I dont think it matters if theres evidence that people followed these directives, or how the slaves were treated. Even if we took for granted that not a single slave was harmed (we don't have any evidence for that either, the only thing that speaks on the subject is what's in the bible), owning another human as property is still wholly immoral - it goes against the basic human right to freedom.
All of this is very nice, but you can still own slaves for hard labour. Its literally the first line. It doesn't matter how you treat your slaves. Owning them is awful.
And that's the difference between you and I. For me, morality is based on whether or not harm was done. The label, the title, and the legal definition ("people are property") are much less important than what people actually did.
Example:
When a sovereign ruler amassed large quantities of foreign slaves for a large building project. Is it moral or immoral? I propose, it's impossible to tell without more facts. A person would need to know:
- how the slaves became slaves in the first place
- how the monarch acquired the slaves
- what were the living conditions before the monarch acquired them
- what were the living conditions after the monarch acquired them
If the monarch used their army and literally stole people out of the homeland; where they were happy law abiding citizens; forced them to work long hours in harsh conditions; fed them poorly; treated them like property; then, that's immoral.
If the monarch purchased slaves who were already being treated horribly and improved their situation significantly; then, maybe it's not immoral.
Assuming that the first monarch is more likely based on the stories in the Bible and world history makes sense. But completely denying the possibility of the second monarch is a Presumption of Guilt.
Maybe looking at a less emotionally charged example will help?
Marriage. Marriage is defined in a very cold impersonal manner legally. But that's not what defines a marriage between two people. It's just cold and impersonal because that's how the law handles all issues.
If a couple gets married purely for the financial benefits and they don't really love each other or are committed to each other as a "till death do you part" couple; Are they actually married? In name only. Not in deed.
If a person is legally defined as a slave, but isn't treated like a slave are they still a slave?
You say, it doesn't matter how they are treated? Just listen to that?
It doesn't matter how they are treated???
...
Of course it matters how they are treated. If they are treated poorly, that is certainly worse that treating them well.
Just think about it. Doesn't it matter how they are treated? Does the legal definition matter more? or less? Does the label matter more or less?
-------------------------------------------------
I want to
try to make one more point.
--------------------------------------------------
When speaking about genocide, gender issues, death penalty, rights for gay people, you and I both agree that applying a literal interpretation of the bible is literally immoral.
If, as I have shown for slavery, the actual law does not follow the literal interpretation either and encouraged kind and merciful treatment why is that irrelevant?
It has been shown that the bible critics who have replied to this thread do not know the law. The bible critics who replied to this thread assumed that the law followed the literal English translation. And they assumed that abusing a slave was allowed by law.
Can you honestly say that
you, yourself did not assume that non-Jewish slaves could be legally beaten and humiliated based on the verses in the Old Testament, as long as they survived a few days after the beating?
Isn't it true that if I had ignored the legal details of Biblical Slavery, you would have maintained that assumption?
And doesn't it demonstrate a lack of intellectual integrity to claim that the legal definition is wholly irrelevant while earlier in the thread assuming that this sort of beating is legal, acceptable, and encouraged?
It all goes back to the fallacy of depending too much on a literal understanding of an English translation of the Old Testament. As I said, we both agree that a literal understanding would render immoral behavior.
If a Bible Critic literally refuses to accept that there is a deeper more complete, application of these verses in the face of evidence that supports it; then they are guilty of the same fallacy as anyone else who
insists on reading the English translation of the Old Testament and applying it literally.
Why would a Bible critic insist on maintaining their attachment to the literal translation? To prove a point. That's all. Since there is no Biblical Slavery today, all that's left is the principle.