It's almost like you can get the Bible to say whatever you want if you squint hard enough.
@goldenalt3166 Жыл бұрын
Then you imagine God himself said it (or at least meant to say it).
@hullie7529 Жыл бұрын
That's why the Magisterium exists and why Protestantism is false. Even in the times of Jesus he had to explain some passages from the Scriptures, since people were making all kind of wild interpretations. So the authority voice is in the genesis of Christianity itself.
@goldenalt3166 Жыл бұрын
@@hullie7529 What about the Orthodox? How do you determine who talks to God when multiple people claim to?
@joshuacromley7439 Жыл бұрын
Well Leviticus pertains to the Levites, the "priest-class."
@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Жыл бұрын
Not if you are being honest with yourself.
@NielMalan Жыл бұрын
As a middle-aged white South African I can confidently state that the church interpreted the Bible in one way to justify Apartheid, and in another way to argue for its abolishment.
@TheFranchiseCA Жыл бұрын
In the 1960s, my father was a junior member of a small team of researchers looking at the history of racial statements within his own denomination and tracing where these ideas may have come from. One thing he came across was the widespread "cursed seed of Ham" being applied to Black Africans (and their descendants in Europe and America). White South African religious leaders were extremely fond of it. But it's a really old theory, which has existed most of the time that Genesis has been in its current form.
@WORDSMITHBERGER Жыл бұрын
If the Bible could be interpreted one way to _support_ the institution of apartheid and in another way to _abolish_ the same institution, would it be fair to say that the text itself is neutral; and the fault was with the interpretation (or, perhaps, more accurately, the interpreters)?
@magnificentuniverse3085 Жыл бұрын
@@WORDSMITHBERGERno it wouldnt be fair. How people interpreted text in history has no weight whatsoever on what it actually said and taught.
@WORDSMITHBERGER Жыл бұрын
@magnificentuniverse3085 "It wouldnt be fair. How people interpreted text in history has no weight whatsoever on what it actually said and taught." By this same argument, we should be able to agree that it would certainly be more reasonable than to interpret the text with _modern_ context. Otherwise, one risks committing a historians fallacy. This is why hermeneutics matters.
@juanausensi499 Жыл бұрын
@@WORDSMITHBERGER You say 'neutral'. I say 'useless'.
@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Жыл бұрын
If it did, Christians ✝️ would be able to just quote the statement, not make theological arguments. 😅
@rebukeandreprove. Жыл бұрын
I quote Exodus 21 in actual debate with actual scholars like Dr. Josh. Failed. Don't blame us because you clustered yourself in an echo chamber and therefore never heard exodus 21. Slavery is punishable by death in the OT. 😂😂😂😂
@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Жыл бұрын
@@rebukeandreprove. It very explicitly allows slavery. 1. It very clearly allows nicer forms of slavery like debt slavery 2. The nice bits are constrained within the *CONTEXT* of: • *BUYING* a slave. This does not cover • Earning one through righteous (according to Yahweh/the priests) warfare ⚔. • A slave being made by the law e.g. for the life for a life commandments where applicable • Making new slaves by breeding (something that explicitly happens in Exodus 21) • *HEBREW* slaves, so foreigners can be slaves (by the way slaves are not strangers, so don't try going down *that* route) 3. It is hilariously easy to exploit with legal loopholes and basic intelligence. • Getting them addicted to drugs 💉 is allowed • Not teaching them proper language skills is allowed (so they will be nigh useless in the job market) • Lying 🤥 (not bearing false witness) to them about how cruel everyone else is • Emotionally manipulating them • Using their family as a lure/threat Of course, all of this would be obvious with basic reading comprehension, basic imagination, and no confirmation bias. 🙄🙄🙄
@LM-jz9vh Жыл бұрын
@@rebukeandreprove. *Slavery* Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock. *The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.* However, you may purchase male or female *slaves* from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your *slaves* like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) *The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.* If you buy a Hebrew *slave,* he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your *slave* and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a *slave,* then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a *slave,* and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the *slave* may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the *slave* will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these? *The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?* When a man sells his daughter as a *slave,* she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a *slave* girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them! *What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrongdoing.* When a man strikes his male or female *slave* with a rod so hard that the *slave* dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the *slave* survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the *slave* is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) *You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.* *Slaves,* obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Christians who are *slaves* should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) *In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.* The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
@Dude_bruh Жыл бұрын
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavanathere's a passage in 1 Timothy that says slavers go to hell
@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Жыл бұрын
@@Dude_bruh You do know we have the Internet 🧑💻 now and such blatantly untrue statements won't stand? ➊ It is very clearly talking about the LAW, as in the normal thing and not directly from God 🤖 punishment, from who it is addressed to. Don't forget Christianity ✝ used to be a legal judging entity, before every single nation realised that was a stupid idea and ousted the Church ⛪ from any real legal power to judge crime. ➋ It says literally nothing about Hell 🔥🔥🔥 ➌ It is clearly talking about kidnapping, something against every nation's legal system. Don't let the strawman of "evil 😈" nations you don't like fool 🤡 you. ➍ Paul immediately says he was one of them, meaning they are definitely (if we are trusting Paul for some reason) redeemable i.e. not definitely going to Hell 🔥🔥🔥 ➎ This is clearly talking about people who are naturally evil 😈. It is not a judgement on whether the act is always bad, just that it is common for naturally evil 😈 people to do. An example of something we consider is bad but technically good people can do is not give to charity when you are very rich. Not giving to charity could have a reason, but it *is associated* with evil.
@TheAntiburglar Жыл бұрын
I actually just did a paper on Lincoln's motivations and the abolition of slavery in the United States for one of my classes this semester. You are correct in that Lincoln was compelled by external forces to emancipate African slaves en masse, though his personal letters and writings indicate his preference for all people to be free. Regardless, your point is spot on and your content is spectacular :D
@firstpersonwinner7404 Жыл бұрын
I was gonna say the same thing. Lincoln was personally a moderate abolitionist, but he specifically played that down in public because him being an abolitionist was one of the biggest causes for the secession even before he was inaugurated. The emancipation proclamation was largely just politically practical, and didn't even emancipate all slaves because there were still slave states in the Union.
@chrisbornman5460 Жыл бұрын
All except Native Americans. There he was MUCH worse than Hitler could have dreamed to be. Lincoln was the greatest mass murderer in history, but we subdue it, because apparently USA abuse really ties up to the cruelty of YHWH? Lincoln was the ultimate psychopath.
@diegesisfreak Жыл бұрын
his eagerness to genocide indigenous people far outweighed his tepid abolitionist leanings.
@firstpersonwinner7404 Жыл бұрын
@@diegesisfreak I mean by that metric we could just disavow anything any president has ever done, if it so suits you
@diegesisfreak Жыл бұрын
@@firstpersonwinner7404 sounds good to me "the only good American is a dead American" as they say
@Jake-zc3fk Жыл бұрын
Thanks again Dan! You keep nailing it with these responses to apologists. It is a shame that everyone that believes their bible is a holy book is not willing to look at the counter arguments. I can only hope that in the coming years through the efforts of people like yourself that sanity can eventually prevail. It will likely take generations to finally put this superstition to rest, at whatever level it is put in the trash can of history.
@Taygon0948 ай бұрын
No morality without God. We'd be living in a communist society most likely if God had not been the heart of western civilization. Prove me wrong. Where do you get your morality from if not yourself, and if not yourself, does it apply to everyone or is morality arbitrary?
@gabitamiravideos Жыл бұрын
Content and delivery impecable, as usual.
@LapsedSkeptic Жыл бұрын
As a student I can not thank you enough for all the mini-bibliography sections of your videos…when researching any given topic in the greater genre(s) you discuss it’s seems like an impossible task to simply discern the path at which you want to take to start gathering some data…I lean on you rather heavily all things considered…much gratitude, sir.
@makaleadam Жыл бұрын
It is fascinating to me that you can read a book and draw a myriad of interpretations. Not stopping there, you can also justify human actions based on your interpretations.
@dmckenzie9281 Жыл бұрын
Great video! Super enjoy your channel and love the way you break down these issues.
@sdastoryteller3381 Жыл бұрын
Dude, great video. I think it is important to acknowledge that the Bible was wielded by both sides, pro and anti-Slavery and we impose our morals, Biases etc onto the text. I think ppl like to imagine God proofed Perfect Morality into man Kind during Moses's day, not realizing there's a lot more to the world. If you could, please address Philemon, I've seen that book twisted into "pretzels".
@johnadams3210 Жыл бұрын
that's a good point, using 'in Moses day' as there is little to no evidence the biblical Moses existed ... you are starting a argument with a fairytale
@razorbeard6970Ай бұрын
This is beside the point. The Bible does not outlaw or condemn slavery. Christian and Jewish changes of social opinion on slavery happened independent of the Biblical passages on it from the Old and New Testaments. The NT at no time talks down or defends slavery but, comments on the suffering of the slaves and instructs to obey their masters regardless. In other words, where the Bible doesn't outright endorse slavery, it is hands off.
@scottmaddow7879 Жыл бұрын
Josh Bowen's Athiest Handbook for the Old Testament has a great primer on the topic. Likewise he is revising and expanding his book specifically on the Bible and slavery. He and Kipp Davis participated in a debate against apologists on the topic and it was as one sided as a Mike Tyson v. Paul Ruebens boxing match with the apologists finding they just had no leg to stand on.
@trabob4438 Жыл бұрын
I do not care about wool and linen, the bible say's you can own slaves and beat them, why not have one of the 10 commandments say you shall not own another person?
@roofdogblues7400 Жыл бұрын
@@chadtyrone Many places in the world have no suitable vegetation to wipe with, do not have plumbing and water treatment for bidets let alone toilets, and do not have the money to import paper for the wasteful practice of wiping, in our modern age, today.
@basilkearsley26574 ай бұрын
I notice that the contributor said nothing about not including “done own humans” in the Ten Commandments
@AMoniqueOcampo Жыл бұрын
It's really interesting that the Bible was used to enforce slavery and yet those who were enslaved also see the Bible as something liberating for them. I'd like a further discussion.
@ritawing1064 Жыл бұрын
Stockholm syndrome.
@tehjhu Жыл бұрын
It's almost like you can read whatever you want in the Bible, depending on your personal goals?
@Jake-zc3fk Жыл бұрын
@@tehjhuNot almost is, but is!! 😂
@nobodybeatingmuigokuhesolo8660 Жыл бұрын
@@ritawing1064 Druggie
@StevenWaling Жыл бұрын
There are different voices in the bible. You can emphasise certain passages over others: "in Christ there is no slave or free", for instance, as against the pro-slavery position.
@gregorydeanitos8121 Жыл бұрын
Excellent. Thank you for all the references.
@jamesfutrell9208 Жыл бұрын
When did Tucker Carlson become an accent?
@kevinwilliams77784 ай бұрын
Leviticus 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. The issue is not whether God condoned slavery, because He did. The issue is that Christians are trying to make the scriptures compatible with modern morality, which exists due to societal agreement.
@Zahaqiel Жыл бұрын
That feel when the Bible says nothing at all against a thing and actively spells out a whole bunch of "proper" ways to do that thing, but it still _definitely absolutely_ condemns it somehow because... some specific people 1800+ years later said it was bad. That's some god-tier reading comprehension skills right there. (Also, this is something that needs repeating: "debt slavery", or the "good, life-saving contract slavery" he's talking about, is an actual crime in the US where the other kind is not, and the children of debt slaves in the Bible were also permanent chattel slaves...)
@Dude_bruh Жыл бұрын
show me the verse in which debt slaves children were chattel slaves.
@Zahaqiel Жыл бұрын
@@Dude_bruh Exodus 21:1-6. Male slaves who went into slavery single (so single debt-slaves, single chattel slaves or chattel slaves who were sold independently of their family, and thus were forced to be single) could be given female slaves by the master of their household to form a family with. Female slaves were generally never released (with the few later exceptions that Dan spelled out) and children of slaves stayed with their mothers, so they remained slaves. Having been born as slaves, they were just part of the slave class. If a male was married when they were debt-enslaved, then the whole family was essentially enslaved but then the whole family would be freed when the male slave were freed, and that is the main exception but otherwise children born from slaves remained slaves.
@Dude_bruh Жыл бұрын
@@Zahaqiel I thought the master giving the servant a wife meant the masters daughter or some female relative he was in charge of, was it of other slaves?
@Zahaqiel Жыл бұрын
@@Dude_bruh It was slaves. If you gave a female family member (daughter or otherwise) to a slave, they essentially could not marry anyone afterwards. In fact, attempting to marry off a daughter or other female family member after they had slept with someone was explicitly a death sentence under the law for that woman.
@Dude_bruh Жыл бұрын
@@Zahaqiel I realized that the wife of the debt servant and their children remain enslaved because they were still enslaved permanently. I wonder if it was possible to marry him to a debt slave.
@rollinolson35625 ай бұрын
1800s, Abolitionists were Christians. Practically everybody was a Christian back in those days. 2000s (some) Christians advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, quoing the Bible about love, etc. The argument about Christian Abolitionists is akin to saying that a celebrity endorses a product, so it must be good.
@squiddwizzard88509 ай бұрын
Conflicting rules because they're in two different places. So it's not just the manuals at my work. It's existed for thousands of years.
@hineraable3 ай бұрын
It baffles me how so many people go like "it actually wasn't slavery because slaves were set free after 7 years so" when it clearly freaking says that that rule only applied to Israelites. And in any case, slaving someone for 7 years is still WRONG.
@KasperKatjeАй бұрын
Even worse: only the male Hebrews.
@MitzvosGolem1 Жыл бұрын
In Torah Judaism "slavery" being kidnapping,sale forced labor of human beings is not allowed as per Shulchan Aruch law book Talmud applies to Jew or Gentile human being s . In Judaism an "Eved" is a person who sells themselves willfully to pay for a debt and has rights cannot be abused persecuted tortured imprisoned sold kidnapped etc. The Gentile can then convert to Judaism. Has to be treated as a member of family and cannot be abused has rights in court to sue for release of debt. You are incorrect about Torah Judaism on this issue as per Talmud and Shulchan Aruch law book forbids "slavery" kidnapping sale forced labor etc. You are correct on European s imperialism colonialism using Afrikan native slaves . Excellent channel 👍
@philsphan4414 Жыл бұрын
Wo Nelly on Lincoln. What he said was he wanted to save the Union so if he had to accept slavery where it existed already he would do that. And that was very early. He was so concerned that a defeated South in 1865 would roll back Emancipation once they got back to congress, he pushed the 13th Amendment through. He never preferred winning but keeping slavery.
@1926jqg Жыл бұрын
Love the "ROMANES EUNT DOMUS" shirt!
@argusmacwargus4 ай бұрын
Came here to give that shirt a shout out too! 😂
@jasonschuchardt7624 Жыл бұрын
For what it's worth in the very same letter of Abraham Lincoln's that you're referencing (at least I assume you're talking about the Greeley letter) he made it quite clear that he was personally opposed to slavery, it's just that he thought that his primary goal as president was to preserve the union by whatever means were necessary. It's also worth noting that this was two months before a midterm election, so it's an unreliable indicator of what Lincoln actually thought, and more an indicator of how he thought he needed to present himself to the public.
@ritawing1064 Жыл бұрын
We only have what people declare themselves to think: if such a declaration was hypocritical or lying, we cannot know what was "really" thought, something politicians might well bear in mind today, too. There is plenty of evidence that Lincoln, in common with his peers, thought that races were unequal - why would we think he was lying here?
@xaayer Жыл бұрын
I was about to comment this as well. From my own research Lincoln seemed to be against slavery but wasn't an abolitionist in the sense that he wanted the Fed to weigh in on it. Instead, it seemed he wanted to states to retain their decisions. He personally would want it abolished, but he didn't feel it was the Fed's place to force the states. Frederick Seward recalled the president saying "I never in my life felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper." in reference to the emancipation proclamation. He did his best to hold his arm as still as possible as he signed and explained he did that because any tremor in his handwriting could have been interpreted as a mental reservation about the proclamation. I feel that we have enough about Lincoln form what he generally believed. He may not have always viewed black people as the same with whites and held prejudices (though these faded over time thanks to the Civil War and first hand experiences with black people such as Frederick Douglas) but he always was against slavery and was in favor of black people being freed and his long term plan was for black people to be migrated out of the US to set up their own societies and colonies elsewhere. "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." Abraham Lincoln. TL;DR: Lincoln was anti-slavery, though would reign it in in public for political appearance but viewed black people as equal in terms of "man" but not the same as white, and we have pretty good evidence that he progressed further on this in his life.
@bpdrumstudio8 ай бұрын
I'm glad you did this video compared to other ones as well however I'm glad this young man is being called out like he usually and should be because he's only writing into his ideas and narrative that doesn't actually exist in the book and misleading and being seemingly dishonest in his attempt to soften slavery it's as pathetic as his father is in regards of their feeble attempts to make the Bible say what they wanted to say instead of recognizing what it actually does say
@dimitrioskalfakis Жыл бұрын
objective addressing of the subjects. good work.
@Catholic-Perennialist Жыл бұрын
Not only does the Bible condone slavery, but every modern Western consumer promotes slavery through their spending habits, among other things.
@rainbowkrampus Жыл бұрын
Capitalism is pretty gross.
@Othique Жыл бұрын
Capitalism incentivises slavery... People want to know how to make sex trafficking go away? Two steps - abolish patriarchy and abolish capitalism.
@NielMalan Жыл бұрын
I get the feeling this creator learned everything he knows about slavery in the Bible from a William Lane Craig video.
@jerryhayes9497 Жыл бұрын
It's amazing that the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the whole universe couldn't write a crystal clear book...
@robithesir Жыл бұрын
He did. It's just hard for humans to fully understand an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God
@jerryhayes9497 Жыл бұрын
@@robithesir humans that you think he created. He wrote a crystal clear book for the humans he created too dumb to understand the crystal clear book he wrote? Yeah that totally makes sense 🤣😂
@robithesir Жыл бұрын
@@jerryhayes9497 we understand enough. For example, people don't fully understand the trinity even though it's biblical. And u don't believe that we are created. So u think we came from thin air or?????
@jerryhayes9497 Жыл бұрын
@@robithesir understand enough? Is that why there are thousands of denominations, all arguing about what it means? We evolved over billions of years.. If your question actually is... Where did the universe come from? Then the answer is, we don't know
@jerryhayes9497 Жыл бұрын
This is the point where you think you have won... But all you have actually done is fallen for a logical fallacy. The argument from ignorance fallacy AKA the god of the gaps fallacy.. "Science doesn't know, therefore a god did it" ISN'T LOGICAL
@Yalam99Ай бұрын
I am so tired of apologists churning out the "7 years and they were set free" line when challenged on this, deliberately ignoring the permanent chattal slavery passages. Seen William Lane Craig do precisely this and it's not like he doesn't know the truth of it. The dishonesty is alarming.
@sandycarr22 Жыл бұрын
Dan is my favourite Mormom.
@sketchygetchey82999 ай бұрын
So who’s your favorite Mordad? 😜 But seriously though, if I had him in my Sunday School class, I’d actually be motivated to go.
@dvonzosch461 Жыл бұрын
@6:40 Most believers aren't aware of Leviticus 25:44-46, that allowed the permanent purchase of owned humans " from the nations around you " , and " as inheritance for your children after you " " ... they shall be your manslaves and womenslaves _forever_ ...." In fact, Solon the Lawgiver abolished debt slavery entirely in 6th Century BCE Greece, while at Exodus 21:7 s father was allowed to sell his own daughter into permanent enslavement.
@jstenuf8 ай бұрын
Also The Color of Compromise by Jemar Tisby
@reneemark6622 Жыл бұрын
How did the mormon church do on the subject of slavery.......? The mormon church is said to be lead by Gods prophets and Apostles and they got it deeply, deeply wrong. Along with policies from Gods prophets on homosexuality, what to do in cases of child abuse, abuse of women. With Gods handbook, this church has abused more people then you could shake a bible at.
@janetmilan4698 Жыл бұрын
People called Romanes they go the house?
@MichaelWalker-de8nf Жыл бұрын
Dan, you the man.
@perrywilliams54074 ай бұрын
When dealing with an apologist putting forth the "without God, there is no morality", start here and don't let them wriggle away. Finish off with 1 Samuel 15:3. God's own morality is obscene.
@ritawing1064 Жыл бұрын
Great reading list!
@francissreckofabian01 Жыл бұрын
Took me quite awhile to figure out your T-shirt. At first I thought you were being a naughty boy but now I suspect it is a Monty Python quote?
@justinboyett8843 Жыл бұрын
1:43 This was the subject of my thesis. Matthew 5:17 is INTERPRETED as abolishing the Law; but Jesus is actually dating the opposite.
@Junoncross Жыл бұрын
I think dudebro is making reference to pauls letters when he says the new testament abrogated the garment law. I believe paul was addressing the need to circumcise when he states that there is a new covenant now, no need to snippy-snippy. One could argue that this new covenant idea could apply as a blanket to all things Deuteronomy and beyond. But folks do like to cherry pick that book. Anyway, not arguing in his defense, but just what i interpreted from his phrasing. Kudos.
@muertito8077 Жыл бұрын
Thank you ❤❤❤
@hallowacko6 ай бұрын
Abraham Lincoln was a lifelong abolitionist, he had to say that because he was campaigning at the time, and needed to not scare off people who were still sympathetic to slavery. Atun Shei films can confirm
@benroberts2222 Жыл бұрын
Didn't Gregory of Nyssa come up with an anti-slavery negotiation early on? If so then strictly speaking it didn't take almost 2000 years to come up with
@jackcimino8822 Жыл бұрын
There were early Christians like him who were against slavery as an institution, but I think they didn't prevail as majority views for centuries.
@benroberts2222 Жыл бұрын
@@jackcimino8822 yes I agree the "nearly 2000 years" timeline is accurate insofar as we're talking about a common or widespread interpretation
@TheFranchiseCA Жыл бұрын
The problem was that there was money to be made. De las Casas had a better argument than Sepùlveda, but it didn't matter.
@nilssturman52587 күн бұрын
Another claim that I find bizarre and, yes, profoundly dishonest is that "ancient slavery cannot be in any way compared to antebellum slavery". Ok... where's the data? We do have data demonstrated that the Atlantic slave trade was abominable. We have no data whatsoever that relates to how slaves were treated in Ancient Israel. When one looks through the antebellum slave codes, one notices the exact same kind of property-safeguarding concerns (slaves were viewed as tools) that one sees in the Hebrew Bible: You can beat your slave, but make sure he can still work after 3 days, kind of things. Are we to believe that Ancient Israelites respected their law codes better and treated their slaves more humanely than slave-owners in the antebellum south? I call BS. It's an argument from silence. So, to quote Lincoln: If slavery isn't wrong, nothing is wrong.
@jon4574 Жыл бұрын
The commentor's name is, "Dogmatic1611," so you know their comments are going to be dogmatically laughable.
@SylotizeecontactАй бұрын
Slavery was abolished by french in 1791,and they even emancipated them.until fool napoleon re introduced them.But after second republic aka 1823,slavery was again abolished.
@Patrick-rw9el7 ай бұрын
jesus and john wayne by Kristin Kobes Du metz is also a great book about how evangelicalism in america rose to the position it is nnow and its relation to masculinity
@christasimon97163 ай бұрын
Is he saying that Bible-Belt slave owners _weren't_ Christian?
@diogeneslamp8004Ай бұрын
No, he’s saying that Christianity was used by Bible-Belt slave owners to justify keeping slaves. The implication of the remark that it took 2,000 years for people to decide slavery was wrong is that this decision was based more on an evolution of the _Zeitgeist_ than it was driven by biblical imperatives and that Christianity was invoked only to ease the adoption of an anti-slavery stance.
@VulcanLogic Жыл бұрын
Modern Jewish Orthodoxy limits the concept for clothing of sha'atnez to just linen and wool. This applies to threading and stitching, not just the fabric--and make no mistake, this happens all the time. US labels can say "100% wool" if the fabric is 100% wool, but the stitching can be 100% something else. There's actually a cottage industry in Israel of people who check labels and brands with microscopes and other scientific means to ensure that the materials do not break Jewish law. That said, Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not written by the same people, and this is absolutely a difference that had to be negotiated.
@beorntwit7116 ай бұрын
Is there a channel likwme Dan's for the Qu'ran? Does anyone know?
@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Жыл бұрын
If you are a clever slave owner, you could probably engineer a situation to reliably get Israelite ✡️ slaves ⛓👤 as chattel slaves eventually too with loopholes. Also, there is nothing against the law enslaving (or technically the person enslaving themselves as per LAW) people for things like the abortion law (which has the victim being the father, that needs to be reimbursed of their property).
@dustinrichburg8638 Жыл бұрын
If you have to bring up loopholes, I think it is understood by you all that God regulating slavery for a time doesn't mean that He is PRO-chattel slavery. You guys have to be anti-christians, dishonorable atheists, and/or plain grifters to keep this going.
@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Жыл бұрын
@@dustinrichburg8638 Every LAW has loopholes ➿. Pretending otherwise is just plain delusional. Loopholes ➿ are a part of the law, not a failure of it. If you don't like them, that is a you 🫵 problem, not a law or loophole user problem Also,: • Regulating anything means you are okay with it happening, or powerless to stop it. God 🤖 is clearly powerful enough to stop it. • The regulations are not even that good. 6 years is much longer than the payback time of work training. • Non-chattel slavery is still slavery. Something being less bad, doesn't make it not that thing. • The Bible ✝ clearly has de facto chattel slavery • The Bible ✝ doesn't regulate slavery ⛓👤 anymore than a peak pro-slavery society would have to ensure market stability. You need to make a *strawman* of slave owning societies to try and distinguish the Bible's ✝ rules from it. Believers get away with a lot of nonsense based entirely on the fact that humans constantly forget the humans they deem evil 😈 are people too.
@ranilodicen4460 Жыл бұрын
we need more maklelan in this days of false and fake news
@EricMcLuen Жыл бұрын
It is interesting to read the abolitionists and slave owners each quote Bible verses supporting their causes. Lincoln was also a lot more nuanced. He couldnt push abolotion too much as a lot of Northerner's they didn't think slavery was worth going to war for.
@manbearpig3507 Жыл бұрын
is that a Life of Brian t-shirt from the Latin scene
@scienceexplains302 Жыл бұрын
“Improved softness and wearability if used for garments. Less prone to creases and more supple.” Advertised advantages of blending linen and wool.
@wartgin2 ай бұрын
Yes, there were several centuries where linsey-woolsey is a preferred fabric for a number of uses.
@jackcimino8822 Жыл бұрын
I heard that pagans in Ireland who converted to Christianity had to give up their slaves. Was that true?
@rainbowkrampus Жыл бұрын
The prohibition on mixing fabrics always felt like a euphemism to me. I know what the scholarship says on it but I can't help but wonder if there wasn't some translation or transmission error somewhere along the line and "don't mix fabrics *wink*" became "don't mix fabrics, ever".
@TheFranchiseCA Жыл бұрын
It's a real rule as written, but it existed within the religious code for symbolic reasons.
@Junoncross Жыл бұрын
omg dude, love your shirt btw
@JosefPollard-sm1gr Жыл бұрын
I could have sworn God punished that stuff in the bible. Every so many years a new revision comes out. Abraham Moses Joshua Yeshua.... humility is always an underpinning. And Gods will about bondage is not to muzzle the ox.
@mel3256 Жыл бұрын
Can we please just make religion a product to be consumed over 18....we would get rid of the toxic irrationality of religion that has plagued humanity forever within a few generations.
@WORDSMITHBERGER Жыл бұрын
What *exactly* constitutes ownership?
@howlrichard1028 Жыл бұрын
Legal recognition of such, and/or the ability to commerce with something.
@WORDSMITHBERGER Жыл бұрын
@howlrichard1028 So, if money changes hands in exchange for something, that and that _alone,_ constitutes ownership? Does legal recognition of ownership require some sort of documentation, like a receipt, title, deed, or registration?
@travcollier Жыл бұрын
Not the most important topic discussed in this video, but I'm curious. Anyone have any good practical and/or historical theories for why the mixing of fabrics was forbidden?
@Hornfancy Жыл бұрын
I've heard it suggested that textiles identified the tribe one belonged to, so mixing them would create a confused identity. I don't remember where I heard it nor can I make a claim on the voracity, so🤷
@travcollier Жыл бұрын
@@Hornfancy That's new to me, but would fit with the importance of "boundary maintenance"
@gdevelek Жыл бұрын
That christian doesn't need better education, he's well aware of what his holy book says, he just needs to stop lying for Cheesus. But he won't.
@grayman7208 Жыл бұрын
3:50 not "exactly" true. lincoln ran as a republican, and the republican party was formed as an anti-slavery party. that lincoln was anti-slavery was well known, and the secessionists made it clear they would leave the union if lincoln won, because of his anti-slavery stance. his quote was "political speech."
@ChadLuca3 ай бұрын
Oh ok man, could you explain to me a little more brother? Lincon said "political speech" or what dan said? I need help understanding brother, God bless you
@Tabascosause Жыл бұрын
"What cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating." - Newton's flaming laser sword.
@nedsantos1415 Жыл бұрын
Lincoln's personal letters actually reveal his preference for abolition of slavery. However, politically, that was not a practical and easy choice to act on.
@hive_indicator3189 ай бұрын
The quote about his preference for keeping the union whole and keeping slavery was in a personal letter. Also, if your values are determined by how you can most easily keep a position of power, your value is that power.
@ningenJMK Жыл бұрын
What does your shirt say?
@jenna2431 Жыл бұрын
Done away with ..but if you're gay, the stuff totally applies to you whether or not you accept the Bronze Age Goatherd Manual for your life.
@tehjhu Жыл бұрын
I want that shirt.
@genotriana3882 Жыл бұрын
Who were the first people to claim that slavery was immoral and what text did they base their claim on? What religion do most African Americans treasure? What race is the average Christian belong to? Who put black people in zoos and claimed that they were an inferior race? In the history of the world, what race did the majority of slaves belong to and who enslaved them? Did free black people own slaves in America? The answers to these questions do not fit an over-simplified narrative.
@jaskitstepkit7153 Жыл бұрын
Indeed
@boboak9168 Жыл бұрын
✌️
@alexmcd3789 ай бұрын
Iirc, am Israelite could also be made a permanent slave if they were "willing". The owner could give them a wife. Any children from the union would belong to the owner as well. When the debt slave was to be set free, he might want to stay with his wife and kids. But doing so many becoming a permanent slave
@karmachameleon326 Жыл бұрын
The entire concept that Christians led the charge to free the slaves is easily disproven, just in the fact that the slave owners were predominately Christian. Good people led the charge to free the slaves; their faith in a particular deity had nothing to do with it, though they - just as the slave owners did - used their religion to bolster the claims for their side of the argument.
@jaskitstepkit7153 Жыл бұрын
It just so happens that most of the major Abolisionists from Gregory Nissa all the way to Abraham Lincoln were Christians.
@howlrichard1028 Жыл бұрын
@@jaskitstepkit7153 And so were the slavers.
@Deathhellandthegrave6 ай бұрын
The god depicted in the bible is a slavery loving god. Stop trying to deny that the bible has no problem with slavery.
@dvonzosch461 Жыл бұрын
@6:16 Solon the Lawgiver abolished debt slavery entirely in 6th Century BCE Greece, while YahwehJesus's Mosaic Law allowed a father to sell his own daughter into permanent enslavement --- at the same time as Apostle Paul was endorsing humans owning other humans at Ephesians 6:5: " Slaves be obedient to your masters with all respect..." --- the Emperor Wang Mang of First Century China abolished owning other humans, even if for a few years. The Southern Baptist Church exists today, since 1845, because of Leviticus 25:44-46, and the Apostle Paul's multiple endorsements of humans owning other humans, and his command to return a runaway owned human named Onesimus, to his owner in the book of Philemon.
@batbite_ Жыл бұрын
Wouldn't Christians see all human beings as Israelites though?
@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Жыл бұрын
Not most of them.
@thepubliusproject10 ай бұрын
Heh. I was the 666th like. Nice.
@jaskitstepkit7153 Жыл бұрын
What is worse, starvation or debt servitude.? Weren't Israelites supposed to convert the foreign slaves into Judaism? This will mean that even the foreigner would get the tame treatment. " For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner " Gen. 17: 12-14
@jaclo3112 Жыл бұрын
No. The foreign slave was a slave for life, and so were his children as per leviticus. As for slavery vs starvation, your dichotomy is false. There are many other humane and moral options that don't include slavery as an option to avoid starvation. Humans in civilised countries have been doing it for decades. Just because the christian gods of the bible are too stupid to come up with moral and humane solutions to poverty that isn't slavery, doesn't mean human beings can't and haven't.
@oldschool510 ай бұрын
No.. Just slavery. The god that created the galaxies stars moon and sun is in a tent in the middle of the desert talking about owning slaves.
@MarcillaSmith Жыл бұрын
I am highly opposed to any sort of human bondage, including sl@very, and especially the sort of race-based sl@very that came to be in the USA and which persists under the guise of the "justice" system. Full stop, no buts. That being said, what I object to in this instance is the way this discussion is typically presented - not necessarily mentioned one way or another by Mr. McClellan - as if there was no sl@very, and then the authors of the Biblical texts invented the idea, or at the very least were defending the institution in the face of some abolitionist movement. Realistically, the authors of the Biblical texts are only human, and only know the world in which they live. Were there other cultures around the ancient Israelites practicing some form of post-sl@very economy? If so, I'd like to learn more about it, as I've never heard of one. This isn't to rush in with a "you can't judge them by today's standards" handwave - the Bible certainly records atrocities and the Church only professes that the Bible is inerrant in theology. To the contrary, I think we would do well to consider, in humility, the ways in which we expect _ourselves_ to be excused by future generations for the things we accept nowadays because "that's just the way things are done."
@howlrichard1028 Жыл бұрын
I understand your point, but that's not what Dan is doing here. The thing is, many apologists (like the one Dan is responding to here) claim that the Bible does not condone slavery when it clearly does, regardless of historical context.
@WellFedSheep Жыл бұрын
I don't see how Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11 contradict in anyway they say the same thing with slightly different wording? Also the doing away with Old Testament ordinances is not a "pick a choose" mentality it is a commandment given plainly in Colossians 2:14-23 KJV. Eating blood was condemned in all dispensations of the bible including before the law was given in Genesis 9:4 KJV. Lastly the bible does teach that slavery is acceptable but within certain bounds dictated by God one of which is that the buying and selling of slaves through kidnapping is to be punished with death in Exodus 21:16 KJV. The bible also does not teach white supremacy it teaches Jew supremacy.
@billjohnson9472 Жыл бұрын
the book was written by jews, for jews. it has laws for jews, and for how jew should interact with non-jews which is not at all the same thing as supremacy.
@WellFedSheep Жыл бұрын
@@billjohnson9472 The bible teaches that God will destroy all nations except Israel and when he reestablishes the nations they will have to come to Israel to pay tribute to him. Seems pretty clear to me that the Jewish people are special in God's sight in a way that no other nation is. I should mention that I am neither Jewish nor am I saying this to condemn what the Bible teaches as I believe it in its entirety. The simple fact is though that the Jews are God's chosen people and there is no way around that. However right now you can be adopted by God and become his child in which case you are neither a Jew or Gentile but a son of God (Galatians 3:27-29 KJV). John 4:22 KJV Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. Jeremiah 30:11 KJV For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished. Zechariah 8:23 KJV Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
@billjohnson9472 Жыл бұрын
@@WellFedSheep like I said, written by jews for jews. so of course they write that their god chose them. just as the people of Athens said that Athena chose them.
@WellFedSheep Жыл бұрын
@@billjohnson9472 We might have different understandings of what supremacy means. My point is the bible does not teach white supremacy as many try to twist it into saying, but rather teaches that the Jewish people are in fact the chosen people of God which makes them inherently superior due to the favor they receive. Just because it was written by Jews does not change the fact that it teaches this. The reason I made this assertion in my original comment was to point out the error in using the bible to prop up white supremacy movements as being somehow ordained by God when the bible does not give any such favor to the white Gentile races.
@markofsaltburn Жыл бұрын
@@WellFedSheepThe “favour” Jews have received from God presumably includes the 1,000 years of persecution and terror at the hands of Europeans and Eurasians that culminated in the murder of one-third of them in the 20th Century by Nazis. God either willed that, or chose not to grant his “superior” subjects release from that suffering.
@thegeologian Жыл бұрын
This overlooks the fact that Hebrew slavery was largely to prevent rampant poverty. It was debt servitude. The regulations for slaves or “bondservants” prohibited killing them and harming them, such as wounding their eye or removing a tooth, resulted in their freedom. Thus beating was discouraged. The regulations of the lands around Israel treated them more like property and they could kill them without penalty or without much in certain cases. Additionally, this overlooks the idea of “race,” as we know it today, arising from Darwin, or at least being aided by his writing, and the idea that races with darker skin color were less evolved. White skin was “more evolved” because it was further removed from humanity’s ancestors: apes.
@jaclo3112 Жыл бұрын
Omg this nonsense apolgetic by christian aplogists and regurgitated by stupid christians who are too lazy to read their own bible and christian history is the worst. The bible clearly legislates brutal chattel slavery in leviticus and Deuteronomy. Debt slavery was ONLY for hebrew men. Hebrew women could be sold intobsex slavery by their fathers (see exodus) or taken as POWs if they were foreigners. Then there's the legislating allowing Hebrews to take foreigners and their children as chattel slaves and pass them on to their children as an inheritance FOR LIFE!!! It then clearly states how brutally you can beat your foreign chattel slaves. These were the laws christians followed for the majority of the last 2000 years as their foundation of christian slavery, including the transatlantic slave trade. As for slavery laws of cultures around Israel, they were much more merciful, such as the Hamarabi codes which allowed slaves to be freed after 3 years as opposed to 6 in hebrew slavery. They also had more protections for chattel slaves. So not sure where you get the idea that hebrew slavery was better? As for Darwin, christians already held that black people were inferior centuries before Darwin ever existed. When he published Origin of the Species it didn't bolster the christian belief of racial superiority. In fact it wasn't long after it wad published that the civil war in the US began to end slavery. So you are literally pulling christian slavery revisionism out of your butt.
@likemanner Жыл бұрын
It was abominable to provide food, shelter, and clothing to the otherwise destitute in exchange for contractual labor?
@squiddwizzard8850 Жыл бұрын
Contracts require consent.
@likemanner Жыл бұрын
@@squiddwizzard8850 e.g. selling yourself into slavery. Jacob (Israel) served 7 years twice. So very "abominable" that they would have a way of dealing with poverty that was mutually beneficial.
@squiddwizzard8850 Жыл бұрын
@@likemanner I was moreso speaking to chattel slavery and sex slavery. But even sent slavery is horrific. You lose your job and go into debt and you act like slavery is a fair, just solution?
@likemanner Жыл бұрын
@@squiddwizzard8850 Yes, well, it was debt slavery that he called abominable, and by implication, chattel slavery worse than abominable. A few things to consider. Which is worse, absolute poverty and destitution or involuntary servitude as covered by the laws of Israel? Being a slave in ancient Israel or a slave virtually anywhere else in the world? A slave that found their conditions unbearable were given the right to flee, as they could not legally be returned to their master. If they were harmed to the point of losing a a single tooth, they were to go free. Slaves were often treated as family, and absent another heir might even inherit their master's estate. Slaves were not kidnapped from foreign countries, but could be purchased from there (they were already slaves), or gotten through conquest (perhaps delivered from a war-ravaged land, empty of the human resources and infrastructure necessary to maintain a stable economy). Slavery, voluntary or not, was a mutually beneficial institution that is viewed negatively only from the vantage of a highly industrialized, technically advanced society that has rendered such labor unnecessary.
@LM-jz9vh Жыл бұрын
@@likemanner *Slavery* Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock. *The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.* However, you may purchase male or female *slaves* from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your *slaves* like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) *The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.* If you buy a Hebrew *slave,* he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your *slave* and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a *slave,* then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a *slave,* and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the *slave* may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the *slave* will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these? *The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?* When a man sells his daughter as a *slave,* she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a *slave* girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them! *What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrongdoing.* When a man strikes his male or female *slave* with a rod so hard that the *slave* dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the *slave* survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the *slave* is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) *You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.* *Slaves,* obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Christians who are *slaves* should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) *In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.* The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
@paulpierce2051 Жыл бұрын
yeah slavery isn’t nor has it ever been immoral. Thanks Dan for clearing that up.
@hullie7529 Жыл бұрын
It seems like you're also picking and choosing. Let's see: when someone makes a reading of the Bible that you don't agree with, they're forcing their interpretation into the text, but when someone makes your interpretation (like 19th century evangelicals believing the Bible supports slavery) then it's proof that it is so. They're not infusing their own ideas into the text, oh no, they're making that interpretation because the text allows them to, even though millions of Christians throughout history didn't make that reading. You can't be serious, man.
@billjohnson9472 Жыл бұрын
you just illustrate that the words of the bible are not really meaningful if you can interpret them in many different ways. however the text clearly condones slavery and gives specific rules about it so that is not a matter of interpretation, it is clearly stated in the text.