Dan does a lot of tap dancing here to pretend his holy book isn't bigoted which it is. whether or not the ancients understood "homosexuality" the way we do, it certainly condemns specified actions that are homosexual as we describe the term. Dan's practice of "renegotiating" the bible to say what he likes is dishonest and serves to prop up texts and traditions that should be tossed into the historical trash bin.
@@scambammer6102 No, he makes quite clear in the latter part of the video that these texts only hold the significance that we assign to them (and he cites Paul's views as examples). If we find that something in the biblical text is obviously harmful or outdated, then we should chuck it in the bin. He's not propping up anything.
@@ryant1064 We have a new covenant under Christ. We are no longer bound by the old covenant that has been fulfilled. This is why you fail in the face of this line of argument because you don’t understand that things like circumcision, refusal to consume shell fish or pork, or avoiding wearing mixed fibers is not something we have to do anymore. This is also why you will allow yourself to be fooled by more parlor tricks and sleights of hand into believing that God actually thinks 2 men railing each other in the ass is cool, when He told you specifically that it wasn’t.
"...meaning and utility in harming the LGBTQ+ community" .....😮 That hits so close to home in the best way. Thank you for your example in respecting scripture, it's study, and people everywhere
"hArmiNg" Lol. a bunch of fear morngering & exaggeration by sin-defenders solely based on emotion and not reality. By that logic, it's the G.y agenda that's harmful to the Christian community. and actually, its more harmful than Christianity "is" to homo ppl.
No, society does everything to accommodate for LGBTQ etc etc. It's they that harm society. Are they breeding? Are they creating enough offspring to pay for social security for an ageing population?
Ehh, I'm not so sure that "leveraging" these texts against gays is what "one chooses to do"-it just seems self-evident. I grew up in fundamentalism, and there wasn't any sense of choice in this: it was "obvious," and there was a systematic theology as to why. I'm now happily gay and accepting, but accepting how sincere people are, and how agonizing it can be to submit to those verses (as understood), is something I can't escape. My first heartbreak was over a friend who came out as gay to me decades ago, and it shattered me. I could not find a way to reconcile it with what I thought was the "plain reading" of the texts. "Renegotiating" the texts is not an easy or obvious process, particularly when one thinks the eternal fate of souls is at stake.
Oh that kid is genuinely a far-right extremist by every definition. He’s a fascist and borderline an actual Nazi. And he has a following of ultra MAGA fascists who say he’s so smart and believe every word he says
Leviticus says man shall NOT lay with a man,and same applies to woman with a woman. It is ,IS in the Bible. It is you who is ignorant.The only sexual acts sanctified by God is in marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN! That too is in the Bible.And marriage is to be ONLY between a man and a woman. ONLY.That is in the Bible too.All other sexual activity is anti God and sin.Yes this too is in the Bible. So what ever they called man on man sex back in Old and New Testemant time does not matter. The act is mantioned and described and God determined it to be sin,sin is bad, This is not even a light grey area. It is Solid Biblical fact.
In a lot of these cases they are just parroting the examples that have been given them. They might have been homeschooled, or go to an openly homophobic church. If they'll change, it'll be when they have to integrate into wider society, such as when they might go to university or start a job in a different place. This is also why conservatives do their best to tell young people they'll get indoctrinated in sin at university.
Bible(K.J.V/N.K.J.V.) calls any sexual activity out side of marriage ,and sexual activity between same sex people a sin. The same Bibles want Christians to pray the sinner with love. It is not the people we hate, it is the sin. As God loves the sinner but hates that same sin. Love as God loves us.And forgives us.@@drillyourarguments
Hi Dan. Thanks for all your work. Can you clarify what a good translation of "arsenokotai" would be? A reference to a man being a passive sexual partner, perhaps?
@@tysonvslewis12If you're an honest Christian? Yeah pretty much. A lot of them do such amazing acrobatics to justify or handwave away the nonsense in their religion it's truly a sight to behold.
Paedophilia was not regarded as a sexual orientation either, any more than homosexuality was. So that concept most certainly does _not_ go back to Luther. In Luther's time, a girl was of marrying age when she was 12 (a boy when he was 14). It had nothing to do with sexuality as such, nor anything to do with protecting children. Though as you yourself point out, the Bible is quite explicit in condemning _acts_ of sexual deviancy. _Given that,_ it is more than fair to say that if they _had_ a concept of homosexual orientation, they would have condemned it. In a sense they did have such a concept: the desire to sin was something they were most familiar with, and the very desire was considered offensive. Also, contrary to your claim, this is a straightforward issue - not remotely a complex one. The Bible is reproachful of sexual relations as a whole, even sexual relations with one's own spouse rendering one unclean for a certain period if you're an orthodox Jew. This in mind, why would anyone in their right mind think the Bible authors would be ok with _alternative_ lifestyles? But there is no need for interpretation. We only need to see what the influence of Christianity did to the early Christian world. We know that in Roman culture, homosexual acts were partly frowned upon, had legal consequences if you were a male willingly taking the passive role, and punishable by death in the Roman army. This was only exacerbated after Christianity became state religion, making the passive party a capital offender in the 4th century, and all homosexual acts capital offences in the 6th. No Christian nation viewed homosexuality as ok until France decriminalised it in 1791, but that was simply because the Revolutionary Code did not mention it - the philosophy being, at any rate, that law should be based on reason, not religion. It would take nearly two centuries more for the rest of the West to follow suit. So yes indeed - the Bible is very much anti homosexuality. The _acceptance_ of homosexuality is extremely modern, and there is no reason to assume the Bible was in any way avant garde in this respect - if it were, it would have mentioned something about homosexuality being, well, kosher. But it doesn't - not directly, and not by interpretation. Has this caused damage to the LGBTQ+ community? Yes, of course, damage it will take generations to repair. But the people using the Bible to attack them _are_ doing so in line with the Bible authors' teachings. Let us not pretend the Bible says something it doesn't simply because it would offend our modern sensibilities. The Bible _is_ offensive. No matter how many times we have given the Bible a new coat of paint, it remains offensive at its core. The _good_ parts in the Bible are the ones that speak very generally ("do unto others", "love thine enemy" etc.), and which do _not_ delve into the topics of sexuality, slavery, gender roles etc. The Bible is only a good book by virtue of what we ignore.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 _Modern_ hatred? It's the _acceptance_ which is modern. Homophobia is well and thoroughly documented throughout history. If you think it's the other way around, _you_ are the one spouting eisegetic nonsense.
Pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation. Wtf are you on about. BE VERY CAREFUL OF PEOPLE WHO MAKE CLAIMS LIKE THIS. Absolutely no modern scientific understanding of pedophilia considers it to be a sexual orientation. Please stop making asinine claims like these.
Great work, your content is concise and informative as always. In a nut shell, what is the consensus of scholars as to what they think Paul was trying to communicate in this passage. What did he think men should or should not do, or what was sinful? What is the historical/cultural perspective that tends to be missed by modern readers?
In Paul's time, it would have been more like penetrator vs. penetrated. If you are high rank, you cannot be penetrated but you can penetrate. And it doesn't matter whose ass. (Women weren't really people like our modern understanding of what personhood is. Even now, we still have a problem recognizing women as people. That's why we have debates on abortion because nothing says "we see women as people as much as strangers discussing what I can do with my body"). We can see remnants of this in modern sexual ideas such as "man must be on top" in full missionary and penetrating the lesser being - aka the woman. As healthy people figured it out, it's quite nice to reverse this. There's more than just missionary. But there's this idea that women must be penetrated ... sexual politics is ruining the fun. (For example, a lot of men have hang ups on getting anal. But biologically speaking, men would really like it. Let's just say men have a g-spot.) In addition, they had temple sex workers. It would have had strong religious vibes. Think of it as if you are having sex with a priest and the priest is the living embodiment of god. Or venus. Or a bunch of other horny sex gods. This was a multireligion region and they all had some form of sex god. (We have this even now in some older cultural regions - non - western of course.) Paul might have been sexually abused by an older roman male. It was a thing in the roman culture where richer older roman males had younger male lovers. It was just a thing. We can see this in certain tribes where young boys have a form of sexual interaction with older male warriors. they don't consider it a homosexual act. I doubt they even consider it sex. So even if a boy is giving a blowjob, that culture doesn't see it as sex. And that's a big thing. Cultures define the norms in a sense. That's why we still don't call religious people mentally ill for believing in supernatural nonsense even though they are mentally ill..The excuse is that everybody is mostly doing the same thing so it's not crazy. Add in slavery and no comprehension of personhood or basic human rights and we have loads of rape as well. Men and women being raped. People in western cultures just accept very victorian england sexual mores. We have a certain racialized look at the world as well. We definitely have a different conception of human worth and personhood than the past. For conservatives to go on and on about this very ancient text as some literal word of god makes no sense. Our worlds have changed and even if I spoke with William Shakespeare in English (with the thees and the thous), we wouldn't understand each other that well. Our baseline understanding of the meaning of words is different. For example, Yeats uses the word "gay" in his poetry and he is not saying "homosexual". He is using it in the meaning of "happy, merry, blithe". That's just a hundred years ago. This Biblical text is hundreds of years ago and there has been interpretation and translations and interpretations of translations galore. Oh.. and if you really are curious.. read up on Shakespeare and you will never consider that age appropriate for children again. He's making sex jokes all the time. It just flies above modern audiences because we don't get it. Thou wilt fall backward when thou hast more wit - it's in Romeo and Juliet. A play that many a high school teen has been forced to read. Yep.. it's a sex reference. What will Juliet be doing when she gets older?? On her back? What is this thing again? It's just a dirty joke. I find it wise to read Shakespeare as just a lot of dirty jokes.
I'd really like to hear Dan's answer on this question as well. He seems to be one a very small handful of people who is willing to be honest about such questions.
Paul was condemning men who lie with other men (both in the passive and active role) and he was saying that was sinful. That's the consensus of scholarship too and Dan McClellan doesn't contradict it. He just says we should renegotiate (or ignore it) so as not to hurt LGBT people and argues people ignore other parts of scripture.
The consensus is that Paul meant men having sex with men. Everyone who says that isn't true is pushing an agenda, not an accurate interpretation. The actual argument is: "is the Bible authoritative?" Everything else is activism. A more academically honest take than what this video offers would be: The Bible condemns same-sex sex BUT you don't have to follow the Bible. Unfortunately queer theory is fashun and we're post-academy now anyway.
Thank you so much for going over this again and again. I don’t know how many times during high school I was told to off myself because I couldn’t hide it. My family was cruel. My classmates were horrible but thank God for a few teachers who cared and gave me possible attention. You are a blessing!
I have learned more from you than any sunday schools growing up or any of the hate spewing from a lot of the christian community, the love thy neighbor unless they aren't exactly like us... you are a light in the storm man, keep it up
define 'hate'. you guys clearly hate (in the obective, factual sense) to follow GOD'S Commands. homoism seeks to go against the FACT we are made in GOD'S Image. we're supposed to be REPRESENTATIVE of our Creator, not rebellious!! " love thy neighbor unless they aren't exactly like us" this sounds like the homoism-defenders when you disagree with their worldview!! Thankfully, we Bible-based Christians can LEGITIMATELY love withOUT needing to agree with & support unGodliness.
@Contend4Truth Wrong. All literary texts are inherently subjective. This is not based solely on the literary theory of postmodernism; most other forms of criticism, including liberal humanism, understand the subjectivity involved in understanding a text.
I love that you are so calm and collected and just seeking ACTUAL documented truth. This isn’t some attention grabbing BS, you’re giving your truths and it’s refreshing. Much love 🫶
Except what he's saying here isn't true... So there's that. It's a shame too, because he's usually pretty good with context and whatnot, until it comes to an activist topic he has strong personal feelings about, then all truth and context goes out the window, and he gives us a moral scolding rather than a biblical lesson...
@@markwildt5728Or....could it be that your personal feelings, on this particular topic, are such that you are rejecting Dr.Dan's historically contextual analysis of the Biblical text?
I am actually noticing this. Why is Dan dodging Robert Gagnon? I just discovered Dan a week ago and I have no idea yet on who Robert Gagnon is. But when it comes to facts, I like Ben Shapiro. hehehe
The bible is not just used to rebuke LGBTQI+ it is used at whim to rebuke anyone that does not adhere to that particular Christians views on behaviour. There is so much of human behaviour not mentioned at all in the Bible but assumed and used to threaten a person with eternal damnation.
@@nunyuhbusiness9016 Masturbation is a pretty easy one. Being trans is also another one. Wearing slightly shorter or more revealing clothing. Dancing. Playing Dungeons & Dragons. Getting tattoos. Basically anything that a Fundamentalist Christian from a traditional and/or generally conservative upbringing might find slightly strange or make them uncomfortable.
Since Paul appears to have used the two words that meant 'man' and 'lying' and the tense of the word refers to a passive male and an active male, it very well could have been a reference to pederasty wherein an older man would take a younger (passive) man under his wing and teach him the ways of Greco-Roman society, including sexual practices. As I recall, many of these younger males were prisoners of war who were being initiated into the new society in which they found themselves and would later on be released as citizens once they'd learn about the political structure and sexual morals of their new homeland. IOW, pederasty. I've also read that 'arsenokoitai' can be translated as 'man-bed', which might carry with it the idea of a lazy man who spends too much time just lounging around and not being productive. With the active and passive voices in the word 'arsenokaitai', he might have also been referring to male rape, since the active person appears to be pushing his sexual desires on a passive person, perhaps against the passive person's will. Either way, what Paul was talking about was a cultural norm for his part of the world and as you know, norms are different in different parts of the world, so to impose Paul's moral norms on the rest of us is simply wrong.
I would translate the two Greek words at issue as "bottoms" and "tops." But that is not really the point. The point is that Paul had no concept of 21st century science, in this case the psychology of human sexuality.
@@fredphilippi8388 Agreed, and not just the psychology but also the physiology of sexual preferences. Paul wouldn't have understood that both 'nature' and 'nurture' play into a person's sexual preferences. Also, Paul using the active and passive voices might reflect his idea that in a heterosexual encounter, the man is 'active' while the woman is 'passive' and is just 'on the receiving end' of things. If that's the case then he's saying that it's sinful for a man in a sexual encounter to take on the role of a 'passive' woman, especially when it comes to penetration. It would reflect his cultural ideas, perhaps, that a woman just 'submits' to her husband both at church and in bed, so for a man to take on the submissive/passive role of a woman seems unnatural to Paul.
So I am asking this as someone who is truly trying to understand. I'm a Christian and this is one of those topics that I struggle understanding because I don't think someone should be condemned for consensually loving someone of the same sex. I also firmly believe God condemns people who love that same sex. That's not biblical. My struggle comes with whether or not it is a sin. My inquiry is that I feel further explanation to what you are saying. So homosexuality was never used in the bible because the concept of the word did not exist. So I understand that, but if the translated words means an active and passive role in same sex intercourse isn't that the same as homosexuality and now we just have a word for it? How is it any different? I hope my question makes sense and someone is able to provide some clarity. Thanks!
Don’t condemn people yourself, just let God do his thing. Don’t be afraid to express your concern if you think someone is doing something wrong. They might not understand but that doesn’t mean you hate them, no matter how much they might say you do. Pray for them and ask God to forgive them on their behalf. You know what God has said on this matter. Don’t listen to what the world says about the issue, listen to God and He will show you the truth. Please do not be fooled, the Greek isn’t always going to translate perfectly into English but the meaning is generally the same even if the social concepts of antiquity are different from today. There are some weird translations out there, but the majority of English translations are incredibly accurate to the Koine Greek source. The King James and New American Standard Versions are my personal recommendations.
@@ChrisSizzly Unfortunately, I think the fact that different people get different meanings from the same text regardless of how "literally" they think they claim to be taking it, is proof enough that if the Bible is the divine word of God, it isn't very easy to tell how to interpret it. Are women supposed to sit at the back of church during a service? Do people get into heaven through faith alone or are works important too? Should we be eating kosher or is that something that only that not required anymore? Is Jesus human or divine? Does God have three parts or is He one being? The answers might seem obvious to you, but they aren't stated explicitly in the Bible, or they might have other verses that could be used to argue the opposite. When you read the Bible, there is always interpretation involved, and in many cases it is not always immediately clear what the "correct" interpretation is. There are some questions that have been debated in the Church since the first century, and it feels a little hand-wavy to just claim that you can understand it all if you read it "properly" and anyone else doesn't understand it. I also find it a little telling that KJV is the version you claim as "incredibly accurate" considering how many revisions and rewordings were made historically by King James in that version to avoid anti-monarchical sentiment.
@@bagodrago This is a good thing to avoid, throwing doubt on scripture. You might have a hard time understanding these questions you pose, but they really are addressed in the Bible explicitly. Anyone who has spent any time with at least the New Testament can tell answer your rhetorical questions easily. Studying the Bible takes time and effort on the part of the reader. By all means, feel free to learn Greek, but you’re just going to be reading the same things you read in English. Yes, KJV is the first and best English translation of the Bible.
@@ChrisSizzly The KJV was by no means the first English Bible, the Geneva Bible was widely used long before the KJV was made. Also, there's a reason why more translations of the Bible come out and _say different things_ because they are more faithfully translating the text and including more notes explaining nuance in transcript differences. You might want to look more into the history of the translation before declaring it is the most accurate. Just because you grew up learning from the KJV, doesn't mean it's the best one. Ask _a single_ Christian Biblical scholar what translation to use and I guarantee not a single one will say KJV. My point about the interpretations and analysis is this: there are plenty of denominations of Christians who read _the same Bible_ you do that disagree on fundamental theology. All of them believe they are right and that it's "explicitly" written there, and everyone else is just reading the text wrong. What makes you assume you are any different? Be open to reproach from other Christians, I promise it will only do you good.
@@bagodrago We get it, you hate the best English translation, it’s whatever. Let me ask you this, do you think homosexuality is a sin or are you of the opinion that no one can really know because the original text is too far beyond our understanding to faithfully translate beyond Κοινή Greek? Did you know that anybody can understand the Bible in any language?
Hate and ignorance is a short wick on the stub of a candle, it is only a short time until they are completely in the dark. We need to light the candle of understanding and equality - all of us together!
Your final sentence was wonderful. Great job. The presenter referenced in this video is a terrible Christian. He is doing the opposite of much of the doctrine. He isnt witnessing to help people. He is witnessing to harm people and self aggrandize. Christians are supposed to be quiet in worship and prayer. Those who call attention to themselvesmare supposed to be punished by god for their self aggrandizment. As well as trying to cause harm to others. He should be ashamed.
Thanks for your amazing and grounded explanation! That's the difference between a young lad who seeks views (and made acceptance in a conservative group) and a doctor in theology and religion who the commitment is with te text and the nowadays issues.
Gee Dan I could listen to you all day. Can I slip you into my back pocket and draw you out to speak to a few guys in church on Sunday after the morning service?
I am unable to appreciate or comprehend first century Greek or other ancient languages. I am please to hear your discussion of how sexual practices of the past do not represent current ideas of the present. Reminds me of Rorty’s discussion of how Greek philosophers problems are different from our current understanding of seemingly related topics. I appreciate good work. Thank you.
@@tchristianphoto God: If someone practices homossexuality you must kill them. Every Christian in history: "Okay so it is definitely evil and can be punished with death. Thanks." You: "Okay but whay about muh scholars?"
The Old Testament states that God wants the Israelites to be a priestly nation. The definition of a priestly nation is to obey God’s commandments. From what I have read God does not approve of homosexuality. I’m not trying to hurt anyone or any group. From my understanding it’s a worldly behavior that’s just not allowed within the priest community. That’s the way I understand Gods word.
@@tyrlant2189 That's a concerningly anti-Semitic way to put it, but yes, most Christians claim this is because "purity laws" are no longer required since the new Covenant doesn't require them. And while Jesus _did_ say certain laws were no longer required (such as divorce being allowed), he certainly didn't say anything about some of them like circumcision (hence why it was such a massive debate in the first century Church) or homosexuality.
"Malakoi" does not necessarily mean a male who take the passive role in sex. The word just means "soft." It can apply to a lot of things. There are some ancient writings that say that men who only have sex with women are much more soft than those who sleep with other men or boys. The word can refer to those without the courage, fortitude, or discipline to resist temptations or endure hardships.
"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." - 2 Timothy 4:3
yeah "pick and choose whats fake and whats not to suit your agenda" LOL sinners will go Above and Beyond to justify their unrighteousness. We HAVE to differentiate between Mosaic Law and Moral Law..... and sxual purity is MORAL LAW. NOT being an Alphabetist (lgtb+) is moral law, no matter how much sinlovers say otherwise. @@bagodrago
@@bagodrago I can call you a 'biggit'. The ad hominem attacks are usable by anyone. Do you even know what the word means?? ironically, its YOU who deny. "yeah "pick and choose whats fake and whats not to suit your agenda" LOL sinners will go Above and Beyond to justify their unrighteousness. We HAVE to differentiate between Mosaic Law and Moral Law..... and sxual purity is MORAL LAW. NOT being an Alphabetist (lgtb+) is moral law, no matter how much sinlovers say otherwise." Do you have an agenda? yes. "i do wat i wana do and i don wana accept the Creator cuz me lov me worldly temporary deezyres 2 much!!1" Admit it, Christianity FEELS like a burden in your opinion. but thats because you havent had JESUS in your life. look at JiDion the youtuber who left his desires for Jesus on yt. he is now FREE FROM earthly pleasures. he serve his CREATOR instead.
It pretty much says that male idolaters did "unseemly" things with each other, and that their females did something you wouldn't expect them to do. Rom 1 fails to describe homoxesuality. I've known a few gay people and not one of them did a single word from Rom 1.
I applaud your efforts, Dr. Dan. As a former Christian, I now see clearly the harm these beliefs create through divisiveness. I'm looking forward to the day when these ancient mythical gods become powerless, and humanity comes closer to unification.
You just no justification for your morality lol. Who gets to say what is or isn’t harmful if there is no objective truth? Such a self defeating claim that the Bible’s teaching are harmful, if you have no basis for your own so called morality!
@@s.a.6082Nothing in this world is absolute, but that doesn’t mean we can’t try our best with what we have. “Because God said so” or “Because the Bible says so” are both appeals to authority, which essentially means your “basis for morality” can be dismissed as fallacious reasoning.
Dude you are the best. I've been waiting for someone like you to come along for a long time. Thanks so much for trying to educate the hopelessly delusional. (not that they'll ever get it unfortunately)
@@markwildt5728exactly "its a mistranslation they didnt have a concept of homosexuality".. but they knew the word? 😂 How do you know they didnt have the concept? Where you alive back then?😂 All of this is completely guesswork 😂
Thank you, Dan, for your biblical exegesis (drawing the meaning out of) rather than eisegesis (reading the meaning into). In my opinion, we are dealing with another science vs. bible moment. In the 17th century, it was Galileo's science of astronomy vs. the bible. Today, it's the widely-held science of psychology vs. the bible. Jews and Christians sooner or later adjust their understanding of the bible in accordance with science.
If that's your argument, you're gonna have to come harder... Because this "Little Kid" is actually correct. It doesn't matter how he delivers the information, as long as the information is correct. Don't judge the message by the messenger, and beware of sharp, slick, silver tongued serpents.
Its odd how many Christians focus only on Homosexuality and ignore all other laws of Torah Judaism.. They claim "Jesus died on cross for them to pay for all sins and replaced Mosaic laws given on Sinai". Yet they seem maintain focus sexual behaviors and ignore Shabbat Kosher adultery laws etc. תודה רבה שלום
I assume that you're Jewish, and through the "ignoring Shabbat, Kosher etc" I also assume you're a bit ignorant of the Christian Faith. We wholeheartedly believe that Jesus (Yehsua) is the Jewish Messiah, God made flesh, revealed to us through the Eye witness accounts of the Gospels (and some historical documents). The reason we do not follow the laws of Shabbat are based in Acts of the Epistles and on some of the teachings of Yeshua. The Apostles of Yeshua declared in a meeting that Gentiles were not bound to the Laws of Moses in the same manner as Jews were, exempting the Gentiles from observing the Shabbat, Kosher, etc. The Shabbat, after all, was made for mankind, not mankind for the Shabbat. What was established in this meeting was as follows: Gentiles are not permitted to eat blood, flesh of animals that are not emptied of blood, food that is offered to false gods, or break the laws of Sexual immorality. So, if you meet a Christian that does not follow the laws presented on sexual immorality in the Torah, they are are doing wrong. However, that is as far as it goes. Yeshua claimed that it is not the food that we eat that makes us impure, it is that which passes out from our lips that does. (Many have interpreted this as a means to say that we are not required to keep Kosher.) To our understanding, the Torah was made so that we could distinguish between what is morally righteous and what is immoral, however, we as humans simply cannot follow these laws on our own, and at some point during our lives we break them, wether that be stealing, lusting, etc. Yeshua, being the Word of God was in fact also the very Law itself, and so by giving ourselves to Him, by following him, he makes in us a new heart that permits us to follow those laws, and not unlike the sacrificial animals of the times of the Temple, Yeshua is the sacrificial lamb upon which all our sins are forgiven. Do we follow those laws? No, most certainly not. And this is painfully evident in every human being you meet. We are all limited by our desires, however the point is that through Yeshua, we are saved from Sin, and free from the consequences that are rightfully meant to be on our heads. (This should not be interpreted as "we can sin however much we want". Hebrews 10:26-27 (NIV) "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.") If we fall and sin unwillfully, like falling for the desire to eat more sugar when we shouldn't, we are forgiven by simply turning back to Yeshua and asking it. But if we receive salvation, and then continue to sin regardless, thinking we have a "free pass", we reject salvation. How can we not follow the Torah? Because God himself commanded different, is really the simplest way to put it.
Seeing as I'm also subscribed to the younger guy's channel (can't remember his name offhand) I was really confused as to why he was doing such a poor job debunking you until I realized this is your channel and not his! 😂
Is it fair to call a sexual orientation a “sexual ethic?” Doesn’t that imply some sexual orientations are ethical, and others are not? It seems to fall into the idea that being other than straight is an “unhealthy lifestyle.”
If you're referring to "Paul's own sexual ethic" at 4:40 if I recall correctly Paul describes his instructions of celibacy preferred and then married sex only as much as needed to suppress the sexual urges as an ethical instruction to others, which would be why it's not referred to as Paul's sexual orientation, but his sexual ethic. While nowadays it would be easy to conceptualize him as some variety of asexual, that was not how he conceptualized himself, and he seems to have considered it in ethical terms. If there were other times in the video when the term 'sexual ethic' was used I didn't notice them, and thus have no comment on those uses :-)
The use of the word "ethic" here is just to describe a certain set of values in relation to other, different sets of values. The use of the word ethic is not a moral condemnation of any set of ethics necessarily. It is only being used to explain that there are many different kinds of sexual ethics out there (for example, complimentarian vs egalitarian understandings of marriage; those would be two different sexual ethics. that doesn't mean both are ethical in a moral sense)
By today's standard, it (probably) isn't. See the post directly above this one/. It explains it perfectly. -However, I think Dan is using the term much differently than we use it today.-
Sexual ethic is about morality, like a priest abstaining from sex because of his beliefs which is a choice. Sexual orientation is biology, we don't choose to be straight or gay.
Well he's basically 13. And, like so many obnoxious 13 year Olds, he heard something from a random dude, in this case some hick pastor in the backwoods of marry-your-sister-ville, then proceeds to lecture the world on as if he'd the smartest person ever. It'd almost be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Awe the old projection argument that liberals always use. It never fails. You also view homosexuality as shameful and use this argument to call other people gay, but want to avoid being labeled as a bigot. You're so easy to see through.
False dichotomy. Understanding certain verses as anti-gay is not necessarily an anti-gay position. If I understand the text to be anti-gay, it just that - my understanding, right or wrong. I think it would help gays if they rejected the Bible, but I try to get to the author’s intended meaning and not insert my pro-rainbow politics into my interpretation. That ad hominem/false dichotomy approach could go both ways. Someone could falsely claim that the only reason someone interprets the passages as gay-neutral is to make the text acceptable to people of modern morality
I explicitly acknowledge that the Bible condemns same-sex intercourse, I'm just challenging the blithe and hypocritical transfer of that generic position to today in light of the rejection of so much of the biblical authors' other ethical frameworks.
@@scienceexplains302 I've got several videos addressing this. I think the best case is that made by Saul Olyan back in the 90s, that it refers to men who take the active or insertive role in an act of male same-sex intercourse.
@@maklelan the Bible is very clear on it. It’s an abomination for man to lie with another man. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that it’s about a man who takes the active role. And if even if it was, someone has to take that role, so it would be wrong either way. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
I assume you are referring to Matthew 19, in which case, this was specifically given as a response to whether divorce between a man and a woman is okay. Marriage between a man and another man wouldn't have even been on anyone's radar back then. Jesus may have simply quoted Genesis because the cultural understanding of marriage was between a man and a woman (but we can't know, because we can't ask him.) If Jesus had a particularly strong view on same-sex marriage, wouldn't he have said something about it? Jesus _did_ however talk about divorce, which the Church curiously seems much less interested in condemning these days...
He said in the context of divorce that men marry women and should be treated as permanent. Obviously same applies to same-secs marriage. He didn't say "a man must only marry a woman or else it's a sin", did he?
The phrase people seem to overlook so often is, "from the beginning it has not been this way." (Matthew 19:8) That applies just as much to modern feelings on both divorce and homosexual marriage. If we don't go back to what was given in the beginning, then we are following the hardness of our hearts and not the will of God.
@@quikbeam03 Jesus was not talking about same-secs marriage, only about divorce. Both what Jesus said and the justification for marriage in Gen 2 apply equally to same-secs marriage without contradiction to the text.
@@MusicalRaichuHow does "He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh '" justify same sex marriage?
@@ciggystardust I think your premise is invalid. Why would it apply differently today than 2000 years ago? Where does the bible specify a statue of limitations ?
That’s why we have PhD researchers to study these things. As Dan said, it’s up to you to decide to interpret these things based on the whole text, historical values and context, decades of research, etc. versus just looking at one word
@@gorgzilla1712 Are you suggesting that in order to understand the bible you need the support of researches with Phds that need to interpret it for you?
Leviticus 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Exodus 21:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
And yet the Torah clearly states (in Leviticus 20, as you know) that a man who lies with another man as with a woman should be stoned to death. And this is clearly what Paul is referring to when he uses the word arsenokoitai because it means men lying together, right? So even with all of this stuff about "they understood sexuality differently" being true, the bible still says that men engaging in sexual acts with other men deserve a painful death. Why did you not mention that in this video? I agree with your rhetorical goals, obviously, but let's not pretend the bible contains a happy clappy all inclusive philosophy that we can all join hands and sing kumbaya along to. Plenty of people's behaviour that we would consider acceptable is condemned in the Bible and is ascribed the death penalty, and an act of male homosexual sex is one of those things.
We don't actually follow any of the prescribed punishments in Leviticus for anything anymore. That would have been a more sound argument from my perspective, but I enjoyed his as well.
Dan here makes the point that The Greek word doesn’t refer to homosexuality, but instead the act of homosexual sex- which is true. But then he talks about how people shouldn’t use that to put down or see homosexual sex as wrong? The tone of the video ultimately comes off as if he’s arguing that the Bible sees nothing wrong with gay sex, yet he literally admits it does. It would’ve been good to clarify and conclude with the fact that Paul did condemn gay sex, while not condemning homosexuality. Yet instead the message comes across as somewhat ambiguous.
Agreed. I want to agree with Dan here, but IMO saying a homosexual is different from a male who seeks out active/ passive sex with another male is really making a distinction without meaning. He made a weak case here. And I really don't know why he let this twerp get away with making a clear ad hominem.
I believe what Dan is saying is that: 1: There is no word in the bible for the sexual orientation of "homosexual". 2: The reason that "man lying with man" was frowned upon was due to power exchange, not the actual act of sex. (I think that this would be complicated with bi/pan sexuality) 3: People have/do use this as a justification to condemn the LGBTQ+ community (note: The bible doesn't condemn woman lying with woman) IIRC: I believe that, ideally, Paul recommended men castrate themselves so that they wouldn't have the desire. (I wonder if Paul was asexual???) Anyway, those are just my thoughts, I could be wrong.
@@mkvdean well 1 is true absolutely. Although it depends which Christian you ask for how that applies. Perhaps some Protestants see homosexuality as one monolithic term to represent a person’s identity, but as a Catholic, we tend to use the language of ‘a person who lives a homosexual lifestyle/ has a homosexual orientation’. The point being, to me at least, we are first children of God, and then any other identity we choose to label ourselves. So if point 1 is true, which I think it is, then it isnt really new information to me, tho I see how it maybe useful for other Christian’s. To point 2, I personally don’t find it likely that Paul was against the mere power aspect of it. I think it’s precisely because he did not have a word meaning ‘homosexual’ that he used the active and passive words to get his point across. To suggest that he should condemn not only the perpetrators but also the victims of the ancient pederasty system is kinda wild to me, and I don’t think he would write to imply that (not that I’m a scholar and can even remember the words used, and not to imply you meant that, I’m just pretty sure that Paul did condemn both the passive and active participants, and so if it was merely about pederasty, then that would be victim blaming) Though I suppose you could interpret it any way you want and it would be hard to say that it is definitely correct or incorrect. To point 3, yes I’m sure there are many people who use that to condemn communities, and I find it sad. I think so much of it comes from moralistic fears and paranoia drilled into generations, but I hope that as we live in more enlightened times, More Christian’s (who hold to traditional views of marriage), would become more loving and understanding of what sexuality is, and how lgbtq people should be treated. (I’m also not entirely sure what you’re implying by the bracketed sentence there, the Bible doesn’t condemn lying with a woman, true, but why would it?) As to your last opinion, I believe the Catholic Church’s view (for im not sure how long) has been against the creation of eunuchs and the disfigurement of bodies in any way. Though personally, I always did wonder if Paul might have been gay/asexual.
Thanks for your in-depth explanations of complex biblical concepts. Additionally, thanks for displaying Christ-like humanity when dealing with modern discriminatory topics. Respect to an exceptional scholar🙏🙏.
Yeah I have no idea how he can say that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual acts and then go on to explain more specifically how the Bible condemns being in an active or passive role in male-male sex. Doesn't really matter if they didn't have the same concept of sexual orientation, it's pretty clear what the intention was. If you want to be a pro LGBT christian you pretty much just have to ignore this or say the old testament laws don't matter and those verses in Paul's letters don't matter . I mean, I'm an atheist tho so I think we should ignore the whole bible
@@Will-xf3qethe Bible condemned these acts within the paradigm of its time. The question is whether the underlying reasoning that made such acts wrong applies across context or only within context. Is it a do not murder or a do not eat shellfish kind of thing?
I think that bringing up the questionable translations of the scriptures relating to this subject is excellent, as far as it goes, but there is also the issue that most of these scriptures are based on the cultural laws (Levitical Law) of the day, and Christ not only went against these laws on several occasions (like when He stopped the crowd from stoning the prostitute to death), He declared that these laws had NOTHING to do with God, but were in fact the creation of MEN (In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments OF MEN). As far as the concept that's often brought up of "love the sinner, hate the sin", that is pure hypocrisy. The same false Christians' claim that they are viciously attacking LGBTQ people with scripture because they "love" them falls apart when you consider that they also seek to have the rights of LGBTQ people limited or even taken away entirely. When you try to take away your neighbor's basic Human rights, that is not love....that is seething hatred. And God knows it.
Jesus said I am not hear to change a tittle of the law and all old laws should be followed. It was Paul who tries to have Gentiles convert saying that they wouldn’t have to follow the cultural laws.
@@ryant1064 And you need to go back and actually read what I posted carefully. Christ was not referring to the old cultural laws (which He did in fact declare to His disciples were written by MEN, not God, and went against HIMSELF on a number of occasions). BUT if Christ HAD actually meant these laws, you wouldn't be able to "pick and choose" which of those laws you live by and which you don't. In that case ALL Christians would be required to follow ALL of those laws, including things like not wearing certain fabrics with certain other fabrics, not eating pork or shellfish, or (this one is priceless) not eating or touching any four-legged flying insects...UNLESS the legs are jointed ( look it up, it's there).
Well, During the 16 th century the leaders of the Reformation in England became "concerned about the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura as the practice of the Christian faith. Reason being the unstablity and variation in the texts available for translation of the Scriptures, Their conclusion was that the Catholic church must be correct in that we need the sacred tradition found in the Catholic Church. My notes from Dr Bart Erhanm, PhD.Professor of Religion,UNC Chapel hill,NC.
What has happened to your TikTok account? It was showing early this morning and now it is not. I am subscribed to it and a number of LBGTQ channels there that I follow are also gone
There has never been a Christian who doesn't deserve the Christian version of hell. Homosexuals and others that Christians are bred to hate will enjoy an afterlife that is completely free of Christians.
@avishevin3353 "There has never been a Christian who doesn't deserve the Christian version of hell," Ya? That's kinda the point of the religion that man always falls short? And a want of an after life away from God isn't fun. It's not pitchforks and racks but and empty void. Complete and total separation. Also Christians are not bread to hate. Just because we don't affirm a harmful lifestyle dosenot mean hate.
@@colbyhunter4622 There's nothing harmful about being and living as a homosexual except for the violence done by people like you. You literally claim you aren't bred to hate and then you demonstrate your hate in the very next sentence.
Hey Dan, I was having an interesting conversation in the comments with @integrationalpolytheism about the existence of Q. I am too uninformed to have much of an opinion, although I can quote Carrier. @integrationalpolytheism was somewhat better informed. But you have real relevant credentials! What do you think about the existence of Q?
Could the contributors to "the Law" even comprehend the notion that one man might be sexually attracted to another? I'm quite certain that I was not the only one taken by surprise when the subject was suddenly thrust upon us in headlines of the late 60's. Why should we expect Levitical lawgivers to be any less ignorant than we were?
If the person writing laws in Leviticus was able to write about it, they could imagine it happening. If you couldn't imagine it happening, then they were slightly less ignorant about it than you. I don't understand why that comparison is relevant to anything. The choice isn't to have you or them write Leviticus.
1:54. What this guy is saying here is referring to tops and bottoms. Gay people talk about this all the time on UA-cam. Tops and bottoms is a gay sex slang, so Paul was talking about homosexual relationships.
@@ryant1064read a book about the emperors. Many had sex with men, women, boys and girls and without distinction between them. And some are described as taking on ‘effeminate’ roles in these relationships. In other words they’d play the role of the woman in the relationships.
Thank You!!!! I hate it when people like that boy have no idea what the heck they are talking about and make videos acting all haughty right away any christian who starts speaking that way you can tell that is just what they WANT it to say and the way THEY WANT it to be!!!
One argument that is sometimes offered by Christian advocates of same-sex marriage is that the Apostle Paul was not thinking of loving, monogamous adult relationships, and only intended to condemn Greco/Roman pederasty. I’ve been spending a lot of time reading ancient Greek texts on sexuality recently, and that has gotten me thinking in general about Paul’s historical context and, more specifically, about this argument. First, it’s important to acknowledge that relationships between adult men and adolescent boys or young men were the most commonly attested same-sex relationships in the ancient world. There are exceptions-Plato’s Symposium discusses committed, lifelong same-sex relationships-but this is by far the most common kind of relationship. We should therefore acknowledge that the Apostle Paul was likely most familiar with this kind of same-sex sexual activity. It’s worth observing, however, that precisely because this form of same-sex sexuality was so common, there was standard terminology in Greek for talking about these relationships-the older man was the erastes (lover) and the younger man the eromenos (beloved). If these relationships were Paul’s target, it would have been reasonable for him to use these standard Greek terms. Instead, he used an apparently novel term, arsenokoitai, which either he invented or which he took from Helenistic Judaism. The most logical derivation of this new word is from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22, which says that you shall not lie with (koiten) a man (arsenos) as with a woman. In both Greek and English, verbs can be transformed into nouns. Thus, in English, swimmers are people who swim. In Greek, the koitai are men (-ai is a masculine ending) who koiten-that is, “lie with” in a sexual sense. So the arsenokoitai are men who lie with other men in a sexual sense. There is an additional reason for thinking that arsenokoitai is derived from Leviticus 18:22. In 1 Timothy 1:8-11, the Apostle Paul writes, we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the Law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai], enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. Paul is listing various disobedient groups of people who have been given the Law to tell that their acts are contrary to God’s will. Thus, we would expect the arsenokoitai to correspond to some prohibition in the Law. The obvious candidate prohibition, for reasons given above, is Leviticus 18:22. It’s important not to misunderstand the context of this prohibition. Paul is no harsher in his condemnation of homosexual activity than he is of sexual immorality in general. And just a few verses later, he writes, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life” (1 Timothy 1:15-16). Anyone who uses these verses either to single out homosexual sin for unique condemnation, or who fails to speak with humility of God’s love for all, is misusing the text. However, it’s also important not to misunderstand the prohibition itself. While pederasty was the most common form of same-sex activity recorded in ancient writings, Paul doesn’t use the common language of pederasty. Instead of condemning age or power differences, he coins a new word which focuses particularly on relationships that involve two men. These kinds of considerations, it seems to me, make the claim that Paul was only condemning pederasty-rather than same-sex sexual activity more generally-much more problematic.
I usually agree with you say but you lost me on this one. I've read the Bible enough times to know that homosexuality is for sure condemed in the bible or at the very least, seen as deplorable. Whether someone agrees with the bible or not is irrelevant. I'm just saying, the bible definitely is against men having sexual relations with each other
In some of his comments, I have seen him say he wasn't claiming the Bible _doesn't_ say this, but I agree. It is definitely a very misleading way to put it if that is the case.
The Bible refers to specific secs acts between males that were considered wrong, mostly for undisclosed reasons. You classify them as "homoxesuality". The original writers and their readers did not. You then extend the condemnation to the entire category. That's as ridiculous as taking references to immorality between man and woman and declaring that the bible condemns heteroxesuality.
So I have a question are you saying that it is ok for men and men to be together and for woman and woman to be together I’m not trying to attack people who are gay I have them in my family yes we must Love everyone it is there own free choice but in Gods eyes He made man and woman for each other so in this video you got me really wondering about what you teach yes I understand that you are talking about the verses of the texts that they may have missed translated but I don’t believe that it’s mistranslated but God destroyed sodom and Gomorrah for a reason so the question I put at the beginning are you saying that it’s ok to be gay in Gods eyes ????? Dan ? But after seeing this and watching the video of you saying there is no God of the Bible I had to unsubscribe to your channel I hate to be that way because I do like a lot of your videos but the truth of it all in Gods eyes it’s all an abomination before God for men with men and woman with woman
Not Christain or religious in any way, but it's my understanding as someone who's read the story that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for it's people trying to rape the angels, not because the angels (unfathomably abstract beings beyond gender) are supposed to have been male-presenting when they appeared there. I doubt God would've been any happier for the town to have had that same reaction toward female-presenting angels. The sin here is that people are trying to rape literal divinity.
idk if this helps but found this on the wiki: In the present day, there are a wide variety of views within Christianity on homosexuality and sexual orientation, with some scholars of Christianity contesting the notion that scripture speaks explicitly of homosexuality as a sin against God.[2]: 42 Within a Christian denomination, individual believers and the groups they belong to may hold different views, and not all members of a denomination necessarily support their church's views on homosexuality. Most Christian denominations teach that homosexual behavior and acts are sinful.[2] Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism officially condemn homosexual activity as sin. Various mainline Protestant denominations have taken a supportive stance towards blessing homosexual clergy and same-sex marriage while others have not. History Part of a series on Christianity and gender "Adam and Eve" by Albrecht Dürer (1504) Theology Major positions Other positions Ordination of women in Christianity Church and society Organizations Theologians and authors (by view) Theologians and authors (by branch) vte Main article: History of Christianity and homosexuality The Hebrew Bible and its traditional interpretations in Judaism and Christianity have historically affirmed and endorsed a patriarchal and heteronormative approach towards human sexuality,[3][4] favouring exclusively penetrative vaginal intercourse between men and women within the boundaries of marriage over all other forms of human sexual activity,[3][4] including autoeroticism, masturbation, oral sex, non-penetrative and non-heterosexual sexual intercourse (all of which have been labeled as "sodomy" at various times).[5][6] They have believed and taught that such behaviors are forbidden because they are considered sinful,[3][4] and further compared to or derived from the behavior of the alleged residents of Sodom and Gomorrah.[3][1][7][8][9] However, the status of LGBT people in early Christianity is debated.[10][11][12][13] also what I'm getting is if your the main gay person its a sin
It isn't Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13, or 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 or 1st Timothy 1:10 that condemns homosexuality. Nor is it Genesis chapter 19, the attempted gang rape scene in the City of Sodom. Rather, it's just Romans 1:18-32, particularly verses 26 & 27 where Paul says "God gave them over to dishonourable passions (Gk. πάθη)". The Christian lexica (Strong's and Thayer's) translate πάθη as "strong passions" or "passionate desires". But you go to the Liddel Scott and Jones Greek English Lexicon and you get a return of simply "desire". Of course, the condemnation is just Paul's opinion.
Hahaha!! No... The Bible explicitly states, several times, that homosexuality is sexually immoral, and that sexual immorality was an abomination. The explicit Words of God. To even suggest any explicit instructions given from an Apostle in the Bible is merely their own opinion, I would say is bordering on blasphemy. What bizarre take...
Tank you Dan for your video to keep harm away especially from young homosexuals that are already indoctrinated by false religious ideologies and subjective moralities.
@@NickluvsGod Homosexuality is a natural healthy born sexual orientation with an evolutionary meaning. Your religion is man-made and subjective with a god YHWH that was invented 5000-3500 years ago. Sorry my friend, but reality doesnt care for your religious feelings.
@@NickluvsGod Homos exuality is a natural healthy born se xual orientation with an evolutionary meaning. Your reli gion and moral is man-made , your go d is an invention of 5000-3500 years ago. Sorry but reality doesn't care for your reli gious feelings.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu The word might not be in the bible but the concept is, even if just related to acts and not orientations. I'm not passing any judgments on anyone, I'm just pointing out that the idea is there in Leviticus and Paul, but not in Christ's teachings.
@@johnalexir7634 No, the idea of someone's sexual orientation being same sex appears nowhere in the BIble. Please find me a passage that contradicts this - and to save time, I don't mean a passage about the sex-act.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu That's what I'm saying... you are right that orientations are not in the text, but the acts are. So the concept of homosexuality - even just in terms of men engaged in acts with men - is in there, and is, as we all know, condemned ("abomination"). Not necessarily saying it should be condemned. But I don't think the bible is inerrant either.
@@johnalexir7634 You have redifined Homosexuality to mean sex acts - this is NOT what it means: Homosexualilty - the quality or characteristic of being sexually or romantically attracted to people of one's own sex - would not have been a recognised thing in the Helanistic world. Please try to get your head around this. The Helanistic and Jewish worlds did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated. So gay sex was seen as peverting the SOCIAL ORDER.
Yep. Absolutely correct. And in older more accurate translation of the Bible they did not use the phrase "homosexual abomination" in Romans, they said men shouldn't lie with men because it is "detestable". Detestable and and abomination are very different things yo.
They are the same. And even if you think abomination and detestable were different it’s still all the same in that God does not approve. It’s moot point.
@@shawnboahene5231 Actually detestable and abomination are not the same. Detestable means it's gross I don't like it, and an abomination is an unnatural crime against nature. So.... Obviously not the same. If the Lord meant homosexuals were abominations it would have said that in Scripture, it wouldn't have said detestable.
Your point makes no sense. Its still condemning homosexual relationships. If people want to be homosexual and progressive, why try to change what a book from the 1st century says?
@@tydy5266 Actually it doesn't condemn homosexual relationships. It just says a man should not lie with man as they would a woman it is detestable. And that was from Paul we don't know if that's his personal opinion or actual Revelation to him from God. Since Christ himself never spoke about homosexuality or same-sex anything. ^^
*Leviticus 18:22-23* [RSV] _22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination._ _23 And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion._ This is from God, which is where Paul draws his inspiration from. It condemns sexual relations between two men and also condemns sexual relations between humans and animals. Stop trying to twist the Bible to fit your narrative. Either disbelieve or adhere to it. @@bakachan3601
How do you know they are non-believers? Sounds like you're trying to force them into your paradigm because they don't conform to your dogma. I didn't hear Dan state any doctrine regarding homosexuality one way or the other. He simply said that widely held beliefs amongst Christians are not supported by the Bible, and that a great deal of harm has been done to folks because of those beliefs.
@@anettebauer4236 I think the reply is to what the creator Dan is replying to is expressing ; in the beginning he mentions "progressive Christians and non-believers", not Dan himself.
It's easier to get a Christian to change their beliefs on homosexuality than to change all their beliefs on the bible, so I think it's a pragmatic concern from LGBT activists.
The complexity of this topic is what has caused confusion, controversy and incalculable harm. He needs to "talk much" just to put you on the right track long before he can "counter the actual point".
Please pray for me. I'm struggling. I'm crying everyday. I want become straight but it's so hard. I'm crying even I'm texting. Please pray for me. If anyone can help me please 😓😓😫😫😣
Here is some advice. Being attracted to the same gender is not a sin. It is the act of it. It is hard and difficult. I'm not attracted to men, but I still struggle with sexual immorality. Prayer, and talking to those you trust to help you is very important. God loves you, and He is with you at every stumble to help you. I'll pray for you too.
You seem like you have repentence and a will to get closer ot God. If so God will grant you mercy and you will be saved. Becauase you believe and want. May god Bless you. Kyrie Eleison.
Why do these kids and content creators with nary a sense of the nature of the Bible feel they have the authority to oppress others with their ideas? The ego that their unexamined faith gives them is terrifying.
They make money from it. Their authority (power) comes from the appeal of their youth, appearance, voice, and confident mannerisms and not from credentials. The fast swiping teen stops and listens to someone who looks like their peer group.
I don't know that creator, but I used to be just like him. I was raised to hate gay people, so when I did hateful things I didn't have a big plan, I was just doing what I had always been taught to do. The added motivation to "preach the good news and win souls for Christ" meant I would go out of my way to say stuff like this creator.
We know today that translating languages is not easy, so, if you get two words wrong it changes everything. Take To & Do, you get these wrong and the tone changes greatly, ie, to do...... or do to ....
He makes it seem nobody in the ancient world knew what homosexuality was or what a homosexual relationship looked like. Now after 2000 years he can set the record straight for the multitude of brilliant thinkers that have come before us regarding these scriptures. It's crystal clear what God prescribed for marriage, one man, and one woman for life.
@@thomassandoval8025 There's no such thing as homosexual orientation. Is there murder orientation or pedophile orientation? It is just humans wanting to rebel against God and sin. He is part of the Mormon church so he doesn't know what the truth is period.
The Bible absolutely condemns homosexuality in both the old and new Testaments. The willful ignorance and obvious attempt here at doublespeak and gaslighting is astounding.
Amen, Dan, and well said. Arrogance is a sin. And God is so against it that Proverbs 16:9 states that God detests the abomination that is the arrogant man. One translation states that God hates the arrogant man. His does not hate the gay man. I wonder if those who rail against homosexuality spend as much time railing against people whom God hates?
You consistently use this platform to debunk and educate but I appreciate you also using it to stop harm. You are amazing
I wish I could thumbs-up this observation more than once. I'm no Bible scholar but kind of truth and service certainly seems Christian to me.
In some cases yes but he supports a lot of miss information about the deity of Christ and the trinity.
Dan does a lot of tap dancing here to pretend his holy book isn't bigoted which it is. whether or not the ancients understood "homosexuality" the way we do, it certainly condemns specified actions that are homosexual as we describe the term. Dan's practice of "renegotiating" the bible to say what he likes is dishonest and serves to prop up texts and traditions that should be tossed into the historical trash bin.
Dan, the LGBTQ-LMNOP+ Apologists.
@@scambammer6102 No, he makes quite clear in the latter part of the video that these texts only hold the significance that we assign to them (and he cites Paul's views as examples). If we find that something in the biblical text is obviously harmful or outdated, then we should chuck it in the bin. He's not propping up anything.
I don’t see anyone ranting about blended fibers in garments when they quote Leviticus. Thank-you for your channel and content.
You know Christians don’t have to keep Kosher, right?
@@ChrisSizzlyyou know the 10 commandments are in the OT right?
@@vmonk2 You know that has nothing to do with keeping Kosher, right?
@@ChrisSizzlykosher has nothing to do with this. Jesus said he is not hear to change a tittle of the law.
@@ryant1064 We have a new covenant under Christ. We are no longer bound by the old covenant that has been fulfilled. This is why you fail in the face of this line of argument because you don’t understand that things like circumcision, refusal to consume shell fish or pork, or avoiding wearing mixed fibers is not something we have to do anymore. This is also why you will allow yourself to be fooled by more parlor tricks and sleights of hand into believing that God actually thinks 2 men railing each other in the ass is cool, when He told you specifically that it wasn’t.
Love the way you wrapped up the video at the end! Keep it up please!
Would you be able to give some insights on Matthew 19:11-12? Specifically the reference to the eunuchs?
Please don't tell me you're one of those idiots that tries to equate eunuchs to "trans" people?
Good video Dan and great way to explain context with the meaning.
I’m so interested in that Hoodie: Data>>Dogma.. Where can I purchase it at?
Data>>Dogma is their podcast and it is wonderful. I am an avid fan.
@@davidjensen7168 Thanks was able to get two hoodies and two t shirts. Love it
"...meaning and utility in harming the LGBTQ+ community" .....😮 That hits so close to home in the best way. Thank you for your example in respecting scripture, it's study, and people everywhere
"hArmiNg" Lol. a bunch of fear morngering & exaggeration by sin-defenders solely based on emotion and not reality. By that logic, it's the G.y agenda that's harmful to the Christian community.
and actually, its more harmful than Christianity "is" to homo ppl.
Exactly what I was thinking, JA. Very good video.
No, society does everything to accommodate for LGBTQ etc etc. It's they that harm society. Are they breeding? Are they creating enough offspring to pay for social security for an ageing population?
@@Michael_May LEVICUS 18:22
@@CoopDogVr1and what does it say before that?
Does anybody know what # this video is on his tiktok account?
Ehh, I'm not so sure that "leveraging" these texts against gays is what "one chooses to do"-it just seems self-evident. I grew up in fundamentalism, and there wasn't any sense of choice in this: it was "obvious," and there was a systematic theology as to why. I'm now happily gay and accepting, but accepting how sincere people are, and how agonizing it can be to submit to those verses (as understood), is something I can't escape. My first heartbreak was over a friend who came out as gay to me decades ago, and it shattered me. I could not find a way to reconcile it with what I thought was the "plain reading" of the texts. "Renegotiating" the texts is not an easy or obvious process, particularly when one thinks the eternal fate of souls is at stake.
That's exactly why Dan's point needs to be made. To get these people thinking and let them know that they do, in fact, have a choice.
So do the text convey a message that a man letting another to penetrate him is wrong?
More power to you Dan! It is sad someone so young is filled with so much hate and ignorance.
Oh that kid is genuinely a far-right extremist by every definition. He’s a fascist and borderline an actual Nazi. And he has a following of ultra MAGA fascists who say he’s so smart and believe every word he says
Leviticus says man shall NOT lay with a man,and same applies to woman with a woman. It is ,IS in the Bible. It is you who is ignorant.The only sexual acts sanctified by God is in marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN! That too is in the Bible.And marriage is to be ONLY between a man and a woman. ONLY.That is in the Bible too.All other sexual activity is anti God and sin.Yes this too is in the Bible. So what ever they called man on man sex back in Old and New Testemant time does not matter. The act is mantioned and described and God determined it to be sin,sin is bad, This is not even a light grey area. It is Solid Biblical fact.
In a lot of these cases they are just parroting the examples that have been given them. They might have been homeschooled, or go to an openly homophobic church. If they'll change, it'll be when they have to integrate into wider society, such as when they might go to university or start a job in a different place.
This is also why conservatives do their best to tell young people they'll get indoctrinated in sin at university.
define 'hate' lol. hate is not disagreement.
Bible(K.J.V/N.K.J.V.) calls any sexual activity out side of marriage ,and sexual activity between same sex people a sin. The same Bibles want Christians to pray the sinner with love. It is not the people we hate, it is the sin. As God loves the sinner but hates that same sin. Love as God loves us.And forgives us.@@drillyourarguments
Hi Dan. Thanks for all your work. Can you clarify what a good translation of "arsenokotai" would be? A reference to a man being a passive sexual partner, perhaps?
I mean, he already said it in the video - that it refers to the active male partner.
@@neuroendocrinologist no, it refers to a man lying with another man. Dan is just grasping at straws to rationalize his position on this one. Really.
The word is literally “man-bedder.”
@@Mro637so we should accept that being gay is bad but owning humans as property is moral and just?
@@tysonvslewis12If you're an honest Christian? Yeah pretty much. A lot of them do such amazing acrobatics to justify or handwave away the nonsense in their religion it's truly a sight to behold.
Can you come back to the point he made about Arsenokoitai?
He can’t because the word literally means a man lying with another man.
Paedophilia was not regarded as a sexual orientation either, any more than homosexuality was. So that concept most certainly does _not_ go back to Luther. In Luther's time, a girl was of marrying age when she was 12 (a boy when he was 14). It had nothing to do with sexuality as such, nor anything to do with protecting children.
Though as you yourself point out, the Bible is quite explicit in condemning _acts_ of sexual deviancy. _Given that,_ it is more than fair to say that if they _had_ a concept of homosexual orientation, they would have condemned it. In a sense they did have such a concept: the desire to sin was something they were most familiar with, and the very desire was considered offensive.
Also, contrary to your claim, this is a straightforward issue - not remotely a complex one. The Bible is reproachful of sexual relations as a whole, even sexual relations with one's own spouse rendering one unclean for a certain period if you're an orthodox Jew. This in mind, why would anyone in their right mind think the Bible authors would be ok with _alternative_ lifestyles?
But there is no need for interpretation. We only need to see what the influence of Christianity did to the early Christian world. We know that in Roman culture, homosexual acts were partly frowned upon, had legal consequences if you were a male willingly taking the passive role, and punishable by death in the Roman army. This was only exacerbated after Christianity became state religion, making the passive party a capital offender in the 4th century, and all homosexual acts capital offences in the 6th. No Christian nation viewed homosexuality as ok until France decriminalised it in 1791, but that was simply because the Revolutionary Code did not mention it - the philosophy being, at any rate, that law should be based on reason, not religion. It would take nearly two centuries more for the rest of the West to follow suit.
So yes indeed - the Bible is very much anti homosexuality. The _acceptance_ of homosexuality is extremely modern, and there is no reason to assume the Bible was in any way avant garde in this respect - if it were, it would have mentioned something about homosexuality being, well, kosher. But it doesn't - not directly, and not by interpretation. Has this caused damage to the LGBTQ+ community? Yes, of course, damage it will take generations to repair. But the people using the Bible to attack them _are_ doing so in line with the Bible authors' teachings. Let us not pretend the Bible says something it doesn't simply because it would offend our modern sensibilities. The Bible _is_ offensive. No matter how many times we have given the Bible a new coat of paint, it remains offensive at its core. The _good_ parts in the Bible are the ones that speak very generally ("do unto others", "love thine enemy" etc.), and which do _not_ delve into the topics of sexuality, slavery, gender roles etc. The Bible is only a good book by virtue of what we ignore.
You are casting modern hatred back in time onto a culture that may not have cared at all. You're spouting eisegetic nonsense.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 _Modern_ hatred? It's the _acceptance_ which is modern. Homophobia is well and thoroughly documented throughout history. If you think it's the other way around, _you_ are the one spouting eisegetic nonsense.
Pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation. Wtf are you on about. BE VERY CAREFUL OF PEOPLE WHO MAKE CLAIMS LIKE THIS. Absolutely no modern scientific understanding of pedophilia considers it to be a sexual orientation.
Please stop making asinine claims like these.
@@lysanamcmillan7972😂
Great work, your content is concise and informative as always. In a nut shell, what is the consensus of scholars as to what they think Paul was trying to communicate in this passage. What did he think men should or should not do, or what was sinful? What is the historical/cultural perspective that tends to be missed by modern readers?
In Paul's time, it would have been more like penetrator vs. penetrated. If you are high rank, you cannot be penetrated but you can penetrate. And it doesn't matter whose ass. (Women weren't really people like our modern understanding of what personhood is. Even now, we still have a problem recognizing women as people. That's why we have debates on abortion because nothing says "we see women as people as much as strangers discussing what I can do with my body").
We can see remnants of this in modern sexual ideas such as "man must be on top" in full missionary and penetrating the lesser being - aka the woman. As healthy people figured it out, it's quite nice to reverse this. There's more than just missionary. But there's this idea that women must be penetrated ... sexual politics is ruining the fun. (For example, a lot of men have hang ups on getting anal. But biologically speaking, men would really like it. Let's just say men have a g-spot.)
In addition, they had temple sex workers. It would have had strong religious vibes. Think of it as if you are having sex with a priest and the priest is the living embodiment of god. Or venus. Or a bunch of other horny sex gods. This was a multireligion region and they all had some form of sex god. (We have this even now in some older cultural regions - non - western of course.)
Paul might have been sexually abused by an older roman male. It was a thing in the roman culture where richer older roman males had younger male lovers. It was just a thing. We can see this in certain tribes where young boys have a form of sexual interaction with older male warriors. they don't consider it a homosexual act. I doubt they even consider it sex. So even if a boy is giving a blowjob, that culture doesn't see it as sex. And that's a big thing. Cultures define the norms in a sense. That's why we still don't call religious people mentally ill for believing in supernatural nonsense even though they are mentally ill..The excuse is that everybody is mostly doing the same thing so it's not crazy.
Add in slavery and no comprehension of personhood or basic human rights and we have loads of rape as well. Men and women being raped.
People in western cultures just accept very victorian england sexual mores. We have a certain racialized look at the world as well. We definitely have a different conception of human worth and personhood than the past. For conservatives to go on and on about this very ancient text as some literal word of god makes no sense. Our worlds have changed and even if I spoke with William Shakespeare in English (with the thees and the thous), we wouldn't understand each other that well. Our baseline understanding of the meaning of words is different. For example, Yeats uses the word "gay" in his poetry and he is not saying "homosexual". He is using it in the meaning of "happy, merry, blithe". That's just a hundred years ago. This Biblical text is hundreds of years ago and there has been interpretation and translations and interpretations of translations galore.
Oh.. and if you really are curious.. read up on Shakespeare and you will never consider that age appropriate for children again. He's making sex jokes all the time. It just flies above modern audiences because we don't get it.
Thou wilt fall backward when thou hast more wit - it's in Romeo and Juliet. A play that many a high school teen has been forced to read. Yep.. it's a sex reference. What will Juliet be doing when she gets older?? On her back? What is this thing again? It's just a dirty joke. I find it wise to read Shakespeare as just a lot of dirty jokes.
I'd really like to hear Dan's answer on this question as well. He seems to be one a very small handful of people who is willing to be honest about such questions.
Paul was condemning men who lie with other men (both in the passive and active role) and he was saying that was sinful. That's the consensus of scholarship too and Dan McClellan doesn't contradict it. He just says we should renegotiate (or ignore it) so as not to hurt LGBT people and argues people ignore other parts of scripture.
The consensus is that Paul meant men having sex with men. Everyone who says that isn't true is pushing an agenda, not an accurate interpretation. The actual argument is: "is the Bible authoritative?"
Everything else is activism.
A more academically honest take than what this video offers would be: The Bible condemns same-sex sex BUT you don't have to follow the Bible.
Unfortunately queer theory is fashun and we're post-academy now anyway.
He was quoting Leviticus in the Septuagint, where it says "males shall not lie with males, as with a female"
So, he's saying...don't have gay sex
Greetings from the Czech Republic and thank you for the study and accurate interpretation of the scriptures 👍
Well said, Sir.
Thank you so much for going over this again and again. I don’t know how many times during high school I was told to off myself because I couldn’t hide it. My family was cruel. My classmates were horrible but thank God for a few teachers who cared and gave me possible attention.
You are a blessing!
God bless you.
Really sorry that you had to go through that. You're loved!
I have learned more from you than any sunday schools growing up or any of the hate spewing from a lot of the christian community, the love thy neighbor unless they aren't exactly like us... you are a light in the storm man, keep it up
define 'hate'. you guys clearly hate (in the obective, factual sense) to follow GOD'S Commands. homoism seeks to go against the FACT we are made in GOD'S Image. we're supposed to be REPRESENTATIVE of our Creator, not rebellious!!
" love thy neighbor unless they aren't exactly like us" this sounds like the homoism-defenders when you disagree with their worldview!! Thankfully, we Bible-based Christians can LEGITIMATELY love withOUT needing to agree with & support unGodliness.
What does the bible say about those who lead people astray?
Thanks Dan; you're the best.
"These texts only have meaning and authority to the extent that we agree..." Excellent point. Reminds me of Matthew 18:19.
@Contend4TruthThere is no language anywhere that has objective meaning
@Contend4Truth Wrong. All literary texts are inherently subjective. This is not based solely on the literary theory of postmodernism; most other forms of criticism, including liberal humanism, understand the subjectivity involved in understanding a text.
Look at levicus 18:22
@@CoopDogVr1I'm more of an Ezekiel 25:17 man myself lol
I love that you are so calm and collected and just seeking ACTUAL documented truth. This isn’t some attention grabbing BS, you’re giving your truths and it’s refreshing. Much love 🫶
Except what he's saying here isn't true... So there's that. It's a shame too, because he's usually pretty good with context and whatnot, until it comes to an activist topic he has strong personal feelings about, then all truth and context goes out the window, and he gives us a moral scolding rather than a biblical lesson...
@@markwildt5728In what way is it not true?
@@markwildt5728Or....could it be that your personal feelings, on this particular topic, are such that you are rejecting Dr.Dan's historically contextual analysis of the Biblical text?
Thanks bro ❤
Praise Jesus.
No criticism, just curiosity. Why are the words containing sexuality censored in the captions?
UA-cam monetisation I presume
Cant say sex on tiktok and thats his biggest platform
(Third Attempt)
Are you willing to debate Robert Gagnon? You will be paid to participate.
I would love to see that. This presenter practically says that the bible is too hard to understand, so why talk about it then?
I am actually noticing this. Why is Dan dodging Robert Gagnon?
I just discovered Dan a week ago and I have no idea yet on who Robert Gagnon is.
But when it comes to facts, I like Ben Shapiro. hehehe
@@cyberpunk_Amen Everyone avoids Gagnon. He will smoke anyone who wants to debate the topic.
@@mormonsuicide ok thanks for the info comrade.
The bible is not just used to rebuke LGBTQI+ it is used at whim to rebuke anyone that does not adhere to that particular Christians views on behaviour. There is so much of human behaviour not mentioned at all in the Bible but assumed and used to threaten a person with eternal damnation.
Like what?
@@nunyuhbusiness9016 Masturbation is a pretty easy one. Being trans is also another one. Wearing slightly shorter or more revealing clothing. Dancing. Playing Dungeons & Dragons. Getting tattoos. Basically anything that a Fundamentalist Christian from a traditional and/or generally conservative upbringing might find slightly strange or make them uncomfortable.
Waiting for the subject on « Black and the Priesthood » please
Lovely. Thank you.
Since Paul appears to have used the two words that meant 'man' and 'lying' and the tense of the word refers to a passive male and an active male, it very well could have been a reference to pederasty wherein an older man would take a younger (passive) man under his wing and teach him the ways of Greco-Roman society, including sexual practices. As I recall, many of these younger males were prisoners of war who were being initiated into the new society in which they found themselves and would later on be released as citizens once they'd learn about the political structure and sexual morals of their new homeland. IOW, pederasty.
I've also read that 'arsenokoitai' can be translated as 'man-bed', which might carry with it the idea of a lazy man who spends too much time just lounging around and not being productive.
With the active and passive voices in the word 'arsenokaitai', he might have also been referring to male rape, since the active person appears to be pushing his sexual desires on a passive person, perhaps against the passive person's will.
Either way, what Paul was talking about was a cultural norm for his part of the world and as you know, norms are different in different parts of the world, so to impose Paul's moral norms on the rest of us is simply wrong.
Wow very insightful. Thank you!
Nice cope, but in Romans 1:27 the Greek could not be anymore clear “males with males”.
@@user-ue5pf7sj6kDoes God approve of lesbians then?
I would translate the two Greek words at issue as "bottoms" and "tops." But that is not really the point. The point is that Paul had no concept of 21st century science, in this case the psychology of human sexuality.
@@fredphilippi8388 Agreed, and not just the psychology but also the physiology of sexual preferences. Paul wouldn't have understood that both 'nature' and 'nurture' play into a person's sexual preferences.
Also, Paul using the active and passive voices might reflect his idea that in a heterosexual encounter, the man is 'active' while the woman is 'passive' and is just 'on the receiving end' of things. If that's the case then he's saying that it's sinful for a man in a sexual encounter to take on the role of a 'passive' woman, especially when it comes to penetration. It would reflect his cultural ideas, perhaps, that a woman just 'submits' to her husband both at church and in bed, so for a man to take on the submissive/passive role of a woman seems unnatural to Paul.
So I am asking this as someone who is truly trying to understand. I'm a Christian and this is one of those topics that I struggle understanding because I don't think someone should be condemned for consensually loving someone of the same sex. I also firmly believe God condemns people who love that same sex. That's not biblical. My struggle comes with whether or not it is a sin. My inquiry is that I feel further explanation to what you are saying. So homosexuality was never used in the bible because the concept of the word did not exist. So I understand that, but if the translated words means an active and passive role in same sex intercourse isn't that the same as homosexuality and now we just have a word for it? How is it any different? I hope my question makes sense and someone is able to provide some clarity. Thanks!
Don’t condemn people yourself, just let God do his thing. Don’t be afraid to express your concern if you think someone is doing something wrong. They might not understand but that doesn’t mean you hate them, no matter how much they might say you do. Pray for them and ask God to forgive them on their behalf. You know what God has said on this matter. Don’t listen to what the world says about the issue, listen to God and He will show you the truth. Please do not be fooled, the Greek isn’t always going to translate perfectly into English but the meaning is generally the same even if the social concepts of antiquity are different from today. There are some weird translations out there, but the majority of English translations are incredibly accurate to the Koine Greek source. The King James and New American Standard Versions are my personal recommendations.
@@ChrisSizzly Unfortunately, I think the fact that different people get different meanings from the same text regardless of how "literally" they think they claim to be taking it, is proof enough that if the Bible is the divine word of God, it isn't very easy to tell how to interpret it.
Are women supposed to sit at the back of church during a service? Do people get into heaven through faith alone or are works important too? Should we be eating kosher or is that something that only that not required anymore? Is Jesus human or divine? Does God have three parts or is He one being?
The answers might seem obvious to you, but they aren't stated explicitly in the Bible, or they might have other verses that could be used to argue the opposite.
When you read the Bible, there is always interpretation involved, and in many cases it is not always immediately clear what the "correct" interpretation is. There are some questions that have been debated in the Church since the first century, and it feels a little hand-wavy to just claim that you can understand it all if you read it "properly" and anyone else doesn't understand it.
I also find it a little telling that KJV is the version you claim as "incredibly accurate" considering how many revisions and rewordings were made historically by King James in that version to avoid anti-monarchical sentiment.
@@bagodrago This is a good thing to avoid, throwing doubt on scripture. You might have a hard time understanding these questions you pose, but they really are addressed in the Bible explicitly. Anyone who has spent any time with at least the New Testament can tell answer your rhetorical questions easily. Studying the Bible takes time and effort on the part of the reader. By all means, feel free to learn Greek, but you’re just going to be reading the same things you read in English. Yes, KJV is the first and best English translation of the Bible.
@@ChrisSizzly The KJV was by no means the first English Bible, the Geneva Bible was widely used long before the KJV was made. Also, there's a reason why more translations of the Bible come out and _say different things_ because they are more faithfully translating the text and including more notes explaining nuance in transcript differences. You might want to look more into the history of the translation before declaring it is the most accurate. Just because you grew up learning from the KJV, doesn't mean it's the best one. Ask _a single_ Christian Biblical scholar what translation to use and I guarantee not a single one will say KJV.
My point about the interpretations and analysis is this: there are plenty of denominations of Christians who read _the same Bible_ you do that disagree on fundamental theology. All of them believe they are right and that it's "explicitly" written there, and everyone else is just reading the text wrong. What makes you assume you are any different? Be open to reproach from other Christians, I promise it will only do you good.
@@bagodrago We get it, you hate the best English translation, it’s whatever. Let me ask you this, do you think homosexuality is a sin or are you of the opinion that no one can really know because the original text is too far beyond our understanding to faithfully translate beyond Κοινή Greek? Did you know that anybody can understand the Bible in any language?
Wow that was a profound message at the end
Hate and ignorance is a short wick on the stub of a candle, it is only a short time until they are completely in the dark. We need to light the candle of understanding and equality - all of us together!
Your final sentence was wonderful. Great job.
The presenter referenced in this video is a terrible Christian. He is doing the opposite of much of the doctrine. He isnt witnessing to help people. He is witnessing to harm people and self aggrandize. Christians are supposed to be quiet in worship and prayer. Those who call attention to themselvesmare supposed to be punished by god for their self aggrandizment. As well as trying to cause harm to others. He should be ashamed.
Thanks for your amazing and grounded explanation! That's the difference between a young lad who seeks views (and made acceptance in a conservative group) and a doctor in theology and religion who the commitment is with te text and the nowadays issues.
Gee Dan I could listen to you all day. Can I slip you into my back pocket and draw you out to speak to a few guys in church on Sunday after the morning service?
I am unable to appreciate or comprehend first century Greek or other ancient languages. I am please to hear your discussion of how sexual practices of the past do not represent current ideas of the present. Reminds me of Rorty’s discussion of how Greek philosophers problems are different from our current understanding of seemingly related topics.
I appreciate good work. Thank you.
the bible condemns what we call homosexual practices, notwithstanding dan's attempt to say otherwise
@@scambammer6102 And you have a degree in biblical studies from where, exactly?
does he need a degree?? degrees are manmade. @@tchristianphoto
Watch the Other Paul. He understands Koine Greek and has deboonked this homophilic nonsense.
@@tchristianphoto God: If someone practices homossexuality you must kill them.
Every Christian in history: "Okay so it is definitely evil and can be punished with death. Thanks."
You: "Okay but whay about muh scholars?"
The Old Testament states that God wants the Israelites to be a priestly nation. The definition of a priestly nation is to obey God’s commandments. From what I have read God does not approve of homosexuality. I’m not trying to hurt anyone or any group. From my understanding it’s a worldly behavior that’s just not allowed within the priest community. That’s the way I understand Gods word.
Where have you read that? Also, you break dozens of commandments every day. Including eating shellfish and wearing clothes with mixed fabrics.
@@ryant1064bold of you to assume this person eats shellfish everyday.
@@ryant1064afaik those rules don't apply to Christians because a new covenant was made when Jesus came then was killed by the jews.
I find it interesting that Christians seem to base their entire religion on sexuality and their disapproval of sexuality.
@@tyrlant2189 That's a concerningly anti-Semitic way to put it, but yes, most Christians claim this is because "purity laws" are no longer required since the new Covenant doesn't require them. And while Jesus _did_ say certain laws were no longer required (such as divorce being allowed), he certainly didn't say anything about some of them like circumcision (hence why it was such a massive debate in the first century Church) or homosexuality.
That is one powerful exhortation. Respect
What are your thoughts on Romans 1:26-27? And do you believe the Bible condemns H********* acts but not the orientation?
"Malakoi" does not necessarily mean a male who take the passive role in sex. The word just means "soft." It can apply to a lot of things. There are some ancient writings that say that men who only have sex with women are much more soft than those who sleep with other men or boys. The word can refer to those without the courage, fortitude, or discipline to resist temptations or endure hardships.
Is he reading the text in Hebrew? Greek? I would really like to have the text that he’s reading in the said language
"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
- 2 Timothy 4:3
You've summed up this channel and it's comment section pretty well.
Ironically, this specific passage is from a book widely accepted by scholars to be a forgery and not actually written by the apostle Paul...
yeah "pick and choose whats fake and whats not to suit your agenda" LOL
sinners will go Above and Beyond to justify their unrighteousness. We HAVE to differentiate between Mosaic Law and Moral Law..... and sxual purity is MORAL LAW. NOT being an Alphabetist (lgtb+) is moral law, no matter how much sinlovers say otherwise.
@@bagodrago
@@drillyourarguments then you can keep ignoring reality all you want, we'll just call you a bigot 🙂 have a good day
@@bagodrago
I can call you a 'biggit'. The ad hominem attacks are usable by anyone. Do you even know what the word means??
ironically, its YOU who deny.
"yeah "pick and choose whats fake and whats not to suit your agenda" LOL
sinners will go Above and Beyond to justify their unrighteousness. We HAVE to differentiate between Mosaic Law and Moral Law..... and sxual purity is MORAL LAW. NOT being an Alphabetist (lgtb+) is moral law, no matter how much sinlovers say otherwise."
Do you have an agenda? yes. "i do wat i wana do and i don wana accept the Creator cuz me lov me worldly temporary deezyres 2 much!!1"
Admit it, Christianity FEELS like a burden in your opinion. but thats because you havent had JESUS in your life. look at JiDion the youtuber who left his desires for Jesus on yt. he is now FREE FROM earthly pleasures. he serve his CREATOR instead.
Thank you ❤
What about Roman’s-1:26-27
It pretty much says that male idolaters did "unseemly" things with each other, and that their females did something you wouldn't expect them to do. Rom 1 fails to describe homoxesuality. I've known a few gay people and not one of them did a single word from Rom 1.
Another slam dunk. Keep feeding him the ball.
It's not a slam dunk when you miss. And missed big on this one.
I applaud your efforts, Dr. Dan. As a former Christian, I now see clearly the harm these beliefs create through divisiveness. I'm looking forward to the day when these ancient mythical gods become powerless, and humanity comes closer to unification.
dan is propping up those ancient gods
@@scambammer6102 They will pass, as with all things imaginary.
You just no justification for your morality lol. Who gets to say what is or isn’t harmful if there is no objective truth? Such a self defeating claim that the Bible’s teaching are harmful, if you have no basis for your own so called morality!
@@s.a.6082Nothing in this world is absolute, but that doesn’t mean we can’t try our best with what we have. “Because God said so” or “Because the Bible says so” are both appeals to authority, which essentially means your “basis for morality” can be dismissed as fallacious reasoning.
Dude you are the best. I've been waiting for someone like you to come along for a long time. Thanks so much for trying to educate the hopelessly delusional. (not that they'll ever get it unfortunately)
Can I ask, which 1946 conclusions do you disagree with?
The Good News Bible i was given at 11 by my school definitely says homosexuals. Kind of fucked up.
That's because it's most definitely referring to homosexuals. Dan is just simply wrong here, and is playing word games because he's an lgbt activist.
@@markwildt5728exactly "its a mistranslation they didnt have a concept of homosexuality".. but they knew the word? 😂 How do you know they didnt have the concept? Where you alive back then?😂
All of this is completely guesswork 😂
@@markwildt5728Do you have a PhD in Theology and Religion?
Thank you, Dan, for your biblical exegesis (drawing the meaning out of) rather than eisegesis (reading the meaning into).
In my opinion, we are dealing with another science vs. bible moment. In the 17th century, it was Galileo's science of astronomy vs. the bible. Today, it's the widely-held science of psychology vs. the bible. Jews and Christians sooner or later adjust their understanding of the bible in accordance with science.
God I love this channel so much ❤
A previous rebuttal:
ua-cam.com/video/hc-M3HUyLUY/v-deo.html
This little kid is not even reputable anyway because he keeps saying “they say…. Not scholarly language.
If that's your argument, you're gonna have to come harder... Because this "Little Kid" is actually correct. It doesn't matter how he delivers the information, as long as the information is correct. Don't judge the message by the messenger, and beware of sharp, slick, silver tongued serpents.
Its odd how many Christians focus only on Homosexuality and ignore all other laws of Torah Judaism..
They claim "Jesus died on cross for them to pay for all sins and replaced Mosaic laws given on Sinai".
Yet they seem maintain focus sexual behaviors and ignore Shabbat Kosher adultery laws etc.
תודה רבה שלום
Because it's much easier to hate gay people than avoid wearing mixed fabrics.
Homosexuality is a sin
It's weird yet you acknowledge these laws yet defends a sin
@@user-jw1xo3mm6j No...I am making a point.
I do not "defend " anything against Torah laws.
תודה רבה שלום
I assume that you're Jewish, and through the "ignoring Shabbat, Kosher etc" I also assume you're a bit ignorant of the Christian Faith.
We wholeheartedly believe that Jesus (Yehsua) is the Jewish Messiah, God made flesh, revealed to us through the Eye witness accounts of the Gospels (and some historical documents).
The reason we do not follow the laws of Shabbat are based in Acts of the Epistles and on some of the teachings of Yeshua. The Apostles of Yeshua declared in a meeting that Gentiles were not bound to the Laws of Moses in the same manner as Jews were, exempting the Gentiles from observing the Shabbat, Kosher, etc. The Shabbat, after all, was made for mankind, not mankind for the Shabbat.
What was established in this meeting was as follows: Gentiles are not permitted to eat blood, flesh of animals that are not emptied of blood, food that is offered to false gods, or break the laws of Sexual immorality. So, if you meet a Christian that does not follow the laws presented on sexual immorality in the Torah, they are are doing wrong.
However, that is as far as it goes. Yeshua claimed that it is not the food that we eat that makes us impure, it is that which passes out from our lips that does. (Many have interpreted this as a means to say that we are not required to keep Kosher.)
To our understanding, the Torah was made so that we could distinguish between what is morally righteous and what is immoral, however, we as humans simply cannot follow these laws on our own, and at some point during our lives we break them, wether that be stealing, lusting, etc. Yeshua, being the Word of God was in fact also the very Law itself, and so by giving ourselves to Him, by following him, he makes in us a new heart that permits us to follow those laws, and not unlike the sacrificial animals of the times of the Temple, Yeshua is the sacrificial lamb upon which all our sins are forgiven.
Do we follow those laws? No, most certainly not. And this is painfully evident in every human being you meet. We are all limited by our desires, however the point is that through Yeshua, we are saved from Sin, and free from the consequences that are rightfully meant to be on our heads. (This should not be interpreted as "we can sin however much we want". Hebrews 10:26-27 (NIV)
"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.")
If we fall and sin unwillfully, like falling for the desire to eat more sugar when we shouldn't, we are forgiven by simply turning back to Yeshua and asking it. But if we receive salvation, and then continue to sin regardless, thinking we have a "free pass", we reject salvation.
How can we not follow the Torah? Because God himself commanded different, is really the simplest way to put it.
Seeing as I'm also subscribed to the younger guy's channel (can't remember his name offhand) I was really confused as to why he was doing such a poor job debunking you until I realized this is your channel and not his! 😂
Is it fair to call a sexual orientation a “sexual ethic?” Doesn’t that imply some sexual orientations are ethical, and others are not? It seems to fall into the idea that being other than straight is an “unhealthy lifestyle.”
If you're referring to "Paul's own sexual ethic" at 4:40 if I recall correctly Paul describes his instructions of celibacy preferred and then married sex only as much as needed to suppress the sexual urges as an ethical instruction to others, which would be why it's not referred to as Paul's sexual orientation, but his sexual ethic.
While nowadays it would be easy to conceptualize him as some variety of asexual, that was not how he conceptualized himself, and he seems to have considered it in ethical terms.
If there were other times in the video when the term 'sexual ethic' was used I didn't notice them, and thus have no comment on those uses :-)
The use of the word "ethic" here is just to describe a certain set of values in relation to other, different sets of values. The use of the word ethic is not a moral condemnation of any set of ethics necessarily. It is only being used to explain that there are many different kinds of sexual ethics out there (for example, complimentarian vs egalitarian understandings of marriage; those would be two different sexual ethics. that doesn't mean both are ethical in a moral sense)
By today's standard, it (probably) isn't. See the post directly above this one/. It explains it perfectly. -However, I think Dan is using the term much differently than we use it today.-
Sexual ethic is about morality, like a priest abstaining from sex because of his beliefs which is a choice. Sexual orientation is biology, we don't choose to be straight or gay.
The young guy gives me "me thinks the lady doth protest too much" vibes
He's cute but. Hope he can get out.
Well he's basically 13. And, like so many obnoxious 13 year Olds, he heard something from a random dude, in this case some hick pastor in the backwoods of marry-your-sister-ville, then proceeds to lecture the world on as if he'd the smartest person ever. It'd almost be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Awe the old projection argument that liberals always use. It never fails. You also view homosexuality as shameful and use this argument to call other people gay, but want to avoid being labeled as a bigot. You're so easy to see through.
False dichotomy. Understanding certain verses as anti-gay is not necessarily an anti-gay position. If I understand the text to be anti-gay, it just that - my understanding, right or wrong.
I think it would help gays if they rejected the Bible, but I try to get to the author’s intended meaning and not insert my pro-rainbow politics into my interpretation.
That ad hominem/false dichotomy approach could go both ways. Someone could falsely claim that the only reason someone interprets the passages as gay-neutral is to make the text acceptable to people of modern morality
I explicitly acknowledge that the Bible condemns same-sex intercourse, I'm just challenging the blithe and hypocritical transfer of that generic position to today in light of the rejection of so much of the biblical authors' other ethical frameworks.
@@maklelan What do you think of Leviticus 20:13 “as he lies with a woman”.
Does that refer only to men who “lie” with both women and men?
@@scienceexplains302 I've got several videos addressing this. I think the best case is that made by Saul Olyan back in the 90s, that it refers to men who take the active or insertive role in an act of male same-sex intercourse.
@@maklelan But not only to him, correct? “Both shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
@@maklelan the Bible is very clear on it. It’s an abomination for man to lie with another man. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that it’s about a man who takes the active role. And if even if it was, someone has to take that role, so it would be wrong either way. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Something I find interesting is they never bring up who Jesus said marriage was for and what marriage was does anybody remember that hmm?
I assume you are referring to Matthew 19, in which case, this was specifically given as a response to whether divorce between a man and a woman is okay. Marriage between a man and another man wouldn't have even been on anyone's radar back then. Jesus may have simply quoted Genesis because the cultural understanding of marriage was between a man and a woman (but we can't know, because we can't ask him.) If Jesus had a particularly strong view on same-sex marriage, wouldn't he have said something about it? Jesus _did_ however talk about divorce, which the Church curiously seems much less interested in condemning these days...
He said in the context of divorce that men marry women and should be treated as permanent. Obviously same applies to same-secs marriage. He didn't say "a man must only marry a woman or else it's a sin", did he?
The phrase people seem to overlook so often is, "from the beginning it has not been this way." (Matthew 19:8) That applies just as much to modern feelings on both divorce and homosexual marriage. If we don't go back to what was given in the beginning, then we are following the hardness of our hearts and not the will of God.
@@quikbeam03 Jesus was not talking about same-secs marriage, only about divorce. Both what Jesus said and the justification for marriage in Gen 2 apply equally to same-secs marriage without contradiction to the text.
@@MusicalRaichuHow does "He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh '" justify same sex marriage?
Love it
I'm nobody, but I have a hard time believing that "male" and "lying" used together in a word is not referring to males who have sex with other males.
Any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion.
@@ciggystardust I think your premise is invalid. Why would it apply differently today than 2000 years ago?
Where does the bible specify a statue of limitations ?
That’s why we have PhD researchers to study these things. As Dan said, it’s up to you to decide to interpret these things based on the whole text, historical values and context, decades of research, etc. versus just looking at one word
@@gorgzilla1712 Are you suggesting that in order to understand the bible you need the support of researches with Phds that need to interpret it for you?
Leviticus 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Exodus 21:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
God created man and woman: *intersex people existing*
So what does the original texts actually say? Does the Bible condemn sexual acts committed by people of the same sex?
@@OldGamerPapi condemns specific roles in the acts of same-sex activity.
I literally got two people who said “gay is a sin, I read the Bible” like the Bible was written by a human not god
And yet the Torah clearly states (in Leviticus 20, as you know) that a man who lies with another man as with a woman should be stoned to death. And this is clearly what Paul is referring to when he uses the word arsenokoitai because it means men lying together, right?
So even with all of this stuff about "they understood sexuality differently" being true, the bible still says that men engaging in sexual acts with other men deserve a painful death.
Why did you not mention that in this video?
I agree with your rhetorical goals, obviously, but let's not pretend the bible contains a happy clappy all inclusive philosophy that we can all join hands and sing kumbaya along to. Plenty of people's behaviour that we would consider acceptable is condemned in the Bible and is ascribed the death penalty, and an act of male homosexual sex is one of those things.
Yep, he lost me on this one. Too much dogma, too little reading.
We don't actually follow any of the prescribed punishments in Leviticus for anything anymore. That would have been a more sound argument from my perspective, but I enjoyed his as well.
@@VulcanLogic if "we" don't follow those punishments anymore, then clearly god changed his mind?
@@VulcanLogic we don’t fully those punishments however we know those acts were punishable so if those acts were punishable they aren’t permissible
It's talks about it in the new testament. Dan is a false leader or whatever he is. That's why it's good to read the bible for yourself.
Dan here makes the point that The Greek word doesn’t refer to homosexuality, but instead the act of homosexual sex- which is true.
But then he talks about how people shouldn’t use that to put down or see homosexual sex as wrong?
The tone of the video ultimately comes off as if he’s arguing that the Bible sees nothing wrong with gay sex, yet he literally admits it does.
It would’ve been good to clarify and conclude with the fact that Paul did condemn gay sex, while not condemning homosexuality. Yet instead the message comes across as somewhat ambiguous.
Woke Liberal Scholars. What a joke. If God wanted homosexuality men could procreate with men
Agreed. I want to agree with Dan here, but IMO saying a homosexual is different from a male who seeks out active/ passive sex with another male is really making a distinction without meaning. He made a weak case here. And I really don't know why he let this twerp get away with making a clear ad hominem.
Agreed 💯 percent
I believe what Dan is saying is that:
1: There is no word in the bible for the sexual orientation of "homosexual".
2: The reason that "man lying with man" was frowned upon was due to power exchange, not the actual act of sex. (I think that this would be complicated with bi/pan sexuality)
3: People have/do use this as a justification to condemn the LGBTQ+ community
(note: The bible doesn't condemn woman lying with woman)
IIRC: I believe that, ideally, Paul recommended men castrate themselves so that they wouldn't have the desire. (I wonder if Paul was asexual???)
Anyway, those are just my thoughts, I could be wrong.
@@mkvdean well 1 is true absolutely.
Although it depends which Christian you ask for how that applies.
Perhaps some Protestants see homosexuality as one monolithic term to represent a person’s identity, but as a Catholic, we tend to use the language of ‘a person who lives a homosexual lifestyle/ has a homosexual orientation’.
The point being, to me at least, we are first children of God, and then any other identity we choose to label ourselves.
So if point 1 is true, which I think it is, then it isnt really new information to me, tho I see how it maybe useful for other Christian’s.
To point 2, I personally don’t find it likely that Paul was against the mere power aspect of it.
I think it’s precisely because he did not have a word meaning ‘homosexual’ that he used the active and passive words to get his point across. To suggest that he should condemn not only the perpetrators but also the victims of the ancient pederasty system is kinda wild to me, and I don’t think he would write to imply that (not that I’m a scholar and can even remember the words used, and not to imply you meant that, I’m just pretty sure that Paul did condemn both the passive and active participants, and so if it was merely about pederasty, then that would be victim blaming)
Though I suppose you could interpret it any way you want and it would be hard to say that it is definitely correct or incorrect.
To point 3, yes I’m sure there are many people who use that to condemn communities, and I find it sad. I think so much of it comes from moralistic fears and paranoia drilled into generations, but I hope that as we live in more enlightened times, More Christian’s (who hold to traditional views of marriage), would become more loving and understanding of what sexuality is, and how lgbtq people should be treated.
(I’m also not entirely sure what you’re implying by the bracketed sentence there, the Bible doesn’t condemn lying with a woman, true, but why would it?)
As to your last opinion, I believe the Catholic Church’s view (for im not sure how long) has been against the creation of eunuchs and the disfigurement of bodies in any way.
Though personally, I always did wonder if Paul might have been gay/asexual.
Peter 2:18
Leviticus 25:44-46
Colossians 3:22
Deuteronomy 20:11
This are verse I have been told that support slavery in the Bible.
Thanks for your in-depth explanations of complex biblical concepts. Additionally, thanks for displaying Christ-like humanity when dealing with modern discriminatory topics. Respect to an exceptional scholar🙏🙏.
Sure, "arsenokoites" shouldn't be translated directly as "homosexuality," but it's very disingenuous to pretend that they're totally unrelated.
The ways in which they relate are detailed here.
Yeah I have no idea how he can say that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual acts and then go on to explain more specifically how the Bible condemns being in an active or passive role in male-male sex. Doesn't really matter if they didn't have the same concept of sexual orientation, it's pretty clear what the intention was. If you want to be a pro LGBT christian you pretty much just have to ignore this or say the old testament laws don't matter and those verses in Paul's letters don't matter . I mean, I'm an atheist tho so I think we should ignore the whole bible
@@Will-xf3qeis it really that “clear” though? How are you defining “sex”? Does this also include oral or dry humping?
@@Will-xf3qethe Bible condemned these acts within the paradigm of its time. The question is whether the underlying reasoning that made such acts wrong applies across context or only within context. Is it a do not murder or a do not eat shellfish kind of thing?
I think that bringing up the questionable translations of the scriptures relating to this subject is excellent, as far as it goes, but there is also the issue that most of these scriptures are based on the cultural laws (Levitical Law) of the day, and Christ not only went against these laws on several occasions (like when He stopped the crowd from stoning the prostitute to death), He declared that these laws had NOTHING to do with God, but were in fact the creation of MEN (In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments OF MEN). As far as the concept that's often brought up of "love the sinner, hate the sin", that is pure hypocrisy. The same false Christians' claim that they are viciously attacking LGBTQ people with scripture because they "love" them falls apart when you consider that they also seek to have the rights of LGBTQ people limited or even taken away entirely. When you try to take away your neighbor's basic Human rights, that is not love....that is seething hatred. And God knows it.
Jesus said I am not hear to change a tittle of the law and all old laws should be followed. It was Paul who tries to have Gentiles convert saying that they wouldn’t have to follow the cultural laws.
@@ryant1064 And you need to go back and actually read what I posted carefully. Christ was not referring to the old cultural laws (which He did in fact declare to His disciples were written by MEN, not God, and went against HIMSELF on a number of occasions). BUT if Christ HAD actually meant these laws, you wouldn't be able to "pick and choose" which of those laws you live by and which you don't. In that case ALL Christians would be required to follow ALL of those laws, including things like not wearing certain fabrics with certain other fabrics, not eating pork or shellfish, or (this one is priceless) not eating or touching any four-legged flying insects...UNLESS the legs are jointed ( look it up, it's there).
Well, During the 16 th century the leaders of the Reformation in England became "concerned about the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura as the practice of the Christian faith. Reason being the unstablity and variation in the texts available for translation of the Scriptures, Their conclusion was that the Catholic church must be correct in that we need the sacred tradition found in the Catholic Church. My notes from Dr Bart Erhanm, PhD.Professor of Religion,UNC Chapel hill,NC.
What has happened to your TikTok account? It was showing early this morning and now it is not. I am subscribed to it and a number of LBGTQ channels there that I follow are also gone
It's a sign!
An expertly crafted and exacting takedown of antiqueer interpretation. Thanks for all you do!
Well your just helping people go to hell at this point
There has never been a Christian who doesn't deserve the Christian version of hell. Homosexuals and others that Christians are bred to hate will enjoy an afterlife that is completely free of Christians.
@avishevin3353 "There has never been a Christian who doesn't deserve the Christian version of hell," Ya? That's kinda the point of the religion that man always falls short? And a want of an after life away from God isn't fun. It's not pitchforks and racks but and empty void. Complete and total separation. Also Christians are not bread to hate. Just because we don't affirm a harmful lifestyle dosenot mean hate.
@@colbyhunter4622
There's nothing harmful about being and living as a homosexual except for the violence done by people like you. You literally claim you aren't bred to hate and then you demonstrate your hate in the very next sentence.
Hey Dan, I was having an interesting conversation in the comments with @integrationalpolytheism about the existence of Q. I am too uninformed to have much of an opinion, although I can quote Carrier. @integrationalpolytheism was somewhat better informed. But you have real relevant credentials! What do you think about the existence of Q?
Beautiful
Could the contributors to "the Law" even comprehend the notion that one man might be sexually attracted to another?
I'm quite certain that I was not the only one taken by surprise when the subject was suddenly thrust upon us in headlines of the late 60's. Why should we expect Levitical lawgivers to be any less ignorant than we were?
If the person writing laws in Leviticus was able to write about it, they could imagine it happening. If you couldn't imagine it happening, then they were slightly less ignorant about it than you.
I don't understand why that comparison is relevant to anything. The choice isn't to have you or them write Leviticus.
1:54. What this guy is saying here is referring to tops and bottoms. Gay people talk about this all the time on UA-cam. Tops and bottoms is a gay sex slang, so Paul was talking about homosexual relationships.
You think Paul is referring to “gay slang” with tops and bottoms??????
@@ryant1064read a book about the emperors. Many had sex with men, women, boys and girls and without distinction between them. And some are described as taking on ‘effeminate’ roles in these relationships. In other words they’d play the role of the woman in the relationships.
Clearly you are not as learned as you should be on BDSM if you think "top" or "bottom" is a purely gay term lmfao
You can top or bottom with someone and not be in a relationship with them.
Thank You!!!! I hate it when people like that boy have no idea what the heck they are talking about and make videos acting all haughty right away any christian who starts speaking that way you can tell that is just what they WANT it to say and the way THEY WANT it to be!!!
Applause! 👏👏👏👏👏👏
One argument that is sometimes offered by Christian advocates of same-sex marriage is that the Apostle Paul was not thinking of loving, monogamous adult relationships, and only intended to condemn Greco/Roman pederasty. I’ve been spending a lot of time reading ancient Greek texts on sexuality recently, and that has gotten me thinking in general about Paul’s historical context and, more specifically, about this argument.
First, it’s important to acknowledge that relationships between adult men and adolescent boys or young men were the most commonly attested same-sex relationships in the ancient world. There are exceptions-Plato’s Symposium discusses committed, lifelong same-sex relationships-but this is by far the most common kind of relationship. We should therefore acknowledge that the Apostle Paul was likely most familiar with this kind of same-sex sexual activity.
It’s worth observing, however, that precisely because this form of same-sex sexuality was so common, there was standard terminology in Greek for talking about these relationships-the older man was the erastes (lover) and the younger man the eromenos (beloved). If these relationships were Paul’s target, it would have been reasonable for him to use these standard Greek terms.
Instead, he used an apparently novel term, arsenokoitai, which either he invented or which he took from Helenistic Judaism. The most logical derivation of this new word is from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22, which says that you shall not lie with (koiten) a man (arsenos) as with a woman.
In both Greek and English, verbs can be transformed into nouns. Thus, in English, swimmers are people who swim. In Greek, the koitai are men (-ai is a masculine ending) who koiten-that is, “lie with” in a sexual sense. So the arsenokoitai are men who lie with other men in a sexual sense.
There is an additional reason for thinking that arsenokoitai is derived from Leviticus 18:22. In 1 Timothy 1:8-11, the Apostle Paul writes,
we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the Law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai], enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
Paul is listing various disobedient groups of people who have been given the Law to tell that their acts are contrary to God’s will. Thus, we would expect the arsenokoitai to correspond to some prohibition in the Law. The obvious candidate prohibition, for reasons given above, is Leviticus 18:22.
It’s important not to misunderstand the context of this prohibition. Paul is no harsher in his condemnation of homosexual activity than he is of sexual immorality in general. And just a few verses later, he writes, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life” (1 Timothy 1:15-16). Anyone who uses these verses either to single out homosexual sin for unique condemnation, or who fails to speak with humility of God’s love for all, is misusing the text.
However, it’s also important not to misunderstand the prohibition itself. While pederasty was the most common form of same-sex activity recorded in ancient writings, Paul doesn’t use the common language of pederasty. Instead of condemning age or power differences, he coins a new word which focuses particularly on relationships that involve two men.
These kinds of considerations, it seems to me, make the claim that Paul was only condemning pederasty-rather than same-sex sexual activity more generally-much more problematic.
I usually agree with you say but you lost me on this one. I've read the Bible enough times to know that homosexuality is for sure condemed in the bible or at the very least, seen as deplorable.
Whether someone agrees with the bible or not is irrelevant. I'm just saying, the bible definitely is against men having sexual relations with each other
@@Me-gc3pu Citing scholarly research is infinitely less biased and unreliable than asking an Evangelical Christian if the Bible is inerrant.
In some of his comments, I have seen him say he wasn't claiming the Bible _doesn't_ say this, but I agree. It is definitely a very misleading way to put it if that is the case.
@@bagodrago I promise I didn’t mean what I said, I meant to add quotation marks to show the Christian perspective. Forgive me.
@@Me-gc3pu Lol no worries
The Bible refers to specific secs acts between males that were considered wrong, mostly for undisclosed reasons. You classify them as "homoxesuality". The original writers and their readers did not. You then extend the condemnation to the entire category. That's as ridiculous as taking references to immorality between man and woman and declaring that the bible condemns heteroxesuality.
So I have a question are you saying that it is ok for men and men to be together and for woman and woman to be together I’m not trying to attack people who are gay I have them in my family yes we must Love everyone it is there own free choice but in Gods eyes He made man and woman for each other so in this video you got me really wondering about what you teach yes I understand that you are talking about the verses of the texts that they may have missed translated but I don’t believe that it’s mistranslated but God destroyed sodom and Gomorrah for a reason so the question I put at the beginning are you saying that it’s ok to be gay in Gods eyes ????? Dan ? But after seeing this and watching the video of you saying there is no God of the Bible I had to unsubscribe to your channel I hate to be that way because I do like a lot of your videos but the truth of it all in Gods eyes it’s all an abomination before God for men with men and woman with woman
Not Christain or religious in any way, but it's my understanding as someone who's read the story that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for it's people trying to rape the angels, not because the angels (unfathomably abstract beings beyond gender) are supposed to have been male-presenting when they appeared there. I doubt God would've been any happier for the town to have had that same reaction toward female-presenting angels. The sin here is that people are trying to rape literal divinity.
Preach brutha!
idk if this helps but found this on the wiki:
In the present day, there are a wide variety of views within Christianity on homosexuality and sexual orientation, with some scholars of Christianity contesting the notion that scripture speaks explicitly of homosexuality as a sin against God.[2]: 42 Within a Christian denomination, individual believers and the groups they belong to may hold different views, and not all members of a denomination necessarily support their church's views on homosexuality. Most Christian denominations teach that homosexual behavior and acts are sinful.[2] Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism officially condemn homosexual activity as sin. Various mainline Protestant denominations have taken a supportive stance towards blessing homosexual clergy and same-sex marriage while others have not.
History
Part of a series on
Christianity and gender
"Adam and Eve" by Albrecht Dürer (1504)
Theology
Major positions
Other positions
Ordination of women in Christianity
Church and society
Organizations
Theologians and authors (by view)
Theologians and authors (by branch)
vte
Main article: History of Christianity and homosexuality
The Hebrew Bible and its traditional interpretations in Judaism and Christianity have historically affirmed and endorsed a patriarchal and heteronormative approach towards human sexuality,[3][4] favouring exclusively penetrative vaginal intercourse between men and women within the boundaries of marriage over all other forms of human sexual activity,[3][4] including autoeroticism, masturbation, oral sex, non-penetrative and non-heterosexual sexual intercourse (all of which have been labeled as "sodomy" at various times).[5][6]
They have believed and taught that such behaviors are forbidden because they are considered sinful,[3][4] and further compared to or derived from the behavior of the alleged residents of Sodom and Gomorrah.[3][1][7][8][9] However, the status of LGBT people in early Christianity is debated.[10][11][12][13]
also what I'm getting is if your the main gay person its a sin
It isn't Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13, or 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 or 1st Timothy 1:10 that condemns homosexuality. Nor is it Genesis chapter 19, the attempted gang rape scene in the City of Sodom. Rather, it's just Romans 1:18-32, particularly verses 26 & 27 where Paul says "God gave them over to dishonourable passions (Gk. πάθη)". The Christian lexica (Strong's and Thayer's) translate πάθη as "strong passions" or "passionate desires". But you go to the Liddel Scott and Jones Greek English Lexicon and you get a return of simply "desire".
Of course, the condemnation is just Paul's opinion.
Hahaha!! No... The Bible explicitly states, several times, that homosexuality is sexually immoral, and that sexual immorality was an abomination. The explicit Words of God. To even suggest any explicit instructions given from an Apostle in the Bible is merely their own opinion, I would say is bordering on blasphemy. What bizarre take...
@@markwildt5728The word "homosexuality" didn't exist back then. Now who's blaspheming?
Tank you Dan for your video to keep harm away especially from young homosexuals that are already indoctrinated by false religious ideologies and subjective moralities.
Sorry gay is a sin. It's the person's choice to follow gods intended law
@@NickluvsGod Homosexuality is a natural healthy born sexual orientation with an evolutionary meaning.
Your religion is man-made and subjective with a god YHWH that was invented 5000-3500 years ago.
Sorry my friend, but reality doesnt care for your religious feelings.
@@NickluvsGod Homos exuality is a natural healthy born se xual orientation with an evolutionary meaning.
Your reli gion and moral is man-made , your go d is an invention of 5000-3500 years ago.
Sorry but reality doesn't care for your reli gious feelings.
@@NickluvsGod Homosexuality is a natural healthy born sexual orientation with an evolutionary meaning. :) Thanks for your time.
@@user-vm5yk2js6w just because it's natural it's good? Humans are naturally sinful does that make us good? No.
In spots the bible definitely seems to condemn it. But notice how Jesus himself never does?
It does not, it does not mention homosexuality at all - watch the video.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu The word might not be in the bible but the concept is, even if just related to acts and not orientations. I'm not passing any judgments on anyone, I'm just pointing out that the idea is there in Leviticus and Paul, but not in Christ's teachings.
@@johnalexir7634 No, the idea of someone's sexual orientation being same sex appears nowhere in the BIble. Please find me a passage that contradicts this - and to save time, I don't mean a passage about the sex-act.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu That's what I'm saying... you are right that orientations are not in the text, but the acts are. So the concept of homosexuality - even just in terms of men engaged in acts with men - is in there, and is, as we all know, condemned ("abomination"). Not necessarily saying it should be condemned. But I don't think the bible is inerrant either.
@@johnalexir7634 You have redifined Homosexuality to mean sex acts - this is NOT what it means: Homosexualilty - the quality or characteristic of being sexually or romantically attracted to people of one's own sex - would not have been a recognised thing in the Helanistic world.
Please try to get your head around this.
The Helanistic and Jewish worlds did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated. So gay sex was seen as peverting the SOCIAL ORDER.
Holy shit the comments at the bottom of this comments section are horrible.
Yep. Absolutely correct. And in older more accurate translation of the Bible they did not use the phrase "homosexual abomination" in Romans, they said men shouldn't lie with men because it is "detestable".
Detestable and and abomination are very different things yo.
They are the same. And even if you think abomination and detestable were different it’s still all the same in that God does not approve. It’s moot point.
@@shawnboahene5231 Actually detestable and abomination are not the same. Detestable means it's gross I don't like it, and an abomination is an unnatural crime against nature.
So.... Obviously not the same.
If the Lord meant homosexuals were abominations it would have said that in Scripture, it wouldn't have said detestable.
Your point makes no sense. Its still condemning homosexual relationships.
If people want to be homosexual and progressive, why try to change what a book from the 1st century says?
@@tydy5266 Actually it doesn't condemn homosexual relationships. It just says a man should not lie with man as they would a woman it is detestable.
And that was from Paul we don't know if that's his personal opinion or actual Revelation to him from God.
Since Christ himself never spoke about homosexuality or same-sex anything. ^^
*Leviticus 18:22-23* [RSV]
_22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination._
_23 And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion._
This is from God, which is where Paul draws his inspiration from.
It condemns sexual relations between two men and also condemns sexual relations between humans and animals.
Stop trying to twist the Bible to fit your narrative. Either disbelieve or adhere to it. @@bakachan3601
Why would "non-believers" try to tell anyone that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality?! That's like one of the best arguments against it...
How do you know they are non-believers? Sounds like you're trying to force them into your paradigm because they don't conform to your dogma. I didn't hear Dan state any doctrine regarding homosexuality one way or the other. He simply said that widely held beliefs amongst Christians are not supported by the Bible, and that a great deal of harm has been done to folks because of those beliefs.
@@anettebauer4236 I think the reply is to what the creator Dan is replying to is expressing ; in the beginning he mentions "progressive Christians and non-believers", not Dan himself.
It's easier to get a Christian to change their beliefs on homosexuality than to change all their beliefs on the bible, so I think it's a pragmatic concern from LGBT activists.
@@dftknight fair
ya talked too much and did little to counter the the actual point of the discussion
The complexity of this topic is what has caused confusion, controversy and incalculable harm. He needs to "talk much" just to put you on the right track long before he can "counter the actual point".
So your saying homosexual is ok?
It is a sin in the bible
Please pray for me. I'm struggling. I'm crying everyday. I want become straight but it's so hard. I'm crying even I'm texting. Please pray for me. If anyone can help me please 😓😓😫😫😣
Here is some advice. Being attracted to the same gender is not a sin. It is the act of it. It is hard and difficult. I'm not attracted to men, but I still struggle with sexual immorality. Prayer, and talking to those you trust to help you is very important. God loves you, and He is with you at every stumble to help you. I'll pray for you too.
You seem like you have repentence and a will to get closer ot God. If so God will grant you mercy and you will be saved. Becauase you believe and want.
May god Bless you. Kyrie Eleison.
Why do these kids and content creators with nary a sense of the nature of the Bible feel they have the authority to oppress others with their ideas?
The ego that their unexamined faith gives them is terrifying.
They make money from it. Their authority (power) comes from the appeal of their youth, appearance, voice, and confident mannerisms and not from credentials. The fast swiping teen stops and listens to someone who looks like their peer group.
I don't know that creator, but I used to be just like him. I was raised to hate gay people, so when I did hateful things I didn't have a big plan, I was just doing what I had always been taught to do. The added motivation to "preach the good news and win souls for Christ" meant I would go out of my way to say stuff like this creator.
Oppress others with their ideas? Now that’s one I haven’t heard before. What part of the Bible are they getting wrong? Please elaborate. 😂
Just because you disagree with an idea that doesnt mean it's oppressing you or anyone else.
@@nunyuhbusiness9016that's true but gay is still a sin
I am pretty sure ancient people knew what a homosexual was. To say otherwise is nonsense.
yeah this guy is using modern "understanding" of sexuality to get away with double speak and technicalities
We know today that translating languages is not easy, so, if you get two words wrong it changes everything. Take To & Do, you get these wrong and the tone changes greatly, ie, to do...... or do to ....
Dan, I disagree with your conclusions but am curious how you got there. Any books you'd recommend?
He's just leading all sorts of Christians astray. He is definitely lost.
He makes it seem nobody in the ancient world knew what homosexuality was or what a homosexual relationship looked like. Now after 2000 years he can set the record straight for the multitude of brilliant thinkers that have come before us regarding these scriptures. It's crystal clear what God prescribed for marriage, one man, and one woman for life.
@@thomassandoval8025 There's no such thing as homosexual orientation. Is there murder orientation or pedophile orientation? It is just humans wanting to rebel against God and sin. He is part of the Mormon church so he doesn't know what the truth is period.
The Bible absolutely condemns homosexuality in both the old and new Testaments. The willful ignorance and obvious attempt here at doublespeak and gaslighting is astounding.
Just like Christians gas light and double speak about the bible condoning/endorsing slavery, kidnapping, child rape, etc.
@@mdm123196Well it doesn't do that? Maybe get your facts right next time?
Romana 1:24-29
100% ty Dan!
Amen, Dan, and well said. Arrogance is a sin. And God is so against it that Proverbs 16:9 states that God detests the abomination that is the arrogant man. One translation states that God hates the arrogant man.
His does not hate the gay man.
I wonder if those who rail against homosexuality spend as much time railing against people whom God hates?