The expert on homosexuality is called Willy Mounts? Really?
@hiredn00bs2 ай бұрын
😂
@LydiaGreen-ss8rr2 ай бұрын
hilarious
@MarcillaSmith2 ай бұрын
I guess it's like that Dennis/Dentist things. I worked at a church where the chair of the Staff-Parish Relations Committee was named Christian Hires :: shrugs ::
@rimmersbryggeriАй бұрын
We had a music producer here in sweden called Billy Butt maybe they are eachothers evil twin. He might still be here but also might not, coincidentally he was prosecuted for fornication in the 90's.
@krank23Ай бұрын
Another case of nominative determinism I guess =) There are plenty of examples!
@hiredn00bs2 ай бұрын
As a former Christian, I'm happy that Dan McLellan is doing God's work on KZfaq.
@denisesmith35442 ай бұрын
One wonders why a Christ rejector would applaud efforts towards doing "God's work".
@KuteKitty452 ай бұрын
@@denisesmith3544they’re either dumb or joking, and I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they have a sense of humor
@sebas_3382 ай бұрын
i hope you rekindle that relationship fire with Jesus. i dont care about what you believe about right and wrong but i do care that you believe on Jesus. he loves us through thick and thin and he knows our heart
@timothymulholland79052 ай бұрын
I grew up in the interior of Brazil in the 50s and 60s. I heard men bragging about "doing" another. Only the passive partner was considered homosexual and a victim of mistreatment. "Real men" could "do" anyone. Clearly a symbol of domination as you say.
@MarcosElMalo22 ай бұрын
There’s a baseball metaphor for that: you’re not gay if you pitch, only if you catch. What I hadn’t heard before I began watching Dan’s videos, I didn’t know that this was contradicted in the Bible.
@jameschapman65592 ай бұрын
Growing up in the south east, this was an accepted norm with some guys.
@OldMotherLogo2 ай бұрын
Same in some Central American countries.
@velocibadgery2 ай бұрын
This is ironically basically the exact position portions of the Bible take on that subject.
@creamwobbly2 ай бұрын
In another video, Dan covers the topic of sex used as a tool of power during the bronze age. Basically (and somewhat oversimplifying) someone of higher social standing was free to ‘use’ anyone of lower standing. It becomes a ‘sin’ for a high rank to be ‘bottom’, such as with homosexual sex, but also with heterosexual sex _positions_ where the woman is on top. It helps to remember that rape itself wasn't a crime, and consent was an alien topic. I think this pretty much nails the society you're describing, and the one that evangelicals are trying to promote.
@azurejester2 ай бұрын
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” People try to make it so complicated. Serve God and help others.
@Jin4202 ай бұрын
That's where "cherry picking" comes into play... Have a great day.
@JenniferandAmanda-ke6pr2 ай бұрын
@@Jin420 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. Yeah your right, you should not cherry pick. Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. So because you hate what the bible says, my job is to expose you. You are not a bible believing christian. See how that works...??? Have a great day. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@Wkumar072 ай бұрын
Everyone alters the Bible to suite their cultural norms. I've seen this in my own life.
@digitaljanus2 ай бұрын
1990s US evangelicals: "An adulterer is not fit to be President!" 2010s US evangelicals: "Unless he's punishing the people that _I_ don't like!"
@Wkumar072 ай бұрын
@@digitaljanus divorce is also prohibited unless under certain circumstances.
@Wkumar072 ай бұрын
@Bible-Christian I was raised an Evangelical Christian and what changed my mind about the Bible is studying Church History. It's not that one particular interpretation is necessarily wrong (though there have been those) it's that cultures do interpret the Bible depending upon their needs. For example, take the divide between Orthodox and Catholics in Eastern Europe and why one people took one branch of the faith over the other.
@waynefeller2 ай бұрын
@Bible-Christian - You know your argument is a weird combination of strawman and whataboutism, right?
@waynefeller2 ай бұрын
@Bible-Christian Au, so you are also uneducated. That makes sense.
@stuartdavidson1622 ай бұрын
Rather than outright ignoring some of the texts in The Bible, why aren't the texts taken for what they are and the reader simply concludes that if that's what The Bible is saying, then they are done with The Bible? I get there are good parts in there but if as a whole doesn't hold up, it's not for me - Like the Star Wars saga :)
@FelipeSantos-wu1uf12 күн бұрын
Because the texts are different, they have been changed through time and to different languages, so we need scholars to find the original meaning
@dorarie31672 ай бұрын
Dan, I’d like to apologise to you. I once misunderstood your stance in a video of yours and offered a snide comment in this section. Anyway, I’ve subscribed and look forward to watching your content.
@enlacostaizquierda2 ай бұрын
I can't recall the exact first Dan video I watched but I wasn't loving it.. but something made me keep listening and the more he talked the more I realized he really was coming from a place of scholarship. Just a day or two ago he did a video with AronRa who found himself telling his followers to subscribe to Dan's channel. Because Dan's scholarship is that good. Yes, it'll make you think. Sometimes it will piss you off. But he really does follow his tagline of "data over dogma". KZfaq and the rest of social media could use a lot more of that.
@CharlesPayet2 ай бұрын
That’s real integrity right there. Bravo!
@davidholman482 ай бұрын
Bravo!
@GoodieWhiteHat2 ай бұрын
Good for you. Few of us have understanding of things at this level of scholarship. Informing, and growing in, our understanding is what matters.
@scottevans10962 ай бұрын
It's so rare and refreshing to encounter online accountability, thanks for restoring a tiny bit of my faith in humanity. May I ask what you originally found so disagreeable and what changed your mind?
@mauricemcgrath36182 ай бұрын
These videos are so important, Dan, because you are calling out the abuse inside the same Christian household so to speak. Atheists can be (mis)treated as outsiders who don't understand. You're approach from a deeper understanding is a much harder obstacle for bigots to overcome. I don't have your faith, buddy, but I know people who hold it just as beautifully.
@inwyrdn36912 ай бұрын
"You can follow Jesus, or not." So you have chosen...not, since Jesus said a whole bunch of stuff but none of it (as I recall) was related to where one decides to insert their genitals at the end of the day. How's that feeding the hungry and caring for the sick coming along?
@johnburn80312 ай бұрын
Agreed 🙋🏻♂️
@UplandJones12 ай бұрын
Not to be argumentative, but Jesus kinda did. Matthew 19:12, he says at the end of the day, it’s better not to stick your genitalia anywhere
@Cor61962 ай бұрын
“And if not, if you choose to insert your penis in the wrong place, you’ll burn in hell for all eternity, but that’s not MY choice, it’s yours…and, well, the choice of the God of my interpretation, and I obviously don’t give a damn that MY god is the most sadistic eternal being my brain can conjure up. But never mind…go on…burn!” Does he even, with his throwaway disdain, know what he’s telling us about himself? Not gays! Himself!
@jamesarnette13942 ай бұрын
Repugnant and disgusting.
@MarcosElMalo22 ай бұрын
I make a distinction between Jesus and Christ. Christ was he that was crucified. Jesus was the man who lived and preached and became he who was crucified. Why do I make this distinction? Is it meaningless? No, because the bare minimum belief to qualify as a Christian is belief in the crucifixion: 1) that Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins, 2) that having paid the debt, he gave us everlasting life, and 3) that he was resurrected. Then there are two admonishments: love god with all your heart and love thy neighbor. This is Christianity as Paul set it up, before the Bible was written or disseminated. Paul and others certainly had their different ideas about how a Christian could maintain a state of grace, but let’s face it: there is no objective measure of how much one loves God, or their neighbor, nor is there total clarity on who constitutes a neighbor. If the “value-added” teachings of Jesus were later layered upon Christianity, that is like extra credit, or you condemn the earliest converts to Christianity to damnation because they didn’t do the extra Jesus stuff.
@Cloudryder2 ай бұрын
I wonder if he dies, will his brother marry his wife and support her family. 🧐
@funkatron1012 ай бұрын
If his brother does, he better not "spill his seed!"
@lysanamcmillan79722 ай бұрын
Only if there's no heir. Read the whole thing. Cherry-picking is for apologists.
@Cloudryder2 ай бұрын
@@lysanamcmillan7972 Hey, perhaps he only has daughters.🤷♂️ I’m just making a point that we as a modern society don’t live by these ancient morals today. Morality is not fixed as it changes as we continue to learn from human experience. Have a nice day 🙂
@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana2 ай бұрын
@@lysanamcmillan7972 Still means it is a possibility.
@Darwinwasright1672 ай бұрын
How much hatred does a human being need to have in order to rely on bronza age mythologies to justify said hatred? I will never understand their determination to keep hating on others.
@enlacostaizquierda2 ай бұрын
The hatred is mostly a means to an end -- the desire for power and control. By convincing others to hate like they hate they can get the masses to put them in positions of authority. That's the real poison the hatemongers are pedaling. Not the hate itself but the lust for power. Think about how they've used fear and hatred of homosexuality, abortion, transgender, and immigration issues to rally the troops and win elections at every level in government from school boards to the White House.
@NWPaul722 ай бұрын
I've got a boomer hippie mom who has Southern Baptist parents. Mom had no tolerance for racism (except for Vietnamese immigrants for some reason), my grandparents didn't consider themselves racist, but made no effort to avoid slurs or generalities. As a child and young person, I remember wondering who it was okay to hate, who I could regard as, basically, enemies or prey. I think if I had chosen someone and been rewarded by a respected elder for dehumanizing them, I might've been a real prick. Luckily, the only group I consistently find abhorrent are French men, and I don't run into many.
@cinnamondan49842 ай бұрын
I don’t think it is that simple.
@hrvatskinoahid10482 ай бұрын
Do you hate Genesis 2:24?
@finnguy90962 ай бұрын
*Iron age
@MusicalRaichu2 ай бұрын
I might add that the actual meaning of male-bedder has been lost. We have next to zero data. Your view is an educated guess. Doesn't mean it's incorrect, just that you can't be dogmatic. Also you need to explain why what you describe was so vehemently immoral. It was in their culture an abusiv act as it feminized and thus denigrated the victim. And this was in turn based on the cultural assumption, now considered false, that women were inferior to men in every way. If we want to use the Bible to condemn same-secs acts, then we can only do so by importing that false assumption. Rom 1.26 does not describe female "same-secs" acts. The notion of "same-secs" is a modern category that we should not use in understanding the Bible. Rom 1.26 describes "their [the male idolaters'] females" doing something unnatural. This is vague, but likely about females taking the active role with males. That's why "likewise" males also poked males Rom 1.27. Furthermore, Rom 1.26-27 does not say these acts were sinful. They were merely described as contrary to social norms. Rom 1.26-27 taken literally fails to condemn anything, and in fact is not to be used in this way lest you fall foul of Rom 2.1.
@0nlyThis2 ай бұрын
A more important question might be: Who the hell does Paul think he is that he can decide who will "inherit the Kingdom of God" and who "will not"? Such arrogance is unconscionable.
@MarcillaSmith2 ай бұрын
By that same logic, who are you to decide what is and what is not unconscionable?
@be1tube2 ай бұрын
@@MarcillaSmithA person who has to "conscience" it. We must all make our own decisions. I will not accept my companion saying that their opinion is the opinion of God. I want this to be a norm in my society. I don't take lies from my friends and I certainly don't take them from Paul.
@MarcillaSmith2 ай бұрын
@@be1tube Saint Paul is writing to an audience which came to him for the reason _that_ he was teaching a (new, at the time) theology which they wanted to learn. If we label Saint Paul "unconscionably arrogant" for trying to explain his theology in terms of who would and wouldn't inherit the Kingdom, we may as well get big mad at Nietzsche for saying that God is dead and we killed him. "How dare he accuses me!" It really misses the point. Yeah, I get that he's prudish (in general, let's remember), and that his words have been cherry-picked to further marginalize the already marginalized. But is that really on Saint Paul over and above the people who are doing the cherry-picking? And just pragmatically-speaking, are we better off attempting to summon Mr. O'Tarsus from the Great Beyond to update his language to be more culturally-sensitive, or to call on the cherry-pickers to be better?
@MusicalRaichu2 ай бұрын
God bless you Dan. This is a much needed message.
@chrissmith8198Ай бұрын
One argument that is sometimes offered by Christian advocates of same-sex marriage is that the Apostle Paul was not thinking of loving, monogamous adult relationships, and only intended to condemn Greco/Roman pederasty. That has gotten me thinking in general about Paul’s historical context and, more specifically, about this argument. First, it’s important to acknowledge that relationships between adult men and adolescent boys or young men were the most commonly attested same-sex relationships in the ancient world. There are exceptions-Plato’s Symposium discusses committed, lifelong same-sex relationships-but this is by far the most common kind of relationship. We should therefore acknowledge that the Apostle Paul was likely most familiar with this kind of same-sex sexual activity. It’s worth observing, however, that precisely because this form of same-sex sexuality was so common, there was standard terminology in Greek for talking about these relationships-the older man was the erastes (lover) and the younger man the eromenos (beloved). If these relationships were Paul’s target, it would have been reasonable for him to use these standard Greek terms. Instead, he used an apparently novel term, arsenokoitai, which either he invented or which he took from Helenistic Judaism. The most logical derivation of this new word is from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22, which says that you shall not lie with (koiten) a man (arsenos) as with a woman. In both Greek and English, verbs can be transformed into nouns. Thus, in English, swimmers are people who swim. In Greek, the koitai are men (-ai is a masculine ending) who koiten-that is, “lie with” in a sexual sense. So the arsenokoitai are men who lie with other men in a sexual sense. There is an additional reason for thinking that arsenokoitai is derived from Leviticus 18:22. In 1 Timothy 1:8-11, the Apostle Paul writes, we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the Law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai], enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. Paul is listing various disobedient groups of people who have been given the Law to tell that their acts are contrary to God’s will. Thus, we would expect the arsenokoitai to correspond to some prohibition in the Law. The obvious candidate prohibition, for reasons given above, is Leviticus 18:22. It’s important not to misunderstand the context of this prohibition. Paul is no harsher in his condemnation of homosexual activity than he is of sexual immorality in general. And just a few verses later, he writes, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life” (1 Timothy 1:15-16). Anyone who uses these verses either to single out homosexual sin for unique condemnation, or who fails to speak with humility of God’s love for all, is misusing the text. However, it’s also important not to misunderstand the prohibition itself. While pederasty was the most common form of same-sex activity recorded in ancient writings, Paul doesn’t use the common language of pederasty. Instead of condemning age or power differences, he coins a new word which focuses particularly on relationships that involve two men. These kinds of considerations, it seems to me, make the claim that Paul was only condemning pederasty-rather than same-sex sexual activity more generally-much more problematic.
@johnburn80312 ай бұрын
Thank you for sharing this with us 🙋🏻♂️
@donaldpeterson5902 ай бұрын
So...God hates bottoms? I find it absurd. Also, any book written by people that didn't bathe and wiped with their bare hands, not a bunch of folks I take my cues from.
@yopglomusic887223 күн бұрын
The thing is that, at that time and place, the man taking the insertive role, would most often be an older man, and the receiving role would most often be taken by a teenager or little boy. Meaning that it is likely what Paul was condemning was not gay sex, but rather, pedophilia.
@pappapiccolino95722 ай бұрын
Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman have done some good work in this space. Dale in his book Sex and The Single Saviour, and Bart on his blog. The big problem with this word is that we have only a very small number of examples of its usage, so figuring out what it means is very difficult. Trying to use the linguistic equivalent of simple arithmetic is not really a good method. Just adding "male" + "bedders" = homosexuals is not right. By that logic the meaning of the constituent words in compound words like "understand" and "motherf#$%er" should also reveal their meaning, and we know that's not right. We simply don't know what it means. Dale Martin has looked at all the known examples of its usage, and has concluded the best guess is something to do with money and male sex.
@TheMesomovie2 ай бұрын
Where did you come from?? That was absolutely perfect and would have taken me 3 hours to say without the impact.
@rs72098Ай бұрын
Male on male homosexuality is SPECIFICALLY condemned in this verse. Female on famale isn't mentioned as often perhaps because the male on male act is a bigger abomination and feminizing a male. From their veiwpoint male on male sex was far worse from a hygenic standpoint.
@BeautifulKittenOfLoveАй бұрын
The problem is when someone says "the Bible tells us how to live"...No, the Bible tells YOU how to live YOUR life...after that it's you trying to tell others how to live their lives not the Bible.
@soyevquirsefron9902 ай бұрын
Malakoi was also used for men who were overly interested in sex with women! In this case it meant “soft” as in “self-indulgent”. Also because of the Greek belief that men shouldn’t associate with women because the femininity would rub off on the men, so even having heterosexual sex more than necessary for reproduction was overly feminine. It could also be used to mean “luxurious” or “comfort seeking” so it didn’t necessarily imply “effeminate” the same way that we think of the word, and certainly not necessarily homosexual
@dianetobysadventures11742 ай бұрын
Amen brother
@DanSmith01ave2 ай бұрын
There's one thing I'd really appreciate getting people's honest thoughts on. I don't know what to make of testimonies where people claim that they have somehow been ‘delivered’ from homosexuality? Coming from an evangelical background, I’ve come across testimonies of people who say that after repenting from their former ‘lifestyles’ and accepting Jesus, they have been 'delivered' from same-sex attraction. These stories don’t seem to resemble what we would associate with ‘conversion therapy’ in a traditional sense, but rather a personal experience that involves some purported supernatural intervention. Some even describe being released from ‘demonic oppression’ and will sometimes talk about various physiological and psychological changes in the body as part of their experience. I genuinely don’t know what to make of any of this. And it's especially vexing to be told that this is what you should expect to experience as well if you 'surrender' your sexuality to God. It’s absolutely clear that a lot of people have experienced their lives improving after finally coming to terms with their sexuality - no longer repressing an important part of who they are. But in some evangelical communities, you will similarly get people saying that their lives are radically different after turning away from homosexuality and accepting Jesus. I genuinely don’t know what to make of this discrepancy between people who find liberation when embracing their sexuality, and those who find the same so called ‘freedom’ rejecting it. What do you make of this? Quick disclaimer, I don’t mean to suggest that I understand or support any of this. I am genuinely curious as to how we might interpret these types of anecdotes. I don’t want to rely solely on explanations from evangelicals echo-chambers. I also don't want to deny anyone's experience. Anyone's honest thoughts on this would be most appreciated. Many thanks :)
@MorganRhysGibbons2 ай бұрын
Nailed it.
@cathyharrop33482 ай бұрын
Mr. McClellan, you have such a solid way of explaining your meaning I can't fail to be impressed.
@thomaswarren78312 ай бұрын
Powerful one Dan. And very much needed today. But, I still like the other Dan better!!
@mantispunch2 ай бұрын
If what Gods wants for people is to find a partner, marry them and start a family it shouldn't matter what sexual orientation you are. Christians could have tought this but instead want to ignore the fact that no one chooses their orientation. God made people the way they are. But instead they want to demonize minorities of people who are all one in Christ Jesus.
@GeoffBosco2 ай бұрын
Here's what I have to say: we all turned the frogs gay.
@jannetteberends87302 ай бұрын
Thank you for this videos. A friend of mine is Muslima, Another friend is atheist, but grew up in the Dutch Bible Belt, so experienced some of that tradition. I was Dutch reformed, but now I’m not believing anymore. They are both informed about what I learned since I last saw them. We have such interesting conversations. And discussions.
@davidholman482 ай бұрын
Because of Dan's erudite evaluation, I believe he's right. My position is more along how I regard divine thinking. In short, I find it impossible to believe that God, understanding human nature as He does, would ever say or inspire any sentiment that would lead to bigotry, marginalizing, and persecution of individuals who want nothing more than to live in accordance with their orientation.
@gregorykinsey81352 ай бұрын
Amen !!! to this analysis. Thank you very much for your thoughtful efforts.
@sbaker89712 ай бұрын
As usualyou're absolutely wrong dan. It doesn't describe a male taking the insertive role. That's found nowhere in Scripture. That's some you invented. It is most definitely speaking about the act itself, regardless of the intentions behind the act "The compound Greek word arsenokoitai (arsen-o-koi-tai; plural of singular arsenokoitēs) is formed from the Greek words for “lying” (verb keimai; stem kei- adjusted to koi- before the “t” or letter tau) and “male” (arsēn). The word is a neologism created from terms used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions of men “lying with a male” (18:22; 20:13). (Note that the word for “lying” in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions is the noun koitē, also meaning “bed,” which is formed from the verb keimai. The masculine -tēs suffix of the sg. noun arsenokoitēs denotes continuing agency or occupation, roughly equivalent to English -er attached to a noun; hence, “(male) liers with a male.”) That the connection to the absolute Levitical prohibitions against male-male intercourse is self-evident from the following points: (a) The rabbis used the corresponding Hebrew abstract expression mishkav zākûr, “lying of/with a male,” drawn from the Hebrew texts of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, to denote male-male intercourse in the broadest sense. (b) The term or its cognates does not appear in any non-Jewish, non-Christian text prior to the sixth century A.D. This way of talking about male homosexuality is a distinctly Jewish and Christian formulation. It was undoubtedly used as a way of distinguishing their absolute opposition to homosexual practice, rooted in the Torah of Moses, from more accepting views in the Greco-Roman milieu. (c) The appearance of arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10 makes the link to the Mosaic law explicit, since the list of vices of which arsenokoitai is a part are said to be derived from “the law” (1:9). While it is true that the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts, in this instance it clearly does. (2) The implications of the context in early Judaism.That Jews of the period construed the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse absolutely and against a backdrop of a male-female requirement is beyond dispute. For example, Josephus explained to Gentile readers that “the law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman. . . . But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199). There are no limitations placed on the prohibition as regards age, slave status, idolatrous context, or exchange of money. The only limitation is the sex of the participants. According to b. Sanh. 54a (viz., tractate Sanhedrin from the Babylonian Talmud), the male with whom a man lies in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 may be “an adult or minor,” meaning that the prohibition of male-male unions is not limited to pederasty. Indeed, there is no evidence in ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism, or rabbinic Judaism that any limitation was placed on the prohibition of male-male intercourse. (3) The choice of word. Had a more limited meaning been intended-for example, pederasts-the terms paiderastai (“lover of boys”), paidomanai (“men mad for boys”), or paidophthoroi (“corrupters of boys”) could have been chosen. (4) (4) The meaning of arsenokoitai and cognates in extant usage. The term arsenokoitēs and cognates after Paul (the term appears first in Paul) are applied solely to male-male intercourse but, consistent with the meaning of the partner term malakoi, not limited to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes (see specifics in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 317-23). For example, the 4th century church historian Eusebius quoted from a 2nd-3rd century Christian, Bardesanes (“From the Euphrates River [eastward] … a man who … is derided as an arsenokoitēs… will defend himself to the point of murder”), and then added that “among the Greeks, wise men who have male lovers are not condemned” (Preparation for the Gospel 6.10.25). Elsewhere Eusebius alluded to the prohibition of man-male intercourse in Leviticus as a prohibition not to arsenokoitein (lie with a male) and characterized it as a “pleasure contrary to nature,” “males mad for males,” and intercourse “of men with men” (Demonstration of the Gospel 1.6.33, 67; 4.10.6). Translations of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic also define the term generally as “men lying with males.” (5) Implications of the parallel in Rom 1:24-27. It is bad exegesis to interpret the meaning of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 without consideration of the broad indictment of male-male intercourse expounded in Rom 1:27 (“males with males”). The wording of Rom 1:27 (“males, leaving behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their yearning for one another”) points to an inclusive rejection of all male-male relations. Paul here does not distinguish between good non-exploitative forms of male homosexual practice and bad exploitative forms but rather contrasts all male homosexual relations with natural intercourse between a man and a woman. He also emphasizes reciprocity (“yearning for one another”), a fact that rules out an indictment only of a coercive one-sided homosexual desire. Other factors confirm the inclusive rejection of all male homosexual practice in Rom 1:27: Paul’s intertextual echo in Rom 1:23-27 to Gen 1:26-27 (which contrasts male homosexual practice with God’s intentional design in creation, “male and female [God] created them” and the consequent marital bond), his use of a nature argument (which transcends distinctions based on coercion or promiscuity), and the parallel indictment of lesbianism in Rom 1:26 (a phenomenon in the ancient world not normally manifested with slaves, call girls, or adolescents). The fact that semi-official same-sex marriages existed in the Greco-Roman world and were condemned by Greco-Roman moralists, rabbis, and Church Fathers as unnatural, despite the mutual commitment of the participants in such marriages, is another nail in the coffin for the contention that the term arsenokoitai had only exploitative or promiscuous male homosexual relations in view. (6) Implications from the context of 1 Cor 5-7. This absolute and inclusive sense is further confirmed by the broader context of 1 Cor 5-7: the parallel case of incest in ch. 5 (which gives no exceptions for committed, loving unions and echoes both Levitical and Deuteronomic law); the vice list in 6:9-11 (where sexual offenders are distinguished from idolaters, consent is presumed, and a warning is given to believers not to engage in such behavior any longer); the analogy to sex with a prostitute in 6:12-20 (where Gen 2:24 is cited as the absolute norm and the Christian identity of the offender is presumed); and the issue of marriage in ch. 7 (which presumes throughout that sex is confined to male-female marriage). (7) The relevance of 1 Cor 11:2-16.If inappropriate hairstyles or head coverings were a source of shame because they compromised the sexual differences of men and women, how much more would a man taking another man to bed be a shameful act, lying with another male “as though lying with a woman”? Paul did not make head coverings an issue vital for inclusion in God’s kingdom, but he did with same-sex intercourse. (8) Implications of 1 Tim 1:9-10 corresponding to the Decalogue. At least the last half of the vice list in 1 Tim 1:8-10 (and possibly the whole of it) corresponds to the Decalogue. Why is that important? In early Judaism and Christianity, the Ten Commandments often served as summary headings for the full range of laws in the Old Testament. The seventh commandment against adultery, which was aimed at guarding the institution of marriage, served as a summary of all biblical sex laws, including the prohibition of male-male intercourse. The vice of kidnapping, which follows arsenokoitaiin 1 Tim 1:10, is typically classified under the eighth commandment against stealing (so Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides, the rabbis, and the Didache; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 335-36). This makes highly improbable the attempt by some to pair arsenokoitai with the following term andrapodistai(kidnappers, men-stealers), as a way of limiting its reference to exploitative acts of male-male intercourse (so Robin Scroggs), rather than with the inclusive sexual term pornoi (the sexually immoral) that precedes it. (9) The implication of the meaning of malakoi. If the term malakoi is not limited in its usage to boys or to men who are exploited by other men (and it is not so limited; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 306-12), then arsenokoitai certainly cannot be limited to men who have sex with boys or slaves. (10) Sex with adult males as worse than sex with adolescent boys. In the Greco-Roman world homosexual intercourse between an adult male and a male youth was regarded as a less exploitative form of same-sex eros than intercourse between two adult males. The key problem with homosexual intercourse-behaving toward the passive male partner as if the latter were female-was exacerbated when the intercourse was aimed at adult males who had outgrown the “softness” of immature adolescence. Consequently, even if arsenokoitai primarily had in mind man-boy love (and from all that we have said above, there is no evidence that it does), then, a fortiori, it would surely also take in man-man love."
@lysanamcmillan79722 ай бұрын
Cite your sources, or are you afraid to be proven to be vomiting apologist drivel again?
@ScottKorin2 ай бұрын
Dan, what do you kean about ignoring th eating of blood? Black pudding isn't that popular... and rare steak isnt actually bloody
@yallimsorry59832 ай бұрын
That's not remotely close to what the commandment against eating blood entails. Jewish dietary laws are much closer to following what the commandment is trying to tell you, ie, the eating of blood in any real amount is forbidden. Blood is supposed to be drained from animals during slaughter, and not made into food.
@beowulfschmidt60312 ай бұрын
@@yallimsorry5983 Yes, and my question is, in what way are many Christians ignoring the command not to consume blood? Genuine curiosity, since I'm not aware of what foods actually contains blood. As ScottKorin points out, a "bloody" steak is not actually bloody. Is the sacrament considered consuming blood?
@Audiophile9792 ай бұрын
Thank You, Dan ✨️🩷
@estheraiyelabola69332 ай бұрын
Thx Dan as always! ❤
@user-hr8dx9qw4n2 ай бұрын
Thank you Dan for your this video. Your well invesntigated videos mean a lot for many people.
@FelipeSantos-wu1uf12 күн бұрын
Great vídeo, but saying that the NT doesnt say anything about monogamy/poligamy is a bit much no? Jesus and Paul clearly defend monogamy
@peterengland81312 ай бұрын
If our feelings and lack of action make sin okay, where are the people endorsing covetousness? With the Bible often saying "man" to refer to humans, a lesbian is a homosexual "man." And Jesus said we didn't have to engage in sexual activity in order to commit adultery in our heart.
@greenspeed36192 ай бұрын
Thank you Dan. This was a tour de force presentation from yourself. Keep up the great work.
@CanadianAnglican2 ай бұрын
Thanks for the great video Dan. 🙏🏿
@m.gattus-reinhart8452 ай бұрын
What Dan is doing is responding to another creator particularly pertaining to a single subject. He's addressing the texts as they are written by Paul. He's not causing division. Its people's failure to understand the difference between sexual orientation and sex acts that causes division because of presuppositions and and the negotiation one does with the texts. There's no such thing as homosexual sin. Between Leviticus and Paul both describe the acts, not orientation. One's notion of orientation didn't exist in either the 8th century BCE or the 1st century CE. Just because some choose to be arrogant and ignorant, that's their problem. Its their pride that would marginalize and dehumanize another. Its their pride that would think they're superior unto another. It's their pride that upholds the narratives and the bigotry of others. It's the pride that is truly the deadliest sin of all.
@ElliotBougis2 ай бұрын
it's also pretty neat that Dan comes out (ahem) swinging for the fact that the Bible clearly denounces proactive 'insertive' sodomy
@itsJPhere12 күн бұрын
It's insane how so many people care about what the Bible says. The whole book is a minefield and everyone thinks their interpretation is the correct path through. Everyone should just avoid it like the plague.
@elshuku12 ай бұрын
Are you saying the text says is wrong for a man to be the receptive role but its ok to be the insertive role?
@enlacostaizquierda2 ай бұрын
I think he's trying to point out that using 20th and 21st century concepts of homosexuality run into problems when anyone tries to compare them to the words of 7th century BCE Jewish thought in the Bible. It's not so much what is and isn't "wrong" rather it's a completely different concept and if anyone wants to make that the basis of some broader agenda they're wrong.
@elshuku12 ай бұрын
@@enlacostaizquierda thank you
@elshuku12 ай бұрын
@@enlacostaizquierda but the text says is wrong. Dan is saying the word doesnt mean homosexual but he does agree whatever the word means is wrong.
@tilerboston59732 ай бұрын
So basically what your saying is that homosexuality is permissible in the bible as long as you're not being gay about it? (Also I want to note that I am joking here. In all seriousness you are doing great work Dan, keep it up.)
@glenwillson50732 ай бұрын
Thing is, it's not a joke. That is Dan's twisted logic in a nut shell.
@WS-dd8ow2 ай бұрын
I think what he's saying is that as long as you leave your socks on and the balls don't touch, you're good.
@waynefeller2 ай бұрын
@@glenwillson5073 It isn’t twisted logic at all. It is based on the text within context, without dogmatic eisegesis.
@glenwillson50732 ай бұрын
@@waynefeller So show me how, the "text within the context" does not say, death is the penalty for same-sex sexual activity between two men? And show me, where exactly does so called "dogmatic eisegesis" have anything to do with anything in reading this text? Dan says, Leviticus 20:13 is "... describing ONE man taking the insertive role in an act of male same sex intercourse ...." So what difference does Dan think this actually makes or proves? Leviticus goes on to declare, ... BOTH of them have committed an abomination: THEY shall surely be put to death; THEIR blood shall be upon THEM. On top or on the bottom, makes no difference, they are BOTH equally dead as a result of their actions. I wonder why Dan didnt mention this interesting bit of text within the context? And show me how, the "text within the context" does not say the "arsenokoitai", Dan's man on the bottom, are unrighteous? 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
@vincenttavani63802 ай бұрын
Hey Dan, I'd be interested in hearing you offer your opinion on matters of what *should* guide our negotiation of the text, especially since it seems that the answers of "the text itself" or "a textually- informed tradition" would allow bias to shape interpretation. Using this video as an example, you correct the stitched creator's reading with a more precise one, but you don't offer guidance on what to do with that more precise reading, especially as it still seems to condemn certain behavior - you only go on to reiterate the general case that the the Bible's meaning is shaped as much by its own social contexts as our own. The options with the more precise reading seem to be to discard it or downplay it, or to obey it. You don't seem to advocate the latter, so what direction do we have for the authority or basis of wisdom or tradition or mindset to guide the former?
@Cornelius1352 ай бұрын
I think Dan would argue that we should “accept” or follow those things in the Bible - and any text, for that matter - which we find useful and beneficial, and discard what we find unhelpful or harmful, hence his take that Scripture nowhere condemns and everywhere endorses slavery, and we just… did away with that as a society.
@tcizzi2 ай бұрын
Great question, I also get a little frustrated by this. My guess is he would reply with that's not his expertise. I like how you invoked wisdom though as the mindfulness practices are probably our best tool to properly interpret the texts.
@tcizzi2 ай бұрын
@@Cornelius135 Agreed, it's actually not that hard but my God some people act like your Satan himself if you articulate this biblical approach.
@peanutmurgler2 ай бұрын
@@tcizziMany people are limited by a zero-sum mindset unfortunately
@jenniferhunter40742 ай бұрын
Look, I'm an atheist. Former evangelical Christian. Anything can be an authoritative text. When a republican screeches about "The constitution" and the glorious godhead of the founders, they are invoking an appeal of authority. You could bang on a text such as Frankenstein and state that it is an authority on how an aspect of our society should be structured. You are the one imputing authority to this Christian text. To a Hindu, this Christian text might be nice but they have their own "authoritative text" and your text isn't authoritative. See... people have to accept the idea that a particular text is authoritative. It's very subjective. In the old days, the winners used to violently impose their beliefs and that's how your Christianity really spread. You don't really think the African slaves asked for that slave bible... do you? Anyway, you may not realize this but you are telling everybody who is watching what kind of person you are by what verses you stress and whether or not you even use something like a Bible. It's not logic and evidence based. It's feeling based and then, a post hoc rationalization to justify what you feel is correct. Don't fall for the lie that humans are rational and evidence based. We are emotional and the logic and critical thinking makes our heads hurt. That's how you're going to intuit what verses resonate with you. So I'd respectfully ask that you just follow the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
@humbertojimenez34752 ай бұрын
À la cart, Christianity… That’s what you call these people who cherry pick which part of the text to ignore which part to enforce
@stevebeary49882 ай бұрын
Thank you Dan.
@SavvySavant2 ай бұрын
I'm an agnostic so my opinions are going to be FAR different from the people that believe that the bible is an inspired work from an omnimoral and omniscient GOD. People who base their lives and in many cases financial livings peddling the philosophies of this book. I just have to say that this book is WAY too morally and ethically inconsistent to quite frankly, deserve the moral pedestal that it's often placed on. Based on 1 Cor. 6:9, Romans 1:26 and Leviticus 20:13, I think you ACTUALLY can safely infer that GOD condemns homosexuality (As difficult as it is to hear). But I'm going to need a list of scriptures and philosophies that are ACTUALLY inspired by GOD to differentiate from the ones that aren't. Because while the bible does condemn this it simultaneously condones and in some cases GLORIFIES topics like violence, mass murder and genocide (of which Hitler is famous for), human sacrifice and the killing of infants, Slavery (Including sexual slavery)... The overall domination of women. Rape under certain circumstances. It condemns inter-tribal marriage and by extension inter-racial marriage often with deadly consequences (Which you can easily associate with the philosophies of the Nazis and the KKK concerning modern Eugenics). It forbids wearing clothing woven from two different kinds of specifically suggested threads or fabrics. And despite everyone's fixation on homosexuality, it doesn't condemn or even mention pedophilia and the abuse of children. Curious omission given Jesus' affinity for them... And then a split second later philosophically speaking, it encourages that we should all love our neighbors as ourselves... Now does that kind of GROSS ethical inconsistency suggest omnimoral guidance to you 🤨. Put inconsistent ethical standards on a pedestal and that's EXACTLY what it's going to perpetuate... Ethical and moral inconsistentcy. Like baking "unleavened" bread in a dented pan.. CLEARLY the bible isn't perfect because if the values of mass murdering Nazis can be scripturally glorified alongside Pacifists then condemning JUST homosexuality (As opposed to everything else) is the least of it's problems... And because the bible is so ethically inconsistent, for people who observe the bible it's a CONSTANT doctrinal negotiation as you try to derive moral consistency from a book that is systemically inconsistent... So much so that I can use scripture to simultaneously condemn and condone scripture (Along with everything else) Good luck with that👍🏼. My personal belief is that as long as you're not a harm to yourself or the people around you... Don't get too bent out of shape, because the bible is the ONLY book that I've EVER read that places more positive moral emphasis on murder and genocide narratively (And doctrinally) than it does sexuality... Hilarious 🙄 Sidenote: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d694ndKFlp-8oHk.htmlsi=Y2njzgNFewgpZB9t (Question... Which abomination comes first? Anachronistic #$%!@)
@hrvatskinoahid10482 ай бұрын
I am confident you never read the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew with the oral Torah explanations.
@SavvySavant2 ай бұрын
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 In my deconstructive analysis of the bible, ethics came first... Not dogma. Moral double standards are baked into your very perception of the bible for the purpose of propping up doctrine... It's difficult to be dispassionate about something you hold dear. But sometimes you have to be to truly understand what you're ACTUALLY reading. And what that represents ethically... I'm sorry if these ethical truths found in the bible have provoked disbelief on your part...
@hrvatskinoahid10482 ай бұрын
@@SavvySavant It is not within the purview of Gentiles to deconstruct the Jewish Torah.
@SavvySavant2 ай бұрын
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@shang61582 ай бұрын
A contemporary English slang term might be "Top" or "Pitcher" Of course, then the preachers might just start condemning baseball players and spinning toys.
@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana2 ай бұрын
The chapter is clearly talking about man-ing the courts 🧑⚖ of the *KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.* So whatever it says, it only has to do with the rulers of the kingdom, not everyone who makes it. Christians ✝ really have completely forgotten the *entire point* of the New Testament. 🙄
@villageroadgranite2 ай бұрын
Here's The Thing...
@Sewblon2 ай бұрын
If we can't interpret the bible without adapting it to our own cultural norms, then can we ever definitively say what any given passage within the bible means? If we can never definitively say what any given passage means, then how can we say that its wrong to translate arsenokoitai as "homosexuals"?
@roytee31272 ай бұрын
The best technique to understand what the Bible means, is to compare usages in different passages to look for commonalities in meaning. That helps in understanding what the original authors meant. Historians do the same thing in studying secular history. As for adapting the Bible to our own cultural norms, that removes any absolute authority from the text and reduces it to support for ones cultural norms. That can be OK if one is merely codifying their own cultural norms, but it means that the Bible can't be used to support claims that God Says This or God Wants That.
@ashleyladner76202 ай бұрын
Is Romans 1:26 actually talking about female homosexuality or is it just talking about females leaving what is natural for them, because Leviticus and Deuteronomy do not condemn females for same sex sexual activity. From a legalistic stand point, it would have to be made illegal in "The Law of Moses" for it to be unnatural for females. The law of Moses did not condemn females for same sex sex. In the Talmud there are Rabbis that say it is perfectly ok and others that say, while it is not illegal, women should not do it. If its not in the Law of Moses, then it is not wrong.
@sirria1002 ай бұрын
Dan, what exactly makes scholars think that Romans 1:26 refers to female homosexuality? The text only mentions female sexual deviancy, not same-sex activity.
@IheartDogs552 ай бұрын
I've always been interested in this topic. Thanks for some further clarification. My overall way of thinking about consensual adult sex is that it's none of my business what other humans do in bed.
@auroraecho91282 ай бұрын
God bless you!!!
@shauncrewe31072 ай бұрын
LOVE that fit!
@meej332 ай бұрын
Thank you for rolling back the subtitle font. Much easier to parse.
@adrianamoedo2 ай бұрын
the "PERIOD" AT 3:34, that was a serve
@Jin4202 ай бұрын
The hubris -- to think that they know more than biblical/ religious scholars, like Dan. Smh..
@JenniferandAmanda-ke6pr2 ай бұрын
1 Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
@Jin42023 күн бұрын
@JenniferandAmanda-ke6pr sorry to say -- scriptures don't mean much to me, especially considering I'm an atheist. Religions are mere "tools" to control over the mass of people imo.. plus, most of them sound like "doomsday cults." But quoting scriptures won't do any good. (I am a former believer) Ijs.. Have a great day. 😊
@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn2 ай бұрын
EVERY sentiment expressed in the bible is just what you would expect to hear coming from a man living in that time and place. On EVERY topic - slavery, warfare, women, family relations, sexual mores, etc. 30,000 verses and not a single one betrays a mind any more advanced than the first decade CE. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
@jameschapman65592 ай бұрын
Exactly statement 👏
@flamingswordapologetics2 ай бұрын
You don't know much about history then, I suggest you read the book Dominion, by Tom Holland. He's an atheist, but much of what the New T was teaching was very foreign to the world at the time. However, you would expect it to be relevant to that time as well-right? Wouldn't make much sense to them back then if it wasn't. Look up the culture of ancient Rome and what was accepted or not, including throwing a child away like trash, killing them outright, etc...most of the world today is Christianized to some degree, again, read Tom Holland, who researched this subject extensively.
@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn2 ай бұрын
@@flamingswordapologetics Actually, the parts of the NT that deal with ethical teachings would be very familiar to a first century stoic. Musonius Rufus was teaching in Rome at the same time the NT was being composed. (He was stridently opposed to infanticide, btw.) I wouldn't be surprised if the writers of the NT adopted some stoic thought into their own views. (I guess I know a little bit about history.)
@flamingswordapologetics2 ай бұрын
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Well I was just being a bit snarky, anyone can look these things up, there is a natural law within man we would call the "conscience", so it makes sense some people back then were fighting against the tide, but the overall culture was horrible when it came to the intrinsic value of humans, if you weren't in the "club" so to speak, you weren't too far off from animal status, Christianity did change that, now that doesn't prove its true, but it is an evidence. Rome in a real sense, was conquered by Christ.
@chrissmith8198Ай бұрын
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.” In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins. There are some interpreters today who object to lumping homosexuals in with the other sinners listed in this passage. The wording “men who have sex with men” is unclear, they say, and should not be construed as a condemnation of all same-sex activity. In an attempt to make homosexual behavior compatible with Christianity, they attempt to redefine the Greek word. The phrase “men who have sex with men” (translated “homosexuals” in the NASB) is a translation of the Greek word arsenokoitai. Those who object to this translation say that arsenokoitai does not refer to all homosexual relationships but only to those involving abuse, coercion, or unfaithfulness. They say the word does not refer to “loving, faithful” same-sex relationships. Arsenokoitai is a compound word: arseno is the word for “a male,” and koitai is the word for “mat” or “bed.” Put the two halves together, and the word means “a male bed”-that is, a person who makes use of a “male-only bed” or a “bed for males.” And, truthfully, that’s all the information we need to understand the intent of 1 Corinthians 6:9. As in English, the Greek word for “bed” can have both sexual and non-sexual meanings. The statement “I bought a new bed” has no sexual connotation; however, “I went to bed with her” does. In the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, koitai connotes an illicit sexual connotation-the apostle is clearly speaking of “wrongdoers” here. The conclusion is that the word arsenokoitai refers to homosexuals-men who are in bed with other men, engaging in same-gender sexual activity. It is interesting to note that arsenokoitai was not a common word in the Greek language to refer to homosexuality. Some have even claimed that the apostle Paul invented the word. This is not the case. In the Septuagint Greek translation of the two verses in the Mosaic Law that refer to homosexuality both contain forms of arseno and koitai (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). This likely indicates that Paul had Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 6:9, making it abundantly clear what Paul meant by the word arsenokoitai. The notion that some homosexual relationships are accepted is not even hinted at in this passage. The men’s commitment level or the presence of “love” is not addressed. The idea that the condemned same-sex activity is linked to economic exploitation or abuse is also a forced reading with no textual basis. Paul’s reference to “homosexuals,” together with a reference to “effeminate” men in the same verse (in the NASB), effectively covers both active and passive homosexual behavior. God’s Word is not open to personal interpretation in this matter. Homosexuality is wrong; it always has been, and it always will be. Just two verses later, 1 Corinthians 6:11 says, “And that is what some of you *were.* But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (emphasis added). This statement negates the idea of “homosexual Christianity” being acceptable to God. Paul tells the Corinthian believers that practices such as homosexuality were evidences of their former life before Christ. Now they have been born again, and they have a new nature and new desires. The old nature remains, and the temptations continue, but child of God has been called to fight against sin, not live in it any longer. By the life-changing grace of God, the Corinthians’ new life stands in opposition to the way they used to live.
@Fire-Toolz2 ай бұрын
flatly is my new favorite word. thank you dan
@lavieestlenfer2 ай бұрын
You: arsenokoitai Me: *giggles*
@GoodieWhiteHat2 ай бұрын
Me too 😂 then lol with William Mounce.
@patrickstjean76462 ай бұрын
In the KJV the word is translated as "effeminate". I wonder how the KJV only crowd navigates this one. I have a mild suspicion the content creator in question is normally a KJV guy, but makes an exception with this verse
@ChristianCarrizales2 ай бұрын
I was literally about to bring up the slavery thing too lol
@davidoliver95512 ай бұрын
Well said, sir!!!!
@SabracadabrO2 ай бұрын
He needs to turn his gaze inward,or a po piso,eyes forward 👀
@ElliotBougis2 ай бұрын
"everyone alters what the Bible says to shit their cultural norms" this includes Dan there's a reason Dan targets Evangelical fundies and avoids Catholic scholarship (bonus: his claim that scriptural authors never intended to write for future readers is as 'blithe' as it is disingenuous, for the Scriptures repeatedly cast their words upon future and unknown hearers, just as Dan makes these videos assuming they will be relevant to unknown and future viewers) Dan is a postmodern sophist
@glenwillson50732 ай бұрын
Dan says, Leviticus 20:13 is "... describing ONE man taking the insertive role in an act of male same sex intercourse ...." So what difference does Dan think this actually proves? Leviticus goes on to declare, "... BOTH of them have committed an abomination: THEY shall surely be put to death; THEIR blood shall be upon THEM." On top or on the bottom, makes no difference, they are BOTH equally dead as a result of their actions. I wonder why Dan didn't mention this tiny detail?
@CommonSense_Skeptic2 ай бұрын
well how else are you gonna have a homosexual act without one of them being the receiver The Bible was clearly against two men having sex .. the end.. You can pick a part some antics if you want to because of your political perspective but we all know what to text means
@noderoad2 ай бұрын
I mean, apparently you don’t?
@pansepot14902 ай бұрын
He’s right. The Bible doesn’t force you to do anything. *A dude on tiktok is lecturing you on morality.* Sorry mate. You’ll have to show something better than “trust me bro, the god of the universe agrees with me”.
@cman042 ай бұрын
Dan does a really good job sounding like an expert while simultaneously being wrong in almost everything he says.
@josephdavis342 ай бұрын
Get em Dan
@nikkr35842 ай бұрын
So, it is not condemned the homoeexuality, but the insertive role. That doesn't make any difference. We support gay people but not when they engage in gay sex. That doesn't make any sense at all
@ddrse2 ай бұрын
Paul is talking about a relationship with yourself. When who you are authentically desires to be ruled over by the ideal you. It's about vanity. Just be yourself and boast in What the Lord Has Done. God gives you free will to be yourself or you can pretend to be somebody else.
@nikkr35842 ай бұрын
@@ddrse Paul is very clear on that. He condems any sexual activity outside christian marriage. On another vers he says that our bodies are temples and we don't have to dishonor them by having sex with fornicators because we became one with them.
@ddrse2 ай бұрын
@@nikkr3584 yeah it sounds like your relationship with the ideal you. Put off the old man.
@ElliotBougis2 ай бұрын
I'd also love to see Dan engage the actual (hostile) Greco-Roman attitudes/policies towards what we now call "homosexual culture" (spoiler alert: they did not like it)
@otsoko662 ай бұрын
Quick answer: Since there was no such thing as "homosexual culture" in either the Greco- or Roman eras, they obviously had no attitude towards it.
@MetroidTheorist2 ай бұрын
My understanding of the Bible talking about this subject was changed in a such a way when I was reading up a bit on Norse society and seiðr. "Ergi" was a word used toward men who practiced seiðr. It was thought to be something women did. When I had read that a man lying with a man as one would with a woman, I also thought about how women were treated as second-class citizens. So for a man to take the role of what was expected to be a role women took, was to emasculate oneself, as it were. Since these are different times from the past, I find the idea that the Bible can provide us with a cohesive set of ethics to be nonsensical.
@jad19732 ай бұрын
Hi Dan! Great video as always. Could you possibly address whether the NRSVue’s translation of arsenokoitai and malakoi is more accurate than the previous NRSV? I’ve seen some arguments by apologists but I don’t know what scholars think about it.
@byrondickens2 ай бұрын
It was translated by a committee of scholars....
@jad19732 ай бұрын
@@byrondickens Good point! I just haven’t heard much about their reasoning.
@jasonmcgee93132 ай бұрын
Is Dan Mormon?
@MitchellRose-gi2ln2 ай бұрын
Thank you Dr Dan. I wonder if the divorce question is negotiated to allow it. "Fornication" etc. I was surprised to hear my good christian friend say that he had a biblical excuse to divorce his wife.
@cygnustsp2 ай бұрын
I got married at 20 we were jehovahs witnesses. I quit at 25 and we finally divorced when I was 30. I got a new girlfriend after a year and my ex found out so she called me to ask me if she was "scripturally free." I was like wtf, why do you need to ask me that, do whatever you want.
@jameschapman65592 ай бұрын
My parents stayed in an abusive relationship with each other and their 6 children for 18 years. Because of the teaching from the church against divorce.
@tsherbs13092 ай бұрын
truth
@basilkearsley26572 ай бұрын
Well said Dan
@stuartkenny30502 ай бұрын
Did Paul ever coin any other words using the Septuagint? Which words? If he didn't coin any other words this way, why would we assume he did just this one time? What did arsenkoitai mean when used in texts outside the Bible? Did any ancient author use it to mean someone born with a homosexual orientation? In what other ancient text does malakoi refer to a same-sex act? Were not the men described in Romans innately heterosexual to begin with who then performed acts unnatural to them? Does Romans describe men who were born innately homosexual? Weren't the women described in Romans performing oral sex and anal sex with men? Where does it specify it was females having sex with each other?
@lysanamcmillan79722 ай бұрын
There was no such thing as the concept of sexual orientation in that cultural group in those days. Sexual behavior and desire for same weren't a thing you saw as part of your identity. It was what you felt and chose to express. There's a Roman graffito I consider to be a good example of this. In Latin it reads, "Dolete puellae, paedicare volo, cunne superbe vale!" Translated, it reads: "Grieve you girls, I want to f*ck guys in the arse, goodbye overbearing c*nts." He didn't say his identity changed. He said his behavior is being altered by conscious choice. And frankly, the vast majority of people who can consciously choose to limit their sexual partners to one gender after finding any others personally distasteful at least start out as some flavor of bisexual, not heterosexual. The political lesbian is a screed for another day.
@SterlingTate2 ай бұрын
I don't think ben grimm would take a receptive role.
@MarcosElMalo22 ай бұрын
Why not? So long as Reed gave him a reach-around. I don’t think you’re making an F4-worthy effort to picture it.
@JosephNobles2 ай бұрын
Would he let a woman on top? That's all it takes to emasculate a man in Romans.
@boboak91682 ай бұрын
Dan, what about 1 Timothy 3:12? I can see it’s about ´deacons’ and not the general population. I know some who say this is anti-polygamie but have only been able to reply that I’m not sure about that - maybe it’s about having time for the church because they aren’t busy with their four wives, but I really don’t know. Can you shed any light on this one?
@scottmaddow78792 ай бұрын
If honesty is part of your faith then you can disregard 1 Timothy as it is most likely a pseudoautographical work written after Paul's death by someone claiming to be him. Why would you need to consider a text that starts with a lie? Dan has a video and mentions this in many videos as do most front facing social media critical New Testament scholars.
@ewomer1002 ай бұрын
Beginning of the video claims to be a Bible scholar, spends the rest of the video proving that statement 100% false.
@CherubEros2 ай бұрын
What people miss from the Bible: Laws of Moses was for the Jewish people only.
@CherubEros2 ай бұрын
Secondly: Book of Revelations already happened when the Temple of Jerusalem fell. Regardless when you think the text is written, Jesus spoke of that temple.
@CherubEros2 ай бұрын
Thirdly: Going back to the laws of Moses is a slap in the face of what Jesus did, which Paul and company still had to regard until the temple fell.
@hrvatskinoahid10482 ай бұрын
The Torah of Moses has 613 commandments for Jews and the 7 for Gentiles.
@CherubEros2 ай бұрын
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 talking about Noahides?
@celsus79792 ай бұрын
Arse! No coitus!!
@Adamborries2 ай бұрын
I heard this addressed on the podcast not long ago, and I found it interesting and somewhat compelling. I would, however, like to hear a deeper explanation and/or citations for the reasons behind interpreting it as the insertive and receptive roles. Thanks.
@jonathanwood5799Ай бұрын
Your point of the specificities of the words and its uses still doesn't take away the condemnation of the act and contributing acts described in later in biblical texts. The fact is that the activity itself is an abomination according to the texts. And saying that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong by arguing the modern idea of homosexuality as an orientation doesn't fit the condemnation of the act of homosexual intercourse is a half truth. You're using an argument of semantics to call others wrong. Now the commenters you're arguing may get some important linguistic aspects wrong but in this instance he seems to understand meaning better than you, a scholar rationalizing his own moral views onto the meaning of biblical text. You appear to use your academic achievements to attack small inaccuracies to take the audience away from the overall meaning. Are you a Christian or do you think it's all just a story?
@timothymalone70672 ай бұрын
Thanks Dan. Keep helping us understand what the Bible says and just what some people’s want it to say
@mdelaney90082 ай бұрын
No, not in my opinion. The term is used to describe the relationship between a pubescent boy and a grown man. The boy was a victim of a pedophile.
@waynefeller2 ай бұрын
Are you basing this off of scholarship or opinion?
@mdelaney90082 ай бұрын
You should do your own research. Find out for yourself.
@JenniferandAmanda-ke6pr2 ай бұрын
@@waynefeller He/she literally just said "No, not in my opinion".........cant you read...? The New King James Version has a footnote in 1 Corinthians 6:9 on the term "homosexuals" which says "That is, catamites" and God allows this very same bible to be sold in the book stores to this very day. This is Gods Opinion. So the text is actually saying : 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 = New King James Version "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." So basically, God will not accept a full grown adult who is in a relationship with a very young human being into his kingdom nor will God accept those that practice anal sex into his kingdom. Yes, there are many heterosexuals that go to a building block "church" and they practice anal sex and they claim to be "bible believing christians"............ People in a building block can not be trusted. Jeremiah 23:1 = Original King James Pure Cambridge Edition ( which contains the exact written word of God ) "Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD." Now in Jeremiah chapter 23 and verse 1 through 4 talks about "The Evil Of Your Doings" ......this passage is not talking about "Pastors Are Trustworthy" Many people are hypoctrites, and when I challenge their understanding of the Holy Scriputures, they flee...... hahahahaha 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@JenniferandAmanda-ke6pr2 ай бұрын
hi 💕 I put a like on your comment 😊
@minaguta41472 ай бұрын
🔥🔥🔥
@funkatron1012 ай бұрын
Good font choice for the captions. It's fitting for the fits.
@repkows2 ай бұрын
Hi Dan, would you be willing to deconstruct the Quran in the future?
@macgonzo2 ай бұрын
Why? He's a scholar of the Bible, not the Quran. He clearly states this at the beginning of every video.
@waynefeller2 ай бұрын
To what purpose? He may be a religious scholar, but he is specifically a Bible scholar.
@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana2 ай бұрын
The Quran barely has a structure to deconstruct. It randomly switches topic for no rhyme or reason. It is basically a anthology of unrelated short stories.
@jimgillert202 ай бұрын
Not to mention that arsenkoitai is a word coined only in the new testament/xtianity.
@galvstudent12 ай бұрын
This was a particularly savage response--not wrong, just a good "mic drop" moment. Good job as always!