Colten Barnaby
Region: US
Tuesday 03 March 2026 23:07:44 GMT
13326
1238
52
23
Music
Download
Comments
Brandy | YLH Tools & Data :
If Paul still held homophobic ideals, that would still be wrong. But the larger issue is the sexual framework of the Roman world itself. The penetrator/penetrated binary was fundamentally misogynistic because it treated the penetrated partner as taking the social position of a woman. In Roman status culture, that meant humiliation and loss of honor. Sexual ethics were tied to power and hierarchy, not orientation. So when people try to read modern sexual identity debates into Paul’s letters, they often ignore that the system he was speaking into was already built on domination. Anyone defending that binary is defending a worldview where being placed in the “female” role was considered degrading. That assumption alone reveals how deeply Roman sexual norms were connected to misogyny. Roman and Hellenistic writers themselves make this clear. Philo of Alexandria describes men who take the passive role as abandoning their masculine status and becoming “soft.” Dio Chrysostom criticizes men who feminize themselves sexually, saying they “make themselves women.” And Juvenal repeatedly mocks elite Roman men who publicly preach virtue while privately keeping boys for sexual use. These sources show that sexual behavior in the Roman world was deeply tied to status and power. The shame attached to the passive role came from the belief that being like a woman was degrading. That connection between sexuality and misogyny was already being debated in antiquity. So when we read words like malakoi (“soft”) in passages like First Epistle to the Corinthians 6:9, we’re stepping into a cultural system where sexual roles were understood through honor, dominance, and gender hierarchy…not through modern concepts of sexual orientation. Either way, using those verses today as weapons ignores the historical reality that many people in that world were victims of status-based sexual exploitation.
2026-03-04 05:52:04
105
Zephyr Zeitgeist :
You've likely covered this, but what do you think of just disregarding anything after the Gospels? Veiwing the Chapters that follow only as history, not as doctrine?
2026-03-05 17:32:00
0
your.xlnc :
As someone who has used this argument with the best intentions, I think you're absolutely right upon reflection. It is really easy to articulate that argument badly
2026-03-04 05:28:43
12
AAI Einstein :
I love how brave it is to just finally not be afraid to just say “this was here and it was wrong”
2026-03-04 07:41:40
24
Ꭻꪮ᥉ꫀρh :
I think the point of explaining where the prejudice comes from is to showcase that there was indeed a prejudice, which is something many wouldn’t accept “just because”, but when you detail the socio-political context, you’re justifying the claim, that it was indeed prejudice.
2026-03-04 14:35:48
2
Paul, just Paul :
That argument irritates me, for sure. I tried the "be married to God" thing. Funny thing, once people suspect that you might be gay underneath that, they will throw you under the bus and act like everything "right" you did and said is no longer important. Fun fact: For many years, I suspected that Paul's thorn in the flesh was a possible attraction to other men. I don't know that it holds up to actual research, but I certainly thought of my own same-ex attraction in a similar way back then.
2026-03-04 14:39:47
12
Dastan UwU :
The only apostle I trust is Mary Magdalene
2026-03-04 16:19:19
1
Olumide Ojagbemi :
I got the same shirt my guy
2026-03-09 15:17:58
0
thecosmicpastor :
💯 you articulate this perfectly!
2026-03-18 21:18:10
0
WD Bayne :
I need a crossover with my favorite Paul scholar!!! @mattiemaemotl
2026-03-04 12:46:09
4
shen :
@Kevin Carnahan just wondering what your take would be on this considering your recent video
2026-03-04 11:38:48
1
☀️ :
@Lexi Good 🧘♀️🪩🪷 do you know this creator ?
2026-04-11 09:15:41
0
Badi Bloodworth :
I think it's not just that there is no homosexuality but there is no straight sexuality. Those are modern understandings of sexuality. they don't map onto anyone's sexuality in ancient times. that sex acts themselves functioned in specific taboo ways. ie women on top
2026-03-04 13:25:27
1
☦ Бульмєні ☦ :
"The Bible was wrong about a lot of things"
2026-03-04 12:23:00
2
Arkhamist :
The Christian understanding is that same sex attraction, by itself is not a sin, but acting on it and sleeping with other men, is. It's a cross that they must bear and pray to God to be able to carry it
2026-03-04 12:20:02
1
Dige :
christianity invented homophobes btw. ancients didnt really give a shit. the greeks were having same gender relationships for the longest of time, way before a random ass carpenter got himself killed for yapping too much. only after christianity did customs become less tolerant to same sex marriages
2026-03-04 11:27:36
1
Writing on a VTX1800 :
If a man went into a temple and had sex with another man as a form of worship, then you aren't worshiping the Yaweh. That is arguably what is prohibited from Leviticus to Paul. If you aren't a temple sex worker, then there shouldn't be a problem.
2026-03-04 08:30:37
4
yt: crowbarology :
Imo the Bible is pretty clear that it loathes LGBT femme men and I don't know why people think it doesn't
2026-03-04 12:32:12
2
IGetYou03 :
Paul wanted everyone to be abstinent anyway.
2026-03-04 11:11:33
1
Scw1997 :
As a pastor who is also an openly gay man, DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS TIKTOK. This guy's argument here is unhelpful to Queer Christians facing persecution, and may be actively harmful to them. Queer people arent being persecuted in parts of the Church who are ever going to be willing to say Paul was simply wrong or that the Bible is simply wrong here. In fact, by making this argument so publicly he is actively giving ammunition to those who claim homosexuality to be incompatible with Christianity. He is also misrepresenting the primary affirming argument here. The vast majority of scholars and queer affirming theologians are not saying that queer people did not exist in Paul's time, we are saying that queerness was not an identity in his time, and thus using the word "homosexual" in biblical translation is inaccurate. This argument also almost ALWAYS is claimed in tandem with the concept that the clobber passages are speaking to things OTHER than homosexual acts in and of themselves - as the acts paul describes are always tied to sexual violence, ritual cultic prostitution, or pedophilia. This guy's argument here is both lazy and actually harmful to queer christians facing persecution, to the degree that I would question whether his goal here is really helping queer people at all, or whether his goal is to simply advocate for discrediting Paul and/or Scripture - which again is neither helpful to queer people nor true to Scripture.
2026-03-06 21:25:18
2
Danny_phantom :
Good shit 😔
2026-03-04 13:02:05
1
P. Murray :
It's like a Ryan Murphy miniseries, if you think about it: Christendom continues to actively condemn Queer people and manipulate government policy to discriminate against them, while remaining history's most successful p•d•ph•lia crime syndicate. Aaron Spelling couldn't have produced a better soap opera.
2026-03-05 23:26:58
0
Chris D. :
Homophobia is femphobia. It is an aspect of the enmity between the seed of the “serpent” and the seed of the woman and the curse that the woman would be looking to the man unnaturally oblivious to the value of herself.
2026-03-29 12:42:42
0
Ishtar :
how do you feel about homophobia in the OT or the Quran? homosexuality existed even back then, they just called it by different names. same concept but the words defining it changed.
2026-03-08 03:33:07
0
Jeremy Rabenold :
The Iliad is one of the oldest stories in the west, and it centers around the wrath of a hero who lost the love of his life to war—a man—we gays have been here the whole time
2026-03-05 11:08:54
0
To see more videos from user @coltenbarnaby, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
