"Correct" is a judgement call. Just because something is modern does not mean it is necessarily "correct." But by the same token, just because something is old doesn't mean it's "correct" either. I've never understood the "absolute morality" crowd's desire to keep living under barbaric 4,000-year-old legal codes. What is considered just and moral changes over time. For most of human history, slavery was just fine. Now we consider it immoral.
Which is why even the absolute morality folks find ways to ignore inconveniently barbaric passages, even while insisting that the passages they still support are "absolute".
Which is why the Bible never supported slavery. I have seen all the so-called "slavery supporting" verses in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and other books of the Bible. However, the verses which many atheists point to as evidence of the Bible being pro slavery are not examined in a historical context. In fact, most mentions of slavery in the Bible are actually referring to indentured servitude. Not the modern race or nationality based form of slavery. Try looking into how God saved the Israelites from their Egyptian slave owners for an example of nationality based slavery in the Bible.
Also, the Bible calls for us to be kind to one another and to love thy neighbor as thyself. This critical part of Christianity goes against all aspects of slavery.
I understand. I just disagree with the second sentence. You wouldn't worship a God who demanded regular human sacrifice, would you? If not, then you are making judgments about God's actions. It doesn't matter that God is far beyond human ability to comprehend. I ain't worshiping something that wants me to sacrifice my neighbors to it.
There is only one instance of a human sacrifice in the entire Bible(besides God sacrificing his only son for mankind). In fact, in the one place where God asked for a human sacrifice, he eventually told the man to sacrifice an animal instead.
In politics, that's called "plausible deniability." If God didn't want his followers using force to spread the word, he could have said so quite clearly. Maybe made it the 11th Commandment, or at least the First Guideline.
I suppose if you consider "sharing and spreading the word" the same as "forcing and imposing Christianity" then you could make the case that the Bible is for forcing others to convert to Christianity. However, what Jesus said to his disciples and followers doesn't come anywhere near asking them to enforce Christianity on other nations.
Fair enough. But Islam isn't an offshoot of Christianity; it views itself as a third, co-equal revelation that builds on -- and corrects, and updates -- the other two.
Interesting, I will have to look into this.