Plenty. As I said, you have no understanding of the culture or the context of the passage. You are motivated only by your bias, which is quite transparent! So, trying to explain this very complex issue to you is a futile endeavor. Tell me, why should I waste my time trying to study this issue with someone who has no respect for true historical analysis and is motivated by militant skepticism? Why should I? Hmm? Our numerous exchanges on this thread have shown me that you aren't interested in the truth. It is for this reason that I try to avoid discussing the bible on these threads - it is pointless to defend the bible against someone with your attitude. Moreover, volumes could be and have been written on this topic, and you can't just brush it aside and make a hasty conclusion by posting a couple scriptures. The word "slavery" in these scriptures does not conform to your western idea of slavery. Simply posting scriptures from the OT is not sufficient to prove that God condones chattel slavery. Sorry.
However, I will attempt the beginning a response anyway simply because I want to convey to you how complex this topic is.
God says: Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life
1. Clearly, God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:
Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery ]
2. The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the automatic freedom clauses (yes hebrew-hebrew slavery was not slavery at all, but economic bond servanthood and freedom was easily attained under redemption laws - have you looked those up?), but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for live' (implying that it was not automatic.).
3. The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:
"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)
As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.
Indeed, it must still be remembered that the nation of Israel was supposed to welcome runaway foreign slaves with open arms (Deut 23.15).
4. Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.
It should also be recognized that the Law did make some allowance for less-than-ideal praxis in the day (e.g. polygamy, divorce), but nevertheless regulated these practices and placed definite limits and protections around these areas. This foreign semi-slavery seems to have fallen into this category as well.
It is not to be expected that foreign servants would have the same rights and privileges as Hebrew servants, given the 'showcase' nature of the law. There were many distinctions along these lines, to highlight the value of covenant membership.
Many more things could be said but it would require a book. For example, masters were held accountable for the treatment of their slaves and did not allow injurious beating of servants. You and I are children of the Western World, and are famililar with the slavery of the American South. The word 'slavery' to you and I is such a powerful vortex of images, meanings, cries, and grief. It is improper for you to attach a western connotation (brutal chattel slavery of the American South) to slavery in ancient Israel. Any technical discussion of any type of forced labor or corvee becomes immediately inflamed when the word 'slavery' is attached to it, and I suspect that many others share this association.
However, slavery as discussed in the OT in relation to the Hebrews is not similar to western chattel slavery in the antebellum U.S. Negro slaves were TAKEN FORCERFULLY and were slaves for life by law, and were not even regarded as human beings. This is clearly not the case in ancient Israel as can be seen in the laws governing the practice.
There already is a Book. It deals extensively with slavery but fails to mention that it is morally wrong. The words I quoted are not just any old words. They are attributed directly to God. You can apply all the Clintonian rationalization you want, but you just dig your hole deeper.
You started by asserting that morality is absolute; you wind up making a case that would embarrass a first year law student. What you have just argued is that moral laws depend on circumstances so complex and so convoluted that it would take a whole book just to explain when it is permissible to treat another human being as property. (What is the difference, by the way, between property and chattel?) And presumably another whole book to explain when it is permissible to beat another human being to the point where he cannot move for two days.
You started this fight by declaring that moral laws are absolute. Look the word up. I stopped posting to you when it became obvious you were an embarrassment to your religion. You popped up again to taunt me with your self-porclaimed intellectual and moral superiority.
Now tell me, O wise one, where in the Bible does it say in plain language that owning other human beings as property is morally wrong?