Why Genocide and Slavery in the Bible Don’t Mean What You Think
Greg and Amy tackle an atheist’s challenge about the moral implications of God’s actions in the Old Testament. Distinguishing between God’s prerogatives and human morality, they argue that divine actions, such as the judgment of the Canaanites, must be understood within the broader context of God’s character and the nature of justice.
#StandtoReason #STRask #Apologetics #Christianity #Morality #Philosophy #GodIsGood #BibleQuestions
————— SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION —————
If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time for the Stand to Reason broadcast, or if you’d like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— FIND MORE FREE TRAINING —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
————— CONNECT —————
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
The challenge may have come from someone who doesn't believe in a god, but it is established on theistic claims. So who the challenge comes from and what the challenger's view of morality is is an irrelevant red herron. The challenge could be raised by a theist, even a Christian.
The Bible very clearly condones slavery and gencide. There is no amount of justify, reframing or misrepresenting that will change that fact, and so Christians are simply left with excusing, minimising or ignoring it. By excusing these things as the edicts of a good god you essentially say they can be good. Apologists may have fooled themselves into believing it is a morally acceptable position, but many Christians struggle with the inconsistency.
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
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.
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.
You guys aren't very good at this are you?
Here's the God you believe in, good loving judgement from a different perspective, in 1940's Germany imagine one 20 year-old female Jewish college student. She does not believe in Jesus's resurrection even after hearing a street preacher tell her. She ends up in a concentration camp she is s3xually assaulted, starved, beaten and finally gassed to death–is she going to wake up in God's concentration camp called Hell for eternity? Is this your God's good justice. Don't forget there are plenty of Jewish, Muslim and Hindus who will apparently be in Jesus 's concentration camp, tortured worst than any human dictator can inflict, by the God of justice.
If you actually care about truth, learn from those that disagree with you, I recommend here on Youtube: Paulogia and TMM.
I really hope Forrest Valkai does a reacteria on this video!!!
Objective morality can be grounded in brute facts
great video!
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.
Answer the question rather than using a tu quoque fallacy. I would elaborate, but YouTube is deleting my responses.
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.