Why Genocide and Slavery in the Bible Don’t Mean What You Think

[@ThroughTheKJVBibleInOneYear]

The first argument, simplified, is "God is good. Anything God allows is good. Therefore, sin is good." Statement one is true. After that, not so much. And you can be an atheist and still know this argument is invalid as you simply have to imagine a being - any being - that is wholly good, devoid of any diety. "Steve is good. Steve allows evil. Evil is good." This, of course relies on an objective standard of good and evil, but the logic stands, or in this case fails miserably.

[@ericveal3816]

Very good comment. When I was an agnostic I thought morality was changeable and moldable. But then I realized this: had Japan and Germany won WW 2 their morality would be ours.

[@Bugsy0333]

You would first have to prove that your God of the Bible truly exists ? I’m sorry maybe I’ve missed something over the past 60 years of my life, but I haven’t seen any evidence, convincing me otherwise. Take care !

[@staben22]

great video!

[@johnelliott5859]

Christianity cannot have the objective morality "high ground". One either says that genocide is immoral, and god acts immorally; or you say god acts morally when he commits genocide, so that moral are relative and subject to god's whim. Objective morality is not required. We just need to agree as a collection of individuals to what is or is not moral; and that can change. That foundation is all that's necessary, not some objective universal standard.

[@ericveal3816]

You know it. Might makes right,.

[@jordanvieyra5275]

I really hope Forrest Valkai does a reacteria on this video!!!

[@DManCAWMaster]

Objective morality can be grounded in brute facts

[@STRvideos]

Sure, we can observe and evaluate... we can even label things as good and evil, but without an authority for a moral ought, those things remain labels that can change.

[@DManCAWMaster]

@@STRvideos Not necessarily. Objective morality would just be a necessary feature of the universe with the moral oughts built into it.

[@morlewen7218]

@@STRvideos As long as the authority is a subject you will oalways end up with subjective opinions, wishes, desires, dislikes including morality.

[@STRvideos]

See www.str.org/w/is-morality-grounded-in-god-just-another-form-of-relativism-.

[@morlewen7218]

Greg has a quite narrow definition about genocide. What is genoicide? In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; e) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; f) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Do we see genocide commanded by Yahweh? Yes, members of a ethnicity were killed merely based on the belonging to the group rather than based on personal guilt. Even infants and fetuses were killed. I addition, in several cases the male population was killed and the woman were forced to marry Hebrews. That fulfuils point e) of the definition.Ijn other instances the children wee forcibly transferred to the Hebrews. Violation of point f). Also pint a) and b) are fulfilled. You can use the euphemism "servant". But chattel servanthood is still chattel slavery. 1) Kidnapping was only outlawed in case of Hebrews (Ex 21,17 and Deut 24,7). Instances like numbers 31 and Deut 20 affirm this. Nobody was executed for kidnapping. Even Yahweh was not executed for taking part in the stealing of men. 2) Chattel slavery in ancient Israel was quite similar to the chattel slavery in the antebellum South. In both cases protections against murder, torture, mutilation, malnutrition, overwork etc. were in place. Even kidnappeing was outlawed fom 1807 onwards. Only the scale of chattel slavery was different. Israel and the USA regulated the institution of chattel slavery. Neither of them condoned chattel slavery. Both systems used an evolutionary approach to overcome slavery by regulating the institution and preventing abuse of the"servants". 3) Useful sources: Black code of 1806, Constitutions of Texas, Georgia etc. and the Penel Code of Georgia. You will clearly see how many rights the chattel servants had. "Does the Bible condone Slavery", 2nd Edition(!), Joshua Bowen "Southern Slavery and the Law, 1619 - 1860" Thomas d. Morris

[@morlewen7218]

There is still subjective morality. Even without a god. Even a god can only give subjective morality. Objective morality would exist independent from any mind. It would transcend any mind.

[@STRvideos]

See www.str.org/w/is-morality-grounded-in-god-just-another-form-of-relativism-.

[@ConservativeMirror]

Leviticus 25 : 44 _Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves._ Deuteronomy 20 : 16 _do not leave alive anything that breathes._

[@seanpierce9386]

Answer the question rather than using a tu quoque fallacy. I would elaborate, but KZbin is deleting my responses.

[@dlelsz]

You guys aren't very good at this are you?

[@staxmarshall]

if they weren't then you would have presented a substantive argument but you haven't.