Huge thanks for making this publicly available. So many of us who are LGBTQ+ or allies and who are staying in church communities, appreciate help with this to try bring about change
Jesus was a big gay boy occam's razor dictates he was gay because there's more evidence that way than anything. He lived at a time when it was normal for men to have children and he didn't even so much as have a wife early Christianity in Roman colonies had no concept of homosexual immorality. In the Celtic Nations we didn't even get the idea until the English imposed it upon us. and we had Christianity 200 years before the English even arrived in what they call England.. so effectively we have a very early if not the original interpretation of Christianity homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with anything. it's baffling we are a small group of Nations battleground by empires and we have never given to such things as homophobia that as an excuse only shows The weakness of the character of the people who wrote the first testament. Which we should understand because that is why they needed Jesus in the first place Jesus would not go to the righteous he goes to the den of sin if you came back today he would land in London alas no word from Jesus yet😂.
If you want anthropological competence on premodern attitudes of non-modern western (-ised) societies towards deviation from heteronormativity, I would not recommend Dr Mclellan (he is a good ancient near eastern scholar on literally every other topic though); go read what his other colleagues in the different Biblical Studies / Ancient Near Eastern & Classical (Greco-Roman)-related fields are saying INSTEAD.
@@tsemayekekema2918 No citations. Only summary rejections. Do better if you want to have an honest discussion. You may be right but no one reading your statement has any data points or citations to inform anything but either a summary rejection or acceptance to your statement based on their biased pre-suppositions.
@@tsemayekekema2918why would you not recommend him? who would you recommend instead? what is it that makes him uniquely bad on this subject in particular? it isn't clear what point you're trying to make if any, other than that you, for some reason, did not like this video.
@yukari_katsuragi I haven't watched the video - there are a million & one other non-religious critical scholars out there that would cringe at all the other short videos when he claims ot tries to deny that all of the multivocal voices in the biblical text were people who were ten times more homophobic than the most conservative person of the 21st century (only rivalled by those Islamic countries where homoerotic activity is a capital offense-which is a sentiment reflected in biblical law (the book of Revelation has them tortured in eternal fire}!)
@yukari_katsuragi I would recommend literally any other critical scholar, especially those who realize that the evidence from rabbinic literature towards homosexuality does reflect the consensus Greco-Roman Judaism opinion since Hasmonean times at the very least. For him to claim that Jesus would have eaten with transgender drag queens is the height of comical incompetence
@@MissionTapasya Look up "queer theology" for yourself, if you're really interested in an answer to that question. There are many Christian churches and denominations that affirm LGBTQ identity. The United Methodist church I attend has a gay pastor, and lets me wear cat ears & tail and femboy "drag", even when taking communion. Galatians 3:28 is clear, if you care about the authority of Scripture: "...there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Amen! 😸🏳⚧⚧
This is one of the most thorough lectures on the topic I have come across. Much more attention to detail, and honest in terms of noting which points are not universally agreed upon. Thx, Dan.
I was there for the actual live for the class. I need to do your other classes but thank you Dan. I’m going to purchase your book “the Bible says so”. You’re such a great help in my new faith walk
Thank you so much! Can I get a Certificate of Attendance? I need to put it in a gilded frame and hang it in my dining room for the next extended-family holiday dinner.
You can download a blank certificate from the internet and fill it yourself. If you use gothic fonts and print it on thick off white watercolor paper it will look awesome and authentic. 😅 If it was ok for certain Bible authors to pretend to be Isaiah, Daniel or Paul, it will be ok for you to pretend to be Dan McClellan and sign the certificate. As long as you watch the whole video it’s no sin. ;)
This helped me!! I was raised in very extreme pursuit of Jesus. I have never been able to reconcile my sexuality with my faith. I used to say that’s just my cross. I sometimes wonder I have not been able to secure intimate relationship. Yet as days go by perhaps it is just right. Either way, I am not afraid to die. I hold to my conviction that God loves me. Yaeee
Dig the way you present....very straightforward and you splain well. I always learn something. Looking forward to the book. I hope your writing words are as good as your talking words.
Something that I’ve wondered since learning about the social-sexual hierarchy of the ancient world is: given that the issue with same sex relations seems to be with relations between people of the same social class, would those who wrote Leviticus have batted an eye at an Israelite having sex with a male slave? Similar to as mentioned in the lecture, slaves in the Greco-Roman world being seen as more appropriate outlets for such behavior?
Leviticus used the word "male". If the issue as in the pagan world was only men with men, why use "male"? I think it's so that it includes all males. The "workaround" of using boys and enslaved men didn't cut it for the authors of Leviticus. In the NT, the meaning of arsenokoites has been lost (Dan's view is common but it's only conjecture). But if the issue is similar to Leviticus, then most victims at the time were enslaved.
The obsession among the various authoritarian monotheisms with promoting conventional sexual behaviour as a substitute for actual morality astounds me. Of course having a conventional sex life is easier than developing ethical discernment, so making morality all about sexual conformity is an easy way to flatter a potential follower base without forcing any serious self-examination. That they get to morally condescend to sexual non-conformists is icing on the cake, I guess.
@@ForesCanada-e5kIm not the original commenter but, morality to me seems like it has to do with wellbeing and agency. You can't hold someone morally responsible for doing something that harms wellbeing, if they had no choice but to do it, and you can't hold someone morally responsible for doing something with their agency, if it doesn't negatively effect wellbeing. Seems pretty simple to me
@benjaminjenkins2384 you still need to prove why would I have to consider anyones wellbeing or agency, and why if I choose to not, why would that be imoral. As far as Im concerned, if there is no God, me and you are just two complex quimical reactions, if I come to the conclusion I can kill you without thet being imoral for me, and you come to the exact opposite conclusion, there's no way to say wich one is right, it's purely relative. In fact secular society has done that already, there's literally ZERO proof for abortion not being a murder of an innocent life, but we decided that is okay, even do no evidence supports it, every biology book will tell you that life begins in conception, but we don't care, because as a society we decided it is okay, same goes for animals, we put ourselves above them, but that only makes sense if you believe in God, otherwise makes no sense at all, but people still act like they are above, no one is charged with murder of they kill an ant.
Something I often think about is that, in the Gospel according to John, it is stated -- five (!) times over -- that the disciple whom Jesus loved was another guy. (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20) On the cross, Jesus entrusts his mother to this same beloved disciple, as if to a family member. (John 19:26-27)
This was a much clearer (to me) discussion of what you mean when you say texts have no inherent meaning than you usually pull out in the shorter "stitch incoming" videos. Good job!
5:44 I've seen this optical illusion before, and it's never really affected me. I think it's because I'm red-green colorblind, because I always see the bottom shape as white--or really bright gray--and the top as really dark if not black. Thinking about how my eyes fail to see the greens and blues in the background the same as everyone else probably affects how it works with the color gray. At this time of night, it might be more because my screen is in 'night mode' which washing out certain colors in order to 'have less effect' on people trying to go to sleep.
I do enjoy this content. Ive heard Dan give the short form of this before. All very interesting. If one thinks about this in terms of intellectual preperstion for discussion with those that believe God/Bible is against LGBTQIA I dont see how it actually counters any of their arguments. It seem the Bible is not against 2 males in a loving relationship, perhaps even endorses it, or at least a specific one, but still seems to show it is against any physical sexual acts within that relationship. The idea of placing the discussion on grounds of renegotiating the biblical text seems more solid an argument.
Maybe just decide that a collection of Bronze Age/Iron Age campfire stories, legends, and mythology is irrelevant to public policy or personal preference.
Thanks for this. I was aware of some of this, but the rabbit hole on this is very deep. Do you have any suggestions on how we can break the rhetoric cycle on this?
What I would love to know is, if the original word used for eunuch in Matthew was used to also describe gay men and people who have taken vows of celibacy. I heard a great take, stemming from that being the case. Implying that the 3 types. Made by man, for God, or born that way means an actual eunuch, celibate clergy, and gay men. The original person claimed that in Roman law gay men were employed as “nannies” for virgin daughters and the term used was the same as the original word translated to eunuch. Honestly, since the whole thing is a negotiation, it seems if people landed on this meaning, people could finally grow up and worry about actually helping people, instead of demonizing them. .
No, eunuchs born that way referred to men who for one reason or another had what we would today call hypogonadism. The allegorical interpretation that saw it as just meaning celibacy was itself a renegotiation to stop christian men from castrating themselves, which was apparently a massive issue in the early church to the point where one of the most famous early christian theologians, Origen, castrated himself when he was young and then railed against the practice later in life.
@ The second part makes sense to me but if you look up that condition, it happens in like 1 in half a million cases. Unless there was some rampant outbreak at the turn of the era, considering the population size at the time, it seems highly unlikely this would warrant mentioning. My other indicator that it could be the meaning. (ironically linked to what Dan is taking about now as I’m watching) is the prelude that many won’t want to understand or have a hard time with it, directly correlating to “ick” factor Dan mentions.
That's what Origen's detractors said, but it doesn't add up. Origen is known for reading the Gospels allegoricaly. Why would he take those verses literally? Makes no sense.
@@Rolando_Cueva It wasn't just his detractors, Eusebius was a fan of his and still wrote about the whole thing as if it was fact, it's not like it's something you can just make up about someone and people would be none the wiser either, he must have looked the part for the rumor to have any credibility. And yeah by the time he was writing he was against literal interpretation of that very passage, most likely explanation is that he did it and then changed his mind later, like I mentioned in my original comment.
I did use that eunuch passage (Matthew 19:12) to justify coming out as trans, since I initially still continued to identify as an inerrantist Evangelical.
The Bible actually has a verse in which the Love between David and Jonathan is described as WONDERFUL, passing the love of women! While Leviticus is often taken out of context, as it was condemning in part pagan orgies in which every imaginable sex act was engaged. Sodom and Gomorrah is another one, supposedly destroyed about 1000BC, only had homosexuality implicated in the destruction around 60AD by two Jewish writers Josephus and Philo who were working for the Romans as they fashioned Christianity for the Romans. The sin of Adultery which the bible calls for punishment by death is much more concerning as the Gospel of Matthew tells us adultery is having any sexual thoughts about any women you are not married to. Which if followed up condemns every heterosexual male and lesbian.
This was very interesting and good ammunition against bible thumpers! I would also like to see a similar lecture about various attitudes about alcohol throughout the bible.
"Debt: the first 5000 years" shows the alien quality of ancient societies in a less controversial arena (money/debt/value). I'm not convinced the "penetrator/penetrated" framework holds for how ancient societies thought about sex. However, I can be sure ancients didn't think of it like we do or even like people from the 19th century.
Yes. Years ago, Alamo Square Press published WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY by a Jesuit Roman Catholic priest who's name escapes me right now, sorry. I've given that book to many of my friends over the years. I'm not sure if it's a kindal book, but it should be!
I've learned in my studies on this topic that in biblical times, there wasn't just one term (adultery) like there is today where it applies to both genders. There was male adultery and female adultery. Two separate things and female adultery was the worst of the two, as Dan seems to have said or implied. Male and female adultery were often found side by side in modern bibles and bible readers might misconstrue the text, thinking one term was reference to an all gender term for adultery and the term next to it was referring to fornication (non-married people having sex outside of marriage). The Greek word for fornication is porneia, which does not refer to fornication. Porneia refers to, either, female adultery (Matthew 19:9). Or, it refers to a man sleeping with another man's woman. 1 Corinthians 5:1 is a good example of this. It's saying, there is a form of "a man sleeping with another man's woman" being reported among the Jews. This kind of porneia is not even found among the Gentiles: A son sleeping with his own father's wife is the kind of porneia reported among the Jews. Figuratively, porneia refers to idolatry (the Jews being unfaithful to God with false gods/goddesses). Fornication itself doesn't seem to be condemned in the bible because fornication isn't really a violation of the Law Jesus issued in Matthew 7:12. Neither is homosexuality in and of itself.
1:08:55 Dan, you would not make the same accusation if a Jew refused to wear a jersey endorsing christianty or with christian symbols. Refusing to wear a symbol publicly does not mean you are doing it to be seen of men. I have no doubt there are symbols you would refuse to wear, whether it was in public or private, and that does not mean you are doing as a means of costly signaling.
It’s a bit more complex than just not wearing a symbol. I think the meaning behind the symbol and the intention with which one wears/doesn’t wear it is highly relevant.
I don't see two shades of gray. I see white and gray but even after I put do as you said they still look gray and white. Guess my mind works different.
I haven't watched yet (slow internet) but I'm going to go ahead and ask this question anyway, because I'm yet to see someone address it. If I later find it's been answered well in the video, I'll delete this question. In Romans 1:26, what do the terms "natural" and "un-natural" sexual relations refer to, and in 1:27, what do the terms "natural relations with women" and "for one another" mean?
Romans 1:26-27 NIV [26] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
If I recall correctly, these verses are part of Paul's discussion about how out of control the Gentiles were in comparison to the Jewish people. That is, in the sense that, since the gentiles would worship the creation rather than the creator, He would allow their desires to boil over. In the minds of Paul and other Greco-Roman people, unchecked, uncontrolled sexual desire would lead to people delving into "unnatural" same sex relations. This is also why Paul urged anyone who couldn't handle celibacy to get married and have just enough prophylactic sex to keep their desires in check. (I'm only about halfway through the video so far, so I don't know if he eventually got to it. I hope it helps.)
@@bc4yt Great question. So the Greek term here is “physis” for natural and “para physis” for unnatural. This term refers to things that go against what a society of the time considers correct and incorrect. Not necessarily eternal truths, but societal norms. It is the same term he used in I Corinthians 11 when referring to head coverings during prayer. Another thing to bear in mind here is context. Paul is discussing Gentiles, those who are neither Christian or Jewish, but are Pagan. As such, this section is condemning Pagan ritual practices. These practices included what Paul considered excessive fornication and fornication that went against society’s rules of the time. Another contextual consideration here is that Paul hates sex. In other letters, he talks about how everyone should be celibate, and if they cannot, then they should get married to have just enough intercourse to control their lusts. Seeing sex itself as already morally wrong if not restrained, any acts that go against the rules of society of the time are doubly so. References: Can One Be Critical Without Being Autobiographical? The Case of Romans 1:26-27 by Professor Daniel Patte Bible, Gender Sexuality by James Brownson
The most convincing thesis I have seen is by a master's student of a scholar whose name I can't remember. The thesis is that men corrupting themselves with men is a reference to the SPECIFIC STORY of Sodom & Gomorrah (& not just the evil of homosexuality in a general sense)-& the "woman having sex against nature" is a SPECIFIC REFERENCE to the STORY in Genesis 6:1-4 of women MARRYING ANGELS/DEITIES (as it is only natural to marry MORTAL men). Therefore, the Pauline letter is referencing two different stories of sexual perversion (both of which may potentially involve deities-as angels under disguise of men were threatened sexually in Sodom)
@robertmauck4975 he did, but rather unsatisfactorily I think. Romans 1 is a HUGE factor is this issue, and he largely brushed past it. It was so rushed I honestly can't well reflect on the points he tried to make.
where does he get that .. subconscious cognition is based on evolutionally installed default features ... and are those distinguished from cognition conditioned by the common experiences of humanity... it's all determined by interaction with the world ... what is evolutionally determined is the structure of the body ... and then this determines how you interact with the world ... and then this determines your expectations ..
"Gee whiz" fun fact is that when looking at this graphic with the far peripheral vision, that takes care of most/all of the argument between our subconscious and reflective cognition. 😊
Remeber, there is not “the bible”, and no univocal point f view of the various books. Do you think sex before you are married is ok? Start there. Cause the bible will tell you want you WANT. And yes, people in jesus’s time had pre maritial sex withh their future partner.
@@tanyanguyen3704stop making stuff up. I challenge you to show me a single example of any Torah-observant post-Hasmonean Jew that had pre-marital sex (idolatrous "Jews" like the Herodians do not count). Of course, idol worshippers & non-Jews had premarital sex with prostitutes & married women during the time of Christ-but no one in a Torah-observant Jewish city/town/village ever did such a thing. Ever since the Hasmoneans came to power 160 years before the time of Jesus, premarital sex went into relatively permanent extinction among Torah-observant Jewish communities; it was only resurrected among ethnic Jews in post-European Enlightenment times in the last 4 centuries (most especially in the late-19th & 20th centuries)
@@tanyanguyen3704even pagans who had sex before marriage NEVER did it with their fiances-NEVER-the fact that a girl is bethroted otr intended to be bethroted by her father would guarantee that the prospective husband would NEVER be allowed to even shake hands or touch her before the wedding ceremony. So no, it is only in the post-Enlightenment (and especially 20th century Western) world that it became normal for future partners to even be ever allowed to be in private places that permitted intercourse
It’s called fornication and the Bible condemns it. So, if the Bible condemns fornication then do you think it permits homosexuality? The answer is clearly no.
Hi. I'm your new Rabbi. It's simple. The law of God CANNOT be enforced without breaking it further, and thus is does not NEED to be enforced. Else, what is 'sovereignty' ? Jesus reduced all the complexities to a word. "Love" There are only 2 masters and since we are NOT to judge another master's servant, you CANNOT judge, without BEING judged. Shalom. "White Rabbit - the 'rabid' rabbi"
Sorry Rabbi, but your analysis simply doesn't hold water. Speaking of which, the very thing that holds water in a glass is gravity. Do you suppose that law was done away with as well? That all laws just ceased to exist at the coming of Christ? Christ said in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them." And 18. "I came not to change one iota(of the law.)" Why dont you tell us what the Hebrew word "yodh" means? The Hebrew letter yodh corresponds to the Greek letter iota. Both letters represent the smallest letter in their respective alphabets. Meaning Christ didn't intend to change even the smallest letter or the smallest jot of the law. Christ tells us repeatedly that we should discern between good and evil, and tells us exactly how to do it. Why would he tell us that if he didn't expect us to do just that? Discern good from evil? Judgment and discernment are 2 similar yet different concepts. Like the "doctor" speaking, you are being purposely disingenuous and reductive. You clearly know the scriptures better than that as a Rabbi. There's a reason the red letters in the bible number in the thousands and not just 4. "L-O-V-E." There's a lot more to it than that, Rabbi. And the irony of a Rabbi instructing people about Christ and calling into question the validity of old testament law certainly isn't lost on me considering that constitutes a third of the scriptural foundations of your supposed professed faith. That seems a lot like intellectual dishonesty, severe cognitive dissonance, or a combination of both. You and the speaker are engaged in oversimplification and willful omission of material facts. Mental gymnastics. Or perhaps the best way to describe it, given the subject matter might be extreme biblical reach-around.
@@jjj-g8n6m Do you believe that Christ fulfilled the law, or not? Of course it hasn't been abolished, but if it has been fulfilled, that should mean something. OP's point comes straight from Scripture: "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom 13:10)
Very interesting, all these people that attack the Islam for being not nice enough to their women, do not have a clue that their own bible saw women as property. They use an imaginary difference between the bible and the Quran to feel superior, like we have the better religion. No you don't. It is not a book that is going to better us, it is us, inside us God gave us a conscience which tells us right from wrong, that is gods gift, and we need to protect society from those that do not listen to their conscience or have a lack of it. Telling people your religion is better, superior, is the kind of ego-trip that brings wars in the world, that is not bettering ourselves, it is creating the opportunity for a lot of evil to get influence. What we call the holy books can have a proper use, to grow our spirituality, to better ourselves and the world, another book can still be written that does the same, or even better, why would anyone have a problem with that? All these books can be used in a wrong way as well, to hurt certain people, to create division, an enemy, wars.
if all that is true then the only ones going to heaven are young kids and babies. NO matter how religious you are your still a sinner and no matter how much you repent your still a sinner. If all gays became straight which is impossible but if they did they are still sinners. There is no difference.
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-24)
I love straight people's hatred it is funny as a gay man I enjoy listening to straight people whin about it I will say congratulations on finding your true self hate I hope your hate to go far and wide god bless you straight person.
I know there's a vast difference between modern Jewish povs and American Protestant ideals but i guess I've always found it odd that the latter doesn't try to understand the historical context of the Tanakh. Like i've known it was about social hierarchy for ages, not the modern concept of LGBTA+. But i suppose I read the Torah and rabbi teachings too much lol.
American Protestants, especially evangelicals, don’t look at the Bible itself as a whole including the NT in its original context, just in their context, aka Anglosphere North American rural life. It’s why many of them are KJV onlyists.
There's a debate that's airing as we speak on does the church support LGBT? between an LGBT chuch pastor and a catholic. ink th-cam.com/video/DBx1S_NKLDE/w-d-xo.html
Ecclesiastes 3:15: “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away.” The “natural man” cannot grasp that, for to him reality is based only on the evidence of the senses. The man of reason could justify the verse’s end, saying if it has any meaning then the writer must mean recurrence. The sun comes every day and the moon completes its cycle and the seasons come and go. If we took a picture of the universe today, the scientists can compute how long it will take to return to this point in the picture. So the intellectual man could justify the verse; but that is not what is meant, for it is addressed not to the man of reason or the man of sense, but to the man of Imagination. What is it all about? “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been, and God seeks what has been driven away.”
This kinda reminds me of the scene in The Expanse where The Detective Josephus Miller was Shaking down Diogo and told him "Dirtbag school is in session".
Yo bruh, what the .... ? Why are you bringing up pedophilia in the first three sentences when you talk about homosexuality? Have mercy.I thought you were different brother. When you You discuss heterosexuality do you bring up pedophilia? What gives?
Great lecture. Thanks for posting. It fits in with what I've figured out from my own research. One point, you've correctly avoided the term "homoxesual/ity" in reference to the ancient world, but the term "same-secs" is also misleading. The category did not exist yet. "Placing a male in a passive role" might be a mouthful, but it's a more accurate way to represent what was going on, why it was problematic for them, and why the biblical injunctions are not readily transferable to today.
Why would you talk about Homosexuality and The Bible? Probably only if you are from an obsessed and self righteous 'Bible Belt' community. Obsessed with this ancient, much rearranged and fictional text of "old tribal men". And a fantasy of a god. I would suggest you change your direction and learn a little of the real world and study some science and cosmology or other 'real' courses. You may find that explains more of what is around you than the fantasy world of feeble mindedness that theology perpetuates. Theology should be separate from other real academic disciplines in universities as they are in some places.
Dr. McClellan, I thank you for the list of books to read. I appreciate this class. Dr. Jay Michaelson recommended that I look into Queer Theology. Their teaching is a little biased! watching from Long Island, NY.🤩
Negotiated away? As an academic myself I find your methodology faulty and demonstrating a pre-commitment to affirming homosexuality. So much omission in your analysis…
@@baneofbanes”Text has no inherent meaning”…”rough approximation”…”constructing text in our minds”…These are poor hermeneutical claims which is yet to be evidenced.
Ironic totally misunderstanding woman as propery, using modern concepts of rights, problematic concepts i will add. Woman were"property" because the world operates on responsibilities. A man had a responsibility to take care of a woman up to and including losing his life to defend her. Same as if you owned land you were obligated to be in the army. If you did not own land you did not need to fight in wars.
That's patriarchal nonsense. A man should be expected to care for and defend his daughters without having the right to sell them off as debt-slaves and concubines.
Assuming you’re straight, can you personally experience attraction to the same gender for a few minutes? You don’t have to do anything, just try to experience genuine physical desire for someone of the same gender. And while you’re at it, try to turn off all attraction to the opposite gender.
Please. Long preambles that say nothing of importance are not helpful. I have exited before you started into the so called class. Avoid this! Get to the point.
Dear Dan, I want you to try taking by mouth: 1 teaspoon local honey (real/raw honey), or honey from Sprout's Farmers market (Sprout's brand "Raw with Comb") 8-10 drops licorice root, fluid extract (Nature's Answer alcohol-free version) 3-4 drops propolis extract (Nature's Answer ethanol-free version) 4 drops homemade celtic sole water (or a bare pinch of celtic salt) 5-8 drops olive oil 1 drop oregano essential oil (optional 1 drop rosemary essential oil) Place each ingredient in the mouth, swish and swallow. Swish until oregano oil burns slightly, then swallow. Follow with more drops of licorice and olive oil, if burn is too much. (These two herbs will emulsify the oregano oil) Many great essential oil brands out there. Aura Cacia would be good enough or any brand you trust to be pure essential oil.
@@busterfixxitt That "love is love". That there is no distinction between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions. That gender is merely a social construct. Etc, etc.
@@bc4yt Still back to trolling? Really? The was so excited when your last two posts actually addressed his scholarship, albeit in a rudimentary and prejudicial way. But here you are: back to spamming. What a shame. What a waste.
@Bobjdobbs hey Puppy, nice to see you again 😉 Not trolling, Dan is in high demand and it's hard to get his attention. I'll just keep asking until he sees it and answers.
@oh you are trolling, my troll-y compadre. Spamming him with the same question over and over, when you know you can e-mail him, or pay to have him answer your question on his livestreams? Yeah, that is just being a troll. And as long as you spam, I will keep pointing it out! You are welcome!
@@bc4yt Every live-stream I have seen, he has answered every paid question. So it is far more effective than spamming his comment section, and being a troll. Also, he has mentioned on more than one past video that you can watch his livestream to engage with him. And he has mentioned to e-mail him. So if you are paying actual attention to his videos, and not merely skimming through them to criticize them, you would have known. Hope that helps you to change your aberrant behavior!
Huge thanks for making this publicly available. So many of us who are LGBTQ+ or allies and who are staying in church communities, appreciate help with this to try bring about change
Are you seeing any change either at a systemic level or as significant at a popular level?
Jesus was a big gay boy occam's razor dictates he was gay because there's more evidence that way than anything. He lived at a time when it was normal for men to have children and he didn't even so much as have a wife early Christianity in Roman colonies had no concept of homosexual immorality. In the Celtic Nations we didn't even get the idea until the English imposed it upon us. and we had Christianity 200 years before the English even arrived in what they call England.. so effectively we have a very early if not the original interpretation of Christianity homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with anything. it's baffling we are a small group of Nations battleground by empires and we have never given to such things as homophobia that as an excuse only shows The weakness of the character of the people who wrote the first testament. Which we should understand because that is why they needed Jesus in the first place Jesus would not go to the righteous he goes to the den of sin if you came back today he would land in London alas no word from Jesus yet😂.
I respect and appreciate your honest analysis and interpretation of biblical literature. Been watching and listening for years.
If you want anthropological competence on premodern attitudes of non-modern western (-ised) societies towards deviation from heteronormativity, I would not recommend Dr Mclellan (he is a good ancient near eastern scholar on literally every other topic though); go read what his other colleagues in the different Biblical Studies / Ancient Near Eastern & Classical (Greco-Roman)-related fields are saying INSTEAD.
@@tsemayekekema2918 No citations. Only summary rejections. Do better if you want to have an honest discussion. You may be right but no one reading your statement has any data points or citations to inform anything but either a summary rejection or acceptance to your statement based on their biased pre-suppositions.
@@tsemayekekema2918why would you not recommend him? who would you recommend instead? what is it that makes him uniquely bad on this subject in particular? it isn't clear what point you're trying to make if any, other than that you, for some reason, did not like this video.
@yukari_katsuragi I haven't watched the video - there are a million & one other non-religious critical scholars out there that would cringe at all the other short videos when he claims ot tries to deny that all of the multivocal voices in the biblical text were people who were ten times more homophobic than the most conservative person of the 21st century (only rivalled by those Islamic countries where homoerotic activity is a capital offense-which is a sentiment reflected in biblical law (the book of Revelation has them tortured in eternal fire}!)
@yukari_katsuragi I would recommend literally any other critical scholar, especially those who realize that the evidence from rabbinic literature towards homosexuality does reflect the consensus Greco-Roman Judaism opinion since Hasmonean times at the very least. For him to claim that Jesus would have eaten with transgender drag queens is the height of comical incompetence
I’m sewing and listening to this. Thank you, Dan. As a Christian woman who’s been married to my wife for 3 years.
How can someone be christain and homosexual at the same time?
Not against christainty or homsexuality,but matter of fact abhramic religions are against homosexuality.
@@MissionTapasya very easy. Just like being heterosexual and atheist.
@@MissionTapasya Look up "queer theology" for yourself, if you're really interested in an answer to that question. There are many Christian churches and denominations that affirm LGBTQ identity. The United Methodist church I attend has a gay pastor, and lets me wear cat ears & tail and femboy "drag", even when taking communion. Galatians 3:28 is clear, if you care about the authority of Scripture: "...there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Amen! 😸🏳⚧⚧
@@MissionTapasya how can someone be homophobic and christian???????
This is one of the most thorough lectures on the topic I have come across. Much more attention to detail, and honest in terms of noting which points are not universally agreed upon. Thx, Dan.
Thanks!
I'm having to stop at 11 minutes and resume later, but just want to let you know I appreciate how you opened this presentation.
I was there for the actual live for the class. I need to do your other classes but thank you Dan. I’m going to purchase your book “the Bible says so”. You’re such a great help in my new faith walk
thank you for posting the lecture, i always wanted some longer-form content
Thank you so much!
Can I get a Certificate of Attendance? I need to put it in a gilded frame and hang it in my dining room for the next extended-family holiday dinner.
You can download a blank certificate from the internet and fill it yourself. If you use gothic fonts and print it on thick off white watercolor paper it will look awesome and authentic. 😅
If it was ok for certain Bible authors to pretend to be Isaiah, Daniel or Paul, it will be ok for you to pretend to be Dan McClellan and sign the certificate. As long as you watch the whole video it’s no sin. ;)
Your certificate is smoothly dropping either “univocality” or “in no way shape or form, whatsoever” in a discussion about the Bible.
@@nasonguythis signalling could prove quite costly
Thank you Dan, you are a light in Christian darkness.
This helped me!! I was raised in very extreme pursuit of Jesus. I have never been able to reconcile my sexuality with my faith. I used to say that’s just my cross. I sometimes wonder I have not been able to secure intimate relationship. Yet as days go by perhaps it is just right. Either way, I am not afraid to die. I hold to my conviction that God loves me. Yaeee
I can relate. I have had indepth spiritual experiences that contradict religious indoctrination. I just put it in Gods hands
With the new refocus toward YT, I'm looking forward to more long form content like this!
I'm grateful for all the work you put into this and then shared without charge here. ❤
0/10, you didn't show the fit.
Oh nice, I wasn't able to attend this so thanks for posting it!
Dig the way you present....very straightforward and you splain well. I always learn something. Looking forward to the book. I hope your writing words are as good as your talking words.
He has several works published and freely available. Just in case you want to check out his writing words lol.
Something that I’ve wondered since learning about the social-sexual hierarchy of the ancient world is: given that the issue with same sex relations seems to be with relations between people of the same social class, would those who wrote Leviticus have batted an eye at an Israelite having sex with a male slave? Similar to as mentioned in the lecture, slaves in the Greco-Roman world being seen as more appropriate outlets for such behavior?
Leviticus used the word "male". If the issue as in the pagan world was only men with men, why use "male"? I think it's so that it includes all males. The "workaround" of using boys and enslaved men didn't cut it for the authors of Leviticus. In the NT, the meaning of arsenokoites has been lost (Dan's view is common but it's only conjecture). But if the issue is similar to Leviticus, then most victims at the time were enslaved.
The obsession among the various authoritarian monotheisms with promoting conventional sexual behaviour as a substitute for actual morality astounds me. Of course having a conventional sex life is easier than developing ethical discernment, so making morality all about sexual conformity is an easy way to flatter a potential follower base without forcing any serious self-examination. That they get to morally condescend to sexual non-conformists is icing on the cake, I guess.
What is "actual morality" please explain to me
@@ForesCanada-e5kIm not the original commenter but, morality to me seems like it has to do with wellbeing and agency. You can't hold someone morally responsible for doing something that harms wellbeing, if they had no choice but to do it, and you can't hold someone morally responsible for doing something with their agency, if it doesn't negatively effect wellbeing. Seems pretty simple to me
@benjaminjenkins2384 you still need to prove why would I have to consider anyones wellbeing or agency, and why if I choose to not, why would that be imoral.
As far as Im concerned, if there is no God, me and you are just two complex quimical reactions, if I come to the conclusion I can kill you without thet being imoral for me, and you come to the exact opposite conclusion, there's no way to say wich one is right, it's purely relative.
In fact secular society has done that already, there's literally ZERO proof for abortion not being a murder of an innocent life, but we decided that is okay, even do no evidence supports it, every biology book will tell you that life begins in conception, but we don't care, because as a society we decided it is okay, same goes for animals, we put ourselves above them, but that only makes sense if you believe in God, otherwise makes no sense at all, but people still act like they are above, no one is charged with murder of they kill an ant.
@@ForesCanada-e5k Actual morality is the law of love. "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:10)
@@ForesCanada-e5k what do you think it is?
Hey, thanks for adding this! I look forward to watching this!
Something I often think about is that, in the Gospel according to John, it is stated -- five (!) times over -- that the disciple whom Jesus loved was another guy. (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20) On the cross, Jesus entrusts his mother to this same beloved disciple, as if to a family member. (John 19:26-27)
This was a much clearer (to me) discussion of what you mean when you say texts have no inherent meaning than you usually pull out in the shorter "stitch incoming" videos. Good job!
Thank you for sharing this.
Dan thank you so much. This eats my mind at night but hearing this video is a sign. Love you thank you.
5:44 I've seen this optical illusion before, and it's never really affected me. I think it's because I'm red-green colorblind, because I always see the bottom shape as white--or really bright gray--and the top as really dark if not black. Thinking about how my eyes fail to see the greens and blues in the background the same as everyone else probably affects how it works with the color gray.
At this time of night, it might be more because my screen is in 'night mode' which washing out certain colors in order to 'have less effect' on people trying to go to sleep.
That is exactly how it works. Your brain thinks the top part is darker than the bottom part.
@@HopefulAgnostic yeah, but nothing I do changes anything ever. The illusion part never comes in. My mind can't undo the coloring part
@ Then it just affects you very strongly.
Thanks for bringing the context of the bible into the forefront and making it easy to understand.
I do enjoy this content. Ive heard Dan give the short form of this before. All very interesting. If one thinks about this in terms of intellectual preperstion for discussion with those that believe God/Bible is against LGBTQIA I dont see how it actually counters any of their arguments. It seem the Bible is not against 2 males in a loving relationship, perhaps even endorses it, or at least a specific one, but still seems to show it is against any physical sexual acts within that relationship.
The idea of placing the discussion on grounds of renegotiating the biblical text seems more solid an argument.
Maybe just decide that a collection of Bronze Age/Iron Age campfire stories, legends, and mythology is irrelevant to public policy or personal preference.
This is amazing! It's interesting to see how much of what I grew up being "taught" was wrong and pathetically archaic.
Thanks for this. I was aware of some of this, but the rabbit hole on this is very deep. Do you have any suggestions on how we can break the rhetoric cycle on this?
Dan releases a lecture and then I listen
I'll have to watch this later. 🎉
What I would love to know is, if the original word used for eunuch in Matthew was used to also describe gay men and people who have taken vows of celibacy. I heard a great take, stemming from that being the case. Implying that the 3 types. Made by man, for God, or born that way means an actual eunuch, celibate clergy, and gay men. The original person claimed that in Roman law gay men were employed as “nannies” for virgin daughters and the term used was the same as the original word translated to eunuch.
Honestly, since the whole thing is a negotiation, it seems if people landed on this meaning, people could finally grow up and worry about actually helping people, instead of demonizing them. .
No, eunuchs born that way referred to men who for one reason or another had what we would today call hypogonadism.
The allegorical interpretation that saw it as just meaning celibacy was itself a renegotiation to stop christian men from castrating themselves, which was apparently a massive issue in the early church to the point where one of the most famous early christian theologians, Origen, castrated himself when he was young and then railed against the practice later in life.
@ The second part makes sense to me but if you look up that condition, it happens in like 1 in half a million cases. Unless there was some rampant outbreak at the turn of the era, considering the population size at the time, it seems highly unlikely this would warrant mentioning.
My other indicator that it could be the meaning. (ironically linked to what Dan is taking about now as I’m watching) is the prelude that many won’t want to understand or have a hard time with it, directly correlating to “ick” factor Dan mentions.
That's what Origen's detractors said, but it doesn't add up. Origen is known for reading the Gospels allegoricaly. Why would he take those verses literally? Makes no sense.
@@Rolando_Cueva It wasn't just his detractors, Eusebius was a fan of his and still wrote about the whole thing as if it was fact, it's not like it's something you can just make up about someone and people would be none the wiser either, he must have looked the part for the rumor to have any credibility.
And yeah by the time he was writing he was against literal interpretation of that very passage, most likely explanation is that he did it and then changed his mind later, like I mentioned in my original comment.
I did use that eunuch passage (Matthew 19:12) to justify coming out as trans, since I initially still continued to identify as an inerrantist Evangelical.
The Bible actually has a verse in which the Love between David and Jonathan is described as WONDERFUL, passing the love of women!
While Leviticus is often taken out of context, as it was condemning in part pagan orgies in which every imaginable sex act was engaged.
Sodom and Gomorrah is another one, supposedly destroyed about 1000BC, only had homosexuality implicated in the destruction around 60AD by two Jewish writers Josephus and Philo who were working for the Romans as they fashioned Christianity for the Romans.
The sin of Adultery which the bible calls for punishment by death is much more concerning as the Gospel of Matthew tells us adultery is having any sexual thoughts about any women you are not married to. Which if followed up condemns every heterosexual male and lesbian.
This was very interesting and good ammunition against bible thumpers! I would also like to see a similar lecture about various attitudes about alcohol throughout the bible.
Having an extended take of your views on the subject is good.
Oh yeah.... Thank you so much for putting out this informative video, Dan! 😊
"Debt: the first 5000 years" shows the alien quality of ancient societies in a less controversial arena (money/debt/value). I'm not convinced the "penetrator/penetrated" framework holds for how ancient societies thought about sex. However, I can be sure ancients didn't think of it like we do or even like people from the 19th century.
Are there any other comprehensive books on homosexuality and the Bible (preferably ones that are on Kindle)?
The Widening of God's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story , by Christopher Hays and his father Richard Hays.
Walking the Bridgeless Canyon by Kathy Baldock
Thank you for the suggestions.
Yes. Years ago, Alamo Square Press published WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY by a Jesuit Roman Catholic priest who's name escapes me right now, sorry. I've given that book to many of my friends over the years. I'm not sure if it's a kindal book, but it should be!
@@AntonioAFelizJr Thanks for the recommendation. I just looked it up and it is on Kindle.
Wow! Gud 4 u ... I started listening again ... u deleted the crap about pedophilia! I'm going to continue to listen ... stay tuned ...
I've learned in my studies on this topic that in biblical times, there wasn't just one term (adultery) like there is today where it applies to both genders. There was male adultery and female adultery. Two separate things and female adultery was the worst of the two, as Dan seems to have said or implied. Male and female adultery were often found side by side in modern bibles and bible readers might misconstrue the text, thinking one term was reference to an all gender term for adultery and the term next to it was referring to fornication (non-married people having sex outside of marriage). The Greek word for fornication is porneia, which does not refer to fornication. Porneia refers to, either, female adultery (Matthew 19:9). Or, it refers to a man sleeping with another man's woman. 1 Corinthians 5:1 is a good example of this. It's saying, there is a form of "a man sleeping with another man's woman" being reported among the Jews. This kind of porneia is not even found among the Gentiles: A son sleeping with his own father's wife is the kind of porneia reported among the Jews. Figuratively, porneia refers to idolatry (the Jews being unfaithful to God with false gods/goddesses). Fornication itself doesn't seem to be condemned in the bible because fornication isn't really a violation of the Law Jesus issued in Matthew 7:12. Neither is homosexuality in and of itself.
Sunday morning bible study - yay!
Amazing. Love your content.
Thank you.
1:08:55 Dan, you would not make the same accusation if a Jew refused to wear a jersey endorsing christianty or with christian symbols. Refusing to wear a symbol publicly does not mean you are doing it to be seen of men. I have no doubt there are symbols you would refuse to wear, whether it was in public or private, and that does not mean you are doing as a means of costly signaling.
It’s a bit more complex than just not wearing a symbol. I think the meaning behind the symbol and the intention with which one wears/doesn’t wear it is highly relevant.
I don't see two shades of gray. I see white and gray but even after I put do as you said they still look gray and white. Guess my mind works different.
Put your finger over the middle of the 2 squares and turn your phone upside down
@@martinnibataan7046that worked lol
*sigh* these kinds of men never seem to change
I haven't watched yet (slow internet) but I'm going to go ahead and ask this question anyway, because I'm yet to see someone address it. If I later find it's been answered well in the video, I'll delete this question.
In Romans 1:26, what do the terms "natural" and "un-natural" sexual relations refer to, and in 1:27, what do the terms "natural relations with women" and "for one another" mean?
Romans 1:26-27 NIV
[26] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
If I recall correctly, these verses are part of Paul's discussion about how out of control the Gentiles were in comparison to the Jewish people. That is, in the sense that, since the gentiles would worship the creation rather than the creator, He would allow their desires to boil over. In the minds of Paul and other Greco-Roman people, unchecked, uncontrolled sexual desire would lead to people delving into "unnatural" same sex relations. This is also why Paul urged anyone who couldn't handle celibacy to get married and have just enough prophylactic sex to keep their desires in check.
(I'm only about halfway through the video so far, so I don't know if he eventually got to it. I hope it helps.)
@@bc4yt Great question. So the Greek term here is “physis” for natural and “para physis” for unnatural. This term refers to things that go against what a society of the time considers correct and incorrect. Not necessarily eternal truths, but societal norms. It is the same term he used in I Corinthians 11 when referring to head coverings during prayer.
Another thing to bear in mind here is context. Paul is discussing Gentiles, those who are neither Christian or Jewish, but are Pagan. As such, this section is condemning Pagan ritual practices. These practices included what Paul considered excessive fornication and fornication that went against society’s rules of the time.
Another contextual consideration here is that Paul hates sex. In other letters, he talks about how everyone should be celibate, and if they cannot, then they should get married to have just enough intercourse to control their lusts. Seeing sex itself as already morally wrong if not restrained, any acts that go against the rules of society of the time are doubly so.
References:
Can One Be Critical Without Being Autobiographical? The Case of Romans 1:26-27
by Professor Daniel Patte
Bible, Gender Sexuality by James Brownson
The most convincing thesis I have seen is by a master's student of a scholar whose name I can't remember. The thesis is that men corrupting themselves with men is a reference to the SPECIFIC STORY of Sodom & Gomorrah (& not just the evil of homosexuality in a general sense)-& the "woman having sex against nature" is a SPECIFIC REFERENCE to the STORY in Genesis 6:1-4 of women MARRYING ANGELS/DEITIES (as it is only natural to marry MORTAL men). Therefore, the Pauline letter is referencing two different stories of sexual perversion (both of which may potentially involve deities-as angels under disguise of men were threatened sexually in Sodom)
@robertmauck4975 he did, but rather unsatisfactorily I think. Romans 1 is a HUGE factor is this issue, and he largely brushed past it. It was so rushed I honestly can't well reflect on the points he tried to make.
where does he get that .. subconscious cognition is based on evolutionally installed default features ... and are those distinguished from cognition conditioned by the common experiences of humanity...
it's all determined by interaction with the world ... what is evolutionally determined is the structure of the body ... and then this determines how you interact with the world ... and then this determines your expectations ..
Love you my brother
4:14 ....putting my finger between the two, tilting my head upside down. I'm shocked, they are not the same shade of grey
That was my experience as well.
"Gee whiz" fun fact is that when looking at this graphic with the far peripheral vision, that takes care of most/all of the argument between our subconscious and reflective cognition. 😊
I’d be curious to see Dan do one on Premartial sex and the Bible and if it allows for it
Remeber, there is not “the bible”, and no univocal point f view of the various books. Do you think sex before you are married is ok? Start there. Cause the bible will tell you want you WANT. And yes, people in jesus’s time had pre maritial sex withh their future partner.
@@tanyanguyen3704stop making stuff up. I challenge you to show me a single example of any Torah-observant post-Hasmonean Jew that had pre-marital sex (idolatrous "Jews" like the Herodians do not count).
Of course, idol worshippers & non-Jews had premarital sex with prostitutes & married women during the time of Christ-but no one in a Torah-observant Jewish city/town/village ever did such a thing.
Ever since the Hasmoneans came to power 160 years before the time of Jesus, premarital sex went into relatively permanent extinction among Torah-observant Jewish communities; it was only resurrected among ethnic Jews in post-European Enlightenment times in the last 4 centuries (most especially in the late-19th & 20th centuries)
@@tanyanguyen3704even pagans who had sex before marriage NEVER did it with their fiances-NEVER-the fact that a girl is bethroted otr intended to be bethroted by her father would guarantee that the prospective husband would NEVER be allowed to even shake hands or touch her before the wedding ceremony. So no, it is only in the post-Enlightenment (and especially 20th century Western) world that it became normal for future partners to even be ever allowed to be in private places that permitted intercourse
Loving the idea of premartial sex as a cultural thing. Like you have to fight someone in hand to hand combat to prove you're worthy to hit it
It’s called fornication and the Bible condemns it. So, if the Bible condemns fornication then do you think it permits homosexuality? The answer is clearly no.
Hi. I'm your new Rabbi.
It's simple. The law of God CANNOT be enforced without breaking it further, and thus is does not NEED to be enforced. Else, what is 'sovereignty' ?
Jesus reduced all the complexities to a word. "Love"
There are only 2 masters and since we are NOT to judge another master's servant, you CANNOT judge, without BEING judged.
Shalom.
"White Rabbit - the 'rabid' rabbi"
Sorry Rabbi, but your analysis simply doesn't hold water. Speaking of which, the very thing that holds water in a glass is gravity. Do you suppose that law was done away with as well? That all laws just ceased to exist at the coming of Christ? Christ said in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them." And 18. "I came not to change one iota(of the law.)" Why dont you tell us what the Hebrew word "yodh" means? The Hebrew letter yodh corresponds to the Greek letter iota. Both letters represent the smallest letter in their respective alphabets. Meaning Christ didn't intend to change even the smallest letter or the smallest jot of the law. Christ tells us repeatedly that we should discern between good and evil, and tells us exactly how to do it. Why would he tell us that if he didn't expect us to do just that? Discern good from evil? Judgment and discernment are 2 similar yet different concepts. Like the "doctor" speaking, you are being purposely disingenuous and reductive. You clearly know the scriptures better than that as a Rabbi. There's a reason the red letters in the bible number in the thousands and not just 4. "L-O-V-E." There's a lot more to it than that, Rabbi. And the irony of a Rabbi instructing people about Christ and calling into question the validity of old testament law certainly isn't lost on me considering that constitutes a third of the scriptural foundations of your supposed professed faith. That seems a lot like intellectual dishonesty, severe cognitive dissonance, or a combination of both. You and the speaker are engaged in oversimplification and willful omission of material facts. Mental gymnastics. Or perhaps the best way to describe it, given the subject matter might be extreme biblical reach-around.
@@jjj-g8n6m Do you believe that Christ fulfilled the law, or not? Of course it hasn't been abolished, but if it has been fulfilled, that should mean something. OP's point comes straight from Scripture: "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom 13:10)
Very interesting, all these people that attack the Islam for being not nice enough to their women, do not have a clue that their own bible saw women as property.
They use an imaginary difference between the bible and the Quran to feel superior, like we have the better religion.
No you don't.
It is not a book that is going to better us, it is us, inside us God gave us a conscience which tells us right from wrong, that is gods gift, and we need to protect society from those that do not listen to their conscience or have a lack of it.
Telling people your religion is better, superior, is the kind of ego-trip that brings wars in the world, that is not bettering ourselves, it is creating the opportunity for a lot of evil to get influence.
What we call the holy books can have a proper use, to grow our spirituality, to better ourselves and the world, another book can still be written that does the same, or even better, why would anyone have a problem with that? All these books can be used in a wrong way as well, to hurt certain people, to create division, an enemy, wars.
The Divine Goddess loves all Earthlings......she needs love too❤
Dan why do you never respond to me questions
Ah yeah the 2023 class
What does Dan believe about same sex marriage in the temple?
if all that is true then the only ones going to heaven are young kids and babies. NO matter how religious you are your still a sinner and no matter how much you repent your still a sinner. If all gays became straight which is impossible but if they did they are still sinners. There is no difference.
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-24)
I love straight people's hatred it is funny as a gay man I enjoy listening to straight people whin about it I will say congratulations on finding your true self hate I hope your hate to go far and wide god bless you straight person.
Considering the original sin, everyone is a sinner anyways. The only way to heaven is through Christ, no matter how sinful you are
Excellent work
It’s hard to fathom how Christians interpret this as moral
I know there's a vast difference between modern Jewish povs and American Protestant ideals but i guess I've always found it odd that the latter doesn't try to understand the historical context of the Tanakh. Like i've known it was about social hierarchy for ages, not the modern concept of LGBTA+. But i suppose I read the Torah and rabbi teachings too much lol.
American Protestants, especially evangelicals, don’t look at the Bible itself as a whole including the NT in its original context, just in their context, aka Anglosphere North American rural life. It’s why many of them are KJV onlyists.
Kripke on Wittgenstein! love it :)
There is reality and truth and then there is religion and beliefs.
Good presentation. It is a bit daunting in its expositive nature, however, and would benefit if you re-record it in better voice.
Here from TikTok. You are so well informed and you offer sources that allow us to delve further. Thank you.
this seems old
It is! That’s what it says in the description at least
oh, haven't read it!@@weirdlanguageguy
@@json_js.1-- The video is an online class Dan taught 2 years ago, in 2023.
wow
Walking 🔨 reminds me of jiu jitsu as they say be the nail not the hammer
Romans 1:18-2:16🙏
Are you trying to tell us something, Dan?
My typing depends on the reader's mind to just auto fill the correct squiggly 😂
There's a debate that's airing as we speak on does the church support LGBT? between an LGBT chuch pastor and a catholic.
ink th-cam.com/video/DBx1S_NKLDE/w-d-xo.html
Ecclesiastes 3:15: “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away.” The “natural man” cannot grasp that, for to him reality is based only on the evidence of the senses. The man of reason could justify the verse’s end, saying if it has any meaning then the writer must mean recurrence. The sun comes every day and the moon completes its cycle and the seasons come and go. If we took a picture of the universe today, the scientists can compute how long it will take to return to this point in the picture. So the intellectual man could justify the verse; but that is not what is meant, for it is addressed not to the man of reason or the man of sense, but to the man of Imagination. What is it all about? “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been, and God seeks what has been driven away.”
This kinda reminds me of the scene in The Expanse where The Detective Josephus Miller was Shaking down Diogo and told him "Dirtbag school is in session".
Yo bruh, what the .... ? Why are you bringing up pedophilia in the first three sentences when you talk about homosexuality? Have mercy.I thought you were different brother. When you You discuss heterosexuality do you bring up pedophilia? What gives?
Why does Dan look 17
Ah so this is the false teachers that the Bible warned us.😮
This was great, thank you!
Great lecture. Thanks for posting. It fits in with what I've figured out from my own research.
One point, you've correctly avoided the term "homoxesual/ity" in reference to the ancient world, but the term "same-secs" is also misleading. The category did not exist yet. "Placing a male in a passive role" might be a mouthful, but it's a more accurate way to represent what was going on, why it was problematic for them, and why the biblical injunctions are not readily transferable to today.
Why would you talk about Homosexuality and The Bible? Probably only if you are from an obsessed and self righteous 'Bible Belt' community. Obsessed with this ancient, much rearranged and fictional text of "old tribal men". And a fantasy of a god.
I would suggest you change your direction and learn a little of the real world and study some science and cosmology or other 'real' courses.
You may find that explains more of what is around you than the fantasy world of feeble mindedness that theology perpetuates.
Theology should be separate from other real academic disciplines in universities as they are in some places.
Thanks Dan!
Respectfully, you’re too long winded... towards making a connection.... ✌🏾
How about little scholarship!
Trump tells God what to do
57:20 this “icky” theme feels like an over generalization
11:25 I turned this off at BCE CE.
Ha. Wimp. You know Jesus wasn't really born in 1 AD, right? That was the best guess of some Catholic monk.
Dr. McClellan, I thank you for the list of books to read. I appreciate this class. Dr. Jay Michaelson recommended that I look into Queer Theology. Their teaching is a little biased! watching from Long Island, NY.🤩
You've lost your mind!
Looks like a great value brand mark Zuckerberg
Negotiated away? As an academic myself I find your methodology faulty and demonstrating a pre-commitment to affirming homosexuality. So much omission in your analysis…
Such as?
@@baneofbanes”Text has no inherent meaning”…”rough approximation”…”constructing text in our minds”…These are poor hermeneutical claims which is yet to be evidenced.
If you can't read the ancient texts, you should not talk about them just saying
Better be able to read them in the original languages, too.
Ironic totally misunderstanding woman as propery, using modern concepts of rights, problematic concepts i will add. Woman were"property" because the world operates on responsibilities. A man had a responsibility to take care of a woman up to and including losing his life to defend her. Same as if you owned land you were obligated to be in the army. If you did not own land you did not need to fight in wars.
No, it meant property in the same sense as your slave or chair was property.
That's patriarchal nonsense. A man should be expected to care for and defend his daughters without having the right to sell them off as debt-slaves and concubines.
Thou shalt not cornhole.
Blasphemies.
Sexuality is a choice. Change my mind
Assuming you’re straight, can you personally experience attraction to the same gender for a few minutes? You don’t have to do anything, just try to experience genuine physical desire for someone of the same gender.
And while you’re at it, try to turn off all attraction to the opposite gender.
Please. Long preambles that say nothing of importance are not helpful. I have exited before you started into the so called class. Avoid this! Get to the point.
He normally does more direct videos, but with this topic, he needs to get you into a mindset.
Aw... poor baby has a short attention span 🙄
Dear Dan,
I want you to try taking by mouth:
1 teaspoon local honey (real/raw honey), or honey from Sprout's Farmers market (Sprout's brand "Raw with Comb")
8-10 drops licorice root, fluid extract (Nature's Answer alcohol-free version)
3-4 drops propolis extract (Nature's Answer ethanol-free version)
4 drops homemade celtic sole water (or a bare pinch of celtic salt)
5-8 drops olive oil
1 drop oregano essential oil
(optional 1 drop rosemary essential oil)
Place each ingredient in the mouth, swish and swallow.
Swish until oregano oil burns slightly, then swallow.
Follow with more drops of licorice and olive oil, if burn is too much. (These two herbs will emulsify the oregano oil)
Many great essential oil brands out there. Aura Cacia would be good enough or any brand you trust to be pure essential oil.
Not sure about all these remedies but honey is a good idea, as is lying in bed and resting.
@cpnlsn88 I am sure. I use it. It's the reason why I recommend it.
Just try it.
And I want you to try keeping your mouth shut
By the way, this is 1 recipe (and 1 remedy), with multiple herbs.
0:29 Dan wears his dogma on his wrist
What dogma do you interpret from his rainbow bracelet?
@@busterfixxitt That "love is love". That there is no distinction between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions. That gender is merely a social construct. Etc, etc.
@@busterfixxitt I replied, but now I can't see my reply. I believe Dan deletes certain comments that he doesn't like.
Everyone has dogmas of a sort, that’s normal. I think his general argument is to follow data regardless of what dogma you believe/follow.
Also Dan, do you believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead?
@@bc4yt Still back to trolling? Really? The was so excited when your last two posts actually addressed his scholarship, albeit in a rudimentary and prejudicial way. But here you are: back to spamming. What a shame. What a waste.
@Bobjdobbs hey Puppy, nice to see you again 😉
Not trolling, Dan is in high demand and it's hard to get his attention. I'll just keep asking until he sees it and answers.
@oh you are trolling, my troll-y compadre. Spamming him with the same question over and over, when you know you can e-mail him, or pay to have him answer your question on his livestreams? Yeah, that is just being a troll.
And as long as you spam, I will keep pointing it out! You are welcome!
@Bobjdobbs I've never seen one of his streams, so how would I know that?
Sure, that'll do nicely. Do you think he'll answer it? 😉
@@bc4yt Every live-stream I have seen, he has answered every paid question. So it is far more effective than spamming his comment section, and being a troll.
Also, he has mentioned on more than one past video that you can watch his livestream to engage with him. And he has mentioned to e-mail him. So if you are paying actual attention to his videos, and not merely skimming through them to criticize them, you would have known.
Hope that helps you to change your aberrant behavior!