@ childeroland,
The definitions I gave were all over simplified, sorry I was trying to keep it as straightforward as I could. I'm very curious as to your view on freedom if you don't mind sharing.
I think all freedom, except the absolute sort, which almost no one has, is almost entirely contextual, relative to one's time and situation, and however courageous one is. That sounds like a cop-out, and it is partly, but I really don't think freedom is one of those things one can discuss in the abstract. Freedom from what? In what place, what time, and who?
As for freedom being man made...
I'm not saying that is out of the question.
If it is man made... Then unless my perception of freedom is way off I find it kind of pathetic that we are so far away from every single person having a real opportunity to rise to their full potential. If we created it then shouldn't we have a decent understanding of it? And with a better understanding wouldn't it stand to reason that we would have found a way, in all these thousands or worse millions,of years, to implement such a way of life? So does the source even matter at this point? Not so much for me. To me the awe comes from the fact that after all this time we don't have our act together.
But why would every person ever have a real opportunity to rise to their full potential when for most of thoat time, and today, most people are more concerned with getting by day-to-day than in becoming more than they are now. People are naturally inertial. And that's not taking into account all the tyrannies -- social, institutional, military, cultural, etc -- that have conspired to keep people in their place.
And because I DO actually believe in human potential it doesn't make sense to me that we can be this inept.
That puzzles me too, but part of that ineptness is the powerful successfully boxing other people into whatever cultural categories they need to, to maintain their power. THEY weren't inept.
As for your question concerning Gods people taking slaves......
You have to clear your mind of what you know. Let me say I do NOT advocate the owning of a person. But what is slavery to you today? I envision people in chains, doing the bidding of the master, and enduring much suffering while being owned. That is the picture that I have in my head from my experience and education.
Do you mean something metaphorical here? I'm not sure I get you.
If I want to understand how a "Good God" would have his followers take slaves then I need to forget that idea of slavery. Slavery also has a subtle side that may seem to passive to constitute slavery. That's because slavery is just as complex as freedom and to think that I need to be in chains and owned to be a slave would be like thinking money is the key to freedom.
The slavery the Bible either condones or at least doesn't condemn consistently is not metaphorical. And the slavers who throughout history used the Bible to justify their enterprise did not view it as metaphorical. If you're proposing an idea of a good God as He shows Himself through these particular scriptures, you can't, IMO, just forget the idea of slavery.
Is a newly released slave really free? Does someone who is used to being controlled know how to control themself? When a person is only taught what they need to know to serve their master they can't be truly free until they understand that the life they had was a lie. The truth is that their life is theirs, but it takes more education than a slave owner would give to actually be free.
Maybe, but how does that absolve the scriptures that did not condemn slavery? If anything, that would only condemn scripture further, if scripture is supposed to be God passing down His wisdom to us.
So doesn't it stand to reason that the former slave would need a mentor? Someone to show them everything that life has to offer and how they can achieve a good life?
One could make that argument (though I think it would depend on the individual) but how would scripture serve as that mentor when it did not condemn the thing (slavery) the individual is supposedly being mentored away from?
One thing I want to point out is that I am in no way saying that anything is absolute. There are always exceptions to the rule but generally speaking most people will have the same reactions to certain situations.
That being said, the kings that God was striking at did not offer true freedom. They offered a way of life not much unlike what we have today... Most people searching for a dream that doesn't come true. By the time they realize that they based their life on a hoax its too late to do anything because it does not become evident until older age. Then they just become grumpy old people.
But so what? Did God offer "true freedom" where these kings did not? His chosen people themselves kept slaves.
So unless I see scripture that tells people to take those slaves and force them to do your bidding then I say it was more of a time for enlightenment. A time to learn the intricacies of freedom so that the former slave has all of the tools one needs to make true choice.
But in our last email, I showed a bunch of scriptures that implies just that. God did not condemn slavery outright, and a slave is someone another person owns. He or she IS forced to do the other person's bidding, by virtue of simply being a slave. Nowhere in the scriptures does God consistently advocate a program to slavers of freeing their slaves and "teaching" them freedom.
So in short. A person freed from ownership or shackles is not necessarily a free person.
In fact ill go as far to say that a slave could think emulating the slave owner would be freedom. That perspective just leads to more slaves though. The slave becoming a master does nothing to end the cycle of slavery.
I'm sorry. I just don't see where man has a grasp on these concepts.
That assumes a simple dichotomy between slave and slave master. There is another option -- not being one of either.
Though I don't like quoting scripture because its so easily manipulated.
1 Samuel 8:5-8:20
Here the people are asking for a king to lead them into battle."God" tells them how a king would treat them.
Yes, but that scripture condemns the people specifically for wanting to be like the other nations around them. The fact that they then decide they want a king anyway is largely condemned by Samuel, and by implication the author of the book. But I don't see how that absolves God, since He then proceeds, in the book, to work out His will partly through the line of kings stemming from Saul's successor, David -- who, don't forget, is supposedly to be an ancestor of Christ.
Edit:
You also asked if a God is the source of morals then where did they come from.
Option 1 trial and error. I don't believe we are told that we are the first, last, or end all be all of creation.
Why would a God who is the source of morals need trial and error? And if we are not the first, last, or end all be all -- which the scripture more or less implies we are -- than who did He first try His morals on?
Option 2 if it is inherent to Him then yes it would be inherent to us. And I believe we are for the most part good but due to our lack of understanding we are unable to manifest our true nature.
This is optimistic, concerning our innate goodness. But if God is the source of morality, why are His presumed tools for teaching it so contradictory, so confusing, in manner?
t:
cause I visit this thread and took World Religions.
OH WHAT, Pew didn't survey Pagans? 
thank you.