Why so certain?

I've heard from a number of Christians that there is no possibility of them changing their views. That I am wasting my time in even trying to discuss it with them. This seems to me to be a fairly counter productive position to take, and seems almost designed to stop further conversation. Even accepting that, however, I still find that I want to know why this person is so certain. What is so convincing that the person is willing to state, unequivocally, that nothing could change their mind. So, what is the answer? That's what this post is for - you tell me. Educate me as to why you have such certainty. Theists and atheists alike (and agnostics, and anyone in between) - if you are certain of your position, and/or believe you could not be argued out of it, explain why? Or, tell me of reasons you have heard from others, regardless of their beliefs.

Was Biblical slavery "OK"?

This post is a response to Biblical Slavery vs Other Forms, which is a horrible apologetic for slavery.

Slavery as an institution

Today slavery is admitted to be an immoral institution. The owning of another person, and the treatment of that person as mere property is fairly obviously wrong to us today. It is bad for society, as it results in a permanent underclass. It is a result of inconsistent application of reason to the moral realm.
Christians will join in this chorus of voices in denouncing slavery. Many of them will also agree that slavery has always been immoral, and that the bible was simply mistaken to advocate it. Some Christians, however, will argue that biblical slavery was somehow different, was somehow moral, and therefore somehow a-ok. This is an ad-hoc claim made due to their ideological commitment to inerrancy rather than a rational review of the institution of slavery as ownership of another person, as well historical revisionism applied to the manner in which slavery has been practised in the past.
Christians who are obliged to make an apology for slavery based upon their commitment to biblical  inerrancy also tend to make claims regarding the objective, absolute and unchanging nature of morality. This appears to be an incoherent position to hold, assuming they admit that slavery is immoral today.
I am not aware of anyone who argues that slavery should be legal and encouraged, though this appears to be the position which is consistent with an apologetic for biblical slavery. I suspect that these people would be unwilling to admit that slavery is a moral institution and should be practised.

Slavery in the Old Testament

To acurately assess the "specialness" of biblical slavery we should not be comparing it to New World slavery. We should be comparing it to other laws of the time and region. For example, biblical slavery's concept of release in a Jubilee year is often held up as being laudible. Let as look at this, and compare it with a similar law.
First the bible:

Deut 15:12 "[And] if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee." KJV

We can see that the biblical code relating to debt slavery above only applies to those who were Hebrew prior to being sold, and only when the Hebrew is sold to another Hebrew.
Now, let's compare this with the Code of Hammurabi.

Code of Hammurabi passage 117 "117. If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them, or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free."

We can see that not only does this code halve the length of servitude, but it applies to any and all people who become slaves through paying a debt.
We can easily see here, that the bible is not particularly "special" in it's time and place.

When we look at biblical slavery in context we see that it is similar to, and often times worse than slavery in the surrounding nations.

Let us look at the claimed human treatment accorded to slaves in the bible.

Exodus 21:20-12,26-27 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money. ... And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. KJV

We can see from this that slaves are treated as property. Slave owners were allowed to beat their slaves with relative impunity. The only punishment which could occur is if the slave died staright away, or if they were rendered unfit (losing an eye or a tooth). We notice that there is no injunction against beating slaves here, as would be expected of a human code (in fact, a human code would simply make it clear that slavery was immoral/illegal).
Another passage also deserves comment:

Leviticus 25:48 "And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother [that dwelleth] by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger [or] sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family: After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or [any] that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubile: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him." KJV

In this passage we can see that this only applies to Hebrew's who are sell themselves to foreigners. This is quite a restricted condition, and certainly does not apply to Hebrews who sell themselves to other Hebrews, Hebrew slaves from birth, or foreigners.
It is often claimed that foreigners who were slaves to Hebrews could simply convert and enjoy the benefits of release in the Jubilee year. This is not as obviously easy as some would maintain however.
For example, most of the restrictions on slavery that apply to Hebrew's apply to those who were considered Hebrew's prior to becoming slaves. There does not seem to be any evidence that a convert would be treated as a life long Hebrew in these circumstances. There are also groups of people to whom conversion was unavailable. Eunuchs, Moabites, and others were not ever to be allowed into the convenant with Yahweh. There is also the immorality of requiring conversion in order to be treated humanely. The author of the blog who inspired this has often complained of the poor treatment of Christians in Muslim nations. This poor treatment could be alleviated by these Christians converting to Islam. I doubt the author would approve of this course of action, nor would he consider this a moral system, and yet he is endorsing exactly the same sort of behaviour as moral. This amounts to special pleading on behalf of biblical slavery.

Slavery in the New Testament

If we look in the New Testament for passages denouncing slavery, we will be very disappointed. We find many passages exhorting slaves to be obedient to their masters:

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. NIV

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord NIV

1 Timothy 6:1-2 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves. These are the things you are to teach and insist on. NIV

Titus 2:9-10 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. NIV

1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. NIV

We can see from this selection of passages that slavery was to be accepted. There is no hint that slavery as an institution was immoral, and Christian slaves were to submit to masters regardless of how cruel or kind, whatever their beliefs. These are not the writings of those who believed slavery to be immoral, as we can see in the following verse, directed at slave owners:

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. NIV

We see here the master asked to treat his slaves well. Not to set them free, as we would expect were slavery considered immoral by the author. It also likens God/Jesus to a slave master, an interesting observation in it's own right, given the frequent image portraying God as a loving father. The following passage from 1 Timothy, has been presented as denouncing slavery:

1 Timothy 1:10 "for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine" NIV

We are informed that the denunciation of slave-traders is a denunciation of slavery generally. However, the word translated as "slave-traders" - "andrapodistes",  more correctly means one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery, or who steals the slaves of another. The NIV appears to be attempting to soften the message. The KJV renders this term as "manstealers" for good reason. It is obvious that this is not a condemnation of slavery, but rather of kidnapping and theft of property.

The letter to Philemon is another example of the NT condining slavery. Paul is sending the slave Onesimus, back to Philemon. While Paul implies that he would like Philemon to release Onesimus, or perhaps to buy his freedom through the debt Philemon owes to Paul, not once does Paul say that slavery is immoral, nor claim that Philemon should release a fellow brother.

Perhaps one might argue that it was dangerous to argue against slavery at this time, and that the NT authors were simply working within the strictures forced upon them.
This is not a satisfactory explanation for the endorsements of slavery by the New Testament authors for (at least) 2 reasons.

Firstly, there were those who did argue for the freedom of slaves. Tacitus, in his Annals (4.27) relates the story of one such person, Titus Curtisius.

Annals 4.27 The same summer, the germs of a slave war in Italy were crushed by a fortunate accident. The originator of the movement was Titus Curtisius, once a soldier of the praetorian guard. First, by secret meetings at Brundisium and the neighbouring towns, then by placards publicly exhibited, he incited the rural and savage slave-population of the remote forests to assert their freedom. By divine providence, three vessels came to land for the use of those who traversed that sea. In the same part of the country too was Curtius Lupus, the quaestor, who, according to ancient precedent, had had the charge of the "woodland pastures" assigned to him. Putting in motion a force of marines, he broke up the seditious combination in its very first beginnings. The emperor at once sent Staius, a tribune, with a strong detachment, by whom the ringleader himself, with his most daring followers, were brought prisoners to Rome where men already trembled at the vast scale of the slave-establishments, in which there was an immense growth, while the freeborn populace daily decreased."

With the claims of Christians that the apostles were martyred for what they believed, indicating that principle was more important than the consequences to these people, their endorsement of slavery becomes all the more damning.

We can also compare the New Testament endorsements with another contemporary, Musonius Rufus, who while falling short of arguing for the freeing slaves, did go much closer to this than any of the New Testament authors did. Musonius Rufus, a Stoic Philosopher who lived between 30AD and 100AD, taught that "one should endure hardships, and suffer the pains of labor with his own body, rather than depend upon another for sustenance", indicating that we should not live from the labour of slaves. He also regarded forcing sex from slavegirl as immoral, comparing them to free women. Most amazingly, in a time when agitating against slavery would get you killed in short order, Musonius argued that it was right to disobey an unlawful/immoral command from any superior, whether they be a father, magistrate, or owner. This stands in stark contrast to the endorsement of slavery we find in the NT, and is an indictment against the moral standing of those authors and their writings.

We can see that not only does the New Testament not decry slavery as immoral, but actively endorses it. At best, the New Testament asks slave owners to treat their slaves with kindness.
We can also see that non-Christians were willing to argue more closely the immorality of slavery, and in cases were martryed for their beliefs in the immorality of slavery.

New World slavery

I'll only speak a little about New World slavery, as practiced in the America's. Though it is often used as the contrast against which biblical slavery is shown in a favourable light, such a comparison is not appropriate for a number of reasons.
Firstly, New World slavery is far removed both culturally and temporally, from biblical slavery. As I've demonstrated above, biblical slavery, when compared with it's contemporaries no longer looks favourable.
I've also noted that the institution of slavery itself, of owning another person, is immoral on the face of it. If this is the case, then regardless of how favourable biblical slavery is when compared with some other form of slavery, it is still immoral, and so such comparisons do nothing to rescue biblical slavery.
And finally we can note that the culture which gave rise to New World slavery was thoroughly Christian. Christians instituted it, Christians practised it, Christians opposed it's abolition.
Since, as I've demonstrated above, the Christian bible is pro-slavery, the anti-abolitionists used strong scriptural arguments in support of slavery which were unavailable to the abolitionists. Although many prominent abolitionists were Christians, their opposition to slavery was in spite of, rather than because of, Christianity.

UPDATE: Just stumbled upon a quote from the Governor of South Carolina in 1844, concerning slavery:

It is impossible therefore to suppose that slavery is contrary to the Will of God. It is equally absurd to say that American slavery differs in form or principle from that of the chosen People. We accept the Bible terms as the definition of our slavery and its precepts as the guide of our conduct. We desire nothing more. Even the right to buffet which is esteemed so shocking finds its express license in the Gospel (1 Peter ii 20). Nay what is more, God directs the Hebrews to bore holes in the ears of their brothers to mark them when under certain circumstances they become perpetual slaves (Ex. Xxi: 6). I think then I may safely conclude and I firmly believe that American slavery is not only not a sin but especially commanded by God through Moses and approved by Christ through His Apostles.

Notice the support he draws from the Bible, not just for the institution of slavery, but for beating your slaves:

1 Peter 2:20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

Conclusion

As this brief foray into the relationship between Christianity and slavery shows, the bible, and bible based Christianity is actually pro-slavery. Modern Christians who are ant-slavery hold this position in spite of their holy book, not because of it. The "moral zeitgeist" has moved on and many Christians have rationalised their beliefs to accommodate this. As we can see, however, both the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament do not denounce slavery, and actively support the institution. This puts Christians who believe the bible is without error in the position of either holding contradictory beliefs - that slavery is both immoral and moral, or in the position of supporting slavery today, and there do not appear to be many in the latter camp. Those mounting an apologetic for biblical slavery ought to feel ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately they often come across as pleased with their work.

A thorough refutation of biblical slavery, among other things, written by Thom Stark is available here. This is a response to Paul Copans apology for biblical genocide and slavery "Is God a Moral Monster?"