Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Based Camp with Simone & Malcolm Collins" channel.

22:21 "They're not even banned in the Bible" Romans 1:26, the Greek words used by Paul would be explicit prohibition on the practice of lesbianism in Scripture. That being aside from the fact it repeatedly states that the violation of one man with one woman unified in one flesh is abomination. Paul actually goes over this principal numerous times.
32
Just gonna point out at 3:03 Malcolm doesn't know anything about theology, Christian history, or American history it seems, separation of church and state was not Christian devised, it was devised by deists, it also didn't make an argument that Christian morality must be separated from the state in fact Jefferson who first stated the concept states that Christian morality should be enforced by the state. (the only purpose of the separation of church and state was that the state could not legally enforce a single church as authority over the state, which is simple agreement with the 1st Amendment, it still only recognized the Christian institutions however) Homosexuality was banned in the US on the basis of Scripture originally so that argument doesn't even make any sense. The "Christians" in the late 1900s weren't Christians in any theological sense, they were as Christian theologically as Richard Dawkins, cultural and nothing more. Lets take another example being Holy Trinity vs. the United States in the 1890s, in it the Supreme Court explicitly states the US is expressly and an exclusively Christian country and that its laws reflect the Torah, which they used to justify legal arguments up until around the 1920s. The US was not a moral pluralist country, it was a Christian pluralist country and the first two presidents explicitly stated during their terms as presidents that the American Constitution is only suitable for a people of Christian morals and is unsuitable for any other peoples. "Religious freedom" at the time meant Christian freedom, those who were opposed to the Christian foundation were seen as "Christians" by their acceptance of Christian morality. (like Thomas Paine, whose only read book was Common Sense and everyone hate otherwise) As well Jesus explicitly states that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. (Matthew 5:17) Also give unto Caesar what is Caesar doesn't work for morality because that's not Caesar's, the logic of this entire argument makes no sense and doesn't respect Scripture.
21
@Oicurmtoyoy Where it says "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;" would be read by every Greek reader of the day as referring to women having passion with women, another way it is phrased is "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones" where the initial possessive noun is masculine but the accusative nouns referring to natural and unnatural relations are all feminine. Natural relations refers explicitly to heterosexual relationships and the way unnatural relations would be used here would be exclusively for homosexual relationships.
4
@Punkrockbuhhda Ammon isn't a Biblical scholar, he doesn't know anything about Koine Greek, he's a Classic Greek student which predates the New Testament by 500 years, he also thinks that the Septuagint predates the Ancient Hebrew without evidence. In fact all evidence we have says that the Ancient Hebrew text predates Classical Greek as a whole as a number of loan words show up in the Tanakh (that are then brought into the Septuagint) that wouldn't naturally be found or make any sense in the Septuagint's Greek unless it was a translated work as the Classical Greek language wouldn't have interactions from many of the other Semitic (and even some non-Semitic) languages that the Ancient Hebrew did, as some of them were dead or dying by the time of the Hellenization period. (and a dying language doesn't tend to last long enough to proliferate loan words out of it) As well those loan words retained Hebrew modifications first, not Greek modifications.
4
@Oicurmtoyoy In this specific case it would refer explicitly to the relations between women as unnatural, as far as I'm aware that specific text doesn't explicitly prohibit bestiality, (Paul has little reason say much on that here cause it was not as commonly considered) it could be implied but it wouldn't be the first thought of a Greek reader.
3
@txdmsk This aside Ancient Hebrew almost never distinguishes women in general, much of the Torah and even the Tanakh don't say anything about women at all except in cases where it would make no sense for the sentence to say men (like the prohibition on harming a pregnant woman's child at the cost of your own life in Exodus 21:22-25) it is thus otherwise presumed to mean man and woman.
3
@txdmsk Every mention of the man and woman leaving their parents house and becoming one flesh is also an explicitly prohibition for anyone who knew Ancient Hebrew (as it means anyone who does not do this will die) but I don't mention it because it requires an explanation of Ancient Hebrew.
3
@Oicurmtoyoy "Fully and clearly expressed" or "Fully developed or formulated" or "Forthright and unreserved in expression". In Ancient Hebrew it would fit all three of these definitions. See the problem is you're treating Ancient Hebrew like English (or any modern European language) however Ancient Hebrew does not operate in any familiar way to English, (or other modern European languages) most old Semitic languages don't, but Ancient Hebrew especially doesn't. In Ancient Hebrew clear expressions are not communicated lacking relative context, they require local and cultural understandings for literally every word, even simple statements are full of this. (doesn't help that Ancient Hebrew didn't have explicit vowels, and vowel notation doesn't show up until the 10th century, to understand where vowels were valid required cultural and historical immersion) In English there is a concept of absolute meaning lacking the need for much contextual reasoning, many Semitic languages never had this concept, in order to communicate a meaning of a word you needed to immerse yourself in the culture to interpret any statement, this is why Gentiles wouldn't have learned Hebrew as it required immersion in the society and history of the Hebrews for years. For a native speaker of Hebrew it would be plainly obvious to interpret things a certain way and it was expected for things to be multi-interpreted. As well in Ancient Hebrew it was very unusual to refer to women at all, it was common for any reference to women to be related to men because women were not seen as independent of them. Thing is too this all still meant there was one clear interpretation of the text but simply "learning the language" wasn't enough, you had to become a Hebrew, this is why the most Septuagint translations did not semantically disagree as they were written by Hebrews. (beyond clear scribal errors)
3
@Oicurmtoyoy The problem is it would be explicit for those who could read the language, in the language it would be clearly and fully expressed, it however cannot exist without the context of the entire culture and history in the language. Japanese actually operates very similarly (it but less so then Ancient Hebrew did) where explicitly clear statements are culturally and historically relevant, nobody who could read the language would confuse the interpretations even slightly, but no translation out of the original language can communicate how explicit the interpretation would be and communicate the multi-functional meaning of a statement, most translations tend to perform the most reductive of functional meanings for most statements which tend to be extremely literal. Like let me show you a simple example I know in Japanese: The term "I like you" in Japanese does not translate to "I like you" at all, if you were to literally translate the statement it would say "The moon is beautiful", no Japanese person would use the literal words unless they were a child (or showing such devotion that they don't mind sounding like a child but that is rare in Japan) and instead they use this poetic phrase which implies romantic feelings except literally no native Japanese person would misconstrue that statement as anything but "I like you". (unless they specifically misheard the words you said but that's a different issue) This despite being an "implicit" statement is still by definition explicit, and this is what I mean. Granted this simple example is super reductive and Ancient Hebrew is way more then just this but this is why saying its not explicit doesn't make any sense unless you don't understand that the concept of explicit does not translate into context sensitive languages that way.
3
@Oicurmtoyoy In this specific case it would refer explicitly to the relations between women as unnatural, as far as I'm aware that specific text doesn't explicitly prohibit bestiality, (Paul has little reason say much on that here cause it was not as commonly considered) it could be implied but it wouldn't be the first thought of a Greek reader. As for what its specifically saying, Romans 1:26 and 27 are the literal only time χρῆσιν (chrēsin) shows up in Scripture in that form, and in that specific form it only refers to the use of a woman for sex.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy As for what its specifically saying, Romans 1:26 and 27 are the literal only time χρῆσιν (chrēsin) shows up in Scripture in that form, and in that specific form it only refers to the use of a woman for sex.
1
@txdmsk Most people don't realize that in Ancient Hebrew, a rule applied to men also meant it was equally applied to women, it would've been expected that if women were caught doing such a thing according to Torah they were to be stoned just the same. This aside Ancient Hebrew almost never distinguishes women in general, much of the Torah and even the Tanakh don't say anything about women at all except in cases where it would make no sense for the sentence to say men (like the prohibition on harming a pregnant woman's child at the cost of your own life in Exodus 21:22-25) it is thus otherwise presumed to mean man and woman. Every mention of the man and woman leaving their parents house and becoming one flesh is also an explicitly prohibition for anyone who knew Ancient Hebrew (as it means anyone who does not do this will die) but I don't mention it because it requires an explanation of Ancient Hebrew. If you read the Torah and see an instruction of the Law that says men, unless the specific rule would make no sense to apply to women as well it would also mean women, like most of the prohibitions on thievery and how its resolved specifically use the term man but the Law itself would apply equally to women, the same of the sexual sins.
1
@txdmsk @txdmsk Most people don't realize that in Ancient Hebrew, a rule applied to men also meant it was equally applied to women, it would've been expected that if women were caught doing such a thing according to Torah they were to be stoned just the same.
1
@txdmsk If you read the Torah and see an instruction of the Law that says men, unless the specific rule would make no sense to apply to women as well it would also mean women, like most of the prohibitions on thievery and how its resolved specifically use the term man but the Law itself would apply equally to women, the same of the sexual sins.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "Clear != explicit." First off, that means your point is irrelevant, secondly I literally can't find a single dictionary that doesn't use it as either a definition, synonym, or both.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy That's worthless pedantry, like "Fully and clearly expressed" is literally the same thing as calling a statement clear. There's also "clear and exact", "very clear and complete : leaving no doubt about the meaning", "Something that is explicit is expressed or shown clearly and openly, without any attempt to hide anything", "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent" which is not invalidated either, there is nothing implied. Something that isn't literally stated does not make a statement non-explicit. By your claim there is literally no way for anything to be "explicit" in Japanese which is a ridiculous standard and don't find that honest or charitable of a position, the only reason to argue over the the concept of "explicit" is if it served a point of adding vague interpretation, which aside from being a worthless point, is literally not possible. Its arguing over the semantics of a word that changes literally nothing, and the semantic argument being made is not even correct.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy ""Well at least your pretty" is clearly expressing that someone is stupid, to a native English speaker, but not fully, and thus it's not explicit." English is very low context sensitive language and that concept does not translate into high context sensitive languages at all, (else you're arguing that said languages literally cannot be explicit at all) most European languages in general tend to be low context sensitive, its what makes teaching said languages comparatively trivial, so something can be communicated in a way that isn't full expressed simply because its not the most reductive way to describe an idea. This does not apply to Japanese or Hebrew, where the most reductive and simplest way to explain things would clearly understand is by being "non-literal" (they would still interpret it as literal, if you describe a "literal statement" they would call it such, but translating it literally makes no sense) By being "explicit" in these languages it would neither be clear nor fully expressed according to any listener.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "Let's drop Japanese, and even Hebrew and Greek, for the moment, as its adding a needless layer of complexity." I was using Japanese as an example but you completely killed the point of the example to argue about the pedantry of explicit. Hebrew and Koine Greek is relevant when we talk about Scripture, the entire point of discussion is about the unambiguous nature of Scripture in describing things that aren't being fully translated when you read an English translation but would've been so plainly obvious to any reader that they would've called you a fool to debate over in such cases.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "But that phrase IS context sensitive. So how does it fail?" First off its not, its a common rhetorical contrast concept, (which is one of the most bare basic capacities of a language that supports rhetoric, which is most natural languages) it doesn't demonstrate any concept of context sensitivity because there is nothing in any culture of native English speaker nor their history, nor even of a relative context, which is necessary to understand the statement's meaning. Missing the meaning is completely irrelevant to English-speaking culture and even a non-native speaker can trivially pickup on the meaning. That aside you're completely missing the point of what I mean when I say English is low context because it means English comprehension has no relevance to a cultural or historical understanding. One merely needs to study the vocabulary and grammar of English and they can understand practically any statement. This is not true for context sensitive languages, knowing the vocabulary and grammar will not actually help you to understand much more then maybe a child-level conversation. (and for Ancient Hebrew it wouldn't even help you with that)
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "You're saying that "Aishitemasu" would be confusing to a Japanese speaker? Because Anime and Manga, which is made to be easily understood is like that." That is irrelevant.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "Then Japanese truly is a bad example, as a large portion of Japanese comedy is about failure of Kuukiyomi; reading the room." Reading the room has no relevance to to language comprehension, while it communicates concepts, you cannot "read the room" of a written form except by using written context, thus making the entire context itself still explicit. The whole principal of "reading the room" is that it requires more then language comprehension, which while tangential, is irrelevant to my point because this behavior was not relevant to my use of it as an example. It was about communicating understanding, not drawing a one to one "they are the exact same".
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "So you think that written language can only be explicit?" I didn't say that, the concept of "reading the room" doesn't apply in any situation that lacks body language and intonation, and its still irrelevant to Ancient Hebrew as they never had such a concept.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "It shows that the most reductive and simple way to explain things is by being direct in Japanese." I would disagree immensely, but that aside Japanese was an example for a very specific purpose that you completely missed and now are arguing over in irrelevance, this is what makes this entire part of the discussion irrelevant and pedantic.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy First off none of the context changes the semantics, so saying "at least your pretty" is context independent, the subject is irrelevant, the environment is irrelevant, the phrase is always an backhanded complement, so the context is irrelevant to the statement. (thus its non-contextual) That aside your entire point is irrelevant because that's not linguistic context, referring to a language as high or low context sensitive is about the linguistics function, you're arguing over semantic context, where reading comprehension is based around dependency of related words modifying the semantics of a statement.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "I assume you have example of it being used outside of the Bible." That's specifically why its described that way. Every example of Koine Greek of the period we can find uses that form in that way. You do realize Koine Greek is not just the Bible right? It was the first known writing of Koine Greek following Latin overtaking it, but as we discovered more of Koine Greek, we've found Scripture uses normative words according to their common definition in every case that it doesn't have a newly devised word in it. (Paul does so a number of times, but every time is obviously clear of what he meant)
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "Basically, how did you first come to the idea that this is the obvious interpretation, that you would be called a fool for arguing about?" Well rabbis already brought these topics up in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew, as well as early Christians who could read one of said languages and the conclusion has always been the same. Any attempt to reinterpret these texts otherwise specifically are applications of modern people ignoring the ancient manuscripts and evidence and looking to twist their own interpretations of reality into the text.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "In what way can written language be implicit, if reading the room is impossible?" Because context clues is not reading the room, "reading the room" pertains to non-descriptive intuition that has to be picked up, that doesn't exist if its described, reading it makes it a relevant description, it is impossible to express such purely by words. Like you can describe such expressions that contribute to an idea but that makes the context explicit to the written form even if the concept itself isn't completely explicit. Written forms are inherently limited in the substance of what they can contain and how they can communicate concepts.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "Secondly, you can convey those through text." Then its no longer reading the room, having contextual understanding is a distinct skill from social comprehension, and they don't even inherently translate in any sense, you can be good at one and be terrible at the other.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "What do you think is going through his head at this moment? If you can answer that with something I didn't say, then it's implicit, and you read the room." There is no way to describe what is going through his head as the statement you made gives nothing about that. A position is implied by semantic clues, but there is very little described about thoughts or even specific feelings. Its utterly vague and any conclusion you make would be objectively incorrect without more semantic information. You can make presumption of it all you want, doesn't mean you'll be correct, and making said presumptions is a fools errand.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "Sir, animals have this concept. Also:" Are you deliberately trying to play the fool? Because when I say "Ancient Hebrew never had such a concept", the language does not recognize a concept of reading the room, whatever people feel is irrelevant, words are not modified by their inflection in Ancient Hebrew nor does body language modulate the conceptual communication. That's not saying communication as a whole doesn't, but it is unnecessary to communication within the language. You're irrationally expanding the domain of the discussion and deflecting from any valid point.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "Proverbs 16:30 Genesis 4:5-6 Luke 17:16" None of these fit any concept of "reading the room".
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "To show a contemporary example of a high context language, which you declared are more clear when speaking indirectly. What am I missing?" No that's completely missing the entire point of why I used it as an example, it was used as an example because it requires a cultural context to understand the language that isn't communicated in the vocabulary of the words themselves. This is not because its indirect speech but because the language itself is culturally dependent, most European languages don't do this, they have culturally relevant phrases you can memorize but the whole of the language does not require any of this knowledge, when you state in English "I love you", there is no context to that statement which makes you able to correctly interpret it, (except in the case of semantic modification, but that's expansion of the domain and not relevant to topic) most ancient languages don't do this, in said languages it would require understanding the culture of the language to understand the language.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "These are google's overview of the terms, and they both sound like your idea of semantic context." Semantic context is part of linguistic context in the normative sense, but in this specific case I'm making explicit distinction between semantic and non-semantic context because I'm referring to a catchall of linguistic context for everything that isn't semantic context, this meaning cultural relevant concepts that are required to interpret words and phrases which does not apply to semantic context. (or if we want to get pedantic the specific target is lexical semantic context, though compositional semantics still mostly apply) My point with the specific terms is explaining how Ancient Hebrew worked required you to understand the Hebrew faith and culture like someone who was raised up in it inn order to understand and communicate in the language.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "Cite them. We can start with just 1 or 2." παιδικη, Lucian, amor. 25; ὀρεξεις παρά τάς χρησεις, Plutarch, placit. philos. 5, 5; (cf. Isocrates, p. 386 c.; Plato, legg. 8, p. 841 a.; Aristotle, others) Those are a number of the citations which are used for Biblical comprehension according to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "Sir, do you have autism? Like, severe autism? Because this is something they would ask you in an autism assessment. It’s also Middle School level English." You're playing pedantry and then get mad when I point out the semantics of your claim is false, no you cannot know whats going on in his head, you can presume all you want, but that's not evidence of fact.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "Not if the context is social." That's psychologically proven false.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "How? You're telling me saying "I smiled" is more explicit than just smiling?" Yes, it is inherently so because you're instructing about important details in the mind of the writer without the ambiguity that social comprehension requires. If the writer gives you no other details you can only presume the writer is being as verbose as necessary to communicate the point he intends.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "This does not mean that English has no cultural context required for any of it’s phrases" This is not what I said nor is it relevant to my point.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "So no, that is not the case. It can be the case, but it is not inherently the case. Unless you’re suggesting that you’d have to non-literally ask me to pass the salt, if you asked in Hebrew." Perhaps a bit of an extreme example, but as far as an Ancient Hebrew would be concerned, it could communicate something very confusing if not outright wrong if you didn't instead state what would be the culturally relevant instruction in that case. In the least it won't produce the desired outcome by stating it with a literal vocabulary and they would not operate as understanding you by doing that. This is especially true with prescriptive things, and with wisdom teachers, they often would give you prescription with many simultaneous meanings (or contrasting meaning) specifically to get you to think and integrate the teaching. This is why there's a lot of odd to translate language in the Old Testament Proverbs and Rabbinic writings. (Jesus also taught that way)
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "Now this is actually the conclusion, but I put it first, because I want you to read it first, as I find most of what you're saying to be frustrating copium." Its not but I don't care either way cause I find it suspect that you would leave open the parameters for many interpretations where there isn't any room to, like there are parts of Scripture where we can have vague interpretation, but the moral teachings, prescriptions, and prohibitions aren't one of those cases, they're very much only singularly correct in interpretation and there is literally no other form of interpretation you could make of it. Even among some "Christians" many make the claim of water-downed prescriptions in Scripture but that's absolutely not the case.
1
@Oicurmtoyoy "the Jews didn’t really care." He wasn't talking to Jews, Romans was written to those places with nearly no Jewish Christians (nor was it received by a church with any notable amount of Jews) at the time so it wouldn't make any sense either for him to be addressing the Jews. So that would only really reinforce what he was saying. And that aside that would still violate the Torah, I'm not sure where anyone would get the idea that the Jews wouldn't care, they would persecute women more then men in every circumstance.
1
@punishanpika No, the punishment is separation from God, its always a crime, if you actually read the Bible, you wouldn't have said something so insane, you're a heretic and committing false teaching and false witness, if you don't repent you will receive much worse then any other wretch.
1
@punishanpika Then you don't know Scripture very well, for arsenkoites is never described as a punishment, it is a crime, that's literally what the term is required to mean in Greek, it can't be interpreted any other way.
1