Be very careful when you make such assumptions.
Yes, maybe I should've been more careful. I guess if an adult told a story to children knowing it's not true, only believing the morals of the story without telling the kid that all the characters are made up, then it would be wrong. If it was me, I'd rather teach my kids real life than stories. They have enough imagination themselves to come up with their own stories.
So what do we say of they that follow those morals?
I say, let each be judged by his or her own actions. If they follow those rules and annoy/harm someone else, the one who is right will or should prevail through logic. The good thing about these days is the flow of information and truth, and regretfully lots of lies, but there is less hidden. We can weed out what is right and wrong more. The truth will come in words and as it spreads, so will it also, and unfortunately, mutate and be like a sickness to those who are susceptible to it. As what happened to Germany in WWII. The truth mutates to those who spread it around as the truth and their society is so sick and infested with it that they don't see the real truth. Anyhow, I'm just saying it's unfortunate people take the words of truth and mutate them which cause others to doubt it and scorn it.
In any case, in my view, circumstances make the need for more elaborate morals. I don't view the killing of anyone right in this day and age. In fact, if those in the old testament were alive today who made up the stoning rules, I would tell them it's just plain wrong. Morals have evolved just as man's understanding of the universe and human emotion has. I would not condone killing anyone and the God I believe in wouldn't tell me such a thing. As to long hair, you can't take that as literal. Where Jesus grew up, long hair was traditional. It's mainly concerned with one sex not dressing in the others' clothes. And in my beliefs, it is alright for women to teach. Also that it is best for a nation to be ruled by both sexes for it to be more balanced, IMHO. One ruled entirely by the sometimes aggressiveness and unforgiveness of the man will be imbalanced and also if ruled entirely by the more compassionate females. I think there needs to be a balance of mind and sides. To the subject of slaves, I can't speak for the slaves but of course, now, we see it as wrong. But when you are born poor and lucky to be eating in those days, you would be happy to be someone's slave because it meant a steady supplement of food and even care. We tend to think of slavery these days in our luxuries as people getting beat and forced into work. In those days, life was harder. We are pretty much beat and forced into living life and surviving and if we don't we die. Life pretty much works the same way. Any way you look at it, we're a slave to life and we can only make the best of it and survive. A lot of those people had no choice but to do what they can to get by as we do now.
People often confuse Huckleberry Finn as being a child's book. Indeed it is taught in many schools to youngsters. Behind all those things we associate as being for children, lurks prostitutes, conmen, alcoholic fathers, black slavery, religious intolerance etc. It is by no means a children's book. The bible a "good lesson on how to live"? No.
And yes, behind all your words also lies some past things that children shouldn't hear or see, I'm sure, just as mine. That's life. And when speaking to children, we shouldn't let them know these things until they are ready for them. And back then, life was more "in your face", so to speak. It wasn't all dressed up and candy coated as it is now or some people try to make it. We didn't live back then so it's easy to judge and say your book isn't like the teletubbies so it's filled with evil. That's the way life was back then, and of course, it's changed now. You can call Mark Twain evil but it's not for me to judge. It was a mirror of the times.
Also you seem to have me confused with the religious people that promote their religion without thinking if it seems hateful or false. I believe as a whole most holy texts, including the three main ones, but I have my own moral codes. Actions back then that some of the cherished holy figured did would be blatantly detestable to me now. I am a realist and only love the truth, what is right, and not just believe the whole of a book because I side with one or a few scriptures or a few authors, but take it all over my own judgement as we all should. No one should read anything and just assume it is right without thinking about it. In that view, I can side with a lot of atheists, to think before you believe.
I ask you, have you sat down to think of your own religion, or your own moral code? If you are atheist, from what or where do you base your morality? Perhaps we're in the same boat. I have my own moral code and if I find a book or someone that agrees with me on that, I'm not afraid to admit it. I don't look at the bible or quran and say that's what I believe. I have my own beliefs set before I look at it so I'm not duped into being misled or if I find a scripture featuring a certain situation I haven't thought about, I think about it before I believe it.
There is no morality in the sense that people try to use it. Murder in one instance is clearly not immoral when faced with murder in another instance etc. I do what I need to do to ensure my survival and the survival of my offspring.