A lot of what she said is narrative, so there isn't much to object to — it is just relaying personal experience.

Around the 2-minute mark, she brings up homophobic, sexist, and violent passages in the Old Testament. While I am no historian, I think it is important to situate these passages in their particular context, whatever they may be. That said, I tend to agree that there is plenty of racism, sexism, and chauvinism in the Bible.

However, I disagree that this calls for an abandonment of the texts. I personally view think this provokes the reinterpretation of male-dominated imagery and language about God in such a way that increases the role of women. Same with queer theology. While I think it is fair to admit much of the Bible is heteronormative and many of its authors were homophobic, I think that that just calls for queer Christians today to be given the voices that they were denied in ancient times. Showing how queer relationships, just like straight ones, exemplify Christ's love.

I don't think Jacyln's accusation that those who wish to undertake a project such as that are being 'intellectually dishonest' or 'cherry-picking'.

Her second complaint is that theological ideas are mere 'God-of-the-gaps' arguments. Once again, I don't think this is a fair accusation. Viewing Christianity as a set of arguments is a very reductive view of religion. For one, most Christians do not care about whether or not the stock proofs of God's existence work; many could care less and many who do care (like myself) don't think they work. But that isn't what draws a person to religious faith. What draws a person is the principles held (peace, meekness, charity, forgiveness) and the practices undertaken (the sacraments, the communization).

I don't think her tangent on evidence is particularly helpful either. As Paul Tillich pointed out, Christianity isn't a list of facts, but an interpretation of facts. Christianity is a perspective, not a fact. Of course, it is a fact that there are 7 billion people on Earth. Christians and non-Christians can agree to that. The Christian claim is that those people are all God's children, worthy of being loved. That seems to be providing a framework to see the world through, rather than trying to make claims about the world that need substantiation. Perhaps such a framework doesn't meet the existential or ethical burden, but it can hardly be said to be a claim apt for the evidential test.

After this, she gives an analysis of the Book of Genesis that is severely lacking. Rather than emphasizing the metaphor and the language, she emphasizes (once again) a completely reductive, literalistic reading that no Christian holds to.