check out this informative video.
No. Either you make your argument in your own words as I said before, or I have no time for you. I'm not about to spend my time, which is quite precious to me, debunking every internet video out there.
Setting rules for something is more than merely describing it happening. It is condoning it.
I've already show this to be false, so I see no further point in discussing this. You are simply saying, "Nuh-uh!" without presenting any more information. If you cannot see how something can be regulated, without condoning it I'm not sure where else to go. Whilst I agree that it was accepted and regulated, this is not what you are trying to say, which is that God has set forth this as a commandment of which he approves. If He did so, then it seems weird for Him to release the Israelites from their slavery, it also seems weird that later on He would specifically condone it.
1 Timothy 1 9->11:
9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurersand for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
This is taken from a passage about false teachers of the law, it was written by Paul to Timothy to instruct him on how to fight the good fight as it were and undo Paul's work, since Paul had done so much damage prior.
This issue is pretty large however, it's not possible to take a couple of passages as absolute in this instance. Even scholars themselves have trouble deciding on a definition for slavery, due to how it varied from culture to culture, however they do agree that modern, new world slavery, is unique and has a unique collection of features. There is a book that talks about this a lot called
Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology by David Levinson and Melvin Ember. It's not a small subject, which is why I am perplexed at your desire to
make it small, and also make it out to be something it's not. Actually I'm not that perplexed by it, as I've seen this happen a lot, I'm more fascinated at how people cling to sinking ships no matter what.
In another book (A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law by Raymond Westbrook) it goes on to say that freedom is pretty relative in the eastern culture, it's diverse and the use of the term slave supports this. A slave could be describe a free citizen who is simply a social subordinate. It was used to describe a subject to a king, and it was also used to describe the king himself (if he was a vassal) as a slave to his emperor.
It's strange to me how you keep going on about Exodus, which is agreed upon almost universally by scholars as the first and most rigorous defense of the freedoms and rights and general humanitarianism of slaves, unparalleled in ancient history. But ok, let's talk about Exodus and pretend none of that other pesky stuff has happened. Exodus 21 talks about a daughter being sold for a dowry-less marriage. This was not seen as a harshness, but it was seen as a father providing for his daughter, often he would prefer and find it superior to arrange for her indenture to a well founded, or well supported neighbor than it would be to marry someone who did not fit that bill of their own social class or standing. This ensured her future security. These were actions taken because of debt or poverty that actually threatened the stability and future of the household. You may ask how I know this since it's not mentioned in the Bible, well behold a book full of context for all of these things,
here it is.
There are a huge number of verses that cast any and all laws and commandments about the treatment of slaves, in context to how the Israelites were treated by the Egyptians, which actually
was analogous to modern day slavery ideas. I mean, look at Deuteronomy
it's full of this constant reminder, to remember their own harsh treatment. I don't really see the point in this if anything goes and slavery was just as it was in respects to modern day slavery ( Deuteronomy 5:6; 6:12, 21; 7:8; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 19 and there are more in other books too).
It doesn't require consent. So in many cases she probably did consent, but in some of these cases, she wouldn't be mature enough to consent (at least by our modern day standards), and it never requires her to consent.
Exodus 21, where is never once mentions she must consent.
This seems like an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy - in that if it doesn't mention it, you feel it's positive affirmation of it's lack. Whilst I would probably agree after researching some things that consent was not required this seems likely to be a provision for parents or guardians, rather than an arbitrary commandment to strip away freedom.
If you set rules allowing something, you condone it, even if you don't agree with it.
Addressed above.
A. it isn't programmed in.
B. that is no way makes it absolute.
This is just you nay-saying again.
Please read the Bible where children can be sold by their parents (if there was a debt, it is the parents debt that the child is being forced to pay for, much like modern day middle east where parents will force a 9 year old into a child marriage to pay off a debt), and where slaves came as a result of war.
It seems audacious to me, being one of the 'haves' to arbitrarily overlook the situation of a 'have-not'. In many instances, according to historical record these families had no choice. You seem to think about this very idealistically and naively in that from your perspective, this is so morally wrong. But you live in a house, have electricity, water, food, a job, security and so forth (yes, I'm assuming this since you are posting on an internet forum it seems fairly well substantiated) these families had no choice, nowhere else to go, and no ability to do anything other to repay their debts. In our world, we cast people out onto the street. We don't have any provisions for them, in fact the number of homeless is growing. Some die on the streets in countries with cold climates. Some are abused, robbed, mugged of what little they do have, some are subject to the most heinous of theft where their bodily organs are taken. When faced with such a choice as this, I cannot fault a family for indenturing their daughter, or themselves to another if it would secure their future in light of what the alternative would be, which is likely death. Especially if A) They would be released from this after 6 years if they desired it, and B) Their daughters may find a husband and have a secured future.
The being released after seven years did not apply to all slaves.
Only in respects to keeping the marriage bond sacred, else it did apply to all slaves.
So breaking up a family is no wicked?
You seem to feel this power was wielded arbitrarily and you also forget this servitude was entered into freely, unless the parent or guardian took over the decision, and in many cases this was done because it was a life or death situation, not because they just felt like making an extra buck and had an argument with their daughter...
======
Lastly, I am somewhat appalled at your desire
to make this something it's not. Do you desperately need to believe this for some reason? Dismissing the context, dismissing the history, the culture, the circumstance and alternatives and all substantiating and refuting passages you still want so desperately for this to be God or the Bible caught up in wickedness. Despite the fact that many,
many Christian movements have fought so hard to abolish slavery and slave practices in our recent history, and them being told to 'leave religion out of this' (sounds familiar doesn't it?) you still feel that your tiny out of context passage holds an absolute view. In a world where we arbitrarily kill unborn children on a whim, you feel that the strictest regulation of slaves, the absolute governing of their treatment, and constant reminder to the Israelites of their own slavery, much harsher, much more in line with our modern day equivalent is so abhorred as to color the entire Bible.
I guess I have a theoretical question now, which is let's for a moment assume that God was condoning and positively approving of all our worst nightmares in regards to slavery - what does this mean to you and where do you wish to go with that thought.
(Also you didn't answer my question about your grounds for finding something morally wrong)