“You focus on the allowed beating of slaves.”
Yes. Of course.
When some apologist insists that biblical slavery was ‘more like being a servant,’ and the text says you can BEAT YOUR SLAVE TO DEATH, and it’s not counted AS MURDER, then it’s not the same.
How can you not see this?
“If slaves are lazy and insubordinate then they need some incentive to work (i.e. a beating).”
If they’re servants, you fire them. There’s your incentive.
“The bible doesn't tell masters they must beat their slaves. It says beating is allowed, being that it is necessary as an incentive to work.”
And that’s why it’s FUCKING SLAVERY and not servitude.
“In fact, some slaves became slaves voluntarily, and thus were probably effecient workers for their masters.”
Doesn’t change the salient detail of the slavery.
“They probably never needed incentive to work because they knew what they were getting in to, thus beatings weren't necessary.”
You’re just flat out missing the protest.
“Some slaves even chose to stay a slave under their master instead of being set free. Why?”
The biblical example is that the master still owned the slave’s wife and kids and didn’t want to leave, and became a slave for the rest of his life.
"Were they sadist or masochist?”
It’s written clearly in scripture.
"No, I'm sure they had pleasant relationships with their masters”
The Bible says that you hammered an awl through their ear to mark them as permanent slaves. Doesn’t sound pleasant.
"because they did what was asked of them and needed no beatings as incentive.”
You just really want to beat people, don’t you? I’m just guessing, here, but you want to beat the lazy black people on welfare, don’tcha?
