Live in a closed world of your own making long enough and you lose all touch with reality.
The consequences of that can vary, but they are a bit more visible when you are a Christian who runs an apologetics website - and you decide to participate in a Comedy Central show.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/MYdvjdIFdnI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I'm not in the mood to mock this poor guy - he got enough of that on television. But there is a point in the interview where he makes claims about straights being targeted for bullying by homosexuals. You can read here how he believes he was misrepresented in the show.
The funny thing is, what he ends up saying about the *one* case he can point out where he *believes* there was homosexual targeting of a straight person makes him appear even less able to think logically than the interview does.
He says: "Is that the same thing? [being bullied specifically for being homosexual, vs the rape and killing of a child by homosexuals] Jesse [the victim] was definitely not homosexual, but the two homosexuals attacked a heterosexual. But, dare we say it was because he was young and the homosexuals were also pedophiles? Why did the media not mention this hate crime?"
First of all, because pedophilia is not a hate crime. It does not fall under the legal definition of sexual orientation (which includes that little word "consenting") and is not protected under any hate crimes legislation. The year before Jesse Dirkhising died, 1495 children were murdered. Granted, Jesse Dirkhising was a gruesome case, but there are thousands of children whose deaths have never been mourned to the extent they should have been. And, a month after the incident, the media was all over the situation, using it to their own purposes.
Also, Matt Slick may feel he can say with confidence that "Jesse was definitely not homosexual" in constrast to the perpetrators who claimed he was a willing participant. Obviously, there is no way to know if an abused and then murdered 13 year old had a sexual orientation that Mr. Slick would approve of. It certainly would be convenient for him if he could say that definitively, wouldn't it?
An apologetics leader who can't be bothered to acknowledge that he
A. Has no way to determine the sexual orientation of a dead child (and shouldn't be trying, good god)
B. Misuses and misrepresents hate crime legislation/definition
C. Is upset that the media didn't report the murder as something it actually wasn't
Just one little footnote on an article where he is supposedly defending himself and already his ability to think critically is in question.
Not. Exactly. Comforting.
The rest of his website is full of that crap. In the "Persecution" section he parrots Kirk Cameron's whining that Facebook blocked his promotions for his new film, Unstoppable. In his complaint he acknowledged that he couldn't put the full link because that would set off FB's filters. Matt Slick claims that fb later allowed the promotions without an explanation. Strangely enough, there IS an explanation, one that is easily found. His link used to be a different site (a spammy, virusy site) and FB had to verify the new site and change their automatic filtering before it would just go through.
Instead of looking for the truth, or a real explanation, Matt Slick uses it as a talking point:
" Who knows, but the fact is that Facebook apparently doesn't like Christianity. What else are we to conclude? After all, do you think they would have banned a link to a move that promoted homosexuality? Of course not. If they had, it would have been on the news circuit and late night TV. The hypocrisy of double standards is alive and well in the media, and subtle, but increasing, persecutions like this one are on the rise."
Yep. Persecution of Christians is SO REALZ. What else are we to conclude?!?!
As a side note, the CARM website of said Matt Slick was one of the things that thoroughly undermined so much of Christian thought for me. It wasn't the ever-present poor logic, circular reasoning or appeals to ridiculous doctrines like Federal Headship - well, yes it was. It was all of that. But it was also the convenience of someone who claimed that the Bible was inerrant and infallible and without contradiction writing page after page of contradictions and expounding with their unsubstantiated and poorly argued bull.
There are no contradictions in Scripture!
Oh hey, here are all the contradicting verses and I'm going to explain them all for you!! Of course, if you don't agree with my exact doctrine and theology then these explanations fall apart. BUT don't worry because of all the theologians and historians and academics and brilliant men in all of history, I have the right combination of answers that magically makes the Bible WORK.