View Full Version : God on Trial: Are God's Laws Moral?
On another thread we have been discussing the human rights violations contained in the Bible, and whether or not the Biblegod is justified in allowing things like slavery and discrimination against women to be promoted as moral.
Craig mention the idea of giving god a fair and just hearing, so I thought of using the platform and standards of a modern day Court of Law, to put him on trial. I will be a prosecuting attorney, everyone else who participates can choose to be a defender or prosecutor, so here goes ...
1. The first charge is the violation of human rights by allowing slavery: which means the ownership of another person without their consent ... how do you plead?
Acting as prosecuting attorney on behalf of all the people whose human rights have been violated, by being enslaved by the decrees of the Biblegod, I present my first line of evidence taken from Leviticus.
Lev.25:44-47 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
The passage above clearly indites the Biblegod in the act of allowing the Hebrew people to buy people from surrounding communities for the purpose of owning them as slaves, thus violating their human rights. These slaves and their children are allowed to be passed down as an inheritance in perpetuity. The passage also mentions that heathen slaves can be treated in a harsher manner than Hebrew slaves, showing bias and unfair treatment depending on a persons ethnicity.
It appears that the Biblegod is convicted of the violation of human rights through slavery, by his own words. How do you plead?
Acting as prosecuting attorney on behalf of all the people whose human rights have been violated, by being enslaved by the decrees of the Biblegod, I present my first line of evidence taken from Leviticus.
Lev.25:44-47 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
The passage above clearly indites the Biblegod in the act of allowing the Hebrew people to buy people from surrounding communities for the purpose of owning them as slaves, thus violating their human rights. These slaves and their children are allowed to be passed down as an inheritance in perpetuity. The passage also mentions that heathen slaves can be treated in a harsher manner than Hebrew slaves, showing bias and unfair treatment depending on a persons ethnicity.
It appears that the Biblegod is convicted of the violation of human rights through slavery, by his own words. How do you plead?
Since no one has risen up in defense of the Biblegod I shall continue on with my case against him. The charge is that the Biblegod condones the immoral act of slavery by allowing the Hebrews to buy and sell people.
Exo.21:2-4 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
Exo.21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
In the verses above the slavery laws given by the Biblegod are laid out. If the slave master gives to his male slave a wife and she bears children to her slave husband, the children of the slave wife belong to her master and they are not allowed to leave. The second verse describes the extent of the abuse a slave master can mete out to his slave ... as long as the slave doesn't die anything goes! So, not only does the Biblegod allow the Hebrews to own slaves, he allows them to beat them to within an inch of their lives! Wow! :eek:
It's not looking good for the Biblegod, as the evidence piles up against him from his own book.
Since no one has risen up in defense of the Biblegod I shall continue on with my case against him. The charge is that the Biblegod condones the immoral act of slavery by allowing the Hebrews to buy and sell people.
Exo.21:2-4 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
The passage provide the best security and survival for the wife and children of the slave to be under the master's care. If the slave children and the wife were to follow the financially poor slave who were released, they might not be able to survive the harsh realities of the outside world and fend for themselves. If the poor slave who was released were usually given a small sum of money so that he can either used in to survive and work and to remarry once he becomes financially viable.
Exo.21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
In the verses above the slavery laws given by the Biblegod are laid out. If the slave master gives to his male slave a wife and she bears children to her slave husband, the children of the slave wife belong to her master and they are not allowed to leave. The second verse describes the extent of the abuse a slave master can mete out to his slave ... as long as the slave doesn't die anything goes! So, not only does the Biblegod allow the Hebrews to own slaves, he allows them to beat them to within an inch of their lives! Wow! :eek:
It's not looking good for the Biblegod, as the evidence piles up against him from his own book.
I have no problem with the above passage which served a warning to the slave master not to deal too severely with the slaves. If they over do it in beating the slaves and they died, the master will have to be punished with death; if he caused an injury by the beatings, then he will have to nurse the slave's injury and care for him until recovery; if the slave was beaten resulted in unconsciousness (whether real or fake) then the master is to allow his slave a day of rest or two to regain his consciousness. But if his unconsciousness resulted in death, the master will have to pay for his life.
The law thus put a curb on how far the punishment of the slave can go; if the slave dies, the master will have to die; if the slave is injured, the master must nursed him till recovery, if the slave becomes unconscious, the master must ensure that the slave has a rest or two to regain consciousness. As this is his money, no master will want to go to the extend to injure or traumatize a slave into unconsciousness as that will be a loss to him in terms of working days; to kill the slave will result in his own death.
God Bless. :pray:
The passage provide the best security and survival for the wife and children of the slave to be under the master's care. If the slave children and the wife were to follow the financially poor slave who were released, they might not be able to survive the harsh realities of the outside world and fend for themselves. If the poor slave who was released were usually given a small sum of money so that he can either used in to survive and work and to remarry once he becomes financially viable.
The charge is whether or not the Biblegod condones and allows the immoral act of slavery. All you are doing is trying to justify why its okay to own slaves. If slavery is immoral then no matter what reason you give for people owning slaves, it is still WRONG! Slavery denies people their basic human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No intelligent person would ever try and justify slavery.
I have no problem with the above passage which served a warning to the slave master not to deal too severely with the slaves. If they over do it in beating the slaves and they died, the master will have to be punished with death; if he caused an injury by the beatings, then he will have to nurse the slave's injury and care for him until recovery; if the slave was beaten resulted in unconsciousness (whether real or fake) then the master is to allow his slave a day of rest or two to regain his consciousness. But if his unconsciousness resulted in death, the master will have to pay for his life.
Again, you are trying to give justifications for slavery! That is truly sad and pathetic.
The law thus put a curb on how far the punishment of the slave can go; if the slave dies, the master will have to die; if the slave is injured, the master must nursed him till recovery, if the slave becomes unconscious, the master must ensure that the slave has a rest or two to regain consciousness. As this is his money, no master will want to go to the extend to injure or traumatize a slave into unconsciousness as that will be a loss to him in terms of working days; to kill the slave will result in his own death.
God Bless. :pray:
Don't you get it? Slavery is immoral and WRONG! By the Biblegod's own words in the Bible, he allows and condones slavery ... therefore he is guilty of egregious human rights violations.
I say the Biblegod is guilty as charged!
The charge is whether or not the Biblegod condones and allows the immoral act of slavery. All you are doing is trying to justify why its okay to own slaves. If slavery is immoral then no matter what reason you give for people owning slaves, it is still WRONG! Slavery denies people their basic human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No intelligent person would ever try and justify slavery.
Again, you are trying to give justifications for slavery! That is truly sad and pathetic.
Don't you get it? Slavery is immoral and WRONG! By the Biblegod's own words in the Bible, he allows and condones slavery ... therefore he is guilty of egregious human rights violations.
I say the Biblegod is guilty as charged!
And You will be charged of wrong accusation and defamation of God!
Which person in his right mind would want to willingly get himself into slavery? yet the Bible states that the me willingly accepted slavery as he had no choice but to choose this work. Are you trying to stop people's freedom of human rights to do what he thinks is right? Slavery in ancient times was a form of occupation which some people may choose in acknowledgement of the nature, risks and job scope of the work. There was no coercion.
It is the same as some people are forced into prostitution i.e. willingly selling their body for sex knowing the risks as it is the only way to earn money in order to survive and feed their family:
Exo.21:2-4 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
God Bless.:pray:
And You will be charged of wrong accusation and defamation of God!
Which person in his right mind would want to willingly get himself into slavery? Yet the Bible states that the men willingly accepted slavery as he had no choice but to choose this work.
Slavery is WRONG, and IMMORAL! A person should never be forced to become a slave because of needing work. Employment is the answer to needing work, not making someone a slave. The Biblegod explicitly approved of and condoned the method of buying and selling people for the purpose of needing workers.
In our society there are many people who are poor and need work and there are people who need workers, but that does not mean we allow people to own slaves. As I have said many times, intelligent people know that it is WRONG to own people as slaves ... why doesn't the Biblegod know that it is WRONG? Because the Biblegod was created in the minds of primitive men, who saw nothing wrong with owning slaves and denying people human rights. You are put in the awkward position of having to defend the ideas of primitive men, thus it makes you look like an immoral and biased individual.
Slavery is always wrong and immoral!
Are you trying to stop people's freedom of human rights to do what he thinks is right? Slavery in ancient times was a form of occupation which some people may choose in acknowledgement of the nature, risks and job scope of the work. There was no coercion.
It is the same as some people are forced into prostitution i.e. willingly selling their body for sex knowing the risks as it is the only way to earn money in order to survive and feed their family:
Exo.21:2-4 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
God Bless.:pray:
Now you are trying to justify the immoral act of slavery by stating that it is a human right! What is wrong with your sense of morality? Has your thinking been so corrupted by your religious beliefs that you can't even say that slavery is WRONG!
It is always wrong to own another human being, employment can be granted without ownership. Ownership means one individual has control over every aspect of another persons life, and that is wrong.
The charge against the Biblegod still stands: guilty of the immoral act of allowing and condoning slavery!
The Biblegod has been charged with the immoral act of violating peoples human rights by allowing and condoning slavery. Acting as a prosecuting attorney I have presented many passages from the Bible, also known as "The Word of God" showing the decrees the Biblegod given, which allow egregious acts of immorality to take place ... namely the buying and selling of human beings.
Biblical teaching still allows people to own slaves, and Jesus NEVER condemned slavery as a human rights violation, thus the charge of immorality stands.
The Biblegod is guilty of gross human rights violations, by allowing and condoning Slavery ... he is condemned by his own words and by the mouths of many witnesses.
Matthjar
08-10-2014, 05:18 AM
I would like to enter in as a participant in this trial..... first i must make a few admissions:
1. I, having no specific training in modern legal legalities, habits, procedures, manners, traditions, proclivities thereof, will merely do my best to direct the court to obtaining the absolute Truth of the matter. My humblest apologies if I in away affront the wisdom of the Court.
2. It is Wise for the Court to make Proper Judgments based on all available evidence.
3. The Courts Judgement while important for us is also non binding as it is impossible for the Finite to bind the Infinite.
In matter of the first charge brought by the prosecution.
1. The first charge is the violation of human rights by allowing slavery: which means the ownership of another person without their consent
We cannot charge God for Evil that he allows. This is merely a result of Free-Will that he must allow much Evil as Humanity has the choice to Choose such. If this were the case we could Charge God for All manners of Evil created by his Creation which can only be rectified by Charging God for granting us Free-Will which nullifies all findings of this Court and making it pointless if we have not Free Will.
I would ask that the record be stricken of the word "allowing" and instead using the word "Commanded" or "Condoned" or another word decided upon by the prosecution which more clearly shows the nature of the charge against God.
My Client cannot be held responsible for all the things that he merely allows, any more than I can be judged for "allowing" anyone else to do anything at all. It should not be the one allowing the offense but the one committing the offense that should be held accountable for the action. The Prosecution will have to show that my client had a more active influence on the action of slavery.
At this time i yield the floor to the prosecution to respond to this request.
Matthjar
As a defense attorney I already have defenses lined out for the choice of either word Condoned or Commanded.... but wait for the Prosecution in case they amend the charge to a third unknown or wish to continue debate soley on the premise of allowing.....
I would like to enter in as a participant in this trial..... first i must make a few admissions:
1. I, having no specific training in modern legal legalities, habits, procedures, manners, traditions, proclivities thereof, will merely do my best to direct the court to obtaining the absolute Truth of the matter. My humblest apologies if I in away affront the wisdom of the Court.
2. It is Wise for the Court to make Proper Judgments based on all available evidence.
3. The Courts Judgement while important for us is also non binding as it is impossible for the Finite to bind the Infinite.
In matter of the first charge brought by the prosecution.
1. The first charge is the violation of human rights by allowing slavery: which means the ownership of another person without their consent
We cannot charge God for Evil that he allows. This is merely a result of Free-Will that he must allow much Evil as Humanity has the choice to Choose such. If this were the case we could Charge God for All manners of Evil created by his Creation which can only be rectified by Charging God for granting us Free-Will which nullifies all findings of this Court and making it pointless if we have not Free Will.
I would ask that the record be stricken of the word "allowing" and instead using the word "Commanded" or "Condoned" or another word decided upon by the prosecution which more clearly shows the nature of the charge against God.
My Client cannot be held responsible for all the things that he merely allows, any more than I can be judged for "allowing" anyone else to do anything at all. It should not be the one allowing the offense but the one committing the offense that should be held accountable for the action. The Prosecution will have to show that my client had a more active influence on the action of slavery.
At this time i yield the floor to the prosecution to respond to this request.
Matthjar
As a defense attorney I already have defenses lined out for the choice of either word Condoned or Commanded.... but wait for the Prosecution in case they amend the charge to a third unknown or wish to continue debate soley on the premise of allowing.....
Hello Matthjar :yo:
So glad you entered into the conversation, and took the position of defense attorney. :thumb:
Addressing the point you made of not charging god for the evil he allows:
1. The charge against god of gross human rights violations for allowing slavery is based solely on the fact that the Bible, which is held by many people to be the "Word of God" contains laws, commands, and ordinances that specifically address and sanction the "keeping of slaves". This goes far beyond the simple allowing of evil to take place and into the realm of structuring laws that condone and sanction slavery.
2. The active influence that the Biblegod had on the owning of slaves is covered quite thoroughly in Leviticus 25, and Exodus 21, but by no means constrained to those passages. Not only are foreigners allowed to be bought and sold by the Hebrews under "God's Law", but Hebrew daughters are allowed to be sold by their fathers, under the laws given by the Biblegod. People who believe in the Bible claim that god specifically gave Moses all the laws (including slavery laws) that pertain to their daily lives, therefore he is responsible for the actions those laws cover.
Closing Statement: The giving of specific laws that deal with slavery, is about as actively influencing as one can get. God allowed the Hebrews to continue taking and keeping slaves, as long as they were in accordance with the laws he gave, therefore he is an active participant in allowing the institution of "Human ownership" ... SLAVERY to continue ...
Kind regards,
Rose
Matthjar
08-12-2014, 01:41 AM
Thanks for your Words of Encouragement Rosie!!!! I very much enjoy coming to a more complete understanding of your Worldview and where you are coming from.
There are many aspects I can see that come to the defense of God.
1. In Ancient Times before the advent of currency it is apparent to see that Slavery is Employment. Currency is the vehicle by which employment was made possible. In some ways this ancient model of employment is even better for the Slave than many Modern forms. In the Modern Age i am a Slave to Money... i have no guarantees that if i faithfully Slave away for 6 years that on the Seventh year I will be Free from debt, to the contrary in this Modern Age it appears that the more i slave for someone else the deeper in debt i become. This assertion can be further explored if need be.
2. With the burden of proof being laid on the prosecution that the accused is innocent until proved guilty, the prosecution has failed to show that any of these Slaves were made Slaves against there will. It is very possible that the Slave readily entered into the Slavery contract of their own free will, much the same as i freely seek employment in exchange for money to gain food and shelter and healthcare etc...... Unless the Prosecution to prove that the Slaves were forced into slavery against there will then the charge does not stand under its own weight and my client should be found NOT-Guilty.
3. Currently Every country in the World also engages in Slavery called Military Service, and yet most do not consider this to be IMMORAL or Wrong....Why is it okay for our Government to engage in Slavery but not okay for God?? If any "slave" chooses to end this slavery before the slave contract is up they will be imprisoned and subject to beatings, Rape, and many times death... under the UCMJ death is Valid punishment for deserters. Gods Slavery in the OT was better than this as it disallowed death by the master. Also in current economic slavery across the world while few are beaten to death, many are starved to death, cannot afford protection from the elements, waste away in death because they cannot afford healthcare. I would ask the prosecution which is more humane.
4. In the strictest sense of the Idea that "Slavery is WRONG" the prosecution is absolutely correct!!!! I could not agree more.... In fact I would submit to you that Slavery is So WRONG it is even an illusion. It is impossible for ANYONE to be enslaved to ANYTHING against their will.. in this way Slavery is complete Illusion. Nobody can be my Master unless i consent.... i must submit to the master or i am not a slave....... The most any aspiring master can do is tell me "BE my Slave or else x,y,z....." I then have a choice to submit or suffer x,y,z. There is no Slavery without consent. Now the Intimidation or Bullying aspect of Proposed slavery by a Master may or may not be to our benefit and is another topic all together.
5. I Must also agree with the prosecution that one of the most alarming aspects of Ancient Slavery is that the code seemed to work very differently for Men and Women... and for Nationals or Foreigners...... In my estimation this is the Strength of the Prosecutions case against my client.... That the national Men seemed to have Many more human rights than the women,children, foreigners.. Indeed this is something that we still with to this day in Modern Society.......
I would submit to you that this is not a shortcoming of GOD but rather of Man. God's policy on Slavery at this time merely elevated Mans morality to higher level than it would had been if God had said nothing at all on the subject. It was an improvement, albeit a very small improvement. It was merely the highest level to which Man could even conceive at the time due to his Very immature Morality. Sure God could have commanded this and been categorically rejected in its entirety due to its obvious absurdity. "THou Shalt fashion a Coin and use it in exchange for labor based on an hourly rate, every Man shalt exchange this Coin for goods and services from other men, Each Man Shalt pay a portion of this Coin to the State which then will provide for the public defense and welfare of the general public. Each Man, Woman, and Child Shalt receive the same Coin per Hour based upon the Time spent Producing, or maybe on the value of that Production. If a Man should become injured the he Shalt receive his daily Coin even if he cannot produce, Each Woman that is with Child shall receive her Coin while with Child even if she does not produce and for a period of four weeks thereafter, The collection of Coin from each laborer Shalt be spent to provide for healthcare of everyone weather they are producing or not......" I think you get my point it would almost by like me sitting my two year old child down and teaching them about theoretical Quantum Mechanics.
I know that the Prosecution will probably say that my client did not need to get that in depth with the economy of Slavery but that a very simple instruction that all Men, Women, and Children were equal in the Sight of the Lord would have sufficed in order for God to have been considered Just. For millions of years humankind had operated under the premise that Man had more rights than women or children so i am not convinced they were able to conceive that idea yet. This is very evident even in our Enlightened Modern Age we still struggle with Equal rights, this is not an indictment of God but of the ignorance of Man.
This is further evidenced by a further revelation of this same God in his son Jesus. Jesus helps us come to a more complete knowledge of the wisdom of God that is much more humane and fair.
Further more we must be very careful that in Judging God to be UNJUST for the actions of sinful men we are actually making the world more Unjust and barbaric. In the last 100 years every time a society or culture has categorically rejected God and the belief in a Just God and instead choose to rely on a version of a more "Fair" and "Equal" man-made Justice has been a complete and abject failure.... take for example exhibits A, B, C.
A. Mao's Godless China..... Possibly the biggest violator of Human Rights throughout of all History.... 70 Million dead in ushering in this Idea.
B. Stalin and Lenin's Godless Russia and USSR.
C. Hitlers Fascist Germany.....The Holocaust resulting in the death of many Jewish, gypsy, and homosexual humans.
If the Prosecution would like to examine any of these 3 exhibits in closer detail then i have no objection.
Herein lies the problem that in any Society upon denying the existence of God does not exterminate God, but instead promotes the State to God. The State time and time again has been shown to be a MUCH more merciless and Cruel God then God has ever been. Some may claim that could never happen now days .... I would urge anyone making that claim to reconsider.
So yes a verdict of Guilty for my client is not a verdict for Equality or Fairness, but instead a verdict for Inequality and Unfairness. God was merely elevating Man to the Highest extent of his current Moral maturity.
In many ways I completely agree with the Prosecution that MANY things that occur in the OT Bible and attributed to the OT God are VERY Barbaric WRONG and IMMORAL by today's modern standards.. there is NO doubt about that assertion..... Sadly God was not dealing with Modern Man but with Ancient Man blinded and limited by his own Moral immaturity.... and interestingly enough the same could be said for Modern Man trying to achieve the Higher Ideals of Justness and Fairness and Equality in the Modern Age also.
I have no doubt that even if today God choose to reveal his highest and most complete picture of 'Good, Fairness, and Equality' that the all of humanity would scoff at it as completely unrealistic, illogical, and impossible, even to include the most faithful, trusting, and bible believing Christians of our Time, so instead we just get incomplete versions that raise our understanding in small increments...
OHHH how much things have changed and How much they stay the same....
At this point the Defense yields the floor to the Prosecution......
With utter devotion to Love and Truth,
Matthjar.
Very much looking forward to your response Rosie!!!! I do not doubt that we are both trying to arrive at the same place but merely disagree about the best path to take to get us too that place...
Thanks for your Words of Encouragement Rosie!!!! I very much enjoy coming to a more complete understanding of your Worldview and where you are coming from.
There are many aspects I can see that come to the defense of God.
1. In Ancient Times before the advent of currency it is apparent to see that Slavery is Employment. Currency is the vehicle by which employment was made possible. In some ways this ancient model of employment is even better for the Slave than many Modern forms. In the Modern Age i am a Slave to Money... i have no guarantees that if i faithfully Slave away for 6 years that on the Seventh year I will be Free from debt, to the contrary in this Modern Age it appears that the more i slave for someone else the deeper in debt i become. This assertion can be further explored if need be.
Hello Matthjar :yo:
I am pleased to enter the courtroom again with you ...
Currency is not the issue here, because long before currency was "coined", goods were exchanged for labor. As for your reference to the guarantee of a slave being freed in the seventh year, that only applied to male Hebrew servants ... foreign slaves and women were afforded no such right according to biblical laws supposedly given by the god who is on trial in this courtroom.
2. With the burden of proof being laid on the prosecution that the accused is innocent until proved guilty, the prosecution has failed to show that any of these Slaves were made Slaves against there will. It is very possible that the Slave readily entered into the Slavery contract of their own free will, much the same as i freely seek employment in exchange for money to gain food and shelter and healthcare etc...... Unless the Prosecution to prove that the Slaves were forced into slavery against there will then the charge does not stand under its own weight and my client should be found NOT-Guilty.
Ah, but abundant evidence has been shown starting with the term "Slavery" itself as defined by the Bible. Remember, the term slavery was used by the Biblegod in reference to the Hebrews who were held in bondage against their will by the Egyptians. The biblical laws given in Leviticus make a clear difference between a "Bondservant", and a "Hired servant" ... Hebrew men could not be owned as slaves, but rather they could only be used as a hired servant who must be freed in the year of Jubilee. These rules did not apply to foreign slaves or women who were considered the property of men.
Lev.25:38-43 I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God. And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.
It is clear to see that the Biblegod is strongly biased in favor of Hebrew men, which shows his unjust and immoral nature.
3. Currently Every country in the World also engages in Slavery called Military Service, and yet most do not consider this to be IMMORAL or Wrong....Why is it okay for our Government to engage in Slavery but not okay for God?? If any "slave" chooses to end this slavery before the slave contract is up they will be imprisoned and subject to beatings, Rape, and many times death... under the UCMJ death is Valid punishment for deserters. Gods Slavery in the OT was better than this as it disallowed death by the master. Also in current economic slavery across the world while few are beaten to death, many are starved to death, cannot afford protection from the elements, waste away in death because they cannot afford healthcare. I would ask the prosecution which is more humane.
In this courtroom it is the Biblegod who is on trial, but I am quite sure that if our government or any other government in the world made up of people were put on trial, they too would be found guilty of gross human rights violations. Slavery is slavery no matter who the slave-master is, but when the slave-master is the supposed creator himself it is exceedingly bad and grounds for labeling him a fraud ... a deity made up in the minds of men.
4. In the strictest sense of the Idea that "Slavery is WRONG" the prosecution is absolutely correct!!!! I could not agree more.... In fact I would submit to you that Slavery is So WRONG it is even an illusion. It is impossible for ANYONE to be enslaved to ANYTHING against their will.. in this way Slavery is complete Illusion. Nobody can be my Master unless i consent.... i must submit to the master or i am not a slave....... The most any aspiring master can do is tell me "BE my Slave or else x,y,z....." I then have a choice to submit or suffer x,y,z. There is no Slavery without consent. Now the Intimidation or Bullying aspect of Proposed slavery by a Master may or may not be to our benefit and is another topic all together.
Again, the idea that there is no slavery without consent, is not the charge presented in this trial. The charge is: does the Biblegod allow, sanction and condone slavery? The answer is most surely a resounding YES!
5. I Must also agree with the prosecution that one of the most alarming aspects of Ancient Slavery is that the code seemed to work very differently for Men and Women... and for Nationals or Foreigners...... In my estimation this is the Strength of the Prosecutions case against my client.... That the national Men seemed to have Many more human rights than the women,children, foreigners.. Indeed this is something that we still with to this day in Modern Society.......
I would submit to you that this is not a shortcoming of GOD but rather of Man. God's policy on Slavery at this time merely elevated Mans morality to higher level than it would had been if God had said nothing at all on the subject. It was an improvement, albeit a very small improvement. It was merely the highest level to which Man could even conceive at the time due to his Very immature Morality. Sure God could have commanded this and been categorically rejected in its entirety due to its obvious absurdity.
The motion of the prosecution is the fact that according to the Bible, its god did choose to intervene and make laws and judgments concerning slavery, as such he is held responsible for the results of those actions. If man's level of morality was such that he could understand the idea of justice being the fair treatment of humans, then they surely could have understood the "Owning" of other humans is wrong.
If the Ten Commandments can state that disrespectful talk, bearing false witness, stealing and jealousy are wrong, how much more wrong is robbing another human of their freedom by owning them as a slave and treating them in a biased manner based on gender. I claim that by the Biblegods intervention of making laws and judgments concerning slavery, he is held responsible for slavery and is deemed to be unjust.
I know that the Prosecution will probably say that my client did not need to get that in depth with the economy of Slavery but that a very simple instruction that all Men, Women, and Children were equal in the Sight of the Lord would have sufficed in order for God to have been considered Just. For millions of years humankind had operated under the premise that Man had more rights than women or children so i am not convinced they were able to conceive that idea yet. This is very evident even in our Enlightened Modern Age we still struggle with Equal rights, this is not an indictment of God but of the ignorance of Man.
This is further evidenced by a further revelation of this same God in his son Jesus. Jesus helps us come to a more complete knowledge of the wisdom of God that is much more humane and fair.
The idea that men could not conceive of the idea gender equality does not hold up. Since the dawn of human civilization there have been egalitarian societies, albeit very few. Also, the Bible has no shortage of laws and commands that most of the people did not understand, yet they were required to OBEY, so there is no reason why laws could not have been given that forbade slavery and gender bias.
Further more we must be very careful that in Judging God to be UNJUST for the actions of sinful men we are actually making the world more Unjust and barbaric. In the last 100 years every time a society or culture has categorically rejected God and the belief in a Just God and instead choose to rely on a version of a more "Fair" and "Equal" man-made Justice has been a complete and abject failure.... take for example exhibits A, B, C.
A. Mao's Godless China..... Possibly the biggest violator of Human Rights throughout of all History.... 70 Million dead in ushering in this Idea.
B. Stalin and Lenin's Godless Russia and USSR.
C. Hitlers Fascist Germany.....The Holocaust resulting in the death of many Jewish, gypsy, and homosexual humans.
If the Prosecution would like to examine any of these 3 exhibits in closer detail then i have no objection.
The truth of the matter is that when one compares the laws, decrees and justice of the Bible, to the laws, decrees and justice of man, one finds there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two ... leading to the conclusion that the Biblegod and his laws are just a construct of the human mind.
Herein lies the problem that in any Society upon denying the existence of God does not exterminate God, but instead promotes the State to God. The State time and time again has been shown to be a MUCH more merciless and Cruel God then God has ever been. Some may claim that could never happen now days .... I would urge anyone making that claim to reconsider.
So yes a verdict of Guilty for my client is not a verdict for Equality or Fairness, but instead a verdict for Inequality and Unfairness. God was merely elevating Man to the Highest extent of his current Moral maturity.
In many ways I completely agree with the Prosecution that MANY things that occur in the OT Bible and attributed to the OT God are VERY Barbaric WRONG and IMMORAL by today's modern standards.. there is NO doubt about that assertion..... Sadly God was not dealing with Modern Man but with Ancient Man blinded and limited by his own Moral immaturity.... and interestingly enough the same could be said for Modern Man trying to achieve the Higher Ideals of Justness and Fairness and Equality in the Modern Age also.
I have no doubt that even if today God choose to reveal his highest and most complete picture of 'Good, Fairness, and Equality' that the all of humanity would scoff at it as completely unrealistic, illogical, and impossible, even to include the most faithful, trusting, and bible believing Christians of our Time, so instead we just get incomplete versions that raise our understanding in small increments...
OHHH how much things have changed and How much they stay the same....
At this point the Defense yields the floor to the Prosecution......
With utter devotion to Love and Truth,
Matthjar.
Very much looking forward to your response Rosie!!!! I do not doubt that we are both trying to arrive at the same place but merely disagree about the best path to take to get us too that place...
I think I have clearly shown that the ability of ancient man to comprehend a morality based on equal human rights was totally within their capabilities. The excuse that god was working with men of limited moral intelligence and therefore had to progress by allowing injustice is flawed on many counts:
1. Ancient men were able to obey laws and decrees that they didn't understand.
2. Ancient men did understand the idea of fairness, and justice, like balancing weights on a scale.
3. The idea of treating others as yourself was a concept that men understood in biblical times.
4. Egalitarian societies did exist in biblical times, so the idea of gender equality was understood.
5. Immaturity is no excuse for wrong behavior ... children do not understand many of the rules that are imposed upon them, yet they are expected to obey. Mature adults are supposed to be teaching their children right from wrong, because children are too immature to know right from wrong, the same holds true for god.
I will await your reply, :pop2:
Rose
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.