Christians like to claim objective morality for their god, but when confronted with the atrocities of the Old Testament that are either sanctioned, ordered, or committed by god they insist on applying context. Why would an immutable, omnipotent and omniscient god needs context for his deeds?

[deleted]

We are only "flawed" because of our flawed design, and our lot in life is to struggle and cope with finite knowledge, finite resources, death, hunger, disease, mental illness, sexual drive, emotions, and a whole host of things that god doesn't have to deal with. Created sick, commanded to be well.

Who is god to criticize and damn us for things he doesn't have to deal with? It must be nice to be so perfect and not have to deal with any of the shit us humans have to deal with on a regular basis.

What? I think your missing the difference between subjective and objective morality as far as secular ethical discussions go.

If a few atheist got together and started a society, agreed upon a moral code that allowed beating children as punishment and owning Christian slaves would it be right?

Such a course of action would stand against many values of common human decency. Most human beings would surely oppose them. I would argue that their actions put no value in human life; no value in the health, comfort or happiness of children, no value of the sanctity of childhood; no value in the right to bodily autonomy. I would question the values of anyone who did not oppose them.

To ask whether the course of action is "right" implies that any action can be "right" outside of a moral code; it implies that there is some objective standard by which we can measure "right" and "wrong." I don't honestly know whether it's possible to assign a truth-value the claim that "Slavery is immoral." I only know that anyone who would assert the opposite would stand against everything that I value; everything most human beings hold dear.

Why is it that we don't see secular activists participating in these sorts of acts, though? Why is it that the people who claim that to spare the rod is to spoil the child are mostly Christians reciting scripture? Why does the Bible not condemn slavery, or the abuse of slaves, or the abuse of children? If it's true that God has written morals on our hearts, why is it that our hearts don't reflect the infallible Word of God?

Congratulations and welcome to moral relativism i.e., the opposite of objective morality.

Awesome, I would say the same thing.

The mental gymnastics apologists must use to excuse or justify the cruelty of their loving god is always entertaining and frustrating at the same time.

He would have been a Jew. OT Law didn't apply to everyone, just the Jews.

Sorry, I'm not getting your point? They knew it was a direct command.

Also, you seem to be perfectly fine assuming he was gathering sticks not to freeze to death, while telling me not to assume anything.

I believe God has to strike a balance between interfering with our decisions, and free will. And that his methods have a long arch towards justice.

If God is limited to a violent option, then he's not omnipotent.

This is plainly false. I wish I could go into it more but I'm in the hospital. However, when you get a chance please read into the free will / Molinist world-creation discussions across the web to get an idea of how this comes about. It is simply a question of whether the ideal outcome for freely acting individuals could include suffering. If it does, then suffering, violence, etc. are compatible with an omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent God

I see, it looks like you have made up your mind of what God ought to be like.

Context doesn't matter for one simple reason: God is claimed to be objectively moral. Objective morality means something is always moral or immoral regardless of context.

It depends on what you think the end goal is. If you believe the world should be a picture perfect paradise with absolutely no shades of wrong, where everyone cannot do anything wrong, or even if they do God should intervene every single time, than yes God in the Bible does not meet your criteria.

Don't we all believe that it isn't always and everywhere wrong either for one human being (or society of human beings) to kill a human being, nor is it always and everywhere wrong to revoke the freedom of another human being.

Or, if it is, than putting people in jail or drafting them into the armed services, or killing in war or in self-defense, would always and everywhere be wrong. And no Christian (or very, very few Christians) believe that's true. Nor, I think, do very many atheists.

And even among Christians (or others) who believe we ought never to use the death penalty--or very rarely--the suggested alternative is never, as far as I know, anything other than long-term incarceration.

And one of the arguments often used against the imposition of the death penalty by contemporary societies is, first, that we possess the facilities to safely keep people convicted of capital crimes incarcerated and separated from the general public; and, second, that executing people convicted of capital crimes involves the risk that we might execute an innocent person.

But the alternative isn't that we ought never to send anyone to prison on the grounds that by so doing we might be revoking the freedom of an innocent person. It's generally understood that there are circumstances when it is right to kill; and where it is right to revoke the freedom of another human being.

If failure to observe the Sabbath was a capital offense in ancient Israel, than that it should incur the death penalty isn't an offense either against reason or logic, even if it does seem a trivial excuse for putting someone to death to us. But here we're not arguing over the principle or God's eternal law--but about the context that this judicial precept exists within.

You purposely pick divorce because its easier to reconcile

Easier to reconcile with what? God's eternal law?

So what was the reconciliation? Moses' permission or Jesus' prohibition?

Wasn't adultery also a capital offense according to the Law of Moses?

Back to slavery, if it's true (and I think it is) that it isn't always and everywhere wrong to revoke a person's freedom, than what is it about slavery--or certain kinds of slavery--that makes it wrong to make a slave of someone else?

Or is it perhaps that slavery, as such, isn't the really impermissible thing, but certain attitudes and behaviors that almost inevitably attend the practice, and for which reason we've (as a society) concluded the practice itself ought to be prohibited, are?

But I assume that you, like most atheists (and even Christians) on this sub or on Reddit subscribe to what I call "the morality of consent"--that is, that what makes something right or wrong is whether or not consent is given to the act. So, the only difference between licit and illicit sexual intercourse is consent. And, likewise, the difference between murder and mercy killing is consent. (I disagree with the morality of consent, by the way--I would hold that a thing can be wrong even when all parties consent to the act.)

So, according to the Morality of Consent, it would only be wrong to enslave someone if you made them a slave against their will. But by the same logic, shouldn't it be permitted that if a man should choose to become another man's slave for the rest of his life, that his wish should be granted and even enforced by law? So that slavery (at least this kind of slavery) wouldn't be wrong--wouldn't even be called slavery, as consensual sexual intercourse is never called "rape".

But what about the children of slaves? I do think it odd that in our society we extend a tremendous degree of latitude when it comes to a parent's right to force his or her own will on their children--even to the point that a woman may choose to have her unborn child put to death for any reason or no reason whatever--but that for some reason, if a woman should choose to sell herself, and her unborn children as slaves, we would find such an arrangement morally repugnant. (Could a woman sell her right to a third party to decide whether or not the fetus in her womb should be aborted? I think the logic of abortion rights and the morality of consent would definitely suggest that she should.)

Anyway, we can argue about slavery or capital punishment or abortion if you want to. I personally don't understand how people who oppose slavery under any circumstance can also support a woman's right to abort her child under almost any circumstance.

Suffice it to say, you bring up two quandaries--one involves killing other people and the other involves a revocation, permanent or temporary, of other people's freedom. What I've said is that we as a society do not, in fact, believe that it is always and everywhere wrong to kill another human being or to revoke their freedom either permanently or temporarily, and that all we disagree about is the circumstances--i.e. the context.

I would really like to see his response to this...

The argument doesn't follow because God not only permitted but commanded behavior that would now be considered immoral by today's standards.

This is precisely why I thought it was a well-written apology. You can certainly attack the argument on those grounds, but to do it, you need to find an instance of God commanding an immoral act and demonstrate it (admittedly not so difficult in the age of information.) When you do, another apology is sure to be forthcoming. I must admit, I'm curious to see whether or not it's possible to maintain consistency using this line of reasoning.

christianity can and should be judged critically - This is different from criticising. This can be done by anyone, but of course Christians SHOULD know the reasons of what and why they believe above others. The problem with speaking in absolutes about the character or actions of God, particularly if you don't believe it, is that you will look for certain things to support what you think. Ironically, God is complex AND simple. The nature of God? Perfect love and perfect justice and it creates quite the tension.

mischaracterisation? The minute anyone says God is 'obviously this or that' without understanding the complexities and contexts that are often lost in translation in the bible that we have. We look too often through 'westernised' understandings.

Cognitive dissonance, also many liberal Christians embrace moral relativism when exposed to the obvious immorality of other cultures......

Hell if I know, I don't know everything about every single christian that does or has existed, but if you someone thinks that they ALL accept objective morality then I just think that they are overgeneralizing.

If we are discussing absolute morality, then that is independent of context, by definition.

Incorrect. Absolute morality doesn't need to ignore the context of a situation. Is it immoral to kill someone? Are you killing them in cold blood, or are you killing them to protect yourself? The context makes these two acts very different, with differing moral considerations. An absolute morality can take these differences into consideration. The rule doesn't have to be 'it is wrong to kill', it can rather be 'it is wrong to kill in cold blood'.

u/theshadowkick explains it perfectly. Context isn't some weird extra thing it's part of the action. Context is part of the action you are leaving out, not something extra added in.