The Instigator
nonprophet
Pro (for)
Tied
9 Points
The Contender
Carthage
Con (against)
Tied
9 Points

Christians can't claim the moral high ground because the Bible condones slavery

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,019 times Debate No: 53033
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

nonprophet

Pro

First round is for acceptance only
No adding new arguments in later rounds No word games. No playing with semantics. No vague definition of words. If you use a word that can have several meanings, make it clear what you actually mean.
Carthage

Con

Proof of burden is on you. I assume first round is for acceptance, as I shall mostly rebut.
Debate Round No. 1
nonprophet

Pro

Wow! I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. There was no need to assume the first round was for acceptance ONLY; it said it very clearly as fact. Then he goes and uses the first round to claim I somehow have the burden of proof when, by him claiming con, took half the burden to prove Christians CAN claim the moral high ground.


OK, I'd like to point out that according to U.S. Law, slavery is against the law, mostly due to the fact that it is not moral. One of the main reasons for the civil war, was because, although slavery was legal then, people knew that it was not moral to get free labor from fellow human beings and put them in living conditions where they would be beaten and/or killed.

Morality is based on the "golden rule": Treat others the way you want to be treated.

That being said, the Bible does, indeed, condones slavery.


Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

This is not just a story. It is a direct rule from god that you may, in fact, beat slaves you own as property. This is not indentured servitude and this is not taken out of context.
A Christian can NOT take the moral high ground due to the fact that his/her god condones slavery.
Carthage

Con

I apologize for my proof of burden statement. I was thinking along the lines of "Well, show me where, I can't really do much until you show me the evidence" (Granted, I could go out and look for evidence and rebut that, but this makes more sense), and should have said that in the first place. Having said that: Back when Exodus was written, most other nations (Non-Jews) had no such code*, and could kill their slaves if they wanted to. Therefore, followers of the Old Testament COULD claim the moral high ground, as their code protected the lives of slaves. The golden rule proves this (if we're talking about deciding which code to follow), as the masters would rather have their lives be protected than have them not be. Anyway, most Christian denominations do not take the Old Testament to be their covenant. The Old Covenant (All those specific, harsh, and specific laws that Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are chalk full of, including the surrounding passage of your evidence) was a deal God had with the Jews before Jesus came. Evidence for this claim- Luke 22:20*-In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. This is prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31*-"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Also, Galatians 3:24*-Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. So, Christians (as they believe), are not held to the Old Covenant Laws.
I honestly thought you would use some New Testament passages having to do with slaves submitting to their masters. But I guess not. Thank you.

*I used this site to find the specific verses: http://carm.org...
Debate Round No. 2
nonprophet

Pro

I will point out that slavery is, in fact, condoned in the New Testament as well.
For example:
1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

However, the word of god does not change.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

If Jesus is god, then the morality of the Old Testament is endorsed by god.

That means other verses condoning slavery in the old testament are also valid, including:
Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

Christians still value the Old Testament because it has the story of Genesis and the 10 Commandments, amongst others. I have yet to see a Christian throw those things out and call them the "Old Covenant ".

I'd also like to point out that nowhere in the 10 Commandments, or elsewhere in the Bible, does it state "Thou shalt not own another human being as property."

Thank you once again for the debate.
Carthage

Con

Yes, and there are plenty of other verses along the same lines as 1 Peter 2:18, such as Ephesians 6:5, and Collosians 3:22. As for the Old Testament verses -beating people with rods, stoning, and other physical punishments were common place in the world of the Old Testament. So beating your slave with a rod as punishment would be seen no differently than beating a non-slave with a rod. And slaves then were not the same as slaves two hundred years ago. They were more like indentured servants. As for 1st Peter 2:18, just because he wants slaves to submit to their masters does not mean He condones slavery. Let's look at Matthew 5:39: But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. Does this mean He condones the evil or the slap? Of course not! God does not condone, approve of, or like the slap, nor does he condone, approve of, or like slavery. My argument for the Matthew passage relies on the verse before it:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (NASB). See, this relates back to the Old Covenant changing to the New Covenant. He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill. Because He fulfilled the Law, our covenant with God changed. God did not change, we did. When Jesus is about to die this is what the Bible says:Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus" lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."(John 19:28-30, NIV). See, again, He fulfills the Scriptures (the Law) with His death on the cross. As a summary, slavery was not the same in the Old Testament as 200 years ago, Jesus does not condone slavery just as he does not condone the slap, and He fulfilled the Law with His death. My opponent seems not to understand the shift from Old to New Covenant, nor the world around the Scriptures. I thank Pro for the debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Carthage 3 years ago
Carthage
I just realized hoe long the voting period is. Half a year!?
Posted by nonprophet 3 years ago
nonprophet
@LittleBallofHATE Show me a context where slavery is moral!
Posted by Carthage 3 years ago
Carthage
The only thing I used an apologetic website for is finding verses related to the subject.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
AAAAANNNND this is why posting from my phone on a slow 3G network is a bad Idea.....
Posted by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
okok guys, Be cool here. Don't debate from the comment section; you're more mature than that, you can rant all you want once the debate, and hopefully the voting as well, has finished. Until then note your comments, arguments and fallacies down and hold on to them for a while. x)
Posted by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
okok guys, Be cool here. Don't debate from the comment section; you're more mature than that, you can rant all you want once the debate, and hopefully the voting as well, has finished. Until then note your comments, arguments and fallacies down and hold on to them for a while. x)
Posted by nonprophet 3 years ago
nonprophet
Apologetic websites are useless for finding the truth
Posted by Mhykiel 3 years ago
Mhykiel
I was joking. But a case could be made for identical entities based on similar description. Just humorously stating that all forms of slavery are not all morally wrong.
Posted by Christian_Debater 3 years ago
Christian_Debater
Not really =/ besides, where does the Bible claim kids to be slaves? or even workers?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
nonprophetCarthageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't rebut Pro's argument very well, citing changes between old and new covenant, yet as Pro showed, both Covenants are part of Christianity and the new Covenant also supported slavery. Jesus told his followers to adhere to the Old Covenant as well. Pro's bible passages were more supportive of his argument, Con's passages did little to demonstrate any rebuttal of Pro's argument.
Vote Placed by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
nonprophetCarthageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Carthage uses the same cherry-picking method that is favored by Christians. Personally, I don't care for the starting of sentences with the word, "and" although it is "acceptable". Neither went "ad hominem" Both used the plain ol' bible as a source which is, exactly correct for this
Vote Placed by Rhodesia79 3 years ago
Rhodesia79
nonprophetCarthageTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made the more convincing argument. Pro misspelled Colossians, but Con din't capitalize God. Both used the most reliable source of all.
Vote Placed by LittleBallofHATE 3 years ago
LittleBallofHATE
nonprophetCarthageTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not know what he was talking about. He took Scripture out of context. A common mistake of non believers. If one is to understand the Bible, you must read everything in context. This means chapter, book and whole Bible context. You also need to interpret it in it's original language, and consider historical and cultural context, as well. This is the only way to grasp the correct meaning of some passages.