What the Bible really, really, REALLY says about slavery: a critical response to @indiethinker v.2

I am back with Drs Joshua Bowen and Dan McClellan to disect a pair of videos from apologist Reed Uberman @indiethinker.
Does the Bible condone slavery, or is this just a brilliant system of economic and social control in antiquity? Did God sanction the slaughter of women and children? Did he permit the Israelites to take little girls as war-booty?
Are we actually just a bunch of smug pricks?
FIND OUT!
Link to the original videos on @IndieThinker 's channel: • Jon Root DEBATES Dan M...
• What the Bible Really ...

[@nickbrasing8786]

Can you three horsemen of the apocalypse make this a regular video series? This is just too good not to at least consider it.

[@lucindypowell3711]

I agree with this. Yall play well off of each other. What one misses the other brings forth!

[@belialord]

That would be awesome

[@nathanjasper512]

Based. 😅

[@swolejeezy2603]

Their dynamic is wonderful. I love Dan’s passion and their sense of humor

[@karlu8553]

Have to say it's amusing (in a fond, self-recognition way) to see the evolution of Dr. Josh's swearing from his 1st video describing his own deconversion, through some of his early interviews where he may (or may not) venture a damn or hell here or there, through today when he throws down some F-bombs for emphasis without batting an eye 😅

[@jenna2431]

1:12:30 2 of 3 Americans claim Christianity. If they were that beneficent, so loving, uber compassionate...we'd have NOTICED.

[@Theprofessorator]

Dr. Kipp, please react with, "Wow, eh?" to every bullshit apologetic you run into in the future. Something about that delivery just fully encapsulated how I feel every time they try to distort the facts.

[@bardbarian4065]

Also Dans rant at 1:04:00 or so is so spot on. As a member of a more conservative Catholic parish…absolutely, there is just an assumption or assertion of being purely intellectually consistent. I spend more time reading the Bible, reading the papal documents, reading the saints…and all that leads me to want political liberation and egalitarianism, not whatever pipe dream Stephen Crowder’s boss decides to push this week.

[@blitzkeir3750]

That remark about how humanitarian work is only led by evangelicals irks me. People who volunteer and advocate for the less fortunate do so because they want to make life better for those who’ve had it the worst. Not because their religion told them to. Christian or not, it makes no difference. Dude just wants to leech credit for his team. I know some very good-hearted Christians in my personal life who would be just as angry as Kipp at that snide little rant.

[@cuebj]

I think that's fair enough. However, Christians are vastly disproportionately represented all over the world, often at great personal sacrifice in many long-term and short-term projects of health, education, language translation, political grassroots movements, etc. But, like my own case, the Gospel gave me a reason (excuse) for being the sort of person I aspired to be whereas all the other philosophies I saw did not do so. In short, a type of person tends to become a type of Christian. Of course, back then, the modern US-based beast dressed up as 'Christian' right didn't exist at the level it does now (except in South Africa and Alabama!). So, becoming Christian does not necessarily make you die of malaria fighting slavery in the Congo (Dr Livingstone) but the sort of person who is willing to do that is, statistically, likely to be a Christian as well as having that attitude.

[@DrKippDavis]

Thanks for this. I likewise know a sizeable number of very generous, kind, thoughtful Christian people-good people. Charity is not about religion. Or, at least, it shouldn't be.

[@Cheepchipsable]

Well it's kind of part of the JOB of a christian minister to organised these things. They are just tapping into the goodwill of their parishioners. Were there some organised non denominational efforts on the same scale non christians would pitch in. Though I would suggest they are more likely to ask more about how the money is being handled rather than just give it blindly. I would suggest many do via cash donations.

[@mattied9203]

This is such a great video. Thank you guys for putting the time in. Very much appreciated.

[@itkirk]

Dr Dan AND Dr Bowen TOGETHER!!?? What a great video!

[@cthellis]

“This guy’s not paying attention.” Sure he is. You have to read the passages very carefully to know what to exclude, and how to lie about it.

[@cthellis]

I sure am glad Frank Turek is dedicated to prison reform.

[@cthellis]

Literally laughing at and scoffing at failed “climate doomsayers” (which he no doubt has no idea what’s actually being said and is willfully misinterpreting) while failed end of the world/Rapture/Biblical endtimes prophecies and predictions been going on in every flavor of Christianity going back millennia, including inside the Bible itself. Apologist heal thyself?

[@swiftsea6225]

Thanks for answering, Dr. Kipp! Also, I’m sure I’ve said this before, but this coming Thursday, I am going to start my New Testament class at my local community college! Thanks to you, Dr. Josh and Dr. Dan for being a great inspiration😉😉

[@DrKippDavis]

Wow! Way to go. Good luck!

[@kgilmore]

As a Christian who accepts mainstream biblical scholarship and holds contemporary Christian apologetics in disdain, thank you all for a comprehensive takedown of this lamentably bad attempt to disarm these texts of terror. I am impressed with the largely irenic tone you took in the face of a particularly smug and sanctimonious apologist.

[@mythosboy]

Can't believe I missed this one. Bloody excellent.

[@seanmcdonald5365]

I will always love the absolute irony of numbers 31 as moses, who was to be killed as a baby, is issuing a command to kill baby boys.

[@belialord]

Has Kipp already been on the Data over Dogma podcast? Would love to see an episode with him

[@DrKippDavis]

Not yet. I am recording with Dan and Dan on 1 February. I am super excited about it!

[@elanordeal2457]

very interesting. as a committed christian, I always challenge myself to make sure I understand issues presented in the bible from both sides of the debate. it’s always important to make sure that I’m at best not uninformed, and at worst avoiding deception. I definitely agree on all the data points presented and their interpretation, but obviously at the end of the day I would view the biblical institution of slavery as something that was never God’s ideal (I saw in an interview a while back that Dr Bowen conceded the same point). Ultimately, while we both will have different final conclusions on what the data means in the long run, what’s most important is that we both are honest and critical and not moulding the data in either an apologetic or even counter-apologetic that furthers a Christian or atheistic agenda and doesn’t let the text speak for itself. Qudos to your channel for always keeping me on my feet and encouraging me to be a Christian who can still hold to evangelical (albeit not at all fundamentalist) conclusions but also be informed with scholarship and not neglect what the text is saying. We’re all in the journey together of navigating this frankly super weird and ancient text - no doubt our end conclusions of the value of the text differ, but that’s perfectly acceptable :)

[@DrKippDavis]

Thanks very much for your comments, and thanks for being here.

[@Jake-zc3fk]

It’s interesting to me that you can agree to the data points and interpretations as you put it, but yet still give god the “benefit of the doubt” so to speak. Look at the pain and suffering throughout human history on this topic alone, just slavery! The all knowing and loving creator god of the cosmos saw fit to regulate food intake and what fabrics to wear, but could not simply say “though shalt not own another human being!”. It’s such a stretch to my mind, that this in and of itself tells me there is no such god, that this is so obviously the fabrication of man. A god in man’s image.

[@elanordeal2457]

@@Jake-zc3fk I’m aware of that, but whilst we don’t get clear statements like “don’t own another person”, I do believe that the seeds of liberation are sown in the biblical text. It’s interesting because even in Bowen’s own book, he concedes a lot of the Hebrew laws are significant improvements of surrounding nations (bar a few specific laws), but stops short of saying anything else. I’m not sure I can get into the full details of the end interpretation of such data, but an accommodationist perspective is not necessarily wrongheaded. I think there is a degree that God is in man’s image insofar as he stoops down to our level to make us understand him, but even the rough things he regulates has strict parameters so God still has standards.

[@Jake-zc3fk]

@@elanordeal2457 As a person who spent 10 years in the christian faith, trying very hard to make it all make sense, in the end there were just too many problems with the bible and this issue of slavery was just one of them. You state that "we don't get clear statements like "don't own another person"". The problem is that we in fact do get a multitude of don'ts from this "god" character in these stories. It's loaded with god's do's and don'ts, very specific do's and don'ts as well as all the punishments for not obeying. So to my mind in order to excuse the absence of god's addressing one of the most basic and sacred human rights, to not be owned by another, is a prime example willfully dismissing the problem. Not only does the bible and this god not condemn the practice of slavery but endorses it. As people like Dan McClellan have pointed out, there is not a single place in the old or new testament that slavery is condemned. One of the greatest violations in human history, and the supposed greatest religious book in human history is complicit in the terrors. I consider myself an agnostic theist. I see nothing that proves a specific god, but I am certainly of the mind that there is a greater power than us that we are a part of. A "collective conscience" might be a good name? I don't know ( an I'm OK with not knowing) and I don't see any concrete evidence at this time for any specific thing I might be willing to label as a god. But of this I am certain (for whatever that is worth) that the character in the bible is most certainly not real, he's simply a figment of man's imagination. The god character has so many human flaws, as well as the stories having so many contradictions and simply outlandish claims. And as a moral/ethical guide it is problematic at best unless you are willing to simply ignore many of god's own demands and actions.

[@Jake-zc3fk]

@@elanordeal2457 I missed addressing your statement of there being "seeds of liberation". I think it is just as easily explained by the eventual realization by more and more advanced societies that slavery was simply a barbaric practice. Since the bible never condemns the practice it's a stretch to say that it had any direct influence on the abolishment of slavery. And the opposite has effectively been argued.

[@Gdwmartin]

American politicians are treating American slavery in the antebellum south the same way. The slaves earned useful skills they are saying now.

[@sentienttree6286]

"Put together like Lego pieces" 45:38-ish, this is my new favorite metaphor for how (many) Christians treat the Bible in regards to the parts they cherry pick for their faith.

[@Bobson_Dugnutt_Esq]

I think apologetics is in a similar position to Martial Arts, and the pastors and apologists are like the strip-mall karate teachers who used to be able to get by on clout and the general lack of information held by the public. (As well as completely undeserved trust and respect.) In such an analogy, Frank Turek is like George Dilman. Ken Ham is like Frank Dux, Kent Hovind is Ashida Kim, etc.

[@DrKippDavis]

This sounds amazing. I wish I understood it.

[@Bobson_Dugnutt_Esq]

Eh, that world is every bit as full of shysters and frauds but not to the same degree of harm as evangelicals and fundamentalists. Martial Arts, however has had to confront reality on a large scale in the last few decades though and is gradually getting better for it. I only hope Christianity will do the same. And Dr. Davis, thank you for your amazing work.

[@DrKippDavis]

Thank you so much. I really appreciate the commendation.

[@laurenbarnes4918]

Dr. Dan Debate Deez Nuts McClellan 😂 his "alright, let's see it" tiktoks make my day and now I have 2 more great Drs to follow!

[@bardbarian4065]

GODDAMMIT DAN STOP RECOMMENDING MORE BOOKS I still haven’t finished “The Invention of Religion: Faith and Covenant in the Book of Exodus” by Jan Assman that you plugged sometime in the last two years. Excellent, fascinating and powerful book btw, I highly recommend.

[@bardbarian4065]

Also “Aspects of Monotheism: How God is One”! That’s another excellent recommendation I’ve only just finished the second chapter of. Stop it!!!!

[@karlu8553]

Really enjoyed this. I especially appreciated the bit starting around 2:00:50 where you discussed the difference between apologists and biblical scholars, and Kipp's anecdote juxtaposing presentations at SBL and across the hall at the Evangelical Theological Society. I know there are many evangelicals in the SBL. Given your description of attendees ready to tear apart presentations that don't take all the data points into account, how does it go when evangelicals present papers at SBL that reach what seem to be theologically driven conclusions?

[@cuebj]

'Evangelicals' has changed meaning over the decades. Once upon a long ago, 'Fundamentalist' was an honourable term. It got taken over by people who claimed to be Bible-believing Christians but who never, actually, read their Bibles (I knew many such, in England, even at top class Bible teaching churches where the preachers would have been right at home in this discussion but despaired at the laziness of church members). Those old time fundamentalists had to adopt a different term and chose 'evangelical' but, in recent decades, that has been taken over by the... In UK, we are way behind the US use/misuse of words, not least because there isn't much money to be gained (in mainline denominations) from brain-dead use of the Bible. I just saw a summary from a study in US about consipiracy theorist believers being overwhelmingly 'Christian' right Bible literalists. Unfortunately, the US 'Christian' right Bible literalists do have a big influence on many new churches in UK, often Pentecostal and often led by people from non-UK parts of the world. I recently heard the opposite is the case in US with new churches starting because Bible-reading pastors and church members are being driven out of the places where they grew up. The term 'Bible literalist' both amuses and worries me as my experience of reading the Bible since 1974, as a plant science and genetics student, was that it is poetic, figurative, sometimes historical, fascinating, but, like all communication, not 'literal' in the sense they meant. In UK, especially in inner-city ministries and lifestyles, we tend to consider the prophets, especially as they rail against injustice. For example, to focus on a 'literal' 7-day creation loses the rhetorical structure and intent of the Hebrew text thus misreading the text! I guess the US writers we respect would include Jim Wallis of The Sojourners. On apologetics, I think I commented already about Josh McDowell being the type of person who can read three or four books a night and more or less know every word they say but... like many similar scholars, you can get a first class degree amassing information for a specific topic but not do the inter-linking, cross-referencing, nuance stuff. Back in the 1970s, his big virtue in the eyes of us Europeans was that he had read and understood Marx and Marx offshoots in Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, though not, I think, Rosa Luxemburg. He was also very good on Islam which he read diligently and debated folk like Ahmed Deedat in South Africa with an authority and respect which gained him respect in return. On culture, we had Francis Schaeffer, a US minister based in Switzerland, interracting with the beat generation from the 1950s to 1960s. We also had the Arts Centre Group for practicing professionals in the performing and pictorial arts. Back in the day, evangelicals (at least in the UK) would have extensive libraries containing books from all theological perspectives - which they had read and which they could reference. For want of a better word, 'liberal' theologians would just have books that reflected and shaped their particular perspective. You saw that pattern everywhere - among university teachers, students, school teachers. As we were often also science students and researchers, we were rarely 7-day zappers!

[@detroitpolak9904]

Josh's Univ. of Michigan bow tie goes hard....GO BLUE.

[@belialord]

1:53:41 Also on the documentary The Godfather Part II, when Vito comes back to Sicily for Don Ciccio

[@bardbarian4065]

Thank you so much for doing this. And thank you for taking the text, the history, the humanity of the Bible so seriously. You each and all are such a blessing to public access to solid information

[@BigZebraCom]

I'm sorry I missed the Livestream! I wanted to ask him a bunch of stupid questions.

[@nickbrasing8786]

I asked them for you. I am a limitless well of those.

[@BigZebraCom]

thank you! @@nickbrasing8786

[@FoursWithin]

When your oersonal beliefs and favorite cultural traditions involve fantasies about an afterlife paradise its no big leap to interject fantastic excuses for your traditions dark past

[@CB66941]

1:00:21 I like to imagine a universe where women are held to the same status as men FIRST before the abolition of slavery, and then Christians had to somehow say that the bible totally thinks that women and men are held to equal status. We might have gotten this gem: "When Dan is finally confronted with a passage of scripture that does not confirm his bias, he doesn't really address it, he just simply calls it aspirational scripture, which is underselling it just a bit, and moves away from it quickly, doesn't interact with it at all,..., but the real point at the day is that the bible was responsible for upholding the status of women at the same status of men. " Also imagine blaming people for not taking a point seriously, while not grasping Dan's point. Dan's point (while addressing the verse) is that if you want to suggest a specific verse can be used to state that there should be no distinction in status between masters and slaves, then that same verse (which explicitly states it) can be used to to also say there should be no distinction in status between men and women. Dan is appealing to the fact that we should be consistent here in our reasoning. Meanwhile our apologist here doesn't address the verse which talks about men and women being of equal status and the issue that men and women should be of equal status, moving away from it quickly to say his soundbite that at the end of the day the bible is responsible for the abolition of slavery. And it was him that used that ad hominem to say that Dan is clueless and does not know what Turek's position is. The hilarious part is that Turek does respond to this issue with this answer: "Christians can divide over this without and still have fellowship. This is not an essential issue, but I think the biblical position on this is that the senior pastor is supposed to be a man and that women of course can serve in ministry but not in the senior pastor role." It gets even funnier because he is then decried by OTHER conservative Christians for saying this somehow. evangelicaldarkweb.org/2023/12/18/how-frank-turek-compromises-on-female-pastors/ That statement from him about how Christians are at the forefront of goodwill and that anyone criticizing them should just keep quiet (even though we have listened) is one I have heard before. It always presumes that people who are not Christians cannot be good. Never mind the fact too that whenever other organizations, religious or secular, try to do the same in leading goodwill, they are shut down by the Christians in power in the US, with all kinds of fearmongering tactics.

[@prrrtmeow]

He. He thinks the Great Awakening ended slavery????? Excuse me while I go have hysterics.

[@cyndic9350]

I have a question for the panel. So, we know the Hebrews were instructed to save the female children (who had not known a man), and were used as sex slaves. We also know that the hebrews were sacrificing infants to their god per its orders. My question is, do you think the offspring resulting from the “rape” of these female children (rape is in quotes from what was said about females not having sexual autonomy), were offered as sacrifices so that their own children (who were fathered by Hebrew women) would not be sacrificed? I know that’s not in the text, but from their cultural history, do think they had that in mind? Without birth control, many of these foreign sex slaves were getting pregnant. Or maybe they were forcing abortions on them or killing the infants after birth (not as a sacrifice to their god).

[@DrKippDavis]

First of all, I have serious doubts that the war-booty passages like in Numbers 31 have much of any grounding in reality. I think at best, these are gross exaggerations of what might have occurred in occasional skirmishes with captives, but certainly not on this scale, and I am dubious about these sorts of "levy sacrifices" ever actually being carried out. This is fiction propaganda written centuries after the fact. Second, in the event that women were kept as war captives and enslaved, I think it would also have been most likely for their owners either to keep any offspring also as slaves, or to sell them. Human sacrifice was not an instrument of population control. In the rare instances in which one saw the need to make a child sacrifice, this was understood to reflect significant value-substituting a slave for one's own child strikes me as counterproductive to the entire purpose of making a child sacrifice, in the first place. I think in instances where such sacrifices did occur, it was under conditions such as those narrated in 2 Kings 3, where Mesha is so desperate that as a last measure he is said to sacrifice his first-born son and heir-a slave would never have been deemed an acceptable offering, given the stakes. (I am not convinced this is accurate historical reportage, but the "spirit of the law" is certainly accurately preserved in this story.)

[@Cheepchipsable]

I expect most taken females were just eventually melded into society. A lot of unbreakable rules get very bent when one wants to maintain the status quo, usually by just turning a blind eye. Don't forget infant mortality and death in childbirth would have been relatively high. Regarding birth control, but most people are pragmatic so I've no doubt they probably just used the withdrawal, or maybe some version of the rhythm method. Simply because someone lived under some religious doctrine, nothing to say they were devout. I doubt women's issues were recorded unless it interfered with something leaders wanted to do or control.

[@Gdwmartin]

Reeds understanding of things seems VERY superficial. It's a natural way to be at points in a younger persons life. It takes some of us (me too) some time to get into the mindset that there is more to a story/or a piece of text. So yes he comes across as very naive. Equality of women in non-sexual manners wasn't even clear up into the 1970's when I was a small child. A woman couldn't go out and buy a car, or carry a loan without her husband or her father to co-sign that loan. Maybe her brother could co-sign but I'm not sure. They couldn't have a credit card in their own name alone. Again they needed a male co-signer to be responsible for it. That's here in Canada, Newfoundland to be exact.

[@widescreennavel]

Wasn't Permanent Slaves one of the best Rush albums? I may be slightly off...

[@daousdava]

you need to make this a weekly show

[@jrojala]

Excellent work, gentlemen.

[@barnsweb52]

or - since we know they altered the Covenant about the time of Ezekiel, and Ezekiel itself is altered - Ezekiel was telling what it was to start with - not something new like God changing His mind....

[@barnsweb52]

If Daniel was a true prophet - why didn't God let him know they altered His Covenant Standards?

[@barnsweb52]

should be called renting the land - not selling it..

[@cuebj]

2:17 about "what the Bible says". I thank God for the two-week Summer Schoools run by Campus Crusade for Christ, later Agape, UK that I attended from 1974. As a science student, I had not spent much time considering literature as creative writing or as academic history etc. They taught me to withhold judgement about what my first impression of the text might be. Instead, read the whole chapter as it fits in the whole book and how that whole book relates with other books and see how it draws upon and even rejects earlier material (Eg Jesus Nazareth manifesto re-works Isaiah 61 & 58 to reject Zionist nationalism (to use modern terminology). They also emphasized that the Bible contains a lot of poetic material that is not intended to be taken literally. It helped that I'd also been very good at French, Latin, German, and Greek before dropping them for science at age 15 so, on becoming Christian, I got a Greek New Testament, learned NT Greek and, later did the same with Hebrew (never got around to Aramaic but Ancient Near East Texts was fun). CCC also had an Agape International Training Centre for everyone planning to work in a culture different from their own: it was a model in not imposing your own perspectives on others but to ask relevant open questions to understand without judgement. I wonder how that attitude fits in the current 'Christian' populism that had engulfed much of what we hear from the USA: I hear some pastors and church members are leaving the churches they grew up in and founding new fellowships that reflect Micah 6:8

[@hengfashi6024]

I love how these apologists try and adopt the language that reveals just how intellectually bankrupt their positions are. What could possibly enter the ring with Christianity as far as being the greatest gaslighting machine humans have managed to produce...

[@TheHunterGracchus]

You have to be careful not to give too much credit to the Enlightenment for ending slavery and too much blame to religion. While the child of the Enlightment, Jefferson, was calculating how fast his slaves could produce nails, the Puritan Steven Hopkins was taking a firm public stand against slavery. Indeed, the views of figures such as Kant and Hume on the inferiority of African people had a great influence on ideologies of slavery.

[@DrKippDavis]

Exactly. I think the key point to make here is that this was not an outcome of either religion/non-religion.

[@theswearcrow]

Subscribing for A.) This interview and B.) Your Iron Maiden shirt.

[@DrKippDavis]

I could use a new one.

[@JoelKorytko]

Thanks for the video! Really interesting perspectives. What do you think about the idea that Moses is being portrayed like Pharaoh in the culling of the baby boys/keeping of the women?

[@MindForgedManacle]

@ 2:07:04 What debate is Dr. McClellan talking about here? I'd love to watch that!

[@DrKippDavis]

I am pretty sure Dan is referring to his Twitter interactions with apologists as "debates" here. I don't believe he has ever done a formal debate.

[@gregmcmurphy8241]

20:00 approx isn’t 50th year the first year of planting after 7 cycles?

[@AndrewofVirginia]

So is the issue of development from Deuteronomy to leviticus that Hebrews were held for only the 7 year period in Deut, but then Leviticus changes it to saying even this is not allowed?

[@DrKippDavis]

There is some disagreement about whether Israelites were permitted to enslave one another at all by this point, yes, but this is also somewhat unclear.

[@kellyprice8917]

Denmark abolished slavery in 1792

[@wyattsteel411]

What exactly is the Akkadian word mentioned at 18:44?

[@terjenilsen8412]

Thank you!

[@Devilock07]

Ha! I correctly guessed who the guy with the tiny face is.

[@scienceexplains302]

*Whom does Leviticus 25:10 liberate?* Leviticus 25:1-2 Yahweh spoke to Moshe on Mt Sinai, saying, “Speak to the *sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you* enter the land I am going to give you…’” So overall, L25 is Yahweh telling Moshe what to say to Israelite men about their future land. L25:10 And you shall consecrate the 50th year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its _yosebeha^._ It shall be a jubilee for *you,* when each of *you* shall return to his property+ and each of *you* shall return to his clan. So it seems still to refer to the Israelites because of the setup in v :1-2. If Yosebeha means inhabitants, then the passage doesn’t make sense. There is no freedom specified for anyone except “you” and that You is almost certainly limited to Israelite men about their land. L :13 everyone is to return to his own property. Foreigners and slaves didn’t have property and they especially weee not referred to in L25:1-2. So again it seems this passage is referring to Israelite men. L :14 does seem to allow for selling land to non-Israelites.

[@lucindypowell3711]

I always miss the livestream. 😢

[@DrKippDavis]

😥

[@Think4Yourself-]

Patty Hearst, Josh

[@cuebj]

Better sound with less talking over each other than the previous video. Thanks

[@CaraiseLink]

1:47:32 (Severe content warning: sexual assault) This is a horrible observation, but if you're operating in a dominance-heavy society where women are viewed as subhuman chattel, men are unlikely to care enough about their rape victims' needs to be gentle. When all sex is sexual assault, there probably _is_ a fair bit of bleeding involved in a woman's first sexual experience. If not from her vagina because her rapist is selfishly terrible at sex, then from beatings because her will to resist hasn't been broken yet. It's by no means conclusive, but the correlation is much higher than it would be if her first sexual experience had been consensual. This does not make the ancient Israelites look better.

[@JohnnyKooter]

Says abortion is sacrificing babies on pagan altars. Also defends texts that literally says kill babies lol.

[@tsolum4126]

At the risk of making the audience collectively stupider for having done it, are you guys interested in critiquing the Calvinists, like Matt Slick? Could be a great popcorn and beer night.

[@sandlotscout6358]

If you have to keep explaining it, you probably don’t understand it.

[@juanito1215]

I hope your next topic is about this too. About "Is deconstruction incompatible with “historic Christianity?” kzbin.infovwOStU3T_Js?si=CxqpDn6ejE_MNG3_

[@OuryLN]

🙈🙉🙊, 🙈🙉🙊, 🙈🙉🙊, 🙈🙉🙊, 🙈🙉🙊, etc.

[@nonchai]

Ugh! Please change that annoying intro music! It’s everywhere , like Olivia Colman and chewing gum under school desks

[@DrKippDavis]

No.