As a gay person I have come across three types of non affirming Christians 1. The "Hate the sin not the sinner" types which translates to "God loves you but not enough to save you". 2. The people who dont want to hate gay people but they dont want to "Piss off God" by affirming it. 3. The people who deeply hate gay people and use their Cherrypicking of the Bible to cause harm to minorities of people
Being gay myself, and currently 62 years old, I have found that amongst all 3 distinctions mentioned here, were lots and lots of closet cases going out of their way to experience gay sex as long as no-one knows (the most passionate sex ever). This whole "pretend and god will be stupid enough not to pick it up" and since you asked for forgiveness... Follow the hatred which is based on fear of being discovered. Spineless individuals who took on a different persona just not to be judged. These poor individuals live their hell on earth in knowing and constantly fearing doing something that will expose them. Follow the judgement, you will find the fear and the truth, which they will never allow to set them free.
@@chrisbornman5460 Calling gay sex "the most passionate sex ever" is hilarious to anybody 35 and under. In the modern gay community your banging on the first date. Its damn near transactional until you get into a relationship.
what always really disheartens me is when they talk about loving the sinner and then they twist it and pretend that hating on someone visciously is "a form of love" when no, it isn't, it's just being a coward and lazy beyond words.
No matter how many times someone points out to that “dude,” that he’s cherry-picking the Bible like crazy, he’s somehow let ALL of it go in one ear and out the other. Either that, or it somehow bounces off his eardrums and never penetrates. Because he is *NEVER* wrong in his own mind. Ever. He doesn’t speak a single ancient language, has zero scholarly training, and for crying out loud, he’s incapable of actually positioning himself properly in frame! 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
He's never wrong because he's an adolescent parroting what his mentors say. He's been winning homeschool debates that way for years, so he assumes that his sophomoric platitudes have actual value in the real world.
It is sad that someone so sure of themselves does not understand that they are using religion to hide their bigotry. It is more frustrating that others view people like that as the authority.
I think he perfectly well that he is using his religious rhetoric to justify his bigotry. All apologists, pastors, and every Christian I have talked in depth with have had some pretty deep prejudices (which I find odd given they they espouse a religion based on love and forgiveness). As Dan says, they all “negotiate” (nice way of saying “cherry pick”) with scripture to justify their own prejudices and ideology.
@@Tubalicious1234I feel like people fail to realize that you can literally reconcile anything. Especially those types of claims that are very unlikely of being true, but also can’t ever be disproven or proven
@@Tubalicious1234 there is no recorded instance of Spiderman flying - he does some pretty mean tricks with spider thread - but that's a different ball game
Paul said, "nature taught that it's a sin for a man to have long hair." 1 Cor. 11:14 (paraphrased). However, nature teaches no such thing. Example: The lion with it's mane, not the lioness. It was preached from the pulpits that it was a sin for men to have long hair; against Jesus and hell would follow those men with long hair. Paul said a lot of things that were just his bias, prejudice and norms for his time. Every picture of Jesus from most churches have Jesus with long hair. Pastor just cherry pick the bible in order to make up a "good" sermon in order to indoctrinated and grifted their flocks.
Many species cannot easily be sexed, either. The lesson there is that Walmart and Target need to take down the signs saying "BOYS" "GIRLS" "WOMEN" and "MEN" and mix it all up. Then maybe I can buy clothing that isn't all muted browns, greys, and greens with the occasional daring stripe or motif.
@@creamwobbly And for that matter, even for species that _can_ easily "be sexed", we know many, many have homosexual behavior. And then there are species like the unisexual _Ambystoma_ (salamanders), _Daphnia_ (water fleas), New Mexico _(Aspidoscelis neomexicanus)_ whiptail lizards, Mourning geckos _(Lepidodactylus lugubris),_ or Brahminy blindsnake _(Indotyphlops braminus),_ which are either completely or mostly parthogenetic (there are no males). And there are the many, many species (many fish, some reptiles, sea sponges, sea anemones, and so forth) that change their sex, some at certain ages, others at certain temperatures, and so on. If there's one thing nature teaches us about sex, it's diversity.
You’re misunderstanding what Paul means by nature. When he says nature he doesn’t mean the entire animal kingdom, he means the nature of a human being.
@@KaiHenningsenYou’re misunderstanding what some Christians mean when they say homosexual sex is unnatural. Some are ignorant enough to believe it never happens in nature. But other’s say it’s contrary to human nature. It’s contrary to the nature of the end of the reproductive faculty and the unitive and procreative dimensions of human conjugation. Not that it can’t be found in the behavior of any animal in the animal kingdom. If a woman killed her husband and ate his head after sex, we would all agree that that would be unnatural. But it wouldn’t be a good response to say it’s actually natural because we observe that behavior in praying mantises.
Also this is a common misunderstanding about Jesus and long hair. In Paul’s cultural context long hair for men would go well past the shoulders and be associated with male prostitutes. Jesus’ artistic depiction is frequently with hair that does not go past the shoulders which would be a normal hair length for men of his culture.
It's like when a friend tells you what the lyrics to Hotel California mean. At the end you're thinking that was way over thought and you're not sure that's right. Dan comes along and says this is probably what The Eagles meant based on what where they were at that point in time. Once the song goes public, the writer no longer controls the narrative.
This is really good analysis Dan. I might comment on some points. Rom 1 is a false argument because Paul would have known that what most cultures known to him concluded from creation was polytheism. Paul is quoting 1st cent Jewish stereotype of gentiles to set them up for Rom 2.1. Thus anyone using Rom 1 to condemn people falls into the same trap. Further, all Rom 1 says is that those "unnatural" acts were contrary to social norms. There is no indication in the text that they were sinful. "Soft" referred to those with no moral backbone, who were self-indulgent and took the easy way. Men who allowed themselves to take a woman's role were incorrectly assumed (possibly even by Paul) to be "soft" in this sense, but there is no reason to restrict the meaning of "soft" to this specific sense, especially when they are not hurting anyone by doing so. The broader meaning is more likely IMHO. Paul's overall ethic is love: "what counts is faith working in love" Gal 5, "love fulfils all God's commands" Rom 13. His advice was based on applying this in accordance with what information and constraints he had. It's incorrect to maintain the same application today when our information and constraints are so different. What we ought to maintain is the underlying ethic of love. If Paul was around today, he'd be shocked, not only at how we treat his letters as legalistic rules in direct contradiction to his aims, but how we misuse them to harm and exclude people.
I remember having an argument with the pastor who taught the Pauline sexual ethic. I thought it was a great argument in favor of homosexuality being allowed, with a similar allowance. Namely if you pastor don't want hookup culture, then you should be okay with gay marriage. But he still rejected it, made no sense his lack of reasoning.
I think that this discussion is missing two key component of Paul's sexual ethic: 1. "Porneia", or "fornication" is a description of sexual activity based on how unmarried sex most often happened in a slave-society: a person imposing their will on a slave, who is obviously unable to freely consent. In the context of slave-culture, it is obvious why sexual desire is regarded as shameful or sinful, because in the primary mode of expression, it cannot be a free act between willing participants. 2. Paul is likely a (celibate) homosexual himself. This is something many have concluded from analyzing his letters.
They love to apply strict literism, and love to hold people to the "clear teaching of scripture" but when you try to hold them to "do not judge," they're suddenly open to nuance and context. Also. This kid is reading from a script (which is fine), but makes me wonder if he's "on assignment" from a ghostwriter. Propagandists of all sorts are realizing the need to have young images and voices delivering their message in today's media landscape.
I really don't care about who people love and what they do with their loved ones as long as it does not harm others. To me, concerning myself with that, for sure, IS NOT what it means to be "Christian." Loving and taking care of myself and my loved ones, loving and helping the poor and the downtrodden ...these are what it means for me to be "Christian."
For Paul, there wasn't going to be time to raise children. He thought Jesus was returning immanently. Why make future family plans when everything is going tits up anytime now? Even Jesus thought that everything was going to end well within his disciples' lifetime.
This creator has also modified what Paul says in Romans 2:1 to side-step what it actually says. Paul _does not_ say not to judge because "you also do wrong", Paul says not to judge _"because you who pass judgment do the same things"._ But this creator doesn't want to focus on that because that would mean that Paul accuses this creator of engaging in same-sex sexual acts, or things of equivalent "sinfulness". "Doing wrong" is such a broadly generic phrasing that there's no equivalence in it - someone who litters and someone who murders both "do wrong", it's the softest possible criticism this creator could change it to. This creator wants to make Romans 2 more broadly generic and less accusative than it is so that they can continue to harp on about same-sex couples, as though same-sex couples are something worse than other "sins". However it appears Paul disagrees with this creator on that front. In short, this creator wants to continue centring a particular social group in their judgemental crosshairs, and they don't want Paul to undermine their continued practice of doing this. This reading of their motives is also backed up later by their own performed incredulity at the 1 Corinthians 6:9 thing.
Hallelujah!!!! The daily jesus devotional has been a huge part of my transformation, God is good 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻was owning a loan of $47,000 to the bank for my son's brain surgery (David), Now I'm no longer in debt after I invested $8,000 and got my payout of m $270,500 every months,God bless Christy Fiore 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸..
I'd love it if we could have some analysis on the idea that the laws against homosexuality were brought in as Israel separated itself from the Canaanite general population. I've seen scholars point to how Paul links homosexuality with idolatry. My general understanding is that as the Jews became monotheists they developed the idea that all people had originally been monotheists, worshipping Yahweh, and all had fallen from that into idolatry. So they, as descendents of Abraham, and following on from Moses were chosen by their god to follow him in a renewed covenant. This was how they explained away inconvenient facts like how even among themselves there were remainders of their previous polytheism. The people were falling 'back' into idolatry. I know that the Greeks claimed there was 'sacred prostitution' in the temples of Ishtar, and from this some of these older scholars would maintain that this temple prostitution was going on with male and female priests of the Queen of Heaven among the Canaanites, which made it an idolatrous practice that the Jews might succumb to. So attitudes hardened against homosexuality, with the idea of it being an idolatrous practice like the worship of foreign deities. But more recently again I've read that a lot of these ancient terms for people associated with her cult and temples that used to be translated to “sacred prostitute” might actually have been much more generally meant to designate a range of roles in cult rituals. I don't know what the consensus is today about all this.
There was a recent Pew study showing that the percentage of voters who believe that gender is determined by sex at birth has risen from 53% in 2017 to 65% in 2024. The shift is mostly due to changing attitudes of Gen Z. Another recent study showed that support for same sex marriage among Gen Z dropped from 80% in 2021, down to 69% in 2023. It would seem that Dan's negotiation with the text is increasingly unpopular among young people.
The sexual desire was for those women who made themselves availabe (not their wives) because rheir wives were practicing ascetics of celebacy, just as PAUL DID. Yet Paul is saying to the women to give their husbands their “conjugal“ visit so that they do not fornicate with other women. Moreover, if a person is single, Paul suggested ti remain single, but as Dan says, if they cant hack it, then get married.
To Recap: Paul's sexual ethic is that it is better to not marry as that allows one to dedicate more time for the Lord, and married couples will have less time to do so. The real ones will become eunuchs for God. However, according to Paul, if you cannot do that it is better for you to be married so that your sexual desire does not burn over into fornication. However, Paul did not see Homosexuality as originating from the same source as heterosexuality (since the concept of homosexuality in our modern understanding was not how they saw the world), and so there actually was no way of releasing the tension of a desire within those who were same sex attracted. This creates (2) problems. 1. For those who have same sex attraction, they would burn in their passion without a release until, according to Paul's own thinking, they would end up in fornication. 2. It was God's own punishment, according to Romans 1, that God would give them over to a debased mind from which they could not return since it is their own fault for practicing and having the desire.
"Why must heterosexual desire be satisfied but homosexual desire entirely denied?" I never connected the dots until Dan said it. But it's certainly so double standard, because clearly Paul thought people are just naturally heterosexual and homosexuality instead comes as a punishment in Romans. But now more and more Christians have had to realize that isn't the case and now accept that some people are just homosexual, only that they keep telling these same people no sex. Though honestly not like Paul's advice for heterosexual people is better. Imagine being married to someone because they just want to have sex, not because they love you.
Old Testament Reference: Jeremiah 3:15-“And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.” New Testament Reference: Hebrews 5:4-5, “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.” So Christ Himself could not have began His ministry until God the Father called Him to preach. Think on these things.
I hope Dan already knows, but the guy from the POST Post-modern theology video is AT IT AGAIN. This time he attacks Dan for Mormonism AGAIN. Saying Dan promotes "Trans Ideology" (Not a thing) and goes into the conservative trope of "Child mutilation" (Btw ask him about God and foreskins or Jesus and Eunuchs). And says Why don't you debate these guys? Debate me bro! Like this guy is beyond bad faith. Keep doing what you are doing Dan.
To play devil's advocate alot of people are more culturally Christians or non denominationial Christians I think most Catholics and Orthodox take Paul as seriously as they can as well as some neognostics.
Peter said of Paul; "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16) This is a warning from Peter, a contemporary & supporter of Paul, not to be too confident that you know what you are talking about, if you are assessing Paul negatively. Even he Peter, who believes the same as Paul & agrees with Paul, finds the way that Paul, at times puts things, can make it hard to understand what Paul means. And this is written to believers. Where does that leave those such as Dan? But nevertheless, non-believers charge right in, supremely confident they are right. Muslims are great ones for this, their confused ideas about Paul makes for entertaining reading. (ps, This should not be taken as an endorsement of all that the other speakers in this video are saying either.)
@@benjamintrevino325 Dan agrees that Romans 1:26-27 condemns same-sex sex between both men & woman. Dan confirmed this when he said, "... well Paul is anyway ....". When people say, the Bible condemns same-sex sex between men & women, this is where they get it from. No interpretation is possible or even necessary. It says what it says, and Dan agrees that it says what it says. Dan just doesn't like what it says, and that's fine. Paul has no problem with sex in marriage. Dan is flat out wrong regarding 1Thèssalonians 4:4-5. Nowhere here does Paul say, or even imply, that you shouldn't have sexual desire for your wife, like the "dirty" (Dan's word) Gentiles have for their wives. He is not even talking about wives at all, he is talking about oneself - (v4). Paul is not even talking about married sex, he is talking about not having lust for fornication - (v3). There are two underlaying reasons for Paul's comments on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7. There is an actual present distress (v26) and consequently he feels time is short (v29). Paul is not preaching some weird doctrine of celibacy. He makes it clear that what he is saying are his personal feelings and are not from God - (v6, v25, v40). Paul obviously had no trouble not being married (v7), and by not being married he can devote himself full time to his job, whereas married people's primary responsibility is to their spouses - (v32, v33). He wishes others could be the same as him, but recognises this is not for everybody, and to not be or feel the same as him is proper & is actually from God - (v7). And they certainly should not subject themselves to unnecessary temptaion to sin - (v9). Nothing here is anti-marriage or anti-sex in marriage per se. (There is more that could be said but wanted to keep this brief)
@@glenwillson5073 I was thinking the same when first looking at 1 Thèssalonians 4:4-5, but doing some research it appears there were Jews and Christians in the time period when the New Testament was written that clearly believed that sex should be only for reproduction (such as Josephus). So it's entirely possible there were early Christians reading 1 Thèssalonians 4:4-5 the way Dan mentions. Another point worth bringing up is the preceding 1 Thèssalonians 4:3 which ends with the Greek word πορνείας (commonly translated there as fornication or sexual immorality). What makes πορνείας problematic is its meaning is ambiguous and it had a variety of uses in other writings of that era, some even include the sexual activities of a married couple. I'm still not thinking the 4:3-5 argument is as clear cut as Dan was making it out to be, but BIblical scholarship isn't my specialty. My reference here is the 2018 article: "Can a Man Commit πορνεία with His Wife?" from the Journal of Biblical Literature.
@@marv-n-24 Appreciate your thoughts. I will see if I can track down the article. Another thought: I can't see any justification or evidence that says Paul's words, "holiness and honour" in (v4) precludes having passion & desire for one's wife, as Dan claims. It also seems to be a weak, arbitrary & very convenient argument, for Dan to just claim, Paul is condemning the Gentiles in (v5) for nothing more than having passion & desire for their wives. Hebrews 13:4 says; "Marriage is honourable in all and the bed undefiled ....". How does this not include passion & desire for your wife? And this would apply to all peoples, Gentile or not. Whatever the Gentiles are doing wrong in (v5) it's hard to credit that it's having passion & desire for their wives.
Dan I get were you’re coming from, but the Paul appears to be condemning homosexual acts. Not that it even matters in real life nor should we denounce homosexuals because a book written a millennia ago says it’s an abomination. Also, Paul condemns homosexuality but he doesn’t condemn not being celibate. He advises it, but he doesn’t say it’s necessary for Christian’s.
It has been made clear by Dan on multiple occasions that the Bible completely skips over any mention of two people of the same gender being romantically involved. Most of its references are to a specific behavior not all gay/bi/pan men perform with each other. The rest are when Paul remembers women also have sex. Furthermore, there were no ceremonies to honor such a bond the way there was for mixed couples, but when marriage was more of a property arrangement for the bride to hand off to her husband, there's no point in marrying two people of the same gender.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048If that's the case, then why bother to follow Dan's channels at all? You're just piggy-backing off them to them to espouse your own views to an audience who mostly otherwise not be interested in reading them. Your posts are often little more than non-sequiturs.
"paul thinks everyone should be celibate" Paul didn't suggest that celibacy was a requirement or morally superior. He goes on to call it a gift from God, but that others are given different gifts "some this way, others that".
Well, if you look at 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul actually DOES suggest that celibacy is in fact morally superior. He says it is better if a man never touches a woman (meaning to have sex with a woman). Paul did actually suggest that everyone who could possibly do so should remain celibate (and those that just couldn't do it should marry rather than "burn with lust").
@granvillesimmons6033 It's better not to touch a woman, immorally. Ok... If you cannot control your urges, go get married. It's that simple. If celibacy were the higher standard then some of the other apostles probably lived in vain then, e.g Peter 😂
@@paulhoosen9414 Yeah .....but those scriptures make it clear that Paul believes celibacy is the best thing for anyone who can manage it. That's the point. He believes celibacy is the superior state. He also believed men with long hair were a "disgrace". Wonder what he would make of all these paintings of a long-haired Christ hanging in all the American homes and churches? LOL.
"It is better to marry than it is to burn" is not a ringing endorsement, and this doesn't change the fact modern Christians cherry-pick Paul for what they want his words to be, not what they were.
You can't really be a bible scholar without being born again and filled with the Holy Spirit. That gap is quite obvious and explains your stance on homosexuality. You sounded knowledgeable and eloquent in your openings lines and then messed it all up by your erroneous interpretations. You don't become an expert with scriptures by obtaining university or theological degrees and diploma, you gain access to the mind of God when you're His child and are filled with His SPIRIT. I believe you must have read Romans 8:9-11. I pray that God will have mercy on you and give you true understanding and deliver you from the corrupt mindset that borders on the nature of sin ingrained due to lack or regeneration of the Spirit and the word.
He’s not preaching a gospel, he’s providing people with factual information about the text. If facts conflict with your belief system it’s not the facts that are the problem.
@@emersonb.5399 Or maybe his “facts” are designed to fit his belief system and he’s casting doubt on Gods word in order to make it fit. He might as well just come out as a gay atheist.
@@dburns9080What actual proof do you have that the Bible is in fact "God's word", other than the authors of the Bible actually claiming that it is? Scholars have proven that the Bible is not univocal, inerrant, and has no authority. It is rife with contradictions, and it condones acts and practices that most modern societies view as morally intolerable. And that's why modern Christians feel the need to engage in such mental gymnastics/contortions in an failed effort to minimize, rationalize, justify, or ignore them, as well as cast aspersons on the actual data and evidence, as well as the scholars who present them.
@@dburns9080 you are angry because your dogma is rooted in control and not in the Bible. If your religion was true, this would not shake you, but your religion is corrupted so you are feeling attacked by him showing you the truth.
@@thecenter3642 How exactly is my dogma rooted in control? My beliefs ARE true which is why it bothers me that he’s leading people astray and casting doubt on God’s word. Exactly like Satan did.
*I used to never put any other books or objects on top of my KJV that was given to me in 1961. I cherishED it my whole life from when I was just 8 years old. That is up until about 8 years ago! Now it stays on the bottom of a big box of books in my closet. And unless Jesus changes it back into God's Holy word, I will never open it or any other bible again the rest of my life!* *Satan is spreading his evil across the globe and most people are beginning to see it. But sadly only a tiny few see what he's done to God's word...* *What The Father has spoken will never change, His promises are still good and our prayers are still answered! Hallelujah!!! But as impossible as this sounds, like so many of the true stories in scripture, our bibles have all been supernaturally changed by Satan in the last several years, right in our homes, in the fulfillment of prophecy. It's being done to prepare for the reign of the antichrist. All languages and all translations have been changed along with concordances, encyclopedias, dictionaries, history books, the original Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Aramaic manuscripts. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls have been changed!* *I'm 71, was saved when I was 10, and have read only the exact same copy of the King James bible my church gave me in 1961. (This does not mean I was a King James onlyist but now I'm glad I never read other ones or I might not have noticed the changes as soon.) I had memorized many scriptures from it through the years. Then in 2014 I started seeing changes in it that I couldn't explain. I had never owned a computer or heard of the Mandela Effect back then. But after being given my first computer in 2016 I finally found out why I had been noticing all of the oddities that I couldn't explain. I then started diligently studying what should actually have been called the "Daniel 7:25 effect". That's where God said He would give the antichrist the power to do this. (Change times and laws, history and scripture) We're seeing many end time prophecies being fulfilled SUPERNATURALLY! This is some of the "lying signs and wonders" God told us He would give the AC power to perform which would even deceive His very elect, if it were possible in 2nd Thessalonians chapter two!* *God said in the end of days, (NOW!) that He would send us a famine for hearing His words in Amos **8:11** and that He would give the antichrist the ability to do this in Daniel 7:25. In Daniel 12:4 & 12:9 He told him to seal his book until the end days. He told John **_not_** to seal his book because the end time is at hand in Revelation 22:10. One of the Greek definitions of ''seal'' in Strongs concordance is “to protect from Satan”. He also told us to “hide His words in our hearts”, which meant memorize, if not word for word at least the essence of what was written, because He knew this was going to happen.* *God commanded us to "prove all things", and people **_better_** obey Him, especially on this subject. I urge you to research this. There are many brothers and sisters making videos about the changes with more proof of what was originally written and I have lots more about this in my playlist 👉 which can be found by typing in (PROOF OF BIBLE CHANGE RESIDUE JUNKIE 1)* 👈 *I've continued to stay in God's word by reading what has been documented to be what used to be written and what Satan has been changing. Soon Amos **8:12** will be fulfilled too and we won't be able to find God's word anymore, and the only way it can happen is by not being able to see these videos and PDF written lists of documented changes like the one at (amos)(8)(.)(org)* *May God bless all who read this with eyes to see this incredible faith strengthener, and how close we are to our Saviour's return!!!!* *P.S. Everyone is going to learn about this one way or the other. I'm just trying to keep so many people from hearing Jesus explain it to them at the Gate. If you ask for them at the address on my about page I will send you links for 17 films that absolutely prove the snake bite is the mark. And yt hates me, they won't notify me of replies and won't post my answers so write me at residue junkie in one word at g mail for lots more info yt would never allow you to see.* ❤✝️💪 *P.P.S. YT will not notify me if you reply here so write me at residue junkie in one word at g mail.*
