Pelham: "However the same isn’t true for non-Hebrews as we see from the Leviticus text above."
Pelahm quoting BJK: "both Old and New Testaments oppose involuntary slavery to anyone"
Pelham: "It looks to me like the Leviticus text doesn’t fit your claim."
Obviously, since even a FRiendly poster like Sherman Logan doesn't seem to grasp the concepts, I can't really expect somebody in opposition, such as yourself, to "get it" the first time.
So I'll be patient.
The operative word in my quote above is "involuntary" slavery.
How could there possibly be "voluntary" slavery, you ask?
Well, that's what you have to "get" here.
The Bible applies the word "slave" to people we would call "indentured servants", meaning people who, in effect, contract to be "slaves" for so many years (usually seven) in order to, typically, pay off some debt.
Indeed, when Jesus says, "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors", those are some of the people He's talking about.
And the Bible is quite clear about involuntary slavery, even of non-Jews.
I refer you again to Exodus 21:16 ESV
And Deuteronomy 23:15 ESV:
So while the Bible permits involuntary slavery of non-Jews, it condemns precisely those practices which were major political issues from the time of our Founders to that of secessionists.
Pelham quoting BJK: "The New Testament also makes all followers of Christ in effect God’s chosen people."
Pelham: "Critics of 'replacement theology' don’t appear to share that view."
But we're not talking about "replacement theology" (whatever the h*ck that is), but rather the simple fact that the New Testament is a new covenant between God and Christ's Church.
It in effect makes Christians also God's people.
Less than Jews? Greater than Jews? Equal to Jews?
I'd say that's for theologians to argue, but we can be pretty sure: whatever they decide will almost certainly be wrong.
There are two covenants, that's all we need to understand.
And anyway: the issue of "replacement theology" is irrelevant to the politics of slavery in the 19th century.
What matters is that politicians of that time quoted both Old and New Testaments to justify their positions on slavery.
Nobody claimed that some Old Testament rule on slavery applied to just Jews and not to Christians.
Indeed, one major point of my argument here is that while race-based permanent chattel-slavery might possibly be justified biblically, based on such quotes as have been posted here, once slaves have converted to Christianity, then there's no biblical justification whatever for keeping them permanently enslaved.
Six years then free: that's God's rule for His people.
And you better not have forced them into slavery in the first place (or you die), and you better not return escaped slaves to their masters.
Otherwise, sure, the Bible is "OK with slavery".
Keep in mind that the OT laws were very innovative for their time. The eye-for-an-eye justice was actually an improvement over the previous ‘law’ which was blood feud that ran for generations in some cases.
What do you do with a conquered people? Realistically the choice is death or involuntary slavery. You can’t just release them into the territory you’ve just conquered. They don’t believe what you believe. They’re still functioning under blood feud and living, like you are at subsistence.
The kind thing in that instance and time would be involuntary servitude with the opportunity to convert. There is a solid tradition in the Bible of non-ethnic members rising up to positions of secular authority and also as prophets of God.