The Bible is OK with slavery

I apologize about the forfeiture of last round. While I accept that this will cost me conduct points, I hope the audience will still take my arguments for what they are and not focus on that slip. Now on to the debate. (I'll separate my rebuttal following my opponent's structure, for clarity).== Debate theory ==My opponent began her first round with a weird tactic; she said that the topic was a truism. There are two problems with this: first of all, if you search the Internet for five minutes you will come across a vast number of pages who try to defend the position that the Bible does not actually sanction slavery. Just go on YouTube and you will find countless apologists trying to argue this position. The second problem with this is that, if my opponent actually believed that this statement was a truism, then there would be no reason for her to accept this. If she believed that I was right, then why argue with me? Is she not aware that there are actually people who hold the opposing view point and would gladly argue it? Moreover, I fail to see how there can be anything CLOSE to a truism when we are talking about literary interpretation, especially when we can not ask the authors what they meant (and we do not even know who they are).My opponent ends this section with a rewording of the topic in a way that she feels is more suiting. At first I thought this was slightly cheating, but then I realized that she did not actually change much. The new topic that she proposes goes as follow: "The King James Bible, when read as a whole, actively approves of slavery". Let's deconstruct it.Her "The King James Bible" is identical to my "The Bible" with the addition of a specific version, which I accept.Her "actively approves of slavery" is similar to my "is okay with slavery", although I'm not exactly sure what she means by "actively approves". If she means that the Bible ENCOURAGES people to have slave, then that is obviously not true and I have no intention to argue that position.I accept the addition of "when read as a whole" to the topic, as long as it's not understood in a way that would require to point to an approval of slavery in every book of the Bible. If this only means that we should take in consideration every passage, then I accept that.== Definitions ==I accept the definitions proposed by my opponent.== Case ==As my opponent rightly guessed, I will quote the Old Testament, but since both my opponent and myself agree that the OT does endorse slavery, I will simply list the passages for good measure:Leviticus 25:44-46Exodus 21:2-6 Exodus 21:7-11Now, my opponent tries to argue against the validity of the OT by quoting Matthew 5:17-20 where Jesus says that he came to fulfill the law. This is an interesting passage to quote:"17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 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: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."So what does this passage actually tell us? What does "fulfilling a law" even mean? Well, it clearly can NOT mean to destroy (or get rid of, in other translations) the law, since he clearly says the opposite. In my understanding, a law is not something you fulfill in the sense that my opponent would like to understand; while she would like to interpret it in a way that invalidates the law (as if you completed a goal), my understanding of the fulfillment of the law is simply a model of how to FOLLOW the law, which is what Jesus claimed to be (I think).Verse 18 is pretty clear; the law is NOT to be ignored.Verse 19 is also quite clear; breaking the commandments is not a good thing to do (although apparently you still go to heaven). My opponent then quotes 1 Timothy 1:8-11, where someone (NOT Jesus) condemns MENSTEALERS, not slave traders. This is condemning the action of kidnapping a men and then selling him as a slave. If you sell your own daughter, that is in no way menstealing. If you buy a slave, that is not menstealing either.My opponent then says: "However, like the Founding Fathers (many of whom disapproved of slavery), the NT also realized as an expedient that slavery wasn't going anywhere." I'm completely baffled by this. Assuming that "the NT also realized" means "Jesus also realized", 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? If you look throughout history, many HUMANS have said things like that, so what held him back? This would have been both an EASY and CLEAR way of opposing slavery, but there is nothing like that in the NT. Once again, my opponent is giving a passage and ignores most of it. Here's Ephesians 6:5-8:"5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free." This passage downright says "slaves, obey your masters". How can my opponent read a statement like this and claim that "The NT clearly condemned slavery."?In all honesty, I had to read the Common English Bible for this passage (Ephesians 6:9) because the grammar was too confusing for me in the KJV. What this passage basically says is that both masters and slaves should be nice to each other because they have a master in Heaven. This passage is literally saying that all humans are slaves to God. Cool.Colossians 4:1 once again tells us that humans are slaves to God. In all fairness, it does tell us that Masters should be "just" with their servants. But the thing that really bugs me with passages like this is why on Earth did they not simply say "Thou shalt not own slaves" and make that necessary for entry in Heaven? If people really believed this, then wouldn't they let their slaves free? Why the need to tapdance around this obvious solution? Personally, I believe that this is because these people genuinely felt that beating and mistreating a slave was in fact wrong, but that the mere fact of OWNING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING (which is the definition of slavery) was okay.By the way, the Founding Fathers did not have the support of God when they wrote their laws. How can you honestly compare these two situations?"To say that the NT was "okay" with slavery, i.e. that it approved of slavery, is not possible" And yet: the new testament is okay with slavery... Jokes aside, none of the passages that my opponent gave is opposing slavery. The owning of human beings is NEVER opposed; there are no passage, even when taken completely out of context, that directly opposes slavery. The passages given by my opponent either DIRECTLY SANCTION slavery or simply acknowledge that it exists and decides NOT to oppose it. "It is no more possible than saying that Jefferson actively endorsed slavery. Despite being a slave owner himself, Jefferson believed that slavery was morally wrong and should be abolished." Then, on this particular issue, Jefferson was a hypocrite. There is no other way to put; if you think that something is morally wrong and you still decide to do it, then you are a being hypocritical. "1 Timothy 1, which puts slave traders in the same category as murderers, shows the Bible's true thoughts about slavery." As everyone can clearly read, SLAVE TRADERS are never mentioned in this passage; MENSTEALERS are. And saying that this particular passage shows "the Bible's true thoughts about slavery" is completely contradictory to what my opponent initially said about the topic of this debate; little reminder: "The King James Bible, WHEN READ AS A WHOLE, actively approves of slavery"."The NT, which abrogates the OT, clearly did not approve of slavery." As I have shown above, the NT does NOT abrogates the OT and even if it did, the NT does no better in opposing slavery.I look forward to my opponent's response and I apologize again for the forfeiture.