This Flow Chart That Destroys Religion’s Case Against Gay Marriage Is So Easy, Any Zealot Can Use It - by Scott Bateman

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------

This is one of those biblically illiterate, self-congratulatory, sarcastic "refutations" of Christians. Frankly it's so embarrassing that I'm surprised it was published.

Before we address Scott Bateman's contentions, since he appeals to Jesus for support for gay marriage, might we ask him if he considers the Bible authoritative; and also, do the other sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible also carry weight with him? If not, what criteria does Mr. Bateman employ to make his delineation?

The first point in his flow chart is that Jesus never mentioned gay marriage. This is a "duh" comment, for the concept of gay marriage is a modern-day expression. Jesus never mentioned sustainable energy or tax the rich, and there is nary a word about Medicare or infrastructure as well. An argument from silence is not an argument.

Perhaps Mr. Bateman would have a bit more credibility here, had he restricted his comments to simple gayness instead of gay marriage. But even then he is on shaky ground, for we note that Jesus did speak about marriage. Since the author values what Jesus said, I'm sure the author will also value these words from Jesus:

"And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?' He answered, 'Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.'" (Matt. 19:3–6).

Jesus was affirming the O.T., particularly Genesis 1:27: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." And Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." It seems pretty clear, even to the casual observer, that Jesus affirmed the traditional expression of marriage.

Jesus also spoke of sexual matters, contrary to Mr. Bateman's position.

Mark 7:20-23: "What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean’. For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean’.”  

Jesus' words, not mine. The word "immorality" is used many times in the N.T., so Jesus' statements are part of a thread of understanding that is found throughout the N.T.. In each case it is used to describe various kinds of sexual impropriety, like for example in 1 Corinthians 5:1 where Paul writes against the church for its toleration of a man who is having sex with his father's wife. In other words, Jesus put boundaries on sexual behavior. Some sex is good, other sex is bad.

Further, we also find an account of an adulterous woman who was brought to Jesus.

John 8:10-11: "Jesus straightened up and asked her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no-one condemned you?' 'No one, sir,' she said. 'Then neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared. 'Go now and leave your life of sin.'" 

Notice Jesus does not "condemn" her, that is, he doesn't pronounce sentence against her in punishment. But He does say, "leave your life of sin." Thus, it is not condemnation to call the sinner to repentance. Jesus has a standard, and he is not shy about imposing his morality.

So clearly Jesus isn't on the side of the gay lifestyle or Mr. Bateman. We again appeal to how much Mr. Bateman values Jesus' teachings, and assume he will either abandon his previous admiration of Jesus, or he will conform to his new-found knowledge.

It isn't hard to discover that the rest of N.T. teaching is also in harmony with Jesus, which means that Paul's writings mesh perfectly with Jesus' teaching. Thus the frequent practice of the Left to dismiss Paul or isolate Jesus is unjustifiable.

Mr. Bateman's flow chart now appeals to dietary restrictions and tattoos. However, since we do not have to rely on the O.T. for our defense, this objection is rendered moot. This is because the legal prescriptions of ancient Israel are not relevant to us, for we are not Jews. We do not sacrifice animals, for Jesus is the Lamb of God, offered for our sin as the one perfect sacrifice. We need not build a tabernacle, for the Body of Christ, that is, the Church, is the dwelling place of Deity. We do not have to stone anyone. We have no requirement to wipe out cities, or any of the other O.T. stuff. We are not Jews.

It is the moral law, timeless and enduring, which we must obey. Those O.T. moral principles were restated and affirmed by Jesus as binding upon us.

Matt. 5:17-18: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." 

Thus in two sentences Jesus makes the whole of the moral law a requirement and simultaneously negates Mr. Bateman's arguments.

Now we come to the part of Mr. Bateman's presentation that wearing gold is forbidden. Mr. Bateman is revealed once again to have only a rudimentary acquaintance with the N.T., and had he actually read it he would have quickly discovered that doesn't say what he hoped it would say.

1 Peter 3:3-4: "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight." 

Mr. Bateman has left the gospels and now appeals to the epistles, so he either dismisses or affirms various parts of the N.T. as it suits him. First note that the passage is neither Jesus nor Paul writing, but Peter.  Second, note that the passage is speaking to women, not men. Third, the passage does not forbid wearing gold, it simply points out that beauty comes from within.

The next item in the flow chart is divorce. Unfortunately for Mr. Bateman, the great majority of Christendom decries divorce. He uses as evidence against the Church a practice that the Church has long condemned. We will note, however, that the Left sanctions divorce, accepts it and promotes it. Thus Mr. Bateman's criticism rings hollow, for the people he mocks are already against what he thinks they should be against.

Lastly, Mr. Bateman counsels us to read the paperwork before joining a major religion. Certainly true, but our counsel to Mr. Bateman might be that he himself should also read the paperwork before embarking on ill-considered and spurious criticism of Christianity.