As much as you won't like this answer, what I am "ok" with is immaterial. The issue is "what does God require of me." In obedience to the New Testament, if I were a slave with an ungodly master, but I was a Christian, I would be required to serve that master as I would Christ, regardless of whether the master beat me or did any other number of evil things to me. Being a Christian means that "what I would like" or "what I would be ok with" is absolutely and utterly meaningless.
That's great and all, but you're still not answering the question. You keep dancing around it. I know you are old enough, older than I, to know from history class what kind of life slaves lived. I know you wouldn't have seen it as "fine" had you been a slave. But, for some bizarre reason, you won't concede that.
Which after some investigation doesn't even deserve the name slavery. In fact God sets Israel as a shining example in the midst of the surrounding nations where (true) slavery is rampant. So relieved...........
I've already answered this. Your question assumes a false presupposition. The false presupposition is that as a Christian, my personal opinion has any relevance to God's clear instruction. As a Christian, if I were a slave for the most brutal of masters, how I felt about it would be "I serve Jesus no matter how I am treated or how my emotions may demand. I control my emotions, they do not control me. therefore, I will serve my master as if I were serving Jesus himself." I would "count it all joy" if I underwent persecution. And I would likely have to consistently fight my flesh to do do. Sort of like I do in my life today, sometimes victoriously, sometimes not so much. That ends the analysis. So, no, I will not concede your false presupposition.
Old or New Testament slavery is not the same as the slavery we know of today. The rules in the Old Testament were there to protect people. And what safety net existed before social security or interest from banks? What do you call a criminal that makes license plates to pay back his debt to society? What do you call a criminal who cleans the streets? A slave? Or is it more moral for society to house criminals and ask nothing from them to pay for their incarceration? Prison spending in 2015 "In 2015, among the 45 responding states, the total state expenditure on prisons was just under $43 billion." https://www.vera.org/publications/p...ns-2015-state-spending-trends-prison-spending Is it okay for someone to sell themselves into slavery to pay their debts? Mistreatment is wrong and always will be wrong. Then there is the question of people who are in jail for most of their lives and get set free but the problems are having people adjust to society when they are too old to work or can't take care of themselves economically and might fall into the traps from being in prison most of their lives. Slavery is wrong but slavery needs to be judged by the different eras in which it existed so we cannot put a 16th, 17th, 18th or 19th century face on other cultures. Until there is a historical context for each era and a total biblical understanding as to what is allowed and not allowed, its a gross stereotype to lump everyone in the same group and to judge them all the same way. The other problem is you can try to take advantage of people not having full knowledge of slavery from a Biblical perspective but then those arguments are then straw men arguments which is a logical fallacy. You have to get to the truth because both sides of the argument have a story and you need to present the other side. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; https://biblehub.com/kjv/1_timothy/1-10.htm There is also a difference between selling your services to pay a debt and enslavement which is not voluntary. The Bible says this is contrary to sound doctrine but there might be a case for criminals, bankrupt people and war criminals.