You forget the wars that followed later.
Not much validity to a symbol whose symbolism is ... forgotten.
... by the ignorant.
It isn't a matter of how well she's treated. It's a matter of her personal outlook on the situation.
So if a person is happy being a slave, then that's okay. And the way you use the Bible is meant to make people happy being slaves, thus promoting slavery.
You are missing a good way the Bible can be used to offer hope for slaves.
And if your neighbor did not object,
Then it's not slavery, a.k.a., involuntary servitude.
"First, do no harm." Is that it? Okay. Now I understand. See, all it takes is a sentence constructed according to rules of English grammar and I can fill in the blanks.
Not quite. Read the grammatically-correct sentences I wrote, such as "Do that which causes the least harm," and "Do that which causes the greatest happiness."
That's certainly a reward worth considering.
Bash kid's head in to get reward from God. Got it. And you were trying to tell me that divinely-delivered absolute morals are good? I think you'll need to use a different, more sane, tact.
Isn't it? According to your own ... guidelines? She's not being harmed. Isn't that your own yardstick for measuring right and wrong? If you're asserting that harm is NOT the ruling factor, then it almost seems like you're arguing for some sort of a ... [shudder] ... absolute! But that could never be. You're a relativist.
... the way you use the Bible is meant to make people happy being slaves, thus promoting slavery.
Is not opposing something the same as promoting it? Is the absence of a negative a positive? Your logic needs as much work as your rhetoric.
You are missing a good way the Bible can be used to offer hope for slaves.
The Bible's hope for slaves comes from the knowledge that God promises salvation irrespective of one's works. "Blessed are the poor in spirit ... Blessed are the meek ... Blessed are clean of heart ... Great is your reward in Heaven." This life is meaningless. There is no burden so great that the Lord cannot bear it. "I go to prepare a place for you ..." Those are words of hope.
Then it's not slavery, a.k.a., involuntary servitude.
Then if he resisted, you overcame him and enslaved him, but he refused to be crushed by that knowledge, and instead awoke every day with the intent of doing you his utmost service?
Primum non nocere.
First, do no harm. It's not part of the Hippocratic Oath, but I think I know what you're referring to.
Bash kid's head in to get reward from God. Got it. And you were trying to tell me that divinely-delivered absolute morals are good?
Presumably God has a reason for instructing you to bash in your child's head. I would imagine it has something to do with the likelihood that the child will grow up to be a blight on society, or worse, a Wiccan, if you don't. But in a world where men are the zenith of Creation, it is impossible to subvert one's will to the will of One Greater. Your resistance has as much to do with vanity as it has to do with compassion. As I recall, Abraham was instructed to bash in HIS son's skull with a rock. God stayed his hand before the deed was done, but in following God's instruction even at great cost, Abraham proved himself worthy of founding an entire nation. Your own arrogance would have caused you to fail that test, in thinking you could teach the Almighty lessons on compassion.
I think you'll need to use a different, more sane, tact.
I'm not the one bashing kids' heads in. Or looking for reasons to.