Quote from: Moloch on March 31, 2016, 11:41:26 PM

Are you ready to debate slavery in the bible, or are you still trolling?

Here ya go (spoiler: there is no simple and concise answer):

Quote from: mprep on March 31, 2016, 07:45:38 PM

<...>

Quote

If you want me to pick, how about slavery in the bible?

You mean the Christian bible (The New Testament)? Because it does overwrite the Old Testament as it was meant as a prophecy (referred to as "gospel") for the coming of Jesus Christ.

Quote

Quote from: mprep on March 31, 2016, 05:16:08 PM

Quote from: Moloch on March 29, 2016, 04:25:43 PM

Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament, so don't get all, "but the new testament doesn't say that" on me...

[X]Bold statement with no evidence
[X]Previous arguments dismissed

You say I did not provide evidence for this claim, but I did... I said christianity had preached it... the bible supports slavery in at least a dozen places... do you need me to quote the exact verses for you, or are you capable of using google?

Here's the link again since you must have missed it (evidence you claim I didn't provide)

Quote from: Moloch on March 26, 2016, 05:44:59 PM

Slavery:

Quote from: Leviticus 25:44-46

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Quote from: Exodus 21:20-21

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his property.

More slavery in the bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

See this for my answer to your "evidence":

Quote from: mprep on March 27, 2016, 10:27:13 PM

Leviticus, Exodus and Deuteronomy are all part of the Old Testament (also often referred to as the Hebrew Bible), which is overwritten by the New Testament in many branches (and/or sects) of Christianity. The Old Testament was meant as a holy book for the time (not for eternity) and became obsolete in many situations. Also, in terms of cherry-picking, that's why different branches and sects of both Christianity and other religions exist - there's constant debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology) on what is accepted and what is not, especially as time progresses and our culture changes.

Sources (in terms of what I based the arguments upon):
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15/do-we-have-to-obey-the-laws-of-the-bible-if-so-what-laws/506#506
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3733/does-the-new-testament-override-the-old-testament
<...>

What you haven't proven is this (I'll bold and underline your statement I'm concerned with):

Quote

Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament

Since, I'm rather bored to wait, I'll get the Wikipedia mention on the New Testament out of the way. It is said in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery:

Quote

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men". However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.

First of all, I've looked at the passages that refer to this:

Quote

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men"

And all the passages linked, the translation in several English versions seems to use the word "servant" rather than "slave", which could be both interpreted as lost in translation (beneficial to your side) and as to cover (regulate, not approve of ) slavery back in the day of Christ (which was a common practice at the time) as well as the current voluntary employment. There is however no positive (a.k.a. reinforcing) mention of the act of enslavement. From what I can logically deduct, said writings were meant to address the status quo, rather than encourage the act of slavery (taking new slaves). This view is also reinforced taking in consideration the following part of the quote:

Quote

However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.

<...>