Exactly. Bart is also great at helping academics explain the points so that a person without the extensive background understand what the issues are and how it’s much more complicated than what they are commonly told in their religious institutions.
I spent 16 years hating myself and praying everyday to not be gay. It drove me to years of addiction because I hated myself all because of what I heard in church. Being told I was an abomination for something that I cannot even control. I knew I was gay at the age of 8 and honestly probably earlier. I am no longer a Christian and honestly don't believe in God and was able to get sober. I have been in a wonderful relationship for the past 10 years and have been sober for 2 of them and am so lucky to have had him stick by me. You make a difference, I saw you on myth vision. I am Hyperion now, @MorgueOfficial is who got me into it but even that I am not sure of. I thank you so much for covering this. ❤️ To everyone
I'm glad that you too escaped the pain and condemnation that was heaped upon you. I also struggled for about 15 years with this and my chronic depression and anxiety over it. I'm glad you're feeling better now my relationship has been for about 25 years now, with three stepchildren and soon to be our 4th grandchild.
I cannot talk on behalf of Christianity, but in Islam, it's not you who is an abomination. It's the act of rebellion against your maker that is an abomination. We are all sinners, but the best amongst sinners are those who turn back to their maker and repent before the clock rings the bell of the test end. Life is a like a blink of an eye. It's just an hour of exam. Whether you pass or fail. Our desires are a distraction.
@@adamdilem941 Can you stop this? It is like saying, black skin is rebellion against God but he doesn't judge you. When something is an integral part of you, you can't separate it from the person. This "we are all sinners"-narrative is just manipulative. It acts as if stealing or being gay is the same thing. But it isn't. You can stop stealing while staying true to yourself. You can't stop being gay without crippling your soul. "It isn't good for humans to be alone," is written in the bible. Funny, how this suddenly doesn't apply anymore when it comes to LGBT.
I really like that as well. Reasonable people can come to different personal conclusions on important topics but still be very respectful toward one another with acceptance of those differences.
It’s pretty obvious that we can all have these conversations . People have theme everyday . Nothing special going on here. Only uneducated morons in TH-cam comments and Reddit can’t have conversations .
Thank you for discussing this. When I was a Cristian, I believed that same sex attraction was just a perverted friendship. I've learned that it isn't. I now know that same-sex attraction is natural for some people and that it has been around since the beginning of time.
This is due to the fall of mankind, pedophiles have attractions they ought not have I’m not entirely familiar with the psychological data we have on that but that seems to be the case too. In christianity we believe that all have a different cross to bare to honour God The Bible says death and disease came through sin, so we deviated from God’s intended path for us which is why people have attractions they ought not have Because it is natural doesn’t make it good. Whatever is good is whatever is according to God’s will for He is the standard of good and without God there is no moral standard If you don’t believe in God that’s your choice, I respect that. But Christians (according to Biblical beliefs) don’t see homosexuality like a special sin it’s the same as lying and stealing. All sin has the ways of death, the death of the soul as it is separated from God A Christian homosexual would refrain from acting on these attractions they have, and in that way honour the Lord whilst simultaneously trusting in the promise that Christ will ultimately fulfill us in ways our earthly attractions never could. Have a blessed day friend 🙏
Have you ever wondered why all the men in ancient Greece were homosexuals? None of them were born that way, much less all of them. They were sexually abused as boys and became abusers themselves, just like today.
My son tried to tell me not all gay people practice the sexual part of expressing "love". Then I accidentally read the text "I can't fall asleep without your cummies" to his male "friend". He was otherwise still a virgin trying to convince me he was sure he was bi sexual at the least.
I grew up on a dairy farm and was charged with observing the cows for when they come into heat so they could be bread in a timely fashion in terms of maximising milk production. Cows mount each other constantly in the absence of a bull and I had to observe and report this behaviour from the age of 5. One of my teachers at school was in a lesbian relationship and I understood there was a connection because of our common mammalian heritage. What I never questioned back in the forties that homosexuality was part of nature. Consequently I never bought that homosexuality was unnatural. I’m decidedly heterosexual, but I have never felt homosexual people should be condemned or ostracised. This discussion is really forthright and avoids dubious rationalisations.
Animals will jump anything when they are in heat that doesn't mean they are home sexual lol. That's like saying when dogs jump on humans like that that its beastiality.
We aren't supposed to behave as farm animals do. That is the point. Am I supposed to hump a pillow because a dog does it? No!!! Human beings are supposed to exercise self-control. Or shall I now get out and eat the grass on my lawn?
Very helpful information. Bart, your books helped free me from a fundamentalist worldview approximately 15 years ago. I consider this the most important happening in my life.
Is it? The christian god is not above, wrath, envy, jealousy, desire, or anything that we would consider unethical. The main villain of the bible seems to be the fallible creator, who tinkers and throws tamper tantrums, if his creations, whom he made don‘t behave in the way he expects. So is the main theme Love, can we attribute that to the god-being od the bible? True love would not be commanded, and forced under threat of torture. Anyone that commands and expects worship, is automatically unworthy of it. There is just no way to compare the biblical god with anything like love, in a meaningful way.
@@SimonSverige Oh he admits it freely himself "I am a jealous, a wrathful god". He is frequently described in most stories prone to anger,jealousy and basically any characteristic, you would ascribe as negative in human beings. He even deceives people with false vision in one storie in Kings. About the lable: We can change that to "The god, as described in the bible" better?
30:39 Imagine John Doe says a racist comment, and when someone points it out another comes to his defense saying, "No, John Doe was born in Idaho in 1951." The rationalizations some people make to defend their cherished beliefs are fascinating and frightening.
Are you kidding, that's a perfect example! My mom was born in 1940 when India was a part of the British Empire. My mom to this day calls all South Indian people "madrasis", because she is North Indian. Back then, the British ruled all of South India through the Madras Presidency. My wife is South Indian and hates that term, because South Indians are not all the same. When the Madras Presidency became Madras State, the first thing the South Indians did was break up Madras State along ethnic lines. So, when my mom uses that word, my wife feels like my mom is being racist against South Indians. Were North Indians using that term in the 1940s racist? It depends on intent, which is a form of context. For example, my mom is trying to learn the proper terms, because she is exposed to South Indians now more than ever, so she is trying not to be insensitive. So, is she racist for once using the term "madrasi"? Things get interesting when you realize people in different times have different ideas, and applying ideas from modern times will lead you to greatly misunderstand what people in ancient times actually thought.
His point is not that Jesus was intentionally excluding homosexuals, but that he literally did not think of whether to include them, because he had no concept of them as a category of people, much less a category of people who would want to marry. Thus, they would not enter his mind when discussing marriage. In his time, this is not homophobic. We can't know what Jesus would have thought of homosexual marriage should the modern conception be explained to him.
How can there be a racist(which means what?) comment when there is no such thing as race? Whatever you mean by racist why might it need defending? Are you some sort of religious nut that goes in for all that good/evil, right/ wrong, morality/ethics religious mumbo jumbo? You have*Absolute_No* idea what race is, nor what you are calling race? *No* surprises there. Why are you devout followers of that queer relihion modernism so obsessed with sin?You do use 'racist' as a cognate of sin or sinful do you not? You religious nuts are always trying to impose your queer religion with its likes and dislike and or queer ideas of sin, on others whose like and dislikes or beliefs are none of your business. People or men (human beings/dreaming machines) neither can nor do choose the reactions of their functions which take place purely automatically-mechanically; some just don't like those that they see as alien or unlike them, just as some find the very idea of swerism/ homosexualism repugnant and distasteful or just dislikeable(or X evokes the mechanical-automatic reaction dislike in their emotional([like/dislike]function). They are not sins unless you are some sort of religious nut obsessed with sin. You worry about your own sins(dislikeables) titch not those of others; it is no business of yours what are the likes and dislikes of others. Some have functions that purely mechanically(choicelessly)-automatically(also choicelessly) react like or dislike towards all sorts of things and particularly(I would guess instinctively) those that are unlike the just as your function reacted- to use its words"fascinating and frightening." You cannot choose or control that , but you might depending on factors over which you can exercise neither choice nor control, perhaps be indifferent to them and not suppose your self to*Be* them- When it reacts Xor Y you say*I*" react Xor Y or *I_Am* Xor Y, which some call identification and other s attachment. Machines have no choice; you simply *can't_help* being a religious not with weird ideas of sin that you various call sexism racism, homophobia or allsorts of things ending in o'phobia o not of course forgetting the ultimate or nuclear cognate of sinful " misogynist". You can't help being the slave of your functions any more than the writer(or any other human being/dreaming machine) can help being the slave of his functions. If you take a crystal wine glass and smash it down onto the ground, does it fracture because it is faulty in error or, or sinful, or because it is glass or crystal? And so it is with men. They are the slaves of their functions*Be_Cause* they are men, not because the are wicked or sinful or in error but because they are*Men*- something mysterious en cased in a mechanism or rather a complex of mechanisms of the exact workings of which they have none of choice understanding or control, very few of which in and of themselves are of any assistance when it comes to how, why and what it is that has some awareness of the mechanism in which it is encased or coated. When you see that your brother is in the same boat or predicament as you are perhaps you come to see what silly nonsense it is to apply all the religious mumbo jumbo to dreaming machines- you I or any dreaming machine appearing to be a man /human being you have some what is called fellow feeling-sometimes called compassion for him but in reality of course that is not possible because there is no function for that and you can no more put yourself in the place of your bother than you can stand on your own shoulders. The major disadvantage of all that religious normative nonsense is that it leads men to suppose that what-is-and-cannot-be-different -or facts, might somehow or other be different or not facts and for *Why*? You tell me, and while are pondering that remember that that of which we are speaking are machines - or would you say machines plus? It may be, but plus what? Might it be that you expect of others what you do not expect of yourself -what neither or none of you have? Does it matter or signify very much if some chap makes a whatever a " racist comment might be"?Have you some objection to whatever a " racist comment might be and if so, what is the basis or reason for that objection? Some reaction of your emotional(like/dislike) function? Are not on a bit of a sticky wicket if you have no idea either what race is nor what you are calling race? What exactly*are* you *calling* race? Rac.... 'ist' means what? Still no idea? No surprises there.Sometimes rather than asking a chap to *define* X, you have more luck if you ask him what he is*calling*X If words be boxes with whatever it is on the lid, race, god, bla bla bla as often as not when he uses a word he supposes that there is something called"*meaning*" in the box, but equally often when you ask him to open the box with whatever written on the lid it turns out to be empty and i his supposing that there is Anything in it, mistaken, and there is no better or more illustrative example of that than the box with" Meaning" on the lid. Oddly enough there is a word for that as there is a word for a word being like a blurred or onfocussed photograph an when that photograph/word/ box is produced, neither the user of the word/ photograph/box nor his interlocutor can make out of what it is a photograph, nor discover anything in the boxes but more empty boxes. So it is with you the box marked race is empty and the photograph of race so blurred or unfocussed that you have no idea of what is supposed to be a photograph, and in the box marked " race" that too is empty for you is it not or will you merely produce more empty boxes with other words written on them which we call circularity or begging the question, or whatI call psychological algebra x=y=x where neither x nor y is defined identified or assigned a value. Turns out that there is no such thing as race., or it simply impossible to determine of what the photograph bearing the legend "race" is a photograph, and the box marked race is either empty or contains more empty boxes with something-or-other illegible; no race no race.... 'ism', but then you are no better of with the boxes or photographs marked racism than you are with race, as you are about to demonstrate. Whatever rac... ism may be five gives me five million your boss or master function does not like that either, but you must appreciate that the functions can only react, they can't give reasons because that is not their function or what they do.. Does it matter very much -or *at_all*, if some chap says something to which your boos or master function reacts dislike, which is seemingly what you trying to day about the Idaho chap? what has his remark to do with whether or not some book is pro or anti queer? I don't wish to appear to appeal to argumentum ad populum, but I would hazard that the vast majority of non-modernist or those that do not subscribe to your religion which I take to be modernism profoundly disapprove of or are antipathic to sewerites queers homosexualists or who have as a malfunction of the sex function, because to them it is strange and dirty and anti-natural and evokes a dislike reaction in the boss function of men. I is only your religion that supposes sewerites and others with a malfunctioning sex function to be sacred cows, which - as an added bonus gives rise to the hilarious paradox of the modernist sacred cows; what to do if one scared cow cannot abide another eg real beings of the passive sex or women cannot abide fake women?Billions of men(human beings/dreaming machines all over the planet and particularly in Islamic and a great many African countries and most of the Windies just being a sewerite(without more) or homosexualist or having any malfunction of the sex function is a crime - the inference therefrom being that as a generality men are antipathetic to anything anti-natural and to homosexualism in any of its guises because people are just like that - That is how human beings*Are* and if your religion does not like that fact or reality, it had better wake up to it or be accused of the modernist sin of Islamophobia- presumably a relative of that fine old Dublin family the O'Phobias. The*only religions that don'y condemn sewerism are Marxism socialism and your queer religion, modernism which sees any sort of perversion of the sex function as a positive virtue
@@godminnette2 No. His answer shows a lack of understanding of the topic because Jesus DID say something against homosexuality and LGBT sexuality as a whole. The problem in understanding this is the deliberate silence around what LGBT sexuality really is. LGBT sexuality is a form of addictive, compulsive, self-soothing behaviour" which serves the same function as drugs to the drug addict, alcohol to the alcoholic, food to the glutton and winning to the gambler ( "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover). ALL addictions are automatically IDOLATROUS. Did Jesus say anything about idolatry? Yes He did, He said "I have not come to abolish the commandments but to fulfill them" . What's the first commandment? " You shall have no other gods in MY place!"...no idolatry!
My favorite is when David asks for permission to marry Solomon's daughter. Solomon agrees to arrange the marriage but only if David can kill 100 Philistine men and come back with their foreskins. What does David do? He comes back with 200 foreskins. That's a good story to talk about while your family is having dinner...
@@pattheplanter Sounds like you suffered under Roman Catholicism. Not too surprising. I hope & pray that if it shipwrecked your faith, that you will find your way to Jesus SOON. But this time with the teaching of the Catholic church, not the ROMAN Catholic church. Please watch the following to know what I mean: "Catholic, but not ROMAN Catholic// John Barnett" (yt)
@@Anabee3 All priests are lying or deluded, no exceptions. Tell yourself whatever story you need to get you through the day but don't believe the Churches, they have always lied. I know their history.
Fundamentalists very try to pretend it does...even though there is zero debate that it wasn't written a huge number of different people, in different times and places. Indisputable, really.
The Bible never talks about Homosexuality because in ancient times people didn't classify sexual preferences into identities like the way we do nowadays. People didn't go around saying ''I'm straight, I'm gay, I'm lesbian, I'm bisexual". Ancient people just didn't classify themselves like that.
Given that 'homosexuality' is a mixture of Greek and Latin that is unsurprising, but so what? We've advanced and found various forms classification to be rather useful since then.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar _["Given that 'homosexuality' is a mixture of Greek and Latin that is unsurprising, but so what? "]_ He's pointing out that because ancient people didn't think about sexual attraction like we do, the Bible couldn't prohibit homosexuality as we know it.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar The poster was obviously talking about reasonably equivalent terms: rebutting this semantically is like claiming Greeks and Romans didn't think "man" and "woman" existed as categories because the terms are Germanic and Old English in origin. (To be clear, Greek had anēr/gynē, and Latin had vir/femina).
That's true. But what they condemned is homosexual behaviour. Which wouldn't really matter (different times, different culture) if modern Christians didn't source morals from the book. At best they do the whole "hate the sin not the sinner" bullshitery. At worst they advocate for laws targeting homosexual people When people ask "does the Biblie condemn homosexuality" this is usually what they refer to. Many Christians are actually ok with celibate homosexuals
Something was said here about the Old Testament's "condemnation of the rich against the poor". I don't know if there's enough other material for it in the Bible, but that's a topic I'd be very interested in hearing more about.
Actually, this is a very important subject because in fact Jesus condemns accumulation of wealth. And I think this is one thing that shows how different views Jesus had against the Jewish establishment at the time!
@@JeannieSoko The jewish kings are portrayed as a compromise. In first Samuel it is made very clear, that the people want a king and God gives them one, but he says clearly, that they made a decision against God. The whole deuteronomistic literature from Deutoronomy to second Kings is a harsh critic of monarchy. Even more intense is the criticism from the prophets, especially Jeremia and Amos. If the bible is consistent in one thing, it is about siding always with the poor against the rich. The bible shows Gods loyalty to Israel despite of their monarchy, not because of it. David isn't even portrayed that good, Solomon isn't either.
@@strumspicks2456 .. and you have a problem with fundamental values? You do know the actual meaning of fundamental? .. it applies in many areas of life - similar to the term 'basic' and 'from original principles'. Why are you so afraid of good moral values that are healthy for society ie. basic family values.
So basically the point your guest is making is: “the biblical authors don’t explicitly condemn homosexuality as it’s understood today (a loving, consensual and equal relationship) because they had never heard of such a thing, but if they had heard of such a thing, they would have condemned that also.” Seemed like a that answer could’ve been put a little clearer. I think many will come away from this podcast hearing everything before the “but” but not after, because it’s very easy to miss. In fact, it almost seems like the guest is trying to cause us to miss this statement. The statement is one very short offhand comment. Speaking of Paul he says at 49:26 that Paul had probably never heard of “equal adult males” but goes on to remark “even if he did he would probably condemn them”. After admitting this the guest goes on to give Christian’s an exhortation to not condemn homosexuals so readily… just after admitting that one of the greatest Christian apostles himself would have “probably condemned them”. Sorry but something isn’t adding up. This speaker seems to be pushing an agenda more than trying to stay true to the biblical authors and what they intended. EDIT: Just watched to the end where the guest said he was a “minister”. It all makes sense now.
It's not a conspiracy against homosexuals. It's the knowledge that the leaders of the Christian community were not lenient concerning the carnal pleasures in general. Remember John the Baptist. He lost his head protesting against the immorality of King Herod who had married his niece Herodias. Both people were married and divorced their spouses to live together. That thing would be considered today as a right of two consensual adults, but back then it was a huge scandal.
I understand that the debate here is not about saying it is ok or not okay. Simply providing the changing perspectives on the matter over the years in the church
This is one of the best discussions of this subject I've ever seen as it is accessible and not dogmatic. The sad part is that the people who most need to watch this video won't.
Anyone who quotes Lev 18:22 and 20:13 to claim homosexuality is an abomination MUST ALSO obey Lev 19:37 and Lev 20:22 "Keep ALL my decrees and ALL my laws and follow them.." All 613 of them. They don't get a choice. I was a Baptist Pastor and I am proudly gay, medically proven during electronic shock therapy organized by a Dr who was President of the Baptist Church, to punish me for being gay. They then said I am not welcome to even attend church. Thanks for your video.
Clm down dear,Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
If the passages dealing with homosexuality and condaming homosexuality can be dismissed because of the context of the time of the bible, then can most of rulings and other condemnations be dismissed using the same argument and therefore making the bible obsolete??
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
Christianity is a Middle Ages religion which thrived at a time when the only educated people were priests. The message at the time was: "Escape from reality because it is sinful." The only safe place is a monastery, a convent, or a church. Young people are not fearful like their parents and refuse to darken the door of a church after they move out of the family nest! I give Christianity ten years!!!
It’s a strange rationale to say that because people don’t obey all the law, the “picking and choosing” argument. I guess we could apply the same rationale to our time. Because people don’t obey a strict speed limit, that also calls into question whether we should pay taxes.
At around 27:30, I have to disagree with the notion that the people in the Bible only cared about the acts, not the thoughts. One of the Ten Commandments is about having thoughts for your neighbor's wife, not just about having sex with her. And Jesus was very clear about thought sins being equal to actual sinful acts. Among the several dozen authors of the Bible, there was disagreement about the severity of thought crimes but it is clear that some of them considered them as bad or worse than doing the bad deed.
@@crede9427 Exactly. We have known that thought crimes are not and cannot be crimes for more than a century. But the grip of religious organizations on the population is very much based on punishing thoughts.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
I disagree. If you are talking about the 10 commandments and "coveting" a neighbors wife, it follows up with "coveting" their cattle as well. I think that the statement about coveting in the 10 commandments is pretty clearly about jealously wanting the legal property of another person, which generally does not lead to charitable behavior. I don't think it is originally about sexual behavior or thoughts at all... though I can see how the words of Jesus might change your point of view on what it is"really" about.
@@simon-ty7no But how do you separate the moral from ceremonial. For instance, is there a moral reason behind not eating pork? Was there a health issue since pigs eat so much junk that can be passed on to humans who eat them and possibly cause severe illness or even death? Can we say what the purpose was behind such rule? Usually, it seems to me, that there is a moral purpose behind the ceremonial. This is what I mean when I ask if it, "basically negates all of Leviticus?"
@@markadams7046 no. some are moral laws, some ceremonial. Some are what is right and some are how the jews separate themselves from others. kosher rules are not morals laws that apply to everyone
How are people going to accept the contextual angle in Leviticus, for example, with passages like Isaiah 40:8? “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.”
@@mindymild if by stutter you mean did your last statement make any sense, it didn’t. You might want to proofread before you hit the reply button. Your first response “ok you don’t how either” makes zero sense! lol
Thanks for the interesting and informative discussion. I have some (possibly silly) questions about Leviticus 18:22. I'm interested in why modern readers only take this as applying to the conduct of men. I assume most people today expect the Bible's moral codes and laws to apply to everyone. What would it mean to apply this passage to everyone? As a woman, what would I be prohibited from doing? If a particular religious community did want to say this statute only applies to the conduct of men, if they were to apply the same logic to the rest of the biblical statutes and ordinances, as a woman which other statutes would not apply to me? Would I basically be off scot-free in terms of needing to obey >90% of the biblical statutes? Just curious, not sure if they're very silly questions!
Of course they are not silly questions. Men wrote the books. You could say their dicks wrote the books. Why would a dick consider a woman... except for sex of course?
the difference is this: during history women were not considered as beings with agency over their lives (or very minimal) so they did not bother with them, but men had agency, will, desire so it was imperative if you want to control men you need a higher authority (God) directly ordering what free agents (men) should or should not do The idea what women have agency or they have euqal agency and rights as men is a very very very very..... very very modern idea. People in the past did not bother with women they were controlled by their family, husband or other men. You only needed to control men to control society.
@@fixpontt I understand that and I suppose that is partly why I asked, because our notion of sexuality and sexual orientation has also changed completely, as Jeffrey and Bart discuss in the video. So my question was basically, well, if a modern religious authority or individual insists on applying these biblical statutes about specific sexual acts in spite of the historical change in our understanding of sexuality, then presumably they must also apply the biblical statutes as in spite of the historical change in our understanding of gender and women. Therefore, wouldn't the codes not actually apply to me or any other woman (with a few exceptions where the statutes are specifically directed at women, like Leviticus 20:16)? So I would not be required to abide by them, neither in letter nor in spirit, since the people writing them wrote them only for men because they had no concept that I had that sort of agency anyway.
They’re not silly questions at all. Corresponding to @fixPontt’s point, the Hebrew Bible was written to men. The idea was probably that men would interpret it and apply it to the women of their household. There could be various reason Leviticus 18:22 doesn’t say what women can’t do with each other: 1. Woman on woman would not violate the rights of a man’s ownership 🤮 of her sexuality 2. Maybe Women weren’t supposed to have sexual desires 😂 so how would they have sex without a man? 3. Women were seen as so desperate to please men that they wouldn’t want another woman. This is a laughable concept in a way, but there is denigration and oppression behind it, as when Rachel is dying, but Yahweh’s messenger visiting her says, “You’re going to have a boy, so don’t worry about the dying painfully and young part.” Or the enmity between Leah and Rachel in order to be the one to have the next son for Jacob.
In terms of the Jewish Bible ("Old Testament") it's potentially ambiguous. As the man on the left in the video said, some Rabbi's thought it of course also applied to women, while others thought it didn't. As for the New Testament, which would be the defacto law Christians are under (not the Jewish Bible), it does seem to say that homosexuality of all kinds, man or woman, is thought of as harmful and wrong by God. Jesus and other New Testament authors make a few passing remarks about "Sexual Immorality" ("Porneia") in the Greek which some scholars understand to be a blanket Jewish term for all levitical forbidden or harmful sexual relations. Paul however is the most clear on the matter. In Romans 1, 1st Corinthians, and other places, he seems to say clearly that all forms of homosexual acts, and even mindsets, are against God and harmful in the Christian worldview.
I studied in the early 90s as I was accepting my SO and trying to square it with my faith at the time. I'm gratified that the conclusions I came to echoes Prof. Jeffrey Siker's statements. This is the first time I've watched Bart Ehrman after having heard about him repeatedly on Talk Heathen and AXP Very impressed
Thank you for bringing up the subject. I was expecting much more from an "expert in the topic of homosexuality in the Bible" though. The arguments presented in John Shelby Spong's book "The Sins of Scripture" are much more elaborate and seem pretty convincing to me as a former fundamental Christian.
Bishop Spong could never get Jerry Falwell to debate him. At one point their churches were across the street from each other. Christians separated by belief in the God of Abraham.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
Yeah? Try reading "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover. In his book, Satinover covers the history of the modern gay movement, the science, the activists role in taking over the A.P.A. , the psychology, the causes of homosexuality, the secular treatments, the Christian treatments and the pagan revival in which homosexuality has once again become normalized. He leaves no stone unturned.
Just because someone is giving you a green light to sin against your creator, it doesn't mean that you are ok to do so. In the day of Judgement this guy's opinion won't give you a free card out of jail/hell.
@@adamdilem941 Why are you condemning others? You are not the one who will judge that, and God - I am more than sure! - only sees souls. He doesn't care if they are gay or straight, which color their skin is or what ever other factors our (and your!) limited human minds can come up with. He loves ALL of us! And to pounce on someone just because you feel their sensibility with this topic, just because you want to look down on someone, just because you do not want to look at yourself and your own issues is not the way. God is love, and if you were a true believer, you would not judge.
@thelyrebird1310 You deserve love just like anybody else, don't let others unsettle you. God does not care about sexual "orientation" (that expression already makes me squeamish, because it is in itself incorrect already). Love, peace and healing to you, but most of all: happiness, in your private life as well. Because you deserve it, be sure of that!
@@ElinT13 "God loves all of us, God is love" How about we give God a chance to speak on his behalf instead of you dictating to him who he is and what he loves?! Did you create him or did he create you? You are master over him or is he master over you? Let's see what he has to say about himself: Psalm 5:4-6 "Oh God you hates all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man." Psalm 11:5 "The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence" Psalm 139:21-22 "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies" Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers" Leviticus 20:23 "And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them" Psalm 5:5-6 ESV "Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man" Hosea 9:15 "Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal; there I began to hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of my house. I will love them no more; all their princes are rebels" Psalm 119:53 "Hot indignation seizes me because of the wicked, who forsake your law." Malachi 1:2-3 “Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” Psalm 145:20 "The Lord preserves all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy." GOD DESTROYING HOMOSEXUALS SODOM AND GOMORRAH : Genesis 19:13 "for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.” Deuteronomy 29:23 "like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the Lord overthrew in His anger and in His wrath." As you can see God himself tells youthat he does not love all of us. Certainly not Sodomites and their Allies. He hates the wicked. But he forgives those who repent and turn away from their wickedness. But those who do not, they will face hell fire for eternity. That's God's decree. You claim: "God doesn't doesn't care if one is gay or straight, black or white..." God doesn't care about your skin colour when it comes to his judgement. But he has told us that he cares whether you are righteous or rebel against his will and Law. Being black or White you have no choice on that, he created you black or white or Chinese or male or female. Being a Sodomite however is a sexual evil fetish that he forbade you and that you have control over it. You are responsible for your actions in any just court. It's like a pedophile saying God doesn't care about my fetish just as he doesn't care about my skin colour. Thanks to deceived people like you we have now Gay Drag queens performing X rated strip dances in nurseries, primary and secondary schools. Before you know it, soon they will be legalising pedophilia as they're already bringing scientists on tv and newspapers to brainwash people that "They are born that way". Does that so called "scientific" excuse sound familiar to you?
@@ElinT13 When did he Judge? Why are you attacking him for stating that comes straight from the bible? Bible Verses About Homosexuality Genesis 19:1-11 That evening the two angels came to the entrance of the city of Sodom. Lot was sitting there, and when he saw them, he stood up to meet them. Then he welcomed them and bowed with his face to the ground. "My lords," he said, "come to my home to wash your feet, and be my guests for the night. You may then get up early in the morning and be on your way again." "Oh no," they replied. "We'll just spend the night out here in the city square." But Lot insisted, so at last they went home with him. Lot prepared a feast for them, complete with fresh bread made without yeast, and they ate. But before they retired for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!" So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. "Please, my brothers," he begged, "don't do such a wicked thing. Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection." "Stand back!" they shouted. "This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he's acting like our judge! We'll treat you far worse than those other men!" And they lunged toward Lot to break down the door. But the two angels reached out, pulled Lot into the house, and bolted the door. Then they blinded all the men, young and old, who were at the door of the house, so they gave up trying to get inside. Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice *homosexuality*, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT) Leviticus 20:13 "If a man practices *homosexuality*, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT) Judges 19:16-24 That evening an old man came home from his work in the fields. He was from the hill country of Ephraim, but he was living in Gibeah, where the people were from the tribe of Benjamin. When he saw the travelers sitting in the town square, he asked them where they were from and where they were going. "We have been in Bethlehem in Judah," the man replied. "We are on our way to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim, which is my home. I traveled to Bethlehem, and now I'm returning home. But no one has taken us in for the night, even though we have everything we need. We have straw and feed for our donkeys and plenty of bread and wine for ourselves." "You are welcome to stay with me," the old man said. "I will give you anything you might need. But whatever you do, don't spend the night in the square." So he took them home with him and fed the donkeys. After they washed their feet, they ate and drank together. While they were enjoying themselves, a crowd of troublemakers from the town surrounded the house. They began beating at the door and shouting to the old man, "Bring out the man who is staying with you so we can have sex with him." The old man stepped outside to talk to them. "No, my brothers, don't do such an evil thing. For this man is a guest in my house, and such a thing would be shameful. Here, take my virgin daughter and this man's concubine. I will bring them out to you, and you can abuse them and do whatever you like. But don't do such a shameful thing to this man." 1 Kings 14:24 And there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel. 1 Kings 15:12 He put away the male cult prostitutes out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 2 Kings 23:7 He also tore down the living quarters of the male and female shrine prostitutes that were inside the Temple of the LORD, where the women wove coverings for the Asherah pole. Romans 1:18-32 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.... Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles. So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. *They traded the truth about God for a lie*. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved*. Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God's justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice *homosexuality*, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
This is why I like scholars. They may not always agree with each other, but they at least get us past all the personal opinions and emotions that cloud the issues -- into (in this case) the contexts and reasons for whatever the texts are that are being examined.
Except when politics and money get involved. Some historians cannot say certain thing and some scientist cannot publish certain things if they want to keep their funding.
Being "Celebate" flies in the face of nature. It like trying to defy gravity, it does not make sense. The only reason the Catholic church required priests to be Celebate was because the Pope wanted the dying priests property. Once Again, It's about money, like it always is.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
I find it rather fascinating that a lot of people live their lives based on a book written by multiple human beings, thousands of years ago where costumes were SO MUCH DIFFERENT from the modern days and still believe in them until this day. Let's study the Bible for it's historical meaning and to learn about how life was back then and please contextualize its messages to the modern days. I'm happy to be who I am and a freaking book is not going to dictate my life and tell me what's right to be happy and live a great life. Thank you for the video.
edifying as usual. I found it interesting that you did not talk about the idea of covenant. This is kind of new to me, I only heard it from a Christian friend a while ago, so pardon me if I get this wrong. As I understand it, the old testament rules and laws do not apply to modern Christians, because those are part of the covenant JHVH had with the Jewish people. The covenant of JHVH with Christians is Jesus who was sacrificed symbolically at least, for the Christians. The rules for this covenant are in what Jesus said. So that means the New Testament only applies. And then we have to find it coming from his mouth. Not some later guy like Paul he took it upon himself to make up extra stuff. Ever since I tripped over the fact that Paul came after Jesus, and was not concurrent with him, it makes me question why his gospels are gospels? So these two things together has me thinking there is no condemnation of homosexuality that applies to modern Christians. Anything they can find they have to bend quite a bit to get to.
Jesus doesn't condemn homosexuality in the pages of the NT where he appears. He does though, something much more distresful: He "condemns" all sexuality - at least that sexuality of today which is considered an autonomous function of our organism, and as such, a human right. When he says for instance, that "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mathew 5:28) he certainly doesn't suggest that this act is blessed. And when he speaks of "eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” (Mathew 19:12) he also doesn't mean that a man should cut of his genitals... Who can live without being carnal - regardless of sexual orientation? Not someone who simply complies with some external orders and restrictions for sure...
@NullStaticVoid .. Read Romans chapter 1 - the Christian Greek scriptures have not changed God's moral laws. There is nothing that replaces marriage between a man and a woman. There is not one account that makes provision for a 'new' morality ie. the acceptance of sexual practices outside of traditional marriage - for single heterosexuals, fornication and adultery are serious sins. For homosexuals/lesbians who continue to practice perverted sex acts, they are sinning against their own bodies - it's irrelevant if they have engaged in a 'civil' partnership - God's law supersedes man's law where it conflicts with God's righteous standards.
First off, the question of whether a religion's scriptures condemn or don't condemn something is a matter for only those who choose to practice that religion. The greater issue here is freedom to be not religious or religious as one sees best.
I’m a big fan of Bart’s but I believe this kind of topic would probably do better in a debate format. It borders on the political / apologetic when around the 15:00 mark you start to say “well the text condemns this, but it’s cherry picking for people to invoke that unless they also invoke this other passage which condemns this other thing”. At that point it sounds like you want to make a polemical point against conservative religious people. Therefore at that point, you should let the other side make the counter point.
I doubt Bart wants to be associated with platforming homophobes. A better way is to do a "debunking" video where you play a clip of the opponent or to do a debate on an entirely different platform.
No, because this is a textual critical podcast, not a theological one. It's about the fact that the text doesn't say what modern-day bigots say it does.
@@tchristianphoto The fact that you label people who might disagree modern day bigot is exactly the problem. You're engaged in polemics / activism when you think that a disagreeing side with you is evil. Dispassionate scholarship doesn't engage in that.
@@QuiveringEye Dude it's a textual question, it has nothing to do with "homophobia". If you're asking did the authors of text X condemn homosexuality - for you to invoke the idea that someone who thinks that is a homophobe - what kool aid are you drinking? How could scholarship actually go on if you're going to attack ad hominem a person with a different conclusion.
I'm sure the people who believe the text condemns present day homosexuality have no overlap with those who dislike or are prejudiced towards homosexuality... 🙄
I knew I was gay at age 13! But couldn’t except myself because of church and society! Got married to a woman & had 2 sons! Stuck out the marriage for 20 years unhappily! Got divorced & came out my kids were 16 & 14. The 16 moved away with me my younger son stayed with my x wife! Later met a man became my partner! Unfortunately he was hooked on pain pills from a car accident years before! He accidentally overdosed and died day before Thanksgiving we only had a year and a half together! I tried dating but never found true love again! But I still believe in God! I take the Bible with a grain of salt! Sing in a church choir at a liberal Lutheran Church! They except gay people! Getting older now given up looking for a partner now but happy to be free to now be true to myself!
I'd rather spend my whole life a virgin than risk committing a sin. "Sexuality" does change by the way over time if you do certain things for a long period of time.
@@LucasSilva-bz8vt it does it's proven scientifically but in the West it's not allowed anymore to do these kind of research and get this kind of results. You are brainwashed by the new religion of liberalism.
@@LucasSilva-bz8vt if you watch corn from an early age it will change your sexuality depending on what you consume for long periods this is the truth wether you like it or not.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
I have a great respect for Dr. Ehrman, but I am always suspicious of reading the Hebrew Bible though the eyes of Christianity. I would be more interested in how the Talmud approaches these issues. How did the Jewish community at the time, or time period, read/apply these laws.
In the same context of prohibiting homosexual acts, you also can’t wear shirts that is mixed cotton and polyester which was mentioned in the video, or you can’t grow different crops in the same field
@@byron9630 That is a great red herring, but the issue/and topic of the video is the actual prohibition of homosexual acts. I merely pointed out that I wondered what the Jewish thinkers of the time thought about the passage and how they interpreted it. It seems there is a lot of Post-Modern criticism going on with these texts today, and I am simply curious about what it meant and how it was viewed at the time by the religion that produced it.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
Haven't watched yet, but have heard a lot about Dr E, and see his videos YT, so this looks like a great place to start. I'm a former evangelical and a Gnostic transbian
I live in a very red state. There is a subsidies sucking church on every corner. I've been telling ppl that's how God made them, he must want them that way. Thanks for great discussion
Im gay and live in Oklahoma, and it has gotten better here, especially in the two cities OKC and Tulsa I believe what you said that there are many different people here because the Lord wanted us here, in many different forms because I believe we were meant to try and learn to love one another before gaining access to heaven I'm also Christian and it's not easy with other christians tell me I'm proud to live in sin and gay people telling me I believe in nonsense, I say to them there are 10 commandments not one involves sexual oriantain besides adultery and coveting. Everyone who quotes The Bible and the 6 verses I say none were from Jesus who never spoke a word against homosexuality. It apparently is a big deal more to humans than it is our Lord, so I believe. And the last I pointed to is he put it in nature to show us it is natural. Just wanted to say keep fighting the good fight and don't let other christians tell you, you can't be a good Christian if you're gay. We are not just Lust we are Love too, just like straight people can lust but also love.
@@zt3823 According to the Bible we inherit a sinful nature. So that can be anything against God. Everyone struggles with different sins. Just because you see in it what you call nature doesn't make it natural. We see murder in the world, stealing, and rape. Just because it happens between animals and humans doesn't make it right. After all, all of creation was cursed.
Lust is a sin for everyone. Sigmund Freud invented the idea of "gay" and sexual orientation. Our bodies physically are not designed to act sexually with the same sex. If we embark on sexually engaging in this way, we are going against the creation ordinance. This affects us spiritually as well. Trauma is often at the root of aberrant sexual desires. It's never too late to repent.
Genesis gives us the creation ordinance. Men are to be with Women sexually in a holy marriage. That's it. You're not believing in the God of the Bible, or in Jesus of the Bible. Jesus didn't address homosexuality per se because it was so widely understood to be not permitted by God, he didn't need to.
Wrong! Both professors are guilty of ignoratio elenchi here: 16:39, because the question is whether or not the bible forbids homosexuality…the question is NOT about whether people pick or chose what they want to follow. Sure they are correct that Christians do pick and choose what to follow based on their biases, but that’s NOT the question being asked. Similarly with Siker’s analysis that the context matters (11:20) that’s irrelevant: there are clear instructions in Leviticus showing that homosexuality is forbidden…Siker fails to explain how the context changes this. Siker’s argument here: 6:04 that “homosexuality” as used by the bible is anachronistic misses the point, because the *physical act* of what men do when sleeping with each other hasn’t changed in 3000 years (he provides no evidence to dispute this). Although he’s correct that the understanding of homosexuality as natural/unnatural has changed, that’s not the question being asked. He needs to stick to the question as to whether the bible forbids it or not, so yet again he’s guilty of ignoratio elenchi. Siker’s propensity to rephrase the question by posing completely different questions is extremely annoying and fairly typical of intellectuals who have been adversely influenced by Continental Philosophy (CP). Which is not to say CP is wrong or an inferior tool, but rather that CP has its merits when used correctly and this is not the place! Siker makes an excellent case as to how modern western liberal democracies rightly came to accept homosexuality as normal human behaviour, and thus how they exceeded the intellectual grasp of those ancient manuscript authors. The issue is that Christians today insist on following those ancient manuscripts and that brings them into conflict with modern sentiments on human sexuality. This contradiction is simple to resolve: go find yourself a different god who allows you to live a fulfilled and happy life.
What about the passages in leviticus referring to male incest? I notice it uses man and then male. I've heard that the Hebrew word for man refers to an adult male ans the Hebrew word for male refers to adult or child male. Which would imply that the leviticus passages are referring to male incest and pedophilia.
While it's true that the ancients would not have phrased things as we might today, sex and the reasons people do it have not really changed. To my knowledge, in every passage where the Bible references morality with regard to sexual relations, it's always referring to the aspects of attraction and pleasure. It seems very clear that this is what Paul is aiming at in his commentary on Romans 1, as he states that the men burned in their desire for one another, leaving the "natural function of the woman." I note that, in 1st Corinthians 7, he states that it's better for people to marry than to burn. The Greek word is different here, but the idea seems to be the same: passion, sexual desire. Some translations, such as the NASB, actually build that understanding into the text: " For is better to marry than to burn with passion." I honestly cannot see anything about dominance or male bonding rituals in what Paul is saying. He seems to be taking aim at pure sexual passion, stemming from attraction. Admittedly, I say this as a Christian, but I'm looking as objectively as possible at the text, rather than acting on some personal conviction (I've been rethinking this issue for a while now). I just don't think that Dr. Siker's efforts to limit Paul's remarks to a cultural context works exegetically. Paul very much appears to be condemning homosexual relationships in general. As far as I can see, the only culturally-limiting case progressives can make (appealing to the text, that is) is to argue that Paul is just as mistaken about the nature of homosexuality as he was in his Greo-Roman understanding of how hair relates to human sexuality (when he states that it's a shame for a man to have long hair or for a woman to pray with her head uncovered). In that instance, Paul's advice to the churches was based on a scientific inaccuracy. If he'd known the truth, his advice would probably have been different. So we might then ask, "What would Paul say about homosexual relationships if he were to have a modern scientific understanding of the matter?"
Paul attributes the Romans' sexual licentiousness to their practice of idolatry. Modern gay people aren't idolaters, nor have they ever "left the natural function" of heterosexuality. Also, Paul was working from the expectation that the world was going to end imminently, so his ideal for his followers was to have them unencumbered by any sort of relationship. Therefore, in his view, apart from being single, it was better to marry and thus have sex licitly than to have it illicitly outside of marriage.
@@bluerfoot As I indicated, I'm rethinking all of this. My point above was simply focusing on the textual side of the issue: what it says and actually means. I don't hold to mainline evangelical understandings of inspiration or inerrancy. I actually admire Dr. Ehrman and agree with much of what he says.
@Terry Christian I see what you're saying here. My question would be whether Paul is linking homosexuality with idolatry in terms of it being an idolatrous practice, or is he saying it's an evidence of having departed from God *along with* idolatry (in other words, the two separate consequences of one root issue).
@@tchristianphoto You say : "Also, Paul was working from the expectation that the world was going to end imminently." Contrary to his expectations, the world did not come to an end. So the premises of his reasoning - and hence, his own reasoning - were flawed. In other words, all his teachings are rubbish.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
Whilst I always enjoy listening to these podcasts and have learnt a great deal from them; I must say that I found the arguments presented on this topic to be rather weak and unconvincing - as well as being packed with a fair amount of whataboutery. "Well the bible also condemns this and condemns that." However much one tries to dress it up - it seems to me that the bible does condemn homosexuality. The real point is - why should we care?
From the introduction I'd expected a bit more depth. This whole hour seems to boil down to "Well, people in the past were archaic and didn't know what we know now. And they had some silly rules we ignore, so why should we pay attention to this one?" At 10:55 you literally touched the key point to the whole discussion, but then never actually got into it. "If a MAN lies with a MALE as with a WOMAN..." This is is using when an (ish) lies with an (ishah) as a default. These are the words for someone who is specifically a "Man" and "Woman" unambiguously adult. The verse says a "Man lies with a male" because it doesn't use the same terms of when an "ish lies with an ish" ... it says when an "ish" lies with a "zakhar" as with an "ishah" it is an abomination. Whereas "ish" is specifically an adult man, Zakhar is a general term for males/boys of any age. The differentiation between "Zakhar" and "ish/ishah" implies these are males who are not men. I.e. boys. "When a Man lies with a boy as though he were a woman, it is an abomination." And that's fair. This shows the Hebrew mindset that clarifies the age-ambiguity of ἀρσενοκοίτης in the context of malakoi. It's not "man-bedders." It's "Male-bedders." As this is the translation of the concept in leviticus, it stands to reason that this is in the same context: a prohibition of the practice of pederasty. "Soft-ones" weren't just "male prostitutes." They were "boy prostitutes." That's evil. The only verse where the bible uses equal terms for "men and other men" is the one mentioned where people who submit to shameful lusts take in themselves the consequences of their actions... and yes... the orgies common in greco-roman cultures lead to massive STDs. That doesn't mean "God is punishing the gays with STDs." It means "Hey, there's a consequence to all these orgies." Which, there is.
I have a 13 minute analysis of the original languages of each of these verses and a comparison with some other verses applicable to the topic that often go overlooked, but I think a direct link would be in poor form.
So, the Torah prohibits child molestation when the victims are underage boys, but it says nothing against molestation of underage girls. In fact the Torah condemns both the victims of pederasty and their abusers to death, but it also recommends that the underage girl is married to her rapist. That is quite a double standard and a barbaric viewpoint.
@@melissawickersham9912 ... no. Hebrew (like many languages) is gendered. So there isn't a good way to refer to (gender netural adults) and (gender netural children). The base form of a word is considered masculine or neutral/mixed, and the specifically feminine form of the word has a slightly different ending (like an -ah suffix, or changing the masculine/neutral/mixed plural -im to a feminine plural -ot). So it should be rather obvious that "a man lying with a boy as he would lie with a woman is an abomination" would extend to if a man lied with a girl or a woman lied with a boy or girl. But, this doesn't have the connotation of a single forced incident (וְהֶחֱזִֽיק), but an ongoing pedophilic relationship. Everything about it's an abomination. Are the parents of the child more responsible for letting that happen than the child themselves? Sure. That's where mature judgment comes in. These aren't immediate irrational absolutes where "That guy was creepy toward a kid... kill them both!" As for the "underage girl is married to her rapist" comment... that would be Deuteronomy 22... and no, that's not what that says either. Verses 25-27 describes an account of rape. This is non-consentual, she's specifically taken by force (וְהֶחֱזִֽיק). If it's non-consentual, she's done absolutely nothing wrong. He should be punished. וּמֵ֗ת הָאִ֛ישׁ LITERALLY means "he shall die" but that would be a maximum sentence. Obviously again, mature judgment depending on the context. Maybe he's just exiled or something as the judge sees reasonable. The point is it's a serious crime. 28-29 describes an entirely different situation. This isn't where a man uses FORCE (וְהֶחֱזִֽיק) against someone's will... The word is (וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ). To "take hold of what isn't his." If "THEY" are caught, he must offer her father a dowry, marry her, and can never divorce her. It's not rape against her will. It's seduction that she consents to. No "wam bam thank you ma'am." It's what people today referred to as the "booty-call." If a man does one of those, he's required to take responsibility and is forbidden from abandoning her. She's under no such obligation and can decline or leave him. (since this one DOES have unilateral responsibility, I'd presume this one is gender-specific. I doubt a man could try to argue his case that she seduced him and therefore owes HIS father a dowry... but again... this presumes a reasonable and mature person would judge such cases)
This level of mental gymnastics could win them an Olympic medal. They both know full well that no amount of modern spin makes the Bible support homosexuality.
Dr Bart, can you do another video about homosexuality? I wanna hear what you have to say about it. You are so articulated and have a lot of knowledge, I wanna hear more of your perspective. A couple of things were not addressed on this video here like the meaning of “abomination,” and even the relationship between David and Saul’s son, the term arsenokai, etc.
I think to ask any question about the Bible in general is really to ask if the people who collected its books had any single purpose in mind. And the answer to that is “no” in my opinion. If one asked the writer of Genesis they would have given a different reason for writing the book than Psalms. For no other work of literature of such breadth and variegated composition would we ever ask the question if the whole thing does or is something, and to do otherwise I think is to ask a theological question.
That's nonsense. The individual books may indeed have been written for different purposes, but they were also drawn together to serve a common purpose. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask if one takes them as a whole do they support X or Y.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar Well, sure, they were collected, presumably, for SOME purpose, but it couldn’t be purpose that could possibly make such a disparate collection align in anything approaching a granular level. So yes, it is indeed “unreasonable” to expect any kind of consistency. Certain parts of the Bible would seem to condemn homosexual practice. That doesn’t mean the Bible as a whole condemns it. The Bible as a WHOLE does very little.
@@jeffryphillipsburns Really? You don't think the Bible as a whole makes the case for a particular god? That's certainly what it's fan clubs believe. And if it is supposedly the inspired word of that God then consistency would be expected. The fact it manifestly does not have that would suggest, at the very least, that it is not inspired by any deity.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar - That story people love to tell about a mob bringing a woman to Jesus for stoning due to adultery brings the lie to the consistent "inspired word of God". When Jesus tells the mob that he without sin should cast the first stone, they all leave, disappointed that they won't lick their lips over bloodshed today. Jesus then tells the woman to go and sin no more. Good churchy story with a strong anti-sin, pro-Jesus message, no? Well, no. This story did NOT appear in any manuscript prior to the 12th Century! Some scribe along the way got creative. If those scribes so blithely added in their own words, what did they leave out?
My biggest takeaway from this discussion is that there is an enormous push to have homosexuality accepted as normal in the modern Christian church. Mr. Ehrman, in his book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about various pressures, both internal and external, the scribes had that caused them to change the text. I'm sure the "texts" (new modern translations) will be changed to promote this view.
Jesus never spoke on homosexuality nor did he speak on abortion; both were occurring in his time 🤔 Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate, perhaps God changed his mind about the whole homosexuality thing and that's why it's called a New covenant I didn't new; with nothing being said in the New testament about. Paul while he was nothing more than a commentator... In other words I think banning gays. By Christians is totally being put some sweats and to think you know the mind of God; if you didn't want gazing trans he wouldn't have created, and if you say it's Satan's fault that you're saying Satan has just as much power 🤔💭
@@Good_Grace However, nasty it is and unhygienic. Yeah it is kind of natural. Wild animals are seem to do it occasionally People do it with the opposite sex They are considered straight, but occasionally experiment with anal intercourse So you may find anal intercourse disgusting But you have no authority to Defined the bounds of nature. Human biology is not just simply male and female there are many medical conditions that put a person somewhere in between When you look at the fine details you have to ask what is normal? Go to another country and watch guys walking down the street holding hands They are not gay they would laugh at you if you said they were But you would be embarrassed to walk down the street hand-in-hand with another guy It’s cultural dude. Open your eyes.
@@Good_GraceYes it is. Heterosexual people do it too. They also have oral sex. You can’t deny the biological fact if homosexual orientation just because you find anal sex icky. And many homosexuals do not have anal sex. Lighten up.
You can tell Jeffrey is a real musician because he's using his music mic for a video call, lol. Love my Audix OM series mics. Nukeproof and great sound.
I disagree. Jeffry Siker is not arguing in good faith. He’s just another apologist twisting logic (and occasionally brutalizing the English language). Thumbs down.
@@jeffryphillipsburns That doesn't seem fair. Siker comes across as quite erudite and intellectually honest in my opinion, and Ehrman is clearly enjoying the discussion.
@@jeffryphillipsburns That's my take as well. Siker takes some of the most straightforward verses in the text and spins them to match his agenda. Liberalism, not Christ, is his saviour/faith.
@@Charlotte_Martel - So, you claim to be the expert on early Christianity and Biblical studies that Dr Siker IS? Hubris in spades. And denialism, too, towards someone who is trying to bring you knowledge.
@@MossyMozart I never claimed to be a Biblical expert, but I am literate enough to know that when a sentence states "The table is black," it doesn't actually mean that the table is white. It's amusing how you resort to appealing to authority, yet you readily reject the straightforward interpretation of these verses from the majority of Biblical scholars until extreme liberals entered the field. It's almost as if we choose which sources qualify as experts based on how closely they align with our own opinions.
No, very different from the Goodacre interview. Here Ehrman feels it necessary very often to step out of his interviewing role to compensate for Siker’s seeming inability to express himself coherently. Much of this is Ehrman interviewing himself.
I think its fairly obvious really that the ancient Jewish people didn't use the same language as us to describe sex and that a small minority of them engaged in acts that were homosexual in nature which was very much thought of as sin, it seem awfully disingenuous to suggest that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality in the passages Bart brought up when it is clear it does
I don't know when this interview took place. Therefore I would refer the speakers and others who have commented on the discussion to read the Academic Assessment published by the Wijngaarde Institute entitled" Christian objections to same sex relationships". I'm surprised that it hasn't percolated into the public sphere. I'm not going to attempt to summarize or precis its findings as it behoves anyone genuinely concerned with the Bible and Church teachings on homosexuality to read the document itself. Tom Shantivanam
They sum it up themselves in the introduction: "They finally make it possible to confirm that the two key verses in Leviticus - and, more generally, the entire Hebrew Bible - do not prohibit, much less condemn, free and faithful same-sex relationships. And they also allow a similar degree of confidence with regard to all three passages from the apostle Paul." Somebody should get the entire clergy of the Church of England to read this.
53:29 "They didn't have institutions of marriage." That was a surprising comment, particularly given that one of the passages you discussed was Christ discussing divorce. Perhaps you could discuss the institution of marriage within an historical context in a future episode.
This is also another kind of a case where the Bible writers were not speaking from a scientific perspective. Because Paul saying, men laying with men is "unnatural" is contradicted in Nature where a variety of animals do engage in same sex behavior.
@@br1qbat Agree. Science was still barely a thing back then. But when people use verses to form opinions and/or even governmental policies, I think it's fair to point out when that opinion is contradicted by science.
He says the same about women with short hair. This should make you question if his view of what it means to be "natural" is the same as our modern view (it isn't). Homosexuality as we understand it is as similar to the thing condemned in the bible, as Evangelicalism is to the teachings of Jesus.
Show me this example. Whenever I have looked into it, I find no compelling reference to animals engaging in homosexual sex. "Same sex behavior" might just be the wiggle room you're looking for. But if it is not homosexual intercourse it doesn't really count. Please provide your references. I've mostly found: two lions hunting together and grooming each other. Sorry, not the case. Dogs humping each other. Dogs do that to show dominance, and even a female dog will "hump" another to show this dominance - and it is unrelated to homosexuality - as is sniffing butts.
50:00 Why would Paul attribute the transformation of “unnatural” passions of men and women an act of God? Did Paul have empirical evidence to support his claims?
Great discussion! Most enjoyable! It is really quite incomprehensible to me that people make such a big thing of two men/women loving each other, so often because of the Book of Leviticus, yet Leviticus also condemns tattoos and the eating of shellfish (bottom feeders) every bit as much. Yet often the people condemning the homosexuals are tattooed and eat shellfish too; however, they don't seem to see the irony in their condemnation.
Tattooing spreads disease as does the eating of shellfish and contact with all of the "unclean" animals. Sodomy spreads hepatitis and many other diseases. Not just physical health, but mental health illness is on display to pervert children. ANYBODY who derives sexual arousal at the smell of feces has a neurosis. God was looking out for us, but the psychopath always hates the one who is trying to help him.
Christians cherry pick their Bible thats why. But we should all be aware that NO ONE should follow the Old Testament laws since they are a contract between god and the Israelites of the time. They have nothing to do with us today.
@@eurech I am well aware that Christians cherry-pick from the Bible. My comment was written not because I didn't understand why this happens, but simply because I wanted to draw attention to this phenomenon. So many people have tattoos today, which to me is totally incomprehensible, since I see no beauty in them at all. And as for eating shellfish, just about everyone I know raves about shellfish of all kinds. That, too, is largely incomprehensible to me. Personally, I eat shellfish only when I have to. But the curious thing is this: Many people I have met over the years who have tattoos and who eat shellfish are so often ignorant about the Old Testament's teachings on these things. Yet they always seem to know that homosexuality is an "abomination". 🙂 (Sorry to sound rather cynical, but I often wonder whether have these people know what an abomination is, or at least what its meaning is/was in this context.) It is not for me to comment on the relevance of the Old Testament to today's Christians. It seems to me that if it had absolutely no relevance, then it wouldn't be included in the Bible that Christians use. Isn't the discarding of the Old Testament a form of cherry-picking too?
@@ladamyre1 If entering the Kingdom of Heaven depends on not being tattooed and not eating shellfish, I should be assured at the 'Pearly Gates'! For I am not tattooed and dislike shellfish. I dislike the word 'sodomy'. A word taken from the fable of Sodom and Gomorrah. One can bet one's bottom dollar that when someone refers to sodomy, the person commenting will invariably be a homophobe. It is perfectly possible to be gay without engaging in what you refer to as "sodomy", they tell me. I will add the following: To each his own! What other people do in their boudoirs is no concern of mine. In modern parlance: Whatever floats your boat!
The Hebrew word for commandments is mitzvot. The word mitzvot doesn’t appear anywhere. The Jewish Publication Society translates it as “the ten utterances.” The word used is devarim.
Is there any possible phrasing that this guest would actually accept as an ancient condemnation of same sex relations? Seems he can make excuses for just about anything.
I think they've backed the wrong horse when they oversimplify about "orientation" as the point of divergence between antiquity and modernity. There are hints of an implicit understanding of sexual orientation from several sources in antiquity, even if it's mired in things as fanciful and bizarre as astrological determinism (and even if these were largely concerned with sexual acts). Siker very briefly touched on a much more promising point of divergence - one related to orientation, but also broader than this: the social normalization of long-term, same-aged monogamous relationships between those exclusively interested in the same sex. We really have to compound the descriptors, because otherwise there are always comparable examples from antiquity. And even as it is, we can still find things that fit the bill of "long-term, same-aged monogamous romantic relationships."
well even if the Bible said in Hebrew, Thou shall not butt-Fuck ... that would still be wrong. Just because the Bible says so does not make it right. Much of the Bible is downright evil.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
Siker is trying to argue the bible doesn't condemn homosexual sex when it clearly does. The stuff about the bible forbidding loads of other things which people no longer take seriously is irrelevant to the point. Do you get sentenced to death for wearing two different types of cloth? By the way in modern Greek 'malaka' means 'wanker'. I guess Paul would have prohibited that.
Equally important question: Where does the Bible tell Christians to ignore the entirety of Christ’s exhortations and commandments to focus on persecuting people for the sake is a single line?
I Cleary see why Bart is no longer a Christian. Cause Geez! This guy has his points, but confuses the heck outta me. IM SOLD!! way 2 go bart. You held it down!
Yeah, I think that Bart made it possible for me the listen to the dodges and auto-excuses and learn some facts, even though about 90% wasn't relevant to any question that was asked. Those were informative nonetheless. But damn, it disgusts me so much when people like his friend just avoid answering questions and distract with unrelated topics instead. And even then, the christian scholars lays bare how awfully horrific morality in the bible is concerning how to view other people. He can sugar coat it all he wants but things like "it's the lesser sin", while talking about a town wanting to rape men and Lot offering his daughters to be raped instead, that's some messed up stuff and it's messed up to downplay it like that. I loved Bart's response on that one though :p He sees it as the book of horrors that it is and just went: Haha wow! okay! :p And he went back to topic. So well done, I suppose. You have to have a strong stomach to discuss biblical morality and not get distracted with every batshit insane detail in the stories.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
Great episode. Shame you did not touch on the one-sex model of ancient world although it did bleed through in the penetrator and penetratee concept. Lots of themes around honour and shame, purity, and also the role that bounadries played. Both Alicia Myers and Sara Parks has written some good stuff on it. In fact, with the one-sex model, most men were not considered to be men in the first century. It's a wonderful way to understand the difference between how we now understand gender and sex and how it was understood in the ancient world. One should alway try to battle anachronism and ethocentrism, if you take the TEXT out of CONTEXT you're left with a CON.
I believe this “one-sex model” the original commenter was talking about was from Aristotle, who believed that women were simply “deformed men”. I have no idea how widespread this belief was tho.
@@Knowledge_Seeker64 Yeah there was Greek history behind belief in the model but Jewish thought also reflected an Original Androgyne person. It can be seen in Genesis 1 and 2 creation narratives and Philo actually talks about it extensively. Writings of Clement and Gospel of Thomas also reflect on it. Talmud and Mishnah have debates around the nature of a human also discussing the one-sex model.
Bart Ehrman complains about the people who cherry-pick passages from the Bible to grant authority to their personal condemnation, but Jeffrey Siker’s stance is similarly illogical and self-serving. Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? No, he says, because modern attitudes toward homosexuality have evolved. Sure, they have, but so has everything else. The Bible is a set of books written very long ago that demonstrate how certain people who lived very long ago thought, and that’s it. Leviticus does, it would appear, condemn male homosexual practice. That it also condemns pointy beards (or not having pointy beards, the discussion didn’t make this clear) is not really relevant. Of course, the beard bit by modern standards is ridiculous, but so is pretty much everything in the Bible (at least if taken literally). That’s not the question.
I was in a church that went through a phase of kicking people out for smoking cigarettes among other things on the basis of "defiling the temple of God" Most will make tirades at how ridiculous and cult like etc this was but have strongly defined lists of what is out and what is not worth condemning people for
Great discussion. The one thing that I had trouble with, though, was the idea that the biblical writers, and people in those cultures at those times, wouldn't have known or understood about homosexual orientation. Whether it's addressed in any of the biblical passages discussed here, I gratefully defer to Profs. Siker and Ehrman. But it's such a basic, persistent part of human biology, and so many of those communities were small, people would certainly know homosexual orientation existed even if it was hidden.
Just because Pedophiles and sodomites exist, it doesn't make it an inherited programming in our biological DNA. It's a sadistic fetish not a biological thing people are born with. Just like our obsession with the dollar. It doesn't make the dollar a biological thing. Just like drugs addiction, you're not born with it. May be our generation have more knowledge about biology than people who wrote down the scriptures 1000's years ago. But your knowledge is a drop in an ocean compared to that of who created you and sent down the scripture. God is outside the limitations of space and time. The engineer who designed the latest version of Iphone knows better what you should and shouldn't do with it than the user of Iphone. It's just silly to argue against the manual of Iphone.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
I like Bart interviewing other Academics. He has a way of asking questions which leads to an interesting discussion.
Exactly. Bart is also great at helping academics explain the points so that a person without the extensive background understand what the issues are and how it’s much more complicated than what they are commonly told in their religious institutions.
It does. Winger is going to need new pants after he views this one...
I agree. I don't get any value out of the young woman who typically asks questions. I'd rather have two scholars having a discussion.
I spent 16 years hating myself and praying everyday to not be gay. It drove me to years of addiction because I hated myself all because of what I heard in church. Being told I was an abomination for something that I cannot even control. I knew I was gay at the age of 8 and honestly probably earlier. I am no longer a Christian and honestly don't believe in God and was able to get sober. I have been in a wonderful relationship for the past 10 years and have been sober for 2 of them and am so lucky to have had him stick by me. You make a difference, I saw you on myth vision. I am Hyperion now, @MorgueOfficial is who got me into it but even that I am not sure of. I thank you so much for covering this. ❤️ To everyone
I'm glad that you too escaped the pain and condemnation that was heaped upon you. I also struggled for about 15 years with this and my chronic depression and anxiety over it. I'm glad you're feeling better now my relationship has been for about 25 years now, with three stepchildren and soon to be our 4th grandchild.
Wonderful story Greg. Glad you made it out. All the best for the future matey.
I cannot talk on behalf of Christianity, but in Islam, it's not you who is an abomination. It's the act of rebellion against your maker that is an abomination. We are all sinners, but the best amongst sinners are those who turn back to their maker and repent before the clock rings the bell of the test end.
Life is a like a blink of an eye. It's just an hour of exam. Whether you pass or fail. Our desires are a distraction.
@@adamdilem941 Can you stop this? It is like saying, black skin is rebellion against God but he doesn't judge you. When something is an integral part of you, you can't separate it from the person.
This "we are all sinners"-narrative is just manipulative. It acts as if stealing or being gay is the same thing. But it isn't. You can stop stealing while staying true to yourself. You can't stop being gay without crippling your soul. "It isn't good for humans to be alone," is written in the bible. Funny, how this suddenly doesn't apply anymore when it comes to LGBT.
Hi Greg, have you read "The Man Jesus Loved" by Theodore Jennings Jnr.? If not I do recommend it. Thank you for sharing your story.
Great example how an atheist and a Christian can have deep discussions, be civil, and still come out the best of friends! So insightful!
I really like that as well. Reasonable people can come to different personal conclusions on important topics but still be very respectful toward one another with acceptance of those differences.
It’s pretty obvious that we can all have these conversations . People have theme everyday . Nothing special going on here.
Only uneducated morons in TH-cam comments and Reddit can’t have conversations .
But still didn't answer the question within an hour
As long as they are not fundamentalists there is room for meaningful discussions.
@@tzakman8697so you’re fundaphobic
Thank you for discussing this. When I was a Cristian, I believed that same sex attraction was just a perverted friendship. I've learned that it isn't. I now know that same-sex attraction is natural for some people and that it has been around since the beginning of time.
Did you read what the Bible said about it? It says the opposite of what you said. You are denying reality.
This is due to the fall of mankind, pedophiles have attractions they ought not have
I’m not entirely familiar with the psychological data we have on that but that seems to be the case too. In christianity we believe that all have a different cross to bare to honour God
The Bible says death and disease came through sin, so we deviated from God’s intended path for us which is why people have attractions they ought not have
Because it is natural doesn’t make it good. Whatever is good is whatever is according to God’s will for He is the standard of good and without God there is no moral standard
If you don’t believe in God that’s your choice, I respect that. But Christians (according to Biblical beliefs) don’t see homosexuality like a special sin it’s the same as lying and stealing. All sin has the ways of death, the death of the soul as it is separated from God
A Christian homosexual would refrain from acting on these attractions they have, and in that way honour the Lord whilst simultaneously trusting in the promise that Christ will ultimately fulfill us in ways our earthly attractions never could. Have a blessed day friend 🙏
Have you ever wondered why all the men in ancient Greece were homosexuals?
None of them were born that way, much less all of them.
They were sexually abused as boys and became abusers themselves, just like today.
My son tried to tell me not all gay people practice the sexual part of expressing "love". Then I accidentally read the text "I can't fall asleep without your cummies" to his male "friend".
He was otherwise still a virgin trying to convince me he was sure he was bi sexual at the least.
Man is a sinner by nature and practice.Sin is natural.
I grew up on a dairy farm and was charged with observing the cows for when they come into heat so they could be bread in a timely fashion in terms of maximising milk production. Cows mount each other constantly in the absence of a bull and I had to observe and report this behaviour from the age of 5. One of my teachers at school was in a lesbian relationship and I understood there was a connection because of our common mammalian heritage. What I never questioned back in the forties that homosexuality was part of nature. Consequently I never bought that homosexuality was unnatural. I’m decidedly heterosexual, but I have never felt homosexual people should be condemned or ostracised. This discussion is really forthright and avoids dubious rationalisations.
Animals will jump anything when they are in heat that doesn't mean they are home sexual lol. That's like saying when dogs jump on humans like that that its beastiality.
I’ve never given a damn who someone else loves.
We aren't supposed to behave as farm animals do. That is the point. Am I supposed to hump a pillow because a dog does it? No!!! Human beings are supposed to exercise self-control. Or shall I now get out and eat the grass on my lawn?
Homosexuality occurs with the same percentage throughout the primate kingdom.
@@tatie7604Farm animals eat, sleep and reproduce. We should probably do those!
Very helpful information. Bart, your books helped free me from a fundamentalist worldview approximately 15 years ago. I consider this the most important happening in my life.
There is nothing wrong with fundamentalism if you understand the fundamental thing with God is LOVE.
Is it? The christian god is not above, wrath, envy, jealousy, desire, or anything that we would consider unethical. The main villain of the bible seems to be the fallible creator, who tinkers and throws tamper tantrums, if his creations, whom he made don‘t behave in the way he expects.
So is the main theme Love, can we attribute that to the god-being od the bible?
True love would not be commanded, and forced under threat of torture.
Anyone that commands and expects worship, is automatically unworthy of it.
There is just no way to compare the biblical god with anything like love, in a meaningful way.
@@derfuzzy8854 Where on earth did you read about a God who has temper tantrums? If you put your hand in the fire it gets burned.
@@derfuzzy8854 The is no Christian god. There is only God. One God for all people.
@@SimonSverige Oh he admits it freely himself "I am a jealous, a wrathful god". He is frequently described in most stories prone to anger,jealousy and basically any characteristic, you would ascribe as negative in human beings. He even deceives people with false vision in one storie in Kings.
About the lable: We can change that to "The god, as described in the bible" better?
30:39 Imagine John Doe says a racist comment, and when someone points it out another comes to his defense saying, "No, John Doe was born in Idaho in 1951."
The rationalizations some people make to defend their cherished beliefs are fascinating and frightening.
Are you kidding, that's a perfect example!
My mom was born in 1940 when India was a part of the British Empire. My mom to this day calls all South Indian people "madrasis", because she is North Indian. Back then, the British ruled all of South India through the Madras Presidency.
My wife is South Indian and hates that term, because South Indians are not all the same. When the Madras Presidency became Madras State, the first thing the South Indians did was break up Madras State along ethnic lines. So, when my mom uses that word, my wife feels like my mom is being racist against South Indians.
Were North Indians using that term in the 1940s racist? It depends on intent, which is a form of context. For example, my mom is trying to learn the proper terms, because she is exposed to South Indians now more than ever, so she is trying not to be insensitive. So, is she racist for once using the term "madrasi"?
Things get interesting when you realize people in different times have different ideas, and applying ideas from modern times will lead you to greatly misunderstand what people in ancient times actually thought.
His point is not that Jesus was intentionally excluding homosexuals, but that he literally did not think of whether to include them, because he had no concept of them as a category of people, much less a category of people who would want to marry. Thus, they would not enter his mind when discussing marriage. In his time, this is not homophobic. We can't know what Jesus would have thought of homosexual marriage should the modern conception be explained to him.
Seems to me you're rationalizing to defend your cherished, bigoted, "Christian" beliefs. Frightening.
How can there be a racist(which means what?) comment when there is no such thing as race?
Whatever you mean by racist why might it need defending? Are you some sort of religious nut that goes in for all that good/evil, right/ wrong, morality/ethics religious mumbo jumbo?
You have*Absolute_No* idea what race is, nor what you are calling race?
*No* surprises there.
Why are you devout followers of that queer relihion modernism so obsessed with sin?You do use 'racist' as a cognate of sin or sinful do you not? You religious nuts are always trying to impose your queer religion with its likes and dislike and or queer ideas of sin, on others whose like and dislikes or beliefs are none of your business.
People or men (human beings/dreaming machines) neither can nor do choose the reactions of their functions which take place purely automatically-mechanically; some just don't like those that they see as alien or unlike them, just as some find the very idea of swerism/ homosexualism repugnant and distasteful or just dislikeable(or X evokes the mechanical-automatic reaction dislike in their emotional([like/dislike]function). They are not sins unless you are some sort of religious nut obsessed with sin.
You worry about your own sins(dislikeables) titch not those of others; it is no business of yours what are the likes and dislikes of others.
Some have functions that purely mechanically(choicelessly)-automatically(also choicelessly) react like or dislike towards all sorts of things and particularly(I would guess instinctively) those that are unlike the just as your function reacted- to use its words"fascinating and frightening." You cannot choose or control that , but you might depending on factors over which you can exercise neither choice nor control, perhaps be indifferent to them and not suppose your self to*Be* them- When it reacts Xor Y you say*I*" react Xor Y or *I_Am* Xor Y, which some call identification and other s attachment. Machines have no choice; you simply *can't_help* being a religious not with weird ideas of sin that you various call sexism racism, homophobia or allsorts of things ending in o'phobia o not of course forgetting the ultimate or nuclear cognate of sinful " misogynist".
You can't help being the slave of your functions any more than the writer(or any other human being/dreaming machine) can help being the slave of his functions.
If you take a crystal wine glass and smash it down onto the ground, does it fracture because it is faulty in error or, or sinful, or because it is glass or crystal?
And so it is with men.
They are the slaves of their functions*Be_Cause* they are men, not because the are wicked or sinful or in error but because they are*Men*- something mysterious en cased in a mechanism or rather a complex of mechanisms of the exact workings of which they have none of choice understanding or control, very few of which in and of themselves are of any assistance when it comes to how, why and what it is that has some awareness of the mechanism in which it is encased or coated.
When you see that your brother is in the same boat or predicament as you are perhaps you come to see what silly nonsense it is to apply all the religious mumbo jumbo to dreaming machines- you I or any dreaming machine appearing to be a man /human being you have some what is called fellow feeling-sometimes called compassion for him but in reality of course that is not possible because there is no function for that and you can no more put yourself in the place of your bother than you can stand on your own shoulders.
The major disadvantage of all that religious normative nonsense is that it leads men to suppose that what-is-and-cannot-be-different -or facts, might somehow or other be different or not facts and for *Why*?
You tell me, and while are pondering that remember that that of which we are speaking are machines - or would you say machines plus?
It may be, but plus what?
Might it be that you expect of others what you do not expect of yourself -what neither or none of you have?
Does it matter or signify very much if some chap makes a whatever a " racist comment might be"?Have you some objection to whatever a " racist comment might be and if so, what is the basis or reason for that objection? Some reaction of your emotional(like/dislike) function?
Are not on a bit of a sticky wicket if you have no idea either what race is nor what you are calling race? What exactly*are* you *calling* race? Rac.... 'ist' means what?
Still no idea?
No surprises there.Sometimes rather than asking a chap to *define* X, you have more luck if you ask him what he is*calling*X
If words be boxes with whatever it is on the lid, race, god, bla bla bla as often as not when he uses a word he supposes that there is something called"*meaning*" in the box, but equally often when you ask him to open the box with whatever written on the lid it turns out to be empty and i his supposing that there is Anything in it, mistaken, and there is no better or more illustrative example of that than the box with" Meaning" on the lid.
Oddly enough there is a word for that as there is a word for a word being like a blurred or onfocussed photograph an when that photograph/word/ box is produced, neither the user of the word/ photograph/box nor his interlocutor can make out of what it is a photograph, nor discover anything in the boxes but more empty boxes.
So it is with you the box marked race is empty and the photograph of race so blurred or unfocussed that you have no idea of what is supposed to be a photograph, and in the box marked " race" that too is empty for you is it not or will you merely produce more empty boxes with other words written on them which we call circularity or begging the question, or whatI call psychological algebra x=y=x where neither x nor y is defined identified or assigned a value.
Turns out that there is no such thing as race., or it simply impossible to determine of what the photograph bearing the legend "race" is a photograph, and the box marked race is either empty or contains more empty boxes with something-or-other illegible; no race no race.... 'ism', but then you are no better of with the boxes or photographs marked racism than you are with race, as you are about to demonstrate.
Whatever rac... ism may be five gives me five million your boss or master function does not like that either, but you must appreciate that the functions can only react, they can't give reasons because that is not their function or what they do..
Does it matter very much -or *at_all*, if some chap says something to which your boos or master function reacts dislike, which is seemingly what you trying to day about the Idaho chap? what has his remark to do with whether or not some book is pro or anti queer?
I don't wish to appear to appeal to argumentum ad populum, but I would hazard that the vast majority of non-modernist or those that do not subscribe to your religion which I take to be modernism profoundly disapprove of or are antipathic to sewerites queers homosexualists or who have as a malfunction of the sex function, because to them it is strange and dirty and anti-natural and evokes a dislike reaction in the boss function of men. I is only your religion that supposes sewerites and others with a malfunctioning sex function to be sacred cows, which - as an added bonus gives rise to the hilarious paradox of the modernist sacred cows; what to do if one scared cow cannot abide another eg real beings of the passive sex or women cannot abide fake women?Billions of men(human beings/dreaming machines all over the planet and particularly in Islamic and a great many African countries and most of the Windies just being a sewerite(without more) or homosexualist or having any malfunction of the sex function is a crime - the inference therefrom being that as a generality men are antipathetic to anything anti-natural and to homosexualism in any of its guises because people are just like that - That is how human beings*Are* and if your religion does not like that fact or reality, it had better wake up to it or be accused of the modernist sin of Islamophobia- presumably a relative of that fine old Dublin family the O'Phobias. The*only religions that don'y condemn sewerism are Marxism socialism and your queer religion, modernism which sees any sort of perversion of the sex function as a positive virtue
@@godminnette2 No. His answer shows a lack of understanding of the topic because Jesus DID say something against homosexuality and LGBT sexuality as a whole. The problem in understanding this is the deliberate silence around what LGBT sexuality really is. LGBT sexuality is a form of addictive, compulsive, self-soothing behaviour" which serves the same function as drugs to the drug addict, alcohol to the alcoholic, food to the glutton and winning to the gambler ( "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover). ALL addictions are automatically IDOLATROUS. Did Jesus say anything about idolatry? Yes He did, He said "I have not come to abolish the commandments but to fulfill them" . What's the first commandment? " You shall have no other gods in MY place!"...no idolatry!
I'm so confused. This is exactly why people reject religion over basic human decency.
LGBT sexuality is a death sentence, condemning it is basic human decency.
So summarizing, the answer is "Not exactly, but yes, exactly, and that doesn't matter that much anyway."
The story of Lot and his daughters is one of the strangest in a strange book.
You want to see strange, read Judges 19.
@@montagdp Thanks for the tip. I needed a good wholesome Bible story to read to my kids to keep them on the correct path.
@@montagdp thanks for the tip.
@@montagdpThat is a good one to mention to someone who claims to get his morals from the Bible.
My favorite is when David asks for permission to marry Solomon's daughter. Solomon agrees to arrange the marriage but only if David can kill 100 Philistine men and come back with their foreskins. What does David do? He comes back with 200 foreskins. That's a good story to talk about while your family is having dinner...
Why would anybody expect "the Bible" to speak with one voice about anything?
Delusion or believing what they were taught by the nuns/priests.
Bc, while the Bible has many diff authors, their words came from ONE 3rce Holy God.
@@pattheplanter Sounds like you suffered under Roman Catholicism. Not too surprising. I hope & pray that if it shipwrecked your faith, that you will find your way to Jesus SOON. But this time with the teaching of the Catholic church, not the ROMAN Catholic church.
Please watch the following to know what I mean:
"Catholic, but not ROMAN Catholic// John Barnett" (yt)
@@Anabee3 All priests are lying or deluded, no exceptions. Tell yourself whatever story you need to get you through the day but don't believe the Churches, they have always lied. I know their history.
Fundamentalists very try to pretend it does...even though there is zero debate that it wasn't written a huge number of different people, in different times and places. Indisputable, really.
Discussion starts at 5:25.
The Bible never talks about Homosexuality because in ancient times people didn't classify sexual preferences into identities like the way we do nowadays. People didn't go around saying ''I'm straight, I'm gay, I'm lesbian, I'm bisexual".
Ancient people just didn't classify themselves like that.
Given that 'homosexuality' is a mixture of Greek and Latin that is unsurprising, but so what?
We've advanced and found various forms classification to be rather useful since then.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar
_["Given that 'homosexuality' is a mixture of Greek and Latin that is unsurprising, but so what? "]_
He's pointing out that because ancient people didn't think about sexual attraction like we do, the Bible couldn't prohibit homosexuality as we know it.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar The poster was obviously talking about reasonably equivalent terms: rebutting this semantically is like claiming Greeks and Romans didn't think "man" and "woman" existed as categories because the terms are Germanic and Old English in origin. (To be clear, Greek had anēr/gynē, and Latin had vir/femina).
That's true. But what they condemned is homosexual behaviour. Which wouldn't really matter (different times, different culture) if modern Christians didn't source morals from the book. At best they do the whole "hate the sin not the sinner" bullshitery. At worst they advocate for laws targeting homosexual people
When people ask "does the Biblie condemn homosexuality" this is usually what they refer to. Many Christians are actually ok with celibate homosexuals
@@AurorXZ I think you missed my point, which was we do use the term now, because such a classification is useful, so what if it wasn't used then?
Something was said here about the Old Testament's "condemnation of the rich against the poor". I don't know if there's enough other material for it in the Bible, but that's a topic I'd be very interested in hearing more about.
Actually, this is a very important subject because in fact Jesus condemns accumulation of wealth. And I think this is one thing that shows how different views Jesus had against the Jewish establishment at the time!
@@fz1205 This is also an issue were fundamentalists suddenly don't care as much about the bible.
longcastle..where in the Old Testament is stated that, otherwise there wouldn't no jewish kings if it condemned it.
@@JeannieSoko The jewish kings are portrayed as a compromise. In first Samuel it is made very clear, that the people want a king and God gives them one, but he says clearly, that they made a decision against God. The whole deuteronomistic literature from Deutoronomy to second Kings is a harsh critic of monarchy. Even more intense is the criticism from the prophets, especially Jeremia and Amos. If the bible is consistent in one thing, it is about siding always with the poor against the rich.
The bible shows Gods loyalty to Israel despite of their monarchy, not because of it. David isn't even portrayed that good, Solomon isn't either.
@@derpfaddesweisen thanks for the reference, i will read more into it.
I love that you waited until the end to reveal Jeff as a christian pastor. I'm sure a lot of people were even more surprised by what he revealed
Why would you spoil that for people reading though the comments?
@jc_alpha choices
Of course he's not a Christian pastor - he would never fool genuine Christians who study the bible properly without misrepresenting it.
@@Chris_Sheridan
You can tell straight away when a fundamentalist appears in the comment section of Bart's videos
Please crawl back under your rock
@@strumspicks2456 .. and you have a problem with fundamental values?
You do know the actual meaning of fundamental? .. it applies in many areas of life - similar to the term 'basic' and 'from original principles'.
Why are you so afraid of good moral values that are healthy for society ie. basic family values.
So basically the point your guest is making is: “the biblical authors don’t explicitly condemn homosexuality as it’s understood today (a loving, consensual and equal relationship) because they had never heard of such a thing, but if they had heard of such a thing, they would have condemned that also.”
Seemed like a that answer could’ve been put a little clearer. I think many will come away from this podcast hearing everything before the “but” but not after, because it’s very easy to miss. In fact, it almost seems like the guest is trying to cause us to miss this statement. The statement is one very short offhand comment. Speaking of Paul he says at 49:26 that Paul had probably never heard of “equal adult males” but goes on to remark “even if he did he would probably condemn them”. After admitting this the guest goes on to give Christian’s an exhortation to not condemn homosexuals so readily… just after admitting that one of the greatest Christian apostles himself would have “probably condemned them”. Sorry but something isn’t adding up. This speaker seems to be pushing an agenda more than trying to stay true to the biblical authors and what they intended.
EDIT: Just watched to the end where the guest said he was a “minister”. It all makes sense now.
There's always the agenda. They pretend nobody knew what the heck arsenokoitai meant until liberal prots in the 70s figured it out...
It's not a conspiracy against homosexuals. It's the knowledge that the leaders of the Christian community were not lenient concerning the carnal pleasures in general.
Remember John the Baptist. He lost his head protesting against the immorality of King Herod who had married his niece Herodias. Both people were married and divorced their spouses to live together. That thing would be considered today as a right of two consensual adults, but back then it was a huge scandal.
I understand that the debate here is not about saying it is ok or not okay. Simply providing the changing perspectives on the matter over the years in the church
I'm a practicing homosexual. If practice makes perfect, I'm definitely perfect.
Next stop, Carnegie hall! 😂
@Darkcyndoge disgusting, disturbed psyche
😂
Same lol
keep up the good work ! we're pulling for you
This is one of the best discussions of this subject I've ever seen as it is accessible and not dogmatic. The sad part is that the people who most need to watch this video won't.
Yess! I'm forwarding it to people who need some perspective on this issue.
Very interesting discussion, but still not answering the question
Anyone who quotes Lev 18:22 and 20:13 to claim homosexuality is an abomination MUST ALSO obey Lev 19:37 and Lev 20:22 "Keep ALL my decrees and ALL my laws and follow them.." All 613 of them. They don't get a choice. I was a Baptist Pastor and I am proudly gay, medically proven during electronic shock therapy organized by a Dr who was President of the Baptist Church, to punish me for being gay. They then said I am not welcome to even attend church. Thanks for your video.
It sounds as if they did you a favour. Who would want to join a Church that produced characters like that?
Clm down dear,Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
If the passages dealing with homosexuality and condaming homosexuality can be dismissed because of the context of the time of the bible, then can most of rulings and other condemnations be dismissed using the same argument and therefore making the bible obsolete??
When Nietzsche declared God to be dead, it was more because he had noticed that God had been dead all along...
Yep.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
Christianity is a Middle Ages religion which thrived at a time when the only educated people were priests.
The message at the time was: "Escape from reality because it is sinful."
The only safe place is a monastery, a convent, or a church.
Young people are not fearful like their parents and refuse to darken the door of a church after they move out of the family nest!
I give Christianity ten years!!!
It is obsolete in the 21st Century
It’s a strange rationale to say that because people don’t obey all the law, the “picking and choosing” argument. I guess we could apply the same rationale to our time. Because people don’t obey a strict speed limit, that also calls into question whether we should pay taxes.
At around 27:30, I have to disagree with the notion that the people in the Bible only cared about the acts, not the thoughts. One of the Ten Commandments is about having thoughts for your neighbor's wife, not just about having sex with her. And Jesus was very clear about thought sins being equal to actual sinful acts. Among the several dozen authors of the Bible, there was disagreement about the severity of thought crimes but it is clear that some of them considered them as bad or worse than doing the bad deed.
With what we know now about the brain, thought crime shouldn't even be considered and shows how fkd up religion is
@@crede9427 Exactly. We have known that thought crimes are not and cannot be crimes for more than a century. But the grip of religious organizations on the population is very much based on punishing thoughts.
They were wrong in everything.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
I disagree. If you are talking about the 10 commandments and "coveting" a neighbors wife, it follows up with "coveting" their cattle as well. I think that the statement about coveting in the 10 commandments is pretty clearly about jealously wanting the legal property of another person, which generally does not lead to charitable behavior. I don't think it is originally about sexual behavior or thoughts at all... though I can see how the words of Jesus might change your point of view on what it is"really" about.
What a great combo! Love Megan obviously and YALL get on like a house on fire too!
Leviticus also talks about not eating pork, but does Peter's dream basically negate all of Leviticus in the eyes of Christians?
Jews were not to eat pork. It does not say man is not to eat pork.
@@simon-ty7no But how do you separate the moral from ceremonial. For instance, is there a moral reason behind not eating pork? Was there a health issue since pigs eat so much junk that can be passed on to humans who eat them and possibly cause severe illness or even death? Can we say what the purpose was behind such rule? Usually, it seems to me, that there is a moral purpose behind the ceremonial. This is what I mean when I ask if it, "basically negates all of Leviticus?"
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue But weren't all the rules in Leviticus meant for the Jews?
@@markadams7046 no. some are moral laws, some ceremonial. Some are what is right and some are how the jews separate themselves from others. kosher rules are not morals laws that apply to everyone
@@markadams7046 that doesnt mean kosher laws had no rhyme or reason.
How are people going to accept the contextual angle in Leviticus, for example, with passages like Isaiah 40:8?
“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.”
So then with your question I
Ask you do you follow the entire law of Leviticus? Do you follow the 10 commandments to the T?
@@endswithme555
Ok, you don’t how either
@@mindymild what?!!
@@endswithme555
Did I stutter?
@@mindymild if by stutter you mean did your last statement make any sense, it didn’t.
You might want to proofread before you hit the reply button.
Your first response “ok you don’t how either” makes zero sense!
lol
Very interesting and helpful to see what is in the scripture, really meant then and how is to be understood now.
Thanks for the interesting and informative discussion. I have some (possibly silly) questions about Leviticus 18:22. I'm interested in why modern readers only take this as applying to the conduct of men. I assume most people today expect the Bible's moral codes and laws to apply to everyone. What would it mean to apply this passage to everyone? As a woman, what would I be prohibited from doing? If a particular religious community did want to say this statute only applies to the conduct of men, if they were to apply the same logic to the rest of the biblical statutes and ordinances, as a woman which other statutes would not apply to me? Would I basically be off scot-free in terms of needing to obey >90% of the biblical statutes?
Just curious, not sure if they're very silly questions!
Of course they are not silly questions. Men wrote the books. You could say their dicks wrote the books. Why would a dick consider a woman... except for sex of course?
the difference is this: during history women were not considered as beings with agency over their lives (or very minimal) so they did not bother with them, but men had agency, will, desire so it was imperative if you want to control men you need a higher authority (God) directly ordering what free agents (men) should or should not do
The idea what women have agency or they have euqal agency and rights as men is a very very very very..... very very modern idea. People in the past did not bother with women they were controlled by their family, husband or other men. You only needed to control men to control society.
@@fixpontt I understand that and I suppose that is partly why I asked, because our notion of sexuality and sexual orientation has also changed completely, as Jeffrey and Bart discuss in the video. So my question was basically, well, if a modern religious authority or individual insists on applying these biblical statutes about specific sexual acts in spite of the historical change in our understanding of sexuality, then presumably they must also apply the biblical statutes as in spite of the historical change in our understanding of gender and women. Therefore, wouldn't the codes not actually apply to me or any other woman (with a few exceptions where the statutes are specifically directed at women, like Leviticus 20:16)? So I would not be required to abide by them, neither in letter nor in spirit, since the people writing them wrote them only for men because they had no concept that I had that sort of agency anyway.
They’re not silly questions at all. Corresponding to @fixPontt’s point, the Hebrew Bible was written to men. The idea was probably that men would interpret it and apply it to the women of their household.
There could be various reason Leviticus 18:22 doesn’t say what women can’t do with each other:
1. Woman on woman would not violate the rights of a man’s ownership 🤮 of her sexuality
2. Maybe Women weren’t supposed to have sexual desires 😂 so how would they have sex without a man?
3. Women were seen as so desperate to please men that they wouldn’t want another woman. This is a laughable concept in a way, but there is denigration and oppression behind it, as when Rachel is dying, but Yahweh’s messenger visiting her says, “You’re going to have a boy, so don’t worry about the dying painfully and young part.” Or the enmity between Leah and Rachel in order to be the one to have the next son for Jacob.
In terms of the Jewish Bible ("Old Testament") it's potentially ambiguous. As the man on the left in the video said, some Rabbi's thought it of course also applied to women, while others thought it didn't.
As for the New Testament, which would be the defacto law Christians are under (not the Jewish Bible), it does seem to say that homosexuality of all kinds, man or woman, is thought of as harmful and wrong by God. Jesus and other New Testament authors make a few passing remarks about "Sexual Immorality" ("Porneia") in the Greek which some scholars understand to be a blanket Jewish term for all levitical forbidden or harmful sexual relations.
Paul however is the most clear on the matter. In Romans 1, 1st Corinthians, and other places, he seems to say clearly that all forms of homosexual acts, and even mindsets, are against God and harmful in the Christian worldview.
I studied in the early 90s as I was accepting my SO and trying to square it with my faith at the time. I'm gratified that the conclusions I came to echoes Prof. Jeffrey Siker's statements. This is the first time I've watched Bart Ehrman after having heard about him repeatedly on Talk Heathen and AXP Very impressed
Thank you for bringing up the subject. I was expecting much more from an "expert in the topic of homosexuality in the Bible" though. The arguments presented in John Shelby Spong's book "The Sins of Scripture" are much more elaborate and seem pretty convincing to me as a former fundamental Christian.
Spong and Ehrman would be interesting.
You were never Born Again.
Bishop Spong could never get Jerry Falwell to debate him. At one point their churches were across the street from each other. Christians separated by belief in the God of Abraham.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
Yeah? Try reading "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover. In his book, Satinover covers the history of the modern gay movement, the science, the activists role in taking over the A.P.A. , the psychology, the causes of homosexuality, the secular treatments, the Christian treatments and the pagan revival in which homosexuality has once again become normalized. He leaves no stone unturned.
I wish I could have known this 40 years ago when I started to struggle with this very topic
Just because someone is giving you a green light to sin against your creator, it doesn't mean that you are ok to do so. In the day of Judgement this guy's opinion won't give you a free card out of jail/hell.
@@adamdilem941 Why are you condemning others? You are not the one who will judge that, and God - I am more than sure! - only sees souls. He doesn't care if they are gay or straight, which color their skin is or what ever other factors our (and your!) limited human minds can come up with. He loves ALL of us! And to pounce on someone just because you feel their sensibility with this topic, just because you want to look down on someone, just because you do not want to look at yourself and your own issues is not the way. God is love, and if you were a true believer, you would not judge.
@thelyrebird1310 You deserve love just like anybody else, don't let others unsettle you. God does not care about sexual "orientation" (that expression already makes me squeamish, because it is in itself incorrect already). Love, peace and healing to you, but most of all: happiness, in your private life as well. Because you deserve it, be sure of that!
@@ElinT13
"God loves all of us, God is love"
How about we give God a chance to speak on his behalf instead of you dictating to him who he is and what he loves?! Did you create him or did he create you? You are master over him or is he master over you?
Let's see what he has to say about himself:
Psalm 5:4-6
"Oh God you hates all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man."
Psalm 11:5
"The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence"
Psalm 139:21-22
"Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies"
Psalm 5:5
The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers"
Leviticus 20:23
"And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them"
Psalm 5:5-6 ESV
"Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man"
Hosea 9:15
"Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal; there I began to hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of my house. I will love them no more; all their princes are rebels"
Psalm 119:53
"Hot indignation seizes me because of the wicked, who forsake your law."
Malachi 1:2-3
“Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.”
Psalm 145:20
"The Lord preserves all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy."
GOD DESTROYING HOMOSEXUALS SODOM AND GOMORRAH :
Genesis 19:13
"for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”
Deuteronomy 29:23
"like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the Lord overthrew in His anger and in His wrath."
As you can see God himself tells youthat he does not love all of us. Certainly not Sodomites and their Allies. He hates the wicked. But he forgives those who repent and turn away from their wickedness. But those who do not, they will face hell fire for eternity. That's God's decree.
You claim: "God doesn't doesn't care if one is gay or straight, black or white..."
God doesn't care about your skin colour when it comes to his judgement. But he has told us that he cares whether you are righteous or rebel against his will and Law. Being black or White you have no choice on that, he created you black or white or Chinese or male or female. Being a Sodomite however is a sexual evil fetish that he forbade you and that you have control over it. You are responsible for your actions in any just court. It's like a pedophile saying God doesn't care about my fetish just as he doesn't care about my skin colour.
Thanks to deceived people like you we have now Gay Drag queens performing X rated strip dances in nurseries, primary and secondary schools. Before you know it, soon they will be legalising pedophilia as they're already bringing scientists on tv and newspapers to brainwash people that "They are born that way". Does that so called "scientific" excuse sound familiar to you?
@@ElinT13 When did he Judge? Why are you attacking him for stating that comes straight from the bible?
Bible Verses About Homosexuality
Genesis 19:1-11
That evening the two angels came to the entrance of the city of Sodom. Lot was sitting there, and when he
saw them, he stood up to meet them. Then he welcomed them and bowed with his face to the ground.
"My lords," he said, "come to my home to wash your feet, and be my guests for the night. You may then
get up early in the morning and be on your way again." "Oh no," they replied. "We'll just spend the night
out here in the city square." But Lot insisted, so at last they went home with him. Lot prepared a feast for
them, complete with fresh bread made without yeast, and they ate. But before they retired for the night, all
the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. They shouted to
Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex
with them!"
So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. "Please, my brothers," he begged,
"don't do such a wicked thing. Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you
can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my
protection."
"Stand back!" they shouted. "This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he's acting like our judge!
We'll treat you far worse than those other men!" And they lunged toward Lot to break down the door. But
the two angels reached out, pulled Lot into the house, and bolted the door. Then they blinded all the men,
young and old, who were at the door of the house, so they gave up trying to get inside.
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice *homosexuality*, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
(NLT)
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices *homosexuality*, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have
committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
(NLT)
Judges 19:16-24
That evening an old man came home from his work in the fields. He was from the hill country of
Ephraim, but he was living in Gibeah, where the people were from the tribe of Benjamin. When he saw
the travelers sitting in the town square, he asked them where they were from and where they were going.
"We have been in Bethlehem in Judah," the man replied. "We are on our way to a remote area in the hill
country of Ephraim, which is my home. I traveled to Bethlehem, and now I'm returning home. But no one
has taken us in for the night, even though we have everything we need. We have straw and feed for our
donkeys and plenty of bread and wine for ourselves."
"You are welcome to stay with me," the old man said. "I will give you anything you might need. But
whatever you do, don't spend the night in the square." So he took them home with him and fed the
donkeys. After they washed their feet, they ate and drank together. While they were enjoying themselves,
a crowd of troublemakers from the town surrounded the house. They began beating at the door and
shouting to the old man, "Bring out the man who is staying with you so we can have sex with him." The
old man stepped outside to talk to them. "No, my brothers, don't do such an evil thing. For this man is a
guest in my house, and such a thing would be shameful. Here, take my virgin daughter and this man's
concubine. I will bring them out to you, and you can abuse them and do whatever you like. But don't do
such a shameful thing to this man."
1 Kings 14:24
And there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the
nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel.
1 Kings 15:12
He put away the male cult prostitutes out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
2 Kings 23:7
He also tore down the living quarters of the male and female shrine prostitutes that were inside the
Temple of the LORD, where the women wove coverings for the Asherah pole.
Romans 1:18-32
But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their
wickedness.... Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And
they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and
confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious,
ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and
degrading things with each other's bodies. *They traded the truth about God for a lie*. So they worshiped
and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural
way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal
sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men,
and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved*.
Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let
them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed,
hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters
of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents.
They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God's
justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they
encourage others to do them, too.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves.
Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or
practice *homosexuality*, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people
none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed;
you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and
by the Spirit of our God.
This is why I like scholars. They may not always agree with each other, but they at least get us past all the personal opinions and emotions that cloud the issues -- into (in this case) the contexts and reasons for whatever the texts are that are being examined.
I couldn't agree more. People could learn a lot from observing the relationship between these two scholars.
Except when politics and money get involved. Some historians cannot say certain thing and some scientist cannot publish certain things if they want to keep their funding.
I don't need and expert to tell me what the text plainly says. Homosexuality is a sin and it is also a sinful habit.
And they also sneak in their subtle deceptions. 🤔
@@Goodpatron What subtle deceptions?
I really like how Bart held his feet to the fire more or less and didn't hold back on the questions just because they're friends.
Sophistry is integral to Philosophy
@@enijize1234 Meaning?
You think they answered the question of the topic? They would better fight but give an answer at the end 😜
No you did not.@@SuperMrAndersen
Being "Celebate" flies in the face of nature. It like trying to defy gravity, it does not make sense. The only reason the Catholic church required priests to be Celebate was because the Pope wanted the dying priests property. Once Again, It's about money, like it always is.
Great conversation.... thank you!
I’m watching this now, but I’m also putting it in my “Watch later” list so I can refer to it in the future
It also says that eating shellfish is an abomination.
Another informative program, deals thoughtfully with a subject that remains culturally controversial. Thanks for what you do.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
I find it rather fascinating that a lot of people live their lives based on a book written by multiple human beings, thousands of years ago where costumes were SO MUCH DIFFERENT from the modern days and still believe in them until this day. Let's study the Bible for it's historical meaning and to learn about how life was back then and please contextualize its messages to the modern days. I'm happy to be who I am and a freaking book is not going to dictate my life and tell me what's right to be happy and live a great life. Thank you for the video.
Bart is a great interviewer. He keeps the guest on track with excellent, provocative questions without stealing the show.
edifying as usual.
I found it interesting that you did not talk about the idea of covenant.
This is kind of new to me, I only heard it from a Christian friend a while ago, so pardon me if I get this wrong.
As I understand it, the old testament rules and laws do not apply to modern Christians, because those are part of the covenant JHVH had with the Jewish people. The covenant of JHVH with Christians is Jesus who was sacrificed symbolically at least, for the Christians. The rules for this covenant are in what Jesus said. So that means the New Testament only applies. And then we have to find it coming from his mouth. Not some later guy like Paul he took it upon himself to make up extra stuff.
Ever since I tripped over the fact that Paul came after Jesus, and was not concurrent with him, it makes me question why his gospels are gospels?
So these two things together has me thinking there is no condemnation of homosexuality that applies to modern Christians.
Anything they can find they have to bend quite a bit to get to.
If I remember correctly there are many passages of the new testament where Jesus says the people have to follow the laws of old still.
The ten commandments are in the old testament.
Jesus doesn't condemn homosexuality in the pages of the NT where he appears. He does though, something much more distresful: He "condemns" all sexuality - at least that sexuality of today which is considered an autonomous function of our organism, and as such, a human right.
When he says for instance, that "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mathew 5:28) he certainly doesn't suggest that this act is blessed. And when he speaks of "eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” (Mathew 19:12) he also doesn't mean that a man should cut of his genitals...
Who can live without being carnal - regardless of sexual orientation? Not someone who simply complies with some external orders and restrictions for sure...
@NullStaticVoid .. Read Romans chapter 1 - the Christian Greek scriptures have not changed God's moral laws. There is nothing that replaces marriage between a man and a woman. There is not one account that makes provision for a 'new' morality ie. the acceptance of sexual practices outside of traditional marriage - for single heterosexuals, fornication and adultery are serious sins. For homosexuals/lesbians who continue to practice perverted sex acts, they are sinning against their own bodies - it's irrelevant if they have engaged in a 'civil' partnership - God's law supersedes man's law where it conflicts with God's righteous standards.
Thank you gentlemen, it was a great interview and discussion.
First off, the question of whether a religion's scriptures condemn or don't condemn something is a matter for only those who choose to practice that religion. The greater issue here is freedom to be not religious or religious as one sees best.
I am at 12:20 in your video. I have read that prior to 1946 the text said not to lay with a child. And it has been mistranslated ever since then.
I’m a big fan of Bart’s but I believe this kind of topic would probably do better in a debate format. It borders on the political / apologetic when around the 15:00 mark you start to say “well the text condemns this, but it’s cherry picking for people to invoke that unless they also invoke this other passage which condemns this other thing”. At that point it sounds like you want to make a polemical point against conservative religious people. Therefore at that point, you should let the other side make the counter point.
I doubt Bart wants to be associated with platforming homophobes.
A better way is to do a "debunking" video where you play a clip of the opponent or to do a debate on an entirely different platform.
No, because this is a textual critical podcast, not a theological one. It's about the fact that the text doesn't say what modern-day bigots say it does.
@@tchristianphoto The fact that you label people who might disagree modern day bigot is exactly the problem. You're engaged in polemics / activism when you think that a disagreeing side with you is evil. Dispassionate scholarship doesn't engage in that.
@@QuiveringEye Dude it's a textual question, it has nothing to do with "homophobia". If you're asking did the authors of text X condemn homosexuality - for you to invoke the idea that someone who thinks that is a homophobe - what kool aid are you drinking? How could scholarship actually go on if you're going to attack ad hominem a person with a different conclusion.
I'm sure the people who believe the text condemns present day homosexuality have no overlap with those who dislike or are prejudiced towards homosexuality... 🙄
I knew I was gay at age 13! But couldn’t except myself because of church and society! Got married to a woman & had 2 sons! Stuck out the marriage for 20 years unhappily! Got divorced & came out my kids were 16 & 14. The 16 moved away with me my younger son stayed with my x wife! Later met a man became my partner! Unfortunately he was hooked on pain pills from a car accident years before! He accidentally overdosed and died day before Thanksgiving we only had a year and a half together! I tried dating but never found true love again! But I still believe in God! I take the Bible with a grain of salt! Sing in a church choir at a liberal Lutheran Church! They except gay people! Getting older now given up looking for a partner now but happy to be free to now be true to myself!
I'd rather spend my whole life a virgin than risk committing a sin.
"Sexuality" does change by the way over time if you do certain things for a long period of time.
@@BC-kc6em No, it Doesn't. You're expelling bullshit
@@LucasSilva-bz8vt it does it's proven scientifically but in the West it's not allowed anymore to do these kind of research and get this kind of results.
You are brainwashed by the new religion of liberalism.
@@LucasSilva-bz8vt if you watch corn from an early age it will change your sexuality depending on what you consume for long periods this is the truth wether you like it or not.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
I have a great respect for Dr. Ehrman, but I am always suspicious of reading the Hebrew Bible though the eyes of Christianity. I would be more interested in how the Talmud approaches these issues. How did the Jewish community at the time, or time period, read/apply these laws.
In the same context of prohibiting homosexual acts, you also can’t wear shirts that is mixed cotton and polyester which was mentioned in the video, or you can’t grow different crops in the same field
@@byron9630 That is a great red herring, but the issue/and topic of the video is the actual prohibition of homosexual acts. I merely pointed out that I wondered what the Jewish thinkers of the time thought about the passage and how they interpreted it. It seems there is a lot of Post-Modern criticism going on with these texts today, and I am simply curious about what it meant and how it was viewed at the time by the religion that produced it.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
Haven't watched yet, but have heard a lot about Dr E, and see his videos YT, so this looks like a great place to start. I'm a former evangelical and a Gnostic transbian
Really enjoyed this podcast. Thank you
I live in a very red state. There is a subsidies sucking church on every corner.
I've been telling ppl that's how God made them, he must want them that way.
Thanks for great discussion
God didn't make them that way. You believe that lie because you're gullible.
Im gay and live in Oklahoma, and it has gotten better here, especially in the two cities OKC and Tulsa
I believe what you said that there are many different people here because the Lord wanted us here, in many different forms because I believe we were meant to try and learn to love one another before gaining access to heaven
I'm also Christian and it's not easy with other christians tell me I'm proud to live in sin and gay people telling me I believe in nonsense, I say to them there are 10 commandments not one involves sexual oriantain besides adultery and coveting. Everyone who quotes The Bible and the 6 verses I say none were from Jesus who never spoke a word against homosexuality. It apparently is a big deal more to humans than it is our Lord, so I believe. And the last I pointed to is he put it in nature to show us it is natural. Just wanted to say keep fighting the good fight and don't let other christians tell you, you can't be a good Christian if you're gay. We are not just Lust we are Love too, just like straight people can lust but also love.
@@zt3823 According to the Bible we inherit a sinful nature. So that can be anything against God. Everyone struggles with different sins. Just because you see in it what you call nature doesn't make it natural. We see murder in the world, stealing, and rape. Just because it happens between animals and humans doesn't make it right. After all, all of creation was cursed.
Lust is a sin for everyone. Sigmund Freud invented the idea of "gay" and sexual orientation. Our bodies physically are not designed to act sexually with the same sex. If we embark on sexually engaging in this way, we are going against the creation ordinance. This affects us spiritually as well. Trauma is often at the root of aberrant sexual desires. It's never too late to repent.
Genesis gives us the creation ordinance. Men are to be with Women sexually in a holy marriage. That's it. You're not believing in the God of the Bible, or in Jesus of the Bible. Jesus didn't address homosexuality per se because it was so widely understood to be not permitted by God, he didn't need to.
Wrong! Both professors are guilty of ignoratio elenchi here: 16:39, because the question is whether or not the bible forbids homosexuality…the question is NOT about whether people pick or chose what they want to follow.
Sure they are correct that Christians do pick and choose what to follow based on their biases, but that’s NOT the question being asked.
Similarly with Siker’s analysis that the context matters (11:20) that’s irrelevant: there are clear instructions in Leviticus showing that homosexuality is forbidden…Siker fails to explain how the context changes this.
Siker’s argument here: 6:04 that “homosexuality” as used by the bible is anachronistic misses the point, because the *physical act* of what men do when sleeping with each other hasn’t changed in 3000 years (he provides no evidence to dispute this).
Although he’s correct that the understanding of homosexuality as natural/unnatural has changed, that’s not the question being asked. He needs to stick to the question as to whether the bible forbids it or not, so yet again he’s guilty of ignoratio elenchi.
Siker’s propensity to rephrase the question by posing completely different questions is extremely annoying and fairly typical of intellectuals who have been adversely influenced by Continental Philosophy (CP).
Which is not to say CP is wrong or an inferior tool, but rather that CP has its merits when used correctly and this is not the place!
Siker makes an excellent case as to how modern western liberal democracies rightly came to accept homosexuality as normal human behaviour, and thus how they exceeded the intellectual grasp of those ancient manuscript authors.
The issue is that Christians today insist on following those ancient manuscripts and that brings them into conflict with modern sentiments on human sexuality.
This contradiction is simple to resolve: go find yourself a different god who allows you to live a fulfilled and happy life.
Thank you for this comment . Not sure how I feel when Bart jumps on and starts ranting about how if Paul was talking about science and the cosmos
Man this comment section is far out..
What about the passages in leviticus referring to male incest?
I notice it uses man and then male. I've heard that the Hebrew word for man refers to an adult male ans the Hebrew word for male refers to adult or child male. Which would imply that the leviticus passages are referring to male incest and pedophilia.
13:17 - How does one discern which desire is correct & which is not correct ?
While it's true that the ancients would not have phrased things as we might today, sex and the reasons people do it have not really changed. To my knowledge, in every passage where the Bible references morality with regard to sexual relations, it's always referring to the aspects of attraction and pleasure.
It seems very clear that this is what Paul is aiming at in his commentary on Romans 1, as he states that the men burned in their desire for one another, leaving the "natural function of the woman." I note that, in 1st Corinthians 7, he states that it's better for people to marry than to burn. The Greek word is different here, but the idea seems to be the same: passion, sexual desire. Some translations, such as the NASB, actually build that understanding into the text: " For is better to marry than to burn with passion."
I honestly cannot see anything about dominance or male bonding rituals in what Paul is saying. He seems to be taking aim at pure sexual passion, stemming from attraction. Admittedly, I say this as a Christian, but I'm looking as objectively as possible at the text, rather than acting on some personal conviction (I've been rethinking this issue for a while now). I just don't think that Dr. Siker's efforts to limit Paul's remarks to a cultural context works exegetically. Paul very much appears to be condemning homosexual relationships in general.
As far as I can see, the only culturally-limiting case progressives can make (appealing to the text, that is) is to argue that Paul is just as mistaken about the nature of homosexuality as he was in his Greo-Roman understanding of how hair relates to human sexuality (when he states that it's a shame for a man to have long hair or for a woman to pray with her head uncovered). In that instance, Paul's advice to the churches was based on a scientific inaccuracy. If he'd known the truth, his advice would probably have been different. So we might then ask, "What would Paul say about homosexual relationships if he were to have a modern scientific understanding of the matter?"
Paul attributes the Romans' sexual licentiousness to their practice of idolatry. Modern gay people aren't idolaters, nor have they ever "left the natural function" of heterosexuality. Also, Paul was working from the expectation that the world was going to end imminently, so his ideal for his followers was to have them unencumbered by any sort of relationship. Therefore, in his view, apart from being single, it was better to marry and thus have sex licitly than to have it illicitly outside of marriage.
@@bluerfoot As I indicated, I'm rethinking all of this. My point above was simply focusing on the textual side of the issue: what it says and actually means. I don't hold to mainline evangelical understandings of inspiration or inerrancy. I actually admire Dr. Ehrman and agree with much of what he says.
@Terry Christian I see what you're saying here. My question would be whether Paul is linking homosexuality with idolatry in terms of it being an idolatrous practice, or is he saying it's an evidence of having departed from God *along with* idolatry (in other words, the two separate consequences of one root issue).
@@tchristianphoto You say : "Also, Paul was working from the expectation that the world was going to end imminently." Contrary to his expectations, the world did not come to an end. So the premises of his reasoning - and hence, his own reasoning - were flawed. In other words, all his teachings are rubbish.
Wau! I am not a Christian but I would like to learn about these kind of issues. Dr. Ehrman is an amazing scholar! Thank you.
I’m not an authority figure but I am Christian. I would be humbled to attempt to answer any questions you have.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
Love the friendly banter
Romans chapter 1 explains this. Some moral practices of Old Testaments were carried through in New Testament.
Whilst I always enjoy listening to these podcasts and have learnt a great deal from them; I must say that I found the arguments presented on this topic to be rather weak and unconvincing - as well as being packed with a fair amount of whataboutery. "Well the bible also condemns this and condemns that." However much one tries to dress it up - it seems to me that the bible does condemn homosexuality. The real point is - why should we care?
Excellent overview of this seemingly complex issue... Thanks, Drs Ehrman and Siker!
It's not complex at all. It is made complex by the dubious historical narrative this scholar places over the text and context.
From the introduction I'd expected a bit more depth. This whole hour seems to boil down to "Well, people in the past were archaic and didn't know what we know now. And they had some silly rules we ignore, so why should we pay attention to this one?"
At 10:55 you literally touched the key point to the whole discussion, but then never actually got into it. "If a MAN lies with a MALE as with a WOMAN..."
This is is using when an (ish) lies with an (ishah) as a default. These are the words for someone who is specifically a "Man" and "Woman" unambiguously adult. The verse says a "Man lies with a male" because it doesn't use the same terms of when an "ish lies with an ish" ... it says when an "ish" lies with a "zakhar" as with an "ishah" it is an abomination.
Whereas "ish" is specifically an adult man, Zakhar is a general term for males/boys of any age. The differentiation between "Zakhar" and "ish/ishah" implies these are males who are not men. I.e. boys. "When a Man lies with a boy as though he were a woman, it is an abomination." And that's fair.
This shows the Hebrew mindset that clarifies the age-ambiguity of ἀρσενοκοίτης in the context of malakoi. It's not "man-bedders." It's "Male-bedders." As this is the translation of the concept in leviticus, it stands to reason that this is in the same context: a prohibition of the practice of pederasty. "Soft-ones" weren't just "male prostitutes." They were "boy prostitutes." That's evil.
The only verse where the bible uses equal terms for "men and other men" is the one mentioned where people who submit to shameful lusts take in themselves the consequences of their actions... and yes... the orgies common in greco-roman cultures lead to massive STDs. That doesn't mean "God is punishing the gays with STDs." It means "Hey, there's a consequence to all these orgies." Which, there is.
I have a 13 minute analysis of the original languages of each of these verses and a comparison with some other verses applicable to the topic that often go overlooked, but I think a direct link would be in poor form.
So, the Torah prohibits child molestation when the victims are underage boys, but it says nothing against molestation of underage girls. In fact the Torah condemns both the victims of pederasty and their abusers to death, but it also recommends that the underage girl is married to her rapist. That is quite a double standard and a barbaric viewpoint.
@@melissawickersham9912 ... no. Hebrew (like many languages) is gendered. So there isn't a good way to refer to (gender netural adults) and (gender netural children). The base form of a word is considered masculine or neutral/mixed, and the specifically feminine form of the word has a slightly different ending (like an -ah suffix, or changing the masculine/neutral/mixed plural -im to a feminine plural -ot).
So it should be rather obvious that "a man lying with a boy as he would lie with a woman is an abomination" would extend to if a man lied with a girl or a woman lied with a boy or girl. But, this doesn't have the connotation of a single forced incident (וְהֶחֱזִֽיק), but an ongoing pedophilic relationship. Everything about it's an abomination. Are the parents of the child more responsible for letting that happen than the child themselves? Sure. That's where mature judgment comes in. These aren't immediate irrational absolutes where "That guy was creepy toward a kid... kill them both!"
As for the "underage girl is married to her rapist" comment... that would be Deuteronomy 22... and no, that's not what that says either.
Verses 25-27 describes an account of rape. This is non-consentual, she's specifically taken by force (וְהֶחֱזִֽיק). If it's non-consentual, she's done absolutely nothing wrong. He should be punished. וּמֵ֗ת הָאִ֛ישׁ LITERALLY means "he shall die" but that would be a maximum sentence. Obviously again, mature judgment depending on the context. Maybe he's just exiled or something as the judge sees reasonable. The point is it's a serious crime.
28-29 describes an entirely different situation. This isn't where a man uses FORCE (וְהֶחֱזִֽיק) against someone's will... The word is (וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ). To "take hold of what isn't his." If "THEY" are caught, he must offer her father a dowry, marry her, and can never divorce her.
It's not rape against her will. It's seduction that she consents to. No "wam bam thank you ma'am." It's what people today referred to as the "booty-call." If a man does one of those, he's required to take responsibility and is forbidden from abandoning her. She's under no such obligation and can decline or leave him. (since this one DOES have unilateral responsibility, I'd presume this one is gender-specific. I doubt a man could try to argue his case that she seduced him and therefore owes HIS father a dowry... but again... this presumes a reasonable and mature person would judge such cases)
This level of mental gymnastics could win them an Olympic medal. They both know full well that no amount of modern spin makes the Bible support homosexuality.
Dr Bart, can you do another video about homosexuality? I wanna hear what you have to say about it. You are so articulated and have a lot of knowledge, I wanna hear more of your perspective. A couple of things were not addressed on this video here like the meaning of “abomination,” and even the relationship between David and Saul’s son, the term arsenokai, etc.
I think to ask any question about the Bible in general is really to ask if the people who collected its books had any single purpose in mind. And the answer to that is “no” in my opinion. If one asked the writer of Genesis they would have given a different reason for writing the book than Psalms. For no other work of literature of such breadth and variegated composition would we ever ask the question if the whole thing does or is something, and to do otherwise I think is to ask a theological question.
That's nonsense. The individual books may indeed have been written for different purposes, but they were also drawn together to serve a common purpose. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask if one takes them as a whole do they support X or Y.
But here we have the compiled books of a tradition that is constantly referencing itself.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar Well, sure, they were collected, presumably, for SOME purpose, but it couldn’t be purpose that could possibly make such a disparate collection align in anything approaching a granular level. So yes, it is indeed “unreasonable” to expect any kind of consistency. Certain parts of the Bible would seem to condemn homosexual practice. That doesn’t mean the Bible as a whole condemns it. The Bible as a WHOLE does very little.
@@jeffryphillipsburns Really? You don't think the Bible as a whole makes the case for a particular god? That's certainly what it's fan clubs believe.
And if it is supposedly the inspired word of that God then consistency would be expected. The fact it manifestly does not have that would suggest, at the very least, that it is not inspired by any deity.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar - That story people love to tell about a mob bringing a woman to Jesus for stoning due to adultery brings the lie to the consistent "inspired word of God". When Jesus tells the mob that he without sin should cast the first stone, they all leave, disappointed that they won't lick their lips over bloodshed today. Jesus then tells the woman to go and sin no more. Good churchy story with a strong anti-sin, pro-Jesus message, no?
Well, no. This story did NOT appear in any manuscript prior to the 12th Century! Some scribe along the way got creative. If those scribes so blithely added in their own words, what did they leave out?
My biggest takeaway from this discussion is that there is an enormous push to have homosexuality accepted as normal in the modern Christian church. Mr. Ehrman, in his book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about various pressures, both internal and external, the scribes had that caused them to change the text. I'm sure the "texts" (new modern translations) will be changed to promote this view.
Jesus never spoke on homosexuality nor did he speak on abortion; both were occurring in his time 🤔 Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate, perhaps God changed his mind about the whole homosexuality thing and that's why it's called a New covenant I didn't new; with nothing being said in the New testament about. Paul while he was nothing more than a commentator... In other words I think banning gays. By Christians is totally being put some sweats and to think you know the mind of God; if you didn't want gazing trans he wouldn't have created, and if you say it's Satan's fault that you're saying Satan has just as much power 🤔💭
@@mickeydecurious God will burn these abominations in hell forever.
Homosexuality is natural and normal. We have been around and will always be around, thanks be to God.
@@Good_Grace
However, nasty it is and unhygienic. Yeah it is kind of natural.
Wild animals are seem to do it occasionally
People do it with the opposite sex
They are considered straight, but occasionally experiment with anal intercourse
So you may find anal intercourse disgusting But you have no authority to Defined the bounds of nature. Human biology is not just simply male and female there are many medical conditions that put a person somewhere in between
When you look at the fine details you have to ask what is normal?
Go to another country and watch guys walking down the street holding hands They are not gay they would laugh at you if you said they were
But you would be embarrassed to walk down the street hand-in-hand with another guy
It’s cultural dude. Open your eyes.
@@Good_GraceYes it is. Heterosexual people do it too. They also have oral sex. You can’t deny the biological fact if homosexual orientation just because you find anal sex icky. And many homosexuals do not have anal sex. Lighten up.
Honestly, in this day and age, it is OK to say top and bottom.
So does this apply to all the prohibitions in those verses ? .. or is it pick and choose?.. even though they are all in the same context ???
Very interesting conversation n thought- provoking too.
You can tell Jeffrey is a real musician because he's using his music mic for a video call, lol.
Love my Audix OM series mics. Nukeproof and great sound.
This is a superb discussion and a huge learning experience - thank you!
I disagree. Jeffry Siker is not arguing in good faith. He’s just another apologist twisting logic (and occasionally brutalizing the English language). Thumbs down.
@@jeffryphillipsburns That doesn't seem fair. Siker comes across as quite erudite and intellectually honest in my opinion, and Ehrman is clearly enjoying the discussion.
@@jeffryphillipsburns That's my take as well. Siker takes some of the most straightforward verses in the text and spins them to match his agenda. Liberalism, not Christ, is his saviour/faith.
@@Charlotte_Martel - So, you claim to be the expert on early Christianity and Biblical studies that Dr Siker IS? Hubris in spades. And denialism, too, towards someone who is trying to bring you knowledge.
@@MossyMozart I never claimed to be a Biblical expert, but I am literate enough to know that when a sentence states "The table is black," it doesn't actually mean that the table is white.
It's amusing how you resort to appealing to authority, yet you readily reject the straightforward interpretation of these verses from the majority of Biblical scholars until extreme liberals entered the field. It's almost as if we choose which sources qualify as experts based on how closely they align with our own opinions.
Yeah, another vid like the Goodacre one. Bart is such a pro as an interviewer.
No, very different from the Goodacre interview. Here Ehrman feels it necessary very often to step out of his interviewing role to compensate for Siker’s seeming inability to express himself coherently. Much of this is Ehrman interviewing himself.
Maybe we should talk about how many times the Bible has been translated and language has affected that.
Bart, I would like to know specifically what your view is on the subject. Are there any additional videos out there?
I think its fairly obvious really that the ancient Jewish people didn't use the same language as us to describe sex and that a small minority of them engaged in acts that were homosexual in nature which was very much thought of as sin, it seem awfully disingenuous to suggest that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality in the passages Bart brought up when it is clear it does
TL;DR: It's OK now because we changed our minds.
This entire hour is just them saying "ehhh what can you do?!"
I don't know when this interview took place.
Therefore I would refer the speakers and others who have commented on the discussion to read the Academic Assessment published by the Wijngaarde Institute entitled" Christian objections to same sex relationships".
I'm surprised that it hasn't percolated into the public sphere.
I'm not going to attempt to summarize or precis its findings as it behoves anyone genuinely concerned with the Bible and Church teachings on homosexuality to read the document itself.
Tom Shantivanam
They sum it up themselves in the introduction: "They finally make it possible to confirm that the two key verses in Leviticus - and, more generally, the entire Hebrew Bible - do not prohibit, much less condemn, free and faithful same-sex relationships. And they also allow a similar degree of confidence with regard to all three passages from the apostle Paul." Somebody should get the entire clergy of the Church of England to read this.
@@pattheplanter Anyone with an iota of sense knows such 'scholarship' is just thinly veiled activism.
@@ConsideringPhlebas As opposed to the thinly-veiled inactivism of the conservative statements? Have you read it?
@@pattheplanter
No, and yet there are some things that you know exactly what they will be before you read them.
Interesting topic and it feels like we just scratched the surface.
53:29 "They didn't have institutions of marriage."
That was a surprising comment, particularly given that one of the passages you discussed was Christ discussing divorce. Perhaps you could discuss the institution of marriage within an historical context in a future episode.
People will translate or interpret it the way it fits their desires. If you want to hate guys you will find you authority through religion.
Christain always pick out what ever suits their ideology.
This is also another kind of a case where the Bible writers were not speaking from a scientific perspective. Because Paul saying, men laying with men is "unnatural" is contradicted in Nature where a variety of animals do engage in same sex behavior.
Tbf, the bible writers were never speaking from anything that would be considered science as we know it today.
If you cannot see that it's not natural, you're absolutely blind. Lmao 😂🤦
@@br1qbat Agree. Science was still barely a thing back then. But when people use verses to form opinions and/or even governmental policies, I think it's fair to point out when that opinion is contradicted by science.
He says the same about women with short hair. This should make you question if his view of what it means to be "natural" is the same as our modern view (it isn't).
Homosexuality as we understand it is as similar to the thing condemned in the bible, as Evangelicalism is to the teachings of Jesus.
Show me this example. Whenever I have looked into it, I find no compelling reference to animals engaging in homosexual sex. "Same sex behavior" might just be the wiggle room you're looking for. But if it is not homosexual intercourse it doesn't really count. Please provide your references. I've mostly found: two lions hunting together and grooming each other. Sorry, not the case. Dogs humping each other. Dogs do that to show dominance, and even a female dog will "hump" another to show this dominance - and it is unrelated to homosexuality - as is sniffing butts.
Very valuable conversation!!
50:00 Why would Paul attribute the transformation of “unnatural” passions of men and women an act of God? Did Paul have empirical evidence to support his claims?
In wich Episode is Bart talking about abortion?
Great discussion! Most enjoyable! It is really quite incomprehensible to me that people make such a big thing of two men/women loving each other, so often because of the Book of Leviticus, yet Leviticus also condemns tattoos and the eating of shellfish (bottom feeders) every bit as much. Yet often the people condemning the homosexuals are tattooed and eat shellfish too; however, they don't seem to see the irony in their condemnation.
Tattooing spreads disease as does the eating of shellfish and contact with all of the "unclean" animals.
Sodomy spreads hepatitis and many other diseases. Not just physical health, but mental health illness is on display to pervert children. ANYBODY who derives sexual arousal at the smell of feces has a neurosis.
God was looking out for us, but the psychopath always hates the one who is trying to help him.
Christians cherry pick their Bible thats why. But we should all be aware that NO ONE should follow the Old Testament laws since they are a contract between god and the Israelites of the time. They have nothing to do with us today.
@@eurech I am well aware that Christians cherry-pick from the Bible. My comment was written not because I didn't understand why this happens, but simply because I wanted to draw attention to this phenomenon.
So many people have tattoos today, which to me is totally incomprehensible, since I see no beauty in them at all. And as for eating shellfish, just about everyone I know raves about shellfish of all kinds. That, too, is largely incomprehensible to me. Personally, I eat shellfish only when I have to. But the curious thing is this: Many people I have met over the years who have tattoos and who eat shellfish are so often ignorant about the Old Testament's teachings on these things. Yet they always seem to know that homosexuality is an "abomination". 🙂 (Sorry to sound rather cynical, but I often wonder whether have these people know what an abomination is, or at least what its meaning is/was in this context.)
It is not for me to comment on the relevance of the Old Testament to today's Christians. It seems to me that if it had absolutely no relevance, then it wouldn't be included in the Bible that Christians use.
Isn't the discarding of the Old Testament a form of cherry-picking too?
@@ladamyre1 If entering the Kingdom of Heaven depends on not being tattooed and not eating shellfish, I should be assured at the 'Pearly Gates'! For I am not tattooed and dislike shellfish.
I dislike the word 'sodomy'. A word taken from the fable of Sodom and Gomorrah. One can bet one's bottom dollar that when someone refers to sodomy, the person commenting will invariably be a homophobe.
It is perfectly possible to be gay without engaging in what you refer to as "sodomy", they tell me. I will add the following: To each his own! What other people do in their boudoirs is no concern of mine. In modern parlance: Whatever floats your boat!
@@xelakram your inadvertent homosexual irony in para.#2..."one can bet one's bottom dollar..."
A book I found very illuminating on this topic was *Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality* (1980) by John Boswell.
The Gay Gospels by Keith Sharpe is terrific
I found the Bible itself to be illuminating on the subject.
Marvelous! Thanks for this conversation. Is the 2006 encyclopedia still recommended, or is it now outdated?
The Hebrew word for commandments is mitzvot. The word mitzvot doesn’t appear anywhere. The Jewish Publication Society translates it as “the ten utterances.” The word used is devarim.
05:24 - The writing of human knowing from 400 AD differs from human knowing in 2023 AD
Ah man, I was digging the Revelation streak! But excited to hear y'alls take on this.
Is there any possible phrasing that this guest would actually accept as an ancient condemnation of same sex relations? Seems he can make excuses for just about anything.
I think they've backed the wrong horse when they oversimplify about "orientation" as the point of divergence between antiquity and modernity. There are hints of an implicit understanding of sexual orientation from several sources in antiquity, even if it's mired in things as fanciful and bizarre as astrological determinism (and even if these were largely concerned with sexual acts). Siker very briefly touched on a much more promising point of divergence - one related to orientation, but also broader than this: the social normalization of long-term, same-aged monogamous relationships between those exclusively interested in the same sex.
We really have to compound the descriptors, because otherwise there are always comparable examples from antiquity. And even as it is, we can still find things that fit the bill of "long-term, same-aged monogamous romantic relationships."
well even if the Bible said in Hebrew, Thou shall not butt-Fuck ... that would still be wrong. Just because the Bible says so does not make it right. Much of the Bible is downright evil.
I guess you weren’t listening or just fail to keep up.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
Siker is trying to argue the bible doesn't condemn homosexual sex when it clearly does. The stuff about the bible forbidding loads of other things which people no longer take seriously is irrelevant to the point. Do you get sentenced to death for wearing two different types of cloth? By the way in modern Greek 'malaka' means 'wanker'. I guess Paul would have prohibited that.
In Leviticus if you read the entire passage isn't about a list of admonishments of what a husband should not be doing?
Equally important question: Where does the Bible tell Christians to ignore the entirety of Christ’s exhortations and commandments to focus on persecuting people for the sake is a single line?
I Cleary see why Bart is no longer a Christian. Cause Geez! This guy has his points, but confuses the heck outta me. IM SOLD!! way 2 go bart. You held it down!
Yeah, I think that Bart made it possible for me the listen to the dodges and auto-excuses and learn some facts, even though about 90% wasn't relevant to any question that was asked. Those were informative nonetheless. But damn, it disgusts me so much when people like his friend just avoid answering questions and distract with unrelated topics instead. And even then, the christian scholars lays bare how awfully horrific morality in the bible is concerning how to view other people. He can sugar coat it all he wants but things like "it's the lesser sin", while talking about a town wanting to rape men and Lot offering his daughters to be raped instead, that's some messed up stuff and it's messed up to downplay it like that.
I loved Bart's response on that one though :p He sees it as the book of horrors that it is and just went: Haha wow! okay! :p And he went back to topic. So well done, I suppose. You have to have a strong stomach to discuss biblical morality and not get distracted with every batshit insane detail in the stories.
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love
Great episode. Shame you did not touch on the one-sex model of ancient world although it did bleed through in the penetrator and penetratee concept. Lots of themes around honour and shame, purity, and also the role that bounadries played. Both Alicia Myers and Sara Parks has written some good stuff on it. In fact, with the one-sex model, most men were not considered to be men in the first century. It's a wonderful way to understand the difference between how we now understand gender and sex and how it was understood in the ancient world. One should alway try to battle anachronism and ethocentrism, if you take the TEXT out of CONTEXT you're left with a CON.
[citation needed]
I believe this “one-sex model” the original commenter was talking about was from Aristotle, who believed that women were simply “deformed men”. I have no idea how widespread this belief was tho.
@@Knowledge_Seeker64 Yeah there was Greek history behind belief in the model but Jewish thought also reflected an Original Androgyne person. It can be seen in Genesis 1 and 2 creation narratives and Philo actually talks about it extensively. Writings of Clement and Gospel of Thomas also reflect on it. Talmud and Mishnah have debates around the nature of a human also discussing the one-sex model.
Bart Ehrman complains about the people who cherry-pick passages from the Bible to grant authority to their personal condemnation, but Jeffrey Siker’s stance is similarly illogical and self-serving. Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? No, he says, because modern attitudes toward homosexuality have evolved. Sure, they have, but so has everything else. The Bible is a set of books written very long ago that demonstrate how certain people who lived very long ago thought, and that’s it. Leviticus does, it would appear, condemn male homosexual practice. That it also condemns pointy beards (or not having pointy beards, the discussion didn’t make this clear) is not really relevant. Of course, the beard bit by modern standards is ridiculous, but so is pretty much everything in the Bible (at least if taken literally). That’s not the question.
I have a question. WTF does it matter what your bibble has to say about anything?
Who cares what the gawd of the bibble has to say ?
Is anybody noticing the guitars and keyboards in the background?
I was in a church that went through a phase of kicking people out for smoking cigarettes among other things on the basis of "defiling the temple of God"
Most will make tirades at how ridiculous and cult like etc this was but have strongly defined lists of what is out and what is not worth condemning people for
Great discussion. The one thing that I had trouble with, though, was the idea that the biblical writers, and people in those cultures at those times, wouldn't have known or understood about homosexual orientation. Whether it's addressed in any of the biblical passages discussed here, I gratefully defer to Profs. Siker and Ehrman. But it's such a basic, persistent part of human biology, and so many of those communities were small, people would certainly know homosexual orientation existed even if it was hidden.
Just because Pedophiles and sodomites exist, it doesn't make it an inherited programming in our biological DNA. It's a sadistic fetish not a biological thing people are born with. Just like our obsession with the dollar. It doesn't make the dollar a biological thing. Just like drugs addiction, you're not born with it.
May be our generation have more knowledge about biology than people who wrote down the scriptures 1000's years ago. But your knowledge is a drop in an ocean compared to that of who created you and sent down the scripture. God is outside the limitations of space and time. The engineer who designed the latest version of Iphone knows better what you should and shouldn't do with it than the user of Iphone. It's just silly to argue against the manual of Iphone.
Exactly. And in a homosexual relationship, what is gonna happen , sex !
The new interpretation of scripture that same sex relations (SSR) are God given & God blessed hasnt been around very long. For over 1975 yrs SSR have been taught to be aberrant. Being born this way doesn't validate it. Psalms 51:5 kjv tells us this. People are born Kleptomaniacs, pathological lairs & with many other sorts of sinful proclivities. Im bent in 1 way, others are bent in another. Were all born with a fallen nature. Were all morally corrupt. We overcome our sin by confessing it, in this case were defending it. The truth can make us free, but were being lied to & many of us are beginning to believe these very shrewdly contrived lies. Thru prayer & faith we can overcome. No one said it would be easy. God loves us despite our sin, we need to keep on fighting the good fight of faith even though we stumble & fall along the way. With him by our side we shall overcome. But many of us are walking away from him & his word & allowing ourselves to be led by those who no longer believe. In Jesus love