pop morality

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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.

Sure. The Inca empire, for instance, did not practice slavery, but had a system of indentured servitude (such as the Israelites practiced among themselves) for when people committed crimes or went into debt, by which a person could work their way out of that condition. It was not something that required heritable, chattel slavery to exist, and Jehovah could certainly have prohibited it.

Darius the Great was also known for establishing a wage system for his slave-workers, and allowing them to work their way out of slavery; the Persians had various degrees of servitude to which a person could belong, and also buy their way gradually out of it. Soldiers typically started as "100%" slaves, and as they rose in rank were granted additional rights as freemen.

(Edit to Add: I skipped the part about the beatings because, honestly, I'm not sure to what you're referring with that question/passage.)

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.

Most slave owners in the old South were not abusive toward their slaves; that doesn't make it okay, if they're not "monsters". The living conditions of those slaves is also irrelevant to the question being discussed, here. Incidentally, I read George Washington's writings on the subject, when I was a history minor, and his objection to slavery wasn't that it was immoral or wrong for the servants, but that it was not the best idea, economically-- it did not allow for flexibility of labor pools, if the plantation owner wanted to change crops, for instance. His advice on treating slaves "well" specifically centered around the fact that abused slaves will not produce as much labor output.

Incidentally, the argument you are making here (I hope without realizing it's what you're doing) is exactly the argument that was made by Southerners as they objected to the Abolition movement: they claimed that there was not another realistic option, and that the economy could not function without the practice of slavery. They were wrong, and so are you.

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.

That's not a justification for a slavery system, but an indictment of the fact that there was no social "safety net", as we call it in modern society. Again, it doesn't mean that a transcendent God, such as you claim to worship, couldn't have come up with something better (or closer to our modern outlook) by commanding the Israelites to behave differently from their neighbors/contemporaries. Whether or not I, a mere human being, can come up with something better is irrelevant. The fact that the God of the Bible cannot do better than human beings of their time is the entire conversation.

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?

I have never suggested that God would "supply everything". Slavery was not the only economic option they had, and it's not our only economic option. It's simply what powerful humans do to elevate themselves over the weaker/helpless humans and nations around them (including your modern versions of slavery, which is why we weren't moved by that argument). It's the kind of thing a transcendent moral being might be able to stop; it's certainly not something that would be endorsed by said being. Again, as I said before, it's what we would expect to find in a book written by humans, not a book dictated by the creator of the universe.

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.

I don't think you endorse chattel slavery; I do think you're justifying it for no reason other than your emotional attachment to the idol you worship, called the Bible. You're a Bible idolator, and so to you the fact that the Bible endorses it means you simply must defend it, regardless of what it says in there, rather than simply admitting it was written by a barbaric people in a barbaric time, and is not actually the "Word of the Eternal Creator of the Universe".

Your misrepresentation of the role of slavery in building civilizations would take an entire sociology course to dissect, so I'm going to leave it alone. A better way to put it, as succinctly as I am able, is to say that slavery is a sickness born of the rise of large cities/states (and with it, a Power Class), but no more "necessary" to the construction of those empires than it's "necessary" for us to have slavery in order to build the Interstate Highway System. Simply put, it's not.

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.

You're kidding, right? That's a joke? I'll just point out that women weren't even "granted" souls until a vote was taken in ~400 C.E., and let the women on this forum rip you up about the concept of New Testament women being "made equal".

As to the "there were no rules", that's a lie. A damned, dirty lie, and I think you know it. Almost every civilization had strict rules governing the condition of their slaves. Literally the oldest surviving law code known to man has laws regulating the treatment of slaves (the Code of Ur-Nammu).

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.

Are we back to the Hitler thing again? Seriously? As for the rest of your reply, I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole.

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?

I don't have a clue what you're talking about, at this point. I'm not the one trying to turn science into a religion, or a moral lawgiver like your imaginary friend. As I pointed out before, science is a method, and it cannot "give its approval" or be almighty. I think you're projecting some serious emotional issues onto us, and your attempt to bait me just won't work because there's nothing there... the fact that you tried, though, tells me even more of what we all already knew about you.

All your above drivel aside, it's really very simple: our moral code today is not perfect. It's far from it. We have the biggest wealth and power gap in the history of the world, we have (as you pointed out) conditions for 2/3rds of the workers of the world which are almost indistinguishable from real slavery, we have many vestiges of xenophobia which manifest in our laws and social attitudes and need to be improved.

You speak of the recent improvements in the broadening of "all are created equal" as if it's a bad thing that it's newly-expanded. I say that's its greatest strength... we constantly broaden that umbrella to contain more types of person, whereas it was radical at the time for the Founders to say that "all rich, white men are equal", so to speak. Our morality improves. That's what makes the idea of your Biblical transcendent morality argument so laughable... we've managed, in the 239 years this country has been around, to radically improve (sometimes painfully, and always too slowly) over the moral conditions written down by your Bronze Age tribal sheepherder-warrior people's priests in the name of God.

And it's still improving. Your tu quoque arguments hold no weight because of this reason.