I do not. You and I are more moral than your Bible.

Your Bible punishes a rapist by ordering him to pay the father of the woman he raped, and to marry her. You are (hopefully) appalled by that, as am I. You and I are more moral than your Bible.

Your Bible will set a slave free after seven years, but if the slavemaster gives that slave a wife and they have children, then when the slavemaster frees the slave, the slavemaster is entitled to keep the wife and child. But if the slave wants to keep his wife and child, he has to commit to being a slave for life. You are (hopefully) appalled by this, as am I. You and I are more moral than your Bible.

This is not persuasive to you? Then you are a moral monster.

What is it about "the Bible is the ultimate moral standard" that you have difficulty understanding, please?

You sound like you think that you and I are equipped to make a moral judgment that is higher than God's words. I am not sure what put that idea into your head.

You are most certainly not more moral than the Bible, and nor am I. Not even close. You are a sinful person, as am I.

Also, it's somewhat surprising to me that you think I should be moved by you calling me a "moral monster." Why should I be upset if someone who doesn't have a valid moral standard calls me a moral monster? The fact that your moral compass is severely distorted is evident by the fact that you think you, a creature, can judge God's moral standard. Your moral judgments have no weight with me.

I have no difficulty understanding the claim that the Bible is the ultimate moral standard. It's just not true. The Bible permits slavery (and separating the slave from his family unless he agrees to be a slave for life). How is that moral? If you agree that the Bible is the ultimate moral standard, then you have to agree that it's moral to stone a man to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath, and that makes you a moral monster. Where is the flaw in this logic?

My moral compass (and yours) is superior to the Bible's. You cannot demonstrate otherwise.

You said "you have no difficulty understanding the claim that the Bible is the ultimate moral standard," but so far, you seem incapable of adopting the possibility as true for the sake of argument. You're basically just repeating what you said at the beginning without really even engaging with what I'm saying.

You ask me where is the flaw in your logic. It's hard to know how to answer you. Perhaps the shortest answer is nowhere, because you haven't shown any logic in your statement. It's just a mere assertion.

Your assertion is that I'm a moral monster for believing the Bible is the ultimate moral standard.

Thanks for playing "share your unfounded arbitrary opinions." You win? I guess. Cheers.

For the sake of argument, was it ever true that executing a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath was ever a moral act?

You want to talk about an arbitrary opinion? Declaring the Bible to be the ultimate moral standard without assessing the morality of its laws is an untenable position. If the Bible is the ultimate moral standard, its laws MUST be moral. But they're not. If they are, then you must say, without reservation, that stoning a man to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath is a moral act. But you can't, because you and I both know that would make you a moral monster. Stoning homosexuals to death is not a moral act. You and I both know that. But you are declaring the Bible to be the ultimate moral standard in spite of its flagrantly immoral rules and laws. Executing a child, or an adult, EXECUTING him for the crime of being disobedient to his parents, is not a moral act. You and I both know that. But the Bible demands such executions. How is that a moral standard?

And WHY am I the only one offering Biblical examples to back up my position?

The Bible not only allows for slavery, but the Bible allows a man to keep a freed slaves from his wife and children unless that man agrees to become a slave for life. HOW is that moral?

If you agree with those laws, then you are a moral monster. It's not complicated.

And I say that not to persuade you, but to demonstrate to you that you are NOT a moral monster because as much as you unilaterally declare the Bible to be the ultimate moral standard, you DISCARD its immorality whenever it suits you.

Which is fine, if not a little hypocritical.

By the way, declaring that I don't have a valid moral standard fails on two levels. One, it is an assertion without basis. I DO have a valid moral standard. It is a combination of empathy and reason, neither of which requires conformity to a susperstitious book written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night.

And two, YOUR basis for morality, the Bible, as demonstrated in this thread, fails miserably because its rules, laws and regulations are demonstrably immoral. Talk about an invalid standard for morality! The Bible suits that description to a tee.

Why is it immoral to stone a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

What standard of morality are you comparing that to to make that claim, please?

(That's the part of your argument that I believe is flawed - you're making evaluations about what God should and shouldn't do, but you haven't presented what your own moral standard is in the first place. You're just assuming that you know the difference between right and wrong. I don't think you know the difference between right and wrong well enough to evaluate God's actions or laws.)

Please understand also that the command to stone someone who picked up sticks is not just about the action of picking up sticks. It's about picking up sticks when there was a specific command from God not to do that. In other words, the death penalty is for willful disobedience to God.

God is our Creator. He has the right to deal with every human life exactly how he wishes, and upon any terms he wishes to set.

I do not believe it is moral to execute a man for violating the sabbath. You want to know the moral basis for my conclusion.

This is terrifying.

Are you saying you DO believe it's moral for a man to be executed for violating the sabbath? If your answer is yes, you're a moral monster. And you know it. Your justification, that he was violating God's command, is flimsy at best. Eating shrimp violates God's command. He didn't have people executed for it. You know what else God didn't execute people for? Raping virgins. He ordered the rapist to pay the victim (who, by the way, is not the girl he raped, but her FATHER) and to marry the girl as punishment. READ THAT LAST SENTENCE OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL IT SINKS IN. You DARE ask MY standard of morality when YOUR standard of morality includes such an abhorrent instruction!?

The real issue is not whether I have an objective basis to decry these blatantly immoral laws. The real question is whether YOU do.

I was going to refute what you just wrote here, but it is so objectively vile that I'm just going to let it sit there. Your God will execute people for a petty crime. My supposedly standard-free morality says that's an indefensible position.

And you are questioning MY morals? Anyone who would excuse a senseless murder for such a petty reason has no business lecturing anyone else about morality.

Isn't it funny how Atheists see our God as immoral when their worldview, morality is a mere construct?

My moral standard is the Bible. Whoever God says deserves the death penalty deserves the death penalty. There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing that, and just because you happen to have a very strong opinion to the contrary doesn't make your opinion right.

You have not revealed your moral standard, yet. You said something about empathy, but that's not a valid standard, since those kinds of feelings can be wrong.

In this discussion, one of us is being open and clear about what the correct moral standard is. The other isn't. That's you.

If you don't like the Bible, just say that. Don't pretend to take the high ground and call other people moral monsters based on your emotions. Those aren't a moral standard.

God is right. You aren't. I'm sorry you don't like that. He's been around longer than you, and he created the universe. He knows what morality is. You don't. What he says is always right. He's infallible. You aren't.

Now by all means, if you don't have a rational argument, please keep repeating your accusation (so far, completely arbitrary and unfounded, based only on your personal opinions and feelings) that the Bible is wrong, and that I am a moral monster.

It may make you feel better to do so, and will have the added benefit of demonstrating clearly to me and to everyone reading this that you have nothing else to fall back upon. It will demonstrate that your assertions are arbitrary, not based on rational arguments or an objective standard, and can therefore be dismissed as merely your personal feelings on the subject, and nothing more.

I just want you to know that you approve of the death penalty for people who gathered sticks on the sabbath. You are simply in no position to lecture ANYONE on an objective moral standard, when YOUR objective moral standard is so flipping barbaric. Get lost and stop clogging the comments on my post, reprobate.

My moral standard is a combination of empathy and reason. Actions that harm others are bad because they harm others, unless that harm is necessary to prevent an even greater harm. Killing someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week, thereby bruising the ego of an omnipotent being who said "don't do that," is NOT a moral act. No matter how old the omnipotent being is.

An action that might be of some benefit to one person might be harmful to one or more other people, and that causes us to determine that the action is bad. Stealing, for example. Great for me, but not great for the person from whom I steal. Therefore, bad. Punishing a rapist by forcing him to pay the girl's father and marry the girl he raped is NOT a moral act, no matter who ordered that punishment.

You already agree with everything I wrote, but because you have painted yourself into a corner and decided that God is always right, you have surrendered your critical thinking skills to a tribe of ignorant, barbaric nomads who didn't understand the true cause of drought, famine and rain.

And you, defender of the death penalty for sabbath breaking, defender of penalizing rapists by having them marry the women they raped, defender of slavery as long as the slave wasn't abducted for that purpose, YOU want to lecture ME about morality? Just shut up.

You wrote,

"I was going to refute what you just wrote here, but it is so objectively vile that I'm just going to let it sit there. Your God will execute people for a petty crime. My supposedly standard-free morality says that's an indefensible position.

And you are questioning MY morals? Anyone who would excuse a senseless murder for such a petty reason has no business lecturing anyone else about morality."

I can only take it to mean that you still apparently do not understand that your standard of morality is in fact, not the center of the universe by which other moral standards are judged.

You just saying I'm a moral monster for believing the Bible is the logical equivalent of "mere assertion." It is arbitrary reasoning, and is no substitute for an argument.

Are you able to cite where your moral standard comes from that enabled you to make that judgment, and how you know that moral standard is the correct one to use?

Let me ask you this: On what basis do you determine that the Bible is moral? On its own word? But the Bible never claims to be moral and never asks people to be moral. It says do what God wants or He'll execute you.

How is that moral?

You want me to adopt the Bible as THE standard of morality when its laws order execution for petty reasons like Sabbath breaking, then you MUST conclude that sabbath breaking is a serious offense because it warrants the death penalty. You are entitled to do that, but you are not entitled to do that at the same time as you lecture other people about their standards for morality!

YOU are the one who is unable to texplain how or why you know the Bible is the correct moral standard to use. You know full well that there's nothing moral about executing sabbath breakers, yet you defend it. That makes you a LOT of things, pal, but moral ain't one of them.

I think it's much more likely that the real reason you didn't refute what I wrote is because you would not be able to find a valid refutation. There can be no logical refutation of God's objective moral standard.

Actually, the real reason I don't refute what you wrote is that you have already demonstrated I am correct. You are defending the execution of a sabbath breaker. CLEARLY, I am not the one with a morality problem.