"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.'

[1213]

Please tell me who, in their right mind, would volunteer to be a lifetime chattel slave or hope they were bred into becoming a lifetime chattel slave?

A person who sees it beneficial for him.

Of course there is... If you were to poll 1,000 folks, and ask them whether they wanted to:

a) pay 20% of their paycheck to the government, or...
b) be someone's lifetime chattel slave, where they are treated like property.

Which answer would be selected unanimously?

I think you make a false analogy. The correct would be:

a) pay 50 % of your income in all kind of taxes, and after that your living space, food an clothes... ...if you are lucky, you may have something to save up.
b) work for someone and get space to live, food and clothes and all things necessary... ...and if you work for a Biblical Jew, you will have something to save up.

A government slave has smaller chance for freedom and independency.

[POI]

Please tell me who, in their right mind, would volunteer to be a lifetime chattel slave or hope they were bred into becoming a lifetime chattel slave?

A person who sees it beneficial for him.

Such as? I need specifics here. Again, we are speaking about someone who sees it beneficial to be someone's property for life.

Of course there is... If you were to poll 1,000 folks, and ask them whether they wanted to:

a) pay 20% of their paycheck to the government, or...
b) be someone's lifetime chattel slave, where they are treated like property.

Which answer would be selected unanimously?

I think you make a false analogy. The correct would be:

a) pay 50 % of your income in all kind of taxes, and after that your living space, food an clothes... ...if you are lucky, you may have something to save up.
b) work for someone and get space to live, food and clothes and all things necessary... ...and if you work for a Biblical Jew, you will have something to save up.

A government slave has smaller chance for freedom and independency.

A lifetime chattel slave has no chance for freedom and independency, ever.

Even if your version of a) were true, all would still choose this option over instead electing to become someone's lifetime chattel slave, and treated as property, for life. Being someone else's property for life guarantees no independent future to save up for. Along with a guarantee of no retirement and no vacation, and no workdays off. Maybe a short amount of time to pray to the slave master's believed upon god, and then, right back to work until dark.

Further, if Biblical slavery is so great and is also voluntary, then it becomes quite illogical to make a law about runaway slaves. Volitional acts contradict running away. --> "15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them." (Deut. 23:15-16). I guess the only hope for the slave was to somehow escape from their 'loving' master(s).

As expressed in post 334, Christian apologists love to water down the term 'slave', or muddy the waters, to include many other action(s). This is done so to deliberately provide distraction with what the Bible condones, in which the believer does not agree with morally. It's intellectually dishonest. It's basically no different than the content creator's video I posted.

[1213]

...Further, if Biblical slavery is so great and is also voluntary, then it becomes quite illogical to make a law about runaway slaves. Volitional acts contradict running away. --> "15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them." (Deut. 23:15-16). I guess the only hope for the slave was to somehow escape from their 'loving' master(s).

Good that you brought that up. I think it shows slaves should be let go, if they want so, otherwise that would say the runaway slave should be returned back to owner.

[POI]

...Further, if Biblical slavery is so great and is also voluntary, then it becomes quite illogical to make a law about runaway slaves. Volitional acts contradict running away. --> "15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them." (Deut. 23:15-16). I guess the only hope for the slave was to somehow escape from their 'loving' master(s).

Good that you brought that up. I think it shows slaves should be let go, if they want so, otherwise that would say the runaway slave should be returned back to owner.

You missed my point. A volunteer wouldn't and/or shouldn't run away. This would be an illogical action.

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

And now to the part(s) you completely skipped...

1) As stated prior, anyone in their right mind would choose option a) over option b). Agreed?
2) It is intellectually dishonest to try and muddy the waters with the term 'slavery'. Agreed?

[1213]

...
You missed my point. A volunteer wouldn't and/or shouldn't run away. This would be an illogical action. ...

That may be true. It is possible that someone could have been kidnapped and then escaped. It is also possible that one was first volunteering, but then changed his mind. In any case the scripture shows person should not be forced to be a slave.

And now to the part(s) you completely skipped...

1) As stated prior, anyone in their right mind would choose option a) over option b). Agreed?
2) It is intellectually dishonest to try and muddy the waters with the term 'slavery'. Agreed?

1) I think the a and b are the same essentially. And it seems many think that it is the best choice for them, otherwise they would not choose it. The only difference is that the a is not as easy to avoid.
2) I think it is intellectually dishonest to think the a is somehow better.

[POI]

That may be true. It is possible that someone could have been kidnapped and then escaped. It is also possible that one was first volunteering, but then changed his mind. In any case the scripture shows person should not be forced to be a slave.

Wishful thinking is not justified. Many slaves were not volunteers. Exodus 21 states:

"the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

also:

"7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do."

Also, Leviticus 25 states:

"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."

The above folks have no choice in the matter. The above folks do not have to volunteer. They can instead lawfully be forced. Hence, like I stated prior, if Christian slavery is said to be safe and loving, (like in the video), why then create a law about running away? Further, if the slave master is providing safety and love, why not instruct that the slave be returned to the master? Maybe the slave does not know what is best for them, much like a runaway child from their loving and caring parents may not know what is best for them?

And now to the part(s) you completely skipped...

1) As stated prior, anyone in their right mind would choose option a) over option b). Agreed?
2) It is intellectually dishonest to try and muddy the waters with the term 'slavery'. Agreed?

1) I think the a and b are the same essentially. And it seems many think that it is the best choice for them, otherwise they would not choose it. The only difference is that the a is not as easy to avoid.
2) I think it is intellectually dishonest to think the a is somehow better.

1) You are either confused or being intellectually dishonest. There is no third option. Again, many have no choice in the matter, as demonstrated above. Further, many slaves are said to be slave property for life. This means no hope for retirement, vacation, days off, restricted work hours, and/or any hope for the future. Just work until they cannot work anymore. And then, this is likely when the real beatings start, with instructed impunity for the master doing so.

2) There is a clear and distinguishable difference between a) and b). I just pointed out some of the key differences. This is you, again, being intellectually dishonest, or confused, or both.

[marke]

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: It does appear that Jesus never condemned the ancient practice of selling souls into slavery to avoid financial destitution and starvation.

[POI]

It does appear that Jesus never condemned the ancient practice of selling souls into slavery to avoid financial destitution and starvation.

1) Where, in the Bible, does it express that slavery was condoned solely to help the poor?
2) The Bible's best solution, to help the poor, was to condone for them to be sold into lifetime chattel slavery, and treated as property, for life?

[marke]

It does appear that Jesus never condemned the ancient practice of selling souls into slavery to avoid financial destitution and starvation.

1) Where, in the Bible, does it express that slavery was condoned solely to help the poor?
2) The Bible's best solution, to help the poor, was to condone for them to be sold into lifetime chattel slavery, and treated as property, for life?

Marke: Jesus never encouraged or instructed Christians to engage in slavery and we can be sure He did not approve of wicked theft of humans for slavery and the wicked abuse of slaves, so I can ony assume when Jesus did not condemn slavery He was not condemning the ancient practice of slavery as an alternative to starvation.

[POI]

It does appear that Jesus never condemned the ancient practice of selling souls into slavery to avoid financial destitution and starvation.

1) Where, in the Bible, does it express that slavery was condoned solely to help the poor?
2) The Bible's best solution, to help the poor, was to condone for them to be sold into lifetime chattel slavery, and treated as property, for life?

Marke: 1) Jesus never encouraged or instructed Christians to engage in slavery 2) and we can be sure He did not approve of wicked theft of humans for slavery and the wicked abuse of slaves, 3) so I can ony assume when Jesus did not condemn slavery He was not condemning the ancient practice of slavery as an alternative to starvation.

1) The Bible did -> (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.

2) You responded to the OP. I never spoke about kidnapping. I spoke about slave breeding, in which the Bible condones as well. A bred slave is not a kidnapped slave.

3) This is a wild assumption. Such condoned slavery practices were not confined to help the poor. You can start by re-reading the OP.

I ask again (2nd request):

The Bible's best solution, to help the poor, was to condone for them to be sold into lifetime chattel slavery, and treated as property, for life?