talk about quote mining- you only used that one snippet and not all the verses before that that list how much each man woman and child of various ages is worth. paying for people to be servants that's slavery. Its sounds to me like you are jsut attack FvR for views. the bible clearly endorses slavery, you're voice sounds like you don't take this seriously at all. just trying to make drama.
@concord327 This was made for a challenge which required the video to be short, so that is my explanation there. However, none of the verses she cited had anything to do with slavery. These verse were within the same context of the tithe.
I would have believed in GOD if I did not know that GOD would not exist without the value of the information to which it's concept is constructed from. For those looking for a deeper meaning to this, consciousness is not without cause
Thus the source of causation is not that which is slave to require cause. It's the substance of existence itself that is the cause of all causation, and the ground state properties and principles of the substance. And in this case it's energy/information as two sides of the same coin. And this would be regardless even if you wanted to argue for an immaterial world, or existence. And that is because information theory can not be circumvented by any means. It's applicable to everything that exists
But we Atheists already know the base principles to all causation. This includes the principles that are required to support the existence of consciousness. These principles are the base principles of both information and energy.
Positive, Negative, and Neutral
There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral; system, phenomenon, adaptation, process, emotion, feeling, moral code, ethic, state, action, reaction, feedback, response, choice, decision, option, ability, or function ect.
But to make the point.. I = reference to all the information that gives I an Identity. And thus a GOD can not create that which itself is required to exist. And that is because consciousness can not exist without information first as a base of inquiry. So the problem is that the more complex and powerful you claim something to be, the more cause it will require to exist!..
However there is a huge fundamental flaw in the religion. Consciousness can not exist without cause, nor could the religion itself. Nor can any being be omnipresent, omniscient, un-limited, uncontained, timeless, boundless, or the container and sustainer of all things as noted in the Fount of Knowledge.. Unless of course you are attempting to worship the entire sum total of all existence as GOD. And that becomes a problem when you try to claim individualism.
I am and Atheist and use to be a Christian and I can agree to the premise of this video in nature. As in, it's not OK for an Atheist to quote mine out of context. However, it's also not ok for theists to cherry pick from it either and self-invent their own context either. Which happens just as often.
I agree, and I think we are all guilty of it from time to time. It's important to recognize when we do, and to try and refrain from doing so. However, it's not any better for the make of this video to create an Ad Hominem out of it. So the ethical and moral relativity is clearly at display here. And that is simply a fundamental flaw of human nature. It's also wrong to say that "everything" she says is unstructured ect. Well, that's not exactly partaking in honest discourse either.
This is how it is in reality. Faith based beliefs will most always be in conflict with empirical beliefs. One doesn't care about facts other than what they want to perceive as fact. The other cares about what can actually be established as fact without the requirement of blind faith. And that really shows the abstract nature of human perception. But to break this up more simply. Theists see existence as evidence of a GOD, and Atheists see existence as evidence to only itself.
@TheJackelantern I think you are making many assumptions about what I believe which are unfounded. I think you are taking a negative stereotype of religion and applying it to me. I am very much against blind faith.
I'm not really doing that.. I'm expressing differences in perception. I'm not actually even addressing you personally on the issue. But stereotyping is not the purpose of my post. It's purpose is to give some perspective of how an Atheist sees things. It doesn't make it entirely correct, or applicable to everyone in general. However, if you believe in a GOD that can't be proven to exist, you very much would have some sort of blind faith.
And believe it or not.. Atheists also have some amount blind faith. But they will change their beliefs should evidence show or prove what they believe in is to be incorrect. At least a honest one will. So don't think blind faith is bad.. It's apart of human nature regardless if you are an Atheist or a Theist. It would be inherently dishonest to suggest otherwise :)
There is no problem with that belief at all. :) The thing I don't like about her video's is that she chooses to attack people's beliefs vs engage in rationally. She loses all her mileage when she does. Honest discourse doesn't come from laughing at people, calling them idiots, or showing one's own radicalism. I may be Atheist, but I am very secular in nature. So I disagree with her approach. :/
Me as an Atheist sees existence itself as the source of everything. And the fundamental substance and rules of existence as the source to all causation. This to which I am obviously apart of.. So my view doesn't require a GOD even if I were to believe in life after death, or a spiritual world. My views are simply different because I apply infinite regress to everything until I can no longer regress. And nothing can not be a literal existing phenomenon, person, place, substance, or thing. :/
@ydyammo One mistake that she decided was worth an entire video. Believe me though, I looked long and hard for something worth pwning and this is the best I could come up with. You can't really critique laughing, but if you have a better example of a video of her's (or anyone's actually) I should pwn, give me a link.
cant be fucked bothering to look up what FvR said...but you are a stupid cunt for defending christianity...the bible demonstrably endorses slavery, genocide, murder, rape all the good stuff that justifiable under your chritian morality.
@SupermarketsRevil First, you need to learn the difference between endorse and accepts. They are two different things. Slavery, is acceptable under Christianity. Genocide, eh I suppose; depends on how you define it and who the people are. Murder, no, Rape, no. The real question is, why do you think these things are not justifiable? From all previous conversations I have had with atheists, their position has been based on a lack of reason Ray Comfort would be jealous of.
@owchywawa Great! A reasoned response to my comment :) I'm happy to see you didn't just go with the the generic 'bible is all good, you interpret it wrong' ...
I understand their is a definite distinction between the bible endorsing and accepting something, and with this in mind we have to judge each specific part of the bible on its merits. That said, how does the bible accepting such acts, as opposed to endorsing, seem any more justifiable?
@SupermarketsRevil Accepting a position is no more justifiable than endorsing one, but stating that the Bible is endorses slavery, for example, suggests that it teaches that we should have slaves. That's my only complaint.
Is that really the case or do you attribute evidence to something else? I mean, there are people who claimed to have spoken to God. That's eye witness testimony, so it's evidence, but I'm sure you think some kind of mental phenomena is a better explanation. Am I correct?
@owchywawa: Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed."...." You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
How does slaves having unwavering respect for their owners bring shame to god's name? - this implies it is god's will that they are slaves, so how is that not endorsement?
@SupermarketsRevil It's not endorsing slavery, it's telling how one should act when in slavery. Joseph was wrongly put into prison in Egypt, but he worked hard and he was rewarded. The Bible certainly was not endorsing the reasons people put him into prison.
@owchywawa On the topic of that specific quote, you didn't answer my question (oops, just noticed a misprint in the question - corrected question below) >
How does slaves not respecting their owners bring shame to god's name? - this implies it is god's will that they are slaves, so how is that not endorsement?
This is but one of many issues I have with immoral deeds found and endorsed in the bible, but we're jumping the gun
The real question is, why believe any of it is the word of some god?
@SupermarketsRevil It does not imply that at all. An endorsement would be something like, own slaves for this pleases the Lord your God. You are reading into it for something it doesn't say.
@owchywawa I disagree. In any case, you will admit that due to the bibles acceptance of slavery, it is foreseeable that people may interpret this as justification for slavery in their own mind, yes?
Also, why should the Bible denounce slavery? If slavery is bad, an omniscient and loving god would have thought to denounce it, not embrace it.
Again, I could criticise the bible verse by verse, but I don't need to. There is ZERO evidence that the bible is the word of some magical sky daddy.
@owchywawa Do you care if there is evidence for a 'god' as described in the Bible, or are you happy to accept it on blind faith?
If you answer the former in the affirmative, I would ask you for a (succinct as possible) explanation of what it is you believe, and why you believe it.
I'm happy to discuss the evidentiary merits if you are - but if science and logic are not a main factor in your decision making, we're gonna have trouble making much progress.
@SupermarketsRevil Given a hypothetical situation where there is no reason to disbelieve and no reason to believe I wouldn't believe. Now, if you just want to focus of evidence (I'm assuming something close to the empirical kind), then I suppose it would be better to believe than disbelieve.
I don't think the comment section is well suited for that type of thing and to be honest I don't have a well thought out defense for that any more than I do for the existence of the Huns.
@owchywawa "I mean, there are people who claimed to have spoken to God. That's eye witness testimony, so it's evidence" Ha..HAHAHA XD..nice one bro..Last night I spoke to a magical flying elephant, isn't that evidence enough for you to believe?
My understanding was that Matthew & John were supposedly eyewitnesses to Jesus (&JohnMark by some accounts). Why are there so few accounts of this guy who according to the bible is the most important man(/god) to have walked the earth?
@SupermarketsRevil You said there is no evidence. You didn't say there is no evidence which is convincing. Now, as for your "magical flying elephant" I don't believe you, but only because I have reasons to doubt that. If I had no reason to doubt that you saw a "magical flying elephant," then I would probably believe you.
Most people were illiterate. The historians at the time would have been from Rome. They wouldn't have notice Jesus. That said, some historians did record his existence.
@owchywawa Extreme claims require significant evidence. A few stories does not good evidence make. Consider the epistemology of historical evidence. A useful indicator is the level(quantity) of evidence for something. There are shit tonnes of evidence for other, far less significant historical figures predating the time Jesus supposedly walked the Earth. Do you really expect me to accept the claims about Jesus based on a couple of stories?
That said, why does the bible not denounce slavery?
@SupermarketsRevil What makes the existence of god an extreme claim and what is "significant evidence?" Jesus wasn't that significant of a figure at the time. What are you expecting as much evidence as there is for a king? Even so, you are just dead wrong. The line of Pharaohs in many cases was only known because of a historian/priest who lived thousands of years after wards. You can't set up an definite requirement for evidence like that.
@owchywawa Wow..just fucking wow. Where do I start. What makes god, a supernatural being, an extreme claim? How about the incredulous characteristics attributed to this hypothetical supernatural being; omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. There is ZERO evidence for anything outside of the natural universe - 'supernatural' remains a fiction idea. FUCK ME bro..ever heard of 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'?
@SupermarketsRevil I'm still confused. it's extreme because there is no evidence for it? So, doesn't that mean everything is an extreme claim before there is evidence for it? Then what's the point of saying that?
"ever heard of 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'?"
Sure I have. Does that mean it's true or that you are properly interpreting the idea?
@owchywawa You are an undergrad, you should understand burden of proof by now. It (a supernatural 'god') is an extreme claim because it goes against our understanding of the universe in so many ways Maybe we're living in a computer simluation like in the matrix - that would actually be less of a leap of faith than an abrahamic god claim - at least a simulation could be designed to be consistent in it's laws.
@SupermarketsRevil Depends on what you mean by burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, but not necessarily on the person making the positive claim as atheists often claim. Everyone should have reasons for their position. That's all.
I don't see any reason to believe that just because it goes beyond our understanding that we should require "extreme evidence" (whatever that is). I think this should be based on a preponderance of evidence.
@owchywawa This is getting old. Last response time. There is no evidence for god - if there was, his existence would be fact, that's why you have faith. You have no evidentiary basis to be religious. In addition to logic & science dictating that I reject your claim due to lack of evidence, logic and science dictates that there is, in all likelihood, no god.
No evidence for something = it isn't true
You say some intelligible things, then you make special pleading fallacies for religion.
@SupermarketsRevil Oddly enough, I reject your claims for similar reasons. You have provided no reason to follow what, according to you, "logic & science" dictate. I have provided one form of evidence, but you rejected it because it isn't significant to convince you. Yet, you have not explained what would be enough to convince you and why. Very often more than one piece of evidence is necessary to be convincing, but if you can't accept one piece of evidence how will you accept many?
@owchywawa "Does that mean it's true or that you are properly interpreting the idea?" Honestly, I'm trying hard to be patient, but your ignorance on the fundamentals of science, logic, epistemology and the acquisition of knowledge strongly suggest you lack to capacity to contribute to any meaningful discussion.
For example, your above statement completely ignores burden of proof. If we acquire knowledge via the scientific method, nothing is to be believed without evidence.
@owchywawa I'm sorry that you appear to have been burdened with accepting a shitload of baseless religious claims that fly in the face of our scientific understanding of the world.
You say you're studying biology, I hope you're ready to choose between faith and intellectual honesty. The more you learn, the more you are going to question your religious beliefs you once had confidence in.
Do you honestly believe you have a rational basis for a belief in a 'god'? - or do you accept its faith?
@SupermarketsRevil Btw, the claim is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and I believe was by Carl Sagan. It's quite a different claim than yours if you think about it.
@owchywawa Jesus wasn't a significant figure? If some bastard is walking around performing 'miracles'; healing the sick, walking on water, not to mention rising from the dead, is that not significant? The crux of this discussion is the evidentiary basis for the bible being anything more than a work of fiction, or elaborate hyperbole.
Stories from a couple of blokes is not very compelling, why is this not obvious to you?
@SupermarketsRevil It's significant, of course, but that doesn't mean he was recognized as a significant figure by the majority of the people at the time. There are people who claim they can and do that today. Do you think historians are recording this in our highly litterate society today and that this information would survive a couple thousand years?
I thought the discussion was about morality in the bible.. but do you not realize that we are discussing evidence?
@SupermarketsRevil "Stories from a couple of blokes is not very compelling,"
What would be compelling? That's what I'm trying to ask you.
"why is this not obvious to you?"
What's obvious to me is that I believe that for which there is more reason to believe in. I have no concept of your seemingly metaphysical requirements for believe until you provide reason. Again, I only deal in reason.
@owchywawa Next - stop moving the friggin goal post!!1! What did I say about historic evidence? Type Ctrl + F (find), find my comment re 'epistemology of historical evidence'. --This is the issue of how we verify historic claims. If there is consistency and an appropriate level of evidence for a given claim it is more likely to be true.
There is simply insufficient evidence to take claims of Jesus' divinity seriously, not to mention the contradictions in what records do exist
@owchywawa An appropriate level of evidence for what? It depends what you are specifically claiming. If there were a much greater number of consistent anecdotes that would go some way to suggest his existence at all. As for proving miracles, good luck, nothing supernatural has ever been observed and proven.
You're completely leaving out verses 3-7, which sets up the circumstance for verse 8. 3-7 is a price guide for slaves. 8 is if you cannot afford this, you bring the slave to the priest to haggle the price.
@MisterSecurity702 Because they are not buying people and there is no work involved. It's called a dedication. It's similar to tithing which is in this same text. In fact, a form of this still caries on today. People today dedicate their children to God. This isn't slavery, but merely a religious ceremony. You would have realized this if you saw that it is not the priest paying, but the person making the vow. If the person making the vow was selling someone, the priest would have paid.
@owchywawa This chapter involves THREE people. 1) The man making payment, 2) The person which the man is buying; and 3) The priest (messanger of God) which the man making payment is negotiating price with. The man is making payment for another person, and negotiating with God through the priest.
@MisterSecurity702 Uh, no. It is written, "If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate persons to the LORD..." This is a dedication to God; not a market for slaves. Later in the chapter it states, "If a man dedicates his house as something holy to the LORD, the priest will judge its quality as good or bad. Whatever value the priest then sets, so it will remain." Do you really think priest were realtors back then? The only way you come up with this idea is from bias; you have not made an argument.
@owchywawa If this is the case, then this chapter of this book is ill-translated, is it not? Based upon what you are saying, a man should dedicate himself to God, noot having someone else do it for him. And if it is an ill-translation, then how can anyone trust it, being an ill-translation?
@MisterSecurity702 Not any more than the house must dedicate itself. People dedicate people to the lord. It's a tradition that caries on to this day, and there is no slavery involved.
She's a very smart girl; attempting to portray her as otherwise only makes you look ignorant. Sure, you're entitled to disagree with her beliefs and follow a religion, but you shouldn't poke at someone for simply laughing in videos...nor should you degrade her for taking something written in a way that's clearly open to interpretation the way she chose. Don't attack her; she's highly intelligent. Attack atheism since ultimately that's what you disagree with.
@raecelestek I don't want to attack anyone personally and I don't think that I did. What I attacked was her style in relation to her username. I was merely pointing out that her name is "FactVsReligion" and in a facts to laughing ratio the laughing strangely scores much higher. That said, I will say that I do not like her. I have a strong distaste for the smug pseudo-intellectual light she puts her self in.
And btw, in this video, I disagreed with her arguments; not with atheism. 0C
skimming and quote mining eh? what about you searching through for a bit of laughing and making a quick attack on her video. did anyone else notice the skip at 0:48? its seems as though you are doing the accusation owchy... you also seem to be accusable of making those useless defenses that are brought up so much.. like "it wasn't slavery, it was servitude..." actually it was slavery, what about the rest of the clip and the bible? i mean, the rest of the bible has got to strike a hit.
"With all the verses on slavery you could have chose." <-- lol Anyway, so justify Exodus 21:20-21 – oh I am not worried. You faithful always find a way. Maybe it was symbolic? I used to tell myself the same lies.
(Part 1) Well, before I can "justify" it, I need to know what why you have a problem with it. Why do you think it is unjust? I think if you look closely at you belief system you'll find that the reason you think it is unjustified is because of your cultural upbringing which holds to this idea that persons do not have a monetary value and also that people should not be owned as property. If this is the case, then why should not people be owned as property nor have a monetary value?
@owchywawa JESUS TITTYFUCKING CHRIST!!1! Did you just ask this bloke "why should not people be owned as property nor have a monetary value?" 0__0
If you have to ask this, I can see why you feel like you need an old book to tell you how to think. It's objectively bad and immoral by any humane and compassionate person's reasoning to 'own' another person as property or to allocate a monetary value to them.
How so? People have a (secular morality and legislation) given right to freedom.
(Part 2) I am not asking this question because of my opinions on the matter, but rather because I need to know how to approach the question, if approaching is even necessary; your position on all of this plays a profound role. For example, if you were a christian I would defend it from a Biblical sense of morality, or on the other extreme, if you believe morality is subjective - meaning that morality is subject to personal issues - then I need not justify the verses to you at all.
The Holy Bible allows rape,murder,pillage,torture,nudity,slavery, and places a value on a person...how masochistic and sadist is that? But on the religious view, Christianity believes in christ, not the old testament, just the new...
@owchywawa uh, theres about 10 verses at least, some nasty ones too. read the bible genius, also i cannot help noticing you not denying the rest? what reason is there for that?
So whenever there's an ugly part of the bible, you have to interpret it yet when you come across a peace and love part, it's a given about what it says? Sounds very hypocritical to me.
Don't try and defend your not so holy book. I was an atheist before I ever read much of the bible but am now one more then ever after reading some of it. In the OT genesis through 1 kings and in the NT Matthew through romans
Leviticus 27:3-8 is about "buying back" someone who has been "dedicated to the Lord" i.e. sold to the temple.
"If you ever want to free someone who has been promised to me, you may do so by paying the following amounts:
(list of prices snipped)
If you have promised to give someone to me and can't afford to pay the full amount for that person's release, you will be taken to a priest, and he will decide how much you can afford."
Please don't call human trafficking a religious ceremony.
@owchywawa I was quoting the Contemporary English Version--but human trafficking is human trafficking--whether or not you choose to call it a "vow" to make it sound like something else. I'm personally sick of listening to modern apologetics coming up with twisted excuses for their macabre religious text and then labeling it "hermeneutics".
But it's not human trafficking, as I already explained. We still have a form of this in christianity. A child is dedicated to the Lord. Do you really think that this means we give children into slavery?
@owchywawa No, you are trying to map modern religious practices on to ancient ones in order to make the ancient practices seem less barbaric. Yes children are "dedicated to the Lord" today, but it doesn't mean the same thing now as it did then. How do we know? **Why would you need to buy your child back after dedicating them to the Lord?** Leviticus 27 makes clear that a person can sell other people to the temple, and further, they may even do so for human sacrifice (Lev 27:29).
"...but it doesn't mean the same thing now as it did then. How do we know?"
You could provide historical evidence. Besides, if it was slavery, they would have something about the person working etc. Plus, according to the scriptures, certain groups were set aside to work for God. Not everyone did this.
@owchywawa unfortunately the only evidence I have to provide is the Bible itself... funny how that's not enough when it is condoning something despicable. Your desire for context extends only as far as it makes your scriptures less offensive. However since the verses specifically mention buying people who have been dedicated, and "ransoming" people, it's clear we aren't just talking about making solemn promises. You can spin it however you like, but you are still spinning it.
@PlasteredDragon It didn't say any of that. All it said is "a special vow to dedicate persons to the LORD by giving equivalent values." Nothing about buying people or "ransoming" people.
@owchywawa Lev 27:29 is not about the death penalty, it's about sacrifice--that which is *completely* dedicated to the Lord is to be sacrificed. Read the damn verses and stop making excuses for them.
"Anything that you completely dedicate to me must be completely destroyed. It cannot be bought back or sold. Every person, animal, and piece of property that you dedicate completely is only for me. In fact, any humans who have been promised to me in this way must be put to death."
@owchywawa BibleGateway(dot)org is a respected bible source featuring many translations including the Contemporary English Translation which I quoted to you. Contemporary English is a perfect choice because it translates what was contemporary Hebrew of its day into something that most closely approximates the meaning of the original Hebrew. Funny how you just assume I'm quoting from some antireligion site since you can't defend your scripture on its own merits. You FAIL.
@PlasteredDragon "Contemporary English is a perfect choice because it translates what was contemporary Hebrew of its day into something that most closely approximates the meaning of the original Hebrew."
From wikipedia:
"While the CEV is sometimes mischaracterized as a revision of the Good News Bible, it is in fact a fresh translation, and designed for a lower reading level than the GNB."
So it's like a version for those who are hard at reading :\
@owchywawa Yes, a FRESH TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL HEBREW. The fact that it is designed for a lower reading level is a GOOD thing. This means left is less to nuance and interpretation--it uses very plain language so the reader does not misunderstand.
This necessarily makes it inconvenient for someone who is spinning the bible to make it sound less barbaric than it is.
Next time you want to complain that someone else isn't interpreting the bible correctly, maybe you should make sure YOU are.
Lev 27:28 'But nothing that a man owns and devotes [l] to the LORD -whether man or animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD.
Lev 27:29 " 'No person devoted to destruction [m] may be ransomed; he must be put to death.
Footnote [m]: The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, **often by totally destroying them**.
Lev 27:28'Nevertheless, (I)anything which a man [a]sets apart to the LORD out of all that he has, of man or animal or of the fields of his own property, shall not be sold or redeemed. Anything devoted to destruction is most holy to the LORD.
Lev 27:29 'No one who may have been set apart among men shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.
@PlasteredDragon You are misinterpreting again. Do you think they sacrificed the fields as well? I am pretty sure it's the person who ransoms the person who is put to death. In any case, put to death is not the same as sacrifice. They sacrificed lambs and doves if the person couldn't afford that, but not humans.
@owchywawa The verses don't talk about sacrificing fields. You really should try reading them before you jump to simply argue the point.
"No one who may have been set apart among men"
This is not speaking of fields or cattle, no **ONE** who may have been set apart **AMONG MEN**--this verse is speaking specifically of human beings, as is made evident in the other translations you've chosen to ignore. Look up the original hebrew word used (cherem) and get back to me when you have.
28Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. 29None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.
That's 4 translations that all say essentially the same thing. Keep lying to yourself owchywawa.
I was thinking the same thing before I ever even saw this video. She DOES laugh in many of her videos. Generally, when she is watching someone elses video. Therefore, she does not feel the need to debunk the person in the video she is watching. She tries to make herself look intelligent, by attaching herself to people like Thunderfart. You know, like those little fish who attach themselves to the big shark. :)
Total fail little girl. Is any wonder that Satan laughs at humans day and night.
He hardly has to do anything to fool humanity. It's as if they were born blind, deaf, and dumb. Sorry, blind, deaf, and dumb people...no offense intended.
Praise Jesus Christ. The salvation of all of humanity. Praise His Father, Our Father, who loves all His children that love and obay Him in return. Praise the Holy Spirit, that guides and protects the elect of God Almighty.
WOW! I just noticed that my previous comment was spammed out, presumably because I expressed less than utter rapture with the loquacious Ms Laura. I guess freedom of expression really DOES simply mean "freedom of expression for opinions I agree with" for some YT denizens, even some who regard themselves as terribly progressive.
@owchywawa Thanks. I appreciate that. But for the record I am sick to the teeth of YT denizens getting personally offended because one does not share their opinion on the relative merits of some other youtuber or their "contribution."
Yeah, after reading that chapter, and the definition of what a vow is (that you presented here), then I have to agree with Laura (aka FactVsReligion) here. From what I can gather people were told by God, through Moses, to come and pay the church for a conditional blessing if they could not afford to make an offering and receive the blessing immediately. For those that could not afford to offer their slaves as a tithe, they would give the church silver instead, according to these values.
This passage doesn't directly relate to slave trading as Laura might have wrongly assumed, but it shows that they did own slaves, and that they could give them to the church as an offering to God.
To me, HUMAN SACRIFICE(murder) is the true meaning that fits best with the context. No matter HOW you interpret this passage, the message is an EXTREMELY immoral one.
Well, first, I think it's clear that FVR wasn't saying they are paying for a blessing for there slaves. She thought the Bible was setting a value at which people buy slaves. That's why she called her video "The Bible Preaches Slavery."
Secondly, I'm sure people dedicated slave, but it could have also family members like how people dedicate babies to the lord today. There was nothing specific for slaves. I, of course, don't deny there was slavery at the time, but the verse isn't preaching it.
Nice response to one of the most egregiously self-absorbed, self-important garglers at the fountain of wisdom on YT. It is lamentable that so many "mega-atheists" on YT seem to have adopted her as their own special little darling.
I disagree. I am a big fan of FvsR... but in this case she messed up ... owchywawa caught her ... showed that she had messed up ... I think this is a clear example of pwnage.
@95TurboSol The Bible is against slavery in many cases, but there are cases in which it is not. I personally don't see a problem with it, but I have a video on that if you want to debate that.
That is why I said it is against specifically chattel slavery. It was not against the exchange of labor for debt. Maidservants had equal rights under the law and in some cases better rights IMO. For example if your master ever punches you and knocks out a tooth you were to go free and be exonerated of all your debt, no matter how much it was. I would have been trying to piss off my master every day in that case! I'd be saying, just try and hit me you pansy, I bet you punch like a little girl! :P
@95TurboSol You have to be joking. The bible says you can beat your slave to a bloody pulp and as long as they live for 2 days after that beating and then die it is perfectly okay. Anyone who makes biblical slavery out to be some sort of walk in the park is a nutter.
Not so, if you killed your manservant then you would be put to death in the mosaic law. If a master injured their manservant (IE the tooth example) They were to be pardoned of all their debt and go free. If I owed you $500K for example and we made a contract and I sold myself as a manservant to work off my debt to you, then if you were ever to punch me and knock one of my teeth I could go free and not pay you back any of the 500,000,00! Far from "perfectly ok" I'd be pissing you off on purpose!
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."
It is fine to beat them to death if they live for a couple of days before dying. The tooth thing is only for Hebrew slaves, it doesn't apply to slaves outside of the culture. Slaves who weren't Jewish tribes were treated much worse.
Well there's nothing special here, these are the laws concerning violence, the law before it concerns two men who get into a fight. If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, 19 if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed."
The law concerning non slaves was the exact same as the law for slaves except that slaves did not get paid while getting well because they were bought when they sold themselves, they were "the masters money" as it says.
Also for clarification these laws were not just for Israelites, they apply to all maid and manservant's, the tooth example does apply here and on top of these laws israelites were commanded to love foreign slaves as themselves, far from mistreating them.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
That's correct, the year of jubilee did not apply to foreigners, it was a cultural thing for israelites. Israelites maid and manservants were free after 7 years if they wanted to end their contract or serve for life if they decided too. for foreigners the contract did not void in 7 years it was indeterminate, they could bought for life depending on debt. They however were not sold by slave traders but by themselves (except for daughters in arranged marriages of course).
It says right there in the verse from Leviticus I posted that the people were buying the slaves FROM their neighbors so where are you getting that they weren't buying from anyone but themselves, that clearly isn't the case.
It makes me a bit uneasy you think the supreme creator of this universe thought it was perfectly fine to beat people until they were almost dead, it makes me even more uneasy you don't see that as mistreatment.
Slave traders were put to death under the law. Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death"
And furthermore the verse does not say buying slaves FROM their neighbors, it says you can purchase from among your neighbors. Lev 25:44 "you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you."
Nowhere in the old testament does it say it is perfectly fine to beat people, those are just weasel words you are inserting. Nor did I or the OT say that's not mistreatment to do so, I agree with the old testament in prescribing we all love our neighbors as ourselves.
What are you taking from it saying that if you beat your slave and they don't immediately die then you get no punishment whatsoever as meaning? The Old Testament says kill your neighbor, God ordered the genocide of many surrounding nations, and then when you kill them to take their virgin daughters and make them your wives. What Old Testament are you reading??
We are rehashing the same thing, if the slave (or non-slave) dies you are punished by death. If they do not die as a result they are punished by the law according to the injury (IE the tooth or eye ect) any permanent injury to another person was punished. In the law concerning violence near the end verse says "but if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, foot for foot, burn for burn, stripe for stripe" And continues with the slave tooth/eye examples.
Where are you getting that it is punishable by death? It doesn't say that anywhere and only a few people have ever asserted that would have been the penalty. It says in Exodus 19 that if the man gets up and is able to walk outside then there will be no punishment, he just has to make sure the person they beat is healed. It isn't an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
It is given in the law concerning violence. In that verse remember it says ""if a man beats his male or female servant so that he dies, he shall surely be punished" But what is that punishment? It is given in the first verse of the law concerning violence. Exodus 21:1 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death"
LoL I missed it...
VyckRo 1 month ago
Read From the same version that she used !!!! Not the edited version for political sympathy !!
vajiraism 3 months ago
talk about quote mining- you only used that one snippet and not all the verses before that that list how much each man woman and child of various ages is worth. paying for people to be servants that's slavery. Its sounds to me like you are jsut attack FvR for views. the bible clearly endorses slavery, you're voice sounds like you don't take this seriously at all. just trying to make drama.
concord327 6 months ago
@concord327 This was made for a challenge which required the video to be short, so that is my explanation there. However, none of the verses she cited had anything to do with slavery. These verse were within the same context of the tithe.
owchywawa 6 months ago
Lol "of all the verses on slavery you could have chose".....yea you kind of just kicked yourself in the face buddy.
coffeeis4loverz 7 months ago
@coffeeis4loverz How so? I'm not denying that the Bible mentions slavery. It was a very culturally relevant topic at the time.
owchywawa 7 months ago
Thus I have a rather good saying:
I would have believed in GOD if I did not know that GOD would not exist without the value of the information to which it's concept is constructed from. For those looking for a deeper meaning to this, consciousness is not without cause
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
Thus the source of causation is not that which is slave to require cause. It's the substance of existence itself that is the cause of all causation, and the ground state properties and principles of the substance. And in this case it's energy/information as two sides of the same coin. And this would be regardless even if you wanted to argue for an immaterial world, or existence. And that is because information theory can not be circumvented by any means. It's applicable to everything that exists
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
But we Atheists already know the base principles to all causation. This includes the principles that are required to support the existence of consciousness. These principles are the base principles of both information and energy.
Positive, Negative, and Neutral
There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral; system, phenomenon, adaptation, process, emotion, feeling, moral code, ethic, state, action, reaction, feedback, response, choice, decision, option, ability, or function ect.
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
But to make the point.. I = reference to all the information that gives I an Identity. And thus a GOD can not create that which itself is required to exist. And that is because consciousness can not exist without information first as a base of inquiry. So the problem is that the more complex and powerful you claim something to be, the more cause it will require to exist!..
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
However there is a huge fundamental flaw in the religion. Consciousness can not exist without cause, nor could the religion itself. Nor can any being be omnipresent, omniscient, un-limited, uncontained, timeless, boundless, or the container and sustainer of all things as noted in the Fount of Knowledge.. Unless of course you are attempting to worship the entire sum total of all existence as GOD. And that becomes a problem when you try to claim individualism.
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
I am and Atheist and use to be a Christian and I can agree to the premise of this video in nature. As in, it's not OK for an Atheist to quote mine out of context. However, it's also not ok for theists to cherry pick from it either and self-invent their own context either. Which happens just as often.
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
@TheJackelantern Of course. Quote mining is wrong in any case.
owchywawa 11 months ago
@owchywawa
I agree, and I think we are all guilty of it from time to time. It's important to recognize when we do, and to try and refrain from doing so. However, it's not any better for the make of this video to create an Ad Hominem out of it. So the ethical and moral relativity is clearly at display here. And that is simply a fundamental flaw of human nature. It's also wrong to say that "everything" she says is unstructured ect. Well, that's not exactly partaking in honest discourse either.
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
@TheJackelantern That's honestly what I think. All of her videos lack any kind of substantive content. This video I replied to is the exception.
owchywawa 11 months ago
This is how it is in reality. Faith based beliefs will most always be in conflict with empirical beliefs. One doesn't care about facts other than what they want to perceive as fact. The other cares about what can actually be established as fact without the requirement of blind faith. And that really shows the abstract nature of human perception. But to break this up more simply. Theists see existence as evidence of a GOD, and Atheists see existence as evidence to only itself.
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
@TheJackelantern I think you are making many assumptions about what I believe which are unfounded. I think you are taking a negative stereotype of religion and applying it to me. I am very much against blind faith.
owchywawa 11 months ago
@owchywawa
I'm not really doing that.. I'm expressing differences in perception. I'm not actually even addressing you personally on the issue. But stereotyping is not the purpose of my post. It's purpose is to give some perspective of how an Atheist sees things. It doesn't make it entirely correct, or applicable to everyone in general. However, if you believe in a GOD that can't be proven to exist, you very much would have some sort of blind faith.
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
@owchywawa
And believe it or not.. Atheists also have some amount blind faith. But they will change their beliefs should evidence show or prove what they believe in is to be incorrect. At least a honest one will. So don't think blind faith is bad.. It's apart of human nature regardless if you are an Atheist or a Theist. It would be inherently dishonest to suggest otherwise :)
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
@TheJackelantern I've interact with many atheists on this channel. Thanks though.
I believe in God because I think there is more reason to believe in him than not. I don't think I know with 100% certainty or anything though.
owchywawa 11 months ago
@owchywawa
There is no problem with that belief at all. :) The thing I don't like about her video's is that she chooses to attack people's beliefs vs engage in rationally. She loses all her mileage when she does. Honest discourse doesn't come from laughing at people, calling them idiots, or showing one's own radicalism. I may be Atheist, but I am very secular in nature. So I disagree with her approach. :/
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
* The thing I don't like about her video's is that she chooses to attack people's beliefs vs engage in them rationally.
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
Me as an Atheist sees existence itself as the source of everything. And the fundamental substance and rules of existence as the source to all causation. This to which I am obviously apart of.. So my view doesn't require a GOD even if I were to believe in life after death, or a spiritual world. My views are simply different because I apply infinite regress to everything until I can no longer regress. And nothing can not be a literal existing phenomenon, person, place, substance, or thing. :/
TheJackelantern 11 months ago
YBAdick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Religious people are so damn stupid...
KittyzKatterz 1 year ago
Wow... you found ONE little mistake.
I hope you didn't cry too bad.
lol...
Hardly a pwnage... Well, unless you're talking self-pwnage... ^_^
ydyammo 1 year ago
@ydyammo One mistake that she decided was worth an entire video. Believe me though, I looked long and hard for something worth pwning and this is the best I could come up with. You can't really critique laughing, but if you have a better example of a video of her's (or anyone's actually) I should pwn, give me a link.
owchywawa 1 year ago
She read from verse 3 -8. Read the whole thing to see the context.
vsh137 1 year ago
@vsh137 It was an entry into a contests and there were time constraints. That said, the whole thing in context doesn't help her case at all.
owchywawa 1 year ago
"Practically nothing she says any argumentative structure. . ."
Or facts! :P
LOL
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94
Exactly like the Bible... ^_^
ydyammo 1 year ago
@ydyammo
Exactly like you!
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil ....right? because science has proven that there ISN'T a God, there can't be one? You're ignorant.
dadog70 1 year ago
cant be fucked bothering to look up what FvR said...but you are a stupid cunt for defending christianity...the bible demonstrably endorses slavery, genocide, murder, rape all the good stuff that justifiable under your chritian morality.
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil First, you need to learn the difference between endorse and accepts. They are two different things. Slavery, is acceptable under Christianity. Genocide, eh I suppose; depends on how you define it and who the people are. Murder, no, Rape, no. The real question is, why do you think these things are not justifiable? From all previous conversations I have had with atheists, their position has been based on a lack of reason Ray Comfort would be jealous of.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Great! A reasoned response to my comment :) I'm happy to see you didn't just go with the the generic 'bible is all good, you interpret it wrong' ...
I understand their is a definite distinction between the bible endorsing and accepting something, and with this in mind we have to judge each specific part of the bible on its merits. That said, how does the bible accepting such acts, as opposed to endorsing, seem any more justifiable?
All this aside, i see no evidence for a 'god'
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil Accepting a position is no more justifiable than endorsing one, but stating that the Bible is endorses slavery, for example, suggests that it teaches that we should have slaves. That's my only complaint.
Is that really the case or do you attribute evidence to something else? I mean, there are people who claimed to have spoken to God. That's eye witness testimony, so it's evidence, but I'm sure you think some kind of mental phenomena is a better explanation. Am I correct?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa: Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed."...." You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
How does slaves having unwavering respect for their owners bring shame to god's name? - this implies it is god's will that they are slaves, so how is that not endorsement?
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil It's not endorsing slavery, it's telling how one should act when in slavery. Joseph was wrongly put into prison in Egypt, but he worked hard and he was rewarded. The Bible certainly was not endorsing the reasons people put him into prison.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa On the topic of that specific quote, you didn't answer my question (oops, just noticed a misprint in the question - corrected question below) >
How does slaves not respecting their owners bring shame to god's name? - this implies it is god's will that they are slaves, so how is that not endorsement?
This is but one of many issues I have with immoral deeds found and endorsed in the bible, but we're jumping the gun
The real question is, why believe any of it is the word of some god?
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil It does not imply that at all. An endorsement would be something like, own slaves for this pleases the Lord your God. You are reading into it for something it doesn't say.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa I disagree. In any case, you will admit that due to the bibles acceptance of slavery, it is foreseeable that people may interpret this as justification for slavery in their own mind, yes?
Also, why should the Bible denounce slavery? If slavery is bad, an omniscient and loving god would have thought to denounce it, not embrace it.
Again, I could criticise the bible verse by verse, but I don't need to. There is ZERO evidence that the bible is the word of some magical sky daddy.
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil If slavery is bad then, yes, I agree.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Do you care if there is evidence for a 'god' as described in the Bible, or are you happy to accept it on blind faith?
If you answer the former in the affirmative, I would ask you for a (succinct as possible) explanation of what it is you believe, and why you believe it.
I'm happy to discuss the evidentiary merits if you are - but if science and logic are not a main factor in your decision making, we're gonna have trouble making much progress.
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil Given a hypothetical situation where there is no reason to disbelieve and no reason to believe I wouldn't believe. Now, if you just want to focus of evidence (I'm assuming something close to the empirical kind), then I suppose it would be better to believe than disbelieve.
I don't think the comment section is well suited for that type of thing and to be honest I don't have a well thought out defense for that any more than I do for the existence of the Huns.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa "I mean, there are people who claimed to have spoken to God. That's eye witness testimony, so it's evidence" Ha..HAHAHA XD..nice one bro..Last night I spoke to a magical flying elephant, isn't that evidence enough for you to believe?
My understanding was that Matthew & John were supposedly eyewitnesses to Jesus (&JohnMark by some accounts). Why are there so few accounts of this guy who according to the bible is the most important man(/god) to have walked the earth?
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil You said there is no evidence. You didn't say there is no evidence which is convincing. Now, as for your "magical flying elephant" I don't believe you, but only because I have reasons to doubt that. If I had no reason to doubt that you saw a "magical flying elephant," then I would probably believe you.
Most people were illiterate. The historians at the time would have been from Rome. They wouldn't have notice Jesus. That said, some historians did record his existence.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Extreme claims require significant evidence. A few stories does not good evidence make. Consider the epistemology of historical evidence. A useful indicator is the level(quantity) of evidence for something. There are shit tonnes of evidence for other, far less significant historical figures predating the time Jesus supposedly walked the Earth. Do you really expect me to accept the claims about Jesus based on a couple of stories?
That said, why does the bible not denounce slavery?
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil What makes the existence of god an extreme claim and what is "significant evidence?" Jesus wasn't that significant of a figure at the time. What are you expecting as much evidence as there is for a king? Even so, you are just dead wrong. The line of Pharaohs in many cases was only known because of a historian/priest who lived thousands of years after wards. You can't set up an definite requirement for evidence like that.
Why would the Bible denounce slavery?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Wow..just fucking wow. Where do I start. What makes god, a supernatural being, an extreme claim? How about the incredulous characteristics attributed to this hypothetical supernatural being; omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. There is ZERO evidence for anything outside of the natural universe - 'supernatural' remains a fiction idea. FUCK ME bro..ever heard of 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'?
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil I'm still confused. it's extreme because there is no evidence for it? So, doesn't that mean everything is an extreme claim before there is evidence for it? Then what's the point of saying that?
"ever heard of 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'?"
Sure I have. Does that mean it's true or that you are properly interpreting the idea?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa You are an undergrad, you should understand burden of proof by now. It (a supernatural 'god') is an extreme claim because it goes against our understanding of the universe in so many ways Maybe we're living in a computer simluation like in the matrix - that would actually be less of a leap of faith than an abrahamic god claim - at least a simulation could be designed to be consistent in it's laws.
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil Depends on what you mean by burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, but not necessarily on the person making the positive claim as atheists often claim. Everyone should have reasons for their position. That's all.
I don't see any reason to believe that just because it goes beyond our understanding that we should require "extreme evidence" (whatever that is). I think this should be based on a preponderance of evidence.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa This is getting old. Last response time. There is no evidence for god - if there was, his existence would be fact, that's why you have faith. You have no evidentiary basis to be religious. In addition to logic & science dictating that I reject your claim due to lack of evidence, logic and science dictates that there is, in all likelihood, no god.
No evidence for something = it isn't true
You say some intelligible things, then you make special pleading fallacies for religion.
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil Oddly enough, I reject your claims for similar reasons. You have provided no reason to follow what, according to you, "logic & science" dictate. I have provided one form of evidence, but you rejected it because it isn't significant to convince you. Yet, you have not explained what would be enough to convince you and why. Very often more than one piece of evidence is necessary to be convincing, but if you can't accept one piece of evidence how will you accept many?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa "Does that mean it's true or that you are properly interpreting the idea?" Honestly, I'm trying hard to be patient, but your ignorance on the fundamentals of science, logic, epistemology and the acquisition of knowledge strongly suggest you lack to capacity to contribute to any meaningful discussion.
For example, your above statement completely ignores burden of proof. If we acquire knowledge via the scientific method, nothing is to be believed without evidence.
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@owchywawa I'm sorry that you appear to have been burdened with accepting a shitload of baseless religious claims that fly in the face of our scientific understanding of the world.
You say you're studying biology, I hope you're ready to choose between faith and intellectual honesty. The more you learn, the more you are going to question your religious beliefs you once had confidence in.
Do you honestly believe you have a rational basis for a belief in a 'god'? - or do you accept its faith?
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil Btw, the claim is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and I believe was by Carl Sagan. It's quite a different claim than yours if you think about it.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Jesus wasn't a significant figure? If some bastard is walking around performing 'miracles'; healing the sick, walking on water, not to mention rising from the dead, is that not significant? The crux of this discussion is the evidentiary basis for the bible being anything more than a work of fiction, or elaborate hyperbole.
Stories from a couple of blokes is not very compelling, why is this not obvious to you?
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil It's significant, of course, but that doesn't mean he was recognized as a significant figure by the majority of the people at the time. There are people who claim they can and do that today. Do you think historians are recording this in our highly litterate society today and that this information would survive a couple thousand years?
I thought the discussion was about morality in the bible.. but do you not realize that we are discussing evidence?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil "Stories from a couple of blokes is not very compelling,"
What would be compelling? That's what I'm trying to ask you.
"why is this not obvious to you?"
What's obvious to me is that I believe that for which there is more reason to believe in. I have no concept of your seemingly metaphysical requirements for believe until you provide reason. Again, I only deal in reason.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Next - stop moving the friggin goal post!!1! What did I say about historic evidence? Type Ctrl + F (find), find my comment re 'epistemology of historical evidence'. --This is the issue of how we verify historic claims. If there is consistency and an appropriate level of evidence for a given claim it is more likely to be true.
There is simply insufficient evidence to take claims of Jesus' divinity seriously, not to mention the contradictions in what records do exist
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil What is "an appropriate level of evidence" and why should anyone take your "goal post" seriously?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa An appropriate level of evidence for what? It depends what you are specifically claiming. If there were a much greater number of consistent anecdotes that would go some way to suggest his existence at all. As for proving miracles, good luck, nothing supernatural has ever been observed and proven.
What've you got?
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@owchywawa What, the goal post the is evidence and logic? So you have no evidence of creationism, so you bag science? Nice
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
I just spent a long time reading the comments below. Fascinating. Now I will subscribe to owchywawa.
eldorado61guy 1 year ago
owchywawa, she is still logical and cute and you are still a delusional ass wipe. See nothing changed. Now go wipe your self with your book.
06simit 1 year ago
You're completely leaving out verses 3-7, which sets up the circumstance for verse 8. 3-7 is a price guide for slaves. 8 is if you cannot afford this, you bring the slave to the priest to haggle the price.
MisterSecurity702 1 year ago
@MisterSecurity702 Please explain how this is speaking of slaves because, as far as I am concerned, they are not.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Explicitly stating the prices to buy people. How is this not speaking of slaves?
MisterSecurity702 1 year ago
@MisterSecurity702 Because they are not buying people and there is no work involved. It's called a dedication. It's similar to tithing which is in this same text. In fact, a form of this still caries on today. People today dedicate their children to God. This isn't slavery, but merely a religious ceremony. You would have realized this if you saw that it is not the priest paying, but the person making the vow. If the person making the vow was selling someone, the priest would have paid.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa This chapter involves THREE people. 1) The man making payment, 2) The person which the man is buying; and 3) The priest (messanger of God) which the man making payment is negotiating price with. The man is making payment for another person, and negotiating with God through the priest.
MisterSecurity702 1 year ago
@MisterSecurity702 Uh, no. It is written, "If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate persons to the LORD..." This is a dedication to God; not a market for slaves. Later in the chapter it states, "If a man dedicates his house as something holy to the LORD, the priest will judge its quality as good or bad. Whatever value the priest then sets, so it will remain." Do you really think priest were realtors back then? The only way you come up with this idea is from bias; you have not made an argument.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa If this is the case, then this chapter of this book is ill-translated, is it not? Based upon what you are saying, a man should dedicate himself to God, noot having someone else do it for him. And if it is an ill-translation, then how can anyone trust it, being an ill-translation?
MisterSecurity702 1 year ago
@MisterSecurity702 Not any more than the house must dedicate itself. People dedicate people to the lord. It's a tradition that caries on to this day, and there is no slavery involved.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Yes, because a house is alive and sentient and psychological and physically and intellectually able to dedicate itself. Yeah, sure.
MisterSecurity702 1 year ago
She's a very smart girl; attempting to portray her as otherwise only makes you look ignorant. Sure, you're entitled to disagree with her beliefs and follow a religion, but you shouldn't poke at someone for simply laughing in videos...nor should you degrade her for taking something written in a way that's clearly open to interpretation the way she chose. Don't attack her; she's highly intelligent. Attack atheism since ultimately that's what you disagree with.
raecelestek 1 year ago
@raecelestek I don't want to attack anyone personally and I don't think that I did. What I attacked was her style in relation to her username. I was merely pointing out that her name is "FactVsReligion" and in a facts to laughing ratio the laughing strangely scores much higher. That said, I will say that I do not like her. I have a strong distaste for the smug pseudo-intellectual light she puts her self in.
And btw, in this video, I disagreed with her arguments; not with atheism. 0C
owchywawa 1 year ago
skimming and quote mining eh? what about you searching through for a bit of laughing and making a quick attack on her video. did anyone else notice the skip at 0:48? its seems as though you are doing the accusation owchy... you also seem to be accusable of making those useless defenses that are brought up so much.. like "it wasn't slavery, it was servitude..." actually it was slavery, what about the rest of the clip and the bible? i mean, the rest of the bible has got to strike a hit.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner I entered into a 90 second competition, so yes I had to skip some, but the part I cut out doesn't lend anything to her argument.
I am not making that argument. In fact, I said: with all the verses on slavery you could have chose you chose this one? (or something to that effect)
owchywawa 1 year ago
"With all the verses on slavery you could have chose." <-- lol Anyway, so justify Exodus 21:20-21 – oh I am not worried. You faithful always find a way. Maybe it was symbolic? I used to tell myself the same lies.
Justanothershell 1 year ago
(Part 1) Well, before I can "justify" it, I need to know what why you have a problem with it. Why do you think it is unjust? I think if you look closely at you belief system you'll find that the reason you think it is unjustified is because of your cultural upbringing which holds to this idea that persons do not have a monetary value and also that people should not be owned as property. If this is the case, then why should not people be owned as property nor have a monetary value?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa JESUS TITTYFUCKING CHRIST!!1! Did you just ask this bloke "why should not people be owned as property nor have a monetary value?" 0__0
If you have to ask this, I can see why you feel like you need an old book to tell you how to think. It's objectively bad and immoral by any humane and compassionate person's reasoning to 'own' another person as property or to allocate a monetary value to them.
How so? People have a (secular morality and legislation) given right to freedom.
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
(Part 2) I am not asking this question because of my opinions on the matter, but rather because I need to know how to approach the question, if approaching is even necessary; your position on all of this plays a profound role. For example, if you were a christian I would defend it from a Biblical sense of morality, or on the other extreme, if you believe morality is subjective - meaning that morality is subject to personal issues - then I need not justify the verses to you at all.
owchywawa 1 year ago
The Holy Bible allows rape,murder,pillage,torture,nudity,slavery, and places a value on a person...how masochistic and sadist is that? But on the religious view, Christianity believes in christ, not the old testament, just the new...
MapleStoryTutorials 1 year ago
@MapleStoryTutorials Just a question: What part of the Bible allows rape?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa uh, theres about 10 verses at least, some nasty ones too. read the bible genius, also i cannot help noticing you not denying the rest? what reason is there for that?
daemonowner 1 year ago
Comment removed
daemonowner 1 year ago
So whenever there's an ugly part of the bible, you have to interpret it yet when you come across a peace and love part, it's a given about what it says? Sounds very hypocritical to me.
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
@MasterAdam100 What? I don't have to "interpret" (what ever you mean by that) this passage. It's obvious.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa -Then you will have to admit that slavery in the bible is very obvious and even encouraged.
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
@MasterAdam100 Never denied it. I have a video where I clearly admit slavery is in the Bible.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa
Lets just cut this short... are you saying that your "holy" book does NOT condone slavery?
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus "Lets just cut this short... are you saying that your "holy" book does NOT condone slavery?"
No...why would I say that?
owchywawa 1 year ago
Don't try and defend your not so holy book. I was an atheist before I ever read much of the bible but am now one more then ever after reading some of it. In the OT genesis through 1 kings and in the NT Matthew through romans
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Leviticus 27:3-8 is about "buying back" someone who has been "dedicated to the Lord" i.e. sold to the temple.
"If you ever want to free someone who has been promised to me, you may do so by paying the following amounts:
(list of prices snipped)
If you have promised to give someone to me and can't afford to pay the full amount for that person's release, you will be taken to a priest, and he will decide how much you can afford."
Please don't call human trafficking a religious ceremony.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon What version are you reading? lol No wonder you think God is a monster. :P
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa I was quoting the Contemporary English Version--but human trafficking is human trafficking--whether or not you choose to call it a "vow" to make it sound like something else. I'm personally sick of listening to modern apologetics coming up with twisted excuses for their macabre religious text and then labeling it "hermeneutics".
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon "but human trafficking is human trafficking"
But it's not human trafficking, as I already explained. We still have a form of this in christianity. A child is dedicated to the Lord. Do you really think that this means we give children into slavery?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa No, you are trying to map modern religious practices on to ancient ones in order to make the ancient practices seem less barbaric. Yes children are "dedicated to the Lord" today, but it doesn't mean the same thing now as it did then. How do we know? **Why would you need to buy your child back after dedicating them to the Lord?** Leviticus 27 makes clear that a person can sell other people to the temple, and further, they may even do so for human sacrifice (Lev 27:29).
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
"...but it doesn't mean the same thing now as it did then. How do we know?"
You could provide historical evidence. Besides, if it was slavery, they would have something about the person working etc. Plus, according to the scriptures, certain groups were set aside to work for God. Not everyone did this.
"they may even do so for human sacrifice"
The death penalty is not human sacrifice.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa unfortunately the only evidence I have to provide is the Bible itself... funny how that's not enough when it is condoning something despicable. Your desire for context extends only as far as it makes your scriptures less offensive. However since the verses specifically mention buying people who have been dedicated, and "ransoming" people, it's clear we aren't just talking about making solemn promises. You can spin it however you like, but you are still spinning it.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon It didn't say any of that. All it said is "a special vow to dedicate persons to the LORD by giving equivalent values." Nothing about buying people or "ransoming" people.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Lev 27:29 is not about the death penalty, it's about sacrifice--that which is *completely* dedicated to the Lord is to be sacrificed. Read the damn verses and stop making excuses for them.
"Anything that you completely dedicate to me must be completely destroyed. It cannot be bought back or sold. Every person, animal, and piece of property that you dedicate completely is only for me. In fact, any humans who have been promised to me in this way must be put to death."
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon Dude, stop quoting from a anti-religion(dot)net and use a real bible.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa BibleGateway(dot)org is a respected bible source featuring many translations including the Contemporary English Translation which I quoted to you. Contemporary English is a perfect choice because it translates what was contemporary Hebrew of its day into something that most closely approximates the meaning of the original Hebrew. Funny how you just assume I'm quoting from some antireligion site since you can't defend your scripture on its own merits. You FAIL.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon "Contemporary English is a perfect choice because it translates what was contemporary Hebrew of its day into something that most closely approximates the meaning of the original Hebrew."
From wikipedia:
"While the CEV is sometimes mischaracterized as a revision of the Good News Bible, it is in fact a fresh translation, and designed for a lower reading level than the GNB."
So it's like a version for those who are hard at reading :\
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Yes, a FRESH TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL HEBREW. The fact that it is designed for a lower reading level is a GOOD thing. This means left is less to nuance and interpretation--it uses very plain language so the reader does not misunderstand.
This necessarily makes it inconvenient for someone who is spinning the bible to make it sound less barbaric than it is.
Next time you want to complain that someone else isn't interpreting the bible correctly, maybe you should make sure YOU are.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon The problem is that it is not word-for-word. From gotquestions(dot)org/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV(dot)html
"...it goes more toward dynamic equivalence and less toward formal equivalence, the CEV sometimes goes astray, interpreting rather than translating."
It is best to stick with word-for-word translations when we are interpreting what the originals actually say.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa You were shown other translations. Cherry picking doesn't add veracity to your argument.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@owchywawa New International Version:
Lev 27:28 'But nothing that a man owns and devotes [l] to the LORD -whether man or animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD.
Lev 27:29 " 'No person devoted to destruction [m] may be ransomed; he must be put to death.
Footnote [m]: The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, **often by totally destroying them**.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@owchywawa New American Standard Bible:
Lev 27:28'Nevertheless, (I)anything which a man [a]sets apart to the LORD out of all that he has, of man or animal or of the fields of his own property, shall not be sold or redeemed. Anything devoted to destruction is most holy to the LORD.
Lev 27:29 'No one who may have been set apart among men shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon You are misinterpreting again. Do you think they sacrificed the fields as well? I am pretty sure it's the person who ransoms the person who is put to death. In any case, put to death is not the same as sacrifice. They sacrificed lambs and doves if the person couldn't afford that, but not humans.
owchywawa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owchywawa The verses don't talk about sacrificing fields. You really should try reading them before you jump to simply argue the point.
"No one who may have been set apart among men"
This is not speaking of fields or cattle, no **ONE** who may have been set apart **AMONG MEN**--this verse is speaking specifically of human beings, as is made evident in the other translations you've chosen to ignore. Look up the original hebrew word used (cherem) and get back to me when you have.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@owchywawa King James Version:
28Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. 29None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.
That's 4 translations that all say essentially the same thing. Keep lying to yourself owchywawa.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
I was thinking the same thing before I ever even saw this video. She DOES laugh in many of her videos. Generally, when she is watching someone elses video. Therefore, she does not feel the need to debunk the person in the video she is watching. She tries to make herself look intelligent, by attaching herself to people like Thunderfart. You know, like those little fish who attach themselves to the big shark. :)
AWorldExposure 1 year ago
Total fail little girl. Is any wonder that Satan laughs at humans day and night.
He hardly has to do anything to fool humanity. It's as if they were born blind, deaf, and dumb. Sorry, blind, deaf, and dumb people...no offense intended.
Praise Jesus Christ. The salvation of all of humanity. Praise His Father, Our Father, who loves all His children that love and obay Him in return. Praise the Holy Spirit, that guides and protects the elect of God Almighty.
MrRedPajamas 1 year ago
You are right. This is just before the bit about offering a beast as a sacrifice... a strange god is Yahweh.
Gorteenminogue 1 year ago
@Gorteenminogue What do you mean? Lots of gods require sacrifices :\
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Yep, there are lots of strange gods.
Gorteenminogue 1 year ago
Must be the lack of meat that made her fail ;)
veers0r 1 year ago
WOW! I just noticed that my previous comment was spammed out, presumably because I expressed less than utter rapture with the loquacious Ms Laura. I guess freedom of expression really DOES simply mean "freedom of expression for opinions I agree with" for some YT denizens, even some who regard themselves as terribly progressive.
RHYMEMAIDEN1 1 year ago
@RHYMEMAIDEN1 For the record, I pushed not spam :P
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Thanks. I appreciate that. But for the record I am sick to the teeth of YT denizens getting personally offended because one does not share their opinion on the relative merits of some other youtuber or their "contribution."
RHYMEMAIDEN1 1 year ago
Yeah, after reading that chapter, and the definition of what a vow is (that you presented here), then I have to agree with Laura (aka FactVsReligion) here. From what I can gather people were told by God, through Moses, to come and pay the church for a conditional blessing if they could not afford to make an offering and receive the blessing immediately. For those that could not afford to offer their slaves as a tithe, they would give the church silver instead, according to these values.
NoeLPZC 1 year ago
@NoeLPZC (cont)
This passage doesn't directly relate to slave trading as Laura might have wrongly assumed, but it shows that they did own slaves, and that they could give them to the church as an offering to God.
NoeLPZC 1 year ago
Oh, I didn't see your continue, but yeah, I essentially agree with you.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@NoeLPZC
". . . as an offering to God."
To me, HUMAN SACRIFICE(murder) is the true meaning that fits best with the context. No matter HOW you interpret this passage, the message is an EXTREMELY immoral one.
lotanddaughters 1 year ago
@lotanddaughters What? No. Not HUMAN SACRIFICE. Just slave labour.
NoeLPZC 1 year ago
Well, first, I think it's clear that FVR wasn't saying they are paying for a blessing for there slaves. She thought the Bible was setting a value at which people buy slaves. That's why she called her video "The Bible Preaches Slavery."
Secondly, I'm sure people dedicated slave, but it could have also family members like how people dedicate babies to the lord today. There was nothing specific for slaves. I, of course, don't deny there was slavery at the time, but the verse isn't preaching it.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa
If YOU are a Christian, then YOU are pre-pwned before you even enter the ring. Christians are FOOLS.
lotanddaughters 1 year ago
fair point
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
Nice response to one of the most egregiously self-absorbed, self-important garglers at the fountain of wisdom on YT. It is lamentable that so many "mega-atheists" on YT seem to have adopted her as their own special little darling.
RHYMEMAIDEN1 1 year ago
Comment removed
RHYMEMAIDEN1 1 year ago
This is good.
ClickPanic 1 year ago
Wow. Success. Against last year's winner, no less.
grits011 1 year ago
Nice one. PWNED
Good luck!
themanofearth 1 year ago
Nice job, thumbs up.
SnowWalkerOne 1 year ago
It appears she did misinterpret, but I'm not sure it's significant enough to chalk up as pwnage.
segankuz 1 year ago
@segankuz
I disagree. I am a big fan of FvsR... but in this case she messed up ... owchywawa caught her ... showed that she had messed up ... I think this is a clear example of pwnage.
NYCAustinNYC 1 year ago
I kind of agree with you, FvsR is ok but I'm not really sure how she has gotten as many subs or become as popular as she has
noelplum99 1 year ago
You're correct. However, it does seem a bit moot since the bible clearly endorses slavery elsewhere.
hugesinker 1 year ago
@hugesinker Well, not quite endorse I would say, but it's clearly not against it.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa
It is clearly against chattel slavery, including slave trading. In fact a master killing his maidservant was punishable by death in the law.
95TurboSol 1 year ago
@95TurboSol The Bible is against slavery in many cases, but there are cases in which it is not. I personally don't see a problem with it, but I have a video on that if you want to debate that.
owchywawa 1 year ago
That is why I said it is against specifically chattel slavery. It was not against the exchange of labor for debt. Maidservants had equal rights under the law and in some cases better rights IMO. For example if your master ever punches you and knocks out a tooth you were to go free and be exonerated of all your debt, no matter how much it was. I would have been trying to piss off my master every day in that case! I'd be saying, just try and hit me you pansy, I bet you punch like a little girl! :P
95TurboSol 1 year ago
@95TurboSol Ah, then we agree on something for once :P
owchywawa 1 year ago
@95TurboSol You have to be joking. The bible says you can beat your slave to a bloody pulp and as long as they live for 2 days after that beating and then die it is perfectly okay. Anyone who makes biblical slavery out to be some sort of walk in the park is a nutter.
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
Not so, if you killed your manservant then you would be put to death in the mosaic law. If a master injured their manservant (IE the tooth example) They were to be pardoned of all their debt and go free. If I owed you $500K for example and we made a contract and I sold myself as a manservant to work off my debt to you, then if you were ever to punch me and knock one of my teeth I could go free and not pay you back any of the 500,000,00! Far from "perfectly ok" I'd be pissing you off on purpose!
95TurboSol 1 year ago
@95TurboSol
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."
—Exodus 21:20-21
It is fine to beat them to death if they live for a couple of days before dying. The tooth thing is only for Hebrew slaves, it doesn't apply to slaves outside of the culture. Slaves who weren't Jewish tribes were treated much worse.
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
Well there's nothing special here, these are the laws concerning violence, the law before it concerns two men who get into a fight. If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, 19 if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed."
95TurboSol 1 year ago
The law concerning non slaves was the exact same as the law for slaves except that slaves did not get paid while getting well because they were bought when they sold themselves, they were "the masters money" as it says.
Also for clarification these laws were not just for Israelites, they apply to all maid and manservant's, the tooth example does apply here and on top of these laws israelites were commanded to love foreign slaves as themselves, far from mistreating them.
95TurboSol 1 year ago
@95TurboSol
-Leviticus 25:44-46
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
@adrenacrumb
That's correct, the year of jubilee did not apply to foreigners, it was a cultural thing for israelites. Israelites maid and manservants were free after 7 years if they wanted to end their contract or serve for life if they decided too. for foreigners the contract did not void in 7 years it was indeterminate, they could bought for life depending on debt. They however were not sold by slave traders but by themselves (except for daughters in arranged marriages of course).
95TurboSol 1 year ago
@95TurboSol
It says right there in the verse from Leviticus I posted that the people were buying the slaves FROM their neighbors so where are you getting that they weren't buying from anyone but themselves, that clearly isn't the case.
It makes me a bit uneasy you think the supreme creator of this universe thought it was perfectly fine to beat people until they were almost dead, it makes me even more uneasy you don't see that as mistreatment.
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
Slave traders were put to death under the law. Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death"
And furthermore the verse does not say buying slaves FROM their neighbors, it says you can purchase from among your neighbors. Lev 25:44 "you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you."
95TurboSol 1 year ago
Nowhere in the old testament does it say it is perfectly fine to beat people, those are just weasel words you are inserting. Nor did I or the OT say that's not mistreatment to do so, I agree with the old testament in prescribing we all love our neighbors as ourselves.
95TurboSol 1 year ago
@95TurboSol
What are you taking from it saying that if you beat your slave and they don't immediately die then you get no punishment whatsoever as meaning? The Old Testament says kill your neighbor, God ordered the genocide of many surrounding nations, and then when you kill them to take their virgin daughters and make them your wives. What Old Testament are you reading??
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
We are rehashing the same thing, if the slave (or non-slave) dies you are punished by death. If they do not die as a result they are punished by the law according to the injury (IE the tooth or eye ect) any permanent injury to another person was punished. In the law concerning violence near the end verse says "but if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, foot for foot, burn for burn, stripe for stripe" And continues with the slave tooth/eye examples.
95TurboSol 1 year ago
@95TurboSol
Where are you getting that it is punishable by death? It doesn't say that anywhere and only a few people have ever asserted that would have been the penalty. It says in Exodus 19 that if the man gets up and is able to walk outside then there will be no punishment, he just has to make sure the person they beat is healed. It isn't an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
@adrenacrumb
It is given in the law concerning violence. In that verse remember it says ""if a man beats his male or female servant so that he dies, he shall surely be punished" But what is that punishment? It is given in the first verse of the law concerning violence. Exodus 21:1 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death"
95TurboSol 1 year ago
Typo, That is in Exodus 21:12*
95TurboSol 1 y