pop morality

[Drich]

No, it was not the only way to "make things right", back then (and was not instituted in reaction to crime, by the way, but to conquest and/or debt... it was "might makes right"). It was a barbaric practice that simply happened to be common at the time because of all the endless, semi-genocidal warfare for territory in the highly-contested Canaan region; it was barbaric then, and it's barbaric now. 

Then please provide other period correct examples of "making things right." Not things you think they could have done but other examples maybe from other cultures if you need to pull from a different source of 'making things right.'

Again just so we are on the same page we are talking about beatings in general and not slavery. so address the beatings first.

What you're forgetting is that your book, which you claim to be "God-breathed scripture", sets the entire tone for what behaviors are acceptable and which are prohibited. Just as Eloah/Yahweh/Jehovah told them to cut the foreskins off their penises and avoid menstruating women and pork*, he could have told The Chosen People™ to eschew slavery in its entirety. 

Remember, I personally saying I do not like Chattel slavery, but again I also can acknowledge and accept that in certain economic conditions and certain civil situations chattel slavery is indeed needed for the basic preservation of humanity/society in general.

I do not agree with chattel slavery because it's nature is one of absolute authority and power over another. with this level of power in most cases seems to bring uncontrolled corruption and evil.

That said their are no laws in the bible or anywhere else that says the person who owns chattel slaves must be a monster. Remember the founding fathers own and worked chattel slaves, and while it was no picnic. their slaves lived a life equal to, or sometimes greater than most other immigrants/settlers in that time.

* Footnote: the absence of pig bones in archaeological digs in that region is how they can tell if the city is Israelite or built/settled by other Canaanite populations. Clearly, God is not opposed to ordering His Chosen People™ to do things no one else in the region does, or prohibit them from doing things that everyone else in the region does.

But again, replace it with what? What of the poor who sold themselves into slavery just to survive? Or do you like everyone else assume ALL Slaves are like the 18th century African slaves brought to America against their will?

Understand people did elect to be slaves, because that life was better than the alternative.

The new/alternative verse might look something like this:

Leviticus 25:44 "And then the LORD said unto Moses, 'For as you were slaves in Egypt, and have known the cruelty of the yoke of such bondage from which you were freed by My hand, never again shall My Chosen people own their fellow human beings as property, nor allow others to adopt this practice among you.' And the people said Amen."

But again just short of God supplying everything how does their economy work? And if God supplies everything why would they do anything for themselves?

What you all fail to see is the mistreatment is 'immoral aspect' of slavery. not the removal of the illusion of freedom, because in that time no one had this illusion. In that time their were no 'freemen.' All bore the burden of authority, All had to submit their lives to the theocratic community. Specific instances of slavery then was just specific responsibility or a specific aspect of life in their community. Even in the 'New world' Freedom only applied to a few, and even then their freedom was not free. Their was a cost involved, and restrictions placed on those 'free men.'

Just so we are clear I do not advocate Chattel slavery especially in this time or for as long as the US kept it around. But as a species and our (Humanity) survival, Chattel slavery is what brought the world out of the hunter gather era and into cities and civilization. That said we are no longer in that era and should not be dependent on chattel slaves. That is why I make such a big deal about "wage slavery." Because in most unmonitored situations their is very little difference between wage slavery and chattel slavery, yet by our 'moral standards' we still do not question and we reap the befits.

Remember, you are the one who says that the Bible is from God.  To us, it is very clearly the work of human beings. Human beings would not necessarily be expected to come up with a moral concept that is actually transcendent, but to have a spotty and very localized set of social beliefs and traditions backed up by the force of a claim  that "this is from God!!", according to the priests/prophets who wrote it. We see the same thing wherever you look in the world (e.g. the Hindu prohibition against eating beef, or the Muslim prohibition against fermented grains). A "God" who cares more about foreskins and who's having sex with whom than about whether or not human beings are turned into property is not a god, but as RaphaelDrake pointed out, is clearly a way of "Super-Alpha-ing" human prejudices and practices so that others will fall in line and obey the rules set down by the priesthood/ruling-class in the name of God.

But it did indeed transcend the local laws and customs at the time both in the Old and the New testament.
For example you look and scoff at the rules of slavery in the bible, but before these rules their were no restrictions on how badly a slave could be treated. God allowed for their/our central foundation for their economic stability to remain in place, but at the same time gave those holding that economic pillar up, (the slaves) rights they never had before. And, it held accountable the slave owners in such away as they never experienced.
An example in the New testament would be the fact that for the first time EVER women were made equals before God. Not to mention Jesus' personal upheaval of the standing Jewish authority. 2 to 5 thousand years later this is all old hat to you, but at the time this was written this was all indeed ground breaking.

A "god" who can tell his people how to eat and screw but not how to treat fellow human beings as equals is not a god but a human-created excuse for the goals of the ones who created that god to help shape society as they wanted it. A "god" who cares more about diets, foreskins, and sodomy than about the abuse of women and slaves is indistinguishable from the mythological creations of the Norse, the Greeks, the Romans, the Britons/Druids, or the Japanese. It's man-made, and the fingerprints of our own egos are all over YHWH, just as it is on the others I've listed here.

I'm sorry, but your "God" is no more a god than Odin, Zeus, Iopater (Jupiter), Dagda, or Izanagi.

But that's the thing isn't it... While the founding Father may have coined the term "all men are created equal." Not All human beings were to be considered "men" were they?

Matter of fact it was not till after world war two, in an attempt to rectify the damage hitler caused by trying to promote the Aryan race as being above all others, did the term 'All men were created equal." Mean what it means today.

A purely logical person would look at the data of the various races and see that physical attributes, and infirmities are not consistent across all races. some races are susceptible to disease that others are not. While some races across the board can not properly digest the same foods as others have no issue with. Some have a natural and high proclivity towards intellectual aspirations while others are naturally more physical and more easily develop their bodies. None of this means one race should dominate another, nor does it mean one is better. It just means not all men are equal. we all have different strengths and weaknesses. While their always exceptions to the rules we can indeed classify or group these strengths and weaknesses (in a general way) according to race.

Now then If God did indeed write the bible, would he not write or inspire the TRUTH to be written, despite one communities proclivity towards the propaganda it uses to hold itself together?? Would not God be obligated to side with the truth that has held and forged humanity for the last 4 to 5 thousand years, and the truth that allowed us to develop to this point (the last several decades) where we can teach our children the lie about all men being created equal?

So then, if God's book represents a 5000+ year old truth, and your 50 year old belief that 'all men are created equal' can not even stand up to a logical, non filter look at humanity through the lens of all mighty 'science.' Then why oh, why do you assume that God's book reflect your propaganda?

It is a hard or some may even consider offensive truth, but truth none the less.

Ask yourself does your world view contain any non emotionally charged, hard or offensive truths? Do they not exist? or has your world view simply "scrubbed" them? If your world view is scrubbed of all hard or offensive truths ask yourself does your world view indeed still represent the truth?