Is Christian nationalism un-American?

It doesn't mention the sentiment of the servant (whether or not he's okay with it). but........

it also doesn't mention whether or not it's okay with the master. But there doesn't seem to be much arguing here.

How is this "very important"?  What difference does it make if chattel-slavery was OPTIONAL or MANDATORY?

I wouldn't mind answering the question except that it's not chattel slavery (Or, I don't see it that way). Therefore, how can I possibly answer that question?

I'm quite happy to let the words of the Bible speak for themselves. Let every Christian read what should be the single most important collection of literature to them. It doesn't take a Biblical scholar, historian, or language expert to comprehend chattel slavery is condoned in the Bible.

Well, people become believers just by the reading the Bible. So I don't think this to be a wise recommendation in terms of your purpose. What I think you're really suggesting is to read the Bible, but don't study it.

Just because you ignore the verses that contradict the idea of permissive chattel slavery, doesn't mean others will. When asking people to read the Bible, it's not a good idea to assume they will see as you see.

I absolutely want believers to read the Bible (all of the Bible) and not just verses ripped out of context by ignorant or dishonest defenders. So again, I encourage every believer to read their holy book. I do not mean read it as a devotional, but make a concerted effort to understand what thoughts inspired the words and how they fit together as-is.

Even in you're own (dubious) scenario, where most foreigners purchased as slaves are eventually set free, some become permanent slaves (and all are presumably property for a time). How does your understanding of "Do not oppress foreigners" square with that? After all, the verse doesn't say 'do not oppress *most* foreigners! 

I find little reason to object to an agreement made between consenting adults

Best I can tell, you're making a bald assertion that most slave 'relationships' were temporary. I don't buy that, but it does not matter.

By arguing most slaves (at best) were temporary you've allowed some permanent slavery. Not to mention, chattel slavery is not characterized by the length of time served, but by humans being owned (which is exactly what Levitical law allows). Is owning humans for any length of time moral, Rod?

..and the explicit wording of the Bible.

The Hebrews certainly operated a 'two-tier' system for Hebrew and non-Hebrews.  Hebrew 'slaves' were certainly better off than foriegn 'slaves' and I'd say its fair to say hebrews slaves were held under conditions resembing 'indetured servitude' but foreigners were essentially chattel.

My impression is that the Hebrews attude to slavery was entirely typical of the time and place.

The Hebrews certainly operated a 'two-tier' system for Hebrew and non-Hebrews.  Hebrew 'slaves' were certainly better off than foriegn 'slaves' and I'd say its fair to say hebrews slaves were held under conditions resembing 'indetured servitude' but foreigners were essentially chattel.

My impression is that the Hebrews attude to slavery was entirely typical of the time and place.

...but it would have been okay to force a foreigner to remain against his will, and be able to practice general abuse?

Please explain if you believe A and B are in conflict.

(A) Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.

(B) You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,

do you not understand?

Do you think it's relative?

These are probably what they had in mind when telling an Israelite he could, if he chose to, keep the FOREIGN servants for a lifetime. So normally where a foreign servant might decide to purchase their freedom if able, they may instead decide to stay with their master for life.

WHO CARES?  IF YOUR PERMANENT SLAVE DOESN'T WANT TO ESCAPE, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SLAVERY MORAL!!!!!!

Leviticus 25:46  You can bequeath them FOREIGN SLAVES to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,

but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

It doesn't mention the sentiment of the servant (whether or not he's okay with it). but........

BECAUSE IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.

Exodus 21:5 New International Version "But if the ISRAELITE BOND-servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,'

THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PURCHASING AND OWNING PERMANENT FOREIGN SLAVES.

it also doesn't mention whether or not it's okay with the master. But there doesn't seem to be much arguing here.

BECAUSE IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.

How is this "very important"?  What difference does it make if chattel-slavery was OPTIONAL or MANDATORY?

I wouldn't mind answering the question except that it's not chattel slavery (Or, I don't see it that way). Therefore, how can I possibly answer that question?

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF PURCHASING AND OWNING PERMANENT FOREIGN SLAVES WAS OPTIONAL OR MANDATORY?

Even if the purchased foreign permanent slaves never tried to escape and were never "abused" (other than what was considered acceptable slave labor at the time), this does not magically make this type of (chattel, property) slavery moral.

Slaves tend to be abused, but removing the abuse doesn't solve the "problem of slavery"

More than likely, if this even happened, the purchaser would have been quite wealthy, would have provided appropriate accommodations. So more than likely a foreign purchased slave would not have sought release (where would he go?).

I absolutely want believers to read the Bible (all of the Bible)

and not just verses ripped out of context by ignorant or dishonest defenders. 

So again, I encourage every believer to read their holy book. I do not mean read it as a devotional, but make a concerted effort to understand what thoughts inspired the words and how they fit together as-is.

An example of a verse ripped out of context would be Exodus 23:9 as a refutation to the allowance of chattel slavery in Levitucus 25:44-46. Exodus 23:9 says "do not oppress a foreigner...", but a full reading of Exodus 23 reveals this was a direction for judges in legal proceedings regarding foreigners. "Do not favor Israelites in matters of law - be impartial" is another way of saying this. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with legal protocols. The contradiction between these verses is made up. They compliment each other.

Even in you're own (dubious) scenario, where most foreigners purchased as slaves are eventually set free, some become permanent slaves (and all are presumably property for a time). How does your understanding of "Do not oppress foreigners" square with that? After all, the verse doesn't say 'do not oppress *most* foreigners!

Technically, most children remain with their parents of their own free will.

This fact alone does not prove that child abuse never happens.

Technically, most spouses remain with their partners of their own free will.

This fact alone does not prove that spousal abuse never happens.

Is your argument, IN DEFENSE OF CHATTEL-SLAVERY, really and truly, "the slave masters were really really nice"?

Being a nice slave-owner DOES NOT SOLVE THE MORAL PROBLEMS OF SLAVERY

Slaves tend to be abused, but removing the abuse doesn't solve the "problem of slavery"

Are you still insisting that a foreign servant could not leave his Hebrew master?

Slaves tend to be abused, but removing the abuse doesn't solve the "problem of slavery"

Is it immoral to purchase a slave with the intention of providing shelter, work/service, potentially becoming a family member, possibly becoming a family member, and eventually gaining the ability to provide for themselves? Is it better to leave them in the hands of [possibly very kind and or] oppressive slave owners?

In the current day are you the property of the state?

How did you get I am for prisons therefore I am for human property? Explain to me how those are the same.

Can you not defend Religion because it is indefensible or some other reason?

s it immoral to purchase a slave?  I guess not, IF YOU FREE THEM IMMEDIATELY.

this is not meant to suggest everything in the Bible  is complementary. Some things won't fit together given the sheer number of authors and the huge span of time between them.

Can you provide an example of a verse completely void of cross-references, and doesn't fit with the rest of the Bible?

Here's an entire list, [LINK]

Is it immoral to purchase a slave?  I guess not, IF YOU FREE THEM IMMEDIATELY.

That may actually have been abuse.

I think if, on the rare occasion (or if it actually even happened) that a slave was purchased from the foreign market, the Hebrew had a quite a responsibility, and obligation to provide sufficiently for the foreigner.

The idea, in every Hebrew law concerning foreigners, was to treat them respectfully in every situation.

The intent from God's perspective was to bless the foreigner. Any forced servitude contradicts that mandate.

Here's an entire list, [LINK]

I don't think alleged contradictions is the issue. It's definitely not what I was asking for.

Can you provide an example of a verse completely void of cross-references, and doesn't fit with the rest of the Bible?

Here's an entire list, [LINK]

I don't think alleged contradictions is the issue. It's definitely not what I was asking for.

You asked specifically for,

Can you provide an example of a verse completely void of cross-references, and doesn't fit with the rest of the Bible?

And I provided a detailed list of verses completely void of cross-references that don't fit with the rest of the Bible.

I find little reason to object to an agreement made between consenting adults.

Okay. I'll try to remember that the part about Hebrew slavery S1 is okay with.

Best I can tell, you're making a bald assertion that most slave 'relationships' were temporary. I don't buy that, but it does not matter. 

By arguing most slaves (at best) were temporary you've allowed some permanent slavery. Not to mention, chattel slavery is not characterized by the length of time served, but by humans being owned (which is exactly what Levitical law allows). Is owning humans for any length of time moral, Rod?

We don't even know if any foreign purchases even happened. And if it did, it probably would have been very rare. If the permanent slavery was by agreement, like as with the Hebrew servant who loved his master, what would be your problem?

Kidnapping a foreigner is punishable by death. Why do you think there was such an extreme penalty for kidnapping/forced slavery, but it would have been okay to force a foreigner to remain against his will, and be able to practice general abuse?

..and the explicit wording of the Bible.

Kill your engine is pretty explicit. But it certainly doesn't mean to open your hood and take a sledge hammer to it. it simply means, turn the key in  your ignition to the left.