EricE

I recognize this is taking things down a different path, so if you don't want to go down this road that's fine. But what evidence do you have that god is moral? God endorses slavery many times in the bible. Exodus 21 is the easiest to look up, where god actually lays out the rules for Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves, including the rules for how much you can beat them. This account is not altered in the JS translation.

First, you're vastly misquoting what the bible says. First, Exodus 21:16 (not 12:16) does indeed say that you can't "steal a man" and then sell him. However, that does not apply to women, and also that does not apply to all other forms of what was deemed legitimate reasons to capture someone into slavery. Second, the 6 year term (and released on the 7th) only applied to Hebrew slaves. Slaves who were not Hebrew were the property of their masters for life and we're passed down to their master's children when he died. Also, the term limit only applied to male slaves. Second Exodus 21 lays out the rules for a slave owner to trick his male slaves into remaining slaves for life--namely by giving the male slave a wife so that when the male slave's time is up, he is given the impossible choice of remaining a slave forever, or leaving behind his wife and children. Exodus 21 also specifically grants men the right to sell their daughters onto slavery for money, permanently. God also says that you can beat your slaves severely, as long as they don't die and they can get back to their feet after a few days. I didn't compare god's endorsed version of slavery to any other kind. But we are still talking about the god of the bible and Book of Mormon saying it is moral for one human being to own another human being as property. If you want to defend and/or justify slavery, be my guest. I'll stick with saying it is immoral under any circumstance.

What is the morality of god? From your perspective, why is god's condoning of slavery good?

If I misunderstood, my bad.

@Godless @rpframe Don't know if I agree with you two that a purely self-serving individual is immoral, in fact I think someone could act entirely morally for purely selfish reasons. When we act morally in a way that improves the world that we live in, since we also live in that world we necessarily benefit from that improvement. We morally choose to make sure that other peoples' children are educated - but the selfish person could come to the same decision by concluding that if other peoples' children are educated it will bring better and higher-paying jobs to the area and reduce crime and poverty. It would be hard to find a moral action that could not in some sense be looked at as self-serving (or self-benefiting). So yes, I think someone can act morally purely from a self-serving stance. However, that does not to equate to acting in the most moral way.

@LeSellers No worries, there have been a lot of comments and I don't think I've seen them all myself. Here it is.

I don't agree, and don't have time to fully respond at the moment (hopefully will later tonight), but wanted to give props for being one of the first to provide a some That ignores the supposed facts surrounding the killing of the first born in Egypt. What did those children do? The god of the bible was not upset at them, he was upset at Pharoah for not letting the Hebrews leave. And because of pharoah's actions, god killed thousands of others who were entirely innocent to the question.

@omegaseamaster75 "I fall into the camp where God allowed it to happen and provided rules to regulate it. I don't think that God ever encouraged it. In fact I challenge you to find a passage of scripture where God encouraged one of his followers to own slaves" I have not claimed god encouraged slavery, I said that god condoned it (both old and new testaments). So what is the explanation for why a moral god would condone slavery?

Not that I don't appreciate the sweeping generalization that you know the minds of ALL atheists, but I would refer you to my post a bit up the thread where I laid out the difference between religious and secular morality. If you would like to respond to that, I'll take a look.

I have. What in Moroni do you think counts as evidence for god's existence?

It's not condescending to disregard someone who makes false claims about you. This discussion is about god's morality. Please point out to me where I claimed that if I don't agree with god's morality, that proves the god doesn't exist.

@bytebear Interesting take, given that no one on this thread has related morality to the existence of a god yet. But hey, have fun over there with your straw man while the adults talk.

We're not talking about free will, or a god who just allowed slavery to happen. We're talking about a god who actually condoned slavery and laid out instructions for how to keep and beat your slaves. There's evidence? What is it?

Yeah, somebody else told me. Apparently my temple president was wrong. That could lead me into a whole thing about lay leadership, but it's not relevant to the conversation. I'm happy to admit I was wrong about that.

I didn't setup a straw man, I simply demonstrated that your premise was flawed. If I was a god, then you wouldn't be able to say there are only two possibilities in a situation, nor would you be able to say something was happening that I only just found out about. Here's the real issue. This idea of things being moral because they were dictated to you by an authority figure, is in itself immoral. Morality does not come from an edict. When a god supposedly says, "thou shalt not steal," that means nothing. It is a worthless dictate without understanding why. For example, if you take two children to a restaurant and they both go crazy, throwing water and screaming, etc., both need to learn not to do that. But if one child is sat down and given just the god-like carrot or stick (don't do that again or no dessert, or if you don't do that again you'll get dessert), and the other child is talked to and discussed why misbehaving like that was the wrong way to act and how it affected others, which child actually has a moral understanding of their actions? Both children may now behave at the restaurant. But the one with the understanding is more likely to behave because they understand why behaving in one way is better and how their actions affect others, while the other child is only going to behave as long as their parents are there so the reward or punishment is looming. Human beings are social animals, and just like other social animals we have an innate sense of simple morality. I argued above that this secular morality was based on well-being. The well-being of individuals, the society, and the species. As time goes by, and our understanding of the world grows, we are able to expand and improve our morality through discussion, and debate. That is why secular morality has led us out of the days of slavery, and chips abuse, and other inhumane practices that we have learned to discard. And that's what makes secular morality a superior moral system, rather than mere moral edicts. It may be comforting to think of morality as something simple, as "I just have to do what an authority figure tells me to do." But morality is not simple, and should not be treated so. As for any god who willingly burns children to death, endorses slavery, commits and commands genocide, who (like a mob boss) threatens me with eternal torture (whether the Mormon version or the standard Christian hell) if I don't worship and praise him when he's provided no actual evidence he even exists? I would call that god a moral thug, and one unworthy of my praise because I'm more moral than he is.

I'm fine with my temple president being wrong. And that could lead us into a discussion about why god's true church would rely on lay leadership who can and do teach things opposing doctrine, but let's leave that for another day. If you truly believe that children and babies are better off dead, and see no issue with god allowing them to die burning deaths, then why have you not called for the police and fire departments to stop rescuing them? If you saw a baby fall into the bath tub, wouldn't then the moral thing to do be to chalk it up to god's will and let the child drown?

Yup, in the Celestial Kingdom. But not as top tier gods and goddesses according to my temple president.

If you believe this, then why aren't Mormons allowing babies to die regularly? I'm not being flippant, seriously think it through. If you believe babies and children don't before they've 'sinned' then why allow them to survive? Secondly, as I recall my gospel doctrine lessons, according to Mormon theology these children and babies arent actually getting 1st Class Celestial Kingdom. Some they weren't baptized, didn't go through the temple, and weren't married, god has now doomed them to bring servants for all eternity.

Nope. I didn't say I'm absolutely certain of that. And if pressed, I would answer that I am only maximally certain of it for myself. Absolute certainty means that you have all possible evidence and knowledge on a given subject, and there is nothing new you could ever possibly learn that would change your mind. And I don't believe there is good reason to believe that exists.

Not that I don't appreciate the hyperbole, but gross mischaracterizations of what I said don't actually give you an advantage in a discussion. Please show me the instance where I said I was absolutely certain of anything.

Yes. My mind is made up that slavery is immoral, because I have never seen any evidence that it is good for the people who are enslaved.

Assuming that I am the Mormon god? In that case I don't "just see" a child being burned. It's part of my plan, right? Or at least I've always known that the child was going to be burned? If I'm an all-powerful and all-knowing god (or maximally powerful, I don't want to assume how you believe), that would mean I would have the power to design a plan that didn't require burning deaths, or slavery, or genocide, etc. I think going that route would be preferable.

I believe that what I said was that in preparing for a debate, I wanted to see what various LDS thinkers thought about a certain topic. If that's offensive, I apologize. However, I wouldn't mistake the reason for me starting the thread as not wanting a conversation. One of my values is being willing to change my mind if rational and demonstrable evidence can be shown. It's one of the best thing about relying on the scientific method, recognizing that absolute certainty can't exist. I'm an atheist for no other reason than because I have not been convinced there is sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable belief in the existence of a god. So while I begin (or join) conversations for various reasons, I take each very seriously and am always open to new ideas. I will add, though, that this particular thread has grown a tad frustrating as various responders have sought to justify murder, slavery, and other things I find immoral, by simply claiming it's different when a god does it. That is the definition of the special pleading fallacy and leaves us in a situation where we should be following a god who says 'do as I say, not as I do."

Are you talking to me? A lot of responses came in at once and I tried to get to most of them. Sorry if I missed something, but I don't think that warrants the passive-aggressiveness.

Thanks!