The Bible Advocates Slavery

"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...