Morality

[Brian37]

What economic benefit?  Slaves are famously labor inefficient.  What could a pool of slaves produce or do that a pool of free men cannot could not or has not?  Splitting the baby won't work here..there's just the one baby...and somebody wants to buy it.  

Uhm the economic benefits of having to pay your employees nothing, while reaping all the benefits of their labor. It might become inefficient in the long run, but if it was as inefficient as you suggested it wouldn’t have been so wide spread as it was, through out history.

Yes, old magic book describes the chattel ethos of the people who wrote it - it does this by purporting to speak on the issue of a good and proper life as described by the law of god in relation to human ownership.  They were terrible assholes, lol.  Their god was..like them..a  terrible asshole.  He could have simply said "hey, you terrible assholes, stop it with the slave trade".  He did not.  The apathy of the divine becomes the apathy of the adherent.  They certainly believed that their asshole god endorsed slavery and left provisions to them regaring it;s practice.  

I don’t believe God literally told them anything, and the moral views of the OT writings are the views of their respective communities, that they had  no special access to what’s right and wrong, anymore so then their pagan neighbors, or you and I. So if you want to continue taking about the moral failing of the biblical writers, ancient communities, etc.. by all means go ahead, but don’t expect me to be some apologist for them. The bible contains contains an evolving conception of god over the course of history, earlier portraits not consistent with later portraits etc, even if they have some shared roots.

we've yet to see an explanation of why this change from a biblical morality to your own has occurred, and how you square that circle with the continuity of those same god beliefs and any potentially objective morality that can be derived from a text or to which that text conforms.  It is, in plain point of fact, the believers morality that must defend itself against charges of subjectivity and relativism.  These things are not challenging to those who are not hobbled by a compulsion to rehabilitate magic books.

Again, where did I ever suggest that morality comes from the Bible? That one needs texts like the Bible to know what’s right and wrong? Paul himself acknowledges that the gentiles even practice the moral law, without ever having a book.

I’m not sure how many more times people are going ascribe beliefs to me that I do hold, than expect me to defend it.

As I indicated my view of morality is platonic, not requiring a bible for it.

This dodge is a bullshit argument I have seen from every religion.

"My religion recognizes people outside my club can be moral too".

No kidding, and I agree. And again, it does not take Allah or Mo, or Buddha or Jesus or Paul or Yoda to accept that.

I have gotten the same argument that "My religion accepts others as being moral" from every label.

Again, to me that says, that a label isn't the patent holder or cause, but our species is.

Your view of morality isn't neutral if your argument is your particular pet label/deity is the source.  What you are really arguing like any other religion is that you are willing to accept others, up and until they question your position as being the head of the social pecking order.