Just as nuns and monks are called to be celibate, God has placed the trial of lust for the same sex on homosexuals, this does not mean people who are like this will go to hell, but rather those who do not repent for their lustful thoughts and fight it via emboldening the holy spirit within them (just as heterosexual people having lustful thoughts outside of marriage, or sex outside of marriage) will be condemned. Many who condemn homosexuality are guilty of pointing out sawdust in their brothers eye with a plank in their own. God bless.
I guess it's like that Dennis/Dentist things. I worked at a church where the chair of the Staff-Parish Relations Committee was named Christian Hires :: shrugs ::
We had a music producer here in sweden called Billy Butt maybe they are eachothers evil twin. He might still be here but also might not, coincidentally he was prosecuted for fornication in the 90's.
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” People try to make it so complicated. Serve God and help others.
@@Jin420 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. Yeah your right, you should not cherry pick. Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. So because you hate what the bible says, my job is to expose you. You are not a bible believing christian. See how that works...??? Have a great day. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@Jin420 you can call it cherry picking if you like. I say take what you need and leave the rest. We all have to walk our own road, even alone sometimes. There are many paths to the top of the mountain. I truly hope you have a great day, too! Thanks for the well wishes. I appreciate it
You just described a psychologically abusive relationship. Fortunately there's no reason to believe that any god has ever existed. Do not obey any external authority, ever. You'll be healthier and happier.
These videos are so important, Dan, because you are calling out the abuse inside the same Christian household so to speak. Atheists can be (mis)treated as outsiders who don't understand. You're approach from a deeper understanding is a much harder obstacle for bigots to overcome. I don't have your faith, buddy, but I know people who hold it just as beautifully.
i hope you rekindle that relationship fire with Jesus. i dont care about what you believe about right and wrong but i do care that you believe on Jesus. he loves us through thick and thin and he knows our heart
I grew up in the interior of Brazil in the 50s and 60s. I heard men bragging about "doing" another. Only the passive partner was considered homosexual and a victim of mistreatment. "Real men" could "do" anyone. Clearly a symbol of domination as you say.
There’s a baseball metaphor for that: you’re not gay if you pitch, only if you catch. What I hadn’t heard before I began watching Dan’s videos, I didn’t know that this was contradicted in the Bible.
@@creamwobbly And remember that "homosexual sex" is not limited to penetrative behaviors. Insisting the only way two people with penises can interact to orgasm is by performing that one position demonstrates a highly limited understanding of several things.
A more important question might be: Who the hell does Paul think he is that he can decide who will "inherit the Kingdom of God" and who "will not"? Such arrogance is unconscionable.
@@MarcillaSmithA person who has to "conscience" it. We must all make our own decisions. I will not accept my companion saying that their opinion is the opinion of God. I want this to be a norm in my society. I don't take lies from my friends and I certainly don't take them from Paul.
@@be1tube Saint Paul is writing to an audience which came to him for the reason _that_ he was teaching a (new, at the time) theology which they wanted to learn. If we label Saint Paul "unconscionably arrogant" for trying to explain his theology in terms of who would and wouldn't inherit the Kingdom, we may as well get big mad at Nietzsche for saying that God is dead and we killed him. "How dare he accuses me!" It really misses the point. Yeah, I get that he's prudish (in general, let's remember), and that his words have been cherry-picked to further marginalize the already marginalized. But is that really on Saint Paul over and above the people who are doing the cherry-picking? And just pragmatically-speaking, are we better off attempting to summon Mr. O'Tarsus from the Great Beyond to update his language to be more culturally-sensitive, or to call on the cherry-pickers to be better?
@@MarcillaSmiththe arrogance is that Paul claimed to be speaking on God's behalf in words given to him directly by Jesus Christ. Mohammed did the same, claiming God (Allah) transmitted His words through the Angel Gabriel. Paul says over and over (paraphrase) "these are not my words, they are God's words). I see that as arrogant as well.
@@benjamintrevino325 Stephen Hawking claimed to be "speaking on behalf of the fundamental rules of the cosmos" (paraphrased). Do you consider that to be arrogance, as well?
"You can follow Jesus, or not." So you have chosen...not, since Jesus said a whole bunch of stuff but none of it (as I recall) was related to where one decides to insert their genitals at the end of the day. How's that feeding the hungry and caring for the sick coming along?
“And if not, if you choose to insert your penis in the wrong place, you’ll burn in hell for all eternity, but that’s not MY choice, it’s yours…and, well, the choice of the God of my interpretation, and I obviously don’t give a damn that MY god is the most sadistic eternal being my brain can conjure up. But never mind…go on…burn!” Does he even, with his throwaway disdain, know what he’s telling us about himself? Not gays! Himself!
I make a distinction between Jesus and Christ. Christ was he that was crucified. Jesus was the man who lived and preached and became he who was crucified. Why do I make this distinction? Is it meaningless? No, because the bare minimum belief to qualify as a Christian is belief in the crucifixion: 1) that Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins, 2) that having paid the debt, he gave us everlasting life, and 3) that he was resurrected. Then there are two admonishments: love god with all your heart and love thy neighbor. This is Christianity as Paul set it up, before the Bible was written or disseminated. Paul and others certainly had their different ideas about how a Christian could maintain a state of grace, but let’s face it: there is no objective measure of how much one loves God, or their neighbor, nor is there total clarity on who constitutes a neighbor. If the “value-added” teachings of Jesus were later layered upon Christianity, that is like extra credit, or you condemn the earliest converts to Christianity to damnation because they didn’t do the extra Jesus stuff.
If what Gods wants for people is to find a partner, marry them and start a family it shouldn't matter what sexual orientation you are. Christians could have tought this but instead want to ignore the fact that no one chooses their orientation. God made people the way they are. But instead they want to demonize minorities of people who are all one in Christ Jesus.
@Bible-Christian I was raised an Evangelical Christian and what changed my mind about the Bible is studying Church History. It's not that one particular interpretation is necessarily wrong (though there have been those) it's that cultures do interpret the Bible depending upon their needs. For example, take the divide between Orthodox and Catholics in Eastern Europe and why one people took one branch of the faith over the other.
Thank you for this videos. A friend of mine is Muslima, Another friend is atheist, but grew up in the Dutch Bible Belt, so experienced some of that tradition. I was Dutch reformed, but now I’m not believing anymore. They are both informed about what I learned since I last saw them. We have such interesting conversations. And discussions.
I might add that the actual meaning of male-bedder has been lost. We have next to zero data. Your view is an educated guess. Doesn't mean it's incorrect, just that you can't be dogmatic. Also you need to explain why what you describe was so vehemently immoral. It was in their culture an abusiv act as it feminized and thus denigrated the victim. And this was in turn based on the cultural assumption, now considered false, that women were inferior to men in every way. If we want to use the Bible to condemn same-secs acts, then we can only do so by importing that false assumption. Rom 1.26 does not describe female "same-secs" acts. The notion of "same-secs" is a modern category that we should not use in understanding the Bible. Rom 1.26 describes "their [the male idolaters'] females" doing something unnatural. This is vague, but likely about females taking the active role with males. That's why "likewise" males also poked males Rom 1.27. Furthermore, Rom 1.26-27 does not say these acts were sinful. They were merely described as contrary to social norms. Rom 1.26-27 taken literally fails to condemn anything, and in fact is not to be used in this way lest you fall foul of Rom 2.1.
Because of Dan's erudite evaluation, I believe he's right. My position is more along how I regard divine thinking. In short, I find it impossible to believe that God, understanding human nature as He does, would ever say or inspire any sentiment that would lead to bigotry, marginalizing, and persecution of individuals who want nothing more than to live in accordance with their orientation.
It's insane how so many people care about what the Bible says. The whole book is a minefield and everyone thinks their interpretation is the correct path through. Everyone should just avoid it like the plague.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 Hey, perhaps he only has daughters.🤷♂️ I’m just making a point that we as a modern society don’t live by these ancient morals today. Morality is not fixed as it changes as we continue to learn from human experience. Have a nice day 🙂
There's one thing I'd really appreciate getting people's honest thoughts on. I don't know what to make of testimonies where people claim that they have somehow been ‘delivered’ from homosexuality? Coming from an evangelical background, I’ve come across testimonies of people who say that after repenting from their former ‘lifestyles’ and accepting Jesus, they have been 'delivered' from same-sex attraction. These stories don’t seem to resemble what we would associate with ‘conversion therapy’ in a traditional sense, but rather a personal experience that involves some purported supernatural intervention. Some even describe being released from ‘demonic oppression’ and will sometimes talk about various physiological and psychological changes in the body as part of their experience. I genuinely don’t know what to make of any of this. And it's especially vexing to be told that this is what you should expect to experience as well if you 'surrender' your sexuality to God. It’s absolutely clear that a lot of people have experienced their lives improving after finally coming to terms with their sexuality - no longer repressing an important part of who they are. But in some evangelical communities, you will similarly get people saying that their lives are radically different after turning away from homosexuality and accepting Jesus. I genuinely don’t know what to make of this discrepancy between people who find liberation when embracing their sexuality, and those who find the same so called ‘freedom’ rejecting it. What do you make of this? Quick disclaimer, I don’t mean to suggest that I understand or support any of this. I am genuinely curious as to how we might interpret these types of anecdotes. I don’t want to rely solely on explanations from evangelicals echo-chambers. I also don't want to deny anyone's experience. Anyone's honest thoughts on this would be most appreciated. Many thanks :)
When the body submits to the Spirit, the chains of temptation towards sin are loosened or broken entirely depending on whether or not the submission is total. People who have not experienced it would benefit from patience and be encouraged by the promise of the freedom they see in others to foster a righteous conscience. If they ever have a mindset of doing things in a 'good enough' way, they should question whether they are really giving their all for the Lord and being honest with themselves about the things that their doing because pretty much everything in their lives should be assessed (not obsessively, they should think through it all wisely over time). Offering oneself only in part is like offering crop as Cain offered to the Lord, which comes from more mechanical work, when he is really looking for the best from us as Abel offered through the firstborn of the flock he shepherded. As for sexuality, coming to terms with it is beneficial for an accurate assessment of who the person is, but confessing anything inherently sinful as part of one's unchangeable identity can prevent them from seeing any need for change and lead to complacency. This applies not only to sexuality but for other sins too. One way of explaining why not to give in to their body is by asking them to consider same-sex attraction as another form of seeking out echo-chambers, since men and women are different and also equal with different perspectives. Paul also considers heterosexual attraction to be a temptation since it can also lead to sin, so it should be considered a battle against sexual temptation as a whole rather than that of merely the same sex. They shouldn't be pressured to marry the opposite sex but encouraged to focus only on overcoming their temptation with love for the Lord. Finally, remember that it is written to flee from sexual sin and not merely resist it. It is a very big thing to self-deny not only in mind and heart but also in the body that is sinful. I stayed up all night so please do not mind the non-sequiturs too much.
@ Thanks for your time responding, i appreciate it. I do wonder why homosexuality is talked about in terms of temptation though. If we look at the development of sexuality, it would seem young adolescents notice that they are attracted to the same sex around the same time heterosexuals do, so why do you conceive of an orientation as a form of temptation? It appears to be an immutable, preserved part of the human condition, as well as other animal species. Also, why do you say that homosexuality leads to more sin? What gives you that idea? I know gay people who are no more prone to other sins than straight people, and many of them the kindest, gentlest people I know.
How much hatred does a human being need to have in order to rely on bronza age mythologies to justify said hatred? I will never understand their determination to keep hating on others.
The hatred is mostly a means to an end -- the desire for power and control. By convincing others to hate like they hate they can get the masses to put them in positions of authority. That's the real poison the hatemongers are pedaling. Not the hate itself but the lust for power. Think about how they've used fear and hatred of homosexuality, abortion, transgender, and immigration issues to rally the troops and win elections at every level in government from school boards to the White House.
I've got a boomer hippie mom who has Southern Baptist parents. Mom had no tolerance for racism (except for Vietnamese immigrants for some reason), my grandparents didn't consider themselves racist, but made no effort to avoid slurs or generalities. As a child and young person, I remember wondering who it was okay to hate, who I could regard as, basically, enemies or prey. I think if I had chosen someone and been rewarded by a respected elder for dehumanizing them, I might've been a real prick. Luckily, the only group I consistently find abhorrent are French men, and I don't run into many.
Rather than outright ignoring some of the texts in The Bible, why aren't the texts taken for what they are and the reader simply concludes that if that's what The Bible is saying, then they are done with The Bible? I get there are good parts in there but if as a whole doesn't hold up, it's not for me - Like the Star Wars saga :)
I kind of want to through the baby out with the bath water too sometimes. I think of it this way though. So many people thought the message of the Bible was important so they did their best to write down what they know and preserve it to pass it along. The Bible simply points the way to God. And sometimes the authors ideas of who God was were wrong. And some things contradict. But if you can still have faith even though the Bible has inaccuracies, I think it will make your faith stronger and free you from being controlled by people’s own perceptions of the Bible. Honestly after learning some of these things, I feel like I’ve broken up with an abusive partner 😂. I am also able to trust my own instincts better rather than blindly follow “truths” of the Bible. I don’t have to try to explain things that don’t make sense. For instance, it doesn’t make sense that 2 consenting adults of the same sex shouldn’t express that together. It’s literally not hurting anyone.
Dan, I’d like to apologise to you. I once misunderstood your stance in a video of yours and offered a snide comment in this section. Anyway, I’ve subscribed and look forward to watching your content.
I can't recall the exact first Dan video I watched but I wasn't loving it.. but something made me keep listening and the more he talked the more I realized he really was coming from a place of scholarship. Just a day or two ago he did a video with AronRa who found himself telling his followers to subscribe to Dan's channel. Because Dan's scholarship is that good. Yes, it'll make you think. Sometimes it will piss you off. But he really does follow his tagline of "data over dogma". UA-cam and the rest of social media could use a lot more of that.
It's so rare and refreshing to encounter online accountability, thanks for restoring a tiny bit of my faith in humanity. May I ask what you originally found so disagreeable and what changed your mind?
That's not remotely close to what the commandment against eating blood entails. Jewish dietary laws are much closer to following what the commandment is trying to tell you, ie, the eating of blood in any real amount is forbidden. Blood is supposed to be drained from animals during slaughter, and not made into food.
@@yallimsorry5983 Yes, and my question is, in what way are many Christians ignoring the command not to consume blood? Genuine curiosity, since I'm not aware of what foods actually contains blood. As ScottKorin points out, a "bloody" steak is not actually bloody. Is the sacrament considered consuming blood?
Thank you Dr Dan. I wonder if the divorce question is negotiated to allow it. "Fornication" etc. I was surprised to hear my good christian friend say that he had a biblical excuse to divorce his wife.
I got married at 20 we were jehovahs witnesses. I quit at 25 and we finally divorced when I was 30. I got a new girlfriend after a year and my ex found out so she called me to ask me if she was "scripturally free." I was like wtf, why do you need to ask me that, do whatever you want.
My parents stayed in an abusive relationship with each other and their 6 children for 18 years. Because of the teaching from the church against divorce.
So...God hates bottoms? I find it absurd. Also, any book written by people that didn't bathe and wiped with their bare hands, not a bunch of folks I take my cues from.
Malakoi was also used for men who were overly interested in sex with women! In this case it meant “soft” as in “self-indulgent”. Also because of the Greek belief that men shouldn’t associate with women because the femininity would rub off on the men, so even having heterosexual sex more than necessary for reproduction was overly feminine. It could also be used to mean “luxurious” or “comfort seeking” so it didn’t necessarily imply “effeminate” the same way that we think of the word, and certainly not necessarily homosexual
I've always been interested in this topic. Thanks for some further clarification. My overall way of thinking about consensual adult sex is that it's none of my business what other humans do in bed.
If our feelings and lack of action make sin okay, where are the people endorsing covetousness? With the Bible often saying "man" to refer to humans, a lesbian is a homosexual "man." And Jesus said we didn't have to engage in sexual activity in order to commit adultery in our heart.
The problem is when someone says "the Bible tells us how to live"...No, the Bible tells YOU how to live YOUR life...after that it's you trying to tell others how to live their lives not the Bible.
Hey Dan, I'd be interested in hearing you offer your opinion on matters of what *should* guide our negotiation of the text, especially since it seems that the answers of "the text itself" or "a textually- informed tradition" would allow bias to shape interpretation. Using this video as an example, you correct the stitched creator's reading with a more precise one, but you don't offer guidance on what to do with that more precise reading, especially as it still seems to condemn certain behavior - you only go on to reiterate the general case that the the Bible's meaning is shaped as much by its own social contexts as our own. The options with the more precise reading seem to be to discard it or downplay it, or to obey it. You don't seem to advocate the latter, so what direction do we have for the authority or basis of wisdom or tradition or mindset to guide the former?
I think Dan would argue that we should “accept” or follow those things in the Bible - and any text, for that matter - which we find useful and beneficial, and discard what we find unhelpful or harmful, hence his take that Scripture nowhere condemns and everywhere endorses slavery, and we just… did away with that as a society.
Great question, I also get a little frustrated by this. My guess is he would reply with that's not his expertise. I like how you invoked wisdom though as the mindfulness practices are probably our best tool to properly interpret the texts.
Look, I'm an atheist. Former evangelical Christian. Anything can be an authoritative text. When a republican screeches about "The constitution" and the glorious godhead of the founders, they are invoking an appeal of authority. You could bang on a text such as Frankenstein and state that it is an authority on how an aspect of our society should be structured. You are the one imputing authority to this Christian text. To a Hindu, this Christian text might be nice but they have their own "authoritative text" and your text isn't authoritative. See... people have to accept the idea that a particular text is authoritative. It's very subjective. In the old days, the winners used to violently impose their beliefs and that's how your Christianity really spread. You don't really think the African slaves asked for that slave bible... do you? Anyway, you may not realize this but you are telling everybody who is watching what kind of person you are by what verses you stress and whether or not you even use something like a Bible. It's not logic and evidence based. It's feeling based and then, a post hoc rationalization to justify what you feel is correct. Don't fall for the lie that humans are rational and evidence based. We are emotional and the logic and critical thinking makes our heads hurt. That's how you're going to intuit what verses resonate with you. So I'd respectfully ask that you just follow the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
The chapter is clearly talking about man-ing the courts 🧑⚖ of the *KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.* So whatever it says, it only has to do with the rulers of the kingdom, not everyone who makes it. Christians ✝ really have completely forgotten the *entire point* of the New Testament. 🙄
Dan says, Leviticus 20:13 is "... describing ONE man taking the insertive role in an act of male same sex intercourse ...." So what difference does Dan think this actually proves? Leviticus goes on to declare, "... BOTH of them have committed an abomination: THEY shall surely be put to death; THEIR blood shall be upon THEM." On top or on the bottom, makes no difference, they are BOTH equally dead as a result of their actions. I wonder why Dan didn't mention this tiny detail?
If we can't interpret the bible without adapting it to our own cultural norms, then can we ever definitively say what any given passage within the bible means? If we can never definitively say what any given passage means, then how can we say that its wrong to translate arsenokoitai as "homosexuals"?
The best technique to understand what the Bible means, is to compare usages in different passages to look for commonalities in meaning. That helps in understanding what the original authors meant. Historians do the same thing in studying secular history. As for adapting the Bible to our own cultural norms, that removes any absolute authority from the text and reduces it to support for ones cultural norms. That can be OK if one is merely codifying their own cultural norms, but it means that the Bible can't be used to support claims that God Says This or God Wants That.
Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman have done some good work in this space. Dale in his book Sex and The Single Saviour, and Bart on his blog. The big problem with this word is that we have only a very small number of examples of its usage, so figuring out what it means is very difficult. Trying to use the linguistic equivalent of simple arithmetic is not really a good method. Just adding "male" + "bedders" = homosexuals is not right. By that logic the meaning of the constituent words in compound words like "understand" and "motherf#$%er" should also reveal their meaning, and we know that's not right. We simply don't know what it means. Dale Martin has looked at all the known examples of its usage, and has concluded the best guess is something to do with money and male sex.
The thing is that, at that time and place, the man taking the insertive role, would most often be an older man, and the receiving role would most often be taken by a teenager or little boy. Meaning that it is likely what Paul was condemning was not gay sex, but rather, pedophilia.
@JenniferandAmanda-ke6pr sorry to say -- scriptures don't mean much to me, especially considering I'm an atheist. Religions are mere "tools" to control over the mass of people imo.. plus, most of them sound like "doomsday cults." But quoting scriptures won't do any good. (I am a former believer) Ijs.. Have a great day. 😊
Male on male homosexuality is SPECIFICALLY condemned in this verse. Female on famale isn't mentioned as often perhaps because the male on male act is a bigger abomination and feminizing a male. From their veiwpoint male on male sex was far worse from a hygenic standpoint.
While the meaning of the words is unclear, it is possible that male with male secs is condemned. It is for unspecified reasons, but we know them from the historical context. Homoxesuality, however is not mentioned (it was in fact unknown). Nor are committed loving relationships between two men.
A contemporary English slang term might be "Top" or "Pitcher" Of course, then the preachers might just start condemning baseball players and spinning toys.
In the KJV the word is translated as "effeminate". I wonder how the KJV only crowd navigates this one. I have a mild suspicion the content creator in question is normally a KJV guy, but makes an exception with this verse
Did Paul ever coin any other words using the Septuagint? Which words? If he didn't coin any other words this way, why would we assume he did just this one time? What did arsenkoitai mean when used in texts outside the Bible? Did any ancient author use it to mean someone born with a homosexual orientation? In what other ancient text does malakoi refer to a same-sex act? Were not the men described in Romans innately heterosexual to begin with who then performed acts unnatural to them? Does Romans describe men who were born innately homosexual? Weren't the women described in Romans performing oral sex and anal sex with men? Where does it specify it was females having sex with each other?
There was no such thing as the concept of sexual orientation in that cultural group in those days. Sexual behavior and desire for same weren't a thing you saw as part of your identity. It was what you felt and chose to express. There's a Roman graffito I consider to be a good example of this. In Latin it reads, "Dolete puellae, paedicare volo, cunne superbe vale!" Translated, it reads: "Grieve you girls, I want to f*ck guys in the arse, goodbye overbearing c*nts." He didn't say his identity changed. He said his behavior is being altered by conscious choice. And frankly, the vast majority of people who can consciously choose to limit their sexual partners to one gender after finding any others personally distasteful at least start out as some flavor of bisexual, not heterosexual. The political lesbian is a screed for another day.
Hi Dan, Both LDS (which I'm passingly familiar with) and the Catholic-Orthodox Nexus(CON) (which I grew up in) are both Huge Philosophical-Theological-Legal Weltanschauungen. I identified as an Ex-Catholic in my first post to you. Once you are in the Galacticus world Swallowing mind set, it always leaves an indent on how you Perceive the sphere. I started glancing at Greek (cf. e. e. cummings) in order to get more into Plato and the playwrights. So when I got to glance at the Hellenized Bible (1970s), I could see the literary influences. ἀρσενοκοίτης makes me think linguistically of Gumby's Pony Pal "Pokey" and μαλακοὶ "Mr Softee" (now I'm craving ice cream) I knew from the Banquet Model, the army of lovers that would conquer the world (shades of Janissaries) that I, myself was half of the Aristophonic Male. I had a very close friend who translated modern documents from French, German, and Italian into English and she would call me from time to time for 'mot juste' discussions. If folks would only humble themselves to actually TRANSLATE, they would loose a lot hubris. Thanks Dan for trying to stir the minds on KJV auto-pilot into leaving the cave of shadows. Jim the Dabbler.
I heard this addressed on the podcast not long ago, and I found it interesting and somewhat compelling. I would, however, like to hear a deeper explanation and/or citations for the reasons behind interpreting it as the insertive and receptive roles. Thanks.
I'm an agnostic so my opinions are going to be FAR different from the people that believe that the bible is an inspired work from an omnimoral and omniscient GOD. People who base their lives and in many cases financial livings peddling the philosophies of this book. I just have to say that this book is WAY too morally and ethically inconsistent to quite frankly, deserve the moral pedestal that it's often placed on. Based on 1 Cor. 6:9, Romans 1:26 and Leviticus 20:13, I think you ACTUALLY can safely infer that GOD condemns homosexuality (As difficult as it is to hear). But I'm going to need a list of scriptures and philosophies that are ACTUALLY inspired by GOD to differentiate from the ones that aren't. Because while the bible does condemn this it simultaneously condones and in some cases GLORIFIES topics like violence, mass murder and genocide (of which Hitler is famous for), human sacrifice and the killing of infants, Slavery (Including sexual slavery)... The overall domination of women. Rape under certain circumstances. It condemns inter-tribal marriage and by extension inter-racial marriage often with deadly consequences (Which you can easily associate with the philosophies of the Nazis and the KKK concerning modern Eugenics). It forbids wearing clothing woven from two different kinds of specifically suggested threads or fabrics. And despite everyone's fixation on homosexuality, it doesn't condemn or even mention pedophilia and the abuse of children. Curious omission given Jesus' affinity for them... And then a split second later philosophically speaking, it encourages that we should all love our neighbors as ourselves... Now does that kind of GROSS ethical inconsistency suggest omnimoral guidance to you 🤨. Put inconsistent ethical standards on a pedestal and that's EXACTLY what it's going to perpetuate... Ethical and moral inconsistentcy. Like baking "unleavened" bread in a dented pan.. CLEARLY the bible isn't perfect because if the values of mass murdering Nazis can be scripturally glorified alongside Pacifists then condemning JUST homosexuality (As opposed to everything else) is the least of it's problems... And because the bible is so ethically inconsistent, for people who observe the bible it's a CONSTANT doctrinal negotiation as you try to derive moral consistency from a book that is systemically inconsistent... So much so that I can use scripture to simultaneously condemn and condone scripture (Along with everything else) Good luck with that👍🏼. My personal belief is that as long as you're not a harm to yourself or the people around you... Don't get too bent out of shape, because the bible is the ONLY book that I've EVER read that places more positive moral emphasis on murder and genocide narratively (And doctrinally) than it does sexuality... Hilarious 🙄 Sidenote: ua-cam.com/video/AIHjoT19XpE/v-deo.htmlsi=Y2njzgNFewgpZB9t (Question... Which abomination comes first? Anachronistic #$%!@)
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 In my deconstructive analysis of the bible, ethics came first... Not dogma. Moral double standards are baked into your very perception of the bible for the purpose of propping up doctrine... It's difficult to be dispassionate about something you hold dear. But sometimes you have to be to truly understand what you're ACTUALLY reading. And what that represents ethically... I'm sorry if these ethical truths found in the bible have provoked disbelief on your part...
I've seen people make a case that the verses on arsenokoitai are actually against exploitative sex, rather than homosexual sex. I'd like to think that's true, but of course that doesn't mean it is. Is that argument valid?
There's insufficient context both in the Bible and in the few later uses of the word to pin down it's meaning. Any reconstruction is conjectural. I had a brief look at the academic literature and there's lots of ideas with no consensus. Some of the earliest uses after the NT list it as an economic not a secs sin. Having said that, it's possible it was about men who poked males. Most instances at the time were indeed exploitative, common victims being enslaved boys. Thus there's no significant practical contradiction between the two views, more about pinning down the exact connotation and scope, which is difficult to ascertain.
Dan, what exactly makes scholars think that Romans 1:26 refers to female homosexuality? The text only mentions female sexual deviancy, not same-sex activity.
My understanding of the Bible talking about this subject was changed in a such a way when I was reading up a bit on Norse society and seiðr. "Ergi" was a word used toward men who practiced seiðr. It was thought to be something women did. When I had read that a man lying with a man as one would with a woman, I also thought about how women were treated as second-class citizens. So for a man to take the role of what was expected to be a role women took, was to emasculate oneself, as it were. Since these are different times from the past, I find the idea that the Bible can provide us with a cohesive set of ethics to be nonsensical.
Hi Dan! Great video as always. Could you possibly address whether the NRSVue’s translation of arsenokoitai and malakoi is more accurate than the previous NRSV? I’ve seen some arguments by apologists but I don’t know what scholars think about it.
So basically what your saying is that homosexuality is permissible in the bible as long as you're not being gay about it? (Also I want to note that I am joking here. In all seriousness you are doing great work Dan, keep it up.)
@@Bobjdobbs So show me how, the "text within the context" does not say, death is the penalty for same-sex sexual activity between two men? And show me, where exactly does so called "dogmatic eisegesis" have anything to do with anything in reading this text? Dan says, Leviticus 20:13 is "... describing ONE man taking the insertive role in an act of male same sex intercourse ...." So what difference does Dan think this actually makes or proves? Leviticus goes on to declare, ... BOTH of them have committed an abomination: THEY shall surely be put to death; THEIR blood shall be upon THEM. On top or on the bottom, makes no difference, they are BOTH equally dead as a result of their actions. I wonder why Dan didnt mention this interesting bit of text within the context? And show me how, the "text within the context" does not say the "arsenokoitai", Dan's man on the bottom, are unrighteous? 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
As usualyou're absolutely wrong dan. It doesn't describe a male taking the insertive role. That's found nowhere in Scripture. That's some you invented. It is most definitely speaking about the act itself, regardless of the intentions behind the act "The compound Greek word arsenokoitai (arsen-o-koi-tai; plural of singular arsenokoitēs) is formed from the Greek words for “lying” (verb keimai; stem kei- adjusted to koi- before the “t” or letter tau) and “male” (arsēn). The word is a neologism created from terms used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions of men “lying with a male” (18:22; 20:13). (Note that the word for “lying” in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions is the noun koitē, also meaning “bed,” which is formed from the verb keimai. The masculine -tēs suffix of the sg. noun arsenokoitēs denotes continuing agency or occupation, roughly equivalent to English -er attached to a noun; hence, “(male) liers with a male.”) That the connection to the absolute Levitical prohibitions against male-male intercourse is self-evident from the following points: (a) The rabbis used the corresponding Hebrew abstract expression mishkav zākûr, “lying of/with a male,” drawn from the Hebrew texts of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, to denote male-male intercourse in the broadest sense. (b) The term or its cognates does not appear in any non-Jewish, non-Christian text prior to the sixth century A.D. This way of talking about male homosexuality is a distinctly Jewish and Christian formulation. It was undoubtedly used as a way of distinguishing their absolute opposition to homosexual practice, rooted in the Torah of Moses, from more accepting views in the Greco-Roman milieu. (c) The appearance of arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10 makes the link to the Mosaic law explicit, since the list of vices of which arsenokoitai is a part are said to be derived from “the law” (1:9). While it is true that the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts, in this instance it clearly does. (2) The implications of the context in early Judaism.That Jews of the period construed the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse absolutely and against a backdrop of a male-female requirement is beyond dispute. For example, Josephus explained to Gentile readers that “the law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman. . . . But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199). There are no limitations placed on the prohibition as regards age, slave status, idolatrous context, or exchange of money. The only limitation is the sex of the participants. According to b. Sanh. 54a (viz., tractate Sanhedrin from the Babylonian Talmud), the male with whom a man lies in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 may be “an adult or minor,” meaning that the prohibition of male-male unions is not limited to pederasty. Indeed, there is no evidence in ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism, or rabbinic Judaism that any limitation was placed on the prohibition of male-male intercourse. (3) The choice of word. Had a more limited meaning been intended-for example, pederasts-the terms paiderastai (“lover of boys”), paidomanai (“men mad for boys”), or paidophthoroi (“corrupters of boys”) could have been chosen. (4) (4) The meaning of arsenokoitai and cognates in extant usage. The term arsenokoitēs and cognates after Paul (the term appears first in Paul) are applied solely to male-male intercourse but, consistent with the meaning of the partner term malakoi, not limited to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes (see specifics in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 317-23). For example, the 4th century church historian Eusebius quoted from a 2nd-3rd century Christian, Bardesanes (“From the Euphrates River [eastward] … a man who … is derided as an arsenokoitēs… will defend himself to the point of murder”), and then added that “among the Greeks, wise men who have male lovers are not condemned” (Preparation for the Gospel 6.10.25). Elsewhere Eusebius alluded to the prohibition of man-male intercourse in Leviticus as a prohibition not to arsenokoitein (lie with a male) and characterized it as a “pleasure contrary to nature,” “males mad for males,” and intercourse “of men with men” (Demonstration of the Gospel 1.6.33, 67; 4.10.6). Translations of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic also define the term generally as “men lying with males.” (5) Implications of the parallel in Rom 1:24-27. It is bad exegesis to interpret the meaning of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 without consideration of the broad indictment of male-male intercourse expounded in Rom 1:27 (“males with males”). The wording of Rom 1:27 (“males, leaving behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their yearning for one another”) points to an inclusive rejection of all male-male relations. Paul here does not distinguish between good non-exploitative forms of male homosexual practice and bad exploitative forms but rather contrasts all male homosexual relations with natural intercourse between a man and a woman. He also emphasizes reciprocity (“yearning for one another”), a fact that rules out an indictment only of a coercive one-sided homosexual desire. Other factors confirm the inclusive rejection of all male homosexual practice in Rom 1:27: Paul’s intertextual echo in Rom 1:23-27 to Gen 1:26-27 (which contrasts male homosexual practice with God’s intentional design in creation, “male and female [God] created them” and the consequent marital bond), his use of a nature argument (which transcends distinctions based on coercion or promiscuity), and the parallel indictment of lesbianism in Rom 1:26 (a phenomenon in the ancient world not normally manifested with slaves, call girls, or adolescents). The fact that semi-official same-sex marriages existed in the Greco-Roman world and were condemned by Greco-Roman moralists, rabbis, and Church Fathers as unnatural, despite the mutual commitment of the participants in such marriages, is another nail in the coffin for the contention that the term arsenokoitai had only exploitative or promiscuous male homosexual relations in view. (6) Implications from the context of 1 Cor 5-7. This absolute and inclusive sense is further confirmed by the broader context of 1 Cor 5-7: the parallel case of incest in ch. 5 (which gives no exceptions for committed, loving unions and echoes both Levitical and Deuteronomic law); the vice list in 6:9-11 (where sexual offenders are distinguished from idolaters, consent is presumed, and a warning is given to believers not to engage in such behavior any longer); the analogy to sex with a prostitute in 6:12-20 (where Gen 2:24 is cited as the absolute norm and the Christian identity of the offender is presumed); and the issue of marriage in ch. 7 (which presumes throughout that sex is confined to male-female marriage). (7) The relevance of 1 Cor 11:2-16.If inappropriate hairstyles or head coverings were a source of shame because they compromised the sexual differences of men and women, how much more would a man taking another man to bed be a shameful act, lying with another male “as though lying with a woman”? Paul did not make head coverings an issue vital for inclusion in God’s kingdom, but he did with same-sex intercourse. (8) Implications of 1 Tim 1:9-10 corresponding to the Decalogue. At least the last half of the vice list in 1 Tim 1:8-10 (and possibly the whole of it) corresponds to the Decalogue. Why is that important? In early Judaism and Christianity, the Ten Commandments often served as summary headings for the full range of laws in the Old Testament. The seventh commandment against adultery, which was aimed at guarding the institution of marriage, served as a summary of all biblical sex laws, including the prohibition of male-male intercourse. The vice of kidnapping, which follows arsenokoitaiin 1 Tim 1:10, is typically classified under the eighth commandment against stealing (so Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides, the rabbis, and the Didache; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 335-36). This makes highly improbable the attempt by some to pair arsenokoitai with the following term andrapodistai(kidnappers, men-stealers), as a way of limiting its reference to exploitative acts of male-male intercourse (so Robin Scroggs), rather than with the inclusive sexual term pornoi (the sexually immoral) that precedes it. (9) The implication of the meaning of malakoi. If the term malakoi is not limited in its usage to boys or to men who are exploited by other men (and it is not so limited; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 306-12), then arsenokoitai certainly cannot be limited to men who have sex with boys or slaves. (10) Sex with adult males as worse than sex with adolescent boys. In the Greco-Roman world homosexual intercourse between an adult male and a male youth was regarded as a less exploitative form of same-sex eros than intercourse between two adult males. The key problem with homosexual intercourse-behaving toward the passive male partner as if the latter were female-was exacerbated when the intercourse was aimed at adult males who had outgrown the “softness” of immature adolescence. Consequently, even if arsenokoitai primarily had in mind man-boy love (and from all that we have said above, there is no evidence that it does), then, a fortiori, it would surely also take in man-man love."
I'd also love to see Dan engage the actual (hostile) Greco-Roman attitudes/policies towards what we now call "homosexual culture" (spoiler alert: they did not like it)
Secondly: Book of Revelations already happened when the Temple of Jerusalem fell. Regardless when you think the text is written, Jesus spoke of that temple.
What Dan is doing is responding to another creator particularly pertaining to a single subject. He's addressing the texts as they are written by Paul. He's not causing division. Its people's failure to understand the difference between sexual orientation and sex acts that causes division because of presuppositions and and the negotiation one does with the texts. There's no such thing as homosexual sin. Between Leviticus and Paul both describe the acts, not orientation. One's notion of orientation didn't exist in either the 8th century BCE or the 1st century CE. Just because some choose to be arrogant and ignorant, that's their problem. Its their pride that would marginalize and dehumanize another. Its their pride that would think they're superior unto another. It's their pride that upholds the narratives and the bigotry of others. It's the pride that is truly the deadliest sin of all.
@@Bobjdobbs He/she literally just said "No, not in my opinion".........cant you read...? The New King James Version has a footnote in 1 Corinthians 6:9 on the term "homosexuals" which says "That is, catamites" and God allows this very same bible to be sold in the book stores to this very day. This is Gods Opinion. So the text is actually saying : 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 = New King James Version "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." So basically, God will not accept a full grown adult who is in a relationship with a very young human being into his kingdom nor will God accept those that practice anal sex into his kingdom. Yes, there are many heterosexuals that go to a building block "church" and they practice anal sex and they claim to be "bible believing christians"............ People in a building block can not be trusted. Jeremiah 23:1 = Original King James Pure Cambridge Edition ( which contains the exact written word of God ) "Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD." Now in Jeremiah chapter 23 and verse 1 through 4 talks about "The Evil Of Your Doings" ......this passage is not talking about "Pastors Are Trustworthy" Many people are hypoctrites, and when I challenge their understanding of the Holy Scriputures, they flee...... hahahahaha 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
well how else are you gonna have a homosexual act without one of them being the receiver The Bible was clearly against two men having sex .. the end.. You can pick a part some antics if you want to because of your political perspective but we all know what to text means
EVERY sentiment expressed in the bible is just what you would expect to hear coming from a man living in that time and place. On EVERY topic - slavery, warfare, women, family relations, sexual mores, etc. 30,000 verses and not a single one betrays a mind any more advanced than the first decade CE. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
You don't know much about history then, I suggest you read the book Dominion, by Tom Holland. He's an atheist, but much of what the New T was teaching was very foreign to the world at the time. However, you would expect it to be relevant to that time as well-right? Wouldn't make much sense to them back then if it wasn't. Look up the culture of ancient Rome and what was accepted or not, including throwing a child away like trash, killing them outright, etc...most of the world today is Christianized to some degree, again, read Tom Holland, who researched this subject extensively.
@@flamingswordapologetics Actually, the parts of the NT that deal with ethical teachings would be very familiar to a first century stoic. Musonius Rufus was teaching in Rome at the same time the NT was being composed. (He was stridently opposed to infanticide, btw.) I wouldn't be surprised if the writers of the NT adopted some stoic thought into their own views. (I guess I know a little bit about history.)
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Well I was just being a bit snarky, anyone can look these things up, there is a natural law within man we would call the "conscience", so it makes sense some people back then were fighting against the tide, but the overall culture was horrible when it came to the intrinsic value of humans, if you weren't in the "club" so to speak, you weren't too far off from animal status, Christianity did change that, now that doesn't prove its true, but it is an evidence. Rome in a real sense, was conquered by Christ.
So, it is not condemned the homoeexuality, but the insertive role. That doesn't make any difference. We support gay people but not when they engage in gay sex. That doesn't make any sense at all
Paul is talking about a relationship with yourself. When who you are authentically desires to be ruled over by the ideal you. It's about vanity. Just be yourself and boast in What the Lord Has Done. God gives you free will to be yourself or you can pretend to be somebody else.
@@ddrse Paul is very clear on that. He condems any sexual activity outside christian marriage. On another vers he says that our bodies are temples and we don't have to dishonor them by having sex with fornicators because we became one with them.
Dan, what about 1 Timothy 3:12? I can see it’s about ´deacons’ and not the general population. I know some who say this is anti-polygamie but have only been able to reply that I’m not sure about that - maybe it’s about having time for the church because they aren’t busy with their four wives, but I really don’t know. Can you shed any light on this one?
If honesty is part of your faith then you can disregard 1 Timothy as it is most likely a pseudoautographical work written after Paul's death by someone claiming to be him. Why would you need to consider a text that starts with a lie? Dan has a video and mentions this in many videos as do most front facing social media critical New Testament scholars.
Is Romans 1:26 actually talking about female homosexuality or is it just talking about females leaving what is natural for them, because Leviticus and Deuteronomy do not condemn females for same sex sexual activity. From a legalistic stand point, it would have to be made illegal in "The Law of Moses" for it to be unnatural for females. The law of Moses did not condemn females for same sex sex. In the Talmud there are Rabbis that say it is perfectly ok and others that say, while it is not illegal, women should not do it. If its not in the Law of Moses, then it is not wrong.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.” In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins. There are some interpreters today who object to lumping homosexuals in with the other sinners listed in this passage. The wording “men who have sex with men” is unclear, they say, and should not be construed as a condemnation of all same-sex activity. In an attempt to make homosexual behavior compatible with Christianity, they attempt to redefine the Greek word. The phrase “men who have sex with men” (translated “homosexuals” in the NASB) is a translation of the Greek word arsenokoitai. Those who object to this translation say that arsenokoitai does not refer to all homosexual relationships but only to those involving abuse, coercion, or unfaithfulness. They say the word does not refer to “loving, faithful” same-sex relationships. Arsenokoitai is a compound word: arseno is the word for “a male,” and koitai is the word for “mat” or “bed.” Put the two halves together, and the word means “a male bed”-that is, a person who makes use of a “male-only bed” or a “bed for males.” And, truthfully, that’s all the information we need to understand the intent of 1 Corinthians 6:9. As in English, the Greek word for “bed” can have both sexual and non-sexual meanings. The statement “I bought a new bed” has no sexual connotation; however, “I went to bed with her” does. In the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, koitai connotes an illicit sexual connotation-the apostle is clearly speaking of “wrongdoers” here. The conclusion is that the word arsenokoitai refers to homosexuals-men who are in bed with other men, engaging in same-gender sexual activity. It is interesting to note that arsenokoitai was not a common word in the Greek language to refer to homosexuality. Some have even claimed that the apostle Paul invented the word. This is not the case. In the Septuagint Greek translation of the two verses in the Mosaic Law that refer to homosexuality both contain forms of arseno and koitai (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). This likely indicates that Paul had Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 6:9, making it abundantly clear what Paul meant by the word arsenokoitai. The notion that some homosexual relationships are accepted is not even hinted at in this passage. The men’s commitment level or the presence of “love” is not addressed. The idea that the condemned same-sex activity is linked to economic exploitation or abuse is also a forced reading with no textual basis. Paul’s reference to “homosexuals,” together with a reference to “effeminate” men in the same verse (in the NASB), effectively covers both active and passive homosexual behavior. God’s Word is not open to personal interpretation in this matter. Homosexuality is wrong; it always has been, and it always will be. Just two verses later, 1 Corinthians 6:11 says, “And that is what some of you *were.* But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (emphasis added). This statement negates the idea of “homosexual Christianity” being acceptable to God. Paul tells the Corinthian believers that practices such as homosexuality were evidences of their former life before Christ. Now they have been born again, and they have a new nature and new desires. The old nature remains, and the temptations continue, but child of God has been called to fight against sin, not live in it any longer. By the life-changing grace of God, the Corinthians’ new life stands in opposition to the way they used to live.
"everyone alters what the Bible says to shit their cultural norms" this includes Dan there's a reason Dan targets Evangelical fundies and avoids Catholic scholarship (bonus: his claim that scriptural authors never intended to write for future readers is as 'blithe' as it is disingenuous, for the Scriptures repeatedly cast their words upon future and unknown hearers, just as Dan makes these videos assuming they will be relevant to unknown and future viewers) Dan is a postmodern sophist
As a gay man who sees value in the bible I've tried to fit in the church. I can't thank you enough for making me see that it's all a negotiation.
Just as nuns and monks are called to be celibate, God has placed the trial of lust for the same sex on homosexuals, this does not mean people who are like this will go to hell, but rather those who do not repent for their lustful thoughts and fight it via emboldening the holy spirit within them (just as heterosexual people having lustful thoughts outside of marriage, or sex outside of marriage) will be condemned. Many who condemn homosexuality are guilty of pointing out sawdust in their brothers eye with a plank in their own. God bless.
The expert on homosexuality is called Willy Mounts? Really?
😂
hilarious
I guess it's like that Dennis/Dentist things. I worked at a church where the chair of the Staff-Parish Relations Committee was named Christian Hires :: shrugs ::
We had a music producer here in sweden called Billy Butt maybe they are eachothers evil twin. He might still be here but also might not, coincidentally he was prosecuted for fornication in the 90's.
Another case of nominative determinism I guess =) There are plenty of examples!
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
People try to make it so complicated. Serve God and help others.
That's where "cherry picking" comes into play...
Have a great day.
@@Jin420
1 Corinthians 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Yeah your right, you should not cherry pick.
Ephesians 5:11
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
So because you hate what the bible says, my job is to expose you. You are not a bible believing christian. See how that works...???
Have a great day.
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@Jin420 you can call it cherry picking if you like. I say take what you need and leave the rest. We all have to walk our own road, even alone sometimes.
There are many paths to the top of the mountain.
I truly hope you have a great day, too! Thanks for the well wishes. I appreciate it
You just described a psychologically abusive relationship. Fortunately there's no reason to believe that any god has ever existed. Do not obey any external authority, ever. You'll be healthier and happier.
@@Jin420is it really cherry picking if there is no univocality?
Amen !!! to this analysis. Thank you very much for your thoughtful efforts.
God bless you Dan. This is a much needed message.
This was an awesome explanation and take-down. BRAVO! We need so much more of this!
Thank you Dan for your this video.
Your well invesntigated videos mean a lot for many people.
These videos are so important, Dan, because you are calling out the abuse inside the same Christian household so to speak.
Atheists can be (mis)treated as outsiders who don't understand.
You're approach from a deeper understanding is a much harder obstacle for bigots to overcome.
I don't have your faith, buddy, but I know people who hold it just as beautifully.
Thank you Dan. This was a tour de force presentation from yourself. Keep up the great work.
As a former Christian, I'm happy that Dan McLellan is doing God's work on UA-cam.
One wonders why a Christ rejector would applaud efforts towards doing "God's work".
@@denisesmith3544they’re either dumb or joking, and I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they have a sense of humor
i hope you rekindle that relationship fire with Jesus. i dont care about what you believe about right and wrong but i do care that you believe on Jesus. he loves us through thick and thin and he knows our heart
I grew up in the interior of Brazil in the 50s and 60s. I heard men bragging about "doing" another. Only the passive partner was considered homosexual and a victim of mistreatment. "Real men" could "do" anyone. Clearly a symbol of domination as you say.
There’s a baseball metaphor for that: you’re not gay if you pitch, only if you catch. What I hadn’t heard before I began watching Dan’s videos, I didn’t know that this was contradicted in the Bible.
Growing up in the south east, this was an accepted norm with some guys.
Same in some Central American countries.
This is ironically basically the exact position portions of the Bible take on that subject.
@@creamwobbly And remember that "homosexual sex" is not limited to penetrative behaviors. Insisting the only way two people with penises can interact to orgasm is by performing that one position demonstrates a highly limited understanding of several things.
A more important question might be: Who the hell does Paul think he is that he can decide who will "inherit the Kingdom of God" and who "will not"?
Such arrogance is unconscionable.
By that same logic, who are you to decide what is and what is not unconscionable?
@@MarcillaSmithA person who has to "conscience" it. We must all make our own decisions. I will not accept my companion saying that their opinion is the opinion of God. I want this to be a norm in my society. I don't take lies from my friends and I certainly don't take them from Paul.
@@be1tube Saint Paul is writing to an audience which came to him for the reason _that_ he was teaching a (new, at the time) theology which they wanted to learn. If we label Saint Paul "unconscionably arrogant" for trying to explain his theology in terms of who would and wouldn't inherit the Kingdom, we may as well get big mad at Nietzsche for saying that God is dead and we killed him. "How dare he accuses me!" It really misses the point.
Yeah, I get that he's prudish (in general, let's remember), and that his words have been cherry-picked to further marginalize the already marginalized. But is that really on Saint Paul over and above the people who are doing the cherry-picking? And just pragmatically-speaking, are we better off attempting to summon Mr. O'Tarsus from the Great Beyond to update his language to be more culturally-sensitive, or to call on the cherry-pickers to be better?
@@MarcillaSmiththe arrogance is that Paul claimed to be speaking on God's behalf in words given to him directly by Jesus Christ.
Mohammed did the same, claiming God (Allah) transmitted His words through the Angel Gabriel.
Paul says over and over (paraphrase) "these are not my words, they are God's words).
I see that as arrogant as well.
@@benjamintrevino325 Stephen Hawking claimed to be "speaking on behalf of the fundamental rules of the cosmos" (paraphrased). Do you consider that to be arrogance, as well?
I love this so much!!
Thank you for sharing this with us 🙋🏻♂️
"You can follow Jesus, or not."
So you have chosen...not, since Jesus said a whole bunch of stuff but none of it (as I recall) was related to where one decides to insert their genitals at the end of the day.
How's that feeding the hungry and caring for the sick coming along?
Agreed 🙋🏻♂️
Not to be argumentative, but Jesus kinda did. Matthew 19:12, he says at the end of the day, it’s better not to stick your genitalia anywhere
“And if not, if you choose to insert your penis in the wrong place, you’ll burn in hell for all eternity, but that’s not MY choice, it’s yours…and, well, the choice of the God of my interpretation, and I obviously don’t give a damn that MY god is the most sadistic eternal being my brain can conjure up. But never mind…go on…burn!”
Does he even, with his throwaway disdain, know what he’s telling us about himself? Not gays! Himself!
Repugnant and disgusting.
I make a distinction between Jesus and Christ. Christ was he that was crucified. Jesus was the man who lived and preached and became he who was crucified.
Why do I make this distinction? Is it meaningless?
No, because the bare minimum belief to qualify as a Christian is belief in the crucifixion: 1) that Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins, 2) that having paid the debt, he gave us everlasting life, and 3) that he was resurrected.
Then there are two admonishments: love god with all your heart and love thy neighbor.
This is Christianity as Paul set it up, before the Bible was written or disseminated. Paul and others certainly had their different ideas about how a Christian could maintain a state of grace, but let’s face it: there is no objective measure of how much one loves God, or their neighbor, nor is there total clarity on who constitutes a neighbor.
If the “value-added” teachings of Jesus were later layered upon Christianity, that is like extra credit, or you condemn the earliest converts to Christianity to damnation because they didn’t do the extra Jesus stuff.
Nailed it.
Powerful one Dan. And very much needed today. But, I still like the other Dan better!!
If what Gods wants for people is to find a partner, marry them and start a family it shouldn't matter what sexual orientation you are. Christians could have tought this but instead want to ignore the fact that no one chooses their orientation. God made people the way they are. But instead they want to demonize minorities of people who are all one in Christ Jesus.
Everyone alters the Bible to suite their cultural norms. I've seen this in my own life.
1990s US evangelicals: "An adulterer is not fit to be President!"
2010s US evangelicals: "Unless he's punishing the people that _I_ don't like!"
@@digitaljanus divorce is also prohibited unless under certain circumstances.
@Bible-Christian I was raised an Evangelical Christian and what changed my mind about the Bible is studying Church History. It's not that one particular interpretation is necessarily wrong (though there have been those) it's that cultures do interpret the Bible depending upon their needs. For example, take the divide between Orthodox and Catholics in Eastern Europe and why one people took one branch of the faith over the other.
@Bible-Christian - You know your argument is a weird combination of strawman and whataboutism, right?
@Bible-Christian Au, so you are also uneducated. That makes sense.
Thanks for the great video Dan. 🙏🏿
Thank you for this videos. A friend of mine is Muslima, Another friend is atheist, but grew up in the Dutch Bible Belt, so experienced some of that tradition. I was Dutch reformed, but now I’m not believing anymore. They are both informed about what I learned since I last saw them. We have such interesting conversations. And discussions.
Amen brother
As a trans christian existing in this faith is exhausting. I am a Eunuch leave me alone.
Thank You, Dan ✨️🩷
I might add that the actual meaning of male-bedder has been lost. We have next to zero data. Your view is an educated guess. Doesn't mean it's incorrect, just that you can't be dogmatic.
Also you need to explain why what you describe was so vehemently immoral. It was in their culture an abusiv act as it feminized and thus denigrated the victim. And this was in turn based on the cultural assumption, now considered false, that women were inferior to men in every way. If we want to use the Bible to condemn same-secs acts, then we can only do so by importing that false assumption.
Rom 1.26 does not describe female "same-secs" acts. The notion of "same-secs" is a modern category that we should not use in understanding the Bible. Rom 1.26 describes "their [the male idolaters'] females" doing something unnatural. This is vague, but likely about females taking the active role with males. That's why "likewise" males also poked males Rom 1.27. Furthermore, Rom 1.26-27 does not say these acts were sinful. They were merely described as contrary to social norms. Rom 1.26-27 taken literally fails to condemn anything, and in fact is not to be used in this way lest you fall foul of Rom 2.1.
Mr. McClellan, you have such a solid way of explaining your meaning I can't fail to be impressed.
Because of Dan's erudite evaluation, I believe he's right. My position is more along how I regard divine thinking. In short, I find it impossible to believe that God, understanding human nature as He does, would ever say or inspire any sentiment that would lead to bigotry, marginalizing, and persecution of individuals who want nothing more than to live in accordance with their orientation.
Thx Dan as always! ❤
It's insane how so many people care about what the Bible says. The whole book is a minefield and everyone thinks their interpretation is the correct path through. Everyone should just avoid it like the plague.
I wonder if he dies, will his brother marry his wife and support her family. 🧐
If his brother does, he better not "spill his seed!"
Only if there's no heir. Read the whole thing. Cherry-picking is for apologists.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 Hey, perhaps he only has daughters.🤷♂️ I’m just making a point that we as a modern society don’t live by these ancient morals today. Morality is not fixed as it changes as we continue to learn from human experience. Have a nice day 🙂
@@lysanamcmillan7972 Still means it is a possibility.
Here's what I have to say: we all turned the frogs gay.
There's one thing I'd really appreciate getting people's honest thoughts on. I don't know what to make of testimonies where people claim that they have somehow been ‘delivered’ from homosexuality? Coming from an evangelical background, I’ve come across testimonies of people who say that after repenting from their former ‘lifestyles’ and accepting Jesus, they have been 'delivered' from same-sex attraction. These stories don’t seem to resemble what we would associate with ‘conversion therapy’ in a traditional sense, but rather a personal experience that involves some purported supernatural intervention. Some even describe being released from ‘demonic oppression’ and will sometimes talk about various physiological and psychological changes in the body as part of their experience. I genuinely don’t know what to make of any of this. And it's especially vexing to be told that this is what you should expect to experience as well if you 'surrender' your sexuality to God. It’s absolutely clear that a lot of people have experienced their lives improving after finally coming to terms with their sexuality - no longer repressing an important part of who they are. But in some evangelical communities, you will similarly get people saying that their lives are radically different after turning away from homosexuality and accepting Jesus. I genuinely don’t know what to make of this discrepancy between people who find liberation when embracing their sexuality, and those who find the same so called ‘freedom’ rejecting it. What do you make of this? Quick disclaimer, I don’t mean to suggest that I understand or support any of this. I am genuinely curious as to how we might interpret these types of anecdotes. I don’t want to rely solely on explanations from evangelicals echo-chambers. I also don't want to deny anyone's experience. Anyone's honest thoughts on this would be most appreciated. Many thanks :)
When the body submits to the Spirit, the chains of temptation towards sin are loosened or broken entirely depending on whether or not the submission is total. People who have not experienced it would benefit from patience and be encouraged by the promise of the freedom they see in others to foster a righteous conscience. If they ever have a mindset of doing things in a 'good enough' way, they should question whether they are really giving their all for the Lord and being honest with themselves about the things that their doing because pretty much everything in their lives should be assessed (not obsessively, they should think through it all wisely over time). Offering oneself only in part is like offering crop as Cain offered to the Lord, which comes from more mechanical work, when he is really looking for the best from us as Abel offered through the firstborn of the flock he shepherded. As for sexuality, coming to terms with it is beneficial for an accurate assessment of who the person is, but confessing anything inherently sinful as part of one's unchangeable identity can prevent them from seeing any need for change and lead to complacency. This applies not only to sexuality but for other sins too.
One way of explaining why not to give in to their body is by asking them to consider same-sex attraction as another form of seeking out echo-chambers, since men and women are different and also equal with different perspectives.
Paul also considers heterosexual attraction to be a temptation since it can also lead to sin, so it should be considered a battle against sexual temptation as a whole rather than that of merely the same sex. They shouldn't be pressured to marry the opposite sex but encouraged to focus only on overcoming their temptation with love for the Lord.
Finally, remember that it is written to flee from sexual sin and not merely resist it. It is a very big thing to self-deny not only in mind and heart but also in the body that is sinful.
I stayed up all night so please do not mind the non-sequiturs too much.
Oh, and I do understand that same-sex attraction may not be lustful, but it is still something to resist.
@ Thanks for your time responding, i appreciate it. I do wonder why homosexuality is talked about in terms of temptation though. If we look at the development of sexuality, it would seem young adolescents notice that they are attracted to the same sex around the same time heterosexuals do, so why do you conceive of an orientation as a form of temptation? It appears to be an immutable, preserved part of the human condition, as well as other animal species.
Also, why do you say that homosexuality leads to more sin? What gives you that idea? I know gay people who are no more prone to other sins than straight people, and many of them the kindest, gentlest people I know.
Thank you Dan.
How much hatred does a human being need to have in order to rely on bronza age mythologies to justify said hatred? I will never understand their determination to keep hating on others.
The hatred is mostly a means to an end -- the desire for power and control. By convincing others to hate like they hate they can get the masses to put them in positions of authority. That's the real poison the hatemongers are pedaling. Not the hate itself but the lust for power. Think about how they've used fear and hatred of homosexuality, abortion, transgender, and immigration issues to rally the troops and win elections at every level in government from school boards to the White House.
I've got a boomer hippie mom who has Southern Baptist parents. Mom had no tolerance for racism (except for Vietnamese immigrants for some reason), my grandparents didn't consider themselves racist, but made no effort to avoid slurs or generalities. As a child and young person, I remember wondering who it was okay to hate, who I could regard as, basically, enemies or prey. I think if I had chosen someone and been rewarded by a respected elder for dehumanizing them, I might've been a real prick. Luckily, the only group I consistently find abhorrent are French men, and I don't run into many.
I don’t think it is that simple.
Do you hate Genesis 2:24?
*Iron age
the "PERIOD" AT 3:34, that was a serve
Rather than outright ignoring some of the texts in The Bible, why aren't the texts taken for what they are and the reader simply concludes that if that's what The Bible is saying, then they are done with The Bible? I get there are good parts in there but if as a whole doesn't hold up, it's not for me - Like the Star Wars saga :)
Because the texts are different, they have been changed through time and to different languages, so we need scholars to find the original meaning
I kind of want to through the baby out with the bath water too sometimes. I think of it this way though. So many people thought the message of the Bible was important so they did their best to write down what they know and preserve it to pass it along. The Bible simply points the way to God. And sometimes the authors ideas of who God was were wrong. And some things contradict. But if you can still have faith even though the Bible has inaccuracies, I think it will make your faith stronger and free you from being controlled by people’s own perceptions of the Bible.
Honestly after learning some of these things, I feel like I’ve broken up with an abusive partner 😂. I am also able to trust my own instincts better rather than blindly follow “truths” of the Bible. I don’t have to try to explain things that don’t make sense. For instance, it doesn’t make sense that 2 consenting adults of the same sex shouldn’t express that together. It’s literally not hurting anyone.
because people are given apologetics to explain away the uncomfortable parts of the Bible before they even read it
You: arsenokoitai
Me: *giggles*
Me too 😂 then lol with William Mounce.
Dan, I’d like to apologise to you. I once misunderstood your stance in a video of yours and offered a snide comment in this section. Anyway, I’ve subscribed and look forward to watching your content.
I can't recall the exact first Dan video I watched but I wasn't loving it.. but something made me keep listening and the more he talked the more I realized he really was coming from a place of scholarship. Just a day or two ago he did a video with AronRa who found himself telling his followers to subscribe to Dan's channel. Because Dan's scholarship is that good. Yes, it'll make you think. Sometimes it will piss you off. But he really does follow his tagline of "data over dogma". UA-cam and the rest of social media could use a lot more of that.
That’s real integrity right there. Bravo!
Bravo!
Good for you. Few of us have understanding of things at this level of scholarship. Informing, and growing in, our understanding is what matters.
It's so rare and refreshing to encounter online accountability, thanks for restoring a tiny bit of my faith in humanity.
May I ask what you originally found so disagreeable and what changed your mind?
Dan, what do you kean about ignoring th eating of blood? Black pudding isn't that popular... and rare steak isnt actually bloody
That's not remotely close to what the commandment against eating blood entails. Jewish dietary laws are much closer to following what the commandment is trying to tell you, ie, the eating of blood in any real amount is forbidden. Blood is supposed to be drained from animals during slaughter, and not made into food.
@@yallimsorry5983 Yes, and my question is, in what way are many Christians ignoring the command not to consume blood? Genuine curiosity, since I'm not aware of what foods actually contains blood. As ScottKorin points out, a "bloody" steak is not actually bloody.
Is the sacrament considered consuming blood?
Thank you Dr Dan. I wonder if the divorce question is negotiated to allow it. "Fornication" etc. I was surprised to hear my good christian friend say that he had a biblical excuse to divorce his wife.
I got married at 20 we were jehovahs witnesses. I quit at 25 and we finally divorced when I was 30. I got a new girlfriend after a year and my ex found out so she called me to ask me if she was "scripturally free." I was like wtf, why do you need to ask me that, do whatever you want.
My parents stayed in an abusive relationship with each other and their 6 children for 18 years. Because of the teaching from the church against divorce.
He needs to turn his gaze inward,or a po piso,eyes forward 👀
So...God hates bottoms? I find it absurd. Also, any book written by people that didn't bathe and wiped with their bare hands, not a bunch of folks I take my cues from.
Malakoi was also used for men who were overly interested in sex with women! In this case it meant “soft” as in “self-indulgent”. Also because of the Greek belief that men shouldn’t associate with women because the femininity would rub off on the men, so even having heterosexual sex more than necessary for reproduction was overly feminine. It could also be used to mean “luxurious” or “comfort seeking” so it didn’t necessarily imply “effeminate” the same way that we think of the word, and certainly not necessarily homosexual
Thank you for rolling back the subtitle font. Much easier to parse.
I've always been interested in this topic. Thanks for some further clarification. My overall way of thinking about consensual adult sex is that it's none of my business what other humans do in bed.
If our feelings and lack of action make sin okay, where are the people endorsing covetousness?
With the Bible often saying "man" to refer to humans, a lesbian is a homosexual "man."
And Jesus said we didn't have to engage in sexual activity in order to commit adultery in our heart.
The problem is when someone says "the Bible tells us how to live"...No, the Bible tells YOU how to live YOUR life...after that it's you trying to tell others how to live their lives not the Bible.
À la cart, Christianity… That’s what you call these people who cherry pick which part of the text to ignore which part to enforce
flatly is my new favorite word. thank you dan
Hey Dan, I'd be interested in hearing you offer your opinion on matters of what *should* guide our negotiation of the text, especially since it seems that the answers of "the text itself" or "a textually- informed tradition" would allow bias to shape interpretation. Using this video as an example, you correct the stitched creator's reading with a more precise one, but you don't offer guidance on what to do with that more precise reading, especially as it still seems to condemn certain behavior - you only go on to reiterate the general case that the the Bible's meaning is shaped as much by its own social contexts as our own. The options with the more precise reading seem to be to discard it or downplay it, or to obey it. You don't seem to advocate the latter, so what direction do we have for the authority or basis of wisdom or tradition or mindset to guide the former?
I think Dan would argue that we should “accept” or follow those things in the Bible - and any text, for that matter - which we find useful and beneficial, and discard what we find unhelpful or harmful, hence his take that Scripture nowhere condemns and everywhere endorses slavery, and we just… did away with that as a society.
Great question, I also get a little frustrated by this. My guess is he would reply with that's not his expertise. I like how you invoked wisdom though as the mindfulness practices are probably our best tool to properly interpret the texts.
@@Cornelius135 Agreed, it's actually not that hard but my God some people act like your Satan himself if you articulate this biblical approach.
@@tcizziMany people are limited by a zero-sum mindset unfortunately
Look, I'm an atheist. Former evangelical Christian. Anything can be an authoritative text. When a republican screeches about "The constitution" and the glorious godhead of the founders, they are invoking an appeal of authority.
You could bang on a text such as Frankenstein and state that it is an authority on how an aspect of our society should be structured. You are the one imputing authority to this Christian text. To a Hindu, this Christian text might be nice but they have their own "authoritative text" and your text isn't authoritative. See... people have to accept the idea that a particular text is authoritative. It's very subjective. In the old days, the winners used to violently impose their beliefs and that's how your Christianity really spread. You don't really think the African slaves asked for that slave bible... do you?
Anyway, you may not realize this but you are telling everybody who is watching what kind of person you are by what verses you stress and whether or not you even use something like a Bible. It's not logic and evidence based. It's feeling based and then, a post hoc rationalization to justify what you feel is correct. Don't fall for the lie that humans are rational and evidence based. We are emotional and the logic and critical thinking makes our heads hurt. That's how you're going to intuit what verses resonate with you.
So I'd respectfully ask that you just follow the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Well said, sir!!!!
LOVE that fit!
The chapter is clearly talking about man-ing the courts 🧑⚖ of the *KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.*
So whatever it says, it only has to do with the rulers of the kingdom, not everyone who makes it.
Christians ✝ really have completely forgotten the *entire point* of the New Testament. 🙄
I just have to hope that Jesus overrides Paul. I will wait for the two witnesses to show up to explain things. I just want to exist.
God bless you!!!
Here's The Thing...
I don't think ben grimm would take a receptive role.
Why not? So long as Reed gave him a reach-around. I don’t think you’re making an F4-worthy effort to picture it.
Would he let a woman on top? That's all it takes to emasculate a man in Romans.
Dan says, Leviticus 20:13 is "... describing ONE man taking the insertive role in an act of male same sex intercourse ...."
So what difference does Dan think this actually proves?
Leviticus goes on to declare, "... BOTH of them have committed an abomination: THEY shall surely be put to death; THEIR blood shall be upon THEM."
On top or on the bottom, makes no difference, they are BOTH equally dead as a result of their actions. I wonder why Dan didn't mention this tiny detail?
I deeply appreciate your stance on fundamental human rights for the LGBTQIA+ community, @maklelan.
If we can't interpret the bible without adapting it to our own cultural norms, then can we ever definitively say what any given passage within the bible means? If we can never definitively say what any given passage means, then how can we say that its wrong to translate arsenokoitai as "homosexuals"?
The best technique to understand what the Bible means, is to compare usages in different passages to look for commonalities in meaning. That helps in understanding what the original authors meant. Historians do the same thing in studying secular history.
As for adapting the Bible to our own cultural norms, that removes any absolute authority from the text and reduces it to support for ones cultural norms. That can be OK if one is merely codifying their own cultural norms, but it means that the Bible can't be used to support claims that God Says This or God Wants That.
Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman have done some good work in this space. Dale in his book Sex and The Single Saviour, and Bart on his blog. The big problem with this word is that we have only a very small number of examples of its usage, so figuring out what it means is very difficult. Trying to use the linguistic equivalent of simple arithmetic is not really a good method. Just adding "male" + "bedders" = homosexuals is not right. By that logic the meaning of the constituent words in compound words like "understand" and "motherf#$%er" should also reveal their meaning, and we know that's not right. We simply don't know what it means. Dale Martin has looked at all the known examples of its usage, and has concluded the best guess is something to do with money and male sex.
The thing is that, at that time and place, the man taking the insertive role, would most often be an older man, and the receiving role would most often be taken by a teenager or little boy. Meaning that it is likely what Paul was condemning was not gay sex, but rather, pedophilia.
You mean pederasty. It's not the same as pedofilia.
@@MusicalRaichu No, I mean what I said. A boy can't have a sexual relationship with a grown man, it's called rape and pedophilia, and you know that.
@@MusicalRaichu No, I mean what I said. A boy can't have a sexual relationship with a grown man. It's called r**e and pedophilia, and you know that.
@@MusicalRaichu No, I mean what I said. A boy can't have a sexual relationship with a grown man. It's called SA and pedophilia, and you know that.
@@MusicalRaichu No, I mean what I said. A boy can't have a relationship with a grown man. It's called assault and pedophilia and you know that.
The hubris -- to think that they know more than biblical/ religious scholars, like Dan. Smh..
1 Timothy 2:12
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
@JenniferandAmanda-ke6pr sorry to say -- scriptures don't mean much to me, especially considering I'm an atheist.
Religions are mere "tools" to control over the mass of people imo.. plus, most of them sound like "doomsday cults."
But quoting scriptures won't do any good. (I am a former believer)
Ijs..
Have a great day. 😊
Male on male homosexuality is SPECIFICALLY condemned in this verse. Female on famale isn't mentioned as often perhaps because the male on male act is a bigger abomination and feminizing a male. From their veiwpoint male on male sex was far worse from a hygenic standpoint.
While the meaning of the words is unclear, it is possible that male with male secs is condemned. It is for unspecified reasons, but we know them from the historical context. Homoxesuality, however is not mentioned (it was in fact unknown). Nor are committed loving relationships between two men.
Get em Dan
This was a particularly savage response--not wrong, just a good "mic drop" moment. Good job as always!
A contemporary English slang term might be "Top" or "Pitcher"
Of course, then the preachers might just start condemning baseball players and spinning toys.
Great vídeo, but saying that the NT doesnt say anything about monogamy/poligamy is a bit much no? Jesus and Paul clearly defend monogamy
Clearly? Please explain, I'm curious.
In the KJV the word is translated as "effeminate". I wonder how the KJV only crowd navigates this one. I have a mild suspicion the content creator in question is normally a KJV guy, but makes an exception with this verse
Thanks Dan. Keep helping us understand what the Bible says and just what some people’s want it to say
Did Paul ever coin any other words using the Septuagint? Which words? If he didn't coin any other words this way, why would we assume he did just this one time?
What did arsenkoitai mean when used in texts outside the Bible? Did any ancient author use it to mean someone born with a homosexual orientation?
In what other ancient text does malakoi refer to a same-sex act?
Were not the men described in Romans innately heterosexual to begin with who then performed acts unnatural to them? Does Romans describe men who were born innately homosexual?
Weren't the women described in Romans performing oral sex and anal sex with men? Where does it specify it was females having sex with each other?
There was no such thing as the concept of sexual orientation in that cultural group in those days. Sexual behavior and desire for same weren't a thing you saw as part of your identity. It was what you felt and chose to express. There's a Roman graffito I consider to be a good example of this. In Latin it reads, "Dolete puellae, paedicare volo, cunne superbe vale!" Translated, it reads: "Grieve you girls, I want to f*ck guys in the arse, goodbye overbearing c*nts." He didn't say his identity changed. He said his behavior is being altered by conscious choice. And frankly, the vast majority of people who can consciously choose to limit their sexual partners to one gender after finding any others personally distasteful at least start out as some flavor of bisexual, not heterosexual. The political lesbian is a screed for another day.
Where did you come from?? That was absolutely perfect and would have taken me 3 hours to say without the impact.
Well said Dan
Is Dan Mormon?
Hi Dan, Both LDS (which I'm passingly familiar with) and the Catholic-Orthodox Nexus(CON) (which I grew up in) are both Huge Philosophical-Theological-Legal Weltanschauungen. I identified as an Ex-Catholic in my first post to you. Once you are in the Galacticus world Swallowing mind set, it always leaves an indent on how you Perceive the sphere.
I started glancing at Greek (cf. e. e. cummings) in order to get more into Plato and the playwrights. So when I got to glance at the Hellenized Bible (1970s), I could see the literary influences. ἀρσενοκοίτης makes me think linguistically of Gumby's Pony Pal "Pokey" and μαλακοὶ "Mr Softee" (now I'm craving ice cream) I knew from the Banquet Model, the army of lovers that would conquer the world (shades of Janissaries) that I, myself was half of the Aristophonic Male.
I had a very close friend who translated modern documents from French, German, and Italian into English and she would call me from time to time for 'mot juste' discussions. If folks would only humble themselves to actually TRANSLATE, they would loose a lot hubris.
Thanks Dan for trying to stir the minds on KJV auto-pilot into leaving the cave of shadows. Jim the Dabbler.
Errata - I just noticed it was an Aron Ra Video and not Paulogia. Being human confirmation Pi Cubed.
I heard this addressed on the podcast not long ago, and I found it interesting and somewhat compelling. I would, however, like to hear a deeper explanation and/or citations for the reasons behind interpreting it as the insertive and receptive roles. Thanks.
I'm an agnostic so my opinions are going to be FAR different from the people that believe that the bible is an inspired work from an omnimoral and omniscient GOD. People who base their lives and in many cases financial livings peddling the philosophies of this book. I just have to say that this book is WAY too morally and ethically inconsistent to quite frankly, deserve the moral pedestal that it's often placed on. Based on 1 Cor. 6:9, Romans 1:26 and Leviticus 20:13, I think you ACTUALLY can safely infer that GOD condemns homosexuality (As difficult as it is to hear). But I'm going to need a list of scriptures and philosophies that are ACTUALLY inspired by GOD to differentiate from the ones that aren't. Because while the bible does condemn this it simultaneously condones and in some cases GLORIFIES topics like violence, mass murder and genocide (of which Hitler is famous for), human sacrifice and the killing of infants, Slavery (Including sexual slavery)... The overall domination of women. Rape under certain circumstances. It condemns inter-tribal marriage and by extension inter-racial marriage often with deadly consequences (Which you can easily associate with the philosophies of the Nazis and the KKK concerning modern Eugenics). It forbids wearing clothing woven from two different kinds of specifically suggested threads or fabrics. And despite everyone's fixation on homosexuality, it doesn't condemn or even mention pedophilia and the abuse of children. Curious omission given Jesus' affinity for them... And then a split second later philosophically speaking, it encourages that we should all love our neighbors as ourselves...
Now does that kind of GROSS ethical inconsistency suggest omnimoral guidance to you 🤨. Put inconsistent ethical standards on a pedestal and that's EXACTLY what it's going to perpetuate... Ethical and moral inconsistentcy. Like baking "unleavened" bread in a dented pan..
CLEARLY the bible isn't perfect because if the values of mass murdering Nazis can be scripturally glorified alongside Pacifists then condemning JUST homosexuality (As opposed to everything else) is the least of it's problems... And because the bible is so ethically inconsistent, for people who observe the bible it's a CONSTANT doctrinal negotiation as you try to derive moral consistency from a book that is systemically inconsistent... So much so that I can use scripture to simultaneously condemn and condone scripture (Along with everything else) Good luck with that👍🏼.
My personal belief is that as long as you're not a harm to yourself or the people around you... Don't get too bent out of shape, because the bible is the ONLY book that I've EVER read that places more positive moral emphasis on murder and genocide narratively (And doctrinally) than it does sexuality... Hilarious 🙄
Sidenote: ua-cam.com/video/AIHjoT19XpE/v-deo.htmlsi=Y2njzgNFewgpZB9t (Question... Which abomination comes first? Anachronistic #$%!@)
I am confident you never read the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew with the oral Torah explanations.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 In my deconstructive analysis of the bible, ethics came first... Not dogma. Moral double standards are baked into your very perception of the bible for the purpose of propping up doctrine... It's difficult to be dispassionate about something you hold dear. But sometimes you have to be to truly understand what you're ACTUALLY reading. And what that represents ethically... I'm sorry if these ethical truths found in the bible have provoked disbelief on your part...
@@SavvySavant It is not within the purview of Gentiles to deconstruct the Jewish Torah.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I've seen people make a case that the verses on arsenokoitai are actually against exploitative sex, rather than homosexual sex. I'd like to think that's true, but of course that doesn't mean it is. Is that argument valid?
There's insufficient context both in the Bible and in the few later uses of the word to pin down it's meaning. Any reconstruction is conjectural. I had a brief look at the academic literature and there's lots of ideas with no consensus. Some of the earliest uses after the NT list it as an economic not a secs sin.
Having said that, it's possible it was about men who poked males. Most instances at the time were indeed exploitative, common victims being enslaved boys. Thus there's no significant practical contradiction between the two views, more about pinning down the exact connotation and scope, which is difficult to ascertain.
Dan, what exactly makes scholars think that Romans 1:26 refers to female homosexuality? The text only mentions female sexual deviancy, not same-sex activity.
truth
My understanding of the Bible talking about this subject was changed in a such a way when I was reading up a bit on Norse society and seiðr. "Ergi" was a word used toward men who practiced seiðr. It was thought to be something women did.
When I had read that a man lying with a man as one would with a woman, I also thought about how women were treated as second-class citizens. So for a man to take the role of what was expected to be a role women took, was to emasculate oneself, as it were.
Since these are different times from the past, I find the idea that the Bible can provide us with a cohesive set of ethics to be nonsensical.
🔥🔥🔥
Good font choice for the captions. It's fitting for the fits.
Hi Dan! Great video as always.
Could you possibly address whether the NRSVue’s translation of arsenokoitai and malakoi is more accurate than the previous NRSV? I’ve seen some arguments by apologists but I don’t know what scholars think about it.
It was translated by a committee of scholars....
@@byrondickens Good point! I just haven’t heard much about their reasoning.
So basically what your saying is that homosexuality is permissible in the bible as long as you're not being gay about it?
(Also I want to note that I am joking here. In all seriousness you are doing great work Dan, keep it up.)
Thing is, it's not a joke. That is Dan's twisted logic in a nut shell.
I think what he's saying is that as long as you leave your socks on and the balls don't touch, you're good.
@@glenwillson5073 It isn’t twisted logic at all. It is based on the text within context, without dogmatic eisegesis.
@@Bobjdobbs
So show me how, the "text within the context" does not say, death is the penalty for same-sex sexual activity between two men?
And show me, where exactly does so called "dogmatic eisegesis" have anything to do with anything in reading this text?
Dan says, Leviticus 20:13 is "... describing ONE man taking the insertive role in an act of male same sex intercourse ...."
So what difference does Dan think this actually makes or proves?
Leviticus goes on to declare, ... BOTH of them have committed an abomination: THEY shall surely be put to death; THEIR blood shall be upon THEM.
On top or on the bottom, makes no difference, they are BOTH equally dead as a result of their actions. I wonder why Dan didnt mention this interesting bit of text within the context?
And show me how, the "text within the context" does not say the "arsenokoitai", Dan's man on the bottom, are unrighteous?
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
As usualyou're absolutely wrong dan. It doesn't describe a male taking the insertive role. That's found nowhere in Scripture. That's some you invented. It is most definitely speaking about the act itself, regardless of the intentions behind the act
"The compound Greek word arsenokoitai (arsen-o-koi-tai; plural of singular arsenokoitēs) is formed from the Greek words for “lying” (verb keimai; stem kei- adjusted to koi- before the “t” or letter tau) and “male” (arsēn). The word is a neologism created from terms used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions of men “lying with a male” (18:22; 20:13). (Note that the word for “lying” in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions is the noun koitē, also meaning “bed,” which is formed from the verb keimai. The masculine -tēs suffix of the sg. noun arsenokoitēs denotes continuing agency or occupation, roughly equivalent to English -er attached to a noun; hence, “(male) liers with a male.”)
That the connection to the absolute Levitical prohibitions against male-male intercourse is self-evident from the following points: (a) The rabbis used the corresponding Hebrew abstract expression mishkav zākûr, “lying of/with a male,” drawn from the Hebrew texts of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, to denote male-male intercourse in the broadest sense. (b) The term or its cognates does not appear in any non-Jewish, non-Christian text prior to the sixth century A.D. This way of talking about male homosexuality is a distinctly Jewish and Christian formulation. It was undoubtedly used as a way of distinguishing their absolute opposition to homosexual practice, rooted in the Torah of Moses, from more accepting views in the Greco-Roman milieu. (c) The appearance of arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10 makes the link to the Mosaic law explicit, since the list of vices of which arsenokoitai is a part are said to be derived from “the law” (1:9). While it is true that the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts, in this instance it clearly does.
(2) The implications of the context in early Judaism.That Jews of the period construed the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse absolutely and against a backdrop of a male-female requirement is beyond dispute. For example, Josephus explained to Gentile readers that “the law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman. . . . But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199). There are no limitations placed on the prohibition as regards age, slave status, idolatrous context, or exchange of money. The only limitation is the sex of the participants. According to b. Sanh. 54a (viz., tractate Sanhedrin from the Babylonian Talmud), the male with whom a man lies in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 may be “an adult or minor,” meaning that the prohibition of male-male unions is not limited to pederasty. Indeed, there is no evidence in ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism, or rabbinic Judaism that any limitation was placed on the prohibition of male-male intercourse.
(3) The choice of word. Had a more limited meaning been intended-for example, pederasts-the terms paiderastai (“lover of boys”), paidomanai (“men mad for boys”), or paidophthoroi (“corrupters of boys”) could have been chosen.
(4) (4) The meaning of arsenokoitai and cognates in extant usage. The term arsenokoitēs and cognates after Paul (the term appears first in Paul) are applied solely to male-male intercourse but, consistent with the meaning of the partner term malakoi, not limited to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes (see specifics in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 317-23). For example, the 4th century church historian Eusebius quoted from a 2nd-3rd century Christian, Bardesanes (“From the Euphrates River [eastward] … a man who … is derided as an arsenokoitēs… will defend himself to the point of murder”), and then added that “among the Greeks, wise men who have male lovers are not condemned” (Preparation for the Gospel 6.10.25). Elsewhere Eusebius alluded to the prohibition of man-male intercourse in Leviticus as a prohibition not to arsenokoitein (lie with a male) and characterized it as a “pleasure contrary to nature,” “males mad for males,” and intercourse “of men with men” (Demonstration of the Gospel 1.6.33, 67; 4.10.6). Translations of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic also define the term generally as “men lying with males.”
(5) Implications of the parallel in Rom 1:24-27. It is bad exegesis to interpret the meaning of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 without consideration of the broad indictment of male-male intercourse expounded in Rom 1:27 (“males with males”). The wording of Rom 1:27 (“males, leaving behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their yearning for one another”) points to an inclusive rejection of all male-male relations. Paul here does not distinguish between good non-exploitative forms of male homosexual practice and bad exploitative forms but rather contrasts all male homosexual relations with natural intercourse between a man and a woman. He also emphasizes reciprocity (“yearning for one another”), a fact that rules out an indictment only of a coercive one-sided homosexual desire.
Other factors confirm the inclusive rejection of all male homosexual practice in Rom 1:27: Paul’s intertextual echo in Rom 1:23-27 to Gen 1:26-27 (which contrasts male homosexual practice with God’s intentional design in creation, “male and female [God] created them” and the consequent marital bond), his use of a nature argument (which transcends distinctions based on coercion or promiscuity), and the parallel indictment of lesbianism in Rom 1:26 (a phenomenon in the ancient world not normally manifested with slaves, call girls, or adolescents). The fact that semi-official same-sex marriages existed in the Greco-Roman world and were condemned by Greco-Roman moralists, rabbis, and Church Fathers as unnatural, despite the mutual commitment of the participants in such marriages, is another nail in the coffin for the contention that the term arsenokoitai had only exploitative or promiscuous male homosexual relations in view.
(6) Implications from the context of 1 Cor 5-7. This absolute and inclusive sense is further confirmed by the broader context of 1 Cor 5-7: the parallel case of incest in ch. 5 (which gives no exceptions for committed, loving unions and echoes both Levitical and Deuteronomic law); the vice list in 6:9-11 (where sexual offenders are distinguished from idolaters, consent is presumed, and a warning is given to believers not to engage in such behavior any longer); the analogy to sex with a prostitute in 6:12-20 (where Gen 2:24 is cited as the absolute norm and the Christian identity of the offender is presumed); and the issue of marriage in ch. 7 (which presumes throughout that sex is confined to male-female marriage).
(7) The relevance of 1 Cor 11:2-16.If inappropriate hairstyles or head coverings were a source of shame because they compromised the sexual differences of men and women, how much more would a man taking another man to bed be a shameful act, lying with another male “as though lying with a woman”? Paul did not make head coverings an issue vital for inclusion in God’s kingdom, but he did with same-sex intercourse.
(8) Implications of 1 Tim 1:9-10 corresponding to the Decalogue. At least the last half of the vice list in 1 Tim 1:8-10 (and possibly the whole of it) corresponds to the Decalogue. Why is that important? In early Judaism and Christianity, the Ten Commandments often served as summary headings for the full range of laws in the Old Testament. The seventh commandment against adultery, which was aimed at guarding the institution of marriage, served as a summary of all biblical sex laws, including the prohibition of male-male intercourse. The vice of kidnapping, which follows arsenokoitaiin 1 Tim 1:10, is typically classified under the eighth commandment against stealing (so Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides, the rabbis, and the Didache; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 335-36). This makes highly improbable the attempt by some to pair arsenokoitai with the following term andrapodistai(kidnappers, men-stealers), as a way of limiting its reference to exploitative acts of male-male intercourse (so Robin Scroggs), rather than with the inclusive sexual term pornoi (the sexually immoral) that precedes it.
(9) The implication of the meaning of malakoi. If the term malakoi is not limited in its usage to boys or to men who are exploited by other men (and it is not so limited; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 306-12), then arsenokoitai certainly cannot be limited to men who have sex with boys or slaves.
(10) Sex with adult males as worse than sex with adolescent boys. In the Greco-Roman world homosexual intercourse between an adult male and a male youth was regarded as a less exploitative form of same-sex eros than intercourse between two adult males. The key problem with homosexual intercourse-behaving toward the passive male partner as if the latter were female-was exacerbated when the intercourse was aimed at adult males who had outgrown the “softness” of immature adolescence. Consequently, even if arsenokoitai primarily had in mind man-boy love (and from all that we have said above, there is no evidence that it does), then, a fortiori, it would surely also take in man-man love."
Cite your sources, or are you afraid to be proven to be vomiting apologist drivel again?
I'd also love to see Dan engage the actual (hostile) Greco-Roman attitudes/policies towards what we now call "homosexual culture"
(spoiler alert: they did not like it)
Quick answer: Since there was no such thing as "homosexual culture" in either the Greco- or Roman eras, they obviously had no attitude towards it.
Cooked
I was literally about to bring up the slavery thing too lol
What people miss from the Bible:
Laws of Moses was for the Jewish people only.
Secondly: Book of Revelations already happened when the Temple of Jerusalem fell. Regardless when you think the text is written, Jesus spoke of that temple.
Thirdly: Going back to the laws of Moses is a slap in the face of what Jesus did, which Paul and company still had to regard until the temple fell.
The Torah of Moses has 613 commandments for Jews and the 7 for Gentiles.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 talking about Noahides?
What Dan is doing is responding to another creator particularly pertaining to a single subject. He's addressing the texts as they are written by Paul. He's not causing division. Its people's failure to understand the difference between sexual orientation and sex acts that causes division because of presuppositions and and the negotiation one does with the texts. There's no such thing as homosexual sin. Between Leviticus and Paul both describe the acts, not orientation. One's notion of orientation didn't exist in either the 8th century BCE or the 1st century CE. Just because some choose to be arrogant and ignorant, that's their problem. Its their pride that would marginalize and dehumanize another. Its their pride that would think they're superior unto another. It's their pride that upholds the narratives and the bigotry of others. It's the pride that is truly the deadliest sin of all.
No, not in my opinion. The term is used to describe the relationship between a pubescent boy and a grown man. The boy was a victim of a pedophile.
Are you basing this off of scholarship or opinion?
You should do your own research. Find out for yourself.
@@Bobjdobbs
He/she literally just said "No, not in my opinion".........cant you read...?
The New King James Version has a footnote in 1 Corinthians 6:9 on the term "homosexuals" which says "That is, catamites" and God allows this very same bible to be sold in the book stores to this very day.
This is Gods Opinion. So the text is actually saying :
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 = New King James Version
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
So basically, God will not accept a full grown adult who is in a relationship with a very young human being into his kingdom nor will God accept those that practice anal sex into his kingdom. Yes, there are many heterosexuals that go to a building block "church" and they practice anal sex and they claim to be "bible believing christians"............
People in a building block can not be trusted.
Jeremiah 23:1 = Original King James Pure Cambridge Edition ( which contains the exact written word of God )
"Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD."
Now in Jeremiah chapter 23 and verse 1 through 4 talks about "The Evil Of Your Doings" ......this passage is not talking about "Pastors Are Trustworthy"
Many people are hypoctrites, and when I challenge their understanding of the Holy Scriputures, they flee......
hahahahaha 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
hi 💕 I put a like on your comment 😊
well how else are you gonna have a homosexual act without one of them being the receiver
The Bible was clearly against two men having sex .. the end..
You can pick a part some antics if you want to because of your political perspective but we all know what to text means
I mean, apparently you don’t?
EVERY sentiment expressed in the bible is just what you would expect to hear coming from a man living in that time and place. On EVERY topic - slavery, warfare, women, family relations, sexual mores, etc. 30,000 verses and not a single one betrays a mind any more advanced than the first decade CE. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
Exactly statement 👏
You don't know much about history then, I suggest you read the book Dominion, by Tom Holland. He's an atheist, but much of what the New T was teaching was very foreign to the world at the time. However, you would expect it to be relevant to that time as well-right? Wouldn't make much sense to them back then if it wasn't. Look up the culture of ancient Rome and what was accepted or not, including throwing a child away like trash, killing them outright, etc...most of the world today is Christianized to some degree, again, read Tom Holland, who researched this subject extensively.
@@flamingswordapologetics Actually, the parts of the NT that deal with ethical teachings would be very familiar to a first century stoic. Musonius Rufus was teaching in Rome at the same time the NT was being composed. (He was stridently opposed to infanticide, btw.) I wouldn't be surprised if the writers of the NT adopted some stoic thought into their own views. (I guess I know a little bit about history.)
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Well I was just being a bit snarky, anyone can look these things up, there is a natural law within man we would call the "conscience", so it makes sense some people back then were fighting against the tide, but the overall culture was horrible when it came to the intrinsic value of humans, if you weren't in the "club" so to speak, you weren't too far off from animal status, Christianity did change that, now that doesn't prove its true, but it is an evidence. Rome in a real sense, was conquered by Christ.
Arse! No coitus!!
So, it is not condemned the homoeexuality, but the insertive role. That doesn't make any difference. We support gay people but not when they engage in gay sex. That doesn't make any sense at all
Paul is talking about a relationship with yourself. When who you are authentically desires to be ruled over by the ideal you. It's about vanity. Just be yourself and boast in What the Lord Has Done. God gives you free will to be yourself or you can pretend to be somebody else.
@@ddrse Paul is very clear on that. He condems any sexual activity outside christian marriage. On another vers he says that our bodies are temples and we don't have to dishonor them by having sex with fornicators because we became one with them.
@@nikkr3584 yeah it sounds like your relationship with the ideal you. Put off the old man.
Dan, what about 1 Timothy 3:12?
I can see it’s about ´deacons’ and not the general population. I know some who say this is anti-polygamie but have only been able to reply that I’m not sure about that - maybe it’s about having time for the church because they aren’t busy with their four wives, but I really don’t know.
Can you shed any light on this one?
If honesty is part of your faith then you can disregard 1 Timothy as it is most likely a pseudoautographical work written after Paul's death by someone claiming to be him. Why would you need to consider a text that starts with a lie? Dan has a video and mentions this in many videos as do most front facing social media critical New Testament scholars.
Is Romans 1:26 actually talking about female homosexuality or is it just talking about females leaving what is natural for them, because Leviticus and Deuteronomy do not condemn females for same sex sexual activity. From a legalistic stand point, it would have to be made illegal in "The Law of Moses" for it to be unnatural for females. The law of Moses did not condemn females for same sex sex. In the Talmud there are Rabbis that say it is perfectly ok and others that say, while it is not illegal, women should not do it. If its not in the Law of Moses, then it is not wrong.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.” In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
There are some interpreters today who object to lumping homosexuals in with the other sinners listed in this passage. The wording “men who have sex with men” is unclear, they say, and should not be construed as a condemnation of all same-sex activity. In an attempt to make homosexual behavior compatible with Christianity, they attempt to redefine the Greek word.
The phrase “men who have sex with men” (translated “homosexuals” in the NASB) is a translation of the Greek word arsenokoitai. Those who object to this translation say that arsenokoitai does not refer to all homosexual relationships but only to those involving abuse, coercion, or unfaithfulness. They say the word does not refer to “loving, faithful” same-sex relationships.
Arsenokoitai is a compound word: arseno is the word for “a male,” and koitai is the word for “mat” or “bed.” Put the two halves together, and the word means “a male bed”-that is, a person who makes use of a “male-only bed” or a “bed for males.” And, truthfully, that’s all the information we need to understand the intent of 1 Corinthians 6:9.
As in English, the Greek word for “bed” can have both sexual and non-sexual meanings. The statement “I bought a new bed” has no sexual connotation; however, “I went to bed with her” does. In the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, koitai connotes an illicit sexual connotation-the apostle is clearly speaking of “wrongdoers” here. The conclusion is that the word arsenokoitai refers to homosexuals-men who are in bed with other men, engaging in same-gender sexual activity.
It is interesting to note that arsenokoitai was not a common word in the Greek language to refer to homosexuality. Some have even claimed that the apostle Paul invented the word. This is not the case. In the Septuagint Greek translation of the two verses in the Mosaic Law that refer to homosexuality both contain forms of arseno and koitai (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). This likely indicates that Paul had Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 6:9, making it abundantly clear what Paul meant by the word arsenokoitai.
The notion that some homosexual relationships are accepted is not even hinted at in this passage. The men’s commitment level or the presence of “love” is not addressed. The idea that the condemned same-sex activity is linked to economic exploitation or abuse is also a forced reading with no textual basis.
Paul’s reference to “homosexuals,” together with a reference to “effeminate” men in the same verse (in the NASB), effectively covers both active and passive homosexual behavior. God’s Word is not open to personal interpretation in this matter. Homosexuality is wrong; it always has been, and it always will be.
Just two verses later, 1 Corinthians 6:11 says, “And that is what some of you *were.* But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (emphasis added). This statement negates the idea of “homosexual Christianity” being acceptable to God. Paul tells the Corinthian believers that practices such as homosexuality were evidences of their former life before Christ. Now they have been born again, and they have a new nature and new desires. The old nature remains, and the temptations continue, but child of God has been called to fight against sin, not live in it any longer. By the life-changing grace of God, the Corinthians’ new life stands in opposition to the way they used to live.
"everyone alters what the Bible says to shit their cultural norms"
this includes Dan
there's a reason Dan targets Evangelical fundies and avoids Catholic scholarship
(bonus: his claim that scriptural authors never intended to write for future readers is as 'blithe' as it is disingenuous, for the Scriptures repeatedly cast their words upon future and unknown hearers, just as Dan makes these videos assuming they will be relevant to unknown and future viewers)
Dan is a postmodern sophist