Apologist Claims the Bible Doesn't Endorse Slavery? Oh Really... (feat Dr Joshua Bowen)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Paulogia and biblical scholar Dr. Joshua Bowen team up to fact check and debunk common Christian apologetic arguments about slavery in the Bible. Analyzing an infamous 2015 debate clip where apologist Frank Turek denies the Bible condones slavery, they systematically dismantle his claims by citing scripture and expert historical context point-by-point. Exposing the mental gymnastics and blatant inaccuracies employed to whitewash the Bible's immoral endorsement of slavery, this hard-hitting response pulls no punches in revealing the disturbing truth apologists try to hide about what the Bible really says on this important moral issue.
== DR. JOSH'S BOOK ==
DID THE OLD TESTAMENT ENDORSE SLAVERY?
Second Edition - amzn.to/3Od29Xm
First Edition - amzn.to/3OxlMLc
===================
Is Morality Better Explained By God Or Science? (Frank Turek vs. Michael Shermer)
• Is Morality Better Exp...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
![DDG & G Herbo - Nosey [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9Ra0Zc2NlQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much for having me on again! ☺️🙌
Thanks for sharing your knowledge & time, Josh. It's always an edifying experience.
I feel that I can safely speak for many of us when I say that you're very well-liked here, and we're always happy to hear your voice.
Yeah, some d**n good explanations.
That Kent Hovind impression was shockingly accurate
Great as always Dr. Josh. I listen to every interview you do on this and read your books too. Even probably annoy you with the occasional question in email if you recall. I heard you make the point recently in another interview about the fact that most (if not all?) nations at the time had the law against kidnapping free people and making them slaves. Just like the Bible. So if the Bible had that law and it means slavery is outlawed (as many apologists claim), then there was no slavery in those nations either. Not a point I ever made specifically, but one I'm going to use for years now.
As well as the Greek "ανδραποδιστης" in 1 Timothy 1:10 referring to stealing free people and making them slaves. The same reason that slave traders are condemned in the Bible (and widely in the ANE right?). Just such misused and misapplied passages. I still learn things from you Dr. Josh. Even after all these years.
Thanks for your learned, well-documented, and clearly-presented information!
I was talking to a Christian one day, and he said "Slavery is a good thing, because it gives people opportunities that they wouldn't otherwise get." yeah, because I'm pretty sure the Cannanite slaves got opportunities, and African slaves just got the opportunity to get a free holiday on a cruise ship... /sarcasm.
Florida man? Or Prager U?
@@condorboss3339Why not both? 😏
@@condorboss3339
It's both because DeSantis approved PragerU stuff to be in public education in the state.
@@J-manli DeSatis is worse than Trump... And probably more incompetent.
@@J-manli That's what I was thinking of.
It’s nice to hear unconvoluted biblical analysis on important topics. I didn’t leave the church long ago and am still trying to undo the gaslighting😕.
It's a process that will take many years
Welcome, and good luck on the journey. Paulogia, I think, is a good place to start.
Genetically modified skeptic is also a decent one to look at. I'd also recommend a now discontinued podcast, the How to Heretic. Really great, and a great guide for how to organize your life now that you aren't constrained by the chains of religion.
You won't find that here.
Good luck on your journey, Beverley. I am encouraged by how it seems that the more critical and informed the thinking about Biblical texts the more it is possible to distinguish what is truly worth retaining.
I’ve had SO many conversations with Christians who will tell me that God would have had no reason to include a law like “thou shall not own another human as property”, because humans are inherently sinful and wouldn’t listen anyway.
I find this SO bizarre considering the numerous very obscure laws that the OT does include. Like not to boil a goat on its mother’s milk, or how to handle a woman who grabs the testicles of a man that is fighting with her husband.
For some reason god needed obscure laws that he didn’t expect people to follow forever, but avoided more “obvious” moral laws since he assumed we’d just know them already. What being written on our hearts and all.
My follow up question when someone is ok with slavery is if they're ok with me owning one of their family members and beating them to within an inch of their life. Usually not ok with that. Funny how perspective can change things
Oh, the Bible actually allows you to beat your slave to death. As long as they linger for a day or two before dying. Apparently if they don’t die on the day of the beating, their death is ‘accidental’.
Exodus 21:20-21, “If a person beats his male or female slave with a stick so severely that he dies, he is to be punished; except that if the slave lives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his property.”
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A20-21&version=CJB
What you're describing is exactly the point of biblical slavery. No one wants their family members to be slaves and so their family members will work hard in order to redeem them. That's the point, force your family members to pay.
And then there's the question of how they came to be your slave. You can't just call dibs. You lent someone money, or captured him on the battlefield. If you lent him money, surely you deserve your money and his family should have helped avoid the slavery in the firstplace but even after the fact you deserve your money. As for the battlefield id much rather my family member be your slave until i can redeem him than the alternative.
An interesting side notes Slave auctions were the ancient equivalent of JG Wentworth, sell your slave and his associated debt at a discount to get guaranteed money today.
@@PatrickPeaseand... ? No moral human being should be ok with that. Also, onec again it should be reiterated that debt slavery or indentured servitude was ONLY for fellow Israelites, whom you could then force to become your permanent, lifelong PROPERTY by holding their wives and children hostage.
@@PatrickPeaseYou describe that like it isn't monstrous and evil.
@@asagoldsmith3328 slaves have cash value and could be redeemed by anyone with enough money to redeem them. Also, slaves were given frequent opportunities to become israelites and israelites were not allowed to keep slaves that would not convert. It's in their laws, look it up.
"No one would condone slavery". Yeah, about that. Even in developed nations there are people who do that.
7:18 "All men are made in the image of God, slave and master are equally human, protected and one in Christ". I'm missing something here, if "slave and master" are "equal" then would they not be slave and master? Their relationship is inherently one of inequality. If all men are made equal, then there shouldn't really be such relationships.
That verse is that everyone is equally under god, as in everyone is a slave to god. For some reason many apologists want to twist that into "therefore everyone is equal among themselves" despite the bible literally saying there are some humans above anothers like "you shall have slaves from the heathens around you" or "the man is the head of the house, like jesus is the head of the church".
Human trafficking still happens, even in "bastions of freedom" such as America and EU.
Slavery never went away - we just outlawed it.
@LadyDoomsinger slavery was never abolished or outlawed in the US. The 13th amendment allows for prisoners to be used as slaves. Which explains why the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
@@jaclo3112 Yeah, I know... I was going to get into that in my comment, but wanted to keep it simple.
Even the USA thing says " All men are created equal, it is the 2nd part of that statement that is hidden, But some are more equal than others.
Obviously women are lesser beings if you believe any of this.
hi Paul, know this is off topic but I really just wanted to thank you for your support the last time i commented. I have improved my environment and gotten a lot people off me by limiting myself in online discussions and getting away from people who treated negatively in the past. also I appreciate Shannon's video on debunking the idea that religion is a mental illness. As a Christian with autism and oCd the stigmatization and bullying of people with mental health is a problem that has affected me personally.
You’re welcome, Anthony. I’m so glad that you’ve found ways to be well.
@@Paulogia thanks appreciate it.also please tell Shannon to continue the good work in helping destigmatize mental illness
I absolutely love the stark comparison of "The bible is the unquestionable, perfect word of the lord" and "The old testament was forward-facing and is to be supplanted by the new testament".
Frank truly is one of the apologists of all time.
I find it especially interesting as his storybook has the jesus character explicitly stating the polar opposite. "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17 RSV)"
It's funny how the "perfect" word of an omnimax deity needed to be supplanted by anything...
@@nagranoth_ excuse u Paul says otherwise
@@caffetiel excuse you, you think paul trumps the god they worship?
@@nagranoth_ you say that like it's ridiculous but that's actually how Christianity works. When Jesus says a thing and Paul twists it to mean something opposite, Paul is the one churches go with.
Did anyone point out to Turek, that when he quoted Jesus saying all people are equal before God, that Jesus also said he would not change one word of the law (law = Old Test)
* Shhhh. No contradictions here. Just keep obeying what I say God says and give 10% of your income *
Don't you know you're only supposed to bring up verses from different parts of the buy-bull in the same conversation when they can be teisted to support each other?
All people are equal based on ideology and behavior. If you are a habitual criminal, then you will naturally gravitate towards atheism.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp According to US penitentiary records, atheists make up only 2% of prison inmates. Guess who makes up the rest?
@@Kenneth-ts7bp The vast majority of people in jail are religious. Guess that dispels your absurd claim.
Probably the best moment of any debate I've watched was when Dr. Josh and Matt Dillahunty were debating two Christians on this topic, and asked them: "Would you be my slave if we were back in Old Testament times?" The long pause of silence that came from the Christians after that question was asked...was PRICELESS.
I really had to watch this video in chunks. This is one of those topics that when I hear the excuses and word twisting it makes my blood boil.
Here's a question that they can never answer. If biblical slavery "wasn't so bad", then why did Moses go to such great lengths to get his people out of Egypt?
Oh that's an easy one. The Egyptian slavery was bad because it wasn't as "good" as Yahweh's slavery + Yahweh's special chosen people weren't the majority slave owners.
That was not "biblical slavery" but Egyptian slavery which was cruel. Why do atheists have such hissy fits with slavery when atheism doesn't condemn slavery as evil?
@@Justas399 atheism doesn't condemn anything, lool, its not a doctrine
@@Justas399
Because atheism only answers one question: does God exist?
Our _morals_ discuss slavery.
@@Praha175 Atheism is a knowledge claim about reality that asserts that no God exist.
This implies there is no such thing as evil. Slavery is not evil.
Amazing the double standards of the religious. Christians will condemn the atrocities carried out gods in the Quran and other holy books. Then turn around and make excuses justifying/excusing the exact same atrocities by the biblical god in the Bible.
you can read a random verse to a bunch of Xtians.
Tell them it's from the Quran and they condemn the verse, tell them it's from the bible and they condone it.
When I lived in Spain, a Christian brother frequently quoted to me a verse that is repeated in the Old Testament
(New English Translation)
Exodus 22:21
“You must not wrong a resident foreigner nor oppress him, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
Here are three other verses I would like to highlight before explaining:
Exodus 23:9
“You must not oppress a resident foreigner, since you know the life of a foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
Leviticus 19:34
The resident foreigner who lives with you must be to you as a native citizen among you; so you must love the foreigner as yourself, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 10:19
So you must love the resident foreigner because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
I have heard this verse often used in the context of immigrants, strangers, visitors, travelers ... even though the NET renders it as resident foreigners.
But I'd never heard it used in the context of slavery.
What is interesting, is that all the slaves that Israel had, if they obeyed God's law, were resident foreigners - never fellow Israelites. AND, when Israel lived as foreigners in Egypt, they were also slaves in Egypt.
So even if the Israelites had "slaves", they were commanded to love their slaves, and treat their slaves they way they themselves wanted to be treated (and should have been treated when they lived in Egypt).
Israel knew what it was liked to be oppressed, to be victims. It was no fun. So they are commanded not to be oppressors and not to create victims. The only way one of their slaves could be a "victim" of slavery, is if Israel was directly disobeying God's command. There is no way that victims were created, no way that oppression was practiced, if God's commands concerning slavery (foreigners) were carried out.
Other renderings of "do not wrong or oppress a foreigner" include:
Do not deceive
Do not mislead
Do not take advantage of
Do not exploit
Do not use them as objects for your personal gain
Do not give them any grief
Do not give them a hard time
Do not make their life difficult
Do not place burdens on them that you yourselves would not be happy to bear
Give them justice - do not practice injustice or unfairness
Treat them as equals, equality and equity
Another side note is that any foreign slave could be freed from slavery if they became an Israelite through circumcision. If a foreign slave became part of the covenant people of God, that person was not allowed to be held as a slave. A fellow Israelite was not allowed to be made a slave against that person's will. (It is hard to imagine, with our concepts of slavery, that anyone would willingly become a slave, but it is not unheard of in the OT concept of slavery for a person to do so.) On the other hand, a foreigner should not become an Israelite without sincerely covenanting with the God of Israel. You wouldn't want to have any false conversions just for people to get out of slavery.
This is something that blacks in the American south did not even have as an option. One would think that - applied the same way as OT biblical slavery - if a black became a Christian and got baptized, they would automatically be freed from slavery because no Christian could hold a fellow Christian as a slave. (assuming the slaveowners were at least nominal Christians).
I don't know how much Israel followed or disobeyed God's commands concerning slavery, but what is very clear from these verses about foreigners is that IN NO WAY did God command Israel to do to anyone what the Southern slaveowners and international slave traders did to black Africans in the past 500 years. In fact, it was quite and totally the opposite.
God did not simply "allow chattel slavery" to accommodate the spiritual maturity level of the Israelites or because it was so ingrained in the culture. He gave direct commands that in no way were the Israelites supposed to do to anyone else what was done to them in Egypt.
The same slavery God opposed when the Israelites were oppressed in Egypt and God delivered them is the same slavery that God prohibited His people from carrying out against any other human being.
The only slavery that God permitted for the Israelites to carry out was the polar opposite of the oppression and injustice of chattel slavery.
The permission to have foreigners as slaves was conditional on the direct command to love the foreigner. Love took precedence over slavery. According to Mosaic law, if there was no way to practice perfect love and justice (equality) towards the foreigner AND have the foreigner as a slave at the same time, then the only logical lawful conclusion is that the slave would have to be released in the name of love. The only way a slave could be retained as a slave is if the slave had the same treatment as what the Israelite would want, and in a love and justice relationship.
Again, whether Israel did that or not is another story. But don't let it be said that God condoned, much less commanded, the type of slavery that was in any way unjust or oppressive!
Fun fact: Dutch theologian Jacobus Capitein in the 18th Century wrote a theological dissertation to defend slavery on Biblical grounds. He was an ex-slave from Ghana.
I am a Ghanaian. I read about this somewhere. Smh.
More people need to say “Baloney!” right to Franks face like that.
I find so many keyboard slavery apologists under my videos when this topic comes up. Im so thankful this video was done by you Paul!
It's a game of whack-a-mole 😆
Damn, that book would have been useful for my essay discussing the influence of Babylonian law on Jewish law I did for my Ancient Syro-Palastein class last Fall. I got a A without it though it would have saved me a lot of work.
This kind of decyphering drove me UP the WALL for years. As others have commented, why can't rules and regulations be plain to read, for all people for all eternity?! Why do we have to interpret the rules of life itself?
"Better to be a happy idiot than someone who knows the truth" - Michael Scott
If you have peacock, I highly recommend watching The Office (U.S.) Superfan episodes.
Atheist slogans are unique.
It doesn't seem like the Bible endorses slavery so much as acknowledges it as a fact of life and cannot foresee any other condition. This is what tells me it is the product of the human mind, and not divine.
Endorse Verb
declare one's public approval or support of
God: you may take your slaves from the nations around you
He, by definition, endorsed slavery
“Treat your fellow man the way you want to be treated” that about covers it 😅
Then giving people a death sentence for crimes against humanity is good. Holding criminal cultures accountable for their crimes against humanity is good.
But christians want to be martyrs, that is hard put upon. This is why they are always attacking others.
Jesus actually formulated the Golden Rule incorrectly, which doesn't speak terribly well for his ability to convey accurate moral lessons.
@@Uryvichk: He didn't 'formulate' it, he stole it from much older writings. Do unto others is the basic message then and now.
So... If I hit them according to Exodus 21:20-21, does it mean that I am a masochist?
I hope that SOMEDAY Americans will not judge everything based on their history or lack of knowledge of the world.
Yay! Dr. Josh
3:00 that nobody would make today....
Florida Republicans: hold my Margarita
👍
"Bible" and "Slavery" are like the BAT SIGNAL for Dr Josh. Best Wishes, DOC
Shermer: "Nobody would say slavery was good today."
Florida: Hold my beer
The Wholly Fables aka the Bible most definitely endorses slavery both Old and New Testament. But theists will point out and even justify the indentured servitude but will outright ignore the chattel slavery. That's in the Bible.
Dr. Josh, I love to read, but I can't read with my eyes for any length of time without suffering. Also, I have purchased and read every audiobook you have had published. Do you think you will be putting out an audiobook version of this new second edition? I know it can be cost prohibitive, but it would be appreciated by others like me, as well as those who prefer to their consume their reading material while doing other things.
First Timothy is one of the pseudepigraphic letters. I.e., almost certainly not written by Paul, but by later Christians using Paul’s name to promote their own version of Christianity. So how much ‘faith’ should anyone put in what amounts to a forgery? And why would an all powerful god even allow forgeries in its sacred book?
Hmm, I can't avoid noticing that when it's convenient to apologists, they are very content at quote-mining the bible, yet when confronted with morally questionable passages "you gotta read the whole context".
Hmm, interesting...
People do crazy amounts of mental gymnastics in order to maintain their beliefs.
You certainly do.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp Would you like to expand on this?
@@karlwinkler4223 Period.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp You certainly make a compelling case for your statement. I now understand what beliefs you were talking about and how they require mental gymnastics to be maintained. Thank you for your valuable contributions!
I see many places in the Bible where the word "servant" or " bondservant" is used, and many places where the word "slave" is used. It would appear that the Israelites had two different words for those two different concepts, so why in those passages that discuss slavery if what is meant is servant is the word slave used instead? Did the Israelites not know the difference? Did the writers or the translators make a mistake?
Well the problem we got is Hebrew words cant be directly translated resulting in the translators having to decide if the Hebrew is actually slave or servant
So we need to double check which of slave, servant or both works and which make most sense.
@@mattm8870 I suppose my point is, that whether or not there are actually two different words, the people who translated the Bible practically uniformly decided that the word to use in the passages and question was" slave" and not " servant". Presumably there was a good reason for making that distinction
@@mattm8870 and I decided to go ahead and just look it up:
מְשָׁרֵת
servant, servitor, manservant, footman, attendant, official
עֶבֶד
slave, servant, bondsman, serf, servitor, thrall
שַׁמָשׁ
attendant, servant, caretaker, beadle, orderly, janitor
So it appears they did have clearly different words for each of these Concepts, though perhaps with some slight overlap- in which case I suppose it's the contacts which makes it clear what was meant
Bondservant is the 17th century polite word for a slave. So that’s how the Hebrew word for slave is often interpreted into English in the King James translation. Literally a servant in bondage, as opposed to a servant for hire.
Love that part at the end "baloney" best way to call out Frank's lies.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." Leviticus 25:44-46
On the one hand, I really like Josh's work. However, on the other hand, I wonder why he upped his 200 and some page book to a 700 and some page book? An attempt at double-dipping, perhaps?
Now, I do not disparage anyone from writing books and trying to make a dollar off of it, as I'm a capitalist at heart.
However, in this case, it looks as if he were trying to sell the same book twice by holding back part of it, and then publishing it later as a "New Edition".
I'm not saying that's what he did, but it's awfully suss.
I read the first book in detail (lots of margin notes). I think the second book provides a broader picture of the Ancient Near East and how the Israelites practice of slavery was in lock step with other nations. Additionally, he seems to add a ton of additional references for the reader.
@@thedude0000
I'm only wondering why he did not do that originally. Did he write the book, publish it, and then think to himself, "damnit, I forgot to list two-thirds of the information I had. Oh well, silly me.
I guess it's time to write a new edition."
@@sussekind9717 Well, this is just me speculating, so take it with a grain of salt.
I honest think Dr. Josh believed it was just so obvious that the Old Testament supported slavery. He wrote a brief book just outlining the verses and he most likely figured that would suffice.
However, since writing the last book, he's seen the apologist response and decided to write a more comprehensive book.
That's my honest opinion.
No-one is forcing you to buy the book, you’re free to choose which edition or none at all.
For context - did you read the second book?
Just the fact the bible has apologist shows there's a lot wrong with that sick bible
Do Christians even still think Frank Turek is an effective apologist?
I guess I'm glad Frank sounds kinda sorta against slavery.
Whether he's fairly interpreting the bible to reach his position is moot to me. I don't believe it's possible to interpret the bible consistently and fairly as a whole.
So reinterpreting Christianity to make it more moral, despite the bible's instructions, is something I approve of.
Can you show me where atheism condemns slavery or rape?
@@Justas399There's nowhere atheism condones it.
@@archivist17 nor condemn it. Therefore it can be a good thing.
@@Justas399 Atheism is the answer to one question: Is there sufficient (any) evidence for the existence of god(s)? It doesn't claim to be a complete moral code, much less one based on a probable lie. However, humanists would clearly condemn such practices.
@@Justas399
Which just goes to show you don’t actually understand atheism.
Will the second edition be in print as well, or just as an ebook?
Print as well! ☺️🙌 Unfortunately, Amazon doesn’t let us set up the print version for preorder 😔
@@DigitalHammurabi
Perfect!!! It'll look great on my shelf next to the atheist handbooks
Didn’t Paul write an epistle telling slaves to obey their masters?
The Bible is the Word of God and means what it says -- except when it doesn't.
700 pages?! I bet 300 is just refuting Christians covering their ass about "slaves" meaning "servant" or "housekeeper"
Terrifying.
next time a christian uses Galatians to prove christianity abolished slavery, i’ll ask them about gender abolition using the same verse.
Frank offers his followers a buffet of excuses.
Don't like the prawn cocktail of "endentured servitude"? Well, how about the mini sausages of "all equal under Christ"?
I love to point out to evangelicals making the “biblical slavery wasn’t that bad” argument that the Roman Republic fought three wars to put down slave uprisings-the First, Second, and Third Servile Wars. In other words, a critical mass of Roman slaves decided, on three separate occasions, that they would rather die than be slaves. But it “wasn’t that bad.” Uh-huh
*God is the clay & humanity the sculptor ;*
More like, _"made in our image"._
Dr. Bowen’s avatar just needs a fedora and he’d be the perfect film noir private eye.
Once you prove to apologists that the Bible endorses it, you then get into a conversation about why slavery was "necessary."
Then the real fun starts when they start using the "but what about the economy" argument that American plantations owners used.
Well that was hell of an intro
Why on earth would god want to outlaw slavery, when he insists, on penalty of eternal punishment, that we are all his slaves? He demands utter submission, adoration, and worship forever and ever. God is the archetypal slave master.
And he doesn't even need the slaves! At least a slave owner needs them to make money and buy stuff
God states outright that Israelites cant be sold as slaves as they are his slaves (its just it translated as servants instead of slaves).
Pharaoh defended keeping Israelites as slaves by saying it helped them learn many “useful skills”
According to a collection of myths.
Except that the real reason was that he was afraid of the Hebrews was overpopulation and a rebellion to foreign powers 😒
He was just so fucking done with the apologist's bullshit there at the end LOL
If everyone already knows the difference between wrong and right because it’s written on our hearts, why do we need the Bible?
The Bible also discusses Atonement and how to live afterward. The Bible doesn't only tell us 'right from wrong' but alo provides a solution and guidance for our unwillingness to make right decisions. That statement simply intends to say that people know right from wrong whether they have heard of God or not. The expectation is still the same for everyone...righteousness. Unfortunately no one has attained this.
@@jksfghy Yup, sounds like a bunch of crap.
When your argument relies on taking verses out of context to deceptively spin new meaning out of them, you’ve already lost. Of course, apologists can count on the easy marks taking their word for it and automatically accepting any response provided.
The original debate is over whether morality is better explained by God or science, and within two and a half minutes Paulogia has thrown the very concept of morality into a wood chipper, rendering the debate over whether or not the Bible actually endorses slavery irrelevant.
He mentions morality as the topic of the original debate and plays a clip of Frank talking about how everyone knows the basics of right and wrong.
Paulogia then leaps into some kind of unfounded assertion of what "most people" mean in "casual conversation" by right and wrong. What's particularly weird about it is that he claims "most people" define right and wrong as being a matter of preference, which is both absurd and actually hurts Paulogia's position. (Not to mention it has nothing to do with Frank's definition) Given that according to "most people" (who apparently wield some kind of authority), right and wrong are just preferences, Why should Paulogia's preference have any bearing on the Bible, or anyone other than Paulogia himself?
He then asks whether the Bible conforms to a third definition of morality: "the desire for human flourishing and reducing suffering." As an atheist, Paulogia has nowhere to get this morality from. Nothing in nature or science says that "human flourishing" is good or that "suffering" is bad. Furthermore, Paulogia has not defined "human flourishing" or "reducing suffering" which could easily be defined as multiple contradictory things. For example: one could easily create an argument that slavery is actually in the interest of human flourishing and reduces suffering by the way they define those two terms. (therefore making it a moral good, by Paulogia's standard)
Mr. Paulogia, given your definition of morality, what gives you the right to criticize the actions of others? Also, if your definition of morality just as easily makes slavery a good thing as a bad one, what use is your morality in the first place?
Your points are well thought out and correct. I have seen that it is easy for You Tube influencers regardless of their position, to take the points and arguments of their opposition out of context and manipulate them to support their own perspective. Paulogia bothers me in the sense that he seems to have no other purpose except to tear down The Bible and every concept in it thus destroying those who are young in the Faith or those going through doubts. Afterwards he doesn't provide any guidance or comfort. It seems no different than robbing someone or depending on the person, even killing their spirit. His arguments are not even that good. His following is large because he does a good job of his presentation and he works hard on this channel. Unfortunately due to his large following so many people are getting their faith hurt. He is obsessed with having hard, physical evidence and will not allow for any reasonable conclusions or strong circumstantial evidence. Seldom, if at all really, is any modern Homocide case determined by only physical evidence. Much of a verdict is determined by a preponderance of circumstantial and some physical evidence. Paul is more than just physical matter, so he can use his reasonability and also consider circumstantial evidence of which there is plenty of both to support the existence of God and the Resurrection.
It's not really unfounded when each person has their own moral values - and it can't be otherwise. Thus, moral values are subjective by necessity. Just because certain individuals agree on certain values in no way lends to their objectivity.
@@veridicusmaximus6010 I didn't say that morals are objective because people agree on them. That would be an example of subjective morality. The idea of objective morality is the idea that something is right or wrong regardless of whether people agree on it. --Note that I not only did not reject the idea that each person also has their own idea of what is right and wrong, but this fact actually helps illustrate my point.
If moral values are subjective, then nothing is actually right or wrong, it is only a matter of opinion. Therefore, telling someone that they have the 'wrong' morals while saying that morality is subjective is talking out of both sides of one's mouth. --It is self-refuting.
If anything, that makes morality necessarily objective, rather than subjective. For in order to properly judge anything as being right or wrong, one needs an objective standard by which to judge it, otherwise they are only giving their opinion.
Paulogia claims that morality is subjective (i.e. that there is no true morality) while condemning the Bible for what he claims are moral reasons. QED, he wants you to reject the Bible because HE doesn't agree with it. Not because there is anything actually wrong with it.
@@nuclearfish2657 It is not IF moral values are subjective - they can't be otherwise is the point. Draw what you will from that but that is the case given each individual has them and there is no evidence of any moral values held outside of the human mind. IF you can demonstrate that by something other than an appeal to emotions about not liking this fact or it's consequences go right ahead. I'll wait. Paulogia simply made the point that the Bible endorses slavery and that right and wrong are individualized. FACTS! Now does that mean, as you say, that it is just a matter of opinion - that's arguable. Objectivity for Christians is usually means completely residing outside of the human sphere, which is convenient for them since that type of definition is far from an examination based on biological, psychological, and logic itself which certain aspects can be ubiquitous among humans. Which is exactly why certain moral values are agreed upon across cultures and time. Arriving at good reasons based on such may not be 'objective' in the Christian sense but it can be in another sense and used to reason about why actions and their consequences should be followed or avoided. And that's about as good as it gets. So reducing that to mere opinion is apologetic nonsense. And inventing a god does not help anything or anyone as is obvious even with 95% of the world believing in objective moral lawgiver. We are still stuck with the facts of subjective values and how to reason about them.
@@veridicusmaximus6010 At what point did I make an appeal to emotion? Where did I state that I personally don't like your worldview? In what way did I use either of these things as arguments? All you've done at this point is assert that your view is true without reason, argument or evidence.
Objectivity doesn't mean something special for Christians, it's just how logic works. In order for a standard to be objective for all humans in all places throughout history, it's source must lie outside humanity.
If you're trying to argue, like Paulogia, that morality is something else, then please explain how your modern sensibilities should apply to a book that is thousands of years old. Also explain why it should apply to a culture other than your own.
I'm not the one who defined morality as someone's opinion, that was Paulogia. If you're going to call it 'apologetic nonsense' you might as well direct it at him.
What you've described regarding actions and their consequences is merely the other definition of morality that Paulogia used, namely Pragmatism. I.E. depending on what criteria are used to judge an outcome as desirable or undesirable ANY action can be labelled "good" or "bad."
Regardless of whether you or anyone else believes in a moral lawgiver, the logic plainly shows that such a source must necessarily exist in order for anyone to make a claim of moral rightness or wrongness that has any meaning other than "I like that" or "I don't like that."
OK, suppose god’s law is written on our hearts. What might we find on our other organs? Could have far-reaching ramifications. Maybe god saying “psych!"
Pretty much every major religion has a complex relationship with the social institution of slavery because the institution of slavery was ubiquitous and unquestioned almost everywhere in the ancient world (before 500 CE).
Most abolitionist Christians, historically speaking, were heretics from an evangelical Protestant perspective (like Quakers, who didn't necessarily understand the Bible as their only infallible source of authority), with a minority of orthodox evangelical Calvinists and Wesleyans. Anti-slavery evangelicalism might've become more popular after the Methodist Episcopal Church failed to take a substantive position on slavery, which forced people to think more about the issue and take one position or another.
Even if we accepted, for the sake of argument, that a careful and thorough reading of the Bible does actually reveal that slavery was not condoned, certainly God would have been able to see in advance the way that so many would-for so long- interpret his word to mean that slavery was perfectly acceptable and the untold misery that would be worked upon the Earth and its inhabitants based on that misunderstanding. That being the case, how difficult would it have been for God to Simply State as one of his Commandments: you shall not keep any slaves of any variety no matter how you might obtain them. It would have taken exactly zero effort to make clear his intention if his intention was truly to forbid slavery.
The Biblical god clearly thought that making a Commandment forbidding a specific recipe was a higher moral priority than even so much as criticizing slavery.
Hey, not that bad after all, indentured servitude is just the bronze age version of share cropping...no big deal.. nothing to see here...
Wow, for people who claim the bible is the inerrant word of God, these apologists sure like ignoring or rewriting it whenever they think it can help their argument.
I'm not sure whether I prefer them lying about what the bible says or just shrugging and saying "I guess slavery is ok then". Both options make me shudder a little.
Divorce was a common practice in Old Testament times just as slavery was. Does this mean that God is "pro-divorce"? I think not!
Nice intro music
Yet another gold medal contender in the mental gymnastics olympics
Slaves and masters are all equal before God, but slaves are still slaves, so... hooray?
Its clear from reading the old testament that they are equal because they are both God slaves.
Great video :)
No, not really. Too many verses were taken out of context. The Christian Apologist did not provide a complete understanding of those particular verses. Slavery was an accepted cultural expectation in those times. The Bible doesn't condone or condemn slavery but provides guidance in this cultural normative. I wonder if it would have been more preferable to be a slave in Israel or Cannan? The Bible addresses societies no matter what traditions they hold. I am quite sure that societies in the future will look back on us and be repulsed at some of our cultural expectations.
@@jksfghy Hello you said this:
"I am quite sure that societies in the future will look back on us and be repulsed at some of our cultural expectations."
You know what I agree with you fully.
People in the future will of course look back on us today and be repulsed.
Absolutely they will as we do with slavery being totally wrong.
YET!!!! The big difference is that we are just people doing people things whereas the book called the Bible is 'supposed' to be inspired by an all-knowing god.
That is the difference with your thinking.
Yes, we (people) get stuff wrong but not a god. A god that kills the entire world apart from 4 breeding humans because the world it built sucked butt which he knew it would do before it started is sick, if not just funny for being a story that adults actually believe.
That god gave the 'inspired' word on exactly how to own other people as property.
How to trick them and beat them.
It matters not that 'people' 2K+ years ago thought slavery was good, the god should have intervened as it did back then in so many of these 'stories'.
This is why your point needs rethinking.
Why did Jesus's character not say not own people as property?
God's Divine Plan for humanity included slavery.
He even provided detailed instructions to the Hebrews on how to treat their slaves.
Slavery is one human owning another human.
"Baloney"? I guess Michael had to keep it polite. It's complete bullshit.
Finally, the context! ;-)
If religion was inslaved, they'd change their tune in a heartbeat,
I like the question, “did and could people use the Bible to condone slavery?” And to that I would say, yes. But does the Bible objectively tell us to have slaves? No. It is describing a practice that was used, not telling us to do something now.
It provides instructions for how to acquire slaves and under what circumstances. That's a resounding endorsement of slavery.
It might not command you to own slaves (because not everyone could afford slaves) but it sure as hell encourages it.
Oh I forgot the bit where it tells you to return run away slaves to their masters and not help them. So it does command you to support slavery
To paraphrase: From the nations around you you may buy slaves, who will become your possessions and may be handed down to your heirs. This is not descriptive alone.
I have no intention to ever follow the cultures or moralities of any temporary human society; I will always get my prerogatives from God, but it's sad that I have to learn new things from a more honest reading of the Bible by Atheists rather than Christians. XD
Hey Frank, if God’s law is written on our hearts, what is the point of your ministry/job?
What? Christian apologists need to spin and gaslight about something when someone asks them a direct question about morality and the Bible's inconsistency about basic morality? NO WAY /sarcasm
The Apologist spoke without interruption. As soon as the other person started to speak, constant interruptions which, I was glad to see, were ignored. " How can I win if your well thought out, with proof, arguments get a chance to flow." Just because the "Christian proofs" are circular, The bible is correct because the bible says it is correct that the bible is correct... Don't read that, the bible didn't mean that, it meant what I think it meant.
Stopping my rant now.
It's comical how easy it is to improve the Bible. The entire text + a verse that says "BTW, slavery is bad, always; don't do it, ever" would be a huge improvement on the Bible and prevent incalculable human suffering.
Pretty hard to do when God mentions slaves two of the ten commandments (the servants are actually slaves)
@@mattm8870 Yep but the Bible is full of self-revision, a late verse that is clearly and unequivocally anti-slaver, say in the NT, would be hard to wiggle out of... but maybe I'm too much of an optimist, modern Christians still cherry pick the most outdated OT verses.
Instead of saying ok maybe everything in this bible isn't true,believers doubt their own sense/brain and support idiotic things. I don't get it.
Butlers, yeah... Ask any apologist if he would become your butler in the terms of the bible. No one would, and for a good reason...
In the gospels, did Jesus ever speak to Christians?
By definitions no, protochristians by definition were a jewish group. The split occurred from 70 CE on, when the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed.
Considering the Bible is almost wholly written an objective case. It doesn't take a side on the subject. There's very few subjects it actually takes a side on. And the fact that it recognizes that slavery exists is not evidence that it supports the practice of it.
If you work in the United States, and you work for a wage where you do 1 hours work for 1 hours pay. You might notice that when you get your check at the end of the week, this is for some reason they freaking money out of your wages. That is slavery by any definition. It is the policeman why when the country was originally founded and they actually followed the Constitution, that wage slaves and a regular slaves were not attacked rules because you cannot tax somebody for their sweat.
It doesn't condemn it either. Jesus even didn't say something like "My Father the Lord wants you to set any slave free whenever he/she expresses the wish." Rather disappointing for a divine being who understands objective morals.
Not 44 chicken? Would you settle for 44 chicken hawk? Really old commerical. Had to be there.
Original spin on it.
Dishonest trick you pulled there at :24 paul. Ironically enough if your audience watches the video you'll find that Dr Josh Bowen is alot more timid in his conclusions there then he is here. One example is how he isnt sure within the debate that if the "set the slave free" verse is only applicable to foreigner. Here he just flat out says thats the case. Dr michael brown clearly said its not the ideal goal God wanted, and Dr Josh agrees with him that many people are to radical.
How the hell would Brown know what God wants - we have the Bible it's right there. Jeez!
We are, indeed, made in the image of God (Elohim) - male and female.
How is being a cattle rancher any different, fundamentally, from being a slave holder? Or is it actually worse? I never heard of anyone slaughtering slaves to make burgers.
"written on our hearts" 🙄
" written on your heart".. what complete nonsense...... turek is a BS artist....
Times were different back then. Slavery was voluntary.
No it wasn't. Read the bible and history. "For they are your money" The lord commanded Moses "to kill all but keep the virgins for yourselves".
Wrong
jimlovesgina: If you are going to troll here, you have to do much better. A good start would be to watch the video.
I do not think Gina would love somebody who was not honest. I think Gina is able to see straight through bs.
It would have been so simple for an omnipotent god to write "slavery is bad" anywhere in his inerent book.
This omnipotent God could have just put an insert in the OT saying: "Listen people. I've changed. No more mass murder, slavery and rape, on my behalf or otherwise. I'm all into peace and love now. But you must keep worshipping me, or otherwise you're still going to hell. I'll call on you later to check if your original sin can be cancelled. Seeya!"
The whole NT would have been redundant.
Gods can't write or build temples or boxes.
@@rembrandt972ify 🙄uh-huh. Boy, nothing gets past you does it?
@@taylorlibby7642 Be nice. Some of these ideas are new to people and they're testing them out.
Besides, the word you were looking to use is.... Inerrant. Which is a very cool word, but I don't think a single book qualifies for it.
*inerrant
Frank Turek is the Home Shopping Network version of a Christian apologist.
The McApologists of McApologetics.
They're all equally terrible, really.
@@unduloid Yep. Some of these apologetics are from before christianity even existed.
There really is no cream of that crop. They've been curdled for centuries.
The gift that keeps on giving.........
@@kristofftaylovoski60the grift that keeps on grifting.
I believe that "less than ideal" very well summarizes Frank's stance on the entire matter.
Damn, but that guy's a jerk.
I actually think taking slaves to keep prisoners from mustering a rebellion is actually a great rationale, since people in the South never worried about slave uprisings.
Yep. They have to pretend it doesn't say a lot of things to keep it appealing.
Knowing the majority of it's fans will never read it.
And pretend it does say a lot of things it doesn't
Its perfect. It says whatever you want it to.
Apologists are morally bankrupt.
Just morally. Their's bank accounts are pretty full
Frank's voice and attitude grates me. He denies evolution too. How people can still deny evolution is beyond me. I think even the catholics have kind of accepted it now.
How does one deny science fiction? Just by thinking critically and using reason to process data.
The Catholic church accepted evolution because there is overwhelming evidence. To deny evolution is an exercise in willful ignorance.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp I would love to hear the critical thinking involved to deny some of the evidence. Aaaaand, go!
@@jimlovesgina Do you have any evidence?
@@Kenneth-ts7bp the evidence is everywhere. YOU need to read. As a start I suggest reading up on human vestigial traights.
Asking apologists questions is like hugging a slime eel: it never works and leaves you regretful and slightly disgusted.
You got to scratch underneat their balls and they'll hug you.
Too bad that they'll also expect to french you, the eels i mean, they wont leave you alone afterwards so dont try it
How do I tie my shoes is an annoying question. When atheists can think for themselves, then the world will have achieved enlightenment.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp ah, the no you reply.
@@youtubestudiosucks978 You burned your brain with too many strong edibles.
@@foxadee sometimes it's fun to say ridiculous things as a joke. Try it sometimes 🤦♂️
I remember paulogia in 2015! You've come so far and your content has consistently been amazing.
If Job claims that he didn't mistreat his slaves and expects leniency because of it, it means that there were other slave owners who did mistreat their slaves.
"Mistreat" can be a relative term.
If it's typical to beat your slave 10 times a day, then only 7 beatings would be better treatment, and 13 might be mistreatment.
Also, the entire Book of Job is about Job having no idea what Yahweh would or would not do, and that Yahweh has the intrinsic right to be a petty psychopath who harms innocent people.
The events of the story wouldn’t have happened if Job wasn’t caught up in a pissing contest between God & Satan
Myself I prefer "Job, A divine comedy of Justice" by Robert E Heinlein where God takes on Loki in a pissing contest.😅
But Yahweh is all powerful, so he has the moral right to do whatever he wants! This is a fine moral stance to take!
/s
As long as it wasn't chattle butlery, it's morally permissible. Also, biblical butlery wasn't as bad as the Trans-Atlantic butler trade.
And if you're not pleased with your butler's butlering you can beat him with a bottle till his butt is blue.
Underrated comment 😂
Woooo! Slavery! ... er, I mean, Josh!
He can misspronounce greek too. Unjepadesteys.