Saturday, March 31, 2012

The Gay Debate: The Bible & Homosexuality


  1. Well worded and presented, but I have two things to say.
    First, no one ever said the life of a Christian would be easy. In fact, Christ let us know that it would be difficult. It is certainly more difficult for some of us than others. But just because something is difficult, lonely, or seemingly unfair does not mean that there must be a way to escape it.
    Second, (and I honestly mean this in the least condescending way possible), because you are gay you have an enormous vested interest in the outcome of your theology on this subject. In that case, I think you may have had a bias from the start and decided what you would like your final position to be ahead of time. I don't think that is the right initial approach to studying scripture.

    1. Being Christian definitely isn't easy, especially if you're a gay one. I find myself defending my faith on a regular basis, especially when my fellow Christians (often some well known ones like Pat Robertson) do/say some very un-Christian things. Ironic that it's Christians who make being Christian difficult.

      As to the second point, I would say that that thought has crossed my mind on multiple occasions: that someone being gay would be biased, even given the "evidence" laid out in this video. If there were a neutral party (i.e. someone not gay and not a party of the particularly anti-gay sect) to corroborate the evidence that Matthew laid out on the other hand, then that bias argument could be laid to rest.

      Regardless of that however, there are people (generally speaking, not solely on this issue) that are more tied more to a position than to actual facts. No matter what indisputable evidence you lay in front of them, they will ignore it categorically. In such cases, it is still important to lay out the facts so that they are on record and at the very least, those who are undecided have some evidence on which to base a judgment call.

  2. Nice guy, but unfortunately his messages does contain a lot of flaws. There are flaws in his interpretation of the Bible, flaws in his understanding of ancient history and flaws in his logic. Even at the start of his theological analysis he refers to Matthew 7 as a way of determining a valid teaching. But if you look up Matthew 7, you find that is not what the passage is about. Rather is about determining a valid prophet. More details here: