Every Biblical Argument Against Being Gay, Debunked Biblically
This is Matthew Vines. The New York Times is writing about him, thanks to his amazing work. He has a sermon you need to watch. It's long. And 350,000 other people have already watched it (that's how good it is.) But I can't begin to tell you how important his ideas are.
At 9:05, he pulls at the heartstrings of anyone who has them. At 24:12, he demolishes all arguments based on Leviticus, and he explains something you'll never forget about Old Testament "abominations" at 29:12. At 35:37, he unpacks the thorniest New Testament passage, burying the "unnatural" argument once and for all at 47:06.
At 58:48, he makes one of the most effective Bible-based arguments for gay marriage you'll ever hear. And at 1:03:32, he closes with a plea for acceptance that's been melting the hearts even of dyed-in-the-wool Southern Baptists.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||09/17/2012|
Who cares what the bible says about anything?
|by Anonymous||reply 1||09/15/2012|
Unfortunately plenty of people, R1. It's good to have debunking information to hand.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||09/15/2012|
Mrs. Betty Bowers explains how to have a Bible-based marriage:
|by Anonymous||reply 3||09/15/2012|
Who gives a fuck about the bible? Get a life.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||09/15/2012|
The Abrahamic religions have screwed up this planet for thousands of years. They're misogynistic, homophobic, and retrograde.
I wish "progressive" losers like this guy would disappear already. Along with their putrid faith. For those of us with the courage, the age of reason awaits.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||09/15/2012|
Why such hostility towards an intelligent gay young man who is working hard to defuse the hatred of gay people by religious Christians?
Isn't this a good thing?
|by Anonymous||reply 7||09/15/2012|
There's no hatred toward gay ambassadors in this thread. Just remember, everything can generate some humor. Kaftans and weak ends are meant to bring smiles even when the heart is breaking.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||09/15/2012|
Yeah, it's an hour long. Yeah, there's a ton of scriptural references. Yeah, I'm not a Christian and never have been.
Still, it's very powerful, and the final moments especially brought some tears to my eyes.
Even if you hate religion, hate Christianity, can't stand churches... I think it's worth listening to. If only so you can argue more competently and specifically with those who would use religion in general and Christianity in particular as a weapon against you.
And because you have a heart, and you can see this guy's pain and relate to it yourself.
It's a powerful sermon, and one I wish every single congregation would sit through.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||09/15/2012|
"Isn't this a good thing?"
No, it really isn't. The big three religions are all based on the same homophobic scriptures, and attempts to make them so called "open and affirming" inevitably fail.
If this jerk is a breeder, he's merely assuaging a guilt complex. And if he is actually gay, he's just an Uncle Tom.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||09/15/2012|
R10, do you enjoy making yourself look like an idiot, because you're comming on something you clearly don't know or understand?
The entire sermon is about how the Bible ISN'T homophobic, but that some modern interpretations of the words have made it seem so.
And saying "If this jerk is a breeder" makes you look even more like an ignorant asshole, who didn't even bother to watch two seconds, let alone the entire thing.
How is it that you've managed to put your foot in your mouth while your head is so far up your own ass?
Next time, perhaps learn at least a little bit about the subject before jerking your knee all over it and posting such utter bullshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||09/15/2012|
[quote]because you're comming on
Obviously that should be "Commenting" on. I hate this keyboard.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||09/15/2012|
I published a better list of pro-gay sentiments in 2006 right here on datalounge.
As usual, this kid is not aggressive enough, not confident enough. He doesn't seem to understand that the Bible is Semitic, and "platonic" non-sexual relations are an invention of Indo-European division of the world into material and non-material: an idea of Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Manicheans, Celts, and Germans, but have zero role in the Bible, whether written originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, or koine Greek, none of which distinguished between sexual and non-sexual in any systematic way. Not even the Greeks, Indo-European though they were, had anything like this concept, and certainly Plato didn't. He would laugh at the insanity of Christians today invoking his name to deny sex.
Much of the Bible is sexual, far more than this kid realizes. Like John Boswell before him, he spends too much time trying to reconcile what he should be flat out denying. These people aren't sincere DUDE, their hate is not based on the Bible, and what's more, they know it. Because they've never read the Bible and they don't know what the hell is in it.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||09/15/2012|
The Sodom story in the original language made NO reference to men of Sodom wanting to rape the outsiders. The verb was "to know" which did not always mean sex. We know from Judges 19 what they really had to fear was human sacrifice to Belial, probably not rape, although that could have been part of it.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||09/15/2012|
I think he's basically reiterated Boswell's book here.
If he really researched this for two years, I would have expected more.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||09/15/2012|
"...the Bible ISN'T homophobic."
Ah, but it is. The Bible is irredeemably homophobic. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a cowardly liar.
There's nothing worse than a gay Christian apologist. To paraphrase Chris Rock "If you're gay and Christian you have a real short memory."
|by Anonymous||reply 16||09/15/2012|
R16, once again, you clearly didn't watch the video. What are you afraid of? Yeah, it'll take an hour out of your life. But at least you might learn something.
Sorry, but you're the cowardly liar here. And you'll figure out why as soon as you watch the entire thing.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||09/15/2012|
Hey! I watched the video! It changed my life! I'm psyched that your imaginary friend likes me now!
The Bible advocates the genocide of gay people. Christians can never be true allies. Including gay ones.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||09/15/2012|
That's not true R16. And you are the coward and the liar and certainly worse than ANY gay apologist. Even me. I am not a Christian, will never be a Christian, and think it is all unethical idiot crap. But it is not antigay and it is a LIE to pretend it is.
He is also wrong about how gays (or sex) were "generally" viewed back then. He completely misses that trading hand jobs was how business deals were "sealed."
He says "it does not contain explicit positive comments about same sex relationships" but that is a lie. Daniel i:9; John 13:23 and John 19:26-27.
Why does he miss Romans 12:9 "Now love should be without dissimulation"? And why does he miss Romans 13:10 "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."
He doesn't mention either passage even though he is attempting to explain away Romans 1:26-27. I think the reason is that he didn't spent two years studying this subject, he read one book, Boswell's, and did not even read the Bible from cover to cover to check his math.
He's giving away way too much in this little talk (as did Boswell, who at least had the excuse that he was dying).
|by Anonymous||reply 19||09/15/2012|
The real problem is that they invite people like Matthew Vines, age 21, to speak, and not people like me. They stack the argument by getting someone young or ignorant or weak to speak for our side.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||09/15/2012|
R16 is right. Ive watched the entire video several times. The video was made in College Hill UMC. Subsequent to the video being made, the UMC conference in May defined homosexual sex as "incompatible with Christian teaching." The video is largely based on things that most people dont understand, eg obscure definitions of Greek words, so whether you believe the arguments tends to be a matter of trust. It has many flaws, as outlined in more than a dozen critques that can be found on Google.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||09/16/2012|
What a great post, OP!! What a wonderful presentation! Thank you for making my day!
|by Anonymous||reply 22||09/17/2012|
You're welcome, R22.
I found it very moving in spots. Even though I don't buy into most of Christianity, and agree with others that some of his arguments don't go far enough. I still think it's valueable, and am glad there are people out there doing this.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||09/17/2012|
I've found that homophobic Christians don't hate gays because of the bible, they just use the bible as a way to rationalize their hatred of gays.
Unfortunately, we're not dealing with a bunch of biblical experts whose minds will be changed by this sort of scholarship.
Look at how many homophobic Christians believe that divorce is OK when the bible is crystal clear that it's not.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||09/17/2012|
I've not had time to listen yet,though I hope to soon.
Sodom and Gomorrah is an interesting story except that the same story is told about the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin what must be several hundred to a thousand years later. Look it up. Travelers. Gangs screaming to "know" the visitors, daughters offered. Benjaminites slaughtered for it, to the man. Except that the second story explains clearly that Benjamin's story was about their violation of guest laws.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||09/17/2012|
I applaud his effort. While it may not change opinions, it may soften some attitudes - but on the margins only.
The argument has several flaws and weaknesses, but is more than sufficient to counter the average bible thumper who can only quote Leviticus, if one wanted to waste the effort.
There are only a few people who oppose homosexuality solely on the basis of the bible, but would otherwise not have a problem with it. It's not the cause for hatred, merely the justification.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||09/17/2012|
[quote]I've found that homophobic Christians don't hate gays because of the bible, they just use the bible as a way to rationalize their hatred of gays.
Amen (so to speak). Man created religion to reinforce his prejudices. If there were no such thing as religion, there'd be some other social construct that similarly marginalizes us.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||09/17/2012|
I suppose I'm glad that there are people like this out there, preaching to the retarded, as it were.
But it still doesn't change the fact that god is imaginary, the bible is a collection of superstitious books written by primitive people with little understanding of the world or of human nature, and the long and short of it is: I shouldn't have to--no one should have to--be governed by other people's beliefs. None of these facts are at all present in his talk.
And in the end, I don't really know if his sort of schtick will do much good. People who arrive at their positions without logic or reason can't be persuaded away through logic or reason. We've already won over the intelligent half of America. More power to this guy for trying to win over the dumber half, but really: I just have my doubts if it can be done. Hating 'teh gay' has become the defining element of modern American evangelical KKKristianity and people can't really be persuaded away from that.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||09/17/2012|
R29, by claiming that "god is imaginary" you're putting yourself at the same level as a santero who prays to a dry coconut because, on the issue of god, NO ONE REALLY KNOWS SHIT.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||09/17/2012|
Your logic fails, R30. I don't know there is no invisible pink bunny following me around either.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||09/17/2012|
i do. there is NO invisible pink bunny following you around. r30 there is NO god.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||09/17/2012|
[quote] I don't know there is no invisible pink bunny following me around either.
The bunny is magenta, not pink.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||09/17/2012|
My bunny is evil and tells me to kill people.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||09/17/2012|