That is the usual assumption made. If God is only good then He must not be subject to the same moral guidelines as the rest of us. There are Christians who would suggest that. I’m not one of them.

That means we must work very hard to investigate each event and consider every question before we can “prove” anything. This happens in courts of law everyday and we don’t always get it right.

We struggle with God’s actions for the same reason we struggle to make things right in everyday life. “What is a moral principle?” is not a difficult question to answer but “how does it fit into a particular life scenario?” is never easily resolved.

It is always wrong to murder another person but it isn’t always wrong to take a person’s life. Superficially speaking, what turns gang members into criminals turns soldiers in to heroes.

“Mercy killing” is another example. Is it murder? Does it disrespect human life? Is it merciful or just a cop out? I’m not arguing the pros and cons of the issue but it does illustrate the difficulties we have in applying the rules.

Concerning God’s actions we are either lazy or dismissive. Those who believe He is benevolent before investigating (my perspective) see no reason to investigate further (lazy). Those who disbelieve (your group) tend to dismiss Him on superficial grounds (dismissive).

The way we discuss God’s actions person to person in everyday life, on blogs and such, would not be sufficient for a court of law. Neither side would win or if one did it would be based on inconclusive evidence one way or the other.

As you mentioned, there are several instances when God’s action, on the surface, begs the question. But, I would be no less wrong in assuming God’s goodness without explanation than accusers would be without the same.

Each case must be taken on its merits and diligently studied before conclusions are drawn. The Abraham-Isaac event is often raised as an example of God’s immorality. I will discuss it in a future post.

One last question. How do you think Egyptian newscasters would report the Exodus? I will post a humorous version on my blog.

As to the issue of the “veracity” of the text, bear in mind that there is functionally zero archeological evidence for the Exodus, zero archeological evidence that Hebrews were ever slaves in significant numbers in Egypt. And the Egyptians have left behind substantial written records of even very mundane aspects of their lives for the entirety of their history as an organized political entity from Narmer, the first Pharaoh, all the way to Cleopatra VII, the last.

So we have to take the story as a legend, as a myth. So what moral lesson does this myth teach us?

In the story, God authorizes Moses and the Israelites to do things that, without God’s blessing, would have been very immoral. Indeed, God himself may be one of the direct perpetrators of these immoral acts, although I’ll concede that the various translations floating around out there vary as to God’s personal involvement, and so that facet of the story is somewhat obscured.

But the core question remains, and it is the same one with which Socrates confronted Euthyphro: does God’s blessing, alone, transform an otherwise-immoral action into one which is morally acceptable? I understand the point of your argument is to put a moral gloss on God’s actions. But this issue comes up frequently (e.g., the Sacrifice of Abraham, the Massacre of the Midianites, Yael’s murder of Sisera, the list goes on and on).

If the answer is “yes,” (which is the fundamental moral lesson of the Passover story) then morality becomes an exercise in constructing a post hoc rationalization of what are ultimately arbitrary commands — commands which in theory come from God but which in practice are delivered by human beings in positions of political power, with all that implies. And ultimately, if we answer the question “yes,” then any moral inquiry into the Bible ultimately must resort to special pleading — “God is different, the rules of morality do not apply to Him.”

If the answer is “no,” then morality becomes something independent of God and God himself becomes capable of immoral behavior. We cease to be arrogant when we morally judge God’s own actions. This says nothing about the question of whether God created the world or takes an active involvement in human affairs, by the way, but it does suborn even God to questions of morals, and substantially negates much of the lessons of the Bible.

This strikes me as a very difficult question for an apologist to confront. Even the possibly smartest man the Western world has ever produced, Gottfried Leibniz, could not answer it adequately without a fallacious resort to first principles (see sections 3 and 4 of the linked text).

Yes, you are correct, there was a significant attemtp to disobey Pharaoh’s edict to destroy Israelite sons and I probably overstated the issue in my arguments. But, evil intent is established and as I said many probably died under hard labor.

We do know that Israel’s enslavement was cruel enough to drive Moses to take their deliverance into his own hands which not only failed completely (he was rejected by Egypt and Israel) but he would have been destroyed by Pharaoh had he not run. There is no reason to believe that any of the Pharaohs were hesitant to destroy resistors.

When I say “they were slaves in the worst way,” I’m speakinig of their situation. When I refer to them as “high class” I’m speaking of their character-capabilities as individuals and as a community. Other nationalities were enslaved by the Egyptians. I doubt any of them retained an identify with their roots as strongly as Israel did with theirs.

But, you seem to be contradicting yourself between the stories. Jesus collaborated with Rome because He paid taxes but God was being unreasonable to ask Pharaoh to let His people go – and He did ask. He could have walked in, pushed everyone arond and walked out (there would have been no less blood letting in that scenario) but He allowed Pharaoh to make his own choices.

And, this was a judicial exercise. God went through the negotiation process with Pharaoh for the same reason we meticulously try serial murders. Justice is swift but judgment is accompanied by careful, time consuming attention to detail. And, God, like the judicial system today, is damned if He does and damned if He doesn’t.

I also question the connection between “diplomacy” and terroism. “Thuggery” or “opportunism” but not dipolmacy. Terrorists communicate, yes, but not with great diplomacy and as the saying goes, “we don’t negotiate with terrorists.”

Yes, God did kill the firstborn but that was not the same as killing “children.” “First born” is not synonymous with “recent born.” It is very likely many of the first born were old enough to be conscripted soldiers and would have been the very ones to enforce violently a stay of the Exodus. Maybe we should see it as a military strategy and AWOL was an optin for these soldiers. There was nothing stopping them from participating in the Passover.

Sorry, “Hoot” was a poor choice of words but let me explain “token.” What Israel “borrowed” may have represented at least a large percentage of what the Egyptians possessed but it was only a “token” of the enrichment they had received at the expense of the Israelites.

I’m not prepared to discuss exact amounts but, yes, I think reparations are jusfied in both cases, US slavery and South African Apartheid. I have witnessed, first hand, both EEO in the US and BEE in South Africa and listened to both sides carping about it. In both cases it represents a token, affordable to one side and marginally helpful to the other.

Your argument about slaves is valid and I don’t believe the Hebrews were models of benevolent slave ownership. But, I will talk about that in the next post about the excution of gays.

As to Pharaoh and his moral worth, it looks like you’re making an assumption that the Israelites came to Egypt of their own accord; that under the wise leadership of Joseph as vizier, that they became an integral part of the Egyptian economy; and that (possibly after a change of Pharaoh) they later became unjustly enslaved. Then there is the status of their slavery. At one point you say that “they were nothing but slaves in the worst way” and had been the victims of a pattern of governmental murder of their sons. But later you say that the “Israelites represented a high class version of slaves.” So which is it?

I’m not attempting to morally analyze or defend Pharaoh and I think you’re wrong to suggest that this is my goal. Your assumption that Pharaoh is a bad actor seems predicated upon the order of his predecessor (Exodus 2:23) to kill the sons of the Israelites (Exodus 1:16) although he was disobeyed (Exodus 1:17).

Indeed, Exodus and you both seem to assume without evidence that this new Pharaoh is a bad guy, that he had no “right” to keep the Israelites in Egypt as slaves. This proposition cannot be supported by the idea that the Israelites were slaves, because Mosaic law was replete with incidents of keeping slaves.

The typical apology for Hebrew slavekeeping is based on the idea that the Israelites were benevolent masters and owners of their slaves, which I think is pretty convincingly belied by the idea that a slave’s owner could beat him with impunity so long as he did not strike the salve dead on the spot. So instead we must look elsewhere for the idea that this kind of slavery was wrong.

Now, in the context of the Passover story, Pharaoh is the king of Egypt – a nation that has become wealthy and powerful thanks in no small part due to the contributions of the Israelites: you make the point that “If it hadn’t been for Joseph, an Israelite, Egypt wouldn’t have existed” and “If it hadn’t been for free labor for a very long time (80 plus years) Egypt would not have excelled.” This conforms to your suggestion that the Israelites were an integral part of Egypt. Thus my comparison of the request that the Israelites be allowed to leave to the idea of a state of the US seceding from the Union. What incentive could Pharaoh possibly have had to have allowed the Israelites – valued, intelligent, elite workers, who according to you helped create the pyramids and build Egypt into a powerful empire — to leave?

So perhaps it’s a moot point as to whether God “made” Pharaoh’s heart hard when he negotiated with Moses. (But as I count the incidents in the story, God hardens Pharaoh’s heart eleven times (Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 7:13, 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, 14:8, and 14:17) and Pharaoh hardens his own heart only twice (Exodus 8:32 and 9:34).) Perhaps it’s because I’m a lawyer and I find the idea of negotiating in bad faith to be an independently objectionable thing to do; others might not see that as a particularly bad thing for either Pharaoh, Moses, or God to be doing. But it’s quite clear from the start that God knows that Pharaoh will not be persuaded to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt short of a demonstration of overwhelming force and power. That being the case, why either God or Pharaoh should have engaged in anything more than a pro forma negotiation is beyond me.

Nor do I have any problem with the idea that Pharaoh had a reputation as a bastard before then or that the negotiations revealed him to be stubborn and unreasonable. Although query as to why God would have needed to have involved himself in the negotiations were that the whole truth and nothing but the truth: “[God,] like a skillful lawyer drawing out a guilty defendant, bandied with Pharaoh to show his true colors for judge, jury and the whole world to see. If anything, this approach respected Pharaoh’s individuality and honored his independence.”

In making this claim, you to address that the culmination of this act of “respect” and “honor” is not a judicial cross-examination but the death of tens of thousands of innocent children. But perversely, you maintain that demonstrating the quality of Pharaoh’s character is a sufficient moral justification for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent children. Although I do understand that you maintain that Pharaoh was “getting a taste of his own medicine” in the Passover murder, all this tells me is that Pharaoh and God are both mass murderers.

As to the theft of the wealth of Egypt, you dismiss this as “a bit of a hoot.” But calling my argument laughable does not refute the merits of the argument. In fact, God had promised that the wealth of the Egyptians would be taken by the Israelites (“…and ye shall spoil the Egyptians,” Exodus 3:22; this sounds like more than “just a token” to me) and that is exactly what happened. It is no justification to claim that Israelite slave labor had contributed to that wealth, particularly if your legal code accepts slavery as a valid social institution. Further, if you will justify the Israelites taking the wealth of Egypt with them when they emigrated, you must also endorse reparations for slavery in the U.S. or reparations for apartheid in South Africa. Perhaps you do.

I should point out that we do have a pretty good idea of how the Pyramids were built. While a remarkable feat of engineering and logistics, it was not miraculous – and if it was, it would make plenty of sense that a ruler would be reluctant to part with people capable of doing such things. It’s entirely possible that the engineers who figured out how to do this, and/or the laborers who did the work, were ancestors of the people who became Israelites.

As for the other incidents of violence, my point is that God often relies on others to do his wet work for him. You claim that the deaths suffered by Job (Job 1:15-19) were not God’s fault but rather the result of God “lifting his protection rather than a command to kill.” Satan apparently wants to kill Job’s family and God holds Satan back. Then, God stops restraining Satan (perversely, as a game between himself and Satan meant to test Job’s faith). The difference you are trying to draw is that between affirmative intent to kill and reckless disregard of an imminent threat to human life. Your apology may acquit God of murder, but in so doing it convicts him of manslaughter. This seems but a faint victory.

You also claim that terrorists don’t communicate diplomatically. That is simply untrue. Terrorists do communicate because doing so is the only way that they can transform their acts of violence into the political change they hope to achieve. Thus we see al-Qaeda claiming credit for 9/11, Hamas claiming credit for suicide bombing in Israel, and in living memory groups like the PLO and IRA blowing up cafes and pubs coupled with demands for the creation of a Palestinian state or the UK to withdraw from North Ireland. Diplomatic communication is an integral part of terrorism. We also see the terrorists in each instance blaming the victims or the victims’ government (that is, Pharaoh) for the deaths of the innocents rather than assuming that blame themselves. This apology for the murder of the Egyptian children sounds much like the justifications claimed by those bastards who continue to blow up cars in marketplaces in Kabul and Baghdad and later blame the United States for the deaths of their victims.

You claim that God acted patiently and mercifully and that the Egyptians were better off for it. I beg to differ. God went out of his way to inflict plague after plague on Egypt, culminating in what looks to me like an act of terrorism perpetrated by Moses and his minions slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent children — and then proceeded to deprive Egypt of its entire army and its head of state in the Red Sea. Egypt is laid low by the end of the book of Exodus — and it’s the direct and intended result of God “forcing the issue” with Pharaoh.