Is it just me or what? I laughed out loud when I heard "screw that lid down tighter."

@CherubEros

2 ай бұрын

Be careful, someone might come by and.. um.. screw that lid down tighter

I've often pondered why Christians grasp at power so tenaciously when their reward is supposed to be in heaven.

@Sewblon

2 ай бұрын

what are you talking about?

@jackabug2475

2 ай бұрын

@@Sewblon Maybe about Saul of Tarsus?

@Sewblon

2 ай бұрын

@@jackabug2475 The guy who changed his name to Paul, became an apostle, then got executed? What does he have to do with this?

@jackabug2475

2 ай бұрын

@@Sewblon The video is literally about Saul/Paul. It's right in the title.

@Sewblon

2 ай бұрын

@@jackabug2475 But what does the video have to do with grasping for power?

I love Dans vocabulary and phrasing. He summarizes his points concisely and makes everything easily digesible to the listener.

Dan, big *HUGS* for being brave and bold to share the truth!

I could swear there was a video on here where Dan analyzed the evidence that supports the idea that Paul thought Christ was coming soon and preferred celibacy, but I can't find it

The time to reject the last of Paul’s warped sexual world view is now. Let this be a gift from us to the next generation.

@bark1actual785

Жыл бұрын

Ummmm….. considering the absolute chaos of people wandering around obsessed with their genitalia and where it goes I’m saying a bit more self control and reflection might be in order.

@boboak9168

Жыл бұрын

@@bark1actual785 It doesn’t sound like you are ‘Paul level’ extreme, so are you perhaps advocating for moving the societal bar more to the centre, as opposed to declaring same sex love invalid and the act itself to be avoided by everyone to the fullest degree possible?

@boboak9168

Жыл бұрын

@@bark1actual785 it looks like your reply was eaten by the KZread filters. It’s a pity since you presented some good and relevant information about Paul. Thanks for sharing.

@paulpierce2051

Жыл бұрын

so reading through Corinthians it’s commonly phrased “it would be better” concerning chastity and sex between a husband and wife is never mentioned as being wrong. The message coming through isn’t “your not aloud to have sex!” it’s you can show your devotion to God by not having sex. This seems a lot different than it’s cool to be a homosexual. Romans 1 seems cover the debased mind pretty well. Unless there is some textual variance that’s changed Dan seems to be suffering as Paul said in Romans 1 that he would be.

@J_a_s_o_n

Жыл бұрын

​@@boboak9168 God is the one who condemns the SIN OF SSM You deceived fools think you know more than God. Eternal Damnation in the lake of fire for Eternity awaits you. REPENT for the salvation of your SOUL

Thank you! Clear explanation

Well, the problem I've always had is Christians believing that Paul's OPINIONS, stated in his letters to various churches, are equivalent to the teachings and mandates of Christ. Paul was a fallible human man, and as such had some WRONG ideas, such as his obsession with celibacy and his belief that women were inferior and should remain silent in church (and presumably every place else).

@hullie7529

Жыл бұрын

If you don't believe the Bible is inspired by God then you're not a Christian, and if you're not a Christian I don't see why you would care about what they believe. Sure, you can take away all the books you want so the Bible says only what you want to hear, but at that point you're creating a god in your image and not the other way around.

@granvillesimmons6033

Жыл бұрын

@@hullie7529 ONLY God is infallible. That is not debatable. If you say that The Bible, a man-made thing (The Bible itself does not say that God wrote it, but rather inspired it--it was written by fallible Human men) is infallible, you are saying The Bible IS God. That is Idolatry. The Bible does contain contradictions, as well as the opinions (and prejudices) of the men who wrote it. If you are an ACTUAL Christian, The Holy Spirit guides you in reading The Bible. AND an actual Christian doesn't think that the opinions or teachings of a Human Being are equivalent to the teachings and mandates of Our Lord. Their is much wisdom and truth in The Bible....but you will also find scriptures which clearly condone slavery, genocide, polygamy, incest, treating women as inferiors, stoning people to death, and bashing the heads of your enemy's babies against rocks, among others.

@hullie7529

Жыл бұрын

@@granvillesimmons6033 The Bible does say all Scripture is inspired by God, which is what I wrote in my previous message. When you start to take away the parts you don't like you deviate from the message of God.

@galeforcewindy

Жыл бұрын

​@@hullie7529 so what about all those parts that people have left out, like the Apocrypha?

@theofriesen9527

Жыл бұрын

@@hullie7529 Your argument is circular. You claim the Bible is infallible, and to prove this you point to the fact that it says "all Scripture is inspired by God". However, this presupposes that that section within the Bible is infallible, otherwise it couldn't prove anything. Plus, Granville's point about Idolatry is very good. You are equating the Bible to God.

Ive never heard someone say “prophylaxis” as much as Dan

So just because marriage is supposed to serve the purpose of helping to resist sexual temptation, it shouldn't serve any other, like being pleasurable?

Thank you for sharing this information with us 🙋🏻‍♂️

I think Paul also was speaking against sex being used for religious reasons (fertility rites) and in cases of power structures (pederasty). As I recall, the word 'fornication' refers to a 'fornix', a U shaped exterior wall on a building where prostitutes would wait out of the rain for their customers. It is where we get the word 'fornication', and is used in the original text 25 times as 'porneia', from where we get the word 'porn'. "In the original Greek version of the New Testament, the term porneia (πορνεία - "prostitution") is used 25 times (including variants such as the genitive πορνείας). Later in the fourth century Vulgate, 'porneia' was translated from the Greek into Latin as 'fornix', which basically is a brothel, so when Paul speaks of 'fornication', he's actually not talking about premarital sex between consenting adults (where money wasn't exchanged) but rather for 'commerical sex' that likely had some religious fertility meaning attached to it. Pardon my use of Wiki but it's a quick and convenient reference: "In Latin, the term fornix means arch or vault. In ancient Rome, prostitutes waited for their customers out of the rain under vaulted ceilings,[11] and fornix became a euphemism for brothels, and the Latin verb fornicare referred to a man visiting a brothel."

@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana

Жыл бұрын

Fornication is directly tied to a Hebrew word, so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, without radical history changes. And the Bible ✝ has no clear definition of it. Allowing yourself to be possessed by a demon 👻 works better than any of the usual definitions.

@palmermcmath5822

Жыл бұрын

I don't think porneia/fornix translated as a brothel is relevant here, nor do I see how Paul is talking about being against sexual fertility rituals. Paul is pretty explicit when he's talking about sexuality, there's malakos and arsenokoites 1 Cor 6 and Rom 1, he talks about divorce in 1 Cor 7, and about sexuality as a thorn by satan in 2 Cor 12. He does use "porneia" many times: 1 Thes 4, Gal 5, and various times in 1 & 2 Cor, but he uses it as a "cover-all term for any kind of sexual desire or behavior of which he disapproved," to quote Dale Martin citing Wheeler-Reed et al. 2018.

@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana

Жыл бұрын

@@palmermcmath5822 All of the times you mentioned make sense for embracing demonic 👻 possession instead.

@scambammer6102

9 ай бұрын

first-century Jews got married shortly after puberty (girls around 13 or 14, guys a little bit older). Consequently, sex before marriage wasn’t a major issue. adultery was tho'

@Mossadciasleperagent

5 ай бұрын

the original word for fornication in the Septuagint(Greek translation of Old Testament) was used to refer to anything that violated gods laws in the Torah.

Dan, I'm wondering what the correct interpretation of the word/concept of "adultery" is in the New Testament? Christ is quoted as condemning adultery in Matthew 5, 15, 19 and Mark 7 (among others, I'm sure). As I understand this video, you are stating that abstinence before marriage is not founded in scripture. If that is the case, what is the interpretation of what Christ taught?

@boboak9168

Жыл бұрын

Adultery specifically involves sex between a married person and another person they are not married to. Sex before marriage is not adultery.

@Ken_Scaletta

Жыл бұрын

"Adultery" in the Hebrew Bible only refers to sleeping with another man's wife. The idea of abstinence before marriage is absent from the Bible. Men are permitted to have sex with slaves, sex workers and other wives any time they want. Sexual immorality - for men - only means sleeping with someone else's wife or bethrothed or daughter. It was a property crime. The idea of male fidelity in marriage does not come from the Bible but from Roman law, sepcifically from the reforms of Augustus. Augustus made it illegal for men to have sex with anyone but their wives, Rome also mandated monogamy which the Bible never does,

@Ken_Scaletta

Жыл бұрын

@@boboak9168 In the Hebrew Bible, the word for "adultery" only means sleeping with another man's wife. If a man is married, he is still allowed to sleep with other women, he just can't sleep with women who are married to other men. He can have multiple wives or salves. Prostitution is also never prohibited unless it is cultic.

@TheRegimentalscot

Жыл бұрын

Sex before marriage is called "Fornication"...

@scambammer6102

9 ай бұрын

@@Ken_Scaletta "The idea of abstinence before marriage is absent from the Bible" except for Paul, which is most of the NT.

Me thinks Paul protests a wee bit too much. Ya know what I mean? What's the name ? Timmy !

@benjamintrevino325

2 ай бұрын

Yup. And the fact that they know as many as half of his epistles weren't even written by him and they keep them in the Bible reeks of an agenda.

The lesser considered of Saul's attitudes is the taking of Abigail against her will.

What is your evidence that Paul taught that sex must be passionless?

@fluffysheap

Жыл бұрын

There's none

@maxghost1766

Жыл бұрын

Because Paul says a married couple having sex is still a lustful urge, and Satan can tempt you if you do it too much.

@maxghost1766

Жыл бұрын

@@fluffysheap 1 Corinthians 7:5

@maxghost1766

Жыл бұрын

1 Corinthians 7:9

@bman5257

Жыл бұрын

@@maxghost1766 Neither of the verses you cited are evidence of Paul believing sex must be passionless. Paul was a celibate priest who saw celibacy as objectively better than matrimony but that it depended on a person’s vocation. “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.” 1 Corinthians 7:7 In 1 Corinthians 7:5 Paul says that the spouses have a duty to be sexually available to each other but that they might agree on periods of temporary abstinence. These abstinences should be temporary because if permanent or indefinite they could allow the demonic to entice them through all sorts of sexual immorality. At the end of 1 Cor 6 Paul has just been criticizing the Church in Corinth for engaging in fornication. (Remember that the chapter divisions are not original). None of this means there must not be passion jn sex or that it is some necessary evil.

Doctor McClellan stay dishin' that stirring cogency and thoughtful dissemination. If truly a theist, then he is one whom gives me hope, an exceedingly rare concomitance for me, personally. Love you, Dan.

@AlexLifeson1985

Жыл бұрын

He is a thiest?

@kvjackal7980

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexLifeson1985 That's what I've been told. 🤷 Though he doesn't like to talk about it (which I can hardly blame him for). I know, right, it seems odd given how bright he is. But whatever, Western Christians desperately need a good role model, so...

@Fotomadsen

2 ай бұрын

​​@@kvjackal7980How bright he is isn't as relevant as what he doesn't believe as an effect of him having the knowledge he has. My personal experience is that scepticism doesn't gel with belief in the supernatural

Brutal…

Thank you again Dan!

Lol what? I'd say making claims about being celibate would have a huge impact on what you think is important in life (even more questions arise when looking at Paul's letter to Philemon begging to get his slave boy back). Just because many Christians choose to ignore those beliefs now doesn't mean those theological ideas Paul espoused weren't greatly influenced by celibacy. Sex is constantly demonized in the New Testament, and some of those ideas stemming from celibacy have wrecked havoc on the mental health of millions today.

Who created sexuality? Satan? Some minion of darkness? Who gave us the capacity for passion? Was Paul that dim? Or has Paul been misunderstood? Well, silly me, but I've gotten it into my foolish head that God created sexual joy. He could have made us like salmon struggling up a river so we could fertilize indifferent eggs. But God didn't. He gave us delight. Then again, maybe I'm an idiot.

@lysanamcmillan7972

2 ай бұрын

Paul was that dim.

He said what he thought in there. He said that is not an order from God. Its a way to help u

Image of God - Male & Female

Everything you said about celibacy is still the Catholic and Orthodox position. This argument that Paul’s sexual ethic is irrelevant only works against Protestants who are against celibacy.

@francescocarlini7613

Жыл бұрын

Protestants RIGHTLY reject celibacy, you guys are just medieval scum from the Dark Ages.

@palmermcmath5822

Жыл бұрын

Jesus & Paul argued against divorce, but many christians now allow divorce sometimes and this includes some catholics and orthodox too. Not all, but some; and this is well known information found in the "Christian views on divorce" wiki page. You could argue rightly that celibacy was venerated by Jesus and early Christians, and that divorce was only allowed so as to conform with modern secular law. But some catholics and orthodox would disagree, so there's no one "Catholic and Orthodox position." You hadn't mentioned the other part of Dan's argument, besides celibacy there's Paul's anti-homosexuality passages such as the monologue in Romans 1. These opinions are obviously bigoted and should be rejected as moral guidance today...even if they were Paul's actual opinions, which they probably were. Dan's arguing this from a moral standpoint, that we shouldn't use the bible as a bludgeon, he's not simply arguing this because he's a protestant "who is against celibacy."

@bman5257

Жыл бұрын

@@palmermcmath5822 Catholics do not permit divorce.

@ekrentzwee

Жыл бұрын

Those churches do not recommend abstinence within marriage for every Christian who is able to.

@thebyzantinescotist7081

Жыл бұрын

@@palmermcmath5822 Catholics do not allow divorce under any circumstances. So again, it doesn’t apply. I don’t want to get into whether or not Paul is correct here. But I think Dan isn’t taking into account the fact that over 50% of the worlds Christians are Catholics who do not allow divorce and support celibacy as the ideal. He has a very American centric view of Christianity. But if you go to Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, or Europe, most Christians there are Catholic.

Dan getting all theological on us! Love it!

@J_a_s_o_n

Жыл бұрын

You love your SIN like Dan. You lustful heathens. REPENT AND SEEK CHRIST JESUS FOR THE SALVATION OF YOUR SOULS

Paul was a venom junkie

Zero disagreement from me. But I do wonder . . . for a lot of the more conservative Christian sects this kind of language is tantamount to heresy. I hope Dan's religious leaders will permit this kind of independent thought.

Oh that Paul. He's just a problematic kinda guy. Thanks for the video nicely done.

@FernandoCarreno-wg8cp

Ай бұрын

Paul is silly

Your final thought gives me hope. That tide is coming in when we stop using a dusty old book to bludgeon our fellow universe travelers.

@theburninator3202

Жыл бұрын

I don't think Dan says it's the book's fault. The more I watch of him and pay attention to the responses, he focuses more on dogmatic interpretation of "the book" which he feels is not based in an actual understanding of the context and correct interpretation of the words written.

@RobinPillage.

Жыл бұрын

Indeed, I may not live to see it (well, I most certainly won't, to be frank), but yes, it's just a matter of time.

@scambammer6102

9 ай бұрын

@@theburninator3202 his problem with Paul's views on sex isn't based on "dogmatic interpretation" its based on the actual words of the text.

@Cesaryeyo

Ай бұрын

​@@scambammer6102 as the great philosopher Wiggum said: The Bible says a lot of things Yes, the text is homophobic, the plain text is. The plain text in the bible is also pro slavery. So the blame is not on the text, the blame is on the people who, while deciding how to interpret the text, decided that the slavery parts don't actually allow slavery but the homophobic parts do actually condemn homosexuality, that is 100% dogmatic interpretation

@scambammer6102

Ай бұрын

@@Cesaryeyo I put the blame on the text. It is not dogmatic interpretation to say that the text means what it says. As for modern interpretations, I don’t care if they are dogmatic. I care if they are accurate or immoral.

If Pauls writings are only relevant for his own time and culture, and not God's word (for now also): on what Biblical basis can Christians know that salvation is still for the Gentiles? Seems like sawing off the branch you're sitting on. Protestants, who are Sola Scriptura, could surely not ever agree with this. Cannot understand where you are coming from Dan... Are you claiming to speak for Christians in general? Or for some other group? Or is your own opinion/ethic/ special revelation? (I guess my main question is on what superior authority can we do what you are suggesting, and disregard Paul?)

@matthewnitz8367

9 ай бұрын

Saying you can't "know" salvation for the Gentiles unless you assume every part of Paul's writings apply to everyone for all time is not actually an argument against what Dan is saying. Dan is pointing out that Paul's sexual ethics are not well thought out, cause clear harm to many people, contradict other parts of the Bible, and in general are pretty clearly a product of the time and culture he is in. Saying "but if that's true then we won't be as certain that we can go to heaven" doesn't make those points any less true. Especially because the exact same method you are using to reject Dan's argument is still available if you accept it. You believe by faith that Dan is wrong and all of Paul's writings must be inspired and correct. You can just as easily believe by faith that God loves you, has saved you, and wants you to act with humility about your moral judgements on others based on holy texts, realizing you are not God and could be wrong. Especially if your ethical beliefs are causing evident harm to others. Exact same certainty you are saved by faith, no believing by faith that you know what is best for others regardless of their testimony about their experiences and how they have been harmed required.

@alechenson6577

8 ай бұрын

@@matthewnitz8367 You're correct. If I were an outsider looking in, I would agree completely. There is no difference from accepting Paul's inspiration by faith, than accepting Dan's argument for his interpretation of this text "by faith" alone. So why not go with Dan's? And of course it wasn't really an argument to not agree with Dan, but it was more of an observation that seemed like a new take. Why believe in old stories, rather than new ones? Why believe in the divine inspiration of scripture, and not the divine inspiration of Dan, or Joseph Smith for example? Are they not logically equivalent? Yes logically, but no circumstantially. In a court case, you believe a witness that you deem to be reliable. That witness will make statements, and those might be true or false, logic alone cannot tell you what happened. So you build a case on witnesses, and the reliability of their testimony. Failing testimony, you might be tempted to reason the existence of something ontologically. So an a priori argument that the thing argued for is necessary. So I think that its much easier to make an ontological argument for a supreme/perfect being, than arguing that way for something random. I think the authority of scripture is clear in my mind, as it led me personally to encounter God. This phone-number, the name and person of Jesus, (pardon the analogy) connected me to a living person on the other end, who I have since had relationship with. I isn't just a "logos" text, but its a "rhema" living testimony, it speaks to me: live. I need to believe in one thing, that is that this testimony (Scripture) is Gods testimony. To agree with Dan, I would need to believe in many things all at once, which is a lot harder.

@kevinwells9751

8 ай бұрын

​@@alechenson6577He doesn't claim to speak for Christianity, he claims to provide information on what the schools consensus is on things. This video doesn't make any claims about whether or not the Bible is inspired, it only explains what Paul's ethics were and points out that no modern people actually agree with him in practice. Make of that what you will, but Dan is correct that Christians pick and choose the things they like from the Bible

@alechenson6577

8 ай бұрын

​@@kevinwells9751 Yes, I agree. However, there seems to be implications being made, that need clarity. Christians, to be consistent, need regard "Paul's" sexual ethic as God's. (Inspired Word) They would also need to take "God's" sexual ethic from all of scripture, rather than Paul in isolation. To the Christian, the modern peoples' opinion is somewhat irrelevant. Is Dan speaking to Christians, for Christians, both, or neither? Agreeing assumptions is the first step to making effective argument progress.

Is that the Christian concensus

I wonder if Paul was an aromatic asexual? 🤔

@danielclingen34

Жыл бұрын

I’ve wondered that too. He must have been 😄

@weirdlanguageguy

Жыл бұрын

It would be interesting to learn what he smelled like for sure

@jenniferhunter4074

Жыл бұрын

even if he were, it's interesting that the church maintained those "suggestions". It reminds me of the Proud Boys and their "no fapping" rule. Control of sex and food is one that I think is pretty universal in control systems. These are both primal drives and if you can compel people to give up their right to their sexuality or their desire for specific foods, you've started the process of controlling them as individuals. It's a psychological technique to target the "sunk cost" illogic of the human brain. The individual has already sacrificed so they feel compelled to continue participating because they already gave up so much. It's like those coin machines at the casinos. Some people can't bear to stop because they already put in 10 dollars worth of quarters and they need to get a win.

@palmermcmath5822

Жыл бұрын

It's impossible to know the details, but Paul along with Jesus and other early Christians were ascetics. They wanted to act be holy all the time, and this meant detaching from the material world and sexuality. Since so many people thought that repressing one's sexuality was the path toward enlightenment/salvation it's impossible to know *why* they believed this. Was it because it was expected and they attempted this out of devotion, or if they were asexual and their ideology cohered with their preferences? Regardless, in the specific case of Paul he probably did have sexual desire as he talks about it in 2 Cor 12 as a "thorn in his side" by satan which he's tried to pray away multiple times. When he's talking about divorce in 1 Cor 7 he says it's best if you don't get married, but if you're just too sexually charged then get married, and if you and your wife are praying be sure to have sex every once in a while so you aren't tempted by satan. So he's trying to live up to the goal - to be a sexless perfect holy detached faithful slave to the true Kyrios - but at the same time is forced to recognize that people (maybe like him) have this impossible-to-contain urge. And so if you can't be chaste, at least keep sex between you and your christian spouse...but try to be chaste first. I'd also argue that Paul was an eccentric ideologue and probably would be considered insane if he were living today. He publicly chastized Peter saying he's a hypocrite and doesn't understand Jesus, instead only Paul *really* understands Jesus and this is thru his revelations (visions), Peter actually met him! What kind of person would be that bombastic and self-assured? Someone who's radically out of touch with reality. Paul also had a traveling preacher companion Barnabas but there was drama and they split up, so personally I think Paul didn't have a wife because he wanted to be an ascetic but also was probably an extremely volatile person to be around and that also would've dissuaded potential partners.

@ritawing1064

Жыл бұрын

In those pre-deodorant days, I should think everyone was aromatic!

Dan, what’s the difference between an OT prophet, a modern prophet, and you?

1 Cor. 7:5 Paul says, "Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self control." When you have sex passionately you're "out of self control". From Paul's above teaching and Romans 7, and this fact evolved the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin which is transmitted through sex to the next generation whenever there is concupiscence (an accompanying sexual desire).

1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. I'm having trouble determining how you justify that Paul’s sexual ethic was that married people shouldn't find pleasure in sex and that it should be as infrequent as possible. It seems this is reading assumptions into the text that aren't there. Just because some people have disregarded Paul’s sexual ethic and traded it for a cultural one doesn't mean those who still hold to it do so based on building control structures that benefit their social or political preferences. I think common sense can recognize the obvious: 1. Sexual exploits outside a marriage relationship between a man and a woman are physically and emotionally damaging. 2. Sex within a lifelong monogamous relationship with the pursuit of Christ at the center honors God’s original creative intent and creates safety within a marriage. 3. Sexual pleasure is only carnal when pursued outside God’s original design. There is no condemnation of sexual desire in the Bible if it is practiced within the safety of God-given borders. 4. Paul is simply repeating the sexual ethic of Jesus (Matthew 19:5-6).

Succinct and true.

This makes me curious about what the function of the Bible is, if everyone is going to just pick and choose what they want to hold onto and what they don’t want to hold onto that truth. And I asked this question I’m seeing less and less value in the Bible as a whole because it is, and has been only used to define certain social constructs . Thank you for considering entertaining this questions. It is really legitimate that I’m asking.

While I believe premarital sex should not be seen as "evil," it can certainly complicate lives and come with detrimental natural consequences that might be avoided. Why make life more difficult for yourself or others? Still, abstinence is also challenging, and I do not condemn the young person who gives in to their natural urges, but I remind them of possible emotional and physical challenges as a result. "Adultery" comes with far more natural consequences and challenges, some of which are virtually guaranteed to make life more difficult for the stakeholders and individuals involved. If you're unmarried, make yourself very aware of the many possible consequences of sexual activity before you decide to engage. If you've chosen to marry, make yourself aware of the additional consequences of "breaking your vows." Choose your actions accordingly and carefully.

@alexbreiding

Жыл бұрын

Besides an STI, what are the natural, negative consequences of consensual premarital sex? Clearly there is much to gain from premarital sex such as intimacy, love, and developing a better sense of what you want out of sex (discernment through practice).

@marcusreading3783

Жыл бұрын

Basically ever complication that comes from any kind of sex can be easily avoided through correct use of contraceptives.

@MarcillaSmith

Жыл бұрын

@@alexbreiding Not to answer for the OP, but if I may speak from my own consideration of this question, I see it that we are left with two possibilities: 1) that the (marital) embrace precedes the marriage (Rite of Matrimony), or 2) that the rite precedes the embrace. My experience is that when the embrace precedes, I have been apt to overly commit myself too soon to people with whom I might otherwise have realized I was never meant to be. The alternative, then, is to reserve the commitment of marriage until one has found someone with whom one is willing to enter a commitment _even if it turns out that the intimate life is unfulfilling_ since it is unknown. Then, any enjoyment of the embrace is a "cherry on top" (if you will excuse the pun) which binds the commitment of the marriage, rather than a reminder of what was once more exciting (for having been "forbidden"), and is now more mundane, and therefore less satisfying.

@galeforcewindy

Жыл бұрын

​@@MarcillaSmith I don't find the marital embrace less fulfilling, even tho previous partners may have had "more exciting" techniques/what-have-you. I freaking TAILORED those wild oats, y'all, and still find my (comparatively) tame marital intimacy quite fulfilling. Throwing oneself too hard into a relationship before the other has shown equal interest is a problem to be had for the abstinent of and the participant in marital embraces. It's an exercise in loving yourself adequately (how Christ loves, for the Christians) & setting and keeping boundaries.

@MarcillaSmith

Жыл бұрын

@@galeforcewindy By the same token, we would probably also agree that people can make poor relationship choices whether sober or drunk. My point is that whether we are talking about drinking or the marital embrace, we're talking about flooding the brain with potent chemicals, and I think it's entirely reasonable that people would consider the extent to which this rush of chemicals affects sound decision-making, and what choices they wish to make, accordingly. On the personal level, I certainly would not wish you (or anyone else) less fulfillment in any aspect of their marital life (my reason for even commenting), and I wish you much continued success in your marriage.

🤘

So some of what Paul said was instructions from God, or holy revelation was just his opinion. Sounds like you can't believe anything he said. Got it.

@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana

Жыл бұрын

Why believe anything he says, at all? 😕

@evenstoats2639

Жыл бұрын

Exactly what I said. The only way Christians can believe is by cherry picking. If they followed everything in it they would be immoral monsters, or poor beggars.

@rileyschroeder8560

Жыл бұрын

None of it was instructions from God. If it makes you feel better, god is just a human made idea so Paul isn't special in not representing god

@Uryvichk

Жыл бұрын

@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Well you know, he totally heard from Jesus. I mean, not that any of Jesus's friends or followers knew about this while (and if) Jesus was alive or anything, of course. Jesus came to him in a vision. But just him, not anybody else. And people wonder why Christians are susceptible to grifters and false prophets. Half the New Testament was written by one... or by other grifters and false prophets pretending to be him.

if some is not relevant, none of it is

I am not so optimistic. Christofascism looks to be way too powerful a force and they will bring us all to Gilead, or put us in camps as they try. And Paul is one of their baes.

To give this question a *fair* answer, Id rather see direct quotes from Paul within its context... Alot of things you claim about Paul here is just a wild take to my ears, at this point. The relevant question to ask is not: Is Pauls views on sexuallity is relevant today?* but Is it consistant with the word of Jesus and the scriptures as a hole. *I also want to share a causion directly from 2 Timothy 4:3 : "_For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3_"

Excellent presentation. A healthy portion of biblical wisdom is, in fact, no longer relevant. Anecdotally, after several failed attempts in the past, when wisdom is needed in order to pass down to my children, the Bible is no longer one of the books on the roster to pick up.

How is preaching against premarital sex useful in structuring power? So, as a member of the LDS faith, do you not consider that to be a commandment of God because the Paul’s sexual rhetoric should be rightly dismissed?

@shootergavin3541

Жыл бұрын

Being LDS myself, I don't see Paul views regarding sex as being the foundational template for which we decide things. Some things he may be right, and others not so much. Plus in the spirit of the mouth of two or three witnesses, if Paul's ethic is unique to just Paul, he is the only witness. So the views are more of his personal opinion that one can follow or not.

this take missed the mark. foucault's take on paul

isn't the whole bible irrelevant today

@manbearpig3507

Жыл бұрын

@JESUS is our Savior lmfao not worth my time more Christian bullshit

@Wiggimus

Жыл бұрын

@JESUS is our Savior Except for the fact that Christianity is fictitious, as is the story of Jesus. Now, I'm not saying that I know for sure what you experienced, but I am assuming that you're right in having had said experience. With that, how would you go about proving that to yourself? What if you're completely wrong about what you experienced? Could you put your claim to the test? Also, the story of Jesus is one of extreme violence and shows exactly how depraved Christianity is at its core. I mean, just look at the symbol of Christianity: it's a torture device.

@Uryvichk

Жыл бұрын

Was it ever relevant?

@kevinwells9751

8 ай бұрын

Yes

So, what other parts of the Bible will become irrelevant to us when we "have enough time" to think about it? could not imagine a more heretical view of the Scripture.

@kevinwells9751

8 ай бұрын

So you allow women to speak in church? Do you allow them to teach men? If so then you have already decided that part of the Bible is no longer a relevant rule for you. Do you believe that people should have kids? So you think marriage is a positive thing rather than something to be done only if necessary to prevent sexual immorality? If so then you already disagree with Paul Do you follow the laws of Leviticus? If not then you've already decided that that part of the Bible is no longer relevant

A small reminder that neither you nor Paul actually are the arbiter of Christianity, actually it’s our conscience as made known to us by the Spirit interacting through the Word. Yeah look bud I’m not really a practicing Christian but we should refrain from trying to frame each others’ moral convictions. If you feel something is wrong and yet you do it then it is a sin to you, and yes the logical conclusion is valid, you have no right to judge others. I can hold the thought that what you’re doing is wrong and still like you because I guarantee I’m fkn up in my life as well. Keep it human folks. We are all trying to do better and failing, hence Grace.

@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana

Жыл бұрын

That would be nice if it was true, but Christian ✝ beliefs are so tied to Paul, they are *incompatible* with the Bible ✝ without him.

2nd Peter Chapter 3 be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us,fn the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, JUST Because MOST CHRISTIANS you know have turned against God's word does not mean God will change to adapt to you. Dan claims to know more than Apostle Paul. The road to heaven is not narrow for nothing.

Deceiver. Massive deceiver.

@kevinwells9751

8 ай бұрын

How so? Which part of what he said is wrong?

@christsdisciple3105

8 ай бұрын

@@kevinwells9751 Starting with Paul's view not being relevant and Christians rejecting most of it. It continues on with just about everything else he says. Paul did not say we should all be celibate, but rather he preferred if everyone was(and, if I'm not mistaken, he even says that it is his opinion, not ordained by God). And sex should not be passionate, that it is just to take the edge off of need for sex. In fact, he says you should only separate by mutual agreement. If it wasn't meant to be passionate, but just to take away the need, why would he have to say anything about separating? Also, Paul was not as influenced by Greek philosophy as is implied(which is closer to gnostic thinking, which Paul opposed).

Why discuss something " irrevelant " To use your words in another podcast discuss what is " inherent" in relegion, .

Come on man you have to do better than that. You just made an entire video on your opinion with speculation and stated it as fact. 😂

@kevinwells9751

8 ай бұрын

Which part is not based on fact?

Paul did not think everyone should remain celibate, and to say he did is a lie. There are several passages in NT about sexual purity. It is the utmost heresy and simple arrogance to suggest inerrancy of the Bible. #danmclellanisaheretic

Dan you are LOST

@demetriusbooker5760

Жыл бұрын

Tertullian “[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).

@Uryvichk

Жыл бұрын

@@demetriusbooker5760 And did Tertullian have a single fact to prove any of that? I don't care about some 3rd century guy's opinions on matters he knew nothing about.

@lea-kaerobertson3144

Жыл бұрын

@Demetrius Booker exactly! I just pray that he comes to know God truly

@kevinwells9751

8 ай бұрын

Lost how? He's simply presenting the facts of what Paul believed and pointing out that modern Christians already don't follow much of what he said. Where is the lie in this video?

@demetriusbooker5760

8 ай бұрын

@@kevinwells9751 sad you can't see through Dan madness Like how he claimed they believed The Most High had a wife before Josiah and other things

What about Jesus’s bi pedo sexuality? Mark 14:51-52 51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. Insert cope, cognitive dissonance, word salad, and fallacies arguments below 👇

@kevinwells9751

8 ай бұрын

How the fuck does that passage imply that Jesus was bi or a pedo?

Paul's teaching on sexual self-restraint is more relevant than ever given the wages of the sexual revolution, inflicted on the West by equally prideful modernists. Seriously, people whose ideology only emerged in the last few decades and only in the most materially comfortable and prosperous parts of the modern West think they've stumbled upon the be all and end all of human ethics and conduct. Imagine the sheer absence of insight of these people.

You are false teacher may Christ forgive you

You are very wrong, very much in error. The points you articulated here about Apostle Paul's position on sex, marriage, celibacy; are all wrong. I think you should get back to Apostle Paul's letters and re-study them all again and you would discover your claims about Apostle Paul are in error...

…..Paul was a Debbie Downer 🤣