Please don't take this video down. I'll be sharing it around, because it is something that more people desperately need to hear. Thank you so much for your work.
@@dansaber4427 Totally agree, I would never argue against that. That's why cultural shift within Christian circles and reinvigoration of what it means to be Christian in the material world is crucial to progress.
Work on Saturday? That does not compute. Gentiles are not under the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law was only given to the Israelites. The Sabbath command does not apply to Gentiles.
@@Chomper750 Shabbat is in Laws of Torah from Sinai. True it does not apply to gentiles. No does kosher and many other laws. No rabbis made up Sabbath on 7th day.. Mosaic laws ? The seven Noachide laws apply to gentiles. As per Torah Tanakh Talmud. So you pick and choose what laws you like or reject.. Your man God idol trinity human sacrifice calvary died to replace all the laws your church fathers claim.. Another bizarre theology. Then came Quran .. תודה רבה שלום Oy vey
I would add one more reason why these beliefs still have a strong hold over people is a desire not to have to say "We were wrong." If people believe that their moral teachings are divinely revealed, immutable decrees for all time and all people, then saying they were wrong calls into question that whole system.
Agreed. It reminds me of how the Bible was used as a means to enslave black people. The Bible was also used to prove that the Earth was the center of the universe. Calling those prevailing theories of their time into question would render many to have to reexamine their faith and question tenets they held in high esteem. Not everyone can handle that type of rumbling to their faith.
I would also add that a faith that hasn’t been tested for its validity is a flimsy faith. So many of our Bible heroes stories are about facing the testing of their faith. Is God real? Can I trust what I believe He told me? What if He isn’t real? That is a necessary part of the journey. That uncertainty is what allows the God of the universe to prove (not because He has to) to the person He is who He is
@endswithme555 Don't you mean gods depicted in religious texts: the transposing of a ruling elite or religious leadership's rational to support their methods? Markers, such as gaslighting, threat, fables with examples of outcomes for disobedience, reward for compliance and cover stories to assert credibility, are all there.
“It’s not bigoted because…” Reminds me of someone telling me he was not transphobic because he was “Not afraid of trans people, and phobia means fear.” 😒
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 phobia is fairly often used to describe an irrational aversion to something, so I would say that particular shoe still fits 🤷♂️
Isn’t it more bigoted to tell someone they are a bigot simply for holding a Christian viewpoint on behavioral guidelines for members of their church? When Muslims tell me it is a sin to eat pork or drink alcohol in their culture, I don’t get upset and tell them to deny their faith. All organizations have rules that prohibit those unwilling to follow them.
@@genotriana3882 *//"Isn’t it more bigoted to tell someone they are a bigot simply for holding a Christian viewpoint on behavioral guidelines for members of their church?"//* Not if they Actually Are Bigoted for it, by virtue of them continually attempting to Force such ideals onto Society At-Large, onto the People, into Law, and into Education; utterly Outside of their own personal little congregation. *//"When Muslims tell me it is a sin to eat pork or drink alcohol in their culture, I don’t get upset and tell them to deny their faith."//* Muslims in the U.S. aren't Trying to Write, Enact, and Pass Legislation that would Limit, Stifle, or Prevent everyone else (of every Non-Muslim Worldview) from eating pork or drinking alcohol. So, blatantly false analogy, as we actively have Large Groups of Christians trying to do just such things to bring the Nation closer to a Theocratic Dictatorship.
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 False. The notion of homophobia or transphobia refers not just to Literal Direct Fear of OTHER, External, Homosexuals and Trans individuals; but it Also refers to the person's Own Internalized Irrational FEAR of the possibilities that they IMAGINE as a result of such individuals (i.e. "What if find out that * *I* * Like Penis?!?" or "What if I start thinking that * *I* * am Mentally Feminine?!?", and other similar-such examples, etc). Just as someone with Arachnaphobia need not necessarily just Only be irrationally frightened by the Literal Sight of Spiders, but can even be by the mere Thought of them too. By these measures, most of them Right-Wing Evangelicals (who are Very Anti-LGBTQ+) are EXTREMELY Phobic.
Any time someone says “the purpose of sex is procreation” I just automatically assume they don’t have a very pleasurable sex life and it makes me sad for them and the people they have sex with
@@edmundsishange3608 main i mean not as the most often. if it’s like that then you’re right. but main as in the most important. well if we don’t procreate humanity ends lol
@@GustavoMaldonado42 humanity is going to end at some point. Ending because we didn’t procreate is probably the least violent and horrific way for humanity to end
Thank you, Dan. As a former evangelical pastor, now out and queer, this is very, very meaningful to hear spoken with such clarity, precision, and authority.
You want God AND you also want your deviant desires satisfied. You can't have both. It's either your D**k or the Lord. Is God not worth the sacrifice?? Do not sleep at night comfortably thinking that your homosexual acts are embraced by God. Sorry, but you are deluded. The only authority is God and it is he who speaks with clarity and precision. Dan McClellan won't be there to save you from God's wrath should you choose to adopt him as "authority."
@@zoebirss9944what made you finally accept that part of yourself and live that part of who you were while leaving your pastoral profession? Was it your own revelation? Study? Did you read anything that gave you an aha moment?
"It's not a sin to be homosexual, it's a sin to engage in homosexual activity". Oh, so I'm ok just as long as I pretend to be someone else and deny my own feelings. Glad to hear it. That makes it so much better
There’s those who would say turn to Jesus as he will create you a new being. I’m female and I’m with a woman, I’ve prayed time and time again. People just want me to “pray the gay away.”
@@SuicideboysGrey59I’ve been praying for 30 years…it hasn’t gone anywhere. In fact it’s gotten stronger!! People who aren’t experiencing this but yet still want to legislate against it, preach against it or create videos or lead campaigns against it baffle me?
@@strawberriesstar That seems to be what it is in the Bible, innit; yet most Christians at least the conservative ones can't stand the very ideas of gay romance and lesbian romance either. They think everything that has to do with being LGBTQ+ is sinful, even the basic urges are because they're "thought crimes". 🙄
I exclaimed a spontaneous, "Wow!" when he started down the path of, "Sex outside of marriage is wrong because there isn't the premeditation for creating offspring."
Indeed. It would also mean that a man or woman who suffered some sort of injury or illness or infirmity like simple aging that prevented them from having children through no fault of their own would be sinning even if they were married. Yeah, good luck with trying to get that one past fellow believers. "Sorry, your wife has entered menopause. Yes, I'm aware it's early for her, and she's an astounding good looking woman who looks like a cover model a decade younger, but no more sex for you."
If you saw an amputee, you wouldn't think "this disproves that the nature of humans is to have 2 legs!" You would automatically know something went wrong with this person because people have 2 legs. Likewise, the fact that some couples can't have children doesn't disprove the fact that it is the nature of man/woman sex to produce children. It is the nature of any other corrupted form of sexuality to not possibly produce children. This does show the damage to society as a whole should homosexuality run rampant and it's a strong argument to prove homosexuality is contrary to the law of nature.
I thought "Woe unto those who have children during the second coming" meant that since their will be so many calamities and power-abuse by humankind during the last days, humans would be exposed to painful natural earth elements, abuse of power by men, and would have to endure extremely hard outer-world stuff. Not that it would be wrong to have the kids, just that it would be hard to watch your kids suffer, it would be hard to have to take care of your children when it's hard to take care of your self, and all that jazz. I didn't think that had anything to do with Paul's assertion that singleness can be more holy than being married.
Nicely said. I have no problem with starting with dictionary definitions if the intent is to get everyone on the same page with an agreement on what a word means. But it shouldn’t be taken as some kind of unassailable authority. The Bible is like a Rorschach test. An individual’s interpretation of the Bible says more about that individual’s psychology than it does about the Bible, although the Bible is so vague and conflicting in spots that it lends itself easily to that. If the owner’s manual of my car, where as unclear and open to interpretation as the Bible, then Subaru would’ve been sued out of existence years ago.
Yes, I read an article several years ago on the “ick” factor. I think that still exists. The ick factor plays into the aversion to same-sex sex, particularly between men.
The thing as people’s consciences become warped through habitual sin, our ability to discern how gross are sexual perversions goes away. If you don’t find it abhorrent, all that means is that you're not in a state of grace, and you’ve lost the ability to discern that natural order of things-which doesn’t mean as Dan believes according to nature, but according to the proper teleology of a thing.
@@JudeMalachiSo I guess all of those giraffes, and ducks, and dolphins, and salamanders, and dogs, and hundreds of other species that engage in homosexual sex are also fallen from grace, right? So sad that all of these wild animals are going against the natural order.
Quick question: What do you expect us to do? I didn’t ask to be homosexual. I wish I wasn’t and there isn’t a way to change it. Edit: I don’t wish I wasn’t. This is the way God made me so go be useless somewhere else.
Their ideal solution would be for you to not only “convert” / abstain from sex / pretend to be heterosexual, but ALSO condemn other homosexuals. They’d have their cake and eat it, too. This is why gays shouldn’t waste their lives trying to appease Christians
And the next best solution would be for us to “keep it to ourselves” aka they want to regress back to when homosexuals lived on the fringes of society and everyone pretended like we didn’t exist.
@@mikemathewson1825 See, my point exactly. You expect us to "control our lusts" aka live celibate lives and die alone. That's why we don't listen to you lol
I do realize and understand this. But, I also realize this means those who don't will receive the condemnation of Hell. So, I'm going to keep spreading the Gospel. Because of love.
@@eurech I'll agree with the indoctrination, as people should put in good doctrine, but delusion? We'll start with the fact that even secular scholars believe Jesus lived and was crucified. His followers also believed He was resurrected and ascended to heaven(as all of them were persecuted and most were killed and no one dies for a lie they know is a lie) add in the high improbability of a mass hallucination event such as what His followers claimed to have seen and Luke's account showing someone who is close up to the facts and tries to get even minor details correct... Paul's vision of Jesus as someone who would have no reason to have a hallucination of a person he had never met and thought said person was a heretic... and then the cosmological argument(all things with a beginning have something that began them, the universe and time both have beginnings, thus requiring a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being to start them, all of which applies to God)... but with all that lined up and more can be added... is it really all that delusional?
Excellent reaction video! Yes, ancient morals & beliefs - even when accurately stated - are no grounds for modern ones when there is so much evidence to refute them. Sadly, your 2 main reasons for homophobia & bigotry today are powerful, with identity politics really dangerous & damaging.
Wow! You went in much deeper than what I thought. I just assumed that "Sexual Immorality" was sinful (regardless of Gender-preference). Jesus even spoke about a man that even "looks at a woman to LUST for her, has already committed adultery in his heart". With that said, anybody who looks for a sexual outlet, other than for the purposes of marriage with his wife or procreation as a holy act, would be considered sinful.
@@hrv4908 Can you do that without sex? I want to live a sexless life as a lesbian and have adopted children and maybe get married although I’m unsure that’s be possible..
Is that biblical marriage, i.e.entering a woman and paying the father or capturing an enemy, going into them and claiming them in marriage, or extra biblical marriage such as legal by contract or common marriage by mutual partnership of consenting adults?
Dictionaries are great for defining one's terms. They are definitely _not_ great at measuring the reasonableness of one's arguments. It's a list of words and meanings, not a debate judge. Well done to point this out, Dr. McLellan.
Dictionaries aren't actually great for defining terms because all they can capture is general usage. Terms in biblical criticism should be scholarly and specific. Defining your terms is indeed step one, but the resources you use to construct said definition have to be relevant to the field.
@@SethRGray I disagree. In any debate, we have to define our terms. If we're to avoid arguments over the definitions of our terms, we need to use a definition for our words that isn't reasonably contested. And yes, using the definition most relevant to the field, (for example, calf for a podiatrist means something different than it does for a rancher), is appropriate. Otherwise it's kind of a false equivocation. I think you and I are trying to make different points though.
Always speak so intelligently and well versed but I can never seem to figure out where you stand. I know you're simply educating the masses but I'd like to take a deeper dive.
I completely agree but I would like to point out that a literal reading of the Bible would not exclude all homosexual acts, sex, between two woman is completely tolerable within the context of this law. So would homoromantic relationships between two men. The law is less strict than people today often think.
Can you debate other Christian’s that disagree with you on this topic? I only see you respond to tic tok videos and never have a face to face conversation with someone who disagrees with this. But I think I know why that conversation will never take place.
The arguments that homosexual sex is a sin because the acts don't produce children would have to mean that an infertile straight couple would be committing sin if they had sex.
I love how you absolutely dismantle bigoted views with proper evidence. So many people don't think and just follow the bigoted interpretations or jump through hoops to justify their beliefs instead of just... not being bigoted. As if it's so hard to just let other people love who they love.
What evidence? He did nothing in this video but ignore other passages denouncing homosexuality while telling others they are using fallacies. Dude did literally nothing but pander to folks like yourself.
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 He literally did no such thing. He pointed out how Several biblical authors, especially of the New Testament, absolutely weren't against homosexuality Because of the notion that it's "non-procreative" (Evidenced Rebuttal). He Addressed how Biblical Authors, of their differing time periods, saw homosexuality and Why they most likely saw it that way, as they were against it for the sake of it seeming to favor Male Submissiveness (the Opposite of ignoring other passages). He refuted the notion that it was "Non-Natural". And he further pointed out how the Only Real Reason the anti-homosexual view is held to Religiously in the Modern day is because it favors their geopolitical and/or ideological Agendas. So, it could be argued that your Only problem with it is that it didn't Pander and Kowtow to Your Personal Ideological and/or Geopolitical Biases... and you Hate that... because you WANT to hold to Religious Views that are Faulty, Unjustified, and Bigoted... OR because you already Do hold to such views, and have invested into them for a Long Time.
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 another ignoramus telling a biblical scholar saying he’s wrong when you can’t even read the original texts in Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek.
@@TechySeven .....Call me a "bigot"...I hate the "community" of PEDOPHILES too ( NOT the people ) and the "community" of MURDERERS as well .....poor me .
The few scriptures in The Bible condemning homosexual relations are based on the prohibition in Levitical Law, BUT Christ actually goes against Levitical Law on several occasions. On one of those occasions, when the Pharisees complain about His disciples not washing their hands in the prescribed manner, Christ tells them that it doesn't matter if you are clean on the outside...only on the inside. He then turns to His disciples and says, "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments OF MEN". In other words, the cultural laws were written by men (the Jewish priests), and not by God. As far as the story of Sodom, The Bible actually states what the "sin" of Sodom is (Ezekiel 16:49), and the verse begins "Now THIS was the sin of your sister Sodom..." The sin being the wealthy ignoring the poor and needy. Christ does not address the issue, and Paul (who was NOT Christ), based his views on Levitical Law.
If the sin of Sodom was that wealthy people ignoring the poor, than what makes Sodom different than any other place on the earth at that time or any time in human history? Sodom was destroy was not because of a specific sin it committed. Usually wicked people commit a variety of sins. Jude mentions that that sexual immorality was a problem in Sodom. The reason Sodom was singled out and destroyed is that the people were so wicked and unrepentant that God could not find even 10 righteous people there. God chapter 18 God and Abraham have a conversation. God plans to destroy the city but Abraham is worried that righteous people will be killed. Verse 24 "Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?" In verse 26 it says "And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes." The conversation continues until they get to where if God find even 10 righteous people, the city will be spared in verse 32 "And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake." When a city or nation becomes so rot with sin and wickedness that they will not repent, will not turn to righteousness and reject God completely, there is no value for that city or nation to continue. It becomes rotten to the core and God will destroy it. Gay people lived in Sodom and their sins contributed to the wickedness of Sodom but there was a lot of heterosexual sins that also was a part of the problem. The wickedness went beyond sexual sins. As I said, wicked people don't just commit one kind of sin and are righteous in every other aspects of their lives. They tend to commit a lot of different kinds of sin like neglecting the poor ect. {For LDS viewers as I suppose there are a few here, research the issues of "ripening in iniquity" or something being fully rip in iniquity. Similar conditions that got Sodom destroyed is what got the people in Noah day destroyed andis what got cities in the Book of Mormon destroyed and similar conditions will occur before Christ comes again. The principles that got Sodom destroyed still apply today and will happen again at some point in the future. When a society as a whole becomes so wicked that it loves sin, rejects God, and will not repent, God then clears the board as there is no use for that society to continue.]
@@shootergavin3541 The point however is that The Bible states that the wealthy ignoring the poor was the chief "sin", not homosexuality, as many people wrongly believe. But I would agree with you that there were almost certainly other sins the people were committing. Many Christians have a very limited, myopic view of The Bible, like their ignorance of Levitical Law (and it's total invalidity) or this weird concept that St.Paul's opinions were equivalent to Christ's doctrines. A lot of this comes from the "doctrine" of biblical infallibility, which in essence says that The Bible IS God, because ONLY God is infallible. The "Word of God" is also clearly defined in The Bible (John 1:1), and it's not a what, but a WHO. Good post, by the way.
Dan: ‘we *know* same sex attraction is natural.’ But how would he go with that statement. How about wanting to have multiple younger-much much younger than he is ? Dan doesn’t explain what he means by he ‘knows’
We know because of psychological studies. We know because conversion therapy failed and only caused more trauma. We know because we see it in nature. We know because of the stories of the struggless of gay people. And we know because not one single element of human development is perfect. Why would sexual and romantic attraction be the one perfect aspect of human development?
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. "Sin" is a concept religions created to "other" and oppress people. It has no place in reality. Good video!
If sex was about procreation, that would mean my grandparents had to have had sex at least twice. My intuitive revulsion to things I find icky is telling me otherwise…
If what you say is true, then having children would not matter, and no one would exist. pleasure is a byproduct for procreation, an incentive. Any child understands this....
@@harrymurray9702it don't matter if it would not be anymore people born , you don't decide for each individualist biological males , we are living in that time where each biological male decide for himself only
I think the internet is giving people the other side now. Society can change. National opinion on gay marriage changed. It's a slow process though. I don't know if when I opposed gay marriage decades ago I was a bigot. I can barely remember why I even though it was wrong. I was going through a religious phase, thats part. So culturally and religiously brainwashed I guess.
@@joecheffo5942 fair enough. I suppose I was being a little hyperbolic for rhetorical effect. You're right, society can and does change - but it's difficult. People need to be willing to change though, and that's the problem. they don't like change being forced upon them, it needs to come from within.
@@joecheffo5942that’s fair! I was against my own sexuality because I was taught(indoctrinated) from a young age that it was wrong and sinful. The deeper into religion I went the more I fought it. The less “religious” and freer in my faith I became, the more accepting I became of my sexuality
@@joecheffo5942 i used to think it was wrong but only because of the two references in the bible in 1 cor 6.9 and 1 tim 1.10. i just without thinking presumed there must be some reason for it, and like dan says it felt icky. when i discovered that those verses were mistranslated, i changed my mind pretty quickly.
This apologetic argument is like some sort of abstraction bait-and-switch. On the one hand, they defensively say that they aren't targeting any group of people -- which is suggesting that they don't want to use abstraction, but instead focus on the concrete alone. But then they target that same group using a classification system which is entirely abstract and not in the least bit concrete.
Nice equivocation fallacy around the 5:30 mark. The natural order doesn’t mean according to nature in Aristotle. It means some more akin to the proper teleology of something.
Can you discuss further in detail - about the reasoning of having sex to produce children, or casually in marriage or unmarried - in the bible. *And thank you!
Paul is so brilliant, saying that a husband and his wife should come together for intercourse so that they won't have sexual desire!! 😂 In this one line in 1st Corinthians 7 the germ of the Catholic theory of the transmission of Original Sin is present. 😠😡🤬
Thank you. I love God and I do accept Jesus as my lord and savior but there’s people who throw Leviticus at me and other verses that I’m sure they themselves have misunderstood and misconstrued, because I am a woman with a woman. I don’t have the yearning to procreate, I feel like the earth is way too overpopulated enough. Why add to it? We’d be perfectly fine adopting kids in need of loving homes. I hate how some look down on you when you say you don’t want to conceive a child. Jesus didn’t have a child, I guess they look down on Jesus too….
Thank you Dr. Dan for explaining how changes in societal norms show that God and the Bible were wrong and should be altered and re-interpreted to meet the new progressive standards of society.
"Progressive standards of society" Ha ha ha how's that working out? To follow your your and Dan's view is to watch society continue and accelerate in its degeneracy and ultimate failure. Yes, I know this is going to stir up the hateful bigots on this thread who want every imaginable deviant sex act, which perverts their bodies, to not only be accepted, but demand celebration.
Does the rule of not lying with a man as with a woman apply to their slaves? So far, my understanding of biblical laws is that they applied to Isrealites while foreign slaves were possessions, not people.
A desire for something, even when born with it, does not mean it's part of the natural order. Desires may be right or wrong, good or evil, whether born with them or not. In the case of homosexuality, the light or law of nature is obvious: a man and a woman's body go together; a man and a man or a woman and a woman do not. Desires don't change this.
So then what then? What does someone who is saved who realizes their gay do? That should be the question. At the end of the day, the verses in Leviticus and countless in the New Testament have been proven to be speaking on manifestations of homosexual sex. With the common Adam and Eve argument, what about intersex people who are quite literally in between. That is also a 3rd sex as well. Would their whole existence be against "nature" because God created only male and female? Life isn't binary or black and white. We are complex creatures made by a complex God.
@@earth2sageee A person who is saved and has temptations towards homosexuality must repent and fight that temptation just like we must fight and repent of every other sin. Exceptions to the normal genetic makeup of man or woman are rare only prove the rule that there is only a man or a woman. You don't look at someone whose missing an arm and say "oh I guess human nature is not to have arms. It's not black and white like I thought." Of course human nature is to have arms; when that's different we know something went wrong. This matter is black and white or we could say xx and xy.
@@leahunverferth8247 okay but then when fighting temptation, what does this person do? is it like oh your celibate now! good luck with that! ? also exceptions to male and female prove there is more than just male and female just by their existence as they tend to not have a dominant sex. it's much more common than we think it is. their chromosomal variations make them who they are. XXY, XXX, XO, 45, 47, etc.
@@earth2sageee That person does not need to be celibate. A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. However, it wouldn't be wise to do this when struggling with homosexual temptations. The answer is to be much in prayer, much in the Word, and accountable to a godly church that exercises biblical discipline. God has strength to conquer every temptation. Human nature very obviously has either male or female. The strategy of deceit is to obfuscate that which is clear and obvious.
@@leahunverferth8247 "a godly church that exercises biblical discipline." There is no "biblical discipline," because the Bible is not univocal. "God has strength to conquer every temptation." One's orientation, straight or gay or in-between, has been proven to be innate and immutable. There are no verified cases of anyone ever having been able to change their orientation, whether through prayer or any other means.
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm understanding Dan's framing of Paul's perspective. In 1 Cor 7, I see Paul acknowledging desire and prohibiting sexual neglect, and that people should have sex to prevent Satan from tempting. The only time he suggests should they should explicitly be "apart" is for prayer. Where does he say sex should "not be with the passion of desire" like the Gentiles, or that people should ONLY have JUST enough sex to suppress desire? I feel like I'm missing something.
@@leahunverferth8247 It seems I missed 1 Thess 1:3-5. There it speaks about taking a vessel with holiness and honor, not with lustful passion like the gentiles.
Yeah, there's definitely the contrast between using sexuality in a holy/honorable way vs. the inordinate passion of the gentiles in chapter 4. But interpreting this as limiting sex in a lawful context (marriage) to as little as possible is false. The gentle world is full of adultery, homosexuality, even bestiality and other acts of fornication. Don't be like them who will satisfy themselves with whatever they can. Act in a controlled, lawful way. No premarital sex, no adultery, etc. Many more applications could be made but none of this limits the lawful expression of sexuality in marriage (except as concerns the needs of the man or woman - did the woman just have a baby? Is someone sick?, Etc).
@@leahunverferth8247 Yeah, there are various ways to read it. "Not with passionate lust" insofar as it infringes on decency, or "not with passionate lust" insofar as it is passionate. Unfortunately early church fathers were prone to the total exclusionary interpretation, it seems. Augustine was lamentably mechanical in how he saw marriage duties.
I am almost 100% sure Jesus literally says Homosexuals are sinners in one verse. I even saw it recently quoted. Unless this is argued as mistranslated i have no idea why people claim this when Jesus blankly says it at least once i am almost certain.
I’ve read all of the New Testament, he never says anything about homosexuality. He does talk about marriage between man and woman tho I’m pretty sure. Only Paul talks about sexual immorality (the gays)
I'm bigoted against people who commit crimes, not because I can see that their acts are wrong in our socially constructed idea of wrong, but because my intuition tells me murder and traffic violations are icky
Indeed, the line needs to be empathy. Murder hurts people on every way. A guy being born gay and wanting to live with another gay guy doesn’t hurt my heterosexuality at all.
@@b.l.8755 I agree with you 100%, in fact it is because of our empathy, that we are obligated to hold people who commit murder accountable. Being empathetic does not negate or remove accountability, it actually requires it. It is your empathy for the child murdered, or even more personal, the empathy for yourself understanding how much it would hurt you to be murdered. This, despite attempting to have empathy and understanding the attacker, also demands accountability to prevent such hurt being inflicted again. You are right much of our interaction is a social construct, and what could better guide the further construction or even removal of past constructs, than empathy. Empathy should be the guide we use to make social decisions, and it’s that reason I would never condemn or judge someone gay. They are not hurting me or my family at all.
@@tripleraze321 it seems they receive nothing but complete support or complete condemnation. Where is the gay married pastor that preaches to gay Christians against the obvious harms they do to each other in the gay sexual community?
@@b.l.8755 The "harm" done by those in the LGBT community is no different from the "harm" done by the straight community. Both communities have the capacity for abuse of all types, and both can commit any crime. As for where the gay, married pastors are, I'm sure you realize the difficulty of finding that subset. The amount of people fitting the category of Christian[Married[LGBT-friendly church[Gay[Desire to preach[Church in need of a preacher[Church allowing of LGBT leadership]]]]]] is, I'd wager, an incredibly small community to say the least. Also I'm sure that pastor would still be preaching to a primarily straight audience, considering demographics.
What about Leviticus 20:13 that says If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them? I personally don't subscribe with the whole concept of sin in Christianity, but could you address this?
Don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God's kingdom. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
@@Dieg0xCl0utin this context, sexual immorality also includes having sex to have children, rather than just satiating desire with one's woman. Paul and Jesus were both against further procreation at that time.
It's the same logic found here, the act of men laying with each other as "they would with women" was considered sinful because it went against the hierarchy of "men should always be on top".
*Equivocation on sin:* The apologist should have combined his two sources on sin and admitted that the “mark” sin misses is bibical dictates, not the good of humanity. Instead, he goes against his first citation and claims sin is about not doing good for people. We don’t need a lot of babies. We would do better with fewer babies and less oppression, so ending homophobia would be good for humanity.
I agree with most of this but it's weird seeing a science-named account alluding to a long debunked idea of overpopulation, not to mention ignoring the fact that heaps of gay people want and have biological offspring. In fact reducing homophobia tends to make way for more gay families. Homosexuality isn't a solution to any ecological or economic problems.
@@trapd00rspider Overpopulation comes across in multiple ways. Rainforests are steadily disappearing to make houses, and grow food. We need them to breathe well. We have global warming due to excess CO2 production, which is in part of function of population. About 3 billion birds are killed annually by house cats. We could manage these issues more easily if there were fewer people. Did you assume that immediate food supply is the only issue?
My post was about the good of humanity. Denigrating people for how they were born goes against that. More gay families means a lower population growth, since a higher percentage of them adopt children.
I'm just distracted by what he's wearing on his head. I'm guessing that it's some sort of religious thing, either that or he put a strip of material over his head and wanted to be taken seriously.
Criticizes other guy for "an entirely arbitrary assertion about what the mark is that sin misses" → Proceeds to present an entirely arbitrary assertion about what the mark is that sin misses
The "mark" in biblical terms is the noahide laws and Torah. So according to the hebrew bible if you're not obeying the Torah 100% you're missing the mark. Of course Paul and other "new testament" writers came up with a more nebulous meaning for "sin" since Paul didn't think the Torah was relevant anymore to please their god at least not for "gentiles".
I was already convinced of all your arguments, but I really like the succinct and scholarly way you present this. Unfortunately, these arguments will only be convincing to people who are educated enough to understand the words and open-minded enough to consider them. It is clear to me that God condemns the lusts of the flesh and infidelity, and upholds chastity and fidelity or marriage without regard to the gender of their partner.
I can’t speak to the textusl scholarship here, but there’s some really bad moral philosophy/meta-ethics going on here. The notmative point on same-sex marriage is flatout rejected as either a) a posthoc rationalization for some non-cognitive attitude, or b) as instrumental for the sake of some political good. Thus, you’re either assuming some version of expressivism/emotivism about moral language or some kind of consequentialism about reasons for holding any notmative belief (or both together). Neither position seems to be attributable to any of the authors of the old Testament (expressivism/emotivism as a moral theory is maybe 200 years old at most; consequentialism also doesn’t sit easily, since God’s commandments are afaik exceptionless and characters, e.g. Saul, who take shortcuts for expediency’s sake are punished severely). There ultimately seems to be an assumption of moral/historical relativism working in the background that just blocks any attempt at finding transcendent truth-claims in the Biblical texts ab initio. This position seems better suited to a skeptic rather than someone who thinks any truth for us can be derived from the Bible.
Because something is "natural", it is therefore morally acceptable? That's a poor argument. Because a person does not "choose" attraction, it is therefore morally acceptable? Another poor argument. What about a person who is naturally attracted to minors, or another married person, or another person's money? Pedophelia, infidelity, and theft are all morally UNacceptable, yet no one "chooses" such "natural" attractions.
So is it or is it not (a sin)?? All you did was pontificate... What is the answer genius? We all tuned in for a DEFINITIVE answer & you left us hanging . I read that sex before marriage is a sin, is that a lie?
