A few thoughts to consider for the thoughtful reader of
DefCon –
1. Ok, for those who think to the contrary of the Bible, I
would like to call your bluff in no uncertain terms. Please provide
indisputable PROOF from the scientific and medical communities that people are
born transgender or as homosexuals or lesbians, etc. THEORIES or
PRESUPPOSITIONS based on psychology does not count. It must be based on DNA,
genetics, things that can be proven in a lab or research facility.
2. For those who think that God "MADE" a mistake
when He made you, I would encourage you to read the truth of Scriptures. The
same holds true to any who think that ALL or ANY sexual activity outside the
bounds of marriage between one man and one woman is acceptable. John 3:36 makes it clear as to God's
perspective on those who willfully abide in their sin and abomination. "He
that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son
will not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him." Those who are
children of God will obey the commands of Scripture, but those who choose their
own paths are clearly bent on destruction AND the wrath of God does abide on
them until salvation takes place. The bottom line is that God does NOT make
mistakes and He does not create that which would contradict the principles and
truths found in His Word (the Holy Scriptures).
3. I share with those who read that there is no hatred for
any who live in a lifestyle that is contrary to God. It is NOT up to me to
bring condemnation of eternal punishment. If I am to follow the truth of
Scripture, I must learn to 1) love God with all my heart, soul, and mind, and
the 2) is to love my neighbor as myself. However, it is NOT loving if I fail to
warn you that there is a high price to pay one day for choosing a path or
lifestyle that is in contradiction to the character of the Holy God. Some who
read might PRESUME upon my character and belief that I hate you and others who
do not live like I do. That is unfounded and is based purely on the speculation
of how you THINK others should believe and how you THINK others should allow
you to practice with no lack of tolerance apart from intolerance towards
"bigots" and "hate-mongers" like me. I look forward to
seeing your "PROOF."
4. So, just to clarify, a person can HATE the actions of
those who choose to pray aloud to God in school or a public place but that
person probably would say nothing if it was a Muslim student doing it. Further,
you can hate prayer and find it an affront or grievance to you, but you would
have NO problem fully endorsing that same person's right to speak if they
choose to spew filthy, vulgar language or even speak aloud of his or her
ability to practice deviant lifestyles. Absolutely amazing! So, you can HATE as
long as you get your way, but if I HATE that which is contrary to the
Scriptures, I am condemned as a bigot and I am judging others. So, exactly, how
does this logic work again???
5. The problem is that the world is trying to dictate new
standards of morality based on what suits the depravity of the human heart. You
cannot have morals without the God who gave and created the morals to begin
with. It is the same God who created one man and one woman and instituted
marriage between those two. The reality is that the LGBT agenda is an
abomination before God and will always be so. Sadly, a small very vocal
minority are trying to bully the world into accepting perverted lifestyles. By
the way, Disney has long sought to subtly and now openly promote the homosexual
agenda. The homosexual agenda will never be content with "marriage"
between two of the same sex. They are after our children. We are headed the way
of Rome and will be brought to our knees just as
Rome
6. By the way, if homosexuality or lesbianism is
"normal" and supposedly created by God, why in each relationship do
you have one that acts the part of a male and one a female? God created one man
and one woman and commanded them to multiply and fill the earth. Interesting
that God did not give the ability to procreate between two men or two women, and
biology and science cannot change that. Notice I did not mention
"gay" sex. I spoke of the irony of how in any relationship between
two men, one will seek to be effeminate (or the wife), while with two lesbians,
one will seek to dominate and play a masculine role.
7. God states that ALL AND ANY sex outside of marriage
between one man and one woman is an abomination before Him. God also tells us
that the hearts of ALL men and women are evil. Romans
3 states that there is nobody who is good, not even one. They
have all gone out of the way in their depravity. There does not need to be any
additional verses regarding a person who thinks they were born in the wrong
type of body. To hold to this is ultimately stating that God makes mistakes.
Further, the Bible is clear that it is not a particular sin that will send
people to hell, but the one of unbelief. Belief in God resulting in salvation
only comes when a person repents and confesses their sin to God and then places
their faith in Christ alone for their salvation. That belief then is followed
by a willing obedience to the commands of Christ.
8. Despite the fact that many will studiously avoid my
thoughts and questions, I will share that God commands all men to repent. The
need for repentance is not dependent on one's choice of sex or lifestyle. It is
based solely on the fact that man is separated by his very nature from a holy
God. What would God say to a transgender person? He tells them to repent and
that today is the day of salvation for all who come in faith in Jesus Christ.
The transgender equality issue is one that seeks to erode what God has created.
To force those choices upon the general public, particularly within the
education system, is foolishness and stupidity at best, and at worst, only
further undermines the differences between male and female as created by God.
Jerry, this post is so riddled with blatant errors, fallacies, stereotypical judgments, presuppositions and straw man arguments I’m astounded that both you and the original author weren’t embarrassed to post it. At the very get-go, for example, is the challenge for readers to submit “indisputable proof from the scientific and medical communities” that people are born gay. To request “indisputable proof” from any community (be it scientific, medical or even religious, for that matter) as to what causes some to be gay and others to be straight is a fallacy based on misrepresentation of all available facts as well as Scripture. This kind of dishonesty hardly deserves a hearing and seeks to undermine honest rational debate.
ReplyDeleteFact is nobody knows what causes homosexuality any more than we know what causes heterosexuality. You can find scores of publications, Christian and otherwise, that talk about this cause, that cause and the other cause. There are those who talk about genetics. There are those who talk about biophysical. There are those that talk about sociological, psychological factors. Nobody knows. And those who are experts say, for the most part, there are a variety of factors that interact with each other to create homosexuality and it may even be that no two people are gay for the same reason. But despite the many theories out there we don't know what causes it and anyone who claims they do is a liar. We know this however, that the imprintation of the consciousness, the establishment of the orientation occurs so early in the life of the individual that the individual never remembers having made a choice.
The author also wants to know “why “in each [gay] relationship do you have one that acts the part of a male and one a female?” Oh really now??!! He further explains that in “any relationship between two men, one will seek to be effeminate or the wife, while with two lesbians, one will seek to dominate and play a masculine role.” I have no idea where you or the author get your information from but you both need to find more resourceful resources for these assertions are as ludicrous, grandiose and stereotypically demeaning as asserting that all Arabs and Muslims are terrorists, all feminine men are gay, all masculine women are lesbians, all Mexicans are lazy and came into America illegally or that all blonds are unintelligent. Get a grip, Jerry! God calls us to be more responsible and knowledgeable than this.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Alex,
ReplyDeleteYou are up to your same old games, demonstrating the absolute height of your own ignorant and rebellious heart. You think that by saying, "this post is so riddled with blatant errors, fallacies, stereotypical judgments, presuppositions and straw man arguments I’m astounded that both you and the original author weren’t embarrassed to post it," that it some how makes it true. I am sorry, Alex, but saying something does not make it true. This is known as the "Begging the Question Fallacy," one of many fallacies you habitually make in your blogs and e-mails. Let's examine a few, shall we?
You repeatedly make the same false statements over and over again, never bringing any new material to the table, in hopes that by repeating it enough we will eventually believe it. This is known as the "Repitition Fallacy."
You employ the "Bandwagon Fallacy" by attempting to point out how "everybody is doing it," but at the same time you are also employing the "Appeal to People Fallacy," because you think your viewpoint is right simply based on how many people agree with that viewpoint.
You are also guilty of the "Strawman Fallacy," attempting to exaggerate your opponent's position to the absurd in an attempt to easily refute it when you have done nothing of the sort.
You have also been guilty of the "Circular Reasoning Fallacy" and the "Ad Hominem Fallacy." This is only to name a few.
To request "indisputable proof" is not a fallacy, Alex. I suggest you pick up a few books on fallacies and read up on them. You clearly have no idea what a fallacy is, even though you employ them without end. You call things fallacies that aren't much the same way you call eisegesis exegesis. All available facts, as well as Scripture, condemn homosexuality. You are attempting to say asking for proof is a fallacy because all the proof condemns what you want to be acceptable. There is a fallacy for that, too.
The fact IS, Alex, as I have repeatedly informed you, that we DO know what causes homosexuality. It is called SIN. We also know what caused heterosexuality: GOD. "In the beginning He created them MALE and FEMALE." "For this reason a MAN shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his WIFE." "The two shall become ONE flesh." Where God says, "It is not good for man to be alone, I will create for him a helper suitable for him," there are two Hebrew words used for "suitable for." Dummying it down, the one means "similar to" while the other means "different from." Woman is "similar to" man, in that they are both human beings, but she is also "different from" man, being biologically different from him. Look at the pairing of the animal kingdom and you see the same "similar" but "different" taking place. Two men or two women is NOT different. It is a mirrored image. Further, those mirrored images cannot procreate. They would die within their own generation. God's mandate to ALL the animals and to mankind was "Be fruitful and multiply." There are 8 negative prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible, but there are THOUSANDS of positive verses/passages addressing heterosexuality and the created order ordained by God. Jesus Himself verified the creation order: "Have you not heard that He made them MALE and FEMALE from the beginning? FOR THIS REASON a MAN shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his WIFE, and the two shall become ONE flesh." The creation order condemns the idiocy of transgender nonsense thinking there are more genders than merely man and woman, and it also condemns every sexual perversion outside of heterosexuality.
(continued...)
(...continued)
ReplyDeleteEverybody knows what causes homosexuality, Alex. It is SIN. You can deny it all you want, but you will never get rid of it. You will either learn this truth here on Earth where you can repent and be saved, or you will learn it in hell where it will be too late for you. The choice is yours.
Your last paragraph is ludicrous at best, Alex. You are attempting to deny the very things EVERYBODY with eyes and half a brain who has witnessed homosexual relationships can attest to--the fact that one ALWAYS attains to the feminine role while the other attains to the masculine role. Not to mention their very deeds prove the fact they require the opposite sex in order to function correctly. The end of your last paragraph demonstrates your habitual use of fallacious arguments in attempt to prove or garner support for yourself.
As I have said before, Alex, you are fighting a losing battle. Your poorly constructed arguments, lack of new material, and sad repetition of the same old defeated statements (especially those plagiarized from your favourite homosexual authors) demonstrates you are fighting out of desperation because you are under the conviction of the truth. I suggest you read Robert Gagnon's work, which destroys every homosexual work (which are never anything new, but sad plagiarizations of previous published errors and fallacies). I will be continuing to pray for your soul, Alex. May God shed the scales of ignorance from your eyes and rebellion from your heart and reveal to you His glorious light.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Timothy,
ReplyDelete“There’s your truth, my truth and the truth.” Christians should make it standard operating procedure to stick closer to the truth. Too often, we tilt on over to the “my truth” side if it bolsters our fears. The tilt, however, has more damaging effects when the “truth,” yours or mine, is manipulated as you and the author of the original post attempt to do.
I used to live in the “you can’t be gay and Christian” camp. I pitched my tent firmly there until, like many both before me and after me, events caused me to wonder and pray about if perhaps the truths that I held on this topic were really as solidly written in the pages of Scripture as I believed and had been taught. I would have been right there with you quoting verses excluding gay people from God’s Kingdom. I would have been right there with you telling gay people that they needed to stop being gay in order to please God. Until, that is, I allowed the discomfort of having my theology challenged.
The only thing that supports your overly simplistic and crude argument that “God caused heterosexuality” and “sin caused homosexuality” is ignorance. Firstly, whether you care to admit it or not, there is nothing in nature –- absolutely nothing -- that has not gone awry since the fall and that includes your heterosexuality. While it is true that no one has yet found a “gay gene,” sexuality is a great deal more complex than you care to admit. Our sexuality, like many of our core traits, is a result of a complex interaction of environment and biological factors. But until someone finds the gene that made you straight, I am not willing to insist that gay people find the “gay gene” so that they can be validated as acceptable. Your simplistic and crude argument holds no substance.
While it is true that God “made them male and female,” your argument against homosexuality from the Creation order is hazardous on numerous fronts. Virtually all Christians reject the notion that God created sex for procreation only despite the fact that the first man and woman were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply”. An argument based on an inability to reproduce is all the more problematic to defend given the vast number of marriages that never lead to procreation. Some couples marry at ages when childbirth is no longer an option. Other couples are childless because of impotence, infertility, health restrictions, or genetic concerns. Still others opt to not have children for a variety of reasons. The lack of children doesn’t invalidate these relationships nor does it devalue them.
To continue to argue that the Creation story privileges a heterosexual view of the relations between humankind is to make one of the weakest arguments possible: the argument from silence. An argument from silence is no argument at all. The Creation story is indeed about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, as you delight in admonishing. But though heterosexuality may be the dominant form of sexuality, it does not follow that it is the only form of appropriate sexuality. The authors of Genesis were intent on answering the question: Where do we come from? Then, as now, the only plausible answer is from the union of a man and a woman. The text celebrates God’s deliberate and equal creation of man and woman: God created both the males and the females.
(Continue to part 2 of 3)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAlmost everything you and the author continue to present as “normal” belief/behavior for gay people, let alone gay Christians, I have never ever experienced. Who did you and he speak with? What kind of fringe people did you dig up? Come on! This is presented as what all gay people and gay Christians think about and do? If I wanted to make my fellow evangelical Christians look bad, I could make a real effort to seek out and find a handful of fringe freak heterosexual Christians who have all kinds of crazy, vulgar thoughts and ideas, but that would not be a true example of what the overwhelming majority of heterosexual evangelical Christians believe.
ReplyDeleteYour “research” and that of the author’s is not only careless, it is deceptive. Is this a truthful and honest account of the day-to-day reality and theological beliefs of gay people and gay Christians? Simple answer: No.
You can continue to attempt to paint gay people and gay Christians as sex fiends, etc. but fact remains that many gay Christians are doctrinally orthodox believers who, apart from this one aspect of their lives, display indisputable piety and holiness. I can personally attest that many of them pray, study their Bibles, love their neighbor and generally grow in godliness in an exemplary manner that any pastor would be proud to observe in his flock.
It is a fact that some gay people do get heterosexually married or remain celibate for the rest of their lives. It is fiction however that anyone can change their orientation or that God is interested in doing it either to being in lines your “Yuck” factor. And when you quote Dr. Robert Gagnon as your authority on this subject, it becomes clear that you have reached to the discredited extremes for your “research.”
(Continue to part 3 of 3)
Even Alan Chambers, former President of Exodus International, and the Exodus board will tell you that no one can change their orientation. After nearly 40 years of failure at trying to change sexual orientation Exodus has now shut down. Nearly four decades of claimed success were wishful thinking and deceit. Exodus president Alan Chambers says: “For quite some time we’ve been imprisoned in a worldview that’s neither honoring toward our fellow human beings, nor biblical.” He apologizes for the damage done by “ex-gay” promise of change and by derogatory rhetoric against same-sex oriented people. “More than anything”, he said, “I am sorry that so many have interpreted this religious rejection by Christians as God’s rejection. I am profoundly sorry that many have walked away from their faith and that some have chosen to end their lives. … I am sorry some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation.” He told Jeff Chu at The Atlantic: “What I renounce [is] the whole gay-to-straight process. That the goal is changing your sexual orientation, which we realized isn’t something that happens.”
ReplyDeleteYou and the author can continue to attempt to make the case that being gay is really all about sex. But if you look at a gay person, and all you can think about is sex, sex, sex -- especially extreme forms of sex that many gay people themselves would find disgusting then it’s easier for you to feel justified in discriminating against God’s gay children. I know you’re one of last remnants of a sinking ship in your insistence that your hermeneutical skills on this topic are infallible but the facts and the evidence continue to be against you.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Alex,
ReplyDeleteOnce again you are lacing your comments with fallacy after fallacy, reaching with disillusionment and sheer ignorance, and yet again you fail consistently to answer any of the facts/evidence presented in my writings. You never cease to amuse me.
There is NO “your truth, my truth, and the truth,” Alex. There is only ONE truth. Truth is NOT relative; it is intrinsic. Sadly, you do not have the truth. What you are spewing, Alex is opinion. Anyone can have an opinion about something, but once fact enters the scenario, opinion becomes invalidated, just as yours has. The only one attempting to manipulate truth here, Alex, is you, as has been demonstrated in every response given to you and will be demonstrated again here.
You CANNOT be gay and Christian, Alex. It is a contradiction of terms, because the homosexual is habitually living in and embracing his sin whereas the Christian has repented of and forsaken his sin. 1 John 3:4-10 makes it clear that anyone making a practice of sin is NOT of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; and Ephesians 5:5 make it clear that homosexuals WILL NOT inherit the kingdom of God. The fact of the matter is, Alex, is that you are at the discomfort of having your theology challenged NOW.
You are right about one thing, Alex; there is nothing in nature that has not gone awry since the fall. Heterosexuality gone awry resulted in homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, and every other sexually deviant behaviour not natural to man. Whether you care to admit it or not, Alex, sexuality is NOT complex. “Have you not read that He who created them FROM THE BEGINNING made them MALE and FEMALE?” Sexuality is simplistic. There are TWO sexes. MALE and FEMALE. Active sexuality is ALSO simplistic. The prongs go in the outlet; the bolt goes in the nut; would you like me to spell it out more clearly for you and your obvious ignorance? God made MALE and FEMALE a perfect fit for each other. They are “similar to” yet “different from” each other, which CANNOT be said for the mirror image of homosexuality. The creation account answers ALL questions regarding human sexuality.
You are really reaching with paragraph four, Alex. Not only are you employing the “Begging the Question Fallacy,” by ignoring the facts, evidence, reality and truth, but you are also employing the “Red Herring Fallacy,” introducing something irrelevant and ineffectual to the case of the argument. Whether or not people reject the notion that sex was created purely for procreation has nothing to do with anything. Yes, sex is meant to be enjoyed between a HUSBAND (MALE) and a WIFE (FEMALE), but it STILL results in procreation. The fact IS, Alex, homosexuals can NEVER procreate and produce progeny. EVER! Heterosexual couples CAN. Heterosexual couples who, for whatever reason, find themselves unable to have children COULD have children if that reason was removed, if it could be cured. Homosexual couples will NEVER be able to do so. There is NOTHING you can cure to enable them to procreate. Your simplistic argument in all its ignorance is crude and lame to the very core. It only serves to highlight how little you know and the how desperate you need to reach.
No, Alex, it is not an argument from silence, nor is it a weak argument. The argument is loud and clear, but you have stuffed your ears with cotton balls and obnoxiously chant “La-la-la-la” at the top of your lungs like a child. It does follow that heterosexuality is the ONLY form of appropriate sexuality because that is how God made His creation. He made it MALE and FEMALE. All of nature chants the same truth, Alex: MALE and FEMALE. The Bible condemns homosexuality as a perversion of human nature and sexuality, and repeatedly affirms heterosexuality. Observe:
(continue to 2 of 6)
• "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24
ReplyDelete• "Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine within your house, your children like olive plants around your table." Psalm 128:3
• "Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching; Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck." Proverbs 1:8-9
• "Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love." Proverbs 5:18-19
• "My son, observe the commandment of your father And do not forsake the teaching of your mother; Bind them continually on your heart; Tie them around your neck. When you walk about, they will guide you; When you sleep, they will watch over you; And when you awake, they will talk to you. For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching is light; And reproofs for discipline are the way of life." Proverbs 6:20-23
• "An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, And he will have no lack of gain. She does him good and not evil All the days of her life. She looks for wool and flax And works with her hands in delight. She is like merchant ships; She brings her food from afar. She rises also while it is still night And gives food to her household And portions to her maidens. She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard. She girds herself with strength And makes her arms strong. She senses that her gain is good; Her lamp does not go out at night. She stretches out her hands to the distaff, And her hands grasp the spindle. She extends her hand to the poor, And she stretches out her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household, For all her household are clothed with scarlet. She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen. Strength and dignity are her clothing, And she smiles at the future. She opens her mouth in wisdom, And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and bless her; Her husband also, and he praises her, saying: 'Many daughters have done nobly, But you excel them all.' Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her the product of her hands, And let her works praise her in the gates." Proverbs 31:10-31
• "This is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously." Malachi 2:13-16
(continue to 3 of 6)
• "And said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" Matthew 19:5
ReplyDelete• "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh." Mark 10:6-8
• "Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, 'The two shall become one flesh.'" 1 Corinthians 6:16
• "But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband." 1 Corinthians 7:2
• "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." Ephesians 5:22-31
• "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. ... You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered." 1 Peter 3:1-4, 7
That is just a handful of THOUSANDS of verses, Alex. You will find NOT ONE verse that gives credence to homosexuality. You are the one attempting to make silence from clear statements, Alex, and then from your imaginary silence you are attempting to create an argument that cannot be backed up.
(continue to 4 of 6)
Alex, you are begging the question again and deliberately putting blinders on to the homosexual community and their actions. There is not a homosexual that does not fit the bill. Homosexuals are domestic terrorists. They are the ones guilty of hate speech and hate crimes. If they do not get their way, they threaten people and attack them, doing unseemly things to them just as the Sodomites wanted to do to Lot's visitors. I suggest you look up the detailed records of homosexuals threatening to donate blood and infect the blood banks, or how they deliberately infect others by not telling them they have AIDS, or the detailed records of homosexuals attacking the parishioners of churches. I could give you article upon article, record upon record, Alex. Good luck attempting to sweep them under the rug. The Bible informs us that even AFTER the Sodomites were all struck with blindness, they STILL continued to grope for the door, wearing themselves out; exhausting themselves. Why? When you are blind, you cannot participate in gang rape because you cannot see who it is you might be raping, and these men were after Lot's guests. If you are blind, you can STILL engage in sexual activity. ANY sane person in their right mind immediately struck with blindness would STOP what they were doing because the realization that they were now blind would have kicked in. God goes so far as to inform us that even AFTER they were blinded, these men DID NOT STOP. Homosexuals today bear the same character, attacking churches and doing things to its members that no rational human being would ever do to another human being. Homosexuality makes people irrational in their thoughts and in their behaviour. I call your bluff in making heterosexual Christians (genuine Christians) look like “fringe freaks.” You’ll find no such thing.
ReplyDeleteAlex, quit lying to yourself and attempting to manipulate reality. YOUR “research” is sloppy, careless, and deceptive. “Is this a truthful and honest account of the day-to-day reality and theological beliefs of gay people?” Truthful answer: Yes! There is no such thing as a “gay Christian.” It’s an oxy-moron.
“I can personally attest that many of them pray, study their Bibles, love their neighbor and generally grow in godliness in an exemplary manner that any pastor would be proud to observe in his flock.” Behaviour modification sans repentance and the forsaking of sin is NOT godliness, Alex. Your attestment is worthless. You are a man coming in his own name praising up the rest, of which Jesus said their testimony is NOT to be believed. You could be the most glorified citizen on the face of this Earth and it would NOT change a thing, Alex. Sin is still sin and homosexuality is a perversion of human and sexual nature, whether you care to admit it or not.
What is fiction, Alex, is your idea/notion/understanding of the word “orientation.” Orientation has to do with direction, which CAN be changed: “a change of position, alignment, thought, inclination, or interest.” You think “orientation” or sexuality is where your identity is and how you identify yourself. Your first problem is the fact you have a false definition for identity.
IDENTITY: Sameness, as distinguished from similitude and diversity (1828 Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language). 2. identification or the result of it (mistaken identity; identity card); 3. the state of being the same in substance, nature, qualities, etc.; absolute sameness (Oxford Canadian Dictionary).
IDENTIFICATION: The act of making or proving to be the same (1828 Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language).
(continue to 5 of 6)
Similitude has to do with similarity, whereas diversity has to do with difference. Identity is NOT individuality (contrary to some additions of false definitions to modern dictionaries). Individuality and diversity are what set you apart from every one else. Personality, character, skills, abilities have NOTHING to do with a person’s identity. They DO NOT identify you. If you walk into a place and they ask who you are, telling them you are gay WILL NOT identify you; showing them a piece of your artwork WILL NOT identify you; demonstrating how fast you can run the 100m WILL NOT identify you. Your license or passport WILL because it proves your “sameness;” that you are the same as who you claim to be. Your identity IS NOT found in your sexuality, which is what homosexuals attempt to do. Your homosexuality is a SIN—NOT a mark of identification. Homosexuals attempt to say that they don’t know who they are and are nobody apart from their homosexual tendencies. That is the height of stupidity. If you have amnesia, being homosexual IS NOT going to answer the question, “Who am I?”
ReplyDeleteAlex, it is YOU who has reached to the “discredited extremes for your ‘research’” by turning to such authors as John Boswell, Jack Rogers, Dale Martin, and others. Robert Gagnon, unlike the authors you rely upon, IS an authority on the subject and NOBODY has ever been able to refute him or his information. In fact, most challenged to do so tuck their tails and crawl back under the rocks they crawled out from under.
Alex, your second last paragraph is once again employing the “Appeal to the People Fallacy” and the “Bandwagon Fallacy.” Not only that, but you are also employing the “Faulty Appeal to Authority Fallacy,” attempting to overawe us and make us reluctant to challenge your argument. Alan Chambers IS wrong…NOW. It does not matter what he has said, he is in the wrong NOW. Attempting to use him as your faulty authority, and attempting to use “Look! Everybody is doing it” as your sole excuse why people should accept it is reaching. Your sole source for where you seek your acceptance and why you think everyone should accept it is your “Appeal to the People Fallacy.” You think that the amount of people supporting it makes it right and therefore, because of the new people supporting it, it can’t truly be wrong. Then I guess the holocaust wasn’t wrong, and the abuse of slaves wasn’t wrong. Everything that comes out of your mouth, Alex, is wrapped in one fallacy or another.
The problem with Chambers’ methods is that he neglected repentance. Behavioural modification WILL NOT change a thing. Repentance WILL. Attempting gay-to-straight sans repentance will do absolutely nothing. Attempting thief-to-charity sans repentance will do absolutely nothing, too. Attempting murderer-to-reformed sans repentances will do absolutely nothing as well. Attempting ANY change from sin to salvation will do absolutely NOTHING sans repentance. Your appeal to a confused Christian (if he is one) and faulty authority does not settle the issue. Keep trying.
Alex, it is YOU who is attempting to simplistically and devastatingly make the case that being gay is all about sex. By doing so you are employing the “Straw Man Fallacy,” attempting to exaggerate my position to make it easier for you to attempt to refute. With or without the sexual aspect, homosexuality is STILL WRONG!
(continue to 6 of 6)
By the way, Alex, in case you haven't noticed it in all your conversations with me, it is YOU who keeps referring to "gay sex." So CLEARLY you KNOW that the act is wrong and is a perversion, otherwise you wouldn't habitually bring it up in an attempt to convince yourself it's okay. I have always maintained that regardless of whether two homosexuals (men or women) are having sex, homosexuality is WRONG and a PERVERSION. The union of the two, sexually or non-sexually, is UNNATURAL.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who wants to learn the truth about homosexuality and their agenda and tactics, please read the following and educate yourself:
http://prolife.ath.cx:8000/plae117.htm
http://prolife.ath.cx:8000/plae118.htm
Other obvious evidences in every one of your responses is the fact that (1) you never fully read what I have written you, (2) you cherry pick what you will attempt to respond to, avoiding all the facts and evidence presented in what I have written (because you can't answer them), and (3) you make up straw man arguments with me at the center in an attempt to refute your self-made arguments for me. You also fail to reference your sources. You parrot the same cut-and-paste nonsense you glean from Boswell, Rogers, and Martin without using an ounce of common sense to test their ignorance in the world of reality. Martin claims "arsenokoites" is akin to "understand" and you cannot combine the meaning of the roots to get the meaning of the compound, and you believe him and parrot him; yet he fails to tell you, and you fail to consider, the numerous compound words in the English language that mean EXACTLY what their individual root words mean. Not to mention the numerous compound words in Greek, Spanish, Italian, French, and Latin that mean EXACTLY what their individual root words mean.
As I said before, Alex, so say I again; whether you like it or not, the facts and evidence are on MY side, and you fail to answer them EVERY time. Do yourself a favour and quit while you're behind. You're the remnants of a sinking ship, Alex, about to be taken in judgment by the deluge (or in the coming case, by the flames). You fail to realize that Jerry and I are trying to warn you because we care for your soul. May the Lord open your eyes and give you a new heart.
Alex, it's time you faced reality. We ALL know what causes homosexuality. It is choice, which is sin. Whether they remember when they made that choice or not is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is that they made that choice. When a man or woman is married to the opposite sex for ten/twenty years, and NEVER would have given a second thought to homosexuality, and even spoke out against it, only years later to separate from their spouse claiming, "I'm gay," it is 100% proof positive evidence that homosexuality is a choice. They are NOT born with it. The fact people who never ever would have considered it years later claim to be "gay" prove it is a choice.
ReplyDeleteIf they were born with it, there would be a natural tendency toward it their entire life. The fact of the matter is that boys are naturally attracted to girls and girls are naturally attracted to boys. The only way they deviate from such a path is because some twisted freak put mixed messages in their mind. Older homosexuals do this to younger non-homosexuals in turning them into homosexuals. Older men will ask the younger men if they've ever had thoughts about another guy, and if they have been tempted with such wicked thoughts, the older man attempts to tell him he is obviously gay and says, "How do you know you don't like it if you've never tried it?" The women do the same thing. The younger girl wants nothing to do with it but the older woman talks her into it and then the younger one, confused, now thinks she's either "bi" or "lesbian." If they have feelings for their dog they are even more confused and think they have a natural inclination toward animals. It is coercion, it is confusion, and it is choice. It is ALL perversion.
Temptation to do something is not evidence of being something. Thoughts that flash through your mind to murder someone does not make you a murderer. Temptations come to EVERY man and woman. The difference is there are those who give in to them and then attempt to make excuses for it (like the homosexuals) and there are those who resist them because they are not natural thoughts. Every man or woman who has been tempted with a homosexual thought is NOT a homosexual. EVERY individual on this Earth is naturally born a heterosexual. They choose to act homosexual due to some tragic event in their lives (usually molestation or abuse). Wake up and smell the coffee, kid, and try being honest with yourself for once in your life.
Hey Alex,
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, yes, I posted this article, but I did not write it. Yet, you respond to this article as if he and I collaborated together and wrote it. His name is credited to the article, because he is the author of it, not me. Well, at least it is good to see that at least you acknowledge him as the “original author” of the post. I posted it, because he made some real good points to challenge the LGBT Community to answer.
You stated, “Jerry, this post is so riddled with blatant errors, fallacies, stereotypical judgments, presuppositions and straw man arguments that I’m astounded both you and the original author weren’t embarrassed to post it.” So Mark’s article is “riddled with blatant errors, fallacies, stereotypical judgments, presuppositions and straw man arguments.” Then in astounded disbelief you said the original author and I should be “embarrassed” for even posting it! You hope by saying that, it makes it somehow true. By saying you disagree with something does not make it true. Without giving reasons to why makes you guilty of the “begging the question fallacy.” This is one of the many fallacies I have observed in your past responses to me. Now that, my friend astounds me, Lol! Shall I now be “embarrassed” for posting an article on my blog site that speaks the truth? Okay, if what Mark wrote is so full of blatant errors, fallacies, stereotypical judgments, etc. Then you need to state your case against Mark’s challenges by honestly answering them one by one.
Next, you said, “Fact is nobody knows what causes homosexuality any more than we know what causes heterosexuality.” Really Alex? Well, let me tell you. It is very, very simple. Heterosexuality is based solely on the sexual order of the gender that God had created in the beginning. Men primarily desire women and women primarily desire men. If a man desires another man or a woman desires a woman, this is of course against God’s natural order. It is unnatural as Paul had stated in Romans 1: 26-27. Heterosexuality is NOT an orientation, it is the natural sexual identity of a man and woman that God had created and instilled in them to be. This CANNOT be said of homosexuality. Homosexuality is a complete violation of God’s natural sexual order for men and women.
In the same paragraph in response to Marks article I had posted on my blogsite, you made this statement: “But despite the many theories floating around out there, we don't know what causes it and anyone who claims they do is a liar.” Again, Alex, really? So what you are essentially saying here is that God is a liar, when he condemned homosexuality as an abomination in such Scripture passages as Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13? The conclusion any honest observer of Scripture will come to is that the cause of homosexuality is the result of sin period. It does not take a doctor in theology to understand this Alex.
Alex, your whole premise in your three paragraphs in response to Mark’s challenge is totally flawed. Why is that? Well, in the first paragraph you condemn what he says with such words as “riddled with blatant errors, fallacies, stereotypical judgments, presuppositions and straw man arguments.” And again in the last paragraph you used such words as the following, “I have no idea where you or the author get your information from but you both need to find more resourceful resources for these assertions are as ludicrous, grandiose and stereotypically demeaning…” Alex, try consulting the Bible with a honest and open mind and you will soon learn why Mark and I hold to the position that we do. Yet no where in your response do you address Marks challenges. If you are so certain that Mark and I are so wrong, well then prove it. That is the whole purpose to the eight points that Mark wrote to challenge the LGBT Community. Saying you disagree with someone without providing any real answers to why, does nothing to prove your point, let alone support your position.
-Jerry Sheppard
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteI guess you believe you more you repeat your opinions and the more words you use, the likelier others will think your biblical exegesis is sound. Or maybe you think the more arrogant and insulting you get, the more authority you then speak with.
Here is what I read:
"I require you to acknowledge that I am smarter than you.”
“When I tell you that my understanding is correct either you accept that as fact or you’re stupid.”
“If everyone doesn’t know that I’m right I’ll just keep making my replies longer and longer and then I’ll come across as smart.”
“And if you don’t agree with me I’ll just insult you some more and write another 10,000 words.
yada, yada, yada
“I know the Bible is about gracious engagement so that people can know God loves them, but I don't care about that. I need to step all over that and correct you.”
yada, yada, yada
“Yeah, on the playground at lunch time. You bring your gang and I'll bring mine.”
“I won't listen to a thing you say because I've heard it all, and I will sit on my hands until the seconds tick away so that I can once again show everyone how smart I am. Forget grace and love. I get to define those terms and I dictate what all words mean and what I think you mean they mean.”
“So, how about it? Let's do this in Jesus Name to the glory of the Kingdom.”
Did I get that right, Timothy?
While you stress the importance of rational argument and sound biblical exegesis you toss that right out the window in your rehearsals of the familiar hermeneutic arguments based on the supposedly "clear teaching" of the Bible according to Timothy. You try to prove that the Bible prohibits any and all forms of homosexual activity but fail to offer a sound exegetical case for such a verdict.
You enumerate various kinds of "gay" sexual activity. You claim that homosexuals are domestic terrorists. You proceed to argue that homosexuals are all guilty of hate speech and hate crimes (but heterosexuals, of course, cannot be guilty of such crimes), that if homosexuals do not get their way, they threaten people and attack them. Really now, Tim? Perhaps the warning of Jesus about the perils of trying to conduct eye-surgery when you are unwittingly the victim of poor vision yourself might be a helpful one to remember here.
The most worrying thing about your reply is not its laughable distortions but the degree of credence which some Christians are clearly prepared to give to it. If this is what evangelicals consider to be a rational defense, then it is no wonder that Christian apologetics are in such a parlous state.
As for your final salvo, your blurring of the boundary between pedophilia and homosexuality is downright disgraceful. And then you have the audacity to suggest that I’m the one attempting to manipulate reality! Frankly, if this is the nearest to a rational defense that you can muster, my point is proven.
So we have what you believe is your sound exegesis on the relevant biblical passages and I have what I believe is mine. You’ve provided links to yours and I have mine on my blog. Anyone interested can easily find them by clicking the link below and then selecting the “Archives” page. They’re all there. We’ll let those who may be interested decide for themselves which constitutes sound biblical exegesis and which does not.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Alex,
DeleteMy biblical exegesis IS sound. All you have to do is compare my work with 2000 years of Christian exegesis and see how I am lined up with them; and how you are NOT.
Now, once again, Alex, you're tossing your fallacies around in an attempt to manipulate the situation because you know you are in the wrong and cannot answer ANY of my arguments. Your attempts are simplistic, childish, and utterly futile. You are attempting to blind people to the facts, evidence, reality, and truth by firing off another couple fallacious arguments, namely the "Genetic Fallacy" and the "Tu Quoque Fallacy." You, being the pot, are attempting to call me, the kettle, black. You are trying to isolate my "insults" by overlooking your very own insults contained in all your responses. Might I suggest you try actually reading your own responses? They are laced with insults, insinuations, assumptions, and ad hominem. You are trying to paint me with the very brush you are painted with.
Now, as for all the imaginary quotations you included in your response, ALL those quotations are true of you. You argue based on your feelings and opinions without a shred of fact or evidence to back you up. I, on the other hand, provide you with facts and evidence galore that you CONSTANTLY and CONSISTENTLY avoid addressing and fail to respond to. You repeatedly attempt to sweep these facts and evidences under the rug by side-stepping them and pretending that they do not exist. I have been on to your games for quite some time, Alex, and it is rather tiresome revealing you for the pretender you are, trying to convince people you are an authoritarian on anything biblical or historical (let alone anything truthful).
"You try to prove that the Bible prohibits any and all forms of homosexual activity but fail to offer a sound exegetical case for such a verdict." Again, Alex, saying something does not make it true. This is a fallacy you are attempting...again. I have repeatedly provided sound exegesis. All one has to do is follow the links provided in my above response to you to see how much of a liar you are. You are just too much of an ignorant child rampantly spewing his eisegesis that you do not want to admit what you know to be true. Your statements are so utterly laughable they border on the pitiably pathetic. All you do is make blanket statements and ad hominem in an attempt to hide the facts and evidence, hoping people will not see them.
Your attempt to separate homosexuality from pedophilia is laughable, Alex. I suggest you wake up, open your eyes, and smell the coffee. What do you think pederasty is? It is a form of pedophilia. Look at the facts, buddy! Look at the number of homosexuals charged for pedophilia. Look at the homosexual organizations such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). You are one of those homosexuals attempting to cover up and blur reality. The only person who is lacking a defense here, Alex, is you, the man who deliberately avoids the issues with their facts and evidence, failing to even make an attempt at answering them (because he can't), making ad hominem accusations that are really true of yourself, and attempting to argue your feelings and opinions against the facts and evidence. You have not provided a response to ANYTHING I have written, but have merely uttered childish comments like "Your exegesis isn't sound. Your hermeneutical principles are wrong. Etc., etc." Be a man and prove it, Alex. Saying it DOES NOT make it true, no matter how much you convince yourself to believe the contrary. Nothing you write, Alex, contains a shred of sound biblical exegesis (or truth), and I have proven it time and time again.
(continue to 2 of 2)
I have warned you time and time again to repent before it is too late, Alex, but you insist on paving your path to hell. If you insist in making your bed, YOU are the one who has to sleep in it. Anyone wishing to know the truth on this issue can first read your blog to see your sloppy and dishonest "research," and then read mine to see what true, honest, sound, biblical exegesis looks like, complete with facts and evidence.
DeleteNow, with regard to Robert Gagnon, I suggest you do your research a little more completely, truthfully, and honestly. Your reviewer ATTEMPTED to answer Gagnon but did so in futility. I suggest you consult Gagnon's website where he provides a rebuttle to your reviewer and thrashes the reviewer but good. In fact, I suggest you look up the various debates involving Gagnon. Isn't it interesting how he smokes every single opponent that attempts to debate him on this issue? Same-sex behaviour 2000 years ago is NO different than same-sex behaviour today, pal. You can repeat that lie to yourself as often as you want, but any honest and truthful person who has ever studied the issue, including several homosexuals, has attested to this fact. 100 years after Jesus, Christians, Jews, and pagans, whether historian, theologian, and/or philosopher, ALL made the same comments in regard to the anti-homosexual passages in the Bible and homosexuality in their time. In 632 A.D., the Qu'ran provided the same understanding of Sodom and Gomorrah and condemned homosexuality as well. NOTHING has changed. It is the same today as it was then--a PERVERSION!
This is my last response to you, Alex, due to the fact that I have grown tired of your childish antics and rantings by avoiding the facts and evidence I present you with and failing to even attempt to answer them (because we both know you cannot). Anyone who compares my responses with yours will quickly see how often I provide irrefutable facts and evidence and how you ALWAYS side-step it and merely tell me I'm wrong (in 20 different ways) WITHOUT providing a shred of evidence with which to demonstrate WHERE and HOW I am supposedly wrong. Again, saying it DOES NOT make it true, no matter how much you try and convince yourself that it is. Hopefully in the future you will provide a little more substantial arguments than, "You're wrong. Because I said so."
Still praying for your lost soul...
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “Robert Gagnon, unlike the authors you rely upon, IS an authority on the subject and NOBODY has ever been able to refute him or his information. In fact, most challenged to do so tuck their tails and crawl back under the rocks they crawled out from under.”
Here is one of several published reviews of Gagnon’s book. It would appear your assertion that “NOBODY has ever been able to refute him or his information” is untrue. This reviewer did not “tuck their tails and crawl back under the rocks they crawled out from under.”
A book should not be judged by its cover, its jacket’s many blurbs, or its superabundance of words and footnotes by which it thinks it will be heard. But this book’s forbidding length will put off careful examination while impressing with a farrago of face validity. The more Gagnon goes on and on, the more he misinterprets, misrepresents, misconstrues, and misapplies. Yet for all his verbiage, he offers little more than what’s been said before and what’s been refuted by biblical scholars, historians and scientists. He belabors irrelevancies (e.g. Ham’s alleged rape of his father Noah) and straw man arguments (e.g. “God did not offer up Jesus Christ for the purpose of rubber stamping and affirming all human desires.”) Say what? He fails to engage the arguments of constructionist historians. When he wanders away from his seminary turf, he’s taken in by discredited sex “experts” as well as by self-styled “ex-gay” leaders. Perhaps not surprisingly, he displays a remarkable ignorance of the requirements of random sample research and a naivete about the science of statistics.
Gagnon’s argument is based, in part, in his reading of the Bible. But unless one admits, as he does not, the vast difference between same-sex behavior of two-plus millennia ago and homosexual orientation and gay relationship experienced and understood today, one has no helpful hermeneutic for today’s debate. His failure to hear the biblical writers address their own concerns in their own age results in his dominating rather than submitting to their texts. For example, he’s so oblivious to, or careless of, the post-antiquity construction of homosexuality that he concocts an anachronistic letter from the ancients in terms of today’s issues.
He says his aim is to show “that affirming same-sex intercourse is not an act of love” and insists that “that road leads to death: physically, morally, and spiritually.” He adds that all “homosexual practice” is also “harmful … to the church, and to society at large.” Further, he complains that “Promoting the homosexual `rights’ agenda is an awful and harmful waste of the church’s energies and resources.” He warns that if the church is welcoming of any “homosexual practice” – a term he prefers, for polemical purposes, over homosexual orientation – that welcoming “will shake to the core the church’s fidelity toward Scripture.” But hasn’t the church already weathered centuries of shakings over Scripture in controversies – from inclusion of the gentiles to issues of slavery, interracial marriage, integration, etc.? Luther complained that “this fool [Copernicus] will turn the art of astronomy upside down. The Scripture shows and tells another lesson, where Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth.” Calvin asked: “Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit” in Scripture?
(Continued in Part 2 of 2)
[Part 2 of 2]
ReplyDeleteGagnon claims that “the complementarity of male and female sex organs [is] the most unambiguous” evidence he can offer against homosexuality. But isn’t sexual complementarity a bit more complicated than tinker toys? Surely he knows that genitalia are hardly the only or most frequently involved body parts in sexual expression. What about lips and arms and the brain (the most significant sex organ of all)? His reductionism to mechanics refuses to acknowledge the nature of the fascinatingly other that’s the very essence of psychosexual orientation, attraction and affection – whether enjoyed by a heterosexual or a homosexual couple. But “what matters [to Gagnon] is that [same-sex conduct] is done at all.” To him, self-sacrificing love that “fulfills the law” and can be shown within a committed homosexual partnership is beside the point.
Gagnon has put much time and energy into erecting barriers against his gay and lesbian neighbors’ being allowed to live in a relevantly same-sex intimacy. He’s no doubt blind to the obscenity of three little words at the book’s beginning: his affectionate dedication “For my wife.” As if there had never been a Golden Rule – not to mention common grace and justice – Gagnon celebrates his own sexual intimacy while doing his utmost to damn intimacy for his gay and lesbian neighbors. But “any theology or mission that does not `love your neighbor as you love yourself’ is offering a truncated and therefore heretical gospel,” as an evangelical says in another context. [John G. Stackhouse] And this refusal of hospitality is not lost on gay people.
But Gagnon’s take on the gospel is tied to his take on gayness rather than grace. He claims “the core proclamation of the gospel [that] stop[s] short of actively and sacrificially [?!] reaching out [with] the gospel’s transformative power” – by which he’s harking back to “ex-gay” promises – is the “truncated” gospel. “I believe the gospel at its core is a message of liberation. By liberation, I mean something more noble than tolerance or permissiveness.” Well, yes. But can the lame “liberation” of “ex-gay” doubletalk hold a candle to the liberation from the law of sin and death?
“Despite [what he calls] one’s personal repugnance for same-sex intercourse,” he concludes with an expression of concern: “The real difficulty for the church lies not in assessing whether the Bible’s stance toward same-sex intercourse is unremittingly negative. … No. The real difficulty for the church lies in the pastoral dimension: the `nuts-and-bolts,’ day-to-day compassionate response” to homosexuals. But he’s blind to the difference between the concerns of ancient texts and the plight of gay people today. He pays more attention to ecclesiastical politics than to the real day-to-day needs of gay people. So he’s in no position to give the pastoral care he means to give. Granting what he admits could be the “unintended effect of bringing personal pain to homosexuals,” he self-righteously refuses to take responsibility for his part in inflicting such predictable pain.
One last response. Alex, you are going to have a hard time trying to convince former homosexuals saved by the grace of God that they were not really homosexual to begin with, let alone that they were born homosexual and/or can be gay "Christians." Those who truly belong to Christ know the truth, Alex, and they wish for you to enter in. Yet you continually struggle against it, trying to make excuses for your sin. You, and homosexuals like you, will hear those fateful words, "I NEVER knew you. DEPART from me, you workers of lawlessness." Why? Because, like the people in Matthew 7, you are attempting to call Jesus, "Lord, Lord," while embracing your sin and making excuses for it. You are a worker of lawlessness, Alex.
DeleteThe transforming power of the Gospel, which you repeatedly fail to grasp, ACTUALLY transforms people. It takes away their sin. It washes them clean with the blood. The liberation of the Gospel ACTUALLY liberates sinners from sin. It sets them FREE from their sin, yet you continue to HOLD ON TO your sin and tell people Jesus wants you to embrace your sin.
What you espouse, Alex, is a false gospel--not THE Gospel. You clearly have a faulty and flawed concept of "love thy neighbour," attempting to eisegetically make it say things it HAS NEVER and DOES NOT say or teach. I am half tempted to educate you on this respect, but to do so would result in a multi-multipart response. I think I will save it for a future blog article to write (or several). Your ignorance never ceases to astound me, and the lengths you go to to corrupt and pervert the Word of God. I hope one day God opens your heart to receive the Gospel and I will look forward to speaking to you on such a day, hearing how the scales have been lifted from your eyes and how you will then see clearly whereas now you see darkly. I will rejoice in that day with you. Until that day, I bid you adieu.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteAs promised under separate cover, I wanted to respond to your comment. Firstly, I never suggested that you and Mark Escalera, author of the original article, collaborated together and wrote it. However, if you’re going to publish someone else’s article on your blog, the presumption is that you are in agreement with what he’s written unless you specify otherwise. And as indicated in your reply to me, you are indeed in full agreement with the author.
Respectfully, I have no intention of addressing his outlandish points by answering them one by one, as you suggested. If I did, it would require far more space than a blog comment would allow. However, for your edification, following are two: Mark begins by requesting “indisputable proof from the scientific and medical communities” that gay people are born gay, while unable to provide similar “proof” from the same communities that heterosexual people are born straight. Until someone finds the gene that made him straight, he shouldn’t be insisting that gay people do likewise. That itself is hypocrisy.
Mark then lunges into his unfounded notorious insistence of the existence of the supposed “homosexual agenda” and all the evil that lurks within it. You can ask 500 gay people what the “homosexual agenda” is and you will get an almost unanimous answer: “equality.” The “homosexual agenda” that threatens America with what Mike and others claim is “the complete elimination of God and Christianity” -- that “homosexual agenda”-- was invented by Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority in the 1970s as a political fund raising tool. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the “evil communist empire” was no longer a threat, the Christian Coalition turned to a new enemy -- ”radical homosexual activists” -- in order to play on the fears of religious conservatives and generate voter turnout. And it worked. It still works. That’s why Pat Robertson continues to warn viewers of The 700 Club about the “homosexual agenda.” So, please understand this: it was conservative religious and family groups that created this “threat.” Again, the hypocrisy, if you will, is on the part of your author.
Another author, to support his notion of the nefarious “homosexual agenda,” details the gay rights platform presented by 200 gay attendees to the Democratic National Convention in 1972, but thanks to the internet you can Google anything. In all my searches on this 1972 event, the overwhelming majority of references to it were made by conservative groups repeating the tale over and over as if it were the seed of some major power play. One account even claimed there were 200 organizations represented. In 1972? Seriously? Actually, the truth is far less frightening; just five delegates presented their wish list to the Convention at midnight when almost no one was there to hear them, and more accurately, there were 200 gay people at that convention, not organizations, as several references claim.
(Continued in Part 2 of 3)
(Part 2 of 3)
ReplyDeleteAnother author, Michael Brown, in his discredited self-published book “A Queer Thing Happened to America” refers to another author dozens of times to make the same baseless point. According to Brown, his source lists a six-fold plan for the “gay revolution.” Sounds terrifying. But once again, a simple Google search reveals that it is only the conservatives who refer to this “plan” but not one gay organization. If it is so much a part of the nefarious “homosexual agenda,” shouldn’t at least one gay group be using it or alluding to it?
It would appear that Mike is either willfully deceitful purposely spreading lies, or he needs to get himself more educated. So no, I have no intention of addressing his distortions one by one. If he wants to argue that the Bible prohibits any and all forms of homosexual activity then he needs to do so by sound biblical exegesis, not by negatively stereotyping an entire class of people.
Your friend Timothy resorts to similar irrational, unfounded and over rehearsed claims. When, for example, I called Timothy on his disgraceful blurring of the boundary between pedophilia and homosexuality, he writes back:
“Your attempt to separate homosexuality from pedophilia is laughable, Alex. I suggest you wake up, open your eyes, and smell the coffee. What do you think pederasty is? It is a form of pedophilia. Look at the facts, buddy! Look at the number of homosexuals charged for pedophilia.”
Had Timothy even bothered to check the facts before he suggests that others wake up, he would have discovered that statistically the vast majority of pedophiles and child molesters are heterosexuals, not homosexuals. Dr. William C. Holmes, Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, authored a study in the December 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association that indicated that 98 percent of all male perpetrators who had sexually abused boys were identified in their families and communities as heterosexual. We could go on but suffice it to say the research is clear that the sexual orientation of an adult is not a factor in the analysis of child abuse.
Timothy too is either willfully deceitful purposely spreading vicious lies, or he needs to get himself more educated. But this is what people like Mike and Timothy need to do to incite fear in people and support their misrepresentations. The most worrying thing about Mike’s essay and Timothy’s comments is not their laughable distortions but the degree of credence that some are prepared to give to it.
(Continued in Part 3 of 3)
(Part 3 of 3)
ReplyDeleteIn your own comment you stated that “If a man desires another man or a woman desires a woman, this is of course against God’s natural order. It is unnatural as Paul had stated in Romans 1:26-27.”
While I understand and respect that is your stated potion and that you sincerely believe this, it is not sound biblical exegesis. We must be careful about what we read into Paul’s use of the Greek terms translated in the English as “natural” and “unnatural”. We know from linguistic studies that in Paul’s day the terms natural and unnatural referred simply to what was, or was not, expected. Phrased differently, research into the Roman’s understanding of what it is or is not “natural” does not support attempts to stigmatize same-sex coupling as “unnatural. What Paul means by natural is what other writers of his day meant by it: it simply meant “what one expects.” Notably, Paul also applied the very same Greek term “para physin” to God’s action in Romans 11:24, when God engrafted Gentiles onto the Jewish olive tree — and there “para physin” was an appreciation, not a reproach. So, if same-sex coupling is, in Paul’s terms “unnatural”, so too is your salvation.
Respectfully,
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Alex,
ReplyDeleteOkay, I lied. THIS will be my last comment to you.
Have you ever noticed, Alex, that it is YOU who is at odds with the last 2000 years of Christian interpretation, understanding, and belief? So whose interpretation and understanding is likely to be accurate and true? I'll give you a hint... NOT yours!
You see, Alex, YOU are attempting to tell ALL OF US that the past 2000 years of Christianity, with ALL its greatest minds, has been wrong and that EVERYONE has misinterpreted the Bible when it comes to homosexuality. Not only that, but you are ALSO telling us that EVERY Jewish and Pagan historian and philosopher throughout the ages has ALSO been wrong in this regard. YOU, and your band of FEW merry men, are attempting to tell ALL OF US that the Spirit of God has revealed something to you that EVERYONE over the past 2000 years has gotten wrong. That YOU ALONE have it right and have interpreted it right. So, Alex, who is the one who is truly thinking he knows it all and is smarter than everyone else? Again, I'll give you a hint... it's YOU!
You are not an authoritarian in bibliology OR ancient languages, Alex, let alone the original Hebrew and Greek. You are not a historian. You are not an archaeologist. Your word and what you THINK has little, if any, credence behind it. You speak without proof because you have NONE. The people you quote have no education in, and are not authoritarians in, the fields they profess to have knowledge about. For every individual with bogus credentials you get to try and support your side, I can provide 50 whose credentials are legitimate to support mine.
I find it rather interesting how ALEX knows more and is smarter than the early Christian, Jewish, and Pagan historians, philosophers, and theologians. I find it interesting how ALEX knows more and is smarter than the Reformers and the Puritans. I find it interesting how ALEX knows more and is smarter than EVERY historian, philosopher, and theologian that has EVER lived, especially those with specific skills in those areas, such as ancient Hebrew and Greek. I find it interesting how all-knowing ALEX claims the ancient worlds knew nothing of homosexuality, yet we have quote upon quote from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries from Christian, Jewish, and Pagan historians, philosophers, and theologians who say otherwise. We also have the Qu'ran, written around 632 A.D., saying otherwise, too. ALL the facts and evidence back up MY position, Alex, yet somehow, according to YOU, I am miraculously wrong. You are a first-rate illusionist and master of deception if you think you can miraculously eisegete these facts and evidences under the rug and blind people to them. The only person you are fooling, Alex, is yourself. You and I and everyone else know that you and your position are wrong.
Good luck with your self-deception, Alex. Every time I read the garbage you write, I witness you twist Scripture more and more and more, including passages that have no bearing on the issue whatsoever in an attempt to try and gain some (like your stupidity above regarding the grafting of the olive tree). If a fool is as a fool does, you are the grand fool of fools. I pity you, Alex, desperately trying to convince yourself of what you want to believe, despite the gnawing of your conscience telling you otherwise. Homosexuality is an unnatural sinful perversion condemned in and by Scripture. Your god, concocted by your own imagination, does not exist, which means you are guilty of idolatry; making a god in your image to suit your desires. Good bye, Alex. You will learn the truth one way or another, whether here on Earth or in hell for eternity. I encourage you to repent today before it is too late.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
So that the readers can see just how willfully deceitful you are, Alex...
ReplyDelete"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural [aj5446; phusikos] function for that which is unnatural [an,nn5449; phusis], and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural [aj5446; phusikos] function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:26-27
"For if you were cut off from what is by nature [an,nn5449; phusis] a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature [an,nn5449; phusis] into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural [pre2596; kata/an,nn5449; phusis] branches be grafted into their own olive tree?" Romans 11:24
5446 phusikos; adjective. Natural, as established by God in nature.
5449 phusis; anarthrous noun. Nature, natural birth or condition; natural disposition.
The only thing you said that was true above was that salvation (of any man, Jew or Gentile) is not in accordance to our birth condition and natural disposition. We are born in sin and are deservedly heading toward hell. We do not deserve salvation. At least you have one thing correct, although unknowingly so. Where you err is in trying to associate two unrelated passages by performing what is called "collapsing context," just because they use a similar word. Notice the difference between the passages, something you are willfully trying to be deceitful about to the readers. Not surprising as this is your typical tactic: lying.
Homosexuality IS unnatural [aj5446] because it exchanges what was established by God in nature [an,nn5449] for that which is AGAINST [pre3844] nature [an,nn5449]. Notice that salvation is NOT unnatural [aj5446], but is NOT our natural [an,nn5449] disposition. We are by nature [an,nn5449] children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), just as every man and woman are by nature [an,nn5449] heterosexual.
You SERIOUSLY need to be educated, Alex. Your desperate attempts are laughable at best, and willfully deceitful at worst. The readers are not so easily fooled by your futile rhetoric, Alex. Once again, they get to witness ME using facts and evidence to back up what I say in contrast to YOU using your feelings and opinions with a LACK of facts and evidence. ALL your responses bear the same earmark: "You're wrong, Timothy, because I said so. I will not answer any of the facts and evidence you provide me with (because I unable to do so), but will simply tell you how wrong you are and accuse you of the very things I myself am guilty of (because I'm a hypocrite). I'll make up a bunch of stuff and hope people believe me on the basis that I sound intelligent, as if I know what I'm talking about when really I don't." ALL your responses constantly and consistently avoid dealing with the facts and evidence, but are chock full of ad hominem attacks. For once you were honest, saying, "I have no intention of addressing his outlandish points by answering them one by one, as you suggested." However, anyone who has read anything from you will recognize this as a trade earmark of yours. You NEVER have any intentions of answering the facts or evidence provided to you because YOU ARE UNABLE TO DO SO. You profess to be wise when in reality you are a grand fool.
Seriously, Alex, you need a better defense than, "You're wrong, because I said so!" Let the reader be the judge of who precisely is using SOUND BIBLICAL EXEGESIS, because it certainly is NOT you.
By the way, Alex, since you know absolutely NOTHING about the original Greek language, I suggest that you quit trying to pretend like you do because you're only making yourself look like an idiot. ANY and EVERY linguistic professor and/or Greek scholar whose credentials are LEGITIMATE (a word you need to learn more about apparently) would laugh at your willfully deceitful foolishness. All you need to do is look them up and call them and they will tell you as much as I have. If I knew it wouldn't be a waste of my time, I would put you in contact with several from around the world who are authoritarians in their field.
ReplyDeleteGreek is a VERY specific language, Alex, and Paul's use of the words "natural" and "unnatural" mean EXACTLY as revealed in my post above. You can attempt to play fast and loose with all the words you want, but you'll always lose. You can spew all the lies you want, try and manipulate reality as much as you want, twist Scripture all you want, but you will lose every time.
I suggest you try reading REPUTABLE sources instead of blindly reading and believing the crap found in books by John Boswell, Jack Rogers, and Dale Martin. The works of Rogers and Martin (as well as that of Justin Cannon, Matthew Vines, Stuart Edser, etc.) have provided NO new material. They are mere plagiarizations of Boswell's work, repeating the same errors. ALL OF THEM are unreliable, non-academic, non-scholarly, and/or speculative tomes written by folks who are not trained in biblical scholarship, biblical or world history, the Ancient Near East, Koine Greek, linguistics, or anything else. They are frauds, just as you are a fraud, Alex. NONE of these guys are authoritarians, NOR do they have any credentials in linguistics OR the Greek language. I proved Martin's "Linguistic Fallacy" wrong a long time ago, which you parroted ignorantly, and here you are attempting "Exegetical Fallacies," too. Will you EVER learn?
You are not a historian, Alex. You are not a linguist, Alex. You are not a Greek scholar, Alex. You are not anything, except a willfully deceitful liar attempting to manipulate the truth. You know NOTHING about Greek, Alex. You've proven that to me time and time again. You never provide any sources to the false claims you continue to make because you know people would look them up and laugh at you for giving any kind of credence to the crap they write. Your buddies Boswell, Rogers, Martin, and others, are nothing, too. Just a bunch of know-nothing ignorant fools attempting to sound intelligent by spewing foolish nonsense that would be thrown out of even a kindergarten classroom.
In the past, Alex, you made the claim that none of the Greek Lexicons and Dictionaries you supposedly have contained the definitions I provided you for a set of Greek words. You also failed to name these books, even after I challenged you to do so. Why? Because you knew I would call you on it. More than likely I own those books and if I don't, I would go out and purchase them to double check your willful deceit. You STILL fail to source what you write today, cutting and pasting your blatant plagiarizations from Boswell, Rogers, and Martin. When your statements appear in the exact same order with the exact same words as the previous 20 times you spewed the same garbage, it's an obvious quotation you are failing to source your reference. You couldn't back your position if your life depended on it, Alex. We both know it. You're just too stubborn to admit it to yourself even though your conscience informs you it is true.
You talk a good game, Alex, but unfortunately that is all you bring to the table--a game. You bring nothing that hasn't been refuted 100 times over. Saying something and repeating it over and over again, no matter how hard you try and convince yourself that it is true, will never make it true. Today is still the day of salvation, Alex. Repent, or you will likewise perish.
Farewell.
-[END COMMUNICATION]-
By the way, Alex, since you know absolutely NOTHING about the original Greek language, I suggest that you quit trying to pretend like you do because you're only making yourself look like an idiot. ANY and EVERY linguistic professor and/or Greek scholar whose credentials are LEGITIMATE (a word you need to learn more about apparently) would laugh at your willfully deceitful foolishness. All you need to do is look them up and call them and they will tell you as much as I have. If I knew it wouldn't be a waste of my time, I would put you in contact with several from around the world who are authoritarians in their field.
ReplyDeleteGreek is a VERY specific language, Alex, and Paul's use of the words "natural" and "unnatural" mean EXACTLY as revealed in my post above. You can attempt to play fast and loose with all the words you want, but you'll always lose. You can spew all the lies you want, try and manipulate reality as much as you want, twist Scripture all you want, but you will lose every time.
I suggest you try reading REPUTABLE sources instead of blindly reading and believing the crap found in books by John Boswell, Jack Rogers, and Dale Martin. The works of Rogers and Martin (as well as that of Justin Cannon, Matthew Vines, Stuart Edser, etc.) have provided NO new material. They are mere plagiarizations of Boswell's work, repeating the same errors. ALL OF THEM are unreliable, non-academic, non-scholarly, and/or speculative tomes written by folks who are not trained in biblical scholarship, biblical or world history, the Ancient Near East, Koine Greek, linguistics, or anything else. They are frauds, just as you are a fraud, Alex. NONE of these guys are authoritarians, NOR do they have any credentials in linguistics OR the Greek language. I proved Martin's "Linguistic Fallacy" wrong a long time ago, which you parroted ignorantly, and here you are attempting "Exegetical Fallacies," too. Will you EVER learn?
You are not a historian, Alex. You are not a linguist, Alex. You are not a Greek scholar, Alex. You are not anything, except a willfully deceitful liar attempting to manipulate the truth. You know NOTHING about Greek, Alex. You've proven that to me time and time again. You never provide any sources to the false claims you continue to make because you know people would look them up and laugh at you for giving any kind of credence to the crap they write. Your buddies Boswell, Rogers, Martin, and others, are nothing, too. Just a bunch of know-nothing ignorant fools attempting to sound intelligent by spewing foolish nonsense that would be thrown out of even a kindergarten classroom.
In the past, Alex, you made the claim that none of the Greek Lexicons and Dictionaries you supposedly have contained the definitions I provided you for a set of Greek words. You also failed to name these books, even after I challenged you to do so. Why? Because you knew I would call you on it. More than likely I own those books and if I don't, I would go out and purchase them to double check your willful deceit. You STILL fail to source what you write today, cutting and pasting your blatant plagiarizations from Boswell, Rogers, and Martin. When your statements appear in the exact same order with the exact same words as the previous 20 times you spewed the same garbage, it's an obvious quotation you are failing to source your reference. You couldn't back your position if your life depended on it, Alex. We both know it. You're just too stubborn to admit it to yourself even though your conscience informs you it is true.
You talk a good game, Alex, but unfortunately that is all you bring to the table--a game. You bring nothing that hasn't been refuted 100 times over. Saying something and repeating it over and over again, no matter how hard you try and convince yourself that it is true, will never make it true. Today is still the day of salvation, Alex. Repent, or you will likewise perish.
Farewell.
-[END COMMUNICATION]-
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteYour inference that simply because a particular doctrine has been held for a long time makes it valid and true is an absurd argument and holds no water. The evidence is again against you.
Whether it be on questions of doctrine, science or ethics, the Church’s positions have sometimes had to be drastically revised over the past 2,000 years. It is embarrassing to admit that no serious objection to slavery was raised by Christians prior to the 18th century.
The Church's position on the role of women, cosmology, racism and slavery, are just a few examples of doctrinal positions that have been revised.
Christians of all traditions have repeatedly used the Bible to support doctrinal and ethical positions which they later have had to confess to be mistaken. If to be a Christian is to live with the knowledge of one's sinfulness, it is equally to live with the knowledge of one's fallibility.
We must abandon the delusion that our understanding of the Bible is already correct in every detail. Church history demonstrates unambiguously the implausibility of such a claim. Christian discipleship demands that we yield obedience to the authority of the Word of God as we understand it now. But it does not require us to affirm the immutability of that present understanding. One recalls the wise words of the Pilgrim Father, John Robinson, who declared, "The Lord has more truth and light yet to break forth out of his holy word". The closed mind is rightly disparaged, for its vilified victims have often been later adjudged to be martyrs.
The future will undoubtedly reveal that we have made mistakes and must revise our interpretation of the Bible as a result. We do not need to feel embarrassed by that admission. Indeed, the Church has suffered enormous public humiliation over the centuries precisely because Christians have been so reluctant to make it. Those, like yourself, who are currently digging in their heels to resist the ordination of women or the baptism of gay people believe they are defending a "biblical" position.
But at this point in time they must reflect on the fact that Arius thought his position biblical too when he opposed the Nicene Creed. So did the learned professors of Padua who refused to look down Galileo's telescope. So did Luther when he scrawled "This is my body" on the conference table at Marburg. And so did the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis, when he insisted: "Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God ... it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."
They, like you, were all convinced they had the Bible on their side and that their understanding of the Bible was self-evidently correct. They all had substantial support too from many other like-minded Christians. But most of us now know they were interpreting the Bible wrongly and making serious mistakes as a result -- mistakes which led to fanaticism, persecution and even war.
Nope, sorry Timothy. Correct doctrine has never been determined by how long it has been held nor by how many have held it. And that’s why we need to rely on sound biblical exegesis. Exegesis does not take a quote from the Bible to prove the Bible. It scientifically scrutinizes the text according to historical context, cultural context, literary context and usage, multiple languages that might have been used, archeological finds, etc. Exegesis does not, however, allow to you simply rip a passage from its context and replace it in another age for the sake of convenience.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Alex,
DeleteSorry, bub, but the evidence is, as usual, against YOU. The church's position has NEVER changed in regard to anything. If you knew ANYTHING about church history and the Bible's teachings, you ought to know this. So-called "science" is what has had to change its teachings as it learned the Bible was right to begin with (see my blog series "Defending Your Faith" and "Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate?"). The church's position in regard to "women, cosmology, racism and slavery" has NEVER changed. The WORLD'S position in this regard, has. It was the CHURCH who treated women differently than the world was doing. In the Roman world, it was the Christian men who were treating their women as people and obeying what the Bible commanded them to do. If you knew ANYTHING about church history or world history, you would know these things. You can read my blog on slavery to educate yourself on the reality of this issue, too (http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2012/11/slavery-is-it-wrong.html). Jefferson Davis was not wrong, Alex.
The fact that 2000 years of Christian history bears the same doctrinal beliefs proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that homosexuality IS WRONG, Alex. Period! Truth is INTRINSIC, bub, NOT relative. 2 plus 2 has been 4 forever. Are you going to attempt to tell me that the number of years this has been held and the number of people who have tested it and arrived at the same conclusion have all been wrong? Nice try, Alex, but your simplistic argument FAILS at its very base.
YOU must revise your interpretation of the Bible, Alex, because your interpretation is WRONG. All the evidence is, yet again and as always, against you. Women CANNOT be pastors, Alex. I suggest you read my blog on this issue and educate yourself (http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2013/05/women-pastorswhat-does-bible-say.html). This position has NEVER changed in the church. It has only changed for the Liberal "Christian" who is disobedient and rebellious to the Word of God and what it reveals. Again, you are trying to look for support for homosexuality where NONE exists. Just more of your fallacious arguments.
Arius was a heretic, Alex. He was NOT a Christian. He is the father of Arianism, which, if I'm not mistaken, is the root of Jehovah's Witnessism today.
The only ones making serious mistakes as the result of their poor hermeneutics and irresponsible eisegesis are YOU and your kind, Alex.
"Nope, sorry Timothy. Correct doctrine has never been determined by how long it has been held nor by how many have held it." Yet this is PRECISELY the argument you are attempting to make for homosexuality, Alex. Your argument is self-refuting. You are attempting to tell us we are all wrong about homosexuality because of the numbers of people who are turning to support it. Sorry, but your dishonest and irresponsible "exegesis" (as you try to call it) are WRONG!
Alex, you know nothing about sound biblical exegesis or context. You repeatedly attempt to rip passages from their context and place them in another age for the sake of YOUR convenience. The Bible condemns homosexuality whether you like it or not and whether you want to admit it or not. YOU ARE WRONG! Get used to it.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Alex,
DeleteIt truly is amazing how you try and talk so much about exegesis and context, yet know absolutely nothing about the practices of such. You mumble about historical context, cultural context, etc., etc., etc., yet you ignore every person from history in the first four centuries who commented on these passages AND the times in which they were living, to which the conclusion is CLEARLY homosexuality and there condemnation thereof. The evidence is, yet again, against YOU, Alex.
Historical figures from the first four centuries--Christian, Jewish, and Pagan--who were either historians, philosophers, or theologians, when either speaking about the times in which they were living OR addressing the passages you keep trying to LIE about by twisting and maligning them, ALL spoke of homosexuality and the FACT these passages from Scripture CONDEMN such behaviour.
You can argue all you want, Alex, but you and I both know that YOU are in the WRONG and that ALL the facts and evidence are AGAINST you. Whether you like it or not or want to admit it or not, this is the reality.
Addressing historical and cultural context, Alex, involves addressing these quotations by men who lived during these times. The fact you fail to do so proves you know NOTHING about honest, responsible exegesis. You rip these passages out of their context and try to place them in our day and age claiming, "Homosexuality is obviously acceptable, so these passages could not possibly be condemning it." This is called front-loading, Alex, a bad habit you have while performing your eisegesis.
Christians, Jews, and Pagans acknowledged the fact that Genesis 19 was condemning homosexuality. The Qu'ran, written around 632 A.D., acknowledged the fact that Genesis 19 was condemning homosexuality. The people you quote in support of you aren't even doing solid biblical exegesis, but are merely saying, "I was wrong," and you're saying, "Good enough for me." WITHOUT facts and evidence. You are SEEKING acceptance and approval from illegitimate sources because the legitimate sources CONDEMN homosexuality.
Get some better arguments, Alex, because all your pathetic attempts have been refuted time and time again over the past 100 years and continue to be so. You're on the losing side, Alex.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteYou can twist Romans 1 as much as you like. But twist as you might, the fact remains it is the very same Greek term (“para physin”) that is used in both passages: Romans 1:26 and Romans 11:24. I’d suggest you read the Bible within the cultural context in which it was written. In Romans 1, Paul ridicules Gentile religious rebellion saying that they knew God but worshipped idols instead of God. Paul knew the Mediterranean world well and knew exactly what he was doing in selecting this illustration for his ridiculing of idolatry. We know from a multitude of credible sources that pagan cult prostitution was an integral part of the rituals used by pagan religions of the day as their means of promoting fertility. We know that pagan cult prostitution was associated with the Temple of Aphrodite in the high hill above Corinth. Yes, Corinth, precisely where Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. Paul was quite well aware of the practices of the fertility cults and all he had to do was look up to the hill from where he was writing his letter to the Romans and he could see the Temple of Aphrodite where these grisly rituals were taking place among the male and female temple prostitutes.
As the IVP Bible Background Commentary says:
“[THEY] 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.”
Paul’s point is not about homosexuality, but idolatry, worshipping false gods. Paul is talking about idolatrous people engaged in prostitution. He is talking about temple idolatry and cultic rites that were marked by gruesome orgiastic practices. It is hardly accurate, fair or honest to apply his judgment on them to Christian and non-believing gay people who are not idolaters and no more lustful than anyone else.
So, let’s see now:
-- You were WRONG and deceptive about your unfounded assertion of the existence of the nefarious “homosexual agenda”. The truth is the “homosexual agenda” you love to peddle was invented by Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority in the 1970s as a political fund raising tool.
-- You were WRONG and deceptive in your inference that God created sex for procreation only despite the fact that the first man and woman were commanded to be fruitful and multiply.
-- You were WRONG and deceptive in your attempt to paint all gay people as “sex fiends” and “domestic terrorists.” Certainly there are some who choose a lifestyle of sexual addiction and escapism. But so too are also many straight people who live promiscuous lives based on sex and pleasure-seeking. But you would never call theirs a “straight lifestyle.” Why? Because we know that they don’t represent all straight people. They are a subset of straight people.
-- You were WRONG and deceptive to negative stereotype an entire class of people to in an attempt to satisfy your doctrinal prejudices. Fact is there are gay Christian people who will likely get into heaven sooner than you will.
(Continued in Page 2 of 2)
Page 2 of 2
ReplyDelete-- You were WRONG and deceptive to argue that homosexuals are all “guilty of hate speech and hate crimes”. If you are unaware that at least as many heterosexuals, if not more, have been guilty of the same you are living on the Good Ship Lollipop.
-- You were WRONG and deceptive in your disgraceful blurring of the boundary between pedophilia and homosexuality. Fact is statistics are quite clear that the overwhelming majority of pedophiles and child molesters are heterosexuals, not homosexuals.
You were WRONG and deceptive to infer that -- how did you put it? --- that I “and [my] band of few merry men, are attempting to tell [you] that the Spirit of God has revealed something” that many others over the past 2000 years has gotten wrong” and that “[I] alone have it right and have interpreted it right.”
No, my dear Timothy. If it were just me and my “band of few merry men” you wouldn’t be wasting your time here. But your twisting, squirming and maligning because the fact is fewer and fewer buy into your antigay theology. You are becoming among the minority and your numbers dwindle by the day. Why? Because increasing numbers of evangelicals are doing their homework -- STUDYING the passages instead of just READING them -- and doing responsible exegesis. The result? They’re discovery that when the passages are examined in their historical context the antigay doctrine you espouse does not hold up to scrutiny. And that my dear Timothy, is precisely why you are fighting so desperately and deceptively to sell your snake oil.
It's somewhat akin to the days of Martin Luther King, Jr. who lived during a time when for centuries it had been widely accepted that light-skinned people were superior to dark-skinned people. Yet he and others saw that the tide was slowly but surely changing, as it is today with your antigay doctrine, which, like it or not, is only the most recent doctrinal position well on the way to being generally acknowledged as a mistake of this kind.
And as with the former issue of race/slavery/interracial marriage, when the tide begins to turn, there will be "old-school" folks like yourself who feel the need to dig their heels into the sand and desperately try to cling to what is inescapably and assuredly passing away -- like a drowning person clinging with his or fingers to the last remnants of a sinking boat. In King’s day, it was the white supremacists and Klansmen; in our day, its people like you.
But the fact remains the old is indeed passing away in our own lifetime and before our very eyes which is why they feel the need to dig their heels in and desperately try to cling on to the old.
I’m reminded of the story in Acts where the Pharisees desperately wanted to stop the disciples from spreading the good news of the Gospel. But then Gamaliel, a teacher of the law who was honored by all the people stood up in the Sanhedrin and in wisdom said to the group, "In this present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if, their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." (Acts 5:38-39)
I think that pretty well sums up what we’re looking at today. What was it that Martin Luther King, Jr., said? “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
Sorry, Timothy. You can lie about, bad mouth, stereotype, insult and malign gay people as much as you like. But we serve a God who will hold you accountable for the way the treat each and every one of them.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
It is particularly interesting that Timothy Klaver’s most recent blog entry titled “We Are Not Saved By a Creed” opens with following wise quote from J. R. Miller:
ReplyDelete“THAT WHICH MAKES ONE A CHRISTIAN IS NOT . . . THE ACCEPTANCE OF CHRIST'S TEACHING, THE UNITING WITH HIS CHURCH, THE ADOPTION OF HIS MORALS, THE ESPOUSING OF HIS CAUSE -- BUT THE RECEIVING OF HIM AS OUR PERSONAL SAVIOR, THE ENTERING INTO A COVENANT OF ETERNAL FRIENDSHIP WITH HIM AS OUR LORD AND MASTER.”
Tim would do quite well to pause and hear the words he has published on his own blog. If it is true that we are saved by faith in what Christ has done (and it is!) then the antigay message he continues to proclaim cannot be true. Whether we are straight or gay is irrelevant to God’s redemptive work in our lives. It is the fact of responding to Christ that is the all-important thing.
Bravo, Timothy. May these words that you share with others penetrate your own heart. I would think if you spent only half the time worrying about the sin in your own life rather than the perceived sin in other’s you’d be far less of an angry man. In other words, take the log out of your own eye and then perhaps you might see clearly enough to take the speck out of your brother’s.
As Paul also says in Romans: "WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE SOMEONE ELSE'S SERVANT? TO HIS OWN MASTER HE STANDS OR FALLS. AND HE WILL STAND, FOR THE LORD IS ABLE TO MAKE HIM STAND."
And if meddling in any master's dealings with a servant is out of line, then meddling in THE Master's dealings with HIS servants is surely out of line. God will judge. We won't!
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
It is particularly interesting that Alex Haiken is again attempting to twist other people's words to suit his own agenda. Alex would do well to try and read J.R. Miller's stuff. J.R. Miller was pointing out the fact that being baptized, praying a prayer, walking an aisle, signing a card, going to church, praying, reading the Bible DO NOT make a person Christian. However, where Alex Haiken makes his mistake is in thinking that receiving Jesus as Saviour, Lord and Master alone is the only prerequisite to salvation. The Bible's message is to REPENT of one's sins and BELIEVE on the Saviour. John the Baptist preached repentance and faith. Jesus preached repentance and faith. The apostles preached repentance and faith. To REPENT is to do a complete 180. It is to TURN FROM your sins, QUIT doing them, FORSAKE them, and to TURN TO God in faith.
DeleteAlex would do quite well to read the Bible and to heed its words. The "antigay" message, as Alex calls it, IS true because the Bible CONDEMNS homosexuality and CONDONES heterosexuality. If you are gay, you are living in sin, practicing what God has called ABOMINABLE, and you WILL NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven. You are living in, practicing, embracing, and making excuses for your sin. The act of homosexuality IS a sick, twisted, mental issue that is SIN. Homosexuals are the servants of the devil. The only god they worship is the god they have made in their own image to suit their own agendas, and the Bible calls this IDOLATRY.
Shame on you, Alex. Continuing to twist and malign the truth of God's Word to suit your own agenda, ripping it out of its context with your irresponsible eisegesis. Isn't it funny how you will attempt to twist any man's words against him in order to try and find support for your sinful behaviour and lifestyle. The only one angry here, Alex, is you.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Alex,
ReplyDeleteYOU are the only one twisting Romans 1 to suit your own agenda and desires. I can quote from EVERY Greek Lexicon and Dictionary to reveal that they support MY position--NOT yours. I can quote from Christian works over the past 2000 years, including today, and over 90% of them will back MY position--NOT yours. I can appeal to historians, philosophers, and theologians throughout the ages, whether of Christian, Jewish, or Pagan background, and they will back MY position--NOT yours. Anyone with half a brain reading Romans 1 AS IS WRITTEN will understand precisely what it is saying. Anyone who takes it a step further and studies the Greek words and grammar will FURTHER arrive at the same conclusion, as 2000 years of Christian study proves. Unfortunately, you are too daft to admit this truth. I suggest YOU read Romans in its cultural context, Alex. Better yet, I suggest you learn context period. As well as hermeneutics, exegesis, history, etc. Your IVP commentary is at odds with over 100 other commentaries. Try doing HONEST research instead of LOOKING for the RARE unscholarly works that back your position. Paul's point IS about homosexuality, and EVERY quotation from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries on this passage reveals the same thing. Since they were closer to the period in question, they ought to know what it pertained to, so you can lie about it and dismiss it and twist it and ignore it all you want, but the truth is NOT going away, Alex.
Again, Alex, you are attempting to claim that EVERYONE from the past 2000 years was an idiot and that NONE of them knew their field of study and that ALL of them arrived at wrong conclusions, whereas YOU (and your band of FEW merry men) have it right today. Sorry, Alex, but anyone doing HONEST and RESPONSIBLE exegesis will arrive at the same conclusion that I, and EVERYONE from the past 2000 years, has arrived at. You are attempting to tell people that God left His church ignorant on the issue for 2000 years. Good luck with that argument, Alex. The people you are looking to for YOUR supposed "responsible exegesis" are NOT doing responsible exegesis, as has been proven repeatedly. They all rely on Boswell's work, doing the same sloppy and dishonest work as you are doing. They truncate their quotations, falsify and twist quotations to suit their means (without providing source references for others to examine), end passages early (out of context) to make it fit their agenda, and twist passages with no relativity in order to attempt to gain security.
If I am "wrong" about the homosexual agenda, Alex, what do you call Michael Swift's work, which can be found in the Library of Congress? What do you call the fact they are seeking to be listed as a "special class" that removes them from ALL responsibility and accountability? What do you call the revealed facts and evidence in these two links?
http://prolife.ath.cx:8000/plae117.htm
http://prolife.ath.cx:8000/plae118.htm
No, Alex, the one who is WRONG and is a LIAR day-in an day-out is YOU.
Alex, YOU were WRONG that God didn't create sex for procreation. That is EXACTLY what sex is created for. It does not mean it cannot be enjoyed between the husband and wife. You are attempting to pit the two against each other. FAIL! If you had half a wit of intelligence, you might consider the animals. Do you think they get enjoyment out of it? Nope. They just do it and move on. Another evidence that humans are different from animals and that we do not get our morality from the animal kingdom.
(continue to 2 of 2)
No, Alex, I was NOT wrong. Homosexuals ARE "sex fiends" (as you call them), domestic terrorists and ARE guilty of hate speech and hate crimes, as the facts and evidence in the above two links prove (as well as what was written by Michael Swift). Let the educated reader of the facts be the judge. NOT Alex Haiken's agenda to LIE to them, DECEIVE them, and TWIST reality to suit his own perverted desires. The reader can garner more facts and evidence about the homosexual agenda from this site:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/real_agenda.html
There are NOT gay Christians, Alex. You can lie to yourself all you want, but that is akin to claiming there are murderous Christians or pedophile Christians or thieving Christians or rapist Christians. To embrace sin and practice it habitually demonstrates that person is NOT a Christian and WILL NOT inherit the kingdom of God. Someone who practices sin is NOT a Christian (Matt. 7:21-23; 1 John 3:4-10, etc.). You can lie to and deceive yourself all you want, Alex, but you'll learn the truth one way or another; here on Earth while you still have time to repent, or in hell for the rest of eternity.
YOU are WRONG for attempting to create a blurring between pedophilia and homosexuality. The two are no different. They are both sexually deviant perversions condemned by God. Good luck trying to convince God that He is wrong in His condemnation of sinful practices.
Once again, Alex, you appeal to the "Appeal to People Fallacy," trying to find your acceptance and approval of homosexuality in the number of people that support it. Why? BECAUSE THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE DO NOT SUPPORT YOU!!! You need to appeal to faulty authorities because the genuine ones are against you. Once again, Alex, it DOES NOT matter how many people support homosexuality, YOU are still on the LOSING side. God's side wins. Even if it was God alone against 6 billion, YOU lose, Alex. Your twisting, squirming, and maligning of the truth will NEVER make it right. The people who are doing responsible exegesis (not you and your band of few merry men) fill 2000 years of Christian history, are standing with me today, and are leaving homosexuality every day as they repent and are born again. Even HONEST homosexuals (unlike yourself) are backing my position. The reader can examine the links to my blogs above and see some of their quotes, such as Bernadette Brooten.
Alex, you are a daft, ignorant fool. You are still trying to relate homosexuality to slavery? The two are not even remotely related. Homosexuality is NOT a culture, NOR is it a "race." It is a SIN. You're trying to compare apples to elephants. Being a homosexual is a SIN. Being black is NOT.
Sorry, Alex, but everything I have said about homosexuals is true and is backed by facts and evidence. You have NOTHING to back you up. Just wishful statements and fallacious arguments. Gays DO NOT serve the God of the Bible, but serve a god of their own making, one who ignores their sins. The TRUE God will hold EACH OF YOU accountable for your sin, embracing, practicing, and lying about homosexuality,, and how YOU treat those who are trying to save your souls. You can employ the "Appeal to Emotion Fallacy" all you want, Alex, but people who can actually THINK for themselves and are not deceived by rhetoric such as your own will ALWAYS see homosexuality for what it truly is--a perversion of both human and sexual nature.
Once again, Alex, as is your typical tactic, your provide NO proof, NO facts, NO evidence, and NO referenced sources for your lies and deceit. All you do is appeal to emotion by flooding your posts with your feelings and opinions and poor doctrinal conclusions because you have NO SUPPORT.
Let the reader also note one last thing: Note Alex's deceitful quote from the IVP Commentary. First, as is typical from Alex, he fails to provide a legitimate source to the reference, other than name. No volume number, no page number, etc. Second, note the number of "..." he incorporates into the quotation. Most often, when "..." is employed, the person quoting is deliberately leaving out key information to try and force the quotation to support their position. An honest person making a quotation in that manner will provide the appropriate source reference so others can check it out for themselves and thereby verify whether or not the person quoting is being honest or not. Alex tends to be dishonest in his quotations, as I discovered months ago when he attempted to quote Matthew Henry. I have both the abridged and unabridged editions of Matthew Henry's commentary, and Alex's quotation COULD NOT be found for the passage he was associating this quote with. Further, Alex thinks that a SINGLE commentary (which is NOT infallible) outweighs the MANY commentaries that stand against it.
ReplyDeleteFurther, let the reader employ simple common sense and logical reasoning to note Alex's grand flaw here. Alex is attempting to tell us that Romans 1:26-27 has to do with cult prostitution. Note carefully the words with which Romans 1:26-27 is written. It informs us that BOTH the men and women were leaving the natural [GR:aj5446] function and use of male/female union to commit that which is AGAINST nature [GR:an,nn5449] in same-sex union. That is NOT prostitution, that is homosexuality. Alex is frequently dishonest and willfully deceitful with his deliberate lies and many fallacious arguments. The reader should also be informed that Alex is inconsistent with what he thinks Romans 1:26-27 is talking about, as in the past Alex attempted to tell Jerry and I that it was condemning pederasty (we have the e-mails). Alex is looking for ANY excuse to blot out what it ACTUALLY deals with, which again reveals his dishonesty.
Bernadette Brooten (a lesbian New Testament scholar who taught at Harvard Divinity School and currently teaches at Brandeis) wrote: "If . . . the dehumanizing aspects of pederasty motivated Paul to condemn sexual relations between males, then why did he condemn relations between females in the same sentence? . . . Rom 1:27, like Lev 18:22 and 20:13, condemns all males in male-male relationships regardless of age, making it unlikely that lack of mutuality or concern for the passive boy were Paul’s central concerns. . . . The ancient sources, which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’s theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty." (Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, 253.)
EVERY historian, philosopher, theologian, and linguist worth their salt over the past 2000 years, and EVERY Hebrew and Greek scholar (genuine authoritarians in their field) have condemned homosexuality for the sin that it is. Let the reader not be fooled by Alex's smooth rhetoric and his employment of the "Appeal to Emotion Fallacy," among the many others he employs. Let the reader compare the fallacious works of John Boswell, Jack Rogers, and Dale Martin to the genuine scholarly works of Robert Gagnon, James White, and an ex-homosexual, Joe Dallas, among many others. Let the reader witness who the HONEST and TRUTHFUL individuals are who are doing HONEST and RESPONSIBLE exegesis. The reader will conclude that it is NOT Alex Haiken and his band of FEW merry men who are dishonest and self-deceived. Their arguments are chock full with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, and conclusions drawn on assumptions. Their work is filled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. They have lost ALL credibility.
Homosexuality, by definition, is “a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex”. A homosexual, by definition, is “someone who is sexually attracted to (or sexually active with) people of their own sex”.
ReplyDeleteSo, what do you call "a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman" (Lev. 18:22; 20:13)? What is this describing? For anyone who is honest and truthful in the least, their answer will be, "A homosexual" or "Homosexuality". The person who denies this is NOT being honest. It is borne out in the Hebrew and the Greek and in EVERY translation.
Leviticus 18:22 from the Latin Vulgate: "cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo quia abominatio est." Notice the word "coitu"? It means "coupling"; i.e., coitus, copulation, or sexual intercourse.
Leviticus 20:13 from the Latin Vulgate: "qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo uterque operati sunt nefas morte moriantur sit sanguis eorum super eos." Once again, we have the word "coitu," which means "sexual intercourse." But we also have the word "dormierit," which means "sleeps."
What do you call "men [who] abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts" (Rom. 1:26-27)? What is this describing? For anyone who is honest and truthful in the least, their answer will be, "Homosexuals" or "Homosexuality". The word for "lust" or "desire" is the Greek orexis (ορεξις), which means "the excitement of the mind; desire." It is always the reaching out after an object with the purpose of drawing it to oneself and appropriating it. Anyone who reads these two verses (26-27) in ANY Bible translation (Wycliffe to King James, Revised Standard to English Standard, or ANY other language) will come to the simple exegetical conclusion that it is speaking about female and male homosexuality, as even lesbian Bernadette Brooten admits. The language and description cannot get much clearer.
Let the reader acknowledge just how much of a deceitful LIAR Alex Haiken is, willfully attempting to deceive those who will give any credence to his dishonesty. Alex attempts to sounds wise but reveals himself to be an utter fool. Alex serves the god of this world--the devil, helping him to overthrow morality with immorality. Educate yourself with the facts, reader, and then stamp out homosexuality and force it back under the rock from whence it crawled. Let it destroy our marriages, our families, and our children NO MORE!
Farewell, reader. Be wise against the tactics and agenda of homosexuals. They want you to see homosexuality for anything other than what it is, going so far as to try and keep specific homosexual groups who are drawing far too much attention to themselves out of the spotlight. Hence why the media is owned by homosexuals. Nothing sees the light of day they do not want to see it. You will NEVER see a homosexual portrayed as a villain--EVER--because it undermines their agenda. You see every other "race," religion, etc., as villains, but homosexuals are ALWAYS portrayed as the good guy. The truth about homosexuality is deliberately being hidden from the world. A less-than-2% minority is dictating what the other 98% population should and should not be doing. They are seeking to be a special class of people that are free from the accountability and responsibility of their actions against others, and we see this in the laws already. There is a problem with this picture, and the straight world needs to wake up to it immediately.
Dear Reader,
ReplyDeleteMy friend Jerry and I have been conversing with Alex (who tries passing himself off as a "Christian") for a number of months. In his blog dealing with Leviticus 18, Alex's "context" consisted merely of verses 21-23, with which he declared that:
"Leviticus prohibits these acts for RELIGIOUS reasons, not MORAL ones"
However, the full context consists of the entire chapter, which was prohibiting every one of the immoral behaviours listed therein. Let us look at the verses of Alex's focus:
Neither shall you give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
Three of his readers, having caught him with his hand in the cookie jar, made these comments:
1. "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 pagan idolatry.
Could you show how infant child sacrifice (18:21) and intercourse with animal (18:23) are morally binding today despite their association with idolatry, while sexual practices between a male as with a woman(18:22) is not?"
2. "So, let me get this straight. You say that these prohibitions in Leviticus were referring solely to practices performed as part of the religious belief at that time, and those prohibitions no longer apply. Therefore, according to your logic, it is quite ok for me to burn my children or have sex with animals.
See how shallow and ludicrous your argument is?"
3. "You have been quite thorough in your interpretive attempt, but your conclusions are absurd. You claim that 'Leviticus prohibits these acts for RELIGIOUS reasons, not MORAL ones'. Then you must conclude that there is also nothing wrong morally with bestiality or child sacrifice.
You’re right that we should be wary about bringing our own predetermination to the text; unfortunately, it is clear that is exactly what you have done. You are not being honest with the text, and the results are bad exegesis and a wrong interpretation. Without delving too deeply into another subject, I’ll say simply this is the best reason for an interpretive authority."
In order to avert his readers' eyes away from his hand still dangling in the cookie jar, Alex's responses to all three went like this:
"I don’t think your argument is a sound one. In the Leviticus passage’s context these acts are prohibited because of their association with pagan idolatry. However, common sense also tells us that the illegitimate taking of a human life (child sacrifice/Lev 18:21) and the sexual abuse of an animal (bestiality/Lev 18:23) are additionally 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."
As you can see, Alex is guilty of performing pretext, "an effort or strategy intended to conceal something". Alex's argument goes like this: Leviticus 18:21, 22, and 23 are prohibited for religious reasons while only verses 21 and 23 are prohibited under any circumstances. Alex is reading his own opinions and prejudices into the text (eisegesis). He is performing "frontloading", i.e., reading his own personal, political, and ideological beliefs into the text (eisegesis) and ignoring the plain sense, and the drawing out of the plain sense (exegesis), of the text. The text says what it means and means what it says.
(continue to 2 of 3)
Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
ReplyDeleteIn the Hebrew, it reads: "ואת‾וכר לא תשׁכּב משׁבּבי אשׁה תוצבההוא"
In the Greek Septuagint, it reads: "και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστιν"
In the Latin Vulgate, it reads: "cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo quia abominatio est."
Leviticus 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
In the Hebrew, it reads: "ואישׁ אשׁר ישׁכּב את‾וכר משׁבּבי אשׁה תּוצבה צשׂו שׁניהם מות יומתו"
In the Greek Septuagint, it reads: "και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν ενοχοι εισιν"
In the Latin Vulgate, it reads: "qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo uterque operati sunt nefas morte moriantur sit sanguis eorum super eos."
וכר = "a male, man, mankind (as opposed to womankind)"
אישׁ = "man, male, husband"
אשׁה = "woman, female, wife"
ישׁכּב ,תשׁכּב = "a primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose)"
משׁבּבי = "a bed; abstractly, sleep; by euphemism, carnal intercourse"
תּוצבה ,תוצבה = "properly, something disgusting (morally): detestable; abomination"
αρσενος = “male, man, husband”
γυναικος = “female, woman, wife”
κοιτην = “a bed; spoken of the marriage bed, metaphorically for marriage (Heb. 13:4)”
κοιμηθη, κοιμηθηση = “to sleep”
βδελυγμα = “that which is detestable; abomination”
Notice the word "coitu" in both passages of the Latin Vulgate? It means "coupling"; i.e., coitus, copulation, or sexual intercourse. In the second passage we also have the word "dormierit," which means "sleeps."
What do you call "a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman"? What is this describing? For anyone who is honest and truthful in the least, their answer will be, "A homosexual." The immediate surrounding context around these verses is in regard to immoralities and vile behaviours that are extremely prohibited by God and are labeled as detestable abominations. The words, grammar, and context of these passages are as crystal clear as the sun is bright. The person who denies this is not being honest--ALEX.
Alex argues that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not apply today to "a committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership" between homosexuals. What about "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership[s]" between a son and his father's wife? a brother and his sister? someone and their dog? everything else prohibited by Leviticus 18 and 20? Whether two males or two females are in "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership[s]" is irrelevant. God has declared it to be wrong and has called it an abomination! It goes against the created order and the mandate to "Be fruitful and multiple". He (and every homosexual like him) wants it to be okay and acceptable because his (their) perverted and sinful practices call for it. But the Bible does not!
(continue to 3 of 3)
There is no such thing as a "committed, faithful and loving monogamous" homosexual relationship. Such a description is an oxy-moron. It is not loving to encourage someone to continue in sinful behaviour just to gratify the desires of the flesh. So-called "love" between homosexuals is not identical to the love demonstrated between heterosexuals. Their argument for "love" has nothing to do with love, but is centered entirely on their desire to have sex with one another. Homosexuals are known for their many, and fleeting, sexual encounters; even when engaged in so-called "committed, faithful and loving monogamous" relationships.
ReplyDeleteAlex is dishonest and self-deceived. His arguments are chock full with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, and conclusions drawn on assumptions. His work is filled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. He has lost all credibility.
Homosexuality, by definition, is “a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex”. A homosexual, by definition, is “someone who is sexually attracted to (or sexually active with) people of their own sex”. So, what do you call "a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman"? What is this describing? For anyone who is honest and truthful in the least, their answer will be, "A homosexual" or "Homosexuality". The person who denies this is not being honest. It is borne out in the Hebrew, the Greek, and the English. The text says what it means and means what it says.
Homosexuals will quote from Ezekiel 16:49 in an attempt to tell us what the sin of Sodom supposedly was. However, the ironic thing here is, like Satan quoting Scripture to Jesus, if the homosexuals would continue their quote into the next verse, retaining the context, they would refute themselves. When Satan quoted from Scripture, he stopped short of the verse that spelled out his own condemnation. The same is true of the homosexuals, whose father is the devil. Sodom was destroyed for committing abominations (tow'ebah), the very same term used to describe homosexual relationships in the holiness code (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Tow'ebah properly refers to something morally disgusting.
You the reader are wise enough not to fall for Alex's lies and manipulations of the truth. You are intelligent enough to witness Alex's twisting and maligning of the Word of God in order to excuse his sin. You have witnessed the fact Alex has no clue what he is talking about and that the facts and evidence are against him. He doesn't know Hebrew, he doesn't know Greek, he doesn't know Latin, and he doesn't know how to perform correct, honest, responsible, sound biblical exegesis within proper context.
Alex doesn't know what it means to be a Christian because he has never come to Christ. He has made a god in his own image to suit his desires who accepts and approves of his sin, and this is called idolatry. Alex serves the god of this world, the devil. Homosexuals will be judged and condemned because they embrace their sin rather than the Saviour and make excuses for their sin rather than forsaking it. Jesus said you cannot serve two masters. Homosexuals who claim to be "Christians" are serving the sin of homosexuality while trying to claim to serve Christ. Matthew 7:21-23 and 1 John 3:4-10 let us know that those who practice lawlessness and habitual sin are NOT of God, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; and Ephesians 5:5 let us know that such WILL NOT inherit the kingdom of God. Homosexuality is a choice, a preference. The Bible condemns this behaviour as an abomination. Be wise to the games, ploys, tactics, and agenda of the homosexuals.
Farewell, Reader.
William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Romans, pp.78-79.:
ReplyDeleteROMANS 1:26-27: "The connection between verse 26 and verse 25 is the same as that between verse 24 and verses 22, 23. In each case the sin is mentioned first, then the result. Now Paul no longer dwells on sexual immorality in general, as in verse 24, but becomes specific, and focuses the attention on one of its most disgusting manifestations, namely, wilful homosexuality.
For 'God gave them over' see on verse 24.
'...to passions that bring dishonor.' Here we find an echo of verse 24b: 'so that their bodies were dishonored among themselves.'
'...their females exchanged natural intercourse for that (which is) contrary to nature.' This 'exchange' reminds us of the 'exchange' mentioned in verses 23 and 25: '...the glory of the immortal God for an image...'; 'God (who is) the truth, for a lie.'
It is clear that the apostle is censuring the wilful practice of homosexuality or sodomy. And, indeed, Scripture does not make light of this vice. In Lev. 20:13 the death penalty is pronounced upon its perpetrators. For more information on this horrible evil read Gen. 19:4-9; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:17, 18; Judg. 19:22-24; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; II Kings 23:7; Isa. 3:8; Lam. 4:6; and see also 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Eph. 4:19; I Tim. 1:10; II Peter 2:6; Jude 7.
...
According to the plain teaching of Scripture sexual intercourse was intended for a husband and his wife, for no one else! (Gen. 2:24). See also Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7, 8; 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31. All else is 'contrary to God's will.' It is in conflict with the Creator's intention.
It is not clear why homosexual relations between females (lesbianism) is condemned before illicit relations between males. The only explanation that has any merit, as far as I can see, is the one according to which the apostle wanted to place special emphasis on the male-with-male perversion; hence, kept the condemnation of this vice for the close of the sentence, so that he would then be able to enlarge on it, since, of the two homosexual sins it was probably the most prevalent.
'...males with males perpetrating shamelessness.' Throughout the apostle uses the terms males and females (thus literally). He stresses the distinction between the sexes, as is also done in the following passages: Gen. 1:27; 5:2; Lev. 12:7; 27:3-7; Num. 5:3; Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6; Gal. 3:28. The rendering 'men' and 'women' is also possible. Nevertheless, the sins here condemned are committed not only be men and women, but also, at times, by 'boys ' and 'girls.'
'...receiving in their own persons the due return for their deviation.' That this wicked practice results in a harvest of bitterness has been proved again and again and is being demonstrated every day of the year. Some of the fruits are: a guilty conscience, sleeplessness, emotional stress, depression. Moreover, such mental discord does not leave the body untouched. In his very interesting book None of These Diseases, Westwood, New Jersey, 1963, p. 60, Dr. S. M. McMillen informs us that according to a report published in 1948 two-thirds of the patients who went to a physician had symptoms caused or aggravated by mental stress.
Truly 'God is not mocked. Whatever a person sows, that also he will reap. For he who sows to his own flesh [i.e., allows his old nature to have its own way] will from the flesh reap corruption, and he who sows to the Spirit [allowing the Spirit to rule over him] will from the Spirit reap life everlasting' (Gal. 6:7, 8. See also I Cor. 3:17; 6:19, 20; 10:31).
The best of all remedies against reaping the fruits of corruption is the practice of the kind of life described beautifully in such passages as Rom. 12; i Cor. 13; Gal. 5:22, 23; and Eph. 5."
Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, p. 482.:
ReplyDeleteROMANS 1:27: "This was the sin of the Sodomites of old, for which they were destroyed, Gen. xix. 5: see Lev. xviii. 22. How meet was it that they who had forsaken he Author of nature, should be given up not to keep the order of nature; that they who had changed the glory of God into the similitude of beasts, should be left to do those things which beasts themselves abhorred! God only concurred as a just judge in punishing foregoing with following sins."
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Bible Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 199.:
ROMANS 1:26-27
"The practices here referred to, though too abundantly attested by classic authors, cannot be described and illustrated from them without trenching on things 'which ought not to be even named among us as becometh saints.' 'At the period when the apostle wrote, unnatural lusts broke out (says Tholuck) to the most revolting extend, not at Rome only, but over the whole empire. He who is unacquainted with the historical monuments of that age--especially Petronius, Suetonius, Martial, and Juvenal--can scarcely figure to himself the frightfulness of these excesses.' ... The very heathen writers themselves expressly blame the vicious character of the heathen deities for much of the immorality which reigned among the people, whereas all vice is utterly alien to Christianity, the worst vices of humanity have, since the glorious Reformation (which was but true Christianity restored, and raised to its legitimate ascendancy), almost disappeared from European society. ... How early these were in full career, in the history of the world, the case of Sodom affectingly shows; and because of such abominations, centuries after that, the land of Canaan 'spued out' its old inhabitants. Long before this chapter was penned, the Lesbians and others throughout refined Greece had been luxuriating in such debasements; and as for the Romans, Tacitus, speaking of the emperor Tiberius, tells us that new words had then to be coined to express the newly invented stimulants to jaded passions."
J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible, Vol. 4, p. 654.:
ReplyDeleteROMANS 1:26-27
"These are passions of dishonor and disgrace and depravity--regardless of what public opinion is today. Perversion entered into Greek life, and it brought Greece down to the dust. Go over there and look at Greece today. The glory has passed away. Why? These were their sins."
The same is true for Babylon and Rome, too, as well as every other nation that was once great. Both England and the USA were founded upon Christian principles. Both were great at one time in history, when Christianity and Christian principles dominated their beliefs. Look at both countries today. Where is their greatness? It is gone and/or diminishing. They have kicked Christian principles out the door and embrace immorality. Homosexuality is a perversion of both human and sexual nature and is condemned by God in Scripture. Homosexuals will be judged for this sin and sentenced to eternity in hell; they will not inherit the kingdom of God. Public opinion will never change the truth about homosexuality. It is an abomination and those who embrace it had best repent or they will likewise perish as the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah did. God will not excuse the homosexual's sin. He cannot serve two masters; homosexuality and God. The Bible EVERYWHERE emphasizes male/female relations: husband/wife, father/mother. By emphasizing these, it necessarily condemns same-sex relations, as more than 8 passages do.
I have many more commentaries and lexicons and dictionaries and handbooks and such I could quote from, but then I'd be here all day. The facts and evidence have already destroyed the homosexual's position. They have no legs to stand on. If only Alex knew the size of my library and the books I have in it. He argues in futility because he knows he is defeated and that what I say is 100% true. Let the reader take note of the fact Alex's responses consist of nothing more than statements attempting to declare how much I am supposedly wrong without providing evidence to back up these feelings and opinions, whereas my responses are chock full of facts and evidence that destroy Alex's arguments. The reader is not such a fool to give credence to Alex's sloppy, dishonest, and irresponsible "exegesis" (as he calls it). The reader is wise enough to see who is performing solid biblical exegesis with their responses. Too bad that isn't Alex.
Farewell, reader. This is my last post on this article. I have given you the tools and information to learn and arrive at the truth. Use them well.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteThankfully the record of this exchange remains intact so readers can see for themselves just how often you have twisted my words to make it appear I have said things I never said.
As for your “exegesis” of Romans 1, let’s take a closer look and see who’s guilty of doing the twisting. In Romans 1, beginning with the pagan past, Paul reviews human rebellion against God and the associated wrath of God. This wrath is not a heaven-sent hissy fit. It’s God’s compassionate opposition to our killing ourselves with our idolatrous self-worship and pretentious self-righteousness over against the awe and gratitude that fits what we owe to God for our very life and for God’s very Presence.
Before being brought to faith in Christ, the Gentiles at Rome had bowed to idols that left them as empty as the idols were. Yet, the text tells us that in that experience of emptiness, God’s wrath graciously exposed their suppression of truth, revealing the folly of their relying on idols.
This is what Paul was writing about. What he was not writing and could not have been writing about, were “clobber” verses against what we now know as homosexual orientation and same-sex couples. Nobody in the ancient world could have imagined a loving same-gendered romance between social peers, let alone same-sex psychosexual orientation. Even N. T. Wright, no apologist for same-sex couples, nevertheless states: “Paul could not have envisioned … ‘monogamous’ same-sex relationships between persons of homosexual preference.” And as Westminster Seminary’s Moises Silva cautions: “We must be very careful not to read into the text present-day concerns that are not really there.” For that, my dear, Timothy, is the height of EISEGESIS (i.e., reading your own ideas or prejudices back into the Bible and putting into the text something never intended by the author). It is not EXEGESIS (i.e., reading out from the Bible what the original writers were saying).
Now we can argue about what specific sex abuse Paul had in mind here. However, what there is no argument about is that the moral corruption Paul speaks about was not the CAUSE of God’s relinquishing them to idols. It was the RESULT of their rejection of God. In the words of the venerable Charles Hodge of Old Princeton: “The moral degradation of the heathen was a punishment of their apostasy from God.” So, God let them have it their way with all the corruption intrinsic to having it their way. And that curse is worldwide.
But those who, like you, use Romans 1 against homosexuals completely miss Paul’s point. Reading homosexuality, as such, into suppression’s consequences, you completely overlook the direction of Paul’s argument. You have inverted his sequence. For Paul, it’s first SUPPRESSION, then CONSEQUENCES – all the consequences. Whatever Paul’s examples of consequences, they’re all subsequent to suppression. This clear sequence is crucial. And, in zeroing in on a projected “homosexuality”, you overlook the profusion of consequences that reach into every expression of fallen human nature. This clear diversity is crucial. And, in pastoral care, missing either the sequence or the diversity can be cruel and even tragic.
Today, we know that even grade school kids – even those who’ve already given their hearts to Jesus – can sense their growing same-sex attraction and get scared. DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT SUCH KIDS HAVE SO DELIBERATELY SUPPRESSED GOD’S TRUTH THAT THESE UNSOUGHT, UNWANTED DISTRACTIONS OF SAME-SEX ATTRACTION ARE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR HAVING CHOSEN TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH OF GOD?
(Continued on Part 2 of 4)
"Giving your heart to Jesus" does not equal salvation. Those kids you are apparently speaking of who "sense their growing same-sex attraction" are still dead in their sins and trespasses and are being tempted to commit sin. They do not have a "same-sex attraction." What they have is temptation to sin, which befalls everyone. Are you going to attempt to tell me that kids who "sense their growing" attraction to fondle and have sex with animals is natural? That kids who "sense their growing" attraction to their siblings is natural? That they're born with it? That they "discover" it? Get a clue, Alex. You are so completely blind and ignorant on this issue it is beyond wonder.
DeleteThe answer to your question, Alex, is "Yes!" Children are capable of suppressing the truth of God, too. But you are dead wrong in your context once again. It begins with being futile in their minds and their foolish heart being darkened, which unsaved professing "Christian" children do as they continue to live like the devil with their unChristian behaviour and lifestyle. It leads to God giving them over to the lusts of their impure hearts, to dishonour them, which can be done by children. The longer a child is prone to bad behaviour without correction, the more it "grows" in their heart until they act out on it. Children are nothing more than miniature people. Open your eyes sometime and watch them and listen to them. You seem to think they are somehow completely different from adult people, when they are exactly alike. Hence why God commanded the Israelites to kill the children of specific groups because the children witnessed their evil deeds and would grow up to perform the same deeds. Your argument is unsound and not based on any fact. Again, it is based on "feelings" and opinion because you have NOTHING ELSE. It is YOU who is missing Paul's point, and deliberately so.
The Bible condemns ALL homosexual behaviour in EVERY age, just as it condemns all other sins.
The context of Romans 1:18-32 is unbelief and its consequences. Verse 27 quite deliberately and very clearly uses the Greek word for MEN--NOT the Greek words for children or adolescents, so your argument that pederasty is in view here is dead in the water. It is MEN committing indecent sexual behaviours with MEN. I.E., homosexuality. There is NOTHING in the context of this passage that deals with cult prostitution, so once again your argument is dead in the water. You have NO ground with which to stand on. You are standing in quicksand.
Furthermore, whether you choose to take it sexual or not, both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemn ALL forms of homosexual behaviour. Whether sex is involved or not, it says, "You shall not LAY DOWN WITH a man as one LAYS DOWN WITH a woman." Whether you take that as to share a bed together or to have sex together, the end result is the same: it is PROHIBITED! There is NO contingency in the Bible for homosexuality. It is condemned entirely.
Your argument that the biblical world knew nothing of "sexual orientation" is a base, very simplistic, and crude argument. The biblical world knew nothing of "alcoholism" either, but they sure knew what they were talking about when they prohibited drunkenness. The Bible doesn't say, "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, unless that's your orientation." The biblical authors probably weren't concerned with what "caused" certain behaviours--they were concerned with the behaviours themselves. It prohibits it on ALL grounds and ALL fronts. It is ABSOLUTELY prohibited! It is disgusting and vile behaviour. Period.
(Part 2 of 4)
ReplyDeleteWhat these kids are trying to suppress are their unwanted same-sex attractions. Instead of turning FROM God, they’re turning TO God: “Please, God, make me straight.” But that’s a prayer that “clobber verse” proclaimers like yourself should pray. It’s you who don’t get things straight: Suppressing God’s truth PRECEDES whatever consequences Paul had in mind and whatever pet perversions you may read into Paul’s mind.
Of course, some gay people do turn from an alleged “god” that people like you use to footnote your antigay rhetoric. But this “rejection” comes out of the pain of being told they’re rejected by that “god”, and out of their being lied about by people like you.
And if that’s not enough, you then take Paul’s Hellenic concept of para physin, “against nature”, and tack it, too, to all things gay. Do you not realize that Paul calls circumcision “against nature”? Jews weren’t born circumcised. Do you not know that Paul says God’s grafting of wild pagans into Israel’s cultivated olive tree was “against nature”? Gentiles weren’t born under the Jewish Covenant. To Paul, what’s simply “against nature” is sometimes good, sometimes not. In Romans, Paul says the sin of idolatry is “against nature” – i.e., we’re not born idolatrous; we turn idolatrous. And our idols can be of sticks and stones, sex or systems, proof-texts of scripture or blatant skepticism, but, at bottom, they’re all about our would-be autonomous self.
Then moving to Romans 2, Paul traps the self-righteous Jews (and whoever else condemns others, my dear Timothy). From his own background, Paul can identify with Jewish disdain for pagans. But now, he says: “YOU WHO CONDEMN OTHERS, WHOEVER YOU ARE, YOU’RE WITHOUT EXCUSE, FOR IN CONDEMNING THEM, YOU’RE CONDEMNING YOURSELF, FOR YOU DO THE SAME SORTS OF THINGS.” (Rom 2:1) Have you ears to hear that, my dear brother?
Meanwhile you continue to insist: “Anyone with half a brain reading Romans 1 AS IS WRITTEN will understand precisely what it is saying.”
This is precisely where you consistently trip yourself up, dear Timothy. A text does not simply "say what it says" despite the rational good intentions of some readers. Again, exegesis does not begin with asking: “What DOES it mean?” That is the wrong starting point. You’re really asking, “What does it mean to us today, individually?” and that’s why we end up with hundreds of different answers that can be answered by anyone subjectively. If you have 25 people, you’ll end up with 25 different opinions, resulting in 25 different doctrines, every one of which may be wrong, even though they all sincerely and completely believe they are correct. Exegesis always asks: “What DID it mean?” There’s a vast difference in those questions as a starting points. Our job is to somehow try to enter the world of the biblical writer and seek to understand what the writer was saying and what it meant at the time. If you fail to pay attention to the world in which the Bible was written, you will continue to run amuck almost every time. As Brandon O’Brien, editor-at-large of Christianity Today’s Leadership Journal warns, “To avoid misapplication, we should determine what the text meant then before we try to apply it to ourselves now.”
(Continued on Part 3 of 4)
(Part 3 of 4)
ReplyDeleteYou also continue to say: “Alex, you are attempting to claim that EVERYONE from the past 2000 years was an idiot and that NONE of them knew their field of study and that ALL of them arrived at wrong conclusions.”
No, my dear Timothy. Do not put such words in my mouth. You are the one who keeps using words like “idiot.” I know you delight in being insulting and attempting to make everyone who does not agree with you out to be “stupid” or “half-brained” or some other crude insult. But the story of God’s dealing with humanity is one of progressive revelation. God’s revelation has always been progressive. God does not reveal everything to us all at once. Instead he reveals things gradually and over time. He works in history and provides a dramatic unfolding story in Scripture in which his purposes and truths become clearer and clearer in ever richer and ever expanding ways. The OT, for example, is replete with passages about the coming messiah. While there are some who may write those off who didn’t get all of this as “idiots.” Fact is it was not intended for their understanding at that time. Lest you think this only occurred in the OT, Jesus himself in the fourth gospel delivers an intimate address to those to whom he was the closest, those who had been with him from the beginning. At one point he said something perfectly terrifying. Jesus said: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now” (John 16:12). He went on to promise that “the Spirit of Truth” will remain among us forever, one whose office is to reveal those concealed matters to us bit by bit, always slightly in advance of our readiness to receive them.
As we look back on 2,000 years of Christian history we see that the Spirit of Truth has done precisely that on scores of issues that the Church at one time believed to be as clear as mineral water on. This notion is also what was behind the wise words of the Pilgrim Father, John Robinson, when he declared, "The Lord has more truth and light yet to break forth out of his holy word".
Howard Hendricks, beloved and longtime professor at Dallas Seminary, was fond of saying to his students, “They should charge admission to this place so that visitors can see how people used to live 50 years ago.” Here’s more of the same. The Church has too often lagged behind other institutions in recognizing when it has erred. I still pray for a day when the Church will be the engine rather than the caboose when it comes to changing society.
Sorry, Timothy. Like it or not, we are always stuck with the internal interpretation of the text as the primary meaning.
(Continued on Part 4 of 4)
Sorry, Alex, but you keep attempting to reject the internal interpretation of the text as its primary meaning. When the internal interpretation is presented to you, you try to argue that we cannot just read it for what it says, we need to examine the original words used and what they meant. When the original words and their grammar and what they meant are presented to you, you try to argue that we cannot be "camped out" with a Hebrew or Greek dictionary, we have to examine its usage in every occurrence. When its usage in every occurrence is presented to you, you try to argue something else. ALL the evidence is stacked against you, Alex, and yet you STILL try to find arguments to get out from under admitting the truth, which is admitting your defeat. I can provide the plain reading of the text, the context with which it is found in, the meaning of the original words and their grammar, AND every occurrence of the word's usage throughout biblical, extra-biblical, and non-biblical sources, and you STILL try to argue "that's not correct exegesis." You have NO IDEA what exegesis is, bub. You plagiarize quotes from authors who have given definitions of exegesis (without giving them due credit), making it SOUND like you know what it is, but your failed practice to execute it demonstrates that you know NOTHING about it. Every aspect involved in responsible exegesis, you turn around and deny. Your idea of exegesis is anything that agrees with your position and what you have said. FACT IS, your position and what you have said is 1000% EISEGESIS. You're a lame duck and you know it, yet you try to present yourself as a swan.
Delete(Part 4 of 4)
ReplyDeleteIn closing, let me add two things:
While you have repeatedly referred to me and others as “stupid,” “idiot,” “terrorist, “half-brained” and numerous other crude terms, I dare say this has not helped your cause. That simply is not the way we’re called interact with and treat others. As Jesus said, it’s not what goes into the man that defiles him, it’s what comes out of his mouth. For what comes out of his mouth is an indication of what’s in the heart. If this is true, you seem to be an angry and foul-mouthed man. I generally avoid discussions and debates with angry people who think that it’s okay to insult others.
Secondly, I have an advanced degree from one of the country’s most academically rigorous evangelical seminaries. I say this not to draw attention to myself but rather to say that for you to imply that every educated and scholarly professor who taught us the principles of responsible biblical exegesis is an “idiot” probably says much more about you than it does about them. I’ve learned that only people with poor self-images and those who think lowly of themselves need to go around calling others “stupid” and “idiot.” Can we differ on theology? Sure. But when you need to call those who don’t agree with you “stupid” and “idiot,” that doesn’t show that you’re smart, that shows that you’re angry and rude.
Indeed, as you said, let the educated reader of the facts be the judge.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteI see you are once again trying to twist my words to make it appear I said things that I most assuredly did not. This time with the passages in Leviticus. Timothy is suggesting that I said (and will quote him):
(1) “Therefore, according to your logic, it is quite ok for me to burn my children or have sex with animals.”
(2) “Then you must conclude that there is also nothing wrong morally with bestiality or child sacrifice.”
Timothy once again not only deceitfully twists my words but even more importantly he again ignores the cultural context completely which prevents him from being able to draw out from the text what is actually there. Where does Timothy get this above nonsense? From my post on Leviticus 18. The passages in and around Leviticus 18:22 say the following:
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.
If we read Leviticus chapter 18 in context we discover that the chapter 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).
God says in essence: “I’m now bringing you into the new land that I promised you. But I don’t want you to do the horrible stuff (i.e., idolatrous practices) they did in Egypt where I bringing you out of. And don’t want you to do the horrible stuff (i.e., idolatrous practices) they do in Canaan where I’m now bring you into.”
To understand the chapter and these admonitions, including the infamous Lev 18:22 passage, we need to know something about what these “idolatries” were.
As we see in the passages above and elsewhere in the OT, the Canaanites had some very bizarre practices. For example, they burned their children alive in honor to their pagan gods, such as the pagan god Moloch as in the case above (18:21). They also performed sexual intercourse with animals (18:23), and a host of other gross and detestable practices.
Why did they do these things? Why is it important that we know? What was the motivation behind them?
As a result of the many archeological discoveries of the 20th century we can now answer these questions. More importantly, as a result of the many archeological discoveries of the 20th century our ability to do sound exegesis has increased exponentially. In fact, today we know more about the Bible than any previous time in history, including even in later biblical times. I’m going to repeat that. TODAY WE KNOW MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE THAN ANY PREVIOUS TIME IN HISTORY, INCLUDING EVEN IN LATER BIBLICAL TIMES.
(Continued on part 2 of 4)
Part 2 of 4
ReplyDeleteWhy is this important? Up until the early 20th century, we knew little about the Canaanites. We knew little about their religion, their religious practices, their culture, their way of life, etc. In fact, for the most part, our ONLY witness to the Canaanites was the texts of 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’ve had a profound effect on biblical studies. If you look for this information in commentaries that were written before the 20th century and before these discoveries, as Timothy insist on doing, and you will miss most of it.
How do these discoveries help us to understand and interpret the biblical texts? What have we learned? Why did they do such bizarre things or “idolatrous” practices? What was the motivation behind them?
Their motivation was FERTILITY! Fertility was highly prized in Ancient times in ways that are completely foreign to our modern thinking. Fact is 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 ensure and boost crop production, fertility in the way of life through pregnancy and birth, fertility for the reproduction of their livestock, 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 Bible commentaries confirm, Canaanite culture also depended on pagan cult prostitution as a way of promoting fertility. Says 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.”
In the New International Biblical Commentary: “Joshua, Judges, Ruth,” to cite another example, authors Harris, Brown and Moore, state the following:
“… 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.”
(Continued on part 3 of 4)
Part 3 of 4
ReplyDeleteAs you can hopefully begin to see, sometimes we encounter things in the Bible that require some background and clarification in order to understand the text. 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. But now equipped with a bit of background on the text, let’s look at the Leviticus passage again, but this time 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; it is an abomination.
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.
If we look at the passage in context, considering both what comes immediately before and after the passage, 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 rituals as illustrated were practiced by the Canaanites and Egyptians in their 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 Leviticus 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 we refrain from ripping the passage from its context, as Timothy delights in doing, and instead read in context, we begin to see that these acts are prohibited because of their connection with worship of the pagan gods. God’s covenant with his people required that the Israelites serve no other god but Yahweh. If Israel is thought to be bound to God in an exclusive covenant relationship, then Israel can be said to commit adultery (or “play the harlot”) whenever they look to powers other than Yahweh for sustenance, comfort or protection. “Playing the harlot”, as the English translations tend to put it, became a common idiom for the Israelites worshipping of other gods.
Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, we find time and again that Israel frequented places of idol worship. “ON EVERY HIGH HILL AND UNDER EVERY GREEN TREE YOU SPRAWLED AND PLAYED THE HARLOT,” says God through the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 2:20).
Over and over, we see that the Israelites did not only borrow from the Canaanite pagan ways of worshipping idols and false pagan gods, 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 and ensuring fertility, we will completely miss the point of the biblical condemnation and misconstrue verses like Leviticus 18:22 to forbid any and all same-sex behavior. As F.F. Bruce, biblical scholar and one of the founders of the modern evangelical understanding of the Bible, 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.”
(Continued on part 4 of 4)
Part 4 of 4
ReplyDeleteClearly, a simple blog comment does not afford a thorough discussion of this or the few other passages that have been interpreted as addressing or condemning homosexuality. The point is to encourage you to think and do your homework. Clearly too you can see I am hardly suggesting that burning our children alive or having sex with animals are acceptable practices today. I am, however, advising that if we want to understand the Bible correctly we have to perform responsible EXEGESIS. Exegesis is about drawing out from the text the true meaning of a Bible passage. Phrased differently, it means getting out of the text what it originally meant to the author and to the original intended audience, without reading into the text the many traditional interpretations that may have grown up around it. Conversely what we are to avoid is EISEGESIS. Eisegesis is reading one’s own ideas or prejudices back into the Bible. It is about putting into the text something never intended by the author. Eisegesis is at best unwise, and at worst extremely dangerous.
See also the following related posts on my blog if you’d like to read more:
(1) “Exegesis: Not for the Faint in Heart”
Link: http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/exegesis-not-for-the-faint-in-heart/
(2) “Romans 1: What Was Paul Ranting About?”
Link: http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/romans-1-what-was-paul-ranting-about/
(3) “Romans 2: Paul’s Bait and Switch”
http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/romans-2-pauls-bait-and-switch/
(4) “Why No One in the Biblical World Had a Word for Homosexuality”
http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/why-no-one-in-the-biblical-world-had-a-word-for-homosexuality/
(5) “Genesis 19: What the Bible Really Says Were the Sins of Sodom”
http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/genesis-19-what-the-bible-really-says-were-the-sins-of-sodom/
(6) “Genesis 1: Turning the Creation Story into an Anti-Gay Treatise”
http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/genesis-1-turning-the-creation-story-into-an-antigay-treatise/
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress
Alex,
DeleteOnce again you are lacing your responses with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, conclusions drawn on assumptions, pretext, front-loading, and eisegetical interpretations. I suggest you quit relying on Boswell's errors and start practicing actual exegesis. Boswell claimed the Hebrew word "to'ebah" (תועבה) did not signify something intrinsically evil, but that which is ritually unclean for Jews--and only Jews. However, he struggled with the presence of adultery and incest in both chapters and tried passing them off as "symbols," because he is as dishonest as you are, Alex. The fact is, if you examine the word "to'ebah," you will find that it frequently refers to the sins that were committed by the pagan nations surrounding Israel. If the word applies only to "Jewish distinctiveness," it would not be able to be applied to those outside of Israel.
To show the reader just how dishonest Alex is, we are now going to engage in honest, responsible, sound biblical exegesis in determining what Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 are dealing with, something Alex neglects to practice.
Alex attempts to tell us that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemn homosexuality for "religious" purposes but not for "moral" purposes. He claims the context of these passages has to do with religious idolatry and cult prostitution. But is this a truthful assessment of the context? No, it is not.
First, let us address Leviticus 18. You, the intelligent and educated reader, are wise enough to know that Alex's argument is both outrageously bogus and laughably fallacious. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that uncovering the nakedness of your father or your mother (18:7), of your father's wife (18:8), of your sister (18:9), of your son's daughter (18:10), of your father's wife's daughter (18:11), of your father's sister (18:12), of your mother's sister (18:13), of your father's brother (18:14), of your daughter-in-law (18:15), of your brother's wife (18:16), or any other blood relatives (18:17) has anything to do with cult prostitution? Alex would do well to try and retain the context. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that having intimacy with a woman during her menstrual cycle (18:19) or having sex with your neighbour's wife (18:20) has anything to do with cult prostitution? The only verse that has anything to do with the practices of religious idolatry is verse 21, which is borne out through the entirety of Scripture. The heathen nations would sacrifice their children to their various gods. Nothing else in this chapter has to do with idolatrous practices, nor with cult prostitution.
By what great exegetical miracle does Alex expect to convince us that having sex with animals was religious idolatry (18:23)? People were doing it when God decided to flood the world, and they are doing it today without the slightest trace of religion attached to it. The passage does not connect it with idolatrous practice whatsoever. It condemns it entirely, just as it does with homosexual behaviour (18:22). Honestly, Alex needs to go back to school and educate himself as to what "context" actually is. If he paid close attention to verse 21, he would notice that "nor shall you profane the name of your God" has nothing to do with practices of religious idolatry. This is the third commandment reiterated. It is not connected with the first half of verse 21. Alex would do well to be reminded that the chapter and verse divisions did not exist in the original Hebrew and Greek. He should try and remember that when considering what context truly is and what it consists of.
(Continue to 2 of 4)
(Part 2 of 4)
DeleteSecond, let us address Leviticus 20. If Alex paid attention to the context, he would see that the verses speaking of the practices of religious idolatry again address child sacrifice (20:2-5). None of the rest of this chapter has anything to do with religious idolatry. A person could try and argue that verse 6 does, but he/she would be in error. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that cursing one's father or mother (20:9), or committing adultery with another man's wife (20:10), or lying with one's father's wife (20:11), or lying with one's daughter-in-law (20:12), or marrying a woman and her mother (20:14), or having sex with an animal (20:15-16), or discovering one's sister's nakedness (20:17), or having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle (20:18), etc., etc., etc., has anything to do with religious idolatry? Alex is reaching yet again, as all the evidence is against him. Let's observe further:
Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
In the Hebrew, it reads: "ואת‾וכר לא תשׁכּב משׁבּבי אשׁה תוצבההוא"
In the Greek Septuagint, it reads: "και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστιν"
In the Latin Vulgate, it reads: "cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo quia abominatio est."
Leviticus 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
In the Hebrew, it reads: "ואישׁ אשׁר ישׁכּב את‾וכר משׁבּבי אשׁה תּוצבה צשׂו שׁניהם מות יומתו"
In the Greek Septuagint, it reads: "και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν ενοχοι εισιν"
In the Latin Vulgate, it reads: "qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo uterque operati sunt nefas morte moriantur sit sanguis eorum super eos."
וכר = "a male, man, mankind (as opposed to womankind)"
אישׁ = "man, male, husband"
אשׁה = "woman, female, wife"
ישׁכּב ,תשׁכּב = "a primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose)"
משׁבּבי = "a bed; abstractly, sleep; by euphemism, carnal intercourse"
תּוצבה ,תוצבה = "properly, something disgusting (morally): detestable; abomination"
αρσενος = “male, man, husband”
γυναικος = “female, woman, wife”
κοιτην = “a bed; spoken of the marriage bed, metaphorically for marriage (Heb. 13:4)”
κοιμηθη, κοιμηθηση = “to sleep”
βδελυγμα = “that which is detestable; abomination”
Notice the word "coitu" in Latin for both verses? It means "coupling;" i.e., coitus, copulation, or sexual intercourse. In Leviticus 22:13, we also have the word "dormierit," which means "sleeps." What do you call "a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman"? What is this describing? For anyone who is honest and truthful in the least, their answer will be, "A homosexual." The immediate surrounding context around these verses is in regard to immoralities and vile behaviours that are extremely prohibited by God , as we have seen above, and are labeled as detestable abominations. The words, grammar, and context of these passages are as crystal clear as the sun is bright. The person who denies this is not being honest. The description in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English (as well as every other language) is that of homosexuality.
(Continue to 3 of 4)
(Part 3 of 4)
DeleteAlex tries to argue that the word αρσενοκοιτες did not exist in the Roman world outside Paul’s usage of it in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. However, this is false. Alex will attempt to quote a few people who seem to support him while ignoring the hundreds of Greek scholars who disagree with him. While αρσενοκοιτες may not have been used as a compound word the way Paul used it, nevertheless the above two passages make use of both root words: αρσεν (male) and κοιτε (bed). Leviticus 22:13 uses them side-by-side. We know that there is nothing in these passages about an actual, literal bed, so why did the Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek Septuagint use the word κοιτε? Well, κοιτε is used in Hebrews 13:4 to speak of the marriage bed, metaphorically of marriage itself. The fact both words are used in these passages illustrates that, while perhaps not compounded, the term was used in other literature (and prior to Paul’s usage thereof). Also, it shows us that Paul had these passages in mind when he penned 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. In English we have words that are compounded today that were never compounded in the past, so Alex's argument is ill-informed and based on assumptions rather than facts. The Greek translation of these verses weighs in heavily against the false arguments raised by Alex.
You see, dear Reader, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 have nothing to do with religious idolatry or cult prostitution. Alex is reading this into the text, which is called eisegesis, because it's what he desires to find in the text. His arguments are not based on sound biblical exegesis, but on the unscholarly words of homosexual John Boswell. Everything in these chapters are moral prohibitions set by God. The behaviour of homosexuality is absolutely prohibited by God and condemned as an abominable perversion. The problem is that Alex relies on the unscholarly works of such homosexual/homosexual supporting authors as John Boswell, Jack Rogers, and Dale Martin (to name a few). These men have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, and their works have been exposed to be filled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. So as you can see, dear Reader, Alex manipulates, maligns, and twists these passages to say what he wants them to say, when a clear study of the context reveals otherwise.
It does not matter whether it is homosexual gang rape, homosexual prostitution, pederasty; whether there is a significant age difference or the ages are relatively the same; whether it is a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man or it is a "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership;" or whatever other brush one wants to attempt to paint the picture with, homosexuality is still homosexuality. Homosexuality is a moral perversion and bankruptcy of human nature and sexuality that is condemned by God because it is unnatural and goes against His created order and what is to be expected. All nature, biology, science, and logic prove that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion of both human and sexual nature. There is no issue regarding homosexuals who want to marry because such a union does not constitute marriage and it never will. A marriage constitute one man and one woman. Period.
(Continue to 4 of 4)
(Part 4 of 4)
DeleteSo, you can see once again, Alex, that your eisegesis is incorrect. All your arguments come from unscholarly men, and then you attempt to support your arguments by using the words of some semi-scholarly Christians (like Gordon Fee, who would tell you the Bible condemns homosexuality in an instant), while ignoring the hundreds of credible scholarly men that contradict and disagree with you.
There is nothing ritual about Leviticus 18 and 22, as you propose, Alex. The reader has just been witness to the proper context of both chapters. Everything in these chapters are absolutely morally prohibited by God. You can kick and scream against these facts as much as you want, but you will never change them. God has said what He means and means what He says.
Let me teach you a thing about proper hermeneutics, Alex. The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics states, "If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense." What plain sense is derived from "You SHALL NOT lie with a male as one lies with a female"? The intelligent reader can answer this simply. A child can answer this simply, and it is said that a child can understand Scripture. The Direct Statement Principle of Hermeneutics states, "God says what He means and means what He says." So when God said "You SHALL NOT lie with a male as one lies with a female," what do you suppose He meant by that? Again, the intelligent reader, and a child, can answer this simply. It is you who is having trouble with it, Alex, because you are dishonest to both yourself and those you address. You are a great liar and deceiver, and I have no respect for such men or women who deliberately try to twist, malign, and manipulate Scripture to suit their own agenda.
If we refrain from ripping these passages from their context, as Alex Haiken joyfully delights in doing, and instead read them in context, we begin to see that these acts are absolutely prohibited for moral reasons. Adultery, incest, cursing your parents, etc., have NOTHING to do with "pagan worship," as Alex so desperately tries to convince us, by heavily relying on the fallible and erroneous words of The New Bible Commentary. Alex is yet again making use of fallacious arguments here, appealing to a source of false authority.
I have exposed you for the fraud and liar you are, Alex. The more you open your mouth here, the more you reveal just how much of a dishonest and unscholarly liar you truly are. Stop ripping passages from their correct context and stop applying your eisegetical interpretations based on your feelings and opinions to the text. Stop using Boswell as your crutch for your poor biblical exegesis. You clearly know nothing of the practice of exegesis, because you fail consistently to employ it correctly.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Dear Reader,
ReplyDeleteAlex plagiarizes an argument from Dale Martin, claiming the compound Greek word "arsenokoites" cannot possibly refer to homosexuality because of the definitions of its root words. The basis for this argument, which is a weak, simplistic, and pathetic basis, is an argument based on the English word "understand." The argument states that the definition for "understand" has nothing to do with "being under" or "standing".
The argument regarding “understand” (or “butterfly” or "honeymoon" or “mandate”) is a linguistic and etymological fallacy. It is the height of ignorance concerning the English language, grammar, and structure.
Homosexuals and homosexual advocates choose these words because they lend support to their straw man arguments. However, what about the hundreds of other English words they deliberately ignore that contradict their argument?
circumnavigate = circum (around) + navigate
acrophobia = acro (high) + phobia (fear)
egomaniac = ego (I, self) + maniac
egocentric = ego (I, self) + centric
biology = bio (life) + logos (study, word)
biography = bio (life) + graph (write, record)
biohazard = bio (life) + hazard
agnostic = a (no, not, without) + gnostic (knowledge)
atheist = a (no, not, without) + theist (god)
amillennial = a (no, not, without) + millenial (thousand years)
amuse = a (no, not, without) + muse (to think)
anti_____ = anti (against) + whatever word you want to insert
neo_____ = neo (new) + whatever word you want to insert
theocracy = theo (God) + cracy (rule)
geography = geo (earth) + graphy (write, record)
geology = geo (earth) + logos (study, word)
telephone = tele (distance) + phone
Some others are bicycle, microscope, telescope, asymmetrical, etc.
Alex is trying to convince us of his perverse beliefs by use of fallacious arguments. His first error I have just exposed above. His second error is in attempting to force English grammar and structure upon the grammar and structure of other languages. Latin, French, Italian, and Spanish quite frequently have compound words that mean precisely and exactly the combination of their individual root words. The same is true of Greek, as noted:
paralambano = para (near) + lambano (to receive) = to receive near
paiderastia = pais (boy) + erastos (lover) = lover of boys (adolescence)
aperchomai = apo (off) + erchomai (to go) = to go off (depart)
suneiserchomai = sun (with, together) + eiserchomai (to enter into) = to enter in company with
eiserchomai = eis (to, into) erchomai (to go) = to go into, to enter into
Arsenokoites means precisely what the combined definitions of its root words mean. Any school boy who’s done his homework can tell you these things. Alex's pathetic arguments are the result of ignorance and foolishness. To re-iterate, Alex have lost ALL credibility. He can't think for himself. He has to regurgitate the fallacies, straw men, and lies that other fools, like John Boswell, Jack Rogers, and Dale Martin have come up with. It's quite apparent that he's quoting from these materials with his weak arguments. He continues to perform eisegesis on the biblical texts, forcing modern culture onto the Bible and then assuming he has his conclusion. Alex's e-mails and blogs are chock full with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, and conclusions drawn on assumptions. His work is filled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. He is a liar and a coward and a fraud.
Let the educated reader of the facts be the judge.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Dear Reader,
ReplyDeleteAlex boasts that he supposedly has an "advanced degree" from a so-called "academically rigorous" seminary. If this were true, then why is Alex unable to answer any of the facts and evidence I've presented him with? Why does he continually side-step, skirt around, and avoid answering them? If he had any kind of defense, surely he would provide it. Yet he has offered us absolutely no facts or evidence to back his arguments. Further, the seminary he claims he attended is a far-gone liberal seminary. Most of what they teach is biblical heresy. If they teach that homosexuality is okay and that the Bible doesn't address it, then they have NO credibility to their name because they are teaching things contrary to what the Bible teaches. Furthermore, if Alex had an "advanced degree," you would expect him to have an idea about exegesis and context. However, as he has proven repeatedly, he has NO clue. Here, Reader, is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis:
The word "exegesis" comes from the Greek verb εξηγησις (from εξηγεισθαι "to lead out"), which means "to draw out". Simply put, exegesis is about drawing out from the text the true meaning of a biblical verse or passage. Exegesis, then, is an investigation. It attempts to determine the historical, cultural, and geographical context within which a particular verse exists. The questions we always have to be asking are: Who is doing the speaking? Who is being spoken to? What is being said? What is going on here? When observing the external context, proper exegesis examines the surrounding verses (immediate context), the surrounding chapters (sectional context), and other passages (canonical context). It lets the Bible speak for and interpret itself. Today's reader must try to enter the world of the biblical author and seek to understand what the author was saying. If we fail to pay attention to the world in which the Bible was written, we will simply read biblical texts and infuse them with meaning from our social world and conclude that the Bible does not speak directly to our circumstances. "The interpreter must come to the Bible as open as possible, without any theological bias or presuppositions." (Mal Couch, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, 169.) Exegesis utilizes "hermeneutics", which means "the art and science of biblical interpretation".
In contrast to this, what many do instead is what some theologians refer to as "frontloading"; i.e., they read their own personal, political, or ideological beliefs back into the Bible instead of reading out from the Bible what the original authors were saying. This process of reading one's own presuppositions, agendas, biases, and/or ideas into the interpretation of the Bible is called "eisegesis", from the Greek εις, which means "into". "It is the interpreter’s job to represent the text, "not the prejudices, feelings, judgments, or concerns of the exegete. To indulge in the latter is to engage in eisegesis, 'a reading into' a text what the reader wants it to say."" (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Exegetical Theology, 45.) Eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his/her interpretation into and onto the text. There is only ever one interpretation to a text; but there may be many applications to a text.
(continue to 2 of 2)
Personal experience does not interpret or determine what the Word of God says. Personal feelings and opinions do not interpret or determine what the Word of God says. Presumptions, inferences, assumptions, and conclusions drawn from assumptions do not interpret or determine what the Word of God says. Personal presuppositions, prejudices, agendas, biases, and/or ideas do not interpret or determine what the Word of God says. The practices and acceptances of our day and age do not interpret or determine what the Word of God says. All of this is to engage in eisegesis. Eisegesis is at best unwise, and at worst extremely dangerous.
ReplyDeleteExegesis and eisegesis are conflicting approaches to interpreting the Bible. Why? Exegesis is reading out from the Bible what the original authors were saying. Eisegesis is reading into the Bible one's own ideas or prejudices. Exegesis is about drawing out the true meaning of a Bible passage. Eisegesis is about putting into the text something never intended by the author. Exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective. The Bible gives us a clear example of exegesis: "They read from the book...translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading" (Neh. 8:8). Exegesis, however, is not an easy task and is not for the faint of heart. Like most things of value, it requires some work on our part.
So, as you can see, Reader, Alex has failed constantly and consistently to even adhere to these rules of hermeneutics. He repeatedly rips passages from their context and tries to interpret them by today's societal acceptances, and he deliberately cuts his quotations short because if he quoted them wholly, he would condemn himself. Alex is nothing more than a first rate liar, willfully deceitful to anyone foolish enough to give credence to his verbal diarrhea. For a so-called educated man, Alex has yet to display any sort of educated intelligence. I've been disappointed by his simplistic and poor arguments repeatedly. Hence why I refuse to deal with him further. God bless you, Reader. Be wise and vigil.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Dear Reader,
ReplyDeleteAlex attempts to tell us that the Bible, in Ezekiel 16:49, tells us what the sins of Sodom supposedly were. However, the ironic thing here is that if Alex would continue his quote into the next verse, retaining the CONTEXT (something Alex fails to pay attention to on a habitual basis), he would refute himself. When Satan quoted from Scripture during the temptation of Jesus, he stopped short of the verse that spelled out his own condemnation. The same is true of Alex, whose father is the devil. Sodom was destroyed for committing abominations (tow'ebah), the very same term used to describe homosexual relationships in the holiness code (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Tow'ebah properly refers to something morally disgusting. The Bible CLEARLY declares that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, as is backed by 2 Peter 2:6-8 and Jude 7. Comments on Genesis 19 from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, as well as passages in the Qu'ran, also CLEARLY understand Genesis 19 to be speaking about homosexuality.
The Bible informs us that even AFTER the Sodomites were all struck with blindness, they STILL continued to grope for the door, wearing themselves out; exhausting themselves. Why? When you are blind, you cannot participate in gang rape because you cannot see who it is you might be raping, and these men were after Lot's guests. However, if you are blind, you can STILL engage in sexual activity. ANY sane person in their right mind immediately struck with blindness would STOP what they were doing because the realization that they were now blind would have kicked in. God goes so far as to inform us that even AFTER they were blinded, these men DID NOT STOP. Homosexuals today bear the same character, attacking churches and doing things to its members that no rational human being would ever do to another human being. Homosexuality makes people irrational in their thoughts and in their behaviour.
Let us examine the passage closely:
"Before they lay down, the men of the city, THE MEN OF SODOM, surrounded the house, BOTH YOUNG (נצר) AND OLD (זקן), all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us THAT WE MAY HAVE RELATIONS WITH THEM.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, DO NOT ACT WICKEDLY. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.' But they said, 'Stand aside.' Furthermore, they said, 'This one came in as an alien, and already he is ACTING LIKE A JUDGE; now we will treat you worse than them.' So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door." (Genesis 19:4-9)
(continue to 2 of 4)
From the above passage, via the all-caps words, we can see how every argument posed by homosexuals and homosexual advocates is completely and utterly dismantled and destroyed. Regarding the theory that pederasty is in view, the phrase "both young and old" rips it to shreds. Both young men and old men wanted to have sexual relations with the men (not boys) being sheltered. These men are told "do not act so wickedly". In the one case, these men accuse Lot of being their judge for having spoken such words. A little logic and common sense goes a long way. If hospitality and friendliness were in view here, how would anyone rightly call it wickedness, and why would the people accuse that person of being their judge? Furthermore, why would God destroy a city or nation for wanting to be hospitable and friendly? This theory is asinine and ludicrous. In the other instance, their actions are described as being foolish and vile. The fact that women were offered to these men and they declined, wanting the men instead, demonstrates powerfully the reality that they wanted to have sexual relations with the men. Individuals who try and tell you otherwise are bankrupt morally, mentally, spiritually, and intellectually.
ReplyDeleteAlex attempts to argue that the Hebrew word for "men" in Genesis 19:4 is inclusive of women: "If you look at the original Hebrew text, and even early Greek translations, the word translated into English as 'men' can be inclusive of the women as well" (Justin R. Cannon, The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality, 12.). Therefore, Alex urges, the men and women of the city wanted to "gang rape" the two angels. However, this is false. The first flaw in his argument is with the Hebrew word אנושׁ (enowsh). It is not inclusive of women. It is a masculine noun meaning man. The plural of this word often serves for the plural of אישׁ (iysh), which "does not indicate humankind but the male gender in particular" (Warren Baker, Eugene Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament, 75.). The second flaw in his argument is that the word used for the "men" of the city is also the same word used when demanding Lot to bring out the "men" (v.5). If it is inclusive of women, when Lot offered his daughters, why did they not take advantage of them? The third flaw in his argument is with the Greek word ανηρ in the Septuagint. It is not inclusive of women. This is a masculine noun meaning man or husband. As you can see, Alex is lying through his teeth yet again, trying to forge support for his perverse behaviour.
What is even more interesting about the Genesis 19 passage in the Septuagint is the usage of the word σοδομιται in verse 4. ALex insists that there is no Greek word for "sodomites", yet, here it is; and it is plural masculine. The Greek word for Sodom is Σοδομα. Σοδομιται refers to the inhabitants of Sodom, i.e., the Sodomites. This is precisely what the word meant in biblical times. The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 6th century A.D. Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. Nevertheless, despite this word not taking on its primarily sexual meaning until later, Christians earlier than Justinian are also seen to denounce same-sex relations. Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. - 50 A.D.) and Methodius of Olympus (260-312 A.D.) attributed homosexual relations to Sodom, as did St. Augustine and many others. Thus, "sodomites" refers to homosexuals. Here are some quotes:
(continue to 3 of 4)
"The land of the Sodomites, a part of Canaan afterwards called Palestinian Syria, was brimful of innumerable iniquities, particularly such as arise from gluttony and lewdness, and multiplied and enlarged every other possible pleasure with so formidable a menace that it had at last been condemned by the Judge of All…Incapable of bearing such satiety, plunging like cattle, they threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to…forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbors, but also men mounted males without respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive; and so when they tried to beget children they were discovered to be incapable of any but a sterile seed. Yet the discovery availed them not, so much stronger was the force of the lust which mastered them. Then, as little by little they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they saddled them with the formidable curse of a female disease. For not only did they emasculate their bodies by luxury and voluptuousness but they worked a further degeneration in their souls and, as far as in them lay, were corrupting the whole of mankind." —Philo
ReplyDelete"As for adultery, Moses forbade it entirely, as esteeming it a happy thing that men should be wise in the affairs of wedlock; and that it was profitable both to cities and families that children should be known to be genuine. He also abhorred men’s lying with their mothers, as one of the greatest crimes; and the like for lying with the father’s wife, and with aunts, and sisters, and sons’ wives, as all instances of abominable wickedness. He also forbade a man to lie with his wife when she was defiled by her natural purgation: and not to come near brute beasts; nor to approve of the lying with a male, which was to hunt after unlawful pleasures on account of beauty. To those who were guilty of such insolent behavior, he ordained death for their punishment." —Flavius Josephus
"But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature, or of any unlawful practice; for such are enmity to God. For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature, as is also that with brute beasts. But adultery and fornication are against the law; the one whereof is impiety, the other injustice, and, in a word, no other than a great sin. But neither sort of them is without its punishment in its own proper nature. For the practicers of one sort attempt the dissolution of the world, and endeavor to make the natural course of things to change for one that is unnatural; but those of the second son — the adulterers — are unjust by corrupting others’ marriages, and dividing into two what God hath made one, rendering the children suspected, and exposing the true husband to the snares of others. And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination." —Methodius
"They who have committed sodomy with men or brutes, murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, have been thought worthy of the same punishment; therefore observe the same method with these which you do with others. We ought not to make any doubt of receiving those who have repented thirty years for the uncleanness which they committed through ignorance; for their ignorance pleads their pardon, and their willingness in confessing it; therefore command them to be forthwith received, especially if they have tears to prevail on your tenderness, and have [since their lapse] led such a life as to deserve your compassion." —St. Basil
(continue to 4 of 4)
ARSENOKOITAI
ReplyDeleteTimothy,
First let’s address your comments on “arsenokoitai” from your post of Sept 5.
I’m so glad this exchange is recorded so everyone can see how you consistently twist my words. Here again you distorted what I said. First let me quote what you said on Sep 5:
“ALEX PLAGIARIZES AN ARGUMENT FROM DALE MARTIN, CLAIMING THE COMPOUND GREEK WORD ‘ARSENOKOITES’ CANNOT POSSIBLY REFER TO HOMOSEXUALITY BECAUSE OF THE DEFINITIONS OF ITS ROOT WORDS.”
Adding to the above you said (and I quote):
“ARSENOKOITES MEANS PRECISELY WHAT THE COMBINED DEFINITIONS OF ITS ROOT WORDS MEAN. ANY SCHOOL BOY WHO’S DONE HIS HOMEWORK CAN TELL YOU THESE THINGS.”
In other words: Tim maintains that the Greek word “arsenokoitai” that appears in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 categorically and without doubt means “homosexuals” and that anyone who does not agree with him (i.e., that there is no uncertainty about this), is neglecting to acknowledge what he claims is as clear as mineral water. He also maintains that I claimed the compound Greek word “arsenokoitai” cannot possibly refer to homosexuality.
Now following is a summary of what I actually DID say:
(1) If one wishes to be responsible with the biblical text, Paul’s reference to the arsenokoitai should not be assumed to be a reference to homosexuals for the following reasons:
(2) Firstly, as Alan F. Johnson in his commentary “I Corinthians” (InterVarsity Press, 2004), points out, arsenokoitai “is unknown in Greek literature before these references”. Johnson, as you may know, has a PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary, is Emeritus Professor of New Testament and Christian Ethics at Wheaton College and author of commentaries on Paul’s letter to the Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Revelation.
(3) It should also be noted that Johnson is by no means the only scholar to tell us that. So the first thing we know about the word’s usage before Paul is there was none. This may be the first examples we have of this word being used in the literature of the time and it is therefore likely that Paul coined the word himself.
(4) In referring to “arsenokoitai” and “malakoi,” the two Greek words from 1 Cor. 6, the Fundamentalist Journal, hardly a pro-gay publication by any stretch, admits, “These words are difficult to translate.”
(5) Even anti-gay Evangelical Bible scholar Gordon D. Fee says that these two terms are “difficult”. In Fee’s book, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians,” he also notes, “This is its first appearance in preserved literature and subsequent authors are reluctant to use it, especially when describing homosexual activity.” But, of course, such acknowledged difficulty does not stop people like Timothy who has an invested interest to push “homosexuals!” into the Bible.
(ARSENOKOITAI: Continued on Part 2 of 3)
(ARSENOKOITAI: Part 2)
ReplyDelete(6) Ed Palmer, as you may know, headed NIV's executive committee. With pointed humor, he used to ask his Westminster Theological Seminary students how a porcupine could be turned into an owl. His punch line: "By translation!" And it's by just such "translation" that the admittedly enigmatic term in 1 Cor. 6:9 gets turned into "homosexuals". Palmer said that NIV translators did no close study of these terms that scholars admit are "more difficult" than the others in Paul's list.
(7) Evangelical textual scholar Daniel Wallace cautions that, “With such a rare word, you can count on no end to the speculation, [even if it’s] based on thin air.” Wallace is professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and published his first edition of “Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics” in 1996. It has since become a standard work in the field. Two-thirds of schools that teach the subject use the textbook.
(8) E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien (editor-at-large of Christianity Today’s Leadership Journal), in their new book ‘Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes’ (InterVarsity, 2012), warn against imposing our assumptions on the biblical text. They stress that, “to avoid misapplication, we should determine what the text meant then before we try to apply it to ourselves now,” something Timothy seems to avoid like the plague.
(9) Arsenokoitai is also a compound word. To conclude that the meaning of any compound word is simply the sum of its independent parts, as Timothy insists, is not always a justifiable conclusion or method and defies linguistic evidence and common sense.
(10) The definition of a compound word is not obviously known by the definition of its root word components. The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible.
(11) A word means according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. Meaning is determined by common usage, not by components. 2,000 years from now are “scholars” to conclude that our lady-killers murdered women and wise guys were known for wisdom?
(12) So the only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. However with this word there are no know uses of it before Paul. In addition, its usage after Paul are few and far between and in virtually every instance the term appears in a list of sins (like Paul’s) without any story line or other context to shed light on its meaning.
(13) Yet Timothy insists this Greek that word, categorically and without doubt, should be translated as “homosexuals”. Despite the numerous Bible scholars and theologians who maintain the case is not nearly so cut and died, Tim would have us believe that anyone who does not agree with him is just playing fast and loose with the biblical text.
(14) Could it be that Tim is the one playing fast and loose because he knows that unless he can make this word say exactly what he wants it say, his defense goes out the window?
(15) A “literal” meaning of a totally unknown word dropped into a list some 2,000 years ago cannot possibly be found via an etymological fallacy. The etymological fallacy, as Timothy should know, is a fallacy that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception.
(ARSENOKOITAI: Continued on Part 3 of 3)
(ARSENOKOITAI: Part 3)
ReplyDelete(16) Moreover, as Paul knew, legalist nitpicking at the enigmas of dead letters kills what the Spirit can enliven. (2 Cor. 3:6) Is this not precisely what Timothy is doing?
I submit what’s really going on here is that Timothy is blinded by his “reifications” and “canonical interpretations”. A reification is when we use a concept or doctrine so often and for so long that it comes to be a distinct "thing" to us, something that's really there, a piece of our mind's furniture. Fact is we’re often greatly unaware of how much of our mental furniture consists of reifications. A canonical interpretation is a way of looking at a biblical passage or doctrine that we've become so accustomed to that the interpretation has become indistinguishable in our minds from the text or the passages themselves.
Or to phrase it a bit differently: Timothy insists that the Bible is crystal clear on this issue. I am sure he is sincere about that, and he certainly should not suppress that conviction. He has every right to hold that homosexuality is morally wrong if that is his considered opinion. However, I believe that the intuitive interpretive clarity he experiences where the Bible is concerned has been conditioned by the church culture that taught Christianity to him. A couple of hundred years ago he would have been telling me with equal earnestness that he felt the Bible clearly approved slavery. Had he lived in Germany in the 1930's he might well have quoted the Bible is support of anti-Semitism. The fact is we Christians learn together what the Bible is clear about. And on many ethical issues we have changed our collective mind as the years have gone by. Perhaps Timothy is still very angry because he doesn’t like seeing that we are in process of changing our mind on homosexuality too.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Alex is once again appealing to his "Etymological Fallacy."
DeleteAlex says, "A word means according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. Meaning is determined by common usage, not by components. 2,000 years from now are “scholars” to conclude that our lady-killers murdered women and wise guys were known for wisdom?"
Alex is yet again borrowing from Dale Martin's pathetic and uneducated argument regarding English words like "understand." If Alex had a shred of education, or for that matter intelligence, he would realize (had he studied other languages, such as Latin, Italian, Spanish, etc.) that frequently in these languages compound words mean EXACTLY what their root words mean. Alex's etymological fallacy is based on ignorance and false assumptions. As seen in an above post by me, English words come in two flavours: those that ARE based on the EXACT meanings of their root words, and those that are not. Most English words ARE. But comparing English grammar and structure to Greek grammar and structure is unsound. It is a linguistic fallacy to do so. But we all know how much Alex loves his fallacious arguments. We have repeatedly seen how his responses are laced with them.
As I demonstrated in the above post, Greek compound words, like those of Latin, Italian, Spanish, etc., ARE a combination of their root words. Alex refuses to accept this not because he has any evidence to the contrary (which he does not), but because doing so utterly destroys his position.
Here again are a sampling of Greek words:
paralambano = para (near) + lambano (to receive) = to receive near
paiderastia = pais (boy) + erastos (lover) = lover of boys (adolescence)
aperchomai = apo (off) + erchomai (to go) = to go off (depart)
suneiserchomai = sun (with, together) + eiserchomai (to enter into) = to enter in company with
eiserchomai = eis (to, into) erchomai (to go) = to go into, to enter into
Alex must resort to ad hominem fallacies because he is intimidated by and afraid of me. He knows I will call him on everything he says and demonstrate evidentially how wrong he is. In order to maintain his position, Alex needs to attack my proven exegetical prowess because he knows that I am correct but is too proud to admit him, both to himself and to others.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics states, "If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense." What is the plain common sense of "You SHALL NOT lie with a male as one lies with a female"? It is said that even a child can understand Scripture, so what would a child understand from this absolute moral declaration of prohibition?
DeleteThe Direct Statement Principle of Hermeneutics states, "God says what He means and means what He says." What do you suppose God meant when He said, "You SHALL NOT lie with a male as one lies with a female"? Again, if a child can understand Scripture, what would a child understand from this absolute moral declaration of prohibition?
Alex wants to convince people that "homosexuality" is a relatively new thing to our modern age and that apart from a few modern translations of the Bible in English, nobody in history has ever held to this understanding. However, I suggest you read my article, "Exegeting Homosexuality, Part 4," which is an examination of several Bible translations in various languages for 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2012/10/exegeting-homosexuality-part-4.html
I can do this for every passage regarding homosexuality and the results will be exactly the same. So, yet again, Alex is attempting his linguistic and etymological fallacies. Furthermore, Alex STILL has to contend with every quotation from history that comments on these passages as well as their times wherein they were living. History lets us know vividly and with great clarity that homosexuality was in view. Alex sweeps these facts and evidences under the rug because in order to maintain his position he must do so. He has no credibility whatsoever otherwise. Just goes to show how dishonest Alex is and to what lengths he's willing to go with his dishonesty.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
SODOM
ReplyDeleteTimothy,
If you’re going to write 10,000 words trying to find holes and/or what I said, I’d suggest for integrity’s sake you make sure you’re refuting what I actually did say and not what you hoped or dreamed I said.
In your thread of Sept 6 you said (and I quote):
“ALEX ATTEMPTS TO TELL US THAT THE BIBLE, IN EZEKIEL 16:49, TELLS US WHAT THE SINS OF SODOM SUPPOSEDLY WERE. HOWEVER, THE IRONIC THING HERE IS THAT IF ALEX WOULD CONTINUE HIS QUOTE INTO THE NEXT VERSE, RETAINING THE CONTEXT (SOMETHING ALEX FAILS TO PAY ATTENTION TO ON A HABITUAL BASIS), HE WOULD REFUTE HIMSELF. WHEN SATAN QUOTED FROM SCRIPTURE DURING THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS, HE STOPPED SHORT OF THE VERSE THAT SPELLED OUT HIS OWN CONDEMNATION.”
If you’re quoting from my blog you should have noticed that I did not quote Ez. 16:49 as an isolated verse as you speciously stated. But in fact, “[I did] continue [my] quote into the next verse, retaining the context.” Not only did I retain the context and comment on the full passage of Ez. 16:48-50, I went into detail on the entire chapter in which God, speaking though the prophet, spells out in striking detail EXACTLY what Sodom’s abhorrent sins entailed and then some.
Check your source: http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/genesis-19-what-the-bible-really-says-were-the-sins-of-sodom/
Specifically, I stated that here in Ezekiel 16, we read that the prophet declares the word of God, saying that a self-righteously religious Jerusalem had not only IMITATED the vile deeds of the Sodomites, but had become even MORE corrupt. Then the prophet spells out explicitly what God calls the sin of Sodom. Here we have the Bible commentating on the Bible. We can hardly get better Bible commentary than that! Here we have what the Bible says is God’s commentary on the story of Sodom and on Sodom’s sin. Note that contrary to what you infer: THERE IS NO MENTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN GOD’S COMMENTARY OF SODOM’S SIN.
In addition to charges that the Sodomites were arrogant, overfed, unconcerned, and did not help the poor and needy (16:49), God’s commentary on the story of Sodom and on Sodom’s sin also says Sodom “did detestable things before me” (16:50). You, as usual, are quick to stop here and say, “UM, IT’S HOMOSEXUAL; THAT SETTLES IT, LET’S MOVE ON.” But before you read your own homosexual boogey man interpretation into the text (which is eisegesis), let’s first see if the Bible tells us what these “detestable things” were. It is respectful of God’s gift to us to go after HIS intentions and meanings before arriving at YOUR OWN. Sure enough, we find that God, speaking though the prophet, spells out in striking “in your face” condemnation EXPLICITLY what Sodom’s abhorrent conduct entailed. AGAIN, NOWHERE DOES HE MENTION HOMOSEXUALITY!
(Sodom: Continued on page 2 of 4)
SODOM: Page 2 of 4
SODOM: Page 2 of 4
ReplyDeleteJerusalem we’re told has a resemblance to her “sister” Sodom (see 16:46, 16:48, 16:49, 16:56). The Lord repeatedly calls them sisters because they are kindred spirits in wickedness. They are also both ancient CANAANITE cities. (As you read on you’ll find out how significant this is!) Sodom was a leading Canaanite city (Gen 10:18) and, according to Ezekiel, a city where people would do anything to maintain their surfeit of wealth and ease and power. Sodom’s sister Jerusalem was also an old Canaanite city (16:1-3), conquered by King David who made it his new national capital. And here in Ezekiel 16, the prophet critiques the many CULTIC CANAANITE PRACTICES Jerusalem has adopted, many of which we note are quite revolting. But from the viewpoint of Ezekiel, this isn’t too surprising since Jerusalem was descended from pagans in the first place:
Ezekiel 16:1-3 says: “The word of the Lord came to me: Son of man, confront Jerusalem with HER DETESTABLE PRACTICES (no homosexual boogey man yet, Tim) and say, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says to Jerusalem: Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites…”
Here’s your key: THE ROOT OF THE UNITARY NATURE OF THESE “DETESTABLE PRACTICES” IS EVERYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE PAGAN CANAANITE RELIGION.
Canaanite religious practices were barbarous and thoroughly licentious. The astounding characteristic of Canaanite deities, that they had no moral character whatsoever, brought out the worst traits in their devotees and entailed many of the most demoralizing practices of the time. In his commentary on their sin in Ezekiel 16, God starts by indicating their vile deeds included CULTIC PROSTITUTION and building “HIGH PLACES” (16:15-16). The “High Places” were where they worshipped their pagan idols and participated in their idolatrous pagan rituals. God hated the High Places! When the Israelites came into the land of Canaan, they were ordered to destroy the “High Places” of the people who lived in the land (Exodus 23:24; Exodus 34:13; Numbers 33:52; Deut. 7:5; Deut. 12:3) lest the Israelites be tempted to worship the Canaanite false gods and accept their immoral behavior. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT CANAANITE IDOL WORSHIP HERE, NOT HOMOSEXUALITY -- IF YOU READ IN CONTEXT!
Read on, let’s see what God (and not Timothy or Alex) has to say:
As we go thru Ezekiel 16, some of the abhorrent “detestable things” God mentions include:
-- They made gaudy High Places of idol worship where they carried on their prostitution.
-- The made male idols and engaged in cultic prostitution.
-- The sacrificed their sons and daughters as food to the idols.
-- They made a lofty shrine in every public square to worship their pagan idols.
WHERE IS THE MENTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY?
IT’S NOT THERE!!!!!! WELL, SURPRISE, SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!
Don’t like these verses in Ezekiel 16, try Ezekiel 23; you’ll find more detestable practices.
WHERE IS THE MENTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY EZEKIEL 23?
IT’S NOT THERE EITHER!!!!!! SURPRISE, SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!
NOT IN ONE SINGLE INSTANCE IN THIS EXTENSIVE LIST OF VILE DEEDS, OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE 26 TIMES WHERE SODOM IS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE (18 IN THE OT AND 8 IN THE NT), IS THE SIN OF THE SODOMITES EVER SPECIFIED AS HOMOSEXUALITY!!!!!
(SODOM: Continued on page 3 of 4)
SODOM: Page 3 of 4
ReplyDeleteSeriously Tim, you’ve got to stop digging up the homosexual boogey man behind every bush and passage.
I’ve included some of the key Ezekiel passages at the bottom of this comment below.
BUT YOU ASK: WHAT ABOUT THE MALE-ON-MALE RAPE THAT GENESIS 19 MENTIONS?
Good question. Well Timothy, why don’t we try looking at THIS in context too. We should note that during biblical times men (and the kings) of conquered tribes were often raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. Male-to-male rape was a way for victors to accentuate the subjection of captive enemies and foes and a way of humiliating visitors and strangers. If we miss this, we not only miss what was going on in the Sodom Genesis 19 text, but we also miss the meaning behind other passages such as 1 Samuel 31:4 and 1 Chronicles 10:4 where Saul, gravely wounded by the Philistines, instructs his armor-bearer to:
“Draw your sword and thrust me through with it lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me.” (1 Chronicles 10:4)
THESE WERE NOT HOMOSEXUALS! THESE WERE SOLDIERS AND OTHERS SEEKING TO ACCENTUATE THE SUBJECTION OF THEIR CAPTIVE ENEMIES AND IT WAS A WAY OF HUMILIATING VISITORS AND STRANGERS!
There is a famous picture from Greece that celebrates the victory of the Athenians over the Persians in 460 BCE. In the picture a Greek soldier with erect penis in hand approaches from the rear a distressed, defeated Persian soldier who is bent over waiting to be raped by the Greek. The picture was intended to show, through the imagery of male-male sexual intercourse, that the Greeks now dominate the submissive Persians. THIS PICTURE WAS NOT PORNOGRAPHY; IT WAS POLITICS! In myth, law, treaties, monuments, and pottery decorations, political and military domination was often conventionally symbolized by sexual domination between men. The reason that the passive role in homoeroticism was disgraceful or shameful was because it was the role assumed to be natural for women.
Sorry. No homosexual boogey man.
Ezekiel passages for your edification:
*** The word of the Lord came to me: "Son of man, confront Jerusalem with her DETESTABLE PRACTICES and say, 'THIS IS WHAT THE SOVEREIGN LORD SAYS TO JERUSALEM: YOUR ANCESTRY AND BIRTH WERE IN THE LAND OF THE CANAANITES; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. (Ezekiel 16:1-3)
*** But you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become a PROSTITUTE. You lavished your favors on anyone who passed by and your beauty became his. You took some of your garments to make GAUDY HIGH PLACES, where you carried on your prostitution. Such things should not happen, nor should they ever occur. You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and YOU MADE FOR YOURSELF MALE IDOLS AND ENGAGED IN PROSTITUTION with them. (Ezekiel 16:15-17)
(SODOM: Continued on page 4 of 4)
SODOM: Page 4 of 4
ReplyDelete*** AND YOU TOOK YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS WHOM YOU BORE TO ME AND SACRIFICED THEM AS FOOD TO THE IDOLS. Was your prostitution not enough? YOU SLAUGHTERED MY CHILDREN AND SACRIFICED THEM TO THE IDOLS. (Ezekiel 16:20-21)
*** Woe! Woe to you, declares the Sovereign Lord. In addition to all your other wickedness, YOU BUILT A MOUND FOR YOURSELF AND MADE A LOFTY SHRINE IN EVERY PUBLIC SQUARE. At the head of every street YOU BUILT YOUR LOFTY SHRINES and degraded your beauty, offering your body with increasing promiscuity to anyone who passed by. (Ezekiel 16:23-25)
*** When YOU BUILT YOUR MOUNDS at the head of every street and MADE YOUR LOFTY SHRINES IN EVERY PUBLIC SQUARE, you were unlike a prostitute, because you scorned payment. (Ezekiel 16:31)
*** This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you poured out your wealth and exposed your nakedness in your promiscuity with your lovers, AND BECAUSE OF ALL YOUR DETESTABLE IDOLS, AND BECAUSE YOU GAVE THEM YOUR CHILDREN'S BLOOD, (Ezekiel 16:36)
*** Then I will hand you over to your lovers, and they will TEAR DOWN YOUR MOUNDS AND DESTROY YOUR LOFTY SHRINES. They will strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry and leave you naked and bare. Ezekiel 16:39a)
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
For more information, dear readers, please see these blog entries as well:
ReplyDelete1.) Exegesis: Not For the Faint of Heart
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2013/09/exegesis-not-for-faint-of-heart.html
2.) Genesis 19: What the Bible Says Were Really the Sins of Sodom
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2013/09/genesis-19.html
3.) Romans 1: What Was Paul Ranting About?
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2013/09/romans-1.html
4.) Why No One In the Biblical World Had a Word for Homosexuality
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2013/09/biblical-word-for-homosexuality.html
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
MALAKOS & ARSENOKOITES
ReplyDelete"We know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals (αρσενοκοιταις) and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God" (1 Timothy 1:8-11). "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (ουτε μαλακοι), nor homosexuals (ουτε αρσενοκοιται), nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Figuratively, μαλακοι means "effeminate" (having feminine qualities untypical of a man), such as transvestites (men who make themselves out to be women), or a person who allows himself to be sexually abused contrary to nature. There are those who argue that μαλακοι means "soft" (Matt. 11:8; Luke 7:25), but this is without warrant or justification. The former verses join μαλακοις to the word ιματιοις (clothing) in order to modify it. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, the phrase appears as ουτε μαλακοι. The word μαλακοι is not joined to any other word, which is what would be required in order to translate it as "soft". The question would arise, "Soft what?" Ergo, we must translate it according to its other meanings:
1. soft, soft to the touch
2. metaph. in a bad sense
a. effeminate
i. of a catamite
ii. of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
iii. of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
iv. of a male prostitute
The compound Greek word αρσενοκοιται comes from its root or stem words, αρσεν (a male) and κοιτε (a bed), and means "a male bed partner" or "a man who lies in bed with another male—a homosexual, a Sodomite, one who defiles himself with men". There are those who argue that we cannot translate αρσενοκοιται based upon the combined meanings of its root words because "the English word ‘understand’ has nothing to do with either standing or being under". This argument is illogical and lacks any common sense or knowledge of linguistics. In the English language, its compound words largely have nothing to do with their individual root words. However, for words taken directly from other languages, such as amuse, agnostic, atheist, amillennial, etc., they do. "A" is a negative prefix, meaning "no, not, or without". "Muse" means "to think". Ergo, "a-muse" means "not to think", although in our day and age it is used ignorantly and incorrectly as a positive term meaning "funny or entertaining". Amusements clearly involve the lack of active thought. So if fun and entertainment is "amusing", it is without thought. Hence why the television is referred to as an "idiot box".
Regarding the majority of other languages around the world, however, their compound words do have something to do with their individual root words. The Greek word παραλαμβνω means "to receive near". Its root words are παρα (near) and λαμβνω (to take, obtain, receive). Ergo, when the root words are combined, the compound word means "to receive near". This can be demonstrated with hundreds more Greek compound words. Aρσενοκοιται is no different. It means:
1. one who lies with a male as with a female (male bed partners), bugger, sodomite, homosexual
(continue to 2 of 3)
Some have said, "Aρσενοκοιται has been understood as referring to male-male sexual activity for a long time. 'Homosexual' is a (perhaps unhelpful) attempt to render that in contemporary English." How do you figure? Homosexuality, by definition, is "a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex". A homosexual, by definition, is "someone who is sexually attracted to (or sexually active with) people of their own sex". Male-male sexual activity is homosexuality. The most pathetic argument I have ever heard in this debate is the claim that all these verses are prohibiting heterosexual men from engaging in homosexual activities. Whoa! Let's stop and think for a moment here. That argument is completely and utterly illogical, lacking all common sense. A "heterosexual" male engaging in homosexual activity is, by definition, a homosexual. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are either male or female. There are only two genders of humanity: male and female. "Heterosexual" and "homosexual" are adjectives; they describe the character and behaviour of the individual. They only become nouns when the adjective is habitually true of the individual's life practices. Hence, you are born a heterosexual, at some point choose to be a homosexual (whether or not you remember having made that choice is irrelevant; you still made it), and, when you are either saved by the Lord Jesus or your conscience and common sense kick in, revert to a heterosexual once more. How about we throw out these terms, meant to obscure reality and truth, and deal with the words and descriptions contained therein.
ReplyDeleteThere are those who attempt to argue that there is no immediate context with which to interpret μαλακοι and αρσενοκοιται correctly. These individuals are dishonest and lacking any formal knowledge regarding context. When you read the words "You shall not murder", the context is crystal clear. It exists within those words. The specific context of each commandment is different from each of the other commandments. The general context, which is the inclusion of all ten commandments, is different from the individual contexts of each commandment. The book of Proverbs is largely a collection of verses that tend not to be related to the preceding or succeeding verses. The context of each of these lone verses is found within itself. So to say that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 contains no context with which to interpret the words correctly is simply being dishonest and self-deceived.
These words are defining characteristics of habitually practiced sin in one's life. These words not only describe your actions, but they define who you are. One is known to be such a person. Verse 11 states clearly, "Such were some of you". When Jesus saved them from their sins (Matt. 1:21) and the Holy Spirit regenerated them, they were new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17) who had put off the former lifestyles of their old man (Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9). They had repented of and forsaken their previous sins (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Rom. 8:13; 2 Tim. 2:19c) and would now live in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). The context is quite clear, when one is being honest and truthful.
(continue to 3 of 3)
It has been argued that it is not homosexuality that is in view in all these passages, but pederasty. This argument lacks any common sense and/or intelligent thought. Pederasty is sexual activity (esp. anal intercourse) involving a man and a boy. Mαλακοι could be interpreted as "catamite", a boy kept for homosexual practices. Aρσενοκοιται could be interpreted as "sodomite", a man who commits lechery with men, a man who abuses himself with men, a man who defiles himself with men. By arguing that pederasty is in view, homosexuals are completely (and ignorantly) undermining their own stance. Pederasty is a form of homosexuality. It has no affiliation to pedophilia. No matter how you try and dice it, these two words describe the active and passive roles within homosexuality. Interestingly enough, "peder", which is a Croatian word, means "gay, queer, homosexual". Furthermore, Bernadette Brooten (a lesbian New Testament scholar who taught at Harvard Divinity School and currently teaches at Brandeis) wrote:
ReplyDelete"If . . . the dehumanizing aspects of pederasty motivated Paul to condemn sexual relations between males, then why did he condemn relations between females in the same sentence? . . . Rom 1:27, like Lev 18:22 and 20:13, condemns all males in male-male relationships regardless of age, making it unlikely that lack of mutuality or concern for the passive boy were Paul’s central concerns. . . . The ancient sources, which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’s theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty."1
To return once more to the structure of Greek compound words, I bring your attention to the Greek paederastia. Its root words are παις (boy) and εραστης (lover). When combined, the compound word means "lover of boys". Here again is an example that flies in the face of the weak argument based on English compound words such as "understand", "butterfly", "honeymoon", "mandate", etc. The English language is not the Greek language, and vice versa. You cannot apply the rules for English grammar to other languages. This is the height of linguistic ignorance.
--------------------
1 Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, 253.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
(For an examination of how the interpretation of these two words has been equivalent throughout every translation and every version of the Bible, see this blog entry: http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2012/10/exegeting-homosexuality-part-4.html)
Dear Reader,
ReplyDeleteAlex Haiken constantly and consistently laces his e-mails, blog articles, and responses with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, conclusions drawn on assumptions, fallacious arguments, pretext, front-loading, and eisegetical interpretations. He side-steps, skirts around, dodges, and avoids answering the facts and evidence presented to him, repeatedly arguing the exact same way every time: "You're wrong, Timothy, because I said so. I will not answer any of the facts and evidence you provide me with because I unable to do so, but will simply tell you how wrong you are and accuse you of the very things I myself am guilty of because I'm a hypocrite. I'll make up a bunch of stuff and hope people believe me on the basis that I sound intelligent, as if I know what I'm talking about when really I don't, because I'm a willfully deceitful liar." His arguments are based on his feelings and opinions, rather than on facts and evidence. Alex relies on the unscholarly works of such homosexual authors as John Boswell, Jack Rogers, and Dale Martin (to name a few). These men have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, and their works have been exposed to be filled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. Alex is willfully deceitful to anyone who will give credence to his venomous lies because he is, after all, the son of his father, the devil. Alex, like most homosexuals, is a grand liar, willing to twist, manipulate, and malign the truth, Scriptural or otherwise, for his own ends. If this were a public debate, he would have been crying in defeat long ago. He knows he is beaten, and his conscience bears him witness to the fact, but his stubborn pride forces him to keep lying, keep manipulating truth, keep maligning Scripture, and keep coming up with the same tired old lame argument in rebuttal to the facts and evidence I bury him with that utterly dismantle his position: "You're wrong, Timothy, because I said so. I will not answer any of the facts and evidence you provide me with because I unable to do so, but will simply tell you how wrong you are and accuse you of the very things I myself am guilty of because I'm a hypocrite. I'll make up a bunch of stuff and hope people believe me on the basis that I sound intelligent, as if I know what I'm talking about when really I don't, because I'm a willfully deceitful liar." Alex knows the truth on this issue. He can either face it here on Earth, where he still has a chance to repent unto salvation, or he can face it in Hell where it will be too late for him. Pray for his soul, and encourage him that today is the day of salvation wherein he needs to repent, otherwise he will likewise perish.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Dear Reader,
ReplyDeleteDon't be fooled by Alex Haiken's ignorant and foolish assumptions and conclusions drawn from assumptions. Don't be fooled by his ignorant and foolish declaration that the inhabitants of Sodom wanted to sexually humiliate strangers and visitors. This is nothing more than homosexual propaganda based on sloppy and dishonest scholarship. No such actions ever took place in history. If they had, word would have gotten out and nobody would have traveled there. Those cities would self-destruct because they would have no merchants bringing anything to them. Moreover, if such things took place, there would be accounts of it, to which there are not. Alex Haiken and his homosexual friends and making up lies yet again.
This "famous picture from Greece" that Alex likes to refer to so much is also a homosexual propaganda lie. It has nothing to do with what Alex attempts to willfully deceive people into believing. Homosexuals give it this understanding in order to try and convince people of their fallacious and egregious lies. Furthermore, no soldiers ever did such things to other men either. This is yet again Alex Haiken's inferences upon things. Alex Haiken will stoop at nothing to manipulate and malign the truth.
The fact is, whether Alex likes it or not, and whether he wants to admit it or not, the Bible condemns homosexuality on EVERY page, from Genesis to Revelation. There are 8 specific passages that condemn homosexuality, but there are THOUSANDS of passages that uplift and elevate heterosexual relationships and marriage, which necessarily condemn homosexuality as well. The fact homosexuality is NEVER mentioned in Scripture except with strong condemnation is proof positive that homosexuality is NOT normal behaviour for human beings. It is a perversion of both human and sexual nature. The Bible repetitiously speaks of the union of husband and wife, retaining the correlation between the two. It never once addresses same-sex relations, except to condemn them as abominations before God.
Alex can argue until he is blue in the face, folks, but he has already lost this battle. The person who he is truly arguing with is God, and Alex will not win that argument, no matter how many people agree with Alex's position. God against the rest of the world equals God as victor. Sorry, Alex, but you ARE fighting a losing battle here, and you know it, regardless of how willfully ignorant (being dumb on purpose) you choose to be.
Homosexuality has NOTHING to do with ethnic minority. You CHOOSE your sexual behaviour, NOT your skin colour. Trying to equate homosexuality with "racism" or slavery or any true ethnic group is not only a travesty of logic, but it is also a travesty of fallacious, pathetic, and foundationally baseless arguments. Homosexuality can ONLY be equated and compared with other sexually deviant behaviors or fantasies, like sadomasochism, bestiality, necrophilia, rape, pedophilia, and also pornography. Homosexuals are such great liars, manipulators and maligners of the truth, that they will attempt to relate themselves to anything in order to try and convince the masses that homosexuality "is just another thing."
Dear Reader,
ReplyDeleteAlex Haiken, the professional liar, manipulator, maligner, and twister of truths, attempts to tell us that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are condemning homosexuality for "religious" purposes but not for "moral purposes." He claims this condemnation of homosexuality had to do with "cult prostitution." You, the intelligent and educated reader, are wise enough to know that his argument is both outrageously bogus and laughably fallacious. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that uncovering the nakedness of your father or your mother (18:7), of your father's wife (18:8), of your sister (18:9), of your son's daughter (18:10), of your father's wife's daughter (18:11), of your father's sister (18:12), of your mother's sister (18:13), of your father's brother (18:14), of your daughter-in-law (18:15), of your brother's wife (18:16), or any other blood relatives (18:17) has anything to do with cult prostitution? Good try, Alex, but how about you try and retain the CONTEXT. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that having intimacy with a woman during her menstrual cycle (18:19) or having sex with your neighbour's wife (18:20) has anything to do with cult prostitution? The ONLY verse that has ANYTHING to do with idolatry and religious practices is verse 21, which is borne out through the entirety of Scripture. The heathen would sacrifice their children to their various gods. NOTHING else in this chapter has to do with idolatrous practices, NOR with cult prostitution. By what great exegetical miracle do you expect to convince us that having sex with animals was a religious practice, Alex (18:23)? People were doing it when God decided to flood the world, and they are doing it today without the slightest trace of religion attached to it. The passage DOES NOT connect it with idolatrous practice whatsoever. It condemns it entirely, just as it does with homosexual behaviour (18:22). Honestly, Alex, you need to go back to school and educate yourself as to what "CONTEXT" actually is. Pay close attention to verse 21, because "nor shall you profane the name of your God" has NOTHING to do with idolatrous religious practices. This is the third commandment reiterated. It is not connected with the first half of verse 21. You might do well to be reminded, Alex, that the chapter and verse divisions DID NOT exist in the original Hebrew and Greek. Try and remember that when considering what CONTEXT truly is and what it consists of. If you knew anything about Hebrew grammar, this would be obvious to you.
(continue to 2 of 2)
As for Leviticus 20, the same thing applies. If you paid attention to the CONTEXT, Alex, you would see that the verses speaking of idolatrous religious practices again address child sacrifice (20:2-5). NONE of the rest of this chapter has anything to do with religious idolatry. You could try and argue that verse 6 does, but you would be in error. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that cursing one's father or mother (20:9), or committing adultery with another man's wife (20:10), or lying with one's father's wife (20:11), or lying with one's daughter-in-law (20:12), or marrying a woman and her mother (20:14), or having sex with an animal (20:15-16), or discovering one's sister's nakedness (20:17), or having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle (20:18), etc., etc., etc., has anything to do with religious idolatry? Alex is reaching yet again, as ALL the evidence is against him. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 have NOTHING to do with religious idolatry or cult prostitution. Alex is reading this into the text, which is called eisegesis. EVERYTHING in these chapters are prohibitions set by God. The behaviour of homosexuality is prohibited by God and condemned as an abominable perversion. So as you can see, dear reader, Alex manipulates, maligns, and twists these passages to say what he wants them to say, when a clear study of the CONTEXT reveals otherwise. Again, do not be fooled by his fallacious and egregious lies. He will reap what he is sowing soon enough--his own destruction via eternity in Hell. Pray that God would have mercy on his soul and save him.
ReplyDeleteTimothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
PLAGIARISM
ReplyDeleteTimothy,
As you are aware, you have repeatedly accused me plagiarism, among other things, in this debate. Case in point: As pointed out, in one of your recent posts you stated (and I quote):
“ALEX PLAGIARIZES AN ARGUMENT FROM DALE MARTIN, CLAIMING THE COMPOUND GREEK WORD ‘ARSENOKOITES’ CANNOT POSSIBLY REFER TO HOMOSEXUALITY BECAUSE OF THE DEFINITIONS OF ITS ROOT WORDS.”
Similarly, you have repeatedly averred that I know nothing about exegesis. For example, in you comment on Sept 3 you stated (and I quote):
“ALEX, YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SOUND BIBLICAL EXEGESIS OR CONTEXT.”
In light of these accusations its particularly curious that you published a post on your blog on exegesis on October 2, 2012, in which almost half the text was nothing more than a copy and paste of the post I published on my blog on exegesis over a year easier on August 26, 2011.
If you’ll compare the two posts you’ll see that the blocks of text which appear below in CAPS were lifted (plagiarized) word for word entirely from my post of over a year earlier. You even copy and pasted my typographical error!!!
Alex’s post: “Exegesis: Not for the Faint in Heart”
Date Posted: August 26, 2011
Link: http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/exegesis-not-for-the-faint-in-heart/
Timothy’s post: “Exegesis vs. Eisegesis”
Date Posted: Oct 2, 2012
Link: http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2012/10/exegesis-vs-eisegesis.html
ALEX TEXT: “THE WORD "EXEGESIS" COMES FROM THE GREEK VERB WHICH MEANS "TO DRAW OUT". SIMPLY PUT, EXEGESIS IS ABOUT DRAWING OUT FROM THE TEXT THE TRUE MEANING OF A BIBLICAL VERSE OR PASSAGE. EXEGESIS, THEN, IS AN INVESTIGATION”
ALEX TEXT: “TODAY'S READER MUST TRY TO ENTER THE WORLD OF THE BIBLICAL AUTHOR AND SEEK TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE AUTHOR WAS SAYING. IF WE FAIL TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE WORLD IN WHICH THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN, WE WILL SIMPLY READ BIBLICAL TEXTS AND INFUSE THEM WITH MEANING FROM OUR SOCIAL WORLD AND CONCLUDE THAT THE BIBLE DOES NOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO OUR CIRCUMSTANCES.”
ALEX TEXT: “IN CONTRAST TO THIS, WHAT MANY DO INSTEAD IS WHAT SOME THEOLOGIANS REFER TO AS "FRONTLOADING"; I.E., THEY READ THEIR OWN PERSONAL, POLITICAL, OR IDEOLOGICAL BELIEFS BACK INTO THE BIBLE INSTEAD OF READING OUT FROM THE BIBLE WHAT THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS WERE SAYING. THIS PROCESS OF READING ONE'S OWN PRESUPPOSITIONS, AGENDAS, BIASES, AND/OR IDEAS INTO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IS CALLED "EISEGESIS"
ALEX TEXT: “EXEGESIS AND EISEGESIS ARE CONFLICTING APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING THE BIBLE. WHY? EXEGESIS IS READING OUT FROM THE BIBLE WHAT THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS WERE SAYING. EISEGESIS IS READING INTO THE BIBLE ONE'S OWN IDEAS OR PREJUDICES. EXEGESIS IS ABOUT DRAWING OUT THE TRUE MEANING OF A BIBLE PASSAGE. EISEGESIS IS ABOUT PUTTING INTO THE TEXT SOMETHING NEVER INTENDED BY THE AUTHOR.”
I’m flattered that you’re reading my blog and doing well under my tutelage. But don’t you think that if you’re going to accuse me of plagiarism and not knowing about exegesis, it might be wise to avoid plagiarizing my post on exegesis?
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Alex,
ReplyDeleteIsn't it interesting how you claim my post on exegesis as your own. First and foremost, the only post I have ever read on your site was the one on Leviticus 18, where you twist, manipulate, and malign it's context. So it is very UNLIKELY my blog on exegesis came from you. Second, bits and pieces of my article tied together to make a whole came from various sources online and in books as a collaboration, such as Wikipedia. Where I have an exact quotation, I provide the source reference (something you fail to do). Third, if anything, Alex, your blog is a plagiarization of MY words through the various and many e-mails we have been sending back and forth because the whole of my blog was taken from the various statements I made to you in those letters. Lastly, anything outside those discussions that is even remotely similar, you obviously had the same source I did, but you are attempting to claim it as your own, just like you do with all your e-mails and responses. However, I have found many of your arguments, word-for-word, in the works of John Boswell, Jack Rogers, and Dale Martin. Yet you NEVER source them, and claim you wrote it yourself. So, yes, Alex, you are a plagiarist. So obviously YOU have learned the definition of exegesis well from MY tutelage, but you STILL fail to appropriate it correctly.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Alex Haiken said, "Check your source: http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/genesis-19-what-the-bible-really-says-were-the-sins-of-sodom/"
ReplyDeleteSorry, Alex, but that is my NOT source. I have never read that blog entry. My source is YOUR OWN WORDS in e-mails and responses such as these. The fact your answers bob around so much and are never consistent is, again, proof positive that you have no clue what you're talking about and will latch on to whatever excuse helps you dull your conscience and sleep at night.
For argument's sake, Alex, let's assume I "plagiarized" your words. But, as I said, I have NEVER read your blog entry on the subject, so it is impossible that that is where I got it from. So let's assume I borrowed what you said in our e-mail exchanges.
ReplyDeleteFirst, since I have NEVER read your blog, if I borrowed from what you had to say and it matches what is written in your blog, it goes to prove another point I made concerning you, that you do NOTHING original but copy and paste EVERYTHING (not always in the same order) you write. Jerry and I have SEVERAL e-mails from you where the things you say are not in the same order, yet they consist of the EXACT same wording (errors and all) as EVERY prior e-mail you have ever sent. It goes, again, to prove your reliance on the "Repetition Fallacy," copy and pasting everything instead of being original in your writing. The one blog I have read on your site, in EVERY response you gave to the people who called you on being caught with your hand in the cookie jar, your responses consisted of the EXACT same copy and paste words in the EXACT same order, although some of the paragraphs were in different orders.
Second, the fact remains strong that you know NOTHING about sound biblical exegesis or context. Just because you can state the rules correctly DOES NOT mean you know anything about exegesis, Alex. I can quote stuff to you about cars that is true, yet I know absolutely nothing about cars. I won't pretend to know anything about cars, yet YOU pretend to know something about exegesis despite the evidence to the contrary. The fact remains, Alex, that you consistently fail to exercise and put into practice the rules of hermeneutics and sound biblical exegesis. In your letters you DID state some correct and proper things about exegesis. However, as is typical of you, you failed to source the resource material you plagiarized it from. You pretend it's all "your" words, yet I have located SEVERAL word-for-word plagiarisms in your letters where you failed to source the original author, and many of those I own their works to. It makes me wonder how much more of what you write is plagiarized that I don't have the original sources to.
Lastly, since you are accusing me of plagiarizing you, let's examine your claims. But, first, where is this supposed "typographical error" I "plagiarized" from you?
Alex said, "ALEX TEXT: “THE WORD "EXEGESIS" COMES FROM THE GREEK VERB WHICH MEANS "TO DRAW OUT". SIMPLY PUT, EXEGESIS IS ABOUT DRAWING OUT FROM THE TEXT THE TRUE MEANING OF A BIBLICAL VERSE OR PASSAGE. EXEGESIS, THEN, IS AN INVESTIGATION”"
TIMOTHY TEXT: "The word "exegesis" comes from the Greek verb εξηγησις (from εξηγεισθαι "to lead out"), which means "to draw out"."
Now, not only is that NOT an exact match for what you claim I plagiarized, but in EVERY one of your e-mails, your words are, "The word exegesis means 'to draw out.'" Period.
As for the "Simply put, exegesis is about drawing out from the text the true meaning of a biblical verse or passage. Exegesis, then, is an investigation.", that is pretty much verbatim to EVERY book on the subject as well as EVERY biblical class that speaks of the process. Kind of hard to plagiarize something that is spoken in those exact words pretty much all the time, including in sermons. I wouldn't even accuse YOU of plagiarizing that bit as it is so common.
(continue to 2 of 2)
Alex said, "ALEX TEXT: “IN CONTRAST TO THIS, WHAT MANY DO INSTEAD IS WHAT SOME THEOLOGIANS REFER TO AS "FRONTLOADING"; I.E., THEY READ THEIR OWN PERSONAL, POLITICAL, OR IDEOLOGICAL BELIEFS BACK INTO THE BIBLE INSTEAD OF READING OUT FROM THE BIBLE WHAT THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS WERE SAYING. THIS PROCESS OF READING ONE'S OWN PRESUPPOSITIONS, AGENDAS, BIASES, AND/OR IDEAS INTO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IS CALLED "EISEGESIS""
ReplyDeleteNow, I'll admit that I borrowed what you had to say about front-loading. However, you failed to source where you got it from. After all, you're always claiming some theologians speak about this. Which ones? You didn't pull it out of a hat, so try sourcing your references.
Isn't it interesting that you claim I copied something from you that is explained more fully by me (and contains a trademark of mine): "This process of reading one's own presuppositions, agendas, biases, and/or ideas into the interpretation of the Bible is called "eisegesis", from the Greek εις, which means "into"." In my works, Alex, I FREQUENTLY refer to the Hebrew and Greek (in its original form), as anyone can see from my responses on here. When do you EVER refer to it (least of all in its original form), except when you're trying to make up imaginary nonsense like attempting to relate Romans 1:26-27 to Romans 11:24?
Oh! By the way, Alex, copying and pasting stuff I've written to you into your blog and claiming I "plagiarized" you is dishonest. The post date on a blog entry doesn't change when you add stuff to it. This supposed "ALEX TEXT" I conveyed to you on more than one occasion: "EXEGESIS AND EISEGESIS ARE CONFLICTING APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING THE BIBLE. WHY? EXEGESIS IS READING OUT FROM THE BIBLE WHAT THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS WERE SAYING. EISEGESIS IS READING INTO THE BIBLE ONE'S OWN IDEAS OR PREJUDICES. EXEGESIS IS ABOUT DRAWING OUT THE TRUE MEANING OF A BIBLE PASSAGE. EISEGESIS IS ABOUT PUTTING INTO THE TEXT SOMETHING NEVER INTENDED BY THE AUTHOR."
As for the second paragraph quote you claim I copied from you, the evidence to the contrary is plain. Even when I wrote it, I never liked this part, "AND CONCLUDE THAT THE BIBLE DOES NOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO OUR CIRCUMSTANCES." Why? Because it isn't correct and doesn't flow correctly with what was said before. If we infuse the text with meaning from OUR time, it's incorrect to say it doesn't speak directly to OUR circumstances, for we would have just made it do so, which is what you are constantly trying to do by infusing the text with modern-day acceptance of homosexual behaviour. Fact is, I never got around to fixing that error. Even now I'm trying to sort it out in my head as to what I really wanted to say. Fact remains, that statement is incorrect and utterly ludicrous. If you want to take credit for it, by all means, go ahead. :oD
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Decided to check out your blog article on exegesis. Noticed you cannot even quote yourself accurately.
ReplyDeleteAlex said, "ALEX TEXT: “THE WORD "EXEGESIS" COMES FROM THE GREEK VERB WHICH MEANS "TO DRAW OUT". SIMPLY PUT, EXEGESIS IS ABOUT DRAWING OUT FROM THE TEXT THE TRUE MEANING OF A BIBLICAL VERSE OR PASSAGE. EXEGESIS, THEN, IS AN INVESTIGATION”"
VERBATIM FROM ALEX'S BLOG: "Though the word might sound a bit scary, “exegesis” comes from the Greek verb which means “to draw out”. Simply put, exegesis is about drawing out from the text the true meaning of a Bible passage. Or phrased a bit differently, it means getting out of the text what it originally meant to the author and to the original intended audience, without reading into the text the many traditional interpretations that may have grown up around it.
Exegesis then is an investigation."
Quite the difference. You claim I plagiarize something from you and you can't even copy your own text correctly. As I have said before, your work is filled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. You copied your own text in error; you selectively cited your own text to make it fit better with what I had said; you truncated the quotation of your own text... It's bad enough you do it with everybody else's work, but now you do it to your own, too? *LMAO*
Your second misquotation:
Alex said, "ALEX TEXT: “IF WE FAIL TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE WORLD IN WHICH THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN, WE WILL SIMPLY READ BIBLICAL TEXTS AND INFUSE THEM WITH MEANING FROM OUR SOCIAL WORLD AND CONCLUDE THAT THE BIBLE DOES NOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO OUR CIRCUMSTANCES.”"
DIRECTLY FROM ALEX'S BLOG: "If we fail to pay attention to the world in which the Bible was written, we will simply read biblical texts, infuse them with meaning from our social and symbolic world and conclude that the Bible speaks directly to us."
What happened to the "AND SYMBOLIC" from your page? Obviously what you called "ALEX TEXT" was really "TIMOTHY TEXT," because it's identical to mine, not yours. Clearly when you added this to your blog, you added "AND SYMBOLIC" because there's nothing symbolic about our world. Also, why is it that my text said "DOES NOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO US" and yours says "SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO US"? Yet you quote mine as being yours. You're so dishonest it is laughable. I can't believe you modified my error from a negative statement to a positive statement. You've made it even more ludicrous than mine.
Thanks for the laugh, Alex.
Alex said: "Our ability to do sound exegesis has increased exponentially over the past century. This is because today we actually know more about the Bible than at any previous time in history, including even in later biblical times."
ReplyDeleteThis statement is so laughably ludicrous and egregious that it makes my sides hurt. How truly ignorant you really are, Alex. This is a fallacious declaration that is untrue to the uttermost. Clearly you don't know your history very well, nor your theology. Your statement sounds like it comes from Dispensational thought, and the Dispensational teachings on Scripture have been proven to be false. Anyone who actually READS their Bible for what it SAYS and examines the original WORDS and their GRAMMAR can attest to that fact. We know more than they did in the dark ages, but we do not know more than the entire history of man. If you studied your history at all, and the great minds that the church has possessed over the years, next to NONE today are as keen and bright as MANY from the past. Compare the writings of most modern-day authors to that of the Puritans and Reformers. The Puritans and Reformers were deep and theological. The modern-day crap is filled with cotton-candy fluff. Compare modern-day "devotionals" so-called to devotionals written by Oswald Chambers or Charles Spurgeon. I starve to death reading the modern-day crap, but eat a three-course meal with the older stuff. Many of the older authors, preachers, and theologians could read, write, and speak a combination of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English, whereas how many writers today do you see doing that? Next to NONE. Modern commentaries are so wishy-washy that it is repugnant.
Thanks, Alex, that was the best laugh I've had all day. Even better than realizing you copied your own text incorrectly and left things out deliberately. Maybe you should become a comedian, because you suck as a theologian. *LOL*
Now, this really IS my final response to you, Alex. You'll not draw me out again with your sly tactics. The fact remains, the Bible condemns homosexuality on EVERY page from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. It CONDEMNS homosexual behaviour and activity with 8 verses and AFFIRMS heterosexual behaviour and activity EVERYWHERE else. Hundreds upon hundreds of verses and passages. There are NONE that affirm homosexual behaviour and activity because it is UNNATURAL and a PERVERSION of BOTH human and sexual natures. You can argue these facts that are backed BY Scripture and FROM nature all you want, but you know them to be true as well as I do, whether you choose to admit it or not. Whether you like it or not, NOTHING is going to change in this respect. You can twist, manipulate, and malign God's Word all you want, but you STILL WILL NOT inherit the kingdom of God. You are a child of wrath who serves both sin and the devil. You cannot discern the truth or spiritual things because you are Spiritually bankrupt. You do not possess the Holy Spirit. You are STILL dead in your trespasses and sins. God is not mocked, Alex. You can do whatever you want and say whatever you want, but you're NOT going to change His mind on this issue. Homosexuality is a sin that is justifiably condemnable to eternity in hell. You can argue your childish protests with lack of evidence all you want, but even ex-homosexuals saved by the grace of God will tell you otherwise. Your feelings and opinions DO NOT interpret Scripture, Alex, no matter how much you want them to. You are infusing the text that way, and this is eisegesis. If all of a sudden lying was acceptable in our society, you would try and argue the Bible says nothing about lying and does not condemn it. You will always seek to make the Bible say what you want to believe, Alex, because you are an unrepentant, unregenerate heathen. You are the son of your father--the devil. He is the father of lies, and you are a liar just like him. Not only do you lie to yourself, but you lie to others. You are one of the most willfully deceitful and dishonest people I have ever met. Then again, most homosexuals are. Good bye, Alex. I hope one day God saves your soul so that I might rejoice with you in your salvation. It will continue to be my prayer.
ReplyDeleteTimothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
SEX WITH ANIMALS IN LEVITICUS
ReplyDeleteTimothy,
In addition to shamelessly plagiarizing my blog post on Exegesis after (a) falsely accusing me of plagiarizing “unscholarly homosexual authors” and (b) asserting that I “know nothing about biblical exegesis,” you also asked me in your comment thread of Sept 8:
“BY WHAT GREAT EXEGETICAL MIRACLE DO YOU EXPECT TO CONVINCE US THAT HAVING SEX WITH ANIMALS WAS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE, ALEX (LEV 18:23)?”
This is not the first time you asked this nor is it the first time I’m answering. Do you not bother to read the information I provide you? Or do you just ignore whatever invalidates your own arguments and demonstrates they’re not exegetically supportable?
The Evangelical scholar Christopher J.H. Wright, among numerous others Bible scholars and historians, answers your question: In the “New Bible Commentary (21st Century Edition),” Intervarsity Press, 1994, Wright says of the sexual references in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20:
“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.” [Christopher J. H. Wright, “Leviticus,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson, 4th ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994]
Christopher J.H. Wright, as you may know, is an Evangelical scholar with a Ph.D. in Old Testament ethics. He was professor of Old Testament at Union Biblical Seminary, All Nations Christian College and is the author of over 15 books which are known for their sound hermeneutics and exegesis. But if you don’t believe him, me or any of the other Evangelical Bible scholars who say so, go ask any ancient Near East historian.
Until you do your homework and pay attention, not just to the TEXTUAL context, but also to the SOCIAL and HISTORICAL context of the text, you will never understand the biblical world and you will never understand the biblical prohibitions. As I’ve reminded you repeatedly, one of the most prominent and pervasive themes weaving its way through virtually every book of the Bible is that of paganism and the constant call to turn from it; to turn from worshiping the false pagan gods of the day and to turn instead to the one true living God, Yahweh. In connection with this is the constant admonition to turn from participating in a myriad of abhorrent pagan rituals and practices. Both the OT and NT spend page after page condemning these practices. But most of us have no idea what they are since they’re now extinct and totally foreign to our contemporary thinking. As long as you refuse to look at any of this, you’re not doing exegesis. You’re doing eisegesis: you’re reading own ideas and personal prejudices back into the Bible, i.e., you’re reading things into the text that were never intended by the author. Go back and re-read my blog post on exegesis that you plagiarized. Here’s the link:
http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/exegesis-not-for-the-faint-in-heart/
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
LIES TO COVER UP LIES
ReplyDeleteTimothy,
In my last comment I answered your question, “BY WHAT GREAT EXEGETICAL MIRACLE DO YOU EXPECT TO CONVINCE US THAT HAVING SEX WITH ANIMALS WAS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE, ALEX (LEV 18:23)?” Hopefully, you can begin to see now it’s no miracle at all; it’s just biblical exegesis, the tool I’ve talked about from the beginning and the key to whether we interpret the Bible responsibly or ignore the biblical world and read our own concerns and prejudices back into the text.
You also stated (and I quote you):
Timothy says: “FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, ALEX, LET'S ASSUME I "PLAGIARIZED" YOUR WORDS. BUT, AS I SAID, I HAVE NEVER READ YOUR BLOG ENTRY ON THE SUBJECT, SO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THAT IS WHERE I GOT IT FROM. SO LET'S ASSUME I BORROWED WHAT YOU SAID IN OUR E-MAIL EXCHANGES. FIRST, SINCE I HAVE NEVER READ YOUR BLOG, IF I BORROWED FROM WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY AND IT MATCHES WHAT IS WRITTEN IN YOUR BLOG, IT GOES TO PROVE ANOTHER POINT I MADE CONCERNING YOU, THAT YOU DO NOTHING ORIGINAL BUT COPY AND PASTE EVERYTHING (NOT ALWAYS IN THE SAME ORDER) YOU WRITE.”
You have not been honest with us. That is simply telling more lies in an attempt to cover up other ones. For the record:
FIRST: As already established, my blog post on Exegesis was written in Aug 2011; yours was written in Oct 2012. Moreover, you and I never made contact with each other by email until 2012. Check your email archive. So there were no email exchanges between us before then.
SECOND: Your emails to me from 2012 not only reference my blog, but many of the emails were generated directly from my blog, sent by WordPress. So your claim that you “have never read my blog” is another fib.
THIRD: Since WordPress indicates specifically which blog post(s) a reader is responding to, we also know that you not only did read my blog, but you read and responded to quite a few of my posts.
FOURTH: If I copy and paste my own material that I wrote and published on my own blog, it is still my original writing. On the other hand, if you copy and paste material that I wrote and published on my blog, that is not original; it is plagiarism.
FIFTH: You didn’t “borrow” from what I had to say, you stole it. You plagiarized my words and then you lied about it. Let’s at least be honest and call it what it is. I don’t mind that you’re learning from me. The truth is I don’t even mind that you claim it as your own. We all stand on the shoulders of others who came before us. I do too. And we all borrow from others. But for heaven’s sake, don’t plagiarize my post on Exegesis and then try to attack my character, as you have done consistently, by claiming that I know nothing about the subject.
What makes this act particularly troubling is that while claiming that I know nothing about Exegesis, you (a) not only are aware that I do know about Exegesis, but (b) obviously believe that I’m “spot on” enough when it comes to writing and speaking about Exegesis, that you copied my exact words on it. You also copied my exact words on EISEGESIS. And you copied my exact words to describe how and why they are conflicting approaches to interpreting the Bible. Then you lie to us to try and cover it up.
LASTLY: The fact that you then go so far as to suggest that I’m the one who copy and pasted the text from you gives us some appreciated insight into your character.
The above, of course, does not even cite the horrendously cruel and contemptible things you have consistently said about gay individuals as a whole class of people throughout this exchange. I think back to Jesus and how offensive he must have found many of the people he dealt with. Yet he treated them with respect, compassion, and love. Even if you conclude that all homosexual behavior is wrong, you are still compelled to respond with love. You don’t attempt to discredit someone’s character -- or an entire class of people -- because they disagree with you.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
“UNSCHOLARLY HOMOSEXUAL AUTHORS” OR EVANGELICAL SCHOLARS?
ReplyDeleteOne of the many contrived claims Timothy made in this extended thread is his repeatedly accusing me of plagiarizing (and I quote him) “UNSCHOLARLY WORKS OF SUCH HOMOSEXUAL AUTHORS AS JOHN BOSWELL, JACK ROGERS, AND DALE MARTIN.” He made this same claim no less than (12) times in the thread above.
Here are the facts:
Fact #1: I have never quoted from Jack Rogers or Dale Martin.
Fact #2: I have never ever read Dale Martin.
Fact #3: Jack Rogers is not a homosexual.
Fact #4: And the only quote I ever used from Boswell (since I don’t agree with a lot of what he says) is his legitimate point that in not a single instance in the extensive list of vile deeds, or anywhere else in the 26 times where Sodom is mentioned in the Bible, is the sin of the Sodomites ever specified as homosexuality.
More importantly, had Timothy read my reply to his comments on the Greek term “arsenokoitai,” to cite only one example, he would have noted the evangelical scholars I did quote included the following:
(1) I quoted Dr. Alan F. Johnson from his commentary “1 Corinthians” (InterVarsity Press, 2004). Johnson, among many others, points out that arsenokoitai “is unknown in Greek literature before these references”. No “unscholarly homosexual author” here. Johnson has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, is Emeritus Professor of New Testament and Christian Ethics at Wheaton College and author of commentaries on Paul’s letter to the Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Revelation.
(2) I quoted The Fundamentalist Journal, for which Jerry Falwell was the Executive Editor and which was published by his Old-Time Gospel Hour. Writing on the Greek terms “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai,” The Fundamentalist Journal acknowledges that “These words are difficult to translate.” No “unscholarly homosexual authors” here.
(3) I quoted Dr. Gordon D. Fee, Evangelical Bible scholar and former professor at Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary. Fee is also the author of numerous books on biblical exegesis, including co-author of the popular “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth” (Zondervan, 2003), a required read at most Evangelical seminaries, as it was at mine. In his book, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians,” (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1987), Fee said about arsenokoitai, “This is its first appearance in preserved literature and subsequent authors are reluctant to use it, especially when describing homosexual activity.” No “unscholarly homosexual author” here.
Fee also wisely noted: “We tend to think that our understanding is the same thing as the Holy Spirit’s or human author’s intent. However, we invariably bring to the text all that we are, with all of our experiences, culture, and prior understandings of words and ideas. Sometimes, what we bring to the text, unintentionally to be sure, leads us astray, or else causes us to read all kinds of foreign ideas into the text.” This is one of the many things I’ve repeatedly cautioned Tim about.
(4) I quoted Dr. Edwin Palmer, biblical scholar with a Th.B. from Westminster Theological Seminary and a Th.D., from Free University of Amsterdam. He served as executive secretary on the NIV Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), coordinator of all translation work on the NIV, and was the first general editor of The NIV Study Bible. He also taught for years at Westminster Theological Seminary, my own alma mater. Notably Palmer said that NIV translators did no close study of these terms that scholars admit are "more difficult" than the others in Paul's list. No “unscholarly homosexual author” here.
(Continued on Past 2 of 2)
“UNSCHOLARLY HOMOSEXUAL AUTHORS” OR EVANGELICAL SCHOLARS?
ReplyDeletePart 2 of 2
(5) I quoted Dr. Daniel Wallace, an Evangelical textual scholar with a Ph.D. in New Testament studies from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is also founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and author of “Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics” (Zondervan, 1997), which has become a standard work in the field. Two-thirds of schools that teach the subject use the textbook. Wallace cautions about arsenokoitai, “With such a rare word, you can count on no end to the speculation, [even if it’s] based on thin air.” No “unscholarly homosexual author” here.
(6) I quoted Dr. Brandon J. O’Brien, Ph.D. in historical theology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, instructor of religion at the College of DuPage, editor-at-large of Christianity Today’s Leadership Journal, and co-author of ‘Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes’ (InterVarsity, 2012). In this new book, O’Brien and his co-author warn against imposing our assumptions on the biblical text. They stress that, “to avoid misapplication, we should determine what the text meant then before we try to apply it to ourselves now.” While Timothy likes to quote my words on exegesis, he ignores the rules and principles of exegesis when they serve to disprove his arguments. But again, no “unscholarly homosexual author” here.
So my point #1 is that Timothy’s charge is a false one. Where are all the “unscholarly homosexual authors” Timothy repeatedly insists I quote or plagiarize from? Certainly not one of these listed above are “unscholarly” or “homosexual,” and these are from just one of my comment threads. Every author listed above is considered an expert in the field of exegesis.
Yet Timothy maintains that:
“ARSENOKOITES MEANS PRECISELY WHAT THE COMBINED DEFINITIONS OF ITS ROOT WORDS MEAN. ANY SCHOOL BOY WHO’S DONE HIS HOMEWORK CAN TELL YOU THESE THINGS.”
Arsenokoitai is indeed a compound word. But to conclude that the meaning of any compound word is simply the sum of its independent parts is by no means always a justifiable conclusion or method and defies linguistic evidence and common sense. If what Timothy suggests were true, years from now “scholars” could justifiably conclude that our lady-killers murdered women and wise guys were known for wisdom.
As the biblical scholars above and many others continually caution us, the only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. A word means according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. Meaning is determined by common usage, not by components. But with this word, there are no know uses of it before Paul. Its usage after Paul are few and far between and in virtually every instance the term appears in a list of sins (like Paul’s) without any story line or other context to shed light on its meaning.
Tim maintains that “arsenokoitai” positively without any doubt whatsoever should be translated as “homosexuals” and that anyone who does not agree with him is flat out wrong.
I don’t mind that Timothy disagrees with me. He’s certainly entitled to if that is his stated opinion. However, for him to go so far as to insist that it’s an established and accepted fact among Evangelical scholars that the term should be translated as “homosexuals” and that “any school boy who’s done his homework can tell you these things,” not only defies linguistic evidence and common sense but ignores all warnings from scores of Evangelical Bible scholars who have cautioned about taking such liberty with the text. That is not exegesis (drawing out from the text what the original author intended. Rather that is eisegesis (i.e., an insistence on reading one’s own personal prejudices back into the text).
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Dear Readers,
ReplyDeleteI apologize, but I must once again answer the bogus and false claims that Alex Haiken has made. This response is in regard to what Alex said previously, as anything new he has written I am ignoring. As I said, I am through engaging him and his childish tactics.
Alex, you said, "Had Timothy even bothered to check the facts before he suggests that others wake up, he would have discovered that statistically the vast majority of pedophiles and child molesters are heterosexuals, not homosexuals."
I am sorry, Alex, but you are once again WRONG. Had YOU stopped to check the FACTS, YOU would have noticed that it is HOMOSEXUALS--NOT heterosexuals--who are the vast majority of child molesters and pedophiles. Let me educate you... yet again.
Homosexuals, or those who profess to be homosexuals, make up less than 2% of the global population. Let's say that heterosexuals number 1,000,000 in population while homosexuals number 100 in population. Let's say 500 heterosexuals are guilty of committing pedophilia while 10 homosexuals are guilty of committing pedophilia. Who has the higher percentile of pedophilia, Alex? HOMOSEXUALS! The heterosexuals have .05% while the homosexuals have 10%. Even if you increase the number of heterosexuals guilty of committing pedophilia to 5000, that's still HALF a percentage, 20 times less than that of homosexuals. Increase it to 50,000 and it's STILL half as much as that of homosexuals.
I suggest you obtain up-to-date stats, Alex, and also use your head to compare those numbers with the total population.
Alex, I discredit your character because you have NO character. You willfully deceive people and provide bogus and erroneous information deliberately, copying texts word-for-word from your sources without ever providing a reference to them, and generally lying to the public. As you said earlier in this exchange, you "have no intention of addressing" the facts and evidence I bury you with. Simple answer: Because you can't! You go through my responses, ignoring the vast majority of what I have said, and cherry pick specific statements from them, trying to make those statements represent my entire case and then twisting them to sound as though you are easily refuting my position when you aren't anywhere close to doing so. Everybody who reads these exchanges will see who is providing facts and evidence and performing sound biblical exegesis (me), and who is begging the questions (you). I've answered all your fallacious arguments and objections with sound, credible evidence and repeatedly exposed you for the fraud you are throughout this entire exchange. You claim to have a degree from Westminster, but from what you have demonstrated thus far in your inability to exegete correctly (because you know absolutely nothing about exegesis and the practice thereof) and handle Greek terms accurately, I question if perhaps you're not lying about that also, just as C. I. Scofield deceitfully added "Dr" or "D.D." to his name. You have yet to demonstrate the knowledge and skills that would prove you have a legitimate degree from anywhere. I wonder what I would find if I had a private investigator look into it...
Fact is, Alex, you can beg the questions all you want because the evidence speaks for itself. You have done little else but try to persuade people based on your feelings and opinions. You have nothing to offer them as proof because it is all against you. Good day!
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI want to begin by saying that I have been really quite busy of lately. But as promise, here is my reply to your responses to me.
I want to start off by this quote you stated: "However, for your edification, following are two: Mark begins by requesting “indisputable proof from the scientific and medical communities” that gay people are born gay, while unable to provide similar “proof” from the same communities that heterosexual people are born straight. Until someone finds the gene that made him straight, he shouldn’t be insisting that gay people do likewise. That itself is hypocrisy." To begin with Alex, Mark's challenge to the LGBT Community to give indisputable proof from the scientific and medical communities is a point that certainly deserves an answer. But again, you avoided directly answering Mark's challenge, because you and I well know you cannot answer his challenge. Instead of giving a direct answer, you threw the challenge back at me. This I found to be quite comical and amusing, asking for proof to how heterosexuals are born straight? That’s like saying a lion is not a lion. Really? Oh come on Alex, I'm sure you can formulate a better argument than that! This is like the second time you mentioned this to me. Hence, once again here is my answer to this challenge you made as follows. Here is another way of looking at this same truth. It seems I need to once again, refresh your memory with the creation account of Adam and Eve to make my point.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; MALE and FEMALE created he them" (Gen. 1: 27, KJV). Alex, as much as you would like to believe this Scripture has nothing to do with homosexuality, its truth is irrefutable in pointing out that in the beginning God made them MALE and FEMALE, not MALE with MALE or FEMALE with FEMALE. The Word of God here points out first a distinction between the two people, they were "male and female" (1:27); second, they were made to compliment each other as a companion "not good that the man should be alone" as well as sexually "they shall be one flesh" (2:18-24) ; third, they were to "be fruitful and multiply" (1:28). No where do we see in the book of Genesis or in any other book of the Bible this truth being applied to homosexuals or lesbians. The fact God made me a "male" tells me clearly that His plan for me is to have a woman to be my companion and sexual partner in the bonds of marriage. Again, no where in Scripture will you find this to be said about a so called "loving and committed" homosexual relationship.(Continued in Part 2 of 6)
-Jerry Sheppard
(Part 2 of 6)
ReplyDeleteMark in a recent blog article entitled, "Is Homosexuality a Choice?" made this statement that agrees:
"In conclusion, this brings us back to the question of when did I choose my sexual orientation. I did not choose because there is nothing to choose. God who sets the rules made me a male. Therefore, He did the choosing for me. He instilled in my heart the desire to marry a woman who would be my companion."
So as you can see Alex, you are asking a question that has already been answered at the very beginning of man's existence. We don't need to find a so called "gene" to confirm this proof. The fact Alex you and I are fellow men, tells us clearly who God wants us to have as a companion and life long partner. Consider Genesis 2: 24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (See also Matt. 19: 5; Mark 10: 7). We can learn two specific truths here in this verse. First, the "man's" parents were a male and female, not a male with a male or a female with a female. Second, "he" joined unto his "wife." See the truth here? It is a woman that the man was to take as a wife, not a man. Paul in his letter to the Church at Corinth further confirms this truth, when he said, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every MAN have his own WIFE, and let every WOMAN have her own HUSBAND." (1 Cor. 7: 2, KJV). Again, men are encouraged to marry women and woman are encouraged to marry men.
No where do we read of Paul encouraging fellow Christians to marry fellow saints of the same gender. You can search in vain Alex, but you will never find anything mentioned in the Bible that encourages homosexual relationships. (Continued in Part 3 of 6)
-Jerry Sheppard
(Part 3 of 6)
ReplyDeleteAlex, I did a bit of internet research on Michael L. Brown's book "A Queer Thing Happened to America." Yes, I agree, it is amazing what you can Google and learn online. In my research I happened to stumble upon a blogsite called "Canyon Walker Connections" by a lady named Kathy. Sound familiar? Even more interesting is the fact her Review tries to discredit Dr. Michael Brown's book. Now what did I specifically find interesting about her Review? Well, you quoted from her blog without referencing her as the one you got your info from. In your first response of three, you quoted quite extensively from her. For example, observe the quote comparison below.
Alex in his response to me said:
"Another author, Michael Brown, in his discredited self-published book “A Queer Thing Happened to America” refers to another author dozens of times to make the same baseless point. According to Brown, his source lists a six-fold plan for the “gay revolution.” Sounds terrifying. But once again, a simple Google search reveals that it is only the conservatives who refer to this “plan” but not one gay organization. If it is so much a part of the nefarious “homosexual agenda,” shouldn’t at least one gay group be using it or alluding to it?"
"Mark then lunges into his unfounded notorious insistence of the existence of the supposed “homosexual agenda” and all the evil that lurks within it. You can ask 500 gay people what the “homosexual agenda” is and you will get an almost unanimous answer: “equality.” The “homosexual agenda” that threatens America with what Mike and others claim is “the complete elimination of God and Christianity” -- that “homosexual agenda”-- was invented by Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority in the 1970s as a political fund raising tool. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the “evil communist empire” was no longer a threat, the Christian Coalition turned to a new enemy -- ”radical homosexual activists” -- in order to play on the fears of religious conservatives and generate voter turnout. And it worked. It still works. That’s why Pat Robertson continues to warn viewers of The 700 Club about the “homosexual agenda.” So, please understand this: it was conservative religious and family groups that created this “threat.” Again, the hypocrisy, if you will, is on the part of your author."
"Another author, to support his notion of the nefarious “homosexual agenda,” details the gay rights platform presented by 200 gay attendees to the Democratic National Convention in 1972, but thanks to the internet you can Google anything. In all my searches on this 1972 event, the overwhelming majority of references to it were made by conservative groups repeating the tale over and over as if it were the seed of some major power play. One account even claimed there were 200 organizations represented. In 1972? Seriously? Actually, the truth is far less frightening; just five delegates presented their wish list to the Convention at midnight when almost no one was there to hear them, and more accurately, there were 200 gay people at that convention, not organizations, as several references claim."
In striking similarity, Kathy who you copied and pasted your comments from, said this:
"The book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fears and Hatred of Gays in the 1990′s is referred to dozens of times in AQTHTA. According to Brown, this book lists a six-fold plan for the “gay revolution.” Sounds terrifying. Once again, a simple Google search reveals that it is only the conservatives who refer to this “plan” but not one GLBT organization. If it is so much a part of the nefarious “gay agenda,” shouldn’t at least one gay group be using it or alluding to it?"
Continued in Part 4 of 6)
-Jerry Sheppard
(Part 4 of 6)
ReplyDeleteKathy's quotes continued below:
"Brown then details the gay rights platform presented by 200 GLBT attendees to the Democratic National Convention in 1972, but thanks to the internet; you can Google anything. In all my searches on this 1972 event, the overwhelming majority of references to it were made by conservative groups repeating the tale over and over as if it were the seed of some major power play. One account even claimed there were 200 organizations represented. In 1972? Seriously? Actually, the truth is far less frightening; just five delegates presented their wish list to the Convention at midnight when almost no one was there to hear them, and more accurately, there were 200 GLBT people at that convention, not organizations, as several of Brown’s and other conservative references claim."
"You can ask 100 gay people what the “gay agenda” is and you will get an almost unanimous answer: “equality.” The “gay agenda” that threatens America with what Brown claims is “the complete elimination of God and Christianity”—that “gay agenda”—was invented by Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority in the 1970s as a political fund raising tool. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the “evil communist empire” was no longer a threat, the Christian Coalition turned to a new enemy—”radical homosexual activists”—in order to play on the fears of religious conservatives and generate voter turnout. And it worked. It still works. That’s why Pat Robertson continues to warn viewers of The 700 Club about the “gay agenda.” So, please understand this: it was conservative religious and family groups that created this “threat.” No wonder the GLBT community did not get a copy of the “agenda”; they were never invited to the meetings. There is a real gay agenda, however—equality—and the Man from Galilee is actually on that platform committee." (Continued in Part 5 of 6)
-Jerry Sheppard
(Part 5 of 6)
ReplyDeleteWhat's even more interesting is that she is supposedly Christian who is pro-gay. So when I read her review I could tell it was both bias and since I don't have a copy of Michael Brown's book, I could not compare her review with Michael's book. But don't worry, I looked at several other reviews by other writers on what they had to say about Michael Brown's book. Here are some of the comments they had said about Michael Brown's book:
"I can say that there is no hatred or bigotry in his heart towards the gay community, only that true love and tender concern that God Himself has for them. Accusations that seek to demonize or attack his character along these lines are simply unfounded. Anyone who knows the man himself will testify to that reality, including the leaders in the gay rights movement who have met personally with him.
Accusations against his scholarship and the quality of his preparatory research are equally ridiculous. He has sought for many years (just as he always has in writing), to cover every possible base, prayerfully, biblically, and in all manners of research relevant to his writing." --Bryan Purtle
Another reader made this comment:
"What an incredible book and resource! I would encourage ANYONE, no matter where one's beliefs fall, to read this book. Dr. Brown has definately done extensive research. There are over 80 pages of endnotes and the reader is encouraged to go to the website for a more extensive index and full bibliography! Each chapter has numerous examples, that are factual, real life examples and stories. He never speaks one word of hate for anyone or group. In fact, as I read the book, I felt an urgency to stand for truth and righteousness, but to stand in complete love. Dr. Brown has such a gift for speaking and standing for what is right, but having such compassion for each individual. This book is a testament to that for sure. My interpretation of the book is threefold...a comprehensive guide(whether through the numerous examples, first hand stories, or other publications), a call to become proactive and stand for truth(in our life, our children's lives, and our community), and to do ALL things in love and compassion. I am so thankful Dr. Brown wrote this book. And I will be passing it around to my friends and family!" -- By Karma on April 4, 2011
Alex, even a former gay activist commends Michael Brown's book:
"As a former homosexual who was a "gay" activists for a decade in the 80's and early '90's I know that what Dr Michael Brown is saying is correct & well researched. In fact I could add more evidence to substantiate the TRUTH that Brown has reported." --By Gregory Quinlan on April 4, 2011.
These are but a few among many comments that were stated by people who honestly read and considered the message and content of the book that Dr. Michael Brown wrote. So as for your accusation against "Mike" as you call him, "It would appear that Mike is either willfully deceitful purposely spreading lies, or he needs to get himself more educated." Such a comment is really in my opinion unfounded. As for Michael's book, "A Queer Thing Happened to America" being "discredited" as you say. Well, it seems the only person discrediting Michael's book is Kathy. And her "Review" that tries to rebut his book is very fallacious. But I will save my comments about that for another time. For my response is to you rather than to Kathy. However, in light of what many others have said about Michael's book, I believe speaks for itself, Alex. He has done an exceptional job in his research on the book he had written. (Continued in Part 6 of 6)
-Jerry Sheppard
(Part 6 of 6)
ReplyDeleteAlex, Your response regarding to my comment on Romans 1: 26-27 is wrong. As much as you dislike Timothy, he did do a superb job in pointing out what you refuse to see in the terms "natural" and "unnatural" in Romans 1: 26-27. As for your use of the Greek term, “para physin.” does not match the real Greek terms, "phusikos" and "phusis; anarthrous" used for the english words "natural" and "against nature" in the Romans 1: 26-27 text. So I will quote what Timothy had previously said to you:
5446 phusikos; adjective. Natural, as established by God in nature.
5449 phusis; anarthrous noun. Nature, natural birth or condition; natural disposition.
"Homosexuality IS unnatural [aj5446] because it exchanges what was established by God in nature [an,nn5449] for that which is AGAINST [pre3844] nature [an,nn5449]. Notice that salvation is NOT unnatural [aj5446], but is NOT our natural [an,nn5449] disposition. We are by nature [an,nn5449] children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), just as every man and woman are by nature [an,nn5449] heterosexual."
Also, I want to point out that Romans 11: 24 also uses the same Greek words:
"For if you were cut off from what is by nature [an,nn5449; phusis] a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature [an,nn5449; phusis] into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural [pre2596; kata/an,nn5449; phusis] branches be grafted into their own olive tree?" Romans 11:24" (Taken from Timothy's response, Sun. Sept. 1, 2013)
In regards to you comparing Romans 11: 24 with Romans 1: 26-27, I agree with Timothy, when he said, "Where you err is in trying to associate two unrelated passages by performing what is called "collapsing context," just because they use a similar word." Hope this helps you understand the correct meaning of the words in Romans 1: 26-27.
-Jerry Sheppard
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to write. I can appreciate your busy schedule. I’m trying to balance my full-time job plus teaching a class, taking a class, and my volunteer work. So thank you for taking the time; it’s always a pleasure to hear from you. In the same spirit, I too wanted to get back to you.
You said: “MARK'S CHALLENGE TO THE LGBT COMMUNITY TO GIVE INDISPUTABLE PROOF FROM THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL COMMUNITIES IS A POINT THAT CERTAINLY DESERVES AN ANSWER. BUT AGAIN, YOU AVOIDED DIRECTLY ANSWERING MARK'S CHALLENGE, BECAUSE YOU AND I WELL KNOW YOU CANNOT ANSWER HIS CHALLENGE.”
I did respond to this, Jerry. But if it got lost in the shuffle let me do so again. Mark’s question is bogus. The reason it is bogus is because despite the myriad of claims and theories out there (and there are many!), we do not know what causes people to be gay any more than we know what causes people to be straight. You may ascribe to whatever theory suits your fancy. But anyone who says they “know” for sure is a liar. What we do know, however, is that the imprintation of the consciousness, the establishment of the orientation, whether one is homosexual or heterosexual, occurs so early in the life of the individual, that the individual never remembers having made a choice. So nobody on either side can give “indisputable proof” from any community.
As for the Creation account, we’ve gone over this several times. Nobody here, least of all me, ever doubted that God “made them male and female.” He did. He made the males and He made the females. We’re in agreement there. We’re all believers with a high view of Scripture and who prayerfully order our lives in accordance with it. My argument with you is not about what the text says. My argument with you is about what you read into the text that is not there. Case in point: In the same breath you also correctly cite that the first couple was commanded “to be fruitful and multiply.” But you don’t use that verse to support a doctrine that says couples who choose not to have children or who choose to practice birth control and not multiply are in sin, do you? Yet in the latter case, we have a flat out commandment. We don’t get to make up our own doctrines based on what a text does not say.
In connection with this, you raised the issue of complementarity again. But while suggesting that complementarity is merely a matter of genitalia, you fail to see that without a sensed experience of sexual complementarity between partners (whether the partners are same-sex or opposite sex), there’d be no desire for marriage in the first place. You fail to extrapolate from, for example, one’s heterosexual experience of complementarity -- sexual attraction to the fascinating otherness perceived in the person of a spouse. It’s an idiosyncratic experience. If complementarity came down to nothing more than body parts below the belt, anyone’s vagina or penis would do. Such may be a rapist’s focus but it’s not the focus of loving spouses.
You also quoted Mark’s closing statement as follows: "IN CONCLUSION, THIS BRINGS US BACK TO THE QUESTION OF WHEN DID I CHOOSE MY SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I DID NOT CHOOSE BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO CHOOSE. GOD WHO SETS THE RULES MADE ME A MALE. THEREFORE, HE DID THE CHOOSING FOR ME. HE INSTILLED IN MY HEART THE DESIRE TO MARRY A WOMAN WHO WOULD BE MY COMPANION."
He is absolutely correct that he did not choose his sexual orientation. That is one of the points I’ve been making all along. That is true for heterosexual persons and it is equally true for homosexual persons. We don’t choose our sexual orientation. We discover our sexual orientation. To use Mark’s phrasing, straight men may have it instilled in their hearts the desire to marry someone of the opposite gender to be their companion, as he rightly points out. And similarly, gay men have it instilled in their hearts the desire to marry someone of the same gender to be their companion.
Continued on Part 2 of 3
Homosexuals have no such thing instilled in their hearts. Marriage is defined by God as ONE MALE and ONE FEMALE for life. What homosexuals have in their hearts is lust for what God has forbidden, just as certain ones have lust in their hearts to commit bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, etc. The desires of the heart are only evil continually, and homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, and incest are examples of this, as are rape and pornography. Heterosexuality is the way EVERY male and female were created. They were created having a desire for something "similar to" yet "different from" each other. If the plug and the socket or the nut and the bolt were intelligently designed to need each other and only fulfill what the other could not, then so it stands necessarily and logically that the same is true of mankind, which God designed having a penis and vagina perfectly designed for each other and ONLY each other. Complementarity is NOT more than just sexual organs--it involves the INCLUSION of them. You're attempting to separate them when they are a part of the whole. Your argument that it is "more than" that necessitates that the person who wants to love and have sex with his dog is perfectly free to do so, or the person who wants to love and have sex with his relative is perfectly free to do so. After all, the "sex" isn't the focus, it's the "love." But clearly you have no idea what REAL love is or what BIBLICAL love is. What you constitute as "love" is merely lust, infatuation, and genital passion. Every argument you make must, by necessity, be applied to every other sexual deviation, because God condemns them all in the same breath as perversions.
DeletePart 2 of 3
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality is the naturally occurring ability to fall in love with a person of the same gender rather than with anyone of the other gender. As such, and as any straight person would know from their own experience of heterosexual orientation, it cannot be reduced to a matter of genital nerve ending stimulation and body parts. It's the same un-asked-for experience for heterosexuals and homosexuals; only in the former case the person of affection is of the other gender and in the latter case the person of affection is of the same gender. Experientially, it’s the very same core need. It's about an involuntary enthusiasm of romantic response in the presence of someone seen as wonderfully other, as mystery, as precious differentness from one's own sense of self, as complementary beloved. And it's about a deep longing for that person in his or her absence. It is a lack that nothing but the beloved can supply.
As for Brown’s book, I’m glad you found Kathy’s web site and review. Kathy is a friend of mine and she sent me her review of Brown’s book –- which if you read the entire review you’d discover it is not only quite extensive, but more importantly, it is spot on! She actually took the time, at Brown’s request, and detailed on a chapter by chapter basis precisely where Brown failed to do responsible research and she cites example after example after example.
While I have no doubt you can find people who will endorse the book, the generic review comments you included which in essence say: “He’s a nice guy;” “He only has love and concern;” “There is no hatred or bigotry towards the gay community;” “He has done an exceptional job in his research;’’ etc., may all sound nice and pretty, but they don’t measure up when you look at the contents of the book and the case he tried to build.
He may even care about gay and lesbian people. But even you should be able to admit that anyone who wishes to make the case that being gay is all about sex and that all gay men are promiscuous, etc., clearly has not done their research. What people like Brown do instead is manipulate facts, focus on the worst aspects of situations, travel to the fringes to find the extremes and interject damaging oddball situations to horribly skew and demonize an entire class of people. If that is what you consider “doing an exceptional job in his research,” that is a sad commentary indeed. And then it’s presented as what all gay people and gay Christians think about and do. Sorry, Jerry. You’re going to have to do a much better job if you wish to establish some credibility for his book.
Continued on Part 3 of 3
Homosexuality is the UNnaturally occurring ability to LUST after a person of the same gender. Love has nothing to do with it, so don't pervert the concept of love.
DeleteYou need to say "We can’t do responsible exegesis by simply camping out with our Bible and a Greek dictionary." because you are simply incapable of doing responsible exegesis.
You say, "We know from linguistic studies that in Paul’s day the terms “natural” and “unnatural” referred simply to what was, or was not, expected." No, that is NOT what we "know." That is Alex's linguistic fallacy. What we KNOW is that if we "analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible," the words mean exactly what I shared with you. FACT IS, you are applying the wrong definition to the wrong word and attempting to say it appears in both passages. YOU ARE WRONG! I suggest you look up both words in EVERY occurrence and then educate yourself as to what we truly KNOW. Then maybe you'll start to be equipped to perform sound, responsible, biblical exegesis.
Try to force your poor and erroneous definition upon Ephesians 2:3. Remember Reader, Alex's definition is "what was, or was not, to be expected." Ephesians 2:3 informs us that we are "BY NATURE children of wrath" (και ημεν τεκνα φυσει οργης). No expectational bogey man here, Alex.
By the way, it is not "para phusin." It is simply "phusin" (φυσιν) "Para" is a preposition. You know what that is, right? Phusis (φυσις) is a noun that refers to nature, something's natural condition or disposition, as borne out from Romans 1:26-27, 11:24, Ephesians 2:3, etc. I.E., "Mother Nature," sinful nature, etc. Phusikos (φυσικος), on the other hand, is an adjective that refers to something natural, as established by God in nature, in contrast to that which is unnatural (such as homosexuality). You'll notice that salvation is NEVER called "unnatural," but that homosexuality IS (Romans 1:26-27).
I'll educate you further, Alex. The word "phusikos" is only found three times in the New Testament. Twice in Romans 1:26-27, and once in 2 Peter 2:12. "Phusis," on the other hand, is found 14 times: Romans 1:26; 2:14; 2:27; 11:21, 24; 1 Corinthians 11:14; Galatians 2:15; 4:8; Ephesians 2:3; James 3:7; and 2 Peter 1:4. If you bothered to "analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible," you would have seen that I am correct and you are wrong--yet again. If you'd like, I can provide the usage of both words from extra-biblical Greek documents, which support what I have already said.
Your problem, Alex, is that you are unteachable. You hold your reigns tightly, directing yourself toward that cliff edge, all the while ignoring the caution of those who keep trying to help you. Like your ancestors, you are stubborn to a fault. You'll keep beating your dead horse no matter what anyone else tells you. I feel sorry for you.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Part 3 of 3
ReplyDeleteLastly, you retuned again to my comments on the Greek term, “para physin.” We can’t do responsible exegesis by simply camping out with our Bible and a Greek dictionary. A Greek dictionary is certainly an indispensible tool in helping us do responsible exegesis. But, as responsible Bible scholars repeatedly caution us, the only reliable way to define a word or term is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. A word means according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different times and in different situations. Meaning is determined by common usage, not by components. We know from linguistic studies that in Paul’s day the terms “natural” and “unnatural” referred simply to what was, or was not, expected. Paul calls circumcision “against nature.” Jews weren’t born circumcised. Paul says God’s grafting of wild pagans into Israel’s cultivated olive tree was “against nature.” Gentiles weren’t born under the Jewish Covenant. To Paul, what’s simply “against nature” is sometimes good, sometimes not. And in Romans 1, Paul says the sin of idolatry is “against nature.” That is to say we’re not born idolatrous; we turn idolatrous. And our idols can be of sticks and stones, sex or systems, proof-texts of scripture or blatant skepticism, but, at bottom, they’re all about our would-be autonomous self.
In Romans 1, Paul states that all mankind once knew about God (because God made it plain to them so they are without excuse). But now knowingly and intentionally they abandoned that in favor of the pagan religions and their associated grotesque practices and rituals. (Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles). God gave them (the ancient pagans who rejected God) up (v24, 26).
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Alex,
DeleteYou said, "Paul calls circumcision “against nature.” Jews weren’t born circumcised. Paul says God’s grafting of wild pagans into Israel’s cultivated olive tree was “against nature.” Gentiles weren’t born under the Jewish Covenant. To Paul, what’s simply “against nature” is sometimes good, sometimes not. And in Romans 1, Paul says the sin of idolatry is “against nature.”"
Once again, you are dead wrong. The phrase "para phusin" occurs only three times in Scripture. Twice in Romans 1:26-27, and once in Romans 11:24. He NEVER says circumcision is "against nature" (para phusin), NOR does he ever say idolatry is "against nature." Once again, your "exegesis" is weighed and found wanting--just like you. In fact, Paul NEVER says circumcision is "unnatural" (phusikos) either. Yet again, you confuse the meaning and definition of your words, demonstrating once again that you know nothing about the Greek language, let alone anything about context, hermeneutics, or exegesis. The only person you're fooling is yourself, and you're a big enough fool already without adding more to the scale and tipping it.
For your edification, the passages that use the word "phusis" are: Romans 1:26; Romans 2:14; Romans 2:27; Romans 11:21; Romans 11:24; 1 Corinthians 11:14; Galatians 2:15; Galatians 4:8; Ephesians 2:3; James 3:7; and 2 Peter 1:4. I suggest you examine them closely, in English and Greek, and notice how they contradict your understanding of the word "phusin."
Try reading the passage correctly rather than infusing your own erroneous and corrupt definition onto the word and ripping it from its context, as you so constantly delight in doing:
"For if you were cut off from what is by [natural condition or disposition] a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to [natural condition or disposition] into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these [by (Gr: kata)] [natural condition or disposition] be grafted into their own olive tree?"
There's nothing "unnatural" taking place here. The three occurrences of "phusis" here ALL speak of NATURE (e.g., "mother" nature, sinful nature, the nature of an object, etc.). They are all NOUNS--NOT adjectives. Objects--NOT descriptions. Paul never says any of this is "unnatural" (phusikos). However, in Romans 1, Paul DOES call homosexuality "unnatural" (phusikos)--TWICE! Once in regard to women, once in regard to men.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteYou accuse me of not speaking in love, when just the opposite is true. Everything I have done has been out of love for your perishing soul. It is you, on the other hand, who has continued to speak out of hate, anger, bitterness, and everything else homosexuality dregs up in the mind of the individual who cannot silence the screams of his own conscience. I have a responsibility to "hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching" so as "to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). Exhortation with the truth (sound doctrine) and the refutation of that which is false is a NON-negotiable duty for the Christian. Christians must instruct AND refute. Your ideas are bad and wrong and must be exposed for the health of the church and the honour of Jesus Christ. You can level all the false accusations you want against me, but in the end the intelligent reader knows where the evidence stands--and it's not with you. Presenting the truth is an expression of faithfulness to God and God's people, and is, therefore, loving.
Now, I'll address a few final lies that you have spoken before I part ways for good...
FACT 1: You HAVE quoted from Jack Rogers and/or Dale Martin as your argument regarding "understand," "mandate," "butterfly," comes from Dale Martin and is found in Jack Rogers' reference to Dale Martin.
FACT 2: In order to have quoted this argument from Dale Martin, you HAVE read him, or else have read Jack Rogers' reference to him.
As to your reference to Alan F. Johnson, Jerry Falwell, and Gordon D. Fee, you are in error once again, pining for support where there is NONE.
First of all, Jerry Falwell IS unscholarly, and on a number of levels I could demonstrate. His journal is WRONG (on a number of levels I could demonstrate) because the words are NOT difficult to understand. If we supposedly know more now than they ever did in the past, as you assert, why do 98% of all GREEK scholars TODAY render it as "homosexuals"? And I'm talking about men who know the Greek inside-out and backwards. NOT people like the ones you have quoted. Letters behind their names, how many books they've written, or whether they are a professor or not DOES NOT make them scholarly, Alex. How many preachers have the entire alphabet behind their name and yet preach heresy from the pulpit every Sunday? You're appealing to a false source of authority AGAIN.
Second of all, Johnson apparently isn't scholarly either, as the term arsenokoitai IS known in Greek literature prior to Paul's usage. Has Johnson examined EVERY piece of Greek literature ever? Apparently not! If he had, and as I pointed out to you, which you are too ignorant and stubborn to face, the term is found in the Septuagint--both root words side-by-side. If you examine Paul's rendering of it, its form clearly designates being compounded by Paul, similar to how many English words that used to be roots are now solely compounded today. Paul got his usage from Leviticus 22:13 of the Septuagint, which was widely used in the time of Jesus. Compare the OT quotes found in the NT and compare them to the Hebrew and the Greek translation. You will find that they better match the Greek than they do the Hebrew. Anyone who claims they never used the Septuagint doesn't know a thing. Even the translators of the KJV acknowledged this well-known fact. This goes to prove once more that the word(s) are NOT "difficult to understand." Quit grasping at straws, Alex. You've lost this debate and will continue to do so.
(continue to 2 of 2)
Third of all, Fee was wrong in what he said, too. He obviously neglected to examine the Septuagint. Further, if "subsequent authors are reluctant to use it...when describing homosexuality," how do you account for EVERY translation of the Bible EVER made from history to present? Research the old English terms and phrases and you'll see homosexuality is in view. Examine EVERY other translation and you'll see homosexuality is in view. Since you seem to forget, I'll remind you by posting the link wherein I dealt with this first hand: http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2012/10/exegeting-homosexuality-part-4.html
ReplyDeleteLet me educate you on one last thing, Alex. A man who teaches Greek in a seminary is RARELY qualified to be labeled a "scholar" of the Greek language itself. You can go through school and learn French and become a French teacher, yet if you have a native student from Quebec or France in your class, you will find that they will correct your flawed French repeatedly. Taking lessons and then teaching DOES NOT qualify you as a "scholar," which is what you are attempting to do with your various UNSCHOLARLY quotations. Men from the past and men from today who are not only fluent in the original Koine Greek, but also knew its grammar and structure inside-out and backwards, and can write it, CONSISTENTLY render malakoi and arsenokotai in WORDS or DESCRIPTIONS that reflect homosexuality. Men from history who examined the various translations they had then, found the same interpretations between them all. Try reading my blogs some time, especially http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2013/09/leviticus-18-and-20.html. I provide the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, which all say the same thing, but which is borne out stronger in the Greek and Latin. I would suggest you stop looking for men to tickle your ears, or statements made by men to tickle your ears, and start heeding the truth of Scripture. Today could be your last day to repent.
The pathetic thing here is that you search for authors who say something you WANT to hear. All the others who say differently from you, you ignore. And that is a VAST marginal majority. You're constantly trying to pit pebbles against boulders. And in so doing, you deliberately misquote and/or truncate their quotations to fit your agenda. Sorry, Alex, but your quotations are faulty and flawed because they are in error. Swallow your pride and accept your defeat.
Timothy
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
This is Timothy for http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com signing off. If you wish to learn more in regard to the truth of God's Word, please feel free to follow my blog. I address things regarding cults, heresies, skepticism, defending your faith, correct exegetical doctrine as opposed to the doctrines of men, etc. You'll be fed a three-course meal when you read my blog, similar to the days of old, and I back my stuff up with evidence--not feelings and opinions. God bless y'all!
ReplyDeleteKLAVER’S “LOVE” FOR ME AND HIS CREDENTIALS
ReplyDeleteTimothy,
You opened your comment to me with: “EVERYTHING I HAVE DONE HAS BEEN OUT OF LOVE FOR YOUR PERISHING SOUL.”
If you think you’re speaking out of love or with love, not only are your credibility and credentials being called into question here, but so too is your emotional stability.
Firstly, the Bible repeatedly informs us that we are not in a position to distinguish between those of us in the church who belong to Christ and those of us in the church who do not. Yet you insist on meddling in something God explicitly says you are incapable of doing and is not your business. Jesus himself taught in the parable of the “tares among the wheat” how difficult it is for us to be the judge and distinguish between those who are in the Kingdom and those who are not. A man may appear to be “in” and may in fact be “out.” A man may appear to be “out” and may yet be “in.” We are much too quick, says Jesus, to classify people and label them. The Lord admonishes us not to be so quick with our judgments because we are unable to make that determination. If the reapers had had their way, they would have tried to rip out the tares and would have torn out some of the wheat as well. Jesus says, don’t do it! He says, it’s not your job! Did God die and leave you in charge? I must have missed that memo.
Secondly, this is also precisely what Paul wrote to his readers about in Romans 2. You love to sit in your judgment seat while you read your “homosexuals” into Romans 1 and onto, as you previously stated, “on EVERY page from Genesis to Revelation [Sept 8].” However, you seem to have completely missed that in the first chapter of Romans, Paul was only setting up his self-righteous readers for his theological kill that comes at the beginning of the second chapter. After entrapping his readers into criticizing the pagans who behave unrestrainedly and engage in these idolatrous ritual orgies, Paul slammed them at the beginning of chapter 2. Paul said:
“THEREFORE YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE, WHOEVER YOU ARE, WHEN YOU JUDGE OTHERS; FOR IN PASSING JUDGMENT ON ANOTHER YOU CONDEMN YOURSELF, BECAUSE YOU, THE JUDGE, ARE DOING THE VERY SAME THINGS. YOU SAY, “WE KNOW THAT GOD’S JUDGMENT ON THOSE WHO DO SUCH THINGS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TRUTH.” DO YOU IMAGINE, WHOEVER YOU ARE, THAT WHEN YOU JUDGE THOSE WHO DO SUCH THINGS AND YET DO THEM YOURSELF, YOU WILL ESCAPE THE JUDGMENT OF GOD? OR DO YOU DESPISE THE RICHES OF HIS KINDNESS AND FORBEARANCE AND PATIENCE? DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT GOD’S KINDNESS IS MEANT TO LEAD YOU TO REPENTANCE? (ROMANS 2:1-4)
Snap goes the mousetrap, brother Klaver! Their disgust at the pagan idolatrous orgies or immoderation was the cheese. So what were the “SAME THINGS” that Paul charged these critics with performing? What best fits the bill is a combination of insufficient gratitude to God combined with excessive passions in other areas of life — evidently material greed from the sparse examples that Paul supplies. Have you considered the following passages from the end of his letter?
Continued on Part 2 of 3
KLAVER’S “LOVE” FOR ME AND HIS CREDENTIALS
ReplyDeletePart 2 of 3
WHY DO YOU PASS JUDGMENT ON YOUR BROTHER OR SISTER? OR YOU, WHY DO YOU DESPISE YOUR BROTHER OR SISTER? FOR WE WILL ALL STAND BEFORE THE JUDGMENT SEAT OF GOD. FOR IT IS WRITTEN, “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.” SO THEN, EACH OF US WILL BE ACCOUNTABLE TO GOD. LET US THEREFORE NO LONGER PASS JUDGMENT ON ONE ANOTHER” (ROMANS 14:10-13)
Yet you think you’re being loving toward me and others? How is this “love” that you claim to be extending being demonstrated? You are one of the angriest men I’ve ever come across. And in addition to being extraordinarily angry, if we are to know a man by the fruit of what comes out of his lips (which Jesus also admonishes us to do), you are also one of the most vulgar.
How many people did Jesus address with remarks like yours such as: “You are just too much of an ignorant child” (Aug 30); “Your ignorance never ceases to astound me” (Aug 30); “You are the grand fool of fools” (Sept 1); “You're only making yourself look like an idiot,” (Sept 2); “Anyone with half a brain would understand” (Sept 3); “You are too daft” (Sept 3); “If you had half a wit of intelligence” (Sept 3); “Alex, you are a daft, ignorant fool.” (Sept 3). It goes on and on. Not to mention the numerous occasions you addressed me in emails in such foul-mouthed terms as “faggot”, “queer” "girly fag" and "Have a nice eternity in hell, heathen fag!" There are others I would not even put into print. Jerry was witness to these as he was copied on the exchanges. They remain in your comments above and/or in my email archive. So don’t even think of trying to weasel your way out and try and tell the good people who read these exchanges that I’m making this up.
Maybe it’s just me, Timothy. But I’m not feeling the love here and I highly doubt anyone else reading your comments is feeling it either.
You quote Ephesians 4:29 on your current blog entry: "LET NO UNWHOLESOME WORD PROCEED FROM YOUR MOUTH, BUT ONLY SUCH A WORD AS IS GOOD FOR EDIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE NEED OF THE MOMENT, SO THAT IT WILL GIVE GRACE TO THOSE WHO HEAR." Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how addressing me and others with such vulgar terms fits into Ephesians 4 or your claims that everything you have done has been out of love for me or in love for me. Truth is everything you have done has been in anger and rage. And God has already told you you’re ill-equipped to judge between those of us in the church who belong to Christ and those of us in the church who do not.
Thirdly, my experience has been that such behavior is often a red flag that someone has not learned to control his aggression. People who insult others like you do tend to be insecure and have low self-esteem themselves. Generally they insult and put others down because they feel insecure, perceive themselves to be the ones who are “down,” and the only way they can feel “up” or okay about themselves is to try and knock others down. You can call it what you like, but it’s hardly Christ-like and it sure as heck does not constitute love.
Lastly, since you’re seemingly so quick to dismiss any Evangelical scholar who doesn’t agree with you, many of whose respected books on exegesis are standard and required reading at most Evangelical seminaries, you must be a man of great influence.
Continued on Part 3 of 3
KLAVER’S “LOVE” FOR ME AND HIS CREDENTIALS
ReplyDeletePart 3 of 3
When I arrived at Westminster I thought I more or less already had all the answers and that I was there to learn how to better articulate and defend what I already “knew.” I did not expect to have those assumptions challenged by my studies, much less for me to undergo the theological equivalent of what some call a paradigm shift. In other words, my studies changed my theology. My experience is by no means unique either to me or to other students of Biblical studies. Engaging in serious scholarship in any field may very well lead one to rethink not only what one thought one knew about God’s world, but also what one “knew” about God Himself.
But since you seem to be of such influence and wisdom that you can dismiss any Evangelical scholar who does not agree with you -- including those whose respected books on exegesis are standard fare at most Evangelical seminaries, do please tell us more about your own qualifications and credentials for making such determinations. I’m sure our readers would be most interested in learning. What are your qualifications and credentials? Or more to the point: Do you even have any? If so, please tell us what they are? We are all ears, dear brother.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI am better educated than you are, Alex. However, I don't need to go around puffing myself up by telling people my credentials in order to make it APPEAR as though I know what I'm talking about (the way you do). You try and use your credentials to intimidate others, tying to strike fear in them and make them back down. I, on the other hand, demonstrate my credentials through actual leg-work, by doing honest research and study while performing honest and responsible exegesis. I don't have to go around waving my credentials in your face because the evidence--the fact I have repeatedly and soundly refuted and correct your erroneous assertions--speaks for itself. When I say, "Alex is wrong," I demonstrate exactly how you are wrong. When you say it, you say, "Timothy is wrong, because I said so." And then you go on to make more of your erroneous assertions and try to back them up with your fallacious arguments. I could go line-by-line through your posts and point out the fallacies you are employing while also correcting your misinformation at the same time. You know nothing of the Greek language, Alex. I do. And I back myself up with all the respected and esteemed scholars of biblical exegesis; the same ones you ignore or dismiss.
It's much like a fighter that brags he has studied a certain martial art, trying to intimidate those around him that he is tougher than them. A true fighter never has to brag about their accomplishments, nor do they have to tell everyone every martial art they've studied. If you want to know how good of a fighter they are, merely step into the ring with them and they'll use you to mop the floor. You are the braggart, Alex. I am the one who demonstrates my skill practically.
Once again, saying something doesn't make it so, Alex. You can make all the Ad Hominem Fallacies you want about me, but the evidence speaks for itself as to who is doing honest and responsible exegesis, and, surprise surprise, it isn't you.
By the way, Jesus called people vipers and dogs and fools and all sorts of things. You might try reading your Bible before trying to claim my calling you an "ignorant fool" is bad behaviour. Furthermore, you are a blatant liar in claiming that I have called you “faggot”, “queer” "girly fag" and have said "Have a nice eternity in hell, heathen fag!" The ONLY thing I said involving "faggot" was the FACT that the term "gay" in inclusive of BOTH homosexual males AND homosexual females. To say "gays and lesbians" is redundant. You've already included lesbians by saying "gays." The CORRECT term for homosexual men is "faggot," just as the CORRECT term for homosexual women is "lesbian." You either address "faggots and lesbians" or you address "gays," but you DO NOT address "gays and lesbians" because you have already included lesbians by saying "gays." Just because you're not man enough to accept the proper term but instead try to adopt a generic term to refer to yourself doesn't change the facts. This just goes to show your desperation. You have to make up lies because you cannot contend with me on any other level. Therefore, you need to resort to ad hominem fallacies against me. You've revealed your hand, and it's a losing one.
For the reader who wants to see Alex thoroughly refuted and his errors and misinformation corrected, head on over to http://soul-reach.blogspot.ca/2013/09/is-homosexuality-choice.html and read my 45-Part response. I could have included quotations from a great many more sources, but that would have been overkill. Alex is already soundly defeated. His stubborn pride keeps forcing him to continue to argue in the face of his glaring loss because he needs to make excuses for his sin, which he loves ever so much.
Timothy Klaver
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Alex,
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that you are making another fallacious argument and an unfounded claim by saying, "But since you seem to be of such influence and wisdom that you can dismiss any Evangelical scholar who does not agree with you -- including those whose respected books on exegesis are standard fare at most Evangelical seminaries," right? How many seminaries have you been to? Yeah, that's what I thought. Anybody I know says what you call "standard fare" is untrue. In fact, most of the books you reference are NOT "standard fare" at ANY seminary. The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New International Biblical Commentary, and New Bible Commentary were not used where I received my education. In fact, most seminary students I talk to have NEVER heard of these books. Why? Because (1) they are NOT "standard fare," (2) they are NOT very scholarly works, and (3) they are lesser than 100 other well-recommended, respected and esteemed commentaries, backgrounds, etc., etc. The library of books I have is filled with ACTUAL standard fare material at most seminaries, books I source in my references while you attempt to dismiss them. I said it before and I will say it again: EVERY Greek Dictionary and Greek Lexicon backs me up and says the exact same thing. I have proven it to you repeatedly, quoting from a number of the ones I own. Yet, as always, you attempt to dismiss them. Why? Because your ticklish ears won't hear anything that doesn't say what you WANT to hear.
What I dismiss, Alex, are your liberal "scholars" (who are NO scholars at all) and your false use of selective citations and truncated quotations of text from genuine evangelical professors and bible teachers who CLEARLY do not support your position, while you twist their words to sound as if they lend support to your argument. If you were an honest man--a REAL man--you would provide proper and adequate references to your sources so we could provide the reader with the FULL CONTEXT of precisely what the author said and how you are maliciously maligning their words in attempt to garner support for your lost argument. You don't source your references because you know people will call you on it and expose you for the DISHONEST and SELF-DECEIVED LIAR you truly are.
If you're going to make accusations about me, Alex, make sure they are true. Saying it doesn't make it so. When I make an accurate accusation about you, I demonstrate it practically by providing proof. You merely make accusations and then ramble off about something unrelated, as if making your accusation makes it true. That's a fallacious argument. You consistently dodge what Jerry and I have to say, cherry picking what you will respond to, deliberately ignoring the mountain of evidence stacked against you by attempting to sweep it under the rug unnoticed. You "have no intention of addressing [our] points by answering them one by one" because you are unable to do so. Sorry, but we notice when you ignore large chunks of what we write and only respond to select cherry-picked statements followed by a bunch of verbal diarrhea that has no relation to the argument whatsoever. You do this because you are unable to answer us. Your tactics are not new. They are well-known. Because you cannot answer us in one point, like the cults, you jump to another point to try and prove your previous point. When you can't answer us in that point, you jump to another point. You keep moving around because you can't answer us, so you have to keep bringing in unrelated information to try and distract your readers. Ultimately, this entire ploy, all these actions, falls under the Straw Man Fallacy. You ignore large chunks of what we say, cherry picking select statements and then trying to turn those select statements into our entire argument and attempting to easily refute us. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. You're going to have to do better than that.
Good bye and farewell.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteIt is your credibility and credentials that are being called into question, because you have none. The 45-Part response above proves that. Furthermore, clearly you have no concept of what "tough love" is, or what love is in general or how it can look. Try reading the book of Galatians some time. That is Paul's most harsh letter. He had nothing nice to say about the Galatians. Yet, do you suppose he was not writing it out of love? Get real and get a clue!
Firstly, your assertion that "THE BIBLE REPEATEDLY INFORMS US THAT WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE OF US IN THE CHURCH WHO BELONG TO CHRIST AND THOSE OF US IN THE CHURCH WHO DO NOT" is a bold-faced erroneous and egregious lie. Have you ever read your Bible? Have you ever read 1 Corinthians? Try chapter 5 and on into chapter 6. We ARE to judge those inside the church who do not belong to Christ yet claim to be. I suggest you pay close attention to verse 3 where Paul says he has already judged (krino; to condemn in a legal sense) an individual in question. You and your ilk, Alex, fit the bill of "any immoral person" and "idolator," because you have created a god in your image that is okay with homosexuality when the fact is the God of the Bible is NOT. Look at the passage, Alex.
"I wrote to you not to associate with any SO-CALLED brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolator, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--NOT EVEN to eat with such a one." 1 Cor. 5:11
That is you, Alex. You are NOT my "brother" NOR a "brother." You are an immoral person and an idolator. The God of the Bible has condemned homosexuality as a perversion because it deviates from the standard of sexuality that God put in place at creation. You have turned around and created a god in your own image that you can worship who is okay with homosexuality and will not condemn you for it.
You argue that "JESUS HIMSELF TAUGHT IN THE PARABLE OF THE 'TARES AMONG THE WHEAT' HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR US TO BE THE JUDGE AND DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE WHO ARE IN THE KINGDOM AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT," but fail to recall Jesus telling us that we "will know them by their fruit" (Matt. 7:16, 20). He says this twice, as bookends, around some key information. You are a bad tree, Alex. Your fruit is plain to see. You love your sinful behaviour and actions and are trying to excuse them and seek acceptance for them where God has said they must be repented of, forsaken, put off, and put to death. "Everyone who names the name of the Lord MUST depart from every wickedness." So, yeah, you apparently missed the memo.
(Continue to 2 of 2)
(Part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteSecondly, your assertions about Romans 1 and 2 are incorrect. Once again, you fail to keep things in proper context. See the 45-Part response above for an accurate handling of both passages. Paul was NOT writing about "IDOLATROUS RITUAL ORGIES" (interesting how your story about Romans 1 keeps changing--first pederasty in e-mails to Jerry and I, then people changing their sexuality [transvestites], now orgies), he was writing concerning homosexual behaviour and homosexual acts. Pay attention to the language. NOWHERE is prostitution or any of your errors and misinformation found in the text. That is YOU reading INTO the text things that ARE NOT THERE (eisegesis). A plain reading of the passage informs us as to what is in view: homosexuality. He specifically addressed homosexuality (26-27) and then expands to address other sins in the remaining verses (28-32). If you knew how to keep things in CONTEXT, "dear boy," you'd know that Romans 2:1-11 follow hot on the heels of Romans 1:28-32. Verse 5 or Romans 2 speaks toward you, Alex (as does verse 8; you do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness). You might consider heeding its words and repenting of your love for your sin. If you need me to, I will write a blog article and provide commentary for you on both chapters and educate you as to the reality of their context, and I will quote from all 50 of the commentaries I own. Once again, you will find that the respected works of esteemed scholars of biblical exegesis have refuted your position. But apparently Alex, with his lack of credibility and credentials, knows more than these reknowned scholars of biblical exegesis. Who knew that Alex Haiken was smarter than EVERY brilliant mind God has given to the church over the centuries? Sorry, Alex, but you're a fool. You've revealed it time and time again, removing all doubt whenever you open your mouth. Plus, I have exposed you as such in the 45-Part response above.
Jerry and I have tried to teach you how to employ honest and responsible exegesis, but you refuse to learn. You stubbornly hold to the error and misinformation you read from non-academic books and try to argue against the mountain of facts and evidence stacked against you. You attempt to quote from "scholars" that are refuted by a hundred other scholars. I have the commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons, handbooks, systematic theologies, etc., to prove it. Liberal beliefs and teachings do not end the discussion, no matter how much you desire them to. People who write with their own agenda in mind, rather than God's agenda, are not worthy sources of information (like the so-called "scholars" you keep trying to quote).
I now do as Paul says and "deliver [you] to Satan for the destruction of [your] flesh." If you want to serve the devil by arguing that homosexuality is normal when ALL evidence--the Bible, science, biology, Nature, logic, and common sense--says otherwise, you go right ahead. You'll find out otherwise when you stand before God on judgment day, and then you'll wish you listened to Jerry and I. But it will be too late. You can argue with the wind now because I'm done with you. You've been soundly and thoroughly refuted and corrected, and yet you still continue to dismiss the respected works of reknowed and esteemed scholars of biblical exegesis who have refuted your position. You haven't the credentials to challenge these men and yet you ignore and dismiss every one of them. Your rhetoric does not work on those of us who are better educated than you are, Alex, and who have a personal relationship with Christ Jesus and know the truth. You and I both know that homosexuality is a sin, yet you continue to try and suppress that knowledge in unrighteousness.
Good bye and farewell.
Dear Readers,
ReplyDeleteAlex asks for my credentials because he cannot answer my arguments. That is a sign that he has lost the debate and has no alternative other than to attack my person and character. I could provide my credentials to satiate his desire to know, but Alex seems to fail to realize that all the credentials in the world do not amount to a hill of beans. Just because you have every letter of the alphabet behind your name does not mean you know what you are talking about. Giving him the satisfaction of knowing my credentials does not add or subtract anything in the debate. He cannot answer my arguments and thus, as with every debate where this is the case, he needs to query my credentials and/or attack my person or character. Even if I were to have no credentials whatsoever (which is not the case), it does not alter the strength behind my arguments in the least, because I am sourcing materials written by men who have plenty of credentials and are known to be exegetical scholars and great minds of the Christian faith. Alex is under the illusion and delusion that having any kind of degree makes you an expert and magically means you know what you are talking about no matter what. Sorry, but there are many dumb intellectuals out there. There are unsaved pastors with many biblical degrees under their belt who teach errors from the pulpits. A degree only serves to illustrate how well you grasped whatever the information taught to you. Education merely teaches you to think and believe the way your professor thinks and believes; it does not teach you how to think for yourself. Alex's filth is not the result of biblical exegesis; it is the result of relying on the eisegetical works of people such as Boswell and Rogers, which you can find hundreds of books that refute them. Alex ignores and dismisses these hundreds---thousands---of books because they do not tickle his ears and tell him what he wants to hear. That is why he refers to rare liberal sources who agree with him. Then he erects a straw man argument from these few, rare sources to make it sound as if every evangelical scholar agrees with him when that is nowhere near the case. I have shelves upon shelves upon shelves of commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons, handbooks, systematic theologies, etc., that say the same things I have been telling Alex from day one. Unlike his books, my books actually ARE standard fare at the majority of seminaries and bible colleges. He would know this if he went to any credible seminary that has not been corrupted by secularism, liberalism, feminism, etc. All he has to do is write some prominent pastors/theologians/scholars and they will tell him the same things I have been telling him: John MacArthur, John Piper, C. J. Mahaney, Paul Washer, Bob Glenn, Tim Conway, D. A. Carson, G. K. Beale, Wayne Grudem, Millard Erickson, Robert Reymond, Michael Horton, Leland and Philip Ryken, J. I. Packer, Jerry Bridges, etc., etc., etc. Should I continue? How about Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, C. H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, John Owens, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, D. L. Moody, George Whitfield, John Wesley, any of the Reformers, any of the Puritans, any of the church fathers? I could list scholars of exegesis from both past and present that soundly and thoroughly refute Alex's position. Does Alex learn from these and educate himself? Nope! Because he is unteachable. He continues trying to use the same arguments that have already been soundly and thoroughly refuted. Why? Because he has nothing else and if he lets them go he has nothing to continue trying to convince himself of. He needs to convince himself that he is not wrong in order to stifle his screaming conscience that is letting him know loud and clear that homosexuality is unnatural and is a sin. My credentials are not important to the argument. The facts are important to the argument, facts that Alex has continuously failed to respond to. We all know why that is... Error and lies will never content toe-to-toe with the Truth; Christ Jesus and His Word---the Bible.