"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]

What I find most disturbing about this topic is that there's not a flood of theists coming in to condemn the practice of slavery - regardless of who, or what god might think about it.

If person willingly becomes a slave, should he not be allowed to do so?

But, I think no one should be a slave, because:

You were bought with a price. Don’t become bondservants of men.
1 Cor. 7:23

That is one reason why I am against mandatory taxes, I think they are a modern form of slavery.

[POI]

What I find most disturbing about this topic is that there's not a flood of theists coming in to condemn the practice of slavery - regardless of who, or what god might think about it.

If person willingly becomes a slave, should he not be allowed to do so?

But, I think no one should be a slave, because:

You were bought with a price. Don’t become bondservants of men.
1 Cor. 7:23

That is one reason why I am against mandatory taxes, I think they are a modern form of slavery.

Please do not change the subject.

You have yet to refute the original post claims. That the Bible sanctions/condones chattel slavery.

[TRANSPONDER]

What I find most disturbing about this topic is that there's not a flood of theists coming in to condemn the practice of slavery - regardless of who, or what god might think about it.

If person willingly becomes a slave, should he not be allowed to do so?

But, I think no one should be a slave, because:

You were bought with a price. Don’t become bondservants of men.
1 Cor. 7:23

That is one reason why I am against mandatory taxes, I think they are a modern form of slavery.

That is a philosophical/moral debate indeed, about where personal liberty ends and Laws begin, but it is totally different (1), people becoming 'slaves'to Jesus is nothing to do with it and even if one regarded paying taxes as slavery rather than your dues to the society that keeps you alive, that does not validate chattel slavery without consent, which is what 'buy slaves from foreigners' means.

The I Cor quote is out of the context of course, because it is about one being freed by Jesusfaith should not become a slave to the Law through being circumcised.

Now, either you were being crafty about the context or you were missing the point, just as you miss the point that if Paul is using Slavery Bad as an analogy, that removes any excuse of yours that it's perfectly fine if the person is willing. The Bible, OT, Gospels and Paul all know that it is bad and yet never is there a command, injunction or exhortation not to own slaves. Twisting Biblequotes out of context and which are not even relevant is merely more of the fiddling, misrepresentation and denial even of of the Bible that makes me truly thankful that I don't have to lie for my faith. Never mind about what actually happened a tthe Capitol Jan 6.

(1) and if the same debunked argument that Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery keeps getting posted, the at least more entertaining as well as true and valid animated debunk can yet again be posted.

[tam]

Peace to you.

I tried to fix the quote boxes from your previous post, so hopefully this is a bit easier to follow along.

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you all,

Perhaps the reason some of us are not rushing to respond to this thread is because we have already done so on the other slavery thread created by POI?

In any case, here are my responses:

viewtopic.php?p=1078860#p1078860
viewtopic.php?p=1078893#p1078893
viewtopic.php?p=1079008#p1079008
viewtopic.php?p=1079034#p1079034
viewtopic.php?p=1079098#p1079098



Peace again.

Or perhaps it for the reason I'm not posting

Lol... but you have been posting.

The links I posted address the rest of what you said, as well as the OP here, at least as pertains to me. I will leave those posts to stand, regardless of what others accept or not.

Peace still to you!

Good one. I am, aren't I?. But laughs aside, you haven't made any counter other than claim you have answered these points already.

I get that you may not accept what I wrote, but I do not think I have anything to add that has not already been said. If you want me to address something specific that you think was not addressed in those posts (something that has to do with the topic of slavery in the bible), then I am going to need you to point it out.

I would be astonished if you or any other slavery - excuser for Jesus had anything much to add to the usual denial and excuses.

Does that mean you didn't read through those links?

I have picked up and exposed, frankly, one supposed previous point addressed. It failed there and here. This is why the ploy of appealing to further 'points addressed' when they failed is mere evasion.

It is not evasion, but rather, repetition.

The claims that be nice to everyone somehow covers that, fails.

I never made that claim and I believe I addressed this in that thread as well (I did not link to every single post of mine though - the thread does go on for 43 pages).

I didn't need to go on from even the first page "Play Nice" [The 'golden rule' that He emphasized leaves no room for one person to enslave another person against their will ] You won't further damage you case by pulling the "I did not use those words" evasive tactic.

"Play nice" is a dismissive summary of the golden rule... combined with love... combined with the command of Christ that we who belong to Him are to make OURSELVES the least, that we are to serve one another and others... combined with the example that Christ left (He enslaved no one, He served, gave Himself over entirely to His Father's will, forced no one to serve Him but accepted those who wanted to serve Him and so also His Father.)

This leaves NO ROOM for anyone to go out and enslave another person.

It is covered.

Saying that Christ spoke about divorce and so He has no excuse for not speaking about slavery does not refute the fact that enslaving another person is covered under all of the above. More than that, the reason Christ spoke about divorce is because someone ASKED HIM about divorce. No one asked Him about slavery (as far as is written at least), but HIS words on that matter were that we - Christians - are to make ourselves the least ones and to serve one another (and others).

Nor can you say that no one 'got it'. Paul got it. Paul is the one who told a brother that the right thing for that man to do would be to free his slave, Onesimus.


But all of this - and more - is covered in those links.

This is saying that the overall NT 'Be nice' command or exhortation somehow covers all the specific omissions like addressing chattel slavery while fussing about not bothering with the Sabbath observance and pouring spite on the Pharisees, Sadducees and in fact, all the Jews. Like a perfect little Paulinist.

Except that Paul 'got it'.

Edited to add (this is where our discussion began on that thread):

viewtopic.php?p=1079520#p1079520

Yep. Whatsoever, and I do feel a bit of a Heel for dwelling on Slavery - but it is a killer for the Bible.

I am not sure what "killer for the bible" is supposed to mean. Not everything in the bible is as God desired it.

And a Christian follows Christ.

The fact remains that you cannot listen to the words and commands and example from Christ and then go out and enslave another person. Therefore, it is covered, despite the people who use(d) the bible as a weapon to inflict harm upon their fellow man, to excuse their desire to step upon their fellow man in order to raise themselves up. But their actions and/or hard-hardheartedness is reflected back upon themselves and whatever teachers they are listening to. Not upon Christ (or His Father). Because He taught that we are to do the opposite: to make OURSELVES least ones and to SERVE others.

Heaps of peace and I don't wish to be harsh o' the tongue, especially with such a nice person, but Debate is what it is, and there's no point not sending the troops in when you see the barriers go down.

Peace also to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you.

I tried to fix the quote boxes from your previous post, so hopefully this is a bit easier to follow along.

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you all,

Perhaps the reason some of us are not rushing to respond to this thread is because we have already done so on the other slavery thread created by POI?

In any case, here are my responses:

viewtopic.php?p=1078860#p1078860
viewtopic.php?p=1078893#p1078893
viewtopic.php?p=1079008#p1079008
viewtopic.php?p=1079034#p1079034
viewtopic.php?p=1079098#p1079098



Peace again.

Or perhaps it for the reason I'm not posting

Lol... but you have been posting.

The links I posted address the rest of what you said, as well as the OP here, at least as pertains to me. I will leave those posts to stand, regardless of what others accept or not.

Peace still to you!

Good one. I am, aren't I?. But laughs aside, you haven't made any counter other than claim you have answered these points already.

I get that you may not accept what I wrote, but I do not think I have anything to add that has not already been said. If you want me to address something specific that you think was not addressed in those posts (something that has to do with the topic of slavery in the bible), then I am going to need you to point it out.

I would be astonished if you or any other slavery - excuser for Jesus had anything much to add to the usual denial and excuses.

Does that mean you didn't read through those links?

It means I have seen them,seen plenty like them, and found a flat self refutation of what you said right away.

I have picked up and exposed, frankly, one supposed previous point addressed. It failed there and here. This is why the ploy of appealing to further 'points addressed' when they failed is mere evasion.

It is not evasion, but rather, repetition.

Repetition of evasions. I know, they nearly all do it. Post refute, repeat.

The claims that be nice to everyone somehow covers that, fails.

I never made that claim and I believe I addressed this in that thread as well (I did not link to every single post of mine though - the thread does go on for 43 pages).

I didn't need to go on from even the first page "Play Nice" [The 'golden rule' that He emphasized leaves no room for one person to enslave another person against their will ] You won't further damage you case by pulling the "I did not use those words" evasive tactic.

"Play nice" is a dismissive summary of the golden rule... combined with love... combined with the command of Christ that we who belong to Him are to make OURSELVES the least, that we are to serve one another and others... combined with the example that Christ left (He enslaved no one, He served, gave Himself over entirely to His Father's will, forced no one to serve Him but accepted those who wanted to serve Him and so also His Father.)

This leaves NO ROOM for anyone to go out and enslave another person.

It is covered.

Saying that Christ spoke about divorce and so He has no excuse for not speaking about slavery does not refute the fact that enslaving another person is covered under all of the above. More than that, the reason Christ spoke about divorce is because someone ASKED HIM about divorce. No one asked Him about slavery (as far as is written at least), but HIS words on that matter were that we - Christians - are to make ourselves the least ones and to serve one another (and others).

Nor can you say that no one 'got it'. Paul got it. Paul is the one who told a brother that the right thing for that man to do would be to free his slave, Onesimus.


But all of this - and more - is covered in those links.

This is saying that the overall NT 'Be nice' command or exhortation somehow covers all the specific omissions like addressing chattel slavery while fussing about not bothering with the Sabbath observance and pouring spite on the Pharisees, Sadducees and in fact, all the Jews. Like a perfect little Paulinist.

Except that Paul 'got it'.

Edited to add (this is where our discussion began on that thread):

viewtopic.php?p=1079520#p1079520

Yep. Whatsoever, and I do feel a bit of a Heel for dwelling on Slavery - but it is a killer for the Bible.

I am not sure what "killer for the bible" is supposed to mean. Not everything in the bible is as God desired it.

And a Christian follows Christ.

The fact remains that you cannot listen to the words and commands and example from Christ and then go out and enslave another person. Therefore, it is covered, despite the people who use(d) the bible as a weapon to inflict harm upon their fellow man, to excuse their desire to step upon their fellow man in order to raise themselves up. But their actions and/or hard-hardheartedness is reflected back upon themselves and whatever teachers they are listening to. Not upon Christ (or His Father). Because He taught that we are to do the opposite: to make OURSELVES least ones and to SERVE others.

Heaps of peace and I don't wish to be harsh o' the tongue, especially with such a nice person, but Debate is what it is, and there's no point not sending the troops in when you see the barriers go down.

Peace also to you.

I'm going to have to do the rest at the end because in reply mode I don't know what quotes go where.

But each point - You don't need to remind me of the importance of the golden rule but that (though the principle of reciprocity basic to human moral in all cultures), does NOT mean that laws are not needed and particular instructions are not needed. Nor does the excuse that nobody brought the subject up to Jesus stand up. True, many of these Christian arguments begin with the point put to Jesus, but nobody asked him to give the sermon. He could have said "Ye have read, love your neighbour as yourself' or 'Ye may buy slaves from the foreigners around ye, but I say unto you, you shall not own another human as property" How hard was that? Failure, even when a slave was waved in front of his face, to mention the matter means being ok with slavery; never did Jesus ever say "You know,owning other people is really wrong". The NT condones slavery as much as the OT does and play nice, Golden rule or Love you neighbour is Not going to wash as a claim that God is dead against slavery, as any confederate plantation owner will tell you.

Same goes for Paul, as he knows that people do not like to be owned as slaves but never says Christians shouldn't own slaves, points to the disciples teaching that Jesus said they shouldn't own slaves nor quotes the OT as saying they shouldn't own slaves. Paul 'got it' - Selectively.

And more peace

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you.

I tried to fix the quote boxes from your previous post, so hopefully this is a bit easier to follow along.

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you all,

Perhaps the reason some of us are not rushing to respond to this thread is because we have already done so on the other slavery thread created by POI?

In any case, here are my responses:

viewtopic.php?p=1078860#p1078860
viewtopic.php?p=1078893#p1078893
viewtopic.php?p=1079008#p1079008
viewtopic.php?p=1079034#p1079034
viewtopic.php?p=1079098#p1079098



Peace again.

Or perhaps it for the reason I'm not posting

Lol... but you have been posting.

The links I posted address the rest of what you said, as well as the OP here, at least as pertains to me. I will leave those posts to stand, regardless of what others accept or not.

Peace still to you!

Good one. I am, aren't I?. But laughs aside, you haven't made any counter other than claim you have answered these points already.

I get that you may not accept what I wrote, but I do not think I have anything to add that has not already been said. If you want me to address something specific that you think was not addressed in those posts (something that has to do with the topic of slavery in the bible), then I am going to need you to point it out.

I would be astonished if you or any other slavery - excuser for Jesus had anything much to add to the usual denial and excuses.

Does that mean you didn't read through those links?

It means I have seen them,seen plenty like them, and found a flat self refutation of what you said right away.

I have picked up and exposed, frankly, one supposed previous point addressed. It failed there and here. This is why the ploy of appealing to further 'points addressed' when they failed is mere evasion.

It is not evasion, but rather, repetition.

Repetition of evasions. I know, they nearly all do it. Post refute, repeat.

The claims that be nice to everyone somehow covers that, fails.

I never made that claim and I believe I addressed this in that thread as well (I did not link to every single post of mine though - the thread does go on for 43 pages).

I didn't need to go on from even the first page "Play Nice" [The 'golden rule' that He emphasized leaves no room for one person to enslave another person against their will ] You won't further damage you case by pulling the "I did not use those words" evasive tactic.

"Play nice" is a dismissive summary of the golden rule... combined with love... combined with the command of Christ that we who belong to Him are to make OURSELVES the least, that we are to serve one another and others... combined with the example that Christ left (He enslaved no one, He served, gave Himself over entirely to His Father's will, forced no one to serve Him but accepted those who wanted to serve Him and so also His Father.)

This leaves NO ROOM for anyone to go out and enslave another person.

It is covered.

Saying that Christ spoke about divorce and so He has no excuse for not speaking about slavery does not refute the fact that enslaving another person is covered under all of the above. More than that, the reason Christ spoke about divorce is because someone ASKED HIM about divorce. No one asked Him about slavery (as far as is written at least), but HIS words on that matter were that we - Christians - are to make ourselves the least ones and to serve one another (and others).

Nor can you say that no one 'got it'. Paul got it. Paul is the one who told a brother that the right thing for that man to do would be to free his slave, Onesimus.


But all of this - and more - is covered in those links.

This is saying that the overall NT 'Be nice' command or exhortation somehow covers all the specific omissions like addressing chattel slavery while fussing about not bothering with the Sabbath observance and pouring spite on the Pharisees, Sadducees and in fact, all the Jews. Like a perfect little Paulinist.

Except that Paul 'got it'.

Edited to add (this is where our discussion began on that thread):

viewtopic.php?p=1079520#p1079520

Yep. Whatsoever, and I do feel a bit of a Heel for dwelling on Slavery - but it is a killer for the Bible.

I am not sure what "killer for the bible" is supposed to mean. Not everything in the bible is as God desired it.

And a Christian follows Christ.

The fact remains that you cannot listen to the words and commands and example from Christ and then go out and enslave another person. Therefore, it is covered, despite the people who use(d) the bible as a weapon to inflict harm upon their fellow man, to excuse their desire to step upon their fellow man in order to raise themselves up. But their actions and/or hard-hardheartedness is reflected back upon themselves and whatever teachers they are listening to. Not upon Christ (or His Father). Because He taught that we are to do the opposite: to make OURSELVES least ones and to SERVE others.

Heaps of peace and I don't wish to be harsh o' the tongue, especially with such a nice person, but Debate is what it is, and there's no point not sending the troops in when you see the barriers go down.

Peace also to you.

I'm going to have to do the rest at the end because in reply mode I don't know what quotes go where.

But each point - You don't need to remind me of the importance of the golden rule but that (though the principle of reciprocity basic to human moral in all cultures), does NOT mean that laws are not needed and particular instructions are not needed. Nor does the excuse that nobody brought the subject up to Jesus stand up. True, many of these Christian arguments begin with the point put to Jesus, but nobody asked him to give the sermon. He could have said "Ye have read, love your neighbour as yourself' or 'Ye may buy slaves from the foreigners around ye, but I say unto you, you shall not own another human as property" How hard was that? Failure, even when a slave was waved in front of his face, to mention the matter means being ok with slavery; never did Jesus ever say "You know,owning other people is really wrong". The NT condones slavery as much as the OT does and play nice, Golden rule or Love you neighbour is Not going to wash as a claim that God is dead against slavery, as any confederate plantation owner will tell you.

See this is not a matter of points being refuted or not. Every point has been refuted or disputed. This is now just a matter of disagreement on what certain things mean and what has or has not been communicated.

The fact remains that not a single person here could say that they could listen to the words of Christ and then go on to enslave another human being.



Peace also to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[POI]

See this is not a matter of points being refuted or not. Every point has been refuted or disputed. This is now just a matter of disagreement on what certain things mean and what has or has not been communicated.

The fact remains that not a single person here could say that they could listen to the words of Christ and then go on to enslave another human being.

Please observe the debate topics/questions:

For debate:

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

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

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

1) Answer.... By applying common sense, yes, the BIBLE either did or does sanction chattel slavery.

2) Answer... By applying common sense, a believer can continue to use THE BIBLE, to sanction chattel slavery.

In your response, the BEST you can offer, is to say Jesus did/does disagree with himself/dad/Bible

[POI]

This thread got started, because of the lack in response to the following, in post 21 (viewtopic.php?t=40601&start=20).

By now, you would think ONE Christian would lay down a reasonable case or foundation, to refute my assessment/conclusion that the Bible is a-okay with chattel slavery. I guess the Bible does sanction chattel slavery....

Thank you all.

[tam]

Peace to you,

See this is not a matter of points being refuted or not. Every point has been refuted or disputed. This is now just a matter of disagreement on what certain things mean and what has or has not been communicated.

The fact remains that not a single person here could say that they could listen to the words of Christ and then go on to enslave another human being.

Please observe the debate topics/questions:

Okay... though in the end I think it will all come down to the same thing.

For debate:

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

Chattel slavery wherein one person owns another person?

Yes, if by sanction you mean 'give permission', "the bible" did permit it.

Of course, it is also written in the OT of that same bible what God wants:


“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
7
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
8
Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness[a] will go before you,
and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.
9
Then you will call, and the Lord will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.

“If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
10
and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.
11
The Lord will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.


I know how I know which one to believe. How do you know which one to believe?

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

Nope. Not without ignoring Christ (His words and His example.) For this, you can look at the links provided to Transponder a couple pages back.

In your response, the BEST you can offer, is to say Jesus did/does disagree with himself/dad/Bible

Christ - not "the bible" - is the Word of God. God is as Christ revealed Him to be. Christ is the One who speaks the truth, truth from the beginning, from God.

Not everything in the bible is true from the beginning or even what God desired. Some allowances (permissions) were made due to the hard-hearts of the people.

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.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matt 7:12


"In everything" leaves no room for any "exceptions" to be 'outside' the golden rule. So not even a one-pager, but rather, a one-liner.


Peace again to you.

[POI]

Chattel slavery wherein one person owns another person?

Yes, if by sanction you mean 'give permission', "the bible" did permit it.

Noted. Continuing below....

I know how I know which one to believe. How do you know which one to believe?

The Bible sanctions chattel slavery. Pure and simple. You agree. Continuing below....

Nope. Not without ignoring Christ (His words and His example.) For this, you can look at the links provided to Transponder a couple pages back.

Please re-read the question. I'll ask it again. I'll give you a hint, in bold:

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

You are using the "Jesus excuse" to try and get yourself out of the corner in which you have been backed into. Jesus would know what it states in the OT, and outside his apparent direct messages. He knows the OT sanctions and give instructions for such practices. He would also know this is a 'big' topic. Not something as mundane as mixing fabrics or eating shrimp. Jesus had NO problem laying down the law. Jesus also had NO problem expressing his dislikes. But for some strange reason, he skips chattel slavery, as it is condoned in the OT, and maybe even by Paul? Something smells a little funny here....

Christ - not "the bible" - is the Word of God. God is as Christ revealed Him to be. Christ is the One who speaks the truth, truth from the beginning, from God.

How does one pick/chose what Jesus said, verses being written by some other random's own opinions? To my knowledge, Jesus did not author ANY of the Book. I mean, did he issue his thumbprint after each and every verse approved/endorsed? Further, by the time anything was written to paper about him specifically, he was long dead for years/decades. Did someone keep Jesus' diary or memoirs, and then just transfer what HE said on paper to the official canon? Please do not tell me you are going to rely upon oral tradition for truth?

Not everything in the bible is true from the beginning or even what God desired. Some allowances (permissions) were made due to the hard-hearts of the people.

Are you saying God never actually sanctioned or sanctions chattel slavery, or, are you saying he did/does?.?.?.?

"In everything" leaves no room for any "exceptions" to be 'outside' the golden rule. So not even a one-pager, but rather, a one-liner.

You are cherry picking. Case/point:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right."

This means "ALL scripture". And remember, when this statement was written, the NT was not a thing. And yet, Exodus and Leviticus IS Scripture. And guess what, slavery is in both of them.

If the golden rule is all that matters, why grant permission for chattel slavery? Your excuse, thus far, does not jive. Again, he had no problem issuing laws against what the ones, with the 'hardened hearts', would still want to do.

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

Now, getting back to your noted answer, that the Bible sanctions chattel slavery....

Why in the HECK would you follow a book, likely okayed by Jesus, which sanctions chattel slavery?