home

Sociology Advocacy presentation

Use browser back button to exit out of image views. This is a static site with no cookies, etc.

No, I don’t identify as being this dude (or whatever); there’s a different point for this. I’m irritated because of a video he released awhile back in which he was explaining that there was no place in the Bible where it explicitly forbade slavery. I attempted to contact him a number of different ways to point out that there is an allegorical instruction in the form of the Book of Job since he had servents who were killed. He made no point to avenge their deaths, but the narrative has it that the people were among the possessions that he had lost. It’s a read between the lines kind of thing and that was what I was told be my paternal grandmother. She had no scholarly degree like Daniel McClellan has, true, but she was from an Irish Catholic family and we are also descendants of (and inter-mixed with) Society of Friends (Quakers) who were notably abolitionists.

The main thing that always seems to confuse everyone is that the idea that people (white people, in this instance) would unite over a common cause that isn’t about oppressing or exploiting another group of people. People always suspect the worst, and also (of course) is the jealousy of people who defend the disadvantaged.

That issue in itself isn’t the sole reason I took issue with Dan McClellan. To do so would be "against my religion", so to speak, but actually in reality since Society of Friends tenets wouldn’t align with my taking the issue so personal. My supporting evidence to warrant the criticism of him is when he explained that Joseph and Mary wouldn’t have been offered "accommodations" in a manger since that sort of thing just wouldn’t have happened to an average working class family. He missed the point, in other words, since society and human beings haven’t really changed, people can be treated in a degrading fashion when it would be assumed that they wouldn’t be.

The following is plain text of the comments of the Meta post of Dan’s which I decided to be the topic or impetus for this website although in truth I see an ulterior motive to his missionary work, as it were, because it serves as distraction, or misdirection — something controversial, risque enough to warrant attention. Still in the interim is the point about King Jobab being a servant owner (the Russians called them "serfs" incidently), and ended up completely destitute and diseased for no apparent (enough) reason. As a Biblical scholar the idea that the story couldn’t serve any further purpose other than the literal rendition, fantastical folklore, is dogmatic and myopic. The historical fallacy (as I’ll leave it as here) is that people back in the day weren’t intelligent enough to purposely proliferate a tale with a underlying moral or caveat. Again, I did not come up with this argument on my own. There may be other sources to collaberate this reasoning.

The screencaptures are more intended here to establish the accuracy of the comments and replies. I think I copied all of them that I could. With this I’d like to also point out that I’ve been assualted my other men in this way, and twice the person was working or "in position of trust" and on both those occassions the action was intended to degrade (emasculate) me. Two other times there were men out in society who attacked and assaulted me so I have my prior relatable trauma. I think about every aspect of the subject has been covered here, or enough to get everyone by for awhile. The word "slavery" was brought up too (as meant to challenge credibility of Christians) and again, the point I was attempting to make to Daniel McClellan was that it was explained to me by my paternal grandmother that the Book of Job is the resource given to help people understand that humans shouldn’t be considered as possessions.

Daniel O. McClellan

#maklelan3364 Is it ok to be gay & Christian? (Of course it is) Bryce Crawford (Do not harass or report this creator or comment on their appearance or speech)

Jonathan B—
Pro-tip, folks: "My religion compels me to make life more difficult for a minority that has historically suffered some of the most horrific persecution" may not actually be the best hill on which to die.

David C—
Jonathan B— they’ll go to any lengths to make people think that christians have been persecuted. The single most coddled to group of assholes and they have the unmitigated gall to think they are better than everyone else in the planet.

Melissa A H—
David C— - Generally, you’re mostly correct about a great many Christians and Christian churches. BUT although I’m not a believer, I was raised in the United Methodist Church so I have a good amount of knowledge about that entity. I was never taught any lessons that included hatred of others for any reason and that certainly wasn’t the message I got about who Jesus was. There were things over which there were disagreements, but that’s it. My mother has remained an active member of that church and that is how she and her fellow church members go about their lives. Sometimes they have different opinions on things and they talk it out and go about their lives. No whining and complaining. No hating other people for reason other than that they’re different and exist. Notably, there was recently a big split of that church because there was a very vocal group of right wingers who couldn’t get over the fact that at the national level, the Church welcomed gay people and had female ministers and numerous other things that were entirely consistent with the contents of the Bible and especially Jesus’ alleged positions on things without picking and choosing what they wanted. Those jerks paired up with a bunch of converts in African countries who clung to their beliefs and customs from centuries ago and refused to move into the 21st century, which included anti-LGBTQ beliefs and misogyny. So, while there was lot of sadness about the church being broken apart, most who remained with the main body of it were glad to do so because it was the kind of church that they wanted to be a part of and which they believed was consistent with Jesus’ teachings. And similar things are true in most of the mainline Protestant churches in the West. Does it mean that there isn’t anyone in those congregations that has some awful beliefs? Absolutely not! But it does mean that overall it’s a group who welcomes diversity in all forms, including diversity in opinions so long as they’re communicated respectfully and aren’t hateful. To be specific, it is almost exclusively the purported evangelicals and mega church idiots who are currently causing all of the problems, except that the Baptist Church recently decided to change their position on women being pastors right as they’re still trying to recover for their horrific child abuse sex scandal. Gosh I wonder why?!? Might it be that female pastors wouldn’t engage in covering up for sexual abusers?!?! Either way, you are correct that those people, who really aren’t even Christians, are the biggest perpetual victims EVER! They feed off of their purported victimhood and love to weaponize it! I hate them sooo much!

Jessym G—
Melissa A H— I skimmed but TLDR. You ramble, sister. Probably a decent lady though

Jakob E. A—
Jonathan B— I’m not sure we would say that gay have suffered the most horrific persecution, but that’s just me.

Jonathan B—
Jakob E. A— I’m not sure that anyone said that they did.

Jakob E. A—
Jonathan B— are you a goldfish?

Kent P—
As a follower of Jesus who happens to be gay, I cannot thank you enough for your faithful, fulsome and contextual analysis and explication of the Leviticus passages. Thank you, Daniel.

Kerry S D—
The compassion of the Christ...
The self righteous RULE enforcers...were the ones Jesus was always calling out.
Dan, thank you for being an ally....
You SAVE lives...

Klint W—
The overlap between “Bible says gays are bad” and “adultery is fine if my guy does it” is basically one big circle titled ‘I don’t read the Bible, I weaponize it.’

Nicholas C—
I’ve heard from male survivors of CSA how important it is to understand the “receptive” role is also implying a non-consensual role. If you were raised religious it can be healing to understand that scripture is siding with the survivor over the perpetrator of SA. It isn’t about a healthy intimate relationship in any shape or form.

Lance P—
I see evangelicals using Paul and the Old Testament to say same-sex sexual activity are an abomination, but I never hear them talking about divorce, when Jesus quite clearly equates divorce to adultery.

Jeremy W—
Lance P— So you think its fine if being gay is "a sin"? You’re fine with the LGBTQ having to accept subordinate status to be included?

Lance P—
Jeremy W— where in Paul Bunyan’s giant woodsy scrotum did you get the notion that I’d think that from???

Jeremy W—
Lance P— you are saying that both things are a sin but they only complain about one ... calling out general hypocrisy right?

Edited Lance P—
Jeremy W— I’m not saying either one is a sin. Why would they be? I’m not the type that would think what a bunch of ancient guys in the literate class wrote for other ancient guys in the literate class has any bearing on me, living thousands of years later in a world that no one in the literate class of the second century or earlier could have ever had any hope of comprehending, let alone consider such ancient literature as the ultimate moral authority.

Jeremy W—
Lance P— ... Dude, come on. You said:
“I see evangelicals using Paul and the Old Testament to say same-sex sexual activity is an abomination, but I never hear them talking about divorce, when Jesus quite clearly equates divorce to adultery.”
In context, you are clearly calling out hypocrisy: both are condemned (sins) by the texts evangelicals claim to follow, but they selectively focus on one and largely ignore the other.
You’re trying to change the discussion, but none of that nonsense you just wrote has anything to do with the point you originally made. Just acknowledge what you were talking about so we can have a reasonable discussion ... or ya know ... continue with the whole 0 integrity thing ... whichever.

Edited Lance P—
Jeremy W— Yes, I was calling out their hypocrisy and stupidity for judging people (outside of their religion) when they themselves are ignoring more significant passages in THEIR BOOK (not mine). You’re allowed to do that lol.

Jeremy W—
Lance P— ,
Good.
I know you’re allowed to do that. You asked me what I meant by my question (with disturbing imagery ), and I was trying to explain it to you. I asked you a simple question, and you took us down a completely unnecessary side path.
Thanks for coming clean.
Great. So then you’re fine admitting that, as far as the Bible, traditional Christianity, and the bulk of modern mainstream Christian tradition are concerned, about as good as it gets for LGBTQ acceptance is:
“Gay sex and some forms of gender nonconformity are sins—but hey, lots of stuff is sin!”
Is that accurate?

Edited Lance P—
Jeremy W— I think if someone is genuinely trying to love others as Jesus loves them, to treat the least as they would treat Jesus, forgive as they would be forgiven, and "be merciful, even as your father in heaven is merciful," they should be able to muster the motivation to be creative enough with their biblical interpretation to consider gays love for one another to be as sacred and meaningful as Jesus love for the church. I’ve visited some churches that do, so it’s possible. I don’t think "I’m Christian" is a valid excuse for homophobia, since there are plenty of Christian who are anti-homophobic.

Jeremy W—
Lance P— So back to dodging the question again? I didn’t ask whether Christians can creatively reinterpret their tradition to become LGBTQ-affirming. Obviously they can. I’m aware that affirming churches exist. I asked whether you agree that, as far as the Bible, traditional Christianity, and the bulk of modern mainstream Christian tradition are concerned, about as good as it gets for LGBTQ acceptance is: “Gay sex and some forms of gender nonconformity are sins—but hey, lots of stuff is sin!” Yes or no?

Edited Lance P—
Jeremy W— I’m not dodging the question at all. The "Bible" isn’t a single unified text. There are contradictions because not everyone who contributed to texts that were included in various biblical cannons believed the same thing. Text doesn’t have any inherent meaning. It’s given meaning by the reader. Christianity has never been a single unified movement either. It’s always been diverse and dynamic with people disagreeing on what Christianity is and is not. The Bible and Christianity are both post-textual notions that people didn’t agree on from the beginning. So to try to talk about "what the Bible says" doesn’t really make sense because it can’t say anything. People interpret the text to say what they want it to say. Same thing with talking about "traditional Christianity". There’s never been a traditional Christianity because there have always been multiple groups and voices disagreeing on what that word should mean. People have been using biblical texts to argue that God endorses their personal pet peeves for a long time, but that’s less about what "the Bible" says, and more about what their own personal feelings are, as folks have always been perfectly willing to ignore or reinterpret passages that are disadvantageous to them. Everyone who treats the Bible as authoritative has to cherry pick. This is all stuff Dan has talked about before. So, no, I’m not trying to dodge the question. The question doesn’t have a simple answer to it. I don’t really see the relevance to the question anyway. I think you might have misunderstood the position I was originally comming from. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Edited Jeremy W—
Lance P— Wow. I asked you a yes-or-no question, and you didn’t answer it. You are absolutely, 100% dodging the question. As someone who studies this, I could spend days picking apart almost everything you just wrote. It’s that bad. But you’ve proven, again, that you lack the basic integrity required for this conversation. You’re wasting my time. P.S. I wanted to remind you that your OC contains the sentence, “Jesus quite clearly equates divorce to adultery.”

Edited Lance P—
Jeremy W— Oakydokie. Welp, I’ve gotta go help Paul Bunion chase the squirrels out of his pubes, but good talk! .

Jeremy W—
Lance P— Huh, what? If only words had meaning ...

Jessym G—
Jeremy W— what?

Jeremy W—
Jessym G— genuine question or just joining in with the fun of language lacking meaning?

Edited Gina M—
And they always point to Romans and Corinthians as well, not realizing that those are Paul and not Jesus.

Tori S—
Gina M— apologetics will say that it doesn’t matter if it is “from” Paul, Paul is writing from his encounter with the resurrected Jesus and that is just as good.

Jeremy W—
Tori S— Paul’s writing are our earliest in the NT. Earlier than the Gospels. Almost half the NT is traditionally attributed to him and most of the other half is considered influenced by him.
It’s Paul that takes Jesus from Jewish Messiah to universally available savior.
His work has been part of the canon for ~2k years.
Christianity is Pauline. There is no need for apologetics to justify his works.
Removing Paul would make Christianity worse ... not better.
I’m LGBTQ and atheist.

Edited David C—
Jeremy W— I doubt christians could possibly be worse.

Jeremy W—
David C—
Spit Laughing GIF by Goose, GIF may contain funny, laughing, haha, goose, spit, skool, goosify, goose dunlavey, skool haha, skool funny, sarah hankins and skool sarah hankins

Melissa A H—
Jeremy W— - Half of the NT is NOT written by Paul nor is it considered influenced by him. If you don’t understand that, then you really need to listen to a lot more of Dan’s videos. I will add that I’ve always considered Paul to be a grifter who decided to make assertions about his alleged conversation with Jesus in order to get people to follow him and listen to him and support him and give him power. And that isn’t a complete outlier position.

Edited Jeremy W—
Melissa A H—
--edit: maybe quit with the needless laugh reacts and read what people actually wrote huh? (I didn’t say he "wrote" it, I chose my words on purpose) LOL. Um, sorry, but you are wrong. And Dan would agree, because Dan doesn’t hide behind emotional manipulation and fandom gatekeeping instead of making an actual argument (unlike you).
Paul is traditionally attributed with 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament—almost half. Of those, 7 are generally accepted by critical scholars as authentically Pauline, while the remaining 6 are disputed or pseudonymous: 3 commonly classified as Deutero-Pauline and 3 as the Pastoral Epistles. And Paul’s influence extends well beyond the letters attributed to him. His influence is strongly felt in Luke–Acts, Hebrews, and 1 Peter, while scholars continue to debate Pauline influence, engagement, and reaction in texts including Mark, Matthew, John, James, and 2 Peter, among other early Christian literature. So yes: almost half the New Testament is traditionally attributed (which is what I said) to Paul, and Pauline influence extends into a substantial portion of the remainder. If you think that’s wrong, then make an argument. Name the books you object to and explain why. But “if you were a real fan of Dan’s, you’d know better” isn’t scholarship. It’s fandom gatekeeping dressed up as an argument.
--edit: Oh, I just noticed your edit. Actually, that is a pretty fringe position regarding Paul—and it’s irrelevant to my point. Your fringe view of Paul doesn’t change anything I said. He remains the primary authorial and theological influence on the New Testament. Since you’ve invoked Dan as the authority on what I supposedly don’t understand, I’d like you to present something from Dan that supports your view that Paul fabricated his encounter with Jesus in order to gain followers, money, and power.

Edited Tori S—
Jeremy W— he has spoken in several videos about the author(s) who purport to be Paul.

Jeremy W—
Tori S—
Yes, I know and thats true.
That’s why I used the phrase “traditionally attributed to Paul” and then explicitly discussed the Deutero-Pauline/pseudonymous texts. I already accounted for that distinction in my comments. It doesn’t change anything I said. Though i’m happy to clarify.
--edit: That said, I appreciate you actually engaging with what I said rather than just laugh-reacting and getting combative about it.
--edit 2: Actually, I think the "pseudo-Paul" books strengthen the argument for Paul’s authority. Happy to discuss why if you are actually interested.
May be an image of text that says ’Jeremy W— Tori Stahlmann Paul’s writing are our earliest in the NT Earlier than the Gospels. Almost half the NT is traditionally attributed to him and most of other half is considered influenced by him. the It’s Paul that takes Jesus from Jewish Messiah to to universally available savior.’

Edited Jeremy W—
Tori S— 2) Here’s another image for your ref:
Also, I thought of another way of putting it: I’m talking about attribution, not authorship. According to mainstream scholarship, none of the Gospels was actually written by the apostle whose name it bears—but those traditional attributions still matter historically because the texts were associated with those figures for a reason, and those attributions contributed to their reception and eventual inclusion in the canon.
The same distinction applies here. Saying that 13 New Testament books are traditionally attributed to Paul is not the same thing as saying Paul personally wrote all 13. May be an image of text that says ’Paul is traditionally attributed with 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament- talmost half. Of those, 7 are generally accepted by critical scholars as authentically Pauline, while the remaining 6 are disputed or pseudonymous: 3 commonly classified as Deutero-Pauline and 3 as the Pastoral Epistles.’

Edited Jeremy W—
Melissa A H— , Hello again. You didn’t get back to me, so I just wanted to take a moment to address this.
I never said Paul wrote half the New Testament. I just didn’t. Read what I wrote again. I’m talking about traditional attribution and influence.
You’ve learned a little bit of specialized knowledge—that scholars generally accept only seven of the thirteen traditionally attributed Pauline letters as authentic—but you’re drawing conclusions from that knowledge that simply don’t follow.
The fact that later Christians wrote in Paul’s name, invoked his authority, developed his ideas, and produced texts that were received and canonized as Pauline is evidence of Paul’s enormous influence, not an argument against it.
You tried to correct a mistake I didn’t make because you didn’t understand the distinction I was making—and you were too busy laugh-reacting to my comments to actually understand what they said.

Jeremy W—
Gina M— Im LGBTQ and atheist.
Jesus endorses mosaic law.
Christianity is Pauline.
Paul transforms Jesus from a Jewish messiah into a universally available savior.
The earliest books in the NT canon are Paul. 13/27 books in the NT are traditionally attributed to Paul and 8-12 of the remaining books are thought to show some form of Pauline influence.
And Romans and Corinthians are part of the canon. Have been for ~ 2k years
--edit: Without Paul, Christianity is worse, not better.
For instance, as half-assed and mealy-mouthed as he is about it, Paul is probably Christianity’s best claim to not being an openly pro-slavery religion.

Edited Cary B—
Gina M— there is also the argument that what Paul is talking about is exactly what Dan is talking about in Leviticus, specific acts that are done "to" another male (1st Corinthians Greek word ἀρσενοκοῖται) or actual cultic temple sex which is in Romans, because of Paul’s lack of understanding of the possibility that same-sex sexual behavior was natural, and he perceived it as Idolatry (Romans) or male-on-male abuse (1st Corinthians)

J Eric T—
Seems as good a place as any to ask... If we go with the understanding that Molech is not an actual idol or deity, and we note its appearance among sexual prohibitions with references to sacrificing children, is it possible such references refer to particular acts of self pleasure? Or would we just be jerking around with the text?

Peter O’B—
J Eric T— you are very wrong and I don’t know your logic. Molek was a very readpagan hideous Canaanite god .human body with a bulls head ..children were placed it the bronze idols hands. Bible is very clear.tge tribes apostates from YHWH and an altar was set up in the valley of hinom or Gehenna .later this valley was turned into Jerusalem’s rubbish dump .the imagery of maggots and continual fires was later used as imagery describing eternal punishment. And in prophecy it is used as the lake if fire.bscause the Hebrews worshipped molech and killed their children this place was seen as unclean ..so molech was a reality in ancient times .hope this helps you in your bible study....by. The way today hinom or Gehenna is a beautiful public park

Stephen N—
J Eric T— I see what you did there!

Anne S—
The real question is whether it is okay to root for an empire and be a Christian. Jesus is a lot more anti-empire than he is anti-gay.

Luke M—
But those two verses (and the other clobber verses) apparently outweigh the whole rest of the Bible

Kelcy W—
it seems like the most common modern parallel for what the verses are prohibiting is the dynamic of prison rape.

Doug P—
What does it even mean to "BE" Christian? Is there a genetic test for it?

Robin L D—
The more I read/study the Old Testament the more it just seems irrelevant in a post Jesus religion. He taught so much to change the root of culture/society POVs. And science has shown so SO much actual reality vs "ick" laws from thousands of years ago.

Christopher A—
Dan, doesn’t the new law covenant make all of the Old Testament laws moot anyway? If we’re still relying on Old Testament laws, are we not saying Jesus ransom sacrifice was insufficient?

Edited Chris B—
Depends, do you follow or believe Jesus who said multiple times that the law would not change until the world and heaven were destroyed… or do you follow Paul who said the rules are only for Jews and there is a new covenant for Christians? 3h

Richard C—
Dan is implying that only the man doing the anal penetrating is the sin and the man receiving the service isn’t. The passage is specific that both the pitcher and catcher are sinners.
The Bible may only be prohibiting the actual act of anal penetration but is silent of homosexuality. I don’t think homosexuality was a thing 2,500 years ago, and I believe anal sex was a common thing among men 2,500 years ago.
As far as I am concerned this law could have been added at a later period when something caused anal sex to be considered vile.

Author
Daniel O. McClellan
Richard Chung The second passage condemns the receptive partner also, but both partners are condemned across all the different sexual sins that are condemned, even though it is the active agent who is specifically addressed (even when the partner is an animal). It’s not quite so simple.

Kerry S D—
Richard C—
"Christians" who concern themselves about other’s sex lives are no different than Judas freaking out about Mary washing Jesus’s feet with perfume....Jesus told him to shut up and mind his own business.
Self-righteous a holes on their soapbox

Joe W—
Kerry S D— I call them Crotch Christians now, and encourage everyone to call them that and spread the term till it gains notoriety.

Timothy G—
Richard C— Anal sex is quite dirty and gross, and I don’t know why people just blithely accept it as part and parcel of "homosexuality"; for one, I suspect that the majority of people engaging in it today are men with woman, not men with men. In any case, while it is unquestionably a dirty act, it’s of course a distinct issue from whether society should therefore have a problem with same-sex relationships altogether, and certainly the Levitical punishment for what is essentially just rank uncleanness is not proportional.

Stephon W—
Richard C— you don’t think homosexuality was a thing 2500 years ago?
https://tenor.com/vjkDyOe0vBp.gif

Harry B—
Daniel … if I was to give a “ modern” visual to the “distinction “. In the movie Deliverance… they have a scene in the woods of a local raping one of the main actors. It’s used as a play on dominance .. demoralizing the men trying to find a way out.. in the margins on the screen play it was a vehicle to take away the tough guy image of the crew.. super hard to watch.. but it’s act was effective .. love your work thanks! Words matter inside space and time!

David C—
Jonathan B— they’ll go to any lengths to make people think that christians have been persecuted. The single most coddled to group of assholes and they have the unmitigated gall to think they are better than everyone else in the planet.

Phillip H—
What is “H” that the narrator is referring to?

Bruce C—
Phillip H— — I think it refers to the Holiness Code in Leviticus.

Tom H—
I’m gay, but even I can’t quite wrap my head around this explanation. Then again, I don’t have a problem with just saying, "the Bible is wrong about that" and attribute it to the reality of how it was pieced together, how complicated their moral paradigm was constructed with a mixture of things that are possibly unsanitary, to things that damage the male’s ego, or diminishes his macho role, as being incredibly important to their "god", over, say, women having sex with each other - "who cares, they need to stay busy." So likely this all came about, similar to the "don’t have sex with a menstruating woman" law, from the idea of "un clean"... which probably evolved as a religious dogma in many religions from the idea that anal sex can be quite unhygenic. Over thousands of years, they likely discovered that, even that it could result in possible illnesses, etc. Or things they had learned in general - like don’t eat, play with, or even touch fresh animal poop. The same is true for blood. It was sacred - the life flow of all animals. But it can also infect you with things. Don’t drink it. Let the animal bleed out before cooking it. .... All these sorts of "save the species" rules that developed on their own over thousands of years of survival of a pretty primitive and nasty species. In time, they become religious rules, even when the explanations are no longer even sensible. Therefore, we imagine the reason must be something hyper-spiritual that shakes the foundations of Truth itself. The truth is, men who have sex with men, probably because they aren’t attracted to women, worked out those issues long ago. No one is being belittled, because no one is being forced. To be fair, I don’t agree that the text in Leviticus is about suggesting a situation of a man forcing himself on a weaker male and wouldn

Chele M—
I agree that the explanation is overly complicated. Seems to me that he’s saying, the passage forbids rape, period hard stop.

Bruce J S—
Tom H— I’m not sure what you don’t understand. His points are very clear. 1) the verses target a very specific act - a man penetrating another man - and ONLY the action of the penetrator. 2) this matters because it is not a blanket admonishment of same sex interactions, and not even of a man being penetrated. 3) Dan fortifies these first two assertions by first identifying where the original content creator has ignored verses written in the same say and book, that he would not likely prescribe to today and the missing addition of "women" in the verses the original content creators uses as a anchor for their comparative argument. 3a) the content creator says that the verse about males having sex is moral code and never changes, which Dan challenges by saying that a verse in the same book, written the same exact way, prohibits sex with menstruating women. Dan’s argument is, if the original content creator does not equate these two actions with the exact same level of immorality, the OCC is simply cherry picking - because the verses clearly equate their "uncleanliness" as written. Therefore, if the OCC doesn’t agree that sex with menstruating women is morally reprehensible, he has no basis to feel that way about homosexual intercourse. 3b) Dan continues this idea, after the OCC tries to tie the morality argument to beastality (instead of the menstruating) by stating that the very next verse after saying beastality is bad says "this means women too". And since the original verse about male on male sex completely omits the mention of women, and the following verses do not make the same distinction as is made for beastality, it should be interpreted as the author of Leviticus had no problem with women sleeping with each other, and therefore the broad stroke of "All same sex intercourse is immoral" cannot be true.

Jason S—
Fyi, my Reformed/theonomic pastor dad did believe having sex with a menstruating woman is a sin.

David L—
QUESTION:
What were neighboring cultures that interacted with and had a cultural influence on the ancient Jews views on male/male sex? In these neighboring cultures that the Jews knew about:
- Was male/male homosexuality considered immoral/illegal in and of itself…including consensual homosexuality relations?
Or was it only immoral/illegal if one man forced himself upon a non- consensual male (i.e. rape)?
Specifically when the act is one man imposing dominance upon another unwilling man in an attempt to force the victim into a feminized state…that is forcing the victim into a societal position lower than that of the dominant male status?

Edited Cary B—
When I was in seminary I saw the argument that the Leviticus passage refers to cultic sex work, and that never resonated with me, but I did read "as with a woman" to also possible mean "as with a wife", which I interpreted as "outside of your marriage, e.g. a way around the adultery rule by substituting a woman you’re not married to with a man. Listening to Daniel, I see that even with my translation of "as with a wife" can still be interpreted in the same way that the scholars interpret it to be as the male insertive non-consensual role.

Adam R—
One would think that the word of God wouldn’t be so ambiguous.

Jim G— +1

Jason B—
This part of the book has nothing to do with homosexuality at all. The Bible takes place in the mind, this is simple Eastern mystic Duality and it is written in parable (Psalms 78:2). The male (father, son of man, Lord) is the heavens side of mental silence (take no thoughts). The only reason females are used in the Bible is to represent the other side of the brain, the earth side of mental chaos. This is because women can give birth to children and "children" in the Bible symbolize chaos. This is why Jesus never had children. The Bible is saying you can’t lie with a male as with a female, it would be an abomination to stain the thoughtless heavens side of the brain (right hemisphere) with the symbolic chaotic side (left hemisphere). The transfer of electricity from the left ot the right is an arc (Ark, archangel, Arc to Arturus conttellation, the red sea, the flood, why you cast your nets to the right, right hand of god, righteous right hand, sheep on the right and goats on the left). This part of the book has nothing to do with homosexuality at all. It is simply telling the human that it is an abomination to mix the heavens side with the earth side, the sons of god side with the daughters of man side, the wheat side with the weeds side, clean and unclean, etc. If you want the Bible feelings on homosexuality, look to the passages about eunuchs, this is the Bible’s parable of homosexuality.

Edited Denise M—
My understanding of Lev 18:22 refers to pederasty because of the use of "male" and "youth" in hebrew... can you comment?

Rachel O—
I really don’t think that anybody should be doing anything in Leviticus with a serious nature if they eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics. Like you can’t pick and choose what you want to do and not do as far as following God’s word if you believe in God. I mean clearly you can but you shouldn’t.

Daniel F—
It always amazes me that in this day and age people still believe in mythology

Jeff G—
Anyone who reads bases their morals on The Bible needs to be rooted in the make-believe of faith, and they therefore forfeit any moral judgments based in that make-believe on those of us who are living, breathing parts of objective reality—including LGBT folks. In other words, gays are real and can’t be judged by fake deities.

Terry L—
Dan failed on this one.

Gordon P—
In Ancient times, they considered "taking it" to be a feminine act, and "inserting it" was a way to establish you were more powerful, and in charge. I always took it as "don’t take the role of F____r, of taking the role of Dominator. I spent years in the Colorado Christian Home for Children & Mothers as a kid, and the way they talked about gays was horrible, didn’t line up with anything Jesus said.

Rocco P—
As an older gay man, I lived through significant condemnation of "being gay" by so many "authorities." Unfortunately, it was the religious onslaught which hurt the worst.

Mark W A—
I guess I’ve never understood why I have to get a vote about someone else’s behavior. Are you inviting ME to participate? If not, why do I need to be involved at all? You do what you want/ feel compelled is right. If you’re wrong God will slap your hand. If you’re right, or there is no God, then you’re good to go. Either way, I don’t understand my involvement.

See also: The Wikipedia article for "Fundamental attribution error". This site, spnation.org, was used as template if there’s other remnants.

Letter I received from HUD on account of one of my websites. I’ve since moved the content to scapegoated.info

Subject: Housing Discrimination Complaint Inquiry — Termination of Contact
HUD Inquiry Number: 761239

Dear Scott H

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUUD) administratively enforces the Fair Housing Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. §3601, et seq., as amended. The Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing- related transactions, because of race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), familial status, national origin, and disability. On February 5, 2024, our office received the above referenced inquiry you submitted online alleging housing discrimination.

It has come to my immediate attention that you may have engaged in cyberstalking activities related to a member of our staff. While the matter has been referred to Federal Protective Service for investigation, the safety of our employees is of the utmost importance to HUD and our office will take every reasonable precaution in these situations. Your inquiry has been closed and our office is terminating contact with you as of the date of this letter. This decision is final, and HUD will no longer respond to your correspondence or telephone calls about this matter.

You may consult with a private attorney to ascertain any other right of action you may have under federal, state or local laws. Notwithstanding this termination of contact, you have the right to pursue a civil action in an appropriate U.S. district court or state court no later than two (2) years after the occurrence or the termination of an alleged discriminatory housing practice.

Sincerely,

James Whiteside
Region VIII Director

Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity