Really appreciative that respectable bible scholars are now getting featured on your show, the community isn't one that gets much recognition in the non-religious community but they give so much more background to the textual analysis and criticism of the religious material
I just felt called to shed some truth on this that Mr. Bowtie clearly left out and most likely knows and therefore is misleading. I encourage all of you to fact check me and look this up yourself. The word slave and even property was used differently way back then and is not used in the same way that we used it in America. Look up when the word slave was even invented, it was around 1500s. The Hebrew word ‘slave’ was actually used for ‘Ebed’ it meant worker, or servant and they did enter into an agreement. Thousands of historical scholars and thousands of years disagree with Mr. Bowtie. On top of that, the word ‘Property’ wasn’t used the same as Alex or Mr. Bowtie use it in the context. It meant the use they would perform in exchange for their work. In other words it was the agreed amount of work they would perform. Just like the word ‘gay’ means homosexual today meant happy only a hundred years ago. Now as far as it being okay for slavery to only be okay for outsiders, here are some verses these gentlemen left out and I think on purpose. These are right before the verses they cherry picked that actually explain the context. Just know that this is not a new topic and gets debunked every time someone chooses to challenge it again as if this conversation never happened before. See how the Lord commands how to treat foreigners and this applies to slaves or workers as well. Leviticus 19:33-34 - 'And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. Exodus 23:9 9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt. 22: 21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Deuteronomy 27:19 New International Version 19 “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!” Deuteronomy 10:19 New International Version 19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.
@@UNKLEnic yes I did read your comment. It appears to be a list of post hoc excuses. You claim to add “context” to the slavery debate yet none of the verses mention slaves. Foreigners are not slaves. God seems to be able to give rules against killing, stealing, raping, wearing mixed fabrics, eating shellfish, working on the sabbath etc etc etc. However, he is utterly inept when it comes to stating the immorality of owning other humans. This is an argument you cannot win because even if you could find a way to convince me that God was against slavery, you would still be left with undeniable fact that the bibles ambiguity further displays Gods ineptitude.
@@UNKLEnic An indentured servant is just another form of slavery. There was also chattel slavery too, as they mention. Just take the L, the bible condoned slavery.
I really like this style of interview that Alex is doing where he hits Bowen with the best arguments that he knows to form a comprehensive view, even when he doesn't believe in them himself and even has his own rebuke prepared
I mean, this is how proper interviews should look like, otherwise you'd have two people agreeing with each other the whole time, which is only good for living in an information bubble
@@vhawk1951kl Slavery is bad because it takes away the agency of a living, sentient, sapient being. Hopefully you can come to realize that doing something like that is heinous. Best, A dude on the internet
“This isn’t the bad kind of slavery! This is a good kind of slavery!” The mental gymnastics apologists go through regarding this topic never ceases to astound me.
@@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικός Religious "superstition" is what brought forth the notion of human rights. Atheism brought forth the Law of Darwin, which claims that the strong lives at the expense of the weak.
@@johnbenson4927 are you…Are you trying to argue that atheism is what led to the theory of natural selection and that it somehow is a commentary on morality?
We're all under duress, in all times, under all other conditions. A criminal can give his testimony to court or he could not, the threat of jail time is definitely putting him under duress and changing the calculus in his mind on whether he should or should not give his testimony. If he did give his testimony, it could be said that it is given under duress but no one in this world is going to treat it like that because that invalidates humanity's entire system of law enforcement and therefore civilization. You have to be accurate when you say "consent under duress is never consent" because that is generally not the case.
@@trenhen4311 How is that a strawman? all actions are done under a consideration of the ills and boons one may incur through that action. Some actions are done because the Ills of the act being done is lesser than a perceived ill that may occur in the future. That stress that occurs from evaluating the ills borne from the choices that one can commit to and feeling as if they are forced, through their own evaluation, to eliminate all other choices and choose one choice is literally the process of "consenting under duress". We can ask whether or not the duress inflicted is justified but consenting under duress is literally the entire premise of law enforcement and therefore order and civilization.
The "beating up your slaves and if they survive for a few days you are in the clear" rule was also followed in the Cape Colony under Dutch rule. There was an infamous murder case in the mid-18th century during which a Cape Town slave owner, Jacob van Reenen, was charged with murder after one of his slaves died because Van Reenen literally tortured him for several days and then left him tied up for a few days more. But Van Reenen got off because the slave died more than 3 days after Van Reenen stopped beating him and did not die imediately. From the description of how the poor slave was beaten, it is not conceivable to me that Van Reenen did not know that the man would die, either of injury, exposure or thirst and this was clear to the court but they still could not convict him.
@@Dragoon803 I actually came accross the case when I researched the life and times of Van Reenen since he became an important political figure later. I think I read it in the archives more than 10 years ago.
If the verse is about not murdering slaves, but also about not sentencing masters to death because the slave died while beaten not because of the beating, then the court reached the wrong conclusion because he clearly intended to kill the slave and just wanted to make use of a loophole. If a master told a slave to drink what the master knew to be arsenic and the slave died immediately, is that not murder because the master didn’t do anything but speak. That seems like it could also evade the woodenly applied letter of the law but squarely violates the spirit of the law.
@@mar07in The Undeserving poor are people who are congratulated for working 60 hours a week, at minimum wage, cleaning toilets. The Deserving poor are people who claim Government benefits as they refuse to be exploited by greedy bosses. The same applies to ‘good’ Christian slavery in the Bible and the ‘bad’ slavery of Plantation owners.
@@mar07in I could be wrong but I learnt these terms when revising for my GCSE's and they came up in the context in the book "A christmas carol". Im pretty sure the deserving poor are people that are understood to be hard working people however they're still found in hardship and the undeserving poor are people that did not work hard and still don't find themselves battling any hardship.
Came for Dr Josh. . . Was reminded of just how much I adore this channel. Brilliant conversation 🧠 🏆!! Appreciate you, appreciate this channels message/mission & absolutely appreciate the guests, especially Dr Josh!!
Leviticus 25 Names of God Bible 44 “You may have male and female slaves, but buy them from the nations around you. 45 You may also buy them from the foreigners living among you and from their families born in your country. They will be your property. 46 You may acquire them for yourselves and for your descendants as permanent property. You may work them as slaves. However, do not treat the Israelites harshly. They are your relatives.
Exodus 21 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
@@downshift4503 I see your Exodus 21...and raise you Judges 11. [Yahweh Elohim "LORD of God", from Genesis 2, accepts a child/virgin sacrifice where a father literally slaughters his own daughter then burns her corpse on an altar to Yahwism]: (not to be confused with Elohim "God" or Ruach Elohim "Spirit of God" from Genesis 1) Judges 11 Names of God Bible Jephthah’s Vow 29 Then the RUACH YAHWEH came over Jephthah. Jephthah went through Gilead, Manasseh, and Mizpah in Gilead to gather an army. From Mizpah in Gilead Jephthah went to attack Ammon. 30 Jephthah made a vow to YAHWEH. He said, “If you will really hand Ammon over to me, 31 then whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from Ammon will belong to YAHWEH. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” 32 So Jephthah went to fight against Ammon. YAHWEH handed the people of Ammon over to him. 33 He defeated them from Aroer to Minnith and on to Abel Keramim, 20 cities in all. It was a decisive defeat. So the Ammonites were crushed by the people of Israel. 34 When Jephthah went to his home in Mizpah, he saw his daughter coming out to meet him. She was dancing with tambourines in her hands. She was his only child. Jephthah had no other sons or daughters. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes in grief and said, “Oh no, Daughter! You’ve brought me to my knees! What disaster you’ve brought me! I made a foolish promise to YAHWEH. Now I can’t break it.” 36 She said to him, “Father, you made a promise to YAHWEH. Do to me whatever you promised since YAHWEH has punished your enemy Ammon.” 37 Then she said to her father, “Do me a favor. Give me two months for my friends and me to walk in the mountains and mourn that I will never have an opportunity to get married.” 38 “Go!” he said, and he sent her off for two months. She and her friends went to the mountains, and she cried about never being able to get married. 39 At the end of those two months she came back to her father. He did to her what he had vowed, and she never had a husband. So the custom began in Israel 40 that for four days every year the girls in Israel would go out to sing the praises of the daughter of Jephthah, the man from Gilead.
@@ready1fire1aim1 It can be subjectively special to you sure, but to me, its just literature while being some of the best evidence that the christian god doesn't exist.
I’m an atheist now, but even when I was a Christian, I read these passages. Initially, it didn’t challenge my faith. I just accepted that was the way the world used to be and there was nothing I could do about it. I’m not proud of that and I know better now. What shocks me is how much Christians today will argue for/defend slavery because they can’t accept their book is flawed-all while claiming they love truth, calling a spade a spade, etc. If you only like truth when it flatters you, you’re not for the truth.
@Bronson the Nomad _"Well in CosmicSkeptics universe there can't even be morality/immorality in the first place since there is no free will."_ In his universe, morality still exists even if there is no free will. Morality is defined as - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Whether free will exists doesn't change that description. It still exists.
@@markh1011 I don't know who replied first, but they obviously deleted their post after you posted yours. Hopefully, they ran in shame. Although, I have no idea how they twisted my words into a free will issue. Weird.
@@markh1011 What about evolution? What we call Micro-evolution works which is variations within the species and natural selection can cause this, however, the religion of macro-evolution where one species changes so much it can no longer breed with that species doesn’t work, and evolution has yet to explain how all the atoms in the universe came into existence in the first place.
@@derpjesus3468 _" What about evolution?"_ What does that have to do with this topic? _"and evolution has yet to explain how all the atoms in the universe came into existence"_ Evolution is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with how atoms came into existence. Your complaint is irrelevant.
The bible gives us many glimpses of tribal society of a different time & place than what we know. (And not just one society; various cultures rubbed elbows, across the _many_ centuries that it took to write the various books of the bible.) Just because the writers of 2-to-3 millennia ago took for granted the social structures that they were accustomed to, is no reason for us to take ancient Judea as a sort of moral paradigm! If anyone out there thinks some kind of slavery may be morally acceptable, they can just sign up for it themselves and see how they like it.
Well said, presumably the writers of the documents the make up the Bible at no time had the reason to suppose that there was anything particularly objectionable about slavery. It is only contemporary or fairly recent religious fanatics or those that go in for what are called morals that suppose there is something objectionable about what is been a fact of life or a long time. Why might the writers of the various documents in the Bible become all holier than thou or moralistic/religious (they are one and the same thing) about what for them with perfectly routine. Presumably they had no idea that the time might come when another religion, and men are constantly inventing religions with nothing in common would become fashionable
"Us" being you and which particular immediate interlocutor of yours?*Why* might anyone give a damn whether or not some book condones slavery? -To what particular issue is it relevant whether it did or does or not. Surely Anyman taken at random from any time or place in what is-called history(which is largely gossip and hearsay) find nothing remarkable about slavery? I would venture that the ancestors of the greater part of those reading this would have said :" the bible condones slavery does it? - *Why* might anyone find anything either remarkable or objectionable about that? Why are you the puppy and the poof so excited about whether or not some book of folklore condones slavery? - Why* do you give a sh1`t whether it does or not?Do you get equally worked up about the Greeks romans Arabs and various other verities of African condoned slavery? What business of yours-or the puppy's or the poof's, is it if they did or not?Seems to me that the lot of you are making a fuss about nothing or trying to make bricks without straw.
So, in leviticus 25, it's talking about the "year of Jubilee" which is the jewish custom of setting aside any debts, including indentured servitude after 7 years. However, there is an exception to Jubilee Verses 44-46 and it doesn't matter what translation you use, it clearly states you may own people as property for life and will them to your children as an inheritance after you. So long as they are foreigners.. However, you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly (but the foreigners are perfectly fine to treat anyway you want.) - There is no arguing their way around it and furthermore, even if they could, they can't explain why NO ONE questioned it until the abolitionist movement. In fact, American clergy in the southern US, used the bible to support slavery prior to the civil war.
I don't understand how Christian apologists don't see the fatal flaw in their arguments? To change what the bible says, in order to get it to say something that fits 'your' values, is to demonstrate that the bible doesn't actually say anything at all. The Idea that the 'word of God' is soo ambiguous, that it can mean whatever you like it to mean, means that the word of god is just a mouthpiece for what YOU want to say! It's such an obvious fail.
We are under the new covenant, NT doesnt endorse or denounce slavery so far as I know, its pretty much treated like any other human institute in the world.
What exactly is that flaw oh swaggering puppy that is itself the abject slave of its functions and the slave of anyone the knows how to control you; it is a bit feeble to speak of a flaw in an argument without identifying it specifically which you are about to demonstrate that you cannot do. Seemingly you take some objection to what you cal but do not define, namely slavery, and if you do take some sort of presumably religious objection to whatever you mean by slavery, and if you do, what exactly is the basis for your objection? - some sort of religious mumbo jumbo? Put the ase that I keep slaves and look after them as well and as kindly as I do my other livestock, would you still raise some objection tomy keeping slaves if they were quite happy to be my slaves as you are quite happy to be the slave of your functions, which is precisely what you are, is it not?
My brother, a born again evangelical "christian" tells me that blacks were much better off under slavery. He says they had a free home, free food, free clothes and an éducation. Their lives were easy and they got everything for free. This is how sick and twisted these ppl's minds are. It's baffling how he ended up this horrible considering we were raised by parents that marched with the civil rights movement and feminist movement. Raised ELCA- very liberal, intellectual and science based.
It's a safe bet that your brother the evangelical supports the republican party who are hell bent (pun intended,) on removing all social welfare to the descendants of the slaves.
Be careful of surface level analysis. Plus, many people confuse what the bible says about slavery. Even Christians confuse it all the time, especially protestants. Let's be honest: the bible is complicated, long, and many people confuse it. Don't go off what people say, if you really want the truth about what the bible says about slavery, you really have to do your own deep research. Too many people just believe whatever they're told, like in politics... cause humans are lazy. But I refuse to believe in something 100% without making sure it's the truth. If you look at the translations, the bible doesn't support slavery as taking away someone's freedom. It supports servitude and devotion. Many Saints comment on how they are 'slaves' to Jesus because they're absolutely devoted to him and give their lives for him. The bible warns about forced slavery like with Egypt and obviously it's evil. But in other stories, the 'slaves' that owe a debt, chose to serve as a means to survival, but they weren't kidnapped and forced to do it. They had rights and dignity. They were not allowed to be beaten like slaves in Egypt or the whites during the Barbary slave trade, or the blacks. Also, remember, the bible tells stories made up from many writers. Human beings are sinful, and the bible tells the story of God and sinners; and how they struggle, fall, or obey God's will. Plus cultures/ customs/ languages were different and these stories tell of events that happened during those times.
@@catholicfemininity2126 I read the Hebrew original. It's not complicated at all. Jewish slaves are indentured servants. Non-Jewish slaves are chattel. It doesn't get much simpler.
Really interesting and informative conversation you two had! I enjoyed how clear and respectful Dr Josh spoke. I'm looking forward to Bart Ehrman coming on the show later on! He's one of my favourite New Testament scholars that I've listened to and I'm sure you'll have a productive conversation with him as well.
It is no kind of conversation it's just a bit of rather slimy product placement and a bit of mutual cinque contra uno only going to prove the truth of the saying that two chaps are never so happy as when the agree upon what the both cannot abide. it is no conversation but merely a series of leading questions along the lines of do you agree that good things are good and bad things are bad?
You find mutual back-scratching/ cinque contra uno and blatant eisegesis attractive do you? Ind the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, " you would, wouldn't you?" Tendentious attention-seeking little puppies of a feather, tend to flock together- having the wits to do little else. What -if any, is your objection to slavery and on what do you basis any objection you might have? You have no idea?-No surprises there.
You find mutual back-scratching/ cinque contra uno and blatant eisegesis attractive do you? In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, " you would, wouldn't you?" Tendentious attention-seeking little puppies of a feather, tend to flock together- having the wits to do little else. What -if any, is your objection to slavery and on what do you basis any objection you might have? You have no idea?-No surprises there. Reply
Plainly sad and tendinous attention-seeking little puppie puppies of a feather tend to flock together. Nowhere in that bit of mutual back-scratching/cinque contra uno and shameless eisegesis, does either the puppy or the fop in the bow tie set out any objection they may have to slavery, nor what is the basis for any such objection is or might be. I bet you cannot either, and have no idea what is or might be objectionable about slavery or your reason or basis for finding it objectionable. To what is it relevant what a few Semites/Arabs did thousands of years ago? You have not the faintest idea to what it is relevant?-No surprises there. You just play with and abuse those asinine and infantile symbols as if you were an imbecile child; you night as well since you clearly struggle with language
The whole escape from Egyptian servitude segment would have been a great place to put that ethical standard in, but instead we get treated to a lesson about obeying and God's disdain for levined bread.
@M H You’re missing the point. The supposed god of the bible decreed in no small terms against things like murder and worshiping false idols but seems to have missed the bit about slavery which would have been just as simple and potentially quite fitting given the exodus narrative if it were true. So why does the bible not include such a decree as to not own slaves? Well, when taking into account the parts of the bible which talk on slavery, it’s obvious. The bible very much comes down on the side of slavery and explicitly condones it.
@@arcticpangolin3090 This is precisely why theists' argument, "if you don't get your morals from the bible, where-oh-where do you get it from?" doesn't pan out. If you want a perfect example of a society following biblical morality, look at ISIS.
You call that bit of mutual backscratching or mutual 5 against one honest you? You would have to search far and wide to find a more glaring example of intellectual dishonesty and eisegesis
May I take it that you suppose there to be something objectionable about slavery, and if so, what is the basis of your objection - some sort of religious mumbo jumbo or monkey business?-Or perhaps you have not the faintest idea. Help me with is please: S o what if the bible does indeed condone slavery? To what is that relevant and where and what is the necessary syllogism? Who might give a flying fcuk wither it condones slavery or not? Moreover *why* might anyone give a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones slavery(which, without a good deal of eisegesis and other intellectual dishonesty)it does not)? In short; Who gives a sh1t whether it condones slavery or not? What exactly is the syllogism? Tee hee, now a lot of sanctimonious tendentious little puppies must scurry about to find a grownup that can tell them what a syllogism is. Oh the dishonesty of those two trying to equate condone with advocate; dcholar my arse!
You find blatant and shameless eisegesis attractive do you? What, if any is your objection to slavery? You have not the faintest idea?-No surprises there.
It's nice to start the week with conversations that make society just a little bit smarter. Thanks to both of you, and Alex - it's been a pleasure to follow your evolving, growing library - truly.
@@Philusteen No one in the conversation believes that the words in the Bible are from God, so they cannot possibly understand correctly what they mean.
@@Philusteen 2Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: . Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” . Every word in the Holy Bible is inspired of God, given by his Holy Spirit.
Why does it matter or who gives a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones supports or even specifically advocates slavery? Do you take some sort of objection to slavery or the owning and keeping of slaves and wherein lies any difference between owning and keeping slaves and owning and keeping any other animal?
This is the best interview I've seen so far on Within Reason, and I'm not just saying that because it was Dr. Joshua Bowen. The length and breadth of the conversation, as well as its depth, was far greater than I've seen him able to cover on the other appearances he's mentioned. On that note, if I remember correctly, Dr Josh is not a fan of the debate format; however, I think that with Alex as the moderator, scholars like Dr. Josh could be able to participate in productive debates on the topics, rather than the usual tribalism and cult of personality we usually see in a debate. Give both positions time for opening statements. Ask one of the guests a question, allow them adequate, uninterrupted, time to answer, ask any clarifying questions with a shorter response time. Then pose the same question to the other guest under the same conditions. Give the guests a chance to ask each other questions. Segue into a Q&A with the audience and do the same. Avoid the cross talk, and definitely exercise the power of the mute button. Even the least honest of interlocutors could have a civilized discussion without it descending into chaos.
Digital Hamuraby will bust you open on all things "bible". Dr Josh and Megan Lewis ROCK! Glad you found this scholar and had a nice convo with... seemed you really actually listened more... perhaps learned a thing or 10...
It was this issue that led me to reject Christianity, along with the biblical genocides. Reading the apologists just made things worse. The OT documents record events and practices that are not only brutal and primitive, but actually worse than the best ancient practices of many pagan peoples.
The OT isn't even Christian law it is Jewish law. You've lost yourself over a law that doesn't apply to you and that Jews don't even endorse or practise.
@@rebelresource Sure. But if God has been unable to control or modify the commands given in his name, how can we determine what in the Bible is trustworthy?
@@rebelresource Yes, one big example of this is Lydia McGrew, who rejects the genocides and the slavery because she thinks too highly of God to do that. She also thinks the case for the resurrection is very compelling, but the apologetics against the genocides and the slavery are equally not compelling. So, she just .. finds those passages where they pitchfork babies to be in error. I hope she at least accepts gay people? I'm not super sure what you consider to be sacred if you can just dismiss parts of the sacred bits because it goes against your moral compass. If there are known parts we know that were added in, what do we really know about God from the OT? This is her view about it: ruclips.net/video/-jlIVbsHL4k/видео.html
“Slavery is justified because the Bible offered protections to slaves” is like saying SA is justified because we have a justice system where you can charge assaulters
What did you learn and to what was it relevant? Why does it matter or who gives a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones supports or even specifically advocates slavery? Do you take some sort of objection to slavery or the owning and keeping of slaves and wherein lies any difference between owning and keeping slaves and owning and keeping any other animal? Do you yourself have any direct immediate personal experience of slavery qua slave or owner thereof?- and if not, wherein lies the basis of any objection you take to slavery if indeed you do suppose there be something objectionable about owning and keeping slaves? Do you take some reasoned objection to owning and keeping slaves and if you do, what are your reasons?
I don't know, bronze age healers knew a lot more than you might expect from someone who didn't have germ theory. They learned what worked and what didn't through sheer trial and error. I'm certain they had the tools to treat and prevent infection, at least partially. Medicine was in kind of a dark age in the 19th century. There were a lot of quacks pushing crazy new drugs and miracle cures, and penicillin was the only one that actually kind of worked. You had a higher survival rate from praying for your soul than from seeing a doctor.
43:14 bad teeth was a major cause of infection leading death historically. It's only been relatively recent that it has slipped down the list for mortality. This makes me think it might have had something to do with tooth damage as being deemed so severe in ancient law.
@@vhawk1951kl pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10686905/ ain't no way i took 5 seconds to search this also are you atheist or christian why the fuck are you everywhere
@@vhawk1951kl It's a medical fact that severely poor dental hygiene can lead to serious - even fatal - illness including heart disease. I know someone who has experienced this firsthand. The topic is easily researchable.
This is the very topic that made me realize that the Bible was definitely written by men. How could anyone believe that the creator of the universe and all life would write such a book. How convenient for men to convince people that god actually wrote the words, “Slaves obey your masters,even if they are unjust.” Incredible!
You know after listening to this brilliant conversation about slavery, a topic which is obviously rather depressing, I find myself uplifted by the moment where Joshua plugs his wife’s podcast, and by extension, her as a scholar, with such pride and respect, because it exemplifies how an equal partnership can provide both parties with something that an unequal relationship cannot. A mutual nourishment of the self, the soul if you will, both intellectually and in all other aspects. So yeah great episode, thank you Alex for introducing your audience to such insightful people.
"it exemplifies how an equal partnership can provide both parties with something that an unequal relationship cannot" - The types of relationships as advised for in the bible are unequal. According to the bible there is NO equal partnership, but instead the man rules over the woman. If Joshua has an equal relationship with his wife, he didn't get the instruction/ influences from the bible! Kinda ironic, when you think about it!
I just felt called to shed some truth on this that Mr. Bowtie clearly left out and most likely knows and therefore is misleading. I encourage all of you to fact check me and look this up yourself. The word slave and even property was used differently way back then and is not used in the same way that we used it in America. Look up when the word slave was even invented, it was around 1500s. The Hebrew word ‘slave’ was actually used for ‘Ebed’ it meant worker, or servant and they did enter into an agreement. Thousands of historical scholars and thousands of years disagree with Mr. Bowtie. On top of that, the word ‘Property’ wasn’t used the same as Alex or Mr. Bowtie use it in the context. It meant the use they would perform in exchange for their work. In other words it was the agreed amount of work they would perform. Just like the word ‘gay’ means homosexual today meant happy only a hundred years ago. Now as far as it being okay for slavery to only be okay for outsiders, here are some verses these gentlemen left out and I think on purpose. These are right before the verses they cherry picked that actually explain the context. Just know that this is not a new topic and gets debunked every time someone chooses to challenge it again as if this conversation never happened before. See how the Lord commands how to treat foreigners and this applies to slaves or workers as well. Leviticus 19:33-34 - 'And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. Exodus 23:9 9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt. 22: 21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Deuteronomy 27:19 New International Version 19 “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!” Deuteronomy 10:19 New International Version 19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.
So interesting the amount of abstract concepts you just take on the basis of faith in your statement: "soul if you will" "pride and respect" Gratitude Mutuality Equality Depression == bad
@@vhawk1951klso you CAN type normally spaced comments! You just choose to be a feckin weirdo! Also drop the smarter than thou attitude, just makes people rightfully hate you.
So Moses raids a city for its labor or plunder, creates a situation of vulnerability, then selectively “rescues” the vulnerable and claims moral righteousness. Got it.
Whatever we think of the guests that arrive on the podcast, it's good to have an informed and polite discussion with them to exchange ideas instead of throwing insults left and right. It should be encouraged.
I mean that is the only real tactic you can use if you’re gonna defend biblical slavery whilst holding to any notion of inerrancy. It’s a horrible argument but Christians have kinda pushed themselves into a corner there.
I enjoyed this episode so much and learned so much, thanks Alex for hosting Joshua Bowen, I've come across him only once before, and find his scholarship interesting and informative.
Very interesting as usual. The thing we can sort of add to this is how this play out for a rewal person. For example if you were a slave who had their eye put out then released what would happen? Loosing an eye would impair depth perception and make life very difficult and a number of types of work likely not possible the likelihood is you would die as a result of that or poverty oryou would return to the master out of desperation and become a proper slave maybe. The other way you could read it is my slave is too damaged to be of use so i set him free (so he doesnt cost further). If you apply to freeing a woman then its probably worse who would want a second hand used damaged female slave.... Maybe the law is designed to divest responsibility of freed ex property?
Exactly how much direct immediate personal experience of slavery have you, apart from being the abject slave of your functions and your inner god self calming? If you take some objection to slavery on what direct immediate personal experience of slavery to you base whatever objection you may take to it? who or what died that you seek to blame some aunt sally to propitiate your god self calming?
Which particular identifiable person that you can name ever " went out of his or her way" to defend slavery, and when exactly did whoever you cam identify do that? You have absolutely no idea whatsoever?-No surprises there, and it is certainly the case that you have no better idea to what is is or might be relevant if the bible did indeed condone slavery and no better idea of what is objectionable about slavery -if anything, and, if anything, why it is objectionable. Also no surprises there, you are what?-Not a day over 14 at best?-also no surprises there.
Whom that you can name or otherwise identify has gone out of their way to defend what in particular? You have absolutely no idea whatsoever?-No surprises there.
Your tiny problem being that you cannot identify a single person that"went gout of their way to defend it and treat it as something different. Presumably if not certainly because you are lying about that. Would I be correct in supposing that for some reason you cannot identify you suppose there to be something objectionable about slavery but you cannot say why it is objectionable. If you reason as poorly as you lie no wonder you are no more than some insignificant little clerk/shopgirl, unless of course you are still living with mummy and daddy.
@@vhawk1951klyou’re a fucking bizarre dude. Your questions often don’t make sense and your tone is that of someone who thinks they know all and can do know wrong. Along with the fact you presume to know everyone’s thoughts/beliefs, it’s no wonder nobody actually takes you seriously in the other comment chains.
Why does it matter or who gives a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones supports or even specifically advocates slavery? Do you take some sort of objection to slavery or the owning and keeping of slaves and wherein lies any difference between owning and keeping slaves and owning and keeping any other animal?
Why does it matter or who gives a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones supports or even specifically advocates slavery? Do you take some sort of objection to slavery or the owning and keeping of slaves and wherein lies any difference between owning and keeping slaves and owning and keeping any other animal?
The idea that slavery was just the norm and even pagan nations had slaves is my favorite defense. It’s basically an admittance that our morals were never handed down by some higher being.
Interesting point! We are deeply corrupt. Like everything in Time. perishable. But how about morals - Love your enemies? Slavery is ugly like every unjustice and it is a fruit of the Fall. but in Christ Jesus there is no slave no free, no woman no men but one in Christ. This world is not His, where everybody is a king. Maybe good to read Alain Badiou "Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism"
I woudn't say that necisarily means that morals are not handed down by a higher power as considering a higher power is existing the higher power would have to had given us free will and thought by some consequence. Just because there is a moral standard doesn't mean that there will be grifters from the moral code set forth.
@@dortull Saying that Jesus was against slavery and using that verse as a justification is just taking it out of context. Was Jesus also a gender abolitionist? Because that conclusion would follow from your logic as well. He also never disavows slavery at anytime, merely asks slave masters to be a little nicer. If God exists, is perfectly good and loving, is the grounding of morality, and was aiding the ancient Israelites then there wouldn’t be any need to allow slavery for even a moment. This is evidence that there is no God.
@@anseljames5531 It absolutely does though. It shows that our sense of morality changes with an increased understanding of the world. If God wrote his morality on our hearts like the bible claims then there should be no need for moral debate or changing our laws. We should’ve gotten it right the first time. The fact that we haven’t shows that either there is no God (which I hold to be true) or he is not actually the arbiter of morals. Even if God exists that doesn’t mean he gave us free will or thought. I hold that free will can’t exist in either an atheistic or theistic worldview.
If god is both omnipotent and good, he should absolutely have forced the end of slavery on them instead of "meeting them where they're at." The fact that it would be an inconvenience for society means absolutely nothing compared to the right of the individual to be free.
@Bronson the Nomad The definition of 'opinion' is : a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. This isn't a view reached without knowledge. So there is more to it than mere opinion. Modern ethics and morality are built on a subjective foundation but are not merely the opinion of one person.
Why might whatever you mean by god be at al intersted in your rather trivial likes and dislikes, which you callgood and bad, you being the abject slave of your emotional function as are all men(human beings) including your interlocutor. From where do you creatures get all that good/evil, right/wrong religious mumbo jumbo. Do you take some objection to slavery and if so, what is the basis of you objection? 5 gives me 10 it is some sort of what is called morality religious monkey business, but s the blind man said, we shall see.Even in relatively recent times it never occurred to anyone much that slavery was in any way objectionable. Why might they have supposed it to be in any way objectionable. If you reflect for a moment from sme points of view there is much to be said for it, for example if in the course of war your opponent has you at his mercy and can kill you and does not because you might be useful to him as free labour and thus you survive, you might say that there was much to said for slavery if the alternative was immediate(for yourself) destruction forever
@Bronson the Nomad it is interesting that biblical morality is also nothing more than a subjective opinion and not even fact. After all, it is so stupid and ignorant it thinks a girl child or woman must bleed the first time having sex or being raped and use this biological ignorance of female anatomy to decide whether a woman or girl child gets to live or be executed by stoning to death.
@@markh1011this is true, however when you are looking at history you should not judge it by modern lenses but see the reasoning through its culture and time.
How is it that when it comes to jesus saying to love your neighbour no believer will come and say "that's not he meant, you need to interpret it based on the social conventions of the time", but when it comes to the problematic stuff all of a sudden "it's complicated"
"Slavery is bad. Don't have slaves." "How are we supposed to have slaves, then?" "OK, here's how..." I can't be the only person to see a small flaw here?
I find Numbers 31 the absolute most concise way to find out how someone rationalises their faith and the Bible. To use child rape and genocide as a weapon (and reward) of war as Moses does surely questions most people's most basic standards of what is moral.
Tee Hee, no-one that foppishly affects a bow tie is "awasome" only because some tendentious litle mouse(nothing and nobody) happens to agree with said foppish poseur.
The puppy is - like you, already a devout adherent of that queer religion modernism.The clues lie in your delicate religious sensibilities-in particular the asine assumption that there is anything objectionable about slavery which is no different from keeping and using any livestock.
Everytime I hear the leave them be for 30 days or month I can’t help but think the reason behind this is to see if she is pregnant. Not so much a protection of the woman but if the new husband’s lineage.
Help me with this please:So, or therefore what if the bible condones slavery? Of what syllogism could it form a premise?Why might anyone in their right mind give a flying fcuk if the bible condones slavery? You have absolutely no idea do you child? Who or what died on you, a pet or a relative?
As a woman, I am so disappointed and disgusted at the old testemnt. There truly should never be any shock when people justify acts of evil in the name of a so-called good God. One with some intellect must start to really think that the God served in the bible is either a sick, power hungry, lust driven man or an evil and unjust God that I personally would never want to serve.
Exodus 21, 16 - All the laws mentioned in there apply only to the Israelites. The chapter begins ' If you buy a Hebrew servant..... ' . It doesn't say if Israelites cannot kidnap members of other tribes. In battles, they did just that. Young girls (virgins only, mind you) were taken by the soldiers. Moses even orders them to do that. If that is not kidnapping, what is it?
@@Hambone3773 You're correct. Everyone did it. But the funny thing is God, the ultimate source of morality, actively encouraged genocide, rape, slavery, looting and racism.
Your father plainly did not understand that conscience has nothing to do with that bullshit that is called morals or right is called religion. There is no way of verifying anything about the past but to some extent the gossip or hearsay is that for most of the history of human beings nobody has ever considered there was anything particularly objectionable about slavery which is a fact of life for most of the history of men insofar as that can be established - Veryfew objection to slavery there are not religious or moralistic which are one of the same thing
@@vhawk1951klit's hard to explain in detail, but it boils down to empathy, which itself is essentially don't make another suffer, or minimise the suffering and infringements in others. In other words, don't inflict harm, cause distress, or cause stress on to others unless consensual and/or needed for avoidance of a proven worse likely hood
@@christophermonteith2774 I'm not sure what point you are adressing but pout that on one side; from where do you get such strange ideas as "don't make another suffer, or minimise the suffering and infringements in others. In other words, don't inflict harm, cause distress, or cause stress on to others etc etc bla bla bla? -Is it some sort of religious mumbo jumbo, or did you dream it up for yourself?
The thing I’m always told is that the Bible works for all cultures and all ages until the modern era. And the condoning of slavery in Biblical times completely debunks that argument. Slavery is not accepted or condoned in the modern era.
@@ShastraDugan 😆 I don't believe in God. I'm just trying to understand what roll if any the west should intervene with over cultures. Were replying to each other on devices that have some degree of slavery attached to them dose that mean were involved
In the US before and after the abolition of slavery for black adults it was mandatory for every black and white in the country to endure 13 years minimum in an institution where they'll work each and every day for no pay and be beaten with the same large wooden boards the adult slaves were by people titled their "master's" and "headmaster's" for performing inadequately on their unpaid work. At first (and for ages) it was explicitly stated by the government as a policy to beat anywhere on the body with this board raising bruises, causing concussions and crippling some students for life was some of the results it was often for crimes such as speaking, chewing gum and making a mistake in a math conundrum. The reason you never hear about slavery's continuation after allegedly becoming abolished? it's the same reason you don't hear about domestic violence and assault still being legal after they allegedly became abolished too or theft, destruction of another's property, vandalism, bodily mutational, torture, murder (yes there truly is some instances you can kill a child legally but not an adult in identical circumstances) and other things considered so immoral to the point of criminality, we call it another label, one with more positive connation's to alter the meaning in our minds but not alter the action and then that way it can continue on under a new name but only when done to the right people. Why do we hear more about slavery which happened hundreds and even thousands of years ago in other continents to people none of us will ever come close to knowing over ones currently under going it and our own children and ourselves too? It's still legal in many countries today (19 US states too) to beat people in institutions with weapons for extremely trivial reasons (which are excuses btw) and do other criminal things to them too, even if these were abolished a requirement to qualify as slavery is not inhumane or cruel treatment it's simply not being paid for forced work. "We care more about what happened to adults who are long dead, than children who're still alive." (and that means adults who're still alive then too.) *Slavery didn't become illegal it became mandatory* and it became mandatory for everyone. We're still condoning it.
It has always been terrafying to me that these religous apologists always have been defending these scriptures despite knowing what historical context there is behind them. That they merely try to brush these texts aside as quickly as possible to only merely a minute later say "Well we humans need the bible to be good people to each other cause we need a moral authority to tell us what to do" when there are passage such as the ones mentioned that commends slavery, murder, genocide, lying, deciet and the list goes on and on... That these people are so unwilling to come face-to-face with the fact that the bible is not a moral guide but a piece of cultural scripture that sure, can be valuable when one wants to do historical research about pre-medieval culture on the arabic peninsula, but are downright useless as a "moral-guide" for how primitive and downright savage these people were. These people were barbarians. Plain and simple. They were brutal, power hungry, hateful and hypocritical with their philosophy and worldview and the sole fact that there are people out there who DEFEND THEM!!? It just shakes me to my core...
Why?-Because you yourself are a virgin? Do you make no difference or distinction between a new and a used or second hand car? Wherein lies your interest in or obsession with, virginity? the same as in new or used cars presumably. Since the bible is a rather large book drawing from several traditions, the only explicit mention of whether or not a being of the passive sex(it could equally be either sex)is used or new comes from what is called the tradition of one Jesus bar Joseph whose passive half of the causes of his arising was an unused or virgin being of the passive sex known as the 'virgin' Mary, the story going as follows: Whatever an 'angel' might be, apparently one told the unused girl or youngish being of the passive sex that something called" the-spirit-of-the-lord would " come" over her, whereupon Mary who was obviously a literal mind girl said "Jesus christ!" and fainted, where upon the angel said; "yes that would be a good name", but that is about it on the subject of used or unused beings of either the active or passive sex. Obviously if you want to breed or mate an unused being of the passive sex would be ideal for any number of reasons, not least infection, as you would prefer a new car to a used or second hand car. One recalls the joke about hillbilly lad who told his causes or mother and father that he was to marry a virgin, to which they replied that if she was not good enough for their own family she was not good enough for theirs.
Apparently you are so passive and pathetic that someone must tell you what -if you were a human being, you could discover for yourself, but for your handicap
look up the fallacy argumentum ad populum, which is a fallacy of relevance. It is generally only the Elsies or Lower Classes that resort to that fallacy as you demonstrate little Elsie, no doubt due to your complete innocence of any kind of intellectual ability or accomlishment, but bless you I must get my servants from somewhere.
@@avishevin1976Ever solicitous for the welfare of others eh Elsie? Why the overwhelming desire to assure me that you are an imbecile child innocent of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment ?On the available evidence you will not live long. You have no idea what an aneurysm is little elsie, and you certainly illustrate why you Elsies, the Lower Classes are so called. Who ever owns you Elsie certainly drew the sort straw
havent read the book but i suspect it stays in the realm of bible analysis. instead it could go on to include lots of cases of church involvement in supporting slavery in history
Whether or not biblical slavery was as bad as early American slavery shouldn't matter. Any sort of slavery ought to be morally reprehensible to an all loving perfect being whose morals are absolute and timeless.
"morally" meaning what? - some sort of religious mumbo jumbo? Why is "Any sort of slavery ought to be morally reprehensible"? More to the point why might any one give a damn i whether it was"morally reprehensible"- which I take to be some sort of religious mumbo jumbo, or not?
@Peter Codner I'm not here to debate the basis of morality. If you dont understand what morality is, and if you dont think that slavery is immoral, then I just don't know what to say to you. For the purposes of this discussion, we are just going to have to accept some presuppositions (such as slavery is immoral). Otherwise, this conversation is just going to go off the rails and become circular.
@@fretbuzz1979 precisely why do you suggest that slavery is what you call in moral - whatever you mean by immoral and apparently you have no idea, which comes as no surprise to me all that religious mumbo-jumbo is too vague what does labelling something immoral actually achieve? When you say that something immoral what exactly are you trying to convey - that you don't like the idea of it so I conclude that immoral means you like something - do I have that right? Do you understand that the danger of your religious mumbo-jumbo about morality is that you will seek to impose your likes and dislikes on others and that will lead to trouble - can only possibly lead to trouble. The disease I-am-right, is one of the most dangerous diseases that there is ever manifest itself on this particular unfortunate planet. Shall you stop at nothing to impose your religion on other people? - No I rather thought not the real question is do you have the guts to do that? You are exactly right you do not know what or anything very much suppose I am slaves and look after them as well as in you my animals and particularly well you still find that objectionable on whatever ground that your religion suggests? If they are jolly happy looked after jolly well, does it? Matter that they are slaves. If you have the choice between being chopped pieces and being a slave which would you choose as a matter of pure practicality?
@@fretbuzz1979 I have no direct immediate personal experience of slavery on which to base any opinion, but my general view what you call morality is that it is little more than mumbo-jumbo composed of subjective relative and temporary likes and dislikes and manifestation of your slavery - and that is exactly the word to your emotional function - if it says jump! - You merely meekly enquire how high? Now that really is slavery and to very large extent all dreaming machines or men (human beings) are the abject slaves of their emotional (like and dislike) function and that is why they are wholly incapable of impartial reason. I just don't know why you bother with all that morality mumbo-jumbo what purpose does it serve You have not the faintest idea? - No surprises there what exact direct immediate personal experience have you of slavery that you may express any sort of opinion about it? Yeah, right, none at all, but you are quite content to yap about it, and gosh, do you you yap? The 1st sign of a fool is that he entertain hearsay or evidence from anyone that he cannot personally cross-examine - if the cap fits, you wear it. Does it not strike you as yes the tiniest bit daft to have moralistic opinions about something of which you have no direct immediate personal experience whatsoever? Whoever said religion/morality made fools of men got it exactly right
As a Christian I must say that this has challenged my thinking on the subject. It would have been odd for the Israelites to refuse engagement with slavery when most of the world practiced it, but the Israelites were also commanded to where clothes of only one fabric, not eat pork, not work a day out of the week, not work a whole year every seventh year, etc. They certainly were already engaging in behaviors that could've easily been seen as aberrant, so why not ban slavery too? Surely the enslavement of other human beings bears a significantly heavier moral weight than trivial things such as eating pork and not even being legally allowed to verbalize the names of other gods.
Ah, Deuteronomy 21. Probably my favorite verses in the entire Bible. Mostly because, regardless of translation or any attempt at interpretation, the events are obviously indefensible. Even in the translations where the nonconsentual nature of the "wedding" is heavily obscured with soft language, as written, it is still God given, step by step instructions, to preasure prisoner's of war to enter a sexual relationship with their captors.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 if something says, "go and do this" is that not endorsing? Like if I tell you to go buy a specific car that I've selected, am I not endorsing you to go buy that specific car?
@@whatwecalllife7034 it doesn’t say go into this. It’s simply giving you permission not preventing you from doing it it’s not endorsing it by any means. Except that’s not what’s going on it says if there is a car that I want to buy, can you allow me to buy it. It’s never treat as a virtual saying and you’re never encouraged to do it.
Alex is one of the greatest interviewers I’ve ever seen. I’ve watched a lot of podcasts like Chris Williams and Lex Friedman, but Alex O’Connors skill of playing devils advocate and pushing the person to their highest intellectual level is so impressive. His act of playing devils advocate is clearly propagated in a way which tries to get the other person to form their argument in the most clear and strongest way, reminiscent of the phrase “iron sharpens iron”. Even when he completely disagrees with his argument, he still poses it as he knows it is the best way for the viewers to get the best possible argument from the person he is interviewing. 5 stars 👏
Why?- because some sanctimonious religious pipsqueak says so? Does the pipsqueak take some objection to slavery and if so what is the basis of its objection?
Bossy sanctimonious little Nazi aren't you titch; you and whose army are going to " make" i.e. force anyone to do anything and you with that terrible back problem of yours and all?
@@vhawk1951kl Do you mean to say that you don't take objection to slavery? Because, I'm hearing that if the Bible doesn't object to slavery that you'd have no basis which to reject it.
@@beansworth5694 I don't give a toss one way or the other The puppy and the poof are not impartial and not without a motive or agenda. Apply the two and two test If a advocate of,or apologist for slavery said that the sum of twp and two were four, would you demur because he was an advocate of, or apologist for, slavery ? The bible is a book-a thing, even if books or things could accept or reject whatever, to what is it relevant whether it does or does not whatever you mean by(and you have no idea) accept or reject slavery? Why might I or anyone be anything but indifferent to things or books?-Where and what is your syllogism? To what is it relevant whether or not I take objection to slavery?
While I struggle to understand why Christian apologists believe what they do, people who are well read and open to discussion like the guest today was great to see. Enjoying this longer format that isn't a confrontational debate setting
Yikes you are a perfect example of why it is a silly idea to give the lower classes like you words which they do not understand such as apologist, because they will only overuse them without having the faintest idea what they mean and no more do you titch. Name but one "Christian" apologist. You cannot? No surprises there.
Christian aplogists do not emphasize enough the factor of the flesh or human condition developing in Time after the Fall and all historical development. Fact is, the whole civilised world had slaves then, not to mention the atheists who favor the enlightened Greeks, the refined philosophy and logic of Aristotle, whose models they refer to. The same Aristotle believed that slaves and women are not people! The miracle of the new testament is that in Christ there is no longer slave or free, neither female nor male, but we are all one, Pauls words. Slavery is a temporary fact of this perishable body. In Kingdom of God eberybody is equal one in one.
They do it as an exercise of defending their own faith via engulfing themselves in its detractions. Being an apologist allows you to (at least superficially) engage with critiques and concerns that you, yourself, may have without committing to voicing them on your own.
Really appreciative that respectable bible scholars are now getting featured on your show, the community isn't one that gets much recognition in the non-religious community but they give so much more background to the textual analysis and criticism of the religious material
I just felt called to shed some truth on this that Mr. Bowtie clearly left out and most likely knows and therefore is misleading. I encourage all of you to fact check me and look this up yourself. The word slave and even property was used differently way back then and is not used in the same way that we used it in America. Look up when the word slave was even invented, it was around 1500s. The Hebrew word ‘slave’ was actually used for ‘Ebed’ it meant worker, or servant and they did enter into an agreement. Thousands of historical scholars and thousands of years disagree with Mr. Bowtie. On top of that, the word ‘Property’ wasn’t used the same as Alex or Mr. Bowtie use it in the context. It meant the use they would perform in exchange for their work. In other words it was the agreed amount of work they would perform. Just like the word ‘gay’ means homosexual today meant happy only a hundred years ago. Now as far as it being okay for slavery to only be okay for outsiders, here are some verses these gentlemen left out and I think on purpose. These are right before the verses they cherry picked that actually explain the context. Just know that this is not a new topic and gets debunked every time someone chooses to challenge it again as if this conversation never happened before. See how the Lord commands how to treat foreigners and this applies to slaves or workers as well.
Leviticus 19:33-34 - 'And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Exodus 23:9
9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
22: 21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
Deuteronomy 27:19
New International Version
19 “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.”
Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”
Deuteronomy 10:19
New International Version
19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.
@@UNKLEnic it makes no difference as the bible describes what they mean by slavers, ie ownership of another human being
@@davydtaylor4151 you didn't read my post did you? Because I pointed that out....
@@UNKLEnic yes I did read your comment. It appears to be a list of post hoc excuses. You claim to add “context” to the slavery debate yet none of the verses mention slaves. Foreigners are not slaves. God seems to be able to give rules against killing, stealing, raping, wearing mixed fabrics, eating shellfish, working on the sabbath etc etc etc. However, he is utterly inept when it comes to stating the immorality of owning other humans. This is an argument you cannot win because even if you could find a way to convince me that God was against slavery, you would still be left with undeniable fact that the bibles ambiguity further displays Gods ineptitude.
@@UNKLEnic
An indentured servant is just another form of slavery. There was also chattel slavery too, as they mention. Just take the L, the bible condoned slavery.
I really like this style of interview that Alex is doing where he hits Bowen with the best arguments that he knows to form a comprehensive view, even when he doesn't believe in them himself and even has his own rebuke prepared
I mean, this is how proper interviews should look like, otherwise you'd have two people agreeing with each other the whole time, which is only good for living in an information bubble
Why does the puppy Alex or anyone else for that matter get so moralistic or religious about slavery?
@@vhawk1951kl They are moralistic about slavery because they think that slavery is bad
@@kappasphere "bad" meaning what?
@@vhawk1951kl Slavery is bad because it takes away the agency of a living, sentient, sapient being. Hopefully you can come to realize that doing something like that is heinous.
Best,
A dude on the internet
“This isn’t the bad kind of slavery! This is a good kind of slavery!”
The mental gymnastics apologists go through regarding this topic never ceases to astound me.
Religious superstition has been a skid mark on humanities ability to progress efficiently and rationally, unfortunately.☹️😒
Maybe it would be better to say "not slavery"
We still practice something in every country that many people call "wage slavery" aka work
@@andrewprahst2529 Wage slavery is a real thing, but that's not equivalent to the slavery mentioned in Exodus.
@@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικός Religious "superstition" is what brought forth the notion of human rights. Atheism brought forth the Law of Darwin, which claims that the strong lives at the expense of the weak.
@@johnbenson4927 are you…Are you trying to argue that atheism is what led to the theory of natural selection and that it somehow is a commentary on morality?
Every minute I listened to this I felt sicker and sicker at having once believed in this barbarism.
The thing is that Christians never teaches and only teaches the good things, but never reveals the most heinous evil acts that is in the bible.
What do you believe in now?
There's loads of books with slavery in. I don't think Christian should have to apologise for a book that was written 2000 years ago
@Newtonia -UO
I believe in The science
@@jimtomo9207 What does science say about slavery?
59:16 consent under duress is never consent. Thank you for bringing such a horrible justification up.
grey area.
We're all under duress, in all times, under all other conditions. A criminal can give his testimony to court or he could not, the threat of jail time is definitely putting him under duress and changing the calculus in his mind on whether he should or should not give his testimony. If he did give his testimony, it could be said that it is given under duress but no one in this world is going to treat it like that because that invalidates humanity's entire system of law enforcement and therefore civilization. You have to be accurate when you say "consent under duress is never consent" because that is generally not the case.
@@newtonia-uo4889 this is kinda a straw man. Consent in the context op mentioned isn’t the same as testifying.
@@trenhen4311 How is that a strawman? all actions are done under a consideration of the ills and boons one may incur through that action. Some actions are done because the Ills of the act being done is lesser than a perceived ill that may occur in the future. That stress that occurs from evaluating the ills borne from the choices that one can commit to and feeling as if they are forced, through their own evaluation, to eliminate all other choices and choose one choice is literally the process of "consenting under duress".
We can ask whether or not the duress inflicted is justified but consenting under duress is literally the entire premise of law enforcement and therefore order and civilization.
@@johnwatts8346 What is gray about it?
Dr. Joshua Bowen is the best person on this topic!!! I love that guy. Get his books if you really wanna learn so much more.
Agreed.
Absolutely agree!
He's very knowledgeable and humble in my opinion.
Love your channel btw, it's guys like you that help produce the mass education on textual criticism of the bible
But.......we are mythvision!
The "beating up your slaves and if they survive for a few days you are in the clear" rule was also followed in the Cape Colony under Dutch rule. There was an infamous murder case in the mid-18th century during which a Cape Town slave owner, Jacob van Reenen, was charged with murder after one of his slaves died because Van Reenen literally tortured him for several days and then left him tied up for a few days more. But Van Reenen got off because the slave died more than 3 days after Van Reenen stopped beating him and did not die imediately. From the description of how the poor slave was beaten, it is not conceivable to me that Van Reenen did not know that the man would die, either of injury, exposure or thirst and this was clear to the court but they still could not convict him.
Horrifying! 😭
I wouldn't mind reading about that. Can you share the link to it?
@@Dragoon803 you just did =S
@@Dragoon803 I actually came accross the case when I researched the life and times of Van Reenen since he became an important political figure later. I think I read it in the archives more than 10 years ago.
If the verse is about not murdering slaves, but also about not sentencing masters to death because the slave died while beaten not because of the beating, then the court reached the wrong conclusion because he clearly intended to kill the slave and just wanted to make use of a loophole.
If a master told a slave to drink what the master knew to be arsenic and the slave died immediately, is that not murder because the master didn’t do anything but speak. That seems like it could also evade the woodenly applied letter of the law but squarely violates the spirit of the law.
The slavery argument is the same as the ‘deserving’ poor and the ‘undeserving’ poor argument.
what do you mean by that? Could you explain?
@@mar07in The Undeserving poor are people who are congratulated for working 60 hours a week, at minimum wage, cleaning toilets. The Deserving poor are people who claim Government benefits as they refuse to be exploited by greedy bosses.
The same applies to ‘good’ Christian slavery in the Bible and the ‘bad’ slavery of Plantation owners.
@@mar07in I could be wrong but I learnt these terms when revising for my GCSE's and they came up in the context in the book "A christmas carol". Im pretty sure the deserving poor are people that are understood to be hard working people however they're still found in hardship and the undeserving poor are people that did not work hard and still don't find themselves battling any hardship.
@@Mini_Arj Ah, so its part of meritocratic ideas?
@@mar07in I have no clue what meritocratic ideas are bro but I'm sure you're correct
Came for Dr Josh. . . Was reminded of just how much I adore this channel.
Brilliant conversation 🧠 🏆!!
Appreciate you, appreciate this channels message/mission & absolutely appreciate the guests, especially Dr Josh!!
Leviticus 25
Names of God Bible
44 “You may have male and female slaves, but buy them from the nations around you. 45 You may also buy them from the foreigners living among you and from their families born in your country. They will be your property. 46 You may acquire them for yourselves and for your descendants as permanent property. You may work them as slaves. However, do not treat the Israelites harshly. They are your relatives.
Exodus 21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
@@downshift4503
I see your Exodus 21...and raise you Judges 11.
[Yahweh Elohim "LORD of God", from Genesis 2, accepts a child/virgin sacrifice where a father literally slaughters his own daughter then burns her corpse on an altar to Yahwism]:
(not to be confused with Elohim "God" or Ruach Elohim "Spirit of God" from Genesis 1)
Judges 11
Names of God Bible
Jephthah’s Vow
29 Then the RUACH YAHWEH came over Jephthah. Jephthah went through Gilead, Manasseh, and Mizpah in Gilead to gather an army. From Mizpah in Gilead Jephthah went to attack Ammon.
30 Jephthah made a vow to YAHWEH. He said, “If you will really hand Ammon over to me, 31 then whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from Ammon will belong to YAHWEH. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
32 So Jephthah went to fight against Ammon. YAHWEH handed the people of Ammon over to him. 33 He defeated them from Aroer to Minnith and on to Abel Keramim, 20 cities in all. It was a decisive defeat. So the Ammonites were crushed by the people of Israel.
34 When Jephthah went to his home in Mizpah, he saw his daughter coming out to meet him. She was dancing with tambourines in her hands. She was his only child. Jephthah had no other sons or daughters. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes in grief and said, “Oh no, Daughter! You’ve brought me to my knees! What disaster you’ve brought me! I made a foolish promise to YAHWEH. Now I can’t break it.”
36 She said to him, “Father, you made a promise to YAHWEH. Do to me whatever you promised since YAHWEH has punished your enemy Ammon.” 37 Then she said to her father, “Do me a favor. Give me two months for my friends and me to walk in the mountains and mourn that I will never have an opportunity to get married.”
38 “Go!” he said, and he sent her off for two months. She and her friends went to the mountains, and she cried about never being able to get married. 39 At the end of those two months she came back to her father. He did to her what he had vowed, and she never had a husband. So the custom began in Israel 40 that for four days every year the girls in Israel would go out to sing the praises of the daughter of Jephthah, the man from Gilead.
@@ready1fire1aim1 All good family material. I just don't recall these stories when I went to sunday school.
@@downshift4503
Old Testament is...special.
@@ready1fire1aim1 It can be subjectively special to you sure, but to me, its just literature while being some of the best evidence that the christian god doesn't exist.
Great conversation. I learned a lot and was intrigued the whole time
I’m an atheist now, but even when I was a Christian, I read these passages. Initially, it didn’t challenge my faith. I just accepted that was the way the world used to be and there was nothing I could do about it. I’m not proud of that and I know better now. What shocks me is how much Christians today will argue for/defend slavery because they can’t accept their book is flawed-all while claiming they love truth, calling a spade a spade, etc. If you only like truth when it flatters you, you’re not for the truth.
@Bronson the Nomad
_"Well in CosmicSkeptics universe there can't even be morality/immorality in the first place since there is no free will."_
In his universe, morality still exists even if there is no free will.
Morality is defined as - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Whether free will exists doesn't change that description. It still exists.
@@markh1011 I don't know who replied first, but they obviously deleted their post after you posted yours. Hopefully, they ran in shame. Although, I have no idea how they twisted my words into a free will issue. Weird.
Thats how delusional they are not one word is true
@@markh1011 What about evolution? What we call Micro-evolution works which is variations within the species and natural selection can cause this, however, the religion of macro-evolution where one species changes so much it can no longer breed with that species doesn’t work, and evolution has yet to explain how all the atoms in the universe came into existence in the first place.
@@derpjesus3468
_" What about evolution?"_
What does that have to do with this topic?
_"and evolution has yet to explain how all the atoms in the universe came into existence"_
Evolution is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with how atoms came into existence. Your complaint is irrelevant.
Alex O'Connor, I'm thankful that you let a guest talk so long without interruption in the original talk and without editing it down afterward.
Dr Josh is one of the reasons why I have hope that honest scholarship is still a tremendous force for good in the world. Thanks to you both.
"Good" being anything you like?
Yes, I rather thought so.
I love how the guest speaks so eloquently but occasionally says things like yolo and sick flex bro 😂
He sure doesn't look like someone who'd use those frequently 🙃... kind of a good thing though, this topic is overall nauseating.
This was a great episode. Thanks Alex and Joshua!
You call that bit of intellectual mutual masturbation 'great' do you?
Oddly enough that comes as no surprise to me at all
The bible gives us many glimpses of tribal society of a different time & place than what we know. (And not just one society; various cultures rubbed elbows, across the _many_ centuries that it took to write the various books of the bible.) Just because the writers of 2-to-3 millennia ago took for granted the social structures that they were accustomed to, is no reason for us to take ancient Judea as a sort of moral paradigm! If anyone out there thinks some kind of slavery may be morally acceptable, they can just sign up for it themselves and see how they like it.
Well said, presumably the writers of the documents the make up the Bible at no time had the reason to suppose that there was anything particularly objectionable about slavery. It is only contemporary or fairly recent religious fanatics or those that go in for what are called morals that suppose there is something objectionable about what is been a fact of life or a long time. Why might the writers of the various documents in the Bible become all holier than thou or moralistic/religious (they are one and the same thing) about what for them with perfectly routine. Presumably they had no idea that the time might come when another religion, and men are constantly inventing religions with nothing in common would become fashionable
"Us" being you and which particular immediate interlocutor of yours?*Why* might anyone give a damn whether or not some book condones slavery? -To what particular issue is it relevant whether it did or does or not. Surely Anyman taken at random from any time or place in what is-called history(which is largely gossip and hearsay) find nothing remarkable about slavery? I would venture that the ancestors of the greater part of those reading this would have said :" the bible condones slavery does it? - *Why* might anyone find anything either remarkable or objectionable about that?
Why are you the puppy and the poof so excited about whether or not some book of folklore condones slavery? - Why* do you give a sh1`t whether it does or not?Do you get equally worked up about the Greeks romans Arabs and various other verities of African condoned slavery?
What business of yours-or the puppy's or the poof's, is it if they did or not?Seems to me that the lot of you are making a fuss about nothing or trying to make bricks without straw.
So, in leviticus 25, it's talking about the "year of Jubilee" which is the jewish custom of setting aside any debts, including indentured servitude after 7 years.
However, there is an exception to Jubilee Verses 44-46 and it doesn't matter what translation you use, it clearly states you may own people as property for life and will them to your children as an inheritance after you. So long as they are foreigners.. However, you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly (but the foreigners are perfectly fine to treat anyway you want.) - There is no arguing their way around it and furthermore, even if they could, they can't explain why NO ONE questioned it until the abolitionist movement. In fact, American clergy in the southern US, used the bible to support slavery prior to the civil war.
Yes...differentiating covenant people from non-covenant people.
I don't understand how Christian apologists don't see the fatal flaw in their arguments? To change what the bible says, in order to get it to say something that fits 'your' values, is to demonstrate that the bible doesn't actually say anything at all. The Idea that the 'word of God' is soo ambiguous, that it can mean whatever you like it to mean, means that the word of god is just a mouthpiece for what YOU want to say!
It's such an obvious fail.
Well said
Funny how it always seems to mean what the person interpreting it desires 🤔
@@timtheskeptic1147 "Gods always behave like the people that made them." ~ Zora Neale Hurston
We are under the new covenant, NT doesnt endorse or denounce slavery so far as I know, its pretty much treated like any other human institute in the world.
What exactly is that flaw oh swaggering puppy that is itself the abject slave of its functions and the slave of anyone the knows how to control you; it is a bit feeble to speak of a flaw in an argument without identifying it specifically which you are about to demonstrate that you cannot do.
Seemingly you take some objection to what you cal but do not define, namely slavery, and if you do take some sort of presumably religious objection to whatever you mean by slavery, and if you do, what exactly is the basis for your objection? - some sort of religious mumbo jumbo? Put the ase that I keep slaves and look after them as well and as kindly as I do my other livestock, would you still raise some objection tomy keeping slaves if they were quite happy to be my slaves as you are quite happy to be the slave of your functions, which is precisely what you are, is it not?
My brother, a born again evangelical "christian" tells me that blacks were much better off under slavery. He says they had a free home, free food, free clothes and an éducation. Their lives were easy and they got everything for free. This is how sick and twisted these ppl's minds are. It's baffling how he ended up this horrible considering we were raised by parents that marched with the civil rights movement and feminist movement. Raised ELCA- very liberal, intellectual and science based.
Sounds like he's a Walsh worshipper. Slaves were killed for teaching themselves or others how to read. Free education my backside.
It's a safe bet that your brother the evangelical supports the republican party who are hell bent (pun intended,) on removing all social welfare to the descendants of the slaves.
Liberals are non good either . To me they are worse than conservatives. And that’s how most progressive socialists see em aka hasanabi…
Be careful of surface level analysis. Plus, many people confuse what the bible says about slavery. Even Christians confuse it all the time, especially protestants. Let's be honest: the bible is complicated, long, and many people confuse it. Don't go off what people say, if you really want the truth about what the bible says about slavery, you really have to do your own deep research. Too many people just believe whatever they're told, like in politics... cause humans are lazy. But I refuse to believe in something 100% without making sure it's the truth.
If you look at the translations, the bible doesn't support slavery as taking away someone's freedom. It supports servitude and devotion. Many Saints comment on how they are 'slaves' to Jesus because they're absolutely devoted to him and give their lives for him. The bible warns about forced slavery like with Egypt and obviously it's evil.
But in other stories, the 'slaves' that owe a debt, chose to serve as a means to survival, but they weren't kidnapped and forced to do it. They had rights and dignity. They were not allowed to be beaten like slaves in Egypt or the whites during the Barbary slave trade, or the blacks.
Also, remember, the bible tells stories made up from many writers. Human beings are sinful, and the bible tells the story of God and sinners; and how they struggle, fall, or obey God's will. Plus cultures/ customs/ languages were different and these stories tell of events that happened during those times.
@@catholicfemininity2126
I read the Hebrew original. It's not complicated at all.
Jewish slaves are indentured servants.
Non-Jewish slaves are chattel.
It doesn't get much simpler.
Best episode ever. Love Dr. Josh and his lovely wife Megan. Great stuff Alex. 👏🏼
Is the puppy Alex his wife? - How queer, but these days all sorts of monkey business is smiled upon by your queer religion modernism.
Is Alex Megan or Megan Alex or his lovely wife?
Lets gooo. Looking forward to you and Bart having a discussion on the channel
Really interesting and informative conversation you two had! I enjoyed how clear and respectful Dr Josh spoke. I'm looking forward to Bart Ehrman coming on the show later on! He's one of my favourite New Testament scholars that I've listened to and I'm sure you'll have a productive conversation with him as well.
It is no kind of conversation it's just a bit of rather slimy product placement and a bit of mutual cinque contra uno only going to prove the truth of the saying that two chaps are never so happy as when the agree upon what the both cannot abide. it is no conversation but merely a series of leading questions along the lines of do you agree that good things are good and bad things are bad?
Bart Ehrman is great
Really enjoying this series, Alex. Well done, as usual. :)
You find mutual back-scratching/ cinque contra uno and blatant eisegesis attractive do you?
Ind the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, " you would, wouldn't you?" Tendentious attention-seeking little puppies of a feather, tend to flock together- having the wits to do little else.
What -if any, is your objection to slavery and on what do you basis any objection you might have?
You have no idea?-No surprises there.
You find mutual back-scratching/ cinque contra uno and blatant eisegesis attractive do you?
In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, " you would, wouldn't you?" Tendentious attention-seeking little puppies of a feather, tend to flock together- having the wits to do little else.
What -if any, is your objection to slavery and on what do you basis any objection you might have?
You have no idea?-No surprises there.
Reply
One of the best episodes of the podcast so far!!! 🤩🤩🤩
Plainly sad and tendinous attention-seeking little puppie puppies of a feather tend to flock together.
Nowhere in that bit of mutual back-scratching/cinque contra uno and shameless eisegesis, does either the puppy or the fop in the bow tie set out any objection they may have to slavery, nor what is the basis for any such objection is or might be.
I bet you cannot either, and have no idea what is or might be objectionable about slavery or your reason or basis for finding it objectionable.
To what is it relevant what a few Semites/Arabs did thousands of years ago?
You have not the faintest idea to what it is relevant?-No surprises there. You just play with and abuse those asinine and infantile symbols as if you were an imbecile child; you night as well since you clearly struggle with language
1:05:10 I was just going to point out this Divorce verse from Matthew 19, and then Bowen brings it up! Nice job!
Dr. Josh + Cosmic Skeptic!?!?!??!?!
*This makes my day*
Now I just have to watch the full video 🙂.
The whole escape from Egyptian servitude segment would have been a great place to put that ethical standard in, but instead we get treated to a lesson about obeying and God's disdain for levined bread.
Sounds like a hypocritical double standard. They praise on being free from slavery, yet still do slavery and slave trade.
Dr J is awesome. Good guest Alex,glad you kept the intro music. Enjoying the new format
"Thou shalt not keep or trade in slaves."
Done.
Easy, wasn't it?
Funny how an all powerful god with infinite knowledge couldn’t think to do that.
@M H
You’re missing the point. The supposed god of the bible decreed in no small terms against things like murder and worshiping false idols but seems to have missed the bit about slavery which would have been just as simple and potentially quite fitting given the exodus narrative if it were true. So why does the bible not include such a decree as to not own slaves? Well, when taking into account the parts of the bible which talk on slavery, it’s obvious. The bible very much comes down on the side of slavery and explicitly condones it.
@@arcticpangolin3090 This is precisely why theists' argument, "if you don't get your morals from the bible, where-oh-where do you get it from?" doesn't pan out. If you want a perfect example of a society following biblical morality, look at ISIS.
@@mh3718We’re talking about the ability of a god. This all stems from his mistakes (if he exists).
I don't know. I think thou shall love their neighbor as they love themself would imply no slavery.
So refreshing to hear an honest discussion about slavery in the Bible and not the typical mental gymnastics of apologists. Great conversation!
You call that bit of mutual backscratching or mutual 5 against one honest you? You would have to search far and wide to find a more glaring example of intellectual dishonesty and eisegesis
May I take it that you suppose there to be something objectionable about slavery, and if so, what is the basis of your objection - some sort of religious mumbo jumbo or monkey business?-Or perhaps you have not the faintest idea.
Help me with is please: S o what if the bible does indeed condone slavery? To what is that relevant and where and what is the necessary syllogism? Who might give a flying fcuk wither it condones slavery or not?
Moreover *why* might anyone give a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones slavery(which, without a good deal of eisegesis and other intellectual dishonesty)it does not)? In short; Who gives a sh1t whether it condones slavery or not? What exactly is the syllogism?
Tee hee, now a lot of sanctimonious tendentious little puppies must scurry about to find a grownup that can tell them what a syllogism is.
Oh the dishonesty of those two trying to equate condone with advocate; dcholar my arse!
You find blatant and shameless eisegesis attractive do you?
What, if any is your objection to slavery?
You have not the faintest idea?-No surprises there.
@@vhawk1951klAre you seriously going around all the comments subtly defending slavery? You are a sad person
@@vhawk1951kl it's always amazing to see people getting bent because someone reads the Bible for what it says instead of what you wish it said.
It's nice to start the week with conversations that make society just a little bit smarter. Thanks to both of you, and Alex - it's been a pleasure to follow your evolving, growing library - truly.
Phil, where are said "conversations"?
This certainly wasn't one of them.
@@earlysda well, don't just gripe, lol - what's your critique?
@@Philusteen No one in the conversation believes that the words in the Bible are from God, so they cannot possibly understand correctly what they mean.
@@earlysda so, your position is that the words in the bible are directly from God?
@@Philusteen 2Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
.
Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
.
Every word in the Holy Bible is inspired of God, given by his Holy Spirit.
As always. Wonderful questioning.
I would love to be a fly on the wall when this guy and his Christian wife talked about religion. Make that podcast!
Why does it matter or who gives a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones supports or even specifically advocates slavery?
Do you take some sort of objection to slavery or the owning and keeping of slaves and wherein lies any difference between owning and keeping slaves and owning and keeping any other animal?
This is the best interview I've seen so far on Within Reason, and I'm not just saying that because it was Dr. Joshua Bowen.
The length and breadth of the conversation, as well as its depth, was far greater than I've seen him able to cover on the other appearances he's mentioned.
On that note, if I remember correctly, Dr Josh is not a fan of the debate format; however, I think that with Alex as the moderator, scholars like Dr. Josh could be able to participate in productive debates on the topics, rather than the usual tribalism and cult of personality we usually see in a debate.
Give both positions time for opening statements.
Ask one of the guests a question, allow them adequate, uninterrupted, time to answer, ask any clarifying questions with a shorter response time. Then pose the same question to the other guest under the same conditions.
Give the guests a chance to ask each other questions.
Segue into a Q&A with the audience and do the same.
Avoid the cross talk, and definitely exercise the power of the mute button.
Even the least honest of interlocutors could have a civilized discussion without it descending into chaos.
Digital Hamuraby will bust you open on all things "bible". Dr Josh and Megan Lewis ROCK! Glad you found this scholar and had a nice convo with... seemed you really actually listened more... perhaps learned a thing or 10...
*Can you also do analysis on how Hinduism, Islam, and even Buddhist regions benefited from human history of slavery?*
Most regions benefit from slavery, but there’s nothing in Buddhism (scriptures, rules to live by, etc.) that endorses it.
Doubt it. A ture progressive individual ignores minority religions faults and club the baby seal that is christianity.
Nope you can only hate white Christians
It still goes on in India, it’s called the caste system which is written in the Reg Veda and fundamental to Hinduism from the beginning.
Do you seriously understand slavery as a religious concept??
It was this issue that led me to reject Christianity, along with the biblical genocides. Reading the apologists just made things worse. The OT documents record events and practices that are not only brutal and primitive, but actually worse than the best ancient practices of many pagan peoples.
I just want to say that one can be a Christian and reject these passages rationally. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
The OT isn't even Christian law it is Jewish law. You've lost yourself over a law that doesn't apply to you and that Jews don't even endorse or practise.
@@rebelresource Sure. But if God has been unable to control or modify the commands given in his name, how can we determine what in the Bible is trustworthy?
@@rebelresource Yes, one big example of this is Lydia McGrew, who rejects the genocides and the slavery because she thinks too highly of God to do that.
She also thinks the case for the resurrection is very compelling, but the apologetics against the genocides and the slavery are equally not compelling. So, she just .. finds those passages where they pitchfork babies to be in error.
I hope she at least accepts gay people?
I'm not super sure what you consider to be sacred if you can just dismiss parts of the sacred bits because it goes against your moral compass. If there are known parts we know that were added in, what do we really know about God from the OT?
This is her view about it: ruclips.net/video/-jlIVbsHL4k/видео.html
@@azophi I suppose we should be glad that most believers are better than their holy texts.
I enjoyed that conversation.
Your selection of guests lately has been great, Dr. Josh is awesome
Best interview in while.
“Slavery is justified because the Bible offered protections to slaves” is like saying SA is justified because we have a justice system where you can charge assaulters
Wow! I learned a great deal. Thanks for putting this together.
What did you learn and to what was it relevant? Why does it matter or who gives a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones supports or even specifically advocates slavery?
Do you take some sort of objection to slavery or the owning and keeping of slaves and wherein lies any difference between owning and keeping slaves and owning and keeping any other animal?
Do you yourself have any direct immediate personal experience of slavery qua slave or owner thereof?- and if not, wherein lies the basis of any objection you take to slavery if indeed you do suppose there be something objectionable about owning and keeping slaves? Do you take some reasoned objection to owning and keeping slaves and if you do, what are your reasons?
Dr Josh is great! Thanks for this video
Really interesting conversation, thanks Alex
It's not a conversation it's merely a bit of mutual backscratching or cinque contra Uno is probably the closest thing to it
Loss of an eye or tooth could have been a death sentence 2,000 or even 150 years ago.
Excellent interview.
I don't know, bronze age healers knew a lot more than you might expect from someone who didn't have germ theory. They learned what worked and what didn't through sheer trial and error. I'm certain they had the tools to treat and prevent infection, at least partially.
Medicine was in kind of a dark age in the 19th century. There were a lot of quacks pushing crazy new drugs and miracle cures, and penicillin was the only one that actually kind of worked. You had a higher survival rate from praying for your soul than from seeing a doctor.
43:14 bad teeth was a major cause of infection leading death historically. It's only been relatively recent that it has slipped down the list for mortality. This makes me think it might have had something to do with tooth damage as being deemed so severe in ancient law.
Who told you that bad teeth was(sic) a major cause of infection leading death", and why do you believe them?
@@vhawk1951kl pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10686905/
ain't no way i took 5 seconds to search this
also are you atheist or christian why the fuck are you everywhere
@@vhawk1951kl It's a medical fact that severely poor dental hygiene can lead to serious - even fatal - illness including heart disease. I know someone who has experienced this firsthand. The topic is easily researchable.
Great conversation. As expected, considering the individuals involved. Thank you.
Great vid once again my friend
This is the very topic that made me realize that the Bible was definitely written by men. How could anyone believe that the creator of the universe and all life would write such a book. How convenient for men to convince people that god actually wrote the words,
“Slaves obey your masters,even if they are unjust.” Incredible!
Definitely written by slave owners too. Only they would include "obey masters if if they're unjust."
You know after listening to this brilliant conversation about slavery, a topic which is obviously rather depressing, I find myself uplifted by the moment where Joshua plugs his wife’s podcast, and by extension, her as a scholar, with such pride and respect, because it exemplifies how an equal partnership can provide both parties with something that an unequal relationship cannot. A mutual nourishment of the self, the soul if you will, both intellectually and in all other aspects.
So yeah great episode, thank you Alex for introducing your audience to such insightful people.
"it exemplifies how an equal partnership can provide both parties with something that an unequal relationship cannot" - The types of relationships as advised for in the bible are unequal. According to the bible there is NO equal partnership, but instead the man rules over the woman. If Joshua has an equal relationship with his wife, he didn't get the instruction/ influences from the bible!
Kinda ironic, when you think about it!
I just felt called to shed some truth on this that Mr. Bowtie clearly left out and most likely knows and therefore is misleading. I encourage all of you to fact check me and look this up yourself. The word slave and even property was used differently way back then and is not used in the same way that we used it in America. Look up when the word slave was even invented, it was around 1500s. The Hebrew word ‘slave’ was actually used for ‘Ebed’ it meant worker, or servant and they did enter into an agreement. Thousands of historical scholars and thousands of years disagree with Mr. Bowtie. On top of that, the word ‘Property’ wasn’t used the same as Alex or Mr. Bowtie use it in the context. It meant the use they would perform in exchange for their work. In other words it was the agreed amount of work they would perform. Just like the word ‘gay’ means homosexual today meant happy only a hundred years ago. Now as far as it being okay for slavery to only be okay for outsiders, here are some verses these gentlemen left out and I think on purpose. These are right before the verses they cherry picked that actually explain the context. Just know that this is not a new topic and gets debunked every time someone chooses to challenge it again as if this conversation never happened before. See how the Lord commands how to treat foreigners and this applies to slaves or workers as well.
Leviticus 19:33-34 - 'And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Exodus 23:9
9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
22: 21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
Deuteronomy 27:19
New International Version
19 “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.”
Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”
Deuteronomy 10:19
New International Version
19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.
So interesting the amount of abstract concepts you just take on the basis of faith in your statement:
"soul if you will"
"pride and respect"
Gratitude
Mutuality
Equality
Depression == bad
It is not a conversation it is merely a bit of mutual cinque contra uno
@@vhawk1951klso you CAN type normally spaced comments! You just choose to be a feckin weirdo! Also drop the smarter than thou attitude, just makes people rightfully hate you.
That bow tie is so cool
Always pleased to see Dr Josh, and not only because of his kick-ass bowtie game.
Ive heard Dilihunty speak on this so many times. Its nice to hear a new voice or two on the subject, even if they more or less agree with him.
Genuinely live these discussions! Thank you Alex!
So Moses raids a city for its labor or plunder, creates a situation of vulnerability, then selectively “rescues” the vulnerable and claims moral righteousness. Got it.
Great conversation ❤
Again an excellent cast
Whatever we think of the guests that arrive on the podcast, it's good to have an informed and polite discussion with them to exchange ideas instead of throwing insults left and right. It should be encouraged.
Nah, we just point ro our holy scriptures and claim God. Feels better
@@IOverlord That's not how scholastic disagreement were argued
I'm loving these podcasts
I love that he mentioned WhaddoYouMeme. His slavery response vid to Alex was full of goalpost moving. Happy its being addressed here
I mean that is the only real tactic you can use if you’re gonna defend biblical slavery whilst holding to any notion of inerrancy. It’s a horrible argument but Christians have kinda pushed themselves into a corner there.
I enjoyed this episode so much and learned so much, thanks Alex for hosting Joshua Bowen, I've come across him only once before, and find his scholarship interesting and informative.
Wow. What a plot twist. I didn't know who he was. And now I'm realizing I still only know Bart Ehrman's name.
Great interview.
Very interesting as usual. The thing we can sort of add to this is how this play out for a rewal person. For example if you were a slave who had their eye put out then released what would happen? Loosing an eye would impair depth perception and make life very difficult and a number of types of work likely not possible the likelihood is you would die as a result of that or poverty oryou would return to the master out of desperation and become a proper slave maybe. The other way you could read it is my slave is too damaged to be of use so i set him free (so he doesnt cost further). If you apply to freeing a woman then its probably worse who would want a second hand used damaged female slave.... Maybe the law is designed to divest responsibility of freed ex property?
Exactly how much direct immediate personal experience of slavery have you, apart from being the abject slave of your functions and your inner god self calming?
If you take some objection to slavery on what direct immediate personal experience of slavery to you base whatever objection you may take to it? who or what died that you seek to blame some aunt sally to propitiate your god self calming?
The problem isn’t that slavery is in the Bible, it’s that people will go out of their way to defend it and treat it as something different.
Which particular identifiable person that you can name ever " went out of his or her way" to defend slavery, and when exactly did whoever you cam identify do that?
You have absolutely no idea whatsoever?-No surprises there, and it is certainly the case that you have no better idea to what is is or might be relevant if the bible did indeed condone slavery and no better idea of what is objectionable about slavery -if anything, and, if anything, why it is objectionable.
Also no surprises there, you are what?-Not a day over 14 at best?-also no surprises there.
Whom that you can name or otherwise identify has gone out of their way to defend what in particular?
You have absolutely no idea whatsoever?-No surprises there.
Why might anyone *not* go out of their way to defend slavery
You have absolutely no idea whatsoever? - No surprises there.
Your tiny problem being that you cannot identify a single person that"went gout of their way to defend it and treat it as something different.
Presumably if not certainly because you are lying about that.
Would I be correct in supposing that for some reason you cannot identify you suppose there to be something objectionable about slavery but you cannot say why it is objectionable. If you reason as poorly as you lie no wonder you are no more than some insignificant little clerk/shopgirl, unless of course you are still living with mummy and daddy.
@@vhawk1951klyou’re a fucking bizarre dude. Your questions often don’t make sense and your tone is that of someone who thinks they know all and can do know wrong. Along with the fact you presume to know everyone’s thoughts/beliefs, it’s no wonder nobody actually takes you seriously in the other comment chains.
I love Megan. She is amazing. Very smart. And Bart is brilliant
Why does it matter or who gives a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones supports or even specifically advocates slavery?
Do you take some sort of objection to slavery or the owning and keeping of slaves and wherein lies any difference between owning and keeping slaves and owning and keeping any other animal?
Came back to this channel for the first time in about a year and the intro is pretty sick ngl. Is that a new thing?
Two of my favorites together. Awesome discussion, gentlemen. ❤
Wow this was really interesting! What a great episode. Loved this guest. So knowledgeable.
How do you know he is knowledgeable? Just naturall credulous?
Why does it matter or who gives a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones supports or even specifically advocates slavery?
Do you take some sort of objection to slavery or the owning and keeping of slaves and wherein lies any difference between owning and keeping slaves and owning and keeping any other animal?
The idea that slavery was just the norm and even pagan nations had slaves is my favorite defense. It’s basically an admittance that our morals were never handed down by some higher being.
Interesting point! We are deeply corrupt. Like everything in Time. perishable. But how about morals - Love your enemies? Slavery is ugly like every unjustice and it is a fruit of the Fall. but in Christ Jesus there is no slave no free, no woman no men but one in Christ. This world is not His, where everybody is a king. Maybe good to read Alain Badiou "Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism"
I woudn't say that necisarily means that morals are not handed down by a higher power as considering a higher power is existing the higher power would have to had given us free will and thought by some consequence. Just because there is a moral standard doesn't mean that there will be grifters from the moral code set forth.
@@dortull Saying that Jesus was against slavery and using that verse as a justification is just taking it out of context. Was Jesus also a gender abolitionist? Because that conclusion would follow from your logic as well. He also never disavows slavery at anytime, merely asks slave masters to be a little nicer.
If God exists, is perfectly good and loving, is the grounding of morality, and was aiding the ancient Israelites then there wouldn’t be any need to allow slavery for even a moment. This is evidence that there is no God.
@@anseljames5531 It absolutely does though. It shows that our sense of morality changes with an increased understanding of the world. If God wrote his morality on our hearts like the bible claims then there should be no need for moral debate or changing our laws. We should’ve gotten it right the first time. The fact that we haven’t shows that either there is no God (which I hold to be true) or he is not actually the arbiter of morals.
Even if God exists that doesn’t mean he gave us free will or thought. I hold that free will can’t exist in either an atheistic or theistic worldview.
If god is both omnipotent and good, he should absolutely have forced the end of slavery on them instead of "meeting them where they're at." The fact that it would be an inconvenience for society means absolutely nothing compared to the right of the individual to be free.
@Bronson the Nomad It's the position of modern morality and ethics.
@Bronson the Nomad
The definition of 'opinion' is : a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
This isn't a view reached without knowledge. So there is more to it than mere opinion.
Modern ethics and morality are built on a subjective foundation but are not merely the opinion of one person.
Why might whatever you mean by god be at al intersted in your rather trivial likes and dislikes, which you callgood and bad, you being the abject slave of your emotional function as are all men(human beings) including your interlocutor. From where do you creatures get all that good/evil, right/wrong religious mumbo jumbo.
Do you take some objection to slavery and if so, what is the basis of you objection? 5 gives me 10 it is some sort of what is called morality religious monkey business, but s the blind man said, we shall see.Even in relatively recent times it never occurred to anyone much that slavery was in any way objectionable. Why might they have supposed it to be in any way objectionable. If you reflect for a moment from sme points of view there is much to be said for it, for example if in the course of war your opponent has you at his mercy and can kill you and does not because you might be useful to him as free labour and thus you survive, you might say that there was much to said for slavery if the alternative was immediate(for yourself) destruction forever
@Bronson the Nomad it is interesting that biblical morality is also nothing more than a subjective opinion and not even fact. After all, it is so stupid and ignorant it thinks a girl child or woman must bleed the first time having sex or being raped and use this biological ignorance of female anatomy to decide whether a woman or girl child gets to live or be executed by stoning to death.
@@markh1011this is true, however when you are looking at history you should not judge it by modern lenses but see the reasoning through its culture and time.
Fair criticism! You guys really went into it and didn't bring it with anger and hostility.
How is it that when it comes to jesus saying to love your neighbour no believer will come and say "that's not he meant, you need to interpret it based on the social conventions of the time", but when it comes to the problematic stuff all of a sudden "it's complicated"
look up the fallacy argumentum ad populum, which is a fallacy of relevance
"Slavery is bad. Don't have slaves."
"How are we supposed to have slaves, then?"
"OK, here's how..."
I can't be the only person to see a small flaw here?
Those words appear where apart from in your dreaming apparatus? - Yeah, right.
@@vhawk1951kl the part where it says you can take slaves from surrounding nations.
In the exact words of which chapter of which book?
@@vhawk1951kl leviticus 25 44-46
Brilliant podcast
I find Numbers 31 the absolute most concise way to find out how someone rationalises their faith and the Bible. To use child rape and genocide as a weapon (and reward) of war as Moses does surely questions most people's most basic standards of what is moral.
Fuckin love what you're doing alex
Fantastic conversation and interview! ❤
Been a big fan of DR Bowen for ages hes awesoome
Tee Hee, no-one that foppishly affects a bow tie is "awasome" only because some tendentious litle mouse(nothing and nobody) happens to agree with said foppish poseur.
This should dispel any notion among the christian audience that Alex is somehow on a path to christianity.
The puppy is - like you, already a devout adherent of that queer religion modernism.The clues lie in your delicate religious sensibilities-in particular the asine assumption that there is anything objectionable about slavery which is no different from keeping and using any livestock.
Everytime I hear the leave them be for 30 days or month I can’t help but think the reason behind this is to see if she is pregnant. Not so much a protection of the woman but if the new husband’s lineage.
Interesting 🤔
Yes, that's exactly the reason. As soon as she gets her period, the guy is free to marry her.
Awesome discussion. Thanks Alex!
Help me with this please:So, or therefore what if the bible condones slavery? Of what syllogism could it form a premise?Why might anyone in their right mind give a flying fcuk if the bible condones slavery?
You have absolutely no idea do you child?
Who or what died on you, a pet or a relative?
As a woman, I am so disappointed and disgusted at the old testemnt. There truly should never be any shock when people justify acts of evil in the name of a so-called good God. One with some intellect must start to really think that the God served in the bible is either a sick, power hungry, lust driven man or an evil and unjust God that I personally would never want to serve.
Exodus 21, 16 - All the laws mentioned in there apply only to the Israelites. The chapter begins ' If you buy a Hebrew servant..... ' . It doesn't say if Israelites cannot kidnap members of other tribes. In battles, they did just that. Young girls (virgins only, mind you) were taken by the soldiers. Moses even orders them to do that. If that is not kidnapping, what is it?
Everyone did that. Israelites were taken as slaves by the same people groups Israel took as slaves.
@@Hambone3773
You're correct. Everyone did it. But the funny thing is God, the ultimate source of morality, actively encouraged genocide, rape, slavery, looting and racism.
Comes down to what my father always said, " Who needs a conscience when God is on your side."
Your father plainly did not understand that conscience has nothing to do with that bullshit that is called morals or right is called religion. There is no way of verifying anything about the past but to some extent the gossip or hearsay is that for most of the history of human beings nobody has ever considered there was anything particularly objectionable about slavery which is a fact of life for most of the history of men insofar as that can be established - Veryfew objection to slavery there are not religious or moralistic which are one of the same thing
What is a conscience? - You have no idea? - No surprises there.
Thus demonstrating that one fool can beget another.
@@vhawk1951klit's hard to explain in detail, but it boils down to empathy, which itself is essentially don't make another suffer, or minimise the suffering and infringements in others. In other words, don't inflict harm, cause distress, or cause stress on to others unless consensual and/or needed for avoidance of a proven worse likely hood
@@christophermonteith2774 I'm not sure what point you are adressing but pout that on one side; from where do you get such strange ideas as "don't make another suffer, or minimise the suffering and infringements in others. In other words, don't inflict harm, cause distress, or cause stress on to others etc etc bla bla bla?
-Is it some sort of religious mumbo jumbo, or did you dream it up for yourself?
Now that was a breath of fresh air. Thank you.
The thing I’m always told is that the Bible works for all cultures and all ages until the modern era. And the condoning of slavery in Biblical times completely debunks that argument. Slavery is not accepted or condoned in the modern era.
There is still slavery going on today should Britain intervene
@@ShastraDugan 😆 I don't believe in God. I'm just trying to understand what roll if any the west should intervene with over cultures. Were replying to each other on devices that have some degree of slavery attached to them dose that mean were involved
Apparently the perfect book need to be interpreted by the rules of its time
In the US before and after the abolition of slavery for black adults it was mandatory for every black and white in the country to endure 13 years minimum in an institution where they'll work each and every day for no pay and be beaten with the same large wooden boards the adult slaves were by people titled their "master's" and "headmaster's" for performing inadequately on their unpaid work.
At first (and for ages) it was explicitly stated by the government as a policy to beat anywhere on the body with this board raising bruises, causing concussions and crippling some students for life was some of the results it was often for crimes such as speaking, chewing gum and making a mistake in a math conundrum.
The reason you never hear about slavery's continuation after allegedly becoming abolished? it's the same reason you don't hear about domestic violence and assault still being legal after they allegedly became abolished too or theft, destruction of another's property, vandalism, bodily mutational, torture, murder (yes there truly is some instances you can kill a child legally but not an adult in identical circumstances) and other things considered so immoral to the point of criminality, we call it another label, one with more positive connation's to alter the meaning in our minds but not alter the action and then that way it can continue on under a new name but only when done to the right people.
Why do we hear more about slavery which happened hundreds and even thousands of years ago in other continents to people none of us will ever come close to knowing over ones currently under going it and our own children and ourselves too?
It's still legal in many countries today (19 US states too) to beat people in institutions with weapons for extremely trivial reasons (which are excuses btw) and do other criminal things to them too, even if these were abolished a requirement to qualify as slavery is not inhumane or cruel treatment it's simply not being paid for forced work.
"We care more about what happened to adults who are long dead, than children who're still alive." (and that means adults who're still alive then too.) *Slavery didn't become illegal it became mandatory* and it became mandatory for everyone. We're still condoning it.
The perfect moral standard does seem to be in need of regular improvement and upgrades, doesn't it?
It has always been terrafying to me that these religous apologists always have been defending these scriptures despite knowing what historical context there is behind them. That they merely try to brush these texts aside as quickly as possible to only merely a minute later say "Well we humans need the bible to be good people to each other cause we need a moral authority to tell us what to do" when there are passage such as the ones mentioned that commends slavery, murder, genocide, lying, deciet and the list goes on and on...
That these people are so unwilling to come face-to-face with the fact that the bible is not a moral guide but a piece of cultural scripture that sure, can be valuable when one wants to do historical research about pre-medieval culture on the arabic peninsula, but are downright useless as a "moral-guide" for how primitive and downright savage these people were.
These people were barbarians. Plain and simple. They were brutal, power hungry, hateful and hypocritical with their philosophy and worldview and the sole fact that there are people out there who DEFEND THEM!!? It just shakes me to my core...
This video is so interesting. I'd love to see a video just about the idea of virginity in the Bible.
Why?-Because you yourself are a virgin? Do you make no difference or distinction between a new and a used or second hand car?
Wherein lies your interest in or obsession with, virginity? the same as in new or used cars presumably. Since the bible is a rather large book drawing from several traditions, the only explicit mention of whether or not a being of the passive sex(it could equally be either sex)is used or new comes from what is called the tradition of one Jesus bar Joseph whose passive half of the causes of his arising was an unused or virgin being of the passive sex known as the 'virgin' Mary, the story going as follows: Whatever an 'angel' might be, apparently one told the unused girl or youngish being of the passive sex that something called" the-spirit-of-the-lord would " come" over her, whereupon Mary who was obviously a literal mind girl said "Jesus christ!" and fainted, where upon the angel said; "yes that would be a good name", but that is about it on the subject of used or unused beings of either the active or passive sex.
Obviously if you want to breed or mate an unused being of the passive sex would be ideal for any number of reasons, not least infection, as you would prefer a new car to a used or second hand car.
One recalls the joke about hillbilly lad who told his causes or mother and father that he was to marry a virgin, to which they replied that if she was not good enough for their own family she was not good enough for theirs.
Apparently you are so passive and pathetic that someone must tell you what -if you were a human being, you could discover for yourself, but for your handicap
Come across Dr Josh before, really excellent stuff
I don't know why anyone would argue that the Bible doesn't support slavery.
look up the fallacy argumentum ad populum, which is a fallacy of relevance. It is generally only the Elsies or Lower Classes that resort to that fallacy as you demonstrate little Elsie, no doubt due to your complete innocence of any kind of intellectual ability or accomlishment, but bless you I must get my servants from somewhere.
@@vhawk1951kl
Are you having an aneurysm?
@@avishevin1976Ever solicitous for the welfare of others eh Elsie?
Why the overwhelming desire to assure me that you are an imbecile child innocent of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment ?On the available evidence you will not live long.
You have no idea what an aneurysm is little elsie, and you certainly illustrate why you Elsies, the Lower Classes are so called. Who ever owns you Elsie certainly drew the sort straw
havent read the book but i suspect it stays in the realm of bible analysis. instead it could go on to include lots of cases of church involvement in supporting slavery in history
Whether or not biblical slavery was as bad as early American slavery shouldn't matter. Any sort of slavery ought to be morally reprehensible to an all loving perfect being whose morals are absolute and timeless.
What is morally reprehensible mean? - What are morals? - Some sort of religious mumbo-jumbo?
"morally" meaning what? - some sort of religious mumbo jumbo? Why is "Any sort of slavery ought to be morally reprehensible"?
More to the point why might any one give a damn i whether it was"morally reprehensible"- which I take to be some sort of religious mumbo jumbo, or not?
@Peter Codner I'm not here to debate the basis of morality. If you dont understand what morality is, and if you dont think that slavery is immoral, then I just don't know what to say to you.
For the purposes of this discussion, we are just going to have to accept some presuppositions (such as slavery is immoral). Otherwise, this conversation is just going to go off the rails and become circular.
@@fretbuzz1979 precisely why do you suggest that slavery is what you call in moral - whatever you mean by immoral and apparently you have no idea, which comes as no surprise to me all that religious mumbo-jumbo is too vague what does labelling something immoral actually achieve? When you say that something immoral what exactly are you trying to convey - that you don't like the idea of it so I conclude that immoral means you like something - do I have that right? Do you understand that the danger of your religious mumbo-jumbo about morality is that you will seek to impose your likes and dislikes on others and that will lead to trouble - can only possibly lead to trouble. The disease I-am-right, is one of the most dangerous diseases that there is ever manifest itself on this particular unfortunate planet. Shall you stop at nothing to impose your religion on other people? - No I rather thought not the real question is do you have the guts to do that? You are exactly right you do not know what or anything very much suppose I am slaves and look after them as well as in you my animals and particularly well you still find that objectionable on whatever ground that your religion suggests? If they are jolly happy looked after jolly well, does it? Matter that they are slaves. If you have the choice between being chopped pieces and being a slave which would you choose as a matter of pure practicality?
@@fretbuzz1979 I have no direct immediate personal experience of slavery on which to base any opinion, but my general view what you call morality is that it is little more than mumbo-jumbo composed of subjective relative and temporary likes and dislikes and manifestation of your slavery - and that is exactly the word to your emotional function - if it says jump! - You merely meekly enquire how high? Now that really is slavery and to very large extent all dreaming machines or men (human beings) are the abject slaves of their emotional (like and dislike) function and that is why they are wholly incapable of impartial reason. I just don't know why you bother with all that morality mumbo-jumbo what purpose does it serve
You have not the faintest idea? - No surprises there what exact direct immediate personal experience have you of slavery that you may express any sort of opinion about it?
Yeah, right, none at all, but you are quite content to yap about it, and gosh, do you you yap? The 1st sign of a fool is that he entertain hearsay or evidence from anyone that he cannot personally cross-examine - if the cap fits, you wear it. Does it not strike you as yes the tiniest bit daft to have moralistic opinions about something of which you have no direct immediate personal experience whatsoever? Whoever said religion/morality made fools of men got it exactly right
As a Christian I must say that this has challenged my thinking on the subject. It would have been odd for the Israelites to refuse engagement with slavery when most of the world practiced it, but the Israelites were also commanded to where clothes of only one fabric, not eat pork, not work a day out of the week, not work a whole year every seventh year, etc. They certainly were already engaging in behaviors that could've easily been seen as aberrant, so why not ban slavery too? Surely the enslavement of other human beings bears a significantly heavier moral weight than trivial things such as eating pork and not even being legally allowed to verbalize the names of other gods.
I've heard all the excuses you discussed. A shake of the head and a laugh was my response too.
If you were a slave then you would understand
Ah, Deuteronomy 21. Probably my favorite verses in the entire Bible. Mostly because, regardless of translation or any attempt at interpretation, the events are obviously indefensible. Even in the translations where the nonconsentual nature of the "wedding" is heavily obscured with soft language, as written, it is still God given, step by step instructions, to preasure prisoner's of war to enter a sexual relationship with their captors.
Yes but is the passage endorsing what’s going on?
@SamoaVsEverybody_814 No.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 if something says, "go and do this" is that not endorsing?
Like if I tell you to go buy a specific car that I've selected, am I not endorsing you to go buy that specific car?
@@whatwecalllife7034 it doesn’t say go into this. It’s simply giving you permission not preventing you from doing it it’s not endorsing it by any means.
Except that’s not what’s going on it says if there is a car that I want to buy, can you allow me to buy it. It’s never treat as a virtual saying and you’re never encouraged to do it.
@SamoaVsEverybody_814 Samoa, it is not possible, by definition, for anyone to be an Atheist.
Alex is one of the greatest interviewers I’ve ever seen. I’ve watched a lot of podcasts like Chris Williams and Lex Friedman, but Alex O’Connors skill of playing devils advocate and pushing the person to their highest intellectual level is so impressive. His act of playing devils advocate is clearly propagated in a way which tries to get the other person to form their argument in the most clear and strongest way, reminiscent of the phrase “iron sharpens iron”. Even when he completely disagrees with his argument, he still poses it as he knows it is the best way for the viewers to get the best possible argument from the person he is interviewing. 5 stars 👏
"Anyone who has made it this far."
Every Christian adjacent person should be made to hear this.
Why?- because some sanctimonious religious pipsqueak says so?
Does the pipsqueak take some objection to slavery and if so what is the basis of its objection?
@@vhawk1951klno need to namecall, if you disagree please give an arguement without disrespecting one another.
Bossy sanctimonious little Nazi aren't you titch; you and whose army are going to " make" i.e. force anyone to do anything and you with that terrible back problem of yours and all?
@@vhawk1951kl Do you mean to say that you don't take objection to slavery? Because, I'm hearing that if the Bible doesn't object to slavery that you'd have no basis which to reject it.
@@beansworth5694 I don't give a toss one way or the other The puppy and the poof are not impartial and not without a motive or agenda.
Apply the two and two test
If a advocate of,or apologist for slavery said that the sum of twp and two were four, would you demur because he was an advocate of, or apologist for, slavery ?
The bible is a book-a thing, even if books or things could accept or reject whatever, to what is it relevant whether it does or does not whatever you mean by(and you have no idea) accept or reject slavery?
Why might I or anyone be anything but indifferent to things or books?-Where and what is your syllogism?
To what is it relevant whether or not I take objection to slavery?
While I struggle to understand why Christian apologists believe what they do, people who are well read and open to discussion like the guest today was great to see. Enjoying this longer format that isn't a confrontational debate setting
Yikes you are a perfect example of why it is a silly idea to give the lower classes like you words which they do not understand such as apologist, because they will only overuse them without having the faintest idea what they mean and no more do you titch.
Name but one "Christian" apologist.
You cannot? No surprises there.
Christian aplogists do not emphasize enough the factor of the flesh or human condition developing in Time after the Fall and all historical development. Fact is, the whole civilised world had slaves then, not to mention the atheists who favor the enlightened Greeks, the refined philosophy and logic of Aristotle, whose models they refer to. The same Aristotle believed that slaves and women are not people! The miracle of the new testament is that in Christ there is no longer slave or free, neither female nor male, but we are all one, Pauls words. Slavery is a temporary fact of this perishable body. In Kingdom of God eberybody is equal one in one.
They do it as an exercise of defending their own faith via engulfing themselves in its detractions. Being an apologist allows you to (at least superficially) engage with critiques and concerns that you, yourself, may have without committing to voicing them on your own.