Alex O’Connor DISMANTLES Glenn Scrivener’s Claim That Christianity Invented Consent

Ajouté : 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]But this to me, right, is such a slight of hand. Because what did Paul just say?

[00:00:04]I mean, do you think that that's an example of consent being forced into the bedroom as you say in your book?

[00:00:08]What's going on, everyone? Welcome back to the channel. Today, we're diving into one of the most fascinating exchanges you'll see between two heavy hitters on opposite ends of the worldview spectrum.

[00:00:21]Alex O'Connor, one of the sharpest atheist philosophers out there right now, sits down with Christian apologist Glenn Scrivener to go head-to-head on whether Christianity really deserves the credit for shaping modern Western morality. And when the conversation turns to slavery and consent in scripture, the whole thing gets real uncomfortable for one side in particular.

[00:00:47]Trust me, you want to stick around for every second of this because the back and forth in the second half is where things get genuinely mind-blowing. And I don't want you missing the moment that flipped this entire conversation on its head. Before we jump in, drop a comment and let me know which country or city you're tuning in from today. I love seeing how far this channel reaches and it genuinely makes my day reading where you're all from.

[00:01:14]All right, let's get straight into it.

[00:01:16]It's like, don't don't do that cuz that's wrong. And if And if the Another thing that's illegal is not is not taking part in the Imperial cult of Rome at the time. You know, there's this idea that if you if you won't sign a slip of paper that that with two witnesses saying that you that you pledge your allegiance and and worship, you know, the the Roman emperor god. But Christians would refuse to do that.

[00:01:36]>> So should should Paul have What What should Paul have written? Oh, I don't know. I I I mean, No, you you sounded very sure about what you thought Paul should write.

[00:01:45]>> What I'm What I'm saying is that if you want to claim that Paul is in part responsible for for this of abolitionist tendency, then you have to say that that's what he should have written. No, I don't I don't have to say that because it's yeast working through dough, right? And this this is the Okay, Christianity has ended slavery both in the the long slow burn of the sacramental way, medieval Christendom, basically it dissolves away.

[00:02:09]Um, because you're you're you're baptizing every member of your household, you're kissing them, you're eating with them.

[00:02:15]It's, you know, and and there are other there are other, you know, economic factors at play and plagues are smashing through things and and and that's going to have massive social implications as well. But, in Christendom it melts away. It comes back through the new world slavery. It is abolished again. Christianity has done it twice.

[00:02:34]Now, like if I was thinking about this analogy this morning, like if if I one way I could say to you about, um, going to the moon, right? I I could say to you, um, did you know that NASA between 1958 and 1972 failed to get to the moon as much as it did get to the moon? In terms of trying to trying to land some kind of spacecraft on the moon. Do you know that they they failed a heck of a lot? Um, the Christians have been on the wrong side of this question quite a lot. But, the the overarching, um, message that you should receive is that no one has walked on the moon except the NASA astronaut. Only Americans have walked on the moon.

[00:03:16]It's It is these Christian ideals that have proved themselves to be remarkable remarkably abolitionist in in ways that others haven't. And we're having an argument about the Bible not being sufficiently abolitionist. And this this seems to be proving the thesis, right? That we are >> the New Testament not being sufficiently abolitionist and the and the Old Testament >> The whole the whole Bible culminating in Christ crucified, which >> being a really bad place to turn if you're trying to if you're trying to justify the abolition >> We we aren't going to get to a agreement on this and I >> for example on the NASA thing, right? If it's not just I mean I I understand what you're saying. like you know NASA been to the moon and there were times when they've tried and failed or not tried at all. But imagine if there was a period when NASA was proactively discouraging people from going to the moon. Like China or someone is just wants to go to the moon or someone in NASA wants to go to the and and NASA go, "No, no, no.

[00:04:06]Don't do that because the the essence of our organization tells us >> ask that you would still ask NASA like what how do you get to the moon? They they would they would still be the people you would look to. I'll tell you what I'll give you I'll give you one thing in closing and I promise we'll close it because I think this is and it it's it's not quite a tangent. Um the one thing that we didn't touch on which I'm not going to open up the can of worms is the concept of consent. And the reason I'm bringing it there is because we've already talked about this concept of equality and I was saying like it seemed to not matter what you say you can sort of draw a Christian idea to it.

[00:04:35]I think the most egregious example of where I think you're going wrong Glenn respectfully because that's what we're here to discuss is where where you think I'm going wrong where I think you're going wrong is summarized in your discussion of consent. Wherein you quote 1 Corinthians where Paul is is giving quite a revolutionary claim in in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 where he says that firstly he says a fairly standard thing for the Greco-Roman world which is that women's bodies do not belong to them but they belong to their husbands.

[00:05:05]But then he says this revolutionary thing. Likewise husbands your body should not belong to you they belong to your wives and it seems extremely revolutionary. This is endemic. This is this is this is an archetype of what I'm trying to talk about. I'm willing to grant that that is genuinely revolutionary and radical and progressive and brilliant for women.

[00:05:24]Progressive but to what Progressive in the in the in the sociological sense of of how people consider progressive values.

[00:05:30]>> And brilliant right? Yeah. Okay. So watch what happens here because Glenn is in full damage control mode. He's trying to defend why Paul this supposed moral revolutionary couldn't just come out and say slavery is wrong. And his answer Roman law made it difficult. That's the excuse. And Alex catches this immediately, and the counter he delivers is honestly one of the cleanest rebuttals I've seen in this entire debate.

[00:05:58]Because Alex points out something so obvious it's almost embarrassing.

[00:06:02]You know what else was illegal in the early Roman Empire?

[00:06:08]Being a Christian. Being a Christian got you fed to lions. Got you burned alive as torches in Nero's gardens.

[00:06:15]And yet, early Christians did it anyway because they believed it was right. So, the idea that Paul, a man who literally went to prison for his faith, why was held back from condemning human ownership because of legal inconvenience?

[00:06:31]That's not a defense.

[00:06:33]That's an admission.

[00:06:35]And then Glenn pivots to this NASA analogy. He goes Glenn said this.

[00:06:40]It is these Christian ideals that have proved themselves to be remarkably abolitionist in ways that others haven't. Meaning, sure Christians got it wrong for centuries, but only Christians eventually got it right, so you have to give them credit. And Alex flips it so beautifully.

[00:06:59]Alex said this.

[00:07:01]Imagine if there was a period where NASA was proactively discouraging people from going to the moon.

[00:07:08]And that is the whole problem in one sentence because the issue isn't that Christianity was slow.

[00:07:15]The issue is that for huge stretches of history, the text itself was being used to justify slavery.

[00:07:23]Scripture was being quoted by slaveholders.

[00:07:26]You cannot hand-wave that as a bug in the system when the Bible has verses that plainly authorize taking people from surrounding nations as property.

[00:07:37]That's not a failure to live up to the message. That is the message in those passages. And then Alex pivots into what I think is the real heart of this entire conversation. He transitions into the consent discussion, and he sets it up with surgical precision.

[00:07:53]Alex said this, "The most egregious example of where I think you're going wrong, Glenn, is summarized in your discussion of consent." And then he does something intellectually generous that I really respect. He doesn't pretend Paul said nothing valuable.

[00:08:10]Alex said this, "I am willing to grant that that is genuinely revolutionary and radical and progressive and brilliant for women." That's honesty.

[00:08:20]That's a serious debater giving credit where it's due, but you can feel the setup coming. Alex is laying the trap, telling Glenn exactly where the book oversteps. And Glenn has no idea what's about to hit him.

[00:08:35]Yet, I would not want to overstate the case, which I believe you then don't want to do, by saying that the very next thing that Paul says is is verse five of chapter seven, where he says, after this authority of the bodies, he says, "Do not deprive one another, that is sexually, except perhaps by agreement or mutual consent is the translation you have in your book, for a set time to devote yourselves to prayer and then come together again so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." Paul says, and you quote this, Paul says that your bodies belong to each other, "Do not restrict yourselves from each other sexually except perhaps for a time of mutual consent." You then say, "And look at how extraordinary it is that consent has been thrust into the bedroom and how revolutionary that is."

[00:09:22]But this to me read as such a slight of hand. Because what did Paul just say? I mean, do you think that that's an example of consent being thrust into the bedroom, as you say in your book? Yes, because your your body does not belong to you alone. And But think about what Paul just said. Paul said that you are not to deprive each other sexually, except by mutual consent. That is the only the only way that you're able to deprive your wife or your wife can deprive you of sex is by mutual consent.

[00:09:46]It's not consent to have sex, it's consent to not have sex, which means that if there is not mutual consent to not have sex, if I want to have sex with my wife and she doesn't want to have sex with me, well, we don't have the mutual consent to withdraw each other. So, she still has to have sex with me. What do you call it when a man wants to have sex with his wife, she doesn't want to have sex with him, but she has to have sex with him anyway? I think there's a word for that. Yeah. That is what Paul is describing here.

[00:10:11]>> That is not what Paul is describing.

[00:10:13]>> that is consent being thrust into the bedroom, I think is a perfect example of the overstep >> The wife I think a can of worms has been opened here. So, we might have to have a quick The wife's body does not belong to her alone, but the husband's body does not belong to him alone. And she therefore has the right to say, "My body is I I I have a right over your body >> to demand sex from you.

[00:10:33]>> not not to have sex with me, right? No, no, no. No, no. You're You've got to read that in the in the context. It's Okay, this is the moment.

[00:10:41]This is where the whole apologetic framing just collapses in real time and I want you to pay attention to how methodically Alex builds it because it's a master class in how you dismantle a bad argument.

[00:10:56]Glenn in his book quotes 1 Corinthians 7 and presents it as this beautiful moment where Paul introduces the idea of consent into the marital bedroom.

[00:11:07]Sounds progressive, sounds revolutionary, sounds like exactly the kind of thing that makes Christianity look like the moral engine of the modern world. And Alex goes, "Wait, wait, wait.

[00:11:20]Let's actually read what Paul said."

[00:11:22]Alex said this, "But this to me reads as such a slight of hand.

[00:11:30]What did Paul just say?" And then he breaks it down in a way that once you hear it, you cannot unhear it. Because Paul's instruction isn't about consenting to intimacy, it's about consenting to abstain from it. Those are two completely different things. Alex said this, "It's not consent to have sex, it's consent to not have sex." Let that land for a second.

[00:11:52]Because if you follow the logic of that verse, what it actually says is both spouses must mutually agree before either one can withhold themselves.

[00:12:01]Which means if one partner wants intimacy and the other doesn't, there's no mutual agreement to abstain. So, the unwilling partner still has to comply. That's not consent, that is the opposite of consent.

[00:12:15]And then Alex delivers the line that Glenn has no answer for.

[00:12:20]Alex said this, "What do you call it when a man wants intimacy with his wife, she doesn't want to, but she has to anyway? I think there's a word for that." He doesn't even say the word. He doesn't have to.

[00:12:34]Because every single person watching knows exactly what he's describing. And this is what makes Alex such a dangerous debater. He doesn't yell, he doesn't grandstand, he just calmly reads the text in front of you, applies basic logic, and watches the apologetic framework crumble. And Glenn's response?

[00:12:56]He just starts saying, "Glenn said this.

[00:12:59]No, no, no, no, no. You've got to read that in the context." That's not a rebuttal, that's a reflex. That's the sound of someone who knows the argument landed and doesn't have a ready answer.

[00:13:10]It's It's It's both, and and I think what Paul is doing is encouraging husbands and wives towards sex and and and encouraging that that trajectory towards sex apart from take a break and and and get praying.

[00:13:24]But He definitely pro-sex in in those verses, but the wife, based on those very verses, can say, "Well, your body doesn't does not belong to you alone. I say no." Yeah, and so and so the man can say, "Your body does not belong to you.

[00:13:38]It belongs to me. And the only reason that we can abstain from sex is by mutual consent. I don't consent to this abstention, so you have to have sex with me." Yeah, I I think that is the most suspicious reading as and and unnecessarily suspicious reading.

[00:13:50]>> Paul says. He says, "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent." He doesn't say, "Do not deprive each other unless one of you doesn't want to." He doesn't say, "Don't deprive each other sexually unless one of you says, 'You know what, I don't want to do this today.'" He says, "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent." Which means that you have to mutually consent to not have sex.

[00:14:08]>> reading this as a logician, as though as though these are logical propositions that that um if and only if like I I I So, what's Paul what's what's Paul what's Paul saying here then? Well I mean, Glenn's reading of the obviously feels you've you've got a slightly tendentious reading of this to to say that that very specifically that I I don't know. Um I I don't know if we're going to get to the bottom of it.

[00:14:32]>> "I say this as means of concession, not as command," which is important. That's verse six, that's what follows. But he's talking there about the fact that he'd rather they not be having sex at all.

[00:14:39]He'd rather they not be married and be celibate in the first place. No, no, no.

[00:14:42]He's rather them married. If they if they are one flesh, then If they can't control their lust for each other, then they should I I suspect we we probably need another but another go.

[00:14:50]>> That is that is the reason I brought it up is to say that that is a summary of my position in closing is that what you have here is Paul saying, which for the time is extraordinary. He says that, you know, wives' bodies belong to their husbands and husbands belong to their wives. And this is an extraordinary contribution that Christianity has made to the to the, you know, progressive elements of of, you know, the Western tradition, sure. He then says that you should only restrain from having sex with each other by mutual consent, which is totally out of line with our modern conception of consent and has probably been a justification for marital rape until it was illegalized relatively recently. So, Christianity has done a really good thing here, but it hasn't gone all the way and we've needed other factors to come in to give us what is our modern conception of consent, which is not just this idea of bodily autonomy, but also the idea that my wife's body does not belong to me and mine does not belong to hers, but mine belongs to me and hers belongs to hers and she can say no to sex for any reason whatsoever. And here's where it gets really telling because Glenn's final defense is basically to call Alex's reading unreasonable. Glenn said this, "I think that is the most suspicious reading.

[00:15:52]Unnecessarily suspicious.

[00:15:55]But that's not an argument. That's a vibe. That's just saying, I don't like what the plain text says, so your interpretation must be wrong." And Alex just calmly reads it again because the text doesn't change no matter how many times Glenn wishes it did.

[00:16:11]Alex said this. He says, "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent." He doesn't say unless one of you doesn't want to.

[00:16:20]You have to understand how significant this is.

[00:16:23]For almost 2,000 years of Christian history, marital intimacy was legally and theologically treated as a duty, not a choice.

[00:16:34]In England, marital spousal assault wasn't even criminalized until 1991.

[00:16:40]1991.

[00:16:42]That's not ancient history. That's within the lifetime of people watching this right now. And the legal reasoning?

[00:16:49]It was rooted in this exact theological framework. The idea that when two people marry, their bodies become jointly owned. That conception has a long paper trail that runs directly through the verses Alex is analyzing. And this is why Alex's closing point is so powerful.

[00:17:08]He doesn't do what a lazy debater would do and say Christianity is garbage.

[00:17:14]He says the opposite. Alex said this, Christianity has done a really good thing here, but it hasn't gone all the way.

[00:17:23]That's the nuanced honest take.

[00:17:26]Yes, Paul saying a husband's body also belongs to his wife was genuinely radical for the 1st century Greco-Roman world where women had almost no bodily autonomy.

[00:17:38]Credit where it's due, but it also isn't the finish line.

[00:17:42]Modern consent, real consent, required centuries more work from philosophers, feminists, legal reformers, and entire cultural movements that pushed far beyond what any scripture gave them.

[00:17:57]And Alex nails the landing with one of the most important distinctions of the entire debate.

[00:18:03]Alex said this, "My wife's body does not belong to me, and mine does not belong to hers, but mine belongs to me, and hers belongs to hers, and she can say no for any reason whatsoever." That is the modern standard.

[00:18:19]And it is not what Paul wrote.

[00:18:22]That is what took humanity another 2,000 years to figure out.

[00:18:27]Glenn's whole thesis is that Christianity is the source of our best values, but this exchange shows something different. Christianity contributed. It didn't complete. And pretending it did erases every thinker, every woman, like every reformer who had to fight tooth and nail to get us to where we are today.

[00:18:49]Alex isn't attacking the faith. He's refusing to let a beautiful but incomplete idea get credit for finishing a job it never finished.

[00:18:59]So, what do you guys think of this?

[00:19:02]Leave your thoughts down in the comments. Please like and subscribe, and I will see you in the next video.