Excellent points!
I might also like to add that that thirty shekels was payment, not to devalue a person's life but to show the deceased had value. It's quite possible that if such a thing happened, that money would not normally be given, so the owner wouldn't be compensated in some way. It's living by a Law that values the sanctity of human life. This sort of practice wouldn't come naturally to people.

Sanctity of life, or sanctity of property?

If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded. 31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels[f] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death.

If a free person is killed, the owner of the bull will be put to death for causing the death of a person (with the possibility, as is currently practised in many Islamic countries, of substitution of a blood-price). For the death of a slave, compensation is paid to the slave-owner for his loss of property.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her

I read this differently- if the daughter whom the father sold into slavery does not please her new owner, the owner may allow the girl to be bought back by her father, but he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners- though presumably he could sell her to another Hebrew.

Here is something to think about. Minotaur, what I am seeing you do here is basing one culture's standards with our own. We have been taught since early childhood that slavery is wrong. But what real basis do we have for that outside our own culture? Now just to be clear, I am completely against any form of abuse, trafficking, or anything along those lines. But the slavery that the Bible talks about would be indentured servants or more like in our modern world, the equivalent of employees. Those who were wealthy enough to 'afford slaves' had their family business and had servants who took care of the 'menial jobs'.

What you are not facing up to is that there are two systems here- one for Hebrews, one for foreigners.

The Hebrew system was like indentured servitude, just as it was for white people in North America- it was for a limited time, and then the worker was set free.

However, for members of other tribes, it was the same as for black people - they were property who could be bought and sold like cattle, and their children were property, too.

But here is something else that is an issue of slavery that we don't understand. When a master has a slave, that master is responsible for that slave's well-being including housing, clothing, food, etc. Abraham had a servant in Eliazar (I believe) who was a slave. Abraham's servant was in the same type of position as Alfred was to Bruce Wayne.

What happens if Alfred doesn't want to work for Bruce Wayne anymore? What happens if a slave doesn't want to work for a master? Can Bruce Wayne sell Alfred's children to Clark Kent?

We can take the concepts here an easily apply them to the work force. How should employers treat their employees? But the main point here is that we can't judge one culture on the basis of our own. Maybe we are the ones that are wrong. Slavery that abuses, seeks to make money, and trafficks is absolutely wrong. The slave trade was an abhorrent evil. But when the word 'slave' and the word 'servant' can be interchanged and the 'master' treats said servant in a Biblical manner, then there is nothing wrong. I won't judge the Jewish culture on the basis of what I have grown up with.

There is nothing wrong with a child being born as property of another person? There is nothing wrong with being allowed to buy and sell people like animals?

And BTW, this is not just "the Jewish culture"; these are the direct words of God.

Graymouser, instead of double posting or triple posting, it's better to use the 'edit' button on your first post. The Mods like it that way because it keeps the forums cleaner.

Back on topic. Let me try this from a different angle. What is the purpose of the Law? Is it not to reveal sin and to point to Christ who fulfills it? Several other have pointed out on the specific example on an ox goring a man and what to do when that happens. The issues of slavery could be the same issue. It's not a matter of condoning or not, but rather what to because that was the culture. But there is something else that goes with it.

Paul describes each and every one of us as a slave. We are either a slave to Christ or we are a slave to sin. Jesus says we cannot follow two masters at once. We cannot serve both God and Money. Slavery has only really been out of the context of culture for the last 100 years, so while we all know how slavery has been taken the wrong way, we hardly know how it can be used for good. One of the purposes of the descriptions of how to deal with slaves is to show how Jesus redeems us from the slavery of sin.

I am struggling to put words to what I am thinking, but going back to my previous post, I'm still seeing comparing what the Bible says compared to what our cultures says is right and wrong. We think our society has 'evolved' to be better than before, but have we? What we say in letter is rarely carried out in practice. I am taking graduate courses to become a teacher. We claim equality for education regardless of financial status, race, ethnicity, religious, background...etc. But it is hardly the actual case. So we aren't necessarily the standard to go by. Paul says to obey the laws of the land unless they violate the Word of God. So because America no longer has 'official' slavery, does that mean we are disobeying God because we aren't following the passages listed above? I don't think so. It's not the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law, as Jesus said. If people follow the Law as Jesus summed up as God 1st, others 2nd, you last, then is slavery an issue? I'm more trying to stir up thoughts rather than explicitly posting my actual position.

Let me try this from a different angle. What is the purpose of the Law? Is it not to reveal sin and to point to Christ who fulfills it?

Christ fulfilled the law. We are not to base ou rlives or anyones lives, Christian or not, on the law anymore.

We think our society has 'evolved' to be better than before, but have we? What we say in letter is rarely carried out in practice. I am taking graduate courses to become a teacher. We claim equality for education regardless of financial status, race, ethnicity, religious, background...etc. But it is hardly the actual case. So we aren't necessarily the standard to go by.

I'm going to agree and disagree with you here. Quite frankly, yes, our society has 'evolved' to better than before, in certain areas, and in others we are, I believe, making progress. I know this may be the optimist in me, but that's what I believe. Are we any where near solving all the world's problem's? Absolutely not, and probably never will be. (the pessimist in me). However, I would like to believe that 'we' (vague term) can make a difference and progress towards 'something better'; as corny as that sounds.

Now, I agree with you that there are things, especially when coming to education, that are not fair at all. In fact, I just discussed this with a few colleagues last night.

Also, with your last sentence (that I have quoted) do you mean America? If so, I once again disagree. There have been some amazing people that have lived in this country to better it for certain people and many of whom have held the Christian faith. Now, I'm not saying that all world changers are Christian, because they are not, but some definitely have been. (If you didn't mean America completely disregard this paragraph )

As I said, I was just trying to stir some thoughts. I fully agree that there have been amazing people who really have made this nation a far better place than it was. And for the world for that matter as well. I was mostly asking if America really does deserve the 'role model' status we tend to think it has. I wasn't siding one way or the other. As for my official position on this, America has done a much better job than most other countries, but at the same time I am very concerned about what America is doing with that image right now. America has a long way to go, but if I go further than this it will delve into politics which is a NWeb banned topic.

As for the Law, it is still in effect according to Paul. He said those who live under the New Covenant of Grace are no longer under the Law. But those who are not under the New Covenant are still judged in accordance to the Law. The 10 Commandments are still the 10 Commandments, not the 10 Suggestions. Jesus summed them up into two Laws which I already mentioned. The Law still applies to Christian in the sense of revealing sin. But under Christ's blood, we are not held accountable to the Law.

FencerforJesus, I see now! Sorry, I must have read it the wrong way.

Could you specifically point out the sripture where Paul says that? (If you wouldn't mind )

It's Romans 7 where he talks about that. I did paraphrase it. Because, especially in Romans, he carries on from one chapter to another, it's best to read the end of 6 and the first parts of 8 to get a bigger picture.

I can see where you are getting your previous statement from. However, the way I am reading it, and quite frankly have always read it, is that the law brings death because no man (general term here) can keep the law therefore yes it does show humans that Grace is the only way. I have always seen it as we are free from the law. Now, I don't mean that we go out and commit murder,etc. but rather that now seeing the 10 Commandments as laws that I must follow they come out of me because I am in a relationship with Jesus. (I don't know if that last sentence made sense. I'm not quite sure how I should word what I'm trying to say).

Yes, there is a big difference between trying to follow the Law because of fear of the consequences and trying to follow the Law because of our relationship with Jesus. One explanation I heard about this is: say a kid breaks a window with a rock. If the house of the broken window is a stranger, then it is destruction of personal property and not only does the debt of the broken window have to be paid but so does the debt of the broken law. But if the house of the broken window is the father's (and the father is a Godly type), then the 'crime' remains in the family and the father deals with his as a father disciplines his children. The law doesn't change but how the consequences are dealt with changes.

But that being said, Paul is VERY harsh with this. I thought it was Galatians (might be Romans) but I can't find it right now. He says there is a point however where as believers if we commit a willful sin there will not be forgiveness. This is not talking about salvation but consequences. So if we are under the New Covenant and we do steal, or gossip, or murder or _______, then we will suffer the consequences. I do know it's Galatians 6 where Paul says "Do not be deceived. God is not mocked. A man will reap what he sows." He's talking about believers committing willful sin. We know what is sin because the Law is actually written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit. We can read the Law and learn what is sin and what is not as well, but it is the spirit of the Law that is important, as Jesus said, not the letter of the Law.

Responses to Fencer

Back on topic. Let me try this from a different angle. What is the purpose of the Law? Is it not to reveal sin and to point to Christ who fulfills it? Several other have pointed out on the specific example on an ox goring a man and what to do when that happens. The issues of slavery could be the same issue. It's not a matter of condoning or not, but rather what to because that was the culture. But there is something else that goes with it.

I think you're wrong on this one, Fencer. You argue that the spirit of the Law that is important, not the letter of the Law. I would say that is correct for laws God gave regarding moral issues (which are transcendent of culture, race or status). But the laws about slavery are not about moral issues. They are rather legal issues that the Hebrews used as a foundation for their government. So it was the letter of the law is what mattered for those types of rules.

Slavery has only really been out of the context of culture for the last 100 years, so while we all know how slavery has been taken the wrong way, we hardly know how it can be used for good.

Slavery being taken the wrong way? Are you still trying to cradle the idea that indentured servitude was the only form of slavery in the Bible?

I am disturbed that you are trying to justify slavery. You said earlier in this discussion that slavery was an abhorrent evil. Yet when you come to the realization that God endorses it, you say that, well, maybe it can be used for good, and your justification is that we've never experienced it ourselves.

One of the purposes of the descriptions of how to deal with slaves is to show how Jesus redeems us from the slavery of sin.

First of all, I wonder how many people read the Biblical passages on slavery, and think, "Oh, this is just a metaphor for Jesus redeeming us from the slavery of sin." I'd wager almost no one.

Second of all, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. Please show me the verses you derived this insight from.

I am struggling to put words to what I am thinking, but going back to my previous post, I'm still seeing comparing what the Bible says compared to what our cultures says is right and wrong.

And here's the basic problem. You assume the Bible is morally perfect, since you believe that the one who wrote/inspired it is the epitome of moral goodness. So as long as you hold this belief, you are forced to try and justify anything it says.

So slavery is acceptable because God knows everything, and our culture today doesn't? The problem with this logic is it forces us to throw all our critical judgement out of the window.

We think our society has 'evolved' to be better than before, but have we? What we say in letter is rarely carried out in practice. I am taking graduate courses to become a teacher. We claim equality for education regardless of financial status, race, ethnicity, religious, background...etc. But it is hardly the actual case. So we aren't necessarily the standard to go by.

Really? Really? Ok, since you're working on becoming a teacher, I'll use teaching as an example.

Society 1 believes that girls shouldn't be educated, because their place is in the household. Society 1 also happens to dislike foreigners, and doesn't allow them in their institutions of learning.

Society 2 believes that everybody should be educated, and highly values learning. There are schools everywhere that educate children, boy and girl, black or white for free. There are also more advanced schools that cost money, however, some of these schools are so well-respected and looked up to that people from all around the world come to lear in them. There are still some imperfections in the system though.

Now, I'm not going to even ask you which one of these you think is better. I ask, would you choose to live in Society 1 or Society 2?

Paul says to obey the laws of the land unless they violate the Word of God. So because America no longer has 'official' slavery, does that mean we are disobeying God because we aren't following the passages listed above? I don't think so. It's not the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law, as Jesus said.

Nah, you're just confusing moral laws with legal laws, as I explained above.

If people follow the Law as Jesus summed up as God 1st, others 2nd, you last, then is slavery an issue?

Slavery is definitely an issue there. If I owned slaves, do you think I am putting the slaves before myself?

Responses to AslanistheBest

By prayer, I guess I meant praying while administering it--praying that you can do all you can to help the person, praying for God's will. Something like that.

I don't really see the point of that. I'll be doing all I can to help the person without praying anyway. And praying for God's will just seems redundant. God's will is already going to happen whether I pray for it or not.

I must admit that I do squirm when reading some of the Old Testament laws. The slave ones have never disturbed me very much because it isn't the same slavery that we learnt about and that happened in the Civil War and before and after, to my knowledge.

Not sure what slavery passages in the Bible you've been reading, then. What you said is not accurate...the Hebrews had 2 systems of slavery. One was for Hebrew slaves, which had a couple of laws to protect them, but still allowed a fair bit of abuse. The other was for foreign slaves, and this system allowed for slaves to be treated as nothing more, passed down to children like inheritance, in the exact same cruel and inhumane ways of the pre-Civil War slavery.

But when it comes to women, I've always been bothered by some things I've read... how some things are portrayed...This doesn't take my faith in God, though. ...I have questions about the rules given then, and wonder about it. But I'm confident that God is just, God is loving, God is not partial, and most of all, He is holy, so I don't want my faith to waver in him. ...I admit, though, sometimes reading some things in the Old Testament makes me question just what was going on. But it doesn't change the opinon of God I have.

Interesting that you repeated this 3 times. It must be on your mind a lot. You gave me a book recommendation later in your post, which I will address. I'm going to give you a recommendation to a 15-minute about morality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSS-88ShJfo

One thing that my mom told me that has helped ease some doubts, but it said when a woman gave birth, she had to be secluded and couldn't touch sacred things for some time for certain reasons. However, Mary gave birth to Jesus and obviously had to keep Him with her, He being a baby and all--she was holding the most sacred thing--God coming to us in form of a man. To me, this indicates Jesus broke those laws. It doesn't answer all my questions, but it eases me to know God's character better.

I think we can all agree that the laws of the Old Testament aren't meant for us. Jesus chose not to follow them many times. However, the problem still remains that at one point in time, these laws were God's definitive standard for justice. Maybe the sexist Old Testament laws that you get so uncomfortable about don't apply to you today, but if you had the bad luck to be born in Israel 3,000 years ago, you'd be subject to following them.

I don't know for sure--but I know God is understanding and would understand why someone stole to eat. NOT that I think it's wholly right. I still am thinking through these things. But I don't think He'd put someone who just didn't believe in Christ but was an okay person in the same place Hitler is in Hell. I believe that there are levels of Hell. Just like believers receive rewards for their deeds in heaven (not salvation into eternal life, just rewards for what they did.

What's interesting here is that you are thinking that God would do what you would do. What I mean by that is that you are taking your personal version of what you think is morally perfect and making God represent that in your mind. My reason for thinking that you're doing this? There is no biblical foundation for different levels of hell, but you think that there must be because it's fair, and God's fair. I have another recommendation for a 7-minute video discussing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU

On another note, as a book reccomendation to you, Minotair, if you're interested, I'd reccomend "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. I haven't actually read the real book: I was given the student edition, so I just read that. I still do need to read it with study in mind, not finishing my overdue book report but the reason I brought it up was becase you brought up the argument of Jesus never clearing up that slaver is wrong, and Mr. Strobel has a chapter on that, I think.

You're in luck...I've actually already read that book. Unfortunately, I found Strobel's investigation of the case for Christ to be incredibly biased and unsatisfying. (He only interviews theologians, not the other side...that's not the way a journalist gets the whole story.)

Regarding the chapter about slavery, it takes place during Strobel's interview with Carson. Carson tries to justify Old Testament slavery by saying, in essence, that it wasn't that bad, it was a means of survival. Problem: the exact same thing can be said about slavery in the south during the 1800's.

Carson goes on to say that the reason behind the anti-slavery movement was an "evangelical awakening in England." Actually, in England, slavery was ended by a court decision by a very brave judge who ruled that slaves are people and are therefore entitled to the same protections as all British subjects. He wrote, "let justice be done though the heavens fall."

The abolitionist movement in the United States was led by the secular humanists - a fact he conveniently ignores. Also, another fact he conveniently ignores is that the church actually fought the abolitionist movement - that's how the Southern Baptist Convention was formed. It broke with the American Baptists over the issue of slavery when they decided to back abolitionists in 1847.

And just fyi - it's not ideal to recommend things that you haven't read/seen. If I hadn't read the book already, "Mr. Strobel has a chapter on that, I think" would not have convinced me that I should check out this book.

MinotaurforAslan, it seems you have a strong sense of justice and that you feel that no one should have to be bound to serve anyone when said binding allows for cruelty on the end of the binder.

Here's the thing, though. From what I see, you are interpreting the various slavery laws of the Old Testament by imagining what the cruelest thing the master can do within those laws. However, in a way, that's kind of like saying, "A man can get married to a woman and use that marriage to control her and abuse her emotionally and get away with it; therefore, marriage is wrong." (Not a perfect analogy, and it might not be what you mean, but that's the impression I get from your posts.)

The thing is, there is another law in Leviticus, that says to "love your neighbor as yourself." And all of the "worst-scenario" cases you have presented would violate that law. So really, no Hebrew back then could do anything you had mentioned and be considered sin-free.

But, of course, this requires that we grasp a concept that I think is foreign to most people in the post-Civil War era: someone can be someone else's property and still be a human being. We are all God's property in a larger sense, and through the family structures, a husband and a wife are each other's property, and their children are also their property until they become adults.

And if you balk at the very idea of being property, remember that God does command good stewardship of property, and mistreating our property is sinful.

But, of course, at the same time, we are all human, and must love each other and seek each other's best interests on the human level as well.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to whether you think the very concept of slavery is wrong (as opposed to just how sinful humans have misused it) or not. If you can imagine a world where slavery is commonplace, masters treat their slaves well, and the slaves are generally happy about it, then the Old Testament slavery laws don't seem so vicious. If not, then... well, I guess you think slavery, in and of itself, is wrong.

But if so, then you probably would not be interested in Christianity anyways. After all, many who become Christians actively seek to make themselves slaves to Christ. And, in fact, that's what Christ wants, and with his death, he bought us out of our slavery to sin so we could become his slaves, in what is probably the greatest slave trade ever. But hey, if the very concept of being a slave is repulsive to you, then I can see why you wanted to "de-convert" out of it.

After all, God does condone slavery. Well, slavery with a good master.

Here's the thing, though. From what I see, you are interpreting the various slavery laws of the Old Testament by imagining what the cruelest thing the master can do within those laws. However, in a way, that's kind of like saying, "A man can get married to a woman and use that marriage to control her and abuse her emotionally and get away with it; therefore, marriage is wrong." (Not a perfect analogy, and it might not be what you mean, but that's the impression I get from your posts.)

Actually, I can use that analogy to make a point. So thank you for bringing it up.

You are absolutely right in that a man can get married to a woman and use that marriage to control her and abuse her emotionally and get away with it. But my conclusion would not be that marriage is wrong. My conclusion would rather be, the option of a divorce is a necessity.

Slavery is a bit like an abusive marriage where it is impossible to obtain a divorce. If a slave has a master who is cruel, the slave cannot walk away like an employee can to his boss. The slave is stuck in the situation. That is why I would conclude that a necessity of slavery would be an option for the slave to leave if they wished, but then it wouldn't really be slavery anymore.

The thing is, there is another law in Leviticus, that says to "love your neighbor as yourself." And all of the "worst-scenario" cases you have presented would violate that law. So really, no Hebrew back then could do anything you had mentioned and be considered sin-free.

You're referring to Leviticus 19:33, which states, Do not take advantage of foreigners who live among you in your land. Treat them like native-born Israelites, and love them as you love yourself.

But now let's look at Leviticus 25:44-46 again. However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

I can see some distinctions here. The Hebrews are supposed to treat fellow Hebrews and foreigners equally, however, they treat the slaves quite differently. So the love your neighbor law doesn't actually apply to slaves.

But, of course, this requires that we grasp a concept that I think is foreign to most people in the post-Civil War era: someone can be someone else's property and still be a human being. We are all God's property in a larger sense, and through the family structures, a husband and a wife are each other's property, and their children are also their property until they become adults.

I think we need to define property. There's a big difference between my gardening hoe being property and my children being property. The gardening hoe is not self-aware.

The problem with what you said here is that you started off talking about human masters, then referred to human masters as "someone else" (which is much more vague), then referred to God as the "someone else". Being God's property is the not the same as being another human's property.

God owns our souls, and masters own slave's bodies. Yet the soul is intimately attached to the slave's body, and physical pain can cause distress to the soul. When I am digging with my gardening hoe, I don't need to worry about the gardening saying, "Ouch!"

Ultimately, though, it comes down to whether you think the very concept of slavery is wrong (as opposed to just how sinful humans have misused it) or not. If you can imagine a world where slavery is commonplace, masters treat their slaves well, and the slaves are generally happy about it, then the Old Testament slavery laws don't seem so vicious. If not, then... well, I guess you think slavery, in and of itself, is wrong.

Archaeologists recently discovered remains of a young girl in Aztec ruins. The evidence implies that she was one of the many young virgins sacrificed to the Sun God. From what we know about Aztec culture, in such a process, the girls would be brought into the temple, tied up, and placed on an altar. The high priest would take a knife and quickly cut the girl's stomach open, sieze the still-beating heart and lift it above his head. Now it was considered a great honor to be sacrificed to the gods. The young girl was probably ecstatic over the opportunity to give her heart to the sun god himself.

Does that mean we should be happy that the young girl was likely so joyous over what she had been taught was most desirable in life? Or should we shudder and be glad we don't live in such a culture?

The world you asked me to imagine is practically utopia. We live in a sinful world, stardf. Masters are going to abuse their slaves if given the power to do so. We can see that it recent examples with so-called Christians owning and brutally treating slaves in the 1800's. Why shouldn't we think that the Hebrew masters thousands of years ago were any better?

But if so, then you probably would not be interested in Christianity anyways. After all, many who become Christians actively seek to make themselves slaves to Christ. And, in fact, that's what Christ wants, and with his death, he bought us out of our slavery to sin so we could become his slaves, in what is probably the greatest slave trade ever. But hey, if the very concept of being a slave is repulsive to you, then I can see why you wanted to "de-convert" out of it.

There's a big difference between an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful and omnipotent God being your master and an imperfect human that is prone to sin and has a bit of a temper as your master. The very concept of being a slave to a responsible master like God does not disgust me. The concept that God would allow sinful humans to be masters is what does.

The reason I de-converted is not because I lead a sinful lifestyle and didn't want God holding me accountable for my crimes once I died. The reason I de-converted is that when I started reading the bible, I found some really screwed up stuff. Slavery only touches the surface. There is racism, sexism, genocide, and more. I don't want to pledge my allegiance and have to defend such a book, much less recommend it to my friends and give it to my kids.

I'm only here because the people in the chat made me come post. Not really a debater, but some points stuck out as being frankly absurd and a bit out of touch with the way the world actually works.

Any system that allows one human being to beat another nearly to death with no provocation and face no repercussions is repugnant and evil. I'm not certain why this is so hard to grasp. If God truly did create this system, then He seems to be rather oblivious to the fact that He's created a system in which people can do horrible, horrible things and point to the Bible and say, "Why are you getting mad? God said I can't get in trouble for that." and they would be right. Something that actually happened in America. You really think the Hebrews were any different?

I imagine that most of us in here who are Christian subscribe to the idea that humanity is fallen and inclined to do terrible things. Thus I find it rather strange that the primary argument that slavery in the Bible was okay was because the Hebrews weren't supposed to do bad things. Seriously? You mean that every single Hebrew was perfectly pious and devout and never broke the law? The law that was filled with loopholes that a master could use to abuse his slaves and could exploit to keep them in slavery? I think Mino has already done an excellent job of pointing out these loopholes and I notice no one has bothered to try to explain why it's okay for them to exist. You actually mean to suggest God is oblivious enough that He wouldn't notice a gaping loophole in His own law that a few college students can discover in their spare time on the internet? That's a bit difficult for me to believe.

As for the spiritual status of the Hebrew people, the Bible itself would seem to indicate that they weren't exactly saints all of the time considering how often God had to go and smite them for various wrong-doings. This argument makes about as much sense as saying "Well, we have laws against murder and if you break them, you're a criminal, so of course no one will ever commit murder because they don't want to be a criminal." Of course someone will! Do you really want another person to be completely in the power of someone who's baser instincts are only held in check by them possibly believing that God might decide to toss a random lightning bolt down on them?

I'll be blunt, when I see stardf saying, apparently in all seriousness, that slavery is just like marriage, my jaw drops. So marriage is just like a system in which you can be bought by a stranger from another country, taken back to that person's home and forced to work for them? I'm not sure, but I think most of us would frown upon a man beating his wife almost to death because she decided she didn't feel like making dinner that day and told him to make a sandwich if he wanted something to eat. I also imagine most would be skeeved out by a man passing his wife on to his son in his will. So yeah, not seeing the similarity between a partnership of two people who voluntarily join together out of love and a system in which one person owns the other and has all the power in the relationship to do whatever the heck they want. Maybe if marriage still meant a misogynistic institution in which women were supposed to stay in the kitchen and pop out babies periodically, all supported by Bible verses being taken wildly out of context and mixed in with a heaping helping of dogmatic nonsense created by men with ulterior motives. Funnily enough, the people who advocated treating women like second-class human beings claimed it was God's will too. I'm sensing a theme here.

Also, parents may "own" their children, but the Bible condemns doing to children what it apparently says is just fine and dandy for a master to do to their slave. Not seeing a similarity.

The most egregious suggestion though is that Christianity is just like being a slave in the Old Testament. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never been afraid that God would beat me nearly onto my deathbed to get me to follow His commandments and love Him. Seems rather out of character to me.

And of course, this is all ignoring the inherent racism in having a slightly nicer version of slavery for one group of people and having a more barbaric system for another group. I for one got the impression from the New Testament that racism was wrong.

I know there is different branches of Christianity but how do they differ? a lot or not much?

You are absolutely right in that a man can get married to a woman and use that marriage to control her and abuse her emotionally and get away with it. But my conclusion would not be that marriage is wrong. My conclusion would rather be, the option of a divorce is a necessity.

And, unfortunately, divorce is also sinful. But, perhaps that's another discussion.

Meanwhile, I was referring more to Leviticus 19:18, which admittedly, does refer more to "brothers" and "sons of your own people", but then verse 33, as you point out, puts foreigners into that category.

The thing is, though I do see the distinction that foreign-bought slaves can be treated in a way that they cannot treat the native-born, I cannot see anything that really de-classifies them in the context of chapter 19. Certainly, there are to be distinctions in the ways of treatment, but I would fathom that there are good reasons behind those distinctions of treatment. For example, taking someone from another country to be a slave would remove all the structure they had in their past lives, and they would need a new structure to take its place. (This is just a conjecture.)

In fact, I know this requires a bit of a logical twist, but I bet that the "foreigners" referred to in Lev. 19:33 did in fact, for the most part, refer to those foreign-bought slaves. Sure, in some ways they had to be treated differently; even in our culture you can't treat a foreigner the exact same way you treat a citizen. But in the larger picture that Lev. 19 paints, the two are to be treated much the same.

(And one thing I would also fathom was that it was a good thing for those slaves to be bought out of those foreign countries, because who knew what kind of craziness happened over there...)

I think we need to define property. There's a big difference between my gardening hoe being property and my children being property. The gardening hoe is not self-aware.

The problem with what you said here is that you started off talking about human masters, then referred to human masters as "someone else" (which is much more vague), then referred to God as the "someone else". Being God's property is the not the same as being another human's property.

God owns our souls, and masters own slave's bodies. Yet the soul is intimately attached to the slave's body, and physical pain can cause distress to the soul. When I am digging with my gardening hoe, I don't need to worry about the gardening saying, "Ouch!"

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here, or really, what the point of the distinction you're making is.

The point is, a human can be both human and property at the same time. Obviously, there is a difference between that and that which can only be property. But the two are not mutually exclusive.

We live in a sinful world, stardf. The world you asked me to imagine is practically utopia. Masters are going to abuse their slaves if given the power to do so. We can see that it recent examples with so-called Christians owning and brutally treating slaves in the 1800's. Why shouldn't we think that the Hebrew masters thousands of years ago were any better?

...

The very concept of being a slave to a responsible master like God does not disgust me. The concept that God would allow sinful humans to be masters is what does.

You know, maybe the Hebrew masters back then weren't quite as sunk into depravity as the 1800's masters were? Maybe because they were closer to God, they had better concepts of what they should and should not do? And maybe, though they were bound to step out of line every once in a while, for the most part they would repent, either with their own realization that they had hurt the soul of their slave or because a fellow brother pointed out what they were doing was wrong and they realized it? Maybe?

I mean, the best we can really do is guess. You're guessing that people are guaranteed to abuse slaves when put in the position of their master. You may have very good reasons for your guess. But, ultimately, it is a guess. It is not absolute Fact.

But you know, there is something that is Fact: God does allow sinful people to be masters. He allows sinful people to do a lot of things that really, they shouldn't really be allowed to do: get married, organize gatherings, set up governments, run businesses, raise children... all of those are, in some way or another, some sinful person taking a "mastership" over other (sinful) people in some way. And all have plenty of examples over the years of being abused in horrific ways.

And that is because, really, God allows us to sin. He allows us to experience the consequences of sin. And He allows us to experience the effects of others' sin on us, even if we ourselves have done nothing.

The written law of God presents an ideal, but God sure wasn't expecting anyone to live up to the ideal. So yes, God did allow people back then to twist His words into ways that would allow them to abuse people. I mean, He allows people even today to do just that. (Really, there's not a good reason to pick on slavery in particular.)

But that's why God decided to rescue us by sending His Son to die on the cross for us. He realized we certainly weren't going to save ourselves with our own depravity, so He did all the work for us. All we have to do is turn to Him. If we do, we'll still have our moments of sin, and we'll still be bombarded with the effects of others' sin on us, but at least in the end, we will be free of all that.

In the meantime, on Earth we can also enjoy that freedom and all the good that it brings, have a certain peace even when being affected by others' sin, and perhaps in the meantime become better "masters" to the "slaves" under our power. But in order to do that, we need to become Christ's slaves. (It sure beats being a slave to sin, though.)

And one final note... thank you for sharing your reason for your "de-conversion". (I would say you never were "converted" in the first place, but that's just me.) I now understand more about where you are coming from. (Not that you'd want to hear what I think about where you're coming from, since it won't sound pretty and you're likely to just get defensive.)

And don't get me wrong; trying to understand the crazy laws of old Jewish culture can get me all confused, too. But I do believe there is a bigger picture in all of this, particularly as the Old Testament points to Christ. And so, I'm not particularly afraid of some of the stranger and less, uh, palatable laws in there. They had their purpose, whether it was just for a period or not. And I certainly won't back down from the challenge of explaining (or "defending", if you must call it that) it all to friends or my children.

And in the end, I know that even if God did (or still does) support that which strikes me as "unfair", I can bring it to Him and question Him about it, but in the end, I will still side with Him, because He is a God of love. Even if that love doesn't always come clear to us humans.

Edit: I did not see Booky's post before posting this, but it seems that most of his points were addressed anyways. Let me see if I can grab a few more.

I think Mino has already done an excellent job of pointing out these loopholes and I notice no one has bothered to try to explain why it's okay for them to exist. You actually mean to suggest God is oblivious enough that He wouldn't notice a gaping loophole in His own law that a few college students can discover in their spare time on the internet?

I alluded to this previously, but I shall expound. In writing His law, God is not concerned about how people might try to exploit loopholes. He is only concerned about holiness, because that is who He is. According to the original Creation plan, humans weren't going to exploit loopholes. That's obviously not how things worked out, but He isn't going to change His law to accommodate every single loophole that can exist. (It's said that the only limit to the creative ways we can sin is the extent of our depravity.)

It's no wonder that Paul later writes that the Law can only bring death: because no one will follow it properly. That's why it was in Christ that the Law was fulfilled. Thus, Christ challenged people to fill in those loopholes and to have a broader view of love to govern morality rather than written law.

Regarding marriage and slavery: I never said the two were exactly the same. (If you want something radical but more in line with what I believe, I'd say marriage is more like mutual slavery. But even then, that's not wholly accurate.)

There are similarities between the two, and the Bible does outright say that in marriage, the husband and wife are to submit to each other (yes, the husband is to submit to his wife), so no point in trying to "defend" that.

And, of course, the two are quite similar in the ways they have been twisted by people's depravity.

And really, that's my point in bringing the two up. There's an ideal that we shouldn't throw away, nor should we throw away reality, either.

The most egregious suggestion though is that Christianity is just like being a slave in the Old Testament. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never been afraid that God would beat me nearly onto my deathbed to get me to follow His commandments and love Him. Seems rather out of character to me.

I'd say it's more that Christianity is like being a slave in an ideal slavery system with a perfect Master.

And, well, God does let us suffer various natural consequences of sin: consequences He created, some of which do bring us nearly onto our deathbeds, so we learn to follow His commandments and love Him. It's not really out of character; it's good, loving discipline. (Which, I presume, was the point of the whole "you can beat a slave to the point where he can still get up later" law: discipline to be used where appropriate. There is a difference between discipline and physical abuse; I can go into more if you wish, but otherwise, suffice it to say that for certain transgressions (and at an appropriate age), spanking a child is perfectly good.)

By the way, I must say that I'm glad my post evoked such strong reactions in you. I find that posts that are too gentle just aren't very interesting. It's the ones that contain radical ideas that will make one think. Of course, the radical ideas should have reasoning behind them, which I hope to have provided.

I don't think I will be able to quote everyone or to quote Bible texts etc. But I do need to say something about slavery, having majored in Ancient History for a university degree, and for being an Archaeology nut.

But the laws about slavery are not about moral issues. They are rather legal issues that the Hebrews used as a foundation for their government. So it was the letter of the law is what mattered for those types of rules...And here's the basic problem. You assume the Bible is morally perfect, since you believe that the one who wrote/inspired it is the epitome of moral goodness. So as long as you hold this belief, you are forced to try and justify anything it says.

So slavery is acceptable because God knows everything, and our culture today doesn't? The problem with this logic is it forces us to throw all our critical judgement out of the window.

I think you all have the wrong idea about slavery in Ancient times. It didn't matter who you were in those days. If someone bigger and stronger came along to conquer you and yours and defeated you, your fate would be fairly predictable. If a soldier or a grown man you would be grateful, or even surprised, to see tomorrow's dawn. If you survived, it might be at the expense of bits of your anatomy. Womenfolk would be forthwith marched off into slavery, hopefully with their older children who might be of some use.

There were other ways of becoming a slave. In Ancient Greece, and elsewhere, to be unable to pay off a debt could cause you to become a slave. Everything costs, you know, and there is no such thing as a free lunch. Even Christ refers to debtors and how they were treated in his parables. I've also noticed in the Torah that thieves who could not pay back what they stole could also be sold into slavery. That was BC, and well before 1788. And whilst being a freeborn Athenian entitled a man to citizenship, the same did not hold true for his sisters, daughters, mothers and, naturally, his wives. Not to mention slaves, foreigners etc.

Deuteronomy 5:15 reminds the Hebrews that they, too, were slaves at one stage so they are to keep the Sabbath day. I have a distinct impression that many of the other rules referring to slavery also remind the ancient Israelites that how they treated others was to be in the light of remembering what it was like to be slaves, themselves. And the regulations elsewhere in the Torah suggest that far from condoning the practice of slavery, these regulations were evidence rather of God's ultimate disapproval of the practice. Hebrew slaves were to be released without charge after 7 years, and slaves weren't automatically sent back to previous masters. Hebrews were to treat at least their own kinfolk as they would like to be treated themselves. And they were to treat foreign slaves relatively fairly as well.

I expect some of these laws were rather unusual and distinctly compassionate in those times, back in 722 BC, when the Assyrians would flay people alive for disobedience to the law. When they took Hezekiah's son Manasseh to Nineveh in chains, with a hook passed through his lip. And when the Babylonians killed Zedekiah's sons before his eyes before blinding him. They weren't nice in those days, and it was the Israelites, in particular, who taught us better behaviour. About the first of those mighty empire builders, Cyrus the Mede, to treat his underlings even half-way decently was a follower of Zoroaster who lived at that time. I'm still wondering if there was any connection between Zoroaster and the Israelites deported to the Medes a couple of generations previously. Nehemiah was a eunuch I have heard, but Zerubbabel, a descendant of Josiah, was a satrap in Judea, and became one of the ancestors of Jesus.

For starters, the Israelites were to prefer foreigners for slaves. A reasonable suggestion, since the alternative treatment of war captives was even worse. Not that the Israelites were noted for their military dominance. So don't forget that Joseph was a slave in Egypt, that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, and even if you think like I do, that the Babylonian captivity was when the Bible really took off, then that was also a time when the Israelites were once again slaves in Babylon.

Not to mention under the Romans, and elsewhere, including the Byzantine and Ottoman empires. As captives of marauding Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Muslims etc.
Oh! And don't forget that Christians similarly ended up as slaves, not only in the Roman empire but later on as well. Right up to comparatively recently.

I agree that slavery has been part of the Christian world for far too long, and that there were other forms of slavery that were more subtle and so less recognisable for what it is. Blackbirding and indentured labour? Or Transportation, anyone? What about Dickensian workhouses? What it all comes down to is market forces, the predatory nature of man towards his fellow man, the start of agriculture, animal husbandry and settled societies, and the need for cheap labour to maintain crops and community efforts like irrigation. And let us not forget that it was Christ who asked whether we worshipped God or Mammon.

So let us not be too surprised that it wasn't until the 1800's that antagonism to slavery really took off in any meaningful way. After all, these days, we have machines to do the work previously done by slaves, or poorly paid and ill-educated labourers. That is, all the additional work that wives etc couldn't be prevailed upon to do for nothing. So we can afford to condemn slavery. But then, is "the labourer worthy of his hire"? What does God say about Labour laws? Or the treatment of women? Or getting filthy rich unfairly at someone else's expense?

Well, for one thing, people don't go to Hell just because they had to steal to feed themselves. Their salvation depends on where they are with God, and on their heart; not on their actions. I'm sure there are many poor people who had to do some pretty desperate things in their earthly lives, and still went to heaven.

Tell that to my 19th century transported ancestors! . Actually Jesus Christ gave us the parable of Lazarus, the beggar at the rich man's door who had a whale of a time in the life hereafter, whilst the rich man got to find out what life was like for Lazarus. Read all about it in Luke 16: 19-31. Christ also pointed out in Matthew 19: 24 that 'It was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God'.