I guess it's like that Dennis/Dentist things. I worked at a church where the chair of the Staff-Parish Relations Committee was named Christian Hires :: shrugs ::
We had a music producer here in sweden called Billy Butt maybe they are eachothers evil twin. He might still be here but also might not, coincidentally he was prosecuted for fornication in the 90's.
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” People try to make it so complicated. Serve God and help others.
@@Jin420 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. Yeah your right, you should not cherry pick. Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. So because you hate what the bible says, my job is to expose you. You are not a bible believing christian. See how that works...??? Have a great day. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Rather than outright ignoring some of the texts in The Bible, why aren't the texts taken for what they are and the reader simply concludes that if that's what The Bible is saying, then they are done with The Bible? I get there are good parts in there but if as a whole doesn't hold up, it's not for me - Like the Star Wars saga :)
i hope you rekindle that relationship fire with Jesus. i dont care about what you believe about right and wrong but i do care that you believe on Jesus. he loves us through thick and thin and he knows our heart
@Bible-Christian I was raised an Evangelical Christian and what changed my mind about the Bible is studying Church History. It's not that one particular interpretation is necessarily wrong (though there have been those) it's that cultures do interpret the Bible depending upon their needs. For example, take the divide between Orthodox and Catholics in Eastern Europe and why one people took one branch of the faith over the other.
I grew up in the interior of Brazil in the 50s and 60s. I heard men bragging about "doing" another. Only the passive partner was considered homosexual and a victim of mistreatment. "Real men" could "do" anyone. Clearly a symbol of domination as you say.
There’s a baseball metaphor for that: you’re not gay if you pitch, only if you catch. What I hadn’t heard before I began watching Dan’s videos, I didn’t know that this was contradicted in the Bible.
In another video, Dan covers the topic of sex used as a tool of power during the bronze age. Basically (and somewhat oversimplifying) someone of higher social standing was free to ‘use’ anyone of lower standing. It becomes a ‘sin’ for a high rank to be ‘bottom’, such as with homosexual sex, but also with heterosexual sex _positions_ where the woman is on top. It helps to remember that rape itself wasn't a crime, and consent was an alien topic. I think this pretty much nails the society you're describing, and the one that evangelicals are trying to promote.
A more important question might be: Who the hell does Paul think he is that he can decide who will "inherit the Kingdom of God" and who "will not"? Such arrogance is unconscionable.
@@MarcillaSmithA person who has to "conscience" it. We must all make our own decisions. I will not accept my companion saying that their opinion is the opinion of God. I want this to be a norm in my society. I don't take lies from my friends and I certainly don't take them from Paul.
@@be1tube Saint Paul is writing to an audience which came to him for the reason _that_ he was teaching a (new, at the time) theology which they wanted to learn. If we label Saint Paul "unconscionably arrogant" for trying to explain his theology in terms of who would and wouldn't inherit the Kingdom, we may as well get big mad at Nietzsche for saying that God is dead and we killed him. "How dare he accuses me!" It really misses the point. Yeah, I get that he's prudish (in general, let's remember), and that his words have been cherry-picked to further marginalize the already marginalized. But is that really on Saint Paul over and above the people who are doing the cherry-picking? And just pragmatically-speaking, are we better off attempting to summon Mr. O'Tarsus from the Great Beyond to update his language to be more culturally-sensitive, or to call on the cherry-pickers to be better?
These videos are so important, Dan, because you are calling out the abuse inside the same Christian household so to speak. Atheists can be (mis)treated as outsiders who don't understand. You're approach from a deeper understanding is a much harder obstacle for bigots to overcome. I don't have your faith, buddy, but I know people who hold it just as beautifully.
There's one thing I'd really appreciate getting people's honest thoughts on. I don't know what to make of testimonies where people claim that they have somehow been ‘delivered’ from homosexuality? Coming from an evangelical background, I’ve come across testimonies of people who say that after repenting from their former ‘lifestyles’ and accepting Jesus, they have been 'delivered' from same-sex attraction. These stories don’t seem to resemble what we would associate with ‘conversion therapy’ in a traditional sense, but rather a personal experience that involves some purported supernatural intervention. Some even describe being released from ‘demonic oppression’ and will sometimes talk about various physiological and psychological changes in the body as part of their experience. I genuinely don’t know what to make of any of this. And it's especially vexing to be told that this is what you should expect to experience as well if you 'surrender' your sexuality to God. It’s absolutely clear that a lot of people have experienced their lives improving after finally coming to terms with their sexuality - no longer repressing an important part of who they are. But in some evangelical communities, you will similarly get people saying that their lives are radically different after turning away from homosexuality and accepting Jesus. I genuinely don’t know what to make of this discrepancy between people who find liberation when embracing their sexuality, and those who find the same so called ‘freedom’ rejecting it. What do you make of this? Quick disclaimer, I don’t mean to suggest that I understand or support any of this. I am genuinely curious as to how we might interpret these types of anecdotes. I don’t want to rely solely on explanations from evangelicals echo-chambers. I also don't want to deny anyone's experience. Anyone's honest thoughts on this would be most appreciated. Many thanks :)
"You can follow Jesus, or not." So you have chosen...not, since Jesus said a whole bunch of stuff but none of it (as I recall) was related to where one decides to insert their genitals at the end of the day. How's that feeding the hungry and caring for the sick coming along?
“And if not, if you choose to insert your penis in the wrong place, you’ll burn in hell for all eternity, but that’s not MY choice, it’s yours…and, well, the choice of the God of my interpretation, and I obviously don’t give a damn that MY god is the most sadistic eternal being my brain can conjure up. But never mind…go on…burn!” Does he even, with his throwaway disdain, know what he’s telling us about himself? Not gays! Himself!
I make a distinction between Jesus and Christ. Christ was he that was crucified. Jesus was the man who lived and preached and became he who was crucified. Why do I make this distinction? Is it meaningless? No, because the bare minimum belief to qualify as a Christian is belief in the crucifixion: 1) that Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins, 2) that having paid the debt, he gave us everlasting life, and 3) that he was resurrected. Then there are two admonishments: love god with all your heart and love thy neighbor. This is Christianity as Paul set it up, before the Bible was written or disseminated. Paul and others certainly had their different ideas about how a Christian could maintain a state of grace, but let’s face it: there is no objective measure of how much one loves God, or their neighbor, nor is there total clarity on who constitutes a neighbor. If the “value-added” teachings of Jesus were later layered upon Christianity, that is like extra credit, or you condemn the earliest converts to Christianity to damnation because they didn’t do the extra Jesus stuff.
How much hatred does a human being need to have in order to rely on bronza age mythologies to justify said hatred? I will never understand their determination to keep hating on others.
The hatred is mostly a means to an end -- the desire for power and control. By convincing others to hate like they hate they can get the masses to put them in positions of authority. That's the real poison the hatemongers are pedaling. Not the hate itself but the lust for power. Think about how they've used fear and hatred of homosexuality, abortion, transgender, and immigration issues to rally the troops and win elections at every level in government from school boards to the White House.
I've got a boomer hippie mom who has Southern Baptist parents. Mom had no tolerance for racism (except for Vietnamese immigrants for some reason), my grandparents didn't consider themselves racist, but made no effort to avoid slurs or generalities. As a child and young person, I remember wondering who it was okay to hate, who I could regard as, basically, enemies or prey. I think if I had chosen someone and been rewarded by a respected elder for dehumanizing them, I might've been a real prick. Luckily, the only group I consistently find abhorrent are French men, and I don't run into many.
Hey Dan, I'd be interested in hearing you offer your opinion on matters of what *should* guide our negotiation of the text, especially since it seems that the answers of "the text itself" or "a textually- informed tradition" would allow bias to shape interpretation. Using this video as an example, you correct the stitched creator's reading with a more precise one, but you don't offer guidance on what to do with that more precise reading, especially as it still seems to condemn certain behavior - you only go on to reiterate the general case that the the Bible's meaning is shaped as much by its own social contexts as our own. The options with the more precise reading seem to be to discard it or downplay it, or to obey it. You don't seem to advocate the latter, so what direction do we have for the authority or basis of wisdom or tradition or mindset to guide the former?
I think Dan would argue that we should “accept” or follow those things in the Bible - and any text, for that matter - which we find useful and beneficial, and discard what we find unhelpful or harmful, hence his take that Scripture nowhere condemns and everywhere endorses slavery, and we just… did away with that as a society.
Great question, I also get a little frustrated by this. My guess is he would reply with that's not his expertise. I like how you invoked wisdom though as the mindfulness practices are probably our best tool to properly interpret the texts.
Look, I'm an atheist. Former evangelical Christian. Anything can be an authoritative text. When a republican screeches about "The constitution" and the glorious godhead of the founders, they are invoking an appeal of authority. You could bang on a text such as Frankenstein and state that it is an authority on how an aspect of our society should be structured. You are the one imputing authority to this Christian text. To a Hindu, this Christian text might be nice but they have their own "authoritative text" and your text isn't authoritative. See... people have to accept the idea that a particular text is authoritative. It's very subjective. In the old days, the winners used to violently impose their beliefs and that's how your Christianity really spread. You don't really think the African slaves asked for that slave bible... do you? Anyway, you may not realize this but you are telling everybody who is watching what kind of person you are by what verses you stress and whether or not you even use something like a Bible. It's not logic and evidence based. It's feeling based and then, a post hoc rationalization to justify what you feel is correct. Don't fall for the lie that humans are rational and evidence based. We are emotional and the logic and critical thinking makes our heads hurt. That's how you're going to intuit what verses resonate with you. So I'd respectfully ask that you just follow the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 Hey, perhaps he only has daughters.🤷♂️ I’m just making a point that we as a modern society don’t live by these ancient morals today. Morality is not fixed as it changes as we continue to learn from human experience. Have a nice day 🙂
Dan, I’d like to apologise to you. I once misunderstood your stance in a video of yours and offered a snide comment in this section. Anyway, I’ve subscribed and look forward to watching your content.
I can't recall the exact first Dan video I watched but I wasn't loving it.. but something made me keep listening and the more he talked the more I realized he really was coming from a place of scholarship. Just a day or two ago he did a video with AronRa who found himself telling his followers to subscribe to Dan's channel. Because Dan's scholarship is that good. Yes, it'll make you think. Sometimes it will piss you off. But he really does follow his tagline of "data over dogma". RU-vid and the rest of social media could use a lot more of that.
It's so rare and refreshing to encounter online accountability, thanks for restoring a tiny bit of my faith in humanity. May I ask what you originally found so disagreeable and what changed your mind?
That's not remotely close to what the commandment against eating blood entails. Jewish dietary laws are much closer to following what the commandment is trying to tell you, ie, the eating of blood in any real amount is forbidden. Blood is supposed to be drained from animals during slaughter, and not made into food.
@@yallimsorry5983 Yes, and my question is, in what way are many Christians ignoring the command not to consume blood? Genuine curiosity, since I'm not aware of what foods actually contains blood. As ScottKorin points out, a "bloody" steak is not actually bloody. Is the sacrament considered consuming blood?
One argument that is sometimes offered by Christian advocates of same-sex marriage is that the Apostle Paul was not thinking of loving, monogamous adult relationships, and only intended to condemn Greco/Roman pederasty. That has gotten me thinking in general about Paul’s historical context and, more specifically, about this argument. First, it’s important to acknowledge that relationships between adult men and adolescent boys or young men were the most commonly attested same-sex relationships in the ancient world. There are exceptions-Plato’s Symposium discusses committed, lifelong same-sex relationships-but this is by far the most common kind of relationship. We should therefore acknowledge that the Apostle Paul was likely most familiar with this kind of same-sex sexual activity. It’s worth observing, however, that precisely because this form of same-sex sexuality was so common, there was standard terminology in Greek for talking about these relationships-the older man was the erastes (lover) and the younger man the eromenos (beloved). If these relationships were Paul’s target, it would have been reasonable for him to use these standard Greek terms. Instead, he used an apparently novel term, arsenokoitai, which either he invented or which he took from Helenistic Judaism. The most logical derivation of this new word is from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22, which says that you shall not lie with (koiten) a man (arsenos) as with a woman. In both Greek and English, verbs can be transformed into nouns. Thus, in English, swimmers are people who swim. In Greek, the koitai are men (-ai is a masculine ending) who koiten-that is, “lie with” in a sexual sense. So the arsenokoitai are men who lie with other men in a sexual sense. There is an additional reason for thinking that arsenokoitai is derived from Leviticus 18:22. In 1 Timothy 1:8-11, the Apostle Paul writes, we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the Law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai], enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. Paul is listing various disobedient groups of people who have been given the Law to tell that their acts are contrary to God’s will. Thus, we would expect the arsenokoitai to correspond to some prohibition in the Law. The obvious candidate prohibition, for reasons given above, is Leviticus 18:22. It’s important not to misunderstand the context of this prohibition. Paul is no harsher in his condemnation of homosexual activity than he is of sexual immorality in general. And just a few verses later, he writes, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life” (1 Timothy 1:15-16). Anyone who uses these verses either to single out homosexual sin for unique condemnation, or who fails to speak with humility of God’s love for all, is misusing the text. However, it’s also important not to misunderstand the prohibition itself. While pederasty was the most common form of same-sex activity recorded in ancient writings, Paul doesn’t use the common language of pederasty. Instead of condemning age or power differences, he coins a new word which focuses particularly on relationships that involve two men. These kinds of considerations, it seems to me, make the claim that Paul was only condemning pederasty-rather than same-sex sexual activity more generally-much more problematic.
Because of Dan's erudite evaluation, I believe he's right. My position is more along how I regard divine thinking. In short, I find it impossible to believe that God, understanding human nature as He does, would ever say or inspire any sentiment that would lead to bigotry, marginalizing, and persecution of individuals who want nothing more than to live in accordance with their orientation.
Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman have done some good work in this space. Dale in his book Sex and The Single Saviour, and Bart on his blog. The big problem with this word is that we have only a very small number of examples of its usage, so figuring out what it means is very difficult. Trying to use the linguistic equivalent of simple arithmetic is not really a good method. Just adding "male" + "bedders" = homosexuals is not right. By that logic the meaning of the constituent words in compound words like "understand" and "motherf#$%er" should also reveal their meaning, and we know that's not right. We simply don't know what it means. Dale Martin has looked at all the known examples of its usage, and has concluded the best guess is something to do with money and male sex.
If what Gods wants for people is to find a partner, marry them and start a family it shouldn't matter what sexual orientation you are. Christians could have tought this but instead want to ignore the fact that no one chooses their orientation. God made people the way they are. But instead they want to demonize minorities of people who are all one in Christ Jesus.
Thank you for this videos. A friend of mine is Muslima, Another friend is atheist, but grew up in the Dutch Bible Belt, so experienced some of that tradition. I was Dutch reformed, but now I’m not believing anymore. They are both informed about what I learned since I last saw them. We have such interesting conversations. And discussions.
I've always been interested in this topic. Thanks for some further clarification. My overall way of thinking about consensual adult sex is that it's none of my business what other humans do in bed.
So...God hates bottoms? I find it absurd. Also, any book written by people that didn't bathe and wiped with their bare hands, not a bunch of folks I take my cues from.
I might add that the actual meaning of male-bedder has been lost. We have next to zero data. Your view is an educated guess. Doesn't mean it's incorrect, just that you can't be dogmatic. Also you need to explain why what you describe was so vehemently immoral. It was in their culture an abusiv act as it feminized and thus denigrated the victim. And this was in turn based on the cultural assumption, now considered false, that women were inferior to men in every way. If we want to use the Bible to condemn same-secs acts, then we can only do so by importing that false assumption. Rom 1.26 does not describe female "same-secs" acts. The notion of "same-secs" is a modern category that we should not use in understanding the Bible. Rom 1.26 describes "their [the male idolaters'] females" doing something unnatural. This is vague, but likely about females taking the active role with males. That's why "likewise" males also poked males Rom 1.27. Furthermore, Rom 1.26-27 does not say these acts were sinful. They were merely described as contrary to social norms. Rom 1.26-27 taken literally fails to condemn anything, and in fact is not to be used in this way lest you fall foul of Rom 2.1.
Dan, what about 1 Timothy 3:12? I can see it’s about ´deacons’ and not the general population. I know some who say this is anti-polygamie but have only been able to reply that I’m not sure about that - maybe it’s about having time for the church because they aren’t busy with their four wives, but I really don’t know. Can you shed any light on this one?
If honesty is part of your faith then you can disregard 1 Timothy as it is most likely a pseudoautographical work written after Paul's death by someone claiming to be him. Why would you need to consider a text that starts with a lie? Dan has a video and mentions this in many videos as do most front facing social media critical New Testament scholars.
If we can't interpret the bible without adapting it to our own cultural norms, then can we ever definitively say what any given passage within the bible means? If we can never definitively say what any given passage means, then how can we say that its wrong to translate arsenokoitai as "homosexuals"?
The best technique to understand what the Bible means, is to compare usages in different passages to look for commonalities in meaning. That helps in understanding what the original authors meant. Historians do the same thing in studying secular history. As for adapting the Bible to our own cultural norms, that removes any absolute authority from the text and reduces it to support for ones cultural norms. That can be OK if one is merely codifying their own cultural norms, but it means that the Bible can't be used to support claims that God Says This or God Wants That.
Did Paul ever coin any other words using the Septuagint? Which words? If he didn't coin any other words this way, why would we assume he did just this one time? What did arsenkoitai mean when used in texts outside the Bible? Did any ancient author use it to mean someone born with a homosexual orientation? In what other ancient text does malakoi refer to a same-sex act? Were not the men described in Romans innately heterosexual to begin with who then performed acts unnatural to them? Does Romans describe men who were born innately homosexual? Weren't the women described in Romans performing oral sex and anal sex with men? Where does it specify it was females having sex with each other?
There was no such thing as the concept of sexual orientation in that cultural group in those days. Sexual behavior and desire for same weren't a thing you saw as part of your identity. It was what you felt and chose to express. There's a Roman graffito I consider to be a good example of this. In Latin it reads, "Dolete puellae, paedicare volo, cunne superbe vale!" Translated, it reads: "Grieve you girls, I want to f*ck guys in the arse, goodbye overbearing c*nts." He didn't say his identity changed. He said his behavior is being altered by conscious choice. And frankly, the vast majority of people who can consciously choose to limit their sexual partners to one gender after finding any others personally distasteful at least start out as some flavor of bisexual, not heterosexual. The political lesbian is a screed for another day.
Dan, what exactly makes scholars think that Romans 1:26 refers to female homosexuality? The text only mentions female sexual deviancy, not same-sex activity.
The chapter is clearly talking about man-ing the courts 🧑⚖ of the *KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.* So whatever it says, it only has to do with the rulers of the kingdom, not everyone who makes it. Christians ✝ really have completely forgotten the *entire point* of the New Testament. 🙄
Thank you Dr Dan. I wonder if the divorce question is negotiated to allow it. "Fornication" etc. I was surprised to hear my good christian friend say that he had a biblical excuse to divorce his wife.
I got married at 20 we were jehovahs witnesses. I quit at 25 and we finally divorced when I was 30. I got a new girlfriend after a year and my ex found out so she called me to ask me if she was "scripturally free." I was like wtf, why do you need to ask me that, do whatever you want.
My parents stayed in an abusive relationship with each other and their 6 children for 18 years. Because of the teaching from the church against divorce.
Malakoi was also used for men who were overly interested in sex with women! In this case it meant “soft” as in “self-indulgent”. Also because of the Greek belief that men shouldn’t associate with women because the femininity would rub off on the men, so even having heterosexual sex more than necessary for reproduction was overly feminine. It could also be used to mean “luxurious” or “comfort seeking” so it didn’t necessarily imply “effeminate” the same way that we think of the word, and certainly not necessarily homosexual
If our feelings and lack of action make sin okay, where are the people endorsing covetousness? With the Bible often saying "man" to refer to humans, a lesbian is a homosexual "man." And Jesus said we didn't have to engage in sexual activity in order to commit adultery in our heart.
In the KJV the word is translated as "effeminate". I wonder how the KJV only crowd navigates this one. I have a mild suspicion the content creator in question is normally a KJV guy, but makes an exception with this verse
Hi Dan, Both LDS (which I'm passingly familiar with) and the Catholic-Orthodox Nexus(CON) (which I grew up in) are both Huge Philosophical-Theological-Legal Weltanschauungen. I identified as an Ex-Catholic in my first post to you. Once you are in the Galacticus world Swallowing mind set, it always leaves an indent on how you Perceive the sphere. I started glancing at Greek (cf. e. e. cummings) in order to get more into Plato and the playwrights. So when I got to glance at the Hellenized Bible (1970s), I could see the literary influences. ἀρσενοκοίτης makes me think linguistically of Gumby's Pony Pal "Pokey" and μαλακοὶ "Mr Softee" (now I'm craving ice cream) I knew from the Banquet Model, the army of lovers that would conquer the world (shades of Janissaries) that I, myself was half of the Aristophonic Male. I had a very close friend who translated modern documents from French, German, and Italian into English and she would call me from time to time for 'mot juste' discussions. If folks would only humble themselves to actually TRANSLATE, they would loose a lot hubris. Thanks Dan for trying to stir the minds on KJV auto-pilot into leaving the cave of shadows. Jim the Dabbler.
Male on male homosexuality is SPECIFICALLY condemned in this verse. Female on famale isn't mentioned as often perhaps because the male on male act is a bigger abomination and feminizing a male. From their veiwpoint male on male sex was far worse from a hygenic standpoint.
I'm an agnostic so my opinions are going to be FAR different from the people that believe that the bible is an inspired work from an omnimoral and omniscient GOD. People who base their lives and in many cases financial livings peddling the philosophies of this book. I just have to say that this book is WAY too morally and ethically inconsistent to quite frankly, deserve the moral pedestal that it's often placed on. Based on 1 Cor. 6:9, Romans 1:26 and Leviticus 20:13, I think you ACTUALLY can safely infer that GOD condemns homosexuality (As difficult as it is to hear). But I'm going to need a list of scriptures and philosophies that are ACTUALLY inspired by GOD to differentiate from the ones that aren't. Because while the bible does condemn this it simultaneously condones and in some cases GLORIFIES topics like violence, mass murder and genocide (of which Hitler is famous for), human sacrifice and the killing of infants, Slavery (Including sexual slavery)... The overall domination of women. Rape under certain circumstances. It condemns inter-tribal marriage and by extension inter-racial marriage often with deadly consequences (Which you can easily associate with the philosophies of the Nazis and the KKK concerning modern Eugenics). It forbids wearing clothing woven from two different kinds of specifically suggested threads or fabrics. And despite everyone's fixation on homosexuality, it doesn't condemn or even mention pedophilia and the abuse of children. Curious omission given Jesus' affinity for them... And then a split second later philosophically speaking, it encourages that we should all love our neighbors as ourselves... Now does that kind of GROSS ethical inconsistency suggest omnimoral guidance to you 🤨. Put inconsistent ethical standards on a pedestal and that's EXACTLY what it's going to perpetuate... Ethical and moral inconsistentcy. Like baking "unleavened" bread in a dented pan.. CLEARLY the bible isn't perfect because if the values of mass murdering Nazis can be scripturally glorified alongside Pacifists then condemning JUST homosexuality (As opposed to everything else) is the least of it's problems... And because the bible is so ethically inconsistent, for people who observe the bible it's a CONSTANT doctrinal negotiation as you try to derive moral consistency from a book that is systemically inconsistent... So much so that I can use scripture to simultaneously condemn and condone scripture (Along with everything else) Good luck with that👍🏼. My personal belief is that as long as you're not a harm to yourself or the people around you... Don't get too bent out of shape, because the bible is the ONLY book that I've EVER read that places more positive moral emphasis on murder and genocide narratively (And doctrinally) than it does sexuality... Hilarious 🙄 Sidenote: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AIHjoT19XpE.htmlsi=Y2njzgNFewgpZB9t (Question... Which abomination comes first? Anachronistic #$%!@)
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 In my deconstructive analysis of the bible, ethics came first... Not dogma. Moral double standards are baked into your very perception of the bible for the purpose of propping up doctrine... It's difficult to be dispassionate about something you hold dear. But sometimes you have to be to truly understand what you're ACTUALLY reading. And what that represents ethically... I'm sorry if these ethical truths found in the bible have provoked disbelief on your part...
well how else are you gonna have a homosexual act without one of them being the receiver The Bible was clearly against two men having sex .. the end.. You can pick a part some antics if you want to because of your political perspective but we all know what to text means
A contemporary English slang term might be "Top" or "Pitcher" Of course, then the preachers might just start condemning baseball players and spinning toys.
So basically what your saying is that homosexuality is permissible in the bible as long as you're not being gay about it? (Also I want to note that I am joking here. In all seriousness you are doing great work Dan, keep it up.)
@@waynefeller So show me how, the "text within the context" does not say, death is the penalty for same-sex sexual activity between two men? And show me, where exactly does so called "dogmatic eisegesis" have anything to do with anything in reading this text? Dan says, Leviticus 20:13 is "... describing ONE man taking the insertive role in an act of male same sex intercourse ...." So what difference does Dan think this actually makes or proves? Leviticus goes on to declare, ... BOTH of them have committed an abomination: THEY shall surely be put to death; THEIR blood shall be upon THEM. On top or on the bottom, makes no difference, they are BOTH equally dead as a result of their actions. I wonder why Dan didnt mention this interesting bit of text within the context? And show me how, the "text within the context" does not say the "arsenokoitai", Dan's man on the bottom, are unrighteous? 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
I heard this addressed on the podcast not long ago, and I found it interesting and somewhat compelling. I would, however, like to hear a deeper explanation and/or citations for the reasons behind interpreting it as the insertive and receptive roles. Thanks.
The problem is when someone says "the Bible tells us how to live"...No, the Bible tells YOU how to live YOUR life...after that it's you trying to tell others how to live their lives not the Bible.
What Dan is doing is responding to another creator particularly pertaining to a single subject. He's addressing the texts as they are written by Paul. He's not causing division. Its people's failure to understand the difference between sexual orientation and sex acts that causes division because of presuppositions and and the negotiation one does with the texts. There's no such thing as homosexual sin. Between Leviticus and Paul both describe the acts, not orientation. One's notion of orientation didn't exist in either the 8th century BCE or the 1st century CE. Just because some choose to be arrogant and ignorant, that's their problem. Its their pride that would marginalize and dehumanize another. Its their pride that would think they're superior unto another. It's their pride that upholds the narratives and the bigotry of others. It's the pride that is truly the deadliest sin of all.
Is Romans 1:26 actually talking about female homosexuality or is it just talking about females leaving what is natural for them, because Leviticus and Deuteronomy do not condemn females for same sex sexual activity. From a legalistic stand point, it would have to be made illegal in "The Law of Moses" for it to be unnatural for females. The law of Moses did not condemn females for same sex sex. In the Talmud there are Rabbis that say it is perfectly ok and others that say, while it is not illegal, women should not do it. If its not in the Law of Moses, then it is not wrong.
My understanding of the Bible talking about this subject was changed in a such a way when I was reading up a bit on Norse society and seiðr. "Ergi" was a word used toward men who practiced seiðr. It was thought to be something women did. When I had read that a man lying with a man as one would with a woman, I also thought about how women were treated as second-class citizens. So for a man to take the role of what was expected to be a role women took, was to emasculate oneself, as it were. Since these are different times from the past, I find the idea that the Bible can provide us with a cohesive set of ethics to be nonsensical.
I think he's trying to point out that using 20th and 21st century concepts of homosexuality run into problems when anyone tries to compare them to the words of 7th century BCE Jewish thought in the Bible. It's not so much what is and isn't "wrong" rather it's a completely different concept and if anyone wants to make that the basis of some broader agenda they're wrong.
Hi Dan! Great video as always. Could you possibly address whether the NRSVue’s translation of arsenokoitai and malakoi is more accurate than the previous NRSV? I’ve seen some arguments by apologists but I don’t know what scholars think about it.
Secondly: Book of Revelations already happened when the Temple of Jerusalem fell. Regardless when you think the text is written, Jesus spoke of that temple.
So, it is not condemned the homoeexuality, but the insertive role. That doesn't make any difference. We support gay people but not when they engage in gay sex. That doesn't make any sense at all
Paul is talking about a relationship with yourself. When who you are authentically desires to be ruled over by the ideal you. It's about vanity. Just be yourself and boast in What the Lord Has Done. God gives you free will to be yourself or you can pretend to be somebody else.
@@ddrse Paul is very clear on that. He condems any sexual activity outside christian marriage. On another vers he says that our bodies are temples and we don't have to dishonor them by having sex with fornicators because we became one with them.
Dan, this is absolutely one of your best. In addition to making up excuses for the scriptures which very clearly endorse slavery AND genocide, many Christians actually try to "reinterpret" things which Christ actually said Himself, like repeatedly condemning the rich and telling us NOT to store up wealth on Earth, as well as Christ's extremely clear directive not to stand in public and show off your piety or pray in public. That is the very essence of what every single street preacher does. And those are just two examples out of a number of them.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.” In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins. There are some interpreters today who object to lumping homosexuals in with the other sinners listed in this passage. The wording “men who have sex with men” is unclear, they say, and should not be construed as a condemnation of all same-sex activity. In an attempt to make homosexual behavior compatible with Christianity, they attempt to redefine the Greek word. The phrase “men who have sex with men” (translated “homosexuals” in the NASB) is a translation of the Greek word arsenokoitai. Those who object to this translation say that arsenokoitai does not refer to all homosexual relationships but only to those involving abuse, coercion, or unfaithfulness. They say the word does not refer to “loving, faithful” same-sex relationships. Arsenokoitai is a compound word: arseno is the word for “a male,” and koitai is the word for “mat” or “bed.” Put the two halves together, and the word means “a male bed”-that is, a person who makes use of a “male-only bed” or a “bed for males.” And, truthfully, that’s all the information we need to understand the intent of 1 Corinthians 6:9. As in English, the Greek word for “bed” can have both sexual and non-sexual meanings. The statement “I bought a new bed” has no sexual connotation; however, “I went to bed with her” does. In the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, koitai connotes an illicit sexual connotation-the apostle is clearly speaking of “wrongdoers” here. The conclusion is that the word arsenokoitai refers to homosexuals-men who are in bed with other men, engaging in same-gender sexual activity. It is interesting to note that arsenokoitai was not a common word in the Greek language to refer to homosexuality. Some have even claimed that the apostle Paul invented the word. This is not the case. In the Septuagint Greek translation of the two verses in the Mosaic Law that refer to homosexuality both contain forms of arseno and koitai (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). This likely indicates that Paul had Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 6:9, making it abundantly clear what Paul meant by the word arsenokoitai. The notion that some homosexual relationships are accepted is not even hinted at in this passage. The men’s commitment level or the presence of “love” is not addressed. The idea that the condemned same-sex activity is linked to economic exploitation or abuse is also a forced reading with no textual basis. Paul’s reference to “homosexuals,” together with a reference to “effeminate” men in the same verse (in the NASB), effectively covers both active and passive homosexual behavior. God’s Word is not open to personal interpretation in this matter. Homosexuality is wrong; it always has been, and it always will be. Just two verses later, 1 Corinthians 6:11 says, “And that is what some of you *were.* But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (emphasis added). This statement negates the idea of “homosexual Christianity” being acceptable to God. Paul tells the Corinthian believers that practices such as homosexuality were evidences of their former life before Christ. Now they have been born again, and they have a new nature and new desires. The old nature remains, and the temptations continue, but child of God has been called to fight against sin, not live in it any longer. By the life-changing grace of God, the Corinthians’ new life stands in opposition to the way they used to live.
"everyone alters what the Bible says to shit their cultural norms" this includes Dan there's a reason Dan targets Evangelical fundies and avoids Catholic scholarship (bonus: his claim that scriptural authors never intended to write for future readers is as 'blithe' as it is disingenuous, for the Scriptures repeatedly cast their words upon future and unknown hearers, just as Dan makes these videos assuming they will be relevant to unknown and future viewers) Dan is a postmodern sophist
The Quran barely has a structure to deconstruct. It randomly switches topic for no rhyme or reason. It is basically a anthology of unrelated short stories.
Is it so ridiculous to read this as saying homosexual acts are sinful? I seriously have to question your impartiality here. You could have made a better argument. Do Christians put too much emphasis on homosexual sin? Yes, of course. Sins like greed are hypocritically glossed over. But this is not how I expected you to argue this issue. I expected you to argue that 'sin' as an idea in the Bible is often irrationally prescribed. For instance, fearfulness is sinful (Rev 21:8). Eating pork is sinful. Unbelieving is sinful when there are numerous rational reasons to not believe in Biblical claims. This is a far better way to argue than to try to stick it to the Christians. You are only inflaming the division, calling into question your impartialness, and making Christians want to double-down on the issue.
The division was already created by this sort of Christian who claim only the Bible as their source for moral authority, and then claim they only follow the _literal_ text, only to demonstrate they either do not know or care what the actual text says. What Dan and other scholars show is that those apologists should not be taken seriously on either moral or intellectual grounds, as they have no integrity or rigour regarding either.
@@avishevin1976 He talked about how Christians use the idea of homosexuality as a sin to wield power over people. If you make people feel like homosexuality is sinful, you can wield power like legislation and what-not. He says such a reading of the Bible is outdated, ignorant, and bigoted, but I think the Bible itself is outdated, ignorant, and bigoted, and we should expect Bible believers to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is sinful.
@@digitaljanus As if a broken clock cannot be right twice a day. Clearly the Bible says that homosexual acts are sinful. One could even make the case that homosexual lustful thoughts are sinful. And it doesn't actually do any good to try to make Christians feel guilty in return. A better argument is a rational one, that the concept of sin, itself, is irrationally prescribed. It is irrational to think that homosexual acts are sinful.
@@jasonkaufman6186 Only one kind of same-sex pleasure is mentioned. Show me where it discusses oral sex, femoral sex, frottage, mutual masturbation....?
Dan says, Leviticus 20:13 is "... describing ONE man taking the insertive role in an act of male same sex intercourse ...." So what difference does Dan think this actually proves? Leviticus goes on to declare, "... BOTH of them have committed an abomination: THEY shall surely be put to death; THEIR blood shall be upon THEM." On top or on the bottom, makes no difference, they are BOTH equally dead as a result of their actions. I wonder why Dan didn't mention this tiny detail?
He’s right. The Bible doesn’t force you to do anything. *A dude on tiktok is lecturing you on morality.* Sorry mate. You’ll have to show something better than “trust me bro, the god of the universe agrees with me”.
As usualyou're absolutely wrong dan. It doesn't describe a male taking the insertive role. That's found nowhere in Scripture. That's some you invented. It is most definitely speaking about the act itself, regardless of the intentions behind the act "The compound Greek word arsenokoitai (arsen-o-koi-tai; plural of singular arsenokoitēs) is formed from the Greek words for “lying” (verb keimai; stem kei- adjusted to koi- before the “t” or letter tau) and “male” (arsēn). The word is a neologism created from terms used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions of men “lying with a male” (18:22; 20:13). (Note that the word for “lying” in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions is the noun koitē, also meaning “bed,” which is formed from the verb keimai. The masculine -tēs suffix of the sg. noun arsenokoitēs denotes continuing agency or occupation, roughly equivalent to English -er attached to a noun; hence, “(male) liers with a male.”) That the connection to the absolute Levitical prohibitions against male-male intercourse is self-evident from the following points: (a) The rabbis used the corresponding Hebrew abstract expression mishkav zākûr, “lying of/with a male,” drawn from the Hebrew texts of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, to denote male-male intercourse in the broadest sense. (b) The term or its cognates does not appear in any non-Jewish, non-Christian text prior to the sixth century A.D. This way of talking about male homosexuality is a distinctly Jewish and Christian formulation. It was undoubtedly used as a way of distinguishing their absolute opposition to homosexual practice, rooted in the Torah of Moses, from more accepting views in the Greco-Roman milieu. (c) The appearance of arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10 makes the link to the Mosaic law explicit, since the list of vices of which arsenokoitai is a part are said to be derived from “the law” (1:9). While it is true that the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts, in this instance it clearly does. (2) The implications of the context in early Judaism.That Jews of the period construed the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse absolutely and against a backdrop of a male-female requirement is beyond dispute. For example, Josephus explained to Gentile readers that “the law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman. . . . But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199). There are no limitations placed on the prohibition as regards age, slave status, idolatrous context, or exchange of money. The only limitation is the sex of the participants. According to b. Sanh. 54a (viz., tractate Sanhedrin from the Babylonian Talmud), the male with whom a man lies in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 may be “an adult or minor,” meaning that the prohibition of male-male unions is not limited to pederasty. Indeed, there is no evidence in ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism, or rabbinic Judaism that any limitation was placed on the prohibition of male-male intercourse. (3) The choice of word. Had a more limited meaning been intended-for example, pederasts-the terms paiderastai (“lover of boys”), paidomanai (“men mad for boys”), or paidophthoroi (“corrupters of boys”) could have been chosen. (4) (4) The meaning of arsenokoitai and cognates in extant usage. The term arsenokoitēs and cognates after Paul (the term appears first in Paul) are applied solely to male-male intercourse but, consistent with the meaning of the partner term malakoi, not limited to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes (see specifics in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 317-23). For example, the 4th century church historian Eusebius quoted from a 2nd-3rd century Christian, Bardesanes (“From the Euphrates River [eastward] … a man who … is derided as an arsenokoitēs… will defend himself to the point of murder”), and then added that “among the Greeks, wise men who have male lovers are not condemned” (Preparation for the Gospel 6.10.25). Elsewhere Eusebius alluded to the prohibition of man-male intercourse in Leviticus as a prohibition not to arsenokoitein (lie with a male) and characterized it as a “pleasure contrary to nature,” “males mad for males,” and intercourse “of men with men” (Demonstration of the Gospel 1.6.33, 67; 4.10.6). Translations of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic also define the term generally as “men lying with males.” (5) Implications of the parallel in Rom 1:24-27. It is bad exegesis to interpret the meaning of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 without consideration of the broad indictment of male-male intercourse expounded in Rom 1:27 (“males with males”). The wording of Rom 1:27 (“males, leaving behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their yearning for one another”) points to an inclusive rejection of all male-male relations. Paul here does not distinguish between good non-exploitative forms of male homosexual practice and bad exploitative forms but rather contrasts all male homosexual relations with natural intercourse between a man and a woman. He also emphasizes reciprocity (“yearning for one another”), a fact that rules out an indictment only of a coercive one-sided homosexual desire. Other factors confirm the inclusive rejection of all male homosexual practice in Rom 1:27: Paul’s intertextual echo in Rom 1:23-27 to Gen 1:26-27 (which contrasts male homosexual practice with God’s intentional design in creation, “male and female [God] created them” and the consequent marital bond), his use of a nature argument (which transcends distinctions based on coercion or promiscuity), and the parallel indictment of lesbianism in Rom 1:26 (a phenomenon in the ancient world not normally manifested with slaves, call girls, or adolescents). The fact that semi-official same-sex marriages existed in the Greco-Roman world and were condemned by Greco-Roman moralists, rabbis, and Church Fathers as unnatural, despite the mutual commitment of the participants in such marriages, is another nail in the coffin for the contention that the term arsenokoitai had only exploitative or promiscuous male homosexual relations in view. (6) Implications from the context of 1 Cor 5-7. This absolute and inclusive sense is further confirmed by the broader context of 1 Cor 5-7: the parallel case of incest in ch. 5 (which gives no exceptions for committed, loving unions and echoes both Levitical and Deuteronomic law); the vice list in 6:9-11 (where sexual offenders are distinguished from idolaters, consent is presumed, and a warning is given to believers not to engage in such behavior any longer); the analogy to sex with a prostitute in 6:12-20 (where Gen 2:24 is cited as the absolute norm and the Christian identity of the offender is presumed); and the issue of marriage in ch. 7 (which presumes throughout that sex is confined to male-female marriage). (7) The relevance of 1 Cor 11:2-16.If inappropriate hairstyles or head coverings were a source of shame because they compromised the sexual differences of men and women, how much more would a man taking another man to bed be a shameful act, lying with another male “as though lying with a woman”? Paul did not make head coverings an issue vital for inclusion in God’s kingdom, but he did with same-sex intercourse. (8) Implications of 1 Tim 1:9-10 corresponding to the Decalogue. At least the last half of the vice list in 1 Tim 1:8-10 (and possibly the whole of it) corresponds to the Decalogue. Why is that important? In early Judaism and Christianity, the Ten Commandments often served as summary headings for the full range of laws in the Old Testament. The seventh commandment against adultery, which was aimed at guarding the institution of marriage, served as a summary of all biblical sex laws, including the prohibition of male-male intercourse. The vice of kidnapping, which follows arsenokoitaiin 1 Tim 1:10, is typically classified under the eighth commandment against stealing (so Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides, the rabbis, and the Didache; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 335-36). This makes highly improbable the attempt by some to pair arsenokoitai with the following term andrapodistai(kidnappers, men-stealers), as a way of limiting its reference to exploitative acts of male-male intercourse (so Robin Scroggs), rather than with the inclusive sexual term pornoi (the sexually immoral) that precedes it. (9) The implication of the meaning of malakoi. If the term malakoi is not limited in its usage to boys or to men who are exploited by other men (and it is not so limited; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 306-12), then arsenokoitai certainly cannot be limited to men who have sex with boys or slaves. (10) Sex with adult males as worse than sex with adolescent boys. In the Greco-Roman world homosexual intercourse between an adult male and a male youth was regarded as a less exploitative form of same-sex eros than intercourse between two adult males. The key problem with homosexual intercourse-behaving toward the passive male partner as if the latter were female-was exacerbated when the intercourse was aimed at adult males who had outgrown the “softness” of immature adolescence. Consequently, even if arsenokoitai primarily had in mind man-boy love (and from all that we have said above, there is no evidence that it does), then, a fortiori, it would surely also take in man-man love."
I'd also love to see Dan engage the actual (hostile) Greco-Roman attitudes/policies towards what we now call "homosexual culture" (spoiler alert: they did not like it)
EVERY sentiment expressed in the bible is just what you would expect to hear coming from a man living in that time and place. On EVERY topic - slavery, warfare, women, family relations, sexual mores, etc. 30,000 verses and not a single one betrays a mind any more advanced than the first decade CE. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
You don't know much about history then, I suggest you read the book Dominion, by Tom Holland. He's an atheist, but much of what the New T was teaching was very foreign to the world at the time. However, you would expect it to be relevant to that time as well-right? Wouldn't make much sense to them back then if it wasn't. Look up the culture of ancient Rome and what was accepted or not, including throwing a child away like trash, killing them outright, etc...most of the world today is Christianized to some degree, again, read Tom Holland, who researched this subject extensively.
@@flamingswordapologetics Actually, the parts of the NT that deal with ethical teachings would be very familiar to a first century stoic. Musonius Rufus was teaching in Rome at the same time the NT was being composed. (He was stridently opposed to infanticide, btw.) I wouldn't be surprised if the writers of the NT adopted some stoic thought into their own views. (I guess I know a little bit about history.)
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Well I was just being a bit snarky, anyone can look these things up, there is a natural law within man we would call the "conscience", so it makes sense some people back then were fighting against the tide, but the overall culture was horrible when it came to the intrinsic value of humans, if you weren't in the "club" so to speak, you weren't too far off from animal status, Christianity did change that, now that doesn't prove its true, but it is an evidence. Rome in a real sense, was conquered by Christ.
I agree that romans shouldnt be used to define arsenokoitai, but in regard to it being presupposing univocality, isn't academic consensus that Paul wrote both justification to let them influence how we read the other to some extent given that there is a little bit of univoque there? Or is it still presupposing univocality because we're assuming that Paul has the same perspective on everything when he wrote 1cor and romans?
