That's Just How It Was Back Then

Summary

In this thought-provoking dialogue, Ben Shapiro and a character representing Yahweh debate the nature and purpose of the Bible. Shapiro argues that the Bible was written for a specific time and audience, with Yahweh adapting His communication to their level of understanding. Jeffery challenges this, suggesting that an omniscient God should have been able to convey advanced knowledge. The conversation explores themes of cultural context, moral evolution, and the relevance of biblical laws in modern society, questioning whether divine guidance has truly shaped human progress or merely reflected the norms of the time.

Takeaways

• 📜 The script discusses the idea that the Bible was given to a specific group of people at a specific time, with the language and understanding of that era in mind.
• 🗣️ Ben Shapiro argues that the Commandments were designed to transition people away from primitive practices towards less primitive ones, using animal sacrifices as an example.
• 🤔 Jeffrey challenges the notion that God communicated in a way that was limited by the culture and understanding of the time, suggesting that an omnipotent being could have provided more advanced knowledge.
• 🏫 Jeffrey uses the analogy of modern education, where teachers introduce new concepts and language to children, to argue that God could have done the same for the ancient Israelites.
• 📚 The script questions why the Bible does not contain advanced knowledge or scientific insights that would have been beyond human understanding at the time, which could have served as evidence of divine influence.
• 🏛️ Jeffrey points out that societal norms and laws have evolved over time, with some practices becoming more accepted or legal despite biblical prohibitions, such as homosexuality.
• 📖 Ben Shapiro emphasizes the importance of context in language and communication, suggesting that any message conveyed to people of the past would inherently be different from one directed at future generations.
• 🔍 Jeffrey uses Occam's Razor to question whether the laws in the Bible resemble those of other ancient civilizations because they were divinely inspired or because they were influenced by existing cultural norms.
• 📉 The script highlights the moral complexities and inconsistencies in the Bible's laws, such as the treatment of rape and slavery, which do not align with modern sensibilities.
• 🌐 Jeffrey argues that God, being omnipotent and omniscient, should have been able to convey a message that transcends cultural and temporal boundaries, yet the Bible's teachings are often tied to the context of the time.
• 📝 The discussion ends with Jeffrey suggesting that people cherry-pick which laws to follow based on personal beliefs or convenience, rather than adhering strictly to divine commandments.

Q & A

What is the central argument made by Ben Shapiro regarding the Bible and its context?

Ben Shapiro argues that the Bible was given to a specific people at a specific time, and its language and teachings were tailored to the understanding and context of those people, who did not have the same education, evidence, or scientific knowledge as modern people.

How does Jeffrey challenge the idea of God communicating with ancient people in a way they would understand?

Jeffrey challenges this by suggesting that God could have given them the right words and concepts to understand advanced knowledge, just as teachers introduce new words and concepts to children in a classroom.

What point does Jeffrey make about the Bible not containing advanced scientific knowledge?

Jeffrey argues that if the Bible had contained significant scientific advancements beyond human knowledge at the time, it would have been compelling evidence of an advanced outside influence, like God, and differentiated it from other primitive civilizations.

What is the counterargument made by Ben Shapiro about the purpose of the Commandments?

Ben Shapiro suggests that many of the Commandments were directed at converting people away from more primitive practices towards less primitive ones, using the example of animal sacrifices.

How does Jeffrey respond to the argument about God taking culture into consideration?

Jeffrey points out that despite taking their culture into consideration, the Bible also includes commands that led to punishment and disobedience, suggesting that this approach did not work and failed to move people in the right direction.

What example does Jeffrey use to illustrate the Bible's lack of impact on societal progress?

Jeffrey uses the example of the Israelites' laws on homosexuality and marriage, noting that society has moved towards legalizing gay marriage and condemning those who wish to punish homosexuals, despite the Bible's commands.

What is the argument made by Ben regarding the necessity of God's laws to resemble the laws of other cultures?

Ben argues that God's laws needed to resemble the laws of other cultures of the time to be understood and accepted by the people, suggesting that this was a necessary compromise for communication.

How does Jeffrey challenge the idea that God's laws are special?

Jeffrey challenges this by pointing out that if God's laws look like the laws of other cultures because they needed to be understandable, then they are not special and could have been created by the people themselves.

What is the significance of the argument about the timing and scope of God's moral code?

Jeffrey argues that God had the opportunity to establish a moral code that would be clear and applicable to all people across time, but instead focused on a specific group at a specific time, leading to ambiguity and cherry-picking of laws.

What is the point Jeffrey makes about the Bible's stance on slavery and rape?

Jeffrey criticizes the Bible for not clearly condemning slavery and for its laws regarding rape, which he argues were influenced by the culture of the time rather than establishing a clear moral standard.

How does Jeffrey address the issue of people cherry-picking Bible laws?

Jeffrey points out that people choose which laws to follow based on their own preferences and societal norms, often ignoring laws that are inconvenient or no longer relevant, despite them being part of God's moral code.