9 Responses to A Selection of Logical Fallacies from God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines

  1. Colin Smith April 26, 2014 at 8:23 am #

    Hamilton is being unfair to Vines in claiming that his treatment of Jude 7 involves an etymological fallacy and a red herring. Vines’s interpretation is backed up by Richard Hays in “The Moral Vision of the New Testament”. Hays states that the phrase “went after other flesh” (apelqousai opisw sarkos heteras) refers to their pursuit of non-human (i.e. angelic) flesh. The expression sarkos heteras means “flesh of another kind”. Thus, it is impossible to construe this passage as a condemnation of homosexual desire, which entails precisely the pursuit of the same kind. (p. 404). Further, just as verses 6 and 8 are both talking about angels, so verse 7 is also talking about angels.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Matthew Vines Misrepresents the Apostle Peter | For His Renown - April 23, 2014

    […] also: “A Selection of Logical Fallacies from God and the Gay Christian by Matthew […]

  2. God and the Gay Christian Reviews - Kuyperian Commentary - May 6, 2014

    […] Here is a list by James Hamilton of some of the logical fallacies in the book. […]

Leave a Reply