I believe the consent in sexual matters is of utmost importance . What puzzles me is why one would think that an ancient text like Deuteronomy ought to figure at all in this discussion. Would any Christian pastor actually use this text to condone , today, an act of gross sexual imposition, rape or assault? I would hope not. Our moral sensibilities have somewhat evolved since that time and one certainly shouldn't expect an ancient culture to possess our contemporary moral standards for evaluating behaviors.
I read this passage saying 'you may take her as your wife..' as meaning if the woman is willing. It is may, not must. I thought it meant you are permitted to marry them. I might be wrong. But why would a man want to force someone unwilling into sexual intimacy? It wouldn't be out of love and one would hope a Christian would act out of love, especially in this kind of situation. Having love and empathy/care for another person is not 'woke'. It's what Jesus practised. It's about the character of the man and he has a choice to act out of love or out of lust and/or desire for control or power over another. You are right about the 'fawn' response or 'freeze' response to rape and sexual assault, I have 'fawned' in the past to unwanted sex and I know it was wrong but it seemed the best way to get through the experience. But God understands the response and still loves me as much as He loves those who sexually assault and rape others. He doesn't condone any of it though. Sex is surely an expression of love in marriage, which means both parties should want the other to be comfortable and consenting.
Randal, as a hopeful agnostic, I have a ton of respect for you speaking out about these issues. But does hearing this gross stuff from your fellow Christians ever make you think that it might be time to move on from the religion yourself?
Because Christian Ethics are based on Christ, not on Deuteronomy 21. Deuteronomy has lights and shadows, as the Old and New Testament, but Christian Morality isn't just about a single chapter of a single book, rather, based on Christ's teachings and character, while also being based on philosophy without appeals to scripture (ethics), based on tradition, experience, etc.
The option is to build faith on the love of the Lord Jesus and not on a fundamentalist biblicism. Christians read, interpret and, if necessary, criticise the Bible from its centre, which is the Lord Jesus. This is a good foundation for faith.
@@Kenji17171 He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it. He did this by bringing it back to the original will of God. For Christians, the law has authority only and exclusively through the interpretive lens of the Lord Jesus, who also contradicted the law in some points. For example He said that Moses (not God) allowed divorce in the law, but that this contradicts the will of God. => Not everything in the law is God's will. The Lord Jesus says that he who loves God and his neighbour as himself has fulfilled the whole law. Loving the other person excludes kidnapping and raping them.
I see a few options. One of the simplest is just to say that this book is errant and so in part or whole it doesn't belong in the bible. Another is to say that this isn't meant to be read literally, it was communicated to convey spiritual truths although the dark subject matter means you would likely only take this route if inerrancy or literalism or something are more important to you and so outweigh the difficulties. You could probably get a little wiggle room by saying something was communicated to the ancient Israelites from God, but it becomes muddy when interpreted and transcribed by fallible humans. Maybe God gave them the law, but they added some of their own to it or misunderstood it. And if so, then we could assume God supernaturally intervened somehow to prevent anything overtly immoral from taking place as a result of this difficulty in communicating, or they otherwise would have been judged for this. And this doesn't directly address the question, but you could just deny the moral difficulties. I imagine something like a Christian red p!ller who believes in evolutionary psychology and so thinks it isn't as bad as Dr. Rouser is making out. Oh you could also just be agnostic, you don't have to know what's going on here with any certainty. I don't necessarily endorse any of these, but they're possibilities that I've thought of while following this. I could think of a few more but no one is reading this far anyway.
I think you would definitely change your mind if things were done to you against your consent. All smartasses who claim it is not that important would change their tune in a heartbeat if they experienced anything vaguely similar.
![[UNCUT] บอสพอล แผลงฤทธิ์ บอสพระ-นักร้อง ก. โดนแฉยับ! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 21 ต.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XKf6HeftoPI/mqdefault.jpg)
I believe the consent in sexual matters is of utmost importance . What puzzles me is why one would think that an ancient text like Deuteronomy ought to figure at all in this discussion. Would any Christian pastor actually use this text to condone , today, an act of gross sexual imposition, rape or assault? I would hope not. Our moral sensibilities have somewhat evolved since that time and one certainly shouldn't expect an ancient culture to possess our contemporary moral standards for evaluating behaviors.
Very definitive presentation of why no one ought to defend such Bible verses.
I read this passage saying 'you may take her as your wife..' as meaning if the woman is willing. It is may, not must. I thought it meant you are permitted to marry them. I might be wrong. But why would a man want to force someone unwilling into sexual intimacy? It wouldn't be out of love and one would hope a Christian would act out of love, especially in this kind of situation. Having love and empathy/care for another person is not 'woke'. It's what Jesus practised. It's about the character of the man and he has a choice to act out of love or out of lust and/or desire for control or power over another.
You are right about the 'fawn' response or 'freeze' response to rape and sexual assault, I have 'fawned' in the past to unwanted sex and I know it was wrong but it seemed the best way to get through the experience. But God understands the response and still loves me as much as He loves those who sexually assault and rape others. He doesn't condone any of it though. Sex is surely an expression of love in marriage, which means both parties should want the other to be comfortable and consenting.
Randal, as a hopeful agnostic, I have a ton of respect for you speaking out about these issues. But does hearing this gross stuff from your fellow Christians ever make you think that it might be time to move on from the religion yourself?
I guess he has already, at least by many conventional historic christian standards. There is a reason he is a "progressive Christian".
Because Christian Ethics are based on Christ, not on Deuteronomy 21.
Deuteronomy has lights and shadows, as the Old and New Testament, but Christian Morality isn't just about a single chapter of a single book, rather, based on Christ's teachings and character, while also being based on philosophy without appeals to scripture (ethics), based on tradition, experience, etc.
Amen to that!
So what’s the option? Throw out the OT entirely? Why accept some teachings if others are morally bankrupt?
The option is to build faith on the love of the Lord Jesus and not on a fundamentalist biblicism. Christians read, interpret and, if necessary, criticise the Bible from its centre, which is the Lord Jesus. This is a good foundation for faith.
@@SchwarzaufWeissundso but Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I am not a christian but how do yo explain that?
For the same reason that Jewish thinkers have "wrestled" with difficult OT passages for 2,500 years, rejecting, countering, revising , changing.
@@Kenji17171 He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it. He did this by bringing it back to the original will of God.
For Christians, the law has authority only and exclusively through the interpretive lens of the Lord Jesus, who also contradicted the law in some points. For example He said that Moses (not God) allowed divorce in the law, but that this contradicts the will of God. => Not everything in the law is God's will.
The Lord Jesus says that he who loves God and his neighbour as himself has fulfilled the whole law.
Loving the other person excludes kidnapping and raping them.
I see a few options. One of the simplest is just to say that this book is errant and so in part or whole it doesn't belong in the bible.
Another is to say that this isn't meant to be read literally, it was communicated to convey spiritual truths although the dark subject matter means you would likely only take this route if inerrancy or literalism or something are more important to you and so outweigh the difficulties.
You could probably get a little wiggle room by saying something was communicated to the ancient Israelites from God, but it becomes muddy when interpreted and transcribed by fallible humans. Maybe God gave them the law, but they added some of their own to it or misunderstood it. And if so, then we could assume God supernaturally intervened somehow to prevent anything overtly immoral from taking place as a result of this difficulty in communicating, or they otherwise would have been judged for this.
And this doesn't directly address the question, but you could just deny the moral difficulties. I imagine something like a Christian red p!ller who believes in evolutionary psychology and so thinks it isn't as bad as Dr. Rouser is making out.
Oh you could also just be agnostic, you don't have to know what's going on here with any certainty. I don't necessarily endorse any of these, but they're possibilities that I've thought of while following this. I could think of a few more but no one is reading this far anyway.
I dont see a cogent argument as to why one should value consent.
because the highest moral authority, the Canadian government, said so!
I could do some things to you against your consent, maybe you would value consent in this case.
Hell exists, and sins of the flesh are the reason why most souls go there.
Right! He just assumes it
I think you would definitely change your mind if things were done to you against your consent. All smartasses who claim it is not that important would change their tune in a heartbeat if they experienced anything vaguely similar.
The Bible does not provide a moral standard.
I do not agree, fight me! :D
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Dr Rauser, are you a moral Platonist?