Does the Bible condone slavery, Alex O'Connor?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- In a resent debate, Alex O'conner (@CosmicSkeptic) asked Ben Shapiro (@BenShapiro) about slavery. He and other have often made the point that the God of the Bible actually accepts slavery. Yet, many atheists and skeptics tend to miss the broader theological framework that functions as a interpretive key in Christian theology for how slavery is understood.
Is the Bible condoning slavery? What kind of question is this really? How can we approach this topic from a theological perspective?
Considering to support this effort? Go to my Patreon account where you can become a monthly supporter: / accordingtojohn
00:00-04:12 It's a theological question
04:13-07:28 It's not a commandment
07:26-12:35 Law of war analogy
12:36-15:22 Ascetic approach
15:23-17:23 Christology and slavery
17:24-25:29 Akrivia & Oikonomia
25:30-32:41 Is Alex's worldview a better solution?
32:42-32:51 Closing words
#slavery #bible
My main issue with this argument is that it makes slavery out to be some sort of special case. There are from my count 8 sins listed in the ten commandments, with the other 2 commandments being instructions on what to do instead of what not to do. Why is slavery special? Why, for example, does God not give rules on how idols should be made, rather than saying that all idolatry is sinful? Surely he could have said, "Thou shalt not make idols of gold, silver, or stone," knowing that idols would continue to be made, and are even made to this day, in the hopes that eventually the people and their wooden idols would die out when they realized that the idols are not God and should not be treated as such. You could make a case like this for all sins listed in the 10 Commandments, and even for laws stated in books such as Leviticus, for example. Further, just because taking slaves is not a commandment doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't endorse it. On the contrary, in Deuteronomy, there is a passage which states that the Israelites are to do with women and children of pillaged towns as they see fit. There is no qualifier here, no indication that these people should not be kept as slaves, and the way it's written, especially being a product of its time, keeping them as slaves would very much be a logical step for the Israelites to take. Shortly after, the Israelites are banned from cutting trees down in these same besieged villages. Why are trees protected, but innocent civilians not?
The analogy for rules of war I also find to be unfitting. A country can be forced into war on the defensive, so war can be seen as something "unavoidable." A person cannot, however, be forced into owning slaves. As their master, they would have the ability to set them free immediately. Additionally, rules of war are made by humans, not divinely inspired. To my knowledge, there is no other morally wrong action that is given rules on how to go about it rather than forbidding it outright.
So, for me, the argument kind of falls apart. Not only does God not explicitly outlaw it, but certain passages seem to condone it. Plenty of sins, however, are explicitly outlawed, so there is no other case that we can point to where God does not explicitly say one thing is wrong, but we are supposed to "infer" it. There are multiple passages in the Bible that declare that slaves shall serve their master delightfully, but none calling for the masters to free their slaves. I've always seen the "freedom" interpretation of Jesus' death and resurrection as more related to freedom from sin, and thus death, or in the case of Hell, eternal damnation. This essentially frees people from their fate of being separated from God, but does not free them in the "free vs slave" sense.
On the topic of Alex's worldview, he does clarify in the debate that his lack of belief in free will has not had a significant impact on his morality. It's more so just a factual belief (I'm not making the claim that free will factually does not exist here, but it's the best wording that I could think of where free will being nonexistent is not a basis of the worldview, but rather something that naturally falls from the axioms of the worldview), since free will cannot be scientifically proven, and in fact, there may be evidence that what we perceive as "free will" are decisions that our unconscious mind has already made. That doesn't concern how we should deal with other people, though. I believe Alex has described himself as a secular humanist in the past, though I could be wrong. I'll argue from the view of secular humanism, and it might be similar to an argument that Alex would make. Under secular humanism, all people are assumed to have equal rights, for example, the right to do as one pleases as long as it does not harm others. Therefore, taking someone as a slave would be illegal, as that would deprive them of these rights. There are certain exceptions made, I believe, as far as treatment of prisoners and such (with slavery still being outlawed), as prisoners are denied certain rights just by the fact that they are imprisoned, however I'm arguing specifically for innocents taken as slaves, as is endorsed in Deuteronomy. Secular humanism, then, would see slavery as evil now, then, and in the future, with no mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion.
You bring up the example of a group of people being taken as slaves by Israelites. This was maybe logical and reasonable at that time because all of the men of that society were killed, and only the women and children are left. The only thing to do with them is make them slaves (with rights, which they had). Because the women and children of that time would have just starved to death if not adopted by this other society. Keep in mind that slavery as a concept is different in many different places, and in this example if what I have heard is correct, they weren't 'slaves' as we understand them today, and they had opportunities to grow out of their 'slavery'.
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 I was mainly using that example for the reason that I forgot the verses that explicitly condoned the purchase of foreign slaves from surrounding nations (Leviticus 25:44), but I think it gets across the same idea, that the purchasing or taking of slaves is condoned by the Bible. The opportunity to "grow out of their slavery" was only available to Israelite slaves. For these slaves, it was essentially a way of paying off a debt, and they were told not to rule over them "with rigor." Foreign slaves, either bought from foreign tribes or taken as war spoils, were permitted to be kept forever, even passed on to children of the owners. That being said, even if they were taken only for a set period of time, like Hebrew slaves, I find it hard to see how they "had rights." They were considered nothing but property (even described as such in Leviticus 25:45), which is evident by the fact that the masters could beat them within an inch of their life without punishment. Not only that, but they were repeatedly commanded throughout the Bible to serve their master with respect and fear, no matter how they were treated. This not only comes across as hypocritical, considering God sent plagues to the Egyptians who held the Israelites as slaves, rather than commanding them to obey their masters, but it aligns with pretty much exactly how slaves have been treated throughout history, as property meant to unquestioningly obey their masters with the threat of violence to keep them subordinate.
hey there little guy, i can actually explain this really simply. god isnt real, the 10 commandments are in no way connected to modern times, and your mom is a wonderful lady!
@@mateomoore6385 I mean, yeah, that's obvious, but it's also completely irrelevant to the argument presented in this video.
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 “the only option after all the men died was to take the surviving women and children as slaves” bro WHAT?!?! they cant be like, idk, citizens? they can’t be like regular citizens of the new society? yea i’m sure biblical slavery was different than the “slavery we know today”, it was probably 10 times worse. even tho biblical slavery was a very massive inspiration to white slave owner’s in the south during chattel slavery and one of the most prominent justifications used by those slave owners to justify slavery.
goddamn man this is why i don’t go on this side of the internet bro. reddit atheists vs pro slavery christians is just insanity on an entirely new level
Point me to the bible verse that says: thou shall not own other humans.......spoiler: it does not exist.
But it has plenty of advice on where to buy your slave and how to beat them.
So???
Listen to the video at 18:00 - obviously there are presuppositions like free will etc., but yes, slavery was prescribed.
This was addressed in his first point.
You don't need to muddy the waters to understand Alex's point.
Very plainly what Alex is saying to Ben begins with the question: is owning slaves morally wrong?
The answer to which is an easy concession to make for most theists because it doesn't align with our modern world views.
The next question is: has owning slaves ALWAYS been morally wrong? Was there a moment in history where we can point to and say "aha! At 5:36pm it was morally acceptable, but 5:37pm now it is not." - which is also a fairly easy question to answer, that just because something was socially acceptable at the time does not grant it special consideration when it comes to moral objectivity.
So if we agree so far that owning slaves has always been morally wrong, then the question that follows is: considering the fact that the bible does not take issue with making sweeping claims and generalizations about other things that it claims to be morally wrong (for example witchcraft as Alex pointed out) - why then, isn't the same thing done for slavery? And to accent the point further, it doesn't just take a neutral stance on the subject: it outlines specific rules of engagement on how to own slaves, how slaves should be treated, when you are supposed to take a slaves wife and children, etc.
It's a very clear case that the bible not only supports slavery, but actively wrote the guidebook on how to accomplish it properly.
Leviticus 25 precisely describes God condoning chattel slavery:
"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
Case closed.
I don't know what that is, but it's not in Leviticus 25.
@@o00nemesis00o
I quoted it. Find a fifth grader to read it to you.
@@o00nemesis00oit's Leviticus 25:44-46
This was concerning the pagans that sacrificed children and practiced sexual immorality and were sinners as the Israelites had been sinners following the Exodus from Egypt.
Had they repented to the God of Israel, they would've become Israelites thus being welcomed into the commonwealth of God's Kingdom according to the Law of Moses as the Israelites themselves were sojourner's from Egyptian slavery as it is said in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 10 verse 18 - 20:
"18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. 19 And you are to love those who are sojourners, for you yourselves were sojourners in Egypt. 20 Fear the Lord your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name. 21 He is the one you praise; he is your God, who performed for you those great and awesome wonders you saw with your own eyes."
And again, it promised to the sinning foreigner that wished to be sanctified in Leviticus 19:33-34:
"33 And if a stranger sojourn with you in your land, you shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwells with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shall love him as thyself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."
It is a law in Law of Moses not to discriminate against those that wish to follow the word of God, but instead to welcome them into your home as brethren. This attitude toward the conscious abolishment of slavery in the Kingdom of God is followed again in the new testament when Paul the Apostle writes the letter to Philemon:
"8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul-an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus- 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus,[b] who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.
12 I am sending him-who is my very heart-back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favour you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever- 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord."
@@anon9060
The Israelites sacrificed children too.
The Israelites engaged in sexual immorality too.
Genocide, slavery, infanticide, and rape are not just punishments. If you think they are, then you are morally bankrupt. Notice that you are not denying that your God commanded slavery, but justifying it. That is disgusting.
"It is a law in Law of Moses not to discriminate against those that wish to follow the word of God,"
Yes, that is sadly typical of monotheistic religions, which then discriminate against those that do not submit to their beliefs.
"This attitude toward the conscious abolishment of slavery in the Kingdom of God is followed again in the new testament "
Your verse said nothing about abolishing slavery. It was about the treatment of free persons.
"I am sending him-who is my very heart-back to you."
Yep. Instead of offering Onesimus sanctuary and freedom, Paul sent him back to slavery.
The verse I cited clearly proves that the Bible condones chattel slavery.
just clicked on this vid and i CANT WAIT to spend the next 30 mins watching bro make an argument for slavery using the biEbLe LESSGOO
This is unhinged dawg
Poorly planned video without succinctness or solid points. Stop wasting our time.
You have little to say and take a long time to say it.
I think what your poorly planned response is trying to convey is that YOU should stop wasting your own time
If you don't have a real argument and your only problem is that you don't like how he structured his video, then keep it to yourself
You bring shame to us atheists
I don't get how it's not a commandment agreement works. In judaism even divorce is considered commandment(mizvot).
What method is used to separate commandments from not commandments?
I didn't reply to Alex, but have a similar video out on this topic stating that God allows it (not condones it) much like God allows divorce
Define condone for us
People of all kinds please state if you are christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics.
#1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral?
#2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child?
#3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?
#4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it?
#5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
Hey, I've done this before with you and you didn't reply to my answers but I'll go again. I'm atheist
1 immoral. If there's no risk of harm to you then it is immoral to standby and watch as someone else is harmed
2 don't care what he thinks. The Nazi's used similarly flawed logic. I save the child
3 not in the slightest. Good parallel with how god punishes countless people for crimes they took no part in
4 yepo
5 nope
the big problem with relating slavery to war is that, although i do not interpret it this way many believe it as a necessary evil. if an army marches into your territory bent on killing you, many of your people, and dismantling your entire establishment it becomes a matter of self defense. kill or be killed. at no point is killing good but if one killed another purely in defense of their own life most would agree that they didn’t do a BAD thing.
who’s life is at stake when one person decides to take another into ownership or take them as property? no one is putting a gun to peoples heads and saying YOU WILL TAKE SLAVES AND THEY WILL BE YOUR PROPERTY (although ironically that’s pretty close to what god says in the bible). by relating slavery to war you are conceding the point that slavery in itself is not GOOD (just as killing isn’t) but if it’s necessary (whatever that means) then you can do it this way and it’s not a BAD thing (the same way killing in self defense isn’t).
here’s the way i look at it. slavery is bad PERIOD. there’s no slavery is bad BUT… there’s no BUT. slavery is bad. end of story. if you can’t bring yourself to say that then you are making a pro slavery argument.
I am not really relating slavery to war in the sense you are doing. I am pointing out that we, even today, have a mentally towards bad things which is analogous to the Bible. We have "laws of war" which does not include the abolition of war as such.
Also, there have been many situations where people have been forced by circumstances to sell themselves into slavery, in order for example to pay of a debt. This kind of slavery is also bad, but the solution to it was much broader than just virtue signaling that one thinks it is bad. It involved things like changing the mentally about slavery, changing the economic situations people were in, and so on.
I think you approach the topic to naively. What we must do is to CONVINCE people that slavery is bad. This is not just a matter of coercion but persuasion. It is nice that you, living in a culture that have been shaped by Christian values, think that slavery is bad, but hardly anyone thought that before. You can take the analogy of forbidding idolatry, which God, as someone else here pointed out in the comment section, was very clear about. Ok, but how did that go? Many scholars today find so much idolatry that they think that the early Israelites actually were polytheists. Just "forbidding something", without it having a reciprocity in the culture does not quarantine any success (remember the orgy while Moses went up the mountain to meet God?). Otherwise, we would have "peace and love" in Afghanistan today.
I end by saying that I approach this topic with a view much broader than singling out one phrase here and there in the Bible, I try to argue both from the basic narrative of a Christian reading of scripture, and through the lens of Orthodox Christian dogma.
@@AccordingtoJohnwhy didnt you respond to the other long comment which clearly demonstrated how wrong and immoral biblical slavery was?
@@AccordingtoJohn i’m not saying that the solution to slavery and all the problems associated with it is the phrase “slavery is bad”. i don’t think that phrase can solve all of those problems. i’m just saying, it’s bad. no iffs ands or buts, it’s a terrible thing. if you wanna talk about how to solve the issue, of course it’s more complicated than one phrase, we have to address why people did it, etc.
i think the main point of contention for most people, christian or no, is the part in the Bible where God gives instructions on how to keep your slaves. i believe alex o’connor brought this up with ben. it explains how to treat them, how hard you can beat them, etc. most people whether christian or no, will agree that ownership of another human being, let alone beating the human you own as property is just bad all around. and i love this point because it’s something that’s very hard to get around if you take the bible seriously. most christians will say, “yea slavery in any way is bad, but it was a different time, blah blah blah”. so i have one question i genuinely am curious to hear you answer.
if slavery in any way is bad, then God must’ve known it’s bad as God is the same yesterday, today, and forever as well as all knowing and all moral. if God knew it was bad and yet he condoned his very own people to do it, even gave them rules on how to do it (conveniently never condemned it btw), because it was “socially acceptable at the time”, then did God not bend his morals according to the beliefs of the people he created? i could rephrase this by asking another; if, say for example a thousand years from now murder becomes socially acceptable, or at least treated as not really that big of a deal, and everyone in the world believed that, would that make it ok for God to say, “Alright, murder is wrong BUT you all seem to not care that much about it so i’ll take that into consideration here; when you murder the people you don’t like, it must be done with a gun or a crossbow, you aren’t allowed to do it with a knife, and as long as it takes less than 20 seconds for them to die, your cool.”
because if slavery in general is bad, then god bended his morals to us based on our “fallen” beliefs and values. this would obv make him not “all moral”. so to me you either concede to that point, or the only other option is to say that slavery when performed according to the rules of the Bible is not wrong. which is precisely how white slave owners argued for the slavery that occurred in the united states during the entire slave trade. so either, the morality of God and morality in general is malleable or, your pro slavery.
@@AccordingtoJohnyou should retire from RUclips and become a full time mental gymnast.
believe absurdity and you'll justify atrocities.
Good Stuff :)
As a non believer I ask why is slavery bad in the first place, and the only reasons are axiomatic. It's bad because it's just bad, there's no real reason when you keeo questioning it. One feels like they've fallen into another religion.
I need only to understand how I'd feel if enslaved to know it's wrong to enslave people
@@drsatan3231 how? Just because something makes you feel bad it's therefore morally bad ? Feel bad = morally bad?
@@CitySeventeen17 if I can ensure that I won't be enslaved at any moment, then your reasoning fails and there's no reason to condemn slavery, other people will be enslaved but I will be free, why care about others if it does not hurt me nor disadvantage me.
@@lorenzomizushal3980 is it good to do things to people that make them feel bad?
Would you like to be enslaved?
@@lorenzomizushal3980 you can't ensure that you won't be enslaved at any moment