"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.'

[POI]

Mandatory taxation is the same as slavery

If your argument requires redefinition of common words, there's probably a subtle equivocation hidden in there somewhere. I'd bet if you look hard enough, you can find it.

And even if these terms were the same, which they are not, his argument still completely falls apart. Citizens can express disagreement with current law(s). Amendments to these laws can later take place, Heck, the powers-that-be can even change the current laws by executive order. Etc etc etc....

The Christian, on the other hand, has absolutely no such liberties. Not only must they express complete agreement with all given commands/allowances - as given, but these laws/allowances can never be changed. Hence, the excuses abound from the believers....

[1213]

Mandatory taxation is the same as slavery

If your argument requires redefinition of common words, there's probably a subtle equivocation hidden in there somewhere. I'd bet if you look hard enough, you can find it.

Slavery means essentially that you have to work for someone. Therefore, if you have to pay taxes,you are essentially a slave.

[1213]

...
1) Reject the book, because the book issues commands which do not align with your own moral compass --- where chattel slavery is concerned.
2) Continue in Christianity -- but a) pick and choose - cafeteria style (and/or) b) "rationalize" or perform "mental gymnastics" with parts of the Bible you morally disagree with.

Thus far, you demonstrate option 2).

I don't disagree with any commandment in the Bible. If you disagree, please show the commandment from the Bible that i disagree with?

Mandatory taxation is the same as slavery, why accept it, if one is against slavery?

It is not the same, at all. See above.

Only if you are a hypocrite. In both cases person must work for someone else, which is why they are essentially the same.

[POI]

Slavery means essentially that you have to work for someone. Therefore, if you have to pay taxes,you are essentially a slave.

You are either confused, or being deliberately disingenuous. I'm speaking about a very specific type of slavery. The kind the Bible specifically okays, which is humans owning other humans as property for life. Humans in which can also be beaten with impunity. Humans which can be passed down to their master's offspring. This has absolutely nothing to do with your version of 'slavery', at all. And as I already told Difflugia:

And even if these terms were the same, which they are not, 1213's argument still completely falls apart. Citizens can express disagreement with current law(s). Amendments to these laws can later take place, Heck, the powers-that-be can even change the current laws by executive order. Etc etc etc....

The Christian, on the other hand, has absolutely no such liberties. Not only must they express complete agreement with all given commands/allowances - as given, but these laws/allowances can never be changed. Hence, the excuses abound from the believers.

[POI]

...
1) Reject the book, because the book issues commands which do not align with your own moral compass --- where chattel slavery is concerned.
2) Continue in Christianity -- but a) pick and choose - cafeteria style (and/or) b) "rationalize" or perform "mental gymnastics" with parts of the Bible you morally disagree with.

Thus far, you demonstrate option 2).

I don't disagree with any commandment in the Bible. If you disagree, please show the commandment from the Bible that i disagree with?

I never mentioned Commandments. This is you trying to play games again, like you are trying to do with the word 'slave.' You look to fall within option (2) because you are trying to rationalize passages in both Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25.

Only if you are a hypocrite. In both cases person must work for someone else, which is why they are essentially the same.

I already explained prior. And just to play devil's advocate, let's say they are identical, in every way, You would still have to contend with what I stated in my prior response. But, since we already know you are merely equivocating the term 'slave', there is no need to even bother.

[Difflugia]

Slavery means essentially that you have to work for someone. Therefore, if you have to pay taxes,you are essentially a slave.

"Remember, you were a taxpayer in Egypt."—Deuteronomy 16:12

[1213]

Slavery means essentially that you have to work for someone. Therefore, if you have to pay taxes,you are essentially a slave.

"Remember, you were a taxpayer in Egypt."—Deuteronomy 16:12

Yes, I don't see any meaningful difference in it, if person must work for someone else. Obviously they are not exactly the same, because slave didn't have to buy his food and rent like modern slaves must do.

1) Slave, a person who must work for his owner, gets food and place to live, and perhaps some money even for himself.

2) Tax payer, must work for his government (=owner), gets little money to buy food and pay the rent, maybe can have little own money, but not too much, because governments don't want people to have cash. Cash is not good, because it could help someone to avoid the slavery.

Do you see there any meaningful difference? What is that?

[1213]

...
1) Reject the book, because the book issues commands ...

I don't disagree with any commandment in the Bible. If you disagree, please show the commandment from the Bible that i disagree with?

I never mentioned Commandments. ...

Commands and commandment are in my opinion about the same. If someone commands something, it can be called a commandment.

[1213]

...I'm speaking about a very specific type of slavery. The kind the Bible specifically okays, which is humans owning other humans as property for life. Humans in which can also be beaten with impunity. ....

Also governments, the owners of the tax slaves, can beat their people with impunity, they can even kill people with impunity. For example Ashli Babbitt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ashli_Babbitt

[POI]

...
1) Reject the book, because the book issues commands ...

I don't disagree with any commandment in the Bible. If you disagree, please show the commandment from the Bible that i disagree with?

I never mentioned Commandments. ...

Commands and commandment are in my opinion about the same. If someone commands something, it can be called a commandment.

You being a believer in the Bible, I would reckon you understand context? Please re-read the entire response, in which you conveniently skipped, and when you get to the word in red, please tell me how it is actually being used. You will notice it is being used in a way which demonstrates that you are in quite the bind. Either answer, in which you are obligated to select, leaves you in a world of trouble.

(Repeat)

Logic tells me this is you. The Christian must condone the act of humans owning other humans as chattel slave property for life, rather than to instead express complete abolition for such acts. You instead are glad most areas have now completely abolished such activities. And as I stated prior, it would be like a protestor in front of a 'Planned Parenthood" clinic who protests against abortion. Affiliates of the "Planned Parenthood" clinic condone abortion rather than condemning it. The Christian does not condone abortion. They condemn it.

Where chattel slavery practices are concerned, the Bible is not consistent. The Bible condones humans owning other humans as chattel slaves for life, rather than to condemn this practice. If you follow this book, you have (2) options:

1) Reject the book, because the book issues "commands" which do not align with your own moral compass --- where chattel slavery is concerned.
2) Continue in Christianity -- but a) pick and choose - cafeteria style (and/or) b) "rationalize" or perform "mental gymnastics" with parts of the Bible you morally disagree with.

Thus far, you demonstrate option 2).

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

This is just more word play to avoid uncomfortability, on your part. By using such tactics, you get to avoid/skip addressing the mandatory dichotomy you placed upon yourself.