I remember talking to one theologian about that, he used a lord of the rings analogy that went like this: a hobit was destined to throw a ring in the mordor and he knew it wasn't an easy task and he will encounter many perils along the way, but he didn't quit, therefore marriage is the same, you just don't quit due to possible hardships. I amazed myself by managing to not burst out laughing but i was too mindboggled to say, that my divorce won't affect the fate of our world.
@@Brugar18 Very importantly, if divorce for reasons other than adultery is strictly prohibited, why was it sanctioned in Deuteronomy 24? Either morality is an objective standard set by an eternal rulegiver independent of human judgement, we have a moral sense capable of determining morality independently of divine fiat or neither. Certainly not both.
@@jackjohnson2171 I have seen better from him.. Not to say this performance was in any way not good, on the contrary it was absolutely outstanding, However when he has time to slowly break down his thought process and articulate his points, and not in the heat of a debate, some of the knowledge he drops is just breathtaking. But the fact that he can do a decent fraction of that in this debate shows just how well practiced on his knowledge that he is. And I even picked out points he missed that he could have elaborated on... Some of my studies and research overlaps his to an extent, but even missing some good points, he still "scalped" his opponents there. And combining that with matts savagery in the trenches is a veritable dream team. I wished they would team up more, this was a great debate to watch, at least while cliff wasn't trying to talk.
Cliffe is genuinely the most jarring guy in a debate of any kind. The amount of pivoting to preaching/random scripture is insane... and he does it all of the time.
@Jason Aldrich I reject the premise of your question. Jay Dyer has shown Matt Dillahunty to be Ad Hoc and Arbitrary when it comes to the use of logic. Did you watch their discussion?
I had no idea what you meant, so I looked up the stuttering Billy story. For anyone else who doesn't know what it is, stay that way. Believe me, you're happier not knowing. I wish I didn't know.
@@littlebluepanda394 lol It was quite shocking. In a formalized debate about the existence of God and Cliffe thinks using that ridiculous story is a good way to prove god’s existence? I remember sitting there and just being like, wtf was that!?
@@littlebluepanda394 I've never heard about it and I can't find this story, please help me with which keywords to google it or something. I understand if you don't want to go into details here in the comments, but I can't rest until I know what this is about. :)
How is this still a topic of debate? God does not forbid slavery anywhere in the Bible. I've heard apologists make the excuse that other laws/commandments cover slavery, but come on. If God can give specific instructions how to to wear a shirt and how exactly a beard should be trimmed, there's no reason why God couldn't also have given a specific instruction stating that owning another human being as property is forbidden.
@Tyler B #2 So you clearly don't understand what "clearly" means. It means it's not vague and it's specific. Clearly, as when God told Moses that eating certain types of insects or shellfish is forbidden. Or when God told Moses how men should wear their beards. Clearly would mean a statement that said owning another human being as property is wrong. The verses you provided do not say this. But this is to be expected from someone engaged in apologetics and not actual thought.
Exodus 21.16 is not about kidnapping. It’s slavery. Since when do you steal a person and sell them (as merchandise-strongs) in kidnapping? Today, with human trafficking...people are abducted then sold or...as Ex21.16 also says, stolen and held onto. They are slaves..forced servitude. Kidnapping is when you steal an individual and hold them to ransom. That word ‘ransom’ is used not a few verses down Ex21.30. That’s slavery and it is condemned. Lev25.44-46 is also..not slavery. There’s a difference between ownership and possession. That word is the very same word used in Deut when God tells the Israelites to go in and possess the land. They don’t own the land..God does (lev25.23). Ownership is full control and legal right. That’s slavery. Possession is DEGREE of control stipulated by contract...DEBT contract. That’s why it says MAY buy and CAN bequeath. That’s choice of the Gentiles. They can literally take out a loan or whatever kind of debt, for as long a period as they chose. That loan could extend in credit, to the creditors children in payback. That’s what a loan is. It’s still done today. You borrow or finance and the bank shares control of the car AND you BY CONTRACT. Once that debt is paid in full..you are redeemed. It’s debt all over the Bible..many examples of servants freed after their debt paid off in full. The captain in Acts literally says, “with a great sum have I achieved my freedom.” Christ paid the price for all in bondage.. debt bondage.. and set them free physically and spiritually. That’s fulfillment of what was established in the Old Testament. God in lev25.44-46 is buying the slave..to set free, Deut 29.10-15. You have to buy them first or it’s an illegal transaction, illegitimate. God’s the Hero here. It was the plan. Christ given to the Gentiles, the world..not the Jews. Through the Jews. Covenant old, new is a proposal..a marriage proposal. You are getting out of one forced slavery, and God pleads with you to get in to servitude with Him. But His is choice..His burden light His yoke easy. Christ led captivity captive it says. Choose one. The only slave master is the god of this world. Your idea that the Bible supports and condones forced slavery is totally inconsistent and incompatible. The title is enough to show that..if you just understood what it’s saying.
Well gee pal, you obviously don't read the bible much. Read 1 Timothy 8-11. I will even make it simple for you...here's the verse. 8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
@@9432515what a dumb thing to say. Like genuinely are you autistic? On a basic logical level without even going into the verses why does he talk for basically 15 verses on how to treat the slaves you get and how even kids born to a wife you give another guy are yours and yours alone and then at 16 say nah don’t own them and then resume in 18-21 I think on hoe you can and can’t beat them. Why? It seems beyond stupid.
@J Lo Tyler is too smooth brained comprehend anything outside of basic parroting skills. Just watch his video's. He basis his beliefs on things I rejected when I was 6.
@Tyler B #2 Do you ever try to actually do any form of critical analisis of any beliefs you or others may have? As in try to see it from that perspective, even if you dont agree? And I meen really analize it, try to understand why its appealing to them and why they think it is true..
I think that one of the main reasons theists in general and apologists in particular can't admit that they are wrong about something, or that their god might be completely imaginary, is because of their investment level in said beliefs. Their entire worldview, friends, family, etc, they're just in too deep to be intellectually honest. The cost would be too great.
I think they realize how fragile the world view is. If you conceede one point the whole house of card's collapses. All of a sudden nothing makes sense, you don't really know anything anymore, and you don't know who you are. There is no longer any easy perfect moral authority to point to or God to insert when you don't know something. No more blind reassurance that all will be ok or that things will ever be fair.
When I listen to the “context of slavery” such as it was “indentured servitude” or “voluntary” these people make it sound like these slaves could just switch masters any time they wanted. Like slaves don’t have to worry about being hunted down or chased like a wild animal when they decide they no longer want to work for their master anymore.
I don't know why you bother.. I used to do this stuff; attempt to debate religious folks by using logic, reason, and empirical data. But then by the time I was in my early 20s it dawned on me that the people I was debating weren't playing by the same rules, therefore what I was doing was mostly moot. In other words, good luck trying to have a rational debate with someone who has abandoned reason. There are rare exceptions but generally religious people are the types of people that will establish their conclusion first and then walk backwards from it.... The only way you can really justify making videos like this is to say what Richard Dawkins says (and I'm paraphrasing): "I'm not necessarily trying to change the mind of the person I'm debating but rather hoping that someone who is watching and perhaps on the fence might be persuaded in the right direction."
I found that Cliffe was quite condescending and though his son, though not as opinionated as his dad, was quite...vague. I think that Cliffe had the most problems with the word condone. I think that he believes that it is a bad word. At least, he treats as if it is and I totally understand why, because it proves that the holy book he worships is incorrect. Christians, in my experience, don't really worship God, but worship, instead, the holy book as if it was their God, and, therefore, it cannot be mistaken.
@Tyler B #2 Actually, I didn't see that. Exasperated, impatient and offended? Yes. But condescending, no. I didn't see him react with a superior attitude even once. I saw Cliffe do it a number of times.
@Tyler B #2 OH, I do agree with that. I actually don't watch the Atheist Experience much at all, just because it's the same show over and over again and nothing new is really said. it's like Groundhog Day. I do understand Matt's frustration with the callers, as he has seen and heard all the same arguments over and over again. And yup, he can sometimes get super condescending with callers who will not even listen to facts or who are grandstanding to be on the show. Realizing, of course, that Matt could read this. There is no offence meant in what I am saying, for if I were to have to deal with the same callers, I know that I would have a hard time not thinking that they are .... well ... unintelligent. The cavoite here is, that Matt, when he debates, is rarely like that and works hard to hold respect for the people he is debating, which is why I watch most of the other things he does.
A lot of people either seem to not know what condone means, or they are using a drastically different definition of condone than its normal usage, which is the definition you gave. I know you asked him to tell you what he thinks condoning means during the debate (which is where I was surprised when he gave a different definition than the one you gave because that's the normal one used). So maybe if this comes up again, start off by defining condone. And then there is no wiggle room there anymore.
To be fair that's often the best way. I remember years ago I got booked to play a back to back gig met up with the guy I was playing with the day before had about 45 minutes practice and just gone on with it. It rocked much like you and Dr Josh did in spite of it being a debate with Cliffe who just seems... bizarre 🤦🙄.
100% agree with comments about team debates. I thought Dr Josh Bowen was fantastic, but if anything this made things worse. Just as if you were to pick 2 of your favourite foods at random, 2 individuals with things worth hearing don't really compliment each other if presented at the same time.
@Ignostic Naturalist Because they did. With all the rape, forced sex slavery and infanticide I'd put money on some sociopaths and sexual predators being involved as well...🤔
Yep. But Christians claim that certain interpretations do address that. The problem is, why does no one ever misinterpret the Secular Humanist manifestos and use them for heinous acts? Are we just better communicators than god? Apparently so...
I was listening to this debate last weekend while replaying Prey (2017). My thoughts that nobody asked for: Josh’s biblical knowledge is literally awe inspiring. He added a lot to an argument that fans of AXP like me are presumably pretty familiar and tired of. The kind of sharpened knowledge that you can’t help but look up to with some reverence. Stewart and Cliff really performed poorly. The conversation would only really seem to make ground when you and Josh were talking. Which was pretty telling. I appreciate Stewart’s attitude though. He clearly was trying to keep the atmosphere friendly and conversational. It seems to me that Stewart knew his father was losing quite disastrously and despite this, his focus was retain cordiality. I think this pretty much should be the slavery debate to end all debates. You should just link callers to the debate next time they call in over this. I appreciate your work immensely and thank you for everything you do.
@@FinneousPJ1 To preface, I’m a huge immersive sim fan. Even before Prey came out. Arkane has already released two games in the magnificent Dishonored series so I had little doubt it would satisfy. But it ended up being probably my favorite in the genre outside of maybe Bioshock 1. And Prey streamlines absolutely nothing and wins a lot of points from me because of it. My most recent playthrough has been on nightmare with the survival mode enabled. The game is just so open to player experimentation that it feels like almost any strategy is possible.
Matt, totally agree with you about team debates. Too much potential misdirection and cross chatter. A debate is like a mental fight -- best waged one on one.
Most interesting thing I took from this debate is that we have writings from other cultures which demonstrate that Hebrew law was broadly ethically equivalent and sometimes even inferior to its contemporaries.
Cliffe demonstrated that he needs to retire from all this. He needs to just stay in his little bubble and preach to people who already agree with him or harass young people who've barely had a chance to look deeply into any of this stuff.
@@Brugar18 no its the truth. Your a sell out just like the rest of the world. That's why it took christ to come down to die for people like you and me. You better start waking up. Your not an accident as evolutionist and scientists say we are.
What is worse than being dead? Incredible suffering, torture without hope. Worse than that? Eternal torture. So what was the Bible’s position on eternal torture? Oh right, it condones that too
I agree about not liking team debates, at least as a viewer. I imagine its far more frustrating as a participant. Every now and then there's a good one, but they're few and far between.
I kinda wonder why Matt's didn't address how combative and rude Cliffe was. It was like Cliffe had never been in a debate before, didn't know why he was there and was shocked another person was disagreeing with him. I watch a lot of these and can't recall a single time Matt had to tell someone to calm down. The way Cliffe kept rocking in his chair and sticking his face right in the camera I kept thinking "any minute he's gonna walk off".
I was impressed with Stuart in your one on one with him. He was wrong but he was eloquent, polite and that was an amazing discussion. Cliffe is just another iteration of Gish, Hovind, Ham and Comfort. He is right, the Bible is right, God is right and you are just wrong...the end. There is simply no point to a discussion with those clowns. It seemed like Stuart fell in with his father's nonsense and that was a shame because he is better than that.
@EmperorKleetorisTheCuckolder Do you rely on any immaterial or metaphysical concepts in your worldview? Do you think that people like yourself should properly use logic?
I actually liked everyone in this debate except Cliff. Stewart did an ok job of reigning him in though. But yeah, it felt like the actual topic wasn't at all addressed by them though. They basically said, "Yeah, the Bible says that, it IS immoral, and god doesn't condone it." So... You have 2 teams arguing that it. IS immoral, but for different reasons. It was kind of annoying, but oh well. I am glad to hear Josh may be on AXP or The Line soon though. I liked him a lot.
If they agree slavery is immoral, then why does the their holy text include instructions on how to be a slave owner? There are no instructions on the really good sex positions (though it does cover the desirability of a large phallus)
Paul is no better than the OT. 3 times he wrote that slavery is ordained by God. In Galatians 3:28, Paul seems to be saying that there is no distinction under Jesus between free people and slaves, but the passage continues into chapter 4 and by 4:24 he is saying children being born into slavery is part of the covenant of Mt Sinai. In Galatians 4:28-31, Paul endorses not treating slaves well and makes the slaves metaphorically ungodly; a separate, destitute class 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 “Were you a slave when you were called? ... each person should remain in the situation they were in when they were called.” ... and God assigned slavery to them (v 7:17) Philemon 1:9 and 13, Paul uses slavery as a metaphor for adherence to Jesus. In this passage, Paul implicitly upholds the institution of slavery, even tho Paul expresses a wish that a specific slave Onesimus could be free. Onesimus’ wishes are never mentioned.
I stopped using the term “OT”, it is Christian-centric. Hebrew Bible or Jewish Bible or Tanakh. I think “Tanakh” refers only to the canonical Jewish text with its specific order, etc, which is not exactly what appears in the Christian Bible.
If only more people who came to Modern day debate had your mindset about debates, we would gain more knowledge. Sometimes I feel like people go there just to be silly and condescending and don't really care much about giving the audience good evidence for their views. Makes it hard to take Modern day debates seriously imo.
Sometimes people defend things that wrong and people think it is ok because their holy book says so. The people work in a frame work and can't think beyond and be objective.
The apologetic arguments used to "explain" slavery in the Bible remind me a lot of Bill Clinton's "Depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is," excuse.
I wish we had a better understanding of Hebrew slavery. I kind of thought it was based on a Greco-Roman approach of taking people as spoils of war or becoming a slave to pay for debt. It was obviously a closely regulated system by the powers that be to have such byzantine laws to find loopholes around other laws to keep a slave a slave. I was at a museum recently 10 years ago I think at the Rosicrucian in San Jose, CA and saw the Egyptian form of holy indentured service. Fascinating stuff. You can make a man into a slave if you promise him his work for the state will buy him into heaven. He even gets tally chips to mark his progress and status. But of course people rebel and make a counter religion claiming not by the sweat of your brow alone may you enter into heaven or other such revisions ad infinitum.
The only logical deface for biblical slavery is to say the Bible was written by men and men are not perfect. Then you have to find out how you determine what in the Bible is true and what's false. A typical answer would be what feels right
@@MrShigura yeah I know. I did read it ,you say your kidding I say it’s a book. I never implied belief in it. Whenever I see this comment even if it’s sarcastic I just always say that’s what the book told you but I never write because that’s what you believe and sometimes Christians reply with something nasty. Or Muslims for that matter. Give it a shot because it’s so neutral they literally get mad and offended by something as obvious as it’s a book .
7:58 - I don't understand why this is all that great of a question. Being someone's slave is an inherently disadvantaged position under any view, hesitating to volunteer for it is not hypocritical etc. It is a common scumbag apologist assertion that slaves did something to deserve their situation (mismanaged their finances or dared to wage war against gods chosen people) so apologists do not see themselves as being guilty of anything as to incur such a punishment. It's like asking you if you'd be willing to accept the consequences of being a murderer under your own justice system. You'd hesitate too because, although you might have a fair system, you also have to imagine yourself being guilty of murder and having to pay a price for something you haven't done in real life.
No but theists generally take the argument in directions saying either that bible doesn’t endorse slavery or that the slavery depicted was a kind one which their generous god advocated. In these scenarios that question will test the apologists conviction in those arguments if they’re honest to themselves.
There was a part where Cliff actually admitted that Biblical slavery is immoral which I am surprised no one jumped on. At one point he acknowledges that slavery is immoral but that it was happening at that time regardless, and that what God via the Bible was doing was to impose a set of rules for slavery that weren't quite so bad. (in the hopes we would one day do better perhaps?) In any case, he is acknowledging that Biblical slavery is bad (it's just not as bad as non-Biblical slavery). Once that is recognized, we then must note that Cliff was dishonest in the beginning in that he was arguing that Biblical slavery was not immoral and yet his argument flatly acknowledges that it is. Cliff was very dishonest in that debate. Stuart was considerably better (though still on the wrong side of the argument). At least he seemed to listen and actually think about what was being said.
Someone answer this comment : "I don’t care what you were. I asked for any claim, of a quote from God, where God accepts slavery and forbids the eating of shellfish. You obviously don’t know your own holy book, nor its history. Leviticus is not quoting God, but giving the laws of early Judaism; the Yarwist Levi tribe. It dates from the 7th century BCE, when Canaan was still polytheistic and is probably a list of laws, upon which Ezra and Nehemiah based their reform."
Not one verse in the Bible advocates for ending the practice of owning another person. A possible exception can be found in the early chapters of Exodus where the Old Testament God intends to free his people from slavery in Egypt. This does not mean much, given that after being led out of Egypt the Jews were taught by God in great detail (Exodus 21) exactly how to keep Jewish slaves as indentured servants or chattel, depending on the circumstances. What is equally distressing to modern readers is that God gave the Jews explicit instructions in Leviticus 25:44-46 on the procedure for buying foreign slaves and keeping them and their children as chattel property for life. Also in the Torah, there is an example of God telling the Jews that they must keep the survivors of the Promised Land conquests as chattel slaves, especially the women (Deuteronomy 20:10-18, 21:10-11). A section in Isaiah 14:1-2 announces that the Jews are promised a future in which they will enslave all other people groups of the world. They “will possess the nations as male and female slaves in the Lord’s land”. The New Testament continues this trend of approved human subjugation with multiple stories by Jesus about slavery, including where he declares the relationship between God and humankind to be like the connection between earthly masters and slaves. He makes no criticism of slavery. He speaks as if the institution is normal and acceptable, even saying that God and human masters are justified in torturing disobedient slaves (Matthew 18:21-35). The writings of the apostles Paul and Peter include commanding slaves in five different books to obey their masters with reverence, fear, respect, sincerity, and love as if toward Christ, even when the slave owner is harsh. Slaves are to try and please their owners at all times, not just when being observed (Ephesians 6:5-6, Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18). The enslaved are directed to work even harder for Christian masters, since they are fellow believers. At the end of one of these instructive sections, Paul says: “Anyone who teaches something different is arrogant and lacks understanding….Their minds are corrupt, and they have turned their backs on the truth.” (1 Timothy 6:1-5a) Christians are “slaves of God”. (Romans 6:16-23) All of the biblical passages mentioned in the last paragraph offer sturdy guardrails to follow when interpreting proclamations of general spiritual freedom such as in Galatians: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 NIV) The message: Be spiritually free, but remain in the physical situation you were in previously. ------------------------------------------------------------ I wrote an in-depth article on this topic, "The Bible Clearly Supports Chattel Slavery Based On Race And Gender". Here's a summary: "This article provides a very detailed account of how many, many biblical passages approve of slavery, including the meaning of 'slave' versus 'servant'. It demonstrates the ways these texts affected the abolition movement and church history in the three main traditions (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant). A summary is provided of what slavery was like in the ancient Middle East and Roman Empire, based on direct quotes from historians that specialize in those fields. Enlightenment humanism is contrasted with traditional Christianity in its approach to abolition and human rights generally. There are more than eighty hyperlinks that provide a reference for the claims I make." I would love to hear what you think of it. Search for "Disagreements I Have With Christianity Andy Rhodes".
Two times in the New Testament book of Matthew, Jesus expresses his perspective that the connection between God and humanity is analogous to a human master and his slaves. In his “Parable of the Unforgiving Servant” (Matthew 18:21-35) and “Parable of the Faithful and Unfaithful Servants” (Matthew 24:36-51), he has clear opportunities to reject the institution of slavery and call it immoral. Instead, the practice of slavery is used as a teaching model to show people how they should interact with him, the Father, and the Spirit. The “Parable of the Unforgiving Servant” even describes an owner presenting a whole family of slaves for sale in order to pay off the debt of the father. The master has compassion for the father and forgives the money owed, but later that father is very harsh to someone that owed him money. Jesus finishes this story by stating: “In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” Not only is slavery justified, but so is torture. Further, Jesus never said the Old Testament God did anything wrong regarding slavery or anything else. Why? One reason is because in New Testament theology (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17) and core Christian belief (Nicene Creed), Jesus is the Old Testament God (along with the other members of the Trinity: the Father and the Spirit). In Matthew 5:17-19, he proclaims: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Maybe I missed something, but in the debate I thought Stuart mentioned divorce to try to make an argument from analogy. It seemed to me he was he was trying to say that, like divorce, the God he accepts is against slavery, but makes rules for how slavery can be permitted under his watch. I think it’s an awful idea to suggest that if a perfectly virtuous God is real that he would ever permit slavery, given how immoral slavery has shown itself to be. But I don’t think Stuart was necessarily trying to say that divorce is/was just as bad as slavery. And that seems to be what I lot of atheists were saying in the comment section. I didn’t think what he was trying to say was too different from people who are pro-choice (like me) arguing that consent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy, because consent to being a in a car on a road-trip isn’t consent to be in a car accident on that trip. I don’t think pro-choice people are necessarily arguing that a pregnancy is just as unlikely or just as unfortunate as a car crash when making that analogy argument. Comparing the consequences of dealing with one incident verses the other isn’t the point of presenting the analogy.
_"But I don’t think Stuart was necessarily trying to say that divorce is/was just as bad as slavery."_ I mean... If divorce is a sin, and slavery is a sin, and committing sin means you're condemned to hell (or whatever eternal hell-like punishment those two believe in)...I'm not sure how they'd make the case that they *_aren't_* equally as bad. Obviously that's probably not what you meant, I just think it's more than fair to follow their theology where it ultimately leads.
@@sbushido5547 The problem is that many people who follow the Bible also think there is purgatory. Or if one accepts the Bible and doesn’t accept something like purgatory, one might accept that it’s easier to genuinely repent to God for smaller misdeeds from a human perspective (which one also labels as sins) than larger misdeeds from a human perspective (which one also labels as sins). The bigger issue is that it’s all a mistake to accept the religious claims before there is strong evidence for those claims being correct and lots of issues with the source of the claims themselves being trustworthy and consistent with reality as best as we can impartially understand reality.
Slavery is a broad term that encompasses several types. I generally use the definition that the UN human rights commission gives: "Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised." There are many different subtypes of slavery....all of it is still slavery.
@@truerealrationalistlol you're one of Those that want to try any play semantics to define slavery out of the bible 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Tell you what dear we can resolve definitional BS this real easy........... Antebellum Chattel Slavery is widely recognised as one of the most abhorrent and depraved practices man has engaged in so ....... It should be real easy for you to say that it was immoral, will you do so ??? If your answer was yes, then list the specific things that made I immoral. If your answer was no then run along like a good little Christian I'm not interested. PS remember I'm asking about ANTEBELLUM CHATTEL SLAVERY here, only AFTER we resolve this will we move on to Biblical slavery. Your move cupcake 😜
@@trumpbellend6717 I just want to define terms, so that we are both on the same page. It's a simple question. If you define slavery as ownership of people, what constitutes ownership?
@@trumpbellend6717 Now, to answer your question, yes, I agree that antebellum chattel slavery was immoral. The reason I feel that way is that in antebellum chattel slavery, the slave owners had exclusive rights and control over the lives of their slaves.
I think them being silent in response to Matt's question is telling, but it doesn't prove that Biblical Slavery is immoral, just that it's not their 'preference' as Matt said. People not wanting to do a job wouldn't make it immoral. Gotta be careful with these things.
@@SansDeity great fan of u, love watching your debates and videos and the atheist experience. Keep doing these great videos! Very sorry for what is happening in USA towards covid. Can't wait for u guys to get back together in the atheist experience building. Here in New Zealand is going good, but watching your videos and the atheist experience get me up in the morning, lol, :)
I went to church last Sunday and it amazed me that they still preaching about the same love of Jesus message and never address the this verses that makes god look like an asshole
Wow, I just realized that the fact that I don't believe in slavery means that I am morally superior to God! Don’t tell my theist sister! My #1 favorite fantasy fiction? The Lord of the Rings. My second favorite? The Bible .
Thought, slavery probably stems from the idea that others are dangerous as we evolved, too many people are subconsciously xenophobic for it not to be an evolutionary trait. We have to teach our children that all of humanity is one tribe if we have any hope of overcoming it.
How can I click on this video less than ONE MINUTE after it appears lol and its somehow already got over 200 views?!?! 🤣 (Something hinky is going on, I KNOW it! 🤔 )
I'm not a Matt Patron, but I am one of Logiked and he releases the link to his videos early to Patrons, so we get to watch it before the link is public. Matt, probably does the same, so his patrons can watch it ahead of time. You can follow his patreon link to see the rewards in his links (I'd check for you, but on a work computer and I have some nsfw stuff on my patreon so I can't go there from work).
@@0nlyThis Okay, I really can’t believe I have to walk you through this, but here goes. Matt’s point can be rephrased as “if I were to forcibly enslave you under the conditions outlined in the Bible, would you accept there being no consequences for that?” If not, what’s your basis for objecting?
Freedom is the way and no one who values Freedom would ever violate someone else's consent and if you give consent without coercion, fraud, and you have the proper mental capacity, then it's not slavery. Too many people still act like they own their own children too...
In Isaiah 14, the Bible promises a future in which God’s people will make permanent slaves of all other groups on Earth. It originates as a prophecy of revenge on a neighboring empire, but expands to oppress the rest of humanity. Many study bibles and commentaries have titled this section of Isaiah as something like “Israel’s Taunt Against Babylon” because the text includes a Jewish song of mockery and retribution against their former masters. In verses 1-2, the lines just before the song, it foretells that the Jews will make slaves of all other nations, not just the Babylonians that held thousands of Jews in exile for about half of the 6th century BCE: "But the Lord will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose Israel, and will set them in their own land; and aliens will join them and attach themselves to the house of Jacob. And the nations will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess the nations as male and female slaves in the Lord’s land; they will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them." (Isaiah 14:1-2 NRSV)
I confess I did not watch all 4 hours of the debate, but based on the 90 minutes or so I did plus this video it seems that Matt and Digital Hammurabi missed the most important point: The most common metaphor in both Testaments for the relationship between god and his chosen people is master and slave. This clearly means that slavery is presented as an ideal. Paul says he is god's slave and he likes it. Dr. Josh could have explained how this is derived from the conception of human beings in Mesopotamian religion where the king acknowledged himself as the gods' slave in order to justify him treating everyone else under his rule as his slaves (in an ideological sense; actual slavery was somewhat different).
The point of the question has nothing to do with consent. The goal is to cut through philosophical dodging, and force empathy for those who are slaves.
@@Certaintyexists888 it is clearly the case that giving consent isn't compatible, fully agree with your original statement. The point is that if someone is saying biblical slavery is morally ok, they should be ok with being a slave. If they are not ok with being a slave, it definitively shows there is a moral problem. It's a thought experiment with a particular goal in mind, the consent aspect isn't relevant.
@@uninspired3583 I disagree: given that one does not want X (e.g. slavery) for oneself, it does not follow that one considers X immoral. For example, the bible condones both singlehood and marriage, but believers have their personal preferences; it doesn't mean they repudiate the other. I agree that slavery is immoral. I just don't think your claim proves it. [Edit - fixed typo.]
Exactly what do you mean by "Biblical" slavery? Do you mean slavery as DESCRIBED in the Bible or as PROSCRIBED in the Bible? Do you mean slavery under a particular covenant (the Old Covenant, which was for a limited time and a limited geographical area and a limited people) or universal slavery rules for all time and all mankind or Christians under the New Covenant? Do you mean slavery of kidnapped persons or prisoners of war under a war God proscribed for ancient Israel to wage in specific circumstances or slavery as punishment for theft? What exactly do you mean by "Biblical" slavery?
@Tyehimba Jahsi Slavery AT ALL! Why was there allowance for any form of slavery anywhere at any time for any people? Why did the Ten Commandments not include an unambiguous prohibition against owning people as property? And why would any form of slavery ever be morally justified?
James Kunz (the moderator of that debate) did a horrendous job during the Q&A. He was obsessed with powering through a billion questions not letting sprakers answer for longer than 30sec and constantly interjecting when the conversation was getting interesting. I have never seen such a terrible job before. I get that he is trying to maximise monetisation with superchats, but that was ludicrous to the point where I think it was disrespectful to the speakers. Next time I watch a debate on his channel I'll directly skip the Q&A, not worth the time in my opinion.
I don't think they had prisons, everywhere you went in them days. Maybe if you stole something from them, or harm someone in their families. You must repay them. Better than to get my head cut off. Lol. That's my theory.
@@MrShigura And that's what these shows are. Only You opinion counts. You thought religion was tripping.You are tripping more than they ever had. This man is made of Skeletor. Lol. And the Masters of the Universe. Lol
@@MrShigura Maybe we should let all the prisoners go. Or should we give them time before we release them. For that is slavery. For they have no rights. Lol. I thought religion was in the clouds. But you guys are further, out than them.
@@garlandgarrett9806 The bible states that there should be no punishment for beating your slave as long as they don't actually die as a result within a couple days. It also outlines god's rules for how to sell your daughters into sex slavery. If you're going to try to make excuses for the bible, maybe read it first, dingus. Oh, and your English is borderline incoherent, if it's not a second language, get a refund on whatever education you do have.
@@MrShigura These days I think man knows the difference between right and wrong. Maybe they was trying to justify their self. Lol. And you are right, about my education thing. Lol
If God had declared slavery to be an abomination in biblical scripture, would it have made any difference? Would mankind have said, 'oh, ok, let's not have slaves." You only have to see how mankind has justified everything it wanted to do throughout history to recognize man does what man wants to do, regardless of morality. Rather, God is more concerned with YOU personally with YOUR eternity over society and its ever changing morality.... - the world will spiral out of existence, but your soul is offered eternity through the redemptive sacrifice on the Cross by Jesus- God in flesh. All who believe upon Him are forgiven, redeemed, saved and have eternal life in God's Kingdom. You were created to be holy and blameless before Him - most will never obtain that - but you can, regardless of your past. John 3 16 is His invitation to know how much He loves you, what the desire of His heart is for you and what His promise is to you. I urge you to check out His love for yourself with a sincere, humble spirit, while He may be found. Have a wonderful day.
*If God had declared slavery to be an abomination in biblical scripture, would it have made any difference? Would mankind have said, 'oh, ok, let's not have slaves."* Funny... God didn't have that problem when it comes to killing. He clearly declared murder a bad thing, even though people still didn't listen. And yet, he specifically said, how you can treat your slaves, for how much to sell and buy them... Seriously, do you really think this argument flies? After having given rules after rules after rules, god is all of a sudden: "Well, I won't tell them NOT to do this, because they won't listen anyway..." Seriously? 0_o Come on... you're smarter than this. *Rather, God is more concerned with YOU personally with YOUR eternity over society and its ever changing morality...* No, he isn't! Not according to the bible! THERE he gives laws and rules for entire SOCIETY, not just suggestions for personal responsibility. You're just wrong about this. The rest of your comment is just preeching, trying to change the subject. Nothing much to say there. What you can claim without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence.
@@theodorgrunter3551 ok, Theodor. Thanks for the comment. God's character is revealed to us when He came in the person of Jesus. In the NT you will be able to see the truth of that character, if you choose - the love, the patience, the kindness, the mercy, and the justice of His actions and treatment of others. If you just want to see how man treats man and blame it on God, there's nothing further to be said on the subject. Have a great day.
@@bouldersoundguy Because not everyone will turn (or wants to turn) from God's ways - many believe in and upon God and desire to live according to His Word - God expected the Hebrews to follow His commands (they were given before Jesus came) for a couple of reasons: 1) to establish a code of behavior that was meant to distinguish them from the surrounding nations 2) to eventually show them that the law, in and of itself, was impossible to keep 100% of the time by anyone - therefore proving to them that they needed Him, lest anyone boast of his own superior accomplishments. He provided the only way to enter His Kingdom through Himself- Jesus, God in flesh. Jesus summed up all the law into two commandments to make it clear and easy to follow - Love God and love others. Lives are made much better when we take those two commands seriously and implement them into our daily lives (doesn’t mean we're perfect and don't err) but erring and then humbly returning (repenting) to God revealing our faith in Him and His atoning sacrifice on the Cross (John 3 16) is what really makes us righteous before Him. There’s something of a 'catch-22' in the scripture however that is important to note: Jesus says that not one letter of the law will be done away with - and later, scripture says that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. These opposing scriptures seem to indicate a serious conflict. Do you know why it is not a conflict? The answer could explain a lot to you and encourage you to closely examine and follow His Word. Have a great day.
@@wwlib5390 Theodor likely didn't respond because you didn't answer direct questions. Your response was a total non sequitur. How dishonest can you get?
"Divorce is immoral" Yeah, if you want to leave and you can't leave then that's not a marriage, that's a hostage situation.
Yeah... I'm stealing that one.
Especially if only one person is allowed to divorce the other
I remember talking to one theologian about that, he used a lord of the rings analogy that went like this: a hobit was destined to throw a ring in the mordor and he knew it wasn't an easy task and he will encounter many perils along the way, but he didn't quit, therefore marriage is the same, you just don't quit due to possible hardships. I amazed myself by managing to not burst out laughing but i was too mindboggled to say, that my divorce won't affect the fate of our world.
@@Brugar18 And nobody forced Frodo to keep at it...
@@Brugar18 Very importantly, if divorce for reasons other than adultery is strictly prohibited, why was it sanctioned in Deuteronomy 24? Either morality is an objective standard set by an eternal rulegiver independent of human judgement, we have a moral sense capable of determining morality independently of divine fiat or neither. Certainly not both.
Why did "God" have to free the Jews from slavery if it wasn't so bad?
Dr. Josh is so nice and respectful that I'm surprised he spoke up as much as he did.
I really enjoyed him too.
it's moreso a reflection of the debate opponent. It says a great deal.
He did a great job. The best I've seen from him.
@@jackjohnson2171 I have seen better from him.. Not to say this performance was in any way not good, on the contrary it was absolutely outstanding, However when he has time to slowly break down his thought process and articulate his points, and not in the heat of a debate, some of the knowledge he drops is just breathtaking. But the fact that he can do a decent fraction of that in this debate shows just how well practiced on his knowledge that he is. And I even picked out points he missed that he could have elaborated on... Some of my studies and research overlaps his to an extent, but even missing some good points, he still "scalped" his opponents there. And combining that with matts savagery in the trenches is a veritable dream team. I wished they would team up more, this was a great debate to watch, at least while cliff wasn't trying to talk.
Cliffe is genuinely the most jarring guy in a debate of any kind. The amount of pivoting to preaching/random scripture is insane... and he does it all of the time.
Cliffe goes into philosophy with random atheists all the time at universities in addition to preaching.
@Jason Aldrich I reject the premise of your question. Jay Dyer has shown Matt Dillahunty to be Ad Hoc and Arbitrary when it comes to the use of logic. Did you watch their discussion?
@@Certaintyexists888 non sequitur
@EmperorKleetorisTheCuckolder you have to be joking. I'd suggest you watch David Wood's review of his debate with MD.
@EmperorKleetorisTheCuckolder Matt was unable to explain the origin or mechanism of action of the immaterial “logic” that he claims to use.
Unfortunately Cliffe was only there to preach not to actually debate. Atleast he didn’t try that horrible stuttering Billy story again.
@Tyler B #2 No. Did you watch the debate?
I had no idea what you meant, so I looked up the stuttering Billy story. For anyone else who doesn't know what it is, stay that way. Believe me, you're happier not knowing. I wish I didn't know.
@@littlebluepanda394 lol It was quite shocking. In a formalized debate about the existence of God and Cliffe thinks using that ridiculous story is a good way to prove god’s existence? I remember sitting there and just being like, wtf was that!?
@@littlebluepanda394 I've never heard about it and I can't find this story, please help me with which keywords to google it or something. I understand if you don't want to go into details here in the comments, but I can't rest until I know what this is about. :)
@@piros100 it’s in a debate between Matt and Cliffe many years ago. It is in Cliffe’s opening if I remember correctly.
How is this still a topic of debate? God does not forbid slavery anywhere in the Bible. I've heard apologists make the excuse that other laws/commandments cover slavery, but come on. If God can give specific instructions how to to wear a shirt and how exactly a beard should be trimmed, there's no reason why God couldn't also have given a specific instruction stating that owning another human being as property is forbidden.
@Tyler B #2 you said "clearly." So when I look up those verses, God will CLEARLY state that owning another human being as propery is forbidden?
@Tyler B #2 So you clearly don't understand what "clearly" means. It means it's not vague and it's specific. Clearly, as when God told Moses that eating certain types of insects or shellfish is forbidden. Or when God told Moses how men should wear their beards. Clearly would mean a statement that said owning another human being as property is wrong. The verses you provided do not say this. But this is to be expected from someone engaged in apologetics and not actual thought.
Exodus 21.16 is not about kidnapping. It’s slavery. Since when do you steal a person and sell them (as merchandise-strongs) in kidnapping? Today, with human trafficking...people are abducted then sold or...as Ex21.16 also says, stolen and held onto. They are slaves..forced servitude. Kidnapping is when you steal an individual and hold them to ransom. That word ‘ransom’ is used not a few verses down Ex21.30.
That’s slavery and it is condemned.
Lev25.44-46 is also..not slavery. There’s a difference between ownership and possession. That word is the very same word used in Deut when God tells the Israelites to go in and possess the land. They don’t own the land..God does (lev25.23). Ownership is full control and legal right. That’s slavery. Possession is DEGREE of control stipulated by contract...DEBT contract. That’s why it says MAY buy and CAN bequeath. That’s choice of the Gentiles. They can literally take out a loan or whatever kind of debt, for as long a period as they chose. That loan could extend in credit, to the creditors children in payback. That’s what a loan is. It’s still done today. You borrow or finance and the bank shares control of the car AND you BY CONTRACT. Once that debt is paid in full..you are redeemed.
It’s debt all over the Bible..many examples of servants freed after their debt paid off in full. The captain in Acts literally says, “with a great sum have I achieved my freedom.”
Christ paid the price for all in bondage.. debt bondage.. and set them free physically and spiritually. That’s fulfillment of what was established in the Old Testament. God in lev25.44-46 is buying the slave..to set free, Deut 29.10-15. You have to buy them first or it’s an illegal transaction, illegitimate. God’s the Hero here. It was the plan. Christ given to the Gentiles, the world..not the Jews. Through the Jews. Covenant old, new is a proposal..a marriage proposal. You are getting out of one forced slavery, and God pleads with you to get in to servitude with Him. But His is choice..His burden light His yoke easy. Christ led captivity captive it says. Choose one.
The only slave master is the god of this world. Your idea that the Bible supports and condones forced slavery is totally inconsistent and incompatible. The title is enough to show that..if you just understood what it’s saying.
Well gee pal, you obviously don't read the bible much. Read 1 Timothy 8-11. I will even make it simple for you...here's the verse.
8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
@@9432515what a dumb thing to say. Like genuinely are you autistic? On a basic logical level without even going into the verses why does he talk for basically 15 verses on how to treat the slaves you get and how even kids born to a wife you give another guy are yours and yours alone and then at 16 say nah don’t own them and then resume in 18-21 I think on hoe you can and can’t beat them. Why? It seems beyond stupid.
Brilliant.
Oh awesome! Your book on Old Testament slavery just came in today :D
@@horcruxhunter5056 Cool! I hope it is useful :-)
Morality? Does that exist?
@J Lo Tyler is too smooth brained comprehend anything outside of basic parroting skills. Just watch his video's. He basis his beliefs on things I rejected when I was 6.
@Tyler B #2 Do you ever try to actually do any form of critical analisis of any beliefs you or others may have? As in try to see it from that perspective, even if you dont agree? And I meen really analize it, try to understand why its appealing to them and why they think it is true..
I think that one of the main reasons theists in general and apologists in particular can't admit that they are wrong about something, or that their god might be completely imaginary, is because of their investment level in said beliefs. Their entire worldview, friends, family, etc, they're just in too deep to be intellectually honest. The cost would be too great.
I think they realize how fragile the world view is. If you conceede one point the whole house of card's collapses. All of a sudden nothing makes sense, you don't really know anything anymore, and you don't know who you are. There is no longer any easy perfect moral authority to point to or God to insert when you don't know something. No more blind reassurance that all will be ok or that things will ever be fair.
This was one of the more entertaining debates I’ve seen lately. Good job!
Really happy to hear there will be more of you with Dr Bowen 😁
Thank you for your content Matt. 🙂
When I listen to the “context of slavery” such as it was “indentured servitude” or “voluntary” these people make it sound like these slaves could just switch masters any time they wanted. Like slaves don’t have to worry about being hunted down or chased like a wild animal when they decide they no longer want to work for their master anymore.
Thanks for this Matt!
Thanks Matt. Nice work.
A person owning another person is wrong, period. No more debate is needed.
I don't know why you bother.. I used to do this stuff; attempt to debate religious folks by using logic, reason, and empirical data. But then by the time I was in my early 20s it dawned on me that the people I was debating weren't playing by the same rules, therefore what I was doing was mostly moot. In other words, good luck trying to have a rational debate with someone who has abandoned reason. There are rare exceptions but generally religious people are the types of people that will establish their conclusion first and then walk backwards from it.... The only way you can really justify making videos like this is to say what Richard Dawkins says (and I'm paraphrasing): "I'm not necessarily trying to change the mind of the person I'm debating but rather hoping that someone who is watching and perhaps on the fence might be persuaded in the right direction."
Ya I remember that long pause. It was really loud hahaha
great conclussions/summary from the debate
Loved this, and the debates with the Knechtles! :)
I found that Cliffe was quite condescending and though his son, though not as opinionated as his dad, was quite...vague. I think that Cliffe had the most problems with the word condone. I think that he believes that it is a bad word. At least, he treats as if it is and I totally understand why, because it proves that the holy book he worships is incorrect. Christians, in my experience, don't really worship God, but worship, instead, the holy book as if it was their God, and, therefore, it cannot be mistaken.
@Tyler B #2 Actually, I didn't see that. Exasperated, impatient and offended? Yes. But condescending, no. I didn't see him react with a superior attitude even once. I saw Cliffe do it a number of times.
@Tyler B #2 OH, I do agree with that. I actually don't watch the Atheist Experience much at all, just because it's the same show over and over again and nothing new is really said. it's like Groundhog Day. I do understand Matt's frustration with the callers, as he has seen and heard all the same arguments over and over again. And yup, he can sometimes get super condescending with callers who will not even listen to facts or who are grandstanding to be on the show. Realizing, of course, that Matt could read this. There is no offence meant in what I am saying, for if I were to have to deal with the same callers, I know that I would have a hard time not thinking that they are .... well ... unintelligent. The cavoite here is, that Matt, when he debates, is rarely like that and works hard to hold respect for the people he is debating, which is why I watch most of the other things he does.
Thank you matt for everything you have done to the Word thanks a lot
A lot of people either seem to not know what condone means, or they are using a drastically different definition of condone than its normal usage, which is the definition you gave.
I know you asked him to tell you what he thinks condoning means during the debate (which is where I was surprised when he gave a different definition than the one you gave because that's the normal one used). So maybe if this comes up again, start off by defining condone. And then there is no wiggle room there anymore.
To be fair that's often the best way. I remember years ago I got booked to play a back to back gig met up with the guy I was playing with the day before had about 45 minutes practice and just gone on with it. It rocked much like you and Dr Josh did in spite of it being a debate with Cliffe who just seems... bizarre 🤦🙄.
Nice pfp
What?
100% agree with comments about team debates. I thought Dr Josh Bowen was fantastic, but if anything this made things worse. Just as if you were to pick 2 of your favourite foods at random, 2 individuals with things worth hearing don't really compliment each other if presented at the same time.
The Bible doesn’t consider the victims of violent acts!!!
@Ignostic Naturalist
For example, King David’s child died because of his sin! The child had no choice in the matter!
@Ignostic Naturalist Because they did. With all the rape, forced sex slavery and infanticide I'd put money on some sociopaths and sexual predators being involved as well...🤔
Yep. But Christians claim that certain interpretations do address that. The problem is, why does no one ever misinterpret the Secular Humanist manifestos and use them for heinous acts? Are we just better communicators than god? Apparently so...
@@SatanasExMachina
🤑🤑🤑
ua-cam.com/video/CCv_Yk_JzZU/v-deo.html
Freaking love these
Yes! That silence was telling!
Can we please make it a thing where a debate post-mortem has a link to the actual debate in the title?
I was listening to this debate last weekend while replaying Prey (2017).
My thoughts that nobody asked for:
Josh’s biblical knowledge is literally awe inspiring. He added a lot to an argument that fans of AXP like me are presumably pretty familiar and tired of. The kind of sharpened knowledge that you can’t help but look up to with some reverence.
Stewart and Cliff really performed poorly. The conversation would only really seem to make ground when you and Josh were talking. Which was pretty telling. I appreciate Stewart’s attitude though. He clearly was trying to keep the atmosphere friendly and conversational. It seems to me that Stewart knew his father was losing quite disastrously and despite this, his focus was retain cordiality.
I think this pretty much should be the slavery debate to end all debates. You should just link callers to the debate next time they call in over this. I appreciate your work immensely and thank you for everything you do.
I thought you were going to give your thoughts on the game 😔
@@ScottCastle I mean, it’s really good lol!
Prey 2017 is so good.
@@FinneousPJ1
To preface, I’m a huge immersive sim fan. Even before Prey came out. Arkane has already released two games in the magnificent Dishonored series so I had little doubt it would satisfy. But it ended up being probably my favorite in the genre outside of maybe Bioshock 1. And Prey streamlines absolutely nothing and wins a lot of points from me because of it. My most recent playthrough has been on nightmare with the survival mode enabled. The game is just so open to player experimentation that it feels like almost any strategy is possible.
@@joshuataff4911 I actually prefer Prey to Bioshock as an immersive sim. But I prefer Bioshock for the story/twist, definitely.
Articulately argued on every point. Thank you Matt
Were there people at the time of biblical slavery that "knew better"? Yeah. The slaves.
What’s your opinion on TJump, Matt (if you have one)? His ideas/debate style etc?
I found that both of you made a pretty good team and managed to make your points without much stepping on each other.
p1: Peanut butter is tasty
p2: I like things that are tasty
c: I like peanut butter
sillygism
Matt, totally agree with you about team debates. Too much potential misdirection and cross chatter. A debate is like a mental fight -- best waged one on one.
I was in complete agreement when Matt said that. Team debates are generally rubbish but this topic always draws my attention.
I have to admit, you're far nicer than every mass murderer I've learned about. God...er, good for you!
Most interesting thing I took from this debate is that we have writings from other cultures which demonstrate that Hebrew law was broadly ethically equivalent and sometimes even inferior to its contemporaries.
Cliffe demonstrated that he needs to retire from all this. He needs to just stay in his little bubble and preach to people who already agree with him or harass young people who've barely had a chance to look deeply into any of this stuff.
@Tyler B #2 If they tell you you'll go to hell if you don't believe them, it's definitely harassment. If they add that you deserve it, it's abuse.
I hope theists watch this "debate" and realize how desperate their apologists are to avoid uncomfortable truths.
@Tyler B #2 i dunno defending such thing as slavery seems very desperate to justify it. Can you point out where Matt is wrong?
@@Brugar18 you sin just as bad as a slaver did in the 1800s who are you.
@@BiblicalCosmo Now that's an accusation..
@@Brugar18 no its the truth. Your a sell out just like the rest of the world. That's why it took christ to come down to die for people like you and me. You better start waking up. Your not an accident as evolutionist and scientists say we are.
@@BiblicalCosmo can you back up your claims?
@Matt Dillahunty your volume levels were a bit low in this one.
What is worse than being dead? Incredible suffering, torture without hope. Worse than that? Eternal torture. So what was the Bible’s position on eternal torture? Oh right, it condones that too
No it doesn’t.
I agree about not liking team debates, at least as a viewer. I imagine its far more frustrating as a participant. Every now and then there's a good one, but they're few and far between.
Where can I find the debate, also why are there no links to it in the description?
ua-cam.com/video/gcszn0DvFlM/v-deo.html
There you go
@@Spatzenzunge Thanks
I kinda wonder why Matt's didn't address how combative and rude Cliffe was. It was like Cliffe had never been in a debate before, didn't know why he was there and was shocked another person was disagreeing with him.
I watch a lot of these and can't recall a single time Matt had to tell someone to calm down. The way Cliffe kept rocking in his chair and sticking his face right in the camera I kept thinking "any minute he's gonna walk off".
I was impressed with Stuart in your one on one with him. He was wrong but he was eloquent, polite and that was an amazing discussion. Cliffe is just another iteration of Gish, Hovind, Ham and Comfort. He is right, the Bible is right, God is right and you are just wrong...the end. There is simply no point to a discussion with those clowns. It seemed like Stuart fell in with his father's nonsense and that was a shame because he is better than that.
What is “better than that” in your atheist worldview?
@J Lo It’s your worldview as an atheist.
@EmperorKleetorisTheCuckolder Do you rely on any immaterial or metaphysical concepts in your worldview? Do you think that people like yourself should properly use logic?
You could say the bar is set 6ft down below the ground
bring the mic closer. You are very quiet
Good idea
Is the "debate" on youtube?
Yes, its on Modern Day Debate's channel
Has Matt always had a chipped tooth? I feel like I just noticed it.
i would like to see Matt doing a debate about peanut butter 😊
I actually liked everyone in this debate except Cliff. Stewart did an ok job of reigning him in though. But yeah, it felt like the actual topic wasn't at all addressed by them though. They basically said, "Yeah, the Bible says that, it IS immoral, and god doesn't condone it." So... You have 2 teams arguing that it. IS immoral, but for different reasons. It was kind of annoying, but oh well. I am glad to hear Josh may be on AXP or The Line soon though. I liked him a lot.
If they agree slavery is immoral, then why does the their holy text include instructions on how to be a slave owner?
There are no instructions on the really good sex positions (though it does cover the desirability of a large phallus)
The debate on peanut butter is clearly Crunchy vs Creamy. There are many brands of peanut butter, but crunchy vs creamy is the true conflict.
💜💜💜
Paul is no better than the OT. 3 times he wrote that slavery is ordained by God.
In Galatians 3:28, Paul seems to be saying that there is no distinction under Jesus between free people and slaves, but the passage continues into chapter 4 and by 4:24 he is saying children being born into slavery is part of the covenant of Mt Sinai. In Galatians 4:28-31, Paul endorses not treating slaves well and makes the slaves metaphorically ungodly; a separate, destitute class
1 Corinthians 7:17-24
“Were you a slave when you were called? ... each person should remain in the situation they were in when they were called.” ... and God assigned slavery to them (v 7:17)
Philemon 1:9 and 13, Paul uses slavery as a metaphor for adherence to Jesus. In this passage, Paul implicitly upholds the institution of slavery, even tho Paul expresses a wish that a specific slave Onesimus could be free. Onesimus’ wishes are never mentioned.
I stopped using the term “OT”, it is Christian-centric. Hebrew Bible or Jewish Bible or Tanakh. I think “Tanakh” refers only to the canonical Jewish text with its specific order, etc, which is not exactly what appears in the Christian Bible.
If only more people who came to Modern day debate had your mindset about debates, we would gain more knowledge. Sometimes I feel like people go there just to be silly and condescending and don't really care much about giving the audience good evidence for their views. Makes it hard to take Modern day debates seriously imo.
Considering some of the morons that James allows on that platform....
Sometimes people defend things that wrong and people think it is ok because their holy book says so. The people work in a frame work and can't think beyond and be objective.
The apologetic arguments used to "explain" slavery in the Bible remind me a lot of Bill Clinton's "Depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is," excuse.
"they were plunder thou"
I wish we had a better understanding of Hebrew slavery. I kind of thought it was based on a Greco-Roman approach of taking people as spoils of war or becoming a slave to pay for debt. It was obviously a closely regulated system by the powers that be to have such byzantine laws to find loopholes around other laws to keep a slave a slave. I was at a museum recently 10 years ago I think at the Rosicrucian in San Jose, CA and saw the Egyptian form of holy indentured service. Fascinating stuff. You can make a man into a slave if you promise him his work for the state will buy him into heaven. He even gets tally chips to mark his progress and status.
But of course people rebel and make a counter religion claiming not by the sweat of your brow alone may you enter into heaven or other such revisions ad infinitum.
I saw a good cop bad cop style debate. Wasn't bad at all ;)
The only logical deface for biblical slavery is to say the Bible was written by men and men are not perfect. Then you have to find out how you determine what in the Bible is true and what's false.
A typical answer would be what feels right
Matt there is still a chance - Jesus Christ loves you and died for your sins
Im just kidding😁😁
That’s what the book told you.
No he didn’t. He’s fictional just like Mickey Mouse.
@@raymondcarter1137 Um, read the whole comment
@@MrShigura yeah I know.
I did read it ,you say your kidding I say it’s a book.
I never implied belief in it.
Whenever I see this comment even if it’s sarcastic I just always say that’s what the book told you but I never write because that’s what you believe and sometimes Christians reply with something nasty.
Or Muslims for that matter.
Give it a shot because it’s so neutral they literally get mad and offended by something as obvious as it’s a book .
Dr Josh???
#CommentsforAlgorithm
Debates are an exploration. Too many people turn them into a contest.
7:58 - I don't understand why this is all that great of a question. Being someone's slave is an inherently disadvantaged position under any view, hesitating to volunteer for it is not hypocritical etc.
It is a common scumbag apologist assertion that slaves did something to deserve their situation (mismanaged their finances or dared to wage war against gods chosen people) so apologists do not see themselves as being guilty of anything as to incur such a punishment. It's like asking you if you'd be willing to accept the consequences of being a murderer under your own justice system. You'd hesitate too because, although you might have a fair system, you also have to imagine yourself being guilty of murder and having to pay a price for something you haven't done in real life.
No but theists generally take the argument in directions saying either that bible doesn’t endorse slavery or that the slavery depicted was a kind one which their generous god advocated. In these scenarios that question will test the apologists conviction in those arguments if they’re honest to themselves.
Between One Bush
There was a part where Cliff actually admitted that Biblical slavery is immoral which I am surprised no one jumped on. At one point he acknowledges that slavery is immoral but that it was happening at that time regardless, and that what God via the Bible was doing was to impose a set of rules for slavery that weren't quite so bad. (in the hopes we would one day do better perhaps?) In any case, he is acknowledging that Biblical slavery is bad (it's just not as bad as non-Biblical slavery). Once that is recognized, we then must note that Cliff was dishonest in the beginning in that he was arguing that Biblical slavery was not immoral and yet his argument flatly acknowledges that it is. Cliff was very dishonest in that debate. Stuart was considerably better (though still on the wrong side of the argument). At least he seemed to listen and actually think about what was being said.
Peanut butter!! I'd watch that debate. Smooth all the way!
@J Lo Crunchy is like eating sand. Smooth is for the smooth minded..
@J Lo Fair enough...I should've said it feels like I have pebbles in my mouth.
He debated Knechtles a few years ago. And I thought he'd never do anoth... ah. 2:00 nm
Someone answer this comment :
"I don’t care what you were. I asked for any claim, of a quote from God, where God accepts slavery and forbids the eating of shellfish.
You obviously don’t know your own holy book, nor its history. Leviticus is not quoting God, but giving the laws of early Judaism; the Yarwist Levi tribe. It dates from the 7th century BCE, when Canaan was still polytheistic and is probably a list of laws, upon which Ezra and Nehemiah based their reform."
Cliff got grumpy. Stuart thought he was funny. Both avoided questions.
Not one verse in the Bible advocates for ending the practice of owning another person. A possible exception can be found in the early chapters of Exodus where the Old Testament God intends to free his people from slavery in Egypt. This does not mean much, given that after being led out of Egypt the Jews were taught by God in great detail (Exodus 21) exactly how to keep Jewish slaves as indentured servants or chattel, depending on the circumstances. What is equally distressing to modern readers is that God gave the Jews explicit instructions in Leviticus 25:44-46 on the procedure for buying foreign slaves and keeping them and their children as chattel property for life. Also in the Torah, there is an example of God telling the Jews that they must keep the survivors of the Promised Land conquests as chattel slaves, especially the women (Deuteronomy 20:10-18, 21:10-11). A section in Isaiah 14:1-2 announces that the Jews are promised a future in which they will enslave all other people groups of the world. They “will possess the nations as male and female slaves in the Lord’s land”. The New Testament continues this trend of approved human subjugation with multiple stories by Jesus about slavery, including where he declares the relationship between God and humankind to be like the connection between earthly masters and slaves. He makes no criticism of slavery. He speaks as if the institution is normal and acceptable, even saying that God and human masters are justified in torturing disobedient slaves (Matthew 18:21-35). The writings of the apostles Paul and Peter include commanding slaves in five different books to obey their masters with reverence, fear, respect, sincerity, and love as if toward Christ, even when the slave owner is harsh. Slaves are to try and please their owners at all times, not just when being observed (Ephesians 6:5-6, Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18). The enslaved are directed to work even harder for Christian masters, since they are fellow believers. At the end of one of these instructive sections, Paul says: “Anyone who teaches something different is arrogant and lacks understanding….Their minds are corrupt, and they have turned their backs on the truth.” (1 Timothy 6:1-5a) Christians are “slaves of God”. (Romans 6:16-23)
All of the biblical passages mentioned in the last paragraph offer sturdy guardrails to follow when interpreting proclamations of general spiritual freedom such as in Galatians:
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 NIV)
The message: Be spiritually free, but remain in the physical situation you were in previously.
------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote an in-depth article on this topic, "The Bible Clearly Supports Chattel Slavery Based On Race And Gender".
Here's a summary:
"This article provides a very detailed account of how many, many biblical passages approve of slavery, including the meaning of 'slave' versus 'servant'. It demonstrates the ways these texts affected the abolition movement and church history in the three main traditions (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant). A summary is provided of what slavery was like in the ancient Middle East and Roman Empire, based on direct quotes from historians that specialize in those fields. Enlightenment humanism is contrasted with traditional Christianity in its approach to abolition and human rights generally. There are more than eighty hyperlinks that provide a reference for the claims I make."
I would love to hear what you think of it. Search for "Disagreements I Have With Christianity Andy Rhodes".
Any day now y'all. God is going to come out from hiding and explain it all. 😉
Two times in the New Testament book of Matthew, Jesus expresses his perspective that the connection between God and humanity is analogous to a human master and his slaves. In his “Parable of the Unforgiving Servant” (Matthew 18:21-35) and “Parable of the Faithful and Unfaithful Servants” (Matthew 24:36-51), he has clear opportunities to reject the institution of slavery and call it immoral. Instead, the practice of slavery is used as a teaching model to show people how they should interact with him, the Father, and the Spirit. The “Parable of the Unforgiving Servant” even describes an owner presenting a whole family of slaves for sale in order to pay off the debt of the father. The master has compassion for the father and forgives the money owed, but later that father is very harsh to someone that owed him money. Jesus finishes this story by stating: “In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” Not only is slavery justified, but so is torture. Further, Jesus never said the Old Testament God did anything wrong regarding slavery or anything else. Why? One reason is because in New Testament theology (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17) and core Christian belief (Nicene Creed), Jesus is the Old Testament God (along with the other members of the Trinity: the Father and the Spirit). In Matthew 5:17-19, he proclaims: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Any man who NEEDS any reason to be good or MORAL, he is neither good NOR moral.
Maybe I missed something, but in the debate I thought Stuart mentioned divorce to try to make an argument from analogy. It seemed to me he was he was trying to say that, like divorce, the God he accepts is against slavery, but makes rules for how slavery can be permitted under his watch. I think it’s an awful idea to suggest that if a perfectly virtuous God is real that he would ever permit slavery, given how immoral slavery has shown itself to be.
But I don’t think Stuart was necessarily trying to say that divorce is/was just as bad as slavery. And that seems to be what I lot of atheists were saying in the comment section.
I didn’t think what he was trying to say was too different from people who are pro-choice (like me) arguing that consent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy, because consent to being a in a car on a road-trip isn’t consent to be in a car accident on that trip.
I don’t think pro-choice people are necessarily arguing that a pregnancy is just as unlikely or just as unfortunate as a car crash when making that analogy argument. Comparing the consequences of dealing with one incident verses the other isn’t the point of presenting the analogy.
_"But I don’t think Stuart was necessarily trying to say that divorce is/was just as bad as slavery."_
I mean... If divorce is a sin, and slavery is a sin, and committing sin means you're condemned to hell (or whatever eternal hell-like punishment those two believe in)...I'm not sure how they'd make the case that they *_aren't_* equally as bad.
Obviously that's probably not what you meant, I just think it's more than fair to follow their theology where it ultimately leads.
@@sbushido5547 The problem is that many people who follow the Bible also think there is purgatory. Or if one accepts the Bible and doesn’t accept something like purgatory, one might accept that it’s easier to genuinely repent to God for smaller misdeeds from a human perspective (which one also labels as sins) than larger misdeeds from a human perspective (which one also labels as sins).
The bigger issue is that it’s all a mistake to accept the religious claims before there is strong evidence for those claims being correct and lots of issues with the source of the claims themselves being trustworthy and consistent with reality as best as we can impartially understand reality.
This was hard to watch
How *exactly* are we defining the term "slavery?"
Slavery is a broad term that encompasses several types. I generally use the definition that the UN human rights commission gives: "Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised."
There are many different subtypes of slavery....all of it is still slavery.
@@trumpbellend6717
And how do you define the term "ownership?"
@@truerealrationalistlol you're one of Those that want to try any play semantics to define slavery out of the bible 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Tell you what dear we can resolve definitional BS this real easy...........
Antebellum Chattel Slavery is widely recognised as one of the most abhorrent and depraved practices man has engaged in so .......
It should be real easy for you to say that it was immoral, will you do so ???
If your answer was yes, then list the specific things that made I immoral.
If your answer was no then run along like a good little Christian I'm not interested.
PS remember I'm asking about ANTEBELLUM CHATTEL SLAVERY here, only AFTER we resolve this will we move on to Biblical slavery.
Your move cupcake 😜
@@trumpbellend6717
I just want to define terms, so that we are both on the same page. It's a simple question. If you define slavery as ownership of people, what constitutes ownership?
@@trumpbellend6717
Now, to answer your question, yes, I agree that antebellum chattel slavery was immoral. The reason I feel that way is that in antebellum chattel slavery, the slave owners had exclusive rights and control over the lives of their slaves.
I wonder about the Christan reaction if you acted like you were reading those verse from the Quran.
I think them being silent in response to Matt's question is telling, but it doesn't prove that Biblical Slavery is immoral, just that it's not their 'preference' as Matt said. People not wanting to do a job wouldn't make it immoral. Gotta be careful with these things.
Careful you don't break your fucking back trying to bend over backward.
@@SansDeity great fan of u, love watching your debates and videos and the atheist experience. Keep doing these great videos!
Very sorry for what is happening in USA towards covid. Can't wait for u guys to get back together in the atheist experience building. Here in New Zealand is going good, but watching your videos and the atheist experience get me up in the morning, lol, :)
@@SansDeity That's fair! Sometimes I might be too generous to apologists.
I went to church last Sunday and it amazed me that they still preaching about the same love of Jesus message and never address the this verses that makes god look like an asshole
Wow, I just realized that the fact that I don't believe in slavery means that I am morally superior to God! Don’t tell my theist sister!
My #1 favorite fantasy fiction? The Lord of the Rings. My second favorite? The Bible .
Thought, slavery probably stems from the idea that others are dangerous as we evolved, too many people are subconsciously xenophobic for it not to be an evolutionary trait. We have to teach our children that all of humanity is one tribe if we have any hope of overcoming it.
Respect ✊🏽🖖🏽
Pretty pretty pretty late
How can I click on this video less than ONE MINUTE after it appears lol and its somehow already got over 200 views?!?! 🤣
(Something hinky is going on, I KNOW it! 🤔 )
Perhaps it was available early for patreons?
The notification process is neither instantaneous nor universally equal to all subscribers at the "receiving" end anyway.
I'm not a Matt Patron, but I am one of Logiked and he releases the link to his videos early to Patrons, so we get to watch it before the link is public.
Matt, probably does the same, so his patrons can watch it ahead of time.
You can follow his patreon link to see the rewards in his links (I'd check for you, but on a work computer and I have some nsfw stuff on my patreon so I can't go there from work).
One is bought into slavery, one sells oneself into indentured servitude.
Your point?
@@MrShigura Choice.
@@0nlyThis Okay, I really can’t believe I have to walk you through this, but here goes. Matt’s point can be rephrased as “if I were to forcibly enslave you under the conditions outlined in the Bible, would you accept there being no consequences for that?” If not, what’s your basis for objecting?
@@MrShigura Perhaps a better term would have been: Consent.
Walk on!
@@0nlyThis Right, Volunteer or be forced. Biblical Consent.
Freedom is the way and no one who values Freedom would ever violate someone else's consent and if you give consent without coercion, fraud, and you have the proper mental capacity, then it's not slavery. Too many people still act like they own their own children too...
Darn just missed the 666 likes
In Isaiah 14, the Bible promises a future in which God’s people will make permanent slaves of all other groups on Earth. It originates as a prophecy of revenge on a neighboring empire, but expands to oppress the rest of humanity. Many study bibles and commentaries have titled this section of Isaiah as something like “Israel’s Taunt Against Babylon” because the text includes a Jewish song of mockery and retribution against their former masters. In verses 1-2, the lines just before the song, it foretells that the Jews will make slaves of all other nations, not just the Babylonians that held thousands of Jews in exile for about half of the 6th century BCE:
"But the Lord will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose Israel, and will set them in their own land; and aliens will join them and attach themselves to the house of Jacob. And the nations will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess the nations as male and female slaves in the Lord’s land; they will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them." (Isaiah 14:1-2 NRSV)
I confess I did not watch all 4 hours of the debate, but based on the 90 minutes or so I did plus this video it seems that Matt and Digital Hammurabi missed the most important point:
The most common metaphor in both Testaments for the relationship between god and his chosen people is master and slave. This clearly means that slavery is presented as an ideal. Paul says he is god's slave and he likes it. Dr. Josh could have explained how this is derived from the conception of human beings in Mesopotamian religion where the king acknowledged himself as the gods' slave in order to justify him treating everyone else under his rule as his slaves (in an ideological sense; actual slavery was somewhat different).
8:00
Giving consent to be a slave is incompatible with forced slavery.
The point of the question has nothing to do with consent. The goal is to cut through philosophical dodging, and force empathy for those who are slaves.
@@uninspired3583 I wasn’t arguing the point of his question. I am pointing out the conceptual error of the question itself.
@@Certaintyexists888 it is clearly the case that giving consent isn't compatible, fully agree with your original statement.
The point is that if someone is saying biblical slavery is morally ok, they should be ok with being a slave. If they are not ok with being a slave, it definitively shows there is a moral problem.
It's a thought experiment with a particular goal in mind, the consent aspect isn't relevant.
@@uninspired3583 Hey, Mike........”I don’t care”.
@@uninspired3583 I disagree: given that one does not want X (e.g. slavery) for oneself, it does not follow that one considers X immoral. For example, the bible condones both singlehood and marriage, but believers have their personal preferences; it doesn't mean they repudiate the other.
I agree that slavery is immoral. I just don't think your claim proves it.
[Edit - fixed typo.]
Exactly what do you mean by "Biblical" slavery? Do you mean slavery as DESCRIBED in the Bible or as PROSCRIBED in the Bible? Do you mean slavery under a particular covenant (the Old Covenant, which was for a limited time and a limited geographical area and a limited people) or universal slavery rules for all time and all mankind or Christians under the New Covenant? Do you mean slavery of kidnapped persons or prisoners of war under a war God proscribed for ancient Israel to wage in specific circumstances or slavery as punishment for theft? What exactly do you mean by "Biblical" slavery?
Go watch
@Tyehimba Jahsi Slavery AT ALL! Why was there allowance for any form of slavery anywhere at any time for any people? Why did the Ten Commandments not include an unambiguous prohibition against owning people as property?
And why would any form of slavery ever be morally justified?
James Kunz (the moderator of that debate) did a horrendous job during the Q&A. He was obsessed with powering through a billion questions not letting sprakers answer for longer than 30sec and constantly interjecting when the conversation was getting interesting. I have never seen such a terrible job before. I get that he is trying to maximise monetisation with superchats, but that was ludicrous to the point where I think it was disrespectful to the speakers. Next time I watch a debate on his channel I'll directly skip the Q&A, not worth the time in my opinion.
++
I don't think they had prisons, everywhere you went in them days. Maybe if you stole something from them, or harm someone in their families. You must repay them. Better than to get my head cut off. Lol. That's my theory.
Your theory is based on absolutely nothing other than presupposing the Bible can’t be immoral. Watch the video.
@@MrShigura And that's what these shows are. Only You opinion counts. You thought religion was tripping.You are tripping more than they ever had. This man is made of Skeletor. Lol. And the Masters of the Universe. Lol
@@MrShigura Maybe we should let all the prisoners go. Or should we give them time before we release them. For that is slavery. For they have no rights. Lol. I thought religion was in the clouds. But you guys are further, out than them.
@@garlandgarrett9806 The bible states that there should be no punishment for beating your slave as long as they don't actually die as a result within a couple days. It also outlines god's rules for how to sell your daughters into sex slavery. If you're going to try to make excuses for the bible, maybe read it first, dingus. Oh, and your English is borderline incoherent, if it's not a second language, get a refund on whatever education you do have.
@@MrShigura These days I think man knows the difference between right and wrong. Maybe they was trying to justify their self. Lol. And you are right, about my education thing. Lol
This was about slavery and I see people went of topic.
If God had declared slavery to be an abomination in biblical scripture, would it have made any difference? Would mankind have said, 'oh, ok, let's not have slaves." You only have to see how mankind has justified everything it wanted to do throughout history to recognize man does what man wants to do, regardless of morality. Rather, God is more concerned with YOU personally with YOUR eternity over society and its ever changing morality.... - the world will spiral out of existence, but your soul is offered eternity through the redemptive sacrifice on the Cross by Jesus- God in flesh. All who believe upon Him are forgiven, redeemed, saved and have eternal life in God's Kingdom. You were created to be holy and blameless before Him - most will never obtain that - but you can, regardless of your past. John 3 16 is His invitation to know how much He loves you, what the desire of His heart is for you and what His promise is to you. I urge you to check out His love for yourself with a sincere, humble spirit, while He may be found. Have a wonderful day.
*If God had declared slavery to be an abomination in biblical scripture, would it have made any difference? Would mankind have said, 'oh, ok, let's not have slaves."*
Funny...
God didn't have that problem when it comes to killing. He clearly declared murder a bad thing, even though people still didn't listen.
And yet, he specifically said, how you can treat your slaves, for how much to sell and buy them...
Seriously, do you really think this argument flies? After having given rules after rules after rules, god is all of a sudden: "Well, I won't tell them NOT to do this, because they won't listen anyway..."
Seriously? 0_o
Come on... you're smarter than this.
*Rather, God is more concerned with YOU personally with YOUR eternity over society and its ever changing morality...*
No, he isn't!
Not according to the bible! THERE he gives laws and rules for entire SOCIETY, not just suggestions for personal responsibility. You're just wrong about this.
The rest of your comment is just preeching, trying to change the subject. Nothing much to say there. What you can claim without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence.
@@theodorgrunter3551 ok, Theodor. Thanks for the comment. God's character is revealed to us when He came in the person of Jesus. In the NT you will be able to see the truth of that character, if you choose - the love, the patience, the kindness, the mercy, and the justice of His actions and treatment of others. If you just want to see how man treats man and blame it on God, there's nothing further to be said on the subject. Have a great day.
If that's the case, why bother any commandments?
@@bouldersoundguy Because not everyone will turn (or wants to turn) from God's ways - many believe in and upon God and desire to live according to His Word - God expected the Hebrews to follow His commands (they were given before Jesus came) for a couple of reasons: 1) to establish a code of behavior that was meant to distinguish them from the surrounding nations 2) to eventually show them that the law, in and of itself, was impossible to keep 100% of the time by anyone - therefore proving to them that they needed Him, lest anyone boast of his own superior accomplishments. He provided the only way to enter His Kingdom through Himself- Jesus, God in flesh. Jesus summed up all the law into two commandments to make it clear and easy to follow - Love God and love others. Lives are made much better when we take those two commands seriously and implement them into our daily lives (doesn’t mean we're perfect and don't err) but erring and then humbly returning (repenting) to God revealing our faith in Him and His atoning sacrifice on the Cross (John 3 16) is what really makes us righteous before Him. There’s something of a 'catch-22' in the scripture however that is important to note: Jesus says that not one letter of the law will be done away with - and later, scripture says that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. These opposing scriptures seem to indicate a serious conflict. Do you know why it is not a conflict? The answer could explain a lot to you and encourage you to closely examine and follow His Word. Have a great day.
@@wwlib5390
Theodor likely didn't respond because you didn't answer direct questions. Your response was a total non sequitur. How dishonest can you get?