Making Sense of Old Testament Violence

[@alanrhoda228]

Very nice video! You've persuaded me that the redemptive movement model is the best way of approaching these texts. I like how it's able to incorporate insights from Copan and Boyd, thereby in some ways improving on both of their models.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Thank you for your kind words! I'm honored to have a scholar of your caliber not only watch my video, but agree with my conclusions.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Chapters: 00:00 - Introduction 01:40 - A Brief Autobiography 04:05 - Some "Solutions" Which Don't Work 12:07 - The Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic 21:29 - Forced Marriages and War R@pe 25:54 - The Canaanite Genocide 33:35 - Slavery in the Old Testament 35:45 - Hand Amputation 42:04 - A Final Concern 46:12 - Conclusion

[@briendoyle4680]

hahaha

[@marshallhanny-woko164]

Came across this randomly and I’m extremely happy I did. I’ve had issues with some of these texts, although I’m quite aware of the apologetic explanations for them. I think you’ve done a splendid job of stating all popular views as well as comparing these texts contextually to other nations of that time. Bravo and God bless.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Thank you for your kind words! 😊

[@survivordave]

The certificate of divorce wasn't just a delay tactic. Apparently one issue in the ancient world was husbands sending wives away, and then coming after them later to reassert control over her or take advantage of her in some way by reasserting marital rights. The certificate of divorce was the woman's proof of the ending of the marriage and protection from further humiliation and abuse, and without the certificate of divorce being issued, if she had been ejected from the house, she had a legal case to assert her own rights as his wife.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

This seems right to me. I was primarily using that quotation from Boyd to support the idea that the New Testament supports the idea that there are imperfections in the Old Testament due to the hardness of people's hearts. His specific explanation for why divorce was permitted wasn't especially relevant to that larger point. But I appreciate you noting this here anyway. 🙂

[@randallflynn3772]

The "pretty woman", Israelite sees her and makes her his wife after 30 days, isn't much better than women being butchered. I am a survivor of severe sexual abuse. Do you have ANY idea how a woman would feel in such a circumstance?! Having to marry against her will, the man who just killed at least some of her friends and neighbors? So God can order the depraved, primitive, sinful humans not to eat shellfish, not too early for that, even that shellfish might be a staple of their diet, given limited food supply, but God can NOT say (at this time), "respect other people's boundaries, all marriages must be consensual all around, all sexual acts must be completely consensual. Only kill in self defense, not because you want the property of a rival tribe."

[@_DiJiT]

It’s about men doing with their wives what the Muslims call Mutah today

[@uncensoredpilgrims]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Yes. Ironically, though, many modern-day Christian churches abuse Jesus' words to deny modern people the grace that God allowed in the OT law, as if people today are not just as much in need of it. I don't think it's right for Christians to demand lifelong celibacy for people who have messed up in a previous marriage and for whatever reason cannot restore it. As Paul taught, "It is better to marry than to burn [with passion]."

[@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737]

​@@uncensoredpilgrims no JESUS doesn't allow remarriage while your wife is alive. Even the Apostle Paul says the same. Your reinterpreting grace through an antinomian lens because you hate the narrow path that leads to life. The shepherd of Hermes a early Christian work respected and quoted by polycarp ,irraeneaus clearly forbid remarriage while your spouse is alive. You western Christians don't understand the real meaning of marriage. That's why you compromise on JESUS'S teachings. The union between man and woman is sacred. It's not just to have someone so you don't feel alone or for sex. Thomas Albin Holmes demonstrates clearly in his video series that remarriage is not allowed. You can watch that if your interested

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

This was excellent and much needed. Intuitively, this particular thesis was something I was leaning towards in my private thoughts, but didnt quite know how to articulate. This video did a great job of connecting the dots for me. Great work David.

[@TheistBrooks]

Does this have any application to the story of Elisha and the bears?

[@endygonewild2899]

sure

[@oscarmagana8322]

Excellent Video! This is a really good resource for understanding this topic! I am a big Old Testament nerd, so although I already agreed with you, I think a good clear video on this subject like this is great. A lot better reference than apologetic q/a livestreams Or sentinel apologetic 10 hour videos lol(which I love but I’m sure you get it). Now one thing I didn’t notice you mention which is also really important for this subject, is that these law codes may have been considered wisdom literature like the code hamarabi(probably spelled wrong) where we can’t really prove they were ever used judiciously, like crime and punishment. We can see this in how David didn’t receive the punishment in the law for his sex with Bathsheba. It was something to consider before making an actual judgement on a crime. Another context to consider for the genocide along with this one is that there are some Genesis 6:1-4 connections to the conquest narratives, Heiser had some stuff on that which people can look into as well.

[@uncensoredpilgrims]

This video is really outstanding. Highly appreciative! This is really something that more Christians need to dig into and understand.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Thank you 😊

[@litigioussociety4249]

Maybe you address somewhere in the video, but this would be better formatted by showing the historical and clear explanation first rather than the annoying wrong or lacking answers first. The slaughters were simply for the purpose of cutting off families. In that time, allowing any survivors to have offspring would have been seen as leaving behind the sin of that tribe, family, etc. This is why Sodom and Gemorrah are obliterated. Likewise, killing a man and his descendants was seen as the greatest punishment, not simply killing him. God would be seen as unjust for allowing him to bear seed into the world after certain atrocities. Sadly, some people in our culture still have this view, mostly women, who think killing the child of a rapist is justified, because they were the product of rape.

[@posavka]

This is a great answer, thank you!🙏🏼✝️

[@theloveofgod1740]

Great video. Thanks for making a reasonable response to this objection, brother!❤

[@rmcfete]

Violence at any time is the result of persons making bad decisions and not controlling their emotional environment

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

While true, that is not the sort of violence with which I am concerned in this video

[@kettei7743]

As someone who is very sympathetic to the ideas of the likes of Greg Boyd, Thom Stark and Randal Rauser regarding the issue, I applaud you for making this video, since it is a very clear and systematic presentation regarding the views Christians have held to to make sense of the old testament, specially regarding the view you held. However, I think the view you are outlining here has several problems that makes me prefer the liberal view. My two problems is that, firstly, laws in the old testament do not always reflect an improvement compared to other societies at the time, and second, that even when there are passages when we could argue this is to be the case, other passages portray God in a way that is fundamental irreconcilable to the God revealed in Jesus, this in a way that forces us to conclude that old testament presents fundamental misunderstandings of God. On the first point, the laws on the old testament do not always represent a step up from similar laws in other societies at the time, as Dr Joshua Bowen argues in his book about the slavery in the OT, sometimes the laws of other societies a better than what is presented in the biblical text. Furthermore, there would need to have a method to determine where is God accommodating with the society at the time and where it is not. And on the second point, an example of this is when God commands King Saul the slaughter the Amalekites, and subsequently punishes Saul for NOT completely carrying out said command. There are points in the old testament were God itself is portrayed in a way that is fundamentally irreconcilable to what God is revealed in Jesus, posing a significant problem to the view God is just using these commands to lead to a higher revelation. It is very clear, at least for me, that we must recognize that there are parts of scripture that are just incorrect or not final, as you said in your video regarding the law. But this also extends to the way God itself is portrayed, which in turn lends more credibility to what you call the liberal view, But in any case, you did a good video, as it has made reconsider some things regarding the position you hold. Peace

[@astrocaleb]

I currently do not land on any specific solution to these problems in the Old Testament, but if we are to conclude that passages in the Old Testament are misrepresentations of God and are either incomplete or in error, then how can we be confident that the gospels aren’t misrepresenting Jesus? What if the New Testament is in error as well? Also, why couldn’t an all-powerful and all-knowing God not present his moral code without flaws? Genuinely curious for a response, since I am trying to piece things together myself.

[@harrylong575]

Hey, I'm curious about the "itself" referring to God. I think it is clear that He is a He, or in this case, Himself. Anyway, Jesus likely accepted those same Scriptures about which we are arguing here. I think Romans 9:14-end of chapter works well here. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't think I am dispensationalist, but the world is under a New Covenant with Jesus Christ (God), so in some sense, God is bound now in a way in which He wasn't before. Personally, I think it's unfair to God ascribe who and what He can be; yes, He is love and cannot sin, but with that He has His own freewill. With the which He enters into GENEROUS, risky covenants with us His creations. I haven't watched the video all the way through yet, so I may be repeating something in it. Anyway, God bless you

[@legodavid9260]

Which laws of other societies were better towards slaves than those in the Bible, if I may ask?

[@uncensoredpilgrims]

It is not the scriptures that you take as an authority, but rather your own sensibilities. Have you considered writing your own Bible so we can all learn from you?

[@computationaltheist7267]

Rauser's position would mean that even removing those parts of scripture from the canon would potentially be a good idea. But why stop our conscious at just the conquest. What reason would God have for creating a world where many children died before the age of five?

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I don't think that this is implied by Rauser's position. He would still maintain that God included these books in the Canon for a reason because the stories are meant to teach us something. He is very vague as to what they are supposed to teach us. But his position is also clear that God does want them to be in the Canon for some reason or other.

[@trafficjon400]

Looks like you diden't get the answer your looking for but instead some Gobish to void it.

[@computationaltheist7267]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Hello there, Sir. I didn't even know that you had replied. I think if you say that God is not worthy of some things, then it follows that the way he is portrayed in some parts of the Bible should be removed. Marcion logically took this conclusion. As Catholic theologian J Luis Dizon writes when he reviewed Rauser's book Jesus Loves Canaanites: The only appreciable difference, as I see it, is that Marcion was more honest and consistent in his approach and the conclusions it leads to. He did not attempt to find some sort of pretext for keeping the OT as some sort of inspired foil against which God hopes to present a better way down the road. Instead, he took the argument that the OT divine portraits are unworthy of God to its logical conclusion, which is to de-canonize the OT altogether.

[@QueloKFC]

Lemme defend Copan & Flannagan rq: 1) Why doesn't God (a Perfect judge) have the authority to alter the course of someone's life (and come home to Him, their ultimate reason for living, early)? If you take barah in Genesis to refer to function-assigning rather than mere creation, this will extend into the ethical domain (e.g., father-child relation). So, for every other child, God has planned their life with goods in this life that we don't have the right (in some non-double effect context), to take. But since God has the divine moral authority to change the course and normative path of their life (as the vast majority of theists are committed to), you can't really argue (a) God has violated Perfect Love by using the Israelites as a means to bring children home or (b) this entails we have the right to kill those prior to the age of accountability--as we don't have such an authority. 2) If you trust the intelligence agencies of CIA, FBI, MI6, Mossad, etc, in eliminating terrorists (even if that means there'll be children casualties), why wouldn't you trust the intelligence of God (infallible in power, knowledge, goodness) to take life? 3) If God is the *ultimate & infallible source* of The Gift of Life (ensoulment & purpose-giving), He is under no duty to ensure anyone is on this earth for some specified interval. 4) Parents, adults, and capable human beings-more generally have duties (God assigned or however else you wanna account for it) to not either, ensure the welfare or, minimally, not harm other human beings *relative to their capabilites, sovereignty, and control over their earthly context.* But since God is capable, sovereign, and also facilitates control, function-assignment & life-planning, and perfect judgment over non-earthly domains, His duties are much broader and not as restricted as ours (e.g., hence why He can allow defeasible earthly horrors we have duties to prevent & stop or decide the right time to bring children to Him).

[@DM-zq8qy]

I am glad to see you examining this topic and others to “make sense” of different “historical documents” that relate to previous beliefs in Gods. I admire your search for TRUTH. ❤️😀☮️ After trying to “make sense” of why my church was not growing, I realized it does NOT make sense for a “loving father” to kill or torture “his children.” I “believed” in my “faith”(my parents faith) for 50 years until I started tracking the sources and testing the documents for contradictions to see if faith“makes sense.” Global floods, genocidal wars, and torture in hell all flunked my “sense” tests. Moving forward (more steps “closer to God”) … The doctrines of any church that condemns all “others” violates my sense test. Any “doctrine” that requires allegiance to a few (usually male) “priests, prophets, elders, deacons, mullahs, rabbis, or reverends” makes no sense. Is there another “possibility” to “make sense” of the horrific violence and “nonsense” recorded in the Bible? Did the authors of the Bible (and other “holy books”) simply misunderstood history and made errors in the compilation and interpretation of the evidence available to them AT THAT TIME? Rather than God “stepping us in the right direction”, does it make more sense that we are realizing that God had nothing to do with the evil history of man? Can we really “make sense” of a “loving God” doing ANY of the evil ascribed to him in ancient “holy books?” Doctrines that proclaim that a “holy spirit” will guide me makes no sense in light of the lack of evidence of the existence of any such “guidance.” Doctrines that tell children that they will be tortured for eternity unless they adhere to a particular “faith” makes no sense. Doctrines that continually divide humanity and cause unending wars make no sense. Are we all ONE family? All related? Could we all have World PEACE? ☮️ 1. Admit we are all related (different theories on how and when). 2. Admit religions are all man-made theories. 3. Admit Gods are perceived in numerous ways (theories). 4. Love our neighbors. 5. Seek ONLY the TRUTH. 6. STOP fighting over theories.

[@DaddyBooneDon]

What do you think about the passages that describe God's patience with the inhabitants in the promised land? God was reserving judgement, giving room for repentance, just like he was with Israel while they continually acted contrary to his laws and commandments.

[@daman7387]

How does this comport with, say, Psalm 19:7, which says the law of the Lord is perfect/blameless? Is there a tension there?

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Perfect need not mean ethically perfect. It could refer to perfection with respect to the purposes for which God intended it.

[@daman7387]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 thanks

[@daman7387]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 oh shoot, IP also addresses this in his 2nd mosaic law vid

[@dackhornbold1728]

I am not a Christian apologist, but I've always been troubled by those commands to commit genocide. All explanations I heard from parents, pastors, and teachers were insufficient. When I took a course in game theory, I had an insight and possibly a partial explanation. First, God being omniscient, or knowing everything, can be interpreted as God knowing all the strategies of all players in a game, knowing the probabilities of each player choosing a strategy, and knowing the outcome of every possible combination of strategies by the players. Second, God is all powerful but lets people choose freely because the ultimate goal is to redeem humanity. To accomplish this humans must freely choose not to sin. One person's choices have consequences for everybody and thus this "game" has a very complex "tree" diagram. However, God can see the entire diagram of the game and there is no uncertainty for Him. With this knowledge God can identify all the decision points in history that inevitably lead a subset of people to reject salvation. Given that this subset of the population will always reject salvation in every possible scenario and there interaction with other people in the population will lead them to reject God it is rational to remove that subset of the population entirely. Put another way, that diseased branch that will ultimately die and may kill the entire tree should be pruned. This is what God does. Jesus literally tells us this in John 15. God cuts the dead branches off and prunes the good vines to produce the best fruit. In modern language we'd call that gutting the dead branches genocide and the pruning God tests us with are traumatic ordeals that can affect an entire society like Israeli bondage in Egypt or their exile to Babylon. In this way God can ensure the Nash equilibrium occurs which is His preferred outcome of a universe without sin.

[@oldschool5]

You puttin too much emphasis on god while reading a book given to you by man. The old testament is nothing but authors using a man made god push their agenda. Bad mythology is dangerous

[@dackhornbold1728]

@@oldschool5 can I assume you're an atheist? If so then how is your belief system any better? The root of whatever you believe was also written down by mere men with an agenda. But I'd argue communism, nihilism, postmodernism, etc are all more dangerous than traditional religions because at least traditional religions teach you to do good. Modern philosophy teaches you that there is no good or evil do do whatever you want. Which if those philosophies is more dangerous? Ask the 100+ million people murdered in the last century by people inspired by these modern ideas. This number dwarfs the number killed by all bad actors in history using religion as an excuse to kill.

[@oldschool5]

@@dackhornbold1728 I'm far from an atheist. I couldn't imagine subscribing to a deity that relies on man Idk much about atheist killing but I do know about Christian slave masters and Islamic terrorist. The amount of delusion needed to maintain these beliefs are not worth the few positives in Christian mythology.

[@gg2008yayo]

Is their a way I may email you?

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

You can reach me at davepallmann@ gmail.com (added a space so that YT doesn't delete the comment)

[@danielboone8256]

Perfect timing for this video as I was trying to find the name of this methodology just the other day. Do you think this reasoning can be applied to Romans 13 and similar passages as well? I think there's a strong case to be made in light of three factors: 1. Prooftexts 1 Samuel 8 and NT passages (basically all of John's writings) that indicate states either practice evil or are controlled by Satan. 2. The historical fact is that states are often the biggest perpetrators of evil. 3. The fact that states did not originally exist in Eden, which is the same kind of appeal Christ makes in regards to divorce. If we say that Paul's commands for slaves to obey their masters in the NT was a redemptive hermeneutic, why not say the same thing about obeying rulers when both the master and the ruler regularly practice evil against the one over whom they claim to have the authority to control? Also, is there any other Biblical support for this hermeneutic besides Hebrews and the divorce passage in Matthew? Just wondering because I know Christians who still say slavery is God's ideal and would consider this hermeneutic far too liberal.

[@trafficjon400]

Strange how Man if finally deciding to read and see the bull shite. an Honest loving none manipultive God would put aside contradiction and Fallacies'.

[@jochemschaab6739]

How could you say that God is moving towards more compassion, love and dignity in the law of amputating a woman's hand, when the text explicitly forbids them to have compassion?

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

By comparing the text to comparable punishments for comparable offenses in other ANE law codes as Webb explained in the video.

[@jochemschaab6739]

@faithbecauseofreason8381 yeah but you would expect that God would give room for even more improvement by giving the possiblity to have compassion and therefore not cutting off her hand right? Sure, God gives in in some sense so that if they want to they can punish the woman terribly, but why is that mandatory?

[@ihatetuesdays8438]

Thank you for these videos, do you think you would reply to Kipp Davis’s response to this?

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Possibly. TBH he spent quite a lot of time just critiquing Webb. A lot of that is outside of my area of study. Honestly Webb himself might be a better option to respond to Davis.

[@DrKippDavis]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Yeah, I chose to respond directly to Webb because it seemed to me like you were just summarising his arguments, and giving him the benefit of the doubt about his presentation of the ANE source material. I think I showed that at a very minimum a MUCH more nuanced approach to reading these texts is required for understanding them clearly, and within their appropriate context.

[@stephenmorrison335]

IMO a position modern Christianity seems to ignore or consider Taboo is the Ante Nicene Christian position in regards to the genocide of the Canaanites and other tribes at the time. Their view was that in the instances that the tribes were to be exterminated, including all animals was because these tribes were Nephilim. They got this idea from the same place Peter (recording it in 2 Peter) and Jude did which is 1 Enoch where it is said the Nephilim were sinning against flesh and animals (Genetic Modification). That is why all was to be exterminated as the ultimate goal was to muddy the blood line of Christ which would interfere with the fact that Jesus had to come in all ways "just as His Brothers" in order to redeem us. This is why God was so adamant about exterminating all of them which David and etc. failed to do at times. This is the main reason for the flood and why Noah was considered pure (his DNA). I will include a quote from Justin Martyr in the reply.

[@stephenmorrison335]

Justin Martyr (140ad) But if this idea take possession of some one, that if we acknowledge God as our helper, we should not, as we say, be oppressed and persecuted by the wicked; this, too, I will solve. God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law - for these things also He evidently made for man - committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begot children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Whence also the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it was the angels and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these things to men, and women, and cities, and nations, which they related, ascribed them to god himself, and to those who were accounted to be his very offspring, and to the offspring of those who were called his brothers, Neptune and Pluto, and to the children again of these their offspring. For whatever name each of the angels had given to himself and his children, by that name they called them.

[@GoofyAhOklahoma]

Great video. Although, at 34:04, I feel here that you gave the impression that CHATTEL slavery was limited to seven years. But that's not true. Indentured servitude, which is VERY different from slavery as we know it, was limited to seven years, but chattel slavery was forever (Leviticus 25:46.) We know that Exodus 21:1 was talking about indentured servitude because it says HEBREW slaves. Israelites were not allowed to own other Israelites as property.

[@gregory_bloomfield]

Thank you for this video. The Old Testament violence has been a stumbling block to me.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I hope the video was of some help to you

[@trafficjon400]

Biggest problem is why Christians never knew the Bible and making it so dam long make it impossible to know if its truth or not. God making a book like this way is mans business. The years to take making this book shows Mans work and not necessary for a God who could have made it in a wink? and not around years and years. King james 800 years and finally its out in 1611 the Gap after the pilgrim settlement if rediculously fallacious.

[@joneill3dg]

I curious about how this view really differs from Copan’s. I know that he would agree that the war texts being hyperbolic, and I am fairly sure he’d agree that many of the OT laws do not represent God’s ideal, but rather an incremental step towards it compared to the surrounding cultural climate at the time. What is the more “middle ground approach” as opposed to Copan’s for extreme approach? That said, this was a great video. Very well done!

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

The main difference is how we interpret the commands to kill non-combatants. Copan interprets the hyperbole as meaning kill non-combatants but just not all of them. I interpret the hyperbole as meaning only kill combatants and the reference to non-combatants just is part of the hyperbole.

[@thejohn17project15]

Violence is not evil in and of itself. The idea that these texts are a problem usually comes from 2 things. First people not carefully reading the text and second not understanding the use of hyperbole in scripture.

[@DrKippDavis]

I suspect that not everyone who watches this video possesses the requisite skills to see that Webb's ideas about a supposed "redemptive movement hermeneutic" are absolute nonsense. (My suspicion is that the video creator would also fall into this group.) I will be doing a stream on Friday addressing the numerous bad readings, over-reaches and blatant mistruths about the biblical texts and their ancient Near Eastern background put forward in this video.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

For whatever it's worth, I fully grant that I know very little about Old Testament studies. Webb's approach seems to me the best route for Christians to take when understanding the violent texts of the OT in the sense that it provides a way to acknowledge genuine problems with the texts without outright jettisoning them. So I think it works in principle as a solution to the problem of OT violence. However, it could be that Webb is just empirically wrong about these texts demonstrating incremental improvement, and that would be an entirely valid criticism of his hermeneutic. I'll be watching the stream to see what you have to say. 🙂

[@DrKippDavis]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I will in turn concede that I think this is a hermeneutic which potentially *could* work, but only if it is properly historically couched. Simply put: the stories and most of the laws in the OT are fictions and ideals-they were NEVER entirely functional as far as anyone can tell from the paucity of available evidence. The genocide of the Canaanites (thankfully) never happened; the practically impossible Deuteronomistic regulatiions were part of a later theological program; the stories of David were tales of national identity (although possibly grounded in some actual historical figure). In this sense, we can posit some ethical "movements" in some texts, and moreso on the part of fallible humans in their efforts to understand god, and continuing to get it wrong.

[@danielesorbello619]

@@DrKippDavis​​⁠​⁠i’m excited for your stream dr. Kipp, even if we are on the opposite sides: it’s always good to ear a scholar talk about his work, it’s art in my opinion. Hope yo both will have a respectful discussion, especially if @faithbecauseofreason8381 would respond to your livestream. Wish the best for both of you.

[@MohamedAli-nf1rp]

​@@DrKippDavis oh that should be great, these whole Redemptive movements fall flat when in the hebrew bible it is spefically god demanding it, such as 1 Samuel 15:3 in which god demands everyone be killed.

[@jaskitstepkit7153]

​Only for the Amalakites to appear later to pester David. Unless the king that Saul spared did mitosis, we are justified to not take it literally. The same can be said about the Canaanites. They not only survived they lived along side Israel and in some special cases God allowed them to remain. ( Judges 3 )

[@Jhiido]

This was a great video! This has helped me form a definitive stance and structured response for this topic within apologetics.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I'm so glad it was helpful to you!

[@Bugsy0333]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Please tell me what happened to Non Hebrew slave in the Bible ? We can pass this along to your uncertain followers as well ok ? If your not sure of the answer just ask i can help you along ok ?

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

@@Bugsy0333 the treatment of Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves is not the same. Webb acknowledges as much in his book. What's your point?

[@Bugsy0333]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 He doesn't acknowledge anything about that in this video I don't care about the book.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

@@Bugsy0333 so? It's a brief overview of OT violence and the RMH. It's not a comprehensive survey of OT slavery.

[@PresbyterianPaladin]

I've been waiting for this one, "Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?" by Webb and Oeste ftw! LET's GOOOO!!!!!

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Such a good book!

[@Electricalpenguin]

It’s just not plausible to me that Yahweh thought it wasn’t asking too much to demand that the Israelites refrain from a purely internal (and nearly impossible to avoid) sin like coveting, but at the same time thought it was unduly idealistic to tell them that they shouldn’t forcibly marry (and, by implication, rape) the attractive female members of defeated enemy groups. Have you read any of Joshua Bowen’s books on these topics?

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I suspect that the sort of coveting which is being referenced is not merely one finding themself desiring something. I think it's referring to a prolonged and unchecked desire for things which belong to other people. I have not read Bowen's books, no. I've heard a couple of his debates in the past so I'm not entirely unfamiliar with his work. But I haven't read his fully developed arguments.

[@Electricalpenguin]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 That seems to be reading in additional words that aren't there. But let's just assume for the sake of argument that "covet" there refers to "prolonged and unchecked desire", perhaps something akin to "obsession". It still seems unrealistic to demand that no one ever obsess over things that don't belong to them. So do the absolute prohibitions on stealing and adultery. These are all things that have been endemic in just about every human society up to the present day. To reiterate my initial point, I can't wrap my head around Yahweh thinking it's reasonable to ask people never to steal or commit adultery, but that it would be too much to ask them not to force attractive female captives into marriage.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

@Electricalpenguin it seems to me that we have different impressions about how widespread something like obsession is within society.

[@Electricalpenguin]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 It’s possible. I look around and get the impression that lots of people are obsessed with obtaining things that others have (money, things, attractive significant others). Stealing (especially in less flashy forms) and adultery are also common in human societies. Total cessation of these things seems like a much more formidable demand than asking that captive women not be forced into marriage.

[@QCMP]

The Torah actually has both the high ideals ("love your neighbour as yourself"), as well as the compromising/permissive laws dealing with the practicalities of depraved ANE cultures. The Ten Commandments provide a moral ideal for ancient Israel to be guided by, but it's not a law code. It doesn't specify any punishments for violating the tenth commandment.

[@commoncentsflips4030]

Great video David. But I think I still struggle with the Deut 20 passage. The order to slay everything that breaths is in direct contrast to earlier in the passage when they were allowed to take women and children as captives. It's hard for me to get around the idea that God ordered the killing of women and children. I can't imagine what carrying out that order would do psychologically to the average soldier.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Why do you think that this cannot be a form of ANE hyperbole?

[@commoncentsflips4030]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 How would that make sense in light of total extermination being compared to taking women and children captive earlier in the passage? They were still to kill the men in cities that resisted them.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

@commoncentsflips4030 I guess that's the part I'm not getting. Why would the earlier part of the passage challenge the hyperbole thesis?

[@commoncentsflips4030]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381The comparison for context : but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, Deuteronomy 20:14‭-‬16 ESV Why would the two be contrasted if the second command was essentially the same as the first? Unless by hyperbole you're meaning that God commanded women and children to be killed, but not necessarily all of them. In which case I still struggle with that.

[@legodavid9260]

​@@commoncentsflips4030There is a clear destination made between certain people groups such as the Cannanites that were specifically marked for destruction because of their wickedness, and the first option with only killing the male military power, which was to be the standard conduct for what to do in battles not related to the Conquest of Cannan itself.

[@metahjudge2551]

Why is genocide incompatible with love

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I guess I take that to be fairly obvious. When I reflect upon the concept of loving someone, I understand this to refer to wanting what's best for that individual, wanting them to thrive. Unless one thinks that killing someone is, under ordinary circumstances, best for them, then it's apparent that it does not constitute loving them. Indeed, killing a person is often one of the starkest expressions of hatred towards them.

[@petermuneme25]

I had to watch this to cleanse my palette after watching William Lane Craig try to defend the genocidal passages in the old testament on Alex O'Connor's channel. This redemptive model gives much more balance to these passages and adds the much needed context of the surrounding ancient near east culture practices and treatment of women, slaves, and war prisoners. The redemptive argument also makes the most sense with the Bible's ultimate theme towards redemption.

[@racsooj456]

Thanks for this video. May i request that you do a follow up video wherein you provide evidence for the relative moral depravity of the surrounding cultures? I think this is most important and evidential part of the RMH so it would good to have some of that laid out with references etc. Also there are several commentors on this video who have mention dr Josh Bowen has pointed out places where other cultures laws are similar or perhaps 'better' than the OT ones. I have no idea if this is correct but it would be really helpful if you could interact with this challenge which could potentially undermine the RMH. Thanks!

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I suppose I could if I really wanted to do the research. TBH I generally don't find Old Testament studies very interesting. This is the only video I have ever done on the OT and, frankly, the only one I ever really intend to do. The goal was mostly to present a broad overview of how I read these sorts of texts, as well as to give a voice to William Webb's work in this area since I think it deserves more attention. This is why I only briefly surveyed some of the more pressing issues before referring interested viewers to Webb's books for more details. As for Dr. Bowen, I would be interested in seeing an interaction between him and Dr. Webb. I expect he would be better placed to offer critiques of Bowen (and vice versa). It's an exchange of ideas which needs to happen. I'm not that interested in the Old Testament personally. As such, I don't think I'm the one who should be engaging Bowen. Sorry if that's not terribly satisfying. But hopefully that explains where I'm coming from. 🙂

[@racsooj456]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Totally understand. I would very much like to see that interaction. Let's hope they both miraculously hear about this particular thread and are moved to do so ;)

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

@racsooj456 it's not beyond the realm of possibility. My friend Zach from What Your Pastor Didn't Tell You does a lot with OT studies, and he was able to get Dr. Webb on a stream. So, assuming Dr. Webb is interested, I expect that Zach would be able to set something up between Dr. Webb and Dr. Bowen.

[@racsooj456]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Great! Ask Zach and see if he is keen? ..Zach has a great channel, glad to hear you two are connected.

[@endygonewild2899]

Great video.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@joshuatanis1169]

@faithbecauseofreason have you read the back and forth from Eleonore Stump and Paul Draper in the “divine evil?” Book? Bram Rawlings recommended it to me and I really liked it.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I have not. Sounds interesting.

[@aarongebreslasie7677]

Could you please send me the link to the book? I don’t seem to find it.

[@daman7387]

thanks for this well put together presentation. I am definitely going to check out William Webb's work

[@thehermeticgod8386]

The best response imo is to just be a moral nihilist and that God commanded those actions because he can do what he wants and morality doesnt exist and therefore you cannot claim God os "evil" if "evil" isnt a real thing I find it very bizarre that it is mostly atheist and naturalist that make these kind of moral arguments against the scriptures. Their worldview entails the non-existence of morality

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I myself am not a moral realist. But I don't think that this is going to escape the perceived inconsistency between the love of God in the New Testament and the commands to kill the Canaanites in the Old Testament. So even without moral realism, I think that the Christian still has some explaining to do. I disagree that atheism entails that there is no morality (see my video on why I don't use the moral argument for details). But even if it did, the atheist could still make these sorts of arguments as internal critiques of Christian theism.

[@roscaris6541]

Thank you for taking the time to make this video. I’m a Christian whose been doing my best to wrestle with this question, it’s been for me rather faith shaking but I’m not throwing the baby out with the bath water! I’ve ultimately come to a more “liberal” position as you term it. Basically, I believe there was an original morally pure OT law given historically by God but interpolated into this moral law were laws from Moses & the people of the time (not directly given by God) and perhaps also later scribes. The text as we have it today therefore represents a mixture of God’s original moral laws existing alongside man-made laws which are fallible and oftentimes immoral. I’ve been driven to this position after ultimately rejecting the “divine compromise” view argued for in your video for the following reasons. I offer these criticisms in a spirit of humility; I would welcome a rebuttal showing where I am wrong! 1. The OT law is on many other moral issues very uncompromising. Harsh penalties, including frequently the death penalty, are required for many other sins. God seems unwilling to extend almost any tolerance or leeway at all for many other immoral behaviours. Especially notable are the uncompromising penalties prescribed for those sins which seem to modern ears at least to be lesser moral crimes than the likes of massacres & slavery (e.g., disorder sexuality, collecting sticks on the Sabbath, disobedient children etc). The fact that the OT law is routinely harsh & intolerant of any infractions counts strongly in my mind against the notion that the law represents a divine compromise with human sin/hardness of heart. 2. If the OT law represents a divine compromise with human sin then this nature of the text would have been made very explicit by God. Imagine for example that alongside the laws permitting this or that immoral behaviour, there are verses from God urging his people to nevertheless avoid these behaviours. Something like, “I permit this to you this as an allowance, not as a command. If any would truly seek my favour let them not even take slaves to themselves, nor treat their servants harshly. So far as you are able, treat everyone as you yourself would wish to be treated” If any would like a biblical example of this see 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul encourages singleness but nevertheless states that marriage is permitted. Or imagine, likewise a simple preamble to laws stating something like “The Israelites, my people, are a stiff necked and stubborn people. They are not capable of living righteously before me with upright lives. Set before them Moses therefore the following laws, laws that even their hard hearts are able obey & follow. If any therefore fail to uphold even these concessions, truly they have no excuse before me” Imagine how radically different history & our approach to these texts would be in this case. There would be no need to debate and speculate, God himself would have made the provisional and compromised nature of his laws explicit. Indeed, if this is the nature of the Old Testament Law it would be extremely important for God to explicitly define it as such, lest immoral behaviour forever after be seen as an ideal to strive after. God’s holiness would demand that he take pains to separate himself & his nature from the moral evils he is permitting lest his people forever develop a thoroughly corrupted notion of who he is and what he desires. 3. It is not clear to me at least that the ancient morality was in fact as unremittingly cruel and barbaric as is presented. I suspected strongly that there is a motive here to exaggerate the evils of the ancient world in order to make the OT text, by contrast, look a little better. There’s no question that the ancient world was cruel and harsh by modern standards, it is a question of whether it was typically harsher and typically crueller than the cruelty permitted in the OT law. For example, many ancient polytheistic rulers would have been a lot less concerned than OT Yahweh about surviving enemies corrupting the religious practice of their people, they therefore would have been less likely to seek the utter extermination of enemy peoples. A massacred foe provides no flow of tribute after all. At the very least the superlative barbarity of the ancient world cannot be just assumed, it needs evidential support. I’d be interested if there is a historian who has done the work with primary sources & evidence to show that the ancient near east was indeed consistently characterised by significantly worse behaviours than those permitted in the Old Testament Law. It would be a difficult task, given that any data point may always be seen as unrepresentative of the whole (just as would be the case if we found evidence of some ancient instance of merciful & tolerant behaviour for example). And the data from the very ancient world is, regardless, very patchy at best. 4. As well as exaggerating the evils of the ancient world we may also be guilty here of exaggerating OT law prohibitions/limitations. The example given from Deuteronomy 21 for example nowhere prohibits battlefield rape/intercourse with captives. The text is talking about if you wish to take a woman as a permanent wife for yourself, (i.e. a woman who will live and serve permanently in your home and bear you official legitimate children). It does not say explicitly state that you are not permitted to sexually engage with slave captive-women full stop. Perhaps one may argue it is implied, but that is a type of argument will always be relatively weak, since one can always ask, “if this prohibition was actually important, why didn’t the text take the trouble to explicitly mention it?”. Certainly Deuteronomy 21 is very far from clearly condemning “no rape or sex of any kind” to victorious Hebrew warriors. Parallel texts, such as Leviticus 19:20-21 only prohibits sleeping with a slave woman who is promised to another man, and the punishment even for that greater offense is simply to make a ram sacrifice as a guilt offering. That may be financially costly, but it’s very far from a strong deterrent especially for Hebrew warriors newly flush with wealth after looting the enemy settlement, and even more so since elsewhere the law allows birds and other less costly items as substitute sacrifices for poorer Israelites. For slave women who were not in fact promised to another man one presumes that there was no penalty at all, certainly no punishment is anywhere prescribed for sleeping with slave women who weren't betrothed. I think in cases like this we’re guilty of assuming modern day prohibitions into the silences of the text but, alas, I think that assumption is very far from warranted.

[@trafficjon400]

Apologetics going to soon out smart your selves . You now might need a 2000 year education to know God.

[@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenser]

I think, on the hyperbolic front, it's important to note that it can be understood along another axis. Not just on the axis of killed all men, women, and children to some men, women, and children. But also could be along the axis of, killed the men and young adults who would soon become men and then try to avenge their fathers but they didnt kill the women and children and that saying something lije this is just a hyperbolic statement to underwrite God's potential power. Also, what do you make of the passages later in the bible where people converse with canaanites? Clearly their not all dead, then. Does this not hint at the use of hyperbolic language? Even skeptical scholars like Dr. Josh Bowen I've heard accept hyperbole when it comes to these passages.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Hyperbole is pretty widely admitted on all sides. There are some who think that 1 Samuel 15 challenges the hyperbole thesis. But I don't think that this is a genuine counterexample.

[@DrKippDavis]

Yes, but what exactly does Dr. Josh say about the usage of hyperbole as an apologetic device for these texts? "Assuming that the biblical authors are utilizing ancient Near Eastern war rhetoric, and if the use of hyperbolic language somehow creates a justification for the violent and genocidal descriptions in the Old Testament, then this should also nee true when other ancient Near Eastern texts do the same thing" (AHOT 2:245). In other words, this would then also require the same sort of reflection on the perpetrators of violence, all of whom claim to be enacting a cosmic war on behalf of their gods, and promoting justice and righteousness through the elimination of chaos and evil. I don't at all disagree with my colleague, here, but I also prefer to take a slightly different tack to this question: one of the things that Webb and Oeste do in their book on this topic, "Bloody, Brutal and Barbaric," is to "flatten" all the statements of total annihilation in the Old Testament, as if they are saying the same things. Importantly, THEY ARE NOT. Where most of these statements appear in Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges, there are actually different classifications of the type of violence Israel is being instructed to inflict. In a number of instances (not all, importantly) the sons of Israel are commanded to "devote" entire cities and all their living inhabitants to YHWH by destroying them. This is what is commonly called "the ban." Significantly, this is presented in the texts consistently as a sacred act-an offering, or a "sacrifice" to YHWH. As such, the concept also critically requires the TOTAL destruction of whatever is "devoted" to YHWH, precisely because this is how sacrifices and offerings function within the ancient world. The stories about Achan, or about Saul in 1 Sam 15 rather clearly demonstrate this point, since those who violate the stipulations of the ban as enacted total destruction are then punished for violating YHWH's command, and withholding his property.

[@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenser]

@@DrKippDavis it sounds like you do disagree with Dr. Bowen. If I get you correct, you think that "the ban" passages are literal minded and not hyperboli. Or do those also fall under that rubric because it is a literary technique that is used?

[@DrKippDavis]

@@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenser I do think that "the ban" passages can only be understood as total-kill instructions, yes. Importantly, however, Dr. Josh would also agree with me, and we can both maintain that hyperbole in ancient Near Eastern war rhetoric was frequent precisely because of how nuanced any discussion surrounding these texts should be. Not all total-kill statements in the OT are the same as "the ban," but "the ban" must always be understood as a total-kill statement. In this regard, while some of the total-kill statements in the OT are hyperbole, "the ban" passages never are. This was precisely the point of noting how Webb and Oeste inappropriately "flatten" the "herem" commands into other texts describing total destruction, and why we cannot treat them the same way.

[@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenser]

@@DrKippDavis can I ask why you think that, out of curiosity? The returic sounds the same as those we might say have a hyperbolic nature to them?

[@newparadoxcity9911]

Excellent video. The best I've seen on the topic.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Thank you!

[@stephenmorrison335]

Very good points, especially with the slave issue. IMO indentured servitude would be a very beneficial thing to have these days in order to combat homelessness. This of course being on a mutual agreement basis.

[@brooklynloutheskeptic]

Nice, so we help the homeless by making an arrangement that helps ourselves at the same time. Why not just do something to help them while not making it beneficial to ourselves? You know, like the Jesus of the bible did.

[@stephenmorrison335]

@@brooklynloutheskeptic Here is what I can tell you. If Lord forbid I was in a position of homelessness I would be very grateful for a brother in Christ to say, "... hey, you your family can come and live with us until you are able to get back on your feet. I will clothe you and feed you as well as shelter everyone , in exchange for help with some chores around the house..... There is nothing at all wrong with being expected to labor for your keep, in fact I would not accept any type of arrangement where I couldn't be helpful in some way to the household. It is not a good idea to further burden a home with laziness (unless I was in a position of not being able, ie a medical issue). That is a whole other issue. Galatians 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

[@brooklynloutheskeptic]

@@stephenmorrison335 I am pretty sure you know what you describe is not indentured servitude and is certainly not slavery. The idea of helping a person get on their feet is not to have them help you run a household of your own. When I give, I am not expecting anything in return. If I make a business deal, I make it a win win for both parties. Not sure what being a brother in Christ has to do with helping the homeless? Does it matter if someone believes in Jesus or not, when deciding to offer them help?

[@stephenmorrison335]

@@brooklynloutheskeptic What I described in indentured servitude. From the web What is an indentured servant? An indentured servant is a man or woman who signed an indenture, or contract, where they agree to work for a disclosed amount of time in exchange for a better life. The indentured servant definition in United States history is when a man or woman signed an indenture, or contract, where they agreed to work in exchange for passage to Virginia and food, clothing, and shelter. This indenture was from four to seven years.

[@stephenmorrison335]

I was using me as an example. That is why I said a brother in Christ. I would prefer the offer be from a fellow believer. Belief status should not of course be a litmus test for helping anyone.

[@TboneWTF]

I would guess 98 percent of the Bible is "challenging" as you put it. By challenging you mean questionable or deceitful. So this is the book you use to rationalize God? Your entire Faith is based on lies and gossip. It's frightening how easily people are fooled into believing these lies.

[@DarylCotton-i9x]

Here's a speculative proposal regarding the discussion around the 9 minute mark that can help Copan's case: Perhaps God arranged history so that all persons who die in infancy are 'subjunctive' Christians, that is, they would have been Christians on this side of life had they been allowed to mature. So when we kill an infant, we're not guaranteeing them a right to heaven - for they already had that - we're just depriving them of life, and that's wrong. Here's the twist: Maybe the Canaanite infants are separate from this general class and were not in this category of 'subjunctive' Christian. Maybe, if they had been allowed to mature, they would have rejected God and gone to hell. But if they die in infancy before they reject God, perhaps they'd get a ticket to heaven. So the reasoning in the last paragraph doesn't apply to them, for by their death they are given eternal life unlike the rest of the class of infants, who are merely deprived of earthly life.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

One issue is that this presupposes that God has middle knowledge which is a difficult idea to defend. But perhaps more fundamentally I don't see why that same sort of reasoning couldn't be used to rationalize literally any killing of infants.

[@DarylCotton-i9x]

Because in the usual case of infant killing you'd just be depriving the infant of life and not providing them a ticket to heaven, which they already had. On the proposal, the Canaanite children don't belong to this class so that you really are providing them a ticket to heaven. The key to knowing the difference between the different infant classes would presumably be something like a command of God. But this reasoning provides a motivation for why God would command something different in the Canaanite case.

[@Helmofphilosophy]

I can appreciate that you acknowledge the difficulties rather than simply suggesting that because YHWH sanctioned such actions it is therefore good or giving some rationalization as to how the murder of children may be for their good. However, if one has to go to such lengths to justify the goodness of a God, why not simply seek elsewhere? My meaning being that if there are simply better perspectives on God in other philosophical or religious positions, why not look there instead?

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I think this is a good question. Ultimately my answer is that I think that I have independent good reasons for believing that Jesus was the perfect revelation of God and that Jesus acknowledged the Old Testament as also being, in some sense, God's revelation. I take a very Christocentric approach to theology.

[@theepitomeministry]

Amazing work as always 👏

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Thank you!

[@rtam9894]

So from the looks of it, the OT is for the people of Israel and not the whole world. It also explains the obious that religions grow from the regions and its man made.

[@tasmanian5566]

Do you go over animal sacrifice? Id consider that unnecessary violence against animals. Many Christians just float over the thousands upon thousands of animals needlessly slaughtered..

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I do not address that topic directly in this video, though, the RMH which I propose can certainly accommodate that aspect of the OT too.

[@paynedv]

☕

[@bravo0884]

If we have to contextualize gods instructions we should also take his relevance in context. If we surpassed the morals of his times, he is not eternally perfect, and should not be followed. He could at least keep in communication with us updating his moral code to our times. The morality argument stating that atheist lack objective morals because they don’t have an authority providing them , falls very short once you ask about the objective morality that their god provides. This is a sad attempt at trying to squeeze beliefs that you really want to keep, despite the disgust that entails looking at them straight on. Thats why most christians never actually read the bible, and why atheists love to use the bible against them.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Respectfully, this comment makes it look to me like you do not even understand the Redemptive Movement approach which I proposed.

[@bravo0884]

The respect is mutual: I want to start with me acknowledging the fact that you do not propose the moral argument. That would be a straw man argument. I do have a problem with the base assumptions of the redemptive movement approach. The depravity of humans is not one that will convince many atheists. Once you realize that you are not a depraved being deserving of eternal punishment by virtue of being born, this assumption is seen as the basic brainwashing ideas thrusted onto us when we don’t have the tools to argue otherwise. Its how the snake oil salesman invents a disease for which they have the cure. The second assumption also assumes that a creator god is all good. Kind of like a “ might means right” argument as I see it. It also ignores the power of straight clear communication, I am sure that if he showed up to the canaanites the same way he did to the hebrews they would worship him as well. I do not question your existence as we have a direct interaction, why would this God choose to hide from most and slowly teach a select group morality over the course of generations instead of giving them a radical insight that would be clear evidence of divine interaction and might not be mistaken for the normal development of civilization in the absence of a god.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

@bravo0884 the video isn't intended to "convince" atheists. The video is intended to show a possible way to reconcile the divinely sanctioned violence in the Old Testament with the loving God of the New Testament. It's purpose is largely defensive. I'm attempting to undercut a potential argument against Christianity. I'm not trying to give anyone reasons to believe that Christianity is actually true in this video. I have other videos doing that.

[@bravo0884]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 ok do you have any pointers towards a video that you recommend? I am an ex-catholic now atheist you likely understand why based on my arguments. I like your intelectual honesty to not just shy away from these questions which where what drove me away in the first place.

[@bravo0884]

By the way if the goal of the arguments is defensive in nature, I still see my arguments ( and please correct me if you think im wrong) valid offensive points against it

[@oldschool5]

These mythologies are dangerous. The concept of us subscribing to deities that relies on the words of man have failed us all. As long as man is speaking for a god the god will say whatever the man wants him to say

[@albusai]

Try atheism 😂

[@oldschool5]

@@albusai LOL LOL

[@sndpgr]

Brilliant! Thank you for the video!

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

My pleasure!

[@walter_lesaulnier]

So god's morality is subjective and situational? An omniscient being could not figure out a better way than ordering those horrible things to have a relationship with his chosen people? Seeing a pillar of fire and seeing a sea part was not enough to convince people to accept anything the responsible being ordered so he would not have to order horrible "compromises"? Ordering slightly less evil things is still evil. Divine scripture from an omniscient being needs this much "interpretation" and human invention (redemptive movement hermeneutics)? The Bible is prone to hyperbole and exaggeration??? Genocide including killing innocents is ok as long as there are any survivors?? God's orders were not to be followed exactly?? God allows humans to change his orders as they see fit?? God killing innocents himself (by flood) negates all these arguments. Apologetics would not exist if "scripture" was from an omniscient being.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I am not convinced that morality, subjective or otherwise, exists. No, do not believe that there was a better way. I never said that genocide took place nor did I say that any infants were killed. I explicitly argued against this thesis. I contended that the total-kill passages were hyperbolic. I don't believe that any innocents died in the flood.

[@walter_lesaulnier]

No innocents died in the flood? Please describe in detail what a baby in its crib can do that is so bad that a death sentence would be warranted. @@faithbecauseofreason8381

[@RansomedSoulPsalm49-15]

well done. you made some very good points

[@trafficjon400]

Voided Gobish answer is satifaction for only the honest can provide it.

[@nyxhighlander9894]

This matches Theosis well

[@monteclark1115]

I don’t see how.

[@nyxhighlander9894]

@@monteclark1115 the gradial becoming more like God through steady moral progress

[@thuscomeguerriero]

Once you give up the idea the Old Testament is The Word of God you'll be amazed how easily these texts are digested in its historical context

[@RansomedSoulPsalm49-15]

wait you think the Old Testament is uninspired??

[@thuscomeguerriero]

@@RansomedSoulPsalm49-15 I certainly do not think its inspired. ..its a collection of books like any other. I'm highly dubious of people claiming to speak for God

[@chriscalhoun380]

Great video!

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Thanks!

[@monteclark1115]

😂lots of back flips and jumping through hoops to make these stories work. There is no justification for killing innocent children, rape, or slavery. Taking a woman captive and giving her a month to grieve is not being humane. If you watched someone kill your mom, dad, and baby brother right in front of you, how long would it take for you to be friends with that person? The correct answer is “never”!

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Sounds like someone missed the point of the video

[@monteclark1115]

No. I get your point. You are trying to interpret what god was trying to convey in scripture, instead of accepting the fact that it’s not the words of god, but the words of primitive, narcissistic, ignorant, bigoted, savage, cave men who pretended to speak for a god that they themselves invented. They didn’t understand what air or rain or wind was. They didn’t understand earthquakes or volcanoes. They didn’t understand rainbows or geological events or genetics. They didn’t even understand 1st grade level science, so they made this stuff up because it was the only way they could rationalize the things that were happening around them.

[@brooklynloutheskeptic]

These apologetic answers are lame.

[@LogosTheos]

This comment is lame

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Can you explain why?

[@brooklynloutheskeptic]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 To address each apologetic here would take way too much writing but let's address just Slavery in the bible for a moment. First, why is the God of the bible who is said to have all power and authority bowing to culture when it is said that he made some good incremental changes little by little by easing the law. So, if he did not like slavery why did he tell people it was OK? He bowed down to the Culture of the ancient Mid East, right? WHY would a God with all power and knowledge bow to the people of a culture in any way? Fact is until this very day God has never prohibited the institution of slavery but rather chose to give some cultural Guidance on how to treat your slave. Things like this in Exodus 21: 20-21 " 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." This is part of the LAW of GOD and it clearly allows for the beating of slaves, as long as that slave does not die quickly. Now before we go off into yet another lame apologetic that says that this was a nice form of indentured servitude, we must get the overall context, right? So, the bible speaks of different types of slaves. One type is Israelites, and another is slaves from foreign lands. Later in Leviticus, another book of GODS LAW it distinguishes between rules for both types. Leviticus 25:44-46, “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 ‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession [achuzzah]. 46 ‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession [achuzzah]; you can use them as permanent slaves." God here specifically and clearly tells his people it is OK to own other people as SLAVES. PERMANENT SLAVES. AGAIN, THIS IS THE LAW OF GOD! a God who is supposed to never change. Now throughout history up until the American civil war Christians defended slavery and used the bible itself to do so. Yes, there were abolitionists who did use the bible to support the ending of Slavery as well. Some great evangelical church fathers like Jonathan Edwards (Sinners in the hands of an angry God) & George Whitefield were slave owners. Today teachers like John Macarthur a very respected biblical teacher has said there is nothing wrong with SLAVERY. If slavery is indeed wrong, why in the world did Yahweh not directly say so? BTW - THE LAW OF GOD is supposed to be definitive.

[@legodavid9260]

​​@@brooklynloutheskeptic First off, Torah was never called the "Law of God" though. It was more often than not simply called "The Law of Moses". Second, part of the point of the overarching Old Testament narrative is to show how the Israelites continually failed to obey God's commands regardless of how many times they were punished, and how they constantly rebelled and worshipped other gods as soon as things started going well for them. You assume that God could have simply imposed perfect moral standards from the get-go. However, given how the Old Testament constantly portrays the "hardness of hearts" with the Israelites, even with this relatively still imperfect moral code, I fail to see how that is the case. Just look at Jeremiah 34, a text where the prophet decries the Israelites for refusing to set their fellow Hebrew slaves free in the seventh year. If those people couldn't even obey this relatively "simply" moral command which from our own modern perspective feels like common sense, then expecting that God should have imposed a perfect moral code from the beginning and expected that the people would actually follow it is simply not realistic

[@brooklynloutheskeptic]

@@legodavid9260 Moses was Gods Prophet to his people and spoke for God, is that correct? Yes, I am assuming that a God that has all power and knowledge could have imposed a perfect moral code if he wanted to. Are you suggesting that instead of imposing a perfect moral code he decided to not do this and instead gave a code that is far from perfect and allowed for the owning and beating of other human beings? That is possible. Gods can be or do anything we can conceive of or believe in our own minds. Most of the Christian people I speak to, talk of a God that gave a perfect law and does not incrementally make laws that are more moral over time or that adjusts his laws depending on the culture he is speaking to. IF he did do such a thing, he never did update his laws regarding slavery as the biblical cannon has been closed for at least 1700 years now.

[@TheLionFarm]

🪔

[@ZRBx4]

Bible is just some crappy old stories.

[@RangerRyke]

An omnipotent God doesn’t need violence, period. So either he’s not omnipotent, not all loving, or not real. Human need to use and justify violence because we are ignorant.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I argue that he does need to accommodate violence in order to have relationship with (freely) violent agents and to thereby entice them to (freely) become less violent. Of course, God could override their freedom and force them to behave how he wants. But in my view, God values freely chosen relationships over forcibly coerced behavior. In short, I reject the idea that omnipotence, divine love, and temporary accommodation of human violence are logically inconsistent.

[@RangerRyke]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Yahweh doesn’t just allow violence. He supposedly commands it and justifies it. Genocide Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:4-6, 7:2, 7:16, 13:15, 20:16-18 1 Samuel 15:2-3 Hosea 13:16 Joshua 6:21, 10:40 Isiah 13:15-18 Judges 20:48 Numbers 31:17 Dutoronomy 22:20-21 stone women who aren’t virgins Joshua 11:19-20 mercy of god Psalm 137:8 killing children by smashing them against rocks. Slavery Leviticus 25:44-46 Exodus 21:16 anti Jewish slavery verse’s 20-21 beating slaves and 6-8 daughter slavery condoned Numbers 31:17 sex slaves/ verses 35-45 human plunder

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

@@RangerRyke and I gave an explanation of these sorts of commands in my video - an explanation you have not yet addressed

[@RangerRyke]

A God of incremental improvements is indistinguishable from human history in general. Humans have to try and justify our violence. To put it lightly It is inconsistent to judge humans today for things like rape, genocide, and slavery while commanding those very things “yesterday.” The Hebrew God doesn’t even care enough to formally lift or condemn those laws at a later time, almost like they were written by humans. Humans have justified their actions by claiming their enemy is evil and God wishes them dead from the very beginning. Yahweh is no different.

[@LogosTheos]

​@@RangerRykeYou didn't address the arguments in the video

[@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737]

Can you respond to the freed thinkers response to this video

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

I don't believe he has released it yet. It was delayed a week. I will have to see what is said on the stream before I can determine whether or not I will reply.

[@DrKippDavis]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 it's coming this Friday. I do hope that you will tune in-I suspect that you may even learn a few things from it.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

@DrKippDavis I suspect I will. As I've said, I'm not an OT guy so I'm open to whatever you guys have to say.