@Bible-Christian There are hundreds of Bible versions and thousands of denominations to cherry pick from. Christians can't even get their stories straight, but you expect atheists to know better? 😂
It raises the question where cotton-nylon textile blends fall into place. If only war profiteering, pushing fossil fuels and poisoning the air, and selling addictive opoids that lead to a deadly addiction epidemic were also abominations.
@@eleyasbtseamlak9102 All morality IS subjective, but that doesn't make it meaningless. In order for anything to have meaning, it must mean something _to_ someone. Our morality is for us, to better our lives and our society by our standards, collectively. Even if there is a god, he wouldn't be affected by our morality. We are affected by it so we must be the arbiters of it.
Ceremonial law and moral law was something that taught in Bible College often. Glad I'm out of the indoctrination, grooming and grifting by the church from early childhood. My life is so much better without all that b.s. brainwashing behind me now. PTL 😁
These apologists never find a verse to say what they don’t want it to say. They approach the text with the presupposition that it’s going to validate their beliefs and have no interest in understanding the text beyond that.
Dan did say homosexuality is an abomination. Then proceeds to spin it because it’s doesn’t explicitly say it’s an abomination to Yahweh (maybe it was to El, but our besties the Masorites struck that out?) He then negotiates it magically to the land of Israel… which awesome enough is currently considered the gayest place on earth according to the Times of Israel.
@@PopulusVultDecipido you think that's why Israel has become a genocidal state? The gay is getting all over the land and making the leadership destructive?
As a professional translator, one of the things that require some care is respecting the same term / different term thing. If the original repeats a term, I have to repeat the same translation. If the original uses a different term, I have to look for a separate translation. It is a bit harder because English loves to use terms with the same root (kind of "the producer produces the product"), while my native tongue hates that with the fury of a thousand suns.
This is nonsense. English has roughly double the vocabulary of other European languages, largely due to the lack of any meaningful regularization effort (side-eye at Webster and Burns), but also the habit of borrowing from other languages, and attribution of new meanings to existing words. You're definitely not restricted to saying _the producer produced the product._ The manufacturer built the goods. The creator released the media. The influencer dropped the vid. The publisher put out the item. English is easy because of the freedom, but it's also hard because of the freedom.
@@creamwobbly You got it wrong. The original English version used variations of "the producer produced the product". It was an arrangement similar to a contract for reproduction of original products and the text wanted to make clear the connection between the producer, the production and the product, to distinguish it from the reproduction (reproduced by the reproducer). Spanish hates that. And I hate to burst your bubble, but the claim that English has the biggest vocabulary is made by... the British. Nobody can verify it, and there isn't even an agreement on how to count the words. In any case, it is a moot point if you have one thousand or one million words when all you can say is that something is "nice" or "not nice".
That's called derivational morphology, and a great example for why it often make translation into or from English a lot harder, especially if there is a discrepancy in the morphological and lexical productivity between the languages. Like you said, English has a high degree of morphological productivity compared to other languages.
When it comes up, ask. It's fun to imply things about them, but instead of accusing I like to say something like, "You sure have a lot of energy around this subject. Why is it so important to you?" Yeah, they're often struggling with attractions, but they could also have been abused or been proximate to abuse by a man. I think that's why so much gay bashing and anti gay sentiment are literally "homophobia" (think queer villains in media). They're afraid both conceptually and on a threat response level. "I'm not scared of queers!" No? Then why do you stay so ready to attack them?
@@NWPaul72 Thank you for a more reasoned comment than mine was. Rereading mine, it occurs to me that it seems a bit homophobic, which I really didn’t intend. In my mind, I was thinking of the pastors and church staff who sexually abuse those who can not legally give consent to participate in that sort of relationship. Sometimes that abuse is homosexual, sometimes it is heterosexual, and sometimes it doesn’t seem to matter to the abuser. And all too often the abuser is someone who has continually and obsessively spoken out about the “abomination” of same sex relations (or any relations outside of marriage … which is, of course, always and only between a man and a woman!) and seems to be suspiciously fascinated with parsing scripture to root out such behavior. If my hasty comment carried with it the stench of gay-bashing, I apologize to anyone who might have taken offense.
@@NWPaul72 I think it is more about emotion than projection. Hate is a powerful emotion and using it to get people worked up will get them excited for you, in your corner and under your power. Do I hear an amen? But they want a weak group that can be shamed. Before no fault divorce laws divorce was rare so it was preached "let no man tear asunder what god has joined." Now that half the church is divorced they need a new target, the gays. But now that gays are more accepted I think even that was dying out, until tRump. But the trans group was selected as the next scapegoat. They are a tiny minority that is not even wholly accepted in the LGB community. [Source: I have a trans son.]
Bless you! Thank you! It is easy for those of us in the LGBTQ community to come out of our childhoods with a clear belief that God doesn't love us. It is a long uphill climb into healthy adulthood.
It's unfortunate that so many people get the idea that God doesn't love them. I think that message must come from people, not from the Bible or God. God loves you so much that he died in your place, took a punishment that you (every one of us) deserve, paid your fine as it were, cleaned the slate, so that you can stand before God in righteousness, be adopted into His family, and have eternal life.
Why deserved? What did you do? Are you confessing something? We should probably call the cops. Of all the dumb stuff presented in the bible, the 'ultimate sacrifice' is probably the dumbest of them all.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Psalm 8:3-5 When I consider your heavens, the work of your hands, the moon and the stars which you have ordained, What is man that you are mindful of him? And the son of man that you care for him? You have made him a little lower than the angels, and you have crowned him with glory and honor.
I am an atheist, who has not studied, or even read much of the Bible. I have only recently encountered this RU-vid channel, but I find it helpful because it seems as though he is truly trying to understand the Bible, rather than just defend the Christian faith regardless of the facts, as the Christian apologists do so often
^Pretty much. It's a survival tactic; the intense shame is meant to enforce conformity or oust the 'others' within the ranks to secure favour with the larger majority, especially after being the targets of intense dehumanization.
Exactly. It's sad that people who have been historical mistreated in the US and still aren't in a great place are amongst the worst bigots towards others. Yet here we are.
You're right, white conservatives ARE even worse. Crazy that black Christians don't pull even FARTHER away from that distorted interpretation of Christ's teachings, and that guys like the pastor shown still have congregations who listen to them. But luckily most aren't that way. : )
This is exactly why I say that if you're a christian, you should learn the languages your scriptures were written in. That way, they can't lie to you in and enlist you in their quest for power
As explained by the Talmud, the word can also be viewed as an acronym for three other Hebrew words: "to'eh, attah, bah," which means "you have been led astray."
The first crack in my faith happened in Bible College over this very thing. I believed in what this preacher believed in. I also believed in that whole, “Love the sinner. Hate the sin.” thing. I *wrestled* and *agonized* over this, trying to understand this one thing as best I possibly could by doing all the reading I could have the ancient texts and academic sources. It was my first and maybe only attempt at approaching genuine scholarship as a lowly undergrad trying to muddle his way through basic Greek grammar. And then I noticed that I seemed to be the only one. My classmates, my *professors*, all just condemned people out of hand, came up with some quick superficial “proof-texty” rationalization, and, “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” The tools they were putting in my hands weren’t tools, they were *weapons*. I was meant to use them against other human beings according to our prejudices and, ultimately, cynically political ideas of who’s “us” and who’s “them”.
Anyone who claims that toevah and sheketz have the same meaning (because they're translated into the same English word) should consider the conceptual differences between the English words _space_ and _room._ No English speaker calls the place where they shower the bath _space_ and likewise none of us call the area outside of Earth's atmosphere outer _room._
If one looks, anything they are cool with but is prohibited by their scriptures is magically made irrelevant. If they can use it to clobber someone they dislike, it's a law for the ages.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn definitely. We have some church’s like this in Canada but they are more in the rural areas and in the prairies. I haven’t seen many of them in the city
So...when it comes to what Christ considered an "abomination", while the gospels say nothing about Him ever saying a single thing about homosexuality, He does address adultery and forbids it (Matthew 19:9), and says that those who ignore the poor, the sick, or the marginalized will go to their "eternal punishment" (Matthew 25:32-46).....YET, these people obsessing (and oh yeah, the word is OBSESSING) over the sex acts people they don't like engage in, they NEVER seem to address the sin of people in positions of authority that they admire who have committed adultery, or their fellow christians who not only ignore the suffering of the poor and needy, but regularly malign and demonize the poor, the homeless, minorities, migrants, etc. (there are, by the way, over TWENTY scriptures that tell us to ALWAYS welcome the "stranger" in our land and treat them as "native born"). Does what Christ actually taught take precedence over what Paul taught and the old cultural laws, or not?
@@kylestephens4133 The term "marginalized" didn't even exist, as far as I know, when the first English translation of The Bible was done. Christ also is not quoted as using the word "poor", but He is clearly talking about the poor......those who need clothing, and He talks about taking in strangers and visiting those in prison, who are MARGINALIZED people, and He talks about the sick. What part of this scripture are you having problems with?
I have always believed that anyone who speaks publicly, with the aim of persuading people, is morally bound to be truthful. I know this almost never happens, of course, but isn't it the very least we should expect from preachers, pastors and clergymen? Of what use is a religion which requires it's adherents to lie?
@jameschapman6559 Answering in good faith, because of where this is. People develop a sense of meaning for their lives through religious activity, they find and nurture community, they reach out and help others who might be struggling. The problem is that to do anything transformative, it has to be organized, and that attracts grifters, liars, and charismatic cheats. It's not _about_ those things, though, is it?
@@creamwobbly Humans are virtually always only in religion because of it satisfies their lust 💘 for morality 😇 though. It is basically an addiction, due to giving instant gratification. A recreational drug.
I just love how they read into the Bible that homosexuality is bad, _because of these specific phrases_ and end up painting themselves into a corner where they're unwittingly arguing that it's fine to be bi, and it's fine to be trans. The lie has to get bigger each time to serve their prejudice
It gets even weirder. Some "Biblical" marriage lady that is well respected within evangelical culture made it known she thought being anything but straight and cisgender was evil. So someone sent in a question: What about asexuality, given that Paul clearly states he's not attracted to anyone? He may have not used that term but it's pretty safe to say that Paul was asexual as he talks about others burning with lust and needing marriage, but he did not. Of course, there is absolutely no way to use any verse in the Bible to argue her way out of her crazy beliefs that everyone needs to be married and that Paul is wrong, so she tried to make some sort of claim that no one is asexual because you love your parents, siblings, and/or friends therefore you have the capacity for sexuality. It's since been deleted for obvious reasons.
@@totallyturtles480 There's a lot of room between "burning with lust" and not being attracted to anyone. This may seem a foreign concept in our modern age but people can have desires that they do not act on. It is possible that Paul simply didn't experience sexual desire, but that's far from a necessary implication of the text.
@@ericfeldkamp3788that's not the point. The point is that it's ridiculous for a woman to misuse the Bible to claim that anyone who isn't exactly like her is evil. She is the one who's evil
BTW as to the wearing clothes of the opposite gender thing I would like to remind people that it is only recently that women were allowed to wear pants. Because these were always seen as men's clothes. In fact in 1938 a woman with the audacity to show up to court wearing pants was actually jailed for it. Helen Hulick.
Better believe it, I'm unique! I am beautifully and wonderfully made, Praise God, Hallelujah. I love me some gloriously gays, stupendous Sapphics, bold bisexuals, tremendous trans folks of every and all genders, quality queers, queens, and questioning folks, Intersex angels, asexuals (we see you!), 2 Spirit heroes, and everyone else in the Pride Community! Big love! Can I get an amen?
@tzenophile Hey, friend. I see that you don't feel included. That's real. Not an easy feeling. Sometimes, you might find that you are part of a privileged group, watching a member of an oppressed group celebrating themself, or a the whole group celebrating together, and you might feel excluded. That's not a fun feeling. In this case, please consider that this is a response to someone literally calling people like me and my community abominable. Unacceptable to God, and by implication, worthy of punishment for being who we are. That's the context of this comment I've made. Similarly, most of the time when you see folks from systematically excluded groups celebrating themselves, it is for this reason. It is an opportunity to come together and express solidarity in our strength together, and amplifying the true messages about ourselves in contrast to whatever the system, or explicit, targeted message of exclusion was saying. Compare that to just not being mentioned in a list. I'm not saying this to minimize your feeling, which is real, and matters. But that's not what this comment was about. It literally wasn't about you. And that's okay. The video also wasn't about you. It was targeted at folks like me. And then I spoke up to celebrate folks like me. Maybe you want to be an ally. Maybe you want to support queer folks. If so, it would be entirely appropriate when you see queer folks celebrating them/ourselves to just say "right on!" or "I agree" (if you don't want to say "amen", which is fine), and then maybe be quiet and let queer people, or another systematically oppressed group, speak for and celebrate themself. In short, no, you are not included in this list. And that's okay. It's okay to not be included in every list. Some things are not for you. And this is not the same thing as active exclusion or oppression, which this comment was addressing. I hope this helps. Years ago, I needed someone to kindly explain this to me, because I literally just didn't understand. I hope you can receive that I am trying to say this in a kind and helpful way. Peace.
@@zoebirss9944 Thanks, appreciated. And no worries, I am not much of a flock animal, just curious. As an atheist I do have something in common with queer folk; at least a feeling when I grew up of not being accepted for who I was. And as someone born in the 60s I find it a sad paradox that exclusion now has to be met by exclusion or shushing, but again, not a big problem for me personally. Neither am I at all a fan of Paul, but I do admire "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one..." Community-building is as much about exclusion as it is about inclusion, I do get that. Put on your own oxygen mask first! But I also believe that this trend or strategy is coming out of a highly fraught and tortured society, the USA (which you may or may not belong to) and that it does not take into account that there are other places and societies in the world where it is thoughtlessly imported and probably doing more harm than good. I may be wrong of course, but who is to say who is right, and in which culture they may be wrong? Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts, all the best.
The same way murderers claim not to be murderers when they wear a uniform and do the murders in a different country as soldiers, people will find any reason in the Bible to justify their depravity.
Recently performing at a "Queltique" Fair, chatting with a glass-blower, and he asked me a riddle. Q: What do kosher food and homosexuality have in common? A: They both pre-date the microscope. When you consider that, it explains a lot of old attitudes.
Here's an idea I conjured. Shoot me if you like, it's okay. I'm old. Doesn't matter. Anyway, I get the impression that when primitive people began to realize that laws/rules were needed to help preserve and protect their tribes, it eventually occurred to them that not everyone would obey them. So, they needed to punch things up by inventing an all-seeing, all-knowing, and very intolerant god who would open up a can of whoop ass on those who disobeyed. Then they added "clarifications" like hellfire and other such torments to seal the deal. Then, many years later when humanity was ready, someone like Jesus came along to straighten things out by chucking those fear-based laws aside to be replaced with something a little more mature and less manipulative: Love one another. Simple, easy to understand, and much more encouraging. But that's just me at age 76. What do I know?
You could be quite close to the mark, there! One of the ways Dan understands a lot of biblical laws, is that if people commit "impure" acts in the land, both the people and the land become impure. The native Pagan peoples of the lands were committing acts that the Hebrew scriptures said were "impure", and so the Hebrews had every right to remove them from the land and occupy it themselves - to "purify" it. Hence why, when one race wipes out another race, it's called "Ethnic CLEANSING".
There is a very established theory among OT scholars that the Torah, and maybe Joshua and Judges, were pieced together from oral traditions by priests during the Babylonian Exile to prevent the Jewish traditions from becoming totally lost during that period.
Hey Dan thanks for the insight. I need your help. I am becoming a wiser Christian. Long way to go. I am not as astute as you and never will be. My only weapon i use is the Bible was not written to me but for me as I read it. It's seems many well meaning pastor's are off base time to time as you pointed out.. How does the average Christian handle these situations not knowing? Being clueless. Thanks
I'm not Dan but I can try to point you in the right direction. I find that the Bible warns about what you are asking about and also gives directions as to what a person can do about it. I'm going to post a little bit of scripture now and that is it because when someone is in the position you currently find yourself in I have found that The Bible is the only instruction that can be trusted. So I am not going to explain what any of these scriptures mean, the last passage I post will tell you who to ask for that wisdom. Just make sure you truly believe. Matthew 7:15-20 KJV [15] Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. [16] Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 1 Timothy 4:6-10 KJV [6] If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. [7] But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. [8] For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. [9] This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. [10] For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 2 Peter 2:1-3 KJV [1] But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. [2] And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. [3] And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. James 1:5-8 KJV [5] If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. [6] But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. [7] For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. [8] A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
@willernst2721 Quoting scripture like it's some words of magic or voodoo curse that will cause a change in those that hear it. Is not going to do anything about the problems with the bible. Just because the bible says it, doesn't mean any of it is true or reliable. Try putting away your childess things and in your understanding be man/adult.
@@jameschapman6559 can I ask you a question? Why? Why, did you make that comment? Are you truly worried or somehow trying to care for me, if so you wouldn't have insulted me as well, so why? Is it just a simple want to feel intellectually superior to another, (I used to do that myself when I was a child), but I somehow doubt that is your goal. What makes you bring up magic, sorcery, and witchcraft? The scriptures I shared simply have to do with warning of false teachers/prophets and to ask God for wisdom, so what about that sounds like sorcery to you? Do you know any sorcery? Witchcraft maybe? I somehow doubt that as well. So here is my real question, (no need to actually answer any of these to me, they are questions just for you), are you actually aware of what possessed you to make that comment and the reason why? If so there is help in the Lord. John 8:31-36 KJV [31] Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; [32] and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. [33] They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? [34] Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. [35] And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. [36] If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
@@jameschapman6559 I will ask you to actually respond to this question if you are being truthful then, what exactly do you think is some sort of magic about any of the scriptures I shared.
It's one of the words used as a title, rather than a name, for God, to avoid saying the actual name out loud, as is prohibited in some branches of Judaism - it translates roughly into English as "Lord".
It’s also where we get Jehovah from. This is a massive oversimplification but when Hebrew picked up vowel markings, YHVH was rendered with the vowel markings of ADNI to avoid readers accidentally pronouncing HaShem (The Name) even in their heads. We don’t actually know exactly how YHVH should be pronounced but the general consensus is Yahweh. That consensus is, if I recall correctly, the pronunciation of the root for YHVH which is the Hebrew word for “To Be”. Hence, “I AM” in many English Bibles as a direct translation of YHVH. A small note to readers of English translations of the Bible: Many of them single out YHVH by rendering it as LORD in all capital letters but with the ORD in smaller caps than the L. Every modern translation should have a note in them somewhere right near the front laying out typographical conventions like that.
I keep wondering how much longer actual biblical scholars like Dan are going to have to rebut this concept of different categories of sin and/or different categories of abomination. And it's almost always an attempt why injunctions against homosexuality are set in stone, while pretty much everything else is negotiable. Dan has so much patience.
Weeks ago, I told Dan on his Facebook page that his statement at 3:25--that "shrimp is actually never labeled toevah"--is incorrect since Deuteronomy 14:3, before the specific unclean and clean animals are delineated, says, “You shall not eat any abhorrent (toevah) thing." I was told that a video with this correction would "come out in the next day or two." Since that, to my knowledge, has not been done, I leave this information here for the benefit of viewers/readers.
You sure told em. Really convinced a lotta folks with that one. Achieved commenting greatness and contributed something meaningful to the conversation. Thanks for your input!
@@Cornelius135 Would you have preferred a long tract about how religion served as a tool for understanding the world in a time when concepts like empiricism didn't exist and how it is largely the result of our innate tendencies towards anthropomorphization, pattern seeking and narrativization and how it has been completely outmoded by scientific methodologies and only continues to exist through cultural inertia and cycles of indoctrination? You want like, several books worth of material all stuffed into a RU-vid comment?
@@rainbowkrampus you get my point. It’s an incredibly detailed and nuanced topic that the original comment did NOTHING to explain or progress - it served only to say to all the other non-theists who stumble upon it “look, I’m one of you! I’m special because I said religion isn’t real!” I’m not here to argue if the comment is *true* or not. Just getting down to the motive behind the comment. Were they trying to convince? Trying to mark their identity for the group? Screaming into the void? On a thoughtful channel like Dan’s - particularly a thought *theist’s* channel like Dan’s - it’s a strange comment 🤷🏻♂️
@@Cornelius135 "Were they trying to convince?" Almost certainly not. "Trying to mark their identity for the group?" I'd argue that's an inevitable outcome of all communication so kinda unavoidable and generally not an active goal of most communication. "Screaming into the void?" I mean, it's a RU-vid comment. One day all of this will not even survive as a half remembered memory. To exist is to scream into the void. How about just entertainment? Does a comment need to be more than a sardonic remark? What of all the comments that are simple expressions of gratitude towards Dan? I'm not sure that "Thanks, Dan" qualifies as thoughtful. Are those a waste of time and space as well? This is a public comment section, people engage with it how they wish. Some people get a bit of catharsis out of taking jabs, some people get a bit of catharsis out of criticizing low effort comments. Some people, the really sick perverts, get a thrill out of criticizing the people who criticize the low effort comments. Unless you can point to some misinformation in OP's comment there's really nothing served by engaging with it in this manner. Certainly not by trying to shame them into conforming to whatever ideal version of a comment you think they should have posted instead. You're just being a busy body. Which, ya know, gets my rocks off since I get to "well actually" you until one or both of us gets bored. But like, you could've been making that thoughtful comment yourself. Be the change you want to see in the world. Or whatever. It's really not that important either way: see; the Void comment.
Sadly, for many pastors, if they were to choose between either a world with more racism, sexism and classism without LGBTQ rights and the legalisation of abortion, or the world of today, they would choose the former. Many pastors are pasters.
Have you always held your convictions towards homosexuality? Was it part of your personal or corporate belief systems? I am just curious. As a member of the gay community you have taught me so very much. I hope the children of today are receiving this wisdom. I could have avoided so much self harm.
I think the “bible” is interesting and can’t deny that it pulls at me because I grew up in the midst of discourse involving it and defining my world and life. But, as frightening as it was, i realized that i just had to make decisions for myself without trying to figure out what was permitted or not by the Bible (God) and that i didn’t know anything and neither did anyone else and that i had to just do the best that i could and live with the consequences. Everyday i just try to make better decisions. It’s a struggle for understanding, realization and living with trauma. Meditation helps. Cultivating compassion helps. Acceptance helps. Nothing’s perfect.
Every time you do this topic, the same lies come out of the woodwork trying to "correct" you. It's tiring, correcting these fools. But they won't hear truth. It scares them. Keep scaring the horses, Dan. It's the work of truth.
There are 6 mentions of homosexuality in the bible, 3 OT and 3 NT, not 2. (plus a few others indirectly, but 6 is certainly more than this crowd would like to admit)
What's the additional reference in the OT? Dan specifically said in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible), because the content creator in question was talking about the Law, not the New Testament. If it's Sodom, yawn. The sin there isn't being gay. It's assaulting guests prison-style. As for Paul, you don't follow his sexual ethic either, so piss off.
There are zero references to homosexuality. There are references to sexual *actions* which we define as Homosexual. But, *Homosexuality* is the person's *orientation* - "I'm a man who has feelings for men" . There are many feelings that are spoken against in the bible - anger, lust, jealousy, being judgemental, desiring revenge - but being a man and having romantic feelings for men, isn't one of them.
So... Extra clarification is needed for those who don't know: Is Sheketz consistently used for those things that this creator thought were an abomination "to Israel"? I assume not, but Dan might want to clarify so that the creator has nothing left to stand on.
Negotiable here is in terms of which parts of the Bible someone chooses to follow and give authority to and which parts they ignore. The parts of the Bible that were followed and ignored would ultimately up to the person that was making that decision. Technically someone could still say they "followed the Bible" by only obeying a single verse of scripture (like not eating shellfish) while opposing all the rest.
There is an intentional similarity between Levi and Leviticus, as Levi was the head of the priestly tribe and Leviticus was the body of laws that came from the priests. Leviathan may have connection with "Levi" being a root of that name, which means "to join", but from there it gets a bit confused. "Lest we..." has no relation to the meanings of the other three words apart from beginning with "Le".
Maybe what that guy was trying to get at was how some things went away with the old covenant, things like the blood sacrifices, dietary prohibitions, etc, but some things are still wrong.
@@user-pm3mw8xw8d Most of them are just for the ruling class of the Kingdom 👑 of Heaven, though. Not for ordinary people. If you ignore Paul, there is no un-ambiguous sin.
3:17 "this by the way is why... We can eat shrimp and not be homosexuals"... - well that's awfully convenient for people who love eating shrimp but aren't homosexual. Not so good for homosexuals who don't like shrimp though. It's almost as if they twisted the text to suit themselves
Some people take Peter's vision where God makes the animals clean to mean that everything is now clean to eat, where as others believe that vision only pertains to people as in gentiles should no longer be considered other. I personally try to stay away from the foods forbidden in the old testament, but I also follow the new testament teaching that if I am a guests that I am to eat what is served, (as long as it was not openly part of some pagan ritual).
@@willernst2721 He did mean the foods were clean too. The vision was a sort of an analogy. If it wasn't true for the foods, it wouldn't be true for the Gentiles.
@@user-pm3mw8xw8d some people see it as a complete analogy though and that it actually had nothing to do with the food at all. I just try to follow the old testament food laws, (I don't sacrifice and the such I just mean clean and unclean animals), because all of the laws that were given to the Israelites were given to allow for a long and happy life, meaning the unclean animals are unhealthy in some way. Like shellfish can kill you if you harvest it at the wrong time of year during certain bacterial tides. The counter argument to that of course is that we learned why said shellfish can kill you if you harvest it at those times so now it's clean. The counter argument to that is we learned about those bacteria around the same time we started the industrial revolution and started dumping poisonous compounds into our waterways that sink to the bottom and are eaten by said shellfish. Basically I personally believe that God's word holds true from generation to generation so I should probably try to follow it the best I can which I am not good at in the least bit to be perfectly honest.
Splitting hairs. That’s all. Whatever word was or wasn’t used doesn’t actually matter to them or their dogma, and it SHOULDN’T matter anyway to a modern, pluralistic society.
What do you mean everything in the bible is negotiable? Jesus rising from the dead is negotiable? Not worshipping other gods is negotiable? Can you elaborate?
Politics cannot change the fact that the biblical outlook isn't good for those who do unrighteous acts. Deut 25:16 "For all that do iniquity, an abomination unto the LORD thy God." Eze 33:13 ".... for his iniquitythat he hath committed, he shall die for it." In the LXX and the New Testament, the Hebrew word for iniquity () becomes the Greek word "ἀδικία". 1 Jn 5:17 "All "ἀδικία" is sin." Of the workers of ἀδικία, Jesus said in Luke 13:27 "[on the day of judgement] he will say, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you workers of inquity!’"
I have never been happier than I got to read the Bible while being "unchurched" than I am today. My understanding of the Bible has always been that God abhorred violence and deceit above all things. Furthermore, if this church believes in the resurrection, and therefore the statements Jesus made to the Pharisees regarding the remarried woman whose husbands have died, and ask them whose husband she would be he replied, paraphrasing, that she wouldn't be married to any of them because of the change in nature brought about by the resurrection, then wouldn't this also apply to homosexuality? If we are immortal, and cannot die and have no need for sexual reproduction, then the only sin one could commit would be deceit (and faithlessness).
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 True, at certain times and within certain books written by certain authors. It really depends on which book you read and prioritized from. Personally, when I was younger I prioritized Jesus' sayings in the four gospels above all others. While I accepted the statements made in other books within the Bible as they are written, I rejected most of their authoritativeness and saw them as historical. Hell, I knew people who believed the old testament was flawed and Jesus, being the Word of God, came to set things straight.
The Bible text is negotiable… Dan then proceeds to attack and belittle the original content creator for his “negotiation” as if Dan’s negotiation of the text is superior - even though, it’s all negotiable. Classic charlatan speak. Oh well. Can’t wait for how you negotiate your modern dogmatic negotiations of the Bible with God. Assuming you actually, truly believe in the God of the Bible.
Cherry picking the Bible for what laws they want to obey. You the individual confoms to the religion of your choosing, based on your lifestyle and morale beliefs. The religion doesn't conform to you.
@Dan McClellan I love your use of the word "confused." The shade. Dude really ties to present himself and his hatred as scholarly. And this is just not it.
The problem isn't the notion of sin. The problem is uneven and unjust measures to punish or prevent sin, especially as a way to exclude perceived outsiders. After all, it's a sin to deny the poor. It's a sin to not love your neighbor. Heck, it's a sin to even be _angry_ with your neighbor. But Jesus never called us to compel others to live according to our own moral outlooks. He called us to live our own lives morally, which explicitly includes being friendly and compassionate to those who don't share our moral outlooks or fit our behavioral ideals. The problem isn't calling things sin; the problem is letting identity politics become more important than people as individuals.
An atheist telling others to grow up... if you're an atheist over the age of 20 you might want to look at yourself. We didn't magically evolve from a magical exploding dot.
@@ReapingTheHarvestmost people in this comment section are not atheist, they are gnostic. Gnostics know God is real, most just don't like him, (and say they don't believe in him so really they are just saying they have no faith in God), and some want to find a way to kill him. That isn't why I'm making this comment though. Your comment came off to me as judgemental and cruel, (these are things I struggle with to a great deal myself and that is why I am writing this, for both you and myself). As Christians we are called to be gentle, we are specifically told not to judge as those who judge condemn themselves for the very same thing, (again, this is for myself as much as you). We are to be kind with our words. Just a reminder for us both. God bless.
Judaism did not impose misogyny where it didn't already exist in Yahwism or Canaanite Paganism. That is a false belief born of Victorian "thinkers" applying their own form of misogyny to the history of religion. There is no evidence of any sufficiency that pre-Christian Europe had any kind of goddess-centered faith with true gender equality and other such values. None. Even the digs in Turkey show multiple deities of at least two genders and a male god as primary amongst them. Assuming all Neolithic carvings of female forms were goddesses is pathetically misguided. The people who first posited the matriarchal monotheism believed it to be cute and primitive and properly replaced along the way because the mechanisms of evolution were exactly the same in belief as they are in biology. Mind, they were wrong about biology also, but these were VICTORIANS. They knew everything because Britannia ruled the waves. It was politically useful for a lot of otherwise smart people to forge ahead with the fraud, and here you sit, swallowing it whole instead of looking critically at the known history of religions in Europe and western Asia. This is one Pagan who is sick unto death of our ancestors being used to promote fraudulent beliefs. Cut it out.
In the end he's right. Men are supposed to dress like men and marry women. Women are supposed to dress like women and marry men. Paul affirmed this himself to the Corinthians. He had been a Pharisee and he did not upend the moral principles of Judaism when he began preaching Christianity. Rather, he affirmed them as correct. Dan needs to stop projecting his contemporary mores onto ancient peoples. He will never truly understand them unless he comes to terms with who they were and what they believed. His fallacy is very common among modern scholars.
And Dan has political motivations as well. He says the Bible's reference to man laying with a man is a power structure problem because they didn't understand homosexual relationships when there's no data that support they had no understanding of homosexual relationships. It doesn't take much imagination for people of that time to figure out what a homosexual relationship is. Dan is overly protective of the rainbow community because it aligns with his political stance not a stance actually rooted in education. Scholars agree with him because they are all like minded liberals.
Or, let me suggest that, while Paul did say those things, we could ignore them since they are very stupid. We don't listen to Paul when he says that slaves should obey their master and that all the secular authority of the world are to be obeyed since they are ordained by God. We largely ignore his idiocy when it comes to women not having any authority over men and yes, nobody cares anymore about the fact most women wear pants. We don't beat our kids anymore, etc. There are many stupid, wrong and outdated things in the Bible that we routinely ignore so we might as well do it with that part. We are not bound to obey every syllable of this book. It's just dumb to do so.
@@mikolee9484 Given how the bible describes homosexuals, it is fairly obvious that the writers who discussed them like Paul likely didn't understand homosexual relationships with any depth. It is also fairly reasonable to say that although Dan may be incorrect, you are also applying your modern understanding of these relationships to the text. In other words, as Dan has said in the past, both people here are negotiating with the text to fit their particular views. The only difference here is affirming homosexuals improves their well-being and enables them to live a better life while denying homosexuals the ability to develop romantic homosexual relationships causes them demonstrable harm in terms of their well-being, making them worse off as a result.
There is nothing about homosexual relationships in the Bible. If you think there is, you are imposing a modern perspective. As Dan keeps saying, homosexuality as an identity did not exist in Biblical times. It was a heiracal based society. For you to reject homosexuality, you are imposing modern thinking on the Bible.
"Carrying different sets of weights and measures so that you can economically privilege certain groups over and against others is labeled an abomination to YHWH" That sounds suspiciously similar to brandishing (a certain interpretation of) an old book in order to structure power against marginalized groups. Just thinking out loud, but maybe that would be an abomination to YHWH.
