I was able to observe Desmond Tutu at a religious leaders' reconciliation conference during the apartheid era many years ago. What impressed me was his graciousness towards everyone from the least to the greatest people that he had interaction with. At the time, as a white person, and a product of the apartheid indoctrination that I was raised in, this man shone as a light in a dark place for me.
"And sometimes, I think, in the church, we have been more interested in justifying God as opposed to standing compassionately with human beings who have been hurt." -Scott Amen! Jesus talked about how loving God involves actually taking time to clothe and feed people who are struggling. (Matthew 25). That's a difficult message to live out but it is what we should all be seeking.
loved this discussion. Thanks Sean for modelling how to critique in a very fair way. Sharing both what you agreed with and disagreed in a very warm way.
I'd become a bit of a humanist, but when I started noticing - as Sean pointed out - saints, a creed and later the lack of depth I started to realise it was a superficial copy of a Christianity and when you started applying the socratic method to it there were no answers. Granted a good number of modern churches also lack depth, which was one of the reasons I'd walked away from a Christianity, however top drawer apologists from Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and "protestant" backgrounds (not to mention a few Orthodox Jews!) were able to give me the answers. It's shocking how badly some of the main western denominations are at catechesis, if I'd been exposed to the early Church Fathers and apologists/theologians from Aquinas to C.S. Lewis I would have remained a committed Christian my whole life. Heck, I didn't even know what Apologetics meant until a few years ago and I'm pretty well read and in my mid 40s!
The most cogent and penetrating account I have ever read of the historical failure of humanist philosophy to construct a rational, non-supernaturalist grounding for the ethical maxims it wants to assert is found in Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue." MacIntyre argues not only that it failed, but that it failed necessarily, leaving Nietzsche and Aristotle as the only plausible remaining places to start a philosophical inquiry into morality.
The thing "above instinct" that Sean says we need is rationality. The apologetics position on morality is not any more grounded than a secular humanist position can be. Saying that God is the creator and he is good and he commands ____, still doesn't ground WHY we should live according to his will. To establish that more fundamental grounding, you have to appeal to experience by essentially saying that moral action leads to well-being (whether you believe that's Heaven, or the kingdom of god on earth, or whatever) and that is the EXACT same grounding that atheists have for moral truths. Humanists are at no disadvantage when it comes to the grounding problem or to circumventing Hume's IS/OUGHT distinction.
I have found it interesting that Henry VIII was reported to be an avid student of humanism AND at one point named Defender of the Faith by Pope Leo 10th prior to his break with Rome.
Like a typical apologist the older gentleman exaggerates the role of the Catholic philosopher in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. " This article presents the development of Jacques Maritain’s writings on natural law, the ius gentium or common law of civilizations, and natural rights, and their bearing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in December 1948. While Maritain WAS NOT A MEMBER of any of the committees involved in the preparation of the UDHR, he was significantly involved in advocacy for it, both during and following its drafting, and it is PLAUSABLE that he had some influence on the content of the text as well. Maritain saw the UDHR as “the preface to a moral Charter of the civilized world,”
I believe Jesus was a humanist and a would be reformer of His age. His teachings on love for God Your neighbor as yourself. The Kingdom of heaven beginning here on earth, His parables , all his teachings, His Atonement. all was to elevate mankind to their highest potential.
Would be? He was, but it doesn’t take the form of what we think of as “reform”. he didn’t rail against the government of Rome or whatever. he forces individuals to look at their own contribution to the problem of sin in the world. And he also provides the solution of our sin before God.
Steve’s comments have nothing to do with the video, yet are the most liked comments. Really tells you how much Christian’s care about the actual details of the argument as opposed to buzzword salad.
Your comment has nothing to do with the topic of the video either. So what if many Christians post words of encouragement, scripture, etc. at least its a refreshing change from the vitriol I read on atheist video comments section. I have been called everything under the sun by atheists, and all you can complain about is the top comment has nothing to do with the video?
@@hwd71 Hmm. Well, that kinda makes sense. In my experience, most theists can't grasp the basics, so when they think they can question the evidence for the strongest theory we have in science, that displays quite remarkable arrogance and a distinct lack of self awareness. People often disapprove of such things. But maybe you're different and actually know what you're talking about and have legitimate questions and have just had bad luck with the people you've encountered. Who knows?
Man if you think evolution is the strongest theory we have evidence for then idk what to tell you and I definitely don't deny evolution but that is about the worst defined thing I've read in academia in a couple years.
Humanism is summed up in these saying: Mat_22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Luk 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. But they reject the most important part: Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. This is secular humanism. It comes as your friend. The problem is illustrated in the title, they all died.
Honestly, if a person is turned off by the truth then that means God hasn’t revealed it to them. It’s the Bible that says unbelief sends you to hell. If it’s not important to them then they have to take that up with their creator
First, the author defines humanism in an existentialist way. Assuming a human is inherently an experiential starting point is an ideologically-laden viewpoint. It crosses over with liberalism where locke equates an individual (with free will) with humanity but there are additions to it. I agree the other definitions are nowhere near the topic and some contradict it. That addresses why the author thinks religious claims are undecidable (because she can only begin with experience which isn't equipped to handle faith claims, rather it's downstream of them so "humans" get to appreciate them all simply as experience which is why she can be so easy-handed with them). The better definition of humanism is just clearly as it says, an ideology based around reducing everything into a human domain (like feminism does for women or any -ism like that). It will not be able to properly explain everything in itself, much like a reduction into experience, or existentialism, cannot explain religious claims, but it can decide some things (e.g. is eating a rock a human right given biological humans). I think the "objective/subjective" bifurcated categories obv can't support much analysis but especially here there's an issue because there are intrinsic values in objects, like humans, but they're not as universal enough to grant explanatory power like God can. In any case, a Christian humanism defines humans as more than a biological or existential definition of humans but rather in a scriptural imago dei sense. That ends up amounting to, in a uniquely Christian sense, the lifting up of man towards God (reaching their highest potential), by reconciliation through Jesus Christ. I appreciate the discussion I just thought there was more to be said.
5:13 "{...} 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘰." Well, that doesn't sound right when you consider that slavery is condoned in the Bible and most Christians don't give a damn about that.
@@JenniferJohnson-fh8fx What makes me conclude that slavery is condoned in the Bible? Answer: the Bible. Leviticus 25:44-46 44 “𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶; 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘶𝘺 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴." 46 "𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦," That's pretty definitive: certain people are property. The Bible is also totally fine if you beat your slave, as long as they don't die within a couple of days of said beating. Exodus 21:20-21 20 “𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦, 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥. 21 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘸𝘰, 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺."
@@T_J_ Then you are right to conclude that it does allow slavery. So the question is really about how a person should feel about slavery in this context. The Bible is pretty clear that slaves owned by the Hebrews must be owned willingly - usually people sold themselves to address debt, etc. In other words, this is different from the concept of kidnapping people and making them work against their will which is also a type of slavery. Are they equal? And the Bible does not seem to be fine with hurting slaves as it provides clear ways that they are to be treated. Reading just a few verses later in Exodus, if a man hits a slave in the eye and blinds them, the slave is to be let go. It seems appropriate to conclude that an owner shall not injure their slave. And if they ever hurt them in such a manner that they killed them - intentionally or otherwise - they would be punished. Jesus later expounds in his teachings that there is a spirit behind these laws, and breaking the spirit (intent) of the law is just a bad a breaking the law itself. And any type of sin left unaddressed deserved condemnation. I appreciate your thoughts about these scriptures. They really do require a person to dig into their meaning and historical context.
@@JenniferJohnson-fh8fx The way I feel about slavery in 𝘢𝘯𝘺 context is that anyone who thinks that they can treat other people as property is a scum bag. I'm not interested in minimising such things. Yes, you can say things like, "Oh, but the slavers were products of their time," etc ... and that's fine, but then the honest reading of that observation is that the Bible is outdated ... which is a strange outcome for a book, supposedly, inspired by an eternal, omniscient god 🤔
Moses brought out laws but broke them when the israelites were worshipping an idol so mosaic law was created to minimize sin. The goal was to prevent enslavement of the jews (eye for eye laws) (see lev 25:43). We now have the law of Christ so we see it as outdated as well. Keep in mind, through the law of Christ (agape or love) we still get anti slavery ideas (philemon 1:8-9, 1 cor 7:21, :23 etc) through becoming slaves of righteousness/children of God (romans 6:15-18). If you need more verses then I can show others which connect the ideas. Abolitionism in our current sense is solely from christian values. Other regions banned slavery but could only do so in their values. For example hinduism banned slavery but in their caste system. Not many people want to or are willing to accept caste system values to get rid of slavery. Similarly liberalism/enlightenment values promoted freedom of economic choice (for individuals) which clashed with their promotion of freedom of man (defined as individuals). Historically abolitionism is solely christian in the west as only our values could bring that about. You can look up where abolitionism, women's rights and civil rights comes from.
If you mean the comments until now: Sadly often yes. But not always. Some just think, if they robot-repeat the "right" words, then everything is fine. But of course that will not convince anyone. The conversation between Scott and Sean is a good example, that it can be done better.
@@petervonbergen5364 And yet you can't, Peter. Curious. Sean makes many baseless claims and cannot show his god merely exists much less does anything for anyone. What his religion does do is spread hate and ignorance. For as much as christains go on about love, love has nothing to do with their sadistic fantasies of eternal torture. No one needs that kind of "love". This cult claims that humans are worthless without the cult. Happily, that is not true.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
I was able to observe Desmond Tutu at a religious leaders' reconciliation conference during the apartheid era many years ago. What impressed me was his graciousness towards everyone from the least to the greatest people that he had interaction with. At the time, as a white person, and a product of the apartheid indoctrination that I was raised in, this man shone as a light in a dark place for me.
Tbh that's about as creepy of a mindset as it gets. It doesn't come off how you think it does. You've got to grow more.
@@sjruruchunchunmaru9070 can you explain what exactly is creepy about it because I’m not seeing it either
"And sometimes, I think, in the church, we have been more interested in justifying God as opposed to standing compassionately with human beings who have been hurt." -Scott
Amen!
Jesus talked about how loving God involves actually taking time to clothe and feed people who are struggling. (Matthew 25).
That's a difficult message to live out but it is what we should all be seeking.
loved this discussion. Thanks Sean for modelling how to critique in a very fair way. Sharing both what you agreed with and disagreed in a very warm way.
Such a great and thoughtful conversation
Thank you Dr very cool
Thanks for posting
I'd become a bit of a humanist, but when I started noticing - as Sean pointed out - saints, a creed and later the lack of depth I started to realise it was a superficial copy of a Christianity and when you started applying the socratic method to it there were no answers.
Granted a good number of modern churches also lack depth, which was one of the reasons I'd walked away from a Christianity, however top drawer apologists from Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and "protestant" backgrounds (not to mention a few Orthodox Jews!) were able to give me the answers.
It's shocking how badly some of the main western denominations are at catechesis, if I'd been exposed to the early Church Fathers and apologists/theologians from Aquinas to C.S. Lewis I would have remained a committed Christian my whole life.
Heck, I didn't even know what Apologetics meant until a few years ago and I'm pretty well read and in my mid 40s!
The most cogent and penetrating account I have ever read of the historical failure of humanist philosophy to construct a rational, non-supernaturalist grounding for the ethical maxims it wants to assert is found in Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue." MacIntyre argues not only that it failed, but that it failed necessarily, leaving Nietzsche and Aristotle as the only plausible remaining places to start a philosophical inquiry into morality.
The thing "above instinct" that Sean says we need is rationality.
The apologetics position on morality is not any more grounded than a secular humanist position can be. Saying that God is the creator and he is good and he commands ____, still doesn't ground WHY we should live according to his will. To establish that more fundamental grounding, you have to appeal to experience by essentially saying that moral action leads to well-being (whether you believe that's Heaven, or the kingdom of god on earth, or whatever) and that is the EXACT same grounding that atheists have for moral truths.
Humanists are at no disadvantage when it comes to the grounding problem or to circumventing Hume's IS/OUGHT distinction.
I have found it interesting that Henry VIII was reported to be an avid student of humanism AND at one point named Defender of the Faith by Pope Leo 10th prior to his break with Rome.
Like a typical apologist the older gentleman exaggerates the role of the Catholic philosopher in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. " This article presents the development of Jacques Maritain’s writings on natural law, the ius gentium or common law of civilizations, and natural rights, and their bearing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in December 1948. While Maritain WAS NOT A MEMBER of any of the committees involved in the preparation of the UDHR, he was significantly involved in advocacy for it, both during and following its drafting, and it is PLAUSABLE that he had some influence on the content of the text as well. Maritain saw the UDHR as “the preface to a moral Charter of the civilized world,”
T Grogan you trolled in the Live chat,
>>>Christianity ruled the European Continent for 1500 years and it sucked. Failed experiment.
I believe Jesus was a humanist and a would be reformer of His age. His teachings on love for God Your neighbor as yourself. The Kingdom of heaven beginning here on earth, His parables , all his teachings, His Atonement. all was to elevate mankind to their highest potential.
Would be? He was, but it doesn’t take the form of what we think of as “reform”. he didn’t rail against the government of Rome or whatever. he forces individuals to look at their own contribution to the problem of sin in the world. And he also provides the solution of our sin before God.
Please comment latest dawkins and priest conversation. What is the priest missing as a religious scientist?
I want hope in my grave! Only JESUS can give! I want his Perfect happiness forever
👍
Steve’s comments have nothing to do with the video, yet are the most liked comments. Really tells you how much Christian’s care about the actual details of the argument as opposed to buzzword salad.
Your comment has nothing to do with the topic of the video either.
So what if many Christians post words of encouragement, scripture, etc.
at least its a refreshing change from the vitriol I read on atheist video comments section.
I have been called everything under the sun by atheists,
and all you can complain about is the top comment has nothing to do with the video?
What did you say to receive this "vitriol" from atheists?
@@T_J_
I question the evidence for evolution, which is usually met with insults from the Darwinists.
@@hwd71 Hmm. Well, that kinda makes sense. In my experience, most theists can't grasp the basics, so when they think they can question the evidence for the strongest theory we have in science, that displays quite remarkable arrogance and a distinct lack of self awareness.
People often disapprove of such things.
But maybe you're different and actually know what you're talking about and have legitimate questions and have just had bad luck with the people you've encountered. Who knows?
Man if you think evolution is the strongest theory we have evidence for then idk what to tell you and I definitely don't deny evolution but that is about the worst defined thing I've read in academia in a couple years.
Humanism is summed up in these saying:
Mat_22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Luk 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
But they reject the most important part:
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
This is secular humanism. It comes as your friend.
The problem is illustrated in the title, they all died.
Honestly, if a person is turned off by the truth then that means God hasn’t revealed it to them. It’s the Bible that says unbelief sends you to hell. If it’s not important to them then they have to take that up with their creator
First, the author defines humanism in an existentialist way. Assuming a human is inherently an experiential starting point is an ideologically-laden viewpoint. It crosses over with liberalism where locke equates an individual (with free will) with humanity but there are additions to it. I agree the other definitions are nowhere near the topic and some contradict it.
That addresses why the author thinks religious claims are undecidable (because she can only begin with experience which isn't equipped to handle faith claims, rather it's downstream of them so "humans" get to appreciate them all simply as experience which is why she can be so easy-handed with them).
The better definition of humanism is just clearly as it says, an ideology based around reducing everything into a human domain (like feminism does for women or any -ism like that). It will not be able to properly explain everything in itself, much like a reduction into experience, or existentialism, cannot explain religious claims, but it can decide some things (e.g. is eating a rock a human right given biological humans).
I think the "objective/subjective" bifurcated categories obv can't support much analysis but especially here there's an issue because there are intrinsic values in objects, like humans, but they're not as universal enough to grant explanatory power like God can.
In any case, a Christian humanism defines humans as more than a biological or existential definition of humans but rather in a scriptural imago dei sense. That ends up amounting to, in a uniquely Christian sense, the lifting up of man towards God (reaching their highest potential), by reconciliation through Jesus Christ.
I appreciate the discussion I just thought there was more to be said.
Humanism doesn't work.
Don’t know if humanism can save the world but religion gives up on the world and looks forward to the end.
pope last month ' gay unions not a sin. to be blessed in churches ' last one out of church hit the lights muslim 2002
5:13 "{...} 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘰."
Well, that doesn't sound right when you consider that slavery is condoned in the Bible and most Christians don't give a damn about that.
Hi there! What made you conclude that slavery is condoned in the Bible?
@@JenniferJohnson-fh8fx What makes me conclude that slavery is condoned in the Bible? Answer: the Bible.
Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶; 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘶𝘺 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴."
46 "𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦,"
That's pretty definitive: certain people are property.
The Bible is also totally fine if you beat your slave, as long as they don't die within a couple of days of said beating.
Exodus 21:20-21
20 “𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦, 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥. 21 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘸𝘰, 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺."
@@T_J_ Then you are right to conclude that it does allow slavery. So the question is really about how a person should feel about slavery in this context.
The Bible is pretty clear that slaves owned by the Hebrews must be owned willingly - usually people sold themselves to address debt, etc. In other words, this is different from the concept of kidnapping people and making them work against their will which is also a type of slavery. Are they equal?
And the Bible does not seem to be fine with hurting slaves as it provides clear ways that they are to be treated. Reading just a few verses later in Exodus, if a man hits a slave in the eye and blinds them, the slave is to be let go. It seems appropriate to conclude that an owner shall not injure their slave. And if they ever hurt them in such a manner that they killed them - intentionally or otherwise - they would be punished.
Jesus later expounds in his teachings that there is a spirit behind these laws, and breaking the spirit (intent) of the law is just a bad a breaking the law itself. And any type of sin left unaddressed deserved condemnation.
I appreciate your thoughts about these scriptures. They really do require a person to dig into their meaning and historical context.
@@JenniferJohnson-fh8fx The way I feel about slavery in 𝘢𝘯𝘺 context is that anyone who thinks that they can treat other people as property is a scum bag.
I'm not interested in minimising such things.
Yes, you can say things like, "Oh, but the slavers were products of their time," etc ... and that's fine, but then the honest reading of that observation is that the Bible is outdated ... which is a strange outcome for a book, supposedly, inspired by an eternal, omniscient god 🤔
Moses brought out laws but broke them when the israelites were worshipping an idol so mosaic law was created to minimize sin. The goal was to prevent enslavement of the jews (eye for eye laws) (see lev 25:43). We now have the law of Christ so we see it as outdated as well.
Keep in mind, through the law of Christ (agape or love) we still get anti slavery ideas (philemon 1:8-9, 1 cor 7:21, :23 etc) through becoming slaves of righteousness/children of God (romans 6:15-18). If you need more verses then I can show others which connect the ideas.
Abolitionism in our current sense is solely from christian values. Other regions banned slavery but could only do so in their values. For example hinduism banned slavery but in their caste system. Not many people want to or are willing to accept caste system values to get rid of slavery. Similarly liberalism/enlightenment values promoted freedom of economic choice (for individuals) which clashed with their promotion of freedom of man (defined as individuals). Historically abolitionism is solely christian in the west as only our values could bring that about. You can look up where abolitionism, women's rights and civil rights comes from.
Are all Christan conversations this shallow?
Are all atheists this stupid?
If you mean the comments until now: Sadly often yes. But not always. Some just think, if they robot-repeat the "right" words, then everything is fine. But of course that will not convince anyone. The conversation between Scott and Sean is a good example, that it can be done better.
yep, they are. Most, if not all, have no idea how to think through their nonsense.
@@velkyn1one could argue, that your argument is even more shallow.
@@petervonbergen5364 And yet you can't, Peter. Curious. Sean makes many baseless claims and cannot show his god merely exists much less does anything for anyone. What his religion does do is spread hate and ignorance.
For as much as christains go on about love, love has nothing to do with their sadistic fantasies of eternal torture. No one needs that kind of "love". This cult claims that humans are worthless without the cult. Happily, that is not true.