Over on With All I Am, Prayson Daniel writes an article in response to arguments made by Alex Haiken. In the section titled "Haiken's Objection," the first paragraph summarizes Alex's words, the second paragraph is a direct quotation of Alex's words, the third paragraph is a combination of summarization using quotations from Alex's words, and the fourth paragraph is a quotation of Alex's words again. All the things you find in any document that quotes another document.
In the ensuing comments, Alex Haiken accuses Prayson Daniel of misquoting and misrepresenting his words (ironically, the same things Alex does with Scripture). In a fit of rage, Alex blasts, "YOU HAVE REPREHENSIVELY [sic] MISREPRESENTED MY WORDS, POSTED WORDS THAT I DID USE OUT OF CONTEXT, AND ATTRIBUTED YOUR OWN WORDS TO MY NAME." Alex argues further, "The tile [sic] of this post is appalling. It is appalling because you had the unprincipled audacity to use my name, a screenshot from my blog, and then put them together with words I never used. You are misleading your readers into thinking that the words you wrote are my words. They are not. Your words do not represent me. They do not represent what I have said. On the contrary, they misrepresent me."
To demonstrate that he has not misquoted or misrepresented Alex's words, Prayson provides this link to the precise comments made by Alex. Despite this link with the factual evidence (and a subsequent quoting of the entire thing and re-posting it for everyone to read), Alex continues to claim misquotation and misrepresentation, deliberately trying to avoid the question posed to him by Prayson. Prayson's question? "Would you be kind to show how infant child sacrifice (18:21) and intercourse with animal (18:23) are morally binding despite their association with idolatry, while sexual practices between a male as with a woman (18:22) is not?" The same dilemma three other commenters on Alex's blog caught him in.
"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?"
"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?"
"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."
Alex argues that the title of the post is appalling "because you had the unprincipled audacity to use my name, a screenshot from my blog, and then put them together with words I never used." If Alex's contention was with a screenshot of his blog, possibly suggesting that the words in question might have originated from there, then he might have a case for the removal of the screenshot but everything else would still stand. The use of his name and the summarization and quotation of his comments from another post are legitimately used. The fact is, as the evidence shows, Alex did use those words. Prayson puts quotation marks around direct quotations from Alex's comments, which is what every document quoting another document does (something Alex has yet to learn how to do, as well as providing the source reference information). In Alex's comment, paragraphs 2 through 8 are what Prayson uses in his summarized first paragraph. If you take "Leviticus 18:21-23," the preceding introduction, and the following verses as a paragraph together, paragraph 10 is what Prayson quotes in his second paragraph. The two quotations from Alex in Prayson's third paragraph are taken from the second last paragraph of Alex's comment here, wherein the question is a loaded one (just one of Alex's typical fallacious argument tactics). The quotation from Alex in Prayson's fourth paragraph is from the end of the thirteeth paragraph of Alex's comment.
As anyone can see, Alex is blowing smoke and trying to deceive the readers of Prayson's blog.
Interestingly enough, in this comment Alex writes, "So if one reads the passage in context we see that the Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits these acts for RELIGIOUS reasons, not SEXUAL ones." Yet, on his website Alex writes, "...the Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits these acts for RELIGIOUS reasons, not MORAL ones." Which is it, Alex? Sexual or moral? Why did he change his wording? Was he tired of people catching him in the dilemma he created for himself by using "MORAL"? Sexual and moral are not synonymous. Can Alex name an example where incest and bestiality are okay for "SEXUAL" reasons? How about where they are okay for "MORAL" reasons? No? Did not think so. The problem is, his replacement of "moral" with "sexual" makes even less sense, considering the fact that sacrificing children to Molech has nothing to do with "sexual" reasons. This little "boo boo" of Alex's has just demonstrated how he likes to play fast and loose with his eisegetical interpretation because he cannot grasp the context. The fact remains that these acts were prohibited for moral reasons (and sexual, if you like, although that reasoning lacks any kind of coherent sense). For a breakdown of the context as well as an exegetical treatment of both Leviticus 18 and 20, please go here.