Wow, the link between objectification and the Roman equivocation between ejaculation and urination is really powerful. It puts it into a new perspective for me. The last few days, whenever I have been tempted towards lust, I remember this connection and I find it really powerful. Thanks Dr. Holland!
Ehh idk modern sexual norms (people having sex for fun consentually) are completely different from Roman sexual slavery and abuse. We are still very Christian in our cultural outlook. Just not in the traditional way.
Interesting. The words often translated as 'sexual immorality' in the bible is the Greek, Porneia, are generally contextualised as 'to sell oneself' in reference to the 'porne' class of sexual slaves in the Greek world. The theological reading of this has been that Porneia is idolatry which leads to sexual and physical impurity, but it could equally mean, avoid abusive sexual relations with the slaves.
@@paulhadlington8179 The one who looks at woman with lust is already commiting adultery in their hearts, is that humanism? Respecting people becuas ethey are imago dei - image of God, is this humanism? You are forced to say that, means you perfectly understand that yeas, christianity teaches objectively good thing (otherwise why you tryuing to make it other way around, and from wich humanism Judaism and christianity took it's humanism, where from at that time?), and therefore has all rights to be true. Welcome to the chrurch, buddy.
Who could be the guests for the next season? Any plan on having: Edward Feser, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Eric Weinstein, Ben Shapiro, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (even though the channel is mostly christian themed, those two last might have some interesting points to add relevant to Theism in general)?
@@nichoudha No, it's not justified by the bible. Slavers had to actively ignore major passages of scripture to manufacture justification for their participation in slavery.
@@MedievalMind Your request would take time that I don't have at the moment. It's a complex topic. But I'll list a few references demonstrating the Bible's recognition that enslavement was an affliction. Saint Paul writes a list of transgressions that are unholy and ungodly, among which are listed ENSLAVERS. That's found in 1 Timothy 1:10. Elsewhere in scripture, those in slavery are counseled on how to live in godly manner. Some people confuse this advice as approval of slavery itself, but it's not. Paul encourages those who can obtain freedom to do so. Read 1 Corinthians 7:21.
Controlling the marital relations of slaves by holding their loved ones ransom and putting an awl through thg eir ears doesn't exactly scream "our bodies are as temples". Can we please stop choosing the lesser of two evils
True, Paul also made no ban over the Jewish traditions of polygamy, concubinage and the use of handmaidens (servants) for sex either. Though he does say avoid ''sexual immorality'' *porneia. Which seems to mean idolatry which leads to sex rituals that break the laws of Leviticus. The OT has no problems with slaves ether.
A christian could work for women’s equal pay, but claiming the bible inspired them would be the exact opposite. Just because you do something right does not mean you automatically have the right reasons. Same as people who do terrible things but thought the reason was good.
@Jonathan Archer there's a few errors in your grammar which prevent me from understanding what you are saying. Perhaps you think I'm preaching the bible? Absolutely not, I was pointing out that the bible instructs you on how much less you are to pay women compared to men, and that Christians doing good things are good, but they shouldn't be siting the bible for the reasons because it tells of terrible things. And yes, dictating truths or morals is not a good way of living.
Feminism is inherently rooted in Christianity. The fact that the bible takes place thousands of years prior to the invention of birth control likely has something to do with the gendered pay disparity.
George If feminism is inspired by christianity then it is the most distorted and cherry picked version of it I could imagine. There are plenty of paragraphs explaining how women are worth less than men. Feminism is about excelling beyond men in some definitions or at least being equal. To say feminism uses the bible is like saying Im japanese because I ate sushi (born in Texas).
viasevenvai I’m saying that without Christian morality, feminism would not thrive in the west. Theres a reason feminism is born and thrives in western (christian) nations. Christianity placed value upon women that isn’t present anywhere else in history.
@@06rtm Yes I think I know you are saying that. My question is how you thought any equal intentions toward women, or even mankind, came from Christianity. God never says he has the best intentions for people. The Christian bible explicitly states how much less women are worth, how to enslave people, and how genocide is ok. I am not stretching anything out of context either. If you deny any of that you just haven't read Exodus 21 22 and many other versus. You can't claim that Christianity morality permeates some type of superiority to ideas when it itself is not moral. And yes, Christian nations have done well, but it was a long journey to distance itself from the bible. Should I bring up homosexuals? The morality of the Catholics I suppose could be mentioned. The list goes on because morality is not dictated, which Christianity says it is.
Self control is one of Jesus teachings. Easy said than done but the one who has self control bears the fruit of the spirit. This is the word of God and in the bible. I pray everyone reads it.
It is the nature of the Gospel itself that fostered the paradigm shift, that in Christ there is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female; it is the recognition of equality under God. Whether or not the Bible is the first text to suggest such a view, we may not know, but it certainly looks that way (we do have at least one Greek philosopher expressing criticism of the oldest universal institution, and later there was a Christian priest in the second century, I believe). More importantly, the Bible and Christianity was THE most important catalyst that wrought change in the attitudes toward slaves, giving rise to the individual by way of the embodied dignity. Of course it is important to remember the two single monumental events, the translation of the Bible into the common tongue and Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press.
Jim Dill : Christian religious leaders much prosecuted everyone deemed not fitting their superiority complex. That this is cast in modernity as unifying and spreading love continues to dispel myths of the hypocrisy. Making up poetic lies that supposedly make people feel better about horrible truths is not being good natured and sharing love. Instead its the continued desperate attempts to cover up inhumanity and unjust behaviour, instead of seeking real justice for victims. Religions are lies. Brainwashing people with lies leads mostly to crime, corruption and cover ups. Face truth and reality of the false superiority complex that leads to discrimination for not being in the in-group that believes in lies and pre-historic myths that are only possible by suitably blocking out reality.
Chris It’s like your subconscious is reaching and calling you out on the very things you deem Christianity is. Very fascinating because the same happened to me before I realized the hypocrisy of the statements I made toward religion and Christianity specifically
Jake Schwartz : You got it wrong there pal. This is not questioning faith by appealing to goodness of god. Instead i'm merely calling out the hypocrisy and Trump like idiocy/ignorance that faith indoctrinates, falsely accusing others of wrong doing but instead doing it themselves and lying while at it. It's almost automatic that the religiously indoctrinated fall back on false justifications that they project, to defend their faith and to avoid having to think about content/reason. Just strawman the emitional or spiritual [sic] state of the other person, me in this case. You dont care about truth then but prefer false self comfort. I'm writing in the best way i can to reveal reason and rationale in the most logical way i can, so that others can realize the deception they're in by believing the faith. There's no going back to the lies and emotional manipulation once you've established they're fundamentally lies. So if you want to make some argument, then make it. But unfalsifiable projections of whatever garbage you want to make up about my suconscious, is nothing real.
@@Chris-op7yt Religion is the #1 tool the devil uses (humor me as I myself am Christian) and is the opposite of what Christ actually taught. I mean do you really think people who are true Christians follow BLIND faith? Faith isn't blind, but the evidence of things not seen. Things hoped for without physically seeing as Paul (killer of Christians turned greatest Apostle of all time) told it. Just as a criminal doesn't want to believe/face the punishment given by the judge, you use terms like false self comfort while practicing the very thing you preach. Maybe you were hurt by zealous religious hypocrites who stood on Jesus' truth as a tyrant, but don't let them win by turning your back on God and his obvious existence. I say this not to justify myself because ultimately the truth stands on its own truthfulness. No one intelligent will be converted to Christianity over youtube comments, but I'd love to keep talking with you in a respectful manner.
Jake Schwartz : it is blind or more accurately blinding. you are using the christian fable of a devil in trying to critique the faith. this is no way to truth. you have to find your way in your mind to stop doing that. when you get the courage to do that and stop being scared of an invisible big stick in the sky, you will find your way back to a more well reasoned morality, world view, and humanity. i'm sure you're a nice person most days, like everyone else. however, faiths often bring out the ugly side, whenever reality gets in the way of the faiths' leaders agendas. those agendas are falsely indoctrinated as well meaning but turn out in reality to be nasty. there are no invisible gods or ghosts or spirits or angels or afterlives. we need to let go of the false myths and live life for real.
Bill Hicks is right that Christians look unevolved. Tom's "arguments" are also unevolved. I have to say though, editing ones opponent out of the debate is very Christian.
Tom makes a case for how Christian sexual morality was an improvement on and stood in stark contrast to Roman sexual morality. Let’s say he’s right. Who is he arguing against? No one is arguing for Roman sexual morality today. Roman sexual morality is being conflated with today’s secular or humanist sexual morality in order to serve as an easy straw-man. Then he implies that Christian sexual morality has better safeguards against rape than secular sexual morality which he blames for the sexual misdeeds that led to “Me Too”. Whether this is projection or an inability to see the failure of Christianity to protect women and children from sexual abuse throughout history, Tom could not have this more backwards. In practice, Tom’s views on sexual morality are likely much closer to today’s secular views (let consenting adults do as they please {except produce incestuous offspring}) than to those expressed in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. In a way, the secular view is the baseline to which Christian morality ads a bunch of restrictions based on what seemed gross or offensive to first century (and earlier) Jewish men. Let’s thank Paul for whatever improvements on the Roman view he might have made and promptly show him the door so we can make progress on our own.
Jonathan Archer Public discourse is an instrument of change in and of itself. By weighing the merits of arguments, exposing misinformation, interacting with people who have different life experiences and in many other ways we improve our collective thinking. Even if we don’t become political activists and try to change policy ourselves, public opinion is too important a concern, too valuable a commodity to be ignored by those with the influence to make systemic change. Electorates get the politicians they deserve. All that said, that’s not why I participate in the public discussion; no one person is likely to change public opinion much so it probably isn’t worthwhile for most people. It’s just that I enjoy talking about these ideas.
Jonathan Archer I didn’t see your reply on the other thread in response to what I said about voting being the most immediate means of recourse for people who want a free society so I’ll address it here. Your reply pointed out several ways government interventions have gone wrong recently and then said that my advice of voting for the right people must be misguided because it was essentially a government solution. Your response missed the force of my point entirely. I am arguing that the best way to limit government is to vote for people who believe in limited government. It would be easier to shrink the rate of growth of government and hopefully reverse it if our elected officials were on board with that project. David Friedman sometimes says the difference between him and his father, Milton Friedman, is that his father thought anarcho-capitalism might work but probably wouldn’t whereas he thinks it probably would work but might not. I think it probably could work. Without a chance to study experiments with anarcho-capitalism (experiments in the sense that the US was an experiment in democratic republic theory) I would only use the omnipotence granted by your hypothetical to make such changes as I could be confident would be improvements. This would probably resemble a minarchical state along the lines of what the US founders had in mind. To go further would be to put too much trust in untested political technology.
Dmitry Terek The Bible would be a better guide to morality if instead of listing guidelines for slavery (however great an improvement they were over unstructured slavery) it banned it outright. If you agree then we can at least stand on common ground as far as how we should proceed. Whether we value their biblical credentials or not, we in the west find ourselves the heirs of Christian morals. What’s wrong with picking up from this starting point, recognizing its shortcomings, and get rid of the Bronze Age prejudices? That gets us well on our way to modern secular morality.
Dmitry Terek I think the presence of communists in the USA is a direct and predictable result of the freedom of speech I’m advocating. It’s a cost worth paying. What alternative are you suggesting, if any? “Electorates get the politicians they deserve” wasn’t an endorsement but an observation. Without an endorsement, it’s more like saying might makes might than might makes right. I think minarchy is the best model we have worked out so far. Anarcho-capitalism might work even better, but it hasn’t gone through the R&D process yet. Edit: I can see that “deserve” can be interpreted as an endorsement. I could have said something more like “when it comes to electorates and politicians, garbage in garbage out.”
Jonathan Archer So, minarchists want the government as small as possible without eliminating what they consider to be the essential roles of government. These are typically military and police to prevent baddies, foreign and domestic respectively, from messing with people’s property rights and courts to decide what people’s property rights are (who owns which property). In anarcho-capitalism these remaining services are also privatized (produced on the free market without any central authority). By political technology I mean to include things like courts, voting, term limits, separation of powers, and other ideas that have to be invented, tested, and refined before they can function well. Once we start to think of these things as political technologies, like checks and stocks are financial technologies, then we can recognize the challenges we face in organizing our societies as engineering problems that can have tailored solutions. A mechanical part might solve an issue in one system but not meet specifications for another. Likewise, people living on a small island might face a different set of difficulties in keeping their society well-organized and productive than states like the USA and China that govern many more people over much larger areas. We should take this into consideration when we ask ourselves what is the best political system? That’s like asking what’s the best tire I can build? Well, that depends on the type of tire you want and the technologies currently available to realize it. And since what we want in our societies and the political technologies we have to get there are always changing, we shouldn’t claim we have the best and final model. That’d be like claiming to have the ultimate tire.
The fact that something changed does nothing for the argument that a God actually exists. By that reasoning, anytime a group does a good deed, we should consider that evidence that all their other claims are true. Not bright.
Slaves weren't considered the same. Exodus 21 describes God's laws for Slavery. Also, Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, and 1 Peter 2:18 are verses directed as slaves. Jesus mentioned Slavery in Luke 19:12-27, however he did not abolish it.
@@rustlingbushes7678 He did not abolish murder either, but His teaching was to love everyone. OT prohibited permanent enslavement of Israelites (7 year maximum indenture). The entire book of Philemon is an appeal to a slaveowner to treat his legal slave as if he was the apostle Paul himself. The NT did not enslave but liberated. That the Bible deals with the existence of conquest, slavery, polygamy, infanticide and other types of human exploitation is not to affirm them. Its teachings, clearly discredit all forms of exploitation. It is not a law book for Pagans, but an invitation to God's family: to be "free indeed".
@@donrubottom8723, Exodus 20:13 commands no to murder, and Matt. 5:17 says that Jesus came to uphold and fulfill the Law. True freedom is anarchy, and Jesus taught self-defeating piety in Matt. 5:39, thoughtless existence in Matt. 6:34, the ruin of family in Matt. 10:21 and Luke 14:26, and no justice for criminals in Matt. 18:21-22. It's all confirmed with verses like 2 Tim. 3:16 and John 14:15. This dominant force commands ultimate authority in Rev. 19:15, and if the consequences for not obeying the book that subjugates women in 1 Tim. 2:12 and 1 Cor. 14:34, plus the genocides and infanticides that are laden on the "OT" is eternal torture in a lake of fire, then I can't rationalize worshipping such an entity. This is the same Law that says to strike your child with a rod, and that he won't die in Proverbs 23:13, while there are children born with blood disorders like Hemophilia and Sickle Cell Anemia, and if you were to strike them with a rod they would suffer internal bleeding and die as a result. This is the same Law that commands stoning disobedient children, homosexuals and slaves to death. It's cruel, at best.
@Jonathan Archer, is challenging dogmatic doctrine not brave? It's an unpopular position to seek improvement on antiquated systems. I've fought war in the Middle East, and upon returning realized that the ancient ideology on which the Jezreel Valley operates is the very cause of human suffering. Offering the remedy after imposing the poison is the core of Religion that I take issue with. You're correct that nothing is sacred, as the scriptures illustrate a deity that annihilates the entire world several times through flooding, fire, War, Genocide, etc. It's quite evident in Isaiah 45:7 who is responsible for everything, according to the scriptures. You assume to know a lot about me, and arguing from Authority doesn't improve your position. I simply gave personal opinion, and wouldn't assume anything about you. I would be interested to read about your assurance of such benevolence in an untestable deity. When I had questions about the scriptures, other humans would say to have Faith, which is defined in Hebrews 11:1. I'm not going to just hope that things get better. Everyone thinks, some speak, and seldom do. It's the last part that's the most effective. I appreciate your courage to engage with me in this civil discourse, and would like to know more about your position on these matters.
@Jonathan Archer, I agree. I'm an Agnostic Atheist, hahaha! You really assume too much! I was religious when I fought in the Middle East, and after my spouse and Matt Dillahunty (who's also a veteran) challenged my beliefs, I denounced my belief in deities and Religion on Independence Day, last year. I'm certainly an angry Atheist (as I realize that the religious are blind, obeying robots when it comes to the linchpin of Hell (a mind control tactic), which has held some tribes together, while excluding others. This is the poison of which I mentioned. Perhaps, because I'm well-versed in the scriptures you assumed that I am a Theist, and I take pride in my Education, as it allows me to have better conversations with Theists. I want everyone (Theist, Agnostic and Atheist alike) to have good reasons for why they believe what they do. I do not believe in the scriptures, because they are contradictory to themselves. Any learned scholar can easily see the issues with the Gospels, like how many people were at the empty tomb, for example. I think that most Theists simply haven't read their books. In the past, only priests had control of the scriptures, and literacy was extremely low. Not much has changed, as Theists often cherry pick the verses that vibe with them, while willfully ignoring the ones that they take issue with, like she bears killing children on God's command.
@Jonathan 102501 Slavery in the bible isn't the same slavery as we know it now. The slaves in those time worked for free to pay of debts. They actually had rights. Limited years of serving, no mistreatment by their masters, no slave trade and when released they had the right on a reward to start a new life. Also the value of a slave was the same as that of a free man (there is no slave, jew.... but we all are one in Christ)
@@Enwabi Slavery has always been the same in all cultures throughout history. Own up to it and embrace it. Like any other group, the Jewish people had no problem forcing others to work for them as long as it wasn't another Jew.
Jaime That’s absolute bullshit! The bible expressly says that slaves are property and can be beaten and explains how slaves can be tricked into serving their master for life by providing them with a wife (Exodus 21:20-21).
The Christian concept of marriage was taken directly from the Romans. Jewish concept of marriage in those times was sexual slavery, as per the Bible. Roman marriage combined the houses of two families by a co-equal union of a man and a woman, something not found in the Bible. This guy in the video is an apologist, not a historian.
Christian marriage ethics borrowed from post-Exilic and second temple Judaism. Commentators like Tobit and Ben Sira view monogamy as the ideal above bigamy (Job was monogamous; Prophetic literature confirms Divine Unity in marriage of God and Israel, etc.) Until about 100 AD-as Rabbinic Judaism moved away from bigamy-Christians and Jews shared the same worship spaces. Christians didn’t “lift” monogamy from the Romans. It was already on the way out of the door in both Judaism and Christianity. Monogamy was already present in the Torah, but never condoned nor fully rejected. So, no, that’s really an oversimplification of the history of monogamy in Christianity
In Jesus's cases because starting a revolt of slaves would ended it up with people purging each other from both above and below the hierarchy in which they were part of.
@@byronboydstun2222 Thanks for asking. My main objection in this clip (and in general to the main assertion of Tom Holland) is that it is the Judeo Christian morality that is responsible for all the good in the world. Besides being untrue, I find this arrogant and smacks of Western self-righteousness. My counter-thesis (so to speak) is that religions in part are humans trying to codify morality, not the other way around.
@@MahtayCafeLounge he didnt say for all the good in the world he just for some of the good in the workd and after taking two college history courses in college I couldnt say there was anything in the video that stuck out to me as historically or factually innacurate. Furthermore, Christianity is not merely a western religion. true, america is a so called christain country but in reality its a post modern country and the majority of christains in america are lukewarm. I suppose what I should have asked for is evidence that what he said was untrue as your thesis (which you may have guessed I disagree with) wasnt supported with evidence and just seems weak, but I realize that is probably because we hold two different viewpoints.
@@byronboydstun2222 I appreciate that you disagree with my view and ask for clarification. All too often opposing points of view seem to talk past each other. Tom Holland and Sam Harris are both well-known atheists who believe that the Jeudau Christian principles are the "main force" for good in the world. My evidence countering this point is 1. Successful religions adopt the morals of the time. We see this over and over again, with slavery, gender inequity, etc. Religions have changed to reflect evolving human ethics 2. All religions have claimed to be the moral base for society. In mono-theism, only one religion can be right. Yet they all have moral-ethical followers. The common denominator is humans. 3. Historically civilizations have acted morally and ethically pre-religion influence. Even today in modern times we have contact with isolated tribes that have developed their own set of morals and ethics, that by any given standard stand up to our modern principles of goodness and justice. Sorry about my long-windedness.
Kingston Hawke - oh yeah? So Tom Holland - having passionately and meticulously studied especially ancient history and written several books on his chosen subjects - is now ahistorical? Are you in your right mind, my friend?
@@kbeetles So if this were a conversation where a Muslim was trying to explain the merits of his own religious beliefs you would accept the answer that said Muslim had "passionately and meticulously studied especially ancient history and written several books on his chosen subjects"? That's my exact issue. This is just Christian supremacy. You're playing by rules you would call out if anyone else attempted to make the same cases. Actually think about what you know about the history of Christians, and the words actually written in the bible. Christians were allowed to own slaves, and to beat those slaves! That doesn't point to a guideline of bodily autonomy for all individuals. It's literally the opposite of that. Also, this idea that Christians have always looked at their wives as more than property is in fact, ahistorical. How did they acquire wives historically? The way we do it now is you have to respect someone's bodily autonomy and gain consent. Traditionally, the girl (because they were into sex with children) was bartered away by her father. She had no say in the matter! If you could get her father to sell her to you, then you rape her all you wanted. If you raped her without her father's consent, you had to pay a fine, and marry the girl... still, against her will. But, alas, because you're all Christians here, we're going to ignore all of this, and make the case that at least the perfect message of Jesus, was an improvement from Roman times, in a few very specific ways. That'll make all the silly Christians forget that all of their holy figures were having sex with children.
@@wm5000 1. For someone who claims not to be a believer, he sure has made a living pandering to Christians. 2. I'm guessing you claim to be a Christian? I mean, it's hard to tell given your response. Guessing you don't really take that book all that seriously if your response to those who don't share your faith is to call them names.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Boy, being Spider-Man has really aged him! 😂😂 In all seriousness though, this is a very insightful video!
Wow, the link between objectification and the Roman equivocation between ejaculation and urination is really powerful. It puts it into a new perspective for me. The last few days, whenever I have been tempted towards lust, I remember this connection and I find it really powerful. Thanks Dr. Holland!
Ehh idk modern sexual norms (people having sex for fun consentually) are completely different from Roman sexual slavery and abuse. We are still very Christian in our cultural outlook. Just not in the traditional way.
Interesting. The words often translated as 'sexual immorality' in the bible is the Greek, Porneia, are generally contextualised as 'to sell oneself' in reference to the 'porne' class of sexual slaves in the Greek world. The theological reading of this has been that Porneia is idolatry which leads to sexual and physical impurity, but it could equally mean, avoid abusive sexual relations with the slaves.
Compared to islam christinaity sets the standarts
@UC-8HSDXOvntVWbhkXQ70Tfw Humanism as a byproduct of Christianity, yes.
@@a.t.6322 Not at all, rather Christianity includes elements of Humanism (as do other religions)
Paul Hadlington Humanism isn’t found in Islam unfortunately.
@@paulhadlington8179 The one who looks at woman with lust is already commiting adultery in their hearts, is that humanism? Respecting people becuas ethey are imago dei - image of God, is this humanism?
You are forced to say that, means you perfectly understand that yeas, christianity teaches objectively good thing (otherwise why you tryuing to make it other way around, and from wich humanism Judaism and christianity took it's humanism, where from at that time?), and therefore has all rights to be true. Welcome to the chrurch, buddy.
@@paulhadlington8179 You'd have to provide examples of that
I love the other guy's face.
Yeah, he wants to disagree but is struggling to find a way.
I’m gonna have to buy Tim’s book/books!
Who could be the guests for the next season? Any plan on having: Edward Feser, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Eric Weinstein, Ben Shapiro, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (even though the channel is mostly christian themed, those two last might have some interesting points to add relevant to Theism in general)?
Tom Holland isn't a Christian though
Diego Tobaski people like tom Holland wants Christian ethics but not Christian God...needs compassion and benefits side not justice side...
I like Tom Holland,he tells it like it is
How? Sexual slavery existed in the US South and was justified by the Bible.
@@nichoudha No, it's not justified by the bible. Slavers had to actively ignore major passages of scripture to manufacture justification for their participation in slavery.
@@trenton9 Please cite all passages that condemn slavery.
@@MedievalMind Your request would take time that I don't have at the moment. It's a complex topic. But I'll list a few references demonstrating the Bible's recognition that enslavement was an affliction. Saint Paul writes a list of transgressions that are unholy and ungodly, among which are listed ENSLAVERS. That's found in 1 Timothy 1:10.
Elsewhere in scripture, those in slavery are counseled on how to live in godly manner. Some people confuse this advice as approval of slavery itself, but it's not. Paul encourages those who can obtain freedom to do so. Read 1 Corinthians 7:21.
He was great in Spider-Man.
Wait that’s not Spider-Man
Great points. But the closed captioning is bad. 😍
I was eating food and that made when he was talking about what Romans did I wanted to vomit
Where is the consent of Mary discussed in the Bible?
Luke 1 v 38.
Controlling the marital relations of slaves by holding their loved ones ransom and putting an awl through thg eir ears doesn't exactly scream "our bodies are as temples". Can we please stop choosing the lesser of two evils
MayaK Ramesar What would you choose then?
True, Paul also made no ban over the Jewish traditions of polygamy, concubinage and the use of handmaidens (servants) for sex either. Though he does say avoid ''sexual immorality'' *porneia. Which seems to mean idolatry which leads to sex rituals that break the laws of Leviticus. The OT has no problems with slaves ether.
@@rowanrox Amen to that.
With such a clickbaity title I thought he might say something about Christianity overturning Roman sexual slavery, but nothing.
A christian could work for women’s equal pay, but claiming the bible inspired them would be the exact opposite. Just because you do something right does not mean you automatically have the right reasons. Same as people who do terrible things but thought the reason was good.
@Jonathan Archer there's a few errors in your grammar which prevent me from understanding what you are saying. Perhaps you think I'm preaching the bible? Absolutely not, I was pointing out that the bible instructs you on how much less you are to pay women compared to men, and that Christians doing good things are good, but they shouldn't be siting the bible for the reasons because it tells of terrible things. And yes, dictating truths or morals is not a good way of living.
Feminism is inherently rooted in Christianity. The fact that the bible takes place thousands of years prior to the invention of birth control likely has something to do with the gendered pay disparity.
George If feminism is inspired by christianity then it is the most distorted and cherry picked version of it I could imagine. There are plenty of paragraphs explaining how women are worth less than men. Feminism is about excelling beyond men in some definitions or at least being equal. To say feminism uses the bible is like saying Im japanese because I ate sushi (born in Texas).
viasevenvai I’m saying that without Christian morality, feminism would not thrive in the west. Theres a reason feminism is born and thrives in western (christian) nations. Christianity placed value upon women that isn’t present anywhere else in history.
@@06rtm Yes I think I know you are saying that. My question is how you thought any equal intentions toward women, or even mankind, came from Christianity. God never says he has the best intentions for people. The Christian bible explicitly states how much less women are worth, how to enslave people, and how genocide is ok. I am not stretching anything out of context either. If you deny any of that you just haven't read Exodus 21 22 and many other versus. You can't claim that Christianity morality permeates some type of superiority to ideas when it itself is not moral. And yes, Christian nations have done well, but it was a long journey to distance itself from the bible. Should I bring up homosexuals? The morality of the Catholics I suppose could be mentioned. The list goes on because morality is not dictated, which Christianity says it is.
Self control is one of Jesus teachings. Easy said than done but the one who has self control bears the fruit of the spirit. This is the word of God and in the bible. I pray everyone reads it.
It is the nature of the Gospel itself that fostered the paradigm shift, that in Christ there is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female; it is the recognition of equality under God. Whether or not the Bible is the first text to suggest such a view, we may not know, but it certainly looks that way (we do have at least one Greek philosopher expressing criticism of the oldest universal institution, and later there was a Christian priest in the second century, I believe). More importantly, the Bible and Christianity was THE most important catalyst that wrought change in the attitudes toward slaves, giving rise to the individual by way of the embodied dignity. Of course it is important to remember the two single monumental events, the translation of the Bible into the common tongue and Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press.
Jim Dill : Christian religious leaders much prosecuted everyone deemed not fitting their superiority complex. That this is cast in modernity as unifying and spreading love continues to dispel myths of the hypocrisy. Making up poetic lies that supposedly make people feel better about horrible truths is not being good natured and sharing love. Instead its the continued desperate attempts to cover up inhumanity and unjust behaviour, instead of seeking real justice for victims. Religions are lies. Brainwashing people with lies leads mostly to crime, corruption and cover ups. Face truth and reality of the false superiority complex that leads to discrimination for not being in the in-group that believes in lies and pre-historic myths that are only possible by suitably blocking out reality.
Chris It’s like your subconscious is reaching and calling you out on the very things you deem Christianity is. Very fascinating because the same happened to me before I realized the hypocrisy of the statements I made toward religion and Christianity specifically
Jake Schwartz : You got it wrong there pal. This is not questioning faith by appealing to goodness of god. Instead i'm merely calling out the hypocrisy and Trump like idiocy/ignorance that faith indoctrinates, falsely accusing others of wrong doing but instead doing it themselves and lying while at it.
It's almost automatic that the religiously indoctrinated fall back on false justifications that they project, to defend their faith and to avoid having to think about content/reason. Just strawman the emitional or spiritual [sic] state of the other person, me in this case. You dont care about truth then but prefer false self comfort.
I'm writing in the best way i can to reveal reason and rationale in the most logical way i can, so that others can realize the deception they're in by believing the faith.
There's no going back to the lies and emotional manipulation once you've established they're fundamentally lies.
So if you want to make some argument, then make it. But unfalsifiable projections of whatever garbage you want to make up about my suconscious, is nothing real.
@@Chris-op7yt Religion is the #1 tool the devil uses (humor me as I myself am Christian) and is the opposite of what Christ actually taught. I mean do you really think people who are true Christians follow BLIND faith? Faith isn't blind, but the evidence of things not seen. Things hoped for without physically seeing as Paul (killer of Christians turned greatest Apostle of all time) told it. Just as a criminal doesn't want to believe/face the punishment given by the judge, you use terms like false self comfort while practicing the very thing you preach. Maybe you were hurt by zealous religious hypocrites who stood on Jesus' truth as a tyrant, but don't let them win by turning your back on God and his obvious existence. I say this not to justify myself because ultimately the truth stands on its own truthfulness. No one intelligent will be converted to Christianity over youtube comments, but I'd love to keep talking with you in a respectful manner.
Jake Schwartz : it is blind or more accurately blinding. you are using the christian fable of a devil in trying to critique the faith. this is no way to truth. you have to find your way in your mind to stop doing that. when you get the courage to do that and stop being scared of an invisible big stick in the sky, you will find your way back to a more well reasoned morality, world view, and humanity. i'm sure you're a nice person most days, like everyone else. however, faiths often bring out the ugly side, whenever reality gets in the way of the faiths' leaders agendas. those agendas are falsely indoctrinated as well meaning but turn out in reality to be nasty.
there are no invisible gods or ghosts or spirits or angels or afterlives. we need to let go of the false myths and live life for real.
Bill Hicks is right that Christians look unevolved. Tom's "arguments" are also unevolved. I have to say though, editing ones opponent out of the debate is very Christian.
Man you're totally ignoring the content of the video. You disgust me.
AC Grayling is utterly out of his depth in this conversation..
Tom makes a case for how Christian sexual morality was an improvement on and stood in stark contrast to Roman sexual morality. Let’s say he’s right. Who is he arguing against? No one is arguing for Roman sexual morality today. Roman sexual morality is being conflated with today’s secular or humanist sexual morality in order to serve as an easy straw-man. Then he implies that Christian sexual morality has better safeguards against rape than secular sexual morality which he blames for the sexual misdeeds that led to “Me Too”. Whether this is projection or an inability to see the failure of Christianity to protect women and children from sexual abuse throughout history, Tom could not have this more backwards.
In practice, Tom’s views on sexual morality are likely much closer to today’s secular views (let consenting adults do as they please {except produce incestuous offspring}) than to those expressed in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. In a way, the secular view is the baseline to which Christian morality ads a bunch of restrictions based on what seemed gross or offensive to first century (and earlier) Jewish men. Let’s thank Paul for whatever improvements on the Roman view he might have made and promptly show him the door so we can make progress on our own.
Jonathan Archer Public discourse is an instrument of change in and of itself. By weighing the merits of arguments, exposing misinformation, interacting with people who have different life experiences and in many other ways we improve our collective thinking. Even if we don’t become political activists and try to change policy ourselves, public opinion is too important a concern, too valuable a commodity to be ignored by those with the influence to make systemic change. Electorates get the politicians they deserve.
All that said, that’s not why I participate in the public discussion; no one person is likely to change public opinion much so it probably isn’t worthwhile for most people. It’s just that I enjoy talking about these ideas.
Jonathan Archer I didn’t see your reply on the other thread in response to what I said about voting being the most immediate means of recourse for people who want a free society so I’ll address it here.
Your reply pointed out several ways government interventions have gone wrong recently and then said that my advice of voting for the right people must be misguided because it was essentially a government solution. Your response missed the force of my point entirely. I am arguing that the best way to limit government is to vote for people who believe in limited government. It would be easier to shrink the rate of growth of government and hopefully reverse it if our elected officials were on board with that project.
David Friedman sometimes says the difference between him and his father, Milton Friedman, is that his father thought anarcho-capitalism might work but probably wouldn’t whereas he thinks it probably would work but might not. I think it probably could work. Without a chance to study experiments with anarcho-capitalism (experiments in the sense that the US was an experiment in democratic republic theory) I would only use the omnipotence granted by your hypothetical to make such changes as I could be confident would be improvements. This would probably resemble a minarchical state along the lines of what the US founders had in mind. To go further would be to put too much trust in untested political technology.
Dmitry Terek The Bible would be a better guide to morality if instead of listing guidelines for slavery (however great an improvement they were over unstructured slavery) it banned it outright. If you agree then we can at least stand on common ground as far as how we should proceed. Whether we value their biblical credentials or not, we in the west find ourselves the heirs of Christian morals. What’s wrong with picking up from this starting point, recognizing its shortcomings, and get rid of the Bronze Age prejudices? That gets us well on our way to modern secular morality.
Dmitry Terek I think the presence of communists in the USA is a direct and predictable result of the freedom of speech I’m advocating. It’s a cost worth paying. What alternative are you suggesting, if any?
“Electorates get the politicians they deserve” wasn’t an endorsement but an observation. Without an endorsement, it’s more like saying might makes might than might makes right.
I think minarchy is the best model we have worked out so far. Anarcho-capitalism might work even better, but it hasn’t gone through the R&D process yet.
Edit: I can see that “deserve” can be interpreted as an endorsement. I could have said something more like “when it comes to electorates and politicians, garbage in garbage out.”
Jonathan Archer
So, minarchists want the government as small as possible without eliminating what they consider to be the essential roles of government. These are typically military and police to prevent baddies, foreign and domestic respectively, from messing with people’s property rights and courts to decide what people’s property rights are (who owns which property). In anarcho-capitalism these remaining services are also privatized (produced on the free market without any central authority).
By political technology I mean to include things like courts, voting, term limits, separation of powers, and other ideas that have to be invented, tested, and refined before they can function well. Once we start to think of these things as political technologies, like checks and stocks are financial technologies, then we can recognize the challenges we face in organizing our societies as engineering problems that can have tailored solutions. A mechanical part might solve an issue in one system but not meet specifications for another. Likewise, people living on a small island might face a different set of difficulties in keeping their society well-organized and productive than states like the USA and China that govern many more people over much larger areas. We should take this into consideration when we ask ourselves what is the best political system? That’s like asking what’s the best tire I can build? Well, that depends on the type of tire you want and the technologies currently available to realize it. And since what we want in our societies and the political technologies we have to get there are always changing, we shouldn’t claim we have the best and final model. That’d be like claiming to have the ultimate tire.
The fact that something changed does nothing for the argument that a God actually exists. By that reasoning, anytime a group does a good deed, we should consider that evidence that all their other claims are true. Not bright.
I thought the part about human bodies being God's temple already spelt that out
Slaves weren't considered the same. Exodus 21 describes God's laws for Slavery. Also, Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, and 1 Peter 2:18 are verses directed as slaves.
Jesus mentioned Slavery in Luke 19:12-27, however he did not abolish it.
@@rustlingbushes7678 He did not abolish murder either, but His teaching was to love everyone. OT prohibited permanent enslavement of Israelites (7 year maximum indenture). The entire book of Philemon is an appeal to a slaveowner to treat his legal slave as if he was the apostle Paul himself. The NT did not enslave but liberated.
That the Bible deals with the existence of conquest, slavery, polygamy, infanticide and other types of human exploitation is not to affirm them. Its teachings, clearly discredit all forms of exploitation. It is not a law book for Pagans, but an invitation to God's family: to be "free indeed".
@@donrubottom8723, Exodus 20:13 commands no to murder, and Matt. 5:17 says that Jesus came to uphold and fulfill the Law. True freedom is anarchy, and Jesus taught self-defeating piety in Matt. 5:39, thoughtless existence in Matt. 6:34, the ruin of family in Matt. 10:21 and Luke 14:26, and no justice for criminals in Matt. 18:21-22.
It's all confirmed with verses like 2 Tim. 3:16 and John 14:15. This dominant force commands ultimate authority in Rev. 19:15, and if the consequences for not obeying the book that subjugates women in 1 Tim. 2:12 and 1 Cor. 14:34, plus the genocides and infanticides that are laden on the "OT" is eternal torture in a lake of fire, then I can't rationalize worshipping such an entity.
This is the same Law that says to strike your child with a rod, and that he won't die in Proverbs 23:13, while there are children born with blood disorders like Hemophilia and Sickle Cell Anemia, and if you were to strike them with a rod they would suffer internal bleeding and die as a result. This is the same Law that commands stoning disobedient children, homosexuals and slaves to death. It's cruel, at best.
@Jonathan Archer, is challenging dogmatic doctrine not brave? It's an unpopular position to seek improvement on antiquated systems. I've fought war in the Middle East, and upon returning realized that the ancient ideology on which the Jezreel Valley operates is the very cause of human suffering.
Offering the remedy after imposing the poison is the core of Religion that I take issue with. You're correct that nothing is sacred, as the scriptures illustrate a deity that annihilates the entire world several times through flooding, fire, War, Genocide, etc. It's quite evident in Isaiah 45:7 who is responsible for everything, according to the scriptures.
You assume to know a lot about me, and arguing from Authority doesn't improve your position. I simply gave personal opinion, and wouldn't assume anything about you. I would be interested to read about your assurance of such benevolence in an untestable deity. When I had questions about the scriptures, other humans would say to have Faith, which is defined in Hebrews 11:1.
I'm not going to just hope that things get better. Everyone thinks, some speak, and seldom do. It's the last part that's the most effective. I appreciate your courage to engage with me in this civil discourse, and would like to know more about your position on these matters.
@Jonathan Archer, I agree. I'm an Agnostic Atheist, hahaha! You really assume too much! I was religious when I fought in the Middle East, and after my spouse and Matt Dillahunty (who's also a veteran) challenged my beliefs, I denounced my belief in deities and Religion on Independence Day, last year.
I'm certainly an angry Atheist (as I realize that the religious are blind, obeying robots when it comes to the linchpin of Hell (a mind control tactic), which has held some tribes together, while excluding others. This is the poison of which I mentioned.
Perhaps, because I'm well-versed in the scriptures you assumed that I am a Theist, and I take pride in my Education, as it allows me to have better conversations with Theists. I want everyone (Theist, Agnostic and Atheist alike) to have good reasons for why they believe what they do. I do not believe in the scriptures, because they are contradictory to themselves. Any learned scholar can easily see the issues with the Gospels, like how many people were at the empty tomb, for example.
I think that most Theists simply haven't read their books. In the past, only priests had control of the scriptures, and literacy was extremely low. Not much has changed, as Theists often cherry pick the verses that vibe with them, while willfully ignoring the ones that they take issue with, like she bears killing children on God's command.
I’m confused because the Bible isn’t remotely anti slavery. Unless, Tom gets to ignore that.
@Jonathan 102501 Slavery in the bible isn't the same slavery as we know it now. The slaves in those time worked for free to pay of debts. They actually had rights. Limited years of serving, no mistreatment by their masters, no slave trade and when released they had the right on a reward to start a new life. Also the value of a slave was the same as that of a free man (there is no slave, jew.... but we all are one in Christ)
What type of slavery you talking? The ancient world was full of slaves.
@@Enwabi Slavery has always been the same in all cultures throughout history. Own up to it and embrace it. Like any other group, the Jewish people had no problem forcing others to work for them as long as it wasn't another Jew.
@UCtePpEvS8jD6KzGQh5Epc_w Jews in 2020 are very different than the Jews 2-3 thousand years ago.
Jaime That’s absolute bullshit! The bible expressly says that slaves are property and can be beaten and explains how slaves can be tricked into serving their master for life by providing them with a wife (Exodus 21:20-21).
Christian men do !
Is Christianity Approved by God Almighty ???
Its his church and he will grow his church. Bash his church too much and it reveals that you are not one of His
No such thing as a god!! 😂
@@littlesmith5005 You must think you are your own god then
@@littlesmith5005 Prove you exist
Tarik Ramadaan
Genuine Christianity?
100%!
The Christian concept of marriage was taken directly from the Romans. Jewish concept of marriage in those times was sexual slavery, as per the Bible. Roman marriage combined the houses of two families by a co-equal union of a man and a woman, something not found in the Bible. This guy in the video is an apologist, not a historian.
Find me sexual slavery in the bible. Don't infer it. Find me one example.
Christian marriage ethics borrowed from post-Exilic and second temple Judaism. Commentators like Tobit and Ben Sira view monogamy as the ideal above bigamy (Job was monogamous; Prophetic literature confirms Divine Unity in marriage of God and Israel, etc.) Until about 100 AD-as Rabbinic Judaism moved away from bigamy-Christians and Jews shared the same worship spaces. Christians didn’t “lift” monogamy from the Romans. It was already on the way out of the door in both Judaism and Christianity. Monogamy was already present in the Torah, but never condoned nor fully rejected. So, no, that’s really an oversimplification of the history of monogamy in Christianity
Can you cite relevant work by an historian of antiquity? I’ve never heard this said of Ancient Rome, I’m intrigued
He's not even a believer lol
@@darkknightsds
Are you referring to the 3 year old original post, or one of the more recent comments?
At What Stage Of life Did Jesus look like God, Childhood, Teenage or Maturity ???
"Before Abraham was, I am" - Jesus
Vigilant Servant @ CHRISTIANITY IS UNKNOWN TO JESUS
CHRISTIANITY IS UNKNOWN TO GOD
GOD DID NOT COMMANDED JESUS TO SPREAD CHRISTIANITY FACT !!!
@@teabag718 haha How can Jesus knew Christianity bro? We the followers of Christ are known as Christians.. Please read more
Vigilant Servant @ Christianity is a Pagan Religion Created By Rome, not Jesus.
Tarik Ramadaan Jesus was sways God, your comment makes no sense, if anything it shows your dysfunctional thinking.
Why? Nowhere in the Buy-Bull is slavery ever condemned, not even by Jesus.
In Jesus's cases because starting a revolt of slaves would ended it up with people purging each other from both above and below the hierarchy in which they were part of.
I think Tom summed it up perfectly at 4:04 ;-) He doesn't know what is.
So what is your counterthesis to the things he said?
or anti-thesis? idk what the right word is but I assume you know what I mean.
@@byronboydstun2222 Thanks for asking. My main objection in this clip (and in general to the main assertion of Tom Holland) is that it is the Judeo Christian morality that is responsible for all the good in the world. Besides being untrue, I find this arrogant and smacks of Western self-righteousness. My counter-thesis (so to speak) is that religions in part are humans trying to codify morality, not the other way around.
@@MahtayCafeLounge he didnt say for all the good in the world he just for some of the good in the workd and after taking two college history courses in college I couldnt say there was anything in the video that stuck out to me as historically or factually innacurate. Furthermore, Christianity is not merely a western religion. true, america is a so called christain country but in reality its a post modern country and the majority of christains in america are lukewarm. I suppose what I should have asked for is evidence that what he said was untrue as your thesis (which you may have guessed I disagree with) wasnt supported with evidence and just seems weak, but I realize that is probably because we hold two different viewpoints.
@@byronboydstun2222 I appreciate that you disagree with my view and ask for clarification. All too often opposing points of view seem to talk past each other. Tom Holland and Sam Harris are both well-known atheists who believe that the Jeudau Christian principles are the "main force" for good in the world. My evidence countering this point is 1. Successful religions adopt the morals of the time. We see this over and over again, with slavery, gender inequity, etc. Religions have changed to reflect evolving human ethics 2. All religions have claimed to be the moral base for society. In mono-theism, only one religion can be right. Yet they all have moral-ethical followers. The common denominator is humans. 3. Historically civilizations have acted morally and ethically pre-religion influence. Even today in modern times we have contact with isolated tribes that have developed their own set of morals and ethics, that by any given standard stand up to our modern principles of goodness and justice. Sorry about my long-windedness.
What did he even say....?
@buymebluepills
I couldn't make heads nor tales outta that mess!
@Jonathan Archer
That's not true at all!
@Jonathan Archer
Of cowardice? You're ridiculous...
One side with no rebuttal from Grayling... brilliant... it's new xtian fodder to make the theistic heart sing tho right?
The entire debate is on the channel though.
He didn’t have much to say in reply
:O
Tom needs a slap to snap out of it. He is just embarrassing himself here.
@my3stooges love you too
Christians just say anything. Y’all don’t care if your arguments makes sense or are ahistorical.
Kingston Hawke - oh yeah? So Tom Holland - having passionately and meticulously studied especially ancient history and written several books on his chosen subjects - is now ahistorical? Are you in your right mind, my friend?
good argument there mate, you've clearly done your research havent you
Tom Holland isn't a Christian you absolute moron. Y'all this Y'all that, what the hell are you talking about you complete ignoramus.
@@kbeetles So if this were a conversation where a Muslim was trying to explain the merits of his own religious beliefs you would accept the answer that said Muslim had "passionately and meticulously studied especially ancient history and written several books on his chosen subjects"?
That's my exact issue. This is just Christian supremacy. You're playing by rules you would call out if anyone else attempted to make the same cases. Actually think about what you know about the history of Christians, and the words actually written in the bible. Christians were allowed to own slaves, and to beat those slaves! That doesn't point to a guideline of bodily autonomy for all individuals. It's literally the opposite of that.
Also, this idea that Christians have always looked at their wives as more than property is in fact, ahistorical. How did they acquire wives historically? The way we do it now is you have to respect someone's bodily autonomy and gain consent. Traditionally, the girl (because they were into sex with children) was bartered away by her father. She had no say in the matter! If you could get her father to sell her to you, then you rape her all you wanted. If you raped her without her father's consent, you had to pay a fine, and marry the girl... still, against her will.
But, alas, because you're all Christians here, we're going to ignore all of this, and make the case that at least the perfect message of Jesus, was an improvement from Roman times, in a few very specific ways. That'll make all the silly Christians forget that all of their holy figures were having sex with children.
@@wm5000 1. For someone who claims not to be a believer, he sure has made a living pandering to Christians.
2. I'm guessing you claim to be a Christian? I mean, it's hard to tell given your response. Guessing you don't really take that book all that seriously if your response to those who don't share your faith is to call them names.
what a bull....enough of this shit!!!!