₦airaland Forum

CuteMadridista:
AwesomeJ, let me ask you a question
The type of slavery that the white people did to us, was it good?

AwesomeJ, please answer this question

CuteMadridista:
King, The cupbearer is your property and you can pass them unto me (your son) as "inheritance" but you must not do your personal chef this way

Now tell me what that also means? it seems you're not even reading through verses before tackling them, you're focusing on inanities while leaving the main points. you're reducing the big picture to the little one that makes sense to you. What else makes a man a inheritance that can be passed to children and children's children?

The point we're making is that it isn't stated that non Hebrew slaves must be perpetual slaves.

About the statement you made.

It actually sounds more like this:
King, The cupbearer is your property and you can pass them unto me (your son) as "inheritance" but you must not do your personal chef this way
BECAUSE THEY ARE MY OWN "INHERITANCE" Lev 26:42

Have you seen the balance now?

awesomeJ:
The point we're making is that it isn't stated that non Hebrew slaves must be perpetual slaves.

About the statement you made.

It actually sounds more like this:
King, The cupbearer is your property and you can pass them unto me (your son) as "inheritance" but you must not do your personal chef this way
BECAUSE THEY ARE MY OWN "INHERITANCE" Lev 26:42

Have you seen the balance now?

Warisdis?

CuteMadridista:
AwesomeJ, let me ask you a question

The type of slavery that the white people did to us, was it good?

It'd be silly of me to jump to conclusions on that.

I have the assumptions that the way those slaves from Africa was through Kidnap by the local chiefs, and they were treated like animals rather than employees.

If those assumptions are true, then I conclude that it was terrible.

But slavery in the Bible was not.

A slave became a prime minister in the world's largest economy at the time at only 30.
Was there any slave that even became a member of Parliament, let alone prime minister when Britons took slaves?

While Abraham was childless, his heir would have been one of his slaves, was it that way with the Britons, did they regard slaves so much as to put them in the class of an heir?

When Lot's city was capture by 5 kings, Abraham's slaves about 300 in all went against them and conquered.
Did the Britons build such a cordial and healthy relationship with their slaves, as to advance against enemies with slaves being a significant portion of the force? 300 men fought against 5 kings and won, can you picture how well nourished they must have been? can you also imagine how much of positive motivation and morale they must have had based on how well they were treated?

Should a prominent Briton want to carry out an important assignment, would he have delegated a slave to it, according him the freedom to go with whatever things he chose. That's referring to Abraham's servant on his hunt for Rebekah.

So you see, the two slavery forms aren't quite the same, the latter is a bastardized version of the former.

CuteMadridista:
Hehehehe I'm loving this swaying here and there hehehehe

In case of a free man, the beater compensates for lost work hours AND arranges for full recovery. which means he'll have to foot his medical bills too. you left that part out for a reason

A slave however has no compensation, nothing in it says his injuries are to be taken care of by his master and if he dies from his injuries days later its all good riddance he'll simply take another slave to beat to an inch of death again and its all good

Also if you blind their eyes, your punishment is that you simply set them free

You're wrong.

Should the slave die days after, the master will be tried for murder.

Seeing to the slave's recovery would be a given for the master. Remember, he needs his service.

awesomeJ:
It'd be silly of me to jump to conclusions on that.

I have the assumptions that the way those slaves from Africa was through Kidnap by the local chiefs, and they were treated like animals rather than employees.

If those assumptions are true, then I conclude that it was terrible.

are you still maintaining biblical slavery is same as employer employee?

But slavery in the Bible was not.

A slave became a prime minister in the world's largest economy at the time at only 30.
Was there any slave that even became a member of Parliament, let alone prime minister when Britons took slaves?

That was an overwhelming exception and it was Yahweh that directly favoured him. it would be dishonest to make it sound like its not a one off. also you're ignoring the slavery happening in Egypt wasn't on Yahweh's orders

While Abraham was childless, his heir would have been one of his slaves, was it that way with the Britons, did they regard slaves so much as to put them in the class of an heir?

Really? where was this written?

When Lot's city was capture by 5 kings, Abraham's slaves about 300 in all went against them and conquered.
Did the Britons build such a cordial and healthy relationship with their slaves, as to advance against enemies with slaves being a significant portion of the force? 300 men fought against 5 kings and won, can you picture how well nourished they must have been? can you also imagine how much of positive motivation and morale they must have had based on how well they were treated?

They might've just been sent to die, even the military today do that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000
even gave rise to "McNamara fallacy"

Should a prominent Briton want to carry out an important assignment, would he have delegated a slave to it, according him the freedom to go with whatever things he chose. That's referring to Abraham's servant on his hunt for Rebekah.

So you see, the two slavery forms aren't quite the same, the latter is a bastardized version of the former.

I'm yet to see any difference


I think you gave it your best shot and the thread is now on diminishing returns

However I want to ask, if you were in the USA or England at the time when slavery is legal and you want them to totally abolish it, what Bible verses would you quote totally abolishing it?

awesomeJ:
You're wrong.

Should the slave die days after, the master will be tried for murder.

Seeing to the slave's recovery would be a given for the master. Remember, he needs his service.

Show where its written that if he dies 3 days later the master would be tried for murder, I'll wait

CuteMadridista:
are you still maintaining biblical slavery is same as employer employee?

That was an overwhelming exception and it was Yahweh that directly favoured him. it would be dishonest to make it sound like its not a one off
Really? where was this written?

They might've just been sent to die, even the military today do that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000
even gave rise to "McNamara fallacy"


I'm yet to see any difference


I think you gave it your best shot and the thread is now on diminishing returns

However I want to ask, if you were in the USA or England at the time when slavery is legal and you want them to totally abolish it, what Bible verses would you quote totally abolishing it?

The point is, for the king to have made such a proposal for a slave, clearly slaves weren't seen in the class of animals.

The implication of God's influence in that scenario was the fact that he gave the King a problem nobody else could solve.

But if it was that they regarded slaves as animals, their gifts wouldn't have received much reckoning.

Would you say there weren't brilliant ones among slaves taken by the Britons? Why couldn't it be normal for such to be brought up to some leadership roles?

CuteMadridista:
Show where its written that if he dies 3 days later the master would be tried for murder, I'll wait

The same verse you initially quoted now.

Exo 21:20
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod, and the slave dies under his abuse(Take note that the bible condemns the beating here, calling it an abuse), the owner MUST be punished (footnote: must suffer Vengeance).

awesomeJ:
The point for the king to have made such a proposal for a slave, clearly slaves weren't seen in the class of animals.

The implication of God's influence in that scenario was the fact that he gave the King a problem nobody else could solve.

But if it was that they regarded slaves as animals, their gifts wouldn't have received much reckoning.

Would you say there weren't brilliant ones among slaves taken by the Britons? Why couldn't it be normal for such to be brought up to some leadership roles?

Again, you're focusing on Joseph while ignoring the rest. your use context when it suits you and drop it when it doesn't

Joseph was favoured so no matter what his level was he would've still been made prime minister infact the slavery part were stepping stones to him becoming prime minister


As for "Brilliant ones taken by Europeans yet not put in high positions" could it be due to the little fact that Yahweh didn't favour them? this is a no point abeg, let's focus on another

awesomeJ:
The same verse you initially quoted now.

Exo 21:20
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod, and the slave dies under his abuse(Take note that the bible condemns the beating here, calling it an abuse), the owner MUST be punished (footnote: must suffer Vengeance).

Hehehehe

21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

CuteMadridista:
Again, you're focusing on Joseph while ignoring the rest. your use context when it suits you and drop it when it doesn't

Joseph was favoured so no matter what his level was he would've still been made prime minister infact the slavery part were stepping stones to him becoming prime minister


As for "Brilliant ones taken by Europeans yet not put in high positions" could it be due to the fact that Yahweh didn't favour them? this is a no point abeg, let's focus on another

But not just Joseph now,
Since the slavery isn't the core context of the Bible, only a handful of details about slave/master relationship can be found, and all of them point to the fact that slave master had good regard for their slaves.

The beating you focused on was condemned by the Bible as the Bible called it an abuse.

I have also given you an instance where Abraham would have left all his wealth to a slave as his heir.

You on the other hand can't even find a place where it was recorded that a slave master maltreated his slave and you're making unfounded claims.

CuteMadridista:
Hehehehe

21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

By calling the beating an abuse in verse 20, what's the Bible's stance on it.
19. Someone who beats a free man is exempt from punishment.
21. Someone who beats a slave is exempt from punishment.

Can't you see that the rights of a free man who suffers beatings are no different from those of a slave?

awesomeJ:
By calling the beating an abuse in verse 20, what's the Bible's stance on it.
19. Someone who beats a free man is exempt from punishment.
21. Someone who beats a slave is exempt from punishment.

Can't you see that the rights of a free man who suffers beatings are no different from those of a slave?

Its different hahaha

I've posted this before and I would again

If you beat a freeman and he's injured you're obligated to pay him in the money he lost from not working and you're to take care of him by paying his nursing expenses too

A slave however has no such benefits as if he dies a few days later he's dead and gone. nothing there says you're obligated to nurse him back to health

Also if you blind them, you'll be punished by letting him go free


it seems your arguments have all been exhausted. Dalaman couldn't have given you the attention I've given you with the patience I did cuz he's allergic to running round in circles like you're doing

CuteMadridista:
Its different hahaha

I've posted this before and I would again

If you beat a freeman and he's injured you're obligated to pay him in the money he lost from not working and you're to take care of him by paying his nursing expenses too

A slave however has no such benefits as if he dies a few days later he's dead and gone. nothing there says you're obligated to nurse him back to health

Also if you blind them, you'll be punished by letting him go free


it seems your arguments have all been exhausted. Dalaman couldn't have given you the attention I've given you with the patience I did cuz he's allergic to running round in circles like you're doing

Didn't you read my post on why the slave master doesn't have to pay for his slave work hours? He owns the hours. It is said that the beater of a free man must provide for his recovery, the same doesn't have to be said of a slave master, because he already is responsible for providing for his slave.

You're the one who argues shallow.

And when a point you make is refuted, you divert the subject.

In the case of the freeman, he naturally isn't his beater's responsibility, hence the need to state clearly that in this instance, the beater should fend for the victim.

For a slave, the master already has a responsibility to fend for him, hence the reason why it wasn't stated.

You're wrong in saying if a slave dies from his master's beatings after a few days, he's dead and gone, as thought there won't be penalty on master, this is the third time I'm referring you to the verse you quoted, the master gets punished.

If a man blinds his slave, the instruction is that the slave becomes free from the master, what do you think it should have been? That the master be blinded too?

Well, in this case, the first thing you should figure is:

Based on the Bible's judgment on the matter, is the Blinding being commended or is it condemned.

Obviously, it's condemned.

Now, why shouldn't the master's eye too be blinded?

In this case, he traded his ownership of the slave's time for his own eye.
The slave gets his time back, the master keeps his eye.
But obviously, the act would be n accident, and it's already judged against.

And just in case you're forgetting your own arguments, the following are claims you've made that I have debunked. You may want to dig up any of mine that you think you debunked too:

1. All non Hebrew slaves were to be permanent slaves. DEBUNKED!

2. Slaves were maltreated by their masters/ Bible permitted maltreatment of slaves.
DEHUNKED!

3. Apart from slaves and hired workers, there were bond servants.
WRONG, DEBUNKED!

4. If I own a slave I can beat him to death and get away with it.

WRONG, DEBUNKED!

awesomeJ:
1. All non Hebrew slaves were to be permanent slaves. DEBUNKED!

this is just a strawman. no one said they had to be permanent slaves. the problem is that they COULD be permanent slaves. it was up to the master. no one can stop him from willing his slave to his son if he wanted to.

imagine you are a slave to a Jewish slave owner.

Issachar: I'm old now, I'm about to die, I need to will my properties to my son. Dan gets the house, the herd of sheep and half the cattle. Hur gets the fields the other half of the cattle and you awesomeJ.

awesomeJ: but master, I was hoping you would set me free. I've serve you long enough and I've never caused trouble. I need to explore the world.

Issachar: Lol. why would I set you free, I want you to serve my son like you served me.

awesomeJ: but master, your friend Nadab, he released his slave as part of his will. I was thinking you would do the same.

Issachar: that was Nadab, this is Issachar. why would the manner in which he treats his property affect how I treat mine.

awesomeJ: but master, this is the only favour I've asked of you, if you would please reconsi...

Issachar: RECONSIDER BACON SODA! I'VE MADE MY DECISION AND IT IS FINAL. I DON'T CARE IF EVERYONE ELSE FREED THEIR SLAVES. I'VE DECIDED TO PASS YOU ON TO MY SON AND YOU CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. as it is, I am backed by the law of our land to pass you on to my son. what I'm doing is legal. so if you don't mind, you can leave my presence and start reflecting on how you would serve my son.

awesomeJ: yes master.

...

it doesn't matter that it isn't compulsory for the slaves to be passed like inheritance, what matters is that they have the legal backing to do so if they wished.

Gggg102:
this is just a strawman. no one said they had to be permanent slaves. the problem is that they COULD be permanent slaves. it was up to the master. no one can stop him from willing his slave to his son if he wanted to.

imagine you are a slave to a Jewish slave owner.

Issachar: I'm old now, I'm about to die, I need to will my properties to my son. Dan gets the house, the herd of sheep and half the cattle. Hur gets the fields the other half of the cattle and you awesomeJ.

awesomeJ: but master, I was hoping you would set me free. I've serve you long enough and I've never caused trouble. I need to explore the world.

Issachar: Lol. why would I set you free, I want you to serve my son like you served me.

awesomeJ: but master, your friend Nadab, he released his slave as part of his will. I was thinking you would do the same.

Issachar: that was Nadab, this is Issachar. why would the manner in which he treats his property affect how I treat mine.

awesomeJ: but master, this is the only favour I've asked of you, if you would please reconsi...

Issachar: RECONSIDER BACON SODA! I'VE MADE MY DECISION AND IT IS FINAL. I DON'T CARE IF EVERYONE ELSE FREED THEIR SLAVES. I'VE DECIDED TO PASS YOU ON TO MY SON AND YOU CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. as it is, I am backed by the law of our land to pass you on to my son. what I'm doing is legal. so if you don't mind, you can leave my presence and start reflecting on how you would serve my son.

awesomeJ: yes master.

...

it doesn't matter that it isn't compulsory for the slaves to be passed like inheritance, what matters is that they have the legal backing to do so if they wished.

And the fact remains that those slaves weren't kidnapped. They or their own relatives decided to exchange their time for money.
They were aware of the terms beforehand.

Mind you, the illustration you gave could be totally far from what the actual relationship between a slave and a master was.

The instances recorded in the Bible confirm that the relationship was mostly warm, and the slaves were given pretty much regard, even more than today's employees.

Contrary to the analogy you gave, Abraham almost willed his entire wealth to his slave, despite the fact that he had Lot and other relatives.

awesomeJ:
And the fact remains that those slaves weren't kidnapped. They or their own relatives decided to exchange their time for money.
They were aware of the terms beforehand.

Mind you, the illustration you gave could be totally far from what the actual relationship between a slave and a master was.

The instances recorded in the Bible confirm that the relationship was mostly warm, and the slaves were given pretty much regard, even more than today's employees.

Contrary to the analogy you gave, Abraham almost willed his entire wealth to his slave, despite the fact that he had Lot and other relatives.

1. even some African slaves where sold by family members.

Israelites tried to force others into slavery by offering them 'peace' -Deuteronomy 20:10-14.
it was become a slave or die.

but this relationship was legal.

Abraham wasn't acting based on the Law. Ishmael was his heir, so he was close to him. the law wasn't even in existence.

Gggg102:
1. even some African slaves where sold by family members.

Israelites tried to force others into slavery by offering them 'peace' -Deuteronomy 20:10-14.
it was become a slave or die.

but this relationship was legal.

Abraham wasn't acting based on the Law. Ishmael was his heir, so he was close to him. the law wasn't even in existence.

African slaves were sold by their relatives? Isn't that what I've said severally. The point there is that you should blame those relatives rather than the slave buyers.

If you were my friend, and you choose of all things, to sell your daughter into slavery, you think it's the buyer I'll blame? of course not, it's you that I will do everything possible to avoid dealing with, cos you're too me the cruelest.

The point isn't the basis on which Abraham acted. it was the fact that he had a slave, and his regard for his slave was so high that he would make the slave his heir.

About making slaves of enemies.
You should know that till date, nations would go to war against other nations if the circumstances warrant.
So if you're trying to condemn war, suit yourself.

If on the other hand, you're not condemning war, then don't you see that it's better to make slaves of a people than to kill them in war?

If you don't think so, you're on your own. The people involved clearly thought the slavery to be a much better option, hence their choice of it.

awesomeJ:
African slaves were sold by their relatives? Isn't that what I've said severally. The point there is that you should blame those relatives rather than the slave buyers.

If you were my friend, and you choose of all things, to sell your daughter into slavery, you think it's the buyer I'll blame? of course not, it's you that I will do everything possible to avoid dealing with, cos you're too me the cruelest.

The point isn't the basis on which Abraham acted. it was the fact that he had a slave, and his regard for his slave was so high that he would make the slave his heir.

About making slaves of enemies.
You should know that till date, nations would go to war against other nations if the circumstances warrant.
So if you're trying to condemn war, suit yourself.

If on the other hand, you're not condemning war, then don't you see that it's better to make slaves of a people than to kill them in war?

If you don't think so, you're on your own. The people involved clearly thought the slavery to be a much better option, hence their choice of it.

then the law came and slave owners became free to pass their slaves to their children as inheritance if they wanted to.

you wouldn't deal with me? even if I approached you to sell her to you?



or real peace could be a better option.

Gggg102:
then the law came and slave owners became free to pass their slaves to their children as inheritance if they wanted to.

you wouldn't deal with me? even if I approached you to sell her to you?



or real peace could be a better option.

Sell your daughter to me? Why would you think I'd want that?

Real peace? there were instances where it was the choice, check out the entire reign of Solomon. Whereas there were other instances where they had to go to war.

Passing a slave down to your kids is like having a company, if you leave the company to your children, you'd be passing your employees on to them too. And if any employee signs a bond to work for your company for life, such an employee would automatically be passed to your child when you will him the company. Provided you didn't force the job on that employee, you're absolved from blames.

awesomeJ:
Sell your daughter to me? Why would you think I'd want that?

Real peace? there were instances where it was the choice, check out the entire reign of Solomon. Whereas there were other instances where they had to go to war.

Passing a slave down to your kids is like having a company, if you leave the company to your children, you'd be passing your employees on to them too. And if any employee signs a bond to work for your company for life, such an employee would automatically be passed to your child when you will him the company. Provided you didn't force the job on that employee, you're absolved from blames.

why wouldn't you buy her?

and force the people to become their slaves to avoid death.


becoming a slaves means automatically signing the lifetime bond.

signing bonds of lifetime service is taking advantage of the slave. once a person becomes a slave, he loses all his liberty to his master.
under normal circumstances, nobody would want to become a slave. either they:

-were captured/war slaves or they gave up their freedom to avoid death. so the employee is forced.

or

-were suffering from poverty and had to sell themselves to slavery just to survive, in this case, the slave owner takes advantage of the state of the slave. he gives the slave a contract that includes signing a bond of life. because he knows that the slave would most likely sign it to avoid dying.
the slave has to accept the lifetime service bond and lose his liberty.

if the master is nice and chooses to disregard the bond, the slave is lucky.
if the master chooses to bring the bond into play, there is nothing the slave can do.

the only ways where this lifetime bonds are signed are through force in war time, and taking advantage of poor people because they don't have a choice if they want to survive.

I have taken my time to read the comments in this thread and if I didn't realize anything am sure I learnt one thing and that is that someone is able to type good English doesn't mean the person is reasoning like a human being.
With all due respect awesome j if me being a Christian would make my reasoning anything similar to yours please keep your Christianity I don't need it and don't ever preach to me to become a Christian all tell me about the bible
It is such a pity how religion makes people think,if a 21st century man is talking like this you wonder what he would have been had he been born 200 years ago

Gggg102:
why wouldn't you buy her?

and force the people to become their slaves to avoid death.


becoming a slaves means automatically signing the lifetime bond.

signing bonds of lifetime service is taking advantage of the slave. once a person becomes a slave, he loses all his liberty to his master.
under normal circumstances, nobody would want to become a slave. either they:

-were captured/war slaves or they gave up their freedom to avoid death. so the employee is forced.

or

-were suffering from poverty and had to sell themselves to slavery just to survive, in this case, the slave owner takes advantage of the state of the slave. he gives the slave a contract that includes signing a bond of life. because he knows that the slave would most likely sign it to avoid dying.
the slave has to accept the lifetime service bond and lose his liberty.

if the master is nice and chooses to disregard the bond, the slave is lucky.
if the master chooses to bring the bond into play, there is nothing the slave can do.

the only ways where this lifetime bonds are signed are through force in war time, and taking advantage of poor people because they don't have a choice if they want to survive.

In any case, the slavery deal helped the slaves survived.

The slaves masters couldn't be blamed for those people's penury, they actually should be praised for coming through to alleviate the situation. You would only think otherwise if you assume that those slave masters oppressed the slaves, but that'd be an assumption that you have no proof of.

I have mentioned that the kind of healthy nourishment, morale and motivation that 300 Abraham's slaves must have had to be able to go with their master to defeat 5 kings, is proof that their relationship was warm, and that the slaves were well treated.

darkchild64:
I have taken my time to read the comments in this thread and if I didn't realize anything am sure I learnt one thing and that is that someone is able to type good English doesn't mean the person is reasoning like a human being.
With all due respect awesome j if me being a Christian would make my reasoning anything similar to yours please keep your Christianity I don't need it and don't ever preach to me to become a Christian all tell me about the bible
It is such a pity how religion makes people think,if a 21st century man is talking like this you wonder what he would have been had he been born 200 years ago

You wrongly think an employment scheme described in the Bible is an oppression scheme. I have taken time to show you that you're wrong in that thinking. But just cos you still want to maintain your prejudice, you're making it about me. No problem.

From Joseph, to Abraham's slave at Laban's house, to Abraham's slave that would have become his heir, to Abraham's slaves that were few in number but strong and motivated enough to conquer 5 kings. I have given you instances in the Bible that confirm that slaves weren't maltreated but rather treated with much regard as employees.

Why not try coming up with just one story in the Bible that supports your argument of them being maltreated.

If you can't, then know surely, that your opinion on Biblical slavery is utterly wrong, and you're only assuming it to be the same as the terrible one perhaps practiced by the Britons. That's a pretty WRONG assumption bro.

You freethinkers are very patient walahi

What is all these

Over 4 pages of twisting in circles and mental gymnastics and dishonesty.

Religion is a curse and a disease

awesomeJ:
You wrongly think an employment scheme described in the Bible is an oppression scheme. I have taken time to show you that you're wrong in that thinking. But just cos you still want to maintain your prejudice, you're making it about me. No problem.

From Joseph, to Abraham's slave at Laban's house, to Abraham's slave that would have become his heir, to Abraham's slaves that were few in number but strong and motivated enough to conquer 5 kings. I have given you instances in the Bible that confirm that slaves weren't maltreated but rather treated with much regard as employees.

Why not try coming up with just one story in the Bible that supports your argument of them being maltreated.

If you can't, then know surely, that your opinion on Biblical slavery is utterly wrong, and you're only assuming it to be the same as the terrible one perhaps practiced by the Britons. That's a pretty WRONG assumption bro.

pls don't quote me I can not even argue with you,your comments are disgusting

darkchild64:
pls don't quote me I can not even argue with you,your comments are disgusting

suit yourself.
Was only trying to enlighten your dark mind.

By the way, who invited you here?

Didn't you read the topic?

awesomeJ:
In any case, the slavery deal helped the slaves survived.

The slaves masters couldn't be blamed for those people's penury, they actually should be praised for coming through to alleviate the situation. You would only think otherwise if you assume that those slave masters oppressed the slaves, but that'd be an assumption that you have no proof of.

I have mentioned that the kind of healthy nourishment, morale and motivation that 300 Abraham's slaves must have had to be able to go with their master to defeat 5 kings, is proof that their relationship was warm, and that the slaves were well treated.
)

they should be praised for taking advantage of the slave's penury by putting them under an automatic life time service/ property bond?
by obtaining full control of the slave's freedom?

if some slave owners treated their slaves cordially, it doesn't change the fact that the laws allows for a person to be transferred as lifetime property against his will simply because they were unlucky. because they had no choice than to accept an automatic lifetime bondage clause.

if a slave comes out of poverty, and wants to regain his freedom but his master wills him to his child, the slave is forced to comply. the slave is forced to give up their freedom.

why would an automatic lifetime service clause be part of the slavery deal in the first place?

Gggg102:
they should be praised for taking advantage of the slave's penury by putting them under an automatic life time service/ property bond?
by obtaining full control of the slave's freedom?

if some slave owners treated their slaves cordially, it doesn't change the fact that the laws allows for a person to be transferred as lifetime property against his will simply because they were unlucky. because they had no choice than to accept an automatic lifetime bondage clause.

if a slave comes out of poverty, and wants to regain his freedom but his master wills him to his child, the slave is forced to comply. the slave is forced to give up their freedom.

why would an automatic lifetime service clause be part of the slavery deal in the first place?

First, you should agree that if someone offers a destitute fellow a job, he's rather doing such a fellow a huge favour. That's at least the view of anyone who chooses to sell himself into a slave master's service.


All the instances that show the relationship between a slave and a master affirm such relationships as being cordial, why then would you wanna argue on what's not?


Your last two points are about why a slave couldn't be allowed to regain his freedom. I'll answer that in my next post