Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

It says that the benevolent being is indifferent to slavery. Different times, different values.Yes, People's values do change, but God's value should not change, this implies fallibility.It being illogical today doesn't mean it wasn't once very logical.Yes it absolutely does. Logic does not rest upon people's values, and it certainly doesn't depend on what year it is. Logic, like math, is universal. It applies equally to all cultures at all times."A feather is light. Light is not dark, therefor no feathers are dark" is just as illogical today as it was 2,000 years ago.With that said, what's abhorrent about enslaving the children of your enemies? Your enemies are evil. So must be their children.I sincerely hope you do not actually believe what you are saying. You cannot truly mean this. Enslaving children is morally reprehensible, and repugnant. Children are too young to even understand most of what is going in the world nonetheless to have done anything to deserve slavery. One cannot choose their parents nor the location of their birth, to punish a child on this basis is the act of a vile person.Your enemies are evil. So must be their children.No people is inherently evil. Even so, to enslave the children of others would make you just as evil if not more so.Fortunately most of the western world has progressed past this medieval mindset, I had hope that you had too, but it seems I am mistaken. Or perhaps you are just saying this because you want to defend the bible, but what does it say about the bible when you must be pro-child-slavery to defend it? Why treat your enemies children any different then your enemies themselves?Did Martin Luther King Jr, not say that we should judge others based on the content of their character? What character are you judging when you condemn an entire generation of children to slavery?I don't like it, but that's how they did things back then.You don't have to like it, that is how things were done back then, but that certainly doesn't make it right or moral.Morals of humanity are relative based on what's necessary to surviveSlavery has never been necessary to human survival. The only thing it has been necessary for is the comfortable lifestyle of the ruling class.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.True and Living? Living perhaps, but it's never been particularly true.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.Whether you can be convinced or not, is a different matter entirely. Slavery has never been a prerequisite for either cultural evolution or survival. We know of societies which have done both, without it.Just as the Aztec's sacrificed people to keep the masses in high moralThe Aztecs practiced human sacrifice to appease ancient superstitions. This if anything should highlight the importance of distinguishing reality from fantasy, when it comes to decision making.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.How so?Why assume they did it for an illogical reason instead of a logical reason? Because many ancient and classical societies did things primarily for illogical reasons, this requires no assumptions.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.Yes, because the very act of suppressing peoples rights seems to motivate the masses towards regicide.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.Do you have anything of more substance besides "The have a second-class, therefore they must have needed it to survive."? This ignores all the other reasons why oppression tends to occur.