Is God a Moral Monster? - Slavery in the Old Testament

[Randy Carson]

And as I told you before, but what you have not gotten around to yet in the other thread: The kind of 'free will' you seem to imply would be 'above' what an omniscient, omnipotent creator of our creation could logically make. The kind of free will that you imply, given an allpowerful, allknowing and allloving God is logically impossible. God having the Jews come to see things his way slowly involves no more and no less of the 'free will' he could create, than the Jews coming to this much faster or accepting his will immeadiately, even automatically.

You have asserted this in multiple threads, yes.

But let me make sure I understand what you just said: the kind of free will that I'm implying is "logically impossible if God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving."

Gee, give those two options, I gotta go with God being omni, and me not having as much free will as I thought. Or your dilemma being false.

We shall see.

EDIT
As to your edited quote: Problem isn't that it would allow more suffering than some other penal system. Problem is any suffering that has happened under any potential system could have been avoided entirely, if he'd done his job right given his unlimited potential.

Because a REAL God would know how to create people who lived well and did not ever need a penal system, right?

And while I'll not claim my views are free from bias or could be clouded or wrong, you simply fail to point out what is the fault in the logic. Am I to take this that you also won't go through my admittedly long post in the other thread and respond to it in full? It's okay if you won't. But then at least I'll know I won't have to wait anymore.

I take it you have been working on your theory for awhile? Then you won't mind if I have a bit of time to consider it, also?

[Randy Carson]

Free will? Where do you get the idea that god gives a fuck about free will? Did he care about Job's free will not to preach to Nineveh? Did he care about Saul's free will when he struck him blind? Did he care about Balaam's free will when he prevented Balaam from speaking of his own accord, forcing him to say only was god wanted? Did he care about the free will of Sodom and Gomorrah when he destroyed them? Did god care about Pharaoh's free will when he hardened Pharaoh's hart so that he would not listen to Moses and Arron? If you take the bible seriously how is god respecting free will anything but a cop out?

God punished certain people, cities, nations and even all of creation for its sinfulness at various times in various ways. This is not a violation of free will any more than a government violates a convicted person't free will by incarcerating or executing them.

[Randy Carson]

are really arguing that the south gave up their slaves because they were convinced by biblical argument?

Did I make that argument?

[21CIconoclast]

So, you don't want to answer the question.

Randy,

YOUR QUOTE: "So, you don't want to answer the question."


+++++++++++  RANDY CARSON HYPOCRITE ALERT, AGAIN!  +++++++++++++

Randy, are you the pot or kettle today, huh?  You have yet to answer me directly in my refutation in post #1 that you're been running
from since you started this thread.  Why is that?  Are you once again embarrassed over your serial killer Yahweh god where you can't answer?
Is your Catholic faith really that embarrassing, and you're hiding from it again? Is that it?  Have you realized that I OWN YOU relative to
your primitive Catholic bible, is that it?

RANDY, YOU DO REALIZE THAT OTHERS ARE WATCHING YOU RUN AWAY FROM YOUR CATHOLIC FAITH, DON'T YOU?

[Mr.Obvious]

You have asserted this in multiple threads, yes.

But let me make sure I understand what you just said: the kind of free will that I'm implying is "logically impossible if God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving."

Gee, give those two options, I gotta go with God being omni, and me not having as much free will as I thought. Or your dilemma being false.

We shall see.

And if your free will is less free than you thought, and just as free as in a world in which all of us turned to God and accepted him and lived by his ultimate good will, then God created this specific creation wanting everything to be the way it is; including me not believing in him and worse things.

Because a REAL God would know how to create people who lived well and did not ever need a penal system, right?

Because a triple-omni God that created everything would indeed. Without any less free will than we have now. As it's only one of the countless options ommnipotent God could choose (knowing of each in full advance what they'd entail) when creating his creation.

I take it you have been working on your theory for awhile? Then you won't mind if I have a bit of time to consider it, also?

No, I don't mind. But if you are going to say this:

This is drifting into the area of opinion, and we cannot possibly reconcile our differences on this matter.

You must be able to understand why this seems like you're sidestepping from the problem I presented altogether. If that's not your intent, no problem, I'll keep waiting patiently. But you must be able to see the confusion.

And no, I haven't been working on it for a while. On that post yes, but the idea more or less popped into my head a few years ago. I've pondered it often, but could not find a flaw so it never changed or got 'worked' on. Maybe you can find one. I'll wait for that.

[marom1963]

So, you don't want to answer the question.

Stupid question.
Moses never existed. Israel's own archeology service admits as much. Who has more of a vested interest in Moses' being real than Israel?
But - if he had lived, well, 1000 to 1200 years, depending on whether you are talking about the late Republic or the early Empire.

[Randy Carson]

And if your free will is less free than you thought, and just as free as in a world in which all of us turned to God and accepted him and lived by his ultimate good will, then God created this specific creation wanting everything to be the way it is; including me not believing in him and worse things.

Is that what God has said in His word delivered to the Prophets and through his own son?

Because a triple-omni God that created everything would indeed. Without any less free will than we have now. As it's only one of the countless options ommnipotent God could choose (knowing of each in full advance what they'd entail) when creating his creation.

No, I don't mind. But if you are going to say this: You must be able to understand why this seems like you're sidestepping from the problem I presented altogether. If that's not your intent, no problem, I'll keep waiting patiently. But you must be able to see the confusion.

And no, I haven't been working on it for a while. On that post yes, but the idea more or less popped into my head a few years ago. I've pondered it often, but could not find a flaw so it never changed or got 'worked' on. Maybe you can find one. I'll wait for that.

Thanks. Like I said, you have mulled this over for a few years. I've barely had a few days. If I blew it off or answered too quickly, it would disrespect the quality of your question.

However, what I now know is that what you are proposing is known as the Argument from Non-Belief (or Divine Hiddenness). This is something I have not encountered before, so I will do some study on this argument before attempting to present the refutation. The argument by Schellenberg, which aims at accessibility for students:

1.   If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
2.   If a perfectly loving God exists, then there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person.
3.   If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
4.   If a perfectly loving God exists, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists (from 2 and 3).
5.   Some human persons are non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
6.   No perfectly loving God exists (from 4 and 5).
7.   God does not exist (from 1 and 6).

I think this is your argument. Please advise if I'm wrong.

[Randy Carson]

Stupid question.
Moses never existed. Israel's own archeology service admits as much. Who has more of a vested interest in Moses' being real than Israel?
But - if he had lived, well, 1000 to 1200 years, depending on whether you are talking about the late Republic or the early Empire.

Right. 1,000 years minimum.

My point was simply to respond that while the ROMANS may have been (and I say MAY have been) more conscientious about the treatment of their slaves than other cultures of THEIR day, the Law of Moses was given to Israel a thousand years earlier. It was revolutionary at the time.

[aitm]

An incompetent god or an immoral one? Kill all the people and animals by drowning because either he couldn't make them do his bidding by simply being love….so he had to kill them, or he was too incompetent at making creatures to begin with and had to kill them. But the larger problem is morality in action. Why not just wave the hand and "poof"? No, he had to let all the millions of people suffer for what? To teach them a lesson in dying? To teach the dying children terror before they die? What randy? What grand reason would an almighty loving god have to put innocent children through so much suffering of watching their parents and siblings drown when old god could just as easily waved his hand and they would all be gone? Why? Obviously the writers of the babble thought it was a moral story as they were goat herders and had the morality of the ass-wipes they are, OR your god is a sick piece of shit that you choose to splay yourself too.

Hmmm, I wonder which one randy the dandy will choose?

[aitm]

the Law of Moses was given to Israel a thousand years earlier. It was revolutionary at the time.

Giving your daughters to rapist? Allowing your daughters to be raped because two of gods fucking angels couldn't stop them? Yeah, quite the revolutionary. Same sick shit as the rest of the world. Pander away boy, nobody is buying your shit here.

[Mr.Obvious]

Is that what God has said in His word delivered to the Prophets and through his own son?

Sorry, what?

[Randy Carson]

Sorry, what?

You wrote:

"God created this specific creation wanting everything to be the way it is; including me not believing in him and worse things."

That is not what God has said.

[Mr.Obvious]

You wrote:

"God created this specific creation wanting everything to be the way it is; including me not believing in him and worse things."

That is not what God has said.

But it would be what he has done.

[Randy Carson]

But it would be what he has done.

No, it is what has happened, but not what He wants. Free will, remember?

Take a look at my post above on the Argument from Unbelief. I think I have figured out how to pursue our discussion now...

[Mr.Obvious]

No, it is what has happened, but not what He wants. Free will, remember?

Take a look at my post above on the Argument from Unbelief. I think I have figured out how to pursue our discussion now...

'Free will' plays no part in this, remember? Because each posible creation would be as free as the other. No more no less.
Good, I'll be happy to read your continuation when you post it.

----------
Edit: going over your upper post now.
------------------------------------

The argument by Schellenberg, which aims at accessibility for students:

1.   If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
2.   If a perfectly loving God exists, then there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person.
3.   If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
4.   If a perfectly loving God exists, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists (from 2 and 3).
5.   Some human persons are non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
6.   No perfectly loving God exists (from 4 and 5).
7.   God does not exist (from 1 and 6).

I think this is your argument. Please advise if I'm wrong.

With all due respect; that's not completely right.

I'm not saying there can be no God. So right of the bat, no.
It depends on what you call a god. The Romans had Gods, for instance. They were flawed and selfish, so not omnibenevolent. They weren't quite omnipotent and could be fooled, so not omniscient. They weren't all the creators of the creation. But they were Gods. I'm not trying to disprove the possibility of a God. Who knows, perhaps  there's a vicious creator of everything. Perhaps there is a God that doesn't even care about life itself. Perhaps there is a God that is all-good, but not all-powerfull or all-knowing. Whatever, point being

If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.

is not what I'm saying. If you tell me you believe in a God that's not all-loving or all-powerfull or all-knowing, then I'm not going to keep bringing this point up. Yes, I'll still disagree with you as I see no evidence for a God. But I won't bring up this point as it won't be applicable.

In any case I see why you think my line of thinking is this line of thinking. But to agree to this line, would be to blur what I'm saying. Instead, try to understand my argument as I present it:

I'm only saying the specific triple omni-creator-god does not mix with the reality we encounter and that the inclusion of 'free will' does nothing to solve this discrepancy as every possibly createable world, including a perfectly good one, would have as much free will as this one seeing as all possible creations (and their full outcomes) lie within it's unlimited grasp before making the creation effectively making any creation a Godly-prime-choice that will automatically determine all other choices made within the creation.

If you want it in points:

1. (Starting premisse:) There is a god that exists who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent and made this creation.
2. The god that exists could have created the creation in any possible way through his omnipotence.
3. The god that exists could see how creating it in any possible way would influence the creation and what it would mean for it's inhabitants and thus what their lives' paths would lead them to and what they would choose and believe and do based on those experiences, through his omniscience. 
4. With all of unlimited possible creations at hand (through omnipotence) and with the foreknowledge of every possible life-event and subsequent set of choices of every possible inhabitant of every possible creation at hand (through omniscience), any creation he creates has equally as much 'free will' for it's inhabitants. Because he'll always know what they'll do depending on the creation that he decides on beforehand will come into being. Meaning their life-events and choices are what he chooses for them to live and choose, from the unlimited amount of creations at his disposal, all of which he knows through and through.
In other words: from 2. and 3. follows that any choice made within any possible creation by one of it's inhabitants is no more free or less free than any other choice, including the counterpart, made in a different possible creation as God decides ahead of time what choices will be made in the creation he decides to make.
(Aka, there is no difference in the 'free will' of the inhabitants of this world and those in a better one or in a worse one.)
5. Leading from 2. & 3. and including the irrelevance of 'free will' pointed out in 4. , The creation God made must be the one he fully intended with everything happening in it as he wants it, as there is no reason for it to be any different. (He can make it so, he knows how to make it so and he is not harming 'free will'.)
6. An omnibenevolent God would want a perfectly good creation in which everyone willfully accepted him into their hearts (as much of their own accord as they ever could in any possible creation) & choose to do only good of their own accord (as much as they ever could in any possible creation). And being omnipotent and omniscient, to achieve this, in this perfect creation he would not have to resort to unbenevolent things being created ('natural' attrocities such as diseases and other causes of suffering outside of human 'choice') nor being chosen by the inhabitants (so called 'manmade' attrocities such as murdering or raping or ...).
7. Points 5. and 6. do not go together. ( The creation we live in that he made is not The one an omnibenvolent god would want to make.)
8. There must be something wrong or missing within the logic of these steps, be it in the starting premisse or the subsequent points.

I understand going to other sources to help you solve this problem, Randy. I really do. And perhaps you'll find something there. If you do, I'll be interested to read it. But try to understand my conundrum as I present it, and not as how you think I should present it. And, to be honest, I'd be much more interested into what your own response to this would be than that of some other, more known apologist.

------------------

P.S. @Randy Carson

BTW - if you have not already done so, please consider reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief
The comment about the Catholic Church's position near the very end was important, I think.

When I find the time; I will. (Off to bed for me now.)