Suicide by cop is a social phenomenon where an individual intentionally provokes a lethal response from law enforcement in order to end their own life. Typical suicide involves the killing of oneself. However, in cases of suicide by cop, the individual is unwilling to take their own life, and thus, they must orchestrate a scenario in which someone else is coerced into using lethal force against them.

Individuals commit suicide by cop for various reasons. Sometimes when an individual no longer desires to live he or she may to make statement through one’s own death. One may also engage in suicide by cop out of cowardice and the desire to avoid legal repercussions for one’s crimes. One may engage in suicide by cop due to a moral aversion to killing oneself or even due to the desire for loved one’s to financially benefit from their death, such as collecting life insurance, where the act of committing suicide themselves would violate the terms of their policy.

For whatever the reason someone decides to commit suicide by cop, they are still committing suicide. Although they do not pull the trigger themselves, through their own actions they set into motion a series of premeditated events that leads to their intentional death.

However, it is often overlook that there is more than just one victim in such a cases. Of course, there is suicidal individual that is murdered, but there are also profound psychological effects on the law enforcement officers that are manipulated into committing murder.

Although the phrase “suicide by cop” was coined in the 1980s, and we tend to think of it as a relatively recent social phenomenon, the act of a suicidal individual coercing law enforcement into killing them might not be as modern of a concept as we’d like to believe. Take the story of Jesus Christ, who we are told in the Bible was sent to redeem the sins of humankind by dying on a cross.

“For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance — now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.” (Hebrews 9:15)

“God’s law requires nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22)

In fact, Jesus is often compared to a sacrificial animal in emphasis of the role his death serves. In 1st Corinthians chapter 5 verse 7 Paul claims “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” And in John chapter 1 verse 29 Jesus Christ is called “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

As we can see, the ultimate reason why Christ came to Earth was to DIE as a sacrifice. In essence, Jesus Christ was on a suicide mission, because he HAD to die in order to complete the objective of redeeming the sins of humankind through the establishment of a NEW covenant.

However, Jesus could not simply climb up on the sacrificial altar and slit his own throat, because such an act would be a mortal sin, serving to make Jesus into a self-murderer. In addition, Christ’s death was required in order to make a statement — to demonstrate god’s immutable love through his willingness to allow the torture and sacrifice of his only begotten son.

Therefore, someone else was required to do the torturing and killing for him. Essentially, Jesus committed suicide by cop. Indeed, just like other classic cases of suicide by cop, Jesus Christ was required to set into motion a series of events that intentionally lead to his own demise.

Jesus provoked the establishment and challenged the authority of religious leaders throughout the region. Furthermore, Jesus used violence to disrupt the commerce and banking practices in the Temple in Jerusalem:

“And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, ‘Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.’” (John 2:15-16)

Not only did Jesus Christ orchestrate very public spectacles where we behaved like a lunatic, he also spoke out against peace and attempted to divide the family unit:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34–39)

Jesus’ erratic behavior and controversial messages understandably put many of the Jewish religious leaders on alert. It is for this reason Jesus began to be seen as a threat, and plans were made by certain leaders within Jerusalem’s community to turn him over to the Roman authorities.

But imagine if Jesus had not created such upheaval. What if Jesus did not preach such a controversial message or violently attack the money changers. What would have been the motivation to call for his arrest?

Jesus knew what he was doing and the actions that he needed to take in order to sow the seeds of descent, to make enemies, and to coerce those enemies into calling for his death. In fact, on several occasions Jesus predicted his own demise:

“When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.’ And the disciples were filled with grief.” (Matthew 17:22-23)

Even after Jesus was captured there were multiple occasions were he could have avoided a death sentence. In fact, Pontius Pilate had reservations about putting Jesus to death without hard evidence of his crimes. The continued defiance of authority served to further provoke the reaction that Jesus required,  leading to his inevitable crucifixion.

It’s interesting to note that Jesus was more than willing to perform miracles of healing the crippled, the blind, and even once raising the dead, walking on water, turning water in to wine, and proclaiming his divinity whenever it suited the purpose of converting followers. However, when it came to proving his divinity to the authorities, and thereby affording Jesus the opportunity to save his own life, it would have been completely counter-productive to his mission.

Therefore, Jesus HAD to remain silent and refused to perform miracles when his divinity was challenged — knowing full-well that his actions would only serve to further incite the powers-that-be.

But just as in modern-day cases of suicide by cop, there was more than just one victim. One of the key events that set into motion Jesus’ crucifixion was a betrayal by his disciple Judas. In fact, Judas was so overcome with guilt and shame for what he had done that he committed actual suicide.

“Then Judas threw the silver coins down in the Temple and went out and hanged himself.” (Matthew 27:5)

The true victims of this soap opera were the pawns that Jesus manipulated as a means to an end. Every person involved in Jesus’ death, including Judas, the Jewish community leaders, as well as the Romans, played an essential role in allowing Jesus to fulfill his mission and to redeem humankind of their sins. However, instead of being celebrated, these people were demonize, persecuted, and horrendously punished.

For example, it’s safe to assume Judas went to hell, not only for the role he played in turning Jesus over to the authorities, but also for committing the mortal sin of suicide, an action Judas was driven to as a direct result of the crucial role that he played in facilitating Jesus’ death.

But just imagine if everything hadn’t gone to plan. What if Judas didn’t betray Jesus? Or what if the Jewish leaders accepted Pilate’s initial refusal to put Jesus to death? What would Jesus have done then? Would he have gone to a different city to recruit another batch of disciples, attempt to incite resentment among the community leaders, successfully get himself betrayed, and then hopefully his web of manipulation and coercion would finally result in a death sentence?

The fact that Jesus required other people to play vital roles in fulfillment his mission, means those responsible for his death were actually doing Jesus a great service, because if events did not played out exactly as they had, then humankind could have never been redeemed. But not only was Judas driven to suicide for the necessary role he played in Jesus’ death, an entire race of people were demonized and persecuted for many hundreds of years as a direct result of Jesus Christ’s actions leading up to his suicide by cop.

Many of the earliest and most influential Church Fathers were responsible for spreading anti-Semitism and speaking out against the Jews as “Christ killers”.

In the “Dialogue with Trypho”, the second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr accuses the Jews of crucifying Christ and for leading people away from salvation.

Saint John Chrysostom, a fourth century Christian Father and Archbishop of Constantinople, said of the Jews:

“The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason.”

In 1543 the German Reformation leader Martin Luther wrote a 65,000 word anti-Semitic treatise that he titled “On the Jews and Their Lies”.

Martin Luther wrote:  “Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune… For their kidnapping of children they have often been burned at the stake or banished (as we already heard).

I am well aware that they deny all of this. However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil, who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly.”

In fact, even the Bible itself claims, “Jews killed the Lord Jesus”:

“For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone…” (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)

Anti-Semitism pervaded Europe and the Middle East, from the time of the Holy Roman Empire all the way up to the Third Reich, and beyond. Being the omniscient and omnibenevolant  deity that god is claimed to be,  one would expect him to have foreseen all of the racism and incalculable suffering the Jews were destined to experience for the role they played in Christ’s crucifixion.

Therefore, are we really to believe that god could not find a better way of redeeming our sins? If a sacrifice was really all that was required, then why go through such an elaborate soap opera and force the hand of the Jews and Romans into doing god’s dirty work? Jesus Christ manipulated these people into the horrible position of murdering the son of god, when there were many other alternatives to this course of action, which would not have resulted in such misery for the participants involved as well as for their future descendants.

Are we really to believe these are the plans and actions of a super-intelligent, all-knowing, all-present, and all-loving god? Jesus Christ’s supposedly “selfless act of sacrifice” came at the cost of premeditated coercion, intentional manipulation, and the untold suffering and death of countless millions of men, women, and children.

Among the proponents of a naturalistic origin of morality it is commonly argued that the perception of right and wrong is solely derived from evolution, with little to no influence from logic or reason. Through the study evolution we have come to understand the phrase “survival of the fittest” does not merely refer to “survival of the strongest”. By examining animal behavior, particularly that which belongs to interdependent social groups, we find the “fittest” group refers to members that best cooperate with one another and that show the greatest respect for social hierarchy, allowing them to attain mutual goals that would otherwise be difficult or impossible for the individual to achieve on his or her own.

However, an unfortunate reality of life’s ruthless struggle for existence is that the goal of one group is often the demise of another. Therefore, despite the understanding that Natural Selection favors animals that behave in certain ways in order to achieve a collective goal, that alone does not lead to a consistent and mutually beneficial code of conduct. As we will see, there is much to be learned from how animals socially interact with one another, which provides the basis of Primal Morality; however, without the ability to reason, we would not have the necessary tools to elevate our understanding of right and wrong beyond that of lower-order animal species, thus preventing us from constructing a moral philosophy that equally applies to ALL human beings.

Imagine one evening you are sitting at home with your wife and children, when there is a knock on the door. You get up to see who it is and you are immediately confronted by a man that is much bigger, stronger, and younger than yourself. Suddenly he begins to threaten and then beat you! Severely injured, he casts you outside your home where you lay helpless as he proceeds to murder your children and then rape your wife. Can you label the actions of the intruder as “immoral”? Are human beings unique on this planet for our capacity to commit such abhorrent acts on one another?

As you ponder these questions, let’s turn for a moment to the African savannah, the birthplace of mankind and home to some of the most spectacular life on planet Earth. Within this beautiful wilderness, the scenario of the home intruder has been played out countless times over hundreds of millions of years. Challenges over mating and territorial rights are some of the oldest conflicts on the planet and such displays can be found in almost every animal species throughout the world, although the severity of the confrontations can vary. However, within Africa’s lion population skirmishes can be of a particularly ruthless and cruel nature.

When a solitary male lion enters the territory of an established male with a pride of females and offspring, the younger, more virile male will often produce a challenge for territorial and breeding rights. A vicious confrontation ensues, and if the older male cannot perform his duty by holding his ground and protecting the group, then he will be cast from his pride where he will eventually die alone due to starvation without the females’ aid in catching prey. Upon assuming command of the pride the lion must kill all the cubs of the previous male, so the females will be receptive to mate and thereby focusing all resources to raising the offspring of the new male.

Are we able to judge the actions of this lion? By human standards, the lion has committed several of the most heinous crimes known to mankind. However, since the lion is acting in accordance with his nature, should we then consider nothing at all to be wrong with his actions? Could we even go so far as to consider his actions to be moral? It is common for the proponents of a naturalistic code of conduct to point to the animal kingdom as the origins of human morality. Often, vicious predators such as sharks or piranhas are referenced in order to lend support to the notion that despite being in a mindless feeding frenzy, there is still some semblance of moral conduct, for these predators have evolved to not turn on one another.

But is the fact that carnivores such as piranhas, crocodiles, and sharks do not eat one another really evidence of the evolution of morality? Perhaps. But imagine what would happen if a shark is unfortunate enough to be found bleeding amongst a group of his hungry peers. Sharks are known to attack one another at the sign of weakness or injury. In fact, it can be argued the reason these carnivores do not turn on healthy members of their own species is because they are not seen as a potential meal until signs of weakness are evident. Therefore, sharks do not show concern for the helpless. Indeed, the helpless are taken advantage of and preyed upon! Can this really be considered moral behavior?

Piranhas, sharks and lions are not the only animals known to turn on members of their own species in times of weakness, territorial disputes, or for mating rights. Indeed, our closest relative within the Animal Kingdom, chimpanzees, have also been observed going to war, attacking and even cannibalizing their rivals.

Wolves are another variety of social mammal that must prey on other animals in order to maintain their own survival. Carnivores such as these are more than capable of killing each other if they so desire, but, they do not. In fact, quite the contrary. In order for animals like wolves and wild African dogs to be successful in hunting exclusively from a food source that is much larger and faster than themselves, they must learn to work together within a cooperative, interdependent group. But not only are pack animals cooperative hunters, they care for one another and dutifully adhere to an established pack hierarchy as well.

Collective caring for the young is a behavior not only observed in carnivorous pack animals, but also in the prey they hunt. Oxen are known to stand guard and risk personal injury in order to protect the young of their herd, even in cases where the young are not their direct offspring. It is to the benefit of the group as a whole that individuals behave in certain ways, even when such behavior is not advantageous to the individual.

The reason we observe social animals protecting one another, rather than attacking and killing members of their own group, is not because they have a religious text directing their behavior. Rather, if the genes were not in place that deterred group infighting and encourage obedience to social guidelines, then the species would have no chance of survival, and thus, would no long exist for us to observe. For all we know, there could have been many different variations of social behavior that arose throughout the course of animal evolution. However, Natural Selection favored those animals that best cooperated with and cared for one another — and it is these traits that have found their way into modern-day species, among them animals that flock, herd, run in packs, and even group together within communities.

It is undeniable that life as we know it relies on the working-relationships we have with other members of our local community and even the world at large. The place you live, what you eat, the cloths you wear, how you earn money and where you spend it, is entirely dependent on the efforts of other human beings, and more than likely, many other people are dependent on you as well. The very success of our species is invested at the genetic level in the hardwiring of our brains, encouraging us toward group cooperation, obedience, empathy, and even conformity. Indeed, our desire to be accepted by others and to be included in the group is SO ingrained in our psyche that it can lead to negative and often destructive behavior.

Not only can the herd mentality produce bizarre alterations in behavior, it can even be used against us with devastating consequences, such as in cases of fervent nationalism that results in the loss of identity.

Despite the potential for abuse inherent within the herd mentality, if our earliest ancestors had not maintained a social structure that included cooperation, conformity, and obedience to social hierarchy, then our species would have long ago arrived at an evolutionary dead end. Although we live in a world of “survival of the fittest”, there would be no survival if the members of a group turned on each other and allowed one’s selfish desires to dictate their actions.

Throughout popular culture has spread a misconception about “survival of the fittest”, where the most ruthless and cutthroat members of a given society, or even corporations within a capitalistic economy, are encouraged to trample over the weak with the aim of becoming even wealthier and more successful.

However, in the context of a social animal the phrase “survival of the fittest” does not imply survival of the strongest. The term “fittest” refers to the individuals that best work together, that care for one another and help each other survive. This creates the conditions for a “fit” community, whose members can go on to perpetuate their genes and bring about the next generation. If the concept of “Survival of the Fittest” were merely the strongest male or female going around consuming all the resources and murdering their rivals, then the group as a whole would NOT be very fit. As we have just seen in the previous experiment, such groups are unsustainable, and as infighting continues the group will self-destruct in a matter of generations.

However, a fine line must be walked when one’s survival, or the survival of the group, in placed in jeopardy. In certain instances it may be evolutionarily advantageous to eliminate rival groups in order to gain access to contested resources. Although it was essential for our early ancestors to show kindness to other members of their own group, if they were to survive and successfully compete against other hostile groups, then they must not become docile and lose their predatory edge.

The tendency toward aggressive behavior has been retained in us at the genetic level — mind you, the same aggression that has been breed out of wolves, resulting in the infantile lapdogs we often treat as our children. It is for this reason there appears to be a conflicting duality within human behavior, exhibiting both altruistic tendencies as well as those of a violent and predatory nature.

Although it might be difficult to face the hard facts about our origins, if we are to truly understand who we are and from whence we have come, we must acknowledge our violent past and our place within the Animal Kingdom. Human beings, like other social animals, are both the products of their environment as well as their genes.  The concepts of Nature and Nurture govern every aspect of our social interactions, and they are at the root of violent and aggressive behavior.

In many impoverished regions throughout the world, orphaned children that are abandoned to the street often turn to a life of crime, becoming murderers at a very early age. Because there is no strong parental influence to teach them right from wrong, many of these children have no concept of human life and think nothing of murdering someone over a stick of gum or a pair of shoes. In addition, children that have been mentally or physically abused often regress into a feral state, lashing out at their parents, siblings, and peers.

The psychological development of children is so important that, if nurtured improperly, they require months and perhaps even years of rehabilitation. As we can see, the morals and values of a society must be taught, and those who have not had the benefit of this instruction early in life risk never being able to assimilate within that society at all. However, nature plays an equal, if not more  important role than nurture, a fact that has been experimentally demonstrated in the process of animal domestication.

Even though embryos attainted from aggressive foxes were transplanted into docile females, the resultant offspring still displayed aggression. As we can see, a large part of combative and violent behavior is invested at the genetic level. Regardless of the environment in which we live, we are ultimately a product of the genes that make us.

Like many varieties of social animal, groups of early hominids benefited by working together and adhering to an expected way of behavior. It is these traits that have been passed on by the reproductively successful members of every generation. But despite evolving the tendency to work toward a common goal, often the goal of one group was the demise of another. Human history is fraught with endless battles, wars, and even genocides; however, the same thing that makes human beings such efficient, ruthless killers also allows us to transcend the negative aspects our animalistic nature. Our intelligence not only provides us with the ability to design an efficient war machine, it allows us to empathize with the enemy as well. Our intelligence also provides us with the necessary tools to engage in scientific inquiry, enabling us to examine the various psychological and physiological states of human well-being through which we may construct a sound moral philosophy that is applicable to everyone.

Homo sapiens are first species on Earth to take hold of the reins of their own evolution. Instead of being subject to the laws of Natural Selection, where traits best suited for survival are selected by the environment, human beings have selected the environment that best suits their survival. This ability allows us to reshape the world as we see fit, both in our habitat and the way we interact with one another.

By adapting our moral behavior to the environment that we have made for ourselves, we are no longer held hostage to the aggressive traits that dominated the lives of our early ancestors, who traversed hostile environments in which violent competition over limited resources meant life or death. We are in the unique position of being able cast aside these vestigial behaviors by embracing science and technology, providing us the opportunity to glimpse the height of human well-being that is possible to achieve, if only we can successfully apply what we learn about ourselves.

If we are to subdue the negative aspects of our psychology, such as the herd mentality that results in the willingness to harm others when authoritatively direct to do so, then we must elevate our understanding of what it means to be moral, adhering to these principles with confidence and resolute conviction. By employing the tool of scientific investigation we have discovered much about human behavior as well as the mechanisms of action that produce alterations in our physiology.

As discussed in the previous Episode, medical science is able to determine what actions most effectively promote states of human well-being. The standard of behavior by which we experience health, happiness, liberty, growth, and prosperity are empirically confirmed — and for the vast majority of society that share these common goals, the decision to follow the objective standard of Secular Morality is an easy one. As we have seen throughout this presentation, the consequences of: Infighting and disobedience of authority; Abuse and improper nurturing of the young; A failure to cooperate and share resources or information; As well as infringing on the autonomy of others and the denial of well-being; results in the  self-destruction of social groups and, inevitably, the very extinction of the species.

By examining the behavior of other animals we can see that both the desire to care for others and the capacity to kill are derived from our evolutionary origins. However, a consistent, all-encompassing code of conduct can only be achieved by employing the tools of science, logic, and reason. Although we have evolved the intellectual prowess to transcend certain aspects of our nature, there are other facets of our evolution to which we are forever bound. Our emotions and the instinctual drive to abstain from and engage in certain types of behavior is an intrinsic aspect of what makes us human, and even though the monotheistic religions have made concerted efforts to demonize and repress facets of human nature, a mature understanding of our ‘lustful desires’ is just as important to the refinement of a sound moral philosophy as the preservation of individual autonomy and the promotion of well-being.

Over the years I’ve had many conversations with believers in god, where the topic of purpose or the meaning of life has often been raised. Monotheists seem to believe it is not enough to merely seek purpose within their own lives, thus, they look to god to provide them with meaning. To the contrary, atheists and other secularists are opposed to the idea that life can have any purpose or meaning beyond those we subjectively assign. However, I take a third option, for as I began to more closely examine the objective basis of secular morality, I found that an objective purpose can also be found within human life that is not derived from a god.

I have yet come across another atheist, either in literature or on YouTube, that has argued from this perspective, but in the following presentation I will demonstrate that life does have objective meaning. Although I expect to receive a fair amount of backlash from other atheists, still, many of you might be surprised with the obviousness of this argument. I also find this topic to be of importance because, for me, objectivity signifies the empirical. I don’t concern myself with arguments from subjective opinion, because every opinion is equally as valid as the next. I am only concerned with facts, therefore, when discussing any topic, such as evolution, scripture, philosophy, morality, or even the meaning of life, it must be approached from a purely objective standpoint.

It is for this reason I took great effort in detailing the scientific basis of morality as a follow up to Episode 23. However, in my attempt to alleviate confusion with my proposed logic of Secular Morality it appears I have sparked further criticism over my characterization of how life is “supposed to” properly function. In the follow up I stated, “The way we know patients suffering from medical conditions such as terminal diseases or even forms of psychoses, are not functioning within the “norm” is due to the culmination of many centuries of research into how human physiology is supposed to properly function.”

My critic, who I assume to be an atheist, claims that I am not allowed to assign natural phenomena “supposed to’s”, meaning, or purpose, because, to do so, implies there is a purpose-giver. Nature just behaves the way it behaves, without motive or intent; thus, there can be no objective purpose or meaning in natural phenomena themselves. To illustrate this point my critic provides the analogy of the evolution of a tiger’s stripes. This characteristic feature of tigers did not evolve for the purpose of camouflage, but rather, random mutations were selected by the environment that conveyed an evolutionary advantage, namely, tigers that developed stripes more easily secured prey and thus more easily survived to pass on these advantageous genes.

Although this explanation is scientifically accurate, my opponent commits the fallacy of False Analogy. The evolution of a tiger’s stripes lacks an essential quality that is found in every single cellular component involved in the pathology of disease: necessity. A tiger does not necessarily require stripes in order to live. Of course, this feature certainly aids the tiger in survival, but even if a tiger were born without stripe-producing genes it would not result birth defects or even cause a failure to thrive. Therefore, stripes are not necessary for a living tiger to continue living.

A correct analogy is the comparison of a functioning cell with a functioning engine. If the engine of your vehicle is to function, then it requires a number of components, such as a spark plug, serpentine belt, pistons, gasoline, and so on. Without any one of these necessary components your engine will cease to function. Similarly, your body requires many necessary components, such as neurotransmitters, hormones, enzymes, cofactors, and so on, that if absent will cause your body to no longer function.

For example, without oxygen there would be no final electron acceptor in the Electron Transport Chain. Therefore, the process by which Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) is produced can no longer be maintained. ATP is an extremely important energy molecule required in countless cellular processes throughout the body, from the transport of various substances across the cell membrane to binding muscles filaments, enabling you to move. It may be of some interest to note that upon death the absence of ATP prevents movement of the myosin and actin filaments, causing a temporary stiffening of the muscles, known as rigor mortis. As we can plainly see, it is an objective, scientifically verifiable fact that oxygen is necessary for all forms of aerobic life to continue living, from obligate aerobic bacteria, to human beings, and yes, even tigers.

However, my opponent insists that, just like purpose, the quality of being “necessary” is also assigned in the mind of sentient beings. He argues that humans are the only ones that can assign subjects with necessity or purpose, and the purpose of a subject can even change according to our subjective desires. For example, a hammer is an efficient tool for the purpose of driving a nail, but, if we so desire, a hammer could just as easily serve our purpose as a paperweight. However, once again, the subject in this example lacks the essential quality of necessity.

Just imagine if every sentient being were to collectively assign the spark plug some other arbitrary purpose based on their subjective desires. Now, does that have any bearing on the fact your vehicle necessarily require this component in order for the engine to function? Of course not! Likewise, our cellular requirement for oxygen is not assigned in the human mind. Even if human beings were unaware of oxygen’s existence, that still would not change the objective, scientifically verifiable, empirical fact that oxygen is necessary for cellular respiration.

Any necessary component that belongs to a functioning system serves a purpose to that particular system, namely, to maintain functionality. And there is nothing in the definition of words like necessity, purpose, or reason that dictate these concepts MUST be applied by sentient minds. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “necessity” as: “the fact of being required or indispensable. ” The word “purpose” is defined as: “the reason for which something exists” (or, in our context, the reason something is present within a functioning system). And the word “reason” is defined as: “a cause for an action or event”. Therefore, though medical science we can provide explanations for the cause of pathological events that result from a failure to maintain levels of indispensable components within cellular processes. There is absolutely nothing within this statement that suggests the definitions of necessity, purpose, and reason MUST be subjectively assigned by sentient beings.

Of course, if human beings were to no longer exist, then oxygen would cease to be necessary to human beings, and thus, would no longer serve a purpose within this context. But again, the necessity of oxygen is not assigned in our minds. Oxygen plays an indispensible role within vital cellular processes, which would otherwise fail to function without its presence. Therefore, our cells must have the presence of oxygen in order to function. In other words, if it is the case that our cells are to function, then we are supposed to have the presence of oxygen.

I would like to reiterate that I am not proposing a type of ‘geocentric’ understanding of the Universe, where everything exists just for human beings. All of the components required for human life, from the atoms that comprise our cells to the very Earth and Universe we inhabit, do not exist for the purpose of human beings. Rather, it is the objective quality of being ‘necessary’ that designates these essential components serve a purpose to the functioning system that is human life. Therefore, these necessary components do not require an arbitrary assignment of purpose according to the subjective opinions of anonymous purpose-givers, which, even if they wanted to, could not change the role that indispensible components play within the greater system as a whole.

Now, the fact we can determine purpose though an examination of necessary components in a functioning system provides us with insight into an age-old question: What is the meaning of life? Just as the presence of oxygen and countless other components are necessary for living human beings to continue living, the very presence of human life itself is necessary for the continued existence of human life. Indeed, the objective purpose of any given life, whether plant, fungi, or animal, is to live, and with any luck, to live long enough to bring about the next generation of life.

As a side note, I am not suggesting an organism that is unwilling or incapable of reproduction to no longer have any purpose. The argument for the objective purpose of life is established on the axiom that all life is contingent, and thus, necessarily requires the existence of other life.

What’s more, the objective meaning of human life perfectly ties together with the objective standard of Secular Morality. Consider the following syllogism:

P1. If all human life is contingent upon other human life, then human life is necessary for (serves a purpose in) the continued existence of human life.

P2. If human life is to exist, then the necessary components involved in maintaining human life must be present in order for human life to optimally function.

P3. If human life is to optimally function, then actions or behaviors that improve the quality of life for living human beings are necessarily beneficial to the maintenance of these lives.

C. Therefore, actions or behaviors that necessarily benefit the maintenance of human life ought to be promoted over actions or behaviors that diminish the maintenance of human life.

Just as the actions of changing the oil, air filters, and other regular upkeep are necessary for an engine to optimally function, so too is acting in ways that improve states of human well-being necessary for a human life to optimally function. Therefore, if an engine is to continue functioning at optimal capacity, then one ought to act in such a way that is beneficial to the maintenance of the engine. Likewise, if a human life is to continue living at optimal capacity, then one ought to act in such a way that is beneficial to the maintenance of that human life.

And from here we are at liberty to subjectively assign any number of other purposes to our lives, such as the pursuit of artistic expression, engaging in entertaining and enjoyable pastimes, cultivating lasting relationships, raising a family, caring for and helping others, being successful at a given activity, and the list goes on and on. Not only do such actions and behaviors provide us with additional purpose beyond that of merely living, they all serve to enrich and add greater intrinsic value to the quality of our lives — an scientific fact that can be tested and measured. However, at the most basic, fundamental level, the answer to the age-old question “What is the meaning of life?” is found in the very question itself, entailing all the characteristics and qualities that promote this unique state of existence.

In the comments section of episode 23 there were several objections to my proposed “logic of secular morality”. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to explain in detail exactly how human life has objective value, the scientific basis of secular morality, and the reason we “ought to” preserve and follow this objective moral standard.

[Introduction]

Admittedly, I was a little surprised by how many people misunderstood my statement “Life is of greater value than death.” I did not mean to suggest that life is “better than” or “more preferable to” death, for this would be a subjective opinion, rather than an objective fact.

What I mean by the term “value”, or even “intrinsic value”, is the quantitative and qualitative properties of objects that exist. When I made reference to the mathematical expression 1 > 0, I was not speaking in terms of the numerical symbols THEMSELVES, but rather, I was referencing the quantitative value these numbers represent in the physical world. In retrospect, I should have articulated this point more clearly, for in the comments section someone attempted to refute my argument by claiming 0 > -1. However, I hope this individual realizes that numbers themselves do not actually exist.

There is nowhere within the physical world that you can point to the number 1, or even the number -1 for that matter. Numbers themselves are merely abstract symbols that we conceptualize in our minds for the sake of convenience when thinking about mathematical operations. Although the VALUE certain numbers represent can be reflected in reality, there is no quantity in the physical universe that is smaller than nothing, or less than non-existence. Either something exists or it doesn’t.

To further demonstrate this point, I would like briefly examine the quantitative and qualitative values of a common household object, such as a pencil. Let’s say the pencil on your left weighs 7.6 grams, while the pencil on your right weighs 4.3 grams. Therefore, pencil A weighs more, or has a greater quantitative value, than pencil B. As we can see, objects that exist have quantitative values that can be observed and measured. However, if there are no pencils that exist, then we cannot observe any of their quantitative values.

On the left I have a pencil, and its numerical value, or quantity, is equal to one. On the right there are no pencils, and the numerical value, or quantity, is equal to zero. Again, I am not talking about the numbers themselves, but rather, the quantity these numerical symbols represent in the physical world. There is no such thing as less than zero pencils, and the weight of a non-existent pencil cannot be less than nothing. Therefore, it is evident something that exists ALWAYS has greater quantitative values than something that does not exist.

Objects that exist can also have qualitative values that correspond to their physical properties, which can be observed with our five sense. This pencil has the qualitative value of being yellow and rigid, among many other physical traits. Now, what qualitative values does a non-existent pencil have? Well, it has none, because this object does not even exist for us to observe. As we can see, the statement 1 > 0 does not imply one pencil is “better than” or “more preferable to” zero pencils. It only demonstrates something that exists in the physical world has certain values of a quantitative and qualitative nature, while something that does not exist, doesn’t have these values.

Now, let’s think about the concept of death. Death is merely the absence of where there was once life. But keep in mind, death is not equivalent to non-life. There is a far greater quantity of non-life in the Universe than there is life. For example, these stones are considered to be non-life. However, stones were never living to begin with, so they never lost a life, therefore they never died. Death can only be experienced by something that was once living in the first place.

The quantitative value of a life that exists can be represented by the numerical symbol one. While the quantitative value of a life that no longer exists can be represented by the numerical symbol zero. Not only can we quantify a life that exists, we can quality it as well. Living beings are far more dynamic and expressive than inanimate objects or dead bodies, because we can respond to environmental stimuli through various physiological states, and our intrinsic qualitative values can change as a result.

A human life that exists can experience different qualitative states of health and disease, happiness and sadness, comfort and pain, liberty and oppression, among many others. Unlike inanimate objects or dead bodies, a living human being is subject to the maintenance of various physiological states in order to remain alive — and a deeper understanding of these states is what medical science sets out to achieve.

The physiological state of stress is governed by certain hormones, particularly the steroid cortisol. Fundamentally, stress results from pain or suffering, or stress can even be the product of the anticipation of future pain or suffering. The hypothalamus receives information that pain exists, OR the hypothalamus receives information from the limbic system, particularly the Amygdala, that pain will exist in the future, and this causes the release of Corticotrophin Releasing Hormone (CRH) from the hypothatlamus, which in turn stimulates the release of Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) from the anterior pituitary. ACTH enters the blood and travels to the adrenal cortex, where in turn cortisol is released into the blood from the zona fasciculata. Signals from the hypothalamaus also increase activity of the sympathetic nervous system, releasing the neurotransmitter norepinephrine. In addition, cortisol upregulates Phenylethanolamine-N-methyltransfersae (PNMT), which is the regulatory enzyme in the synthesis of Norepinephrine to Epinephrine, also known as adrenaline. It is the increase in cortisol and catacholamines that are ultimately responsible for the negative effects of stress.

For example, elevated cortisol decreases immune function. Often for a severe allergic reaction a physician will inject the patient with a glucocorticoid in order to mediate the negative effects of inflammation produced by the body’s own immune system. Steroids can help prevent white blood cells from mounting an unnecessary response to an otherwise benign antigen, where the cellular products of inflammation, such as histamine released from mast cells and basophils, are inadvertently harming the patient. However, chronic stress results in a prolonged release of cortisol, which in turn depresses the immune system and leads to greater incidence of infection and disease.

Cortisol and catecholamines also trigger catabolic processes such as proteolysis, which is the breakdown of proteins, resulting in poor muscle tone and physical weakness. Indeed, we can witness all of these negative effects on human health by simply observing patients suffering from Cushing’s Syndrome, in which the pathology of disease results from abnormally elevated levels of cortisol.

Increased levels of catecholamines over-stimulate the sympathetic nervous system, where norepinepherine and epinepherine act as agonist on α 1 receptors, leading to vasoconstriction and thus hypertension, which subsequently puts the patient at risk for stroke cardiovascular disease, renal failure, and a whole host of other pathologies. Excessive stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system also inhibits gastric motility and secretions, resulting in poor digestion, diarrhea, malnutrition, and an overall sense of decreased physical well-being. Indeed, we can witness all of these negative effects on human health by simply observing patients suffering from Pheochromocytoma, in which the pathology of disease results from abnormally elevated levels catacholamines from the adrenal medulla.

Just like cortisol and catacholamines mediate the detrimental effects of pain and suffering, the hormone oxytocin mediates the beneficial effects of comfort and well-being. When someone embraces you, when you pet a dog or cat, or when you stare into the eyes of someone you love and admire, that warm fuzzy feeling you get is the result of a release of oxytocin from the posterior pituitary. This important hormone promotes well-being — an emotional state that is very healthy for the human body to experience. Oxytocin is also released during orgasm, the dilation of the cervix during labor, and nipple stimulation during breast feeding. This hormone is sort of nature’s reward system for doing something that is beneficial, serving to reinforce interpersonal bonds within the social group as well as with one’s own offspring.

But just imagine what would happen if our brains did not produce oxytocin. Essentially, there would be a complete breakdown of Primal Morality, because there would be no motivation for doing good deeds or connecting with other people. If there was no emotional reward for being kind, generous, cooperative, and so on, then our brains would rely more on the impulsive, animalistic desires of our Limbic system, and people would be much more selfish, narcissistic, and manipulative. Just imagine how such behavior would have influenced group stability in populations of our early ancestors. There would have been widespread mistrust, suspicion, and an inability to cooperate with one other, leading to chaos and perhaps even the extinction of our species.

Despite the fact we can objectively demonstrate a living human being has greater quantitative and qualitative values than a dead body, there are certainly many people suffering from painful terminal diseases or severe depression that might view death as a more desirable alternative than continuing to live a life of misery. In addition, there are also psychopaths that do not exhibit regard for their own lives, let alone the lives of others. However, such examples are clearly outside the “norm” of mental and physical health, and anyone that fails to recognize the intrinsic value of living human beings is thus incapable of providing meaningful insight into the questions of morality.

In the comments section of the previous episode a question was raise as to exactly who gets to define the “norm”? Well, medical science does. The way we know patients suffering from medical conditions such as terminal diseases or even forms of psychoses, are not functioning within the “norm” is due to the culmination of many centuries of research into how human physiology is supposed to properly function.

Just like the previously discussed conditions of Cushing’s Syndrome and Pheochromocytoma, in which the pathology of disease effects the proper functioning of the body, there are many diseases that affect the physiology of the brain. Through exhausted neurochemical studies we have discovered that serotonin and dopamine, among other neurotransmitters, play an important role in the maintenance of emotional and physical well-being. Not only is this fact demonstrable in naturally occurring pathologies, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, Alzhimers disease, and so on, we can even induce certain emotional states by manipulating the levels of various neurotransmitters through artificial means.

For example, Reserpine is a pharmacological agent use to lower blood pressure. However, one of the side effects is that it also inhibits the storage of neurotransmitters in presynaptic vesicles, resulting in the decrease of norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine. In a healthy brain, where levels of neurotransmitters are being properly maintained, Reserpine can actually result in severe depression. However, in patients suffering from psychoses, such as Bipolar type I, Reserpine would serve to alleviate mood swings associated with abnormally elevated levels of serotonin and dopamine. In fact, antipsychotic medications that block dopamine receptors are essential in preventing auditory hallucinations, paranoia, delusions, as well as disorganized speech and thinking — symptoms induced by abnormally elevated levels of dopamine, which the hallmarks of psychotic conditions such as Schizophrenia. In contrast, Parkinson’s Disease results from the loss of neurons in the dopaminergic pathway, leading to severe, uncontrollable tremor, difficulty walking, and so on.

As we can see, neurotransmitters, hormones, and even enzymes, all play important roles within human physiology and their levels must be meticulously maintained, otherwise, pathologies and diseases will result, thus causing a deviation from the “norm”. According to the medical standard of health, any action or behavior that inhibits the proper function of human physiology and diminishes well-being is objectively and factually detrimental to the maintenance of human life. And the converse is also true. But this is not to say the states of health and well-being are more preferable to stress and disease, only that it is objectively and factually true, anything that serves to promote human health and well-being adds greater value to the quality of life and provides greater stability and integrity within social groups. This is the objective standard upon which secular morality is based.

And again, the term “objective” means there is no influence from personal feeling, taste, or opinion — the moral standard is independent of the human mind — and the concept of objectivity applies to both societal AND physiological well-being. One of several examples I gave in the previous episode was the temperature of the human body. 98.6F is just one of many physiological standards by which human health flourishes. Any temperature that strays too far above or below this standard will cause the health of the body to decline.

Now, if human beings never existed, then this temperature would be of little significance. However, our very existence demonstrates this standard must be maintained in order to sustain health. Even if humans were to go extinct tomorrow it doesn’t change the fact 98.6F WAS the optimal temperature of the human body — we didn’t just dream up this value on a whim, this is the objective standard by which human health MUST be maintained.

The same concept of objectivity applies to the moral nuances discussed in the previous episode. As we have seen, an action, or even the treat of an action, that produces an increase in cortisol and catecholamines will result in negative systemic effects throughout the body, leading to states of anxiety, suffering, physical weakness, malnutrition, greater incidence of infection and disease, and so on. Therefore, it is objectively true that any practice, action, or behavior that produces negative emotional or physical states are both psychologically and physiologically deleterious to the maintenance of human well-being.

Now, at this point an objection is typically raised as to why we should care about maintaining and promoting the quality of life as well as stability and well-being throughout society? For that matter, why should we care about anything at all. Monotheists often point to the “is-ought” problem described by the philosopher David Hume, which essentially states, you cannot derive a moral conclusion from a fact. In other words, facts discovered through science (the “is”) do not instruct us on how we must behave (the “ought”). However, in the context of goal-oriented behavior one can most certainly derive an “ought” from an “is”.

For example, your goal as the CEO of a cooperation is to manufacture and sell your merchandise in order to make a profit. If I were to present you with a marketing campaign that guarantees an increase in annual sales by at least five million dollars, would you then ask me why you “ought” to follow my strategy? Of course not! If your goal is to sell a product to make money, then the reason you “ought to” is for the very purpose of obtaining your goal. Therefore, you do not require ADDITIONAL motivation based on some extraneous factor in order to derive the basis upon which you “ought” to follow my strategy for increasing your annual sales.

Likewise, for those people that share a common goal of seeking health and happiness, enjoying the ability to do, say, and think what they want, as well as living in a secure and stable community, the reasons they “ought” to follow the objective standard of Secular Morality is for the very purpose of obtaining these goals. However, it is recognized that not everyone shares the same goals. Some people many not want to be healthy, happy, or live in a secure and stable community. And although this may be true for people, that doesn’t give them free reign to destroy the lives and livelihoods of others.

As I said in the previous episode, if are concerned about morality, which is the distinction between good and bad behavior, or beneficial and detrimental actions, then we must be concerned with the lives of individuals that our actions and behaviors are influencing. But if someone refuses to recognize the intrinsic value of human life and does not care how their actions effect others, then they’re excluded from the conversation among those who do. In the same regard, if someone refuses to understand mathematics and the foundation of physical laws, then what meaningful input could that person provide in a conversation with physicists about advancing the science of quantum physics?

If you care about the lives of others and the difference between right and wrong, then we can candidly discuss how best to preserve and improve upon states of human well-being, which is what the moral conversation is ultimately about. However, criminals that do not care about morality or about the lives of people they come in contact with, who choose to infringe on the autonomy of others and disrupt the integrity of society, do not get to make the laws of that society. In fact, they are removed from society, for they are no longer welcome in a stable community that wishes to maintain its stability.

As with everything in life, we are bound by certain limitations. Even something as innocuous as drinking water can be lethal if done in excess. Likewise, we can do and say whatever we want within reason, but not at the cost of violating someone else’s autonomy and well-being. However, the right to autonomy is not absolute. Secular morality is not a free-or-all, where someone can willfully and maliciously violate the autonomy of others and then fall back on HIS right to autonomy in order to evade punishment. If you take it upon yourself to harm others, then you give up the exact same rights that you have denied your victims — and it falls upon the custodians charged with the maintenance of an orderly society to impose punishment proportional to the crime.

In conclusion, we have objectively and factually determined that human life contains intrinsic values of a quantitative nature as well as a qualitative nature, which can be influenced by external stimuli, in turn resulting in an increase or decrease of the psychological and physiological states of human well-being. If our goal is to live a healthy and happy life in which we are free to pursue our wants and desires, then the reason we “ought” to preserve the objective standard of human well-being is for the very purpose of obtaining this goal. If we are concerned about morality, which is the distinction between good and bad behavior, or beneficial and detrimental actions, then we “ought” to take the various states of human well-being into consideration when assessing the moral worth of a particular behavior.

Critics of secular morality state that under this code of conduct there is no way for someone to claim one action is better than another. For instance, a secular humanist might claim everyone has the right to individual autonomy and the preservation of well-being, and any violation of these rights must be considered immoral. Therefore, it is objectively wrong to murder someone in cold blood because we can objectively determine the victim’s autonomy and well-being are in violation. However, the opposition will continue to argue the idea that “it is wrong to violate autonomy” is still ultimately based on a subjective opinion. So, what gives any individual the authority to claim their personal understanding of morality is any better than another?

What we must realize is that certain aspects of secular morality are based on opinion and others that are based on fact. However, before we examine the details, the logic of secular morality follows from a single question: Is something of greater value than nothing? If this statement is true, then it follows that life is of greater value than death. Although no one can say for certain what happens after death, it is disputable that a living, breathing human being has great intrinsic value than a decomposing corpse body. Therefore, anything that promotes the character and quality of life is beneficial and adds greater value to that life. Continuing with this line logic, the following facts can be derived: health is more beneficial than disease, happiness is more beneficial than sadness, comfort is more beneficial than pain, liberty is more beneficial than oppression, freedom is more beneficial than slavery, and so on. If all these statements are true, then we now have a basis upon which to assess certain actions. Any action that promotes the character and quality of life is a beneficial action. While any action that diminishes the character and quality of life is a detrimental action.

However, there are some opposed to the idea of secular morality that may disagree with the factuality of the claim “Life is of greater value than death.” There are certainly many people that have painful terminal diseases, or that suffer from chronic depression, who might find suicide to be a more desirable alternative to continuing to live with extreme suffering. And there are also psychopaths that do not value their own lives, let alone the lives of others. However, these examples are clearly outside the norm of physical and mental health, and anyone that sincerely believes “life is of lesser value than death” is dis-invited to the moral conversation, because moral issues only concern the lives of the living, not those who are already dead, those who wish to die, or those who desire to extinguish life. If we are truly concerned about what is right and just, then morality MUST be concerned with the lives of individuals that the moral principles are influencing, otherwise the conversation ends right here.
[Introduction]

The reason many people appear to be confused about the topic of morality is because of the failure to recognize our code of conduct is organized into a moral hierarchy, which can be define in two parts, that of Primal Morality and Refined Morality. Primal morality consists of instincts and other psycho-social guidelines that ensures individual survival and preserves the well-being of the group as a whole. Primal Morality involves a “pack mentality”, and other natural instincts, that can be found in many social groups, both human and animal alike, for they are guidelines that MUST be adhered to or the extinction of the group, and even the entire species, is at risk. Such guidelines might even go against the personal desires of an individual so as to preserve the integrity of the group. The adherence to social hierarchy and the rules against stealing, raping, murdering, and so on, fall under this category.

Then there is Refined Morality. These are rules that have been developed over thousands of years of social consensus and can be informed by scientific discovery. Although man-made laws can improve the quality of life, they are not always crucial for survival and thus they can vary from one century to the next and from culture to culture. Primal and Refined Morality are essential aspects of any healthy, functioning civilization, and both work toward the ultimate goal of preserving individual autonomy and the well-being of society, although, each appears to be shaped by slightly different influences.

Refined Morality is named so, because it is able to be tuned and refined over time, and it is this aspect of secular morality that can be seen as purely subjective, for Refined Morality can be voted on by a society and it is continually shaped by the question, “How can we best improve our well-being?” However, Refined Morality must cautiously ride the line between the well-being of society and its constituents, verses the preservation of individual autonomy.

For instance, a situation might arise where a government could best protect the well-being of its citizens by implementing laws that place extreme limits on everyone’s right to do, say, and even think what they want. Although the well-being of society can be ensured, the cost of eradicating personal freedom violates the first principle of secular morality, and any such laws instated by the government would be completely immoral and unethical. In contrast, a situation might arise where saying whatever you want could result in such severe repercussions that it violates the second principle of secular morality, such as hate speech that inspires racism or violent crimes, as well as making false statements that incite mass hysteria, such as falsely reporting a bomb threat or fake terrorist attack.

The reason moral nuances of various civilizations so greatly fluctuate between cultures and across time periods is because our understanding of human well-being is such a dynamic concept. Several hundred years ago it was perfectly acceptable for a 12 year old girl to be married off by her family after receiving her menarche, even to man more than three times her age. Although cultural perceptions about marriage have changed and it is no longer a common practice to arrange marriages in order to unite households for political or financial gain, science is the primary factor in the creation of Western laws regarding the age of consent.

Over the past several decades medical science has better informed our understanding of the psychological development of adolescents, the results of which have led to the creation of laws establishing an age of consent within the Unites States at 16 through 18 years of age. Such laws are instated to protect minors who are not mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions, who may be taken advantage of and abused by adults. In fact, public opinion has been so drastically reshaped about the age of consent that any man in a first world country who wishes to marry a 13 year old girl, which was considered acceptable a just few hundred years ago, would be labeled a pedophile in Western cultures. However, in less developed countries, and even in certain religions like Islam, the marrying of a pubescent girl to an older man has remained a common practice until present day.

A little over 100 years ago coca and opium were widely believed to be cure-all drugs, and they were commonly added to tonics, elixirs, and even some beverages. However, medical science has demonstrated that powerful stimulants and opioids are dangerously addictive substances and their use by the general public is now outlawed due to health concerns and all the social ills that result from uncontrollable, physical addictions. In both of these examples, observations and scientific data were used to inform public opinion, and laws were adopted based on the acceptance of new scientific facts about human well-being. Additional laws against practices that were once considered acceptable, but are now deemed immoral or unethical, include: child labor, the inhumane treatment of animals, gender inequality, sexual harassment, and improper disposal of industrial pollutants.

In contrast, there are many laws have been repealed due greater scientific understanding and the resultant cultural shift in perception. These laws have been voted on, and due to a social consensus, practices once thought to be immoral or taboo are now widely accepted, such as: a woman’s right to vote due to the suffrage movement, the consumption of alcohol due to the repeal of prohibition, the permission of all races to use the same public facilities due to the repeal of segregation, the allowance of interracial marriages due to overturning of anti-miscegenation laws, and the repeal of anti-sodomy laws allowing homosexuals to come out of the closet without fear of persecution by the State . In fact, it wasn’t until June 26th 2003 that both homosexual and heterosexual sodomy became legal in the United States (under the U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas).

Our understanding of human well-being is constantly remolded as scientific investigation reveals new facts. And even though one’s personal well-being is a subjective state of consciousness, we are still able to define an objective standard of human well-being that every society must strive to achieve in order to have the happiest, most flourishing civilization possible.

In much the same way we can use an objective standard of human flourishing to assess a civilization’s level of societal well-being, a medical professional can examine a patient, and without ever being told how that patient personally feels, the physician can accurately and objectively diagnose the state of physical well-being. A properly functioning body meets a standard of health, falling within the limits of an optimal temperature, blood pressure, bone density, and so on. Of course, asking a patient how he or she feels in an important diagnostic indicator. However, a post-menopausal woman might feel perfectly fine, but her subjective sense of well-being makes no difference to insidious onset of osteoporosis, the results of which a bone density exam, daily vitamin D intake, and estrogen levels can indicate whether the patient is at risk for pathological fracture. Therefore, despite how a patient might personally feel about his or her state of physical well-being, an accurate, objective, and most importantly, a factual diagnosis can still be made regarding a patient’s health.

Every human being values and desires certain things, which can range from the morally good to the morally bad. The way we assess the actions and desires of a person in relation to society is similar to how we assess the actions and desires of a person in relation to their own physical health. There is a myriad of different foods that we can consume, but not all foods equally promote the standard of physiological well-being. It is objectively and factually true that fruits, vegetables, and lean meats promote human health much better than foods containing refined sugar and that have been deep fried. Even though someone might desire to eat nothing but fast food and candy every day, we can still objectively and factually determine that this behavior negatively affects the health of a properly functioning body. In the same regard, there are a myriad of different ways people can obtain money, although not all tasks equally promote the standard of societal well-being. Even though burglars might desire to rob houses for a living, we can still objectively and factually determine that this behavior negatively affects the health of a properly functioning society.

As a side note, comparing physiological and societal health serves to illustrate the important point that human well-being can be scientifically evaluated through observation and data collection. Although, this is not to suggest it is unacceptable to eat candy or fried foods. Such actions can be performed in moderation, so long as healthy blood levels of cholesterol and glucose are maintained. However, this is not to say we can burglarize homes in moderation. Under the heading of secular morality, if someone chooses to exercise their right to personal autonomy by consuming fatty foods, smoking tobacco, or drinking alcohol, then that is their personal choice, so long as they fully understand the consequences of their actions and the effects are limited to their own bodies. However, any action that violates the personal autonomy of someone ELSE, such as stealing, raping, murdering, and so on, must never be performed by anyone. End of side note.

Just as we can assess the negative consequences of destructive choices, such as eating fatty foods every day and burglarizing homes for a living; we can similarly provide an objective assessment of the positive consequences of constructive choices, which benefit the human body or society as a whole. Eating a healthy diet and getting daily exercise promotes physiological well-being, just like the ability to do and say as we please, to seek happiness, to not be enslaved, to be able to work and make money, to purchase the things we want, and to be generally uninhibited in our ability to make decisions, all serve to promote societal well-being.

Although not every opinion on moral health is viable, some opinions can ride either side of the line between the defining principles of secular morality. For instance, take the legality of alcohol consumption in the United States. In the early 20th century alcohol was made illegal upon the grounds that is was a social ill, it was addictive, and lead to health problems. However, the prohibition of alcohol created a black-market that lead to even greater social ills. Banning alcohol production meant that it was no longer regulated by the government, and instead of making the consumable ethanol found in beer wine, and liquor, inexperienced bootleggers often produced methanol, a toxic variety of alcohol found in antifreeze, the consumption of which results in blindness. Speakeasies began popping up in major cities, whose alcohol supply was controlled by the mafia and organized crime. Although prohibition was designed to prevent a social ill, it inadvertently fostered a deadly war among gangsters in the grab to control territory filled with the alcohol-deprived masses. Eventually, society’s demand for alcohol, and the social disharmony prohibition created, became too great, and in 1933 prohibition was repealed.

Here can we see Refined Morality at work, where the influence of personal autonomy and the well-being of society can sway a moral issue. Although consuming alcohol creates a burden upon society through addiction and other related health problems, bootlegging and the black market, the social costs of organized crime, and the lost of autonomy are much greater negative consequences. Different societies may disagree on particular moral issues, but one opinion does not have a greater moral value than another, so long as a balance is struck between individual autonomy and societal well-being. What works for time period may not work for another. Therefore, morality, in this regard, depends upon the subjective desires of the people who apply it and who are being governed under the law, but always within an context that upholds the basic principles of secular morality.

Primal morality is named so, because it is the primal, or fundamental basis of all social human behavior — and it is this aspect of secular morality that can be seen as purely objective, for Primal morality does not greatly differ between cultures or even time periods. Although, at its core, Primal Morality still works toward preserving individual autonomy and promoting the well-being of society, it is not determined by social consensus nor can it be voted upon. In fact, without Primal Morality human beings would be unable to effectively interact with one another, resulting in the destruction of societal integrity and even the extinction of our species.

Imagine you invite some new acquaintances to a party, and one of your attendees is the guest from hell. He shows up two hours late, tracks in mud all over your home, eats all the hor dourves, raids your medicine cabinet, drinks the expensive bottle of champagne you’ve been saving, spills cocktail sauce on the rug and never bothers to tell you or help clean it up. To make matters worse, he is extremely rude and hits on all the wives of your other guests. Would you invite this person to another party? If this individual called you for a favor would you bother helping him, let alone answer the phone?

The way we treat others in a social setting is very important to the evolution of morality. To further explore this concept, think about the characteristic traits that you find most attractive in your relationships with other people. Qualities like honesty, integrity, respect, generosity, and a willingness to cooperation, endear people to one another, solidifying bonds of trust, friendship, and even love. Therefore, people are likely to surround themselves with others that display those qualities and keep at a distance those who do not. Indeed, the fact one finds negative qualities like dishonesty, arrogance, rudeness, jealousy, wasteful, and uncooperativeness to be so distasteful, it is motivation to not display such behavior in oneself, because of course, we all want to like ourselves and you are the one person you must live with 24 hours a day.

Within the group dynamic not only is it beneficial for individual members to display positive qualities (to achieve group acceptance) and refrain from displaying negative qualities (to avoid being ostracized), we must all ask ourselves, “In what kind of society do we ultimately want to live?” Would you like to live in a community where anyone can murder you for no reason? Do you want to be part of a culture that permits you or your loved ones to be raped without any consequences? What about a society where someone can break into your home and take your belongings without fear of incarceration or any punishment at all?

Of course, the answer to all of these questions is, “No.” No one wants to be murdered, raped, or robbed, and that goes for the very same individuals that perpetrate these crimes. A rapist does not desire that he himself be raped, nor does a thief desire to be stolen from, although, there may be some exceptions to this rule. Therefore, any properly functioning society is compelled to outlaw such destructive behavior or risk its own demise.

However, critics often propose a scenario of an alternate evolution of morality, where the majority of all people actually WANT themselves to be murdered, raped, and robbed. Then the question is raised as to whether we can tell if this alternate society is moral or not. Before we examine this hypothetical scenario, and how it relates to the principles of secular morality, we should note that the language surrounding this example is very misleading.

The term “theft” implies one’s money or belongings are taken without consent. However, if someone desires or consents to having their money taken away, then it is no different than giving one’s money away, otherwise known as charity. By definition the term “rape” refers to forcible sexual intercourse against one’s will. However, if someone desires or consents to sexual intercourse, then the term “rape” cannot apply, for it is simply “sex” between two or more consenting parties. Murder, by definition, also refers to a non-consensual act. However, if someone consents to having their life taken away, then it is commonly known as euthanasia. If someone no longer desires to live due to extreme suffering or severe depression, and they’ve sought help but cannot find a suitable alternative to dying, then under secular morality that person has the autonomous right to end their own life or request someone to end it for them.

But even if an alternative version of morality were to evolve, where the majority population desires to be inflicted with horrendous acts of violence and other crimes, for those few individuals that do not, their right to refuse any unwanted violation of personal well-being and access to their belongings is still in effect. Therefore, according to secular morality, even though someone might desire to have their autonomy violated, one’s personal desires do not grant them the right to violate the autonomy and well-being of others.

As a side note, here we can see the first principle of secular morality is much more informative than Golden Rule on its own. The Golden Rule is not exclusive to Christianity, for its practice dates as far back as ancient Babylon. However, if one were to live their life solely according to the doctrine of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, then it would allow for a very dangerous loophole, namely, someone that does not care if they themselves are robbed is morally justified in robbing others. Likewise, someone that is suicidal and desires to be murdered is morally justified in committing murder. As we can see, the preservation of autonomy is an essential aspect of any sound moral philosophy, which the monotheistic religions fail to recognize. Once again, Biblical morality falls short of being an all-encompassing code of moral and ethical conduct. End of side note.

We can also assess the actions of the people abiding by this alternate evolution of morality by examining the general health and well-being of their communities. Certainly any population of people that went around murdering, raping, and robbing one another would foster a society engulfed in chaos and destruction. Furthermore, such a society could never hope to archive a similar standard of human flourishing and well-being experienced by other societies that protect their citizens from being robbed, rapped, and murdered in cold blood.

In a previous example we were able to objectively and factually determine that even though someone desires to eat fast food and eat candy every day, that doesn’t make their actions acceptable according to the medical standard of human physiological health. Similarly, we can objectively and factually determine that even though someone desires to perform harmful acts, that doesn’t make their actions acceptable according to the standard of societal health. Therefore, according to a secular understanding morality, even though someone might desire they themselves be inflicted with violent crimes, one’s personal desires do not grant the right to destroy societal integrity and well-being.

The negative moral worth of theft, rape and murder should be obvious to everyone, because these actions exist on the extreme end of the scale of social behavior. Additionally, the positive moral worth of actions like charity and helping those in need are equally obvious, for they exist on the other extreme. But how do we determine the moral worth of ambiguous actions involving personal conduct, which lie somewhere toward the middle of the scale?

For instance, John is a homosexual male that enjoys eating red meat, but strictly abstains from drinking alcohol and smoking, because such actions are in accordance with his personal wants and desires. However, his neighbor Jane is a heterosexual female, who adheres to a purely vegan diet, but enjoys drinking wine and occasionally smoking tobacco, because such actions are in accordance with her personal wants and desires. How can we say which individual adheres to the greater standard of morality? Indeed, we cannot, and this brings us full circle back to Refined Morality, for it is aspect of secular morality is subjective and morally relativistic. The gray area that exists between the extremes of social conduct is reserved for differing opinions on lifestyle choices, and according to secular morality, one opinion regarding lifestyle cannot hold moral worth over another.

Anyone that is truly concerned about moral issues, and the lives of the people these issues are influencing, would never argue for the positive moral worth of actions like theft, rape, and cold blooded murder, no matter if that person belongs to a monotheistic faith, a polytheistic faith, or no faith at all. Therefore, it appears the true source of moral conflict that people experience does not concern primal morality, but rather, involves disagreements over lifestyle choices, such as what clothes are acceptable to wear, what food is acceptable to eat, what substances are acceptable to ingest, what actions can be performed upon oneself, what actions can be performed among two or more consenting adults, and even what gender it is acceptable to have sex with.

When it comes to the moral worth of issues involving lifestyle choices, secular morality states that all opinions are equally as valid as the next — the only stipulation is that individuals must be free to pursue the lifestyle of their choosing without infringing on the autonomy of others to do the same. However, this is a far cry from the monotheistic traditions that propose an all-powerful, supernatural being is obsessed with micromanaging human behavior — which they believe regulates everything from our cloths, food, and sexual partners, to what medical procedures we are allowed to have, and even words we are allowed to say. In fact, they even go so far as to believe our own thoughts are not safe from moral scrutiny.

According to a secular understanding of morality, not only is it immoral and unethical for god, the Church, or any Religion, to control every aspect of their followers’ lives, it’s down right tyrannical. Furthermore, any religious believer that proposes someone else is immoral for not following their belief system, and coerces non-believers with threats of eternal damnation for failing to adhere to their particular religious lifestyle, is in violation of the first principle of secular morality, and therefore, any religion that encourages such behavior is completely immoral.

The only time secular morality can actually interfere with human behavior is when there is a risk that certain practices might deny other individuals their rights. If someone wants to eat, dress, or behave a certain way as part of their religious or even non-religious lifestyle, then that is perfectly acceptable, so long as those who wish to refrain from a particular lifestyle are allowed to do so. But even though we must have the right to do and say whatever we want, that right does not extend to the freedom of inflammatory hate speech that incites others to perform crimes. Nor can we call in a false bomb threat or a fake terrorist attack with the aim of inciting mass hysteria. We can do and say whatever we want within reason, but not at the cost of other people’s autonomy or the well-being of society at large.

Before we conclude our examination of Secular and Biblical Morality, we must further clarify the use of the terms objective and subjective, in addition to addressing certain criticisms regarding how these terms apply to each version of morality. When the term objective in used in the context of Biblical morality it refers to the concept of morals existing independent or outside the human mind. In turn, the source of morality is independent of the human mind as well, and monotheists attribute this source to god. The main implication of the Biblical moral framework is that morality is objective to humans, but subjective to god, because god’s characteristics and desires are upon what all moral principles are ultimately based. However, this belief produces a very difficult problem, namely, moral truths can sometimes change depending on god’s subjective desires at a particular point in time.

For example, it is generally immoral to murder children. However, as we have already examined several times throughout our discussion on morality, if god were to kill children himself, or even command his followers to do so, then this action would indeed become moral. Any monotheist that examines the story of Passover would not find fault with god’s indiscriminant killing of every first born male, from the son of Pharaoh to the lowliest prisoner, and even the livestock!

“At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, to the firstborn of the prisoner, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well… and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.”
Exodus 12:29-30
Numerous times throughout the Bible god commands his chosen people to murder their enemies, including woman and children, among many different nations belonging to the region, actions which are consistent with god’s divine will:

“However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.”
(Deuteronomy 20:16-17)

Obviously, monotheists do not believe it is always acceptable to murder the children of one’s enemies, but in cases where god so desires, the immorality of toddler-murder can change, becoming an objectively moral and pious act:

“Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants, nor will they look with compassion on children.”
Isaiah 13:18

“Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit.
Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring.”
Hosea 9:16

“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
Numbers 31:17&18

“Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock.”
Psalm 137:9

This appears to be quite a significant loophole in Biblical morality, for anyone that feels inclined commit a heinous crime, such a infanticide or even genocide, is morally justified in doing so, the only stipulation being that they believe the command has come from a divine source.

Not only do we observe such atrocities perpetrated in the Bible when the Israelites murder children and destroy non-believing civilizations, we find evidence of heinous acts of violence, along with their divine justifications, all throughout history as well, such as numerous crusades and campaigns by the Catholic Church to murder opposing heretical sects of Christians, like the gnostics. We see similar justification employed by white Christians living in the 16th to 19th Centuries in order to legitimize their exploitation of black slaves taken from Africa. And more recently, such justifications are being used by Muslim suicide bombers to legitimize acts of terror.

“Every year brings with it multitudes of this [mixed race] class of slaves. It was doubtless in consequence of a knowledge of this fact, that one great statesmen of the south predicted the downfall of slavery by the inevitable laws of population… if their increase do no other good, it will do away the force of the argument, that God cursed Ham, and therefore American slavery is right.”
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave (page 13)

So long as someone truly believes they are objectively abiding by god’s divine will, then the most horrendous acts of violence can be morally justified. Although a vast majority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims would object to the actions of the extremists belonging to their respective religions, who is to say these people are not acting upon orders from god? Who is to say the suicide bombers aren’t acting exactly according the god’s will, or that Christians of the 16th to 19th centuries were not keeping slaves according to a divine decree. How can we know whether the Church wasn’t acting on divine orders when rooting out and murdering heretics? And who is to say the Hebrews were not acting upon divine orders when plundering the towns of their neighbors and murdering the men, women, and children of opposing belief systems, as recounted in the very pages of the Bible itself? If we cannot determine an answer to such questions, then Biblical morality has an extremely important flaw, and is thus inconsistent and inaccurate in its ability to guide human behavior.

In contrast, the objective truths in secular morality are accurate, consistent, and most importantly, they are independent of the human mind. There is often a disagreement as to whether objective moral truths can really exist within secular morality, because the rules that govern human behavior, and the humans being governed by these rules, are inextricably linked.

However, in order to determine whether Primal Morality is dependent or independent of the human mind, let’s imagine a scenario where a pandemic suddenly sweeps across the planet, killing every single human being, but leaving our cities unscathed. Although the human species no longer exists, the record of our existence is still preserved on our computer databases. Two thousand years pass, when an alien race encounters the earth and is able to recover the electronic records our civilization. They study our history, culture, art, scientific discoveries, as well as our knowledge of medicine and the human body.

However, the fact human beings are now extinct does not mean the principles that governed our health have suddenly changed — 98.6°F is still the optimal temperature and 120/80 is still the optimal blood pressure of a healthy body, despite the fact human beings no longer exist. The anatomy and physiology of the alien race might be entirely different than our own, but that does not prevent them from learning about the nutritional values and physiological conditions within the human body that were needed to be maintained in order for us to live a healthy life.

Although there are no longer human bodies for the standard of physical health to guide and influence, the standard itself does not change, just as there are no longer human societies for the standard of secular morality to guide and influence, this standard, too, does not change. Just because human beings no longer exist, it does not change the fact that IF we existed, preserving autonomy promotes human well-being. The principles of secular morality are always upheld, regardless if human beings are alive or not, which means this moral standard is truly objective and independent of the mind, divine or otherwise.

As we can see, within the framework of secular morality there is no conceivable way to justify atrocities like genocide, infanticide, slavery, rape, plundering, and other horrible acts of violence found throughout the Bible. Even if there are objective moral truths within Biblical morality, these truths are ultimately based on the religious follower’s subjective interpretation of what they believe god wants. There is no way for anyone to validate whether someone’s actions are truly inspired by god, because there is no way for an independent third party to verify what the believer thinks they have been inspired to do.

Just imagine the pastor of a church or the Imam of a mosque standing up in front of his congregation and proclaiming the divine revelation that all of them must sacrifice their first born child, just like Abraham was commanded to do. How would these followers verify whether the words of their spiritual leader are true and accurate? To the contrary, there is no chink in the armor of secular morality to exploit. Actions that promote the character and quality of life are morally good, while actions that diminish the character and quality of life are morally bad. So long as a balance is struck between the preservation of personal autonomy and the well-being of society, then the principles of secular morality will continue to produce the happiest most prosperous civilization possible — one free of acts of terrorism and horrendous atrocities that are justified through the non-verifiable orders of a non-verifiable deity.

The objective moral truths within secular morality are independent of the human mind, but they are not based on a god’s ambiguous will, rather, these truths are determined by how well human beings are able to flourish given certain conditions and behavioral restraints. Although there might be individuals that genuinely, or even disingenuously, claim they are exercising their autonomy by performing acts of theft, rape, murder, or hate speech, the fact there are opposing views about social behavior does not mean these views are legitimate alternatives to what constitutes ethical and moral conduct — just as differing opinions about what constitutes a healthy diet does not mean every single opinion is correct when it comes to promoting the objective standard of physical health. We can objectively and factually determine the actions of theft, rape, murder, and even racism, do not promote the standard of a happy, healthy, prosperous, and flourishing civilization. Therefore, criminals that want to live in a lawless society are removed from society, for they are no longer welcome in a stable community that wishes to maintain its stability.

Indeed, it is because of this very concept the early members of our species adhered to social boundaries. Just imagine how a small community of hunter-gathers would get along if everyone had free reign to steal from and murder one another. The community would be in utter shambles, full of mistrust and suspicion. Without the tools of organization and cooperation their society would sink into chaos and then inevitable extinction.

But for all we know, there could have been many different variations of Primal Morality, where groups of early humans went around clubbing each other over the head and taking whatever they wanted from other members of their own group. But even if other versions of Primal Morality evolved in early groups of humans, such lawless societies would have quickly gone extinct, because only the fittest groups of our ancestors were able to survive. However, survival of the fittest does not mean the strongest male going around killing his rivals and taken whatever he wants.

Within the scope of group dynamics, survival of the fittest refers to how well members are able to cooperate with one another to find food and how well they care for the sick and weakest members of their group, ensuring everyone has equal opportunity to resources so that they may in turn contribute to and further strengthen the group. Therefore, the evolution of Primal Morality is no accident, because in order for a group to prosper and flourish, which consists of interdependent members, their collective behavior could not have evolved any other way.

The ability to more easily survive as a contributing member of a caring and cooperative group, rather than as a lone individual only concerned for one’s personal well-being, enabled our predecessors to refine the social tool of moral behavior as they thrived and prospered under a hierarchal rule of law, much the same way as pack animals, like wolves. Humans are sometimes inclined to think of themselves as being outside the animal kingdom. However, evolution demonstrates that humans ARE animals, and if we wish to obtain a deeper understanding of human nature, the origins of morality, and the development of social structure, then we are compelled to study the behavior of other animals.

Download the song here.

Wearing your costumes and playing your games
Turning your tricks with all sorts of names
Feeding us lies with a smile on your face, you deceive

Painting your face like the fool that you are
Preaching the word that means nothing at all
You desperately grasp on to a false sense of being

Why even try, when you know the end is coming
You can’t say why, but you feel yourself numbing, yes you do

What do you do when day fades to night
Say your little prayers then turn out the light
Didn’t mother teach you that all hope is in vain

When you awake you start it again
Convinced of the lies you unthinkingly defend
But in the back of your mind you know it’s all pretend

Why even try, when you know the end is approaching
You can’t say when, but you feel yourself hoping that it’s true

PART 1:

PART 2:

PART 3:

Anyone that has ever had a theological conversation has certainly touched upon the subject of slavery. There are a number of common arguments that Christians use to explain away the fact the Bible appears to promote the enslavement of other human beings, and this video will provide the anti-apologetics to those arguments. The format of this video is a dialog between a Christian and an atheist, much of which has been taken from my personal debates as well as contemporary Christian apologetics.

Recently I have been getting a lot of requests to help people with theological debates as well as the best way to announce their atheism. To any atheists concerned about how they should reveal their disbelief in God to their friends or family, my advice would be to do it slowly, over time. Do not rush right into a heated theological debate. Personally speaking, I would start to slowly raise legitimate concerns about the Bible, similar to the process that most likely lead to your disbelief in the first place.

However, eventually you will need to defend your position and debate your believing friends and family about your atheism. I find the best place to start is to raise issues about the atrocities found in the Bible, and the topic of slavery has always been one of the biggest hurdles for me to reconcile with the notion that the God of Abraham is a just and loving God. My advice before getting into the details of a debate is to first agree with your opponent on some common ground. For the purposes of the debate on slavery, agree on three things.

1.) The God of the Bible exists.

2.) Morality is fixed, unchanging, and prescribed by God.

3.) Slavery is immoral.

Do not worry if you disagree with the first two points. What you are doing is establishing what your opponent believes, so eventually you can expose the inconsistencies in their moral reasoning. You will notice throughout my dialog that I equate the immoral practice of slavery with prostitution. Although it is my personal view that sex between two consenting adults for money should not be illegal, I still cite this example to demonstrate the theist’s moral inconsistency. Often during debates about morality believers will claim atheists do not have morals and therefore they cannot bring into question the immorality of a practice such as slavery. However, do not let them get away with this trick. For the purposes of this debate you are completely relying on theistic morality, so do not get side tracked with defending secular morality.

Remember to keep focused and do not move on to other subjects until the issue you are debating has been resolved. And one final point, always make sure you have a Bible handy when debating an issue like slavery, because you will need to look up passages to demonstrate what the Bible actually says. Memorize or write down the chapter numbers of important passages, such as Exodus 21, Leviticus 25, Luke 12, and 1 Peter 2, for they will be crucial in showing how slavery is both promoted and justified throughout the Old and New Testaments. And now for my anti-apologetics on Biblical slavery:

Atheist:

The reason I have difficulty believing the God of Abraham is the benevolent, all-loving God that he is claimed to be, is because the practice of slavery appears to be endorsed throughout the Bible.

Theist:

The Bible does not endorse slavery, but slavery was a common practice throughout the ancient world. Slavery often served a vital purpose, such as allowing people to pay of debts, as in the case of indentured servants. Without all the bankruptcy and foreclosure laws, as well as debt consolidation companies that we have today, there would have been no way for people living in the ancient world to recover their debts.

Atheist:

Before we go any further, I would like to reach an agreement so we can have a basis upon which to build. For the purposes of this discussion I will agree that the Biblical God does exist. Let’s also agree that morality is fixed, unchanging, and prescribed by God. And finally, I do not think anyone believes the practice of slavery is actually moral, so let’s both agree that the 13th Amendment should be upheld.

With that said, if you agree slavery is immoral, what difference would it make how pervasive the practice or in what fashion slavery was used? Instead of slavery, what if men and women throughout the ancient world used sex as a tool to recover their debts? Would that make the act of premarital sex, or even adultery, any less immoral? Not according to a Christian world-view. Therefore, why do you make such arbitrary concessions when it comes to the practice of slavery?

Again, it does not matter in what manner slavery was used or how much it was ingrained in everyday life, for we have agreed that God defines morality according to fixed absolutes. Therefore, if something is immoral, it is ALWAYS immoral. We must be consistent in our understanding of moral principles, for without consistency morality becomes meaningless.

Theist:

Even though the Bible describes some Israelites and Christians as owning slaves, slavery in Biblical times was not the same thing as slavery as it was practiced in America before 1865. In fact, the Bible actually tells Christian masters to treat their slaves with kindness and to look out for their welfare. For example, in Ephesians 6 Paul commands slaves to serve their masters as they would serve Christ and not half-heartedly. This is because “knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is slave or free.” Paul goes on to tell the masters to do the SAME to the slaves and even tells the masters to not threaten their slaves because, “since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.”

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on  you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is slave or free.  And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” (Ephesians 6:5-9)

Atheist:

Yes, but is slavery moral? If you agree that enslaving someone is not a moral practice, then what difference would it make how the slaves were treated? I will refer to my previous analogy of prostitution. What if we could guarantee prostitutes would only be treated with utmost respect in a controlled setting with security, monthly blood screenings, and so on? In fact, we could even legalize prostitution, creating an environment where the only parties involved would be consenting adults, and prostitutes have full control over the men they choose to be their clients.

What does the fact that women are being treated kindly by their brothels have to say about the Christian perception of prostitution? If you believe prostitution is immoral, then it is ALWAYS immoral — no matter how much we regulate it, limit it, or how well we treat its participants. Likewise, if slavery is immoral, then it is ALWAYS immoral — no matter how a master might treat his slaves or what are the reasons for enslaving them, there is no justification that can be given to explain away the enslavement of a class or race of people. Even if you, as a slave master, were the kindest slave master in the history of humankind, it would do nothing to legitimize the practice of slavery. You could be the nicest crack dealer in the world as well, but it would not excuse the fact you directly profit from the exploitation of other human beings. Instead of telling Christians to be kind to their slaves, why didn’t Paul just come right out and completely denounce the practice of slavery all together?

Theist:

Paul was not endorsing slavery, but slavery was a reality in ancient Rome as well as most of the world at the time. Would you prefer Paul to have advised these men to possibility risk their lives by revolting or possibly be subjected to severe punishment under the pagan Roman law? Christianity was a new RELIGION (or fulfillment of Judaism) that looked forward to a redeemed world to come; not a political system to right all the wrongs.

Atheist:

Why would Paul have advised the SLAVES to do anything? Why couldn’t Paul advise the slave MASTERS, who retained all the power? Or better yet, simply speak out against slavery as being the moral injustice that it was!

Never mind Paul’s attempt to REGULATE slavery by writing letters to the Ephesians, the mere fact this immoral act was allowed to continue in ANY fashion demonstrates his inhumane indifference to the suffering of millions of innocent people. What if something like bestiality were just as pervasive as slavery, don’t you think Paul would have stood in direct opposition to its practice?

Are you really attempting to suggest Jesus’ and Paul’s hands were completely tied with regard to speaking out against the issue of slavery? Are we to expect Christianity to stand up for what is right and just, despite slavery being a common practice? Are we to expect Paul to have spoken out against slavery because it is fundamentally immoral, despite whether or not an anti-slavery position was unpopular for its time? The answer is, “Yes!” Is Jesus and the apostles standing up for what is moral and championing the rights of an unjustly persecuted class of people too great an expectation?

Theist:

You claim Biblical slavery unjustly persecuted an entire class of people, but how do you even known the form of slavery being practiced by Christians during the time of Jesus was so unjust? These slaves were indentured servants, paying off a debt, and as we have already seen, Paul even tells the Ephesians to treat their slaves well.

Atheist:

Let’s take a look at 1 Peter 2:

“Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.” (1 Peter 2:18-21)

Peter, one of Jesus’ closest apostles, tells slaves to submit to their masters, even “those who are harsh”. Peter actually uses the words “unjust suffering” to describe the predicament of the slaves. Here we can plainly see that Peter, in full conscience, KNOWS the act of slavery is unjust and that it causes suffering! Peter even compares the unjust suffering of slaves to the unjust suffering of Christ, and that such suffering is holy in the eyes of God.

The slaves being address in this passage are not under contract to pay off a debt, they are being worked and unjustly beaten. Furthermore, there is no attempt to even condemn the unjust beatings. This passage serves to excuse the exploitation of millions of people in bondage, telling them to just deal with their suffering by following the example of Christ.

To say that slavery was merely an accepted part of life and no one was able to speak in direct opposition to this vile practice is similar to saying something equally absurd, like: “Because the ancient world widely accepted prostitution and adultery, Christianity could not have taken a firm stance against them, because it was merely an upstart religion with no political affiliation.”

An objective moral truth is true no matter what time period you happen to live in. If slavery is objectively wrong in the present, then it must have been objectively wrong in the past, according to our previously agreed upon standard of God’s fixed moral absolutes. If slavery was indeed viewed as an injustice to Peter, Jesus, or any of the other apostles (as is clearly the case), and they did not say or do anything to rectify this matter, then they are just as morally accountable as the slave masters. That’s called aiding and abetting — you cannot know someone is responsible for a crime and say nothing or withhold information from the police.

Jesus is certainly vocal about his opinions on adultery and murder. In fact, Jesus goes so far as to equate lust with adultery and hate with murder. With such opinionated, conservative views on these two issues, why the apathetic indifference to the issue of slavery?

Theist:

Although Jesus is not recorded as directly addressing the immorality of slavery by name, just because it was not recorded does not mean Jesus never talked about it.

Atheist:

I am not in a position to assume anything about any historical figures, especially one living 2,000 years ago. Are you? Therefore, if Jesus’ true views on slavery were not recorded, then the point is moot. But we are not discussing the POSSIBILITY of Jesus having said something. Sure, Jesus could have talked about the immorality of slavery, just as easily as he could have flown to the moon and back. However, we are not discussing hypothetical scenarios, we are discussing the written record and the very real implications the record had on the suffering of countless millions of men, women, and children at the hands of Christian slave masters.

Theist:

Although it might be true slaves suffered unjustly, as you pointed out in 1 Peter 2, Jesus was ultimately concerned with our eternal destination. Not how well life goes in this world.

Atheist:

If that is true, then wouldn’t performing an immoral act such as slavery lead one down a road to eternal damnation? Was the irrevocable damage to the immortal souls of Christian slave masters of no concern to Jesus Christ? Furthermore, there are no other immoral acts that could be worse than slavery, because for so many people slavery was a fate much worse than even being murdered.

African American literature of the 19th Century describes in great detail the magnitude of what many slaves were forced to endure throughout the course of their lives. Slaves were treated like animals that needed to be tamed and their spirits broken, much like the domestication process of a wild animal. In fact, the same methods of dehumanization was used by the Nazis in concentration camps during World War II.

In reading the works of Frederick Douglass, his fear and desperation are palpable in his recounting of the extreme brutality and senseless acts of violence daily visited upon him and his fellow slaves as their spirits where shattered. Douglass describes slaves being treated no better than livestock, and in many instances far, far worse.

“I have often been awakened by the dawn of day by the most heart-rending shrieks of an own aunt of mine, whom he used to tie up to a joist, and whip upon her naked back till she was literally covered with blood. No words, no tears, no prayers, from his gory victim, seemed to move his iron heart from its bloody purpose. The louder she screamed, the harder he whipped; and where the blood ran fastest, there hush and not until overcome by fatigue, would he cease to swing the blood-clotted cowskin. I remember the first time I ever witnessed this horrible exhibition. I was quite a child, but I well remember it. I never shall forget it whilst I remember any thing. It was the first of a long series of such outrages, of which I was doomed to be a witness and participant. It struck me with awful force. It was t he blood-stained fate, the entrance to the hell of slavery, through which I was about to pass. It was the most terrible spectacle. I wish I could commit to paper the feelings with which I beheld it.”

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave (page 14)

But to add insult to injury, after receiving their beating the slaves would be often treated to readings from Scripture. This just further demonstrates that these horrendous acts were perpetrated by devout believers in the Christian God, who adamantly adhered to Scripture, and justified the practice of keeping slaves through Scripture.

“Every year brings with it multitudes of this [mixed race] class of slaves. It was doubtless in consequence of a knowledge of this fact, that one great statesmen of the south predicted the downfall of slavery by the inevitable laws of population. Whether this prophecy is ever fulfilled or not, it is nevertheless plain that a very different looking class of people are springing up at the south, and are now held in slavery from those originally brought to this country from Africa; and if their increase do no other good, it will do away the force of the argument, that God cursed Ham, and therefore American slavery is right.”

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave (page 13)

Here Douglass is referring to the common argument take from the Bible to justify the enslavement people with darker sin. In Genesis chapter 9 verse 25 Noah places a curse on Canaan, Ham’s son and Noah’s grandson.

“And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”(Genesis 9:25)

Theist:

There is no question the form of slavery that was practiced by Americas was very cruel, but how these Christians misused the Bible is not the Bible’s fault. The Christians that engaged in the European and American slave trade twisted Scripture to fit their own agenda, and thus were not true Christians.

Atheist:

Although it might be true that Christians twisted or reinterpreted Scripture to fit their own agenda, that would only be the case if the Bible actually bothered speaking in direct opposition to the practice slavery. With such potential for abuse, Jesus and the apostles could not afford to remain silent on this issue.

Surely the with the power of omniscience at his command, God could foresee all the pain and suffering at the hands of the American and European slave trades, and how the very same passages Jesus preached, and the apostles took down with pen, would be used to justify one of the most horrendous evils ever perpetrated upon the Earth.

Therefore, instead of remaining ambiguous on this subject, and even using slavery to illustrate parables, why didn’t Jesus come right out and condemn slavery directly, making no bones about it — slavery is wrong and we should not do it. If Jesus had come out in direct opposition to slavery, then at the very least the ambiguous passages found in the Bible could not have been manipulated in such a way as to appear to justify the practice of slavery. Jesus Christ could have easily addressed this issue on numerous occasions, and only He, as the Son of God, was in the unique position to do so.

Theist:

The reason Jesus may not have directly opposed slavery was because He did not come as a politician. The Jewish leaders certainly had expected a Messiah who would come to crush Rome and liberate them based on their understanding of Old Testament prophecies. But Jesus said “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.” (Matthew 18:11) Jesus did not come to change the world politically, but to save the lost and redeem mankind to God.

Atheist:

Do we not make laws with regard to moral issues? We certainly have laws against cold-blooded murder, which I will safely assume we can both agree is immoral as well as illegal. Why then do you continue to make concessions for slavery on this point? Even if Jesus came back to abolish the sacrificial, dietary, and judicial laws of the Nation of Israel, he would still be bound to the moral law. Therefore, if slavery is immoral, then Jesus was dutifully bound to speak in opposition to it, regardless if this position was unpopular at the time.

It does not matter if Jesus did not come as a politician, for slavery is a moral issue and Jesus is well-known for his moral instruction. So why weren’t he and the apostles proselytizing against slavery and denying slave masters access to heaven for engaging in this practice? Because Jesus did not want the religion to become politicized? Is that honestly what you believe? If that is true, and Jesus had the ear of every Christian slaveholder throughout time but would rather let millions suffer under the oppression of slavery because he “did not come to change the world politically”, then Jesus was far from the moral teacher Christians make him out to be and Christian morality is essentially bankrupt.

However, slavery is a social injustice, not a political issue to be debated or voted upon — a fact that is curiously overlooked unless the slaves in question happen to be God’s “Chosen People”. God went to such lengths to free the Hebrews from bondage that He kills every first born child in Egypt, from princes to livestock.

“All the firstborn sons will die in every family in Egypt, from the oldest son of Pharaoh, who sits on his throne, to the oldest son of his lowliest servant girl who grinds the flour. Even the firstborn of all the livestock will die.”

(Exodus 11:15)

At least we can give God credit for being consistent, or rather indiscriminate, when it comes to acts of infanticide. But are we really to believe that somehow God cannot maintain consistency with his views on slavery? God certainly did not view Hebrew liberty from Egyptian bondage as a “political” issue that should remain untouched and allowed to be resolved on its own.

If we are all God’s children, why shouldn’t all people enjoy the same rights? Christ came to unite all people under that message. No longer were the Jews God’s Chosen People, because Christianity was a religion for everyone, Jew and gentile alike. So why wasn’t God’s position on slavery regarding the Hebrews in Exodus extended to ALL slaves, such as those found in the Gospels?

The right to not be beaten, to not work without pay, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are human rights that all humans must be free to enjoy. The Declaration of Independence labels these as unalienable Rights given to us by the Creator, but as we can see that is certainly not the case. God never extends these rights to slaves, and neither did the Founding Fathers. Christian men used the Bible as motivation and justification to enslave an entire RACE of people.

Jesus had the opportunity to stop the practice of slavery in its tracks, to prevent the exploitation of millions of men, women and children throughout history, but he did not. We are not talking about politics or social reform, we are talking about establishing a moral and ethical code of conduct that would ring throughout the centuries to come. Jesus knew his teachings would be written down and learned from, yet STILL made no attempt to circumvent the injustices perpetrated under slavery. If slavery is immoral now then slavery was immoral in the past, unless I am missing something and morality is completely arbitrary.

Theist:

Although Jesus did not speak in direct opposition to slavery, He did indirectly address slavery in the gospel account of Matthew, as well as Luke with a parallel passage:

“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)

“And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.” (Luke 6:31)

Both of these verses are from the “Sermon on the Mount”, where Jesus exposits the Ten Commandments and reveals that they are not about outward behavior, but the intentions of the heart. If we are not to even bear false witness against a fellow man or woman, then logic would dictate that slavery would certainly not be acceptable.

Jesus says, “He who hates his brother is a murderer…” (1 John 3:15). If hatred is seen as murder in God’s eye, then slavery most certainly is seen as nothing less than hatred. Especially the kind of slavery you accuse the Bible of condoning and supporting.

Atheist:

I don’t think it’s possible to find a more ambiguous verse than Matthew 7 or Luke 6 regarding the very clear issue of slavery. Although you cite Luke 6 as evidence that Jesus indirectly speaks against slavery, in Luke 12 we find a record of Jesus addressing the issue of slavery DIRECTLY.

The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.”

“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” (Luke 12:42-48)

Theist:

But this passage does not support beating slaves. This is in the context of a parable, which were stories  that Jesus told to help us understand spiritual truths. Another example of this would be the parable where Jesus likens God to an unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8). The point is not for us to see God as unjust, but to tell us to be persistent in prayer. Likewise, the parable of the master and servant tells us we should be on the lookout and be ready for Jesus’ second coming: believers will receive their reward, unbelievers will receive their eternal punishment.

Atheist:

Although it is a parable, Jesus himself directly speaks about the well-known practice of viciously beating slaves, and yet again, denies himself the opportunity to condemn these actions. Notice how the parable does not address the immoral practice of slavery itself, but rather, Jesus is using the practice of slavery to form an analogy between a slave master (God) horrendously punishing his servants (us) for not being ready upon his return.

If Jesus was against slavery wouldn’t it have made better sense to equate the practice of slavery with hell, and by not following God’s Word the sinners are like slaves, toiling away their existence with no hope of escape? Then Jesus could have stated something like, “Liberation from slavery is similar to salvation through Christ. All men deserve to be free and thus all men deserve their heavenly rewards, which can only be obtained by liberating themselves from slavery to sin.”

It took me two minutes to come up with an infinitely more applicable parable than Jesus. So why didn’t Jesus say something to that affect? Because Jesus IS excusing the practice of slavery. Jesus is claiming GOD will do unto US what MASTERS do to their SLAVES. If God is within his limits to punish us for not following His Word, then why aren’t slave masters equally as justified? If that were not the case, and slave masters do not have the right to beat their slaves, then this parable would not make any sense.

What if instead of slavery Jesus used a parable of a prostitute and her pimp? “Prostitutes that are not prepared when their pimps unexpectedly call on them will be severely beaten, so too will you be punished if unprepared for the Lord’s return.” Does this parable make ANY sense? Of course not!

Why would Jesus make reference to a blatantly immoral act in order to demonstrate a holy message? You first must have a frame of reference in order for a parable to be applicable. If Jesus believes slavery is immoral, then referencing the act of beating slaves in positive affirmation of the plans he has made for us would be a complete contradiction! However, we have many more passages regarding the unjust practice of slavery to choose from, which are neither ambiguous nor in parable form. For instance, take 1 Timothy 6:

“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves.” (1 Timothy 6:1-2)

Here we find very descriptive language regarding slavery. We see that slaves are treated as chattel — human animals to be placed under a “yoke” and made to work and serve their masters. In fact, if you’re the unfortunate slave of a Christian slave master you are commanded to serve them even better. How do you expect slaves belonging to Christian masters to ever get out of bondage? What would you have told an American slave master that used this passage to justify his right to own slaves? How could you possibly convince him otherwise? Nowhere are concessions made for slaves of Christian masters to become free men. In fact, this passage appears to explicitly speak against slaves ever obtaining their freedom!

Now, I realize this passage also states that slave masters are “devoted to the welfare of their slaves”, but we have already discussed this issue. It does not matter if some slave masters looked after the welfare of their slaves or not, for this passage clearly justifies a practice that we have already determined to be unjust. If you want to justify the immoral act of slavery simply upon the grounds of how slaves were treated, then let’s justify prostitution by how well we treat prostitutes and let’s justify the practice of bestiality by how well we the treat animals. Consistency is essential with regard to morality. If we cannot be consistent in our understanding of moral issues, then morality is not fixed, it is not absolute, and right and wrong are completely arbitrary.

Theist:

Slavery was common throughout the Middle East as far back as ancient Egypt and if God had simply ignored it, then there wouldn’t have been rules on how to treat slaves and servants; therefore, they would have had no rights whatsoever. God’s rules regarding slavery show that God cared for slaves.

If God didn’t protect the slaves and bondservants with his commands, then people who did want to practice harsh slavery would love to move into an area where there were no governing principles on the treatment of slaves. It would have attracted those slave owners like flies; therefore, God’s laws discouraged such things.

In giving laws to regulate slavery, God is not saying it is a good thing. In fact, by giving laws about it at all, He is plainly stating it is a bad thing. We don’t make laws to limit or regulate good things. After all, you won’t find laws that tell us it is wrong to be too healthy or that if water is too clean we have to add pollution to it. Therefore, the fact slavery is included in the regulations of the Old Testament at all assumes that it is a bad thing which needs regulation to prevent the damage from being too great.

Atheist:

Driving a car is certainly a “good thing”, but we place regulations on driving so it does not become hazardous.

Safe food is also certainly a “good thing”, but we regulate how food is to be handled in order to prevent hazards to one’s health. This is also the reason we have health inspections in restaurants.

Laws develop in response to a need — laws are not ALWAYS there to limit “bad things”. We make laws to ensure safety when driving a car or handling food, not because these actions are inherently wrong. Likewise, regulations were placed on slavery not because the act itself was wrong in the Hebrews’ eyes, but rather, to regulate the practice so it would not become hazardous to the Hebrews engaging in it.

If the Israelites had really view of slavery as being a dangerously immoral practice, they would have completely outlawed slavery instead of merely making laws to regulate it. Indeed, all concessions in the Torah on the practice of slavery are only given to other Hebrews, in order to limit the numbers of their own tribes being enslaves, but slaves from other nations never have any rights.

Theist:

Not only does the Bible provide laws to regulate slavery, Moses even attempts ban slave traders in Exodus 21, where he states, “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.” (Exodus 21:16)

Atheist:

Yes, this was obviously a valuable law at the time, preventing bandits and highway robbers from kidnapping people and ransoming or selling them. But this passage does not, as you say, show “Moses banned slave traders”, for this passage is addressing kidnappers. You must look to the book of Leviticus to find laws regarding the slave trade, where Moses gives very specific stipulations by which to obtain “kosher” slaves. Keep in mind, the book of Leviticus comes AFTER Exodus.

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members from their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25:44-46)

There is no kidnapping going on here. These slaves are legally purchased from other nations or from foreign tribes living within Israel. How these slaves arrived on the auction block is no concern under Hebrew law, for these are foreigners. These slaves could have been kidnapped, captured in war, or even born into slavery. There are no regulations on how slaves purchased from other nations are to be initially placed into bondage.

This is the most difficult passage for theists to explain, because it ticks every single one of the boxes under the definition of slavery. Slaves are to be “inherited property” that can be passed down to one’s children. We are directly told how to obtain new slaves, as they are to “come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.” The passage also stipulates that we have the authority to “rule over” slaves, meaning they are controlled by a master and forced to do his bidding without any promise of reimbursement.

Does this passage appear to place regulations on slavery because, as you claim, “the fact slavery is included in the regulations of the Old Testament at all assumes that it is a bad thing”?  Leviticus is not trying to regulate the injustices of slavery, quite the contrary — it is promoting the practice while focusing the injustices onto people belonging to outside nations. Essentially what Leviticus 25 is telling us is that you can have slaves, just make sure they are not Hebrews. But if you happen to have Israelite slaves, do not be cruel to them.

As we can plainly see, slaves taken from “the nations around you” and “temporary residents living among you and members from their clans born in your country” have no rights as human beings. In fact, every instance the practice of slavery is mentioned throughout Mosaic Law, preference is ALWAYS given to “fellow Israelites”.

“‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.” (Leviticus 25:39-43)

Theist:

God makes sure to preface the passage in Leviticus 25 with a reminder that He had just saved the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt, which was real, forced labor, and cruel bondage. The Israelites had just come out of slavery themselves, and were about to enter into the Holy Land. They would not have had many slaves or servants at this point, but they obviously had some because Moses saw fit to regulate it. However, it still does not restrict people from other nations selling themselves.

In fact, Exodus 21 gives instructions on how a bondservant must be treated:

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever” (Exodus 21:2-6)

This is an example of an ancient form of bankruptcy, where a person has lost himself or herself to debt and only has one thing left to sell: his/her ability to work. This is a loan. And it says also that REGARDLESS of the debt, the bondservant is to be held no longer than six years unless he so chooses.

Regarding Exodus 21:4, if the bondservant is willing to walk away from his wife or kids (who were already bondservants to the master to begin with) then it is his own fault. It is not the master’s responsibility to forgive her debt, though it certainly does not forbid him to do so if he pleases. But if the male servant did walk away without them, he would be in defiance of the law of marriage. He has every right to stay with his family. His wife however is obligated to pay her debt until the master lets her free (keep in mind this is not to exceed 6 years legally). Otherwise a woman could deceitfully rack up debt, sell herself into slavery to cover her debt, only to marry somebody with a short amount time left on his term, and then go free with him. That would be cruel to the master who was allow her to work off her debt. This provision is to protect those who are trying to HELP, not enslave harshly and indefinitely.

Atheist:

You are completely misinterpreting this passage! Nowhere does it imply the woman provided to the Hebrew servant his a “bondservant” as well. The passage clearly states the woman “BELONGS” to the master, a.k.a. she is his slave. Exodus 21 does not claim she is a Hebrew woman that is engaging in her six years of servitude to pay off a debt, otherwise she could go free after her time is up! Exactly what would be preventing her from leaving with her husband and all of her children if she was not a permanent slave of her master? After six years the MALE Hebrew servant can go free, but the master is not going to give up his property just because the male servant has sired children with her.

You said, “if the bondservant is willing to walk away from his wife or kids then it is his own fault”.

No it’s not, because this is tantamount to blackmail! The Hebrew servant has one of two options, to give up his wife and children so he can be free or remain with his wife and children and continue being a “slave”. The passage clearly states that if the servant says, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free”, then “his master shall pierce his ear with an awl”, thus forever branding him a slave.

Although there is a way out of bondage for the Hebrew servant, if he chooses “love” over freedom, then he and his entire family are to be slaves “FOREVER”. Whatever choice the Hebrew servant makes, the Bible is very clear about what happens to the children born of his union.

We see that children born to a Hebrew bondservant are not extended the same rights as their father under Mosaic law. The rights of the slave master trumps those of the children born to a member of the Nation of Israel, due to the simple fact of where the bondservant is at the time of his children’s conception. These children are not considered citizens of the Nation, not even by birth! Children born of a bondservant, who at the time is merely paying off a debt, are to suffer as slaves for the rest of their lives.

Essentially what is taking place is the Torah is providing the slave master with a loophole to breed more slaves. But to make matters worse, the father is blackmailed with the love for his children. If he is a cold-hearted bastard, then sure he can go free. But if he does the right thing and stays with his family, then the Torah allows the slave master to profit by gaining an additional adult male slave. HOW is this moral? How can any moral society or benevolent God turn a blind eye to this level of injustice, let alone make laws to enforce it?!

In addition, this passage serves to further demonstrate my previous point, that the ONLY time slavery is ever mentioned with any leniency is in reference to OTHER Israelites. However, the Torah is very clear when it comes to slaves that are captured from other nations. Foreign-born slaves NEVER have any rights and once placed in bondage they are to remain “SLAVES FOR LIFE”. If you feel I am in error, I challenge you to cite a single passage that specifically references NON-ISRAELITE slaves and the manner by which they can be legally freed from servitude.

Although no such passage exists, even if  it did it would not matter, because, as we have already determined throughout the course of this discussion, slavery is immoral. Just because you might find a passage the gives stipulations for how one might obtain their freedom, that does not excuse the fact an immoral practice is being allowed to go on in the first place, no matter how tightly regulated it might be.

Theist:

All the laws regulating slavery/indentured servitude are found in the Pentateuch (meaning Five Scrolls), or Five Books of Moses. These books were given as Israel was coming out of bondage to possess the land that God had promised to Abraham and his descendants hundreds of years earlier in the book of Genesis.

The Judicial laws are what governed and regulated the practice of selling oneself into servitude to pay a debt. Therefore, these laws do not command Christians in modern times to do such a thing as even have bondservants. These were the rules for the nation of Israel. Indeed, the laws are all addressed to Israel, not Americans of the 21st century. In fact, the Jews didn’t even seem to hold to ALL of these rules even in Jesus’ time, yet Jesus did not condemn them for it. The Romans were the political power in charge at the time, and they had much harsher slavery laws and were more brutal in just about every other way imaginable.

Even though the Mosaic laws given may not apply to us directly, we can draw principles out of them because God never changes. At least not the Biblical God. Therefore, the laws are still useful to Christians today in their own religious practices.

Atheist:

Even though slavery was regulated by judicial laws, that does not absolve its moral implications. Jesus absolved many Hebrew judicial laws regarding murder, does that mean murder is no longer immoral? Although Christians of the 16th-19th Centuries were not bound to the judicial laws regulating slavery in the Old Testament, they were perfectly within their rights to create NEW laws, and that’s just what they did. The fact Jesus never directly spoke in opposition to slavery meant, as far as the Christians of the 16th-19th Centuries were concerned, slavery was perfectly acceptable within Christianity.

You said, “Even though the law given may not apply to us directly, we can draw principles out of them because God never changes. At least not the Biblical God.”

Yes, exactly! The laws regarding slavery were not given to us directly, but these laws clearly demonstrate slavery is an acceptable practice so long as the proper regulations are in place. Great! So modern-day Christians can make new laws and go right on keeping slaves. Do you not see a problem with this logic? When something is immoral it does not matter how you regulate it. If, as you claim, “God never changes” then the act of slavery should have never been allowed to occur in the first place, or we should still have slavery today. The fact that slavery was widely practiced throughout the ancient world by Jews and Christians alike, but is currently an outlawed practice today, suggests a serious disconnect in the theistic understanding of morality.

Theist:

What we need to realize is that slavery, among many other sensitive subjects in the Bible, has always been a dilemma among men in our sin-cursed world all through out history. The Bible was not written to reform society, but instead, to reform our souls with God’s salvation. The Bible attacks all of life’s plagues proactively from the inside out. Think about it: When someone accepts the true salvation of God’s love, forgiveness, mercy, and grace, their soul is reformed. Someone who is truly saved by God’s grace and lives like Christ, will treat others with gracious love. The cure to slavery, and the cure to all the plagues in the world, is curing the heart of men, which is the Bible’s purpose. If you can change a man’s heart and soul, you don’t need to outlaw slavery, because a man of God would never treat another man harshly, against his will, to profit from their inhumane labor. That is the Bible’s approach to slavery, as well as, all of life’s evils.

Atheist:

As we have seen, the Bible only attempts to regulate slavery and to focus the injustices on foreign-born slaves. Neither Mosaic Law nor Jesus Christ make any attempt to outlaw the practice all together.

You claim, “The cure to slavery, and the cure to all the plagues in the world, is curing the hearts of men, which is the Bible’s purpose.”

So now you speak of slavery as if it were a plague upon humankind, when throughout this entire conversation you’ve been making excuses for it’s practice. If, as you describe, slavery really was such a plague, then why does Jesus, Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke, Timothy and everyone else that mentions slavery in the Bible treat this issue with such disregard.

Although you claim slavery was a judicial matter that Jesus Christ served to abolish, slavery was also a matter of morality, thus Jesus was bound to uphold the moral law. If there is indeed such a thing as a fix standard of absolute morality, then Jesus did not live up to his role as a moral teacher. It is clear from Jesus’ sermons that he was far more concerned about suppressing our natural instinct to mate (also known as lust), than he was in suppressing the immoral act of profiting from the inhumane exploitation of millions of men, women, and children across the world and throughout time.

1 Peter 2:18-21 tells us that slaves suffer  unjustly and 1 Timothy 6:1-2 shows us that slaves should serve their Christian masters even better, making no room for them to escape bondage.

The only evidence you can provide in opposition to slavery are extremely ambiguous verses that do not mention slavery by name. However, when Jesus and the apostles DO mention slavery directly, it is NEVER in opposition or condemnation.

But the final nail in the coffin is that the Bible flat out allows and even regulates slavery. If slavery is immoral, then it does not matter how well the Bible regulates it, because it still means the Bible is promoting or regulating an immoral practice. You can make whatever regulations you want to prostitution, bestiality, or illicit drug use — it still would not change the fact that according to Christian doctrine these practices are inherently immoral.

Numerous times throughout this discussion you’ve made massive concessions for slavery, while failing to be consistent in your understanding that God’s moral standard is absolute.

If God is by nature “just and right”, then it would be against his very nature to inflict such horribly cruel injustices upon the world, or at the very least he must restrain himself upon moral principle. However, all throughout the Bible we see God’s unbridled fury, jealously, and rage — inflicting incalculable harm on both his followers as well as non-believers.

When I read about moral injustices in the Bible, I find it abhorrent and in total opposition to everything I hold dear. Under Secular Humanism such Biblical atrocities as slavery would never be allowed to occur, let alone have laws made to regulate it!

I do not feel we should have to make excuses for God, thus the sheer amount of immoral acts the Bible permits and regulates forces me to constantly question the Bible’s integrity and authenticity. If I am to be honest with myself and follow a consistent code of moral and ethical conduct, then questions about the moral injustices contained in the pages of the Holy Bible must be accounted for.

Ultimately, defending the Bible with apologetics is a fool’s errand, for there is no conceivable way one could ever hope to justify the acts of slavery, rape, infanticide, and genocide found in the Bible. Either we accept these acts as being in accordance with the will of God and thereby concede morality is arbitrary, or we reject these acts and as a result, reject the Bible itself.

Over the past few weeks I’ve had a pair of creationists trolling my videos, spamming me with many comments and private messages filled with creationist and anti-evolutionist propaganda, in addition to quote-mining the irrelevant opinions of scientists and atheists alike, which they believe somehow demonstrates naturalism can only bring despair to “misguided” atheists.

These monotheists also declare evolution does not disprove God any more than gravity did for Newton or Einstein, and then they give a flurry of quotations attributed to Einstein in order to demonstrate his religiosity. This is a classic trick, quoting the personal beliefs of famous historical people, like the Founding Fathers of the United States or Isaac Newton, in order to lend support for God’s existence.

However, what these monotheist fail to realize is that “On the Origin of Species” was published 83 years AFTER the singing of the declaration of independence and 132 years after Isaac Newton Died. So what indication would there have been for anyone to hold a naturalistic view before the theory of evolution had even been proposed. No one doubts these were brilliant men, but that still does not make them immune to superstition nor does it justify their ignorance of scientific topics outside their respective fields of expertise.

Although we can only speculate as to their continued belief in the Ambrahamic God should they had been privy to a comprehensive explanation of Natural Selection, who is to say these men wouldn’t have become atheists after fully understanding evolution and how greatly it conflicts with the mythological creation found in the Bible Although these men believed in God, as did every other typical American and European of their day, Newton’s theological beliefs no more lend support for God’s existence than his beliefs about alchemy support the notion that lead can be turned into gold using a series of chemical reactions.

Newton had a passion for alchemy, writing over a million words on the subject, which the Royal Society deemed quote, “not fit to be printed”. In fact, after reviewing his work on alchemy scholar have conceded the inspiration for Newton’s laws of light and the theory of gravity was a byproduct of his alchemical research. However, you don’t hear Christians preaching about the finer points of Newton’s beliefs in alchemy, now do you?

On the other hand, Einstein was a deist who did not believe in a personal god that answers prayer. And despite all the quote-mining of these Christians in order to support their personal ideology, they fail to recognize the true  theological views of Einstein, whose distain for a personal god is ironically advance by the very Christians who are quoting him. Einstein said:

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible [is] a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” (Albert Einstein)

You know, with all the quote mining that is taking place on my channel I expect these Christians to have at least run across a few websites that display the reality of what Einstein believed. But this is a perfect example of how creationist will distort facts and bend the truth solely with the aim of justifying their religiously biased agenda. As a side note, you can read more quotes from Einstein on his theological views at positiveatheism.org.

Over and over again these Christians claim evolution does not disprove the existence of God . But even if we suppose God produced different species through the mechanism of Natural Selection, that still means God created species through a NATURAL process, not a SUPERnatural process. There are always natural explanations to natural phenomena. Planets orbit stars due to the natural force of gravity. Atoms can come together to form molecules due to the natural occurrence of covalent bonds. Populations of animals adapt to different environments and over great periods of time groups can accumulate so many genetic variations that they no longer resemble their parent animal, thus becoming different species. There are many more examples we can give, throughout every single scientific field of study, but the point is that all of the laws, forces, and mechanisms we observe in nature, occur naturally, they are not the products of magic.

However, when it comes to why physical forces such as the gravitational constant are they way they are, or where all the matter in the universe originally came from, or how the first life developed from non-living molecules, monotheists ultimately default to an explanation that IS the product of magic. Why if everything else in the Universe can be explained through natural means, would we then assume the biggest unknowns in science must have supernatural explanations?

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but despite what you might have seen on TV, magic does not actually exist. Even if God exists, the universe he created is a natural universe that has natural explanations for all known natural phenomena. We understand magnetic forces and the influence of the earth’s core on instruments such as compasses, how the collision of solar winds in the earth’s magnetosphere produces the aurora borealis, how the moon influences the rise and fall of tides, we understand wave-particle duality, we know why the sky is blue, what causes rainbows, lightening, tornados, ocean currents, snowflake formation, earthquakes, solar eclipses, radio active decay, the nitrogen cycle, photosynthesis, cellular respiration, and the explanations to a myriad of other natural phenomena that have been discovered through the labors of the time-tested science method.

Although we do not yet have the answers to how the Big Bang and abiogenesis occurred, the one thing we can be sure of is that these phenomena have natural explanations, because they occur within a natural universe. But whenever you try to explaining this to a monotheist they rail against any possibility the universe or first life could ever have a natural origin.

But interestingly, two hundred years ago these exact same Christians would be the ones claiming evil spirits are the ultimate source of all disease. When we lacked knowledge about the cause of sickness we took it on faith there must be a supernatural origin. However, now that science has exposed the truth, we would consider anyone to hold such beliefs to be profoundly ignorant.

And this is exactly what monotheists are doing with regard to the Big Bang and abiogenesis. Relatively very little is know the origins of time, space, and matter, as well as how the first life arose. But instead of accepting that we simply do not have all the facts to make an truly informed conclusion about these subjects, monotheists choose to default to the same old supernatural explanations of the unknown. It should be no surprise that as we continue to accumulate greater knowledge of the Universe and the origins of life the more our superstitions will become threatened, and right now monotheists are on the defensive, being increasingly backed into a corner from which they cannot escape.

If and when evidence is finally discovered that conclusively demonstrates how life arose from non-living molecules, or a grand unified theory for how space and time arose from natural conditions, monotheists will be off to find the next unexplainable phenomenon in which to inject their God of the Gaps. I have no doubt there will always be some unknowns in the Universe, but that does not mean there are no answers or that the answers are unknowable. However, if the name of God is only invoked to explain away the gaps in our knowledge, then we can be sure that God’s significance will be greatly diminishing over time, for our understanding of the Universe, and the development of tools that allows us to do so, shows no signs of relenting.

At this point in time neither I, nor any scientist, can say with 100% certainly how the universe came to exist. And anyone that claims to know this information is lying to you, and that goes for creationist Christians as well. Monotheists do not have some secrete, cosmic knowledge that non-believers do not possess. Indeed, Atheists and agonists are truly honest with regard to their level of knowledge, for they do not claim to have answers beyond what is currently known. Monotheists on the other hand are doing just the opposite.

Everyone has the right to speculate on the nature of the Universe, but when monotheists being to label their opinion as fact, that is point when a line must drawn in the sand and they are called out for spreading fallacious propaganda. Remember, I am only questioning the unknowable claims of monotheists, I am not questioning the existence God. Indeed the god of monotheism requires belief by faith alone, therefore as a rule he does not even provide any evidence of his existence for us question in the first place. If God does exist, then he created a natural universe that arose through natural means, just like all these other natural phenomena we observe that also arise through natural means. The reason monotheists cannot accept this is because it creates the conditions where a God need not exist in order for the universe to exist.

This is the same reason why many Christians have such a difficult time accepting evolution. They see all the facts of evolution spread out before them, but they cannot bring  themselves to accept it, lest they accept the possibility that God is not directly responsible for creating the vast diversity of life. This conflict is perfectly exemplified in comments of these same trolling Christians. They both vehemently claim evolution does not disprove God, but then doubt evolution even occurred, and try to invent some non-existent war with the EVILutionist scientific community.

“There is a war among evolutionists. Most evolutionists are Neo-Darwinian, believing in gradual change from one form of life to another, but a good growing minority of evolutionists believe in Punctuated Equilibrium which teaches life forms change suddenly from one from into another through massive random genetic mutations caused by massive radiation or vial invasion of cell nucleii. These new evolutionists believe this way is b/x they known that the fossil record is hotly disputed even among Neo-Darwinians. Imagine a fish with part fins, evolving into part feet. What survival benefit is there? The fish couldn’t use its fins or its feet, and there is no fossil showing  such a creature existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers. Both types of evolutionists cannot explain a gradualist origin for life, although both believe that life originated by chance.”

Alight, I am afraid I must concede this point. Maybe if the fossil record were complete I could provide some evidence of a fish that could walk on land, but since my claims are totally reliant on the fossil record, without these important fossils I have no ground upon which to stand on. In retrospect, it appears I and, every evolutionary scientists, owes Prodigalfather1 a huge apology. You’re right, the only place where these make-believe fish actually exist is on the back of our cars, what an extremely funny and astute observation you made there. You know, if we only had a complete fossil record I bet could have really put you in your place, but hey, you got me on this one! Oh wait…

Aside from the mudskipper, there are various species of fish that display hand-like appendages, such as the Australian spotted handfish. Instead of swimming this fish walks on the sea floor with its fins, which have been adapted into a structure that looks very similar to a hand, hence the name. There are also various aquatic salamanders, such as the Axolotl, which display rudimentary appendages. But most importantly, we find fossils of aquatic animals that display appendages with characteristics of both fins and feat, such as tiktaalik, as well as acanthostega, which I extensively discussed in episode seven of my series.

Although I am open to the possibility that a god could exist, if a deity is responsible for creating this universe then it works through natural means. Evolution doesn’t disprove God, it only demonstrates God works through natural processes, not magic. But creationists like Prodigalfather1 cannot stand this view, because it allows me to go one step further and cut out the middle man. I do not claim to posses secrete knowledge about the creation of the universe, creationists on the other hand do. Therefore, they are held accountable to these claims. It is not enough to say, God is responsible, and then fail to back it up with any evidence. That is no better than me claiming we live in a multiverse and the universe in which we find ourselves is just a soap bubble in a sea of ever-expanding universes. Yes, this hypothesis explains away the gaps in my knowledge, but I do not have evidence to back it up, therefore I cannot claim it as fact. And I certainly do go around ramming it down other people’s throats as if it were.

So where is the specific evidence of monotheists that demonstrate the God of Abraham is responsible for creating the universe? And the appearance of complexity and design within reality is not meet the criteria for evidence. I can just as easily pass off the fine-tuning of the universe on the multiverse hypothesis as well, claiming within an infinite number of alternate  universes, we just so happen to find ourselves in a universe and on a planet that is able to sustain life, because that is the only place where life will find itself. So again, where is the specific evidence that backs up theistic claims? And one final word of advice to the two creationists that have inspired this video.

Instead of plastering my comments section with the irrelevant opinions of English professors like CS Lewis and copying and pasting creationist propaganda from junk websites like answers in genesis, try doing some actual research. You could potentially save yourselves a lot of future embarrassment by making even the slightest attempt to brush up on your understanding of science before entering into a debate, because the animals you claim never even existed might actually still be a live.

WORKS CITED:

Discovering Religion: Ep 07 – Transitional Species

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpW7nQl3-D4

Einstein Quotes

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm

Newton the Alchemist

http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm

Isaac Newton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Optics

The Incredible Hulk

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800080/

Australia Telescope Compact Array and surrounds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsGJFlTFGhI

Ambystoma mexicanum axolotl aquarium

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7cxJY5gu-A

BBC Planet Earth – Ocean Deep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Earth_(TV_series)#11._.22Ocean_Deep.22

Chemical Bonds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEFeLYWTKX0

Genesis (2004)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287457/

Magic’s Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed Season 1 – Episode 13 Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAz79eZlaxI

Strange fish is walking on the bottom of the ocean

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv7uIfMIqc

Simulation solar system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R5P9Y9gRYY

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field in 3D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg

The Violent End Stage of Star Formation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_nCIJnZDW8

The Way Of The Master Series – Season 1 – Episode 7 – Atheism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7uA-P8TsPM

Atheism lost two of its biggest names last week, with the death of Christopher Hitchens on Thursday, December 15th, and Kim Jong-Il on Saturday, December 17th. Although neither of these men believed in God, they could not have lead more different lives. Hitchens was one of the greatest literary minds of his generation, speaking out against religious myths in favor of reason and rationalism. Whereas Kim Jong-Il was the narcissistic, schizotypal, megalomaniacal, dictator of North Korea that starved, worked to death, and subjected his own people to a reign of terror in which they were denied all basic human rights, such as free speech, and anyone could be killed for criticizing the regime.

It could be argued that Kim Jon-Il was not technically an atheist because he actually thought of himself as a demi-god, believing he was the reincarnation of his father Kim il Sung, also know as the enternal leader, who died in 1994 and is still considered the rightful president of North Korea. In fact, Christopher Hitchens said of North Korea that it is the only necrocracy in the world — a country governed by the dead. The fact Kim Jong-Il thought of himself as a god-like figure is reflected in his many official titles, like The Great Sun of Life, Great Man Who Descended From Heaven, as well as Invincible And Ever-Triumphant General and Highest Incarnation of the Revolutionary Comradely Love. Although Kim Jong Il might have thought of himself as a demi-god, he was a communist, which are historically known to be atheists, and he certainly did not believe in the Christian god of monotheism. Therefore, it is expected most Christians would jump on this fact, labeling him an atheist and sweeping his atrocities under the blanket of “godless atheism”.

This tactic is often employed by monotheists in the effort to demonize atheism, claiming the atrocities of Pol Pot, Stalin, and sometimes even Hitler proves that atheism is a negative force, and without a belief in God humans are prone to genocide and other manner of crimes against humanity. In fact, I recently had a debate over the issue of Biblical slavery with an old high school acquaintance, who is now self-proclaimed Christian apologist, in which he said:

“The only known places on earth at the moment where slavery exists are either atheistic communist countries, or Muslim countries. It is just a fact, but I will not bother trying to back it up. I do believe that it is very easy to find that out for yourself.”

Although I did try to look this up, I could found no source that supported the claim communist countries promote the practice of slavery in the way that Christians participating in the American and European slave trades promoted the practice of slavery, but a little thing like credible evidence never stopped a Christian from making fallacious arguments in order to demonize atheism. However, this statement caused me to reflect on something that I feel many Christians do not understand about a non-belief in God — simply, that atheism is completely non-informative with regard to morality.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in religion/God. However, atheists are certainly free to derive beliefs from other political or philosophical systems. Communists have an entirely different set of political and moral goals than socialists, fascists, humanists, and so on. Although none of these belief systems are based in religion, they still impart their followers with a variety of motivations and desires. If one political group of atheists believe it’s ok to have slaves, then they are basing that belief on something entirely different than from where I derived my morality. This is the essential difference between atheism and theism.

Christians are a collective group of people that are bounded to a universal doctrine. Although there are slight differences in belief, that does not change they fact everyone who believes in Jesus Christ and follows his teachings in the Gospels are considered to be “Christians”. However, there is no church of atheism and there is no religious tome or set of dogmatic beliefs under which ALL atheists persist. In fact, the term “atheist” is meaningless, because you do not define something by what it is not.

Bald is not a hair color, just a not playing baseball a sport, or  “not being an auto mechanic” is a trade, and a non-smoker is addicted to not smoking. The fact you do not engage in the pastime of collecting stamps does not make you a non-stamp collector, anymore than me not believing in religion makes me an atheist. Atheism is a label theists place on those who do not follow theistic philosophies, and for convenience sake most atheists go along, myself included. Therefore, if anyone is going to attempt to label another person one should do so according to what they actually believe.

Although I find labeling oneself to be a arbitrary practice, because no one set of principles can encompass all the nuances of someone’s individual beliefs, if I absolutely HAD to give myself a label, the closest philosophy I can identity with would be that of Secular Humanism.

The term Secular Humanist is informative. First it tells you my beliefs are secular, meaning apart from religion, and that I am a humanist, meaning I am concerned with human values and promoting human well-being. By digging a little further you would also come to realize that I embrace reason, ethics and justice while rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as the basis of my morality and decision-making.

However, if I were to meet you for the first time and identified myself as an “atheist” it would tell you absolutely nothing about who I am or what I believe, it would only tell you what I am not and what I do NOT believe. I could just as easily be an atheist Neo Nazi as I could be an atheist humanitarian — there is no doctrine that says all atheists must behave a certain way because such a doctrine cannot exist, therefore, atheism cannot exist.

This is why we can have non-believers like Pol Pot committing genocide against his own people and non-believers like Bill Gates that has donated many tens of billions of dollars of his own money to reducing extreme poverty and providing greater access to health care. Atheism does drive anyone to anything.

Pol Pot was the Prime Minster of Communist Cambodia from 1976 until 1979  in which he attempted to build a racially pure society, free of Laotians and Vietnamese, in which he was the leader over a peasant working class. There are several theories as to why he forced the evacuation of the cities, requiring everyone to relocated to the countryside to work on collective farms and forced labor projects. Some believe this was part of his vision for a utopia, which is why he killed the lame, crippled, homosexuals, and anyone he believed to be an intellectual, because they would not make good workers. But whatever the Pol Pot killed 2-5 million of his own people, it was not do the fact he did not believe in god. There were many factors motivating his actions, but atheism was not one of them.

In the same respect, Bill Gates does not help the less fortunate because his lack of belief in God is guiding him to do so. Gates holds many other beliefs and moral philosophies that causes him to spend him money on helping others rather than hording it all for himself, or even from becoming a tyrannical dictator like Pol Pot and Stalin.

Atheism has never inspired anyone to do anything, and that is why I feel like atheists should attempt to distance themselves from this word. Atheist should define themselves according to what they are rather than what they are not, which would help easy the confusion of monotheists that think all atheists follow some universal doctrine, where the most destructive atheists in history somehow justify their misdeeds through a lack of belief instead of their actual political ideologies.

But if non-believers were to no longer call themselves atheists, what should we call ourselves? Freethinkers? Secular Humanists? What term can we use to distance ourselves from the non-label of atheism that would serve to demonstrate what we actually believe? Or do you think this is simple a non-issue? Should we keep referring to ourselves as atheists and force monotheists to elevate their understanding of this term? I’d like to hear you opinion on this matter, because it is something I have been thinking about for quite some time.

In closing, I was very saddened to hear about Christopher Hitchens’ death, for one of the brightest, freethinking minds has been extinguished within the world. However, we still have his words, which contain his passion for reason and the search for truth, no matter where that truth lies. This torch has been passed down through every generation starting with Socrates, and in turn Hitches passes it on to use. Let’s continue to think freely and use our reasoning to combat  the outdated superstitions of religious ideologies that would prefer to see their own children die rather than receive medical treatment or blood transfusions, that would prefer homosexuals live in shame rather than receive the full benefits of a free society, and would stamp out scientific understanding rather than have their beliefs legitimately challenged.

————————————————————————————–

Works Cited:

18 Strange ‘Facts’ About The North Korean Leader

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/19/kim-jong-il-18-strange-facts_n_1157276.html?1324291006&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009&ref=uk 

Necrocracy

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Necrocracy 

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il dies ‘of heart attack’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16239693

List of Kim Jong-il’s titles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kim_Jong-il’s_titles 

Pol Pot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

Year Zero

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(political_notion)

Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

I sincerely want to thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response. I have given what you said very careful consideration, and I hope you will do the same for me. I have read your reply several times and I have found the following points to be your major topics of discussion:

1.) Slavery was a common practice throughout the ancient world, often required of lower classes to recover debts, correct undisciplined behavior, and so on.

2.) Slaves were not treated as poorly as we might think, the Bible tells us we should treat our slaves with kindness and be devoted to their welfare.

3.) Jesus was a prophet, not a politician. Therefore, it was not Jesus’ job to right all the political wrongs of the time period.

4.) Slavery is a judicial matter. Jesus did not abolish the moral law, but he did absolve us from Old Testament practices, such as sacrificial, dietary, and judicial laws.

Before we go any further, I would like to make two assumptions upon which I think we can both agree. First, I assume you agree with the 13th Amendment, which outlaws slavery within the United States. Throughout your response I have not found anything to indicate you actually believe slavery to be a morally justifiable practice. Therefore, despite the fact you are a Christian-theist and I am an atheist, I hope we can both come together and agree the practice of slavery is indeed immoral.

Second, I assume being a Christian that you believe morality is fixed, absolute, and prescribed by God. Most Christians argue that if morality is not absolute then it would be free to change with the changing whims of society, making morality completely arbitrary. No one believes morality is arbitrary, including atheists. For the time being I hope we can both agree that there exists such a thing as moral absolutes, which dictate an unwavering standard of behavior that all people must follow at all times.

With that said, throughout this discussion I would like you to keep in mind we are not debating whether slavery was pervasive in the ancient world, if some slave masters were kinder than others, whether Jesus was a prophet and not a politician, and so on, because on all of these issues I completely agree. However, the true issue at hand is whether or not the practice of slavery itself can be viewed as “moral”. If slavery is immoral, we must investigate whether the Bible makes similar attempts to counteract the practice of slavery as it does with other immoral acts such as adultery, stealing, lying, and so on.

Point #1: Slavery was commonly used as a tool.

Throughout the course of reading you response I found myself repeatedly asking one question, “Is slavery moral?” You went to great lengths to demonstrate how slavery was used as a tool to help people get out of debt or resolve social issues like laziness, in addition to providing extensive evidence the practice of enslavement was common throughout the ancient world. But does that give you, or anyone else, grounds upon which to declare slavery to be a “moral practice”? I should hope not. If you agree that slavery is immoral, what difference would it make how pervasive the practice or in what fashion slavery was used?

Instead of slavery, what if men and women throughout the ancient world used sex as a tool to recover their debts? Would that make the act of premarital sex, or even adultery, any less immoral? Not according to a Christian world-view. Therefore, why do you make such arbitrary concessions when it comes to the practice of slavery? Again, it does not matter in what manner slavery was used or how much it was ingrained in everyday life, for we have agreed that God defines morality according to fixed absolutes. Therefore, if something is immoral, it is ALWAYS immoral. This is a matter of being consistent in our understanding of moral principles. Without consistency morality becomes meaningless.

Point #2: Slaves were not treated poorly.

Again, I found myself asking the same question in response to this claim, “Is slavery moral?” If you agree that enslaving someone is not a moral practice, then what difference would it make how the slaves were treated? I will refer to my previous analogy of prostitution. What if we could guarantee prostitutes would only be treated with utmost respect in a controlled setting with security, monthly blood screenings, and so on? In fact, we could even legalize prostitution, creating an environment where the only parties involved would be consenting adults, and prostitutes have full control over the men they choose to be their clients.

What does the fact that women are being treated kindly by their brothels have to say about the morality of prostitution? If prostitution is immoral, then it is ALWAYS immoral — no matter how much we regulate it, limit it, or how well we treat its participants. Likewise, if slavery is immoral, then it is ALWAYS immoral — no matter how a plantation treats the slaves or what reason they had for enslaving them, there is no justification that can be given to explain away the enslavement of a class or race of people. Even if you, as a slave master, were the kindest slave master in the history of humankind, it would do nothing to legitimize the practice of slavery. You could be the nicest crack dealer in the world as well, but it would not excuse the fact you directly profit from the exploitation of other human beings.

However, let’s not be so naïve as to assume every Jew or Christian treated their slaves like members of the family. Although we find several passages in the Bible that tell Christians to be kind to slaves and remain devoted to their welfare, there are just as many passages that allude to the cruel and unjust nature of slavery. Never mind Paul’s attempt to REGULATE slavery by writing letters to the Ephesians instructing them on, as you put it, “how slaves and masters should get along”. The mere fact this immoral act was allowed to continue in ANY fashion demonstrates the apostles’ and Jesus’ inhumane indifference to the suffering of millions of innocent people. What if something like bestiality were just as pervasive as slavery, don’t you think Paul would have stood in direct opposition to its practice?

With such potential for abuse, Jesus and the apostles could have been much more vocal in their opposition to this horribly cruel, vile practice. However, we cannot use the old adage of, hindsight is 20/20, because God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and most importantly omniscient. If Jesus/God knows the future then he would have surely foreseen all the pain and suffering at the hands of the American and European slave trades, and how the very same passages Jesus and the apostles were writing at that moment in time would be used to justify one of the most horrendous evils ever perpetrated upon the Earth. Therefore, instead of remaining ambiguous on this subject and even using slavery to illustrate parables, why didn’t Jesus come right out and condemn slavery directly, making no bones about it — slavery is wrong and we should not do it. At the very least slavery would NOT have been justifiable through Scripture. Jesus Christ could have easily addressed this issue on numerous occasions, and only He, as the Son of God, was in the unique position to do so.

You asked, “Would you prefer Paul to have advised these men [slaves] to possibility risk their lives by revolting or possibly be subjected to severe punishment under the pagan Roman law… Christianity was a new RELIGION (or fulfillment of Judaism) that looked forward to a redeemed world to come; not a political system to right all the wrongs.”

Why would Paul have advised the SLAVES to do anything? Why couldn’t Paul advise the slave MASTERS, who retained all the power? Or better yet, simply speak out against slavery as being the moral injustice that it was! Are you really attempting to suggest Jesus’ and Paul’s hands were completely tied with regard to speaking out against the issue of slavery?

Essentially, what you are asking is if I expect Christianity to stand up for what is right and just, despite slavery being a common practice? Or if Paul should have spoken out against slavery because it is fundamentally immoral, despite whether or not an anti-slavery position was unpopular for its time? The short answer is, “Yes!” Is having Jesus and the apostles stand up for what is morally right and championing the rights of an unjustly persecuted class of people too great an expectation? Now you might be thinking, “How do we even know slavery was so ‘unjust’ in the first place?” Let’s take a look in 1 Peter 2:

“Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”

(1 Peter 2:18-21)

Peter, one of Jesus’ closest apostles, tells slaves to submit to their masters, even “those who are harsh”. Peter actually uses the words “unjust suffering”. We can plainly see that Peter, in full conscience, KNOWS the act of slavery is unjust and that it causes suffering! Peter even compares the unjust suffering of slaves to the unjust suffering of Christ, and that such suffering is holy in the eyes of God. There is no attempt to speak out against slavery here, quite the contrary. To say that slavery was merely an accepted part of life and no one was able to speak in direct opposition to this vile practice is just like saying something equally absurd, like: “Because the ancient world widely accepted prostitution and adultery, Christianity could not have taken a firm stance against them, because it was merely an upstart religion with no political affiliation.”

An objective moral truth is true no matter what time period you happen to live in. Do you remember my point about moral consistency? If slavery is objectively wrong in the present, then it must have been objectively wrong in the past, according to our previously agreed upon standard of God’s fixed moral absolutes. If slavery was indeed viewed as an injustice to Peter, Jesus, or any of the other apostles (as is clearly the case), and they did not say or do anything to rectify this matter, then they are just as morally accountable as the slave masters. That’s called aiding and abetting — you cannot know someone is responsible for a crime and say nothing or withhold information from the police.

As you previously stated, Jesus is certainly vocal about his opinions on adultery and murder. In fact, Jesus goes so far as to equate lust with adultery and hate with murder. With such opinionated, conservative views on these two issues, why the apathetic indifference to the issue of slavery? And this brings me to the next point:

Point #3: Jesus was a prophet, not a politician.

Again, I find myself asking the same question (and here more than ever), “Is slavery moral?” Jesus was indeed a prophet, allegedly one of the most acclaimed moral teachers in all of recorded history. Therefore, why the eerie silence with regard to the moral issue of slavery?

You said, “Jesus is not recorded as directly addressing the topic by name. However, just because it was not recorded does not mean that He never talked about it.”

I am not in a position to assume anything about any historical figures, especially one living 2,000 years ago. Are you? Therefore, if Jesus’ true views on slavery were not recorded, then the point is moot. But we are not discussing the POSSIBILITY of Jesus having said something. Sure, Jesus could have talked about the immorality of slavery, just as easily as he could have flown to the moon and back. However, we are not discussing hypothetical scenarios, we are discussing the written record and the very real implications the record had on the suffering of countless millions of men, women, and children at the hands of Christian slave masters.

You said, “Jesus was concerned with our eternal destination. Not how well life goes in this world.”

Then wouldn’t performing an immoral act such as slavery lead one down a road to eternal damnation? Was the irrevocable damage to the immortal souls of Christian slave masters of no concern to Jesus Christ? What could be worse than slavery? For so many people, slavery was a fate much worse than death.

I was fortunate in my undergraduate studies to have taken intensive American history and African American literature courses, where I was exposed to a lot of historical literature that I otherwise would have never found on my own. I remember how the works of former slaves from the 19th Century impressed upon me the magnitude of what many human beings were forced to endure throughout the course of their lives. Slaves were treated like animals that needed to be tamed and their spirits broken, much like the domestication process of a wild animal. In fact, the same methods of dehumanization we used by the Nazis in concentration camps during World War II.

I am not sure how familiar you are with American literature of this nature, but from reading your response I do not get a sense that you truly appreciate what these slaves went through. In reading the works of Fredrick Douglass, his fear and desperation are palpable in his recounting of the extreme brutality and senseless acts of violence daily visited upon him and his fellow slaves as their spirits where shattered. Douglass describes slaves being treated no better than livestock, and in many instances far, far worse. But to add insult to injury, after receiving their beating the slaves would be often treated to readings from Scripture. This just further demonstrates that justification for these horrendous acts was derived from Scripture itself, or at the very least, the people perpetrating these crimes against humanity were devout believers in the Christian God and adamantly adhered to Scripture.

Now, I can already hear you interjecting with, “But how people misused the Bible is not the Bible’s fault!” And although that might be true, it would only be the case if the Bible actually bothered speaking in direct opposition to slavery. If Jesus perceived slavery to be immoral, then as the Son of God he had a unique position of authority to champion the rights of the helpless. It does not matter if “He did not come as a politician”, slavery is a moral issue and Jesus is well-known for his moral instruction. So why weren’t he and the apostles proselytizing against slavery and denying slave masters access to heaven for engaging in this practice? Because Jesus did not want the religion to become politicized? Is that honestly what you believe? If that is true and Jesus had the ear of every Christian slave master throughout time, but would rather let millions suffer under the oppression of slavery because he “did not come to change the world politically”, then Jesus was far from the moral teacher Christians make him out to be and Christian morality is essentially bankrupt.

However, you keep pursuing the notion that slavery was somehow this massive political issue during the 1st Century CE. Slavery was a social injustice, not a political issue to be debated or voted upon — a fact that is curiously overlooked unless the slaves in question happen to be God’s “Chosen People”. God went to such lengths to free the Hebrews from bondage that He kills every first born child in Egypt, from princes to livestock.

“All the firstborn sons will die in every family in Egypt, from the oldest son of Pharaoh, who sits on his throne, to the oldest son of his lowliest servant girl who grinds the flour. Even the firstborn of all the livestock will die.”

(Exodus 11:15)

At least we can give God credit for being consistent, or rather indiscriminate, when it comes to acts of infanticide. But are we really to believe that somehow God cannot maintain consistency with his views on slavery? God certainly did not view Hebrew liberty from Egyptian bondage as a “political” issue that should remain untouched and allowed to be resolved on its own. God viewed the enslavement of his Chosen People to be wrong, which is the same as calling it immoral. Morality essentially deals with the distinction between right and wrong behavior, and God wanted His people liberated from the practice of forced labor under the Egyptians.

If we are all God’s children, why shouldn’t all people enjoy the same rights? Christ came to unite all people under that message. No longer were the Jews God’s Chosen People, because Christianity was a religion for everyone, Jew and gentile alike. So why didn’t God completely outlaw the practice of slavery in Exodus, instead of merely regulating its practice in Leviticus? Furthermore, why was God’s position on slavery regarding the Hebrews in Exodus not extended to slaves found in the Gospels? Perhaps could it be due to the fact when the roles were reversed the Hebrews were the ones benefitting from forced labor? Perhaps could it be due to the fact Jesus did not want to “rock the boat” with his new Christian converts by speaking out against the injustices of slavery? Is that what is passing for morality these days? So long as enough people profit or that it doesn’t rattle too many cages, we’ll just accept anything, no matter how horrendous the social injustice might be?

The right to not be beaten, to not work without pay, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are human rights that all humans must be free to enjoy. The Declaration of Independence labels these as God-given rights, but as we can see that is certainly not the case. God never extends these rights to slaves, and neither did the Founding Fathers. Christian men used the Bible as motivation and justification to enslave an entire RACE of people. The words that Jesus spoke, and the apostles took down with pen, were of incalculable significance and Jesus completely dropped the ball on the issue of slavery. We are not talking about politics or social reform, we are talking about establishing a moral and ethical code of conduct that would ring throughout the centuries to come. Jesus knew his teachings would be written down and learned from, yet STILL made no attempt to circumvent the injustices perpetrated under slavery. If slavery is immoral now, then slavery was immoral in the past, unless I am missing something and morality is completely arbitrary.

You said, “Secondly, He [Jesus] did indirectly address it [slavery] in the gospel account of Matthew, chapter 7:12, as well as Luke 6:31 in a parallel passage: ‘Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.’ (Matthew 7:12) ‘And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.’ (Luke 6:31)”.

Yikes! I don’t think it’s possible for you to have found a more ambiguous verse regarding the very clear issue of slavery. You went on to cite Luke 12:42-48, but you simply dismissed it as a parable and nothing more. Although it is a parable, for once Jesus himself directly speaks about the well-known practice of viciously beating slaves, and yet again, denies himself the opportunity to condemn these actions. Notice how the parable is not regarding the immoral practice of slavery itself, but rather, Jesus is using the practice of slavery to form an analogy between a slave master (God) horrendously punishing his servants (us) for not being ready upon his return.

⁴² The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? ⁴³ It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. ⁴⁴ Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. ⁴⁵ But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. ⁴⁶ The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

⁴⁷ “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. ⁴⁸ But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

(Luke 12:42-48)

If Jesus was against slavery wouldn’t it have made better sense to equate the practice of slavery with hell, and by not following God’s Word the sinners are like slaves, toiling away their existence with no hope of escape? Then Jesus could have stated something like, “Liberation from slavery is similar to salvation through Christ. All men deserve to be free and thus all men deserve their heavenly rewards, which can only be obtained by liberating themselves from slavery to sin.”

Do you see? It took me two minutes to come up with an infinitely more applicable parable than Jesus. So why didn’t Jesus say something to that affect? Because Jesus IS excusing the practice of slavery. Jesus is claiming GOD will do unto US what MASTERS do to their SLAVES. If God is within his limits to punish us for not following His Word, then why aren’t slave masters equally as justified? If that were not the case, and slave masters do not have the right to beat their slaves, then this parable would not make any sense.

What if instead of slavery Jesus used a parable of a pimp and her prostitute? “Prostitutes that are not prepared when their pimps unexpectedly call on them will be severely beaten, so too will you be punished if unprepared for the Lord’s return.” Does this parable make ANY sense to you? Of course not!

Why would Jesus make reference to a blatantly immoral act in order to demonstrate a holy message? You first need to have a frame of reference in order for a parable to be applicable. If Jesus believes slavery is immoral, then referencing the act of beating one’s slaves in positive affirmation of the plans he has made for us would be a complete contradiction! Come on man, that’s simple logic. However, we have many more passages regarding the unjust practice of slavery to choose from, which are neither ambiguous nor in parable form. For instance, take 1 Timothy 6:

“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves.”

(1 Timothy 6:1-2)

In the above passage we find very descriptive language regarding slavery, “All those who are under the YOKE of slavery…”. We see that slaves are treated as chattel — human animals to be placed under a “yoke” and made to work and serve their masters. In fact, if you’re the unfortunate slave of a Christian slave master you are commanded to serve them even better. How do you expect slaves belonging to Christian masters to ever get out of bondage? What would you have told an American slave master that used this passage to justify fighting the Civil War to retain the right to his slaves? How could you possibly convince him otherwise? Nowhere are concessions made for slaves of Christian masters to become free men. In fact, this passage appears to explicitly speak out against slaves ever obtaining their freedom!

Now, I realize this passage also states the slave masters are “devoted to the welfare of their slaves”, but we have already discussed this issue in Point #2. It does not matter if some slave masters looked after the welfare of their slaves or not, this passage clearly justifies a practice we have already determined to be unjust. If you want to justify the immoral act of slavery simply upon the grounds of how slaves were treated, then let’s justify prostitution by how well we treat prostitutes. Consistency is essential with regard to morality. If we cannot be consistent in our understanding of moral issues, then morality is not fixed, it is not absolute, and right and wrong are completely arbitrary.

Point #4: Slavery was a judicial matter.

Again, I must ask the same question, “Is slavery moral?” Do we not make laws with regard to moral issues? We certainly have laws against cold-blooded murder, which I will safely assume we can both agree is immoral as well as illegal. Why then do you continue to make concessions for slavery on this point? Even if Jesus came back to abolish the sacrificial, dietary, and judicial laws of the Nation of Israel, he would still be bound to the moral law. Therefore, if slavery is immoral, then Jesus was dutifully bound to speak in opposition to it, regardless if this position was unpopular at the time. I hate to keep repeating myself, but every one of your points on slavery appears to directly conflict with the view that slavery is an immoral practice, now and throughout history.

You quoted the apologist Matthew Anderson, who I will re-quote here:

“In giving laws to regulate slavery, God is not saying it is a good thing. In fact, by giving laws about it at all, He is plainly stating it is a bad thing. We don’t make laws to limit or regulate good things. After all, you won’t find laws that tell us it is wrong to be too healthy or that if water is too clean we have to add pollution to it. Therefore, the fact slavery is included in the regulations of the Old Testament at all assumes that it is a bad thing which needs regulation to prevent the damage from being too great.”

Anderson states, “We don’t make laws to limit or regulate good things.” Yes we do. Driving is certainly a “good thing”, but it can be hazardous if you do not go a proper speed, if someone gets behind the wheel that is intoxicated, or if someone does not have proper training. That is why we have laws against speeding, drunk driving, and a minimum age to obtain a legal permit to drive a motor vehicle. Safe food is also certainly a “good thing”, but improperly handled food can become hazardous to one’s health. Therefore, the FDA was assigned to monitor and regulate food processing companies, ensuring they adhere to the laws that dictate proper packaging and handling of food. This is also the reason we have health inspections in restaurants.

Laws develop in response to a need — laws are not ALWAYS there to limit “bad things”. We make laws to ensure safety when driving a car or handling food, not because these actions are inherently wrong. Anderson’s analogy that we don’t have laws against being too healthy or against water being too clean is sophomoric at best, and demonstrates a total lack of understanding why laws exist in the first place.

Limitations were placed on slavery not because the act itself was wrong in the Hebrews’ eyes, but rather, to regulate the practice so it was not hazardous to the Hebrews engaging in it. As I will demonstrate, all concessions in the Torah on the practice of slavery are only given to Hebrews, but foreign-born slaves never have any rights. You cited Exodus 21:16, which states anyone that kidnaps someone will be put to death. Yes, this was obviously a valuable law at the time, preventing bandits from kidnapping people and ransoming or selling them. But this passage does not, as you say, show “Moses banned slave traders”, for this passage is addressing kidnappers. You must look to Leviticus to find specific laws regarding the slave trade, where Moses gives very specific stipulations by which to obtain “kosher” slaves. Keep in mind, the book of Leviticus comes AFTER Exodus.

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members from their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

(Leviticus 25:44-46)

There is no kidnapping going on here. These slaves are legally purchased from other nations or from foreign tribes living within Israel. How these slaves arrived on the auction block is no concern under Hebrew law, for these are foreigners. This passage is the most difficult for theists to explain, because it ticks every single one of the boxes under the definition of slavery. Slaves are to be “inherited property” that can be passed down to one’s children. We are directly told how to obtain new slaves, as the are to “come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.” The passage also stipulates we have the authority to “rule over” slaves, meaning they are controlled by a master and forced to do his bidding without any promise of reimbursement.

Does this passage appear to place regulations on slavery because, as Matthew Anderson claims, “the fact slavery is included in the regulations of the Old Testament at all assumes that it is a bad thing”?  Leviticus is not trying to regulate the injustices of slavery, quite the contrary — it is promoting the practice while focusing the injustices of slavery onto people belonging to outside nations. Essentially what Leviticus 25 is telling us is that you can have slaves, just buy them from the nations around you. But if you happen to have Israelite slaves, do not be cruel to them.

As we can plainly see, slaves taken from “the nations around you” and “temporary residents living among you and members from their clans born in your country” have no rights as human beings. Indeed, the Bible clarifies this point on several occasions. As you previously mentioned, it was common throughout the ancient world for people to sell themselves into slavery. In fact, under Draconian Law, established in Athens in the 7th Century BCE, those who could not pay off debts were to become slaves. Eventually the unjust practice of selling human beings into slavery in order to settle a debt was abolished in the 6th Century BCE by the great reformer Solon, but many other nations continued this practice, including the Jews and then Christians.

“‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.”

(Leviticus 25:39-43)

In every instance the practice of slavery is mentioned throughout Mosaic Law preference is ALWAYS given to “fellow Israelites”. We see a similar passage in Exodus 21, which you introduce by saying, “Obviously, many passages are used in the Old Testament by yourself and others to try and suggest that the Old Testament condones harsh slavery. But read one of these in context.” Indeed, let’s analyze this passage within the proper context:

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever”

(Exodus 21:2-6)

You said, “Regarding Exodus 21:4, if the bondservant is willing to walk away from his wife or kids (who were already bondservants to the master to begin with) then it is his own fault. It is not the master’s responsibility to forgive her debt, though it certainly does not forbid him to do so if he pleases.”

You are completely misinterpreting this passage! Nowhere does it imply the woman provided to the Hebrew servant his a “bondservant” as well. The passage clearly states the woman “BELONGS” to the master, a.k.a. she is his slave. Exodus does not claim she is a Hebrew woman that is engaging in her six years of servitude to pay off a debt, otherwise she could go free with her husband after her time is up! Exactly what would be preventing her from leaving with her husband and all of her children if she was not a permanent slave of her master? After six years the Hebrew MALE servant can go free, but the master is not going to give up his property just because the male servant has sired children with her.

You said, “if the bondservant is willing to walk away from his wife or kids… then it is his own fault”.

No it’s not, because this is tantamount to blackmail! The Hebrew servant has one of two options, to give up his wife and children so he can be free or remain with his wife and children and continue being a “slave”. The passage clearly states if the servant says “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free” and “his master shall pierce his ear with an awl”, thus forever branding him a slave. Although there is a way out of bondage for the Hebrew servant, if he chooses “love” over freedom, then he and his entire family are slaves “FOREVER”. No stipulations are given to the woman, because either she is a woman that does not have rights, she is not a Hebrew and thus the law does not apply to her, or she is the property of her master and is never allowed to go free. Whatever the case may be, the Bible is very clear about what happens to the children born of this union.

We see that children born to a Hebrew bondservant are not extended the same rights as their father under Mosaic law. The rights of the slave master trumps those of the children born to a member of the Nation of Israel, due to the simple fact of where the bondservant is at the time of his children’s conception. These children are not considered citizens of the Nation, not even by birth! Children born of a bondservant, who at the time is merely paying off a debt, are to suffer as slaves for the rest of their lives.

Essentially what is taking place is the Torah is giving the slave master the right to breed more slaves. But to make matters worse, the father is blackmailed with the love for his children. If he is a cold-hearted bastard, then sure he can go free. But if he does the right thing and stays with his family, the Torah allows the slave master to profit by gaining an additional male slave. HOW is this moral? How can any moral society or a just God turn a blind eye to this level of injustice, let alone make laws to enforce it?!

The only time slavery is ever mentioned with any leniency is in reference to OTHER JEWS. However, the Torah is very clear when it comes to slaves that are captured from other nations. Foreign-born slaves NEVER have any rights and once placed in bondage they are to remain “SLAVES FOR LIFE”. If you feel I am in error, I challenge you to cite a single passage that specifically references NON-ISRAELITE slaves and the manner by which they can be legally freed from servitude.

Although no such passages exist, even if  they did it would not matter, because, as we have already determined throughout the course of this discussion, slavery is immoral. Just because you might find a passage the gives stipulations for how one might obtain their freedom, that does not excuse the fact an immoral practice is being allowed to go on in the first place, no matter how tightly regulated it might be.

You said, “The Judicial laws are what governed and regulated the practice of selling oneself into servitude to pay a debt, or having bondservants. Therefore, these laws do not command Christians in modern times to do such a thing as even have bondservants. These were the rules for the nation of Israel; they indeed are all addressed to Israel. Not Americans in the 21st century.”

Even though slavery was regulated by judicial laws, that does not absolve its moral implications. Jesus absolved many Hebrew judicial laws regarding murder, does that mean murder is no longer immoral? Although Christians of the 16th-19th Centuries were not bound to the judicial laws regulating slavery in the Old Testament, they were perfectly within their rights to create NEW laws, and that’s exactly what they did. The fact Jesus never directly spoke in opposition to slavery meant, as far as the Christians of the 16th-19th Centuries were concerned, slavery was perfectly acceptable within Christianity.

You went on to say, “Even though the law given may not apply to us directly, we can draw principles out of them because God never changes. At least not the Biblical God.”

Exactly! The laws regarding slavery were not given to us directly, but these laws clearly demonstrate slavery is an acceptable practice so long as the proper regulations are in place. Great! So modern-day Christians can make new laws and go right on keeping slaves. Do you not see a problem with this logic? When something is immoral it does not matter how you regulate it. If, as you claim, “God never changes” then the act of slavery should have never been allowed to occur in the first place, or we should still have slavery today. The fact that slavery was widely practiced throughout the ancient world by Jews and Christians alike, but is currently an outlawed practice today, suggests a serious disconnect in the theistic understanding of morality.

You stated, “I would get into the fact that it was the Bible and a Christian conscience that led to the fight against forced slavery in the States. But we can argue that another time.”

No, you certainly do not want to go down that road. I could write volumes on that subject and I would be happy to do so. There is no question that Christians helped runaway slaves and championed the abolition of slavery, but still many more Christians sacrificed their own lives to ensure their right to own slaves. The dividing line between those for and against abolition was not drawn upon religious grounds. However, the justification to keep slaves in the first place was a matter deep-seated in Christian theology.

You said, “The only known places on earth at the moment where slavery exists are either atheistic communist countries, or Muslim countries. It is just a fact, but I will not bother trying to back it up. I do believe that it is very easy to find that out for yourself.”

I quickly want to point out that being an atheist is completely non-informative with regard to morality. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in religion/God. However, atheists are certainly free to derive beliefs from other political or philosophical systems. Communists have an entirely different set of political and moral goals than socialists, fascists, humanists, and so on. Although none of these belief systems are based in religion, they still impart their followers with a variety of motivations and desires. If one political group of atheists believe it’s ok to have slaves, then they are basing that belief on something entirely different than from where I derived my morality. This is the essential difference between atheism and theism.

There is no church of atheism and there is no religious tome or set of dogmatic beliefs. In fact, the term “atheist” is meaningless, because you do not define someone by what they do NOT believe. The fact you do not engage in the pastime of collecting stamps does not make you a non-stamp collector, anymore than me not believing in religion makes me an atheist. Atheism is a label theists place on those who do not follow theistic philosophies, and for convenience sake most atheists go along, myself included. However, if you are going to attempt to label any atheist make sure you do so according to what they actually believe. I was pleased to see you make the distinction that “atheistic communist” societies were the ones that have slavery. I do not know if what you say about communists is true, but if it is, I would condemn them just as harshly. As for my personal beliefs, if I had to give myself a label the closest philosophy I can identify with would be that of Secular Humanism. Remember, atheism is non-informative and it is meaningless to define someone according to what they do not believe.

Unfortunately, this response has become longer than I intended, and in order to give myself room for a conclusion, I will not be addressing any further points you’ve made about slavery with the same level of attention. But please do not think I am unable to adequately address your points because I have opted not to address them. For example, you discuss several stories of Biblical figures who were at one time slaves, how brutally or leniently Hebrews were allowed to beat their slaves, how females could be sold into servitude with permission of their fathers, how slavery was needed because many people were lazy or lacked discipline, and perhaps a few others. For any additional claims I am unable to directly address, all one must do is revert back to the same question, “Is slavery moral?”

Ultimately, the Biblical rules and laws regulating slavery do not matter, because slavery was, and always has been, an immoral act. As we have seen, the Bible only attempts to regulate slavery and focus the injustices on foreign-born slaves. Neither Mosaic Law nor Jesus Christ make any attempt to outlaw the practice all together. Even at the time of Christ there were Christians slave masters, a practice Christians throughout the world presumably engaged in until secular laws were able to eradicate the practice entirely, or at least until 1865 in the United States.

Although you claim slavery was a judicial matter that Jesus Christ served to abolish, slavery was also a matter of morality, thus Jesus was bound to uphold the moral law. If there is indeed such a thing as a fix standard of absolute morality, then Jesus did not live up to his role as a moral teacher. It is clear from Jesus’ teachings and sermons that he was far more concerned about suppressing our natural instinct to mate (lust), than he was in suppressing the immoral act of profiting from the inhumane exploitation of millions of men, women, and children across the world and throughout time.

Conclusion:

Anthony, I want to commend you on a well-researched response, although I feel you lost sight of the argument at times. You demonstrated that slavery was pervasive throughout the ancient world — a practice that served many purposes — but I was never in disagreement with that notion. However, you failed to address these issues within the context of slavery’s morality. Admittedly, I am glad I am not in your position, forced to defend and excuse the blatant injustices found in my sacred text. The fact such atrocities as slavery, rape, child murder, and genocide are found in the Bible is a very big blow to theistic morality. However, in one of our previous conversations you stated, “And I hate to tell you this, but when God acts, it doesn’t matter what He does, because He is just and right.”

I was extremely surprised to find you write this, especially after you claimed to be so well-versed in the arguments of famous apologists, such as William Lane Craig. Essentially what we are discussing is the Euthyphro Dilemma, which can be paraphrased as follows: “Is moral goodness commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” When you say “it doesn’t matter what He [God] does, because He is just and right” you are arguing for the latter half of the Euthyphro Dilemma, which implies that theistic morality is completely arbitrary. Craig spends a considerable amount of time arguing against this very notion!

Statements like the one above are responsible for my skepticism of theistic morality, especially that of Christianity. The fact you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that slavery was a judicial matter or that Jesus was not a politician shows me you have much to learn about morality and the philosophy of ethics. Numerous times throughout this discussion you’ve made massive concessions for slavery, while failing to be consistent in your understanding that God’s moral standard is absolute.

But if acts of infanticide, genocide, rape, murder, and slavery can be explained away by saying “God can do whatever he wants”, then theistic morality must truly have no meaning. If God is by nature “just and right”, then it would be against his very nature to inflict such horribly cruel injustices, or at the very least he must restrain himself upon moral principle. However, throughout the Bible we see God’s unbridled fury, jealously, and rage — inflicting incalculable harm on both his followers as well as non-believers.

As a medical student, and soon-to-be physician, I am bound to the oath of “Do no harm.” This doctrine underlies everything I do. My ethical code of conduct is essential in every one of my interactions with patients as well as my peers. Therefore, when I read about moral injustices in the Bible I find it abhorrent and in total opposition to everything I hold dear. Under Secular Humanism such Biblical atrocities as slavery would never be allowed to occur, let alone have laws made to regulate it!

In your closing statement you claim God is a merciful God that made many concessions for slaves and that “Nowhere does it command the masters that they must keep their slaves for a fixed amount of time.” That is a blatant falsehood. I have repeatedly shown throughout my discussion that the only concessions the Torah makes for slaves are with regard to HEBREW bondservants. Foreign-born slaves are to remain “slaves for LIFE” (Leviticus 25:39-43). Furthermore, in Exodus 21:2-6 if the Hebrew bondservant allows himself to be blackmailed and stays with his wife and children, who permanently belong to their slave master, the bondservant “shall serve him FOREVER”. Anthony, you cited these very same passages in your response. I have trouble believing you did not notice the terms “for life” and “forever”.

1 Peter 2:18-21 tells us that slaves suffer unjustly and 1 Timothy 6:1-2 shows us that slaves should serve their Christian masters even better, making no room for them to escape bondage. The only evidence you can provide in opposition to slavery are extremely ambiguous verses that do not mention slavery by name. However, when Jesus and the apostles DO mention slavery directly, it is NEVER in opposition or condemnation. But the final nail in the coffin is that the Bible allows and even regulates slavery. If slavery is immoral then it does not matter how well the Bible regulates it, because it still means the Bible is promoting/regulating an immoral practice. You can make whatever regulations you want to prostitution, bestiality, or illicit drug use — it still would not change the fact these practices are inherently immoral.

I understand most Christians simply ignore the Biblical atrocities and only read about the good parts that make them feel warm and fuzzy inside, but THAT “is simply not intellectually honest”. If you truly want to get to know God you must accept the Bible in its entirety, not simply cherry pick passages you find acceptable. I do not feel we should have to make excuses for God, thus the sheer amount of immoral acts the Bible permits/regulates forces me to constantly question the Bible’s integrity and authenticity. If I am to be honest with myself and follow a consistent code of moral and ethical conduct, questions about slavery, rape, infanticide, and genocide that are contained in the pages of the Holy Bible must be accounted for. Either we accept these acts as being in accordance with the will of God and thereby concede morality to be arbitrary, or we reject these acts as being immoral and by proxy reject the Bible itself.