Then you imagine God himself said it (or at least meant to say it).

That's why the Magisterium exists and why Protestantism is false. Even in the times of Jesus he had to explain some passages from the Scriptures, since people were making all kind of wild interpretations. So the authority voice is in the genesis of Christianity itself.

@@hullie7529 What about the Orthodox? How do you determine who talks to God when multiple people claim to?

Well Leviticus pertains to the Levites, the "priest-class."

Not if you are being honest with yourself.

In the 1960s, my father was a junior member of a small team of researchers looking at the history of racial statements within his own denomination and tracing where these ideas may have come from. One thing he came across was the widespread "cursed seed of Ham" being applied to Black Africans (and their descendants in Europe and America). White South African religious leaders were extremely fond of it. But it's a really old theory, which has existed most of the time that Genesis has been in its current form.

If the Bible could be interpreted one way to _support_ the institution of apartheid and in another way to _abolish_ the same institution, would it be fair to say that the text itself is neutral; and the fault was with the interpretation (or, perhaps, more accurately, the interpreters)?

​@@WORDSMITHBERGERno it wouldnt be fair. How people interpreted text in history has no weight whatsoever on what it actually said and taught.

@magnificentuniverse3085 "It wouldnt be fair. How people interpreted text in history has no weight whatsoever on what it actually said and taught." By this same argument, we should be able to agree that it would certainly be more reasonable than to interpret the text with _modern_ context. Otherwise, one risks committing a historians fallacy. This is why hermeneutics matters.

@@WORDSMITHBERGER You say 'neutral'. I say 'useless'.

I quote Exodus 21 in actual debate with actual scholars like Dr. Josh. Failed. Don't blame us because you clustered yourself in an echo chamber and therefore never heard exodus 21. Slavery is punishable by death in the OT. 😂😂😂😂

​@@rebukeandreprove. It very explicitly allows slavery. 1. It very clearly allows nicer forms of slavery like debt slavery 2. The nice bits are constrained within the *CONTEXT* of: • *BUYING* a slave. This does not cover • Earning one through righteous (according to Yahweh/the priests) warfare ⚔. • A slave being made by the law e.g. for the life for a life commandments where applicable • Making new slaves by breeding (something that explicitly happens in Exodus 21) • *HEBREW* slaves, so foreigners can be slaves (by the way slaves are not strangers, so don't try going down *that* route) 3. It is hilariously easy to exploit with legal loopholes and basic intelligence. • Getting them addicted to drugs 💉 is allowed • Not teaching them proper language skills is allowed (so they will be nigh useless in the job market) • Lying 🤥 (not bearing false witness) to them about how cruel everyone else is • Emotionally manipulating them • Using their family as a lure/threat Of course, all of this would be obvious with basic reading comprehension, basic imagination, and no confirmation bias. 🙄🙄🙄

​@@rebukeandreprove. *Slavery* Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock. *The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.* However, you may purchase male or female *slaves* from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your *slaves* like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) *The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.* If you buy a Hebrew *slave,* he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your *slave* and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a *slave,* then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a *slave,* and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the *slave* may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the *slave* will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these? *The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?* When a man sells his daughter as a *slave,* she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a *slave* girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them! *What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrongdoing.* When a man strikes his male or female *slave* with a rod so hard that the *slave* dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the *slave* survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the *slave* is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) *You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.* *Slaves,* obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Christians who are *slaves* should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) *In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.* The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

​@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavanathere's a passage in 1 Timothy that says slavers go to hell

@@Dude_bruh You do know we have the Internet 🧑‍💻 now and such blatantly untrue statements won't stand? ➊ It is very clearly talking about the LAW, as in the normal thing and not directly from God 🤖 punishment, from who it is addressed to. Don't forget Christianity ✝ used to be a legal judging entity, before every single nation realised that was a stupid idea and ousted the Church ⛪ from any real legal power to judge crime. ➋ It says literally nothing about Hell 🔥🔥🔥 ➌ It is clearly talking about kidnapping, something against every nation's legal system. Don't let the strawman of "evil 😈" nations you don't like fool 🤡 you. ➍ Paul immediately says he was one of them, meaning they are definitely (if we are trusting Paul for some reason) redeemable i.e. not definitely going to Hell 🔥🔥🔥 ➎ This is clearly talking about people who are naturally evil 😈. It is not a judgement on whether the act is always bad, just that it is common for naturally evil 😈 people to do. An example of something we consider is bad but technically good people can do is not give to charity when you are very rich. Not giving to charity could have a reason, but it *is associated* with evil.

I was gonna say the same thing. Lincoln was personally a moderate abolitionist, but he specifically played that down in public because him being an abolitionist was one of the biggest causes for the secession even before he was inaugurated. The emancipation proclamation was largely just politically practical, and didn't even emancipate all slaves because there were still slave states in the Union.

All except Native Americans. There he was MUCH worse than Hitler could have dreamed to be. Lincoln was the greatest mass murderer in history, but we subdue it, because apparently USA abuse really ties up to the cruelty of YHWH? Lincoln was the ultimate psychopath.

his eagerness to genocide indigenous people far outweighed his tepid abolitionist leanings.

@@diegesisfreak I mean by that metric we could just disavow anything any president has ever done, if it so suits you

@@firstpersonwinner7404 sounds good to me "the only good American is a dead American" as they say

No morality without God. We'd be living in a communist society most likely if God had not been the heart of western civilization. Prove me wrong. Where do you get your morality from if not yourself, and if not yourself, does it apply to everyone or is morality arbitrary?

that's a good point, using 'in Moses day' as there is little to no evidence the biblical Moses existed ... you are starting a argument with a fairytale

This is beside the point. The Bible does not outlaw or condemn slavery. Christian and Jewish changes of social opinion on slavery happened independent of the Biblical passages on it from the Old and New Testaments. The NT at no time talks down or defends slavery but, comments on the suffering of the slaves and instructs to obey their masters regardless. In other words, where the Bible doesn't outright endorse slavery, it is hands off.

@@chadtyrone Many places in the world have no suitable vegetation to wipe with, do not have plumbing and water treatment for bidets let alone toilets, and do not have the money to import paper for the wasteful practice of wiping, in our modern age, today.

Stockholm syndrome.

It's almost like you can read whatever you want in the Bible, depending on your personal goals?

@@tehjhuNot almost is, but is!! 😂

​@@ritawing1064 Druggie

There are different voices in the bible. You can emphasise certain passages over others: "in Christ there is no slave or free", for instance, as against the pro-slavery position.

show me the verse in which debt slaves children were chattel slaves.

@@Dude_bruh Exodus 21:1-6. Male slaves who went into slavery single (so single debt-slaves, single chattel slaves or chattel slaves who were sold independently of their family, and thus were forced to be single) could be given female slaves by the master of their household to form a family with. Female slaves were generally never released (with the few later exceptions that Dan spelled out) and children of slaves stayed with their mothers, so they remained slaves. Having been born as slaves, they were just part of the slave class. If a male was married when they were debt-enslaved, then the whole family was essentially enslaved but then the whole family would be freed when the male slave were freed, and that is the main exception but otherwise children born from slaves remained slaves.

@@Zahaqiel I thought the master giving the servant a wife meant the masters daughter or some female relative he was in charge of, was it of other slaves?

@@Dude_bruh It was slaves. If you gave a female family member (daughter or otherwise) to a slave, they essentially could not marry anyone afterwards. In fact, attempting to marry off a daughter or other female family member after they had slept with someone was explicitly a death sentence under the law for that woman.

@@Zahaqiel I realized that the wife of the debt servant and their children remain enslaved because they were still enslaved permanently. I wonder if it was possible to marry him to a debt slave.

Even worse: only the male Hebrews.

Came here to give that shirt a shout out too! 😂

We only have what people declare themselves to think: if such a declaration was hypocritical or lying, we cannot know what was "really" thought, something politicians might well bear in mind today, too. There is plenty of evidence that Lincoln, in common with his peers, thought that races were unequal - why would we think he was lying here?

I was about to comment this as well. From my own research Lincoln seemed to be against slavery but wasn't an abolitionist in the sense that he wanted the Fed to weigh in on it. Instead, it seemed he wanted to states to retain their decisions. He personally would want it abolished, but he didn't feel it was the Fed's place to force the states. Frederick Seward recalled the president saying "I never in my life felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper." in reference to the emancipation proclamation. He did his best to hold his arm as still as possible as he signed and explained he did that because any tremor in his handwriting could have been interpreted as a mental reservation about the proclamation. I feel that we have enough about Lincoln form what he generally believed. He may not have always viewed black people as the same with whites and held prejudices (though these faded over time thanks to the Civil War and first hand experiences with black people such as Frederick Douglas) but he always was against slavery and was in favor of black people being freed and his long term plan was for black people to be migrated out of the US to set up their own societies and colonies elsewhere. "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." Abraham Lincoln. TL;DR: Lincoln was anti-slavery, though would reign it in in public for political appearance but viewed black people as equal in terms of "man" but not the same as white, and we have pretty good evidence that he progressed further on this in his life.

Capitalism is pretty gross.

Capitalism incentivises slavery... People want to know how to make sex trafficking go away? Two steps - abolish patriarchy and abolish capitalism.

He did. It's just hard for humans to fully understand an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God

@@robithesir humans that you think he created. He wrote a crystal clear book for the humans he created too dumb to understand the crystal clear book he wrote? Yeah that totally makes sense 🤣😂

@@jerryhayes9497 we understand enough. For example, people don't fully understand the trinity even though it's biblical. And u don't believe that we are created. So u think we came from thin air or?????

@@robithesir understand enough? Is that why there are thousands of denominations, all arguing about what it means? We evolved over billions of years.. If your question actually is... Where did the universe come from? Then the answer is, we don't know

This is the point where you think you have won... But all you have actually done is fallen for a logical fallacy. The argument from ignorance fallacy AKA the god of the gaps fallacy.. "Science doesn't know, therefore a god did it" ISN'T LOGICAL

So who’s your favorite Mordad? 😜 But seriously though, if I had him in my Sunday School class, I’d actually be motivated to go.

There were early Christians like him who were against slavery as an institution, but I think they didn't prevail as majority views for centuries.

@@jackcimino8822 yes I agree the "nearly 2000 years" timeline is accurate insofar as we're talking about a common or widespread interpretation

The problem was that there was money to be made. De las Casas had a better argument than Sepùlveda, but it didn't matter.

No, he’s saying that Christianity was used by Bible-Belt slave owners to justify keeping slaves. The implication of the remark that it took 2,000 years for people to decide slavery was wrong is that this decision was based more on an evolution of the _Zeitgeist_ than it was driven by biblical imperatives and that Christianity was invoked only to ease the adoption of an anti-slavery stance.

If you have to bring up loopholes, I think it is understood by you all that God regulating slavery for a time doesn't mean that He is PRO-chattel slavery. You guys have to be anti-christians, dishonorable atheists, and/or plain grifters to keep this going.

​@@dustinrichburg8638 Every LAW has loopholes ➿. Pretending otherwise is just plain delusional. Loopholes ➿ are a part of the law, not a failure of it. If you don't like them, that is a you 🫵 problem, not a law or loophole user problem Also,: • Regulating anything means you are okay with it happening, or powerless to stop it. God 🤖 is clearly powerful enough to stop it. • The regulations are not even that good. 6 years is much longer than the payback time of work training. • Non-chattel slavery is still slavery. Something being less bad, doesn't make it not that thing. • The Bible ✝ clearly has de facto chattel slavery • The Bible ✝ doesn't regulate slavery ⛓👤 anymore than a peak pro-slavery society would have to ensure market stability. You need to make a *strawman* of slave owning societies to try and distinguish the Bible's ✝ rules from it. Believers get away with a lot of nonsense based entirely on the fact that humans constantly forget the humans they deem evil 😈 are people too.

Yes, there were several centuries where linsey-woolsey is a preferred fabric for a number of uses.

It's a real rule as written, but it existed within the religious code for symbolic reasons.

Legal recognition of such, and/or the ability to commerce with something.

@howlrichard1028 So, if money changes hands in exchange for something, that and that _alone,_ constitutes ownership? Does legal recognition of ownership require some sort of documentation, like a receipt, title, deed, or registration?

I've heard it suggested that textiles identified the tribe one belonged to, so mixing them would create a confused identity. I don't remember where I heard it nor can I make a claim on the voracity, so🤷

@@Hornfancy That's new to me, but would fit with the importance of "boundary maintenance"

Oh ok man, could you explain to me a little more brother? Lincon said "political speech" or what dan said? I need help understanding brother, God bless you

The quote about his preference for keeping the union whole and keeping slavery was in a personal letter. Also, if your values are determined by how you can most easily keep a position of power, your value is that power.

Indeed

It just so happens that most of the major Abolisionists from Gregory Nissa all the way to Abraham Lincoln were Christians.

​@@jaskitstepkit7153 And so were the slavers.

Not most of them.

No. The foreign slave was a slave for life, and so were his children as per leviticus. As for slavery vs starvation, your dichotomy is false. There are many other humane and moral options that don't include slavery as an option to avoid starvation. Humans in civilised countries have been doing it for decades. Just because the christian gods of the bible are too stupid to come up with moral and humane solutions to poverty that isn't slavery, doesn't mean human beings can't and haven't.

No.. Just slavery. The god that created the galaxies stars moon and sun is in a tent in the middle of the desert talking about owning slaves.

I understand your point, but that's not what Dan is doing here. The thing is, many apologists (like the one Dan is responding to here) claim that the Bible does not condone slavery when it clearly does, regardless of historical context.

the book was written by jews, for jews. it has laws for jews, and for how jew should interact with non-jews which is not at all the same thing as supremacy.

@@billjohnson9472 The bible teaches that God will destroy all nations except Israel and when he reestablishes the nations they will have to come to Israel to pay tribute to him. Seems pretty clear to me that the Jewish people are special in God's sight in a way that no other nation is. I should mention that I am neither Jewish nor am I saying this to condemn what the Bible teaches as I believe it in its entirety. The simple fact is though that the Jews are God's chosen people and there is no way around that. However right now you can be adopted by God and become his child in which case you are neither a Jew or Gentile but a son of God (Galatians 3:27-29 KJV). John 4:22 KJV Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. Jeremiah 30:11 KJV For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished. Zechariah 8:23 KJV Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

@@WellFedSheep like I said, written by jews for jews. so of course they write that their god chose them. just as the people of Athens said that Athena chose them.

@@billjohnson9472 We might have different understandings of what supremacy means. My point is the bible does not teach white supremacy as many try to twist it into saying, but rather teaches that the Jewish people are in fact the chosen people of God which makes them inherently superior due to the favor they receive. Just because it was written by Jews does not change the fact that it teaches this. The reason I made this assertion in my original comment was to point out the error in using the bible to prop up white supremacy movements as being somehow ordained by God when the bible does not give any such favor to the white Gentile races.

@@WellFedSheepThe “favour” Jews have received from God presumably includes the 1,000 years of persecution and terror at the hands of Europeans and Eurasians that culminated in the murder of one-third of them in the 20th Century by Nazis. God either willed that, or chose not to grant his “superior” subjects release from that suffering.

Omg this nonsense apolgetic by christian aplogists and regurgitated by stupid christians who are too lazy to read their own bible and christian history is the worst. The bible clearly legislates brutal chattel slavery in leviticus and Deuteronomy. Debt slavery was ONLY for hebrew men. Hebrew women could be sold intobsex slavery by their fathers (see exodus) or taken as POWs if they were foreigners. Then there's the legislating allowing Hebrews to take foreigners and their children as chattel slaves and pass them on to their children as an inheritance FOR LIFE!!! It then clearly states how brutally you can beat your foreign chattel slaves. These were the laws christians followed for the majority of the last 2000 years as their foundation of christian slavery, including the transatlantic slave trade. As for slavery laws of cultures around Israel, they were much more merciful, such as the Hamarabi codes which allowed slaves to be freed after 3 years as opposed to 6 in hebrew slavery. They also had more protections for chattel slaves. So not sure where you get the idea that hebrew slavery was better? As for Darwin, christians already held that black people were inferior centuries before Darwin ever existed. When he published Origin of the Species it didn't bolster the christian belief of racial superiority. In fact it wasn't long after it wad published that the civil war in the US began to end slavery. So you are literally pulling christian slavery revisionism out of your butt.

Contracts require consent.

@@squiddwizzard8850 e.g. selling yourself into slavery. Jacob (Israel) served 7 years twice. So very "abominable" that they would have a way of dealing with poverty that was mutually beneficial.

@@likemanner I was moreso speaking to chattel slavery and sex slavery. But even sent slavery is horrific. You lose your job and go into debt and you act like slavery is a fair, just solution?

@@squiddwizzard8850 Yes, well, it was debt slavery that he called abominable, and by implication, chattel slavery worse than abominable. A few things to consider. Which is worse, absolute poverty and destitution or involuntary servitude as covered by the laws of Israel? Being a slave in ancient Israel or a slave virtually anywhere else in the world? A slave that found their conditions unbearable were given the right to flee, as they could not legally be returned to their master. If they were harmed to the point of losing a a single tooth, they were to go free. Slaves were often treated as family, and absent another heir might even inherit their master's estate. Slaves were not kidnapped from foreign countries, but could be purchased from there (they were already slaves), or gotten through conquest (perhaps delivered from a war-ravaged land, empty of the human resources and infrastructure necessary to maintain a stable economy). Slavery, voluntary or not, was a mutually beneficial institution that is viewed negatively only from the vantage of a highly industrialized, technically advanced society that has rendered such labor unnecessary.

​@@likemanner *Slavery* Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock. *The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.* However, you may purchase male or female *slaves* from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your *slaves* like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) *The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.* If you buy a Hebrew *slave,* he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your *slave* and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a *slave,* then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a *slave,* and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the *slave* may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the *slave* will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these? *The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?* When a man sells his daughter as a *slave,* she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a *slave* girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them! *What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrongdoing.* When a man strikes his male or female *slave* with a rod so hard that the *slave* dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the *slave* survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the *slave* is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) *You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.* *Slaves,* obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Christians who are *slaves* should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) *In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.* The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

you just illustrate that the words of the bible are not really meaningful if you can interpret them in many different ways. however the text clearly condones slavery and gives specific rules about it so that is not a matter of interpretation, it is clearly stated in the text.