The Instigator
animpossiblepossibility
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
tkubok
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

The Bible Advocates Slavery

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,966 times Debate No: 9080
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (5)

 

animpossiblepossibility

Con

I tried searching to see if there was a debate on this topic, but couldn't find any. Therefore, I feel that this debate should fill in the topic. Many people that I have talked to, Christians as well as Atheists, have commented that the Bible advocates slavery. I believe that this is untrue.

First of all, I would like to set some ground rules for this debate. In all fairness, there should only be one version of the Bible used in this debate, the King James Version, so as to not confuse people about the different wordings each version offers. KJV is a widely accepted and popular version, but if my opponent would like to use another, please state which version you will use at the beginning of your argument. Second, outside sources are permitted, but I ask that Wikipedia not be used as a direct source for evidence, due to credibility issues. If you are going to use info from an outside source, make sure that you use it directly and not indirectly through Wikipedia. Third, I would like for this debate to cover the entire Bible, so I ask that my opponent base his arguments from both Testaments of the Bible (Old and New) and not just one, as I will be doing the same as well. Fourth, the Greek word "doulos" could mean either slave or servant, so I will permit the use of both as the same meaning, although they have different meanings in today's English language.

(All definitions used come from dictionary.com)

The Bible (the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments) advocates (to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly) slavery (the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution).

Since I am Con in this debate, I will wait for Pro to make his or her arguments first and go forward from there.
tkubok

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate, as i would have liked to have discussed this as well.

First, let me state that i agree with using the KJV as the only bible source.
Secondly, as for the word "doulos", I would like to use the strict meaning of "Slave" as defined by my opponent, to which i shall expand a bit.

The definition of "Slave" in dictionary.com is as follows: "a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant."(1). I would like to use that as the specific definition.
The definition of Advocation, or more specifically, Recommend, is to "to present as worthy of confidence, acceptance, use, etc.; commend; mention favorably"(2). I shall use that definition as well.

Now, for my arguments.

First off, i shall start with how Slavery is accepted in the bible. Leviticus 25:45 states, "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that [are] with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Note the keywords, "Buy" and "possession". Although i can sit here and claim victory as this alone, both recommends and advocates slavery, i shall continue with the passage to Leviticus 25:46: "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit [them for] a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

Again, the keyword here is "Inheritance" and "Forever".

As if that wasnt damning enough, we have Exodus 21:7, where the bible specifically talks about how one is able to sell his daughter as a sex slave: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Clearly the bible advocates, promotes, and teaches how you should treat and obtain slaves. And to teach something is to advocate it.

I shall now wait for my opponent to respond, as well as add new arguments in Round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
animpossiblepossibility

Con

Your definition of the word slave is fine with me, but I disagree with your other definition. I used the word advocate, not advocation. I did not say "The Bible advocation Slavery." This does not make sense. They are two different words that have two different meanings. According to the American Heritage College Dictionary (4th Ed.) the definition of advocate is "to speak, plead, or argue in favor of." I ask that my opponent use either this or the other one that I mentioned in the first round as the definition.

I asked in the first round that my opponent use both Testaments as evidence that the Bible advocates slavery, and he only used the Old Testament. I will let this slide for the first round, but I expect my opponent to use the entire Bible as the basis for his claim, since this debate is not titled "The Old Testament" but rather "The Bible," and I have given an ample definition of the Bible as well.

Since I agree with my opponent's definition of "slave," I ask that he also provide his interpretation of "wholly subject." I interpret "wholly subject" as being that a person has no freedom of action, is subject to the will of another, and whose services are completely under the control of another. With this interpretation in mind, my opponent's use of Leviticus 25:45-46 and Exodus 21:7 were taken out of context and misunderstood as well.

Now, my opponent mentions Leviticus 25:45-46 as evidence that the Bible "speaks, pleads, or argues in favor of" Slavery. However, these verses do not advocate the ownership of slaves, but rather address the simple fact that slavery existed, and the proper way to treat them.

In the Old Testament, servants were given rights under God such as not working on the Sabbath (Ex 20:10), not to be oppressed (Ex 22:21; Lev 19:33), to be loved (Deut 10:19), to be relieved in distress (Lev 25:35), to have the gleaning of the harvest (Lev 19:10; Lev 23:22), and were allowed to worship in the temple (1 Kings 8:41-43).

In the Baker Commentary on The Bible, scholar Walter Elwell describes the verses in detail:

"When poor people needed additional loans, interest was never to be taken from them, and no food was to be sold to them for profit. A poor person could hire himself out to a rich person who then had to care for him; the poor person, however, was not to be treated as a slave, but rather, as a hired worker or temporary resident until the next year of Jubilee…such individuals were to be freed in the seventh year of their service, but if the Jubilee came first, then their release came sooner…The poor and possibly their children could then regain the land of their fathers."

Concerning Exodus 21:7, my opponent has taken the verse out of context yet again and misunderstood it as well. There is a difference between how we view slavery today and how slavery was viewed in Hebrew times, so I ask that the audience as well as my opponent keep this in mind. I will elaborate in later rounds on this topic. Concerning the verse, it is describing a form of adoption in Hebrew times. The Baker Commentary describes this as well:

"A young woman was often given by a wealthy man to his daughter at marriage to be her maid, and in some cases, to serve as a surrogate mother (Gen 16:1-4). A man might purchase the woman to be his wife or concubine, or to give her to his son for the same purpose. If the man decided against marriage, he was to allow her to be redeemed by a near kinsman."

Again, there is no clear indication in the verse that the Bible advocates slavery, but addresses a form of adoption in Hebrew times.

Now, I would like to introduce my opening arguments.

The Bible does not advocate slavery in any way, but merely addresses it. The Bible clearly states in both Testaments that all human beings have certain rights and that everyone is equal in Christ.

Exodus 21:16
"16And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

In the Old Testament, the eighth commandment says "Thou shall not steal." Slavery is the theft of an individual's sovereignty of will.

Deuteronomy 23:15,16:
"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."

God cared so much for those in captivity of any kind that he sent his only son, Jesus Christ, to die for their freedom:

Luke 4:18
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,"

The New Testament urges masters to come together with their slaves in brotherhood.

Ephesians 6:9
"And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

If the Bible advocated slavery, why would God condemn slave traders?

1 Timothy 1:10
"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;"

If the Bible advocated slavery, why would Paul urge a master to accept a servant as a "brother beloved"?

Philemon 1:16
‘Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?"

I will end my opening arguments here.
tkubok

Pro

Although Advocate, and Advocation are the same to me, as one is a verb and the other is a noun, much like study and studying, i have no qualms with using the definition used in Round one by my opponent. As for using both the new and old testament, as i have posted in my first round, i thought i would post my second wave of arguments in the next round.

As for my opponents definition of Wholly subject, i completely agree. However, I shall show why Leviticus 25 and Exodus 21 were not taken out of context.

1a. Now let me comment on the Sabbath. In the new testament, Matt 12:1 show how Jesus said that working on the sabbath was okay. And then we have Romans 14:5, where Paul is stating that every man has the right to consider working or not on every day.

1b. Now, onto the oppression. Ex 22:21 says nothing about slavery at all. Lev 19:33 talks about Vexing, which is defined as torment or trouble someone. Again, nothing about slavery or the treatment, advocation, or denouncing of slaves.

1c. As for Deut 10:19, again, strangers, not slaves. And so is Lev 25:35 talking about strangers. Lev 19:10 also talks about strangers. And again with Lev 23:22. And again with 1 Kings 8:41-43.

1d.My opponent has made this mistake several times. There is a clear distinction between stranger and Manservent/slave. As seen here(1), there is a clear definition for what a stranger is in the Bible.

1e. As for the commentary on the bible by Scholar Walter Elwell, this is completely irrelevant to the fact that Leviticus 25:45 clearly states that, and i quote:
"the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy"
No where are the actual strangers selling themselves out as servants. They are selling there children. Clearly my opponent must explain why people in debt, may sell their sons and daughters as slaves.

1f. Now, as for my opponents ridiculous claims of how slaves were viewed differently...
This is still slavery. As we said before, someone who is the property of another, is a slave.

=========================================================================

Now i shall address my opponents arguments.

2a. "The Bible does not advocate slavery in any way, but merely addresses it. The Bible clearly states in both Testaments that all human beings have certain rights and that everyone is equal in Christ."

First off, my opponent has it sort of wrong. Everyone is equal to be saved and enter heaven, through Christ. 1 Timothy 6:1 clearly states that:
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed."
Secondly, placing rules on an action is advocating it. We have agreed at the start of the debate, that the definition of Recommending something as being the following,(to present as worthy of confidence, acceptance, use) is sufficient to prove that the bible is advocating slavery. Now, my million dollar question to my opponent; If a government passes a law that states that we are allowed to kill any black person, freely, is the government telling its people to accept murder as a viable option?

2b. "Exodus 21:16 Slavery is the theft of an individual's sovereignty of will."
Actually, no. Exodus 21:16 is talking about stealing a man, and then making him your slave. Nowhere does it state that the slavery of someone is theft on the sovereignty of will. My opponent fails to understand that the laws are not exactly what they seem. The hebrews were very clear on this, stating that they can take slaves through warfare and plunder(2), but not via kidnapping for the specific purpose of slavery(3).

3b. "Deuteronomy 23:15,16"
As per the commentary(4), "This is meant of the heathen , who fled because of their masters' cruelty, and embrace the true religion." They were not being returned, not because slavery was wrong, but because the slaves who were running from were cruel and were part of a false religion.

3c. "God cared so much for those in captivity of any kind that he sent his only son, Jesus Christ, to die for their freedom:"
Although this borders preaching, nothing in Luke 4:18 mentions anything about slaves. First off, there is no such reason why Jesus wouldnt heal a slave, nor does it mean that healing a slave, means that the slave is no longer a slave. Secondly, coming together with their slaves in brotherhood is fine, but Jesus, as stated above, clearly wants the slaves to properly respect and obey their masters. As seen here:
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not [himself], neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes]." Luke 12:47

3d. Could you possibly explain why Ephesians 6:9 shows that the lord is condemning Slave traders?

3e. "why would Paul urge a master to accept a servant as a "brother beloved"?"
The same way that Jesus told the slave to work even harder for his master, because the slave is helping another believer by his efforts.

3f. Philemon 1:16, again, states nothing about disregarding the fact that the servant is a servant.

My arguments end here.

Sources:
1. http://www.blueletterbible.org...(In%20the%20Apocrypha%20and%20the%20New%20Testament)&DictID=4
2.http://www.biblegateway.com...
3. http://www.biblegateway.com...
4. http://bible.cc...
Debate Round No. 2
animpossiblepossibility

Con

Now, my opponent is trying to prove that my arguments concerning the rights of servants were taken out of context themselves. Yet, he continues to misunderstand them and take them out of context himself.

1a. Matt 12:8: "For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day." In the OT, priestly requirements overrode Sabbath Law (v.5). Because Jesus is the giver of the law, he has a right to expound the Sabbath law if he so chooses. Regarding Romans 14:5, since Jesus was crucified and took up their sins, Sabbath observance is now unessential to salvation. It is now a matter of individual conscience. Verse 9: "For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living."

1b. Ex 22:21: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." The Israelites were once slaves in Egypt until Moses came, therefore it can be implied. Again, it can also be implied in Lev 19:33. Verse 34: "for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." God is telling the Israelites to remember what it was like to be strangers when they were slaves in Egypt.

1c. My opponent continues to try to prove that I have taken these verses out of context, yet he is taking them out of context himself in trying to prove me wrong. Let us look at Deut 10:19: "Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."
Concerning Lev 25:35, look 3 verses further: "I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt."

My opponent clearly does not have a full understanding of the Bible as he continues to take each verse literally without looking at the verses in full context of each chapter and book. My opponent sees the word stranger and immediately thinks that this does not involve slaves, which is an easy mistake to make for someone who does not take the Bible into full context, as I have proven that he has not in the verses above. I will prove the next three verses were taken out of context as well:

Lev 19:10: In full context of the chapter, God is giving explanations of the Ten Commandments, and this verse relates to the tenth commandment. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary: "Works of piety must be always attended with works of charity, according to our ability. We must not be covetous, griping, and greedy of every thing we can lay claim to, nor insist upon our right in all things. We are to be honest and true in all our dealings."
Lev 23:22: See above explanation
1 Kings 8:41-43: Implies slaves, similar to 1b-1c, Verse 43: "that all people of the earth may know thy name." Slaves lived on earth at the time.

1d. As I have proven in the verses above, it is not I who is making the mistakes, it is my opponent, who continues to not look at the Bible in full context. (1) results in page not found for me, so I cannot refute it until he provides the workable link.

In 1e, my opponent tries yet again to use Lev 25:45 as a literal interpretation, without considering the full context of both the chapter and the book itself.

"A poor person could hire himself out to a rich person who then had to care for him; the poor person, however, was not to be treated as a slave, but rather, as a hired worker or temporary resident until the next year of Jubilee."

My opponent is ignoring the facts. My source clearly states that the sons or daughters are to be treated as a "hired worker or temporary resident," not slaves. My opponent still does not refute my claim that Lev 25:45 addresses the simple fact that slavery existed, providing the people of Israel with rules on how to properly treat them.

"Now, as for my opponents ridiculous claims of how slaves were viewed differently..."

My opponent has committed the appeal to emotion fallacy (1). He is saying that my claims of how slaves are treated are ridiculous, therefore they should not be believed. However, he provides no evidence to suggest that my claims are ridiculous, but merely calls them "ridiculous."

"As we said before, someone who is the property of another, is a slave."

Slave- "a person who is the property of AND wholly subject to another; a bond servant."

There is not an "or" in the second part of the definition, but an "and." You agreed to my interpretation of wholly subject being that "a person has no freedom of action." However, I have shown that servants were given freedoms under God in Round 2, and I have also proven that you have taken each out of context in your rebuttals of them in this round. Therefore, your statement is false.

2a. If my opponent had looked over my opening arguments, he would have seen Ephesians 6:9, which states that masters are to do the same, thereby making them equal.

"We have agreed at the start of the debate, that the definition of Recommending something as being the following"

This is clearly false. I never agreed to the definition of recommend. I agreed to the definition of advocate and slave. The American Heritage College Dictionary 4th Ed. defines recommend as "to praise or commend (one) to another as being worthy or desirable." I ask that this definition be used. The question my opponent raises is a hypothetical one that did/does not exist in real life. Slavery did exist in real life, although it was addressed and not advocated in the Bible. Therefore, I cannot answer any question that relates to hypothetical's, because we are debating something that is not hypothetical.

2b. Exodus 21:16 and the Eighth Commandment are two different statements; my apologies for not pointing this out in the previous round. I was using Exodus 21:16 to show that man-stealing, the object of which is to force another into slavery, is considered as one of the harshest crimes. The 8th Commandment says that "Thou shall not steal." Slavery is the theft of an individual's sovereignty of will, therefore it is looked down upon by God.

3b. Baker Commentary on the Bible states that "he is an image-bearer of God, not lost merchandise (see Exod. 22:21; Lev. 19:33)." These are conflicting views; therefore the verse will be removed as part of my opening argument.

3c. Captives can be implied as slaves. It is referring to divine healing. When Jesus heals him by dying on the cross for his sins, the slave is no longer a slave in the earthly sense, but in the spiritual sense, as a slave to God, along with everyone else who believes, which includes their masters if they were to be saved as well. Paul says in his letters that he is a "slave" to God. He is referring to the spiritual sense and not the earthly sense.

Concerning Luke 12:47, my opponent is still consistently taking verses out of context. Verse 42: "And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?"

Wesley's Notes (2): "Who is that faithful and wise steward - Our Lord's answer manifestly implies, that he had spoken this parable primarily (though not wholly) to the ministers of his word: Whom his lord shall make ruler over his household - For his wisdom and faithfulness."

To the "ministers of his word," not slaves. He is using the term in the figurative sense. Jesus was using a parable, as he almost always does when describing topics and events.

3d. Men-stealers are referred to as slave traders in Hebrew times.

3e. What verse are you referring to? Nowhere does it talk about Jesus telling the slave Onesimus to work harder in the book of Philemon. My opponent is trying to make up verses in a book in order to prove his point, thus reducing his credibility and knowledge of the Bible.

I do not have enough characters left to provide the remaining rebuttals, so I ask that my opponent give me the opportunity to address them as well as my own arguments in the next round before addressing his new ones.

1.http://www.nizkor.org...
2.http://wes.bible...
tkubok

Pro

"my opponent is trying to prove that my arguments concerning the rights of servants were taken out of context themselves."

Not at all. I am arguing that discussing whether something is taken out of context, is like discussing which side of the sun is the north pole. Both sides can bring convincing arguments that are compeltely disregarding the matter at hand. What is discussed in the current Bible, isnt justifying why the phrases were written, but rather that they were simply written as they were.

Although i would be happy to discuss further why the scriptures are not taken out of context, the fact still remains, that the bible has written rules and legislations concerning Slavery, who you can slave, how to treat your slaves, how to mark them, etc. And this still points to the fact that the Bible is speaking of Slavery in a positive light, encouraging it.

1a. I have a simple question for my opponent. The ten commandments are considered as law, and a part of the 613 laws that are prevalant in Judaism. Now, my question is, if Jesus overrode the law, did he override the ten commandments, and if not, then where in the Bible does it say which law Jesus overrode?

1b. Again, Exodus 22:21 claims nothing towards slavery. Modern christian scholars have this to say about it:
"Strangers must not be abused (v. 21), not wronged in judgment by the magistrates, not imposed upon in contracts, nor must any advantage be taken of their ignorance or necessity; no, nor must they be taunted, trampled upon, treated with contempt, or upbraided with being strangers; for all these were vexations, and would discourage strangers from coming to live among them".

"God is telling the Israelites to remember what it was like to be strangers when they were slaves in Egypt."
No. As i have said before, i agree that there are certain laws on who you can enslave and so forth. This verse is merely stating that you cannot kidnap or forcibly remove someone who comes to your land as a guest, into a slave.

However, let us delve more deeper into the context of the word, Stranger. In the original Hebrew text, the word used is "Ger"(1). Ger is translated as "a temporary inhabitant, a newcomer lacking inherited right; of foreigners in Israel, though conceded rights."

Yet, there already exists a word for Slave in the Hebrew text, which is `ebed(2). So clearly there is no double meaning.

1c. First of all, let me just show you why Deut 10:19 is not taken out of context:
Mr A is a guest at Mr B's house. Mr B kidnaps and forcibly enslaves Mr A. Mr A is now a slave. Mr C comes along, looks at Mr A's situation, and states, "Mr A was a guest in Mr B's house".
This may sound comical, but this is exactly what God is doing. He is claiming that the Slavery of Moses and the Israelites were an injustice, that they were originally guests, but were forcibly enslaved. Which is clearly why he helped them escape, in the events following Moses escape from the Pharaoh. I have already provided the verse which states how you cannot enslave someone who comes to your country as a guest.

Lev 19:10. Again, my opponent fails to incorporate, or even mention any slavery. As my opponent has admitted, the verse is simply talking about the tenth commandment. What this has to do with slavery is beyond me.
Lev 23:22. See above.
1 Kings 8:41-43. I have not disputed the fact that Slaves cannot enter heaven or know God. As i have already mentioned before, Jesus who clearly wanted everyone to be saved, still advocated for slaves to follow their masters.

1d. I apologize for the link, here it is again(3).

1e. "My source clearly states that the sons or daughters are to be treated as a "hired worker or temporary resident," not slaves."
What my opponent has failed to address, and i do wish dearly for him to address this, is that the statement my opponent has provided, is clear:
"A poor person could hire himself out"
Again, Lev 25:45 clearly states:
"the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy"
Hiring yourself out, and selling your children are two different acts completely. Please, i really wish for my opponent to discuss this point.

Furthermore, perhaps, again, looking at the original hebrew text is best to see what sort of context this word is being used in. The original hebrew word used here for possession, is 'achuzzah(4) which clearly means, "Property or possession by inheritance". Yet, there already exists a word used to describe someone who is hired, which is sakiyr(5). So clearly, the bible uses the context of owning as property, instead of hiring as a labourer.

As for appealing to emotions fallacy, not at all. Nowhere have i ever stated, that since i believe my opponents claims to be ridiculous, that therefore everyone who reads this discussion should also agree with me. As stated in the source(6), "this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim". Nowhere have i solely used this as evidence for any claim. Nor did i leave my argument blank. My argument that later came, although vague, was in hopes of moving this discussion forward by investigating the definition of what a "Slave" is.

As for the definition of slave:
I completely agree with the definition of slave. However, this is the problem with claiming that if a man who is the property of another, but has the freedom to, say, not work on sundays, is not a slave. And to prove this point, i ask my opponent a simple question: Does my opponent consider what the African Americans who were brought to the USA in the 1800s to work in the cotton feilds with no visible freedoms, as slaves?

=====================================================

2a. My opponent has failed to look at the entire Scripture. Ephes 6:8 talks about how everyone, free or bonded, shall receive blessing from God. And then 6:9 is directly talking to the slaves who are christians, that both slaves and masters should respect each other as christians. As Jesus said, christian slaves should not despise but rather respect their christian masters as both are faithful to God.

"American Heritage College Dictionary 4th Ed. defines recommend as "to praise or commend (one) to another as being worthy or desirable."
I have no problem with that definition at all. And to use the same dictionary as my opponent, the definition to Commend in the American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th Ed, is as follows: To represent as worthy, qualified, or desirable; recommend. To express approval of; praise.
When someone orders the direct slavery, or when rules are created to govern slavery, then that is by definition, qualified and worthy of having.

2b. I agree that the bible listed certain rules, including man-stealing.

3b. Okay.

3c. So nothing close to slaves in the sense that we are discussing? Okay.

3d. Source? Any bible text supporting your claim?

3e. 1 Timothy 6:2. Since paul never met Jesus, it would be absurd for me to claim that Jesus freed a slave during pauls time.

I too am out of characters, so i do not mind my opponent addressing my latter arguments in the next round.

Sources
1. http://www.blueletterbible.org...
2. http://www.blueletterbible.org...
3. http://www.blueletterbible.org...+(In+the+Apocrypha+and+the+New+Testament)&entry.x=46&entry.y=13
4. http://www.blueletterbible.org...
5. http://www.blueletterbible.org...
Debate Round No. 3
animpossiblepossibility

Con

*Side note- I thought it was pretty cool when I typed in the title and it came up as 3rd most popular on Google :).
*Side note 2- If we don't get around to discussing every part of my argument (both OT and NT), would you be willing to make a pt.2 with say another 3 rounds?

I ask my opponent this: what comes to mind when you think of the term "church?" When Paul says that he will visit the churches in his letters such as Ephesus, does he mean that he is going to visit a building, or does he mean that he is going to go to Ephesus and visit all the believers who lived there?

As you can see, the word has a different meaning today than it had in the past. The term "slavery" (the keeping of ‘slaves' as a practice or institution) can be similarly applied to see the difference between how slavery is addressed in the Old Testament (OT) and the New World times (NWT) of Europe/America. Because there are dramatic differences between the meanings of slavery today and how the OT viewed slavery, the OT's use should not be considered as slavery, but as something else, a form of indentured servanthood.

Here is my main source:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com...
The author uses many scholarly sources and I encourage the audience as well as my opponent to read it. My opponent may not want to read all of it, so I will discuss the main points it portrays. All quotes used come from this source.

First, the term "slave" has many different meanings in the OT:
"Finally, the same term was also used in the figurative meaning "the slave (or servant) of God." Thus, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prophets, David, Solomon and other kings are regularly called slaves of Yahweh (Exod 32:13; Lev 25:55; 1 Sam 3:9; Ezra 9:11, etc.). Similarly, all the subjects of Israel and Judah are called slaves of their kings, including even wives, sons, and brothers of the latter (1 Sam 17:8; 29:3; 2 Sam 19:5, etc.; cf. also Gen 27:37; 32:4). Addressing Moses and prophets, the Israelites called themselves their slaves (Num 32:25; 1 Sam 12:19, etc.). Ruth refers to herself as a slave girl of her relative Boaz (Ruth 3:9). Being a vassal of the Philistine king Achish, David called himself his slave (1 Sam 28:2)."

Our agreement on the definition of ‘slave' is: a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another. As you can see, these are completely different views of how slaves were perceived then and now.

The meaning of slavery today (Western antebellum slavery) and in the OT are very different:

NWT- Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.
OT- Not the case. It was designed to serve the poor. (Lev 25:35-43)

NWT-Slavery was involuntary; humans were captured by force (against their will) and sold via slave-traders.
OT-Slavery was often voluntary and varied (Deut 15:12-15). Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death (Ex 21:16). A majority of the instances is when someone ‘sells oneself' (Lev 25:39; Lev 25:47; Deut 15:12). Most were limited to 6 years in length, and continuation was a voluntary act of the ‘slave' (Ex 21:5; Deut 15:16).

NWT- Slaves were frequently mistreated, and punishments often resulted in death.
OT- Forbade harsh treatment (Lev 25:43; Lev 25:46), set stipulations for positive treatment (Deut 15:18), set tight boundaries around punishment of servants (Ex 21:20, 26-27), similar to servants, free men could likewise be punished by the legal system by rod-beating (Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Prov 13.24; 22.15; 23.13).
"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household--there is no indication, for example, that large gangs of them were toiling in deplorable conditions to cultivate big estates, as in the later Roman world."

NWT-Slaves lived in separation from their owners, didn't participate in the owner's fortunes
OT-Given liberal gifts from the possessions of masters upon release (Deut 15:13), almost all servitude was domestic (lived in house with master).

NWT-Slaves were considered property in exclusion to their humanity. Shooting a slave is like shooting a tomato, looked upon as disposable goods. No demand on how masters were to treat slaves, economic value was a main deterrent to abuse.
OT-Severely restricted notion of property; did not preclude humanity of servant or accountability of master. Both land and servants belonged to God (Lev 25:23; Lev 25:39), masters held accountable to God for treatment of land/people; Property not seen as ‘owned disposable goods' but as economic output (including labor) (Lev 25:14; Ex 21:18; Lev 25:49); Elders ordered to make sure owners did not mistreat them (Lev 25:53).

NWT-Slaves could not own property, belonged to owner.
OT-Slaves could have own property, could prosper and buy own freedom, maintained any family/property they had before entering into servitude arrangement.

"Naturally, there were a certain number of privileged slaves. Thus, according to 2 Samuel (19:17), Ziba, a slave of Saul's family, had fifteen sons and twenty slaves. To judge from Leviticus (25:47–50), some slaves of Hebrew origin could have raised the means in order to purchase their freedom."

NWT- Slavery lasted forever, with practically no means of obtaining freedom other than running away, in some cases of owners granting freedom, they were given no property with it
OT- Very easy to obtain freedom. Freedom could be bought by relatives (Lev 25:49), could buy own freedom whether master wanted to let him go or not (Lev 25:49), every 7th year all servants go free (Ex 21:2; Deut 15:12), minor injuries due to abusive action by masters resulted in immediate freedom (Ex 21:16).

It is clear that the institution in the Old Testament was voluntary, flexible, temporary, and gave the people under it many rights, very different from the Western slavery we view today. When you apply the definition of ‘slavery' to what I have mentioned in the OT, it does not pan out. So what then is it in the OT? It is a form of indentured servanthood. When you apply this term to what I have mentioned previously about the OT, you will see that it is strikingly similar:

"a form of debt bondage worker. The laborer is under contract of an employer for usually three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, drink, clothing, lodging and other necessities. Unlike a slave, an indentured servant is required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract."(1)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

1a.Galations 3:11,19

1b. Source?

1c. I have no clue what you are talking about. Can you make it a little more understandable for me?

1d. a stranger could be a captive of war, could he or she not?

1e.see my above argument; this is a form of indentured servanthood, not slavery

Definition of slave: see above argument

2a. Colossians 4:1

2b. So then you also agree that God looks down upon slavery? Read over my statement again.

3c.see above argument

3d. 1 Timothy 1:10

3e. Then why did you? And I quote: "The same way that Jesus told the slave to work even harder for his master, because the slave is helping another believer by his efforts."
You specifically claimed that Jesus "told the slave to work even harder for his master" in the book of Philemon, which is not true. Please defend this statement and not dodge the question by introducing new verses.
tkubok

Pro

Side note 1: Interesting.
Side note 2: i thought i already discussed a bit of the NT. I mean, isnt the section where i quoted Jesus, part of the NT?

As for my opponents definition for slaver...

I agree completely. The word "Slave", has many meanings. But heres the sad part. I also agree that the word "Gay" has multiple meanings too. And this is what my opponent fails to see. Let me just tackle down my opponents many defintions of Slave.

I actually did read the article my opponent provided, but alas i fear i do not have enough space to write a proper counter-article. Therefore, i shall address my opponents arguments directly.

First, here is an excerpt of Exodus 32:13 from the KJV bible:
"Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them..."

Where is the term "Slave"? Is the topic of this discussion, "The bible advocates Servants"? Id call my maid a servant. Infact, the definition of Servant, is "A person employed by another"(1).

Here is an excerpt from 1 Samuel 17:8:
"...[am] not I a Philistine, and ye servants to Saul? choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me."

Here is an excerpt from Numbers 32:25:
"...saying, Thy servants will do as my lord commandeth."

Here is an excerpt from Ruth 3:9:
"Who [art] thou? And she answered, I [am] Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou [art] a near kinsman."

Here is an excerpt from 1 samuel 28:2:
"And David said to Achish, Surely thou shalt know what thy servant can do."

Again, the word "Slave" is curiously missing. Is my opponent trying to jumble together the word "Servant", and the word "Slave"? No one here is denying that people, in the old testament, existed, who were under the payment and service of others.

"Our agreement on the definition of ‘slave' is: a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another. As you can see, these are completely different views of how slaves were perceived then and now."
I agree, since the term "Slave" is missing from these passages. So clearly, these servants were not slaves, as they were addressed as Servants!

"OT- Not the case. It was designed to serve the poor. (Lev 25:35-43)"

One verse to rule them all, one verse to Trump them:
Deuteronomy 20:14.
In other words, Slavery wasnt JUST designed to serve the poor. It was also okay to enslave people who you won through warfare.

"Slavery was often voluntary and varied (Deut 15:12-15)."
I suppose the keyword here is "Often".

"Most were limited to 6 years in length"
Actually, no. Only hebrew slaves were limited to 6 years in length.
Exodus 21:2:
"If thou buy an HEBREW servant, six years he shall serve:"
Let us not forget Exodus 21:4:
"If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's"

Lev 25:43 Is god talking about Not enslaving people you Hire. My opponent has utterly failed with this verse:
Lev 25:40 "[But] as an hired servant...shall serve thee unto the year of jubile"
Lev 25:41 "And [then] shall he depart from thee"
Lev 25:42 "For they [are] my servants... they shall not be sold"
Lev 25:43 "Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour"

As for Lev 25:46, again, utter failure of understanding:
"but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
Only talking about those which are of your bretheren, or in other words, those from Israel. Id like to think that the only human beings who were alive, were Israelites, but i just cant. Im sorry. :(

Deut 15:18 has already been answered, bondsmen who were to serve for only 6 years were fellow Hebrews only.

As for Ex 21:20,26-27, why did you leave out 21:21?
"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money." Exodus 21:21
I rest my case.

Again, Deut 15:13 clearly talks about Hebrews:
"[And] if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman" Deuteronomy 15:12

What does Lev 25:23 have anything to do with servants being part of god?
"The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land [is] mine; for ye [are] strangers and sojourners with me. " Lev 25:23
Where is the word "Slave"?

Lev 25:39 is in accordance with Hebrew slavery laws, that is, you cannot kidnap a hebrew to become a slave, you cannot force him to stay after 6 years, etc. Ditto for Lev 25:14, Ex 21:18, and lev 25:49, 53.

"Slaves could have own property"
Source please?

"could prosper and buy own freedom"
Only those who sold themselves into slavery. Again, do you have any sources regarding those won in warfare, for example?

"maintained any family/property they had before entering into servitude arrangement."
Again, source please?

A quick note on 2 Samuel 19:17. The word used here is "Servant", strictly because the original Hebrew used wasnt even ebed, or Servant slave. Infact, it was Na'ar, which is translated only to Servant or retainer, someone who is hired. As for Lev 25:47, my argument stands. Those who sold themselves can redeem themselves.

The part about obtaining freedom, again, i agree, those who were hebrews, or children of israel, or sold themselves to slavery could easily be freed after a couple years work of service.

1a. Gal 3:11
So, we dont have to follow the ten commandments?
Gal 3:19
If the law allows us to recognize sin, how are we recognizing it now, without the law, and furthermore, if it could be done without the law, why wasnt it done before?

1b. http://www.blueletterbible.org...

Already posted the source for the original hebrew wording.

1c. God is calling them guests, because the israelites were wrongfully enslaved.

1d. Nope. The word used here is ger, and the strict definition here is either a temporary inhabitant, or an outsider with conceded rights.(2)

1e. Already addressed.

2a. Ive already agreed that there are specific rules that apply to treating a slave.

2b. You havent answered my question. I shall address this after you answer my question.

3c. Okay.

3d. The exact word that is used here, is of one that STEALS a slave, and then sells it. Stealing someone for the explicit purpose of slavery is forbidden as a law. This is why they are being condemned. Not because they are selling slaves, or trading slaves.(3)

3e. "You specifically claimed that Jesus "told the slave to work even harder for his master" in the book of Philemon, which is not true."
Thats interesting, because when i read my quote, i couldnt find the word "Pihlemon" at all.
Could you possibly highlight were i mention the Book of Philemon? Or have i implied it somewhere?

Also, the question you have failed to answer, and i am still waiting on, is the following:
Does my opponent consider what the African Americans who were brought to the USA in the 1800s to work in the cotton feilds with no visible freedoms, as slaves?

And by slaves, i mean, the definition we both agreed on, to which we are currently debating whether the bible condones it or not.

Please, answer it. It is a simple yes or no question. Thank you.

Source:
1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://www.blueletterbible.org...
3. http://www.blueletterbible.org...
Debate Round No. 4
animpossiblepossibility

Con

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for making this such a thought provoking debate. Since this is my final round, I will provide a condensed argument for the NT, and then answer my opponent's questions.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

The meaning of the word ‘ebed' is debatable, since it denotes persons in subordinate positions as well as actual slaves occupied in production. Therefore, it should be translated as either slave or servant, similar to ‘doulos' in the NT. All of the verses I have mentioned in the previous round still stand.

The New Testament:

1. The New Testament and slavery are incompatible, due to Jesus purchasing everyone with his death on the cross.
"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men" 1 Cor 7:23

2. Jesus commands equality (Matt 7:12; 22:39)

3. All of the NT and OT laws are now two commandments: love God with all your soul, and love thy neighbor as thyself (Matt 22:37-40; Romans 13:8)

4. The NT could not oppose slavery, because it was rampant during that time period, and if it were to, it would incite millions of slaves to come against their masters (similar to the Spartacus incident), which would lead to much bloodshed. Instead, the NT teaches that change is to take place from the inside out.

5. Jesus came to offer freedom through submission to him as Lord. (Col 3:22-24; 1 Tim 6:1-12)

I did not say ‘just' designed, I said designed. It was, in fact, originally designed to serve the poor.

"One verse to rule them all"
Lev 25:35-43 is not one verse. Let me expound upon it for you. Lev 25:35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 adds up to 9 verses, not one.

"Most were limited to 6 years in length"
I agree with your point. Therefore I change ‘most' to ‘some'.

Concerning Lev 25:43,46 and Deut 15:13,18, Hebrews were also considered as ‘slaves,' so the point you are trying to prove is moot. You "utterly fail" to understand this simple fact. Since some Hebrews were considered as ‘slaves,' I can say that at least some slaves were not given harsh treatment.

Exodus 21:20 proves my point that there were boundaries around the punishment of slaves. Answer this question; could slave masters in America be punished for killing a slave? No, they were considered as property and it did not matter how they treated them. This is one of many points in which I show that the OT institution was indentured servitude and not slavery. Even if I were to include the next verse, it would still prove the point that masters were given boundaries about how they could treat their slaves.

"What does Lev 25:23 have anything to do with servants being part of god?"
The Lord was speaking to Moses (v.1) and told him that the "land is mine" (v.23). Again, some Hebrews were also in the category of ‘slaves,' therefore, according to Lev 25:42, they are God's ‘servants': "For they are my servants." The second part of it says that they should not be sold into slavery involuntarily.

Concerning Lev 25:39 and the other verses you mention, you are still proving that some were considered as ‘slaves,' are you not?

"Slaves could have own property"
2 Samuel 19:17; Ziba, a servant of Saul's family, owned 20 servants. Also, I point to Hebrew ‘slaves' and how they were given liberal gifts by their masters (prev round).

"could prosper and buy own freedom"
From source from previous round:

"The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land. Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut 2.1-23), such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power that had attacked Israel in her own territory. By the time these events occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through covenant disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable."

"maintained any family/property they had before entering into servitude arrangement."
Lev 25:39-41. "And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him,"

Concerning 2 Samuel, source?

http://www.stempublishing.com...
Ziba- Originally a servant or slave of the house of Saul.

Anchor Bible Dictionary, David Noel Freedman (main ed.), DoubleDay:1992
"Thus, according to 2 Samuel (19:17), Ziba, a slave of Saul's family,"

We have conflicting sources, so I guess I will remove it from my argument then if you can prove your source exists.

1a. The Ten Commandments were specifically directed toward the OT. I think people who follow Judaism follow them as well, but I am unsure. The Old Testament was given only to the children of Israel. The laws were written for our learning (Romans 15:4). We recognize it now through the Holy Spirit and by faith in Jesus.

1b.see above arguments

1c. Deut 10:19: "Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." The verse is not referring to when the Israelites were guests in Egypt, but when they were slaves.

1d. the term sojourner has many meanings, what about ger toshav?

1e. still indentured servitude

2a.okay fair enough

2b.what question? The one at the end? They were property of and wholly subject to their masters, so yes. This is a stark contrast though from the OT. Now answer my 2 statements from rd. 3.

3d.stealing someone means taking them against their own will, does it not?

3e. I quoted a verse from Philemon in rd 2 at the end and asked you a question from it, you answered with "The same way that Jesus told THE slave to work even harder for his master" in rd 2. THE slave. Jesus never appears in Philemon. You are wrong. Why are you trying to deny it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Old Testament describes indentured servitude and not slavery, and the New Testament does not advocate, or speak in favor of, slavery, but promotes equality and hope. While the Bible may address slavery, it does not advocate it. My opponent has to prove without any reasonable doubt that the Bible advocates slavery, and I have shown ample evidence to prove that there is reasonable doubt. Resolution Negated. Vote CON.
tkubok

Pro

For the final round, i shall avoid direct last questioning and rap up this argument. I would also like to thank my opponent for his responses.

My opponent has stated that the word Ebed had multiple meanings. And i completely agree. The word Ebed had both the meaning of manservant, and as a slave. However, this is exactly why the KJV sometimes used the word "Slave", and the word "Servant". This was because, when translating the text, the preists took the context of the sentence and made the appropriate translation. Much like how "Gay" can mean both "Homosexual" and "Happy", but depending on the context of the sentence, can change its meaning. And this is my point. People, well read scholars, who were well versed in the OT, in christianity, in the hebrew texts, greek texts, and their subsequent languages, deliberately chose to translate the words according to their context. My opponent is trying to argue against such brilliant, well versed scholars who have spent their entire lives reading, interpreting, and translating such texts.

New Testament.

1. Reading 1 Cor 7:22, it is obvious that Paul is talking about how you are a servant either way:
"For he that is called in the Lord, [being] a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, [being] free, is Christ's servant."
Being a servant to another man, you are a lords Freeman. Being a free man, and you are still a servant of Jesus. Reading 1 Cor 7:21, Paul says not to care about being called a servant, but rather care about who you serve when you are a free man. Therefore, 1 Cor 7:23 speaks of how you are still a servant and should serve god and not Man, even if you are free.

2. This is the same as the "Do unto others" stuff. It has nothing relating to Slavery, since Jesus still told Slaves to obey their masters in 1 timothy 6:1-2. Mat 22:39 is the same thing.

3. Every christian disagrees with you as this completely disregards Sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Bestiality is a Sin. Lusting after flesh is a Sin. Yet all of these, and many more, can be accomplished without breaking those two commandments.

4. First off, if the NT truly preaches love and peace, those slaves, who had converted to Christianity and therefore know that Slavery is immoral, would not revolt, especially after reading passages like 1 Timothy 6:1-2. If they did, then that is no different than Hitler using the bible to slaughter Jews, and therefore, has no bearing on christianity.
Secondly, Jesus openly teaching to break the Sabbath would also lead to much bloodshed, as the penalty for that was Death, and by your conclusions, massive revolts would occur. This is no different.
Thirdly, as no source is given that whos that the NT teaches that change is to take place from the inside out, i have no way of verifying this.

5. Col 3:22-24, refers to doing things not because you have a man for your master, but because God is watching, and serving your master is the correct thing to do under Gods eyes. Again, 1 Tim 6:1-2 supports my argument more than it does yours, and I have not received any Counter response on this point.

As for it originally designed to serve the poor, my opponent has again provided no source.

Yes, Lev 25:35-43 is not one verse. I was making a joke, referencing the Lord of the Rings, because i had just watched that movie on Television. But thanks for concentrating on that, instead of my argument.

I agree that Hebrews were considered slaves. However, my opponent has completely disregarded the original point that i had made. That being, I agree that Hebrew slaves were more of a employment contract. However, regardless, there existed the form of slavery through Warfare, and that, my friend, was a non-compliance, Life-long slave system.

As for Lev 25:23, if you are talking about how hebrews were servants to god, then i agree, they were. However, again, this has nothing to do with our argument. Again, Lev 25:42 talks about someone who is hired, who cannot become a slave, or sold as such. Lev 25:40 clearly states this.

And yet again, in the prev round, i have shown how the original Hebrew text clearly shows that the context of Servant wasnt even the hebrew word "Ebed", but rather "Naar"(1).

"The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel."
This is absurd, as Gods "Theoretical" scenario of if a man kills another man, the punishment is death, is clearly something that would be implicated if it ever occurred. Even if no person ever killed another in the land of Israel, this punishment still stands as a law, and MORALLY acceptable, AND supported by God. And the bible.

Also, as a side note, Deut 2:1-23 says nothing about not waging war outside Israels borders. God simply says not to attack two specific landmasses because they are "Possessions of Lot". If the only two countries, aside from Israel, is Ammon and Moabites, then yes, i agree. Its a shame that History tells us otherwise.

Lev 25:39-41, again, regards only those who were hired. Read again.
"[But] as an HIRED SERVANT, [and] AS A SOJOURNER, he shall be with thee, [and] shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: "

"Concerning 2 Samuel, source?"
Source (1). I am sorry that you feel the need to require a source, since i already gave you the verse, and i am guessing you also have access to the internet. However, i suppose this is regardless, since this source basically crushes your argument either way.

"Ziba- Originally a servant or slave of the house of Saul."
This is interesting, because Onesimus, is clearly designated as "Slave of Philemon".(2) One would speculate why the Author decided to use the word "or".

"We have conflicting sources, so I guess I will remove it from my argument then if you can prove your source exists."
This is the probelm with current translations or interpretations. They are, sorry to say, biased towards pointing out that the bible does not advocate slavery. And to be fair, i will also agree that before slavery was banned, for example, when preists were advocating slavery in the 1800s, their interpretations would also be biased. However, this is the most important aspect of the Hebrew word "Na'ar". Even looking at all possible translations, the direct translation of "Slave" is curiously missing. And this is the point. When there already exists a word for Slave, and another is used which does not mean slave, then something clearly is up.

1c. You still missed my point. Nor have you addressed it either.
1d. Actually, sojourner has only one meaning. Ger has two meanings, one of being a sojourner, and the other, which is being a foreigner, with Conceded rights.
3d. Yes. So? Lev 25:44: "of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."
3e. Assuming, of course, that by "The slave" i am reffering to Philemon. Which i was not. Thanks for trying to read between the lines. Not everything is as cryptic as you think.

As for Exodus 21:20, Here it goes:
My opponents main argument rests upon the fact that even the ones who were in debt forever, were not slaves, because they were not "wholly subject to another". In the 1800s, It was illegal for a master to teach a slave how to read or write(3). So clearly, there were restrictions, to which the masters could not do to their slaves. My opponent has said that since it was illegal for a master in the OT to force his slave to, say, work on Sabath, that therefore that slave is not "wholly subject to" its master, since there are certain restrictions for what a master can do to his slave. My opponent has already agreed that Blacks fit the definition for Slaves in the 1800s. Therefore someone is still a slave, despite his masters restrictions. I have proved my point.

Source
1 http://www.blueletterbible.org...
2 http://www.stempublishing.com...
3 http://www.inmotionmagazine.com...
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by creeping_death 7 years ago
creeping_death
the bible is the authority...its "gods word" isnt it?...
whos gonna question it? whos gonna rebel against it? no one! or "god will punish them"...so i dont see why such a powerful force needs to be so "careful" when the words in the book are the will of the god himself...i mean you follow it...or burn in hell...when you are given such a choice...whacha gonna choose?....
and i dont think they really cared much about the lives of "millions of people..." anyways...

so why first say that "you can have slaves..." and then say "slaves r human too...treat them well...jesus
views slaves and masters equally..."

both statements advocate slavery anyways...
Posted by tkubok 7 years ago
tkubok
Animpossiblepossibility,
Regarding the eighth comamdnment, i already addressed the argument in 2b in round 2. Maybe you didnt read it, but i addressed it. Sorry.

Also, again, i addressed you, but i have no problem with someone coming in and saying "But snipertak, so and so". I was merely making sure that you knew i was talking to you, and i have no problem with someone else addressing me in another comment that was aimed at you.

So yes, you fail at every level. :(
Posted by animpossiblepossibility 7 years ago
animpossiblepossibility
"If you want to strictly talk to one person, then go send a message."

You address me clearly after each comment. It doesn't matter though. Atheists are just going to vote bomb this debate without reading it in its entirety anyways. The statement about the eighth commandment is in rounds 2-5.
Posted by tkubok 7 years ago
tkubok
Animpossibilitepossiblity,
Why would i send you a PM? Im not afraid of other people joining in the discussion. I am perfectly happy with making our conversation public. I have nothing to hide.
Posted by animpossiblepossibility 7 years ago
animpossiblepossibility
Fine, then send me a private message instead of whining that I am a hypocritical.
Posted by tkubok 7 years ago
tkubok
Animpossiblepossibility,
Just because this is the comments section, doesnt mean we cannot discuss an issue here. I believe that this is not against any rules.

What round wast he question about the eigth commandment in?

This is an open comment section. If you want to strictly talk to one person, then go send a message. That is what the Personal message system is for. However, if you decide to type your response in the public section of the comments, it is a free country; do not whine when someone enters the discussion.

I never claimed that your hypothetical situation included the bible. However, your hypothetical situation was an analogy to mirror what you argued in the first place, no? And your argument comes from the bible, no? I rest my case.

Again, if you write in a public comment section, dont whine when someone else comes in and enters the discussion. And no, i am not creeping_death. Infact, i disagree with him.
Posted by animpossiblepossibility 7 years ago
animpossiblepossibility
Thubok, this is the comments section, not the debate. Why did you refuse to answer my question about the eighth commandment? I was talking to creeping, not you. I never included the bible in my hypothetical situation, did I? Not only are you taking it literally, you are misinterpreting it as well. And it was not intended for you anyway, so why are you answering it? Are you creeping_death as well?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"Advocates" and "acknowledges" are entirely different words.
Posted by tkubok 7 years ago
tkubok
AnimpossiblePossibility,
I find it hypocritical that you refuse to address my Hypothetical situation on the basis that it is hypothetical, yet you yourself bring out a hypothetical situation. However, i shall adress your comment.

You have it kind of wrong there. What your bible is claiming to do, is to provide special laws towards, in this hypothetical situation, Child molestation. "Thou shalt molest a child for six years. After such, the Child shall be free". "If a father molests his child so violently, that the Child dies, that man will be punished with death. However, if the child survives for a few days, the father will not be punished." These may seem absurd, and they are, but this is exactly what the laws in the Bible are talking about in regards to the laws of Slavery.

And, although i cannot, for the love of god, see how being outspoken against child molestation will cause millions of deaths, take world war 2 as an example:

If we didnt speak out against the Atrocities of Germans, we may have been able to save millions of American and Canadian lives. Was speaking out against the atrocities of Hitler and Germany, worth it?
Posted by animpossiblepossibility 7 years ago
animpossiblepossibility
Ok, say, hypothetically speaking, that you are against child molestation. Child molestation is rampant all around you and if you were to speak out against it, it would result in riots that would kill millions of people. So you decide to not directly speaking out against it due to this. Does that mean that you are in favor of child molestation? According to your logic, you are. Basing who wins a debate off of one comment is irrational.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
animpossiblepossibilitytkubokTied
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 
Vote Placed by sienkinm 7 years ago
sienkinm
animpossiblepossibilitytkubokTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by iamld 7 years ago
iamld
animpossiblepossibilitytkubokTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Whoa123ify 7 years ago
Whoa123ify
animpossiblepossibilitytkubokTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
animpossiblepossibilitytkubokTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07