Atheism Bible Christian God Morality

Can opinions be wrong? Walking the thin line.

You should always believe in your self,…but not when you are wrong!

Every once in a while I get the chance to run into someone who thinks that they know the Bible. Atheists, Christians, Agnostics, it can be any individual from any group. And unfortunately they have read their bibles 10 times at least. I say at least because they haven’t read it in full. No, they just cherry pick stories and read it. The first three books of the Bible Genesis and Exodus and Leviticus, Joshua, Job, Kings, Chronicles, Jonah, the gospels, and revelation. Most people only read these 15 books out of the 66 which are in the standard protestant canon – and they think they understood the complicated history, the texture, the technicalities of the most widely read book in history. Atheists often do not read the Bible at all or read it selectively, they would prefer a “killer” book by some very outspoken atheist than read the Gospel.

So getting to know these 15 books out of the 66, makes an atheist comfortable, because he or she thinks they got it nailed down. I have rarely met an atheist who actually knows about Biblical scholarship without talking from both sides of his mouth. This is not a generalization, simply my experience.  And not to begrudge my good atheist friends, I admit it without any hesitation that the same goes for most Christians too, they do not have any idea about the intricacy of the Bible, they just love the Sunday school stories and that’s pretty much about it.

Anyone who wants to critically look at the Bible should know three things before they even think about establishing views about the Bible.

1. Hermeneutics

2. Exegesis

3. Context and historical background

If you do not know these principles do not bother wasting your time. It is like digging up a dinosaur fossil with your bare hands and no knowledge of placing it right in the tree of life, you will mess up big time and people do. Most people I have seen barely know the last point. And yet people are forming opinions as if their opinions are based on some scholarship, that scholarship usually means a few pages of some website which they skimmed through.

This post is not aimed at any specific group but to everyone who like to jump up and down through the Bible. I recently read a blog by a very outspoken atheist, who made the case for atheism as the only true case there ever was, and made it a point that the extermination of all religions is a must otherwise the world might end tomorrow. Full of generalization, sweeping stereotyping, straw men arguments. The writer almost made a case which would prove that the earth has cancer and that is faith, all faiths actually. A real tear-jerker and yet, wrong. Wrong because the author did not intellectually ascertained anything, it was all based on an emotional case, something like “I was thought of as a baby producing machine so I hate God…blah blah blah”. If you went and married a man who thought of you as a Baby producing machine, that is not God’s fault, its your own blindness that led to it. If you do not know what kind of guy you are tying a knot with, then how are you suppose to make intelligent decisions?

As Einstein once said, “The universe and stupidity has no boundaries, and I am not sure about the universe.”

Why I am feeling this much disdain about someones rant? After all everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am really sad because the opinion is sorely based on all blunders one can surmise in logical inconsistencies. It is wrong not only for what it claims but what it promotes, that faith, on every level (not just legislation) is a dangerous thing, that it is oppressing and is a tumor; and that theists and non-theists are enemies, they can not be friends. They can not live together. Hell, this is no different than Medieval Christianity or Islam. It is intolerant.

Here the trump card is called in, “This is not an opinion it is a fact.”

Well let me ask you 2+2=4 is a fact, I understand that, H20 forms water, I get it. Christianity is inherently evil ? No, sorry, that is not a fact that is an opinion. Oh wait, you say just go through history, see all the wars. I will just turn it back and ask you to account for the all the good things, done on the name of faith today and also in history, I would ask you to account for millions…sorry billions of people happy in their faiths (even non-Christians). That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

My friend, a drug addict, has an opinion, he thinks that a car can kill you on the road so why not just smoke heroine and die. Now I am all for respecting everyone’s opinion but this one makes me want to shake the crap out of him until he comes to his senses. My brother has an opinion, he thinks dictatorships are cool. My neighbor has an opinion, he thinks that women should only cook. Am I supposed to respect these opinions? Yes, I can understand why, in a debate I should respect the opinions of others but is there a line?

I return to Holocaust again, is holocaust a matter of opinion? Would you not recommend someone to the doctor, someone who wants to kill millions on account of their race? But isn’t it his opinion too? It is.

The point of debating is to be professional and polite and I can understand why in a debate, one must be intellectual but what do you do when you face opinions that are wrong? How do you decide when an opinion is wrong? I have never mind atheism being outspoken or even evangelized but I cringe when I hear people saying remove faith, remove religion and I am not talking about the government and the law, I am talking about daily life.  How do you deal with an opinion like this? How do you deal with someone who is bent on being your enemy when you are not?

If every opinion matters, then we are all wrong, aren’t we?

By John A. David

A student of theology, a bible teacher and a graphics designer. I ramble a lot about Christian faith, apologetics and atheism.

59 replies on “Can opinions be wrong? Walking the thin line.”

But, there are facts that demonstrate that the Bible has immorality in it. Whether that means the Bible itself is immoral, I guess, is an opinion. However, consider the quote:

‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’

I’d go as far as to say that this quote is immoral. Why are people ordered to kill other humans and animals? At the very least, it is immoral as humans know morality. A statement which, to me, seems like a cop out.

I don’t think war is immoral on every level, but the above quote is an example of reckless hate-provoked warfare. There have been many kinds of wars; wars based on a hatred of the other people always turn out to be the worst. So, if it is not a hateful war, no a war is not immoral on every level. If it is a hateful war, as the above quote would indicate, I can say, yes it is immoral on every level. I’d be curious on what level a hateful war could be moral.

Well, why is it an hatefull war, its more of a , you did this to us, so we have the right to return the favor?

a bit old fashioned “tit for tat”, as you sow so shall you reap kind of war. Have you seriously not read that Amalek first attacked Israel when they were offering peace?

That is not the sole reason, infact there are various other things to consider too.

1. The Amaleks attack Israel.
2. Israel is weak and does not attack back yet.
3. Israel gets strong, goes to settle the score.
4. Now, Amaleks are idol worshipers, they also do other detestable things, like witchcraft, human sacrifices, offering their children as sacrifices, making them go through fire. If Israel brings back loot, a lot of it would have to do with what the Amaleks do in their daily lives.
5. So God commands that Israel is not to take anything from them, not even their gold.

you see the point is not only that there is vengence, the point is to not import a culture which Israel might take back with them and introdce something which is “unholy” to Isreal’s religion and theocracy.

Ok, I see. But, from my perspective, which is not an ancient perspective admittedly, it still seems immoral to decimate a culture in order that they don’t infect your own culture. From the perspective of Biblical times, however, I do see how this makes sense.

“Ok, I see. But, from my perspective, which is not an ancient perspective admittedly, it still seems immoral to decimate a culture in order that they don’t infect your own culture. From the perspective of Biblical times, however, I do see how this makes sense.”

Actually, I agree with you here. Though on a side note, again you have to remember the hyperbole aspect too. The point is to make sure that Israel totally “defeats” their enemy, not that they ran and chased every last donkey or dog to split it in half.

By the way, I do not necessarily agree with those theologians who strictly think the sole purpose was “an example of God’s vengeance against those who deal cruelly with his people”…this in my opinion, is the wrong way to view it. It assumes that God is the one who was wronged or Jealous. And that is not the case, this statement overlooks a lot of what I have said in my comments here.

and oh by the way, a lot of ancient writing is hyperbole. If an army Sargent commands his soldiers to “leave nothing standing”, does that mean, they are going to saw down every tree or dynamite every building in the town after the are done with the fighting? no.

Or, the world mourned the death of Lady Diana…does this mean every known person in the known world did it?

No, it is a stretch to even imagine so. The same is with a lot of ancient writings, the point is to deliver the idea of the totality of war, that which was done was favorable to winner, not the actual specifics.

Ok, well this is a more nuanced answer 🙂 I didn’t know that ancient writings were hyperbole. That is a good point then. However, it does raise another problem. Everything cannot be hyperbole, or there would be no factual basis involved, I think that that can be agreed upon. Therefore, the problem is: how do we know what is hyperbole and what is not in the Bible? Any study of hermeneutics or exegesis (from my recollection, these are almost interchangable, aren’t they? What’s the difference?) is always going to have debate. So, in this way, all Bible passages are subject to being consider both literal or hyperbolic.

But that also does not mean there is no truth or there are multiple versions of truth. The bible may be interpreted by anyone as they see fit, does not really matter. The point is to find the best solution which goes with our understanding and for which we believe we have ample cause to believe so.

You have to understand the dramatic tones of the ancient writings. Ancient kings calling themselves, king of all mankind and earth and other things. This best help when you study the original languages and then read the scriptures, you will quickly find that by grammar and context you can fairly ascertain what the text was trying to convey.

Just to completely butt in without an invitation, oftentimes God used war to effect His judgment on a people. In the case of the Amalekites, Israel was just the tool He used (instead of the fire and brimstone He used against Sodom and Gomorrah). This is the same way He used the Assyrians against a wicked Israel a millennium later. Habakkuk, in his short book, asks first why God allows evil to prosper, and then stands aghast when he is told that the wicked Assyrians will be the ones to bring judgment against Israel. God clearly tells Israel they were picked not because of their righteousness or any inherent goodness, but because God wants to use them.

And you have to remember that Amalek, killed the same of Israel, so an eye for an eye.

But the biggest problem is that what you are pointing out as immoral is simply history, not a moral which is being taught, would you agree?

Was the building of wall of china, evil? can you see my point?

Well, I personally don’t consider an eye for an eye to be moral; and neither does our modern legal system. Sharia is an example of a legal system that employs “an eye for an eye,” but I don’t think either of us want to live in that kind of society. 🙂

As for the building of the Great Wall of China… umm, no, I don’t see your point 🙂

Not trying to be rude, I just don’t see the connection 🙂

Because a wall is mean to the people it’s supposed to keep out? I’m not sure I follow… help me out here.

Oh, I did not meant that an eye for an eye is a moral we are called to follow. Christ actually said that an eye for an eye is not a good thing.

But you would agree to some extent that at times, retaliation is inevitable, especially when war is on the horizon? There is no going around it and especially in the ancient world. The old testament was given to Israel, it was only for them, subjective on a LOT of things. Christians can try to find good things in it and keep them but they can not keep it all because most of it is totally against the Christian message, and therefore not objective, since it was given to Israel alone.

And about the wall, well, millions of slaves died building that wall, it was built by slave labor, to keep the invading Huns out. Was it immoral to build that wall?

I wanted to point out the dilemma. 🙂

Ironically, I also don’t agree with “turn the other cheek” either 🙂 I’m mid-way between those two extremes. If someone kills my family member, I will NOT turn the other cheek, nor do I think the appropriate punishment is death (life in prison is punishment enough, in my opinion).

I see what you’re saying about building the Great Wall now, but I do feel it’s a little bit forced into this discussion unless I’m still missing something. I would say, building the Great Wall was undeniably immoral, but practical for the Chinese Empires that used it… So, I don’t think that this applies to a tit-for-tat discussion.

I mentioned the wall of China because, a tit for tat in this instance about Amalek and Israel, is not a simple choice. Sometimes, you just have to choose between two “not good” choices. The building of wall is immoral and yet the purpose is moral, that the Chinese population be saved from the Hun army. See the problem? Was the wall necessary? yes. Was the use of slave labor immoral? yes. And yet the wall may have also saved millions of Chinese citizens lives too? Probably yes.

So was the building of the wall wrong?

As you can see, choosing between two bad things is inevitable at times. But mainly, we can not apply modern concepts to ancient civilizations and think they were wrong. We may do so but that would make other complications.

I mean, was the ancient world reckless for not having safety belts on camels and horses? Were they violating the safety measures of 21st century and should we blame them for it?
The answer runs into troubles.

maybe off the topic,

I love it how Jesus said

“If you eye causes you to sin, gouge it off”

and He meant it physically, not spiritual.

how many Christians who says “I follow Christ” really have gouge off their eyes?

often, we pick the easy commandments and ignore the hard ones.

i think God would be the most immoral (if there is a concept) because He simply allowed 1 innocent Man to die for the many “immoral” people.

God then would be the worst father, for He let His Son die.

MHO (my honest opinion)

The “worst father” would not give up what is only his to give in response to unfailing love. When God gave His Son, He sacrificed to bring the creation (and creatures) He loves into a possibility of a personal relationship with Holiness. And He did not “allow” one to die, the One did it freely.

$The “worst father” would not give up what is only his to give in response to unfailing love.

yes, exactly.

it is because I wear the morality hat I can say “God then would be the worst father, for He let His Son die”

$”And He did not “allow” one to die, the One did it freely.”
indeed AJ. Jesus was not murdered, nor forced. In agreement with His Father,

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done”
– Luke 22:42

$”I’d go as far as to say that this quote is immoral.”

Christians and Atheist makes the same mistake. God is neither good nor is bad.

we label God as good, depending on up bringing on what good is
or God is labeled as bad, because He doesn’t fit our morality cup.

as John Lennox said to ask “Who Created God?” is an error. God is not a created being.
we are bound by the “created” mentality.

in the same manner, neither God is good nor bad nor is He moral or immoral.


Judging God as moral or immoral is placing the effect before the cause. God is moral and God is good, because His nature is what defines those terms. God is the positive side of all things, where those things we find immoral or bad are the negatives, e.g. evil is the absence of good. God is the basis of our morality, and when we try to place the foundation of our lives into our own perception of our lives, then we are attempting to do what is logically impossible. A god created in the image of our individual ideas of morality would be no god at all; anyone who has a sense of his own wickedness knows this, whether he admits it or not.

good points AJ.

$”God is moral and God is good, because His nature is what defines those terms”


but the same principle applies here

Joshua 6:21-27 (TNIV)
They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old,cattle, sheep and donkeys”

God commanded Joshua to “kill all, children, women and animals”.

is God therefore bad or evil?

My opinion of Him being Bad or Evil is solely based on the concept of “morality”

if I apply morality (the knowledge of good and evil) therefore God is evil, for He commands killing of children…

I can see a parallel why Law keeping Christians are so afraid of “Grace”.

because to them, the Law teaches morality. give people “Grace” and you give them the right
to sin or to be or do more immorality.

I agree, we are created in God’s own image, but that image has been corrupted since the fall of man, after our granny ate of the fruit of tree of knowledge of good and evil.

but of course, Through Christ, to those who believe in Him, are new creations / born again.

to not confuse other readers, I am for good works and moral. I totally see God as extremely good.

$”A god created in the image of our individual ideas of morality would be no god at all”


that is why God became Man, to be tangible, understandable, reachable.
as Jesus said, “if you see me. you have seen the Father”

Jesus never, sent earthquakes, tsunami, sickness, disease, or death. absolutely, God is good!


The history makes this particularly difficult. One must be careful in objecting to a specific doctrine, not to generalize. It is easy to slip into general statements, but it remains incumbent on the person making the statement to keep things straight (my parents were Southern Baptists, my grandmother was a Jehovah’s Witness, and I attended a Presbyterian high school, and so was constantly reminded of this).
Best of luck and on the bad days, think of this: at least you are not trying to explain and defend the interpretation of an epic poem written in Arabic!

Very right Keith, as always, we agree on some, if not all. My family, came form Muslims, and sikhs, I found my self in multi-religion books at a very early age. My family actually encouraged me to read other religions even though they were conservatives.

Interesting – but I’ve always felt that if the bible (or another holy text) had clear moral teachings, then how is it that humanity has managed to use them for so much evil? If God is a perfect being who made us, he should understand us (omniscient God), and know what to put in these teachings so that the messages are clear? Also, if religion isn’t inherently evil, if it is in fact inherently good, then why doesn’t it result in more good – for example, world hunger is solvable problem but it isn’t profitable, should religious institutions not step in here? I’m just curious on your take here.
I also don’t think it’s fair to attribute people’s happiness to any measure of truth – the truth simply is, it doesn’t concern itself with how it makes you feel. So even given that religion might make people feel good, that does not contribute any amount of truth that any religion may or may not have, nor any amount of goodness (bad things can easily make you feel good, too). Now, if a person commits charitable acts on behalf of their religion – that could be seen as good, but it’s also arguable that a good person, no matter what their beliefs, will act morally anyways, so therefore religion wouldn’t be a factor at all.
I’d just like to add, even if I think religion is inherently evil, I would never ever hope to kill off the religious population, or even take their beliefs from them by force in any way. Whoever thinks this is a good course of action doesn’t realize killing off most of the world’s population is a really, really terrible idea. You can’t fix violence with violence and call yourself good at the end of day.
Even if you read the bible 100 times over and understand these things, you would still get differing interpretations. So how do you decide which interpretations should be taken seriously and which shouldn’t? That’s not something I have an answer for – if I did, that would probably mean I had some sort of proof for these interpretations, which would make this conversation moot because that would mean we knew something about God – which we don’t, which is the whole problem here.
Opinions CAN be wrong – but it depends on what the opinion is. If someone says their favorite color is blue, you really can’t argue with that. However, there’s how many religions in the world? All of these religions can’t be right, but every one who follows their own holds the opinion that they are – so obviously there are a lot of people walking around with wrong opinions.

Hi Katie, thanks for your great observations. While we may surely disagree on some, I am glad to say that we agree on a few too. I was hoping that you guys might see my main point of concern and that is that hatred is going to leads us nowhere. Rather we try and live in peace, we are drifting apart more and more.

I would also like to say that you reflect on what you said here, I like it.
“Now, if a person commits charitable acts on behalf of their religion – that could be seen as good, but it’s also arguable that a good person, no matter what their beliefs, will act morally anyway, so therefore religion wouldn’t be a factor at all.”

And wouldn’t you agree that if there is no religion, man would still be bad,. In the end I am not a fan of either conclusion, that religion is evil or atheism is evil, man can be moral without God and evil too.

“Also, if religion isn’t inherently evil, if it is in fact inherently good, then why doesn’t it result in more good – for example, world hunger is solvable problem but it isn’t profitable, should religious institutions not step in here? I’m just curious on your take here.”

Christ commands are there, to love and to help, we just fail to act on it when we could have had. I don’t see it as a fault in faith. God won’t force himself, if he did, we are not free.

I agree, with or without religion there would still be good and bad people. I only aim to make you think. Without religion, would the bad people have that enabling system (religion) behind them that allows them to do bad things still get away with the bad things? For example, the high trend of child molesters within the church – without religion, many of these people may be apprehended, especially since there’s been stories that show some of them are being protected because of their religious status in the church. Now, I can’t prove this without having lived in a secular world, but I do reasonably believe it is true – that the amount of bad things that are ignored because of religion wouldn’t be so ignored if we lived in a secular society, or even one completely without religion (which is unlikely).

Where I agree that this thing in the catholic church has been horrible and must be brought to justice, I do not think that this is a a right argument for a “religion free world”. I mean, there are corrupt people, corrupt politicians who are protected by their money and power and status, should we have a money/power free world, there might not be corruption at all, right? but then, I do not think a government free world is what you are looking for, here. I mean it is not the system, itself which is problematic but how people twist that system, would you want to like a govt, free world too? I do not think so.

But I do think it is the system itself, especially with government – the system needs replaced if it is so easily corruptible and used for evil, especially since we know what human nature is and how people tend to act when given power. Why not build a system that is better for the people? This is more easily applicable to politics though, especially since people really aren’t necessarily indoctrinated into it.
When I say “religion free world” I hope it’s clear that I would never want to come to this by force, it would just be nice (from anyone’s perspective, really) if the world could wholly agree on one perspective,regardless of what it is, as long as the perspective doesn’t harm anyone.

But my dear, every system harms, because every system has humans in it. If you have humans in a system any system can be manipulated, why do you think we have security measures everywhere because every system has weaknesses. In a religion free world, people would still be evil and get away with it, through some different loophole.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, only that in a religion free world people would no longer be able to justify their gruesome actions by means of religion, and also that without religious institutes – some people who do wrong but are protected by religion no longer would be. People also would not be able to rally support for horrid things on the basis of religion, as they have in the past, for example in the U.S. on the issue of slavery – something that would have been abolished much sooner if not for religious support. It would eliminate a means to act evilly and call it good. I’m not claiming it would eliminate bad people, but if it happened it very well may create a more peaceful world where people are more accountable – statistics do in fact support this, not even in atheistic places, but secular places such as New Zealand, Denmark, or Sweden would suggest that what I say may be true.

And I am not saying you are wrong too, just that you will trade one thing for another. You are talking about symptoms, I am talking about cause. Religion may be a blanket for hiding but it is not what it teaches, so I do not know why it should pay the price. Religion is not the problem, humans are. Even if you get rid of religion, you still got the problems, you will just have to tackle them differently.

I agree with all of that, honestly. I just go further as to say on way to tackle it may be to live in a secular society, because it removes one way that people abuse power and do awful things. If you remove it, you could reasonably be one step closer to peace, but only if you reach such a society without harming anyone or taking away their rights.

I think it’s important to recognise that fact or opinion are not the only options.
A claim can be any of the following:
A true claim (something that is true, otherwise called a “fact”)
A false claim (something that claims to be true but is false)
An unsubstantiated claim (we cannot ascertain the truth of the claim because an insufficient argument is available)
A meaningless claim (you see this in a lot of pseudo-science adverts, especially for available-on-the-internet cures)
Opinions (a claim based in values that cannot be proven to be right or wrong because it is not an attempt at a truth claim).

So if I say all religion is evil you cannot prove me wrong because (a) it’s unsubstantiated and (b) you don’t know what values I’m calling on.

I might say that all religion is evil because it leads people to think they know things they can’t know, or should know contrary to. At this point I have substantiated my claim, but you still can’t tell me I’m wrong because you don’t know what values I’m calling on; it’s still an opinion.

If I tell you that I subscribe the Christopher Hitchens/Richards Dawkins idea that encouraging children to believe things that they cannot really know is evil then we have gotten down to my values. At this point we can have a discussion within the philosophy of language about how if I define the meter I am using to define “evil”, then my claim about religion being evil is actually a “true claim”, so long as we agree to my meter for measuring evil. But if we define evil by a different meter I could be empirically and objectively wrong.

An opinion is never wrong, the values from which people draw their opinions can be wrong. It gets complicated.

Secondly, about reading 1/4 of the Bible and drawing conclusions from that… if God permits slavery and commands religious wars, even if that makes up less than 5% of the Bible, surely that is something we can make robust statements about.

If the context and historical background is relevant to the moral messages of the Bible, morality is not absolute or objective, is it?

While I agree with your entire post, I would like to remark here on this

“Secondly, about reading 1/4 of the Bible and drawing conclusions from that… if God permits slavery and commands religious wars, even if that makes up less than 5% of the Bible, surely that is something we can make robust statements about.

If the context and historical background is relevant to the moral messages of the Bible, morality is not absolute or objective, is it?”

I am not sure how God permits slavery ties into the Christian message, the O.T slavery is there, no sugar coating around that, but don’t equate it to the chattel slavery, that is a different thing. Though overall the old testament allows slavery. But then the old testament does not teach objective morals as such as you use here. It is certainly hard to see how love your neighbour as your self, allows slavery. The people may do what they like, I am not sure how that reflects on God. I mean most of the time, people mistake it as God wants people to take slaves, no, the idea was that in Israel, the slaves must be treated not with brutality but fairness. At the end of 7 years they were freed. If they decided to stay that was their own choice. The early middle east was not the same as Rome, the people were nomads, travelling in groups, a lot of people actually would choose to be slaves, because that meant, food, shelter and protection against other tribes. If they owed money, they could substitute it in terms of years of servitude. And thus pay off their debt and be on their way. Thinking that the social construct was the same, the ideas and the culture was the same, is what leads people to mistakenly draw wrong conclusions.

But that is indeed my point, the morals, even if you take from within the Bible are not what usually people take them to be. Religious wars are history not morals. I am not sure if you would categorize America’s war of freedom as evil or moral? At best its neither, its just plain old history, what you can do is study what prompted the war, what were the causes and thus fund your way to a desired conclusion. What is often mistaken is that the six wars in the O.T were not commanded against poor old tribes. They were warring tribes, some of them had actually first attacked Israel, Israel was commanded to retaliate, I am not sure how you can call it evil, I can call it consequential at best.

There are laws to regulate slavery in the O.T so that no one is treated unfair. the point is not to promote slavery, rather channel. And yet I can not see how this affects the new testament., the law was done away with when Christ came. I wonder why people just love to go back to the laws that were never given to Christians in the first place. I have hardly seen people object to the new testament, why? because there is hardly anything to object in termns of morality.

And by the way, if I concede that morality is indeed subjective in the O.T, don’t you think it actually goes against your earlier point. Those people even if they did war or took slaves, may have perfect reason to do so. If morality is indeed subjective, then your criticism would hold no ground objectively, right?

And this highlights my earlier point, if you do not go through the three main things needed to properly understand, or you do not even read teh whole Bible, what makes you think, you know every angle and you may be wrong? I mean knowing half of the story or quarter of the story is not going to give you the full picture anyway. And on the positive side, if you read it full and make your argument with proper methods, it may hold some water, otherwise, it won’t be of much help because you lack the proper technique to analyse the text.

I maintain that the slavery and the wars are immoral. And commanded by God. Obviously the go-to of Moses in Numbers 31 is a case in point. The virgin Midianite girls could be kept by the soldiers of Israel, at best this is war-slavery and not optional for the Midianite girls, at worst it is sex slavery or trade or rape. God commanded the war and he commanded the absolute destruction on non-combatants a he commanded taking the Midianite girls (for whatever purpose, it’s not disclosed).

If there is some sort of cultural or historical context that makes God’s commands to do this moral then (a) I cannot imagine what that context must be and (b) you do have to concede that morality is relative ( and

*Edited my comment to add a few things 🙂
I am not saying they are morals, just what happened back then. They are not objective at all. I never said they were objective. Not everything that is written in the Bible is objective, not everything that is written is for you, not everything is a lesson, not every thing is a command to follow. Not everything is for the layman to practice. if you understand that the rest is easy to understand.

Well if they killed men, should they leave the girls out to starve, I agree with you completely that is horrible, but then the alternative is no better either. That is how the ancient world went into warfare. You either killed or you took slaves. And it was not sex slavery. They would be wives. Whoever took a girl can not walk away from here, EVER. She would be his responsibility as long as they live. The point was to make sure that men do take advantage of the girl and then leave her. If you took a girl, you gotta marry her.

By the way, if a country attack you, is it immoral in your opinion to attack back, on what would you base your view, if you did?

not all are, why would they be? let me ask you, is justice moral, not always, is retaliation moral not always.

As I said before, not everything that the Bible says happened, is moral because it is written in the Bible, a lot of it is subjective.. The objective ones are different and given by Christ.

If you do not know how to divide the things in the Bible, you will likely label everything together, as you are doing right now. This is not correct and that is why I disagree with you.

in human perspective, some of God’s command is immoral.

how much worst could it be when God flooded the entire world, wiping out a lot of people?

I don’t think atheist do not believe in God, they just don’t believe in an “angry” God, at least thats how it has been portrayed.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, feel free to leave a comment. Thank you.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s