Alex: You believe that there are moral absolutes and they come from the bible. Ben: Yes. Alex: The bible allows moral wrongs like slavery. Ben: Well it wasn't immoral back then. What a debate master.
Right and wrong is not universal and does depend on time and place and culture. How can you expect people who lived 2000 years ago to have the same mindset like we have today
@@maksimbolonkin if that is the case who chooses which things are absolute and which are not? it is not like the text defines two categories. So with that view nothing is absolute.
@@maksimbolonkinThen what's stopping homosexuality from being one of those cases? Ben's stance against homosexuality is based on the condemnation in the Bible, but how can he claim that's a moral absolute if not everything in the Bible is morally absolute?
@@antoniopratt1893, I don’t really care what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical governance (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral and your so-called “enlightened/awakened” state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
@@antoniopratt1893 If morality comes from god, then its either intrinsic, or it it isn't. You cannot agree with the religious morality via non-godly premises, the fact someone ever agreed with it(necessarily true) is effectively proof that morality precedes god. Or at least doesn't need a god to be present in any individual. I.e: best case, you don't need to believe to have access to morality. The argument has never made any sense
Exact-a-fucking-lutely. The Hebrew god didn't have to woo people out of eating shellfish. He just said don't do it. So why not just declare slavery a 'no, no? On the one hand this text (which is upheld as the guidebook for moral living) says the love of mammon is the root of all kinds of evil but also it's okay to treat human beings (created in the image and likeness of god) like property.
@amymason156it's supposed to be God, not some middle management punk. Your argument doesn't work, because God is supposed to have the ability to change whatever he wants. There's a whole lot of stuff in the Bible where God supposedly has magic powers and can choose to influence people, or transmute them, or blow up cities with fire and brimstone. Your argument doesn't work, given what's supposed to be the scope of God's power.
@amymason156Do you think having idols, committing adultery, covetting, not keeping the Sabbath holy, "taking Gods name in vain" are more serious offenses than keeping people as slaves? Also, there was tons of other things people were doing back then that was unhealthy and unnecessarily putting their lives in danger, why did "God" not ban them as well?
@amymason156 you missed the point that an omnipotent, omniscient "creator" could have just made it so. no need to easy them off or adjust to the audience. if he can create a universe then creating world where slavery is forbidden should not be above his ability.
To bad he doesn't have "free will" to think something different according to Alex. That's the only one I disagree with him on. Yes it's off topic ADHD lol
I'm not great at keeping score, but seems to me Alex got Ben to: 1. State that God is not always moral. 2. Agree we do not get our morality from scripture. 3. Concede there are things God cannot do. 4. Admit there are moral & logical contradictions throughout the Bible.
All 4 of which are wrong with the necessary presumption that the Bible is true. Ben needs to work on his knowledge of morality clearly, as one should be ashamed to concede any of those points.
Yeah you suck at keeping score. Ben said people at that time did not “consider” those things immoral. Stated right after that they are objectively immoral for all times. God does not interfere with Human Freedom because that is the ultimate good.
8:48 Ben Shapiro tries to disprove the fact that he is a moral relativist by explaining that morals change over time and across cultures. What a cogent point.
So many people misunderstanding the common argument really goes to show that you are noobs at religious debate. He's saying that God is pragmatically inching a people's way toward the true morality using the people's own perception of morality as a baseline. This doesn't make him a moral relitavist because he never has to accept the people's illusion of morality as absolute. God's morality is. If Ben used a different word to refer to the Jews' interpretation of good and bad he would have looked a lot less silly, i admit, but Alex doesn't recognize this and instead it turned into a gotcha moment for people like him that don't understand the argument.
@@radaf4429 I and many others here understand the “inching a people’s way toward the true morality” point perfectly fine, radaf. The problem is, the apparent difference between moral relativism and Ben’s position, where immorality is hand-waved away with “it wasn’t *considered* immoral at the time” is effectively indistinct. Ben’s argument relies entirely upon God actually pushing humankind in a significant way toward The One True Morality. With how many examples we can find of that not happening - yes, even by the standards common at the time - that argument holds little weight.
@@jacobstamm Saying that it wasn't immoral for the time is not a handwave. It's similar to how we use targeted airstrikes rather than boots on the ground scorched earth. While not a one-to-on analogy as I'm sure you could point out, it's still bad, but it's a vehicle towards achieving a more just humanity. God's commandments were not a statement of good and evil to be interpreted as such for all time, Ben doesn't need to say that they are. If your worldview doesn't include a God, yes, your morality is unreal and relativistic. This isn't a breach in logic. And there are tons of example in the Bible of God, especially Jesus, instructing morality (which is not our place to agree or disagree with). And the only benchmark you'd even have to wonder what is or isn't right or wrong would be what God says anyway. I'm not a Jew, so I can't argue on Ben's behalf in a Jewish worldview, but as a Christian I find it funny you would make such a claim when God states humans are equal from their inception.
To be religious and to believe in a god under religious circumstances, or to project human attributes to the idea of a god, is to live with Cognitive Dissonance. Which, in time, makes you a world class Mental Gymnast.
That is sort of like a Supreme Court Justice attempting to understand the constitution. A Supreme Court Justice doesn't know exactly what the founders intended, but they try to make an educated guess based on other information that they know.
Ben's argument basically: "Cmon you're expecting too much from God, who do you think he is, a god or something? He's trying the best he could given the constraints, so just give him an A for effort."
@@saviormoney. Sorry you don't realize that's what "he's trying to woo people so he HAS to refrain from being too radical compared to the horrible immoral standards of humans at the time" basically means.
Yes, that is what he is saying. To Ben God is real and so has to work within the constraints of the real world. This may include choosing the least bad option. If the choice is to forbid slavery and be ignored or regulate it, he may choose the latter. In contrast western atheists tend to see God as a magical being who can do literally anything including the logically impossible.
@@david672orford Exactly. And then he has to answer how did the "real world" come to be this way, in other words, where do these "options" and "constraints" and "characteristics" and "logic" of the real world come from? Were they in effect to begin with along with God, or did someone create them? If God created them this way, then he doesn't get to hide behind them. If he didn't create them, yet he has to submit to them, then these "options" and "constraints" and "logic" and "real world" should be greater than the god he describes. In other worlds, a being that has to choose between given options and can do nothing about it, lacks a lot of potency to be called omnipotent. One would be better of worshiping the options themselves or the one who created them, then the one who chooses and submits to them.
You should watch Sam shamoun explain slavery in the Bible you all have zero idea what you are talking about neither does Ben. Also are you all smarter than Einstein or Newton??
To be fair you don’t need to be in any level of education to debunk theistic talking points. And before anyone splices that slight hyperbole, there have been compelling arguments out of the mouths of pupils still in Key Stage 1.
@@joho1095 God, honestly I don't even know if that's true. Maybe to counter the gish gallop in a way that effectively conveys rhetorical supremacy in an auditorium of people. Hitchens would, for example, have pulled Ben up on that 'escape hatch' premise. He has it all to prove, and worse still, his insinuation that he hasn't got that burden was taken as read. By that logic Russell's cosmic teapot has its own little hatch. It's not exactly solid ground. I don't believe you should have to have even mediocre oratory skills to debate him on topics such as religion or the existence of trans people, for instance. I feel like I'm gaslit every time he questions people over the validity of being transgender and yet fully acknowledges he may be wrong about a yet-to-be-seen cosmic entity who has quite literally informed him of his views, and would probably acknowledge if said deity were not to exist, there would be no foundation for his pejorative views on LGBT people... Which despite what he's saying to Alex, is kind of an indicator that he himself was incapable of forming morality without religion.
@@joho1095 Weasely internet trolls like Ben do require some skill in debating because they will pull every trick in the book in order to avoid honestly addressing your arguments. I find a great way to debate people like this is to simply flip their own terrible arguments back against them and let them argue with themselves.
8:26 'Who's the moral relativist now?' Brilliant. If you think you've found a basis for morality and then accidentally make moral progress beyond that, you'll be forced to concede that the basis was arbitrary from the beginning and morality is as infinitely improvable as everything else beyond any 'basis'.
Yes, that was a checkmate moment. Ben says morality is not relative,it comes from God,then he is asked about the Bible endorsing slavery and Ben replies with something like "oh hey, that was a different time, you can't impose a modern sense of morally onto a different time period" saying that is the definition of moral relativism. That was a devastating uppercut.
OK but really, the old testament is not just a set of rules and regulations, it is also a historical document ment to record the history of Israel. Slavery happened historically, thus a book that chronicalled history would have Slavery in it.
THE problem you do not have a metric by which to judge the Bible by. The athiest has no critique to give because you have no coherent worldview. You are simply going by modern day sensibilities which can change at any given moment.
This is a standard talking point. No one has ever suggested everything depicted in the Bible be morally correct. The claim is that what God sanctions demands and promotes must be morally correct and slavery is clearly not. Nor is it morally correct when God decrees a raped woman be stoned to death if she was raped in the city walls and didn't scream. The bibles depiction of God is of a deeply malicious being@@GoldenRedder
Not only that, can't convince his own followers to not do evil things purportedly right after his own followers had to endure those same evil things! All while having the death penalty for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
@@GoldenRedderI'm not saying he should have come to stop them from doing so, just tell it in your official book that it's bad and let them chose for themselves. he literally gives commands for everything else right? why not give just one sentence command about this as well? just say "slavery is bad". let them choose if they want to go against his command. he wasn't this forgiving about not believers..
@@seventycross0yt175I like the way you worded that “The people who made god”. We have literally seen a religion born out of fiction with the birth of Scientology. But people still can’t see that the bible could have been made up the same way.
When you say the bible is all made up yet there are proofs of the original manuscripts of the bible existing way back then. The thorn crown worn by Jesus Christ still exist today. And there's more to it. You can probably search up the bible history on the very platform that I'm teaching you sadly.
Speaking of slavery, and the harsh truth behind it. Ever heard of economy? the work force back then? money? etc? Why do you think slaves were valuable back then? was it immoral? yes. However Slaves made a important factor on supporting society, infrastructure, etc.
Ben on the back foot, forced to say slavery is immoral, and also forced to defend it in the Bible. Yet cannot concede any of this is contradictory otherwise his worldview starts crumbling. Mental gymnastics to make Olympians sweat
@@antoniopratt1893blibical slavery, while not chattel slavery, was still slavery. Saying “this form of slavery isn’t as bad as the other” doesn’t mean anything if both of the options are slavery
I think Alex's point is that all these laws look suspiciously not like God was adjusting his laws for man. But rather that some man was pretending that these laws came from God.
Every rational person can realize that The problem becomes, if there are some parts of the bible that are the result of mans interest and corruption over time Were there ever any pure texts to begin with? And, If there was, do they remain truthfully pure? to this day?
Why can’t people just admit: the Bible is a generally good set of books (emphasis on “generally”). But it wasn’t written by a supreme being, even if one exists. Ben Shapiro would then not need to defend indefensible arguments.
If the bible was treated less as a perfect holy text, and more of a collection of stories about judaism and christian ideas, then most of these debates wouldn't be happening. The bible would be interpreted in a variety of different ways, leading to actually interesting discussion about the implication of certain stories in the bible. But Christianity has painted itself into a corner by declaring the bible is irrefutably god's word, and they have to bend over backwards to try and justify all the outlandishly unrealistic things in it
I can’t get over how different Ben Shapiro is when he is not talking to an audience of kids. I wonder if Ben Shapiro would do another round with Alex, without the third guy. That would be pure gold.
@@saviormoney.Well the people Ben typically argues with also aren’t stupid, just not typically well versed in debating and are usually unprepared. This means that Ben can easily make them look stupid
@@saviormoney.Jesus loves capitalism. Jesus loves wealth. Jesus hates poverty and the homeless. Jesus's most favorite person is Elon Musk. Because wealth is virtue.
Yes it was a perfectly reasonable answer. In a time that was not peaceful, where famines where not uncommon, where you where gambling to make enough food to feed you and your family, would it not be a shocker that slavery not only existed, but people sold themselves into it for a little security.
You are cherry picking and obfuscating. In a naturalistic, materialist universe, entering indentureships makes sense. Slavery has been practiced by all cultures in history. The problem only arises when you have an Omni god recommending slavery, and people saying this document still applies today. Any religion that posits supernatural beings is dangerous. And crap.@@GoldenRedder
@@gideondavid30 Dude, he embarrassed himself. His logic is utterly flawed. God laid the moral foundations in the Bible... According to Ben, no Bible = no morality. Ben admits slavery back then = OK. Then, he admits slavery is not morally justified today. This means progressive liberalism made slavery immoral (and for good reason), not the Bible. So... in his own words, quite literally, he admits that morality DOESN'T come from the Bible.
Slavery, especially the American kind, was absolutely wrong. There have been forms of slavery in history where the slaves are treated with hospitality and have much more rights and freedoms than one might think. Only thing requested in return is that you'd have to work for someone. That reminds me of current day employment. And it makes you wonder if that type of slavery should even be called slavery. It was simply a different time with different rules of society and the economics of said society.
@ in Leviticus 25:42-46 it says to not treat Israelite harshly and then goes on to say that you can treat foreigners as property implying that slaves were treated harshly and Israelite indentured servants were not. happiness in the context of slavery is problematic, as it implies a level of consent or acceptance of one's enslavement.
@@mazzo-4k in Leviticus 25:42-46 it says to not treat Israelite harshly and then goes on to say that you can treat foreigners as property implying that slaves were treated harshly and Israelite indentured servants were not. Foreign slaves were not allowed to buy their freedom and they were considered property to be passed down through generations. something we would not allow our employers to do.
"god had to be practical to woe people away from slavery" The guy is all knowing and all powerful. He'd know exactly how to convince those people that slavery should be abolished
@@GoldenRedder Wouldn't that mean israel is (at least in one aspect) more powerfull than god? because following this logic god would be unable to convince israel of following his advice. Which then means god can't exert his will on Israel.
umm, and that's what he did ultimately. Or do you mean to say that it was some atheistic and absolutely morally correct people that abolished people a couple senturies ago? Why are you so sure that every human is supposed to be convince-able of something? If god is all knowing, he would also know when it's pointless to try and convince.
Isn't it extremely curious that the values of god align perfectly with the values of the people at the time the book was written. Its almost like the book was written by people based on their own values, not the values passed down by god.
The answer to your question is founded in the Bible: Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. God saith, many things i have to Say to You but You can not Carry it. So that was allowed becouse of the hardening of the people not the Express of the perfect will of God
@@georgestate9191I just love how in the *2,000 YEARS* since his last "Update", he hasn't cared to interact *EVER AGAIN* to help further things along some more... there was only what a couple hundred years between the old testament and the new? But then again I suppose he did wait *90 THOUSAND YEARS* after modern humans existed before giving us *ANY* instructions *AT ALL.* Or are you one of those young earth people who think the planet's only been here for 6,000 years and that it's flat?
Wasn’t the point of this video that those values don’t actually align? And isn’t the lack of alignment evident from all the terrible missteps the nation of Israel took that resulted in their punishment as recorded in said book?
my guy was carefully manipulating the conversation and predicted ben's rebuttals, and guided ben's stand straight into a trap he meticulously prepared beforehand. The dude's a supervillain
Shapiro saying the bible had to be written for vastly different time periods makes no sense to me. For books written by humans it is common practice to revise and update them. Why couldn't God have done the same? Like "you have entered the classical era. Slavery is bad now, actually."
He doesn't have a strong understanding of the Bible he's cherry picking and doesn't understand what he's talking about or maybe his reading comprehension skills suck. Like for instance he said if the man says he loves his master he takes him and pierced his ear and owns him for life. All one has to do is open up the Bible and read it understanding that a verse has context. "Owning" a slave had laws you must abide and nobody can "own" a slave without their consent just look up slave laws and read them all. Do you own a house if so you're a slave to your bank for 30 years or whatever your contact is for. Before banks land owners were like modern day factories and people depended on land owners to survive if they were poor. I have a dictionary that's 120 years old and the definition of slave is broad and someone who does hard labor was called a slave. Someone who was an apprentice who learns a trade was called a slave and the teacher was called master like as in master carpenter or plumber etc. There is debt slavery as in getting a loan. There is slavery where the person is bound to the land where they are allowed to use a portion of the land for themselves in return they must work the masters land for him. People who committed murder were made slaves for life if they wasn't put to death. Piercing the ear was a blood oath that one would do with their own free will. The person would stand in the doorway and the master would drive a nail through his ear at the door post and it was a blood oath that he was bound to the house to work for his master and in return the slave was fed and protected from harm. You idiots like to cherry pick things from the Bible without even understanding what you've read and also only use the word slave as in the liberal definition of that word where you only believe it was meant for black people and was for life which it never was. Even here in America the lie that blacks were owned and were life long slaves is the biggest lie there is. If they were then their wouldn't have been free black men. Most people today are slaves of the banking system and everyone alive today that works is a slave to the government because of debt slavery so try and not pay your master and they will come with guns and lock you up if you don't pay him his share of your wages.
@@talleneagle1974 fair point there but believers Will cherry pick parts to support their arguments aswell and even come with this curve ball ”That parts symbolik and not litteral”. Sure slave may mean many things and should vi viewed on context of the writting and of its time. Now what sort of slaves do you think people are from a city you lay wast to? The isralitesvwhen they were in Egypt wasnt slaves then but simply there on a work visa, perhaps thats Why pharao didnt mind them leaving according to the book.(:
Ben switches between moral absolutist to moral relativism with the flip of switch anytime it comes to the evils God did in the Bible. He always states that God had to appeal to people of his time, but this God is supposed to be all power and all knowing so can literally do anything. So when God presents his message by making rules for how to keep your slaves, this makes this God evil, period. This God would have the ability to end all slavery by snapping his finger, but chose not to.
While I do agree that Ben flips between relatavism and absolutism depending on what he thinks will serve him best in the moment, the idea that God could simply snap his fingers is failing to engage with one of the core tenants of this very discussion - human free will, which Ben has said he believes in. Those two things would be at odds, and simply forcing slavery to end, would clash with the idea of human free will, surely?
@@MiBasse _"simply forcing slavery to end, would clash with the idea of human free will, surely?"_ No. Eliminating the institution of slavery via a snap of fingers is not necessarily a violation of free will. Eliminating it by giving a commandment prohibiting it, which was the critique that Alex presented, would certainly not violate free will any more than any other commandment does. Furthermore, I don't think God of the Bible has problems violating free will. See the Pharaoh in Exodus for the easy example.
@@MiBasseexcept on at least one occasion god violates his own rule when hardening ramesses heart so he wouldn’t let the hebrews go. All so god could show off. So does god really care about free will?
It's ridiculous how Ben Shapiro and other Christians constantly say that we are not God God's logic is so much higher than ours, and this is their excuse for why they are immoral things in the Bible. Yet he then goes on to explain how God is confined to man's understanding, and the Bible is written according with men of that times concepts of morality. It all comes full circle back to the blatantly obvious fact that the very nature of God is decided by man.
Alex is turning out to be one of the sharpest interviewers of the generation. He is prepared for his interlocular, his logic is quite good and he uses it to make pointed questions. He maintains an excellent demeanor throughout.
@@enterpassword3313 Shapiro is a particularly good presenter of his ideas and a very fast thinker. So asking the correct questions to elucidate the problems with what he believes is quite difficult. ETA, I meant O'connor here.
@@enterpassword3313I recommend watching an other segment, let Shapiro speak, and then, before Alex answers, pause and come up with your own. Try it, it’s interesting to hear how silly we sound sometimes. I don’t think Alex is a better human than me, but this topic actually is not an easy one, and you can really feel Alex’s theology degree.
@@Fs3iI actually did this during the whole debate! Haha, it was quite hard since English is my second language, but I managed to come up with some of the arguments that Alex mentioned (Although I know these arguments because I've been following Alex for a while). I love doing thesr types of exercises, they help develop critical thinking. I tend to play the devils advocate against Alex aswell, that's why Alex became one of my favorite channels in the past months.
@@Pooneil1984 hes actually not though, he just talks fast and has a good memory. He is so predictable i knew all his arguments before he started talking, its not difficullt to prepare for that, the questions write themselves from the contradictions ben was inevitably going to make. If anything i think i had some better questions, so that must make me the greatest interviwer of this generation lol
@@adamjohns350 trickery letting people think for themselves and what not! Let them be told what to think and ask them zero questions to get to the basis of their beliefs! Trickery!
@@adamjohns350 There is zero trickery involved. Asking specifically designed questions to draw out the opinions and thought processes of a person is precisely what any great interviewer is there to do. You want trickery? Try watching speedrun Shapiro spouting long words and selective references at college students to mask how poor his arguments really are. That's 'smoke & mirrors' at its finest.
the socratic dialogue format is one of the worst ways to engage in productive philosophical discussion lol, but yeah ig there's merit in it for entertainment. art of debate is dead now and just surmounts to a mind-fight where you just try to 'own' your opponent and make them look confused and lacking common sense. (if we want to make parallels to the ancient world I'd analogise this to a Sophist roundtable, something which is done on the basis of building brand and wealth, not to add to the academic world in any way) but yeah don't get me wrong, Alex definitely 'owned' him... sigh..
Ben didn’t explain it well. There can be aspects of objective morality that are subjective. Look at killing. Killing is immorally wrong, unless done in self defense. There is a subjective aspect of it called an exception. The exception for biblical slavery is that the whole world was a dark place with rape and war pillaging. God called a small group of people apart and in a way that was realistically feasible for that time period. The Bible is a story of the human condition’s journey toward holiness. Change happens slowly not overnight.
I don’t see him admitting that he’s a moral relativist. Maybe it’s in the full discussion. However, I did hear him say that slavery was always wrong. God was moving towards making it abolished in the future but had to move in small increments to that goal. He was working with fallen people in a fallen time in a culture steeped in slavery and barbarism both internally and externally. He said slavery was always wrong. Jews were just commanded to have a more human version for now. Until they would understand the wrongness of slavery. This sounds like he’s a moral absolutist not relativist.
Which is more likely: that a perfectly moral being not only didn't denounce slavery but actually offered protocols, or that men, who clearly saw the value in owning slaves, left that out of their book of myths?
zoomingby If I were to take your assumptions at base value. I would say the later. However we are attempting to argue In a grander context than "slavery bad cause slavery bad"
@@GoldenRedder Who's arguing that slavery bad because slavery bad? Are you making the case that owning another human being against their will, often for the entirety of their life, is not immoral?
Not a good argument because you mistake the Bible as a book of rainbows and sunshine. The Bible recorded sins and the sins of people and humanity for a reason. It didn’t hide it. The Bible is also a progressive revelation because of the hardness of people’s hearts. It was a journey to the full revelation of God. Which is why as the Bible goes on the harder it gets to follow morally.
@@Checkmate777 Quote the part where I suggested the bible is rainbows and sunshine. You have no idea what you're talking about. The bible is supposedly divinely inspired. Why does it include the protocols for owning slaves if it's a book on how to live a moral life?
@@Checkmate777 Except the Bible's slavery regulations and ordinances aren't mere condemned (or even neutral) "records" of what people did. They're (purportedly) from God.
As a Catholic Christian, and as someone who disagrees with you on this question, I greatly admire your ability to think through an issue and to direct or even wrestle your interlocuter towards the fundamental contentions. In short, you had him on the ropes here and Ben strikes me as very intelligent (whatever else you might say about him) - which is no small accomplishment. Edit: I commented before finishing the clip and just got to the part where he admits it was objectively wrong for people in ancient Israel to own a slave - which is fatal to his position. So, for what it's worth, you walked away with a massive concession there.
This is the most infuriating aspect of debating morality with Christians. In one breath, they claim that, if Christianity and religion have any value, it's in providing humans with an unrelativistic moral framework. Yet when you call them out on the wildly immoral stuff in the Bible, suddenly it's "Well, the context of history" and so on. The mental gymnastics on display here are obscene. EDIT: Yes, I know Shapiro isn't a Christian - the point stands for all believers of Abrahamic religions (and many other religions as well).
You don’t believe in subjective morality, you have no basis on which to base your own morality except by your opinion based on thousands of years of living in society based on biblical principal
Its true.. If u don't understand d context behind d act. U start to assume its accepted.... Slavery in d bible was used to help pay people's debts or remove people from d streets. And it had a seven years limit... And a slave is allowed to escape and be protected. God layed down laws to protect them from abusive masters..... So what r u saying...... Don't compare biblical slavery to the recent one.... Ben shapiro is not even a biblical scholar.
@@darkma1iceits not based on biblical principles. At all. The constitution supports freedom of religion. The Bible does not. It says in the 1st and 2nd commandments that you can't worship any other god. The constitution supports freedom of speech the Bible does not. Blasphemy and heresy laws are against free speech. The Bible supports slavery. We do not anymore. What you are saying is objectively false.
Their argument is God doesn't know how to say, "HEY! DON'T DO THAT!" to slavery and have to basically tippy toes all over it is just hilarious. Like, how on earth can you even justify that. I guess this is just proof that if you need to justify immortality, you need religion.
But god apparently saw two men boinking being so morally reprehensible that it had to be directly prohibited whilst beating your fucking human slaves wasn’t worthy of the same injunction. It’s offensively ridiculous. It’s even more offensive watching otherwise intelligent people try to justify it.
Yes, God can have all these other rules but saying no to slavery was just too far to go--he didn't want to upset his creation too much. It's absolutely laughable.
@@billmauer8117 “Make sure to tell them not to wear mixed fabrics. Oh and toss in some shit about cooking a goat in its mother’s milk, that’s bad. And make sure they know never to touch a woman on her period.” “What about slavery? Should we tell them slavery is bad because it will be viewed as a great atrocity starting in the 20th century give or take?” “Nah, just give them some rules on how to treat their slaves and some tricks for scamming them into permanent servitude. We don’t want to seem overbearing and authoritarian.”
@@zedleed471 lol no it doesn't. It actually gives instructions on how to properly beat your slaves. It also gives instructions on how to induce an abortion. If you think your wife might have cheated
@@zedleed471what 10 commandments did you read? Both sets of 10 commandments in the Bible do not mention slavery but make sure that you will be a sinner if you cheat on God with other gods.
I first came across Alex at let the light in philosophy festival at hay on wye in the UK several years ago. It's great to see how far hes come. Bravo 👏
I've been watching him since he was cosmicskeptic and before 10k views. This kid is like a reputable source now, he's gone crazy far. I was just searching around to find something to watch and this popped up, never knew Alex went toe to toe with Ben Shappiro. Proud for sure, and held his own.
he's definitely collecting the bag and I'm happy for him in that regard but I hope he goes back to real academics again and stops wasting time on these cartoon people lmaoo
@@createmos369 are we really at a point of talking about philosophical debates like they're boxing matches good lord... but i suppose this was about as academically fruitful as a boxing match. just as much as a hyper driven spectacle, we should really just be renting out stadiums and putting Zizek in a ring and letting him talk his opponents to death, now that's a gen z 'debate' for the ages😎
its not hard to destroy ben shapro. his biggest skill is talking fast, snake oil salesman that says untrue things but just talks really fast so lowly intelligent people can believe him.
As an atheist there is no moral so, why would they so worry about morality that is being practice in favor of religious preaching, if not why Atheist are against moral
@@kimkaze4868 that's not true. Athiests have morals. They are based on current laws and current culture. The idea that religion (which famously enjoyed stoning and burning people to death for being gay) is the only place morals exist is utter hypocrisy
A god they say is "the same yesterday, today and forever" is the same god who did not recognise that slavery would one day be seen categorically as immoral, and denounce it right from the start??? Make this make sense.
Of course it doesn't. The Bible is the work of man. I'm an agnostic atheist who rejects God claims and while I can't say no God exists, I believe with extremely high probability that the God of the Bible does not exist.
@@abc456fThe prophets prophesied Judea wasn’t going to fall by the Assyrian empire, and guess what happened? The Assyrians quite literally conquered every major prominent kingdom within the area except for Judea as the prophets said God decreed, so you can’t say for certain the God of the Bible does not exist
God gave us the frame works for If and how slavery should be done. The fact that we later on drifted away from that and used slavery cruelly is on us not god.
@@devorahkontorovich5737 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Not you actually saying, "All god did was endorse slavery. you humans are the ones who bastardized it." Like, What!!! Damn, you Christians are never beating the allegations
But ben answered that pretty soundly. To say something is wrong is very different from saying that thing should be abolished, for abolition thereof could result in more harm than good depending on the society's reaction. Ben never said slavery wasn't wrong at that time. He said it might not have been wise to abolish it at that time.
@@yougood809 "Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period)" I'm not going to go back and listen to what Ben said but the omniscient/omnipotent Old Testament god tells the ancient Israeli people to take/make new slaves (and forcibly marry women) because... they wouldn't have listened him if he told them otherwise? When would it have been wise to abolish slavery according to the Abrahamic religions? Where do these religions give any hint that slavery is immoral or should be abolished? Give me a reference. I'll look it up. Seems like any notion of the abolition of slavery is extrabiblical. In other parts of the OT god the Israelis to commit genocide. Per your argument maybe it just wasn't wise to abolish genocide at that time too...
@@Synechiae How about the ultimate sacred cow: slavery of the soul? It's the exact same thing. *John 3:16* For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. *1 John 4:14* And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. *John 14:6* Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
I don't love them because they always come about under a false premise, and then both sides that know nothing prove their ignorance by arguing both sides of the falsehoods.
@@Ryookenso where do you think morality comes from dawg? It's just floats around in the ether? One dude thinks it comes from the Bible and one person thinks it doesn't. What the actual fuck is the middle ground of those two views from your opinion? I'm actually curious.
@@HighDins That's not what I am talking about. I am not talking about the origin of morality because truth be told neither one is true. My point was that they were discussing slavery in the bible and whether or not the bible condones it as a measure of moral turpitude. The problem is they don't know that the bible doesn't condone chattel slavery and in fact, it doesn't condone slavery at all, but since neither of these two men understand the bible or know it, they are arguing what they don't know.
@@Ryooken peter 2:18 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse. As I have actually read the Bible and can quote scriptures you sir are talking out your ass. If the Bible doesn't condone slavery why would the gospel of Peter be like hey slaves listen to your master even if they suck if the Bible is neutral on slavery? I'm sorry but you are a moron with absolutely no point.
Something all powerful can't do something doesn't really sit well with me. Imagine putting poisonous cookies in your kid's cookie jar and being surprised he's now doomed for eternity.
Considering something wrong in an absolute sense does not preclude acknowledging that people were accepting of it in the past. The entire thrust of Ben's argument is that God considered slavery to be wrong and regulated it while gradually pushing Jews and Christians toward the true morality. (Keep in mind that Jewish slavery was also much more benign than the chattel slavery of surrounding nations.)
@@saitama2471 It was much more benign. Among other things, Jewish slave owners couldn't kill their slaves without it being considered murder. They could not beat them until they could not stand, maim them, or impair their value either. For the women, they could not deprive them or turn them out. They had to free a slave after seven years. You might think that should be a given, but it's not. The practice of slavery was much more horrific and dehumanizing in other nations.
@@bellgrand "Considering something wrong in an absolute sense does not preclude acknowledging that people were accepting of it in the past.." Almost can't believe you had the senses to figure out where the send button was after making such a mentally genius gymnastics comment lol That had to be exhaustive God does not follow time and cultures around and try to figure out how to tailor fix coax them into his commands/message lol The Xian God is eternal, has always been, and shall always be. He is, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Unless you are saying that its all just made up by men as well, your position makes no sense Hint: It is all just made up lol Unless we get that update where YWH reveals that "Slavery is NOT OK ",all we have are the scriptures where he is A-OK with it,and sets out some rules for physically bashing your human property So y all real committed Xians,why u stop owning slaves? God never said stop
@@leperlord7078 I think you misunderstood what I was trying to saying. It can say that slavery was always wrong, but I can also see how Christian and Jewish tradition on the topic developed over time. God also definitely does make concessions in light of the fact that humans are imperfect and timebound. There are actually examples of this in the Bible. Now, there is no explicit example of this with slavery as the topic, but there is one with divorce as the topic. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees ask Jesus if no-fault divorce is lawful. Jesus says divorce is wrong and has been since the beginning. The Pharisees rebut by saying: Then why does God allow us to divorce? Jesus replied that it was because God knows human beings can have hard hearts. In light of this, divorce is allowed, but not for any reason. Deuteronomy 24 says divorce is justified when a man "finds something indecent" about a woman. Jesus clarifies that this means sexual immorality. And really, the entire Bible is basically a massive concession in the same vein. God could just damn all of us and be done with it. Sidebar: the funny thing about Matthew 19 is that afterward, the Disciples then remark that if divorce disadvantages men so much, then women are more trouble than it's worth. Jesus points out that most men cannot handle being alone. Which is an interesting response to the all the redpill stuff going around these days.
Wow I can't believe he actually debated a person who isn't an ill prepared, emotional college student. Alex I love you man and love your content. Keep being the beacon of intellectual debate we know you are!!!!
Wow, you are so original in saying 'this is the first time Ben Shapiro has debated someone who is not an emotional college student'. You and the other thousand people on this thread all make the same original point! The fact that the point is complete bullshit as he has debated plenty of people who are not college students should not detract for the originality of you and the thousand other people who have made it.
Such a stupid point that keeps being promoted by idiots. Shapiro does speeches (which is perfectly normal) and holds a q&a where dissenting opinion is preferred (also perfectly normal and admirable) this does not mean he is holding formal debates wi the college students! He has done plenty of formal debates with prominent leftist.
Wow man. I can't believe you would actually comment on the video in the comment section. Who would do such a thing. Seriously, using the comment section to share comments on content? What a travesty man. Be better
@@jcw3032 Like that one time he was in an interview and stormed out due to their left-wing bias? Oh wait no, that BBC guy was a famously right wing journalist. That was definitely entertaining
God: can't get rid of slavery because it's too radical. Also God: gonna have everyone speak different languages so they can't understand each other and also magically spread them all over the world.
The way ben shapiro said it is that it will create "incohesion" in society. To that, i wish alex would say, by what "metric would social incohension occur." By death count, by suffering?
@icekills I feel you, when Alex' interlocutor walks themselves into a big pile of, I would love him to do the obvious and make them faceplant into it, knowing they're so intellectually dishonest that they'll be tying themselves into knots to explain how they're actually face down in a bed of roses... but alas, Alex is a better man than I. In all seriousness though, I think it's an intentional choice not to make them eat the sht pile they create. It does mean he gets to explore quite a lot of the absurdity of someone like Ben's position, and he is still able to demonstrate the untenable positions. But it's Shapiro, and I would very much enjoy the meltdown, he's such a dishonest POS, spewing toxic propaganda online for a living, claiming atheists and the left are emotional dipshits, the cause of all that's wrong in the world.
The slavery rules are a part of the Commandments laid out in Exodus. Exodus. Ya know, the time period where the Jews had just escaped slavery in Egypt. Seems like the perfect time to convince newly freed slaves that keeping slaves is not great.
I can't imagine giving my entire heart and soul and mind to a religious text that I don't even at times agree with or understand. "If you want to understand that then you can become a religious scholar and spend your whole life on it." Really? If the text can't readily be understood and interpreted and consistent, what good is it as a blueprint for how we should live our lives???
The virgins they were permitted to keep as slaves were often just children, little girls, absolutely indefensible. No amount of speed-talking apologetics can dig Ben out of this one.
My God hates sin. He hate it so much that the wages of sin is death. Anyone one who commits sin is a criminal and enemy of God. Since every man {all of humanity} has come short of God's law all of man is a criminal and enemy of God. God is prefect which also means he is a perfect judge. I find it very defensible in God letting the Israel keep the little virgins girls as slaves for God could have destroyed the little girls with the rest of their sinful kingdom. Yes my God can bring judgment down on entire nations just like he can on the entire world (God flooded the world). All this is in an instance of my God having mercy on the littles girls letting them die later instead of right then and there with the rest of their sinful people. Yes the little girls died later to whatever(God handed us a perfect world where there was no death, animals the like loin were herbivores, the earth gave up it's bounty without effort and humanity was immoral read Genesis). Because Adam and Eve ate off the tree God told them not to eat fruit from (which God said you will surly die to Adam and Eve if you eat of the tree) getting Adam and all of his seed's (me you and Humanity is Adam's seed) immorality stripped from us. Our losing of our immorality is a curse dooming us to die which comes along with a multitude of other curses (Wars, diseases, women having great pain during birth, etc. Read Genesis). With that being said my God is responsible for every last death for he has cursed it to be so for our sins. No man gets away. Every man will die and will have to face God's judgement. It does not matter if a prisoner escapes prison or if a criminal is never caught and evades humanity's pathetic excuse for justice a system because he will die eventually in with in 150 years putting him right in front of God for judgment. Even the people thought who thought they were sinless (which all of humanity has sinned) will have to give an account for the sins they have committed. Accpeting God Jesus Christ as lord and Savior and repenting of your sins is the only way to escape God's wrath on judgment day in which no one has escaped or ever will escape. Have a blessed day.
Starting with the context of a vengeful war against the Midianite people for specific actions mentioned in Numbers 25 and 31, what do we think ought to have happened to these virgin women who were otherwise spared but were now without anyone else? Be left to fend for themselves and marry or sell themselves into other nations? Wouldn’t that be essentially the same thing but likely worse?
The assertion that the Bible approves of slavery requires a nuanced understanding of its texts and contexts. While it is true that the Bible does not explicitly prohibit slavery, it introduces revolutionary concepts for its time about human dignity and worth, which are rooted in the creation of all people in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This foundational principle is critical in understanding the biblical trajectory towards justice and freedom. In the Old Testament, laws provided to mitigate the harsh realities of slavery reflect a significant advancement over the practices of surrounding nations. For instance, the Jubilee laws (Leviticus 25) offered a mechanism for the liberation and economic rehabilitation of slaves, which was revolutionary. Moving into the New Testament, the approach becomes more transformative. Paul's letter to Philemon, which advocates for the manumission of Onesimus not merely as a slave but as a "beloved brother," exemplifies the New Testament's deeper ethical engagement with the issue. Furthermore, passages like Galatians 3:28 emphasize spiritual equality, fundamentally challenging the ethical validity of slavery. The concept of progressive revelation helps us understand that the Bible’s teachings were provided within the human capacity to comprehend and enact divine will in specific cultural and historical contexts. This revelation reaches its climax in the New Testament, culminating in Jesus’s teachings, which proclaim liberation for the oppressed (Luke 4:18). While historical interpretations of these scriptures have varied, with some using them to justify slavery and others to fight against it, these divergent uses reflect human fallibility in interpretation rather than the message of the Bible itself. The abolitionist movement, heavily influenced by Christian principles, demonstrates how scripture has inspired significant social reforms toward greater justice. Therefore, it is essential to approach the biblical texts on slavery with a comprehensive hermeneutic that recognizes both their immediate and broader narrative arcs. The Bible, when interpreted in the context of its entire narrative and historical setting, promotes a powerful counter-cultural narrative advocating for the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, inspiring believers toward a more just and equitable world.
"Hey mabe dont own other humans" is not very radical, it just says a lot that it took centuries to come to this position. It points to the fact that morality is a developing thing over centuries instead of something that can be expressed in a static text
Define "centuries". A lot of people believe that the first legal restrictions against slavery didn't start happening until the 19th century. The first legal restrictions on slavery, including outright bans of certain kinds, are literally thousands of years old. So if by "centuries" you mean the centuries between the timeline of the Jewish bible and current era, then probably. If by centuries you mean any amount of time less than literally thousands of years of history of restricting, prohibiting, or outright banning slavery, then no.
Modern day slavery is still a thing in every country. I would say that neither the Bible nor the passing of time can change basic human animalistic behaviours.
Thats because faith is not a "destroyable" debate on either side, its not expected to have proofs.. When he debates tangibles, he absolutely destroys everyone.. including college students
@@tikdoph im sure you can do better 😂 also, it doesn't matter WHO he is talking to, his points stand, you know that right? A fact is a fact no matter who says it.. you must be one of those "he just talks fast" people.🤡🤡 As if speed of speech changes it 🤡💩🗑️ Also, hes "destroyed" everyone on CNN and TYT as well so theres that.. hes debated many times Yes religion debates are different, anyone with half a brain knows this
@@firewfire Wow... college students, huh? Those bastions of the intellectual world with decades of life experience from which to draw upon against a disingenuous clown that talks at 2.5 x speed and presupposes the most ridiculous things to support his flimsiest of arguments. Color me impressed.
I love the answer “well I’m not god, so I don’t know,” it’s such a pathetic handwaving technique apologists do that allows them to not have to confront very basic truths that we know about human well-being and suffering.
I mean, it's basically shorthand for, "I acknowledge that this doesn't make sense or it's completely inconsistent with the attributes we regularly ascribe to god." At the end of the day, these debates are kind of pointless. There are things that no apologist is ever going to acknowledge or admit, because it's better to give a bullshit answer and move on to the next topic than it is to acknowledge even for a moment that the bible or some religious tenet doesn't make sense (contributing to the case that the bible was not inspired by a perfect being).
I'd agree if it was all Ben said. However, this was a remark to show he does not consider himself to speak on behalf of god (that would be ridiculous). He then provides a possible explanation to the question, based on what he knows about human society
@@samcolserra2425 But then in the very same interview, he gives several answers and explanations wherein he ostensibly IS aware of why god does what he does. This goes to the person's point: the religious are much more likely to say they can't speak on behalf of god when the topic doesn't make sense or is inconsistent with his supposed attributes. Do you think that's a coincidence, or is this type of response the last refuge of people unwilling to say "you're right, thing A and thing B are contradictions"
@@zoomingby this is a pretty profound take, Alex also says this in the first round, where he discusses free will, where even if Alex convinces his opponent he states that their way of living never changes, acknowledging how these debates arent really here to convince the participants in the debates but to give the audience 2 perspectives to reflect on to make an educated opinion on something
Wait until you hear them try to explain how the 2000 year old dogma isn't just repeating the 4000 year old dogma using slightly different names than the 6000 year old dogma.
The bible did not "liberalise" the Code of Hammurabi, it plagiarized it, along with other old mesopotamian lows, sprinkled some devine dust on it and made to be a holy scripture.
I love how different both minds work, obviously Alex is the most logical human being in my list, that is the whole thing why people watch him in the first place. Ive been following since the first time I heard him, such a priviledged mind. Seeing Alexs audience grow restores my faith in posterity. Thank you smart dude
@@MarcusCicero1 thats a great description.. it baffles me how people like shapiro can say the garbage they say and actually believe it themselves.. he seems like a smart individual but when defending the bible its just completely nonsensical mishmash
what good is logic when talking about morals or how we feel about things as single people or society's do you use logic to determine you should love your dog but swat a fly how about to pick your friends or partner ... logic is a great tool but it has its time and place
Ben's saying that God couldn't outright denounce slavery because it was very common at the time, but why was it then able to outright forbid adultery ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") which was probably equally common? Funnily enough, modern societies abolished slavery but not adultery despite Ben saying that present day morals are rooted in religion by which logic adultery should be illegal.
Adultery was illegal. I think western countries only decriminalised it in the 19th century. The US has varied laws depending on the state. And in Islamic countries it is probably still is illegal. What is legal changes with the shifting cultural norms. I mean LGBT movement and abortions laws are other examples. Morality should be correlated with legality but it doesn’t always. I think slavery and adultery are very good examples- they r both immoral but have not always been illegal.
@@JC-gz9oy Yeah it was illegal in many countries, but I specifically said that it's not illegal in *modern societies*. The point I'm making is that Ben's statement that today's morals are rooted in religion is false. I believe people had morals, i.e. sense of right and wrong way before any religion existed. Heck, even animals have morals (e.g. most of them take care of their offspring).
@@hawkmne i duno…. Wikipedia says adultery is still a felony in quite a few states in the US and many states only decriminalised it in after the 1990s… I’d say that’s quite modern… I don’t think u need religion for morals. And even the bible mentions that- it talks about for the people who weren’t given the law, they always have their conscience. So there is something there at baseline. Either way… it’s certain true that the modern sense of morality is highly influenced by Christianity. Cuz that has been the prevailing religion in the western world for so long. But as we shift away from Christianity what is moral will change too. We’ve only just begun to deviate from Christianity tho. I would even go as far to say - I’m not really sure why civilised slavery is so wrong if it’s conducted in a mutually beneficial way (which sounds like the bible was advocating)- we sign contracts that tie ourselves to companies today ALL the time, the bible is just an extended version of it- we pay huge proportions of taxes … we also sign mortgages that r 30yr long, or we keep paying rent- I mean, that’s a form of slavery isn’t it. we just don’t call it that- actually the bank and the country owns us, and what we think we own. I mean… it’s certainly not pleasant but it’s necessary no? And we all tolerate it, and it’s legal. People cohabitate all the time and have children without getting married now and that’s the norm - that used to be considered immoral. There r a lot of polygamorus couples now. I bet in the near future we would think people who want a monogamous relationship are just being selfish and insecure. Social norms change. Concept of morality change. Of course u can have morality without religion- but it will be a shifting one over time, and without religion as a guide, it might shift into something u don’t like.
@@JC-gz9oy you are drawing some dangerous equalities here. Are you in all seriousness comparing voluntarily taking out a loan to forcefully becoming a slave having no rights, being constantly beaten, with your life at mercy of your owner? You mentioned we sign contracts nowadays - what contracts did the slaves sign? Religion did historically influence the perception of what's moral and what's not and some of its teachings are good but many of them are flat out wrong and dangerous. Thank god modern, developed societies started steering away from those teachings long time ago and that religion is not the basis or guide for morals any longer.
@@hawkmne I said a “civilised form of slavery” if I’m correct- the bible is not advocating for beating ur slave and treating them horribly… And it not an exact equivalent but, my point is we r all a form slaves in a different system. We think we have choice, but actually, we r still bound by the system. We just can’t put a face to it. If there is no religion to guide the shifting morality, then it is the strong over the weak, the rich over the poor… survival of the fittest. Obviously WHICH religion guides ur morality also matters.
Alex - you're quick on your feet, calm, focussed and erudite. Hats off for your polite respectful interviewing technique, and for keeping a clear head under pressure.
Ok, you can say that about Christianity. There is a reason why there is a distinction between New and Old testaments. Islam, however? Not supposed to be ever interpreted other than how it's literally written. Would you say the debate is won in this case?
@@samcolserra2425 I’ve never read the Quran so it is harder to critique how the argument holds up against the teachings. If the text is entirely self consistent, and no Muslim can ever legitimately claim to interpret the text differently than another Muslim, then this argument could not be made against Islam.
@@barrywhite1770 sunnis and shias argue over the interpretation of the texts, so you can make your argument without outright knowing what the quran says. I agree with what your original post.
Ive heard this speech over and over. If the people choosen by God does it and God allows it, it ain't immoral. If foreign people with different ideology commit the same act, it is immoral. Because my God and only my God has the moral authority to command and demand (see the Old Testament) or redeem and condone (see the New Testament) such acts. So those who won’t obey my God don’t have the same rights as me. Only I can do it because only I have the ultimate moral authority on my corner. Because if my God wasn’t the ultimate moral authority he wouldn’t be God to begin with.
If the nature of God is as my bible describes, then he cannot be aligned with the morality of man. The universe is to bend as he sees fit, and we are owned by him, and has infinite wisdom. If a man tries to act as God, he does not have restraint or wisdom to dictate reality or even know the effects he causes from his actions.
@@brandonkey181 This is what powerful men tell lesser men who he believes himself the God of. God has always been what more powerful men have told us he is. Real truth is self evident and will reveal itself to those who seek it.
God is a spectator, in his ant farm of warring ants, he can't mind control the ants, but he can manipulate the farm to gradually have the ants at peace
@@TheAsianRepublicanpretty sure he could mind control the ants... but disregarding that, using this argument to defend the supposed god approved continuation of something immoral is stupid. god seems more than happy to explicitly ban other things seen as okay in such a time. and it then begs the question of what else in the bible did god deem moral/ immoral solely based on the people and culture he gave his message to in hopes that they would ‘gradually change’ (all whilst banging on about his righteousness and absolute truth) there’s a far simpler answer, the bible is just the mythical & cultural ramblings of men from millennia ago who’s practices and views we’ve since moved past. yet instead of admitting that the laws/morality set in this book are quite often terrible we lean into our cognitive dissonance and console ourselves with some of the best damn mental gymnastics i’ve ever seen.
God did not said explicitly, back then, that slavery is bad. It was normal back then, and God definitely knew this will be immoral today. So He needed not to speak about it... But God did said explicitly, back then, that gay marriage is bad, so it still stays a bad thing now.
@@ig.r0maniak45So murder and theft was wrong, but slavery wasn't? Adultery and rape amongst themselves was wrong but capturing pretty women from the enemies, raping them and discarding them after dishonoring wasn't?
I think a lot of people have misconceptions of what the Bible is really about, largely due to beliefs spread by Protestant Christians, who put the Bible on a pedestal and claim that it's an "inerrant text" with valuable wisdom for humanity. I think the truth is, if you study Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah, you'll find that the Bible has a completely different purpose than that. If you go back to the story of the Garden of Eden, what you have is a starting point for understanding the Bible's purpose. A lot of it, however, isn't explained in the Bible itself. A lot of the answers about the Bible are in Jewish mysticism. Jewish mysticism expands on the Garden of Eden story. In Jewish mysticism, the two trees mentioned in Genesis, the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, are not to be taken literally. They are concepts about the spiritual realm. According to Jewish mysticism, the problems in this world exist because of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We became separated from the Tree of Life. To get back to the Tree of Life, we need to understand how the spiritual realm works. All this talk about an "inerrant text" and how if the Bible was wrong about things like slavery and homosexuality, then it's wrong about everything, misses the point. That was never the purpose of the Bible.
I love how conservatives like Ben like to jump into the "morals are subjective" camp when they get challenged. No mate, it's wrong now and it was wrong then regardless of whether they knew better or not
debates where each person is respectful and doesnt talk over the other, although they may disagree, is so satisfying to watch. id go as far to say, enjoyable. great topic, fair questions and has sparked me to dive a little deeper on the topic. im a Christian, and this is a great subject to learn more about. thanks for the vid Alex!
Careful, that "learn more about" might just become the defensive crutch for you when it comes to slavery... 😂"God works in mysterious ways" which is basically how Ben ended it...
@@fahimp3 I don't see a problem with "God works in mysterious ways." If God exists his intellect and perspective far exceeds anything that a human being can conceive.
Jesus addresses a similar problem in the NT. When he is asked if divorce is lawful, he says no. Then the religious leaders of the time ask him; “then why did Moses allow it?” Jesus responds, “because of the hardness of your hearts it was allowed” (they probably would have killed their wives it it was till death do you part) in order to get another one, “but from the beginning it was not so” and goes on to say if you make a commitment, you need to keep it. Especially one where you vow to keep it. Scripture is the development of covenants and law through salvation history. Expecting the end at the beginning is illogical. God would not ask a people to do something they did not have the spiritual and cultural capacity to do, that’s why St. Paul spends much of the New Testament saying things like “the Law is good but it means death to those who cannot abide by it, and so Christ came to bring us the new and final Law of grace and to empower us to live a life pleasing to God through faith and sacrificial love which Christ is the ultimate example and source of”.
@TheKingsTrueWitness777 2,000 years later, Christians STILL aren't ready for what Jesus had to say about divorce. Christian marriages today, especially conservative Christian marriages, end up in divorce more frequently than atheist marriages. Google: "learn religions divorce rates for atheists"
*God would not ask a people to do something they did not have the spiritual and cultural capacity to do.* I don't even know what to make of this statement. Your argument obviously sounds good to a Christian, but it is specious at best. Are you claiming that the Israelites at the time, had no moral capacity or conscience to obey an instruction as simple as *Don't own another human being as property???* Their ignorance or naivety did NOT stop their God from giving them instructions as he saw fit. For example, they knew nothing of germ theory or infections either, but that didn't stop God from commanding them to wash their hands thoroughly, cover-up their feces when they defecate, and bury their dead properly. Besides, God wasn't just permitting them to own Slaves as was their usual practice. No. God actively advocated slavery, MANY times. Does it make sense to you that an all-wise God thought it necessary to prohibit Shrimp and Sardines, but not slavery, simply because the people didn't have the spiritual capacity to know right from wrong??? Also, your argument, that the Christ came and made everything all better in the new testament isn't the good argument you think it is. ALL scripture is given by inspiration - ALL, not some of it. And if God is all-wise, and all-good, and always just, then, it makes no sense AT ALL, that at ANY POINT in human history, He endorsed the heinous practice of slavery. But hey, what do I know. We are after all talking about the God who commanded the execution of a man for gathering sticks on the sabbath, and the stoning of non-virgins on their wedding night. So No. Please don't come here claiming that there was absolutely nothing an all-powerful God could've done to prevent his chosen people from treating their fellow humans worse than cattle. And don't claim he just stood by, and let them do as they wished. NO! God did not only condone slavery, he advocated it, he encouraged it, he taught them HOW to practice it. And, even after Jesus came, you still won't find one verse in the new testament prohibiting this wicked practice.
@@TheKingsTrueWitness777 *God would not ask a people to do something they did not have the spiritual and cultural capacity to do.* I don't even know what to make of this statement. Your argument obviously sounds good to a Christian, but it is specious at best. Are you claiming that the Israelites at the time, had no moral capacity or conscience to obey an instruction as simple as *Don't own another human being as property???* Their ignorance or naivety did NOT stop their God from giving them instructions as he saw fit. For example, they knew nothing of germ theory or infections either, but that didn't stop God from commanding them to wash their hands thoroughly, cover-up their feces when they defecate, and bury their dead properly. Besides, God wasn't just permitting them to own Slaves as was their usual practice. No. God actively advocated slavery, MANY times. Does it make sense to you that an all-wise God thought it necessary to prohibit Shrimp and Sardines, but not slavery, simply because the people didn't have the spiritual capacity to know right from wrong??? Also, your argument, that the Christ came and made everything all better in the new testament isn't the good argument you think it is. ALL scripture is given by inspiration - ALL, not some of it. And if God is all-wise, and all-good, and always just, then, it makes no sense AT ALL, that at ANY POINT in human history, He endorsed the heinous practice of slavery. But hey, what do I know. We are after all talking about the God who commanded the execution of a man for gathering sticks on the sabbath, and the stoning of non-virgins on their wedding night. So No. Please don't come here claiming that there was absolutely nothing an all-powerful God could've done to prevent his chosen people from treating their fellow humans worse than cattle. And don't claim he just stood by, and let them do as they wished. NO! God did not only condone slavery, he advocated it, he encouraged it, he taught them HOW to practice it. And, even after Jesus came, you still won't find one verse in the new testament prohibiting this wicked practice.
First time I've seen Shapiro stumped, he actually dealt with it better than I expected, probably due to the reasonableness of Alex. Quite the convo sir, well done.
He’s not stumped. Also slavery isn’t objectively wrong from an atheist perspective since its survival of the fittest organism. There is no objective morality just organism survival and reproduction. Of course you can have a personal preference that slavery is wrong, but it’s not more true than another man’s preference that slavery is good.
At least hermaphroditism exists and is observable in nature. ANY proof for the faith based claims made by monotheists, after 2000+ years? Otherwise it's MYTHology. Facts don't care about anyone's faith. Why do I have to pretend anyone's imaginary friend is real? Monotheism is an outdated form of social engineering, that clearly isn't speaking against slavery. I don't support slavery, I support freedom.
@@Stevewilldoit96 Treat others as you want to be treated is a universal law. Slavery is wrong because of causality. There's a way with nature, being more mindful, and respectful. And a way against it. ☯ If you disagree then you should have no problem with you or your family being slaves or treated second class with things like Jim Crow "laws." Rather than practicing "all are created equal" as the constitution states. We can act like territorial animals, or use our brains and cooperate rather than just compete.
@@Stevewilldoit96 There isn't an "atheist" perspective with regard to the slavery issue. Atheism at it's core is simply the rejection of religion. Nothing more, nothing less. And as others have said, the golden rule is pretty much universal in any culture regardless of religion. That kinda shows that morality doesen't have anything to do with religion. And there's plenty of good reasons for why it is that way. Yes, in the end we do this because it's benificial for our survival. Cooperation makes us more likely to survive than competition.
Right? This is the same God that drowned all of his living creatures because he couldn't think of a better way to start his terrarium experiment over. 🤷🏻♂️
Really clutching at straws with that one. But this is what religious people do. They’ll never just say “yeah I don’t have an answer for you, I just don’t agree with that part of the Bible.”
@@cortical1 Another atheist idiot who takes stories at face value. Imagine reading lord of the flies and all the value you got from it was "omg a bunch of idiot kids are killing themselves because they don't know how to survive on an island." Or any novel for that matter.
@@Station9.75 Pretty ignorant and not open-minded, showing a lack of knowledge. You should first answer why there are so many denominations of Christianity as well as any Abrahamic religion of that sort, as well as many different Bibles within these religions that you can't really group every religious person as a "God believer," "God" in and of itself is religiously broad as "God" is characteristically different in all religions. In Islam, they teach that we should fear God and be grateful to him (like a parent). In Christian faith, we should talk to God like our friend and savior. But that is just surface level stuff, there are many other religious denominations of the religious ideas of God.
Hey to be fair…Ben can’t win an argument defending fairytales no one can…I think Ben knows deeply well religion is fiction but he is Jewish and comes from a Jewish family so he honors it but you can see it in his face he doesn’t disagree with the other guy he actually respects his arguments.
god had no problem prohibiting silly things like eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics, but for some reason he just couldn’t bring himself to say, “hey guys it’s bad to own each other as property. You shouldn’t do that.”
He can ban idolatry, coveting, lying, murder, disrespecting our parents, adultery, and all kinds of other stuff (even though he tells his people to commit heinous murders of women and children quite frequently in the Old Testament), but he can't ban slavery.
God cannot say "It is wrong to own a slave" 'cause God cannot say anything - only people can... and they just did not say it in the past because they did not see anything wrong with it at the time. The concept had to wait fir classical liberal thinkers, humanist and the like to say it.
God cannot say "It is wrong to own a slave" 'cause God cannot say anything - only people can... and they just did not say it in the past because they did not see anything wrong with it at the time. The concept had to wait fir classical liberal thinkers, humanist and the like to say it.
Well did GOD want Isreal to have a king. Did Isreal want a king. Did God give Isreal a king. Man sets the rules on earth not God. God sets the rules on how man can access GOD
He did. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. -- Leviticus 25:42 If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. -- Leviticus 25:39-40
The Bible is very specific about things you ought not do. Shapiro is attempting to say that the Bible is defensible because it doesn’t specifically tell you you have to own people. That’s what we call dishonesty. The Bible cares a great deal about what’s in your dinner bowl, but as far as owning and beating people, go for it.
Not necessarily. There are some issues in the bible that are both explicitly and implicitly wrong regardless of context with very little ambiguity. The fact that there are tough are troubling passages doesn't negate the entire Bible. Not stealing for example as a commandment is straight forward and uncontroversial. Moral relativists would argue that you can steal depending on the context and I doubt you will find people that believe that. The question is how we interpret the difficult passages.
@@GoldenRedderso are you saying that God is the equivalent of the founding fathers? Human, mortal, imperfect, full of biases, prone to acting on impulse and emotion, occasionally illogical, leaving things open to interpretation, not able to foresee future events?
As a religious person, that's actually a valid point, but to a certain extent. that is, most of the instructions in the bible regarding how to act out in the world are pretty clear and don't require too much contemplating on the interpretation. there are some things that are not so clear and as you said, require some relative insight, but those are not grand instructions, usually theyre quite minor.
Ben’s argument that god had to gradually woo humanity away from slavery because it would have been too extreme a change for the time condemn it outright falls on its face when you look at the idea of the Ten Commandments. There simply could have been an eleventh commandment.
BOTH of them are wrong. Let me educate you. The only "slaves" were the Hebrew slaves under Pharaoh. And THERE WERE NO RULES for them. The rest that most people think were "slaves," were actually "servants." We know that by the fact there THERE WERE RULES. "Rules" make them servants - not slaves. And those servants were voluntary, because of debt owed. Example: Jacob had to work 7 yrs just to pay for his wife. And his wife's Father cheated Jacob, saying he had to marry his older daughter. So THEN Jacob had to work another 7 yrs to get the bride he wanted - Rebecca. It was just a culture of the time - 3,500 yrs ago for the Jews. People that say slaves existed in these scriptures are just wrong. "Rules" is just part of the facts that prove it.
@@frompartsunknown687 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. -- Leviticus 25:42 If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. -- Leviticus 25:39-40
Jesus Christ! Ben was violated at around 9:30. His own statements came back like a missile and hit him. This Alex guy is just awesome. A new subscriber from India here.
Shapiro isn't a Bible scholar. Slavery as totally forbidden is a modern dogma. It can certainly be justified. But in the first place the slavery God is worried about is to selfish desire, not commonplace slavery. A person can lead a just life as a slave, and go to heaven; which is the goal. Secondly "Moses let you divorce...but I say to you..." Jesus, ie. the slavery laws may not be God's laws at all; but Shapiro can't use that. As for justification: a warrior tribe constantly wages war, raping, killing etc, finally defeated, what to do? Wipe-out? All the men are dead, but the children will grow up vengeful and the cycle will start again. Instead they are enslaved and under the hebrew system integrated, including marriage. Or a man raised by a loving family, refuses to work, turns to crime, chaos in the community, punished but will not change, choose 1)execution 2)rot in jail for life, 3)enslaved to forced work, and permitted under hebrew system to marry. Which is the most merciful? Exile just shifts the problem, so not an option.
@@francisgeorge7639I gotta admit, thats a good point... I still think correcting and educating is better than slavery though. Forcing someone to do things does not make them productive by their own will, it is no better than rotting in a jail cell.
@@aahhhhhhhhhhhhh sure, for themselves it's not much better but at least the community gets work out of the lazy ass. haha! The 'invesment' of the parents otherwise goes to waste.
@@francisgeorge7639 Is it the parents investment or Gods? And would a christian dominant society today condone slavery? Why was it effective then but looked down on today? Is the abolishment of slavery a good thing or would the world be better with slavery
@@francisgeorge7639 Id argue a lot of people today still meet the criteria you mentionned that would make them deserving of being enslaved. Dont get me wrong, their punishment is justified, but im just asking... did that system only work back then?
The power of imagination is so often undermined by a commitment to a particular understanding of a text. Was happy to see you challenge them both on that.
I'm not a fan, nor an enemy, of Alex or Ben. But damn, it's nice to see Ben squirm so much after encountering intelligent, articulate, and logical thoughts which have been clearly mulled over more than once. This is not a "gotcha!" moment at all--this is taking to task someone who has engaged in sophistry for years. Brilliant.
This is what happens when Ben agrees to debate someone like Alex who knows what they're talking about. It's like Ben had no idea what he was getting into, this was clearly outside of his comfort zone and I give him credit for agreeing to this. He either underestimated Alex or he didn't do his homework, or both. For a change it was nice to see Ben get clobbered.
The symbolism God uses in the Old Testament to teach us through slavery and other such events are absolutely 🔥❤️🔥shows that the Old Testament is incomplete until messiah and the New Testament. Like Jesus “ Do not be called master, for we have One master”Matt 23:10 And “ anyone who loves husband/wife/children more than me is not worth of me” Matt 10:37-39. God being our master/father gives us good gifts. But gives us choice of either gift or to serve the master continuely with the gifts. It’s about servitude not slavery 🔥 Abraham was quite the man 🔥
I love the idea that a wrathful all-knowing all-powerful deity has to woo people toward doing what he wants and hope that they eventually, centuries later, come to the right conclusion. That's funny, Ben.
Yep, this is the God that cursed mankind forever because a couple of people ate an apple and who completely drowned the entire planet because he was miffed about how people were behaving BUT he was so worried about a little social incohesion he couldn't say knock it off when it came to slavery. Just listen to yourself Ben.
People that he explicitly had all the time (did time even exist) and power to make exactly how he wanted to make them and "in his own image." And these people wonder why its so hard to take their religion seriously.
@@williampounds5191lol sorry but you clearly don’t understand what created in his image means And God did create us exactly how he wanted us to be free agents Unless you are more comfortable with him making mindless robots who does what he wants when he wants no questions ask and dont have the ability of think for ourselves
My God Alex, you've done what so many people haven't been able to do for decades - this may never, ever happen again. You got Ben to plainly wrestle with the notion that "the scripture is contradictory". I don't know if I can be an atheist anymore because you're a miracle worker.
The scriptures are not "contradictory" as you suggest. Only if the Old Testament is viewed as a monolithic entity could you provide such an assertion. This is an anachronistic statement to assume this as it has clearly originated with fundamentalists not Jews. What Shapiro does understand is that the Jews endlessly debate over numerous readings of scripture and do so because it is viewed as polyvalent and not monolithic.
@@mrbryanbelbut the word of god should unify the scriptures so there are no contradictions. Is it just a recent belief that it’s the word of god and not just old writing of early fundamentalists
@@1220THEMAN No. Your first sentence reflects the belief of the modern period among fundamentalist Christians. This is wrong. It includes the idea of "inspiration" which most assume that the writers were an automaton conduit which God speaks through. It is a thorny subject but the elimination of contradictions entails Christians merging with Cartesian modernity with foundationalism at its core. The Bible is not a book on certainty it is a book about faith. Interestingly enough, if someone from the ancient world could predict how moderns would view documents for their internal consistency then it simply could have been edited to make everything perfect and lacking in contradiction. However, they left it with its many views. I would view the corpus of the scriptures as a collection of different views about God which is why I referred to it as polyvalent. To engage with your first sentence again, this is a "philosophical" issue but not a textual issue. Jews of the ancient world were always in debate about the nature of God. As a matter of fact, the very core fo the debate among the major and minor prophets entails disagreement with the state religion in the form of the priesthood. When you reach the New Testament, Christ has some big problems with it.
@@mrbryanbel so you're admitting it is contradictory, hence the discussion. This idea that back then they could have simply decided to remove all contradictions? Absolutely laughable, shows you're not a serious person.
The argument that God cannot outright condemn certain things because He must adapt to His audience and favor a more gradual approach has never convinced me. I mean, Abraham was ready to kill his own son on God's command without even asking for explanations, just because it was God's word. If God could make the sacrifice of one's own child an acceptable idea, then surely he could do the same for the abolition of slavery and rape. "Abraham, you shall sacrifice your son to Me because that is My will." "Yes my Lord, your wish is my command." "Oh and by the way, you're not allowed to rape women and own slaves anymore." "GOD STOP GIVING ME YOUR TOUGHEST TRIALS"
Abraham was one in a million. His faith was unmatched and God's command to sacrifice his son was a representation of his incredible faith. Everybody else fell far shorter than Abraham, who would never have even considered doing such a thing.
@milesyeet181 That's why I stressed the huge difference between sacrificing one's son (the stuff of fanatical heroes of the faith) and treating your fellow human beings better (which everyone can be educated to do, especially if this education comes from a divine authority).
God is such a dick for demanding that out of someone so loyal and then going "sike". Even as a child when I first heard that story in church, I knew that was fucked up
Alex, is it fair to say that Just like we know what good is because of bad. We now know what is more moral In the 21st century than what was in the BC error? It is always good to have something to compare too
Alex: You believe that there are moral absolutes and they come from the bible.
Ben: Yes.
Alex: The bible allows moral wrongs like slavery.
Ben: Well it wasn't immoral back then.
What a debate master.
This one isn’t really contradictory. He didn't say everything in the Bible is a moral absolute.
Right and wrong is not universal and does depend on time and place and culture. How can you expect people who lived 2000 years ago to have the same mindset like we have today
@@sumatra_7174the point is that morality is not determined by the bible
@@maksimbolonkin if that is the case who chooses which things are absolute and which are not? it is not like the text defines two categories. So with that view nothing is absolute.
@@maksimbolonkinThen what's stopping homosexuality from being one of those cases? Ben's stance against homosexuality is based on the condemnation in the Bible, but how can he claim that's a moral absolute if not everything in the Bible is morally absolute?
Getting Shapiro to admit that morality does not come from God is a big W and he's getting dragged for it elsewhere. Bravo cheerio here here
Morality does come from God.
@@antoniopratt1893Excellent argument
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@antoniopratt1893, I don’t really care what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence.
The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical governance (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral and your so-called “enlightened/awakened” state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
@@antoniopratt1893 If morality comes from god, then its either intrinsic, or it it isn't. You cannot agree with the religious morality via non-godly premises, the fact someone ever agreed with it(necessarily true) is effectively proof that morality precedes god. Or at least doesn't need a god to be present in any individual. I.e: best case, you don't need to believe to have access to morality. The argument has never made any sense
If God can tell his people not to eat shellfish, then he can tell people to not own slaves
Exact-a-fucking-lutely. The Hebrew god didn't have to woo people out of eating shellfish. He just said don't do it. So why not just declare slavery a 'no, no?
On the one hand this text (which is upheld as the guidebook for moral living) says the love of mammon is the root of all kinds of evil but also it's okay to treat human beings (created in the image and likeness of god) like property.
@amymason156it's supposed to be God, not some middle management punk.
Your argument doesn't work, because God is supposed to have the ability to change whatever he wants. There's a whole lot of stuff in the Bible where God supposedly has magic powers and can choose to influence people, or transmute them, or blow up cities with fire and brimstone.
Your argument doesn't work, given what's supposed to be the scope of God's power.
@amymason156Do you think having idols, committing adultery, covetting, not keeping the Sabbath holy, "taking Gods name in vain" are more serious offenses than keeping people as slaves?
Also, there was tons of other things people were doing back then that was unhealthy and unnecessarily putting their lives in danger, why did "God" not ban them as well?
@amymason156 you missed the point that an omnipotent, omniscient "creator" could have just made it so. no need to easy them off or adjust to the audience. if he can create a universe then creating world where slavery is forbidden should not be above his ability.
@@davispatricks5453 Did people care about not eating shellfish as much as slavery?
Ben Shapiro saying God is a moderate who was applying incrementalism when it came to slavery, is just...It's amazing...
To bad he doesn't have "free will" to think something different according to Alex. That's the only one I disagree with him on. Yes it's off topic ADHD lol
Yea....the same god who once wiped out all life on earth through flood...coz he was pissed.
@@siddhanthravichandran3245 Yeah but that was different because reasons.
@@kane4013 People always forget that it was reasons.
God can do as he pleases and we trust him because he is ultimate good? What’s your problem with that
I'm not great at keeping score, but seems to me Alex got Ben to:
1. State that God is not always moral.
2. Agree we do not get our morality from scripture.
3. Concede there are things God cannot do.
4. Admit there are moral & logical contradictions throughout the Bible.
Needs to be pinned or top comment
i gotta watch the video again more carefully
All 4 of which are wrong with the necessary presumption that the Bible is true.
Ben needs to work on his knowledge of morality clearly, as one should be ashamed to concede any of those points.
Yeah you suck at keeping score.
Ben said people at that time did not “consider” those things immoral.
Stated right after that they are objectively immoral for all times.
God does not interfere with Human Freedom because that is the ultimate good.
@@AverageCommentor But then you would be deemed immoral yourself by the standards of the 21st Century
8:48 Ben Shapiro tries to disprove the fact that he is a moral relativist by explaining that morals change over time and across cultures. What a cogent point.
I'm stunned that this isn't being talked about more in the comments. Ben's argument here is ridiculous.
So many people misunderstanding the common argument really goes to show that you are noobs at religious debate. He's saying that God is pragmatically inching a people's way toward the true morality using the people's own perception of morality as a baseline. This doesn't make him a moral relitavist because he never has to accept the people's illusion of morality as absolute. God's morality is. If Ben used a different word to refer to the Jews' interpretation of good and bad he would have looked a lot less silly, i admit, but Alex doesn't recognize this and instead it turned into a gotcha moment for people like him that don't understand the argument.
@@radaf4429 I and many others here understand the “inching a people’s way toward the true morality” point perfectly fine, radaf. The problem is, the apparent difference between moral relativism and Ben’s position, where immorality is hand-waved away with “it wasn’t *considered* immoral at the time” is effectively indistinct. Ben’s argument relies entirely upon God actually pushing humankind in a significant way toward The One True Morality. With how many examples we can find of that not happening - yes, even by the standards common at the time - that argument holds little weight.
Atheists are masters of moral relativism, so what is your problem?
@@jacobstamm Saying that it wasn't immoral for the time is not a handwave. It's similar to how we use targeted airstrikes rather than boots on the ground scorched earth. While not a one-to-on analogy as I'm sure you could point out, it's still bad, but it's a vehicle towards achieving a more just humanity. God's commandments were not a statement of good and evil to be interpreted as such for all time, Ben doesn't need to say that they are. If your worldview doesn't include a God, yes, your morality is unreal and relativistic. This isn't a breach in logic. And there are tons of example in the Bible of God, especially Jesus, instructing morality (which is not our place to agree or disagree with). And the only benchmark you'd even have to wonder what is or isn't right or wrong would be what God says anyway. I'm not a Jew, so I can't argue on Ben's behalf in a Jewish worldview, but as a Christian I find it funny you would make such a claim when God states humans are equal from their inception.
Ben "I'm not God. I can't speak for God. I don't know why God does these things."
Also Ben "Let me speak for God."
To be religious and to believe in a god under religious circumstances, or to project human attributes to the idea of a god, is to live with Cognitive Dissonance. Which, in time, makes you a world class Mental Gymnast.
@@SimpleSlaveThe irony.
@@baonemogomotsi7138 Yes. Your comment certainly is.
Thank you for the show and tell.
Good job.
@@varpyr713
Hello there! 👋🧔
That is sort of like a Supreme Court Justice attempting to understand the constitution. A Supreme Court Justice doesn't know exactly what the founders intended, but they try to make an educated guess based on other information that they know.
11:18 "There's 70 volumes about this stuff". Yes the sheer amount of mental gymnastics needed to make this work.
**chuckles**
hilarious comment i enjoyed reading it!
Ben's argument basically: "Cmon you're expecting too much from God, who do you think he is, a god or something? He's trying the best he could given the constraints, so just give him an A for effort."
@@saviormoney. Sorry you don't realize that's what "he's trying to woo people so he HAS to refrain from being too radical compared to the horrible immoral standards of humans at the time" basically means.
@@saviormoney. That's what I got from what he said too. Honestly it was a nice sum up of what Shapiro was basically saying.
Yes, that is what he is saying. To Ben God is real and so has to work within the constraints of the real world. This may include choosing the least bad option. If the choice is to forbid slavery and be ignored or regulate it, he may choose the latter. In contrast western atheists tend to see God as a magical being who can do literally anything including the logically impossible.
@@david672orford Exactly. And then he has to answer how did the "real world" come to be this way, in other words, where do these "options" and "constraints" and "characteristics" and "logic" of the real world come from? Were they in effect to begin with along with God, or did someone create them? If God created them this way, then he doesn't get to hide behind them. If he didn't create them, yet he has to submit to them, then these "options" and "constraints" and "logic" and "real world" should be greater than the god he describes. In other worlds, a being that has to choose between given options and can do nothing about it, lacks a lot of potency to be called omnipotent. One would be better of worshiping the options themselves or the one who created them, then the one who chooses and submits to them.
@@david672orford Is it logically impossible for people to be convinced not to have slaves?
Alex, you can't on the one hand call slavery immoral and on the other hand own Ben like that
Best comment.
Perfect comment!
oooof,nailed it
You should watch Sam shamoun explain slavery in the Bible you all have zero idea what you are talking about neither does Ben. Also are you all smarter than Einstein or Newton??
lmao 😂
Usually, Ben can hide the fact that he doesn't have an answer pretty well. But not this time
Yeah, cause he can only debate college freshman.
To be fair you don’t need to be in any level of education to debunk theistic talking points. And before anyone splices that slight hyperbole, there have been compelling arguments out of the mouths of pupils still in Key Stage 1.
@@YeeHawfinch You do however need very good debating skills to keep on track and deliver your arguments when debating someone like Ben
@@joho1095 God, honestly I don't even know if that's true. Maybe to counter the gish gallop in a way that effectively conveys rhetorical supremacy in an auditorium of people.
Hitchens would, for example, have pulled Ben up on that 'escape hatch' premise. He has it all to prove, and worse still, his insinuation that he hasn't got that burden was taken as read. By that logic Russell's cosmic teapot has its own little hatch. It's not exactly solid ground.
I don't believe you should have to have even mediocre oratory skills to debate him on topics such as religion or the existence of trans people, for instance. I feel like I'm gaslit every time he questions people over the validity of being transgender and yet fully acknowledges he may be wrong about a yet-to-be-seen cosmic entity who has quite literally informed him of his views, and would probably acknowledge if said deity were not to exist, there would be no foundation for his pejorative views on LGBT people... Which despite what he's saying to Alex, is kind of an indicator that he himself was incapable of forming morality without religion.
@@joho1095 Weasely internet trolls like Ben do require some skill in debating because they will pull every trick in the book in order to avoid honestly addressing your arguments. I find a great way to debate people like this is to simply flip their own terrible arguments back against them and let them argue with themselves.
8:26 'Who's the moral relativist now?' Brilliant. If you think you've found a basis for morality and then accidentally make moral progress beyond that, you'll be forced to concede that the basis was arbitrary from the beginning and morality is as infinitely improvable as everything else beyond any 'basis'.
Yes, that was a checkmate moment. Ben says morality is not relative,it comes from God,then he is asked about the Bible endorsing slavery and Ben replies with something like "oh hey, that was a different time, you can't impose a modern sense of morally onto a different time period" saying that is the definition of moral relativism. That was a devastating uppercut.
Slavery in the Bible is completely indefensible. People who will defend indefensible things have no right to be taken seriously
Slavery existed back then. Wow
OK but really, the old testament is not just a set of rules and regulations, it is also a historical document ment to record the history of Israel. Slavery happened historically, thus a book that chronicalled history would have Slavery in it.
THE problem you do not have a metric by which to judge the Bible by. The athiest has no critique to give because you have no coherent worldview. You are simply going by modern day sensibilities which can change at any given moment.
@@gideondavid30can you enumerate some of these sensibilities that can change at any given moment?
This is a standard talking point. No one has ever suggested everything depicted in the Bible be morally correct. The claim is that what God sanctions demands and promotes must be morally correct and slavery is clearly not. Nor is it morally correct when God decrees a raped woman be stoned to death if she was raped in the city walls and didn't scream. The bibles depiction of God is of a deeply malicious being@@GoldenRedder
It's so fun to watch Ben, who hates being wrong, forced to choose to be wrong by a belief system.
I think you misunderstand his point then
Ben doesn’t hate being wrong. He’s not stupid; he knows the vast majority of his political and religious positions are wrong, but it pays very well.
@@altosackbelieves in nothing but dolla
No one forced beleif upon him. He simply picked one that best hid his mh problems.
@@altosackbingo ❤ someone gets it
it's a shame that an omnipotent omnibenevalent god can't even convince his own followers to not do evil things.
Yes, it's almost as if people had the ability to make choices.
thats an illusion @@GoldenRedder
Not only that, can't convince his own followers to not do evil things purportedly right after his own followers had to endure those same evil things! All while having the death penalty for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
@@GoldenRedderI'm not saying he should have come to stop them from doing so, just tell it in your official book that it's bad and let them chose for themselves. he literally gives commands for everything else right? why not give just one sentence command about this as well? just say "slavery is bad". let them choose if they want to go against his command. he wasn't this forgiving about not believers..
@@GoldenRedderin the christian framework, people have infinitely less freedom than in north korea
So The most powerful being in the universe, The Alpha and Omega couldn’t come up with a good way to explain that slavery was wrong?
The people who made god had slaves why would they say it's wrong like democrats
@@seventycross0yt175I like the way you worded that “The people who made god”.
We have literally seen a religion born out of fiction with the birth of Scientology. But people still can’t see that the bible could have been made up the same way.
@@PheonixPye See the thing is, if god says slavery doesnt exist, or the evil should be eradicated. We wouldn't be able to exist.
When you say the bible is all made up yet there are proofs of the original manuscripts of the bible existing way back then. The thorn crown worn by Jesus Christ still exist today. And there's more to it. You can probably search up the bible history on the very platform that I'm teaching you sadly.
Speaking of slavery, and the harsh truth behind it. Ever heard of economy? the work force back then? money? etc? Why do you think slaves were valuable back then? was it immoral? yes. However Slaves made a important factor on supporting society, infrastructure, etc.
Ben on the back foot, forced to say slavery is immoral, and also forced to defend it in the Bible. Yet cannot concede any of this is contradictory otherwise his worldview starts crumbling. Mental gymnastics to make Olympians sweat
Lets be fair, we cant compare slavery in america to the slavery that was mentioned in the bible.
@@antoniopratt1893it's still slavery.
You’re forgetting that you understand nothing about the Bible and therefore are criticizing something you’re ignorant of.
@@antoniopratt1893blibical slavery, while not chattel slavery, was still slavery. Saying “this form of slavery isn’t as bad as the other” doesn’t mean anything if both of the options are slavery
@@antoniopratt1893Oh. Yes we can…
holy shit ben's not debating a student
I laughed. Then felt hollow.
Oh the irony. Alex is an Oxford graduate, but clearly an intelligent one.
And a working class grad.
Also, Alex has a Theology degree.
@@_____case Yes 🙂
@@_____case can't help but feel a sociology degree would have armed him better.
@@ac1646Ben has a law degree from Harvard, and he’s not a lawyer and never practiced law. 🤣
I think Alex's point is that all these laws look suspiciously not like God was adjusting his laws for man. But rather that some man was pretending that these laws came from God.
Spot on it
So you are saying that that man was like a ventriloquist?
You are so right.
Every rational person can realize that
The problem becomes, if there are some parts of the bible that are the result of mans interest and corruption over time
Were there ever any pure texts to begin with?
And, If there was, do they remain truthfully pure? to this day?
I've grown suspicious that many, if not most, of the most heinous laws actually came from a hierarchy of Lobsters.
Why can’t people just admit: the Bible is a generally good set of books (emphasis on “generally”). But it wasn’t written by a supreme being, even if one exists. Ben Shapiro would then not need to defend indefensible arguments.
Well how are they going to control others if they can't threaten them with an all powerful being?
A good set of books? Absolutely not. A book that promises me eternal life in torment because I don’t agree with a god and love him? No
@@patrickstork7517 I’m being generous, help me here… 😀
If the bible was treated less as a perfect holy text, and more of a collection of stories about judaism and christian ideas, then most of these debates wouldn't be happening. The bible would be interpreted in a variety of different ways, leading to actually interesting discussion about the implication of certain stories in the bible. But Christianity has painted itself into a corner by declaring the bible is irrefutably god's word, and they have to bend over backwards to try and justify all the outlandishly unrealistic things in it
😂😂typical Christian, think their bibles and history is full of love and joy😂😂😂I can’t stop lauging
I can’t get over how different Ben Shapiro is when he is not talking to an audience of kids. I wonder if Ben Shapiro would do another round with Alex, without the third guy. That would be pure gold.
@@saviormoney.And you.
@@saviormoney.Well the people Ben typically argues with also aren’t stupid, just not typically well versed in debating and are usually unprepared. This means that Ben can easily make them look stupid
@@saviormoney.Fasho fasho
It's fascinating to watch him and the host try to dodge the topic with humour. Like guys! Isn't this topic what you're all there for?
@@saviormoney.Jesus loves capitalism. Jesus loves wealth. Jesus hates poverty and the homeless. Jesus's most favorite person is Elon Musk. Because wealth is virtue.
"the bible is talking for the people of a particular time" so what's the point of following what it says now
Because there are prescriptive parts of it. Silly.
@@alil6547Yes, but those prescriptive parts are cherrypicked by believers.
@@alil6547 prescriptive parts, like how to obtain and care for slaves. and prescriptions for killing people who carry wood on the sabbath, gotcha.
Yes it was a perfectly reasonable answer. In a time that was not peaceful, where famines where not uncommon, where you where gambling to make enough food to feed you and your family, would it not be a shocker that slavery not only existed, but people sold themselves into it for a little security.
You are cherry picking and obfuscating. In a naturalistic, materialist universe, entering indentureships makes sense. Slavery has been practiced by all cultures in history. The problem only arises when you have an Omni god recommending slavery, and people saying this document still applies today.
Any religion that posits supernatural beings is dangerous. And crap.@@GoldenRedder
I give Ben credit for agreeing to this discussion. It was really satisfying to see him fully exposed and squirming.
Just like the character of his favorite fantasy book - knowing he's going to end up completely obliterated, and yet, he went there voluntarily 😅
Nobody was exposed...
Sounds like you're literally foaming at the mouth to see the person that you disagree with get their opinions challenged.
Lmao, the cope is hard.
@@gideondavid30 Dude, he embarrassed himself. His logic is utterly flawed. God laid the moral foundations in the Bible... According to Ben, no Bible = no morality. Ben admits slavery back then = OK. Then, he admits slavery is not morally justified today. This means progressive liberalism made slavery immoral (and for good reason), not the Bible. So... in his own words, quite literally, he admits that morality DOESN'T come from the Bible.
Can’t we just say slavery is bad and has never been good…
I tried to tell my coworker that but he said the slaves were treated well and were happy. Idk how to respond.
Slavery, especially the American kind, was absolutely wrong. There have been forms of slavery in history where the slaves are treated with hospitality and have much more rights and freedoms than one might think. Only thing requested in return is that you'd have to work for someone. That reminds me of current day employment. And it makes you wonder if that type of slavery should even be called slavery. It was simply a different time with different rules of society and the economics of said society.
@ in Leviticus 25:42-46 it says to not treat Israelite harshly and then goes on to say that you can treat foreigners as property implying that slaves were treated harshly and Israelite indentured servants were not. happiness in the context of slavery is problematic, as it implies a level of consent or acceptance of one's enslavement.
@@mazzo-4k in Leviticus 25:42-46 it says to not treat Israelite harshly and then goes on to say that you can treat foreigners as property implying that slaves were treated harshly and Israelite indentured servants were not. Foreign slaves were not allowed to buy their freedom and they were considered property to be passed down through generations. something we would not allow our employers to do.
@@heyyou031 I guess the difference is I use Islam as my basis. I'm not a Christian.
"god had to be practical to woe people away from slavery"
The guy is all knowing and all powerful.
He'd know exactly how to convince those people that slavery should be abolished
Israel would then chose to not listen like they always do.
@@GoldenRedder Wouldn't that mean israel is (at least in one aspect) more powerfull than god?
because following this logic god would be unable to convince israel of following his advice. Which then means god can't exert his will on Israel.
daanstrik4293
You can choose to not follow God. It's called free will.
The argument I've heard against this (which does sound silly to me) is that a sufficiently compelling argument is a violation of free will.
umm, and that's what he did ultimately. Or do you mean to say that it was some atheistic and absolutely morally correct people that abolished people a couple senturies ago? Why are you so sure that every human is supposed to be convince-able of something? If god is all knowing, he would also know when it's pointless to try and convince.
Isn't it extremely curious that the values of god align perfectly with the values of the people at the time the book was written. Its almost like the book was written by people based on their own values, not the values passed down by god.
Awfully convenient, I'd say
Too convenient
The answer to your question is founded in the Bible: Matthew 19:8
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
God saith, many things i have to Say to You but You can not Carry it. So that was allowed becouse of the hardening of the people not the Express of the perfect will of God
@@georgestate9191I just love how in the *2,000 YEARS* since his last "Update", he hasn't cared to interact *EVER AGAIN* to help further things along some more... there was only what a couple hundred years between the old testament and the new? But then again I suppose he did wait *90 THOUSAND YEARS* after modern humans existed before giving us *ANY* instructions *AT ALL.*
Or are you one of those young earth people who think the planet's only been here for 6,000 years and that it's flat?
@@James-iu2km As soon as humans invented ways to keep factual records and video evidence, the big man just stopped coming around.
Wasn’t the point of this video that those values don’t actually align? And isn’t the lack of alignment evident from all the terrible missteps the nation of Israel took that resulted in their punishment as recorded in said book?
That last argument about the wife of the slave and their children completely ANNIHILATED Ben’s position. That was brilliant.
Because today's Liberal society hasn't produced a PLETHORA of fatherless children.
my guy was carefully manipulating the conversation and predicted ben's rebuttals, and guided ben's stand straight into a trap he meticulously prepared beforehand. The dude's a supervillain
@@Bt-cq6tehe was playing chess.
Don't see that view
Yeah!!! I'm sure life was ALWAYS easy prior to WWII. Does anybody know ANYTHING about history? Life sucked.
Shapiro saying the bible had to be written for vastly different time periods makes no sense to me. For books written by humans it is common practice to revise and update them. Why couldn't God have done the same? Like "you have entered the classical era. Slavery is bad now, actually."
You can tell Ben isn’t used to debating people with a strong academic knowledge of the Bible
I would love to see Ben trying to debate Dr Bart Ehrman on the bible and morality(:
He doesn't have a strong understanding of the Bible he's cherry picking and doesn't understand what he's talking about or maybe his reading comprehension skills suck. Like for instance he said if the man says he loves his master he takes him and pierced his ear and owns him for life. All one has to do is open up the Bible and read it understanding that a verse has context. "Owning" a slave had laws you must abide and nobody can "own" a slave without their consent just look up slave laws and read them all. Do you own a house if so you're a slave to your bank for 30 years or whatever your contact is for. Before banks land owners were like modern day factories and people depended on land owners to survive if they were poor. I have a dictionary that's 120 years old and the definition of slave is broad and someone who does hard labor was called a slave. Someone who was an apprentice who learns a trade was called a slave and the teacher was called master like as in master carpenter or plumber etc. There is debt slavery as in getting a loan. There is slavery where the person is bound to the land where they are allowed to use a portion of the land for themselves in return they must work the masters land for him. People who committed murder were made slaves for life if they wasn't put to death. Piercing the ear was a blood oath that one would do with their own free will. The person would stand in the doorway and the master would drive a nail through his ear at the door post and it was a blood oath that he was bound to the house to work for his master and in return the slave was fed and protected from harm. You idiots like to cherry pick things from the Bible without even understanding what you've read and also only use the word slave as in the liberal definition of that word where you only believe it was meant for black people and was for life which it never was. Even here in America the lie that blacks were owned and were life long slaves is the biggest lie there is. If they were then their wouldn't have been free black men. Most people today are slaves of the banking system and everyone alive today that works is a slave to the government because of debt slavery so try and not pay your master and they will come with guns and lock you up if you don't pay him his share of your wages.
Umm Ben isn't really strong in his knowledge of the Bible.
@@talleneagle1974 fair point there but believers Will cherry pick parts to support their arguments aswell and even come with this curve ball ”That parts symbolik and not litteral”.
Sure slave may mean many things and should vi viewed on context of the writting and of its time. Now what sort of slaves do you think people are from a city you lay wast to?
The isralitesvwhen they were in Egypt wasnt slaves then but simply there on a work visa, perhaps thats Why pharao didnt mind them leaving according to the book.(:
@@talleneagle1974Nothing you said refutes anything Alex said.
Ben switches between moral absolutist to moral relativism with the flip of switch anytime it comes to the evils God did in the Bible. He always states that God had to appeal to people of his time, but this God is supposed to be all power and all knowing so can literally do anything. So when God presents his message by making rules for how to keep your slaves, this makes this God evil, period. This God would have the ability to end all slavery by snapping his finger, but chose not to.
God would also have the ability to make you a slave to his every wish. Making you little more than a robot.
While I do agree that Ben flips between relatavism and absolutism depending on what he thinks will serve him best in the moment, the idea that God could simply snap his fingers is failing to engage with one of the core tenants of this very discussion - human free will, which Ben has said he believes in. Those two things would be at odds, and simply forcing slavery to end, would clash with the idea of human free will, surely?
@@MiBasse _"simply forcing slavery to end, would clash with the idea of human free will, surely?"_
No.
Eliminating the institution of slavery via a snap of fingers is not necessarily a violation of free will.
Eliminating it by giving a commandment prohibiting it, which was the critique that Alex presented, would certainly not violate free will any more than any other commandment does.
Furthermore, I don't think God of the Bible has problems violating free will. See the Pharaoh in Exodus for the easy example.
@@MiBasseexcept on at least one occasion god violates his own rule when hardening ramesses heart so he wouldn’t let the hebrews go. All so god could show off. So does god really care about free will?
@@MiBasse in the Bible, God has changed his mind and had regrets. If there is a god, what's stopping him from regretting giving humans free will?
It's ridiculous how Ben Shapiro and other Christians constantly say that we are not God God's logic is so much higher than ours, and this is their excuse for why they are immoral things in the Bible. Yet he then goes on to explain how God is confined to man's understanding, and the Bible is written according with men of that times concepts of morality. It all comes full circle back to the blatantly obvious fact that the very nature of God is decided by man.
Alex is turning out to be one of the sharpest interviewers of the generation. He is prepared for his interlocular, his logic is quite good and he uses it to make pointed questions. He maintains an excellent demeanor throughout.
This wasnt a particularly difficult topic to challenge..
@@enterpassword3313 Shapiro is a particularly good presenter of his ideas and a very fast thinker. So asking the correct questions to elucidate the problems with what he believes is quite difficult.
ETA, I meant O'connor here.
@@enterpassword3313I recommend watching an other segment, let Shapiro speak, and then, before Alex answers, pause and come up with your own.
Try it, it’s interesting to hear how silly we sound sometimes.
I don’t think Alex is a better human than me, but this topic actually is not an easy one, and you can really feel Alex’s theology degree.
@@Fs3iI actually did this during the whole debate! Haha, it was quite hard since English is my second language, but I managed to come up with some of the arguments that Alex mentioned (Although I know these arguments because I've been following Alex for a while). I love doing thesr types of exercises, they help develop critical thinking. I tend to play the devils advocate against Alex aswell, that's why Alex became one of my favorite channels in the past months.
@@Pooneil1984 hes actually not though, he just talks fast and has a good memory. He is so predictable i knew all his arguments before he started talking, its not difficullt to prepare for that, the questions write themselves from the contradictions ben was inevitably going to make. If anything i think i had some better questions, so that must make me the greatest interviwer of this generation lol
Alex playing the role of Socrates to perfection! Ask the right question at the right time and let them talk themselves into confusion.
Trickery, instead of just reading the book and trying to understand....
Not a great way to approach life!!
@@adamjohns350 so your view is that we should simply read the bible and flatly accept whatever it says??? Not a great way to approach life…
@@adamjohns350 trickery letting people think for themselves and what not! Let them be told what to think and ask them zero questions to get to the basis of their beliefs! Trickery!
@@adamjohns350 There is zero trickery involved. Asking specifically designed questions to draw out the opinions and thought processes of a person is precisely what any great interviewer is there to do.
You want trickery? Try watching speedrun Shapiro spouting long words and selective references at college students to mask how poor his arguments really are. That's 'smoke & mirrors' at its finest.
the socratic dialogue format is one of the worst ways to engage in productive philosophical discussion lol, but yeah ig there's merit in it for entertainment. art of debate is dead now and just surmounts to a mind-fight where you just try to 'own' your opponent and make them look confused and lacking common sense. (if we want to make parallels to the ancient world I'd analogise this to a Sophist roundtable, something which is done on the basis of building brand and wealth, not to add to the academic world in any way) but yeah don't get me wrong, Alex definitely 'owned' him... sigh..
Getting Ben to admit he is a moral relativist is quite a feat
Acknowledging different cultures have different morals is not moral relativism.
@@relvezz6997no that’s quite literally what it is. It insinuates that morality isn’t universal lmao.
Ben didn’t explain it well. There can be aspects of objective morality that are subjective. Look at killing. Killing is immorally wrong, unless done in self defense. There is a subjective aspect of it called an exception. The exception for biblical slavery is that the whole world was a dark place with rape and war pillaging. God called a small group of people apart and in a way that was realistically feasible for that time period. The Bible is a story of the human condition’s journey toward holiness. Change happens slowly not overnight.
I don’t see him admitting that he’s a moral relativist. Maybe it’s in the full discussion. However, I did hear him say that slavery was always wrong. God was moving towards making it abolished in the future but had to move in small increments to that goal. He was working with fallen people in a fallen time in a culture steeped in slavery and barbarism both internally and externally. He said slavery was always wrong. Jews were just commanded to have a more human version for now. Until they would understand the wrongness of slavery. This sounds like he’s a moral absolutist not relativist.
Saying things in a youtube comment that didn't actually happen is no feat at all.
1:22 here we have the defender of religion calling his holy scripture "inherently problematic"
Which is more likely: that a perfectly moral being not only didn't denounce slavery but actually offered protocols, or that men, who clearly saw the value in owning slaves, left that out of their book of myths?
zoomingby
If I were to take your assumptions at base value. I would say the later. However we are attempting to argue In a grander context than "slavery bad cause slavery bad"
@@GoldenRedder Who's arguing that slavery bad because slavery bad? Are you making the case that owning another human being against their will, often for the entirety of their life, is not immoral?
Not a good argument because you mistake the Bible as a book of rainbows and sunshine. The Bible recorded sins and the sins of people and humanity for a reason. It didn’t hide it. The Bible is also a progressive revelation because of the hardness of people’s hearts. It was a journey to the full revelation of God. Which is why as the Bible goes on the harder it gets to follow morally.
@@Checkmate777 Quote the part where I suggested the bible is rainbows and sunshine. You have no idea what you're talking about. The bible is supposedly divinely inspired. Why does it include the protocols for owning slaves if it's a book on how to live a moral life?
@@Checkmate777 Except the Bible's slavery regulations and ordinances aren't mere condemned (or even neutral) "records" of what people did. They're (purportedly) from God.
God taking "pragmatic" considerations is just blatantly silly to me.
How is it silly?
@@GoldenRedderwhere was God before Moses?
@@GoldenRedder God doesn't need to be pragmatic, he kind of is omnipotent.
@@GoldenRedderwhy would you worship a being that isn't all-powerful? What if you anger the true God, the one who DOESN'T need to be pragmatic?
@@Imperium3945 Saying that god does not need to be pragmatic is equally as silly as saying he HAS To be pragmatic
As a Catholic Christian, and as someone who disagrees with you on this question, I greatly admire your ability to think through an issue and to direct or even wrestle your interlocuter towards the fundamental contentions. In short, you had him on the ropes here and Ben strikes me as very intelligent (whatever else you might say about him) - which is no small accomplishment.
Edit: I commented before finishing the clip and just got to the part where he admits it was objectively wrong for people in ancient Israel to own a slave - which is fatal to his position. So, for what it's worth, you walked away with a massive concession there.
Either he is intelligent and does not believe a word he says, or he is a fool believing in pretty much anything without proof.
You are my favorite theist in this thread
Your intellectual honesty is a credit to you
Thou shalt not steal.. How is slavery NOT THAT?
@@buckiesmalls bro, stop, believers are blind hypocrates
@@buckiesmalls you were allowed to buy slaves
5:38 "thought a gradualistic process".... Oh, you mean just regular ol basic human/societal evolution? The lengths people go to justify fairy tales 😂
This is the most infuriating aspect of debating morality with Christians. In one breath, they claim that, if Christianity and religion have any value, it's in providing humans with an unrelativistic moral framework. Yet when you call them out on the wildly immoral stuff in the Bible, suddenly it's "Well, the context of history" and so on. The mental gymnastics on display here are obscene. EDIT: Yes, I know Shapiro isn't a Christian - the point stands for all believers of Abrahamic religions (and many other religions as well).
You don’t believe in subjective morality, you have no basis on which to base your own morality except by your opinion based on thousands of years of living in society based on biblical principal
Its true.. If u don't understand d context behind d act. U start to assume its accepted.... Slavery in d bible was used to help pay people's debts or remove people from d streets. And it had a seven years limit... And a slave is allowed to escape and be protected. God layed down laws to protect them from abusive masters..... So what r u saying...... Don't compare biblical slavery to the recent one.... Ben shapiro is not even a biblical scholar.
@@darkma1iceits not based on biblical principles. At all. The constitution supports freedom of religion. The Bible does not. It says in the 1st and 2nd commandments that you can't worship any other god. The constitution supports freedom of speech the Bible does not. Blasphemy and heresy laws are against free speech. The Bible supports slavery. We do not anymore.
What you are saying is objectively false.
🙄@@darkma1ice
@darkma1ice do you mean objective morality.
Their argument is God doesn't know how to say, "HEY! DON'T DO THAT!" to slavery and have to basically tippy toes all over it is just hilarious. Like, how on earth can you even justify that.
I guess this is just proof that if you need to justify immortality, you need religion.
But god apparently saw two men boinking being so morally reprehensible that it had to be directly prohibited whilst beating your fucking human slaves wasn’t worthy of the same injunction. It’s offensively ridiculous. It’s even more offensive watching otherwise intelligent people try to justify it.
Yes, God can have all these other rules but saying no to slavery was just too far to go--he didn't want to upset his creation too much. It's absolutely laughable.
I'd love to justify my immortality
@@billmauer8117 “Make sure to tell them not to wear mixed fabrics. Oh and toss in some shit about cooking a goat in its mother’s milk, that’s bad. And make sure they know never to touch a woman on her period.”
“What about slavery? Should we tell them slavery is bad because it will be viewed as a great atrocity starting in the 20th century give or take?”
“Nah, just give them some rules on how to treat their slaves and some tricks for scamming them into permanent servitude. We don’t want to seem overbearing and authoritarian.”
A truant finds home
And a wish to hold on
But there's a trapdoor in the sun
Immortality
"God is the same in the past, now and in the future"
OK Ben what about slavery?
Um that was then, this is now
It says in the 10 commandants to make someone a slave gets death penalty.
@@zedleed471 lol no it doesn't. It actually gives instructions on how to properly beat your slaves. It also gives instructions on how to induce an abortion. If you think your wife might have cheated
@@zedleed471Do you even know the 10 commandments? xD
@@zedleed471what 10 commandments did you read? Both sets of 10 commandments in the Bible do not mention slavery but make sure that you will be a sinner if you cheat on God with other gods.
God hasn't changed. We have.
I first came across Alex at let the light in philosophy festival at hay on wye in the UK several years ago. It's great to see how far hes come. Bravo 👏
This is what happens when Ben attempts debating someone other than college kids who have no idea how the real world works
He makes them look like a retard and himself a moron? Doesn't really make your nonsense make any more sense than it didn't before
what’s wrong with debating an ignorant person, should they stay that way instead?
Alex has gone so far, I can't help but feel proud for him
Same man, he was so strong in this debate. The legacy of Hitchens continues.
I've been watching him since he was cosmicskeptic and before 10k views. This kid is like a reputable source now, he's gone crazy far. I was just searching around to find something to watch and this popped up, never knew Alex went toe to toe with Ben Shappiro. Proud for sure, and held his own.
he's definitely collecting the bag and I'm happy for him in that regard but I hope he goes back to real academics again and stops wasting time on these cartoon people lmaoo
@@createmos369 are we really at a point of talking about philosophical debates like they're boxing matches good lord... but i suppose this was about as academically fruitful as a boxing match. just as much as a hyper driven spectacle, we should really just be renting out stadiums and putting Zizek in a ring and letting him talk his opponents to death, now that's a gen z 'debate' for the ages😎
@@thomdotexe this is a philosophical boxing match, so yes I guess we have hit that point.
Alex O'Connor DESTROYS Ben Shapiro with LOGIC and FACTS 🤣
No that shit has to stop, it's such a stupid idea for any title.
@@champ8605I believe that is the joke, but yes I agree
What is the logic and facts he said? All of it was human based info, which are imperfect and stupid.
@@flutterboypr6481 wtf does “human based info” mean
its not hard to destroy ben shapro. his biggest skill is talking fast, snake oil salesman that says untrue things but just talks really fast so lowly intelligent people can believe him.
Wow. Ben actually said, "Where do you get your morality from.."
From logic, reason, rationality, and education. 🎉❤❤
Absolutely 👍
Also, as an athiest it's a common sense approach to trial and error over millenia.
As an atheist there is no moral so, why would they so worry about morality that is being practice in favor of religious preaching, if not why Atheist are against moral
@@kimkaze4868 that's not true. Athiests have morals. They are based on current laws and current culture. The idea that religion (which famously enjoyed stoning and burning people to death for being gay) is the only place morals exist is utter hypocrisy
A god they say is "the same yesterday, today and forever" is the same god who did not recognise that slavery would one day be seen categorically as immoral, and denounce it right from the start???
Make this make sense.
Of course it doesn't. The Bible is the work of man. I'm an agnostic atheist who rejects God claims and while I can't say no God exists, I believe with extremely high probability that the God of the Bible does not exist.
God placed laws on slavery lol it was up to humanity to abolish it because back then slavery was very prevalent
@@abc456fThe prophets prophesied Judea wasn’t going to fall by the Assyrian empire, and guess what happened? The Assyrians quite literally conquered every major prominent kingdom within the area except for Judea as the prophets said God decreed, so you can’t say for certain the God of the Bible does not exist
God gave us the frame works for If and how slavery should be done. The fact that we later on drifted away from that and used slavery cruelly is on us not god.
@@devorahkontorovich5737 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Not you actually saying, "All god did was endorse slavery. you humans are the ones who bastardized it." Like, What!!! Damn, you Christians are never beating the allegations
"Who's the moral relativist now?"
Bravo.
But ben answered that pretty soundly. To say something is wrong is very different from saying that thing should be abolished, for abolition thereof could result in more harm than good depending on the society's reaction.
Ben never said slavery wasn't wrong at that time. He said it might not have been wise to abolish it at that time.
@@yougood809
"Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period)"
I'm not going to go back and listen to what Ben said but the omniscient/omnipotent Old Testament god tells the ancient Israeli people to take/make new slaves (and forcibly marry women) because... they wouldn't have listened him if he told them otherwise? When would it have been wise to abolish slavery according to the Abrahamic religions? Where do these religions give any hint that slavery is immoral or should be abolished? Give me a reference. I'll look it up.
Seems like any notion of the abolition of slavery is extrabiblical.
In other parts of the OT god the Israelis to commit genocide. Per your argument maybe it just wasn't wise to abolish genocide at that time too...
@@yougood809😅
@@Synechiae How about the ultimate sacred cow: slavery of the soul?
It's the exact same thing.
*John 3:16* For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
*1 John 4:14* And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.
*John 14:6* Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
I absolutely love these types of debates. It's okay to disagree with someone and still be respectful to each other. Great debate and very interesting.
I don't love them because they always come about under a false premise, and then both sides that know nothing prove their ignorance by arguing both sides of the falsehoods.
Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
I Corinthians 10:12 (KJV)
@@Ryookenso where do you think morality comes from dawg? It's just floats around in the ether? One dude thinks it comes from the Bible and one person thinks it doesn't. What the actual fuck is the middle ground of those two views from your opinion? I'm actually curious.
@@HighDins That's not what I am talking about. I am not talking about the origin of morality because truth be told neither one is true. My point was that they were discussing slavery in the bible and whether or not the bible condones it as a measure of moral turpitude.
The problem is they don't know that the bible doesn't condone chattel slavery and in fact, it doesn't condone slavery at all, but since neither of these two men understand the bible or know it, they are arguing what they don't know.
@@Ryooken peter 2:18 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse. As I have actually read the Bible and can quote scriptures you sir are talking out your ass. If the Bible doesn't condone slavery why would the gospel of Peter be like hey slaves listen to your master even if they suck if the Bible is neutral on slavery? I'm sorry but you are a moron with absolutely no point.
Something all powerful can't do something doesn't really sit well with me. Imagine putting poisonous cookies in your kid's cookie jar and being surprised he's now doomed for eternity.
Did Ben just say "It was considered moral back then....... but thats not moral relativism." lol that is pure complete moral relativism.
Considering something wrong in an absolute sense does not preclude acknowledging that people were accepting of it in the past. The entire thrust of Ben's argument is that God considered slavery to be wrong and regulated it while gradually pushing Jews and Christians toward the true morality. (Keep in mind that Jewish slavery was also much more benign than the chattel slavery of surrounding nations.)
Benign slavery......... now that is an unique oxymoron 😂
@@saitama2471 It was much more benign. Among other things, Jewish slave owners couldn't kill their slaves without it being considered murder. They could not beat them until they could not stand, maim them, or impair their value either. For the women, they could not deprive them or turn them out. They had to free a slave after seven years.
You might think that should be a given, but it's not. The practice of slavery was much more horrific and dehumanizing in other nations.
@@bellgrand "Considering something wrong in an absolute sense does not preclude acknowledging that people were accepting of it in the past.."
Almost can't believe you had the senses to figure out where the send button was after making such a mentally genius gymnastics comment lol
That had to be exhaustive
God does not follow time and cultures around and try to figure out how to tailor fix coax them into his commands/message lol
The Xian God is eternal, has always been, and shall always be. He is, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent
Unless you are saying that its all just made up by men as well, your position makes no sense
Hint: It is all just made up lol
Unless we get that update where YWH reveals that "Slavery is NOT OK ",all we have are the scriptures where he is A-OK with it,and sets out some rules for physically bashing your human property
So y all real committed Xians,why u stop owning slaves? God never said stop
@@leperlord7078 I think you misunderstood what I was trying to saying. It can say that slavery was always wrong, but I can also see how Christian and Jewish tradition on the topic developed over time. God also definitely does make concessions in light of the fact that humans are imperfect and timebound. There are actually examples of this in the Bible.
Now, there is no explicit example of this with slavery as the topic, but there is one with divorce as the topic. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees ask Jesus if no-fault divorce is lawful. Jesus says divorce is wrong and has been since the beginning. The Pharisees rebut by saying: Then why does God allow us to divorce? Jesus replied that it was because God knows human beings can have hard hearts. In light of this, divorce is allowed, but not for any reason. Deuteronomy 24 says divorce is justified when a man "finds something indecent" about a woman. Jesus clarifies that this means sexual immorality.
And really, the entire Bible is basically a massive concession in the same vein. God could just damn all of us and be done with it.
Sidebar: the funny thing about Matthew 19 is that afterward, the Disciples then remark that if divorce disadvantages men so much, then women are more trouble than it's worth. Jesus points out that most men cannot handle being alone. Which is an interesting response to the all the redpill stuff going around these days.
Wow I can't believe he actually debated a person who isn't an ill prepared, emotional college student. Alex I love you man and love your content. Keep being the beacon of intellectual debate we know you are!!!!
Wow, you are so original in saying 'this is the first time Ben Shapiro has debated someone who is not an emotional college student'. You and the other thousand people on this thread all make the same original point! The fact that the point is complete bullshit as he has debated plenty of people who are not college students should not detract for the originality of you and the thousand other people who have made it.
Such a stupid point that keeps being promoted by idiots. Shapiro does speeches (which is perfectly normal) and holds a q&a where dissenting opinion is preferred (also perfectly normal and admirable) this does not mean he is holding formal debates wi the college students! He has done plenty of formal debates with prominent leftist.
Wow man. I can't believe you would actually comment on the video in the comment section. Who would do such a thing. Seriously, using the comment section to share comments on content? What a travesty man. Be better
Are you really that ignorant of the myriad of debates and interviews Shapiro has done with high-profile left-wing / atheist media figures?
@@jcw3032 Like that one time he was in an interview and stormed out due to their left-wing bias? Oh wait no, that BBC guy was a famously right wing journalist. That was definitely entertaining
God: can't get rid of slavery because it's too radical.
Also God: gonna have everyone speak different languages so they can't understand each other and also magically spread them all over the world.
The way ben shapiro said it is that it will create "incohesion" in society. To that, i wish alex would say, by what "metric would social incohension occur." By death count, by suffering?
@icekills
I feel you, when Alex' interlocutor walks themselves into a big pile of, I would love him to do the obvious and make them faceplant into it, knowing they're so intellectually dishonest that they'll be tying themselves into knots to explain how they're actually face down in a bed of roses... but alas, Alex is a better man than I.
In all seriousness though, I think it's an intentional choice not to make them eat the sht pile they create. It does mean he gets to explore quite a lot of the absurdity of someone like Ben's position, and he is still able to demonstrate the untenable positions.
But it's Shapiro, and I would very much enjoy the meltdown, he's such a dishonest POS, spewing toxic propaganda online for a living, claiming atheists and the left are emotional dipshits, the cause of all that's wrong in the world.
Oh, and build a giant fucking boat cause I'm about to make it RAIIIN.
The slavery rules are a part of the Commandments laid out in Exodus. Exodus. Ya know, the time period where the Jews had just escaped slavery in Egypt. Seems like the perfect time to convince newly freed slaves that keeping slaves is not great.
@@杨江辞Old Testament: God supports genocide
New Testament: though shall not hit neighbor with rock
Ben, basically: "God didn't want to disrupt social cohesion by condemning slavery".
I can't imagine giving my entire heart and soul and mind to a religious text that I don't even at times agree with or understand. "If you want to understand that then you can become a religious scholar and spend your whole life on it." Really? If the text can't readily be understood and interpreted and consistent, what good is it as a blueprint for how we should live our lives???
Well we are talking about Ben I-never-met-a logical-fallacy-i-didn't-like Shapiro
Maybe it's because life and everything there in is incredibly difficult. Occams razor is retard level and that's what you believe in
And again we have the classic retard who doesn't understand what an allegory is.
Whoever said that morality needs to be simple?
@@tommoore2012 definitely not me
The virgins they were permitted to keep as slaves were often just children, little girls, absolutely indefensible. No amount of speed-talking apologetics can dig Ben out of this one.
My God hates sin. He hate it so much that the wages of sin is death. Anyone one who commits sin is a criminal and enemy of God. Since every man {all of humanity} has come short of God's law all of man is a criminal and enemy of God. God is prefect which also means he is a perfect judge. I find it very defensible in God letting the Israel keep the little virgins girls as slaves for God could have destroyed the little girls with the rest of their sinful kingdom. Yes my God can bring judgment down on entire nations just like he can on the entire world (God flooded the world). All this is in an instance of my God having mercy on the littles girls letting them die later instead of right then and there with the rest of their sinful people. Yes the little girls died later to whatever(God handed us a perfect world where there was no death, animals the like loin were herbivores, the earth gave up it's bounty without effort and humanity was immoral read Genesis). Because Adam and Eve ate off the tree God told them not to eat fruit from (which God said you will surly die to Adam and Eve if you eat of the tree) getting Adam and all of his seed's (me you and Humanity is Adam's seed) immorality stripped from us. Our losing of our immorality is a curse dooming us to die which comes along with a multitude of other curses (Wars, diseases, women having great pain during birth, etc. Read Genesis). With that being said my God is responsible for every last death for he has cursed it to be so for our sins. No man gets away. Every man will die and will have to face God's judgement. It does not matter if a prisoner escapes prison or if a criminal is never caught and evades humanity's pathetic excuse for justice a system because he will die eventually in with in 150 years putting him right in front of God for judgment. Even the people thought who thought they were sinless (which all of humanity has sinned) will have to give an account for the sins they have committed. Accpeting God Jesus Christ as lord and Savior and repenting of your sins is the only way to escape God's wrath on judgment day in which no one has escaped or ever will escape. Have a blessed day.
@@beoskar9848 good grief take it to a publisher😭
@@beoskar9848 🌈😘
Starting with the context of a vengeful war against the Midianite people for specific actions mentioned in Numbers 25 and 31, what do we think ought to have happened to these virgin women who were otherwise spared but were now without anyone else? Be left to fend for themselves and marry or sell themselves into other nations? Wouldn’t that be essentially the same thing but likely worse?
The assertion that the Bible approves of slavery requires a nuanced understanding of its texts and contexts. While it is true that the Bible does not explicitly prohibit slavery, it introduces revolutionary concepts for its time about human dignity and worth, which are rooted in the creation of all people in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This foundational principle is critical in understanding the biblical trajectory towards justice and freedom.
In the Old Testament, laws provided to mitigate the harsh realities of slavery reflect a significant advancement over the practices of surrounding nations. For instance, the Jubilee laws (Leviticus 25) offered a mechanism for the liberation and economic rehabilitation of slaves, which was revolutionary. Moving into the New Testament, the approach becomes more transformative. Paul's letter to Philemon, which advocates for the manumission of Onesimus not merely as a slave but as a "beloved brother," exemplifies the New Testament's deeper ethical engagement with the issue. Furthermore, passages like Galatians 3:28 emphasize spiritual equality, fundamentally challenging the ethical validity of slavery.
The concept of progressive revelation helps us understand that the Bible’s teachings were provided within the human capacity to comprehend and enact divine will in specific cultural and historical contexts. This revelation reaches its climax in the New Testament, culminating in Jesus’s teachings, which proclaim liberation for the oppressed (Luke 4:18).
While historical interpretations of these scriptures have varied, with some using them to justify slavery and others to fight against it, these divergent uses reflect human fallibility in interpretation rather than the message of the Bible itself. The abolitionist movement, heavily influenced by Christian principles, demonstrates how scripture has inspired significant social reforms toward greater justice.
Therefore, it is essential to approach the biblical texts on slavery with a comprehensive hermeneutic that recognizes both their immediate and broader narrative arcs. The Bible, when interpreted in the context of its entire narrative and historical setting, promotes a powerful counter-cultural narrative advocating for the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, inspiring believers toward a more just and equitable world.
"Hey mabe dont own other humans" is not very radical, it just says a lot that it took centuries to come to this position. It points to the fact that morality is a developing thing over centuries instead of something that can be expressed in a static text
1 in 7 africans are slaves and are being bought as slaves right now.
Define "centuries". A lot of people believe that the first legal restrictions against slavery didn't start happening until the 19th century. The first legal restrictions on slavery, including outright bans of certain kinds, are literally thousands of years old. So if by "centuries" you mean the centuries between the timeline of the Jewish bible and current era, then probably. If by centuries you mean any amount of time less than literally thousands of years of history of restricting, prohibiting, or outright banning slavery, then no.
Different definitions of slavery invalid point
@@cajonesalt0191There wasn't slavery in the middle ages.... At least not in Europe 😂😂😂😂
Read a book loooooool
Modern day slavery is still a thing in every country. I would say that neither the Bible nor the passing of time can change basic human animalistic behaviours.
nice to see a calm, courteous, friendly debate, I wish more debates would follow this example
If I didn’t know who Shapiro was before this, I would never guess he had a reputation for ‘destroying’ people.
"People"? I think you mean "college students".
@@tikdoph Touché!! 😊
Thats because faith is not a "destroyable" debate on either side, its not expected to have proofs.. When he debates tangibles, he absolutely destroys everyone.. including college students
@@tikdoph im sure you can do better 😂
also, it doesn't matter WHO he is talking to, his points stand, you know that right? A fact is a fact no matter who says it.. you must be one of those "he just talks fast" people.🤡🤡 As if speed of speech changes it 🤡💩🗑️
Also, hes "destroyed" everyone on CNN and TYT as well so theres that.. hes debated many times
Yes religion debates are different, anyone with half a brain knows this
@@firewfire Wow... college students, huh? Those bastions of the intellectual world with decades of life experience from which to draw upon against a disingenuous clown that talks at 2.5 x speed and presupposes the most ridiculous things to support his flimsiest of arguments. Color me impressed.
I love the answer “well I’m not god, so I don’t know,” it’s such a pathetic handwaving technique apologists do that allows them to not have to confront very basic truths that we know about human well-being and suffering.
I mean, it's basically shorthand for, "I acknowledge that this doesn't make sense or it's completely inconsistent with the attributes we regularly ascribe to god." At the end of the day, these debates are kind of pointless. There are things that no apologist is ever going to acknowledge or admit, because it's better to give a bullshit answer and move on to the next topic than it is to acknowledge even for a moment that the bible or some religious tenet doesn't make sense (contributing to the case that the bible was not inspired by a perfect being).
I'd agree if it was all Ben said. However, this was a remark to show he does not consider himself to speak on behalf of god (that would be ridiculous). He then provides a possible explanation to the question, based on what he knows about human society
@@samcolserra2425 But then in the very same interview, he gives several answers and explanations wherein he ostensibly IS aware of why god does what he does. This goes to the person's point: the religious are much more likely to say they can't speak on behalf of god when the topic doesn't make sense or is inconsistent with his supposed attributes. Do you think that's a coincidence, or is this type of response the last refuge of people unwilling to say "you're right, thing A and thing B are contradictions"
@@zoomingby this is a pretty profound take, Alex also says this in the first round, where he discusses free will, where even if Alex convinces his opponent he states that their way of living never changes, acknowledging how these debates arent really here to convince the participants in the debates but to give the audience 2 perspectives to reflect on to make an educated opinion on something
The "God works in mysterious ways" dodge.
Mental gymnastics needed to justify the relevance of stupidity from 2000 years ago for today is always amusing
That!
…good secular acolytes. 🤡
No
Religion has laid the foundation of the society you live, hate it or not
Wait until you hear them try to explain how the 2000 year old dogma isn't just repeating the 4000 year old dogma using slightly different names than the 6000 year old dogma.
The bible did not "liberalise" the Code of Hammurabi, it plagiarized it, along with other old mesopotamian lows, sprinkled some devine dust on it and made to be a holy scripture.
I love how different both minds work, obviously Alex is the most logical human being in my list, that is the whole thing why people watch him in the first place. Ive been following since the first time I heard him, such a priviledged mind.
Seeing Alexs audience grow restores my faith in posterity. Thank you smart dude
Watching Ben's mind twisting itself into pretzels trying to defend the bible is mind-blowing stupidity
I still have faith in humanity, that the majority of people can recognize the difference between intellectual integrity and intellectual dishonesty.
@@MarcusCicero1 thats a great description.. it baffles me how people like shapiro
can say the garbage they say and actually believe it themselves.. he seems like a smart
individual but when defending the bible its just completely nonsensical mishmash
the most logical human being? have you read any philosophy?
what good is logic when talking about morals or how we feel about things as single people or society's do you use logic to determine you should love your dog but swat a fly how about to pick your friends or partner ... logic is a great tool but it has its time and place
Ben's saying that God couldn't outright denounce slavery because it was very common at the time, but why was it then able to outright forbid adultery ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") which was probably equally common? Funnily enough, modern societies abolished slavery but not adultery despite Ben saying that present day morals are rooted in religion by which logic adultery should be illegal.
Adultery was illegal. I think western countries only decriminalised it in the 19th century. The US has varied laws depending on the state. And in Islamic countries it is probably still is illegal.
What is legal changes with the shifting cultural norms. I mean LGBT movement and abortions laws are other examples.
Morality should be correlated with legality but it doesn’t always. I think slavery and adultery are very good examples- they r both immoral but have not always been illegal.
@@JC-gz9oy Yeah it was illegal in many countries, but I specifically said that it's not illegal in *modern societies*. The point I'm making is that Ben's statement that today's morals are rooted in religion is false.
I believe people had morals, i.e. sense of right and wrong way before any religion existed. Heck, even animals have morals (e.g. most of them take care of their offspring).
@@hawkmne i duno…. Wikipedia says adultery is still a felony in quite a few states in the US and many states only decriminalised it in after the 1990s… I’d say that’s quite modern…
I don’t think u need religion for morals. And even the bible mentions that- it talks about for the people who weren’t given the law, they always have their conscience. So there is something there at baseline.
Either way… it’s certain true that the modern sense of morality is highly influenced by Christianity. Cuz that has been the prevailing religion in the western world for so long. But as we shift away from Christianity what is moral will change too. We’ve only just begun to deviate from Christianity tho.
I would even go as far to say - I’m not really sure why civilised slavery is so wrong if it’s conducted in a mutually beneficial way (which sounds like the bible was advocating)- we sign contracts that tie ourselves to companies today ALL the time, the bible is just an extended version of it- we pay huge proportions of taxes … we also sign mortgages that r 30yr long, or we keep paying rent- I mean, that’s a form of slavery isn’t it. we just don’t call it that- actually the bank and the country owns us, and what we think we own. I mean… it’s certainly not pleasant but it’s necessary no? And we all tolerate it, and it’s legal.
People cohabitate all the time and have children without getting married now and that’s the norm - that used to be considered immoral. There r a lot of polygamorus couples now. I bet in the near future we would think people who want a monogamous relationship are just being selfish and insecure.
Social norms change. Concept of morality change. Of course u can have morality without religion- but it will be a shifting one over time, and without religion as a guide, it might shift into something u don’t like.
@@JC-gz9oy you are drawing some dangerous equalities here. Are you in all seriousness comparing voluntarily taking out a loan to forcefully becoming a slave having no rights, being constantly beaten, with your life at mercy of your owner? You mentioned we sign contracts nowadays - what contracts did the slaves sign?
Religion did historically influence the perception of what's moral and what's not and some of its teachings are good but many of them are flat out wrong and dangerous. Thank god modern, developed societies started steering away from those teachings long time ago and that religion is not the basis or guide for morals any longer.
@@hawkmne I said a “civilised form of slavery” if I’m correct- the bible is not advocating for beating ur slave and treating them horribly…
And it not an exact equivalent but, my point is we r all a form slaves in a different system. We think we have choice, but actually, we r still bound by the system. We just can’t put a face to it.
If there is no religion to guide the shifting morality, then it is the strong over the weak, the rich over the poor… survival of the fittest.
Obviously WHICH religion guides ur morality also matters.
Alex - you're quick on your feet, calm, focussed and erudite.
Hats off for your polite respectful interviewing technique, and for keeping a clear head under pressure.
This is the problem with Judaism. There’s no New Testament to get rid of all this questionable morality.
No one contradicts Ben Shapiro better than Ben Shapiro.
You won the debate. If religious moral absolutes are open to contrary interpretation, they aren’t absolutes and the premise fails.
Ok, you can say that about Christianity. There is a reason why there is a distinction between New and Old testaments. Islam, however? Not supposed to be ever interpreted other than how it's literally written. Would you say the debate is won in this case?
@@samcolserra2425 I’ve never read the Quran so it is harder to critique how the argument holds up against the teachings. If the text is entirely self consistent, and no Muslim can ever legitimately claim to interpret the text differently than another Muslim, then this argument could not be made against Islam.
@@barrywhite1770 sunnis and shias argue over the interpretation of the texts, so you can make your argument without outright knowing what the quran says. I agree with what your original post.
@@samcolserra2425 but the Quran IS interpreted differently. It's no different
Humans are flawed and can claim anything. If you claim turtles are brown and not green does it even matter? It's still the color it is.
Ive heard this speech over and over.
If the people choosen by God does it and God allows it, it ain't immoral.
If foreign people with different ideology commit the same act, it is immoral.
Because my God and only my God has the moral authority to command and demand (see the Old Testament) or redeem and condone (see the New Testament) such acts. So those who won’t obey my God don’t have the same rights as me. Only I can do it because only I have the ultimate moral authority on my corner. Because if my God wasn’t the ultimate moral authority he wouldn’t be God to begin with.
The rules in the Torah applied only to the Israelites, so that's incorrect whoever implies that
If the nature of God is as my bible describes, then he cannot be aligned with the morality of man. The universe is to bend as he sees fit, and we are owned by him, and has infinite wisdom. If a man tries to act as God, he does not have restraint or wisdom to dictate reality or even know the effects he causes from his actions.
@@brandonkey181he can’t be aligned with any morality…
@@brandonkey181 This is what powerful men tell lesser men who he believes himself the God of. God has always been what more powerful men have told us he is. Real truth is self evident and will reveal itself to those who seek it.
“My god is no better than some of the lamest political candidates in human history” is not the argument I expected out of ben
😅🤣🎉
What ben was like in this debate
His reaction
Attitude
This should be shown to all his blind followers
God is a spectator, in his ant farm of warring ants, he can't mind control the ants, but he can manipulate the farm to gradually have the ants at peace
@@TheAsianRepublicanpretty sure he could mind control the ants... but disregarding that, using this argument to defend the supposed god approved continuation of something immoral is stupid. god seems more than happy to explicitly ban other things seen as okay in such a time. and it then begs the question of what else in the bible did god deem moral/ immoral solely based on the people and culture he gave his message to in hopes that they would ‘gradually change’ (all whilst banging on about his righteousness and absolute truth)
there’s a far simpler answer, the bible is just the mythical & cultural ramblings of men from millennia ago who’s practices and views we’ve since moved past. yet instead of admitting that the laws/morality set in this book are quite often terrible we lean into our cognitive dissonance and console ourselves with some of the best damn mental gymnastics i’ve ever seen.
@@TheAsianRepublicanwhat an impotent and weak God. is that really your best defense?
I adore watching Ben talk himself into a corner and I’m so glad to see that he can’t bully his way out of every conversation.
I love healthy and respectful debate where disagreement isn't seen as 'hate' or 'aggressive'. More please!
shapiro doesn't deserve it. another two faced apologist.
@@HarryNicNicholas Everyone 'deserves' to have their own views and opinions and have the opportunity to express them. Are you against free speech?
@@dvc214 How is not wanting to speak to someone "against freeze peach"?
8:13 Lmao fck no. You can clearly hear Ben gish gallop the moment he got cornered
@@Horny_Fruit_Flies he literally said he doesn’t deserve to express his opinion in a respectful debate, what are you smoking?
Ben: well God was cool with slavery back then because it was normal
Also Ben: gay marriage is bad still because the bible said its bad then
God did not said explicitly, back then, that slavery is bad. It was normal back then, and God definitely knew this will be immoral today. So He needed not to speak about it...
But God did said explicitly, back then, that gay marriage is bad, so it still stays a bad thing now.
@@ig.r0maniak45So murder and theft was wrong, but slavery wasn't? Adultery and rape amongst themselves was wrong but capturing pretty women from the enemies, raping them and discarding them after dishonoring wasn't?
I think a lot of people have misconceptions of what the Bible is really about, largely due to beliefs spread by Protestant Christians, who put the Bible on a pedestal and claim that it's an "inerrant text" with valuable wisdom for humanity.
I think the truth is, if you study Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah, you'll find that the Bible has a completely different purpose than that.
If you go back to the story of the Garden of Eden, what you have is a starting point for understanding the Bible's purpose. A lot of it, however, isn't explained in the Bible itself. A lot of the answers about the Bible are in Jewish mysticism. Jewish mysticism expands on the Garden of Eden story. In Jewish mysticism, the two trees mentioned in Genesis, the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, are not to be taken literally. They are concepts about the spiritual realm.
According to Jewish mysticism, the problems in this world exist because of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We became separated from the Tree of Life. To get back to the Tree of Life, we need to understand how the spiritual realm works.
All this talk about an "inerrant text" and how if the Bible was wrong about things like slavery and homosexuality, then it's wrong about everything, misses the point. That was never the purpose of the Bible.
I suggest resigning from you job where you are expected to work Monday -> Friday, 12 hours a day.
@@RB-jq8cc Learn Hebrew and come back in a few years.
I appreciated how both of you handled yourselves during this short conversation clip.
Gotta love fence riders who stand for nothing.
What have to be handled by them, their loose motion?
@@TenzinBeifongIII "I liked how civic this was"
"OH MY GOD FENCE RIDER, PICK A SIDEEE"
What a fantastic, thoughtful, and calm debate. Very entertaining. Thank you.
I love how conservatives like Ben like to jump into the "morals are subjective" camp when they get challenged.
No mate, it's wrong now and it was wrong then regardless of whether they knew better or not
Thanks for continuing to have the hard conversations Alex. These ideas need to be challenged and debated transparently more than ever.
What for? Life is meaningless according to atheists. Even the concept of "truth" becomes irrelevant.
debates where each person is respectful and doesnt talk over the other, although they may disagree, is so satisfying to watch. id go as far to say, enjoyable. great topic, fair questions and has sparked me to dive a little deeper on the topic. im a Christian, and this is a great subject to learn more about. thanks for the vid Alex!
Careful, that "learn more about" might just become the defensive crutch for you when it comes to slavery... 😂"God works in mysterious ways" which is basically how Ben ended it...
@@fahimp3 you atheists sure are pompous
@@fahimp3 --- The same was said of Ba'al, he works in mysterious ways.
Yes, praised be! Maga!
@@fahimp3 I don't see a problem with "God works in mysterious ways." If God exists his intellect and perspective far exceeds anything that a human being can conceive.
Jesus addresses a similar problem in the NT. When he is asked if divorce is lawful, he says no. Then the religious leaders of the time ask him; “then why did Moses allow it?” Jesus responds, “because of the hardness of your hearts it was allowed” (they probably would have killed their wives it it was till death do you part) in order to get another one, “but from the beginning it was not so” and goes on to say if you make a commitment, you need to keep it. Especially one where you vow to keep it. Scripture is the development of covenants and law through salvation history. Expecting the end at the beginning is illogical. God would not ask a people to do something they did not have the spiritual and cultural capacity to do, that’s why St. Paul spends much of the New Testament saying things like “the Law is good but it means death to those who cannot abide by it, and so Christ came to bring us the new and final Law of grace and to empower us to live a life pleasing to God through faith and sacrificial love which Christ is the ultimate example and source of”.
Bingo! But no atheist will read this comment.
@TheKingsTrueWitness777
2,000 years later, Christians STILL aren't ready for what Jesus had to say about divorce. Christian marriages today, especially conservative Christian marriages, end up in divorce more frequently than atheist marriages.
Google: "learn religions divorce rates for atheists"
*God would not ask a people to do something they did not have the spiritual and cultural capacity to do.*
I don't even know what to make of this statement.
Your argument obviously sounds good to a Christian, but it is specious at best.
Are you claiming that the Israelites at the time, had no moral capacity or conscience to obey an instruction as simple as *Don't own another human being as property???*
Their ignorance or naivety did NOT stop their God from giving them instructions as he saw fit.
For example, they knew nothing of germ theory or infections either, but that didn't stop God from commanding them to wash their hands thoroughly, cover-up their feces when they defecate, and bury their dead properly.
Besides, God wasn't just permitting them to own Slaves as was their usual practice. No. God actively advocated slavery, MANY times.
Does it make sense to you that an all-wise God thought it necessary to prohibit Shrimp and Sardines, but not slavery, simply because the people didn't have the spiritual capacity to know right from wrong???
Also, your argument, that the Christ came and made everything all better in the new testament isn't the good argument you think it is. ALL scripture is given by inspiration - ALL, not some of it. And if God is all-wise, and all-good, and always just, then, it makes no sense AT ALL, that at ANY POINT in human history, He endorsed the heinous practice of slavery.
But hey, what do I know. We are after all talking about the God who commanded the execution of a man for gathering sticks on the sabbath, and the stoning of non-virgins on their wedding night.
So No. Please don't come here claiming that there was absolutely nothing an all-powerful God could've done to prevent his chosen people from treating their fellow humans worse than cattle. And don't claim he just stood by, and let them do as they wished.
NO! God did not only condone slavery, he advocated it, he encouraged it, he taught them HOW to practice it.
And, even after Jesus came, you still won't find one verse in the new testament prohibiting this wicked practice.
@@TheKingsTrueWitness777
*God would not ask a people to do something they did not have the spiritual and cultural capacity to do.*
I don't even know what to make of this statement.
Your argument obviously sounds good to a Christian, but it is specious at best.
Are you claiming that the Israelites at the time, had no moral capacity or conscience to obey an instruction as simple as *Don't own another human being as property???*
Their ignorance or naivety did NOT stop their God from giving them instructions as he saw fit.
For example, they knew nothing of germ theory or infections either, but that didn't stop God from commanding them to wash their hands thoroughly, cover-up their feces when they defecate, and bury their dead properly.
Besides, God wasn't just permitting them to own Slaves as was their usual practice. No. God actively advocated slavery, MANY times.
Does it make sense to you that an all-wise God thought it necessary to prohibit Shrimp and Sardines, but not slavery, simply because the people didn't have the spiritual capacity to know right from wrong???
Also, your argument, that the Christ came and made everything all better in the new testament isn't the good argument you think it is. ALL scripture is given by inspiration - ALL, not some of it. And if God is all-wise, and all-good, and always just, then, it makes no sense AT ALL, that at ANY POINT in human history, He endorsed the heinous practice of slavery.
But hey, what do I know. We are after all talking about the God who commanded the execution of a man for gathering sticks on the sabbath, and the stoning of non-virgins on their wedding night.
So No. Please don't come here claiming that there was absolutely nothing an all-powerful God could've done to prevent his chosen people from treating their fellow humans worse than cattle. And don't claim he just stood by, and let them do as they wished.
NO! God did not only condone slavery, he advocated it, he encouraged it, he taught them HOW to practice it.
And, even after Jesus came, you still won't find one verse in the new testament prohibiting this wicked practice.
Props to Ben for not just storming out like another person did.
😂😂😂
I am one of the many people that would like to see Ben storm out and never return. He is a dingleberry.
Not this time. But he did storm out when interviewed by Andrew Neil.
He stormed out on BBC over nothing though and said "well I sleep on a bed of money" 🤓
Maybe learnt his lesson
Ooo, I’m not familiar with who stormed out of this sort of interview. Who did?
First time I've seen Shapiro stumped, he actually dealt with it better than I expected, probably due to the reasonableness of Alex. Quite the convo sir, well done.
He’s not stumped. Also slavery isn’t objectively wrong from an atheist perspective since its survival of the fittest organism. There is no objective morality just organism survival and reproduction.
Of course you can have a personal preference that slavery is wrong, but it’s not more true than another man’s preference that slavery is good.
At least hermaphroditism exists and is observable in nature. ANY proof for the faith based claims made by monotheists, after 2000+ years? Otherwise it's MYTHology. Facts don't care about anyone's faith. Why do I have to pretend anyone's imaginary friend is real? Monotheism is an outdated form of social engineering, that clearly isn't speaking against slavery. I don't support slavery, I support freedom.
@@Stevewilldoit96 Treat others as you want to be treated is a universal law. Slavery is wrong because of causality. There's a way with nature, being more mindful, and respectful. And a way against it. ☯ If you disagree then you should have no problem with you or your family being slaves or treated second class with things like Jim Crow "laws." Rather than practicing "all are created equal" as the constitution states. We can act like territorial animals, or use our brains and cooperate rather than just compete.
@@Stevewilldoit96 There isn't an "atheist" perspective with regard to the slavery issue. Atheism at it's core is simply the rejection of religion. Nothing more, nothing less.
And as others have said, the golden rule is pretty much universal in any culture regardless of religion. That kinda shows that morality doesen't have anything to do with religion.
And there's plenty of good reasons for why it is that way. Yes, in the end we do this because it's benificial for our survival. Cooperation makes us more likely to survive than competition.
@@TehIdiotOneBut why not just do what feels good physically? Why worry about survival of your tribe, if you won't live forever?
This is exactly why Ben debates college students mote than anyone
ironically, alex IS a college student, ben just doesn't like debating people who have been taught how to identify bad faith argumentation.
Learn how to spell
Yeah, dint know why they dont view him as a student @Picardspassword
I have always thought this and said this he can only “win” against children
@justomunoz7168 thank you for pointing this out. I always say this.
I got to say very respectful and polite debate. God bless you both
The idea that Ben’s almighty god is worried about some social unrest is hilarious
Right? This is the same God that drowned all of his living creatures because he couldn't think of a better way to start his terrarium experiment over. 🤷🏻♂️
Really clutching at straws with that one. But this is what religious people do. They’ll never just say “yeah I don’t have an answer for you, I just don’t agree with that part of the Bible.”
@@cortical1 Another atheist idiot who takes stories at face value. Imagine reading lord of the flies and all the value you got from it was "omg a bunch of idiot kids are killing themselves because they don't know how to survive on an island." Or any novel for that matter.
@@Station9.75 Pretty ignorant and not open-minded, showing a lack of knowledge. You should first answer why there are so many denominations of Christianity as well as any Abrahamic religion of that sort, as well as many different Bibles within these religions that you can't really group every religious person as a "God believer," "God" in and of itself is religiously broad as "God" is characteristically different in all religions. In Islam, they teach that we should fear God and be grateful to him (like a parent). In Christian faith, we should talk to God like our friend and savior. But that is just surface level stuff, there are many other religious denominations of the religious ideas of God.
Hey to be fair…Ben can’t win an argument defending fairytales no one can…I think Ben knows deeply well religion is fiction but he is Jewish and comes from a Jewish family so he honors it but you can see it in his face he doesn’t disagree with the other guy he actually respects his arguments.
god had no problem prohibiting silly things like eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics, but for some reason he just couldn’t bring himself to say, “hey guys it’s bad to own each other as property. You shouldn’t do that.”
He can ban idolatry, coveting, lying, murder, disrespecting our parents, adultery, and all kinds of other stuff (even though he tells his people to commit heinous murders of women and children quite frequently in the Old Testament), but he can't ban slavery.
God cannot say "It is wrong to own a slave" 'cause God cannot say anything - only people can... and they just did not say it in the past because they did not see anything wrong with it at the time. The concept had to wait fir classical liberal thinkers, humanist and the like to say it.
God cannot say "It is wrong to own a slave" 'cause God cannot say anything - only people can... and they just did not say it in the past because they did not see anything wrong with it at the time. The concept had to wait fir classical liberal thinkers, humanist and the like to say it.
Well did GOD want Isreal to have a king. Did Isreal want a king. Did God give Isreal a king. Man sets the rules on earth not God. God sets the rules on how man can access GOD
He did.
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. -- Leviticus 25:42
If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. -- Leviticus 25:39-40
i like alex's beard
He’s slowly turning into a Platonic philosopher 😂
Usually beards make you look older but Alex still looks youthful as ever lol
The Bible is very specific about things you ought not do. Shapiro is attempting to say that the Bible is defensible because it doesn’t specifically tell you you have to own people. That’s what we call dishonesty. The Bible cares a great deal about what’s in your dinner bowl, but as far as owning and beating people, go for it.
In the end ben says it the power of interpretation, wouldnt that again mean morality derived from the bible is at least somewhat relative?
It would be about as relative as a Supreme Court Justice determining the constitution
Not necessarily. There are some issues in the bible that are both explicitly and implicitly wrong regardless of context with very little ambiguity. The fact that there are tough are troubling passages doesn't negate the entire Bible. Not stealing for example as a commandment is straight forward and uncontroversial. Moral relativists would argue that you can steal depending on the context and I doubt you will find people that believe that. The question is how we interpret the difficult passages.
@@GoldenRedderso are you saying that God is the equivalent of the founding fathers? Human, mortal, imperfect, full of biases, prone to acting on impulse and emotion, occasionally illogical, leaving things open to interpretation, not able to foresee future events?
A turtle has a color.
"It's green" says one.
"It's brown" says another.
The turtle still has the same color.
As a religious person, that's actually a valid point, but to a certain extent. that is, most of the instructions in the bible regarding how to act out in the world are pretty clear and don't require too much contemplating on the interpretation. there are some things that are not so clear and as you said, require some relative insight, but those are not grand instructions, usually theyre quite minor.
Ben’s argument that god had to gradually woo humanity away from slavery because it would have been too extreme a change for the time condemn it outright falls on its face when you look at the idea of the Ten Commandments. There simply could have been an eleventh commandment.
Yeah but "the eleven commandments" doesn't roll off the tongue the same way
BOTH of them are wrong. Let me educate you. The only "slaves" were the Hebrew slaves under Pharaoh. And THERE WERE NO RULES for them. The rest that most people think were "slaves," were actually "servants." We know that by the fact there THERE WERE RULES. "Rules" make them servants - not slaves. And those servants were voluntary, because of debt owed. Example: Jacob had to work 7 yrs just to pay for his wife. And his wife's Father cheated Jacob, saying he had to marry his older daughter. So THEN Jacob had to work another 7 yrs to get the bride he wanted - Rebecca. It was just a culture of the time - 3,500 yrs ago for the Jews. People that say slaves existed in these scriptures are just wrong. "Rules" is just part of the facts that prove it.
@@frompartsunknown687 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. -- Leviticus 25:42
If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. -- Leviticus 25:39-40
Maybe there could have been a first amendment to the ten commandments? 😁
I call bs. @@frompartsunknown687
Jesus Christ! Ben was violated at around 9:30. His own statements came back like a missile and hit him. This Alex guy is just awesome. A new subscriber from India here.
Shapiro isn't a Bible scholar. Slavery as totally forbidden is a modern dogma. It can certainly be justified. But in the first place the slavery God is worried about is to selfish desire, not commonplace slavery. A person can lead a just life as a slave, and go to heaven; which is the goal. Secondly "Moses let you divorce...but I say to you..." Jesus, ie. the slavery laws may not be God's laws at all; but Shapiro can't use that. As for justification: a warrior tribe constantly wages war, raping, killing etc, finally defeated, what to do? Wipe-out? All the men are dead, but the children will grow up vengeful and the cycle will start again. Instead they are enslaved and under the hebrew system integrated, including marriage. Or a man raised by a loving family, refuses to work, turns to crime, chaos in the community, punished but will not change, choose 1)execution 2)rot in jail for life, 3)enslaved to forced work, and permitted under hebrew system to marry. Which is the most merciful? Exile just shifts the problem, so not an option.
@@francisgeorge7639I gotta admit, thats a good point... I still think correcting and educating is better than slavery though. Forcing someone to do things does not make them productive by their own will, it is no better than rotting in a jail cell.
@@aahhhhhhhhhhhhh sure, for themselves it's not much better but at least the community gets work out of the lazy ass. haha! The 'invesment' of the parents otherwise goes to waste.
@@francisgeorge7639 Is it the parents investment or Gods? And would a christian dominant society today condone slavery? Why was it effective then but looked down on today? Is the abolishment of slavery a good thing or would the world be better with slavery
@@francisgeorge7639 Id argue a lot of people today still meet the criteria you mentionned that would make them deserving of being enslaved. Dont get me wrong, their punishment is justified, but im just asking... did that system only work back then?
Very well done Alex 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Love you Alex, have a nice day
He doesn't have free will?
The power of imagination is so often undermined by a commitment to a particular understanding of a text. Was happy to see you challenge them both on that.
Imagination is why kids are changing genders.
@@adamjohns350 imagination is why your birther thought you could exist and be a normal human..
I'm not a fan, nor an enemy, of Alex or Ben. But damn, it's nice to see Ben squirm so much after encountering intelligent, articulate, and logical thoughts which have been clearly mulled over more than once. This is not a "gotcha!" moment at all--this is taking to task someone who has engaged in sophistry for years. Brilliant.
This is what happens when Ben agrees to debate someone like Alex who knows what they're talking about. It's like Ben had no idea what he was getting into, this was clearly outside of his comfort zone and I give him credit for agreeing to this. He either underestimated Alex or he didn't do his homework, or both. For a change it was nice to see Ben get clobbered.
@@zpd8003 Agreed. He did not prepare adequately for the task.
Whether he's able to contend with such an interlocutor...that's a different question.
@@zpd8003 any credit given to ben is far, far too much credit.
Yup. Just an exchange of thoughts and testing (eachother) thoughts. Not brought down to a mere contest of who's the best.
Shapiro made his name “owning” dumb university students. Don’t often see him debating someone who’s actually intelligent.
The symbolism God uses in the Old Testament to teach us through slavery and other such events are absolutely 🔥❤️🔥shows that the Old Testament is incomplete until messiah and the New Testament.
Like Jesus “ Do not be called master, for we have One master”Matt 23:10
And “ anyone who loves husband/wife/children more than me is not worth of me”
Matt 10:37-39.
God being our master/father gives us good gifts. But gives us choice of either gift or to serve the master continuely with the gifts. It’s about servitude not slavery 🔥
Abraham was quite the man 🔥
I love the idea that a wrathful all-knowing all-powerful deity has to woo people toward doing what he wants and hope that they eventually, centuries later, come to the right conclusion. That's funny, Ben.
Yep, this is the God that cursed mankind forever because a couple of people ate an apple and who completely drowned the entire planet because he was miffed about how people were behaving BUT he was so worried about a little social incohesion he couldn't say knock it off when it came to slavery. Just listen to yourself Ben.
People that he explicitly had all the time (did time even exist) and power to make exactly how he wanted to make them and "in his own image." And these people wonder why its so hard to take their religion seriously.
God's value of free will is one of the most important concepts in the bible and you've missed it entirely.
@@spacecadetmcgee7349 Come again?
@@williampounds5191lol sorry but you clearly don’t understand what created in his image means
And God did create us exactly how he wanted us to be free agents
Unless you are more comfortable with him making mindless robots who does what he wants when he wants no questions ask and dont have the ability of think for ourselves
My God Alex, you've done what so many people haven't been able to do for decades - this may never, ever happen again. You got Ben to plainly wrestle with the notion that "the scripture is contradictory". I don't know if I can be an atheist anymore because you're a miracle worker.
In decades? You haven't seen the BBC interview
The scriptures are not "contradictory" as you suggest. Only if the Old Testament is viewed as a monolithic entity could you provide such an assertion. This is an anachronistic statement to assume this as it has clearly originated with fundamentalists not Jews. What Shapiro does understand is that the Jews endlessly debate over numerous readings of scripture and do so because it is viewed as polyvalent and not monolithic.
@@mrbryanbelbut the word of god should unify the scriptures so there are no contradictions. Is it just a recent belief that it’s the word of god and not just old writing of early fundamentalists
@@1220THEMAN No. Your first sentence reflects the belief of the modern period among fundamentalist Christians. This is wrong. It includes the idea of "inspiration" which most assume that the writers were an automaton conduit which God speaks through. It is a thorny subject but the elimination of contradictions entails Christians merging with Cartesian modernity with foundationalism at its core. The Bible is not a book on certainty it is a book about faith. Interestingly enough, if someone from the ancient world could predict how moderns would view documents for their internal consistency then it simply could have been edited to make everything perfect and lacking in contradiction. However, they left it with its many views. I would view the corpus of the scriptures as a collection of different views about God which is why I referred to it as polyvalent. To engage with your first sentence again, this is a "philosophical" issue but not a textual issue. Jews of the ancient world were always in debate about the nature of God. As a matter of fact, the very core fo the debate among the major and minor prophets entails disagreement with the state religion in the form of the priesthood. When you reach the New Testament, Christ has some big problems with it.
@@mrbryanbel so you're admitting it is contradictory, hence the discussion.
This idea that back then they could have simply decided to remove all contradictions? Absolutely laughable, shows you're not a serious person.
that is a win for the sensible part of humanity. Religious people are all moral relativists, it says it all
The argument that God cannot outright condemn certain things because He must adapt to His audience and favor a more gradual approach has never convinced me. I mean, Abraham was ready to kill his own son on God's command without even asking for explanations, just because it was God's word. If God could make the sacrifice of one's own child an acceptable idea, then surely he could do the same for the abolition of slavery and rape.
"Abraham, you shall sacrifice your son to Me because that is My will."
"Yes my Lord, your wish is my command."
"Oh and by the way, you're not allowed to rape women and own slaves anymore."
"GOD STOP GIVING ME YOUR TOUGHEST TRIALS"
We have a 3rd grader here. That pr a retard with a 3rd grade comprehension level. Let the adults talk
Abraham was one in a million. His faith was unmatched and God's command to sacrifice his son was a representation of his incredible faith.
Everybody else fell far shorter than Abraham, who would never have even considered doing such a thing.
@milesyeet181 That's why I stressed the huge difference between sacrificing one's son (the stuff of fanatical heroes of the faith) and treating your fellow human beings better (which everyone can be educated to do, especially if this education comes from a divine authority).
God is such a dick for demanding that out of someone so loyal and then going "sike". Even as a child when I first heard that story in church, I knew that was fucked up
Alex, is it fair to say that Just like we know what good is because of bad. We now know what is more moral In the 21st century than what was in the BC error? It is always good to have something to compare too