Response to Alex Haiken’s Homosex and Fertility Cult Rituals

Alex Haiken, blogger of On Being Jewish, Christian and Gay, gave a well thought objection on my previous article: Homosex: Thus Saith The Mosaic Law. This is partly my answer to his objection re-posted as an article for the benefit of those who are interest in this Ethical issue.

Haiken’s Objection:

20th century discovery of“Ras Shamra” manuscripts, increased our understanding of Canaanite religion and culture. One notices that Canaanites practiced infant children sacrifice to Molech, snake worship, sexual intercourse with animals, sexual intercourse with same gender, shrine prostitution et cetera to appease and win blessing favor over their fertility gods viz. gods of reproduction of crops, livestock and women’s conception of children.

“Leviticus 18:22, [is] against engaging in sex with a cult prostitute, is sandwiched right between two other forbidden pagan cult rituals: one in verse 21 against child sacrifice to the Canaanite god Molech, and another in verse 23 against women having sexual relations with animals.” Haiken argues.

Therefore “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Le. 18:22) is true only in association to pagan fertility cult ritual. Because “these vile cultic practices” are not “applicable to gay brothers and sisters” today. Leviticus 18:22 does not forbid same gender sexual intercourse per se.

More over “[a]n abomination = a pagan cult practice often to seek fertility.” says Haiken.

Responding Alex Haiken’s Objection:

I would re-post the context summary of Leviticus 18:22. “Context refers to the willed meaning that an author gives to the literary materials surround his text.”(Robert H. Stein, Playing by the Rules)

  • 1-18 for the most part forbids sexual practice(“uncovering ones nakedness”) within family(incest).
  • 19 forbids sexual practice with a woman in her menstrual uncleanness.
  • 20 forbids sexual practices with ones neighbor’s wife.
  • 21 forbids infant sacrifice to Molech.
  • 22 forbids sexual intercourse between a male as with a woman.
  • 23 forbids sexual practices with an animal.

If Leviticus 18:22 forbids sexual intercourse between a male as with a woman only because of its association with idolatry viz. pagan fertility cult ritual then it would logically follow that Leviticus 18:23 sexual practices with an animal, and Leviticus 18:21 infant child sacrifice are also forbidden only because of their association with idolatry.

Logic Behind Response To This Objection

  1. If it is the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices between a male as with a woman only in association with idolatry then it is the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices with an animal and infant sacrifice only in association with idolatry.
  2. It is not the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices with an animal and infant sacrifice only in association with idolatry.
  3. Therefore it is not the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices between a male as with a woman only in association with idolatry

If this argument is sound, then Alex Haiken’s objection fails. Haiken has to show how infant child sacrifice(18:21) and intercourse with animal(18:23) are morally binding despite their association with idolatry, while sexual practices between a male as with a woman(18:22) is not.

Last Word Study Abomination:
To’ebhah occurs over 130 times in OT, generally expressing a strong moral disapproval. I have attached a PDF word study of a word “abomination” ,thanks to Logos Bible Software 4, to every place to’ebhah occurred. It shows that Haiken is in error claiming that “abomination = a pagan cult practice often to seek fertility.”

N.B: To a layman: I would encourage you to read the context in each passage.

Comments and Objection: This article is about Leviticus 18 and 20, I do pray in love, gentleness and kindness, we will be able to discuss this issue at hand without straying away to other topics. I would so much appreciate a clear and to-the-point comments.

57 thoughts on “Response to Alex Haiken’s Homosex and Fertility Cult Rituals

  1. you do realize that the assumption you make: homosexuality is different from homosex activity is wrong? homosexuality means one who engages in or experiences feelings of same sex love. homosex means the same thing, with the added derogative added to it by the christian church and its writers that it is wrong. as much as marrying a person of a different race was wrong in those times ;) just another circular reasoning on the believers part. because you choose to see them as separate things you should also apply that to mixed race marriage, and accept that in the eyes of the writers of that book you revere you are just as much a sinner as a gay person having a homosexual relationship. you may consider yourself a christian but it doesnt make you exempt from the rules you set yourself.

    • Thank you for the comment.

      I would like to answer that but I believe it would only lead us out of what is at hand viz. Is the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices between a male as with a woman only in association with idolatry

      In Christ,
      Prayson

  2. just a small addition to the former post: and again, im seriously not interested in fighting with you or disrespecting you. i noticed you are a big fan of several people who, in their time were considered rather rebellious and mavericks, they werent the people of the status quo at all. in many ways, alex is too. you however are not realizing that by holding on to those, in their time pioneerring men you are adding to the status quo, and slowing down a renewing spirit like alex? it makes me smile to think what you two could do together for religious people in general, if you could only stop judging eachother. and about the bible: dont you agree that after about 2000 years it could use some contextual recalibration?even if its just to decrease suffering among people?

    • Dear Prezzy,

      Truth can not be contextual recalibrate-d :) and I am sorry that you view this as slowing down a renewing spirit like Alex’s. We disagree because we love and care about one another and we are moved by knowing what the cost is great if one is wrong.

      Thanks again and be so blessed Prezzy.

      In Christ,
      Prayson

  3. what is attacking strawman? i dont follow, sorry. also: just follow this for a second: all we know is from scriptures, archaeological finds and such. wouldnt it stand to reason to assume that we havent found everything yet, and therefore it is entirely possible some of those things were based on traditions and such that may have other origins than we assume they have now? im not out to pick a fight with you, but assuming you are correct leaves open a lot of questions: like those pray-away-the-gay groups:these days there are numerous posts all over the net stating that it never worked. by religious and gay people themselves. also it causes avoidable suffering for gays. because being different and being defective are two different things. i cant imagine that would be a desired outcome for a good god.and on top of that: the world is a sad place already without more pain that can be avoided by topics like this, but thats my personal opinion. im just a person, and when asked if theres a god i can only say: i dont know. i havent seen anything proving that. or like this topic: is homo sex against gods will? and therefore a sin? i dont know, but it doesnt seem to cause suffering. societies oppression of it causes the suffering; but i am not to judge, IF he exists, thats HIS job. and therefore i will not judge on it. i do know judging others on stuff that doesnt concern me is not helping the groups get closer.

    • Dear Prezzy,

      I get your concern about this topic. Read Gay + Love: Responding Last Standing Objection were I pointed out that we are more than our sexuality.

      I believe you attacked a strawman when you resurrect modern slavery and wonderfully attack it.(New strawman: “pray-away-the-gay group” :) )

      Remember I wrote to you above:

      “If I am correct, your comments imply that you are not a Bible believer, so I believe this argument would not convince you.

      In my Secular Argument, which is coming in this series of articles, I build a case base on Social-Political ground against same gender sexual practice. I came across Irving Kristol article in New York Times Magazine(1971), that helped me formulate a secular argument. I wish I could share the argument here, but I will be getting ahead of myself and it will be dragging the focus away from Leviticus 18 and 20.”

      If you cannot wait for that read William Lane Craig, PhD: A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality and Matthew Flannagan, PhD: Contra Mundum: Consenting Adults and Harm.

      We should try to bring light in this topic and not heat :) I hope we can discuss it with love and caring.

      In Christ,
      Prayson

  4. Prayson, I agree with you. If you read Einstein’s literal comments, he said he wasn’t an atheist. He said he wasn’t a pantheist. He never strayed (ever) from the belief that there was an intelligence behind the creation of the universe. If he said there WAS NOT an intelligence behind the creation of the universe, I ask anyone to show me the web site. Please make sure that any quote you feed me is footnoted and not an opinion of just some person out there who will take Einstein’s words out of context.

  5. the logic is simple, prayson: as long as you dont hurt or oppress others its fine, the reason why its not good to have a fysical relationship with family is gene based as well as morally based. of course incest is wrong, but so is slavery. again i turn this around and give it back to you since you didnt answer it anywhere else: being gay isnt a choice. being black isnt a choice. you way need some excuse to rationalise away some problem with homosexuality, but if people had followed the bible like you a few hundred years ago you would not be in the us, or be free, or be able to read probably. as time progresses, man learns. so again: gay love doesnt hurt anyone. its different from sex with an animal or sacrificing a kid. in those things theres suffering. in gay love there isnt. in having to repress what you are because others quote an obscure explanation of a dusty book is causing suffering. alex is correct in his explanation. if you dont see how those things are different, you need a lot more help than i thought. i bet if i looked long enough id find lots of quotes i could use to reason away slavery, but that doesnt make it right does it?

    • Dear Prezzy,

      Thank you for your concern. I sadly believe you are attacking strawman. The logic I present was to answer Alex’s “committed faithful and loving monogamous partnership or marriage” distinction. Moreover, your gene poll does not work in Leviticus 18 since some close relation presented are not from the same gene-family(e.g. relationship with wife’s sister v.18)

      [Update: I would love to answer wthether gay a choice and hurts, but I will be going away from what is on focus]

      In Christ,
      Prayson

  6. i love reading these posts, all be it for different reasons than you might like, prayson. you are truly a master of circular reasoning. the way you analyse the scripture has been identified a while back by for one umberto eco as the hermetic tradition, that finds an answer and then goes out of its way to find proof for that answer. read his essays on the limits of interpretation. also you seem to be fond of 19th century english and american religionists and scholars, but dont accept their german collegues. funny. also leviticus is a latinisation of the levi, and therefore jewish in origin. so you could say that is proof the bible isnt all the word of god, but also of jehovah or jahweh.because of that and the amount of alterisations that happened between the birth of christ, the first writing of the bible and modern times, lets just say finding answers there that matter is pretty much impossible. also the ad hominem thing cracked me up: so its ok if you do it by putting words into alex s mouth? and then reacting surprised when it offends him? ow well……..

    • Dear Prezzy,

      Thank for you comment and your concern. Much more, thank you for reading.

      I do believe the reasoning is not circular. Here is the Scriptural Argument:

      1.We are all obligated to do God’s will.
      2.God’s will is expressed in the Bible.
      3.The Bible forbids sexual practices between a male as with a woman.
      4.Therefore, sexual practices between a male as with a woman is against God’s will, or is wrong.

      The article above was answering Alex’s objection on the truthfulness of premise 3.

      1.If it is the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices between a male as with a woman only in association with idolatry then it is the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices with an animal and infant sacrifice only in association with idolatry.
      2. It is not the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices with an animal and infant sacrifice only in association with idolatry.
      3.Therefore it is not the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices between a male as with a woman only in association with idolatry

      So if one succeed in showing premise 3 ” The Bible forbids sexual practices between a male as with a woman” to be true, A Bible believing person is logically force to accept the conclusion 4.

      If I am correct, your comments imply that you are not a Bible believer, so I believe this argument would not convince you.

      In my Secular Argument, which is coming in this series of articles, I build a case base on Social-Political ground against same gender sexual practice. I came across Irving Kristol article in New York Times Magazine(1971), that helped me formulate a secular argument. I wish I could share the argument here, but I will be getting ahead of myself and it will be dragging the focus away from Leviticus 18 and 20.

      I do hope you know that disagreeing is not hating each another but trying to understand each others position. I do respect, care and love you and Alex.

      May grace, love and mercy of God be upon you,
      Prayson

      • Prayson, I’m afraid your argument is about as valid as the following:

        1. We are all obligated to do God’s will.
        2. God’s will is expressed in the Bible.
        3. The Bible indicates that slavery is God ordained, God supported and therefore God’s will.
        4. Therefore, it is God’s will for us to keep slaves.

        Once again, the clincher is on point #3. I’m not arguing that slavery is God ordained (though well-meaning Christians did this for centuries). I am, however, arguing that the few passages of Scripture that you think are addressing homosexually are not blanket condemnations of same sex activity, but rather are condemning specific situations at the time. For this very same reason, one simply may not argue that God hates modern IRS agents simply because the Bible has only negative things to say about tax collectors. Tax collectors in Jesus’ day were corrupt and often cheated people out of more money than they owed. So when the Bible talks about tax collectors, we know (or at least we should) that it’s not condemning all tax collectors for all time. It’s condemning the specific behaviors of the tax collectors at that time.

        How do we know this? We know this because responsible exegesis requires that we seek to draw out what the text meant to the original author and to the original intended audience, without reading into the text the many traditional interpretations that may have grown up around it. It’s about reading out from the Bible what the original writers were saying. What you fancy doing instead is reading your own ideas and prejudices back into the Bible — which is EXACTLY how the pro-slavery Christians got tripped up.

        Prayson, you will never arrive at truth by asking of the Bible, “What DOES it mean?” The reason is that’s the wrong starting point. You’re really asking, what does it mean to us today, individually?” And that’s why we end up with 1,000’s of different answers. Exegesis always asks, “What DID it mean?” There’s a vast difference in those questions as a starting points. Unless you have some idea of what the text meant THEN, you will only be left to only guess at what it might mean for us NOW.

        For some background on what the text meant THEN:

        “Leviticus 18: What Was the Abomination” http://wp.me/p1tsIE-lo
        “Romans 1: What Was Paul Ranting About? http://wp.me/p1tsIE-bJ
        “Why No One in the Biblical World Had a Word for Homosexuality” [http://wp.me/p1tsIE-2i
        “Looking for Loopholes” [http://wp.me/p1tsIE-j

        -Alex Haiken

        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Thanks Alex,

        Alex, they way you put your example is not logically valid, but if you meant this:

        1. We are all obligated to do God’s will.
        2. God’s will is expressed in the Bible.
        3. The Bible accepts us to keep slaves
        4. Therefore to keep slavery is right

        Then I believe you are correct. It is as valid as that one. The question is not about validity but soundness of the argument. The example you gave(and I modifying it) is valid, but I believe its is not sound. But if one can show that the Bible accepts us to keep slave, which I believe it does not, then we are logically forced to accept the conclusion.

        My main objection, were I kindly and respectfully disagree with you, is that I believe you error in stating that: ” passages of Scripture that you think are addressing homosexually are not blanket condemnations of same sex activity, but rather are condemning specific situations at the time”.

        As you said “exegesis requires that we seek to draw out what the text meant to the original author and to the original intended audience”: The intended audience understood infant sacrifice and sexual practices with an animal were wrong and I find it difficult to see that they understood that these practices were wrong only because of their association with idolatry. Thus I made this argument:

        1.If it is the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices between a male as with a woman only in association with idolatry then it is the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices with an animal and infant sacrifice only in association with idolatry.
        2. It is not the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices with an animal and infant sacrifice only in association with idolatry.
        3.Therefore it is not the case that Leviticus 18 forbids sexual practices between a male as with a woman only in association with idolatry

        If you can refute my above argument(which does not depend on what it meant “then” but logical reasoning), then I will be glad to accept that Leviticus 18 forbids only sexual practices between a male as with a woman only in association with idolatry.

        Thanks for the links and your comments.
        In Christ,
        Prayson

        • Now you’re going from the ridiculous to the ludicrous. One need not be a theologian to appreciate that child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23) are indisputably exploitive and abusive under ANY context or circumstance, while the same does not hold true for what we know of today as “homosexuality”, which often encompasses a committed faithful and loving monogamous partnership or marriage.

          As already established, these rites outlined in Leviticus were practiced by the Canaanites to appeal to the pagan god Baal who they believed granted fertility and was the bringer of, and guarantor of, the rains so they would not suffer drought and famine. Of course, all of this was in direct contradiction to Hebrew theology, which held that ALL the forces of nature were impersonal and subject to the will of the One Infinite Creator God, who stood entirely outside of nature and could not be worshiped under the symbol of any natural force. As such, the rains and fertility were NOT brought by Baal and the pagan gods, but were subject to the will of Yahweh at all times, as the Creator of the cosmos.

          Nonetheless, common sense should tell you that the illegitimate taking of a human life (child sacrifice) and the sexual abuse of an animal (bestiality) are practices that rational and civilized people should avoid.

          I think we’ve beat this subject to death. Time to move on.

          -Alex Haiken

          http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

          • Dear Alex,

            O I wished we I had beat this subject to death and move on. But I do not see how you have refute my above argument(I am sorry you see this as moving from ridiculous to ludicrous).

            Your objection that “child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23) are indisputably exploitive and abusive under ANY context or circumstance, while the same does not hold true for what we know of today as “homosexuality”, which often encompasses a committed faithful and loving monogamous partnership or marriage” fails to undermine my argument. This is my reason why it fails:

            Looking at the context in Leviticus 18:

            1-18 for the most part forbids sexual practice(“uncovering ones nakedness”) within family(incest).
            • 19 forbids sexual practice with a woman in her menstrual uncleanness.
            • 20 forbids sexual practices with ones neighbor’s wife.
            • 21 forbids infant sacrifice to Molech.
            • 22 forbids sexual intercourse between a male as with a woman.
            • 23 forbids sexual practices with an animal.

            If what you argued were true, then a committed faithful and loving monogamous partnership or marriage within close family members (incest verses 1-18) would have to be allowed too. Which would not do justices to verses 1-18.

            Thank you again for kind inputs and may the grace and love of God be with you.

            In Christ,
            Prayson

          • Prayson, this exchange has ceased to be fruitful. I’ve watched over time as you so desperately try to twist the scriptures to try and make them say things the authors never intended to say. You rip passages out of their context and ignore any semblance of sound exegesis because to apply sound exegesis would make your arguments collapse like a house of cards.

            You’re like the “ex-gays” out there who avoid using terms such as “homosexuality” like the plague and instead play fast and loose with semantics by using terms like “homosex” and “same-sex attraction” and to try and sell the snake oil that gay people who are not actively involved in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex are somehow not gay or homosexual (yet another argument you tried to sell here)

            You so desperately try and prove the validity of your argument that you’ll twist anyone else’s words, position or argument if their argument seems to give credence to the fact that yours is not sound.

            As stated above, this conversation has ceased to be fruitful some time ago.

            -Alex Haiken

            http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Dear Alex,

        I am sorry that you view it that way. It not about validity in question but the soundness :D

        You are correct saying “this exchange has ceased to be fruitful”. It would have been fruitful if you dealt with my arguments( which has nothing to do with what passage means but the logical implication of what you believe it means)

        Be blessed,

        Prayson

  7. Well Done, well-stated, well-defended Prayson. It is also an abomination to pervert the word of Hashem. Hasatan creates counterfeits for all truth.

  8. Remember the purpose of exegesis is not to reduce the word of God to an ordinary text, but to determine the true, objective meaning of each passage, quite apart from the various traditional interpretations that may have grown up around it — and to avoid reading into the text (eisegesis) our own opinions.

    I can see I’ll have to write another post on the usage of the word “toevah” (translated as abomination in the English). The Hebrew word “toevah” functions in a very precise way in priestly literature and, sad to say, the word abomination has been abominably abused.

    Thtat said, as stated repeatedly above, I won’t discuss scripture on any post with a title where you have so “abominably” and abusively inked my name with words that are not mine.

    Alex Haiken

    http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

  9. Leviticus 18:22 –What Was The Abomination?

    Fact: We often encounter things in the Bible that require background and clarification in order to understand the text.

    Fact: If you read your Bible long enough and attentively enough, questions are going to arise that notes on the bottom of the page don’t satisfy.

    Fact: We don’t get to make things up as we go along; we’re stuck with the internal interpretation of the text as the primary meaning.

    Fact: Exegesis does not allow for tearing a passage from its context to replace it in another age for convenience.

    Fact: All of the above and more come into play in this post (see link below). If you click and read, you’ll likely learn things you did not know before.

    Fact: All of us have things to learn and all of us have things to unlearn. (Yep, that means you too!)

    “Leviticus 18:22 — What Was The Abomination?”
    Link: http://wp.me/1tsIE

    Alex Haiken

    http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

    • Thanks Alex,

      I gave out over 130 places in the OT to which the term “abomination” occur. It generally expressing a strong moral disapproval. Here is the PDF of the word study ,thanks to Logos Bible Software 4 to’ebhah occurred

      Readers: Please read the context of each text. You can find out yourselves what abomination is.

      Thanks for the Advertising, your post here Alex :D

      Be blessed,
      Prayson

  10. Wonderful job, Prayson. Your argumentation is sound. The only disagreement I have with your comments is the distinction between orientation and action. Greg Bahnsen, in his debate on this issue (link found below) did a wonderful job in showing that even the desire of homosexual attraction is evidence that one is under the wrath and condemnation of God via Romans 1:27. Be blessed, brother and again, wonderful job.

    MP3 Audio: http://www.cmfnow.com/dialogoverthebibleandhomosexualtity.aspx

    Bahnsen’s book on the subject: http://www.cmfnow.com/e-pubeditionhomosexualityabiblicalview-1.aspx

    • This is quite the interesting perspective from the author above identified by the name of “appliedapologetics”. Would this theory blow another hole in your “all gays are homosexuals but not all homosexuals are gays” theory? It would appear that if this person is correct, then distinguishing between what you call “a homosexual” (and who you define as “a person who experiences predominating sexual attraction toward another person of the same gender”) and what you call “a gay” (and who you define as “an individual who practices sexual intercourse with another person of same gender”), would make no difference at all. According to this person’s theory both are, as he puts it, “under the wrath and condemnation of God”.

      -Alex Haiken

      http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Thanks Alex,

        I believe definition are of secondary to this topic. I would post an article to deal with definition were I believe we will all benefit. But in here, Leviticus 18 and 20 is our primary topic. I would be very thankful if we stay on track.

        Be Blessed,
        Prayson

      • You may wish to direct that to Mr. “appliedapologetics”. I am simply responding to the post that he published and that you thanked him for. Moreover, I would say it is very much on topic as it directly relates to your continued insistence that “all gays are homosexuals but not all homosexuals are gays” — as if you are trying to argue that it is okay to be “homosexual” (which you define as “a person who experiences predominating sexual attraction toward another person of the same gender”) but not okay to be “gay” (which you define as “an individual who practices sexual intercourse with another person of same gender”).

        But based on Mr. “appliedapologetics” theory, the distinction would be completely irrelevant because whether you are “homosexual” according to your definition, or “gay” according to your definition, you are, in Mr. “appliedapologetics” words, “under the wrath and condemnation of God” regardless.

        I, on the other hand, believe attempting to make such a distinction is nothing more than playing fast and loose with semantics. As I’ve said before, a homosexual is a homosexual whether or not he or she is having same-sex relations, in the same way a heterosexual is a heterosexual whether or not he she is having opposite-sex relations. Most heterosexuals would be quite offended if you were to accuse them of not being heterosexual simply because they were, for example, celibate. People who are heterosexual are heterosexual 24/7, not just when they are sexually active. It has to work both ways or neither way. I remain completely baffled as to why you would think it would work one way but not the other. It seems to be a tactic that “ex-gays’ use a lot defend their homosexuality — which they generally refer to as “same-same attraction”. But it is on topic because all the scripture passages you like to cite are in support these premises of yours.

        -Alex Haiken

        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

        • Thanks Alex,

          I would pray, hope and kindly ask that we deal with what is at hand viz. Leviticus 18 and 20. A definitions and semantics article is on its way. But until then lets us stay on this article focus.

          Be blessed,
          Prayson

    • Thank you for your encouragement. I would probably write an article to defend why the distinction between orientation and action is important. I would also try deal with Roman 1:27. I believe that article would give a chance to discuss that topic at length.

      May our Lord and God bless you.
      Prayson

  11. NEWS FROM TODAY:

    Is It The End of the Ex-Gay Movement As We Know It?

    Warren Throckmorton says: “As one who was once associated with the ex-gay movement, I look at the trends and wonder if we are nearing the end of the ex-gay movement as we know (knew) it. If it is, I feel fine.”

    http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/10/14/is-it-the-end-of-the-ex-gay-movement-as-we-know-it

    Michelle Goldberg on John Smid’s about-face: A prominent leader bolts, just the latest blow to those who believe sexual orientation can be altered.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/13/ex-gay-leader-john-smid-s-about-face.html

    -Alex Haiken

    http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • No need for you to be puzzled: The two premises you are always (unsuccessfully IMHO) trying argue is that: (1) God and the Bible condemn homosexuality in any way, shape form or expression — then in the Ancient world, now and for all of time, and (2) since God and the Bible condemn homosexuality, it is also true that God changes people who are homosexually-oriented to be heterosexually-oriented because God hates homosexuality. These articles debate your second premise and make the point that the evidence does not support your premise at all. I’ve actually blogged about these two articles today and fleshed them out a bit with additional detail. If you’d like to read about the steadily mounting evidence that says your second premise does not hold water, feel free to click the link to my web site below.

        -Alex Haiken

        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

        • Thanks Alex,

          I am shocked by how you try to associate an argument I did not give. This is the argument: Note: I have interchanged a “homosexual behavior” with “sexual practices between a male as with a woman” so I that you would not stumble in definitions and semantics and go direct to the heart.

          1.We are all obligated to do God’s will.
          2.God’s will is expressed in the Bible.
          3.The Bible forbids sexual practices between a male as with a woman.
          4.Therefore, sexual practices between a male as with a woman is against God’s will, or is wrong.

          Please let us deal with Leviticus 18 and 20, leaving definition and semantics for another time. You are trying so much to run into that corner leaving what is at stake. Lets focus on Leviticus 18 and 20.

          Pending question:

          Show with sound exegesis how infant child sacrifice(18:21) and intercourse with animal(18:23) are morally binding despite their association with idolatry, while sexual practices between a male as with a woman(18:22) is not?

          I pray and hope you would not run away from this important question.

          Be blessed,
          Prayson

      • I repeat: I will not defend my position on Leviticus 18 and 20 on any post so grossly titled: “Alex Haiken’s Homosex and Fertility Cult Rituals”. Fact is you cannot have a “Reply to Alex Haiken’s Homosex and Fertility Cult Rituals” because there is no such thing as “Alex Haiken’s Homosex and Fertility Cult Rituals”. I will happily defend my position on Leviticus 18 and 20 and/or any other passages of scripture I write about — but not on any post in which you use a title that pairs my name with your words.

        -Alex Haiken

        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Dear Alex,

        Now you would not respond because of the title of the article? I copied your whole comment of October 3, 2011 at 19:10

        Quote:

        Your premise is “the Bible forbids homosexual behavior” and you argue that it is specifically prohibited in Leviticus. First, it should be noted that your argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that what you and I know of as “homosexuality” is the same as that which was being prohibited in Leviticus. Case in point #1: You will not find any positive statements about “tax collectors” anywhere in the Bible. But we realize that when the Bible speaks negatively of tax collectors, it’s not speaking about modern IRS agents. Tax collectors in the days of the Bible were often corrupt and cheated people out of more money than they owed. So when the Bible talks about tax collectors, we know it’s not condemning all tax collectors for all time. It’s condemning the specific behaviors of the tax collectors at that time.

        Secondly, thanks to the many archeological discoveries of the 20th century, our ability to do sound exegesis has increased exponentially. This is because today we actually know more about the Bible than at any previous time in history, including even in later biblical times. Case in point #2: Up until the early 20th century, we knew very little about the Canaanites. We knew little about their religion, their culture or their way of life. For the most part, our only witness to the Canaanites was the texts in the Old Testament. But in 1929 all of that that changed substantially with the discovery of what is called the “Ras Shamra” texts. (Ras Shamra is a place on the northern coast of Syria, where the remains of the ancient Canaanite city of Ugarit have been unearthed.) From 1929 to the present, literally thousands of texts and materials have been found. The real treasure was not the buildings or jewelry, but large quantities of writings showing how ancient Canaanite city-life worked and revealing a wealth of information that has been invaluable in our understanding of Canaanite religion and culture. The discovery of these texts is considered by many second only to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls and they have had a profound effect on biblical studies. How do these discoveries help us to responsibly interpret the biblical texts?

        As already established, we are often profoundly unaware of how our reading of Scripture is colored by our own cultural context and worldview. Case in point #3: One of the most prominent and pervasive themes weaving its way through almost every book of the Bible is that of paganism and the constant call to turn away from it. We find a continuous call to turn from the worshiping of false or pagan gods and to turn instead to the one true living God, Yahweh. In connection with the call to turn from worshiping pagan gods is the admonition to turn from participating in a myriad of pagan rituals or practices. Both OT and NT spend page after page condemning these pagan cult practices. But most of us have no idea what these practices were. They’re now extinct and therefore totally foreign to our contemporary thinking. As a result, statements like those found, for example, in Lev 18:22 may appear clear on the surface, but their application and context are anything but.

        Chapter 17 through 26 of Leviticus is referred to as “The Holiness Code”. It is designed to provide a standard of behavior and way of living that will distinguish the Israelites from the Canaanites whose land they have now been given by God. It is for this very reason that Leviticus 18 begins with a strict caution to avoid retaining the idolatries of Egypt, from where the Israelites had come, and of receiving the idolatries of Canaan, to where they were now going. This statement, according to the Matthew Henry Commentary, sums up the whole chapter of Leviticus 18.

        What were these idolatries? What kind of strange practices did they include? For starters, we discover in the OT that the Canaanites burned their children in honor to their pagan gods, they practiced snake worship, performed sexual intercourse with animals, and a host of other gross and detestable practices.

        Why did they do these bizarre things? What was the motivation behind them? FERTILITY! Fertility was highly prized in Ancient times in ways that are completely foreign to our modern thinking. In many ways, their lives literally depended on it. As a result of the great value placed on fertility, Canaanite religion was replete with practices believed to appease the fertility gods of the day and thereby win them the blessing of fertility: fertility of the land in the form of rains to boost crop production, fertility for the reproduction of their livestock, fertility so their women would have lots of children, and so on. Israel’s survival hinged on fertility and Baal was a god of fertility. This meant that Baal was the power behind the rain and the dew. And with rainfall levels unreliable, famine was always a real possibility.

        As any reputable Bible commentary would tell you, Canaanite culture also utilized cult prostitution as a way of promoting fertility. According to the IVP Bible Background Commentary, “The Canaanite culture utilized cult prostitution as a way of promoting fertility. Devotees … would visit the shrine and use the services of the [male and female] cult prostitutes prior to planting their fields or during other important seasons … In this way they gave honor to the gods … in an attempt to ensure fertility and prosperity for their fields and herds.”

        Similarly, authors Harris, Brown and Moore about Canaanite culture in their book, New International Biblical Commentary: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, say “… in order to ensure fertility of people, animals and crops, a person would engage in sexual intercourse with a cult prostitute, male or female, at the local Baal shrine. The purpose was to inspire [the Canaanite god] Baal to act likewise on the person’s behalf and thus to ensure fertility in all areas of life.”

        Now having a bit of background on the text, let’s look at the passage from Leviticus in context:

        Leviticus 18:21-23

        21 Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
        22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
        23 Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

        We notice the prohibition here in Leviticus 18:22, against engaging in sex with a cult prostitute, is sandwiched right between two other forbidden pagan cult rituals: one in verse 21 against child sacrifice to the Canaanite god Molech, and another in verse 23 against women having sexual relations with animals. Both of these, as already sated, were practiced by the Canaanites and the Egyptians in fertility worship.

        Why did women have sex with animals? This too was believed to increase their fertility. In the New Bible Commentary, scholar Christopher Wright says the following with reference to Lev 18: “Genital-anal intercourse between men, and both male and female intercourse with animals, are all known to have been part of pagan worship in Egypt, Canaan and elsewhere.”

        So if one reads the passage in context we see that the Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits these acts for RELIGIOUS reasons, not SEXUAL ones. The concern is to keep Israel distinct from the Gentiles. God’s covenant with his people required that the Israelites not partake in any of these pagan religious practices. Yet sadly, as we read through the Hebrew Scriptures, we discover that time and again the Israelites did not only borrow from the Canaanite ways of worship, but constantly relapsed into them.

        If we don’t catch the fact that male-to-male pagan rite prostitution was a common practice in Bible times for the purpose of promoting fertility, we will completely miss the point of the biblical condemnation and misconstrue verses like Lev 18:22 to forbid any and all same-sex behavior. As professor of biblical exegesis, F.F. Bruce aptly put it: “It is not enough to say, ‘the Bible says’ without at the same time considering to whom the Bible says it, and in what circumstances.”

        As to your claim that “homosexuality” is an “abomination”, it should be noted that the term “abomination” is abominably misunderstood. The Hebrew word “toevah” (translated in the English as “abomination”) functions in a very precise way in priestly literature. It ALWAYS means a practice that is unacceptable because it is one of the cult practices of the pagan religions surrounding God’s people. The thing may be innocuous in itself, but in order for Israel’s faithful to be safeguarded, even otherwise innocent practices were forbidden. Or, it may be something that is intrinsically evil. The key is that it is part and parcel of the cult practice of the pagan religions. Remember that the next time someone tells you that this or that is an abomination to God! An abomination = a pagan cult practice often to seek fertility.

        Remember! Responsible exegesis means we’re looking to draw out what the text meant to the original author and to the original intended audience. I don’t think you did either. And if you don’t do that, what you are doing instead is frontloading, that is to say, you read your own personal, political or ideological beliefs back into the Bible, instead of reading out from the Bible what the original writers were saying.

        -Alex Haiken

        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

        Unquote

        Now:

        Would you be loving and kind to show that the Bible(Leviticus 18 and 20) forbidding sexual intercourse between a male as with a woman, is my own presupposition and not a fact?

        Show how infant child sacrifice(18:21) and intercourse with animal(18:23) are morally binding despite their association with idolatry, while sexual practices between a male as with a woman(18:22) is not.

        Be blessed,
        Prayson

      • On the contrary, I am not avoiding anything. I know exactly where you’re coming from, am quite familiar with your arguments and well understand that they only way you can attempt to pull this off is to rip the passages that you so violate from their context and try to make them say things that the author never intended to say.

        What I am refusing to do is allow you to do the same with my words.

        If you want to start a new post and simply call it “Leviticus 18 and 20″ and build your case, if you think you have one, I will happily defend my position on Leviticus 18 and 20 and answer questions, as I did before. But I will not comment on Leviticus 18 and 20 on any post in which you use a title that pairs my name with your gross misrepresentation of my words, such as you have done above.

        So exactly how many more times will I have to repeat this to you before you get it?

        -Alex Haiken

        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

  12. It would appear what you accomplished today is the following two things:

    (1) You taught me that you are not to be trusted. Not only do you take Scripture out of context, but you also do the same with the words of others. This is helpful to know.

    (2) You have increased the number of subscribers to my blog. Based on the number of people who linked to my blog from this site and the increased number of subscribers who also signed up, it would appear that readers from here are not only interested in the posts on my site, but are interested enough to subscribe so they get notified whenever a new post is published. That’s a good thing.

    But you still do not have permission to misquote me, misrepresent my words and/or remove my words from their context — especially since either knowingly or unknowingly you botch it up so badly when you attempt to do so.

    -Alex Haiken

    http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

    • Dear Alex,

      I thank God that there are people coming to your blog through this article. I do believe there is so much wisdom in your blog were Christians can learn. I would recommend your blog to readers who are interested to know both camps of for and against same-gender sex sexual practice.

      Back To What Is At Hand:

      Would you be kind to short and clear summary your view on Leviticus 18 and 20(Max 200 words). Correct were you believe I misrepresented you.

      Then:

      Show how infant child sacrifice(18:21) and intercourse with animal(18:23) are morally binding despite their association with idolatry, while sexual practices between a male as with a woman(18:22) is not.

      It would be so helpful if you write direct to the point, focusing on Leviticus 18 and 20.

      Be blessed,
      Prayson

      • I’m not clear on why things often have to be repeated to you several times before you hear them. But as I stated more than once above, I will not respond to a debased, bastardized and gross misrepresentation of my words. And you have already been told, what you’re done above is (a) reword what I did say, (b) snip quotes out of contexts and the result is (c) a gross misrepresentation of the points I made. I will happily respond to my words where they were made, not to your misrepresentation and twisting of my words. You may speak for you and I will speak for me.

        -Alex Haiken

        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

        • Thanks Alex,

          I hope you could repeat, since you claim that I misrepresented you. Here is a chance to
          short and clear present a summary your view on Leviticus 18 and 20(Max 200 words). In that way it would be your own words.

          If would not repeat, here is direct part of your comment made at Homosex: Thus Saith The Mosaic Law:

          Quote:

          We notice the prohibition here in Leviticus 18:22, against engaging in sex with a cult prostitute, is sandwiched right between two other forbidden pagan cult rituals: one in verse 21 against child sacrifice to the Canaanite god Molech, and another in verse 23 against women having sexual relations with animals. Both of these, as already sated, were practiced by the Canaanites and the Egyptians in fertility worship.

          Why did women have sex with animals? This too was believed to increase their fertility. In the New Bible Commentary, scholar Christopher Wright says the following with reference to Lev 18: “Genital-anal intercourse between men, and both male and female intercourse with animals, are all known to have been part of pagan worship in Egypt, Canaan and elsewhere.”

          Unquote:(Alex Haiken, October 3, 2011 at 19:10 comment )

          Would you be kind to show how infant child sacrifice(18:21) and intercourse with animal(18:23) are morally binding despite their association with idolatry, while sexual practices between a male as with a woman(18:22) is not?

          Be blessed,
          Prayson

      • I’m not sure if you have a problem hearing things or just willfully refuse to hear them. Let me see if I can make this clearer for you and for your readers. The tile of this post is appalling. It is appalling because you had the unprincipled audacity to use my name, a screenshot from my blog, and then put them together with words I never used. You are misleading your readers into thinking that the words you wrote are my words. They are not. Your words do not represent me. They do not represent what I have said. On the contrary, they misrepresent me. Ironically the two things you do repeatedly with scripture — and have repeatedly been called to task for — you have also done with my words.
        Specifically:

        (1) You take quotes of scripture, arbitrarily rip them from their context, and then try to make them say things the author never intended to say. You have done the same with my words.

        (2) You twist the words of the writer to make them say things the author never said. You have done the same with my words.

        I have asked you to remove them precisely because they are a gross representation of what I said. But you have refused. Therefore, you are willfully being dishonest and misleading readers of this blog.

        I will not defend my position on Leviticus 18 and 20 on any post so grossly titled: “Alex Haiken’s Homosex and Fertility Cult Rituals”. Fact is you cannot have a “Reply to Alex Haiken’s Homosex and Fertility Cult Rituals” because there is no such thing as “Alex Haiken’s Homosex and Fertility Cult Rituals”. I will happily defend my position on Leviticus 18 and 20 and/or any other passages of scripture I wri te about — but not on any post in which you use a title that pairs my name with your words.

        -Alex Haiken

        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

  13. I did not ask you to recant your own words. I asked you to delete your misrepresentation of mine. I will interpret your note above as your refusal to do so.

    • Dear Alex,

      I pray that you act brotherly.

      N.B: Readers are welcome to check Alex’s comments on my blog in this article: Homosex: Thus Saith The Mosaic Law: October 3, 2011 at 19:10 and October 4, 2011 at 01:57 for the context. This article was a response to Alex’s comments on my blog. I encourage readers to read all Alex’s responses.

      Deleting would be going against my conscience, “for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”

      Be blessed,
      Prayson

  14. PRAYSON, THE MATERIAL YOU PUBLISHED TODAY UNDER THE POST TITLED [“RESPONSE TO ALEX HAIKEN’S HOMOSEX AND FERTILITY CULT RITUALS”] HAS BEEN POSTED IN AN UNETHICAL AND UNAUTHORIZED MANNER.

    I HAVE ASKED YOU RESPECTFULLY TO REMOVE THIS POST AS IT IS A DEBASEMENT OF MY WORDS THAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO USE WITH A SCREENSHOT FROM MY BLOG’S HOME PAGE.

    YOU HAVE REPREHENSIVELY MISREPRESENTED MY WORDS, POSTED WORDS THAT I DID USE OUT OF CONTEXT, AND ATTRIBUTED YOUR OWN WORDS TO MY NAME.

    I HAVE ALREADY ASKED YOU RESPECTFULLY TO DELETE IT. IF IT IS NOT DELETED BY 5:00 TODAY E.S.T. ALONG WITH THE SCREEN SHOT FROM MY BLOG WITH YOUR WORDS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, I WILL REPORT THIS TO WORDPRESS AUTHORIRIES AND THEY WILL DELETE THE POST AND/OR SUSPEND YOUR BLOG UNDER A VIOLATION OF THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE.

    THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO CONDUCT A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.

    • I miss the godly tone, that show we are indeed in Christ. St. Paul would asked “When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?”(1 Corinthians 6:1-2 ESV).

      As Luther, Martin (1483-1546)“I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”

      Here I stand, I hope Terms of Service Complaints would see that I have used your comments in my blog and I believe the snap-shot is under Creative Commons Sharealike license.(i.e. you did not copyright your blog).

      I can do no other, so help me God. Amen

      Be blessed,
      Prayson

  15. Prayson, whether you took them from my blog or from comments I made elsewhere on your site, fact is when you summarize points I have made and reword what I have said, as you have done here), it makes me cringe! while I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was done unintentionally and without malicious intent, fact is it removes my comments from their context — the very thing I have consistently asked you not to do, and knowingly or not, you misrepresent what I said.

    I will be happy to respond to specific questions on the thread from which my comments were originally posted where my words can be seen in context. I will not respond to the bastardization of my comments that you have summarized above as “Haiken’s objection.” You took an articulated post of mine and chopped it to shreds. Please do not use my words so indiscriminately. You have two choices:

    EITHER:

    (1) Delete your debased representation of what you interpret as my words and thoughts above because they do not accurately represent what I said out of their context.
    (2) Go back to the thread in which my comments were originally made, make reference to them by using quotes so readers can go up the thread and see my comments in context. This way I have can, if need be, indicate that you have completed misrepresented me.
    (3) Then I will respond to your question.

    OR IF YOU INSIST ON MAKING A NEW POST:

    (1) Delete your debased representation of what you interpret as my words and thoughts above because they do not accurately represent what I have said out of their context.
    (2) Copy your argument again if which you purport that Leviticus 18 and 20 say homosexuality is sin.

    (REMEMBER THE ONUS OF MAKING THE ARGUMENT AND ISSUING PROOF THAT YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS HAVE MERIT IS ON YOU. IT IS NOT ON ME. I AM MERELY RESPONDING TO YOUR PREMISES. IF YOU WANT TO QUOTE ME, MAKE SURE THE PREMISE OR ARGUMENT I WAS RESPONDING TO IS PRESENT ALSO.)

    (3) Then copy my reply to your argument, i.e., the specific comments I made that you wish to take argument with or ask questions about in its entirety.
    (4) Then ask your question and I will respond

    YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO REWORD WHAT I HAVE SAID AS YOU DID ABOVE, WITH A SCREEN SHOT TAKEN FROM MY BLOG AND THEREBY MISLEAD OTHERS INTO THINKING THAT THE WORDS YOU HAVE ATTRIBUTED TO ME ARE MY WORDS. THEY ARE NOT! PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SUED BY A COURT OF LAW OR REPORTED TO THE WORDPRESS AUTHORITIES FOR LESS.

    And do not quote with without including the specific text I was responding to.

    Take your choice either/or as outlined above and I will respond to your question.

    BUT I INSIST THAT RESPECTFULLY GET RID OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF MY BLOG WITH YOUR BASTARDIZATION OF MY WORDS IMMEDIATELY.

    Thank you,
    -Alex Haiken

    http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

  16. Prayson, if you want to a loving and respectful discussion on this or any other topic, here are the rules:

    YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO QUOTE ME FROM MY BLOG, REMOVE MY QUOTES FROM THEIR CONTEXT OF THE POST, TRANSPLANT THEM HERE AND THEN DEMAND THAT I RESPOND.

    I have already accused you numerous times of removing things from their context to either hide things that are being said, and/or try to make them say things the author(s) never intended to say.

    I will extend the same courtesy. If I have an argument with something you have posted here, I will raise that dispute right here your blog where you made the argument. I will not take excerpts from your posts here, copy them over to my blog elsewhere and then dispute them over there.

    If you want to respond to a post I published on my blog, you and others are invited and encouraged to do so — over there. But you must respond to the post in context over there and transplant a portion of the lines over here.

    These are the rules.

    Also, let’s please remember I am not the one who said: I will prove thru the Scriptures that homosexuality in any way, shape, form or expression is sin. It was sin then, it is sin now and it is sin forever in any context. You are the one making these claims. Not me. Therefore the onus of proving thru the scriptures why you believe that premise is true is on you. It is not on me.

    If you think you can support your premise thru the scriptures then please do so. I and others are waiting to see it. I have the right to respond to arguments you make here and dispute them here where I believe they are invalid. You have the same right and privilege with posts I have published on my site.
    Now we can go back to the premises at hand and hopefully loving and respectfully.

    But do not muddy the waters!

    IF WE ARE ON YOUR BLOG:

    (1) Please make your point
    (2) I will respond if I feel in warranted
    (3) Tell me I said in response to your point here in context that you believe was invalid or that you have a question about
    (4) I will happily clarify it for you.

    IF WE ARE ON MY BLOG:

    (1) You have an argument with something I said there
    (2) Go the specific post where the statement(s) were made in context
    (3) Tell me what I said that you have an argument or question about
    (4) I will happily respond and answer or clarify it for you.

    I do want to go back you your other premise: “All gays are homosexuals but not all homosexuals are gays”, as I beleive it is crically germaine to the discussion. But out of respect for your request I will table that for right now.

    Now, let’s begin afresh. Make your point. Tell me I said over here in response to your point that you believe was invalid or that you have a question about and will happily clarify it for you.

    -Alex Haiken

    http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

    • Thanks Alex,

      The quotes comes from your comments here on my blog at Homosex: Thus Saith The Mosaic Law. I did not take them from your blog.(To Readers: read Alex’s comments at Homosex: Thus Saith The Mosaic Law)

      Beginning Afresh:

      Would you be loving and kind to show that the Bible(Leviticus 18 and 20) forbidding sexual intercourse between a male as with a woman, is my own presupposition and not a fact?

      Show how infant child sacrifice(18:21) and intercourse with animal(18:23) are morally binding despite their association with idolatry, while sexual practices between a male as with a woman(18:22) is not.

      Be blessed,
      Prayson

  17. I agree with #1 (presuming one is a believer, as I am)
    I agree with #2 (because I am believer)
    #3 is your own presupposition, it is not a fact
    Therefore, your conclusion #4 is invalid as it is based on your own presupposition.

    As to responding to a post on my blog, again, you have removed my words from their context (which you seem to like doing).

    I DO NOT GO TO MY BLOG TO RESPOND TO POSTS THAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN OVER HERE ON YOUR BLOG. PLEASE EXTEND THE SAME COURTESY.

    Please do not remove portions of posts I have written on my blog from their contexts, paste them over here, and then demand that I respond them. If you’d like to take argument with any posts over there, go over there and voice your disagreement. I will be happy to respond. That invitation is open to you and to any of your readers. They may also email privately if they like.

    And I am more than happy to defend anything that I’ve posted over here on your blog. But do not muddy the waters. I will not allow you to remove my quotes from their context, move them over here and demand that I reply.

    The points I have raised over her are in direct response to what you have written over here.

    Your premises: (1) God and the Bible condemn homosexuality, and (2) since God and the Bible condemn homosexuality, it is also true that God changes people who are homosexually-oriented to being heterosexually-oriented because God hates homosexuality.

    My points: (1) your first is a presupposition. The only way you can support that premise is to rip passages of scripture form their contexts and try to make them say things the authors(s) never intended. (2) The second is also a presupposition and does not have the evidence to support it. God is not in business of making gay people straight. And the only way you can support that premise is to play fast and loose with semantics, e.g. “All gays are homosexuals but not all homosexuals are gays.” “Ex-gays” believe that simply labeling themselves as heterosexuals constitutes progress in the right direction whether or not their orientation has changed or not. I’ve heard that from “ex-gays” from almost 30 years.

    That is why they play fast and loose with semantics. Your argument “All gays are homosexuals but not all homosexuals are gays”, is an invalid argument as it obviously proves completely invalid when used with heterosexuality. Let’s be clear: a homosexual is a homosexual whether or not he or she is having same-sex relations, in the same way a heterosexual is a heterosexual whether or not he she is having opposite-sex relations. Most heterosexuals I know would be extremely offended if you were to accuse them of not being heterosexual simply because they were, for example, celibate. People who are heterosexual are heterosexual 24/7, not just when they are sexually active. Why is it that you think the rules are somehow different when it’s the other way around unless you are simply playing fast and loose with semantics? That is snake oil, my friend, as the multitudes of people who have been there have testifed.

    -Alex Haiken

    http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

    • Thanks Alex,

      I quoted you from your comments here on my blog. A reader may read your comments at Homosex: Thus Saith The Mosaic Law and decide whether I took them out of their context or not.

      May I remind you that “This article is about Leviticus 18 and 20, I do pray in love, gentleness and kindness, we will be able to discuss this issue at hand without straying away to other topics.”

      May we focus on Leviticus 18 and 20. Lets leave “semantics” for another day.

      Would you be loving and kind to show that the Bible(Leviticus 18 and 20) forbidding sexual intercourse between a male as with a woman, is my own presupposition and not a fact?

      Show how infant child sacrifice(18:21) and intercourse with animal(18:23) are morally binding despite their association with idolatry, while sexual practices between a male as with a woman(18:22) is not.

      I also do pray for respect, kindness and gentleness in our comment that Christ may be glorified in our commenting.

      Be blessed,
      Prayson

  18. If you want to quote and respond to a post that is on my blog and get my reply to your comments, than you’ll need to respond to the post on my blog where the post resides, so others there may benefit as well. That said, it is critrical that the conversation and point made in the previous post not get lost by switching the post and subject. We must see if your premises are valid in the first place because if they are not valid premises, you are wasting everyone’s time with your smoke screen and snake oil. Your premises are: (1) that the God and the Bible condemns homosexuality and (2) that since God and the Bible condemns homosexuality, it is also true that God changes people who are homosexually-oriented to being heterosexually-oriented because God hates homosexuality. It happens that one of the ways in which you’re trying to support your premises, or one of the evidences you are using to support your premises, is passages such as Leviticus 18 and 20.

    I think your premises are invalid from the get-go. I have made the point that (1) the only way you can try and support your premises by ripping passages of Scripture from their context to try and make them say things the author never indeed to say. And that (2) one of the ways in which “ex-gays” play fast and loose with semantics is their delight in using terms “homosex” and “same sex attraction” in place of the term “homosexuality” as if to imply that as long as someone is not having sexual relations with someone of the same sex they are not homosexual.

    This is a point that you yourself has made repeatedly. You maintain that: “All gays are homosexuals but not all homosexuals are gays.” I made the point that this is playing fast and loose with semantics, is an invalid argument as it obviously proves completely invalid when used with heterosexuality. Let’s be clear: a homosexual is a homosexual whether or not he or she is having same-sex relations, in the same way a heterosexual is a heterosexual whether or not he she is having opposite-sex relations. Most heterosexuals I know would be extremely offended if you were to accuse them of not being heterosexual simply because they were, for example, celibate. People who are heterosexual are heterosexual 24/7, not just when they are sexually active. Why is it that you think the rules are somehow different when it’s the other way around unless you are simply playing fast and loose with semantics?

    If you agree that my point above is a valid one, we can let this go and move on. However, if you do not believe it is valid one then I think you need to indicate why. It is so very germane to what we are discussing here because as a former “ex-gay” ministry leader I’ve known literally hundreds of “ex-gays” who have bought into this fast and loose game with semantics only to wake up decades later, with most of their life gone, to sadly realize the argument was completely invalid and that God is not in the business of making gay people straight to bring them in line with social norms, but rather to help them become secure in Him, assured of His love and acceptance and set apart to follow Him faithfully and responsibly. Case in point: Last week John Smid, for 22 years the executive director of “Love in Action”, the longest-running and most well know ex-gay program came forward to publically say that in all his 22 as executive director of the program he has never seen one single person who was homosexual change to being heterosexual. I repeat: Never! Not one! In 22 years leading the program and elsewhere! He also said despite being heterosexually-married for all these years, he is not iota more heterosexual than he was the day he became a Christian. Now you can continue to try and sweep this under the table if you like, but if your premise and argument are invalid, then it is critical that we establish that so you are not selling your snake oil to a whole new generation of young people to have them wake up in a decade or two to discover that you lie! To live the lie yourself is one thing. To sell it to others is another entirely!

    -Alex Haiken

    http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com/

    • Thank Alex,

      I am sadden you misrepresented my argument: I did not argue “(1) that the God and the Bible condemns homosexuality” but homosexual behavior. Here is the argument:

      1. We are all obligated to do God’s will.
      2. God’s will is expressed in the Bible.
      3. The Bible forbids homosexual behavior.
      4. Therefore, homosexual behavior is against God’s will, or is wrong.

      William Lane Craig captured my thoughts correctly. He writes:

      “Does the Bible in fact forbid homosexual behavior? Now notice how I put that question. I did not ask, does the Bible forbid homosexuality, but rather does the Bible forbid homosexual behavior? This is an important distinction. Being homosexual is a state or an orientation; a person who has a homosexual orientation might not ever express that orientation in actions. By contrast, a person could engage in homosexual acts even if he has a heterosexual orientation. Now what the Bible condemns is homosexual actions or behavior, not having a homosexual orientation. The idea of a person’s being a homosexual by orientation is a feature of modern psychology and may have been unknown to people in the ancient world. What they were familiar with was homosexual acts, and this is what the Bible forbids.” (Craig, Reasonable Faith site)

      I am sorry you find these definitions a stumbling block. But I am going to pray, ask and hope you would agree that what mostly matter is not our definition of homosexually orientation or homosexual behavior, but what God’s will is as expressed in the Bible.

      May we focus on what is at heart: Leviticus 18 and 20.

      Be blessed,
      Prayson

Comments are closed.