Originally Posted by
Jim Chabot
Hi Dana, Hopefully I can contribute something helpful to your searching through this subject.
Early on in the video, Matthew says something that I believe to be untrue, he says “if someone is gay, then their sexual orientation is a sign of the fall.: I don’t accept that anyone “is” gay, perhaps they have a predilection toward homosexual attraction and behavior, but that does not make them “gay”, for in many ways they are no different from the rest of us in that they suffer temptation, that is common to man. If some folks truly “are gay” then I am a thief and a cheater. For that is who I was before Jesus changed my life, those were my predispositions, among others.
He goes on to say that gay people “are viewed as lustful, sexual beings” and I believe he is correct here. However characterizations in the same vein are employed as descriptors to murderers, extortions, cheats, adulterers, drunks, whores and so many others. This is the manner to which most people who are enslaved in a particular sin tend to be viewed. Although there is a negative connotation given by these descriptors, one must remember that sin itself is negative, thus those enslaved by it become viewed in this light. This is also the way these folks are described in scripture. Remembering of course that these folks are all afflicted with that which is common to man, and which may be overcome through the power of His Spirit at work in our lives. For at one time we were all at enmity with God in our minds by our wicked works but now are reconciled to Him.
“Same sex relationships are inherently sinful, no matter the quality and no matter the context.” He appears to be offering this as example of unfairness should it be true. Yet he is muddying the waters here just a bit for it is the sexual nature of the relationship[ where sin would exist should the traditional interpretation be true. Surely there is nothing sinful in a caring loving lifetime relationship between two people of the same sex, it is called friendship. He is asking us if we will go one mile with him and step into his shoes for a spell. Ok, I will try to do this.
I must admit early on that I’m finding his shoes to be a bad fit, or possibly on the wrong feet. This young man appears to be desperately clinging to his sin, Imy take is that he doesn’t imagine an escape, he feels that this is actually a part of him rather than a harmful parasite. A childhood and lifelong friend of mine died at the age of 42 from cirrhosis of the liver. He desperately clung to his sin as well. I have a vivid memory of the day when he told me that he had been throwing up blood every morning for a couple of weeks and feared that he would have to quit drinking. Through tears he told me with absolute certainty that no one would like him if he didn’t drink, he was sure, so sure that he continued drinking for the next few months until his death with a few of us around him. While I am interested to hear where his research into scripture leads him. I fear that he is setting this up rather badly. He is precluding the possibility that the Spirit of God could deliver him if in fact his predilection is sinful. God has no power in his mind, this is so sad, even though I have seen this before, it’s tragic.
Good teachings according to Jesus have good consequences, they don’t lead to destruction of human dignity, or emotional and spiritual devastation and to the loss of self esteem and self worth. But, he says , those have been the consequences of the traditional teaching for homosexuals. I’m not going to come out and say that he is deliberate in this, but this is a sleight of hand trick. Yes these can be the consequences of embraced sin. Good teaching brings good consequences when followed, the opposite should be allowed when the good teaching is not followed.
He is saying now that God is wrong. God says that the suitable partner for a man is a woman. Matthew is saying that this is not true for gay men. He disagrees with what God has said citing his own experience and the experience of others. He is saying that a suitable partner for a gay man is another gay man, for a gay woman, it would be another gay woman. He is against what God is saying here, can he show that God has said otherwise? Okay he is now saying that those with a same sex predilection must live alone, he says that the first thing that God has declared to be not good, is said to be good. Yet this is an argument based upon a falsehood, because God’s solution to the problem of aloneness is based upon His definition of a suitable helper. Matthews anecdotal evidence not withstanding. He begins to show anger toward the end of this thought concluding that something is off. I believe that he is correct, something is off, he is held captive by sin, surely the results will be hurtful and destructive. I’m only about 16 minutes in, but so far he appears to be arguing against scripture rather that arguing from it.
He is talking about discussing the six verses which speak to this now.
To be continued, hopefully.
