Leviticus 18

My friend Jerry and I have been conversing with a Jewish homosexual named Alex, who tries passing himself off as a Christian. 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" (It is in green to represent the poison that it is.). 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:

"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."

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 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.

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!

Alex 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.