It's very telling that conservatives assume God must be very upset about the gay sex and not the raping part.
@Goodbrod
8 ай бұрын
Oooof. Wow. That hit.
@LaxinPhilly
8 ай бұрын
I need a trigger warning for this. Hot coffee just exited through my nose at a high rate of speed. Thanks for that.
@Whosoever446
8 ай бұрын
Lmfao
@Guishan_Lingyou
8 ай бұрын
This observation should be shocking.
@fariesz6786
7 ай бұрын
it's only SA if we allow her to speak up 👀
@iamfiefo
8 ай бұрын
"Sorry, Dan. Taking surveys? Reading other people's opinions? Doing research? Actually trying to learn the original text in its original language? Pshhh! No thanks! Sounds like too much work." -Bible apologists, probably
@busylivingnotdying
8 ай бұрын
Good point. I would like to add (to what Dan said) that those opinions are EDUCATED opinions. Educated by STUDY and text analysis so that it is "our best understanding" A general survey of what "people" think about a passage regardless of their understanding of textual criticism, would just yield a consensus of VALUES most people share (the general zeitgeist) and the commenter in the clip above is right in criticizing that approach to bible reading (as he unknowingly does the same himself)
@matthewnitz8367
8 ай бұрын
Apologetics is always rather fascinating to me in that respect. KZitem channels like Testify that are willing to put in hundreds of hours reading apologetic works about why scholars are confused and not doing their job right, and think those apologetic texts make them an expert in the field. But discount the thousands of hours of training done by actual scholars as "echo chambers" that just reinforce existing beliefs and are biased against the Bible. It seems like there must be some sort of projection going on there to think the entire field of Biblical scholarship are the ones trying to twist the texts to say whatever they want them to say.
@jimhunt1592
8 ай бұрын
This creator is a good example of what is going wrong with society. People thinking their lack of education somehow makes their opinion more correct and more knowledgeable than the conclusions of a person who reads, studies, looks at multiple opinions, and uses this data to make reasoned choices. Education doesn't always make you correct, but lack of education rarely makes you correct.
@philsphan4414
8 ай бұрын
It’s worst in science. My wife of 40 years airily dismisses anything I say about the field in which I hold an advanced degree. Science is the only field where people take “alternative” seriously. I want to use an alternative carpenter next time. They don’t buy into the whole conspiracy of “big nail.”
@schen7913
8 ай бұрын
The problem is really in education itself. Schools teach people that facts learned third-hand are valuable and make "us" smarter. That's not how it works in the real world, yet schools and grades mislead people into thinking that having a set of facts is all that is important. Schools don't teach people that a fact you can personally confirm through your own personal understanding of the sources is way more valuable than a fact that you read from any odd expert -- even from Dan McClellan. Authority figures should _inform_ us, not rule us -- otherwise all we get into is a battle between authority figures. Churches just make it worse. There it's _all_ about harmonizing with third-party dogma.
@jimhunt1592
8 ай бұрын
@@philsphan4414I understand where you are coming from. Doctorates in Neurosciences and Pharmacology and I still have to tolerate a father-in-law making comments about covid vaccines and how that it is little more than the flu.
@clayhamilton3551
8 ай бұрын
Well Jesus didn’t go to college so check mate
@ReallyBadJuJu
8 ай бұрын
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance” Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - 1995
@johna1427
8 ай бұрын
This dude is painful to watch. His condescension is way beneath you, Dan, but I’m glad you responded once again reflecting your intellectual honesty and character.
@smugwendigo5123
8 ай бұрын
The old guy is really asking for a slap, like he is making me irrationally angryb
@THUNDERSTUD
8 ай бұрын
Poor dude didnt know what 'consensus' meant and Dan hits him with the tergiversating oof.
@CharlesPayet
8 ай бұрын
Thank you for spelling that, as I couldn’t figure it out to look up. But now I need to find a way to use that. 😁
@alexmcd378
8 ай бұрын
Well he did use hermeneutics first. I don't know if he used it right, but ye gods did it sound out of place. Like he dragged out his biggest word for this argument
@icollectstories5702
4 ай бұрын
He probably looked up "consensus" but not "academic consensus." If he really is as proudly uneducated as he claims, he doesn't put any weight in academics. When people do this to me, I usually try to see why they think I make no sense. Often, I am merely uninformed.
@jon4574
8 ай бұрын
When the apologist starts with a snarky, pejorative ad hom, you know it's gonna be good, LOL!
@PIA-tj5hc
8 ай бұрын
Right…lol
@MichaelWalker-de8nf
8 ай бұрын
Dan is metal 🤟
@MichaelWalker-de8nf
8 ай бұрын
Dan is metal 🤟
@mvieke
8 ай бұрын
The slow, song-song speech pattern is very effective on kindergartners
@minaguta4147
8 ай бұрын
"I don't drink coffee." 😆 These guys just love the self-own.
@radosawpapierski8610
8 ай бұрын
Well, he missed that Dan is not a theogian, missing the fact that Dan is Mormon is a lesser offense, I guess.
@1926jqg
8 ай бұрын
Laughed too hard at that one.
@Noneya5555
8 ай бұрын
That content creator's argument is one of the dumbest, more irrelevant arguments I've seen. He reads a contemporary version of the Bible, and has the arrogance to argue with an accredited scholar who has studied not only the ancient texts, but also the languages in which they were written, and the changes made by later authors, scribes and editors. And he does this while acknowledging his ignorance in the field and of the subject matter! The Dunning-Kruger effect describes this creator's argument to a tee. 🤣 Btw, in mocking Dan's reference to academic consensus, the creator is the one lobbing the ad hominems. He reminds me of the actual meaning behind the saying "A little knowledge [ie, almost complete ignorance] is a dangerous thing".
@ChristianCarrizales
8 ай бұрын
I find that apologists don’t like the term “academic consensus” … so I tend to use it every chance I get 😂
@radosawpapierski8610
8 ай бұрын
Actually, I quite like it as a collective noun for academics (taken out of this snarky context, though)
@rahrahrobbbieee
8 ай бұрын
🤺🤺🤺🤺😎😎
@fariesz6786
7 ай бұрын
the "murder of crows" part though.. managed to score a tripple bingo of ad hominem, disingenuity, and ornithophobia ( ò)
@dwightdhansen
8 ай бұрын
Imagine the disappointment that your hate isn't biblically supported.
@digitaljanus
8 ай бұрын
Original creator's closing "argument" was literally "I'm an uneducated dumb-dumb" after thoroughly demonstrating the point. I almost want to stand up and applaud that level of self-own.
@JesseLeeHumphry
5 ай бұрын
The problem is that evangelicals like him don't ACTUALLY think they're dumb, they know academics and scientists think they're dumb. So when they say "I know I'm stupid and uneducated", it's a rhetorical device; they don't see themselves that way. They think they're smarter. That's why his tone and rhythm when he rattles off chapters and verses is, if you spent enough time in church, "authoritative".
@OrigenalHeretic
8 ай бұрын
Dan, I am so grateful for your work and your willingness to share it via social media. Thank you!
@johnpetry5321
8 ай бұрын
Well, that was an excellent display of why some people should pay much closer attention to what they are responding to . This gentleman did not read with discernment and made a foolish attack. Dr. McClellan made a careful response to the attack. It was wonderful to observe.
@andrewbuswell6010
8 ай бұрын
‘If prejudice and hatred was good enough for granpappy it’s good enough for me’ attitude.
@samuel.thornton
8 ай бұрын
So much is revealed about the apologetic style of hermeneutic when he just randomly starts pulling passages in order to support a conclusion he's already made. "This is about same-sex, therefore the other verses about same-sex are relevant, and somehow also is this verse about divorce." It's just so wild, and such a terrible hermeneutic.
@apachewraith
4 ай бұрын
We're all negotiating the text to fit our worldview.
@wyspowillow4219
8 ай бұрын
Tergiversate: “to make conflicting or evasive statements; equivocate.” Noted…!
@AnimaOrphei
8 ай бұрын
I saw that too. Lol learned a new word woohoo!
@andrewmatern3178
8 ай бұрын
tergiversate vb (intr) 1. to change sides or loyalties; apostatize 2. to be evasive or ambiguous; equivocate
@lisaboban
8 ай бұрын
Thank you. Needed that.
@rahrahrobbbieee
8 ай бұрын
👍🏼👍🏼
@andrewmatern3178
8 ай бұрын
@lisaboban I figured I wouldn't be the only one lol
@spinnwebe_
8 ай бұрын
I had to come in to find the comment proclaiming on tergiversate
@cureton04
7 ай бұрын
I feel I have a pretty large vocabulary but I had to stop on that one and hit the dictionary. That's a 10 dollar word for sure.
@nates9029
8 ай бұрын
"I am uneducated but....." When you say something like that, you should probably stop there and reevaluate the things you are saying instead of insisting that you are right. I am never quite sure why people like that are so afraid of educating themselves and listening to others (particularly experts in a particular field) and instead just insist that they are right.
@lnsflare1
8 ай бұрын
He was trying for the suave "I'm just a simple country lawyer" effect, but ended up merely shouting "DURRRRR" at the top of his lungs instead.
@MichaelMarko
8 ай бұрын
I actually heard this about the “hospitality” interpretation 15 or 20 years ago. So, I trust that it isn’t novel or limited to a few scholar rebels.
@MusicalRaichu
8 ай бұрын
I found a reference from 1977 "A number of scholars in recent times have argued that the basic sin ... was ... a flagrant breach of ... hospitality" Charles Baker, David Field, Brian Hoare, Tom Jones, Gordon Landreth, Ken Taylor. “Homoxesuality”. Third Way, 1(25)7-10, December 1977.
@lde-m8688
8 ай бұрын
Yeah, and these kinds of folk like the person in that video have the same apologist arguments they always have. I heard this idea back in the early 90s when I was in college in a study of religion class. The apologist haven't changed their argument one iota.
@lisaboban
8 ай бұрын
It's not. First heard that in the late 70s at a Baptist college in West Virginia by an excellent Bible scholar who regularly read to us from original language texts. Good scholars are everywhere. Dan stands on the shoulders of giants.
@TestUser-cf4wj
8 ай бұрын
The obvious immorality of giving one's virgin daughters over to be raped can not _possibly_ be a lesser infraction than allowing consensual same-sex intimacy. Based on that aspect alone, the text is clearly not fundamentally about homosexuality. Even if we take into account the diminished status of females and children that was a baked-in feature of the culture at the time, the loss of the daughters' virginity would make them unmarriable and therefore fit only to be wed to the rapists (impossible if the rape was perpetrated by a group), to find employment as prostitutes or to remain with their father and thus become a burden to his household. It is a massive financial and reputational hit that is being offered in exchange for sparing the guests from being assaulted, so why would this kind of an offer be made if the issue was simply about a disapproved of sexual act between adult, male same sex participants? To put it plainly, _if you guys want to sin, go right ahead, because it's not going to be my soul facing judgment._ Instead, if we read as the apologists do, a man sets his virgin daughters out to be sexually abused rather than let some grown men knowingly incur the wrath of God on themselves. It's plain that, at best, the apologists and evangelicals are focusing on the wrong aspect of the story and, at worst, are simply shoehorning the story into their personal feelings about homosexuality.
@MusicalRaichu
8 ай бұрын
@@TestUser-cf4wj there are other factors to consider in Lot's defense - consent was the father's to give so it wouldn't be doing anything wrong - penetrating a woman did not denigrate them beyond their natural inferiority as women as it would a man - they were betrothed to men of the town which might restrain them from wronging their own definitely unacceptable by today's standards. given the limited options in a dreadful situation, the lesser wrong in its day.
@tchristianphoto
8 ай бұрын
Leviticus 20: Part of a purity law that was arguably never followed in its day and was for show; also not followed by modern-day Jews or Christians at all (shellfish, mixed fabrics, etc.). Romans 1: Not against homosexuality but against the practice of idolatry by people Paul never met. 1 Timothy 1: Also not about homosexuality, and not written by Paul. "I'm going to have to go with the Bible on this one": Yet he refuses to listen to what the Biblical text is actually saying, preferring to not challenge his old, blatantly erroneous presuppositions.
@jasonsmall5602
8 ай бұрын
Observant modern-day Jews do follow the prohibitions on shellfish and mixed fabrics, though I don't see that in Leviticus 20. And they follow other prohibitions in Leviticus 20, though there is no death penalty.
@nevernerevarine8071
8 ай бұрын
They HAVE to stop calling you a theologian lmfao, it gives it away too early they dont know what they are talking about
@johnrichardson7629
8 ай бұрын
He doesn't know what 'consensus' means. What a maroon.
@benroberts2222
8 ай бұрын
I think this part was meant to be funny, but it's hard to tell
@dhobonov
8 ай бұрын
What an ignoranimus. -Bugs Bunny
@QuinnPrice
8 ай бұрын
Apologists have only one goal and speak to only one audience. Their goal is to let true believers know there's nothing here. They're not in the truth business but in throwing smoke that keeps true believers away from directly evaluating contradictory information.
@justinthor5438
8 ай бұрын
Dude didn't bring a knife to a gunfight, dude only brought ammo for Dan's metaphorical gun.
@joshuacromley7439
8 ай бұрын
The fact he drifts into speculation about Dan says it all
@trueliberty6033
8 ай бұрын
Dan You need to merch a shirt that says, "Dan, definitely not a Theologian" 😂 Or "Dan, Novo Theologian" Or "theologiDan" Those are all free by the way no need to credit me😂
@pgbollwerk
8 ай бұрын
Amazing work sir. That apologist’s false humility was infuriating.
@JopJio
8 ай бұрын
I mean deeds dont matter according to Paul, you only have to have faith that Jesus is "lord" and in the resurrection. So sins also dont matter at all. Todays Christians have no problem's with pre marriage relationships, divorces and many more stuff but have a problem with LGBT. I bet in 100 years this will be accepted too
@mcdonaldsorwhatevers
8 ай бұрын
cant wait for churches to be debating is consuming csam material moral in 125 years
@bryana8357
8 ай бұрын
Soooooo, I'm thinking it's more than seven, huh?
@maskedsaiyan1738
8 ай бұрын
Why do so many apologists start off with a level of snark towards people they disagree with? Isn’t Pride a deadly sin?
@JopJio
8 ай бұрын
It's because they want to make the opponent look unreliable and biased for their Christian viewers. For example they call Ehrman always secular and atheist. But they won't tell you that he was an evangelical Christian himself.
@chadkent327
8 ай бұрын
Depends on what tradition you’re coming from. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t believe the seven deadly sins have biblical basis and they are rooted in Catholic tradition and dogma. The tradition I can put of viewed pride (and other negative emotions such as anger) as not necessarily good or bad but it depended on how they were deployed. For example, pride in family, religion, country was considered “good” while pride in yourself was “bad.” At a guess this apologist probably views his own prideful behavior as “good” pride in his religious beliefs. I find it unbearable to be honest.
@mcdonaldsorwhatevers
8 ай бұрын
@@MrMortal_Ra Some of his opponents actually do have stupid arguments though
@JopJio
8 ай бұрын
@@mcdonaldsorwhatevers then criticise the argument, not the person
@Tmanaz480
8 ай бұрын
Snark vs data. Data wins.
@mattied9203
8 ай бұрын
Dan making me look up words. 😆
@PIA-tj5hc
8 ай бұрын
Right..lol
@MichaelMarko
8 ай бұрын
I got news! If you abstract and practice the things Dan teaches you can apply these principals to any situation, text, cultural practice, etc. Ana there would will be transformed. But take it slow. It can be unsettling.
@floccinaucinihilipilifications
27 күн бұрын
Yep, deconstruction applies to all aspects of life… and it’s quite “uncomfortable.”
@ronjones1414
8 ай бұрын
The issue is that most people literally lack the cognitive ability to separate the two ideas. To them, gay bad, Genesis 19 says gay, Genesis 19 gay bad.
@smugwendigo5123
8 ай бұрын
It reminds me of those boxes at fire departments and police stations that people can put babys in and the box sets off an alarm so they will be taken care of and kept warm and not die, the point is to keep babys from dying, but everyone focuses on the act of abandoning the baby and criticizing the box for "encouraging" child abandonment like, that's definitely not the boxes purpose
@gypsieladie
8 ай бұрын
It must really suck to have to repeat this so much. Like, these ppl believe the answers to all of life's problems are in this book but they wanna ask you about where OTHER PEOPLES jiggly bits should go. Embarrassing.
@lisebetta
8 ай бұрын
This man is insulting and condescending as are most if not all Christian Nationalist who believe what ever they want and interpret the Bible however they want to suit their own purpose. This man should be ashamed to even address you on anything to do with the Bible. This man is an embarrassment.
@HandofOmega
8 ай бұрын
"Tergiversating"? Is that cromulent?? 😉
@VulcanLogic
8 ай бұрын
I certainly felt embiggened by the discussion.
@TheSpanishInquisition87
8 ай бұрын
"I don't drink coffee." 😂😂😂 I had a literal spit-take. (Yes, it was coffee.)
@cedarwaxwing3509
8 ай бұрын
Context: Dan is LDS. They don’t drink caffeinated beverages. The subtle jab here is that Dan has mentioned his religious affiliation in several videos. The creator of the response video starts off his rant as if he’s very familiar with Dan (“everybody’s favorite theologian…”) which is not only a wonderfully passive/aggressive ad hominem attack on its own, but also suggests a familiarity with Dan’s videos that the creator obviously does not have.
@cedarwaxwing3509
8 ай бұрын
@@MrMortal_Ra If you are asking why LDS folks don’t drink caffeinated beverages, my answer is a big “I don’t know.” I’m not LDS, but I have had coworkers who are members of that church and I know that is something they avoid. I’ve never asked/researched the reason why. I just found the whole coffee point indicative of Dan’s subtle sense of humor and -as I speculated - a little jab at the apologist creator’s self-claimed familiarity with Dan’s videos. A larger question, for me, is to wonder how DM squares his love of ‘data over dogma’ with the Book of Mormon, which I’m sure - with his level of linguistic expertise - he knows is a nineteenth century creation, golden tablet stories notwithstanding. Perhaps he has done some videos on that before or discussed it in his podcast. I started watching his videos relatively recently, and I know he has a huge back-catalog of them that I haven’t watched. 🙂
@joabtheharmless4051
8 ай бұрын
@@MrMortal_Ra The traditional avoidance of tea and coffee in LDS circles is based on the "Word of Wisdom" section in Doctrine and Covenants (mostly authored by Smith, and understood to be divinely inspired), as interpreted by the church: Quoting from the LDS church's website to make sure I represent its official position accurately: " Although coffee enjoyed wide approval by the mid-1830s, including within the medical community, a few radical reformers such as Sylvester Graham and William A. Alcott preached against the use of any stimulants whatsoever, including coffee and tea.19 The Word of Wisdom rejected the idea of a substitute for alcohol. “Hot drinks”-which Latter-day Saints understood to mean coffee and tea20-“are not for the body or belly,” the revelation explained.21 Instead, the revelation encouraged the consumption of basic staples of the kind that had sustained life for millennia. The revelation praised “all wholesome herbs” and explained that “all grain is for the use of man & of beasts to be the staff of life … as also the fruit of the vine that which beareth fruit whether in the ground or above ground.” In keeping with an earlier revelation endorsing the eating of meat, the Word of Wisdom reminded the Saints that the flesh of beasts and fowls was given “for the use of man with thanksgiving,” but added the caution that meat was “to be used sparingly” and not to excess.22 " I don't know the details of how the interpretation leading from "hot drinks are not for the body or belly" to the current teachings regarding authorised and banned drinks emerged. The footnotes are just referencing bibliographic resources, and I don't have the time to go through them. But see Doctrine and Covenants 89 (vv 5-10) for the relevant section. As an aside, I don't know whether this is why Dan McClellan doesn't drink coffee, since he largely keeps his personal religiosity and practices private (even in interviews on more "confessional" channels than his), and from the few LDS I know, practices seem to somewhat vary on that front; just a quick google search redirects to articles like: "Why more and more young Latter-day Saints are drinking coffee". So Dan McClellan not drinking coffee might be due to doctrine, but also to personal taste or other reasons. (More data are needed, as the wise like to say!)
@jenniferhunter4074
8 ай бұрын
@@MrMortal_Ra Mormon rules. They aren't supposed to drink caffeinated beverages. So coffee is a sin. Dan is a practicing Mormon in good standing and he observes these rules. It's no different from other religions. catholics have rules specific to their particular faith tradition as well. For example, for Catholics, you need to have confession because that's a sacrament. These are just things that the higher ups set up as doctrines and all the followers have to observe these rules. "In Doctrine and Covenants 89:8-9, the Lord forbids our using tobacco and “hot drinks,” which, Church leaders have explained, means tea and coffee. Modern prophets and apostles have frequently taught that the Word of Wisdom warns us against substances that can harm us or enslave us to addiction." Oh.. and it may be that Dan gains comfort from his religion. It may be a source of how to view the world because we all have frameworks we look at the world through. It may help how he acts in relationships with family and friends and associates. We all have them. Yes, I as an atheist, have a lens by which I look at the world. I'm far more materialist and consequentialist but every part of my life experience flavors how I interpret the raw input of this world into comprehensible information. As long as people understand and are aware of this, and they can respect the other human beings (other living creatures hopefully), we can all sort of muddle together. Dr. McClellan the professional academic has trained himself to be academic with regards to these texts but Dan McClellan, the husband, father, friend, son has a right to engage in those activities that help him ground himself in living. There are loads of stupid and ignorant atheists. I'm continuously learning the depths of my ignorance.. and I was a Christian for a long time. Too long.
@TheSpanishInquisition87
8 ай бұрын
@@MrMortal_Ra You would have to ask Dan, but I don't believe that he discusses his personal beliefs publicly.
@probablynotmyname8521
8 ай бұрын
You could reconcile what dan says by understanding it and responding to what he actually says not what you think he says. I often wonder why people have these comprehension issues.
@CharlesPayet
8 ай бұрын
Because if they actually understood it, they’d be forced to acknowledge they’re wrong and change their mind. Which would punch a huge hole in the armor of their faith.
@Rhewin
8 ай бұрын
Why are these types always misidentifying fallacies like ad hominem? It must be that they’re called out on it so often that they think it’s just something you say when someone disagrees with you.
@boo-ix
8 ай бұрын
Lol😂 looks like you got under his politics.
@ChristianCatboy
8 ай бұрын
It's quite galling to hear Matthew 19 referenced by a transphobe, since Jesus explicitly endorses self-eunuchization in that passage. 😸🏳⚧⚧
@dannyboyakadandaman504furl9
8 ай бұрын
Dan the Sodom and Gomorrah story reminds me of Zeus and Hermes myth.
@mickeydecurious
8 ай бұрын
EvilAngelcals will twist their minds in order to maintain their cruelty😢 The old guy challenging Dan about the true reason Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed is sad, because if they face the reality they wouldn't have an excuse to be cruel to the LGBTQ community... Didn't Paul teach that it was a New Covenant between God and man; thus being a New Covenant the old was non-applicable, and if the old is impossible that means the new is non-existent...🤔💭
@scyldscefing3913
8 ай бұрын
You do great work. Thank you.
@rainbowkrampus
8 ай бұрын
Gotta love the folksy, passive aggressive bigot routine.
@natradvicfire3102
8 ай бұрын
"Tergiversating" is a $50 word if I ever heard one (Inflation is crazy these days). Thank you for elevating the discourse and challenging us to learn something new every day!
@robertbaher3454
8 ай бұрын
Dan, I'm continually amazed at how coherently you present your well-researched evidence!
@timothymulholland7905
8 ай бұрын
The traditional interpretation is too deeply rooted in the culture. This will not change for a long time.
@digitaljanus
8 ай бұрын
The Bible explicitly condones slavery and the practice was deeply rooted in the culture. Now it is universally condemned.
@hrvatskinoahid1048
8 ай бұрын
The oral Torah is the traditional interpretation of the written Torah.
@timandmonica
8 ай бұрын
This apologists self-righteous attitude is so repulsive to me. Does he see it at all? He's swimming in it, I sure hope he does.
@jon4574
8 ай бұрын
The Bible reads that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge, and the fruit of the Spirit is self-control, yet all these apologists seem to expose those words as meritless lies.
@MarkHyde
5 ай бұрын
Instead of arguing the substantive matter raised - it is always attack academicians - but only the ones that challenge your own tribe's 'academics'. ;) Vile condescension is NOT argument.
@sammysamlovescats
8 ай бұрын
Honestly I forgot you were mormon for a moment and then you said "I don't drink coffee" so bluntly I almost choked on my water
@MalekMagicianPR
8 ай бұрын
Dan: dropped mic! 🫳 🎤
@geneshifter
8 ай бұрын
That old dude perfectly encapsulates what my church of Christ experience was all about. Complete arrogance and ignorance.
@alexmcd378
8 ай бұрын
I just realized your camera isn't flipping the video. That's a Bizaro shirt. Nice!
@lnsflare1
8 ай бұрын
You see, it's okay for me to be an authoritarian bigot because The Incredible Hulk Volume 2, Issue 105 says...
@sinocte
8 ай бұрын
You know, I truly appreciate how you are able to remain calm, straightforward, and yet absolutely destroy these people lol. Thank you for your clear view on the book. I'm an atheist, and you're still one of my favorite channels because you present good data, and not feelings and assumptions.
@CharlesPayet
8 ай бұрын
Same here.
@scented-leafpelargonium3366
8 ай бұрын
The Hebrew word rendered as "men" in English from Hebrew is ANASHIM, which is a male plural word linked to the related root word ANUSH, which means HUMAN. When adjoined to another word it becomes hyphenized, as in Genesis 19:4, where it appears as ANSHEI S'DOM. Having lived in Israel for 10 years, I remember the word ANASHIM very clearly. It was always used to mean PEOPLE, although it is a male plural, but even if all males it still means PEOPLE coming from the ANUSH ("HUMAN") root, which is neither male nor female. The English translators seeing the male plural translate it literally in male as "MEN." However, this is true for all male plurals which always include females, as Hebrew is known as a chauvinistic language, such as with the terms "men of Galilee" to describe those gathered on the Mount of Olives at the Ascension (were women not present even after they followed Him everywhere, including at the foot of the cross and at the tomb when all the men had fled or denied knowing him?), and the crowd in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost, which was the pilgrim Feast of Weeks or Shavuot when it was commanded for whole families to come to Jerusalem, just as Yeshua ("Jesus") did with His parents for Passover each year, so females would have been present, yet the English Bibles use the term "men of Jerusalem" to the crowd, so does that mean that it was same-sex festival? Even terms like "sons of God" or "kings and priests" in Messiah include females, but it is described in male terminology, and thus it is throughout Scripture, and so it is in Sodom. Why should it be perceived as "only males" in Sodom, when the term "men" used in all these other contexts is always understood to include both sexes? It is not consistent. On top of this, the destruction of both Sodom AND Gomorrah were slated for destruction in the previous chapter (18), where Abraham pleads with the LORD on behalf of the righteous in the cities, but there are not even enough to save them, which must include females too, unless they are impervious to sin, as this judgement was not based on the incident that happened outside Lot's house, which at any rate did not involve Gomorrah at all, only Sodom. Thus God would have to owe an apology to Gomorrah if it were destroyed for one incident that happened outside Lot's house in Sodom (as they overlook general grave sin). If one reads Genesis 19:4 saying "people" ("humans") instead of "men" (i.e. males only) the passage reads very differently, and implicates the population of the whole city of sin, not just a bunch of homosexual men. Most bigotted theologians willl never accept this, and insist "men" means "men" (in English), despite "men" including females elsewhere, and even if they do insist on it being only men/males, God adds a second word in Hebrew to clarify the intention and truthful nature of the passage, which is the small word AM, which is PEOPLE in SINGULAR form, such as AM ISRAEL ("people of Israel"), and is rendered in the same verse (4) in English as "PEOPLE", as in "PEOPLE FROM EVERY QUARTER" (of the city), so how can it be only men, if the same verse also mentions PEOPLE as a singular unit? Thus ANASHIM in all usage is always "people" (plural, i.e. of individuals) and AM in all usage is always "people" (singular, as with "a people"), and both are used in this verse. Even though the Hebrew text reveals that this was a mixed sex, all-citizen gathering displaying clear desire to commit sexual assault against Lot's angelic visitors as a lust-filled orgy, which is why Lot offers his daughters, which would be a useless offer to a group of male-only interested homosexuals, yet so many Gentile scholars try to apply this to it. It is obviously more comfortable to condemn Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction as being solely for homosexuality, but the etymology and grammar of the original text does not say it. Obviously the cities were condemned by God for all kinds of depravity, such as adultery, fornication, incest, lust, bestiality, eyc., which even if homosexuality and lesbianism were practised, it is clearly not the sole reason for the two cities' destruction, and Jude and elsewhere all cite other things, such as a warning against ungodliness, but not one sin. It is simple grammatical clarity, but if one is prejudiced one will not accept this truth.
@toritori5835
7 ай бұрын
The thing is, the reasoning is off, as well. Their reasoning is that 🍇 is horrible, but same sex 🍇 is worse (it’s not, but we’ll play along for a bit). For a moment, let’s imagine that is the case. Let’s imagine these people with whom the father has no relationship decide to unalive a young woman who’s pregnant. Pretty awful. Folks who say the passage is about condemning same sex relations, the scenario would be the equivalent of a dad stepping in and saying, “It’s despicable committing murder, but you’d be committing abortion on top of that. So, why don’t you just kill my 15 year old son instead? Then you won’t have as much blood on your hands.” Why do that? Would the dad be worried for their souls or something? He’d really sacrifice his kid to help the bad guy sleep better at night? What, is he afraid God will judge the guy more harshly or something? It’s just silly reasoning. BTW, the value of caring for guests is still very much alive in the ME today, as well as countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, etc.
@MarcusHitch
8 ай бұрын
🐻You are NOT a theologian... but you are still MY favourite theologian... (though that probably says less about one thing and more about the other, if you take my meaning... you study the scriptures in a genuine attempt to put "truth" to them, i.e. establishing through probability and scholarship what they actually represent, in context. Most theologians only pretend to do this). ♥👍🐻 (Also... why do so many of this ilk not know what an ad hominem is? The scripture passages aren't the only thing he's regurgitating mindlessly. It's just a word they've heard and wrongly think makes them sound smarter. Your critique of his motivations was as accurate as that of his misunderstanding. There is no ad hominem. It was a well justified assessment... but you don't need me to tell you that).
@AnimaOrphei
8 ай бұрын
Also side fallacy of the dude: False Equivocation. He refers to what he obviously doesn’t know is called a collective noun like a pod of dolphins or a vanity of peacocks. I couldn’t find one for “academics” like how this dude makes the case that a group of academics would be a consensus, but a group of scholars is called an academy and a group of professors is a faculty. A collective noun doesn’t refer to qualities of the group in question. His argument would mean that a murder of crows will murder. This wasn’t the main point but I like collective nouns. Lol
@tezzerii
7 ай бұрын
"I'm sorry, I know I'm uneducated, but I'm gonna have to go with the bible on this one" - Isn't that exactly what Dan is doing ? And doing much better. Dan's last statement is a killer !
@langreeves6419
8 ай бұрын
Dude! You can look up the definition of consensus! Instead of making up a definition that paints Dan negatively.
@Outspoken.Humanist
8 ай бұрын
It is laughable how this silly man focuses so much on mockery and ad hominem and yet thinks he is the victim of an imagined response. Because, even in his prejudice, he knows he is wrong. It is typical of Dan to respond to this petty foolishness by simplying providing data and critical thinking. When he says, "I know I'm uneducated" what he is realy saying is, 'I'm right and I will not allow any contrary information to educate me'.
@PolyMagiCarp
8 ай бұрын
"I thought hermeneutics was to read the best reading based on what we have ..." This is the weirdest definition of hermeneutics I've ever heard. Was he thinking about textual criticism?
@NataliePine
8 ай бұрын
Given that he acknowledges the huge advantage you have over him in terms of education, his choice to go with a smug sarcastic tone is... interesting. Probably further evidence that apologists are playing to a crowd rather than trying to win over skeptical people.
@gregoryrothenberger4900
8 ай бұрын
The bald guy keeps reffering to how he is uneducated, that is very telling.
@alexmcd378
8 ай бұрын
One thing I really appreciate aside from the quality on your videos, is the length. I don't have the stomach to listen to these guys ramble about ignorance and hate for very long anymore.
@exhumus
8 ай бұрын
This guy isn't just negotiating with the Bible, this guy is negotiating with the English language. Since when did consensus ever mean anything other than a majority agreement on a given subject?
@TheAntiburglar
8 ай бұрын
This is the second time I've seen an apologist call you a theologian.... they keep using this word, I do not think it means what they think it means >.>
@jackaltwinky77
8 ай бұрын
Love the not so subtle brag that the SBL gave you an award for your scholarship.
@maviswilhelm8390
8 ай бұрын
Damn, you’re fun!
@Thoughtful_Theologian
8 ай бұрын
I’m just really sad to hear you don’t drink coffee. I mean, I’m shook…
@Naswaca
8 ай бұрын
Dudes an absolute goofball of a person. You can hear the homophobia on his articulation.
@RandomSelectGaming
5 ай бұрын
Suggesting that dan drinks coffee is Hilariously uninformed 😂 Also a consensus of academics is quite funny.
@profchrisheard
8 ай бұрын
Excellent response, Dan. As an additional footnote, we might note that the NT passage that does construe the “sin of Sodom” as sexual-Jude 1:7-literally says the people of Sodom desired “other [heteros] flesh.” What the author of Jude finds objectionable is humans pursing sexual contact with angels; the verse seems to me irrelevant to homosexual desire among humans. In this Jude 1:7 is apparently the converse of Jude 1:6 which seems to allude to Genesis 6:1-2, interpreting that passage as having something to do with divine (angelic) having sexual relations with human beings. (I know there are other ways to spin that Gen 6 passage, but pretty clearly the author of Jude shares the interpretation developed in the Enoch literature.)
@toomanymoose
8 ай бұрын
Tergiversating!!!! [runs to dictionary]
@chrismathis9240
8 ай бұрын
When your arguments are weak resort to ad hominem, sarcastic attacks.
@PIA-tj5hc
8 ай бұрын
These unlearned people tickle me when they go into the academic world. It’s so funny😂
@SimonDaumMusic
8 ай бұрын
Always love your cool, funny and yet so well grounded responses
@Will-xf3qe
5 ай бұрын
9:01 tergiversating . Thats a new one for me
@gypsieladie
8 ай бұрын
Its giving unhinged Disney villain.
@tussk.
8 ай бұрын
It doesn't matter what the bible says, what I want it to say over rides any fact you can demonstrate.
@GoodieWhiteHat
8 ай бұрын
Dan and his six friends have done a lot of work!
@rickhasthoughtsiguess6541
7 ай бұрын
“I don’t drink coffee” killed me
@MitchellRose-gi2ln
8 ай бұрын
And it's downright rude!
@louzander
8 ай бұрын
Dan, I've been working in analytics and data analysis for the last 10 years and during my MA in English studied Digital Humanities, which includes utilizing digital means to pull large scale themes from bodies of work and/or datasets. I would be delighted to volunteer my time to help clean, migrate, or parse any data (using software, not personal judgment, so as to minimize as much as possible the impact of my own biases) from the surveys on consensus you mentioned here. In fact, I'm so interested in your research that if I can volunteer (within my own time constraints, I'm not in a PhD program I'm just a fan of scholarship) can ever volunteer my time to help with the minutiae (so?) of your work I'd be happy to do so!
@squiddwizzard8850
8 ай бұрын
What data analysis tools do you use? I'm very interested in a paralell evaluation, but I am not talented enough to assist. I'm currently in the last semester of my Master's.
@CPaulCounts
8 ай бұрын
I learned a new word today!
@michaelbell3181
8 ай бұрын
"You The Man!" Thanks!
@gabrieledwards1066
8 ай бұрын
3:45 Love the humble brag! Well deserved, Dan!
@hive_indicator318
8 ай бұрын
It's so telling how he claims to just follow what the text says while ignoring the two places it was explicitly explained and choosing to interpret other passages to be relevant and agree with him.
@CharlesPayet
8 ай бұрын
Lawdy, I *love* the way Dan kindly, firmly, and with actual sources puts these people in their place. If only there wasn’t such a desperate need for his work.
@christophersandford5888
27 күн бұрын
Imagine not knowing what "academic consensus" means and, rather than simply looking it up, post a video on KZitem getting all sarcastic about what you think it might mean. How much less academic can you get 😂
@nilssturman5258
Ай бұрын
Mic drop. 😀 My favourite video so far... Yes, those weirdoes do like to disparage academics when they disagree with their conclusions. It's anti-intellectualism in its purest form.
@seekerhonest
23 күн бұрын
Thank you Dan for sharing all your knowledge that you gathered to protect young gays from those homophobics that try to justify their hate with the bibe.
@Silvia-iz1ok
Ай бұрын
Hi Dan if I can ask why did you choose to be bible schoolar if you aren't religious what was so inspiring about religion????¿???
@ritawing1064
8 ай бұрын
Masterpiece of lucidity, well done yet again!
@williamloy3140
13 күн бұрын
Maybe even seven, I heard that and was like really. Out of the whole world out of all the scholars even in biblical studies is a lot more than seven
@zenosAnalytic
Ай бұрын
"ad hominem" XD It can't be an attack on, or insult to, the character of the interlocutor if it accurately states the rhetorical intentions of the interlocutor, spcl when the interlocutor AGREES that this accurately states their rhetorical intentions.
Пікірлер: 367