 homosexuality, and we are starting, dear first time, here at Modern Day Debate, we are a non-partisan platform that hosts debates on science, politics, and religion, and our goal is to give everybody their fair shot to make their case on an equal playing ground. We are very excited and want to let you know as well, we are non-partisan in the sense that no matter what walk of life you're from, we hope you feel welcome, we want you to know, we really do want you to feel welcome whether you be Christian, Atheist, Republican, Democrat, you name it, and want to let you know as well, we are excited for a lot of upcoming debates, so if you would like a reminder for those upcoming debates, consider hitting that subscribe button, for example, we have this Friday, we're very excited, you'll see at the bottom right of your screen, Matt Dill Huntie and Jonathan McClatchy will be debating the resurrection, so that should be a lot of fun, and also want to let you know a couple of other housekeeping type things up front, we are excited to mention a couple of things, one is that after our recent debate with Milo Yiannopoulos, we are actually, we got a lot of feedback saying that we need more conservative or right-leaning moderators, because we do want to keep it equal, moderators can have an opinion, and we do have a lot of left leaning moderators, which we're happy to have, we're thankful for the great work they do, and now we are saying, hey, if you're a conservative, somebody who leans to the right, we do want to keep it balanced, and so let us know, the only, you could say work that you have as a moderator, is we just delete any sort of hate speech without warning, if somebody's harassing someone, we'll say, hey, can you do us a favor, it looks like you're harassing somebody, we're going to block you if you don't stop, and also if there's any sort of spamming, which is pretty rare, and also though, we are very excited to let you know, if you haven't heard, modern day debate has invaded the podcast world, so you'll see at the far right side of your screen, those are just some of the podcast apps that we're on, and that you can find us on, so if you can't find us on your favorite podcast app, let us know what will work to get on there, and with that, want to say, we are stoked to have our guests, this is going to be a lot of fun, now both of our guests have got prior debate experience, you've seen CJ on here on modern day debate many a times, but also, Carissa has debated people such as vegan gains, so she is not a rookie when it comes to debate, we're very excited for today, and just want to let you know, I've put both of the links of the speakers in the description folks, so if you'd like to hear more about our guests, learn more about them, where they're from, you can by clicking on those links, and with that, I want to just say, before we do get rolling, thank you Carissa and CJ for being here, we're excited to have you just hanging out with us, thanks for being here. The pleasure, definitely, thank you for having us. Yeah, absolutely, I greatly appreciate it James. Absolutely, with that, what we'll do is, I think if I remember right, CJ will get the ball rolling with his introduction, and then Carissa will have her opening as well, these will be roughly five to ten minutes, and that's kind of flexible, so it might be a little bit more or less than that range, and also want to let you know, we'll have open conversation after that in Q&A, so if you have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat, and Super Chat is also an option, in which case you can make a comment toward one of the speakers if you'd like, and it'll push your question or comment to the top of the list for the Q&A, so with that, very excited, and without any further ado, CJ, the floor is all yours. Alrighty, and thank you very much for that, and so to start, I would just like to say Shalom and blessings to you all in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom I will give all the glory here today, and of course I want to thank James for hosting us and Mrs. Avalon for debating me today. The question before us today is, does the Holy Bible condemn or forbid, if you want to use the word interchangeable, homosexuality? I would venture that many of the people listening, both Christian and non, are probably puzzled by such a topic as there has been literal unanimity on this issue for literally thousands of years. Up until the 20th century, it was understood by lady clergy and academia from both Christian and non-Christian circles alike that the Holy Bible unequivocally condemned homosexual practice. It just so happens that nobody ever questioned this fact until acceptance of homosexual practice actually became a hot button issue in specifically Western socio-political debate. There's many that would have you believe that this is by complete coincidence, but I personally find that to be kind of an insult to our intelligence. This is certainly not the entire point of my argument. I would call it the part of my argument least emphasized, but it is really important to understand that there is obvious cultural agenda at play at the self same time that we are seeing for the first time theories concocted somehow of New Testament writers actually condoning or at least not explicitly condemning homosexual practice. So I just think that's an important thing for us to note. Nevertheless, I am tasked with presenting the case for said interpretation of these texts and I will do so now. To start, we need to examine of course the relevant verses of Scripture and we're going to see what they say. There's five different verses I would consider to be relevant here, at least five that I have listed in front of me. So the first one of course the most popular one I would argue is Leviticus 18 and 22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind it is an abomination. Let me see that one more time. Thou shalt not lay with mankind as with womankind it is an abomination. This verse says as clearly as any verse possibly could that to lie with a man in the manner that one lies with a woman is abhorrent in God's sight. He calls the act an abomination which is not exactly a word open to interpretation. The translation that I have used before used my good old King James my personal favorite but an appeal to translation won't really help here because the NIV will read do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman that is detestable and the NASB will read you shall not lie with a man with a male as one lies with a female it is an abomination and the ESV will read you shall not lie with a male as with a woman it is an abomination and so forth. You can go actually to biblehub.com compare the different Bible translations they list a total of 27 and what you will find there is 27 Bibles in unanimity on this verse. Nobody has translated this verse to mean anything other than to lie with a man in the manner that one lies with a woman is detestable for a man to do. To the best of my knowledge because of course 27 is not the total of all English translations but to the best of my knowledge there's not actually a single serious English translation of the Holy Bible that has any variance in this passage whatsoever. That is definitely something that is worthy of note and once again well I don't want to make nothing but an appeal to authority it is very hard for me to believe that absolutely everybody lady in academia alike who is translating these Bibles for the last you know 2,000 years in the case of English would be like 500 years but nonetheless they all actually got the translation wrong that seems very odd to me. The next 12th verse is Leviticus 20 and 13. Leviticus 20 and 13 I will present a little bit of a trigger warning before this verse because you need to understand that the Old Testament law is incredibly harsh and demands a complete and total perfection with that I continue. If a man also lie with mankind as Eliath with womankind both of them have committed an abomination they surely shall be put to death. Let me say that again they shall be put to death is what Leviticus says about this. Their blood shall be upon them. This verse not only unequivocally and harshly condemns homosexual practice or as the verse itself would put it man lying with man but it actually goes as far as to prescribe a death penalty for the offending party at least under the mosaic covenant. Once again one will find literally zero variants in this Bible or in any Bible version rather as it pertains to this passage of scripture. If one seeks to find solace in their argument from the manuscript evidence one would be very saddened to find that no manuscript Leviticus whatsoever shows any indication of addition, subtraction, mistranslation or any other form of editing or tampering in these relevant verses. And if they did by the way you know for a fact we'd all know about it because the activists in the world would never let us forget. They don't because such a manuscript does not exist. Now we as Christians must understand that the wages of sin is death and that is all sin. I point this out very quickly because I know there are many out there who would say that we need to currently today be condemning and stoning homosexuals to death. I do not take that opinion. I find that to be absurd under the Christian worldview. It is very clear that adultery which Jesus says is even looking upon a woman with lust and murder which Jesus says is even having anger with somebody without unjust cause have the self-same death penalty prescribed for them and that is the sole purpose for a savior. So I don't want to get confused here into saying that I am saying we are under the mosaic covenant and we need to go stone homosexuals right. However this verse alone condemns homosexuality in a way that is completely and totally unambiguous and as harsh as could possibly be condemned. Of course this is the entire reason the savior died for us but we would not be saved from acts of righteousness. We are saved from acts of sin right. Next we move on to the New Testament because for the most part the Old Testament tends to be pretty silent on the issue after Leviticus. In 1 Corinthians 6 9 through 11 we see the apostle Paul telling us the following. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God so not only are the following acts going to be unrighteous but they are acts which lead one to not inherit the kingdom of God. Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor feminists nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God and such were some of you that's that salvation I'm talking about but ye are washed ye are sanctified and ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God. The relevant portion we're going to find here is actually in verse 9 which is the phrase nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind. This is a little bit archaic English for the modern day but effeminate would be the way you would refer to a passive homosexual and abusers of themselves with mankind would be those who sin against their bodies which of course Paul explains in other verses in a way that with men rather than women. This is actually made a little bit more clear in other Bible translations for example in the new international version you get men who have sex with men in the NLT which is the new living translation you get nor those who are male prostitutes or practicing homosexuality and in the North American Standard Bible you get nor effeminate nor homosexuals. Whilst the language can sometimes be varied we can see the message in all of the translations is clear and in all translations that I know of is clear for everybody to see for themselves. Homosexuality if unrepentant and not covered by the blood of Jesus Christ will lead one to not inherit the kingdom of God like any other sin and again I clarify the cross Christ's offer of salvation is to all who would accept it regardless of their sin but again we must be clear on what the scripture condemns and what it condemns in this case is the homosexual lifestyle putting it alongside damnable sins such as adultery idolatry and extortion which ends up getting worse when we move forward because we see in the list repeated although with some variation 1 Timothy versus not excuse me chapter 1 verses 9 through 11 um knowing this that the law is made for a uh is not made rather for a righteous person but for the lawless and insubordinate so the following acts are going to be things which are lawless and insubordinate insubordinate of course to God for the ungodly and for sinners for the unholy and profane for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers for manslayers for fornicators for sodomites for kidnappers for liars for perterers and if there's any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine according to this glorious gospel of the blessed god which was committed to my trust the relevant portion here is sodomites i'm sure you guys are aware of what the word sodomite means but sodomite is an archaic term to refer to homosexuality the word homosexual did not actually exist until i believe the 19th century if i'm not mistaken um and so in back of the day they would refer to them by some other terms in this case sodomite florentine is another common term that is now archaic here we see homosexuality listed as an action of lawlessness and insubordination alongside heinous and indisputable sins such as patricide murder and kidnapping and again we find no translation or manuscript for anybody to turn to and in fact i would like to just make a point here 30 seconds left okay um if i asked the opponent regardless of who it is it could be mrs avalon in this case it could be anybody else you know theologian idon der schowitz doesn't really matter if i asked them what could paul have possibly said or moses have possibly said that would condemn homosexuality clearer than these verses if that was indeed his intent you could not give me anything that is clearer than what they did actually provide for us um the last thing i want to say very briefly is romans chapter one verses 26 and 27 not only gives a clear reference to lesbianism but also calls um also calls homosexual a sex between men unnatural and a vile affection the greek is dishonorable um and i don't think i'll have time to quote that whole verse but nonetheless i yield my time there we see that no translation or manuscript exists and that the bible is unequivocal in its very harsh condemnation of homosexual practice gotcha thanks so much for that opening statement from cj we will now kick it over to chrissa for her opening statement as well and want to mention just before i do give me one moment as i forgot to mention this at the very start want to let you know folks if you have not seen we have been pitching this the last few debates totally want you to check out if you have not katelyn has a link in the description she has recently found out that she has a neurodegenerative disease basically her her brain is uh not let's see how do i put this she she's having a brain disease that is coming on strong right now and so we want to encourage you to check out her medical fundraiser page that go fund me link is down in the description so we highly encourage you to join us in donating to that even if it's a buck or two that makes a difference so thanks so much and what we're going to do is kick it over now to chrissa for her opening statement thanks so much and the floor is all yours chrissa thank you james all right so for many people the concept that the bible condemns homosexuality is a perceived fact straight people can easily live in guilt or sadness that they cannot fully accept their friends or family who are gay and those who are homosexual feel like they cannot reconcile their identity with christianity for hundreds of years since sexual orientation was discovered it has been church tradition to condemn homosexuals and any version of their relationships pure christianity however is not intended to be based on religious tradition but rather a deep and thorough analysis of the bible and unfortunately these two things can strongly deviate in fact in matthew 12 jesus berated the religious leaders of his time for legalism in caring more about what they perceived to be the letter of the law than showing the love of god jesus went against religious tradition by quote unquote working on the Sabbath matthew 12 11 says he said to them if any of you has a sheep and falls into a pit on the Sabbath will you not take hold of it and lift it out how much more valuable is a person than a sheep therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath jesus was actively rebelling against the strict laws the leaders created to control instead of to abide by the intent of the law and doing good on the Sabbath similarly jesus had risen or i'm sorry after jesus had risen into heaven his disciples preached a message of being quote unquote free in christ condemning christians who judged each other for things that were not biblically sinful roman's 1410 says regarding food and drink which is no longer prohibited and which pa said he was convinced was clean you then why do you judge your brother or sister why do you treat them with contempt for we will all stand before god's judgment seat for the one who claims something this is not in the quote anymore for the one who claims something is a sin which the bible does not say is a sin is just as guilty as the one who preaches something is not a sin when it is both are playing god so this is where the rubber hits the road is homosexuality condemned by the bible more and more biblical scholars do not believe it is dale b martin professor of religious studies at Yale and where much of my information comes from is one of these scholars along with theologian and priest daniel helman naik and late reverend john dweyer and many others so why are many of these theologian skeptical of the normalized notion that the bible condemns homosexuality let's get into it firstly homosexual relationships did not exist then as they do now in both the old and the new testament that the bible the bible condemns homosexuality within certain contexts let's actually go through the bible in order and see what it says about homosexuality start in genesis and understand the culture we're dealing with in ancient times in the old testament god's goal was for his people to multiply procreation was important and you can see the result of that importance and how the old testament frowned on birth control genesis 389 deals with this law existed that if your brother died you were to marry your brother's widow to keep his seed going unfortunately for onan in this chapter he was struck dead for using pullout on his brother's widow god even said that what he did was evil this is a similar context to god commanding men not to lie with with other men the exact libidical verse says you shall not lie with a male as with a woman it is an abomination if you are thrown off by the strong word abomination it just means that the act was forbidden planting the same seed in one field was also considered an abomination as was eating meat given the importance of procreation as well as israel's need to set themselves apart from surrounding idolatrous cultures this law was necessary in their time but would be silly to translate to modern day other old testament verses commonly brought up um to condemn how homosexuality are those involving Sodom and Gomorrah these verses are very explicit though and it's an outlining and condemning non-consensual sex which was used to violate the men attempting to commit homosexual acts with the angel visitors could not be gay the verse says all the men from every part of the city of Sodom both young and old surrounded the house they called to lot where are the men who came to you tonight bring them out to us so we can have sex with them the key word here is all this has nothing to do with sexual orientation this was a disgusting rape ritual that villagers had to brutalize their enemy again using the word using this to condemn a consensual homosexual relationship is ridiculous if the exact story would were to occur with women angels being raped no one would use this verse to attack sexual orientation but rather see it as a condemnation of rape which it is these however are not the only places where the bible touches on homosexual acts the new testament mentions homosexuality a total of three times the first time and perhaps the most referenced is in Romans bear with me this is going to be a long quote but scriptural context here is important for the wrath of god is revealed from heaven against all and godliness and wickedness and those who by their wickedness suppress the truth that that that next part isn't very important claiming to be wise they became fools and they exchanged the glory of the immortal god for images resembling mortal humans or birds or forfeited four-footed animal or reptiles therefore god gave them up to the less of their hearts to impurity to the degrading of their bodies among themselves because they exchanged the truth about god for a lie and worshipped and served the creator rather the creature rather than the creator for the same reason god gave them up to their degrading passions their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural and in same way the men giving up natural intercourse with women were consumed for a passion with each other men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own person the due penalty for their air these verses are telling a story and to understand this condemnation you'll have to understand the context paul was not it was talking about specific people the greco-roman community who his audience would have been culturally familiar with ones who were idolaters and worship statues of humans and animals they individually left their own heterosexual orientation and participated in temple orgies and having sex with temple prostitutes as well they were idolaters and their homosexual acts were committed within that context again this has nothing to do with sexual orientation this has to do with heterosexual people participating in hedonism and untamed promiscuity with anyone within their reach these verses are referring to a people who stopped regarding sex as a conduit for a stronger relationship emotional attachment to someone as was originally intended but rather a fulfillment of carnal unnatural desire and a desperate attempt to for a physical pleasure this condemnation was directly in the context of idolatry and attempting to use this verse again to delegitimize monogamous committed homosexual relationships we see today is absurd the last two verses in the new testament relating to homosexuality is 1st timothy 1 8 through 11 and 1st quentin 6 9 through 10 they are similar in condemning quote unquote sodomites and saying that they would not inherit the kingdom of god along with a whole list of other centers in both of these verses the greek words malakoi the plural of malakos and arsino coyte the plural of arsino kutos are translated very differently depending on the translation of the bible you read yell professor db martin wrote an entire book on these two words and their translation expressing the difficulty in nailing these two precise definitions down since the bible contains no word to express homosexual the word we translate the words we translate as such are rather vague malakos means literally soft and is frequently used to describe effeminate men who may not exhibit courage or moral fortitude it has also been used to refer to the prostitutes heterosexual men would keep for their own sexual gratification and who are typically castrated arsino coytes literally means male and bed which could mean a variety of things involving sexuality but it would be a stretch to assume it is referring to homosexual acts only some scholars believe that this word refers to promiscuous men who would have sex with anyone outside of marriage the word is incredibly rare and to definitively suggest it is synonymous with our current conception of homosexual is to um translationally irresponsible there are however a few stories in non-biblical greek literature that suggests the word arsino coytes refers to instances where one male uses his superior power or position to take sexual advantage of another this would make sense since the word malakos has similar connotation of heterosexuals using their young male servants for their sexual gratification it seems as though these two words definitively discourage sexual abuse and exploitation but for the last time using these two words to condemn the homosexuality we see today is not fair in summary the bible never condemns homosexuality but rather the depraved behavior and motive surrounding homosexual acts through history many christians have been misled by church tradition and an understandable ignorance of the original text for too long organized religion has used tradition and poor biblical translation to justify their bigotry but this is not Christianity the bible never condemns homosexuality and a homosexual couple can be every bit as god honoring as one that is straight thank you thank you very much chris over that opening statement as well we will now kick it into open dialogue mode so want to say as mentioned before folks oh uh someone let me know that the link for Caitlyn's fundraiser was not in the description it now is so that's updated and also if you have questions fire them into the ala oh live chat if you tag me with at modern day debate it makes it easier for me to get every question in that list for carissa and cj after their dialogue wraps up so the floor is all yours thanks so much guys thank you james so what do you think j well so there's there's a couple things that i would i would want to kind of point out first so um first and foremost i just want to go ahead and agree that this will in my opinion be solved by the bible and not by religious tradition so i just want i want to um express my gratitude that we agree on that issue um so i want to kind of take it in order of how these verses are presented so let's go first with the viticus 18 and 22 okay so you said first and foremost that homosexual relationships did not exist at this time at least not in the way that we understand them today uh and then also claimed that when you were referring to uh the new testament which would be according to me some 1500 years later and according to most scholars today some 600 years later but regardless farther in the future um what evidence do we have to support that notion that homosexual relationships are like some new phenomenon yeah so we have scholars who um such as db martin who are um you know professionals um and who have like really studied this time period to me it really makes sense because you know the world was so much smaller back then or i i guess so much bigger back then where you didn't have the internet you didn't have um much much context more than just your town so if you felt like feelings toward maybe another man that would be like a little weird because it was it only existed um a heterosexual relationships that were like loving were the only relationships that existed during that time i'm curious are you familiar with the story of achilles and petroglyphs um i i mean i i'm definitely familiar with achilles i'm not sure exactly the story you're talking about though yeah so um the so achilles of course is from the iliad right uh going and doing all the stuff that he did during the trojan war all that good stuff we don't want to get too derailed on that um so he actually had a uh i believe his cousin if i'm not mistaken um a little bit younger than him but a young man so like in his 20s uh named petroglyphs who he is believed by most scholars today to have a very heavily implied homosexual relationship with that was absolutely what we would refer to today as a loving and caring relationship in fact it's one of the larger pieces of evidence used by modern-day lgbt activists to show that in fact homosexuality is not a new concept and it almost seems like there would be a little bit of a problem if we were to claim it were a new concept because why is it that all of a sudden when attitudes towards an action change magically we get these new relationships that it seems to me like if people really were actually being consistently born gay they would always have those relationships and then attitudes would change over time to reflect that not the other way around um well i think that um i understand what you're saying but i disagree um i think that they definitely did have gay relationships but it um it's not the same they they weren't be able to they would not be able to be out of the closet um and it's just not the same way that we see today again back then relationships and like marriages were more about procreating especially in the Old Testament with like Genesis that was the whole reason um that there would be marriage or one of the biggest reasons was because of procreation and that's why you like see so many laws um that suggests that that's like the a huge part of the Old Testament in Genesis so i mean they probably did exist that's i guess i didn't fully answer your question they probably they did exist i'm sure and i'm sure there were home there there were homosexuals um but just like today um we have um many things that we've realized with modern science with being able to study like huge groups of people they were not at all commonplace um and therefore um not really talked about also you had a lot of homosexual acts being committed in um in very evil ways such as Sodom and Gomorrah so i wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people did not feel like they could be out of the closet in their relationships okay well so there's a couple things i would want to say on that so the first thing i used the achilles story in particular because if achilles was a historical figure which of course is out in the open but if he was a historical figure he would be around 1100 bc which is only 300 years removed from Moses himself and actually before king David and even if he's not a historical figure Homer is going to write that sometime between six and 900 so there's significant as you could see by that 300 year time frame uh variation in when scholars believe Homer would write the Iliad um so that's a pretty old example but if we don't necessarily want to go that far back still before the New Testament but not quite Moses's era um the Greeks actually were quite fond of homosexual relationships you're right they were but they again they looked very different in um Greco-Roman culture what would happen is that heterosexual men would be married but they'd have a young boy and it would be much more like a pedophile relationship that they could do what they wanted with so again you're seeing you're not seeing like homosexual orientation you're seeing it as like hedonism and as non-monogamy non-monogamousness well so let me challenge that for a minute because I understand what you're saying right there certainly was the practice of taking on young boys we see that in the writings of Aristotle and Plato we see that in I mean the Romans not Romans excuse me the Spartans made a literal cultural tradition out of it um but you also not only see the Achilles story but also Alexander the Great actually had a person who was not only a man but a military age man and a captain in his guard I can't remember the gentleman's name but who he is very commonly believed to have had what we would describe as a homosexual relationship with now I will agree with you that marriage was certainly reserved for a man and a woman but that's a different topic right we're talking about the action of homosexuality itself not necessarily homosexual marriage right so that's yet another example of and there's more that we could continue to mention right um honestly if we if we wanted to make a uh the point as whether or not homosexual relationships existed in the past I think you'd be kind of surprised and maybe even pleasantly considering I'm sure you probably would enjoy these kinds of things as far as you know humanity and their morals and stuff right um that actually it was quite common place it is because of Judeo-Christian values that we actually have a problem with homosexuality not necessarily the other way around in fact the Comma Sutra mentions many homosexual practices uh we see obviously homosexual practices rampant amongst many like of the Greeks like I said it's not so common in the Roman era because Romans had this idea of being a passive homosexuals being very dishonorable not necessarily the one doing the penetrating or anything like that but to orally or be you know or ain't only satisfied somebody was considered to be like you're oh you're like lesser you're not virile right so there certainly is that in Roman culture but that's one culture out of many right and they still weren't necessarily not having homosexual practices they were just having those abuses almost abuse of homosexual practices you kind of refer to but that's not the case in the Greeks and the Indians and many people in the in the um other cultures across the world right uh Native Americans the Japanese so on and so forth um so and when you take that away what other reason do we have to suggest that Leviticus 1822 and 2013 do not harshly condemn homosexuality so I think the reason that they do that is again because of procreation like there were many things like you weren't able to have sex with a um a woman on her period the same thing goes with the birth control and going back to your original point I think you can that that may be true that there might have been a couple um homosexual relationships but that doesn't change um the context of the bible that doesn't change the fact that you can see in a very contextual um basis through each of those verses that they aren't actually condemning those relationships they're number one condemning homosexual acts in the context of um idolaters and then secondly they're condemning a power um a power struggle between um again man and his slave it was legal for a man to actually do whatever he wanted to his slave which is absolutely terrible and that's what he was condemning um and you can see that again through um through the translation um and if you actually like look deeply into the um like the greek words for the things that's that's really what you see so he's not even if they did exist back then which I'm sure some some did that's not what he was condemning in in any of these verses again it's very different in Levitical law um because you have to have procreation for um for the lineage to continue well so first off so I do have Leviticus 18 up here right um I actually have an interlinear in uh front of me here I'm not sure I don't think you guys could see it because I think I have to do some sort of screen sharing nonsense for that but nonetheless you can pull it up for anybody if you'd like on uh bible hub.com there's other interlinear you can use if you don't want to use that one but nonetheless um so the word used here right is zakar for a male uh and with a male not you shall lie right and that's that's though that's how it would literally translate instead of translating it or transliterating right um so zakar means specifically a male it doesn't mean a boy it doesn't mean a slave it just means somebody who is male and that's the same word that's going to be used in Leviticus 2013 um and furthermore I would point out that there are numerous actions condemned in Leviticus 18 with which not only absolutely would bring forth children but would also bring forth children in a way that does not actually cause any sort of a genetic defect like for example this verse or this passage rather um contains a lot of condemnations of um incest but it also contains condemnations of you know for being with people who are not necessarily related to you like a sister-in-law right um that's clearly a moral thing so you can have you can have a child with a sister-in-law and that child will not have any sort of a genetic damage done to it or anything like that right but that's also that that's not good for the society um and again they're they're trying to trying to separate from the heathens around them um who had a lot of really disgusting practices involving like idolatry right so I understand that um it's not like it's not like the bible is saying as long as you're not related to someone go ahead and just have sex like rabbits it's not there there has to be some limitation for the procreation for you to have a continued good society um and have a good um and healthy dynamic in that society so um like don't have sex with your sister-in-law that seems like a pretty straightforward one because you don't want to get in a fight with your brother and you know fatally injure each other um so right but so to kind of to kind of press on that a little bit though so yeah of course we can agree that the verse is not actually condemning things that don't lead to procreation but rather is condemning sexual actions which it finds not only abhorrent in the Israelites but as you've already stated finds abhorrence in the Canaanites and Egyptians as well because those of the culture specifically mentioned at the beginning doesn't that go to my point it's saying that regardless of which culture does this I the Lord find this repulsive it's not like elsewhere in Leviticus right where you see you need to not round the corners of your head because you're in Israelite and it distinguishes right to me it's it's similar to like saying that you cannot have sex with a woman who's on her period like that is considered quote unquote abhorrent I don't think many people consider that abhorrent anymore but you know procreation could not happen during that um similarly to procreation not being able to happen if a man lies with a man or and there's I mean there's many other things like they were trying to distance themselves fully from uh the heathens around them um so you had it was like it's called a purity culture so that is actually another reason why you weren't even supposed to touch a woman when she was on her period um so I'm not really sure doesn't that doesn't that argue to my point like if it's purity you don't do things which are unrighteous when you're going for purity right the things you are doing when you're going for purity by definition would be righteousness and if not being in homosexual relationships is righteousness then by default being in homosexual relationships is not righteousness right I mean that seems pretty logical to me do you think touching a woman when she's on on her period is unrighteous I definitely do not do it like if you don't go up and touch someone like if there's a woman you don't know physical touches right yeah certainly um I don't know that that's necessarily the context of the verse there as much as it is sexually right um you don't sexually and of course the priests also the priests needed to make sure they were completely undefiled they couldn't even touch corpses unless they were the sacrifice right um but as far as like sexually speaking yeah no absolutely I don't that I would you condemn anyone to act who actually does that because people a lot of Christians don't really care about that at this point well to be fair now that we can have that argument because I and the reason I'm not going to necessarily say is just because that is a split there are many Christians who follow the mosaic law and many who don't but what both of those camps do agree on and this is why I do want to move on um is that and by the way just just to kind of move forward because I guess some might say that's running away yes I do I do believe the mosaic law is literally what righteousness is and that's the reason you have to save you're in the first place is because these things do condemn you um but assuming the other side of the Christians which are probably more popular which would say that the mosaic law is not necessarily a law for purity but something that is strictly given to the Israelites right um or that it's a purity law specifically given to Israelites right which you're taking um these are reiterated multiple times in the new testament right um contextually right it's not actually because again like would you say that seeds sown in the same um lot of ground that's also considered an abomination that's also unclean um or even eating meat is considered unclean but in the in the new testament um Paul explicitly says that he does not believe it to be unclean anymore my point being that God gave these laws for a reason that God doesn't like just arbitrarily give laws and say this is sin this is then this is sin he gives laws for a reason for specific groups of people for example for the meats meats carry diseases back then people didn't know how to rid the meats of the diseases if they ate the meats then they would most likely get sick um and just to clarify are you talking about meat or like pork um well I think pork was definitely included I don't know if there's that much of a need to clarify just to just to briefly clarify so there is a condemnation of certain meats in the Levitical law because of the diseases well it doesn't actually explicitly state that what it does state in the new testament is that Peter has a vision in which the meats are actually representative of the Gentile cultures and Paul extrapolates from this that the reason that a number one the reason that you have the meats that you don't eat is because of that and you open now up to these meats in the same way the Jews now open up to the Gentiles but also number two and much more importantly you should be able to fit in to things which are not necessarily sinful in order for the gospel to be pushed forward right so for example he circumcises I believe it's Timothy does not circumcise Titus other way around it might be I'm not a hundred percent sure one of them is circumcised one is not the reason is because one will be preaching to Jews and one will not right my question would be then why would eating meat be considered sinful in the Old Testament and not where is it sinful though I don't see um yeah there's there's a Levitical verse that actually condemns it and they say is an abomination actually um let me see I can find it here I know of a verse which condemns it for Nazarites and I know of a verse which does allow in Genesis Noah and his descendants to eat meat implying that it wasn't allowed before but there were certain meats that were were considered unclean which would make sense because they had diseases similarly the seed not have diseases in Paul's time um they knew how to like cure it better they had salt they had a lot of other things to help they have those in the in the Old Testament as well in fact they didn't know how to to clean as well as they did in the New Testament I mean there's a lot of time that goes by so well it wasn't I just I do have to challenge this because the most one's like just okay so just a reset in terms of the main point just to be sure that chriso was finished saying what she was saying and then I promise we'll go right back to your question CJ okay yeah um I am my awesome so I think also um similar to how you had the seeds going into the same plot of ground and that's also considered an abomination and quote unquote a sin these are sins for the specific time um and you have to look at the context right there were there was a reason because you didn't want to sap all the ground of its nutrients um that would be bad for the survival of his people similarly um if you had like homosexual relationships that would be bad for the survival of the people also something he'd be worried about too is that those homosexual acts might look like the very close um idolatrous acts that you saw in the heathen cultures so there's many like there's so much context involved um in this that I'm not really sure why we're trying to make it trying to jam it into to modern culture here well so I feel like a lot of the context and and and I do say this with all due respect just so you know but I do think a lot of the context is added for sure like for example idolatry is just not mentioned anywhere in Leviticus 18 in fact Leviticus 18 starts explicitly condemning and calling abominable what the Egyptians and Canaanites do and that's very important because there are laws in the New Testament which are in the Old Testament excuse me which are definitely Hebrew specific um circumcision is the very famous one because Paul talks about it at length in the New Testament as to how it is certainly for the children of Israel it's a covenantal thing right but what we're seeing in Leviticus 18 in the beginning of those verses is God saying himself right at least if you take the narrative at face value that not only would it be abominable for the people of Israel to commit these actions but that it was abominable when the people of Egypt and the people of Canaan committed these actions as well they're never called abominable for not circumcising their children or for rounding the corners of their beard or for or of their head rather or for shaving their beard or for numerous other things which are certainly listed as Israelite specific and if we follow this to its logical conclusion by the way we would be removing biblical prohibitions against incest and bestiality as well because those are all mentioned in Leviticus 18 and not elsewhere right so it does seem as if like this is context that is certainly being added by people who have who certainly I'm sure you would agree have an agenda right you said it in the beginning people feel as if they cannot fully accept gays I would personally take issue with that I think that the Christian should fully accept any sinner because all our our sinners but we're sinners right meaning what we're doing is sin it's unrighteous I think that's the entire point so I think you said something about idolatry not actually being mentioned in this chapter and that's actually not true um the 21st first says do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to mollic for you must not profane that the name um and I think that that even further contextualizes these um these commands and I think a lot of these commands um are kept because you can actually see that these things and if you don't follow them they're detrimental to either your society or the people themselves that is no longer the case with homosexual relationships there's actually even a study that came out that showed that homosexual relationships have just as much satisfaction as heterosexual relationships so to me god doesn't make things sin just to make them sin he has a reason to make them sin to preserve us from future harm and you see that this entire chapter um he's trying to create the best society he can for his people in a limited time and attempting to further procreation well and to be fair and whilst I you are certainly right that is there very that is interesting that almost my my mishap there almost argues to my point because that verse is so out of place right in something it's about incest it's about bestiality that's about sex with father-in-law or something like that it's about homosexuality and then out of nowhere is this I mean if I were a scoffer which I am not but if I were that's actually the verse I would be arguing does not belong in this chapter because it is way out of place well I think there's a reason there that it's in there because it kind of shows that a lot of these a lot of these things are what other cultures were doing that he's saying I understand that you're seeing other cultures doing these things don't do them right but he's condemning those other cultures for doing it he's not just condemning the Israelites right like I said it's not like the rounding of the beard or not getting tattoos or something like that he's specifically saying the Egyptians and the Canaanites did this it was detestable you also don't do it because I'll find it detestable in you right so some I'm not sure that's kind of a little bit of a stretch I'm sure a lot of these things he would consider detestable and what the homosexual acts that the other the other things are doing I am saying they're considered detestable yeah I mean the acts are but I that doesn't translate to homosexuality right there's a difference between homosexuality and a committed loving relationship and and the homosexuality that you see even in this time period with temples and temple prostitutes and a lot of hedonism well hang on though because we have already shown earlier in this right that there is there's absolutely very popular examples of committed homosexual relationships in the ancient world but that's not that's not what he what they're seeing in the surrounding cultures what they're seeing and I can actually give you um there are scholars that actually talk about this um that that this is what they were seeing they were seeing the idolaters um I might have to we'll give you a chance to do that Carissa and just letting you guys know that maybe in a few minutes we'll probably go into the q and a so maybe this would be kind of the last topic we can cover okay well can I actually then because we've been kind of on Leviticus the whole time can I move it if we have to be a little bit quick sure um after and you continue to pull that up certainly because I don't want you to have to like not get your sources I don't want to like cut you off at the news or anything like that um but so you made the claim that this was something that was which in my I would completely agree with that these are listed out because they are things which damage the society completely agree you then claimed that this is no longer the case correct um I think that Romans one definitively says that that is not true and if we go here too I have it up let me go ahead and grab it real quick uh if we go to Romans one and 26 says uh because of this God gave them up to passions of dishonor so these he's saying explicitly these are dishonorable passions number one and number two they are the acts themselves are almost a punishment on the society for not following God right so in other words he's not saying these people are doing this as a pagan ritual he's saying these people refuse to acknowledge God and therefore I turn them over to dishonorable passions and then he proceeds the list homosexuality and um lesbianism right and it's the first explicit mention of lesbianism that we actually see in fact it's the only explicit that's actually not 100 true um what it says about women just to to get this in there is that they started having um a natural intercourse which um in the bible could also mean like sex during administration anything context I mean it's talking about homosexuality let's just to be sure we hear the full explanation from Carissa yeah okay like anything from lividal code law that um would go against anything in that law would be considered unnatural um it doesn't necessarily mean like deviating from your sexual orientation um well it doesn't mean having a different sexual orientation it means being heterosexual and saying hey I'm not going to listen to my sexual orientation anymore which is what we were seeing and I'm going to be promiscuous that's what it was all about it was all contextualized within idolatry and you can see that in this first one second I just I have to challenge one second just just to be sure that we got the last one Carissa yeah that's the God you can go ahead right and I do apologize I guess I'm I'm a little quick to jump the gun I do apologize for that okay um but I do have to challenge that though because what we're seeing here right you said that unnatural could be anything that's against lividal law as far as sex is concerned but homosexuality we just saw is against lividal law as far so it's almost like we're arguing here in in what's almost sounds like a circle right like we see well this is in context specifically of procreation when we see that it's not and there's other laws in here that are not specifically geared towards procreation it's this is bad for society when we see that romans one says this is actually inflicted upon a society for being bad we say that it's only something that's against lividal law but that would pull us back to point number one it's condemned in lividal law right and we've not seen so far anything that suggests that this doesn't actually condemn homosexuality other than arguing to the points that are certainly not proven right in fact you said unnatural sex not only did you say unnatural sex is anything that's against lividal law which would definitely include homosexuality but on top of that the context of these two verses is absolutely homosexuality right we know that because it's very context but it doesn't actually um target homosexuality itself it targets a certain ways of doing homosexual acts so for example what you could do is you could actually um take this in terms terms of like heterosexual sex and it would still be the best the same thing if you had a situation where you were having orgies and it was 100% heterosexual it was not monogamous you were not keeping the marriage bed pure the same condemnation could be given women were committing shameless acts of men and receive their their own persons that do penalty for their air like that could have been std's for being promiscuous like this could be this looks more like a condemnation of promiscuity and idol orgies rather than condemning what we see today it's not it's not targeting when a guy has a sex has sex with a guy in any situation it is bad that's not what it says it's giving a very specific context and says this context is bad it's talking about idolaters it's talking about specific people and what they're saying is what they did the sexual things that they did were bad so if that is the case why in verse 29 does it list fornication which is an old word that would that would mean what the bible considers promiscuity why list it again if that's actually what's being referred to in roman 26 27 and on that same note why not just call it promiscuity instead of causing all of this confusion um it's it's not talking about it's talking about heterosexual acts in the realm of being promiscuous so you're having like lots of orgies promiscuity hang on just real quick press promiscuity can't just be called promiscuity you don't have to specify homosexual right but there were also that he says fornication there were other things that were happening where heterosexual people were were um being having homosexual acts which is considered wrong if you're heterosexual you shouldn't be having sex with the same sex that's like publicly incorrect um and that's what you know because that's not like honoring the desires that god gave you um so i think that is like one specific thing that's totally isolated from promiscuity which is also bad it literally says that they gave up their natural um their natural intercourse for unnatural and they're talking about like their first um they were heterosexual and they started committing these acts in an idolatrous um context so that is what it's condemning right go ahead uh you're you are reading that from a 21st century perspective though because unnatural back in those days would be universally understood in this context to mean or excuse me let me rephrase that natural would be universally understood in this context to mean sex that leads to procreation right so when you say unnatural afflictions we know what he means is sex that does not lead to procreation and in this particular case we know because of the the context of the two verses 26 and 27 as well as greater context right that he is referring specifically to homosexual actions and again he could have just said promiscuity he does two verses later in the verse in verse 29 by saying pornication when we say well your natural afflictions if you're born homosexual would be homosexuality you're assuming that that would be something that paul or anybody who was writing the bible for that matter would actually use that as a or use the word natural rather in that sense when we all know they definitely would not have there's not a single instance in in the ancient literature where they use natural to refer to what your natural inclination is and there's a very quick way to prove that my natural inclination is just by virtue of being a sexually active man is to do sexually explicit and sometimes gross things right that's something every christian man has to try and fight against and really every decent man i would say because you really shouldn't want to be perverted right that is not something that is endorsed by the bible though even though that is very obviously my natural affliction right and of course it is it means the more promiscuous i am the more of my seed gets pushed forward from a biological darwinian standpoint it makes perfect sense right but the bible actually explicitly condemns that so we know that that's not what they mean by natural so being promiscuous is being as a subset of what the bible considers fornication fornication is anything that is quote unquote sexually immoral promiscuity is one of those things it could have also be um things that again go against a little bit of cool law that was all considered like fornication sexual immorality that includes homosexuality though and and many other things so again when jesus came he fulfilled the old law and so the so he was like the fulfillment of the law so that's why we don't actually um recognize all of those things including i don't think you would say to your like friend oh my gosh you shouldn't be having sex with your wife when she's on her menstrual cycle like that's terrible you're gonna go to hell that's immoral so why are we saying that it's immoral for people to have like homosexual relationships um what it literally does not hurt them at all um and and god was like was saying this in a very specified contextual situation that's that's kind of what it comes down to is again romans is talking about a very contextual um situation and specific people which the his audience would have been been familiar with um the people who um they again gave up their natural um intercourse with like their wives and they decided to go out and have like orgies that is not natural um so that is what once you're ready we uh it's a good chance to go into the q and a because we have a lot of questions actually to to jump through but i'll let you finish that point and then we'll we'll jump into it sounds good um that is what paul is referencing here we will jump into these questions want to say thanks so much folks if you've enjoyed this dialogue i've linked both carissa and cj in the description we've got to run through these questions as fast as possible if we don't get your question folks so sorry about that but i know that cj's got another debate coming up in like 20 minutes matthew if you're watching i'm so sorry we're going to try to get this uh try to get through these as quickly as possible robert lescom thanks for your question said cj how can you be sure the original text which we don't have didn't say that jesus died and absolved all sin including homosexual uh homosexuality but later transcribed transcribers left that out because they hated gay people uh so i have multiple things i could say on that but i'll keep it very busy because i know that we um number one i believe in preservation of the text by virtue of supernatural um of a supernatural preserver right i think god preserved his text number two there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that whatsoever and at best you can argue from a ignorance which i'm just not interested in an argument from ignorance in that perspective um number three and this is why i'm not interested in argument in ignorance we have better preservation of the new testament than literally any book in antiquity ever so it's just not it's not disputable that this that that's not the case gotcha and spart 344 thanks for your question this is a comment for you cj they said patrick lees was older than achilles he was a suitor of helen along with men alias if i'm pronouncing that i appreciate that i appreciate any corrections however that definitely makes my point more it sounds like he was heterosexual so that i don't know it sounds like it kind of gives to my point but go ahead next matthew powells gay pet peter dactyl thank you for your question i highly doubt that's really matthew's pet dinosaur says our pterodactyls gay birds or straight dinosaurs don't know matthew powells pat also asked is putting diet coke and mentos in my let's see nevermind robert lust come thanks for your question said eating shellfish was considered an abomination as well cj today no one holds up signs that read god hates shrimp so put that in your pipe and smoke it cj so first off that's not true there are numerous mosaic law observant christians out there who absolutely preach that you must observe the mosaic law but number two and much more importantly kosher laws as well as sabbath laws and holiday laws are specifically addressed in the new testament none of these other ones are and if we're just going to assume everything in the old testament is done away with an incest is okay bestiality is okay sacrificing your children to molok is okay and i haven't even left a bit of a seat gotcha and thanks for your question this one comes in from i guess we'll pair these together because they're close together in the concept michael dresden let's see we had one that was close to it brayden fears thanks for your question said question for both when i was a christian i was taught that the old testament law was given to jesus to eventually fulfill the law not for people to hold the law do you agree why or why not so personally i believe there's three type of old laws um levitical laws there's the ceremonial laws which we no longer have to abide by because jesus did come and fulfill them then there are the the moral laws such as do not kill um people do not murder do not lie these are things that um are general that we should be following and then the third type of law is um there are laws that were given for the context but we have to observe them in their context and follow um the spirit of the law so there are laws that you know um there are laws that like even in leviticus you should be striving to be pure um and i think that's something that i don't think we have to like follow it um to the t but i do think that we should strive to be you know monogamous as we can i i know everyone slips up i did um but i think that's one thing that those are the three types of laws yeah cj any notes or you feel good on that one what i would say is that i have a certain level of agreement with mrs avalan here but not a hundred percent um what my opinion would be is there are there's two different kinds of laws i would say in the levitical law they're essentially the same as what she said as far as moral and ceremonial although i wouldn't necessarily say ceremonial as much as covenantal because there are certainly ceremonial laws which jesus fulfills such as he is the sacrifice so there's no longer need for any sacrifices um and so on and so forth with that right but there's also certain laws that were meant specifically to distinguish the israelites right i kind of brought those up in here and as long as the rounding of the beard and stuff like that um what i would say is that jesus came not only to fulfill the law but he came to ensure that we are saved from those things which he lists as immoral and it includes a lot and it may not include things that you like but that's the point right you need salvation because you do slip up next thanks for your question this one comes in from gur mania who said let's see we've got second best bob don't want to miss yours let's see they said i'm afraid god doesn't prove a homosexuality and that is why i think christianity is silly so uh disagree i don't it's about it but thanks for that second best bob and gur mania thanks for your question let's see i guess that's pretty broad level so i don't know if either of you guys want to respond to the last one i think it's kind of sad that that christianity has that uh wrap and i hope that maybe my perspective on it changes your mind but we'll see gotcha and gur mania thanks for your question said question for both why did god at minimum allow these laws why did god at most demand these laws such as stony gaze and why doesn't he want us to practice them now um so what i would say is he gave these laws because this is his holiness code god is righteous the bible says he is holy holy holy thrice holy right um and this is the standard for righteousness right um i think it as much as it bothers people like for example here one that bothers people a lot right um they'd say so should we stone people because they uh have cursed their parents right well no we shouldn't because we're not under a theocracy however unrepentant cursing of your parents according to the bible is death right that is the point paul says that the law is a school master to lead us to christ right the point of the law is to show you the standard for actual righteousness is very high and it's not that you shouldn't strive for that but you need to know you cannot you cannot get that right so it's showing you all those whether it's cursing parents being homosexual being lustful all that it's showing you your flaws so that you seek christ and that he can cover your sins gotcha and thanks curse have you'd like to answer that one as well give you a shot um i think i think i do kind of agree with cj to an extent um i think the the law in the old testament was very perfection based and that's actually something i actually really struggle with um with the old testament how there does seem to be a double standard for the people in the old testament versus today um but i think what it comes down to is that jesus requires mercy um like not sacrifice he is the sacrifice and i think that if you are pursuing god and if you are you have your faith in god that jesus will um save you even if you back then you weren't able to follow those perfect laws um or or today you're not able to follow them as long as you have your faith in him you trust in him um i think you're good gotcha and thanks for your question this one comes in from mike billers for skylar fiction if you're out there does the bible forbid hobo with a b santa claus thanks for that just an inside joke layman thanks for your question this was from basically they asked for both what are your thoughts on gay marriage uh from a legal perspective i am a constitutionalist there is no constitutional argument that can be made that allows the government to get involved in your marriage so um it ends with that i think it's ridiculous that i as a heterosexual man need a marriage license that's completely absurd to me um from a moral perspective i think that the bible is clear that the acts themselves of homosexuality are sinful therefore regardless of if it's promiscuous or monogamous or whatever it happens to be um homosexuality the act is wrong it would almost be like and i'm not literally saying homosexuality is comparable to murder so hear me out but it would almost be like saying is controlled murder okay it's like well no it's still if it still meets the qualifications of murder then it's definitely still murder so it's not okay you know i would disagree i think even from a moral's perspective i think um it should be legal um the bible recognized um one man married to multiple women there which is not like what marriage was intended to be um so i believe that the bible would also recognize a man married to men or a woman married to a woman gotcha thanks so much and sunflower thanks for your question said a bond built via procreation is categorically different than a bond where you're simply monogamous children strengthen bonds how is sex without the intention to have children not purely hedonistic every relationship is going to be different but i think if you are saying that um sex intended to produce children is um specifically better than sex that does not i think that is ridiculous there are many straight couples who cannot have children and to insinuate that they have any less of a bond is i believe absurd gotcha and i may i do want to kind of actually just because it does need to be said i would agree actually because i think sex actually does have a lot to do not only with procreation that's the literal becoming one play one flesh but i think there's a very you know metaphorical becoming of one flesh that is involved in the romantic act itself and i would venture that a couple that is not sexual is not a couple by any true definition of word gotcha and mike bill aris thanks for your other question said my bunny in parentheses female was humping my neighbor's bunny which is also female is god sending my bunny to hell if so does god know how furry and cute she is uh animals are not uh held morally accountable i don't believe that animals actually have uh souls so essentially i believe animals have a predisposition towards acting animalistically um which i suppose makes sense and i think that animals will i don't know if it'll be each individual species or each individual creature but i think they would just kind of go to heaven by default by virtue of not being able to be morally accountable for anything and also i think isa uh specifically in chapter 11 does seem to imply that even animals that the bible deals roughly with like snakes and wolves will actually be in heaven all fuzzy animals will go to heaven all spiders go to hell that's my perspective nice and michael resident thanks for your super chat said axe 1015 god commands peter to eat all animals i think that was uh from the discussion of the my guess is the new testament allowing animal all animals to be eaten right and so in the context there is that he has a vision a dream right where he is able to now eat all the different animals and um the vision is in the context that peter was actually being deceived by what we would call judy isers which would be essentially people who were overemphasizing the law of moses and therefore peter wouldn't even eat with gentiles and the point was to say open up the offer of salvation to the world because isa is very clear salvation you know will come through the gentiles as well through the messiah oh gotcha and uh carissa if you want to see anything you can otherwise we'll move the next one no we're good space monkey thanks for your question said uh carissa when you choose to you got a there you got a critic out there carissa they said when you choose to warp your interpretation to this extent you set up an idol you create god in your image repent of your tall tolerance and decency and accept the creator as he is i think we should um view all of these verses in context of what we know of god um and i think it's also very telling that um many biblical scholars who understand history um such as db martin who is you know a again a professor of religious studies at Yale um he believes this and i don't think it's fair to say that all these people are heretics um who have a different interpretation um of the bible and who want people to um feel secure in their identity um and not feel guilty gotcha and thanks for your question this one comes in from smoky saint uh let's see who says first chrithian six nine through ten debate over okay i think this is uh one of the i don't know if you guys i think you guys touched on that passage i'm not sure we did um and so that's the one where it says a feminine nor abusers of themselves with mankind right um i do want to point out that the word used there it is believed by some though not definitely agreed on that paul might have invented this word but nonetheless i'm pulling up from the strong's concordance right now just so i the arcanosis one is that the one you're talking about uh arson a koi type yeah so that one they actually have found that word in other contexts that were not biblically related okay so it does all right well and that's that's definitely good to know because i have heard from some that paul invented the word and i didn't know if that was true it seems like it is about like a power dynamic between a master and a slave like a sexual power dynamic which goes back to um to rape um and i don't believe it's and i'm not i i know that the translators do the best they can but i don't know if it's completely accurately translated well and and if i may i i do want to give a little bit of because i did want to bring this up in the debate but i did never get to just my own fault of course but um so arson a koi to us is defined as a male engaging in same same gender sexual activity by the strongest concordance the reason is because the words it comes from are our hane which means a male and koi to which you've probably heard before koi tis right uh which means a mat or bed specifically a marriage bed which means if you literally translated the two root words it would be a male which lies in the marriage bed with a male that seems to me to be a very very clear condemnation of homosexuality especially considering um paida astria did actually exist which is a word which describes sex with young boards so especially with compound words it's hard to actually figure out exactly what they mean especially if they're so rare as this word so for example understand does not literally mean understand all we know is that it has something to do with male in bed with a homosexual um inference to it but again looking at the the context um and the cultural context and also um different um places where it was mentioned outside of the bible it seems like it's talking about master's slave sexual dynamic gotcha and let's see red knight 821 thanks for your question said god clearly condemns homosexuality in the same passage they bring up first quinthian six nine through 10 they say homosexual tendencies are not a sin it's the act of it god loves all but it is a sin a most unrepentance a mostly unrepentance in in our society god bless so if you guys want to respond you can i would just agree honestly you know my thoughts gotcha and michael dresden thanks for your question said is premarital sex wrong for both absolutely that it's also it is also condemned in the bible any sex outside of a heterosexual monogamous marriage is condemned outside in the bible very explicitly i haven't decided on that one yet i don't know i think we have to be really careful what we call sin so i i can see it both ways though gotcha and nasty guy steven steen is back he says appreciate your question he says if marying james is wrong i don't want to be right thank you steven we appreciate that i told you you've got a wife and kids steven all right mark is really is thanks for your question said it's almost like humans made god and then in all caps reinterpret all i don't know what reinterpret all means well so to be fair and i do want to stress this point because to a certain extent it was it was almost conceded by the fact that it was not addressed at all and if if that's a misinterpretation on my part miss avelyn please do correct me but um there is no manuscript evidence whatsoever which suggests reinterpretation or mistranslation of these words um at best what the person who takes the negative on this question does have to suggest is some level of context that changes what the words are actually referring to which i think is what miss avelyn actually did today but we don't have any manuscripts um that you know place a new word here or any translations that translate this in some way that like drastically alters the text or anything i think is also it's good to point out that there's only five places in the bible which this is mentioned and it's so crazy to me how big the bible is but how christians have honed in so like specifically on homosexuality that even if homosexuals are in a movie they freak out and they think an agenda is being driven so i think in a reinterpretation can go both ways um specifically about how important especially this subject is biblically gotcha want to say thank you everybody i'm so sorry that we may not get to every single question in fact we won't we do have to let cj go as he's got a debate that he's late for already so want to say thanks so much everybody for being here i have linked carissa and cj in the description so that if you want to hear more from them get to know them whatever it is you can by clicking on those links for their channels as they're here on youtube and want to say thanks so much everybody though it's been a pleasure thanks for your questions everything else and thanks mods for all you do we never thank you guys enough but most of all thanks carissa and cj just for being here hanging out with us it's a pleasure to get to hear your conversation thank you james for hosting us yeah i appreciate it for talking absolutely with that i appreciate it a lot and i am so sorry mrs davelyn for being a uh constant interruptor i i do have a problem with that i'm trying to know i do the same thing it's it's um passion thing i think so for sure i appreciate you having this conversation with me today you as well definitely and want to let you know as well folks tomorrow a debate on wotan's uh topic his title choice controversial the title the exact title is is black lives matter hypocritical and self-defeating so that should be a juicy one folks that'll be here tomorrow night at nine p.m and that will be you'll you've seen wotan before the famous or infamous flat earther and then we'll actually be welcoming a new guest dirico so that should be a lot of fun so with that folks we do want to say one last time before we go off air we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from gay or straight christian or atheist republican democrat you name it enjoy these conversations so with that keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable folks and have a great night