Douglas Wilson needs to stop gas lighting christendom with his opinions on slavery. He knows he messed up his image around this topic.

@@cryptic8043 you're mad that you're wrong lol. That's why you've got no Scripture, no argument, just your own best attempt at gaslighting, ironically

@@horrificpleasantry9474 What? Just go read what Douglas wrote about slavery in America; he wrote that African American slaves were happy...So, no, you missed on this one.

@@cryptic8043 And you know that the ones he was talking about were not? Or is your argument to the contrary predicated on the assumption that no slaves, anywhere, were ever happy? Heck, I can point you to polls asking Democrat voters if they're happy to easily show you that slaves CAN be happy.

@@cryptic8043 I'm not familiar with Wilson's writings on slavery. But I have read part of "Slave Narratives". Did Wilson say that *all* slaves were happy, or that some were? If he said that some were, then he's right. Go read "Slave Narratives". Some of the freed slaves that were interviewed for that project said that they missed living on the plantation, and that life was better for them back then. Their words. ..and you don't have the right to change their words.

This is sadly true, and we can thank Christianity for this.

Thanks, Mr KT

@@YZ1N31 Nope

@@YZ1N31 Sudan. Primary Language: Arabic (70% majority). Primary Religion: Islam (97%).

@@naev0 Yes islam does also fails to condemn slavery. Funny how an all powerful god can condemn the eating of shellfish and picking up sticks on the sabbath but not: owning another human being and beating him with a rod...

I knew when I got to the right church when they were teaching Leviticus ..

@@JonJaeden yeah. Animal sacrifice is really good to wrap your head around.

@@formerfundienowfree4235 You missed the BBQ? Bummer ...

They both and wilsen need Neville Goddard who experienced being Jesus like David knew what you think only happened 2000 YEARS ago David in you like Paul was in Saul no man or religion did it inside us. Jesus was pattern that wasn't seen outside, only in us, Luke 17: HINTED ABOUT WHERE IT IS NOT SEEN OUTSIDE! 20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Romans 11:31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Doug wouldn't be intrested in people challenging him its obvious n Shapiro would look at him as a dogmatic situation then a discussion or debate

@@tye9713 “Doug wouldn’t be interested in people challenging him.” His debates with Christopher Hitchens say otherwise.

@@berglen100 You know the first step in convincing people is actually writing coherent sentences.

@@berglen100 wut

Alot of words to say so little. I'm sure abolitionists were inspired from parts of the bible, but know this: there are no verses condemning slavery in the bible. Now are there verses condoning it? Yes. Multiple. How is this defensible? Slavery was different back then? God had to stoop down to our morality back then? Christian's eventually abolished slavery? None of this excuses God giving rules to own other humans and allowing u to beat them. If atheists got their moral standard from Christianity in the west, we'd be burning witches and homosexuals too, while our slaves watched. (The atheists can't judge slavery because they don't have a moral standard is absolute brain rot)

@Ryan Hanekamp, Exodus 21:16

@@willielee5253 Leviticus says to buy them, not to kidnap them. Verse 44.

@@grumpylibrarian yes, I agree with you as well. I may have tagged your statement by oversight.

Read the whole chapter and work it in with all the other passages in the Pentateuch that regulate slavery. Lev 25 is about the Year of Jubilee, not slavery. In the Year of Jubilee, Hebrew slaves had to released, but Gentile slaves could be kept until their debts to their debtees were paid off, even if it meant being transferred to kin as inheritance, or sold so the debtee could recoup the value of the debt immediately. But when their debt was paid off, they were to be released , no matter who was holding them. Add to that this point: if anyone anywhere was found with a kidnapped person, they were up for execution. That includes buying a foreign slave that was kidnapped. (So much for the TransAtlantic Slave Trade). Hebrews could only buy slaves that were debt slaves, and like any other slave, could only keep them till their debt was paid off. (but Hebrew slaves were released in the year of Jubilee, and the debtee had to suck it up, smile and take the loss like a good Jew). To keep them past their debt is kidnapping. And we know what the Bible says about kidnappers, right? Right?? They get executed. And Hebrews could not be cruel to their slaves, whether Hebrew or foreign. If they were too cruel, the slave went free. Suffice it to say, 18th century slavery was *nothing* like the slavery in the Bible. - - If you can't stomach that, please be morally consistent and call for the immediate release of all prison inmates everywhere. Because if you distill the basic ingredients of Biblical slavery, you'll see it's essentially identical to modern prison systems of the West: no kidnapping; no cruelty; transfer from warden to warden if the warden so chooses; release when debt is satisfied. Thanks.

@@timfoster5043 You cite Lev 25 but in Lev 25 it specifically states that the foreign slaves are kept and passed on as permanent *property,* never to go free. Even worse, all Hebrew women, and child servants were not to go free as the Hebrew males do, unless they came in with him. Exodus 21. Also, the no cruelty was only for Hebrew slaves, again in Lev 25, because of Israel's previous enslavement, but no such provision exists for Gentile slaves.

Precisely....no more than you would take instructions from a man on how to scuba dive...who doesn't even believe underwater exists.

@@OneMan-wl1wj No.

Instead, ask a handful of Christians and get a handful of responses.

I mean Ben can’t tell you what Christianity is about.

Sam would never want you to listen to him read the dang book for yourself

How does one gain a slave without them at one point having been stolen? And, if one consents to being a “slave” at one point in time, can they remove consent at a later time without having to “run away”?

@@BornOnThursday It was often someone sold themselves into for an agreed upon amount of time for an agreed upon amount of compensation. Also, and don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure that those taken as a result of war weren't considered 'stolen'.

@@BornOnThursday "How does one gain a slave without them at one point having been stolen" The only Biblically permissible way is if the person who is to be a slave voluntarily enters into an employment contract with you in exchange for a set wage, food, and housing, in exchange for your assumption of all his debt liabilities.

@@LawlessNate Well, it's not like they (likely “young women”) had anything left from their old life after everything else was killed, including the cattle, and everything else was either taken (“stolen”) or destroyed, so I suppose it was an act of “mercy”.

@@BornOnThursday 1. Settle a debt. 2. Prisioner of war. 3. Volunteer If those seem far-fetched, I'm going to bet you've never lived in a third-world country (I have)

Jumped the gun! Of course Doug covered this. :)

Probably because he’s anti religious, for this exact reason, and he’s concerned.

@@DM-dk7js *_anti religious_* Good to know he's not anti-Bible because they are two very different things.

@@joewaldner6986 yeah. I mean, he’s anti slavery. That’s why he’s concerned.

@@DM-dk7js is slavery bad? Or is it just your opinion that you in particular don't like it?

It’s simple they love there sin and they want to glorify it not ask for forgiveness from our redeemed saviour Jesus Christ our Lord. That’s what it all comes too there is no need to be analytical, that is all a facade for wanting to live in sin

Harris nor Dawkins have proven the Bible’s veracity.

Bro the bible literally condones slavery, it says it explicitly many times...its Christians that will look at the text and try and interpret it differently. If the Bible literally says YOU CAN BUY SLAVES FROM THE HEATHEN THAT SURROUND YOU, its the christians that realize "oh shit this is an immoral book, I better pretend like it means something else"

@@twokidsmovies can you help me interpret this? “We know that the law is *NOT MEANT* for a *RIGHTEOUS PERSON* , but for *THE LAWLESS AND REBELLIOUS* , for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral and males who have sex with males, *FOR SLAVE TRADERS* , liars, perjurers, and *FOR WHATEVER ELSE IS CONTRARY TO SOUND TEACHING* “ 1 Timothy‬ ‭1:9-10‬

@@glassmw9823 1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes “Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." MOST IMPORTANTLY: "20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Interpret that for me I beg you......

...except Moses (God) does actually *endorse* certain forms of slavery in Lev 25, saying that the Israelites may keep Gentile slaves as properly forever. I'm no fan of Harris, but he's right on that point.

well... I guess we know why Harris never mentions where or how the Bible "endorses" slavery then.

@@ChewbacaTW God acknowledging slavery and accepting it for any amount of time is disgracefully immoral. Killing and stealing was big business around that time aswell.....yet god could clearly command them to be ended right away. thats a weak god to be fair. bending to human trends at the time.

If the police acknowledge an underage kid drinking and does nothing then that cop in fact is endorsing underage drinking by allowing it to happen.

Of course they would be wrong 🤣🤣🤣 I'm judging he is no better than a junior high school bully on the playground

Yup. It is sad that Christians have to lie to defend their beliefs.

@Yup Yup condones or allows? The Old Testament is not the standard for salvation. The Old Testament predates the filling of the Holy Spirit in man. Matthew 11:11 KJV - Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. In other words, the most righteous man until Christ is not the standard of salvation. We are called to be greater than Job and John the Baptist. This will make things far clearer. 1. David would not be allowed in 90% of today's churches, yet God used him to write Scripture. 2. Abraham had 2 wives at the same time that we know about. 3. Noah got drunk and paraded around naked 4. Jacob had 4 wives 5. Solomon had 700 wives 6. Moses disobeyed a direct AUDIBLE command from God's voice, killed a man, and refused to speak to Pharaoh in the presence of God. The Old Testament has not been the highest standard since Christ. Hence, Christ said MANY times, "but I say unto you."

Whether sam speaks pensive or not has no impact on the veracity of his argument. The bible unequivocally endorses slavery but you look to condem Sam's way of speaking 🤔🤔🤔 This more than demonstrates the fragility of apologists arguments

If you can ignore every distinction made in this video to still falsely characterize this as “unequivocally endorsing slavery” you are an intellectually dishonest ignoramus with no argument. Cope.

@Exodus 21:16

@@willielee5253 *You are unable to provide any examples of God saying DO NOT OWN PEOPLE AS PROPERTY* *So instead you cite a verse forbidding "man stealing" or "kidnapping"* 👇👇 *read on* *"KIDNAPPING" is NOT "slavery" its forbidden to steal slaves NOT to OWN them* *To say DO NOT* _"STEAL"_ *CARS is completely different than DO NOT* _"OWN"_ *CARS* *Your desire to conflate the two more than adequately demonstrates both the hypocrisy and fragility of your position*

@@trumpbellend6717 let's agree to disagree for the sake of not arguing over the Law.

Haha love the yoda

"By what standard"

@@thirstypilgrim97 Not sure what you mean.

@@zeraphking1407 He's agreeing with you. "By what standard" is the basic retort to any atheistic claim that something is objectively moral or immoral.

@@YZ1N31 In that case, we never truly know what morality is because it's always evolving. Not only that, there's no basis for right and wrong based solely on evolution and time.

@@zeraphking1407 Overtime humans that worked together survived together, and a moral code was derived vie that cooperation. This is why there is no universal moral code, or a universal right or wrong like Christians assert, instead we see culturally diverse moral codes that are vastly different from one culture to the next. Are you daft and think that we just woke up and had a universal code lolol.

True for individuals, but war was also a legitimate method of obtaining slaves. So, one person can’t just go and kidnap people, but one nation may enslave another.

@@vejoshiraptor Both are awful.

@@BornOnThursday says who?

Historical tip: not all the slaves of the Middle Passage were kidnapped. According to Ghanian and Nigerian historians, some of them were indeed prisoners of war ...and therefore fair game for enslavement as per Lev 25. (Both cruelty and kidnapping were prohibited, so the Transatlantic slave trade was mostly unbiblical.)

@@vejoshiraptor Oh boy.

Lol dear oh dear, did your god not make laws stating that the gathering of sticks on the sabsth was punishable by death ?? Did he have to "phase that in" because presumably stick gathering was quite prevalent back then 🤣😅🤣 How about eating shellfish fish or wearing cloths of mixed fabric ? because again your God made laws banning it. Priorities I guess 🤔😜 Are you asserting that such a being would have to bend his "perfect" moral guidance to accommodate the traditions and wishes of ancient slave masters ???? This is how pathetic your argument is, its equivalent to a pimp saying to a judge in court _"i dont agree with prostitution your honour, but the girls were gonna do it anyway_ _so I'm just looking after them, making it a safer kinda prostitution"_

Do you think *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround"* is just a "quip" taken out of context ???

Read the whole chapter. That passage is about the Year of Jubilee, not slavery. In the Year of Jubilee, Hebrew slaves had to released, but Gentile slaves could be kept until their debts to their debtees were paid off, even if it meant being transferred to kin as inheritance, or sold so the debtee could recoup the value of the debt immediately. BUT - - before you get too far down that road, you have to start by realizing that 18th century slaves were not like Greco-Roman slaves, and neither were like ancient Hebrew slaves. All 3 cultures used the same root word of 'slave', but they meant radically different things by it. You can tell this by the rules each culture had for how a person became a slave and how a person was freed from slavery. - Encyclopedia Britannica lists 6 ways a person in Greco-Roman culture could become a slave. 3 of them were capital offenses in ancient Hebrew culture. - For example, in GR culture, if you kidnapped some wayward non-Roman, you could keep him as a slave and/or buy/sell such persons. In ancient Hebrew culture, ANYONE found in possession of a kidnapped person would be executed. Period. - In ancient Hebrew culture, you could only become a slave if you sold yourself to pay off debts, or if a tribunal found you guilty of a crime and you lacked the funds to compensate the injured party. You became their slave until the debt was paid off (or the master could sell you for the amount of the debt if he didn't want to abide with you for that amount of time). The sold slave would work for the new master until the debt was paid (or the Year of Jubilee came [unless it was a Gentile slave]), and after the debt was paid, he was free (whether Hebrew or Gentile). Keeping him beyond his debt was kidnapping. And we know what happens to kidnappers, right? Right?? - Slavemasters were NOT allowed to be cruel to their slaves. If the cruelty hit a certain level, the slave went free, and the master lost out on his debt. - When a slave was released, the master was to provide him with material goods so he could make his way back out into the world, and he was to do so joyfully, treating his ex-slave as the brother he was. - If a slave's debts surpassed what he could work off in his lifetime, that debt could be passed on to his heirs (we do the same with our tax laws today). If all of that sounds immoral to you, I would invite you to be morally consistent and demand the immediate release of all prison inmates everywhere. After all, they are defacto slaves to the government. Like ancient slaves, they do not control their location or their labor, and they can be transferred from master (ie, warden) to master without their say-so, and their wardens cannot be cruel to them, and after they've paid their debt, they are to be freed. (If you boil it down to its core, prison inmates are indeed essentially identical to ancient slaves.) Thanks.

@@timfoster5043 That passage says nothing about the year of Jubilee. Nothing at all. What is says is that foreign slaves could be kept for life and passed down as inheritance. Point blank. Read the whole chapter. "Gentile slaves could be kept until their debts to their debtees were paid off" Nope. Gentile slaves could be kept for life. That is what the passage explicitly states. Read the whole chapter. "you have to start by realizing that 18th century slaves were not like Greco-Roman slaves, and neither were like ancient Hebrew slaves" Foreigners who were slaves of the Israelites were chattel slaves, no different than the chattel slaves of the antebellum south. Probably worse, in fact. "Encyclopedia Britannica lists 6 ways a person in Greco-Roman culture could become a slave. " Hebrews took acquired foreign slaves by capturing enemy non-combatants, by purchasing from slaves traders, and by breeding new slaves into captivity. Which of those methods do you consider moral? "Slavemasters were NOT allowed to be cruel to their slaves." There were no laws protecting foreign slaves. Exodus 21 details that Hebrew slaves could be beaten nearly to death, and Leviticus 25 states the foreign slaves could be treated more harshly than that. Ready your Bible. "When a slave was released," Foreign slaves were not released. "If all of that sounds immoral to you, I would invite you to be morally consistent and demand the immediate release of all prison inmates everywhere." Prisoners are wards of the state, not chattel slaves. If chattel slavery sounds moral to you, well, I guess that just makes you a Christian. You're welcome for the Bible lesson. It was a pleasure educating you.

@@cygnusustus > That passage says nothing about the year of Jubilee. Nothing at all. I stand corrected. You're right. You said Lev 24:5 (well, technically you said Lev 245), and it says absolutely nothing about the Year of Jubilee. Lev 25, however, is all about the Year of Jubilee, and how everything has to be released: land (v13), houses (v32), and Hebrew slaves (v40-41). ..But Gentile slaves owned by Hebrews don't get released that year; they are kept for the duration, even if that duration is their life (v44), and Hebrew slaves owned by Gentiles should be redeemed by relatives in the Year of Jubilee (v47-50). Note how the verses you find so offensive are in the middle of verses talking about things and persons released in the Year of Jubilee! If you say you don't see the Year of Jubilee in ch 25, then you're not reading. It is literally mentioned 13 times! So the "keep them for life / pass them on as inheritance" portion is clearly and obviously there for the purposes of contrasting them to the way Hebrew slaves are to be treated. But even then, they are not to be kept beyond their debt service because that would be kidnapping! You have a very disjointed way of reading the Bible. The way you read v44 ignores the fact that Hebrews are **NEVER** allowed to keep kidnapped persons, whether Hebrew or Gentile. And nowhere in the Bible are they permitted to breed slaves. You're quite out of step with the ancient world, probably because you see all of the world through the lens of Western forms of slavery. I wonder if you've ever read rabbinical commentaries on these passages. And while you're at it, you should try traveling and living in a 3rd world for a time - step outside your ivory bubble and get a fresh perspective of humanity. It'll do you good to learn that not everyone sees the world the way you do. Thanks.

lol

@Dr. Rick Marshall, Exodus 21:16.

@@willielee5253 Say's Hebrews may not kidnap people (unless of course it's the multiple occasions YHWH permits this), the US had this law too, it says nothing of purchasing an already kidnapped person from nations surrounding you or ensuring slaves you purchase are not kidnapped.

@@drrickmarshall1191 it's pretty much a non argument, enslavement is enslavement.

@@willielee5253 I agree, enslavement is enslavement, immoral no matter the parameters. This comment is clearly not for those who understand this and I wish this was a non-argument, in reality it is, but some people require the arguing against unfortunately.

@@drrickmarshall1191 agree!!!

What’s the difference?

I think you are only saying that now because slavery is now recognized as such a moral wrong. Slavery in the Bible was used to justify the African slave trade for hundreds of years.

^ Oh I see we’ve got the two atheist trolls jumping on here to get the chance to make a comment on how bad they believe Christianity is.

Well, "how we think" of African slavery is wholly influenced by Hollywood propaganda, so...

@@xxxViceroyxxx Good Point.

@Charlie Renfro, Exodus 21:16.

The common problem with the human mind. The ego. I have been guilty of this many times. Due diligence is now my way of life. Now atheism is ridiculous due to the vastness of my own mind and existence.

Although I agree with your statement, this is true for religious people aswell.

@@YZ1N31 I could agree with you but as of yet no other deity or dogma has surpassed Christianity. My life is a testimony of the supernatural either that or I'm delusional. I lean towards Christ most of all though.

@@hugomiguel6319 I would say a dogma of women abuse, homosexuality, child beating isn't quite the dogma I would align with.

@@YZ1N31 except most people aren't public intellectuals pretending to have brilliant insights into things. Lots of people have logical deficiencies, but it's these pseudo intellectuals who influence people with their poorly researched opinions.

No we have too many stupid people holding us back with barbaric Bronze Age religions.

The verse you mention from Deuteronomy regarding how to handle a runaway slave. The concensus among biblical scholars is that this verse refers specifically to foreign slaves that have escaped to your lands from the enemies that the *previous verse* spoke of defeating and the surrounding lands. Hence the " let him live in "your" midst " ( the Israelites) and being able to pick one of "your" (the Israelites) towns to live in. This once again is no different than that from some of the American chattel slave states that forbid the returning of runaway slaves from other states whilst still permitting slave ownership. For example ..... Pennsylvania ( 1780 ) _"No negro or mulatto slave_ ... _shall be removed out of this state, with the design and intention that the place of abode or residence of such slave or servant shall be thereby altered or changed"_

The reasons, if both are opposed ( to slavery, i.e., _owning other humans as property regardless of treatment or purpose_ ), have such different sources, or at least they appear to, and it would take a lot of curiosity, patience, and humility to hear the other.

@@BornOnThursday there is no reason apart from absolute truth. And absolute truth does not come from humans.

@@TheJpep2424 Wow, well, atleast I'm not the one defending slavery, past or present.

I am opposed to slavery only if the person being kept as a slave does not wish to be. The only true measure of morality is what each individual perceives to be desirable. If you whip one man he might hate it, another might love it. Slavery implies forced servitude. Forced implies against the expressed will of said slave. That is what makes it immoral. Peace.

@@plantatheist5883 How about this - If people want to LARP slavery, have at it, but keep it away from law, and don't try to justify it morally in modern day.

Cough, that's not what happened...

1626 SHORTS care to explain?

Actually Mr. Wilson's comments were not very convincing. Paul says "be a happy slave, cause you're going to heaven in the next life". And regarding slavery being universal in the old testament times, was God careful not to shock the Jews, to let them know that slavery is bad? If homosexuality was universal, would we also have it as acceptable in the Bible?

@@YZ1N31 The heck it didn't. Read Harris's Moral Landscape book. Then listen to the debate between Harris and Craig where Harris not only cannot defend his position but Craig points out that in the next to last page of Harris's own book he admits that he is left with no real difference between rapists and saints morally speaking. Heck, for that matter, go back to when Harris wrote his letter to a Christian Nation and Doug promptly responded with a Letter to Harris pointing out that Harris has no business lecturing ANYBODY about anything. Figure out why you're defending someone who has no solid ground to even stand on.

@@firstthes2811 Defending someone? I never said I was defending him, I said that what you stated wasn't what happened in the video, and it's not. Harris is taken out of context, and somehow he is all of a sudden a fool. Smh

Not as "astounding" as the incoherence of your comment.

is this supposed to be an argument against Christianity? Cause I read this and actually understand the context and nod along. Do you think sacrificing the firstborn is a bad thing? Cause it's what we do today, a billion dead from abortion worldwide in 50 years. Are you an abortion abolitionist?

People like Harris are little more than rhetorical magicians. It's all smoke and mirrors and diversion. And once you see the tricks for what they are it really isn't impressive.

@@ninerocks yup, my thoughts exactly. Only those that want to agree with him don't see the flaws in his arguments.

Where did Sam Harris say that? I suspect you are lying.

No response? I accept your concession that you lied.

The modern age and political correctness is still built into most people's thinking. They dislike the idea that people can be properly placed into a category of property or that a man can forfeit part of his dignity in the eyes of God. None of that justifies truly abusing another person, but it often is used to justify it. There is a verse that says, "You were bought at a price; do not allow yourselves to become slaves of men." This really is the only verse you need to move away from a culture of allowing slavery. Sure. It may still exist as a particularly useful (when done Biblically) way of not only taking care of the lesser moral people, or, unlucky, but the criminal who has a debt he needs to repay, but ultimately this verse implies that following Christ will remove you from the path that would end that way and that the spreading of the gospel naturally becomes the anti-thesis to a society having or needing slaves.

@@fatalheart7382 Modern wealthy western people are just so far removed from the idea of ever thinking about the possibility of pondering the need for slavery. It was a different world back then. Kings back then could not have imagined the luxury even the poor in our country partake in today.

@@fatalheart7382 Good thoughts. I should expand on my original post. It goes without saying that modern people in the West have a fairly narrow understanding of slavery (they tend to only think of abusive/kidnapped/chattel slavery). That description of slavery simply doesn't fly for every culture in every civilization in every century. So we would need to find a better description. I would propose the following: someone whose labor and location is forcibly controlled by another person. (This definition is loose enough to work in every civilization ...and if you think about it, it also describes prisoners. And as you'll soon see, that's a point worth chewing on.) Two points: Morally acceptable forms of slavery do not allow kidnapping or cruelty. And both are prohibited in the Bible. That effectively rules out most (if not all) of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade (although there is a curious caveat here. I may or may not discuss it later) I would agree that volunteering for indentured servitude is less than ideal. But sometimes it can't be helped. EG, If a person accidentally (or intentionally) destroys his neighbor's property and the value of that property is more than he can afford, slavery might well be the moral option. (cf Exod 21:3 and the Targum of Jonathan). This need not apply only to the people of the Mosaic Covenant. Any number of cultures that don't have a large prison system could implement similar stipulations for people who intentionally or unintentionally racked up more debt than they could pay. And that should be seen as a morally acceptable form of slavery. Another morally acceptable form of slavery in ancient times would be prisoner-of-war slavery. If an invading army is defeated by peace-loving victims, the lives of the aggressors are forfeit. It is at the discretion of the winning army as to whether they should execute their would-be killers or make slaves out of them. Abraham had that option when he (along with Eschol, Aner and Mamre) slaughtered the 4 Kings of the east in Gen 14. All the attackers who survived the battle - and surely flipped allegiances, as many often did - could be brought into Abe, Eschol, Aner and Mamre's camps as slaves. (See Gen 14:16 and 21 ..and bear in mind that Abe brought back a whole lot more than just Sodom King Bera's stuff: he brought back everything the 4 kings had captured in their winner-take-all battle that stretched over hundreds of miles in v 5-7.). At any rate - if a person had massive debt or was punished for a crime, slavery could be a moral option in ancient times. And if that slave was acquired through moral means, then he could be bought and sold as property should the master choose to cash out and move on in life. And in such cases, Israelites could buy those slaves, and if they were foreign slaves, they could keep them as property forever, even bequeathing them to their children. [+]Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves. You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you - those born in your land. These may become your property. You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. But concerning your brothers, the Israelites, you must not rule over one another harshly. (Lev 25:44-46 HCSB) Sam Harris read the right verses when he gave Shapiro his objections. Regrettably, Wilson didn't answer them well. Then there's the NT situation... but I'll leave that for another day. (Wilson should have addressed why Paul sent Onesimus back at all, especially when the OT prohibited the return of runaway slaves. Yes, Paul implied that Philemon should free him (sorta), but read the passage again: Paul **sent him back**. That necessarily implies that Paul believed that Philemon still owned Onesimus. Much more could be said.)

@@timffoster Well, I'm sure the old church cared much more and knew about their Bibles much more, especially Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit. It was very intentional he "sent him back". If you remember, the Holy Spirit found it only necessary to have the gentiles refrain from food sacrificed to idols, meat of strangled animals, sexual immorality, and meat with blood in it, when they entreated the church about the law of Moses. And, when you read Hebrews, it designates us as under a new law because there is a change in priesthood and the law of Moses was set up under the Levitical priesthood, whose priesthood Jesus was not set up under. But, "You are a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek." Jesus was born under the law, but also fulfilled that law. Meaning, Paul is not breaking a command here. Paul, in Christ, is no longer subject to a covenant formed for Israel, but rather, under compulsion to follow Christ's law, the "new" covenant, even though it was set up in a promise to Abraham, more than 400 years before Moses' covenant. Anyway, even in this matter, both him and Philemon, being Christians, more than likely completely have that verse in mind and what Paul is doing here has multiple layers. Possibly by sending him back Paul is confirming his salvation to Philemon. This man is no longer a slave because technically, he should not have been sent back in the first place within OT rules, but now can be sent back as a "son." Philemon, in this matter, is also being tested so that Paul can see his heart. "Love your brother as your self." Philemon, being saved, no longer has the right under either covenant to claim him as a slave. But Paul trusted this and gave him over to Philemon, so that Philemon's faith could be displayed, voluntarily, something someone making disciples would do -test the sincerity of those they teach. "Do you not know that Christ is in you? Unless, of course, you fail the test." But Paul's purpose can be seen in the sentence, "Although I could be bold in Christ to command you." So, I do not believe Paul considered him a slave anymore, the biggest evidence being, not that he kept him, but that he sent him back. XD Still, I'm sure it could be read correctly both ways because of the complexity of what is happening here, which makes it perfect for applying to our needs for how to treat slaves. XD More thoughts are welcome if you have them. I've appreciated your replies so far. :P

@@fatalheart7382 I put myself in Onesimus's place: if I ran away, would I go back? (No) So why did Onesimus go back? Just because? Did he not have anything better to do?

There is no such thing as a society without slavery. "You are a slave to whomever you obey." Slavery is when someone else tells you what to do with your labor. The Biblical regulations on slavery encompass numerous things we have today: debt forgiveness, bankruptcy, military service, marriage, wages, voluntary employment, work contracts, loans, financing, habeas corpus, worker's compensation, liability lawsuits, low income housing, work placement assistance, housing allowances, etc etc. If we got rid of slavery, we would have to get rid of all those things

@@horrificpleasantry9474 This is an absurd definition of the term and in no way highlights the inhumane treatment of another individual against his or her consent. I advise you to not manipulate conversations about ethical precepts going forward.

@@colinfarrell33 that is the CORRECT definition of the term. You think it's absurd because you don't like it, because it doesn't suit you, but the fact is you are the one with an anachronistic set of beliefs on the subject.

This is why YOUR definition is absurd.. By insisting on "nonconsent," the Bible no longer authorizes but explicitly forbids slavery. So you no longer have any bone to pick with the Bible on the subject. Good news!

@@horrificpleasantry9474 Slavery is the condition of being legally owned by someone else and forced to work for or obey them. Not “when someone else tells you what to do with your labor” - lame and warped definition. Neither in antiquity nor in America was slavery just “someone else telling you what to do”. It’s not big to diminish it.

In ancient times...before welfare stateism ...SLAVERY was an institution that provided a significant percentage of indegent society with a reasonable survivability..as long as there were strong laws protecting the slaves welfare & justice... Modernity knows nothing of history..so slavery can be nothing but bady bad..

@@jd-jw8hm So true... except for the first part "ancient times": slavery was ubiquitous everywhere before 1850.

@Voluntaryist Skeptic, Exodus 21:16

Leviticus 25:44-46 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life. But OK. Don't steal them. Great morals from your pathetic god.

This punishment is for kidnapping. Not slavery. Slavery was specifically endorsed multiple times. Sell your own daughter, become a permanent slave yourself, women and children don't go free as the males do, buy foreign slaves and pass them on as permanent property. Exodus 21 (Read the whole thing instead of cherry picking) and Lev 25.

Still voluntary and paid

@Horrific Pleasantry I have seen all the text on slavery in the Bible and as far as I know only Israelites qualified for that which is why it is said that to a Israelite they could not rule over them as such like property which you don’t pay for that like an indentured servant could be paid, unless you know of any other principle but I know of any other

​@@horrificpleasantry9474Wrong. It was chattel slavery. Owning people as property. Read it again.

Read the whole chapter. That passage is about the Year of Jubilee, not slavery. In the Year of Jubilee, Hebrew slaves had to released, but Gentile slaves could be kept until their debts to their debtees were paid off, even if it meant being transferred to kin as inheritance, or sold so the debtee could recoup the value of the debt immediately. BUT - - before you get too far down that road, you have to start by realizing that 18th century slaves were not like Greco-Roman slaves, and neither were like ancient Hebrew slaves. All 3 cultures used the same root word of 'slave', but they meant radically different things by it. You can tell this by the rules each culture had for how a person became a slave and how a person was freed from slavery. - Encyclopedia Britannica lists 6 ways a person in Greco-Roman culture could become a slave. 3 of them were capital offenses in ancient Hebrew culture. - For example, in GR culture, if you kidnapped some wayward non-Roman, you could keep him as a slave and/or buy/sell such persons. In ancient Hebrew culture, ANYONE found in possession of a kidnapped person would be executed. Period. - In ancient Hebrew culture, you could only become a slave if you sold yourself to pay off debts, or if a tribunal found you guilty of a crime and you lacked the funds to compensate the injured party. You became their slave until the debt was paid off (or the master could sell you for the amount of the debt if he didn't want to abide with you for that amount of time). The sold slave would work for the new master until the debt was paid (or the Year of Jubilee came [unless it was a Gentile slave]), and after the debt was paid, he was free (whether Hebrew or Gentile). Keeping him beyond his debt was kidnapping. And we know what happens to kidnappers, right? Right?? - Slavemasters were NOT allowed to be cruel to their slaves. If the cruelty hit a certain level, the slave went free, and the master lost out on his debt. - When a slave was released, the master was to provide him with material goods so he could make his way back out into the world, and he was to do so joyfully, treating his ex-slave as the brother he was. - If a slave's debts surpassed what he could work off in his lifetime, that debt could be passed on to his heirs (we do the same with our tax laws today). If all of that sounds immoral to you, I would invite you to be morally consistent and demand the immediate release of all prison inmates everywhere. After all, they are defacto slaves to the government. Like ancient slaves, they do not control their location or their labor, and they can be transferred from master (ie, warden) to master without their say-so, and their wardens cannot be cruel to them, and after they've paid their debt, they are to be freed. (If you boil it down to its core, prison inmates are indeed essentially identical to ancient slaves.) Thanks.

@@timfoster5043 Leviticus 25:44-46 clearly describes chattel slavery of foreigners. There's no getting around this. No jubilee, and they could be passed down as property to your kids. And of course that's immoral. It's exactly what we would expect from a brutal Bronze Age culture with a fake god.

@@chadbuoy4457 they're already enslaved by their lifestyles we only need to legalize buying them from the circumstances they're already in.

In fairness it's cause he actually tries to defend the indefensibility of atheism, where Dawkins just postures

"Rather, slavery largely died out after decline of Rome..." In North Africa alone, the Arab/Islamic slave trade was active from the early 7th century until the 1960s. Doesn't even include the inner African slave trade let alone the rest of the world.. Not sure why you're claiming it died out?

Such as?

I think he's talking from a legal perspective. One could be treated well being a slave, but there was no law whatsoever pointing to it. Same way our dogs live a better life than many hundred of thousands people have, at least from one point of view - and this was true before we were enforced to it (at least here in Spain).

Why not talk about Leviticus 25? That's chattel slavery the Hebrews practiced and Hebrews even sold their own kids into foreign slavery Exodus 21. Let's stop making EXCUSES for what we KNOW is EVIL and WRONG and trying to dress up in any way that slavery was a good thing. Pathetic

Without freedom, there is zero way to claim that they were better off. They were literally owned by another human being. There is no acceptable argument on this. The Bible is just wrong. Especially if it's also claimed that morality is also coming from the same book. Morality and slavery will never mix. Ever. And there's no justification good enough for it

@@chrispfeifer7628 Thank you for speaking out and you are certainly more kind about it than I am. It gets old listening to excuses for slavery dressed up as theology or hearing Christians just blindly say you don't understand the context without reading or citing then explaining the scripture or attacking your personal character saying you just won't repent and love your sin......there is no excuse to own another human being as property for any reason. And the Exodus story makes no sense, God brought the Hebrews out of Egyptian slavery to a......"better slavery"? Slavery of their own Hebrew kinsmen and slavery of foreigners. When a Hebrew is hard up for money he can sell his kids. This is sick.

@@chrispfeifer7628 So where's your morality coming from?

If they weren’t paid, or paying off a debt, they were slaves.

@@DM-dk7js so that does not exist in any shape or form today?

@@cristianfernandez1874 probably. Not in America thankfully.

I dunno, I think the guy working at Taco Bell making 10 bucks an hour is a slave

@@Based-Anarcho-Syndicalist-Chad what debt?

_"lying about the bible"_ Do you deny that it says to *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* ???

@@trumpbellend6717 alright I'll play along. What verse are you talking about? Also I said Sam Harris lied about the context of Luke 18 and this Is a verifiable fact. If you want the links to the evidence I'll post em

@@breakingtheidols6531 Leviticus 25 44 - 46 _"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have-from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves"_

@@trumpbellend6717" Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." Exodus 21:16 If we look at this section of scripture there is a difference between manstealing or modern slavery and what is considered indentured servitude where you work to pay off a debt. Some would sell themselves into slavery so that they can survive or because they had a good master who treats them well. If Exodus 21 was written in general then it would even apply to the slaves of other nations. If an Israelite had a slave that was forced into slavery through kidnapping from another nation then this law would still apply.

@@breakingtheidols6531 who could ever forget the classic *Exodus 21 21* _"If you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"_ _"There is to be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"_ 🤮🤮🤮🤢

What’s your point?

@@Jambuc829 what?

Can you read what’s your point?

For Solitaire - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bJ9jf8xoksfUmGQ.html

No excuses need to be made because there's nothing embarrassing. I bet you didn't know that the Bible forbids returning runaway slaves. You probably didn't listen to the video to hear that. But the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law which provoked tensions leading to the Civil War did require slaves to be returned, or you could face hefty fines. So you would have to admit that American slavery, at least in that regard, was against the Bible, not inspired by it.

​@@horrificpleasantry9474It is absolutely embarrassing for you that you find yourself tapdancing around the Bible's endorsement of chattel slavery.

Why is slavery wrong in the Bible?

💪💪💪

Did you even watch the video or just google one verse as your proof?

@@samgam23 Google

@@samgam23 I didn’t have to Google the verse. I was already well aware of it.

Correction: Hagar mistreated Sarai and treated her with contempt. Gen 16:4-5. After getting permission from her husband, Sarai afflicted Hagar Gen 16:6. Then she ran away. And the Angel of the Lord told her to return Gen 16:9. If you read up on the Mittani and Hurran tablets from the day, what happened in that scenario was typical and comported with established cultural norms (ie, the laws of the day). Namely, a barren noble lady could give her handmaiden to her husband to produce an heir for her; if she later bore a child, she had the option to keep the firstborn surrogate as heir or promote her own son as heir. And a nobleman without a son could even appoint his servant/slave as an heir. See NIV Archeological Study Bible for more details. Thanks.

@@timfoster5043 Abraham didn't intervene to help his own child. Abraham was pretty conflicted.

@@jamesirvin7799 In Hurran and Mittani cultures of the era, the heir status of the adopted son was determined by the wife, not the husband. Since it was the wife's handmaiden who produced the heir for the wife. It is reasonable to assume the same cultural particulars applied with Abraham and Sarah since they lived in Hurran (aka Padan Aran) for a time.

@@timfoster5043 Ishmael is the son of Abraham. Abraham was favoring Sarah. According to the Bible.

@@jamesirvin7799 I'm not seeing why that point is relevant to the discussion at hand. Of course Ishmael was Abraham's son. But in Mesopotamian law, his fate was at Sarai's disposal because it was her handmaiden that bore the child for her mistress. And according to the laws of the day, if she bore an heir naturally, she reserved the right to keep or lay aside the older son produced by the surrogate (Hagar, in this case).

You mean you think there is a "conext" where Exodus 21 21 is moral.???? _'if you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"_ _"There is to be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"_ See I think its inferring it's ok to own and beat a fellow human as long as they dont die for a day or 2. In the same way that if our government were to make a law saying, *"if you beat a black man and he does not die for a couple of days there is to be no punishment"* That would sort of infer to me it's considered ok to beat black people. Infact personaly I think that would be kinda endorsing racism and the beating of black people, dont you ? 🤔🤔 But hey maybe I am just postulating and speculating from a position of mindless ignorance, in which case perhaps you with your vast knowledge could enlighten me as to the context that would make the OWNING and beating of people moral ?

💯 agree. We First have to put in perspective that man who drinks a iniquity like water is in no place to put God to trial and impose our warped sense of morality on him. God is the author of love and the author of justice. Evil men do not understand justice.

@Exodus 21:16

@brian bridges, Exodus 21:16

@@willielee5253 yep, slavery allowed, disgraceful book.

@@brianbridges8124 your point of view exceeds my point. I was basically using the bible as a point of reference.

@@willielee5253 and you used it terribly then, there is no part if the bible that ever makes up for saying "slaves can be beaten as long as they dont die" Not only does this accept that slavery exists but it allows slave owners to assault their slaves to near death . That's a sadistic monstrous God right there. Maybe instead of just writing names of bible verses you could actually add something substantial.

I don’t get beat at my job and I can quit and work for myself

@@hughjanus2781In a state-controlled economy, you don't get to decide anything about your job, not who you work for, not where you work, not how many hours, not your pay, not your benefits, not even if you can quit and work for yourself or anybody else.

The Christian world view: owning people as property is just fine. The Atheist worldview: No its not you sicko, it immoral.

At least we aren’t trying to make excuses for slavery

Read the whole chapter. That passage is about the Year of Jubilee, not slavery. In the Year of Jubilee, Hebrew slaves had to released, but Gentile slaves could be kept until their debts to their debtees were paid off, even if it meant being transferred to kin as inheritance, or sold so the debtee could recoup the value of the debt immediately. BUT - - before you get too far down that road, you have to start by realizing that 18th century slaves were not like Greco-Roman slaves, and neither were like ancient Hebrew slaves. All 3 cultures used the same root word of 'slave', but they meant radically different things by it. You can tell this by the rules each culture had for how a person became a slave and how a person was freed from slavery. - Encyclopedia Britannica lists 6 ways a person in Greco-Roman culture could become a slave. 3 of them were capital offenses in ancient Hebrew culture. - For example, in GR culture, if you kidnapped some wayward non-Roman, you could keep him as a slave and/or buy/sell such persons. In ancient Hebrew culture, ANYONE found in possession of a kidnapped person would be executed. Period. - In ancient Hebrew culture, you could only become a slave if you sold yourself to pay off debts, or if a tribunal found you guilty of a crime and you lacked the funds to compensate the injured party. You became their slave until the debt was paid off (or the master could sell you for the amount of the debt if he didn't want to abide with you for that amount of time). The sold slave would work for the new master until the debt was paid (or the Year of Jubilee came [unless it was a Gentile slave]), and after the debt was paid, he was free (whether Hebrew or Gentile). Keeping him beyond his debt was kidnapping. And we know what happens to kidnappers, right? Right?? - Slavemasters were NOT allowed to be cruel to their slaves. If the cruelty hit a certain level, the slave went free, and the master lost out on his debt. - When a slave was released, the master was to provide him with material goods so he could make his way back out into the world, and he was to do so joyfully, treating his ex-slave as the brother he was. - If a slave's debts surpassed what he could work off in his lifetime, that debt could be passed on to his heirs (we do the same with our tax laws today). If all of that sounds immoral to you, I would invite you to be morally consistent and demand the immediate release of all prison inmates everywhere. After all, they are defacto slaves to the government. Like ancient slaves, they do not control their location or their labor, and they can be transferred from master (ie, warden) to master without their say-so, and their wardens cannot be cruel to them, and after they've paid their debt, they are to be freed. (If you boil it down to its core, prison inmates are indeed essentially identical to ancient slaves.) Thanks.

Some super famous atheist.

A pseudo intellectual and I say that without malice as someone with a moderately high IQ (140 or so)

Because unlike the other sins, slavery was a large institution in much of the world. It could not be solved by "don't act like this" it was a way of life and a engraved institution. However, the Old Testament gave a law to slavery that didn't exist. It gave slavery rules, and injected what morality it could into it. Slavery has always been brutal and horrific, but in an attempt to moderate slavery, the Old Testament gave those rules. These are no injections, it is truth.

@@Jigglywhiteboy7156 I hear you making claims, but your argument is not compelling. I see no evidence that God couldn't simply command His people, whom He just miraculously freed from slavery themselves, that "you cannot have slaves"? Not to mention that nowhere in all of Scripture is slavery condemned. Slaves are commanded to be good slaves, and masters to be good masters -- but I am unaware where slavery - aka ownership of another person as an item of property -- is condemned. I'm open to an argument to the contrary, but it will require something much more persuasive that what you have presented.

@@sbag11 Scripture doesn't condemn slavery because slavery for most of human history was seen as amoral. But for slavery itself, the Bible does not wish to condemn slavery as it mentions how one should be a "slave" to the Lord. And that following the Lord as His slave would set you free. Peter 2:16 "Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves." As I said, the Bible sets rules for slavery to moderate it. It says for masters to be moral and fair, as they themselves are slaves to the Lord. Collosians 4:1-"Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven." And as you know the Bible also asks slaves to follow their masters and be good. The Bible is simply taking an amoral stance on slavery while also bringing morality to it to make it a just institution to the degree it can be. It is implied heavily throughout the Bible that people should be free, as when they are free they can follow the Lord and do what is just. Galatians 5:1 "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery" The slavery under Eygpt was oppressive and cruel, and thus they were set free. The slavery in Rome was also cruel. Cruel slavery is bad, fair slavery is amoral. The idea is that God will set you free.

The master described in dueteronomy, who strikes his slave, was not a follower of God. God condemned this behavior from His people. Biblical slavery is not immoral. It is voluntary and slaves were treated well. In the same way employment today is not immoral. Some employers mistreat their employees, as some masters mistreated their slaves, but that didn't inherently make the practice immoral. Remove the voluntary aspect of it (which was basically every nation that didn't follow God) and it changes completely.

@@GameOn0827 What are you talking about? The reference in Exodus was God's law to His people.

@Gabriel Teo, Exodus 21:16

@@willielee5253 Exodus 21:16 "16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." That is for kidnapping. Can you not read? "20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Also, there is different rules between Hebrew slaves and slaves from bought foreign lands and those taken in wars (not Hebrew). Those slaves are for life. It is as if Jesus took a rod and beat his slave and if he/she didn't die within 2 days, it is ok because he/she was his property. Can you just see it?

"Slavery is the result of the Fall of Man" Nope. Your god not only condoned, but also commanded slavery. In Psalms 2:8 the enslavement of foreigners is described as God's gift to the Israelites. Learn your Bible. Stop lying. "it refers to a era of slavery by a people who bashed Jewish infants against rocks." ...as the the Israelites did to their victims.

That's a stretch.

@@BornOnThursday no it's you guys who are stretching. Slavery is when you don't have a right to the product of your own labor, and you don't get to choose where to go or what to do, with respect to the authority of the one who is your master.

@@horrificpleasantry9474 As I said.

@@horrificpleasantry9474 So when slavery became illegal in America what became illegal?

@@hughjanus2781 slavery is still legal