Question for atheists

I follow the law obviously, but mainly my own moral judgement. Even if there were no laws I wouldn’t be going around stealing or killing people because that’s just plain wrong, I don’t know about others but I’ve always had a sense of what is right or wrong even when I was a child.

 

I want to live in a world where as many people as possible are as happy as possible. All i can do to encourage this is to act in a way that brings happiness to myself and to others. Any actions using this motivation is right/good. The opposite would be wrong/bad.
The Christian has a harder time determining what is right and wrong. The 2nd most serious crime according to God is worshipping false gods - which has precedence over murder. So a guy in India worshipping Ganesha is committing a greater sin than a man who murders someone.
Ethnic cleansing/genocide as in the case of the Amalakites seems to be within Gods definition of what is good or right. Hitler tried the same thing and is regarded as the most evil man that lived. Yet God seems to approve and actively encourages it. And Jesus lived in a world where slavery was common, he used slaves to illustrate his parables yet he never condemns it. So slavery gets the green light too.
As i said - i think the believer has a much harder time squaring up what is right and wrong.

 

I suggest you do a little more research on Christianity before you make crazy claims about it. Your post is full of misinformation.

 

www.religioustexttakenoutofcontext.com

 

Jesus made references to slavery. He had ample opportunity to condemn the enforced lifelong enslavement of innocent people but never did he speak out against it. That means to me at least he thought there was nothing wrong with it.
I never said Hitler was approved. I said Hitler wanted to exterminate an entire group of people, and so did God (Samuel 1:15) I was simply making a comparison. In modern terms it's called ethnic cleansing.
Seeing that the first commandment appears to be the most important, I'm working on the assumption the commandments were given in order of importance. Unless you think that yes, god intended the first commandment as supreme, but the following 9 were of equal importance. If the first commandment is more important than the second, then it is logical the 2nd commandment is more important than the 3rd and so on.

 

1) Did God tell the Israelites to slaughter the Amalakites?
2) Did Jesus every condemn slavery?
3) Is "thou shalt not erect any graven images" higher up in the list of commandments than "thou shalt not kill"?
These are my observations, not crazy claims.

 

Which part of what he said was misinformation?

 

Forgive me for saying crazy claims, I meant more that you should study the bible more before making observations like that on it.

Yes, but its more complicated than "therefore God is like Hitler". Here is some reading that might interest you: http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html
http://rationalchristianity.net/amalekites.html

Not exactly. But again, its not that simple: https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html
The translation of "Slave" could also mean "servant" back then. The bible does reference "slave traders" (probably more similar to what we have in mind nowadays): "for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine..."
It also gives some guidelines for how "masters" should treat their "slaves" (again, probably more like a paid servant):" Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."
So you can see that, while it does not directly condemn slavery, it would certainly have condemned tyrannical slavery such as was in america.

I'm not aware of the Bible specifying that the commandments are ordered by their importance. As you point out, it would not make sense in some situations, such as saying "Oh my God" being a worse sin than murdering.

 

According to many apologists, anything that seems immoral or ridiculous to the modern reader is either a product of the time or a mistranslation - that's what @brilliantidiot does here too. This is a total cop out and can be used to defend literally any assumption about any historical text.

So, yeah. The question really should be: religious people, how can you be moral when your supposedly holy books are anything but?

 

When Moses & co find a man working on the sabbath, God instructs them to kill him. Laws supposedly given by God require people not to eat certain food, not to have tattoos and not to wear clothes made out of two fabrics - WTF. And then there's the one saying that men who have sex with each other shall be put to death.

And the very beginning is highly problematic: God turns out to be not only imperfect at his work but also very insecure, condemning his almost-clones to suffering out of fear they might compete with him. Later he murders nearly all of his creation because it behaved differently than he had expected. Later he is seen having fun wiping out two cities with fire spells and turning people into salt.

How can anyone look at any of that and say, "Hey, that looks like something that might have happened." is beyond me.

 

The greek and hebrew word for slave and servant is the same.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

I'll get to the rest of the posts later when I have more time.

 

Ok thanks.
So it seems there is some justification and of course the eternal "get out of jail" card, context. Hmmm. Would have been nice if God could have managed to have his word and will recorded without narritives of mass slaughter, i like the way he even specified children and babies. Nice.
Uncertainty about what exactly a "slave" was in the ancient world, ok I accept that. Fun fact of the Bible's view on beating slaves, the owner is only to be punished if the slave dies from his beating. Beat a slave and he is *only* crippled, scarred, blinded etc... and youre ok. So says the Bible.
Ordering of the commandments, that seems a bit random. And just while I was looking, I noticed something odd: Matthew 22:36-40 Jesus is asked what is the greatest commandment, 36: And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments". I've looked at ALL versions and variants of the 10 Commandments, nowhere is the "love your neighbour..." listed. On another occasion, Luke 18: And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother" - leaving out the 1st (Love thy God...) which in Matt 22 he says is the MOST important. So he gave 2 different answers on 2 occasions, one time claiming a saying was a commandment when it is not.
Jesus seemed a bit confused about the topic...
Maaaaaannn....its 2020 for crying out loud, WHY are we still discussing a book written by people who didnt even know where rain comes from or thought that a guy who takes his trash out on the sabbath deserves to die?

 

No problem

>You take something out of context
>I point out that you are taking it out of context
>I'm using the "get out of jail card".
Nice. Maybe just don't take it out of context in the first place.

This read might help: https://www.gotquestions.org/beating-slaves.html
Again, times change. Physical beating was accepted back then much more than it is today. Heck, the Roman's idea of a circus was throwing slaves/criminals etc. to the lions or make them kill each other in the colloseum. Football seems pretty tame in comparison.

First, the 10 commandments aren't exclusive.
Second, even if they were Jesus may be stressing the importance of love here. Notice a similar theme in the

Spoiler: Love chapter

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;

7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

As to the fact that He said only God is good, as opposed to typing out tedious paragraphs, I'll give you another link:https://www.gotquestions.org/good-God-alone.html

 

I take issue with this question of context. And it bothers me greatly that a supposed 'holy' book requires me to undertake a sustantial process of investigation and reflection to reach a point where murdering infants and beating slaves is justified. It also bothers me that in his supposed omnisience and wisdom, god could not manage to lay down his laws without including a bunch of stuff that future generations would consider abhorrent and morally reprehensible. The other book your God wrote, the Koran, suffers from this fault even more so.
Isnt it funny? The OP question has that smug undercurrent of "ohhh you poor atheists, you dont believe in anything so you dont know right from wrong, how do you live awww diddums" - and here we are, with the christian saying there are circumstance where murdering infants and beating slaves is justified, and me, the atheist saying no, such things are never justified.

 

I understand that, but any book that old will have translation issues in modern society, not just a Holy book.

Christians don't believe God wrote the quran.

Just out of curiosity, are you pro-life?

Nowadays beating a slave/servant is never acceptable, the Bible makes that clear like I explained above. Your argument is fairly weak because you are using emotions "Oh isn't beating a slave awful?" but ignoring the fact that in 1400 BC beating was considered a normal punishment for crimes such as disobedience to the authorities, and not just for servants.

 

Ok were just going round in circles here. I believe a wicked act is a wicked act, regardless of when/where it took place. You think the relative wickedness of an act is mitigated by the social norms and customs of the time and place it happened. You seem to be saying that an unprovoked murder of an innocent man 1000 years ago is a less serious crime than if it happened today, because, well, it was more common back then. And an unprovoked murder of an innocent man 10000 years ago is a much less serious crime than a similar murder 1000 years ago, because, well, it was even more common back then - and so on. Thats my understanding of what youre saying. For a number of reasons i find it a very troubling way of looking at things.
Anyway as i said lets leave it there...

 

What about the art of war.Also the prince by machiavelli.They seem to translate pretty fine