Who's Right About Slavery in the Bible? | Deep Discussion
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- Join us for an electrifying and thought-provoking discussion as two renowned Bible scholars (Joshua Bowen & Kipp Davis) and two distinguished Christian apologists (Gavin Ortlund & Trent Horn) tackle the complex and contentious topic of slavery in the Bible. This discussion promises to delve deep into historical, theological, and ethical perspectives, providing a comprehensive exploration of one of the most challenging issues in religious studies.
Our panelists will engage in a rigorous examination of biblical texts, historical contexts, and modern interpretations. The Bible scholars will bring their expertise in ancient languages, cultural backgrounds, and historical settings to the forefront, while the Christian apologists will defend the moral and spiritual implications of these scriptures in contemporary faith. Maybe we will be surprised and find they have more in common on this topic, or it might end up being a disagreement from start to finish.
Dr. Josh's book "Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?" - www.amazon.com/Did-Old-Testam... - Zábava
Skeptics in Glasses vs Apologists with cinematic lighting
😂
The shirts vs skins of theology
Then I think Alex O'Connor aligns more with the Apologists?
The ones that want to see well vs the ones that want to look good.
Educated people questioning Quacks.
I said this in the live stream but Gavin and Trent are essentially arguing that God made slavery more chill and based.
As per bible God made human. Not slavery
@@metagalaxy-go-the-distance Even if I go along with this story, did God not have the foresight to create a state of affairs that would not allow for slavery? Or, even if it is all man’s fault, why couldn’t God bring himself to outright ban slavery in his perfect revelation?
Yep. Bullshit right? @@GlovesOff_jc
@@GlovesOff_jc you want everything done by miracle? Jesus should have freed all slaves and build bungalow, provide everything for them by miracle?
@@metagalaxy-go-the-distance Jesus is God in this scenario right? If so, then it seems the least he could do is command that ownership of other human beings as property is a grievous sin. But again, it seems probable that a truly all powerful, all loving God could create a world where slavery never came to pass.
God can give a TOTAL BAN on idolatry (which Israel also cannot quit doing) and wearing of mixed fabrics, and will get SO ANGRY he wants to WIPE THEM OUT COMPLETELY for these offenses, but slavery? "Just don't be SUPER mean to slaves, it's fine, also enslave the people you're colonizing," is the literal extent of God's commentary on the subject in his inspired book to serve as a guide for all people of all time.
This god also thought it was important to give thousands and thousands of words about the construction and maintenance of his palace but only a few sentences about slavery. It shows what his priorities were.
@@mrmaat yup, and if you look at any "bad guys" he defeats or people he helps, it almost always says right after, he did it so that people could marvel at his greatness. This is literally just clinical narcissism. Unsurprising as it was probably written by men tripped out on their own grandiose narcissism.
P.s. God also raises up "bad guys" and mind controls them to be "bad" so that he has an opponent to easily knock down and look super strong.
The Greeks and the Romans found Judaism to be barbaric. This is evident in the writings of people like Celsus who criticised these religions a great deal. It's not like their deities were great but they at least were honest about their shortcomings instead of praising them as perfect.
@@mrmaat SO this is where the CHURCH BUILDING programs came from???!!!!
@@SnakeWasRight funny part about it is half the time those easily knocked down "bad guys" were handing Yahweh his a$$ 🤣 let us never forget those chariots of iron 💪💪💪
I think Josh put his finger on what this was about: academic analysis of the text within historical context versus theological justification for a given position.
consent is a human right
Christians: nothing is impossible for God
Also Christians: well, God couldn’t do it that way because…
Christians- the Bible is the word and power of God. Scripture explains everything. The world lies about what is in the Bible. Don’t believe anyone who says they are a Christian and is rich. A true Christian praises God constantly and devotes himself to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is Lord. God is great
Yes, both statements can be true. God can do anything logically possible, but achieving specific goals in the world might exclude actions we think are simpler. Saying "He could have done it that way" ignores His intended interaction with the mortal realm as revealed in the inspired texts. With enough understanding of God's intentions, we can see why some actions would contradict His purposes, hence we can say He "couldn't do it that way because...."
@@CroElectroStile was it logically impossible for god to forbid slavery? You can only say “god can’t do X” if X is contradictory, so contradiction please…?
@@oftenincorrect God forbidding slavery outright would have caused many issues with the chosen nation that He wanted to preserve and ensure their survival so they could bring about the final covenant which we can trace from the marriage of Adam, to the household on Noah's ark, then to the tribes of Abraham, the kingdom of David, and finally to a universal Church. Without slavery, that progressive growth, which would ultimately deliver the full message of God (the Incarnation), would have been impossible. The nation would have been defeated by other pagan nations that didn't follow the same rules. So it's not logicaly impossible to outwardly ban slavery, but it does contradict reason since it contradicts his intention when taking the plan into account, the plan in broad strokes being that
Israel is the remnant that God wants from His Edenic family. God started over with a new humanity, a new family with Abraham and his descendants. God was determined to fulfill His promise to bless the world through Abraham by creating a people capable of conveying His truth to the world, Christ establishing a church in the end was meant to undo the divisions among humanity caused by sin. These divisions began with Adam's sin, but were universally manifest at the Tower of Babel. Pentecost is the supernatural reversal of Babel, which is why the Church is the anti-Babel. (Parenthetically, this is why it is fitting that the Church is built on Rome, which Peter refers to as Babylon, and which is the natural kingdom taken over by Christ's supernatural Kingdom, according to Daniel's prophecy.)
@@CroElectroStile 🤦♂️
That was amazing. It may disappoint those who were hoping for a cut-man to appear in each corner, but it was a genuinely interesting watch for those want to observe a relaxed conversation.
I actually enjoy more thoughtful and calm debates and discussions than verbals slap fests. If I wanted to watch people bicker and talk over each other, I'd watch Real Housewives.
Dr. Josh's explanations are so spot on and backed by evidence, that only Believers who are determined to misunderstand in favor of their belief system cannot see the obvious.
It seems that Gavin and Trent are determined to find something unique in the Bible about slavery that somehow would make Biblical slavery more acceptable than other forms.
The definition of slave= humans as property to be sold or passed down as chattel .
"We weren't expecting to see all the facts in front of us right from the start..." And just downhill from there.
Just like in antebellum South , it was illegal to harm and kill a slave--and yet they did--and so what? Owning a human is disgusting and immoral. Yes, slavery in ancient Israel was exactly like in the US south.
Although important to highlight the Bible’s condoning of slavery, it’s nothing in comparison to a god creating most people who are predestined to hell.
Yes the new testament actually makes God more evil not less
Only Calvinist believe that nut all Christians Orthodox and Catholics don’t believe that have a great day
usually believers try to counter that by invoking "free will", so you chose it, too bad for you, which is a weird excuse if you think about it a little bit since the outcome depends on you being convinced of Jesus/Allah/(insert your favorite mythological character) which is not even a choice in the first place, a gullible person who has a tendency to believe anything would benefit from it and more skeptical types would be at a disadvantage, so this system literally rewards gullibility and punishes skepticism and prudence but even if we ignore that beliefs aren't choices, this god created and is creating billions of people knowing that they will not believe what he wants them to believe then punishes them for it in the most horrendous and barbaric way for eternity...
@@Scalpaxos the main point I am making is that if one’s destination is known in advance, then free will is an illusion and a god was fine creating most people predestined to hell. In other words, he’s a sadistic psychopath.
Yep. This is referred to as The Problem of Hell, and it's the main thing that allowed me to rid my brain of Christianity.
So we are all in agreement then? The Bible does indorse slavery?
Yep.
Yes! it talk about good/bad things about life at that time.
@@metagalaxy-go-the-distance so you agree slavery is a bad thing? Well that puts you ahead of Gavin and Trent, who were both unable to say that slavery is bad.
@metagalaxy-go-the-distance The question isn't whether or not slavery is "talked about" in the Bible. The question is whether or not slavery is endorsed by the Bible. And the answer to that question is yes.
@@metagalaxy-go-the-distance yes like how the confederacy "talked about" slavery. ie built it in as a pillar of society, like the bible
Thanks! Appreciate the effort to find a good natured clarification
I think Gavin makes too big of a deal with Genesis 1 saying that humans are made in the image of God. Many cultures viewed gods as super humans with human-like bodies and the ancient Jews were no different. He is just putting his theological spin on to it by claiming it means that every human is special and should be treated equally because we are "God's image bearers". God in the Bible seems to have no problems killing his image bearers.
Yahweh in the Bible doesn't seem to care that much creating lots of his image bearers already predestined to damnation and horrendous murder filled with pain and agony. But no worries, he can do as he wants no matter the consequences and the pain, and ignoring all empathy for your creatures because he is soo powerful that we can't do nothing about it 🤷
Israelites weren't the only culture that believed humans were made in the image of god. The Egyptians believed that long before Genesis.
@@Atomus242 Yet we are told...Psalm 145:8-9 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made.
Sure doesn't seem that way. Go figure.
RE: The slave code stuff early on. I really wish when Josh said the Exodus 21 was about debt slaves and then briefly mentioned 2-6 that he actually read it, since that really clears up the context of what is to follow
If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
In which case Gavin and Trent are trying to make the case that
“An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
Is unique because it is all about protecting the slave from the master. Though if in context to a debt slave this isn't the case. It's just a transaction and what is collateral like the law of Hammurabi references. The debt slave lent their physical body to their master for a set service. If the master damages this borrowed property they owe that debt to the owner of that property, which just happens to be the debt slave itself. This has nothing to do with life long slaves and protecting their physical bodies due to some sort of ethics, this seems pretty clearly pretty similar to the Hammurabi references of collateral and restitution to the owner of some debt and unjust taking of payment for it etc. At least that's my take, which means little.
1:52:00 so let me just say that I am very glad that the abolitionist movement read Genesis in such a way that they concluded slavery was wrong. That’s great. The problem is the slave owners read other parts of the Bible and concluded that slavery was perfectly ok. Even if we accept Trent and Gavin’s argument that God was somehow constrained and had to take baby steps when it came to doing away with slavery, the Bible never explicitly says it is wrong. Could God, when he was apparently unable to just say not to do it, not have said something like “As I freed you from slavery in Egypt so shall you not keep slaves. However, I know man is wicked in all things and you will seek to follow the nations around you, so here are my rules for keeping slaves, though the practice is abhorrent in my eyes”??? Does anyone think that the practice of slavery in the Christian world would have lasted as long as it did if people were able to point to places where God explicitly condemned the practice?
Love the respectful candor and steel manning. Thanks for a great conversation, everyone.
I wish the convo can go on for another 20 hours. Albeit, I still find the Christian argument specious and arbitrary. I get their stances but it's so foreign and unconvincing to me. I'll concede that it may convince others though. Cheers!
Can we agree that leaving slavery out if the ten commandments while including idolatry and lying was a huge blunder?
AND that if a god can blunder he is no god.
@@HaleyStark. What is good and what is evil?
@@o165o whatever I say.
@@HaleyStark. How do you know that?
@@o165o I can't know it. But at least there is real evidence I exist. At least people can speak to me and ask me questions about my beliefs and I can explain myself. That makes me and my opinions infinitely better than a fairytale about an imaginary god.
I just opened this video… i like how it is starting. Good work innovating Derek
1:23:57 this debate is frustrating because the Christian apologists are unable to simply answer “yes” or “no” questions if it makes the Hebrew Bible look bad. Is it better to serve 3 years or 6 years? “ I don’t know. Let me give you a false analogy about mortgages.” They are debating in bad faith.
1:20:30 I'm sorry, but are we just ignoring Exodus 21 20-21 here? Gavin is claiming that the Bible does not allow a slave owner to harm their slaves, and yet these verses explicitly talk about beating your slave and as long as they recover "within a few day" then there are no consequences because they are your property. I'm sorry, but if you beat someone bad enough that it takes them several days to recover from it, then I am pretty sure you have caused them harm.
I think the restriction is that if they die within 2 days, then the slave owner is punished, but if they survive, the slave owner is not punished. So if they die five days later, the slave owner is not punished. I could be wrong.
@@OldMotherLogo that’s how I read it again. If they recover enough to go back to work and then drop dead a few days later from a brain haemorrhage caused by the beating then that’s fine, their owner faces no repercussions for causing their death. And yet Gavin reads that as the Bible not allowing slave owners to cause their slaves harm. And of course this all completely ignores the fact that, for example, they could just sleep with a female slave when ever they liked. I’m sure that didn’t cause any harm.
@@OldMotherLogo that’s how I read it again. If they recover enough to go back to work and then drop dead a few days later from a brain haemorrhage caused by the beating then that’s fine, their owner faces no repercussions for causing their death. And yet Gavin reads that as the Bible not allowing slave owners to cause their slaves harm. And of course this all completely ignores the fact that, for example, they could just sleep with a female slave when ever they liked. I’m sure that didn’t cause any harm.
23:05 the only pro-Bible argument I’ve ever heard so far that is honest and conveys an idea that is missed in atheist discussions: in a time without prisons, time bound involuntary servitude isn’t worse than incarceration from the past hundred years. It still doesn’t deal with non-Israelite involuntary chattel servants, but it’s a point I’ve not generally heard.
God wasn't smart enough to have figured out prisons by then, apparently.
I thought this was an excellent point too. Better argument than I am used to hearing from apologists!
Still doesn’t suffice as an explanation for me though, it’s too easy to conceive of ways god could have done more to avoid another 1500+ years of slavery post NT!
@@sparrowthesissy2186 with a fine you would still be obligated to work to pay for damages, but you choose who to work for (possibly yourself) and aren't owned as property. god is kicking himself for not thinking of this
Except that God instructed his people to buy slaves from the other nations, and to take the virgins of their war victims as sex slaves. This has zero to do with prison and incarceration.
As a woman I think prison sounds a lot better than being regularly raped and forced to bear children for my rapist for the rest of my life just because my dad decided to sell me to some rich old lecher.
Trent comparing slavery to having a mortgage . . . this makes me sick. If this is an example of the best apologists have to offer, they don’t have much. 2:30:00 The long, detailed discussion about whether it is better to be a debt slave for 3 year and no provisions or six years with provisions totally misses the point. The Hebrew Bible was not that different than laws of neighboring cultures. IF God’s law was a *significant* improvement, shouldn’t it be obvious?
I thought folks like Trent and Gavin are opposed to moral relativism. Isn’t this moral relativism at its worst? Future discussions: Trent and Gavin defend polygamy and genocide?
Bottom line: Atheist/scholars - slavery is immoral. Christian apologists - slavery is not so bad and we support Biblical slavery.
7:00 Discussion starts
9:30 Kipp and Josh Presentation
16:30 Trent and Gavin Presentation
24:50 Josh steel man’s their position
30:15 Gavin and Trent Respond
39:00 Kipp responds
40:30 Trent and Gavin do slavery apologetics
Edit: I got tired of tryna make time stamps and couldn’t finish the video cause it’s really long
The initial discussion of definitions, especially whether slavery is moral, was very good!
The only thing missing is that if an all- knowing and -powerful deity is the one planning all this, there should have, and probably was, another way. Screw whether the people liked or engaged in slavery. If I was the deity, I would have just ended slavery, if that was my desire.
Well, I wouldn't have put the damn tree within access of the children - that was a foreseeable mistake... but I wasn't the god then. Which should be evidence that it doesn't exist OR it is pretty stupid, since lowly creatures like us can think of solutions to the major biblical screwups.
What I hear the apologists arguing for, at best, is a very limited god. A god limited by culture, by the time, by the bible passage writer's bias.
Having to delve into all this nuance to try and defend this only further diminishes an omni-max personal god.
At the tail end of the video around 2:22 hours: Trent Horne asserting that the people group would be concerned about the resources consumed by a runaway slave is an odd point seeing that this same people group have a god that has miraculously produced quail and manna for his people for 40 years while they wandered the desert.
A big thank you to Derek for making this happen.
Lord, if you are real.. please give me the patients displayed by dr. Kip and dr Josh. Hearing these christians apologize for the way you enslaved people back in the day really chafes my balls lord.
😆
Trying to hang in there but my tolerance for listening to “Christians” make excuses for slavery is pretty low. Why can’t they just admit that owning other human beings is wrong?
Same
@@sw3783 i'd actually like to hear your position on that. presumably, you oppose exploitative business practices, but since you live in a society that is built on those you can advocate for changing them while making use of their products. so in the bible, the people of god should have been activists for abolition even if they traded in grain and other products produced by slaves in other countries out of necessity. what did god say against slavery? what steps did he take to abolish it?
The mental gymnastics is Olympic!
Really good convo, I think the part where josh brings up how the bible has a worse law for the slave than in hammurabi’s laws really gets at the core of the debate.
Why would god make a law worse for a slave? And if he’s all powerful, couldn’t he just will it to be so that his slaves, under any circumstance, is treated better than other slaves in the world?
Wouldn't an all powerful god just make the world more equitable and not allow situations where people, especially women, can be taken into slavery?
@@sarahrosen4985 Yep, but since the convo is mainly comparing the bible’s slave laws to other near east laws, I ignored this obvious issue lmao
@@Jidom_101 I still struggle a bit with understanding why that matters. That is, where does it get us to say that the Bible is only as bad, or even not as bad, as other books at the time?
@@Ape-shapedCarbonSo I think what they are trying to say is this is God trying to slowly push the Jews into the right direction. But this is a terrible assumption of a perfect God imo. I see Christians saying these are the rules if you don’t like it there’s the door. It’d be one thing if God communicated this but because of God’s incoherence we’re left with apologists freely assuming to make them feel good.
It was great.
TL:DR version - the best the all knowing all loving God of the universe could do was create a system for governing slavery that was, possibly, marginally better than the systems used by the surrounding nations. Slavery is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, though if you squint at some unrelated verses you can get that idea. Oh and slavery is not always bad, because it it was then the Bible would be supporting something immoral. I think that pretty much sums up Gavin and Trent’s arguments here.
The extent that we have to go to appease a group of people that walk through life with an imaginary friend is both astounding and infuriating.
God being all powerful and all, Could god had stopped the entire institution of slavery altogether? And give them or even command them to use a different system?
No he had to focus on important things like circumcision and not working on the sabbath. Minor issues like slavery were put on the back burner
Good dialogue.
One of the Apologists took a shot at Mindshift, but it is important to note that Mindshift literally put together a very long point-by-point list of the many ways in which Biblical slavery and antebellum slavery are the same.
👏🙂
Very interesting
54:07 thank you Kipp for making this point to Trent
Great discussion! I actually came here from Trent’s channel, just bouncing around to like each individual’s video. While I do hold to Trent and Gavin’s view, I felt that this debate was not only informative, but polite and well researched as well. I love hearing civil discussions about complex topics from various points of view, and I genuinely appreciated this conversation.
Anyway, just wanted to show my appreciation!
"Why are we having this conversation again - about slavery in the bible"
Because this topic will never be resolved. One side has too much to lose, to admit any possible immorality in the bible, and the other side has spent a ridiculous amount of time reasoning their position.
Do not forget! One side has wayyy more to lose!
Some will hate this comment. Sorry not sorry.
Because there are people who still believe the Bible is god’s words and commands, and believe we ought to live by it as an arbiter of morality.
@@SaffronHammer I mean, it's working out so far.
Not true. Some atheists want to make the Bible look bad for ideological purposes. Even Dr Bowen in his book had to push back on atheists who went too far and said that slavery was worse in the Bible than it actually is.
@@wakkablockablaw6025 25,000 Humans die of starvation daily. There are no loving Gods.
@@toptester301 I don't understand your point. Christians believe in an afterlife.
It is painful to watch … easily I can imagine trent in 200 hundred years ago arguing for slavery because black people will have better lives here than in Africa … that’s how religion destroy people consciences … at least Gavin doesn’t want to go with Trent into that dark hole … very sad
I was excited to hear this discussion was happening and it did not disappoint. I'm firmly on the side of Joshua and Kipp here, but I have a lot of respect (and even fondness) for Gavin and Trent so I love that they were there to present their perspectives.
At the same time, I feel that defending the practice of slavery is something that debases the person doing it. The idea that one human can own another is not just morally wrong, but factually wrong. People are not, and cannot be, property. It pains me to see two people who I consider to be kind and intelligent defending-to any extent-such a practice.
I agree that Gavin and Trent took the strongest position that is compatible with biblical inerrancy, but ultimately I think that's just the wrong move.
Good to see other moral realists around. It seems so rare, unfortunately.
The comparison to factory farming doesn't really work. Sure things like the invention of the cotton gin made it easier for us to move past slavery but it wasn't really some new technology that made it possible to not enslave people. an agrarian society is fully capable of not using slaves, and this is just making excuses for slavery. Even if you think it was necessary for that society couldn't the creator of the universe reveal a way to create a society without slavery? If not, why is his Revelation worth following?
@@nathanjasper512 Are you sure that your responded in the correct thread? Because neither OP nor me were trying to defend slavery.
PPJ,
I disagree that the discussion did not disappoint... I tried several times to listen thru it.....but kept dozing off!😂
Regarding defending slavery... I could not find where-if they ever got around to the NT's being OK with slavery. ( and what about our Lord's parables with slaves? )
What if I purchased a slave so that he doesn't receive capital punishment for all of his debts? Am I still debasing myself? Am I also debasing myself for even attempting to conjure a scenario where it might be moral to own a slave?
It is thanks to the teachings of the Bible that the world views slavery in such a negative light. You are an example of the Bible's influence. Tom Holland's book made a strong case for this. So, it isn't at all debasing yourself to understand why there was biblical slavery.
Also. I don't think they were "defending" slavery. To me, it seemed like they were just debating the extent to which the ancient Israelites saw slaves as property.
"The idea that one human can own another is not just morally wrong"
I assume you aren't a theist or a deist. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
The mental gymnastics the apologists have to do on this one… nah dude.
Their argument is essentially “well God’s version of slavery wasn’t AS BAD as the others, and PLUS it was for the sake of the ECONOMY”
@@rotag-itsni STONKS!
@@rotag-itsniit's weird how humans were able to make better laws than God
Hahaha! He is worried people will get the wrong idea of slavery if we call it slavery. No worries, dude. The slavery was just as evil in ancient Israel as in the US.
Trent shows us the danger of Christian thought when he hems and haws about whether slavery is really bad. He does this only because slavery is mentioned in the Bible, and the Bible must be defended. He tries to muddy the waters by saying "whatabout criminals in prison?" which is a separate issue entirely -- and he knows it.
When they say it's not as simple as it's just immoral etc, well it is when you take into consideration the God is supposed to be all knowing an absolute perfection. Surely he could come up with a better way. He sure speaks up on other less important subjects.
Slavery is not serventhood. And WTF to equate working as a servant to actual slavery. Disgusting. In the Bible god gives instructions on how to own and pass down humans as property .
I really love how small bean and weak God becomes in discussions like this as soon as something is a "moral hazard". Like "well god COULDN'T just say slavery is bad bc that would be too hard" like come on dude is this god or just a human ruler?
I've got to say that I really enjoyed the discussion between all four participants. I'm only really familiar with Trent Horn and knew of Kipp Davis and Joshua Bowen briefly. I think I may have heard of Gavin but never inquired. With that said, and kind of a sad commentary on overall online culture, it was certainly different to see people having an honest to God dialog rather than trying to impute bad motives to one another. I hope that in the future there could be more discussion between all parties involved with different topics as I think the honest inquirers stand to benefit for more than to lose out.
It is a shame Exodus 21:21 was not discussed.
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
God can do anything. God forbids adultery. But he can’t Not tell his chosen people how to buy, sell, and pass down humans as chattel.
They start with thge presupposition that the Bible is moral and just and then must do all sorts of false , pretzel logic to justify,
The last stuff Kipp said reminded me of a video by mindshift.
1:37:45 If God can supernatural create grain to compensate the debt slave at the end of the six year period, then how are people falling into debt slavery in the first place? Surely God could just give them the stuff upfront and bypass the whole debt slavery bit entirely?
You're presupposing that everyone just sat there and worked, worked their land, had no issues, etc?
@@drjtrekker no, not at all. What I’m saying is that, when they ran into issues why didn’t God supernatural create the things they needed to overcome those issues then and there? Why let the people fall into debt, forcing them to sell themselves into slavery, and then, once their time as debt slaves was over, supernaturally provide them with the supplies that would have kept them from debt slavery in the first place? Either God is stupid, or he wanted people to sell themselves into slavery. That or he doesn’t exist.
Dr Josh, have you done a video on the Ethiopian Bible ?
All four debaters did a great job. Bravo for an educated, calm and respectful dialogue.
Tl;DR: Owning other people as property is not so bad! - Christians
Especially double the time frame - you just give them stuff.
So, around 1:03:45, Dr Josh brings up Exodus 21 verse 20 and 21 and says it's talking about debt slaves. Gavin objects by saying it's not only talking about debt slaves. I don't understand Gavins objection here.
The verse is saying you can beat your slave with a Rod as long as they survive the beating for a day or two after you beat them. So Gavin objects that this verse is only talking about debt slaves? In other words, Gavin thinks the bible is not only okay with you beating debt slaves with a Rod, but it's okay with you beating any slaves with a Rod as well. I'm not sure how that makes the bibles position more moral. If anything, it makes it less moral.
See, being permitted to beat even more people with Rods = even less moral.
2:07:46 look how quickly he scrolls verses 20-21 off the screen as they completely undermine his entire argument.
Does any really believe there were not slaves owned by their Master in the those times
2:22:00 serious projection here
I know that human slavery is wrong. So where in the Bible does Yahweh or Jesus or St Paul agree with me?
39:40 wow....
God is not shy at restarting things (flood, escape from Egypt, Jesus new covenant, End of Days) right? So, why the shyness at immediately ending slavery? Was God financially conservative?
STONKS > human rights
Ive learned that 6 years a slave is better than 3 years a slave.
It is very convenient to have such a limited god that has to adjust himself to human culture, times and bias, when he could easily had made the israelites seen as revolutionary people by teaching them how to find better ways than slavery and human beating. But is soo very convenient that this god was soo adjusted to human behavior of that time. The same way the Hammurabi Code was "given" by a god, the Commandments in the Bible were supposedly "given" by a god as well. To me this sounds soo much like men that tried to make people obey their own invented laws because they supposedly came from a higher power. Or they possibly really believed it, just like the ones who wrote the Hammurabi Code
42:29 There are lots of people, even whole organizations that oppose the slavery that is the US prison system.
The US makes billions of dollars every year on the back of free prison labor.
They left that caveat in the 13 amendment on purpose so they could act like they were abolishing slavery, but still allow for it.
Slavery is wrong in all of it's forms and that 1000% includes the US for profit prison system.
"The curse of Cham" comes from Talmud and served to justify the slavery of Blacks and Slavs.
I’m an hour into this an need to take a break. Trent is really getting on my nerves with his rationalizations.
Josh is like “So being a slave for six years instead of three is not worse?” And Gavin is like.. “yeah in some circumstances…” 🙈🙈 Dude. Just no.
2:19:00
They have Harper on be kind to the runaway slave because you came out of Egypt.
1) Why not don’t do slavery because you were slaves in Egypt.
2) What about the command that says if you want slaves go to your neighboring countries?
So, a free individual of a neighboring country it is cool to kidnap and make a slave, but a runaway slave from a foreign country treat as a traveler?
What if I apply the first law and say the lord has blessed me with a slave from a neighboring country??
Who will know?
How does this slave have the ability to take me to court?
And @digitalhammurabi brings it home 2:21:00
I was not born into the 3 Abrahamic faiths. Humans now have to follow The Great Global Truths and we need to develop cultures and faiths around them ... because they have always and will always exist. We now KNOW these Truths and we need to act on them
1. We are ALL one humanity. We all blink, cough, and can tighten our muscles. Any woman can get pregnant by any man. Any child can be brought up in any culture, religion, language, part of the world. We use Distorted Mind Beliefs to deny and suppress this Truth and see ‘Us’ and ‘Other’.
2. We are ALL born naked. Every Woman knows this. We are made to feel shame or unsafe due to Distorted Mind Beliefs and denied the Truth
3. We are ALL born equal because the sun shines on each of us. Distorted Mind Beliefs deny and suppress this Truth.
4. We ALL live on one planet shared with the Commons (Waters, Airs, Soils), All Species and Each Others. We use Distorted Mind Beliefs as a reason to kill one another, The Commons and Species.
40:48 wow, the Christians cannot say “ slavery is immoral” without qualifiers and asking the the definition to be re-read as if they in the final round of a spelling bee.
They also cannot handle the term “chattel slavery.” The amount of evasiveness is astounding.
@@OldMotherLogo
He didn't evade anything. Clarifications in a debate setting are always important. You can define slavery very specifically with a tight range, which would entail immorality, or you can define it broadly as they did, in which case it may not be immoral- simpliciter. He mentioned it was a moral hazard because it was a fact of life and a necessary institution for the survival of people or protection of societies when we talk about contexts where institutions like police, prisons or social services didn't exist, I mean not even streetlights so you can imagine how safe it was for women and children. Brutality was often necessary to maintain order and protect society. People couldn't simply get a job at a place like Arby's or get welfare; they would have to sell themselves for food and shelter, same with foreigners escaping hardships.
Do you think economic migrants escaping Africa rn and being used for cheap labor in first-world countries like in Italy aren't experiencing something similar? Imagine how much more difficult life was 3-4 thousand years ago - well we can't, and this is why when it comes to Atheists here all I see are appeals to emotion rather than an examination of the principles of human interactions throughout history. We need to understand what was possible and practical in such communities to mitigate and regulate harmful practices in the ancient East, not whine and scream like children about how bad the God of the Israelites was to allow extremely poor disenfranchised foreign people to have masters over them, where they are sheltered, fed, and are able to participate in the religious ceremonies eventually getting circumcised and being part of their community.
@@CroElectroStile I see you are in the “Biblical slavery was okay” camp. Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Odd that the atheists are condemning slavery while the Christians are using moral relativism to condone it.
@@OldMotherLogo agreed
@@CroElectroStile
Rebutting the argument about the morality of slavery, especially within historical contexts and its justification, involves addressing several key points: the historical necessity argument, the comparison with modern-day economic migrants, and the moral framework used to assess these practices. I will be posting all 4 in different replies.
1.).Historical Necessity Argument
The argument posits that slavery was a necessary institution for the survival and protection of ancient societies due to the lack of modern social services and infrastructure.
1a.) Moral Relativism vs. Universal Morality: While it's true that historical contexts differ vastly from modern ones, this does not absolve the practice of slavery from moral scrutiny. The principle of universal human rights asserts that certain actions, such as owning another person as property, are inherently immoral regardless of the context. This is based on the intrinsic value of human autonomy and dignity.
1b.) Survival and Protection: Even if slavery was seen as a means of survival or protection, this utilitarian perspective does not justify the violation of fundamental human rights. Ethical frameworks such as Kantian deontology argue that people should never be treated merely as means to an end, but always as ends in themselves.
1c.) Alternatives to Slavery: Historical necessity is often overstated. Many ancient societies developed complex systems of labor and community support that did not rely on slavery. Moreover, the existence of alternative social structures (like mutual aid, cooperative labor systems, or even less brutal forms of servitude) demonstrates that slavery was not the only solution to the challenges of ancient life.
So because The Bible is marginally better in some regards with slavery than neighboring cultures, the god in their book is real and good, and the gods in all thoae other books are fake? And therefore we should all worship a god who endorsed and commanded slavery? Do they hear their own arguments?
You missed the point of the video. At the beginning they said their wasn't a discussion/debate about the existence of God or a comparison between the evidence for the gods of various religions
@yblackie Regardless what the video was supposed to be, that's the case the apologists spend the most time making, that the Bible was slightly better than the cultures around them. They say so because they're Christians who don't like admitting when their book is morally or factually wrong, but Bible slavery being slightly better is not even what the evidence shows, as Dr. Josh makes pretty clear.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 You questioned a claim they didn't make. I explained that they didn't make that claim. Why not save your question for the comments section of a more relevant video? You're more likely to get the answers you're looking for (that is if you're looking for answers).
@@yblackie I will admit they did not say "Therefore believe in our god," but I think that was the undeniable subtext of their motivated arguments as believers in this god to defend his honor, and his morality, and the tradition that they subscribe to.
They have chosen this god who endorsed slavery, so I think it would be naive to expect them to not be trying to save face at some level, and convince us that they actually worship a good god, even though their tradition holds that Yahweh repeatedly endorsed slavery, and even commanded Moses to take virgin war brides as slaves to be abused in an especially obscene way. Of course the Yahweh worshipers want to soften the impact of those stories in hopes that we might still consider joining, or remaining in, their group.
@@yblackie the point of apologetics is the make people feel comfortable with their god so they will strengthen their faith or convert. that's why they were advertising the moral wisdom of their god when he said you can beat your slaves to death, but not if they die too quickly
so, did they admit god is immoral?
2:28:50 -Gavin, saying that the Hebrew Bible and/or the Christian scriptures are what got "us" where we are now is crazy narrow minded. So much more than these 2 collections of writings went on in the past 3000 years.
I credit more the people who have been taken advantage of for millenia fighting for their lives and rights doing the actual work of bettering our world.
I feel like the biggest problem with this discussion is that this topic really is begging for a sustained long-term treatment of dialogue. Also it would probably greatly benefit from the addition of a Jewish cultural expert or maybe a rabbi.
This topic really is clattering against the academic versus intracultural paradigm clash.
Though everyone involved is using the same text, they are ultimately bringing different stories and different narrative interpretation structures and criteria to the table. What acts as valid standards for each party are different because though mining the same mountain, even with some of the same tools, one party is looking for ore, the other crystals.
So we end up talking past one another and stepping on each other's toes.
Some of this can be bridged by parsing things correctly, but there is some degree of incompatibility as far as my very lay eyes can see.
I do wonder if some looking at the strides in how academia interacts with Native American and other traditional cultures might be worthwhile to look at for better collaborative tools. Although everyone here is not literally in a completely different culture on the whole, the difference is a degree more deep than simple disciplinary differences.
I find it odd that Gavin can hold up the Bible and point to Genesis and say, it’s because of this verse and god’s idea that humans are intrinsically valuable helped abolish antebellum slavery. He totally overlooked a civil war where Christians killed Christians over this practice.
Whilst I found the respectful tone of this conversation great - I found it also depressing that religious people who appear thoughtful and intelligent can tie themsleves in knots for 30 monutes unable to answer the simple question "can we agree that slavery is immoral".
Shows the rank hypocrisy of many who claim moral superiority over others through their religion.
Also found it amazing to see such moral relativism on show from the religious... which totally undermines one of the fundamental planks of religion, that there is "objective morality" and it comes from religion.
If we’re trying to understand what the Hebrew Bible says about slavery, and what does that say about the nature if God, a discussion as to whether they are better or worse than other Ancient Near East laws is not all that relevant. Surely the issue is does the New Testament have a different view and if so, why?
comparing the torah to other cultures of the time addresses the argument that god greatly improved on the institution of slavery. whether the new testament fixes the old testament's endorsement of slavery would be a different debate (it doesn't)
There are Bibles in which the last book is titled The Revelation Of Jesus Christ.
I have held the position for quite some time that if your position requires apologetics, then maybe its time ro re-evaluate thw position you hold. Even on the simplest premise position.
Any position worth any legitimacy does not need or require apologetics of any form.
Apologetics is sort of i know its bad and wrong..i know the position is not correct .buttt let me try to excuse my way through it anyway
2hr of nuance in defining a couple definitions. rather than stark differences. plus nothing brought up about the decency of yahweh.
Like how come yahweh "met these people where they were on the slavery topic, but demanded drastic change in lots of other areas???
answer... it's because god had ZERO problem with chattel slavery, and tons of other evil things he commanded the Israelites to do
so you guys spent 2 hrs debating the definition of "what is is.. rather than getting to the "entire point"
Apologist: See, the Bible has rules against harming your slaves!
Their book: It's ok to kill them if you do it right.
Gavin and Trents argument seems to boil down to...
"Sure the bible condones slavery, but it's good slavery not bad slavery. And God was trying to slowly get rid of slavery."
Except nowhere in the bible does God ever get rid of slavery. Even the NT condones slavery. So when does God finally "get rid" of slavery in the bible? If he's working to get rid of it, when did that happen? When did he get rid of it? Because the NT condones slavery as well.
How does the New Testament condone slavery?
@@yblackie
Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Everyone is trying so hard to be nice to each other, they spend most of their time dancing around the issue. I came away no better informed..
Scholars vs apologists, I wonder who is right😂
Masters degrees for sheep!
“Bow ties are cool.”
~some doctor of some sort
@@cthellis doctor of assyriolgy, and bow ties can be cool if worn coolly, like most clothes
I'm pleased on a human level that they were able to have a civil discussion. But on the other hand, I think we might have lost track of what the point of this conversation is. It's not about how humanely the Israelites treated their slaves compared to their neighbors historically.
The reason Matt D. wads up the pages of Exodus and shoves them forcefully down the throats of believers is to criticize the bible generally as a moral source. E.g., if the God of the bible advocated for slavery and killing infants, maybe we shouldn't take His prohibition on homosexuality as the last word.
i wouldn't call educating bible believers on what the bible says as "shoves them forcefully down the throats of believers"
Ah a more reasonable comment section. I found myself in that other channel's section with all the theists. It was a nightmare.
Same…
Is slavery immoral?
Gavin : “YesNo”
Trent : “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…(5 minutes later)…and they all lived happily every after. The end.”
1:09:29 what is a one-eyed foreign slave going to do if he is freed? Start his own business?
get a paying job. it's not like a one-eyed person is unable to work
Was hoping for more insightful dialogue here, but seems the comments are mostly just flexing and rhetorical posturing.
Derek, too bad you did not include Bible historian Dan McClellan in this discussion. He is an active member of his church, admits to the reality of slavery in the Bible, and points out that it was the Enlightenment that was the beginning of the end of slavery. He frequently points out how people constantly renegotiate their relationship with the Bible in order to make themselves comfortable with it rather than paying attention to what the text meant in its time to the people for whom it is written. Here is just one of his very straightforward arguments against the rationalization of Biblical slavery. czcams.com/video/YhyWQwSnLdQ/video.htmlsi=aoW_d1MJd2Xxc0GW
18:28 no, it isn't.
Next
In summary: Jesus gave rules on how to treat your slaves. Why? Because people just weren't ready to hear that they simply shouldn't have slaves.
@@sw3783 if dr. josh was omnipotent he would end slavery. even the christians defending biblical slavery would probably do that
22:58 wasn't the apostle Paul put into a prison? And wasn't the bread baker and the wine taster put into prison in the story of Joseph?
There absolutely is prison in the Bible.
the great working is complete. I have achieved gnosis. rebuild the myths the clans and the guilds