I love how Charles is here defending Slavery, while simultaniously accusing others of not having moral fortitude. He's a massive hypocrite and probably the most ignorant caller i have seen so far
What I find is some white christians believe is that the Christians and ppl of god were simply better than others they genuinely believe that the ability to own ppl and enslave them was a huge flex. It’s ego that doesn’t allow them to ever see it as heinous.
"you're atheist, you don't have the moral fortitude to be a slave owner" I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at anything on the show before, OMG. This person is just pure comedy gold. I admit I watch mostly for the comedic value and this guy is a treasure trove, and I'm still only half way through the call, OMG =) Edit: OMG that was so much fun. To sum up. God is good, but also bad. Bad slave owners are God, and people, and atheist people. Christian people are against slavery, but God is for slavery. Christians fixed God, but God didn't need fixing. Point is, atheist are morally corrupt and God is great.
And apparently retaliatory slavery is fine, because that's basically his rationalization for Hebrew/Israelite slavery: "Well, the Egyptians did it, but Hebrews did it better,"
Right? Apparently these folks always see themselves as the enslaver and not the enslaved. The debt collector but not the debtor...hmmm, how interesting :>
Well that’s 99% of Christianity. It’s fine for everyone to be forced into obedience but they don’t have to obey it themselves. Most Christians have 0 idea what the Bible actually says. Just what they’ve heard others say is in the Bible. So when they’re caught breaking one of the 100+ commandments they don’t mind. It’s about THEM not the Bible. Not Christianity. Their own validation and need to justify their awful behavior.
Assuming everyone is a slave to someone, why would Charles even debate the point? Slaves do not have the luxury of free will. If God owns you, then you can't exactly walk off the plantation without instant punishment. Similarly, anyone enslaved by sin can't simply decide to quit and work for another master. Satan will sue to protect his property rights, and he has all the lawyers!
Equivocation fallacy. If everything is slavery, then slavery can’t be wrong. Just like, “God doesn’t send people to hell, they send themselves there,” and “everyone knows God exists but some deny it in sin.” They define their positions into existence in ways that are unfalsifiable. An un-clever wordplay loophole for every contradiction. What nonsense.
“Marriage is slavery… employment is slavery…” oh, gods, this’s gonna be *deeply* ignorant, isn’t it? “A loving slaveowner…” yup. *Deeply* ignorant. And, honestly? The more he talked? *Evil* as well. Like, WTH, Dude?
Forget voting and all that. What's actually scary is that there are people like Charles in power, that have the desire to enforce their will on those they govern
Just look at states like Utah under Theocratical rule. The right wingers and Christian’s think it’s just fine to be under the thumb of rule instead of being in a free state. The brainwashing is real and our country needs help, not Christian help!
@@byronjefferson1697 Its sadly a common thread throughout history that they worst people are the most able to nestle themselfs into the most powerful potisions. Probebly becouse they´re the ones with the most psykopathic motivation to keep trying to controll others.
What is just as scary is that a supposedly loving god created something as dumb as Charles...I think god was busy creating a piece of rock and was distracted and voila, here is Charlie in all his glory...
“God isn’t embarrassed by slavery, he’s a proponent of it.” 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️ Why oh why do these people think their arguments like this is a selling point for Christianity? 🤯 Charles, bless your heart (I’m southern so that means what you think it does).
I don't think you can put all the things he said in this call into one coherent statement "Everyone is a slave" "Only Christian's can be good slave owners" "Slavery is only good if you compare it to death" "Humans cant be good slave owners" "Christian's who were slave owners were doing bad things"
Charles: "..If you would come to me, beging me that i should safe you and take you as a slave... bla bla bla.." Goooosh ey,.. is he just pretending to be that stupid or is he really that stupid? He really never heard of charity and/or donations of Money and other stuff. And he also contradicts himself from what he said earlier; Charles: "..No it would not be ok for a human to own another human!.." He really can not make up his mind. Just... *shaking head* and *facepalm*
Didn't Jesus himself say to care for those who are downtrodden and poor by feeding them and clothing them? Not by enslaving them, that's for sure! If Jesus were real, and knew that not having slavery at all was an option, I think the character would have been anti-slavery, considering his "be nice to other people" message, bc slavery is inherently NOT nice to other people.
@@quagmaTV To quessing about if a Jesus-Thingy did or did not said anything firstly would require to establish if a Jesus actually existed and if that one ever said anything that was written down. When we talk about only the Character that gets mentioned in a lot of the Versions of Books with the Title *Bible* (and not all Books with that Title are the same), then this Character seems to say a lot of things. Sometimes even very contradictory stuff (even in a single Book). Like the Character behaves always in the way that the Author of the specific passages that the Jesus-Character gets mentioned wanted this Jesus-Character to behave. And so you can also find passages where the Jesus-Character approves Slavery. As special the Passages that let that Character say stuff about how everybody should be a slave to the God-Thingy .. or the Passages where that Jesus-Character says stuff like the more People are opressed the better places they will have in heaven (and explicitly mentioning slaves at that point). Or where the Jesus-Character tells slaves to obey their earthly Masters, even the cruel ones. And so on. So even if we only talk about the Jesus-Character,.. i wouldnt be sure if that Character wouldnt actually agree with Charles there or not.
They would say, “of course God knew it was wrong, but he couldn’t have told us that, because that would have been too much for us.” That didn’t stop him from prohibiting everything from eating shellfish to murder. They have an unfalsifiable explanation for every contradiction. That’s how you know it’s BS.
especially because people back then, i.e. Cyrus the Great and The Buddha, *did know that slavery is bad.* christians like to pretend that realizing slavery is bad was this incredible revelation that could only happen with their god. spoilers: it wasn't.
That's not necessarily true. An omniscient and omnipotent (or the maximal version) needn't necessarily be omnibenevolent too. They could be amoral, malevolent, or just mixed. But a tri-omni deity as professed by many Christians is a logical impossibility as that deity regularly does things that would be considered evil and has negative personality traits such as jealousy.
@@sypherthe297th2 any 2omni combination works, including those with omnibenevolence: + Omniscience: wants to change things, but can't. + Omnipotence: would change things, but doesn't understand them or doesn't know about them.
I think I finally understand a bit more about why America is one of the few developed countries without what would be considered basic workers rights. People like this want to be the owners and be able to treat others like slaves.
I'm always puzzled when people claim that because they work for a living that their employer "owns" them or they are "slaves" while on the job. My question would be how many times you performed sex acts on demand with your employer? Because if you are enslaved 8-9 hours a day, those are common requirements to be made upon your body. Is an employer due the same acts from your kids & spouse? When you are a slave, aren't they also your employer's property? If you misbehave or destroy something while working, does your employer beat you? How often and how badly? I don't like to quibble about accepting wages making you property - let's get to the ugly questions.
In regards to that last point around 11 minutes, even another alternative is "Hey, I will give you food, but I'm gonna ask you to mow my lawn or wash your own dishes, or cook it yourself" etc. That is just repayment, not slavery, and that is far more acceptable.
Except his argument is that what you are proposing IS slavery. Because employment is slavery, marriage is slavery, shopping at the Safeway is slavery. Heck, being hungry is being a slave to your body. But then if you choose not to eat, you have God-granted "free will" (which, I would argue in Charles' manner, is being a slave to your mind, or a slave to free will, or some such nonsense). Charles' problem is he is using the word "slavery" extremely loosely and analogously. Much like defining food as "anything I can fit in my mouth." Also I think he's trying to justify his misery with being in a crappy job and a crappy marriage.
I think you guys would be better served to start you calls with, "So do you want to have a discussion, where we ask and answer each other's questions, or are you just here to preach?" That would cut down on wasting time with people like Charles. He had no interest in listening or learning. He knows what he knows, and that's it, period end of sentence. Ain't no breaking through to someone like that.
You go to McDonald's, you're a slave to their menu. You crack open Lord of the Rings, you're a slave of Tolkein's storyline. Everybody's a slave! What even are words???
Why are they even talking about which option was the best for THE ENSLAVED PERSON? They're letting him strawman them. . Morality is about how YOU behave. We aren't asking why someone would choose to BE A slave, but why a moral person would ENSLAVE another? This guy...smh
Wow ... Amazing call ... they got him off of "everyone is necessarily a slave to something" and moved him to "slavery (even back in the day) was bad, actually" ... great job guys!
Once again Charles has shown a complete disconnect from humanity. He’s saying there is no morality other than obedience, which states that enslaving survivors of wars you started (also objectively moral) is a good thing. He’s ignored any concept of REAL morality to justify something he knows is evil. Which is whole point for calling. But if you disagree, and wouldn’t want to be OWNED AS PROPERTY you’re “immoral”. Because Charles feels an emotional attachment to a book. I wonder what Charles would allow others to do to him, seeing as he’s fine with him and his family being owned? He’s fine with that but not with having someone disagree with him. I suspect he’s rooting for Russia as well.
Charles, let me tell you something very important that you as a Christian will never be able to comprehend. It's easy to have these arguments while neither of us are slaves or in danger of becoming one. But all it takes is for people like you return to power before these conversations become far more dire. In a world in which you don't need to compromise with an atheist like me, would you bother to oppose the institution you are so desperate to apologize for? Your position on this issue represents a threat to the centuries of development on human rights that we have ALL fought for and enjoy. Shame on you.
Haiti wasn't the first country to abolish slavery, and the slave revolt on Haiti is the reason, still, for it's poor relations with murica. the first abolition of any type of slavery was the Roman empire banning Jews owning Christian slaves in roughly 610(ish). Britain banned domestic slavery from the magna carta (1072) onwards that would also include any slave transported in to British ports who managed to get on shore. the first modern country to stop slavery was Norway, followed by Portugal,followed by Britain who actively policed West Africa to stop slave ships crossing the Atlantic. Most of western Europe banned the slave trade before murica.cgarles proves that the mentality if slavers isn't dead n buried.
@@petermeichan3160 the royal family didn't trade in slaves directly but there were plenty of private of families who are still wealthy who did, in part due to the compensation paid to then for being made to give up slaves. Families like the Tate & Lyle sugar heirs, the Whitworth sugar heirs, and other "upstanding" families. But yes the British Royal Navy patrolled the west coast in f Africa after we banned the slave trader, boarding and seizing ships it was, at the time, a very prestigious appointment to be a member of the West Africa Squadron. The "Blockade of Africa" began in 1803 as soon as Britain outlawed the slave trade both domestically, and throughout the Empire. Plenty of material out there on sites like this, and Wikipedia. It isn't my fault you have no clue about history beyond your small minded,, myopic pre conceived bubble is it? Enjoy your ignorance!
@@neilharris2048 interesting, yes Britain did ban slavery, eventually but not before the rich had made plenty of money from it, including the royal family of the time and used the immoral bible to justify it, I'm not saying they didn't ban it, I'm saying they are just as guilty in their participation, let's not forget the British empire was built on invasion , slavery and the theft of other countries natural resources and valuable artefacts
@@petermeichan3160 firstly it isn't the English royal family it's s the British royal family. The fact you don't comprehend that fact tends to damage rhe credibility of your response. Secondly I didn't say that the monarchy didn't benefit from slavery,, i actually said they didn't trade directly in slavery themselves, but at that time in British history the monarchs powers to set down laws and raise taxes was long gone. Maybe if you understood, or even knew of, the consequences of the English civil war in 1640 you wouldn't keep repeating the same incorrect cobblers mate. The sovereign after Oliver Cromwell made Parliament more powerful than the monarch, and created the civil list which pays the monarch out of govt taxation levied by parliament, was largely a figurehead. They are a titular head o state without power,:much the same as the Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Italian et al oyal families. Didn't I give you the names of 3 families who grew ultra rich off Caribbean slavery, families you've never heard of British taxpayers were paying back the money given to slavers made to relinquish their slaves until 2018 , because the govt (not the fucking king) borrowed £20m in 1802 to get the abolition laws passed. Nothing I've said here' is wrong in any way factually,, Jesus wept you were completely unaware of the West Africa Squadron,you told me I was lying about that. You have no idea what you're talking about because you're clueless about British history and society, you're nor alone tho most yanks are just as pig ignorant, . I mean look at the geezer who thinks Haiti abolished slavery, as opposed to the truth of the slaves rebelling and murdering all the French slavers, and their families, on Haiti and that is why murica hates Haiti because at the time the slavers saw it as a possible example that Murican slaves might follow, what a moron he must be eh?you're welcome for the education, read a book!
This is why good, kind, loving a decent human beings abhor Christianity. These guys use the lowest form of moral values they can and try to justify it with supernatural excuses.
Disappointed this guy is from my home state but not at all surprised. I'm so sorry Georgia produces such immoral religious folk. Exactly the kind i grew up surrounded by 🤦
Charles is desperately trying to redefine slavery to make it more palatable to modern tastes…which proves the larger point that biblical morality is obviously not timeless. In trying to save biblical morality, Charles has buried it.
Binary thinking is required for monotheistic religious belief either your deity is the one and only deity, or they are not. Once they've shut off the nuance part of their brain to buy that, it is very difficult to get away from binary thinking for other situations. It then becomes something to embrace, a crutch, upon which they build their certainty beliefs. And here we have Exhibit C-GA.
IIRC, Japan officially criminalized slavery around 1600, 2 centuries before Haiti became the first nation in the Western Hemisphere to abolish all slavery.
The main problem here is that god is the one who cursed us with sin, which is the only way Charles is right about us being slaves to everything, if Charles IS right. That's because god made us needing to eat. Everything needs to be produced, which requires work (which is why we have an economy). If we can only be either a slave to sin (satan) or to god, then we have no free will. If we have free will, sin can't exist-Because we're acting on our own (which we can't under under the devil's agency, which is sin).
I can't never say never but I have to say in this case I will never believe in Christianity because of this caller Charles these are the people that are teaching Christianity. Matt dillahunty if you're out there listening thank you for everything that you have done you have changed my life by convincing me to say when I don't know something I don't know
Dr. student that was a great point. “Slaves went on to have slaves” and now I remembering the slaves didn’t even revolt. One guy with a +1 took the slaves and got them lost in the desert for 40 years. What was the life expectancy back then? Did any of the original slaves make it to 🎶”The big rock candy mountain”? Edit: 😢 🤢 🤮 “A loving slave owner” OIC… he’s a dmub fohter mckuer
He poisoned the well from the start with the idea that slavery is a natural state and he thinks some slavery is okay, which compounds the well poisoning with special pleading
There were peoples, at least on the tribal level that did not have slavery. If God exists and is the perfect moral standard, why didn't he tell his people to not enslave others? Why didn't he say, there's a better system, including to help the poor so they don't have to sell themselves. If our system now is better, why didn't God give the blueprints for it back then?
there were whole ancient civilizations that didn't practice slavery. Cyrus the Great abolished slavery in the Persian Empire in 539 BC. The Buddha prohibits slavery, and the emperor Wang Mang abolished slavery in China in 9 AD (though later emperors brought it back). the idea no one knew slavery is bad until Enlightened Christians in the 19th Century is complete ahistorical nonsense.
I'm trying to wrap my head around how Charles can say an atheist doesn't have the "moral fortitude yet atheist argue against slavery, while Charles think he has that "moral fortitude" because he's a Christian yet as a Christian is arguing in favor of slavery. Either this guy is a Poe, or he's a clear example how religion creating twisted immoral monsters thinking they have "moral fortitude" What Charles fails to understand is that his god acted no different from the other gods of that time & period. Moral monsters they were all. Charles as well indoctrinated Christian, he simply blocks thoughts & so he's unable to comprehend why we see his god nothing but one more monster, again... no different from those other gods.
7:00 "As an Atheist, you have no moral fortitude" : HUMAN BEINGS INVENTED ALL RELIGIONS! HUMAN BEINGS WROTE ALL THE MORAL CODES. HUMAN BEINGS INVENTED ALL THE GODS! HUMANS ARE MORAL BY NATURE!
The thing that's missed most often is that mores are temporary, local, societal rules. Morals are flexible and frequently frightening. They aren't stoning pepe who work on the sabbath or women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, or keeping slaves (where they aren't) because of their supposedly superior religious morals or because of some new revelation, but because we of the post-enlightenment with our superior secular ethics have changed the cultural mores to where it's no longer acceptable, and we've told them that we'll send them to jail or to meet their makers if they try it. Yes, slavery was "moral" back then, in that cultural context. So, that cultural context and the religious texts that gave them, is trash.
Charles is dredging t bottom of t barrel. He's given up on defending his bible because it's indefensible. U guys must love it when he calls. Or your gluttons...... .🍻
When you place the locus of your moral code outside of your own head, you are much more likely to justify immoral actions, especially when you have a forgiveness escape route: all you have to do is ask, then just pretend you're forgiven.
Wow, I hope Charles did a few warmups before executing all those leaps and stretches. Actually, no. I hope it hurt and I hope that, until he acknowledges that everything he said here was bs, this conversation keeps him up at night.
Oh Charles... Think please: the moment we humans have to step in to stop something bad, you know that your god is not powerful at all (if he really exists, that is).
I'd argue that it's a non-existent concept. It doesn't matter how "well " you treat someone, if you're treating them like property then you're not treating them as a human.
I love how Charles is here defending Slavery, while simultaniously accusing others of not having moral fortitude. He's a massive hypocrite and probably the most ignorant caller i have seen so far
He is just more than willing to display the dishonesty of christianity.
What I find is some white christians believe is that the Christians and ppl of god were simply better than others they genuinely believe that the ability to own ppl and enslave them was a huge flex. It’s ego that doesn’t allow them to ever see it as heinous.
Ignorance and Christian reasoning go hand in hand.
@@pretzelogic2689so you could say, he's honesty dishonest.
CHRISTIANS LIKE CHARLES: It looks immoral to us, but God commanded it, so that MAKES it moral.
"you're atheist, you don't have the moral fortitude to be a slave owner" I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at anything on the show before, OMG. This person is just pure comedy gold. I admit I watch mostly for the comedic value and this guy is a treasure trove, and I'm still only half way through the call, OMG =)
Edit: OMG that was so much fun. To sum up. God is good, but also bad. Bad slave owners are God, and people, and atheist people. Christian people are against slavery, but God is for slavery. Christians fixed God, but God didn't need fixing. Point is, atheist are morally corrupt and God is great.
No, I suppose I don't have the moral fortitude to be a good slave master. And that's a good thing, hard as it may be for Charles to understand it.
And apparently retaliatory slavery is fine, because that's basically his rationalization for Hebrew/Israelite slavery: "Well, the Egyptians did it, but Hebrews did it better,"
Funny how this guy’s definition of “moral fortitude” matches my definition of psychopathy.
This is what religion does to your mind.
@@GodlessFiend same.
Charles if you're an example of Christian morality, I'm glad I'm an atheist.
Not one person who agrees with slavery, would not freely become a slave. I wonder why? 🤔
Right? Apparently these folks always see themselves as the enslaver and not the enslaved. The debt collector but not the debtor...hmmm, how interesting :>
NAILED IT! Something about an awl through the earlobe!!! 😄😄😄
Well that’s 99% of Christianity. It’s fine for everyone to be forced into obedience but they don’t have to obey it themselves. Most Christians have 0 idea what the Bible actually says. Just what they’ve heard others say is in the Bible. So when they’re caught breaking one of the 100+ commandments they don’t mind.
It’s about THEM not the Bible. Not Christianity. Their own validation and need to justify their awful behavior.
@@Callimo People who advocate for fascist regimes always assume they’ll get preferred treatment.
Except he kept hedging anyway because subconsciously he knows slavery is wrong, he just has to rationalize it or he's an outright hypocrite
These people find ways to justify the worst things because it’s in the Bible but we are the always the bad ones still 😂
It's true. It's so evil to not be able to believe in magic. We *deserve* eternal torture. Torture is justice, don'tchaknow?
At least pro-slavery Bibleboys are consistent in their application of Divine Command Theory...
@@wabbajack2 I assume that is sarcasm? Because they are not in any way consistent...
The fact that there are still people like Charles in the 21st Century is very very scary.
And they vote.
And doing things like Jan 6
like King Charles of england ? yeah he's a wack job
@@petermeichan3160 I agree.
@@victorhayden7053 the French had the right idea, know what I'm saying
Just when I think I can find no more contempt for religion and what it does to people I hear another call like this.
Caller is brainwashed so sad !
I so wish this guy was being satirical. It scares me that adult human beings can have these views.
It fucking scares me that most adults never grow up and still act like kids, really fucking scary that we haven't evolved as a species
These people are incredibly broken.
Charles isn’t an adult. Religion means never having to grow up.🤤
Assuming everyone is a slave to someone, why would Charles even debate the point? Slaves do not have the luxury of free will. If God owns you, then you can't exactly walk off the plantation without instant punishment. Similarly, anyone enslaved by sin can't simply decide to quit and work for another master. Satan will sue to protect his property rights, and he has all the lawyers!
It reminds me of the simpletons who say “well your boss owns you” not realizing that’s not AT ALL the case, and you still have free will.
what/who is this satan you speak of?
@@c.guydubois8270 the big scapegoat of christianity
Equivocation fallacy. If everything is slavery, then slavery can’t be wrong.
Just like, “God doesn’t send people to hell, they send themselves there,” and “everyone knows God exists but some deny it in sin.” They define their positions into existence in ways that are unfalsifiable. An un-clever wordplay loophole for every contradiction. What nonsense.
Lol check out the podcast alab (all lawyers are bad)
Im loving SDB's grin when the caller gets crazy 🤣
You should see my grin knowing she'll never truly be a man, but it's fun watching her play pretend
Nice one, gay lorde! I hope you feel better about yourself now after that incredibly intelligent dig. Keep it up!
@@gaylorde4607 Why do you feel you have to insert your phobias into the conversation?
@@caspasesumo I'm not afraid of them. I'm disgusted. Big difference
@@gaylorde4607 you should phone in. Surely a soaring intellect like yours would outmaneuver them at every turn 🤓
“Marriage is slavery… employment is slavery…” oh, gods, this’s gonna be *deeply* ignorant, isn’t it?
“A loving slaveowner…” yup. *Deeply* ignorant. And, honestly? The more he talked? *Evil* as well. Like, WTH, Dude?
Many theists believe their imaginary god wants them to be ignorant, so they try to show it how ignorant they can be.🤤
It’s scary that people like Charles are allowed to vote, drive or have children.
Forget voting and all that. What's actually scary is that there are people like Charles in power, that have the desire to enforce their will on those they govern
Just look at states like Utah under Theocratical rule. The right wingers and Christian’s think it’s just fine to be under the thumb of rule instead of being in a free state. The brainwashing is real and our country needs help, not Christian help!
@@byronjefferson1697 Its sadly a common thread throughout history that they worst people are the most able to nestle themselfs into the most powerful potisions. Probebly becouse they´re the ones with the most psykopathic motivation to keep trying to controll others.
What is just as scary is that a supposedly loving god created something as dumb as Charles...I think god was busy creating a piece of rock and was distracted and voila, here is Charlie in all his glory...
“God isn’t embarrassed by slavery, he’s a proponent of it.” 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️ Why oh why do these people think their arguments like this is a selling point for Christianity? 🤯 Charles, bless your heart (I’m southern so that means what you think it does).
I don't think you can put all the things he said in this call into one coherent statement
"Everyone is a slave"
"Only Christian's can be good slave owners"
"Slavery is only good if you compare it to death"
"Humans cant be good slave owners"
"Christian's who were slave owners were doing bad things"
6:36 “slavery from a loving slave owner”
I’m going to vomit 🤮
Wage slavery is a thing, but it is different enough from chattel slavery for Charles' point to fail.
More people live in slavery now than anytime in history let's talk about that
People like Charles live and breathe and walk among us. He has the vote! We are fucking DOOMED!
I really want to believe that people like Charles don't actually exist. His morality is terrifying.
This is absolutely horrifying on so many levels that I'm legitimately concerned about people like this operating in the world
Charles: "..If you would come to me, beging me that i should safe you and take you as a slave... bla bla bla.."
Goooosh ey,.. is he just pretending to be that stupid or is he really that stupid?
He really never heard of charity and/or donations of Money and other stuff.
And he also contradicts himself from what he said earlier;
Charles: "..No it would not be ok for a human to own another human!.."
He really can not make up his mind.
Just... *shaking head* and *facepalm*
Didn't Jesus himself say to care for those who are downtrodden and poor by feeding them and clothing them? Not by enslaving them, that's for sure! If Jesus were real, and knew that not having slavery at all was an option, I think the character would have been anti-slavery, considering his "be nice to other people" message, bc slavery is inherently NOT nice to other people.
@@quagmaTV
To quessing about if a Jesus-Thingy did or did not said anything firstly would require to establish if a Jesus actually existed and if that one ever said anything that was written down.
When we talk about only the Character that gets mentioned in a lot of the Versions of Books with the Title *Bible* (and not all Books with that Title are the same), then this Character seems to say a lot of things. Sometimes even very contradictory stuff (even in a single Book).
Like the Character behaves always in the way that the Author of the specific passages that the Jesus-Character gets mentioned wanted this Jesus-Character to behave.
And so you can also find passages where the Jesus-Character approves Slavery.
As special the Passages that let that Character say stuff about how everybody should be a slave to the God-Thingy .. or the Passages where that Jesus-Character says stuff like the more People are opressed the better places they will have in heaven (and explicitly mentioning slaves at that point).
Or where the Jesus-Character tells slaves to obey their earthly Masters, even the cruel ones. And so on.
So even if we only talk about the Jesus-Character,.. i wouldnt be sure if that Character wouldnt actually agree with Charles there or not.
He really is that stupid. Religion has rotten his brain.
I love the "it was different then" argument- if their god is all knowing etc, he would have known it was as wrong then as it is now!
They would say, “of course God knew it was wrong, but he couldn’t have told us that, because that would have been too much for us.”
That didn’t stop him from prohibiting everything from eating shellfish to murder.
They have an unfalsifiable explanation for every contradiction. That’s how you know it’s BS.
especially because people back then, i.e. Cyrus the Great and The Buddha, *did know that slavery is bad.*
christians like to pretend that realizing slavery is bad was this incredible revelation that could only happen with their god. spoilers: it wasn't.
God is any kind of Omni than slavery wouldn't have been in the Bible!
That's not necessarily true. An omniscient and omnipotent (or the maximal version) needn't necessarily be omnibenevolent too. They could be amoral, malevolent, or just mixed.
But a tri-omni deity as professed by many Christians is a logical impossibility as that deity regularly does things that would be considered evil and has negative personality traits such as jealousy.
@@sypherthe297th2 any 2omni combination works, including those with omnibenevolence:
+ Omniscience: wants to change things, but can't.
+ Omnipotence: would change things, but doesn't understand them or doesn't know about them.
Just keep doing what you're doing. I really enjoy all your videos and really like hearing your perspective on everything you cover.
To own or be owned...that is A question that Should NEVER NEED TO BE ASKED OR ANSWERED...IF ONE PROFESSES A STANDING OF MORAL SUPERIORITY....
"Slavery is good as long as im not a slave"
I think I finally understand a bit more about why America is one of the few developed countries without what would be considered basic workers rights. People like this want to be the owners and be able to treat others like slaves.
I'm always puzzled when people claim that because they work for a living that their employer "owns" them or they are "slaves" while on the job. My question would be how many times you performed sex acts on demand with your employer? Because if you are enslaved 8-9 hours a day, those are common requirements to be made upon your body. Is an employer due the same acts from your kids & spouse? When you are a slave, aren't they also your employer's property? If you misbehave or destroy something while working, does your employer beat you? How often and how badly? I don't like to quibble about accepting wages making you property - let's get to the ugly questions.
7:00 Caller: "you are a bad slaveowner beacsue you are a human" Me "WFT dont you have ears?"
Apparently only non-humans can be good slave owners. I welcome our alien overlords.
I need a bleach shower after hearing this guy
In regards to that last point around 11 minutes, even another alternative is
"Hey, I will give you food, but I'm gonna ask you to mow my lawn or wash your own dishes, or cook it yourself" etc.
That is just repayment, not slavery, and that is far more acceptable.
Except his argument is that what you are proposing IS slavery. Because employment is slavery, marriage is slavery, shopping at the Safeway is slavery. Heck, being hungry is being a slave to your body. But then if you choose not to eat, you have God-granted "free will" (which, I would argue in Charles' manner, is being a slave to your mind, or a slave to free will, or some such nonsense).
Charles' problem is he is using the word "slavery" extremely loosely and analogously. Much like defining food as "anything I can fit in my mouth."
Also I think he's trying to justify his misery with being in a crappy job and a crappy marriage.
that was some impressive mental gymnastics ngl
I almost expected him to catch the flaw in his argument when he said “you’d make a bad slave owner because you’re human.” He really SHOULD’VE. 😬
9:33 that reminds me of what Gmork said, "people with no hope, are easy to control".
I think you guys would be better served to start you calls with, "So do you want to have a discussion, where we ask and answer each other's questions, or are you just here to preach?" That would cut down on wasting time with people like Charles. He had no interest in listening or learning. He knows what he knows, and that's it, period end of sentence. Ain't no breaking through to someone like that.
Charles is a perfect example of how religion rots the human mind to its core.
As mentioned before…. There is no hate like christian love……
You go to McDonald's, you're a slave to their menu. You crack open Lord of the Rings, you're a slave of Tolkein's storyline. Everybody's a slave! What even are words???
Why are they even talking about which option was the best for THE ENSLAVED PERSON? They're letting him strawman them. . Morality is about how YOU behave. We aren't asking why someone would choose to BE A slave, but why a moral person would ENSLAVE another? This guy...smh
This is so depressing. It's crazy to know that such people that have these ideas live around us.
so much love
Wow ... Amazing call ... they got him off of "everyone is necessarily a slave to something" and moved him to "slavery (even back in the day) was bad, actually" ... great job guys!
We're Heathens
Once again Charles has shown a complete disconnect from humanity. He’s saying there is no morality other than obedience, which states that enslaving survivors of wars you started (also objectively moral) is a good thing.
He’s ignored any concept of REAL morality to justify something he knows is evil. Which is whole point for calling. But if you disagree, and wouldn’t want to be OWNED AS PROPERTY you’re “immoral”. Because Charles feels an emotional attachment to a book.
I wonder what Charles would allow others to do to him, seeing as he’s fine with him and his family being owned? He’s fine with that but not with having someone disagree with him. I suspect he’s rooting for Russia as well.
Please put in the description or video when the show times are.
This is one of the craziest callers Talk Heathen has ever had.
Servant - a person who performs duties for others, especially a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.
telling an atheist about being a slave to sin, is jaughable
It reminds me of that Bo Burnham song.
Slave to his wife? Ummm did someone out themselves as a sub?
Charles, let me tell you something very important that you as a Christian will never be able to comprehend. It's easy to have these arguments while neither of us are slaves or in danger of becoming one. But all it takes is for people like you return to power before these conversations become far more dire. In a world in which you don't need to compromise with an atheist like me, would you bother to oppose the institution you are so desperate to apologize for? Your position on this issue represents a threat to the centuries of development on human rights that we have ALL fought for and enjoy. Shame on you.
Just waiting on Charles to say he is ready to be the slave under those strict bible rules.
Haiti wasn't the first country to abolish slavery, and the slave revolt on Haiti is the reason, still, for it's poor relations with murica. the first abolition of any type of slavery was the Roman empire banning Jews owning Christian slaves in roughly 610(ish). Britain banned domestic slavery from the magna carta (1072) onwards that would also include any slave transported in to British ports who managed to get on shore. the first modern country to stop slavery was Norway, followed by Portugal,followed by Britain who actively policed West Africa to stop slave ships crossing the Atlantic. Most of western Europe banned the slave trade before murica.cgarles proves that the mentality if slavers isn't dead n buried.
thats garbage the english royal's ancestors made millions from the Atlantic slaver Trade
@@petermeichan3160 the royal family didn't trade in slaves directly but there were plenty of private of families who are still wealthy who did, in part due to the compensation paid to then for being made to give up slaves. Families like the Tate & Lyle sugar heirs, the Whitworth sugar heirs, and other "upstanding" families. But yes the British Royal Navy patrolled the west coast in f Africa after we banned the slave trader, boarding and seizing ships it was, at the time, a very prestigious appointment to be a member of the West Africa Squadron. The "Blockade of Africa" began in 1803 as soon as Britain outlawed the slave trade both domestically, and throughout the Empire. Plenty of material out there on sites like this, and Wikipedia. It isn't my fault you have no clue about history beyond your small minded,, myopic pre conceived bubble is it? Enjoy your ignorance!
@@neilharris2048 interesting, yes Britain did ban slavery, eventually but not before the rich had made plenty of money from it, including the royal family of the time and used the immoral bible to justify it, I'm not saying they didn't ban it, I'm saying they are just as guilty in their participation, let's not forget the British empire was built on invasion , slavery and the theft of other countries natural resources and valuable artefacts
@@petermeichan3160 firstly it isn't the English royal family it's s the British royal family. The fact you don't comprehend that fact tends to damage rhe credibility of your response. Secondly I didn't say that the monarchy didn't benefit from slavery,, i actually said they didn't trade directly in slavery themselves, but at that time in British history the monarchs powers to set down laws and raise taxes was long gone. Maybe if you understood, or even knew of, the consequences of the English civil war in 1640 you wouldn't keep repeating the same incorrect cobblers mate. The sovereign after Oliver Cromwell made Parliament more powerful than the monarch, and created the civil list which pays the monarch out of govt taxation levied by parliament, was largely a figurehead. They are a titular head o state without power,:much the same as the Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Italian et al oyal families. Didn't I give you the names of 3 families who grew ultra rich off Caribbean slavery, families you've never heard of British taxpayers were paying back the money given to slavers made to relinquish their slaves until 2018 , because the govt (not the fucking king) borrowed £20m in 1802 to get the abolition laws passed. Nothing I've said here' is wrong in any way factually,, Jesus wept you were completely unaware of the West Africa Squadron,you told me I was lying about that. You have no idea what you're talking about because you're clueless about British history and society, you're nor alone tho most yanks are just as pig ignorant, . I mean look at the geezer who thinks Haiti abolished slavery, as opposed to the truth of the slaves rebelling and murdering all the French slavers, and their families, on Haiti and that is why murica hates Haiti because at the time the slavers saw it as a possible example that Murican slaves might follow, what a moron he must be eh?you're welcome for the education, read a book!
How to justify slavery: arrogance of extreme ignorance
I've wished Dillahunty was here. He would have had a lot of fun with this caller 😂
This Charles is playing word salad games.
This is why good, kind, loving a decent human beings abhor Christianity. These guys use the lowest form of moral values they can and try to justify it with supernatural excuses.
Disappointed this guy is from my home state but not at all surprised. I'm so sorry Georgia produces such immoral religious folk. Exactly the kind i grew up surrounded by 🤦
Appallogists never seem to go away! Nor do they change in their relentless ignorance of what they are pleading for !
Food for thought... slavery was legal when the King James Bible was written. So no surprise that it doesn't condemn slavery
They can't actually defend slavery so they attempt to soften the term by saying nonsense like "we're all slaves to sin."
This conversation repeatedly seemed to be "definitely Y!" "You're sure about Y?" "Yes, definitely" "Y means Z." "No..no.. not Y... X instead."
Charles is desperately trying to redefine slavery to make it more palatable to modern tastes…which proves the larger point that biblical morality is obviously not timeless.
In trying to save biblical morality, Charles has buried it.
frankly it isn't even the best Axial Age ethics. in fact it may be among the worst Axial Age ethics.
Binary thinking is required for monotheistic religious belief either your deity is the one and only deity, or they are not. Once they've shut off the nuance part of their brain to buy that, it is very difficult to get away from binary thinking for other situations. It then becomes something to embrace, a crutch, upon which they build their certainty beliefs. And here we have Exhibit C-GA.
IIRC, Japan officially criminalized slavery around 1600, 2 centuries before Haiti became the first nation in the Western Hemisphere to abolish all slavery.
The main problem here is that god is the one who cursed us with sin, which is the only way Charles is right about us being slaves to everything, if Charles IS right. That's because god made us needing to eat. Everything needs to be produced, which requires work (which is why we have an economy).
If we can only be either a slave to sin (satan) or to god, then we have no free will. If we have free will, sin can't exist-Because we're acting on our own (which we can't under under the devil's agency, which is sin).
Charles is the kind of person who votes against his own best interests
The dishonesty and psychopathy of American Evangelicals aren’t even surprising anymore.
I can't never say never but I have to say in this case I will never believe in Christianity because of this caller Charles these are the people that are teaching Christianity. Matt dillahunty if you're out there listening thank you for everything that you have done you have changed my life by convincing me to say when I don't know something I don't know
Slavery and employment are similar in one way. They're both exploitative. Slavery more so.
Dr. student that was a great point. “Slaves went on to have slaves”
and now I remembering the slaves didn’t even revolt.
One guy with a +1 took the slaves and got them lost in the desert for 40 years.
What was the life expectancy back then?
Did any of the original slaves make it to 🎶”The big rock candy mountain”?
Edit: 😢 🤢 🤮 “A loving slave owner”
OIC… he’s a dmub fohter mckuer
13:38 christian admits god fucked up.
...and this is why you don't debate the intolerable. It's just giving them airtime
Iron Maiden was impressed with, that if the number of the beast were to come - it will be a religious number.
"There's also an example of good slavery in the bible" not the marriage argument, again?!! 😖😖😫
Edit: 😝😖😫
You should never ever let someone sprout bs about how slavery was acceptable. He should have been given about 30 secs and let go.
He poisoned the well from the start with the idea that slavery is a natural state and he thinks some slavery is okay, which compounds the well poisoning with special pleading
I enjoy listening to the pro slavery callers get owed (lol) with many different arguments.
Oh God! This one made my head spin. 🙄
There were peoples, at least on the tribal level that did not have slavery. If God exists and is the perfect moral standard, why didn't he tell his people to not enslave others? Why didn't he say, there's a better system, including to help the poor so they don't have to sell themselves. If our system now is better, why didn't God give the blueprints for it back then?
there were whole ancient civilizations that didn't practice slavery. Cyrus the Great abolished slavery in the Persian Empire in 539 BC. The Buddha prohibits slavery, and the emperor Wang Mang abolished slavery in China in 9 AD (though later emperors brought it back). the idea no one knew slavery is bad until Enlightened Christians in the 19th Century is complete ahistorical nonsense.
I'm trying to wrap my head around how Charles can say an atheist doesn't have the "moral fortitude yet atheist argue against slavery, while Charles think he has that "moral fortitude" because he's a Christian yet as a Christian is arguing in favor of slavery. Either this guy is a Poe, or he's a clear example how religion creating twisted immoral monsters thinking they have "moral fortitude"
What Charles fails to understand is that his god acted no different from the other gods of that time & period. Moral monsters they were all. Charles as well indoctrinated Christian, he simply blocks thoughts & so he's unable to comprehend why we see his god nothing but one more monster, again... no different from those other gods.
hey, Bastet is no monster. She just maintains the relationship between Cats and humans, which i think we can agree is beneficial to us both.
@@nondescriptcat5620 Yes! Love cat! But my cat doesn't love me. She's giving me the stare again...😾
7:00 "As an Atheist, you have no moral fortitude" : HUMAN BEINGS INVENTED ALL RELIGIONS! HUMAN BEINGS WROTE ALL THE MORAL CODES. HUMAN BEINGS INVENTED ALL THE GODS! HUMANS ARE MORAL BY NATURE!
Charles from Georgia. I'm surprised that he didn't secede from the Union at the end of the call.
You know, that slavery where you get money and name the end date.
He probably eats shrimp too.
Imagine defending slavery in the 21th century, good grief.
The thing that's missed most often is that mores are temporary, local, societal rules. Morals are flexible and frequently frightening.
They aren't stoning pepe who work on the sabbath or women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, or keeping slaves (where they aren't) because of their supposedly superior religious morals or because of some new revelation, but because we of the post-enlightenment with our superior secular ethics have changed the cultural mores to where it's no longer acceptable, and we've told them that we'll send them to jail or to meet their makers if they try it.
Yes, slavery was "moral" back then, in that cultural context. So, that cultural context and the religious texts that gave them, is trash.
charles has been drinking the kool-aid prepared by "A man? .....uhhhh.....well....."
It’s very upsetting and disturbing that someone has the mentality Charles does.
I want my 10 minutes back.
Charles equivilates slavery with giving someone a job.
Giving someone a job doesn't give the employer the right to beat their employees.
Yep there are more efficient and effective methods
I think Christians forget that their God is all knowing, all loving and all powerful...he seems to make a lot of human decisions
10:15 He is confusing indentured servitude with slavery with slavery
Charles, come to my house. You start work at 5:30am.
"There is an example of GOOD SLAVERY" OMG... seriously caller
Charles is dredging t bottom of t barrel. He's given up on defending his bible because it's indefensible. U guys must love it when he calls. Or your gluttons...... .🍻
When you place the locus of your moral code outside of your own head, you are much more likely to justify immoral actions, especially when you have a forgiveness escape route: all you have to do is ask, then just pretend you're forgiven.
Wow, I hope Charles did a few warmups before executing all those leaps and stretches. Actually, no. I hope it hurt and I hope that, until he acknowledges that everything he said here was bs, this conversation keeps him up at night.
Another example of how religion corrupt the soul... ironically...
Oh Charles... Think please: the moment we humans have to step in to stop something bad, you know that your god is not powerful at all (if he really exists, that is).
You can have morals or you can do what a book says. Claiming that you do both is a logical contradiction.
A well treated slave is still a slave.
I'd argue that it's a non-existent concept. It doesn't matter how "well " you treat someone, if you're treating them like property then you're not treating them as a human.