@@digitaljanus people will read about two men being best friends and think aha they must have been gay like crazy dog it never was written in the Iliad people will really make up anything.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 You will notice I didn't mention anything about "petty & naive" . I don't suppose Dan is any more petty or naive than anyone else, including the people Dan is talking about. I said Dan has identity politics also. Dan argues that people often only say the Bible says a particular thing, because it supports their own political identity beliefs. But if you listen to Dan long enough, you will see he also pushes his own identity political position himself. It's the identity politics issue that is important, not "petty or naive".
@@Idishrkdmd Being celibate means no children, so unless one can get "pagans" to convert, one's religion won't last long. Paul's opposition to sex and having children was that he expected Christ to return too soon for child bearing and rearing to be meaningful. And there's a possibility that Paul was in the asexual part of the spectrum, so sex wasn't a major driver in his life and he thought it would be a good idea for all.
Actually, judging from all the people who shout the loudest at homsexuality, they are the ones who struggle with it the most. How many times has an anti-gay pastor been found committing same-sex acts? And I don't consider them "sins" anyway.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 And isn't it interesting how they don't talk about the sin of pastors mis-using their position to do inappropriate things with the under-aged (specifically thinking of male pastors and girls, but I imagine it happens with female pastors, too). And I do consider that to be a sin, especially the part about the misuse of positions of power.
@@donaldwert7137 Oh yes, I consider that a sin. But that's not what I was referring to. I meant just a pastor engaging in a consensual, homosexual relationship with someone, which has happened as well.
Great job, as usual, Dan. But you can't teach an old bibliolator new tricks. And I just love it that I see these conservative "christians" putting out, like, HUNDREDS of video sermons on the "sin" of homosexuality, a topic which Christ never ONCE addressed, but I NEVER see any of them doing sermons on our obligation to the poor, the sick, and the marginalized, or about how Christ has been given ALL judgment, and we are supposed to refrain from judging others unless we ourselves are without sin.
I disagree with not being able to teach them new tricks. We're getting to some of them. There is a significant amount of deconstructing going on. Some leave the Evangelical church for more progressive churches; some leave the faith entirely. I was one of them.
@@VulcanLogic I like your internet name. Actually, I believe that if the Human Race as a whole does not embrace logical, rational thinking (pretty much as the Vulcans of Star Trek did with Surak's teachings), we will be extinct within a few hundred years at most. I can absolutely understand your leaving the Faith. My own beliefs are so "out there" that certainly no conservative Christian would consider me a Christian. And that doesn't bother me in the slightest. I feel the same way about them.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:27
@@lincolnlandpicker You might want to also check out the scriptures which clearly condone slavery (and set up guidelines for owning and punishing slaves), genocide, bashing the heads of your enemy's babies against rocks, putting to death a child who "curses" their parents, stoning people to death, and the scriptures where the Jewish priests aborted the babies of women suspected of infidelity. Great stuff!
Lincolnlandpicker, you might also want to check out the scriptures that clearly condone slavery (and set up guidelines for owning and punishing slaves), genocide, bashing the heads of your enemy's babies against rocks, putting to death a child who "curses" their parents, stoning people to death......OH, and don't forget the chapter in Numbers which talks about the Jewish priests aborting the babies of women suspected of infidelity. All THAT (and more fun stuff) is also in The Bible. And since you believe the scriptures about homosexuality, you believe all those other scriptures should be followed too.......right?
I know a lot of conservatives are faulty, and yes, it is not right to rant on gay couples only while condoning divorce and remarriage, how does that make s*d*my less of a sin?
I have never cried watching one of your videos, but the ending of this video brought me to tears. I’m a bisexual man and a Christian, and to see another Christian defend my community like this is unbelievably powerful.
Amen. It never ceases to amaze me how hateful believers can be. I grew up in that trad belief, but could never reconcile it to a loving God. And as I learned inductive study and dug deeper in understanding culture, historical background and linguistics, it gave me the tools to speak out. I hope you are in an open, accepting church family who affirms you and loves you (& your partner if or when you have one). ❤
The Bible was written by human men for a specific time, and the cultural context was very different from ours. Let’s remember not to be anachronistic with our interpretation of any religious scripture.
@@geneshifter 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:3-4
@@jasonbaker5515 that verse 2 Timothy 4:3-4 is an example of what's going on here (macro) not a particular proof for anything sexual, I know your hung up on that and clearly unable to see at this point. But since you brought up sexuality; homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, it is a sexual perversion, a sexual immorality, and obviously unnatural. Continue performing mental gymnastics attempting to justify your own lusts, whatever those may be. God's Word, truths, and law remain through the ages and never changing. May Jesus the Christ of Nazareth be glorified!!!
I try to always be open to new ideas, concepts, people's opinions, but I could never understand why people even care who other people make the beast with two backs with, do the horizontal salsa, bump uglies, "smash" as the younger generation says. Like, how does it effect you? At all? Why do you care? If someone's happy, can we just leave them the [redacted] alone? What even is that whole conversation? Who cares? Why?
I've always suspected (without material facts, just observational assumptions) that some people think anyone on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum has some kind of disease that could be catching or at least transmitted (or even had a demon get them), and (of course opposed to how they feel about Covid) want it stamped out entirely or else their 'loved' ones may also get infected.
I think what people also forget, in no way does it refer to homosexuals cause just like Dan said it's target a specific thing, and leaves out the full definition which includes lesbians. The fact Paul leaves out lesbians shows the bases of his thinking cause he could just have made another word just like arsenakotai/malakoi to also refer to two females. But hey maybe lesbians are okay and Paul just hates gay man
@@thebook1889 Rom 1:26 For this reason God *gave them up* to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; This clearly described "unnatural" desires (not specified to be homosexuality) as being the *PUNISHMENT* not the *CRIME.* If your reading 📖 comprehension was not fried by pastor nonsense, you would not be quoting that in support of your position. 🙄
@@thebook1889 learn to read in context, the passage talks about idolatry and doing acts for idolatry. And Paul was speaking to heterosexual in a heteronormative way. We can tell this by reading 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 He uses the word burn with passion just like he does in Romans. And considering he doesn't believe acts of male male to be good than he's clearly not referencing passion in Romans to be with female and female. And you must know, that to Paul anything outside of marriage was considered unnatural including man with long hair🤣but I doubt you think man with long hair to be unnatural these days
@@themasekofamilyPaul's reference to long hair was only a rhetorical expression to denote the hypothetical idea of effeminacy of a man in a context where he was enforcing the Jewish ethic of insisting that only husbands & blood relatives should see a woman's hair. Paul took a Nazirite vow in the book of Acts which is said in the old testament to involved keeping of male hair long
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:3-4
I’m pretty certain petty identity markers will never go away, which is unfortunate; because as long as we have government, and we always will, we’ll have politicians or monarchs pitting us against each other. You can’t do that without having special terms for yourself and for the “other”
There are, unfortunately, 'Christians' who even today would say, "Sure, punish the man who raped a virgin by making him marry her and forbidding him from ever divorcing her," just like the Scripture says... but happily _most_ modern-day people recognize that that would be an intolerable punishment _for the rape victim._ Even most people who profess to believe in Biblical inerrancy. (They generally can't explain _how_ they make it work in their heads for something so noxious to be God's Word, but they at least don't tend to defend that particular passage.)
The people who proclaim the sanctity of life seem pretty comfortable with the suffering and death of certain sectors of their fellow man. All in the name of what they believe their God wants, or at least what their socio-political power brokering wants.
Bless you! I lost 2 students and a colleague to suicide because they were gay and were viciously treated by family members, their churches and their social groups. I find it fascinating that the individuals who usually vocally bash the LGBTQ+ community often consider themselves to be absolutely 100% right about their own beliefs. If they are people of faith they forget that there can be a huge difference between be “right” (in their own opinion) and righteous.
Love the work your doing, especially around these identity markers a lot of evangelicals hold. As a Christian myself it’s very reassuring to having more people speak up about this stuff. I had a discussion with someone in a previous church about this who decided he would rather win the ‘biblical’ argument than put people first. He said something to the effect of, ‘this doesn’t mean ancient people would have supported same-sex relationships, sec or attraction so I’m not going to’. Just floored me honestly. They didn’t think much of women either but didn’t have a problem with women working, preaching and doing whatever they wanted.
The last part of your video made me think about Jesus's quotation "judge a tree by its fruit" so if the sexual ethics that are seemingly biblical are causing intense harm than it is likely they are not actually what God wants from us.
If any of you are being confused by this man, may I suggest you look into videos by pastor Mike Winger. He very clearly and throughly refutes what this man is saying on this topic.
It does make me wonder how the earliest church actually felt about some of these issues. Because back then, they had no power. Did these value markers hold less weight because they couldn't be games for advantage, or did they Believe them even strong than today as to hold on to as much power as they could?
Please help me out here. You're saying that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual orientation or behavior. Great! But then you admit that the Bible condemns both those who perform the insertive and the passive roles in same sex intercourse. If you put both of them together, doesnt that constructively prohibit homosexual behavior? Am i missing something here? It seems like you are making a distinction that lacks meaning. I agree with your remaining points about relying on old sexual mores to establish contemporary values, but strictly speaking you didnt prove that she was wrong about the Bible.
I'm about as straight as can be, but I long, long ago put this firmly in the "not my business" category. I have a hard enough time keeping MYSELF on the straight and narrow. I don't have the energy to police other people's behavior. The world would be such a better place if everybody would get some business of their own and then learn to mind it.
I thought Dan had all this knowledge i didnt until i heard him speak about this topic. He does have knowledge and a lot of complex words that convinces you what he is saying is true. Bet you he cant name a gay couple in the bible.
Nah, I have the sad feeling, when we have evolved into beings of pure light, they'll be those who'll say "The Rainbow Lightees are obviously inferior to us White Lighters!"
Arrogate? I've literally NEVER encountered that word in my file, but I like it. Dan, I really appreciate your erudite defense of modern LGBTQ against ignorantly biblical-based bigotry. However, I do think something is lost by the academic view of homosexuality. The official views on homosexuality have throughout history up until today, almost never jived with the lived experiences of homosexual oriented people. I remember reading "Cleopatra's Wedding Present: Travels through Syria" by Robert Tewdwr Moss, who travelled through neighborhoods in Syria that almost never saw tourists and wrote about his love affairs along the way. In one village, he was having an affair with a Syrian young man. The young man's friends teased him about how this European was so infatuated and submissive having finally men a "real man" in Syria (the official acceptable community view), when the nature of their actual relationship was more the reverse. We have essentially no voices from ancient times from people who experienced true homosexual love for one another, just the official views. Therefore, every scrap is precious. The stories of Jonathan and David, the loves of Sappho, the weeping of Achilles over Patroklus, a few other scraps, show a personal reality that is known to homophilic people today. Much the same can be said for modern heterosexual marriage. Very few 'official' ancient sources attest to marriage as partnership as we understand it today, so when we see the statues of Rahotep and Nofret or many other ancient "personal" statues and paintings of married couples, we immediately recognize these as relationships we would understand today, even though the official writings about marriage from the times rarely discuss marriage from these aspects. It occurs to me now that Mary and Joseph, as depicted in Luke, illustrates more of a devoted partnership marriage then found perhaps anywhere else in the Bible.
I know you don't really respond on RU-vid, but thank you for your work in clearing misinformation. Out of curiosity, you mentioned that freeborn men are the top of the hierarchy; would that imply that a man having intercourse with a male slave would not count towards violating the hierarchy?
Give some examples of "orientations" in ancient times. "I am this or that" rather than "I do this or that". "This is my identity" rather than "I commit this act". I'll wait.
Dr. McClellan what do you make of Professor David Bentley Hart’s view that arsenokoitai and malikoi do not refer to the active and passive roles. He doesn’t take a traditional view but neither does he take your view.
Remind [the people] of these facts and [solemnly] charge them in the presence of the Lord to avoid petty controversy over words, which does no good but upsets and undermines the faith of the hearers. -2 TIMOTHY 2:14
@@GWFHegel-ms7gz {But that isn't what the text says. Did you watch the video?} This is not the first of Dan's videos on homosexuality I've seen. I'm not sure Dan is listening to Dan here. Dan appears to be saying there are two words at play in 1 Co 6:9, one that means taking the insertive role & one that means taking the receptive role. That would certainly describe same-sex intercourse between two men perfectly. However from other videos, Dan seems to be saying it's only the receptive role that is meant. And if the word indicates the receptive role, it's still a very good choice of word to indicate same-sex male intercourse is in fact ocuring. Can you think of a better one? So where does that leave us? Man on bottom cannot enter the kingdom of God and is subject to the death penalty, but man on top is just fine & dandy, no penalty for him. Really? Have you never read Romans 1:24-29? Odds on Dan has, but he never mentions it though. This is the situation as far as the Bible is concerned: The only sexual activity permitted is between a man & a woman who are legally married. The only people who are allowed to marry are a man & a woman. Men cannot have sex with men for any reason whatsoever. Whomen cannot have sex with women for any reason whatsoever. The lust of attraction & the performance of sex acts between men & men and women & women is described as, a "vial affection", "unseemly" and of a "reprobate mind" (Romans 1:24-29). Any and all sexual activity, outside of martiage, between a man & a woman, is subject to the death penalty. Tell me, how does it get any more black & white than the death penalty?
@@GWFHegel-ms7gz {You're assuming univocality again. Maybe you need to watch more Dan.} Nope, I'm assuming to use logic & critical thinking again. I've seen Dan's univocallity argument many times. You do understand, that the mindless invocation of "not-univocal", is not a magic spell, that makes passages disappear from the Bible, don't you? The subject of the video is; [Is homosexuality & the Bible a black & white issue?] Romans 1:24-29 is in the Bible. Romans 1:24-29 flat out condemns same-sex sex as, a "vial affection", "unseemly"and of a "reprobate mind". Show me where Romans 1 does not say this. In other words, logically analyse Romans 1 & demonstrate how your invocation of "not-univocal" alters &/or nullifies the wording & meaning of Romans 1 in any way. Romans 1 condemns same-sex sex in black & white. It could not be any more black & white if it tried. Also, you are going to have to demonstrate, how the magic of "non-univocal" proves that none of what I listed as the Bible's position re sex is not in the Bible. This is not rocked science, son. If the only sexual activity, permitted in the Bible, is that between married men & women, then where does that leave same-sex sexual activity? Just chanting the mantra "non-univocal" does not a logical argument make.
Time and place have a greater impact on interpretation, what is considered no longer relevant, what is literal and what is not, etc, than the words in a religious text.
That's a not uncommon interpretation, and there may be something to it, but at the same time, nobody in the Hebrew Bible ever seemed to condemn masturbation or sex during pregnancy or things like that that would also be a waste of semen.
@@maklelan that's true...I put together Dr.Stavrokopoulou's insights with Nissinen's - it makes sense to me, but then, as you say, where are the condemnations of other unproductive emissions?
@@timnaylor Nope, the issue there is Onan's refusal to meet his duty to his levirate marriage. He was required to impregnate his dead brother's widow so that the child could carry on his father's line, but he didn't want to do that because the child wouldn't be considered his, but would still take up his resources and inherit from him. The punishment was entirely and exclusively about Onan's failure to meet his levirate duties.
Dan presents the data, but not coldly. He always explains this in a way that puts it in its historical context while simultaneously trying to get across just how much untold pain and suffering Christians/fundamentalists have imposed on kids and adults who have been "othered" from the "in crowd."
I grew up non-denominational Cristian I was taught that Homosexuality was something that people struggle with like all sin. Until later I found out that Heterosexual people never struggle with Homosexuality because they don't find the same sex attractive to commit any physical acts with them because they were born with that orientation. So how can a straight person struggle with the sin of homosexuality? It seems that the sin is something not everyone has the potential to do. So I would ask a non gay affirming Christian this question. Why would God make a sin that only affects a minority of people?
@@What-he5prTeaching can definitely be punishing, though. Teaching anyone, especially a child, that they are biologically made sinful is mentally and emotionally abusive, and punishing them for being who they are.
@@daniellamcgee4251Yeah, and unfortunately the teaching goes further. We’re often taught that we didn’t even deserve life to begin with, and that God can justifiably annihilate ANYONE if He deems fit.
@daniellamcgee4251 the lesson is Jesus has paid for our sins already. That's not abuse. That's teaching about the greatest act of love that will ever occur.
@What-he5pr Yeah but you're also teaching that you were not worthy of going to heaven based on what someone did thousands of years ago so an innocent man had to die for you. That's a guilt trip.
Interesting. I've noticed that the pejorative term for homosexual in most languages (that arent english) actually would be more accurately translated to "passive homosexual"
A possible contextual interpretation. Or it could also be Paul's extraction from 'All sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful." and "Marriage is between husband and wife." and contextual explanation. You still get the conclusion, "Homosexual activity is sinful." Not to mention sodomy.
What about the eunuchs mentioned in Matthew. I was told the translation could mean any man who didn’t have sex with women. I’m guessing this is wrong because you’ve never mentioned it.
Something I've noticed before that most people aren't noticing the same way is it refers to ONE SPECIFIC ACT of same-sex intimacy. "Penis goes WHERE?" isn't the only way sex happens. And it never has been. There is an argument to be made directly from both Testaments that the only forbidden act is what we at least used to call "Greek style." Nowhere else the penis can go is referred to. So did they even care about frottage or manual stimulation? We don't know. They cared only about "up the butt." No evidence for anything else in the text. Using standard analytical methods, it's possible to say they didn't care so long as you weren't risking shared infection.
STIs are just as capable of being transmitted via heterosexual intercourse, trying to come up with scientific explanations for iron age morality is silly.
@CanadianAnglican Our contemporary understanding of sexual orientation didn't exist in the ancient world. What is clear as day is that just like in the ancient world as today, there are a whole lot of perverts that worry about where two consenting adults stick it. It's just to bad most "Christians" can't seem to take Paul's advice in 1 Thessalonians 4:11 to "mind their business." Even I realize most Christians are just a hypocritical as Paul.
In my personal persuit of understanding life and the human condition, I've realized that nothing is black & white, including the morals we think are concepts of simple right and wrong but fail to understand the bigger picture. Afterall criminals themselves are often the victims of childhood abuse and mistreatment by society, personality disorders that go untreated, including even our legal systems that are not capable of identifying stress disorders and mental illness. None of that excuses their actions or behavior, but that does not mean that it's just because they are evil or that it is the devil.
I hope people go seek out that documentary 1946. It is very well done. I saw it twice and was blessed to be in a Q&A with the director and some actors. It is very edifying. I have also always understood Matthew 19:11-12 to express Jesus' thoughts on homosexuality; they're born that way, they can be influenced to be that way, they can choose that lifestyle, only a few can deal with the truth.
I mean sure, if you ignore what the passage is actually talking about. Uh but no, Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality, presumably he held the same views expressed in the old testament.
These same people dismiss the sin of adultery from divorce and remarriage. Or the sin of lust in young men with porn and objectification of women and girls.
Uhhhmmmm well, not really. Yeah, adultery/divorce/remarriage - not _at all_ spoken about. But, and I say this as someone who’s neck-deep in these sorts of videos, there is a MASSIVE amount of huffing and puffing about lust, about pornography, and about self-pleasure. Like … if you stumbled into a time machine, and came out the other end wearing a Roman Centurion’s outfit, holding a spear, and to steady yourself from the time-travel, inadvertently stabbed Jesus Christ on his cross … meh, probably not what you’d put on the CV, but, dude was dead, what difference did it make, right? But if you got a blowjob in the ninth grade and enjoyed it - it’s over for you. Satan will not have it as bad as you on judgement day. And if it was from a boy, I couldn’t even imagine how much worse that is. Again, killing Christ, no problem. Adultery, not really talked about. But lust, well, that’s what they go after the straight boys with. Don’t think they’re going any easier on the straight boys. Trust me, they’re as loud and obnoxious as they are to the gay boys. It’s simply unbalanced to the extreme, and it just blurs into either absurdity or obscenity, which, I can’t help but think defeats any constructive purpose.
You most CERTAINLY won't find one>>> WHY?? Because pompous bigoted people existed THEN as they do now (look in the mirror)... AND>>>you follow a Bible that took hundreds of years to even be compiled together by MEN who had biases to influence it.
This is a terrible exegesis with zero reference for interpretation whatsoever. Romans 1 provides greater clarity on the sin of homosexuality. If you think the bible is outdated, then you could just save all of the other stuff and just reveal that.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Dr McClellan I appreciate your videos on most topics, including on this one, but could you switch it up a bit with the "structuring power and resources" stuff? This sort of simplistic materialist analysis of human sociology is rather annoying. Many religious zealots don't do what they do to gain or maintain privilege or money. They do it because they truly believe this is God's word. It's the same stuff for the motivation of terrorism being inextricably linked with poverty and oppression by outside forces. That's far from the only motivation. Back to this case, they could arguably gain a lot more money by being, in this case, LGBT friendly in all sorts of circumstances, but they don't. Now whether or not the original authors wrote it, consciously or subconsciously, for selfish reasons is really besides the point, what matters is what later believers make of it.
@@emersonb.5399 Know ye 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, John 3:16 .......... And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:27. Don't believe the Bible ? Disbelieve at your own peril my friend.
I can see that you're very careful with your words not to offend a certain group of people. You claimed to be a Bible scholar and yet you're very careful not to tarnish your so-called reputation by being on the safe-side. The Bible wasn't created to amuse everyone or just to be critique or criticize. The Bible is God's self-revelation to humanity and is meant to give hope and guidance. The messages in the Bible are inspired by God and is worthy or beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction and for training in righteousness. Jesus did not come to this world just to please everyone and to be loved by them. He came in order to correct people of their wrongdoings and to demonstrate God's love in order to save them. The Bible has been an instrument for introducing morality, peace and unity by previous empires and governments thus, their community progress. Now, the governments are slowing taking the Bible (even God) out of the picture and even persecute preaching to certain places and to certain people thus, their community regress. People's lives then were a bit calmer and in order, not perfect but much better than what we have today. If the Bible is just a joke to someone then that's their prerogative, I don't blame them or judge them but remember, this life that everyone so loved is just temporary and everything will have its end. As Jesus have said: Revelation 22:11-12 "Let the one who does wrong still do wrong, and the one who is filthy still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous still practice righteousness, and the one who is holy still keep himself holy." "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to reward each one as his work deserves." Peace and Blessings!
@@GWFHegel-ms7gz It's not my intention to gather believers of what I believe because that will be a waste of my time. I just shared the Truth of what the Bible is for. Perhaps some readers may find it useful and beneficial for the salvation of their souls. But, don't worry... very soon you will find out the Truth for yourself whether it's nonsense or not. Peace and Blessings!
@@PlatinumAltaria It's God's way of testing your obedience on how far will you go for Him. You can see these kind of DOs and DON'Ts more often than anywhere in the Bible during Moses' time (Old Testament) since the Israelites during those days were too stubborn to obey God with the fullness of their hearts. They even test God countless of times, making Moses angry with them. Moses's anger led him to call the Israelites rebels and smite the rock twice instead of speaking to the rock thus, resulting to Moses' disobedience to God's instruction. As you can see, in the olden times God is very particular of the obedience of His chosen people because He is yet to build a nation out from them that is why there were so many rules set in place (e.g. what to eat or what not to eat, etc.) in order to test the fullness of their hearts. But, these things changed when the apostles are about to preach to the gentiles. During those days the apostles of Jesus were hesitant because they don't know how to mingle or even preach to the gentiles because they think that the gentiles were unclean because they mostly eat what was prohibited by their Jewish custom. But, one day before Peter were summoned to the house of Cornelius, a Roman centurion... Peter had a vision/trance of a great sheet coming down from heaven containing all kinds of animals, wild beasts, creeping things, etc. and a voice commanded him "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" but when Peter reasoned that he will not because they were unclean then God's voice then said "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy". I hope I have shed some light to your confusion. Peace and Blessings!
I don't buy all the "evil identity politics people" thing, people are just stupid and ignorant; it's our nature. They are just as convinced of their views as you are of yours, believing it's for the greater good. I'm sure there are some sociopaths, but most of them are just unconscious and/or don't care
When you make the claim that it’s harmful today to view sex the way the Bible does (in reference to homosexuality), which standard of morality are you using for that claim?
The Golden Rule, you even believe Jesus parroted it. The idea that deliberately causing anguish and pain and suffering is bad, because, "would you like that yourself?" Would you like to grow up steeped in a culture of shame and hurt, hear people like you decried from the pulpit every Sunday, how evil and worthless they are, how they deserve death, how they're not allowed to be themselves? After a while, you internalize that, which can lead to some really dark places. This is why bigotry and sexual shaming and purity culture are bad: they demonize normal, irrelevant things, drive people to hopelessness and seeking escape.
I always appreciate a content creator who starts with an argument that invalidates their own point. "You can't just interpret Paul how you want. Here's my interpretation"
You have a few of the things right in here but where you go off track is with regard to our sexual morality coming from the Bible. The short answer is that our sexual morality develops over the centuries, the BIBLE being a massive part of those centuries and talking to some degree about these things and having almost an entire world of human beings familiar with and knowledge on the Bible not to mention THEIR part IN the bible MAKE the statement true that thats where we get it from. Not in the sense that we read the bible like an instruction manual but that the Bible IS our development over time of sexual morality and contains within it our “intrinsic” and “undeniable” eternal sense of morality.
You would be correct if that was the only passage referring to same sex activity. However since other passages refer to the very act, regardless of intentions behind the act, you're wrong. This isn't even a debate about it. This has only come up as society has been more accepting towards homosexuality. Funny how it never was a question over the past 6000 years and every Bible scholar, historian and theologian agreed. So what is correct? Easy, any non Christian is not obligated to live according to Scripture, anyone who claims to be a Christian should to the best of their ability follow Scripture
"Funny how it never was a question over the past *6000* years and every Bible scholar, historian and theologian agreed" Is this a typo or are you really claiming that the Bible is 6000 years old?
@@revilo178the Bible consists of both the old and new testament. 2000 years ago many books from the old testament had been around for thousand of years at that time. Educate yourself before making a fool of yourself.
One of the best dialogues relating to the long standing homosexual “marker” that have been misunderstood for so long it’s not even funny anymore. Wow, Dan’s dialogue is like a wave of truth. But I disagree with what Dan is referring to putting ahead of identity politics. Certainly not fall subservient to the whims and emotional, nonsensical diatribe of the LGB communities. Sorry Dan you need to clarify your statements.
Pardon? I think you may need to clarify your request for clarification. You sound like you are just complaining about LGB (not T, etc. ) orientated people being emotional, so Dan's comment about victimizing LGB people as an act of identity politics is somehow discredited. I thought Dan's point was clear, but I don't know what you are meaning.
