How the Bible Supports Slavery

[@FaptainCalcon750]

“This isn’t the bad kind of slavery! This is a good kind of slavery!” The mental gymnastics apologists go through regarding this topic never ceases to astound me.

[@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικός]

Religious superstition has been a skid mark on humanities ability to progress efficiently and rationally, unfortunately.☹️😒

[@andrewprahst2529]

Maybe it would be better to say "not slavery" We still practice something in every country that many people call "wage slavery" aka work

[@isveryniceyes]

@@andrewprahst2529 Wage slavery is a real thing, but that's not equivalent to the slavery mentioned in Exodus.

[@johnbenson4927]

@@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικός Religious "superstition" is what brought forth the notion of human rights. Atheism brought forth the Law of Darwin, which claims that the strong lives at the expense of the weak.

[@katrose5179]

@@johnbenson4927 are you…Are you trying to argue that atheism is what led to the theory of natural selection and that it somehow is a commentary on morality?

[@kappascopezz5122]

I really like this style of interview that Alex is doing where he hits Bowen with the best arguments that he knows to form a comprehensive view, even when he doesn't believe in them himself and even has his own rebuke prepared

[@polmccharmly6293]

I mean, this is how proper interviews should look like, otherwise you'd have two people agreeing with each other the whole time, which is only good for living in an information bubble

[@vhawk1951kl]

Why does the puppy Alex or anyone else for that matter get so moralistic or religious about slavery?

[@kappascopezz5122]

@@vhawk1951kl They are moralistic about slavery because they think that slavery is bad

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@kappascopezz5122 "bad" meaning what?

[@albertjohnson2061]

@@vhawk1951kl Slavery is bad because it takes away the agency of a living, sentient, sapient being. Hopefully you can come to realize that doing something like that is heinous. Best, A dude on the internet

[@jeremiahthompson9367]

Every minute I listened to this I felt sicker and sicker at having once believed in this barbarism.

[@chomperplant2843]

The thing is that Christians never teaches and only teaches the good things, but never reveals the most heinous evil acts that is in the bible.

[@newtonia-uo4889]

What do you believe in now?

[@jimtomo9207]

There's loads of books with slavery in. I don't think Christian should have to apologise for a book that was written 2000 years ago

[@jimtomo9207]

​@Newtonia -UO I believe in The science

[@newtonia-uo4889]

@@jimtomo9207 What does science say about slavery?

[@alrenobenjamin6566]

Really appreciative that respectable bible scholars are now getting featured on your show, the community isn't one that gets much recognition in the non-religious community but they give so much more background to the textual analysis and criticism of the religious material

[@UNKLEnic]

I just felt called to shed some truth on this that Mr. Bowtie clearly left out and most likely knows and therefore is misleading. I encourage all of you to fact check me and look this up yourself. The word slave and even property was used differently way back then and is not used in the same way that we used it in America. Look up when the word slave was even invented, it was around 1500s. The Hebrew word ‘slave’ was actually used for ‘Ebed’ it meant worker, or servant and they did enter into an agreement. Thousands of historical scholars and thousands of years disagree with Mr. Bowtie. On top of that, the word ‘Property’ wasn’t used the same as Alex or Mr. Bowtie use it in the context. It meant the use they would perform in exchange for their work. In other words it was the agreed amount of work they would perform. Just like the word ‘gay’ means homosexual today meant happy only a hundred years ago. Now as far as it being okay for slavery to only be okay for outsiders, here are some verses these gentlemen left out and I think on purpose. These are right before the verses they cherry picked that actually explain the context. Just know that this is not a new topic and gets debunked every time someone chooses to challenge it again as if this conversation never happened before. See how the Lord commands how to treat foreigners and this applies to slaves or workers as well. Leviticus 19:33-34 - 'And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. Exodus 23:9 9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt. 22: 21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Deuteronomy 27:19 New International Version 19 “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!” Deuteronomy 10:19 New International Version 19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.

[@davydtaylor4151]

@@UNKLEnic it makes no difference as the bible describes what they mean by slavers, ie ownership of another human being

[@UNKLEnic]

@@davydtaylor4151 you didn't read my post did you? Because I pointed that out....

[@davydtaylor4151]

@@UNKLEnic yes I did read your comment. It appears to be a list of post hoc excuses. You claim to add “context” to the slavery debate yet none of the verses mention slaves. Foreigners are not slaves. God seems to be able to give rules against killing, stealing, raping, wearing mixed fabrics, eating shellfish, working on the sabbath etc etc etc. However, he is utterly inept when it comes to stating the immorality of owning other humans. This is an argument you cannot win because even if you could find a way to convince me that God was against slavery, you would still be left with undeniable fact that the bibles ambiguity further displays Gods ineptitude.

[@calebr7199]

​@@UNKLEnic An indentured servant is just another form of slavery. There was also chattel slavery too, as they mention. Just take the L, the bible condoned slavery.

[@tomthomassony8607]

The slavery argument is the same as the ‘deserving’ poor and the ‘undeserving’ poor argument.

[@mar07in]

what do you mean by that? Could you explain?

[@tomthomassony8607]

@@mar07in The Undeserving poor are people who are congratulated for working 60 hours a week, at minimum wage, cleaning toilets. The Deserving poor are people who claim Government benefits as they refuse to be exploited by greedy bosses. The same applies to ‘good’ Christian slavery in the Bible and the ‘bad’ slavery of Plantation owners.

[@Mini_Arj]

@@mar07in I could be wrong but I learnt these terms when revising for my GCSE's and they came up in the context in the book "A christmas carol". Im pretty sure the deserving poor are people that are understood to be hard working people however they're still found in hardship and the undeserving poor are people that did not work hard and still don't find themselves battling any hardship.

[@mar07in]

​@@Mini_Arj Ah, so its part of meritocratic ideas?

[@Mini_Arj]

@@mar07in I have no clue what meritocratic ideas are bro but I'm sure you're correct

[@nataschavisser573]

The "beating up your slaves and if they survive for a few days you are in the clear" rule was also followed in the Cape Colony under Dutch rule. There was an infamous murder case in the mid-18th century during which a Cape Town slave owner, Jacob van Reenen, was charged with murder after one of his slaves died because Van Reenen literally tortured him for several days and then left him tied up for a few days more. But Van Reenen got off because the slave died more than 3 days after Van Reenen stopped beating him and did not die imediately. From the description of how the poor slave was beaten, it is not conceivable to me that Van Reenen did not know that the man would die, either of injury, exposure or thirst and this was clear to the court but they still could not convict him.

[@alicerose5191]

Horrifying! 😭

[@Dragoon803]

I wouldn't mind reading about that. Can you share the link to it?

[@wayfa13]

@@Dragoon803 you just did =S

[@nataschavisser573]

​@@Dragoon803 I actually came accross the case when I researched the life and times of Van Reenen since he became an important political figure later. I think I read it in the archives more than 10 years ago.

[@ianmartinesq]

If the verse is about not murdering slaves, but also about not sentencing masters to death because the slave died while beaten not because of the beating, then the court reached the wrong conclusion because he clearly intended to kill the slave and just wanted to make use of a loophole. If a master told a slave to drink what the master knew to be arsenic and the slave died immediately, is that not murder because the master didn’t do anything but speak. That seems like it could also evade the woodenly applied letter of the law but squarely violates the spirit of the law.

[@adrianghandtchi1562]

59:16 consent under duress is never consent. Thank you for bringing such a horrible justification up.

[@johnwatts8346]

grey area.

[@newtonia-uo4889]

We're all under duress, in all times, under all other conditions. A criminal can give his testimony to court or he could not, the threat of jail time is definitely putting him under duress and changing the calculus in his mind on whether he should or should not give his testimony. If he did give his testimony, it could be said that it is given under duress but no one in this world is going to treat it like that because that invalidates humanity's entire system of law enforcement and therefore civilization. You have to be accurate when you say "consent under duress is never consent" because that is generally not the case.

[@trenhen4311]

@@newtonia-uo4889 this is kinda a straw man. Consent in the context op mentioned isn’t the same as testifying.

[@newtonia-uo4889]

​@@trenhen4311 How is that a strawman? all actions are done under a consideration of the ills and boons one may incur through that action. Some actions are done because the Ills of the act being done is lesser than a perceived ill that may occur in the future. That stress that occurs from evaluating the ills borne from the choices that one can commit to and feeling as if they are forced, through their own evaluation, to eliminate all other choices and choose one choice is literally the process of "consenting under duress". We can ask whether or not the duress inflicted is justified but consenting under duress is literally the entire premise of law enforcement and therefore order and civilization.

[@wavy6470]

​@@johnwatts8346 What is gray about it?

[@sirrevzalot]

I’m an atheist now, but even when I was a Christian, I read these passages. Initially, it didn’t challenge my faith. I just accepted that was the way the world used to be and there was nothing I could do about it. I’m not proud of that and I know better now. What shocks me is how much Christians today will argue for/defend slavery because they can’t accept their book is flawed-all while claiming they love truth, calling a spade a spade, etc. If you only like truth when it flatters you, you’re not for the truth.

[@markh1011]

@Bronson the Nomad _"Well in CosmicSkeptics universe there can't even be morality/immorality in the first place since there is no free will."_ In his universe, morality still exists even if there is no free will. Morality is defined as - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Whether free will exists doesn't change that description. It still exists.

[@sirrevzalot]

@@markh1011 I don't know who replied first, but they obviously deleted their post after you posted yours. Hopefully, they ran in shame. Although, I have no idea how they twisted my words into a free will issue. Weird.

[@supme7558]

Thats how delusional they are not one word is true

[@derpjesus3468]

@@markh1011 What about evolution? What we call Micro-evolution works which is variations within the species and natural selection can cause this, however, the religion of macro-evolution where one species changes so much it can no longer breed with that species doesn’t work, and evolution has yet to explain how all the atoms in the universe came into existence in the first place.

[@markh1011]

@@derpjesus3468 _" What about evolution?"_ What does that have to do with this topic? _"and evolution has yet to explain how all the atoms in the universe came into existence"_ Evolution is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with how atoms came into existence. Your complaint is irrelevant.

[@HER0121]

I love how the guest speaks so eloquently but occasionally says things like yolo and sick flex bro 😂

[@katinapac-baez5083]

He sure doesn't look like someone who'd use those frequently 🙃... kind of a good thing though, this topic is overall nauseating.

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Dr. Joshua Bowen is the best person on this topic!!! I love that guy. Get his books if you really wanna learn so much more.

[@matthewsocoollike]

Agreed.

[@JRRTokeKing]

Absolutely agree!

[@coreyrodriguez6955]

He's very knowledgeable and humble in my opinion.

[@alrenobenjamin6566]

Love your channel btw, it's guys like you that help produce the mass education on textual criticism of the bible

[@liveonce2102]

But.......we are mythvision!

[@NielMalan]

"Thou shalt not keep or trade in slaves." Done. Easy, wasn't it?

[@arcticpangolin3090]

Funny how an all powerful god with infinite knowledge couldn’t think to do that.

[@arcticpangolin3090]

@M H You’re missing the point. The supposed god of the bible decreed in no small terms against things like murder and worshiping false idols but seems to have missed the bit about slavery which would have been just as simple and potentially quite fitting given the exodus narrative if it were true. So why does the bible not include such a decree as to not own slaves? Well, when taking into account the parts of the bible which talk on slavery, it’s obvious. The bible very much comes down on the side of slavery and explicitly condones it.

[@Okijuben]

​​@@arcticpangolin3090 This is precisely why theists' argument, "if you don't get your morals from the bible, where-oh-where do you get it from?" doesn't pan out. If you want a perfect example of a society following biblical morality, look at ISIS.

[@ljb5163]

@@mh3718We’re talking about the ability of a god. This all stems from his mistakes (if he exists).

[@theintelligentmilkjug944]

I don't know. I think thou shall love their neighbor as they love themself would imply no slavery.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Leviticus 25 Names of God Bible 44 “You may have male and female slaves, but buy them from the nations around you. 45 You may also buy them from the foreigners living among you and from their families born in your country. They will be your property. 46 You may acquire them for yourselves and for your descendants as permanent property. You may work them as slaves. However, do not treat the Israelites harshly. They are your relatives.

[@downshift4503]

Exodus 21 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

@@downshift4503 I see your Exodus 21...and raise you Judges 11. [Yahweh Elohim "LORD of God", from Genesis 2, accepts a child/virgin sacrifice where a father literally slaughters his own daughter then burns her corpse on an altar to Yahwism]: (not to be confused with Elohim "God" or Ruach Elohim "Spirit of God" from Genesis 1) Judges 11 Names of God Bible Jephthah’s Vow 29 Then the RUACH YAHWEH came over Jephthah. Jephthah went through Gilead, Manasseh, and Mizpah in Gilead to gather an army. From Mizpah in Gilead Jephthah went to attack Ammon. 30 Jephthah made a vow to YAHWEH. He said, “If you will really hand Ammon over to me, 31 then whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from Ammon will belong to YAHWEH. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” 32 So Jephthah went to fight against Ammon. YAHWEH handed the people of Ammon over to him. 33 He defeated them from Aroer to Minnith and on to Abel Keramim, 20 cities in all. It was a decisive defeat. So the Ammonites were crushed by the people of Israel. 34 When Jephthah went to his home in Mizpah, he saw his daughter coming out to meet him. She was dancing with tambourines in her hands. She was his only child. Jephthah had no other sons or daughters. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes in grief and said, “Oh no, Daughter! You’ve brought me to my knees! What disaster you’ve brought me! I made a foolish promise to YAHWEH. Now I can’t break it.” 36 She said to him, “Father, you made a promise to YAHWEH. Do to me whatever you promised since YAHWEH has punished your enemy Ammon.” 37 Then she said to her father, “Do me a favor. Give me two months for my friends and me to walk in the mountains and mourn that I will never have an opportunity to get married.” 38 “Go!” he said, and he sent her off for two months. She and her friends went to the mountains, and she cried about never being able to get married. 39 At the end of those two months she came back to her father. He did to her what he had vowed, and she never had a husband. So the custom began in Israel 40 that for four days every year the girls in Israel would go out to sing the praises of the daughter of Jephthah, the man from Gilead.

[@downshift4503]

@@ready1fire1aim1 All good family material. I just don't recall these stories when I went to sunday school.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

@@downshift4503 Old Testament is...special.

[@downshift4503]

@@ready1fire1aim1 It can be subjectively special to you sure, but to me, its just literature while being some of the best evidence that the christian god doesn't exist.

[@bombattzorzz]

Great conversation. I learned a lot and was intrigued the whole time

[@ogg5949]

My brother, a born again evangelical "christian" tells me that blacks were much better off under slavery. He says they had a free home, free food, free clothes and an éducation. Their lives were easy and they got everything for free. This is how sick and twisted these ppl's minds are. It's baffling how he ended up this horrible considering we were raised by parents that marched with the civil rights movement and feminist movement. Raised ELCA- very liberal, intellectual and science based.

[@avishevin3353]

Sounds like he's a Walsh worshipper. Slaves were killed for teaching themselves or others how to read. Free education my backside.

[@chrisdsouza8685]

It's a safe bet that your brother the evangelical supports the republican party who are hell bent (pun intended,) on removing all social welfare to the descendants of the slaves.

[@everythingsfine1395]

Liberals are non good either . To me they are worse than conservatives. And that’s how most progressive socialists see em aka hasanabi…

[@catholicfemininity2126]

Be careful of surface level analysis. Plus, many people confuse what the bible says about slavery. Even Christians confuse it all the time, especially protestants. Let's be honest: the bible is complicated, long, and many people confuse it. Don't go off what people say, if you really want the truth about what the bible says about slavery, you really have to do your own deep research. Too many people just believe whatever they're told, like in politics... cause humans are lazy. But I refuse to believe in something 100% without making sure it's the truth. If you look at the translations, the bible doesn't support slavery as taking away someone's freedom. It supports servitude and devotion. Many Saints comment on how they are 'slaves' to Jesus because they're absolutely devoted to him and give their lives for him. The bible warns about forced slavery like with Egypt and obviously it's evil. But in other stories, the 'slaves' that owe a debt, chose to serve as a means to survival, but they weren't kidnapped and forced to do it. They had rights and dignity. They were not allowed to be beaten like slaves in Egypt or the whites during the Barbary slave trade, or the blacks. Also, remember, the bible tells stories made up from many writers. Human beings are sinful, and the bible tells the story of God and sinners; and how they struggle, fall, or obey God's will. Plus cultures/ customs/ languages were different and these stories tell of events that happened during those times.

[@avishevin1976]

@@catholicfemininity2126 I read the Hebrew original. It's not complicated at all. Jewish slaves are indentured servants. Non-Jewish slaves are chattel. It doesn't get much simpler.

[@yumeriagirl1231]

Came for Dr Josh. . . Was reminded of just how much I adore this channel. Brilliant conversation 🧠 🏆!! Appreciate you, appreciate this channels message/mission & absolutely appreciate the guests, especially Dr Josh!!

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

This was a great episode. Thanks Alex and Joshua!

[@vhawk1951kl]

You call that bit of intellectual mutual masturbation 'great' do you? Oddly enough that comes as no surprise to me at all

[@matlikescats]

“Slavery is justified because the Bible offered protections to slaves” is like saying SA is justified because we have a justice system where you can charge assaulters

[@johnduffy3878]

I don't understand how Christian apologists don't see the fatal flaw in their arguments? To change what the bible says, in order to get it to say something that fits 'your' values, is to demonstrate that the bible doesn't actually say anything at all. The Idea that the 'word of God' is soo ambiguous, that it can mean whatever you like it to mean, means that the word of god is just a mouthpiece for what YOU want to say! It's such an obvious fail.

[@jhunt5578]

Well said

[@timtheskeptic1147]

Funny how it always seems to mean what the person interpreting it desires 🤔

[@johnduffy3878]

@@timtheskeptic1147 "Gods always behave like the people that made them." ~ Zora Neale Hurston

[@sturmgewehr4471]

We are under the new covenant, NT doesnt endorse or denounce slavery so far as I know, its pretty much treated like any other human institute in the world.

[@vhawk1951kl]

What exactly is that flaw oh swaggering puppy that is itself the abject slave of its functions and the slave of anyone the knows how to control you; it is a bit feeble to speak of a flaw in an argument without identifying it specifically which you are about to demonstrate that you cannot do. Seemingly you take some objection to what you cal but do not define, namely slavery, and if you do take some sort of presumably religious objection to whatever you mean by slavery, and if you do, what exactly is the basis for your objection? - some sort of religious mumbo jumbo? Put the ase that I keep slaves and look after them as well and as kindly as I do my other livestock, would you still raise some objection tomy keeping slaves if they were quite happy to be my slaves as you are quite happy to be the slave of your functions, which is precisely what you are, is it not?

[@timtheskeptic1147]

"Slavery is bad. Don't have slaves." "How are we supposed to have slaves, then?" "OK, here's how..." I can't be the only person to see a small flaw here?

[@vhawk1951kl]

Those words appear where apart from in your dreaming apparatus? - Yeah, right.

[@timtheskeptic1147]

@@vhawk1951kl the part where it says you can take slaves from surrounding nations.

[@vhawk1951kl]

In the exact words of which chapter of which book?

[@Cinderella121]

@@vhawk1951kl leviticus 25 44-46

[@AARon-fe1mo]

The problem isn’t that slavery is in the Bible, it’s that people will go out of their way to defend it and treat it as something different.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Which particular identifiable person that you can name ever " went out of his or her way" to defend slavery, and when exactly did whoever you cam identify do that? You have absolutely no idea whatsoever?-No surprises there, and it is certainly the case that you have no better idea to what is is or might be relevant if the bible did indeed condone slavery and no better idea of what is objectionable about slavery -if anything, and, if anything, why it is objectionable. Also no surprises there, you are what?-Not a day over 14 at best?-also no surprises there.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Whom that you can name or otherwise identify has gone out of their way to defend what in particular? You have absolutely no idea whatsoever?-No surprises there.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Why might anyone *not* go out of their way to defend slavery You have absolutely no idea whatsoever? - No surprises there.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Your tiny problem being that you cannot identify a single person that"went gout of their way to defend it and treat it as something different. Presumably if not certainly because you are lying about that. Would I be correct in supposing that for some reason you cannot identify you suppose there to be something objectionable about slavery but you cannot say why it is objectionable. If you reason as poorly as you lie no wonder you are no more than some insignificant little clerk/shopgirl, unless of course you are still living with mummy and daddy.

[@raccoon8743]

@@vhawk1951klyou’re a fucking bizarre dude. Your questions often don’t make sense and your tone is that of someone who thinks they know all and can do know wrong. Along with the fact you presume to know everyone’s thoughts/beliefs, it’s no wonder nobody actually takes you seriously in the other comment chains.

[@martifingers]

Dr Josh is one of the reasons why I have hope that honest scholarship is still a tremendous force for good in the world. Thanks to you both.

[@vhawk1951kl]

"Good" being anything you like? Yes, I rather thought so.

[@MrsBridgette2012]

This is the very topic that made me realize that the Bible was definitely written by men. How could anyone believe that the creator of the universe and all life would write such a book. How convenient for men to convince people that god actually wrote the words, “Slaves obey your masters,even if they are unjust.” Incredible!

[@somersetcace1]

So, in leviticus 25, it's talking about the "year of Jubilee" which is the jewish custom of setting aside any debts, including indentured servitude after 7 years. However, there is an exception to Jubilee Verses 44-46 and it doesn't matter what translation you use, it clearly states you may own people as property for life and will them to your children as an inheritance after you. So long as they are foreigners.. However, you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly (but the foreigners are perfectly fine to treat anyway you want.) - There is no arguing their way around it and furthermore, even if they could, they can't explain why NO ONE questioned it until the abolitionist movement. In fact, American clergy in the southern US, used the bible to support slavery prior to the civil war.

[@Hambone3773]

Yes...differentiating covenant people from non-covenant people.

[@pbasswil]

The bible gives us many glimpses of tribal society of a different time & place than what we know. (And not just one society; various cultures rubbed elbows, across the _many_ centuries that it took to write the various books of the bible.) Just because the writers of 2-to-3 millennia ago took for granted the social structures that they were accustomed to, is no reason for us to take ancient Judea as a sort of moral paradigm! If anyone out there thinks some kind of slavery may be morally acceptable, they can just sign up for it themselves and see how they like it.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Well said, presumably the writers of the documents the make up the Bible at no time had the reason to suppose that there was anything particularly objectionable about slavery. It is only contemporary or fairly recent religious fanatics or those that go in for what are called morals that suppose there is something objectionable about what is been a fact of life or a long time. Why might the writers of the various documents in the Bible become all holier than thou or moralistic/religious (they are one and the same thing) about what for them with perfectly routine. Presumably they had no idea that the time might come when another religion, and men are constantly inventing religions with nothing in common would become fashionable

[@vhawk1951kl]

"Us" being you and which particular immediate interlocutor of yours?*Why* might anyone give a damn whether or not some book condones slavery? -To what particular issue is it relevant whether it did or does or not. Surely Anyman taken at random from any time or place in what is-called history(which is largely gossip and hearsay) find nothing remarkable about slavery? I would venture that the ancestors of the greater part of those reading this would have said :" the bible condones slavery does it? - *Why* might anyone find anything either remarkable or objectionable about that? Why are you the puppy and the poof so excited about whether or not some book of folklore condones slavery? - Why* do you give a sh1`t whether it does or not?Do you get equally worked up about the Greeks romans Arabs and various other verities of African condoned slavery? What business of yours-or the puppy's or the poof's, is it if they did or not?Seems to me that the lot of you are making a fuss about nothing or trying to make bricks without straw.

[@tnghunter]

The whole escape from Egyptian servitude segment would have been a great place to put that ethical standard in, but instead we get treated to a lesson about obeying and God's disdain for levined bread.

[@acupofwhitetea]

Sounds like a hypocritical double standard. They praise on being free from slavery, yet still do slavery and slave trade.

[@jthememeking]

Lets gooo. Looking forward to you and Bart having a discussion on the channel

[@Philusteen]

It's nice to start the week with conversations that make society just a little bit smarter. Thanks to both of you, and Alex - it's been a pleasure to follow your evolving, growing library - truly.

[@earlysda]

Phil, where are said "conversations"? This certainly wasn't one of them.

[@Philusteen]

@@earlysda well, don't just gripe, lol - what's your critique?

[@earlysda]

@@Philusteen No one in the conversation believes that the words in the Bible are from God, so they cannot possibly understand correctly what they mean.

[@Philusteen]

@@earlysda so, your position is that the words in the bible are directly from God?

[@earlysda]

@@Philusteen 2Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: . Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” . Every word in the Holy Bible is inspired of God, given by his Holy Spirit.

[@smadaf]

Alex O'Connor, I'm thankful that you let a guest talk so long without interruption in the original talk and without editing it down afterward.

[@GodlessCommie]

The idea that slavery was just the norm and even pagan nations had slaves is my favorite defense. It’s basically an admittance that our morals were never handed down by some higher being.

[@dortull]

Interesting point! We are deeply corrupt. Like everything in Time. perishable. But how about morals - Love your enemies? Slavery is ugly like every unjustice and it is a fruit of the Fall. but in Christ Jesus there is no slave no free, no woman no men but one in Christ. This world is not His, where everybody is a king. Maybe good to read Alain Badiou "Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism"

[@anseljames5531]

I woudn't say that necisarily means that morals are not handed down by a higher power as considering a higher power is existing the higher power would have to had given us free will and thought by some consequence. Just because there is a moral standard doesn't mean that there will be grifters from the moral code set forth.

[@GodlessCommie]

@@dortull Saying that Jesus was against slavery and using that verse as a justification is just taking it out of context. Was Jesus also a gender abolitionist? Because that conclusion would follow from your logic as well. He also never disavows slavery at anytime, merely asks slave masters to be a little nicer. If God exists, is perfectly good and loving, is the grounding of morality, and was aiding the ancient Israelites then there wouldn’t be any need to allow slavery for even a moment. This is evidence that there is no God.

[@GodlessCommie]

@@anseljames5531 It absolutely does though. It shows that our sense of morality changes with an increased understanding of the world. If God wrote his morality on our hearts like the bible claims then there should be no need for moral debate or changing our laws. We should’ve gotten it right the first time. The fact that we haven’t shows that either there is no God (which I hold to be true) or he is not actually the arbiter of morals. Even if God exists that doesn’t mean he gave us free will or thought. I hold that free will can’t exist in either an atheistic or theistic worldview.

[@jwcarlson]

Really enjoying this series, Alex. Well done, as usual. :)

[@vhawk1951kl]

You find mutual back-scratching/ cinque contra uno and blatant eisegesis attractive do you? Ind the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, " you would, wouldn't you?" Tendentious attention-seeking little puppies of a feather, tend to flock together- having the wits to do little else. What -if any, is your objection to slavery and on what do you basis any objection you might have? You have no idea?-No surprises there.

[@vhawk1951kl]

You find mutual back-scratching/ cinque contra uno and blatant eisegesis attractive do you? In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, " you would, wouldn't you?" Tendentious attention-seeking little puppies of a feather, tend to flock together- having the wits to do little else. What -if any, is your objection to slavery and on what do you basis any objection you might have? You have no idea?-No surprises there. Reply

[@valmid5069]

*Can you also do analysis on how Hinduism, Islam, and even Buddhist regions benefited from human history of slavery?*

[@casebased8391]

Most regions benefit from slavery, but there’s nothing in Buddhism (scriptures, rules to live by, etc.) that endorses it.

[@JammyONE]

Doubt it. A ture progressive individual ignores minority religions faults and club the baby seal that is christianity.

[@davidevans3223]

Nope you can only hate white Christians

[@theworkethic]

It still goes on in India, it’s called the caste system which is written in the Reg Veda and fundamental to Hinduism from the beginning.

[@Jd-808]

Do you seriously understand slavery as a religious concept??

[@javieradorno2503]

One of the best episodes of the podcast so far!!! 🤩🤩🤩

[@vhawk1951kl]

Plainly sad and tendinous attention-seeking little puppie puppies of a feather tend to flock together. Nowhere in that bit of mutual back-scratching/cinque contra uno and shameless eisegesis, does either the puppy or the fop in the bow tie set out any objection they may have to slavery, nor what is the basis for any such objection is or might be. I bet you cannot either, and have no idea what is or might be objectionable about slavery or your reason or basis for finding it objectionable. To what is it relevant what a few Semites/Arabs did thousands of years ago? You have not the faintest idea to what it is relevant?-No surprises there. You just play with and abuse those asinine and infantile symbols as if you were an imbecile child; you night as well since you clearly struggle with language

[@randomusername3873]

How is it that when it comes to jesus saying to love your neighbour no believer will come and say "that's not he meant, you need to interpret it based on the social conventions of the time", but when it comes to the problematic stuff all of a sudden "it's complicated"

[@gaerbaer1348]

Really interesting and informative conversation you two had! I enjoyed how clear and respectful Dr Josh spoke. I'm looking forward to Bart Ehrman coming on the show later on! He's one of my favourite New Testament scholars that I've listened to and I'm sure you'll have a productive conversation with him as well.

[@vhawk1951kl]

It is no kind of conversation it's just a bit of rather slimy product placement and a bit of mutual cinque contra uno only going to prove the truth of the saying that two chaps are never so happy as when the agree upon what the both cannot abide. it is no conversation but merely a series of leading questions along the lines of do you agree that good things are good and bad things are bad?

[@ATOK_]

Bart Ehrman is great

[@davethebrahman9870]

It was this issue that led me to reject Christianity, along with the biblical genocides. Reading the apologists just made things worse. The OT documents record events and practices that are not only brutal and primitive, but actually worse than the best ancient practices of many pagan peoples.

[@rebelresource]

I just want to say that one can be a Christian and reject these passages rationally. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

[@thewealthofnations4827]

The OT isn't even Christian law it is Jewish law. You've lost yourself over a law that doesn't apply to you and that Jews don't even endorse or practise.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@rebelresource Sure. But if God has been unable to control or modify the commands given in his name, how can we determine what in the Bible is trustworthy?

[@azophi]

@@rebelresource Yes, one big example of this is Lydia McGrew, who rejects the genocides and the slavery because she thinks too highly of God to do that. She also thinks the case for the resurrection is very compelling, but the apologetics against the genocides and the slavery are equally not compelling. So, she just .. finds those passages where they pitchfork babies to be in error. I hope she at least accepts gay people? I'm not super sure what you consider to be sacred if you can just dismiss parts of the sacred bits because it goes against your moral compass. If there are known parts we know that were added in, what do we really know about God from the OT? This is her view about it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y5vPeomYqK1_as0

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@azophi I suppose we should be glad that most believers are better than their holy texts.

[@henrikasteberg1218]

So refreshing to hear an honest discussion about slavery in the Bible and not the typical mental gymnastics of apologists. Great conversation!

[@vhawk1951kl]

You call that bit of mutual backscratching or mutual 5 against one honest you? You would have to search far and wide to find a more glaring example of intellectual dishonesty and eisegesis

[@vhawk1951kl]

May I take it that you suppose there to be something objectionable about slavery, and if so, what is the basis of your objection - some sort of religious mumbo jumbo or monkey business?-Or perhaps you have not the faintest idea. Help me with is please: S o what if the bible does indeed condone slavery? To what is that relevant and where and what is the necessary syllogism? Who might give a flying fcuk wither it condones slavery or not? Moreover *why* might anyone give a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones slavery(which, without a good deal of eisegesis and other intellectual dishonesty)it does not)? In short; Who gives a sh1t whether it condones slavery or not? What exactly is the syllogism? Tee hee, now a lot of sanctimonious tendentious little puppies must scurry about to find a grownup that can tell them what a syllogism is. Oh the dishonesty of those two trying to equate condone with advocate; dcholar my arse!

[@vhawk1951kl]

You find blatant and shameless eisegesis attractive do you? What, if any is your objection to slavery? You have not the faintest idea?-No surprises there.

[@hexcss9153]

@@vhawk1951klAre you seriously going around all the comments subtly defending slavery? You are a sad person

[@willjapheth23789]

​@@vhawk1951kl it's always amazing to see people getting bent because someone reads the Bible for what it says instead of what you wish it said.

[@MMAGamblingTips]

Best episode ever. Love Dr. Josh and his lovely wife Megan. Great stuff Alex. 👏🏼

[@vhawk1951kl]

Is the puppy Alex his wife? - How queer, but these days all sorts of monkey business is smiled upon by your queer religion modernism.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Is Alex Megan or Megan Alex or his lovely wife?

[@nathansteiger5153]

If god is both omnipotent and good, he should absolutely have forced the end of slavery on them instead of "meeting them where they're at." The fact that it would be an inconvenience for society means absolutely nothing compared to the right of the individual to be free.

[@markh1011]

@Bronson the Nomad It's the position of modern morality and ethics.

[@markh1011]

@Bronson the Nomad The definition of 'opinion' is : a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. This isn't a view reached without knowledge. So there is more to it than mere opinion. Modern ethics and morality are built on a subjective foundation but are not merely the opinion of one person.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Why might whatever you mean by god be at al intersted in your rather trivial likes and dislikes, which you callgood and bad, you being the abject slave of your emotional function as are all men(human beings) including your interlocutor. From where do you creatures get all that good/evil, right/wrong religious mumbo jumbo. Do you take some objection to slavery and if so, what is the basis of you objection? 5 gives me 10 it is some sort of what is called morality religious monkey business, but s the blind man said, we shall see.Even in relatively recent times it never occurred to anyone much that slavery was in any way objectionable. Why might they have supposed it to be in any way objectionable. If you reflect for a moment from sme points of view there is much to be said for it, for example if in the course of war your opponent has you at his mercy and can kill you and does not because you might be useful to him as free labour and thus you survive, you might say that there was much to said for slavery if the alternative was immediate(for yourself) destruction forever

[@jaclo3112]

​@Bronson the Nomad it is interesting that biblical morality is also nothing more than a subjective opinion and not even fact. After all, it is so stupid and ignorant it thinks a girl child or woman must bleed the first time having sex or being raped and use this biological ignorance of female anatomy to decide whether a woman or girl child gets to live or be executed by stoning to death.

[@Impasta3I4I59]

@@markh1011this is true, however when you are looking at history you should not judge it by modern lenses but see the reasoning through its culture and time.

[@mdug7224]

43:14 bad teeth was a major cause of infection leading death historically. It's only been relatively recent that it has slipped down the list for mortality. This makes me think it might have had something to do with tooth damage as being deemed so severe in ancient law.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Who told you that bad teeth was(sic) a major cause of infection leading death", and why do you believe them?

[@toonyandfriends1915]

@@vhawk1951kl pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10686905/ ain't no way i took 5 seconds to search this also are you atheist or christian why the fuck are you everywhere

[@donnadevine5864]

​@@vhawk1951kl It's a medical fact that severely poor dental hygiene can lead to serious - even fatal - illness including heart disease. I know someone who has experienced this firsthand. The topic is easily researchable.

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

1:05:10 I was just going to point out this Divorce verse from Matthew 19, and then Bowen brings it up! Nice job!

[@avishevin1976]

I don't know why anyone would argue that the Bible doesn't support slavery.

[@kca_randy]

Dr J is awesome. Good guest Alex,glad you kept the intro music. Enjoying the new format

[@Molly-jh4kz]

I would love to be a fly on the wall when this guy and his Christian wife talked about religion. Make that podcast!

[@vhawk1951kl]

Why does it matter or who gives a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones supports or even specifically advocates slavery? Do you take some sort of objection to slavery or the owning and keeping of slaves and wherein lies any difference between owning and keeping slaves and owning and keeping any other animal?

[@fretbuzz1979]

Whether or not biblical slavery was as bad as early American slavery shouldn't matter. Any sort of slavery ought to be morally reprehensible to an all loving perfect being whose morals are absolute and timeless.

[@vhawk1951kl]

What is morally reprehensible mean? - What are morals? - Some sort of religious mumbo-jumbo?

[@vhawk1951kl]

"morally" meaning what? - some sort of religious mumbo jumbo? Why is "Any sort of slavery ought to be morally reprehensible"? More to the point why might any one give a damn i whether it was"morally reprehensible"- which I take to be some sort of religious mumbo jumbo, or not?

[@fretbuzz1979]

@Peter Codner I'm not here to debate the basis of morality. If you dont understand what morality is, and if you dont think that slavery is immoral, then I just don't know what to say to you. For the purposes of this discussion, we are just going to have to accept some presuppositions (such as slavery is immoral). Otherwise, this conversation is just going to go off the rails and become circular.

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@fretbuzz1979 precisely why do you suggest that slavery is what you call in moral - whatever you mean by immoral and apparently you have no idea, which comes as no surprise to me all that religious mumbo-jumbo is too vague what does labelling something immoral actually achieve? When you say that something immoral what exactly are you trying to convey - that you don't like the idea of it so I conclude that immoral means you like something - do I have that right? Do you understand that the danger of your religious mumbo-jumbo about morality is that you will seek to impose your likes and dislikes on others and that will lead to trouble - can only possibly lead to trouble. The disease I-am-right, is one of the most dangerous diseases that there is ever manifest itself on this particular unfortunate planet. Shall you stop at nothing to impose your religion on other people? - No I rather thought not the real question is do you have the guts to do that? You are exactly right you do not know what or anything very much suppose I am slaves and look after them as well as in you my animals and particularly well you still find that objectionable on whatever ground that your religion suggests? If they are jolly happy looked after jolly well, does it? Matter that they are slaves. If you have the choice between being chopped pieces and being a slave which would you choose as a matter of pure practicality?

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@fretbuzz1979 I have no direct immediate personal experience of slavery on which to base any opinion, but my general view what you call morality is that it is little more than mumbo-jumbo composed of subjective relative and temporary likes and dislikes and manifestation of your slavery - and that is exactly the word to your emotional function - if it says jump! - You merely meekly enquire how high? Now that really is slavery and to very large extent all dreaming machines or men (human beings) are the abject slaves of their emotional (like and dislike) function and that is why they are wholly incapable of impartial reason. I just don't know why you bother with all that morality mumbo-jumbo what purpose does it serve You have not the faintest idea? - No surprises there what exact direct immediate personal experience have you of slavery that you may express any sort of opinion about it? Yeah, right, none at all, but you are quite content to yap about it, and gosh, do you you yap? The 1st sign of a fool is that he entertain hearsay or evidence from anyone that he cannot personally cross-examine - if the cap fits, you wear it. Does it not strike you as yes the tiniest bit daft to have moralistic opinions about something of which you have no direct immediate personal experience whatsoever? Whoever said religion/morality made fools of men got it exactly right

[@raymk]

I can't reconcile the idea that Christianity once condoned slavery, and Christianity abolished slavery.

[@Raiden-the-Goat32]

If you can not reconcile them it's very easy some Christian's helped abolish slavery. But why they thought slavery was wrong was they used some places in the bible to justify this. But what about the Christian's that was in favor of slavery ? Well those Christian's understood the bible better and had more biblical support. At the end of the day Christianity and it's religious text supported slavery. But some Christian's found ways to make it seem like the bible was not in support of slavery and that it was the error of human's at that time. Christianity as a whole can only function with Christian's cherrypicking the bible.

[@charlestownsend9280]

Same way that christianity 0nce hated gay people and made laws against it, now they marry them in churches. Religions change and the religious ignore the parts of their holy texts that they don't like.

[@UNKLEnic]

Something you should look up that Mr. Bowtie forgot to mention. The word slave wasn't even invented until the 1500. That is the definition of a human owning another. The Hebrew word for slave in the bible is Ebed and it means worker or servant. This duder does have a nice bowtie but is filled of misinformation.

[@Tankej0527]

People did both. Religion was the value system they used to justify/understand/share their beliefs and actions

[@jamesfarquhar8507]

Yes indeed, but anything the Bible says with certainty it also condones in other areas.

[@TestMeatDollSteak]

For anyone who wants the condensed version of this hour long discussion, the basic answer to the question of how the Bible supports slavery is: *very enthusiastically!*

[@vhawk1951kl]

In sport whereof you site with particular passage? Yeah, right

[@vhawk1951kl]

Which exact passages have you in mind, and why might the writers have any opinion of slavery if it was for them a fact of life? Do you take some objection to slavery and if so what is the basis of your objection, some sort of good/evil, right/wrong morality religious mumbo jumbo?

[@TestMeatDollSteak]

@@vhawk1951kl // Sure, let’s start with every single passage mentioned in this ~90 minute video that you didn’t watch.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Even you know that that is complete and utter nonsense and why would it matter if it did; so or therefore what if the Bible supports slavery when it's plainly does not there being no reason for it to do so. I defy you to produce any exact words that say in terms that slavery is a jolly good thing that all people should practice as much as possible, because you simply cannot if you weren't such a tendentious little pipsqueak you might not come up with such complete rubbish

[@jaclo3112]

​@@vhawk1951kl what? Why do you need someone to quote passages of the bible condoning slavery when it was already done extensively in the video? Did you even watch the video at all? Or are you just another angry christian who saw a video title about biblical slavery so became hysterical so is now screeching christian nonsense all over the comments section?

[@doctorshell7118]

Loss of an eye or tooth could have been a death sentence 2,000 or even 150 years ago. Excellent interview.

[@turbovirgin_]

I don't know, bronze age healers knew a lot more than you might expect from someone who didn't have germ theory. They learned what worked and what didn't through sheer trial and error. I'm certain they had the tools to treat and prevent infection, at least partially. Medicine was in kind of a dark age in the 19th century. There were a lot of quacks pushing crazy new drugs and miracle cures, and penicillin was the only one that actually kind of worked. You had a higher survival rate from praying for your soul than from seeing a doctor.

[@oisinm332]

I'm so glad I never believed in that nonsense book of outdated fairytales.

[@marne-leerossouw5639]

That bow tie is so cool

[@malirk]

Dr. Josh + Cosmic Skeptic!?!?!??!?! *This makes my day*

[@malirk]

Now I just have to watch the full video 🙂.

[@T-41]

Wow! I learned a great deal. Thanks for putting this together.

[@vhawk1951kl]

What did you learn and to what was it relevant? Why does it matter or who gives a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones supports or even specifically advocates slavery? Do you take some sort of objection to slavery or the owning and keeping of slaves and wherein lies any difference between owning and keeping slaves and owning and keeping any other animal? Do you yourself have any direct immediate personal experience of slavery qua slave or owner thereof?- and if not, wherein lies the basis of any objection you take to slavery if indeed you do suppose there be something objectionable about owning and keeping slaves? Do you take some reasoned objection to owning and keeping slaves and if you do, what are your reasons?

[@tsvetanstoychev655]

Digital Hamuraby will bust you open on all things "bible". Dr Josh and Megan Lewis ROCK! Glad you found this scholar and had a nice convo with... seemed you really actually listened more... perhaps learned a thing or 10...

[@RJ-lk6qn]

The thing I’m always told is that the Bible works for all cultures and all ages until the modern era. And the condoning of slavery in Biblical times completely debunks that argument. Slavery is not accepted or condoned in the modern era.

[@jimtomo9207]

There is still slavery going on today should Britain intervene

[@jimtomo9207]

@@user-rq8xx8ir9t 😆 I don't believe in God. I'm just trying to understand what roll if any the west should intervene with over cultures. Were replying to each other on devices that have some degree of slavery attached to them dose that mean were involved

[@randomusername3873]

Apparently the perfect book need to be interpreted by the rules of its time

[@Mr.Goodkat]

In the US before and after the abolition of slavery for black adults it was mandatory for every black and white in the country to endure 13 years minimum in an institution where they'll work each and every day for no pay and be beaten with the same large wooden boards the adult slaves were by people titled their "master's" and "headmaster's" for performing inadequately on their unpaid work. At first (and for ages) it was explicitly stated by the government as a policy to beat anywhere on the body with this board raising bruises, causing concussions and crippling some students for life was some of the results it was often for crimes such as speaking, chewing gum and making a mistake in a math conundrum. The reason you never hear about slavery's continuation after allegedly becoming abolished? it's the same reason you don't hear about domestic violence and assault still being legal after they allegedly became abolished too or theft, destruction of another's property, vandalism, bodily mutational, torture, murder (yes there truly is some instances you can kill a child legally but not an adult in identical circumstances) and other things considered so immoral to the point of criminality, we call it another label, one with more positive connation's to alter the meaning in our minds but not alter the action and then that way it can continue on under a new name but only when done to the right people. Why do we hear more about slavery which happened hundreds and even thousands of years ago in other continents to people none of us will ever come close to knowing over ones currently under going it and our own children and ourselves too? It's still legal in many countries today (19 US states too) to beat people in institutions with weapons for extremely trivial reasons (which are excuses btw) and do other criminal things to them too, even if these were abolished a requirement to qualify as slavery is not inhumane or cruel treatment it's simply not being paid for forced work. "We care more about what happened to adults who are long dead, than children who're still alive." (and that means adults who're still alive then too.) *Slavery didn't become illegal it became mandatory* and it became mandatory for everyone. We're still condoning it.

[@njhoepner]

The perfect moral standard does seem to be in need of regular improvement and upgrades, doesn't it?

[@wachiramrm3925]

"Anyone who has made it this far." Every Christian adjacent person should be made to hear this.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Why?- because some sanctimonious religious pipsqueak says so? Does the pipsqueak take some objection to slavery and if so what is the basis of its objection?

[@Impasta3I4I59]

@@vhawk1951klno need to namecall, if you disagree please give an arguement without disrespecting one another.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Bossy sanctimonious little Nazi aren't you titch; you and whose army are going to " make" i.e. force anyone to do anything and you with that terrible back problem of yours and all?

[@beansworth5694]

@@vhawk1951kl Do you mean to say that you don't take objection to slavery? Because, I'm hearing that if the Bible doesn't object to slavery that you'd have no basis which to reject it.

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@beansworth5694 I don't give a toss one way or the other The puppy and the poof are not impartial and not without a motive or agenda. Apply the two and two test If a advocate of,or apologist for slavery said that the sum of twp and two were four, would you demur because he was an advocate of, or apologist for, slavery ? The bible is a book-a thing, even if books or things could accept or reject whatever, to what is it relevant whether it does or does not whatever you mean by(and you have no idea) accept or reject slavery? Why might I or anyone be anything but indifferent to things or books?-Where and what is your syllogism? To what is it relevant whether or not I take objection to slavery?

[@SupremeSquiggly]

The problem is that even after Christian’s take the loss that the Bible condones slavery they’ll just find a new way to dismiss criticism. Usually it’s an inept attempt to claim an atheist can’t say what’s moral because they don’t have an objective morality. Despite theists not having one either, but simply claiming one.

[@vhawk1951kl]

As far as I am aware the authors of the compilation of the various documents in what is called the bible expressed no opinion whatsoever of slavery probably because there was absolutely no reason why they might, and by the same token they are pretty silent on constipation and the niceties of animal husbandry and equally reticent on mathematics.

[@SupremeSquiggly]

@@vhawk1951kl The Bible clearly condones slavery. In a multitude of verses like in Leviticus, Exodus, Ephesians, etc. You’d to give some serious aggressive interpretations, ignoring of text, and some very generous assumptions in order to get it to not condone slavery or have “no opinion of slavery”. Regardless of the other irrelevant topics you mentioned like animal husbandry and “constipation”. 😆

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@SupremeSquiggly exact words that you interpret as condoning slavery, and even if it does which it does not, so, or therefore what?-Where and what is your syllogism? What are the exact word?-something like anyone reading this really ought to be advised that slavery is a jolly good idea, that sort of thing? Even if it did, why might I or anyone give a damn? I am pretty neutral on slavery and can se arguments could be made both for it and against it, but I'm not going to be good little modernist or follower of your quer religion modernism and say oooo wasn't slavery dreadful because I have no evidence that it was or was not and I don't go in for all that good/evil right/wrong morality ethics religious mimbo jumbo. Given a choice between being hacked to pieces and being made a slave, that latter has its merits. Why are you followers of the queer religion modernism so sancti-bloody-monious? You whine about slavery and not only condone buggery and sodomy but regard sewerites as sacred cows? I am perfectly certain that nowhere in the bible which consists of thousands of documents compiled by even more writers does in say in terms anywhere and by the way dear reader slavery is a jolly good idea and know for a certainty that you can produce nothing whatsoever to that effect which you will confirm by signally failing to do so. If I have conbined recipe book and railway timetable that provides me with what I need do you think I would throw it away because a footnote recommends boiled slave? and that just to posture to the flowers of you vile queer religion modernism? In fact I have no opinions on the subject and prefer to flush all that morality ethics religious mumbo jumbo down the lavatory. Now come the great religious war between modernism and non-modernism when I have you at my mercy and give you a choice betwen becoming one of my slaves-assuming that you were not god for nothing else and killing you, which would you prefer? You know and I know for an absolute crertainty tha nowhere in the bible are words that can be rationally construed to mean slavery is a jolly good thing, o give it up now for it is a horse that will not run as you are about to demonstrate. Anywy whymight it given that few are likely to think otherwise, and in the last five hundred years only a handful of rather tiresome Christians gave a damn about slavery while the remainder took the view that they would rather have slavery and sugar than no slavery and no sugar and who might critise that. I had the OT rammed down my throat thre times a day and six on sundays as a child and I promise you that even the most asiduous chrrry picked could pick out and words suggesting that slaver is a jolly good thing and everyone should keeps slaves, so what you say is -as you well know, complete and utter round objects, so pull the other on it's got bells on it.I'm perfectly certain of my ground because there is no possible reason why it might, so try another credulous sucker to buy you nonsense, If I cherry picked das kapital bet I could cobble together something to the effect that slavery is a jolly good idea, which it is if the alternative is being eaten by some savage or one of the African tribes that did jolly well out beating up their neighbours and selling the survivors to some charming chum of theirs and /or eating the rest. These things are relative and it is often best to consider the alternative. I defy you or anyone to produce to me anything in the bible that says in terms(if you know what that means which I doubt)the slavery is an excellent idea or a jolly good thing, because it simply does not Your sort will strain any language to extract from it what you but but it simply will not bear, but what the fcuk give it your bst shot titch but I know for a certainty that even you will not be able to extract anything so fanciful and for why? - What would be the point? WE Jews made our gelt out of what rhymes with your and the puppy alex's favourite pastime, not slavery. I wil hapily grant you that robinson crusoe could -at a stretch be construed as in praise of slavery(and nothing objectionable about that) Have you tried a similar exercise on the Q'ran? no I rather though not, because you are far more frightened of Muslims than Jews- you brave tendentious littlie puppy. the likes of you and the puppyalex would keep you little yaps shut if there was the slightest risk of a punch on the nose be cause the pair of you are gutless, and good-for nothing mice(nothings and nobodies) Stain away titch but we both know you are onto a loser.

[@jaclo3112]

​@@vhawk1951kl dude, there's an entire video here going into great detail the exact verses and words in the bible that condone and legislate chattel, sex and debt slavery. Watch the video instead of making ignorant and hysterical comments all over the comments section.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Nonsense no-one in their right mind could suggest that the passages chosen could possibly bear that interpretation and only a religiously fanatical bigot like those two twats could suggest that they would and in so doing make complete fools of themselves - in the twats' case not a very tall prder.There is a particularly good rreason why the writers would not seek to condone or advocate what was a common practice, so why might they bother there being no sanctimonious little creeps like the twats around to suggest otherwise, unless you regard yourself as" condoning" brushing your teeth regularly, which would be an utterly absurd use of the word condone. the idea that there is anything at all objectionable about slavery is a fairly recent invention. You even now se nothing objectionable in ypou being the abject slave of your functions and a sheep-like folowerof the flock, so not just a slave but actual livestock. You are living proof that your queer religion like all religions or all that morality religious mumbo jumbo stuprfied the reason so you are in good company with the two stupefied twats that would infer the advocacy of or condoning slavery in a man ordering a cup of coffee so addled are their brains. You yourself can clearly not set out any rational basis for objecting to slavery which long ago was not just common practice and in the order of things but wholly unobjectionable. Moreover the twats do not say to what their fanciful nonsense is relevant and you clearly have no idea to what it is relevant and in the unlikely event you know what a syllogism is, you do not even seek to advance one. In plain language even if a case could be made by someone for sane for the insane proposition that the bible condones slavery, so the fcuk what, or to what is that relevant? and you sonny have not the faintest idea and cannot even set out your grounds for objecting to slavery. If you go to enough trouble and re-arrange all the letters if you are sufficiently twattish as those two twats, you could declare the phone book to condone slavery, and be no less absurd and obviously wrong. They set out a weak case as poorly and weakly as possible because the whole thing is absurd arrant nonsense they passages cited to not even begin to be able to bear the inferences that the twats seek to find, but then they will find the condoning of slavery in the phone book or a restaurant menu or what is written on the back of a packet of cornflakes , so irrational is their fanatical bigotry.. the assertion the the bible " condones slavery is about as laughable as the assertion that the back of a packet of cornflakes " condones" slavery; it is simple nonsense and only a complete fool would fall for such a proposition and if you wish to find such a fool the nearest mirror to you will serve. to loons like the lovers if you were to buy a cup of coffee without simultaneously declaring slavery to be a jolly bad thing, they would read into that that you were not only condoning slavery but actually advocating it be they are that fanatically obsessively bigoted and would read into a simple good morning and impassioned plea for slavery to become widespread. their case does not even begin to hold water and in practice is no more than a sieve.So the death of who or what are you blaming on some imaginary mister god child?- was it an animal or a close relative? If you walacrpooss a bridge you*believe* it will bear your weight and if you constantly worship and propitiate you god self calming, like it or not you declare it to be your god or what is more important to you than anything else at any given moment. Now answer me this titch: even- which it is not, it were the case that the bible condones slavery, so the fcuk or therefore , what? you see?- you have absolutely no idea whatsoever to what that is relevant. Old boxing saying: if you can't make the weight, don't get in the ring now stop wasting my time sonny. What the two twats are saying is quite simply complete bollox.

[@Chris_theHoosier]

As a Christian I must say that this has challenged my thinking on the subject. It would have been odd for the Israelites to refuse engagement with slavery when most of the world practiced it, but the Israelites were also commanded to where clothes of only one fabric, not eat pork, not work a day out of the week, not work a whole year every seventh year, etc. They certainly were already engaging in behaviors that could've easily been seen as aberrant, so why not ban slavery too? Surely the enslavement of other human beings bears a significantly heavier moral weight than trivial things such as eating pork and not even being legally allowed to verbalize the names of other gods.

[@2011redplanet]

As always. Wonderful questioning.

[@jameswilliams3241]

Comes down to what my father always said, " Who needs a conscience when God is on your side."

[@vhawk1951kl]

Your father plainly did not understand that conscience has nothing to do with that bullshit that is called morals or right is called religion. There is no way of verifying anything about the past but to some extent the gossip or hearsay is that for most of the history of human beings nobody has ever considered there was anything particularly objectionable about slavery which is a fact of life for most of the history of men insofar as that can be established - Veryfew objection to slavery there are not religious or moralistic which are one of the same thing

[@vhawk1951kl]

What is a conscience? - You have no idea? - No surprises there.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Thus demonstrating that one fool can beget another.

[@christophermonteith2774]

​@@vhawk1951klit's hard to explain in detail, but it boils down to empathy, which itself is essentially don't make another suffer, or minimise the suffering and infringements in others. In other words, don't inflict harm, cause distress, or cause stress on to others unless consensual and/or needed for avoidance of a proven worse likely hood

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@christophermonteith2774 I'm not sure what point you are adressing but pout that on one side; from where do you get such strange ideas as "don't make another suffer, or minimise the suffering and infringements in others. In other words, don't inflict harm, cause distress, or cause stress on to others etc etc bla bla bla? -Is it some sort of religious mumbo jumbo, or did you dream it up for yourself?

[@JD-ro7xe]

Exodus 21, 16 - All the laws mentioned in there apply only to the Israelites. The chapter begins ' If you buy a Hebrew servant..... ' . It doesn't say if Israelites cannot kidnap members of other tribes. In battles, they did just that. Young girls (virgins only, mind you) were taken by the soldiers. Moses even orders them to do that. If that is not kidnapping, what is it?

[@Hambone3773]

Everyone did that. Israelites were taken as slaves by the same people groups Israel took as slaves.

[@JD-ro7xe]

@@Hambone3773 You're correct. Everyone did it. But the funny thing is God, the ultimate source of morality, actively encouraged genocide, rape, slavery, looting and racism.

[@DemstarAus]

"No Stealing" A sign in the window of a local corner store. Below, is a list of ways that people might be able to steal, such as stuffing things in their pockets, or finding ways to change barcodes, or duplicating receipts, followed by a caveat: If you cannot afford to pay for your items, you may steal only what it necessary to survive. For example, only steal medications, basic food products, and other essential items. You ponder this, and ask the shopkeeper why they have that sign. They explain that in an effort to reduce the number of thefts, they have implemented a system that promotes a specific type of theft. "And has it been successful?" "Oh yes, I have found that people steal only every day items and leave the most expensive items alone, or have enough money to pay for those things instead." "And is that better? How's business?" "Oh we've been haemorrhaging money, but at least people haven't mugged us in a very long time."

[@StuntpilootStef]

This should dispel any notion among the christian audience that Alex is somehow on a path to christianity.

[@vhawk1951kl]

The puppy is - like you, already a devout adherent of that queer religion modernism.The clues lie in your delicate religious sensibilities-in particular the asine assumption that there is anything objectionable about slavery which is no different from keeping and using any livestock.

[@aodhfyn2429]

Wow. What a plot twist. I didn't know who he was. And now I'm realizing I still only know Bart Ehrman's name.

[@_sofie]

You know after listening to this brilliant conversation about slavery, a topic which is obviously rather depressing, I find myself uplifted by the moment where Joshua plugs his wife’s podcast, and by extension, her as a scholar, with such pride and respect, because it exemplifies how an equal partnership can provide both parties with something that an unequal relationship cannot. A mutual nourishment of the self, the soul if you will, both intellectually and in all other aspects. So yeah great episode, thank you Alex for introducing your audience to such insightful people.

[@johnduffy3878]

"it exemplifies how an equal partnership can provide both parties with something that an unequal relationship cannot" - The types of relationships as advised for in the bible are unequal. According to the bible there is NO equal partnership, but instead the man rules over the woman. If Joshua has an equal relationship with his wife, he didn't get the instruction/ influences from the bible! Kinda ironic, when you think about it!

[@UNKLEnic]

I just felt called to shed some truth on this that Mr. Bowtie clearly left out and most likely knows and therefore is misleading. I encourage all of you to fact check me and look this up yourself. The word slave and even property was used differently way back then and is not used in the same way that we used it in America. Look up when the word slave was even invented, it was around 1500s. The Hebrew word ‘slave’ was actually used for ‘Ebed’ it meant worker, or servant and they did enter into an agreement. Thousands of historical scholars and thousands of years disagree with Mr. Bowtie. On top of that, the word ‘Property’ wasn’t used the same as Alex or Mr. Bowtie use it in the context. It meant the use they would perform in exchange for their work. In other words it was the agreed amount of work they would perform. Just like the word ‘gay’ means homosexual today meant happy only a hundred years ago. Now as far as it being okay for slavery to only be okay for outsiders, here are some verses these gentlemen left out and I think on purpose. These are right before the verses they cherry picked that actually explain the context. Just know that this is not a new topic and gets debunked every time someone chooses to challenge it again as if this conversation never happened before. See how the Lord commands how to treat foreigners and this applies to slaves or workers as well. Leviticus 19:33-34 - 'And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. Exodus 23:9 9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt. 22: 21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Deuteronomy 27:19 New International Version 19 “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!” Deuteronomy 10:19 New International Version 19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.

[@IvyCatholic]

So interesting the amount of abstract concepts you just take on the basis of faith in your statement: "soul if you will" "pride and respect" Gratitude Mutuality Equality Depression == bad

[@vhawk1951kl]

It is not a conversation it is merely a bit of mutual cinque contra uno

[@raccoon8743]

@@vhawk1951klso you CAN type normally spaced comments! You just choose to be a feckin weirdo! Also drop the smarter than thou attitude, just makes people rightfully hate you.

[@NDProps]

Great conversation. As expected, considering the individuals involved. Thank you.

[@timkirsten6184]

Really interesting conversation, thanks Alex

[@vhawk1951kl]

It's not a conversation it's merely a bit of mutual backscratching or cinque contra Uno is probably the closest thing to it

[@AcidOllie]

I enjoyed that conversation.

[@DannyS177]

I hold the belief that all slavery was bad, and I was raised Christian and thought that God believed the same thing. When I was much older, I looked into what God actually believed, and when I learned that God was fine with slavery, I decided that I didn't need to follow a god that has a lower moral standard than myself.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Help me with this please: where exactly in the new Testament or even in the old Testament for that matter is it suggested that slavery is a jolly good idea that everybody ought to give it a go as often as possible? Yeah right, absolutely nowhere

[@gonufc]

I find Numbers 31 the absolute most concise way to find out how someone rationalises their faith and the Bible. To use child rape and genocide as a weapon (and reward) of war as Moses does surely questions most people's most basic standards of what is moral.

[@S0n0fG0D]

Even i will say this. *"If you need a threat of eternal torture to do the right thing, then you need extreme help"*

[@vhawk1951kl]

What is and who decides what is " the right thing"? Are you not in the realm of all that good/evil, right/wrong. morality/ethics religious mumbo jumbo? From where did you get the " eternal torture" idea? Credulous little religious fanatic aren't you titch? Now if only the passive half of the causes of your arising had ben a supporter and exponent of the slaughter of the unborn in your case.

[@John-yq9qx]

And who defines what the right thing to do is?

[@Nick-Nasti]

@@John-yq9qx current societal morals decides what's right. That's why a book written thousands of years ago cannot be moral. It can only reflect the morals of it's time.

[@John-yq9qx]

@@Nick-Nasti so you would totally be okay with slavery when that was the current societal moral? How about child sacrifice in Aztec culture? What If a bunch of pedophiles formed a society and they were the majority?

[@Jonathan-tw4xm]

​@@Nick-Nasti that's actually not true if you know the bible then you know that the isrealites were unlike the other people in the world. They behaved and acted differently.

[@mism847]

Whatever we think of the guests that arrive on the podcast, it's good to have an informed and polite discussion with them to exchange ideas instead of throwing insults left and right. It should be encouraged.

[@IOverlord]

Nah, we just point ro our holy scriptures and claim God. Feels better

[@toonyandfriends1915]

@@IOverlord That's not how scholastic disagreement were argued

[@baron4113]

It has always been terrafying to me that these religous apologists always have been defending these scriptures despite knowing what historical context there is behind them. That they merely try to brush these texts aside as quickly as possible to only merely a minute later say "Well we humans need the bible to be good people to each other cause we need a moral authority to tell us what to do" when there are passage such as the ones mentioned that commends slavery, murder, genocide, lying, deciet and the list goes on and on... That these people are so unwilling to come face-to-face with the fact that the bible is not a moral guide but a piece of cultural scripture that sure, can be valuable when one wants to do historical research about pre-medieval culture on the arabic peninsula, but are downright useless as a "moral-guide" for how primitive and downright savage these people were. These people were barbarians. Plain and simple. They were brutal, power hungry, hateful and hypocritical with their philosophy and worldview and the sole fact that there are people out there who DEFEND THEM!!? It just shakes me to my core...

[@EsDiDi]

I have to say that I was not convinced at all about the New Testament part. I understand that Dr Bowen is not a New Testament scholar, but I think that The Letter to Philemon was really downplayed and I agree with those scholars who say that there is a real revolution going on in this letter on a very practical level. One scholar even said "the Bible without the Philemon would not be the same book". Onesimus is a slave who ran away from his master Philemon and in Rome he met Paul and became a Christian. So from his prison in Rome, Paul writes this letter to his friend Philemon, Onesimus' former master. In that letter, Paul calls Onesimus "my child, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" and adds "I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart." I am not sure how this tone leaves place for Dr Bowen's interpretation of verse 13 ("I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel") as Paul using another human being. Serving here is diakoneo in Greek, to serve, minister, and whatever the nature of that serving/ministering is, it is something that Onesimus is doing instead of Philemon and something that Philemon himself could/should provide for Paul while he is in prison. It's really a ministry, performed equally by a slave or a master, not slavery. His appeal to Philemon is not "hey, take him back, please? don't punish him, he is a really good slave". Instead, Paul's words cut really deep: "Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back for ever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. So if you consider me your friend, receive him as you would receive me." I see Paul's own identification with Onesimus ("as you would receive me"), and recognition of Onesimus' dignity ("no longer as a slave, but as a beloved brother to you"). Very importantly, it's not just "spiritual" dignity as Dr Bowen suggests we should interpret Galatians 3:28, Paul actually emphasizes that it also includes physical/social aspect of that equality ("both in the flesh and in the Lord"). I am not sure what the argument of Luke 17 is. If I understand well, Dr Bowen thinks that Jesus' words were spoken to his disciples, as a recommendation on how to behave, but I don't see how that interpretation is possible. It's very similar to many other places where Jesus uses typical rabbinic (and Midrash-type) way of creating an argument, "if A, so also (or how much more) B". For example, in Matthew 7, when teaching about prayer, Jesus says, "Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him." That doesn't mean that he is teaching them to be lousy parents nor that he condones lousy parenting as such. Instructions in Ephesians and Colossians are barely touched upon, so I can't comment on that. But instructions to the masters do deserve careful consideration, as they might contain those seeds of revolution seen in Philemon as well. The crux of Christianity is not mentioned at all. Philippians 2, "Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave (dulos), being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross." He willingly became that servant/slave of Luke 17 and washed his disciples' feet. I can't even put it in words, but it's a game-changer. I don't think the title of this podcast episode is justified as it basically deals with the Old Testament only (and it does give us a lot to think about, it certainly stirred my mind!) As it barely touches on the New Testament and the New Testament claims that Jesus Christ is the final revelation of God, I don't think that we can even say that Christianity is addressed at all.

[@belialord]

Your selection of guests lately has been great, Dr. Josh is awesome

[@realDonaldMcElvy]

The Bible only supports Slavery as much as it supports Gravity. Just because the Bible records people doing terrible things doesn't mean it was explicitly permitted. The Law of Moses may be well antiquated, but it strictly prohibited slavery. Nobody was allowed to be in service (indentured service) for more than 7 years, unless they themselves, in the middle of town in front of the elders, declared that they wanted to be a servant to their lord for life. (Then there would be a hole punched into their ear) People use the word Slave as a broad brush over a more detailed system of service. People being rude to those in service continues to this day. But that doesn't degrade this system of Hebrew Servitude, no matter how much people project onto it the Antebellum South.

[@maxv9464]

Not nobody. That was specifically for Hebrew individuals. And besides, "strictly prohibiting" slavery does not mean allowing it for a maximum of 7 years. It means banning it. Anything else is abhorrent.

[@maxv9464]

@@realDonaldMcElvy It is not sufficient protection to limit involuntary slavery to 7 years. It doesn't magically become indentured servitude because some people had the choice to opt back in. The bible endorses forcing people into labor for years. That is wrong, on every single level. A protection would be banning slavery. In all its forms. For everyone. Nevermind the fact that someone's wife and CHILDREN can become property without their consent.

[@the_hoppean8461]

Youre either being intentionally dishonest or you are just plain stupid. The bible very clearly lays out that the 7 year rule only applies to Israelites. This is something you should know if youve read the bible or watched any debate on the topic. The bible refers to slaves as PROPERTY and gives details on how you can pass them on to your children as inheritance when you die, And allows you to beat them as long as they dont die within 2 days. IT WAS SLAVERY.

[@Marniwheeler]

You should watch the whole video, you wouldn't have needed this comment.

[@realDonaldMcElvy]

​@@MarniwheelerWithin the first 15 seconds of this video Bowen makes a category error conflating the Law of Moses with the historical record in the Bible. Just because the Egyptians enslaved the Jews with cruelty doesn't mean God established that as lawful. Assyria and Babylon are not Israel. For CosmicSkeptic to open with that clip is an attempt to wall off the argument before it even begins.

[@andrewprahst2529]

I don't really see why a christian wouldn't accept that non-israel could have good laws

[@azophi]

In part, it's because a broader survey of the culture shows that Israel wasn't that special. They were unique and had their own traditions- I'm not someone to say they entirely copied their stories from other traditions- but it's clear that they were a product of their culture. This puts big questions on which laws God made, and etc. But also just because.. most people are unwilling to accept that slavery in other countries was a good, loving, law made by an all-loving God. If you are then.. I guess it's consistent at least? Preaching this directly.. will most likely alienate others or make them question. But it is consistent.

[@andrewprahst2529]

@@azophi Can you reearrange the leeters in your response so that they are in alphabetical order?

[@charlestownsend9280]

Cause everyone outside of their religion needs to be evil.

[@Faint366]

Because they need to believe that their moral system is in some way superior to all others. If it’s no better than the cultures around them then how can they claim to have received special guidance from an all knowing god?

[@christopher7725]

Dr Josh is great! Thanks for this video

[@flywire76]

Everytime I hear the leave them be for 30 days or month I can’t help but think the reason behind this is to see if she is pregnant. Not so much a protection of the woman but if the new husband’s lineage.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

Interesting 🤔

[@shivtaan5072]

Yes, that's exactly the reason. As soon as she gets her period, the guy is free to marry her.

[@deschain1910]

I was a bit confused about the guest's perspective on these things, when he was talking about how upsetting he found the rules of war outlined in the Old Testament. Was it only so upsetting in relation to the idea that it was good because it came from God according to certain apologists, or was it in general? Because my understanding is that these were basically the universal rules of war at the time for "polite societies," so from a purely atheistic perspective these things should be expected. I don't see how even these apologists would actually say these rules would be appropriate today, so I'm not clear on how we get from there to the suggestion that seems to be present throughout this discussion that these things would somehow come back in our modern day by using the bible as justification for it. This implication feels kind of silly and alarmist.

[@rl7012]

Yep, he is being a bit of a drama queen there.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

He used to be an avid Christian so maybe that was in regards to his time as a Christian? I'd have to rewatch for the context.

[@charliemallonee2792]

People continue to bring up the exact same set of morals that tells us homosexuality is “an abomination”. I think it’s very relevant to point out that the same passage so many cite also promoted slavery.

[@MrCmon113]

>I don't see how even these apologists would actually say these rules would be appropriate today Then they would have to contradict their god. >that these things would somehow come back in our modern day by using the bible as justification for it They ARE present in our modern world with EXPLICIT justification of the Old Testament, Bible and Quran. They are justifying sexual slavery RIGHT NOW. >This implication feels kind of silly and alarmist. It's obvious for anyone with the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty. If the perfect creator of the cosmos tells his chosen people to take sex slaves and supports them in doing so, how could that possibly be bad in your case?

[@Scalpaxos]

So much for the Bible being a moral compass...

[@vhawk1951kl]

What the devil us a "moral compass", and what does whatever "moral" means add to compass? You have not the faintest idea? No surprises there

[@debrac3391]

@@vhawk1951kl Do you ALWAYS miss the point?

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@debrac3391 That rather depends on the significance of the point, who is making it and how well it is made; why might I give a shit one way or the other? If you some mouse(nothing and nobody)suppose yourself to be conveying something by your squeaking, that need not concern others, the squeaking of mice rarely being of any particular significance, because mice are temporary as you are about to discover. The mechanical reactions of the functions of mice are never of any significance, generally because you are ephemeral

[@vhawk1951kl]

C@@debrac3391 Calm down dear, those that abuse capital letters emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser. If a point is being made by some hysterical raving lunatic that in her hysterical insanity has no idea what is is, probably best take no notice of it or hysterical lunatics generally The word for which in your hysteria you are struggling may be topic which in the instant case was introduced by the tendentious attention seeking puppy is whether or not some book supports slavery which self-evidently it does not but it is not relevant to anything whether it does or not. If the book does inded support slavery , all the more reson to read it which I have several times although it is not that interesting and certainly going by my or anyone's cursory readings of it the one thing that doesnot-repeat not, stand out is any sort of opinion about slavery which has been so comonplace in the past, which is of course imaginary, as to be banal.

[@vhawk1951kl]

The Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with what you call moral compasses since it is little more than an anthology of folklore, your famous moral compasses being much more to do with that psychological phenomenon that is known as religion which embraces all that good/evil right/wrong morality/ethics mumbo-jumbo that is the very essence and tzimus of religion in fact religion is all that good/evil right/wrong morality/ethics monkey business or mumbo-jumbo This rather trivial little debate reminds me of the story about the rather prurient woman that telephoned the police to complain that her neighbours were having sex in their garden and she could see it from her kitchen window and demanded that the police stop it, so a young policeman comes round to her flat and point out that the neighbours garden cannot be seen from the prurient old woman's kitchen window to which she says: "maybe not, but if you put the chair on the table and stand on the chair you can see it and it is precisely that store eisegesis which is being employed in this rather idiotic little debate about whether or not the Bible support slavery which it plainly doesn't but if it does, all the more reason to suppose slavery to be a jolly good thing, which is certainly was for those that benefited from it; if you can make money out of the sugarcane business because you do not have to pay anyone to work your plantation, it makes sense to use those whom you can bully or intimidate into labouring for you for nothing, and if you can do that, which is a perfectly sensible and rational thing to do, why not do that? The assumption by sundry juvenile prigs is that there is something objectionable about slavery but they never actually set out the basis for their objection or whether they find it objectionable or not, because they are exactly like the rather prurient old woman spying on her neighbours from her kitchen window

[@GodlessCommie]

given a whole month to mourn their family who was slaughtered just to be assaulted more by her forced husband for the rest of her life. how absolutely repugnant.

[@Dragoon803]

This was the straw that broke the camels back for me. This was the thing that finally shook me out of my religion of 18 years. I could not find any plausible and reasonable answers for the horrors committed in the Old testament. Once I realized that the New testament did nothing to condemn or renounce that behavior I was done. Best decision I've made for my life thus far.

[@rl7012]

Secularists have slaves too. In fact the secularists made many of their own nations people into slaves, especially the communist lot did.

[@mr.centrist5789]

@@rl7012 AND???

[@PetroicaRodinogaster264]

@dragon803….same. I also stopped eating all flesh when I realised how sentient animals are and that the biblical teachings did nothing to address that.

[@rl7012]

@@PetroicaRodinogaster264 But you don't care about the billions of insects that get killed for your manufactured food? You don't care about the wild life killed and polluted because of intensive crop farming?

[@earlysda]

@@PetroicaRodinogaster264 Nybor, you've openly shown your ignorance of the Holy Bible and of the real world around you. Seventh-day Adventists understand from the Holy Bible that eating meat is not best, and that we should protect and care for all of God's creatures. . Why not repent, and start following Jesus Christ, your Creator?

[@chrisbyrne17]

Great vid once again my friend

[@goinggray]

Genuinely live these discussions! Thank you Alex!

[@Beautyargentina6]

Alex knows what he’s doing, well done sir.

[@younggod5230]

the part with the counting livestock really reminded me what the idea of "early barbarian tribe" really meant. The horror of being relegated to being a baby maker, or just a trophy thats pretty to look at.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Seemingly to rgw greeks barbarian meant anyone who coulls not speak Greek such ashoenicians, Etruscans, Macedonians, whose speech sounded like ba ba to the Greeks who routinely kept slaves and supposed there to be nothing remarkable about the practice, because there *is* nothing particularly remarkable bout it. The slaves non plus(they presumably did not think being slaves particularly remarkable)I doubt there were any Greek prigs that thought to ask their opinion.

[@AnnoyingNewsletters]

This is the best interview I've seen so far on Within Reason, and I'm not just saying that because it was Dr. Joshua Bowen. The length and breadth of the conversation, as well as its depth, was far greater than I've seen him able to cover on the other appearances he's mentioned. On that note, if I remember correctly, Dr Josh is not a fan of the debate format; however, I think that with Alex as the moderator, scholars like Dr. Josh could be able to participate in productive debates on the topics, rather than the usual tribalism and cult of personality we usually see in a debate. Give both positions time for opening statements. Ask one of the guests a question, allow them adequate, uninterrupted, time to answer, ask any clarifying questions with a shorter response time. Then pose the same question to the other guest under the same conditions. Give the guests a chance to ask each other questions. Segue into a Q&A with the audience and do the same. Avoid the cross talk, and definitely exercise the power of the mute button. Even the least honest of interlocutors could have a civilized discussion without it descending into chaos.

[@greyback4718]

Great conversation ❤

[@candacesimms3963]

As a woman, I am so disappointed and disgusted at the old testemnt. There truly should never be any shock when people justify acts of evil in the name of a so-called good God. One with some intellect must start to really think that the God served in the bible is either a sick, power hungry, lust driven man or an evil and unjust God that I personally would never want to serve.

[@Sveccha93]

Two of my favorites together. Awesome discussion, gentlemen. ❤

[@richardredmond1463]

The Bible does not "support" slavery. Slavery falls into the same category as when Jesus told the Pharisees that Moses allowed Jewish men to put away (divorce) their wives (Matthew 19:8). Jesus said it was because of the hardness of their hearts. Hardness here means destitute of spiritual perception. Basically it was not something that God could deal with at the time, because of how spiritually, emotionally, psychologically undeveloped that generation of people were. The time to deal with slavery had to come later. This was the human races fault, not God's.

[@tjk355]

​@neinnononargument from incredulity. You're not smart.

[@J.Kunda98]

You're thinking for God now, Richard. Nowhere in the Bible it's written that there would come a time where we would have to deal with slavery. It's something you just made up.

[@richardredmond1463]

@@J.Kunda98 Gods Kingdom comes step by step (2 Corinthians 3:18, Mark 4:26-29, Proverbs 4:18). It's never been any other way.

[@J.Kunda98]

Those passages don't talk about slavery explicitly. Again, it's something you just made up. Yet again the Bible is not being clear for a reason, besides, who's to say we didn't figure out that on our own without any influence from the Bible, which seems to be to have been the case.

[@richardredmond1463]

@@J.Kunda98 That's right

[@Chris-op7yt]

havent read the book but i suspect it stays in the realm of bible analysis. instead it could go on to include lots of cases of church involvement in supporting slavery in history

[@lava_za]

Apologists apologizing for slavery is appauling.

[@michaelhough5003]

Ah, Deuteronomy 21. Probably my favorite verses in the entire Bible. Mostly because, regardless of translation or any attempt at interpretation, the events are obviously indefensible. Even in the translations where the nonconsentual nature of the "wedding" is heavily obscured with soft language, as written, it is still God given, step by step instructions, to preasure prisoner's of war to enter a sexual relationship with their captors.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Yes but is the passage endorsing what’s going on?

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@SamoaVsEverybody_814 No.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

​@@pleaseenteraname1103 if something says, "go and do this" is that not endorsing? Like if I tell you to go buy a specific car that I've selected, am I not endorsing you to go buy that specific car?

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@whatwecalllife7034 it doesn’t say go into this. It’s simply giving you permission not preventing you from doing it it’s not endorsing it by any means. Except that’s not what’s going on it says if there is a car that I want to buy, can you allow me to buy it. It’s never treat as a virtual saying and you’re never encouraged to do it.

[@earlysda]

@SamoaVsEverybody_814 Samoa, it is not possible, by definition, for anyone to be an Atheist.

[@aytaf5430]

Best interview in while.

[@Bartwon]

I would have thought a god would say you can’t own another person

[@njhoepner]

A god who believed in human rights would have. A god who could clearly see what was happening, and did nothing about it, either doesn't have any concept of human rights or can't do anything about it...or (obviously) doesn't exist. There are no other possibilities.

[@Bartwon]

@@njhoepner definitely failed society many many times - fail on there report card. They always say oh all the ills of man are due to free will yet they pray for gods will to intervene and there is not this line in the sand where gods will ends and free will starts. It’s amazing this logic escapes those who cherry pick the Bible or are apologists

[@robbiestones9447]

​@@njhoepner or simply GOD allowed humans to do evil actions due to free will. And had faith in humanity that it would eventually free it self of this evil action..and it did..by christians...GOD allowing something doesn't mean he supports it or like it..that's a fallacy...

[@njhoepner]

@@robbiestones9447 Let me deal with your three falsehoods one at a time: 1. "This evil action was ended by christians"...it was also good devout christians who imposed slavery, who perpetuated it, who demanded compensation for their "property" to give it up (UK), who launched the bloodiest war in U.S. history just to defend it, who had to be forced at gunpoint to give it up...and who defended it, ACCURATELY, on biblical grounds. Strike one. 2. God "needed" to give humans "free will," the magic explainer for EVERYTHING WE CHRISTIANS CLAIM NOT TO LIKE. OK, one question - in heaven, I'm told there is no sin...so in heaven, no free will? If that's so, then God did not "need" to allow for free will. If that's not so, then God could make people with free will and without sin...so all of this "evil" remains his/her/it's choice. Strike two. 3. God, if I take your religion seriously, remains fully responsible. If I have power over you, and you say to me "I want to enslave those people over there, but I'll only do it with your permission," and I grant permission, am I an innocent bystander or an accomplice? If I watch you do it, and I have the power to stop you (easily) but don't, am I an innocent bystander or an accomplice? If I in fact give you positive directions to DO IT, am I an innocent bystander or in fact the primary criminal? This is obvious. Strike three. It's a typical cognitive slight-of-hand..."God is all-powerful...except when he isn't...but one day he will be again...but for now he's helpless...one day he'll fix everything...but for now he's abdicating responsibility...so that he can punish people later...in the great by and by...in the meantime everything is all somebody else's fault." Yep.

[@charliemallonee2792]

@@robbiestones9447 Except he quite explicitly didn’t respect our “free will” to such things as homosexuality, eating shellfish, wearing mixed-fabric clothing, witchcraft, working on a Saturday, or even disobeying our parents. Yahweh seems to have taken an awful lot of care to restrict some of our “sinful” behavior, but not slavery?

[@blacki183]

If Leviticus were truly the word of god it might state something like: The kings and the wealthy of the nation shall share their wealth equally with all people, for no man should be the property of another man. Defending the ownership of a human being by another human being is reprehensible, no matter the complexity of the reasoning.

[@adriannegentleman83]

I enjoyed this episode so much and learned so much, thanks Alex for hosting Joshua Bowen, I've come across him only once before, and find his scholarship interesting and informative.

[@florencegielen5640]

Wow this was really interesting! What a great episode. Loved this guest. So knowledgeable.

[@vhawk1951kl]

How do you know he is knowledgeable? Just naturall credulous?

[@vhawk1951kl]

Why does it matter or who gives a flying fcuk whether or not the bible condones supports or even specifically advocates slavery? Do you take some sort of objection to slavery or the owning and keeping of slaves and wherein lies any difference between owning and keeping slaves and owning and keeping any other animal?

[@cuzned1375]

Always pleased to see Dr Josh, and not only because of his kick-ass bowtie game.

[@elainejohnson6955]

When considering the passages where it says if you knock the slave's eye or tooth out, you are to let them go free... 1) Where are they going to go? They have no property and no money. 2) No one is going to hire them since they are clearly damaged. 3) I am picturing a bunch of eyeless and toothless people aimlessly wandering around. 4) How will they get food? They can't petition for food stamps or go to a grocery store. 5) Who is going to enforce these laws? If the master blinds the slave and doesn't let him go, who does the slave express his grievance to?