The Bible is OK with slavery

== The Forfeit == Pro says all the judges should award me conduct. I'll take it. == Debate Theory == Pro basically gives me everything I ask for here. He also drops (by non-response) my argument that the Bible should include the contemporary Christian understanding of the text, which is that portions of the OT are not considered gospel. Even if there weren't a textualist reason for doing so (in Matthew 5:17-20), Christian theology only follows the teachings of Jesus and his disciples, not the OT. There are portions of the OT that are considered historical events by some Christians (such as Creation), but as to the "legal" rules in the Bible, Christians don't follow OT legal rules (i.e. Christians don't follow the rules about keeping kosher, Christians don't follow the rules that allow a rapist to escape punishment by paying money to the girl's father, and Christians don't follow the OT legal rule that instructed parents to stone disobedient children). Thus, the legal rules in Leviticus saying that a master can beat a slave near-to-death as long has he doesn't kill the slaves is *not* followed by Christians and is not considered a binding part of "the Bible," even if there were no textualist justification for not following these legal rules. == Definitions == Pro concedes my definition of "okay," which may be problematic for him. OK = sanction or give approval to. So the question for the debate is does the Bible approve of slavery. We know that many of the Founders did not approve of slavery, despite never proposing to ban it entirely. Therefore, proposing a ban on slavery is *not* a necessary condition for non-approval. Tacit acceptance is not approval. I can disapprove of the practice of abortion and think the government should discourage it, but I don't think it should be banned. I'm not "okay" with abortion. But I think it's not practical to ban it (since women will get back-alley abortions), so I tacitly accept it. Therefore, to be "not okay" with something does not require you to advocate for its ban. The Bible can be "not okay" with slavery without ever arguing for its ban. == Rebuttal == R1) Leviticus and Exodus I refuted this above under debate theory. If I win that OT legal rules are not binding parts of the Bible either because of a textualist approach or a non-textual approach, I win. You could also say that Christians only follow the "spirit" of the Bible, much as some U.S. Constitutional scholars argue that we should follow the spirit of the Constitution rather than its exact letter. So winning the textualist approach of Matthew 5:17-20 is not even necessary to my argument. R2) Matthew 5:17-20 Pro notes the parts of Matthew 5 that say that no jot or tittle shall pass from the law until it is "fulfilled." When Jesus was speaking in Matthew 5, he was still alive. Christians believe that the law was not "fulfilled" until Jesus' death on the cross, where he wiped clean Original Sin and also got rid of other parts of the OT. The fact that Jesus had not yet died on the cross explains why the law was not yet "fulfilled" when Jesus was speaking to his disciples in Matthew 5. Pro also points out in big bold letter Matthew 5:19, which says, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Christians still follow the 10 Commandments because of this passage. Matthew 5:19 also shows that the "laws" that Jesus was talking about in Matthew 5:17 that he did "not come to destroy" were the 10 Commandments. Jesus did not mean that *every* Jewish law would remain in place, only the Commandments. Again, I refer my opponent to the fact that Christians do not keep kosher. He has no response for this argument. If you accept my opponent's interpretation of Matthew 5:17-20, you would have to conclude that all Christians go to Hell for not keeping kosher. Such a belief does not square with Christian theology. Therefore, you have to accept my interpretation of Matthew 5:17-20, which is that it kept the 10 Commandments in place, but abrogated all the other parts of the OT. We cannot consider the OT to be binding law upon Christians. R3) 1 Timothy 1 My opponent begins this section by saying that Jesus was not the one speaking. However, most of the NT is not direct quotes from Jesus. Obviously, Jesus could not tell the story of his own birth, for example. A lot of the quotes in the NT are from other people. 1 Timothy 1:1 explains that the book of Timothy is the words of Paul, who was an apostle, and as an apostle, knew and understood the teachings of Jesus. My opponent accepts that "The Bible" is the King James Bible and 1 Timothy is considered gospel. My opponent next much ado about how the King James Bible says "menstealers" not "femalestealers" or "peoplestealers." He claims that 1 Timothy 1 would only care if a *man* were forced into slavery, not if a woman were forced into slavery. However, until relatively modern times, "man" was used synonymously with the word "person." When women first started joining police and fire departments, the terms "policemen" and "firemen" were used to refer to women who held these jobs as well. When the Declaration of Independence says, "All men are created equal," the term "men" was understood to include women. You can see that I am right because of the way the King James Bible has subsequently been translated. The New International Version replaces the word "menstealers" with "slave traders." [1] The New Living Translation also uses the word "slave traders." [1] The English Standard Version says "enslavers." [1] The King James 2000 Bible says "slave traders." [1] The American King James Version says "enslavers." [1] You get the point. 1 Timothy 1:10 was most definitely condemning the slave trade, not merely taking men as slaves. My opponent next falsely assumes I believe in God. In response to my argument that the NT could not advocate abolition because it would have been too "ahead of its time," Pro says, "my opponent is basically saying that Jesus could not simply say 'Thou shalt not own slaves.' Really? What kind of puny God (or Son of God) is unable to do that?" Whether God exists is irrelevant to the question of whether the Bible and its authors were "okay" with slavery. I don't accept the premise that God wrote the Bible and no one contends that Jesus wrote the Bible. I also refer you to my argument above that a failure to advocate a ban on something does not mean you are "okay" with that thing. There's also something called status quo bias, which means that people often are not "okay" with status quo and may even *hate* the status quo, but they don't advocate for change because it is too difficult. After all, the Bible is a historical text written by people in around 100-300 AD. You can't possibly expect for people to advocate abolishing slavery at this time. The abolitionist movement didn't start until the 1800's. Britain was the first country to ban slavery in 1834. The Founders prove that disapproval of slavery prior to the late 1800's took the form of advocating against the *slave trade.* The Founders included a provision in the Constitution banning the slave trade after 30 years and Jefferson condemned the slave trade in a rough draft of the Declaration of Independence. Likewise, 1 Timothy 1 advocated against the slave trade, equating slave traders as being just as morally reprehensible as murderers. We cannot expect more from such an ancient text. Even the United States didn't know what to do with freed slaves. During Reconstruction, many farm slaves entered economic arrangements that were akin to feudalism, where they continued to live on the farms and paid a portion of the harvest to the landowner. They were treated like serfs. It took decades if not centuries to fully integrate former slaves into the economy and society, and some would argue that even today, they are not fully integrated. Because there was a widespread belief at the time that slaves would not necessarily do well as free men, it's not surprising that the Bible didn't advocate full abolition. R4) Ephesians 6:5-8 Let's use a more recent translation than my opponent's. "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free." [2] Basically, Ephesians is just saying: slaves, you should be good Christians too. You too can go to Heaven. Merely telling slaves to obey their masters is not "approval" of slavery. The only "good works" a slave could do at the time were by obeying their master. R5) Colossians 4:1 My opponent concedes that this passage requires masters to treat their slaves humanely. The only other thing Pro does here is rehash the argument that a "failure to advocate abolition" is equivalent to "approval," which I already answered above. R6) The Founding Fathers My opponent claims that Jefferson and the Founders were hypocrites for owning slaves. Maybe they were. Being a bit of a hypocrite doesn't mean they were "okay" with slavery. Jefferson believed in gradual emancipation with job training; he thought that total, instant abolition would leave former slaves homeless and destitute. [3] If the Reconstruction Era was any indication, he was right. Ultimately, the word "okay" expresses an overall sentiment towards slavery; it does not mandate a specific policy outcome. [1] http://biblehub.com... [2] NIV [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...