The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[Esquilax]

Incorrect. God chose to wipe out the pre-flood inhabitants as punishment for them and in order to start over due to the depth and breadth of the depravity of man which was the direct result of mankind's exercising its free will. In this case, God chose to punish behavior.

Yes, he chose to punish behavior that he finds objectionable. According to you, he also found slavery objectionable, in that less slavery is "progress" in your view. And this isn't just a "things are too bad here, better pull the plug and start over" thing either, because this is the same god that killed Lot's wife for a singular act of disobedience; if there's one thing we can gather about the character of god from the old testament, it's that he's okay with doling out lethal punishment for everything from single, innocuous disobedience, through to comprehensive depravity. Slavery, I'm sure, exists somewhere on that scale, so my question is why god would, in your estimation, be so unable to handle disobedience that single instances of it merit the death penalty, yet opt to allow the Israelites to temper his wishes for the first time in the old testament, despite knowing the immensity of human suffering that would result? It doesn't make sense, it looks and sounds exactly like a post hoc rationalization for slavery made with the intent of considering it pruned of context for the purposes of excusing it.

With the Israelites and slavery, God chose to mold behavior. 

I've been meaning to ask this, but where do you even get this idea from the text presented to you? What in the bible causes you to come to this conclusion?

Hey, slavery is offensive to us moderns today, but it was correctable. Apparently, the pre-flood inhabitants of the Earth were not teachable.

And this?

And I'll add this because it really silences critics like you and others: Because you cannot prove that God did not have a valid reason for either wiping out the Sodomites or merely correcting the Israelites, your charge of "moral monstership" is without merit, and frankly, I don't give a rat's ass how you feel about it.

If I actually need to walk you through, step by step, why a completely preventable genocide is immoral, then frankly you join your god in being a moral monster. Do you actually need me to go that basic for you?

I'll do it if you want, but I need to hear you say the words "I don't understand why unnecessary genocide is bad, please explain it to me," first.