You see, in Leviticus we have the ceremonial and civic laws, and then the laws to leverage for queerphobia. The queerphobic ones happen to be eternal ones, turns out
The gay/trans conspiracy would probably have more success if they rebranded the conspiracy as bacon. LGBTQ folks will find acceptance when they drop the acronym and start identifying as bacon.
Don't forget that for something to be arbitrary, it must have an _arbiter._ They set themselves up as the arbiters, and no, you don't have their permission to be your own arbiter, or to remove _them_ as arbiters.
I love that particular Tik tok personality. A young man who has studied very little to nothing and comes out with massive authority with his Ego. His followers are basicly sycophants and will still say Dan is wrong. It’s wild!!!!
1:20 " Laws For All People For All Time " Meaning He/They get to tell EVERYBODY what to do or not do Which is the actual desired goal of ALL their arguements ( So be thankful you live in a Secular Republic, " if you can keep it" )
I can't help but notice now the Hebrews were worried about pollution (albeit a metaphysical pollution) that causes the land to become uninhabitable, and today we're contending with pollution on a global scale (this time, of trace substances in the atmosphere) that are making the environment uninhabitable and are causing us to evacuate places too hot or too close to the tide.
Christians love to promote the ideas that "scripture interprets scripture" and "we only teach from the Bible, not from our own ideas." Dan gives a perfect example of how to do this. The creator is a great example of how not to do it (sorry kid). When someone sends you into the middle of a chapter, Always go back to the beginning of the chapter, or preferably the whole book, and find out what's actually going on in the story. Many times you can beat them at their own game (literalism and inerrancy).
The authority comes purely from having an accurate understanding of the text. Dan has more experience, and does a pretty good job of debunking imbeciles, know nothings, and know-it-alls, but he is wrong about plenty, too. Because he doesn't believe that YHWH is real, he pounds constantly on the "no univocality" drum, but YHWH is the Author of Scripture, not humans, and univocality is found in all 66 books of the typical English Bible. He can't see it, because he has preconcluded it is impossible.
It’s almost as if he’s too immature to realize what he’s doing. This teenager is a teenager. It’s far worse when it’s a full grown adult, perhaps getting on in years, that can’t or won’t accept data that challenges their dogmas. And it’s far worse when they don’t accept data because they can collect rent from ignorant people by claiming ownership of the Bible. I don’t think the young man’s age has anything to do with, nor Dan’s authority. What’s at stake here is whether the dude will be able to take in the data at some point. I give thanks for the work Dan is doing here, spreading the ideas of Bible Scholarship. (Thank you, Dan!) But I think you’re missing the point if you think this channel is all about Dan’s authority as an academic. It’s about the data. It’s always about the data. Don’t be a Dan-stan Fanboy because he is a scholar with a PhD. Be a fanboy because Dan does this public education for us.
@@KravMagoo Nope. That deity who goes by the letters jhwh isn't the author of scripture, unless you're talking about the Koran, and there is no univocality in the collection of texts known as the bible, of which there are 80 in my Anglican KJV. What you heretics use, who cares?
@@KravMagoo the audacity it takes to insult someone’s comprehension of a text they’ve invested their entire lives into understanding is staggering. How much Greek can you comprehend? How much Aramaic? You get your understanding of biblical text by listening to some “pastor” explain to you what to believe. You listen to some child defend his Christian rhetoric (that doesn’t even align with what the biblical texts says)and get TORN APART because his arguments are deliberately misleading, and you defend the child… Your response would be comical if it wasn’t so indicative of the state of Christian’s in America.
@@KravMagoo You'd have to provide considerably more evidence that there is a "God" remotely resembling the biblical YHVH to even dictate that supposed "Word of..." for me to buy that argument.
Well, if you accept that only the "moral" laws still apply then you have to advocate for killing children who "curse" their parents (that was a "moral" law), and you also need to remind all the "Christians" supporting and idolizing pastors and politicians who are known adulterers that adulterers are also supposed to be put to death, and supporting them is in itself a sin. You can ask any Rabbi, and they will tell you what Dan just explained so beautifully....you cannot "separate" the civil, dietary, and moral laws in Levitical Law. Christians came up with that, and it is entirely "unbiblical". You either follow ALL of the old cultural laws or you leave them alone (which is what Christians are supposed to do, since they were written by the Jewish priests, NOT God, for the Jewish people at a specific time, and are part of the Old Covenant, which Christ replaced with the New Covenant).
@@hunterhall1575 He was not referring to the old cultural laws. He Himself went against them on several occasions. In point of fact, the old cultural laws were part of the Old Covenant, and Hebrews 8:7 tells us that there would have been no need for a New Covenant if the old one was not "flawed". But actually sit down sometime and read through Levitical Law and see if it sounds like something a god would come up with or a bunch of primitive Jewish priests (i.e. one of those laws states that you are not to eat a four-legged flying insect, UNLESS its legs are "jointed"). Christ is referring to the laws that actually came from God, like the Ten Commandments.
@@Dalekzilla I have, very thoroughly. Which is why i know better than you. There is no biblical distinction between levitical law, deuteronomical law, or "laws from god". They are all treated as God's Law. Paul includes these laws when he says "ALL scripture is god-breathed". Also Jesus never made this distinction either, so I'm pretty sure you're only making this excuse because otherwise you have to admit that the Bible contradicts itself, has immoral laws, and doesn't make any ense. None of what you've said is supported by the texts. Slow your roll buddy, you've got allot of attitude for a guy who's disagreeing with his own stupid religion.
@@hunterhall1575 Jacka**, make sure of who you're talking to before making such wide sweeping assumptions. I do not believe The Bible is in any way "infallible" or "inerrant". I believe it was written by extremely primitive men who used God as an excuse at times to justify things like slavery and genocide. And I've never cared about what Paul said or didn't say. Paul taught that everyone who could possibly do so should be celibate as he was, and that men with long hair were a disgrace. I was making a logical argument because I ASSUMED you were a Christian. The difference between us is I was totally respectful to you, and you responded like a rude a** to me. Learn some manners.
@@hunterhall1575 So, exactly where was I rude and hateful to you? Maybe you can explain why you responded with such venom to me. FYI, I don't believe The Bible is in any way "infallible" or "inerrant", and I believe it has a number of contradictions, that it's dead wrong about some things, and parts of it are downright evil (like when the MEN who wrote it tried to use God to justify both slavery and genocide). And while Paul had some inspiring things to say, I don't (unlike others) believe that his letters to the various churches are "The Word of God", but rather his OPINIONS, so I don't care what he said about the old cultural laws. Paul also believed and taught that everyone who could possibly do so should be celibate like him, and that men with long hair were a "disgrace". Next time, find out a little bit more about someone before you viciously attack them for no good reason.....and if you don't want to encounter Christians, why in God's name would you be on one of Dan's threads? Oh, and by the way, all Christians are not evangelicals and fundamentalists. Do you hate all Buddhists? All Hindus? All Pagans? My advice....work on your maturity.
Even the analogy is questionable. You're allowed to drink the chemicals under the sink. There may be unfortunate consequences if you do, but it's up to you to decide if the consequences are worth it. Nobody is immoral or deserves additional punishment for drinking the chemicals under the sink.
@@Tmanaz480it’s as if keeping chemicals under the sink is a social construct and has no inherent truth and is not an objective rule for all people in all times
@Bible-ChristianThe right to speak extends to people who disagree with you. Free speech means that people can disagree with you and call your opinion stupid. It is not a one way street that allows you to spew whatever nonsense you want without any response, pushback, or consequence.
@Bible-Christian Nobody has even remotely suggested that the guy has no right to speak, and totalitarian regimes can exist without sharia law. Hang your biases by the door before coming in.
Also from the same Jesus Christ “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” I wonder whether the kid thinks that Jesus commandments supersede what is in the OT or not.
@@pansepot1490 Here's another commandment of Jesus cited in Matthew 23:1-3, "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." So, as Dr. McClellan continually reminds us, Christians are continually renegotiating the biblical texts to suit their own doctrines / dogmas, and this process of renegotiation also occurs in Judaism, and Islam also.
@@byrondickens I'm not a Christian, nor am I religious, so it's not my problem. But I'm sure most Christians will continue to ignore the passage, even though it's a command from their Christ, and "son of God".
@@Tmanaz480 Wrong. Only Roman and Eastern Catholics require that. You might want to get out of your conclave and learn something prior to making snarky remarks.
@@karenspivey3203 Real question: I was under the impression that the term "Priest" only tends to be used by the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which tend to require vows of celibacy for their clergy, among other vows. Where I'm from, a religious leader from a Protestant or other Christian denomination not belonging to the Big Two Churches is referred to as a "Minister" or "Pastor". They're still often ordained, but take fewer vows in their personal lives and tend to also not have all the same responsibilities as a Priest in the Catholic Church (Confessional being a large one). Are there other churches which often use the term?
They hoist themselves on their own petard time and again. When they interpret male + male penetration to mean the broader term ‘homosexuality’, they affirm the rights of bi and trans people to exist and be blessed as such. To misquote Sam Quint, ‘You're gonna need a bigger lie!’
If you haven’t noticed, the Bible is ambiguous and contradictory enough to be used to argue both sides of most arguments like this. Also, this kid seems to be trying to imitate your video format, but failing miserably Dan.
That’s why Protestants have to follow St. Thomas Aquinas and make the distinction not between ceremonial/moral, but by universal natural law, and particular positive human law.
This creator really likes it when you aren't looking at the rest of the bible and often says that he wants you to investigate Jesus and his death instead. If you tell people the bible is perfect, be prepared for them to scrutinize them to the detail. According to conservative Christian theology, Jesus and his works are dependent on the bible, it is fair game to scrutinize them.
it really is something when people who pride themselves on being truly and devoutly faithful flatly contradict the writings of their own holy book. Isn't that blasphemy or something?
Yes, it's a post biblical interpretation but Christians will point you at Acts 15 where James orders Paul to deluver to his churches a short letter forbidding his parishioners to: 1. Eat meat sacrificed unto idols, 2. Eat flesh of creatures strangled, 3. Commit sex activities that were banned by the Torah, and 4. Eat blood. They forget James' reasoning though. "Because in each city for many generations now Moses is preached on the Sabbath." He fully expected Christians to attend synagogue because he understood it as a new branch of Judaism.
He almost got it. We don't follow the civil and criminal laws that governed ancient Israel, and there is absolutely no reason that we should adhere to thier arbitrary moral codes either. Maybe one day he'll realise what he's saying, but I doubt it.
I'd argue that the proper Temple rituals have not been performed in nearly 2000 years -- more if you believe like I do that the complete set of rituals were lost in Babylon. So at what point do we assume YHWH is still around? He doesn't seem like the patient type. Of course, I also think we're living well after the Second Coming.
No, because church is boring and you leave less informed than when you entered. Dan's videos are the opposite of that. The presence or lack of singing is going to be up to your taste.
@@byrondickens Yeah yeah, everyone thinks their church is the bee's knees. They're pretty much all the same, level of bigotry and blatant violations of their non-profit status aside.
To me, it has always looked like Early Christians just wanted to get rid of what made them a recognizably Jewish sect, even though Jesus admonished his followers to follow the Torah. In fact, after figuring this out I was hellbent on keeping the Torah, until I just lost faith in the entire religion. Finding out about the false divisions of laws, Christians quite literally pulling shit out of their ass as to what they would and would not follow pushed me beyond the breaking point.
does anyone know of where I can find evidence for the splitting up of the Levitical laws being a post-biblical innovation? I'd like to read up on that more. It's something I once believed and heard multiple times while in the church, from multiple denominations
In 2015, when I was a Christian in a Bible study, I questioned tithing. The Bible study teacher justified tithing with the moral law vs the ceremonial law etc. I responded by citing Paul's declaration of if anyone decides to keep any part of the Law, they are obligated to keep the entire law. Paul didn't seem to divide the law into sections. The teacher didn't respond after that.
I watched Voddie Buccan describe moral civic and ceremonial laws I knew it was BS god of the Bible makes it very clear all rules apply today the NT and the OT are connected and rules are based off what God wants as he has said humanity can't decide for themselves
So if this young man goes blind for some reason, he's not going to get someone to help him cross the street safely. Because the rule of holding an adult's hand while crossing the street was a temporary one.
If he goes blind, he will be taught how to cross the street, whether by himself with a cane or with a seeing-eye dog. Blind people do not have sighted attendants at all times and most would resent the hell out of the idea.
I was going to say I couldn't believe you didn't point out he got your catch phrase right this time, but then I realized you just had him say it for you lol
@@flowingafterglow629Although only JWs and 7th Day Adventists keep the Sabbath, which we know as Saturday. Some Christians keep the Lord's Day, Sunday.
AND...of those three tithes, the one that Christians practice (incorrectly) was only collected every third year to maintain a food pantry of sorts for those in need.
Let me (teenager who did not put enough time into it to even come up with my own original catch phrase) make a video explaining you (ordained pastor) why your understanding of the bible is flawed
The idea of a ban on child sacrifice being moral law doesn't make any sense. If the law were drafted for moral reasons, it would simply be "Don't kill kids". A prohibition on child sacrifice specifically is clearly ritual law however you frame it.
Reading Leviticus 18 vs 21 got me thinking according to this video's statement... so it is fine to offer your children to other gods? or it is fine to offer children in other countries??
Wait you mean to tell me this dubiously educated religious kid on tiktok doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of real scholarly information pertaining to Biblical studies?
Acts 15 19-20 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. Paul in particular spends a great deal of ink in the epistles explaining why Christians don't follow the whole law. In a few places, including here we do have a minimal standard laid out (not simply because it can be found in leviticus or deuteronomy) and that short list includes sexual immorality, which at the time and in the context of the bible would have bene understood by everyone to include homosexuality.
They didn't have a concept of sexual orientation. They only saw anal copulation as sinful. If you think that's all being gay is about, you're erasing a lot of people from the word.
