Does The Bible Condone Slavery? DEBATE
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 січ 2023
- Does The Bible Condone Slavery?
Get ready for an electrifying debate that will shake the foundations of your beliefs! Our panel of experts will delve deep into the question of whether the Bible condones slavery. With passionate arguments and thought-provoking insights, this debate will leave you questioning everything you thought you knew. This is a must-watch event for anyone interested in religion, history, and social justice. Don't miss out on the chance to hear both sides of this controversial topic and form your own opinion. Hopefully this debate will change the way you think about the Bible and slavery forever.
Check out the sources for Dr. Stephen Boyce & Jonathan Beazley
www.explorechristianity.net
Check out the sources for Dr's Joshua Bowen & Kipp Davis @DigitalHammurabi @DrKippDavis
www.digitalhammurabi.com/ - Dr. Josh's books are on his site.
/ @kippdavis2368 - Dr. Kipp's UA-cam channel
========================================================
*RECOMMENDED ONLINE COURSES HERE*
Sign up for 👉 "Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel Was Forgotten?"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/fir...
Sign up here for Dr. M. David Litwa's course - The Ancient Greek Mysteries & Christianity - -
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/mys...
Sign up here for Dr. Dale C. Allison Jr's course - The Quest For The Historical Jesus - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/jes...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course - Finding Moses - -
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/moses
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course - Other Virgin Births In Antiquity - -
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/vir...
Sign up for the 7 hour resurrection debate between Dr's Bart Ehrman & Mike Licona here - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/res...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Genesis "In The Beginning" Webinar here - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/gen...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Christmas Webinar here - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/chr...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Did Jesus call himself God webinar - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/bart
========================================================
**GET RECOMMENDED BOOKS HERE: 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
========================================================
Please consider helping support MythVision's work by joining the Patreon or contributing a one-time donation through my links below:
MythVision Website: 🔥 mythvisionpodcast.com/
MythVision Patreon: 👉 / mythvision
MythVision Paypal: 👉 www.paypal.me/dereklambert7
Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9
Email MythVision: 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
Facebook page: 👉 / mythvision
Facebook group: 👉 / thewaterboyzradio
Twitter: 👉 / derekpodcast
TikTok: 👉 / mythvision
Instagram: 👉 / dereklambert_7
Discord: 👉 / discord
======================================================
👉👉 Checkout Our Other UA-cam Channel:
www.youtube.com/ @mythvisionclips
👉👉 Checkout MVP Courses to find new and upcoming online courses:
mvp-courses.com/
=======================================================
#Bible #Slavery #MythVision - Розваги
It would have been much easier, more moral and "Godly" to just say "You shall not own people as property, it is an abomination"". How hard is that?
I mean humans made this law “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.”
So, we are more moral than god it seems.
It came out of the iron age. Those were the morals then.
Shellfish were a higher priority evidently.
I’m pretty sure love your neighbor as yourself is all you need. I hear this from people all the time and it’s really dumb you don’t need every single harmful thing to be explicitly listed in order for you to know that you shouldn’t do it, the bible doesn’t say you still not stab somebody to death but, this is dumb and it does.
@@Mauricekaip I don’t think there’s really anything particularly wrong with servitude.
Considering how many very specific commandments there are in the Bible, I feel that the fact that we are left to infer God's position on slavery is telling.
Right. There are no debates about whether god detests lying or adultery, or dishonoring your mother/father because it was laid out explicitly
I am just starting the video, so I'm sure it is brought up, but we do not need to infer anything about how God feels about slavery. He gives instructions. How and where to attain them, release them, and that it is Ok to beat them to deaths door. Being a loving God though, he doesn't want you to kill them.
Agreed. To think that god was absolutely clear on his position on homosexuality bestiality and child sacrifice, yet forgot to be specific with slavery is ridiculous.
We don't have to infer it. God is the one speaking when rules for beating and inheriting slaves is given down. God has no problem at all with slavery, just that he's against the most brutal form of slavery, and wants to give Hebrews some exceptions to being treated as slaves.
You don't have to infer very hard. However, I respect your opinion because I say the same thing about abortion to other Christians who misuse the Bible against abortion rights.
Mark 10:44= Whoever wants to be the greatest among you must be the slave of all. (Jesus to Disciples Asking to sit next to him in heaven)
Matthew 7:12= Treat others how you want to be treated
I can go on with more, but it would be redundant. The God of the Bible literally freed people who were slaves from Egypt because he heard their cries! If that's not a start at understanding or "inferring" God’s nature, idk man.
When the Bible allows servitude in Old Testament, it's usually a way to deal with war. If you have 3 options to kill, let go and risk being killed again, or humane slavery, idk why people equate that law to slavery in America. There's a significant difference. Anyway I will talk about this more in depth on my channel, but I don't think either of us want or need me to type anymore. I leave yhe link in my chat every show, feel free to come by and discuss this topic. God is good. Don't believe PHDS that no only what they learned in 50yrs of life.
The Christian argument falls apart when they admit that neighbouring nations also had morality laws and the Israelites didn't and couldn't have unique anti-slavery laws; so what was so unique & pure about the Israelites? Their diet?
When God inspired the Bible's authors to write the Bible, was he expecting all of us to do the same mental gymnastics as Jonathan and Dr Boyce did in the debate? What a smart plan. It must've gone well in the history of humanity.
Which is why there never has been any disagreements over meaning, ever.
Do you believe god inspired the Bible's authors? If so, then your argument is valid. If not, then you are arguing that a being you don't believe exists did not inspire a text you disagree with. Essentially you are arguing with nonsense. Why would you do that?
@@timothyo5041 ,
He's asking that question to those who believe in such nonsense...
@@timothyo5041 it called an internal critique
@@timothyo5041 lol , i bet you're one of those people who believes there are no such thing as stupid questions
Love thy neighbor, but destroy everyone who does not believe in your God! What a crock of BS!
Banning slavery would have definitely set Israel apart and made them a light to the nations. Dr Josh gave explicit scripture which always overrides some future revelation. If God is the creator of all people (in His image) then why are some people's lives more sacred than others? The Bible and the god of the Bible condones slavery.
I agree. God forbade child sacrifice, homosexuality and bestiality (actions that were done by the surrounding nations) but slavery somehow was okay. If the point of Israel was to be a holy people, then slavery should have been forbidden too.
"If the point of Israel was to be a holy people, then slavery should have been forbidden too"
Unless this god of the israelites didn't look at slavery as something bad, but rather good or tolerable. Or just the israelites putting their god in their own made up laws like other cultures did at the time
This is a fascinating debate. Already forty minutes in or so, Drs Kipp and Josh have won the debate because the Christian side conceded their point. They said God wanted to move the people gradually away from slavery, God moves slowly, and the whole law is holy. Therefore they admit, the Bible condones slavery.
Terrible argument. "Slavery is not the ideal but God allowed it because of people's "hardness of heart"". Yet murder is condemned outright! Pathetic!!! God should have said from the get go "it is abhorrent to own another as property" just like "thou shalt not murder". This would have gone along way to reducing the horror of millenia of slavery! I am greatly disappointed when Christian apologists just can't own how immoral the Bible is in parts! Just be straight up honest instead of pretzel twisting.
How do they not see it??
@@winnerleparadoxe6496 it comes from a view of the Bible as "god breathed", inspired directly. So when it comes to glaring inconsistencies with modern morality and science, they just can't say "well I guess the Bible is wrong" the obvious reply, instead "I'm sure I can make it fit somehow". They have made the Bible their god.
I almost didn’t watch this because I figured I’d heard all the apologetics on it, such as “But in this other verse it says to be nice and Nice *now* excludes slavery, so it must exclude slavery in the Bible in spite of explicitly saying Yahweh expected Jews to own slaves.”
Then Beazley mentioned data points 93 times and I was waiting for this data we hadn’t noticed…. but it turned out to be the same old argument, just claiming that vague general statements take precedence over specific statements, which is the opposite of reality.
And Bowen dealt with Beazley’s argument in his book… or maybe I am remembering a Digital Hammurabi video.
See you have to understand... the Bible means exactly what it says UNLESS it's inconvenient for me, then it means exactly what I want it to mean!
Makes perfect sense
@@ramadadiver7810 1 Timothy 1:10 condemns traders.
1 Timothy 6:1 It would be *blasphemy* (“so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered”) for slaves *not* to count their masters as worthy of all honor/wealth.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
So all the brutal text of the Hebrew Bible still applies.
Not only condoned - enthusiastically encouraged it.
How did you come up with that? 🧐
I didn’t; The Bible did.
@@dorianphilotheates3769 where did it say this? I must have missed something?
I don’t understand how adding together a bunch of individual narratives that condone slavery, add up to a “meta/grand narrative” that opposes it.
Seems like one side is taking a plain text reading of the Bible while the other is importing a huge amount of theological assumptions paired with mental gymnastics.
Congratulations, you learned the difference between truth seekers and apologists.
Its because of Christianity and the British Monarchy that they forced Islamic Nations to end slavery, which actually still goes on today. Like in Libya..
Jesus did not condone slavery and never owned any slaves.. he came to correct, fulfill and establish the Truth that was distorted by Men.
@@Mauricekaip I wish I could like this comment 10x
@@J1WE This is the same British monarchy who was largely responsible for the trans-atlantic slave trade?
@@Duchess_Van_Hoof ,
I thought it was some Spaniard...
How polite of Josh and Kip to allow the apologists to show a couple more slides that confirm the bibles condones slavery.
"Though shall not kidnap"
"though shalt not steel"
"treat the foreigner as you would a native in your land,
curse be anyone who mistreats the poor, the orphan or the widow
, and don't turn a slave taking refuse in your house over to his master.
You think that vague?
"...if the slave grows rich" have you ever heard of a slave growing rich or acquiring his own land?
@@williampennjr.4448 I’m not sure what you’re saying. Do you think that trumps all the times it says slaves are property that can be passed down?
Kidnapping and slavery aren’t the same.
@@TheBirdGardenNB Chattel slavery is the worse kind of kidnapping, which is what the critics are alleging.
The NBA trades player like property so are you saying profession sports trades are slavery. They are not.
The reference to property refers to the contract not the people. Its the same in both cases.
Whenever talking about slavery an honest person specifies what kind. Hebrew, Egyptian, Greek, Roman or Atlantic. All were vastly different from each other.
If you told someone from the 16th century that we still have prisons. If that person was anything like these atheists, they would assume its referring to locking up people in chains, feeding them only bread and water and subjecting them to whipping and hanging.
@@williampennjr.4448 yes or no, Does the bible allow owning peoplw as property? Word salad not required.
@@TheBirdGardenNB its not word salad if you know how to read.
Why? are you suggesting that people can legally do whatever they want with their expensive business property, and would intentionally abuse it.?
Shops are property. How often do you see shop owners trashing their own stores? Some businesses break the law are you saying no one should own any king of property because some people use it to break the laws?
You seriously think any business's and personal property is unregulated?
Everyone with a job knows that everyday they go to work they are property of their employer. That doesn't make them chattel slaves.
I think comparing adultery --sexual affection between consenting adults--with the owning of humans and their offspring as property is DISGUSTING and immoral.
No need for a debate, the bible very openly and plainly allows for slavery, and even beating your slave(not til death though). You're allowed to own people according to the bible.
It's ok as long as any internal bleeding or damage to organs does not kill them immediately. Why be in a rush. Bonus for a slow painful death that takes several days. WTF?
This is obvious. Why debate it? The debate is really, did a god inspire the bible to be written?
Read the entire chapter ..If a master damages any part of the slaves body . The slave goes free .
Also again if you need the entire chapter
A slave owner isn't punished if the slave doesn't die because if you read a few passages before that .
You will see the punishment for killing someone is the death penalty .
So if a master beats his slave and the slave doesnt die ..he doesn't receive the death penalty. If he does kill him..he gets the death penalty
@@Thesortvokter no i suffer from full context
So God can clearly say "don't eat shellfish", but he somehow just couldn't bring himself to say "don't own other human beings?"
That’s what the Christian apologists would have us believe. And they wonder why we don’t buy it
Mysterious ways, man. Mysterious ways.
Jonathan Beazley believes his own bs?
So God can say "no mixed fabrics" but can't say "thou shalt not literally be a trash human, sweaty"
So God can say "Rest on the Sabbath" but he can't bring himself to say "slavery is illegal."
Wait, so god never said "don't own slaves" but wanted the people to figure out they shouldn't own slaves, but then when they didn't intuit that and continued owning slaves, god came at them with pestilence & sword for not doing what he wanted......got it.
God was okay with Israelites owning slaves though. The Mosaic laws address buying, owning and even beating slaves.
God didn’t plague Egypt because he was anti-slavery. He just wanted his people out of Egypt.
What a great debate!
Much respect to the interlocutors for being able to be left unmoderated for an hour and the conversation remaining out of the weeds of yelling, overtalking, and no, no, noing.
Skuknuf!
The word “apologetics” makes me giggle. Especially since these folks refer to themselves as apologists. It conjures up ideas of excuse making and “yeah sorry our religion has so many holes in it.”
I use the words “excuse makers” to remember the definition of apologetics. 😮
Well, I guess it's better to giggle than to actually engage with the subject matter and present a coherent argument. Keep conjuring up those excuses and laughing it off, I'm sure that will be very convincing to anyone who actually cares about the truth.
Apologetics comes from the word apologia in the Greek. It's someone providing a defense of themselves as in a court of law. It doesn't mean "sorry my guys." It means a defense of your position. Internet atheists give off heavy fan boy vibes.
@@3DUNNJWe are talking about the actions of apologists not trying to redefine what the word means. Thats a red herring fallacy on your part.
Where does the Bible make it clear slavery is wrong? Answer, it doesn't. Enough said.
@kontemplashion 6 years… then you missed much of the debate. That limit was only for Hebrews and sometimes only for Hebrew men.
@kontemplashion Leviticus 25:44-46 _As for your _*_male and female slaves whom you may have: (contrasting_*_ to the passage up to __25:43__) you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and _*_they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever._*_ You may make slaves of them, but over your _*_brothers the people of Israel_*_ you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly._
This passage allows Israelites to buy non-Israelites as possessions that the Israelites can *own and pass on as property forever/indefinitely {lə·‘ō·lām}.*
Does this mean that all the descendants of that slave are also slaves? Probably, given the several passages where children are born into slavery.
Apologists: "you might even call that cognitive dissonance" ..... Yeah, bro, yes indeed...
Should we ask the south US plantation class if they think the bible condones slavery?
This felt a lot like Old Testament 101, where I first learned there’s a difference between a sermon and scholarship.
Yes. Thanks DR, DR, DR and Jonathan. The rest of the 3.5 hours is fun to watch though.
Is a slave not also a child if God? Why has he forsaken them throughout all of the history of Holy Bible? Just thoughts.
Right? He supports the plead of Israel when they were enslaved, recognizes what a tragedy slavery is when the victims are his favoured nation, but not for others: not for the victims of Israelites. How convenient for a tribal deity.
If a slave runs away from his master within ancient Israel he is to be set free.
@@rayzas4885 If you're referring to Deut 23:15, it doesn't say set them free. Don't try to justify a book that allows men to sell their daughters to slavery (Exodus 21:7).
Paul also says , slave obey your masters.....
I just posted on how the Christian Bible makes slavery seem literally holy, likening the slave relationship to the Jesus/man relationship
You gotta love when Christians say how bad slavery is then have to squeamishly add a disclaimer at the end about how there's a greater purpose only god knows. They know slavery is wrong, they know its in the bible, but they can't go against the big guy. Talk about a crappy relationship.
Yes , the argument that every evil might be necessary for a greater good…
Could be flipped to argue that God is evil and every good is necessary for a greater evil
And to the question of 'does the bible condone slavery', the greater good argument is irrelevant anyway, because the debate isn't 'This house believes that slavery is always wrong'.
Because the skeptic is guilty of a false equivalency . Equating 21rst century slavery with ancient servitude .
If you were poor and had no money the only way you could survive was by VOLUNTARILY selling yourself to live . Otherwise you'll die of diseases or hunger .
Because kidnaping and stealing men is explicitly condemned.
The only people who were made servants against their will were prisoners of war
@@ramadadiver59 Dr Josh deals with this in the opening statement.
@@Callum679
This debate is a bit deceptive and il tell you why . It's called " does the Bible condone slavery"
The answer to that is 1 Timothy 1 10 explicitly condemns slavery .
The debate should be DID ( in the past ) the Bible condone slavery
Don't you just love the pro slavery arguments? Sure slavery seems bad now, but it wasn't so bad back then. You couldn't expect God to just make the Hebrews quit (sex) slavery cold turkey! That would be cruel and immoral! They have to be "weaned" off of exploiting people for sex and labor first, using lots of good regulations.
What if you applied that logic to other crimes? You can't just expect God to make men stop raping women cold turkey, that would be cruel! First you need good regulations, like forcing women to marry their rapists. It's all part of "...planned obsolescence."
And how did they have slavery in the first place if they were God’s people?
The Bible repeatedly rails against Israelites who honored other gods, but never against slavery.
Think about the slave owners😢😢 how could they possibly believe in an all powerful God unless he allowed them to own slaves
So the answer is "yes" the Bible does condone slavery.
Thank you for having learned, engaging individuals. Refreshing. Of course, the Bible DOES condone slavery and it doesn't matter if it's a "degree" or "planned obsolescence"... it's slavery.
“No man shall own another man” if this quote would had been added to the Bible, it would had changed christian history. But the Bible is ok with slavery.
Thou shalt not keep another human as property.. nah. Its not in there dude. But hey. Them shellfish.. better not eat those.
It is very unlikely that the Bible is actually the word of God, but rather the word of men who wanted power and control.
Thou shall not murder, but slavery do it this way
Well, isn't there a huge asterisk by the "thou shalt not murder" though
"Divorce is wrong, but since I know you won't tolerate me prohibiting it you can do it this way"
"Slavery is wrong, but since I know you won't tolerate me prohibiting it..."
@@grantgooch5834not the same thing and it’s incredibly dishonest to claim that the Bible thinks slavery is wrong when Jesus himself uses analogies with slaves and depicts it as a right thing
@@grantgooch5834Homosexuality is wrong….. and oh yeah don’t do it. There is no regulation of stealing or homosexuality so clearly when god doesn’t like something it’s not happening or when the people who wrote the Bible
Cultivated an excellent conversation Derek.
Let's all remember St Gregory of Nyssa, the first Christian (as far as I know) who condemned slavery in the 4th century. He didn't like the way Ecclesiastes 2:7 boasted about having slaves.
Its simple. Slavery was normal back then. So ofcourse god would not have a problem with it. Because the god written in scripture represents the zeitgeist of the people of the time. They created that god. Its why god never explicitly spoke against the practice. Even gave rules. And the call to obey your master also clearly is not against slavery. So why even have a debate about it. You can't eat this, you can't wear this, you can't do x or y. There are plenty rules about what one can and cannot do in scripture. Nothing clearly points to slavery being wrong. Only people interpreting scripture creatively to fit their current morals will try to imagine that god is somehow against slavery. Obviously he isn't.
And here we have the crux of the issue. People can't accept this logical conclusion because it eould mesn the death of a comfortable illusion.
@@Duchess_Van_Hoof yup. But , people just can't seem to deal with existential angst, and fear nihilism if they do not have some narrative that caters to their emotions and desire to be meaningful, have purpose, and a promise to escape death, and the existance of good and evil as absolutes. It will never change. People just need their emotional crutches. Reality itself is not emotionally pallatable.
Spoilers! Yes, the Bible does condones slavery!
Really enjoyed this conversation. ❤
I don't know if I would call this a debate as much as I would say it was a public display of well-formulated academic analysis in contrast to a lackluster apologetic argument.
Yeah, it's a shame Davis and Bowen have stooped so low as to become apologists.
@@grantgooch5834lmao you wish
I'll let you decide but the answer is yes
Skek lew rufian!
Ultimate problem, as is always the case in these scenarios: when your epistemology relies on a god, all of your reasoning ends up working backwards from the perception that what that god tells you is correct. It inevitably regresses to circular reasoning, at which point you're saying nothing at all.
Which, fine, if you want to discuss whether or not Jesus was a god or just a dude inhabited by a ghost. Have fun.
But it's pretty malignant when you start talking about real social problems like the topic at hand. The southern slaver was using the exact same epistemology as these guys. They are equally justified in their conclusions. Which is to say, not at all justified. It just happens that these guys were raised in a social context in which we recognize (nominally) things like human rights and bodily autonomy.
When is Debate #2????
This was pretty good.
Banning shrimp is huge. I know whole communities that rely on shrimp. It is no small thing to suddenly ban if you're reliant on it.
The mental gymnastics of the religious apologists is staggeringly amazing! They want to talk about everything except what the Bible actually says!
Dr. Kipp is always wearing a thinking face. Love it
God can outlaw shrimp, but too difficult to say not to own people. Stop trying to justify it or work around it; it’s a man made book and a product of it’s time.
It was a pleasure to listen to these intelligent knowledgeable men! As for the topic of discussion in ancient times there was no concern about personal freedom. The main concern was to keep society stable, protect it from chaos and confusion. There was nothing more pressing than order and nothing more dangerous than chaos. So the hierarchical structure and the set of necessary rules were not something immoral, but were vital for the survival of a huge group of people. Old Testament is all about structure, rules and regulations. In a New Testament there is reminder to people to treat each other humanely within the same structure and laws because the nature of these laws is not absolute, but is temporal, only for short Earthly life.
I don’t care if you agree with Dr. Boyce or Beazley, or if you agree with Doctors Davis or Bowen, can we just all take a second to think Derek for putting this whole thing together.
The Bible gives some pretty specific instructions on how to deal with slaves. If it gives instructions on it then it certainly condones the practice
Obviously false, as was mentioned in the debate with regards to divorce. The OT gives instructions with regards to divorce, yet the NT says that despite that divorce wouldn't exist in an ideal scenario.
inb4 "hurr durr, so you think slavery and divorce are the same?"
No, idiot future commenter. Divorce is a counter example that refutes the generalization that just because something is described or regulated it somehow means that is morally acceptable.
@@grantgooch5834 I repeat. The Bible gives some pretty specific instructions on how the peculiar institution should be carried out. If it gives instructions on how to do it, then it approves of the institution. Using colorful words and insults don’t change the facts
@@grantgooch5834 The difference is that there's a specific example of Jesus being critical of slavery, whereas there's no example of him being critical of slavery.
Also the word "condoning" has two meaning approving something with reluctance or allowing something to happen that one considers immoral. In both cases, the word can be applied to both the Biblical view on slavery and divorce.
everyone- polite respectful discussion.
Derrick- and you guys are going to fight to the death for the next 60 minutes.
i chuckled outloud
Saying that people from surrounding nations don't count as "neighbours" doesn't help.
im disappointed Jonathan didn't specify which premise in my syllogism he disagreed with
So it’s a matter of interpretation again with the believers. Did they interpret it that slavery is legal until the end of time in their thought process when those writers wrote these texts? When a Slave was/is mistreated or killed, did they think that it was moral? SMH trying to figure out how these modern believers will try to make it to appease their minds that the Bible is a moral book by trying to “word salad” thru it.. just admit it was immoral and move on..WTF!
"self-evident" aka "what I want it to say"
This debate was over during Josh’s opening statement.
People who say this are mental midgets
I agree
*Slavery is essential in the Hebrew Bible*
Morally perfect Noah, *after* the Flood wishes slavery upon his grandson and all holds descendants.
Abraham, God’s new favorite, is the first person mentioned (canonical order) to own slaves.
Slavery is used to give birth to some of the eponymous founders of the tribes of Israel.
God uses slavery to show his power (sending Israelites into slavery, then expecting loyalty for also removing them).
And all -holds- his descendants
Another point against god not condoning slavery is in Deuteronomy where god literally says that he will send the Israelites back to Egypt (to go into slavery) if they did not obey his laws. Would a god who is against slavery say such a thing?
But he gave those same people permission to own slaves themselves when they became free. Also just because god used slavery as a punishment does not mean that he was against it. America uses prison as a punishment so America endorses the practice of putting people in prison. If god was against the practice of slavery it wouldn’t be done as a punishment.
Why on earth would an anti slavery god threaten to use slavery as a potential punishment? Your comment actually makes it clear that god is fine with slavery and has no issue making use of the vile institution.
Apologists arguments so often seem to come down to "given that we assume that God exists and is all good and powerful, this extremely unlikely understanding of the text fits our presumptions"
As an atheist, even I think slavery is still wrong. Nobody should be enslaved.
Oh my God the Bible is a hodgepodge of stories it's like combining the comic book Superman with the comic book Spider-Man
I like that analogy
The Bible doesn't condone slavery... It prescribes and describes exactly how you should do it 😉
Because the Maker of such laws has such lofty ways that are higher than our ways. We can't measure up to his level of morality. Obviously Yahweh is superior to humanities' evolved view of owning another human being. 💭🤔💭🤣
Oxford Dictionary defintions for condone > "accept (behaviour that is considered morally wrong or offensive)" or "approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance." The word "condone" as defined here equates with what god says in the bible, doesn't it? Forget whether he is lofty or not, does he condone it? Yes, he does.
From that same God who wants you to worship him or gi to hell for eternity. Lol
My comments were obvious sarcasm. If you're unsure look at the emojis. Or you can look at my username. I am an atheist. Obviously slavery is not condemned in the Old testament, or New testament books. And of course I agree that it is condoned in the Bible...
@@DeicideFreedom
It is very unlikely that the Bible is actually the word of God, but rather the word of men who wanted power and control.
@@patriciamartine5410 agreed, it's simply impossible for it to be made by any superior being or beings.
How on earth can anyone say that the bible doesn't condone slavery????
Super long debate but I love it, I do agree with Dr. josh here that they do bring the best argument, I can see the sense in gradually taking them from what they were used to, to where they should be. My problem with that argument however, is that these laws are given to people that were previously terribly enslaved, they’re going to a new land that he’s providing, why not start fresh with the ideals that you want them to get to clearly set out? Understanding that it would take time, as with their argument. Also, If you’re going to do regulation, why not make it clear that you do not approve, however, for the time it shall be done how you say? Why not have his people lead the way back to him by example, striving towards the right way as he provides for them and protects them as he has? He could have, because there’s nothing that he can’t do, right? He can take any path and make it work, so he never had to do that, he chose to. If he chose to, then we have to question the moral compass of this guy.
“God can do anything but fail” the funny thing about this statement is that by the genesis story, we are quite literally his failure. We’re failed experiments groveling at the feet of our creator, begging for mercy, begging to be spared and fixed. We’re defective, so defective he had to do a hard reset and we still ended up defective, so he failed again.
To emphasize the gravity of God's words and their POWERFUL influence on the thinking of folks as they moved forward in the flow of history, I offer you the words of one, Jefferson Davis, -(history buffs and Civil War reenactors may recognize the name as the ONLY President of the Confederate States from 1861 to 1865).
He said:
"Let the gentleman go to revelation to learn the decree of God,.. let him go to the bible! I said that slavery was sanctioned in the bible, authorized, regulated and recognized from Genesis to Revelation.
Slavery existed in the earliest ages, among the chosen people of God and in revelation we are told it shall exist 'til the end of time shall come.
You will find it in the old and new testaments, in the prophecies, in psalms in the epistles of Paul. You will find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere."
Keep in mind that Jefferson Davis was, by no means alone,.. in addition to a great abundance of simpatico politicians, Davis enjoyed a large chorus of support from FAITH LEADERS,.. faith leaders who stood up from behind their pulpits to echo the same, 'Godly' sentiments along with at least the entire Southern half of the God fearing citizens of this great nation as well we should expect. People, it seems, take God's words seriously.
Should anyone ever find themselves wondering what reference guide could possibly have inspired and allowed, 'colonial slavery' to burrow itself into the continuum of human misery in the American colonies and questions where men of such position and prominence got it in their heads that OWNING HUMAN BEINGS could ever be, 'good' or 'right' or 'moral', you need look no further!
*Slavery is often holy in the Christian Bible*
The CB upholds the slave laws of the Tanakh, even adding elements of holiness to them.
In Galatians 3:28, Paul starts by implying that there is no distinction under Jesus between free people and slaves, men and women, etc, but the passage continues into chapter 4, where Paul minimizes the suffering of slaves by saying child heirs are just like slaves, and by 4:23-24 he is saying that birth into bondage _(paidiskes)_ is part of the covenant of Mt Sinai. In Galatians 4:28-31, possibly paraphrasing the abuse of Hagar in Genesis 16:4-6, Paul *endorses not treating slaves well,* upholds leaving a slave woman and her son homeless, and makes the slaves metaphorically ungodly; a separate, destitute class (which contradicts his earlier child-heirs-are-slaves claim). Galatians 4:30 *”The son of the slave woman **_(paidisken)_** shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”* This is a metaphor for not inheriting Yahweh’s promise to Abraham and his people, which is an accurate assessment of the horrible morality of Genesis 16.
1 Corinthians 7:17-24
“Were you a slave when you were called?”
Paul is then apparently contradictory as to whether slaves should remain slaves, saying in v20 and 24 that they should stay slaves and in v21 that they should get free if they can. But since v22 says they are free under God, it is not clear that v21 means to no longer be the property of a human.
Regardless of the meaning of v21, *God assigned slavery **_(doulos)_** to them per **7:17* and Paul explicitly approves of that in at least 2 verses on this brief passage. Furthermore, Paul does not say in 7:21 that slaves should buck the system. He may have thought they should “free themselves” by being such so servile that their owners free them.
Philemon 1:9 and 13, Paul uses slavery as a metaphor for adherence to Jesus. Paul implicitly *upholds the institution of slavery,* even tho Paul expresses a wish that *a specific slave,* Onesimus, could be free. *Paul never mentions Onesimus’ wishes.*
So whatever Paul meant by loving Onesimus, it did not include putting Onesimus’ freedom above Philemon’s “property rights” to Onesimus.
Colossians 3:22-24 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your fleshly lords _(kyriois),_ not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord _(Kyrion)._ Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.
The word Lord for Jesus and for slave master is the same, it’s just capitalized for Jesus. Koine Greek, unlike Biblical Hebrew, had capital letters.
Colossians 4:1 again compares slavery to a relationship with God, even as it tells slave masters to treat their slaves “justly and fairly”... thus confirming their rights to own humans. It also implies that the *author thought slavery could be just and fair,* altho it is possible he meant “just and fair relative to to slavery.”
Ephesians 6:5-9 instructs slaves to *obey and treat their masters as they would Christ* and the masters to treat slaves “well”, an oxymoron overall, but of course there can be relatively kind and cruel slave masters.
1 Timothy 1:10 counts slave *traders* as bad people.
1 Timothy 6:1 It would be *blasphemy* (“so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered”) for slaves *not* to count their masters as worthy of all honor/wealth.
Therefore, Timothy is saying *Christian teaching requires slaves to honor their masters.* He is also saying that not honoring a master is a slander to god’s name, which required death by stoning per Leviticus 24:16 and was one of the Ten Commandments. *Timothy is saying that slavery is a necessary part of basic morality.*
Matthew 24:45-51 is an approving analogy between *a slave master and god/Jesus as judges over the slaves.*
The slave master is righteous and has the authority to judge the fate of the slave. The bad slave is first bad because he doesn’t fear the return of the master (Jesus). So Matthew is saying approvingly that *Jesus is like a slave master and **_vice versa._*
Luke 12:37-48 Likens Jesus-Christian relationship to master-servant and *approvingly mentions beating servants.*
Luke 12:42-48 Jesus' approving parable of beating disobedient slaves.
Luke 15:17-19 This passage does not mention slaves. The servants are hired servants _(misthioi)._ Even if it were talking about slaves, the Prodigal Son’s father feeding his servants well would mean that one master was not cruel to his servants on every way in a parable. It doesn’t change the property relationship in slavery, nor the horrible things Luke, Paul and others say about slavery. And if it were about slavery, it would show the opposite, because the father represents God and/or Jesus and woud own slaves.
John 8:35 a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.
Titus 2:9-10 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
*Bible: How slaves should behave and masters should treat them:*
Galatians 4:30
But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” (Genesis 21:30)
1 Peter 2:18 servants (oiketai) should submit even to unreasonable masters.
There is no command here to not be a master, let alone an unreasonable one.
*General Notes*
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
So righteousness, even moral perfection includes permission to own slaves, according to Christian scripture 😢
Matthew 5:18, Jesus said every jot and tittle of The Law (the Torah - Genesis thru Deuteronomy) would be fulfilled.
In Matthew 10:24 Jesus speaks of the imminent kingdom of Heaven, yet nothing changes about relationships, in fact Paul says *master-slave relationships are ordained by God.*
(End holy)
John 8:35 Jesus said, “… a slave has no permanent place in the family.”
The question at 2:34:00 ish is key. Couldn't one assume from the "meta-narrative" that the goal isn't the abolition of slavery but the establishment of better masters. Even they admit the concept of better masters, better lords, better kings..... rather than the establishment of better systems where true freedom is beneficial.
I'm glad the apologists appear to be decent people with good intentions but I'm not convinced they get this from scripture, christianity, the holy spirit........ since so many claim to follow these things and come to different conclusions.
My only real beef with these apologist is that their thought path allows for the harm caused by those that draw different conclusions from the same texts.
Great debate! Boyce and Beazley were on the ropes and they pulled out the Chewbacca defense. It didn't make sense.
@Apologists "yes the Bible condones and regulates and commands slavery... but I am going to contort and wring and twist it so that when you look at the resulting mental gymnastics... there really is not slavery in there".... hahahahahahahahahaha
The arguement that there was no prisons hence slavery is interesting. Esp add on the bit about ppl having to live. However, Genesis 39:20, Then josephs master took him and put him in the prison. Hmmmm
And Genesis 3:23, So the lord banished him from the garden of Eden. So that adds exile as a punishment.. in the very first story of the bible. So, by the time we get to exodus, we have exile as punishment, jail as punishment.. and even in exodus, we have stoning to death as punishment, and even fines as punishment. What the bible does not say, as punishment you will be made a slave.
There were prisons back then... _They_ were not like what you are thinking. Prions were brutal holding cells... used to told prisoners until their execution where prisoners were routinely tortured. Hell! Some prisoners spent years of their life in prison being tortured constantly, ending up being broken shells of a person they once were... reduced to being no more than an abused puppy.
@@aralornwolf3140 I am not thinking anything about what the prisons were like. Its not relevant. The theist made the arguement that there were no prisons, hence slavery. The bible clearly says in Genesis that there was prisons. Indeed, prison is central to the story of Joseph and the chosen ppl being in egypt to start with 👍
@@TheScotsalan ,
Edited
Ah. Clarification: There were prisons, but they were used to store people who were sentenced to die. As the economics of maintaining a prison (with more than a few people) wasn't feasible due to the lack of abundant resources to hold prisoners in a somewhat decent condition in ancient times (even in medieval times).
Everyone else who were punished were punished through physical violence, economic hardship, etc. If you fine a person who can't afford the fine, wouldn't they sell themselves into "slavery" in order to escape the harsher punishments? If they chose a "kind" master, they might not even be mistreated... much.
So saying "slavery wasn't a punishment"... it was an indirect punishment as some people couldn't afford the fines.
@@aralornwolf3140 Ahh right. So you are saying the bible did condone slavery, and that slavery is ok. Wait a mo while I read a bit of Genesis. So, josephs brothers sold him to a tribe, and the tribe sold him to the egytians. Slavery, no debt, no crime. ok.. carry on.. then joseph was put in jail cos his owners wife said he mocked her. No debt, no death sentence it seems.. just jail. And this is supposedly 400 years before moses. Thats pretty clear.. there was prisons.
❓Does The Bible Condone Slavery?
💡Atheists: Yes.
⛈Christians: Yes. But that wasn't God's original plan.
It Is Impossible To Live For A Master, Who Plays FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE RULES. Utterly IMPOSSIBLE!😵💫😵💫😵💫
Why people like Jonathan thinks they know what God really meant when he said certain things while we the rest can't see it that way? Its loud and clear that slavery was Ok without going into that piece of before and after redemption
Dr's Josh and Kipp? This is gonna be a homicide.
Dr Josh is the good cop Dr Kipp is the bad cop?
Perhaps you might say Dr.'s Josh & Kipp OWNED their opponents in this debate. (or perhaps you wouldn't)
This was an excellent conversation. I likely would not have so many issues with Christians if they would behave as these two gentlemen. Take note Christians, this is how to speak with others who do not subscribe to your beliefs.
Dr Josh is far too humble and is crazy about saying, “I’m sorry.” The most knowledgeable participant can’t argue to save his life.
In any massive compilation like " The Bible" you can find whatever your looking for. One line Jesus compares God to a slave master and in another line he condemns slavery " do not be like the Gentiles who SET THEMSELVES UP AS RULERS OVER OTHERS" - echoing Jefferson's D.O.I. line " governments derive their just authority from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED "
It would have been much easier, more moral and Godly to just say "You shall not own people as property, it is an abomination"". Problem and ambiguity solved!!!
@@lewkor1529 Exactly!!! Why was that so difficult it seems.... A big issue I constantly see is, all these apologists are speaking for a god who isn't speaking for himself. The empty circle continues... It will never end.
@@lewkor1529 Yup. And Exodus was the idea place to say it. The story says god saved his chosen ppl from slavery in Egypt, then next moment he is giving his ppl rules about owning their own slaves 😳. Oh, and this is just before he tells them to do genocide.
Hey, do these guys( Boyce and Beazley) actually think the Exodus happened?
Excellent debate. I wish more Christians would accept the reality their book supports and condones absolutely evil behavior at the behest of Yahweh.
I think it would be a good idea to bring in a christian and a jewish academic arguing in this debate. The fact that Dr. Kipp and Dr. Josh have back grounds in old testament and there opponents are Christians give to much emphasis on the new testament. Having a Jewish rabbi working with a christian on this debate would be more productive as it would avoid inherent new testament perspective bias. Other than that I like this 'debate' in the fact that it is more of a discussion.
“They clearly did not understand”
No, they understood clearly. They read the Bible and understood that it is pro slavery throughout. There is no other conclusion to draw from the text.
In Genesis 3, there is the promise of a coming redeemer. Hard to listen any longer after that statement.
Beard looks great on you Derek. Great podcast too.
Dr. Kip’s response to the “grand narrative” question from Dillan Klapp sums up my life view of my inculcation to the scriptures. And saves me from the rationalizations of the apologists.
Please tell us your opinion on Hinduism specifically Sanatan Religion
The discussion could have been quite a bit more heated, while still remaining civil.
Apologists seem to be struggling with cognitive dissonance, trying to apply a salve for incongruity between their religion's ideals and its laws. This dissonance is part and parcel with the incongruity between this country's ideals and its laws that once emdorsed and regulated slavery.
When we say, “X says Y with regard to Z, or X condones Y,” whether X be the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Code of Hammurabi, Homer, Plutarch, Cicero, the Quran, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Kant, Nietzsche, Foucault, or anyone or anything else, what we mean is, “When X most explicitly, directly, and on point addresses Z or the relevant matter explicitly in question, it says or condones Y.” When X is the Bible and Y is slavery, the apologists really are acknowledging this fact, hence their need to have recourse to some “grand narrative” in the Bible, since the on point biblical passages themselves just won’t get them where they _a priori_ want to go.
But that’s not how modern people go about interpreting sources and texts. We don’t redefine what our sources and texts explicitly say on a subject on the basis of what they say regarding something else, like Lev 19 or Jesus’ love commands, or on the basis of some progression in some imagined “grand narrative” that our sources themselves either didn’t imagine or didn’t find relevant or persuasive. Were we to do so, we would actually be refashioning our sources rather than merely reading them. Some of the same authors who went on about “love” also told slaves to shut the f up. Jesus himself, as Christian apologists for slavery in the Antebellum South fondly pointed out, often unproblematically incorporated slaves into his parables without ever prefacing his stories with anything like, “Of course, slavery is a horrid evil that I am incorporating into my remarks only because you are all familiar with and can relate to it.”
When we turn to things like Jesus’ love commands and our favorite “grand narrative,” what we’re really doing is engaging in reader-response criticism or, from an insider’s perspective, taking recourse to our own ultimately extra-biblical theological frameworks. That’s all fine and well, if one has such a kink, but one should be honest about what one is doing. In any case, one would no longer be discussing what the Bible says or condones regarding slavery, the actual topic of this debate.
Btw, Paul has a tendency to get “caught up in the Spirit” and say things he doesn’t really mean, certainly not in the here and now. So, before hurling yourself enthusiastically into Gal 3:28, take a cold hard look at things like 1 Cor 11:2-16.
So they are arguing that the Bible DOES condone slavery, but it was because God had to compromise some perfect law with an imperfect law that would be socially acceptable to the Israelites in their ancient context? The law is pretty demanding and all encompassing, would it really have been too difficult to make a law that forbids you to beat your slaves? And cant we negotiate away any law with this view? Along with slavery, homosexual sex is condemned in the old and new testaments as well, what stops people from saying that laws against homosexual sex were only meant to be temporary because the ancient peoples couldnt handle the truth.
Regulating something is condoning it. You don't regulate something that is banned. There's no regulations on stealing as stealing is completely forbidden.
Divorce was regulated within scripture but isn't condone. Polygamy is regulated within scripture but not condone.
Christians: God says homosexuality is a sin
Gay Christians: yes but have you properly interpreted the Bible, taken historical context into account, read in original language, and what do you really think gods heart is like…
Christians: the Bible is explicit
Atheists: the Bible is explicit about slavery, also
Christians: yes but have you properly interpreted the Bible, taken historical context into account, read in original language, and what do you really think gods heart is like…
🤦♂️
Of course it allows for slavery. It has many references to slavery including rules around owning and capturing slaves. It never once condemns or forbids it.
The Perfect One Can’t Command Something That We Don’t Even Know What The Command Is About?
Thanks to all for their efforts. Seeking truth fearlessly is not the same as creating an improbable but logically possible truth alternative. The hoops Christians must go through to craft whacky narratives that don't lead to instant worldview collapse are pretty amazing.
R. L. Dabney would probably have agreed completely with Dr. Josh’s opening statement, and would have added mention of Abraham, and the Apostles’ regulations concerning slavery (e.g. Eph. 6).
I will watch the video tomorrow but 1 Timothy 6 spells out to slaves to be settled and greatful for where they are as they have a role to play... 😅 That's all I needed to hear to realize that, once again, reading my Bible proved that I was happy to believe this was not divine inspiration. Also, it seems like we have OT people vs NT people and that kind stinks. I wish they could have used more verses from NT as well, example 1 Timothy 6, etc. Also, Boyce and Beazley would have to let every law go if they are going to just say, "love everyone" is the only law that holds water.
59:00 If you can't make an explicit connection from divorce to slavery, what would prevent you from making other extrapolations? Maybe the rule against shellfish was meant to be against all sea creatures? Maybe against any creature with eyes?
I Don’t Believe Anyone Can Solve Any Of These Riddles.
AI, Help! 😬
Where is it written in the Bible that there was a timeline for the abolition of slavery?
Definitely would of been more convincing if the whole world got the message all at the same time,, instead of “ chosen “ people.
No one brought up Romans 6:22 “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God”
The Israelites weren’t commanded to adopt slavery, but the existence of the institution was explicitly assumed in two of the Ten Commandments.
1:25:30 Boyce trying so hard to catch Josh saying something that he’s just not going to because the text doesn’t either 😂
Love these discussions, all 4 debaters seemed reasonable. It is frustrating though when theists/apologists use the Bible in their arguments. They have to realize that the other interlocutors may not hold the Bible to the same authority