A new day and new perspectives on personhood

a.k.a. How far should a long distance slave be willing to go to appease their owner?

It is within the bounds of the Owner/slave agreement to change pretty-much anything about the slave as the owner sees fit. From physical changes (gain/loss of weight, hair cutting et al) tometaphysical (owner worship as an example) as long as it is not expressly disallowed in the contract the two signed and does not interfere with the slave's public or familial life it is allowed. But at what point does the bond of trust between the owner and slave get stressed beyond the breaking point by such changes?

Ordering the Christian to go to church more often could be an inconvenience to the casual believer, but ordering them to instead never go to church would be an affront to their entire moral system.  In this case, though the order is technically legal, should the slave follow it?  I am of two minds on the question.

The valknut, related to the triskele, symbolizes the power of Odin to bind and unbind his thralls.

Going by the letter of the law, as it were, this should be a non-issue.  The slave has no rights and as such should readily do whatever their owner directs as long as it is within the letter of their accord.  But some things lie in a gray area where the 'standard' slave contract does not explicitly prohibit, but are still, for lack of a better term, iffy.  On the reverse of the coin, as an opinionated human being with a family of vocally opinionated people I'm predisposed to striking the earth with my stave and shouting "You shall not pass!" when someone confronts a core tenet of my being.

So the questions I must ask myself are, is being a slave worth changing such a vital part of myself?  Or is this part of myself worth abandoning my slavery?  And I have no answers.