Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

You are very much correct, but what does that say about this benevolent being who doesn't find anything wrong with slavery?It says that the benevolent being is indifferent to slavery. Different times, different values. It being illogical today doesn't mean it wasn't once very logical.Most slaves back then were War captives, indentured servants would come in at a close second. Many of them were children, so I think it would be wrong to say they "deserved it", this is an abhorrent statement.My argument is with consideration for the perceptions of people in ancient times. With that said, what's abhorrent about enslaving the children of your enemies? Your enemies are evil. So must be their children. Why treat your enemies children any different then your enemies themselves?I don't like it, but that's how they did things back then. That's the only logic they could follow to survive and develop and eventually become what we are today.This suggests that morals are relative, and furthermore what does that say about people who use it to guide their modern lives?Morals of humanity are relative based on what's necessary to survive and develop. We are prosperous today, so we can afford for our morals to be huge. It was different for the ancient audience the Bible was intended for.I disagree with the herd of modern Christian literalists just as much as I disagree with the herd of modern Biblical loathers....on what basis can one insist that the bible is a true and living document, when it most certainly is not?It's not a true and living document, today that is. It was a true and living document a long time ago, though, when it's intended audience needed it's guidance. Today it should just be a very intelligently-interpreted storybook of proverbs that could possibly assist you with daily life. It shouldn't be taken literally anymore though because we are not the audience it was designed for.There are numerous 'primitive' societies then and now where men and women are/were considered equal, where there is no second-class. I would argue the creation of second-class citizens came about, not as a result of necessity, but as a result of the consolidation of power by the ruling class.I would not doubt that you are correct in some fashions over this idea, the problem is that, no matter how ridiculous ancient people's act, I cannot be convinced that they do it all for a reason that did not perpetuate their existence and allow them to culturally evolve into what we are today.Just as the Aztec's sacrificed people to keep the masses in high moral, I believe that the elimination of woman's rights in ancient Europe/Arabia was a ploy to save their ability to bear children from the dangers of the world.Why assume they did it for an illogical reason instead of a logical reason? Especially considering that women in the Bible weren't the characters commonly being killed, after all. It was always the male soldier, citizen, ruler, etc. Back then, the powerful, while being powerful, were far less safe then the people whom were sheltered and without as many rights as the powerful.I don't like it, but it seems that for the time, it was a very logical way to help ancient people's societies survive.If they didn't need a second class to perpetuate their culture, then what that says to me is that they ended up developing a culture that needed a second-class to survive.