To Ghost...

Okay, it appears that at the heart of your question is this idea of slavery and inspiration of Scripture. As I have suggested in my initial post, an element of faith will be required by those suggesting that Scripture is inspired. There is no way in which science can measure inspiration; and therefore, some faith is required.

Your question was whether or not God advocated slavery by not explicitly telling Moses it was wrong or even telling him how to handle slaves. In my posts, I brought up the issue of divorce. In Moses’ instruction to the people, we have no indication that God is displeased with divorce. In fact, it appears that God, by virtue of giving regulations on how someone should go about obtaining divorce, is indifferent to it. However, what you deem as a contradiction in Malachi, that suggests that God hates divorce, is what I see as a clarification. What is also a clarification for me is Jesus’ statement explaining how God hated divorce and how Moses permitted it out of the hardness of people’s hearts – an indication we do not see within the law itself.

In the context of everything I have written in my post, I have attempted to illustrate how the Bible is not like the Quran, written by one person who is aware that his work will be the guide to life and truth. The Bible is much more unique in that we have 66 books, 40 authors, who wrote over a span of centuries, unaware that their books would be compiled into “The Bible,” agreeing on 95% of content, and without contradiction on the foundational principles of Christianity. If you study historical texts directly, you can see why this is truly remarkable. Since the authors were unaware that they would be providing “the Bible,” we can understand why they don’t feel a need to provide an exhaustive explanation about the personality of God. You might as well assume that in 5 books, an account of thousands of years can be adequately provided. Therefore, since not everything is explicitly described in the Bible, there is this idea that we have to be good interpreters of the text. Now, that brings up another question you asked, essentially stated,

“What makes your interpretation right and how can you prove it?”

When conversing with another person who believes in the inspiration of scripture, the only way I can prove that my interpretation is correct is by illustrating how my perspective is consistent with what the text says overall. Sometimes their perspective won’t be as consistent and other times it will be. That is precisely why there are many different denominations in Christianity. It isn’t some sort of new discovery that Christians conflict on different issues of interpretation. However, we will all agree on the matter that Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life – that we are saved by God’s gift of grace alone through faith.

Other possible questions:

“Why was slavery acceptable then, if they had God’s heart in theirs?”

We know that God has revealed Himself, the exemplification of goodness, to our hearts; yet, we have the decision of whether or not we will concede to that revelation. This may be why all worldviews and philosophies will claim that something is indeed wrong with human beings, that we don’t do what we know we “ought” to do.

“Have morals evolved since slavery and oppression of women are now abhorrent?”

Absolutely not. Just because people have, by the work of His Spirit in the world after Christ, rejected the idea of slavery, it doesn’t mean that slavery was never wrong before this. You might as well suggest that sexually abusing a baby is only wrong insofar as the general consensus of the society claims it is. Though someone may claim “invincible ignorance” and say that they did not know any better, it doesn’t mean that the act in and of itself of raping a child isn’t morally reprehensible. However, I can make that claim – because I believe morals are objective. You deny objectivity and assert that even your response to Hitler’s “evil,” as if there was such a thing, is no more subjective than your taste in food.

Now, (drumroll) some objections of my own:

I have numbered issues I would like you to address. Your words are in quotes.

“if one person dies saving many then surely that promotes survival on a species level ….so the idea of saving others came to be - at the risk of own injury or life”

I’ll quote something I wrote to “Spring.” I would like to hear your thoughts.

1) “You asserted that I have difficulty understanding self-sacrifice. Please help me understand then. I see self-sacrifice as an act that has no selfish motivation, one in which is not concerned about perpetuating self, but rather, the other. Explain to me then how this utilitarian perspective, that “the greatest good for the greatest number” of the species, somehow trumped the idea of self-survival, making self-survival subservient to the desire to preserve a species. In a situation where a primitive mind has the option of saving himself, or another primitive mind at the risk of his own life, what would happen to his primary instinct of self-survival, if he chooses the latter? If every instinct in us from my apparent misinterpretation of evolution is survival of self, why on earth would I feel any obligation whatsoever to perpetuate the society? Here you may say, “Primitive Agents understand that looking out for everyone else is what is in their own best interest. Therefore, we help others because it primarily helps us.” This somehow doesn’t seem satisfying considering that in a moment where “common sense,” as you purported, would suggest that we should clearly save ourselves; we somehow suppress that desire in order to save someone else. In other words, our primary objective for why we initially wanted to work with others somehow disappears.”

“Why do we have to be objective when we say Hitler was an evil bastard? His actions resulted in innocent people dying and freedom oppressed. Hating him (and his actions) seem purely subjective to me.”

2) The reason we would need an objective standard is for the simple fact that you cannot call a line “crooked” unless you have an understanding of what a “straight” line looks like. For you to assume that Hitler is “evil,” you would be suggesting that you have arrived to that conclusion based on a standard. If this standard is one that is evolving, or subjective, then your critique really holds no value. In fact, I can slice a baby in half and you wouldn’t be able to call it evil – rather, just a bad idea that, in all actuality, is rooted in subjectivity.

3) Also , if there is no measure by which you can call something objectively evil, why use slavery as a critique against the Bible? If slavery is not “objective evil,” what is your critique?

4) Aren’t you imposing your relative evolving subjective morals onto another society, implicitly suggesting that your moral values are better? What is the standard by which you could implicitly assume that? If we talk about function and utility, then slavery certainly produced results for those who had them. They were by no means obligated to consider any other group outside of their own, from you perspective. Any value you give to cherishing human life in general is purely subjective, from your perspective – for there are no objective values. For even in abhorring Hitler’s actions you assert, “Hating him (and his actions) seem purely subjective to me.” In other words, merely an opinion.

“Yet today we consider slavery an abomination.Do you disagree with this?”

5) No, I agree that it has always been an abomination. However, you find it to be an abomination only to our context – since we have evolving morals that hold no objective weight. In fact, tomorrow, it may be found as acceptable, given our society may conclude that.

Regarding whether or not we have to agree that society is worth preserving, you said:
“we don't have to agree - society takes care of itself.”

6) You are looking at society as if it is a being in and of itself. Society is really a group of individuals. How can consent among individuals that make up the society, regarding its preservation, be invalid, or unnecessary?

Regarding whether or not we critique Hitler’s Morale or Method:

“A little of both. More so the method imho - if he managed to get the resuts he desired without the atrocities commited, it might have been an acceptable result. His aims call for the methods, however. So he fails morally.”

7) Naturalists would say that throughout evolution, we have arrived at what is good or bad based upon what has produced the best results for us. In other words, our end (results that we were seeking), justifies the means (good or bad). In fact, you state that you have no problem with Hitler’s end, (“for it might have been an acceptable result”). All of a sudden, you have a problem with his means. Doesn’t his end justify his means? Or is there some sort of absolute “rule book,” let’s call it “objective moral law,” that tells us how to play? What is the basis from which you can make an assessment about his morals, or what you deem, “atrocious?”

When asked if there is a difference between fighting the biological instinct of taking care of children and choosing not to urinate?

“yes we can. Obviously. :P”

8) First, it isn’t obvious for the atheist. The reason I say that is, from the theistic perspective, objective morality can be understood by looking within. Atheistic morals, however, is purely subjective. It isn’t intuitive - for nothing has meaning unless we attribute meaning to it.

“And surely you can see that a baby has higher "qualities" than urine”

9) Yes, I can clearly see that. In fact, I believe that is objectively true. You believe it is subjectively true, a mere opinion.

“How do you then bring urine to be on the same level as conceiving??”

10) I actually can’t put them on the same level. However, in a worldview that suggests that there are no absolute values, how can you assert that urine is not as valuable? It’s much like what I mentioned in another post. If we are nothing more than matter that came as a result of an explosion, why is there any more meaning in our questions, than a jabbering of a chimp? In other words, how can we objectively suggest that there is any more meaning in “conceiving” than there is in excreting wastes, namely, “urinating?” Let us not presuppose any objective values in our answer.

“We transcend standards by our abilty to reason and think logically.”

11) This is where we will definitely part ways. Instead of believing that reason and logic transcend standards, I believe our “standards” must transcend our reason and logic. For example, logic would tell me that in a situation where I know I can get away with cheating, I would be justified. However, my logic is transcended here by a standard of how I know I morally “ought” to act.

“It is clear that morals change. How can it then be absolute?? We abhore killing people yet support wars under certain conditions. You have in now way or form proven any of your assertions.”

12) Actually you haven’t shown how morals change, given that I asserted the only reasons we practiced behaviors that always were reprehensible is because we have suppressed knowledge of what was “always objectively true.” It was rebellion, in some sense. Now, regarding “abhorring killing of people yet supporting wars” – not all wars are justified. One may assume that we hate killing because we value life. However, we may be willing to kill in order to preserve it as well – (defending a loved one in danger). Think of this in a way where I have the choice to only save one of 2 people. Although my decision at that moment may seem subjective, the fact that I see either one worth saving at all, instead of walking away in indifference, is an objective value.

“It can be showed that omnicience negates freewill.”

13) I’m curious as to how you can logically demonstrate this. God is all knowing of our freely chosen actions. If you would freely choose otherwise, God would know that. His knowledge doesn't determine our free actions - for what God knows is how we will freely choose. I think you may have a misunderstanding regarding this topic because you may see God as a temporal being, and not eternal. If you want to discuss atemporal eternality and the perspective of God, we can do that.

“As to God compelling us, the idea of hell is supposed to be pretty compelling.”

14) Consequences do not negate our freedom. Though they stand as a reason for acting in a certain way, it does not compel anyone’s will in the sense that they are not responsible for our actions. A lack of free will is when you are not the ultimate cause of your decision.

I certainly appreciate your participation in the discussion. I anxiously await your thoughts.