Temporary slavery in the ancient world was a form of supporting the poor, providing them with food & shelter while they worked off debts. Permanent slavery was usually a merciful alternative to a death sentence, imposed on a criminal or a captured enemy. Mercifully-regulated slavery, as described in the Old Testament, was a boon and a blessing totally unmatched in the ancient world. The hypocritical moral preeners of today who say "All slavery was always immoral" are profoundly ignorant of how close to the edge of disaster our ancient ancestors perpetually lived. If you want to condemn something, condemn the slave trade...then examine what the Old Testament says on that. Kidnapping and selling people was punished with death.
So you've given an explanation of debt based slavery and crime based slavery, but what about the "you are from a different gene pool, I will now destroy you all" based massacres? As this video points out, it is useless to try and justify all the actions of the old testament, because the old testament is a book written by people in apostasy who were given more light and knowledge than their neighbors but were still incredibly immoral people. That's what Christ is pointing out.
"Permanent slavery was usually a merciful alternative to a death sentence" or as a consequence of being captured by an invading army or if you were a woman or if your parents were slaves or if a man was given the options of either abandoning his wife and child when he was set free since they would still be slaves or being coerced into staying a slave forever so that he could stay with the people he loved or you belonged to a different tribe and were purchased. Taking the Biible at face value the concept of slavery as temporary support for the poor only applied if you were an adult, male, Israelite who voluntarily signed up for slavery to get out of debt and didn't get married or have children while you were a slave (or were willing to abandon your wife/child). Other than that you were permanent property that could be bought/sold/traded/inhereted like any other property and could legally be beaten as much as your owner wanted proveded you didn't die within "a day or two" of your beating.
@@TheWhite2086 This is a gross misrepresentation of what Deuteronomy actually says. But certainly, slaves were expected to submit to their masters. Alone in the ancient world, however, Israelite masters were strictly regulated as to what they could do to their slaves, and slaves (including female slaves) actually had legal rights. It is impossible to transfer the total legal code of modern capitalist economies to a Bronze Age world of constant war and famine. The result would have been civilizational extinction.
God could’ve commanded them to support the poor but instead he condoned and sanctioned slavery. Also god gave instructions on how to make your temporary slaves your permanent slaves. Regardless of all this, slavery, whether temporary or not is immoral, slavery, whether you “treat your slaves well” or not is immoral because you own those people and they are your property and that is immoral. Justifying slavery by saying “oh they could’ve just killed them” or “oh they were providing them shelter” is similar to justifying the Trail of Tears because “the U.S government could’ve just shot them” either way it is immoral and so is your supposed god.
@@cardsharks9751 This is self-righteous moral preening. You can condemn the Atlantic slave trade, as all moral people should, and the Old Testament clearly does. You can and should condemn slavery as it was practiced in the antebellum South, which was clearly contrary to numerous regulations in the Old Testament. But to self-righteously condemn the God Who wrote the Old Testament as "immoral" because He regulated a merciful system of servitude for people who would otherwise be neglected, starved, slaughtered, or (as you are proposing) supported in soul-destroying indolence--that only shows your profound ignorance--the ignorance that all people have when they reject God's word.
I am so sorry you just get swarmed by people with no life and hard hearts who come here just to trash on your videos and usually miss the point. You deserve better.
because his videos are fundamentally flawed in research he provides no evidence and if your bible is so good why do you guys need to read in between the lines so much to justify what is in your bible
Im so happy to hear that someone actually understands the intricacies of the bible and instead of just rasing it face value , you took the time to go through it in depth. Thanks for the video , lets pray your channel does better
Great video! I believe 100% with your criticism of Shapiro’s argument, and I think you did an admirable job of pointing out the ways that it could have been better. The only place I can find contention is 0:51 where you say “all laws,” which lacks some nuance about the Law. Otherwise, great video, I enjoyed it
Is slavery immoral? It depends on what type of slavery. Israelite's slavery was extremely humanitarian by todays standards. God forbids wrongdoing on slaves.
Couldn't one just answer that allowing something isn't the same as condoning it? People are allowed to prohibit what the doesn't prohibit, as far as the Torah is concerned. I thought Ben did a good job fielding this question for the most part although I personally would have explained differently.
Wouldn’t parents begin by saying, “*We don’t want you to drink alcohol, but if you’re going to anyway,* we’d rather that you do it at home.”? So why didn’t God say, “*You shouldn’t have slaves or beat them, but if you’re going to anyway, then* don’t beat your slaves to death.”? If God gave rules based not on what is truly right and wrong, but on what people were ready to handle, isn’t that pretty much the definition of moral relativism?
This part of the Bible makes me cry. Story: Been engaged with my fiancee for a year and a half. We are both Christians who recently have been saved. We started reading the Bible together because we have a close relationship with Jesus and want to get even closer. We came to the part where Jesus basically said "any man who marries a woman who is devorced commits adultry". Now I'm very worried. I love her with all my heart. We each brought a child to the relationship. Am I not allowed to marry her? Her ex didn't want kids, and got the "snip" done. He also didn't believe in God. They both divorced each other and that was about 10 years ago. I have asked Jesus to forgive me for loving someone who is divorced and together we both prayed for his forgiveness. My heart feels sad to sin, but filled with love for her. Am I going to go to hell if I marry the love of my life? Looking for answered everywhere because I weap internally. Took me 41 years to forgive all, come to Jesus, and give up so many things. Am I supposed to give up an amazing marriage too?? I wish Jesus would answer me. I am so sorry Jesus.
Your answer lies in 1 Corinthians 7:12-24. If you are truly looking everywhere and seeking God with all your heart, you will find him. But don't forget that the Bible is the first place we should look
@@LightoftheWorldYTInteresting how the atheist reply to a man struggling with a problem that boiled down to "if Jesus exists he loves you and wants you to be happy" gets deleted in favour of the loving Christian reply of "yep, you guys are living in sin and should feel guilty pray to God to forgive your horrible misdeeds". You are a coward
so when Alex o Connor says god doesn't hint at what the true idea of morality is you flash a verse on the screen for two seconds that says nothing about morality and don't expand on that point also you say the bible predicted a rebuilding of a temple and don't show it or provide a link to it which would be extremely helpful if you did to know what your referring to and second the bible is not a scholarly or even primary source when it comes to history and also the Cyrus cylinder you flash on the screen makes no mention of Jewish or Jerusalem so your using information that has already been debunked and are trying to pass of the Cyrus cylinder as the bible in this video from what I'm understanding at 5:41
I’m glad that you’re tackling these topics. These kinds of questions are understandable, but can be a barrier for a lot of people and keep them from the Lord. The thing is some of what you’re saying like following Gods law with our own best effort applies more so in the Old Testament (before Jesus died for our sins) rather then now in the New Testament Age. Now instead of having to rely on ourselves in the matter of morals and trying to follow God by our own strength which can often fail and are understandably flawed, we can rely on the Lord Jesus’s life/faith. (Galatians 3:19-29) “Why then the law? It was added because of the transgressions until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, it being ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator. But a mediator is not a mediator for one, but God is one. Is then the law against the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given which was able to give life, righteousness would have indeed been of law. But the Scripture has shut up all under sin in order that the promise out of faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came we were guarded under law, being shut up unto the faith which was to be revealed. So then the law has become our child-conductor unto Christ that we might be justified out of faith. But since faith has come, we are no longer under a child-conductor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise."
Ben Shapiro also commonly uses logical fallacies and talks fast in his arguments to appear smart and when you fail to point out a logical fallacy you auto lose an argument, despite the logical fallacy being in place
Did I understand his question correctly? If we accept the fact God exists who are we to say anything He does is immoral? Also what is an atheist’s foundation for saying anything is moral or immoral?
Empathy, nervous system, dopamine, evolution, societal cohabitation... you know.. the stuff that is demonstrable, predictable, reliable, provable. some would even dare say Factual. You should read more on philosophy, history, statistics, etc.etc. To suggest an ( atheist ) has no moral foundation. Is to ignore literally the entire rest of the world that doesn't follow Christianity in your particular translation, in your particular language, in your particular theology, derived from your particular version of the bible, while ignoring and picking and choosing which ( morals ) to follow in said book. And to literally ignore the most Secular/atheist societies today which are far safer, less racist, more accepting or marginalized populations, less prone to war... etc.etc the list goes on. But good luck with that.
It amazes me how the basic concept of God flies over atheists heads. Every interaction I have with atheists just continues to validate the truth of God's Word more and more.@@WonderfulDeath
@@jarroddavid8352 i explain to you how it's possible for even a moral-less atheist to critique a hypocritical worldview like yours via internal critique, and it goes right over your head and you start complaining about irrelevant topics, stop being a snowflake lil bro
@@jarroddavid8352 What amaze me is how much you guys never realize how deeply fallacious all your arguments are. You didn't even try to address what he said. You just dismissed him based on "you don't understand".
*ONE SIMPLE QUESTION:* Was the slave trade between foreign nations immoral in the Ancient Near East? If yes, why does the Bible condone this slave trade? If no, why don't we just set something up like that today! (Let's not...)
Modern liberals cannot seem to grasp that, however regrettable the institution of slavery is, there are far greater evils in the world. Slavery was permitted because it was a lesser evil than its alternatives. I would infinitely rather be a slave in ancient Israel than an Emperor, King, or Pharaoh anywhere else in the ancient world. Slavery saved lives and saved souls in the ancient Near East, and God had good reasons for permitting it. God sent His own people into slavery in Babylon explicitly for their good. The slave trade as it was practiced in West Africa and the antebellum South violated all of the Old Testament regulations that were imposed on slaveholders. Slave traders of the sort that operated in West Africa were punished by death in the Old Testament.
I mean, the fact that the Bible says don't take Hebrews as slaves, but take them from the surrounding tribes, makes it clear. If slavery in the Bible was so chill and actually good for the slaves etc., then why is it not OK to own other Hebrews as property? It's because, even now, we are a tribal society that places more value on "my tribe" than on other tribes.
@@geraintwd You're right about tribalism (call it nationalism if you want), but you seem to consider it a bad thing. Tribalism in the ancient world was a matter of simple survival, just as the modern nation-state exists to prevent anarchy. There were two options for dealing with prisoners of war from other tribes/nations in the ancient world: kill them, or enslave them. It was (generally) suicidally quixotic to send them back home with a stern warning. Alone among the ancient peoples, Israel had regulations on how to treat their slaves (foreign or otherwise), and their slaves actually had rights. I may be misunderstanding you, but I get the impression that you haven't absorbed the shattering impact of that fact: the God of Israel ordered His people to accord their slaves rights & protections. That was something that (as far as we know) had never, never occurred to a human mind before...and it still hasn't sunk in for most of humanity.
1. In the Old Testament era, God permitted evils, to do things like avoid greater evils. For example, God permitted divorce. Jesus says this wasn’t God’s original plan, and isn’t allowed for Christians, but was Permitted in the Old Testament. God worked with humanity, and slowly prepared them for Christ, where now we must try for moral perfection, and enlarge the Church, with the graces we Received from Christ. God did permit certain immoral things in the Old Testament, that not aren’t allowed, that deal with sl-very. D-vorce was said to be permitted by God by St Thomas Aquinas, to avoid wife unaliving. God permitted other actions for different reasons (permissive will). Which is, again, no longer allowed. The ancient world was very different. The Bible stood in radical opposition to it. In the OT, it was still very restricted, but did still permit some evils. 2. Secondly, sl-very is NOT intrinsically imm-ral. You come at this from a view of a 21st century American with the Tr-ns-Atl-ntic trade in mind. There are two types: Just Title, and Ch-ttel. The former is morally permissible, and is even still allowed in the Constitution, the latter is not. However, all forms of it are no longer allowed today, as the natural law can change with the state of humanity. For example, the unalive penalty isn’t permissible, bc we have modern prison systems, which means the penalty isn’t required to protect society. The former, restricts it so that nothing immoral comes from it, whereas the latter does not. The former can be permissible in certain circumstances. For example, two tribes fighting, and afterwards, one of the tribes capturing and doing this to the other, to avoid them returning for more war. Another would be to stop starvation in primitive economies without government benefits. 3. Most Christians don’t actually follow sola scriptura (Scripture Alone). We also believe in the Magisterium (Church Teaching Office, Interprets Infallibly), and Oral Tradition passed down by the Apostles. That’s why we don’t see explicit mentions of things like the Papacy. As for the New Testament, first of all the question of is this moral or not isn’t focused on. The Four Gospels talk about Jesus’s Life. Acts mentions the early Church. The Letters are to specific Churches and groups. And Revelation is Apocalyptic. Also, Rome already persecuted Christianity, and heavily relied upon that trade; and so, if the Apostles called it out, it would have brought more hardship to Christianity. Revolts had been tried earlier; to no prevail. However, although the New Testament doesn’t mention it much; Church Doctrine from the early Church Fathers does, and says the latter form is immoral, whereas the former can sometimes be permitted. You can also reason this out using the moral structure given in the Bible. Paul also hints at this by demanding the safe return of a sl-ve. However, their man mentions was simply that there is heaven, there is no Slave or Cree in Christ, to Obey your masters, and do good, and that will be for your Reward, and can act as a conversion tool, by them seeing your virtue. Basically, the Apostles didn’t foolishly try to start a rebellion, and instead told everyone to be on their good behavior in this specific time, and this helped on conversion. Although, the moral doctrine of Christ and the Apostles condemns the latter form of it. Maybe don’t come at this, if your not educated in history or doctrine.
You're not very convincing. It would have been soo very easy to make a commandment about a way all slaves could earn their way to freedom. It would have worked just as well, or as bad, as all the other commandments.
You'll find that was the case if you read the bible. Slaves were allowed to earn their way to freedom and were entitled to property also as reward. A slave was also entitled to the same if they were treated badly by there master.
@@Josherkerr9450 I think you’re missing the point…plus, aren’t there some things there about having to leave your wife and kids to your owner if you do “earn your freedom”? - it’s been a while since I’ve read it, I’m on a non-fiction phase now.
@@Josherkerr9450 Read it closer. Hebrew men who voluntatrily gave themselves into slavery were able to earn their way to freedom. Foreign slaves either purchased or captured in war were property on the level of livestock able to be passed down as inheritence. Children born to slave mothers were permanent slaves. Women sold into slavery were permanent unless the man buying them decided he didn't like them any more. The slave owner could also trap a male Hebrew slave into permanent slavery by giving him a wife while he was enslaved because when the male slave was to go free the wife (and any children born under slavery) remained the property of the owner forcing the slave to either decide to leave his family or become a slave forever The only provisions for a slave going free from mistreatement was if they had their teeth or eye knocked out, other than that the only limitation on beatings were that the slave owner should be punished if the slave dies within a day or two of being beaten (which isn't much good to the slave that was beaten to death) I swear, the people who defend Biblical slavery with the "it was just identured servitude for a few years to pay off debts" get all their information from apologists and have never actually sat down and read their holy book
Weird how this all powerful god couldn't simply command the israelites not to commit genocide in order to steal land. That would have been a much better example in a fallen world. Strange that this all powerful god couldn't have arranged some land for his chosen ones that didn't need ethnic cleansing. Its almost like the Israelites were making up excuses for doing evil deeds.
God wanted free Will, and decided to work with humanity. It was also a punishment on the evil Canaanites. If I give my kid a toy, and take it away, it isn’t evil. Similarly, if God takes away life, since He gives it, and we don’t own it, it isn’t evil. God can also punish us, for sins. God was using the Israelites for this specifically. And it didn’t even end in complete destruction. It also extends to further spiritual realities.
@@kyrptonite1825 so you equate human life with an inanimate toy that can be given and taken with no moral or ethical issues, no concern for human experience? God gave us life so He can take it away and He still gets to wear His "all loving deity" badge?
@@kyrptonite1825 in fact, it sounds less like giving a kid a toy and then taking it away. It's more like God is the kid, and he got mad with a few of his toys and smashed the entire box of them in a tantrum. And what do you mean by "further spiritual realities"? Because "spiritual reality" is an oxymoron.
@@el4276 And the God who knows everything that will ever happen, has the power to do anything that he wants and loves his creation so much that he never wants anyone to suffer couldn't come up with anything better than "well, you're going be an asshole anyway so maybe be a little bit less of an asshole under some very specific circumstances please"?
well put together video, i believe in God and Jesus, and you do make good points, and yes God stays "uninvolved" to a large degree for the development of society; i certainly dont know the best way for a society to be, but even if it slowed our development as a people i think things like war and rape and blindness shouldnt exist, heck i even consider hell to be immoral, i even point to movies like hellraiser as thesis statements on hell as a practical studies application and then respond with what reason is there for something like that to exist but my main thing to say is this, yes it would not be good for a parent to be overly strict with their child with how they should be and should be flexible, but thats stuff like personal expression, clothing choice, drinking, staying up late playing games, etcetera, ... something like slavery is so harmful that the suffering is unjustifiable, its akin to if your child were beating small animals to death, at that point, yes, you will be overly strict, you have to, there are some situations where a parent must be overly strict and rigid in the same regard beating them with a belt for placing a bible on a table wrong saying you will "beat the spirit of christ into them" is not healthy, nor is it good to constantly belittle them and tell them everything they do is wrong or that if they dont pay their tithes to the church they will burn in hell
Nice use of antisemitism to get out of a jam! "Yeah, the OT God was cool with slavery -- but Jesus, the GOOD, NT God, came to earth and upgraded our morality! Checkmate, atheists!" Doesn't work, though. Is God omniscient or isn't he? Is he "the same yesterday, and today, and forever," or isn't he? And how do you factor in the letter to Philemon, or the household codes in the later epistles?
1. The Philemon code, etc, depends on if you believe in Sola Scriptura or not. The Tradition condemns the chattel version, (Just Title can be morally permissible). Paul wasn’t concerned with it, as that would have just brought even more danger from the Roman Empire. They just said to be good, and this would convert more people, but they were dealing with the specific conditions of the time. You can reason out the view Catholics have using Scripture, but those verses on their own, aren’t necessarily meaning to say this is moral, or this isn’t. Secondly, God is Omniscient, but we change in relationship to God, and so God causes a certain reaction. That’s really just basic theology. But I understand how someone as little educated as you in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, may not get it. Now, God may permit an evil for a time, like He did with divorce according to Jesus, and then altogether ban it later. God slowly worked with humanity, to get them ready for Christ. Sometimes evils were permitted to avoid greater evils. Omniscient does not entail a logical contradiction. For God to allow free Will, and force people not to do evil, that would be a contradiction. As for Omniscience, and why there is evil, we aren’t Omniscient, so it is probable that God has a reason for allowing evil; which we can’t see.
Nice try. You guys have to stop using this argument. The new testament never outright condemns slavery. You'd think if the Bible really was against it, they could've come right out and said it. You can't get past that point!
@@mysteryman8122 Because the Bible is supposed to be the written word of a god and a baseline for our morals and how we are supposed to act in order get into heaven. So yes the Bible should be very specific about its positions on moral issues such as slavery. And in fact it is, god sanctions slavery in the Old Testament and while the New Testament never specifically endorses slavery, it sure doesn’t seem to be opposed to it. Imagine if at the founding of the United States, law makers said “murder is not illegal, killings do not have to be justified” then 300 years later they punish someone for murder even though they never passed a new law making it illegal, would that be fair, just and moral?
Jesus out right said he came to set the captives free and its not like if it outright condemned it that people would have listened. Its condemned today for people to murder others, but they still murder so your argument is at beat pointless
@@charleysmith1830 He also said that he wasn't here to erase the law "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." so according to that the OT law should still apply including laws regarding slavery. Later letters explicitly tell slaves "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." So how does that line up with your belief that Jesus wanted to abolish slavery. How could he want to free the captives and promise that every letter of the law would be kept and, if he did teach the freeing of slaves, why did his followers command slaves to remain in slavery?
Nah doesn't work. Your god is supposed to be omniscient, overpowered and other things like that. Or maybe he is actually just a lazy god? That would explain a lot of things.
Being lazy is a human thing always has been. These days and in ancient times. The majority of the people want everything given to them, they want everything done for them. At least that's what I got out of the Hebrews when they were freed from Egyptian slavery they whine a lot. They even considered going back. That's what they expected out of God. Today some of the people replaced God with the government. Another thing I got out of the Bible is in the beginning there was no slavery. This happened afterwards humans multiplied.
🤣 Yes...but nope! Yes, the biblical Jesus believed in the scriptures. He said not one "jot or tittle" of the scriptures should be abrogated. And besides the Jesus of the gospels, the authors of the N.T. epistles also refer to Old Testament events and people as genuinely historical. There's just one teensy problem: it's all myth! 😄There was no Flood, 10 Plagues, Exodus, Wanderings or Conquest. Those stories have been relegated to mythology, as well as most of the characters in those tales e.g. Abraham, the Patriarchs, Joseph, Moses, Aaron & Joshua. It's right there on Wikipedia! 🤣The biblical Jesus believed in Noah's flood and that Jonah sojourned inside a whale. Was he mistaken or were words put in his mouth?
@@mysteryman8122 There are clutures who lived through the "global flood" (such as the Chinese and the Australina Aborigonals) who have no record of a flood destroying all of humanity except a single Jewish man and his family, you would think they would have noticed everyone in their country dying. Not to mention that amount of water needed to cover the Earth doesn't exist, that the heat generated by the rain would have vaporised the water, that the sudden influx of that much fresh water would have killed all salt water life and that the geologic column could not exist as it does in a world where that had occured. Pleanty of reason not to believe in the flood that has nothing to do with feelings. Same goes for the rest of the mythology but a RUclips comment isn't really the place to write about all of it
@@mysteryman8122 Tell me you've never listened to what an atheist says without telling me you've never listened to what an atheist says. Without going into feelings at all there is plenty of evidence that th global flood never happened. Cultures that existed before the supposed flood still exist today (eg the Chinese and the Australian Aborigonals), tell me, if the entire world was covered and nobody survived except Noah and his family, how is it that those cultures survived it? How did the salt water marine life survive the massive influx of fresh water that would have diluted their environment? There isn't enough water on, in, under or above the Earth to cover the entire globe so where did it come from? Once the flood was over, where did it go? Are you aware that if that much water fell from the sky and/or errupted from the earth in that period of time that it would generate enough energy to vaporise all the water on the planet and turn the surface into a smoking husk? Is it easier for you to just dismiss all the evidence as people just having hurt feelings than to actually listen and think about what they say?
He also said He fulfilled the Scriptures and the Ceremonial Law was no longer binding. Jesus also said certain evils were permitted in the OT like divorce, that were banned in the Church.
Temporary slavery in the ancient world was a form of supporting the poor, providing them with food & shelter while they worked off debts. Permanent slavery was usually a merciful alternative to a death sentence, imposed on a criminal or a captured enemy. Mercifully-regulated slavery, as described in the Old Testament, was a boon and a blessing totally unmatched in the ancient world.
The hypocritical moral preeners of today who say "All slavery was always immoral" are profoundly ignorant of how close to the edge of disaster our ancient ancestors perpetually lived.
If you want to condemn something, condemn the slave trade...then examine what the Old Testament says on that. Kidnapping and selling people was punished with death.
So you've given an explanation of debt based slavery and crime based slavery, but what about the "you are from a different gene pool, I will now destroy you all" based massacres? As this video points out, it is useless to try and justify all the actions of the old testament, because the old testament is a book written by people in apostasy who were given more light and knowledge than their neighbors but were still incredibly immoral people. That's what Christ is pointing out.
"Permanent slavery was usually a merciful alternative to a death sentence" or as a consequence of being captured by an invading army or if you were a woman or if your parents were slaves or if a man was given the options of either abandoning his wife and child when he was set free since they would still be slaves or being coerced into staying a slave forever so that he could stay with the people he loved or you belonged to a different tribe and were purchased.
Taking the Biible at face value the concept of slavery as temporary support for the poor only applied if you were an adult, male, Israelite who voluntarily signed up for slavery to get out of debt and didn't get married or have children while you were a slave (or were willing to abandon your wife/child). Other than that you were permanent property that could be bought/sold/traded/inhereted like any other property and could legally be beaten as much as your owner wanted proveded you didn't die within "a day or two" of your beating.
@@TheWhite2086 This is a gross misrepresentation of what Deuteronomy actually says. But certainly, slaves were expected to submit to their masters. Alone in the ancient world, however, Israelite masters were strictly regulated as to what they could do to their slaves, and slaves (including female slaves) actually had legal rights. It is impossible to transfer the total legal code of modern capitalist economies to a Bronze Age world of constant war and famine. The result would have been civilizational extinction.
God could’ve commanded them to support the poor but instead he condoned and sanctioned slavery. Also god gave instructions on how to make your temporary slaves your permanent slaves. Regardless of all this, slavery, whether temporary or not is immoral, slavery, whether you “treat your slaves well” or not is immoral because you own those people and they are your property and that is immoral. Justifying slavery by saying “oh they could’ve just killed them” or “oh they were providing them shelter” is similar to justifying the Trail of Tears because “the U.S government could’ve just shot them” either way it is immoral and so is your supposed god.
@@cardsharks9751 This is self-righteous moral preening. You can condemn the Atlantic slave trade, as all moral people should, and the Old Testament clearly does. You can and should condemn slavery as it was practiced in the antebellum South, which was clearly contrary to numerous regulations in the Old Testament.
But to self-righteously condemn the God Who wrote the Old Testament as "immoral" because He regulated a merciful system of servitude for people who would otherwise be neglected, starved, slaughtered, or (as you are proposing) supported in soul-destroying indolence--that only shows your profound ignorance--the ignorance that all people have when they reject God's word.
I am so sorry you just get swarmed by people with no life and hard hearts who come here just to trash on your videos and usually miss the point. You deserve better.
because his videos are fundamentally flawed in research he provides no evidence and if your bible is so good why do you guys need to read in between the lines so much to justify what is in your bible
@@sukes4265 The bible is the most influential book in the entire world. Why would something like that be simple to read.
3:20 are you implying that god is adjusting according to people's mood? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Im so happy to hear that someone actually understands the intricacies of the bible and instead of just rasing it face value , you took the time to go through it in depth. Thanks for the video , lets pray your channel does better
Great video! I believe 100% with your criticism of Shapiro’s argument, and I think you did an admirable job of pointing out the ways that it could have been better. The only place I can find contention is 0:51 where you say “all laws,” which lacks some nuance about the Law. Otherwise, great video, I enjoyed it
Is slavery immoral?
It depends on what type of slavery. Israelite's slavery was extremely humanitarian by todays standards. God forbids wrongdoing on slaves.
Couldn't one just answer that allowing something isn't the same as condoning it? People are allowed to prohibit what the doesn't prohibit, as far as the Torah is concerned. I thought Ben did a good job fielding this question for the most part although I personally would have explained differently.
The word condone means to allow. If you allow something to happen, you are condoning it.
@@johnlewis3891 go see his video on evil
Wouldn’t parents begin by saying, “*We don’t want you to drink alcohol, but if you’re going to anyway,* we’d rather that you do it at home.”? So why didn’t God say, “*You shouldn’t have slaves or beat them, but if you’re going to anyway, then* don’t beat your slaves to death.”?
If God gave rules based not on what is truly right and wrong, but on what people were ready to handle, isn’t that pretty much the definition of moral relativism?
Is this channel ironic? I literally can't tell if you're being serious with all of your arguments.
This part of the Bible makes me cry. Story:
Been engaged with my fiancee for a year and a half. We are both Christians who recently have been saved. We started reading the Bible together because we have a close relationship with Jesus and want to get even closer. We came to the part where Jesus basically said "any man who marries a woman who is devorced commits adultry". Now I'm very worried. I love her with all my heart. We each brought a child to the relationship. Am I not allowed to marry her? Her ex didn't want kids, and got the "snip" done. He also didn't believe in God. They both divorced each other and that was about 10 years ago. I have asked Jesus to forgive me for loving someone who is divorced and together we both prayed for his forgiveness. My heart feels sad to sin, but filled with love for her. Am I going to go to hell if I marry the love of my life? Looking for answered everywhere because I weap internally. Took me 41 years to forgive all, come to Jesus, and give up so many things. Am I supposed to give up an amazing marriage too?? I wish Jesus would answer me. I am so sorry Jesus.
Your answer lies in 1 Corinthians 7:12-24. If you are truly looking everywhere and seeking God with all your heart, you will find him. But don't forget that the Bible is the first place we should look
@@LightoftheWorldYTInteresting how the atheist reply to a man struggling with a problem that boiled down to "if Jesus exists he loves you and wants you to be happy" gets deleted in favour of the loving Christian reply of "yep, you guys are living in sin and should feel guilty pray to God to forgive your horrible misdeeds". You are a coward
so when Alex o Connor says god doesn't hint at what the true idea of morality is you flash a verse on the screen for two seconds that says nothing about morality and don't expand on that point also you say the bible predicted a rebuilding of a temple and don't show it or provide a link to it which would be extremely helpful if you did to know what your referring to and second the bible is not a scholarly or even primary source when it comes to history and also the Cyrus cylinder you flash on the screen makes no mention of Jewish or Jerusalem so your using information that has already been debunked and are trying to pass of the Cyrus cylinder as the bible in this video from what I'm understanding at 5:41
I’m glad that you’re tackling these topics. These kinds of questions are understandable, but can be a barrier for a lot of people and keep them from the Lord. The thing is some of what you’re saying like following Gods law with our own best effort applies more so in the Old Testament (before Jesus died for our sins) rather then now in the New Testament Age. Now instead of having to rely on ourselves in the matter of morals and trying to follow God by our own strength which can often fail and are understandably flawed, we can rely on the Lord Jesus’s life/faith.
(Galatians 3:19-29) “Why then the law? It was added because of the transgressions until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, it being ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator. But a mediator is not a mediator for one, but God is one. Is then the law against the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given which was able to give life, righteousness would have indeed been of law. But the Scripture has shut up all under sin in order that the promise out of faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came we were guarded under law, being shut up unto the faith which was to be revealed. So then the law has become our child-conductor unto Christ that we might be justified out of faith. But since faith has come, we are no longer under a child-conductor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise."
Ben Shapiro also commonly uses logical fallacies and talks fast in his arguments to appear smart and when you fail to point out a logical fallacy you auto lose an argument, despite the logical fallacy being in place
Did I understand his question correctly? If we accept the fact God exists who are we to say anything He does is immoral? Also what is an atheist’s foundation for saying anything is moral or immoral?
Empathy, nervous system, dopamine, evolution, societal cohabitation... you know.. the stuff that is demonstrable, predictable, reliable, provable. some would even dare say Factual. You should read more on philosophy, history, statistics, etc.etc.
To suggest an ( atheist ) has no moral foundation. Is to ignore literally the entire rest of the world that doesn't follow Christianity in your particular translation, in your particular language, in your particular theology, derived from your particular version of the bible, while ignoring and picking and choosing which ( morals ) to follow in said book. And to literally ignore the most Secular/atheist societies today which are far safer, less racist, more accepting or marginalized populations, less prone to war... etc.etc the list goes on. But good luck with that.
lil bro does not know what an internal critique is, the atheist doesn't even have to have morals to critique the hypocritical christian morals
It amazes me how the basic concept of God flies over atheists heads. Every interaction I have with atheists just continues to validate the truth of God's Word more and more.@@WonderfulDeath
@@jarroddavid8352 i explain to you how it's possible for even a moral-less atheist to critique a hypocritical worldview like yours via internal critique, and it goes right over your head and you start complaining about irrelevant topics, stop being a snowflake lil bro
@@jarroddavid8352 What amaze me is how much you guys never realize how deeply fallacious all your arguments are. You didn't even try to address what he said. You just dismissed him based on "you don't understand".
*ONE SIMPLE QUESTION:* Was the slave trade between foreign nations immoral in the Ancient Near East?
If yes, why does the Bible condone this slave trade?
If no, why don't we just set something up like that today! (Let's not...)
Modern liberals cannot seem to grasp that, however regrettable the institution of slavery is, there are far greater evils in the world. Slavery was permitted because it was a lesser evil than its alternatives. I would infinitely rather be a slave in ancient Israel than an Emperor, King, or Pharaoh anywhere else in the ancient world. Slavery saved lives and saved souls in the ancient Near East, and God had good reasons for permitting it. God sent His own people into slavery in Babylon explicitly for their good.
The slave trade as it was practiced in West Africa and the antebellum South violated all of the Old Testament regulations that were imposed on slaveholders. Slave traders of the sort that operated in West Africa were punished by death in the Old Testament.
I mean, the fact that the Bible says don't take Hebrews as slaves, but take them from the surrounding tribes, makes it clear. If slavery in the Bible was so chill and actually good for the slaves etc., then why is it not OK to own other Hebrews as property? It's because, even now, we are a tribal society that places more value on "my tribe" than on other tribes.
@@geraintwd You're right about tribalism (call it nationalism if you want), but you seem to consider it a bad thing. Tribalism in the ancient world was a matter of simple survival, just as the modern nation-state exists to prevent anarchy. There were two options for dealing with prisoners of war from other tribes/nations in the ancient world: kill them, or enslave them. It was (generally) suicidally quixotic to send them back home with a stern warning.
Alone among the ancient peoples, Israel had regulations on how to treat their slaves (foreign or otherwise), and their slaves actually had rights. I may be misunderstanding you, but I get the impression that you haven't absorbed the shattering impact of that fact: the God of Israel ordered His people to accord their slaves rights & protections. That was something that (as far as we know) had never, never occurred to a human mind before...and it still hasn't sunk in for most of humanity.
1. In the Old Testament era, God permitted evils, to do things like avoid greater evils. For example, God permitted divorce. Jesus says this wasn’t God’s original plan, and isn’t allowed for Christians, but was Permitted in the Old Testament. God worked with humanity, and slowly prepared them for Christ, where now we must try for moral perfection, and enlarge the Church, with the graces we Received from Christ. God did permit certain immoral things in the Old Testament, that not aren’t allowed, that deal with sl-very. D-vorce was said to be permitted by God by St Thomas Aquinas, to avoid wife unaliving. God permitted other actions for different reasons (permissive will).
Which is, again, no longer allowed.
The ancient world was very different. The Bible stood in radical opposition to it. In the OT, it was still very restricted, but did still permit some evils.
2. Secondly, sl-very is NOT intrinsically imm-ral. You come at this from a view of a 21st century American with the Tr-ns-Atl-ntic trade in mind. There are two types: Just Title, and Ch-ttel. The former is morally permissible, and is even still allowed in the Constitution, the latter is not. However, all forms of it are no longer allowed today, as the natural law can change with the state of humanity. For example, the unalive penalty isn’t permissible, bc we have modern prison systems, which means the penalty isn’t required to protect society. The former, restricts it so that nothing immoral comes from it, whereas the latter does not. The former can be permissible in certain circumstances. For example, two tribes fighting, and afterwards, one of the tribes capturing and doing this to the other, to avoid them returning for more war. Another would be to stop starvation in primitive economies without government benefits.
3. Most Christians don’t actually follow sola scriptura (Scripture Alone). We also believe in the Magisterium (Church Teaching Office, Interprets Infallibly), and Oral Tradition passed down by the Apostles. That’s why we don’t see explicit mentions of things like the Papacy. As for the New Testament, first of all the question of is this moral or not isn’t focused on. The Four Gospels talk about Jesus’s Life. Acts mentions the early Church. The Letters are to specific Churches and groups. And Revelation is Apocalyptic. Also, Rome already persecuted Christianity, and heavily relied upon that trade; and so, if the Apostles called it out, it would have brought more hardship to Christianity. Revolts had been tried earlier; to no prevail.
However, although the New Testament doesn’t mention it much; Church Doctrine from the early Church Fathers does, and says the latter form is immoral, whereas the former can sometimes be permitted. You can also reason this out using the moral structure given in the Bible. Paul also hints at this by demanding the safe return of a sl-ve. However, their man mentions was simply that there is heaven, there is no Slave or Cree in Christ, to Obey your masters, and do good, and that will be for your Reward, and can act as a conversion tool, by them seeing your virtue. Basically, the Apostles didn’t foolishly try to start a rebellion, and instead told everyone to be on their good behavior in this specific time, and this helped on conversion. Although, the moral doctrine of Christ and the Apostles condemns the latter form of it.
Maybe don’t come at this, if your not educated in history or doctrine.
You're not very convincing. It would have been soo very easy to make a commandment about a way all slaves could earn their way to freedom.
It would have worked just as well, or as bad, as all the other commandments.
Seriously
You'll find that was the case if you read the bible. Slaves were allowed to earn their way to freedom and were entitled to property also as reward. A slave was also entitled to the same if they were treated badly by there master.
@@Josherkerr9450 I think you’re missing the point…plus, aren’t there some things there about having to leave your wife and kids to your owner if you do “earn your freedom”? - it’s been a while since I’ve read it, I’m on a non-fiction phase now.
@@Josherkerr9450 That was only for Jewish slaves who didn't marry a permanent slave.
Why do apologists always forget that part?
@@Josherkerr9450 Read it closer. Hebrew men who voluntatrily gave themselves into slavery were able to earn their way to freedom. Foreign slaves either purchased or captured in war were property on the level of livestock able to be passed down as inheritence. Children born to slave mothers were permanent slaves. Women sold into slavery were permanent unless the man buying them decided he didn't like them any more. The slave owner could also trap a male Hebrew slave into permanent slavery by giving him a wife while he was enslaved because when the male slave was to go free the wife (and any children born under slavery) remained the property of the owner forcing the slave to either decide to leave his family or become a slave forever
The only provisions for a slave going free from mistreatement was if they had their teeth or eye knocked out, other than that the only limitation on beatings were that the slave owner should be punished if the slave dies within a day or two of being beaten (which isn't much good to the slave that was beaten to death)
I swear, the people who defend Biblical slavery with the "it was just identured servitude for a few years to pay off debts" get all their information from apologists and have never actually sat down and read their holy book
"Let my people go"
---- OT God
Need more subscirbers. Good channel
I didn't knowing that god didn't know what apperantly the god didn't know?
Weird how this all powerful god couldn't simply command the israelites not to commit genocide in order to steal land.
That would have been a much better example in a fallen world.
Strange that this all powerful god couldn't have arranged some land for his chosen ones that didn't need ethnic cleansing.
Its almost like the Israelites were making up excuses for doing evil deeds.
Funny how that doesn't seem to have changed much over the centuries, either... 😢
Free will.
God wanted free Will, and decided to work with humanity. It was also a punishment on the evil Canaanites. If I give my kid a toy, and take it away, it isn’t evil. Similarly, if God takes away life, since He gives it, and we don’t own it, it isn’t evil. God can also punish us, for sins. God was using the Israelites for this specifically. And it didn’t even end in complete destruction. It also extends to further spiritual realities.
@@kyrptonite1825 so you equate human life with an inanimate toy that can be given and taken with no moral or ethical issues, no concern for human experience? God gave us life so He can take it away and He still gets to wear His "all loving deity" badge?
@@kyrptonite1825 in fact, it sounds less like giving a kid a toy and then taking it away. It's more like God is the kid, and he got mad with a few of his toys and smashed the entire box of them in a tantrum.
And what do you mean by "further spiritual realities"? Because "spiritual reality" is an oxymoron.
Ahhh, the old "well, they're going to own people as property anyways, so let me give them rules for it", argument..
How very comical
they r going to do anyway you list the reason and then act like you didnt just debunk yourself
talk about comical lol
@@el4276 And the God who knows everything that will ever happen, has the power to do anything that he wants and loves his creation so much that he never wants anyone to suffer couldn't come up with anything better than "well, you're going be an asshole anyway so maybe be a little bit less of an asshole under some very specific circumstances please"?
@@TheWhite2086 how is surviving being an "asshole " ? have you done any research whats so ever ?
@@el4276
You might want to have a lay down and reflect on your humanity, bud..
@@marshallmackey4122 you may want to have a lay down and reflect on your critical thinking skills pal
see i can do that too
well put together video, i believe in God and Jesus, and you do make good points, and yes God stays "uninvolved" to a large degree for the development of society; i certainly dont know the best way for a society to be, but even if it slowed our development as a people i think things like war and rape and blindness shouldnt exist, heck i even consider hell to be immoral, i even point to movies like hellraiser as thesis statements on hell as a practical studies application and then respond with what reason is there for something like that to exist
but my main thing to say is this, yes it would not be good for a parent to be overly strict with their child with how they should be and should be flexible, but thats stuff like personal expression, clothing choice, drinking, staying up late playing games, etcetera, ... something like slavery is so harmful that the suffering is unjustifiable, its akin to if your child were beating small animals to death, at that point, yes, you will be overly strict, you have to, there are some situations where a parent must be overly strict and rigid
in the same regard beating them with a belt for placing a bible on a table wrong saying you will "beat the spirit of christ into them" is not healthy, nor is it good to constantly belittle them and tell them everything they do is wrong or that if they dont pay their tithes to the church they will burn in hell
So according to this video God changes....God is not the same from one day to the next, God changes to fit the human timeline 🤔
1:07
Nice use of antisemitism to get out of a jam! "Yeah, the OT God was cool with slavery -- but Jesus, the GOOD, NT God, came to earth and upgraded our morality! Checkmate, atheists!"
Doesn't work, though. Is God omniscient or isn't he? Is he "the same yesterday, and today, and forever," or isn't he? And how do you factor in the letter to Philemon, or the household codes in the later epistles?
1. The Philemon code, etc, depends on if you believe in Sola Scriptura or not. The Tradition condemns the chattel version, (Just Title can be morally permissible). Paul wasn’t concerned with it, as that would have just brought even more danger from the Roman Empire. They just said to be good, and this would convert more people, but they were dealing with the specific conditions of the time. You can reason out the view Catholics have using Scripture, but those verses on their own, aren’t necessarily meaning to say this is moral, or this isn’t.
Secondly, God is Omniscient, but we change in relationship to God, and so God causes a certain reaction. That’s really just basic theology. But I understand how someone as little educated as you in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, may not get it. Now, God may permit an evil for a time, like He did with divorce according to Jesus, and then altogether ban it later. God slowly worked with humanity, to get them ready for Christ. Sometimes evils were permitted to avoid greater evils.
Omniscient does not entail a logical contradiction. For God to allow free Will, and force people not to do evil, that would be a contradiction. As for Omniscience, and why there is evil, we aren’t Omniscient, so it is probable that God has a reason for allowing evil; which we can’t see.
I don’t mean the “as little educated in”, as an insult btw…Sorry about wording it like that.
Antisemitism? Really?
Nice try. You guys have to stop using this argument. The new testament never outright condemns slavery. You'd think if the Bible really was against it, they could've come right out and said it. You can't get past that point!
why do you assume people need to be told things outright to know they're wrong?
@@mysteryman8122 Because the Bible is supposed to be the written word of a god and a baseline for our morals and how we are supposed to act in order get into heaven. So yes the Bible should be very specific about its positions on moral issues such as slavery. And in fact it is, god sanctions slavery in the Old Testament and while the New Testament never specifically endorses slavery, it sure doesn’t seem to be opposed to it. Imagine if at the founding of the United States, law makers said “murder is not illegal, killings do not have to be justified” then 300 years later they punish someone for murder even though they never passed a new law making it illegal, would that be fair, just and moral?
Jesus out right said he came to set the captives free and its not like if it outright condemned it that people would have listened. Its condemned today for people to murder others, but they still murder so your argument is at beat pointless
@@cardsharks9751 So you are saying people can only know what is right and wrong through revelation from God?
@@charleysmith1830 He also said that he wasn't here to erase the law "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." so according to that the OT law should still apply including laws regarding slavery. Later letters explicitly tell slaves "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." So how does that line up with your belief that Jesus wanted to abolish slavery. How could he want to free the captives and promise that every letter of the law would be kept and, if he did teach the freeing of slaves, why did his followers command slaves to remain in slavery?
Nah doesn't work. Your god is supposed to be omniscient, overpowered and other things like that.
Or maybe he is actually just a lazy god? That would explain a lot of things.
how so
Being lazy is a human thing always has been. These days and in ancient times. The majority of the people want everything given to them, they want everything done for them.
At least that's what I got out of the Hebrews when they were freed from Egyptian slavery they whine a lot. They even considered going back.
That's what they expected out of God. Today some of the people replaced God with the government.
Another thing I got out of the Bible is in the beginning there was no slavery. This happened afterwards humans multiplied.
🤣 Yes...but nope! Yes, the biblical Jesus believed in the scriptures. He said not one "jot or tittle" of the scriptures should be abrogated. And besides the Jesus of the gospels, the authors of the N.T. epistles also refer to Old Testament events and people as genuinely historical. There's just one teensy problem: it's all myth! 😄There was no Flood, 10 Plagues, Exodus, Wanderings or Conquest. Those stories have been relegated to mythology, as well as most of the characters in those tales e.g. Abraham, the Patriarchs, Joseph, Moses, Aaron & Joshua. It's right there on Wikipedia! 🤣The biblical Jesus believed in Noah's flood and that Jonah sojourned inside a whale. Was he mistaken or were words put in his mouth?
"It's right there on Wikipedia"....ok then, that settles the question. Wikipedia is the infallible source of truth on these matters.
Too bad atheist can’t make a case why any of these things are wrong it just comes down to feelings for them
@@mysteryman8122 There are clutures who lived through the "global flood" (such as the Chinese and the Australina Aborigonals) who have no record of a flood destroying all of humanity except a single Jewish man and his family, you would think they would have noticed everyone in their country dying. Not to mention that amount of water needed to cover the Earth doesn't exist, that the heat generated by the rain would have vaporised the water, that the sudden influx of that much fresh water would have killed all salt water life and that the geologic column could not exist as it does in a world where that had occured. Pleanty of reason not to believe in the flood that has nothing to do with feelings. Same goes for the rest of the mythology but a RUclips comment isn't really the place to write about all of it
@@mysteryman8122 Tell me you've never listened to what an atheist says without telling me you've never listened to what an atheist says.
Without going into feelings at all there is plenty of evidence that th global flood never happened. Cultures that existed before the supposed flood still exist today (eg the Chinese and the Australian Aborigonals), tell me, if the entire world was covered and nobody survived except Noah and his family, how is it that those cultures survived it? How did the salt water marine life survive the massive influx of fresh water that would have diluted their environment? There isn't enough water on, in, under or above the Earth to cover the entire globe so where did it come from? Once the flood was over, where did it go? Are you aware that if that much water fell from the sky and/or errupted from the earth in that period of time that it would generate enough energy to vaporise all the water on the planet and turn the surface into a smoking husk?
Is it easier for you to just dismiss all the evidence as people just having hurt feelings than to actually listen and think about what they say?
He also said He fulfilled the Scriptures and the Ceremonial Law was no longer binding. Jesus also said certain evils were permitted in the OT like divorce, that were banned in the Church.
Sorry, there just are no gods at all.