Is Christian nationalism un-American?

Public service announcement: if you believe there is no chattel slavery in the Bible...READ YOUR BIBLE.

Public service announcement: if you believe there is no chattel slavery in the Bible...READ YOUR BIBLE.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

Lev 25:39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors.

First question that comes to mind, do you include the Israelite 7 year servitude as a valid alternative to imprisonment, or do you include that in the overall assessment that the Bible endorses the evil institution of slavery?

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

Would you agree that the underlined statement suggests that making a foreign servant a slave for life was an option, therefore making the lifelong slaves was not the norm?

Public service announcement: if you believe there is no chattel slavery in the Bible...READ YOUR BIBLE.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

So I'll ask the question to you I asked S1. What do you think were the circumstances that lead up to a foreign servant eventually leaving their master?

Depends on what you mean. The argument against biblical slavery is owning another human being. So if that's the case, what about the (American) military and prisons? 

What about the 7 year voluntary servitude scenario laid out for an Israelite? They were given a choice between serving (and being owned) for 7 years to pay off damages or an act of theft, or go to prison (where they will also be owned).

People seem to have different levels of what is acceptable ownership of another human, and even different levels of what is acceptable in terms of biblical servitude. Some seem to be okay with the 7 year scenario, but not with the purchasing of a foreign slave. Or, they just want to focus on foreign slaves because they just think focusing on that make for a stronger case.

Where do you yourself draw the line on what is acceptable ownership of a human, from modern contemporary institutions I referred to, to biblical references to slavery/servitude?

The inquisitive person will wonder why the slaves for life option wasn't automatic?

What do you think were the circumstances that lead up to a foreign servant eventually leaving their master?

And again, it's a very important question in relation to the allegation.

There are going to be some people who grow up in church, that don't read the bible a whole lot who will, at least for a time, believe the claim that the bible supports chattel slavery. There are going to probably more who read the claim, and immediately accept it with no question who already have a bent towards the bible, Christianity, Abrahamic religion, monotheism, or religion in general. Once people start to question the empirical demanding claim that the bible supports chattel slavery (or any other demonizing claim) the atheist activist orgs that make these claims will get exposed for what they are. Especially since they'll generally admit that they're not bible scholars, historians, Hebrew/Greek and biblical language experts.

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.

chattel slavery is condoned in the Bible.

I'm not aware of any ideological differences on those matters, more so pertaining to institutional integrity in the United States.

Do you hold any ideals that are exclusively Conservative?

My political sympathies tend to be populist bleeding heart: looking out for the little guy, enabling the people, Pro-Small business, corporate skeptic, equality of opportunity, staunch respect for human rights, promotion of democracy.   

Probably shouldn't get in the habit of assigning hard labels in complex topics, but I guess I'm kind of a liberal's liberal.  

My political sympathies tend to be populist bleeding heart: looking out for the little guy, enabling the people, Pro-Small business, corporate skeptic, equality of opportunity, staunch respect for human rights, promotion of democracy.   

I can relate to one idea, that given a productive and morally upright society a state that is governed best may come to be governed least.  Personally, I would be inclined to disagree with a popular appeal that the government is always in the way, as political figures will justify all sorts of cuts as the means to such an end.  I don't take such a notion to be exclusive of any particular philosophy, except probably those explicitly predicated on submission to the state, state socialism, fascism, communism etc...  On another mark, you mentioned Republicans earlier, but conservatism isn't exclusive to a political party.  Republican is not synonymous with conservative.  I think people can go a bit far sometimes in rhetoric associating traditionalist tendencies of the South with conservatism and Republicans.  The Democratic National Committee is not inherently exclusive.  

The sentence in question makes it clear that provision does not apply to foreigners who may be 'slaves for life'.

They don't have the same provision. But doesn't mean they don't have any provision. Just not the same. The foreigner for one, is probably not going to have a clan to go back to. Their provision lies more in becoming a citizen.

Let's look at Abram in Genesis, the earliest representative of Israelite history

I understand the indentured servitude agreement between Israelites to be an exchange of service for forgiveness of debt or help with necessities beyond the purchasing power of the would-be servant. It could be that one individual needed a cow, but couldn't afford it. However, he could trade 7 years for a cow. I'm not sure how it would work if he needed two cows...is that still seven years, or would it be 2 service terms? At any rate, it was an agreement for servanthood, not slavery, and individuals would have entered into these arrangements willingly. When I speak of slavery in the Bible, this is not what I mean.

I wasn't asking if you understood the agreement. I was asking if you thought Israelite indentured servitude was immoral?

No, and it is irrelevant. Even if it were not the norm, it is still accurate to say chattel slavery is expressely condoned by the Bible. 

This isn't an extraordinary claim, sir. An extraordinary claim would be something like "I can fly like Superman"...or, "I once held my breathe for two weeks". We could rightly expect some substantial evidence in these cases.

My claim is quite mundane in comparison, and I've pointed to evidence that is sufficiently appropriate.

I agree with American positions because for one reason they are based on things tangible whereas the Bible is based on the intangible. Are you actually going to defend your specific Christianity or are you going to carry on engaging with whataboutism?

Who cares if it was "normal" or not.

It expressly allows the practice, which is the opposite of condemning the practice.

You are telling me that is a good deal. Become slave labor or being a prison slaved? You just admitted having slaves is wrong so what is going on here? 

Do you agree the people who engaged with 7 year slave labor or imprisoning people while owing them did a wrong thing? Do also tell me what they did wrong.

In your very first response you said yes slavery is wrong yet here you are discussing how we shouldn't tolerate foreign slaves but 7 year seems to be okay. Do you agree with it and why?

Why am I answering your questions? Can you actually defend your Religion?

I'm just as confused as you are. First off, it wasn't slave labor. It was voluntary servitude along with laws meant to protect the Israelite from abuse.

If I gave you the choice to be a slave and work for me and be a slave but be imprisoned. What choice do you have of not being a slave? Please do answer.

Do you take issue with community service as alternative to doing time?

What did these Israelites do to deserve indentured servitude? If they owed a substantial amount of money, they could work it off by volunteering servitude. Or, they damaged property, or stole from an individual, they could volunteer servitude.

I agreed that slavery, and even servitude is bad.

What I meant was it's bad that people steal, damage property, owe money, commit crimes in general that causes the indentured servitude model to exist. It would be ideal to not need these servant scenarios, but I believe it's a better alternative to imprisonment. Particularly since it's obvious servants become equivalent to family members at times.

I don't know why you're answering my questions. And I don't need to defend my religion.

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

Clearly, the practice of permanent chattel-slavery was not condemned in the law.

Buying permanent foreign slaves was not MANDATORY.  So what?  Why does this matter to you?

They might die, or escape, or be released voluntarily, or purchase their freedom.  This feels like a rhetorical question.

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

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.

My theory (if I can borrow that phrase from Keith) is that if someone wants to see the Bible refuted, they will immediately accept the interpretation of the typical atheist activist. They read the verse that by contemporary interpretation looks like a support of chattel slavery at first glance, and accept it as a nail in the coffin. Then they get mad when other people actually study what the scriptures are actually saying, and conclude otherwise.

We Americans aren't all that great at phrasing terms.

"Watch your step" is one example.

In Japan, they try to accommodate westerners by putting up signs saying "Watch your steps". It's a misspelling of the last word, but makes a lot more sense. Can you though imagine a Japanese person suggesting that Americans are only concerned with watching just one step? And that after watching that first step down the stairs, take their eyes off the stairs and looking up the rest of the time, allowing them to misstep and tumble down the rest of the stairway?

I think a Japanese person would understand that it's an issue of language interpretation or translation, and that Americans are not really promoting carelessness, or partial-carefulness.

If I gave you the choice to be a slave and work for me and be a slave but be imprisoned. What choice do you have of not being a slave? Please do answer.

One doesn't. They've removed that freedom when they committed a crime. Committing crimes remove freedom.

The state doesn't own prisoners. The prisoners can choose community service. Whatever result they choose they are not human property. 

I am for prisons and community service esc things. Just don't like the human property part.

Why because you Religions is indefensible or am asking for a truism when trying to ask you to defend your Religion?

I wasn't asking if you understood the agreement. I was asking if you thought Israelite indentured servitude was immoral?

No, and it is irrelevant. Even if it were not the norm, it is still accurate to say chattel slavery is expressely condoned by the Bible. 

It most certainly is relevant. If most of the foreign servant relationships end up temporary, there must be a good reason. These foreign servants must be going somewhere. Where do you think the released foreign servant goes?

My claim is quite mundane in comparison, and I've pointed to evidence that is sufficiently appropriate.

At this point the only evidence I'm seeing is that the Bible condones chattel slavery because S1, Omar, 3RU7AL and Keith Prosser say so.

One doesn't. They've removed that freedom when they committed a crime. Committing crimes remove freedom.

Is this a confession that prisoners are human property?

I may not be clear on what you mean.