As a person who self-identifies as nonbinary, i absolutely agree.

ROFL!!!! Friggin’ Good Burger

man made his god in his own image!

These videos are not religious. They are a literary analysis of a well documented collection of historical texts.

Following Jesus isn't being religious

Yes it is. All cults claim not to be cults. Religion has become a dirty word, so the christian religion is trying to distance itself by saying things like "it's not religion, it's a relationship". You can rephrase it how ever you like, but Christianity is absolutely a religion.@@SJO7777

I agree, and that's why I find them interesting. The videos are about religious development, but the videos themselves don't push a particular ideology or religious belief. These are historical and acedemic discussions about the Judeo-Christian religion@@chuckbecker4983

But the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. So that isn't relevant.

Hebrew defaults to the male form for gender ambiguous pronouns as well.

He/him pronouns are not what's used in English when you are speaking of someone who's gender is unknown. You use the singular they/them as has been done since Shakespeare's time. You do that on a regular basis, I guarantee it. When I don't know the gender of a Dr or someone with a nongendered name, I don't refer to a he, because that would be presuming knowledge I don't have. The God of the ancient Jews was most certainly gendered as male

⁠@@ryanyesman7664that’s definitely not a wholly honest critique of the first comment. I grew up in the 90s and heard he used regularly as an expected pronoun. People would assume pronouns based on association regularly. If a kid announced they made a friend, the following inquiries would assume the gender. If someone wrote a how-to article in a magazine, the author would commonly refer to the reader by the author’s gender. We talked regularly about “all mankind” or “…neither God nor man…”. The rhetoric may not always assume an unknown individual as masculine, but it’s incredibly common for individuals to assume their modality as the default. And since society has favored accounts by male writers, especially in biblical accounts, it is not a dishonest assumption to say that biblical authors assumed that the creator of the world and giver-of-law was male, even when gender was not specified. Many times God is identified as male/masculine in the bible, but there are neuter and feminine attributes assigned to God as well.

Hosea 11:9 says "I am 'El, not a (mere) man" and Numbers 23:19 actually says that God is a man.

​@@cjcanton9121- here is Numbers 23 19, where does it say God is a man? God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

@@gangstadrz9326 addendum: Though one must be careful not to use an appeal to tradition to say the "new" definition is invalid or that they actually *are* interchangeable *all* of the time. A careful study of context should reveal when it is the case and when it is not.

@@gangstadrz9326 I don't care what you believe ;) That's your right. I don't.

​@@gangstadrz9326How do you rationalise languages (including older forms of English) assigning grammatical genders to inanimate objects? Are you under the impression that every object in some countries just have assorted genitals attached to them?

I’d like more so that I could share both this and any other video to back it up. For anyone on Instagram that may try to poke holes in this idea!

Is sociological, not biological. What IS biological is sex

Chromosomes done watch w gender. We made that up to help us. Everyone is “a girl” before they end up being “a boy”

Embryonic homology in no means your gender or sex is at all fluid. Human embryos also all have gills and tails. Does that mean we are all fish before we end up being human? Of course not. Same goes for fetuses developing nipples before male genitalia. Those are just holdovers from evolution, not evidence that you were once a girl before becoming a male.

Why are you here then

Did you see what the person he was responding to was wearing?

If both men and women are “patterned” after god that’s an argument for god being both.

That's actually a really interesting question. Do LDS folks think that deification causes one to transcend sex and gender?

Wait is Dan a Lds believer? I am just curious I was not sure.

These ideas are miles removed from LDS theology. These ideas come from divinity school

@@AurorXZ I certainly don't, and I'm LDS. There's actually some variance among members. The official church position(I think) is that those that receive exaltation become like God. Most interpret that to mean that quite literally, that man is a "god in embryo", including many general authorities and leaders. I dont know if the church officially goes that far.

@@toddoman4636 I believe he completed his schooling at BYU and worked for the LDS church as their chief translator or something like that.

Imagine taking theology from a man who wears makeup to convince himself he’s not a man.

@@KnuttyEntertainment Imagine not understanding gender. Lmao skill issue

@@stopgont7360 I don’t have to imagine with people like you around. I don’t see what’s so difficult. You were either born with a dong or you weren’t.

@@KnuttyEntertainment That would be just that, being born with a dong. However 1. Neither that determines your sex (sex is bimodal, not binary). 2. Gender isn't related to your sex. How about you read some biologists, psychologists and sociologists on the topic and ignore your own interpretation of a mythology book so you can read with eyes unclothed in faith?

@@stopgont7360 Sure buddy.

Of course someone who wants to smash the patriarchy would root for this pile of sophistry.

Not to mention the blaring irony of declaring Dan “The man” 😂

​​@@kevanjoel1671 No irony detected

@@stopgont7360 your detector doesn’t work.

@@kevanjoel1671 If a detector finds something that's not there it:s a false possitve. Your detector is really good at thoose

This has got to be Dan's worse video. Love you Dan. But God is male presenting. This video is "pure and utter nonsense."

Ok. You are totally correct in the context of an ancient Near Eastern worldview! Non-binary is our modern word for a gender presentation/experience. To say that the God of the Bible is that would be (as he says) a "renegotiation." But the point of his rebuttal was to say that if you want the lofty theological view of a God that transcends all human categories, including gender, that coheres with the modern idea of "non-binary." No biblical author or church father had to intend that, but it would be a logical conclusion for our moment in time.

Did you even watch the video...?

@@derekhenrich8099 yes, did you?

The biblical authors certainly didn't have the relatively new western concept of gender binary. Projecting essentially 19th century attitudes back 1800 years or more is anachronistic.

@@CambrianAnomalocaris sure socrates, the penchant to use social justice talking points to deterritorialize and then reterritorialize everything from countries, corporations, tv shows, sports leagues, fuggin sewing circles, bibles, tik tok, Mormonism…everything Dan touches… into whatever the Democratic Party wants it to be for their political purposes…Dan’s party he ran for state senate for twice.

​@@CambrianAnomalocaris "What I don't like is neoliberalism"

@@porchtime504 I don't get how all of that is neoliberal

my uncle once explained to me that "have" in this expression means "keep", so the idea is that you cannot keep your cake and eat it, which makes a lot more sense ; you can't have a god who transcends gender AND insist that same god is masculine and/or male -

There's more diversity inside religious traditions than ecclesiastical leaders like to acknowledge or project.

@@toledoh5170 Believe you me, we’re well aware of the flexibility of our belief system, we’re really not strict on what people are allowed to believe. But this would constitute direct heresy on Dan’s part. It’s that far removed from our core beliefs.

​@@KnuttyEntertainment Your core beliefs don't represent anyone beyond yourself

@@stopgont7360 What in the world are you even talking about? Are you saying that Mormons don’t believe in traditional sex and gender roles? Maybe read their Family Proclamation, or even just the Bible.

@@KnuttyEntertainment I'm saying that thoose are just YOUR principles, no everyone's principles

@@beemixsy What exactly do you mean by gender?

Spoken like someone who has never read the Bible fully -- or did, but was too dense to understand the New Testament.

if you spent more then ten seconds thinking about your claim you would realize most "social" constructs are guided by natural humanistic tendencies, while others like pyramid hierarchies or male hegemony are social constructs of a violent ruling class. learn the difference buddy boy.

You're missing the point entirely. Listen again and try again.

You deftly moved from the plural “WE have decided” to the singular “no ONE just ‘decided,’” and then shifted your argument toward that singular construct you added. Of course no single person decided on gender roles, but as a society we have. That is why gender roles fluctuate by time and culture. Pink was originally a masculine color, e.g. The way in which individuals related to their assigned gender is biopsychosocial but the assignment and the roles of said assignment are socially constructed

That was obviously dumb. Have some intellectual integrity and think a little bit before you type... 🙄

@@bradleythornock8627 no "we as a society" did not decide anything. Women have children, men don't. Men are stronger than women. Men are better at hunting, women are better at gathering. These roles arose absolutely naturally, they are a result of natural dimorphism in human males and females, they are the result of no individual OR collective "decision." Our gender roles are every bit as natural as the gender roles that exist in other dimorphic species such a lions and our close relatives chimps and gorillas.

Society created gender roles. That's literally a fact.

@gekksvide0 and yet I’m not wrong.

@gekksvide0 Just because Dan wears a tshirt or hoodie doesn’t make it true. It’s a motte and bailey defense. This channel is most certainly about what Dan believes and knows. A good majority of the vids focusing on ‘the data’ are laced with pedantic contempt (“okay let’s see it”), and many are politically and ideologically subversive to faith, in spite of what you say. So sorry, not sorry.

@gekksvide0 a compilation video of specific examples would not be hard to make.