Alley Beth Stuckey Debating Liberal “Christians”
A masterclass in Biblical womanhood defending the faith
Alley Beth Stuckey did an outstanding job debating a group of self-described “liberal Christians”, on YouTube:
Due to the rapid fire nature of the exchange some of the points may have been obscured - this is a point by point response to the main arguments:
Each one stays within the framework of biblical theology, logical consistency, and historical exegesis.
1. “Same-sex unions weren’t addressed in the Bible because they weren’t culturally known.”
Rebuttal:
This argument collapses under historical evidence. Homosexual practices—including adult consensual relationships—were widely known across Greco-Roman and Near Eastern cultures. Plato’s Symposium, Levitical prohibitions, and Roman records confirm this. Paul lived in a world steeped in such relationships; he still condemned them in Romans 1:26–27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9.
If the Bible’s silence on affirming same-sex marriage were due to ignorance, Christ’s teaching in Matthew 19—rooting marriage in creation order, not culture—would make no sense. He grounds marriage in ontology (“male and female”), not anthropology (“what people do”).
2. “Jesus never condemned homosexuality.”
Rebuttal:
Jesus also never mentioned bestiality, incest, or child sacrifice by name; omission does not equal approval. When asked about marriage, He cited Genesis 1–2, defining it as one man and one woman joined into “one flesh.” He reaffirmed the moral framework within which homosexual acts were already prohibited. To claim neutrality from silence is exegetically reckless.
3. “The biblical condemnations describe temple prostitution or exploitative relationships, not loving ones.”
Rebuttal:
Paul’s use of arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9) and malakoi refers directly to the Levitical phrase meta arsenos koitēn—“a man lies with a man.” It is linguistic continuity, not cultural coincidence.
He does not confine the term to exploitation; rather, he classifies all same-sex acts as “against nature” (para phusin), contrasting with complementarity in creation. The argument that “it’s only exploitative sex” introduces an external qualification the text never supplies.
4. “Polygamy in Scripture undermines your one-man-one-woman claim.”
Rebuttal:
Polygamy is described, not prescribed. Narrative record ≠ moral endorsement. Every polygamous household in Scripture is a study in dysfunction—Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon—all reveal divine disapproval through consequence, not command.
When Jesus defines marriage, He quotes Genesis, bypassing centuries of cultural deviation to restore God’s original design. Description of sin is not divine approval of it.
5. “The Bible’s stance evolved—God worked through cultural change (e.g., slavery), so our view of sexuality can evolve too.”
Rebuttal:
Moral development is not moral revision. God’s moral law reflects His unchanging character. In matters like slavery, God tolerated cultural structures while injecting redemptive ethics that subvert exploitation (Exodus 21, Philemon, Galatians 3:28).
Sexual ethics differ: from Genesis to Revelation, they remain constant. Scripture never shows accommodation or softening toward same-sex practice—only consistency and reaffirmation.
6. “Genesis is archetypal, not literal; gender categories are fluid symbols.”
Rebuttal:
Even if Genesis 1–2 carries literary structure, the theology it conveys is concrete: God creates embodied, sexually dimorphic beings for complementary union.
Jesus treats this text as historically authoritative in Matthew 19, not as mythic metaphor. The theological weight of “male and female” grounds human identity and the institution of marriage. If that binary is symbolic, then the Christ–Church metaphor collapses too.
7. “Empathy requires affirmation—Jesus stooped to understand sinners.”
Rebuttal:
Jesus’ compassion never meant moral approval. When He rescued the adulterous woman, He followed with “Go and sin no more.” His empathy led to truth, not concession.
True love cannot lie for comfort. 1 Corinthians 13:6—“Love rejoices with the truth.” To feel with someone while confirming their delusion is not mercy; it’s complicity.
8. “Abortion isn’t murder because personhood develops later.”
Rebuttal:
Personhood is not conferred by visibility or neurological milestones; it is inherent in human nature. From conception, the zygote is genetically distinct, self-directing human life. Scripture affirms personhood in the womb (Psalm 139:13–16, Jeremiah 1:5).
Moral worth cannot depend on stage of development; otherwise, the elderly, comatose, and disabled lose it as well. Biblical justice protects the powerless—precisely those “hidden” lives modern culture discards.
9. “Progressivism reflects ongoing revelation—truth evolves with society.”
Rebuttal:
That premise assumes man’s moral intuition outruns divine revelation. Scripture explicitly denies this: “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8).
If moral truth evolves, it ceases to be truth—becoming social preference. Christianity’s entire epistemic structure collapses if revelation is relativized to culture.
Progress is not discovering new truths; it is conforming more fully to the truth already revealed.
10. “Empirical harm (e.g., depression, suicide among gay youth) shows traditional ethics are damaging.”
Rebuttal:
Correlation is not moral causation. Pain does not determine rightness. Every moral boundary restricts desire, and all discipline is painful before it heals (Hebrews 12:11).
The church must bear burdens with compassion, but the antidote to despair is not moral revision—it is grace, belonging, and sanctification in Christ. The truth that wounds sin also saves the sinner.
11. “Using the Bible to enforce moral law on society is coercive.”
Rebuttal:
All law enforces a moral vision. The question is not whether we legislate morality, but whose morality we legislate.
Christian ethics seeks universal goods grounded in the Imago Dei—human life, freedom, dignity. Laws protecting the unborn or defining marriage align with those transcendent truths. Neutral law is a myth; every legal system assumes a moral foundation.
12. “God allows difference—He made people diverse in gender, sexuality, and belief.”
Rebuttal:
Diversity in creation reflects His creativity, not moral pluralism. God made species diverse but moral law singular. To equate moral variance with divine design confuses ontology with rebellion. The fall fractured creation; Christ came not to validate broken patterns but to restore original ones.
Summary Principle:
Progressive hermeneutics mistake divine patience for moral permission. God’s trajectory in history is not toward moral relativism but toward redemption and restoration of His perfect standard through Christ—the same standard He declared from the beginning.
Soli Deo Gloria