I am puzzled by the choice of this clip. I get that one problem with the "woke" is that they overrate their own virtue. But it seems to me to be a non sequitur to suggest that the doctrine of original sin is the only antidote, and hence attribute this failing to the decline of Christianity. Most people know they are not perfect - indeed not even factually correct some of the time. It is ideologues who tend to be more convinced that they are (in the) right. Ideological thought is common ground between the woke movement and many religions, particularly the monotheistic ones, and not a distinction between them. Concerning progress (on issues such as slavery, equality of opportunity e.g. for women), I think it can be argued convincingly that these are driven by societal, technological and economic changes, more than by moral realisations. For example, the birth control pill had a huge impact: the "freedom" celebrated by hippies was (in part) freedom from the constraints of traditional sexual morality, not a belief that they were perfect. I notice that some commentators appreciated this clip, and Tom Holland makes a couple of thought-provoking statements, but I found his explanation for the woke movement very unconvincing, and if you found it convincing, I am puzzled as to why.
@@johnjameson6751 I get what he's saying, but recast it in my own way, "Less Pride, More Humility". One of the tenants of "Woke" is everyone is "great" within their standpoint, so if you are FAT, you can take pride in your fatness, if homeless, you can take pride in your homelessness. I'm old enough to have been a hippie, lived a few miles from Charles Manson in 1969, this Tom guy does not have a clue.
NICE! This is one I am definitely excited for. Really shocks me how so many westerners are unaware of this fact of history and like to posit the misguided notion that Christianity created slavery and did nothing to oppose it. Heck! In much of Africa, especially my country of Nigeria, before colonialism and Europeans came, slavery was practiced and upheld by the inhabitants and even the Arabs who were there. It wasn't until the British and the French came in that slavery was opposed and eventually abolished either peacefully or via military force. And yes, I know that the British and French did it for their own colonial ambitions but I don't care because at the end of it, the net result was the abolition of slavery. Thank goodness for that.
@@killgriffinnow except slavery back in the day was not even comparable. If you kidnapped a person you were killed. Their slavery was a common way to pay back debt or to serve a criminal sentence. The mosaic law was radically countercultural in that it gave slaves actual rights and their owners a responsibility for them.
@@killgriffinnow I assume you are not trying to make a case that Christians, specifically Paul, viewed the institution of slavery as a good thing. I assume you watched the video so you saw where he discussed that Christians did not create or encourage the institution of slavery. They viewed it as a societal evil that was part of the universal fallen nature of humans. Also, not to be too pedantic, but you are citing a looser translation of Eph 6.5 and/or Col 3.22. A better translation would be "bondservant". « The Roman institution of being a “bondservant” (Gk. δουλοι [doulos]) was different from the institution of slavery in North America during the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries. Bondservants generally were permitted to work for pay and to save enough to buy their freedom. The New Testament assumes that trafficking in human beings is a sin, and Paul urges Christian slaves who can gain freedom to do so. The released slave was officially designated a “freedman” and frequently continued to work for his former master. Many extant inscriptions from freedmen indicate the tendency to adopt the family name of their former master (now their “patron”) and to continue honoring them. » - Lane T. Dennis and Wayne Grudem, eds., The ESV Study Bible, 2008. There were also slaves without recourse to freedom unless they made an arrangement with their master. In another letter, Paul wrote: ". . . The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for . . . ENSLAVERS, liars, perjurers . . ." (1 Tim 1.9-10 ESV) So if enslaving people is a sin and Paul told bondservants/slaves to gain their freedom if they could, what do Eph 6.5 and Col 3.22 mean? What's the context? The passages from Ephesians and Colossians are essentially the same so we'll just look at Ephesians: "Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free." (Eph 6.5-8 ESV) Ephesians and Colossians are letters written to the churches at Ephesus and Colossae respectively. He is writing to a *Christian* audience telling them how they should and should not behave if these are their circumstances. He is not writing an open letter to the Roman Empire promoting the institution of slavery. No, he is teaching *Christians* how to behave whatever their station in life, no matter how bad it is. Ideally, they could fulfill their debt or arrange a deal to gain their freedom, but he is telling Christians the way to behave if they are currently stuck in that situation.
If someone believes they are without sin. If they think they are morally perfect... they must be kept from the levers of power at all costs. If they are so self unaware... so deluded... their legacy will only be marked by mass graves.
Russian leaders believe they have supreme power given by God …even if they don’t believe in God..so they basically can’t be questioned. And yes would be good to keep them from power but what to do ..most Russians want an autocratic leader. They consider democracy messy and chaotic…. but Buddhism has a very different take. They don’t believe in original sin as per Christians and Jews. They believe it is possible to purify the mind but the result is very different to what they talk about here ..wokeness and moral superiority. Actually the result here following the Buddhist path is to get rid of the superiority/inferiority mindset, greed, hatred and delusion…the resulting mind once this is achieved is a very loving, very caring, non judgmental and very and very wise and peaceful mind. They lead incredibly moral lives and harm no one but never preach and looking down on others is impossible for those developed in this way.
Definitely do not disagree with this. But how do you tell if someone believes this? What test should we put before those who would approach the levers of power?
Morally perfect and without sin are completely 2 different matters. 'I am' NOT a sinner because I don't believe in what the church calls SIN. It has NOTHING to do with thinking one is morally perfect. It's a common deception tactic by the church and corrupted, self righteous religious folks.
As a non-western, I couldn't agree more. The entire reason slavery was abolished in what became Nigeria (my country) is due to western civilization (the British)
@@orboakin8074 interesting. Would you say that Islam in Nigeria has been influenced by Christianity / the British legacy? Or are they separated along this subject?
@@philastevenson The only real influence I can say exists is that islam in the north of Nigeria is more resentful of the south and of Christianity and also uses that to fuel more tribal tensions. Due to the longer presence of the British in the southern parts of Nigeria, we benefitted more by embracing the economic model (more free-market oriented) and also embracing western education. Thus, the south tends to have more infrastructure and a more educated and financially well-off population than the north. Though the north is more tribally homogenous, due to the fact that the British, after defeating the Sokoto caliphate but not ending their social structure like in the south, they never modernized like us in the south. That is why terror groups like Boko Haram were able to exist due to the lower socioeconomic standards there and they were created with a mandate of repressing any western influences in the north and causing instability for the south. That being said, a lot more northerners are killed by these terrorists so that has the effect of poisoning the northerners against them.
@@orboakin8074 thanks for this reply, I’d never heard of Sokoto caliphate, I should read up, esp as British history also. My uni roommate, Osa was studying economics I think- I showed him my anthropology essays on witchcraft and he said “ we don’t do that stuff anymore!” But I know it can remain in various syncretic forms In Islamic or Christian countries. It sounds like boko haram is a form of populism. Can you recommend me any good books on Nigerian history?
@@philastevenson Glad I could help you, friend. As for book recommendations, the best I can recommend (in terms of being objective and well structured regarding my country's history) would be "A History of Nigeria" by Toyin falola. I would also recommend "Conquest and Culture" by Thomas Sowell. There is a good explanation on the various major tribes in Nigeria and how their interactions with the British played a role in the country's history. On the subject of boko haram, they really are not a populist group. They are simply another islamist extremist group (more akin to the Mexican cartel) and the only reason they have continued to exist is due to the poor development and low level of security and socioeconomic opportunities in the north that allowed them to operate with impunity. That has been changing wiwth increased industrialization and education efforts in the north but they keep hampering this and they are still a major problem and islamists from other northern African countries like Chad and Niger have been making incursions into Nigeria to swell their ranks cause trouble.
It always astonishes me during the slavery conversation that no child in the UK has even heard of John Wesley. His book "Thoughts On Slavery" after his visits to the colonies, what the situation gle most important catalyst that changed Slavery, and world history, forever. The consequences of his book, entirely changed everything from the British Empire, its economy, trade, laws, social systems, international treaties... the list is endless. And I've never met a single person who knows his name.
Sure give John Wesley all the plaudits you can for his views on abolishing slavery. It is due credit to him. That doesn't imply that it was Christianity that led to the abolishing of slavery. This is simply a man that was disgusted by slavery using his faith to justify is disgust of the practice. There were equally many proponents of slavery that found equal justification in Christianity and the Bible.
We were taught about him in school! But only I presume because my school was Methodist. He should be taught much more widely and as part of the UK curriculum.
“Before we call either Culture or Humanism a substitute for religion, there is a very plain question that can be asked in a form of a very homely metaphor. Humanism may try to pick up the pieces; but can it stick them together? Where is the cement which made religion corporate and popular, which can prevent it falling to pieces in a debris of individualistic tastes and degrees? What is to prevent one Humanist wanting chastity without humility, and another humility without chastity, and another truth or beauty without either? The problem of an enduring ethic and culture consists in finding an arrangement of the pieces by which they remain related, as do the stones arranged in an arch. And I know of only one scheme that has thus proved its solidity, bestriding lands and ages with its gigantic arches, and carrying everywhere the high river of baptism upon an aqueduct of Rome.” Holland has struck upon the Truth that all that is good and different in Western Society, like the end of slavery, trace their source back to Christ. He has not yet come to the Truth that up to the Middle Ages it was progress, but from the moment of the “Enlightenment” when God as center was replaced by “Man is the measure” and the Reformation said “everyone can read scripture for themselves” - these led to individualism and to the humanism Chesterton warningly addresses above. Slavery ending. Modern Science rising. Just War Theory. These are the strains of Christianity still having effects. They are the trickling down benefits from the Gospel spreading throughout the West for over a millennia. But Secularism, Progressivism, Deconstructionism, Postmodernism- these are all the unraveling of the cloth. The removal of the mortar that is crumbling down the walls. We cannot keep the fruits of Christianity, and we are seeing them fall away now, without returning to the true belief in Christ as the Son of God. Religion is the necessary mortar. What Holland found in history, Jordan Peterson finds in mythology. Chesterton already laid out both of these ideas in his book The Everlasting Man. As to slavery. Ideas against slavery and slave trading were shared by theologians centuries before the abolitionist movement. Christianity rose to a significant enough power to effect this change AND the industrial revolution allowed for slavery to be replaced. Before this level of industry slave societies would conquer because they were stronger because they had slaves. Industrial power could compete and even out-compete slavery. The combination of Christian morality and practical capability ended slavery. And this is no credit to whites or Europeans. It just so happens that Paul spread Christianity throughout Europe and Christ is to be credited for slavery’s ending. When the Son of God comes down and says, “I have died for everyone”, it is impossible to argue that we are not all essentially equal in some spiritual way and God said so ending all arguments against it. Egalitarianism is the only conclusion to the gospel. Time to repair the wall by putting the mortar back in. Get your asses back to the Masses people. Otherwise, we are heading toward a global totalitarian nightmare of Chinese, Marxist rule.
Whatever they thought was going to replace religion has failed to live up to expectations. The emerging secular religion is basically being cobbled together from whatever anti-Christian ideas happen to be floating around, it's a grotesque monstrosity and it's outrunning the humanist philosophers who imagined they could shape it. They already believe that racism is actually anti-racism, that men are women, that children can be pansexual... We won't even be able to argue about chastity without humility, because few will know or care what those things actually are. I wrote a song called "Racism is Bad" and it's about this emerging religion, th-cam.com/video/4JHcSOCeuAE/w-d-xo.html
How anyone could suppose any human being could become perfect is beyond me. All the available evidence from all of history around the entire world, says otherwise.
@@homeskillet9802 amen brother 🙏 , no progressive will ever come close, no matter how delusional they believe they are virtuous and elevated above the average person
It's a paradox, we're perfect and imperfect at the same time. Religion says it has to be one or the other and it's beyond boring. The hippies said "I am what I am", and that's true and fine. Then Jordan Peterson said "But you're not what you could be" and that's true and fine too.
I was very conflicted that the Bible was not against slavery. How could God 🙏 not be to against this evil. Tom Holland explained that the gift of Christianity to mankind cleared the pathway and the ambiguity that existed before the legislation that effectively made slavery redundant. The gift always existed, but it was mankind's concioness that needed it to expand and expunge this evil. Thank you Tom and thank you Triggnometry. Now hopefully it will inspire Hinduism and mohemmedanism to abandon slavery in all its forms (indentured labour, indentured servants, contract labour to exploit a poor persons vulnerability).
@@sirrathersplendid4825 Sir, if industry and technological advancements were all that was needed to end slavery, then the CCP would not be using Uighurs as slaves today and Mauritania would not have waited until the 2000s to abolish slavery and the middle east would also not have slaves today. The industrial revolution played a huge role but it was due to changing cultural norms and the advent of growing liberalism borne from Judeo-Christian framework.
@@orboakin8074 - Sure, it’s not the whole story. But the key thing that drove the British to start a worldwide campaign to abolish slavery soon after 1800 - enforced by Royal Navy ships - was the Industrial Revolution which began in Britain and was starting to produce machines that could replace slaves. Obviously the morale foundation to do so existed earlier, but the practical business reason was lacking.
Christianity is pro slavery. You’re just going to have to accept that, condemn it and move on. God from the very start could have just said “slavery is wrong” but he didn’t. He made RULES on how to treat them. That’s not being against slavery. That’s a full on endorsement with a handbook on how to do it. There didn’t need to be legislation or any arguing. God could have just said it’s bad and be done with it. People who happened to be Christians helped to abolish slavery. Christianity didn’t.
Rousseau is the major influence behind the flowering of 'expressive individualism' (Taylor, 2007) in modernity but especially in late modernity. Rousseau thought culture corrupts our natural state of goodness. In postmodernity, Nietzche becomes the dominant influence. N's idea of overcoming the death of god and the corollary of meaninglessness is achieved by a continuously creative act of will, as someone acting like the overman (a superman), which is reinforced by his further insight that knowledge equates with power. This perspective is then appropriated by Foucault and disseminated to a popular audience by various late- and postmodern 'isms'. So instead of Nietzsche's idea of the overman creating meaning, what in fact happens is that this very idea reinforces the nihilism that Nietzche feared - that nihilism would level all meaningful differences. In our own time, people think that striking an attitude equates to a deeply creative act. Woke is the overman diminished to the trivial act of striking an attitude, which has nothing to do with historic Christianity. Tom Holland gets woke wrong when he thinks it is another manifestation of Christianity. It isn't.
Thanks for this thoughtful and well-informed contribution Leslie. It might also be worth pointing out(and how this would have infuriated Nietzsche) that the Woke sustain themselves by constantly seeking affirmation from the like-minded. The herd mentality and its associated "Sklavenmoral' is what they are all about.
1 Timothy 1:10 bans the slavetrade, this and other biblical scriptures helped men like William Wilberforce take a christian stand against it. My country abolished slavery in 1024 - 1000 years ago - with a set of rules called "christian rights". And ive actually seen lists of this battle against slavery being debated and going back to the days of Rome, so its been a continous struggle against it.
@@orboakin8074 It could be a good meme but the woke are also part of the awakening, and awokening could also mean awakening depending on the intention behind the use of the words. Many intellectuals (like Holland) don't understand that there were a lot of so called "hippies" who opposed the liberal movement when they seen what it was becoming. The original message was always about awakening and transforming consciousness, many got stuck in wokeland and now it's spreading like wildfire, but everyone is just on their own journey through the awakening.
@@garyhynes pretty good point. The best way to counter the woke and their attempts to use the term "awakening" is to simply just re-emphasize their own term "woke". At this point, i doubt they can ever separate themselves from it, much like how the red pill can never be reclaimed by the left.
@@orboakin8074 Agreed. They can't separate themselves from it, but when they're ready to move beyond that particular phase, let us be there for them, like the lads at Trigger had some people on their show that awakened from their awokening. :D
Something that shocked me from researching abolition was how people like Wilberforce still saw Africans as lowly beings,they just thought cruelty was bad but not that they were the same as Europeans.
@@Ok-bk5xx Not really He just thoroughly debunks New Atheist caricatures of Christian history such as the so-called Dark Ages and the crackpot conspiracy theory of Jesus Mythicism.
Very intriguing outlook on the subject indeed. I self study, and in my own estimation consider myself to have yet to receive enlightenment and therefore salvation. However, I do believe that between active study and the practice of prayer, there is much to be gained spiritually as a Christian. At the core of it all though, IMO, divine connection is a personal relationship one has with the Creator, and cannot validly be judged by anyone else outside of that relationship.
Going beyond this, I was surprised reading Kyle Harper's essay Christianity and the Roots of Human Dignity in Late Antiquity of the history of thought about slavery; Specifically that Gregory of Nyssa, also in the 4th century, wrote what is the oldest now known argument against the morality of the institution of slavery. We know of no-one even thinking such a thing before early christian theology. Kind of suggests that Christianity laid the groundwork for the conception of morality needed, even while carrying with it the old testament's approval for slavery more directly.
Christianity didn’t lay down the groundwork or else it wouldn’t have endorsed slavery and it wouldn’t be a religion full of death, destruction and horror. Morality existed before christianity too.
@@ottz2506 Well, I did mention the bible's more explicit support of slavery at the same time. It has the indirect effect of pushing human dignity as an idea. So a couple centuries of people toying with the idea pushes the population in a different direction than what's directly described in the scripture. Also, the ancient world mostly saw slavery (Rome or otherwise) as necessary, and morally appropriate to do to enemy countries. Of course morality isn't new to Christianity. Just like Christianity pushes sexual morality ideas that are suddenly turning horrifying to people for the past couple of decades.
@@afish976 God is meant to be all powerful and can do anything. Bible is the word of God. If slavery was bad in God’s eyes, this would have been made explicitly clear. There didn’t need to be a couple of centuries of toying with the idea while many were horrific lives as slaves that could have been avoided. Okay yeah, the Roman world saw slavery as that….and your point is? Is this moral relativism that many religious right wingers often hypocritically accuse left wingers of engaging in?
@@ottz2506 I'm... not religious myself? And yes, yes I am making making a moral relativism case. There was one case that the right wing... feared was motivating the actions of some version of social progressivism. I am also using moral relativism myself. I mean, how else do you explain the sudden moral objections against Christianity's sexual morality except that somebody else doesn't share the same root values, and so sees their morality as no-morality? It's the same thing as Christians looking at Roman morality as no morality. Any different root values / axioms can look like no morality at all. The case that I think Kyle Harper made about Gregory of Nyssa is really one from timing, within ideological history. Nobody in Rome even attempts the argument... Socrates (I think... or Aristotle) made the opposite argument, that the slaves were naturally slaves. There are earlier moments in history where slavery appears to temporarily fall out of favor with somebody; We might expect somebody to have toyed with the idea during the reign of Wang Mang in the first century in China. But no such thought, or essay, can be found in our era. Earliest thing we have (or know how to find) is Gregory of Nyssa's essay in the 4th century, surprisingly early in Christian history. He makes the comment that it seems quite arrogant of a human to think he could own another human; speaking directly of a verse in the old testament of the Bible. His essay made... no waves, and went nowhere. And yet it exists, as if Christianity had introduced an idea that puts that within reach. Thus Harper's case about Christianity as a step in ideological history.
@@afish976 None of that changed the fact that Christianity endorses slavery and informs people on how to do it. People who called themselves Christians may have expressed their opposition but they clearly had to ignore the very clear support the religion has for slavery. Thankfully these Christians ignored that. Gregory may say that it's arrogant of a human to think he could own another human. Is God, who was responsible for creating everything, therefore super arrogant for allowing slavery and for informing humans on how to keep their slaves? In regards to sexual morality, once again, the Bible is also evil on this regard too so any biblical lecturing should be dismissed as such. Saying 'oh it was just how it was back then' is not an excuse similar to how a person being ignorant of a law isn't considered a credible excuse when they break the law. You are justifying the horrors of the past. Saying 'that's just how it was' is trying to justify what they did. Moral relativism means you can never criticise anything bad in history, which means your contribution is pretty useless when engaging in any good faith discussion. And any right winger who will go on about the horrors of socialism, citing the Soviet Union, will not be able to do so because the SU would have had a different view of right and wrong and thus you can't therefore criticise them. They just had a difference of morals, right? We can't judge them with the morality of right and wrong that we have now
This Pelagius argument also goes back to the conflict between two apparently similar, but fundamentally very different philosophies. 1. The philosophy of the 3 monkeys. 2. The philosophy of redemption. Pick one..if you even understand the difference any more ;)
There are Christians who helped abolish slavery but that was in spite of the bible not because of it. The Bible supports slavery. Many christians just ignore those parts and that’s a good thing. There seems to be a danger in thinking that because a society was ruled by an ideology or a religion that therefore means the religion is therefore true or that every good thing that happened in society happened directly because of the religion
@@boruttrost5750 and everything bad that happens is because of Muslims. But remember, they’re not complaining about Muslims, just Islam. They totally wouldn’t ban Islam and religious freedom for Muslims if they had the opportunity When they say religious freedom, they just mean freedom for Christians only.
the bible does not support american slavery or "slavery" in the context of what we've made it. ppl read the bible as if it's designed around america or culture --- slavery in the bible represented "bond-servants" people who "worked off the wages they owed" and "their masters" were instructed in the Bible to NOT abuse them, to NOT abused their power against them --God reminded the masters "I am the Master of the master" - and not to mistreat bond-servants because they are His children, too.
@@AmericanShadewithBrittanyKing Slavery is slavery no matter how you dress it. Their masters were slave masters. The verses within the bible were used by slave owners in the US to justify slavery, and their masters being super nice to their slaves means nothing. It doesn’t matter if a slave had the kindest master ever. That slave was still a slave. The Bible tells slaves to obey their earthly masters even if they’re bad. The Bible allows masters to beat their slaves as long as they don’t die. Would you want to be my slave (or servant) under how it is described in the Bible at least in the way you interpret it?
Original Sin ? Deuteronomy 5:9 Deuteronomy 24:16 Exodus 34:6-7 Ezekiel 18:2-20 Numbers 14:18 Exodus 20:5-6 John 9:1-3 Jeremiah 31:29-34 1 John 1:9 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 Psalm 51:5 Mark 11:25 1 Kings 15:3 Acts 2:38 Luke 17:3-4 Colossians 3:13 Notice how original sin, becomes 3-4 generations that would shoulder the burden of sin, becomes the sins of the father is not tranferred to the son, becomes sin is forgiven by seeking redemption through the Christ. Forgive us our trespasses....
To say that Christians helped abolish slavery means nothing, as everyone was a Christian anyway, in the early 19th century. Who else in England could have done it? Also, they took a long time to come round to doing it, and then compensated the plantation owners handsomely. The change in public attitudes to slavery is a remarkable and good thing, yes, but was surely due to wider changes in the social and economic order, rather than to any religion. Also, slavery itself in the USA continued after we abolished our participation in the slave trade. The Christian slave owners in the USA, every bit as Christian as our own Christians, wanted to persist with this cruel practice, until the civil war. Making big claims for religion is questionable.
Nice question KK. The concept of a healthy self doubt is a tuff one to harbour - let alone live with. It does however maketh the man and you are top viewing the pair of you. Now pass the chicken I feel like getting biblical
Old Testament slavery had -terms- included, for the hebrew people 'owning' slaves to pay off debt or as spoils of war. there were laws on it on treatment, and a limit; including being set free in the year(s) of jubilee , etc. what the international trade had done in the 1600s-1800's fell far outside of "biblical" construct by an far & unjustifiable, irreconcilable to the scriptures capacity. -Let alone: the scant New Testament directives of who's your neighbor & the dissolving of many cultural standards & nations at the time. by no means excusing or diminishing; though suffice to say, christians were involved in it's dissolution, while many professing Christ religiously attempted to justify & maintain those horrors. (aka: "I never knew you" variety).
the bible does not support american slavery or "slavery" in the context of what we've made it. ppl read the bible as if it's designed around america or culture --- slavery in the bible represented "bond-servants" people who "worked off the wages they owed" and "their masters" were instructed in the Bible to NOT abuse them, to NOT abused their power against them --God reminded the masters "I am the Master of the master" - and not to mistreat bond-servants because they are His children, too.
I'm afraid Holland is incorrect on whether the Bible condones or condemns slavery and in particular the slave trade. Depending on the translation, those who are 'slave traders' are listed alongside perverts, adulterers and liars. The Bible absoulutely condemns any trade in human misery and of course, that's what transatlantic slavery obviously was. Be sure, involvement in the trade of people for subjugation is called 'contary' to the Bible's message - See below: '...for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.' - 1 Timothy 1: 10) Looks pretty clear to me!
"Depending on the translation, those who are 'slave traders' are listed alongside perverts, adulterers and liars." - Yes, and in most translations, homosexuals are also included in this list.
the progressivism of today is not like the one he talks about, todays progress is going towards utopia, or heaven on earth, and that's a christian heresy, and exactly the thing that saint Agustine said not to do.
Either Augustine was an idiot who never read Jesus' most famous prayer or you've got something wrong in the interpretation. Go look up the text of that prayer...the bit about heaven.
If the religion ended slavery, why did it take 1800 years to do so? I would argue it was people who reasoned slavery was immoral and you will see minor changes toward slave prevention laws before even that religion was invented and cumulated with a crusade to end all slavery by people who called themselves after that religion, but had not given all to the poor to pass through an eye of a needle. The slavers resistance against full anti-slavery ended with the industrial revolution making no economic need for them. They made them slaves in other ways. I would argue that the religion didn't provide obstacles to keep slavery, and the UK already had a long internal no slave culture since 1066. So some denominations became fertile grounds to spread the meme of freeing the slaves. But ask yourself why did Europe and the Americas have to be pressured, and Africa darn right attacked to stop the trade if it we a fundamental religious cause?
You make a good point Tommy. The french revolutionaries, motivated by Enlightenment idealism, abolished slavery in the French Empire in 1797 but it was only a temporary measure and Napoleon reintroduced it putting down the Haitian republic with extreme force in the process. However it was the British abolitionists, motivated by Evangelical christianity that set the most powerful military force on the planet, the Royal Navy, on the slavers, funding their patrols for over 40 years and it was US evangelicals who prosecuted a bitter war against the Confederacy (some of whose preachers justified slavery I grant!) and ended it in their country who did the heavy lifting.
Sir, why are you lying about Africa? Many of the kingdoms and tribes fought to preserve slavery because it was part of their culture and economy. e.g. Dahomey (Benin). My own country (nigeria) before the british established it, had multiple slavery-pro kingdoms that were abolished and the practice stopped. Why are you lying about Africa?
@@SharpStyleSavvy it is un natural as ownership of another of the same species is not a normal occurrence in nature. Not even in the basic family unit. This in itself would defy natural morals. But if you believe in a god that actually existed, then that god would also be a follower and ruler of natural order of the universe and this would also make slavery an anti gods will action.
For Britain especially, being at the forefront of the industrial revolution, slavery had become economically untenable, it was actually cheaper to have wage slaves than body slaves. Slavery would have collapsed in America in the same way if not for the insurrectionists.
@@garylancaster8612 John Brown was an insurrectionist, even went to court accused of it, and I'd put the Beecher-Stowe family in a similar category, both strict Calvinists who believed in "G_d's “Sovereignty”, so against the separation of Church and State, so in my book, they are all insurrectionists against the state.
@@orboakin8074 No, Britain ended slavery by paying off the slave owners in the Caribbean. The cost/benefit was diminishing, so they sold out to the State. It's quite possible that might have occurred in America if not for the radical religious factions calling for war. I see parallels on the left today.
You can not have slaves without having masters. That is the law of duality. Therefore, you can not remove slavery without also removing masters. That is fundamentally the difference between democracy and dictatorship. The size of the group doing the dictating, be it one or many, is a strawman. Also known as lesser humans vs free will.
Can someone help me understand from where came this notion that 'original sin' means Christians are born sinners? I always understood it to mean that people were born _capable_ of sin, not with sin. Consider: a baby freshly born, tragically its heart stops and it dies within minutes. What sin has it committed? Obviously none. However, it is perfectly correct (indeed it cannot be argued otherwise) that it was capable of sin had it not died.
Born with a sin nature. Born inclined to sin, desirous of sin, hungry to sin. See Romans 1-5. As soon as a baby *can* culpably sin, he or she will. *That's* Original Sin.
It was some shit invented by men to scare the bejesus out of humankind about themselves and if they don’t acknowledge it then the Church will have no power over them; ie “repent now original sinners or burn everlastingly in hell.” All tosh, of course, but was surprisingly effective for about 1800 years.
@@OntologicalQuandry Because the sin nature is inborn. What I'm describing here is not *capability,* but proclivity. Inclination. Eagerness. Desire. A sinner is what someone is born as, outside of grace, and they will act on that inborn sin nature as soon as possible.
"White" slaves in the USA? NO. John Brown and Harriet Beecher Stowe were not "Quakers", they were strict Calvinists and believed in the sovereignty of G_d, which in many ways was anti-American and anti-Enlightenment. Who is this guy?
This "woke-ism is a substitue for the loss of Judo-Christianic-Religious feelings" BS has got to be nipped in the bud! Woke-ism is dumb. Religiton is dumb. Separate problems. End of.
@@hellodavey1902 You could argue that being straight up executed is more merciful than having to choose between slowly starving to death or compromising your most core identity, but you do you. :)
lol. the closest the Bible comes to admonishing slavery is to tell slave holders not to beat them so savagely as to knock out their teeth or damage their eyes. Jesus EXPECTS his followers to own slaves, and there's a reason slavery happily existed throughout Christendom for about 1800 years.
Right, and the book of Philemon where he is entreated to receive an escaped slave who stole from him back as a brother in Christ was just Paul addressing Philemon as an individual and not as a model for all Christendom. If you're going to chapter and verse me about how the Bible totes endorses [fill in the blank] at least have the decency to read the whole thing, cover to cover.
@@BoneistJ What happened in 1650? In the wider British Empire, transportation of slaves continued until 1807, and slavery until 1833, but I believe that slavery was never reintroduced in English law: see for example the Somerset case of 1772.
So, if we're all sinners . Surely nobody should go to imaginary heaven ? . Also Jesus only known view of slavery was to commend a Roman soldier for treating his slaves well. He never once said anything against slavery and said he didn't want to change anything in the old testament which not only condoned slavery but gave advice on treatment of slaves.
Nobody deserves to go to Heaven, and therefore those who recognize their sin, turn to Jesus for forgiveness, out of their guilt and because they cannot save themselves. Salvation is not something that is . It is essentially a gift. Could you please point me to the Bible verse where Jesus does this? By not wanting to change anything in the old testament, that was literal. It doesn't mean he wanted old testament rule to continue. Christianity asserts that we live under the Covenant of Christ, not the Covenant of Moses.
Disagree wholeheartedly with this take on the role of Christianity on slavery. The abolition of slavery was only possible because of the Georgian eras obsession with condemning law breaking. Perhaps this was a projection by the ruling classes upon the poor of their own disgust with their own debauched conduct? Whatever the reason, Abolitionists eschewed slavery not because of the scale or undeniability of the act (the Ottomans lived with much worse, even greater numbers were enslaved in dark ages Europe) but because the debased behaviour of the ruling classes was making their lives meaningless and they "had to do something" because abusing people just wasn't fun anymore, and besides, machines could do things a lot more efficiently and cheaply than even enslaved people.
Maybe, in practice. But I also think he's forgotten to make the point that the principle idea, that all people have intrinsic value, derives from Christianity. I think this became a driving factor.
It says in the Bible something along the lines of, you can beat your slave within an inch of their lives as long as you don't kill them or they don't die within a given period I would have to check it to get the word of god as he said it!
Look at Exodus 20.20-21 dear John; however, you should also look at what is said about beating slaves in other ancient cultures (Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome) where slaves could be beaten to death without any consequences to their 'masters whereas masters could be punished if their slave died according to biblical legislation; at least some disincentive to the extremes of cruelty (deeply unsatisfactory I grant you from our point of view). Other biblical words on the subject are always aiming to restrict this practice, universal in the ancient world, and make it more humane. (See Deuteronomy 15.12ff for instance and the letter to Philemon in the New Testament). There is a trajectory here and its end is the conclusion reached by Christian abolitionists such as John Wesley and William Wilberforce that slavery was against the will of God and should be extirpated. Would that it had been, for it continues to this day, does it not?
as a dyslexic I am not going to read the book, as an atheist, I am not going to read the book. When people tell me the word of God is law and their good is a loving just God, and then try justifying bits of the Bible I find it all a bit hypocritical!
@@johnbelcher7955 So basically, you make excuses for not reading the bible or understanding context rather than just admit you got this one wrong? There is literally a chapter in the new testament where Saint Paul implores a slave owner to free his slave, Onesimus and welcome him as a Christian. Onesimus was actually freed and became a bishop. So what the hell are you on about when you insist Christianity is pro-slavery just because the old testament (i.e the scriptures before Christianity existed) promote it?
Absolute pish. People professing a faith have been part of abolition, alongside others professing none, but there is simply no grounds *within* the religion to do so. Indeed, it was the texts themselves that provided the very framework and epistemological backing for it. The texts say that slaves should obey their Christian masters as well as what one can do to them when they don't. I used to have time for Holland but the more I hear about this baseless, wish-thinking reverse history I have less inclination to listen. He's wrong. Obviously so.
One of the key components of this video was Tom Holland explicitly stating that, unlike judaism and Islam, Christians aren't slavishly committed to their texts as per St Paul.
You need to look at the time the text was written, it was the time of the Roman Empire, Christianity hadn't left Judaism either So many people in the empire had slaves, the Jewish law says that you do not abuse others, including slaves.
@@catrinholmes7026 With respect I do not care. The texts,which mandate and officiate slavery and never repudiated it, are supposed to be authored by the one and only divine bring and creator or the universe. That *is* the claim. So to say "others were doing it so what do you expect " just highlights this is man made. Slavery persisted for so long *because * of its association with Christianity, and frankly if eventually some , at loooong last, some resisted it I'd say it was about time they did. I just can't see how they would square that with a deity that clearly expected people yo keep dkaces and went do far as to say those slaves should obey their Christian masters. No, this won't do. It's crap. It would be nice if Christianity *was* a bulwark against the evil of slavery but it isn't and was not and its unseemly - to say nothing of counterfactual - to suggest that it is.
Men who owned slaves did so because they were generally high-testosterone badasses, not because they were "bad" in a moral sense. And their slave ownership signaled their reproductive fitness to the fertile women in their tribes, who wanted to marry them and bear their children.
Nope. Slaves were simply labour-saving devices. We have washing machines and microwave ovens: the Romans had slaves. Obviously any potential wife will prefer a man who owned slaves - it meant she had less housework to do.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 The Chads who owned slaves were higher-status, more valuable mates for fertile women than the less competitive men who didn't own slaves. For one thing, the Chad slaveowners had more wealth to invest into their wives' offspring, and that has always been an important consideration for a woman's choice in a husband.
WATCH the full episode with Tom Holland here: th-cam.com/video/a27Z1qrguaw/w-d-xo.html
I am puzzled by the choice of this clip. I get that one problem with the "woke" is that they overrate their own virtue. But it seems to me to be a non sequitur to suggest that the doctrine of original sin is the only antidote, and hence attribute this failing to the decline of Christianity. Most people know they are not perfect - indeed not even factually correct some of the time. It is ideologues who tend to be more convinced that they are (in the) right. Ideological thought is common ground between the woke movement and many religions, particularly the monotheistic ones, and not a distinction between them.
Concerning progress (on issues such as slavery, equality of opportunity e.g. for women), I think it can be argued convincingly that these are driven by societal, technological and economic changes, more than by moral realisations. For example, the birth control pill had a huge impact: the "freedom" celebrated by hippies was (in part) freedom from the constraints of traditional sexual morality, not a belief that they were perfect.
I notice that some commentators appreciated this clip, and Tom Holland makes a couple of thought-provoking statements, but I found his explanation for the woke movement very unconvincing, and if you found it convincing, I am puzzled as to why.
@@johnjameson6751 I get what he's saying, but recast it in my own way, "Less Pride, More Humility". One of the tenants of "Woke" is everyone is "great" within their standpoint, so if you are FAT, you can take pride in your fatness, if homeless, you can take pride in your homelessness. I'm old enough to have been a hippie, lived a few miles from Charles Manson in 1969, this Tom guy does not have a clue.
This channel is a dim light and I'm being generous.
NICE! This is one I am definitely excited for. Really shocks me how so many westerners are unaware of this fact of history and like to posit the misguided notion that Christianity created slavery and did nothing to oppose it. Heck! In much of Africa, especially my country of Nigeria, before colonialism and Europeans came, slavery was practiced and upheld by the inhabitants and even the Arabs who were there. It wasn't until the British and the French came in that slavery was opposed and eventually abolished either peacefully or via military force. And yes, I know that the British and French did it for their own colonial ambitions but I don't care because at the end of it, the net result was the abolition of slavery. Thank goodness for that.
“Slaves, Obey your masters” -St Paul, New Testament
@@killgriffinnow
That’s right. 1/2 of the Roman world was enslaved. And sometimes the word “slave” can refer to “employee”.
@@killgriffinnow except slavery back in the day was not even comparable. If you kidnapped a person you were killed. Their slavery was a common way to pay back debt or to serve a criminal sentence. The mosaic law was radically countercultural in that it gave slaves actual rights and their owners a responsibility for them.
@@killgriffinnow I assume you are not trying to make a case that Christians, specifically Paul, viewed the institution of slavery as a good thing. I assume you watched the video so you saw where he discussed that Christians did not create or encourage the institution of slavery. They viewed it as a societal evil that was part of the universal fallen nature of humans.
Also, not to be too pedantic, but you are citing a looser translation of Eph 6.5 and/or Col 3.22. A better translation would be "bondservant".
« The Roman institution of being a “bondservant” (Gk. δουλοι [doulos]) was different from the institution of slavery in North America during the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries. Bondservants generally were permitted to work for pay and to save enough to buy their freedom. The New Testament assumes that trafficking in human beings is a sin, and Paul urges Christian slaves who can gain freedom to do so. The released slave was officially designated a “freedman” and frequently continued to work for his former master. Many extant inscriptions from freedmen indicate the tendency to adopt the family name of their former master (now their “patron”) and to continue honoring them. » - Lane T. Dennis and Wayne Grudem, eds., The ESV Study Bible, 2008.
There were also slaves without recourse to freedom unless they made an arrangement with their master.
In another letter, Paul wrote:
". . . The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for . . . ENSLAVERS, liars, perjurers . . ." (1 Tim 1.9-10 ESV)
So if enslaving people is a sin and Paul told bondservants/slaves to gain their freedom if they could, what do Eph 6.5 and Col 3.22 mean? What's the context? The passages from Ephesians and Colossians are essentially the same so we'll just look at Ephesians:
"Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free." (Eph 6.5-8 ESV)
Ephesians and Colossians are letters written to the churches at Ephesus and Colossae respectively. He is writing to a *Christian* audience telling them how they should and should not behave if these are their circumstances. He is not writing an open letter to the Roman Empire promoting the institution of slavery.
No, he is teaching *Christians* how to behave whatever their station in life, no matter how bad it is. Ideally, they could fulfill their debt or arrange a deal to gain their freedom, but he is telling Christians the way to behave if they are currently stuck in that situation.
@@476429
Yes. The slaves (Half of the population) during Roman rule could be used for anything: labor, sex, etc. They had no rights.
Lovely to see Tom Holland. I'm a huge fan of his work and it started after watching this full interview. Thank you!
Honestly same. I think he's the best spiderman.
Uncharted was shit tho
He’s brilliant isn’t he
If someone believes they are without sin. If they think they are morally perfect... they must be kept from the levers of power at all costs. If they are so self unaware... so deluded... their legacy will only be marked by mass graves.
Russian leaders believe they have supreme power given by God …even if they don’t believe in God..so they basically can’t be questioned. And yes would be good to keep them from power but what to do ..most Russians want an autocratic leader. They consider democracy messy and chaotic…. but Buddhism has a very different take. They don’t believe in original sin as per Christians and Jews. They believe it is possible to purify the mind but the result is very different to what they talk about here ..wokeness and moral superiority. Actually the result here following the Buddhist path is to get rid of the superiority/inferiority mindset, greed, hatred and delusion…the resulting mind once this is achieved is a very loving, very caring, non judgmental and very and very wise and peaceful mind. They lead incredibly moral lives and harm no one but never preach and looking down on others is impossible for those developed in this way.
Definitely do not disagree with this. But how do you tell if someone believes this? What test should we put before those who would approach the levers of power?
@@Corkie0000 It's been my experience that they'll tell you.
Morally perfect and without sin are completely 2 different matters. 'I am' NOT a sinner because I don't believe in what the church calls SIN. It has NOTHING to do with thinking one is morally perfect. It's a common deception tactic by the church and corrupted, self righteous religious folks.
I do not have any sin, can you send me some?
This key insight is extremely important. It's a defining component of the positive aspects of Western civilization.
As a non-western, I couldn't agree more. The entire reason slavery was abolished in what became Nigeria (my country) is due to western civilization (the British)
@@orboakin8074 interesting. Would you say that Islam in Nigeria has been influenced by Christianity / the British legacy? Or are they separated along this subject?
@@philastevenson The only real influence I can say exists is that islam in the north of Nigeria is more resentful of the south and of Christianity and also uses that to fuel more tribal tensions. Due to the longer presence of the British in the southern parts of Nigeria, we benefitted more by embracing the economic model (more free-market oriented) and also embracing western education. Thus, the south tends to have more infrastructure and a more educated and financially well-off population than the north. Though the north is more tribally homogenous, due to the fact that the British, after defeating the Sokoto caliphate but not ending their social structure like in the south, they never modernized like us in the south. That is why terror groups like Boko Haram were able to exist due to the lower socioeconomic standards there and they were created with a mandate of repressing any western influences in the north and causing instability for the south. That being said, a lot more northerners are killed by these terrorists so that has the effect of poisoning the northerners against them.
@@orboakin8074 thanks for this reply, I’d never heard of Sokoto caliphate, I should read up, esp as British history also. My uni roommate, Osa was studying economics I think- I showed him my anthropology essays on witchcraft and he said “ we don’t do that stuff anymore!” But I know it can remain in various syncretic forms In Islamic or Christian countries. It sounds like boko haram is a form of populism. Can you recommend me any good books on Nigerian history?
@@philastevenson Glad I could help you, friend. As for book recommendations, the best I can recommend (in terms of being objective and well structured regarding my country's history) would be "A History of Nigeria" by Toyin falola. I would also recommend "Conquest and Culture" by Thomas Sowell. There is a good explanation on the various major tribes in Nigeria and how their interactions with the British played a role in the country's history. On the subject of boko haram, they really are not a populist group. They are simply another islamist extremist group (more akin to the Mexican cartel) and the only reason they have continued to exist is due to the poor development and low level of security and socioeconomic opportunities in the north that allowed them to operate with impunity. That has been changing wiwth increased industrialization and education efforts in the north but they keep hampering this and they are still a major problem and islamists from other northern African countries like Chad and Niger have been making incursions into Nigeria to swell their ranks cause trouble.
It always astonishes me during the slavery conversation that no child in the UK has even heard of John Wesley. His book "Thoughts On Slavery" after his visits to the colonies, what the situation gle most important catalyst that changed Slavery, and world history, forever. The consequences of his book, entirely changed everything from the British Empire, its economy, trade, laws, social systems, international treaties... the list is endless. And I've never met a single person who knows his name.
The founder of the Methodist Church?
Sure give John Wesley all the plaudits you can for his views on abolishing slavery. It is due credit to him. That doesn't imply that it was Christianity that led to the abolishing of slavery. This is simply a man that was disgusted by slavery using his faith to justify is disgust of the practice. There were equally many proponents of slavery that found equal justification in Christianity and the Bible.
Ive heared him but im not British
We were taught about him in school! But only I presume because my school was Methodist. He should be taught much more widely and as part of the UK curriculum.
“Before we call either Culture or Humanism a substitute for religion, there is a very plain question that can be asked in a form of a very homely metaphor. Humanism may try to pick up the pieces; but can it stick them together? Where is the cement which made religion corporate and popular, which can prevent it falling to pieces in a debris of individualistic tastes and degrees? What is to prevent one Humanist wanting chastity without humility, and another humility without chastity, and another truth or beauty without either? The problem of an enduring ethic and culture consists in finding an arrangement of the pieces by which they remain related, as do the stones arranged in an arch. And I know of only one scheme that has thus proved its solidity, bestriding lands and ages with its gigantic arches, and carrying everywhere the high river of baptism upon an aqueduct of Rome.”
Holland has struck upon the Truth that all that is good and different in Western Society, like the end of slavery, trace their source back to Christ. He has not yet come to the Truth that up to the Middle Ages it was progress, but from the moment of the “Enlightenment” when God as center was replaced by “Man is the measure” and the Reformation said “everyone can read scripture for themselves” - these led to individualism and to the humanism Chesterton warningly addresses above.
Slavery ending. Modern Science rising. Just War Theory. These are the strains of Christianity still having effects. They are the trickling down benefits from the Gospel spreading throughout the West for over a millennia. But Secularism, Progressivism, Deconstructionism, Postmodernism- these are all the unraveling of the cloth. The removal of the mortar that is crumbling down the walls.
We cannot keep the fruits of Christianity, and we are seeing them fall away now, without returning to the true belief in Christ as the Son of God. Religion is the necessary mortar.
What Holland found in history, Jordan Peterson finds in mythology. Chesterton already laid out both of these ideas in his book The Everlasting Man.
As to slavery. Ideas against slavery and slave trading were shared by theologians centuries before the abolitionist movement. Christianity rose to a significant enough power to effect this change AND the industrial revolution allowed for slavery to be replaced. Before this level of industry slave societies would conquer because they were stronger because they had slaves. Industrial power could compete and even out-compete slavery. The combination of Christian morality and practical capability ended slavery. And this is no credit to whites or Europeans.
It just so happens that Paul spread Christianity throughout Europe and Christ is to be credited for slavery’s ending. When the Son of God comes down and says, “I have died for everyone”, it is impossible to argue that we are not all essentially equal in some spiritual way and God said so ending all arguments against it. Egalitarianism is the only conclusion to the gospel.
Time to repair the wall by putting the mortar back in. Get your asses back to the Masses people. Otherwise, we are heading toward a global totalitarian nightmare of Chinese, Marxist rule.
Wow, so much to learn in just one comment. Thank you 🙏
Whatever they thought was going to replace religion has failed to live up to expectations. The emerging secular religion is basically being cobbled together from whatever anti-Christian ideas happen to be floating around, it's a grotesque monstrosity and it's outrunning the humanist philosophers who imagined they could shape it. They already believe that racism is actually anti-racism, that men are women, that children can be pansexual... We won't even be able to argue about chastity without humility, because few will know or care what those things actually are. I wrote a song called "Racism is Bad" and it's about this emerging religion, th-cam.com/video/4JHcSOCeuAE/w-d-xo.html
Awesome comments! Love the comment about JBP, Holland and Chesterton. I’ve read them all and that’s a great way of putting it!
One of the best comments I’ve read on TH-cam
All have sinned. None is without blame.
@@publiusovidius7386 Have you ever lied to anybody ever?
Thanks for reminding me of this interview that I now remember to be one of my favourites!
‘You bring back original sin because YOU feel liberated.’ Brilliant
How anyone could suppose any human being could become perfect is beyond me. All the available evidence from all of history around the entire world, says otherwise.
Jesus becoming perfect is not Christian theology. He is eternally perfect and is also perfect now.
Scripture doesn't claim that Jesus became perfect, but that he is the standard of perfection.
@@homeskillet9802 amen brother 🙏 , no progressive will ever come close, no matter how delusional they believe they are virtuous and elevated above the average person
It's a paradox, we're perfect and imperfect at the same time. Religion says it has to be one or the other and it's beyond boring. The hippies said "I am what I am", and that's true and fine. Then Jordan Peterson said "But you're not what you could be" and that's true and fine too.
Perfect is not what I get of the gospel. Christians well never be perfect is what I get from the gospel or have been taught.
Fascinating. Thank you.
Love the point about being morally over confidant.
I was very conflicted that the Bible was not against slavery. How could God 🙏 not be to against this evil.
Tom Holland explained that the gift of Christianity to mankind cleared the pathway and the ambiguity that existed before the legislation that effectively made slavery redundant. The gift always existed, but it was mankind's concioness that needed it to expand and expunge this evil.
Thank you Tom and thank you Triggnometry.
Now hopefully it will inspire Hinduism and mohemmedanism to abandon slavery in all its forms (indentured labour, indentured servants, contract labour to exploit a poor persons vulnerability).
What made slavery redundant was the Industrial Revolution. They were primarily labour-saving devices in age that didn’t yet have machines.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 Sir, if industry and technological advancements were all that was needed to end slavery, then the CCP would not be using Uighurs as slaves today and Mauritania would not have waited until the 2000s to abolish slavery and the middle east would also not have slaves today. The industrial revolution played a huge role but it was due to changing cultural norms and the advent of growing liberalism borne from Judeo-Christian framework.
@@orboakin8074 - Sure, it’s not the whole story. But the key thing that drove the British to start a worldwide campaign to abolish slavery soon after 1800 - enforced by Royal Navy ships - was the Industrial Revolution which began in Britain and was starting to produce machines that could replace slaves. Obviously the morale foundation to do so existed earlier, but the practical business reason was lacking.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 True. It's clear that more than one singular factor played a role in the end.
Christianity is pro slavery. You’re just going to have to accept that, condemn it and move on. God from the very start could have just said “slavery is wrong” but he didn’t. He made RULES on how to treat them. That’s not being against slavery. That’s a full on endorsement with a handbook on how to do it. There didn’t need to be legislation or any arguing. God could have just said it’s bad and be done with it.
People who happened to be Christians helped to abolish slavery. Christianity didn’t.
Fantastic. This is almost lost, forgotten knowledge.
It has been deliberately buried by the Marxist teaching establishment. And also by the truly heathen established church
sad but true.
Rousseau is the major influence behind the flowering of 'expressive individualism' (Taylor, 2007) in modernity but especially in late modernity. Rousseau thought culture corrupts our natural state of goodness. In postmodernity, Nietzche becomes the dominant influence. N's idea of overcoming the death of god and the corollary of meaninglessness is achieved by a continuously creative act of will, as someone acting like the overman (a superman), which is reinforced by his further insight that knowledge equates with power. This perspective is then appropriated by Foucault and disseminated to a popular audience by various late- and postmodern 'isms'. So instead of Nietzsche's idea of the overman creating meaning, what in fact happens is that this very idea reinforces the nihilism that Nietzche feared - that nihilism would level all meaningful differences. In our own time, people think that striking an attitude equates to a deeply creative act. Woke is the overman diminished to the trivial act of striking an attitude, which has nothing to do with historic Christianity. Tom Holland gets woke wrong when he thinks it is another manifestation of Christianity. It isn't.
Thanks for this thoughtful and well-informed contribution Leslie. It might also be worth pointing out(and how this would have infuriated Nietzsche) that the Woke sustain themselves by constantly seeking affirmation from the like-minded. The herd mentality and its associated "Sklavenmoral' is what they are all about.
@@JabezBunting-w2z Yes. N. despised mediocrity.
@@lesliecunliffe4450 "The ability to endure contradiction is a good indication of culture." - Nietzche
1 Timothy 1:10 bans the slavetrade, this and other biblical scriptures helped men like William Wilberforce take a christian stand against it. My country abolished slavery in 1024 - 1000 years ago - with a set of rules called "christian rights". And ive actually seen lists of this battle against slavery being debated and going back to the days of Rome, so its been a continous struggle against it.
I think it's important to differentiate between awakening and awokening.
Someone needs to put this one shirt or make a meme of it! *Awake=/=awoke*
@@orboakin8074 It could be a good meme but the woke are also part of the awakening, and awokening could also mean awakening depending on the intention behind the use of the words. Many intellectuals (like Holland) don't understand that there were a lot of so called "hippies" who opposed the liberal movement when they seen what it was becoming. The original message was always about awakening and transforming consciousness, many got stuck in wokeland and now it's spreading like wildfire, but everyone is just on their own journey through the awakening.
@@garyhynes pretty good point. The best way to counter the woke and their attempts to use the term "awakening" is to simply just re-emphasize their own term "woke". At this point, i doubt they can ever separate themselves from it, much like how the red pill can never be reclaimed by the left.
@@orboakin8074 Agreed. They can't separate themselves from it, but when they're ready to move beyond that particular phase, let us be there for them, like the lads at Trigger had some people on their show that awakened from their awokening. :D
Something that shocked me from researching abolition was how people like Wilberforce still saw Africans as lowly beings,they just thought cruelty was bad but not that they were the same as Europeans.
Toms book Dominion is meant to be seminal.
The "own agency" doctrine is Mormon as well. Third level of heaven by becoming perfect
Loved him in Spiderman, but this is even better.
;)
6:25 When I heard this I scoffed, "That's rich coming from Keynes!"
You guys should also interview Tim O'Neill (history for atheists)
Okay, I think Tim o'neill is a Atheist Catholic (or cultural Catholic)
@@Ok-bk5xx Not really
He just thoroughly debunks New Atheist caricatures of Christian history such as the so-called Dark Ages and the crackpot conspiracy theory of Jesus Mythicism.
Very intriguing outlook on the subject indeed. I self study, and in my own estimation consider myself to have yet to receive enlightenment and therefore salvation. However, I do believe that between active study and the practice of prayer, there is much to be gained spiritually as a Christian. At the core of it all though, IMO, divine connection is a personal relationship one has with the Creator, and cannot validly be judged by anyone else outside of that relationship.
Going beyond this, I was surprised reading Kyle Harper's essay Christianity and the Roots of Human Dignity in Late Antiquity of the history of thought about slavery; Specifically that Gregory of Nyssa, also in the 4th century, wrote what is the oldest now known argument against the morality of the institution of slavery. We know of no-one even thinking such a thing before early christian theology.
Kind of suggests that Christianity laid the groundwork for the conception of morality needed, even while carrying with it the old testament's approval for slavery more directly.
Christianity didn’t lay down the groundwork or else it wouldn’t have endorsed slavery and it wouldn’t be a religion full of death, destruction and horror. Morality existed before christianity too.
@@ottz2506 Well, I did mention the bible's more explicit support of slavery at the same time. It has the indirect effect of pushing human dignity as an idea. So a couple centuries of people toying with the idea pushes the population in a different direction than what's directly described in the scripture.
Also, the ancient world mostly saw slavery (Rome or otherwise) as necessary, and morally appropriate to do to enemy countries. Of course morality isn't new to Christianity. Just like Christianity pushes sexual morality ideas that are suddenly turning horrifying to people for the past couple of decades.
@@afish976 God is meant to be all powerful and can do anything. Bible is the word of God. If slavery was bad in God’s eyes, this would have been made explicitly clear. There didn’t need to be a couple of centuries of toying with the idea while many were horrific lives as slaves that could have been avoided.
Okay yeah, the Roman world saw slavery as that….and your point is? Is this moral relativism that many religious right wingers often hypocritically accuse left wingers of engaging in?
@@ottz2506 I'm... not religious myself? And yes, yes I am making making a moral relativism case. There was one case that the right wing... feared was motivating the actions of some version of social progressivism. I am also using moral relativism myself. I mean, how else do you explain the sudden moral objections against Christianity's sexual morality except that somebody else doesn't share the same root values, and so sees their morality as no-morality? It's the same thing as Christians looking at Roman morality as no morality. Any different root values / axioms can look like no morality at all.
The case that I think Kyle Harper made about Gregory of Nyssa is really one from timing, within ideological history. Nobody in Rome even attempts the argument... Socrates (I think... or Aristotle) made the opposite argument, that the slaves were naturally slaves. There are earlier moments in history where slavery appears to temporarily fall out of favor with somebody; We might expect somebody to have toyed with the idea during the reign of Wang Mang in the first century in China. But no such thought, or essay, can be found in our era. Earliest thing we have (or know how to find) is Gregory of Nyssa's essay in the 4th century, surprisingly early in Christian history. He makes the comment that it seems quite arrogant of a human to think he could own another human; speaking directly of a verse in the old testament of the Bible. His essay made... no waves, and went nowhere. And yet it exists, as if Christianity had introduced an idea that puts that within reach. Thus Harper's case about Christianity as a step in ideological history.
@@afish976 None of that changed the fact that Christianity endorses slavery and informs people on how to do it. People who called themselves Christians may have expressed their opposition but they clearly had to ignore the very clear support the religion has for slavery. Thankfully these Christians ignored that. Gregory may say that it's arrogant of a human to think he could own another human. Is God, who was responsible for creating everything, therefore super arrogant for allowing slavery and for informing humans on how to keep their slaves? In regards to sexual morality, once again, the Bible is also evil on this regard too so any biblical lecturing should be dismissed as such. Saying 'oh it was just how it was back then' is not an excuse similar to how a person being ignorant of a law isn't considered a credible excuse when they break the law. You are justifying the horrors of the past. Saying 'that's just how it was' is trying to justify what they did.
Moral relativism means you can never criticise anything bad in history, which means your contribution is pretty useless when engaging in any good faith discussion. And any right winger who will go on about the horrors of socialism, citing the Soviet Union, will not be able to do so because the SU would have had a different view of right and wrong and thus you can't therefore criticise them. They just had a difference of morals, right? We can't judge them with the morality of right and wrong that we have now
That`s.. not the Tom Holland I`ve anticipated
He looks very different in a Spider-Man costume. I think he’s let himself go a bit.
🤪
The Pelagian heresy is behind the faults of some Christian denominations too,
such as Methodism.
This Pelagius argument also goes back to the conflict between two apparently similar, but fundamentally very different philosophies.
1. The philosophy of the 3 monkeys.
2. The philosophy of redemption.
Pick one..if you even understand the difference any more ;)
There are Christians who helped abolish slavery but that was in spite of the bible not because of it. The Bible supports slavery. Many christians just ignore those parts and that’s a good thing.
There seems to be a danger in thinking that because a society was ruled by an ideology or a religion that therefore means the religion is therefore true or that every good thing that happened in society happened directly because of the religion
Hey, Christians are the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Of course anything good that happens in this world is only thanks to them.
@@boruttrost5750 and everything bad that happens is because of Muslims. But remember, they’re not complaining about Muslims, just Islam. They totally wouldn’t ban Islam and religious freedom for Muslims if they had the opportunity
When they say religious freedom, they just mean freedom for Christians only.
the bible does not support american slavery or "slavery" in the context of what we've made it. ppl read the bible as if it's designed around america or culture --- slavery in the bible represented "bond-servants" people who "worked off the wages they owed" and "their masters" were instructed in the Bible to NOT abuse them, to NOT abused their power against them --God reminded the masters "I am the Master of the master" - and not to mistreat bond-servants because they are His children, too.
@@AmericanShadewithBrittanyKing Slavery is slavery no matter how you dress it. Their masters were slave masters. The verses within the bible were used by slave owners in the US to justify slavery, and their masters being super nice to their slaves means nothing. It doesn’t matter if a slave had the kindest master ever. That slave was still a slave. The Bible tells slaves to obey their earthly masters even if they’re bad. The Bible allows masters to beat their slaves as long as they don’t die.
Would you want to be my slave (or servant) under how it is described in the Bible at least in the way you interpret it?
Great article snippet
Between the two on 'The Rest Is History, im glad to see Tom Holland put history into context, irrelevant to the cost.
Original Sin ?
Deuteronomy 5:9
Deuteronomy 24:16
Exodus 34:6-7
Ezekiel 18:2-20
Numbers 14:18
Exodus 20:5-6
John 9:1-3
Jeremiah 31:29-34
1 John 1:9
2 Corinthians 5:17-21
Psalm 51:5
Mark 11:25
1 Kings 15:3
Acts 2:38
Luke 17:3-4
Colossians 3:13
Notice how original sin, becomes 3-4 generations that would shoulder the burden of sin, becomes the sins of the father is not tranferred to the son, becomes sin is forgiven by seeking redemption through the Christ.
Forgive us our trespasses....
To say that Christians helped abolish slavery means nothing, as everyone was a Christian anyway, in the early 19th century. Who else in England could have done it? Also, they took a long time to come round to doing it, and then compensated the plantation owners handsomely. The change in public attitudes to slavery is a remarkable and good thing, yes, but was surely due to wider changes in the social and economic order, rather than to any religion. Also, slavery itself in the USA continued after we abolished our participation in the slave trade. The Christian slave owners in the USA, every bit as Christian as our own Christians, wanted to persist with this cruel practice, until the civil war. Making big claims for religion is questionable.
Nice question KK. The concept of a healthy self doubt is a tuff one to harbour - let alone live with. It does however maketh the man and you are top viewing the pair of you. Now pass the chicken I feel like getting biblical
Old Testament slavery had -terms- included, for the hebrew people 'owning' slaves to pay off debt or as spoils of war. there were laws on it on treatment, and a limit; including being set free in the year(s) of jubilee , etc. what the international trade had done in the 1600s-1800's fell far outside of "biblical" construct by an far & unjustifiable, irreconcilable to the scriptures capacity. -Let alone: the scant New Testament directives of who's your neighbor & the dissolving of many cultural standards & nations at the time.
by no means excusing or diminishing; though suffice to say, christians were involved in it's dissolution, while many professing Christ religiously attempted to justify & maintain those horrors. (aka: "I never knew you" variety).
Exactly
Proud to be 1/4 Quaker!
With age comes wisdom.
No evidence of slavery in Israelite material culture slavery is always presented badly
Tom Holland is conveniently a Christian. This says everything, so fortunate that he favours a Christian view.
Has an Athiest/agnost actually
@@SharpStyleSavvy wiki page disagrees with you
@@leehogg4624
Practicing Christian.... (He follows it as a philosophy) but not believing in god and resruction
@@SharpStyleSavvy takes all sorts I suppose
How is having something to objectively back your morals a bad thing?
Abolished? Uh... there are a few regions on the planet where it's rare, but a lot more where it's prevalent.
The communists have more slaves than every religion combined.
the bible does not support american slavery or "slavery" in the context of what we've made it. ppl read the bible as if it's designed around america or culture --- slavery in the bible represented "bond-servants" people who "worked off the wages they owed" and "their masters" were instructed in the Bible to NOT abuse them, to NOT abused their power against them --God reminded the masters "I am the Master of the master" - and not to mistreat bond-servants because they are His children, too.
I'm afraid Holland is incorrect on whether the Bible condones or condemns slavery and in particular the slave trade. Depending on the translation, those who are 'slave traders' are listed alongside perverts, adulterers and liars. The Bible absoulutely condemns any trade in human misery and of course, that's what transatlantic slavery obviously was. Be sure, involvement in the trade of people for subjugation is called 'contary' to the Bible's message - See below:
'...for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.'
- 1 Timothy 1: 10)
Looks pretty clear to me!
"Depending on the translation, those who are 'slave traders' are listed alongside perverts, adulterers and liars." - Yes, and in most translations, homosexuals are also included in this list.
the progressivism of today is not like the one he talks about, todays progress is going towards utopia, or heaven on earth, and that's a christian heresy, and exactly the thing that saint Agustine said not to do.
Either Augustine was an idiot who never read Jesus' most famous prayer or you've got something wrong in the interpretation. Go look up the text of that prayer...the bit about heaven.
If the religion ended slavery, why did it take 1800 years to do so? I would argue it was people who reasoned slavery was immoral and you will see minor changes toward slave prevention laws before even that religion was invented and cumulated with a crusade to end all slavery by people who called themselves after that religion, but had not given all to the poor to pass through an eye of a needle. The slavers resistance against full anti-slavery ended with the industrial revolution making no economic need for them. They made them slaves in other ways.
I would argue that the religion didn't provide obstacles to keep slavery, and the UK already had a long internal no slave culture since 1066. So some denominations became fertile grounds to spread the meme of freeing the slaves. But ask yourself why did Europe and the Americas have to be pressured, and Africa darn right attacked to stop the trade if it we a fundamental religious cause?
You make a good point Tommy. The french revolutionaries, motivated by Enlightenment idealism, abolished slavery in the French Empire in 1797 but it was only a temporary measure and Napoleon reintroduced it putting down the Haitian republic with extreme force in the process. However it was the British abolitionists, motivated by Evangelical christianity that set the most powerful military force on the planet, the Royal Navy, on the slavers, funding their patrols for over 40 years and it was US evangelicals who prosecuted a bitter war against the Confederacy (some of whose preachers justified slavery I grant!) and ended it in their country who did the heavy lifting.
Sir, why are you lying about Africa? Many of the kingdoms and tribes fought to preserve slavery because it was part of their culture and economy. e.g. Dahomey (Benin). My own country (nigeria) before the british established it, had multiple slavery-pro kingdoms that were abolished and the practice stopped. Why are you lying about Africa?
Okay, can u name me 1 single reason why slaaavery is wrong!?
@@SharpStyleSavvy it is un natural as ownership of another of the same species is not a normal occurrence in nature. Not even in the basic family unit.
This in itself would defy natural morals.
But if you believe in a god that actually existed, then that god would also be a follower and ruler of natural order of the universe and this would also make slavery an anti gods will action.
@@tommyrotton9468
What natural morals?
Where they come from?
Where are the written?
Plzzz lemme know i wanna read them for myself
Tom is fab
For Britain especially, being at the forefront of the industrial revolution, slavery had become economically untenable, it was actually cheaper to have wage slaves than body slaves. Slavery would have collapsed in America in the same way if not for the insurrectionists.
Who do you consider to be the insurrectionists, the Abolitionists or the Confederates?
@@garylancaster8612 my guess is the ones that fought to keep it going. But the comment isn’t clear
Oh, you mean those goddamn democrat/dixiecrat confederates?
@@garylancaster8612 John Brown was an insurrectionist, even went to court accused of it, and I'd put the Beecher-Stowe family in a similar category, both strict Calvinists who believed in "G_d's “Sovereignty”, so against the separation of Church and State, so in my book, they are all insurrectionists against the state.
@@orboakin8074 No, Britain ended slavery by paying off the slave owners in the Caribbean. The cost/benefit was diminishing, so they sold out to the State. It's quite possible that might have occurred in America if not for the radical religious factions calling for war. I see parallels on the left today.
You can not have slaves without having masters.
That is the law of duality.
Therefore, you can not remove slavery without also removing masters.
That is fundamentally the difference between democracy and dictatorship.
The size of the group doing the dictating, be it one or many, is a strawman.
Also known as lesser humans vs free will.
Can someone help me understand from where came this notion that 'original sin' means Christians are born sinners?
I always understood it to mean that people were born _capable_ of sin, not with sin.
Consider: a baby freshly born, tragically its heart stops and it dies within minutes. What sin has it committed? Obviously none. However, it is perfectly correct (indeed it cannot be argued otherwise) that it was capable of sin had it not died.
Born with a sin nature. Born inclined to sin, desirous of sin, hungry to sin. See Romans 1-5.
As soon as a baby *can* culpably sin, he or she will.
*That's* Original Sin.
It was some shit invented by men to scare the bejesus out of humankind about themselves and if they don’t acknowledge it then the Church will have no power over them; ie “repent now original sinners or burn everlastingly in hell.” All tosh, of course, but was surprisingly effective for about 1800 years.
@@BardOfShwa Yes, that seems to back up exaclty what I was saying.
So why do people imply it is 'born sinners'?
@@OntologicalQuandry Because the sin nature is inborn. What I'm describing here is not *capability,* but proclivity. Inclination. Eagerness. Desire. A sinner is what someone is born as, outside of grace, and they will act on that inborn sin nature as soon as possible.
"White" slaves in the USA? NO. John Brown and Harriet Beecher Stowe were not "Quakers", they were strict Calvinists and believed in the sovereignty of G_d, which in many ways was anti-American and anti-Enlightenment. Who is this guy?
Hahah Tom Holland is literly reprogamming everyone he speak to XD. You can see their faces blank.
Shared.
Aged since spider-man.
Is this posted now because Will Smith says God told him to whip Chris Rock?
Good luck finding a video on YT with this Tom Holland and not the professional-pretender (aka actor) Tom Holland...
Who are these two other guys?
Physical slavery, perhaps. Not mental slavery, however.
This "woke-ism is a substitue for the loss of Judo-Christianic-Religious feelings" BS has got to be nipped in the bud!
Woke-ism is dumb. Religiton is dumb. Separate problems. End of.
And yet in deeply religious countries, wokism finds no hold.
@@BoneistJ yeh… they just kill you instead of cancelling you.
@@hellodavey1902 You could argue that being straight up executed is more merciful than having to choose between slowly starving to death or compromising your most core identity, but you do you. :)
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
lol. the closest the Bible comes to admonishing slavery is to tell slave holders not to beat them so savagely as to knock out their teeth or damage their eyes. Jesus EXPECTS his followers to own slaves, and there's a reason slavery happily existed throughout Christendom for about 1800 years.
In English law, slavery was abolished by the Normans not reintroduced until 1650.
Right, and the book of Philemon where he is entreated to receive an escaped slave who stole from him back as a brother in Christ was just Paul addressing Philemon as an individual and not as a model for all Christendom. If you're going to chapter and verse me about how the Bible totes endorses [fill in the blank] at least have the decency to read the whole thing, cover to cover.
@@BoneistJ What happened in 1650? In the wider British Empire, transportation of slaves continued until 1807, and slavery until 1833, but I believe that slavery was never reintroduced in English law: see for example the Somerset case of 1772.
Many are called few are chosen , run along now.
@@dotwarner17 lol. crizchinz big mad!
So, if we're all sinners . Surely nobody should go to imaginary heaven ? .
Also Jesus only known view of slavery was to commend a Roman soldier for treating his slaves well.
He never once said anything against slavery and said he didn't want to change anything in the old testament which not only condoned slavery but gave advice on treatment of slaves.
Nobody deserves to go to Heaven, and therefore those who recognize their sin, turn to Jesus for forgiveness, out of their guilt and because they cannot save themselves. Salvation is not something that is . It is essentially a gift. Could you please point me to the Bible verse where Jesus does this? By not wanting to change anything in the old testament, that was literal. It doesn't mean he wanted old testament rule to continue. Christianity asserts that we live under the Covenant of Christ, not the Covenant of Moses.
Disagree wholeheartedly with this take on the role of Christianity on slavery. The abolition of slavery was only possible because of the Georgian eras obsession with condemning law breaking. Perhaps this was a projection by the ruling classes upon the poor of their own disgust with their own debauched conduct?
Whatever the reason, Abolitionists eschewed slavery not because of the scale or undeniability of the act (the Ottomans lived with much worse, even greater numbers were enslaved in dark ages Europe) but because the debased behaviour of the ruling classes was making their lives meaningless and they "had to do something" because abusing people just wasn't fun anymore, and besides, machines could do things a lot more efficiently and cheaply than even enslaved people.
Maybe, in practice. But I also think he's forgotten to make the point that the principle idea, that all people have intrinsic value, derives from Christianity. I think this became a driving factor.
Can you name me which machine could plough and manage the field in 18th century!? 🤔🤔
Than ku
Good ideas helped abolish slavery. Not religion.
W
It says in the Bible something along the lines of, you can beat your slave within an inch of their lives as long as you don't kill them or they don't die within a given period I would have to check it to get the word of god as he said it!
Yes do check it, and read the other part, the NT, with stuff like the new covenant, for context.....
Look at Exodus 20.20-21 dear John; however, you should also look at what is said about beating slaves in other ancient cultures (Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome) where slaves could be beaten to death without any consequences to their 'masters whereas masters could be punished if their slave died according to biblical legislation; at least some disincentive to the extremes of cruelty (deeply unsatisfactory I grant you from our point of view). Other biblical words on the subject are always aiming to restrict this practice, universal in the ancient world, and make it more humane. (See Deuteronomy 15.12ff for instance and the letter to Philemon in the New Testament). There is a trajectory here and its end is the conclusion reached by Christian abolitionists such as John Wesley and William Wilberforce that slavery was against the will of God and should be extirpated. Would that it had been, for it continues to this day, does it not?
as a dyslexic I am not going to read the book, as an atheist, I am not going to read the book. When people tell me the word of God is law and their good is a loving just God, and then try justifying bits of the Bible I find it all a bit hypocritical!
@@johnbelcher7955 So basically, you make excuses for not reading the bible or understanding context rather than just admit you got this one wrong? There is literally a chapter in the new testament where Saint Paul implores a slave owner to free his slave, Onesimus and welcome him as a Christian. Onesimus was actually freed and became a bishop. So what the hell are you on about when you insist Christianity is pro-slavery just because the old testament (i.e the scriptures before Christianity existed) promote it?
so there wrote a chapter on the bits they weren't happy with! That's progressive of them!
Absolute pish.
People professing a faith have been part of abolition, alongside others professing none, but there is simply no grounds *within* the religion to do so.
Indeed, it was the texts themselves that provided the very framework and epistemological backing for it.
The texts say that slaves should obey their Christian masters as well as what one can do to them when they don't.
I used to have time for Holland but the more I hear about this baseless, wish-thinking reverse history I have less inclination to listen. He's wrong. Obviously so.
Yeah but overtime it was judeo-Christian countries that took the first step to end slavery.
One of the key components of this video was Tom Holland explicitly stating that, unlike judaism and Islam, Christians aren't slavishly committed to their texts as per St Paul.
You need to look at the time the text was written, it was the time of the Roman Empire, Christianity hadn't left Judaism either
So many people in the empire had slaves, the Jewish law says that you do not abuse others, including slaves.
@@catrinholmes7026 With respect I do not care.
The texts,which mandate and officiate slavery and never repudiated it, are supposed to be authored by the one and only divine bring and creator or the universe. That *is* the claim.
So to say "others were doing it so what do you expect " just highlights this is man made.
Slavery persisted for so long *because * of its association with Christianity, and frankly if eventually some , at loooong last, some resisted it I'd say it was about time they did. I just can't see how they would square that with a deity that clearly expected people yo keep dkaces and went do far as to say those slaves should obey their Christian masters.
No, this won't do. It's crap. It would be nice if Christianity *was* a bulwark against the evil of slavery but it isn't and was not and its unseemly - to say nothing of counterfactual - to suggest that it is.
@CNN is Fake News There is so much wrong with that I suspect there is no benefit to getting into this with you.
Men who owned slaves did so because they were generally high-testosterone badasses, not because they were "bad" in a moral sense. And their slave ownership signaled their reproductive fitness to the fertile women in their tribes, who wanted to marry them and bear their children.
Nope. Slaves were simply labour-saving devices. We have washing machines and microwave ovens: the Romans had slaves.
Obviously any potential wife will prefer a man who owned slaves - it meant she had less housework to do.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 The Chads who owned slaves were higher-status, more valuable mates for fertile women than the less competitive men who didn't own slaves. For one thing, the Chad slaveowners had more wealth to invest into their wives' offspring, and that has always been an important consideration for a woman's choice in a husband.