Slavery

So originally I was planning on writing up a big long wall of text detailing exactly the details and the differences between 1850s slavery, and Old Testament slavery. The issue is, I'd mostly be rephrasing everything in that article I linked you. You know, this one.

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

But you know what? Fuck that. If you've got time to read Richard Dawkins' stuff, and you have time to watch viral videos of bottom tier pastors saying asshole things (referring to the guy talking about punching gay children (ugh he's an idiot)), then you absolutely have some time to spend researching the opposing explanation. You can't call yourself informed until you've read both sides. So read it. I don't have time to restate everything that's already been said, when there's already a perfectly fine resource talking about it.

Instead, I want to address something different related to the topic, that that article doesn't cover. But read that page before continuing.

You seemed pretty convinced that slavery was a simple issue, and that it existing and being condoned by scripture is a serious problem. Therein lies the flaw, it just ISN'T a simple issue. Let's take your "simple" definition.

<CobaltBW> i feel like it could just be boiled down to "the old testament condoned the ownership of slaves"

In this sentence there are two very, very complex words. "ownership" and "slaves". The above article deals with the latter. It goes into depth on what slavery actually was in the old testament, and what it meant for those involved. But whatever the Old Testament defines it as, you've still got the word "ownership" there. I think that's more what you're trying to get at, and it's why it's such a hefty word.

What IS ownership? Let's see. I own this glass cup on my desk at the moment. I could literally do whatever I want with it. I could pour some milk in and take a drink. I could polish it and set it on a pedestal. I could smack it on the floor and shatter it to pieces. I wouldn't have to answer to anyone, you know?

If THAT is the kind of ownership that is implied old testament slave owners have over their slaves, then God damn it, that's HORRIBLE. But it isn't. By the terms of OT slavery, and regulations and guidelines for the slave owners, they do not have free reign to break their slaves, they do not have free reign to rape their slaves, and they don't have free reign to emotionally break their slaves. There are rules and laws against this, and the societal honor of jewish society demanded it. (That's a big thing too: this system of slavery was meant for that time and place, for that specific society and governmental system. It's not valid anymore, because culture has changed. This is the case with most jewish laws and customs like those relating to clothings and hairstyle, which were stated for a specific time and culture, one which has long since passed.)
So clearly, the "ownership" by which we refer to material possessions is very different from the "ownership" by which we refer to the owning of slaves. That much is for sure. One is an absolute "use it until it's useless and then cast it aside", and one is more comparable to an authoratative relationship, like that of nobility to vassals, or parents to a child.

Does that help? I know the nobility to vassals analogy helps me a lot, because that's really what you have there. A system which, in itself, is good and can lead to good, with authorities organizing the efforts of others to the common good. Like any system, it turns bad when the authority structure degrades due to destructive human selfishness, and those with the power use that power not to nurture those underneath them, but to destroy them. This can happen in any social structure, whether it be a democracy, monarchy, a church, or a socialist society.

If this is what ownership means in that context, and it does mean that, then no, it is not immoral.

...of course, the subject of what makes something objectively immoral is a real deep issue (and definitely the key issue in the end), but that's besides the point, at least for the moment.

Regarding what I mean about Richard Dawkins being comparable to an atheist TV preacher is pretty much summed up in here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9286682/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/
He's a charismatic who spends a lot more time featuring long lists of inflammatory adjectives (of which you've already showed me some on IRC earlier) than actually learning his stuff. Throughout a lot of the actual scientific community he tends to be somewhat of an embarassment (NOTE: he's just like Kenn Hamm). He has little tact (inevitably part of how he attracts such a crowd. It immediately reminds me of how TeamLava's belligerence attracts plenty of cronies for himself, lol) and when it comes to atheist apologetics, there are plenty of smarter and more convincing men out there.

You yourself mentioned the "vitriole" of all his stuff, and that is EXACTLY the word to describe it. I can't respect a man who is so filled with vitriole and hatred towards those of other worldviews. No one should. His kind of mindset just breeds trouble and misunderstanding between people.