"Slavery" in the Bible

[POI]

Allow us readers to be very careful. We must make sure we identify the proper context here, to assure against hasty and/or self-serving conclusions.

Exodus 21:2-3:

"2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him." <-- Okay, this seems clear enough, if you are a purchased Hebrew, with a wife, you are both to go free in year 7.

Exodus 21:4:

"4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." <-- Here is where things start to look sketchy for the modern-day believer. If the slave is provided with a wife, and they have kids, the wife and kids are to stay with the slave master. They are not to go free.

Exodus 21:5-6:

"5 "But if the servant declares, I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free, 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." <-- More uncomfortability for the Christian here. Without getting into the weeds, common sense suggests a special rule is made to trick the male Hebrew into remaining a slave for life.

Leviticus 25:44-46:

"44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." <-- More awkwardness for the believer, as the Bible reader clammers to find a rationale to make this passage not read the way it does.

Here is a basic definition of chattel slavery --> "Chattel slavery is full slavery in its traditional form whereby slaves are the complete property of their master, can be bought and sold by him and treated in any way that he wishes, which may include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation"

Looks like all the ingredients fit the given Bible description here, minus the torture. Wait a minute, this is covered in the rest of Exodus 21. (i.e.):

"20 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." <-- So basically, since the slave is your property, beatings with impunity are acceptable. Just don't kill them.

For debate:

By applying common sense, does/did the Bible ever, and/or currently still sanction chattel slavery?

Again, by using common sense, can a believer effectively use the Bible in support of breeding chattel slaves?

************************

Before you answer, consider this.... Since the NT does not mention the abolition of 'slavery', and yet the Bible makes further proclamation(s) and/or addendums (in favor of retaining 'slavery',) this means the Bible is not against chattel slavery either. Further, the Christian may want to introduce the importance of the 'golden rule'. However, the specifics outweigh the generals. The specifics of the rules for engagement of slavery are outside the 'golden rule'. Otherwise, the Bible would be a one-pager. 'Slavery' is an expressed exception to the general rule. Thus, anytime a specific scenario is not invoked, yes, 'golden rule.'

[marke]

God opposes men stealing in New Testament America just as much as He opposes homosexuality, regardless of what poor students of the Bible may believe to the contrary.

a) Expressed abolition for (humans owning other humans as slave property) was not mentioned in the NT.
b) Jesus had absolutely no problem expressing what he does and does not like.
c) The NT further reinforces slavery practices, without instead condemning them.
d) Jesus, being apparently all-knowing and all, would be aware that the topic of 1) chattel slavery and 2) slave breeding are rather large topics in which Christians do not agree with morally --> including you.
e) The NT instructs slaves to work hard, and even harder for the believing slave master, which means the condoning of slave ownership was not limited to believers.

9th request:

1) Aside from not being allowed to kill them right away, or to knock out their eye(s) and teeth, how was slavery really any different between Middle Eastern slavery <vs> trans-Atlantic slavery?

23th request:

2) Why follow a book which does not match your own moral standards?

Bible-believing Christians like me have a long history in America of opposing slavery on religious grounds, regardless of what other sects of Christians may have believed otherwise.

[POI]

Bible-believing Christians like me have a long history in America of opposing slavery on religious grounds,

Yes, this is why I asked:

24th request:

2) Why follow a book which does not match your own moral standards?

regardless of what other sects of Christians may have believed otherwise.

You stated prior, "regardless of what poor students of the Bible may believe to the contrary." I'd reckon to say maybe it is you who represent as a poor student of the Bible.

Please recall what you fail to address... If the NT either a) never mentioned slavery practices or b) mentioned abolition for such practices; then you might have some kind of case. But guess what? You do not. You have no case. The OT condones slavery, and the NT reinforces slavery. Jesus was said to be a teacher and had no problem laying down the law. Jesus would also know that the topics of chattel slavery and slave breeding are despised by many Christians like yourself. This means your moral compass does not align with the Bible about slavery.

Again:

10th request:

1) Aside from not being allowed to kill them right away, or to knock out their eye(s) and teeth, how was slavery really any different between Middle Eastern slavery <vs> trans-Atlantic slavery?

(repeated from above) - 24th request:

2) Why follow a book which does not match your own moral standards?

[POI]

No, it is not a contradiction. Slave owner didn't have to beat his slaves.

I have to ask... Is there such a thing as 'good slavery'? As logic would have it, the term slave has no 'good' qualities. You Christians are trying to glorify a term which is deemed a negative one all around. No one wants to be anyone's slave, under any conditions, as all conditions suck. So yes, the golden rule, when compared to slavery, do represent contradiction with one another.

I would be happy to be sold to a nation that goes by God's rules. It would be an improvement.

LOL! The Bible grants immunity to the slave master for beating slaves, as long as the slave does not die right away or lose eye(s)/teeth. And if you do lose an eye(s) or teeth, you are said to go free and the master simply loses the slave, without losing his own eye or teeth. This means the master can whip you, at will, and not receive any punishment at all. And when you are too old or become too sick to work the fields any longer, he can beat the crap out of you, which may then remove your eye(s)/teeth. You are then free to go, but, the master does not care, because you were already deemed useless anyways. He already wanted your gone!

But, obviously, I would want to be free, therefore, if I would buy a slave from some evil nation, and the slave would want to go free, I would allow him to go.

How nice of you. But I doubt the slave trade was very profitable if they were required to let slaves go, just because they ask. I reckon most slave masters would not let their slaves go, just because they ask. And guess what? They are not instructed to let them go, just because they ask. The decision is made by the master, and not the slave. And the Bible tells the reader that the master may keep them for life.

But, Bible also says that kidnapping is wrong.

This continues to be a red herring argument. I speak nothing about kidnapping. A bred slave is not kidnapped.

[benchwarmer]

No one is trying to explain it away. THAT is the problem you fail to see. It's an obvious contradiction (unless the slave owners don't mind being bought as slaves and/or beaten as a slave which is an obvious flaw to this 'golden rule').

No, it is not a contradiction. Slave owner didn't have to beat his slaves. And for example, if I would live in a nation that would be selling me, I would be happy to be sold to a nation that goes by God's rules. It would be an improvement. But, obviously, I would want to be free, therefore, if I would buy a slave from some evil nation, and the slave would want to go free, I would allow him to go.

I guarantee you, nobody believes you.

You are saying that as a slave buyer (i.e. you just spent gold/goods/etc to buy another human to do your bidding) you are just going to let them go because they asked? Right.....

You would go broke instantly and have no slaves.

We understand that you, today, would likely not buy a slave to begin with. That is not the discussion we are having. We are discussing the culture during the time various Bible documents were written. A time when buying slaves was 'normal'. In fact the Bible tells you exactly how and where it's acceptable to do so.

You can pretend all you like, the Bible condones slavery. End of story. Any attempt to apologize for it just ends up being a bad look. However, you do you and keep pretending. Everyone who can simply pick up a Bible and go read what it says for themselves will make up their mind. If they don't have a preexisting faith position to protect, I highly doubt they will buy your attempts to sweep it all under the carpet.

[marke]

Bible-believing Christians like me have a long history in America of opposing slavery on religious grounds,

Yes, this is why I asked:
24th request:
2) Why follow a book which does not match your own moral standards?

The Bible does not contain any improper moral standards in spoite of the assumed errors imagined by poor Bible students.

regardless of what other sects of Christians may have believed otherwise.

You stated prior, "regardless of what poor students of the Bible may believe to the contrary." I'd reckon to say maybe it is you who represent as a poor student of the Bible.

Please recall what you fail to address... If the NT either a) never mentioned slavery practices or b) mentioned abolition for such practices; then you might have some kind of case. But guess what? You do not. You have no case. The OT condones slavery, and the NT reinforces slavery. Jesus was said to be a teacher and had no problem laying down the law. Jesus would also know that the topics of chattel slavery and slave breeding are despised by many Christians like yourself. This means your moral compass does not align with the Bible about slavery.

Modern Christians who understood the Bible's opposition to modern slavery in America provided the backbone of the abolitionist movement that resulted in the freeing of the slaves under the Christian President Abraham Lincoln.

Again:

10th request:
1) Aside from not being allowed to kill them right away, or to knock out their eye(s) and teeth, how was slavery really any different between Middle Eastern slavery <vs> trans-Atlantic slavery?
(repeated from above) - 24th request:

2) Why follow a book which does not match your own moral standards?

I cannot explain how modern Americans try to justify slavery in America by applying OT rules, laws, and standards governing ancient barbarians to modern times.

[1213]

...We are discussing the culture during the time various Bible documents were written. A time when buying slaves was 'normal'....

Yes, and in that era buying could have been good for the slave, in comparison to what would happen to the person, if he would not be sold.

[1213]

No, it is not a contradiction. Slave owner didn't have to beat his slaves.

I have to ask... Is there such a thing as 'good slavery'?

Is there such a thing like a good human? If no, then there is no good slavery.

The Bible grants immunity to the slave master for beating slaves

Only if one ignores God's commandments, like the "love your neighbor as yourself".

But, Bible also says that kidnapping is wrong.

This continues to be a red herring argument. I speak nothing about kidnapping. A bred slave is not kidnapped.

But, if you keep someone forcefully, it can be seen as kidnapping.

[POI]

The Bible does not contain any improper moral standards in spoite of the assumed errors imagined by poor Bible students.

This means you too are okay with slave masters owning lifetime chattel slaves, as well as breeding them for new lifetime chattel slaves?

Modern Christians who understood the Bible's opposition to modern slavery in America provided the backbone of the abolitionist movement that resulted in the freeing of the slaves under the Christian President Abraham Lincoln.

Incorrect. Jesus understood better than any human, right? And yet, Jesus expressed absolutely no abolition process(es) for slavery. What humans later did was in opposition to Biblical standards, as the Bible never mentions abolition for chattel slavery and slave breeding. Why? Jesus had absolutely no problem telling folks what is wrong. Jesus would also know that slavery is a large human topic. Jesus remained silent against abolition because Jesus dd not oppose slavery.

I cannot explain how modern Americans try to justify slavery in America by applying OT rules, laws, and standards governing ancient barbarians to modern times.

The point here being, is that slavery between these two eras have little differences. They both sucked! The Bible could have expressed abolition and chose not to. Which means slavery is a-okay from the Bible's position/perspective.

[POI]

Is there such a thing like a good human? If no, then there is no good slavery.

The point is that all slavery sucks. Why doesn't the Bible just abolish it?

Only if one ignores God's commandments, like the "love your neighbor as yourself".

I've addressed this many times, and yet, you still persist. I suggest you start at the bottom of the original post, and work down from there....

But, if you keep someone forcefully, it can be seen as kidnapping.

The Bible tells the slave master they may keep slaves for life. The Bible also tells the slave master that they may keep all slave offspring for life. Nowhere does the Bible express a condition in where the Non-Israelite slave must consent to be kept for life.

[POI]

...We are discussing the culture during the time various Bible documents were written. A time when buying slaves was 'normal'....

Yes, and in that era buying could have been good for the slave, in comparison to what would happen to the person, if he would not be sold.

The best solution the Bible can offer is lifetime chattel slavery?