``it's punishment of committing the CRIME` the punishment as I understand it would be inducing jews to worship Baal, a religious practice that had ritual human sacrifice of children, etc etc.
I think that also violates at least 2 commandments, idolatry and have no other gods.
At that time god (according to moses) decided that lawlessness brought judgement.
And to be CLEAR, nowhere does it state in the bible that the institution of various forms of slavery applies to future events. Since the old testament books state a directive from god, it would be a great travesty to apply standards 2000 years later that are NOT ordered by God. In fact a plain reading of the ministry of Jesus would suffice to see that Jesus never advocated slavery. He actually washed the feet of others, he said everyone was equal MANY TIMES
@HonestMan395 Of course Jesus existed. He did mention the two great commandements, the second which would of course make slavery wrong.
I think you have mistaken Luke 12 42-48. In the descriptive language of the day, Jesus was telling us that we are all already slaves. slaves to sin, slaves to obedience of god. He used descriptive language that hebrews could relate to. Many had been slaves, or had slaves or indentured servants.
If there really was someone who made as big a splash as Jesus is supposed to have; speaking to large crowds, healing the sick, raising the dead etc. etc, surely that must have created some interest in what was a highly controlled and regulated police state. Yet there is no contemporary writer who was alive DURING Jesus’ supposed life, who even mentions him. Where is the evidence other than the gospels which were written years after his "death"? cont'd.
@Treefrogs2 "I think you have mistaken Luke 12 42-48."
It never ceases to amaze me that this so called infallable word of god always has to be interpreted for our understanding.
The people around at that time were ignorant and superstitious, but I don't think they were stupid. They would know exactly what he meant. If he didn't literally mean slavery, why did the translators not change it to a more palatable form.
As for his parables, they were lifted verbatim from the Essenes. check it out.
MY personal perspective is that religious understanding evolves-like everything else.
Think of it like an experiment. If a hypotheses doesnt pan out, you can introduce a different hypotheses (or modify the original) and the experiment may succeed.
Just because a hypothesis needs to be re worked DOESNT mean the scientific method itself is flawed.
I will do more research on the historical context to see if I can offer any more.
@blackplatypus08:14 tooltime states there are (and im parapahrasing) lots of non western nations that acheived great things without the help of religion.
so I merely pointed out a non western nation(butahn) that acheived greatness, possibly the ultimate greatness, and they did it while being religious(and buddah)
the bible doesn't just talk *about* slavery, it promotes it. giving guidelines on who one can enslave, for how long, how to mark them as one's property and how hard you're allowed to beat them. (all but to death)
Implies, certainly. It is not condemned at any point in the bible.
Paul, who really doesn't care for gentiles following Jewish law, also said:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ ~Ephesians 6:5
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. ~1 Timothy 6:1
@blackplatypus I seeyour point. Im not old testament scholar, but I found several old testament and new explicitly condemning slavery.
"He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death [Exodus 21:16
and in the new testament l timothy 1:9-10 here paul ranks "menstealers" with ungodly, sinners, whoremongers, murderers, and other serious moral failings.
I think your issue really is why wasnt slavery condemned more?
Erm, that appears to be a condemnation of kidnapping.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly"
@blackplatypus "Luke 4:18 describes Jesus as quoting a passage from Isaiah 61:1-2 which says that "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives.....
@blackplatypus "It is not condemned at any point in the bible."
Christian theology is based on the ministry of Jesus. So it would seem to me that anything that conflicts with Jesus teaching is attributed to lack of understanding. Did he specifically condemn slavery? No
But he DID say the second great law was love(compassion etc) towards ones fellow man. That would seem to condemn slavery.
He did stop an adulteress from being executed by law.
"love thy neighbour as thyself" is old testament and that clearly was not in conflict with slavery according to god. Why would it be in the new testament?
@blackplatypus "Nice job moving" OK since you have an issue with evolution from moses to jesus, lets try this: So far, my research is indicating that slaves were prisoners. Lawbreakers, and prisoners of war. Since every country in the world has prisoners today, why should we assume that slave holders in antiquity were evil?
prisoners are property of the state, slaves property of the state or individual.
"OK since you have an issue with evolution from moses to jesus"
no, you were arguing that the old and new testaments do indeed condemn slavery and when I provided contrary verses, you moved the goalposts.
"So far, my research is indicating that slaves were prisoners"
erm... chapter/verse please. If you're just going to make up parts of history that didn't exist, I can claim that the holocaust only happened because jews really DID cause lots and lots of problems in germany.
@blackplatypus "no, you were arguing that the old and new testaments do indeed condemn slavery "
what I said was that in christian theology, JESUS not Moses is the way and truth and life.
In Christian theology, the servant is not greater than the master. Im working on a response you may understand better. Please dont just whine that I move goal posts just because you dont like the answer.
Exodus 21:7 "If a man SELLS his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. "
Crime involved?
Male slaves going free is a reference to the 7-year limit on owning MALE JEWS as slaves. (the bible does however go on to outline how to own a male jew forever)
@blackplatypus •There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
So, you're saying that gender is completely irrelevant in Christianity? Either you admit this is rhetorical flair or this verse is clearly in conflict with 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 etc etc.
@blackplatypus "So, you're saying that gender is completely irrelevant in Christianity?" No Im saying that according to Paul that in Christ there are no slaves.-in the passage I cited. It shows an evolution in theology from the Law of Moses to the ministry of Jesus.
I'm arguing that in Numbers 31:18, when the Hebrews are ordered to take the virgins of a tribe they just slaughtered, in Exodus 21:20-21, when we are told how hard we can beat our slaves (not quite to death), in Leviticus 25:44-46 when it clearly says that slaves are PROPERTY, we are clearly not talking about voluntary servitude.
Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall... bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
IN chapter 25, we realize that the Mideans had encourged jews to worship Baal. They had thus according to christian theology committed a grave sin. Judgment was to be delivered by Moses. Thus the slaves taken were prisoners or spoils of war. Slavery being deemed 'just' by god. It was a righteous punishment delivered upon a wicked people-according to the books of Moses
Right now, I'm encouraging you to worship no god. Are you seriously saying that you are completely morally justified in slaughtering me and taking my sister as a sex slave?
If yes, you're dangerous and you should be locked up. If no, you're being inconsistent.
By the way, you've moved the goalposts again. First the bible doesn't condone slavery, then it's voluntary, now it's punishment of committing the CRIME of having a differing opinion.
@blackplatypus ``you are completely morally justified in`` of course not.
I havent really moved goal posts. I have widened them. The bible regulates slavery that existed at the time, or occurred for previously mentioned reasons, and slavery arose out of judgement . It later on condemns slavery.
I am confident that god will never tell me to kill anyone. Im not a prophet, and rest firmly on the compassion of Jesus.
"The bible regulates slavery that existed at the time"
what you mean it stopped people from beating their slaves to the point where the slaves died that day (if they died a day or two later, no punishment) and stopped people from owning other jews for more than seven years (unless you hammer a spike through their ear)
It's really depressing that your morality is warped to the point where you an consider any of this "good".
once again, chapter/verse where it condemns slavery please
@VyckRo the "European model" comes from philosophy, and that is largely influenced by the ancient Greeks and other though that has little to do with Christianity. I actually have studied the history of western philosophy, so your not fooling me. this is just so garbage Ravi Zacharias or Dinesh D'Souza told you.
saying they wanted people to become atheists because of their communist ideology, and saying they did it because they were atheist are different arguments. people were tortured in the name of Christianity as well.
I am not a communist, so I see your point as moot. atheism is not a faith, it is not a religion, and it is not an ideology. if you are too thick get that then I am done talking to you.
@VyckRo (Pt1) I've said this once before and i'll say it again. Just how much do you love the Reductio ad Stalinum logical fallacy? You seem to deploy it all the time. Just because Stalin was an atheist does not mean all Modern Day atheists are Stalinists or Communists.
@VyckRo (Pt 2.) Using your own perverted logic VyckRo, One can presume, Because Hitler believed in God, that Christianity leads to Nazism (The Reductio ad Hitlerum) and then use that that type of logic to bash all christians everywhere. No I myself, will not (and do not) do that, because that isnt my logic. It's yours. Stop using it to bash Atheists everywhere.
Oh and btw, I'm an agnostic so your logic fails on me. Got that?
"(The Reductio ad Hitlerum)" If I had one euro for every time when an atheist sent me such a message!!
Hitler was not Christian, when he came to power was involved in the occult (old German rites ... you know, the symbol of agriculture ministry, the SS, swastika)
And even if it was a "devout Catholic" (he was not) for me an heretic an was
@VyckRo (Pt 1) Even if you were right about Hitler, You would Still have to concede that usage of the Reductio (In whatever form) in the way that you use it, is a fallacy. You should have noticed also, That it is not i that uses the Reductio, It is you that uses the reductio. (Cont in pt 2)
@VyckRo (Pt 2) When i used the example of Hitler, I was describing one aspect of the type of Logic that you use all the time. I started that Sentence with a presumption, if you didnt notice. A presumption, Does not necessarily reflect my opinion. My point is that If you accept the Presumption, Then you have to use the same logic VyckRo Uses, To bash all christians. (Cont in pt 3)
@VyckRo (Pt 3) And if you use the reductio in any form to bash an entire group, Then i condem you. Simple as. You of course VyckRo, Use one varient of the Reductio to bash all atheists, Even though Atheists hold many differing political Opinions, from the Far Right to the Far Left, That seems irrelevant to you, You bash them all. And i'm calling you out for your Illogic
@VyckRo (Pt 1) "Hitler was not Christian, when he came to power was involved in the occult ". If the occult is not part and parcel of mysticism, then i do not know what is. When you mentioned "the occult", Did you have Guido von List in Mind? Plus, you also think Hitler was Atheist. Hmmm, "Atheist Mystisism". I'll ponder that. (Cont in Pt2)
@VyckRo (pt3) Have you read John Stuart Mill. He was For Free Spech, Womens Rights, freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state control etc. The Things that Communists do not believe in. He was a Atheist too, and i think the overwhelming majority of modern atheists are more in JS Mill's Camp than in Lenins Camp
@VyckRo John Stuart Mill was a Liberal Backbench MP in the House of Commons, You can say he was a man of science and all the rest, but his political career is amazing, I do recommend you research it, Yes he converted to socialism later on though
@VyckRo (Pt2) Nice to bring up the Brothers Karamazov, I love that Book, Maybe we should be friends despite our disagreements. Anyways, i would contest that Atheism Generaly leads to Communism, It instead generaly leads towards Liberalism, A different political ideology. (Cont in pt3)
@VyckRo I'm not surprised you believe in the line of "Atheism Generaly leads to Communism." I live in the UK, and if anyone hasnt noticed, Plenty of East europeans have come here to work and settle, etc. And i count some of them as among my friends, Their stories are pretty amazing.
When a socialist dictatorship takes control, the ideological aspect of what is still a dictatorship won't allow competing powers or dictatorships. Religion unchecked becomes by its real underlying objective and nauture, a theocracy. see Iran.
So Communism, a political ideology ousts religion for control.
Atheism is not a belief, it is the non belief in any of the 100's of gods man has created through history. Just believe in one less than you. No proof.
"(The Reductio ad Hitlerum)" If I had one euro for every time when an atheist sent me such a message!!
Hitler was not Christian, when he came to power he was already involved in the occult (old German rites,you know... the symbol of agriculture ministry, the SS, swastika)
And even if it was a "devout Catholic" (he was not) for me an heretic was called
" I've said this once before and i'll say it again"
„Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism (Lening)
There is not only Stalin or Mao! But the idea itself, that everything bad came from religion, and a world without religion ( without "the exploiting church") would be a better world!
@VyckRo Christianity has always been the number one road block in scientific advancement. One look at history will tell you this. whenever someone had an idea that challenged the views of the church they were treated with contempt. This can all be found in any history book, no Googling required. Morality existed long before Christianity. Humans knew of such things as kindness and compassion before Christianity. Why do you deny history? Asshat.
perhaps you should read some history and you would understand.
Christianity as it expanded as the holy roman EMPIRE when conversion failed as it so often did. They used forced conversion and violence.
Religion had its place in that it provided cohesion and developed of economic and bureaucratic institutions. However this was just imposition of colonial empire building under another flag. Religion was and is false just used as an excuse for what they did. Death and Misery.
Even little children learn right and wrong very early.
Religion and its history is full of horrendous evils and what decent people would consider immoral behavior. The social improvements in western culture particularly in morals, right and wrong, decency has walked hand in hand with the evolution of secular society. Note that many if note most improvements were initially opposed by religion.
The Carthaginians invented plantation slavery and it was eagerly taken up by the Romans. The conditions weren't any different than in the south (Chained labor gangs, systematic malnutrition, etc.) You may recall there were three slave revolts because of these conditions, far more serious than anything that happened here.
oops, tooltime, Star Trek Deep Space 9 did plenty of religious apologism. And had many religious characters. Same with voyager excusing two characters' religions explicitly.
the funny part is that only 3 of the 10 commandments are laws of any kind. Maybe killing, stealing, and bearing false witness are just bad in the first place, and would make it into any morally correct book of laws.
If none of the other 7 commandments are not worthy of becoming laws in our society, why would anyone begin to think that we get our morality from the bible?
The other obvious historical point is that setting up a state that by definition is not under the direct influence of any church allowed western civilization achieve what it has.
Just to say, the interpretation of that Nietzsche quote (and Nietzsche in general) by both atheists and religious folk is one of the most absurd, philosophically simplistic possible. If there is one philosopher that people who don't know their shit should stay away from, it's Nietzsche.
True. Nietzsche had a tendency to obfuscate his own meanings a lot and say thing in manners to be most provocative. His actual points are buried in his stylistic flourishes.
You failed to point out how he tries to have it both ways with slavery. It was the Christians who were morally correct in supporting slavery back in the day when it was good, and they were morally correct in ending it as well. He says that slavery (as it was "commanded") isn't inherently wrong, and then takes credit for its eradication.
Imaginary jesus approves of beating slaves, even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
Luke 12-
47: And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48: But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
wipe out the entire human race? oh, and before i address that, you're a muslim, huh? so you support the oppression of women and the jihad of infidels, such as innocent americans? THOSE muslims? oh right ok ok. and the elimination of the entire human race? no, i think not. just the suppression of religious fanatics who would see the world thrown back to the Dark Ages, such as yourself, quite obviously.
Oh please. More bigoted nonsense coming from your ignorant mouth.
BS. The exact words coming out of your mouth were the very same ideas expressed by Marx and those after him: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.
I'm a Muslim. The majority of us don't want to kill people for no good reason. The majority of us don't oppress women. The majority of us don't go on Jihad for unjust reasons and blow ourselves up.
And the majority of us aren't brainwashed bigots like you that feed off the media
oh give me a break you herd-minded prick. just like christianity, YOUR holy book contains ridiculous rules and rites that condone the oppression of women, the killing of infidels, and the complete devotion to "Allah". did you hear switzerland just banned minarets in their country? good first step. fuck you and your religion, which is anything BUT peaceful. you're almost as bad as lawley himself.
Yeah, Brock. Ancient slavery in the biblical past was nothing like the conditions in the US in the antibellum years. The men who enslaved others in the south were CHRISTIANS, you ignorant nitwit! Yikes! And many of the early opponents to slavery were Deists and Atheists, too, Brock. Oh, and it was the early arabs who made science possible as we know it today, Brock. Think ZERO. Go ahead... do an electronic design with ROMAN NUMERALS. Head Bang material, his videos are. Ignorant, he is.
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
Clearly they were injuring their slaves to maintain discipline. Anyways, I remember reading that after a certain amount of time the slave could leave or request to stay, but I cannot find the exact verse at the moment.
Whenever apologists try to argue how slaevery in the bible was different, I'm reminded of that episode of South Park where everyone is describing the Veitnam war as having carnival rides and stuff.....
Hoo boy! being someone else's property must have been fun in biblical times! I bet there were all kinds of slave parties and talent shows.....
Christian bands rape music that was started by atheist. Marilyn Manson, John Lennon, two very famous musicians, both atheist. Christian bands take the music, and put their spin on it. John Carpenter is a atheist, and he made halloween, the remake of the thing. So Brock...does Marilyn Manson suffer? Did Lennon suffer? Did Carpenter? Did lol Star Trek suffer???
There's just no need to even try to answer his ridiculous claims. We all know he's talking shit. There's plenty of movies and television shows and albums and so on created by atheists that are good.
Well done, once again. You have my respect for even bothering with Brock for one video, let alone a series. I don't think I have the patience to deal with such unrestrained stupidity.
Yes, Peter's rather steadfast in his dissection of this Brock asshole.
I wonder how Brock can do that. How can he sit there while brazenly lying or just making general assertions that are completely hypocritical? Has he even really confessed to his plagiarism?
Tooltime is absolutely right about slave morality versus master morality. Anyone who's read "genealogy of morals" would understand this. Nietzsche certainly wasn't defending Christianity but rather describing how it might fall apart due to it's own dogmatic brittleness. Brock really is a dishonest fucker.
Well, Brock was somewhat correct about Nietzsche. He did say that when Christian faith goes away, so does morality. Not all morality, but CHRISTIAN morality. And thus the need for the creation of NEW values, the infamous "superman" idea of Nietzsche, i.e. "the last man." The idea is to smash the new values, climb over the pit of nihilism, created by the void, and create new systems of value, morals, etc. It's sad that Brock sees everything on such a superficial level.
Every time Brock makes a video, it seems to have topics in it that he just read about for the very first time. I seriously doubt this idiot has ever written an essay outside of high school, for he seems to takes everything at face value. Yet another credulous moron pretending to know the creator of the universe, ffs.
Christians like to take credit for cultural achievements which had everything to do with the DIMINISHING of the influence of religion upon western society.
The revival of classical learning, ever growing academic freedom, etc. paved the way to the emergence of the common man as a political constituency in the 19th century. It had everything to do with religion being paid less mind to.
All of this happened in SPITE of Christian authoritarians (whether they wore mitres or crowns.)
Please correct me if I am in error but is it not more factual to say that the ear;y sciences came largely from the Greek and Arab world, in particular in the case of the latter, the region including Baghdad ... and then Islam came along and put an end to all that? The muslim version of the Dark Ages?
Very, very correct, except that many of the sciences attributed to the greeks are actually from egypt.
About thirteen hundred years ago, shortly after the birth of Islam, followers of muhammed sought out the scattered scrolls which had been saved centuries earlier after CHRISTIANS burned the great library of Alexandria.
This was due more to the middle eastern tradition of valuing knowledge than to any islamic reverence for the writings. In fact, later muslims followed the christian example.
Incorrect. While there was an intellectual tradition of the Arabs that was preserved in Islam, Islam was in fact responsible for such a large social, economic, and moral reform, that these traditions were allowed to flourish far more than before.
It was also Islamic theology that opened up the doors to Aristotle's metaphysics, not the previous Arabian pagan tribes.
"Moral reform" ?!?! To what? murdering homosexuals and apostates? That rape is ok? All of which is perfectly ok and endorsed by Mohammed. Anyway, Persia was the center of human intellectual activity before Islam - from there it all went downhill. This is an observed fact - the golden age of Islam was simply violent barbarians conquering civilized people.
I have no idea what your argument about Aristotle's metaphysics is, but given that metaphysics is drivel - the argument probably is as well.
Rape is okay? WHere the hell did you get that? Cite one passage from the Qur'an or Sunnah that makes that justified.
The fact that you know little about the Islamic contribution to the Enlightenment by resurrecting Aristotle and destroying the Platonists mentality prevalent in the West at the time is evidence enough that you have no right to be speaking on this issue.
As far as I can see, you know little of Philosophy as well, which disqualifies you even further.
That's factually incorrect. The modern scientific method stems from the middle-east during the middle-ages. While obviously more inspired by Greek philosophy than the Koran, they were almost exclusively Islamic, as Islam had by then been around for several hundred years.
Silly person. You must be working with a laughable definition of "modern scientific method".
Most people regard the modern scientific method as being established following the work of Bacon, Descardes etc. 17th - 18th century. It's no conincidence that this falls in line with the rise of the modern natural sciences.
Even given that, the breakthroughs of the enlightenment were based off the groundwork of the Islamic Golden Age. Your comment about this time period above goes for EVERY imperial age in history. I don't see why you have such a hard time giving Muslims credit for ever doing anything good. The entire point of my statement was that the groundwork for modern science was based mostly on Arabic work, and had literally nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever.
Regardless, who the fuck cares if some of the people who started doing experiments were muslims? There is no reason to give Islam any credit for that, any more than you should credit christianity with modern civilization.
If anything, both superstitions will impede progress due to their vast amounts of false dogmatic assertions about reality.
The reason it matters in this context is that Brock is promoting this 100% incorrect idea that Christianity is somehow responsible for modern science, when experimental science doesn't even come from Western civilization. It seems like everyone misses the point that Brock's promotion of Christianity as a fertile ground for science is false, as the church didn't allow the scientific liberties available in the middle east. I'm don't prefer Islam, I'm just stating facts.
Actually, that has more to do with the failure of authoritarianism (which religion is the original apologist for) than an atheistic or even anti-theist world view.
Concluding that we'd be better off without theistic beliefs (and advocating such a position) is something distinct from the belief that one may coerce people or abuse their consciences.
You need only look at "atheistic" totalitarian states of the 20th century to see they DIDN'T get rid of religion ("cult of the leader.")
True (except for your last bit about cult of the leader since you're falsely equating cults with religion), but authoritarianism is bred somehow, and it first comes in by way of an ideal.
The Anti-Theists of the 20th century believed that because the Theists were irrational and that they had their own answers to life etc., they were inherently dangerous to the state and those who lived therein.
Thus, they were exterminated.
And this sort of talk sounds a lot like many today.
DF: "True (except for your last bit about cult of the leader since you're falsely equating cults with religion)"(...)
KC: Religions are cults. I'm using the word "cult" in it's technical sense, and not how mainstream religions use it to describe small/newer sects they don't appreciate.
DF: (...)"but authoritarianism is bred somehow, and it first comes in by way of an ideal."
KC: Such notions of authority have their origin in religion. The state, in it's origins, is religious.
The way I'm taking his comments about art is he thinks that art comes from "divine inspiration." Now, sometimes I think that my work flows into my mind from realms removed from our own, but the truth is that my mind is wired in such a way that it allows me to develop stories and compose songs.
And these things are not about the nowhere from which we've come or are going.
I hate how jerks like Brock seem to completely forget the various Asian cultures and the amazing things they did!
The Great Wall anyone!? The fact that the ancient Chinese first discovered and created testosterone based pills! I'm sure I could have phrased that better... sounds wiggy... but my point stands!
As a lover of all the worlds history this guy makes me want to vomit in rage. >:(
(continued from previous post) If slavery was antithetical to Christian teaching, Europe should have ended slavery when Christianity was at the height of its power. It is interesting to note that the more secular the European nations became, and the more a separation of Church power and state power became the norm in Europe, as well as criticism of Biblical teaching became more pervasive is when slavery started to be abolished in Europe and America.
(continued from previous post) Hence, logically, something OUTSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY brought slavery to an end. More than likely this was the Enlightenment, which was itself induced by certain economic factors. This is not to say that many Christians were not instrumental in the abolition movement. But it was not the doctrines of Christianity that inspired men to liberate their fellow men from bondage(continued).
ArachEye, you are right, that the slave owners did cite the Old Testament. Not to mention that Paul implicitly approved of slavery by NOT calling for its abolition, but by asking slaves to be obedient to their masters and for masters to not treat slaves too harshly(Ephesians 6: 5-9). Also Jesus refers to good Christians as taking on the subjugated role in society willingly. So the slave owners not only had the Old Testament, but the New Testament on their side as well (continued).
(continued from previous response to ArachEye) It should be noted that the very fact that both sides of the slave argument could cite verses to support their claim underscores the fact that the supposed perfect word of God is NOT perfect. It is contradictory and confuses people. How hard would it be, for an omnipotent God, after all, to just say plainly that "slavery is wrong, and that a person should be free to leave his place of employment without the fear of coercion/death".
about "Star Trek". Ironically enough TNG episode "Who watch the watchers" essentially, make me an atheist. :)
1701EarlGrey 5 months ago
@HonestMan395 Of course there is the issue that he was speaking in Parabel.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
``it's punishment of committing the CRIME` the punishment as I understand it would be inducing jews to worship Baal, a religious practice that had ritual human sacrifice of children, etc etc.
I think that also violates at least 2 commandments, idolatry and have no other gods.
At that time god (according to moses) decided that lawlessness brought judgement.
Just like today, lawbreakers are punished.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
And to be CLEAR, nowhere does it state in the bible that the institution of various forms of slavery applies to future events. Since the old testament books state a directive from god, it would be a great travesty to apply standards 2000 years later that are NOT ordered by God. In fact a plain reading of the ministry of Jesus would suffice to see that Jesus never advocated slavery. He actually washed the feet of others, he said everyone was equal MANY TIMES
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Actually, If you believe Jesus existed, Which I don't, then he did support slavery,
but I suppose he did give instructions on what level of beatings to give them.
Luke 12:43-48
HonestMan395 1 year ago
@HonestMan395 Of course Jesus existed. He did mention the two great commandements, the second which would of course make slavery wrong.
I think you have mistaken Luke 12 42-48. In the descriptive language of the day, Jesus was telling us that we are all already slaves. slaves to sin, slaves to obedience of god. He used descriptive language that hebrews could relate to. Many had been slaves, or had slaves or indentured servants.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 "Of course Jesus existed."??
If there really was someone who made as big a splash as Jesus is supposed to have; speaking to large crowds, healing the sick, raising the dead etc. etc, surely that must have created some interest in what was a highly controlled and regulated police state. Yet there is no contemporary writer who was alive DURING Jesus’ supposed life, who even mentions him. Where is the evidence other than the gospels which were written years after his "death"? cont'd.
HonestMan395 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 "I think you have mistaken Luke 12 42-48."
It never ceases to amaze me that this so called infallable word of god always has to be interpreted for our understanding.
The people around at that time were ignorant and superstitious, but I don't think they were stupid. They would know exactly what he meant. If he didn't literally mean slavery, why did the translators not change it to a more palatable form.
As for his parables, they were lifted verbatim from the Essenes. check it out.
HonestMan395 1 year ago
So far we have slaves that become slaves via judgement of god - an example of the wicked being punished
We have slaves that are prisoners, again a state arising out of their unlawful behaviour
And we have voluntary slavery
And we have other passages you cited that demonstrate the regulation of slaves.
And we have a demonstrated evolution of understanding that can be identified from Moses to Jesus.
given those conditions, what is your position?
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
MY personal perspective is that religious understanding evolves-like everything else.
Think of it like an experiment. If a hypotheses doesnt pan out, you can introduce a different hypotheses (or modify the original) and the experiment may succeed.
Just because a hypothesis needs to be re worked DOESNT mean the scientific method itself is flawed.
I will do more research on the historical context to see if I can offer any more.
cheers
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
In fact, Bhutan is the only country to measure the nation's happiness. This country is buddhist, hindu, and others.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
the nation of Butan evaluates their nation by the standard of "gross national happiness" It is a wonderful progressive nation.
are they atheist? Nope.
Buddah and other eastern religions are prominent there.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2
If you could timestamp where he even implied that only atheistic nations can be productive, that would be really helpful. I appear to have missed it.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus 08:14 tooltime states there are (and im parapahrasing) lots of non western nations that acheived great things without the help of religion.
so I merely pointed out a non western nation(butahn) that acheived greatness, possibly the ultimate greatness, and they did it while being religious(and buddah)
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
I read about slavery in a history book, specifically "a peoples history of the united states" by professor howard zinn.
because he recorded slavery in the book, should anyone have to apologize for that book?
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2
the bible doesn't just talk *about* slavery, it promotes it. giving guidelines on who one can enslave, for how long, how to mark them as one's property and how hard you're allowed to beat them. (all but to death)
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus are you saying the bible states or implies that slavery is acceptable in modern times?
or are you saying that because the ancient hebrews and others participated in slavery therefor.....
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2
Implies, certainly. It is not condemned at any point in the bible.
Paul, who really doesn't care for gentiles following Jewish law, also said:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ ~Ephesians 6:5
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. ~1 Timothy 6:1
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus I seeyour point. Im not old testament scholar, but I found several old testament and new explicitly condemning slavery.
"He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death [Exodus 21:16
and in the new testament l timothy 1:9-10 here paul ranks "menstealers" with ungodly, sinners, whoremongers, murderers, and other serious moral failings.
I think your issue really is why wasnt slavery condemned more?
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2
Erm, that appears to be a condemnation of kidnapping.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly"
Leviticus 25:44-46
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus "Luke 4:18 describes Jesus as quoting a passage from Isaiah 61:1-2 which says that "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives.....
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@blackplatypus "It is not condemned at any point in the bible."
Christian theology is based on the ministry of Jesus. So it would seem to me that anything that conflicts with Jesus teaching is attributed to lack of understanding. Did he specifically condemn slavery? No
But he DID say the second great law was love(compassion etc) towards ones fellow man. That would seem to condemn slavery.
He did stop an adulteress from being executed by law.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2
Nice job moving the goalposts there.
"love thy neighbour as thyself" is old testament and that clearly was not in conflict with slavery according to god. Why would it be in the new testament?
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus "Nice job moving" OK since you have an issue with evolution from moses to jesus, lets try this: So far, my research is indicating that slaves were prisoners. Lawbreakers, and prisoners of war. Since every country in the world has prisoners today, why should we assume that slave holders in antiquity were evil?
prisoners are property of the state, slaves property of the state or individual.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2
"OK since you have an issue with evolution from moses to jesus"
no, you were arguing that the old and new testaments do indeed condemn slavery and when I provided contrary verses, you moved the goalposts.
"So far, my research is indicating that slaves were prisoners"
erm... chapter/verse please. If you're just going to make up parts of history that didn't exist, I can claim that the holocaust only happened because jews really DID cause lots and lots of problems in germany.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus "f you're just going to" Im notmaking anything up LOL
it is common knowledge that slaves were spoils of war in antiquity. The jews were involved in many wars.
"prisoners through warfare were compelled to become slaves, and this was seen by the law code of Deuteronomy as a legitimate form of enslavement"
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@blackplatypus "no, you were arguing that the old and new testaments do indeed condemn slavery "
what I said was that in christian theology, JESUS not Moses is the way and truth and life.
In Christian theology, the servant is not greater than the master. Im working on a response you may understand better. Please dont just whine that I move goal posts just because you dont like the answer.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2
Exodus 21:7 "If a man SELLS his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. "
Crime involved?
Male slaves going free is a reference to the 7-year limit on owning MALE JEWS as slaves. (the bible does however go on to outline how to own a male jew forever)
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus •There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2
So, you're saying that gender is completely irrelevant in Christianity? Either you admit this is rhetorical flair or this verse is clearly in conflict with 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 etc etc.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blackplatypus "So, you're saying that gender is completely irrelevant in Christianity?" No Im saying that according to Paul that in Christ there are no slaves.-in the passage I cited. It shows an evolution in theology from the Law of Moses to the ministry of Jesus.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2
I'm arguing that in Numbers 31:18, when the Hebrews are ordered to take the virgins of a tribe they just slaughtered, in Exodus 21:20-21, when we are told how hard we can beat our slaves (not quite to death), in Leviticus 25:44-46 when it clearly says that slaves are PROPERTY, we are clearly not talking about voluntary servitude.
Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall... bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus "I'm arguing that in Numbers 31:18"
IN chapter 25, we realize that the Mideans had encourged jews to worship Baal. They had thus according to christian theology committed a grave sin. Judgment was to be delivered by Moses. Thus the slaves taken were prisoners or spoils of war. Slavery being deemed 'just' by god. It was a righteous punishment delivered upon a wicked people-according to the books of Moses
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2
A righteous punishment?
Right now, I'm encouraging you to worship no god. Are you seriously saying that you are completely morally justified in slaughtering me and taking my sister as a sex slave?
If yes, you're dangerous and you should be locked up. If no, you're being inconsistent.
By the way, you've moved the goalposts again. First the bible doesn't condone slavery, then it's voluntary, now it's punishment of committing the CRIME of having a differing opinion.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus ``you are completely morally justified in`` of course not.
I havent really moved goal posts. I have widened them. The bible regulates slavery that existed at the time, or occurred for previously mentioned reasons, and slavery arose out of judgement . It later on condemns slavery.
I am confident that god will never tell me to kill anyone. Im not a prophet, and rest firmly on the compassion of Jesus.
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2
"The bible regulates slavery that existed at the time"
what you mean it stopped people from beating their slaves to the point where the slaves died that day (if they died a day or two later, no punishment) and stopped people from owning other jews for more than seven years (unless you hammer a spike through their ear)
It's really depressing that your morality is warped to the point where you an consider any of this "good".
once again, chapter/verse where it condemns slavery please
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus are you arguing that voluntary slavery is not a historical fact of antiquity?
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
tooltime: I remember a star trek episode where sulu has an oriental religious artifact in his quarters. so did the communications officer.
I think there was an episode where the enterprise encounters the last greek god or titan.
this doesnt prove anything, except that star trek was hardly devoid of any or all religios connotations
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
we'll see how far your bullshit "logic" gets you when you're burning in hell
athiest scum
buckdich1 1 year ago
@buckdich1
No hell can't burn there.
No heaven can't go there.
No reason I can't live now.
One life don't waste it.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There are things that science can not answer, and science recognize that!
Atheist ignorance is amazing,!!! LOL LOL LOL Progress has been accelerated only in Christianity and there is an explanation for this.
All other culture ended by adopting the European model.
And morality, for European culture comes from Christianity.
Why atheists want to deny history?
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo the "European model" comes from philosophy, and that is largely influenced by the ancient Greeks and other though that has little to do with Christianity. I actually have studied the history of western philosophy, so your not fooling me. this is just so garbage Ravi Zacharias or Dinesh D'Souza told you.
tooltime9901 1 year ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tooltime9901
"actually have studied the history of western philosophy, "
where? on google: P
That was not all., there were two other essential components.
The problem is that atheists deny knowledge, when that knowledge is in conflict with their atheism.
Look for example, the atheistic myths as: "Christianity has brought the `Dark Ages` or "Communists were not TRUE atheist"
I have not seen any atheist on YT, which do not BELIEVEin this stupid myths.
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo "The problem is that atheists deny knowledge, when that knowledge is in conflict with their atheism."
according to whatever the hell you think atheism is.
"Communists were not TRUE atheist"
not one seriously says that, what is said is that they did what they did for reasons other than atheism.
tooltime9901 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tooltime9901
"hat they did what they did for reasons other than atheism."
I am very sorry to disappoint you (to destroy your faith), atheism was one of the reasons.
No I do not found this on a Christian / Muslim / etc site but I am from an ex-communist country and a historian.
Atheism was one of the reasons! not alone, but was one of the reasons!
Yes this means that people were tortured to become atheists!
however this is not the subject of the discussion
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo
"atheism was one of the reasons"
what actual evidence do you have for that?
saying they wanted people to become atheists because of their communist ideology, and saying they did it because they were atheist are different arguments. people were tortured in the name of Christianity as well.
I am not a communist, so I see your point as moot. atheism is not a faith, it is not a religion, and it is not an ideology. if you are too thick get that then I am done talking to you.
tooltime9901 1 year ago 5
@tooltime9901 sorry for this guy , luckily retard people like this are very rare in my country.
It suppose to be 1% atheist but from people I met 3 out of 10 say they don't believe in god anymore,even old people.
The statistics are wrong somehow.
Andy205ro 9 months ago
@VyckRo (Pt1) I've said this once before and i'll say it again. Just how much do you love the Reductio ad Stalinum logical fallacy? You seem to deploy it all the time. Just because Stalin was an atheist does not mean all Modern Day atheists are Stalinists or Communists.
theyounghistorian77 1 year ago
@VyckRo (Pt 2.) Using your own perverted logic VyckRo, One can presume, Because Hitler believed in God, that Christianity leads to Nazism (The Reductio ad Hitlerum) and then use that that type of logic to bash all christians everywhere. No I myself, will not (and do not) do that, because that isnt my logic. It's yours. Stop using it to bash Atheists everywhere.
Oh and btw, I'm an agnostic so your logic fails on me. Got that?
theyounghistorian77 1 year ago
@theyounghistorian77
"(The Reductio ad Hitlerum)" If I had one euro for every time when an atheist sent me such a message!!
Hitler was not Christian, when he came to power was involved in the occult (old German rites ... you know, the symbol of agriculture ministry, the SS, swastika)
And even if it was a "devout Catholic" (he was not) for me an heretic an was
calle!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo (Pt 1) Even if you were right about Hitler, You would Still have to concede that usage of the Reductio (In whatever form) in the way that you use it, is a fallacy. You should have noticed also, That it is not i that uses the Reductio, It is you that uses the reductio. (Cont in pt 2)
theyounghistorian77 1 year ago
@VyckRo (Pt 2) When i used the example of Hitler, I was describing one aspect of the type of Logic that you use all the time. I started that Sentence with a presumption, if you didnt notice. A presumption, Does not necessarily reflect my opinion. My point is that If you accept the Presumption, Then you have to use the same logic VyckRo Uses, To bash all christians. (Cont in pt 3)
theyounghistorian77 1 year ago
@theyounghistorian77
Your argument is based on one man, my argument is based on an entire group "the communists" and theirs doctrine (which include propaganda of atheism).
My argument is also based on the view expressed by some atheists
as determinism. (man = an animal trained how to think; so why would he need a private property, freedom? ... )
Conclusion.
Atheism, generally leads to communism
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo (Pt 3) And if you use the reductio in any form to bash an entire group, Then i condem you. Simple as. You of course VyckRo, Use one varient of the Reductio to bash all atheists, Even though Atheists hold many differing political Opinions, from the Far Right to the Far Left, That seems irrelevant to you, You bash them all. And i'm calling you out for your Illogic
theyounghistorian77 1 year ago
@theyounghistorian77
"In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not
exist, he would at once have become an atheist and a socialist.
For socialism is not merely the labor question, it is before all
things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by
atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without
God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on
earth"
from Fyodor Dostoyevsky
;)
VyckRo 1 year ago
@theyounghistorian77
"Even though Atheists hold many differing political Opinions, from the Far Right to the Far Left, "
There is no "Far Right" atheist. The Far Right includes mysticism there is no "atheist mysticism"
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo (Pt 1) "Hitler was not Christian, when he came to power was involved in the occult ". If the occult is not part and parcel of mysticism, then i do not know what is. When you mentioned "the occult", Did you have Guido von List in Mind? Plus, you also think Hitler was Atheist. Hmmm, "Atheist Mystisism". I'll ponder that. (Cont in Pt2)
theyounghistorian77 1 year ago
@theyounghistorian77
where I said that Hitler was an atheist?
He was not Christian, that's all!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo (pt3) Have you read John Stuart Mill. He was For Free Spech, Womens Rights, freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state control etc. The Things that Communists do not believe in. He was a Atheist too, and i think the overwhelming majority of modern atheists are more in JS Mill's Camp than in Lenins Camp
theyounghistorian77 1 year ago
@theyounghistorian77
John Stuart Mill I only heard of him. He was a man of science and a philosopher(Right?).
For these people it looks good to doubt, but for an ordinary man, atheism raises completely different issues!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo John Stuart Mill was a Liberal Backbench MP in the House of Commons, You can say he was a man of science and all the rest, but his political career is amazing, I do recommend you research it, Yes he converted to socialism later on though
theyounghistorian77 1 year ago
@VyckRo (Pt2) Nice to bring up the Brothers Karamazov, I love that Book, Maybe we should be friends despite our disagreements. Anyways, i would contest that Atheism Generaly leads to Communism, It instead generaly leads towards Liberalism, A different political ideology. (Cont in pt3)
theyounghistorian77 1 year ago
@theyounghistorian77
" the Brothers Karamazov,"
In my country after the fall of communism, a hatred of everything Russian followed.
But in these months, I discovered the beauty of Russian literature, for example the concept of the man that seeks suffering was foreign to me.
VyckRo 1 year ago
@theyounghistorian77
"would contest that Atheism Generaly leads to Communism, "
I really believe in this!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo I'm not surprised you believe in the line of "Atheism Generaly leads to Communism." I live in the UK, and if anyone hasnt noticed, Plenty of East europeans have come here to work and settle, etc. And i count some of them as among my friends, Their stories are pretty amazing.
theyounghistorian77 1 year ago
@VyckRo
WTF. Seriously.
When a socialist dictatorship takes control, the ideological aspect of what is still a dictatorship won't allow competing powers or dictatorships. Religion unchecked becomes by its real underlying objective and nauture, a theocracy. see Iran.
So Communism, a political ideology ousts religion for control.
Atheism is not a belief, it is the non belief in any of the 100's of gods man has created through history. Just believe in one less than you. No proof.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theyounghistorian77
"(The Reductio ad Hitlerum)" If I had one euro for every time when an atheist sent me such a message!!
Hitler was not Christian, when he came to power he was already involved in the occult (old German rites,you know... the symbol of agriculture ministry, the SS, swastika)
And even if it was a "devout Catholic" (he was not) for me an heretic was called
VyckRo 1 year ago
@theyounghistorian77
" I've said this once before and i'll say it again"
„Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism (Lening)
There is not only Stalin or Mao! But the idea itself, that everything bad came from religion, and a world without religion ( without "the exploiting church") would be a better world!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo ba da retardat mai esti
Andy205ro 9 months ago
@tooltime9901 you said poseidon while roman god of sea and ocean is named neptune
MeisterReaper 7 months ago
@MeisterReaper if it is you who madethis video
MeisterReaper 7 months ago
@tooltime9901
You even know, when Greek civilization disappeared? it is just a question
Since Roman civilization was still a copy of the Greek! ( and Greeks were originally)
Ravi Zacharias I heard of him
Dinesh D'Souza who is he?
in fact, Mircea Eliade "told me"
I am authorized to teach you to!
Interested?
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo Christianity has always been the number one road block in scientific advancement. One look at history will tell you this. whenever someone had an idea that challenged the views of the church they were treated with contempt. This can all be found in any history book, no Googling required. Morality existed long before Christianity. Humans knew of such things as kindness and compassion before Christianity. Why do you deny history? Asshat.
shrikechan 1 year ago
@VyckRo
perhaps you should read some history and you would understand.
Christianity as it expanded as the holy roman EMPIRE when conversion failed as it so often did. They used forced conversion and violence.
Religion had its place in that it provided cohesion and developed of economic and bureaucratic institutions. However this was just imposition of colonial empire building under another flag. Religion was and is false just used as an excuse for what they did. Death and Misery.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@VyckRo
Morality is a choice.
Even little children learn right and wrong very early.
Religion and its history is full of horrendous evils and what decent people would consider immoral behavior. The social improvements in western culture particularly in morals, right and wrong, decency has walked hand in hand with the evolution of secular society. Note that many if note most improvements were initially opposed by religion.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
Atheists are dogmatic
VyckRo 1 year ago
one word for brok: Sweden
Key2daUnderground 1 year ago
The Carthaginians invented plantation slavery and it was eagerly taken up by the Romans. The conditions weren't any different than in the south (Chained labor gangs, systematic malnutrition, etc.) You may recall there were three slave revolts because of these conditions, far more serious than anything that happened here.
HConstantine 1 year ago
What about the Roman episode, where the slaves worshiped: "Not the sun up in the sky..[but] the son of god!"
--There were no sun worshipers, in Ancient Rome, Captain.
--What the about Mithraists, Spock, or the cult of Sol Invictus?
HConstantine 1 year ago
Thanks tooltime. Yours is a voice of reason! =)
Tuathalful 2 years ago
heh. nevermind..I luv u tooltime.
ultimategoobah 2 years ago
lol the beginning of this video is hilarious.. what is that from?
ultimategoobah 2 years ago
brock just got served
Snotlingfondler 2 years ago
Brock is not fit to even say Sam Harris' name.
Belloran24 2 years ago
5.51
one person OWNING another? kinda like this whole video? ^^
Ilikenuman 2 years ago 2
oops, tooltime, Star Trek Deep Space 9 did plenty of religious apologism. And had many religious characters. Same with voyager excusing two characters' religions explicitly.
onlyAerik 2 years ago
@onlyAerik
Go watch Starship Troopers 3. While still an amusing science fiction movie, it's religiosity is downright ignorant and revolting.
Nerusai 2 years ago 2
I remember seeing that movie last summer and you're right, there was so damn much religion in it that it litteraly pissed me off
dapanzy 2 years ago
I feel obliged to yell 'Firefly' here. It's a great scifi series you may not yet be aware of :)
Nerusai 2 years ago
Who wrote and produced that episode again?
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
post roddenberry
drabarne 2 years ago
Well said Etimos.
Rockster969 2 years ago
great job...we have to go after the apologists every chance we get!!
Ruby1978 2 years ago 2
Holy shit, that channels really called the "atheist antidote"? lol
MBRHIndustries 2 years ago
The slave ship was called "Amistad".
"Amadeus" was a composer.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
the funny part is that only 3 of the 10 commandments are laws of any kind. Maybe killing, stealing, and bearing false witness are just bad in the first place, and would make it into any morally correct book of laws.
If none of the other 7 commandments are not worthy of becoming laws in our society, why would anyone begin to think that we get our morality from the bible?
boburanus69 2 years ago
If society gets its values from the Bible, then why didn't the founding fathers explicitly bake the 10 commandments into the Constitution?
askegg 2 years ago
The other obvious historical point is that setting up a state that by definition is not under the direct influence of any church allowed western civilization achieve what it has.
preachingsin 2 years ago
Brock scares me.
MaxwellBennett 2 years ago 5
really? I find him funny with that look on his face like he's pass a shit .
cakeisgod1 2 years ago
@MaxwellBennett
I think it's that unflinching gaze... *shiver*
Promenius 1 year ago
Just to say, the interpretation of that Nietzsche quote (and Nietzsche in general) by both atheists and religious folk is one of the most absurd, philosophically simplistic possible. If there is one philosopher that people who don't know their shit should stay away from, it's Nietzsche.
anrchyvk 2 years ago
@ anrchyvk
True. Nietzsche had a tendency to obfuscate his own meanings a lot and say thing in manners to be most provocative. His actual points are buried in his stylistic flourishes.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
You failed to point out how he tries to have it both ways with slavery. It was the Christians who were morally correct in supporting slavery back in the day when it was good, and they were morally correct in ending it as well. He says that slavery (as it was "commanded") isn't inherently wrong, and then takes credit for its eradication.
GBart 2 years ago
Everytime Brock talks, I get this really slimey feeling... ugh...
RagingConflagration 2 years ago
Imaginary jesus approves of beating slaves, even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
Luke 12-
47: And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48: But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
raby760 2 years ago
... this shows that the Gospels of jesus supported slavery, not put an end to it. I would love to put a dent in Brock's head.
raby760 2 years ago
@raby760
Wow, I didn't know parables were considered commands.
You've just changed the face of reading comprehension forever. You should get an award or something.
Here's a virtual cookie.
DawahFilms 2 years ago
wipe out the entire human race? oh, and before i address that, you're a muslim, huh? so you support the oppression of women and the jihad of infidels, such as innocent americans? THOSE muslims? oh right ok ok. and the elimination of the entire human race? no, i think not. just the suppression of religious fanatics who would see the world thrown back to the Dark Ages, such as yourself, quite obviously.
JIMMYguitar07 2 years ago
@JIMMYguitar07
Oh please. More bigoted nonsense coming from your ignorant mouth.
BS. The exact words coming out of your mouth were the very same ideas expressed by Marx and those after him: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.
I'm a Muslim. The majority of us don't want to kill people for no good reason. The majority of us don't oppress women. The majority of us don't go on Jihad for unjust reasons and blow ourselves up.
And the majority of us aren't brainwashed bigots like you that feed off the media
DawahFilms 2 years ago
oh give me a break you herd-minded prick. just like christianity, YOUR holy book contains ridiculous rules and rites that condone the oppression of women, the killing of infidels, and the complete devotion to "Allah". did you hear switzerland just banned minarets in their country? good first step. fuck you and your religion, which is anything BUT peaceful. you're almost as bad as lawley himself.
JIMMYguitar07 2 years ago
brock annoys me,thank you tooltime for making these videos.
1metallica1 2 years ago
i cant stand this assholes stupidity anymore.
PLEASE can anyone in his area who has nothing to lose punch him in the face , its my wish for christmas, pretty please
pissing on him would be a bonus
nekftw 2 years ago
Brock is a fucking idiot
I'm glad there's people like you to call him out on his BS
Archael2 2 years ago 3
Yeah, Brock. Ancient slavery in the biblical past was nothing like the conditions in the US in the antibellum years. The men who enslaved others in the south were CHRISTIANS, you ignorant nitwit! Yikes! And many of the early opponents to slavery were Deists and Atheists, too, Brock. Oh, and it was the early arabs who made science possible as we know it today, Brock. Think ZERO. Go ahead... do an electronic design with ROMAN NUMERALS. Head Bang material, his videos are. Ignorant, he is.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago 4
"Amadeaus' slave ship?" Dude, Mozart had nothing to do with slavery (at least to my knowledge.) Should we assume you meant "Amistad?"
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago 2
"No I dont know what happened the last time he said that, what does that have to do with--
lehman brothers?!"
lol that was good
SCRulerShinoda 2 years ago
I preferred the acting in the "It bounced?!" clip :)
Aaberg123 2 years ago
xD at quoting Nietzsche.
Rossicspwn 2 years ago 2
Exodus 21:20-1
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
Clearly they were injuring their slaves to maintain discipline. Anyways, I remember reading that after a certain amount of time the slave could leave or request to stay, but I cannot find the exact verse at the moment.
PTurchan1 2 years ago 2
Whenever apologists try to argue how slaevery in the bible was different, I'm reminded of that episode of South Park where everyone is describing the Veitnam war as having carnival rides and stuff.....
Hoo boy! being someone else's property must have been fun in biblical times! I bet there were all kinds of slave parties and talent shows.....
Staunts 2 years ago 2
Brocks face makes me wants to punch shit.
coolbeens21 2 years ago 2
Spot on Toolstime!
Paxmax 2 years ago
Very well done.
You can tell in his video he has his blinders on to anything you say though.
I'm afraid it'll be a fruitless conversation but one that will be entertaining at least.
AncientLie 2 years ago
Christian bands rape music that was started by atheist. Marilyn Manson, John Lennon, two very famous musicians, both atheist. Christian bands take the music, and put their spin on it. John Carpenter is a atheist, and he made halloween, the remake of the thing. So Brock...does Marilyn Manson suffer? Did Lennon suffer? Did Carpenter? Did lol Star Trek suffer???
jay666KJ 2 years ago
There's just no need to even try to answer his ridiculous claims. We all know he's talking shit. There's plenty of movies and television shows and albums and so on created by atheists that are good.
Lpoolboy 2 years ago
Well done, once again. You have my respect for even bothering with Brock for one video, let alone a series. I don't think I have the patience to deal with such unrestrained stupidity.
TaylorX04 2 years ago 6
Yes, Peter's rather steadfast in his dissection of this Brock asshole.
I wonder how Brock can do that. How can he sit there while brazenly lying or just making general assertions that are completely hypocritical? Has he even really confessed to his plagiarism?
5i1enc3d 2 years ago 2
Tooltime is absolutely right about slave morality versus master morality. Anyone who's read "genealogy of morals" would understand this. Nietzsche certainly wasn't defending Christianity but rather describing how it might fall apart due to it's own dogmatic brittleness. Brock really is a dishonest fucker.
ethosflux 2 years ago 2
I dunno bout anyone else but i cant trust people who hang guitars on a wall. They usually use it as a tool to get chicks and can't usually play them.
acledmaiden 2 years ago 2
Oh how I love you tooltime. Awesome.
csurrel 2 years ago
5 stars for :45 seconds in... the star trek comments did it for me! :)
lennyhipp 2 years ago
Well, Brock was somewhat correct about Nietzsche. He did say that when Christian faith goes away, so does morality. Not all morality, but CHRISTIAN morality. And thus the need for the creation of NEW values, the infamous "superman" idea of Nietzsche, i.e. "the last man." The idea is to smash the new values, climb over the pit of nihilism, created by the void, and create new systems of value, morals, etc. It's sad that Brock sees everything on such a superficial level.
xx13moons 2 years ago 2
I like how you present yourself, tooltime.
Every time Brock makes a video, it seems to have topics in it that he just read about for the very first time. I seriously doubt this idiot has ever written an essay outside of high school, for he seems to takes everything at face value. Yet another credulous moron pretending to know the creator of the universe, ffs.
FallenAngel0fDoom 2 years ago
Christians like to take credit for cultural achievements which had everything to do with the DIMINISHING of the influence of religion upon western society.
The revival of classical learning, ever growing academic freedom, etc. paved the way to the emergence of the common man as a political constituency in the 19th century. It had everything to do with religion being paid less mind to.
All of this happened in SPITE of Christian authoritarians (whether they wore mitres or crowns.)
KosmicCitizen 2 years ago 2
Oh got, you pwn'd him with star wars.
SymmetricPanda 2 years ago
Brock does not acknowledge the fact that in America both abolitionists and pro-slavery lobbyists used the bible to support their positions.
Maphisto86 2 years ago 2
Please bring up that experimental science came largely from the Muslim world
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
DeflocculatedDentist
Please correct me if I am in error but is it not more factual to say that the ear;y sciences came largely from the Greek and Arab world, in particular in the case of the latter, the region including Baghdad ... and then Islam came along and put an end to all that? The muslim version of the Dark Ages?
draagon66 2 years ago
Very, very correct, except that many of the sciences attributed to the greeks are actually from egypt.
About thirteen hundred years ago, shortly after the birth of Islam, followers of muhammed sought out the scattered scrolls which had been saved centuries earlier after CHRISTIANS burned the great library of Alexandria.
This was due more to the middle eastern tradition of valuing knowledge than to any islamic reverence for the writings. In fact, later muslims followed the christian example.
Etimos 2 years ago 4
@Etimos
Incorrect. While there was an intellectual tradition of the Arabs that was preserved in Islam, Islam was in fact responsible for such a large social, economic, and moral reform, that these traditions were allowed to flourish far more than before.
It was also Islamic theology that opened up the doors to Aristotle's metaphysics, not the previous Arabian pagan tribes.
DawahFilms 2 years ago
"Moral reform" ?!?! To what? murdering homosexuals and apostates? That rape is ok? All of which is perfectly ok and endorsed by Mohammed. Anyway, Persia was the center of human intellectual activity before Islam - from there it all went downhill. This is an observed fact - the golden age of Islam was simply violent barbarians conquering civilized people.
I have no idea what your argument about Aristotle's metaphysics is, but given that metaphysics is drivel - the argument probably is as well.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
Rape is okay? WHere the hell did you get that? Cite one passage from the Qur'an or Sunnah that makes that justified.
The fact that you know little about the Islamic contribution to the Enlightenment by resurrecting Aristotle and destroying the Platonists mentality prevalent in the West at the time is evidence enough that you have no right to be speaking on this issue.
As far as I can see, you know little of Philosophy as well, which disqualifies you even further.
DawahFilms 2 years ago
That's factually incorrect. The modern scientific method stems from the middle-east during the middle-ages. While obviously more inspired by Greek philosophy than the Koran, they were almost exclusively Islamic, as Islam had by then been around for several hundred years.
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
Silly person. You must be working with a laughable definition of "modern scientific method".
Most people regard the modern scientific method as being established following the work of Bacon, Descardes etc. 17th - 18th century. It's no conincidence that this falls in line with the rise of the modern natural sciences.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
Even given that, the breakthroughs of the enlightenment were based off the groundwork of the Islamic Golden Age. Your comment about this time period above goes for EVERY imperial age in history. I don't see why you have such a hard time giving Muslims credit for ever doing anything good. The entire point of my statement was that the groundwork for modern science was based mostly on Arabic work, and had literally nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever.
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
Regardless, who the fuck cares if some of the people who started doing experiments were muslims? There is no reason to give Islam any credit for that, any more than you should credit christianity with modern civilization.
If anything, both superstitions will impede progress due to their vast amounts of false dogmatic assertions about reality.
Gnomefro 2 years ago 3
People that do this (give credit for certain reasons, such as christianity) are the same people that scapegoat other types of people for problems.
Hellsadvocate 2 years ago 2
The reason it matters in this context is that Brock is promoting this 100% incorrect idea that Christianity is somehow responsible for modern science, when experimental science doesn't even come from Western civilization. It seems like everyone misses the point that Brock's promotion of Christianity as a fertile ground for science is false, as the church didn't allow the scientific liberties available in the middle east. I'm don't prefer Islam, I'm just stating facts.
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
Dogmatic Anti-Theists like you were the motivations behind Stalins purges and Mao's slaughters.
Keep up the good work.
DawahFilms 2 years ago
Actually, that has more to do with the failure of authoritarianism (which religion is the original apologist for) than an atheistic or even anti-theist world view.
Concluding that we'd be better off without theistic beliefs (and advocating such a position) is something distinct from the belief that one may coerce people or abuse their consciences.
You need only look at "atheistic" totalitarian states of the 20th century to see they DIDN'T get rid of religion ("cult of the leader.")
KosmicCitizen 2 years ago
@KosmicCitizen
True (except for your last bit about cult of the leader since you're falsely equating cults with religion), but authoritarianism is bred somehow, and it first comes in by way of an ideal.
The Anti-Theists of the 20th century believed that because the Theists were irrational and that they had their own answers to life etc., they were inherently dangerous to the state and those who lived therein.
Thus, they were exterminated.
And this sort of talk sounds a lot like many today.
DawahFilms 2 years ago
DF: "True (except for your last bit about cult of the leader since you're falsely equating cults with religion)"(...)
KC: Religions are cults. I'm using the word "cult" in it's technical sense, and not how mainstream religions use it to describe small/newer sects they don't appreciate.
DF: (...)"but authoritarianism is bred somehow, and it first comes in by way of an ideal."
KC: Such notions of authority have their origin in religion. The state, in it's origins, is religious.
KosmicCitizen 2 years ago
Brock has to be one the smuggiest people on Youtube
jacklibbb 2 years ago 2
You misspelled Harris' name in your description.
SirPwn4lot 2 years ago
Ok, normally i think your boring tool, but it was the way you said "that star trek" and blinked.. I dont know ti was just funnY!
cant1be1original 2 years ago
Brock is the worst kind of idiot.
beerasaurus 2 years ago
he's the kind of idiot where a person who was mentally handicapped would see him as an insult to their intelligence.
Daclunator 2 years ago
The way I'm taking his comments about art is he thinks that art comes from "divine inspiration." Now, sometimes I think that my work flows into my mind from realms removed from our own, but the truth is that my mind is wired in such a way that it allows me to develop stories and compose songs.
And these things are not about the nowhere from which we've come or are going.
nomadsoul 2 years ago
Has Brock attempted to rebut or even merely reply to any of these video's at all?
I must say I haven't noticed any, on any of the video's.
it seems pointless to go to Brock's channel, (unless you're a Brock groupie), any kind of disagreement will get you blocked and the post deleted.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
Atheist Antidote = FAIL FAIL FAIL
atheistkyo 2 years ago 2
Awesome. More arrogant drivel by Blockhead Brock. Next video.
Chuloloc 2 years ago
I hate how jerks like Brock seem to completely forget the various Asian cultures and the amazing things they did!
The Great Wall anyone!? The fact that the ancient Chinese first discovered and created testosterone based pills! I'm sure I could have phrased that better... sounds wiggy... but my point stands!
As a lover of all the worlds history this guy makes me want to vomit in rage. >:(
Otokogoroshi 2 years ago 2
+1 QFT
ArachEye 2 years ago
(continued from previous post) If slavery was antithetical to Christian teaching, Europe should have ended slavery when Christianity was at the height of its power. It is interesting to note that the more secular the European nations became, and the more a separation of Church power and state power became the norm in Europe, as well as criticism of Biblical teaching became more pervasive is when slavery started to be abolished in Europe and America.
alphacause 2 years ago
(continued from previous post) Hence, logically, something OUTSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY brought slavery to an end. More than likely this was the Enlightenment, which was itself induced by certain economic factors. This is not to say that many Christians were not instrumental in the abolition movement. But it was not the doctrines of Christianity that inspired men to liberate their fellow men from bondage(continued).
alphacause 2 years ago 2
i think his "thinking" behind his arguement is that many human rights activists used the new testament to reach out to christian slave owners.
Problem was the slave owners were throwing the old testament straight back at them :P
ArachEye 2 years ago 3
ArachEye, you are right, that the slave owners did cite the Old Testament. Not to mention that Paul implicitly approved of slavery by NOT calling for its abolition, but by asking slaves to be obedient to their masters and for masters to not treat slaves too harshly(Ephesians 6: 5-9). Also Jesus refers to good Christians as taking on the subjugated role in society willingly. So the slave owners not only had the Old Testament, but the New Testament on their side as well (continued).
alphacause 2 years ago
(continued from previous response to ArachEye) It should be noted that the very fact that both sides of the slave argument could cite verses to support their claim underscores the fact that the supposed perfect word of God is NOT perfect. It is contradictory and confuses people. How hard would it be, for an omnipotent God, after all, to just say plainly that "slavery is wrong, and that a person should be free to leave his place of employment without the fear of coercion/death".