Is morality subjective?

Originally posted by whodey
Shell fish, like shrimp, are the roaches of the sea. In fact, most everything that hovered close to the ground, the garbage disposals of nature, was shunned from their diet. Probably not bad advice in general.

Not an issue of "morality".

Originally posted by whodey
At least you conceed that not all of their laws are viewed by you as nonsense.

I never claimed that they were all nonsense. Resort to rhetorical tricks if you must.

Originally posted by FMF
Much of it, yes. The sort of capricious stuff that tyrants rely on. Certainly not a basis for a 'moral code' that might have any credibility in terms of having a "universal" application. It's the arbitrary and ludicrous nonsense of Hebrew folklore.

It was never meant to be a universal application.

Originally posted by FMF
Not an issue of "morality".

What is morality? For me it is doing what is good and/or right.

Telling people that smoking is bad for them and they should quit is a moral thing to do as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by whodey
Although the Mosaic law did not outlaw slavery, it obviously took a dim view of it.

If it were a valid moral template for humanity conducting itself in amoral way then it would have outlawed it. But it didn't. It's just Hebrew folklore. It is merely anthropological information. They had slaves. The literature they had said it was ok for them to have slaves.

Originally posted by whodey
What is morality? For me it is doing what is good and/or right.

Telling people that smoking is bad for them and they should quit is a moral thing to do as far as I'm concerned.

If you think the eating of certain foods or the composition of cloth or the way crops are laid out, constitute "sin", then your concept of "sin" is fatally compromised and irrelevant. If you think think the rules pertaining to the eating of certain foods or the composition of cloth or the way crops are laid out, have "moral" content, then your credibility as a commentator on "morality" is compromised by your need to make apologies for centuries' old Hebrew folklore.

Originally posted by whodey
It was never meant to be a universal application.

In terms of establishing a "moral" code it is ludicrous. In terms of establishing a rationale for superstitious religionist tyranny it is spot on.

Originally posted by whodey
The God of the OT saw the suffering of Israel and brought forth Moses to help deliver them. He then gave them the Sabbath, a day of rest, something unheard of in ancient times where almost men knew was slavery in some form 24/7. That included every slave and beast of burden. He then went further to say that slaves would be free in a 7 years time span so th ...[text shortened]... f course, if outlawing it meant that some would go hungry or worse, would it have been worth it?

If the God of the OT were a moral God, it would have condemned slavery outright. It surely would not have condoned slavery as it did. Think about this: The God of the OT condemned the wearing of garments made of more than one fiber, yet it was beyond its power to condemn slavery?

The God of the OT had laws that are not the laws of the God of Jesus.

Matthew 7
12“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Clearly condoning slavery does not fit the laws of the God of Jesus.

No matter how many excuses you attempt to make for the God of the OT, the God of the OT had laws that are NOT the laws of the God of Jesus. They do not fit the criteria for the laws of the God of Jesus. Condoning slavery is but one.

He then went further to say that slaves would be free in a 7 years time span so that they could start over again.

This was only true of Hebrew slaves. The God of the OT allowed non-Hebrew to be kept as permanent slaves. Why do so many Christians insist on repeating this half-truth?

Leviticus 25
44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves...

Originally posted by FMF
If you think the eating of certain foods or the composition of cloth or the way crops are laid out, constitute "sin", then your concept of "sin" is fatally compromised and irrelevant. If you think think the rules pertaining to the eating of certain foods or the composition of cloth or the way crops are laid out, have "moral" content, then your credibility as a c lity" is compromised by your need to make apologies for centuries' old Hebrew folklore.

My only point here is that our morality is based upon authority figures whether they be the law, the church, your peers, your parents etc. For those under the Mosaic law, the morality was given by God himself.

That is why when slavery was legal in the 1800's, it was largely seen as OK. For them, the law of the land was the real authority in their view so they simply adopted the moral code of those in authority. However, have a judge rule it unconstitutional and wrong, now the idea of slavery seems absurd to us. This shows us that people are truly lemmings, or as the Bible calls us "sheep".

You would then think that I'm a moral relativist, but I'm not. Slavery was never embraced in its entirety. Everyone knew deep down that it was suboptimal even though it should not be outlawed, much like abortion is viewed today. It was merely tolerated for the economic benefit, much like abortion is viewed today.

In the end, universal morality will triumph. That means that slavery will someday disappear altogether, just like abortion surely will as well, even though they may still be tolerated in our sin laden world. This means that eventually sin will be conquered in its entirety.

Originally posted by whodey
However, have a judge rule it unconstitutional and wrong, now the idea of slavery seems absurd to us. This shows us that people are truly lemmings, or as the Bible calls us "sheep".

No. The OT was wrong to condone slavery. Those who campaigned to get judges to outlaw it as immoral and abhorrent were not "sheep". They set a moral example that shines brighter than the OT's shameful 'moral example' on this issue.

Originally posted by whodey
My only point here is that our morality is based upon authority figures whether they be the law, the church, your peers, your parents etc. For those under the Mosaic law, the morality was given by God himself.

That is why when slavery was legal in the 1800's, it was largely seen as OK. For them, the law of the land was the real authority in their view so ...[text shortened]... in our sin laden world. This means that eventually sin will be conquered in its entirety.

You posted this around the same time I posted my above response to you. Just want to make sure you don't miss it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If the God of the OT were a moral God, it would have condemned slavery outright. It surely would not have condoned slavery as it did. Think about this: The God of the OT condemned the wearing of garments made of more than one fiber, yet it was beyond its power to condemn slavery?

The God of the OT had laws that are not the laws of the God of Jesus.
...[text shortened]... our sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves... [/quote]

Excuses? If there be a God, he needs no excuses. He also does not need my feeble attempt to defend him.

If he exists he is who he is and if he is really all powerful he can do as he pleases. In the end he is the final judge and will establish whatever moral code he thinks is best. It may make sense to us or it may not.

Although none of us understand all of his ways, I'm betting the house that he is really just and loving. If not, we are all screwed anyway.

Originally posted by whodey
Slavery was never embraced in its entirety..

It was condoned. Detailed instructions were issued. The OT's take on slavery is morally grotesque. As long as you make excuses, everything you say about "morality" is compromised.

Originally posted by whodey
That is why when slavery was legal in the 1800's, it was largely seen as OK. For them, the law of the land was the real authority in their view so they simply adopted the moral code of those in authority.

Many of the people that supported slavery cited the OT. They cited biblical "authority".

Originally posted by FMF
It was condoned. Detailed instructions were issued. The OT's take on slavery is morally grotesque. As long as you make excuses, everything you say about "morality" is compromised.

Sin and slavery are one in the same in scripture. As Jesus once said, he who sins is a slave of sin.

Slavery was never glorified in the scriptures. In fact, it is just the opposite as I've pointed out. From my vantage point it was allowed on some level simply because sin has never been completly removed from our midst. In the end, slavery in some form will always be a side effect in a sin laden world. That does not mean, however, that efforts should not be made to minimize this side effect. We should all endevour to be a Moses in this regard.