What is the view of current Biblical literalists on the ethics of Slavery?

[PorchePine]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

No, because these Christians are perfectly willing to accept the far stricter standards on adultery as imposed by Jesus (ie “whoever lusts with his eyes…”), so its not due to “hardship”. The problem with some of these Internet atheists is that they think they have the Christians entrapped when theologians have come up with numerous approaches to them in the last two millennia. Additionally I might add that most of the moral law was either explicitly or implicitly reiterated in the NT (for example with regards to homosexuality see Romans 1).

How does one determine if the law laid out in the OT is moral, civil, or ceremonial? My copy of the Bible didn’t have the laws separated. It’s not nonsensical to believe that if you want to take the Bible as 100% literal that you can justify separating the laws into groups. It still comes down to "we like these laws here, but not those laws there." To suggest anything else would be nonsensical.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@PorchePine

How does one determine if the law laid out in the OT is moral, civil, or ceremonial? My copy of the Bible didn’t have the laws separated. It’s not nonsensical to believe that if you want to take the Bible as 100% literal that you can justify separating the laws into groups. It still comes down to "we like these laws here, but not those laws there." To suggest anything else would be nonsensical.

It may not be explicitly stated in the Bible, but then neither is the Trinity which nonetheless can be logically inferred from Scripture. Similarly, since both Jesus and Paul appared to nullify the ceremonial aspects of the Law, while affirming its essential moral principles, one may infer that there is a three-fold division of the Law.