You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

Critics say:

You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that God exist.

You can delude yourself, but deep down you know it's not real.

That is all true, but you can decide to fairly evaluate the facts, evidence, and arguments to evaluate questions like:

1) Is reason the basis for all knowledge? If not reason, then what is it? Can you defend this sans reason?

2) Do you acknowledge that the inference to the best explanation is how most if not all field of inquiry gain knowledge? Meaning, the hypothesis or theory that best explains all [or most] of the data is held to be true.

 
3) What is reality, and how do you know?

4) What best explains the origin of physical reality?

5) What best explains the origin of information in DNA?

6) What best explains human reasoning?

7) What best explains morality?

8) Is there one hypothesis that best explains all of those questions?

One explanation would be a rational, extremely powerful, intelligent designer, moral person, existing outside the physical part of reality. What most would call God. 

What is the naturalistic explanation for all of those things above? 

ebed & amah

ebed is the Hebrew word translated slave or servant

Parts of Speech Noun, Masculine

Etymology From the verb עבד ('abad), to work or serve.

Definition

1. slave, servantslave, servant, man-servant
2. subjects
3. servants, worshippers (of God)
4. servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc)
5. servant (of Israel)
6. servant (as form of address between equals)

https://www.abarim-publications.com/Dictionary/ay/ay-b-d.html

'amah is the Hebrew word translated slave or servant

Parts of Speech Noun. Feminine

Definition

1. maid-servant
2. female slave, 
3. maid handmaid, 
4. concubine 
5. of humility (fig.)

abad

The verb עבד ('abad) means to work, to serve or to be a serf. Since working or serving is a common activity in any culture, this verb is deployed almost 300 times in the Old Testament. Curiously enough, this verb has the power to take meaning from whatever comes next. If the story tells of "dressing" vines, the Hebrew literally reads "working" vines. When a field is tilled, the Hebrew reads that the field is "worked".

The Hebrew idea of "working" can also mean "working something," and that something determines the kind of work that's done. When Jacob "works" Laban, he's not trying to change his mind, but simply serving him (Genesis 29:15). This verb can even be used to indicate putting someone to work, or even enslaving someone (Exodus 1:14).

The difference between a worker and a boss was back then the same as now: if you get to keep the money your labor generates, you're a boss or a free person. If you get some kind of compensation for your labor (now called a salary, then called your purchasing price, but really the same thing) but the actual proceeds of your labor go to someone else, you're an עבד ('ebed).

HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament makes the observation that, "When service is offered to God, however, it is not bondage, but rather a joyous and liberating experience (Exodus 3:12, Psalm 22:31)". Similarly, when YHWH himself is performing work (עבד עבדת, Isaiah 28:21), he is obviously not enslaved but rather thoroughly engaged. Likewise, the 'suffering servant' described by Isaiah (Isaiah 52-53, see Matthew 20:25-28) is not simply a slave of oppressive kings and their regimes, but rather a devotee to freedom and wisdom.

The compass of this root is so wide that every now, and then it results in a pseudo-contradiction: the Israelites formed no עבד (slave force) but did work as עבד (personnel, same word) to Solomon (1 Kings 9:22).

In Aramaic parts of the Bible, our verb עבד may simply mean to make, do or organize (Daniel 3:1, 5:1, 6:10).

Since our verb is so rich in meaning and so ubiquitous in use, there are quite a few derivatives:

The noun עבד ('ebed), generally means 'servant' or 'worker'. Often this word occurs in the singular but multiple individuals are implied (1 Samuel 18:22, 2 Samuel 14:31), in which case it refers to personnel or describes a unified and autonomous service-detail. Contrary, our word in plural (עבדים, 'workers', or עבדי, 'workers of') does not simply denote a bunch of workers, but emphasizes the non-unified character of slaves within a labor force, in which each individual has to do what he's told and not follow internal, autonomous policies (Genesis 50:18). When Jeremiah exclaims that עבדים (slaves) rule the Israel, he basically equates his countrymen with beasts of burden (Lamentations 5:8). The famous term 'house of bondage', as reference to Egypt, significantly uses this plural word (house of 'mindless slaves'; Exodus 13:3, Joshua 24:17, Jeremiah 34:13), but when the Lord speaks of his servants, he commonly and evenly significantly uses the singular (my 'autonomous personnel'; Isaiah 65:8-13).

Our noun occurs almost 800 times in the Bible.  Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament explains that this noun basically means slave, and that in Biblical times slavery was not "so irksome". Of course, HAW was produced for the US market, where slavery is associated with centuries of lively trade in abducted and elsewise horribly mistreated people, so the word "irksome" doesn't quite cut it. And עבד ('ebed) should generally not be translated with our word slave, but rather with the milder and more accurate "worker" or "subject," depending on the context:

 * When עבד ('ebed) means "worker" in an economic sense, it usually denotes someone who has (how shall we put it?) found himself forced to voluntarily put himself under a binding contract, to become someone's property and serve that person for a price (much like most of us do today). Such contracts were limited to six years (Exodus 21:2) and husbands and wives could not be separated (Exodus 21:3). A worker could be appreciated so much that he became his master's heir (Genesis 15:2), or his son in law (1 Chronicles 2:35). But workers stood lower than their owners on the social ladder, and they were certainly not equal before the law. This may seem archaic and unfair, but in our own societies we charge ridiculous amounts of money for a "fair" trial to make sure that the 'ebeds among us never get one. Different wording; same effect.

 * The word עבד ('ebed) may also directly denote a lower rank, without economic consequences. It may denote a chief's subjects (Genesis 26:15), a king's subjects or officers (Exodus 8:3, 1 Samuel 19:1), even tributary nations (2 Samuel 8:2), or vassal kings (2 Samuel 10:19).

 * Most often, the noun עבד ('ebed) denotes a religious devotee (or subject or worker). HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament explains that all Semitic people referred to their religious workers as servants of this or that deity, and in the Bible this practice is manifested in the phrase עבדי יהוה ('ebedy YHWH), or servants of YHWH (2 Kings 9:7, Isaiah 54:17). Several Biblical heroes are specifically called עבד ('ebed): Abraham (Genesis 26:24), Isaac (Genesis 24:14), Jacob (Ezekiel 28:26), Moses (Exodus 14:31, Joshua 18:7, 1 Kings 8:53). And sometimes a whole group is deemed such: prophets (2 Kings 9:7, Zechariah 1:6), or the whole of Israel as the עבד ('ebed) of YHWH (Psalm 136:22, Isaiah 41:8, Jeremiah 30:10).

 * The word עבד ('ebed) occurs suffixed with the ך (kaph), meaning 'your' in the "polite address of equals or superiors" (as BDB Theological Dictionary puts it): עבדך ('ebedek), meaning literally your servant (Genesis 18:3, 1 Samuel 20:7, 2 Kings 8:13). This phrase may seem a bit overly humble but it's in fact precisely the same thing as saying "yours truly" or "at your service". It's opposite would be אדני (adonai), meaning 'my lord'. This latter term exists in German and Dutch as the ordinary word for sir or mister (mein Herr or meneer) but the term עבדך ('ebedek) has no modern equivalent. Still, its prevalence in Hebrew texts demonstrates that עבדך ('ebedek) was simply the formal equivalent of 'I' and 'me'; a polite way of referring to oneself within a statement to someone addressed as 'sir' or 'mister'.

Other derivatives are:

1. The noun עבד ('abad) means work (Ecclesiastes 9:1 only).
2. The much more common feminine noun עבדה ('aboda), meaning labor (Exodus 1:14, 1 Chronicles 27:26) or service (Genesis 29:27, Ezra 8:20).
3. The feminine noun עבדה ('abudda), denoting the collective performance of household servants (Genesis 26:14, Job 1:3 only).
4. The feminine noun עבדות ('abdut) meaning servitude, bondage (Ezekiel 9:8, 9:9 and Nehemiah 9:17 only).
5. The masculine noun מעבד (ma'bad) meaning work (Job 34:25 only). [source]

Deuteronomy 23:15-16—Does the Mosaic Law Forbid the Return of All Runaway Slaves?

“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him. - Deuteronomy 23:15-16

Three Views

1. This law applies to foreign servants/slaves who have fled to Israel 
2. This law applies to perpetual servants/slaves within Israel 
3. This law applies to all servants/slaves who have escaped from their masters

Pros and Cons 

Pros for [1]: This law applies to foreign servants/slaves who have fled to Israel

a - Some think verse 16 (shall dwell with you, in your midst) indicates that a foreign servants/slaves who has come to Israel is in view (Cragie, New International Commentary on the Old Testament)

b - ANE treaties exist which speak of repatriating slaves; in not permitting this Israel’s law would be distinctive (Merrill, New American Commentary, 312; Block NIV Application Commentary, 544).

c - The previous context dealt with “the topic of military campaigns” and “the plight of foreign servants/slaves may have arisen in the light of this context more than at any other period” (Woods, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, 245).

d - This is how the ancient Jewish writers understood it (Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament, 100)

Cons for [1]

a -  Israelite-born escaped servants/slaves would have also needed a guarantee of a place to live. Given his socially weak condition, the protections of this law make good sense for Israelite-born slaves as well.

b - Block cites not only treaties that deal with this issue but also laws; this law could deal with both situations (Block NIV Application Commentary, 543-44). This point therefore actually supports view 3.

c - The contextual connection is not clear. These verses could just as likely be connected with what follows.

d - The testimony of ancient Jewish writers gives weight to position 1, but is not decisive.

Pros for  [2] This law applies to perpetual slaves within Israel (foreigners servants/slaves within Israel and Israelites who had agreed to permanent servitude) (The IVP Bible Background Commentary)

a. Debt slaves served for a term of six years (and presumably did not, therefore, have a reason to run away) (The IVP Bible Background Commentary)

Cons for  [2] 

a. There is no exclusion in the text of debt slaves, 

b, Six years with a cruel and wicked master would have been a long time.

Pros for [3]. This law applies to all servants/slaves who have escaped from their masters (Wright, 
New International Biblical Commentary).

a. The text itself does not limit the law to foreign servants/slaves 

b. The option to choose any place in Israel does not necessitate that a foreign servants/slaves is in view. Rather, a benefit is being extended “on behalf of the poor and the weak” Deuteronomy 15:7-8  This law would put pressure on the system of servanthood/slavery in Israel to be of such a nature that it would be beneficial to the servants/slaves. Though it could be abused, it would place strong pressure on Israelite society for justice in this area.

c. The existence of this law would testify that slavery/servanthood in Israel was to be of such a nature that no servant/slave would want to run away and (as other passages indicate) that some would desire to remain in that condition. This does not prove that Israelite slaves are in view, but it testifies to the likelihood of this possibility.

The decisive factor in favor of position 3 is that the law itself does not specify that it is limited to foreign servants/slaves.

Exodus 21:20-21 Beating Your Slave

Note: the English word "slave" comes from the Hebrew ebed or amah -see here for insightful details 

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Exodus 21:20-21

Is the verse speaking about possession by ownership vs possession by debt contract?

Possession by ownership doesn't make sense. If the slave is his property [possession by ownership], then why is he punished if he kills his slave? [i.e. must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result]

But if this is possession by debt contract, then this does make sense. Certainly it provides no provision for killing, but the 2nd half makes sense since if a worker is out of action for 1–2 days then the owner has one less worker for that time. Any fine would be on top of the lost revenue from the non-working servant. And this seems to be an incentive not to impose corporal punishment willy-nilly, as the owner stands to lose financially.

And this makes significantly more sense when one considers the Anti-Return Law of DT 23:15-16

 
Reading the "slavery" verse with the contextual lens of indentured servitude makes considerably more sense

Note: Even a free person could be physically punished:

“If there is a dispute between men, and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty, then if the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with a number of stripes in proportion to his offense. Forty stripes may be given him, but not more, lest, if one should go on to beat him with more stripes than these, your brother be degraded in your sight". Deuteronomy 25:1-3

Physical punishments for crimes or injuries, including floggings, branding and even mutilations, were practiced in most civilizations since ancient times.

Question: Why are you allowed to beat your slave as long as they don't die?

Based on the larger Old Testament context, it is safe to assume that slave masters were not allowed carte blanche authority to do whatever they wanted to their slaves. For instance, the Anti-Oppression laws:

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]

In Exodus 21, slave owners are limited in what they can do: if the master goes too far and the slave dies, the master will be punished. If the Old Testament Law is followed consistently, then the punishment for the slave owner might even include the death penalty for murder. 

Of course, if a master beats his slave and the slave is unable to work for some time, the master has punished himself by losing the work he might have received from the slave. The implication here is that it is in the master’s best interest not to be too severe. 

cod3man Defends Unsupported Presumptions, and Claims No Need to Defend the Idea that the Old Testament Condoned Chattel Slavery

Who is cod3man? A Reddit poster, and moderator of three two anti-Christian Subreddits r/DebateReligion, r/DebateAnAtheist, & r/askanatheist.  [I don't see cod3man listed as a mod for DebateReligion even though it's listed on cod3man's profile page......] 

Note: cod3man tried to preemptively bar me from critiquing his views here. Quote: you do not have my permission to reproduce my comment or any portion on your blog. 

Fortunately, there is the fair use doctrine which can be summarized as under the fair use doctrine of the US copyright statute it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes for purposes such as commentary criticism news reporting and scholarly reports [emphasis mine]. I'm clearly critiquing his comments, so I’m on the solid ground. Apparently, cod3man only wants to discuss on Reddit, where opposing views can be suppressed by downvotes.

cod3man makes this statement, "Lichtenstein is a successful country without any military spending". And this statement "Lichtenstein exists". cod3man claims that statement one needs to be defended, and the other does not. Then cod3man boldly makes this statement: we don't need to defend the Old Testament condones chattel slavery.

I'll add statement 4: the Old Testament exists since it is analogous to "Lichtenstein exists".

cod3man's logic is that statement 1 "Lichtenstein/no defense spending" needs to be defended and two "Lichtenstein exists" does not.  If that's true, then the "Old Testament condones chattel slavery" and the  does and "the Old Testament exists" does not.

Why? Because "Lichtenstein/no defense spending" is the core idea, as is Old Testament condones chattel slavery. The author is supposed to focus upon the key or fundamental idea, as it's the reason the subject matter is in discussion.  So it must be defended. 

cod3man states a premise being taken as obvious doesn't mean you can't challenge it. 

How does one do this? By critically examining the data and proposing a better explanation. Which is what I've done with all my post about the Old Testament and slavery. cod3man obviously disagrees with my conclusions, but one should argue from the data, not assert that your view is "obviously" true and needs no defense. That's irrational, unreasonable and illogical. 

So why does cod3man have a problem when I do this if the Old Testament/chattel slavery idea can be challenged? Why not argue from that data instead of asserting that it's obvious that the Old Testament condones chattel slavery? cod3man might be correct, but that needs to be shown via the data and not just asserted

It doesn't make any sense on one hand to say it can be challenged, on the other hand say it needs no defense. If something is challenged, then there is a need for it to be defended.

cod3man it is obvious that the Old Testament condones chattel slavery anyone who reads it plainly comes to that conclusion. 

One of the many problems is that we assume our own frame of reference for the text and assume that what makes sense to us from our own cultural, social, religious context is what the text itself means to say. Like when critics see the word "slavery" they immediately think "chattel slavery",  but that isn't supported by the text nor the historical/social context. 

If cod3man thinks that the context shows that Channel slavery is the best understanding of the ntext, then it needs to be argued for that from the data from the start. Why go through the rigmarole of saying it's "self-evident" or "obvious" when you know you have to argue from the data?

My guess is that it's a bluff. Either critics are too indolent to do the work, or they have done the work and know the argument can't be made. So they try to bluff and bluster....

cod3man: All the scholars who study the OT say that [the OT condones chattel slavery]

First that's incorrect:

There is Paul Copan. 

There's Kushner, The d'rash commentary, edited by Harold Kushner in Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary p457 -  Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.

There's this entry from HANEL, Page 1007: "A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution.

I could go on, but it doesn't matter, this isn't a "count the scholars on your side, and who has the most wins" - it what's the best explanation from the data. What's the argument from the data, cod3man?

cod3man: The only people who deny it are people like you, who have strong external motivation to do so.

First, to assume that those who say the Old Testament equals chattel slavery do not have strong external motivation is simply false as everybody has biases including experts, including scholars, including atheists. They do not have some sort of innate ability that frees them from all bias.

Are we to think cod3man an avowed atheist, moderating 2 discussion boards promoting/defending atheism is not biased against God or Christianity? 

Second, it doesn't matter; it's what the data says but what we can infer as the best explanation of the data. I know that I've said this over and over, but it's true. What is the best explanation of the data

Let's look at the argument from an atheist scholar who has argued that Exodus 21:16 concerned only Hebrew slaves. Let's not assume that this expert is correct just because he's an expert. Let's examine his argument. 

Joshua Bowen wrote the book that alot of atheists and other critics reference. 

The full argument can be found here: Bowen's Argument Concerning Exodus 21:16 Examined

Bowen's first question, "is this passage describing a Hebrew slave or foreign slave"? [113] then looks at verses 1 through 6 to show that the passages begin with laws regarding Hebrew slaves. Bowen attempts to make a connection between the word "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave) and similarities between the word "habiru/hapiru" that was used to describe groups of outsiders or outlaws and other Ancient Near East texts [114]. He reaches his conclusion: "the passage is speaking about the laws concerning slavery of the Israelite". [115]

So, Bowen's argument is that the use of "eved ivri" [Hebrew slave] in Ex 21:1 means that Ex 21:16 is about Hebrew slaves.

The first problem is that "eved ivri" is not found in vs 16. In fact, after being used in verse 1, it's not used again in all of Exodus 21.

Bowen wants us to think that all the following verses pertain to laws regarding Hebrew slaves. I will grant that the context to verse 11 seems to be in regard to Hebrew slaves.

However, starting in verse 12 we get four verses starting with "whoever", then ten starting "when men" or "when a man does x" versus. [There is one "when an ox", and one "when a fire" verse] Following Bowen's logic are these speaking of a Hebrew ox and a Hebrew fire? 

This strongly suggests that Exodus 21 switch gears in verse 12 to another topic that extends to all persons - personal injuries, manslaughter, murder, theft, etc

So to think that verse 16 is about a Hebrew slave based on the use of "eved ivri" in verse ONE seems to fall apart.... given the multitude of "whoever" and "when a man" verses.

Secondly, the writer who chose to use "eved ivri", chose not to use that term, and instead a different identifier - the terms translated "whoever and "when a man". And in verses 20 and 22 the writer uses ebed (slave)- not "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave)

Given Bowen's argument relies on specific words being used in verse 1, the fact they are not used elsewhere, this strongly indicates that we are no longer talking about Hebrew slaves exclusively in Exodus 21.

Are we to think that laws in verses 12 to 36 about personal injury, manslaughter, murder, theft etc only concern Hebrew slaves but not the general population? If there are specific laws for free Hebrews concerning these matters, where are they? 

No, The best explanation is that verse 12 tacked off onto other topics that included all Hebrews.

As I said, give me an argument from the data, not what a scholar says, or what the "consensus" is

Why don't you just reply on Reddit?

Are Christians dishonest and obtuse in defining and defending the Old Testament slavery as more akin to voluntary servitude than involuntary chattel slavery?

This post was inspired by this Reddit post which was inspired in part by my Leviticus 25:44-46 Does Not Support Chattel Slavery post

Okay, let's critically evaluate Prudent-Town-6724's argument. [I'll occasionally refer to Prudent-Town-6724 as OP - original post or post]

Prudent-Town-6724 stated purpose is "not seeking to prove that the Bible condones (i.e. allows for and does not prohibit) chattel slavery of the form that existed in the old Confederacy". OP's argument is that the blatant dishonesty, special pleading and wilful obtuseness that apologists and deniers wilfully engage in to deny the claim is itself a very strong argument against Christianity. [sic]

So OP intends to prove those who defend OT slavery as voluntary indentured servitude are:

1) blatantly dishonest,
2) special pleading and
3) are willfully obtuseness

Definitions:

Special pleading is applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. [source]

Obtuseness is : 1) lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid 2) difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression [source]

First, OP literally says that the argument being presented assumes that the Old Testament condones chattel slavery. The first premise is a blatant presumption. 

And we all know what Christopher Hitchens said about unsupported assertions: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" or wiki puts it: the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it

Second, The OP says that slavery in the Old Testament is chattel slavery because it's self-evident, meaning not needing to be demonstrated or explained or obvious. [source] Thus, Prudent-Town-6724's argument is claiming that:

1. Reason is not needed.
2. A sound argument is not needed.
3. Facts are not needed
4. Critical evaluation of the data is not needed.

Question 1: What can be "proven" given those criteria? 

Answer: anything and everything. Even self-contradictory ideas and diametrically opposed ideas.

Sorry, Prudent-Town-6724, but reason is the basis of all knowledge via the inference to the best explanation 

The only thing that the OP puts forward as support is some sort of "consensus of experts" - i.e Importantly, there is not a single secular academic who would deny that the Bible does condone it. But we know how faulty that can be,  And when I say consensus of experts I do not mean their opinion, I mean their careful consideration of the relevant data. However, an uncomfortable fact it is to acknowledge even an expert [or most or all experts] in careful consideration of the relevant data can be wrong. If all you care about is the consensus of experts, then you have abandoned reason and critical thinking. Sorry, but that is intellectually dangerous.

I absolutely reject the "consensus of experts" as a substitute for one's own critical thinking. I'm not discounting experts, I am saying that one should critically evaluate their arguments. No one is above that kind of criticism for evaluation.

Question 2: How valid would the OP, as well as atheists and other critics of Christianity, consider this statement: The Christian God's existence is self-evident and obvious, as well is Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross?

If the OP does not accept this, then the OP is committing a Special pleading fallacy, the same thing that OP accused Christians of.

Question 3: Where does OP show that Christians are blatantly dishonest or willfully obtuse? Or even engage in Special pleading?

Answer: Prudent-Town-6724 doesn't. The argument is "I assume X therefore anyone who disagrees with me is blatantly dishonest or willfully obtuse" That's it, the entire argument.

Unfortunately, Prudent-Town-6724's attempt to show how shallow and weak the Christian view is it backfired. If this is the best critics can do, then they are in a very deep intellectual vacuum. 

FYI - A mod deleted this from Reddit because it contained a "personal attack"

Prudent-Town-6724 responds  It is entirely reasonable to rely upon an academic consensus that has existed for centuries. I assume you don't personally investigate dating for every event in ancient history or commonly repeated claims about astronomy, which for example depend upon academic views that are only looked at by a tiny handful of people.

Reply: I don't know why "the scholarly consensus has been proven wrong again and again" it's such a difficult concept to understand.  One can read the arguments made by scholars and glean data from it; but to think that it's an aspect of critical thinking to just accept who somebody says without a detailed inspection or investigation is foolish and unreasonable

 
Prudent-Town-6724: Thinking that oneself, while lacking specialist knowledge or qualifications, can overturn the academic consensus requires a lack of critical thinking, not the opposite. As it depends upon an inflated sense of one's own capacities and unduly deprecatory view of specialists. Moreover, in your previous post arguing the Bible does not support slavery I posted several points of rebuttal to which you never responded.In particular, the centrepiece of your claim is claiming the anti-kidnap proves no chattel slavery. This IS obtuse because as I indicated earlier, Roman law prohibited kidnapping but was also a slave society. It also ignores Deuteronomy 20:10-14 which clearly provides one means by which people can be seized as " plunder" (ie slaves).

Reply: This is a bit of Whataboutery - a rhetorical trick of responding to criticism with a counter criticism instead of a defense against the original comment.

Prudent-Town-6724: I feel people like you do not engage in these arguments in good faith, but simply try to turn it into a contest of endurance in which by repeating the same nonsense ad infinitum you can drown out the truth

Reply: If you are not going to address the point I'm making, why would I go off on a tangent of your making? 

cod3man responds 

Exodus 21:7-11 Protection for Female Servants

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Critics try to get a lot of mileage out of verse 7 but by assuming that she must remain a servant for life; but the phrase "she shall not go out as the male slaves do", means the opposite of what they assume. She gets more protection than males do, not less. 

Exodus 21:7-11 should be understood as laws to protect the female servant from abuse and neglect from the employer’s obligation to her (Ryken, Exodus, 702).

In verse 7 we see the scenario where “a man sells his daughter as a female slave." Why would someone sell their family member, let alone a daughter, to be a slave in the first place? This might be a situation of grave financial distress. In a society that is heavily agricultural back then, we can imagine if a husband gets injured, he puts his family in peril with survival. He might be having her be a servant to ensure she eats. He might have her be an indentured servant to have a better life and chance for a better future (Garrett, Exodus, 498). Of course, not every family would be a good host for the girl, so there needs to be discernment and wisdom on the part of the girl’s own family of which family their daughter will go out to work for.

Verse 8 does not say that women had no way to get out of service. A better translation of v. 8 would be: If her boss does not like her, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners.

Verse 9 deals with a scenario that’s the opposite of verse 8, where the master wants her to marry his son because that’s how pleased he is with her. Here, normal protocols of sons marrying daughters apply, even if she is a servant. Just because she works for a specific family does not mean she does not have the regular process of her family and his family to discuss marriage matters. Nor is she automatically made into a wife just because she’s a servant of the family.

Verse 10 protects the servant-turn-wife in the circumstances when she is married, but it turns out there are marriage difficulties. This unhappy circumstances are “If he takes to himself another woman” (v.10a). Again, this is stating the circumstances, it is not approving the act on the husband’s part. Whether the marriage goes well or goes badly, the husband has obligations towards her, for verse 10b states “he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.”

Verse11 makes clear that women had no automatic right to get out of marriage after a period of years—that is, that unlike service, marriage was not a term-limited matter but rather a commitment for life. (But this was true for non-servants as well) This law assumes the payment to a head of a family of a combined contract labor and bride price, which would have been in all likelihood a larger sum of money than either payment separately. 

These issues mentioned boil down to his obligation to her in regard to survival. And the obligation should not be low quality provisions; literally the word food in verse 10 in the Hebrew is “meats” (Ryken, Exodus, 703). Bread is the usual term in Hebrew to convey “food.” In an ancient agricultural society that doesn’t necessarily eat meat as frequently as we do today in the West, it shows that this isn’t just low quality provisions he’s to give her.

What if the husband fails at those obligations? Verse 11 states, “she shall go free for nothing, without payment of money.” The husband and his family cannot invoke the card of her being formerly a slave, and therefore she’s obligated to stay and work for them. This is where the normal protocols of marriage is important, mentioned in verse 9. In the instance where she has the right to leave her husband under the conditions of verse 10 and 11, since there is the normal customs of marriage back then, she can go back to her family who have the dowry from the husband and thereby she can survive. Recall that back then there were fewer industries than there are now and in a heavily agricultural society there’s few jobs a widow can do, so dowry was an important custom back then to protect the woman.