Warren is inexcusably wrong nor does he represent the normative Christian view. I might as well say he represents the American view but doing so would be a strawman because this is not what Americans think. Perhaps some of them thought this way at some time and perhaps some still do but largely this type of thinking is condemned.
No true Scotsman is a fallacy, or don't you realize you're essentially pulling that here?
He represented the Confederate view and a Christian view that was advocated by them; to say otherwise is ignoring that historical context and saying they were wrong merely because you disagree with their interpretations that were wholly common for hundreds of years since the bible was canonized, though not universal
Christians do not view the texts as you do, they do not use it to justify slavery, perhaps some of them did at one time and perhaps some still do but just like Americans there are some flawed Christians out there.
Again, them believing something you disagree with doesn't make them somehow invalid in reflecting an interpretation of the Christian texts that you haven't really criticized beyond saying you don't hold it yourself
You can read the bible as a pretext for a system that supports slavery or you can read it as a system responding in a greater ancient mindset. Without a foundational belief of God first it's just stuff that happens with no goal other than survival. With an understanding that there is a God nothing is arbitrary and the flawed actions of man can still be redeemed and move in an ordained direction. The US has their own tainted history and used scripture to justify many different things but that's their flawed actions to their own undoing not the bible/Christianity
No, that's a strawman of nontheistic positions. Survival as the sole aspect would be Social Darwinism or such, which is not remotely what secular humanism or other nontheistic systems advocate as a goal in life. Something is not arbitrary merely because a worldview doesn't have God in it, you're begging the question by saying God is absolutely required for that.
We cannot comment to the degree slavery was embedded in systems 4000 years ago in the middle east and how it affected the individuals a part of it, slave or free nor can we comment how the Hebrew system worked in this, certainly there was injustice but the Hebrew system seems to be about providing justice within this system. But we don't have the sort of detail to responsibly understand it's impact or role. It's flawed to superimpose our thinking over that system or to superimpose that system in our thinking today (or 150 years ago as Warren did). That's not the point of the bible but you seem to be working hard at forcing this flawed view.
We can speculate and we likely have some degrees of text to reflect an attitude had, but the further back we go, the more difficult it becomes.
Again, there cannot be justice in a system that enslaves people even with some rules about their treatment. That's like saying, "Yeah, you get paid a fair wage in your job, but you get psychological abuse from your superiors and that's just how it is, but at least they're not stiffing you,"
If the Bible is meant to reflect abstract ideals that are unchanging, then how is it irrational to apply the ideas in some more nominal sense, as Tone did in regards to the notion that we are all in slavery and thus slavery really cannot be said to be immoral, but amoral in the view that we are slave to Satan or God and cannot serve 2 masters
No one accepts it, you don't, I don't, nor do Christians at large... and the best source you can find in support of this view was 150 years ago so why are we even talking about it? This is why it's a strawman. Why should I pick through Warren's comments? I've already pointed out his bias and how his premise is flawed, so do I have to go brick by brick after the foundation is already torn down?
You cannot say no one accepts it without absolute knowledge, because I'm pretty sure there are still people that believe it, even if they are a massive minority. It's not a strawman to point to him as a reflection of the ideas that justified slavery that may very well persist today, same as the Confederacy's invoking of similar ideas that slavery was a natural state, right around the same time as Warren's sermon
His premise being flawed does not mean people are going to realize that innately, you assume people are just going to see that problem and not buy into the ideas, even if they don't support slavery, but some systemic racism that has persisted into modern days