Rauser seems to be acting a bit childishly. Ortlund said he was too busy to respond to the substance of Rauser's disagreement at this time. Rauser rejoined that Ortlund just wrote 202 words and so should have used those words to respond to the substance and NOT to explain why he does not have time to respond to the substance right now. (Worse, Rauser then accused Ortlund of being motivated to use 202 words to explain why he does not have time to respond right now instead of using 202 words to respond to the substance BECAUSE Ortlund knows he faces sure defeat!) But it is completely reasonable for Ortlund to want to give a rigorous response to Rauser's disagreement (if indeed he chooses to) and that rigorous response takes time and far, far more than 202 words. By insisting that Ortlund use his 202 words to defend his view, Rauser is insisting that Ortlund provide a half-ass (202 word) response to him.
How is a continuing back and forth between two public figures revolving around a topic they are both directly interested in an "obsession" on one side? No dog in this fight, genuinely curious how and why you've come to this characterisation and why you're commenting it on this guy's channel
You note that Dr. Ortlund concedes the point that an individual in Deuteronomy 21, when placed in such a situation could not consent, and was not a concern of the Torah. You then say, "That's the issue! That's what he is supposed to be protecting as an apologist, Deuteronomy 21 from the critics who say precisely that!" Considering that Gavin Ortlund flat out admitted that that was never his point, is it fair to say that you do not understand the purpose of his apologetics?
I'm not sure about unhinged. But all of Randal's righteous indignation is a distraction. Gavin's meekness to talk about rape is juvenile. Both are using ethos in a dishonest fortification of their ideas. IMHO.
I'm new to viewing this channel, so I can't speak to the "unhinged" part, but I can assure you that obsession with engaging Ortlund is by no means a rare phenomena among apologists. And I believe this is because Dr Ortlund is a notably rare breed of Christian Apologist A Postmodern Absurdist. Naturally, because that's such a rare school of thought for an apologist, it often flies under opponents' radars that he Openly embraces irony, and so when they notice contradictions, they become adamant about pointing them out ("This man is a trained apologist--surely I could make him see reason if I just persist in pointing out the flaw in his thinking"). Meanwhile, he actually thrives on the commotion caused by his pot stirring. And ironically enough, he pursues his ministry of cognitive dissonance under the motto "Truth Unites"
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg Interesting point. I think people may be obsessed with debating Dr. Ortlund because his views are easily rebutted. Just my opinion, but Trent Horn was the star in the recent slavery debate featuring Ortlund.
@@SergeantSkeptic686 one other thing to consider when an Apologist (with all the usual expertise in formal logic) openly holds contradictory positions, eg BOTH X AND not X, at the same time: Usually his opponents will hold EITHER X OR not X. This means that they're in "half agreement" with him, so they tend to be sympathetic to him, so they'll try that much harder to get him to "see the light". This explains why apologists like Horn--who are opponents of his in the Protestant/Catholic squibbles--try so hard (but ultimately unsuccessfully) to bend over backwards to be engaging and patient with him, all the while talking endlessly in circles with him. Yes, they're convinced he will eventually see Reason. What they don't know is, he's already seen Reason. They were roommates in college, but they had a drunken fistfight at Camus' Bar & Grill, and so they are no longer on speaking terms
If you think Gavin conceded the point that you think he is making, perhaps you did not understand his point. Deflection and misunderstanding are often indistinguishiable.
I have to say that I am quite sympathetic to your overall concern with these passages. I think most of the apologetics world is not taking them seriously enough or is downplaying them inappropriately. However, this whole saga with Ortlund, including this video, is just... not great. I know you feel on the outside of the apologetics world. I know you feel that others aren't willing to engage. And honestly, they should engage with the ideas more. But this is starting to seem... petty. I don't blame Ortlund for not wanting to engage with you. I know that's harsh. But... you have reasonable ideas held back what comes across as a chip on your shoulder.
Rauser recommends Canada's three-part definition of consent: (1) able to consent, (2) consent must be enthusiastic, (3) consent must be continual. Sexual actions that do not meet these three criteria are "sexual assault". Is this a reasonable standard? First, is hiring a sex worker (e.g., prostitute) sexual assault? A sex worker can choose that "profession" of her own free will because it pays more than other options open to her. But I would imagine that, MOST of the time, she is not "enthusiastic" about providing the services. Does that make it "sexual assault"? Second, in a marriage, one partner may not be in the mood for sex while the other is. It can certainly be a loving thing to agree to have sex even if you are not terribly in the mood and would rather soak in the tub. This scenario does not mean the spouse interested in sex is being coercive and the other is worn down into agreeing. It is just one of the things of many types that spouses do for each other. In these instances where one spouse is less than enthusiastic, is it "sexual assault"? Third, we must consider this standard in the context of an ancient culture where arranged marriage of young-to-median teenage girls was standard practice. Say it was expected that a girl should be married by the time she is 15. The parents picked her husband and they got married. This was the uniform cultural expectation. The girl was probably a bit frightened of marriage and especially of sex. But the husband would "go into her" and have sex as is normal in marriage. Even if this is done gently and kindly, the girl would most likely still be nervous and would certainly NOT be enthusiastic. Does this millennia-old cultural practice constitute "sexual assault"? Does Rauser declare his objection to all ancient cultures with arranged marriages of teen girls? Or does he abstain from condemnation because he knows it will look like he is imposing radical modern standards on ancient cultures? (Not to mention that cultural practices and expectations themselves serve to condition consent.) I would like to know Rauser's views on these three scenarios before I accept his judgments of what is and is not "sexual assault". It could be that Rauser's concept of sexual assault is radical and wildly unworkable and, therefore, irrelevant to this discussion.
I think the example of girl being married is a bit different, cause there is the parents consent and the girls know what their future holds so the nerves there are usually because it's something unknown. While if your capturer is forcing himself onto you, you have no idea what he does, and even if you do it goes so far off from the expected scenario (add to that the humiliation and pain) and you you see it's rape. Yet, it felt like he applied modern standards. Also, it's as if he doesn't look at the effects on the men's actions. A month to moarn for the women is also a month for the men to hold their lust and reconsider why they want this woman for themselves, and do they really want to marry her. As well as making them provide and care for her with no immediate return, which means there is higher chance he gets to see her as a person, therefore altering his approach to the matter. Then again, we have no actual way to say how it affected the amount of rape and forced marriage
@@romankarabekov7723 The example of young girls being married (via arranged marriages) was the third of three examples I gave to critique Rauser's use of radical modern notions of consent (especially the component of "enthusiastic" consent). That he invokes this standard leads me to believe his judgment is fatally flawed and so his criticism of Ortlund on this point is probably mortally wounded. To your point: I wasn't comparing arranged marriage to taking a wife from the battlefield. Also, about the central point of consent, parents cannot consent to sex in their children's place (as you alluded to).
finally decided to respond after reading comments all day. i wonder if Randall could make his agenda more clear. Is he trying to convince Gavin that the bible is true? is he trying to convince Gavin that it's false? Is he trying to get gavin to become his student? Does Gavin need to admit that randall understands the text more accurately? what on earth is his agenda unless to cause a stir? personally i think the bible is extremely clearly against rape and slavery of every kind. i know that atheistic scholars disagree. and if a Christian does not accept inerrancy im fine with that too. i personally think the bible is good and peaceful but i can respect diverse opinions on the text.
I really can't see what's unclear to you here. Randal has a moral problem with a forced marriage between a traumatised girl and soldiers who killed her family. He objects to bad apologetics that seek to trivialise that. If you can't understand that this is a moral issue, then I feel really sorry for you! By the way, I say that as a Christian and not as an atheist.
@@SchwarzaufWeissundsoIf Randal's position is simply a moral problem with the text, then why does he spend so much time trying to convince the audience that Dr. Ortlund is a bad guy because he hasn't responded *in the way that he wants?* The issue is, the goal isn't *simply* communication about the text. The goal is also about identifying Dr. Ortlund as a barrier to overcome. In other words, a villain.
@@Narikku No, Dr Orland has made himself into a bad guy by becoming a rape apologist. For Randal to call that out is not a mistake, it's a good thing. There shoul be more Christians like him! I love the Lord Jesus and am a committed Christian. We Christians need to do better than being rape apologists!
Dude just give him some space. Nobody gives arguments or real responses in a sentence or two. Like he said these issues take a lot of time and effort. Responses shouldn’t be quick and flippant. It’s good to criticize one’s own tribe and I appreciate you for that. But these constant critiques of others are coming across as neurotic
It was Gavin who declined multiple times to have a full conversation and choose to respond in short comments. The only space he wants is for Randal to go away so he can drop the subject entirely.
While I agree with Randal's critique, I agree with you that space should be given. I wish Gavin would respond but the multiple videos does come across odd. I mean no offense to Randal here, just noting how this can come across.
Why give him space? He's a public (professional?) apologist who made a video which - in many people's eyes - defends the indefensible. Gavin can't reasonably expect that there won't be pushback. And since it's a controversial issue, and since he initiated the discussion (by releasing his video), it looks bad that he doesn't want to engage with reasoned responses, but instead seems to be taking it all a little personally. It's disappointing.
It’s ridiculous to expect a pastor and father of multiple kids to just drop everything for this. I agree it makes Randal seem neurotic and unbalanced. He also seems to put a lot of stakes into it since he literally works with abused women. But let’s not get carried away and think that it’s somehow the most important thing in the world that Gavin responds to this at once. Randall seems to be hellbent on Gavin’s response regardless of beung tone-deaf as to how it comes across, namely accusatory and entitled.
@@JeansiByxan Someone needs to hold these indefensible viewpoints to account. Props for Randal for being one of the few Christians to do so. Gavin is HURTING Christianity. He needs to be challenged. What? You think he should be given a pass?
The obsessive tweeting at and making videos about Gavin Ortlund is embarrassing. Just make your point and move on. No one owes you their time, especially when you're acting like this.
At 15:39 Mr. Rauser frames this as a kidnapping. This is not the correct framing in a war context. He also continues to argue based upon the assumption that the remedy or improvement of this law was to give consent to the captive. This particular “consent” standard of improvement is simply being imposed into a context where it does not belong. Captivity in war is a communal consequence of the conflict, it’s neither kidnapping nor a place where consent is to be expected in the ancient context. Rape and the killing of women was seen as a normal part of war. So for Israel to have a law that restrains such actions by its soldiers shows a massive improvement to the treatment of women in ancient society. And this occurs in less than ideal circumstances, namely war. The most obvious improvement even on a trama standard that does relate to force is the removal of rape as a norm on the battle field. The second improvement is that it grants the dignity and protections of marriage to a women who was a total outsider to the clan. Finally, there is the possibility that the woman’s continued refusal to have sexual relations (to consent) may have been subsumed under the idea that the woman was not pleasing to her captor/husband. This is less certain, as we can’t tell from the text the degree to which consent might have been valued in ancient Hebrew culture between a married couple (it might have, but we can’t explicitly tell from the text). Practically, it seems evident that a woman who did not accept the new situation and was more trouble than she was worth would eventually be released from the marriage. As Gavin stated, this is not ideal, but such a law has to be considered in its context. To think men at war could be restrained in this way is rather idealistic to begin with. Further, women in that time probably would have been shocked by such treatment as very honorable and that in itself may have inclined them to consent. We just don’t know. My problem with Rauser’s approach here is the arrogance of his unstated assumptions, not even attempting to put oneself into the psychological war framework of a women in that time period, and the moralism of imposing of a non-war consent standard for marriage (something we see at play in Rachel’s consent to marry Isaac) to a captive in war. And finally, his insistence that the most uncharitable possible reading be given to the phrase “if you no longer delight in her,” when it is quite likely that this lack of delight would include her continued resistance to the new marriage situation (some acknowledgement of the importance of some amount of consent even in a war context). To complain that these are not massive improvements for the rights of women in ancient culture but just another example of ancient disregard, well, that just sounds like one has adopted the attitude of a critic of scripture rather than that of sympathetic understanding given the wider context of Yahweh’s loving-kindness in the rest of the Torah. I think you can do better Randal. I think your perspective on scripture need not conceded what you have conceded.
This moral relativism disgusts me, was it or was it not wrong? If so why didn’t god explicitly tell his people not to do this, instead he makes of ton of selfish laws regarding only worshiping him and how he should be worshiped. Entirely an immoral being if he were to exist
@@jamesmejia2955, it’s not moral relativism. According to the best reading of this law it prevented rape in war, it allowed captives to psychologically transition to the new situation and it allowed women to opt out of the marriage if they did not consent (really want to be there or find it advantageous for them given the bad circumstances). Something to consider, if you really dislike moral relativism is why everything is not morally relative and mere subjective option without a God who’s good nature is the standard for all of us (even accounting for our ignorance and limitations)? If moral relativism really is disgusting, then Jesus is the Lord for you! This was something Jesus’ own disciples had to decide. In the gospel of John 6:60 Jesus said something which was hard for them to understand and was culturally and religiously offensive. But Peter says, Lord where should we go, you alone have the words of eternal life (they had seen enough of his truth to bear with that which they did not understand). The same is true of moral relativism, if we are to avoid it, monotheism is the only way. The question of the connection between love and the suffering of the innocent? The innocent God who sacrifices himself on the cross in love is the only way to really understand. It might be hard to understand, when he says “come and follow me,” but it’s worth the effort to stick it out. Keep learning my friend.
This ended about the way I thought it would. I think I am over apologetics at this point. I'm not a progressive by any means, but I prefer to just explore the truth openly and honestly, and this circling the wagons stuff has gotten boring.
Why does he want to talk to Gavin so badly? Over these 3 videos I've seen some (seemingly) well thought out responses to Randals position. Ive seem some good challenges to Randals starting point (a modern Canadian definition of consent 🙄) Randal seems to even presume the psychology of an ancient 15 year olo! There just seems to be a lot of errors on Randals side before even starting..
@@eew8060 If this is the case, then I would advise you to speak and act in accordance with your beliefs. Randal is the one of the two who argues from objective morality. It's not about a "modern Canadian definition of consent", it's about what consent objectively is. Without real consent, sexual intercourse is rape and rape is always evil. Whether today or back then. That is what objective morality demands. Gavin argues like a moral relativist and says in the historical context it's an improvement and therefore it's okay. That's moral relativism which you, in your own words, reject.
Well said, Randal. It's easy for Gavin to cherry-pick a few comments who are friendly to him as evidence that your actual arguments aren't worth responding to.
I happened to see your conversation with Alex Malpass the other day and man, honestly, there was not even anything there on your part that COULD crumble. It was one of the most vacuous "performances " I've ever seen or heard. Sheer emptiness in sheer empty words.
Christopher Knowles (2019, pp. 220-23), based on his research on who was the first British soldier or civilian member of the Control Commission to marry a German woman after World War II, and when the first wedding took place, suggests that there were at least 15,000 marriages between British men and German women between 1947 and 1951, plus around 500 German men who married British women. So 15,000 German women married their invaders and soldiers who killed their own countrymen and destroyed their homeland ... guess the old testament making rules about such a situation is not so surprising
Here's the difference between you and Gavin. He spends hours studying and preparing for these videos. You watch one of these videos and immediately hit record and send a response. Gavin is not going to give you a one line response because he thinks things through, and is slow to speak. I've watched some of your content on this topic. There is nothing that you have said that you haven't been saying all along. You have a completely uncharitable reading and apply contemporary social and gender norms to the ancient world. Your mind is closed. The only acceptable response from Gavin or anyone else would be, "Randal, you're right." You are clearly not interested in a good-faith discourse, so, understandably, he is not interested in engaging with you. Move on.
@@thetruest7497 I would like a specific example, please. "Literally everything" he's said (that you've heard) is the "opposite of smart"? Do you realize how biased and condescending you sound?
@IAmDLFL I don't care how biased and condescending I sound. Gavin is an intellectual peon. I want that to be the clear message that comes across. Plus I just told you that I recently watched him defend slavery, if you can't recognize that I gave you an example it explains why you're in your current predicament.
Where in the Hebrew Bible has sexual interaction ever been a matter of consent? Women were viewed as property and their reproductive capacity was the reason for marriage. Marriages were based upon a contract between two men, the women did not have any say here. That is why the Hebrew Bible describes what is mainly translated as a man marriying a woman as a "man taking a woman". She becomes his property. Today's ethics are much further and I think we need to be honest that in Deuteronomy 21 the ethics of people are far behind. Maybe the reason why we may have a problem with it is that we take the command as being "from God" which questions God's morality. But the question is, who made the command? Was it God or men? The apologist will say "It was God", the atheist Bible scholar will say "It was humans". What is the more likely case here?
If we’re going to accuse people of misrepresenting the Bible, start with yourself. You rant like an atheist about this topic, yet you somehow believe the Bible is still the word of God? In all fairness, I think you’re both hypocrites for being wishy-washy in different ways.
Thanks you for being persistent about this Randal. This topic is highly important, and someone has to make up for the lack of interpretations that take this passage seriously.
Gavin’s theology exposes the problem of Biblicism (interpreting the OT literally). They cannot see allegory and context - like the early Christian Patristic Father’s did.
It's from a list of laws in Deuteronomy. You may allegorise it away all you like, but that is not the genre of the writing here. It's not part of a story. It's "law". Even if it's better than the surrounding culture it's still not good law (and has anyone done a comparative study with, say, the code of Hammurabi?)
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I understand the desire to get rid of problematic portions of Scripture, but when they’re written as historical accounts (or laws) it seems to me pretty difficult to justify that. After all, why accept the validity of the New Testament but then throw out the Old Testament simply because it says things you don’t agree with? And unfortunately Jesus confirmed that he did not intend to abolish the OT Law but to fulfill it - whatever that means, it seems that OT was still thought of as given by God. 2 Timothy claims all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching. I struggle to comprehend how this works as a tenable view. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying the OT problems. I just don’t get why you stop at removing them and not going all the way by claiming none of it as true.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Appreciate the reply. So in principle, I understand the idea of using something you are confident in to be the basis for other beliefs. I've been questioning a lot recently and I used to use the resurrection as my basis as well. The first thing I'll say is I am neither an expert nor would I consider myself well-read. I commented because I'm still exploring, so if I'm wrong then let me know. It seems strange to me that Jesus would come as a fulfillment of the law and that not be an endorsement of the fact that the OT was something that God handed down in some way or another. The argument that it was an imperfect understanding of God's nature and is mixed with human efforts might push that off a bit, but then I find that my thoughts all boil down to asking why God would let His revelation to us be so imprecise and imperfect? Even the gospels that you're granting reliability to have issues between them, and whether or not you think those issues can be harmonized I find the fact that they need to be harmonized quite troubling in light of an all-powerful, all-good God. I think I'm fairly convinced Jesus did exist, and I know there's the idea that he's more attested to than most historical figures, but in light of the fact that we're basing an entire worldview on this account, it seems like the story is hazy enough that we would be warranted in thinking a natural occurrence, even a very unlikely one, is the most likely explanation of events. Really, just the idea that God is all-good and all-powerful together kill most arguments for me. It seems that there are numerous ways that revelation could be substantially improved in effectiveness and reliability, even in mundane ways that wouldn't make it apparent to the world at large, and yet we don't see those things. Having to say that a massive part of the literature about your religion isn't true and all you have to go on for your worldview is the gospels (which at least on the surface seem to reference and rely on these unreliable texts from the OT) just doesn't work for me.
This popped up on my recommended feed and I'm genuinely perplexed at the comments here because I haven't seen a single actual criticism of Rauser's points, just talking points about optics. I'm an outsider so no dog in the fight either way, but what's going on? What gives?
What would usually happen to this hypothetical girl without parental providership during this time of conquest. What would be her fate? Any scholarship on that ? Wasn't marriage an improvement in status... Boaz...
@@Randal_Rauser I'm not telling, I'm asking an honest question. Is there any good scholarship on war practices of that era? Then we could compare the cultural practices and better judge the text in question. I once heard an analysis of the estimated casualties of what a land invasion of Japan would have been compared to dropping the A bomb. The estimated casualties were astronomical based on the fierce determination of Japanese fighting force in the surrounding islands that were captured. The mainland was preparing every citizen to fight to the last person with sharpened bamboo poles if necessary! All Im saying is that it seems God only has sinners to work with :( Lesser of two evils...? God have mercy on us all!
It's pretty obvious what Ortlund is doing. He's a Postmodernist, for which I applaud him. He's trying to be a "living contradiction". For example, he constantly babbles on "Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura", all while babbling on "I'm not saying the Bible is morally sound, I'm just saying it promotes a more irenic version of assault than was customary at the time" out of the other corner of his mouth. I believe once you see he's basically just putting himself out there "for the LOLz", it will change how you engage with him (unless, ofc, you're just doing it for the LOLz yourself--in which case, God bless, enjoy the game, may the best man win, yada yada yada)
I guess this is the conclusion to the whole saga. While you call it substandard apologetics, nonetheless, it’s effective apologetics as Christians would rather hear his perspective than yours. Let’s just say one day you’re able to change his mind and many others to view things your way. Unfortunately though, you’ll never be able to change the text and it’ll always provide people room for interpretation. In the end, arming everyone with a Bible is the same as arming everyone with a firearm. It’s only a matter of time before someone misuses it.
Why would God allow morally unacceptable content in His book? Especially if this God is an Omni God? Yours is essentially a counterapologetics channel at this stage, and yet you still seem to cling desperately to the last threads of Christianity that are left.
I think people need to understand there are two sides on this. One side are “real” biblical scholars and their views on the bible. That group believes bible is inerrant - that means "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact" And they tend to render all hard texts through this kind of lenses and they interpret with their faith not just the mind. Often they bring burden of dogmas and doctrines in their interpretation without even noticing - and I know it is freaking hard to notice that kind of things. Yes, they can be biased. Probably all of them are Christians. Sometimes people in that group practice bibliolatry. Also interpretations can vary based on their belief/denomination. Then there is second group of more sceptical bible scholars which is more data driven and consensus driven, and do not have borders and burden to reconcile everything, and probably they mostly render texts with mind based on data and their moral intuition. Because there is no border/frame they can be carried by some external influence. For example LGBTQ scholars(more often in this group) will render some texts to support them. Or atheists ones can be biased also, without noticing it, because they pre assume God does not exist at all. Yes this group can also be biased. And they can practice Dataolatry - and solely relying on data can be tricky and lead in the wrong direction if data is not correct and not of good quality. What makes me sad is that when majority of biblical scholars have some view on specific problem often I see Christian theologians from group 1 say something like this: “what majority of scholars? those sceptic ones? those are not real scholars - they just want to deceive”. If people cannot be good bible scholars because they are not from group 1 then that needs to be true for every job. Then it’s better to go to Christian doctor then sceptic or atheist one. This reasoning is completely false. Theologians from group 1 are having more tendency to say these kind of things than data and consensus driven from group 2. Here is one example: “The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts; but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses” So nobody is saying Gospels are not true, but many Theologians still rejects this as false, although majority of bible scholars say that. This also does not mean that minority of theologians cannot be right and majority wrong, I was saying this from perspective of how difficult is to change your mind and belief. I think in future there could be more and more rejections like this, because more and more data and manuscripts will be analized, more precise translations of the bible, and Scholars will more and more use technology and AI to help them in that analysis. Regarding this topic, truth is probably in the middle. So yes Gavin is dodging and cherry picking because he thinks that “it simply cannot and must not mean that” but probably he has some good points as well. Its best to be on third side and evaluate everything from distance and have open heart and sincere seek for truth. I think Christians should not have burden and borders of first group - if it is driven by fear - especially if they are going against doctrines on their search for truth. Will God punish or destroy someone who truly seeks the truth and tries to know him better but ends up wrong? If that is the case then we are all screwed.
Gavin downplays the cruelty and barbarism of these dark passages in support of his world view. Randal up plays the cruelty and barbarism to support his argument. The captive women could be 15-years-old. She could also be 29-years-old. The passages don't say. Estimates of the Captive's age are speculation. Righteous indignation is also distracting. Keep to the facts.
@@thetruest7497 No rape is rape. Criminal acts no matter the survivors age. I think most mature adults may be able to handle rape better than a child. I'm 61 and do believe I would more capable of handling the trauma of rape as opposed to a 15 year old. That's just an opinion.
@SergeantSkeptic686 exactly. SA is SA. I think Randall posited the 15 year old since it's more likely because instructions were to unalive any female that had laid with a man before. Naturally the younger the more likely they are virgins. Honestly 15 is probably older than what the actual age would've been. Randall was being generous by not saying 11 or 12.
@@thetruest7497 You're conflating two different verses. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 gives no indication of age and the captive is not required to be a virgin. The only requirement is that she be desirable. Also note the desirable captive is not the only captive. _...when you take captives..._
Anyoen who thinks these war laws come from the creator of the universe is willfully blind or bonkers. Lets give the israelites some credit for trying. But they were a bronze age people steeped in barbarism. They tried. They fall faaaaaar short of the standard of the Christian Church's just war doctrine, however.
@@wheat3226 I'm not proud of how Gavin responded to Randal. And I can say I'm on team Randal But you should watch Gavin's content such as "debunking" the Young Earth Creationism, and you'll see that Gavin has some great vids
@@wheat3226 I agree, he should reflect more on that passage. I think Gavin goes with Dinesh Dsouza / Denis Prager interpretation: "Eye for an eye!" -- "You did this to our girls, so we'll do this to you!"
I agree, a real Christian examines the text with context, compassion, and critique, is not afraid to challenge abusive doctrine with conscience, and thinks in sophisticated ways. Bible literalists are unsophisticated and toxic, they read the Bible in ways it was never meant to be read. There continues to be incredible misunderstanding in this regard. I wish more people would read the Bible as a historian and not as a theologian. When stories were written in this era, the idea that they convey literal, factual accounts of events was foreign to readers. That was not the purpose. A story may be considered “true”, even if the events never took place, because the truth was a higher truth, conveying ideas about character, loyalty, and ways a society functions well. This is very similar to Native American creation myths. I have a friend of Navajo descent, and I asked him about this. He almost laughed if I asked him whether he believed in the stories of the earth in the back of turtle, he said “of course not!” But he clarified that this doesn’t define the truth if the story, the idea that life is a cycle and death is part of that cycle, that they are to be stewards and care for the world as if it were a living being. Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, Jonah and the Whale, sodom and gamorah, the resurrection, walking on water… are these really more believable than our earth being on a large turtle? Where Christianity has lost itself is that it is focused on true belief, and not as truths conveyed by stories to help us better understand ourselves and our world. Early Christian groups including the gnostics were more similar to this way of thinking. Maybe, just maybe, we are to be disgusted by rape in the Bible and not rationalize it. Maybe the Christian God is disappointed when people ignore the conscience they were given to force belief of repugnant ideas. The idea that God is only able to convey truth through literal history, and not greater truth through myth and metaphor, is laughable.
The definition you gave for SA, suggests if was 15 and she enthusiatically AND repeatedly consented to sex, with the soldier, it would still be deemed sexual Assualt by modern definitions. As a 15 can't give consent, this makes a mockery of taking today's liberal standard and applying to that culture. If I have heard you correct every 15 who got married in that day and age would be sexually assaulted by that measure I hope you show integrity by removing your previous video that slams gavin for refusing to engage with you and telling you to GO AWAY!
If it was “click bait” when is a better time to use click bait than in defense of women everywhere??? Using “go away” instead of “he dismissed further interaction” is accurate enough to protect women, no? Randall’s Iron sharpens iron. And we got a lot of iron in the fire here. Imagine if a pastor said what Gavin said to your mother/daughter/sister if your mother asked “is this what consent looks like for them? this feels wrong? Is it not wrong?” if your pastor said anything other than “no, this is definitely not okay. Never accept this as a standard from anyone, for any reason” You would rightly feel sick to your stomach, or become violent. If Gavin isn’t arguing that it is consent then he has to communicate that repeatedly. Although it may seem to be “virtue signaling” in a negative sense, people of all walks of life and levels of understanding are watching this big platform. Including the most vulnerable. I welcome any feedback because I also want to grow! 🙏🏿
And yet you impose modern laws despite knowing full well that 15-year olds are sexually mature. If a 15-year old having sex is immoral then nature is by definition immoral.
@@Randal_Rauser By that standard the laws outlined in deuteronomy are not illiberal and were legal standard of 1,000 BC, thus equally untouchable. However you seem to treat the canadian laws made by man with greater reverence than the bible
Rauser seems to be acting a bit childishly. Ortlund said he was too busy to respond to the substance of Rauser's disagreement at this time. Rauser rejoined that Ortlund just wrote 202 words and so should have used those words to respond to the substance and NOT to explain why he does not have time to respond to the substance right now. (Worse, Rauser then accused Ortlund of being motivated to use 202 words to explain why he does not have time to respond right now instead of using 202 words to respond to the substance BECAUSE Ortlund knows he faces sure defeat!) But it is completely reasonable for Ortlund to want to give a rigorous response to Rauser's disagreement (if indeed he chooses to) and that rigorous response takes time and far, far more than 202 words. By insisting that Ortlund use his 202 words to defend his view, Rauser is insisting that Ortlund provide a half-ass (202 word) response to him.
the obsession with Ortlund is becoming weird, Randal.
It's called clout chasing
I'm for it! These comments are way too mad.
How is a continuing back and forth between two public figures revolving around a topic they are both directly interested in an "obsession" on one side? No dog in this fight, genuinely curious how and why you've come to this characterisation and why you're commenting it on this guy's channel
@@gregorsamsa5251 there was no back-and-forth until Randal started to feel offended that Ortlund did not pay him the attention he thought he would get
The other option is to let the MF say whatever the fuck he wants to say, unchallenged, even when what he says is ridiculously stupid.
You note that Dr. Ortlund concedes the point that an individual in Deuteronomy 21, when placed in such a situation could not consent, and was not a concern of the Torah.
You then say, "That's the issue! That's what he is supposed to be protecting as an apologist, Deuteronomy 21 from the critics who say precisely that!"
Considering that Gavin Ortlund flat out admitted that that was never his point, is it fair to say that you do not understand the purpose of his apologetics?
You're coming across as unhinged. That's not a comment on your arguments.
It is not unhinged at all to be passionate and persistent about a topic, particularly when the topic concerns defending women from sexual assault.
I'm not sure about unhinged. But all of Randal's righteous indignation is a distraction. Gavin's meekness to talk about rape is juvenile. Both are using ethos in a dishonest fortification of their ideas. IMHO.
I'm new to viewing this channel, so I can't speak to the "unhinged" part, but I can assure you that obsession with engaging Ortlund is by no means a rare phenomena among apologists. And I believe this is because Dr Ortlund is a notably rare breed of Christian Apologist A Postmodern Absurdist. Naturally, because that's such a rare school of thought for an apologist, it often flies under opponents' radars that he Openly embraces irony, and so when they notice contradictions, they become adamant about pointing them out ("This man is a trained apologist--surely I could make him see reason if I just persist in pointing out the flaw in his thinking"). Meanwhile, he actually thrives on the commotion caused by his pot stirring. And ironically enough, he pursues his ministry of cognitive dissonance under the motto "Truth Unites"
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg Interesting point. I think people may be obsessed with debating Dr. Ortlund because his views are easily rebutted. Just my opinion, but Trent Horn was the star in the recent slavery debate featuring Ortlund.
@@SergeantSkeptic686 one other thing to consider when an Apologist (with all the usual expertise in formal logic) openly holds contradictory positions, eg BOTH X AND not X, at the same time: Usually his opponents will hold EITHER X OR not X. This means that they're in "half agreement" with him, so they tend to be sympathetic to him, so they'll try that much harder to get him to "see the light". This explains why apologists like Horn--who are opponents of his in the Protestant/Catholic squibbles--try so hard (but ultimately unsuccessfully) to bend over backwards to be engaging and patient with him, all the while talking endlessly in circles with him. Yes, they're convinced he will eventually see Reason. What they don't know is, he's already seen Reason. They were roommates in college, but they had a drunken fistfight at Camus' Bar & Grill, and so they are no longer on speaking terms
If you think Gavin conceded the point that you think he is making, perhaps you did not understand his point.
Deflection and misunderstanding are often indistinguishiable.
I have to say that I am quite sympathetic to your overall concern with these passages. I think most of the apologetics world is not taking them seriously enough or is downplaying them inappropriately.
However, this whole saga with Ortlund, including this video, is just... not great. I know you feel on the outside of the apologetics world. I know you feel that others aren't willing to engage. And honestly, they should engage with the ideas more.
But this is starting to seem... petty. I don't blame Ortlund for not wanting to engage with you.
I know that's harsh. But... you have reasonable ideas held back what comes across as a chip on your shoulder.
Rauser recommends Canada's three-part definition of consent: (1) able to consent, (2) consent must be enthusiastic, (3) consent must be continual. Sexual actions that do not meet these three criteria are "sexual assault". Is this a reasonable standard?
First, is hiring a sex worker (e.g., prostitute) sexual assault? A sex worker can choose that "profession" of her own free will because it pays more than other options open to her. But I would imagine that, MOST of the time, she is not "enthusiastic" about providing the services. Does that make it "sexual assault"?
Second, in a marriage, one partner may not be in the mood for sex while the other is. It can certainly be a loving thing to agree to have sex even if you are not terribly in the mood and would rather soak in the tub. This scenario does not mean the spouse interested in sex is being coercive and the other is worn down into agreeing. It is just one of the things of many types that spouses do for each other. In these instances where one spouse is less than enthusiastic, is it "sexual assault"?
Third, we must consider this standard in the context of an ancient culture where arranged marriage of young-to-median teenage girls was standard practice. Say it was expected that a girl should be married by the time she is 15. The parents picked her husband and they got married. This was the uniform cultural expectation. The girl was probably a bit frightened of marriage and especially of sex. But the husband would "go into her" and have sex as is normal in marriage. Even if this is done gently and kindly, the girl would most likely still be nervous and would certainly NOT be enthusiastic. Does this millennia-old cultural practice constitute "sexual assault"? Does Rauser declare his objection to all ancient cultures with arranged marriages of teen girls? Or does he abstain from condemnation because he knows it will look like he is imposing radical modern standards on ancient cultures? (Not to mention that cultural practices and expectations themselves serve to condition consent.)
I would like to know Rauser's views on these three scenarios before I accept his judgments of what is and is not "sexual assault". It could be that Rauser's concept of sexual assault is radical and wildly unworkable and, therefore, irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm especially interested in his response to #3 in light of the passage he's focusing on
well said.
I think the example of girl being married is a bit different, cause there is the parents consent and the girls know what their future holds so the nerves there are usually because it's something unknown. While if your capturer is forcing himself onto you, you have no idea what he does, and even if you do it goes so far off from the expected scenario (add to that the humiliation and pain) and you you see it's rape.
Yet, it felt like he applied modern standards. Also, it's as if he doesn't look at the effects on the men's actions. A month to moarn for the women is also a month for the men to hold their lust and reconsider why they want this woman for themselves, and do they really want to marry her. As well as making them provide and care for her with no immediate return, which means there is higher chance he gets to see her as a person, therefore altering his approach to the matter. Then again, we have no actual way to say how it affected the amount of rape and forced marriage
@@romankarabekov7723 The example of young girls being married (via arranged marriages) was the third of three examples I gave to critique Rauser's use of radical modern notions of consent (especially the component of "enthusiastic" consent). That he invokes this standard leads me to believe his judgment is fatally flawed and so his criticism of Ortlund on this point is probably mortally wounded.
To your point: I wasn't comparing arranged marriage to taking a wife from the battlefield. Also, about the central point of consent, parents cannot consent to sex in their children's place (as you alluded to).
This video really is a waste of time up until minute 12:15.
Thank you for the time stamp. So much whining prior to that. Hell hath no fury like a Rauser spurned
finally decided to respond after reading comments all day. i wonder if Randall could make his agenda more clear. Is he trying to convince Gavin that the bible is true? is he trying to convince Gavin that it's false? Is he trying to get gavin to become his student? Does Gavin need to admit that randall understands the text more accurately? what on earth is his agenda unless to cause a stir?
personally i think the bible is extremely clearly against rape and slavery of every kind. i know that atheistic scholars disagree. and if a Christian does not accept inerrancy im fine with that too. i personally think the bible is good and peaceful but i can respect diverse opinions on the text.
I really can't see what's unclear to you here.
Randal has a moral problem with a forced marriage between a traumatised girl and soldiers who killed her family.
He objects to bad apologetics that seek to trivialise that.
If you can't understand that this is a moral issue, then I feel really sorry for you!
By the way, I say that as a Christian and not as an atheist.
Oh so you haven't read the Bible. You should have lead with that.
@thomasburkard7553 I wish there was more Christians like you and Randall.
@@SchwarzaufWeissundsoIf Randal's position is simply a moral problem with the text, then why does he spend so much time trying to convince the audience that Dr. Ortlund is a bad guy because he hasn't responded *in the way that he wants?*
The issue is, the goal isn't *simply* communication about the text. The goal is also about identifying Dr. Ortlund as a barrier to overcome.
In other words, a villain.
@@Narikku No, Dr Orland has made himself into a bad guy by becoming a rape apologist. For Randal to call that out is not a mistake, it's a good thing. There shoul be more Christians like him!
I love the Lord Jesus and am a committed Christian. We Christians need to do better than being rape apologists!
Dude just give him some space. Nobody gives arguments or real responses in a sentence or two. Like he said these issues take a lot of time and effort. Responses shouldn’t be quick and flippant. It’s good to criticize one’s own tribe and I appreciate you for that. But these constant critiques of others are coming across as neurotic
It was Gavin who declined multiple times to have a full conversation and choose to respond in short comments. The only space he wants is for Randal to go away so he can drop the subject entirely.
While I agree with Randal's critique, I agree with you that space should be given. I wish Gavin would respond but the multiple videos does come across odd. I mean no offense to Randal here, just noting how this can come across.
Why give him space? He's a public (professional?) apologist who made a video which - in many people's eyes - defends the indefensible. Gavin can't reasonably expect that there won't be pushback. And since it's a controversial issue, and since he initiated the discussion (by releasing his video), it looks bad that he doesn't want to engage with reasoned responses, but instead seems to be taking it all a little personally. It's disappointing.
It’s ridiculous to expect a pastor and father of multiple kids to just drop everything for this. I agree it makes Randal seem neurotic and unbalanced. He also seems to put a lot of stakes into it since he literally works with abused women. But let’s not get carried away and think that it’s somehow the most important thing in the world that Gavin responds to this at once. Randall seems to be hellbent on Gavin’s response regardless of beung tone-deaf as to how it comes across, namely accusatory and entitled.
@@JeansiByxan Someone needs to hold these indefensible viewpoints to account. Props for Randal for being one of the few Christians to do so. Gavin is HURTING Christianity. He needs to be challenged. What? You think he should be given a pass?
The obsessive tweeting at and making videos about Gavin Ortlund is embarrassing. Just make your point and move on. No one owes you their time, especially when you're acting like this.
At 15:39 Mr. Rauser frames this as a kidnapping. This is not the correct framing in a war context.
He also continues to argue based upon the assumption that the remedy or improvement of this law was to give consent to the captive. This particular “consent” standard of improvement is simply being imposed into a context where it does not belong. Captivity in war is a communal consequence of the conflict, it’s neither kidnapping nor a place where consent is to be expected in the ancient context.
Rape and the killing of women was seen as a normal part of war. So for Israel to have a law that restrains such actions by its soldiers shows a massive improvement to the treatment of women in ancient society. And this occurs in less than ideal circumstances, namely war.
The most obvious improvement even on a trama standard that does relate to force is the removal of rape as a norm on the battle field.
The second improvement is that it grants the dignity and protections of marriage to a women who was a total outsider to the clan.
Finally, there is the possibility that the woman’s continued refusal to have sexual relations (to consent) may have been subsumed under the idea that the woman was not pleasing to her captor/husband. This is less certain, as we can’t tell from the text the degree to which consent might have been valued in ancient Hebrew culture between a married couple (it might have, but we can’t explicitly tell from the text).
Practically, it seems evident that a woman who did not accept the new situation and was more trouble than she was worth would eventually be released from the marriage.
As Gavin stated, this is not ideal, but such a law has to be considered in its context. To think men at war could be restrained in this way is rather idealistic to begin with. Further, women in that time probably would have been shocked by such treatment as very honorable and that in itself may have inclined them to consent. We just don’t know.
My problem with Rauser’s approach here is the arrogance of his unstated assumptions, not even attempting to put oneself into the psychological war framework of a women in that time period, and the moralism of imposing of a non-war consent standard for marriage (something we see at play in Rachel’s consent to marry Isaac) to a captive in war. And finally, his insistence that the most uncharitable possible reading be given to the phrase “if you no longer delight in her,” when it is quite likely that this lack of delight would include her continued resistance to the new marriage situation (some acknowledgement of the importance of some amount of consent even in a war context).
To complain that these are not massive improvements for the rights of women in ancient culture but just another example of ancient disregard, well, that just sounds like one has adopted the attitude of a critic of scripture rather than that of sympathetic understanding given the wider context of Yahweh’s loving-kindness in the rest of the Torah.
I think you can do better Randal. I think your perspective on scripture need not conceded what you have conceded.
This moral relativism disgusts me, was it or was it not wrong? If so why didn’t god explicitly tell his people not to do this, instead he makes of ton of selfish laws regarding only worshiping him and how he should be worshiped. Entirely an immoral being if he were to exist
@@jamesmejia2955, it’s not moral relativism. According to the best reading of this law it prevented rape in war, it allowed captives to psychologically transition to the new situation and it allowed women to opt out of the marriage if they did not consent (really want to be there or find it advantageous for them given the bad circumstances).
Something to consider, if you really dislike moral relativism is why everything is not morally relative and mere subjective option without a God who’s good nature is the standard for all of us (even accounting for our ignorance and limitations)?
If moral relativism really is disgusting, then Jesus is the Lord for you!
This was something Jesus’ own disciples had to decide. In the gospel of John 6:60 Jesus said something which was hard for them to understand and was culturally and religiously offensive. But Peter says, Lord where should we go, you alone have the words of eternal life (they had seen enough of his truth to bear with that which they did not understand).
The same is true of moral relativism, if we are to avoid it, monotheism is the only way.
The question of the connection between love and the suffering of the innocent? The innocent God who sacrifices himself on the cross in love is the only way to really understand. It might be hard to understand, when he says “come and follow me,” but it’s worth the effort to stick it out.
Keep learning my friend.
This ended about the way I thought it would. I think I am over apologetics at this point. I'm not a progressive by any means, but I prefer to just explore the truth openly and honestly, and this circling the wagons stuff has gotten boring.
Why does he want to talk to Gavin so badly? Over these 3 videos I've seen some (seemingly) well thought out responses to Randals position.
Ive seem some good challenges to Randals starting point (a modern Canadian definition of consent 🙄)
Randal seems to even presume the psychology of an ancient 15 year olo! There just seems to be a lot of errors on Randals side before even starting..
Are you a moral relativist?
@@SchwarzaufWeissundso
I believe in objective moral standards and duties
@@eew8060 If this is the case, then I would advise you to speak and act in accordance with your beliefs.
Randal is the one of the two who argues from objective morality. It's not about a "modern Canadian definition of consent", it's about what consent objectively is.
Without real consent, sexual intercourse is rape and rape is always evil. Whether today or back then. That is what objective morality demands.
Gavin argues like a moral relativist and says in the historical context it's an improvement and therefore it's okay. That's moral relativism which you, in your own words, reject.
@@SchwarzaufWeissundso
Hmm.. I'm not a philosopher, but why does objective morality demand consent? 🤔
@@SchwarzaufWeissundso
..and what is "real consent"?
Well said, Randal. It's easy for Gavin to cherry-pick a few comments who are friendly to him as evidence that your actual arguments aren't worth responding to.
I happened to see your conversation with Alex Malpass the other day and man, honestly, there was not even anything there on your part that COULD crumble. It was one of the most vacuous "performances " I've ever seen or heard. Sheer emptiness in sheer empty words.
Christopher Knowles (2019, pp. 220-23), based on his research on who was the first British soldier or civilian member of the Control Commission to marry a German woman after World War II, and when the first wedding took place, suggests that there were at least 15,000 marriages between British men and German women between 1947 and 1951, plus around 500 German men who married British women.
So 15,000 German women married their invaders and soldiers who killed their own countrymen and destroyed their homeland ... guess the old testament making rules about such a situation is not so surprising
Here's the difference between you and Gavin. He spends hours studying and preparing for these videos. You watch one of these videos and immediately hit record and send a response. Gavin is not going to give you a one line response because he thinks things through, and is slow to speak.
I've watched some of your content on this topic. There is nothing that you have said that you haven't been saying all along. You have a completely uncharitable reading and apply contemporary social and gender norms to the ancient world. Your mind is closed. The only acceptable response from Gavin or anyone else would be, "Randal, you're right." You are clearly not interested in a good-faith discourse, so, understandably, he is not interested in engaging with you. Move on.
If Gavin researches and studies why is everything he says so not smart?
@@thetruest7497 What has he said that is "so not smart"?
@@IAmDLFL literally everything I've seen from him has been the opposite of smart. Recently I watched him defend slavery.
@@thetruest7497 I would like a specific example, please. "Literally everything" he's said (that you've heard) is the "opposite of smart"? Do you realize how biased and condescending you sound?
@IAmDLFL I don't care how biased and condescending I sound. Gavin is an intellectual peon. I want that to be the clear message that comes across. Plus I just told you that I recently watched him defend slavery, if you can't recognize that I gave you an example it explains why you're in your current predicament.
Where in the Hebrew Bible has sexual interaction ever been a matter of consent?
Women were viewed as property and their reproductive capacity was the reason for marriage. Marriages were based upon a contract between two men, the women did not have any say here. That is why the Hebrew Bible describes what is mainly translated as a man marriying a woman as a "man taking a woman". She becomes his property.
Today's ethics are much further and I think we need to be honest that in Deuteronomy 21 the ethics of people are far behind.
Maybe the reason why we may have a problem with it is that we take the command as being "from God" which questions God's morality. But the question is, who made the command? Was it God or men? The apologist will say "It was God", the atheist Bible scholar will say "It was humans". What is the more likely case here?
If we’re going to accuse people of misrepresenting the Bible, start with yourself. You rant like an atheist about this topic, yet you somehow believe the Bible is still the word of God? In all fairness, I think you’re both hypocrites for being wishy-washy in different ways.
Thanks you for being persistent about this Randal. This topic is highly important, and someone has to make up for the lack of interpretations that take this passage seriously.
imagine how easily god could have solved all christian infighting
Probably should have been more patient *shrugs*
Gavin’s theology exposes the problem of Biblicism (interpreting the OT literally). They cannot see allegory and context - like the early Christian Patristic Father’s did.
could you explain the allegorical side of this Deuteronomy 21?
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns thank you, really. I know there's hope for my faith if I keep on studying.
It's from a list of laws in Deuteronomy. You may allegorise it away all you like, but that is not the genre of the writing here. It's not part of a story. It's "law". Even if it's better than the surrounding culture it's still not good law (and has anyone done a comparative study with, say, the code of Hammurabi?)
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns
I understand the desire to get rid of problematic portions of Scripture, but when they’re written as historical accounts (or laws) it seems to me pretty difficult to justify that. After all, why accept the validity of the New Testament but then throw out the Old Testament simply because it says things you don’t agree with?
And unfortunately Jesus confirmed that he did not intend to abolish the OT Law but to fulfill it - whatever that means, it seems that OT was still thought of as given by God.
2 Timothy claims all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching.
I struggle to comprehend how this works as a tenable view. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying the OT problems. I just don’t get why you stop at removing them and not going all the way by claiming none of it as true.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Appreciate the reply.
So in principle, I understand the idea of using something you are confident in to be the basis for other beliefs. I've been questioning a lot recently and I used to use the resurrection as my basis as well.
The first thing I'll say is I am neither an expert nor would I consider myself well-read. I commented because I'm still exploring, so if I'm wrong then let me know.
It seems strange to me that Jesus would come as a fulfillment of the law and that not be an endorsement of the fact that the OT was something that God handed down in some way or another. The argument that it was an imperfect understanding of God's nature and is mixed with human efforts might push that off a bit, but then I find that my thoughts all boil down to asking why God would let His revelation to us be so imprecise and imperfect?
Even the gospels that you're granting reliability to have issues between them, and whether or not you think those issues can be harmonized I find the fact that they need to be harmonized quite troubling in light of an all-powerful, all-good God.
I think I'm fairly convinced Jesus did exist, and I know there's the idea that he's more attested to than most historical figures, but in light of the fact that we're basing an entire worldview on this account, it seems like the story is hazy enough that we would be warranted in thinking a natural occurrence, even a very unlikely one, is the most likely explanation of events.
Really, just the idea that God is all-good and all-powerful together kill most arguments for me. It seems that there are numerous ways that revelation could be substantially improved in effectiveness and reliability, even in mundane ways that wouldn't make it apparent to the world at large, and yet we don't see those things. Having to say that a massive part of the literature about your religion isn't true and all you have to go on for your worldview is the gospels (which at least on the surface seem to reference and rely on these unreliable texts from the OT) just doesn't work for me.
This popped up on my recommended feed and I'm genuinely perplexed at the comments here because I haven't seen a single actual criticism of Rauser's points, just talking points about optics. I'm an outsider so no dog in the fight either way, but what's going on? What gives?
Optics matter
What would usually happen to this hypothetical girl without parental providership during this time of conquest. What would be her fate? Any scholarship on that ? Wasn't marriage an improvement in status... Boaz...
The Israelites slaughtered her family so now she has the privilege to marry one of them? Nice.
@@Randal_Rauser I'm not telling, I'm asking an honest question. Is there any good scholarship on war practices of that era? Then we could compare the cultural practices and better judge the text in question.
I once heard an analysis of the estimated casualties of what a land invasion of Japan would have been compared to dropping the A bomb. The estimated casualties were astronomical based on the fierce determination of Japanese fighting force in the surrounding islands that were captured. The mainland was preparing every citizen to fight to the last person with sharpened bamboo poles if necessary!
All Im saying is that it seems God only has sinners to work with :( Lesser of two evils...? God have mercy on us all!
It's pretty obvious what Ortlund is doing. He's a Postmodernist, for which I applaud him. He's trying to be a "living contradiction". For example, he constantly babbles on "Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura", all while babbling on "I'm not saying the Bible is morally sound, I'm just saying it promotes a more irenic version of assault than was customary at the time" out of the other corner of his mouth. I believe once you see he's basically just putting himself out there "for the LOLz", it will change how you engage with him (unless, ofc, you're just doing it for the LOLz yourself--in which case, God bless, enjoy the game, may the best man win, yada yada yada)
😂😂
I guess this is the conclusion to the whole saga. While you call it substandard apologetics, nonetheless, it’s effective apologetics as Christians would rather hear his perspective than yours.
Let’s just say one day you’re able to change his mind and many others to view things your way. Unfortunately though, you’ll never be able to change the text and it’ll always provide people room for interpretation. In the end, arming everyone with a Bible is the same as arming everyone with a firearm. It’s only a matter of time before someone misuses it.
Evolution was used as a justification for atrocities, does that mean we should deny it on the basis that it is a moral hazard?
Why would God allow morally unacceptable content in His book? Especially if this God is an Omni God? Yours is essentially a counterapologetics channel at this stage, and yet you still seem to cling desperately to the last threads of Christianity that are left.
Why do you, and people like you, assume that just because something is recorded that it is an endorsement?
Religious beliefs are fundamentally unreasonable, but Rauser at least has a sense of decency, unlike the pathetic genocide apologists.
I think people need to understand there are two sides on this.
One side are “real” biblical scholars and their views on the bible. That group believes bible is inerrant - that means "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact" And they tend to render all hard texts through this kind of lenses and they interpret with their faith not just the mind. Often they bring burden of dogmas and doctrines in their interpretation without even noticing - and I know it is freaking hard to notice that kind of things. Yes, they can be biased. Probably all of them are Christians. Sometimes people in that group practice bibliolatry. Also interpretations can vary based on their belief/denomination.
Then there is second group of more sceptical bible scholars which is more data driven and consensus driven, and do not have borders and burden to reconcile everything, and probably they mostly render texts with mind based on data and their moral intuition. Because there is no border/frame they can be carried by some external influence. For example LGBTQ scholars(more often in this group) will render some texts to support them. Or atheists ones can be biased also, without noticing it, because they pre assume God does not exist at all. Yes this group can also be biased. And they can practice Dataolatry - and solely relying on data can be tricky and lead in the wrong direction if data is not correct and not of good quality.
What makes me sad is that when majority of biblical scholars have some view on specific problem often I see Christian theologians from group 1 say something like this: “what majority of scholars? those sceptic ones? those are not real scholars - they just want to deceive”. If people cannot be good bible scholars because they are not from group 1 then that needs to be true for every job. Then it’s better to go to Christian doctor then sceptic or atheist one. This reasoning is completely false. Theologians from group 1 are having more tendency to say these kind of things than data and consensus driven from group 2.
Here is one example:
“The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts; but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses”
So nobody is saying Gospels are not true, but many Theologians still rejects this as false, although majority of bible scholars say that. This also does not mean that minority of theologians cannot be right and majority wrong, I was saying this from perspective of how difficult is to change your mind and belief.
I think in future there could be more and more rejections like this, because more and more data and manuscripts will be analized, more precise translations of the bible, and Scholars will more and more use technology and AI to help them in that analysis.
Regarding this topic, truth is probably in the middle. So yes Gavin is dodging and cherry picking because he thinks that “it simply cannot and must not mean that” but probably he has some good points as well. Its best to be on third side and evaluate everything from distance and have open heart and sincere seek for truth. I think Christians should not have burden and borders of first group - if it is driven by fear - especially if they are going against doctrines on their search for truth.
Will God punish or destroy someone who truly seeks the truth and tries to know him better but ends up wrong? If that is the case then we are all screwed.
You lost me when you used the word crumbles in the title. Let it go man.
The moral of the story is that we're all better off throwing all ancient religious texts in the trash.
This makes you seem very childish and self-important.
Gavin downplays the cruelty and barbarism of these dark passages in support of his world view. Randal up plays the cruelty and barbarism to support his argument. The captive women could be 15-years-old. She could also be 29-years-old. The passages don't say. Estimates of the Captive's age are speculation. Righteous indignation is also distracting. Keep to the facts.
Does it matter the age? Is it okay if it's your granny?
@@thetruest7497 No rape is rape. Criminal acts no matter the survivors age. I think most mature adults may be able to handle rape better than a child. I'm 61 and do believe I would more capable of handling the trauma of rape as opposed to a 15 year old. That's just an opinion.
@SergeantSkeptic686 exactly. SA is SA. I think Randall posited the 15 year old since it's more likely because instructions were to unalive any female that had laid with a man before. Naturally the younger the more likely they are virgins. Honestly 15 is probably older than what the actual age would've been. Randall was being generous by not saying 11 or 12.
@@thetruest7497
Nah.. that's speculation
@@thetruest7497 You're conflating two different verses. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 gives no indication of age and the captive is not required to be a virgin. The only requirement is that she be desirable. Also note the desirable captive is not the only captive. _...when you take captives..._
Anyoen who thinks these war laws come from the creator of the universe is willfully blind or bonkers. Lets give the israelites some credit for trying. But they were a bronze age people steeped in barbarism. They tried. They fall faaaaaar short of the standard of the Christian Church's just war doctrine, however.
I see you both as great Christians
One is dishonest. Sad you can't see that.
@@wheat3226 I'm not proud of how Gavin responded to Randal. And I can say I'm on team Randal
But you should watch Gavin's content such as "debunking" the Young Earth Creationism, and you'll see that Gavin has some great vids
@@The-DOYes, good on Gavin for that. Not good for trying to justify sexual abuse. Don't give him a pass on THAT.
@@wheat3226 I agree, he should reflect more on that passage. I think Gavin goes with Dinesh Dsouza / Denis Prager interpretation: "Eye for an eye!" -- "You did this to our girls, so we'll do this to you!"
I agree, a real Christian examines the text with context, compassion, and critique, is not afraid to challenge abusive doctrine with conscience, and thinks in sophisticated ways. Bible literalists are unsophisticated and toxic, they read the Bible in ways it was never meant to be read.
There continues to be incredible misunderstanding in this regard. I wish more people would read the Bible as a historian and not as a theologian. When stories were written in this era, the idea that they convey literal, factual accounts of events was foreign to readers. That was not the purpose. A story may be considered “true”, even if the events never took place, because the truth was a higher truth, conveying ideas about character, loyalty, and ways a society functions well. This is very similar to Native American creation myths. I have a friend of Navajo descent, and I asked him about this. He almost laughed if I asked him whether he believed in the stories of the earth in the back of turtle, he said “of course not!” But he clarified that this doesn’t define the truth if the story, the idea that life is a cycle and death is part of that cycle, that they are to be stewards and care for the world as if it were a living being.
Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, Jonah and the Whale, sodom and gamorah, the resurrection, walking on water… are these really more believable than our earth being on a large turtle? Where Christianity has lost itself is that it is focused on true belief, and not as truths conveyed by stories to help us better understand ourselves and our world. Early Christian groups including the gnostics were more similar to this way of thinking.
Maybe, just maybe, we are to be disgusted by rape in the Bible and not rationalize it. Maybe the Christian God is disappointed when people ignore the conscience they were given to force belief of repugnant ideas. The idea that God is only able to convey truth through literal history, and not greater truth through myth and metaphor, is laughable.
The definition you gave for SA, suggests if was 15 and she enthusiatically AND repeatedly consented to sex, with the soldier, it would still be deemed sexual Assualt by modern definitions. As a 15 can't give consent, this makes a mockery of taking today's liberal standard and applying to that culture. If I have heard you correct every 15 who got married in that day and age would be sexually assaulted by that measure
I hope you show integrity by removing your previous video that slams gavin for refusing to engage with you and telling you to GO AWAY!
The Criminal Code of Canada is not a "liberal" standard. It's a *legal* standard.
Perhaps you should blame God for making girls sexually mature at age 15? Just saying.
If it was “click bait” when is a better time to use click bait than in defense of women everywhere??? Using “go away” instead of “he dismissed further interaction” is accurate enough to protect women, no?
Randall’s Iron sharpens iron. And we got a lot of iron in the fire here.
Imagine if a pastor said what Gavin said to your mother/daughter/sister if your mother asked “is this what consent looks like for them? this feels wrong? Is it not wrong?”
if your pastor said anything other than “no, this is definitely not okay. Never accept this as a standard from anyone, for any reason” You would rightly feel sick to your stomach, or become violent.
If Gavin isn’t arguing that it is consent then he has to communicate that repeatedly. Although it may seem to be “virtue signaling” in a negative sense, people of all walks of life and levels of understanding are watching this big platform. Including the most vulnerable.
I welcome any feedback because I also want to grow! 🙏🏿
And yet you impose modern laws despite knowing full well that 15-year olds are sexually mature. If a 15-year old having sex is immoral then nature is by definition immoral.
@@Randal_Rauser By that standard the laws outlined in deuteronomy are not illiberal and were legal standard of 1,000 BC, thus equally untouchable. However you seem to treat the canadian laws made by man with greater reverence than the bible