Can morality exist without God cont..

[Dave Ellis]

And you, my friend, don't know much about the military. However, the point is not to say that the military is some sort of slavery. It is to explain to you that slavery in in the bible is nothing like you imagine it to be.

And back to the same tired old argument we've shot down a number of times before.

During that time, slavery was an act of mercy to those in need. It was an ability to give people a second chance when their did not seem to be another option.

Then why not employ them instead of enslave them? That's not only a second option, but it provides that second chance while still staying morally legitimate.

Yes, there were some masters who were brutal and wicked. Some slaves did live very harsh conditions. There would not be laws and regulations against such behavior if it did not occur. However, God condemned them.

At least you can admit that much now, we are making progress. I should note however, this contradicts your earlier claim about slavery being "nothing like I imagine it to be".

We both now agree that some slave masters were brutal and wicked. God has also allowed this practice to happen.

There are times where God will allow things to happen that he hated. Take divorce for example.

God hated divorce:
"For I hate divorce!" says the LORD, the God of Israel. "To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty," says the LORD of Heaven's Armies. "So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife." (Malachi 2:16)

But God allowed divorce:
"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house," (Deuteronomy 24:1)

God hated divorce, but He allowed it to happen for a reason:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. (Matthew 19:8)

God despised slavery, however He allowed it because it was a consequence of a sinful world.

If he allowed it, that's all that matters. There is no morally justifiable reason for allowing slavery, it is a fundamentally immoral practice.

If your god allows it to happen (even grudgingly, which makes no sense in and of itself), then he is acting immorally.

And besides, as I said before, there's nothing stopping god from saying "thou shalt not own other human beings as property" and consider buying and selling, or selling oneself into slavery to be a sinful act, on par with theft.

You act as if he's powerless to make his will known, because he doesn't want to upset us humans. It makes no sense, is he the all powerful moral lawgiver, or not?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

And back to the same tired old argument we've shot down a number of times before.



Then why not employ them instead of enslave them? That's not only a second option, but it provides that second chance while still staying morally legitimate.



At least you can admit that much now, we are making progress. I should note however, this contradicts your earlier claim about slavery being "nothing like I imagine it to be".

We both now agree that some slave masters were brutal and wicked. God has also allowed this practice to happen.



If he allowed it, that's all that matters. There is no morally justifiable reason for allowing slavery, it is a fundamentally immoral practice.

If your god allows it to happen (even grudgingly, which makes no sense in and of itself), then he is acting immorally.

And besides, as I said before, there's nothing stopping god from saying "thou shalt not own other human beings as property" and consider buying and selling, or selling oneself into slavery to be a sinful act, on par with theft.

You act as if he's powerless to make his will known, because he doesn't want to upset us humans. It makes no sense, is he the all powerful moral lawgiver, or not?

So basically, your arguement with God is why he allowed slavery and not simply slavery in general. You think that because God never outright stopped slavery that would mean God was in favor of it. Is that correct?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Ellis]

So basically, your arguement with God is why he allowed slavery and not simply slavery in general. You think that because God never outright stopped slavery that would mean God was in favor of it. Is that correct?

Well yes, of course. Slavery in general is immoral.

However, given that fact, why would god not only allow, but set out the rules by which slavery shall happen?

I'm in senior management of the place that I work at. When I'm not in favour of something, I let my staff know not to do that thing. I don't say "well, this thing is super bad, however my junior staff has an inclination to do it, so I can't make a definitive ruling, so I'd better just lay out the rules by which they should do the thing they shouldn't be doing".

If I acted that way, I'd have no business being in management.

Compound that with the fact that the perfect moral being is making a moral exception for slavery, which automatically rules him out as a perfect moral being. Perfection means perfect, tolerating slavery is immoral, therefore he can not be morally perfect.

 

[dougangel]

Well yes, of course. Slavery in general is immoral.

However, given that fact, why would god not only allow, but set out the rules by which slavery shall happen?

I'm in senior management of the place that I work at. When I'm not in favour of something, I let my staff know not to do that thing. I don't say "well, this thing is super bad, however my junior staff has an inclination to do it, so I can't make a definitive ruling, so I'd better just lay out the rules by which they should do the thing they shouldn't be doing".

If I acted that way, I'd have no business being in management.

Compound that with the fact that the perfect moral being is making a moral exception for slavery, which automatically rules him out as a perfect moral being. Perfection means perfect, tolerating slavery is immoral, therefore he can not be morally perfect.

That was some 3000 years before Christ.
There was no government support for the unemployed.
That was the culture of the time for all nations.
Just like scientific knowledge has increased with time.

mans knowledge of God has been a learning curve.
The Israelite's went from an alter to a tent to a temple in their worship of God. They were building there worship of God in time.
I lot of things the israelite's did, wasn't God's best. They even say that they got things wrong.
Just like all of us they misunderstood God. That why Jesus changed things.
To paraphrase God son gets to his appointed time in history and says. The total of what the prophets and the law did. Is Treat people they way you want to treated.
Jesus came to set the captive free.
Slavery isn't a christian principle.
Also your management thing. Well nobody must be that good of manager through time.
It does bring up an interesting point about what Jesus dealt with when he was here. He didn't increase or interfere in science technology medicine to name of few.
He just dealt with God and spiritual things.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That was some 3000 years before Christ.

The Jewish scriptures aren't anywhere close to that old.

There was no government support for the unemployed.

Irrelevant, slavery is still immoral.

That was the culture of the time for all nations.

Irrelevant, this is god's moral law we're talking about. What man does plays no part in that.

Just like scientific knowledge has increased with time. mans knowledge of God has been a learning curve. The Israelite's went from an alter to a tent to a temple in their worship of God. They were building there worship of God in time.I lot of things the israelite's did, wasn't God's best. They even say that they got things wrong.

Just like all of us they misunderstood God. That why Jesus changed things.

So are you saying the bible is flat out wrong when it comes to the parts about slavery?

To paraphrase God son gets to his appointed time in history and says. The total of what the prophets and the law did. Is Treat people they way you want to treated.
Jesus came to set the captive free.
Slavery isn't a christian principle.

Then why is it in your holy book?

 

[dougangel]

The Jewish scriptures aren't anywhere close to that old.

That's why i said some. But the patriarchs are that old and that's where the history started roughly

Irrelevant, slavery is still immoral.

Christ changed that so it can't of been the best way. I have explained that.

Irrelevant, this is god's moral law we're talking about. What man does plays no part in that.

True. It's was ancient man's culture, that's why it existed. I was wondering if you realise that ?

So are you saying the bible is flat out wrong when it comes to the parts about slavery?

I don't like you saying bible because the bible has two distinct parts in it the Old covenant and the new covenant.
God disregarded the Old covenant deal because the Israelite's weren't keeping it.
Where man is nothing is perfect
the old testament law is a people under a theocracy.
It has their food laws, cleanliness law.
their council laws to name a few.
I wouldn't do a lot of them. Like get a priest in to cleanse the house if my wife has a period. I have no problems with hybrid plants. polygamy isn't Christian. I have no problem having a blood transfusion. I wouldn't stone people to death. just to name a very few.

Then why is it in your holy book?

Because the the old testament law and prophets brought us to Christ and his new promises

 

[Dave Ellis]

Because the the old testament law and prophets brought us to Christ and his new promises

Your reply is not formatted properly, it's not bringing up most of your responses. Can you reformat it correctly so I can respond to it please?

 

[Ed1wolf]

No, indentured servitude is immoral.

If you are wealthy enough to support slaves, you are wealthy enough to employ free men.

How do you know it is immoral? I admit it is not the ideal situation, and obviously even the bible teaches that when it teaches us to not be in debt to anyone if possible. But in very hard times especially if there are not enough wealthy employers then it is a very logical thing to do. Remember it is usually only a temporary situation. It was practiced a great deal in Colonial America.

 

[Dave Ellis]

How do you know it is immoral? I admit it is not the ideal situation, and obviously even the bible teaches that when it teaches us to not be in debt to anyone if possible. But in very hard times especially if there are not enough wealthy employers then it is a very logical thing to do. Remember it is usually only a temporary situation. It was practiced a great deal in Colonial America.

Again, because anyone that has the financial ability to sustain an indentured servant has the financial ability to sustain an free employee.

It is not moral to enslave people, even via the "diet slavery" version of indentured servitude.

 

[dougangel]

Your reply is not formatted properly, it's not bringing up most of your responses. Can you reformat it correctly so I can respond to it please?

The Jewish scriptures aren't anywhere close to that old.

That's why i said some. But the patriarchs are that old and that's where the history started roughly

Irrelevant, slavery is still immoral.

Christ changed that so it can't of been the best way. I have explained that.

Irrelevant, this is god's moral law we're talking about. What man does plays no part in that.

True. It's was ancient man's culture, that's why it existed. I was wondering if you realise that ?

So are you saying the bible is flat out wrong when it comes to the parts about slavery?

I don't like you saying bible because the bible has two distinct parts in it the Old covenant and the new covenant.
God disregarded the Old covenant deal because the Israelite's weren't keeping it and it was conditional on them keeping it as a nation.
Where man is nothing is perfect
the old testament law is a people under a theocracy.
It has their food laws, cleanliness law. their council laws to name a few.
I wouldn't do a lot of them. Like get a priest in to cleanse the house if my wife has a period. I have no problems with hybrid plants. polygamy isn't Christian. I have no problem having a blood transfusion. I wouldn't stone people to death. just to name a very few.

Then why is it in your holy book?

Because the the old testament law and prophets brought us to Christ and his new promises

No sure what the formatting problem is. Hope that helps

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's why i said some. But the patriarchs are that old and that's where the history started roughly

Well, no, none of the Jewish scriptures are that old. The very oldest Jewish scriptures in the bible dates to somewhere around 600-700BC. That's not even in the ballpark of 3,000BC

Christ changed that so it can't of been the best way. I have explained that.

Christ changed that slavery is immoral?

True. It's was ancient man's culture, that's why it existed. I was wondering if you realise that ?

I'm fully aware of that, which is why I'm raising the argument... So what does ancient man's culture have to do with god including slavery in his big book of morals?

I don't like you saying bible because the bible has two distinct parts in it the Old covenant and the new covenant.
God disregarded the Old covenant deal because the Israelite's weren't keeping it and it was conditional on them keeping it as a nation.
Where man is nothing is perfect
the old testament law is a people under a theocracy.
It has their food laws, cleanliness law. their council laws to name a few.
I wouldn't do a lot of them. Like get a priest in to cleanse the house if my wife has a period. I have no problems with hybrid plants. polygamy isn't Christian. I have no problem having a blood transfusion. I wouldn't stone people to death. just to name a very few.

You didn't answer my question, are the parts about slavery within the bible wrong?

Because the the old testament law and prophets brought us to Christ and his new promises

But if it's ultimately irrelevant, then why have it? It's caused an awful lot of confusion over the years, plenty of people still take the Old Testament laws very seriously.

No sure what the formatting problem is. Hope that helps

Thanks for fixing it

 

[dougangel]

Well, no, none of the Jewish scriptures are that old. The very oldest Jewish scriptures in the bible dates to somewhere around 600-700BC. That's not even in the ballpark of 3,000BC

I haven't got the time or energy to go into this really deeply and go around get exact dates. so i said that from memory. I don't think I should of said bc thats where I have got mixed up but that was a bit rough I'll stand corrected.
I was talking about when they lived and made the laws not when the books were cannonised which is well after the prophets. Abraham is around 2000bc - Moses around 1200 bc. That's when I was pointing out the patriarchs. Are you sure your not a fundamental christian ? I am finding you very literal and pedantic.


Christ changed that slavery is immoral?

John 8:36New International Version (NIV)

36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

Slavery is not doing unto others as you would like it done to
yourself.

Luke 4.
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor

So slavery is not a christian principle.

I'm fully aware of that, which is why I'm raising the argument... So what does ancient man's culture have to do with god including slavery in his big book of morals?

The old testament isn't just about morals. It's about Israelite history Prophecies,stories ectra. Personally I don't go to the Old testament for my morals. The were under another covenant (agreement with God) than myself. I follow the apostle pauls teaching on that.

You didn't answer my question, are the parts about slavery within the bible wrong?

I did. I don't think you read it properly. Christ changed it so I don't think it was wanted by God. So I would say yes.


But if it's ultimately irrelevant, then why have it? It's caused an awful lot of confusion over the years, plenty of people still take the Old Testament laws very seriously.

Your telling me lol. I'm amazed about the confusion among Christians.

A New Covenant Hebrews 8:

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
1st Corinthians 9:19 - 22

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel that I may share in its blessings.

Paul who is a Jew is not under the (Old Testament) law. But Paul is under Christs Laws. Or Paul is under New Testament laws. Paul is still under Christ’s law

2 Corinthians 3 New King James Version (NKJV)

7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.

The ministry of death written and engraved on stones. Pretty strong stuff. Paul is talking about the 10 commandments here not just Levi law.


Thanks for fixing it

 

[Dave Ellis]

You need to add quote and /quotes after my quoted parts within the [] brackets, as it stands I can't reply to this post as formatted.

 

[dougangel]

Well, no, none of the Jewish scriptures are that old. The very oldest Jewish scriptures in the bible dates to somewhere around 600-700BC. That's not even in the ballpark of 3,000BC

I haven't got the time or energy to go into this really deeply and go around get exact dates. so i said that from memory. I don't think I should of said bc thats where I have got mixed up but that was a bit rough I'll stand corrected.
I was talking about when they lived and made the laws not when the books were cannonised which is well after the prophets. Abraham is around 2000bc - Moses around 1200 bc. That's when I was pointing out the patriarchs. Are you sure your not a fundamental christian ? I am finding you very literal and pedantic.

Christ changed that slavery is immoral?

The old testament isn't just about morals. It's about Israelite history Prophecies,stories ectra. Personally I don't go to the Old testament for my morals. The were under another covenant (agreement with God) than myself. I follow the apostle pauls teaching on that.
John 8:36New International Version (NIV)

36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

Slavery is not doing unto others as you would like it done to
yourself.

Luke 4.
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor

So slavery is not a christian principle.

I'm fully aware of that, which is why I'm raising the argument... So what does ancient man's culture have to do with god including slavery in his big book of morals?

The old testament isn't just about morals. It's about Israelite history Prophecies,stories ectra. Personally I don't go to the Old testament for my morals. The were under another covenant (agreement with God) than myself. I follow the apostle pauls teaching on that.

You didn't answer my question, are the parts about slavery within the bible wrong?

I did. I don't think you read it properly. Christ changed it so I don't think it was wanted by God. So I would say yes.

But if it's ultimately irrelevant, then why have it? It's caused an awful lot of confusion over the years, plenty of people still take the Old Testament laws very seriously.

Your telling me lol. I'm amazed about the confusion among Christians.

A New Covenant Hebrews 8:

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
1st Corinthians 9:19 - 22

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel that I may share in its blessings.

Paul who is a Jew is not under the (Old Testament) law. But Paul is under Christs Laws. Or Paul is under New Testament laws. Paul is still under Christ’s law

2 Corinthians 3 New King James Version (NKJV)

7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.

The ministry of death written and engraved on stones. Pretty strong stuff. Paul is talking about the 10 commandments here not just Levi law.

Thanks for fixing it[/QUOTE]

 

[dcalling]

No, indentured servitude is immoral.

If you are wealthy enough to support slaves, you are wealthy enough to employ free men.

Times are different though. At ancient times a simi-locked in relationship might be the best way to survive.

So if the owner can't keep the girl feed, he has to let her go. When productivity is very low, there has to be some incentive for humans to share with others.

God's goal is simple, having us love God, love our neighbors as ourselves, that is the biggest rule, everything has to go with that rule. That said, you can see how God had to relax all rules to accommodate us, from not to eat meat to eat meat, from no kings/slaves to have kings/slaves. All rules will keep relaxing till the final judgement.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Again, because anyone that has the financial ability to sustain an indentured servant has the financial ability to sustain an free employee.

It is not moral to enslave people, even via the "diet slavery" version of indentured servitude.

But if there is no God then humans have no intrinsic value, they just have the value that other humans place on them so if some want to enslave them how can that be wrong? Just because they place lesser value on them than you do, with the same source of morality as you, ie just the chemicals in their brains, how can you rationally condemn slaveowners?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Christ changed that slavery is immoral?



I'm fully aware of that, which is why I'm raising the argument... So what does ancient man's culture have to do with god including slavery in his big book of morals?




You didn't answer my question, are the parts about slavery within the bible wrong?




But if it's ultimately irrelevant, then why have it? It's caused an awful lot of confusion over the years, plenty of people still take the Old Testament laws very seriously.




Thanks for fixing it

[/QUOTE]




Close... however you did the wrong paragraphs... it's giving me my own responses to respond to.

That being said, I agree completely with everything in this reply

 

[Dave Ellis]

Times are different though. At ancient times a simi-locked in relationship might be the best way to survive.

So if the owner can't keep the girl feed, he has to let her go. When productivity is very low, there has to be some incentive for humans to share with others.

I keep hearing this line of argument from people, and I keep responding the same way.

The fact it was a different time, or things were more difficult, or whatever is completely irrelevant. That has no effect whatsoever on the moral implications of slavery.

If you believe moral principles are unchanging, then if slavery is immoral today, it was immoral thousands of years ago.

A man who needed workers could hire them. Likewise, no woman should ever be "sold" to her future slave owner, or husband.

There is no morally justifiable way to argue against those very basic principles. To argue against those principles is to try to excuse the actions of, or justify the actions of slave masters.

God's goal is simple, having us love God, love our neighbors as ourselves, that is the biggest rule, everything has to go with that rule. That said, you can see how God had to relax all rules to accommodate us, from not to eat meat to eat meat, from no kings/slaves to have kings/slaves. All rules will keep relaxing till the final judgement.

If your god is willing to make moral compromises, then he is not a morally perfect being.

 

[Dave Ellis]

But if there is no God then humans have no intrinsic value, they just have the value that other humans place on them so if some want to enslave them how can that be wrong? Just because they place lesser value on them than you do, with the same source of morality as you, ie just the chemicals in their brains, how can you rationally condemn slaveowners?

This has nothing to do with my post, it is a red herring.

Do you have an objection with the points I raised? Once you address my post, I'll be happy to address what you wrote.

 

[dougangel]

Well, no, none of the Jewish scriptures are that old. The very oldest Jewish scriptures in the bible dates to somewhere around 600-700BC. That's not even in the ballpark of 3,000BC

I haven't got the time or energy to go into this really deeply and go around get exact dates. so i said that from memory. I don't think I should of said bc thats where I have got mixed up but that was a bit rough I'll stand corrected.
I was talking about when they lived and made the laws not when the books were cannonised which is well after the prophets. Abraham is around 2000bc - Moses around 1200 bc. That's when I was pointing out the patriarchs. Are you sure your not a fundamental christian ? I am finding you very literal and pedantic

Christ changed that slavery is immoral?

The old testament isn't just about morals. It's about Israelite history Prophecies,stories ectra. Personally I don't go to the Old testament for my morals. The were under another covenant (agreement with God) than myself. I follow the apostle pauls teaching on that.
John 8:36New International Version (NIV)

36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

Slavery is not doing unto others as you would like it done to
yourself.

Luke 4.
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor

So slavery is not a christian principle

I'm fully aware of that, which is why I'm raising the argument... So what does ancient man's culture have to do with god including slavery in his big book of morals?

The old testament isn't just about morals. It's about Israelite history Prophecies,stories ectra. Personally I don't go to the Old testament for my morals. The were under another covenant (agreement with God) than myself. I follow the apostle pauls teaching on that.

You didn't answer my question, are the parts about slavery within the bible wrong?

Christ changed it so I don't think it was wanted by God. So I would say yes.

But if it's ultimately irrelevant, then why have it? It's caused an awful lot of confusion over the years, plenty of people still take the Old Testament laws very seriously.

Your telling me lol. I'm amazed about the confusion among Christians. Especially on here.
But that's the nature of God. You have to earnestly seek him.

Hebrews 8:

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
1st Corinthians 9:19 - 22

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel that I may share in its blessings.

Paul who is a Jew is not under the (Old Testament) law. But Paul is under Christs Laws. Or Paul is under New Testament laws. Paul is still under Christ’s law

2 Corinthians 3 New King James Version (NKJV)

7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.

The ministry of death written and engraved on stones. Pretty strong stuff. Paul is talking about the 10 commandments here not just Levi law.