If your definition of truth includes religious texts in any capacity other than, perhaps, a very dated take on philosophy, then that’s a point we are simply not going to agree on.
If you want to say that god made concessions to man go ahead. He still instructed them in how to hold chattel slaves and implied that they could do so ruthlessly, only restricting them from doing so to eachother.
Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
I’m not a big fan of your book about imaginary friends that tell you what to do
If only truth was so easy to dismiss so we can follow our own selfish desires…
If your definition of truth includes religious texts in any capacity other than, perhaps, a very dated take on philosophy, then that’s a point we are simply not going to agree on.
What do you mean by “dated take” - does right or wrong change with time?
The morals of the Abrahamic Religions are the morals of blood-thirsty totalitarian pedophiles.
Proof?
What would you say: is buying slaves from the nations that surround me still right, did god instruct people to do wrong or did right and wrong change?
God never instructed people to buy slaves. Concessions were once made to an adulterous nation because of their hardened hearts.
If you want to say that god made concessions to man go ahead. He still instructed them in how to hold chattel slaves and implied that they could do so ruthlessly, only restricting them from doing so to eachother.
Leviticus 25:44-46
Yes. Yes it does. The bounds of what society considers acceptable or reprehensible changes with time, location, and culture.
So if morality is subjective, then who are we to judge the holocaust? It was acceptable in that time, location and culture.
Oooh, nice, we’ve gone straight from a holier-than-thou categorical rejection of the concept of moral relativism to an attempt to use a straw man fallacy involving the Holocaust to categorically settle the entire scope of a topic that has been debated by philosophers smarter than either you or I for literal millennia.