A note about the segregationist churches being forced to do anything: they weren’t being forced. They just didn’t want to lose their government subsidies for their segregationist activities. They were perfectly free to operate their for-profit institutions as racistly as they wanted, they’d just have to pay taxes. Civil rights didn’t make racism illegal. It just made it less profitable.
@donaldwert7137
Ай бұрын
It's always cheaper to be a good person.
@jeffmacdonald9863
Ай бұрын
Yeah, this link between racism/segregation and the pro-choice movement is rarely understood. Good to see Dan point it out here.
@jonathonpolk3592
Ай бұрын
No! Because taxing religion = persecution. Because reasons... /s
@MarcosElMalo2
Ай бұрын
I believe ensoulment occurs when one hears James Brown for the first time.
@rod8993
Ай бұрын
😅
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
Okay, you got me!
@clifb.3521
Ай бұрын
I feeeeellll goood
@lostfan5054
Ай бұрын
SAY IT LOUD!
@SpaceLordof75
Ай бұрын
Good god! On the good foot!
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
Accuses people of coming at him with ad hominem attacks. Calls them psychopaths, morons, the stupidest people he’s met. Projecting much?
@KaiHenningsen
Ай бұрын
Projecting almost all.
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
@@KaiHenningsen lol
@johnnygnash2253
Ай бұрын
Self-hatred and desperate flight from self-awareness. Pitiful.
@JediMobius
Ай бұрын
every time
@Noneya5555
Ай бұрын
This creator obviously suffers from an irony deficiency.
@lisaboban
Ай бұрын
I wonder how caring he is about those babies once they are born? Does he want to contribute to feeding them, housing then, and educating them? No? Then this is indeed an identity marker for him which feeds his need to feel outrage.
@pansepot1490
Ай бұрын
I’d like to see his rant against CSA within the church.
@Zahaqiel
Ай бұрын
Yeah, his claims about "murdering the innocent" ring a little hollow when firearms are currently the largest cause of death for children in the US, and gun deaths for under 19 year olds occur at a bit under 12 times higher rates than even Canada right next door.
@donaldwert7137
Ай бұрын
How caring is he or any "pro-life" person before the child is born, except to ensure the woman is force to carry a child she may not want for any of a number of reasons? I'm talking about things like healthcare and nutrition for the expectant mother, prenatal care for the fetus, trifles like that. All too often (but by no means in all cases), the attitude is "she got pregnant, she has to figure it out, but I'm not going to let her terminate the pregnancy". That attitude is especially heinous when the "mother" is little more than a child, herself, or when the woman was the victim of force.
@benclark4823
Ай бұрын
Funny how according to the pro-“choice” crowd they have to bring up left wing policy’s (and usually only THEIR policies) as if in order to actually “care” about children you MUST in their minds be leftist. I wonder what happens if they meet a leftist who is against abortion? How would your silly arguments work for those people??? 😒
@eew8060
Ай бұрын
All that is irrelevant to whether you can kill bby's
@Exjewatlarge
Ай бұрын
In Jewish law, abortion is mandatory in cases where it threatens the life of the mother, and the definition of when it threatens the mother doesn’t neatly overlap the western concept. Thus, I distinctly remember getting a class from a VERY orthodox rabbi where he flatly stated that, for observant Jews, it is preferable to live in a society where abortion is safe and legal, and its legality is not determined by a criteria as simplistic as timeframe.
@pansepot1490
Ай бұрын
Seems an extremely fair and common sense way of looking at it.
@eew8060
Ай бұрын
Orthodox? Doubt it
@Exjewatlarge
Ай бұрын
@@eew8060 and yet, I was there. I’ll grant that culturally many Orthodox Jews are kneejerk right-wingers, but that has less to do with Halacha than identity markers, which if you follow Dan, you should know about.
@grigorigahan
Ай бұрын
I'm semi-jealous as you can cut straight to the source when reading the Jewish Bible -- mostly. Sorry I didn't grow up proximity to many Jewish people, so I might have my ideas backwards here. But as part of your upgringing how much of your coursework was exposure to the midrash -- i.e the Midrash halakha?
@shanegooding4839
Ай бұрын
The lives of endangered women or of unwanted children will never be as important to these people as their identity politics.
@MarshalMarrs-eu9yh
Ай бұрын
The road to hell, societal collapse and degeneracy is paved by people who think they are doing the right thing!
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
The reason I know that pro-life isn’t actually about the life of the child is study after study has shown the most effective ways to reduce abortion rates are 1: Comprehensive sex ed classes in public school, 2: Welfare and support for single mothers and their children, and 3: Increased access to birth control. Guess which side of the debate is against all 3 of those things.
@MarshalMarrs-eu9yh
Ай бұрын
@@chadkent327 Romania implemented pro life policies in the 1960s, it didn’t go well.
@bethbubs1396
Ай бұрын
Because it is not and has never been about life and ‘saving babies.’ It may be for some of the hard core followers who have been drinking the koolaid since they were in diapers. For most, and I would say for all those in any position of power, it is about control. Making America great again means returning to women in their places, barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen. And if they can’t have that,they will do everything in their power to make it as difficult as possible for women to be in charge of themselves, their bodies, their rights, their choices in life. If the woman dies while carrying a fetus or attempting to give birth? Well, it was the noblest death possible for her gender! If a girl is raped and gets pregnant, two wrongs don’t make a right and she can have something good come out of it! She’ll be fine. If she’s old enough to get pregnant, she can carry a baby to term and deliver. These mostly male policy makers are idiots who have no business making any sort of medical decision for any woman, or child.
@grigorigahan
Ай бұрын
@@chadkent327 Yeah you kinda nailed it. I'm 'deeply uncomfortable' with abortion in general, past the first trimester especially. It doesn't rise to the level of me thinking it should be outright illegal though. The think is my 'solutions' to abortion are the same three you listed.
@tdhoward
Ай бұрын
Ignorance + Confidence = Arrogance
@markwhite116
Ай бұрын
Ah yes, pro-abortion advocates being anti-science is an excellent example of this equation.
@rainbowkrampus
Ай бұрын
You know what I find gross and stupid? Forcing 10 year old SA victims to carry a very dangerous pregnancy that will likely result in the loss of life for both just because you think a book tells you it's a good idea. "Pro-life" indeed.
@xShsttnggfji
Ай бұрын
Yes because majority of abortions are done by underaged rape victims 😅
@bethbubs1396
Ай бұрын
But our new vice presidential candidate even said it out loud: two wrongs don’t make a right! Mr Vance himself is a firm believer in the idea that all things happen for a good reason in order to glorify god! Why, if that little girl dies, maybe hemorrhages massively, while trying to birth that little genetic piece of her rapist, then she’ll be in heaven and can be at peace. I mean, she’ll be in heaven if she accepted jesus and repented and all that good stuff! See? It’s all good. Now we should just let all the nice men politicians figure out what is best for women and our bodies. They know about it than we do, anyway! (This is total acidic based sarcasm, in case you didn’t see it. lol)
@keksterbojester818
Ай бұрын
I find it gross that you use their situation as an argument.
@rainbowkrampus
Ай бұрын
@@keksterbojester818 Weird.
@OldMotherLogo
Ай бұрын
Thank you. I forget about the reason Falwell began to mobilize the religious right and desegregation. I think that needs more attention. I know that for a long time the Southern Baptist Convention was pro-choice.
@nerfzombie6242
Ай бұрын
Said it once, I'll say it again, nothing quite like the arrogance of ignorance! Dude is sooooo sure of himself!
@johnnygnash2253
Ай бұрын
Too ignorant to know that he's ignorant. To say nothing of that self-hatred that he projects on those outside himself. I don't know whether to cringe or weep for this guy. Maybe both.
@bethbubs1396
Ай бұрын
I’ve seen him several times on TikTok, in similar conditions where the creator I was watching stitched a video of his in order to ‘fix’ something he claimed to be true. He is also a xtian who seems to take pleasure in pointing out the ‘eternal conscious torture of hell’ that us pro-choice folks will go after this particular life.
@Noneya5555
Ай бұрын
@@johnnygnash2253I agree. His self-hatred is written all over his face.
@jonathonpolk3592
Ай бұрын
I'm pretty sure his middle name should be Dunning-Kruger.
@AMoniqueOcampo
Ай бұрын
I wish I studied those perspectives you mentioned about Aristotle vs Pythagoreas and stoicism during my college days!
@Mystery_G
Ай бұрын
It's not too late. 😃 There are many ways to still learn about these subjects that don't involve going to college.
@mckaythayn7060
Ай бұрын
Happy Birthday Dan! Hope you have a wonderful day!
@830toAwesome
Ай бұрын
I wouldn't make fun of the dude's tattoos if he wasn't calling me wicked for thinking it's the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body.
@nancyhope2205
Ай бұрын
Thank you so much for the part about Falwell, puts a context there.
@lnsflare1
Ай бұрын
I'm pretty sure that the Bible said more against tattos than it did against abortion.
@lennierofthethirdfaneofchu7286
Ай бұрын
Leviticus 19:28 is pretty clear. But he does seem the cafeteria style Christian.
@MusicGoodies-
Ай бұрын
@@lnsflare1 Actually it says not to murder! It does say something.
@lnsflare1
Ай бұрын
@@MusicGoodies- The Bible doesn't consider abortion murder, as Dan has repeatedly gone into great depth showing. The Bible also advocates committing a *ton* of actual murder, including of actually living babies, so there's that, too.
@MusicGoodies-
Ай бұрын
@@lnsflare1 It CLEARLY does....You guys just makeup whatever you want to justify your horrific belief. Horrible Bible interpretation! No true biblical scholar would agree . Try again.
@lnsflare1
Ай бұрын
@@MusicGoodies- You mean a Biblical Scholar like Dan? Who pointed out the actual laws that treate the fetus as property? How about the countless Rabbis who posit that abortion is legal in Judaism?
@timothymalone7067
Ай бұрын
Thanks again for concise history lesson.
@paulwilton7860
Ай бұрын
Thanks for the additional historical context at the end Dan. It helps to conceptualize the entire issue. Respect🙏🙏.
@ldr540
Ай бұрын
Dan is totally in his wheelhouse when punching down. Excellent work, Dan.
@blairmcian
Ай бұрын
The guy complains, near the end, that people will (or are) ridiculing him for his tattoos or whatever, and how that's a contemptible ad hominem attack, but he opened his video by saying that people who don't agree with his take on this issue are "too dumb" to understand things.
@stoferb876
Ай бұрын
As a young earth creationist evangelical christian he believes in stupid fairy tales that includes talking animals. And he calls other people "dumb". Yeah right.
@MarkSiefert
8 күн бұрын
I don’t think anyone is saying he’s wrong because he has tattoos. THAT is an ad hominem.
@JimmyTuxTv
Ай бұрын
If it’s true god stitching everyone in the womb, if it’s true god is Omni’s and All’s. Therefore stillborn and miscarriage would be impossible.
@theelvenharper3163
Ай бұрын
Exactly, and so little girls would never get pregnant with a fetus that she could not birth alive and not be harmed by it physically or mentally and I would not be infertile. My husband and I, as a loving adult couple(we are not rich, but OK for a small family), would be a far better choice as parents than scared little girls, traumatized rape victims of any age, single drug addicted prostitutes and people who have already been convicted of child abuse. It's also ridiculously expensive to adopt a child and the birth mother can take the baby back and you lose the money. Adopting an older child is less risky for that but they likely won't see you as parents, call you mom or dad, or visit you and call you as family when you are old. Fertility treatment is far cheaper, but the fetus idolaters want to ban that too, as well as free school lunches for poor kids.
@jeffmacdonald9863
Ай бұрын
Yeah, I was thinking something similar, but from the other direction: If the soul enters the body at conception, then a huge percentage of the dead are from very early miscarriages. Hopefully we're not dealing with a theology in which unbaptized children can't go to heaven.
@differentdestiny
Ай бұрын
Yyyyeeesss, thank you for calling out those pastors!
@67cudaksa34
Ай бұрын
the breath of life was taught to us at Jewsh religious school. And I wonder if the creator will see this take down
@linshaw774
Ай бұрын
The Navajo believe that ensoulment begins at the first laugh. I love that concept.
@mpbx3003
Ай бұрын
It's very obvious that this creator spends basically no time outside his evangelical bubble, given the kind of assumptions he makes about motivations and arguments. They're very clearly not based off of actual people he's even met, let alone talked to. They're arguments taken pure and undiluted from the evangelicals who created them to be most easily taken down by evangelical counter-arguments.
@NdumisoNkomzwayo-t2u
15 күн бұрын
Thanks Dan for this education
@Nick-o-time
Ай бұрын
I wonder what the bible says about tattoos?
@zackzimmer7167
Ай бұрын
That was prior to him coming to religion, don’t be arrogant…
@zackzimmer7167
Ай бұрын
If you have to wonder read the book…
@kennethswenson6214
Ай бұрын
Through Google search: Leviticus 19:28 of the Bible explicitly prohibits tattoos, stating, "You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves. I am the Lord".
@geneshifter
Ай бұрын
@@zackzimmer7167 Bible says nothing about it specifically.
@sobertillnoon
Ай бұрын
@@geneshifter is the prohibition on tattoos that Jewish people follow in other books they use? Or is this a misconception people have?
@azurejester
Ай бұрын
I think this is a really nuanced specific conversation. Most people don't want intelligent discourse. Their feelings get enflamed and now it's all about that, now we're in this room. I appreciate your work, doc, I just mean to say idk if a lot of those people with an opposing view are worried about facts and details and all those type of obstacles to their point
@Mystery_G
Ай бұрын
Trying to imagine this content provider not wanting to murder you after listening to your break down of his "mindless belligerence." Also, would love to hear his justification for disregarding Lev 19:28; not that I personally think there's anything wrong with tattoos, but why he willfully picks some Biblical laws to oppose while making up others to justify. The common practice among Evangelicals of justifying 'We do what we want and will smite those wicked one's who challenge our righteous authroity' as an evolved American identity never ceases to both amaze and occasionally horrify.
@ethenallen1388
Ай бұрын
I'm afraid of the creator you're discussing taking a swing at me if I look at him wrong, and he's calling me a psychopath?
@SpencerHowe
Ай бұрын
Nothing screams “I can’t be taken seriously outside the context of a mugging” like face tattoos.
@TheAJFreshFuzz
Ай бұрын
He sarcastically anticipates ad hominem attacks while using ad hominem attacks on his supposed interlocutors. 🤦🏼♂️
@JacksonCman
Ай бұрын
This discussion made me think of one way that the Chinese people calculate age, they start with conception of the baby. In that context I guess life starts with conception and the birth of a baby is only three months from being a year old.
@wg4154
Ай бұрын
The way i see it, adam was the only human with a soul😅 Did he say and made you perfectly, what those born with defects?
@NWPaul72
Ай бұрын
He said we comb through the Bible to find reasons to kill the innocent. I mean, doesn't everyone?
@torreyintahoe
Ай бұрын
Once again, a very informative video and I hope you posted it in the comments of the original video.
@roberthunter6927
Ай бұрын
A bit of biology. Respiration is the process where oxygen is introduced into cells, and carbon dioxide removed. This occurs in all cells, including gametes, fertilized eggs, etc. Even plants respire, for example during the night when they switch from photosynthesis to respiration. Bacteria do anaerobic respiration, which means they gain energy via a different metabolic pathway to those that get it via oxygen "burning sugars" in the mitochondria, a process called the Krebs, or Citric acid cycle. Breathing is the process where multicellular animals exchange gases [oxygen and CO2], using things like lungs, and in the case of fish, via the gills. These gases circulate through bodies via the blood, or in the case of plants, via pores in their leaves etc, Xylem transports and stores water and water-soluble nutrients in vascular plants, Phloem is responsible for transporting sugars, proteins, and other organic molecules in plants. So the way plants transport vital materials for metabolism and life are different. Therefore breathing is a macro, or large scale process, and respiration is at the level of the cell. So Genesis 2:7 is just plain wrong. If an animal does not breath for a prolonged period of time, of course it will die, when inventories of oxygen in the tissues to fall to zero, thus causing metabolism, and hence life, to cease. So whoever wrote genesis was sort of right in a vague, "poetic" sense, but sorry, no cigar. An animal [or human] body decomposes after death, mainly due to those anaerobic bacteria, which don't require oxygen for metabolism. So, you can't "breathe" life into a dead organism. Though the exact details and order of events surrounding the origin of life are not known, and probably never will be. We DO know there are multiple pathways for biochemical abiogenesis to occur. Indeed, any universe like ours at a sufficient level of complexity makes some sort of life almost inevitable. Because our universe is not totally deterministic [quantum level fluctuations] the case for a universal creator-god is very much weaker. Universes, and indeed, life, can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Or to put it another way, there is no need for a 'first cause" In any case, a creator as a "first cause" breathing life into a human does NOT solve the problem, it just shifts it. What caused the first cause? When you think about a creator-god process, it is a 'top-down" approach. What Darwin and Wallace did, was to propose a "bottom-up" approach. Natural selection, and other evolutionary processes, are testable and observable, and that is essential for a candidate cause or mechanism. Sorry, but no god, creator or otherwise, has ever been demonstrated. So a creator-god is not even a testable mechanism or cause. Not even a candidate. To be clear, I am NOT claiming a god or gods cannot exist, or never existed, because that goes beyond the data. Gods as "morality" generators is not on firm ground ether. And the discipline of animal behavior strongly points to morality as a product of biological and cultural evolution in social animals. [Including humans, of course]. Humans ARE a religious species. This seems like an oxymoron as I have just shot down the practical existence of anything resembling an interactive and creator-god. But it isn't. It has to do with survival heuristics. We don' have much in terms of the usual biological weapons. We are not huge, armoured or very strong, or possess big canine teeth, claws, or a poisonous tail, etc What we do have are passably good brains, hands that can manipulate things, and are quite good at verbal communications [and eventually writing]. These traits are good survival assets. And a little paranoiac. Is that movement in the bush a predator, or is it just the wind? The folks that presumed it was just the wind probably ended up as lunch, and those that used discretion as the better part of valor lived and had offspring. Because our brains are so pivotal to our survival, old, wise brains had survival value. This can be seen in other animals as well, like elephants. An old matriarch elephant knows a lot more than a young matriarch. Not hard to see how that could evolve into ancestor worship. And in a world that did not change all that much quickly, old ideas were generally good ideas. So the antiquity of an idea, and the popularity of the idea, became a sort of virtue. Except that it is a fallacy, because things can and DO change. Especially as humans increased their range into far lands, with different environments, so the old "rules" didn't work as well. Survival heuristics is not objective assessment. The aim is survival, not precise descriptions. So humans began to personalize what some folks call "good' and "evil". Even inanimate objects that don't have intent or purpose. Sure, you can assess if that Tiger is probably hungry, or you have invaded the territory of an elephant, or you think another human may not be wishing you well. But seriously, a rock or a bit of lightning? And there you have the elements of religious belief. Good and evil gets personalized into demons and gods. They are labels, or buckets, and everything gets chucked into them, irrespective of category. [inanimate or living, for example].
@patrickdennis4046
9 күн бұрын
The breath of life is one step removed from the soul. The breath of life comes in the 2nd creation story, in the Garden of Eden in the east, meaning not as complete as the first. In the first God spoke into creation, meaning coming from the heart, the invisible becomes the visible.
@realitywins9020
Ай бұрын
Thanks Dan. Someone should tell that guy what the Bible says about tattoos
@garycarter6773
Ай бұрын
❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!!
@robertmcdonnold3038
Ай бұрын
Well said Dr Dan.
@mikepolioudakis775
Ай бұрын
Excellent response and analysis. Thanks. I lived through the times of Falwell et alia. The most visible public leaders outside the communities of the Religious Right were men, as befitted their ideas of men and women. However, women were highly active in the movement. I am not sure if women were more active than men but I would guess that was true at the local level. Women often were active leeders at local levels. The issue of abortion galvanized some Christian women. It gave them an issue to help them feel real and effective. It helped them feel empowered just like those feminist women, often for the first time in their lives., To stress that "Christian MEN" were the dominant force can be misleading. It can be faintly mis-andrist, and it minimizes the role of socio-economic class in the power struggles. One group, including women but figureheaded by men, wished to control other groups. The group wishing to solidify control found an issue, abortion, by which they could energize women and men to seek control. It was not simply men seeking more power over all women. Women sought power over another group and the women of this group were willing to go after the women of other groups, through controlling abortion, to get what they wanted. Also, lack of access to reproductive rights, including abortion, hurts the men of a group and so allows dominating that group. I don't here stress this point. Mike Mike
@UBEUILLBEME
Ай бұрын
Did anyone else let out a loud involuntary snort when this man accused pro-choicers of being psychopathic and dumb, or ...?
@nilssturman5258
Ай бұрын
Absolutely wonderful, a great summary of the literature on the subject. I'm a little sorry to see no mention of the "ordeal of the bitter water" (an abortifacients mentioned in Numbers 5), because I find that to be a real slam-dunk to demonstrate the fetus as property, but your argument is solid enough without. Keep up the amazing work! Subscribed!
@theflarpus
Ай бұрын
❤
@dennism206
Ай бұрын
Thanks Dan!
@treystevenson9872
Ай бұрын
God created Adam as a fully formed adult so he could tend the garden, name all of the animals, and glorify the Lord. A baby in the womb eats, cries, and even laughs and shares the feelings of the mother. Adam received the breath of life and began the human species, the baby is also a living human being in the womb.
@stevendubberly8106
Ай бұрын
The Jewish Approach to Abortion in Short Under normal circumstances it is forbidden to take the life of an unborn child, and it may be akin to murder (depending on the stage of pregnancy and birth, see footnote11). As long as the unborn remains a fetus, it does not have a status of personhood equal to its mother, and therefore may be sacrificed to save the life of the mother. In any case where abortion may be necessary, it is of paramount importance to consult halachic and medical experts as soon as possible.
@juderenard8273
Ай бұрын
That sounded ✌🏾legit✌🏾quit. Had to lay down the hammer hunh Dan!
@andrewz1313
Ай бұрын
I love how confident people can act while being completely wrong. You can tell he has never learned a single thing about the religion he's claiming. He like so many pick and choose from the Bible to make their argument while disregarding the rest. I'm not religious, but I would really love for the ol' J man to come back and do some rapturing, so I can see all these people get left behind for the lies and hate they spew.
@HappyFunNorm
Ай бұрын
Did they all miss the being reborn and not reconceived part?
@user-xs4wm4vm4w
Ай бұрын
lol right I don’t think my mom would like me saying “ hey mom let me back in you hooha I need to be reborn”
@WiddleWeeWee
Ай бұрын
Golems. And since it’s in his image he’s a golem as well. A one eye one horn giant purple people eater 😃
@user-kv1po2dm5j
Ай бұрын
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t breath and wind associated with spirit within the Hebrew Bible? Would this associate spirit with life?
@MetroidTheorist
Ай бұрын
I believe Reformed Judaism holds to the belief that life occurs when a newborn receives their first breath, and this is based on Gen. 2:7. I have also read that Jews tend not to prefer the word "soul" for the word nefesh. This is why you have other translations that say Adam became a "living person". I also like talking about this kind of concept of the soul because, to my knowledge, there isn't any reference in the Bible, especially the Tanakah, where souls possess immortality. This belief of souls possessing immortality was something I came to question as I explored universalism, which led me to look into annihilationism. I began to wonder why God would grant eternal life if we already have immortal souls. We would already have eternal life. Someone I spoke to said this could probably be referring to quality of life, but I don't know about that. It could, but I don't know where "eternal life" is meant in this way.
@COMALiteJ
Ай бұрын
_Legal_ Personhood in the Bible begins a lunar month _after_ birth and first breath. _Life_ was held to begin at first breath, but _legal_ Personhood was later. What is a Person under law? A Person in our society is an entity with Rights (which is why “corporate Personhood” is a thing) and responsibilities such as paying taxes and being counted in a census. Those last two were also in the Old Testament Mosaic Law, and in both cases did not apply to those under the age of one month old. The Tabernacle or Temple taxation valuation is described in the first few verses of *Leviticus Chapter 27,* while the census or numbering happens in the middle part of *Numbers Chapter 3* (indeed, the Book of _Numbers_ gets its very _name_ from this!). _Seven times_ in that latter is the phrase “from a month old and up” used to describe who was to be included in this numbering, twice _commanded_ by the Lᴏʀᴅ God Himself (the other five mentions describe the carrying out of His commandments in this regard). Those who claim that Personhood begins at fertilization (which the Bible never even _mentions_ because they had no idea what that even _was_ or that there was even any such thing) need to read their Bibles. If we did abortion laws based on Bible Law, we’d be allowing abortion at any time during pregnancy for any reason, and _infanticide_ until the Moon comes back around to the same phase it was at the time the baby took its first breath.
@bluestarx2208
Ай бұрын
George Carlin would love to have a word with that content creator.
@sketchygetchey8299
Ай бұрын
Well killing babies* is dumb, but so is telling a woman what to do with her body! *babies that have already been born is at least dumb
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
@@sketchygetchey8299 good luck getting a pro lifer to understand “baby” and “fetus” as two different thingss
@xShsttnggfji
Ай бұрын
@@chadkent327the only difference between them is their age lol. Should you not have been considered human when you were in the womb?
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
@@xShsttnggfji so first of all, thank you for showing my point that pro lifers don’t understand the difference. The very, very basic difference between the two is that a baby has developed to the point that it can survive outside the womb. A fetus has not yet developed to that point. That difference in development includes a whole host of bodily and brain changes that are way more complex than just its age, and reducing it to just age is not particularly helpful to this discussion. Abortion only affects fetuses, not babies. Abortion terminates or kills a fetus, not a baby. Defining the fetus and baby as such does not address the question of asking about when the fetus becomes a person that we are morally and legally obligated to protect. You asked me if I was “human” in the womb and that’s a tricky question to answer. 1. I suspect you were asking me that to see if I uphold my same moral position when it affects me personally (spoiler, I do). Human” is a broad term that makes the discussion tricky. For example any one of my individual cells is a living thing in its own right with fully human DNA but we wouldn’t consider each of those cells a person worth protecting on its own. Also the fetus goes through many stages of development in the womb, so question to me isn’t “was I human in my mothers womb” but “At what point in my mothers womb did I become a person?” In general I personally tie personhood to the ability of the brain to be conscience. If the brain has not yet developed to the point of being conscience, it isn’t a person. If my mother had aborted the fetus that would become me at that point, it wouldn’t have harmed me at all because I didn’t exist to be harmed, and never would exist to be harmed. If at the point my brain developed to consciousness, I then existed as a person. Then the moral question becomes whether or not my mom’s rights as a person take precedence over my rights as a person, and I would say to a point: Did my mom consent to the pregnancy? She did. Where there any medical issues that put her life or mine at stake? There weren’t. Hence I was carried to term. If she did not consent to the pregnancy or there were medical issues that put her life in danger, she would have been morally justified to place her rights as a person above my own at that point.
@xShsttnggfji
Ай бұрын
@@chadkent327 so because fetusses and babies are at different stages developmentally, that should determine whether they deserve being unalived? Not sure if you have personal experience with abortions, but the process of the abortion itself is extremely gruesome, where dismemberment and sucking their brains out of the skull is common procedure. Would you say that a toddler whose brain is less developed than a teenager would be more justified to be killed than a teenager, due to difference in maturation? IMO the most vulnerable in our society should actually deserve more protection. Toddlers are still very much dependent on their caretakers for survival and one could argue they wouldn’t survive long without their moms. If we continue normalizing aborting fetusses, what would stop us from at one point normalizing unaliving of babies or toddlers. Also using rape and medical emergencies as the main argument for abortions does not reflect the majority of abortion cases which are largely due to these babies being seen as inconvencies in the present moment. “Pro life” policies do allow for abortions that are necessary to save maternal lives btw, so I’m confused as to why this is repeatedly brought up.
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
@@xShsttnggfji “so because fetusses and babies are at different stages developmentally, that should determine whether or not they deserved being unalived?” I didn’t say that, I don’t think that. In fact that directly contradicts everything I said about a fetus being a person once the brain is capable of conciousness. Why would you put those words in my mouth?
@NovaSaber
Ай бұрын
Does he really think people who say that life begins at first breath according to the Bible are referring to Adam's creation? It's very telling that the only parts of the Bible ever quoted in support of the anti-abortion position are random bits that are not actually about birth, pregnancy, miscarriage, or abortion, ignoring all the parts that actually do refer to one or more of those.
@homophilosofikus8215
Ай бұрын
What is a "soul" anyway? And how does it work? I`ve never gotten a real answer do those questions. It`s always a different answer and usually it`s some vague explanation as to what it`s not
@adamtaylor278
Ай бұрын
What I find so ironic is that anti-abortion Christians will point to verses such as Jer. 1:5, which only speak of one person (i.e. Jeremiah in this case), and then attempt to universalize the "made in the womb" notion to all of humanity. But then you point to the case of Adam, who's meant to be the archetype for all of humanity ("adam" literally means "humankind"), and with the breath of life notion, they then say, "oh no, that's only about Adam, not all of humanity." Incredible.
@blairmcian
Ай бұрын
Regarding the guy's reference to being stitched together by God in his mother's womb, besides Jeremiah 1:5 he could be referring to Psalms 139:13 (which I have always seen translated as "knit" rather than "stitched," though that probably doesn't make any difference), which is supposed to have been written by David.
@brent1387
Ай бұрын
Hey Dan….40 weeks … not 40 days….just a reminder for you….I think most women would not complain about 40 days!!!!…smile….
@NoWay1969
Ай бұрын
My understanding has been that Catholic thought has been pretty consistent about ensoulment at conception. Is that wrong? This is a pretty important idea right now in the US. (I'm an atheist, but most people aren't and their views are driven by what they perceive the religious consensus to be).
@samuelvavia8920
Ай бұрын
Dan left out that it was the Catholic Church that was the denomination that first placed ensoulment at conception in the 19th century. Evangelicals did not adopt this position until the 70s
@bradleythornock8627
Ай бұрын
Ensoulment at conception was not a Catholic teaching until 1869, which undid 1500 years of teaching about ensoulment at quickening
@NoWay1969
Ай бұрын
@@samuelvavia8920 I'm aware that protestants were pro-choice until the GOP convinced them otherwise, but again, my understanding has been that Catholicism has a long tradition of ensoulment at conception. I hope I'm wrong. If this only came about in the 19th century that's a much easier position to argue against.
@NoWay1969
Ай бұрын
@@bradleythornock8627 I will need to do some more research on this. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
@scienceexplains302
Ай бұрын
*Viable life begins at one month?* The author of the census passage including Numbers 3:43 seems to have thought that viable life started at one month after birth.
@snyderly
Ай бұрын
Wish I could share this with my libertarian Catholic friend who uses the same vocabulary Dan was responding to, but I'm so sick of his grandstanding about abortion every chance he can get and with Kamala running for POTUS with choice as part of her platform, I'm just going to have to ignore him for nine years or so (hopefully).
@frankhamp1448
Ай бұрын
Since when does the truth depend on consensus?
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
@@frankhamp1448 it doesn’t, but when a lot of experts in a particular field arrive at the same conclusion based on the same data, it’s a good indicator to those that don’t have the required expertise in the field that their conclusion is probably valid. The way truth is actually established is through collecting data through observation and testing (and in studying biblical literature we’re pretty much limited to just observation), but as human knowledge becomes more and more specialized and it becomes more and more impossible to have the proper background to understand every field of study, in GENERAL, it’s okay to say that what the experts in a field agree on is more likely to be true than what outliers say.
@ldr540
Ай бұрын
@@chadkent327 Not all truths can be attained via the scientific method or the collection of data. Some truths are philosophical in nature, and because of that nature can never be attained via the scientific method. Truths such as the meaning of life, etc.
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
@@ldr540 that was a very odd reply to a discussion about why scholarly consensus is valid. I don’t see the connection between what I said and what you said at all. I was defending the use of scholarly consensus in academia and you’re coming at me with “not all truth can be found through the scientific method.” WTF? I mean I agree with you, I just don’t see the relevance.
@Oxaca73
Ай бұрын
I've never met anyone that "likes killing babies".
@davidoliver9551
Ай бұрын
Well done!
@mikevargas809
Ай бұрын
the irony is mind blowing
@Grungy1
Ай бұрын
The Bible doesn't forbid abortion, but it does tattoos.
@benjamintrevino325
Ай бұрын
I have a few truth bombs and a couple of questions for this content creator. First, the truths. 1)You believe abortion is murder. 2) There are clinics and hospitals where abortions (what your believe is murder) are performed virtually every day of the week, and 3) You either know where these facilities are located, or at the very least, you have easy access to that information via the Internet. My questions are these: How many "murders" did you personally prevent today? If I knew ahead of time when and where a murder was going to take place I would do something to try to stop it, even if it meant I had to go there and do it myself. Why haven't you done that? Where is the strength of your convictions? What if God asks you why you didn't stop a murder when you had the chance to do it? What will be your excuse? Will you tell Him that the best you could do was post an angry video?
@VulcanLogic
Ай бұрын
They actually went through this process in the 1980s and violence was practiced against clinics from time to time. Might not be the best reading for them.
@benjamintrevino325
Ай бұрын
@@VulcanLogic violence is not the option I had in mind. Besides, my point is that it appears their level of commitment to what they're saying is limited to posting their outrage on social media.
@VulcanLogic
Ай бұрын
@@benjamintrevino325 Oh certainly, on both counts. But wait until all their bans get repealed. It may take some time but it's inevitable.
@QuinnPrice
Ай бұрын
It's always fun when someone starts with how stupid I am, only to follow with their toxic beliefs. Wink.
@Alex_Mitchell
23 күн бұрын
The "content creator" seems to have ignored the biblical prohibition against tattoos.
@markwhite116
Ай бұрын
The reason the miscarriage is not with a death penalty is because they could not know exactly what caused the miscarriage, there are all sorts of reasons a miscarriage could occur. The death penalty should always be saved for something you know, not what you think. So let's not pretend that this is the same as intentionally killing a baby in the womb is ok.
Ай бұрын
"you can make fun of my tattoos, I don't care". sounds like you do care genius
@hollynivy3769
Ай бұрын
You're not me. Don't tell me what to do woth my body.
@josephclayson2714
Ай бұрын
Hi Dan, could you comment more on Exodus 21:22-25? I looked it up and it seems many think that it’s talking about when a man hits a woman and forces her to have premature birth. Is this verse about a miscarriage or not?
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
@@josephclayson2714 I’m interested in this as well
@wartgin
Ай бұрын
Dan can better address the original words and their meaning before translation but traditionally it has been interpreted as miscarriage (spontaneous abortion to use the medical term) and the bit about "no additional harm" was referring to the mother suffering no other injury besides the miscarriage itself. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit with the attempts to declare elective abortions against God's will so, around 40 years or so ago, it started being interpreted as premature birth and the no additional harm bit was considered to apply to the "baby" instead of the mother.
@clarkkent2379
Ай бұрын
I've seen this guy on a couple of Dan's videos now. Who is he talking to? If he's got evidence of people going around smothering infants in cribs or whatever, he should take it to the police, not lecture people about the Bible
@NorbertKasko
Ай бұрын
If you want to defend your stance on abortion don't use the world's most contradictory book as a reference! Numbers 5:15-30 clearly talks about an abortion because the woman suspected to be "unfaithful" to her husband.
@noahbody9747
Ай бұрын
I thought the quickening meant there can be only one?
@jasonsmall5602
Ай бұрын
Not exactly. The quickening is the transfer of power from one to the other. It doesn't imply that there can be only one. That occurs only because of the desire for all power.
@wartgin
Ай бұрын
I don't remember "quickening" being used in the fandom I associate with "there can be only one" so possibly there's more than one? 😂 Quickening in this sense comes from old language meaning alive (with its associated idea of capable of movement). That's why one of the old spaghetti westerns is called The Quick And The Dead. It was making a play on the idea of alive vs dead and the only ones who get to stay alive draw their guns quickly.
@noahbody9747
Ай бұрын
@@jasonsmall5602 True. It's the exchange of power to the victor. I guess the lure of being all powerful is too tempting. The greedy ones want it all and will do anything to obtain power and if that means killing all others, so be it. I guess immortals, like mortals, some people just can't get along!
@noahbody9747
Ай бұрын
@@wartgin I was just having fun when I Dan mentioned 'quickening'. The 1st thing that popped into my head was the 'Highlander' movie. The quickening is the exchange of power to the victor. The phrase, "there can be only one" comes from the fact some immortals, in the movie, want all the power and to achieve it, they have to kill other immortals.
@wartgin
Ай бұрын
@@noahbody9747 It's been so long since I saw it that I had forgotten about "the quickening" unless there's been a remake. I did remember that there was supposed to be only one survivor at the end.
@Cloudryder
Ай бұрын
Today’s nephesh (social identity) is the Social Security number. Your SOUL is mine!!! 👹🤣
@SunnyAquamarine2
Ай бұрын
I almost can't believe we have to have this discussion.
@rockthemic12
Ай бұрын
I am very pro choice. But, I have a question about CSR. You mention anti-abortion being an easier identity marker to introduce than white supremacy. This to me suggests that identity markers can’t be arbitrary. What makes some identity markers more feasible than other identity markers?
@lysanamcmillan7972
Ай бұрын
Oooh, that's a study with theses and dissertations to go with it. My understanding from time as a rank amateur student of issues relating to identity and politics is that markers which feed someone's beliefs about themselves tend to be more easily embraced. Being dubbed a racist, as would happen with a desegregation-driven identity marker, would turn away a lot of white people who consider being called a bigot worse than acting like one. It'd also drastically reduce any possible POC support. Anti-abortion feeds people's self-righteousness and drive to look like the sort of child of God they think they should be. It also lets people feel like they're helping the helpless regardless of how valid that is. And in general, identity markers are a lovely mix of enforced, self-adopted, re-defined, and abandoned. And all are constructs. One like the evangelicals created is mendacious social manipulation. Others are a long story apiece.
@HelloMrBeeno
Ай бұрын
Yeah, well, them guys didn’t have a CT scan now did they? So, shut up Dan.
@OuryLN
Ай бұрын
So fish did not die at the flood! 😮
@shallowgal462
Ай бұрын
Right again, Dan!
@veridicusmaximus6010
Ай бұрын
Dan, is there a book covering this info and history both Biblical and modern political aspects?
@paulfalcone770
Ай бұрын
Hey! I'm 666!
@ericreed4535
Ай бұрын
Dan, Next time also mention BYU in that university group so people won't think your protecting a particular "religion".
@macklyn
Ай бұрын
No, Genesis is a chapter in a religious book. No scientific claims are found in it.
@dakotad70
Ай бұрын
Anyone here know Dan's personal religious or irreligious stance? Thanks
@Jaymastia
Ай бұрын
Mormon.
@dakotad70
Ай бұрын
@@Jaymastia thank you!!
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
He’s a Mormon, but I suspect he differs from typical Mormon dogma in some key ways (not judging that as good or bad, just an observation). He takes pretty strong stance against answering questions about his personal beliefs on the channel since he doesn’t want to distract from the scholarship he’s presenting, and I admire him for that.
@dakotad70
Ай бұрын
@@chadkent327 thank you!!
@TheDanEdwards
Ай бұрын
That matters because....??
@AtollSurfer
Ай бұрын
from evangelicals is heard "Have an abortion because you sleep around with 10 guys is a month? What is that? "
@alogicallook
Ай бұрын
I don't think evangelicals say that. They are against abortion and birth control. It is people who are concerned about what life would be like for the child born of a woman who doesn't know how to use birth control and has sex with any Joe Schmo off the street that might say that.
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
@@AtollSurfer Basically evangelicals have conflated having access to basic health care with using it as a primary means of birth control in their minds, so they refuse to accept all the horrifying consequences for both married and unmarried women who don’t have access to it. They want to believe all abortions are solely a consequence of being sexually promiscuous, so that way they can just dismiss any “legitimate” need for it in their minds. They want to sweep away all arguments about bodily autonomy, consent, and medical necessity with “just don’t sleep around, no one “needs” to sleep around.”
@NWPaul72
Ай бұрын
It's projection. It's like when atheists are asked how they avoid raping and murdering without God looking over their shoulder.
@MarkSiefert
8 күн бұрын
It’s essentially slut shaming. i.e. If you’re “wicked” enough to have pre-marital sex with multiple partners, you MUST be evil enough to “murder” a fetus to get out of the god-ordained consequences of your “promiscuity.”
@jonathonpolk3592
Ай бұрын
"People who don't agree with me are stupid." Wow, what a compelling argument! No need to attack this guy based on his tattoos or accent; that would be irrational. But the fact that he doesn't actually make an argument beyond presuming himself to be correct, cherry picking verses way out of context, and trivializing or mocking those with whom he disagrees is good reason to belittle his intellect.
@silviu-georgepantelimon1423
Ай бұрын
Dan's videos are both educational and entertaining when he rips apart bad arguments. No matter where your ideological stance is we should be honest with the history of these things.
@jnobi77
Ай бұрын
Hey Dan, i need that shirt.
@clovismeaux9532
Ай бұрын
Face and neck tattoos make anything you say. Irrelevant.
@lysanamcmillan7972
Ай бұрын
That's just being bigoted against tattoos. Pathetic.
@rager4able
Ай бұрын
I agree w/ the tatted fellow, not knowing about these "identity makers" before the 19th Century is beside the point.
@geneshifter
Ай бұрын
It's relevant because modern thinking is NOT canon and NOT scripture. It is YOUR interpretation and that is ALL it is. It has NO authority except to you.
@sbaker8971
Ай бұрын
Wait, so now you are saying 2000 years supports your view, but homosexuality viewed as a sin for over 4000 years, doesn't support it. Are you really a scholar?!?
@chadkent327
Ай бұрын
1: There’s a difference between presenting what people believed historically and how long they believed it (which is what Dan is doing in this video).and saying that said belief must be true or false because people have believed it a long time, which Dan is not doing in this video. 2. Of you’d paid attention to any of Dan’s videos on homosexuality and the Bible, you’d know his position is that Homesexuality has only been condemned fairly recently (18th or 19th century) because they didn’t even know what homosexuality was. You’ll also find that Dan does agree that the Bible as condemns specific sexual acts, but not homosexuality as whole. And that, as is consistent here, he never says those beliefs are true or false because of how long or short people have believed them.
@sbaker8971
Ай бұрын
@@chadkent327 Homosexuality Robert A. J. Gagnon Professor of New Testament Theology The compound Greek word arsenokoitai (arsen-o-koi-tai; plural of singular arsenokoitēs) is formed from the Greek words for “lying” (verb keimai; stem kei- adjusted to koi- before the “t” or letter tau) and “male” (arsēn). The word is a neologism created from terms used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions of men “lying with a male” (18:22; 20:13). (Note that the word for “lying” in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions is the noun koitē, also meaning “bed,” which is formed from the verb keimai. The masculine -tēs suffix of the sg. noun arsenokoitēs denotes continuing agency or occupation, roughly equivalent to English -er attached to a noun; hence, “(male) liers with a male.”) That the connection to the absolute Levitical prohibitions against male-male intercourse is self-evident from the following points: (a) The rabbis used the corresponding Hebrew abstract expression mishkav zākûr, “lying of/with a male,” drawn from the Hebrew texts of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, to denote male-male intercourse in the broadest sense. (b) The term or its cognates does not appear in any non-Jewish, non-Christian text prior to the sixth century A.D. This way of talking about male homosexuality is a distinctly Jewish and Christian formulation. It was undoubtedly used as a way of distinguishing their absolute opposition to homosexual practice, rooted in the Torah of Moses, from more accepting views in the Greco-Roman milieu. (c) The appearance of arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10 makes the link to the Mosaic law explicit, since the list of vices of which arsenokoitai is a part are said to be derived from “the law” (1:9). While it is true that the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts, in this instance it clearly does. (2) The implications of the context in early Judaism.That Jews of the period construed the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse absolutely and against a backdrop of a male-female requirement is beyond dispute. For example, Josephus explained to Gentile readers that “the law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman. . . . But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199). There are no limitations placed on the prohibition as regards age, slave status, idolatrous context, or exchange of money. The only limitation is the sex of the participants. According to b. Sanh. 54a (viz., tractate Sanhedrin from the Babylonian Talmud), the male with whom a man lies in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 may be “an adult or minor,” meaning that the prohibition of male-male unions is not limited to pederasty. Indeed, there is no evidence in ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism, or rabbinic Judaism that any limitation was placed on the prohibition of male-male intercourse. (3) The choice of word. Had a more limited meaning been intended-for example, pederasts-the terms paiderastai (“lover of boys”), paidomanai (“men mad for boys”), or paidophthoroi (“corrupters of boys”) could have been chosen. (4) (4) The meaning of arsenokoitai and cognates in extant usage. The term arsenokoitēs and cognates after Paul (the term appears first in Paul) are applied solely to male-male intercourse but, consistent with the meaning of the partner term malakoi, not limited to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes (see specifics in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 317-23). For example, the 4th century church historian Eusebius quoted from a 2nd-3rd century Christian, Bardesanes (“From the Euphrates River [eastward] … a man who … is derided as an arsenokoitēs… will defend himself to the point of murder”), and then added that “among the Greeks, wise men who have male lovers are not condemned” (Preparation for the Gospel 6.10.25). Elsewhere Eusebius alluded to the prohibition of man-male intercourse in Leviticus as a prohibition not to arsenokoitein (lie with a male) and characterized it as a “pleasure contrary to nature,” “males mad for males,” and intercourse “of men with men” (Demonstration of the Gospel 1.6.33, 67; 4.10.6). Translations of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic also define the term generally as “men lying with males.” (5) Implications of the parallel in Rom 1:24-27. It is bad exegesis to interpret the meaning of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 without consideration of the broad indictment of male-male intercourse expounded in Rom 1:27 (“males with males”). The wording of Rom 1:27 (“males, leaving behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their yearning for one another”) points to an inclusive rejection of all male-male relations. Paul here does not distinguish between good non-exploitative forms of male homosexual practice and bad exploitative forms but rather contrasts all male homosexual relations with natural intercourse between a man and a woman. He also emphasizes reciprocity (“yearning for one another”), a fact that rules out an indictment only of a coercive one-sided homosexual desire. Other factors confirm the inclusive rejection of all male homosexual practice in Rom 1:27: Paul’s intertextual echo in Rom 1:23-27 to Gen 1:26-27 (which contrasts male homosexual practice with God’s intentional design in creation, “male and female [God] created them” and the consequent marital bond), his use of a nature argument (which transcends distinctions based on coercion or promiscuity), and the parallel indictment of lesbianism in Rom 1:26 (a phenomenon in the ancient world not normally manifested with slaves, call girls, or adolescents). The fact that semi-official same-sex marriages existed in the Greco-Roman world and were condemned by Greco-Roman moralists, rabbis, and Church Fathers as unnatural, despite the mutual commitment of the participants in such marriages, is another nail in the coffin for the contention that the term arsenokoitai had only exploitative or promiscuous male homosexual relations in view. (6) Implications from the context of 1 Cor 5-7. This absolute and inclusive sense is further confirmed by the broader context of 1 Cor 5-7: the parallel case of incest in ch. 5 (which gives no exceptions for committed, loving unions and echoes both Levitical and Deuteronomic law); the vice list in 6:9-11 (where sexual offenders are distinguished from idolaters, consent is presumed, and a warning is given to believers not to engage in such behavior any longer); the analogy to sex with a prostitute in 6:12-20 (where Gen 2:24 is cited as the absolute norm and the Christian identity of the offender is presumed); and the issue of marriage in ch. 7 (which presumes throughout that sex is confined to male-female marriage). (7) The relevance of 1 Cor 11:2-16.If inappropriate hairstyles or head coverings were a source of shame because they compromised the sexual differences of men and women, how much more would a man taking another man to bed be a shameful act, lying with another male “as though lying with a woman”? Paul did not make head coverings an issue vital for inclusion in God’s kingdom, but he did with same-sex intercourse. (8) Implications of 1 Tim 1:9-10 corresponding to the Decalogue. At least the last half of the vice list in 1 Tim 1:8-10 (and possibly the whole of it) corresponds to the Decalogue. Why is that important? In early Judaism and Christianity, the Ten Commandments often served as summary headings for the full range of laws in the Old Testament. The seventh commandment against adultery, which was aimed at guarding the institution of marriage, served as a summary of all biblical sex laws, including the prohibition of male-male intercourse. The vice of kidnapping, which follows arsenokoitaiin 1 Tim 1:10, is typically classified under the eighth commandment against stealing (so Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides, the rabbis, and the Didache; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 335-36). This makes highly improbable the attempt by some to pair arsenokoitai with the following term andrapodistai(kidnappers, men-stealers), as a way of limiting its reference to exploitative acts of male-male intercourse (so Robin Scroggs), rather than with the inclusive sexual term pornoi (the sexually immoral) that precedes it. (9) The implication of the meaning of malakoi. If the term malakoi is not limited in its usage to boys or to men who are exploited by other men (and it is not so limited; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 306-12), then arsenokoitai certainly cannot be limited to men who have sex with boys or slaves. (10) Sex with adult males as worse than sex with adolescent boys. In the Greco-Roman world homosexual intercourse between an adult male and a male youth was regarded as a less exploitative form of same-sex eros than intercourse between two adult males. The key problem with homosexual intercourse-behaving toward the passive male partner as if the latter were female-was exacerbated when the intercourse was aimed at adult males who had outgrown the “softness” of immature adolescence. Consequently, even if arsenokoitai primarily had in mind man-boy love (and from all that we have said above, there is no evidence that it does), then, a fortiori, it would surely also take in man-man love.
@sbaker8971
Ай бұрын
@chadkent327 Not only have I paid attention, but I've proven he is absolutely incorrect. And yes, homosexual acts, regardless of the intentions behind the act, have always been viewed as sin. It was only in the past 40 years that people have tried to claim it wasn't. Which goes against billions of Christians, catholics, pastors, priests, bishops, pope's, scholars, and theologians for the past 4000 years. This is indisputable. Only the past 40 years have progressives tried to claim what you're saying.
@BrassicaRappa
Ай бұрын
Meanwhile Christians are out here arguing about whether life begins at citizenship, or middle class, or just conformity to whiteness in general...
@normbale2757
Ай бұрын
Laws based on religion hold no moral force and may be resisted with violence.
@anarchords1905
Ай бұрын
He's clearly woefully ignorant of what his book has to say about all that ink under his skin, too. That bit probably doesn't count, though... or something.
Пікірлер: 318