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
This is a very well researched and scholarly man. He knows far more than the dogma of the bible he knows how to read the Hebrew and the nuances of the time. 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
At the end of the video the Reverend says our only job is to love god by loving others. The only question is … how much will you love. Good thoughts in this video. Had the church been like this when I was a teen, had the church been inclusive like this when I was a little boy being molested by the Pastor I would have stayed in the faith, in the church. I might not have believed in the magic parts of the bible and I might have quibbled over the facts, but I would have stayed for the community. The environment of people who enjoyed each other’s company and loved the comradery of fellowship. Sadly the churches I saw as a child, as a teen, and as an adult lost people because rather than love, they clung to hate. The joy of feeling better than some other group, of being able to look down on them, to revel in negative emotions meant more to them than hugging those different that maybe they did not understand. They set themselves up as god judging others. Not as a loving flock, but as deciders over who was worthy to be in the flock. They were not the sheep, they wanted to be the Sheppard. Hugs
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.