Tom Holland vs AC Grayling: The Christians who ended slavery
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 มิ.ย. 2024
- Tom Holland debates atheist AC Grayling on whether Christians were responsible for the abolition of the slave trade.
This is an extract from The Big Conversation between Tom Holland & AC Grayling. Watch in full: • Tom Holland vs AC Gray...
For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
The Big Conversation Season 2:
1. Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein: Pt 1 • Alister McGrath & Bret... Pt 2 • Alister McGrath & Bret...
2. Roger Penrose & William Lane Craig • Sir Roger Penrose & Wi...
3. Bart Ehrman & Peter J Williams • Peter J Williams vs Ba...
4. Dave Rubin & John Lennox Pt 1 • Dave Rubin & John Lenn... Pt 2 • PART 2 Dave Rubin & Jo...
5. Tom Holland & AC Grayling • Tom Holland vs AC Gray...
6. Matt Dillahunty & Glen Scrivener • Glen Scrivener & Matt ...
The Big Conversation Season 1:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconversation.show/
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
If Christianity truly shaped the Western world to value equality to the extent Holland is suggesting, the transatlantic slave trade shouldn't have happened in the first place.
That's like saying if Atheism actually had any value then Atheist Russia shouldn't have gone butchering and destroying thousands of Orthodox Christians.
But that's like saying, "All Christians should never commit any offences". It's true: Christians do wrong things, we are sinners.
So don't listen to Christians, listen to the one whom they try to emulate: Jesus Christ.
Based on what? You’re assuming greed isn’t a powerful temptation. The trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was driven almost entirely by greed, cane sugar and tobacco were not niceties. You also seem to be assuming a societies behavior is consistent with it’s values. It’s easy to believe something it’s hard to live it.
I think it's important to point that for the Transatlantic slave trade to begin, there had to be a bit of de-Christianizing that had to take place. The idea that a set of human beings were a separate creation, polygenesis, had to be calculated into the minds of the slave traders and their supporters.
@@randomdisciple8517 Holland argues that Christian values are more powerful than temptations such as greed as they radically changed the social zeitgeist and overturned the greed-driven status quo of slavery in the Roman Empire *way before* the 16th-19th century transatlantic slave trade. The transatlantic slave trade happened nonetheless, so I was pointing to the exaggerated nature of Holland's claims. I wasn't at all making the assumption that greed isn't a powerful temptation or that societies cannot deviate from the values they uphold.
The extreme number of Black Christian churches must've just happened by coincidence.
chzzyg269 Yes I’m sure that had nothing to do with forced indoctrination while in captivity, and blacks latching on to a slave theme throughout works like Exodus.
@@dallasburns7806 Forcing slaves to believe in hope sure makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that Dallas.
chzzyg269 Go read the Christian literature from the South during that period. A defense of slavery was made by nearly all ministers and theological books were written in support of it and preached to the slaves themselves. Southern Christian theology wasn’t giving chattel slaves hope. Nice try
@@dallasburns7806 and yet, there are no black slave owners in the US, and still several black churches. Your point is invalid.
chzzyg269 😂😂😂 You’ve clearly missed the point entirely. 🤦♂️
For the 1200 years or so that Europe and the American colonies were Christian theocracies, slavery was practiced with impunity. Once the enlightenment dawned in the eighteenth century, and societies dared to creep out from under the yoke of religion, they suddenly realised slavery was immoral and unconscionable. Sadly, religions still had enough influence to ensure that, even though black people could no longer be enslaved, they would still be segregated and oppressed for another hundred years.
Did you know enlightenment philosophers like David Hume and Adam smith discrminated against blacks as well also Thomas Jefferson had slaves also do you know that those ideas were only for white men why do you think that when France had there revolution they still practiced slavery if it was for black peoples why dint they not free them slaves . it was William wilberforce really that helped intervening
@@damilolataiwo7750 I did know that actually. I wasn't defending Hume or Smith. I was simply pointing out how the bible endorses slavery, and, when we lived in theocracies, bible laws made racism a virtue
colinmatts western civilisation was never a theorcracy it was a monarchy
colinmatts also racism is not one made a virtue in the bi or in fact the bible outrightly condemns it it was your circular writers who made it a virtue hums Thomas Jefferson Adam smith they all made it a virtue even chalets Darwin evolution theory has also been used to justify it go and read what scientisfic racism is about and go and see how much racism chalwes Darwin endorses in his book the decent of man you liberals now a days just ignore the fact you secular governments like communism and writers also endorsed such things and just blame religion for every thing lol racism is still around today and it is in nations that are becoming secular like Britain and America I thought it was just religion
@@damilolataiwo7750 And from whom did the monarchs get their power to rule?
William Wilberforce
Hannah Moore
John Newton
how about Seneca's letter 47?
'Servi sunt.' Immo homines. 'Servi sunt.' Immo contubernales. 'Servi sunt.' Immo humiles amici. 'Servi sunt.' Immo conservi, si cogitaveris tantundem in utrosque licere fortunae.
Translates to:
"they're slaves"
Rather, men.
"they're slaves"
Rather, humble friends.
"they're slaves"
Rather companions in slavery (conservi is like coworker but with "slave" instead of worker, quite the strong word), if you think that fortune allows the same for (or has the same power over) both.
Way before christianity was a thing in rome.
Damn I thought you got Spider-Man on this
Same
If Christianity caused the end of slavery, why did it take 1800 years?
While I am glad for every abolitionist, anyone who thinks Christianity supports abolitionism has obviously not read the Bible.
2 different kinds of slavery
@@glodimvovi2345 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣utter nonsense
@@levyy_012 it’s not
The king James Version? Or the Jew and Muslim? Seems like they imputed them scripts to a time in history pertaining to them. Jew Bible seems to say, "take it easy on us, give us a chance at releasing us." Which l find, but its speculation from comparison.
The Muslim bible, seems to show some humanity, saying,
" obey, well beat the heck out of you and if you survive, you're free, except if you have a child, you have to give them up and you are released."
Seems, by speculation, slavery taught nothing, just bargaining and was to suit their time in history. When the bible, the greater percentage of the Bible teaches virtue, has us recognize malevolence and teaching us to stay clear of it. Things in the Bible are told, used as parables, so we understand and avoid the ways of evil.
@@glodimvovi2345 did slavery in the bible mean owning another human?
Alternative title: "Tom Holland DESTROYS A. C. Grayling (on the Enlightenment's fundamentally Christian premises)".
(Edit: I am joking, or at least comically exaggerating, in this comment.)
Das Nichts Lol. It’s quite comical to see someone thinking Holland “DESTROYED” Grayling when he commits the most basic fallacy; the genetic fallacy. It is embarrassing to listen to his juvenile arguments.
@@noamtrotsky9601 - Relax, Noam, I was joking! Hence the CAPS. But just out of casual interest, where is this fallacy located?
Das Nichts Oh, okay. The claim that Christians (unjustified equivocation with Christianity) were at the forefront of slave liberation tells us nothing about how Christianity played a role. Just because they were born in the same waters does not mean that they bear any relation to each other. Indeed, it is quite the opposite with Christianity considering its heinous justification of slavery.
Alternative as in "alternative facts"? 'cause he really doesn't.
@@paskal007r - Please see above reply to Noam.
Tom, think seriously about your claim, it makes you look foolish....
"It's so clear that the anti-slavery movement was an evangelical one."
Nope. Not at all. It is so clear that those evangelicals who opposed slavery did so based upon humanist values, not biblical values. Nothing in the Bible condemns slavery.
Tom Holland knows this. He is simply being dishonest.
Interesting argument. There are, so far as I can see, three assertions that arise.
The first is that Evangelical’s ‘opposed slavery’ not on biblical grounds but did so within a humanist framework. Can you please proffer evidence for that proposition?
The second assertion is that the Holy Bible is devoid of material condemning slavery. Can you please adduce evidence for that assertion?
The third assertion is a twofold accusation that Tom ‘knows this’ and is ‘dishonest’. Two distinct accusations emerge.
Turning to the former of those, Tom - presumably - ‘knows’ that your propositions (1 and 2) are historically true; that is, the rationale for the abolition of slavery came about from humanist values (proposition 1), and that there exists no words condemning slavery in the Bible (proposition 2). If you have evidence to substantiate that - it appears to commit an ad hominem, but I can certainly be wrong if rebutted - accusation (especially in light of Tom’s book ‘Dominion’ and his reply to Prof Grayling in the video) can you please publish it?
The latter of those accusations is that ‘[Tom] is simply being dishonest’. Can you please submit your evidence for that - a prima facie instance of ad hominem, but I can certainly be wrong if rebutted - accusation for it assumes that Tom is not merely at fault, but can no longer be considered intellectually credible?
I’m here merely to learn and understand. Of course, you are not obliged to respond to these questions nor is there any expectation for you to do so. I truly hope I get to hear from you 😃 If not, that’s ok 🙂 If I do, fantastic! Regardless, I hope, truly, you have a lovely day😃
@@misterbean5010
"Can you please proffer evidence for that proposition? "
Yes.
The abolishment of slavery is correlated with the gradual adoption of Humanist principles. It is not correlated with the rise of Christianity which began more than a thousand years earlier and actually condoned slavery.
"Can you please adduce evidence for that assertion?"
Sure. The evidence is the fact that the Holy Bible is devoid of material condemning slavery. In fact, the Bible openly promotes slavery.
A person of Tom's education who claims to have studied these issues has no excuse for not being aware of facts. Thus, I conclude that he is dishonest, rather than stupid.
You seem to be leaning more heavily on the stupid side.
Come back with a serious rebuttal if you can, or you will simply be dismissed for the pretentious fool you appear to be.
Didn’t Paul call himself and other Christians the SLAVES OF GOD????😂
1847- 🎵chains shall He (Jesus) break for the slave is our brother🎵 (O Holy Night)
Which is a direct reference to Paul's letter to Philemon. The Christian understanding has always been that slavery and Christianity could not be reconciled because if every person on earth is made in the Image of Father Jehovah, Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit All Three in One and One and the Same Who Are the One and Only True Living God then they are not just of infinite value, they are truly your brother and sister.
1779- 🎵 I once was lost but now I'm found, was blind but now I see🎵 (Amazing Grace)
Newton's conversion from atheist to Christian, turning away from his past as a slave trader, was not just beneficial as an ally to Wilberforce who spearheaded the slave trade being abolished in Great Britain, but his hymn Amazing Grace and the story of his Christian conversion was greatly beneficial to the Second Great Awakening in the United States of America, which spearheaded in earnest the abolishment of slavery in America.
One can go back further and further back in time, where Christianity was always clear that slavery was an injustice.
The problem with our postmodern world is not just ignorance of history, but chronological snobbery. They pretend that the present is more moral, ethical, etc all the while ignoring the injustices of today. Or they assume that what Christianity did was nothing new or unique, and may cite an example here or there prior to Christianity.
The problem is those circumstances were outliers and were ridiculously short term and did not hold for a myriad of reasons.
Nevermind the fact that TODAY you can see on various websites the estimated number of people enslaved or indentured around the world per country. Slavery indeed exists in the present time in virtually every country on earth. Indentured servitude still exists in the present time in virtually every country on earth.
Still, a critic or two with an axe to grind might argue that America was full of Christian's and that slavery existed for so long. The critic is right to condemn because it was unchristian. But I believe Abraham Lincoln summed it up best in his second inaugural address:
"Both (sides) read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
There have been many who have came in the name of Jesus Christ Almighty God who either were not truly Christian, or were people who were caught up in their wickedness of their hearts and desires rather than uphold the word of Jesus Christ Almighty God.
But we should remember that even in that manmade hell on earth that was America's South, that there were those who stood for Jesus Christ Almighty God and made the underground railroad so that many slaves could get to the North to be free. A single solitary flicker of light in the darkness can push aside all shadows so that wrong can be seen and the truth be upheld.
Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all 😊
Actually Christianity abolished slavery TWICE. The first time Christianity abolished slavery was before the advent of Islam. The ancient world as it Christianized and followed Paul instructions abolished slavery back then. The Apostle Paul laid out a plan that would successfully abolish slavery via an ethic of how to treat each other. He wanted to non-violently abolish slavery and as people converted and followed Paul's instructions slavery was done away with. Islam brought it back and worse then before because where as the old slavery was non-racial and was mostly indentured servitude the new Islamic variety was chattel slavery and introduced a colorization to it that had never existed before.
BTW, secularists like AC always take credit for the what Christians have done, but there is no way to give credit for the first abolition of slavery to the enlightenment since it didn't exist for at least another millennia. And the next abolition which Christians will bring about (abortion) they support fully. But in 100 years after that abomination has been done away with people like AC will try to take credit again. Entirely predictable.
While the Apostle Paul CONDONED slavery at Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, be obedient to your masters...", the Emperor Wang Mang of 1st Century China abolished slavery entirely, even for a short time, as he later died.
While Solon the Lawgiver abolished debt slavery in 6th Century BCE 'Pagan' Greece, the Mosaic Law allowed a father to sell his own daughter into debt slavery at Exodus 21:7.
Other cultures were far more moral than the lowly bible standards.
@@stefandavenport1588 It amazes me how those who have spent not one single unit of tuition on Biblical studies are so assured of their interpretation of the scriptures. Not even one Hermeneutics class. Stop watching Aron Ra and try to think for yourself for a change. Let me help you out with this ok?
In no way was Paul condoning slavery, since in the FIRST place what was happening in Paul's day and age was indentured servitude NOT slavery as we understand it post Islamic conquests. Indentured servitude was allowed by all cultures, even the supposedly morally superior Chinese as you have asserted. A free man was free to sell himself into servitude if he chose to do so and this is the context of Paul's era. This was one solution to starvation. Poverty was not like it is today, poverty could have meant literal starvation. Such was the harshness of the condition of most of the history of man and indentured servitude ensured food, shelter and clothing to people who were facing death. This is a perfectly just and correct system and this is what Paul is commenting on. SECOND, Paul's instruction actually worked to end slavery (indenture servitude). By the time of the Islamic conquests slavery(indentured servitude) was virtually extinct in the Christian world. As the world Christianized and they were instructed to treat each other as brothers in Christ one could no longer hold a brother in bondage, no matter by what means. Paul's teaching ABOLISHED slavery (Indentured Servitude) PEACEFULLY. This was the whole point and it worked. It was not until Islam came along that slavery came back along with it.
It was the Islamic conquests that brought back slavery, this time of the kind of coerced slavery and colorized slavery we are more familiar with that CHRISTIANITY abolished in the 19th century.
Now you want to compare this to Emperor Mang? Ok, Mang abolished slavery in 9AD and then reinstated it in 12AD. Three whole years of freedom. He was assassinated in 23AD which is well after he reinstated slavery. Mang is no hero, after abolishing slavery he actually REINSTITUTED it. Slavey existed in one form or another in all Chinese dynasties until the 19th century and that was mainly due to the influence of the British, who by that time were actively putting an end to the practice across their Empire.
Now as to Solon. What Solon did was to actually cancel debts, not abolish slavery. He did abolish slavery for Athenians, but only that. He was only trying to free his own people, he was not concerned about slavery as an issue per se. Many Athenians were freed from slavery and many land holders were robbed of what they were owed thanks for debt forgiveness. This was a great injustice and violates the entire idea of property and encouraged theft by debt and then debt "forgiveness". The one who is owed a debt may forgive the debt if he chooses. It is immoral for a ruler to coerce a property owner to forgive his debts. This is theft. So Solon is no hero either, he only cared about Athenians in slavery, not slavery as a moral issue, and was involved in forcing lenders to forgive debts causing great harm.
Now as to the Mosaic law, again we are dealing with a situation where families were allowed to sell children. Today this act is obviously illegal and rightly so however there are two very good reasons why. One we have birth control technology and two most child trading of this sort if purely for sexual exploitation purposes. This is not the context of the Mosaic period. Families grew large and often times parents were unable to feed all of their children. Families often faced starvation. There was no welfare state, which even today only wealthy nations can afford, and the proposition of selling a child would ensure that child would receive food, shelter and clothing. This again was the same kind of indentured servitude as in Paul's era and it was seen then as a means of preventing the level of poverty that leads to starvation. It was allowed of course in these circumstances and it should be obvious as to why.
You are guilty of WILLFUL misrepresentation, either that or WITLESS misrepresentation. Wether you realize it or not you have taken what the Bible actually says and done violence to it's interpretation and fair treatment. There is literally no hermeneutic to your interpretation at all, just the usual tripe that village atheists keep telling each other and then is repeated across the internet.
Lastly, I would just ask If your daughter was starving to death because you were so poor you could not feed her and all of your other children too. Would you allow her and possibly some of your other children to starve to death or sell her to another family who would take care of her needs, even if they did put her to work, ensuring the survival of all of your children?
I await your answer to this question. Then we shall see if Moses' law was as terrible as you suggest.
@@karcharias811 I'll be back home in the A.M. and address your points Thx.
@@karcharias811 Your initial comment: " Paul laid out a plan that would successfully abolish slavery via an ethic of how to treat each other " is FALSE.
There is NO scripture where Paul asks slaveholders to ' gradually free their slaves '
All cultures have a "golden rule", such as in Leviticus 19:18 "...but you shall love your neighbor as yourself", yet Yahweh/Jesus STILL allowed "God's Chosen People" to buy from the slave markets, any genetically similar 'foreigners' of a *different religion* .
NO, the 'golden rule" didn't cause any slaveholders to free any slaves in the Old Testament nor the New Testament, as Paul clearly supported the institution of slavery.
Ephesians 6:5 was his initial endorsement of slavery, but at vs 9 he asked the slaveholders to stop threatening ( menacing ) the slaves.
-- Sounds like 'indentured servitude' wasn't cordial.
Titus 2:9 "Exhort slaves to be obedient to your masters...not answering back" NLT
-- be in submission ; remain in subjugation.
1st Peter 2:18 has Paul reinforcing the institution of harsh slavery:
" You who are slaves must submit to your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel"
-- Paul supports human slavery and the status quo with no way forward from that institution.
The claim of slavery being "indentured servitude" is a desperate attempt to make the bible endorsement of humans owning other humans appear _less_ evil.
Colossians 3:22-25 has Paul equating obedience to their masters with obedience to God:
"Slaves, obey your masters according to the flesh [in physical reality] ...but in singleness of heart, fearing God"
-- this is a message of conformity ; where IS " Paul's plan " that you speak of ?
Colossians 4:1 addresses slaveholders with NO path forward for an even gradual process of liberation, and he then compared the institution of slavery as similar to slavery to Yahweh/Jesus:
"Masters, give unto your slaves that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven"
1st Corinthians 7:21 "Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it concern you. If you can gain freedom, take the opportunity" NLT
-- Paul expressed NO concern about whether or not human ownership of other humans (slavery) was important. This is simply common sense advice.
Where was "his plan" ?
1st Timothy 6:1"Let as many slaves that are under the yoke [of slavery] count their masters as worthy of all honor, that the name of God not be blasphemed"
-- in other words: "stay under enslavement, and concentrate on spiritual matters in spite of your miserable condition in REAL life'.
The personal letter to *Philemon* is Paul simply putting in a good word for his friend and runaway slave Onesimus, who Paul had induced to commit the unheard of action of returning to the enslavement to his master.
-- this _AGAIN_ shows that Paul had no way or "plan" forward to raise humanity to a higher level.
Both Paul and Jesus accepted slavery as a valid institution.
Paul had no "plan".
*Japan abolished slavery in 1590 CE and **_never heard_** of Allah, Jesus, OR Yahweh* ; christianism had NOTHING to do with emancipation.
Hi there. Would you have evidence supporting that assertion please?
@@misterbean5010 Since this channel prevents any links to sources of evidence either way, have _YOU_ been successful in locating the 3 sources I've provided ?
Thank you for your reply.
@@misterbean5010 Go to Google and look up ' Slavery in Japan, abolished ' ; the leader's name was *Toyotomi Hideyoshi*
You may also want to look up *Solon the Lawgiver* who abolished debt slavery in 6th Century BCE Greece, while the Mosaic Law Code allowed a father to sell his own daughter into debt slavery at Exodus 21:7.
Emperor *Wang Mang* abolished slavery entirely during land reform, even if for a short time, in 1st Century China, While the Apostle Paul CONDONED slavery at Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, be obedient to your masters..."
1st Peter 2:18 "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the abusive"
None of these societies had ever heard of Allah, Jesus, or Yahweh.
"Cool, we're getting smarter each generation. Let's check our beliefs! Sun revolves around Earth? Well, that doesn't make sense."
_"I agree. None at all."_
"Slavery? That's a bunch of hogwash."
_"Yup, gotta go."_
"Vampires? Those are a myth I think."
_"The mythiest of myths, yes."_
"Creationism? Nope, we know better now."
_"Obviously not how God works."_
"Oh yeah, that reminds me. Religion? We're growing out of that as well."
_"Now hold on, you can't do that!"_
"...Why not?"
_"The people who abolished slavery were Christians!"_
"Uh... so? I suppose they believed a lot of things we'd deem silly by now."
_"No no no, you don't understand. They came to understand that owning another human as property is wrong because of Christianity!"_
"You mean that book that says it's okay to own people as property?"
_"You're taking that out of context and it's not meant to be taken literally I've decided!"_
"Look, I thought we were just progressively getting rid of silly nonsense our ancestors held on to."
_"Yeah, but I suddenly don't like where this is going!"_
Funny (not funny)
*Solon the Lawgiver* abolished debt slavery entirely in 6th Century BCE Pagan Greece, while the Mosaic Law allowed a father to sell his own daughter into debt slavery at Exodus 21:7.
While the Apostle Paul CONDONED slavery at Ephesians 6:5:
"Slaves, be obedient to your masters..."
And _ALSO_ at 1st Peter 2:18:
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the abusive"
The *Emperor Wang Mang* abolished slavery entirely in 1st Century China, even if for a short time.
Japan abolished slavery in 1590.
None of these societies had ever heard of Allah, Jesus, or Yahweh.
Don't let your kids attend Greylings university. It's expensive, full of privileged students and was described by one Oxbridge academic as "Jamie's college"
Greyling is a fraud, as we can see by his fundamental lack of historical knowledge.
But he is comical!
I suggest you at least spell Mr Grayling's name correctly. Oh, and please tell us where we are able to purchase your published works, so as to be able to compare your apparently superior knowledge with that of Professor Grayling.
Maybe at least your kids will be able to spell correctly, expensive compared to being uneducated or theistic indoctrination....probably the best valued university around...However like you I’m just assuming....
He's wrong. Slavery was outlawed in most of Europe by the year 1,000!
Citation?
@@ZomBoyKilledIt Rio, A. Slavery After Rome. 500-1100. Oxford. In the Conclusion: 'I argued in the introduction to this book that the granting of conditional access to rights as a tool of domination is a hallmark of serfdom, as opposed to slavery, which denies them altogether.' Note that between the rise of Early Christianity and the Fall of the Western Empire, slavery had diminished, but due to the upheavals after the fall, it took until 1100 or so to get rid of slavery in Europe. This was replaced by various forms of servitude, which created the basis for Western democracy. Why? Because a serf had rights and his lord had responsibilities. It was contractual.
Industrialization. All pre industrialised societies permitted slavery to some degree. No industrialised ones did.
The soviet union did.
The Confederacy was Industrialised too... I live near Hull where William Wilberforce is from. The only way you think "Christianity" and "emancipation from slavery" aren't the exact same thing, is if you refuse to be educated in what happened.
@@con_boy the Confederacy had an agrarian economy and the Soviet Union banned slavery before it industrialised.
@@con_boy "the only way you think "Christianity" and "emancipation from slavery" aren't the same thing, is if.."
I don't think I get what you're saying. That sentence appears to not make sense.
@@darkwolf4434 Russia banned slavery in 1861. And Industrialised around 1880
*Solon the Lawgiver abolished debt slavery in 6th Century BCE Greece* while the *Mosaic Law* at Exodus 21:7 allowed a father to sell his own daughter into debt slavery ; again, other NON Abrahamic cultures were superior to bible "values".
Are you mad? One fact and you come to that conclusion? Everyone who Denise that Christianity's role in abolishing slavery twice is a hypocrite and will be ashamed of himself in front of God.
@@hunterfortruth6036 The reason that the Southern Baptist Church exists today, is that *they used **_multiple SCRIPTURES_** to justify humans owning other humans* when they split with the Baptist Church in 1845.
Their beliefs were based on the bible's endorsement of slavery many times in both the Old _AND_ New Testament ; their doctrine wasn't made up out of thin air.
Notice that the Southern Baptist Church never apologized for their beliefs until 2011.
@@stefandavenport1588 this is refuted many times either you aren't in our age or you don't want to be. Go watch whaddoyoumeme or cross examined's videos on this and see that the bible talked about it and clarified it but people used only some paragraphs that ARE RELATED TO OTHERS. And if you don't want to watch stay ignorant forever.
@@hunterfortruth6036 Leviticus 25:44 "You may buy slaves from the nation's all around you, from them you may buy slaves" NIV
You can *bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life* but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly"
·· there were 2 classes of slaves, one of which was part of the -master race- Yahweh/Jesus's "chosen people", and the others who were of all other nations who, in accordance with the Mosaic Law, could be physically abused as described at Exodus 21:20-21:
"And if a man strikes his manslave or his womanslave so that he dies, he shall surely be punished"
21) " However, if he continues on a day or two [without dying] he shall NOT be punished, for he [the slave] is his property"
This is NOT "indentured servitude". as the excuse makers attempt to portray the bible's endorsement of slavery.
Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, be obedient to your masters..." is the Apostle Paul's command to believers, at the _same time_ that the Emperor Wang Mang of 1st Century China abolished slavery for a short time before his death.
21st Century moral values are far superior to the lowly bible standards which endorse humans owning other humans.
@@stefandavenport1588 i told you this explained long ago go watch the video on whaddoyoumeme and don't bother yourself.
*"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land."*
-- Desmond Tutu
Black preacher and pastors are tools to assist in the colonization of our minds! It's always been this way. Wake tf up!
TH-cam:
1. Dr. Ray Hagins - "What is Christianity?"
2. Jesus the SUN god Zeitgeist
3. Jeremiah Camara - "Contradiction"
4. Egyptian Mythology by See U In History
5. "Caesar's Messiah" (movie)
A lot of these documentaries are proven to be false, built on misconception or doing fake, history.
@@reversal_of_expectation1457 People also tend to forget that Christianity reached Africa centuries before Europe. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahado is the oldest state church in Africa founded around 4th century AD not long before Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
The oldest known church in Africa is the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria founded in 42 AD. Most people also don’t know that the African slave trade was started by Arab Muslims.
Edit: I realized I made a mistake about Arab Muslims. While they did play a huge part in the enslavement of Africans, they did not start it. African slaves have been traded overseas by the Romans, Greeks, Indians, Chinese and many others over the millennia. No one knows who, when, or how it started. My bad.
Desmond Tutu was a catholic Bishop??? Plus missionaries weren't responsible of what their secular governments did.
@@armandvega2752Christianity of precolonial Africa was only in a relatively very small part of the continent, mainly being Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia. The vast majority of Africa never developed substantial Christian communities let alone heard of Christianity. Most Africans are Christians today because of European colonial rule of the last 200 years or so
*While the Apostle Paul CONDONED slavery* at Ephesians 6:5 " Slaves, be obedient to your masters.." Emperor Wang Mang of 1st Century China abolished slavery entirely, even if for a short while, till his death.
Other cultures were far more moral than the lowly bible standards.
I've read that passage. Paul was reminding slaves not to use their low status as an excuse for doing evil. Because when you claim to be a representative of God's will, and you do something evil it reflects poorly on not only you, but God as well. The point was to serve as though you were serving God and not the master. Besides, if you were to physically rebel against your master, what reason would that give him in his eyes to set you free instead of just flogging you?
@@kevinsmith853 The point is that bible morality is behind other cultures. Solon the Lawgiver abolished debt slavery in 6th Century BCE Greece, while the Mosaic Law at Exodus 21:7 allowed a father to sell his own daughter into debt slavery.
It took advancements in human civilizations and an exposure to the Greco Roman practice of Democracy, along with other developments, to eliminate slavery ; those had _nothing to do with the bible_ .
@@stefandavenport1588 You're forgetting the character of the Israelites (which is not unique to you, believe me). They were a people who were not interested in democracy or civility. The Israelites were a people who only sought ease in life. They worshiped false gods at nearly every opportunity, only ever turned back to God when they had become subjects of another nation, and begged for a king even when they were explicitly warned against it twice, never once thanked Moses or God for leading them out of Egypt, rebelled against Moses, and refused to go into the Promised Land even when God commanded them to do it. Tell me how you convince people like that to practice anything.
@@kevinsmith853 Yahweh/Jesus _GAVE_ Israel, through Moses, the Mosaic Law that gave "moral" law codes such as Exodus 21:20-21 " If a man strikes his slave, or his maid, with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished "
21) "However, if he continues to live for a day or two, he shall NOT be punished, for he is his property"
-- sorry, that's NOT the " indentured servitude " that the bible excuse makers portray it as.
The Mosaic Law not only approved of owning multiple wives as property on par with children and slaves, it allowed *Concubines* or female sex slaves owned by Hebrew men.
Numbers 31:17-18 has Yahweh/Jesus speaking about the opponent's war refugees through Moses:
" Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by lying with him (including *currently pregnant* women ),
18) "But all the women children that have NOT known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves "
This was a source of the euphemistically called 'Concubines' or "2nd wives"
The Israelites were the same morally and culturally as their cousins that they were fighting against constantly ; don't make them out to be the 'bad guys'.
Psalm 19:7 " The law of the LORD is perfect..."
vs 8 " The statutes of the LORD are right....the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes "
To your 2nd point, Israel was a legally enforced Theocracy, like ISIS ; adultery and practicing another religion was a *stoning to death offence*
By contrast, Adultery in the Law Code of Hammurabi was a civil matter, and that Law Code provided for money security for women in case of divorce, unlike the Mosaic Law.
Democracy and personal rights was a Greco Roman practice ; Jesus said to Pontius Pilate that "his kingdom is no part of this world"
Nowhere in the bible is ' voting ' and ' personal liberty guaranteed by law ' ever mentioned.
Other nation's laws and moral principles were far ahead of Yahweh/Jesus's "perfect law".
@@kevinsmith853 It's not ONLY the Old Testament, the endorsement of slavery was in the New Testament:
Titus 2:9 " Exhort the slaves to be obedient to their own masters.."
1st Peter 2:18 " Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the abusive "
Colossians 3:22 " Slaves, obey in all things your masters..."
1st Timothy 6:1 " Let as many slaves that are under the yoke count their masters as worthy of honor..."
In the book of Philemon, Paul commands that a runaway slave be returned to his master.
There are more, but these were used for centuries to defend the evil institution of slavery ; the Southern Baptist Church exists today because of the bible's support for slavery.
Had Paul and Jesus been truly moral, they would have at least guided followers or made a pathway for the eventual elimination of bible approved slavery.
Mr. Grayling, in America, around 10% of the Africans have always been free. It absolutely was possible for blacks to achieve manumission, as well as a position of high responsibility. Have you ever heard of Crispus Attucks?
The entire point of the Gospel message was explicitly about slavery.
Jesus saw the entire world were slaves. They were in bondage to their own sin and the lusts of their flesh, and the pride of life underpinning mostly everything being done - including ofcourse, slavery as defined in this video.
The gospel was repent, which come from the Greek word metanoia, meaning the changing of the mind.
He came to set the captives free. For we are all of us in bondage to our own wee depravities. Its just his view of slavery is radically different, and of more import than anyone elses.
If god had been against slavery as much as he was against eating shellfish, or wearing mixed fabrics, slavery would have been abolished almost 2 millennia earlier.
A bit of an oversight I think.
Your describing us exact, we gone slave to booze, drugs, porn, the internet, when exact to this era, as it was being said. "That all will be revealed at the end times.". Internet, where all, can be truth and false, atheist and faitheist.
He see the world entire deep in decease, things are getting crazyer, l thought the all seeing eye was hubble, haha, then satellites above earth, but it's really cell phones, smart phones, the meek are actually the meek minded, they're too weak to stop themselves from being gullible decieved, addicted, each one of us has a vice were guilty of.
That's why the fear is strong, people in multitudes are becoming atheist asking to wrong for proof, by ignore God an Jesus, they think the global problem is gonna go away.
Many so called man of the cloth of gathering money to store until the sheit it's the fan, out of the love and kindness of their fellow men. I said so called, because, that's how they're seen, fools of fairy tales they say.
Mid East has been witnessed by the world to have gone thru something it's never seen before, "a great unrest shall over come Persia or Midwest likes it's never seen before, it's "Arab Spring " biblically it be said, "kings of nations wwill fall, or brothers or fruit off the same tree.
The shame from seeing those see us, being faithful, doing what's right and from this internet, we are laughed at. It'll get worse and someone's worse happened today and can attest to that.
Signs are all around, but typical in every story in the bible, they those who stray, drop away, always.
Thought l just say, because seems like everyone argues, nothing done, but, the bright side, there's a bright side, you can listen, stay aware, know Jesus lived and take truth to what he said and done. 👍😉😎
Things don't have to be bad, nope, You.... We....Us!? It's the slaves we become to be, it's just from what?☝. K, bye then,
Sorry, to tell those of you to hear the truth, someone does. Haha 👊 😉
I'd rather just listen to Tom Holland, thank you very much.
Who introduced Christianity religion into Africa ???
Schoolboy error :) Me thinks one should research a tad on the Ethiopian orthodox church, or the Egyptian and Sudanese church in the 1st century, i.e a few years after Jesus' crucifixion. Indeed, parts of Africa were Christian many centuries before much of Europe, and certainly the areas of what is now known as the United Kingdom were. What do they teach in schools these days?
Slavery was not ended by Christianity.
Slavery was perpetuated by Christianity.
Slavery was ended by Humanism.
And where did humanism come from?
@@MrFuzzydumplings humans
Which came from Christian morality.
@MrTerrorFace
Humans came from Christian morality?
Lol.
You need to ask your parents about the birds and the bees, son.
@@cygnusustus You clearly have not read Dominion yet. All of Western Civilizations biggest strengths and advantages came from Christian morality. The idea of religious tolerance, human rights, separation of church and state, abolition of slavery, equal rights, women rights and so much more came because of Christianity, not in spite of.
I'm a honest Christian, so I will not act like I'm against slavery, or search for stupid excuses, just to make my religion more attractive for the non-Christians. Sure, treating another man as God and trading slaves for money is immoral, but slavery is the only moral solution for the criminals and the only way to avoid the actual (heaviest) sin that is murder.
"I'm a honest Christian..."
So you agree that the Bible promotes slavery? Because every Christian I have encountered lies about this, with the exception of a few who considered slavery moral.
"I will not act like I'm against slavery"
Are you FOR slavery?
"slavery is the only moral solution for the criminals"
Wow. What century are you from? You understand that today, prisoners are not slaves, right? They are actually wards (responsibilities) of the State.
@@cygnusustus Then you've probably never met an Orthodox-Christian, while the Protestants and Roman-Catholics are dishonest individuals, so I'm not surprised. Anyway, don't know about you, but I don't trust the state enough to always support its legal system, especially a secular one, so I'm OK with taking justice in my own hands when necessary.
@@ivanos_95
"Then you've probably never met an Orthodox-Christian"
Do you define Orthodox-Christians as Christians who find slavery to be morally acceptable?
"so I'm OK with taking justice in my own hands when necessary."
Do you define Orthodox-Christians as Christians who engage in vigilantism?
@@cygnusustus When it comes to Orthodoxy, it's more about priorities and honesty (attitude) than exclusive morality, because any honest Christian should support slavery, as it's clearly promoted by the Christian sources. Not necessarily vigilantism, but taking the crimin@ls into own hands is rather a necessity when the state is proven to be corrupted and the public figures becomes crimin@ls themselves.
@@ivanos_95
"When it comes to Orthodoxy, it's more about priorities and honesty"
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
That's a good one!
So you think slavery should be allowed?
Dismissed, asswipe. We share no common ground for discussion. I literally could not lower my moral standards far enough to adopt your religious beliefs.
Christianity is for slavery, it says so in Exodus 21.
Slavery was not ended by christians, but by people who had enough horrible religious books.
The fictional christian god banned shellfish and pork, but not slavery. I rest my case.
Quite simply there is nothing wrong with the first century Roman form of slavery. Makes much more sense that the current debt system we have now. Also, atheists have no moral standard anyways so their opinion is irrelevant.
HOWER POWER - GAMING verses again against forced slavery:
Deuteronomy 24: 14 “Do not oppress/take advantage of a hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in your land. Pay him his wages each day before sunset, because he is poor and is counting on it. otherwise he may cry to the LORD against you, and you will be guilty of sin.”
Exodus 21: 26- 27 (against abuse of a slave) “if a man hits a slave, male or female, in the eye and destroys it, he must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. If he knocks out the tooth of the slave, he must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.”
Deuteronomy 23: 15- 17 (protecting a runaway slave) “If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.”
Deuteronomy 24: 7 “if any of you kidnap Israelites and make them your slaves or sell them into slavery, you are to be put to death.” (prohibits forced slavery of Israelites)
Exodus 21: 16 “whoever kidnaps someone, either to sell him or to keep him as a slave, is to be put to death.” (prohibits forced slavery of anyone)
In the new testament: everyone, whether Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, is equal in Christ. (Galatians 3: 28, Colossians 3: 11). Even an heir, although he owns the whole estate, does not differ at all from a slave. (Galatians 4: 1).
1 Timothy 1: 9- 11 says that men stealers/ slave traders are lawbreakers, rebels, ungodly, sinful, unholy, and irreligious, and it is listed along with other sins such as murder and adultery and says that it goes against the doctrines and the gospel of God.
HOWER POWER - GAMING
William Wilberforce
Hannah Moore
John Newton
@@hjc1402 That means simply "Don't be an asshole.", but not "Do not own other people as property." . That rule would have been very easy to make for a god.
@@mosesking2923 Thank god, our law is above god's morality.
The Bible has always supported slavery!
Almighty God Himself allowed His own people to buy and purchase slaves.
The OT is a witness to it.
"44 "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 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.
46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life"
Leviticus 25:44-46 (NIV)
As to Christians owning slaves, yes, they could do also.
No problem, no sin.
In fact, if the slave owner happened to be a brother in Christ, then the slave must work even harder...
"1 All slaves should show full respect for their masters so they will not bring shame on the name of God and his teaching
.2 If the masters are believers, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.
Those slaves should work all the harder because their efforts are helping other believers who are well loved.
Teach these things, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.
3 Some people may contradict our teaching, but these are the wholesome teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. These teachings promote a godly life.
4 Anyone who teaches something different is arrogant and lacks understanding.
Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words.
This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, division, slander, and evil suspicions.
5 These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they have turned their backs on the truth"
1 Timothy 6:1-5 (NLT)
So any who dare to disagree have "Turned their backs on the TRUTH"......
Some time in the future people will look back at the relationship between the citizens and their governments as a relationship between slave and slave master.
Slavery is still alive and well and playing it's role in society.
No, it's not the same, we gain by working for society just like we in the past gained meat by spending time hunting.
@@darkwolf4434 Hunting free range animals for meat is not the same as paying taxes to a corrupt government or going to jail. How much does mother nature charge citizens for the price of a meal?
It's the corruption in the government that makes us slaves to the system, not the fact that we have to work to survive.
@@SongWhisperer Ok, so your view of slavery is any form of system that takes control of people in any way possible?
Actually freedom does exist, you don't need to work and therefore not pay taxes but you will get consequenses from that because we rely on our society.
@@SongWhisperer Also if you want meat you have to spend alot of time finding animals to get meat from and that,s a price you have to pay to be able to get meat.
@@darkwolf4434 Everybody pays taxes no matter if they work or not, everything we buy is taxed, our land is taxed (you can own land without a job), no one without exception escapes taxes.
When you retire from your job does the government say, well since you spent a lifetime working and paying taxes and now you don't have a job and your income has been cut down to almost nothing, you no longer have to pay taxes on the stuff you own and buy? No, we pay the government the full amount no matter what (except for the very small senior citizen discounts you get that basically adds up to nothing).
Once again, hunting and spending time hunting is not the same as paying taxes, you put the same amount of time into hunting as you would working a forty hour a week job, but hunting is still free and you enjoy every single part of your hunt, you don't owe anyone a portion of your hunt. ( The government also taxes hunting now, so even if your example held water at one time, it certainly doesn't now).
In today's society we still work hard but we have to give a very large portion to the Hierarchy in the form of taxes, fines, and permits. If you factor all 3 of those parameters together, taxes, fines, and permits, the government takes almost half of what we earn.
So imagine this scenario, you come home from your hunt and the village leader wants their half but you have 5 kids, so half isn't going to be enough to feed everyone that day, so you have to bring home double just to have a place in the village. You're not only feeding the leader, but all his followers as well, you're doing all the work while they do nothing except own you and boss you around, when they should be doing their own hunting.
I don't know, that doesn't sound very inviting to me.
And technically the citizens are paying to have a corrupt government own them, it would be like if you came home from a long day of hunting and the leader of your village demanded part of your portion in order for you to live there, and you have no where else to go because the leader of the village owns everything (just because they said so), and the leader and/or leaders will have the people that are scared of them kill you, because the village leader is paying them with a portion of your hunt because not only is the leader stealing from you, they're taking way more than they need, because they need the biggest portion of your hunt to keep all their followers following.
There's a reason I said "some time in the (future)". A slave doesn't know if he's/she's/other is a slave if they're born inside the cage.
The name of the first slave ship to arrive in the America’s was called “Jesus”.
Tony Vega sources?
Donovan Cumby pretty well documented.
Research Jesus of Lubeck slaveship. I’m sure a simple google search would be all over it.
Of yeah I read a little but it looks like it was first built for trading but was only used for slave trading when it got into the hands of John Hawkins
I could be wrong tho I haven’t read that much
Donovan Cumby yup, it carried slaves just like many other “Christian” slave ships afterwards.
Tom is so completely full of crap, especially when trying to give Christianity credit for international law which really takes the cake when you consider that it opposes human rights in every way imaginable. Dehumanizing anti-dark skinned racism and slavery runs all throughout the Bible from the very beginning in Genesis and is so integral to that you have to look to the previous religions like Zoroastrianism that inspired it to really see where it originated. I’m sure there’s a book somewhere detailing this subject alone and I hope nobody gets duped by his transparent attempt at historical revisionism..
Onus I believe it's your attempt at historical revisionism
David Groves don't take my word for it then, do some research on the subject like I did.
I'm not sure I would trust any of your sources based on your complete straw man, fallacious understanding of Christianity. Everything you've said is absurd
I mean Tom Holland is a historian from Oxford as well as his brother. What are your credentials
David Groves I'm sure you would only accept apologetic Christian sources as proper academic ones right? I haven't created a strawman, I've given an accurate depiction which anyone can verify by digging into the literature. 'Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.' - Jeremiah 13:23. This is an example of equating dark skin with evil which goes back to the mark of Cain and curse of Ham (a servant of servants) from which his son Cush leads to the Kushite kingdom (Ethiopians) who are then enslaved.