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.

History gives a lot more credence to the idea that people would exploit and abuse those under their power than the idea that the ancient Israelites were magically free of the sort of riffraff and human garbage that beat and starved and abused their slaves in early America. After all, the vast majority of those people would have put their hands on a Bible and sworn in all honesty that they were good, devout Christians. And look what they were doing. They certainly didn't respond well to other people telling them what they were doing was wrong. I seem to recall reading about people being driven out of towns, paper presses being smashed, and an entire chunk of the nation leaving the Union because people had the courage to tell them, "You know, the way you're treating those slaves really isn't right." But I'm sure the Hebrews were completely different.

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.

You're obviously either not understanding the points being made or choosing to dance around them. This is not about God passively allowing something to happen. No one is saying that God should swoop down out of the sky and put every single bad person in cosmic timeout before they can do something wrong. This is about God supposedly specifically creating a non-necessary system with blatant, easy-to-discover loopholes within the law that give sadistic, evil people the opportunity to exploit and abuse people with no recourse for the abused. And quite frankly, how difficult would it be for God to have not put those loopholes in there? He's omniscient; He knows exactly what a wicked, scheming human mind is going to come up with when it sees "You can beat a slave, just don't kill them." He could have even put laws in place that gave slaves the ability to appeal to the local authority if they were being mistreated and force the master to justify what they were doing. And yet, the loopholes exist and the slaves have no recourse. Sound suspiciously like something a human would have created.

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.

So your response to the blatant abuse-allowing loopholes in the law is that God put them there so the slaves could learn a Very Special Lesson. I .... Wow. Just wow. So God, in all of His Love and Holiness, deliberately created a system that was not necessary for the survival of the Jewish people and deliberately set up rules that could easily be abused to make people's lives a never-ending hell of abuse and forced labor so they could learn a lesson? What's this lesson supposed to be? How to Learn to Hate the Religion of Your Masters in Ten Easy Steps? Despising God for Dummies?

The written law of God presents an ideal, but God sure wasn't expecting anyone to live up to the ideal.

Really? Guess that means we're all going to heaven regardless of our spiritual status. Funnily enough, I seem to recall God expecting the Hebrews to live up to that ideal and if they did not, having to make atonement for the failure to do so.

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.)

Except this wasn't a case of having to twist Scripture. This isn't like people taking two verses out of context and using it to portray women as hormonal succubi out to drag men into the depths of sexual wickedness. This is about Bible verses that essentially say "Hey, it's totes okay to beat that slave giving you some lip as long as you don't kill him. Really, totally okay. God's not going to be mad or anything." or "Hey, want to keep this dude your slave forever? Give him a wife and kids, but don't free them so he'll agree to be a slave for life." (And I would challenge you to deliver that cavalier "There's not a good reason to pick on slavery." line to a descendant of slaves or a women who has been the prisoner of human trafficking.)

Ultimately, to justify the belief that the Hebrew slavery system was fine and good, you have to throw away any moral basis to criticize what was done in this country to people of African descent. Where exactly can you point and say, "That violates Scripture."? The Hebrew people were allowed to buy foreign slaves, they were allowed to keep those slaves for life, and they could beat them as they saw fit. Sounds exactly like the system we had in this nation before the Civil War. Fortunately there were enough people in this country not devoted to twisting themselves into logic pretzels to justify archaic systems of dubious origins to bring slavery to an end.

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.

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.

What does this have to do with Biblical slavery? We should be grateful the Jews didn't treat their slaves as badly as everyone else did? Biblical slavery is justified because they were slightly nicer about using human beings as glorified farm animals than everyone else was?

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.

Seems like it would have been a lot easier and saved a lot of pain and anguish to just ban it outright!

But for those who are determined to justify Biblical slavery, give me one good reason why it was necessary. And please don't trot out the tired chestnut of "Well, those slaves were exposed to the religion of the true God, so that makes it okay." The Hebrews could have done that just as effectively by sending out missionaries, something a handful of guys a couple of centuries later did to such success that it fundamentally altered world history.

I suspect that there will be no explanation suggested. There's a reason for that. Slavery is never necessary. You do not need slaves to survive. Slaves come into the picture when people get greedy and want more material assets than they really need. Look at the history of America. The New England colonies got along just fine with no slaves in the beginning. We got slavery (and indentured servitude) when greedy people took a look around and said, "I can make a ton of cash if I go pick up some cheap labor and make my farm bigger." We got horrific working conditions in the early industries when downright evil people decided that filling their pocketbooks was worth working people to death. Slavery and indentured servitude or whatever else you want to call it is about greed and placing your welfare above the lives of those weaker and poorer than you.

Booky, I did edit my last post, in case you didn't see it. Not that I expect that to matter much.

And honestly, I feel that you are grossly misinterpreting my posts. Maybe because I haven't made my points clear enough, or maybe because you have certain views which have simply rejected the radicality of my post to such an extent.

I suppose, though, it's more the former, and I probably rambled more than I provided anything worth responding to.

But anyways (and forgive the continuation of color for the moment)...

So your response to the blatant abuse-allowing loopholes in the law is that God put them there so the slaves could learn a Very Special Lesson. I .... Wow. Just wow. So God, in all of His Love and Holiness, deliberately created a system that was not necessary for the survival of the Jewish people and deliberately set up rules that could easily be abused to make people's lives a never-ending hell of abuse and forced labor so they could learn a lesson? What's this lesson supposed to be? How to Learn to Hate the Religion of Your Masters in Ten Easy Steps? Despising God for Dummies?

If I had to go with a lesson, I'd go with "The True Extent of Your Sinful Depravity".

But I never said there was a lesson. I was merely pointing out that we are sinned against and suffer for it. That is part of living in this fallen world. If you read what I wrote after that, I present God's solution. As for the setting up of these "easily abusable rules", well, Law doesn't really care how abusable it is. Any law can be twisted. I would even go so far as to say that a law forbidding slavery can be twisted to horrifically evil ends.

Really? Guess that means we're all going to heaven regardless of our spiritual status.

Gross misinterpretation of my words. We are all fallen because none of us can live up to the ideal at the ideal level. So God extends His hand so we don't have to do that. But what we do have to do, is reach out and take His hand. And there are many who don't choose to do that.

As for the Hebrews, because Christ had not yet come to the world, God had an atonement system that would point to the salvation that was to come, as a sort of interim way of keeping people's hearts oriented towards God. It's not something I understand fully, admittedly, so I probably won't defend this any further until I do further research.

Except this wasn't a case of having to twist Scripture. This isn't like people taking two verses out of context and using it to portray women as hormonal succubi out to drag men into the depths of sexual wickedness. This is about Bible verses that essentially say "Hey, it's totes okay to beat that slave giving you some lip as long as you don't kill him. Really, totally okay. God's not going to be mad or anything." or "Hey, want to keep this dude your slave forever? Give him a wife and kids, but don't free them so he'll agree to be a slave for life." (And I would challenge you to deliver that cavalier "There's not a good reason to pick on slavery." line to a descendant of slaves or a women who has been the prisoner of human trafficking.)

But God would be mad if, in doing any of those, you break any of the other commandments, including the applicable "love your neighbor as yourself" ones.

(And I was saying that it's not a good reason to single out slavery as an issue of twisting Scripture, in the sole context of this discussion. As in, it's not the only issue where Scripture is twisted. There are some other crazy Old Testament laws that are easily twisted; give them a chance at being scrutinized, too!

And you know what? I would tell those people not to pick on slavery in particular. Sure, pick on it and criticize how it's been twisted, but realize that there are other problems out there beyond what they feel particularly emotionally attached to. I wouldn't want to be insensitive to their attachments, but I would want to tell friends at the right time that it is time to put an ending to their tirade on slavery in particular and start considering the many other ways people are depraved.

Ultimately, to justify the belief that the Hebrew slavery system was fine and good, you have to throw away any moral basis to criticize what was done in this country to people of African descent. Where exactly can you point and say, "That violates Scripture."? The Hebrew people were allowed to buy foreign slaves, they were allowed to keep those slaves for life, and they could beat them as they saw fit. Sounds exactly like the system we had in this nation before the Civil War. Fortunately there were enough people in this country not devoted to twisting themselves into logic pretzels to justify archaic systems of dubious origins to bring slavery to an end.

Now, first of all, I'm glad that slavery in the U.S. has been abolished. Mainly because it allows us to find ourselves the one Master who is always good.

But again, you seem fixated on the slavery scriptures, thinking those exist separate from the other laws in the Bible somehow because the slaves seem to be considered not human, when they still are. And the laws for loving other people still apply with them. And it is on those bases that I can say that the way American people have used slavery in the 1800's is overall wrong, and due to an inability to correct it, it was better for it to be abolished.

But, you want a good reason for the necessity of slavery in Old Testament times. Well, I already posited one: foreign slaves, leaving who-knows-what kind of torment they might have faced before, still need a structure to ease them into their new lives. That's just a guess, though, so I understand if you don't accept this reason. Or, well, any reason, no matter how good it is.

I will say, though, the reason why I personally need to enslave myself: because complete freedom paralyzes me. With no direction on what to do or where to go, I go nowhere. Thus, I choose a master who can direct me. Hence, I make Christ my Master, so He can give me guidance (while also giving me a fair amount of freedom) so I'm not stuck--or worse, following my former sin master, who would just lead me to destruction.

This might not be the reason why the Old Testament Hebrews needed slaves. But I think it should show why the concept of slavery in and of itself, as well as the fact that God put the laws He did about it, is not repulsive to me.

I seem to recall reading about people being driven out of towns, paper presses being smashed, and an entire chunk of the nation leaving the Union because people had the courage to tell them, "You know, the way you're treating those slaves really isn't right."

There was quite a bit more to it than just that.

The anti-slavery fix is a relatively new thing in human history, it's really only been around a few centuries (in any recognizable manner that is). I hate the concept of slavery. When man is left in charge on his own he is capable of incredible cruelty towards his fellow man, and to deny a human being of their personal freedom is inexcusable. I think we all agree on this. So why is it seemingly approved of (or at the very least excused) in the Bible? I have absolutely no answer for this, suffice it to say that we tend to view the Ancient world through the lense of modern "sensibilities". I tend to believe that things were far more barbaric then and the rules were much more harsh (take a gander at Hammurabi's Code, or ask wagga, she'll tell you about some of the more stringent rules for infractions we might consider relatively minor today).

I think it's important to remember, above all else, that Man is depraved. We are festering with it, and so long as Man wallows in it there will be Sin and Death and all manner of terrible things that accompany it. We act as though the Holy Spirit was present in the hearts of the Israelites to keep them in check...when in fact He doesn't perform this particular job duty until Acts, perhaps a millenia or more later. Even with the Holy Spirit we remain dubious at best to the concept of Holiness. I sin so much each day that were I to try and recount it in front of Christ in person I might end up exploding from the sheer amount of it. And that said I think perhaps we might be judging the ancient Israelites a bit too harshly, though even now with my modern sensibilities it admittedly hurts my mouth to say it. But should I trust to man made sensibilities or to God's Word? Which is everlasting and which is ever changing?

There was depravity and evil in Ancient days just as there is today. There was murder, death, and yes, even slavery. And so if God deemed it necessary as a safeguard to protect a slave's life where perhaps in other nation-states of the day they would be put to quick death, then I think it better that the Israelites had them. The Bible is filled with verses on how Israel was ordered to commit what we would consider genocide on entire other nations, down to women and children. Will you condemn God for that too? Did God not eradicate the entire population of the planet Earth with a flood so massive that it took over a year to get to a level where creatures could walk on the surface again? Will not God toss humans wholesale into Hell in the future because they failed to pass muster? Slavery seems a pretty lovely alternative to that existence, I think. Maybe one just has to look at the whole thing in perspective...I just don't know. I have trouble grappling with things like this just like you do, but for goodness sake don't start doubting the Bible's legitimacy because of 150 year old American history. Learn from it, but don't use it as the Ultimate Yardstick.

There are several MAJOR misunderstanding here that have been stated. Most importantly, that God would establish a system of slavery. This is NOT the case. He used what was already established. The Israelites did not just start the slavery issue when the Law was passed down. It was already in their system. God grants people to govern by their own rules. When Israel asked for a king, he gave them one and from that point on until the conquest of Babylon, God used the system the people established. So the slavery issue in the Law was not God's idea. He simply told them the way to act within the system they already had.

"But the Israelites were slaves. Are you saying they had slaves of their own?" The answer to that question would likely be yes. Otherwise when the Israelites were getting these instructions, they would have no clue what God was talking about.

Now something else was mentioned that slavery was unnecessary. How so? Based on what we know and experience today? The northern colonies started out without slavery because there were so few people and for what they were doing (at that time survival). Any study of the Reconstruction Era easily demonstrates that simply abolishing the established 'legal slavery' did not go as well for the African Americans as was hoped. The laws in regards to slavery were there for a reason. Managing an already established system is one. Another is pointing to what both stardf and I have mentioned by no one has address yet: the slavery of each and every one of us to sin or Christ.

We keep focusing here on the bad side of slavery because masters can and have abused the system. Then comes the accusations of why God allowed that, or as some of you said 'established' it? There is an acknowledgement about the issue of sin, but rather than ask why God allowed slavery when it could be abused, ask why God put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden in the first place. The concept of slavery points to each of us in regards to sin or out standing in Christ in the same way earthly fathers point to our Heavenly Father (using Jesus' analogy). How many times does Jesus refer to his people as sheep? Do any of you know how STUPID sheep are? If one sheep starts acting sick, the other sheep will too. Stardf makes a great point about how important and necessary it is for us to be a SLAVE to Jesus. Because without those boundaries, we lack the freedom to do as we ought.

And since 'racism' and 'genocide' were brought up, again Shadowlander makes a good point. What's the whole picture? When the Israelites when up to war, God said it was judgement for sin. Paul says all of sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and 'for the wages of sin is death'. What few of us recognize is that there is one and only one thing every one of us deserves: death. Because of sin, every single breath we take is an act of mercy from God. We do not deserve to take our next breath to even read (or my case type) this post. God has a just right to kill any one or all of us right now. How is also up to him. God showed mercy to those who believed in him, including Rahab, a prostitute of Jericho. She would have been one of the first to be worthy of dying to people's standards. She and her household were spared because of her faith. But it was an act of mercy from God that she did not deserve.

When we understand that we are sinful and have not deserved a single breathe of our life, it makes us understand the 'not so palatable' portions of Scripture including slavery and the conquest of Canaan. As God told Job, (paraphrased) "I am God, you are not. Let me be God."

Let me also ask you this: Paul repeatedly considered himself a slave to Christ. In his following of Christ, he was whipped with 39 lashed 5x, he was all but stoned to death, he was imprisoned under Roman rule numerous times, and much more. He considered this a good thing. In part because Jesus, who was truly innocent and the only one who did not deserve death, suffered the worst form of execution known to man. And this is the thing Jesus talked about in his sermon when 20,000 followers left him. Christianity is not a popularity contest like American Idol or America's Got Talent or these other things. And to those who do not believe, as Paul also said, the Gospel (the whole Bible, just the parts we summarize about Christ) is foolishness. It is completely contrary to the way the world thinks (including American culture). As for me personally, I would rather be one of the slaves and follow Christ, than live a totally free life without him.

Thanks for the responses, Minotaur.

I think I need to draw back, though, from the discussion because I'm not currently in a place to debate and also, I don't think there's time for me to keep up.
I did watch video on morality... the point on "mind control" actually made me laugh, especially Pharaoh. I understand what the guy is saying- Obviously, I do not agree. It is true that invoking Divine mystery does not solve every conflict - that can be a weak point used to evade thinking up an answer. However, I believe it is impossible for us to fully understand God. The basic problem, in my opinion, with that video is it glorifies man, pushing God out of the picture. Like Fencer said, it's important Let God be God & once we see how really awful human beings are, we start getting to a proper perspective.
Question: did the guy who make the video actually debate these things with a Christian of his level (not just some random person off the street who can't debate.) to get those answers, or is he just basing things off cliche?
That said, I feel some things in that video are exaggerated/taken out of context. I should mention that I do need to read the Bible passages pertaining to slavery, because I have not really studied that extensively. When I have some more time, I might check up the references he mentiones to back up his points. He certainly does have some points worth debating, I'm not going to discount that, but I don't agree with them.

Um, by the way, the second video had objectionable content.... >.>
By the way, Theresa isn't a true Christian- if she was, she wouldn't be asking an Athiest out. Doesn't she know not to date non-Christians?
In all seriousness, that video has some serious weak points. God does not have the same opinions that we have... Something like just a teeny bit of compromise I would find harmless, God does not find so harmless. I know God is not me, becase I have experienced who He says He is in the Bible. this doesn't mean I base it on experience, though. Like I said, I do have questions about slavery, laws pertaining to women, but I know God is who He says He is.
By the way, ugh, the comments of people who were personally attacking athiests- I think that's faulty and immature "proof". Not every one who claims to be a Christian wants to kill athiests...

Regarding your comment on hell, me in my mind, beliving what I think is fair is what God thinks is fair: Note, I said I don't know for sure - it's just an idea I believe sounds reasonable/interesting. But, you're right- nowhere in the Bible does it say blankly it's there - so I don't exactly fully believe the idea. Apologies if I implied so.

By the way, the comment on Strobel's book-- by "I think", I was referring to "chapter" meaning, I don't recall if it was a chapter or a section. I understand your points. Like I said for various reasons I can't debate right now, one of them being I need to go and read up more so I'll just move on -

Because stardf, SL and FencerforJesus are much more mature and word everything aptly, I won't say any more except to ditto their posts.

*slips back into lurkdom*

There are several MAJOR misunderstanding here that have been stated. Most importantly, that God would establish a system of slavery. This is NOT the case. He used what was already established. The Israelites did not just start the slavery issue when the Law was passed down. It was already in their system. God grants people to govern by their own rules. When Israel asked for a king, he gave them one and from that point on until the conquest of Babylon, God used the system the people established. So the slavery issue in the Law was not God's idea. He simply told them the way to act within the system they already had.

"But the Israelites were slaves. Are you saying they had slaves of their own?" The answer to that question would likely be yes. Otherwise when the Israelites were getting these instructions, they would have no clue what God was talking about.

Now something else was mentioned that slavery was unnecessary. How so? Based on what we know and experience today?

Thank you, Fencer. That makes sense. Yes the Israelites did have slaves. If they prospered enough to afford slaves, or actually won the occasional battle, they would have slaves. If the Israelites celebrated the Sabbath they were expected to ensure their slaves had a day off working also. I gather that was a novelty elsewhere in the Ancient World. These days there is a push to get rid of penalty rates and other perks which make it worth the while of employees to work at inconvenient times. The employers argue that if we don't the eventual result will be that we will go back to closed shops on Sundays, no shift work and no chance to pay bills outside of business hours. Oh I forgot - we have Internet these days.

But, getting back to Biblical times, for large chunks of their civilization, Israelites became slaves themselves. Even if Israelite didn't have slaves, themselves, they would still have a very good idea of what laws about slavery were for. That is why it was so important for them that the Israelites had rules governing ownership conduct towards slaves, servants etc. The neighbouring Assyrians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Babylonians etc wouldn't have been so bothered about days off, among other slave conditions.

By the way, hunter gatherers and cave people do not need slaves. If you believe in a lovely unspoiled Garden of Eden, then there was no slavery there either. And there was no slavery in Australia either, before 1788, the inhabitants being isolated from the rest of the world. No horses, let alone workhorses lived there. Slavery is a condition of the fall, of Man's fallen nature, and his sinfulness. It was never ordained by God. It was instead ordained by Man conquering other men to enslave the defeated, to get out of doing all the work, himself. Vae Victis indeed! So were conquered first peoples treated and so were the Africans brought to America.

What does this have to do with Biblical slavery? We should be grateful the Jews didn't treat their slaves as badly as everyone else did? Biblical slavery is justified because they were slightly nicer about using human beings as glorified farm animals than everyone else was?

Everything to do with Biblical slavery. Israel Finkelstein says that Archaeology has not furnished proof there was an Exodus, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't one, maybe a smaller group than the horde of thousands we imagine in the Bible. Elsewhere, in a Nova program "The Bible's buried secrets", scholars say bits dealing with the Exodus, itself, are among the oldest parts of the Bible. Deuteronomy, another account of the Exodus, was certainly written prior to the fall of Jerusalem. Maybe Leviticus, a Hebrew body of laws and regulations on almost everything, was probably written early as well, along with Numbers. And the Israelites depicted in these books of the Bible were escaped slaves, themselves. It was in Exodus 16:3 that some of these slaves called out to Moses:

Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the Land of Egypt, when we sat over the flesh pots, and ate bread to the full. Why have you brought us into this desert, that you might destroy all the multitude with famine?

This particular verse shows that slavery is just as much a state of mind as a human condition. Some people, who know no other way of being, have been happy being slaves, having others take responsibility for their well-being. That is the other side of the slavery coinage, that whilst it is wrong to enslave others, it is also wrong to let oneself be enslaved, not making an effort to help oneself.

And another Biblical story, dealt with at length in Genesis, is the story of Joseph, who was sold as a slave to the Egyptians by Judah, one of his older brothers. That was in preference to the fratricide Simeon and Levi planned for the lad. That is why slavery to the Ancients was a lesser evil than outright murder.

The anti-slavery fix is a relatively new thing in human history, it's really only been around a few centuries (in any recognizable manner that is). I hate the concept of slavery. When man is left in charge on his own he is capable of incredible cruelty towards his fellow man, and to deny a human being of their personal freedom is inexcusable. I think we all agree on this. So why is it seemingly approved of (or at the very least excused) in the Bible? I have absolutely no answer for this, suffice it to say that we tend to view the Ancient world through the lense of modern "sensibilities". I tend to believe that things were far more barbaric then and the rules were much more harsh (take a gander at Hammurabi's Code, or ask wagga, she'll tell you about some of the more stringent rules for infractions we might consider relatively minor today).

Thank you, Shadowlander. But I don't think that slavery was excused in the Bible. Like polygamy its widespread existence was noted, and it appears the conditions were to be endured and ameliorated, where possible, but not condoned. Before we start saying how barbaric the Ancients were in inflicting slavery on others, what do we make of the horrors of WW2 concentration and prisoner of war camps? Not to mention the more garish penalties inflicted on wrongdoers under Sharia law? Although we are agreed that slavery is a horrible thing, are we really able to pass judgement on the Ancient World in which the Bible was written?

So. I'm not going to respond to the mile long posts above, and you can love me or hate me for it. But in New Testament times (at least), people were actually grateful to be slaves in some times. Slavery did not equate with evil, as it seems to now. When you were a slave, you were guaranteed food, a bed, clothing-- even marriage, down the line. Some people were extremely grateful for that, as they would not get those things otherwise.

I've followed the incarnations of this thread for a few years now, but I've never jumped in before, so here we go. The current discussion is fascinating, and I thought I'd throw my two cents into the mix.

These are my initial thoughts and the observations/issues/questions I'm coming away with as I'm studying these parts of the Bible for the first time, so take them for what you will.

The problem I have with equating slavery with all the other sinful/bad/disastrous things that God "allows" to happen is you have no option of fighting back against the sin, no option of taking a bad situation and turning it into something good that brings glory to God. No option of overcoming it. No hope, no choices. No way to rise above it and do something wonderful in the name of God—without breaking his own law.

You never have the chance to get out of a twisted, brutal, maddening situation that encourages nothing but hatred and insanity. You never have the chance to escape that violently warped world and seek who God truly is on your own.

How are you supposed to learn about love, righteousness, mercy and justice (!) when you are in an environment where you cannot even protect the people you love, and would be punished for doing so? By the order of a God who is supposed to embody those four adjectives?

I have to say: if you mean to go on living like that, you had better stop caring and start losing your humanity. Which I cannot believe is what God wants from us.

By the laws present on the subject in that part of the Bible, you just have to put up with it if you and those around you are being abused. There is nothing you can actively do about the situation that would not defy what the laws in the Bible are saying on the matter, and no one to whom you can appeal. . . except for God, who frankly does not seem to be very interested in the quality of life of slaves. I would have had a very hard time buying the "compassionate God" concept if I had been a slave back in those times, when he seemed to be primarily concerned with the interests of the wealthy and their finances.

It doesn't matter if you feel called by God to do something with your life other than be a human's property, or if you want to make a better life for your family, or want to get back to people who need you—you're stuck. You're serving a human god.

It's just a horrific way to live. If you happen to actually care about the people around you, which God commands us to do, I can't think of any torture more severe than having to just stand and watch an innocent person—the elderly, the defenseless, your own family, your own children—being "lawfully" beaten within inches of their life by a bloodthirsty brute whom a supposedly loving god appointed as your rightful governor.

I've always thought that doing nothing in the face of evil is not much better than the evil itself. If I had been a slave in those times and was surrounded by such atrocities, I would have had to do something, whether the law supported me or not.

If you don't defy the law and act, then your ultimate earthly fate and the fates of everyone whom you love. . . rests in the hands of flawed humans. (And I would argue your spiritual fate as well, because I have to say that living under laws and people like that would not make me very inclined to Christianity.) This is especially so for the poor foreign slaves who have zero rights and are bound to their masters for life. Your life has been sacrificed in the name of "progress." I would imagine that it would be difficult not to wonder if there was some kind of mix-up.

Like why you hadn't been born as someone's farm animal instead of made in the image of God, because the former is all that the laws of this God have ever allowed you to be.

I doubt that slavery is something that the slaves, themselves, couldn't resist. There is the story of Joseph, who refused to be Potiphar's wife's er 'toy boy'. Consider slavery as something akin to imprisonment. By being of good behaviour the unjustly imprisoned Joseph found favour with his owners/guards and eventually did well.

Moses showed another outlet for slaves to escape. During a time of disaster for their Egyptian owners, the slaves were in a good position to escape. The laws Moses and his successors established for slaves and their owners also provided for manumission once a slave had served for seven years. By the time of the Greeks and Romans, as in Jesus' day, slaves could become free, depending on what sorts of people their masters were. That is in sharp contrast to what happened later, in post 1788 America, it would seem.

Every civilization which has had slaves has also had slave rebellions of one kind or another. There are some who think that the origin of the Hebrews was a local slave rebellion against Egypto-Canaanite masters, rather than an incursion from Egypt, itself. Spartacus comes to mind, as does the Zanj rebellions in the Arabian peninsula. Apparently the Mamelukes who ended the Crusader presence in Medieval Palestine were themselves slaves.

History gives a lot more credence to the idea that people would exploit and abuse those under their power than the idea that the ancient Israelites were magically free of the sort of riffraff and human garbage that beat and starved and abused their slaves in early America. After all, the vast majority of those people would have put their hands on a Bible and sworn in all honesty that they were good, devout Christians. And look what they were doing. They certainly didn't respond well to other people telling them what they were doing was wrong.

You are quite right. There wouldn't be any need for religious rules on how to treat slaves if the Israelites were magically free of bad people and social injustice. Why do you think there were so many major and minor prophets all trying to tell them to repent of their shenanigans and start working together as a people before the Assyrians and Babylonians made mince meat of them?

The Hebrews weren't really so much different from their Canaanite and Phoenician neighbours despite having a unique heritage, especially in the North. Archaeology has shown that the Ancient Israelites kept idols again and again and again. Until the fall of Jerusalem, after which the tally of Baalim and Astarte figurines suddenly disappears, never to return.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to take part in the debate but I'm finding it fascinating, frustrating and thought-provoking. As someone above said (Shadowlander I think) we should look at the whole picture to get an idea of what is being communicated. This is still a very important debate because I find many people who struggle to understand God's Love, specifically non-Christians, use Exodus as an example of why they can't believe God is a God of Love and why they don't want to be a Christian. I'm not going to pretend I don't have doubts at times. I do. I'm not going to pretend I'm all A-Okay with some of the more disturbing and difficult parts of the Bible. I'm not. My post-modern thought-process doesn't want any of that. I don't ignore them. Some things we can justify by context but other things we just have to accept. God provides the Law by which to live by and if we don't like something, maybe we don't understand it correctly, aren't meant to understand it properly or, heaven forbid, maybe the problem is with us or our way of thinking? Still, it's helpful to have some answers that can address these issues but we must also understand that we can never convince people who don't know God because they will see God's Word as foolish. That is the Holy Spirit's job.

This is still a very important debate because I find many people who struggle to understand God's Love, specifically non-Christians, use Exodus as an example of why they can't believe God is a God of Love and why they don't want to be a Christian.

Now why exactly is Exodus, in particular, used to justify non-belief in God's Love? For myself, I've no problem with it at all, being far too fascinated with that period of history. I've always wanted to know what Pharaoh was the one who had the dreams of seven years of plenty and seven years of famine. I find the recurrent use of the number 7 interesting. And I'd love to know more about Moses, the Pharaoh who opposed him - reputedly Ramesses II - and how Moses could have done what he did. Without the aid of Charlton Heston as Moses.

Frankly, there simply had to have been a Moses. He just sounds too human and realistic. However, the biggest challenge is to prove the existence of David and Solomon, let alone the more remote figure of Moses. You can get the [url=http://www.vea.com.au/Search.aspx?q=bible's+buried+secrets]Bible's Buried secrets[/url] locally, so long as you mention that you are purchasing as a private citizen. The program was also screened on SBS last year. Since then I have wondered what you and others on this thread would have said about some of the things alleged.

Other than that, I do follow up Archaeology magazines such as Bible Archaeology Review, and the Australian Archaeology Diggingsm both of which are bi-monthly and which are available from even quite small local newsagents. And yes, those Bible verses I quoted are there to be quoted from.

Non-Christians find it difficult to believe God is Love with all the slavery and killing in Exodus (that's an example, not the only book they have trouble with - but it seems to be the most reoccuring topic.

But, you want a good reason for the necessity of slavery in Old Testament times. Well, I already posited one: foreign slaves, leaving who-knows-what kind of torment they might have faced before, still need a structure to ease them into their new lives. That's just a guess, though, so I understand if you don't accept this reason. Or, well, any reason, no matter how good it is.

First of all, stardf29, I want to congratulate you for being the only person on the pro-slavery side of this debate to actually address the topic of foreign slaves.

Now that that's over with, I'll explain to you why I completely disagree with what you said.

In the early industrial age of the United States, millions immigrated from Europe where starvation, violence and murder ran rampant. Greedy entrepreneurs used the immigrants as an easily exploitable source of cheap labor. Unemployed immigrants would crowd around the doors of factories, hoping to receive any sort of job. When a worker would severely injure himself in machinery, he had no health care package to cover medical costs, he was simply fired because he could no longer do his job, and after all there were people outside eager to have his spot. Workers had to work through 14 hour workdays in extremely dangerous conditions for almost no pay.

Now, are the acts of the greedy entrepreneurs justified because they were offering the immigrants a totally awful life instead of starvation? Of course not. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Now something else was mentioned that slavery was unnecessary. How so? Based on what we know and experience today? The northern colonies started out without slavery because there were so few people and for what they were doing (at that time survival). Any study of the Reconstruction Era easily demonstrates that simply abolishing the established 'legal slavery' did not go as well for the African Americans as was hoped. The laws in regards to slavery were there for a reason. Managing an already established system is one.

Sure, the Reconstruction Era was difficult. Black people didn't start to get treated truly as equals until about a century later. Does that mean that we shouldn't have had the Reconstruction Era in the first place? Of course not. Transitioning a society away from a bad, yet commonplace behavior is a necessity. Surely you wouldn't argue that the southern states should still own slaves this very day because the Reconstruction Era is too much of a hassle to go through.

Another is pointing to what both stardf and I have mentioned by no one has address yet: the slavery of each and every one of us to sin or Christ.

I think I've already addressed that, Fencer. Maybe you didn't see it, so I'll copy and paste what I said earlier.

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.

Rather than ask why God allowed slavery when it could be abused, ask why God put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden in the first place.

Red herring, that's a completely different matter. God specifically forbid Adam and Eve from eating from the Tree of Knowledge, so they were disobeying and therefore sinning when they chose to eat from it. The laws about slavery don't forbid slavery. God isn't giving the Hebrews the opportunity to choose whether to obey him or not by owning slaves, he's specifically telling them that it's an okay practice.

How many times does Jesus refer to his people as sheep? Do any of you know how STUPID sheep are? If one sheep starts acting sick, the other sheep will too.

Oh, Fencer. Yes, I get it. You think God is amazing, perfect, and divine, and that humans are awful, imperfect, evil, and stupid.

And since 'racism' and 'genocide' were brought up, again Shadowlander makes a good point. What's the whole picture? When the Israelites when up to war, God said it was judgement for sin.

What about all the other wars through out the history of the world? Those wars seem to be primarily decided by who has the best army and smartest battle tactics, not by which side is good or evil. You can't attempt to write off gross cases of manslaughter and prejudice by saying that the ones who were slaughtered and prejudiced against were the evil ones in every single situation.

Paul says all of sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and 'for the wages of sin is death'. What few of us recognize is that there is one and only one thing every one of us deserves: death. Because of sin, every single breath we take is an act of mercy from God. We do not deserve to take our next breath to even read (or my case type) this post. God has a just right to kill any one or all of us right now.

In my opinion, we do not deserve death because we didn't choose whether we wanted to exist in the first place. It wasn't my fault that, according to you, I was born with original sin. That's the fault of Adam and Eve. It isn't just or loving to shove a soul into a system where the default option is eternal torture without even asking the soul whether it desires to be created or not. I shouldn't be forced to take God's earthly test just because of what my parents did one particular night.

When we understand that we are sinful and have not deserved a single breathe of our life, it makes us understand the 'not so palatable' portions of Scripture including slavery and the conquest of Canaan. As God told Job, (paraphrased) "I am God, you are not. Let me be God."

And again, this is what I think is the ultimate problem. You have convinced yourself, by whatever methods, that God must be real. God says that he is morally perfect, but that we can never understand him. So therefore, there is nothing that God can do that you would not be eagerly willing to defend. During this discussion, you have tried to justify slavery, which you believe is abhorrent and wrong. Do you not see a critical contradiction here?

Since you said earlier that you think I'm ignoring your main point (that we are slaves to Christ), I think it is only fair that I should be able to say that I think you've been ignoring some of my main points/questions as well. So I'm going to repeat them here in a nice list for you.

1) Forms of slavery that you believe are evil were allowed in the Bible

Earlier in this discussion you said this.

The slave trade was an abhorrent evil. Slavery that abuses, seeks to make money, and trafficks is absolutely wrong.

Now take a look at this verse:

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. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

This is slavery that abuses. This is slavery that seeks to make money. This is slavery that binds generations of families into forced labor. This is slavery that is truly evil. And the Lord your God permits it! How do you rationalize this in your mind?

2)Using legal laws as a metaphor doesn't make sense

Earlier in this discussion you said this.

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.

Please show me the verses you derived this insight from.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. You are looking at these ancient lawbooks and trying to say that what they're really doing is to try to communicate some big symbolic spiritual idea to modern people.

I wonder how many average joes would 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 pretty much no one. And the reason for this is because the passages are laws giving legal guidelines as to what is acceptable and what warrants an earthly punishment dealt out by the Hebrew government (and also exactly what that punishment should be). These are the types of laws where the letter of law is what matters!

3) Which society would you actually prefer?

Earlier in this discussion you said this.

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.

Since you're working on becoming a teacher, I'll use education 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?

I can understand a lot of the things being discussed, such as people who sold themselves into slavery for safety, or slaves who had good, kind masters.

But it does confuse me that:

1. There was a punishment for when a slave was killed by a beating, but not a beating they survived. I would think all forms of violence would be punished by God. What kind of beating is it referring to, exactly? Is it talking about a cruel man who just beats his slave mercilessly without cause? Is that within the law? Or is it referring to only slaves that are being beaten because they've committed some act of betrayal, such as stealing from their master, etc.?

2. The laws were different for foreigners. Did slaves from foreign parts have any rights? And why was the law different for them?

Could someone elaborate on those two points specifically?

~Riella

At this point, I think I've said pretty much enough about slavery, as I was mainly trying to justify becoming a slave of Christ. As for humans being masters over other humans, perhaps it's worth making the distinction between authority that is well-used and, well, authority that is abused. The latter is probably what most people think of when they think "slavery", and I'm certainly against that.

That said, while I am "pro-slavery" within the proper context (and I would appreciate that no one tries to claim I am pro-slavery outside of that context), I am also very much "pro-freedom". Sounds contradictory, I know. But really, the whole "I am free to do whatever I want" notion of freedom is really just slavery to your own pride and sinful nature. True freedom is the freedom to serve, to love our neighbors as ourselves.

As for trying to justify slavery in the Old Testament, I've already presented my views on all that, but I think perhaps there's something else to be looked at here, outside the slavery issue.

In Matthew 5, Jesus mentions several laws from the Old Testament, but then almost goes out to refute them. For example, he mentions the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" saying, which comes from Exodus 23-25. Then, however, he says that we should not resist evil and "turn the other cheek" - in effect, overturning the old law. So, in a way, perhaps many of the Old Testament laws aren't necessarily what God wants. (This is something I'll be looking more into, for sure.)

So, I think I'll just address one last person here...

The problem I have with equating slavery with all the other sinful/bad/disastrous things that God "allows" to happen is you have no option of fighting back against the sin, no option of taking a bad situation and turning it into something good that brings glory to God. No option of overcoming it. No hope, no choices. No way to rise above it and do something wonderful in the name of God—without breaking his own law.

You never have the chance to get out of a twisted, brutal, maddening situation that encourages nothing but hatred and insanity. You never have the chance to escape that violently warped world and seek who God truly is on your own.

How are you supposed to learn about love, righteousness, mercy and justice (!) when you are in an environment where you cannot even protect the people you love, and would be punished for doing so? By the order of a God who is supposed to embody those four adjectives?

I think you are trying to box God in too much here. I can think of a way in which an abused slave can take his situation and turn it around for the glory of God, without breaking any of His laws.

First off, as wagga mentioned, none of those laws forbade the slaves from trying to escape or "fight the system". In fact, there really aren't too many laws in the Old Testament saying how slaves should act; the laws were more concerned with the ones who were going to own the slaves. So, let's keep open the option, and a godly one at that, of rallying against an owner who refuses to "love his neighbor as himself".

But even if someone can't quite find a good way to actually fight the system (justice), they can still show love (for other slaves in bad situations ), righteousness (by not returning evil for evil), and mercy (by showing genuine concern for their masters).

In a way, though, this goes beyond the slavery issues. Many times, God will put us in situations where we are horribly oppressed by others. In those times, we can either complain that "God, there is no way I can be everything You want me to be in these circumstances", or we can realize that it is precisely in those circumstances that God will make us who He wants us to be, not what we think He wants us to be.

You seem to be making some strange assumptions about God in those passages, too. God is never particularly interested in "quality of life", since that oftentimes just leads people to complacency, but the passages themselves (again, allowing room for going "against the system" if the owner is abusing them) do show concern for the slaves, allowing them to get married, have freedom in due time, and even stay with their family if they choose to do so. And I have absolutely no idea where you got the idea that God was only concerned with the wealthy and their finances.

In fact, I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at with your post at all. So maybe, as an alternate question (and no wrong answers for this one): what are your feelings towards God after reading those passages?