By marginalised you mean those who, if you say something bad about them or at least funny, you will lose a job ? You mean those who are in every TV show represented allways as good guys?At the same time, religious majority exists in reality but not on TV.
2 місяці тому
the bible should never be used for anything except trash can liner.
@@etraziel same!! we are in an unprecedented silly season with extremely high stakes that happens to also disingenously invoke his main field of study for violence and oppression - so I really get why he's being unvarnished with some of this bigoted trash. I imagine a lot of us are finding it cathartic right now.
Thank you so much Dan. Apparently someone wrote a book attempting to debunk the film based on a five minute trailer. I think it's important to stress that the text fails to specify what these people were doing, so any meaning we impose is conjecture. We should not base our beliefs on unproven theories. In fact the term "soft" had a much broader scope (as understood for example by John Wesley) that actually makes more sense in context. And it doesn't matter what those words mean because Jesus gave as a much better way to know right from wrong e.g. Mat 7.12.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible Fifth Edition has notes at 1 Cor 6:9 agreeing with Dan's claim in this video. This includes the NRSV. I can't immediately tell whether the relevant note is from the NRSV or from the Oxford annotations.
There was a whole aspect of choosing to identify as gay or lesbian in the beginnings of gay liberation because of the word “homosexual" having its origin as a clinical term. Many people might not know that it was coined before the word heterosexual. It did pathologize same-sex relationships, and its focus on sex was felt to leave out all the other aspects. The fact that as gays and lesbians we also were oriented romantically towards the same sex. Another great video.
@@cmr4622 Actually, you're right. It was a Hungarian journalist Kerbeny who coined them both in 1869, along with two other terms he invented that never caught on. I think my misrecall of the facts was that originally he invented 'heterosexual' to describe those with a 'morbid' attraction to the opposite sex. So it seems in his mind there was still a 'normal', default opposite sex attraction. In 1923 it was added to the Merriam Webster dictionary as “morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex.” Then by 1934 it had shifted to just mean anyone sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
In terms of sociopolitical power? Not much. But on its own, when it isn't being leveraged as a tool, religion should never promote or condone hate or bigotry.
This topic is very interesting to me, but it has me wondering... were there no homosexuals in ancient times as we understand the term today? Were there no loving, monogamous, equal, non- abusive homosexual relations back then?
There may have been, but historians of the past had a bad habit of superimposing their own worldview on it. (I.e. Saphho and her friend). It is possible that they were not written as often expilicit, if it was accepted enough not to be specifically documented with a law banning relationships like that. Much of the non-fictional or non-folklore texts we have on older societies are court documents, trials, and law. -- The Greeks had lots of depictions of same sex, poly, or even no sex style relationships. Older ancient greek (married and unmarried) men often had FAR younger boys that they would perform acts on tha would reflect what the text was saying above, abusive imbalences of power. These are widely depicted as well. Sappho's story is a great example as well, having been from the isle Lesbos, where we derive the modern word Lesbian (As it was used as a coded way to say someone was in a same sex female relationship in a code word way in letters, at a time when it wasn't accepted in society. "Oh I see, so she's Lesbian (from the Isle of Lesbos, like Sappho in her story)"
Edit: sorry, just reread your comment and saw you were talking broadly about sexual relationships, not just homosexual relationships. In which case i agree with you. Marriage was ownership. Its very premise in the cultural context of the bible was inequality.
@@Salamander_falls OK , I actually didn't see the first version anyway, but Kudos for being the kind of person who owns mistakes and corrects themselves 👍
Only if that narrative supports your modern identity politics. To assume that every woman despised her husband because she was a slave is utterly unfounded and not supported by the data.
If by "equality" you mean equal consent and equal sexual agency between the participants (as recognized by religious and/or civil authorities, if not necessarily the participants themselves), then yes. In heterosexual encounters, the sexual agency of the woman was never regarded and she was considered property. Homosexual encounters were considered to be something a dominant man did to a lesser man, as a form of intimidation and subjugation (rape, as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah); or if willingly, an act in which the receptive man was shamefully (to them) relinquishing his manhood by being penetrated like a woman. Their cultures had no concept of truly equal, loving relationships anciently.
Today's Data Over Dogma podcast is a perfect precursor for this video, as it talks about misogyny in the bible and how women are viewed and treated. It's all transactional, with the women having no power.
As a straight White Christian, I couldn't care less who people love or what gender they identify as. I'm outraged that billionaires want even more tax cuts while homeless people die on our streets and children go hungry! The only person described in the Bible as burning in hell was a rich man who refused to help a homeless beggar
The word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is ἀρσενοκοῖται and is a reference to Leviticus in the septuagint. καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν ἄρσενος male κοίτην bed ἀρσενοκοῖται male-bedders or males who share the bed.
Not exactly. Being a top or a bottom still involves consent. These are negotiated positions with meanings and boundaries which are constantly being renegotiated over time. The thing being referred to in the Bible is about power and dominance in a similar sense to the way grape is about power and dominance. It's one sided. One person taking from another with no concern for what the other person wants. Like, consider in a lot of instances we're talking about adult men being with what we today would classify as children or at best teenagers. In the case of women and slaves, literally taking them as property. These are very different packages of meaning.
@@rainbowkrampus That doesn't make any sense, why would a victim not inherit the kingdom of God for being a victim of grape? The word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is ἀρσενοκοῖται and is a reference to Leviticus in the septuagint. καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν ἄρσενος male κοίτην bed ἀρσενοκοῖται male-bedders or males who share the bed. And Leviticus is not about age, it specifically uses the word zakar which means a male of any age.
@@RickyVis Well, it wasn't considered grape back then. Women, children, slaves, these were all treated as property, as belonging to a man. We recognize it as such today because we are better than past people and, hopefully, future generations will be better than us.
I would add a an addendum to the third reason Dan proposed (that the sexual roles of homosexuals are fixed in filled with a power imbalance dynamic). Not all homosexual practices between men involve, by necessity, penetrative sex of any kind.
The formulation I once heard was “You’re not gay if you pitch, only if you catch”. Or maybe I read it. It sounds like something Jim Carrol would put in one of his semi-autobiographical novels.
True believers love dogma because of the emotional payoff it gives them. We have special knowledge, are superior to others, and get to look down on others. For curious believers, Dan to the rescue to help them see, their dogma was made up.
Contemporary same sex relationships are overwhelmingly equal, monogamous, loving, long term, family… I’m not against same sex relationships, I agree with everything you said up until that utterance, and I’ve been sitting here enjoying your vids for almost an hour. But this is statement truly makes me wonder if you have any real world connection to the gay community anywhere currently in this world.
Guys who are "100% tops" or "100% bottoms" still exist in the gay community, but they are a minority and often more versatile than their self-promotion. Most gay men have a preference for one role or the other, but are versatile. I suspect that was true in the ancient world. The "official" understanding that has come down to us from ancient texts, is usually just wrong when it comes to actual practice. So, I think the better analysis here is to just say the Biblical statements just don't know what they are talking about regarding this matter. (Similar to the comments you made yesterday regarding a father requiring his daughter's grapest to marry her.) It's mistranslated because it is wrong. We don't "really" know what the ancient's meant by those terms, so maybe just don't translate them at all and leave the original Greek or Hebrew word in its place.
I have read lots of research on this, and I don't believe we have any idea at all what arsenokoitoi means. Malakos is used far more often, and I don't see it being sexual in nature. The sin of malokoi is a man not being manly enough to satisfy his societal responsibilities of protection and provision. In modern western English, we have a similar term which describes a female dog.
There are a few references in ancient literature that use malakos in relation to pederasty, but the few primary documents I could access suggest that it refers to the underlying character they perceived someone who had who was involved in a pederastic relationship, not a specific term for someone in the passive role. Paul does not specify what these softies were doing so we have no idea of the intended sense of the word.
@@MusicalRaichu I completely agree. Malakos is used in other ways that have nothing to do with physicality; I don't see why we insist on it being used that way here.
@@ronjones1414 The church since early days become infatuated with sex. If a negative sexual interpretation of a text is within grasp, they'll go for it. I bet there's some repressive psychology involved there ...
There's no academic consensus on what was in scope. I did a literature search and found a dozen views. The commonest view is a cultural taboo on something similar, basically ainal secs, because it placed a male in a woman's role in bed, hence "you shall not lie with a male a woman's bed, against our culture/religion".
Was there was an awareness of homosexual relations between two men of equal status during the time of Paul? Or was it always understood in the context of exploitation and abuse? I understand the ancient Biblical world didn't have quite the same concept of homosexuality as we understand it as today a permanent, immutable orientation, but I am wondering if there is any record or understanding of two men having a romantic/sexual relationship in say the Greek world, and whether Paul would have had any such awareness. All responses welcome :)
We could guess Paul and most people in the region were aware of Greek pederasty. And we could guess that Paul knew about Nero and Sporus. But again, I don't think we could call those homosexual relationships. Known guys who were in love with one another? We would need confirmation from both parties. When talking Roman Empire, we're talking authoritative society where practically every single guy was a subordinate. Pretty much everyone was having to kiss up to somebody.
There was likely more awareness of it in the early Classical Greek world (Alexander/Hephaestion, Sappho's works, arguably Achilles/Patroclus from Homer's works). In fact, there might have been a preference towards same-sex behavior as male society saw sex with women as a duty for bearing children, and not good for much else. But my understanding is that the Roman Empire held tightly onto the ideas expressed in the video (That penetrative sex is masculine, receptive is feminine, and for a man to take the feminine role was to disgrace that man). By the time of Paul, most of the Mediterranean would have adopted the Roman way of thinking. Greek society didn't have a great grasp on "Consent," either though. Pederasty was commonplace in the Classical Greek world, after all, and women were still seen as inferior to men, not fit to be citizens or enjoy the same sexual rights.
What evidence is there that the issue was about power imbalance, abusive, unequal. I listen to the arguments as a person suppotive of LGBTQIA people, but the explanations dont really seem that there was any care about power imbalance, explotation, abuse. They seem more misogynist than anything. An understanding that women are an object for mans pleasure, reproduction, property and that men as the dominate sex should never take on the lesser role of a woman.
@@tchristianphoto There's no accurate translation in English, so we should just keep the original word and have it defined somewhere. That's what anime does with some Japanese words.
@@sadib100 it would help out immensely if every freaking word in the Bible wasn't regarded as coming directly out of the mouth of the ultimate supreme being by whoever is repeating it.
Translators feel they have to provide the nearest equivalent word or phrase. If you translate them literally as "soft ones" and "male bedders", no one would know what they meant (which is probably a good thing actually). Trouble is, we don't have the concepts today so it's impossible to translate them accurately, as the extreme diversity in historical translation of the words demonstrates. PS I would personally go for "moral cowards" and "secs abuzers", but I'm sure others would raise issues with such a rendition.
So the folks who insist that slavery as described in the Bible is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what the modern world understands as slavery insist that an ancient practice referred to in the Bible has to be the SAME as what we think of today? That seems a bit inconsistent to me.
I mean we don't just have to take the single word 'slave' and judge based on that. There are 3 different law codes that go into excruciating detail about what was going on as well as tons of narrative texts. Was it absolutely identical to, for example, slaves in 1800s America? No. Was it REALLY fucking similar? Yes.
As a related question Leviticus 18:22 says that the reader should not lie with a zachar (man) as one would lie with an issah (woman? wife?). Would it be valid to say that this is not a rule just for men? And how does the use of issah in this context potentially differ from nekevah? And what does that mean for all the other genders like tumtum, ay'lonit, and saris?
Leviticus 18 was written to men, as were most of the instructions. The list of don’ts is all about which women not to have sex with from :7-:20. In :23, they stop indicating the rules are for men by specifically indicating women.
@@scienceexplains302 You're very much begging the question there. All of the instructions could equally work for women, if you hadn't assumed in your premises that women weren't having sex with women. You know, that thing that _never happens._ [insert eye roll here] Plus you neatly skipped over verse 21 which immediately precedes the verse in question and is about not sacrificing your children - which as we all know is a heavily gendered command, and clearly meant to be for men only. In short, I'm not a fan of post hoc rationalisations, please take them elsewhere. Oh, also... nice demonstration that you didn't do the reading since you clearly are not engaging with the Hebrew at all and don't understand the context of my question. Good to see you're still at that level of reading comprehension failure where you don't bother to check if you're even being relevant and that you're making no effort to change. Great work. Go away.
@@MusicalRaichu That's also my understanding. Particularly since it contextually does make sense to prohibit women from sleeping with zachar the way that you'd sleep with an issah (that was later said to be Lilith's sin after all when that line of myth started to become a thing). And then also it seems to maybe not apply to other genders that English-speakers would call male that are not zachar. I'm curious since Dan has more period-relevant context as to the use of different gendered terms what he thinks, even if it's just speculative.
@@Zahaqiel Since you’re mostly interested in personal attacks, I’ll avoid responding to you on the future. I’m not using circular reasoning, I’m looking at it from the perspective of the author, who apparently does assume that lesbian sex never happens or is utterly unconcerned with it because it is never explicitly mentioned, as male on male is. I never said I don’t think it happens, which you implied based on your eisegesis of my post. I skipped 21 because it doesn’t relate directly to the issue. Who would decide whether to sacrifice children? Wouldn’t that primarily be the father in a patriarchal society? There is nothing you have shown to be a _post hoc_ rationalization (to the point that it is not clear that you know what the phrase means) because my goal is to understand the text. I would prefer the Bible valued all forms of love and acknowledged that some of that is woman to woman, but I don’t see evidence for that. I did “engage” with the Hebrew in the form of the Interlinear text. If you’re not interested in sticking to evidence rather than personal attacks, please stop replying.
Yes, kind of. 'Arsenokoites' seems to be a new word coined by Paul from the phrase "those who bed males". On the other hand 'malakoi' was an already existing Greek word meaning effeminate/dainty, which was associated with sexual submissiveness (both to men and women actually).
Consent, or lack of, is the key element of difference and why we generally agree with Paul that what he seemed to be referring to (from knowledge of general Roman sexual practices) is sexual abuse rather than a loving relationship.
@@JakobVirgil The *word* and general structure of "consent" would be foreign to Paul, and his sexual ethics are generally foreign to us (he's pretty anti all sex and marriage as an apocalyptic thinker). But I think it's valid to see Paul in this case as confronting an abusive sexual practice even if it doesn't match exactly a contemporary sexual practice for us AND I don't think the proposed translation using language of modern sexual position preference represents his first-century intent very accurately.
Today we would generally refer to those in these situations described as “rapist/victim”. We don’t condone these in the way elite Roman society did, which Paul was protesting.
The question I would have is why the power imbalance matters in biblical morality here, but the imbalance is ignored in male-female relations where women are being exploited.
Women were property, so there could never be a power balance. Dan has a lot of videos explaining the nuts and bolts of this-like how if a woman got raped, the sin was considered to be against her father or husband and money must be paid to them to compensate for property damage.
What Christians did and continue to do to us is no different than what they have and continue to do to the Jews. Better to be done unto another than unto themselves.They've become the Pharisees; The Hypocrites, The Blind Fools, and The Venomous Snakes. They can't fathom being the tax collector. This life may not be easy for us, but just as they condemn and judge us, it will be God who will condemn and judge them by the same measure. Why? Because they put themselves before God. Nothing good comes from that.
There are so many people I would love to hear this. Facebook limits the audience that sees the sharing of UA-cam videos. Any chance some of these could be uploaded directly to facebook instead of linked to UA-cam?
You mean how there are 6 strongly contested verses (out of 30k+) across two OT books and three NT letters by a single author, total of 5 out of 66+ books? Alongside many other rules Christians have decided to deprecate (shrimp, killing uppity sons, etc)? And far outweighed in volume and breadth by denunciations against the wealthy and for the poor that are generally ignored by many Christians?
@@JosephSmith-ph4xr Nope, nothing in Genesis _or_ Revelation about same-sex sex acts. (And as Dan explained in the video, the word and _concept_ of "homosexual" _did not exist_ during Biblical times, so nothing about _penetrating-partners_ or _passive-partners_ -- which are types of people the Bible _does_ address in some places -- applies directly to same-sex couples today.) Maybe you should stick to what Jesus said about same-sex-attracted people.
Can someone provide a source that supports Dan’s assertion that contemporary same-sex relationships are overwhelmingly monogamous, long-term, family relationships?
If the text is specifically talking about an unequal abusive sexual relationship between two men (or man dominating a boy) why is the boy who is a victim not entering the Kingdom aswell as the assertive man? The abuser is under judgement in this passage but so is the victim. Also I agree that Sexual orientation is an unknown concept to the people at this time & place however would you not agree that there was equal, loving same sex relationships (not all abusive)and people during this time would have known about them just as we know about them today? Maybe the 6 main passage's that touch on same sex activity are not teaching on these "good" same sex relationships. So the Bible is silent on these "good" same sex relationships not cursing or blessing and cursing the abusive ? I'd love guidance here. Thanks for sharing.
@@richardmcgarvey6919 using Dr Dan's own logic, sex between two male adults would be A FORTIORI more evil than between a boy and a man-as that would be a greater destruction of hierachy. Your comment proves that Paul was really against the homosexuality, hence the receptive boy being condemned despite being classified as "victim" by modern left wing standards. The Bible had absolutely no concept of good same sex relationship - that is why the "silence" is there; the "silence" only depends on misunderstanding what the texts really imply when it does mention same-sex intercourse
In general ancient people seem to have had difficulty imagining an equal romantic/sexual relationship, whatever the gender of the two partners. That said, there was a lot of victim-blaming in antiquity, and probably Paul (as with some philosophers of the time) thought it was more of a problem for being "unnatural" than for being abusive
@@jaojao1768 in other words, anything not heteronormative was considered unnatural-even Greco-Roman physicians classified all non-heterosexual subjective desire as mental illness (and it remained so until psychiatry textbooks arbitrarily expunged homosexuality in the 1970s-purely as a result of activism, not any new scientific discovery); Dr McClellan does not seem aware of this
It just says that idolaters did unseemly things with each other. Heck it doesn't even say it was sinful, and doesn't even describe homoxesuality either. Not one gay person I've known did a word of it. And the whole point is NOT to use it against people because then you run up against Rom 2 "you condemn yourself".
@@Jaymastia Rom 1 is rhetoric to lead to Rom 2 which turns the tables on anyone who was gullible to go along with it. Plenty of straight people have "shameful desires" and "work unseemliness". So straight people attempting to use Rom 1 against others fall into the same trap, "you condemn yourself" Rom 2.1. The whole point of Rom 1 is NOT TO USE IT. Plus it doesn't even describe homxoesuality anyway. It's not caused by idolatry. No gay man has "set aside the natural use of the female" because he never had it to set aside.
It is my understanding that Paul wrote Romans in Corinth. At that time, Corinth was a seafaring wild town. Think SF during the Barbary coast years. I’m sure he was stunned by what he saw there and was reacting to it. And of course we have the Corinthian letters which let us know how wild they were and his corrections to help the community.
Is the central thesis of the film that the text does not condemn homosexuals but specifically men who have sex with other men (whichever role they take)?
The mistake was not in a popular Bible version and was corrected in the revised edition. But it was copied into several very popular versions whose translators did not see the correction. This happened just as the protestant church was discarding the traditional Christian view against all non-reproductive secs. The mistranslation influenced them to switch to a new view, that homxoesuality was inherently sinful. Catholicism also changed its view to treat it as "disordered". Soon the secular world changed its mind in response to scientific research. The church's response, based on their new Bibles, was to reject that and invent a theology to justify the error that has been entrenched to this day. That's the SHORT version. Trouble is, it's a lot more complicated, which is why there's so much confusion over the issue.
Exactly, it means pitchers and catchers. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any power structure. It has to do with the perverseness of the act itself…. Whichever end you’re on
Unless you want to make the case that the author of 1 Corinthians 6 is not the same as the author of Romans 1, in which Paul condemned both lesbian and gay acts, this is only a marginally useful translation note. It is pretty clear in Romans 1:26-27 that Paul did not like the idea of women or men going against what he thought was natural, and that is the exact mentality of modern Evangelicals regardless of whether or not we can directly translate the word "homosexuality" into Greek.
My guess is no. Because even those two terms imply a voluntary arrangement borne out of a particular sexual preference. There isn't a really good modern term to use here, because our modern understanding of sexual relationships is fundamentally at odds with the ancient one. The idea of sex being a voluntary act between equals did not exist, for men or for women.
I think this is very interesting. If it is only talking about the assertive man and receptive man/boy and therefore the receptive man/boy in the abused partner. Why are both not entering the kingdom of God? The victim is also under judgement and is usually an innocent child? Also was there not same sex relationships during this time aswell? Maybe in these texts it's not addressing same sex loving relationships, however they would have been known surely. Thanks for sharing the video... I hope to get some guidance here
you are the exact type of ignorant Dan is trying to combat. That is a translation rendering, not what was written. You should try clicking the little numbers or reading the subscript. You know, try educating yourself for once in this life before you look like an idiot.
It would help when people comment on here with Bible verses that they include the translation that they are reading. The Message translates this verse as those who “use and abuse”. This reads completely differently than say the KJV’s translation or the NASB.
Huh, I'll admit I was quite biased against this film because a lot of the people I'd seen discussing it, and some of the film's marketing, gave me the impression that it treated the 1946 mistranslation as the 'patient zero' of Christian homophobia and ignored the centuries of profoundly homophobic Christian teachings that predate the existence of the word or concept of 'a homosexual'.
This film is not going to sway rabid haters of lgbtq people either way. Learned theologians like yourself, Dan, have been attempting to do that for a very long time. And my personal position is, let them believe whatever they want.....the Rapture, the Book of Revelation, the Doctrine of Inerrancy.....that is their right.....provided they do not attempt to have those personal "interpretations" reflected in the laws of the land and force the rest of us to live according to their myopic views.
I feel like increasing rates of LGBT people (for complicated reasons around how the body implements heterosexuality) is the ultimate reason for increased LGBT tolerance.
I think you’re underestimating how important these kinds of explanations are in changing people’s minds. Some true believers think they have no alternative to the biblical interpretation their church has given them, but Dan gives them another legitimate way to see things. They can still hold onto their Bible, but make space for a more sane personal moral code.
@@jlcl96 It is true that there are the tiny percentage that will actually listen to what learned theologians like Dan have to say and rethink their positions.....but let's be honest, they are few and far between. Still, I suppose you are correct....we should live in hope.
@@Dalekzilla Trouble is lots of people think that way including parents some of whom will have gay kids that will suffer anguish, rejection, harm and worse as a result. I heard a recent interview with a pastor who over the last couple of years did a dozen funerals of TGLB kids.
I wish Dan would make a follow up video explaining how these people were viewed in society and how we even know that these words refer to those specific actions. It’s interesting.
Well, Bible says church's duty is to interprete the Bible and church says homosexualism is a sin (such as sex before marriage, possibly sex with no purpose of having children etc).
@@МихаилПатраков-ш4ю Church tradition has not been consistent over the ages. Each generation does its best, but as we discover more, we need to revise our views accordingly. Ultimately what counts is humility and trust before God and commitment to one another's welfare. What has failed to do this is forms of fundamentalism where any group's beliefs is treated as if it had divine authority and overrides any other consideration.
Malaka is still a derogatory term that’s used to call a man who is”receptive”,I’m not Greek,but I know all the swear words,& 80% of my high school was Greek..🤷
Malaka in Modern Greek has come to mean w*nker (but is nowadays often used as a greeting or form of address in playful banter or conversation among Greek youth).
@@jacobpast5437 Yeah,I know,but it was always directed at the male sex,& in an effeminate context,you don’t didn’t call Effie a malaka,it was always Con..
While we’re on the topic of misused words. I doubt many people have an unrealistic fear of gay people. A phobia is an anxiety disorder, defined by an irrational, unrealistic, persistent and excessive fear of an object or situation.
Someone's son brings home a girlfriend and the response is "Hi, nice to meet you, how are you?" Their son brings home a boyfriend and the response is "Get out of my house!" And you think that something about this response isn't irrational, unrealistic or excessive?
So, i take it that you are basically an athiest because you can not believe in god due to the fact your channel is disproving all theories of those who have some belief in god. Correct?
His channel is neutral in that way. He presents what we can learn from objective religious study and research. Obviously it's most beneficial to focus on where this challenges common beliefs particularly what causes immense harm, such as this issue which half the church still hasn't caught up to what we know from scientific research. He refers to himself as a Christian and is a member of the Mormon church, but he tries to stay objective and keep his personal beliefs private.
Judging by the number of theists who claim to be Christians, I would say its a good thing. Who wants to be a scholar of the Bible and have to put up with people who claim to be speaking the word of God any time they repeat a word out of the Bible? There is no use of scholarship for such humans. The Bible is what they say it is. Period. Throw in the fact they have disagree with one another over their God words for centuries. The only reason they aren't imprisoning, banishing and executing one another and anyone else who dares disagree with them is because the powers that be aren't allowing it. Translations? Edits? History? Original or earliest source text? None of it matters. Whatever they are using is God's word. Period. Accept or suffer the consequences. Granted, not all Christians practice authoritative interpretation of scripture under the auspice of divine inspiration. Some of us are opposed to it and think it's one of the worst practices in human history. Of course, it will come as no surprise that we are fans of Bible scholarship.
Nothing destroys dogmatic belief in the Bible faster than scholarly study of the Bible. One isn't necessarily atheist just because they reject Christian fundamentalist dogma.
You look so angry 😂 you are a funny man ❤️🔥 it’s funny when a man who has been Alive for such little time has all the answers. They needed you back in the days man where have you been!
Once again splitting hairs - Explain Leviticus if you don't like Corinthians. And even still, if "homosexual" isn't the perfect English word to use, this is what we do know. God never intended women to be with women and men to be with men. He gave each of us a specific role within marriage, and one of the commandment was to "multiply." Jesus confirmed these roles in the NT, and defined marriage as something between a man and a woman. NT and OT also condemns sex outside of marriage. Since marriage is clearly defined as something between a man and a woman, and sex outside of this is a sin, that would mean any homosexual act, whether it be two men or two women would be considered a sin. Dan never ever addresses this point.
This comment is utterly irrelevant. This video is not addressing same-sex intercourse elsewhere in the Bible, it's just discussing the propriety of rendering "homosexuals" in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and my point is 100% accurate.
@@maklelan your point is the one that is irrelevant because, just as you have in other videos, you try to make it seem like "homosexuality" isn't actually condemned in the Bible, when it most certainly is, directly and indirectly. Who cares if homosexual is the right word to use in Corinthians. It's irrelevant. Based on the context of everything we know from OT and NT, acting on homosexual desires is a sin, it is condemned, and it is an affront to God's design and intentions for us. I think you know this but you dance around it and prefer to just be a contextual critic and cherry pick your talking points to fit the narrative you want.
@@cman04This is foolish, and suggests you haven’t watched most of Dan’s videos on homosexuality. He has explicitly stated that the Bible does condemn homosexuality in a couple of passages, the first of which is among a list of rules specifically for the land of Israel at the time (most Christians do not adhere to said rules anymore), and the second is coming from “Paul”, whose sexual ethic and understanding of sexuality, gender norms, and other concepts are outdated.
@@cman04 Since my video is introducing the discussion, it cannot be irrelevant. You can keep your attempts to validate your rhetorical deflection to yourself.
No, this is just splitting of hairs in other to take a "technically" correct statement (that those two words technically only mean what Dan rightly says they mean), and draw implications that the historical Paul would have disapproved of. Paul uses those ONLY uses those "apparently narrow" words because they were "METONYMICALLY" descriptive of the most explicit & most PUBLICLY RELEVANT form of what he regarded as perversion: any & everything that does not conform to (marital) heteronormativity. It would be dishonest for a historian to conclude that Paul would not have had similar theological condemnation & hatred for modern sorts of "equal, loving, marital, 'non-abusive' (a completely MODERN CATEGORY!!!), long-term" same-sex relationship. By using linguistic sleight of hand, Dr Dan has introduced the laughable fallacy that Paul would by any chance have thought: "if it is equal, loving, 'non-abusive' (a modern category a pre-20th century person cannot possibly have cared about) relationship between two females I didn't specify, then it's somehow less evil than what malachoi & arsenokotai are describing" We also need to retire this verifiably wrong lie that absolutely no one in the ancient world had a concept of non-heterosexual desire i.e. "sexual orientation"-as all GRECO-ROMAN PHYSICIANS (without exception) uniformly regarded all form of subjective homosexual mental desire as mental illness!!
They knew some people had those desires, but as you point out they were incorrectly assumed pathological. What differs today is firstly Kraft-Ebing's 19th cent research showed same-secs attraction was equivalent in every way to opposite-secs attraction. Secondly research since showed it's resistant to change and there's nothing pathological about it. All evidence fits the assumption that it's a harmless natural variation. We don't know what Paul's attitude would have been to loving consensual faithful same-secs relationships in his day as he does not disclose enough details. Had he, however, understood what we know today, it's likely he would have been OK with it. Had he further known the harm perpetrated as a result of mistranslating what he wrote, there's no question he would have been OK with it. This is because Paul's overriding ethic, as that of Jesus and NT writers, was love.
@@MusicalRaichu it is completely dishonest & uttterly nonsensical to claim we do not know what Paul thought about today's same-sex relationships!!!! Every good historian of pre-20th century Abrahamic religions , especially in pre medieval & medieval contexts (which is outside the academic range of Ancient Near Eastern scholars like Dan who see things from the narrow tunnel vision of biblical texts and surface-level superficial knowledge of the Greco-Roman world (only someone with a PhD in Latin, non-koine Greek & Classics can be a true expert in GrecoRoman studies)) can clearly see that all forms of non-heterosexuality was uniformly seen as evil by: all stages of rabbinic Judaism (and therefore 1st century Judaism until proven otherwise), pre-20th century Islam of all periods & Christianity of all medieval, pre medieval & Hellenistic periods CONSISTENTLY & UNANIMOUSLY rejected all expressions of homosexuality as evil, without making any concessions for "lovingness" or "consent/equality". The knee-jerk reaction of all practitioners of these Abrahamic religions to the topic up till the 1950s prove beyond reasonable historical doubt what their counterparts of earlier periods would have thought about the topic (before mid-20th century LGBTQ activism & liberal brainwashing): UNCONDITIONAL CONDEMNATION! Any serious acquaintance with medieval antiquity, or more comprehensive knowledge of Greco-Roman antiquity (which no biblical scholar can have) will show your claims to verifiably false. Any comprehensive knowledge of Jewish & patristic literature will see evidence that makes it abundantly clear that it is the DESIRE (not the presence or absence of "love" or consent or power balance) that is fundamentally evil about being an arsenokotes or malachos. The fact that Paul condemned the one in the receptive role (which modern Left Wing categories would classify as the "victim") should be more than enough hint that Paul's reference to BOTH penetrative & receptive partners was his METONYMICAL way of expressing his disapproval for every & anyone who had the subjective sexual orientation that resulted in such same sex acts. Your claim can only be sustained by ignorance of wider primary literature across a wider sample of periods in Rabbinic Judaism & patristic Christianity (which is the kind of ignorance biblical scholars specialise in wallowing in-especially old testament scholars (which is Dr Dan's category)!) Whatever fringe 19th century article you reference never affected the scientific consensus because psychiatry textbooks till the 1970s continued to classify homosexuality as mental illness, until EXTERNAL NON-ACADEMIC pressure of (Left Wing) LGBTQ activism began to arbitrarily change opinions without any new scientific evidence (source: I am a medical doctor). Any study can arbitrarily choose to decide that fetishism, and incestous desire for one's parents & siblings in a sexual way is not pathological -the reality is that there are no scientific "pathological features" present in bestiality (sex with animals), or sibling-sibling or parent-child incest that are absent from homosexuality; the only difference is the Left Wing ideology has ARBITRARILY decided that homosexuality is okay, but sex with animals, siblings & parents isn't okay. You also build your argument on the verifiably wrong claim that ancient same-sex activity were never consensual-which is nonsense-presence of hierarchy in all premodern marriages does not automatically mean that every & any marital intercourse (i.e. every marriage before 1920) was automatically rape (even though that might make sense in the Brains of libtards). Most same-sex activity in the biblical period was in fact very consensual, even those the arsenokotos was the active superior partner. Malachoi often willingly & consentingly enjoyed the perverse pleasure that came with penetration. Unfortunately, I don't have sufficient ignorance of wider non-biblical primary literature to accept your claims
@@MusicalRaichu there is a totally different OP comment by someone named "sbaker8971" on this video that does a detailed scholarly breakdown of other primary literature on this topic. Please go through the trouble of scrolling to find it
@@tsemayekekema2918 I'm not going to read all that. I admit that Paul limited to the assumptions of his time likely would not have understood that some men NEED intimacy with a man and may have assumed like his peers that a man in a passive role was denigrating and doing that to someone was contrary to life in God's kingdom. But I stand by my view that if Paul knew what we know today and saw the terrible harm we've brought on innocent people by twisting his words into an oppressive ideology, I have no doubt he would have said that homofobes will not inherit the kingdom of God.
@@MusicalRaichu of course you are not going to read because you are not interested in rigorous evaluation of data. You are only just interested in projecting modern left-wing logic onto Paul, despite clear evidence that Paul's scriptures (Leviticus) commanded a blanket death penalty on all male-male sex without any qualifications regarding consent or "love" or "intimacy" (yet your fantasies claim Paul would be saddened by "harm")-despite absolute lack of even the tiniest scratch of evidence that any Jew living before the 1940s disapproved of homophobia, you fabricate the claim that Paul would be against it.
So Dan says 1 Corinthian 6:9 does not mention women and is only about male receptive/insertive roles. But he doesn't bother to tell you that; Romans 1:26-27 puts both male & female same-sex sex together in the same category. Or that Leviticus 20:13 says that "both" men have committed an abomination and "they" shall be put to death, regardless of who's on top. Dan also talks about distorting the intention of the author of 1 Corinthians 6:9, but fails to mention that the author made his intended meaning clear when he says such people are "unrighteous" and "shall not inherit the kingdom of God". It's disingenuous in the extreme, to try to gaslight by saying, people just read their own bigotry into these verses. People just believing the verses mean what they say is not grounds for a charge of bigotry. Not unless you are deliberately being intellectually dishonest that is.
Actually it, just like you are 100% wrong. But I'd expect nothing less from a progressive academic. Homosexuality Robert A. J. Gagnon Professor of New Testament Theology 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.
This is an excellent breakdown, I am especially convinced by point (3). Also I would like to point out that the first law against sodomy on record, Novella CXLI of Justinian, cites both Paul and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, indicating that the understanding of Paul as meaning sodomy existed in 500s AD. I do not agree with the christian view on homosexual sex, but I think it is fundamentally dishonest to claim that the christian view is something other than what it clearly is.
@@sbaker8971 thank you for being more concise & articulate than I could ever have been in insisting that agreeing with Dr Dan depends on ignorance of lots of relevant primary literature from outside the Bible. I just wish all his viewers would educate themselves with this comment
I would like to see you make a video that’s pro-Palestinian and anti colonialism. Then I’d have respect for you. Instead of assuming that two equals are in a “conflict” when clearly one is oppressed and occupied.
Um no offense but I noticed your rainbow watch band and you always seem to be trying to set the record "straight" on homosexuality in the Bible.... ulterior motives?
No offense, but I am a heterosexual and what he is saying and trying to set the record straight on has been been being said and pointed out for a long time before we were born. My motive? Same as his. Your motive? Since I'm a heterosexual, I know your motive doesn't have anything to do with your sexual or gender identification. Your motive is attached to some other sort of identification. And I can weed out being a theist. I'm a theist. And I can weed out being a Christian. I'm a Christian. So what is your motive attached to? A specific religious teaching? Just a guess.
@johnmcgimpsey1825 it's only ad hominem if I'm referring to God argument which I'm not in any way shape or form. I'm simply asking a question but thanks for playing
@@4everseekingwisdom690 Wrong. Ad Hominem: "Attacking a person's character OR MOTIVATIONS rather than a position or argument." (American Heritage Dictionary, emphasis added). And "simply asking a question" is an all too common way of attempting to deflect responsibility for dog whistling when you get caught out. It's cowardly. Not playing - it's a game for losers...
The Bible should never be used as a weapon against the marginalized. Thank you, Dan, for helping make such a future a reality.
@@tbishop4961 Insofar as "the point of it" is even meaningful about a book like the Bible, I'd say you did.
@@tbishop4961 Enlighten me please. I'm guessing your didn't watch all 4 minutes of the vid.
By marginalised you mean those who, if you say something bad about them or at least funny, you will lose a job ? You mean those who are in every TV show represented allways as good guys?At the same time, religious majority exists in reality but not on TV.
the bible should never be used for anything except trash can liner.
Shouldn’t be used for anything but heater fuel.
Beautiful and precisely stated! 💯🙏🏽
THANK YOU! My late sister-in-law was a lesbian. I'm glad you included the information that the mistranslated Greek words were not about women.
I love you Dan for correcting misinformation and dismantling bigotry❤!
I think the crazies have been getting to Dan. His closing dismissals have been getting steadily spicier. 🙂
I've noticed that too...I like it. 😏
@@etrazielayo?
@@etraziel same!! we are in an unprecedented silly season with extremely high stakes that happens to also disingenously invoke his main field of study for violence and oppression - so I really get why he's being unvarnished with some of this bigoted trash. I imagine a lot of us are finding it cathartic right now.
Dan can’t keep his dogmas from overshadowing the data.
@@rightanglo8911and what dogmas are you yapping about
Thank you so much Dan. Apparently someone wrote a book attempting to debunk the film based on a five minute trailer.
I think it's important to stress that the text fails to specify what these people were doing, so any meaning we impose is conjecture. We should not base our beliefs on unproven theories. In fact the term "soft" had a much broader scope (as understood for example by John Wesley) that actually makes more sense in context. And it doesn't matter what those words mean because Jesus gave as a much better way to know right from wrong e.g. Mat 7.12.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible Fifth Edition has notes at 1 Cor 6:9 agreeing with Dan's claim in this video. This includes the NRSV. I can't immediately tell whether the relevant note is from the NRSV or from the Oxford annotations.
There was a whole aspect of choosing to identify as gay or lesbian in the beginnings of gay liberation because of the word “homosexual" having its origin as a clinical term.
Many people might not know that it was coined before the word heterosexual.
It did pathologize same-sex relationships, and its focus on sex was felt to leave out all the other aspects. The fact that as gays and lesbians we also were oriented romantically towards the same sex.
Another great video.
I thought they were coined together as medical terms. What were the dates?
@@cmr4622 Actually, you're right. It was a Hungarian journalist Kerbeny who coined them both in 1869, along with two other terms he invented that never caught on.
I think my misrecall of the facts was that originally he invented 'heterosexual' to describe those with a 'morbid' attraction to the opposite sex. So it seems in his mind there was still a 'normal', default opposite sex attraction.
In 1923 it was added to the Merriam Webster dictionary as “morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex.”
Then by 1934 it had shifted to just mean anyone sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
What good is religion if you can't hate someone with it?
Good point.
It defeats the ego drive if you don't have someone to feel better than.
In terms of sociopolitical power? Not much. But on its own, when it isn't being leveraged as a tool, religion should never promote or condone hate or bigotry.
This topic is very interesting to me, but it has me wondering... were there no homosexuals in ancient times as we understand the term today? Were there no loving, monogamous, equal, non- abusive homosexual relations back then?
There may have been, but historians of the past had a bad habit of superimposing their own worldview on it. (I.e. Saphho and her friend). It is possible that they were not written as often expilicit, if it was accepted enough not to be specifically documented with a law banning relationships like that. Much of the non-fictional or non-folklore texts we have on older societies are court documents, trials, and law. -- The Greeks had lots of depictions of same sex, poly, or even no sex style relationships. Older ancient greek (married and unmarried) men often had FAR younger boys that they would perform acts on tha would reflect what the text was saying above, abusive imbalences of power. These are widely depicted as well. Sappho's story is a great example as well, having been from the isle Lesbos, where we derive the modern word Lesbian (As it was used as a coded way to say someone was in a same sex female relationship in a code word way in letters, at a time when it wasn't accepted in society. "Oh I see, so she's Lesbian (from the Isle of Lesbos, like Sappho in her story)"
Never heard of this film, will have to look for it.
Thank you, Dan, for continuing to take a stand against weaponizing the Bible.
Never heard of the film but it is definitely on my radar now.
Appreciate all you do, Dan.
So what was missing in all ancient sexual relationships
was equality
Edit: sorry, just reread your comment and saw you were talking broadly about sexual relationships, not just homosexual relationships. In which case i agree with you. Marriage was ownership. Its very premise in the cultural context of the bible was inequality.
@@Salamander_falls OK , I actually didn't see the first version anyway, but Kudos for being the kind of person who owns mistakes and corrects themselves 👍
Only if that narrative supports your modern identity politics. To assume that every woman despised her husband because she was a slave is utterly unfounded and not supported by the data.
If by "equality" you mean equal consent and equal sexual agency between the participants (as recognized by religious and/or civil authorities, if not necessarily the participants themselves), then yes. In heterosexual encounters, the sexual agency of the woman was never regarded and she was considered property. Homosexual encounters were considered to be something a dominant man did to a lesser man, as a form of intimidation and subjugation (rape, as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah); or if willingly, an act in which the receptive man was shamefully (to them) relinquishing his manhood by being penetrated like a woman. Their cultures had no concept of truly equal, loving relationships anciently.
Today's Data Over Dogma podcast is a perfect precursor for this video, as it talks about misogyny in the bible and how women are viewed and treated. It's all transactional, with the women having no power.
I thoroughly agree, though you've got to laugh - just a little bit! - about "arsenokoitai"...
As a straight White Christian, I couldn't care less who people love or what gender they identify as. I'm outraged that billionaires want even more tax cuts while homeless people die on our streets and children go hungry! The only person described in the Bible as burning in hell was a rich man who refused to help a homeless beggar
There’s still some conjecture in Dan’s statements. Assuming can be helpful but can be misleading.
Recently discovered Dan. Can someone drop links of relevant prior videos? Thanks!
The word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is ἀρσενοκοῖται and is a reference to Leviticus in the septuagint.
καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν
ἄρσενος male κοίτην bed
ἀρσενοκοῖται male-bedders or males who share the bed.
You're a great man and (I think) essential to working out the issues and paradoxes of American faith.
This sounds like “top” or “bottom”. In the parlance.
Not exactly. Being a top or a bottom still involves consent. These are negotiated positions with meanings and boundaries which are constantly being renegotiated over time.
The thing being referred to in the Bible is about power and dominance in a similar sense to the way grape is about power and dominance. It's one sided. One person taking from another with no concern for what the other person wants. Like, consider in a lot of instances we're talking about adult men being with what we today would classify as children or at best teenagers. In the case of women and slaves, literally taking them as property.
These are very different packages of meaning.
@@rainbowkrampus I though that my suggestion was closer at least, although I should have added the caveats you mention..
@@rainbowkrampus That doesn't make any sense, why would a victim not inherit the kingdom of God for being a victim of grape?
The word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is ἀρσενοκοῖται and is a reference to Leviticus in the septuagint.
καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν
ἄρσενος male κοίτην bed
ἀρσενοκοῖται male-bedders or males who share the bed.
And Leviticus is not about age, it specifically uses the word zakar which means a male of any age.
@@RickyVis Well, it wasn't considered grape back then. Women, children, slaves, these were all treated as property, as belonging to a man. We recognize it as such today because we are better than past people and, hopefully, future generations will be better than us.
I would add a an addendum to the third reason Dan proposed (that the sexual roles of homosexuals are fixed in filled with a power imbalance dynamic). Not all homosexual practices between men involve, by necessity, penetrative sex of any kind.
Yes, the video addresses this. See the caption at 1:29.
The formulation I once heard was “You’re not gay if you pitch, only if you catch”. Or maybe I read it. It sounds like something Jim Carrol would put in one of his semi-autobiographical novels.
Still quite common way of thinking in some circles. Prison rape being the most obvious.
Welcome to Brazil.
True believers love dogma because of the emotional payoff it gives them. We have special knowledge, are superior to others, and get to look down on others. For curious believers, Dan to the rescue to help them see, their dogma was made up.
Contemporary same sex relationships are overwhelmingly equal, monogamous, loving, long term, family… I’m not against same sex relationships, I agree with everything you said up until that utterance, and I’ve been sitting here enjoying your vids for almost an hour. But this is statement truly makes me wonder if you have any real world connection to the gay community anywhere currently in this world.
Guys who are "100% tops" or "100% bottoms" still exist in the gay community, but they are a minority and often more versatile than their self-promotion. Most gay men have a preference for one role or the other, but are versatile. I suspect that was true in the ancient world. The "official" understanding that has come down to us from ancient texts, is usually just wrong when it comes to actual practice. So, I think the better analysis here is to just say the Biblical statements just don't know what they are talking about regarding this matter. (Similar to the comments you made yesterday regarding a father requiring his daughter's grapest to marry her.) It's mistranslated because it is wrong. We don't "really" know what the ancient's meant by those terms, so maybe just don't translate them at all and leave the original Greek or Hebrew word in its place.
There are also a lot of gay men who don't enjoy or engage in anal sex.
I have read lots of research on this, and I don't believe we have any idea at all what arsenokoitoi means. Malakos is used far more often, and I don't see it being sexual in nature. The sin of malokoi is a man not being manly enough to satisfy his societal responsibilities of protection and provision. In modern western English, we have a similar term which describes a female dog.
There are a few references in ancient literature that use malakos in relation to pederasty, but the few primary documents I could access suggest that it refers to the underlying character they perceived someone who had who was involved in a pederastic relationship, not a specific term for someone in the passive role.
Paul does not specify what these softies were doing so we have no idea of the intended sense of the word.
@@MusicalRaichu I completely agree. Malakos is used in other ways that have nothing to do with physicality; I don't see why we insist on it being used that way here.
@@ronjones1414 The church since early days become infatuated with sex. If a negative sexual interpretation of a text is within grasp, they'll go for it. I bet there's some repressive psychology involved there ...
@MusicalRaichu actually, I see a lot of validity in the syphilis argument.
@@ronjones1414 nah, it's gonorrhea. You've heard of sodomy and gonorrhea haven't you?
Have you made a video about the corresponding "proof text" in leviticus? That seems to cover a broader scope than arsenokoites.
There's no academic consensus on what was in scope. I did a literature search and found a dozen views. The commonest view is a cultural taboo on something similar, basically ainal secs, because it placed a male in a woman's role in bed, hence "you shall not lie with a male a woman's bed, against our culture/religion".
❤❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!
I initially thought you were referencing the comedy WWII movie "1941" and was REALLY confused for a while there.
Is this Kendrick ment when he wrote "the devil is a lie, he's a 69 god?"
Considering all the bad takes the Bible has...I wish it was easier to argue with some people that it should never be used as a prooftext.
Was there was an awareness of homosexual relations between two men of equal status during the time of Paul? Or was it always understood in the context of exploitation and abuse? I understand the ancient Biblical world didn't have quite the same concept of homosexuality as we understand it as today a permanent, immutable orientation, but I am wondering if there is any record or understanding of two men having a romantic/sexual relationship in say the Greek world, and whether Paul would have had any such awareness. All responses welcome :)
We could guess Paul and most people in the region were aware of Greek pederasty. And we could guess that Paul knew about Nero and Sporus. But again, I don't think we could call those homosexual relationships. Known guys who were in love with one another? We would need confirmation from both parties. When talking Roman Empire, we're talking authoritative society where practically every single guy was a subordinate. Pretty much everyone was having to kiss up to somebody.
There was likely more awareness of it in the early Classical Greek world (Alexander/Hephaestion, Sappho's works, arguably Achilles/Patroclus from Homer's works). In fact, there might have been a preference towards same-sex behavior as male society saw sex with women as a duty for bearing children, and not good for much else.
But my understanding is that the Roman Empire held tightly onto the ideas expressed in the video (That penetrative sex is masculine, receptive is feminine, and for a man to take the feminine role was to disgrace that man).
By the time of Paul, most of the Mediterranean would have adopted the Roman way of thinking.
Greek society didn't have a great grasp on "Consent," either though. Pederasty was commonplace in the Classical Greek world, after all, and women were still seen as inferior to men, not fit to be citizens or enjoy the same sexual rights.
@@randybaker6042 Thank you
@@isaiahfisher2337 Thanks for the response
What evidence is there that the issue was about power imbalance, abusive, unequal. I listen to the arguments as a person suppotive of LGBTQIA people, but the explanations dont really seem that there was any care about power imbalance, explotation, abuse. They seem more misogynist than anything. An understanding that women are an object for mans pleasure, reproduction, property and that men as the dominate sex should never take on the lesser role of a woman.
Excellent as always!!!
What if people just stopped translating words if modern words don't work?
There's no need to stop translating words, if one simply uses words that are accurate. The point is that the rendering "homosexual" isn't accurate.
@@tchristianphoto There's no accurate translation in English, so we should just keep the original word and have it defined somewhere. That's what anime does with some Japanese words.
@@sadib100 it would help out immensely if every freaking word in the Bible wasn't regarded as coming directly out of the mouth of the ultimate supreme being by whoever is repeating it.
Translators feel they have to provide the nearest equivalent word or phrase. If you translate them literally as "soft ones" and "male bedders", no one would know what they meant (which is probably a good thing actually).
Trouble is, we don't have the concepts today so it's impossible to translate them accurately, as the extreme diversity in historical translation of the words demonstrates.
PS I would personally go for "moral cowards" and "secs abuzers", but I'm sure others would raise issues with such a rendition.
So the folks who insist that slavery as described in the Bible is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what the modern world understands as slavery insist that an ancient practice referred to in the Bible has to be the SAME as what we think of today? That seems a bit inconsistent to me.
I mean we don't just have to take the single word 'slave' and judge based on that. There are 3 different law codes that go into excruciating detail about what was going on as well as tons of narrative texts. Was it absolutely identical to, for example, slaves in 1800s America? No. Was it REALLY fucking similar? Yes.
As a related question Leviticus 18:22 says that the reader should not lie with a zachar (man) as one would lie with an issah (woman? wife?). Would it be valid to say that this is not a rule just for men? And how does the use of issah in this context potentially differ from nekevah? And what does that mean for all the other genders like tumtum, ay'lonit, and saris?
I did a search of academic literature and there's no consensus on what precisely was in scope.
Leviticus 18 was written to men, as were most of the instructions. The list of don’ts is all about which women not to have sex with from :7-:20.
In :23, they stop indicating the rules are for men by specifically indicating women.
@@scienceexplains302 You're very much begging the question there. All of the instructions could equally work for women, if you hadn't assumed in your premises that women weren't having sex with women. You know, that thing that _never happens._ [insert eye roll here]
Plus you neatly skipped over verse 21 which immediately precedes the verse in question and is about not sacrificing your children - which as we all know is a heavily gendered command, and clearly meant to be for men only.
In short, I'm not a fan of post hoc rationalisations, please take them elsewhere.
Oh, also... nice demonstration that you didn't do the reading since you clearly are not engaging with the Hebrew at all and don't understand the context of my question. Good to see you're still at that level of reading comprehension failure where you don't bother to check if you're even being relevant and that you're making no effort to change. Great work. Go away.
@@MusicalRaichu That's also my understanding. Particularly since it contextually does make sense to prohibit women from sleeping with zachar the way that you'd sleep with an issah (that was later said to be Lilith's sin after all when that line of myth started to become a thing). And then also it seems to maybe not apply to other genders that English-speakers would call male that are not zachar.
I'm curious since Dan has more period-relevant context as to the use of different gendered terms what he thinks, even if it's just speculative.
@@Zahaqiel Since you’re mostly interested in personal attacks, I’ll avoid responding to you on the future.
I’m not using circular reasoning, I’m looking at it from the perspective of the author, who apparently does assume that lesbian sex never happens or is utterly unconcerned with it because it is never explicitly mentioned, as male on male is. I never said I don’t think it happens, which you implied based on your eisegesis of my post.
I skipped 21 because it doesn’t relate directly to the issue. Who would decide whether to sacrifice children? Wouldn’t that primarily be the father in a patriarchal society?
There is nothing you have shown to be a _post hoc_ rationalization (to the point that it is not clear that you know what the phrase means) because my goal is to understand the text. I would prefer the Bible valued all forms of love and acknowledged that some of that is woman to woman, but I don’t see evidence for that.
I did “engage” with the Hebrew in the form of the Interlinear text.
If you’re not interested in sticking to evidence rather than personal attacks, please stop replying.
Mein Kampf quotes Martin Luther and new testament.
Kindly do some explanation of Antisemitic passages in the Christian New testament.
Thanks 👍
Would "men who are tops" and "men who are bottoms" work as translations of Arsenokoitai and Malakoi? The message is be versatile take turns
Yes, kind of. 'Arsenokoites' seems to be a new word coined by Paul from the phrase "those who bed males". On the other hand 'malakoi' was an already existing Greek word meaning effeminate/dainty, which was associated with sexual submissiveness (both to men and women actually).
Consent, or lack of, is the key element of difference and why we generally agree with Paul that what he seemed to be referring to (from knowledge of general Roman sexual practices) is sexual abuse rather than a loving relationship.
@@jelliottlein It seems anachronistic to me to assume that Paul was centering his sexual ethics around consent. We should though.
@@JakobVirgil The *word* and general structure of "consent" would be foreign to Paul, and his sexual ethics are generally foreign to us (he's pretty anti all sex and marriage as an apocalyptic thinker). But I think it's valid to see Paul in this case as confronting an abusive sexual practice even if it doesn't match exactly a contemporary sexual practice for us AND I don't think the proposed translation using language of modern sexual position preference represents his first-century intent very accurately.
You never get to saying the word that should have been used instead.
We don't have words or even the concepts anymore. They're impossible to translate.
@@MusicalRaichu "There is nothing new under the sun"
Seems to me this is about something other than "We don't have words".
@@steveangell1072 Literally they're "softies" and "male beders". I personally would translate them "moral cowards" and "secs abuzers".
Today we would generally refer to those in these situations described as “rapist/victim”. We don’t condone these in the way elite Roman society did, which Paul was protesting.
The question I would have is why the power imbalance matters in biblical morality here, but the imbalance is ignored in male-female relations where women are being exploited.
Because women having any power at all was inconceivable.
Women were property, so there could never be a power balance. Dan has a lot of videos explaining the nuts and bolts of this-like how if a woman got raped, the sin was considered to be against her father or husband and money must be paid to them to compensate for property damage.
Thank you, it was really hard being Christian being gay. Lot of hate and self hate for things out of my control
What Christians did and continue to do to us is no different than what they have and continue to do to the Jews. Better to be done unto another than unto themselves.They've become the Pharisees; The Hypocrites, The Blind Fools, and The Venomous Snakes. They can't fathom being the tax collector.
This life may not be easy for us, but just as they condemn and judge us, it will be God who will condemn and judge them by the same measure. Why? Because they put themselves before God. Nothing good comes from that.
There are so many people I would love to hear this. Facebook limits the audience that sees the sharing of UA-cam videos. Any chance some of these could be uploaded directly to facebook instead of linked to UA-cam?
Where can I see this film?
If you look up "1946 the movie" you should find it pretty easily.
I'm looking for this film
Search UA-cam for "1946"
Hi Dan
Dang it! I was sure you were talking about the Steven Spielberg classic 1941 (1979). The Jim Balushi comedy about World War II. Ok, let's see it...
Not like homosexual acts are not condemned from beginning to end. Get real !"
From beginning to end of what?
@@jackabug2475 : The Bible.
You mean how there are 6 strongly contested verses (out of 30k+) across two OT books and three NT letters by a single author, total of 5 out of 66+ books? Alongside many other rules Christians have decided to deprecate (shrimp, killing uppity sons, etc)? And far outweighed in volume and breadth by denunciations against the wealthy and for the poor that are generally ignored by many Christians?
@@JosephSmith-ph4xr Nope, nothing in Genesis _or_ Revelation about same-sex sex acts.
(And as Dan explained in the video, the word and _concept_ of "homosexual" _did not exist_ during Biblical times, so nothing about _penetrating-partners_ or _passive-partners_ -- which are types of people the Bible _does_ address in some places -- applies directly to same-sex couples today.)
Maybe you should stick to what Jesus said about same-sex-attracted people.
@@jackabug2475 : Perhaps your rainbow tinted glasses are having an impact. Rom 1 :26-28.
The passages verse numbers are rather
serendipitous
Can someone provide a source that supports Dan’s assertion that contemporary same-sex relationships are overwhelmingly monogamous, long-term, family relationships?
❤❤❤
If the text is specifically talking about an unequal abusive sexual relationship between two men (or man dominating a boy) why is the boy who is a victim not entering the Kingdom aswell as the assertive man? The abuser is under judgement in this passage but so is the victim. Also I agree that Sexual orientation is an unknown concept to the people at this time & place however would you not agree that there was equal, loving same sex relationships (not all abusive)and people during this time would have known about them just as we know about them today? Maybe the 6 main passage's that touch on same sex activity are not teaching on these "good" same sex relationships. So the Bible is silent on these "good" same sex relationships not cursing or blessing and cursing the abusive ? I'd love guidance here. Thanks for sharing.
@@richardmcgarvey6919 you don't need further guidance - you have unwittingly refuted his logic
@@richardmcgarvey6919 using Dr Dan's own logic, sex between two male adults would be A FORTIORI more evil than between a boy and a man-as that would be a greater destruction of hierachy.
Your comment proves that Paul was really against the homosexuality, hence the receptive boy being condemned despite being classified as "victim" by modern left wing standards. The Bible had absolutely no concept of good same sex relationship - that is why the "silence" is there; the "silence" only depends on misunderstanding what the texts really imply when it does mention same-sex intercourse
@@richardmcgarvey6919 read the educative comment by "sbaker8971" for more comprehensive survey of primary literature
In general ancient people seem to have had difficulty imagining an equal romantic/sexual relationship, whatever the gender of the two partners. That said, there was a lot of victim-blaming in antiquity, and probably Paul (as with some philosophers of the time) thought it was more of a problem for being "unnatural" than for being abusive
@@jaojao1768 in other words, anything not heteronormative was considered unnatural-even Greco-Roman physicians classified all non-heterosexual subjective desire as mental illness (and it remained so until psychiatry textbooks arbitrarily expunged homosexuality in the 1970s-purely as a result of activism, not any new scientific discovery); Dr McClellan does not seem aware of this
How do you square this with Romans 1: 26-27?
@@Khorton014 lol. It's declared heinous in that verse. Worse.
It just says that idolaters did unseemly things with each other. Heck it doesn't even say it was sinful, and doesn't even describe homoxesuality either. Not one gay person I've known did a word of it. And the whole point is NOT to use it against people because then you run up against Rom 2 "you condemn yourself".
@@MusicalRaichu what are you talking about brother? Hehehe
@@Jaymastia Rom 1 is rhetoric to lead to Rom 2 which turns the tables on anyone who was gullible to go along with it. Plenty of straight people have "shameful desires" and "work unseemliness". So straight people attempting to use Rom 1 against others fall into the same trap, "you condemn yourself" Rom 2.1. The whole point of Rom 1 is NOT TO USE IT.
Plus it doesn't even describe homxoesuality anyway. It's not caused by idolatry. No gay man has "set aside the natural use of the female" because he never had it to set aside.
It is my understanding that Paul wrote Romans in Corinth. At that time, Corinth was a seafaring wild town. Think SF during the Barbary coast years. I’m sure he was stunned by what he saw there and was reacting to it. And of course we have the Corinthian letters which let us know how wild they were and his corrections to help the community.
Is the central thesis of the film that the text does not condemn homosexuals but specifically men who have sex with other men (whichever role they take)?
A specific form of sex, to be even more clear, basically just anal. Maybe oral, but it would get foggy when it was a 69'ing situation.
The mistake was not in a popular Bible version and was corrected in the revised edition. But it was copied into several very popular versions whose translators did not see the correction. This happened just as the protestant church was discarding the traditional Christian view against all non-reproductive secs. The mistranslation influenced them to switch to a new view, that homxoesuality was inherently sinful. Catholicism also changed its view to treat it as "disordered". Soon the secular world changed its mind in response to scientific research. The church's response, based on their new Bibles, was to reject that and invent a theology to justify the error that has been entrenched to this day.
That's the SHORT version. Trouble is, it's a lot more complicated, which is why there's so much confusion over the issue.
Nice as always!
Thank you❤
Exactly, it means pitchers and catchers. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any power structure. It has to do with the perverseness of the act itself…. Whichever end you’re on
You add the comment that many homosexuals have never engaged in such acts, but it is also true that many heterosexuals *have* engaged in such acts.
Unless you want to make the case that the author of 1 Corinthians 6 is not the same as the author of Romans 1, in which Paul condemned both lesbian and gay acts, this is only a marginally useful translation note. It is pretty clear in Romans 1:26-27 that Paul did not like the idea of women or men going against what he thought was natural, and that is the exact mentality of modern Evangelicals regardless of whether or not we can directly translate the word "homosexuality" into Greek.
I mean this as a genuine question and not at all flippant, but could ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ actually be a more precise translation?
My guess is no. Because even those two terms imply a voluntary arrangement borne out of a particular sexual preference.
There isn't a really good modern term to use here, because our modern understanding of sexual relationships is fundamentally at odds with the ancient one. The idea of sex being a voluntary act between equals did not exist, for men or for women.
@@thomashewlett3166 look for "sbaker9871's" comment
Whatever it means, it is clearly a rule for the ruling class of the the Kingdom of Heaven.
Not the commoners.
I think this is very interesting. If it is only talking about the assertive man and receptive man/boy and therefore the receptive man/boy in the abused partner. Why are both not entering the kingdom of God? The victim is also under judgement and is usually an innocent child? Also was there not same sex relationships during this time aswell? Maybe in these texts it's not addressing same sex loving relationships, however they would have been known surely. Thanks for sharing the video... I hope to get some guidance here
I really appreciate you holding people accountable
Malachi 3:15... maybe God does exist and does know what "homosexuals" are...
1 corinthians 69 😂
Hahaha
you are the exact type of ignorant Dan is trying to combat. That is a translation rendering, not what was written. You should try clicking the little numbers or reading the subscript. You know, try educating yourself for once in this life before you look like an idiot.
It would help when people comment on here with Bible verses that they include the translation that they are reading. The Message translates this verse as those who “use and abuse”. This reads completely differently than say the KJV’s translation or the NASB.
@@Kate-bf9xt please, it is a sin.
@@Jaymastiaso the translation that I mentioned is wrong?
Huh, I'll admit I was quite biased against this film because a lot of the people I'd seen discussing it, and some of the film's marketing, gave me the impression that it treated the 1946 mistranslation as the 'patient zero' of Christian homophobia and ignored the centuries of profoundly homophobic Christian teachings that predate the existence of the word or concept of 'a homosexual'.
Sweet fit Dan :)
This film is not going to sway rabid haters of lgbtq people either way. Learned theologians like yourself, Dan, have been attempting to do that for a very long time. And my personal position is, let them believe whatever they want.....the Rapture, the Book of Revelation, the Doctrine of Inerrancy.....that is their right.....provided they do not attempt to have those personal "interpretations" reflected in the laws of the land and force the rest of us to live according to their myopic views.
I feel like increasing rates of LGBT people (for complicated reasons around how the body implements heterosexuality) is the ultimate reason for increased LGBT tolerance.
I think you’re underestimating how important these kinds of explanations are in changing people’s minds. Some true believers think they have no alternative to the biblical interpretation their church has given them, but Dan gives them another legitimate way to see things. They can still hold onto their Bible, but make space for a more sane personal moral code.
@@jlcl96 It is true that there are the tiny percentage that will actually listen to what learned theologians like Dan have to say and rethink their positions.....but let's be honest, they are few and far between. Still, I suppose you are correct....we should live in hope.
@@Dalekzilla Trouble is lots of people think that way including parents some of whom will have gay kids that will suffer anguish, rejection, harm and worse as a result. I heard a recent interview with a pastor who over the last couple of years did a dozen funerals of TGLB kids.
I wish Dan would make a follow up video explaining how these people were viewed in society and how we even know that these words refer to those specific actions. It’s interesting.
there's a book roman sexualities that offers some info. for free resources, there's stuff in wikipedia.
Well, Bible says church's duty is to interprete the Bible and church says homosexualism is a sin (such as sex before marriage, possibly sex with no purpose of having children etc).
I think you just made that up. There's no such thing as "homosexualism".
@@MusicalRaichu ok, homosexuality
@@МихаилПатраков-ш4ю Church tradition has not been consistent over the ages. Each generation does its best, but as we discover more, we need to revise our views accordingly. Ultimately what counts is humility and trust before God and commitment to one another's welfare.
What has failed to do this is forms of fundamentalism where any group's beliefs is treated as if it had divine authority and overrides any other consideration.
What gives the church the authority to insist on its interpretation?
@@diogeneslamp8004 Jesus gave power to apostles and they gave it to the church
Are you gay? Is that it?
Technically true regarding those terms but the bible does condemn homosexuality in Rom.1
Malaka is still a derogatory term that’s used to call a man who is”receptive”,I’m not Greek,but I know all the swear words,& 80% of my high school was Greek..🤷
Malaka in Modern Greek has come to mean w*nker (but is nowadays often used as a greeting or form of address in playful banter or conversation among Greek youth).
@@jacobpast5437 Yeah,I know,but it was always directed at the male sex,& in an effeminate context,you don’t didn’t call Effie a malaka,it was always Con..
"The academic consensus is that you are a bigot if you don't conform to my personal values" - Dan McClellan, super serious academic
While we’re on the topic of misused words. I doubt many people have an unrealistic fear of gay people.
A phobia is an anxiety disorder, defined by an irrational, unrealistic, persistent and excessive fear of an object or situation.
Intentional obtuseness. Delightful. There's another definition with that. Irrational dislike.
Someone's son brings home a girlfriend and the response is "Hi, nice to meet you, how are you?"
Their son brings home a boyfriend and the response is "Get out of my house!"
And you think that something about this response isn't irrational, unrealistic or excessive?
@@rainbowkrampus you forgot “fear”
So, i take it that you are basically an athiest because you can not believe in god due to the fact your channel is disproving all theories of those who have some belief in god.
Correct?
And what exactly was he disproving that made you think he was an atheist, as opposed to a theist with different views?
His channel is neutral in that way. He presents what we can learn from objective religious study and research. Obviously it's most beneficial to focus on where this challenges common beliefs particularly what causes immense harm, such as this issue which half the church still hasn't caught up to what we know from scientific research.
He refers to himself as a Christian and is a member of the Mormon church, but he tries to stay objective and keep his personal beliefs private.
Dan the Bible Scholar has a seemingly overwhelming atheist audience. I’m not sure if that is good or bad on Dan 😂
Judging by the number of theists who claim to be Christians, I would say its a good thing. Who wants to be a scholar of the Bible and have to put up with people who claim to be speaking the word of God any time they repeat a word out of the Bible?
There is no use of scholarship for such humans. The Bible is what they say it is. Period.
Throw in the fact they have disagree with one another over their God words for centuries.
The only reason they aren't imprisoning, banishing and executing one another and anyone else who dares disagree with them is because the powers that be aren't allowing it.
Translations? Edits? History? Original or earliest source text? None of it matters.
Whatever they are using is God's word. Period. Accept or suffer the consequences.
Granted, not all Christians practice authoritative interpretation of scripture under the auspice of divine inspiration. Some of us are opposed to it and think it's one of the worst practices in human history. Of course, it will come as no surprise that we are fans of Bible scholarship.
Nothing destroys dogmatic belief in the Bible faster than scholarly study of the Bible. One isn't necessarily atheist just because they reject Christian fundamentalist dogma.
You look so angry 😂 you are a funny man ❤️🔥 it’s funny when a man who has been Alive for such little time has all the answers. They needed you back in the days man where have you been!
Seek help.
@@TheDanEdwards you guys are the ones who need help do you guys even know where you living at 😂😂😂
@@TheDanEdwards America has been proven to traffic your children you guys fight for nothing but dishonor bunch of clowns
@@TheDanEdwards at the end of this journey so many of you are going to regret Pretending like your new things
Once again splitting hairs - Explain Leviticus if you don't like Corinthians. And even still, if "homosexual" isn't the perfect English word to use, this is what we do know. God never intended women to be with women and men to be with men. He gave each of us a specific role within marriage, and one of the commandment was to "multiply." Jesus confirmed these roles in the NT, and defined marriage as something between a man and a woman. NT and OT also condemns sex outside of marriage.
Since marriage is clearly defined as something between a man and a woman, and sex outside of this is a sin, that would mean any homosexual act, whether it be two men or two women would be considered a sin.
Dan never ever addresses this point.
This comment is utterly irrelevant. This video is not addressing same-sex intercourse elsewhere in the Bible, it's just discussing the propriety of rendering "homosexuals" in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and my point is 100% accurate.
@@maklelan your point is the one that is irrelevant because, just as you have in other videos, you try to make it seem like "homosexuality" isn't actually condemned in the Bible, when it most certainly is, directly and indirectly.
Who cares if homosexual is the right word to use in Corinthians. It's irrelevant. Based on the context of everything we know from OT and NT, acting on homosexual desires is a sin, it is condemned, and it is an affront to God's design and intentions for us. I think you know this but you dance around it and prefer to just be a contextual critic and cherry pick your talking points to fit the narrative you want.
@@cman04This is foolish, and suggests you haven’t watched most of Dan’s videos on homosexuality. He has explicitly stated that the Bible does condemn homosexuality in a couple of passages, the first of which is among a list of rules specifically for the land of Israel at the time (most Christians do not adhere to said rules anymore), and the second is coming from “Paul”, whose sexual ethic and understanding of sexuality, gender norms, and other concepts are outdated.
@@cman04 Since my video is introducing the discussion, it cannot be irrelevant. You can keep your attempts to validate your rhetorical deflection to yourself.
@@cman04your brain is an affront to god’s design
No, this is just splitting of hairs in other to take a "technically" correct statement (that those two words technically only mean what Dan rightly says they mean), and draw implications that the historical Paul would have disapproved of. Paul uses those ONLY uses those "apparently narrow" words because they were "METONYMICALLY" descriptive of the most explicit & most PUBLICLY RELEVANT form of what he regarded as perversion: any & everything that does not conform to (marital) heteronormativity.
It would be dishonest for a historian to conclude that Paul would not have had similar theological condemnation & hatred for modern sorts of "equal, loving, marital, 'non-abusive' (a completely MODERN CATEGORY!!!), long-term" same-sex relationship. By using linguistic sleight of hand, Dr Dan has introduced the laughable fallacy that Paul would by any chance have thought: "if it is equal, loving, 'non-abusive' (a modern category a pre-20th century person cannot possibly have cared about) relationship between two females I didn't specify, then it's somehow less evil than what malachoi & arsenokotai are describing"
We also need to retire this verifiably wrong lie that absolutely no one in the ancient world had a concept of non-heterosexual desire i.e. "sexual orientation"-as all GRECO-ROMAN PHYSICIANS (without exception) uniformly regarded all form of subjective homosexual mental desire as mental illness!!
They knew some people had those desires, but as you point out they were incorrectly assumed pathological. What differs today is firstly Kraft-Ebing's 19th cent research showed same-secs attraction was equivalent in every way to opposite-secs attraction. Secondly research since showed it's resistant to change and there's nothing pathological about it. All evidence fits the assumption that it's a harmless natural variation.
We don't know what Paul's attitude would have been to loving consensual faithful same-secs relationships in his day as he does not disclose enough details. Had he, however, understood what we know today, it's likely he would have been OK with it. Had he further known the harm perpetrated as a result of mistranslating what he wrote, there's no question he would have been OK with it. This is because Paul's overriding ethic, as that of Jesus and NT writers, was love.
@@MusicalRaichu it is completely dishonest & uttterly nonsensical to claim we do not know what Paul thought about today's same-sex relationships!!!! Every good historian of pre-20th century Abrahamic religions , especially in pre medieval & medieval contexts (which is outside the academic range of Ancient Near Eastern scholars like Dan who see things from the narrow tunnel vision of biblical texts and surface-level superficial knowledge of the Greco-Roman world (only someone with a PhD in Latin, non-koine Greek & Classics can be a true expert in GrecoRoman studies)) can clearly see that all forms of non-heterosexuality was uniformly seen as evil by: all stages of rabbinic Judaism (and therefore 1st century Judaism until proven otherwise), pre-20th century Islam of all periods & Christianity of all medieval, pre medieval & Hellenistic periods CONSISTENTLY & UNANIMOUSLY rejected all expressions of homosexuality as evil, without making any concessions for "lovingness" or "consent/equality". The knee-jerk reaction of all practitioners of these Abrahamic religions to the topic up till the 1950s prove beyond reasonable historical doubt what their counterparts of earlier periods would have thought about the topic (before mid-20th century LGBTQ activism & liberal brainwashing): UNCONDITIONAL CONDEMNATION! Any serious acquaintance with medieval antiquity, or more comprehensive knowledge of Greco-Roman antiquity (which no biblical scholar can have) will show your claims to verifiably false. Any comprehensive knowledge of Jewish & patristic literature will see evidence that makes it abundantly clear that it is the DESIRE (not the presence or absence of "love" or consent or power balance) that is fundamentally evil about being an arsenokotes or malachos. The fact that Paul condemned the one in the receptive role (which modern Left Wing categories would classify as the "victim") should be more than enough hint that Paul's reference to BOTH penetrative & receptive partners was his METONYMICAL way of expressing his disapproval for every & anyone who had the subjective sexual orientation that resulted in such same sex acts. Your claim can only be sustained by ignorance of wider primary literature across a wider sample of periods in Rabbinic Judaism & patristic Christianity (which is the kind of ignorance biblical scholars specialise in wallowing in-especially old testament scholars (which is Dr Dan's category)!)
Whatever fringe 19th century article you reference never affected the scientific consensus because psychiatry textbooks till the 1970s continued to classify homosexuality as mental illness, until EXTERNAL NON-ACADEMIC pressure of (Left Wing) LGBTQ activism began to arbitrarily change opinions without any new scientific evidence (source: I am a medical doctor). Any study can arbitrarily choose to decide that fetishism, and incestous desire for one's parents & siblings in a sexual way is not pathological -the reality is that there are no scientific "pathological features" present in bestiality (sex with animals), or sibling-sibling or parent-child incest that are absent from homosexuality; the only difference is the Left Wing ideology has ARBITRARILY decided that homosexuality is okay, but sex with animals, siblings & parents isn't okay.
You also build your argument on the verifiably wrong claim that ancient same-sex activity were never consensual-which is nonsense-presence of hierarchy in all premodern marriages does not automatically mean that every & any marital intercourse (i.e. every marriage before 1920) was automatically rape (even though that might make sense in the Brains of libtards). Most same-sex activity in the biblical period was in fact very consensual, even those the arsenokotos was the active superior partner. Malachoi often willingly & consentingly enjoyed the perverse pleasure that came with penetration.
Unfortunately, I don't have sufficient ignorance of wider non-biblical primary literature to accept your claims
@@MusicalRaichu there is a totally different OP comment by someone named "sbaker8971" on this video that does a detailed scholarly breakdown of other primary literature on this topic. Please go through the trouble of scrolling to find it
@@tsemayekekema2918 I'm not going to read all that. I admit that Paul limited to the assumptions of his time likely would not have understood that some men NEED intimacy with a man and may have assumed like his peers that a man in a passive role was denigrating and doing that to someone was contrary to life in God's kingdom.
But I stand by my view that if Paul knew what we know today and saw the terrible harm we've brought on innocent people by twisting his words into an oppressive ideology, I have no doubt he would have said that homofobes will not inherit the kingdom of God.
@@MusicalRaichu of course you are not going to read because you are not interested in rigorous evaluation of data. You are only just interested in projecting modern left-wing logic onto Paul, despite clear evidence that Paul's scriptures (Leviticus) commanded a blanket death penalty on all male-male sex without any qualifications regarding consent or "love" or "intimacy" (yet your fantasies claim Paul would be saddened by "harm")-despite absolute lack of even the tiniest scratch of evidence that any Jew living before the 1940s disapproved of homophobia, you fabricate the claim that Paul would be against it.
So Dan says 1 Corinthian 6:9 does not mention women and is only about male receptive/insertive roles.
But he doesn't bother to tell you that;
Romans 1:26-27 puts both male & female same-sex sex together in the same category.
Or that Leviticus 20:13 says that "both" men have committed an abomination and "they" shall be put to death, regardless of who's on top.
Dan also talks about distorting the intention of the author of
1 Corinthians 6:9, but fails to mention that the author made his intended meaning clear when he says such people are "unrighteous" and "shall not inherit the kingdom of God".
It's disingenuous in the extreme, to try to gaslight by saying, people just read their own bigotry into these verses. People just believing the verses mean what they say is not grounds for a charge of bigotry. Not unless you are deliberately being intellectually dishonest that is.
And all this because he said that some words were mistranslated?
Maybe the author(s) of 1 Corinthians and Romans is just a weirdo on a power trip.
@@TheDanEdwards
Thats's one possibility.
@@solidstorm6129
Now, now, Stormy, we both know why you are on my Pointless to Engage list. Still not functioning with logic or honesty, I see.
@@glenwillson5073 and why do you wish to ignore me? Because you disagree with me in order to comfort your beliefs?
Actually it, just like you are 100% wrong. But I'd expect nothing less from a progressive academic.
Homosexuality
Robert A. J. Gagnon Professor of New Testament Theology
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.
This is an excellent breakdown, I am especially convinced by point (3). Also I would like to point out that the first law against sodomy on record, Novella CXLI of Justinian, cites both Paul and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, indicating that the understanding of Paul as meaning sodomy existed in 500s AD.
I do not agree with the christian view on homosexual sex, but I think it is fundamentally dishonest to claim that the christian view is something other than what it clearly is.
@@sbaker8971 thank you for being more concise & articulate than I could ever have been in insisting that agreeing with Dr Dan depends on ignorance of lots of relevant primary literature from outside the Bible. I just wish all his viewers would educate themselves with this comment
I would like to see you make a video that’s pro-Palestinian and anti colonialism. Then I’d have respect for you. Instead of assuming that two equals are in a “conflict” when clearly one is oppressed and occupied.
Um no offense but I noticed your rainbow watch band and you always seem to be trying to set the record "straight" on homosexuality in the Bible.... ulterior motives?
Would that ad hominem affect the argument that Dan made - other than to a bigot?
No offense, but I am a heterosexual and what he is saying and trying to set the record straight on has been been being said and pointed out for a long time before we were born. My motive? Same as his.
Your motive? Since I'm a heterosexual, I know your motive doesn't have anything to do with your sexual or gender identification. Your motive is attached to some other sort of identification.
And I can weed out being a theist. I'm a theist. And I can weed out being a Christian. I'm a Christian.
So what is your motive attached to? A specific religious teaching? Just a guess.
How drunk and dumb were you when you wrote this?
@johnmcgimpsey1825 it's only ad hominem if I'm referring to God argument which I'm not in any way shape or form. I'm simply asking a question but thanks for playing
@@4everseekingwisdom690 Wrong. Ad Hominem: "Attacking a person's character OR MOTIVATIONS rather than a position or argument." (American Heritage Dictionary, emphasis added). And "simply asking a question" is an all too common way of attempting to deflect responsibility for dog whistling when you get caught out. It's cowardly. Not playing - it's a game for losers...