Hello everybody in the comments, First of all, thank you for taking time from you day to watch this episode. However, I want to establish that, now and going forward, I expect all of my guests to be referred to kindly and treated with dignity. Honest disagreement is most welcome, however personal attacks on the character of the guest are unacceptable. If you are unable to be kind and dignified I will be forced to ban you, which neither of us want.
"This (Antebellum slavery) is never endorsed by the Biblical text." Yet another lie. Under Mosaic law, foreign slaves were chattel slaves. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inherited property. Every specific reference to foreign slaves in the Bible is to deny them rights and protections afforded to Hebrew slaves. The treatment of foreign slaves was every bit as bad, or worse, than slavery in the Antebellum south.
"The law in the Old Testament is fleshing out all the different ways that love for God and love for neighbor should be expressed." Like the genocide? The slavery? The infanticide? The rape? Is that how love should be expressed?
The OT is full of difficult things to understand, and while this interview certainly won't answer all the questions it may be a good starting point, especially since it is between an athiest (Alex O'Connor) and a Christian (William Lane Craig)! Hopefully this helps. ruclips.net/video/WjsSHd23e0Q/видео.htmlsi=2xYPkZ5dtJO_RVgS
@@TheAscendingPodcast "The OT is full of difficult things to understand" Hmm...."Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids." Not difficult to understand at all, unless you are a Christian and can't remove your God-glasses. "while this interview certainly won't answer all the questions..." Well, you are quite the master when it comes to dodging, aren't you!
"Some English translations use the word 'slave', and I believe that's deeply misleading." Nope. It's entirely accurate. Chattel slavery is defined as "the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work without wages" Another definition is: "The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude." Leviticus 25 explicitly describes and condones chattel slavery. "44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." This woman is a professor?
This was a little disappointing to be honest. It's a topic I'm very interested in so have spent an inordinate amount of time looking into. We didn't even get to slavery until last last half of the video, and then to be honest? She never did even mention the slavery in the Bible? If you want to talk about slavery in the Bible you just can't look at Exodus 21. Although, I do agree with her that the word "slave" is inappropriate in Exodus 21:2-6. When I say slave, I mean lifelong chattel slave like in America. Owned as property, unpaid, able to be bought and sold, and their children after them. I agree with Dr. Imes that these were indentured servants. But she said a better translation would be "servant", and on this I completely disagree. This is simply taking the problem 100% in the opposite direction. These people weren't simply "servants" either. That's as misleading as "slave". But again, this is NOT the slavery in the Bible anyway. And she never did even mention that these laws ONLY applied to native Hebrews? That is not an honest representation of the passage to those who aren't familiar with it. The slavery in the Bible was reserved for foreigners. And I'm sorry, but yes, they could be lifelong, generational chattel slaves. Something never even mentioned in a video titled "Does the Bible Endorse Slavery"? The passages that DO actually condone lifelong chattel slavery in the Bible? I see this happen way too often to be honest. A complete ignoring of the issue, while claiming to address it. And it this point it really bothers those of us who sincerely are searching for an answer. I'm beginning to think there is no good answer frankly.
All the protections afforded to Hebrew indentured servants in Exodus 21 did not apply to foreign chattel slaves. She never even mentions the chattel slavery commanded in Leviticus 25:44-46. Classic Christian apologetics.
@cygnusustus hopefully this article will awnser some of your questions: www.bibledingers.com/post/wvw-does-the-bible-support-slavery-leviticus-25-44-46 As with any philosophical or theological text, it's critical not to remove a few sentences from the broader book. As the Bible has a multitude of passages that are about free slaves and treating them well, the position that the Christian God is proslavery is untenable. Hopefully the article fills in the gaps for you!
@@TheAscendingPodcast I didn't ask any questions. I pointed out failures. Do you conceded that the protections afforded to Hebrew indentured servants in Exodus 21 did not apply to foreign chattel slaves.? Yes, or no? Do you concede that chattel slavery is commanded in Leviticus 25:44-46? Yes, or no? Either refute my points, or concede that the video is false and disingenous. "it's critical not to remove a few sentences from the broader book" I agree. Christian apologists should definitely stop doing that. "the Bible has a multitude of passages that are about free slaves" Well, that's a lie. There's no such thing as a "free" slave, unless you are using the word metaphorically. I am talking about actual chattel slavery. "the position that the Christian God is proslavery is untenable" Nope. The position that the Christian God is not proslavery is untenable. I have cited verses to support my position. You have not refuted it. So it seems your position is untenable.
@@cygnusustus I'm not really one for arguing in comment sections, so I'll probably stop at this point. However I think if you sincerely desire a solid understanding of the Christian stance, even if you disagree (which you have every right to), you should read the article I attached. If you want just to argue for the sake of it, there's not much more for me to do here.
@@TheAscendingPodcast Then I accept your concession that you can't defend your faith, and that you cannot refute my post. All the protections afforded to Hebrew indentured servants in Exodus 21 did not apply to foreign chattel slaves. She never even mentions the chattel slavery commanded in Leviticus 25:44-46. Classic Christian apologetics. Dismissed.
@@TheAscendingPodcast "hopefully this article will awnser some of your questions:" That article was already debunked in the comments. I accept your concession of defeat.
"Certainly there are changes in the New Testament, because the cultural context has changed." It's always amusing when Christians slip up and reveal their morality is actually relative, not objective.
![Being God's Image (with Carmen Imes) [Think Biblically Podcast]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ecQ587Rot4M/mqdefault.jpg)
![Being God's Image (with Carmen Imes) [Think Biblically Podcast]](/img/tr.png)
Hello everybody in the comments,
First of all, thank you for taking time from you day to watch this episode. However, I want to establish that, now and going forward, I expect all of my guests to be referred to kindly and treated with dignity. Honest disagreement is most welcome, however personal attacks on the character of the guest are unacceptable. If you are unable to be kind and dignified I will be forced to ban you, which neither of us want.
Setting up excuses to ban comments that refute your claims, I see.
"This (Antebellum slavery) is never endorsed by the Biblical text."
Yet another lie.
Under Mosaic law, foreign slaves were chattel slaves. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inherited property. Every specific reference to foreign slaves in the Bible is to deny them rights and protections afforded to Hebrew slaves. The treatment of foreign slaves was every bit as bad, or worse, than slavery in the Antebellum south.
"The law in the Old Testament is fleshing out all the different ways that love for God and love for neighbor should be expressed."
Like the genocide? The slavery? The infanticide? The rape? Is that how love should be expressed?
The OT is full of difficult things to understand, and while this interview certainly won't answer all the questions it may be a good starting point, especially since it is between an athiest (Alex O'Connor) and a Christian (William Lane Craig)! Hopefully this helps.
ruclips.net/video/WjsSHd23e0Q/видео.htmlsi=2xYPkZ5dtJO_RVgS
@@TheAscendingPodcast
"The OT is full of difficult things to understand"
Hmm...."Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."
Not difficult to understand at all, unless you are a Christian and can't remove your God-glasses.
"while this interview certainly won't answer all the questions..."
Well, you are quite the master when it comes to dodging, aren't you!
"Some English translations use the word 'slave', and I believe that's deeply misleading."
Nope. It's entirely accurate.
Chattel slavery is defined as "the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work without wages"
Another definition is: "The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude."
Leviticus 25 explicitly describes and condones chattel slavery.
"44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
This woman is a professor?
This was a little disappointing to be honest. It's a topic I'm very interested in so have spent an inordinate amount of time looking into. We didn't even get to slavery until last last half of the video, and then to be honest? She never did even mention the slavery in the Bible? If you want to talk about slavery in the Bible you just can't look at Exodus 21.
Although, I do agree with her that the word "slave" is inappropriate in Exodus 21:2-6. When I say slave, I mean lifelong chattel slave like in America. Owned as property, unpaid, able to be bought and sold, and their children after them. I agree with Dr. Imes that these were indentured servants. But she said a better translation would be "servant", and on this I completely disagree. This is simply taking the problem 100% in the opposite direction. These people weren't simply "servants" either. That's as misleading as "slave". But again, this is NOT the slavery in the Bible anyway. And she never did even mention that these laws ONLY applied to native Hebrews? That is not an honest representation of the passage to those who aren't familiar with it. The slavery in the Bible was reserved for foreigners. And I'm sorry, but yes, they could be lifelong, generational chattel slaves. Something never even mentioned in a video titled "Does the Bible Endorse Slavery"? The passages that DO actually condone lifelong chattel slavery in the Bible?
I see this happen way too often to be honest. A complete ignoring of the issue, while claiming to address it. And it this point it really bothers those of us who sincerely are searching for an answer. I'm beginning to think there is no good answer frankly.
All the protections afforded to Hebrew indentured servants in Exodus 21 did not apply to foreign chattel slaves.
She never even mentions the chattel slavery commanded in Leviticus 25:44-46.
Classic Christian apologetics.
@cygnusustus hopefully this article will awnser some of your questions:
www.bibledingers.com/post/wvw-does-the-bible-support-slavery-leviticus-25-44-46
As with any philosophical or theological text, it's critical not to remove a few sentences from the broader book. As the Bible has a multitude of passages that are about free slaves and treating them well, the position that the Christian God is proslavery is untenable. Hopefully the article fills in the gaps for you!
@@TheAscendingPodcast
I didn't ask any questions. I pointed out failures.
Do you conceded that the protections afforded to Hebrew indentured servants in Exodus 21 did not apply to foreign chattel slaves.? Yes, or no?
Do you concede that chattel slavery is commanded in Leviticus 25:44-46? Yes, or no?
Either refute my points, or concede that the video is false and disingenous.
"it's critical not to remove a few sentences from the broader book"
I agree. Christian apologists should definitely stop doing that.
"the Bible has a multitude of passages that are about free slaves"
Well, that's a lie. There's no such thing as a "free" slave, unless you are using the word metaphorically. I am talking about actual chattel slavery.
"the position that the Christian God is proslavery is untenable"
Nope. The position that the Christian God is not proslavery is untenable. I have cited verses to support my position. You have not refuted it. So it seems your position is untenable.
@@cygnusustus I'm not really one for arguing in comment sections, so I'll probably stop at this point. However I think if you sincerely desire a solid understanding of the Christian stance, even if you disagree (which you have every right to), you should read the article I attached. If you want just to argue for the sake of it, there's not much more for me to do here.
@@TheAscendingPodcast
Then I accept your concession that you can't defend your faith, and that you cannot refute my post.
All the protections afforded to Hebrew indentured servants in Exodus 21 did not apply to foreign chattel slaves.
She never even mentions the chattel slavery commanded in Leviticus 25:44-46.
Classic Christian apologetics.
Dismissed.
@@TheAscendingPodcast
"hopefully this article will awnser some of your questions:"
That article was already debunked in the comments.
I accept your concession of defeat.
"Certainly there are changes in the New Testament, because the cultural context has changed."
It's always amusing when Christians slip up and reveal their morality is actually relative, not objective.
For a response to this video which is much more forthcoming in its evaluation of this subject go and see Digital Hammurabi