Is this why self pleasure is a sin?

In this video Dan hits back on the myth that in the bible / god will any sex outside of marriage is a sin. He shows how many different sexual acts and groupings were included as Ok for the morality of the time. I am listening to Separation of church and hate by John Fugelsang. In the book he explains that the bible is a collection of writings written for the people of that time, the culture of that time, and about the morality accepted at that time. He shares examples where different authors flat out disagree with each other, but they were separated by ceneriesin time. Dan mentions something like that here and how each author had their own view of sex and what was moral. He explains sexual agency and how in the bible for it to be considered sex a penis needed to be involved going into an orifice of some person with lesser status than the man with the active penis. I like at the end where he talks of the dangers and torments of telling developing children going through puberty that simply touching themselves is a sin, makes them an abomination to god, and will condemn them to hell. Hugs

I really like this scholar. He is not a preacher, he studies the bible for what it is and not what he wants it to be. He doesn’t tell you what to think or believe, he simply explains the texts and passages of the bible explaining what they mean as he does. Hugs

Responding to Robert Gagnon

I admit this is long at 44 minutes. I found it worth the watch even though at times Gagnon tries to get technical and uses a circular argument in favor of his predetermined view of homosexuality and the LGBTQ+ spectrum. He is not using the bible to inform him as Reverend Trevors says but instead using it as a weapon for his dislike / hate for anything not superior male inferior female relationships. I find McClellan easy to follow and understand and I like that he leaves his feelings at the door when he tries to understand the texts of that time. He points how Gagnon is using his biases to inform his religion and not his religion forming his biases. The other interesting thing to me is that McClellan seems to have researched the times and cultures of the different passages to see the context they were written in, whereas Gagnon seems to simply impose his modern standards on the words. Hugs

Responding to Charlie Kirk on homosexuality & the Bible

OK I admit this guy is a scholar so he uses words and phrases that are sometimes hard for me to follow with my limited education. But I do understand enough to follow what he is saying. Charley Kirk is full of shit on what he thinks they bible says because he is letting his own bigotry and prejudices create what the passages mean for him rather than research it with people more knowledgeable. Jesus and the bible were not against homosexuality as we understand it because they did not see sexuality and sex acts the same way we do. The sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality and men wanting to take a higher sexual role than angels. The people of the time of the bible were like young macho men types today, worried about what looked manly enough, and putting your penis in someone regardless of sex was manly. But the person who took another person in them was not, they were lessor. Women were viewed as lessor, inferior, and so were men that took another male’s penis inside them. It was not about pleasure or love, it was all about status. One thing I like about this guy is he freely admits the bible is context driven and doesn’t know what we know and understand today, that in some areas the morals we have today are superior to that of the bibles for example slavery. Hugs.