Wow, the mighty D'Souza forced into the corner of using "Well that was the Old Testament" and "Out of Context" arguments. Well if the Old testament is irrelevant there goes 80% of the bible. Out of Context? Then by all means D'Souza, tell every christian on earth they're wrong and tell them YOUR context is the right one. Snake Oil Salesman at his finest.
I take issue with D'Souza's analogy of thinking about killing someone, so you will be charged with attempted murder. You cannot be sentenced for thinking about murdering. But you can be charged with plotting to murder because that is a physical action. Intention alone does not hurt people, but the resultant actions are the things we judge, otherwise, we must appease people like Paul Jennings Hill, since his actions, though despicable, were done with the intentions of protecting unborn children.
Can someone "accidentally" kick a dog to death? You cannot compare the action of falling to the action of kicking. What a blurred reality Mr. D'Souza resides in.
Mr. Barker is merely remarking that intentions do not hurt people, but it is their actions and that is how we must judge others. With regards to murder and manslaughter, yes the difference is indeed intention, but intention is only taken into account to properly assess the judged action, not directly because of the intention.
@ardendogma Typical atheist kook Why are you expending so much energy writing a long drawn out assinine post? Your Slothful Induction is meaningless in the scientific as well as the logic arena.
Maybe you should head back over to dawkinsnet for their latest upload, you moron.
D'Souza get a life spoiled brat. blablablabla you just don't know what you are answering to, no logic at all, delusional, changing topics, make no sense, and lack of truth, liar :D caring for his own interest. Simple.
It's like a train wreck; I can't seem to look away from the carnage. Dinesh, democracy does not...does NOT preclude individuals from being 'ruled over.' In a democratic society (which the United States is not) 51% of the population controls the fate of the remaining 49%. Is there a topic in existence of which D'Souza has a solid understanding?
Most of the people posting here are profoundly ignorant of Christianity. For example, they believe slavery as in black people picking cotton is the same as this form of bond servant in New testament; people choosing to be "slaves" so all their needs are taken care of.
Mr. D'Souza, there is a difference in the ACTIONS of slipping and kicking. we are still right to judge people by their actions. Their willful actions and not mere actions that their bodies accidentally perform. Again, total equivocation.
DeSouza is a sad and pathetic apologist for Christianity. His views are so twisted and childish that he should just shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing himself and his family and friends.
@leomcallister9 you should shut your vile mouth - atheism allows you no acountability for your sexual and other perversions - that's what what you really cherish about your devilish beliefs.Now, start frothing at the mouth. lol
@ragna120k I am not RC but atheists love homos and they have overrun that church and made it a den of sin. Your language is to be pitied since you obviously don't know any better.
See christians will take credit for changes in the world even though it wasnt because of christianity that female opression ended, or slavery or in the future the equality of gays, but the people the culture, the people change their minds it just includes christians, so lets remember these times when christians were against gays because in the future they will take credit for giving equal rights to gays as well. It is so ridiculous.It just shows how arrogant christians are.
Dan Barker clearly quotes jesus' sayings on slavery but dinesh d'souza claims @ 3:33 he is using the old testament. It could be he mis heard, but it could be he doesn't want to address the fact his loving saviour agreed with slavery.
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again." (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
D'Souza first lies (or is simply ignorant), as Jesus said these things about Slavery, and then afterward, the dog example is completely and totally flawed. Yes, it is the actions, the deeds that are judged by the law. If you stomp on something to kill it, that's a completely different deed than falling accidentally. Furthermore, a perfect creator should make perfect laws. Flaws like the allowing of slavery either show imperfection or damage the chance of mere existence of the god.
I think Dan is making some progress with Dinesh. Dinesh is arguing faster and faster with fewer and fewer solid points. You can feel his desperation, and you can feel the audience of any semi-reasonable people move more and more to Dan's side. It is so obvious that Dinesh "believes xyz because he believes xyz", and using reason or argument to defend such a thing is patently ridiculous.
Slavery became "imoral" for the christians just when England saw that free workers could be much more profitable by figuring out like customers (which is an alternative word to cattle). It was not beause "Jesus' morality", as Jesus clearly efforted slavery.
Currently the Secular morality is the ONLY that shows WHY slavery is wrong, it goes against the ethics because it causes suffering to the enslaved.
In 1800 years of christianity, not a single christian realized that!
Ad hominem attack by Dinesh at 4:10 he says "why did Barker believe in Christ and preach for SO LONG if he knew that the Christian god condoned slavery?" He is implying that Dan is a hypocrite and a moron. Furthermore, Dinesh is making very few solid philosophical points of his own. He is simply "defending" and creatively interpreting Christian values. Even so, I must say that Dinesh is the most principled Christian apologist that I have seen in a debate such as this.
So Jesus, who tells us to give away our possessions to those poorer than us, believed in slavery. So Jesus believed that owning a person, like you own a possession was right. Not at all, there is no valid question of this.
Atheist blinkering on supposed details out of context is dishonest.
That's again so funny! God gives Christians some laws including those about slavery; and Christianity goes ahead and changes them (allegedly)! Wow! So do Christians disobey their God or what?
I am amazed that Dan Barker could be a pastor for so long and yet have such a poor understanding and exegesis of the Bible. No wonder he became an atheist. Jesus never sanctioned or justified the human institution of slavery. Jesus used the term and image of slavery as a metaphor for how Christians should live their lives in selfless service to others. Christians are called to love and serve others even if doing so requires sacrificing some of their individual rights. Sleight of hand indeed.
@TheEucatastrophy If all that Jesus wanted was to simply teach a lesson about love and service,don't you think that being a perfect god he couid have come up with a better metaphor,one that did not involve an horrendous act instead? Or are you saying that Jesus just wanted to give a moral lesson by using an immoral example?
In a debate, anytime and anywhere, all the parts use real logical schemes( turning out true or sofisms) and tricks. I just got to laugh out loud because some atheist are so "religious" that even when Dinesh makes a really good argument (as in the case of intentions) you all just ignore, but, when Dan uses texts lines without the context, in a way that never the Catholic Church or the great rabins used, you stll give him aplauses. In fact you atheists seems to me like the real religious folks
HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT, YOU IDIOT. JESUS SUPPORTED SLAVERY. JESUS JESUS JESUS. And then he has the audacity to ask 'Did Dan read the Bible?'
Denish is so full of it. Christianities doctrine has not changed. If Christianity has changed it is because of secular ideas and Christianity assimilating those ideas.
Why else would it change? It would have no reason to.
Dan Barker is killing D'Souza. D'Souza arguments are all about "god of the gaps", which has been shown to be a completely failed argument.
Science has never said it had all the answers...if it did...Science would stop!! However, there is a process of investigation based on evidence, repeatable experimentation, and so forth. What does religion offer as evidence? Religion explicitly promotes the idea of NOT QUESTIONING...which is the antithesis of science and logical thought.
Dan gut a gud brane. he just rong. There; I've sung "Camptown Ladies " for all you atheists who really now control our culture. But anyone who is actually paying attention to this debate really knows that Dinesh D'souza has a better brain than poor old Dan.
Wrong again Dan: Jesus spoke about a slave being beaten harder than others NOT AS A STATEMENT OF FACT but as a PARABLE!! Classic atheist error: taking a Scripture outside of its context.
Marcus Aurelius was one of the first to contemplate abolishing slavery, Circumstances made it impossible for him to do it, He instead gave them more legal protections.
The stoics of antiquity were one of the first to question the institution of slavery well before Christians showed up.
Were in the world is Barker getting his sources on God because obviously he is not using the Bible. Slavery did not at all originate from the Christian idea, just because southern churches used poor judgement does not mean that they were influenced by God to make those choices. I have yet to find one time in the Bible that says that slavery was favored by God. The Bible teaches that all men are fallen and in need of a perfect loving savior. Not once in the Bible does God deam one above another.
Oh, great, another dirty trick from this D'souza guy, who comes accross as a lawer trying desperately to defend an obviously guilty mass murderer through manipulation and word bending artistry. Towards the end of this clip, he uses an old magician's trick, he puts two examples (falling and killing a dog vs purposely killing the dog) but in stead of using an anonimous character or one single person for the example, he first uses himself for the "good guy" then uses Dan Barker for the "Bad guy".
This is dirty trick, and one that clergimen use a lot, aimed to go under our radar, but to hit the subconscious, so we create an image in our minds of Barker doing something evil, like purposely stomping on a dog to death, so we will associate him with evil, we will see him as a bad person doing bad things for fun. Also, notice of all things he could've chose, he chose an animal that most people feel very sympathetic towards.
This is a very dirty trick. It is used by hypnotists too, and it works
What the hell is D'Souza talking about! "Slavery desapeared from Europe between the 4th and 10th century"??? What about the times of Christopher Colombus??? What about all the slave trading with Africa??? He also sais that every culture practiced slavery, what the fuck? That's an outright lie! Not that everything else that comes of his mouth isnt but come on, this guy talks nothing but shit!
Christianity is not even practiced anymore. People have utterly rejected the teachings of Jesus. They are absurd and unrealistic. Islam is winning the piety war.
sfrancis928, you think your are practicing Christianity, perhaps. I do not know you so don't be absurd. Christianity, generally speaking, is not practiced because Christians are anything but Christ-like. Prominent Christians like televangelists in America don't give all their possessions away but actually do the opposed. In that sense, I don't think I have EVER met an actual Christian.
I don't think televangelists are the best examples to go by, because you are right, some of them can be hypocritical. But seeing you live in Canada, you might not see many true devoted Christians as I do in the United States. But just because you have never met someone who is true to the word of God, doesn't mean that no one is practicing the teachings of Jesus. I know a lot of people who are selfless and truly live for God. So I wouldn't be so quick to assume things from what you see on TV.
sfrancis928, I think Christianity is still strong today and that many believe in it. However, I meant to say that people really don't follow it. In that sense, they don't buy it. When it comes to religions like Christianity and Budddhism, people do not really PLUNGE into them. Jesus taught an extremely zealous faith where followers had to live an austere life. People may say they believe in it but they wouldn't dare actually follow Jesus into homelessness.
While that is true for many, there are many people who would do this. I think that pretty much all Christians would follow Jesus into homelessness if He personally knocked on their door and asked them to. The thing is, that doesn't normally happen, so people pray to God and ask for their calling. There are missionaries all over the world who have given up EVERYTHING for Jesus. They have gone without question, living in terrible conditions, all to carry out what God has commanded.
sfrancis928, many people will also follow an individual like Jim Jones. That is why "faith" and "blind belief" are the worst standards. Religion preys on peoples vulnerabilities. Faith has led more people into oblivion and confusion.
So slavery was brought here by the Christians and then suddenly after 400 years they decide that maybe they shouldn't be doing this. IT WAS THEIR PROBLEM. It's like being a serial killer and then be accredited as honourable for stopping killing. Wow congratulations Christianity!
According to D'Souza's view, religious suicide bombers are okay, because their intentions are honourable - they are serving God. If they blew themselves and dozens of others up because they were just plain nuts, that would be wrong.
When Jesus talked about subjecting to the authority to your master or cescar or whoever, he wanted his audiences to know that to respect and obey the law of the land..well, probably you could give me a few verses so I could see what context is that verse trying to get the message across..you know one message could mean different thing but by examine and analyzing from the context, you could have known what the message is trying to convey. Have a nice day dude ;)
The good news about all these debates, and I would argue increased scientific understanding, is that non-religious groups in the U.S. are growing and religious groups are shrinking.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
OK....he's wasting his soul to nothing. He was a weak pastor preaching and praising a hollow FAITH! As a christian. I feel devastated of his 19yrs wasted praises. He was even given talents of God of composing and playing beautiful music and yet inside in his heart he serves nothing but a corrupt being.
He's an atheist. He doesn't serve a being. I don't think he was a weak preacher - nobody weak will preach for 19 years and know the bible like Dan does.
You know he was a weak pastor because you were there right? Listening to him all that long ago? Atheists don't "serve" beings, "corrupt" or not. Shows how much you know.
You may be right, however, Denish has more logical explainations of rational things than Dan. I think DB is a RETARD waste preacher who offer his worthless soul to atheism.
Atheism doesn't demand your soul, just that you use your senses to be aware of the world that is on front of you. A belief in any religion is a constant denial of those senses and reality itself.
Using Denish and logical in the same sentence is offensive unless you're talking about his rejection of logic and repeated use of circular arguments.
Yeah, I'll take that debate. Let's put the best of what Christianity has accomplished up against the best of what atheism has accomplished, and the worst of what Christians have done up against the worst of what atheists have done, and see which one looks better.
dinesh thinks an ex-preacher doesn't know what he's talking about? that he is ignorant of his former beliefs?
without even knowing the man, dinesh is prepared to use such unambiguously arrogant categorical statements without providing any arguments from thomas aquinas, st. augustine etc. they interpreted it, they said it, therefore, they are right. he doesn't need to provide any supstance, right?
Huh ? Dinesh said Christianity made slavery outdated. Really? Christian Europeans vigorously traded slaves in No., So. & Central America & the Caribbean. C'tian Americans had to have their rights to slaves forcibly taken away in 1863.
Dinesh says C'tianity viewed everybody as equal? Nonsense. Slavers felt justified to enslave and sell the "inferior" ppl of color and used the Bible to justify their enterprise.
While it is certainly possible that some of the authors of the Bible may have personally viewed women as being inferior, the message of the New Testament clearly establishes the equality of men and women. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28. Jesus elevated the dignity of women. The Romans scoffed at the early church and Christianity for a being a "religion for women" precisely because women were treated as equals.
@hopokuk I don't want to be mean but that is an incredibly stupid and ignorant statement. Women are honored throughout the Bible and are even given leadership roles, both of which were unheard of in its time and culture. I recommend you study how women have been viewed and treated throughout history and actually read the Bible before you make wild and stupid claims.
@rugermeister380 it's true. the midianite women were especially honoured - they got to be taken as the israelites' sex slaves. why don't you read the bible yourself - it's right there in the book of numbers, chapter 31.
Dinesh just messed up huge!! I hope you guys caught it. Barker states earlier that there are moral principles which he defined as context based; situation ,place, and conclusion when asked to define Morality(capital M lol). And 15 minutes later Dinesh uses a context based tale to try to dismantle Barkers Arguments when asked if Actions or Faith are more important.??Why is Dinesh sleeping on the JOB??
Lies...Jesus didn't say some slaves "ought" to be beat more than others. a) slavery in the bible was not as it was in modern days. b) Slavery was documented in the bible & discussed as a relational dicotomy but not authored by God or Jesus in the way we understand slavery to be. There are great theological authors you can read about this theological topic. IF you really wanted to.
why do you have to belive in god to believe in morality? arent the 2 really seperate? do christians do everything jesus said to do and then call themselves righteous or do they just do what they would normally do and call themselves christian? dan barker doesnt worship god but he is a moral person? what other explanation is there than to realize that you dont have to believe in god to have morality
What a joke. i am certain many slaves knew long before christians slave owners figured that slavery is inhumane. I am certain many Africans forced to be slaves done what they could at times to escape. Christians cannot argue on this for shit. No one needs to wait for christians to figure things out to know better.
that was a good point being that his morals have no basis Baker has a theistic moral view because If atheism is true why would one care about someone else's actions unless they happen to you or your kin/family
i believe that many people read the bible and take it as is, but at times we fail to study the social ideologies of that particular time as well as, the political agenda of that time and so on...and i want to know where Jesus says beat a slave harder then the other..he should state the scripture.
Bible literalists...be they believers or atheists trying to discredit the bible...are numbskulls trying desperately to force a round peg in the square hole to suit their own desires. If taken purely literally then NWA sang "Fuck, fuck, fuck....fuck the po-lice." because they want us to have sex with officers of the law. Real bible exegesis involves many disciplines including anthropology, history, critical analysis etc etc. Atheists often rely on no doing any of that.
'Altruism is beneficial to a group of individuals, it builds a stronger group, therefore better chances of survival and replication and therefore morales are an evolutionary trait'.
That's not absolute statement and there's allot of research being done on that. But in any case far better then an appeal to ignorance.
When slaves were freed they were given ample grain, wine, and livestock [Dt 15:12-15]. If a wife was neglected she was automatically freed [Ex 21:10-11]. Gentiles were to be treated and loved the same way as Israelites [Lev 19:33-34]. The list goes on. The problem many have with the Bible is gross misinterpretation. You need to research Bible verses properly, for full understanding.
Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master. The slavery that it did not condemn was indentured servant kind of slavery where people were slaves for a limited time to pay off debts etc. or homeless people who had nothing and agreed to work for someone just to have a place to stay and food to eat. And God always instructed His people to treat their slaves kindly.
How can Dan Barker have been a preacher? He knows nothing of Biblical interpretation and context. Slavery in Biblical times were very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race nationality or the colour of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else.
Sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master. Slavery in the Bible was not the same kind of slavery we think of today.
Killing a slave (who was to be treated as a regular worker and not like cattle according to Lev 25:39-43) was punishable [Ex 21:20], runaway slaves were for all intents and purposes free [Dt 23:15-16], permanently injured slaves were emancipated [Ex 21:26-27], and all slaves were freed anyway after six years of service [Ex 21:2; Dt 15:12] or every 50th year [Lev 25:10,47-54].
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There's a practical reason that Atheists aren't as annoying as Christians: because they don't have anything to be annoying about. In fact, Atheists only have something to talk about if religion exists. It's not for some altruistic need to leave people alone. Atheists try to use science and politics to push their ideals to some extent, ultimately which would affect Christians, so the whole "oh we leave people alone unless Christians force our hand" attitude is dishonest, Dan.
Not at all. There is a clear difference. We all have politics and we all have science
The difference is as an atheist argues politics he does so using reasons and facts and studies amenable to all and sundry
However theists bring into the debate an invisible, as yet evidence devoid entity whos authority they declare ultimate and their mind and wishes they claim they know and that they usurp all others
This is the real dishonesty, not that which you falsely create and assign to Dan
You cannot be charged even be caught of attempted murder - "even though YOU DID NOTHING." You must have done something, but was not able to murder the person.
I find it really funny how D'Souza argues for Christianity with Barker who knows exceedingly more about the Bible that D'Souza. Just goes to show how Christians of today have adapted a "hallmark card" version of Christianity and really do not study the words and scriptures of the bible.
Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived. - Isaac Asimov
Well, its not that,but I can see why you would say that.Barker's experience of Christianity is Pentecostalism,and it can be a very anti-intellectual,emotional,and very literalistic when approaching the Bible.Dinesh is a Roman Catholic,and judging by his debates,his understanding of Christianity takes the works of major Christian theologians and philosophers seriously.
Wrong again Mr. D'Souza. Many other religions discarded slavery for instance the shamanistic Mongols abhorred slavery for a very long time. And D'Souza does not consider the context when considering the pronouncements of other religions only when it comes to Christianity does he want us to do him this courtesy. Funny.
The very fact that interpretation of biblical scripture is so turbulent shows that this book is merely human-made. Jesus said that the 'word of the old prophets' is not be be forgotten.
If we didn't have the Bible, the human race would have progressed much faster
bayerlexan ur an idiot it was those same christians that ended slavery. There are predomninately christians countries that were completely fine with blacks long before america woke up.
If christianity makes people think that all humans are equal, why where blacks only recently, until the 1950's, accepted as human equals , and even then only politically acknowledged. They is still a sizable number of people that think otherwise. Oddly, the most strong opposition is a christian group, the KKK.
The KKK bases their supremacy on their lineage from Cain, or Able, one of them being a jew the other a 'true' christian. They also commonly incorporate the christian flag into their symbology, and use the bible as one of their main texts.
"no opposition to incorporate blacks as human beings so much as a movement to strip them of their political and social influence"
Yes, basically prevent blacks from any ability to say how they want to be treated, seems close enough to denying them as human.
Wow, the mighty D'Souza forced into the corner of using "Well that was the Old Testament" and "Out of Context" arguments. Well if the Old testament is irrelevant there goes 80% of the bible. Out of Context? Then by all means D'Souza, tell every christian on earth they're wrong and tell them YOUR context is the right one. Snake Oil Salesman at his finest.
SirStoicSage 1 day ago
I take issue with D'Souza's analogy of thinking about killing someone, so you will be charged with attempted murder. You cannot be sentenced for thinking about murdering. But you can be charged with plotting to murder because that is a physical action. Intention alone does not hurt people, but the resultant actions are the things we judge, otherwise, we must appease people like Paul Jennings Hill, since his actions, though despicable, were done with the intentions of protecting unborn children.
ardendogma 5 months ago
Can someone "accidentally" kick a dog to death? You cannot compare the action of falling to the action of kicking. What a blurred reality Mr. D'Souza resides in.
Mr. Barker is merely remarking that intentions do not hurt people, but it is their actions and that is how we must judge others. With regards to murder and manslaughter, yes the difference is indeed intention, but intention is only taken into account to properly assess the judged action, not directly because of the intention.
ardendogma 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ardendogma Typical atheist kook Why are you expending so much energy writing a long drawn out assinine post? Your Slothful Induction is meaningless in the scientific as well as the logic arena.
Maybe you should head back over to dawkinsnet for their latest upload, you moron.
Seigu007 3 months ago
Comment removed
Saytahne666 5 months ago
Comment removed
Saytahne666 5 months ago
D'Souza get a life spoiled brat. blablablabla you just don't know what you are answering to, no logic at all, delusional, changing topics, make no sense, and lack of truth, liar :D caring for his own interest. Simple.
blackhole407 6 months ago
Thank you for posting this, tothesource1.
writersblock26 8 months ago
3:30 - 5:00 = Irony at its finest.
Walabinx 9 months ago
these mediators do a terrible job...absolutely terrible...the rules of the debate do not even allow complete answers...
thedagonjones 9 months ago
It's like a train wreck; I can't seem to look away from the carnage. Dinesh, democracy does not...does NOT preclude individuals from being 'ruled over.' In a democratic society (which the United States is not) 51% of the population controls the fate of the remaining 49%. Is there a topic in existence of which D'Souza has a solid understanding?
multard 10 months ago
Ahh, the infamous "dead puppy" defense.
Klynx22 11 months ago
Most of the people posting here are profoundly ignorant of Christianity. For example, they believe slavery as in black people picking cotton is the same as this form of bond servant in New testament; people choosing to be "slaves" so all their needs are taken care of.
chauha 1 year ago
Mr. D'Souza, there is a difference in the ACTIONS of slipping and kicking. we are still right to judge people by their actions. Their willful actions and not mere actions that their bodies accidentally perform. Again, total equivocation.
hardinmichael1981 1 year ago
DeSouza is a sad and pathetic apologist for Christianity. His views are so twisted and childish that he should just shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing himself and his family and friends.
leomcallister9 1 year ago
@leomcallister9 you should shut your vile mouth - atheism allows you no acountability for your sexual and other perversions - that's what what you really cherish about your devilish beliefs.Now, start frothing at the mouth. lol
whiteliketar 1 year ago
@whiteliketar is that why you only fuck altar boys?
ragna120k 11 months ago
@ragna120k I am not RC but atheists love homos and they have overrun that church and made it a den of sin. Your language is to be pitied since you obviously don't know any better.
whiteliketar 11 months ago
@whiteliketar loool. go fuck them altar boys
ragna120k 11 months ago
@ragna120k ha ha i'll lleave that up to you - pervert. lol
whiteliketar 10 months ago
@whiteliketar i'm not a priest like you
ragna120k 10 months ago
@ragna120k I don't believe anyone here is a priest. you might be confused.
whiteliketar 10 months ago
See christians will take credit for changes in the world even though it wasnt because of christianity that female opression ended, or slavery or in the future the equality of gays, but the people the culture, the people change their minds it just includes christians, so lets remember these times when christians were against gays because in the future they will take credit for giving equal rights to gays as well. It is so ridiculous.It just shows how arrogant christians are.
octavoch 1 year ago
Dan Barker clearly quotes jesus' sayings on slavery but dinesh d'souza claims @ 3:33 he is using the old testament. It could be he mis heard, but it could be he doesn't want to address the fact his loving saviour agreed with slavery.
1empathy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again." (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
So how do we interpret this, Dinesh?
cabiediger09 1 year ago
D'Souza also lies about Jefferson's "creator" explanation. John Lock, biach!
FighterDoken 1 year ago
Makes you wonder if D'Souza evan read the bible.
wowamonn 1 year ago 9
@wowamonn His e-book was incomplete, so not very far.
Saytahne666 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wowamonn what, thats it? are you just another post and run troll?
Seigu007 3 months ago
sleight of hand?? it's your bloody book
CheekyVimto08 1 year ago 6
D'Souza first lies (or is simply ignorant), as Jesus said these things about Slavery, and then afterward, the dog example is completely and totally flawed. Yes, it is the actions, the deeds that are judged by the law. If you stomp on something to kill it, that's a completely different deed than falling accidentally. Furthermore, a perfect creator should make perfect laws. Flaws like the allowing of slavery either show imperfection or damage the chance of mere existence of the god.
debatablescientist 1 year ago
wait... what did Dan say that was tken out of context?
Powerslave138 1 year ago
I think Dan is making some progress with Dinesh. Dinesh is arguing faster and faster with fewer and fewer solid points. You can feel his desperation, and you can feel the audience of any semi-reasonable people move more and more to Dan's side. It is so obvious that Dinesh "believes xyz because he believes xyz", and using reason or argument to defend such a thing is patently ridiculous.
greyeyed123 1 year ago
Slavery became "imoral" for the christians just when England saw that free workers could be much more profitable by figuring out like customers (which is an alternative word to cattle). It was not beause "Jesus' morality", as Jesus clearly efforted slavery.
Currently the Secular morality is the ONLY that shows WHY slavery is wrong, it goes against the ethics because it causes suffering to the enslaved.
In 1800 years of christianity, not a single christian realized that!
afterlifeless1 1 year ago 2
Ad hominem attack by Dinesh at 4:10 he says "why did Barker believe in Christ and preach for SO LONG if he knew that the Christian god condoned slavery?" He is implying that Dan is a hypocrite and a moron. Furthermore, Dinesh is making very few solid philosophical points of his own. He is simply "defending" and creatively interpreting Christian values. Even so, I must say that Dinesh is the most principled Christian apologist that I have seen in a debate such as this.
capoman1 1 year ago
God, this Dinesh person is anoying!
DanteD83 1 year ago
So Jesus, who tells us to give away our possessions to those poorer than us, believed in slavery. So Jesus believed that owning a person, like you own a possession was right. Not at all, there is no valid question of this.
Atheist blinkering on supposed details out of context is dishonest.
youdonthavealltheans 1 year ago
That's again so funny! God gives Christians some laws including those about slavery; and Christianity goes ahead and changes them (allegedly)! Wow! So do Christians disobey their God or what?
yegorletoff 1 year ago
Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.
eloexplorer 1 year ago
I am amazed that Dan Barker could be a pastor for so long and yet have such a poor understanding and exegesis of the Bible. No wonder he became an atheist. Jesus never sanctioned or justified the human institution of slavery. Jesus used the term and image of slavery as a metaphor for how Christians should live their lives in selfless service to others. Christians are called to love and serve others even if doing so requires sacrificing some of their individual rights. Sleight of hand indeed.
TheEucatastrophy 1 year ago
@TheEucatastrophy If all that Jesus wanted was to simply teach a lesson about love and service,don't you think that being a perfect god he couid have come up with a better metaphor,one that did not involve an horrendous act instead? Or are you saying that Jesus just wanted to give a moral lesson by using an immoral example?
Luisguitardude 1 year ago 2
Dinesh really says nothing. Its amazing how he can spew out stuff, but not make a useful point for christianity.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
In a debate, anytime and anywhere, all the parts use real logical schemes( turning out true or sofisms) and tricks. I just got to laugh out loud because some atheist are so "religious" that even when Dinesh makes a really good argument (as in the case of intentions) you all just ignore, but, when Dan uses texts lines without the context, in a way that never the Catholic Church or the great rabins used, you stll give him aplauses. In fact you atheists seems to me like the real religious folks
gabrielguitarman 1 year ago
HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT, YOU IDIOT. JESUS SUPPORTED SLAVERY. JESUS JESUS JESUS. And then he has the audacity to ask 'Did Dan read the Bible?'
hymnofashes 1 year ago 3
Lol at the context copout that Dinesh uses.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
dude democracy is not Christian...
pyrobooy 1 year ago
Denish is so full of it. Christianities doctrine has not changed. If Christianity has changed it is because of secular ideas and Christianity assimilating those ideas.
Why else would it change? It would have no reason to.
Animeabe 2 years ago 3
6:50 lol
SoSaCA100 2 years ago
Dan Barker is killing D'Souza. D'Souza arguments are all about "god of the gaps", which has been shown to be a completely failed argument.
Science has never said it had all the answers...if it did...Science would stop!! However, there is a process of investigation based on evidence, repeatable experimentation, and so forth. What does religion offer as evidence? Religion explicitly promotes the idea of NOT QUESTIONING...which is the antithesis of science and logical thought.
TheMasterCylinder 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dan got pwned....he really doesn't know his Bible very well, even as a former pastor....he is really really bad here.
hawklanzs 2 years ago
are you high?
fatmeteor 2 years ago
rolf at his dead dog analogy
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
Dan gut a gud brane. he just rong. There; I've sung "Camptown Ladies " for all you atheists who really now control our culture. But anyone who is actually paying attention to this debate really knows that Dinesh D'souza has a better brain than poor old Dan.
billybagbom 2 years ago
@billybagbom
Bingo.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
atheists have always controlled cultures, they just pretended to believe in the gods of the working class
fatmeteor 2 years ago
fucking lil paki cunt, give them equal rights -- this is what they do
flush80 2 years ago
6:49 Agsnotics? That's a new one. Anyway, they don't need to knock on our doors b/c they're all over TV and the media.
Bujumbura07 2 years ago
Question for Dan: what's the difference between "evil" and "Evil"? Personally I'm more scared of an "Evil" person than an "evil" one. Oooooo, scary.
Bujumbura07 2 years ago
Wrong again Dan: Jesus spoke about a slave being beaten harder than others NOT AS A STATEMENT OF FACT but as a PARABLE!! Classic atheist error: taking a Scripture outside of its context.
Bujumbura07 2 years ago
@Bujumbura07 But Jesus didn't say not to have slaves now did he?
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Marcus Aurelius was one of the first to contemplate abolishing slavery, Circumstances made it impossible for him to do it, He instead gave them more legal protections.
The stoics of antiquity were one of the first to question the institution of slavery well before Christians showed up.
Obasiliasfilosofos 2 years ago
Serfdom and slavery are pretty much the same thing...
chessdawgz 2 years ago
Were in the world is Barker getting his sources on God because obviously he is not using the Bible. Slavery did not at all originate from the Christian idea, just because southern churches used poor judgement does not mean that they were influenced by God to make those choices. I have yet to find one time in the Bible that says that slavery was favored by God. The Bible teaches that all men are fallen and in need of a perfect loving savior. Not once in the Bible does God deam one above another.
EdumacatedSweetness 2 years ago
You're right, it doesn't do it once. It does it many, many times...
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 2 years ago 2
D'Souza: " Tv was created in a cristian dominant country then is Tv invention is obviously bible inspired:
orcodrilo 2 years ago
Dinesh D'Souza is a fucking dumb ass! He does not read his bible.
PitbullD 2 years ago
i fast forwarded the fucking paki, pissin me off
flush80 2 years ago
don't be racist dude. there is no need for that. the paki has a name
PitbullD 2 years ago
Oh, great, another dirty trick from this D'souza guy, who comes accross as a lawer trying desperately to defend an obviously guilty mass murderer through manipulation and word bending artistry. Towards the end of this clip, he uses an old magician's trick, he puts two examples (falling and killing a dog vs purposely killing the dog) but in stead of using an anonimous character or one single person for the example, he first uses himself for the "good guy" then uses Dan Barker for the "Bad guy".
iosuVakerizzo 2 years ago
This is dirty trick, and one that clergimen use a lot, aimed to go under our radar, but to hit the subconscious, so we create an image in our minds of Barker doing something evil, like purposely stomping on a dog to death, so we will associate him with evil, we will see him as a bad person doing bad things for fun. Also, notice of all things he could've chose, he chose an animal that most people feel very sympathetic towards.
This is a very dirty trick. It is used by hypnotists too, and it works
iosuVakerizzo 2 years ago
Thats right D'Souza also forgot to read in his bible in the NEW TESTAMENT that "GOD IS A GOD WHO DOES NOT CHANGE".
Bigturns33 2 years ago 2
What the hell is D'Souza talking about! "Slavery desapeared from Europe between the 4th and 10th century"??? What about the times of Christopher Colombus??? What about all the slave trading with Africa??? He also sais that every culture practiced slavery, what the fuck? That's an outright lie! Not that everything else that comes of his mouth isnt but come on, this guy talks nothing but shit!
iosuVakerizzo 2 years ago
Christianity is not even practiced anymore. People have utterly rejected the teachings of Jesus. They are absurd and unrealistic. Islam is winning the piety war.
buddhasknowbest 2 years ago
So buddhasknowbest,
I practice Christianity. Are you saying I am not real, or I am lying? Your statements are "aburd and unrealistic."
sfrancis928 2 years ago
sfrancis928, you think your are practicing Christianity, perhaps. I do not know you so don't be absurd. Christianity, generally speaking, is not practiced because Christians are anything but Christ-like. Prominent Christians like televangelists in America don't give all their possessions away but actually do the opposed. In that sense, I don't think I have EVER met an actual Christian.
buddhasknowbest 2 years ago
I don't think televangelists are the best examples to go by, because you are right, some of them can be hypocritical. But seeing you live in Canada, you might not see many true devoted Christians as I do in the United States. But just because you have never met someone who is true to the word of God, doesn't mean that no one is practicing the teachings of Jesus. I know a lot of people who are selfless and truly live for God. So I wouldn't be so quick to assume things from what you see on TV.
sfrancis928 2 years ago
sfrancis928, I think Christianity is still strong today and that many believe in it. However, I meant to say that people really don't follow it. In that sense, they don't buy it. When it comes to religions like Christianity and Budddhism, people do not really PLUNGE into them. Jesus taught an extremely zealous faith where followers had to live an austere life. People may say they believe in it but they wouldn't dare actually follow Jesus into homelessness.
buddhasknowbest 2 years ago
While that is true for many, there are many people who would do this. I think that pretty much all Christians would follow Jesus into homelessness if He personally knocked on their door and asked them to. The thing is, that doesn't normally happen, so people pray to God and ask for their calling. There are missionaries all over the world who have given up EVERYTHING for Jesus. They have gone without question, living in terrible conditions, all to carry out what God has commanded.
sfrancis928 2 years ago
sfrancis928, many people will also follow an individual like Jim Jones. That is why "faith" and "blind belief" are the worst standards. Religion preys on peoples vulnerabilities. Faith has led more people into oblivion and confusion.
buddhasknowbest 2 years ago
Haha quote from Batman!
sidiqmk 2 years ago
So slavery was brought here by the Christians and then suddenly after 400 years they decide that maybe they shouldn't be doing this. IT WAS THEIR PROBLEM. It's like being a serial killer and then be accredited as honourable for stopping killing. Wow congratulations Christianity!
vroika 2 years ago 4
According to D'Souza's view, religious suicide bombers are okay, because their intentions are honourable - they are serving God. If they blew themselves and dozens of others up because they were just plain nuts, that would be wrong.
imaccuish 2 years ago
I like how Dinesh completely disregards Jesus himself justifying slavery and then calls Barker's argument a sleight of hand.
araless 2 years ago 29
@araless
context man context
strongyang 11 months ago
@strongyang How so?
araless 11 months ago
@araless
When Jesus talked about subjecting to the authority to your master or cescar or whoever, he wanted his audiences to know that to respect and obey the law of the land..well, probably you could give me a few verses so I could see what context is that verse trying to get the message across..you know one message could mean different thing but by examine and analyzing from the context, you could have known what the message is trying to convey. Have a nice day dude ;)
strongyang 11 months ago
Quoting from Batman? Is that the best Harvard can come up with?
tjonp 2 years ago
Comment removed
ctw005 2 years ago
Dinesh runs back and forth between theism and deism most conveniently.
ScarletandCreme32 2 years ago 4
The good news about all these debates, and I would argue increased scientific understanding, is that non-religious groups in the U.S. are growing and religious groups are shrinking.
thundergunn 2 years ago 4
very telling that dinesh positioned himself as the innocent party in the dog killing incident.
kitsune9t 2 years ago
is just me, or does that microphone on dan barker's tie looks so much like a crucifix?
outrage5 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OK....he's wasting his soul to nothing. He was a weak pastor preaching and praising a hollow FAITH! As a christian. I feel devastated of his 19yrs wasted praises. He was even given talents of God of composing and playing beautiful music and yet inside in his heart he serves nothing but a corrupt being.
milcrube 2 years ago
He's an atheist. He doesn't serve a being. I don't think he was a weak preacher - nobody weak will preach for 19 years and know the bible like Dan does.
sashang0 2 years ago 3
You know he was a weak pastor because you were there right? Listening to him all that long ago? Atheists don't "serve" beings, "corrupt" or not. Shows how much you know.
screen710 2 years ago
What are you talking about?
araless 2 years ago
I would love to play poker with D'Souza. He has interesting body tells when he's bluffing/knows he's full of shit.
jkl0031 2 years ago
You may be right, however, Denish has more logical explainations of rational things than Dan. I think DB is a RETARD waste preacher who offer his worthless soul to atheism.
milcrube 2 years ago
Atheism doesn't demand your soul, just that you use your senses to be aware of the world that is on front of you. A belief in any religion is a constant denial of those senses and reality itself.
Using Denish and logical in the same sentence is offensive unless you're talking about his rejection of logic and repeated use of circular arguments.
jkl0031 2 years ago
Comment removed
CharismaticRecluse 2 years ago
Why don't we judge the progress of religion.
Look at all the bullshit that religions lead to in the world.
hopokuk 2 years ago
Yeah, I'll take that debate. Let's put the best of what Christianity has accomplished up against the best of what atheism has accomplished, and the worst of what Christians have done up against the worst of what atheists have done, and see which one looks better.
billybagbom 2 years ago
atheism has accomplished people keeping themselves to themselves and leading peaceful happy lifes.
hopokuk 2 years ago
I cherry pick the bible in context.
hopokuk 2 years ago 2
dinesh thinks an ex-preacher doesn't know what he's talking about? that he is ignorant of his former beliefs?
without even knowing the man, dinesh is prepared to use such unambiguously arrogant categorical statements without providing any arguments from thomas aquinas, st. augustine etc. they interpreted it, they said it, therefore, they are right. he doesn't need to provide any supstance, right?
dinesh lives in imagination land.
franzpolak 2 years ago 3
Huh ? Dinesh said Christianity made slavery outdated. Really? Christian Europeans vigorously traded slaves in No., So. & Central America & the Caribbean. C'tian Americans had to have their rights to slaves forcibly taken away in 1863.
Dinesh says C'tianity viewed everybody as equal? Nonsense. Slavers felt justified to enslave and sell the "inferior" ppl of color and used the Bible to justify their enterprise.
Turandot29 2 years ago 5
Does any of the Bible consider women to be equal?
No, because it was written by ignorant bigotted men.
hopokuk 2 years ago 18
Exactly, hopokuk.
Turandot29 2 years ago
While it is certainly possible that some of the authors of the Bible may have personally viewed women as being inferior, the message of the New Testament clearly establishes the equality of men and women. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28. Jesus elevated the dignity of women. The Romans scoffed at the early church and Christianity for a being a "religion for women" precisely because women were treated as equals.
TheEucatastrophy 1 year ago
@hopokuk I don't want to be mean but that is an incredibly stupid and ignorant statement. Women are honored throughout the Bible and are even given leadership roles, both of which were unheard of in its time and culture. I recommend you study how women have been viewed and treated throughout history and actually read the Bible before you make wild and stupid claims.
rugermeister380 1 year ago
@rugermeister380 so going back to 2000 year old biblical scripture is a better way than today's more humane standards?
hopokuk 1 year ago
@rugermeister380 it's true. the midianite women were especially honoured - they got to be taken as the israelites' sex slaves. why don't you read the bible yourself - it's right there in the book of numbers, chapter 31.
BozoTheBear 1 year ago
@rugermeister380 LOL
ragna120k 11 months ago
jesus was in the new testament fuckhead
tutorialparadise1 2 years ago
Wow Dinesh really gave it to Dan. There has to be smarter athiests and more formidable opponents for Dinesh, right?
princessdiana71 2 years ago
are you serious?
tutorialparadise1 2 years ago
there are many atheists that could demolish D'souza in an open debate.
jimlovesearth2 2 years ago
Some random atheist with a lisp from the street could demolish D'souza in a debate.
hopokuk 2 years ago
stupid format. barker hits home.
muskier 2 years ago
Dan Barker is a good speaker, Dinesh is a good presenter but this debate format is just stupid.... 2 minute talks, 90 second rebuttals?
Harvard should stick to the standard format.
lordaltay5 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God Bless Dinesh D'Souza!! He's BRILLIANT and he OWNED DAN BARKER who cant put a patch on Mr. D'Souza's rearend!
donmarco67 2 years ago
The dog example was pretty funny. I think between them, they both succeeded in answering the question of intentions vs actions.
JustinHill47 2 years ago
God is a myth and Dinesh got owned on every level.
RedlineMMA 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dinesh owned Barked
saqib09 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
volt,
Dan is now a supposed chemical-onlyite.
No one gets "morals" from carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen atoms.
He's just chemistry.
;-)
---
BACK to the Bible for real answers.
trac4yt 2 years ago
Dinesh just messed up huge!! I hope you guys caught it. Barker states earlier that there are moral principles which he defined as context based; situation ,place, and conclusion when asked to define Morality(capital M lol). And 15 minutes later Dinesh uses a context based tale to try to dismantle Barkers Arguments when asked if Actions or Faith are more important.??Why is Dinesh sleeping on the JOB??
Voltajavi 3 years ago 3
Lies...Jesus didn't say some slaves "ought" to be beat more than others. a) slavery in the bible was not as it was in modern days. b) Slavery was documented in the bible & discussed as a relational dicotomy but not authored by God or Jesus in the way we understand slavery to be. There are great theological authors you can read about this theological topic. IF you really wanted to.
violetember 3 years ago
why do you have to belive in god to believe in morality? arent the 2 really seperate? do christians do everything jesus said to do and then call themselves righteous or do they just do what they would normally do and call themselves christian? dan barker doesnt worship god but he is a moral person? what other explanation is there than to realize that you dont have to believe in god to have morality
wragnar1122 3 years ago
What a joke. i am certain many slaves knew long before christians slave owners figured that slavery is inhumane. I am certain many Africans forced to be slaves done what they could at times to escape. Christians cannot argue on this for shit. No one needs to wait for christians to figure things out to know better.
cjunk351 3 years ago 5
I am sorry but 7:29 ... WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT dinesh
wragnar1122 3 years ago
that was a good point being that his morals have no basis Baker has a theistic moral view because If atheism is true why would one care about someone else's actions unless they happen to you or your kin/family
englishballerco 3 years ago
Humanism.
andrew123987465 3 years ago 3
Why assume people would care about their kin......aren't you assuming innate qualities which your point negates.
emphaticapathy 2 years ago
i believe that many people read the bible and take it as is, but at times we fail to study the social ideologies of that particular time as well as, the political agenda of that time and so on...and i want to know where Jesus says beat a slave harder then the other..he should state the scripture.
CrazyM518 3 years ago
Bible literalists...be they believers or atheists trying to discredit the bible...are numbskulls trying desperately to force a round peg in the square hole to suit their own desires. If taken purely literally then NWA sang "Fuck, fuck, fuck....fuck the po-lice." because they want us to have sex with officers of the law. Real bible exegesis involves many disciplines including anthropology, history, critical analysis etc etc. Atheists often rely on no doing any of that.
wjb67 3 years ago
you can say that again... so many critics do not understand the idea of exegesis it amazing..
murk4heart 3 years ago
There's an easy answer to that
'we don't know'
There's a better easy answer to that
'Altruism is beneficial to a group of individuals, it builds a stronger group, therefore better chances of survival and replication and therefore morales are an evolutionary trait'.
That's not absolute statement and there's allot of research being done on that. But in any case far better then an appeal to ignorance.
BaileysBeads 3 years ago 2
gotquestions . org/Bible-slavery.html
xtrashed 3 years ago
When slaves were freed they were given ample grain, wine, and livestock [Dt 15:12-15]. If a wife was neglected she was automatically freed [Ex 21:10-11]. Gentiles were to be treated and loved the same way as Israelites [Lev 19:33-34]. The list goes on. The problem many have with the Bible is gross misinterpretation. You need to research Bible verses properly, for full understanding.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master. The slavery that it did not condemn was indentured servant kind of slavery where people were slaves for a limited time to pay off debts etc. or homeless people who had nothing and agreed to work for someone just to have a place to stay and food to eat. And God always instructed His people to treat their slaves kindly.
xtrashed 3 years ago
How can Dan Barker have been a preacher? He knows nothing of Biblical interpretation and context. Slavery in Biblical times were very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race nationality or the colour of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Its only the 'interpretation' that keeps a you a christian. Read the bible for what it says.
cjunk351 3 years ago 2
little rich for Dinesh to claim there's been a "sleight of hand"
daveycomet 3 years ago
According to Dinesh the quotes from Jesus on slavery are in OT. What a freaking moron. I thought he has at least read the bible.
GurgleGurgleBlahBlah 3 years ago
WOW! @sshole just tried to justify slavery as presented in the bible!
william629 3 years ago
Sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master. Slavery in the Bible was not the same kind of slavery we think of today.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Killing a slave (who was to be treated as a regular worker and not like cattle according to Lev 25:39-43) was punishable [Ex 21:20], runaway slaves were for all intents and purposes free [Dt 23:15-16], permanently injured slaves were emancipated [Ex 21:26-27], and all slaves were freed anyway after six years of service [Ex 21:2; Dt 15:12] or every 50th year [Lev 25:10,47-54].
xtrashed 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dinesh had sex with both Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter. Euck.
dancinbear7476 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There's a practical reason that Atheists aren't as annoying as Christians: because they don't have anything to be annoying about. In fact, Atheists only have something to talk about if religion exists. It's not for some altruistic need to leave people alone. Atheists try to use science and politics to push their ideals to some extent, ultimately which would affect Christians, so the whole "oh we leave people alone unless Christians force our hand" attitude is dishonest, Dan.
sblxi 3 years ago
Not at all. There is a clear difference. We all have politics and we all have science
The difference is as an atheist argues politics he does so using reasons and facts and studies amenable to all and sundry
However theists bring into the debate an invisible, as yet evidence devoid entity whos authority they declare ultimate and their mind and wishes they claim they know and that they usurp all others
This is the real dishonesty, not that which you falsely create and assign to Dan
irishmauddib 3 years ago
You cannot be charged even be caught of attempted murder - "even though YOU DID NOTHING." You must have done something, but was not able to murder the person.
icemishi 3 years ago
D'Souza is such a slimy, sleazy, sophist. YUCK.
Cotdail 3 years ago 11
dsouza has NO good response to barker.
he calls them snippets? snippets?! sounds so negligible. we dont call the 10 commandments a snippet of the bible.
this is the supposed WORD OF GOD. so god's morals changed? he was for slavery then against it? why DIDNT god say it was outright wrong?
the secular enlightenment thinkers said all men are inherently equal.
jefferson wasnt the most secular. i would said paine was.
ihateneocons 3 years ago 4
Oh... and I suppose the "divine right of kings" never existed. Neither did the Greeks come up with the idea of citizens and democracy.
abhish1313 3 years ago 3
Planning a murder is an action. No person can accidentally plan a murder.
Scientialist 3 years ago
I find it really funny how D'Souza argues for Christianity with Barker who knows exceedingly more about the Bible that D'Souza. Just goes to show how Christians of today have adapted a "hallmark card" version of Christianity and really do not study the words and scriptures of the bible.
Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived. - Isaac Asimov
Agnostichere 3 years ago 7
Well, its not that,but I can see why you would say that.Barker's experience of Christianity is Pentecostalism,and it can be a very anti-intellectual,emotional,and very literalistic when approaching the Bible.Dinesh is a Roman Catholic,and judging by his debates,his understanding of Christianity takes the works of major Christian theologians and philosophers seriously.
TangomanX2008 3 years ago
Wrong again Mr. D'Souza. Many other religions discarded slavery for instance the shamanistic Mongols abhorred slavery for a very long time. And D'Souza does not consider the context when considering the pronouncements of other religions only when it comes to Christianity does he want us to do him this courtesy. Funny.
faizhakim 3 years ago
The very fact that interpretation of biblical scripture is so turbulent shows that this book is merely human-made. Jesus said that the 'word of the old prophets' is not be be forgotten.
If we didn't have the Bible, the human race would have progressed much faster
tommyk77 3 years ago 3
bayerlexan ur an idiot it was those same christians that ended slavery. There are predomninately christians countries that were completely fine with blacks long before america woke up.
barickbonkers 3 years ago
barker pura cizaña !
armandocalderonmx 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm starting to wonder if a debate that Dinesh loses exists??
leftistfools 3 years ago
"I'm starting to wonder if a debate that Dinesh loses exists??"
Strange, I'm starting to wonder if Dinesh is always an idiot in every conversation.
sy1234 3 years ago 6
If christianity makes people think that all humans are equal, why where blacks only recently, until the 1950's, accepted as human equals , and even then only politically acknowledged. They is still a sizable number of people that think otherwise. Oddly, the most strong opposition is a christian group, the KKK.
BayerLexan 3 years ago 2
I'm sorry, did you just say that the KKK is a Christian group and try to pass it off as truth? Where are you getting this idea?
Also, there is no opposition to incorporate blacks as human beings so much as a movement to strip them of their political and social influence.
mbelma6329 3 years ago
The KKK bases their supremacy on their lineage from Cain, or Able, one of them being a jew the other a 'true' christian. They also commonly incorporate the christian flag into their symbology, and use the bible as one of their main texts.
"no opposition to incorporate blacks as human beings so much as a movement to strip them of their political and social influence"
Yes, basically prevent blacks from any ability to say how they want to be treated, seems close enough to denying them as human.
BayerLexan 3 years ago