The Bible was written as a political lubricant to justify heinous conquering and masking it behind a moral code.
I'm not arguing anything as of yet, I'm just trying to understand the methods in which you arrive at conclusions and if they make sense. I'm not sure if this was an answer to my last question, but it doesn't seem to fit IMO.
Was the OT written as a means to subdue and manipulate the Jewish culture at that time? I guess at some level you could make that argument based on its contents but that doesn't seem to fit with the agendas of the authors or characters of the scriptures. I don't believe that particular culture or its leaders depicted in the Bible had any agendas of heinous conquering that seems ridiculous. To me, it seems more likely they were subject to fear and uncertainty through the relentless pursuit of opposing cultures with the agendas of mass conquering and they were more or less forced into a position of protection and defense (survival).
I mean given the nature of that time period, if a culture wanted to survive in such a brutal environment they too had to be brutal just to remain alive, kill or be killed right?
Was the Bible written to subjugate the masses under political authority and agenda? I don't think so. It doesn't fit the narratives instead seems to contradict that assertion and in fact serves to undermine political control in many ways. I could see perhaps how it "could" be used as a means to control people but I don't think that was the intentions of the writers. Besides the fact that religion had yet separated from politics the Bible is a spiritual book, which emphasizes authority outside of worldly affairs.
Much less we have the arrival of Jesus in the NT which at every turn opposed both religious and governing authority in every way, and in a culture where religious authority ruled that part of the world Jesus could have been considered a rebellion (and was). So it's ironic that anyone would make the claim that the Bible was written to conquer and control when the very contents serve to break those holds.
Jesus actually changed the face of religion and eventually was the key foundation in breaking apart that religious regime. With His message of freedom and love for God I don't see how it could reflect anything other than that. Again, the NT does not fit the narrative of heinous conquering IMO. If anything Jesus was giving power back in the hands of the people not authority and He did that without the use of invoking violence (turn the other cheek).
Everything about its ethics scream obedience and to fear one's master.
Okay but obedience and fear (or reverence) for one's master is not always a bad thing and in many ways can be understood as a good thing. Spirituality is based around self-control and submission because many times we get lost in the limitations and perceptions of the self, so it's good practice to be aware of the fact that there exists a higher transcendent reality involved outside of our own limitations and perspectives of life.
As you know the world is full of wackos lol, and people who lack self-control and stability so these key factors serve a useful purpose.
Take martial arts for example as a form of obedience and respect for one's master, what purpose does that serve? it helps the individual achieve a greater state of being through self control, application and subservience to their teachers and in doing so the student is able to develop themselves into something they previously lacked.
This same premise extends to spirituality and is quite necessary. Now I'm not saying that religious control is always a good thing, not at all it depends on the context of course....I'm just saying obedience and reverence are key principles in achieving a superior state of being and are not a negative quality in relation to God.
Again I'm not necessarily arguing that you are wrong here, but I am pointing out what may be contrary to what you are saying. I too have my own ideas and concepts that fall away from an orthodox interpretation.