Slavery and the Catholic Church
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
Spanish translations by Vélez Translations, www.veleztransl...
As anyone who’s successfully completed any level of education knows, any decent curriculum will unfold gradually with the most basic lessons at the beginning and the most difficult at the end.
So, take a typical math curriculum for example. The first level of instruction will include lessons about counting to a certain number, counting by two’s and three’s, and maybe a little addition and subtraction.
But higher levels of instruction will cover concepts like algebra, problem solving, trigonometry, and functions. And in between those two levels are a series of progressive lessons that help prepare a student for the higher levels. The curriculum is designed to progressively reveal knowledge to the student.
Now what would you make of someone who looks at a curriculum like that and criticizes it by only ever looking at the fist level and says, “All their doing is counting and a little addition? They aren’t even doing long division? How is this a good math curriculum?”
And then they selectively quote from the primary lessons in order to convince other people that this is a bad curriculum. They point out how rudimentary and inferior this is because it doesn’t cover the topics and knowledge that many of us who are already educated take for granted.
Wouldn’t you think that was dishonest? Wouldn’t you think that was a slanderous and fallacious way of describing that curriculum? Well, something like that goes on when the Bible and the Church are discussed by critics all the time, especially on the topic of slavery.
You could describe the Bible as a kind of spiritual and ethical curriculum. It depicts the gradual and progressive unfolding of knowledge and experience for those who were being formed by God in history so that they could come to a full knowledge of what is good and true.
So you might identify one of the first lessons with the story of God’s liberation of the Jewish people from Egypt through Moses as his prophet. And in those stories, he gives them the 10 commandments and the Mosaic law.
But these are just the first lessons. God goes on to continue to reveal what is true and good throughout the history of these people until he reveals himself fully through the person and teachings of Jesus. Jesus is the calculus in this mathematical curriculum.
But what I see a lot of anti-Christian and atheistic critics doing these days, is quoting from the first lessons, going back to Moses and the law and saying, look at how evil the Bible is for not fixing all the objectionable things in his time.
You have to remember, the Bible is telling us about a people who had to be told that killing and stealing was wrong. God is starting at the rudest level of ethical understanding to help humanity know how to begin. So he starts with a legal system that introduces people to the concept and practice of justice. This is the 1+1 and counting by two’s lesson in ethics.
So on the topic of slavery, critics will quote passages from this first ethical lesson while ignoring everything that came after it, up to and including all the teachings and actions of the Church.
But the first thing I’d want to point out is that no other ethical curriculum in the world condemned slavery either. Every nation and civilization up until the middle ages had slavery. The Persians had it, the Chinese had it, the Egyptians had it, the Greeks and Romans had it, the indigenous people of the Americas had it, Africans had it, and the Islamic world… you better believe they had it. Mohammed personally owned and sold slaves.
So what we have are people taking cheap shots at Christianity for not abolishing slavery in the very fist ethical lesson of its curriculum and calling it inferior, even though no other ethical framework accounted for it either.
Again, using the math analogy, that’s like criticizing the first math lesson in a curriculum for not having long division and denouncing it as an inferior curriculum as a result, when no other math curriculum ever even gets to long division.
So the question then becomes, if long division is analogous to remedying the evils of slavery, does Christianity ever do it or can atheists continue to lay this charge at the feet of the Church?
Read the whole transcript at brianholdswort...
Thank you for this take. This was liberating and helpful. as a haitian american newly converted to Eastern orthodoxy I've always struggle with this topic but this has freed me from the bonds of guilt and anger. May the Lord have Mercy on you and bless you.
Now there is a fascinating question I hadn't considered. I have never considered Eastern Christians to have anything to do with the Atlantic slave trade. Those two concepts were fully separate in my mind. I have no idea. It is reasonable for there to have been some bare minimum contact the scope and connection intrigue me.
@@jeremysmith7176 its for that reason and many others i decided to be part of the Eastern orthodox faith. However, prior to that, as a protestant, it has always been a struggle
I'm a former math teacher and I think this analogy falls apart at the most important point: An ethical/moral math teacher would never instruct his/her students to do bad/false mathematics... But this is the equivalent of what we see in the Bible's "curriculum". Specifically, we see the Bible condone and give advice on how to the ethical/moral evil of slavery aka condone and give advice on how to do "bad/false mathematics".
I would never teach my students that 1+1 =11 and give them a system to evaluate addition as just ramming the numbers together (2+2+3=223)... because it's wrong. Even if I'm not teaching addition yet because addition is later in the curriculu's progression, I would not give them false information on addition. This is what the Bible does do.
@@random_nerd_stuff6576 And as a good math teacher you wouldn't burn your failing students at the stake.
@@lescsavosi4283 🤔
Let me think
As a historian myself I can only congratulate you, dear Brian!!
SMH....You should ask your university for a refund!
@@user-vg8ez9cu6u Why? Are you a historian yourself? Or are you just butthurt? LMAO!!
I prefer herstory
As a historian, any book recommendations for Catholicism or the Church?
Reading primary sources on anti slavery thought and the origin of the abolitionist movement, I was extremely disappointed in the historical part of his presentation.
The best exposition of Church's teaching on slavery.
They love slavery,lords will
You point out that slavery was common throughout the world when the word of God failed to condemn it like it helps your point. But shouldn't we expect the commandments to be way ahead of the curve on stuff like this? God can say "no selfish or mixed fabrics" but he can't say "no involuntary slavery" ?
The entire point is that society was not ready for such drastic change and we believe God wanted us to understand why it was wrong and not just forbid it. So that we may love each other and not just not enslave each other.
@@sebastianroballo that's my point as well. It's like saying God has to wait until society is "ready" to stop murdering, stealing, lying raping before he rules against it. You're saying God is more worried about letting slavemasters gently work their way to change over time than the countless victims of slavery along the way. Did God ask the slaves if they were "ready" to become slaves? And do you think a god who killed many people immediately for mild disobedience cares about us being "ready" to let go of slavery? Is he not in authority and all powerful?
Yours and Matt Fradd's are my go to Catholic channels. I have learnt so much from you guys, your guests and your comment sections. As a late-in-life convert there is so much to learn and explore in this faith I have chosen to follow (God's thumb in my back had much do it with. He never stopped) May He bless and protect you all.
The United States, the first modern democracy, issued the Dred Scott decision in 1857 cementing the fate of slaves as being property of their masters until the passing of 14th amendnent to the constitution in 1868.
Three hundred years before the Dred Scott case, in the debate of Valladolid, Friar Bartolomé de las Casas successfully argued for the Catholic Church that indigenous people were human beings and equal in dignity to Christians and deserving of the same human rights and the promises of the gospel.
For centuries humanity, even Christianity, has been slow and even hostile to adopting the ideas of the gospel all the while extolling its virtues.
It is no different than us dealing with sin in our personal lives. You would think that once one becomes a Christian one is perfect avd "saved" already like some Christians of other denominations would claim. Catholics know better realizing that salvation is an arduous process and the perfection God's grace confers to us with our cooperation will be complete at the end of our lives.
Emperor Justinian listed slavery under "International Law," he said, because "Every nation
practiced it."
Ad populum? Everyone does it, therefore it’s ok?
@@theroguejester6412 Yep.
@@theroguejester6412 acording to Justinian, yeah
When I was quite young (1960s) my neighborhood theater had a revival run of “Gone with the Wind.” My mom, a Southerner and convert sent me to see this classic epic potboiler.
Upon my return, Mom engaged me in a lengthy conversational lesson which culminated in informing me that at the time of the Civil War slavery had been condemned by the Church, so the scenes which depicted the O’Haras as devout, rosary-praying slave owners was either historically wrong or deliberate on the part of Margaret Mitchell (also a Catholic) to illustrate that Scarlett learned hypocrisy in her family.
Furthermore, Protestant Ashley Wilkes waxes poetic about the culture which is built on slavery and is married to his first cousin, which is a no-no, but Mr. O’Hara’s sole objection to a potential match between Ashley and Scarlett is about temperament. The Protestant neighbors have no theological objections to slavery at all in the novel, while the O’Hara family are breaking multiple codified Catholic injunctions by owning humans, however “kindly” they are treated.
This was a real eye opener for me, and made me a firebrand on these points, one which is usually lost in the noise of the wider pop culture. It became a big deal when we moved to the Deep South a few years later and I was in school with devoted Confederates who found Catholics an oddity (at least). It was 50 years ago, before Jimmy Carter even.
•••• Of course, we are *all hypocrites in reality, even if it’s a different sinful behavior.* But in an era where entertainment teaches even more than civil legal codes do, these finer points help illustrate important truths.
Rose Zingleman Thank you for sharing! As a Catholic reading Gone with the Wind, I was always struck by how non-Catholic in virtue Scarlett and her family were. Yes they prayed the rosary, but that was all. Her and her family never seemed to go to church, Scarlett was overall an extremely terrible and selfish person, and the biggest point was, like you said, that they owned slaves! It infuriated me to no end how slaves were portrayed in the novel, and the most ironic part of the entire story was when all the slaves came into town singing “Go Down, Moses”, a song literally about emancipation; however in the book it was just treated as some “negro spiritual” that didn’t really seem mean anything. I am convinced that, while the story was compelling, its purpose was not to teach any moral lesson but to further a dangerous ideal of southern culture and pride.
Thanks for this analysis, very interesting.
@@swiggitysk8 I never thought of Scarlett as a heroine. She is depicted as a strong character who has the resources to achieve her goals but she is also shallow and capricious, and has a "flexible" morality.
She is only a survivor led by her whim, and as result her life is a failure. She has the practical tools and the resolve, but lacks the wisdom to put those talents to the right goal, and consequently she ends up wealthy but alone.
In some sense it is a religious story... which tells us about the result of putting oneself at the centre of one's life.
The story of Melania is a different one. Melania is happy, Scarlett is always unsatisfied.
Have you ever heard the Qur’an talking about Jesus and his mother, peace be upon a translator. Did you know that Jesus and his mother mentioned the Qur’an 25 times? Listen to me the linkruclips.net/video/hQCFr_enOkED/видео.htmlo you have a question you want to know about Islam? We answer your question within the linkwww.faithchat.com. غ
There were a number of Catholics and quasi-Catholics who supported the Confederate cause. Whether they actually supported chattle slavery is unclear. Among them were Fr. Abram Ryan (who is the eponym of a Catholic high school near me) and John S. Mosby:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Joseph_Ryan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Mosby
Also search Wikipedia’s “Confederate States of America” article for the word “Catholic”:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Brian, you left out the part where Eugene IV recanted his papal bull condemning enslavement under pressure from Spanish and Portuguese powers. It's true Pius II condemned slavery, but didn't condemn slavery of pagans. During the fifteenth century the Church approved enslavement because the Spanish and Portuguese powers convinced the Church they were in western coastal Africa to "baptize" the natives
This part of history shouldn't be left out, and it wasn't just individual Catholics, it was also the institution that endorsed slavery. That endorsement ended with Paul III, and then after that it was mostly individual Catholics who didn't follow papal teaching.
It's also quite ingenious to put all blame of slavery on the Protestant reformation when the particular chattel slavery began with the Spanish and Portuguese. All the coastal powers in Europe built their empires off of chattel slavery mostly for profit. However it was only in later centuries the Spanish and Portuguese tempered their enslavement long before the British and the Americans. And as you mentioned, in order to explain this to atheists we have to acknowledge that individual Catholics (and earlier on in the 1400s, the institutional Church) did not live up to their Gospel upbringings by enforcing chattel slavery, and thus none of what happened even enforced by Catholics should never be rationalized.
You left out "the part" where you just practiced exactly the thing noted in this video...you cherry-picked the history of the Roman Catholic Church, ignoring a multiude of good things, to highlight things you wish to claim were wrong! Go on to some atheist forum and point out to them, that in less than a century their godless brothers slaughtered over one hundred million people...or, doesn't that matter to you...really?
@@mmmail1969 dude, don't be dumb. I know my Church history, and I know all the great things the Church has done. The problem with Brian's video is a problem that Catholics have when presenting Church history, and that is we tend to whitewash Church history and pretend the Church never did anything wrong. My comment was to complete that part of history, not to cherry pick it. Why only talk about de Las Casas and Vittoria, and forget the papal bulls from the mid to late 1400s? It's an incomplete presentation of that part of Church history. We have to be more honest with Church history instead of viewing it triumphalistically.
Sources for that?
@@kyleellis8665 there's two papal bulls, one is Dum Diversas in 1452, and the other is Inter Caetera. There were other papal bulls in the late 1400s, including one by Alexander VI.
@@Montfortracing so again, you went through 2,000yrs of Church history and cherry-picked the relatively few debatable "bad" experiences....which everyone, from the time the Apostles on down, freely admits can an do happen - humans fail? So you're really just big noting yourself pointing out the bleeding obvious?
People are so full of pride, they see nothing wrong with looking back in time and judging people. They have no idea what life was like during biblical times, or even twenty years ago... “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” ― L.P. Hartley
I'm not criticizing the people of the time, I'm criticizing the unchanging god that gave instructions for how to purchase slaves and has never once said, "Slavery is bad and should be abolished."
Have you ever heard the Qur’an talking about Jesus and his mother, peace be upon a translator. Did you know that Jesus and his mother mentioned the Qur’an 25 times? Listen to me the linkruclips.net/video/hQCFr_enOkED/видео.htmlo you have a question you want to know about Islam? We answer your question within the linkwww.faithchat.com. ش
@BVale I don’t know. I don’t know anything god has said. No one does. We know what people have claimed god has said but no one knows what god has ever said. Even if you personally have “Heard God”, how can you know it was god that you heard?
With that being said, there’s no record in the Bible of your god condoning the practice of slavery.
@BVale I can't defend a slur on god? I suppose not as I don't believe a god exists let alone the Christian god or more specifically the Catholic god or, even more specifically, your version of the Catholic god (assuming you're Catholic that is).
I suppose the difference between a pandemic and the church's "collective ear" is that the pandemic has evidence that is testable and makes predictions whereas the church makes claims that are unfalsifiable.
@BVale Even if that correlation is true (which I have no evidence for or against at the moment), correlation is not causation.
3:39 *quick correction*
Zoroastrianism forbade slavery. But persians didn't enforce zoroastrian beliefs. So slavery still existed
Why do we have the whole Bible then, if so many parts of it are outdated? And where is it said in the Bible that we should accept messages from one part, but skip messages from the others as 'being earlier in curriculum'?
You cannot erase it. A big role of the bible is to preserve the early history of christianity. If it would have been left aside, people wouldnt have any idea were this religion started and thus would tend to disregard it as being a simple invention that someone came up with once.
@@mouse-uldefect2748 It is exactly the history of christianity, with many dogmatic changes and contradictions, that makes people feel that it is a simple human invention.
@@tomarchelone People that *invented* Christianity had nothing to gain out of doing so. Both Jesus Christ and all the apostles only gained punishment and finally death. Neither Moses did not had anything to gain as he almost got killed numerous times. The people that put the basis for christianity did not do it for personal gain or fame since they didnt obtain neither of those. If christianity would have been an invention made by Jesus Christ or his apostles in order to gain fame, they would have left it dead in the water the moment they felt any sign of danger, but they continued to support it even in the face of death. Most of the so called contradictions of the bible can be understood if you do not interpret it superficially. The old testament had an initial set of rules that was intended to slowly indtroduce a primitive nation to morality. It couldnt have been to drastic because many of the things that we consider normal now, would have been propesterous for the time. In the new testament we are tought that we shouldnt only follow a fix set of rules( Which was the case for the old testament, since it would have been impossible for people of the time to understand if done different), but do what is good and just. We are taught to follow not the natural law, since even the pagans that did so were just in the eyes of God. It is morally implicit that slavery is unjust and unfair. We are still taught to follow the rules, but moreso to do what is just and good.
I meant to say***to follow the natural law***
@@mouse-uldefect2748I don't follow. What part of your initial comment should be replaced by "to follow the natural law"?
Confucius had a version of the Golden Rule long before Christianity, and phrased it better: “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.” The value of this obviously humanistic teaching derives not from being found within any religious tradition, but from its emphasis on actions and consequences, not faith or dogma.
Confucius’s wording is better than the Christian “do unto others” because it stresses the avoidance of actions that cause harm, which is the bare minimum for morality and requires far less effort.
Slavery causes harm and this simple statement could have been spoken by Abraham, Moses, Jesus, any of the Apostles or Church Fathers or any pope long before the 13th Amendment of 1865 or the 1994 Catechism finally codified the abhorrence of the practice.
This is a great analogy. Fantastic video Brian! In Mexico, the Catholic church along with the Catholic Monarchy established and built universities and hospitals for all inhabitants of the Viceroyalty of New Spain.
I'm a former math teacher and I think this analogy falls apart at the most important point: An ethical/moral math teacher would never instruct his/her students to do bad/false mathematics... But this is the equivalent of what we see in the Bible's "curriculum". Specifically, we see the Bible condone and give advice on how to the ethical/moral evil of slavery aka condone and give advice on how to do "bad/false mathematics".
I would never teach my students that 1+1 =11 and give them a system to evaluate addition as just ramming the numbers together (2+2+3=223)... because it's wrong. Even if I'm not teaching addition yet because addition is later in the curriculu's progression, I would not give them false information on addition. This is what the Bible does do.
Explain how the bible condones these things.
Because nowhere is the bible giving the ethical knowledge of doing wrong.
@@random_nerd_stuff6576 can you provide Bible quotes so I understand exactly what “false mathematics” the Bible teaches?
@@tryhardf844 Lev 25:44 (ESV) says "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you."
This is saying that "you may have" slaves. This is condoning the having if slaves... aka slavery.
....
It was a shock to me when I read it too.
@@shanepaulryanalexander2934 Sure... but in order for it to be false you have the belief that slavery is wrong/immoral. So under that assumption this verse is teaching false morality.
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you."
Lev 25 :44 (ESV).
Just one question: if we can use the argument of the "Evolution of Lessons" with slavery, can't we use it with homosexuality too? P.S. I understand the teachings of the Church and I know why homosexuality is a Sin, all that I'm saying is that the "Evolution of Lessons" or "Gradual understanding" arguments can be used for a lot of sins to condone them.
Not really becuase for even Jesus stated for what is a marriage and for what is not and still condemned the sins of others.
EXCELLENT JOB. EVEN CATHOLIC CLERGY NEED TO KNOW THIS
If God was against slavery, then why did God instruct the Israelites to enslave the Amalekites?
If this is really a curriculum, isn't this on par with instructing chemistry students to stick their hands in concentrated hydrofluoric acid to see what happens? God literally told them to do the very thing they were not supposed to do numerous times on a massive scale, and these instructions by God were for thousands of years used to defend the continuation of doing the very thing they were not supposed to do. Yes, people back in those days were using the Bible to say, "Look, the bible defends slavery, as it even instructs us exactly how to do it."
I think the mathematics analogy is great
No, it isn't. Teaching something wrong just because a student isn't prepared for it is like teaching that 1+1 = 5 and justifying it by saying that the student isn't prepared for calculus.
@@homfes Thank you...this analogy is horrible
Its interesting how the church can dismiss what jesus said about slavery, but cling on to what he said about gay marriage.
This is a good video Brian, you explained it very well the Church's teaching and impact on slavery. Western civilisation, the civilisation the Catholic Church created, is the only civilisation to abolish slavery. No other one did. Also the European slave trade was rooted in and an extension of the Arab slave trade.
Absolutely correct! Here have a cookie.
Catholicism paved the way for the abolition of Slavery since Pope Gregory I making aNglo Saxons equal Christians. Even Saint Paul says you should treat your slave as your "brother".
John, read a book sometime. The English abolished it long before the Spanish and Portuguese. The western civilization was created by the Catholic Church?? That's why a British monarch cannot marry a Catholic and a Catholic cannot become a U.S. president. Get real. Western civilization survived despite the Catholic Church.
Didn't the Catholic Church issue an edict to make Africans perpetual slaves, thus kicking off the TransAtlantic Slave Trade?
I could’ve used this two years ago when a co-worker was trying to beat me into submission with this topic.
I think you would have been giving a bad analogy and if your coworker would have spotted it, it could have made things worse. There is the chance that your coworker was correct on the subject.
I'm a former math teacher and I think this analogy falls apart at the most important point: An ethical/moral math teacher would never instruct his/her students to do bad/false mathematics... But this is the equivalent of what we see in the Bible's "curriculum". Specifically, we see the Bible condone and give advice on how to perform the ethical/moral evil of slavery.... this is the equivalent of a teacher condoning and giving advice on how to do "bad/false mathematics".
I would never teach my students that 1+1 =11 and give them a system to evaluate addition as just ramming the numbers together (2+2+3=223)... because it's wrong. Even if I'm not teaching addition yet because addition is later in the curriculu's progression, I would not give them false information on addition. This is what the Bible does... and justifying bad teachings with "I will tell them the truth [about slavery] later"... is not acceptable.
@@random_nerd_stuff6576 You need to stick on math then, because the truth of the matter is most people around the world at certain time sees nothing wrong on slavery not until Christianity came along that taught each person have a divinity on them unlike emperors and royalty which is God themselves. If it weren't for Christianity slavery will still be legal today and perhaps you won't be a math teacher today because it was the Catholic Church who instituted Universities for all walks of life.
@@ungas024 I did stick with math, thank you for the advice. I think that we are talking pass each other... I'm directly addressing teaching bad morals with the reasoning that people will eventually learn/be taught the good morals. I guess if you want to address my point we could start by seeing if you thinking that it is the correct thing to do... aka... Do you think that it is ok to teach bad/false mortality and then teach the good/true mortality much later?
The Catholic Church was instrumental in abolishing slavery in medieval Sweden.
Question, what is the name of the pope that gave his permission & blessing for Portugal & Spain to own slaves? 2. Answer: In 1452 Pope Nicholas V issued a papal bull called Dum Diversas that granted Portugal and Spain 'full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be ... And to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery'
Have you ever heard the Qur’an talking about Jesus and his mother, peace be upon a translator. Did you know that Jesus and his mother mentioned the Qur’an 25 times? Listen to me the linkruclips.net/video/hQCFr_enOkED/видео.htmlo you have a question you want to know about Islam? We answer your question within the linkwww.faithchat.com. ك
@@SalemK-ty4ti the Papal Bull Dum Diversas was not intended to legalize slavery but a desperate attempt to rally Christendom in response to the brutal atrocities being done by Ottomans to Christians under seige in Constantinople. The Byzantine empire needed help from being exterminated and the only help they could get was from the western kingdoms which can be unified by the Pope. Unfortunately, England, France and other western kingdoms - weakened and preoccupied by their own wars - could not provide the needed strength to counter the advancing Ottomans. Hence the Pope, in failing to influence and unify the divided west, and in a last attempt to rally Christendom to save eastern Christians from extermination, issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas and conceded to Portugal the trade rights in a just war which stated captured enemies to be subjected to perpetual servitude for crimes commited against Christians. This is quite incomparable to the inhumane atrocities suffered by the Christians from the invading Ottomans who were more brutal and determined to take out Christianity.
Taking the historical context out of this Papal bull creates a prejudiced and anachronistic moral view of church history that tries to put the Catholic church in a bad light.
@@shepherdson6189, I am not arguing what the intent was, I am pointing out that it granted permission to permanently enslave human beings. The Papal Dum Diversas granted permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude. The Pope (head of the Catholic Church) granted this and is a matter of public record. It saddens me that anyone would make excuses that it was right to subjugated people into slavery. I believe slavery is immoral and goes against humanity and the united nations has condemned it, as well as it is illegal in most countries today. So it is not just me that thinks slavery is wrong. My hope is that you understand that slavery is immoral & unjust and that the Pope was wrong about granting this permission allow people into perpetual servitude.
@@SalemK-ty4ti likewise, I'm pointing out the historical context, not in support of slavery, but rather to have an unbiased view of the circumstances surrounding the events when the Papal bull was issued. The Catholic church does not support slavery and is against it even when the church was born when slavery was a already a lynchpin of the society. As we see in the old testament how God through Moses freed the Israelites from Egyptian slavery, likewise the Catholic church upholds the dignity of people oppressed into slavery. It is really quite easy to give moral judgement on the just wars that had happened a thousand years ago and blame it's effects to the protagonist. But it is an anachronistic view with a clear intent to blame the Catholic Church.
Love how you put that, it's how revelation and understanding is, yet Sola Scriptura stops at the first layer, and are without understanding in various degrees.
The bible condones slavery: Leviticus 25:44-46 "However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way."
Your argument seems to be that the god who literally killed virtually every living thing on the face of the earth with a great flood was too weak to force people not to own other people. Is that correct?
God does not agree with it, but if he forced people to fallow him he would counterdict himself, he gave human beings free will, and after Christ slavery was a big nono afterwards in Catholicism, the OT had slaves and so did the NT, but slaves had a diffrent weight of meaning during the day, sure they might of got beaten but God does not condone it.
Not to mention Leviticus 19:33-34 reads, “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God
Wish I could give this more than one like. Here is a comment to help with the algorithm.
I was just thinking earlier today “man, I could really go for a new Holdy vid!”
Brian, your analogy of increasingly complex math lessons is a valuable one. It reminds us that our judgment of a past age has to acknowledge that that age's precedents and our own precedents are very different. Two other comments:
1) It can hardly be doubted that the Church played a key role in the moral revolution on slavery. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a great evil was committed/condoned in the slavery resulting from the Atlantic slave trade, even if it was with a degree of ignorance. Unlike with math, the hundreds of years it took for us to learn this lesson had a moral cost numbering into millions of lives. Though we should be glad that, as has never happened before in history, the evil was eventually named and condemned, it is also fitting that we lament that such an evil ever occurred at all.
2) The analogy of progressive lessons raises the big question: what new lessons are we being taught now? Are we entering a new phase of greater understanding of God's will? It is foolish and dangerous to make rash assertions there (see: heresy), but just looking at our history should give us the humility to realize we might not understand it all yet. For the curious about this topic, I recommend The Church that Can and Cannot Change by John Noonan, and On the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman.
My MA is in American Studies and I looked at abolition and slavery in detail. It is difficult to know what was happening by just looking at primary sources showing slave ownership. For example, Quakers are known for anti-slavery sentiments. Yet you will find Quaker Meetings owning slaves. Well, in some Southern states, it was illegal to free your slaves. Others had slaves who wanted to stay near families and would need 'white' protection to avoid being 'captured' and re-sold. So some owners moved by Faith 'donated' their slaves to their church. Never forget, when it comes to the past -- it's complicated. :)
Your intros always look like you have something juicy to say and you can't wait to share it. Love your work!
What you described at the beginning is exactly what I felt about John Greens reaction to Aquinas’ 5 ways
Was it ever morally correct for one person to own another person as their property then or now ?
No it was not.
@@sydneyw4282 Thanks you for responding
If you voluntarily sell yourself into servitude, that's not slavery. That's a contract.
Slavery is, by definition, not consensual.
Also, slavery is never necessary to avoid starvation.
When a large number of people have the same need, they work together to service that need. That's the whole purpose of an economy.
If Jesus was real and a wise man, he could have introduced capitalism and the stock market.
Have you ever heard the Qur’an talking about Jesus and his mother, peace be upon a translator. Did you know that Jesus and his mother mentioned the Qur’an 25 times? Listen to me the linkruclips.net/video/hQCFr_enOkED/видео.htmlo you have a question you want to know about Islam? We answer your question within the linkwww.faithchat.com. م
@@veryrespectful583 600 years too late
Not like it matters but I agree with you on this one. It is the reason why the story of the Centurion made it into Scripture. The centurion loved his slave. Something that must have been unusual. Christ also praised his Faith. It showed that one who has faith in Christ would likely be on his way to love his slave and vice versa.
St Paul also writes that slaves must try to please their masters and masters love their slaves as brethren.
Amen, amen and AMEN - every point you present here is SPOT on! Praise God for giving you the grace, courage and fortitude to speak this timeless truth with boldness and clarity!
Mr. Holdsworth, how do you do this??!!
No matter the topic.... You consistently present the best arguments and analogies I've ever heard.
Interesting subject !
Amen. LOL. When I saw that in my notifications, I did not hesitate-suffice it to say.
Have you ever heard the Qur’an talking about Jesus and his mother, peace be upon a translator. Did you know that Jesus and his mother mentioned the Qur’an 25 times? Listen to me the linkruclips.net/video/hQCFr_enOkED/видео.htmlo you have a question you want to know about Islam? We answer your question within the linkwww.faithchat.com. م
@@veryrespectful583 May I ask you a question here?
@@FoolishLearner Do you have a question you want to know about Islam? We answer your question within the linkwww.faithchat.com. 😘❤❤🙏
@@veryrespectful583 yeah I know Jesus Christ and His mother are highly respected people in the Qu'ran.
Nice.... Can you provide a link to the reinforcements couldn’t find it
www.brianholdsworth.ca 🙂
My question is simple, why did God take so long to reveal his divine plan for us, why did it have to take centuries for God to teach us the difference between good and evil why didn't he speed things up, knowing how sinful and flawed mankind is?
knowledge is very different from wisdom and holiness which is required to conform to God's will. Our times filled with technological advances (knowledge) and a decline in morality, debunks the myth that Man automatically grows in wisdom as time advances.
Have you ever heard the Qur’an talking about Jesus and his mother, peace be upon a translator. Did you know that Jesus and his mother mentioned the Qur’an 25 times? Listen to me the linkruclips.net/video/hQCFr_enOkED/видео.htmlo you have a question you want to know about Islam? We answer your question within the linkwww.faithchat.com. ا
Man still had free will and if God were to speed things up, that would mean overriding much of man's free will like we could never grow up as a people and figure out things on our own. God the Son personally came down to Earth for our sake, also to show us how its done rather than just look down from heaven on how messed up we are. Shouldn't we instead look at God as being very generous?
@@veryrespectful583 No thank you. The Quran does not depict Jesus and Mary in the same way as our Bible, though there are similarities. Also, the Bible pre-dates the Quran and the life of Muhammad by a few hundred years. By default, the earlier text or record are more historically reliable based on their proximity to when the life of Jesus took place. If we Christians have questions about Christianity, we have our clerics and theologians to answer them, not Dawah preachers. God bless and peace be upon you too.
3:10 The comparison with other moral systems of the time is very telling. Apparently, the god of the Bible is not as omnipotent and omniscient as we are lead to believe, and apparently "don't own slaves" was above his capabilities.
you missed the "Slavery over starvation" part bud
@@tiberius6633 You think slavery is the best solution to starvation?
Again, you make a category mistake Korben. God being all powerful and all knowing does not negate the free will of men.
As a side note, and my opinion only, There are no outright bans of slavery in the Bible and Jesus demonstrably came to save people regardless of their station in life (free and slave) from slavery to sin. The fact that the west lead the world away from slavery shows the process from its enchoat form to its legal banishment is in line with Brian’s video.
@@mikelopez8564 I'm doing nothing of the sort. Get your terms straight.
God forbid murder. Why wasn't this a contradiction of human free will?
I love your point bro and it's......where is god in all of this
This dude hopes you don't crack open a history book.
The Catholic Church supported black slavery 100%. They were major owners of slaves, themselves.
In 1488 Pope Innocent VIII accepted a "gift" of 100 black slaves.
In 1514, a Spanish Priest named Bartolome de Las Casas brought black slaves to India because he wanted to relieve the suffering of Indians by giving free labor.
The Catholics thought of blacks to be lesser than Indians.
And there's no reason for the guy to bring up endangered servitude. That is a different system than. Kidnapping selling the kidnapped black person. If the *ACTUAL* Christians didn't fight for their freedom in America, I don't think the Catholics would have given up their slaves. And it's baffling to see a black person say they're a Catholic.
All Catholics should be in support of reparations to Blacks in America and Europe. The bible does say to pay your debts. And there is no such thing as free labor, Catholics owe blacks wages PLUS interest.
The content of Dum Diversas
To confirm the Portuguese trade rights, King Afonso V appealed to Pope Nicholas V for support, seeking the moral authority of the Church for his monopoly.[8] The bull of 1452 was addressed to Afonso V and conceded Portugal's right to attack, conquer and subjugate Saracens and pagans "...and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude.[9][4]
[4] Sardar, Ziauddin, and Davies, Merryl Wyn. 2004. The No-Nonsense Guide to Islam. Verso. ISBN 1-85984-454-5. p. 94.
[8] Bown, Stephen R., 1494: How a Family Feud in Medieval Spain Divided the World in Half, p. 73, Macmillan, 2012 ISBN 9780312616120
[9] Hayes, Diana. 1998. "Reflections on Slavery". in Curran, Charles E. Change in Official Catholic Moral Teaching.
Catholics can lie but History shows otherwise
What is your take on Dum Diversas (English: Until different) a papal bull issued on 18 June 1452 by Pope Nicholas V.
This depends on your intellectual level that of the teacher and the receptionist that believes what the teacher said. Let's go to the beginning. In the beginning, Yeshua created Adam and Eve to populate the earth with the freedom of hanging out with God Yeshua himself. That was not only their Creator but was a Father and teacher who gave them total freedom to live in a free society living with a Perfect God. This comes from only an intellectual mind base on the information available. Something happens and changes everything, the whole world was reorganized under a different leadership and rule of laws. The new regulations are not Yeshua's plan of the idea but man's choice to take this route and Yeshua God allow it based on the law that was already in place. Let us look at the present time Yeshua allows the man to come back to him and escape all of society's issues because Yeshua has set him free from the condition that he has entrapped himself into. Because of this new freedom he could also with Yeshua's support get out of anything that was holding him back from ant freedom that was needed. So American slavery was called kidnapping which Yeshua and God said they must be put to death, so all American slave traders and owners must be put to death according to scripture. Because Yeshua had set us free over two thousand years before the Trande Atlantic Slave trade. So America Government own the Catholic religion and even today owes for the damages they have caused then and now. Because the laws are still in place that slave owners set up, help in place by today's Government make them accomplish the crime and are the criminal of today against the Word of God Himself Yeshua. The White Church of America was more guilty because they said they believe in Yeshua God but worked for the devil even today also. The Bible makes it clear like he did with the slave of Egptians slave the Jews who were not White but Black. The term white is fabricated made up of man and supported by the Church people of today who say they know Jesus Yeshua who is the Truth and yet they are living a lie. For the Slave set free from Egypt Yeshua paid them back for the crime of enslavement of Egypt so Yeshua has to pay American slaves back also for their enslavement even Europeans and the Catholic Church as well as America Churches.
This is an INCREDIBLE insight on the topic, Brian. Thank you for making this content.
The issue isn't only about the church and the Bible. It is more about the supposed wisdom of the god of the Bible who supposedly knows that the ownership of one human being by another human being as property is immoral but doesn't speak out against it anyway.
The slavery in the bible isn't just limited to people seeking to getting out of poverty. You have children being born into slavery, you have women who were purchased after a bout of sexual assault or rape, and you have people particularly young girls who are forced into slavery as a result of war.
The god of the Bible supposedly has the knowledge and the wisdom to know how to say that slavery is wrong but doesn't.
Your focus on only just persons that are in poverty distracts from all other forms of slavery portrayed in the bible and quite frankly seems dishonest.
Great video and I can confirm that you have done justice by conducting a great study.
God can say don't eat shellfish or don't wear mixed fabrics but he can't say don't own another person as property?
What is the chant in the background?
Viva Cristo Rey, it's called "The Love of God" by composer Paul F. Jernberg. Here is a link to it on SoundCloud:
soundcloud.com/user-879235558/introit-the-love-of-god?fbclid=IwAR1HRtl2k7-9zMdpAykbz-XQwEsovaxA90smC0Q-verJhRNRXikXBoEYmas
@@antonbrereton2692 thank you!
Have you ever heard the Qur’an talking about Jesus and his mother, peace be upon a translator. Did you know that Jesus and his mother mentioned the Qur’an 25 times? Listen to me the linkruclips.net/video/hQCFr_enOkED/видео.htmlo you have a question you want to know about Islam? We answer your question within the linkwww.faithchat.com. ن
5:45 We are talking about God here. He was unable to think of a solution to this problem?
Know that he does nothing that is negative.
@@brenosantana1458 He condones slavery. Is that positive?
@@korbendallas5318 I don't have all information. He does not agree with what is negative.
@@brenosantana1458 Unless he does.
In ancient Israel slavery was basically an advance method of handling unpaid debt.
Nobody was permitted to keep a fellow Israelite as "slave" for more than seven years (Leviticus 25:35-55) At that point debt was annulled.
If one beat or harmed a slave, he had to be set free (Exodus 21:26)
If one came across an escaped slave, one was not supposed to return him (Deuteronomy 22:28).
One of the best videos and examinations on this subject!! Thank you.
Micah 2:2
“And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage.”
Very interesting! I did not know this....
5:00 That old "slavery was different" chestnut. Why then were foreign slaves treated worse than hebrew slaves?
Treating people worse because they are different is just how humans are buddy, presenting a book from God cannot chang that unfortunateley
(For the record I am not trying to justify racist treatment or slavery in general just giving a reason why this happened)
@@tiberius6633 I know why it happened; what I don't know is why it was commanded by God.
Yes! Thank you for this video
Yes it was slavery in All Nations but it has never been a slavery where one group of people was dispersed over the world as slaves except for us find them and prove it if you got them
In the very beginning, God said to Adam an Eve not to eat fruit from a tree. In a very simple an authoritarian vay. Yet you criticize this way of delivering information when it comes to slavery. 🤷♀️
Why is it okay for the Israelites to keep slaves but not the Egyptians?
6:55 The human institution with the biggest positive impact on slavery was the West Africa Squadron, ie. the Royal Navy.
this thesis then enforces that no dogma is absolute. which is what many atheists want others to realize.
‘3 justifications for scriptural slavery’ by Rationality rules on RUclips addresses this, it’s an interesting debate.
8:45 "Without a doubt"? I'd like to have a source for that please.
WhaddoYouMeme has an excellent series explaining slavery in the bible. He's a protestant, but he did a lot of research. It's a three video series in response to cosmic skeptic's video criticizing the bible for what it says on slavery.
Jesus Christ teaches repentance for everyone
Including the Churches
Thanks for researching the facts for us Brian, great job, lovely hurling!
I don’t understand ur saying the church was at least better than others so they shouldn’t be held accountable? Aren’t we all supposed to be accountable for our actions?
No, not even close
If slavery can be good sometimes, it can’t be objectively evil. This is such a morally confused video.
Exactly my thoughts
spot on
Please consider reading & reviewing All Oppression Shall Cease: A History of Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Catholic Church by Christopher L. Kellerman (a Catholic priest & scholar). Also, the non-Catholics (Quakers, Universalists & Methodists etc.) were abolitionists in North America.
I must of missed something because I always thought the church was against salvery because Moses freed the salves of Egypt. Did they say slavery was ok after that? On another thought I don't think it is ok to be for slavery based on the fact that everyone else was doing it. When I am confused I sit quietly and meditate. You can find clear answers often in your heart.
Great video. Thank you.
Luckily in Sri Lanka we did not had slavery while the feudal-lord system was there which was not considered as a slavery according to some western socio-philosophers like Carl Marx comparing to that which was in the Middle Ages in Europe as the latter sounds more harsh and slavery. None of the European colonists (the Portuguese, Dutch and the British (though the second was much harsh on commoners)) could not establish slavery neither take the commoners as slaves thanks to our Sri Lankan Sinhalese Kings and the long lasting Buddhist society.
I dont know the word in english,but in my country, they're called "Oknum", which mean : "a person who doing something (bad/good) that's not representing the whole institution". This term is really relatable to catholics who were practicing slavery in order to force conversion nor just helping political regime. But at last, we know the teaching of the bible and the church is already in right & truth direction, even before Social Justice were invented
Very good treatment of the subject matter. Very good.
George Bourne in his book Condensed Anti Slavery Bible Argument gives a completely DIFFERENT view of the Bible and why slavery is always sinful. George Bourne was a key abolitionist, and he proves that Moses and the Lord Jesus condemns slavery, and the Apostles preached against it. I urge you to read it. George Bourne uses his mastery of Hebrew and Greek to prove that Scripture has always been against slavery. Why not study the abolitionist Biblical argument itself? Yes, the Lord Jesus and His Apostles were Abolitionist.
I would urge you Brian to study the primary sources. Read 'Early American Abolitionists.' read 'Thr Abolitionists the growth of a fissent minority.' most importantly read A Condensed Anti Slavery Bible Argument. Read Preaching Deliverance to the Captives, primary sources of the Particular Baptists against slavery. Read Samuel Seward (1700) the Reformed Purtian who supported the abolition of slavery. Read Granville Sharp against slavery. Read Catholic Confederates. I think you owe it to yourself to understand where the abolitionist movement started. Why did the abolitionists and anti slavery forces use Scriptural arguments and natural law to argue against slavery? It didn't start in the Papal States, nor in the Roman bishops that supported the Confederacy, nor in the Portuguese Empire or the Spanish Empire. Please read the above books to learn about the anti slavery abolitionist movement. Blaming the Protestant Reformation for slavery, when the Papal States, Spain, Portugal, Spain, and France were heavily involced with the slave trade (and the famous King Charles the 2nd) is quite unlikely. Certainly the states of England and the Netherlands captured Portuguese and Spanish slave colonies and shamefully did not free the slaves. There is a dissident literature of Dutch Reformed and English Reformed that attacked the slave trade. The role of the 2nd generation Quakers, Who used Scriptural arguments and natural law against slavery has been well studied, but the involvement of the Methodists, Reformed Baptists, and Presybterians is less well known. The radical pro slavery views of the 1840s was an innovation in theology, and lead to the pro slavery southern denominations. I urge you to study the origin of anti slavery thought, the origin of the abolitionist movement. I urge you to study the role of the Papacy, the Papal States, and Roman theologians in the slave trade and slavery. Listening to your presentation I think if you read the primary sources you would find a very different historical narrative. You do remember who sent the jailed Jefferson Davis a gift? I imagine it would be easy to finish that, but it's the actual record of hundreds of years, before the reformation of the 1500s, during and even in the 1600s the actual record of slavery is shown. Not to mention slavery in Brazil and America in the 1700s and 1800s.
Okay good job. But misleading and ill informed. First of all Christianity did not bring about the end of slavery. Political and economic agendas have always been the rule of the day. When people become restless and resist the power structure change is brought about via artificial concessions or the assimilation of the so called lesser class. Christianity became the powerhouse of Rome only because it could not be controlled by the powers that be. So they adopted it as the religion of the state to maintain a hold on the people.
3:57 atheists aren’t taking potshots at Christianity for not abolishing slavery in the very first lesson of the ethics curriculum.
Atheists are taking potshots at Christianity for getting the lesson exactly backwards (specifically allowing slavery and the beating of slaves).
This would be bad enough on its own, but it also never gets corrected.
Jesus never said: “You have heard that it was said that you may buy slaves from the heathen around you, but I say to you that owning a slave is an abomination unto the Lord.”
Instead, he says: “Slaves, obey your masters, even the cruel ones.”
Jack, you got it right. Jesus said 3 times, “Slaves obey your masters”. This is what atheists are pointing out that Christians ignore. God himself wanted everyone to know that he very much approved of slavery. That’s one the biggest problems with the Bible as a source of morality.
IDK, your argument starting at 3:30 is "What about all the other groups who enslaved people?" That's a lazy argument.
Also, what's with your slavery vs starvation argument at 5:30? There is no freedom if someone is choosing starvation or slavery. This argument is another what-about-ism. Many people faced with that dilemma chose death. I'd recommend checking out Kant. Kant is an author who wrote a lot about the concept that freedom is being able to choose one's own end. In the question of starvation vs slavery, there is no freedom because nobody would want to choose either of those ends.
Ok so first of all, Brian is so wrong: China doesn't have concentration camps; it has "re-education" camps. Of course, they are nothing alike, no parallels whatsoever can be made. (sarcasm)
As for the social equality Catholicism aspires to (meaning everyone being equal in the eyes of God, this everyone having the right to equal treatment) I would also cite that at least some popes had been slaves. At the time, I believe Catholicism was the only "place" where a slave could aspire to, not only to be something else other than a slave, but also a prominent figure in society.
Furthermore, something else I find interesting is that there was a "slave bible" in the US. People tore passages from the Bible before giving it to slaves to christianise them. They stated doing this, because they didn't want the slaves to get any ideas about freedom or equality of treatment.
Because of its teachings, and the more I understand human nature, the more radical I find the teachings of Jesus and the Catholic Church. Whether one believes in religion or not, this is undeniable.
Thank you for such a concise explanation about the history of slavery and the Church’s role in its condemnation, further proving that without Jesus and the Church, western culture would have no ideas about equality, freedom, or even something as seemingly inconsequential as the importance of service beyond the needs of the state.
If what your saying is true then y wasn't it changed with the new testament..
And also here in Sri Lanka especially in Goa in India atrocious things like inquisitions had gone but they were criticized even by the Jesuit Priests and other missionaries and considered as a obstacles to spread out Christianity. Most of these atrocities were done to fulfill the imperial expectations which were covered by the religious expectations.
I think you were confusing slavery and bondage in the Bible pond workers sold themselves into what was a form of false labour while slaves were imported from other countries
This depends on your intellectual level that of the teacher and the receptionist that believes what the teacher said. Let's go to the beginning. In the beginning, Yeshua created Adam and Eve to populate the earth with the freedom of hanging out with God Yeshua himself. That was not only their Creator but was a Father and teacher who gave them total freedom to live in a free society living with a Perfect God. This comes from only an intellectual mind base on the information available. Something happens and changes everything, the whole world was reorganized under a different leadership and rule of laws. The new regulations are not Yeshua's plan of the idea but man's choice to take this route and Yeshua God allow it based on the law that was already in place. Let us look at the present time Yeshua allows the man to come back to him and escape all of society's issues because Yeshua has set him free from the condition that he has entrapped himself into. Because of this new freedom he could also with Yeshua's support get out of anything that was holding him back from ant freedom that was needed. So American slavery was called kidnapping which Yeshua and God said they must be put to death, so all American slave traders and owners must be put to death according to scripture. Because Yeshua had set us free over two thousand years before the Trande Atlantic Slave trade. So America Government own the Catholic religion and even today owes for the damages they have caused then and now. Because the laws are still in place that slave owners set up, help in place by today's Government make them accomplish the crime and are the criminal of today against the Word of God Himself Yeshua. The White Church of America was more guilty because they said they believe in Yeshua God but worked for the devil even today also. The Bible makes it clear like he did with the slave of Egptians slave the Jews who were not White but Black. The term white is fabricated made up of man and supported by the Church people of today who say they know Jesus Yeshua who is the Truth and yet they are living a lie. For the Slave set free from Egypt Yeshua paid them back for the crime of enslavement of Egypt so Yeshua has to pay American slaves back also for their enslavement even Europeans and the Catholic Church as well as America Churches.
People STILL need to be told that murder is wrong, we're no better than the people in Moses' times, we've merely had better education, thanks to our old culture being built upon the Christian Faith. What is right and wrong is so context sensitive that we are definitely in no position to judge slavery; after all, we enslave our spirits and the spirits of our young with this depraved modern culture where nothing is real, men can be women and women can be men and a thousand other things that don't exist. We teach our daughters to dress and act like harlots and then we judge the Muslims for teaching their women to dress modestly. What atheists do not understand is that they do NOT have the authority on good and evil, that belief was the very original sin that cast us out of the garden, and we STILL to this day practice that very same original sin.
Ok, seems you have a heart when it comes to state run slavery, but what do you call US Prison slavery?
The post reformation church was “certainly not spotless”. ( LOL) I truly do appreciate you setting the record straight on which dispensation of the Catholic Church was most responsible for the transatlantic slave trade. I did not know about the edict of pope Eugene. I blamed the Catholic Church as a whole. Even with the knowledge that the doctrines of all so called religions have been transgressed to some degree from their original form. As a black person, for what it’s worth, upon viewing this video, my entire view of the Catholic Church’s participation in the slave trade must be reevaluated. Figures that a fellow musician type ( I love true musician types! We’re not bandwagoneers) would have the consciousness and sensitivity to convey a message like this in the first place. The public education analogy at the beginning was… money! Spot on! Stellar! Truly dope. Time to research the early Catholic Church writings so I can separate the good eggs from the bad ones. Bravo!
There are papal bulls allocating perpetual servitude for pagans and bible verses consigning lineages to perpetual servitude. And patriarchs who owned slaves, not only that but controlled their slaves destinies. And considering also how religious orders owned slaves we can see how:
The tradition, the scriptures and magisterium were morally wrong and obviously mistaken.
Failing to see the humanity of others is the most basic tenant of morality, one which seems to need no arguments.
Consider that christianity is a worldview, which may be more right or wrong that other world views- by saying to pagans they can have no rights because they are not christian, effectively forcing them into the religion then saying your culture and traditions show they are not true Christian's, effectively destroying their history and languages and self image, Catholicism was part of a genocidal tyranny,
The extant to which the church has to acknowledge this fact is far beyond the arguments people use to make themselves feel better and the inhumanity of it all. It's sad that people can say this is a religion of love without tears for the sorrow still ongoing due to the darkness eminated from the events of slavery.
All correct but there is even more that supports the basic case Brian is making here. The resurgence of the institution of slavery was a consequence of the decline of Christendom. Brian points out that it followed the Reformation which is fair, but I might make a slightly different point. Slavery did not return to the Christian nations of Europe, but rather to the colonies established by those nations which were often effectively beyond the reach of the Church and its Christian monarchs when it came to enforcing the condemnations of slavery which Brian references here. The case of the Canary Islanders--the Guanche--being enslaved in the 15th century by European adventurers is illustrative. The protests of Catholic clergy resulted in the Castilian monarch ordering that about 800 people have their freedom restored, but unfortunately the enslavement of the Guanche continued afterwards in the Canaries. This story would be repeated when the amazing career of Bartolome de Las Casas as an advocate for the indigenous peoples of the New World was ultimately frustrated by the inability of Ferdinand and Charles V to enforce their edicts--in particular the New Laws of 1542--in the far off colonies. In effect, as Samuel Johnson would later point out, the "freedom" and "liberty" that many sought settling the Americas was often freedom from the Christian prohibitions against robbing and enslaving non-European peoples in order to become rich. The Enlightenment actually contributed to both the spread of slavery and the conception of the virulent racism that it left behind by providing pseudo-scientific distinctions following Aristotle's teaching that some people are naturally slaves of other races. Not coincidentally, Hume, Voltaire and other thinkers who proposed to liberate man from the Church were straightforwardly racist and had no problem with the enslavement of non-Europeans.
Dear Brian. Back in the time of the Spanish Empire, Spain never had colonies. America was Spain, and the people, all of those living in the American Spain were as Spaniards as the European, the African or the Asian Spaniards. We still say "los españoles a ambos lados del Atlantico", the Spaniards on both sides of the Atlantic sea.
Back in the time of the Catholic monarchs The School of Salamanca set the foundations for the Human Rights. All of these phylosophers belonged to the clergy.
It is a pity that they are so unfairly forgotten.
Excellently done Brian. When I saw the subject I was greatly enthused to hear your presentation. Not disappointed (as usual). By the way, I think your analogy was spot on, God taught his people gradually (and very patiently) particularly since they were so stiff-necked and hard to teach. Blessings to you and your family from down Under.
This has to be the best argument for there being no god I’ve ever heard. Thank you!
BRILLIANT!!!!!👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
And I know you thought not one slave would ever be able to enter into white universities like Princeton and Harvard but we have and we found things out you wouldn't believe they have maps there that prove that all the promised Land names of cities and places is in Africa there is a old French map with French writing down the side of Africa that says Hebrews
5:24 idk... If you look at a starving person, do you think the obvious solution is to enslave them?
Even if it’s to avoid starvation, why should they give away their rights and freedom for it?
Was there no labor at the time that was rewarded with a wage where the worker kept their autonomy?
It's worse than that: Why is sexual slavery of his daughter even considered?
@@korbendallas5318 that is essentially what I was getting to.
@@g07denslicer Understood - I just wanted to drive the point home.
@@korbendallas5318 ah, fair enough :)
Solid.. one of your best videos yet!
Great video!!! Thank you very much, it was much appreciated!
Thank you.
You speak of your online community the re enforcements. I've googled it and nothing shows up.
Iam with you brother
Excellent comparison.
I hope you guys read the Bible for yourselves on that specific slavery part
Brian is focusing on the Israelites slavery between themselves... it is true that as an Israelite you could take another Israelite as a slave but you had to treat him well and pay him and release him after 6 years
It is also said that you should take slaves from different countries and you could do as you pleased with them because they were your property!! How can you use that analogy with Maths when it is completely different.
In this case, you have a clear description on how you should treat well your brothers Israelites but on the other hand you can do whatever you want with slaves you take from different countries as they are your property... you can beat them with a rod as long as they don't die. If they can stand up within few days, it's fine.
And here are the references so you can read for yourselves:
Exodus 21: 1-26
Leviticus 25: 44-46
You have more of them but this is a good place to start
nice try, jesus never condemns slavery. prove slavery existed in ancient egypt. Is your god powerfull or not, you said god had no choice but continue slavery
Agreed. The Old Testament has a rule against not wearing two types of cloth at once, so there wasn't a problem with not having enough space for rules, but it doesn't make any explicite bans on slavery. In fact, it is said that they can take non-Israelite slaves.
No matter how you look at it, according to the Bible the Israelites could legally take slaves with God's blessing for centuries. Jesus doesn't reject slavery either, he says for them to obey their masters, which sounds more like a reaffirmation of slavery being ok. Also if I'm not mistaken in the book of Philemon was centered around a slave that ran away from a Christian master. You might could interpret these verses to mean something less controversial, but at that point I'd wonder how you could ever hope to get the meaning right even half the time.
And if anyone wants my sources: Leviticus 25:44 and Deuteronomy 22:11
You deserve a million subs. Every video is a gem.
Not all gems are precious.
You tout Catholicism as Christianity. However most of christianities look to the scriptures as supreme authority but the former holds the pope as supreme authority. Sola scriptura vs poor, who wins?
> You tout Catholicism as Christianity.
Depending on the definition of Christianity that he goes with, that could very well be a valid belief.
> most of christianities look to the scriptures as supreme authority but the former holds the pope as supreme authority
False, Catholicism does not see the Pope as the supreme authority.