`  No objection to ``permit and regulate.``  Your very civil discussion evidences one that often grows very heated, with 2 extremes being expressed. Part of the problem is the concept of slavery, which is often more evocative than analytical, and what we mean by ``Bible`` and what we mean by support.  As stated, and as Lv. 25:44 verse indicates, the legislation concerning slaves coveys more of permission, rather than a transcendent moral imperative, such as ``Thou shalt have slaves.`` The closest thing to the latter is in Dt. 20:10-16, but it is not slavery there that is necessarily commanded, but the subjection of surrendered cities in the context of their wars of conquest, which were to be made tributaries states. In the second case, that of cities who fought and were defeated militarily, the women and offspring became Israel's, but it is possible that the women became wives (Dt. 21:10-14), and i think her kids would then stay with her.   In any case, i think it is right to state that the O.T. sanctioned slavery, that of it's regulated forms, as is stated here under the O.T. section. And under the N.T.  physical slavery is never a requirement, but Christian conduct is required for both slaves and owners in doing their work. And which requirements i believe, if read fully and in context, including Paul's requirements for Philemon and his counsel to slaves to obtain freedom, along with all that is required of Christians, that it makes the abolition of slavery (when other factors allow it), more conducive to the expression of the Christian ethos of love than even tolerance of a greatly modified form of slavery. So would the theocracies of Europe.  Meanwhile, the focus of the church was mainly not directly social reform of the world, but over the issues of the heart which determined how one's conduct in the world was manifested, nor was deliverance from one's station in life the primary (but not exclusionary) focus, but one's attitude in it.      As far as the reference to Lev. 25:44 to support that anti abolitionist used numerous Biblical passages that permit and regulate the practice of slavery, i think simply referring to the proved O.T. section in the article would do, and or one or more of the works of such men. On the other hand, to say that all abolitionists could do was to refer to ``the 'spirit of Christianity'  rather than to quote the Bible``  is misleading.   A_Condensed_Anti_slavery_Bible_Argument (http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/bourne/bourne.html) and  God Against Slavery (1857), by Rev. George B. Cheever, D.D. (http://medicolegal.tripod.com/cheevergvs.htm;  main site has many abolitionists resources) for just a couple, may help in this.  `