The Bible Advocates Slavery

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...