Sam Harris vs Jordan Peterson Part 4: Does The Bible Condone Slavery?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- In the fourth part of a series examining the views of Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, Glen Scrivener discusses whether the Bible really condones slavery.
For more on OT slavery see this interview we did with Dr Peter Williams: • Dr Peter J Williams on...
Watch the original debates here
• Sam Harris vs Jordan P...
• Sam Harris vs Jordan P...
One of the best examples of willful ignorance I have ever seen. Did they teach you this in church? Wow.
Clearly you didn't watch the video. Seems like your ignorant
@@crazychimp1039, says the guy that doesn’t know the difference between ‘you’re’ and ‘your’...
This doesn't make sense though. You seem to be the willfully ignorant one.
You speak with such a condescending tone you fail to see things objectively.
Slavery in the past was universal, worldwide.
Also you tend to ignore the vast differences between a slave/servant in the Old Testament and a slave of our times.
How to treat a slave was well explained in the Bible making it vastly different from slavery today.
'Gay' meant happy a century ago but today it has a different "mainstream" meaning.
It's almost outright lazy, the way you respond with so little regard to the facts at hand.
Slavery was slowly, rejected, and stopped, within the first 1000 yrs, by all unified Christians under the one and only, true Greek Christian, Roman Empire, led by 2nd Rome, glittering Constantinople.
No, this is extra credits they do homework for it in their free times. I know because im inside this.
Making excuses for slavery....
Or.. and here's just a thought, putting this conflict in context and then talking through it. Just a thought
@@CedanyTheAlaskan ask them do they support abortion they will defend it to the end
6:06 “If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.”
Exodus 21:4
Seems to imply the kids are born into slavery
Oh god why would someone sell his wife in slavery and the child born that was concieved before being slave now goes to the master? 😢😢
The mental gymnastics is strong on this one. 🤣
I agree, Sam Harris seemed pretty good at it
@@absolutelyfookinnobody2843 how?
True word. To justify slavery is a mind gymnastic
Agreed... How much is this bag of piss worth to you? 😂
Slavery was slowly, rejected, and stopped, within the first 1000 yrs, by all unified Christians under the one and only, true Greek Christian, Roman Empire, led by 2nd Rome, glittering Constantinople.
The Bible explicitly sanctions the slave trade. This is not kidnapping, rather it is the purchasing of slaves who are deemed property which can be owned in perpetuity and passed on as an inheritance to one's children. Most of the slaves taken in the Transatlantic Slave Trade were purchased by Europeans at slave markets on the coast. Such purchases are clearly condoned in the Bible. The Europeans typically did not kidnap Africans directly, so any talk of prohibitions against kidnapping are not relevant here. Also, the Bible makes a very clear distinction between how Hebrew indentured servants are to be treated and how non-Hebrew slaves are to be treated. So talk of Hebrew servants is also irrelevant here.
Leviticus 25:44-46
“‘As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you - you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you. Also you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property.
You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly.
You are completely correct. The argument in this video is made from a knowingly dishonest position.
No human being should be property of another human being.
@@Fatcat-ss6nh I agree completely.
@@levkamenev3904 again if you think that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
What translation of this verse are you using are you just googling it and using that translation, I want you to actually study the verse and try to understand don’t just take it at face value.
How is this not chattel slavery based on race? --- "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Because the text is clearly displaying a we vs us mentality. All non-Israelites can be slaves, because they're not Israelites. That's not race-based, per se.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl I hear what you're saying but consider this: Regardless of the number of slaves that are being discriminated against, the principle is the same. In that passage from Leviticus, all races other than Israelites can be chattel slaves. Israelites are here being treated radically different on the moral issue of permanently owning people, in which they are exempt (unless you're a female Hebrew slave or a male Hebrew indentured servant that wants to stay with their slave wife given to him by his master and their slave children). That's race-based slavery.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl it's close enough. Beside tribe based isn't not better. It's the same damn thing. Just a wearing a different color.
Would you say that people (either then or now) have the right to sell themselves into slavery? My understanding is that the Old Testament condemns kidnapping slavery, but this quote doesn't seem to speak to that. I 'sell' part of my labor and time to my employer, and the later verses in Leviticus frame slavery/servitude similarly. Impoverished Israelites could sell themselves into slavery to other peoples, but their servitude returns to God after 7 years.
This excuse condemning slavery in the bible is ridiculous. It says in think in Leviticus that you can take the heathen around you and make them your slaves bullshit argument! Even Christian’s scrollers agree the bible was wrote between 400 - 700 bc. Leviticus after the Babylonian exile by the priests. Moses and Salomon had not existed. Archeological evidence or the absence of it and Egyptian presence in Juda until 1086 shows that
Dude, Lev 25:44 "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.”
Yes. But "man-stealing" was still a capital offence (so the transatlantic slave trade is still outlawed from an OT perspective). Just as the OT shows development on the question of war, so too on the question of slavery. We go into this question far more (including Leviticus 25) here: th-cam.com/video/cC5_LX53aOw/w-d-xo.html
Speak Life hey, thanks for replying. Still seems to me that the bible, at the very least, the bible gives guidelines for ‘owning other people as property’. I have real trouble with Christians trying to explain this away or, dare I say, morally rationalise these sorts of things in the bible. It was this and other things that turned me away from the church. I have watched lots of your videos and do enjoy them as they really challenge me into examining why I believe things. This is sometimes an uncomfortable experience but I know I’m on the right track when I’m forced into the position of having to really evaluate what I believe and why. Keep making your videos!
From a fellow Antipodean
Thanks so much Isaac. It helps me too to think things through out loud - especially with good interaction online. I think one mistake Christians make is to conceive of the Bible in flat terms. Think for instance of a Christian insistence that marriage is one man and one woman for life. You can get some creation principles from Genesis 1 and 2 (as Jesus does) but as soon as sin enters in, things are messy. You get permissions for non-ideal scenarios (i.e. divorce) and there is narrative about non-ideal marriages (polygamy). You have to read the whole thing all the way through to the NT and understand the creation-fall-restoration pattern in order to extract any kind of 'timeless principle'. (And maybe 'timeless principle' isn't really the thing we should be reading the Bible for, but that's another question).
By parallel, Genesis 1 and 2 give us firm foundations for equality and freedom (the image of God especially). But once sin enters in there are all sorts of non-ideal scenarios narrated (like slavery in Egypt), and non-ideal scenarios permitted (like Lev 25 legislation). But you have to read the story through to the end in order to extract some kind of principle like 'there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, but we are all one in Christ'. Once we have this belief (and now even the non-Christian west and beyond have inherited it from the Bible) we look back on OT specifics and all of us (Christian and non-Christian) find it out of keeping with the timeless principle. But I think that's partly because we're reading the Bible as a flat document rather than a textured story full of development.
That's my out-loud thinking at the moment!
@@SpeakLifeMedia You do realize that the slave owners in Americas bought their slaves, right? That was perfectly legal and justified according to Leviticus 25. It is the exact same concept that the Israelites did. They bought their slaves from foreign slave traders. There was no stipulation on how those people became slaves.
So no, it wasn't outlawed in the OT as someone other than Israelites were still allowed to force people into slavery and sell them to the Israelites just like the slave traders of the transatlantic slave trade.
God's laws only truly applied to his own people. They only enforced their rules on others when they conveniently needed to get rid of whole tribes of other people. But guess what was never used as a justification for an attack on another tribe. Slavery. It was obviously happening as they were still getting slaves. Slavery was just something that was part of life back then. While sure, I'm willing to agree that some slave owners were not all that bad, but we know that owning people as property, no matter how nice someone is, is indefensible. Also, we know that slavery was in fact not any better back then than it was a couple hundred years ago. Even if it wasn't practiced by the Israelites, since the Bible was eventually going to be meant for everyone, it should have either outlawed it period or gave MUCH better rules regarding it.
Stopping slavery for anyone other than Hebrews wasn't a problem at all for the Israelites and that's why it's never warranted "God's" input.
Also, I love how you conveniently ignore the section in leviticus 25 where it explicitly states that those foreign slaves are for life and are even inheritable to children. That alone refutes your other claims.
@@SpeakLifeMedia 85% of slaves that went to the Americas WERE BOUGHT, NOT CAPTURED. So it turns out the southerners were on the right side of the theological issue.
False. It literally says you own them for life and they are your property. You can even bequeath them to your children.
And this guy knows this…..
He knows this and yet defends the Bible by cherry picking verses. Idk why people defend this bullshit.
I was Christian for so long. I quit simply because im open minded and realised the bs.
*Tell me please,*
*-In what context it is moral to turn children into voluntarily working servants?*
*-In what context it is moral to treat voluntarily working servants as property?*
*-In what context it is moral to pass voluntarily working servants on to children as permanent inheritance?*
*-In what context it is moral to treat voluntarily working servants so bad that relatives shouldn’t be treated that way?*
*-If slavery was voluntary, then why it is restricted to only foreigners?*
Leviticus 25:44-46 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to beat voluntarily working servants with many blows?*
Luke 12:47 The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to beat voluntarily working servants as long as they don't die?*
Exodus 21:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to kill non-virgin brides?*
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to kill unruly children?*
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to slaughter infants?*
1 Samuel 15:3
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
THANK YOU for calling out their lies.
I thank you, too, for pointing out the Biblical honor killings, like the disgusting, horrific thing people condemn sh* ria L*w for:
"Tell me please, in what context it is moral to kill non-virgin brides?
Deuteronomy 22:20-21"
xMr. Ai-Яemixc I'd make the same questions to my parents, you have no idea how mad they'd get. And I'd ask the same questions to the priest, and damn he's totally humiliate me for questioning him.
I read the Bible daily for almost 20 years, every year I read the about 6-7 times, and my parents would ask me to write essays. By doing this they just made me realize how evil god actually was and how blind most people reading the Bible choose to be
Luke 12:47 was in the context of a parable you have to read from verse 35 all the way up to 48 it describes that as a parable.
God bless
@@ronmiller791 When emotional gullible folks are fooled & indoctrinated to believe an imaginary God & other made-up stuff like: a messenger, a holy book, resurrection, splitting the moon, parting the Red Sea, walking on water, etc., are sacred, their dogmatism & fanaticism will cause them motivated ignorance & arrogance while defending the sacredness.
My friend, the bible is walking contradictions. Religious people only want to talk about what's good about the bible when in fact slavery is condoned in there.
“‘As for your male and your female slaves, whom you may have; of the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may buy, and of their families who are with you, which they have conceived in your land; and they will be your property. You may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them may you take your slaves FOREVER: but over your brothers the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. (Leviticus 25: 44-46)
This passage is never brought up by apologists. They always talk about debt slavery for Hebrew slaves and laws specific to Hebrews, but they never talk about slavery of foreigners in Israel. These slaves are slaves for life and are not set free at any point.
It was all debt slavery...it is debt slavery today. The number one form of slavery is debt bondage. But the difference with the bible...it had protection and equality laws and safeguards enforced by God. God took the evil system and turned it into a welfare system eliminating poverty and homelessness. It got so scarce in Israel they had to outsource to the heathen lands..lev 25.44.
Lev19.34,19.18,Deut 10.19..all guarantee the same thing that Gal 3.28 does.
No more Hebrew or Gentile, nor Slave or Freeman, no more Male or female...all are one, equal in God, Christ.
It was unheard of, revolutionary that the Hebrew was commanded to treat the stranger rich or bondservant as equals. Love them as equals. No classism, no racism, no gender inequality...and God enforced. Jeremiah 34. They broke the commands and were conquered by the Babylonians for 70 years, for not releasing the land and female, male servants. Both.
No one realizes the full intent of LEV 25.44...is God's intent to buy the slave and turn around and set them free. Deut 29.10-12. It's the very same thing in the New testament..Christ pays the price for those in bondage to set them free, physically and spiritually. The New fulfills the old..like Abraham sacrificed Isaac so the New could happen. And what protection? Refuge cities any...for any mistreatment of a servant. They could literally run down the hill and be free. Deut23.15-16. It's the same in Ex21.25. Any apostate Hebrew assaulting a servant, a chipped tooth or a whipping, could be avenged (death for death, eye for eye, stripe for stripe etc) or be totally freed of debt and free of bondage. The pressure was on the Hebrew...not oppression of servants.
The covenanted Hebrew and Gentile converting into it becoming covenanted were servants of God it says...on loan for 6 years just like the land. Deut 15. They had, every sabbath off, every feast day and moon festival (menorah), free room and board, free medical and dental, learned a trade and business sense from a Jew, all remaining debt absolved, and released with a full grant at the end like they left Egypt with spoils to start a new life. If they were married during that time..she finished her 6 years the same, absolved of all debt and left with a grant Deut 15.13. No loop holes. Hebrew just meant covenanted to God. Came with rights and protection.
No apostate Hebrew was allowed to beat or mistreat a bondservant. Verse 18-19 in Exodus 21 are monetary fines for someone assaulting another...fined to pay medical, room and board, lost wages etc til thoroughly healed it says. Verses 20-21...are for the servants assailant who assaulted them. The apostate Hebrew (master) wasn't fined monetarily, "no punishment" because they were already paying room and board, medical, and lost wages were his.
Penalties were avenging law...death fir death etc. So...in reality, the servant COULD choose to beat their master in like manner. OR be freed instead of all debt.
And what's the deal with the debt? It is binding legally...so it must be paid back (representative of sin and iniquity, perpetually and legally owed til cleared), if you refused to become covenanted and work the double pay years. And there are multiple examples of freed bondservants in scripture that did do this...Ruth, Philemons servant, the two boys and Elijah selling olive oil, Paul in Acts the Captain said, "with a large sum have I achieved my freedom".
But...I'd take God's offer Deut 29.10-12 and get paid double with a grant after 6 years, debt free. If we had that today...there would be no poverty or homelessness. The rich were obligated to elevate the poor..OR ELSE. God enforced.
@@9432515 I am curious. What did you do in your head just now to see that the Bible condones, and in other instances commands, people taking slaves as inheritable property, and you still pretend it was " all debt slavery"?
Bill Nada, if Ex21.16 condemns slavery or manstealing, then what else do you think it was?
Look...the definition of manstealing is kidnapping with intent to enslave. That’s possession or full out control of another...because possession IS all about control. But it’s a degree of control...either full out or something far less. Right? And anything other than full out is debt bondage because the individual goes in willingly bound by contract. It’s that contract that determines the specifics of control. It’s that debt contract that is the possession. Right? What’s stipulated and predicated within that contract...determines the degree of possession. Possession is of a degree. Right?? Of course. YOU today..are in a FORM OF POSSESSION if you have a debt contract. You may not understand it to be...but legally it sure is. That’s why possession is a legal term!
So...don’t give me your BS about how slavery was sanctioned by the Bible or how servants had no rights or protection or laws etc. You want to believe it is evil...it’s so far from that. Deut29.10-15 is God setting the slave free. He buys them, to set free. You have to buy them first, otherwise it’s an illegal transaction, illegitimate. God’s the Hero here.
hunting atheists Please explain to me how the legalization of participation in the foreign slave trade (Leviticus 25:44-46) is morally permissible.
Bla..bla..bla..slavery its slavery and don't try to fix the history and the real definitions!
Funny how many employers and slave masters aren't so different when you stop fetishistic attachment to particular words
A Word In the Wind employers can’t beat and keep you for 7 years or for life.
@@Jambuc829 noo, only schools can do that.
Joshua Sage no they can’t
@@Jambuc829 they can't best you physically anymore. But they can keep you enslaved for most of your life.
I'm from a part of Nigeria where grown family men would walk into rich people's homes to beg to be slaves in order for their family to be taken care of, or they contract out periods of servitude for their children during harsh times. - this was befitting the white man stepped foot in west Africa.
The other means of slavery in those times were war as this was a way to boost the econimy and also reduce bloodshed. - there was no Jubilee, even though technically you can buy yourself out of slavery.
There were people who abused these situation of course and the Arabian and trans-Atlantic slave trade took it way too far, it is not in any way the 'real' definition of slavery.
What slavery was is similar to Joseph situation, you could be a chief slace, run the house, wear the best clothes, etcetera. In certain cultures of Nigeria, there are slave positions that enjoy the same privileges as masters because they are the afterlife companions.... so it is wuite arrogant for you to assume that what you know slavery to be is what it is. It clearly is not.
It’s funny listening to see these Apologists do Verbal Gymnastics in an effort to talk their way out of the slavery issue that’s in the Bible… The bottom line is if the Bible says you can beat your slaves as long as they don’t die within 2 or 3 days - you have a problem regardless of what sort of slavery you’re trying to twist it into 😳😂🤣
You still didn't answer his question what makes slavery wrong if not in the Bible I can use logic to justify anything including abortion so you see in your world view all humans aren't equal
@@lacobymills4930 You don't need the bible to be moral. Human's are conscious beings, we can be better than the lowly stamp of our origins. Are you suggesting that before the 10 commandments everyone was cool with theft, and murder?
@@joshuajohnson1891 but that's subjective. Again, the person who is doing the action of theft can justify it logically if there is no objective morality
@@lacobymills4930 You would have to allow the claim of defined morality to stand for other religions. Again the argument isn't where morality comes from, it's the bible is not a moral book.
@@joshuajohnson1891 you didn't answer my question. Is morality subjective or not?
Jesus never bothered to condemn slavery. The only time he brings up slavery is in a few parables. And in those few cases, he just uses slavery to make some other point. But the fact that when he does mention slavery he never bothers to state that slavery is wrong is a massive oversight on his part. Why doesn't he actually condemn the practice? How much different might history have been if he had simply stated that it was wrong to own other humans as property?
Luke 12:47-48
That servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or do what his master asked will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know his master's will and did things worthy of punishment will receive a light beating. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required, and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be asked.
He doesn’t condemn it because for some people it was the only way to ‘pay off their debts’ to provide for family. They would sell themselves and work for a master for a period of time.
@@GENEVIVEMUSIC Selling yourself into servitude ONLY!!!!!!!! Applies to Israelites males!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@GENEVIVEMUSIC Have you not read your bible ??? The endosment of slavery could not be any clearer
@@trumpbellend6717It was cultural and in those days it was normal. They accepted it in society like we don’t accept it now. Like God always intended. Before the fall.
@@BibleBeliever101
Lol what "Gods" perfect moral instructions were "cultural" 🤭🤣🤣
What kind of weak a$$ed God has to bend his PERFECT absolute objective moral standard to accommodate ancient polygamous slave masters wishes ??
Titus 2:9
Slaves are to be subject to their own masters in everything, to do what is wanted and not talk back,
not pilfering, but showing all good faith, in order to bring credit to the teaching of God our Savior in everything.
Slavery was slowly, rejected, and stopped, within the first 1000 yrs, by all unified Christians under the one and only, true Greek Christian, Roman Empire, led by 2nd Rome, glittering Constantinople.
Lmao, you do realize he answered like everything you're asking sam right? I feel like you didnt watch the whole thing, and now you're exporting these clips with your responses to make it look like sam fails to take all your criticisms into account.
Why does he differentiate between Old and New Testaments “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away”
Because the old covenant was abolished.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl So when God said “my words shall not pass away”, he was in fact saying “my words shall pass away then come back in a revised works”? Got it. It’s also good to finally have the answer as to whether morality is fixed or not.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl So the ten commandments don't matter anymore?
Why do you immediately attempt to disassociate your religious beliefs from the 613 laws in the old testament ? It's almost as if you recognize just how immoral many of them are. 🤔
Is Jesus not also the SAME God who was responsible for those barbaric immoral laws. ? Did God just "change his mind about slavery , polygamy, infanticide, genocide, ect?
Indeed did Jesus himself not say about those mosaic laws that _"he who breaks even the smallest of these laws will be considered least in heaven "_ and that he came _"NOT to change the law"_ _"not one jot or tiddle until all things have come to pass"_
Are the Ten COMMANDMENTS not in the old testament? do you regard the bible like it's some kind of chinese buffet where you can just pick & choose the bits you like , whilst ignoring the rest.
Presumably you will be able to direct me to where Jesus tells us that the OWNING and beating of slaves with a rod is actually not moral regardless of what Exodus 21, 21 says....
_"if you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"_
_"There is to be No punishment for they are your PROPERTY and your money"_
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
All people are equal from page one, but then on the next pages is ok to buy and sell people and also women should keep quiet. Ah, and this Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
So, if you are willing to be open, I can explain this verse. Most of Exodus 21 is about the regulations of masters. And I disagree that it is slavery because 1) The Bible outlaws any kind of slave trade (Exodus 21:16), therefore any "slavery" is local and 2) the only instances of this kind of servitude occurring was when a person in debt (or someone of low standing) decided to serve someone else, dictating a master-servant relationship, in which the master could only keep him for 7 years anyway. This is why God sometimes tells the servants to be obedient, not because they're slaves, but because they owe their masters for taking care of them. Remember, except for abuse/wrong cases, most masters provided their servants food and lodging, and they definitely had conversations with one another too. So in this passage, it is talking about fights and distribution of punishments. Obviously, if someone kills another, there is severe punishment. And usually, there is accompanying punishment for injuries. However, this verse uses common sense. A master isn't going to beat his servant too severely because then his servant can't work. And this is also proven in the clause, "after a day or two", which means that they actually can't beat up on their slaves too much, or else 1) their slave won't recover in time and 2) the slave will be so angry that he'll pretend to recover much longer as well. Plus, Exodus 21:26,27 also regulate masters' punishments. Finally, you see this happen all the time in the workplace. An employer isn't going to kill you. In extreme, but also completely legal, cases, he can ostracise you from the rest the co-workers, he can assign you the least desirable tasks, or he can simply fire you.
So employers cannot kill you, but they can punish you as long as you can recover within one to two days
Also, you have made the mistaken assumption that masters are allowed to just beat their slaves whenever they want. That is not true. The term rod, is commonly associated with (and as) a tool of punishment, meaning that, in this case, God was referring to instances where the servant messed up, and now faced consequences.
Mason Clutter you can’t say only “local” slavery was allowed when you look at Leviticus 25:44-46
@@masonclutter3321 But what if the master got upset? People don't always make the rational desicions.
Even if in Page 1 it says All people are equal because they are made in the image of god.
You still have Page 80,160,200, 400,500 where it says how you can and should treat, buy, sell, get your slave.
So lets not cherry pick.
The OT outlawed manstealing... which means you couldn;t just get a slave because you were stronger. The issue of slavery is quite complex. The NT specifically, in multiple occasions stresses that human beings have individual worth and the master and the slave (servant) are alike. One cannot abuse the other. This is exactly safe-guarding the worth of the servant. Slavery was different in the past. people would sell themselves to pay of debts, and slavery was just work under someone else. Egyptians had slaves build pyramids but those were paid workers... Societies functioned differently. Youd idn;t have a 9-7 job or housekeepers that would come once a day and dust of the book shelves. It functioned differently, and Christianity protected the rights of slaves/servants.
@@Farseer1995 Tell that to the people they captured after their genocidal raids that they forced into slavery like the virgin Midianite girls.
The Christians that owned slaves in the America's also didn't steal their slaves. They bought them, which was just fine according to the Bible.
Who cares if all slavery was different in the past anyways? You think that the slavery we had just a few centuries ago was the worst ever? That's completely ignorant to assume.
But again, who cares? Owning another person as property and forcefully taking away their freedom is immoral no matter what.
@@Farseer1995 Also, it was ONLY the Hebrew slaves that were working to payoff debts. And it also implies that only worked for the men amd women couldn't go free after that term. It's extremely explicit about the distinction of Hebrews in exodus 21. 2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."
Leviticus 25:44-46 alone shows your argument is completely baseless and wrong:
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 bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites r
Jim two things: Leviticus 25:44-46 disagrees with you. Foreign slaves were held in perpetuity and passed down to children.
Also, Jesus and the disciples didn’t own slaves as far as we know, but they were also extremely poor so they probably didn’t have a choice
@@Farseer1995 You are unable to provide any examples of God saying DO NOT OWN PEOPLE AS PROPERTY* *So instead you cite a verse forbidding "man stealing" or "kidnapping" 🤣😅🤣*
*"KIDNAPPING" is NOT "slavery" .its forbidden to steal slaves NOT to OWN them*
*To say "DO NOT _STEAL_ CARS "
is completely different than "DO NOT _OWN_ CARS"*
*Your desire to conflate the two more than adequately demonstrates both the hypocrisy and fragility of your position*
To take a human as property is immoral. Please stop defending the idea of the slavery in the bible. Will you be my slave under the bible rules ??
Your assertions are absurd! Man stealing is not the basis for refuting slavery. Ancient slavery was as wrong as any other. Page 1 of the bible did a pretty miserable job of guiding humanity away from slavery for thousands of years.
Jim Exodus didn’t talk about rescuing “people” from slavery it talks about taking Hebrews which god put into slavery in the first place out of slavery. And again being a slave for 7 years only applies to Hebrews none Hebrews could be bought and kept as slaves for life. You could also beat your slaves and as long as they didn’t die you were ok no punishment you were only to be punished if you killed your slave.
Jim Slavery was most certainly the will of god.
Jim 100% of what you said is flat wrong.
Jim Killing slaves being wrong only applies to Hebrew’s
Jim Show me where it says Hebrews can’t go into nations that enslaved them and buy slaves.
First of all sir I can tell you're an educated man. And I can appreciate your view on all your different topics. But when it comes down to it slavery is slavery is slavery. In the Bible does condone slavery okay it's it's written plainly so stop bouncing around on the subject it's it's a yes out of a yes and no question . Slavery is the big part of the Bible and it does allow for the practice of slavery
No it's indentured servitude for 7 years. Clearly a servant and a slave is different. Also clearly you didn't watch the video
@Jo Ol this is absolutely the case.
@@crazychimp1039 clearly you have not read your bible.
@@levkamenev3904 No human being should be the property of another human being.
@@Fatcat-ss6nh I agree completely.
The Hebrew word used is 'ebed' and it literally means slave, servant, in bonds.
Strong's concordance numbered it 5650.
Exod. 12:44 "But every servant of man who is bought for money..."
Exod. 12:45 makes the clear difference: " ... a hired servant ...". Nr 7916 refers to 'hired' vs 'in bonds'.
Hired servants were payed at sunset.
Exod. 11:5 et al. Nr 8198 stands for maid, maid-servant, slavegirl. Nr 915 is also used for female slave vs 5650 for male slave.
No matter how one tries to twist it, slavery was accepted practice in Iron Age I Israel, as it was throughout the entire Cisjordan, Transjordan and Mesopotamian area.
There's manuscripts and papyri found were the selling, price and other details were listed, just as 'rulings' about what was comprised in a slave sale (garments and other things the slaves carried).
Gullibility is strong with this one
It’s not gullibility. It’s brainwashing.
“Slaves” are now “employees.” Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Lmao exactly
Slavery was slowly, rejected, and stopped, within the first 1000 yrs, by all unified Christians under the one and only, true Greek Christian, Roman Empire, led by 2nd Rome, glittering Constantinople.
@@MaxStArlyn This is true but it began again with the approval well you know
@@coreymcclain1924 No .. approval by whom?
@@coreymcclain1924 Atheists, Pagans, Islam, Catholicism , & Protestantism, thought slavery was ok until it was banned. Orthodox Christianity, stopped slavery throughout the Roman Empire, 1000 yrs ago, without any need for laws to ban it.
This dude is really trying to make slavery sound like an acceptable thing
For real. I wonder whether he'd be okay if "Biblical slavery" were to make a comeback.
But sam harris doesnt argue that the glass is the human person - his entire argument has always been that once you acknowledge that humans have a conciousness (which a strip of land or a glass does not) then their worth is increased over things that do not have a conciousness, and their wellbeing is the mission of their lives. We can argue about what wellbeing means, or what wellbeing truly looks like but to suggest that harris is calling human beings worthless is to negate his entire argument - that the human brain has developed complex conciousness and this is the reason human beings have worth.
I'm not saying Harris sees humans as 'worthless'. I'm saying he sees their worth (and *must* see their worth) as valued according to their properties, (and some will have more and some less). Some are therefore more valuable than others. I can see that consciousness is valuable. I don't see how consciousness confers intrinsic and inviolable worth. How does it? What would be unreasonable (on SH's logic) about inflicting the conscious pain of slavery on some sub-group if it meant the greater conscious pleasure of wider society? I'm not doubting SH's anti-slavery sentiments or credentials, but I don't see how his own system gets him there.
@@SpeakLifeMedia I understand that, it's what I see as the core problem with atheism, I am grappling with it myself as an atheist right now which is why I'm taking in videos like this (so thanks for making it)! From what I understand of the arguments presented by Harris in other debates or talks he has given, and im not a neuroscientist so there are elements I am sure I'm not quite there on yet, he is arguing that human wellbeing, while it may not be objective, can have correct answers. He admits science does not yet have these answers, but he presents pretty decent arguments as to why the scientific process he suggests can answer moral questions. I'd suggest watching his TED talk about science answering moral questions. It might not answer where objective morailty comes from - because Harris suggests that morality has evolved and is therefore not objective in a black and white cosmic sense, but CAN be talked about in terms of correct and incorrect, in the same way as physical health cant be talked about in an objective black and white cosmic sense but still has corrects and incorrects. Its a good talk, he hits all of these points way better than I can.
But I'd argue this worldview allows for the evolution of morality more than religion, as it acknowledges the ability for morality to evolve - which religion cannot as there is a black and white dictation of morality from an omniscient god. Those morals should be able to stay fixed for all time, and apply to all people. But we know the they do not, we have seen moral teachings of the church fall into obscurity over time. How can that be reconciled with an omniscient god? Its a bottom up vs top bottom argument at its base I think.
@@draco12rolls The Bible disproves objective morality, at least on the basis of the biblical god. Once you accept that both God and humans can disobey God's moral code based on his commands, you've already proven that there are exceptions to his explicit moral commands, thereby showing it is not objective.
Then, that makes all morality to the biblical believer up to God's whims, which is by definition not objective.
@@SpeakLifeMedia you should ask most of these atheists do they support abortion because they are hypocrites
“It embraced the story of Jesus” really? If that’s true, it really took a while. Also, Jesus was no slave nor did he free any slave.
Jesus had it much worse than any slave ever could. Also, through Jesus, Christianity became one of the greatest liberating forces of slaves in all of history.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Really? seems like the Southern Baptists in ante-bellum South didn't get the memo.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl False, the secular idea of a church being separated from state legislations was the main drive behind ending slavery and other forms of oppression. Christians were on both sides of the argument given further evidence on why it’s good to have a separation of church and state. People saw the suffering of human bondage and wanted it to stop that’s progress despite the Bible not because of it.
there are three different law codes dealing with slavery in the bible, in leviticus, exodus, and deuteronomy. they contradict each other pretty explicitly (this alone is proof that the pentateuch was not all written by moses, with a direct line from god). in fact, between exodus and deuteronomy, one is pretty obviously a direct revision of the other. while apologists sometimes do just flat out lie, they get most of their mileage by cherry picking, by equivocating between & conflating the least bad-looking parts of each law code. but when correcting apologists, one should take care to note that these law codes probably did not apply to the same communities all at the same time (if they even applied in practice; they possibly only represented the wishful ideals of some school of scribes).
in the leviticus law code, israelites can not be enslaved at all. if they fall into debt to fellow israelites, they must be treated as hired laborers, and their debt is forgiven on the year of jubilee. the year of jubilee happens every 50th year, so your term of debt can be anywhere from 1 to 49 years. israelites who fall into debt with a wealthy resident foreigner can be redeemed, but if their family can’t afford to redeem them, they also go free on the year of jubilee. none of this applies to non-israelites, who can without exception be enslaved as chattel for life, bought and sold, etc. israelites are not to be treated "harshly" or "ruthlessly" (whatever that means). but by contrast israelites are implicitly allowed to treat non-israelite slaves "harshly" or "ruthlessly". note: this doesn’t mean that all foreigners or resident aliens are treated harshly in israel, only that they can be treated so if they are slaves.
in the exodus law code, israelites can be enslaved. however, adult male (and only adult male) israelite slaves are limited to a term of 6 years. they are set free on the 7th, but walk away with nothing. female israelite slaves, and any children they bear to an enslaved husband, are explicitly chattel slaves for life. there are regulations on how harshly slaves can be treated - if you maim them, they must be set free. if you beat them so badly they die within 2 days, you are to be 'punished' - possibly this involves execution, but likely, since 'eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth' doesn't apply, neither does 'life for a life'. if however they take more than a couple days to die from the beating, or if they survive (obviously) there's no punishment. normally, battery or manslaughter would be settled with monetary restitution, but in this case, the offender is also the owner of the victim's body, hence "he is his silver." it is also possible these regulations on beatings apply only to israelite slaves, but the text doesn't specifically say so.
the deuteronomy law code mirrors the exodus law code, with the exceptions that female israelite slaves go free as the israelite males do on their 7th year, and israelite slaves are given provisions after their service term ends. clearly someone in ancient judah felt that the exodus law code was not quite the perfect word of a morally perfect god.
both the exodus and deuteronomy codes include a bondsman oath: an israelite could, instead of going free after their term, swear that he loves his master, and be marked as permanent property of his master by being pierced through the ear with an awl. however the exodus law code lays the exploitative roots of this practice bare. firstly, israelite slaves “go free with nothing”, perpetuating a cycle of poverty that would inevitably bring them right back into debt slavery. secondly, recall that under the exodus law code, female israelites do not go free as the males do (this is stated explicitly). If a master gives one of his female slaves to a male slave as a wife, that woman, and any children born to the couple, remain his property after the male slave goes free. the bondsman oath is given - explicitly, mind, this doesn’t have to be read into the text - as a way for an impoverished man to stay and live with his wife and children. the deuteronomy law code retains the bondsman oath, though removes the more exploitative reasons one might make take such an oath.
it's also worth noting that the book of judges tells us that the israelites enslaved many of the "canaanites" instead of exterminating them, and then we have the genesis geneiologies and other etiological stories like the 'curse of ham'. now we know from archeology, genetic testing, textual analysis, linguistics, etc. that 'israelites' in fact emerged from 'canaanites' in some way (even if the exodus story is true, all it really means is that they migrated to egypt for a while before coming back and fighting against their cousins). what all this seems to indicate is that israel had something of an underclass, subject to, if not chattel slavery, then some kind of corvee labor*, based on ancestry. but because these people were essentially israelites themselves, the 'people of the land' of the later post-exilic period, their enslavement had to be rationalized by othering them. hence they were identified as 'canaanites', and given a geneology that splits them off from israel all the way back to noah's sons. a people who were, according to judges, lucky that their masters hadn't simply exterminated them as yahweh had originally commanded, and could be safely blamed for anything and everything that ever went wrong for the country.
lastly, the prohibition of kidnapping almost certainly does not apply to raiding foreign communities for slaves (as we see in numbers and judges, this was sometimes practiced, and the only problem yahweh seemed to have with it is that it lead the "israelites" to adopt "idolatry" from the "canaanites"). therefore it would not have applied in any capacity against, say, the trans atlantic slave trade.
*(i would argue corvee labor is not really inherently less evil than slavery. king leopold would boast that he was a holy crusader against slavery due to his wars with arab slavers, while his enforcers butchered peasants in his congo free state who didn't meet the rubber quota. such is the wages of legal reductionism - those peasants weren't technically property, after all.)
Very well said. I agree with your points
Is it only okay to break the ninth commandment as long as it lying for Jesus?
Thou shall not kill didn’t end murder either but God still said it
1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are perverse.
Great Eisegesis bro. Can we have at least the two verses before please 🤔. Pretty sure they speak about "...freedom... and ...respect..." for all.
@@Miles_305 Bro there are way more than just these two verses in the Bible that explicitly sanction slavery. Check out this passage which condones offensive wars to capture slaves:
Deut 20:10-15
When you approach a city to wage war against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms and submits to you, all the people found in it will become your slaves. If it does not accept terms of peace but makes war with you, then you are to lay siege to it. The LORD your God will deliver it over to you and you must kill every single male by the sword. However, the women, little children, cattle, and anything else in the city - all its plunder - you may take for yourselves as spoil. You may take from your enemies the plunder that the LORD your God has given you. This is how you are to deal with all those cities located far from you, those that do not belong to these nearby nations.
@@Miles_305 exodus:21 20-21, Ephesians 6:5,titus 2:9,1 Peter 2:18,1 Timothy 6:1, this one is for sex slavery numbers 31:25 and numbers 31:17-18 Leviticus 25:41-46..here we go
Let's keep in mind that these are two unregenerate people having a discussion about a culturally-separated book. Context matters. Glen brings up some great points here. Good job.
"Paul told slaves to get their freedom wherever they could"... but I won't fight for you....
This guy trying to credit christians for ending slavery..... wow...... what a propagandist
A bondservant is someone bound to service without wages AKA A SLAVE!!!!!! Google the dang word man.
this is such an embarrassment. you couldn’t lie straight in bed. i guess this is what defending the indefensible looks like? yes, the bible condones slavery.
Did this guy just justify that slavery in ancient time is not that bad as African slavery???
I was team peterson back few years but man harrison now makes whole lot of sense.
William Wilberforce (1759-1833), the famous British abolitionist and Christian, is often brought up as an example of Christianity producing a movement against slavery. The main problem with this view is that nearly everyone in Europe and America was a Christian, the vast majority of whom were not against the practice. A very tiny amount of believers had opposed slavery in the 1500 years that Christianity had dominated Europe since the Emperor Constantine made this religion legal within the Roman Empire in 313 CE/AD. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, European abolitionists learned that biblical passages did not help their cause. They eventually began primarily using secular arguments by necessity. One major reason that it took Wilberforce 46 years to convince his countrymen to complete the abolition process in the British Empire was because a huge percentage of the clergy, government leadership, and the general public stood firmly on the view that slavery and racial inequality were natural, culturally normative, and biblical. Along with their Christian ancestors for hundreds of years that created and sustained New World colonial slavery with biblical justifications, the conservatives in Britain and America were among the main forces that resisted 18th and 19th century abolition laws. During Wilberforce’s sustained and rigorous efforts, it took 20 years (1787-1807) to get the slave trade legally ended and another 26 years (1807-1833) to make slavery itself illegal. Why would God provide such a misleading revelation? Or, in this case, is it more accurate to say that modern Christians developed a more heightened humanitarian sensibility because of the rise of Enlightenment humanism?
On What basis do you rule out slavery? Empathy.
Also you might want to do some historical research. Relatively modern Christianity is not the only culture/religion that has banned slavery. Notice how in the ancient times section, you don't see Hebrews or early Christians listed. Why should they? They had a book telling them their god said it was okay.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom#Ancient_times
You didn’t read your own thing. Almost all of these say “they abolished debt slavery but not chattel slavery”
To the people against both parties agreeing to indentured slavery to pay debt:
If you're against this contractual agreement, that means you're such a good person in todays times that you'd be willing to personally sponsor every single homeless and hungry person with you're own personal finances in exchange for no pay or labor at all.... smh As if you really had the monies to pay for all of this yourself when you're but a mere blue collared worker....who is probably also enslaved to debt today.... smh...
some of you realllly don't understand macro economics.
I’m against owning another human as property and being able to beat them.
I don’t try to defend what God Knew would become obsolete one day. Ideally God wanted a world like Genesis 1:26-29. We all know God knew human beings weren’t ready to accept a society without slavery or indentured servitude. So God met them where they were at. And now it’s become the opposite. Instead of people wanting slavery not they don’t it. That’s what God intended.
_"people weren't ready to accept a society without it"_ Hmm 🤔🤔🤔
You mean like people accepted a society were people were murdered so God said....... *"DONT* _murder " 👇👇 *read on*
Like people stole so God said *"DONT* _steal"_
People gathered sticks on the sabbath so God said...... *"DONT* _gather sticks on the sabbath"_ ( or you die )
People wore cloth of mixed fabric so God said........ *"DONT* _wear cloth of mixed fabric"_
People engaged in slavery so god said..... *BUY YOUR SLAVES FROM THE HEATHEN NATIONS AROUND YOU* 🤔🤔
This is how pathetic your argument is, its equivalent to a pimp saying to a judge in court
_"i dont agree with prostitution your honour, but the girls were gonna do it anyway_ _so I'm just looking after them, making it a safer kinda prostitution"_
Did your god not have the power to say *" NO SLAVERY"* would that not have advanced his purpose ???
What kind of weak assed God is it that has to bend his "objective moral values"
to accommodate the wishes of ancient human slave masters ?
I knew he was gonna say it was a different type of slavery, owning people is immoral period, but if you believe in God you'll justify it, I don't blame people, we grew up with religion so its hard too break away from that bulshit
I've heard that do not steal is actually, do not kidnap in the original Hebrew. Is there any truth to that?
I stopped at 1:05 It's Absolutely appalling and pathetic when people willing to bendover backwards and do cartwheels, tap dance and ignore passages in the damn Bible that actually explicitly states and endorses and sanctions slavery.
Anything to keep a delusion that God inspired such an immorality, barbaric, historical and scientific inaccuracies, plagued with contradictions and rehashed and altered fables....
Clearly you didn't watch the video.
@@crazychimp1039 Where he lies and says we shouldn’t say slaves but bond servant which is a the same exact thing? If you start your entire premise off by lying and miss representations of both words and Bible scriptures just seconds into the video what’s the point in watching all of it?
I’d love to enslave this guy. Not the horrible trans-Atlantic style slavery. I’m not an animal. Just the perfectly fine slavery that occurred in the Old and New Testament.
thank you very much, but i don't need an "interpreter" to read exactly what your god wrote - i can read myself. you, on the other hand, are lying to yourself.
Sooooo.... you're saying if you owe me debt and you can't pay it, you can choose to let me own you until you've paid it off. Why not continue this practice today? Plenty of people out there are in debt with few options to get out of it. See the problem?
Defending the indefensible with an obviously flawed moral perspective. You could have easily promoted to all christians that they should respectfully decline to believe in this garbage and take it out of the current versions of the book. But no - the everyday typical white-male elite-class morality complex is clearly present - and the only part missing is the celebratory Mein Kampf quote at the end (and maybe a salute as well). Do you like this one?: "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."~A.Hitler
did you just assume his gender? also what has his race or gender got to do with anything? also do you really think that this guy and hitler are on a similar level?
@@williamvarley5876 Both the jews and the Christians hold the OT in common and it is only the belief in in regards to Jesus being the messiah that differentiates them. This difference in theology regarding the rejection and killing of jesus was used by CHRISTIAN Germans as justification for the slaughtering of 6 million. Did their subjective opinion justify the holocaust and somehow make it moral ??? I think not ...
Deuteronomy 20:10-15
When you approach a city to wage war against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms and submits to you, all the people found in it will become your slaves. If it does not accept terms of peace but makes war with you, then you are to lay siege to it. The LORD your God will deliver it over to you and you must kill every single male by the sword. However, the women, little children, cattle, and anything else in the city - all its plunder - you may take for yourselves as spoil. You may take from your enemies the plunder that the LORD your God has given you. This is how you are to deal with all those cities located far from you, those that do not belong to these nearby nations.
this won't make sense to you but that is God judging the cities for their sin
@@williamvarley5876 so slavery is a judgement?
@@williamvarley5876 You're right it doesn't make sense to me however the Antebellum Christian slave masters also means the same argument 😜
Oh and by the way dear there is NO such thing as SIN only moral and immoral actions. The perceived whims of anyone's imaginary friend are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.
You just radiate "youth pastor"😆
Please stop lying. The Old Testament condones buying, selling, beating, killing, and taking foreign slaves. Foreign slaves in the Old Testament did not have the rights you point out were bestowed upon hebrew bondservants. Foreign slaves were chattel slaves, treated every bit as bad or worse than antebellum slaves.
You know this, or you should, so you are simply lying to defend your faith, and that is pathetic.
Also, the west was not the only culture to end the practice of slavery, nor were they the first. Facts don't matter to you, do they?
This is a painfully stupid argument.
Let's suppose we accept that Hebrew slaves were treated better than slaves in America. Therefore, . . . what? Are all things that are better than the transatlantic slave trade morally acceptable to you?
The morals of this guy, trying to protect biblical slavery.
If the Bible was not written by slaves, and was not written and translated by God... it can therefore be questioned, dont you think🤔
Everything should be questioned. Some things will be easier than others to verify and understand, but everything should be questioned.
I am sam harris fan boy and I can't think for myself
Your statement apears to indicate otherwise dear.
Even if you accept slavery was abolished because of these good Christian people, what took them so long? Over 1800 years it took them!!! If the bible were clear and unequivocal about slavery, it would have been abolished in Christian cultures long before, but it wasn't. It just goes to show that the bible writers were people of their own time and weren't receiving any morals from a higher power.
Wait...I thought atheists consider the bible to be nothing more than a book full of ancient myths and fairy tails? If that's the case, it seems a little odd to be discussing and critiquing the morality aspects of the contents of a book - that isn't even true.
Naw, we just use yall on righteousness against yall when it comes too the bible thats why
It may not be true, but billions of people believe it is, and that is why atheists (myself included) care enough to criticize it.
Because you try to teach these fairytales in schools and try to pass laws pretending to speak for some made up god.
Because christians used the percieved whims of your biblical imaginary friend to justify immoral fith like Antebellum slavery
The main argument I make when people say the bible condones slavery is that, just because it speaks of it and gives instructions to treat your slaves well, doesn't mean it supports, condones, tolerates, or encourages slavery. Did God encourage the crucifixion of Jesus? No? Then why did he allow himself to be crucified? Furthermore, why did Jesus carry his own cross up mount Golgotha? Well, Peterson himself outlines why and I'm very surprised and disappointed here that he didn't say it. The ten commandments DO say not to steal, it says do not covet, this also means you cannot steal a person or their labor, as the bible recognizes labor as your own (see when Jesus is anointed with oil and Judas protests). The bible is trying to say this: We all have struggles within our lives, they are all different and horrible in their own right, however we still are required to live by certain rules that allow us to have meaning and responsibility. Just as Christ carries his own cross up the mountain, us men are required to do the same. Jesus bears his suffering with pride, he accepts it voluntarily and asks forgiveness for the people who have forsaken him. A slave can bear their chains with pride, they can choose to be a slave and live as one responsibly and commit to their suffering, gain strength and dignity through it. Also, take the arguments from the video into consideration, given that you cannot kidnap people or steal their labor according to the bible which you CAN'T, then theyre talking about voluntary acceptance of slavery which proves my point even more. Just consider the main point here, that God didnt approve of his crucifixion, he was being crucified actually to save the people from the fact they were crucifying him (along with everyone else), but he still let it happen and did so with determination. God wants to inspire that same resolve and determination in us through his voluntary acceptance of crucifixion regardless of our particular story. Thank you.
Oh really, let's take a look at just one verse shall we 😜 *Exodus 21 : 21*
_"if you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"_
_"There is to be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"_
🤮🤮🤮🤮
*See I think the above 👆👆 is inferring it's ok to own and beat a fellow human as long as they dont die for a day or 2*
*In the same way that if our government were to make a law saying* .......
_"if you beat a black man and he does not die for a couple of days there is to be no punishment"_
*That would sort of infer to me it's considered ok to beat black people*
*Infact personaly I think that would be kinda endorsing racism and the beating of black people, dont you* ? 🤔🤔.
_"this also means you cannot steal a person for their labour as the bible recognises Labour as your own"_
Have you ever actually read your bible dear????????
*Deuteronomy 20 : 10*
10 _"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace 11 If they accept and open their gates,_ *all the people in it shall be subject to FORCED LABOR and shall work for you* 12 _If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand_ *put to the sword all the men* _in it_ 14 *As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves* _And you may use the_ *plunder* _the Lord your God gives you from your enemies"_
The bible has a written guide ON how to buy, sell, and trade slaves.
How on eatth could anyone worship and follow the word of God after that is revealed? Slavery is one of the worst thing a human could do to another. Explain it away all you want, but its in the book.
And the tip tap is started at 0:01
Sheer unadulterated dishonesty…..the dissonance reduction is severe. It’s crazy to hear otherwise good people rationalize this immoral perversion
Damn, sounds like the bible is the root of bad communism: inverting hierarchy. Page 1 of the bible was probably written by Marx himself.
Peterson, being a paragon of hierarchy, would cry listening to this video.
Clean your room Glen.
Forbid Shellfish & Pork but Slavery.
Matt. 19:1-8 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife(D) for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a](E) 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]?(F) 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”(G)
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”(H)
God condones slavery but only regulated it because of the hardness of the israelites heart doesn't mean he approved it like he didn't approve divorce and what was interesting about the slaves is that they had rights and were protected so it's regulated because if the israelites hardened heart.
Christians claim that the God of biblical naratives is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent it is logically incoherent for a being who desires perfect morality to allow immorality to exist if he also has the power to prevent it.
He would have ultimate power, he sets the rules with regards to EVERYTHING !!! are you asserting that such a being would have to bend his "perfect" moral guidance to accommodate the traditions and wishes of ancient slave masters ????
You cite gods rules with regards to divorce as an example of him doing precisely this. Please explain why this could also not be just yet another example of your Gods imperfection.
Please explain how you ascertained "gods moral ideals" when there are conflicting verses? Do you just pick and choose the ones that fit the naratives you wish to convey and disregard those that don't, almost like the bible is some kind of chinese buffet. ?? Indeed would it even be posible for conflicting verses to exist if from a "perfect" book reflecting the wishes of a "perfect" moral being ??
@@trumpbellend6717 he set these rules so there wouldn't be capital punishment in doing so because of the hardness of their hearts God instead regulated it so they wouldn't mistreat eachother in those areas.
Great video!
Great lies *
In the sense that it's great to have another example of Christian hypocracy.
Just read the bible.
Leviticus 25
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 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.
"It [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts...Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God - let him go to the Bible...I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation...Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments - in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere.".
~ Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy
Old testament slavery was the same as slavery in the new world, in exodus god says that slaves are property you can pass down to your children.
If Dante was alive he would place Jordan Peterson in the 8th Circle of Hell: Fraud.
You're wrong
Exodus 21:16
[16]And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Clear and simple.
Don't worry folks, the world won't stop lying about the bible. Worry not.
Frrp
Exod. 21:16 is about Hebrew men, it doesn't apply to foreigners, captives of war and women.
Lev. 25:44 "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you."
Deuteronomy
5:21 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor desire your neighbor’s house, his field, his male slave or his female slave, his ox, his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
12:18 “But you shall eat them before the lord your god in the place which the lord your god will choose, you and your son and daughter, and your male and female slaves, ...”
Hebrew: male slave (5650) and female slave (519)
15:12 “If your fellow countryman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you for six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free.”
20:11 And if it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and serve you.”
In Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states: “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”.
Even in early christianity is was accepted as the Synod of Gangra (340 CE) shows:
Canon 3: “If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.”
Maybe do some real study of the biblical text sources (Qumran) because now you're just demonstrating your ignorance.
@@lizadowning4389 a yes, u read corrupted, egyptian manuscripts. Read originals as God said very very clearly:
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
m.th-cam.com/video/iXK8yJj-S4U/w-d-xo.html
So ye, learn the basics, fundamental, most important truths first.
*You are unable to provide any examples of God saying DO NOT OWN PEOPLE AS PROPERTY* *So instead you cite a verse forbidding "man stealing" or "kidnapping" 🤣😅🤣*
*"KIDNAPPING" is NOT "slavery" its forbidden to steal slaves NOT to OWN them*
*To say DO NOT* _"STEAL"_ *CARS is completely different than DO NOT* _"OWN"_ *CARS*
*Your desire to conflate the two more than adequately demonstrates both the hypocrisy and fragility of your position*
But hey let's contrast that directly with what god says on the subject shall we ........
*Levidicus 25 44*
_"As for your male and your female slaves, whom you may have of the nations that are around you, from them_ *you may buy male and female slaves*
I think that makes it pretty clear dont you ??
I like this next verse were god says you can keep forign slaves as "possessions *forever* pass them on as an *inheritance* but you have to treat the "hebrews" well
*Levidicus 25 46*
_"You may make them an_ *inheritance for your children* _after you, to hold for a_ *possession* _of them may you take your slaves_ *forever* _but over your brothers the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness"_
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
Sam loves to take things out of context
What did he take out of context?
@@Jambuc829 I think he is just ignorant
this guy would get smashed in any debate.
m.th-cam.com/video/B3-sjyDYO2I/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUOZ2xlbiBzY3JpdmVuZXI%3D
1:48 Are you lying about the Bible or just ignorant? "...and you can make them slaves for life" the Good Book says.
It is difficult to decide which is more disgusting: the shameless lying and blatant intellectual dishonesty of Christian Apologists or the habitual lying and brazen intellectual deceit of Muslim Apologists.
And what makes them even more revolting, is: it is in the name of God that they chose to operate in such sheer "bad faith" (pun intended) sans any shame, scruples, self-respect, dignity, honesty, integrity or goodwill whatsoever!!
PS. Contrary to his ludicrously tall loud claims that Christians or Christianity were the first to challenge and reject enslaving fellow human beings as chattel and sex slaves, I challenge him to show one instance where Buddha either endorsed or condoned Slavery. He won't find it in Jainism or Sikhism either. Infact the metaphysical ontology and ethics drawn from it in either of these systems outrightly condemns any such practise as a pure evil and a grave sin. Also while Jainism predates Christianity by a millenium at least, Buddhism predates Christianity by half a millenium. Sikhism is newer Belief System which originated about 300 years began at a time when both Muslim and subsequently Christian invaders had introduced the curse of Slavery in the Indian Subcontinent which has been home to no less than quarter of mankind.
Furthermore:
This comment section is SO TOXICALLY BIASED 🤣🤣 …. Internet atheists are something else I tell ya
Terrible argument. Have you even read Exodus 21. Even if we except that the proper translation is “bond servant”, how is it ok to beat them as long as they don’t die. This book is immoral, and watching Christians twist and turn to defend its horrendous words is disgusting.
Sorry, there is just so much wrong with this video. No matter what you say, no matter what you do, the God of the Bible condones, and even orders in some cases, the literal buying and taking of literal slaves. It is there. Because there is some other passage you can import using linguistic and philosophical games doesn't negate those passages. One of two possibilities exist in that case. 1. Your understanding of what they meant is incorrect about equality, man-stealing, etc or 2. The Bible is contradicting itself.
For example, we consider slavery a form of theft. Ok, that's a modern twist that all people are not property. So by default it is a kind of theft in the modern western world. The pre-modern world on the whole didn't hold that view. It's almost an anachronism save the few anti-slavery movements that existed. The stealing would be if it was a free man taken who was not captured in war and then was made a slave. It's basically like equating any kind of purchase with stealing. There is the legal acquisition of goods and there is the illegal acquisition of goods. Man-stealing is the illegal acquisition of a person which is the good. Slave trading was generally a legal exchange of goods until recently. Even the case of the Transatlantic Slave Trade they were mostly people purchased by conquering warlords. They were prisoners taken in war, that were sold, as the Bible clearly sanctions.
As for Christians being the first to free slaves, so what? You allegedly have a text that you believe clearly leads to ending slavery. But somehow it took over a few thousand years to figure out what you believe is what it really meant. For thousands of years your God stood there while his believers clearly got it wrong, due his lack of clarity while he was far clearer on topics like ham and shellfish, leading to generations of needless suffering. For some reason, we are supposed to gloss over that it just happened to be that it was right after the Enlightenment with it's un-Biblical views of man and the world that abolitionism started to get a strong hold in the West. Hell, even the Pilgrims were keeping slaves. But no, we are supposed to believe because a person was Christian that therefore it was their Christianity that caused their anti-slavery beliefs (which the Bible contradicts) and ignore that the slavery apologists had completely solid footing in the theological debate.
Lastly, the argument about the glass proves nothing. It's a veiled argument from consequence and a tu quo que. Assume there is no intrinsic value. So what? Maybe there is not intrinsic value. Maybe atheists can't say slavery is wrong. Assume all of it.That gets you no closer to the Bible not condoning slavery. You still have a god endorsing slavery. In fact, what you have is a god that contradicts almost every modern sensibility, and the only way we can repair that is by finding various passages and importing out modern views onto them, while ignoring a multitude of passages to the contrary. Fact is you probably hold many of the same moral views atheists have, you just choose to ascribe them to a supernatural entity that has shown solid evidence that he doesn't actually hold them.
Sam Harris looks a lot smarter than he is.
Bond-servant!
I am quite sure Harris doesn't mean people are a bag o protoplasm 😂
In Isaiah 14, the Bible promises a future in which God’s people will make permanent slaves of all other groups on Earth. It originates as a prophecy of revenge on a neighboring empire, but expands to oppress the rest of humanity. Many study bibles and commentaries have titled this section of Isaiah as something like “Israel’s Taunt Against Babylon” because the text includes a Jewish song of mockery and retribution against their former masters. In verses 1-2, the lines just before the song, it foretells that the Jews will make slaves of all other nations, not just the Babylonians that held thousands of Jews in exile for about half of the 6th century BCE:
"But the Lord will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose Israel, and will set them in their own land; and aliens will join them and attach themselves to the house of Jacob. And the nations will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess the nations as male and female slaves in the Lord’s land; they will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them." (Isaiah 14:1-2 NRSV)
We ended slavery not due to Christianity, which has been around for two thousand years. The end of slavery was due to the advent of The Enlightenment and the principle that all men are created equal, principles that America was founded on, principles which were responsible for the abolition of slavery less than 100 years after our formation.
Is this an apologist channel?
I think it's the hypocrisy channel.
disgusting argument for slavery
Yes
Glen, you hit a home run on this one. You went for the presuppositions.
No he struck out with his bat never coming anywhere near the ball. He doesn’t even have a bat he is just swinging at the air and make the ball being hit sound with his mouth. We atheist are the umpire screaming STRIKE ONE STRIKE TWO STRIKE THREE YOUR OUT!!!!!!!!!!
OMG: On page one we are told........... Thats it? Thats your come back? How embarrassing for you. Another bad ambassador for your cause. I bet you wish you hadn't posted this now. :-)
Survival of the fittest
That is the essence of slavery
Even without religion, slavery is inevitable
🤣😅🤣🤣🤣😅
No dear the essence of slavery is subjugation just like religion.
Thank you though for the video, I got what I wanted from Sam Harris but in the same breath I will say it would have been better you didn't do this video because it looks horrible on you. You look so horrible in defence against Sam Harris. Whoever fights against common sense looks horrible anyway. Your thinking is not deep to analyse sam Harris in any way.
What did he say that wasnt true , he made the distinction that the slaves in the bible were ,long term employees, unlike slavery in the modern sence ,where,they are kidnapped and oppressed ,what verses did sam site to bsck up his arguments, and if he didnt give any ,dif ypu research youreelf before committing to this,view?
@tasmarkou5681 keep deceiving yourself. Your mind is set by the slave master religion. I can't change your mind. You might come around some day. Note that you are arguing with the bible. We (me & S H) are saying what the bible says, not what you think.
And i thought i was stupid 😃😸
Elton Glass 😂
When the Europeans first met the indigenous peoples of the America's they did not call them savages because they wore skimpy clothing. They were savage because when they went to war they killed everyone. Slavery was not done in the new world. When your enemy becomes your slave or vise versa you have a chance to get to know them. To truly know someone is to love them. Example: When a Britannia Roman was taken slave by the Irish he got to know them. Later Saint Patrick returned out of love and converted them to Catholicism.
"Slavery was not done in the new world." It was glossed over by historians, but uncovered now. Smithsonianmag article: "Colonial America Depended on the Enslavement of Indigenous People" Excerpt:
"During the course of researching her first book... Newell came across a list of Native American slaves kept by colonists in the Massachusetts Bay Colony."
Quote is by Newell, an associate professor of history at Ohio State University
I will throw in the genocide in order to steal fertile land (like in the Old Testament) for good measure. (from same article):
"Indeed, in the 1630s, the Connecticut River Valley was home to the powerful Pequots. The settlers at Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay wanted their rich, fertile land and in order to get it, they persuaded Mohegan and Narragansett allies to help them fight the Pequots. In 1637, they burned a village on the banks of the Mystic River in southeastern Connecticut, killing 400 to 700 Pequots, according to the Society of Colonial Wars in the State of Connecticut. That massacre turned the tide of the war and Pequot survivors were pursued, captured and sold as slaves."
Great job man
It is literally black and white. The Bible differentiates and proscribes rules for each between Jewish bondserveant and foreign slaves. This also went under the Roman system and we know exactly how it worked. It was just as horrid as any other slavery. Don’t weasel around. I wouldn’t try to defend that ever!
The reason why slavery is in the mosaic covenant is because there is such a thing as good slavery and that's the reason why slavery is not outlawed, let me explain, good slavery turns people who are not family by blood into family. Now let me illustrate, you can have your own children (by blood) do work for the family, and in the past that was a lot of work, well never getting paid, that can look like slavery, but in truth, that's called sharing family responsibilities, so when someone was accepted as family who were not blood, they also had to accept family responsibilities without getting paid, but what they did get was family privileges, like protection, a community, a roof over your head, for some a share in the inheritance, etc. What people have to remember is that there was no welfare state, so those who were unfortunate enough to have no family had very little options, but through slavery they could gain a family.
There is bad slavery in the bible too. Lots of it.
Joe B yes and there are a lot of abusive blood families as well, but unlike the compulsory nature of being blood family at least in slavery you got to choose your family.
No you don't
Not in Deuteronomy 20:10-15
Not in Leviticus 25:44-46 where the bible states that the Israelites may buy foreign slaves that remain in bondage for life.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Soldiers can kidnap women and take them as their wives after destroying their city and killing everyone they know... What a loving god.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14, 15 Joe B they are synonymous with prisoners of wars, again prisoners today can look like slaves in fact some people do call the prison population slaves and state management of that, modern day slavery, so yes in this case it is forced labour, but their are a lot of studies showing that labour is beneficial for the prison population of today and helps with discipline and rehabilitation.
Jourdan Maraki
So you're trying to compare women and children and innocent people to criminals of today? Why am I not surprised.
It’s been a long time since I’ve stumbled across such a disingenuous presentation as this
what a dishonest person. The answer is YES.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Oh my God !!!!!! The denial is deep.