Please don't take this video down. I'll be sharing it around, because it is something that more people desperately need to hear. Thank you so much for your work.
@@dansaber4427 Totally agree, I would never argue against that. That's why cultural shift within Christian circles and reinvigoration of what it means to be Christian in the material world is crucial to progress.
The arguments that homosexual sex is a sin because the acts don't produce children would have to mean that an infertile straight couple would be committing sin if they had sex.
Those who use this argument are mistaken. The design may reflect the capacity for producing children in a way that homosexuality doesn't, but the idea that sex has to produce children to be approved by God is contrary to scripture.
No. Because a man and woman got married to produce life, to Respect and Provide and to LOVE each other, in spite of all. If they cannot produce life, it is a circumstance. Marriage is an institution with principles, if one of those principles, by natural circumstances is not happening, the Institution does not fall apart, because there are the other 2 principles still supporting the Marriage.
@@nenabaez5915 I mean...nice try, but the logic is sound in the original person's comment. What you've presented is just apologetics attempting to get around the problem.
Work on Saturday? That does not compute. Gentiles are not under the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law was only given to the Israelites. The Sabbath command does not apply to Gentiles.
@@Chomper750 Shabbat is in Laws of Torah from Sinai. True it does not apply to gentiles. No does kosher and many other laws. No rabbis made up Sabbath on 7th day.. Mosaic laws ? The seven Noachide laws apply to gentiles. As per Torah Tanakh Talmud. So you pick and choose what laws you like or reject.. Your man God idol trinity human sacrifice calvary died to replace all the laws your church fathers claim.. Another bizarre theology. Then came Quran .. תודה רבה שלום Oy vey
Thank you, Dan. As a former evangelical pastor, now out and queer, this is very, very meaningful to hear spoken with such clarity, precision, and authority.
You want God AND you also want your deviant desires satisfied. You can't have both. It's either your D**k or the Lord. Is God not worth the sacrifice?? Do not sleep at night comfortably thinking that your homosexual acts are embraced by God. Sorry, but you are deluded. The only authority is God and it is he who speaks with clarity and precision. Dan McClellan won't be there to save you from God's wrath should you choose to adopt him as "authority."
@@zoebirss9944what made you finally accept that part of yourself and live that part of who you were while leaving your pastoral profession? Was it your own revelation? Study? Did you read anything that gave you an aha moment?
“It’s not bigoted because…” Reminds me of someone telling me he was not transphobic because he was “Not afraid of trans people, and phobia means fear.” 😒
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 phobia is fairly often used to describe an irrational aversion to something, so I would say that particular shoe still fits 🤷♂️
Isn’t it more bigoted to tell someone they are a bigot simply for holding a Christian viewpoint on behavioral guidelines for members of their church? When Muslims tell me it is a sin to eat pork or drink alcohol in their culture, I don’t get upset and tell them to deny their faith. All organizations have rules that prohibit those unwilling to follow them.
@@genotriana3882 *//"Isn’t it more bigoted to tell someone they are a bigot simply for holding a Christian viewpoint on behavioral guidelines for members of their church?"//* Not if they Actually Are Bigoted for it, by virtue of them continually attempting to Force such ideals onto Society At-Large, onto the People, into Law, and into Education; utterly Outside of their own personal little congregation. *//"When Muslims tell me it is a sin to eat pork or drink alcohol in their culture, I don’t get upset and tell them to deny their faith."//* Muslims in the U.S. aren't Trying to Write, Enact, and Pass Legislation that would Limit, Stifle, or Prevent everyone else (of every Non-Muslim Worldview) from eating pork or drinking alcohol. So, blatantly false analogy, as we actively have Large Groups of Christians trying to do just such things to bring the Nation closer to a Theocratic Dictatorship.
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 False. The notion of homophobia or transphobia refers not just to Literal Direct Fear of OTHER, External, Homosexuals and Trans individuals; but it Also refers to the person's Own Internalized Irrational FEAR of the possibilities that they IMAGINE as a result of such individuals (i.e. "What if find out that * *I* * Like Penis?!?" or "What if I start thinking that * *I* * am Mentally Feminine?!?", and other similar-such examples, etc). Just as someone with Arachnaphobia need not necessarily just Only be irrationally frightened by the Literal Sight of Spiders, but can even be by the mere Thought of them too. By these measures, most of them Right-Wing Evangelicals (who are Very Anti-LGBTQ+) are EXTREMELY Phobic.
I do realize and understand this. But, I also realize this means those who don't will receive the condemnation of Hell. So, I'm going to keep spreading the Gospel. Because of love.
@@eurech I'll agree with the indoctrination, as people should put in good doctrine, but delusion? We'll start with the fact that even secular scholars believe Jesus lived and was crucified. His followers also believed He was resurrected and ascended to heaven(as all of them were persecuted and most were killed and no one dies for a lie they know is a lie) add in the high improbability of a mass hallucination event such as what His followers claimed to have seen and Luke's account showing someone who is close up to the facts and tries to get even minor details correct... Paul's vision of Jesus as someone who would have no reason to have a hallucination of a person he had never met and thought said person was a heretic... and then the cosmological argument(all things with a beginning have something that began them, the universe and time both have beginnings, thus requiring a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being to start them, all of which applies to God)... but with all that lined up and more can be added... is it really all that delusional?
@@christsdisciple3105some people pick and choose things out of the Bible to live by. Not everyone lives EXACTLY how the Bible tells us to. Therefore? We won’t all die sin free. We still need to accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior, and live as closely as we can to his light, but none of us will ever be 100% deserving of heaven and be 100% clean. We will all die with sins still, because that’s human nature and why we are deserving to go to Hell. But staying as close to God’s light as we can will save us, even if we aren’t completely clean..
Any time someone says “the purpose of sex is procreation” I just automatically assume they don’t have a very pleasurable sex life and it makes me sad for them and the people they have sex with
@@edmundsishange3608 main i mean not as the most often. if it’s like that then you’re right. but main as in the most important. well if we don’t procreate humanity ends lol
@@GustavoMaldonado42 humanity is going to end at some point. Ending because we didn’t procreate is probably the least violent and horrific way for humanity to end
"It's not a sin to be homosexual, it's a sin to engage in homosexual activity". Oh, so I'm ok just as long as I pretend to be someone else and deny my own feelings. Glad to hear it. That makes it so much better
There’s those who would say turn to Jesus as he will create you a new being. I’m female and I’m with a woman, I’ve prayed time and time again. People just want me to “pray the gay away.”
@@SuicideboysGrey59I’ve been praying for 30 years…it hasn’t gone anywhere. In fact it’s gotten stronger!! People who aren’t experiencing this but yet still want to legislate against it, preach against it or create videos or lead campaigns against it baffle me?
@@strawberriesstar That seems to be what it is in the Bible, innit; yet most Christians at least the conservative ones can't stand the very ideas of gay romance and lesbian romance either. They think everything that has to do with being LGBTQ+ is sinful, even the basic urges are because they're "thought crimes". 🙄
Thanks for all your videos on this topic, So many look to scripture without thinking twice, Peace be with you in Jesus name, This topic cannot be talked about enough.
I really appreciate your perspective! As a gay person who tried to "pray away the gay" in my youth (to no avail). If more people knew that being gay doesn't mean you're going to hell then we'd have a larger swath of people making the conversion to believing in Christ.
I do believe being gay is a sin but Lgb people still should be treated with respect because it’s not like they’re worse than everyone else. Everyone commits sin even if they don’t want to.
You can't bend the rules. You're gay and you're loved, but maybe, you're not a Christian... Yet. To be a true Christian you must resign to the homosexual intercourse and lifestyle. I know it'll be your biggest struggle but our Father is holding you, he's got your back so you won't fight alone. Yet you have to make a decision.
I would add one more reason why these beliefs still have a strong hold over people is a desire not to have to say "We were wrong." If people believe that their moral teachings are divinely revealed, immutable decrees for all time and all people, then saying they were wrong calls into question that whole system.
Agreed. It reminds me of how the Bible was used as a means to enslave black people. The Bible was also used to prove that the Earth was the center of the universe. Calling those prevailing theories of their time into question would render many to have to reexamine their faith and question tenets they held in high esteem. Not everyone can handle that type of rumbling to their faith.
I would also add that a faith that hasn’t been tested for its validity is a flimsy faith. So many of our Bible heroes stories are about facing the testing of their faith. Is God real? Can I trust what I believe He told me? What if He isn’t real? That is a necessary part of the journey. That uncertainty is what allows the God of the universe to prove (not because He has to) to the person He is who He is
@endswithme555 Don't you mean gods depicted in religious texts: the transposing of a ruling elite or religious leadership's rational to support their methods? Markers, such as gaslighting, threat, fables with examples of outcomes for disobedience, reward for compliance and cover stories to assert credibility, are all there.
But even as you yourself argue, _all_ sexual relations are - according to the Bible - inherently unclean, and it is in any case sinful to have sex outside marriage. Unless you can find Biblical support for gay marriage, that means all homosexual relations are sinful by default.
Which is inherently bigoted and homphobe. It's baffling the mental gymnastics people make in order to make the Bible better than it is, even atheists fall for that!
I exclaimed a spontaneous, "Wow!" when he started down the path of, "Sex outside of marriage is wrong because there isn't the premeditation for creating offspring."
Can you debate other Christian’s that disagree with you on this topic? I only see you respond to tic tok videos and never have a face to face conversation with someone who disagrees with this. But I think I know why that conversation will never take place.
I get that you are against bigotry and that's great... but why do you feel the need to proclaim that the bible isn't explicitly against homosexuality when it clearly is?
Not at all. The concept of homoxesuality did not exist back then. They did not classify people according to who they were attracted but to suitability to role based on social hierarchy. So you hear "males with males" and think "homoxesuality". They heard "males with males" and thought "sucks for the guy on bottom". The issue in the Bible is that because women were assumed inferior, it denigrated a male to be put in the woman's role. It had nothing to do with it being "the same secs", much less homoxesuality which they knew little about.
@@MusicalRaichuThe Bible states that any sex outside of the marriage between a man and a woman is sin. Homosexual acts are therefore sinful You may say different societies had no concept of homosexuality but these societies didn't make the Bible, God did the Bible is God's word and God is all knowing therefore he knows all concepts.
@@bittuhgenious9236 The Bible spans many centuries and cultures and contains no consistent marital or secs ethics. The predominant view of in the OT is one man and as many women and secs slaivs as he can afford. Marriage involved a business transaction between a man and a girl's father - that's girl as in child. "Biblical marriage" is illegal today. The Bible says nothing against premarital secs, particularly by men, although it was a problem when it made girls unsellable. The Bible was written by human beings using the brains God gave them. Some (including me) believe there is divine influence, but what is written is limited to the concepts the human authors had at the time. If you understand the texts you think are about homoxesuality using the original authors' concepts, they actually make sense. The NT references don't even describe homoxesuality, yet judgemental people enjoy condeming innocent victims using texts that don't even describe them. It's a disgrace.
@@definitivamenteno-malo7919 There's things in the Bible we disagree with now. But an obsolete Israelite taboo against a particular way of having secs, a stereotypical exposition of pagan excesses and a word of unknown meaning do not constitute "explicitly against homoxesuality". It only became that since in the 70s when a mistranslation became viral.
Indeed. It would also mean that a man or woman who suffered some sort of injury or illness or infirmity like simple aging that prevented them from having children through no fault of their own would be sinning even if they were married. Yeah, good luck with trying to get that one past fellow believers. "Sorry, your wife has entered menopause. Yes, I'm aware it's early for her, and she's an astounding good looking woman who looks like a cover model a decade younger, but no more sex for you."
If you saw an amputee, you wouldn't think "this disproves that the nature of humans is to have 2 legs!" You would automatically know something went wrong with this person because people have 2 legs. Likewise, the fact that some couples can't have children doesn't disprove the fact that it is the nature of man/woman sex to produce children. It is the nature of any other corrupted form of sexuality to not possibly produce children. This does show the damage to society as a whole should homosexuality run rampant and it's a strong argument to prove homosexuality is contrary to the law of nature.
Every time I watch one of Dan's videos, even when I know what information he is going to present, I am still mind blown from how well articulated his arguments are.
Nicely said. I have no problem with starting with dictionary definitions if the intent is to get everyone on the same page with an agreement on what a word means. But it shouldn’t be taken as some kind of unassailable authority. The Bible is like a Rorschach test. An individual’s interpretation of the Bible says more about that individual’s psychology than it does about the Bible, although the Bible is so vague and conflicting in spots that it lends itself easily to that. If the owner’s manual of my car, where as unclear and open to interpretation as the Bible, then Subaru would’ve been sued out of existence years ago.
I love how you absolutely dismantle bigoted views with proper evidence. So many people don't think and just follow the bigoted interpretations or jump through hoops to justify their beliefs instead of just... not being bigoted. As if it's so hard to just let other people love who they love.
What evidence? He did nothing in this video but ignore other passages denouncing homosexuality while telling others they are using fallacies. Dude did literally nothing but pander to folks like yourself.
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 He literally did no such thing. He pointed out how Several biblical authors, especially of the New Testament, absolutely weren't against homosexuality Because of the notion that it's "non-procreative" (Evidenced Rebuttal). He Addressed how Biblical Authors, of their differing time periods, saw homosexuality and Why they most likely saw it that way, as they were against it for the sake of it seeming to favor Male Submissiveness (the Opposite of ignoring other passages). He refuted the notion that it was "Non-Natural". And he further pointed out how the Only Real Reason the anti-homosexual view is held to Religiously in the Modern day is because it favors their geopolitical and/or ideological Agendas. So, it could be argued that your Only problem with it is that it didn't Pander and Kowtow to Your Personal Ideological and/or Geopolitical Biases... and you Hate that... because you WANT to hold to Religious Views that are Faulty, Unjustified, and Bigoted... OR because you already Do hold to such views, and have invested into them for a Long Time.
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 another ignoramus telling a biblical scholar saying he’s wrong when you can’t even read the original texts in Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek.
@@TechySeven .....Call me a "bigot"...I hate the "community" of PEDOPHILES too ( NOT the people ) and the "community" of MURDERERS as well .....poor me .
Dictionaries are great for defining one's terms. They are definitely _not_ great at measuring the reasonableness of one's arguments. It's a list of words and meanings, not a debate judge. Well done to point this out, Dr. McLellan.
Dictionaries aren't actually great for defining terms because all they can capture is general usage. Terms in biblical criticism should be scholarly and specific. Defining your terms is indeed step one, but the resources you use to construct said definition have to be relevant to the field.
@@SethRGray I disagree. In any debate, we have to define our terms. If we're to avoid arguments over the definitions of our terms, we need to use a definition for our words that isn't reasonably contested. And yes, using the definition most relevant to the field, (for example, calf for a podiatrist means something different than it does for a rancher), is appropriate. Otherwise it's kind of a false equivocation. I think you and I are trying to make different points though.
Quick question: What do you expect us to do? I didn’t ask to be homosexual. I wish I wasn’t and there isn’t a way to change it. Edit: I don’t wish I wasn’t. This is the way God made me so go be useless somewhere else.
Their ideal solution would be for you to not only “convert” / abstain from sex / pretend to be heterosexual, but ALSO condemn other homosexuals. They’d have their cake and eat it, too. This is why gays shouldn’t waste their lives trying to appease Christians
And the next best solution would be for us to “keep it to ourselves” aka they want to regress back to when homosexuals lived on the fringes of society and everyone pretended like we didn’t exist.
@@mikemathewson1825 See, my point exactly. You expect us to "control our lusts" aka live celibate lives and die alone. That's why we don't listen to you lol
Excellent reaction video! Yes, ancient morals & beliefs - even when accurately stated - are no grounds for modern ones when there is so much evidence to refute them. Sadly, your 2 main reasons for homophobia & bigotry today are powerful, with identity politics really dangerous & damaging.
For the life of me, I don't the distinction between "being" homosexual vs. "acting" homosexual. On paper, I suppose this fine line exists, but not in human reality or living. For example, what if it was moral to be Jewish as long as you never did anything that was Jewish. Or: you can be a woman as long as you never act like a woman. Or: it's moral to be heterosexual, as long as you never engaged in heterosexual acts. Kinda crazy and unrealistic, isn't it?
I think the internet is giving people the other side now. Society can change. National opinion on gay marriage changed. It's a slow process though. I don't know if when I opposed gay marriage decades ago I was a bigot. I can barely remember why I even though it was wrong. I was going through a religious phase, thats part. So culturally and religiously brainwashed I guess.
@@joecheffo5942 fair enough. I suppose I was being a little hyperbolic for rhetorical effect. You're right, society can and does change - but it's difficult. People need to be willing to change though, and that's the problem. they don't like change being forced upon them, it needs to come from within.
@@joecheffo5942that’s fair! I was against my own sexuality because I was taught(indoctrinated) from a young age that it was wrong and sinful. The deeper into religion I went the more I fought it. The less “religious” and freer in my faith I became, the more accepting I became of my sexuality
@@joecheffo5942 i used to think it was wrong but only because of the two references in the bible in 1 cor 6.9 and 1 tim 1.10. i just without thinking presumed there must be some reason for it, and like dan says it felt icky. when i discovered that those verses were mistranslated, i changed my mind pretty quickly.
The whole schtick of caring about whether or not other people are reproducing is so weird. You don't look at a straight couple and say "gee I sure hope they're pumping her full of babies". You know what really brings goodness to humanity? Not being bigoted.
The few scriptures in The Bible condemning homosexual relations are based on the prohibition in Levitical Law, BUT Christ actually goes against Levitical Law on several occasions. On one of those occasions, when the Pharisees complain about His disciples not washing their hands in the prescribed manner, Christ tells them that it doesn't matter if you are clean on the outside...only on the inside. He then turns to His disciples and says, "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments OF MEN". In other words, the cultural laws were written by men (the Jewish priests), and not by God. As far as the story of Sodom, The Bible actually states what the "sin" of Sodom is (Ezekiel 16:49), and the verse begins "Now THIS was the sin of your sister Sodom..." The sin being the wealthy ignoring the poor and needy. Christ does not address the issue, and Paul (who was NOT Christ), based his views on Levitical Law.
If the sin of Sodom was that wealthy people ignoring the poor, than what makes Sodom different than any other place on the earth at that time or any time in human history? Sodom was destroy was not because of a specific sin it committed. Usually wicked people commit a variety of sins. Jude mentions that that sexual immorality was a problem in Sodom. The reason Sodom was singled out and destroyed is that the people were so wicked and unrepentant that God could not find even 10 righteous people there. God chapter 18 God and Abraham have a conversation. God plans to destroy the city but Abraham is worried that righteous people will be killed. Verse 24 "Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?" In verse 26 it says "And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes." The conversation continues until they get to where if God find even 10 righteous people, the city will be spared in verse 32 "And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake." When a city or nation becomes so rot with sin and wickedness that they will not repent, will not turn to righteousness and reject God completely, there is no value for that city or nation to continue. It becomes rotten to the core and God will destroy it. Gay people lived in Sodom and their sins contributed to the wickedness of Sodom but there was a lot of heterosexual sins that also was a part of the problem. The wickedness went beyond sexual sins. As I said, wicked people don't just commit one kind of sin and are righteous in every other aspects of their lives. They tend to commit a lot of different kinds of sin like neglecting the poor ect. {For LDS viewers as I suppose there are a few here, research the issues of "ripening in iniquity" or something being fully rip in iniquity. Similar conditions that got Sodom destroyed is what got the people in Noah day destroyed andis what got cities in the Book of Mormon destroyed and similar conditions will occur before Christ comes again. The principles that got Sodom destroyed still apply today and will happen again at some point in the future. When a society as a whole becomes so wicked that it loves sin, rejects God, and will not repent, God then clears the board as there is no use for that society to continue.]
@@shootergavin3541 The point however is that The Bible states that the wealthy ignoring the poor was the chief "sin", not homosexuality, as many people wrongly believe. But I would agree with you that there were almost certainly other sins the people were committing. Many Christians have a very limited, myopic view of The Bible, like their ignorance of Levitical Law (and it's total invalidity) or this weird concept that St.Paul's opinions were equivalent to Christ's doctrines. A lot of this comes from the "doctrine" of biblical infallibility, which in essence says that The Bible IS God, because ONLY God is infallible. The "Word of God" is also clearly defined in The Bible (John 1:1), and it's not a what, but a WHO. Good post, by the way.
Yes, I read an article several years ago on the “ick” factor. I think that still exists. The ick factor plays into the aversion to same-sex sex, particularly between men.
The thing as people’s consciences become warped through habitual sin, our ability to discern how gross are sexual perversions goes away. If you don’t find it abhorrent, all that means is that you're not in a state of grace, and you’ve lost the ability to discern that natural order of things-which doesn’t mean as Dan believes according to nature, but according to the proper teleology of a thing.
@@JudeMalachiSo I guess all of those giraffes, and ducks, and dolphins, and salamanders, and dogs, and hundreds of other species that engage in homosexual sex are also fallen from grace, right? So sad that all of these wild animals are going against the natural order.
Always speak so intelligently and well versed but I can never seem to figure out where you stand. I know you're simply educating the masses but I'd like to take a deeper dive.
Nice equivocation fallacy around the 5:30 mark. The natural order doesn’t mean according to nature in Aristotle. It means some more akin to the proper teleology of something.
I completely agree but I would like to point out that a literal reading of the Bible would not exclude all homosexual acts, sex, between two woman is completely tolerable within the context of this law. So would homoromantic relationships between two men. The law is less strict than people today often think.
If sex was about procreation, that would mean my grandparents had to have had sex at least twice. My intuitive revulsion to things I find icky is telling me otherwise…
If what you say is true, then having children would not matter, and no one would exist. pleasure is a byproduct for procreation, an incentive. Any child understands this....
@@harrymurray9702it don't matter if it would not be anymore people born , you don't decide for each individualist biological males , we are living in that time where each biological male decide for himself only
Wow! You went in much deeper than what I thought. I just assumed that "Sexual Immorality" was sinful (regardless of Gender-preference). Jesus even spoke about a man that even "looks at a woman to LUST for her, has already committed adultery in his heart". With that said, anybody who looks for a sexual outlet, other than for the purposes of marriage with his wife or procreation as a holy act, would be considered sinful.
@@hrv4908 Can you do that without sex? I want to live a sexless life as a lesbian and have adopted children and maybe get married although I’m unsure that’s be possible..
I thought "Woe unto those who have children during the second coming" meant that since their will be so many calamities and power-abuse by humankind during the last days, humans would be exposed to painful natural earth elements, abuse of power by men, and would have to endure extremely hard outer-world stuff. Not that it would be wrong to have the kids, just that it would be hard to watch your kids suffer, it would be hard to have to take care of your children when it's hard to take care of your self, and all that jazz. I didn't think that had anything to do with Paul's assertion that singleness can be more holy than being married.
That's a common misunderstanding. "Have" was a euphemism for "go to bed with". He meant if you're married, only do it with your partner. You see, it was socially acceptable in that part of the world at the time for married men to also uses prostitoots and raip slaivs.
A desire for something, even when born with it, does not mean it's part of the natural order. Desires may be right or wrong, good or evil, whether born with them or not. In the case of homosexuality, the light or law of nature is obvious: a man and a woman's body go together; a man and a man or a woman and a woman do not. Desires don't change this.
So then what then? What does someone who is saved who realizes their gay do? That should be the question. At the end of the day, the verses in Leviticus and countless in the New Testament have been proven to be speaking on manifestations of homosexual sex. With the common Adam and Eve argument, what about intersex people who are quite literally in between. That is also a 3rd sex as well. Would their whole existence be against "nature" because God created only male and female? Life isn't binary or black and white. We are complex creatures made by a complex God.
@@earth2sageee A person who is saved and has temptations towards homosexuality must repent and fight that temptation just like we must fight and repent of every other sin. Exceptions to the normal genetic makeup of man or woman are rare only prove the rule that there is only a man or a woman. You don't look at someone whose missing an arm and say "oh I guess human nature is not to have arms. It's not black and white like I thought." Of course human nature is to have arms; when that's different we know something went wrong. This matter is black and white or we could say xx and xy.
@@leahunverferth8247 okay but then when fighting temptation, what does this person do? is it like oh your celibate now! good luck with that! ? also exceptions to male and female prove there is more than just male and female just by their existence as they tend to not have a dominant sex. it's much more common than we think it is. their chromosomal variations make them who they are. XXY, XXX, XO, 45, 47, etc.
@@earth2sageee That person does not need to be celibate. A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. However, it wouldn't be wise to do this when struggling with homosexual temptations. The answer is to be much in prayer, much in the Word, and accountable to a godly church that exercises biblical discipline. God has strength to conquer every temptation. Human nature very obviously has either male or female. The strategy of deceit is to obfuscate that which is clear and obvious.
@@leahunverferth8247 "a godly church that exercises biblical discipline." There is no "biblical discipline," because the Bible is not univocal. "God has strength to conquer every temptation." One's orientation, straight or gay or in-between, has been proven to be innate and immutable. There are no verified cases of anyone ever having been able to change their orientation, whether through prayer or any other means.
This apologetic argument is like some sort of abstraction bait-and-switch. On the one hand, they defensively say that they aren't targeting any group of people -- which is suggesting that they don't want to use abstraction, but instead focus on the concrete alone. But then they target that same group using a classification system which is entirely abstract and not in the least bit concrete.
Because something is "natural", it is therefore morally acceptable? That's a poor argument. Because a person does not "choose" attraction, it is therefore morally acceptable? Another poor argument. What about a person who is naturally attracted to minors, or another married person, or another person's money? Pedophelia, infidelity, and theft are all morally UNacceptable, yet no one "chooses" such "natural" attractions.
yes but according to the bible pedophilia is fine. And I hope you don't wear mixed fabrics because then your condemned to hell. Sometimes it pays to remember the bible was written by man.
Most things that’s what ppl don’t get. You can stop being gay and you would still be viewed by god as a sinner the difference is a beliver in Christ his sins are blinded to god because of Jesus blood but a non believer is in trouble because there’s no one (Jesus) to cover your sins.
Thank you Dr. Dan for explaining how changes in societal norms show that God and the Bible were wrong and should be altered and re-interpreted to meet the new progressive standards of society.
"Progressive standards of society" Ha ha ha how's that working out? To follow your your and Dan's view is to watch society continue and accelerate in its degeneracy and ultimate failure. Yes, I know this is going to stir up the hateful bigots on this thread who want every imaginable deviant sex act, which perverts their bodies, to not only be accepted, but demand celebration.
I am a heterosexual Christian but do not condemn same sex intercourse either homosexuality or lesbianism. Our sexuality is a choice we make before we are born. Part of the blueprint for our life here. Now as the decision is made on Heaven, this means that it has Gods blessing, therefore it is not a sin. As we are all merely mortal humans, who are we to decide what is a sin in Gods eyes?
I'm bigoted against people who commit crimes, not because I can see that their acts are wrong in our socially constructed idea of wrong, but because my intuition tells me murder and traffic violations are icky
Indeed, the line needs to be empathy. Murder hurts people on every way. A guy being born gay and wanting to live with another gay guy doesn’t hurt my heterosexuality at all.
@@b.l.8755 I agree with you 100%, in fact it is because of our empathy, that we are obligated to hold people who commit murder accountable. Being empathetic does not negate or remove accountability, it actually requires it. It is your empathy for the child murdered, or even more personal, the empathy for yourself understanding how much it would hurt you to be murdered. This, despite attempting to have empathy and understanding the attacker, also demands accountability to prevent such hurt being inflicted again. You are right much of our interaction is a social construct, and what could better guide the further construction or even removal of past constructs, than empathy. Empathy should be the guide we use to make social decisions, and it’s that reason I would never condemn or judge someone gay. They are not hurting me or my family at all.
@@tripleraze321 it seems they receive nothing but complete support or complete condemnation. Where is the gay married pastor that preaches to gay Christians against the obvious harms they do to each other in the gay sexual community?
@@b.l.8755 The "harm" done by those in the LGBT community is no different from the "harm" done by the straight community. Both communities have the capacity for abuse of all types, and both can commit any crime. As for where the gay, married pastors are, I'm sure you realize the difficulty of finding that subset. The amount of people fitting the category of Christian[Married[LGBT-friendly church[Gay[Desire to preach[Church in need of a preacher[Church allowing of LGBT leadership]]]]]] is, I'd wager, an incredibly small community to say the least. Also I'm sure that pastor would still be preaching to a primarily straight audience, considering demographics.
Is that biblical marriage, i.e.entering a woman and paying the father or capturing an enemy, going into them and claiming them in marriage, or extra biblical marriage such as legal by contract or common marriage by mutual partnership of consenting adults?
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm understanding Dan's framing of Paul's perspective. In 1 Cor 7, I see Paul acknowledging desire and prohibiting sexual neglect, and that people should have sex to prevent Satan from tempting. The only time he suggests should they should explicitly be "apart" is for prayer. Where does he say sex should "not be with the passion of desire" like the Gentiles, or that people should ONLY have JUST enough sex to suppress desire? I feel like I'm missing something.
@@leahunverferth8247 It seems I missed 1 Thess 1:3-5. There it speaks about taking a vessel with holiness and honor, not with lustful passion like the gentiles.
Yeah, there's definitely the contrast between using sexuality in a holy/honorable way vs. the inordinate passion of the gentiles in chapter 4. But interpreting this as limiting sex in a lawful context (marriage) to as little as possible is false. The gentle world is full of adultery, homosexuality, even bestiality and other acts of fornication. Don't be like them who will satisfy themselves with whatever they can. Act in a controlled, lawful way. No premarital sex, no adultery, etc. Many more applications could be made but none of this limits the lawful expression of sexuality in marriage (except as concerns the needs of the man or woman - did the woman just have a baby? Is someone sick?, Etc).
@@leahunverferth8247 Yeah, there are various ways to read it. "Not with passionate lust" insofar as it infringes on decency, or "not with passionate lust" insofar as it is passionate. Unfortunately early church fathers were prone to the total exclusionary interpretation, it seems. Augustine was lamentably mechanical in how he saw marriage duties.
A "dictionary fallacy"? What is he talking about?? He wasn't using the dictionary to make an argument, it was to define terms. This response seems lazy I think the argument is based on natural law theory. It's not necessarily about procreation as much as it's about the sex oriented towards procreation.
@trapd00rspider The dictionary will give several definitions. Some will even trace the word back to its origin. I don't think there is such a thing as a dictionary fallacy
If the only licit sex has to result in pregnancy, then sex among the elderly is forbidden, sex with an infertile person is illicit, and sex a person who later miscarries is banned, too.
Criticizes other guy for "an entirely arbitrary assertion about what the mark is that sin misses" → Proceeds to present an entirely arbitrary assertion about what the mark is that sin misses
The "mark" in biblical terms is the noahide laws and Torah. So according to the hebrew bible if you're not obeying the Torah 100% you're missing the mark. Of course Paul and other "new testament" writers came up with a more nebulous meaning for "sin" since Paul didn't think the Torah was relevant anymore to please their god at least not for "gentiles".
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. "Sin" is a concept religions created to "other" and oppress people. It has no place in reality. Good video!
Interesting they thought Jesus was coming back quickly, forward to today and there's still people that think he's coming back imminently... hope they're not holding their breath
I was already convinced of all your arguments, but I really like the succinct and scholarly way you present this. Unfortunately, these arguments will only be convincing to people who are educated enough to understand the words and open-minded enough to consider them. It is clear to me that God condemns the lusts of the flesh and infidelity, and upholds chastity and fidelity or marriage without regard to the gender of their partner.
I sincerely hope my religion and relationship with God doesn’t hurt my self-worth/love. God’s love helps and helped me so much, but the church and it’s conservative nature is slowly breaking me. Homosexuality is a sin, I’ve read that But what about the rest? Why do our church oppress the weak, in the same way the people Jesus fought back against! Why am I crying?
*Equivocation on sin:* The apologist should have combined his two sources on sin and admitted that the “mark” sin misses is bibical dictates, not the good of humanity. Instead, he goes against his first citation and claims sin is about not doing good for people. We don’t need a lot of babies. We would do better with fewer babies and less oppression, so ending homophobia would be good for humanity.
@trapd00rspider Overpopulation comes across in multiple ways. Rainforests are steadily disappearing to make houses, and grow food. We need them to breathe well. We have global warming due to excess CO2 production, which is in part of function of population. About 3 billion birds are killed annually by house cats. We could manage these issues more easily if there were fewer people. Did you assume that immediate food supply is the only issue?
My post was about the good of humanity. Denigrating people for how they were born goes against that. More gay families means a lower population growth, since a higher percentage of them adopt children.
Buddy. Old AND New Testament- Hebrews 13:4. Mark 7:20-23. Ephesians 5:5. 1 Corinthians 6:18-20. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2. Galatians 5:19-21. Colossians 3:5. Jude 1:7. Ephesians 5:3. I could go on. And Matthew 19:4-6 says homosexual marriage is no bueno, so literally any homosexual sex must be outside of marriage and therefore fornication. There is no rationalizing, fornication is prohibited and condemned many times throughout the Bible. There is no reality in which fornication is not sinful per the Bible. If you're not going to pay attention to something as basic as that, don't even bother pretending Christian faith. Just pick another faith that has less rules, since you clearly don't like rules and don't believe that the Bible is true-if you did, you'd have some proper fear about the spiritual consequences of intentionally spreading misinformation about Christianity.
Matthew 19:4-6 is talking about divorce, not gay marriage. Also, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because if sexual assault, not same sex relationships. Not to mention, the NT doesn't explain exactly what fornication is. Remember, Christianity was a doomsday cult, so most of the teachings found in the NT do not apply today.
@@jackcimino8822 Jesus explicitly defines marriage as one man and one woman before he addresses divorce. I didn't mention Sodom and Gomorrah, but every reference to it states that it was destroyed for sexual immorality-them being rapists was just a cherry on top. And hey if you don't think the NT applies today, you clearly don't believe in Christianity, so you don't have a dog in this fight-so why are you even commenting on this?
Yeah I'm surprised his argument came down to interpreting the Bible as written by the societies of the time and not divinely inspired. The truth is the bible is clearly against homosexual acts, even in the new testament..
Usually, I agree with your videos, but not this one. I agree with the (biblical) celibacy part, but not how you viewed the procreation argument being a “non-starter”. The guy explaining it just doesn’t approach it with enough biblical knowledge. I don’t have a stance on homosexuality at all. [So] Objectively speaking, the argument isn’t really that homosexuality doesn’t occur naturally. The argument is that it is not the natural “order” [which is why they believe it’s a sin]. Sure, you can say it’s a “rationalization” however, heterosexuality IS the natural order of this aspect of biology when the evidential purpose of our reproductive organs is to procreate. Regardless of what the Bible says, or if these organs function as intended, that is the purpose. Human beings can ignore this and live how they please, but there’s no denying that there is a natural order. We observe a natural order with rain, plants, animals, seasons and so forth. There have not been enough studies to completely understand sexual attraction and homosexuality for us to make infallible assertions about it. It’s possible, humans, from birth, can be attracted to whichever gender, but it’s also possible that childhood experiences or exposure to homosexuality is at the root. From birth, we are all being socially conditioned, whether we realize it nor not. Additionally, sexual intercourse is defined as whatever people want to define it as, nowadays, because it’s essentially just inserting body parts and items inside body parts in order to climax. However, reproductive sexual intercourse is the natural “order”, (even if human beings do it recreationally). Evidence shows that human beings can also be sexually attracted to animals (zoophilia). Evidence also shows that human beings can be sexually attracted to objects (objectophilia). Need I mention pedophilia? One could argue those are all “natural”. Who deems them “wrong”? Just because a human being can be sexually attracted, doesn’t serve as a good argument that it can be [the] “natural” [order]. My point is not to prove which is right or wrong, nor is it to say one is superior to another. I acknowledge there’s diversity in human sexuality, but there is no denying that heterosexual orientation has an intended [biological] purpose, whereas homosexuality does not. People can independently determine what that means to them.
Have you ever read the Bible from back to front. I suggest you do. I suggest you look particularly at the parts of the Bible we are all so swift to gloss over. Look at Deutronomy 22: 28-29 if you need somewhere to start. Then tell me everything in the Bible is true. We need to remember the bible was written by man
“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” - 1 Corinthians 7:2 Sex within marriage is not a sin.
@@user-sf5fk6ox4cthe caustic, admonitory language that adherents to the Whore of Babylon Catholic Church take towards homosexuality never ceases to amaze me. To state the manifestly obvious, someone who belongs to a church that is little more than a massive refuge for pedophiles has absolutely no moral standing to criticize anyone for anything ever, much less so about sexual matters.
Thank you. I love God and I do accept Jesus as my lord and savior but there’s people who throw Leviticus at me and other verses that I’m sure they themselves have misunderstood and misconstrued, because I am a woman with a woman. I don’t have the yearning to procreate, I feel like the earth is way too overpopulated enough. Why add to it? We’d be perfectly fine adopting kids in need of loving homes. I hate how some look down on you when you say you don’t want to conceive a child. Jesus didn’t have a child, I guess they look down on Jesus too….
When we break a secular law, we are criminals in one sense or another. If you can understand that concept, it should not be hard to understand the concept of sin. Sin is simply breaking of a law of God rather than a law of man. Different consequences with different authorities rendering judgement and punishment but they they share similarities.
@@shootergavin3541 The difference is we can establish which are secular laws and whether or not they’ve been broken. There is no way to determine whether or not s god exists, let alone what any god says, thinks, or wants. Which is why the concept of sin is silly. Imaginary laws are silly. Real laws have value. Besides, if we deem a secular law to be unjust, we can change such laws. We also make an attempt to ensure punishment fits the crime. Issuing eternal torment for temporal crimes would be unjust and immoral.
@@shootergavin3541 Also, shooter… Consider secular laws are meant to deter future crimes and rehabilitation. Sending someone to Hell doesn’t allow for rehabilitation. Would you agree?
Using a definition from the dictionary is not a fallacy, yes dictionary definition to change over time, but just using a general definition to support a point there’s nothing wrong with that all, you have to use a definition of a word, words have definitions, they can’t just be whatever you want them to be, we need to have just in general meetings for words so we can use them, and then based on their usage overtime they can change. Well this is question begging because you’re assuming that being against homosexual acts and believing it’s a sin is unreasonable, which if you’re going off the Bible for that justification, you could argue whether or not the Bible is actually reliable and all that, but if somebody is using the Bible as their epistemic standard of morality and then it wouldn’t be irrational at all to appeal to the Bible and say homosexuality is immoral based on that. I know I completely disagree with the idea that many of the New Testament authors advocate for celibacy, I don’t really know where you’re getting that from, if anything it’s the opposite, yes Jesus himself was not married, that’s not true if anything the Bible advocates for you to make a family and have children, it’s not exactly a requirement but it definitely suggested. Yeah I don’t think Paul is advocating for celibacy and whatever passage you’re quoteing from, what Paul is saying from what I understand he’s not advocating for celibacy, when he’s talking about dying or burning in your sexual desire, because the Bible clearly says less than your heart is committing adultery, and Paul very clearly lays out sexual immorality’s, in the books of Romans and Galatians, and it’s simply untrue that sexual desire is considered corrupt or sinful, lust is considered sinful but just having sexual desire is not, I don’t know where you’re getting that from most of the apostles had sexual desires, The Bible doesn’t say anything against having sexual desires it speaks out against having moral sexual desires. I think what Paul says when he says in the holiness he means to love your wife, not to just be in a relationship with her to suit your own sexual desires. Again you’re interpreting this as Paul being against sexual desire any sexual desire, which is clearly not the case, he’s speaking out against immoral sexual desires, I also think what he saying is it’s better to meet your own sexual desires in an actual marriage then just to burn in them, but even then I don’t think what he’s saying is that means he thinks it’s good to do that. For instance when Jesus says it would be easier for the I have a camel to make it into the kingdom of God and then it would for a jealous and rich man, or in some translations just rich man, he’s not saying that that means a camel is going to make it into heaven. Yeah so this is really just not a very compelling argument. Yeah this is complete nonsense that they couldn’t have cared less about pro creation, again no the second coming happening soon, does not imply that they’re discouraging people from getting pregnant this is kind of ridiculous, well again I feel like you’re reading into this way too much. I think your argument doesn’t really hold much water. Well again another assertion because you’re assuming that the pastoral epistles are in fact forgeries and not written by Paul, and I’m not saying that they are written by Paul but your arguments in the video weren’t very compelling. None of the apostles are married or had children because they dedicate their life to their Ministry.
I mean you only need to read a few sentences into your response to see you missed a point. As you said, “words can’t just be whatever you want them to be” ….that is his entire premise for why using a dictionary is grounds for fallacy and is not a position of authority. Who defined the words in the dictionary? People did. How did they decide? They collectively chose the meaning they wanted. Humanity and cultures have different definitions and even different interpretations of definitions they agree on. It is anything but a basis of authority.
@@tripleraze321 what I’m saying is we should have a basis for using a term, and if we just want a general definition don’t think there’s anything wrong with using the dictionary, yes but I don’t think the person in the video by the way I didn’t find the video very compelling, was claiming this is a definitive definition. Yes what I meant by that was though we should have a general understanding about a term means, and I think the dictionary serves a purpose well, what I meant when I said terms of meaning, and we can’t just make up stuff, I probably should’ve phrased it much better but what I meant was we should have a general understanding about a term means, and not just have everyone use their own definition of a term. Well mostly us but usually dictionary definitions are chosen based on usage of a term, a good example of this is the term gay it used to refer to happy but now it mostly refers to homosexual, yeah I didn’t freeze it very well. Yes I would agree, I think he should’ve went to the Bible instead of the dictionary, but I don’t think he’s claiming that this is a definitive definition. Thanks for the reply though.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I appreciate your clear effort to think with intelligence. Commendable compared to so many on social media. In that you have my respect. I am just simply saying that a lot of things we take for granted as solid facts of authority are in and of themselves nothing more than man’s best effort. And they still contain some level of bias. There is a reason you get a new math textbook every year. Not because math isn’t useful, but because some of it was missing or even wrong. As better understanding comes, it’s updated. Have you ever looked at past dictionaries or…if you really want to be brave with critical thinking go look at past versions of the Bible, or even original texts. Compare these to your own version. Regardless of how you to choose to handle such a discovery, I can assure you, you will definitely be forced to think a lot about what you thought you knew for sure. Words are nothing more than man made expressions to attempt communication. They fail us often, in fact most experts agree words are very weak compared to some of the other factors of communication such as body language and tone. Like math, dictionaries change constantly, they are different depending on your country. Yes we need to try to have at least something to explain ourselves, our mistake is when we think our definition is as solid as we believe. In so doing we prevent ourselves from learning more meaning. How can any of us know more about anything if we think we already know what there is to know. This is why there are so many religions, and why they all change. We may claim god is the same yesterday today and forever…but mans interpretation of the Bible or anything else, is NOT the same yesterday today and forever. Humans are constantly re-evaluating how they interpret Bible scriptures. Born again Christian pastors have doctrinal understanding different than the born again Christian’s of 100 years ago. That’s not an opinion, just go listen to some sermons from back then or read them, and compare some modern ones. You will find all sorts of contradictions. Like I said with math. This doesn’t mean the Bible isn’t useful, but it sure does question mans authority to interpret correctly/consistently. Just having faith that god will guide us clearly isn’t enough otherwise we wouldn’t be changing over time. Even in the Bible itself christs own apostles who ironically wrote the books we follow so vigilantly, failed to understand Christ’s parables all the time. What makes us think we are any different.
@@tripleraze321 yes I completely agree with this sentiment, I was originally gonna compare the dictionary to the law, and say that we appeal to the dictionary the same way but actually that’s not entirely accurate, since the dictionary is not some type of enforcement, well it depends generally the Webster’s dictionary is descriptive and it’s not climbing any of the definitions to be objective, the Cambridge dictionary on the other hand raise its best to come up with accurate definitions. I see where you’re coming from now, that the dictionary definition some selves are made by people and are arbitrary in many cases, so appealing to it as an authority or as some sort of objective source doesn’t really make a lot of sense. But at the same time I don’t think there’s anything wrong with just appealing to the dictionary to get a general understanding of something, like just for the sake of the conversation we need a general definition, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with going to the dictionary, since the dictionary can be helpful. Yes I agree, you can definitely see that when it comes to a lot of things in ancient history, many of the definitions can be pretty biased. Well the reason the dictionary and things like textbooks get updated every so often, it’s because change happens pretty rapidly, so they’re trying to be as relevant to current times as possible, I see where you’re coming from, and I mostly agree. Also I think what people misunderstand and confuse our terms and concepts, A term is meant to describe a concept, This happens a lot and logic people say that logic is merely descriptive, it’s not but the definitions and logical terms were used to describe logic are descriptive, but not the actual concept itself. I agree, another example of this is gender. Thanks for the reply, and thanks for making his point more clear. I think I should’ve been more charitable in my original, let me know if anything is misspelled, because it’s a miracle if any of my comments actually get out right, they usually end up being a bunch of nonsensical gibberish, and it makes me look like English is like my eighth language, or a five-year-old. Also I can be pretty sloppy with how I phrase things or how I word things so I can be pretty confusing sometimes.
The bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is a sin. However that does not mean that god hates homosexuals or that homosexuals cannot receive salvation. The bible makes it very clear that we are all sinners and that salvation is not based upon refraining from sin because no one would be saved if it were. I'm a married straight guy who has sexual thoughts about other women. I would consider this a normal and natural human phenomena but I acknowledge that this is a sin in the eyes of the lord. Dan is a gay guy who claims that homosexuality is a normal human thing not only to him but that is also not a sin in the eyes of the lord even though the bible makes it clear that it is. That's the difference between the two of us, Dan thinks god is OK with his sin while I don't. It's very difficult for me to understand certain things in the bible like when Jesus in his sermon on the mount said " But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." To most people, including me, having thoughts about someone other than your spouse is nowhere near the same thing as committing adultry but Jesus said it was and he overrules anything I think or feel so I am called to repent for this behavior as sin. Not acknowledging our sin and repenting for it and not acknowledging Jesus is our savior is what keeps us from being saved not sin itself. Anyone can be saved if the accept Jesus and repent. It's unfortunate that Dan and so many others are trying to rationalize homosexuality as not being a sin in the eyes of the lord. We all have to acknowledge our sin and repent even if that sin seems completely normal to us and we don't fully understand why god deems it sin.
good thing you are not God! Dan has a PhD in Biblical studies, is a scholar, knows the Scriptures message intended for an audience, the intended audience, and how to apply the message into our lives knowing both things. And you're going to NOT accept or at least take into consideration what's being said? I don't mean this in a mean way but this is ridiculous considering his knowledge on the subject
Also Homosexuality or being gay shouldn't be compared to adultery, adultery is a sin because it harms marriages, the people in them, and families. Being gay is not something we can automatically equate with lust or sexual attraction as not everyone is sexually attracted to the same or opposite sex. (like me) the Bible is clearly condemning manifestations of same-sex sexual acts. Not the orientation or love in a healthy, God honoring, monogamous Marriage between 2 consenting adults
Have you ever read the Bible from back to front. I suggest you do. I suggest you look particularly at the parts of the Bible we are all so swift to gloss over. Look at Deutronomy 22: 28-29 if you need somewhere to start. Then tell me everything in the Bible is true. We need to remember the bible was written by man
I think the key qualifier is obstinant and unreasonable. Is it unreasonable to prejudge other based on their behaviors? That's fundamentally a values question. We all prejudge people based on certain behaviors like theft, violence, dishonesty, etc., etc. There are plenty of sexual acts that get you prejudged as well, depending on the person doing the judging. I *don't* think it's reasonable to equate judging people on their behaviors with judging people based on the color of skin that they were born with.
I don’t intend this to be argumentative or demeaning, and I try to avoid using demeaning language towards same-sex attracted people and to treat them as I would like to be treated. However, I just don’t understand how homosexual acts can benefit the individuals that engage in them or humanity in general. Please hear me out. Placing any member of your body into a septic environment (whether or not conataining fecal matter) period seems like a bad idea, and likely to result in harm to the person inserting the p***s and the person receiving it in their intestine. Our skin has an ability to absorb a lot of things, the large intestine has a lot of bacteria that are hazardous to the skin, and is not the most durable of recepticles. One of my family members actually died from receiving an enema improperly, due to a rupture of the intestinal wall. Now, I don’t hate people who engage in/desire to engage in homosexual acts, I just don’t understand how it’s loving to another person or yourself to place yourselves in risk (as I understand it). I do understand the desire to show affection to other people, and recieve affection from other people, and especially from a significant other with whom you share a special bond of intimacy that is shared with no one external to that union. Perhaps someone could enlighten me on the benefits of homosexual acts, but for now I don’t understand them. I am heterosexual, but celibate (for now, possibly forever). If married, I do not intend to be part of a marriage where birth control is employed (especially abortifacient birth control), as the effects of shutting off a large part of a person’s body (the female fertility cycle) are detrimental at best. Any children I and my wife would be given would be seen as a blessing from our Father in Heaven. I understand sex to be a gift that primarily is for reproduction, secondarily for bonding, and tertiarily for mutual pleasure. I think this conclusion can be reached by a simple application of teleological reasoning: “What would happen if no one ever had sex ever again? Humanity would become extinct. Therefore, the primary function of sex is reproduction, and any other function of sex is must be ancillary." I think our hedonistic, consumeristic culture has muted this understanding of sex, and inverted the order so that pleasure is primary, bonding is secondary, and reproduction is tertiary, and actually undesirable. Even in heterosexual unions, pleasure has become telos of marriage, and are thus as unproductive (in other words, bearing no children) as homosexual unions. Raising children has taken a back seat to our careers and comfort. In short, we now live our lives for our own selves instead of for future generations. With all this free time, we become bored, we want something to do - to be distracted, even - so that we will be freed from this boredom. We turn to pleasure, and sex is pleasureful, but even sex we become bored with, we need something more enticing. This where perversion enters, and I do not intend that perjoratively, but to describe a deviation from the intended purpose of a good thing (sex). We must keep going farther and farther to reach the same heights of pleasure, and so we do, straying ever farther and farther from the natural usage of our bodies. Our sexual fixations and consequent deviations are the result of boredom, and boredom is the result of our Western way of structering our lives around ease, and comfort.
Most gay people (according to some I've talked to) don't have anal sex. And if that's your only example of how gay sex isn't beneficial, then you should study the phenomenon of romance in more depth.
Gay dude here, and much like Stephen Fry, I have zero interest in anal sex (unlike, bizarrely, a lot of my straight friends). Historically, you see a ton of variation in sexual practices, including a substantial number of non-penetrative methods (one that the Greeks favored involved thighs). But I think a lot of this talk misses the mark (ha). Sure, there is physical desire-but to what end? I honestly cannot stress enough how much this question plagued me growing up since I had no role models, but it's since become obvious: the end goal is pair-bonding, strengthened individuals, and thus strengthened families and communities. All sexuality stems out of a desire for genuine intimacy, knowing, and acceptance-it's an expression of romantic love that naturally arises-and the benefits of that on society when done in a monogamous, respectful, and loving coupling are profound. When people build long, loving lives together, everyone is better off. Another key element is that for SO many of us, we don't have an option. My relationship with my future husband is NOT depriving the world of children-I have never, and could never, conceive of romantically or sexually engaging a woman. I value women, but eww! However, I will do whatever I can to support my family-mom, dad, brothers, sisters, and their children, doing what I can to ensure their flourishing.
There's a lot to unpack with your comment, so let me go in order. Not every instance of same sex intercourse requires anal penetration, and even for the times that it does, it is posible in this day and age to do so responsibly, hygienically and safely. in addition, even straight, PIV sex is not risk free, there are plenty of way that two participants can injure themselves by engaging in what you describe as natural sex. You're teleological reason is also flawed. Humanity has reached a stage where sex is no longer required for succesful reproduction, modern fertility science has made it so sexual congress is not the only way to create offspring any more. And sex is not the only field where an activity that once served a specific purpose is rendered largely unnecesary. We developed clothing as a way to survive the inclemencies of weather such as sunlight or extreme cold, but for a while now people have used clothing for more than merely staying warm or away from sunlight. Same goes for food, using your teleological reasoning the only purpose of food is to obtain calories for our bodies to function, and yet, for even longer than societies have existed, people have been using food as a source of pleasure, basically no human group has ever been content to simply eat what is striclty necessary for their nutrition, "ancillary" things like seasoning, spices, flavoring, complex dishes and recipes are universal across cultures and eras. You are also defining the "natural usage of our bodies" in a very narrow way that not everyone will agree with. I will just as easily make the argument that since same sex attracted people ocur naturally, and sexual desire is also a natural unconscious phenomenon, then engaging in same sex intercourse is by definiton a natural usage of our bodies.
Demonstrate that there's a god, then demonstrate why anyone should care what that god wants. Then I'll still tell you that you and that god are bigots.
@@CampCounselerSteve Not helpful. As a former (and very sincere) anti-gay fundamentalist, I can guarantee this tactic does not help change hearts and minds. We can do better.
How interesting he leaves out that his LDS religion LITERALLY teaches that homosexuality is a sin and only men and women are to be together, sexually and only in marriage. It is the only way to get to the highest degree of Heaven. Either he is a massive hypocrite, does not believe what his own church's restored doctrine teaches, or is willingly teaching half-truths. A "scholar" indeed.
@@maklelan Makes no sense. Feels like you teach one set of beliefs as truth, under the guise of scholarship, then claim adherance to the LDS faith which clearly teaches the opposite of your channel, yet you then clearly advocate openly for homosexuality personally and politically? What?
@@ninetails1553 I am LDS and I see what he is doing and I see no problem with it. He argues positions on his channel from an academic point of view, not an LDS point of view. He is not attempting to convert anyone or prove anything about the LDS church to be right or wrong. It really is no different than what judges do in court. They set aside their personal view and simply make judgements regarding what is written in the law even if the law itself is faulty or incomplete. The LDS view on homosexual acts is not built solely on the Bible and the arguments presented by him address don't really address the issue from an LDS point of view.
Blind faith is not true faith . A true faith questions the validity and logic before committing to believing. Don’t forget it’s human beings that wrote the Bible. A lot of things have been changed and manipulated since the original scripture was written by man. There Are many contradictions and illogical passages in the Bible
Please don't take this video down. I'll be sharing it around, because it is something that more people desperately need to hear. Thank you so much for your work.
As will I. This is exceptionally useful information.
As will I!
Brilliant analysis.
Bravo 👏
You can be LGBT and Christian 👨❤️👨
@@dansaber4427 Totally agree, I would never argue against that. That's why cultural shift within Christian circles and reinvigoration of what it means to be Christian in the material world is crucial to progress.
Would St. John 10:1 be applicable here?
The arguments that homosexual sex is a sin because the acts don't produce children would have to mean that an infertile straight couple would be committing sin if they had sex.
Those who use this argument are mistaken. The design may reflect the capacity for producing children in a way that homosexuality doesn't, but the idea that sex has to produce children to be approved by God is contrary to scripture.
And that marriage is a contract between families were women have nothing to say beyond being baby-making machines.
...
Wait...🤔
No. Because a man and woman got married to produce life, to Respect and Provide and to LOVE each other, in spite of all. If they cannot produce life, it is a circumstance. Marriage is an institution with principles, if one of those principles, by natural circumstances is not happening, the Institution does not fall apart, because there are the other 2 principles still supporting the Marriage.
@@nenabaez5915 So, gay people are hated because arbitrary reasons
@@nenabaez5915 I mean...nice try, but the logic is sound in the original person's comment. What you've presented is just apologetics attempting to get around the problem.
You're a solid human being. I'm glad I found your channel.
No he isn’t. Sexuality isn’t a choice. It’s not that difficult.
@@Camille-Saint-Saens did you even watch the full video?
@@Camille-Saint-Saens he says in this video that sexuality isn't a choice.
Odd how Christians pick on gays but ignore all other laws from Bible like Adultery,work on Saturday , Idolatry trinity etc etc
Disgusting, isn’t it?
Christians need people to look down and hate on while calling it Christian love.
Work on Saturday? That does not compute. Gentiles are not under the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law was only given to the Israelites. The Sabbath command does not apply to Gentiles.
@@Chomper750 Shabbat is in Laws of Torah from Sinai.
True it does not apply to gentiles.
No does kosher and many other laws.
No rabbis made up Sabbath on 7th day..
Mosaic laws ?
The seven Noachide laws apply to gentiles.
As per Torah Tanakh Talmud.
So you pick and choose what laws you like or reject..
Your man God idol trinity human sacrifice calvary died to replace all the laws your church fathers claim..
Another bizarre theology.
Then came Quran ..
תודה רבה שלום
Oy vey
@@MitzvosGolem1 The Sabbath was given to Jews at Sinai. The Bible never mentions anyone before this moment, following the Sabbath.
Thank you, Dan. As a former evangelical pastor, now out and queer, this is very, very meaningful to hear spoken with such clarity, precision, and authority.
Out of curiosity, were you anti-homosexuality while you were a pastor?
@@Pyromaniac77777 I believed that sex between people of the same gender was always sinful, yes.
You want God AND you also want your deviant desires satisfied. You can't have both. It's either your D**k or the Lord. Is God not worth the sacrifice?? Do not sleep at night comfortably thinking that your homosexual acts are embraced by God. Sorry, but you are deluded. The only authority is God and it is he who speaks with clarity and precision. Dan McClellan won't be there to save you from God's wrath should you choose to adopt him as "authority."
@TiMMY2PH0NE5 The second
@@zoebirss9944what made you finally accept that part of yourself and live that part of who you were while leaving your pastoral profession? Was it your own revelation? Study? Did you read anything that gave you an aha moment?
“It’s not bigoted because…”
Reminds me of someone telling me he was not transphobic because he was “Not afraid of trans people, and phobia means fear.” 😒
Absolutely. You seem to be mixing up the words repulsion with fear.
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 phobia is fairly often used to describe an irrational aversion to something, so I would say that particular shoe still fits 🤷♂️
Isn’t it more bigoted to tell someone they are a bigot simply for holding a Christian viewpoint on behavioral guidelines for members of their church?
When Muslims tell me it is a sin to eat pork or drink alcohol in their culture, I don’t get upset and tell them to deny their faith. All organizations have rules that prohibit those unwilling to follow them.
@@genotriana3882 *//"Isn’t it more bigoted to tell someone they are a bigot simply for holding a Christian viewpoint on behavioral guidelines for members of their church?"//*
Not if they Actually Are Bigoted for it, by virtue of them continually attempting to Force such ideals onto Society At-Large, onto the People, into Law, and into Education; utterly Outside of their own personal little congregation.
*//"When Muslims tell me it is a sin to eat pork or drink alcohol in their culture, I don’t get upset and tell them to deny their faith."//*
Muslims in the U.S. aren't Trying to Write, Enact, and Pass Legislation that would Limit, Stifle, or Prevent everyone else (of every Non-Muslim Worldview) from eating pork or drinking alcohol. So, blatantly false analogy, as we actively have Large Groups of Christians trying to do just such things to bring the Nation closer to a Theocratic Dictatorship.
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 False. The notion of homophobia or transphobia refers not just to Literal Direct Fear of OTHER, External, Homosexuals and Trans individuals; but it Also refers to the person's Own Internalized Irrational FEAR of the possibilities that they IMAGINE as a result of such individuals (i.e. "What if find out that * *I* * Like Penis?!?" or "What if I start thinking that * *I* * am Mentally Feminine?!?", and other similar-such examples, etc). Just as someone with Arachnaphobia need not necessarily just Only be irrationally frightened by the Literal Sight of Spiders, but can even be by the mere Thought of them too. By these measures, most of them Right-Wing Evangelicals (who are Very Anti-LGBTQ+) are EXTREMELY Phobic.
Christians need to realize and understand that not everyone is obligated to believe in their holy book.
I do realize and understand this. But, I also realize this means those who don't will receive the condemnation of Hell. So, I'm going to keep spreading the Gospel. Because of love.
@@christsdisciple3105 There is no love in that, its just delusion and indoctrination. We don't want that.
@@eurech I'll agree with the indoctrination, as people should put in good doctrine, but delusion? We'll start with the fact that even secular scholars believe Jesus lived and was crucified. His followers also believed He was resurrected and ascended to heaven(as all of them were persecuted and most were killed and no one dies for a lie they know is a lie) add in the high improbability of a mass hallucination event such as what His followers claimed to have seen and Luke's account showing someone who is close up to the facts and tries to get even minor details correct... Paul's vision of Jesus as someone who would have no reason to have a hallucination of a person he had never met and thought said person was a heretic... and then the cosmological argument(all things with a beginning have something that began them, the universe and time both have beginnings, thus requiring a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being to start them, all of which applies to God)... but with all that lined up and more can be added... is it really all that delusional?
I think that's kind of what spreading the gospel is tho...
@@christsdisciple3105some people pick and choose things out of the Bible to live by. Not everyone lives EXACTLY how the Bible tells us to. Therefore? We won’t all die sin free. We still need to accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior, and live as closely as we can to his light, but none of us will ever be 100% deserving of heaven and be 100% clean. We will all die with sins still, because that’s human nature and why we are deserving to go to Hell. But staying as close to God’s light as we can will save us, even if we aren’t completely clean..
Any time someone says “the purpose of sex is procreation” I just automatically assume they don’t have a very pleasurable sex life and it makes me sad for them and the people they have sex with
it might not be the onlt purpose but its the main one dont you think? though its a weak argument i must agree
@paulomaldonado6934 hardly the main one, most people have sex primarily for pleasure
@@edmundsishange3608 main i mean not as the most often. if it’s like that then you’re right. but main as in the most important. well if we don’t procreate humanity ends lol
@@GustavoMaldonado42 humanity is going to end at some point. Ending because we didn’t procreate is probably the least violent and horrific way for humanity to end
@@ufpride83 do you want humanity to end?
"It's not a sin to be homosexual, it's a sin to engage in homosexual activity". Oh, so I'm ok just as long as I pretend to be someone else and deny my own feelings. Glad to hear it. That makes it so much better
There’s those who would say turn to Jesus as he will create you a new being. I’m female and I’m with a woman, I’ve prayed time and time again. People just want me to “pray the gay away.”
@@SuicideboysGrey59I’ve been praying for 30 years…it hasn’t gone anywhere. In fact it’s gotten stronger!! People who aren’t experiencing this but yet still want to legislate against it, preach against it or create videos or lead campaigns against it baffle me?
I think it's, be romantic, not sexual typa thing
@@strawberriesstar That seems to be what it is in the Bible, innit; yet most Christians at least the conservative ones can't stand the very ideas of gay romance and lesbian romance either. They think everything that has to do with being LGBTQ+ is sinful, even the basic urges are because they're "thought crimes". 🙄
Yes, it does make it better. Your body is not your own.
Thanks for all your videos on this topic, So many look to scripture without thinking twice,
Peace be with you in Jesus name, This topic cannot be talked about enough.
I really appreciate your perspective! As a gay person who tried to "pray away the gay" in my youth (to no avail). If more people knew that being gay doesn't mean you're going to hell then we'd have a larger swath of people making the conversion to believing in Christ.
Dude, if Jesus were from today, he wouldn't be any different than Ben Shapiro or someone worse.
I do believe being gay is a sin but Lgb people still should be treated with respect because it’s not like they’re worse than everyone else. Everyone commits sin even if they don’t want to.
You can't bend the rules. You're gay and you're loved, but maybe, you're not a Christian... Yet.
To be a true Christian you must resign to the homosexual intercourse and lifestyle.
I know it'll be your biggest struggle but our Father is holding you, he's got your back so you won't fight alone.
Yet you have to make a decision.
@@nenabaez5915 Lifestyle? Being gay isn't a style
@@definitivamenteno-malo7919 it is when you choose not to obey God.
I would add one more reason why these beliefs still have a strong hold over people is a desire not to have to say "We were wrong." If people believe that their moral teachings are divinely revealed, immutable decrees for all time and all people, then saying they were wrong calls into question that whole system.
Agreed.
It reminds me of how the Bible was used as a means to enslave black people. The Bible was also used to prove that the Earth was the center of the universe. Calling those prevailing theories of their time into question would render many to have to reexamine their faith and question tenets they held in high esteem. Not everyone can handle that type of rumbling to their faith.
religion is wrong
I would also add that a faith that hasn’t been tested for its validity is a flimsy faith. So many of our Bible heroes stories are about facing the testing of their faith. Is God real? Can I trust what I believe He told me? What if He isn’t real?
That is a necessary part of the journey. That uncertainty is what allows the God of the universe to prove (not because He has to) to the person He is who He is
@endswithme555 Don't you mean gods depicted in religious texts:
the transposing of a ruling elite or religious leadership's rational to support their methods?
Markers, such as gaslighting, threat, fables with examples of outcomes for disobedience, reward for compliance and cover stories to assert credibility, are all there.
But even as you yourself argue, _all_ sexual relations are - according to the Bible - inherently unclean, and it is in any case sinful to have sex outside marriage. Unless you can find Biblical support for gay marriage, that means all homosexual relations are sinful by default.
Which is inherently bigoted and homphobe. It's baffling the mental gymnastics people make in order to make the Bible better than it is, even atheists fall for that!
I exclaimed a spontaneous, "Wow!" when he started down the path of, "Sex outside of marriage is wrong because there isn't the premeditation for creating offspring."
Because you need a bureaucratic permit to be biologically able to procreate 😂
This people is beyond hope
Can you debate other Christian’s that disagree with you on this topic? I only see you respond to tic tok videos and never have a face to face conversation with someone who disagrees with this. But I think I know why that conversation will never take place.
I want to see him discuss with Jeff durbun and James White on apologia studious
@@nicholashendricks9740 Cliff Knechtle
I get that you are against bigotry and that's great... but why do you feel the need to proclaim that the bible isn't explicitly against homosexuality when it clearly is?
Not at all. The concept of homoxesuality did not exist back then. They did not classify people according to who they were attracted but to suitability to role based on social hierarchy. So you hear "males with males" and think "homoxesuality". They heard "males with males" and thought "sucks for the guy on bottom". The issue in the Bible is that because women were assumed inferior, it denigrated a male to be put in the woman's role. It had nothing to do with it being "the same secs", much less homoxesuality which they knew little about.
@@MusicalRaichuThe Bible states that any sex outside of the marriage between a man and a woman is sin. Homosexual acts are therefore sinful You may say different societies had no concept of homosexuality but these societies didn't make the Bible, God did the Bible is God's word and God is all knowing therefore he knows all concepts.
@@bittuhgenious9236 The Bible spans many centuries and cultures and contains no consistent marital or secs ethics.
The predominant view of in the OT is one man and as many women and secs slaivs as he can afford. Marriage involved a business transaction between a man and a girl's father - that's girl as in child. "Biblical marriage" is illegal today.
The Bible says nothing against premarital secs, particularly by men, although it was a problem when it made girls unsellable.
The Bible was written by human beings using the brains God gave them. Some (including me) believe there is divine influence, but what is written is limited to the concepts the human authors had at the time.
If you understand the texts you think are about homoxesuality using the original authors' concepts, they actually make sense. The NT references don't even describe homoxesuality, yet judgemental people enjoy condeming innocent victims using texts that don't even describe them. It's a disgrace.
OP is right. Portraying the Bible as something better than it is only feeds Theocracists, it doesn't help us at all.
@@definitivamenteno-malo7919 There's things in the Bible we disagree with now. But an obsolete Israelite taboo against a particular way of having secs, a stereotypical exposition of pagan excesses and a word of unknown meaning do not constitute "explicitly against homoxesuality". It only became that since in the 70s when a mistranslation became viral.
I adopted kids with my wife. Have we been sinning since we couldn’t have kids? 😏
Indeed. It would also mean that a man or woman who suffered some sort of injury or illness or infirmity like simple aging that prevented them from having children through no fault of their own would be sinning even if they were married. Yeah, good luck with trying to get that one past fellow believers. "Sorry, your wife has entered menopause. Yes, I'm aware it's early for her, and she's an astounding good looking woman who looks like a cover model a decade younger, but no more sex for you."
If you saw an amputee, you wouldn't think "this disproves that the nature of humans is to have 2 legs!" You would automatically know something went wrong with this person because people have 2 legs. Likewise, the fact that some couples can't have children doesn't disprove the fact that it is the nature of man/woman sex to produce children. It is the nature of any other corrupted form of sexuality to not possibly produce children. This does show the damage to society as a whole should homosexuality run rampant and it's a strong argument to prove homosexuality is contrary to the law of nature.
People who hold to this procreation argument as to why homosexuality is sinful need to talk to couples like yourself…
@@keith6706it’s not like that’ not all Christians, or even catholiques, think like that
@@jujuoof174 I believe I pointed that out in that same comment.
Every time I watch one of Dan's videos, even when I know what information he is going to present, I am still mind blown from how well articulated his arguments are.
Nicely said. I have no problem with starting with dictionary definitions if the intent is to get everyone on the same page with an agreement on what a word means. But it shouldn’t be taken as some kind of unassailable authority.
The Bible is like a Rorschach test. An individual’s interpretation of the Bible says more about that individual’s psychology than it does about the Bible, although the Bible is so vague and conflicting in spots that it lends itself easily to that.
If the owner’s manual of my car, where as unclear and open to interpretation as the Bible, then Subaru would’ve been sued out of existence years ago.
Please keep up the great work Dan!
Please DONT.
@@Camille-Saint-Saens When someone tears down your house it’s traumatic, even if it’s a shack.
I love how you absolutely dismantle bigoted views with proper evidence.
So many people don't think and just follow the bigoted interpretations or jump through hoops to justify their beliefs instead of just... not being bigoted.
As if it's so hard to just let other people love who they love.
What evidence? He did nothing in this video but ignore other passages denouncing homosexuality while telling others they are using fallacies. Dude did literally nothing but pander to folks like yourself.
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202Check out previous videos.
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 He literally did no such thing. He pointed out how Several biblical authors, especially of the New Testament, absolutely weren't against homosexuality Because of the notion that it's "non-procreative" (Evidenced Rebuttal). He Addressed how Biblical Authors, of their differing time periods, saw homosexuality and Why they most likely saw it that way, as they were against it for the sake of it seeming to favor Male Submissiveness (the Opposite of ignoring other passages). He refuted the notion that it was "Non-Natural". And he further pointed out how the Only Real Reason the anti-homosexual view is held to Religiously in the Modern day is because it favors their geopolitical and/or ideological Agendas.
So, it could be argued that your Only problem with it is that it didn't Pander and Kowtow to Your Personal Ideological and/or Geopolitical Biases... and you Hate that... because you WANT to hold to Religious Views that are Faulty, Unjustified, and Bigoted... OR because you already Do hold to such views, and have invested into them for a Long Time.
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 another ignoramus telling a biblical scholar saying he’s wrong when you can’t even read the original texts in Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek.
@@TechySeven .....Call me a "bigot"...I hate the "community" of PEDOPHILES too ( NOT the people )
and the "community" of MURDERERS as well .....poor me .
This is one of your best videos yet!
Dictionaries are great for defining one's terms. They are definitely _not_ great at measuring the reasonableness of one's arguments. It's a list of words and meanings, not a debate judge. Well done to point this out, Dr. McLellan.
Dictionaries aren't actually great for defining terms because all they can capture is general usage. Terms in biblical criticism should be scholarly and specific. Defining your terms is indeed step one, but the resources you use to construct said definition have to be relevant to the field.
@@SethRGray I disagree. In any debate, we have to define our terms. If we're to avoid arguments over the definitions of our terms, we need to use a definition for our words that isn't reasonably contested.
And yes, using the definition most relevant to the field, (for example, calf for a podiatrist means something different than it does for a rancher), is appropriate. Otherwise it's kind of a false equivocation.
I think you and I are trying to make different points though.
So Awesomely Explained, Thank you, Dan!
Quick question: What do you expect us to do? I didn’t ask to be homosexual. I wish I wasn’t and there isn’t a way to change it.
Edit: I don’t wish I wasn’t. This is the way God made me so go be useless somewhere else.
Their ideal solution would be for you to not only “convert” / abstain from sex / pretend to be heterosexual, but ALSO condemn other homosexuals. They’d have their cake and eat it, too. This is why gays shouldn’t waste their lives trying to appease Christians
And the next best solution would be for us to “keep it to ourselves” aka they want to regress back to when homosexuals lived on the fringes of society and everyone pretended like we didn’t exist.
@@kodirawr Exactly. And they look to Russia on how to enforce that.
What would you expect someone to do if they were sexually attracted to your partner (if you were married)?
@@mikemathewson1825 See, my point exactly. You expect us to "control our lusts" aka live celibate lives and die alone. That's why we don't listen to you lol
Excellent reaction video! Yes, ancient morals & beliefs - even when accurately stated - are no grounds for modern ones when there is so much evidence to refute them. Sadly, your 2 main reasons for homophobia & bigotry today are powerful, with identity politics really dangerous & damaging.
“Ancient” … man y’all are perishing without even realizing it
@@daekwonrose3160 shut up ya bigot
As an addendum to the comment I wrote below, since when did love ever come with a list of conditions? Love is love in whatever form
Succinct, to the point, clear. Exceptional pedagogy. 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Only if you delusional, lol.
For the life of me, I don't the distinction between "being" homosexual vs. "acting" homosexual. On paper, I suppose this fine line exists, but not in human reality or living. For example, what if it was moral to be Jewish as long as you never did anything that was Jewish. Or: you can be a woman as long as you never act like a woman. Or: it's moral to be heterosexual, as long as you never engaged in heterosexual acts. Kinda crazy and unrealistic, isn't it?
Thank you for your service. :)
unfortunately, an intelligent response is always going to fail with bigots.
But you have to keep trying.
I think the internet is giving people the other side now. Society can change. National opinion on gay marriage changed. It's a slow process though. I don't know if when I opposed gay marriage decades ago I was a bigot. I can barely remember why I even though it was wrong. I was going through a religious phase, thats part. So culturally and religiously brainwashed I guess.
@@joecheffo5942
fair enough. I suppose I was being a little hyperbolic for rhetorical effect. You're right, society can and does change - but it's difficult. People need to be willing to change though, and that's the problem. they don't like change being forced upon them, it needs to come from within.
@@joecheffo5942that’s fair! I was against my own sexuality because I was taught(indoctrinated) from a young age that it was wrong and sinful. The deeper into religion I went the more I fought it. The less “religious” and freer in my faith I became, the more accepting I became of my sexuality
@@joecheffo5942 i used to think it was wrong but only because of the two references in the bible in 1 cor 6.9 and 1 tim 1.10. i just without thinking presumed there must be some reason for it, and like dan says it felt icky. when i discovered that those verses were mistranslated, i changed my mind pretty quickly.
Perfectly done!
I will have to listen many many more times to your discourse on this subject it is very intelligent !
What more can I say !
Dr. Dan McClellan drinking game: take a shot every time he says, "Alright, let's see it."
“Data”. Some videos can get you absolutely shattered.
@@deviouskris3012 RIP liver
The whole schtick of caring about whether or not other people are reproducing is so weird. You don't look at a straight couple and say "gee I sure hope they're pumping her full of babies".
You know what really brings goodness to humanity? Not being bigoted.
Well done, Dan.
The few scriptures in The Bible condemning homosexual relations are based on the prohibition in Levitical Law, BUT Christ actually goes against Levitical Law on several occasions. On one of those occasions, when the Pharisees complain about His disciples not washing their hands in the prescribed manner, Christ tells them that it doesn't matter if you are clean on the outside...only on the inside. He then turns to His disciples and says, "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments OF MEN". In other words, the cultural laws were written by men (the Jewish priests), and not by God. As far as the story of Sodom, The Bible actually states what the "sin" of Sodom is (Ezekiel 16:49), and the verse begins "Now THIS was the sin of your sister Sodom..." The sin being the wealthy ignoring the poor and needy. Christ does not address the issue, and Paul (who was NOT Christ), based his views on Levitical Law.
If the sin of Sodom was that wealthy people ignoring the poor, than what makes Sodom different than any other place on the earth at that time or any time in human history? Sodom was destroy was not because of a specific sin it committed. Usually wicked people commit a variety of sins. Jude mentions that that sexual immorality was a problem in Sodom.
The reason Sodom was singled out and destroyed is that the people were so wicked and unrepentant that God could not find even 10 righteous people there. God chapter 18 God and Abraham have a conversation. God plans to destroy the city but Abraham is worried that righteous people will be killed. Verse 24
"Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?" In verse 26 it says
"And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes."
The conversation continues until they get to where if God find even 10 righteous people, the city will be spared in verse 32
"And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
When a city or nation becomes so rot with sin and wickedness that they will not repent, will not turn to righteousness and reject God completely, there is no value for that city or nation to continue. It becomes rotten to the core and God will destroy it. Gay people lived in Sodom and their sins contributed to the wickedness of Sodom but there was a lot of heterosexual sins that also was a part of the problem. The wickedness went beyond sexual sins. As I said, wicked people don't just commit one kind of sin and are righteous in every other aspects of their lives. They tend to commit a lot of different kinds of sin like neglecting the poor ect.
{For LDS viewers as I suppose there are a few here, research the issues of "ripening in iniquity" or something being fully rip in iniquity. Similar conditions that got Sodom destroyed is what got the people in Noah day destroyed andis what got cities in the Book of Mormon destroyed and similar conditions will occur before Christ comes again. The principles that got Sodom destroyed still apply today and will happen again at some point in the future. When a society as a whole becomes so wicked that it loves sin, rejects God, and will not repent, God then clears the board as there is no use for that society to continue.]
@@shootergavin3541 The point however is that The Bible states that the wealthy ignoring the poor was the chief "sin", not homosexuality, as many people wrongly believe. But I would agree with you that there were almost certainly other sins the people were committing. Many Christians have a very limited, myopic view of The Bible, like their ignorance of Levitical Law (and it's total invalidity) or this weird concept that St.Paul's opinions were equivalent to Christ's doctrines. A lot of this comes from the "doctrine" of biblical infallibility, which in essence says that The Bible IS God, because ONLY God is infallible. The "Word of God" is also clearly defined in The Bible (John 1:1), and it's not a what, but a WHO. Good post, by the way.
Exactly Jesus rejected all law and said believe in ME ! Your faith is counted as righteousness!
Yes, I read an article several years ago on the “ick” factor. I think that still exists. The ick factor plays into the aversion to same-sex sex, particularly between men.
The thing as people’s consciences become warped through habitual sin, our ability to discern how gross are sexual perversions goes away. If you don’t find it abhorrent, all that means is that you're not in a state of grace, and you’ve lost the ability to discern that natural order of things-which doesn’t mean as Dan believes according to nature, but according to the proper teleology of a thing.
@@JudeMalachiSo I guess all of those giraffes, and ducks, and dolphins, and salamanders, and dogs, and hundreds of other species that engage in homosexual sex are also fallen from grace, right? So sad that all of these wild animals are going against the natural order.
Dan, thank you. The points you shared and elucidated is phenomenally enlightening and curative.
Also, phenomenally wrong, lol.
Yeah I've been researching the issue for ages and I've come to similar conclusions as Dan. He's done a great job.
Always speak so intelligently and well versed but I can never seem to figure out where you stand. I know you're simply educating the masses but I'd like to take a deeper dive.
Like your uneducated opinion would make any difference
Nice equivocation fallacy around the 5:30 mark. The natural order doesn’t mean according to nature in Aristotle. It means some more akin to the proper teleology of something.
Who are you to adjudicate what is an “unreasonably” held belief?
I completely agree but I would like to point out that a literal reading of the Bible would not exclude all homosexual acts, sex, between two woman is completely tolerable within the context of this law. So would homoromantic relationships between two men. The law is less strict than people today often think.
If sex was about procreation, that would mean my grandparents had to have had sex at least twice. My intuitive revulsion to things I find icky is telling me otherwise…
If what you say is true, then having children would not matter, and no one would exist. pleasure is a byproduct for procreation, an incentive. Any child understands this....
@@harrymurray9702biological males have sex for pleasure not for procreation ,
@@harrymurray9702it don't matter if it would not be anymore people born , you don't decide for each individualist biological males , we are living in that time where each biological male decide for himself only
You were my hero after the interview that you had last week. Now I don’t know because I don’t know enough about you.
Wow! You went in much deeper than what I thought. I just assumed that "Sexual Immorality" was sinful (regardless of Gender-preference). Jesus even spoke about a man that even "looks at a woman to LUST for her, has already committed adultery in his heart". With that said, anybody who looks for a sexual outlet, other than for the purposes of marriage with his wife or procreation as a holy act, would be considered sinful.
You assumed correctly, but you should remember that sexually intimacy is a way in which spouses bond to each other -- they become one.
@@hrv4908 Can you do that without sex? I want to live a sexless life as a lesbian and have adopted children and maybe get married although I’m unsure that’s be possible..
Than you very, very much for this. I wish you, and UA-cam had been around 30 years ago.
Nothing wrong with being homosexual.
I thought "Woe unto those who have children during the second coming" meant that since their will be so many calamities and power-abuse by humankind during the last days, humans would be exposed to painful natural earth elements, abuse of power by men, and would have to endure extremely hard outer-world stuff. Not that it would be wrong to have the kids, just that it would be hard to watch your kids suffer, it would be hard to have to take care of your children when it's hard to take care of your self, and all that jazz. I didn't think that had anything to do with Paul's assertion that singleness can be more holy than being married.
Paul said that every man should have a wife and every women should have a husband.
That's a common misunderstanding. "Have" was a euphemism for "go to bed with". He meant if you're married, only do it with your partner. You see, it was socially acceptable in that part of the world at the time for married men to also uses prostitoots and raip slaivs.
A desire for something, even when born with it, does not mean it's part of the natural order. Desires may be right or wrong, good or evil, whether born with them or not. In the case of homosexuality, the light or law of nature is obvious: a man and a woman's body go together; a man and a man or a woman and a woman do not. Desires don't change this.
So then what then? What does someone who is saved who realizes their gay do? That should be the question. At the end of the day, the verses in Leviticus and countless in the New Testament have been proven to be speaking on manifestations of homosexual sex. With the common Adam and Eve argument, what about intersex people who are quite literally in between. That is also a 3rd sex as well. Would their whole existence be against "nature" because God created only male and female? Life isn't binary or black and white. We are complex creatures made by a complex God.
@@earth2sageee A person who is saved and has temptations towards homosexuality must repent and fight that temptation just like we must fight and repent of every other sin.
Exceptions to the normal genetic makeup of man or woman are rare only prove the rule that there is only a man or a woman. You don't look at someone whose missing an arm and say "oh I guess human nature is not to have arms. It's not black and white like I thought." Of course human nature is to have arms; when that's different we know something went wrong. This matter is black and white or we could say xx and xy.
@@leahunverferth8247 okay but then when fighting temptation, what does this person do? is it like oh your celibate now! good luck with that! ? also exceptions to male and female prove there is more than just male and female just by their existence as they tend to not have a dominant sex. it's much more common than we think it is. their chromosomal variations make them who they are. XXY, XXX, XO, 45, 47, etc.
@@earth2sageee That person does not need to be celibate. A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. However, it wouldn't be wise to do this when struggling with homosexual temptations. The answer is to be much in prayer, much in the Word, and accountable to a godly church that exercises biblical discipline. God has strength to conquer every temptation.
Human nature very obviously has either male or female. The strategy of deceit is to obfuscate that which is clear and obvious.
@@leahunverferth8247 "a godly church that exercises biblical discipline."
There is no "biblical discipline," because the Bible is not univocal.
"God has strength to conquer every temptation."
One's orientation, straight or gay or in-between, has been proven to be innate and immutable. There are no verified cases of anyone ever having been able to change their orientation, whether through prayer or any other means.
This apologetic argument is like some sort of abstraction bait-and-switch.
On the one hand, they defensively say that they aren't targeting any group of people -- which is suggesting that they don't want to use abstraction, but instead focus on the concrete alone.
But then they target that same group using a classification system which is entirely abstract and not in the least bit concrete.
but isn't the natural world a fallen world?
Tell the truth Dan love you my brother King 👑🌹👑👑
So no reverse cow girl?
Absolutely not, sinner
Is throwing it back at terminal velocity seen as ok is the real question.
Because something is "natural", it is therefore morally acceptable? That's a poor argument.
Because a person does not "choose" attraction, it is therefore morally acceptable? Another poor argument. What about a person who is naturally attracted to minors, or another married person, or another person's money? Pedophelia, infidelity, and theft are all morally UNacceptable, yet no one "chooses" such "natural" attractions.
So true. Dan's not-too-thought-out statements come to naught so quickly.
yes but according to the bible pedophilia is fine. And I hope you don't wear mixed fabrics because then your condemned to hell. Sometimes it pays to remember the bible was written by man.
In the racy Song of Solomon there is no mention of procreation
What even is sin at this point
Most things that’s what ppl don’t get. You can stop being gay and you would still be viewed by god as a sinner the difference is a beliver in Christ his sins are blinded to god because of Jesus blood but a non believer is in trouble because there’s no one (Jesus) to cover your sins.
Thank you Dr. Dan for explaining how changes in societal norms show that God and the Bible were wrong and should be altered and re-interpreted to meet the new progressive standards of society.
"Progressive standards of society" Ha ha ha how's that working out? To follow your your and Dan's view is to watch society continue and accelerate in its degeneracy and ultimate failure.
Yes, I know this is going to stir up the hateful bigots on this thread who want every imaginable deviant sex act, which perverts their bodies, to not only be accepted, but demand celebration.
I am a heterosexual Christian but do not condemn same sex intercourse either homosexuality or lesbianism. Our sexuality is a choice we make before we are born. Part of the blueprint for our life here. Now as the decision is made on Heaven, this means that it has Gods blessing, therefore it is not a sin. As we are all merely mortal humans, who are we to decide what is a sin in Gods eyes?
I'm bigoted against people who commit crimes, not because I can see that their acts are wrong in our socially constructed idea of wrong, but because my intuition tells me murder and traffic violations are icky
Indeed, the line needs to be empathy. Murder hurts people on every way. A guy being born gay and wanting to live with another gay guy doesn’t hurt my heterosexuality at all.
@@tripleraze321 Neither of us are better than convicted murderers. The imprisoned deserve just as much empathy as our mothers.
@@b.l.8755 I agree with you 100%, in fact it is because of our empathy, that we are obligated to hold people who commit murder accountable. Being empathetic does not negate or remove accountability, it actually requires it. It is your empathy for the child murdered, or even more personal, the empathy for yourself understanding how much it would hurt you to be murdered. This, despite attempting to have empathy and understanding the attacker, also demands accountability to prevent such hurt being inflicted again. You are right much of our interaction is a social construct, and what could better guide the further construction or even removal of past constructs, than empathy. Empathy should be the guide we use to make social decisions, and it’s that reason I would never condemn or judge someone gay. They are not hurting me or my family at all.
@@tripleraze321 it seems they receive nothing but complete support or complete condemnation. Where is the gay married pastor that preaches to gay Christians against the obvious harms they do to each other in the gay sexual community?
@@b.l.8755 The "harm" done by those in the LGBT community is no different from the "harm" done by the straight community. Both communities have the capacity for abuse of all types, and both can commit any crime.
As for where the gay, married pastors are, I'm sure you realize the difficulty of finding that subset. The amount of people fitting the category of Christian[Married[LGBT-friendly church[Gay[Desire to preach[Church in need of a preacher[Church allowing of LGBT leadership]]]]]] is, I'd wager, an incredibly small community to say the least. Also I'm sure that pastor would still be preaching to a primarily straight audience, considering demographics.
This is SO good.
Thank you.
Oh, there's that archery again. Sheesh.
what makes people believe that being gay is a sin towards god? like genuinely speaking, a donut touching a donut aint really that bad
What are your believes on sex before marriage, outside of marriage?
Why does it matter?
The same as my beliefs on sex after and inside marriage. If both parties are enthusiastically consenting adults, go for it.
Is that biblical marriage, i.e.entering a woman and paying the father or capturing an enemy, going into them and claiming them in marriage, or extra biblical marriage such as legal by contract or common marriage by mutual partnership of consenting adults?
Wow you just have all the answers I’m sure you’re proud
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm understanding Dan's framing of Paul's perspective. In 1 Cor 7, I see Paul acknowledging desire and prohibiting sexual neglect, and that people should have sex to prevent Satan from tempting. The only time he suggests should they should explicitly be "apart" is for prayer. Where does he say sex should "not be with the passion of desire" like the Gentiles, or that people should ONLY have JUST enough sex to suppress desire? I feel like I'm missing something.
You're not missing anything. Dan is wrong
@@leahunverferth8247 It seems I missed 1 Thess 1:3-5. There it speaks about taking a vessel with holiness and honor, not with lustful passion like the gentiles.
Yeah, there's definitely the contrast between using sexuality in a holy/honorable way vs. the inordinate passion of the gentiles in chapter 4. But interpreting this as limiting sex in a lawful context (marriage) to as little as possible is false. The gentle world is full of adultery, homosexuality, even bestiality and other acts of fornication. Don't be like them who will satisfy themselves with whatever they can. Act in a controlled, lawful way. No premarital sex, no adultery, etc. Many more applications could be made but none of this limits the lawful expression of sexuality in marriage (except as concerns the needs of the man or woman - did the woman just have a baby? Is someone sick?, Etc).
@@leahunverferth8247 Yeah, there are various ways to read it. "Not with passionate lust" insofar as it infringes on decency, or "not with passionate lust" insofar as it is passionate. Unfortunately early church fathers were prone to the total exclusionary interpretation, it seems. Augustine was lamentably mechanical in how he saw marriage duties.
Also dictionary fallacy is BS if we could just make up meanings of words then words have no meaning.
A "dictionary fallacy"? What is he talking about?? He wasn't using the dictionary to make an argument, it was to define terms. This response seems lazy
I think the argument is based on natural law theory. It's not necessarily about procreation as much as it's about the sex oriented towards procreation.
@trapd00rspider
The dictionary will give several definitions. Some will even trace the word back to its origin.
I don't think there is such a thing as a dictionary fallacy
If the only licit sex has to result in pregnancy, then sex among the elderly is forbidden, sex with an infertile person is illicit, and sex a person who later miscarries is banned, too.
Criticizes other guy for "an entirely arbitrary assertion about what the mark is that sin misses" → Proceeds to present an entirely arbitrary assertion about what the mark is that sin misses
The "mark" in biblical terms is the noahide laws and Torah. So according to the hebrew bible if you're not obeying the Torah 100% you're missing the mark. Of course Paul and other "new testament" writers came up with a more nebulous meaning for "sin" since Paul didn't think the Torah was relevant anymore to please their god at least not for "gentiles".
This analysis shows someone missed the mark. And since the mark was missed the discussion here has inaccurately been reduced to something else.
Dictatorary fallacy does that really exist?
I looked it up and from what I found it's not a thing.
“It’s not something that people are able to choose”…Yeah definitely a Mormon.
lol wat
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
"Sin" is a concept religions created to "other" and oppress people. It has no place in reality.
Good video!
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Interesting they thought Jesus was coming back quickly, forward to today and there's still people that think he's coming back imminently... hope they're not holding their breath
I was already convinced of all your arguments, but I really like the succinct and scholarly way you present this. Unfortunately, these arguments will only be convincing to people who are educated enough to understand the words and open-minded enough to consider them. It is clear to me that God condemns the lusts of the flesh and infidelity, and upholds chastity and fidelity or marriage without regard to the gender of their partner.
I sincerely hope my religion and relationship with God doesn’t hurt my self-worth/love.
God’s love helps and helped me so much, but the church and it’s conservative nature is slowly breaking me.
Homosexuality is a sin, I’ve read that
But what about the rest?
Why do our church oppress the weak, in the same way the people Jesus fought back against!
Why am I crying?
*Equivocation on sin:* The apologist should have combined his two sources on sin and admitted that the “mark” sin misses is bibical dictates, not the good of humanity. Instead, he goes against his first citation and claims sin is about not doing good for people.
We don’t need a lot of babies. We would do better with fewer babies and less oppression, so ending homophobia would be good for humanity.
@trapd00rspider Overpopulation comes across in multiple ways. Rainforests are steadily disappearing to make houses, and grow food. We need them to breathe well. We have global warming due to excess CO2 production, which is in part of function of population. About 3 billion birds are killed annually by house cats. We could manage these issues more easily if there were fewer people. Did you assume that immediate food supply is the only issue?
My post was about the good of humanity.
Denigrating people for how they were born goes against that.
More gay families means a lower population growth, since a higher percentage of them adopt children.
Identity politics are a distinct part of American and world politics.
Buddy. Old AND New Testament- Hebrews 13:4. Mark 7:20-23. Ephesians 5:5. 1 Corinthians 6:18-20. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2. Galatians 5:19-21. Colossians 3:5. Jude 1:7. Ephesians 5:3. I could go on. And Matthew 19:4-6 says homosexual marriage is no bueno, so literally any homosexual sex must be outside of marriage and therefore fornication.
There is no rationalizing, fornication is prohibited and condemned many times throughout the Bible. There is no reality in which fornication is not sinful per the Bible. If you're not going to pay attention to something as basic as that, don't even bother pretending Christian faith. Just pick another faith that has less rules, since you clearly don't like rules and don't believe that the Bible is true-if you did, you'd have some proper fear about the spiritual consequences of intentionally spreading misinformation about Christianity.
Matthew 19:4-6 is talking about divorce, not gay marriage. Also, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because if sexual assault, not same sex relationships. Not to mention, the NT doesn't explain exactly what fornication is. Remember, Christianity was a doomsday cult, so most of the teachings found in the NT do not apply today.
@@jackcimino8822 Jesus explicitly defines marriage as one man and one woman before he addresses divorce. I didn't mention Sodom and Gomorrah, but every reference to it states that it was destroyed for sexual immorality-them being rapists was just a cherry on top.
And hey if you don't think the NT applies today, you clearly don't believe in Christianity, so you don't have a dog in this fight-so why are you even commenting on this?
Yeah I'm surprised his argument came down to interpreting the Bible as written by the societies of the time and not divinely inspired. The truth is the bible is clearly against homosexual acts, even in the new testament..
@@kenrodriguez5570 Well, after browsing the rest of this guy's videos I have yet to see a good take on anything, so not surprising.
@@jadedandbitterso true
Usually, I agree with your videos, but not this one. I agree with the (biblical) celibacy part, but not how you viewed the procreation argument being a “non-starter”. The guy explaining it just doesn’t approach it with enough biblical knowledge. I don’t have a stance on homosexuality at all. [So] Objectively speaking, the argument isn’t really that homosexuality doesn’t occur naturally. The argument is that it is not the natural “order” [which is why they believe it’s a sin]. Sure, you can say it’s a “rationalization” however, heterosexuality IS the natural order of this aspect of biology when the evidential purpose of our reproductive organs is to procreate. Regardless of what the Bible says, or if these organs function as intended, that is the purpose. Human beings can ignore this and live how they please, but there’s no denying that there is a natural order. We observe a natural order with rain, plants, animals, seasons and so forth. There have not been enough studies to completely understand sexual attraction and homosexuality for us to make infallible assertions about it. It’s possible, humans, from birth, can be attracted to whichever gender, but it’s also possible that childhood experiences or exposure to homosexuality is at the root. From birth, we are all being socially conditioned, whether we realize it nor not. Additionally, sexual intercourse is defined as whatever people want to define it as, nowadays, because it’s essentially just inserting body parts and items inside body parts in order to climax.
However, reproductive sexual intercourse is the natural “order”, (even if human beings do it recreationally).
Evidence shows that human beings can also be sexually attracted to animals (zoophilia).
Evidence also shows that human beings can be sexually attracted to objects (objectophilia).
Need I mention pedophilia? One could argue those are all “natural”. Who deems them “wrong”?
Just because a human being can be sexually attracted, doesn’t serve as a good argument that it can be [the] “natural” [order].
My point is not to prove which is right or wrong, nor is it to say one is superior to another.
I acknowledge there’s diversity in human sexuality, but there is no denying that heterosexual orientation has an intended [biological] purpose, whereas homosexuality does not. People can independently determine what that means to them.
So is everyone going to ignore explicit teaching against homosexual acts in the bible? In the NT?
Have you ever read the Bible from back to front. I suggest you do. I suggest you look particularly at the parts of the Bible we are all so swift to gloss over. Look at Deutronomy 22: 28-29 if you need somewhere to start. Then tell me everything in the Bible is true. We need to remember the bible was written by man
I see you missed out Leviticus!
You are wrong.
Lgbtquai-allies are protected by the states of Europe and America no matter how much they lie.
“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” - 1 Corinthians 7:2
Sex within marriage is not a sin.
Say it louder for the fundies in the back👏🙌
Ye gods, I need to save this video to show anyone who try to tell me it's a sin.
OK, so your new God is Dan I see.
No one needs to reference the Bible to know that a rectum is not a love tunnel
It can be if prepared properly.
A cesspool will always be a cesspool. Best not to play in open sewers.
@@user-sf5fk6ox4cthe caustic, admonitory language that adherents to the Whore of Babylon Catholic Church take towards homosexuality never ceases to amaze me. To state the manifestly obvious, someone who belongs to a church that is little more than a massive refuge for pedophiles has absolutely no moral standing to criticize anyone for anything ever, much less so about sexual matters.
Thank you. I love God and I do accept Jesus as my lord and savior but there’s people who throw Leviticus at me and other verses that I’m sure they themselves have misunderstood and misconstrued, because I am a woman with a woman. I don’t have the yearning to procreate, I feel like the earth is way too overpopulated enough. Why add to it? We’d be perfectly fine adopting kids in need of loving homes. I hate how some look down on you when you say you don’t want to conceive a child. Jesus didn’t have a child, I guess they look down on Jesus too….
Thank you for this.
The concept of sin is just silly to begin with.
When we break a secular law, we are criminals in one sense or another. If you can understand that concept, it should not be hard to understand the concept of sin. Sin is simply breaking of a law of God rather than a law of man. Different consequences with different authorities rendering judgement and punishment but they they share similarities.
@@shootergavin3541
The difference is we can establish which are secular laws and whether or not they’ve been broken.
There is no way to determine whether or not s god exists, let alone what any god says, thinks, or wants. Which is why the concept of sin is silly.
Imaginary laws are silly. Real laws have value. Besides, if we deem a secular law to be unjust, we can change such laws.
We also make an attempt to ensure punishment fits the crime.
Issuing eternal torment for temporal crimes would be unjust and immoral.
@@shootergavin3541
Also, shooter…
Consider secular laws are meant to deter future crimes and rehabilitation.
Sending someone to Hell doesn’t allow for rehabilitation. Would you agree?
What if someone said it's ok to be black, but acting black is a sin...
Using a definition from the dictionary is not a fallacy, yes dictionary definition to change over time, but just using a general definition to support a point there’s nothing wrong with that all, you have to use a definition of a word, words have definitions, they can’t just be whatever you want them to be, we need to have just in general meetings for words so we can use them, and then based on their usage overtime they can change. Well this is question begging because you’re assuming that being against homosexual acts and believing it’s a sin is unreasonable, which if you’re going off the Bible for that justification, you could argue whether or not the Bible is actually reliable and all that, but if somebody is using the Bible as their epistemic standard of morality and then it wouldn’t be irrational at all to appeal to the Bible and say homosexuality is immoral based on that. I know I completely disagree with the idea that many of the New Testament authors advocate for celibacy, I don’t really know where you’re getting that from, if anything it’s the opposite, yes Jesus himself was not married, that’s not true if anything the Bible advocates for you to make a family and have children, it’s not exactly a requirement but it definitely suggested. Yeah I don’t think Paul is advocating for celibacy and whatever passage you’re quoteing from, what Paul is saying from what I understand he’s not advocating for celibacy, when he’s talking about dying or burning in your sexual desire, because the Bible clearly says less than your heart is committing adultery, and Paul very clearly lays out sexual immorality’s, in the books of Romans and Galatians, and it’s simply untrue that sexual desire is considered corrupt or sinful, lust is considered sinful but just having sexual desire is not, I don’t know where you’re getting that from most of the apostles had sexual desires, The Bible doesn’t say anything against having sexual desires it speaks out against having moral sexual desires. I think what Paul says when he says in the holiness he means to love your wife, not to just be in a relationship with her to suit your own sexual desires. Again you’re interpreting this as Paul being against sexual desire any sexual desire, which is clearly not the case, he’s speaking out against immoral sexual desires, I also think what he saying is it’s better to meet your own sexual desires in an actual marriage then just to burn in them, but even then I don’t think what he’s saying is that means he thinks it’s good to do that. For instance when Jesus says it would be easier for the I have a camel to make it into the kingdom of God and then it would for a jealous and rich man, or in some translations just rich man, he’s not saying that that means a camel is going to make it into heaven. Yeah so this is really just not a very compelling argument. Yeah this is complete nonsense that they couldn’t have cared less about pro creation, again no the second coming happening soon, does not imply that they’re discouraging people from getting pregnant this is kind of ridiculous, well again I feel like you’re reading into this way too much. I think your argument doesn’t really hold much water. Well again another assertion because you’re assuming that the pastoral epistles are in fact forgeries and not written by Paul, and I’m not saying that they are written by Paul but your arguments in the video weren’t very compelling. None of the apostles are married or had children because they dedicate their life to their Ministry.
I mean you only need to read a few sentences into your response to see you missed a point. As you said, “words can’t just be whatever you want them to be” ….that is his entire premise for why using a dictionary is grounds for fallacy and is not a position of authority.
Who defined the words in the dictionary? People did.
How did they decide? They collectively chose the meaning they wanted.
Humanity and cultures have different definitions and even different interpretations of definitions they agree on. It is anything but a basis of authority.
@@tripleraze321 what I’m saying is we should have a basis for using a term, and if we just want a general definition don’t think there’s anything wrong with using the dictionary, yes but I don’t think the person in the video by the way I didn’t find the video very compelling, was claiming this is a definitive definition.
Yes what I meant by that was though we should have a general understanding about a term means, and I think the dictionary serves a purpose well, what I meant when I said terms of meaning, and we can’t just make up stuff, I probably should’ve phrased it much better but what I meant was we should have a general understanding about a term means, and not just have everyone use their own definition of a term.
Well mostly us but usually dictionary definitions are chosen based on usage of a term, a good example of this is the term gay it used to refer to happy but now it mostly refers to homosexual, yeah I didn’t freeze it very well.
Yes I would agree, I think he should’ve went to the Bible instead of the dictionary, but I don’t think he’s claiming that this is a definitive definition. Thanks for the reply though.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I appreciate your clear effort to think with intelligence. Commendable compared to so many on social media. In that you have my respect. I am just simply saying that a lot of things we take for granted as solid facts of authority are in and of themselves nothing more than man’s best effort. And they still contain some level of bias. There is a reason you get a new math textbook every year. Not because math isn’t useful, but because some of it was missing or even wrong. As better understanding comes, it’s updated. Have you ever looked at past dictionaries or…if you really want to be brave with critical thinking go look at past versions of the Bible, or even original texts. Compare these to your own version. Regardless of how you to choose to handle such a discovery, I can assure you, you will definitely be forced to think a lot about what you thought you knew for sure. Words are nothing more than man made expressions to attempt communication. They fail us often, in fact most experts agree words are very weak compared to some of the other factors of communication such as body language and tone. Like math, dictionaries change constantly, they are different depending on your country. Yes we need to try to have at least something to explain ourselves, our mistake is when we think our definition is as solid as we believe. In so doing we prevent ourselves from learning more meaning. How can any of us know more about anything if we think we already know what there is to know. This is why there are so many religions, and why they all change. We may claim god is the same yesterday today and forever…but mans interpretation of the Bible or anything else, is NOT the same yesterday today and forever. Humans are constantly re-evaluating how they interpret Bible scriptures. Born again Christian pastors have doctrinal understanding different than the born again Christian’s of 100 years ago. That’s not an opinion, just go listen to some sermons from back then or read them, and compare some modern ones. You will find all sorts of contradictions. Like I said with math. This doesn’t mean the Bible isn’t useful, but it sure does question mans authority to interpret correctly/consistently. Just having faith that god will guide us clearly isn’t enough otherwise we wouldn’t be changing over time. Even in the Bible itself christs own apostles who ironically wrote the books we follow so vigilantly, failed to understand Christ’s parables all the time. What makes us think we are any different.
@@tripleraze321 yes I completely agree with this sentiment, I was originally gonna compare the dictionary to the law, and say that we appeal to the dictionary the same way but actually that’s not entirely accurate, since the dictionary is not some type of enforcement, well it depends generally the Webster’s dictionary is descriptive and it’s not climbing any of the definitions to be objective, the Cambridge dictionary on the other hand raise its best to come up with accurate definitions. I see where you’re coming from now, that the dictionary definition some selves are made by people and are arbitrary in many cases, so appealing to it as an authority or as some sort of objective source doesn’t really make a lot of sense. But at the same time I don’t think there’s anything wrong with just appealing to the dictionary to get a general understanding of something, like just for the sake of the conversation we need a general definition, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with going to the dictionary, since the dictionary can be helpful. Yes I agree, you can definitely see that when it comes to a lot of things in ancient history, many of the definitions can be pretty biased. Well the reason the dictionary and things like textbooks get updated every so often, it’s because change happens pretty rapidly, so they’re trying to be as relevant to current times as possible, I see where you’re coming from, and I mostly agree. Also I think what people misunderstand and confuse our terms and concepts, A term is meant to describe a concept, This happens a lot and logic people say that logic is merely descriptive, it’s not but the definitions and logical terms were used to describe logic are descriptive, but not the actual concept itself. I agree, another example of this is gender. Thanks for the reply, and thanks for making his point more clear. I think I should’ve been more charitable in my original, let me know if anything is misspelled, because it’s a miracle if any of my comments actually get out right, they usually end up being a bunch of nonsensical gibberish, and it makes me look like English is like my eighth language, or a five-year-old. Also I can be pretty sloppy with how I phrase things or how I word things so I can be pretty confusing sometimes.
Wow thank you for this video may god bless you ❤️
The bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is a sin. However that does not mean that god hates homosexuals or that homosexuals cannot receive salvation. The bible makes it very clear that we are all sinners and that salvation is not based upon refraining from sin because no one would be saved if it were. I'm a married straight guy who has sexual thoughts about other women. I would consider this a normal and natural human phenomena but I acknowledge that this is a sin in the eyes of the lord. Dan is a gay guy who claims that homosexuality is a normal human thing not only to him but that is also not a sin in the eyes of the lord even though the bible makes it clear that it is. That's the difference between the two of us, Dan thinks god is OK with his sin while I don't.
It's very difficult for me to understand certain things in the bible like when Jesus in his sermon on the mount said " But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." To most people, including me, having thoughts about someone other than your spouse is nowhere near the same thing as committing adultry but Jesus said it was and he overrules anything I think or feel so I am called to repent for this behavior as sin. Not acknowledging our sin and repenting for it and not acknowledging Jesus is our savior is what keeps us from being saved not sin itself. Anyone can be saved if the accept Jesus and repent. It's unfortunate that Dan and so many others are trying to rationalize homosexuality as not being a sin in the eyes of the lord. We all have to acknowledge our sin and repent even if that sin seems completely normal to us and we don't fully understand why god deems it sin.
good thing you are not God! Dan has a PhD in Biblical studies, is a scholar, knows the Scriptures message intended for an audience, the intended audience, and how to apply the message into our lives knowing both things. And you're going to NOT accept or at least take into consideration what's being said? I don't mean this in a mean way but this is ridiculous considering his knowledge on the subject
Also Homosexuality or being gay shouldn't be compared to adultery, adultery is a sin because it harms marriages, the people in them, and families. Being gay is not something we can automatically equate with lust or sexual attraction as not everyone is sexually attracted to the same or opposite sex. (like me) the Bible is clearly condemning manifestations of same-sex sexual acts. Not the orientation or love in a healthy, God honoring, monogamous Marriage between 2 consenting adults
"The bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is a sin."
No, it quite emphatically doesn't. Not one passage in the Bible condemns same-sex love.
Have you ever read the Bible from back to front. I suggest you do. I suggest you look particularly at the parts of the Bible we are all so swift to gloss over. Look at Deutronomy 22: 28-29 if you need somewhere to start. Then tell me everything in the Bible is true. We need to remember the bible was written by man
I think the key qualifier is obstinant and unreasonable. Is it unreasonable to prejudge other based on their behaviors? That's fundamentally a values question. We all prejudge people based on certain behaviors like theft, violence, dishonesty, etc., etc. There are plenty of sexual acts that get you prejudged as well, depending on the person doing the judging. I *don't* think it's reasonable to equate judging people on their behaviors with judging people based on the color of skin that they were born with.
I don’t intend this to be argumentative or demeaning, and I try to avoid using demeaning language towards same-sex attracted people and to treat them as I would like to be treated. However, I just don’t understand how homosexual acts can benefit the individuals that engage in them or humanity in general. Please hear me out.
Placing any member of your body into a septic environment (whether or not conataining fecal matter) period seems like a bad idea, and likely to result in harm to the person inserting the p***s and the person receiving it in their intestine. Our skin has an ability to absorb a lot of things, the large intestine has a lot of bacteria that are hazardous to the skin, and is not the most durable of recepticles. One of my family members actually died from receiving an enema improperly, due to a rupture of the intestinal wall.
Now, I don’t hate people who engage in/desire to engage in homosexual acts, I just don’t understand how it’s loving to another person or yourself to place yourselves in risk (as I understand it).
I do understand the desire to show affection to other people, and recieve affection from other people, and especially from a significant other with whom you share a special bond of intimacy that is shared with no one external to that union.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me on the benefits of homosexual acts, but for now I don’t understand them.
I am heterosexual, but celibate (for now, possibly forever). If married, I do not intend to be part of a marriage where birth control is employed (especially abortifacient birth control), as the effects of shutting off a large part of a person’s body (the female fertility cycle) are detrimental at best. Any children I and my wife would be given would be seen as a blessing from our Father in Heaven. I understand sex to be a gift that primarily is for reproduction, secondarily for bonding, and tertiarily for mutual pleasure. I think this conclusion can be reached by a simple application of teleological reasoning: “What would happen if no one ever had sex ever again? Humanity would become extinct. Therefore, the primary function of sex is reproduction, and any other function of sex is must be ancillary."
I think our hedonistic, consumeristic culture has muted this understanding of sex, and inverted the order so that pleasure is primary, bonding is secondary, and reproduction is tertiary, and actually undesirable.
Even in heterosexual unions, pleasure has become telos of marriage, and are thus as unproductive (in other words, bearing no children) as homosexual unions. Raising children has taken a back seat to our careers and comfort. In short, we now live our lives for our own selves instead of for future generations. With all this free time, we become bored, we want something to do - to be distracted, even - so that we will be freed from this boredom. We turn to pleasure, and sex is pleasureful, but even sex we become bored with, we need something more enticing. This where perversion enters, and I do not intend that perjoratively, but to describe a deviation from the intended purpose of a good thing (sex).
We must keep going farther and farther to reach the same heights of pleasure, and so we do, straying ever farther and farther from the natural usage of our bodies.
Our sexual fixations and consequent deviations are the result of boredom, and boredom is the result of our Western way of structering our lives around ease, and comfort.
Most gay people (according to some I've talked to) don't have anal sex. And if that's your only example of how gay sex isn't beneficial, then you should study the phenomenon of romance in more depth.
Gay dude here, and much like Stephen Fry, I have zero interest in anal sex (unlike, bizarrely, a lot of my straight friends). Historically, you see a ton of variation in sexual practices, including a substantial number of non-penetrative methods (one that the Greeks favored involved thighs). But I think a lot of this talk misses the mark (ha). Sure, there is physical desire-but to what end? I honestly cannot stress enough how much this question plagued me growing up since I had no role models, but it's since become obvious: the end goal is pair-bonding, strengthened individuals, and thus strengthened families and communities. All sexuality stems out of a desire for genuine intimacy, knowing, and acceptance-it's an expression of romantic love that naturally arises-and the benefits of that on society when done in a monogamous, respectful, and loving coupling are profound. When people build long, loving lives together, everyone is better off.
Another key element is that for SO many of us, we don't have an option. My relationship with my future husband is NOT depriving the world of children-I have never, and could never, conceive of romantically or sexually engaging a woman. I value women, but eww! However, I will do whatever I can to support my family-mom, dad, brothers, sisters, and their children, doing what I can to ensure their flourishing.
There's a lot to unpack with your comment, so let me go in order.
Not every instance of same sex intercourse requires anal penetration, and even for the times that it does, it is posible in this day and age to do so responsibly, hygienically and safely. in addition, even straight, PIV sex is not risk free, there are plenty of way that two participants can injure themselves by engaging in what you describe as natural sex.
You're teleological reason is also flawed. Humanity has reached a stage where sex is no longer required for succesful reproduction, modern fertility science has made it so sexual congress is not the only way to create offspring any more. And sex is not the only field where an activity that once served a specific purpose is rendered largely unnecesary. We developed clothing as a way to survive the inclemencies of weather such as sunlight or extreme cold, but for a while now people have used clothing for more than merely staying warm or away from sunlight. Same goes for food, using your teleological reasoning the only purpose of food is to obtain calories for our bodies to function, and yet, for even longer than societies have existed, people have been using food as a source of pleasure, basically no human group has ever been content to simply eat what is striclty necessary for their nutrition, "ancillary" things like seasoning, spices, flavoring, complex dishes and recipes are universal across cultures and eras.
You are also defining the "natural usage of our bodies" in a very narrow way that not everyone will agree with. I will just as easily make the argument that since same sex attracted people ocur naturally, and sexual desire is also a natural unconscious phenomenon, then engaging in same sex intercourse is by definiton a natural usage of our bodies.
Demonstrate that there's a god, then demonstrate why anyone should care what that god wants.
Then I'll still tell you that you and that god are bigots.
@@CampCounselerSteve Not helpful. As a former (and very sincere) anti-gay fundamentalist, I can guarantee this tactic does not help change hearts and minds. We can do better.
By the way love your videos.
How interesting he leaves out that his LDS religion LITERALLY teaches that homosexuality is a sin and only men and women are to be together, sexually and only in marriage. It is the only way to get to the highest degree of Heaven. Either he is a massive hypocrite, does not believe what his own church's restored doctrine teaches, or is willingly teaching half-truths. A "scholar" indeed.
My channel is not about Mormonism or my personal faith. I have always been clear about that.
@@maklelan Makes no sense. Feels like you teach one set of beliefs as truth, under the guise of scholarship, then claim adherance to the LDS faith which clearly teaches the opposite of your channel, yet you then clearly advocate openly for homosexuality personally and politically? What?
@@ninetails1553 Once again: my channel is not about Mormonism or my personal faith. I have always been clear about that.
@@ninetails1553 I am LDS and I see what he is doing and I see no problem with it. He argues positions on his channel from an academic point of view, not an LDS point of view. He is not attempting to convert anyone or prove anything about the LDS church to be right or wrong. It really is no different than what judges do in court. They set aside their personal view and simply make judgements regarding what is written in the law even if the law itself is faulty or incomplete. The LDS view on homosexual acts is not built solely on the Bible and the arguments presented by him address don't really address the issue from an LDS point of view.
Blind faith is not true faith . A true faith questions the validity and logic before committing to believing. Don’t forget it’s human beings that wrote the Bible. A lot of things have been changed and manipulated since the original scripture was written by man.
There Are many contradictions and illogical passages in the Bible