Yall need to stop this "the Bible was pro-slavery" rhetoric

This is for all the people who argue that the Bible was Pro-Slavery. Now yall LOVE to argue this, weather it's to prove that "God can't be that good if he condones XYZ" or because yall GENUINELY think that it's okay.

But if you're trying to prove the first point, just know you are incredibly disrespectful at worst, and maybe a little ignorant at best. If you're trying to argue that God was pro-slavery cause you want slavery back? Something's just not right in the head and you ain't opened a Bible.

Now the reason the comparison is so utterly disrespectful, is because you're using back history as some sort of "gotcha" when you don't even understand black history. Black history is not a prop to win arguments, and if you're gonna use it in an argument you better know what you're talking about because it's not a joke. Too many of yall use the history too lightly

And until you can learn to read Black history without trying to use it to benefit you, it's not your argument to make.

Too many of people hear slavery and think of Chattle slavery. Biblical slavery could not be considered chattle slavery, as chattle slavery was a completely new invention in that had roots in the 1400s with the Atlantic slave trade but was an outright system in the 1600s. It was based purely on race, and black people were seen as objects, not even property.

I keep seeing the stupidest argument coming from yall saying that chattle slavery was not defined by race. The definition is based on the trans Atlantic slave trade. Chattle slavery wasn't a distinction until the 19th century while historians tried to pinpoint what made the Atlantic slave trade so different from older forms of slavery. The Atlantic slave trade that was based on race, yes, so I don't wanna hear it.

They were sold as cattle (hence the word chattle) there were absolutely no protections for the people it took. It was an absolutely horrific chapter in world history.

Again, chattle slavery was a new type of slavery that was never seen before. Not on the scale it was in, nor with its cruelty or reasoning. Before that most slavery was conditional- meaning that the person had done SOMETHING to put them in that position to be taken as slaves. Or it was indentured servitude- meaning that the person lived with their master and instead of getting paid they'd eat and sleep and their bosses house for a period of time.

The Bible talks on both indentured servants and people under conditional slavery. Most Hebrews were considered Indentured servants, so I wanna focus on the more harsher punishment that foreign servants face just to show you, that Israel's worst was not even comparable to chattle slaverys common practices.

First of all, Lev 25:44 says that Israelites were not to make their own slaves. They took them from already existing countries, and those people became slaves through conditions- unpaid debts, prisoners(we still use prisoners as slaves to this day), or slaves from war. These people could be bought and brought to Isreal and yes they could be passed down from their kids. Hebrew "slaves" could not be passed down through family and every year of Jubilee they were freed. In contrast, Chattle slavery there was no conditions. There was no war to be fought, there were no prisoners, there was no debt. If you were black, that was reason enough for them to kidnap you. That was not allowed in Israelite slavery. Exodus 21:26 says you cannot kidnap any man, and if you do so you will be put to death. (Which inspired Denmark Vesseys conspiracy and I will not shut up about him cause I think he's the coolest historical figure ever)

In Israelite slavery, there were protections and there was ALWAYS some way to freedom of things got bad. A few example of this is Exodus 21:26-27 saying if you mutilate your slave you owe them and you set them free. Deutromony 23:15-16 explains that slaves can flee their masters and NO ONE is allowed to return them if they do. Now this is the part I'll read the scripture and be amazed by, because these verses can only benefit one person, and those are the slaves. This wasn't to benefit the masters, but genuinely for the protection of the slaves.

Chattle slavery had some regulation to it, but while it sounds nice, that regulation was in the owners best interests. Not the slaves. Or it was to sound flowery and not be carried out. In some states outright murder or severe beatings of a slave we're "illegal" but punishments weren't carried out, and when they were it's because someone beat someone else's slave and the owner now wanted compensation.

There were some limits to killing and torturing pregnant slaves, but this was to ensure that more children were born under slavery, especially after America made it illegal to purchase more slaves from Africa. And in one rare case, there were limits on selling children apart from each other. But that wasn't actually enforced.

Now that's only comparing laws to laws, and I understand that as long as humans are around there will be exploitation of laws. There were probably Isrealite slaves who did suffer immensely, but that's what the law tried to prevent. But if you're just comparing the laws then again, Chattle slavery is more immoral. In fact, I'll say that a law that cared for slaves back then was a good law. At least there was good laws. In chattle slavery there were none that were ever enforced.

And there are also different verses that don't look too good, like Leviticus 21:21 saying that if a slave is beaten, but recovers after a few days and THEN dies, then the master is not to be punished. I can't wrap my head around that one and my point isn't to justify it. Or with a more simple one like Leviticus 21:2 which says that if you gain your freedom you may leave, but your wife cannot leave if she was already working under that person when you came. I feel like this is common sense because she also needs to work for freedom, or the husband could pay for the freedom, but if she was already your wife when you both came she's free to leave.

Now, everything I said about slavery might not be common knowledge sure, but if you're gonna speak on the topic you better know the topic.

Because there's no way you're gonna compare a system with protections to the marginalized, to what we saw in Americas, a system that tried banning it slavery, but to get out of that they only had more black babies so they could LEGALLY keep more slaves, or the system that when slavery was outlawed they created Share cropping(which was just more slavery,) and then created the KKK, literacy tests at polls, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, Jim Crow laws, just to keep an illegal system going.

You can look around in the US and you'll notice that a lot of black people are in poverty. It ain't a coincidence that black people were also the people under centuries of slavery who that happened to.

And everyone wants to compare it to American slavery which is laughable, and again shows that they don't understand (or care to) the history. America was cute compared to what went down in South America. Just look into what Brazil was like. The slaves there only had a 7 year working life span. And when slavery ended there was no reconstruction. Just the same racial caste system and very little changed which was incredibly sad.

So it's not comparable, and it's incredibly rude to make an argument that most yall know nothing about. Black people suffering is not some rhetorical tool to get one over on Christian's or God or whatever yall are doing. And you cannot flatten black peoples history like that when it was centuries or pain and torture and misery. Especially not when Black history is already so brushed over.