The Worst Examples of Slavery in the Bible
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2023
- This clips is taken from Within Reason episode 30 with Joshua Bowen, "How the Bible Supports Slavery": • How the Bible Supports...
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
John Early
Dmitry C.
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
30 days to mourn is actually just to establish that she has menstruated so that they do not marry a woman carrying someone else’s child. Such callous treatment
Didn't think of that, it makes it even more messed up
I mean just hearing that really shows how morality to me at least can be subjective. Blows me away how they don't have a care in the world for what they did to other civilizations but that was the norm back than.
Dudeeeeee. I follow Jesus but man I’m separating more and more from the OT depiction of God. Ya know. As Jesus did.
I really don't blame Him.
2 Samuel 24... was... pretty evil.
Among other ones.@@bradvincent2586
Wow, I actually did not think about that. Damn that just added a deeper layer to this.
As an ex-Muslim it reminded me of the Battle of Khaybar where Muhammad took Safiyyah as his wife after killing her father and husband, (though he didn't give her 30 days to mourn, but consummated the "marriage" that night.)
Of course. Mohammed was as hypocrital as most Christan cousins
Yes, taking concubines and wives from vanquished was done at that time. But what is intresting here is that the punishment for hostile tribes in khybar is not adopted in orthodox muslim jurisprudence. And you won't find any other example of such punishment after that event, except the women captured on the battlefield. It is said that the punishment was decided by the jewish law, similarly in case if a pagan polity violated a signed treaty, the punishment was assigned according to pagan customs.
Hey, can you make a video on Zoroastrianism?
They refer to serial, nonconsensual rape with “marriage” in order to somehow give it legitimacy.
Tribal religion. This and much worse became the Islamic norm all over the Indian subcontinent and was repeated even all through the last Century. Except that as the rare best practice, sometimes conversion was offered as an alternative to annihilation and devastation.
4:57 ''30 days to mourn her dead family'' sounds a lot like something you'd say if you wanted to make sure that the woman you are holding captive isn't pregnant
ua-cam.com/video/6G1X6lyKQLc/v-deo.html - he forgot to explain detalles in tthe video
10:34 "Sick flex bruh"
From a guy wearing a bow tie is the best thing I've seen this week 😅❤
You'll have to translate. I must be too old.
@@toby9999
Please see the following, Toby:
"bruh" or "bro" : shortened word for the male sibling or 'brother'; often used between unrelated men to indicate close friendship. It can also be used to refer to a type of white male typically between the ages of 16-24, prevalent in most major cities throughout the US and Canada, that are characterized mainly by their frequent use of the word "bro" to describe other males who are actually unrelated to them.
"flex" : (v) (1) the action of contracting or flexing a muscle. (2) to show strength. (n) a show of strength. The noun form is used in this sentence
"sick" : used in a modern sense to mean 'cool' or 'good'
Additional information: sarcasm. This sentence was said in a sarcastic way, hence the intended meaning is the opposite of the literal reading of the sentence.
Translation: "that was a good show of strength, my friend"
Meaning: "that was NOT a good show of strength, guy who I think is a bit of a d!ck"
Final context: the speaker is wearing a bow-tie. This kind of dress is usually associated with formal and polite behaviour and speech. He did the opposite, which was amusing to me.
Toby, I hope this is doorway into the magical world of communicating with the youth. If you run into troubles again, the 'Urban Dictionary' website is a great resource.
@@cameronmclennan942 Your explanation was both accurate and highly entertaining. I legit LOL'd here.
Can you think of ANYTHING worse than a young girl being rapped by the person who killed her parents? It’s a fate so much worse than death.
I have never heard one Christian show any empathy or compassion for the millions of victims of their sadistic god’s immoral acts. Those Christians are void of any morality or empathy. But they claim their god is love. What a sick group of people. I despise Christianity and all the death and destruction it has caused through time.
Not without forcing it.
Raped by and then forced to MARRY the murderer of your parents. Just gets more and more dysfunctional.
It isn't rape. He takes her as his wife.
@@theamazingchannel470there is no need to take a woman who consents. If she doesn’t consent or consents under duress, it is rape.
A year after deconverting i stopped by my old church to say high to some old friends and my old pastor and i got in a argument over verses like these. His argument was that without gos i have no moral grounds to object to any level of cruelty and if god commanded it then it was right no matter his reason or what was commanded. While he got some respect in being the first person to admit that these among other passages where in deed saying what they are clearly saying he also lost all respect for supporting CSA, genocide and slavery when literally anything else could have been done. The biggest regret i have from that day is that i shook his hand while visiting. There's something sicking about listening to a 40 year old man with several young daughters argue that at that time it was right to stone what was probably a 12-15 year old girl to death on her fathers doorstep for not having proof she was a virgin on her wedding night (Deuteronomy22:21) because she brought sin into gods society even if he doesn't like it and that i need a god to be against that.
In addition to war brides, wives and concubines were also slaves in that they were considered property.
Please consider making a playlist of all the videos that discuss slavery.
Wow you mean capitalism and bourgeois rights hadn’t been invented yet?!?!!??! What an amazing discovery, really interesting stuff.
You should also tell me how Julius Caesar was a genocidal maniac as well.
Where does the bible describe wives as property?
@@TheMilitantMazdakite
Read Corinthians 11
Anything by Paul really. How about men having permission to stone their wives to death if the husband “thinks” they may have “lustful thoughts”. No proof required of course. Women had no right to own property or choose their own husbsnd (if a woman is raped she must marry her rapist) etc etc. You cannot read the Bible and not know how poorly treated women are.
@@TheMilitantMazdakite watch the video at 8:36 for an example of women being listed as property
@@judyives1832 I am not denying the bible's misogyny. (On a side note, none of these things are out of the mouth of Jesus)
2:20 yet another informative video but I simply can’t get past your guest’s bookshelf - I need that in my life!
ua-cam.com/video/6G1X6lyKQLc/v-deo.html - he forgot to explain detalles in tthe video
When we remember how the Bible says children are a gift from God (Psalm 127:3), endorsing slavery becomes even worse. Think of the children of enslaved people born from SA and farm-like breeding- is this a reward? A gift for whom? The slave owner’s purse
And certainly not the woman forced to endure coercion and violation only to see her “gifts” sold away or feel the helplessness when she is unable to protect them from the slave master’s will and whip.
If you've been given something as a gift, it would be rude not to make full use of it. A gift is property, not a person.
WHere does it say children are a gift from GOd?
@@theamazingchannel470Several times. I’m sure you can utilize Google search as well as I can.
@@theamazingchannel470 why do you think Christian are against abortion if they did not believe children were a gift from god
@@noorzanayasmin7806Because they are concerned about the fetus only before it is born?
After all the political party that is backed by the religious right in America have expressed almost callous disregard for children who have already left the womb, whether it is separating the children of illegal immigrants from the south from their parents, not doing anything to provide for or support children that they force mothers to give bith to due to their ant-abortion stance, being against funding for school lunches, lowering labor laws to allow children to do dangerous jobs or work long hours etc.
They don't seem to care much about children after they are born, much less consider them "God's gift".
i dont know how any believer can read their bible and not be absolutely appalled. i read it as a believer, and very quickly became overwhelmed by a sense of dread. i was unable to shake the feeling, and only found relief in channels like this where others were unafraid to call this book and religion out for what it is..
Because God and everything that comes from him is perfectly good, and any doubt is the devil trying to turn you into an evil immoral atheist to drag you to hell. Therefore, defend the faith even if Bible LITERALLY SAYS men of God killed pregnant women by God's command, despite also stated "thou shall not kill". Such beautiful pro life religion.
@@hermitcard4494 That's why you need to make sure the commandment says "Thou shalt not murder." Because if it says thou shalt not murder, all you have to do is to claim that killing those pregnant woman was sanctioned by God and therefore it's not murder.
Personally, I think "Thou shalt not murder" is a really dumb commandment, because it just begs the question of what constitutes murder, and without any guidance, we can define it however we want (hey, if we say abortion is legal, than it is not murder, by definition, so it's perfectly fine by the 10C)
@@flowingafterglow629 to end someone's life. Of course it should have had exception: enemy combatants(who have not surrendered), and horrible crimes, or have killed an innocent person, self defense.
@@hermitcard4494 Yep, exceptions. Whatever we make an exception is an exception.
@@hermitcard4494 Actually, there’s a video that talks about moments where you’re actually allowed to kill from teachings in the Bible, the phrase: “Thou shall not kill”, means killing unjustly, if you search the video up, it’ll tell you more about the subject
As someone who grew up Christian, the thing that tipped me into atheism is learning the truth about what is written in the bible. The 'holy' book doesn't seem very holy when you read the passages your preacher skips in sermons!
That, and the contradictions and inconsistencies got me. Christian apologetic arguments just didn't satify me. And then I got into the history of the bible.
@@toby9999 yeah this infallible god, is pretty fallible at communicating a clear message to all his followers.
@@toby9999 Same, I was looking everywhere for answers but I just kept seeing weak arguments by Christian apologists about why slavery, genocide, circumcision, etc that God wanted was completely okay and not bad at all. Also, they all can never agree with each other (which makes sense if you look at the amount of denominations that exist within Christianity).
Well. I’m atheist too but if your ex religion is bullshit isn’t an argument for being atheist. It’s just an argument for your religion.
Do you atheists ever tire of patting yourselves and each other on the back and saying how terrible the Bible is? Same story over and over. And things are going so great since we started iiving by science and logic. More people died violently in the twentieth century than all the other centuries combined. Life just keeps getting better and better. Right?
Alex, you always seem so cool calm and collected. I'd like to watch a video where you explain how to stay calm and how to keep your composure. Basically, a video on how to be Alex.
Is fun that another atheistic UA-camr, genetically modified skeptic, just posted that video today.
ua-cam.com/video/6G1X6lyKQLc/v-deo.html - he forgot to explain detalles in tthe video
Amazing discussion.
ua-cam.com/video/6G1X6lyKQLc/v-deo.html - he forgot to explain detalles in tthe video
What is worse than the slavery described in the Bible are the excuses made by apologists for such commands by their supposedly benevolent and righteous deity.
The excuses really reveal certain things about the person and how far they're really willing to go and except something due to their cognitive dissonance.
Yep, it’s a real shit show.
10:45 exactly. In the context of first century Judea, it makes perfect sense as to what to do with the captors of your enemy. Arranged marriages are an offshoot. In the broader context of the bible, which explicitly says to love and honor your wife in many ways and in many passages, they would have broken commandments if they had not done so. 'Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.' In modern times, it may seem grossly subservient. But as the men were and are be the head of the house to this day, (for those who hold traditional values) if they did not honor the wives of the house they were the head of, it would be grave sin. Unfortunately much of the protest of those who proclaim toxic masculinity and sexism in men stems from dishonorable households where women are not loved or treated honorably as they ARE called to, but men instead have abused their place in the household and live in sin. To a further contextualize this biblical point, having this sort of unnuanced take is like blaming the library for having books on slavery, rape, and Nazism. Do you blame the library as a whole for those books or do you accept those books in context of the library? And I believe these passages must be contextualized with what is mentioned above and in the context of the Bible's entirety.
@@John.Christopher You have just proven my point.
@@chrisose I'm not sure how. Perhaps we could talk about this some more when time permits, and you could ask questions / I clarify my position
Keep up the good work!
Anyone who says that this kind of behaviour is OK is delusional.
I must admit that when I was a Christian, I don't remember ever reading Leviticus or Deuteronomy. I wish that I had. Maybe I would have become an atheist earlier than I did. These passages were never preached on or read out loud in Church.
It is truly mind boggling that…still, millions are trying to justify such act of terror, and cruelty that these so called "holly books" contain today.
The worst thing about slavery is the hypocrisy.
I know its not politically correct, but by god I like owning slaves.
well personally i was never fond of the whipping, but that's just me, some people enjoy that kind of thing.
To paraphrase Norm Macdonald, I thought the worst thing was the ownership and mistreatment of other people.
YEAH!! There are three times more slaves captive today than at any time in history.
'Nothing is so hilarious as those whom read the Bible literally'...other than those whom then
insist it be defended as literal
@@ConcedoNulliI think the original comment was a reference to that bit
This is great that we’re talking about it.
The Bible slavery subject is a really easy way to get religious people to fumble in justifying their beliefs. Some of them even simply say that slavery is fine.
Even some black American christians will try to defend slavery.
Are you white? 😂 I agree btw except for the last part, since slavery is fine and legal in the US
@@mastatheif9909 can you clarify with your disagreement with my last statement? You seemed to make a statement in the second part in agreement with it
@@daniel-panek I agree that it makes "religious people" (you guys always mean Christians) fumble in justifying their beliefs. Usually this is because they are not read up or have low IQs but happens much too often.
It also exposes the athiests' inability to reason and use appeals to emotion and posioning the well tactics. Even Alex is impossible to debate on the subject since he says it's immoral to "defend" it, despite his inadequate arguements and lack of understanding of the people and time they lived. He has the privilege of the critic, but none of the accountability that comes with it.
"However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."
Deuteronomy 20:16-18
Damn, old Hebrews. Who hurt you??
@@falconeshieldChristians believe in a sadistic psychopathic monster. I’ve never known of one christian who was capable of showing any empathy or compassion for their god’s victims. How immoral they all are. The Bible is a sick book.
@@falconeshield Everyone around them, apparently lol.
There's no peace in the middle east... the fight is still going on...
That passage from Leviticus is clearly instructions aimed at a local audience and for the time it was written. Why do people claim it is a book of absolute truth for all people for all time?
Lev 25 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Its a general commandment and the torah is always valid, even Jesus says it.
*Luke 16:17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law*
Then why do Christians claim absolute or objective morality? You can't have it both ways here.
Its not😂
So your eternal all powerful creator God who is the author of objective moral truth just changes the rules as he goes? Or are you saying what I believe; this is not a book of truth?
This is a joke, right? 😂
Unrelated but why did he change his UA-cam name from cosmic skeptic?
10:38 words of wisdom have been spoken
I find it interesting that right after god’s covenant with Noah after the flood, Noah passes out drunk naked, then re-established slavery on the Canaanites bc Ham saw Noah passed out drunk naked. Okay, Noah was 600y/o at the time, so he might’ve been a little bit senile as well.
These are great passages to ask a Christian rather than another atheist. The Old Testament especially takes much more time in research than simply reading it straight off the text, which we all know one can read a text without understanding it's meaning.
what? he broth a book on this
It's not though. A christian has an obligation to defend these texts. No matter what, a christian cannot accept or interpret that these texts as describing an evil deed, so their explanation would always, by necessity, be biased.
@@spliter88 The comparison is made to give light to their clear confusion to these texts, where a Christian could've told them exactly what it all means. That is why it is better to understand a text through someone who has studied it, which doesn't mean your interpretations will alter, but it at least gives you insight to why these events happened and why someone who is Christian believes it to be justified. Healthy to play devil's advocate this way as well in challenging the believer.
Alex is an ex-Christian. He studied the bible.
Would love to hear your take on John Vervaeke's work.
An interesting discussion but I'd like to add something from a Christian perspective. When looking at historical records context matters a TON, so being aware of the kind of people the Israelites were dealing with is important to consider. The canaanites, for example, were known to sacrifice children, and rape, molestation etc. were common place. They were a horrible group of people, so to conquer them and take a woman out of that environment into a godly home would be gracious.
The month of waiting before marriage was for 3 main reasons: to make sure the man wasn't marrying purely out of lust, to allow the woman to have time to mourn, and to give the man an attempt at bonding with the woman.
One more note is to say that the man was not *commanded* to marry a beautiful woman, he was *permitted* to. It was up to the man to make the moral decision not to marry her if she wasn't keen at all. He clearly says in verse that if he has no delight in her then he should let her go where she wants. Keep in mind that if he was a truly upright and kind man (as all Christians should be), he would do what was best for her, so it would be unlikely that he would 'delight' in and marry a woman who completely hated him and refuse to marry him.
Oh yeah they were a terrrribuble people, say the bronze-age Israelite authors who could write any propaganda they wanted to. You don't know.
If a person is wearing the god-glasses they will excuse the bad stuff. I knew that slavery existed in the Old Testament but never really questioned or thought much about it. I was certainly unaware and never read these passages when I was a believer. I was a victim of indoctrination and my own ignorance. Also, we were taught that "that was the old covenant" and any doubts were conveniently brushed under the carpet.
damn... thats as easy as it is. glad youre out of that shit
Slavery wasn't apart of the old covenant. People weren't forced to keep slaves, it just happened after war.
@@avivastudios2311
If slavery wasn't a part of the Old Covenant, why did he set the rules and not tell his chosen people not to keep slaves? Why didn't he make it the 11th Commandment? "Thou shalt not own another person". Of course, if he had done that, it would have caused a problem with his recognition of women as being regarded as property. God was a misogynist in the Bible. He isn't one today. It seems odd that God always reflects the culture of the time. "People keep slaves, so I will tell them how to do it properly" rather than doing something radical and abolishing the practice thousands of years ago.
The sad thing about Christianity is that it romanticises slavery with the whole "we are the slave and God is the master" rhetoric. There are some other phrases that are used that I can't think of right now.
Also, I find it f***ed up that a all good god would not condemn slavery out right. Could that god really not see that those verses would be harmful to a great multitude of people.
Right. Literally 3 of the 10 commandments are about god's ego. But he couldn't write one that said "hey maybe don't own people as property"?
Not peoples fault that you project a modern idea of slavery unto the voluntary version in the bible and butcher the context
People are too lazy to even read the Hebrew origin of the word "slavery"especially in exodus
And even though the bible out right tell folks to remember to treat "slaves well" and to remember what they suffered in Egypt
@@viyusavery248 someone didn't watch the video.
There is no "context" for owning another human being as property btw. It's weird that you even need to be told this.
I was a Christian for a couple of decades, but when Christians make that claim b/c they don't really mean it. A slave had no choice but to obey. A Christian does have a choice.
@@ahooper239
There's definitely context for having limited ownership of it another human being. Chldrn are owned, pets are owned too. It's a limited form with certain boundaries for the owner.
"There is no peace except in perfect forgetfulness of self. We must make up our mind to forget even our spiritual interests and think only of God’s glory."
-St. Claude de la Colombière
from the book The Spiritual Direction of St. Claude de la Colombière
"A word or a smile is often enough to put fresh life in a despondent soul."
-St. Therese of Lisieux
Why are we assuming that the actions of Moses in Numbers 31 are supposed to be taken positively? That's a big assumption.
This topic can hardly be fully addressed in a youtube comment section, but it's worth pointing out that Joshua's comparison of the prospects of an Ancient Near Eastern widow/orphan and the prospects of modern day widows/orphans in the West is poor. If someone takes my life and leaves my wife and children alive, there are any number of social programs available to support and care for them, along with a plethora of jobs that my wife could take to support herself. Those options were non-existent in ancient times. We can't carelessly transfer modern day intuitions onto cultures and situations that are immensely different from our own.
Completely agree. Perhaps then we should take our modern day intuitions far away from the cultures and situations of this ancient time, seeing as they are so immensely different from our own. Far away from the time where rape and slavery were the only options...
Why do black Americans support this book knowing this, given our history in America? I have my thoughts but I'm interested in seeing the comments (its a slow day at work lol)
Because this book talks far more about freedom from slavery than continuing being a slave, whether that be physical slavery or spiritual slavery.
There actually is a history of Black Americans actually rejecting the bible and Christianity, especially in the 60s during the civil rights movement. Many of them saw Christianity as the white man's religion and turned to Islam. Many in the 60s especially to the Nation of Islam, which most Muslims do not consider to actually be following Islam.
However of course the majority of Black people in the US are and still remain Christian.
You do know that the people in the Old Testament were ethiopian right? Its not whites enslaving africans.
@@jaredarmstrong7403 oh I guess that's fine then, since it only talks about beating your slaves a little bit
/s
@@woodenleaf652
lol. No mate, they were not Ethiopians. But well done for demonstrating why anyone, let alone Black people, accept the Bible - they are primed by propaganda, they don't understand the text and they don't think deeply enough about the text.
“Love you enemies,” yet you are allowed to treat them ruthlessly. Hmmmm. Which is it?
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
People think 30 days time given to women to come out from sadness is some kind of great thing . The idea is to make sure she get her period in the time and you not need to be father of a other person kid .if god know better way to check the pregnancy on that time .there wouldnt be a 30 day rule .. you see a girl smash it bro would be his command .
The Atheist Historian Tom Holland - As a non-believer, Holland’s interest in writing about this topic is not motivated by a desire to bring people into the Church. Over the course of several decades, he became an authority on ancient Greek and ancient Roman history. Fascinated though he was with them, there were parts of this pre-Christian culture which the historian could not embrace, in particular, the extraordinary brutality which was considered normal in such societies, and which their religions condoned.
“The more years, I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, the more alien I increasingly found it,” Holland writes.
“The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more.
“It was not just the extremes of callousness that unsettled me, but the complete lack of any sense that the poor or the weak might have the slightest intrinsic value.”
The examples of the abuse of the weak and powerless are widely-known among anyone familiar with Greco-Roman history: public execution of slaves, gladiatorial combat for the amusement of spectators, the widespread abandonment of baby girls in refuse dumps, and so on. Not all of this was stamped out by Christianity immediately (the continuation of slavery being an obvious and sad example), but over time, the moral principles of Christianity became so deeply embedded within European societies that the greatest abuses of ancient Rome and Greece became unthinkable.
Without the conversion of Europe, this could not have happened. As Holland explains, there was nothing in Greco-Roman polytheism which would give pause to a Roman nobleman considering raping his slave girl, or to a general about to order his legionaries to annihilate a defeated tribe.
Ancient Athens is still renowned for the high-quality of its political philosophy, but though the gods would intervene in all manner of earthy affairs, they were not likely to intervene in defence of those at the bottom of the societal hierarchy. These immortals, Holland adds, “were held to be simultaneously whimsical and purposeful, amoral and sternly moral, arbitrary and wholly just.”
As Holland explains at length, the Jewish people played a vital role in fostering the understanding of a different, monotheistic, God whose actions could - for the most part - be understood. Holland’s tracing of the historical evolution of the Western mind inevitably brings us to Jesus.
Curiously, the actual life of Christ is not dwelt upon here, but as the author states early on, this is not a history of Christianity, nor a biography of its central figure. The crucifixion does however play a central role in the cultural shift Holland is describing, and he points this out again and again. Death on the cross was a punishment only thought suitable for slaves.
In Greece and Rome and other pagan societies throughout the world, the gods were enormously powerful, and in these societies, strength and power were lauded, even when they went hand-in-hand with cruelty. The idea of God becoming a man and willingly suffering this kind of torture and death ran completely contrary to the ideas of paganism. It presented a clear challenge to the divisions that had previously separated the powerless from the powerful. Furthermore, the mission of St. Paul and the other followers of Jesus was clearly universal.
Where before, one people would have many gods, this God was to be made known to all people: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” That Christian message would soon be spread across the Roman Empire to the point where Christianity would quickly replace paganism as the dominant religion, with the result that many of the worst practices of old went from being common, to being frowned upon, and then to becoming unthinkable.
1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh
Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord
And there are more of those verses. Even Jesus himself justifies slavery.
And the meaning of the verse that there is no slave, woman or man etc. anymore just means they are all equal before God and it does not mean, a woman is not more a woman or that slavery is now put to an end. And Christians continued to do it for many many centuries
@@germanboy14good job you just undid all of those years of research a historical atheist spent on, pat yourself on the back you must be one smart cookie
Alright, you've made your point - can we move on?
More pertinently, what, did, Jesus, and the Spirit... directly do, during, the time, slave trading, was highly... highly... prevalent...
Within, medieval and beyond... era, slavery... in Christendom?
As surely, that is just, as crucial, here.
And seeing how rapidly, the... infraction... in Numbers 15:32, got, divinely... resolved?
For contrast.@@japexican007
@@japexican007 Ignatius also said he has no problems with slavery. I mean the verses are clear. Paul says slaves have to obey their masters, if the verse you quoted means that there is no slavery anymore he wouldnt have said it. 2 Peter says the same and there are more verses. The verse you quoted also says that there is no woman or man anymore... does this literally mean, there are no women anymore ? No😂 the verse means they are all equal before God or are all "one" in purpose.
@@germanboy14atrocities are in the Bible, aka thanks for pointing out the obvious, if you want to look at Gods standard well Jesus Christ is there, you bring up the physical issue of slavery which is just a biproduct of the spiritual slavery that sin does to the soul, one sin was what caused the fall of man and one sin is responsible for all of these atrocities atheists love to bring up but I don’t see any atheist thank God for sending his son in order to take care of the true problem of all these atrocities aka sin, but you sure like to claim moral superiority when God gave his only son to die for all the atrocities you and your atheist friends have committed as well as every single person who’s ever lived be it slave or free be it Christian or atheist, take care focusing on one of the many consequences of sin instead of focusing on the root cause itself, I’m glad Christ died for me and those who reject him even if they think themselves higher than they should
When you buy a foreign slave, how does the bible say they should be treated e.g. what if they want to leave and don't want to be a slave?
if you permanently damage your slave during beatings and they lose an eye or a tooth you have to let them free. so they had some rights i suppose
all you have to do is piss of your master extra much, get beaten just hard enough to lose a body part and not die and then you are free 😊
@notanonymous3976 ... and these two guys don't discuss this. They assume force.
What if a captured woman doesn't want to marry the guy? What is a slave merely runs away? These guys assume Ameican 19th Century Slavery Laws.
@@simontrober7487 im sure American laws had more rights for slaves, but were poorly enforced.
@@notanonymous3976 ... and I'm sure that Biblical Slavery gave more Rights to the Slaves than American Slavery. Not just Israelite Slaves but to non-Israelite Slaves too. Why am I sure? Because I've read the Bible and the Oral Law which goes with it. These guys read the verse "... treat the non-Israelite slave harshly" and 'assume' they know what that means.
These guys don't ask simple "what-if" questions. They don't ask because 1. They don't think of asking these questions 2.They are not interested in the answers.
They didn't even ask the question of "What if the captured woman doesn't want to marry the Israelite man?". "What if the Slave runs away?". "What if the Slave refuses to work?"
Hey its Marty McFly's dad from Back to the Future.=
Apologists for the holy book: "It didn't say that. And if it did, you didn't understand it. And if you did, it didn't mean that. And if it did, I'm sure there's a worse book out there."
Apologists for right-wing politicians especially Trump: "He didn't say that. And if he did, you didn't understand him. And if you did, he didn't mean that. And if he did, I'm sure there are others in the world who did worse."
Yeah. Like after Boris Johnson’s scandal about Christmas parties broke he said “there were no gatherings, but if there were , all rules were followed”. Essentially “we didn’t break the rules, but if we did, we didn’t”
100%, the narcissist’s prayer is a really helpful thing to know about these days
The dumbest excuse I heard from Christians to say that slavery is a sin was that they're under a "new covenant" under Jesus. Despite Jesus never changing the laws for slavery or 99% of the old testament laws. Its also completely debunked by Matthew 5:17
And even if he did, they're suggesting that God just changed his mind. Was he wrong the first time? Or they argue how it was situational and only the for people of Israel at that time. Which still makes no sense, why the double standard of morality? If it was permissible then, why not now?
There's also 1 Timothy 1:10, in which slavers are listed amongst liars and perjurers and sexually immoral people - the very worst of mankind. I suppose this proves that the Bible is only _mostly_ pro-slavery, rather than entirely.
@@joshuakohlmann9731 People like to point that out and say "see the bible doesn't like slavery" but it's being very specific. There and in Exodus 21:16 it's affirmed that you can't kidnap random people and sell them into slavery. The term andrapodistais is sometimes translated as slave trader but also as man-stealer or kidnapper. It passes no judgment about the "correct" way to acquire slaves.
And most ancient people would think it was wrong to kidnap a freeman and make them a slave.@@dereknoto6555
Philemon.
It was a situational thing and not a rule for all time.
You need to realize that OT rules is like The California State Constitution in that new guidance/ interpretations are just added on, without deleting old clauses.
The verses quoted are obviously not from Moses time because The Israelites were not able to go to war and create vassals states far away..
The fact that we are in the year 2024, with all of our amazing scientific advances from say the last 500 years and there are still billions of people on Earth that believe the teachings in this book or others of an equally risible nature is quite staggering.
Alex, you have _got_ to go back on Piers Morgan's show. Instead of attacking the monarchy, however, we need you to confront Piers's ridiculous "bUt WhAt aBoUt ThE bEeS" argument with respect to veganism. I am clamoring desperately for _someone_ to get it through his thick skull that it's not the amount of organisms that vegans are concerned about, but the amount of *SUFFERING* -- and I know that you could accomplish that better than just about anyone. I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but he just isn't equipped for that sort of debate. YOU are. I fear that this preposterous line of attack against an ethical diet has already caused far too much damage as it is; it must end, and soon.
Indeed, necessary!!!
get a life he is not a modern day jesus , you need to have self respect.
He wouldn't get a word Edge ways.
Indeed, he needs too
A vegan diet is a bizarre human concept 😳 which ultimately causes a mentally and physically malnourished individual who slowly becomes anti human
Very important. Exodus 21 16 is often used by Christians, but it is only about Israelites.
Targum Jonathan Ex 21 16 And he who stealeth a soul *of the children of Israel,* and selleth him, or if he be found in his possession, shall die by strangling
Targum Onkoleos:
Ex 21 16 Whoever steals [kidnaps] a man *[person from B’nei Yisrael]* and sells him, if he is found in his hand, he shall be put to ...
Deuteronomy also explicitly says its about Israelites ONLY
Deuteronomy 24:7 If someone is caught kidnapping a *fellow Israelite* and treating or selling them as a slave....
Love your enemies and treat others as you would like to be treated is God's will now for all who will listen.
is that so? How do you determine that?
but...but jesus said to love thy neighbour, surely that one thing makes everything else in the bible irrelevant, right?
Not when you forget a commandment as simple as « don’t own people as property ».
Christianity a religion supposed to be a religion of peace yet war and slavery are mentioned more in the bible
The torture of jesus by the Romans is celebrated more than what makes him a god
@@falconeshield the bible is a book of masochism for masochists
@@falconeshieldyou guys are really full of nonsense. Who told you that Jesus torture is celebrated? Cmon man atleast be truthful and stop spreading nonsense
barely any wars in the new testament, there was like one slave there though?
@@toonyandfriends1915 the bible still supports slavery
The Old Testament actually had laws to protect slaves and even to emancipate them after seven years.
It seems the emphasis here is to condemn the Old Testament in light of the mores of a civilisation that has evolved thousands of years later on the foundation of that very same Old Testament culture.
Surely, it should be seen in light of the norms of the day for other cultures where the Old Testament in contrast will be seen as radically enlightened.
And even when it comes to the more abhorrent behaviour. It seems odd to me that there is such a drive to call out bronze age culture from three thousand years ago.
There are plenty of far worse examples of the way people in cultures behaved thousands of years ago. But a curious lack of interest in condemning those. But the one which evolved into cultures that introduced world wide abolition of slavery, democracy, human rights, women's rights, the concept of international aid/charity for the people of foreign lands not to mention the blossoming of all branches of beneficial science is somehow a root that has to be especially focused on and condemned?
Not really.
Something that is perfect, written by a perfect being with knowledge of everything, should be able to do better than "not the worst".
Either the Bible is divinely written or it isn't. It is either infallible as a guide for morality NOW or it isn't.
You can't simultaneously claim that the writings from millennia ago can be used today to judge people/morals AND complain that people are assessing the writings from millennia ago in a modern context.
The Bible REPEATEDLY claims to be a guide forever. Jesus talking about not changing a jot or tittle of the law. Luke arguing that the least Law must not be undone. God being timeless.
A perfect being would have stated that their commandments were for there and then and not for future readers.
Furthermore, even given the abundance of failures above, a God shouldn't have to deal with what's before him. God changes people's hearts, he performs miracles, he is all powerful, he COULD, allegedly, fix this but he chooses, instead, to use his divine powers for categorically evil and petty acts on a routine basis while ordering atrocities.
I, without the powers or knowledge of God, do better than him on pretty much every conceivable metric. I can write better commandments, I can explain myself better, I can foresee things better, I am less evil, I know more, I have a better record at wrestling.
God shares 0% of the traits of a perfect being of Good and 100% of the traits of the end product of dozens of low-grade authors over centuries writing disconnected stories with no editorial oversight.
@@kieranharwood7186 Kieran. I’m not sure you understand the Bible. It was not written by God. It was inspired by God. And as mankind is fallen, then connection to God is not perfect so God has to work through imperfect people who do not have a fully clear connection to Him.
The Bible doesn’t need to be divinely written or not. It can be inspired and on the right track even with errors. In the same way that a 16th century world map can not be fully accurate but still guide people to their desired destination. Something doesn’t need to be infallible in order for it to be a valuable and useful text book.
A text from thousands of years ago addresses human nature and basic human nature does not change in such a short period of time.
So when that old text says to honour your parents, not bear false witness, be faithful to your wife, don’t steal or murder and to even try to understand, be patient with and love people who hate you then yes, that still applies today.
God is a perfect being but the communication between God and us is through the heart, not the language centres of the brain. As such, the purity of our hearts is the limitation to which God and we can have clarity of communication.
God does not change people’s hearts unless the people freely invite him in to do so. And even then, it’s not done by magic in an instance. It takes a life time of effort to change just as it takes a life time to grow. Change happens through fixing the bad parts of our hearts and re-growing the healthy or holy way it should be. Growth takes time.
And God doing miracles on occasion does not mean God is free to just change reality always and any time.
If God is such a low grade authors, how come billions of people for thousands of years continually testify to the revolutionary greatness of what they read and how putting it into practice transformed their hearts and lives and societies.
Where do you think truly, full population democracy came from, how about human rights, women’s rights, slavery abolition, modern medicine, free hospitals, unions etc? They call came from Christian cultures and most of them came from religious church communities and congregation. And all of them inspired by what is written in the Bible.
Remind me again what great changes in society your writing has led to and please link me to the billions of gushing reviews of your great writing 😊
You talk a good game Kieran but you have to show results if you want to convince people of your moral and literary superiority to God.
@@pathfinding4687 have you read the Bible?
You claim that God doesn't talk to people directly. Maybe you should check again, because he does it multiple times in the Bible.
You claim that God only changes the hearts of people with consent. Nope. He hardened Pharaoh's heart without consent.
China abolished slavery first. The slavers quoted the Bible to justify slavery against the abolitionists.
Pretty much everything on your list happened DESPITE the Bible.
Have you actually read it? You talk like someone who sees the Bible as an artifact of power, rather than a book. As if the presence of this tome has power, rather than the actual words within it.
If you actually knew the words, you'd surely be quoting them, rather than pointing at historical events and, with no evidence, claiming they were due to the Bible.
Where's the commandment against slavery? Where's the parable that all slaves should be freed? Where's the actual words you claim are so inspirational?
You gotta keep reading to get the full context.
The Old Testament makes is very clear that a husband is not allowed to abuse or mistreat his wife (whether Israelite or foreigner). While a limited reading of Deut 21 may appear to present a limited view due to the innate challenges of translating an ancient language into a modern language, the rest of OT seems to suggest that the betrothed captive virgin of war does have a legitimate choice in the matter.
Furthermore, there is a clear distinction between collateral damage in a state of war vs a random criminal act. There is a difference between a soldier with a family dying in battle vs a father/husband being murdered in his own home by a random stranger.
Lastly, virgin captive of war in the OT were protected because non-virgin captives had repeatedly shown throughout the OT to lead the Israelites away from God toward horrible sin and worshiping of false idols to the point of engaging in brutal child sacrifices for said false idols.
That's a very long way of saying "the Bible endorses slavery, including sexual slavery".
@@cobrasys Nope. Not what I said.
I like the passages that call a person property or money.
@@tornay131 Which ones call them money?
@@Grag235 I believe it's Exodus 21 20-21 ESV
What accent does Alex have
Exodus 21 and Numbers 31.......all one needs to reject the bible for the disgusting work it is.
And to think people donate billions of dollars to the promoters of this garbage book!
First view😊
Nice mate
You look really similar to the the comet skeptic dude.
10:45 exactly. In the context of first century Judea, it makes perfect sense as to what to do with the captors of your enemy. Arranged marriages are an offshoot. In the broader context of the bible, which explicitly says to love and honor your wife in many ways and in many passages, they would have broken commandments if they had not done so. 'Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.' In modern times, it may seem grossly subservient. But as the men were and are be the head of the house to this day, (for those who hold traditional values) if they did not honor the wives of the house they were the head of, it would be grave sin. Unfortunately much of the protest of those who proclaim toxic masculinity and sexism in men stems from dishonorable households where women are not loved or treated honorably as they ARE called to, but men instead have abused their place in the household and live in sin. To a further contextualize this biblical point, having this sort of unnuanced take is like blaming the library for having books on slavery, rape, and Nazism. Do you blame the library as a whole for those books or do you accept those books in context of the library? And I believe these passages must be contextualized with what is mentioned above and in the context of the Bible's entirety.
All I can think about while listening to these insane passages is how a group of backwards pathetic men wrote that while whanking it simultaniously. And then sold it as something of higher power, so it's all moral and justified. Religion is entirely a red flag.
Sounds like Yaldabaoth in the gnostic gospel of John , Sophia’s child who claimed that he alone was God and there were no others. He accord to the writings created the material world and the people on it. That’s who the Gnostics thought Yahweh to be. Jealous, vengeful ect…
im more fond of the Gnostic perspective, but even with the Gnostic view some things in the Bible dont line up
As you are well aware the Old Testament texts contradict themselves again and again. According to the Deuteronomic code slaves (at least Hebrew ones) were supposed to be freed after seven years. Then again all debts were supposed to be written off every Jubilee year, which very likely never happened at all.
The Jubilee as a mechanism to stop the mass insolvency (and consequent enslavement) of farmers during periods of crop failure seems pretty reasonable.
Yes but was it ever implemented?@@jimmyjones8676
i love his bow tie and i want to make him more of them. but seriously, you guys do cover the ground here that we do online over and over in fb groups. its so tedious
Alex is the real life Rust Cohle...
That's inmendham, and he makes Cohle look like a bum (I love the character by the way).
Look him up.
I don't know how well these bits from older podcasts work for your channel from a viewership/algorithm perspective, but I really dislike them being so disjointed.
It's fine (from my perspective) to upload clips from a discussion that was just uploaded (or is about to be), but not from months old ones already available. I have already seen the full lenght podcast and the short clips before you uploaded them. In my mind this is like the third time watching the same thing. Feels like spam for cheap views.
Now I get that a lot of people don't watch the full thing, and shorter clips with a focused topic and title perhaps do better, but I would enjoy having them all within a close timeframe to the full podcast.
Just a thought.
This has never really troubled my faith, maybe because I came from atheism and never had the epiphany "you mean the OT isn't PERFECT?!?!"
Obviously the values in the earlier books of the bible are appalling, using the benchmark of Christian tradition and Christ's words. They are also mythical books which contain passages written solely to justify the positions of a landowning and priestly class.
Some verses quoted by critics of Christianity are just pragmatic, but even they fall short of the glory of God.
We are fortunate to have such complete works from such a long time ago, but let's understand them critically rather than tying ourselves in knots defending them. If our beliefs can't stand up to scrutiny, they shouldn't be our beliefs
I mean yeah, the OT has some horrible stuff because God did and said terrible things, from genocides including kids, to endorsing slavery and so on. But the new testament is not really bullet proof in that regard either, it still has homophobic and sexists remarks, it introduced the concept of thought crimes and hell, a fire that never dies in which God can put you in, infinite punishment for finite crimes. Not to mention that God comes back to his genocidal roots in the book of revelations, now officially endorsed by jesus himself.
But in general I really don't get the defense that whatever thing God did or said in the OT doesn't count for criticism. Like... he is supposed to be the same perfect God from christianity, and I don't think they are trying to imply that this omniscient God changed his mind and personality halfway through the bible, it is supposed to be the same God, and so it is open to be criticized all the same. For condoning slavery for instance...
Imagine you create a sentient software you've designed to multiply. But that doesn't run according to your intent because of its sentience. Are you a Malevolent force if you scrap it in order to rebuild? Things to Ponder.
You very much left out the fact that the one creating those software isn’t claiming to be all knowing, all powerful, or all good. If I created the software knowing ahead of time that it wouldn’t run how I intended, have the ability to stop/change it, choose to not do anything, then leave it to the software to change it themselves on what they claim my intent is despite other software claiming another creator. It would be even worse for o would very clearly condemn certain things and when it came to a big one (slavery) I condone it.
@SupremeSquiggly ur last few thoughts were a bit unclear, but it Was an Analogy.. let's with advance it tho. If I, as a Creator was perfectly Moral, Omniscient, Omnipresent & Onmipotent, my Creation Couldn't Possibly Fathom My Actions or Reasoning. (Sound Familiar? ) For if they Could it Would mean they were my Peers in Someway and that Would make them more Creator-like than Created.
In short: yes....Plus: you'd be a lousy and lazy designer
You're asking the wrong question: are you a malevolent force if you program one aspect of the software with permission to kill other parts of your software and take their children as sex slaves?
“The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” .. doesn't that mean anyone who converts to judaism is subject to be released after 7 years? Or if a man marries a slave, she is a jew.. just like esther, davids moabite grandmother
It simply adds forced conversion to the mix. The people who are captured and enslaved and whose family was killed now also have to leave behind the comfort of their own culture and religion. Instead of praying to the deity they have known since childhood (which might bring them some slight comfort) they now have to praise the god of their rapists who told them it's a-okay to rape them.
Would love to see you debate Poker player Charlie Carrel , he debates any topic live on stream, unfortunately Ive never seen anyone challenge him and come out on top, maybe hes quite selective.
I thought we were past this rudimentary misunderstanding and misconception of the Bible?
The Pentateuch has lots of it.
The Question is, what does Josh’s Christian wife think about this, isn’t this the same god she worships?
Kind of what`s happening over there now then
What is permitted by those verses is a continuation of the common practices that had been in place for millennia. They were heathen practices and they weren't going to change quickly regardless of whether the law permitted or forbade it. For example, the first of the Ten Commandments forbade idols but idol worship continued until the return from exile in Babylon. Consider the Mosaic law as the initial condition and about 1500 years later, the Jewish nation is finally ready for the law of love.
"God" is only the god of power, thats why he's so insistent he's the only one and has commandments which is so unusual compared to others
You have to love that discussions of Biblical slavery are partially nested inside of an unambiguous deity endorsement of mass murder/genocide, yet somehow endorsing slavery is a bridge too far for the deity in the minds of its followers.
best examples next vid
Mike Winger blocked me on twitter because he is a coward. I wish I could post this on his account. I have always been so disgusted by Mike’s way of dismissing biblical slavery
why does no one do ezekiel 23:14?
The obsession with the Christian God😂. I like it🙌
The passage about taking wives is interesting. I don’t think Joshua’s analogy of Old Testament empire-building applied in the suburbs is really fair, or that any serious biblical scholar would suggest that as it’s interpretation. Honestly, it isn’t even the most brutal war policy when given the context of time. Assyrians were nailing flayed skins to city walls and impaling people in the same period. Even killing all the men was fairly common, and almost no military force in ancient history is really subdued without massive casualties. Still, all this barbarity points to the book being no more or less than a document of medieval culture and ancient (Bronze Age) “wisdom” and ethics.
Alex, your guests are top notch and in the U.S. you are sorely needed. You can feel a religious resurgence grasping backwards in the face of uncertainty and the death of new atheism. Voices like yours are continually needed not only to ensure apologists and theocrats are never let off easy (or your government of no authority) but to continue charting a path forward. You are an ethicist. Your work with veganism inspires me even if I’m not yet convinced. I would love to see you enter new territories with Peter Singer, Sam Harris, and Slavoj Zizek. Give them the voice of our youth with your gifts.
Cheers brother.
I was looking for this comment. Joshua is blindingly biased against the teachings of the Bible that all his interpretations of it are just "Bible bad and I'm qualified to say why."
Very few humans are free.
Slavery was the norm of the ancient world. How Israelite's god changed the norms and to which direction is the essence, not the premise.
This is how creation is showing the fist to the Creator. Creation has better morals of course. A perfect example of applying current social morality to a society which lived 3.000 years ago which is different from the one of 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago or 1000 years from now on. Let's not forget: human morals are subjective and changing, which means that they are not reliable.
Mikes argument was:
1. The passage regulates something bad which was happening by giving rights to the slaves, and he backed that up with the NT passage where Jesus tells that Moses allowed men to leave their wife because of their wickedness, no and not because that was the God plan.
2. Even if we can't find an explanation to this problem, this is at most something which we don't understand, not something which refutes God or His existence.
The analogy at 9:34 is laughable at best because how far off base he is.. that man is living in the suburbs and probably never had to fight a day in life... A more realistic analogy would be more like the guy was into worshipping different gods, he was would be willing to give his child for child sacrifice to his gods... He was killing and attacking also... He owned slaves himself... He did far worse to his slaves because you don't have any laws on how to treat them.. He treats captured women and children however he wants without no repercussions because there's law against it... Come on lets be real... 🤦🏻♂️
source?
Most if not all Humans have always practiced slavery, I hope we have outgrown it but probably not.
_"Most if not all Humans have always practiced slavery"_
What are you talking about? I don't own slaves.
@@markh1011 you're weird
@@datomosiashvili3215 Huh? If you're going post, at least make sense.
I am a novice bible reader, however, I would like to point out interesting passages concerning slavery.. after the exodus and the slaves had been freed,and were living in Israel under Judges. 1Samuel8:7-17. ‘…it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. (The people want a human king). So God goes on to warn them of the consequences of a human king…then 17..He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.. I interpret this, as once the humans choose slaves, they will suffer ALL the consequences of having slavery…which God clearly tries to explain is a horrible existence. It’s very similar to Adam, God warns Adam of the forbidden fruit, but Adam disobeys…and the sad saga of human existence, pain, suffering ensues. God as King results in love and freedom, Humans as king, results in slavery, sin, death. God never accepts slavery, he accepts the CHOICE of slavery… but then humans suffer the consequences. God accepts the individuals choice..even a bad choice. But he never waves a magic wand after you fall in the hole.
The Mule breeder was wyrd.
- if there is a God defined by man - and this God does magic in this world, that God would work against the rules and laws that hold this world together - then everything is possible. Even fairies, and you may have an old oil lamp lying around, give it a rub and having three wishes can't mess your life up as much as believing in a God that doesn't exist.
Why? (Also, the bible supporting slavery does not mean that Christianity or Judaism does)
wives and concubines gave consent in their sexual relationships.. this is documented both in the law and in historical narratives of the Bible (a clear cut example is Isaac and Rebecca getting married, later put into law in Numbers 30)
all the examples they have of women not giving consent, are projections. The Bible nowhere says consent was not given, they are reading that into the texts wherever they see silence.. aka their whole basis is arguing from silence which is a losing position. Also, anytime the Bible articulates there was no consent given (and it does) entire wars break out over it. The example of Numbers 31 however is a clear cut case of Moses acting against what God explicitly commanded in killing the women (I argue this on my channel) but they definitely had just cause in warring because the Bible says Midian was trying to destroy Israel.. they conveniently let that part out. Concubines taken in war (not wives, concubines) were absolutely allowed to leave without enforcement (though it was sin, no man forced a concubine to stay.. this is proven by the concubine running away in Judges 19 and the master simply trying to woo her back without force or oppression.)
"It's not the bad kind of slavery, it's the good kind of slavery" is already a stupid argument. You don't really need to go any further.
This entire discussion proceeds from an assumption that slavery is objectively immoral in all possible worlds, yet nobody has actually established that statement as true. How is slavery objectively immoral in all possible worlds?
And just to clear up any confusion, the non-theists are the ones making the claim that must be defended. 1) Slavery is objectively immoral in all possible worlds 2) The Bible supports slavery 3) Ergo the Bible supports immorality.
@@angusmcculloch6653 No, it doesn't need to be immoral in all possible worlds for us to reject it, it only needs to be immoral in the world we are actually in. Further, it doesn't need to be immoral according to any objective standard - us subjective actors finding to be immoral is a perfectly good reason for rejecting it.
@@Goryus Yes, you can reject it. You may reject anything you like. That doesn't make your position correct or universal. In order to make the point that slavery is immoral, and to support slavery is to support immorality regardless of place or time, then you do, indeed, have to show that slavery is objectively immoral in all possible worlds.
Otherwise, subjective actors finding slavery moral would make it . . . moral.
Anyway, bad philosophy on your part. I'd suggest reading more.
@@angusmcculloch6653 Positions don't need to be universal to be correct. I can value my family more than I value yours, and you can value your family more than you value mine, and both of us can be behaving correctly.
@@Goryus "I can value my family more than I value yours, and you can value your family more than you value mine, and both of us can be behaving correctly."
Says who?
What you're doing, philosophically speaking, is making assertions.
Compare:
John 5
Names of God Bible
37 The Father who sent me testifies on my behalf. *You have never heard his voice, and you have never seen his form.*
with:
Numbers 12
Names of God Bible
4 Suddenly, Yahweh said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, “All three of you come to the tent of meeting.” So all three of them came. 5 Then Yahweh came down in the column of smoke and stood at the entrance to the tent. He called to Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forward.
6 He said, “Listen to my words: When there are prophets of Yahweh among you, I make myself known to them in visions or speak to them in dreams. 7 But this is not the way I treat my servant Moses. He is the most faithful person in my household. *8 I speak with him face to face, plainly and not in riddles. He even sees the form of Yahweh.* Why weren’t you afraid to criticize my servant Moses?”
9 Yahweh was angry with them, so he left.
Who is Mr. or Mrs. “Bible” allowing or forbidding something ???
I have heard of various people reported in the Bible who allow or forbid this or that or sometimes also the opposite 😂 [ Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,... Peter, Paul, John, etc. ], but I never heard Mr. or Mrs. "Bible" allowing or forbidding anything...
The Bible is a fascinating collection of writings by various authors who share their experiences and views about God and the world. But for Jews and Christians the Bible is NOT what the Koran is for Muslims, who say it is the eternal, unchanging Word of God.
It is strange that atheists take the Jewish and Christian scriptures more literally than the Jews and Christians themselves [ narrow-minded fundamentalist and sectarians excepted ].
10:33 false equivalent
The bible is about the way the people living at this time and it shouldn't have relevance about us
ua-cam.com/video/6G1X6lyKQLc/v-deo.html - you forgot to explain detalles in that story mate
Real question ? Was any of this checked for proper translation?
Please look up who you're talking about before asking Dr. Joshua Bowen if he's checked for translation.
sick flex bruh 😬😬😬
Slavery is not fine ...plenty of it mentioned in the Bible ...along with wars, crucifixions, and other evils ..no specifics about it being a good idea ...or are there??
The New Testament tells slaves to obey their masters.
@tomgreene1843 Leviticus 25 begins, "The LORD said to Moses at Mount Sinai, 'Speak to the Israelites and say to them..."
Then later in the chapter, "From the nations around you, YOU MAY BUY SLAVES ... and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
These are, purportedly, the commands of the LORD, and it's always a good idea to follow commands from God, isn't it?
No , as you put it unless one is a fundamentalist like Oliver Cromwell!@@robertcarlyle6102
“If you are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you, you are embarking on something which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all. But, fortunately, it works the other way around. Anyone who is honestly trying to be a Christian will soon find his intelligence being sharpened: one of the reasons why it needs no special education to be a Christian is that Christianity is an education itself.”
-C. S. Lewis, p. 78
"It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens."
-Jeremiah 10:12
“my God is the only real God out of the thousands of Gods being worshiped at any given time, because I read it in a book” - Every Religion 1:1
"If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
I know what you must be saying to yourselves
If that's the way she feels about it why doesn't she just end it all?
Oh, no, not me. I'm not ready for that final disappointment
Because I know just as well as I'm standing here talking to you
When that final moment comes and I'm breathing my last breath, I'll be saying to myself
Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is"
American songwriting team Jerry Leiber and Mike Stolle
As sung by Peggy Lee 1960's
For Catholics, it is not “the Bible” (whatever that means), but the living example of Jesus Christ that is authoritative.
which can only be found...in the bible.
So...big nothing burger here
So do you think god gave those commandents?
I'm sure the Israelites of today aren't just as inhuman as two thousand years ago that would just be crazy....
Alright, a lot of people here are being given small part of the passages, and not all the things saying against R for captive women, punishment for people that kidnap others to have them as slaves, and punishment for people that beat slaves
(But I think a lot of people care more about the R for captive women thing, so just look up a journal online from the University of Toronto talking about that, cause it’s stated that the wife CAN consent)
If anyone has any questions for me, I’ll answer them