"Dashing babies on the rocks? You have to understand, babies were different at the time. Much more dashable. It wasn't infanticide like you think of it today."
Typical. All you're doing is quote mining to support your agenda and you don't have a fucking clue about the context of the passage you're alluding to.
I think Christians are conditioned to be numb to it. God can do whatever he wants and hell for most humanity is normalized. So even if you prove they don't have an excuse they can shrug their shoulders and say God can do what he wants whether it seems right or wrong to us.
It always amazes me how apologists can spend their time defending slavery, genocide, misogyny, capital punishment for victimless crimes, hell doctrines, human sacrifice, massacres and rape, but never look in the mirror and say "are we the bad guys?"
Earth is hell. Only way out is ignore "family" or "god" (both same ai) tricking you to come back here. Go to the void. Be Aware of the fake void. There is nothing in the void. B4nn3d information.
Sorry, I can see what you are trying to say, but saying people defend these things is freaking wild and interpreting things the most disingenous way possible. People believe this things happened, not that they were right or wrong, and if God did indeed create life he can as well take it. The only sort of valid thing you said was the slavery, the misogyny and the "hell doctrine", which to be honest, I see what you are trying to say, but in my opinion are not as bad like you put it.
@@LucasTF you are delusional. You cant see how world works and that "lord" of this earth hellrealm is evilsickfk. Also minion tr33mäsöns. Lil psycho controllers. I bet you cant understand what they are doing with whäkaziines and skytripes, huh?
Possession by ownership vs possession by debt contract. You need a better dictionary. It was possession by debt contract, hence redemption by Redeemer of (fin&sin) debt.
When confronted with the "God didn't permit slavery, He governed the practice and gave it strict rules" argument, I always remember that God does not "moderate" or "govern" the sin of coveting--he expressly condemns it. Why did He not do the same in the text?
Hey,...that god commanded the tribes people of Moses to stone the old man into oblivion for collecting sticks on the Sabbath That's all you need to know
Good observation. If you replace slavery with another crime like grape, you can easily see how it's just as immoral if not more so to govern its practice.
What I find both disgusting and endlessly hilarious is that, rather than just admit that the scriptures regarding slavery and genocide were written by Human men who used God to justify their desire to have slaves and to murder their neighbors for their land, they instead prefer to engage in mental gymnastics to protect their idolatrous fantasy of an "infallible" and "inerrant" Bible (which doctrine didn't even exist until around the middle of the 19th century). Of course, if they ever admitted that men did indeed put their own opinions and prejudices into scripture, they would be forced to acknowledge that certain things in The Bible attributed to God might indeed not have come from God at all, and might be the product of the opinions, societal traditions, and prejudicial views of the times in which they were written.
That whole movement that decided the Bible was inerrant and infallible created a big issue because they forget how much is poetry, allegory, etc. I think of it as a conversation between God and humans but we only get to hear our side of the conversation including all the bits where someone misheard or misunderstood something they were told.
Thanks, Dan. As it happens, I was just doing some research on slavery in the Bible precisely because it was used as a justification for slavery in the United States. This is extremely helpful.
@@marknieuweboer8099 It should be noted that at the time, abolitionists argued that salvery in the antebellum South was unbiblical. Of course, that is because the bible can be used to argue anything and the opposite. It's just a matter of finding the "right" verse.
That would make 250 years at best, ie seventeen Centuries after Jesus died. The point remains - it would have been nice if christians "concluded" that many centuries before.
If you use your thumb, you can hide the full definition of redemption and possession. That helps. Possession is NOT automatically possession by ownership, but also possession by debt contract. And that’s what this was, hence redemption by Redeemer Christ of the world (fin&sin).
The question I always want to ask when someone says biblical slavery wasn't like old south slavery is, "So slavery would be OK today as long as we followed the biblical rules?" I really would like to hear their answer.
I’ve seen some apologists argue that so long as a slave master is kind to their slave, it’s okay. Then when I ask them if they’d be willing to be enslaved to a kind master, they usually stop responding.
There is an obvious question, which we must ask every time this subject arises (and that is often). Is he simply a poor naive dupe who has been brainwashed or is he a deliberate liar. Those are the only two options.
I absolutely understand the mental gymnastics by apogetics on the issue of slavery. It's a key load-bearing concept. Unless you can convince yourself that the Bible doesn't say what it says, you either have to support slavery, which we mostly now consider abhorrent-though some forms of slavery still exist in the developing world as well as things like convict labor and human trafficking in the developed world-or you have to admit the Bible isn't infallible and univocal and everything becomes up for negotiation. Both of those concepts are very difficult to reconcile for people with lifelong robust dogmas.
Because they want to use the morals and laws of the Bible in today's world. If they can't explain away the slavery (and other horrors) then they can't make the argument that the Bible is valid in modern life.
Christians need to understand this is moral relativism there is no society ever where slavery "wasn't that bad". There's a kernel of truth to the idea the transatlantic slave trade was maybe more brutal for the average slave than slavery in the ancient world, but that's really not saying much. There were roman slaves that lived relatively comfortable lives, but that was if you were lucky. Any slave in the ancient Mediterranean world could be beaten, r worded or just worked to death with usually no consequences for the master.
At this point refuting the lies of apologists is getting tyresome, since they just repeat the same lies over and over expecting people defending the truth to just get tired and leave.
That’s why some are so keen on banning books and tightly controlling the information that people are allowed to receive. It’s so much easier to shape a person’s perception if you can deny them opportunity to hear any alternative. Which is how THEY themselves were formed.
@@Noneya5555 Do you go to mental asylums to check if the people in there claiming to be God are God? Or is wasting your time only a good thing when the other side does it? 🙄
They say it’s more humane than now because it makes it easier for them to excuse it. How does god allowing slaves to be beaten seem more humane?! It just makes no sense and they refuse to see it.
Is that what he is trying to say. He lost me when he stated that ethnicity and race are different things without saying what the difference is or what is the significance of the difference between enslaving persons of a different ethnicity versus those of a different race.
@@TheMargarita1948 I copied this from a website. “Race refers to the concept of dividing people into groups on the basis of various sets of physical characteristics and the process of ascribing social meaning to those groups. Ethnicity describes the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs.” At least up to the time of William the Conqueror the Scotts, the Welsh and the English used to enslave each other. Same race, different ethnicity.
The planet was proven to be round (-ish) a long time ago. How it that some people still think it's flat? People are stupid, Ben. All of us. Education helps but I've seen many well educated people fall for stupid conspiracies and cults. This guy makes a good point, I think. ruclips.net/video/OXp1CQA8YDw/видео.html
i recently had a facebook conversation with someone who said if the bible calls it sin, it's sin, end of story. When I posited that maybe a book that condones slavery wouldn't be the best moral guide in all circumstances, I got the standard, "the Bible does not condone slavery." So I quoted Leviticus, linking to several different bibles online. The response? "Well, the bible doesn't call slavery a sin, so my original point stands." 🤣🤣🤣
Mental gymnastics to make it okay. I realized after leaving Christianity how much most Christian’s lack compassion for other people… all because of a book.
Yes and not really thinking through any if this himself. He’s not clever enough to build an obfuscative apologist argument on his own. This is just something he is parroting from other apologists and acting as if it’s just apparent in the text.
You mean the one where the alleged "Palestinians" ( they're really Arabs) enjoy the rights of a democratic nation that NONE of the other empires that controlled the area before extended to them?
Probably the most interesting thing about contemporary defense of biblical slavery is that it illustrates a far more disturbing reality. If the bible is the divine word of a god, but can be that horribly misinterpreted for that long, by that many people, it's worthless. Not even 200 years ago we had A US Senator standing on the floor of the US senate declaring _Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God - let him go to the Bible. I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation. Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments, in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized - sanctioned everywhere._ Jefferson Davis. It's not as though he was alone either. So what changed? The book? Nope!
The only thing that makes atheists more angry than people interpreting the Bible to support bigotry and divisiveness is people interpreting the Bible to support inclusiveness and unity.
I am always stunned, despite long experience, by the immorality of apologists. I leave aside slavery, which is totally unjustifiable whatever its form, to concentrate on indurent servitude. It is abominable to force human beings to sell one of their own or to sell themselves even for a limited period.
This apologist probably believes that morality is objective and Biblical. So he should advocate indentured servitude. Even if I accept, just for the sake of argument, that his explanations are correct I think his Biblical morals depraved.
Oh god, I hate it when they bring up the Atlantic Slave Trade. People really don't understand American slavery or what race and ethnicity really mean and their distinction. Even in this comments section. Seeing people argue over the ethics and motivations of my ancestor's enslavement is really bizarre. It was chattal slavery, what else is there to say? They were considered property, they were not considered persons. The bible was literally used to endorse it back when it was around. Apologists are wack as hell.
Probably because if they accept that ANY part is unacceptable, they have to examine EVERY part, and they don't want to do that. How could they then maintain their prejudices?
@@byrondickens "Why can't atheists accept that "Christians" aren't all one monolithic bloc?" They're not? I would LOVE to see an appreciatively large bloc of Christians tell these slavery apologists (And there's plenty of apologists to choose from) that they're wrong. When atheists see that happening more frequently, maybe atheists will acknowledge that.
@@byrondickens I was a christian who started as a fundamentalist and over the course of 30 years transitioned to a very liberal christian and eventually left religion altogether. I guess that my question was a little rhetorical. I realize that not all Christians are alike. Obviously Dan is a Christian.
Religious apologists should understand how harmful and ridiculous they are and appear in trying to justify the horrors of the bible. Keep them honest Dan!!
...again. This is not the first time Dan has had to go up against another content creator who refuses to acknowledge the difference between debt servant and slave.
Hey Dan love the videos! Would love to chat with you sometime. I would love to hear the parts of Christianity you affirm. Most of your content is correcting inaccuracies so I am always curious about what is left once the dogma is removed. Keep making the great content your friend in San Antonio Texas Ricky
I'm also very curious. I can't help but feel that the arguments Dan makes seem to confirm my skeptical biases about the Bible, Christianity and faith in general, yet he claims to be and is often described as a practicing Mormon. Fascinating apparent contradiction.
He *doesn't* believe the bible to be Gods word, that an eyewitness of Jesus wrote a book in the Nt, that Moses wrote a book in our bibles or that Jesus got resurrected and went to heaven. He doesn't believe that God of the Bible is Almighty, he believes there are false prophecies in the bible, he also doesn't believe Jesus is God. He even believes Yhwh has a God above Him and that the bibles are not monotheistic. There isnt much you can believe anymore and for sure no belief that the historical Jesus would have accepted.
@@leom6343 I think you are confusing the views of Dr McClellan on what the bible says or what can be proven, with his personal faith. One person may believe that the bible does not claim that Jesus is god, and still personally believe that Jesus is god. There is a difference there.
@@meej33 everything I mentioned I have from Dan. He also believes God lies in the bible. And scholars generally agree that Jesus is not God based on the bible and history, they don't say the bible doesn't claim he is God as if there is still an option he could be God. Even books with highest christology do not view Jesus as the supreme God Almighty. So my point is what remains to believe in? Basically nothing. I mean scholars like Dan and their work are the reason I don't believe in the bible or Xtianity.
The original "influencer" sounds so sure of themselves that I'm leaning heavily toward them knowingly stating falsehoods, not unknowingly passing on incorrect information.
The protections for the 'Men' as it appears in these laws are meant for the 'B'ney Ysrael' or Sons of Israel, and not the foreign chattel. The foreign slave, for instance, is not covered by talionic justice.
It needs to keep being said, these apologetics also rely on the general ignorance on modern laws and recent history: In the US, debt slavery was _also_ practiced during antebellum times typically for non-black people (for example: paying off passage to the New World was a thing, as was tricking sharecroppers into owing farm owners a debt by debiting expenses against them without their knowledge so that they had to effectively become indentured slaves), however _debt slavery is now a crime_ - you cannot compel labour to pay off a debt, it will come with either a fine of $5000 or up to five years in prison or both for people who get caught trying that nonsense. Chattel slavery _is_ illegal, but not a crime in the US. You cannot go to prison or be fined for it (they'll likely use other charges to do that though - kidnapping, false imprisonment, etc). *It was a thing up until the 1940s that southern states would imprison people for black coded crimes, then (because the government is still allowed to enslave convicted prisoners) sell the prisoner to private organisations as indentured workers, and those private organisations would then get off scott-free when they were caught because it's not debt slavery, it's chattel slavery - and the government gave them the prisoner, so it's not even kidnapping or false imprisonment - and then the prisoner would get released only to immediately be recaptured for being unemployed without their former employer's permission (one of those aforementioned black coded crimes) and go right back into the system.* Essentially, the argument "it's not the bad thing, it's this other thing you don't really think about *which we punish worse than the bad thing* so it's fine" is a shitty argument. All of it is exploitation. And that's _before_ we even engage with the fact that _both_ could be sexual slaves.
I don't get why people are constantly trying to do this. Why can't people just be intelligent enough to admit that, it was a different time, the past sucked, and learn from their mistakes..
Well said. This tactic is hands down one of the easiest arguments used when they say...."How can I follow a God that (inserts this proof text)......" Ignorance at it's finest. And these very "arguments" are in this comment section. Smh.
WRT the discussion about the progressive law @8:10, Dr. Josh argues that it is not so progressive and actually has little to do with slavery but rather international diplomacy, or lack thereof, in that Israel was not to assist the surrounding nations by returning their slaves but rather would weaken them by facilitating their loss of slaves who escaped. Thus the benefit to the escaped foreign slave was a mere windfall from Israel's being a bad neighbour.
The two most prominent apologists defending biblical chattel slavery for non-Jews in the ancient Kingdom of Israel are Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, and Christian academic, William Lane Craig.
I would say lately you see more clips of Turek and Cliff than anything else. Two of the worst on the subject frankly. Which says a lot about the state of apologetics today frankly.
@maklelan2902 Think you misspoke at 6:32. You said if the servant dies after a day or two....no punishment. The verse states that the servant "Gets Up", not dies.
Not really drj. This verse goes to intent. If the person dies the same day as the beating, then it's determined that the master intended to kill him and he is avenged. If he dies after a couple of days, then it's determined that his intent was not to kill him, so there is no punishment since the slave is his property. You have to look at both 20 and 21 here.
The information is freely out there at this point. there is no excuse for them being this ignorant. I therefore believe that they choose to lie or that by insuring they do not know they commit an intentional lie of omission.
Some pple say that when jesus referred to the Canaanite woman as a dog, that he didn't mean dog , rather he was testing her faith and that. Also that Jews used to refer to non Jews as dogs but not in a bad way, could you explain?
I'm more interested in Dan's opinions on fantastic miracles in the bible and whether they're fictitious or true. A good indication of the capacity of rational thought and grounding in reality. Important for any historian or scholar. It's not a side issue.
It's like there's a standard explanation to justify Biblical slavery. I hear the same basic points over and over from different defenders. This guy just did a good job of explaining it susinctly.
The first thing I do after watching one of Dan's videos, is jump to the comments section to read the sheer and utter nonsense posted by religious believers who attempt - and fail - to impugn the scholarship. Personally, if I find that, in order to maintain my belief, I have to ignore the truth, then that's a sure sign that I need to let go of that belief.
When Jacob moved his family to Egypt during the great famine of that time, it was for their own protection and survival. 70+ members of that family became over a million or so in the 400 years they were in Egypt. Why do you suppose God allowed Joseph to be sold into slavery by his brothers and rise to authority in Egypt? To protect the linage from which Christ was to come and to allow Jacob’s descendants to multiply so they could represent God to the world. God had His hand on His people even during slavery, for their protection.
You don't understand Dan, slaves long ago made millions of dollars playing games they loved and could leave at any time they wanted without going to jail or being put to death just like pro athletes today.
This creator is enthusiastically confident his argument is persuasive with a certain mind set while his nonverbal behaviors tells me he doesn't believe what he is saying. For whom does he perform and why? He is not an apologists, but rather some modern version of a courtesan seeking to have influence and power.
Just curious - Am I the only one who is, when listening to these content creators who Dan checks, or when reading the comments of religious apologists who follow his channels, reminded of the movie Idiocracy? 🤣
It's definitely telling that being sentence to slavery in the mines was considered equivalent to a death sentence. It was called *damnatio ad metallum* by the Romans. Ancient slavery wasn't racialized, but it was still incredibly horrible.
@@meej33 "Rowing at the galleys was reportedly not a picnic either." But they were paid, as I understand. Paid mercenaries had a strong motive to maintain discipline in battle in hopes of winning and actually being paid, as opposed to slaves that would be more motivated to look for a means of escape and jump ship the moment the galley's hull took damage.
Chattel slavery is based on the "Gentile slavery" from the Bible., just as indentured servitude was based on the "Hebrew slavery" of the Bible. Trying to defend slavery, Biblical or otherwise, is indeed a "Lost Cause". Just saying "Nuh-uh" is not a defense. It is denial.
"There are two issues people have with these passages." Notice how the apologist immediately shifts the blame from the problematic and indefensible passage onto the readers. This is the classic apologetic tactic that the Bible can do no wrong and never be wrong, and the blame is always shifted to the reader. Also, the apologist insanely misrepresents the biblical text and context of the passage. So dishonest and/or deluded.
It's always the same predictable sophistry. They have the "truth" and the evidence is just a hurdle to be overcome. I know. I was him as an ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist. The cognitive dissonance is real.
@@kentstallard6512former Evangelical Christian minister as well. It was when I realized that I had been making excuses for the god of the bible and the bible that I got out.
@@kentstallard6512 Is it still sophistry if the people pushing these narratives are oblivious to the fallacies in the arguments they present? I suspect most of the people saying these things haven't even looked at the verses they're using in context and are simply repeating arguments they saw elsewhere.
You are wrong about the kidnapping: it was a capital offense and this completely changes the comparison to African slaves in the US: under Mosaic law there'd be none. Also the characterization that runaways being granted sanctuary only applying if from other countries is problematic: give them sanctuary so they can be later denied sanctuary. In real world terms the scholars you cite are lacking. IOW there's no practical reason why they wouldn't be abusive to foreign escapees if the future owner had the right to abuse. Is it your understanding that those who publicly announce they don't want to be freed, and having the aul ceremony, only apply to hebrews?
How does this factor in with the rules about treating the foreigner well? When they first get there you’re welcoming and when they’re settled then you make slaves out of them? How do foreigners get to be in this awful predicament?
They can be sold by their families into it, or they could become slaves because of debt. Same as anyone really, except of course a native Israelite male. And the provisions to treat the foreigner well are obviously referring to free foreigners and not slaves.
As to Dan’s statement that we only hear what’s on the books, as far as the Bible is concerned…that’s true; nevertheless, the Bible’s insistence on specifying certain boundaries with the maltreatment of slaves, shows that ancient Israelite elites needed to legislate against certain actual nasty behaviors existing within the Israelites.
There were already rulings how to treat slaves before the bible was written. And your point doesn't justify the fact that slaves are the property of the owner and more horrible stuff
Code of Hammurabi did it first. What’s your point? Seriously, look it up. The Code of Hammurabi is widely and freely available, you can find it online, CTRL+F “slave” and read everything. Some of it is eerily similar to Biblical laws about slavery.
@@JopJio your entire post is irrelevant to what I wrote as I never said it justifies anything, nor did I ever talk about the Bible being first. I’m also aware of the slave corpus in the ANE.
1:39 - also, its probably worth noting that American slavery has its roots in the Atlantic slave trade, where slaves were bought in Africa and transported across to the Americas, and the slaves in the African slave trade were Africans being caught and sold by other Africans to European slave traders. Naturally this means the slave trade was dominated by black slaves because that's pretty much all the slavers had to enslave. If Africa had had a wider variety of skin colours, then there likely would've been a wider variety being enslaved and still being slaves in America, and consequently Americans would've concocted some other reason to discriminate and try to justify the slavery than just skin colour (although even then, from the One Drop rule, I can't imagine they'd have treated white African slaves any better than they did black slaves).
.35: no "we" don't think of the antebellum South, "you" think of this, everyone else thinks of the thousands of Icelandic, Irish, Russian, Turkish, Spanish, and long etc folk who were raided and enslaved all over the ancient and not so ancient world to keep the wheels turning. Get a grip!
@@kentstallard6512Why do you consider it irrelevant? I'm thinking the creator mentions it because he's probably American, and it's the most recent blatant example of slavery that Americans are aware of.
@@Noneya5555 For many Americans, slavery in America is the _ONLY_ form of slavery that they're aware of. A lot of Americans believe that the only other slavery taking place was in the Barbary Coast.
Actually American slavery was economically based. West Africa was where the slaves were available for the lowest price. I doubt Southern plantation owners would have cared about where they got their slaves.
Slavery in America was not initially racially motivated -- originally, it was ethnically motivated. In particular, many Irish who became destitute by a famine engineered by the English became basically chattel slaves in the colonies before the Atlantic slave trade reached North America. Once the North American colonies began receiving African slaves, the racial motivation was applied ex post facto -- the original impetus was the intersection of mercantilist greed and convenience. Spain had a few hundred years head start on the British colonies, but they also developed their racist ideological justification after the Atlantic slave trade was established. Edit: clarified some statements and fixed some spelling mistakes.
People like the Irish suffered harsh indentured servitude, but it wasn't the same as chattal slavery. There was a time limit, and it was not something that descended to their children. The nature of their contracts and how they were sold was also very different, as well as their legal status as persons. That's an important distinction. Chattal Slavery specifically in America was very much racially motivated. Chattal is the type of slavery we are generally talking about in the video, even when saying early slavery.This is particularly the case around ethnic vs race motivations, not slavery in general, as that can come in many varieties. Although honestly this is all pedantic, slavery is wrong no matter what, although I think it's disingenuous to say that the only impetus originally was greed and convenience, especially when being a chattal slave inherently make you part of someone economy, since you are automatically property of monetary value.
@@saturnhex9855 actually, the Irish didn't speak English, so they did not consent to the indentured servitude contracts -- they were generally tricked into signing the documents. Many of them were simply kidnapped and sold as slaves, and the women and girls were used as breeders with African slaves once they arrived to get them to be perpetual slaves (much like the OT law about an indentured Israelite becoming a slave to stay with his family, except that the Irish girls didn't have a choice in whether or not they were impregnated). Also, since there was a chance the Irish slaves would claim their freedom after 7 years, they were much cheaper than African slaves, and they were often mistreated even worse since their owners did not expect to keep them for more than 7 years -- many died after just a few years of malnutrition and being overworked. I did a bit more digging after my initial comment, and while the first slaves in the colonies were Irish, the African slaves arrived only a few years later. Many slave owners in the colonies had both Irish and African slaves, and the Irish slaves were treated as expendable because they were significantly cheaper. I contend that the modern concept of race was not the primary motivator because of the history of Irish slaves in America.
Actually, American slavery wasn’t based entirely on race. There were black slave owners for example. There could be a free black individual living down the road to a home with slaves. Eventually, race would become an argument for the continuation of the institution, but that’s where it met its demise.
Uh, because unlike you apparently, they think that slavery is wrong, especially when practiced by people who claim they were slaves themselves, and who didn't enjoy being slaves. BTW, as usual, you're deflecting. The issue is that religious believers such as yourself actively refuse to acknowledge that the God of the Bible condoned slavery. That's the issue that the posters are discussing and concerned with, which you somehow seem not to notice or understand...?
One reason is that as long as Conservative Christians wield the OT against LGBT people, then the morality of the OT is fair game. But also it’s good to be curious and educated about things, including religion.
"Europeans invented the concept of race" I know this is popular among people that think they're elite-smart, but it's dumb. Just stop. At worst Europeans picked up the concept from middle ages contact with Islam on the Iberian peninsula. Mohammed, himself a slave trader/owner, considered an Arab to be twice the value of an African. The self-proud academic will quibble around the edges about ancient concepts and whatnot, but that's all sophistry. Tribalism begat nationalism begat racism as human circles of contact expanded, all well before Europe joined an already thriving slave industry.
@@TheDanEdwards if you're going to quote me, finish the quote. Concepts of race and racism predate Portuguese involvement in the African slave trade which was already thriving through African contact with Islam.
"Dashing babies on the rocks? You have to understand, babies were different at the time. Much more dashable. It wasn't infanticide like you think of it today."
Typical. All you're doing is quote mining to support your agenda and you don't have a fucking clue about the context of the passage you're alluding to.
I feel so awful for laughing soooo hard at this
as soon as someone gets *really* into apologetics it's just a question of time before they make excuses for slavery and genocide
I think Christians are conditioned to be numb to it. God can do whatever he wants and hell for most humanity is normalized. So even if you prove they don't have an excuse they can shrug their shoulders and say God can do what he wants whether it seems right or wrong to us.
It's absolutely necessary if one is going to defend the Bible.
@@kentstallard6512 It would be a lot easier to say, "There are some things in the bible I just don't understand."
Excuses?
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn that would be too honest for Christians.
It always amazes me how apologists can spend their time defending slavery, genocide, misogyny, capital punishment for victimless crimes, hell doctrines, human sacrifice, massacres and rape, but never look in the mirror and say "are we the bad guys?"
@Wertbag99 love and agree with everything you just stated!!
Wasn’t slavery. Lev25 is not possession by ownership but possession by debt contract, hence redemption by Redeemer Christ of all debt, fin&sin.
Earth is hell. Only way out is ignore "family" or "god" (both same ai) tricking you to come back here. Go to the void. Be Aware of the fake void. There is nothing in the void. B4nn3d information.
Sorry, I can see what you are trying to say, but saying people defend these things is freaking wild and interpreting things the most disingenous way possible. People believe this things happened, not that they were right or wrong, and if God did indeed create life he can as well take it. The only sort of valid thing you said was the slavery, the misogyny and the "hell doctrine", which to be honest, I see what you are trying to say, but in my opinion are not as bad like you put it.
@@LucasTF you are delusional. You cant see how world works and that "lord" of this earth hellrealm is evilsickfk. Also minion tr33mäsöns. Lil psycho controllers. I bet you cant understand what they are doing with whäkaziines and skytripes, huh?
Conflating the ownership of people as property with owning a professional sports team was so dishonest.🤦♂️
And disgusting.
Possession by ownership vs possession by debt contract. You need a better dictionary. It was possession by debt contract, hence redemption by Redeemer of (fin&sin) debt.
@@9432515 Tell me, why did you feel the need to lie?
When confronted with the "God didn't permit slavery, He governed the practice and gave it strict rules" argument, I always remember that God does not "moderate" or "govern" the sin of coveting--he expressly condemns it. Why did He not do the same in the text?
Hey,...that god commanded the tribes people of Moses to stone the old man into oblivion for collecting sticks on the Sabbath
That's all you need to know
Good observation. If you replace slavery with another crime like grape, you can easily see how it's just as immoral if not more so to govern its practice.
"Don't own people."
Book of Me, 1:1.
That was easy. I must be omni-er than their god.
You’re my god now. Hail.
but Dan just owned this apologist...
ALL HAIL INWYRDN!
I would like to join your religion!
I wish one of the 10 Commandments was: Thou shalt not own another person as property.
Hey guy... that would be WOKE and GAY. /s
Seriously. We could ditch any of the first 4. They're useless.
What I find both disgusting and endlessly hilarious is that, rather than just admit that the scriptures regarding slavery and genocide were written by Human men who used God to justify their desire to have slaves and to murder their neighbors for their land, they instead prefer to engage in mental gymnastics to protect their idolatrous fantasy of an "infallible" and "inerrant" Bible (which doctrine didn't even exist until around the middle of the 19th century). Of course, if they ever admitted that men did indeed put their own opinions and prejudices into scripture, they would be forced to acknowledge that certain things in The Bible attributed to God might indeed not have come from God at all, and might be the product of the opinions, societal traditions, and prejudicial views of the times in which they were written.
Nailed it.
In this case, the slippery slope is not a fallacy. Once you admit not all of the Bible is from god, you must face the possibility that none of it is.
Amen! If it's OK to say that in this instance...? 🤣
That whole movement that decided the Bible was inerrant and infallible created a big issue because they forget how much is poetry, allegory, etc.
I think of it as a conversation between God and humans but we only get to hear our side of the conversation including all the bits where someone misheard or misunderstood something they were told.
@@wartgin That's about the best way I've heard it put. Absolutely.
I, personally, have yet to see any religious apologetics that wasn't profoundly ignorant or profoundly deceptive
Richard Swinburne is your only chance, afaIk.
There would not be a point to denying what the Bible ✝ says, if someone was trying to be honest.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana I honestly deny a lot of what the bible says
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Not as much as religious apologists.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Definitely agree
Thanks, Dan. As it happens, I was just doing some research on slavery in the Bible precisely because it was used as a justification for slavery in the United States. This is extremely helpful.
Bart Ehrman also did an episode on Biblical slavery.
ruclips.net/video/EcSSgWGHtfQ/видео.htmlsi=nGPjUThUFybcZjYi
Then you might want to look up Jacobus Capitein. Isn't it remarkable that only last 150 years apologists "conclude" that slavery is unBiblical?
@@marknieuweboer8099 It should be noted that at the time, abolitionists argued that salvery in the antebellum South was unbiblical. Of course, that is because the bible can be used to argue anything and the opposite. It's just a matter of finding the "right" verse.
That would make 250 years at best, ie seventeen Centuries after Jesus died. The point remains - it would have been nice if christians "concluded" that many centuries before.
If you use your thumb, you can hide the full definition of redemption and possession. That helps. Possession is NOT automatically possession by ownership, but also possession by debt contract. And that’s what this was, hence redemption by Redeemer Christ of the world (fin&sin).
The question I always want to ask when someone says biblical slavery wasn't like old south slavery is, "So slavery would be OK today as long as we followed the biblical rules?" I really would like to hear their answer.
I’ve seen some apologists argue that so long as a slave master is kind to their slave, it’s okay. Then when I ask them if they’d be willing to be enslaved to a kind master, they usually stop responding.
@@jackweaver1846Example?
I mean, you can hear some Republicans today arguing that slavery had some good benefits for blacks, which isn't far off from your statement.
Owning people is always wrong.
Agreed
There is an obvious question, which we must ask every time this subject arises (and that is often). Is he simply a poor naive dupe who has been brainwashed or is he a deliberate liar. Those are the only two options.
He's obviously listened to Frank Turek, Sean McDowell, and WLC and thinks it is his duty to educate the rest of us.
🎯
...the fact that he picked a translation that uses the exact word 'slaves' and yet STILL says its not slavery
I absolutely understand the mental gymnastics by apogetics on the issue of slavery. It's a key load-bearing concept. Unless you can convince yourself that the Bible doesn't say what it says, you either have to support slavery, which we mostly now consider abhorrent-though some forms of slavery still exist in the developing world as well as things like convict labor and human trafficking in the developed world-or you have to admit the Bible isn't infallible and univocal and everything becomes up for negotiation.
Both of those concepts are very difficult to reconcile for people with lifelong robust dogmas.
Yeah no yeah, it’s still a literal endorsement of chattel slavery. How can people attempt to excuse that away?
Because they want to use the morals and laws of the Bible in today's world. If they can't explain away the slavery (and other horrors) then they can't make the argument that the Bible is valid in modern life.
they want the bible to fit their own morality so bad
Christians need to understand this is moral relativism there is no society ever where slavery "wasn't that bad". There's a kernel of truth to the idea the transatlantic slave trade was maybe more brutal for the average slave than slavery in the ancient world, but that's really not saying much. There were roman slaves that lived relatively comfortable lives, but that was if you were lucky. Any slave in the ancient Mediterranean world could be beaten, r worded or just worked to death with usually no consequences for the master.
At this point refuting the lies of apologists is getting tyresome, since they just repeat the same lies over and over expecting people defending the truth to just get tired and leave.
That’s why some are so keen on banning books and tightly controlling the information that people are allowed to receive.
It’s so much easier to shape a person’s perception if you can deny them opportunity to hear any alternative. Which is how THEY themselves were formed.
Sounds as if you've read the posts of the apologists who follow Dan's channels and attempt to cast aspersions on the scholarship. 😄
@@Noneya5555 i've been following the multiple debates on the matter between apologists and scholars on antiquity ad the bible, yes
@@Noneya5555 Do you go to mental asylums to check if the people in there claiming to be God are God?
Or is wasting your time only a good thing when the other side does it? 🙄
Lies?
insane how people think older forms of slavery are more humane
Yes! Especially considering how brutal humanity has been throughout history.
Right! Because it's in their doctrine(from G-D) they believe it's absolutely justified smh
They say it’s more humane than now because it makes it easier for them to excuse it. How does god allowing slaves to be beaten seem more humane?! It just makes no sense and they refuse to see it.
Is that what he is trying to say. He lost me when he stated that ethnicity and race are different things without saying what the difference is or what is the significance of the difference between enslaving persons of a different ethnicity versus those of a different race.
@@TheMargarita1948 I copied this from a website.
“Race refers to the concept of dividing people into groups on the basis of various sets of physical characteristics and the process of ascribing social meaning to those groups. Ethnicity describes the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs.”
At least up to the time of William the Conqueror the Scotts, the Welsh and the English used to enslave each other. Same race, different ethnicity.
These are old apologetics debunked a long time ago. How is it some Christians are still using them?
Purposeful lying?
The planet was proven to be round (-ish) a long time ago. How it that some people still think it's flat?
People are stupid, Ben. All of us.
Education helps but I've seen many well educated people fall for stupid conspiracies and cults.
This guy makes a good point, I think. ruclips.net/video/OXp1CQA8YDw/видео.html
Self deceit.
Thinking that if they repeat it often enough, it becomes the truth.
i recently had a facebook conversation with someone who said if the bible calls it sin, it's sin, end of story. When I posited that maybe a book that condones slavery wouldn't be the best moral guide in all circumstances, I got the standard, "the Bible does not condone slavery." So I quoted Leviticus, linking to several different bibles online. The response? "Well, the bible doesn't call slavery a sin, so my original point stands." 🤣🤣🤣
Wow
Mental gymnastics to make it okay. I realized after leaving Christianity how much most Christian’s lack compassion for other people… all because of a book.
It's wild to me because it sounds like he's rationalizing and justifying slavery.
Did I get that right?
Yes - they never assert that indentured servitude is immoral too.
He is.
Incredible mental gymnastics by this apologist
They're all gymnasts.
Definitely.
Yes and not really thinking through any if this himself. He’s not clever enough to build an obfuscative apologist argument on his own. This is just something he is parroting from other apologists and acting as if it’s just apparent in the text.
@@pangelsaya definitely agree. It amazes me that they talk themselves into believing what they are saying
A coping mechanism for cognitive dissonance: what he believes is moral vs what he would like to be moral but obviously is not.
Man... I hate comparisons of slavery with professional athletes.
I constantly see apologists just ignoring the chattel slavery just because theres indendtured slavery.
Thank you for speaking up.
Weird how old testament Israel instituted the same apartheid state they have today.
You mean the one where the alleged "Palestinians" ( they're really Arabs) enjoy the rights of a democratic nation that NONE of the other empires that controlled the area before extended to them?
They hate the slavery bits
They do now. Most of them.
150 years ago? Yyeeaahhhh…….
Dan on every block of the Apologist Neighborhood, watching and lurking.
Also in the head of every prominent, dishonest TikTok apologist, knowing their Dan Reckoning will arrive eventually.
Probably the most interesting thing about contemporary defense of biblical slavery is that it illustrates a far more disturbing reality. If the bible is the divine word of a god, but can be that horribly misinterpreted for that long, by that many people, it's worthless. Not even 200 years ago we had A US Senator standing on the floor of the US senate declaring _Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God - let him go to the Bible. I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation. Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments, in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized - sanctioned everywhere._ Jefferson Davis. It's not as though he was alone either. So what changed? The book? Nope!
The only thing that makes atheists more angry than people interpreting the Bible to support bigotry and divisiveness is people interpreting the Bible to support inclusiveness and unity.
I am always stunned, despite long experience, by the immorality of apologists. I leave aside slavery, which is totally unjustifiable whatever its form, to concentrate on indurent servitude. It is abominable to force human beings to sell one of their own or to sell themselves even for a limited period.
This guy is planning to become an apologist/excusiologist. You can tell because he is such a liar.
Or maybe a politician.
Thank you...
This apologist probably believes that morality is objective and Biblical. So he should advocate indentured servitude. Even if I accept, just for the sake of argument, that his explanations are correct I think his Biblical morals depraved.
Thanks Dan!!
Oh god, I hate it when they bring up the Atlantic Slave Trade. People really don't understand American slavery or what race and ethnicity really mean and their distinction. Even in this comments section. Seeing people argue over the ethics and motivations of my ancestor's enslavement is really bizarre. It was chattal slavery, what else is there to say? They were considered property, they were not considered persons. The bible was literally used to endorse it back when it was around. Apologists are wack as hell.
Slavery apologetics is pathetic, and that's the biggest problem with the doctrine of inerrancy some stuff just needs to go.
You're good at this.
Why can't christians just accept that some parts of their book that was written centuries ago might be unacceptable today?
Probably because if they accept that ANY part is unacceptable, they have to examine EVERY part, and they don't want to do that. How could they then maintain their prejudices?
Why can't atheists accept that "Christians" aren't all one monolithic bloc?
@@byrondickens They want to be though.
@@byrondickens "Why can't atheists accept that "Christians" aren't all one monolithic bloc?"
They're not?
I would LOVE to see an appreciatively large bloc of Christians tell these slavery apologists (And there's plenty of apologists to choose from) that they're wrong.
When atheists see that happening more frequently, maybe atheists will acknowledge that.
@@byrondickens I was a christian who started as a fundamentalist and over the course of 30 years transitioned to a very liberal christian and eventually left religion altogether. I guess that my question was a little rhetorical. I realize that not all Christians are alike. Obviously Dan is a Christian.
Religious apologists should understand how harmful and ridiculous they are and appear in trying to justify the horrors of the bible. Keep them honest Dan!!
We definitely needed this video.
...again.
This is not the first time Dan has had to go up against another content creator who refuses to acknowledge the difference between debt servant and slave.
@@christasimon9716 people will continually need reminding it seems lol. I wish they actually paid attention.
Here we go again...
Hey Dan love the videos! Would love to chat with you sometime. I would love to hear the parts of Christianity you affirm. Most of your content is correcting inaccuracies so I am always curious about what is left once the dogma is removed. Keep making the great content your friend in San Antonio Texas Ricky
Great question.
I'm also very curious. I can't help but feel that the arguments Dan makes seem to confirm my skeptical biases about the Bible, Christianity and faith in general, yet he claims to be and is often described as a practicing Mormon. Fascinating apparent contradiction.
He *doesn't* believe the bible to be Gods word, that an eyewitness of Jesus wrote a book in the Nt, that Moses wrote a book in our bibles or that Jesus got resurrected and went to heaven. He doesn't believe that God of the Bible is Almighty, he believes there are false prophecies in the bible, he also doesn't believe Jesus is God. He even believes Yhwh has a God above Him and that the bibles are not monotheistic.
There isnt much you can believe anymore and for sure no belief that the historical Jesus would have accepted.
@@leom6343 I think you are confusing the views of Dr McClellan on what the bible says or what can be proven, with his personal faith. One person may believe that the bible does not claim that Jesus is god, and still personally believe that Jesus is god. There is a difference there.
@@meej33 everything I mentioned I have from Dan. He also believes God lies in the bible. And scholars generally agree that Jesus is not God based on the bible and history, they don't say the bible doesn't claim he is God as if there is still an option he could be God. Even books with highest christology do not view Jesus as the supreme God Almighty.
So my point is what remains to believe in? Basically nothing. I mean scholars like Dan and their work are the reason I don't believe in the bible or Xtianity.
If the religion you believe in makes you justify slavery... maybe you should rethink your beliefs.
The original "influencer" sounds so sure of themselves that I'm leaning heavily toward them knowingly stating falsehoods, not unknowingly passing on incorrect information.
This guy is a certified sus scrofa domesticus cosmetician.
Lipstick on a pig?
@@pansepot1490thanks, I didn’t get that.
This is the 4th time im hearing bible slavery apoligetics bring up sports teams.its starting to make me wonder😅
More evidence that apologists start at the end and work their way backwards, which is now how logic and reason are supposed to work.
“NOT” how
The protections for the 'Men' as it appears in these laws are meant for the 'B'ney Ysrael' or Sons of Israel, and not the foreign chattel. The foreign slave, for instance, is not covered by talionic justice.
It needs to keep being said, these apologetics also rely on the general ignorance on modern laws and recent history:
In the US, debt slavery was _also_ practiced during antebellum times typically for non-black people (for example: paying off passage to the New World was a thing, as was tricking sharecroppers into owing farm owners a debt by debiting expenses against them without their knowledge so that they had to effectively become indentured slaves), however _debt slavery is now a crime_ - you cannot compel labour to pay off a debt, it will come with either a fine of $5000 or up to five years in prison or both for people who get caught trying that nonsense.
Chattel slavery _is_ illegal, but not a crime in the US. You cannot go to prison or be fined for it (they'll likely use other charges to do that though - kidnapping, false imprisonment, etc).
*It was a thing up until the 1940s that southern states would imprison people for black coded crimes, then (because the government is still allowed to enslave convicted prisoners) sell the prisoner to private organisations as indentured workers, and those private organisations would then get off scott-free when they were caught because it's not debt slavery, it's chattel slavery - and the government gave them the prisoner, so it's not even kidnapping or false imprisonment - and then the prisoner would get released only to immediately be recaptured for being unemployed without their former employer's permission (one of those aforementioned black coded crimes) and go right back into the system.*
Essentially, the argument "it's not the bad thing, it's this other thing you don't really think about *which we punish worse than the bad thing* so it's fine" is a shitty argument. All of it is exploitation. And that's _before_ we even engage with the fact that _both_ could be sexual slaves.
I don't get why people are constantly trying to do this. Why can't people just be intelligent enough to admit that, it was a different time, the past sucked, and learn from their mistakes..
Well said. This tactic is hands down one of the easiest arguments used when they say...."How can I follow a God that (inserts this proof text)......" Ignorance at it's finest. And these very "arguments" are in this comment section. Smh.
Well, I'm guilty of some of these same misunderstandings.
WRT the discussion about the progressive law @8:10, Dr. Josh argues that it is not so progressive and actually has little to do with slavery but rather international diplomacy, or lack thereof, in that Israel was not to assist the surrounding nations by returning their slaves but rather would weaken them by facilitating their loss of slaves who escaped. Thus the benefit to the escaped foreign slave was a mere windfall from Israel's being a bad neighbour.
The two most prominent apologists defending biblical chattel slavery for non-Jews in the ancient Kingdom of Israel are Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, and Christian academic, William Lane Craig.
the two most ridiculed apologists in recent years
I would say lately you see more clips of Turek and Cliff than anything else. Two of the worst on the subject frankly. Which says a lot about the state of apologetics today frankly.
Sounds like the explanation I got from a JH one time. I thought there were a lot of issues with it at the time.
Is there a book on xenophobia in the Bible?
Cook Daniel, cook!
@maklelan2902 Think you misspoke at 6:32. You said if the servant dies after a day or two....no punishment.
The verse states that the servant "Gets Up", not dies.
Not really drj. This verse goes to intent. If the person dies the same day as the beating, then it's determined that the master intended to kill him and he is avenged. If he dies after a couple of days, then it's determined that his intent was not to kill him, so there is no punishment since the slave is his property. You have to look at both 20 and 21 here.
@@nickbrasing8786 but verse 21 says "if he gets up", implying he did not die, right?
This is insane!
The information is freely out there at this point. there is no excuse for them being this ignorant. I therefore believe that they choose to lie or that by insuring they do not know they commit an intentional lie of omission.
Some pple say that when jesus referred to the Canaanite woman as a dog, that he didn't mean dog , rather he was testing her faith and that. Also that Jews used to refer to non Jews as dogs but not in a bad way, could you explain?
Cliff has left the chat
🤙
I'm more interested in Dan's opinions on fantastic miracles in the bible and whether they're fictitious or true. A good indication of the capacity of rational thought and grounding in reality. Important for any historian or scholar. It's not a side issue.
Are these people delusional? How can you read any of that and be like - "cool".
It's like there's a standard explanation to justify Biblical slavery. I hear the same basic points over and over from different defenders. This guy just did a good job of explaining it susinctly.
Slavery is very old in human history and abolished very recently.
The first thing I do after watching one of Dan's videos, is jump to the comments section to read the sheer and utter nonsense posted by religious believers who attempt - and fail - to impugn the scholarship.
Personally, if I find that, in order to maintain my belief, I have to ignore the truth, then that's a sure sign that I need to let go of that belief.
Why is lying for Jesus so popular? Maybe Dan should go over the exact meaning of "do not bear false witness" or how ever that rule sounded.
When Jacob moved his family to Egypt during the great famine of that time, it was for their own protection and survival. 70+ members of that family became over a million or so in the 400 years they were in Egypt. Why do you suppose God allowed Joseph to be sold into slavery by his brothers and rise to authority in Egypt? To protect the linage from which Christ was to come and to allow Jacob’s descendants to multiply so they could represent God to the world. God had His hand on His people even during slavery, for their protection.
Yea, the bible is describing the good kind of slavery.
😅
You don't understand Dan, slaves long ago made millions of dollars playing games they loved and could leave at any time they wanted without going to jail or being put to death just like pro athletes today.
This creator is enthusiastically confident his argument is persuasive with a certain mind set while his nonverbal behaviors tells me he doesn't believe what he is saying. For whom does he perform and why? He is not an apologists, but rather some modern version of a courtesan seeking to have influence and power.
OMG 😂
Just curious - Am I the only one who is, when listening to these content creators who Dan checks, or when reading the comments of religious apologists who follow his channels, reminded of the movie Idiocracy? 🤣
It's definitely telling that being sentence to slavery in the mines was considered equivalent to a death sentence. It was called *damnatio ad metallum* by the Romans. Ancient slavery wasn't racialized, but it was still incredibly horrible.
Rowing at the galleys was reportedly not a picnic either.
🎯
@@meej33 "Rowing at the galleys was reportedly not a picnic either."
But they were paid, as I understand.
Paid mercenaries had a strong motive to maintain discipline in battle in hopes of winning and actually being paid, as opposed to slaves that would be more motivated to look for a means of escape and jump ship the moment the galley's hull took damage.
Chattel slavery is based on the "Gentile slavery" from the Bible., just as indentured servitude was based on the "Hebrew slavery" of the Bible. Trying to defend slavery, Biblical or otherwise, is indeed a "Lost Cause". Just saying "Nuh-uh" is not a defense. It is denial.
No matter how many Bible Bros post the same tired justifications, it doesn’t make their statements true.
"There are two issues people have with these passages." Notice how the apologist immediately shifts the blame from the problematic and indefensible passage onto the readers. This is the classic apologetic tactic that the Bible can do no wrong and never be wrong, and the blame is always shifted to the reader. Also, the apologist insanely misrepresents the biblical text and context of the passage. So dishonest and/or deluded.
It's always the same predictable sophistry.
They have the "truth" and the evidence is just a hurdle to be overcome.
I know. I was him as an ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist. The cognitive dissonance is real.
@@kentstallard6512former Evangelical Christian minister as well. It was when I realized that I had been making excuses for the god of the bible and the bible that I got out.
@ Kent and James: compliments from this lifelong unbeliever (I'm not even baptized) for abandoning those depraved views.
@@kentstallard6512 Is it still sophistry if the people pushing these narratives are oblivious to the fallacies in the arguments they present? I suspect most of the people saying these things haven't even looked at the verses they're using in context and are simply repeating arguments they saw elsewhere.
@@marknieuweboer8099 Thanks. But I'm not proud. Rather, remorseful of the years during which I promoted bigoted, barbaric mythology.
Slaves were a part of the culture, this passage is saying EMPLOYEES and rules in place to protect them,no where is the bible condoning slavery.
Ah, another "owning people is actually cool" guy. There's an infinite supply.
You are wrong about the kidnapping: it was a capital offense and this completely changes the comparison to African slaves in the US: under Mosaic law there'd be none. Also the characterization that runaways being granted sanctuary only applying if from other countries is problematic: give them sanctuary so they can be later denied sanctuary. In real world terms the scholars you cite are lacking. IOW there's no practical reason why they wouldn't be abusive to foreign escapees if the future owner had the right to abuse. Is it your understanding that those who publicly announce they don't want to be freed, and having the aul ceremony, only apply to hebrews?
How does this factor in with the rules about treating the foreigner well? When they first get there you’re welcoming and when they’re settled then you make slaves out of them? How do foreigners get to be in this awful predicament?
They can be sold by their families into it, or they could become slaves because of debt. Same as anyone really, except of course a native Israelite male. And the provisions to treat the foreigner well are obviously referring to free foreigners and not slaves.
As to Dan’s statement that we only hear what’s on the books, as far as the Bible is concerned…that’s true; nevertheless, the Bible’s insistence on specifying certain boundaries with the maltreatment of slaves, shows that ancient Israelite elites needed to legislate against certain actual nasty behaviors existing within the Israelites.
Also, later prophets complain, among other things, about mistreatment of slaves
There were already rulings how to treat slaves before the bible was written. And your point doesn't justify the fact that slaves are the property of the owner and more horrible stuff
Get out the sanitizer. LOL
Please....the Bible is barbaric garbage.
Code of Hammurabi did it first. What’s your point? Seriously, look it up. The Code of Hammurabi is widely and freely available, you can find it online, CTRL+F “slave” and read everything. Some of it is eerily similar to Biblical laws about slavery.
@@JopJio your entire post is irrelevant to what I wrote as I never said it justifies anything, nor did I ever talk about the Bible being first. I’m also aware of the slave corpus in the ANE.
1:39 - also, its probably worth noting that American slavery has its roots in the Atlantic slave trade, where slaves were bought in Africa and transported across to the Americas, and the slaves in the African slave trade were Africans being caught and sold by other Africans to European slave traders. Naturally this means the slave trade was dominated by black slaves because that's pretty much all the slavers had to enslave. If Africa had had a wider variety of skin colours, then there likely would've been a wider variety being enslaved and still being slaves in America, and consequently Americans would've concocted some other reason to discriminate and try to justify the slavery than just skin colour (although even then, from the One Drop rule, I can't imagine they'd have treated white African slaves any better than they did black slaves).
.35: no "we" don't think of the antebellum South, "you" think of this, everyone else thinks of the thousands of Icelandic, Irish, Russian, Turkish, Spanish, and long etc folk who were raided and enslaved all over the ancient and not so ancient world to keep the wheels turning. Get a grip!
When they bring up American slavery I roll my eyes.
Irrelevant.
@@kentstallard6512Why do you consider it irrelevant? I'm thinking the creator mentions it because he's probably American, and it's the most recent blatant example of slavery that Americans are aware of.
I'm thinking the creator mentions it because he's probably American, and it's the most recent blatant example of slavery that Americans are aware of.
@@Noneya5555 For many Americans, slavery in America is the _ONLY_ form of slavery that they're aware of. A lot of Americans believe that the only other slavery taking place was in the Barbary Coast.
@@christasimon9716 Unfortunately, that's probably true.
Actually American slavery was economically based. West Africa was where the slaves were available for the lowest price. I doubt Southern plantation owners would have cared about where they got their slaves.
Slavery in America was not initially racially motivated -- originally, it was ethnically motivated. In particular, many Irish who became destitute by a famine engineered by the English became basically chattel slaves in the colonies before the Atlantic slave trade reached North America. Once the North American colonies began receiving African slaves, the racial motivation was applied ex post facto -- the original impetus was the intersection of mercantilist greed and convenience. Spain had a few hundred years head start on the British colonies, but they also developed their racist ideological justification after the Atlantic slave trade was established.
Edit: clarified some statements and fixed some spelling mistakes.
People like the Irish suffered harsh indentured servitude, but it wasn't the same as chattal slavery. There was a time limit, and it was not something that descended to their children. The nature of their contracts and how they were sold was also very different, as well as their legal status as persons. That's an important distinction. Chattal Slavery specifically in America was very much racially motivated. Chattal is the type of slavery we are generally talking about in the video, even when saying early slavery.This is particularly the case around ethnic vs race motivations, not slavery in general, as that can come in many varieties. Although honestly this is all pedantic, slavery is wrong no matter what, although I think it's disingenuous to say that the only impetus originally was greed and convenience, especially when being a chattal slave inherently make you part of someone economy, since you are automatically property of monetary value.
@@saturnhex9855 actually, the Irish didn't speak English, so they did not consent to the indentured servitude contracts -- they were generally tricked into signing the documents. Many of them were simply kidnapped and sold as slaves, and the women and girls were used as breeders with African slaves once they arrived to get them to be perpetual slaves (much like the OT law about an indentured Israelite becoming a slave to stay with his family, except that the Irish girls didn't have a choice in whether or not they were impregnated). Also, since there was a chance the Irish slaves would claim their freedom after 7 years, they were much cheaper than African slaves, and they were often mistreated even worse since their owners did not expect to keep them for more than 7 years -- many died after just a few years of malnutrition and being overworked.
I did a bit more digging after my initial comment, and while the first slaves in the colonies were Irish, the African slaves arrived only a few years later. Many slave owners in the colonies had both Irish and African slaves, and the Irish slaves were treated as expendable because they were significantly cheaper. I contend that the modern concept of race was not the primary motivator because of the history of Irish slaves in America.
@@k98killer This is all new to me. Scholarly sources?
@@Noneya5555 my main source was Dr. Roger McGrath, Ph.D. historian from UCLA.
Actually, American slavery wasn’t based entirely on race. There were black slave owners for example. There could be a free black individual living down the road to a home with slaves. Eventually, race would become an argument for the continuation of the institution, but that’s where it met its demise.
What race were the slaves that black people owned? Were they ever white?
Another day, another round of Dan punching down.
Leviticus 25:46 is a Jewish commandment regarding Canaanite slaves. Why do Gentiles care how Jews structure their society?
Uh, because unlike you apparently, they think that slavery is wrong, especially when practiced by people who claim they were slaves themselves, and who didn't enjoy being slaves.
BTW, as usual, you're deflecting. The issue is that religious believers such as yourself actively refuse to acknowledge that the God of the Bible condoned slavery. That's the issue that the posters are discussing and concerned with, which you somehow seem not to notice or understand...?
@Noneya5555 He's a fundamentalist. Of course he doesn't understand.
Jewish people are okay with Gentiles having Jewish slaves? 🤔
One reason is that as long as Conservative Christians wield the OT against LGBT people, then the morality of the OT is fair game.
But also it’s good to be curious and educated about things, including religion.
@@PennyDreadful2024 There is no OT. The Torah is eternal and immutable: 613 commandments for Jews and the 7 for Gentiles.
"Europeans invented the concept of race"
I know this is popular among people that think they're elite-smart, but it's dumb. Just stop. At worst Europeans picked up the concept from middle ages contact with Islam on the Iberian peninsula. Mohammed, himself a slave trader/owner, considered an Arab to be twice the value of an African. The self-proud academic will quibble around the edges about ancient concepts and whatnot, but that's all sophistry. Tribalism begat nationalism begat racism as human circles of contact expanded, all well before Europe joined an already thriving slave industry.
" Tribalism begat nationalism begat racism "
@@TheDanEdwards if you're going to quote me, finish the quote. Concepts of race and racism predate Portuguese involvement in the African slave trade which was already thriving through African contact with Islam.
Dan you twist your bibble words to fit you faith.