It does seem to me that there are some things within religious scripture that do need to be taken seriously and do need to be taken essentially at face value. That is some of the very specific legalistic commandments of the Old Testament, for example, or the Hebrew Bible, I should say. These are not when people list these and say that these are potentially morally problematic and may have done something towards hindering, for example, like I mentioned earlier, the abolition of slavery in the United States. Of course, there was a great deal of religious influence on both sides, as which is something that I've already mentioned. But don't you think that this problem could have been solved a lot more easily if there had been a stronger religious tradition of opposition to the ownership of other human beings? Why can't that have been the case? Okay, because scripture quite explicitly condones it and, in fact, gives you the details of how to do it. That's something that couldn't have been done, in other words, because you tell to

this moral principle that's placed outside of uh of meaningful debate. Before we move on, can I ask where are we getting these buttons from? Are they from Amazon? You know that you press one and everyone a this wonderful thing available on the market that I think you both need to use uh in in in this conversation, which is Imagination. Oh right, so let's H. So as far as why didn't the Bible prescribe the perfect world as I would see it or as you might see it, and the answer is because two two reasons. One, as stated right up top, I'm not God. I assume he has different logic than I do. Two, the Bible is in an inherently problematic position in the sense that on the one hand it's trying to divulge important truths for all time, at the same time it's talking to a people of a particular time. Yes, and this is this is a well-worn tradition inside Judaism. So to take the slavery example, there is no mandate to hold slaves in the Bible, right? There are lots of

mandates in the Bible, many, many mandates. There's 613 of them according to my religion, right? That's why I do all these weird things that I do, um, but one of those mandates is not to hold slaves, right? And so the idea of there was a society that existed at the time of the Bible in which slaveholding was not only ubiquitous, it was universal, and which was true for virtually all of human history, that's right, and could be justified not just in terms of religious scripture but in terms of Aristotelian thought, right? I mean, the great philosophers we like to cite in the, in sometimes in the secular tradition are big fans of slavery, and that's true virtually up until the 18th century, yes. So the idea would be is this verse attempting to woo people away from a tradition of slavery or to humanize the slaves, or is it attempting to reinforce that by making it harsher and more difficult? And that's why I actually, one of the things I enjoy doing in terms of how

I study the Bible, for example. I like to look at contemporaneous religious texts of the time, so I like to study the Bible alongside, for example, Hammurabi's Code. It's really interesting to notice the differences and where the Bible is liberalizing Hammurabi's Code, for example. And so, the idea that a divine revelation has to be given to human beings who are capable of following that in the time, again, that's part of the difficulty of, I think, rebutting religion in a certain sense because, again, it seems wiggly, but it really isn't in the sense that if you believe, as I do, in a God who spoke to human beings in some form or fashion and has to speak to them on a level that they can understand, in ways they can understand, then that immediately is going to discount the ability to do a lot of very radical things that would have appeared radical in 1,000 BC but now appear to be commonplace for

us yes I understand this argument, and I've heard it many times. I must say that it seems strange to me that God does seem willing to completely and utterly condemn a bunch of other practices, including, by the way, imaginary crimes like witchcraft, just done away with entirely. And even if it is the case that God, for some reason, couldn't just say, couldn't even hint at the idea that maybe eventually we should be moving towards the abolition of the idea of owning human beings as private property, he just... I still think it's the case that he would not permit a flat immorality, and I think you would agree with that too. And so when I open the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible, and when I look at the texts saying that you... if you lay siege to a city, you can kill... if the Lord delivers it into your hand, you can kill the men and the women, but keep... or you can kill the men and keep the women and the children and the...

and the livestock as plunder, as Deuteronomy says. And, uh, in the very next verse, uh, sorry, the very next chapter, says that, you know, if, um, if you see a good-looking woman, and I'm not interjecting that if somebody finds an attractive woman, yes, if is the actual Hebrew, then they can take them for themselves. And if they want them as their wives, and they take them home, they shave their head, they cut off their fingernails, they give them 30 days to mourn their old husband, who you may very well have just killed, and then you can take them as your wife. When Numbers 31 has Moses instruct the slaughter of the Midianites, saying kill all the men, and this time the women get killed too, but not the women who haven't slept with a man. And why might that be? And it says that, you know, keep them for yourselves. And I hear all the time that this is some kind of liberalizing

process maybe it's because you know these people wouldn't survive on their own. It's some kind of protective measure to make sure that you're looking after them. If that's the case, then why does it only apply to the virgins? That seems a little bit suspect to me. You know, in its sort of scriptures littered with these kinds of well, again, so to go back to the sort of oral tradition nature, I don't think God would permit a proactive immorality, even if he can't for some reason abolish the practice altogether, if you see what I'm saying. The well, no, that last point I don't see. So the when you say even if he can't abolish the practice altogether, well, which I think to right. So the question is whether he can or whether he can't. If he can't abolish the practice, then the idea of wooing people away from a particular type of sin through a gradualistic process

is known throughout societies across human history. I mean, the gradualistic processes are the way that most things get done across human history. And by the way, the universal practice, unfortunately, up till today in many places in the world, is in fact the extreme version of what you're talking about—raise everything, kill everyone, that sort of stuff. Unfortunately, does take place even on planet Earth, even in the year 2023. And so, the idea of a culture arising from the Bible that not only abolishes slavery on its own shores but then abolishes slavery literally everywhere else, which is what Great Britain did, that again to separate that off from a tradition that also says that every human being is made in the image of God, right? Which the verse from Genesis or that you have to treat the stranger well, right? Which is repeated more than any injunction in the Bible, right? There are these traditions that are at war with each other inside the Bible, which is why there is this hotly fought kind of argument inside biblical circles about all this.

stuff, which again is one of the reasons why I said right up top that when it gets to I can't just open the Bible and interpret the text as I would see fit. I don't like this verse right here, contradictory. What was that? You say that scripture is contradictory? Well, I say that some scripture is time-bound, and some scripture is not. So, the easy one, the sort of easy way to distinguish, is that when the Bible says not to do a thing, then that tends to be non-time-bound. And when it says to do a thing, and when it says to do a thing, that may be a temporary permission structure, but it could also be a warning. And by the way, again, I'm not speaking out of turn here. This has been 1500 years of Jewish reinterpretation of a... To take a quick example, right, that sorry, the war bride, that like that, the long-standing Talmudic tradition, which again is almost 2,000 years old at this...

point is that that was deliberately an attempt to avoid Mass War rape, which again you can scoff at that, but Mass War rape happened on this continent 70 years ago when the Russians literally raped everyone as they came into Germany. So, you know, these evils continue to exist in the human heart. Even if this was a liberalizing force, and even if this was not as bad as other slavery, do you think that the ownership of other human beings under the conditions of the Hebrew Bible are immoral? Yes. So, how do you account for God commanding something which you now see to be, or rather permitting something, and explicitly and giving you details about how to do something which is proactively immoral? Because permitting, he's not permitting me, permitting my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather to do something immoral that in the time was not considered immoral. It wasn't considered immoral, but was it immoral by standards that by the Judeo-Christian

tradition sure by by today's standards developed under the Judeo-Christian tradition immoral, which by the way you're living off the remains of this. I mean, where's your morality coming from? But who's the moral relativist now? I mean, it seems that a moment ago you said the great success of religion is providing a sort of untouchable moral basis that sort of transcends human affairs and human debates, and now when I say, Well, look at this, open your own religious scripture and look at this blatant immorality, you say, Yeah, but well, that was considered to be fine at the time, it's considered to be bad now by the progress of Judeo-Christian. So, a question: who's the moral relativist? Well, that's not, it's not relativistic to say that a thing that is wrong today is considered wrong today because of a tradition that developed over time. The question I'm

asking is is not was it considered right or wrong at the time ofical slavery. Was it wrong? It was wrong then to hold a slave. Yes, it was wrong then to hold a slave, obviously. And also, if you are God and you are pragmatically attempting to woo people away from slavery, was it a practicable thing to simply quote-unquote abolish slavery? Or here's an idea, for example, in the book of Exodus, God says, I think in chapter 21, maybe 22, says that if you have a Hebrew slave, you're let them go after seven years. If that Hebrew slave comes to you with a wife, then after the seven years, you let them go too. If you give the Hebrew slave a wife and they have children, then after those seven years are up, you give the man a choice. He can go after the seven years as per, but you keep his children and his wife. Or, and here the scripture says, you know, if he says, I love my

wife. I love my kids and my master as if that's going to be one of the principal considerations. Then he can stay with you, at which point you take him outside, you pierce his ear like cattle, and he becomes your property for life. Now, here's a suggestion. For example, if it was already established that Hebrew slaves go after 7 years, and it's already established that if they come with a wife, they can go after seven years. Then if I give them a wife, and they have children, would it not be... It doesn't seem to me particularly revolutionary. It doesn't seem to me the kind of thing that would have caused such social discohesion that God just couldn't have found a way to do it, to say, Well, why not let the whole family go free after those seven years, with the knowledge beforehand that if you give this Hebrew slave of yours a wife and children, they'll get to leave with them. That seems to me, for example, a minor improvement that would not cause this.

kind of revolutionary Earth shifting. He couldn't have just gotten away with slavery. Maybe that's true, but something as obvious as this. To me, it seems that if that is the case, that that could have easily been done. Then the failure to do so and the keeping of that Hebrew wife and their children as the Master's property. That itself becomes an immorality that is dictated. If I AG with your premises, I agree with your conclusion. I think that the question as to how much social dis-cohesion would it have caused to do a thing is an open question. I think the other question that sort of remains open here is the incentive structure as to whether you accept a wife from your master. Right? So the I don't want to get into the ABR. I mean, we can do this literally day step from the past into there 70 volumes with the Tom. With they're literally about this sort of stuff and then copious writings in terms of reinterpretation. First people to talk

about exactly this is not the first time these questions have come up. Um, and but I think the general point is sort of one where either we can dive into that full time and you can spend your life becoming a rabbi, which you know could happen, could you have the beard for it. Your beard is further along than mine. Uh, or we can sort of you know stipulate at the top that there are certain biblical interpretations that are abstruse and difficult. Yeah, and that that has been a reality of religious life since the beginning. I can agree with that.

Ben Shapiro Debates Atheist on Slavery in the Bible

Hi, I'm Alex O'Connor, host of the Within Reason Podcast. For the curious. New episodes every Sunday from the likes of Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig, Bishop Robert Barron, Peter Singer, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Ben Shapiro Debates Atheist on Slavery in the Bible

Ben Shapiro Debates Atheist on Slavery in the Bible

스크립트