Yes, not all types of discrimination are evil.

When I read verses like Exodus 21:31-32. . .

31 The same regulation applies if the ox gores a boy or a girl. 32 But if the ox gores a slave, either male or female, the animal’s owner must pay the slave’s owner thirty silver coins, and the ox must be stoned.

All other issues aside, I find myself wondering why on earth God would find the time to put a price on a human's life in order to protect a slaveholders financial situation, but not one single word is breathed about the owner of the ox apologizing to the victim's family?

Actually I have no problem with this ruling whatsoever. Courtly manners, like s'il vous plait, merci and pardonnez-moi, really didn't come into vogue until the Restoration in UK, let alone America, so to expect Ancient Hebrews to apologise would be a bit anachronistic. Paying compensation was a visible way of showing that the owner of the ox was sorry - that is, if he really was.

Interestingly, I distinctly remember reading in Exodus or Leviticus, that Moses took into account the possibility of accidental death, something not necessarily enshrined in US law, or so I have heard. Have I have heard right? We in Australia do have laws about manslaughter as opposed to deliberate murder.

And yes I agree with The Black-Glove - for once - that some of the Mosaic law was meant to be civic law as well as religious law. This by the way shows how real a person Moses was. He had real people to look after and lead and had to make real laws to make them live together as a society.

There are laws for how-to-look-after-your-slave, since at the time of the formation of those laws they didn't have prisons, not being a settled society, let alone prisoner-of-war camps, internment camps, or detention of any sort. Slavery was something endemic to every nation on the planet at the time, and the Hebrews were as likely to be slaves as anyone else.

And the law about the ox merely reiterates that slaves are to be treated well. The law about the ox also spells out the duties of ownership. You are supposed to ensure your animals don't hurt others, even their slaves. Even today if a dog attacks people it is put down. Cats and dogs are also to be stopped from attacking wildlife. I dislike the idea of stoning a poor dumb ox, and agree that it should be put down more humanely. But that was then in Biblical times, long before the invention of the gun and the lethal injection. In this debate, this is now, when we have had much more time to think out the ramifications of God's love and how it would operate in civic law.

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.

Again I have no problem with this ruling. Yes, foreigners should be treated like guests, with courtesy. But that doesn't extend to enfranchising them, does it? And slaves, by definition, have been disenfranchised. I see no problem with Hebrew law preferring to enslave foreigners rather than their own people. There isn't a civilization which hasn't made a similar distinction between citizens and non-citizens. To this day, if we want to describe someone as lacking ethics, we say he u'd sell his own grandmother. Some people to this day need to have pointed out to them, that selling one's own kith and kin, and fellow citizens isn't on, whatever they do to foreigners.

There is also this: There were'nt internment camps, detention for illegal immigrants, refugee camps, prisoner of war camps or even prisons in those days. Well, maybe in settled Egypt or Mesopotamia, which also had slaves. By all means be friendly to foreigners, and look after them well as visitors and fellow residents. But let us not be push-overs for those who want to take us over. Let us not be collaborators either in our society's own destruction.

I can't find whoever it was who pointed out the treatment of immigrants to America before WW1, who were frequently exploited by money-hungry carpetbaggers who had no regard for OH & S principles or human rights. I agree this was wrong, and deplorable. But once we had Trade Unions to protect workers, and ensure fair treatment of workers, the powers-that-be are all for getting rid of Trade Unions. Right up to last March in NSW, and the next Federal elections.

I'd also like to point out that the violence these mainly Europeans were fleeing from was because of the Tsarist Government's officials scapegoating Jews and ethnic minorities to deflect unrest and popular attention from their own corrupt and oppressive government setup. In Ireland it was due to greedy landlords and an unsympathetic British government. Ironically, many of these oppressed people increasingly came to places like New South Wales, Australia, after Federation, South Australia, in particular, even Tasmania, even though these places had started out as penal colonies. And at that time, America, itself, still had yet to come to terms with its treatment of its own newly freed black slaves, as well as its shameful treatment of its own Amerindian tribes the Europeans had displaced.

Nowadays we have the UN, governments have apologised for past injustices and much else. But as an Australian I still can't expect to travel to the USA without a visa and a passport, live there for any length of time without leave, automatically work in my chosen profession without a green card, or vote in your elections. Even if I fulfilled those conditions I can't work as a librarian with any overseas qualification less than a Master's Degree. And if I step out of line, such as by committing a crime in USA, my government won't bail me out either. Maybe not even if a judge sentences me to death, even though in Australia we don't have the death penalty. All the Government can do legally is ensure I have proper and fair legal representation.

I'm sure the Ancient Hebrews, if they truly obeyed those Mosaic laws, were positively easy to get along with in comparison with treatment of foreigners today.

I can't find the reference someone in the chat made to indiscriminate slaughter of others in war either. But then again, were the Hebrews expected to be push-overs who gave into every attacking neighbour without even defending themselves, and without giving those neighbours a good reason to leave them alone?

Just putting in my two cents....I personally tend to see the Bible as a book that should be taken in the whole to benefit. I don't one can just look at the Old Testament or select passages out of context in isolation of the New Testament.

And though I can't really debate very well...because to be honest, my knowledge is still pretty much at the beginning believer's level in some aspects...I truly believe that the Old Testament is all about the law...and the New Testament shows the prophecies of the OT coming true. There cannot be a righteous Christian without "law"....but also a righteous Christian cannot exist without God's loving forgiveness and "grace". This probably may come across at black and white sort of thinking but I do admit the Bible has grey areas for discussion...such as this one regarding slavery....

Good links I've run across....because it saves me trying to put my thoughts properly on this matter (taking the Bible as a whole) in a coherent way....

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... bible.html

http://www.goodnewsarticles.com/Jul98-4.htm

Also....when one discusses moral code....where does the moral code from?
Most everyone it seems....has some conception or belief about what is 'good' and what is 'bad'....where does that inherent moral code come from? It can't come from different sources?........it can't come out of nowhere....?......

Okay, it's after midnight, I can post again.

You know what, I'm debating with at least five different people right now on probably as many different issues, and I know I'm not going to be able to keep up that pace for very long. The last thing I want to do is get burned out, disappear into the aether and waste peoples' time. Nor do I want to get so bogged down that I don't actually learn anything from these discussions.

So instead I'm going to suggest that at least I post on just one issue at a time on here, and see if I can make myself keep that rule, because as you can see, I have a bit of a problem with writing very long posts. Should cut down on confusion, hopefully improve the conversation, and very likely push back the onset of insanity for all involved.

I don't want to miss anyone's points, though, so I'll make a note of these last few posts and hopefully we'll have a chance revisit all of these topics at a later date if that works for everyone. Remind me of them if you want; I've done enough debating online to know there's nothing much more annoying than feeling like you've made some really good points and they get passed by.

So, if anyone has a suggestion for how to boil down this discussion to one main topic, be my guest, or I could just ask a related question tomorrow if that's all right. (I have lots. ) Right now I need some sleep.

Thanks.

I haven't posted anything about foreign treatment of slaves yet. Wagga mentioned the differences of our modern countries rules about foreigners. As I live right on the US/Mexico border, to enter the US, you need a passport as a citizen. You need a green card or a visa as a non-citizen. If you want to live in America, you need to follow American rules (though there are political movements that indicate otherwise, but I will ignore those for this argument).

But since the issue of punishment, such as beating a foreign slave for misbehaving while not having the same laws for Israelite slaves, has been such an issue, let's look at it this way. I mentioned this analogy before. Let's say some kid breaks your window with a rock. If the kid is some bloke off the street, the kid must repay for the window AND repay a civil debt. But what if the kid is yours? Would you make him suffer civil suits for destruction of private property? I don't think so. You'd keep the issue in the family. This is the same way God treats sin for believers and non-believers. For believers, what happens in the family stays in the family. For non-believer, it's like an illegal immigrant trying to get in on benefits that don't belong to them. The rules are necessary to be different for citizens vs non-citizens. I'm not sure that's the best analogy but it is late for me (just returned from a wedding party) so I am going to bed myself. We'll see how much the topic jumps between now and when I return.

So instead I'm going to suggest that at least I post on just one issue at a time on here, and see if I can make myself keep that rule, because as you can see, I have a bit of a problem with writing very long posts.

I understand that can be a struggle for some people, yeah ...

(Long, awkward pause, complete with slowly turned stares ...)

What?

Should cut down on confusion, hopefully improve the conversation, and very likely push back the onset of insanity for all involved.

That's what I've been trying, too, not just for a simpler and hopefully more-personal conversation, but because my time is more limited now, thanks to Speculative Faith and other projects. Let's see if it works!

One thing I may note, also, is that some folks seem to want proof for Scripture's truth claims about itself, and morality, and even the proof of God's existence and nature, based on other presuppositions — basic views of the world. But that is a nearly impossible request. "Prove to me, please, that God exists or that He is like or has done this, according to my own assumptions about Life, the Universe, and Everything." Already the discussion has moved onto foreign ground, though. The Christian can certainly point to good in the world, intelligent design, etc., as secondary proofs of God's existence or what He is like, but mostly the Christian can only say these claims are axiomatic. The require an entirely new worldview that first accepts Scripture as truthful.

That's why I'm seeing a lot of folks here ask questions that challenge a worldview in opposition to Scripture to see if it's consistent.

That's why I'd earlier asked what "authority," ultimately, supports a concept of free will — which everyone agrees should be impeded in some cases. Ultimately it's an absolute truth claim, based unknowingly in Scripture, that supports such a concept — but then someone tries to use it to demonstrate Scripture can't be true.

It's chopping the branch out from under you, with nothing in its place.

More to come later. Heading out to prep for kids' Sunday school stuff!

*pokes head in*

Hi guys. I've been following the slavery discussion and, while I find it interesting, it is distressing to me that there hasn't been an agreeable solution.

First of all here is where I stand:
-I'm a Christian
-I believe the Bible is the Word of God
-I think slavery is evil (dah-dah-dum)
-I don't have a problem with servitude or hierachy per se. I submit (as best I can) to the laws of my government and my parents, I accept that marriage is more than a two-way democracy, I willingly accept God and angels as my natural superiors etc.
-I am befuddled on this issue because having God allow the use and abuse of slaves seemes to fly in the face of everything I know about Him. God is a God of the underdogs. For the life of me, I don't understand why He would let the Israelites keep slaves and let them treat their slaves like property. Allowing the Israelites to keep slaves is one thing (and then turning around the situation for good ), telling them it's okay is another.

That's just my current position. What I'd like to ask the "defenders of slavery" (sorry, I'm not sure what else to call you ), because we're all Narnia fans and respect C. S. Lewis, what do you make of the Lone Island situation if you think slavery is okay under the right conditions? The issue of the slave's treatment is never brought up; Caspian stops the slave trade simply because it's a slave trade. "Abominable and unnatural", he calls it. Should Caspian have been a nice king and accept the different culture of the Lone Islanders as you say we should accept the different culture of the Ancient Israelites?

"The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters."

Before anyone asks, I don't equate Lewis with Scripture.

That is such a perfect example for this discussion, Reepicheep775!

The Christian can certainly point to good in the world, intelligent design, etc., as secondary proofs of God's existence or what He is like, but mostly the Christian can only say these claims are axiomatic. The require an entirely new worldview that first accepts Scripture as truthful.

So would you say that one first must accept the Bible as truthful before you can even begin to understand how Christianity works?

I might be going down a rabbit trail here, but I think I'll address this bit first before continuing the free will discussion.

I would really like to believe in the Bible because I think it's right and true, not to think it's right and true because I believe in the Bible, if that makes sense.

I know again, we come back to the question of, "How do you know what you think is right is really Right?" Then I come back to, "How do I know that what this collection of ancient books says is really Right?"

For better or for worse, I just feel like I'm taking more responsibility for my belief system if I try to figure everything out before making any conclusions. At least if I'm wrong, it's the fault of my own heart and mind, not because I put blind faith into something I didn't understand.

And if the Bible, in its entirety, is true and for real, then through earnest investigation that will be evident. I'm very determined to get as close to the Truth as I can during my time on this earth, and I'm not averse to the concept of an infallible Bible at all; on the contrary, I'd be pretty excited if I had a Guidebook to This Crazy Thing Called Life that I could get behind 100% and believe in with all my soul.

But if I automatically subscribe to the infallible Bible idea, and I start studying actual scripture, and find myself with no choice but to shrug some of it off and say, "Well, that part must be a metaphor or something" or "It can't be as bad as it sounds"—looking through a lens of "How can I make this okay?" instead of seeing how it really is. I'm really not comfortable with that.

I personally feel like I would have to have a really good grasp of every book and aspect of the Bible and feel okay with it, in my heart, and completely believe that it does not contradict itself and is the pure work of God, before I could actually say, "This is the real deal."

Just like how I'd read all the fine print before signing a contract, I need to read all the fine scripture before believing wholeheartedly in the Bible.

Again, sorry if I went down a rabbit trail.

That's just my current position. What I'd like to ask the "defenders of slavery" (sorry, I'm not sure what else to call you ), because we're all Narnia fans and respect C. S. Lewis, what do you make of the Lone Island situation if you think slavery is okay under the right conditions? The issue of the slave's treatment is never brought up; Caspian stops the slave trade simply because it's a slave trade. "Abominable and unnatural", he calls it. Should Caspian have been a nice king and accept the different culture of the Lone Islanders as you say we should accept the different culture of the Ancient Israelites?

I presume one of the people you wanted to address was me, but note that I also do not see man fit to be a master. Only God can be a true Master.

That said, I have something of an anthropologic mindset. Part of this is that I myself was born and raised in much of a different culture than other Americans (a Chinese culture, for those wondering), and as such, I could get sensitive about people criticizing my culture simply because some things didn't align with American values too well.

As such, I am slow to judge the practices of other cultures. That's not to say I won't judge them, but that I look at the whole picture of how exactly the practice fits in the lives of its people, what the people themselves think of it (and how they have come towards thinking of it), and make sure it's not my Americanized sensibilities making rash judgments before evaluating cultural practices. (Notably, I have found many aspects of Chinese culture quite wrong. It helps that many other current Chinese people are changing their ways too.)

So should we just accept the culture of a foreign group? No. But should we at least seek to understand the whole picture of that culture before judging them? I would say, most definitely yes.

Now, as for Caspian and the Lone Islands, I think Caspian did consider the treatment of the slaves. After all, their group was captured and traded off as slaves themselves. I'd say it's easier to decide to overturn a corrupt system when you've gone through it yourself...

The Narrowhaven slave trade was the very evil that all of us have agreed to abhor and hate. But think about this: wouldn't Caspian himself have had servants or slaves under him in Cair Paravel? It's not mentioned exactly how it works, but it would be hardly be any different than any other Medieval feudal system that the Telemarines established. Or what about the position Jewel had with Tirian? Or movie Phillip with Edmund? I would suspect this was far more of a lifetime servitude position vs 'modern day employment' status. Those examples would be more like the 'good kind of slavery' we are talking about. Though Phillip and Jewel were 'slaves' to Edmund and Tirian, both were good masters that tended to the needs of their servants.

But if I automatically subscribe to the infallible Bible idea, and I start studying actual scripture, and find myself with no choice but to shrug some of it off and say, "Well, that part must be a metaphor or something" or "It can't be as bad as it sounds"—looking through a lens of "How can I make this okay?" instead of seeing how it really is. I'm really not comfortable with that.

Nor should you be. Just because I believe the Bible is inerrant doesn't mean there aren't things in it that make me uncomfortable, questions that I still have, and now solid answers. I have a theology prof who has said that "As long as you don't ask the hard questions, you can keep giving the easy answers"---guess what he recommends? Very often I ask hard questions of God and His answer is something like this: "I don't have to answer this right now. I may not answer it ever. You've wrestled this question faithfully---but now let me be God."

TBG

The Narrowhaven slave trade was the very evil that all of us have agreed to abhor and hate. But think about this: wouldn't Caspian himself have had servants or slaves under him in Cair Paravel? It's not mentioned exactly how it works, but it would be hardly be any different than any other Medieval feudal system that the Telemarines established. Or what about the position Jewel had with Tirian? Or movie Phillip with Edmund? I would suspect this was far more of a lifetime servitude position vs 'modern day employment' status. Those examples would be more like the 'good kind of slavery' we are talking about. Though Phillip and Jewel were 'slaves' to Edmund and Tirian, both were good masters that tended to the needs of their servants.

How is the slave trade in the Lone Islands different from that in Ancient Israel.

There is a difference between a servant and a slave. As I said earlier, I don't have an issue with hierarchy or servitude- I have a problem with human beings being sold and treated as property. Narnian Kings have servants, Calormene Tisrocs have slaves.

-I am befuddled on this issue because having God allow the use and abuse of slaves seemes to fly in the face of everything I know about Him. God is a God of the underdogs. For the life of me, I don't understand why He would let the Israelites keep slaves and let them treat their slaves like property. Allowing the Israelites to keep slaves is one thing (and then turning around the situation for good ), telling them it's okay is another.

For a start, I think slavery was something connected with the Fall of mankind and its expulsion from Eden. Something like Jadis' presence at the newly created Narnia.

Secondly we were debating why the Bible had laws governing the treatment of slaves in books like Exodus and Leviticus. Well there were a lot of laws in these books, not only laws about the treatment of slaves, but also laws on what to do if you have dry rot and other nasties in your house. Now that implies to me that these books were a work in progress for a long while after the Israelites stopped wandering about in the desert, and might not have been completely finished until Solomon's time. By the time of the Judges and later on under David and Solomon, the Israelites lived in houses, not tents etc, and yes, then they could have had slaves. Not necessarily when they were wandering around in the desert, unless they kept captives from enemies they met or enslaved malefactors.

Thirdly, Exodus, which contains some of the oldest writing in the Bible, contains the 10 commandments, one of which urges us not to covet our neighbour's ox, his ass, his maidservant, his manservant, his son or his daughter or anything that is his. The laws in Exodus and later, in Leviticus are an amplification of these 10 commandments, spelling out to the Ancient Israelites their duty to their God, their parents, and to each other. These books set out in almost minute detail the responsibilities of ownership, including the possible ownership of slaves, and the penalties for damaging and hurting other people's property including slaves. I don't think it is standing up for slavery to acknowledge that the Bible might have need for such laws in guiding its people to behave better.

These laws are a distinct improvement on those on Hammurabi's stele, which declares 'an eye for an eye', and prescribes death, injury and other horrible punishments for wrongdoing. Though, Hammurabi, who flourished a good 500 years before Moses, at least hinted at the concept of innocence before proven guilty. This stele was found in 1901 in Persia, which was a good deal away from where the Israelites were.

That's just my current position. What I'd like to ask the "defenders of slavery" (sorry, I'm not sure what else to call you ), because we're all Narnia fans and respect C. S. Lewis, what do you make of the Lone Island situation if you think slavery is okay under the right conditions? The issue of the slave's treatment is never brought up; Caspian stops the slave trade simply because it's a slave trade. "Abominable and unnatural", he calls it. Should Caspian have been a nice king and accept the different culture of the Lone Islanders as you say we should accept the different culture of the Ancient Israelites?

Before anyone asks, I don't equate Lewis with Scripture.

The only similarity between Caspian's experience of slavery and that of the Ancient Israelites is that both he and they had an insider's view of what it might be like to be slaves. Caspian's experience at Narrowhaven was short, and shocking. I fear the Ancient Israelites had been slaves for quite a while, and some of the people, like Dothan, preferred slavery to the difficulties of freedom, not being at all grateful to Moses for his leadership or God's mercy in leading them out of Egypt.

Another difference is that service in Caspian's court was freely given by loving friends and volunteers. Unlike the slavery in Tashbaan or the enforced practices under Miraz or the White Witch. Caspian was a good king who was a slave to duty though. He would be horrified to inflict something so hideous on people he loved, and categorically opposed slavery at the Lone Islands. And it was a mercy he died before learning what LOTGK had planned for Narnia.

The Ancient Israelites did have a chance to build such a just society, under the Judges, good men and women, who struggled with leadership and how it conflicted with family and personal ties. Both Eli and Samuel were disappointed in the behaviour of their sons and how little those sons cared about ethical behaviour. Eventually the Israelites chose to have kings. As Samuel warned them (1 Samuel Ch 8: 10-18) their sons and daughters would have to serve the king. And by that time, if not before, they certainly would have slaves, like their neighbours. It is to be hoped their slaves were treated according to the rules formulated by that time, at least at first. But I think that was not the case at all. The college of priests at Shiloh who seemed to have kept the records for the Hebrews, noted quite a few bad kings. Jezebel and Ahab come to mind. And even Solomon got carried away with kingly luxuriousness.

Unfortunately the Israelites did become so corrupt that the Assyrians were able to send them away to the Medes and elsewhere, where they blended in with the local population, having lost their identity. So no, we don't have to accept the Israelites' culture. They were a case study of how things like slavery and a disregard for the welfare of one's own people can corrupt a nation irredeemably. However, it is a culture in the past, destroyed at Samaria, and Jerusalem in 586BC, after which the returning Judahites reformed themselves.

Caspian was right about slavery. And we with heroes like William Wilberforce or Abraham Lincoln can be grateful for the eventual abolition of this abomination.

After all the talk about different things, I'm really confused. I'm not sure which questions have even been answered, and which ones haven't. And for those that have been answered, I'm not exactly sure what the answers were...

So, I basically have two questions. I'm going to restate them here. Please, if anyone knows the answer to them, tell me. And if you can, please keep the answer short and direct. I hope that doesn't sound rude or anything. It's just, I often have trouble understanding things, especially if the response talks about too many different things at the same time. I'm really dyslexic, and have enough trouble just reading a post at all. Usually, unless someone spells out their response to me in big, friendly letters, I usually have no idea what they're talking about. So, here we go, these are my two questions.

1. Beating slaves. The Bible says that if a slave is beaten, the person who did the beating is only punished if the slave dies. So my question is, did God and/or the people back then say it was morally okay to beat slaves? Or was that just a punishment for slaves who did something very terrible like steal from their master or something? Why would the person be beating the slave? And what exactly does it mean by only punishing them if they die, and not for beating them in the first place?

2. How many rights did foreign slaves have? Did they have any, and were they treated more cruelly than non-foreigners?

Those are my questions. Please answer them, if you can. If they have already been answered -- I'm sorry; either I didn't see your response, or I did see it but didn't understand it.

So please, if someone could answer these in a way I could understand? I am genuinely curious about these things. Thanks. I hope this doesn't sound rude or anything, because it's not meant to.

~Riella

-I am befuddled on this issue because having God allow the use and abuse of slaves seemes to fly in the face of everything I know about Him. God is a God of the underdogs. For the life of me, I don't understand why He would let the Israelites keep slaves and let them treat their slaves like property. Allowing the Israelites to keep slaves is one thing (and then turning around the situation for good ), telling them it's okay is another.

For a start, I think slavery was something connected with the Fall of mankind and its expulsion from Eden. Something like Jadis' presence at the newly created Narnia.

Definitley. I have no doubt in my mind that there would be no slavery in an unfallen world. Hierachy, yes. Slavery, no.

Secondly we were debating why the Bible had laws governing the treatment of slaves in books like Exodus and Leviticus. Well there were a lot of laws in these books, not only laws about the treatment of slaves, but also laws on what to do if you have dry rot and other nasties in your house. Now that implies to me that these books were a work in progress for a long while after the Israelites stopped wandering about in the desert, and might not have been completely finished until Solomon's time. By the time of the Judges and later on under David and Solomon, the Israelites lived in houses, not tents etc, and yes, then they could have had slaves. Not necessarily when they were wandering around in the desert, unless they kept captives from enemies they met or enslaved malefactors.

This is interesting. The points in Ithilwen's post above mine still concern me, but I'll be taking a closer look at the slavery laws when I re-read Exodus, Leviticus etc.