Slavery in the Bible is Disingenuous

We know we exist and we hold that it is possible that we were created by a sentient entity.

Outside of that, religions appear to be based on pure speculation, whole-cloth invention and reasoning based on speculative presupposition.   

It certainly makes sense to me to hold the Bible, Qur'an, etc. as quaint ancient books that reflect the views (and imaginations) of many ancient men over thousands of years.   Instead of treating these 'holy' books as divine, why not try to understand the creator (if one exists) by modern methods of reason and analysis?   Why accept as true a book that, among many other things, condones the owning of a fellow human being as property, the murder of homosexuals, pedophilia, etc. and produces fantastic stories such as the creation account, Adam and Eve fall from grace, Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel that people actually take seriously?

I don't know. I was brought up Southern Baptist, which included some tent meetings along the way. And many of those dear ladies could dish up some scrumptious food for those potlucks in the church basement. But forced attendance and a coerced baptism did not have the desired effect and the brainwashing never really took.

What can occur, and it did with me, was the feelings of guilt that not being able to believe the message evoked. This persisted into adulthood, and it finally took watching the Joseph Campbell lectures on PBS that it finally dawned on me the similarity of all religions and the ancient myths they evolved from. I saw the truth and was set free.

Yes, Matt was emotional, but his honesty was called into question by the caller, who went on to try to justify that which the caller admitted was immoral.  That would piss me off, too.

Today, we see all slavery as immoral.  The Bible advocated for it.

Today, we see mass rape used as a weapon of domination during war as a crime against humanity.  The Bible commanded it.

Today, we see genocide as a crime against humanity, committed or commanded by the worst of humans - Hitler and the Nazis, the Hutu extremists in Rwanda.  The Bible commanded it.

It seems clear to me that the Bible (and the scriptures on which it was based, and those based on it) was written by men who were either in a position of power or sought to be so, to justify what they did or what they wished to do.  Slavery was bad if an Israelite was owned by an Egyptian, but permissible if an Israelite owned a "foreigner".  The Israelites didn't wish to be slaves, so they vilified Pharoah and made him disobedient to God, but they did wish to own slaves, so of course their God wanted them to own slaves, too.  They wanted Canaan, so their God wanted them to have it.  Some of them wanted sex slaves (sorry, "wives") from among those they conquered, so, surprise, their God wanted them to have "wives" whose families they had just killed.

The caller also used arguments that have been used on social forums (including right here on NT).   Note the immediate jump to the ridiculous:  'but slavery in the Bible is not like slavery in US history; it was more like indentured servitude' .   (Ignoring the owning as property and drawing from other biblical text that does talk about indentured servitude with only Hebrew slaves.)   Note that Matt responded (as I have in these debates) by going directly to the definition (ignoring the 'slavery' word and its equivocation) and asking:  is it moral to own another person as property?

This video illustrates how even when the scripture is plain as day, many (not some) will still try to push a far more gentler, kinder message because they simply (apparently) cannot accept the reality of the words.   They actually deny what is written and claim the words do not mean what the words clearly state.   For example, not accepting that Exodus 20:21 actually states that the slave is the property of the master.

Now that is an impressive level of denial and a great illustration of both cognitive dissonance (knowing what the scripture says while defending a direct misrepresentation of it) and confirmation bias (accepting only that which favors the belief and ignoring that which does not).

They actually deny what is written and claim the words do not mean what the words clearly state.

"It doesn't say you can beat your slave."

Yes, it does.  It explicitly states that you can, and that so long as he does not die within a certain time period, you are not to be punished.  Period.

And then we have those who actually argue that it was moral back then to own a human being as property.    They realize (to their credit) that the God of the Bible actually did (per the words) condone the practice of owning another person as property and realize (to their credit) that God never condemned it.   So instead of recognizing the Bible as simply the words of ancient men (who, of course, saw nothing unusual about the practice) they choose instead (much to their discredit) to deem slavery as conditionally moral. 

To some (many?) the Bible is divine truth and no reasoning, no facts, nothing whatsoever will ever change that position.

Those are the ones who actually scare me a bit.  They're the ones who justify almost anything with "it was ok at the time."  Slavery (in Biblical times or the American antebellum period) - "it was ok at the time."  Same with racism. Legal, social, financial oppression of women through millennia - "it was ok at the time."  Beating children for minor misbehavior or even for just being children - "it was ok at the time."  Antisemitism for centuries in Europe, sometimes with the massacre of Jews - "it was ok at the time."

Everyone was doing it, right?

So it was ok at the time.

So how does one accept the moral guidance provided by the Bible as divine objective morality?   Answer:  cherry-picking, equivocation and extreme twists of interpretation.   So if one must go through all that to try to make the Bible produce sound moral guidance, why not just admit that the Bible is not a good source for moral guidance and that good moral guidance is actually that which has evolved along with civil society.

In short, what is moral is not a product of the Bible but rather the product of the evolution of our species.   (And we have a ways to go.)

Agreed on all points.  I wish people would think a bit more deeply on the subject.  But some are afraid to do so.  It's uncomfortable, and they lack confidence in their own abilities.  They've been taught, often from birth, that they're evil, and even that to believe they're not evil is evil in itself.  So of course they're scared to judge questions regarding good vs. evil for themselves.  And some are just too intellectually lazy.

As for the answer to the question at the end of your first paragraph as it pertains to the OT times, yes.  As for the second paragraph also yes, the owner either captured through conflict (with the possible loss of one's own life to accomplish this) or made an expenditure to acquire the slave (at the loss of some money or other property in hopes that the purchase would pay off and then some).  

I wonder how many slaves were actually professional slaves that being a slave was their lot in life.  Also if I were a slave in those times I believe I would rather be a slave of a Hebrew for they had rules commanded by their god as to my proper treatment, the master was to be punished for my death by beating (I wonder if that is where the Hebrew slaves came from) and if I survived the beating the master would put everything behind the effort for my recovery to avoid the punishment even working through the sabbath (why the couple of days) and being the property of the master upon my death the master loses his investment and future profits.  

Did the other cultures of the time have any rules as for the treatment of slaves?

As for the answer to the question at the end of your first paragraph as it pertains to the OT times, yes.

That question was:

TiG @2.1 ☞ Is it moral to own another person as property?

Your answer is that it was moral (per the mores and values of the time).   I agree that the people almost certainly thought it was moral.   It was the basis of their economy and was in place well before they were even born.   

The question, however, is more directed at the Bible as the source of morality for Christians.   In that regard, the question is more about the moral guidance provided by God.   Does God consider it moral to own another person as property?    Given there has been no correction to the Bible, it would seem that God considers the practice to be moral.

As for the second paragraph also yes, the owner either captured through conflict (with the possible loss of one's own life to accomplish this) or made an expenditure to acquire the slave (at the loss of some money or other property in hopes that the purchase would pay off and then some).  

The second paragraph does not ask a question, but here it is in its entirety (for clarity):

TiG @2.1 ☞ This video illustrates how even when the scripture is plain as day, many (not some) will still try to push a far more gentler, kinder message because they simply (apparently) cannot accept the reality of the words.   They actually deny what is written and claim the words do not mean what the words clearly state.   For example, not accepting that Exodus 20:21 actually states that the slave is the property of the master.

Your answer appears to rationalize owning another human being as property.

I wonder how many slaves were actually professional slaves that being a slave was their lot in life.

Quite a few.   At the time, slavery was the backbone of the economy.

Also if I were a slave in those times I believe I would rather be a slave of a Hebrew ...

Yes, Hebrew slaves were freed after 6 years and were treated much better than non Hebrew slaves (at least by Hebrew owners).   Yet it was still the owning of another person as property - something that most modern human beings know to be immoral and repugnant.

Did the other cultures of the time have any rules as for the treatment of slaves?

No doubt.   

My sense is that you find nothing at all troubling that the Bible -a book that modern day human beings turn to for moral guidance- condones the owning of a human being as property.   And that you are content that God has condoned the owning of fellow human beings as property and has never (not even as Jesus) condemned the practice.   

I would have expected a commandment of:   Thou shalt not own another human being as property.    You do not find that to be an odd omission?    Coveting a neighbor's possessions is a commandment-level sin but owning another human being is perfectly okay??

Even though there wasn't a question in the second paragraph, there was a statement "For example," yes I do accept that a slave is the property of the master in the times of the OT.  Please note that, as pointed out by several here in NT, that the OT and the bible were written by ancient men and limited by their technology of the time to understand what they were witnessing, but were just as smart and intelligent as we are today.

The key distinction I am drawing is what ordinary ancient men thought (we agree they held slavery as normal and moral) and what God considers moral (objective morality). 

If one views the Bible as reflecting the mores and values of ancient men then the treatment therein of slavery (owning a fellow human being as property) is what one would expect.

If one views the Bible as divine — reflecting the position and thus the objective morality of the grandest possible entity (God) then one would expect guidance from God that is not dependent upon ancient mores & values.   God certainly would have known that His words would be read and cherished by people well after ancient mores and values gave way to a more evolved understanding.   God would also know that the Bible would be seen by most as his guidebook for morality.

The fact that this guidebook still contains condoning treatment for slavery raises tons of questions.   The first, however, is why would modern human beings consider the Bible a good source for morality?

Nope nothing troubling at all.  We ended slavery, at great expense I might add, and Jesus' teachings and second coming accomplished that.

Slaves being the property of another shouldn't be coveted.  

There wasn't a commandment against slavery, seems odd being the Hebrews were thought to have been slaves in Egypt, because the Hebrews weren't slaves, they were the Egyptian eastern protection.  Egypt was starting to influence the Hebrews and they were losing their spiritual compass and were starting to worship Egypt's gods and even started building idols to them, Moses basically made it impossible for the Hebrews to live within Egypt without being persecuted by the pharaoh.   So there wasn't a need for that commandment.

Being the time and I do need sleep, I must leave for now and I do understand I will be facing another question when I return.

Nope nothing troubling at all.

Well I am certainly troubled that the Bible condones the owning of another human being as property and is taken by far too many to be divine.

So there wasn't a need for that commandment.

And thus, the Bible stands today lacking condemnation as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property.   A real shame that slave owners of the past (including our own history) could (and did) use the Bible to justify their immoral practices.

But ... you see no problem with that.   Nothing troubling at all.   The Bible is where one should turn for solid moral guidance.   

I do understand I will be facing another question when I return.

Actually, your prior answers paint a clear enough picture and, accordingly, I have nothing else to ask you.

Aw, you give up too easily.  

You yourself rationalized slavery in post 2.1.7 as economic wealth building, if the master does better than the slaves do better.  

Besides all that, we have continued to add to the Bible and one of the latest entries abolished slavery in most of the Christian world (I know there are many Christians that are stuck in original interpretations of the Bible without realizing that we've been adding to it just not writing in it).  

yes I do accept that a slave is the property of the master in the times of the OT.

Slavery was also accepted and commonplace all the way up to the 1860's in our own country. Do you believe the enslavement of people at that time to be moral? If not, when did it change? What year should humans have stopped owning other humans? When did the Hebrew God stop condoning owning foreign slaves in perpetuity, owning their children and their children's children, passing them on as an inheritance to heirs? When did the Hebrew God change his mind and make slavery immoral after it was condoned and regulated by him for so long?

"We ended slavery, at great expense I might add, and Jesus' teachings and second coming accomplished that."

"We" who? And when was it "ended"?

Slaves being the property of another shouldn't be coveted.

Good to know, you can own another human, but don't you dare covet someone else's slaves, that would be a sin...

the Hebrews were thought to have been slaves in Egypt, because the Hebrews weren't slaves, they were the Egyptian eastern protection

Please do link the scripture mentioning that, I read the bible many times now and I still haven't found the one that completely refutes Genesis and Exodus.

Egypt was starting to influence the Hebrews and they were losing their spiritual compass and were starting to worship Egypt's gods and even started building idols to them

While a major theme was the jealousy of the Hebrew God (the first 5 commandments are basically all about showing the war God respect), I found no scriptures explicitly saying that was the true reason Moses was supposedly directed by the Hebrew God to return after some forty years of exile to free his people.

Moses basically made it impossible for the Hebrews to live within Egypt without being persecuted by the pharaoh.   So there wasn't a need for that commandment.

More pure conjecture. You can insert all sorts of personal opinion and make scripture work whichever way you want it to, which is why it's been used to financially shear sheep, start wars, commit genocide, condone slavery, as well as literally get some to drink poisoned cool aid throughout many centuries. The scriptures are truly a universal tool for manipulating humans, some even today use it to teach a completely warped version of Christianity. "Well, you need to hear about money, because you ain't gonna have no love and joy and peace until you get some money." - Reverend Creflo Dollar

And not only was there no commandment against slavery, slavery was specifically condoned in the laws supposedly written by Moses in the wilderness inspired of God. The laws about owning foreign slaves in perpetuity and the difference between how you could treat a Hebrew slave and a foreign slave, for even then they knew one type of slavery that was being condoned was so horrific they wouldn't allow it to be implemented against their own people. Only a foreign slave could you beat to within an inch of its life and not be punished and pass the slave or the slaves children to your heirs as an inheritance.

Aw, you give up too easily.

Give up on what?   You answered my questions and I pretty much see that your position involves rationalizing the Bible; in particular, the owning of a human being as property.   Having engaged people with that mindset, there is no value (to me) to probe any further.   I have no further questions (unless you bring something else up that generates questions).

You yourself rationalized slavery in post 2.1.7 as economic wealth building, if the master does better than the slaves do better.  

Not even close.  My position is that owning a human being as property is unqualified immoral.   I explained how the ancients rationalized slavery.  You are rationalizing why God (who should know better) did not condemn as immoral the practice of owning human beings as property.

Besides all that, we have continued to add to the Bible and one of the latest entries abolished slavery in most of the Christian world (I know there are many Christians that are stuck in original interpretations of the Bible without realizing that we've been adding to it just not writing in it).  

Do you have your own special Bible?   Show me the scripture where God abolished the owning of human beings as property.   For that matter show the scripture where human beings abolished the owning of human beings as property.   Society operating on modern, evolved mores & values abolished slavery.   The Bible, in stark contrast, is still condoning it (unless you can prove otherwise).

So much anger. And so unnecessary.

Yeah that is the part I am asking everyone to ignore.   Getting angry is counterproductive.

What is important is the arguments from both sides of the question.   It is the content, not the emotion, that matters.

Any comment on the content of the exchange?

Yeah that is the part I am asking everyone to ignore.

Frankly, it's hard to. The guy isn't just a little bit angry. He's a dick.

As to their conversation, it's terrible. The guy on the phone either hasn't thought about it, is bad at articulating things or was unable to coordinate his thoughts because of the way he was being bludgeoned by the host.

The host, on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand (or at least share my understanding) of what the Bible is all about. The only place he gets a little bit close to the truth is in distinguishing the nature of the authorship of the Bible and its fallibility. When people talk about the Bible being inerrant, I honestly don't think most of them understand what they are saying and the many implications of making that claim.

Near the end, he suggests Christians should ignore certain passages in the Bible. Well, in the context of saying people should behave this way or that, engage in things like slavery or not, we do ignore those passages because we know they are not relevant to us. There is a context to the Old Testament, but it's clear to me that a lot of people don't really understand what that is and why that context does not apply to them.

So to sum up, the video just isn't that useful for learning and it showcases a lot of ignorance on both sides in addition to the hostility on the one side.

The guy on the phone either hasn't thought about it, is bad at articulating things or was unable to coordinate his thoughts because of the way he was being bludgeoned by the host.

The guy on the phone (Ryan) was making a very typical defense in most cases.    For example, the equivocation on Exodus 21:20 ☞

²⁰ “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,²¹ but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Ryan could not bring himself to recognize that this passage states clearly that the slave is the property of the master and because of that property relationship, the master will be punished if the slave dies within a day or so after being beat but not punished if the slave dies after that period.   The passage establish a human being as property and emphasizes the meaning of that property relationship with on the basis of the death of the slave.

How do you interpret this passage?   That is, do you are do you not recognize God fails to condemn the owning of human being as property and instead establishes rules for proper enslavement (thereby condoning the practice)?    

When people talk about the Bible being inerrant, I honestly don't think most of them understand what they are saying and the many implications of making that claim.

What is your position on biblical inerrancy?   Is the Bible literally true and without error?   If not, how does one distinguish the errors from the truth?  

Well, in the context of saying people should behave this way or that, engage in things like slavery or not, we do ignore those passages because we know they are not relevant to us.

Slavery should be an easy thing to ignore (one would think).   How about homosexuality?   That certainly is relevant today.   What about pedophilia?  What about the death sentence for bestiality?   On what basis does one reject or accept passages from the Bible?   I think it is based on the morality of one's culture ... what has evolved to be good moral guidance.   This moral guidance (at least in the USA) is quite at odds with the mores and values indicated in the OT.

So to sum up, the video just isn't that useful for learning and it showcases a lot of ignorance on both sides in addition to the hostility on the one side.

If raises rather common points of disagreement between theists and atheists and offers rather common arguments on both sides.   This post, for example, leverages the video to pose questions from a calm agnostic atheist to a calm theist.

What is important is the arguments from both sides of the question.   It is the content, not the emotion, that matters.

I've been involved in online discussion for many years. And over that time, comparing "online "discussions" to those I have offline (in person with groups of friends, people in classes I take, etc) I continually notice much more emotion-- and less intelligent discussion of ideas-- online.

I'm curious why this is so...

Anyone else have the same experience?

I've been involved in online discussion for many years. And over that time, comparing "online "discussions" to those I have offline (in person with groups of friends, people in classes I take, etc) I continually notice much more emotion-- and less intelligent discussion of ideas-- online. I'm curious why this is so...

Perhaps McLuhan is right..the medium is the message?

" The medium is the message " is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan introduced in McLuhan's book  Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man , published in 1964. ^[1]  It means that the nature of a medium (the channel through which a message is transmitted) is more important than the meaning or content of the message. McLuhan tells us that a "message" is, "the change of scale or pace or pattern" that a new invention or innovation "introduces into human affairs." ^[2]

McLuhan uses the term 'message' to signify content and character. The content of the medium is a message that can be easily grasped. And the character of the medium is another message which can be easily overlooked. McLuhan says "Indeed, it is only too typical that the 'content' of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium."

There is true value in face to face discussions. Usually, all our senses are at once engaged—right down to our choices in posture!

People on television and radio are 'on the clock' (advertisers). People on the internet suffer from lack of a sense of 'touch.'  In here, we can't see the tears about to fall, the balled up fist or clenched teeth, joy, or laughter being solicited across the wire, or even that our frankest points are being taken to heart somewhere.—until it is 'broken' open for everyone to view at once. Then, the receiver falls back, processes or re-accesses, and returns something—usually in the 'spirit' received. That's my take!

(Big old toothy grin back at ya!.)

The FACT is Tacos! It breaks my heart to watch the New Testament Gospel message of peace trounced and overrun in discussions between atheists and Believers. The New Testament was a way to extend the love of God to the entire world, whereas the world could become its own 'teacher' under spiritual guidance and not be stuck to any Lletter of the law.' Laws which in some cases had fulfilled their usefulness in time and were meant to pass away.

Alas, the atheists do have points in favor of their arguments—which use reason alone. By definition, the believer is working from an old 'script' (which is incomplete in many areas of 'concern' and never was meant to be used in some other areas of mankind's attention), and the believer is working through faith. Faith, that which is given by God to those who ask, but not all ask for it. Thus, organized religion faces challenges of keeping 'regular' and "with it."

All and all, we can not deny the atheist and other nonbelievers their worldviews. For we have our own distinct worldviews within the scope of faith and other faiths.

Point: we, believers, do not accept that all "this" is present in reality as some meaningless 'universal' exercise in randomness. No matter how much time and distance is involved. Does the Church have all the answers, of course not! To have all the answers would reasonably alleviate any further mention of faith in God.

Keeping this short, so there you have it: Reason alone apart from any faith component about these 'matters' leave these discussions where we find them often today: Open-ended.

I almost forgot (until I started listening to the cuss-filled explanations from one of the host in the video above): Believers do themselves no favor with their religious schisms (everybody has a word from God), or when they 'press down' on society to connect to a particular religious viewpoint over and against its own secular choices and expressions.

That's all I have.

alone apart from any faith component about these 'matters'

What does faith add?

Can a nonbeliever, due to his/her nonbelief, not arrive at a good conclusion about whether or not slavery is immoral?

What does faith add? Much to the believer. Afterward, the Believer is fully aware of having once not believed and now believing and knowing the different. That different which has no value to an observer of reason alone. So, I will not delve deeply into a futile exercise of explaining faith.

Can a nonbeliever,. . .not arrive at a good conclusion about whether or not slavery is immoral? Of course! A thing can be wrong across the board at any given time.

The Bible (especially the OT) is likely one of the main factors as to why there is such disagreement.    Many Christians, seems to me, cherry-pick, equivocate and even insert wholly inconsistent interpretations to get the OT to align with their view of a loving God.    

It would be so much better if Christians were to revise the Bible (it is not as if this book was handed down by God ... it is clearly the work of men) to match modern mainstream beliefs.   Likely the modern Bible would be heavy on the NT and pull only the most critical elements of the OT requires to keep the NT message together.   Things like the fall of man, the 10 commandments, etc.   Wholly drop kicking Deuteronomy, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. would address a ton of the problems in the Bible.

But, Christians are so varied in their beliefs it still would be a challenge to come up with a single new Bible they all could support.   

For that, and other more practical reasons, it seems Christians are stuck dealing with the awkward claims of divine truth made in the OT.    

Afterward, the Believer is fully aware of having once not believed and now believing and knowing the different.

And that affects their conclusions about the morality of slavery, how?

Faith is unnecessary to arrive at a conclusion regarding morality.  Lack of faith does not leave such conclusions open-ended.

Besides, faith does not answer questions.   Faith is what enables people to actually take as truth that which is written in the Bible (or that which authorities tell them is true).   It is the Bible that 'answers' those questions and does so using mores and values of ancient men.

@ Paragraph 1. There are many factors involved:  In part because of the "Old Testament," which is an existing faith all its own, and not just a set of historical reference materials. In part, due to God not presiding over the words men and women say in God's name. In part, because in order to spread this specific 'message' across the planet-languages and cultural nuances (always shifting) can play havoc with a shared understanding. In part, because many believers are told that we are all commissioned to share what we can of this Gospel message (trained or untrained).

In the sense above, this is a mess!

I can take some comfort that if this form of message transmission is messy—God, who is Alpha and Omega is aware of the problem, my concern, and ultimately has a solution for all of that which came before.

@ Paragraph 3. Foundationally, Christians come in two flavors: 1. Social believers, including those raised up as believers. and, 2. Spiritual believers, those persons who have had a life altering circumstance for which a spiritual awakening is the highlight. The second option does not make a fully "explained" experience. Simply put it opens the mind up and for greater growth the believer has to anchor him or herself. Usually, that is the New Testament (with the Old Testament attached).

Bottomline: God can 'remedy' all our headaches by arriving and ending (through answers) all our questions. Otherwise, we're stuck with an imperfect and thus an imperfect understanding of who and what we are spiritually-speaking.

NOTE: I will confide that I am and will try to stay narrowly 'on point' in this discussion, but the Spirit moves a believer in multiple directions! (Yes, "the Spirit within.")

I can take some comfort that if this form of message transmission is messy—God, who is Alpha and Omega is aware of the problem, my concern, and ultimately has a solution for all of that which came before.

Yeah ... well ... He does not seem to be too concerned.

Faith does not 'tie' into a discussion of slavery or its morality, Sandy.

I will agree: faith in God is unnecessary to arrive at a conclusion regarding morality, because a human can choose ultimately to do what is right in its own eyes.

Can a nonbeliever, due to his/her nonbelief, not arrive at a good conclusion about whether or not slavery is immoral?

Maybe for nonbelievers we shouldn't use the terms moral and immoral. Maybe it's more appropriate to say a thing is desirable or preferable. Morality implies judgment and if you don't believe, maybe you shouldn't worry about judgment.

Why in the world should judgment only exist in the presence of belief?

God is the judge. If there is no judge, there is no judgment. You just do what works for you.

Only if there is a god.  There is no evidence for one.  The existence of a god would not preclude humans from making their own judgments, anyway.  Fortunately, as it turns out, since he doesn't seem inclined to either show himself or correct the morality proposed in his name.

I see no reason to limit use of "moral" and "immoral", unless we similarly limit believers to using, oh, say 'godly" and "ungodly".  Then they can explain why slavery is "godly", since according to scripture, it is.

I see no reason to limit use of "moral" and "immoral"

OK well I just gave you one. You don't have to agree with it, but if you don't see it, that makes me wonder about other claims you make like "no evidence." (Although I think the existence of God actually seems slightly off-topic). 

The existence of a god would not preclude humans from making their own judgments, anyway.

Oh they certainly do that - in spades. Humans are incredibly judgy. I guess you have to decide if you care about that. That falls under the category of "whatever works for you" that I mentioned above.

Then they can explain why slavery is "godly", since according to scripture, it is.

As referenced elsewhere, I think context matters. I don't think we see God saying slavery is superior to a waged labor system. I don't think we see God advocating for economic systems in general. What I think we see is instructions to a specific ethnic group on how to behave within existing systems.

If you study the Old Testament and the Gospels, I think we see that God understood you can't just lay everything on people all at once and expect them to rise to perfection. People just aren't that cool. 

I think the existence of God actually seems slightly off-topic

Really?  How can god be a judge of anything, if he doesn't exist?  I think god's existence is very germaine to the topic of whether he's "the judge".

I think we see that God understood you can't just lay everything on people all at once and expect them to rise to perfection.

Circumcision and the sacrifice of Isaac - totally doable.  Don't treat other people like property - asking way too much.

Morality implies judgment and if you don't believe, maybe you shouldn't worry about judgment.

That reads as though you are suggesting that morality only matters if there is an entity that will hold you accountable.    

If so, I vehemently disagree.   Atheists are quite capable of running their lives based on certain morals such as honesty, compassion, generosity, etc.   I still remember (because it was so bizarre) when an ex-NT member who was a YEC declared that if there was no God that he probably would run amok doing whatever he pleased.   That way of thinking I find to be bizarre and I suspect my fellow agnostic atheists would agree.

What I think we see is instructions to a specific ethnic group on how to behave within existing systems.

What we see is God affirming that a human being may own another as property.

How can god be a judge of anything, if he doesn't exist?

You are straying into a different topic. I'm just relaying how it works - or could work. I suggested an alternative mindset. Accept it or don't. I don't care.

Don't treat other people like property

We do that now. We just do it in different ways. Have you never heard the term "wage slave?" It's all in your perspective.

Atheists are quite capable of running their lives based on certain morals such as honesty, compassion, generosity, etc.

Of course they are, but then the question is why would they do that? And what does it mean to be moral if the standard is personal? Everyone gets to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.

if there was no God that he probably would run amok doing whatever he pleased

It's not necessary to take it to that extreme - though the extreme is certainly possible. We do have crime, after all. That is often an example of people doing something others think is wrong and the criminal either disagrees or doesn't care. Either way, I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that there might be some differences.

I'm just relaying how it works - or could work.

You're relaying how you think it might work, with no reason to believe so except that somebody told you so.  Not really a good reason to tell nonbelievers that they shouldn't be judges of morality.

I thought believers weren't supposed to judge.

"Wage slaves" are not obligated by law, on pain of beating or death, to continue their employment against their will.  So, they're not really slaves at all.

What we see is God affirming that a human being may own another as property.

You can do that now. How much control you have over a person changes through cultures and times, but pretty much all people give up some level of freedom to someone else or the state on a daily basis.

with no reason to believe so except that somebody told you so.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Not really a good reason to tell nonbelievers that they shouldn't be judges of morality. I thought believers weren't supposed to judge.

I don't think I told you or anyone else what they should do. So, again, I don't know what you're talking about.

"Wage slaves" are not obligated by law, on pain of beating or death, to continue their employment against their will.  So, they're not really slaves at all.

Depends on definitions, I guess. Think about freedom. How much do you have, really?

Of course they are, but then the question is why would they do that? And what does it mean to be moral if the standard is personal? Everyone gets to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.

In actual practice, morality is a function of society.   Each society evolves a collective morality and commits much of it into the laws for civil society.   Outside of laws, the evolved morality of the culture is part of the teaching for the next generation.

So there is a societal moral guide (a relative morality).   The guide, however, can be (and is) ignored on an individual basis.   So ultimately everyone spins their own individual relative morality but live within a society with an established relative morality.

It's not necessary to take it to that extreme

Note that the extreme was offered by the YEC member.   I was quite surprised to read it.    Regardless, this individual apparently could not fathom the idea that others might follow what would be considered a normal, contemporary moral code on their own;  even when they do not believe that there is an ever-present God watching and judging them.

I don't think I told you or anyone else what they should do.

Ok.  Were these your words?

Maybe for nonbelievers we shouldn't use the terms moral and immoral. Maybe it's more appropriate to say a thing is desirable or preferable. Morality implies judgment and if you don't believe, maybe you shouldn't worry about judgment.

Depends on definitions, I guess.

Yes, and to call a wage earner who is legally free to leave his or her job and is legally entitled to not be killed or beaten by his or her employer a "slave" ignores the definition of "slave".  Employees have freedoms that slaves do not.  It's a false equivalence, requiring one to ignore the actual meanings of words to defend it.

You can do that now. How much control you have over a person changes through cultures and times, but pretty much all people give up some level of freedom to someone else or the state on a daily basis.

Woah.   Is owning another human being as property moral?   

Were these your words?

Yeah. Maybe you should read them. It's full of equivocation in the form of "maybe." I count three maybes. One in each sentence.

It's a false equivalence, requiring one to ignore the actual meanings of words to defend it.

Don't tell me. I didn't invent it. Maybe you should think about why it's so commonly used instead of trying to come after me for using it as an example.

Is owning another human being as property moral?

What do you mean by "owning another human being?" What does it mean to own?

In property law, there is a conception of property rights as a bundle of twigs tied together. Each stick is a property right. The right to buy. The right to sell. The right to destroy. The right to alter. The right to use. The right to carry away. There are many.

Some levels of ownership are defined by many of these rights. Sometimes, it's only one and even then, only in a limited capacity under specific circumstances. What offends the conscience changes over time and from one culture to another.

You're the one who made the suggestion, Tacos.  There were "maybes".  There were also "shouldn'ts".  Maybe if you didn't mean it, and couldn't rationalize it, you shouldn't have suggested it, or at the very least, maybe you shouldn't object to objections.

I didn't invent it.

You're the one using the term, making the equivalence.

In short, Tacos, why make these suggestions, if you're just going to deny making them?

What do you mean by "owning another human being?" What does it mean to own?

I wrote @4.2.24:  "owning another human being as property".   The context is the ownership of human beings in the Bible.

The 'as property' was intentional;  that qualification and the biblical context should have made it crystal clear what ownership (as used) means.   

Owning another human being as property, as was practiced in biblical times (the context), includes (but not limited to) the following:

• ability to buy or capture a human being as property
• ability to sell a human being as property
• ability to pass a human being to heirs as inheritance property
• ability to control the personal life of another human being 
• ability to beat a human being with no consequences as long as the person does not die within a few days

Is it moral to own a human being as property?

I'm really not following you, sorry.

Is it moral to own a human being as property?

As I indicated, the answer may be "it depends."

Got lost in your own game?

I was trying to contribute to a conversation. You seem to be intent on something else.

'Those were my words, but because one of the words was "maybe", I can't really be expected to claim or defend my words, and the false equivalence I used was made by someone else, so don't hold me responsible for using it' isn't really much of a contribution, IMO.

Oh well! Guess you'll have to tro...er, talk to someone else. Peace!

Still not willing to own what you're "maybe" saying?

Have a good night!

As I indicated, the answer may be "it depends."  [on whether or not owning a human being as property is immoral]

Amazing and disappointing.    

My position is that it does not depend on anything.   Owning another human being as property is immoral.   Full stop.

What amazing is the hoops some people will jump through to try and justify or rationalize slavery in the bible, just to give their god/religion a pass. And yet, they might condemn modern day slavery, as if slavery today is not the same as slavery yesterday. The level of cognitive disconnect displayed boggles the mind.

Spot on.   I could understand an isolated or fringe using such an approach but this appears to be more common than I would have expected.

Owning another human being as property is immoral.

The way you mean, I tend to agree. But, how do you feel about employment contracts that put limits on a person's freedom? Some contracts specify that not only does one person work for another, but they are prohibited from working for anyone else in that field. Even if you no longer work for that employer, you may be prohibited from working for anyone else for some extended period. Some contracts say a person has to maintain a certain weight or look a certain way. Or they have to engage in or refrain from specific behavior. There may be controls on where they live and what they eat. There may be limits on who they can associate with.

Violating such restrictions can result in severe and/or expensive consequences. None of this rises to the level of abuse we have known with other systems, but it is a system where people are property nonetheless. The main conceptual difference is that the law has put limits on the number of sticks available in the bundle (see above reference in @ 4.2.26 .)

Such contracts can themselves be exchanged as property between other parties, i.e. a person can be bought and sold. An obvious example is professional athletes. For generations after the official end of slavery, pro athletes (if they wanted to remain pro athletes) were completely controlled by whatever team owner held their contract. Only in the 1970s did we begin to see free agency, but to this day, owners still retain a lot of control. Free agency has many limits. On a more personal level, did you know that if the Yankees own your contract, you can't wear your hair below the collar and you can't grow a beard?

LeBron James (semi-famous basketball player) has compared the life of a pro athlete to slavery and said that the NFL (yes, that's a different sport) owners have a slave-owner mindset. So, maybe the NFL is immoral.

The point of all this is to employ a bit of cultural relativism. Modern people just love to judge the past, particularly the ancient past and I don't think that's always fair. I guess they think there's nothing in their society that could be done differently and if they live two or three thousand years ago, they would have employed superior moral instincts and not gone along with all of that horror.

Much of the slavery talk in the Bible is about working within a preexisting system and there doesn't seem to be much comparison to anything else. That is: what would be the alternative? Most of those societies didn't have enough of a money economy to make it feasible to pay people. So how do you create a system of labor?

A similar problem is crime. Almost everything has the death penalty or some really severe penalty like dismemberment. Sounds awful, but what is the alternative? Prison? That's an expensive institution and one that didn't really get going until the 19th century. Exile? So we just kick out the criminals and hope they don't come back? Oh, small jails existed, to be sure, but not the kind of thing we see set up to deal with crime systemically and house convicts long-term.

tl;dr? It was a different world. It's easy to look back and say this or that was wrong, but it isn't very thoughtful.

Quite unfortunate I would say.

A false analogy. Contracts list terms and conditions both sides agree upon when entering into said contract. No one is forced to enter into one. Slavery does not grant that option.

No one is forced to enter into one. Slavery does not grant that option.

Yes, you found a difference. Very good.

That difference makes all the difference. But the issue isn't so much about slavery itself, but rather if slavery is moral or not and why its not prohibited or condemned by God or the bible, which some claim is a source for morality.

The way you mean, I tend to agree.

Then that would mean that you find the owning of another person as property where ownership involves (but is not limited to):

• ability to buy or capture a human being as property
• ability to sell a human being as property
• ability to pass a human being to heirs as inheritance property
• ability to control the personal life of another human being 
• ability to beat a human being with no consequences as long as the person does not die within a few days

Why not stop there?   Why go into a sidebar on employment, employment contracts, etc.?    None of that is even remotely close to the ownership as property (above) that we appear to both agree is immoral.

Now, assuming we do indeed agree that the above ⇧ is immoral.   The key point is the biblical treatment of this immoral practice.   Of course the ancient people did not recognize that this ownership was immoral.   They lived their entire lives with this as the backbone of their economy.   To them it was normal and just.   Similar to how treating women as property was considered normal and just.   

But God is an entirely different matter.   God knows better.   The supreme entity, knowing this to be an immoral practice†, never condemned the owning of another human being as property.   Rather, God made rules for proper ownership.   Not only is this moral guidance in the Bible to influence the ancients, but it remains unchanged to influence modern people who hold the Bible as their foundation for morality.   The fact is that God, per the Bible, failing to condemn the practice as immoral suggests God does not consider the practice immoral or that God is simply a character imbued with the mores & values of its authors.

If only God would have created a commandment such as:  'Thou shalt not own another human being as property'.    Given how much influence the Bible had (and still has) on societies that one commandment might have made quite a difference in societal evolution.

†  I presume you do not hold that God considers the owning of another human being as property to be moral.

But God is an entirely different matter.   God knows better.   The supreme entity, knowing this to be an immoral practice†, never condemned the owning of another human being as property.   Rather, God made rules for proper ownership.

I've noticed what that particular point is brought up, some theists will state something like, "who are you to question god?" Or "god's morals are not our own," or something to that effect.

Well I am not really questioning the morality of the God character in the Bible.   I am illustrating one of the reasons why I see this merely as a character in an ancient book.   The God character exhibits the same lack of moral sophistication as the men of the times.   One would expect the grandest possible entity to offer rules and wisdom that was superior to ancient men.   Yet even on a question so obvious so clear as the morality of owning a human being as property to be sold, bought, passed to heirs and beaten the God character offers no hint of moral sophistication beyond that of the men of the times.

So I am questioning the existence of the God character in the Bible;  not the morality of an actual existing supreme entity.

1. What defines moral "sophistication" anyway?
2. Do we consider that whatever thing God permits in the natural order of this world carries over into the spiritual order? Such as, slaves in Heaven?
3. What is a moral absolute anyway?
   
4. When somebody asserts no human should ever own another human at any time or anywhere is he or she stating a moral absolute?
5. Death is an absolute. Is death worse than slavery?
6. Is God morally wrong in allowing every living thing to die?

God, both the book character or the deity imagined, is probably just a reflection of the people who imagined it and propped on society's center stage. Essentially smoke and mirrors that people buy into.

What defines moral "sophistication" anyway?

I use that adjective to describe evolved morality.   For example, most modern societies have evolved a morality wherein the owning of a human being as property is considered immoral.

Do we consider that whatever thing God permits in the natural order of this world carries over into the spiritual order? Such as, slaves in Heaven?

I do not see how this relates to this topic, but I never consider that.

What is a moral absolute anyway?

Did someone use that term?

When somebody asserts no human should ever own another human at any time or anywhere is he or she stating a moral absolute?

No, he or she is making a statement based on relative morality.    

Death is an absolute. Is death worse than slavery?

Death is worse than slavery unless said slavery is torture.   What does this question have to do with the topic?

Is God morally wrong in allowing every living thing to die?

Not in my view.    But, then again, I do not believe the God of the Bible is anything more than a character in an ancient book.

Is death worse than slavery?

I was taught from a very young age that to the God of the bible, slavery was both terrible and also the best state for mankind. And I don't mean being the slave of another human, that was the bad kind of slavery, but being a slave to God. That being said, I was taught that position of slavery was never ending, that we should strive to be slaves of God in this life so that we can be his eternal slaves in the next. Of course, it was always presented as being the best thing in the universe, whatever makes you happy, that's what heaven is, yet you're still enslaved, but you love it and wouldn't want anything else. I started to wonder later in life if that kind of enslavement would be something like some drug lords heroin enslaved girlfriends, who just keep doing whatever he wants whenever he wants it just so they can ride that pleasure dragon again. Certainly paints a different vision of heaven once you start going down that road.

But back to the question. The answer is, it depends. There can be some slavery and torment worse than death and there can be informal master/slave relationships where the slave has many freedoms in which life would obviously be preferable. Even in ancient Israel you would have had to ask that question differently. The question would be "Is death worse than slavery as a foreigner?" or "Is death worse than slavery as an Israelite?" and I'm sure you would have gotten very different answers.

"evolved morality."

It is considerably feasible that had you lived in say 1400 B.C. to 100 CE (biblical era) your morality would have developed alongside the communities of the period?

Do we consider that whatever thing God permits in the natural order of this world carries over into the spiritual order? Such as, slaves in Heaven?

What I am getting at is this: We have explained to us in scripture how God is not a man, lacking flesh and bone. This would imply deliberate intent on the part of God to make mankind different. Thus, while there is order in Heaven, its beings exist in a different profile—spirit, even when its existence is one of service unto God.I conclude the spirit realm where God dwells has it own "moral sophistication,: if you will.

That is a misunderstanding of what I wrote.   

Of course if I had lived back then my morality would have been acceptance of slavery as the norm.   

But my point was that today (2019) we have an evolved morality (mores & values have evolved in most cultures) where slavery is recognized as immoral.

One could almost conclude anything when speculating.   If there is a Heaven I do not see how we can conclude anything about it.   It could be eternal slavery (catering to an all powerful entity in perpetuity) for all we know.

The tie-in to the past is this. If one accepts mankind is evolving (certainly it is in the areas of understanding and knowledge) and the Believer believes God is In-charge of all things, then God is behind evolution bringing about the relevant changes. Of course, the believer is of a mind that God must release any knowledge that advances humanity into this sphere. That knowledge is acted upon "glacially slow" is a factor in mankind's desire to use it or understand its potential for good or bad.

As it is plain to all mankind's existence had no use for say, rocket science in 1400 B.C. era; it is evidential clear that the world at that time had much practical use for human forced labor. God would be definitely cognizant of that.

The Believer is not an 'orphan' in matters of faith. His or her faith is surrounded by writings of men set apart (holy) for doing so. The believer draws conclusions from the approved books of his or her faith. This provides faith order and much in the manner of uniformity. Thus, it is less speculation and more acceptance and agreement with what is written.

Many can disagree and not accept what is written about God (in the Bible); that is their prerogative. Still, the writings exist as what they are.

As to the nexus in Heaven, the believer accepts (in humility) that it is an ineffable place of service and servants under God.

The tie-in to the past is this. If one accepts mankind is evolving (certainly it is in the areas of understanding and knowledge) and the Believer believes God is In-charge of all things, then God is behind evolution bringing about the relevant changes.

Which leaves the Bible naked for all to see as an outdated ancient book from which God has ostensibly moved on.   If God is directing the evolution of our mores & values —and clearly is doing so away from what is taught in the Bible— then why do Christians not recognize this and view the Bible as quaint views of ancient men?

God would be definitely cognizant of that.

I agree that we should assume God (as defined) would be quite aware of this (and many more things).   So it is easy to see how God might not demand slavery be ceased in biblical times.   But (and this is a big but) the Bible is still (2019) considered to be divine by countless millions.   It is taken literally in many cases (look at the YECs, et. al.).   God certainly would know that as His creatures evolved the Bible would need to be updated to reflect the changing morality (that He is driving per your hypothesis).   God certainly would know that condoning the owning of human beings as property in the Bible would be used as justification for countless slavery centuries into the future - well after the ancient economies based on slavery had ended.

Yet the Bible remains reflecting ancient mores & values (among many other problems) and countless modern people believe it to be the divine Word of God and act accordingly.

Which leaves the Bible naked for all to see as an outdated ancient book from which God has ostensibly moved on.   If God is directing the evolution of our mores & values -and clearly is doing so away from what is taught in the Bible- then why do Christians not recognize this and view the Bible as quaint views of ancient men?

Actually, it leaves the Bible (New Testament specifically) as lessons and insights from the past (Judaism) and as books and letters of faith for modern man (Christians). Christian need a discerning spirit to understand the differences between what has passed away, what is for now, and what is to come. We have no other modern book of the Spirit to open. read. share.

From your perspective as one outside the faith, you see these writers as merely quaint and ancient. This is not how anyone transitioned into the faith views the men or books. We view the writers as "fore-bearers" across many early periods, and thus they are so much more (to us) than you consider them. Believers stand on their shoulders. Their wisdom, books, and letters are timeless.  (Adjusting for the passages which are meant to 'depart' with the passage of time.)

For instance, something which passed away (for one people of faith) was the use of the Temple and its sacrifice. It exists in Judaism, it is a meeting place, "church" in Christianity and more than the name has changed for what is done and taught inside it.

continuation.

In this manner, slavery passed away in time. Much like the periods of the inquisition and modern slavery, these were times when men and women in power lacked a discerning spirit to let what was emptying itself continue until its end. The inquisition attempted to use force to capitalize faith; slavery became solely a commercial enterprise with little other redeeming value. Time arrived when neither of the two could sustain itself.

Alas! there is one other place in our land where we see brethren and sistren attempting to use faith in God to rule over men and women outside the faith: control or domination of the political sphere. It is not the right course of action - but, God will allow it should it further come to be.

But, Christians are so varied in their beliefs it still would be a challenge to come up with a single new Bible they all could support

Thanks goodness!

Personally I find a diversity of views to be quite stimulating...

Rather than trying to produce automatons that all think alike, a diversity of views can lead to some very creative thinking!

 It is taken literally in many cases (look at the YECs, et. al.). 

God is fully informed about the elementary thoughts and fashions of men (and women). After Jesus's death and the Gospel was to be "sent" out, note that the writer Paul remarked on false apostles going out alongside the original articles with their "interpretations." Jesus warned about false messiahs, and John wrote about "antichrists" plural. The point being: there are many, many, voices permitted to speak and continue speaking;  it calls all the more for a discerning spirit to steer pass spiritual fraudsters, fakers, the "new birth trainees," the newly trained, and so-called, elders, improperly equipped to teach spirituality.

being a slave to God. That being said, I was taught that position of slavery was never ending, that we should strive to be slaves of God in this life so that we can be his eternal slaves in the next.

The angels are considered eternal 'ministering spiritis' —an order of servants, slaves if you wish, meant to serve God. While I dare not even try to speak to their 'state' in existence, one can reason this: Their state is necessarily the reason for their existing. Considering this, for an angel to be anything else in the presence of God would require a 'rewrite' of the profile.

Even so, God would still be at the top of the Order.

Now then, how should we go about rearranging the unique profile of God?

Then they can explain why slavery is "godly", since according to scripture, it is.

Link?

Does not change the fact that the Bible reflects the mores and values of ancient men and believers are reading it raw daily.

The book is obsolete; you tacitly seem to acknowledge this fact.

the Bible reflects the mores and values of ancient men and believers are reading it raw daily.

How DOES this make you feel? No really. Tacitly, you must think believers are engaging in the definition of insanity (uncontrollable impulsive-compulsive behavior) to do this.

But as I stated above, @4.2.58, "Christians need a discerning spirit to understand the differences between what has passed away, what is for now, and what is to come." Moreover, I pointed out @4.2.59 several periods when the Church got it wrong (eventually apologizing for its errand ways and hubris) and still gets it wrong in a political wing plank in the Republican Party.

The book is obsolete; you tacitly seem to acknowledge this fact.

Which "book" exactly are you referring to?

I can not suggest the Bible in totality is obsolete and still apply its earthly wisdom and spiritual insights to areas of my life!

Check out any version of the Bible.  I believe TiG has frequently provided the chapter and verse, and they are mentioned in the video above.

My position is not really one based on feelings (emotions, etc.) but rather just an assessment of what I observe.    What I observe are billions of people in 2019 still actually believing that holy books such as the Bible are divine.   I agree that not everyone holds the Bible, Qur'an, etc. as literal truth and that plenty of cherry-picking and deep special interpretation is taking place to produce a net interpretation that makes sense for the individual, sect, religion and culture.   But those parts that end of being perceived as guidelines from the grandest possible entity  —the arbiter of objective morality—  are, I am fully convinced, nothing more than the words of ancient men.

We are far better served tapping our more evolved irreligious morality which includes notions such as the owning of a human being as property is repugnant and immoral.

Well, you most definitely have assert your position on this often enough in this thread.

Keep in mind, faith has an emotional component, because it by design is partially built up on hope.  The Believer's message since Calvary: "Have faith in God." Jesus explained we would not be left as orphans in this world, (we would have a spiritual Guide and Comforter) but since our Guide is not a flesh  - our five senses can not engage. Thus, we are connected spiritually.

We can not apologize on account of faith. Now then, what we do in and with our faith is a different matter. That is, how we manifest faith to the world is on us.

Today, humankind has largely caught up with the means and resources to shift away from using people as "burden carriers." So many are the sciences which make life bearable, longer, even easier, that the new fear is what will a multitude of the earth's billions of people do when labor becomes automated and sparse?

(I have observed that the local Home Depot is installing aisles of new, high technology, neutral-toned self-check out kiosks eliminating its need for a team of cashiers. Also, toll-bridges are looking to become automated and "delete" the toll book takers. (That last one is probably a good thing: Just how do toll-booth operators deal with the toxic vehicle take off fumes anyway?) Still, those are jobs done by humans  on the chopping block.

Keep in mind, faith has an emotional component, because it by design is partially built up on hope.

I agree.

As pithy as I can be:  feelings are an unreliable source for truth.

And yet, here we are after thousands of years of faith!

... still believing errant stories written by ancient men based on even older oral tradition are the divine word of the grandest possible entity.

Yes and no, depending on who you read and trust. However, that is a whole other set of case-making unto itself, having little if any to do with slavery and morality, in my opinion.

All human religions are cultural expressions. The culture approved slavery , so the religion approved slavery. 

It has very little if anything to do with the existence of God, or even if there is any moral worth to the Bible. 

Matt seems like a jerk by the way. Aggressive atheism to what seems like negative effect. 

The two hosts would barely let the guy speak. It's embarrassing. 

It has very little if anything to do with the existence of God, or even if there is any moral worth to the Bible. 

Many look to the Bible as their source for moral guidance.   The Bible condones owning human beings as property.

Apparently God wants modern readers of His word to hold that owning human beings as property is okay.   Not a sin, not immoral.   Just follow a few rules and you are good.

If the above sounds ridiculous then I agree.   It does not make sense that God would consider it moral to own a human being as property.   Right?

Many look to the Bible as their source for moral guidance.   The Bible condones owning human beings as property. Apparently God wants modern readers of His word to hold that owning human beings as property is okay

Have you ever known a religious person who didn't believe the Bible was meant to be taken literally?

Or-- have you ever known a devoutly religious person-- who felt that slavery was wrong?

Or is your experience so limited that the only religious people you've known were those who believed their religion condoned slavery?

If so-- you've really got to get out more!

There are plenty of them.   The old Earth Creationists, for example, consider the Bible divine and engage in spectacular contortions to find a way to interpret it so that it does not contradict science, engineering and logic.

Plenty of devout Christians realize slavery is immoral.

This is all obvious.   

Why are you asking these questions?

All human religions are cultural expressions. The culture approved slavery , so the religion approved slavery.  It has very little if anything to do with the existence of God

So what you just said is "All human religions are based on beliefs shared by the culture at the time their scriptures were written, not based upon some actual divine inspiration." If it were divine inspiration then the rules and laws expressed should be true or righteous regardless of which age or culture you happen to be in, right? If that's what you're saying, then I am 100% in agreement.

Divine inspiration according to who?  The people who wrote the Bible? 

Atheists tend to have the opinion that religious or spiritual inspiration is bad, and believers tend to have the opinion that "divine" inspiration is infallible.  The "truth" is probably neither one of those choices. 

Human beings have always been in awe of their circumstances, and have ascribed them to "God".  That doesnt make them wrong, but it doesnt mean every word in scripture is viable either. 

and believers tend to have the opinion that "divine" inspiration is infallible.

Probably many do.

If you think of the holy books (of any religion) as "The Law", (in this case "religious law") compare them to secular law.

For example, when our founders created out government, they could've created only 2 branches of government-- one to make the laws (the legislative branch) and the other to enforce the law (the Executive branch).

But instead they added a third branch-- the Judicial Branch.

Why? Why couldn't you just have 2 branches-- one to make laws, the other to enforce them? Why did our Founding nfathers think we needed that third branch? Wouldn't that work?

(There's an important point here...)