Advertisements

Are Gay Christians Real?

Dr. James White has spent more than 5 hours responding to a YouTube presentation by Matthew Vines. Vines was attempting to reconcile homosexuality with Christianity. Dr. White plays the entire presentation and responds to it point by point. If you want a thorough response to common homosexual arguments made by people claiming to be christians…you need to listen to this:

For more information on this subject and other theological discussions check out Alpha and Omega Ministries.

Thanks for reading/listening.

 

Advertisements

About Travis Berry

I am a blatantly honest person who loves to think, read, discuss, and write about God and theology. I have a bachelor's degree in Youth Ministry from Crown College. I work at a church in Houston, TX as a Youth Director and love every minute of it! I am married to a wonderful woman named Becky and we have one amazing child! I have a love for God's Word, and a fervor to live it out in the fullest, and I pray this blog reflects that. Thanks for checking out AnotherChristianBlog!.

Posted on May 28, 2012, in Christianity, Culture and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 83 Comments.

  1. Sinister Dreams

    The vast majority of homosexuality is not monogamous? REALLY? The vast majority of straight sex is not monogamous, 50% or marriages end in divorce, and most young people sleep around, this is not a gay thing. but I would LOVE to actually have the evidence to back up what this guy is saying. And it would be lovely if he didn’t interrupt the recording every 5 seconds. But, that’s a radio personality for you I guess.

    This is also a stupid argument anyway, not everyone is a Christian, and those of us that aren’t don’t want to live under Christian rule, and the thing I don’t understand is, no one follows the Bible exactly, so why is this one issue such a big deal? Do you dislike interracial marriage? Do you think women should still be sold to others for goats? Do you think it’s ok to allow your wife to be brutally raped to the point of death to save yourself? If you don’t think this way then you shouldn’t care about homosexual marriage.

    Lastly, I would like to add that i am happily married to a man, and we aren’t going to create life, sex is much better without the end results, there is nothing wrong with that. and If we do decided to have a child we are going to adopt. Is it ok for us to do that and not ok for gay people to do the same thing? I don’t understand this line of thinking at all, because our straight relationship isn’t about sex, but it’s not separated from it either, JUST like a gay relationship. This radio guy is basically saying any christian is married ONLY for the purpose of sex and NO other reason, that sounds like an extremely shallow relationship to me. But, i am happy about that, if shallowness and bigotry are what “christian love” is all about, I don’t want to have any part of that.

    • SD,

      You: “The vast majority of homosexuality is not monogamous? REALLY?”

      Me: Really.

      You: “The vast majority of straight sex is not monogamous, 50% or marriages end in divorce, and most young people sleep around, this is not a gay thing”

      Me: The stats are there. If you read my post “The Dirty Secrets of Homosexuality: Promiscuity” then you will see the amazing stats of normal homosexual activity.

      You: “This is also a stupid argument anyway, not everyone is a Christian, and those of us that aren’t don’t want to live under Christian rule, and the thing I don’t understand is, no one follows the Bible exactly, so why is this one issue such a big deal? Do you dislike interracial marriage? Do you think women should still be sold to others for goats? Do you think it’s ok to allow your wife to be brutally raped to the point of death to save yourself? If you don’t think this way then you shouldn’t care about homosexual marriage.”

      Me: You didn’t listen to far in did you? If you did then you will find that the New Testament makes distinctions between what was law for the nation of Israel and what is law for all of mankind. This is something that many people say but, it is without merit. Take the time to hear the other side before attacking others because of misunderstanding. Also, you say that this one issue is a big deal. Well…yeah. Our culture is in the midst of debates about this topic. It is one of the biggest topics discussed so, it is not this “one issue”. It is the culture’s issue.

      You: “Is it ok for us to do that and not ok for gay people to do the same thing?”

      Me: No, it is not okay for homosexuals to adopt.

      You: “This radio guy is basically saying any christian is married ONLY for the purpose of sex and NO other reason, that sounds like an extremely shallow relationship to me.”

      Me: Give me the time stamp on those words. I think I missed that?

      You: “But, i am happy about that, if shallowness and bigotry are what “christian love” is all about, I don’t want to have any part of that”

      Me: Ahh I was wondering if you were going to be bigoted and call “christian love” bigotry.

      Travis

      • Sinister Dreams

        Yeah I read your homo sex articles, those are a big crock of S too. Not a single bit of that crap is true except the part about STD’s, but those are a threat to everyone, not just gay people.

        The New Testament and Old Testament thing is quite humorous to me actually, you guys already had the book to live your life by, but, it would seem a lot of you didn’t care for some of it so Jesus was made and saved the day, now you can just write off the “old book of god’s word” and go by this new one? That doesn’t make any sense to me, I feel that if you are going to be a Christian you need to actually follow the old testament, follow every bit of god’s word. But, that’s just me I guess.. anyway.

        Why is it not ok for gay people to adopt kids?

        Time stamp, it starts right around 20:20 when he is talking about long term monogamous relationships, and how homosexuals are not monogamous, then at 22: they mention that “everyone has a sexual orientation, it’s not just about sex”. That’s then the radio host talks about how there is a natural function for a male and female, AKA, Female = baby making men = semen dispenser. The radio host literally says “two men can not start a family” and then compares two men and two women to a person marrying their dog. And he goes on and on about how the only reason women were created is to make babies. SO I am defying god by NOT doing that. My marriage is not “that kind of relationship” as he puts it. Then he said homosexuality is selfish because they can’t start a family, well they can’t start a family because people wont let them.

        Anyway, that goes on for quite a while actually, the selfishness of gay people, and I guess the selfishness of us who only have sex for pleasure, meaning, we have love that ISN’T Christian Love, because Christian love is only about creation, and I’m not interested, and because Christian love is only about creation it is selfish, and it has very bigoted and hateful undertones! Calling it what it what it is doesn’t make me a bigot.

        I can’t believe you listen to this guy! It’s all trash.

      • SD,

        You: “The New Testament and Old Testament thing is quite humorous to me actually, you guys already had the book to live your life by, but, it would seem a lot of you didn’t care for some of it so Jesus was made and saved the day, now you can just write off the “old book of god’s word” and go by this new one?”

        Me: Ignorance is not bliss. We do not “write off” the OT. We interpret the OT in light of the NT. The same principles found in the OT can apply today. However, they are applied differently. When God writes to the nation of Israel it is meant for Israel.

        You: “Why is it not ok for gay people to adopt kids?”

        Me: Gay couples are not fit to be parents. Children should have a mother and a father. It is not right to guarantee that a child will not have either a mother or a father.

        You: “at 22: they mention that “everyone has a sexual orientation, it’s not just about sex”. That’s then the radio host talks about how there is a natural function for a male and female, AKA, Female = baby making men = semen dispenser”

        Me: Dr. White was responding to the homosexuals claim that he wants to “start a family.” So, when he is responding to that he is going to mention the fact that only a male and a female can reproduce. That does not mean that marriage is only for making babies as you talk about.

        You: “The radio host literally says “two men can not start a family” and then compares two men and two women to a person marrying their dog. And he goes on and on about how the only reason women were created is to make babies”

        Me: You are dead wrong here. Dr. White never compares gay marriage to marrying dogs. He says that the claim, “I want to start a family (with my gay partner),” it is like complaining about the fact that I can’t reproduce with a dog. We weren’t created to reproduce with dogs. Men and woman were created to reproduce. Also, he never said anything about God creating women “only” for making babies.

        Also, can you define what bigoted is? Can you tell me why being a bigot is wrong? Also, am I bigoted for thinking that a heterosexual relationship is more healthy than a homosexual relationship? If so why?

        Travis

      • Sinister Dreams

        The best quote I have ever seen that describes bigotry is this “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.” I don’t understand how someone can live their life in this closed off way. Open up and accept people for who they are!

        If you think a homosexual relationship is unhealthy, fine, no one is making you be gay, no one is making you have a gay relationship, so why do you care so much? Unless you’re one of those self-loathing gay Christians?

        I also don’t understand how the New Testament is even relevant, if you guys can just pick and choose, then, why bother anymore. It seems like anyone can interpret the bible to what they want it to mean for them.

      • I would like to look at somethings you said.

        You: “‘The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.'”

        Me: I think you would need to define “light”. From my perspective I am showing people light. I am not only saying that I am against this or against that. I am saying I am for God. I am for his commands. I am for his moral law. The problem is, it seems that from your perspective “light” will change.

        You: “so why do you care so much?”

        Me: Did you read the posts about the health risks of homosexuality especially in males? That’s why I am concerned. Just like I am concerned about the kid who cuts himself/herself. If they are harming themselves or the other person then everyone should be concerned.

        You: “I also don’t understand how the New Testament is even relevant, if you guys can just pick and choose, then, why bother anymore. It seems like anyone can interpret the bible to what they want it to mean for them.”

        Me: Well, I am a Christian. Christians believe that Jesus is God in flesh. He walked, taught, ate, prayed, and did many amazing things. The most amazing thing was that Jesus was nailed to a roman cross to pay for the sins of his people. Three days later he rose from the grave to prove that death, which is a penalty of sin, wasn’t strong enough to hold God down. And one day everyone who believes that Jesus is who he said he was will be saved. Without the NT I wouldn’t know my savior. I and most Christians do not pick and choose. We interpret in light of the New Testaments use of the Old and, we also interpret within the context of the passage.

        Travis

      • Sinister Dreams

        ACK! I just typed a whole reply and I deleted it… *sigh* Ok here is goes again..

        Light = Truth. Indisputable fact, I have yet to find a religion that does that for me, and I have been shopping around for a long, long time. Now, Light doesn’t change, BUT, if light is looked at from other angles, other perspectives it appears to change, but light always remains the same and because of that we have to look at light from all perspective to fully appreciate the beauty. I guess what I am saying is, you can’t go through life only acknowledging, “light bulbs” or “sunlight” when there are “rainbows” out there.

        Yes, I read those posts, and those risks aren’t exclusive to homosexuals, those risks are risks for everyone who engages in sexual activity, even in monogamous relationships STD’s are still a risk, you can pick up AIDS from blood transfusions (I know a guy who got AIDS that way) You can get Hepatitis from drug use, or a sketchy back ally tattooist. You could get herpes from kissing a friend! These risks are not exclusive to gays, these risks involve everyone who is, or plans on being, sexually active.

        See now, that’s just it. IF Jesus walked the Earth and died for everyone’s sins, why does anyone (who believes Jesus is Lord and Savor) care about sin? If he died on the cross for us, our debt is paid, we shouldn’t have to worry about sin, right? I mean, as long as you believe that, in theory you should be able to do what ever sin you want and still make it into heaven.

      • SD,

        What is truth? Does truth change over time or is it unchanging?

        You said: “Yes, I read those posts, and those risks aren’t exclusive to homosexuals”

        Me: I wrote in the post that those things are not exclusive to homosexuality. However, I assume, most heterosexual couples do not engage in urinating in their spouses mouth or anal cavity. I would also assume that, for most couples, large items are needed to achieve sexual pleasure. What I did say was these activities are normal in homosexual relationships. That is the point I was making and, I believe, I made that clear.

        You: ” IF Jesus walked the Earth and died for everyone’s sins, why does anyone (who believes Jesus is Lord and Savor) care about sin? If he died on the cross for us, our debt is paid, we shouldn’t have to worry about sin, right? I mean, as long as you believe that, in theory you should be able to do what ever sin you want and still make it into heaven.”

        Me: A few things need to be addressed. I never said Jesus paid for “everyone’s” sins. Jesus paid for his people’s sins. He paid for the sins of those who would turn to him in repentance. Also we worry about sin because we, Christians, have been changed. We were once dead in our sins but, God, through his mercy and grace, saved us (Ephesians 2). When we are free from our sins we come to the realization that sin a stench in God’s nostrils. Since we love God we battle against sin because he hates it so much. Becoming a Christian is not a license to sin. It is a stand against it. No one who willingly sins will “make it into heaven” because those people were never saved in the first place.

        Travis

      • Sinister Dreams

        Truth is unchanging, indisputable fact.

        Oh, you would be surprised at the weird crap straight couples do. There are thousands of fetish websites dedicated to those exact things you mentioned. The study you are getting your info from is an extremely inaccurate and biased opinion of gay people, those things are no more prevalent in homosexuals than straights. Some people are just down right disgusting and weird when it comes to sexuality. I think you need to just google search fetish sites and you will see 95% of them are for straight men. Also, I don’t know what you mean by this “I would also assume that, for most couples, large items are needed to achieve sexual pleasure.”

        Anyway, one could say that because straight couples also practice some strange things like you mentioned, it is common among straight couples, but it’s not, that’s why these things are fetishes, they are uncommon among all people, gay and straight.

        Now, I would understand IF you guys only worried about sin among your community of people, but why do you Christians care so much about those of use that aren’t a part of you? If we are unsaved and we like it that way then who cares! Wont we learn out lesion when we die? Or better yet, wont we learn out lesion during the apocalypse? I say, just let people live they life they want to.

      • SD,

        I am not going to dive into the “weird crap couples do”. I am sure people can be quite disgusting. Also, pornography is a huge business and fetish sites are part of that. I would prefer not to visit those sites because they are not healthy. Also, that is getting off topic. We are talking about the common population not freaky fetishes. Also, you quoted me and I mistyped this is what I meant to say, “I would also assume that, for most couples, large items are not needed to achieve sexual pleasure.”

        You said: “Now, I would understand IF you guys only worried about sin among your community of people, but why do you Christians care so much about those of use that aren’t a part of you? If we are unsaved and we like it that way then who cares! Wont we learn out lesion when we die? Or better yet, wont we learn out lesion during the apocalypse? I say, just let people live they life they want to.”

        Me: Christians are concerned about sin because Christians are concerned about people. It would not be loving to simply let everyone, “live [the] life they want to.” If we did that the Holocaust could still be going on. If we did that then slavery would still be an accepted part of Western culture. We don’t let people live how they want to because that is not what is best for all of society. Also, you are right. One way or another you will come to know the truth about Jesus Christ…but, I would encourage you to investigate the Bible and what Jesus says to find out who he is before the end comes.

        Travis

      • Sinister Dreams

        OH, ok, I thought that’s what you probably meant to say, but I wasn’t sure, I was very confused! And they do say size doesn’t matter! haha.. anyway..

        When I say letting people live the life they want, I obviously mean they can’t infringe on anyone else’s freedoms. So, duh, slavery and the holocaust don’t count in that, but, I’m not surprised you would bring up the worst aspect of people to try and make a point about control, this has happened many times before, If I say I want total freedom, someone yells “Holocaust” as if I mean I want that to happen.

        However, I still believe the best thing for society is freedom. Freedom of choice mostly. I want to live in a world where the laws aren’t dictated by one religion, I want to live in a world where religion and state ARE in fact, separate, and you know, I want to live in a world where if I want to smoke a joint like the president I wont get thrown in federal prison.. Off topic, but still..

        I honestly don’t think I’ll ever know Jesus. The closest I have ever got to that was a dream I had once, but that was just a dream, and religion is just a dream, a fairy-tale, and I just don’t buy it. I will give you this though, Christianity isn’t AS insane as some of the others. lol

      • SD,

        When you say talk about my examples of slavery or the Holocaust as not relevant it brings up a question. If freedom is the ultimate goal then why have any laws? You said, “I obviously mean they can’t infringe on anyone else’s freedoms,” but, why should that even matter? What I am driving at is this…what is your foundation for making any moral claim? Why is it wrong to infringe on someone else’s freedoms?

        On the drug thing, I think people who “smoke a joint” should go to jail. People often view things like drug use as individual acts but, they affect those around that individual. Often families are broken up because of drug use. Children are neglected because of drug use. Drugs are not just about the individual. Also, don’t you think there should be some restrictions on people even if they aren’t doing harm to others? Shouldn’t our society be concerned about those who harm themselves?

        Also, I think you have “separation of church and state” mixed up. The main reason for this phrase was intended so that government cannot inform religion i.e. make a state religion. It was never intended to keep religion out of the state.

        Also, I know that you cannot accept the truth of Jesus Christ unless God shows you mercy and grace but, I am called to tell you the truth anyway. I pray that he will open your eyes to see and your ears to hear.

        Travis

      • Sinister Dreams

        Well then, fine, no rules, just anarchy, I like that idea too. And to be honest I don’t think it would make the world any worse than it already it. Laws/rules don’t prevent people from doing bad things anyway.

        You have this backwards about drugs. Drug use does not cause break ups, abuse and neglect, drug abuse does, there is a difference. just like there is a difference between alcohol use and alcohol abuse, one of those destroys lives, the other is just good fun. And no, I feel that as long as you aren’t inflicting harm on others then go about your business. It’s none of my business if someone wants to smoke weed on the weekends, or have a few beers after work, adults should be free to make adult decisions, responsibly.

        And you can’t just have separation of church and state be one sided. You can’t say, “No government interference/influence in religion” and then have religion interfere and influence the government. It shouldn’t work that way.

      • SD,

        You: “Laws/rules don’t prevent people from doing bad things anyway.”

        Me: Really? I think punishment is a deterrent for many.

        You: “You have this backwards about drugs.”

        Me: Okay…

        You: “Drug use does not cause break ups, abuse and neglect, drug abuse does, there is a difference. just like there is a difference between alcohol use and alcohol abuse, one of those destroys lives, the other is just good fun.”

        Me: Okay, so how do we police the difference between drug use and drug abuse? Or are you saying that drug abuse is okay?

        You: “And you can’t just have separation of church and state be one sided. You can’t say, “No government interference/influence in religion” and then have religion interfere and influence the government. It shouldn’t work that way.”

        Me: Well, that is how it works. That is the U.S. Constitution. It is the revisionists that want to flip it completely around and say that church can’t influence the state. That is wrong. The church is made up of people and people have a voice in this country. When we say, “Keep the churches out of the state” what is really being said is, “This country should be a secular society that functions only with a naturalistic worldview.” That has never been a part of America and I pray that it wont now.

        Travis

      • Sinister Dreams

        No, see, you don’t police drug abuse and addiction, those people are sick and they belong in a treatment facility, not prison.

        And, yes,, the people belonging to the church have a say as people, but the chuck itself shouldn’t be able to sway votes, or influence the state in anyway. just like any other organization.

      • SD,

        Essentially you are advocating for anarchy. Want to know what that gives you? Extremely high crime rates.

        Also, you said, “but the chuck itself shouldn’t be able to sway votes, or influence the state in anyway. just like any other organization.”

        Want to talk about “swaying votes”? Planned Parenthood gets $270 Million tax payer dollars from the US government. They just came out and supported Obama. Before you start pointing the finger at the church you should point it at groups like planned parenthood. Also, I have never been in a church service where they told anyone who to vote for. Many think it happens a lot but it doesn’t.

        Travis

      • Sinister Dreams

        You know, this whole conversation has actually got me thinking quite a bit about what freedom really means. On one hand, you have freedom that means just that, where you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and then you have regulated freedom, where you can pretty much do whatever, but there are restrictions. Both are very appealing, as long as the latter doesn’t get out of control and turn into some sort of “1984” scenario, and the previous doesn’t get out of control and turn into “Escape from New York”. It is a very interesting topic, i may have to write about it next. 🙂

        I am fully aware that there are votes that are bought by companies, and whole elections that are determined by who has the biggest super pac. But, that doesn’t mean I like that more than the churches doing the same thing. No one should be able to use their money or position to sway votes. A good example I have of this is the military, the high ranking enlisted/officers aren’t supposed to use their rank as a means to sway votes, but they do, and they always have stories about it every election year.

        I also don’t think that individual churches use they’re influence to sway votes, i’m sure it does happen,, but rarely. I’m mostly referring to church influence like the Catholic Churches influence here in Italy, most of the time it’s alright, but The Vatican has very long arms that get into everything, they are basically a mafia, and that is extremely sad to me that one of the biggest churches in the world continually abuses their power.

        On a side note, I have actually been to a few churches back home in Washington and I never had a problem there, I actually had a good time, and I do enjoy the community aspect of it, and the religion itself is alright, I just find it all extremely hard to swallow I guess. 🙂

        This had been a good conversation so far. 🙂

      • SD,

        The problem is that when you advocate for total freedom you are saying that every person deserves to have no restrictions. Should a 14 year old boy/girl be restricted from having sexual relations with an adult man or woman? If you say that is wrong then why? If the kid is consenting then what would be your problem? By denying them to sleep with anyone would be taking away their freedom. From my perspective, your argument for total freedom is not logical.

        Also, when it comes to voting citing the Catholic Church is a poor example. Many, many, many Catholics voted for Obama who holds many views that contradict the Catholic’s teachings.

        Lastly, I know that the Gospel is hard to “swallow”. In fact, you are incapable of swallowing it unless the Holy Spirit opens your eyes to see and your ears to hear the Truth. I pray that happens because God has transformed my life. Thanks for the conversations. I know that I do not reply right away but I appreciate the comments.

        Travis

      • Sinister Dreams

        We were actually talking about this exact thing earlier because I find it interesting that up until modern times, a girl turned into a woman as soon as she could reproduce and she was expected to have a child as soon as possible, because somewhere along the way that became frowned upon and now a child isn’t considered an adult until the age of 18, and then a full adult at 21. Now, of course I don’t want 14 year olds having babies, I don’t think they are mature enough for that, also the idea of sex with a 14 year old is just wrong, but then you asked why I would think that, well, I guess I don’t have an answer to that either because the only thing I can think of is because I have always been told it’s wrong and gross, so of course I think that. But If I lived in a culture where that was still the norm I wouldn’t think anything of it. And now this brings me to something else, freedom, like everything else has a lot of grey areas, and when you start getting into the grey areas of freedom it starts to get very paradoxical. You just can win and we could literally talk in circles about this all day, because you will present me with impossible scenarios that I can’t possibly have a decisive answer to.

        I mostly just mentioned the catholic church because I’ve been living in Rome, and I see firsthand every day the negative effects the church has on the city and the country and I would absolutely hate it is America turned into Italy, and when I say hate I really mean it, they have their fingers in everything from the president to the lowest ranking police officer.

        As for me becoming religious, someday I might, I haven’t become completely closed off to the idea and I do remain open to becoming a Christian while also remaining closed to it because I am still exploring all of my options and I am just not ready to settle into anything. Also, if you don’t mind me asking, just because I am curious, how did God transform your life?

      • SD,

        I would never want you to become “religious”. If that was the case then I would be preaching false hope. In high school I used to drink on the weekends. I was engaging in unhealthy sexual relations and it was destroying me. I felt guilty all the time and felt like a shell of what God created me to be. Then, God shook me up and showed me the life I was living. Sure, I wasn’t a murderer or a drug addict but I was a sinner. I was guilty of crimes against my Creator. As I understood this God showed me mercy (not receiving what is due) and grace (receiving something undeserved). I no longer had the need to drink. I no longer wanted to have those unhealthy relationships. God changed me and he can change you also. I pray that he does.

        Travis

      • Sinister Dreams

        Well, I suppose i’m halfway there, I do believe there is unexplained forces at play in the universe, what I don’t know is if it is God, Gods, Goddess, or just an unnamed energy and honestly I don’t know if I will ever know for sure.

        I’m happy that you changed your life around! It’s sounds like you were heading straight to alcohol addiction.

  2. Travis, I’ve been looking forward to you posting this, but after listening to the first 30 minutes of Dr. White’s audio presentation hoping to find a solid exegetical argument in defense of your and his position, it was a sadly and primarily a voicing of his personal aversion to homosexuality. That is fine but it’s hardly an exegetical treatment of the Scriptures. Dr. White rightly says, “We need to be very equipped to give clear and compelling biblical response to [all of this].” Perhaps if you’ve listened to the entire 5 hours you can summarize for the benefit of our discussion some of his key arguments.

    What he did say in the first 30 minutes was, “If you think the biblical argument relating to homosexuality is solely or even primarily based on the negative texts (sometimes referred to as the ‘clobber passages’) then you missed the boat.” He goes on to say, “the primary biblical argument can be found in Jesus’ teaching from Matthew 19 which is drawn from Genesis”.

    In saying this, he rests his entire case on the Creation story or stories from Genesis chapters 1 and 2. He does not exegetically elaborate on how this. He simply makes his summary and expects his listeners to believe it without doing any exegesis on the text. If he has done some latter on in the 5 hours, perhaps you can summarize for us.

    But concerning the Creation story Dr. White cites, I would draw your attention to my post titled, “GENESIS 1: TURNING THE CREATION STORY INTO AN ANTI-GAY TREATISE.” (Again, a link to this as well as my other posts may be found by simply clicking the link below and then selecting the “Archives” page.)

    Dr. White also says within the first 30 minutes that Matthew Vines, whose presentation he was responding to (as well as other who disagree with you and him), uses “the John Boswell text as his main source” and as “the scholarly rock on which he stands.” Though I do not know Mathew Vines at all, I can say with confidence that anyone who uses “the John Boswell text as his main source” has no source at all, as John Boswell was not and never claimed to be a Bible scholar or a theologian.

    Dr. White also infers in his first 30 minutes that those who believe your and his argument is exegetically unsupportable (such as me!) use the same arguments to defend their position as those who argue for and promote “intergeneration love”, which Dr. White rightly defines as pedophilia or adults engaging in sexual behavior with children. I don’t know where he gets his information from and I can’t speak for others. But I can tell you on my entire web site with almost 40 articles dealing with this topic you’ll not find one argument for pedophilia. Nor have you ever heard such nonsense come out of my mouth. To suggest that those who are for same-sex marriage also support pedophilia it is a deplorable and unsustainable association.

    Dr. White argues in his first 30 minutes against what he refers to as “mirror-image love.” He considers the love between two men or women as “mirror-image love” whereas he sees the love between man and woman as “a love that is different”.

    Though he fails to explain how this is nothing more than further elucidation of his own personal aversion, Dr. White also utterly fails to understand or acknowledge that homosexuality is nothing more than 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 Dr. White should know from his 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.

    “Complementarity” is what is in view here. Complementarity involves seeking someone matching you, someone “like-opposite” you, complementary and perceived as fascinatingly other than your own sense of self. It is not a question of genitalia. Even in the physicality of heterosexual relationship, so much more than the mechanics of genitalia is involved. The complexity of the “one-flesh” phenomenon is a union that has much more to do with two persons than with two body parts. In complementarity, one is looking for companionship in the fullest sense of intimacy, a fully matched person, utterly suitable in every way that actually fits the needs in question. Not simply for procreation, but a companion. Fact is procreation is not even mentioned as a reason why God was creating a companion for the man.

    Dr. White insists that those who disagree with you and him are “fundamentally [seeking in their support] an overthrow of scriptural authority”. Yet what those of us with respect for Bible interpretation and biblical authority seek is harder and infinitely more important to find than such easy outs or the desecration of God’s holy word. We search for the intention of the original writers. Who was the writer and to whom was he writing? What was the cultural and historical setting of the writer? What was the meaning of the words in the writer’s day? What was the intended meaning of the author and why was he saying it? What should this mean to me in my situation today? To an extent, careful study can open those meanings to us if we are humble enough not to presume we already know. We try hard to get past what we think we already know to find out what we are looking at.

    But back to the question you asked of me, Travis. You said: “I do have a question for you though. If I am not mistaken you dismiss Leviticus’ discussion on homosexuality because it could be ceremonial law right? If that is the case why is loving your neighbor in Lev. 19:18 different?”

    As I said to you, that is NOT correct at all. That is another gross misrepresentation of my position. I do not dismiss Leviticus’ discussion on homosexuality “because it could be ceremonial law”. In fact, I do not dismiss any Scripture at all. But I do understand that our goal in interpreting the Bible responsible should be to draw out from 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.

    To that end, you will find a detailed answer to your question in my exegetical post: “LEVITICUS 18: WHAT WAS THE ABOMINATION?” (Again, a link to this as well as my other posts may be found by simply clicking the link below and then selecting the “Archives” page.)

    I’ll look forward to your lucid response to the two posts I cited: (1) “GENESIS 1: TURNING THE CREATION STORY INTO AN ANTI-GAY TREATISE” and (2) “LEVITICUS 18: WHAT WAS THE ABOMINATION?”

    Perhaps you can tell us where you think I may have missed the boat in my exegesis and perhaps you can provide a summary of Dr. White’s exegetical arguments. Surely, you can’t expect your readers to listen to the full 5 hour audio presentation. Your summery of his key points will be indispensable to this rich and critical discussion.

    -Alex Haiken
    http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

    • Alex,

      We have discussed this topic and I am going to move on. My blog is not about homosexuality. My blog is about biblically sound theology. If you would like to write a refutation of my work on your website then go for it but, we have had lengthy discussions before and honestly this conversation won’t get us anywhere cause no matter what I say you will not repent of your sins.

      Travis

      • Travis, correct me if am I am wrong, but did you not post above a new post titled, “Are Gay Christians Real? And did you not precede that one with a two-part post titled, “The Dirty Secrets of Homosexuality”? And did you not post another titled, “Can Homosexuals Change?” We can cite some of your other titles related specifically to homosexuality and Christianity. And then you claim that your blog is not about homosexuality and how it does or does not relate to sound theology? Surely, you jest. And then you refuse to respond to readers who point out the errors in your reasoning and/or the arguments in the material you post here. Is that not the height of cowardice?

        You posted today a link to a 5-hour (yes, 5-hour!) audio presentation by Dr. White claiming, “If you want a thorough response to common homosexual arguments made by people claiming to be Christians, you need to listen to this.” One would therefore presume you have listened to it or you would not make that claim.

        Is it too must to ask that if you really and truly believe that if one wants a thorough response to common homosexual arguments made by people claiming to be Christians that its outlined and defined right here in this 5-hour audio presentation? And would it therefore be unreasonable to ask you to simply provide your readers with a summary of Dr. White’s key points. As I outlined already, there was not much meat in the first 30 minutes.

        Simple question: Can you provide a summary of the key points in this 5-hour audio presentation that you are touting as essential for a thorough response to common homosexual arguments made by people claiming to be Christians? Yes or no?

        -Alex Haiken
        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Alex,

        You: “We can cite some of your other titles related specifically to homosexuality and Christianity. And then you claim that your blog is not about homosexuality and how it does or does not relate to sound theology? Surely, you jest. And then you refuse to respond to readers who point out the errors in your reasoning and/or the arguments in the material you post here. Is that not the height of cowardice?”

        Me: Writing on a subject that is at the heart of cultural discussion does not mean my blog is about homosexuality. Also, we have had extensive discussions before Alex so, to call me a coward seems a little odd.

        You: “And would it therefore be unreasonable to ask you to simply provide your readers with a summary of Dr. White’s key points.”

        Me: I trust people to do their own work. I provided a presentation the thoroughly dismantles common homosexual “christian” claims. If you choose not to listen then don’t but, don’t expect me to give an outline of the entire presentation. That seems more outlandish then complaining about me posting a 5 hour MP3.

        You: “Can you provide a summary of the key points in this 5-hour audio presentation that you are touting as essential for a thorough response to common homosexual arguments made by people claiming to be Christians? Yes or no?”

        Me: Yes, I can but, no, I will not.

        Travis

      • Travis, let’s be honest here. If not a coward, then you are certainly being devious and deceitful to your readers if for no other reason than the following: You infer that this 5-hour audio presentation by Dr. White is definitive, “essential” and “a thorough response to common homosexual arguments made by Christians who are homosexual.” Yet the material Dr. White chooses to critique is by someone who according to White himself uses “the John Boswell text as his main source” and as “the scholarly rock on which he stands.” This despite the fact that Boswell never claimed to be a Bible scholar or a theologian. So what then is he arguing against? Certainly not sound exegesis which you and I both agree should be prized above all else.

        Moreover, he spends his first 30 minutes, when most reputable and lauded speakers generally lay out their case, trying to convince listeners that Christians who are homosexual use the same arguments to defend their position as those who argue for and promote pedophilia or adults engaging in sexual behavior with children? How lame is that?

        And if that is not enough, he then tries to use the argument of procreation as one of his strongest points when virtually all churches and 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.

        If these are his strongest arguments, it’s understandable that you would avoid like the plague any attempt to outline his key points. He already made them up front and they hardly constitute sound exegesis by any definition.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Alex,

        If I was trying to “avoid” Dr. White’s interaction then I would have taken it down. Not giving an outline doesn’t mean I am avoiding it. I just think that if other’s want to listen they can. If not that is their call.

        Travis

  3. I considered what Vines to say to have been a false prophet. I almost fell for the filth of his lies. Scriptures are clear marriage is one woman and one man. This means that any sexual relationship outside of marriage is wrong. In closing, you cannot continue to live a blatant sinful lifestyle and follow Christ. As long as I live I will continue to pray for everyone.

  4. Travis, did you listen to this 5-hour audio presentation you’re touting or did you simply post it?

    -Alex Haiken
    http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

    • All because I don’t post an outline of the response you accuse me of not listening to it? Let’s get this straight right now. I would never post anything to my blog without listening/watching to it first. With that I will be ending this conversation since we have obviously run out of things to say.

      Travis

  5. I listened to the first 30 minutes. I’m not fully convinced by Matthew Vines arguments but on the whole he is much more thoughtful. You need to propose real solutions to Matthew’s challenge, instead you just demand that the Bible be understood with all the cultural prejudices that you favor, and excluding the experiences of gays. .You are just dismissing the real experiences of gay people and their needs for human flourishing, their need for intimacy, deep friendship, and things that in this society are mostly supplied through a lifelong partner, which are not being met in current social conditions oriented around homophobia. Not taking the needs of a minority, even sexual minority, as human beings seriously, portrays Christianity negatively and doesn’t live up to the ethic of Jesus Christ.

    • You say that I need to propose “real solutions to Matthew’s challenge”, and that I “exclude the experience of gays”. This is quite funny considering you only listened to 30 minutes of the response. I think that is unfair. The ethic of Jesus was to love God, and love people. That was his ethic. It is unloving to allow people to follow a path that will lead to destruction, and the homosexual lifestyle is just that…destructive. Does that mean, a person attracted to the same sex can’t enjoy friendships, or deep relationships? No, it means that they cannot engage in homosexual sex, because that wouldn’t be loving to God. God created us, and he has the right to tell us how to live. You may or may not believe that, but it is the truth.

  6. Travis, you say: “It is unloving to allow people to follow a path that will lead to destruction, and the homosexual lifestyle is just that…destructive.” >>

    On what do you base such a grandiose assessment that all non-heterosexual people are following path that leads to destruction?

    And what pre-tell is the “homosexual lifestyle?”

    I suppose for you that congers up images of men who spend their time working out, partying at gay nightclubs, drinking fruity alcoholic beverages, and seeking out numerous sexual partners who live similar lives.

    Yes, that is a “lifestyle.” It’s a lifestyle of sexual addiction and escapism. And because it’s founded on self-centered pleasure-seeking rather than anything substantial (family, faith, the good of others, etc.), it’s ultimately hollow. It’s not sustainable, either; one day, that perfect body isn’t so perfect anymore. If your whole life has been built on nothing but sex and personal pleasure-seeking, what do you have to offer anyone else as you age?

    But see, there are also many straight people who live promiscuous lives based on sex and pleasure-seeking, and yet we 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.

    And the same is true for gay people. Not all gay people drink, or go to clubs, or are self-centered, or like to dance, or work out, or are promiscuous, or even have sex at all. We’re all really different from each other.

    There is no “gay lifestyle.” And when people like you use that phrase, however well-intentioned they may be, it reduces us to a stereotype, and that is not only ignorant, it is living the love ethic of Jesus that you espouse.

    -Alex Haiken
    http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

    • Alex,

      You are right. There are gay people who don’t have sex. If that is the case, then that’s more than okay. I think that is the right way to handle the claims of Scripture and same-sex attraction. If I have lust in my heart, I do not fan the flame of that passion. I step away from it, and claim to the cross of Christ. What I was trying to communicate by “gay lifestyle” is sexually active gay lifestyle. Any gay sexual act is against God’s creative decree and is shown in Scripture to be sinful. The same would go for the heterosexual person having sex outside of the marriage. Both are against the Word of God. Also, you will notice I never said anything about partying at clubs, drinking, dancing, or working out. You said it is important to not stereotype, I suggest you heed your own words.

      Travis

  7. Forgive the typo. That last line was intended to say: that is NOT living the love ethic of Jesus that you espouse.

    -Alex Haiken
    http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

  8. Travis, you say: “Any gay sexual act is against God’s creative decree and is shown in Scripture to be sinful.”

    You would be much more accurate had you said, “Based on MY interpretation of the Scriptures, any gay sexual act is sinful.” For the fact is throughout history, we Christians of all traditions have repeatedly used the Bible to support doctrinal positions we believed to be as clear as mineral water but that we later had to confess to be mistaken. The list, as we both know, is endless. The doctrine of those who, like you, read their antigay presuppositions into the biblical texts is believed to be only the most recent doctrinal position well on the way to being generally acknowledged as a mistake of this kind.

    It may also be noted they were all convinced that 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 think they were interpreting the Bible wrongly and making serious mistakes as a result — mistakes which led to fanaticism, persecution and even war.

    As a result, those whose opinions were at one time considered heretical have found themselves reinstated among the orthodox, and vice versa. One might think that the frequency and seriousness of these misjudgments made by the Christian majority would have engendered a degree of caution and humility. But on the contrary, reckless dogmatism and arrogant intolerance seem as rife as ever, as evidenced by your comments.

    -Alex Haiken
    http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

    • Alex,

      I believe that God speaks clearly in Scripture. We can understand him, because he understands us. Saying that others have twisted Scripture in history does not apply to homosexuality, because the same argument could be leveled against you. The truth is that God does speak clearly, and in his word and seen through how he created humans shows us that homosexuality is outside of his prescriptive will for us. It is that simple.

      Travis

  9. Travis, you think? You can say that and believe it until you’re blue in the face. But it was “that clear” and “that simple,” we would not have a continually growing number of Bible scholars, theologians and other evangelical believers whose credentials in biblical study far outweigh your own, publishing scores of scholarly works indicating that you are very wrong.

    If it were “that simple” and “that clear” we would not have 2,000 years of Christian history where questions of doctrine have had to be drastically revised time and time again.

    One wonders what it would take for such a rigid mind as yours to admit that you, like many well-intentioned Christians before you, have made a mistake. To admit our human fallibility is not to say that the Bible provides no access to divine truth whatsoever. Indeed the recognition of a “mistake” presupposes the accessibility of such truth.

    The vast majority of Christians now accept that mistakes were made which have now been corrected. What we must abandon, however, is the delusion that our understanding of the Bible is already correct in every detail. Church history demonstrates unambiguously the implausibility of such a claim.

    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. Is it not significant that many of the prophets and Jesus himself were persecuted by members of the religious establishment for heresy?

    The future will undoubtedly reveal that we too 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.

    -Alex Haiken
    http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

    • Alex,

      We are fallen beings. We get it wrong. However, the Scriptures never change. The message stays the same. As I said before, people have misused the Bible to support their causes, but that doesn’t meant he Bible is wrong, or can’t be understood. It means people misused it. The problem is that those on the pro-homosexual side are doing that very same thing. They are muddying up the plain definitions of the words the Bible uses to support their cause. Not only that, they totally ignore God’s creative purpose. IT doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that a male and female go together. You and I have gone back and forth on the Biblical passages and I could point to many “Bible scholars, theologians and other evangelical believers whose credentials in biblical study far outweigh your own, publishing scores of scholarly works indicating that you are very wrong.” Does that really solve anything? That seems to be a mantra you constantly use, but it is meaningless. The debate is not about how many people believe something. IT is about what is true and not true. From my perspective there are a lot of people willing to throw their understanding of Scripture out because the gay agenda has taken hold of our society. I will not be one of those people.

      It’s truly sad to see you defending something that goes against God’s creation and decree, and call yourself a believer. I pray that the Holy Spirit convicts you of your sin and your motives, as I pray He does the same for me.

      Travis

  10. Travis,

    You are correct that the debate is not about how many people believe something. It’s about what is true and not true. And while you also say, “It’s truly sad to see you defending something that goes against God’s creation and decree, and call yourself a believer,” I think it’s sad that you are unable to see that in the final analysis your position on this matter is simply not exegetically supportable — and it is for that specific reason that more and more Bible scholars, theologians and others with a high view of Scripture and who are prayerfully committed to ordering their lives in accordance with it, have come to the conclusion that you are wrong. While you seem to be so confident of the infallibility of your hermeneutical skills on this matter, if to be a Christian is to live with the knowledge of our sinfulness, as you readily acknowledge, it is equally to live with the knowledge of our fallibility. I had to learn that I was wrong on this issue, perhaps one day you will too.

    -Alex Haiken
    http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

    • Tony San Nicolas

      Mr. Haiken,
      Are you saying that the Apostolic and early church fathers were wrong about their theology and ensuing orthodoxy? Wow, I had no idea that we had such fantastic and enlightened “Bible Scholars” in this day and age. It’s very surprising that you didn’t give any names, since they have apparently been empowered by the Holy Spirit to come to these new and startling conclusions. Give me the names of these scholars, theologians and “others” with a “high view of scripture” so that I may glean from their secret knowledge. Thanks.

      • Tony,

        Nope, that isn’t what I’m saying. If you read the entire thread what I have been saying is that sound exegesis requires that we seek to DRAW OUT from a passage what it meant to the original author and to the original intended audience without READING INTO the text the many traditional interpretations that may have grown up around it. Exegesis tries to discern what is being said, and what is NOT being said at the same time, as both are key elements of sound exegesis.

        The point is that homosexuality per se is never addressed — not anywhere in Scripture nor by the church fathers. What Scripture does address is same-sex activity in the form of (1) pagan cult idolatry, (2) gang rape, as 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. Miss this and you not only miss what was going on in the infamous Sodom and Gomorrah text, but you 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,” and (3) an exploitation form of pederasty that was popular in the Greco-Roman world.

        For more info, you may want to read by post on “Why No One in the Biblical World Had a Word for Homosexuality” at: http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/why-no-one-in-the-biblical-world-had-a-word-for-homosexuality

        You may wish to check out some of my other posts as well from the Archives page. For in my blog you’ll find many of my posts quote from the scholars, theologians and others with a high view of scripture that you inquired about. If you can’t find them, let me know.

        I hope this helps.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Alex,

        Just because you continually assert that others are reading their views into the text, doesn’t make it true. We must examine the evidence found in Scripture. You say that homosexuality is nowhere addressed in Scripture. And you say that same-sex acts are in three categories: #1 Pagan cults, #2 Gang rape, and #3 pederasty. Now which category does this text fit in?

        For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27, ESV)

        Now, Paul may not have had a word for homosexuality, but the concept is clear in Scripture. And this text does not refer to Pagan cults, gang rape, or pederasty. Same-sex acts are sinful. That is why God calls it a dishonorable passion.

        Allow me to suggest that you are the one reading things into the text to suit your behavior. You are trying to skirt the clear message of Scripture by blowing the biggest smoke screen you can. At the end of the day, we are all accountable to God for what we believe and teach. I pray that God turns your dishonorable passions into a passion for the Lord.

        Thanks,

        Travis

      • My brother Travis,

        As you correctly state, we must indeed examine the evidence found in Scripture. And when that evidence indicates that our interpretation or theology is found to be exegetically unsupportable, we need to be willing to let it go, no matter how treasured or long-held it may be. The passage you reference is a classic example of #1 above, i.e., cultic pagan idolatry. Here Paul ridicules Gentile religious rebellion in typical Jewish polemic saying that they knew God but worshipped idols instead of God. 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 sex exchanges. This was addressed in detail in my post, “Romans 1: What Was Paul Ranting About?,” which can be found at: http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/romans-1-what-was-paul-ranting-about.

        It was also addressed in my post, “Romans 2: Paul’s Bait and Switch,” which can be found at: http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/romans-2-pauls-bait-and-switch.

        While you infer “Now, Paul may not have had a word for homosexuality, but the concept is clear in Scripture,” fact is respectable Bible dictionaries vehemently disagree with you and say you are wrong. Harper’s Bible Dictionary, for example, says of homosexuality: “A word for which there is no specific equivalent in the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament, since the concept itself as well as the English word originated only in the 19th century.”

        Phrased differently, contrary to what you infer, both the word AND the concept were foreign to the biblical writers and to the Ancient culture of the day.

        Again, sound exegesis requires that we seek to DRAW OUT from a passage what it meant to the original author and to the original intended audience without READING INTO the text the many traditional interpretations that may have grown up around it.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Alex,

        You are right in saying that earlier in Rom. 1 Paul refers to idolatry by exchanging the glory of God for the glory of man or created things. The problem you have is this. Where in Paul’s words does it say anything about prostitution? The fact is this, exchanging the glory of the one true God for man or created things means one is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Because of this suppression God handed people over to their “dishonorable desires”. What are the dishonorable desires?

        women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

        Here we have that word “exchanged” again. Women exchanged natural sexual relations with men for sexual relations with women. But, Paul doesn’t stop there. He says, even more clearly, that men also gave up natural relations with women and were engaging in sexual acts with other men.

        Paul’s main point is not about homosexuality. I never said it was Paul’s point. However, homosexuality is “dishonorable” and it is the result of denying God’s truth for the sake of manmade morality. Idolatry is placing one’s self or other things above God. God is the only one worthy of our worship so when we “exchange” his glory for other things, we are committing idolatry. And Paul highlights the road that will lead us down.

        Alex, you are not defending a Godly position. You are defending a position that God is plainly against. I suggest that this obsession with defending your sexual choices is a form of idolatry because you are disregarding the plain meaning of the text to support your lifestyle.

        Travis

      • Travis,

        You ask: Where does it say anything about prostitution? This, my brother, is where exegesis comes in. If sound exegesis, as I’ve been saying ad nauseam, is about drawing out from the text what it meant to the original author and to the original intended audience and not reading into the text things the author never intended to say, then we need to know something about the social and historical context of what Paul (and other biblical writers) were writing about. If you have no idea what they text meant THEN you are left to only guess at what it might mean for us TODAY.

        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 a means of promoting fertility. The Scripture is also replete with references to the cult prostitutes of the biblical world. We also know that pagan cult prostitution was specifically associated with the Temple of Aphrodite in the high hill above Corinth. As you may also know, Corinth is precisely where Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. Paul was quite well aware of the practices of the fertility cults. 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.”

        As for Paul’s statement that “women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,” the inference of the church fathers for 400 years was that this was a reference to slave abuse or avaricious anal penetration of women to avoid pregnancy.

        Again, Travis, sound exegesis requires that we seek to DRAW OUT from a passage what it meant to the original author and to the original intended audience without READING INTO the text the many traditional interpretations that may have grown up around it.

        What happens when you ignore the historical context of Scripture? As the old time radio teacher, Dr. J. Vernon Magee, was fond of saying, “A text without a context is a pretext.” The dictionary defines a pretext as, “An effort or strategy intended to conceal something.” In other words, unless we consider the context of Scripture — I mean the entire context including the historical setting — we are, purposely or not, engaging in a strategy to conceal the teachings of the Bible.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Alex,

        I never said that the people in Paul’s day couldn’t understand what he was saying. Paul uses the word exchange to when talking about giving up what is right for what is wrong. They exchange God’s glory for their glory. They exchange natural sexual relations between man and woman for same-sex acts. The text says nothing about pagan cults. Nor does the text say anything about prostitutes. Paul does say that it is dishonorable for men to have sex with men and women to have sex with women. That is what the text says.

        Am I saying that the background doesn’t matter? Of course not. Am I saying that fertility cults didn’t do this in Paul’s day? No. I am saying that, for Paul, exchanging natural sexual acts between man and women for same-sex acts is the result of exchanging God’s glory for something else. That is the connection Paul makes. You are attempting to apply outside background to substantiate your position. Paul, never referred to the pagan cults in the text. He states that the exchanging for God’s glory for something else, results in the exchanging for natural sexual relations for the unnatural. Now does that include the pagan cults? If they are engaged in unnatural sexual relations then of course. But, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate, from the text, that it is limited only to those pagan cults and not to other people. You will not be able to do that.

        Travis

      • Travis,

        I understand and respect that you sincerely believe you are correct, but what you are proposing is not sound biblical exegesis. You’re “frontloading,” that is to say, you’re reading your own personal, political and prejudicial beliefs back into the Bible, instead of reading out from the Bible what the original writers were saying. This process of reading one’s own ideas into interpretation of the Bible is called “eisegesis”. Eisegesis is the very opposite of exegesis.

        We must be careful about what we read into Paul’s use of the Greek terms “para physin” which is translated in the English as “against nature” or “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, 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.

        You simply cannot take Paul’s Hellenic concept of para physin (i.e., “against nature”), and tack on to it all things gay. Not if you have respect for sound exegesis. 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. 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.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Alex,

        I never said that the word unnatural = sinful. However, in the text, Paul shows us that in the case of sexuality exchanging the natural for the unnatural is sinful. Very simple. It’s hard to believe that you read my words and responded the way you did. It just shows me that you have no response to my argument, because I never said that unnatural = sinful.

        Travis

      • Tony San Nicolas

        Alex,
        Every point that you’re trying to make have been thoroughly and excellently argued by James White. I believe that it is you who is exercising an eisegesis of the text.

      • Travis,

        You said: “I never said that the word unnatural = sinful.”

        Let’s be clear. You are averring that what Paul says is “unnatural” is homosexuality. I (and an ever growing number of scholars) say Paul is not addressing homosexuality per se, a concept that, as the Harper’s Bible dictionary confirms, he would have known nothing about. Rather, he is ridiculing Gentile religious rebellion, addressing the cultic pagan prostitution and associated practices that were rampant and that he saw everywhere.

        Paul says they knew God, but instead of worshipping God, they turned to the pagan gods and their grisly practices instead. We don’t get to rip biblical passages from their historical context and replace them it in another age for the sake of convenience. As always, we are stuck with the internal interpretation of the text as the primary meaning.

        To understand Paul’s writing, we MUST understand the world with which he was familiar. One of the most prominent and pervasive themes weaving its way through virtually every book of the entire Bible is that of paganism and the constant call to turn from it. We find a continuous call to turn from the worshiping of the false or pagan gods of the day and to turn instead to the one true living God, Yahweh. In connection with the call to turn from worshiping pagan gods is the admonition to turn from participating in a myriad of pagan rituals or practices. Both the OT and NT spend page after page condemning these pagan cult practices.

        Paul’s mission was the same as was the mission of the prophets of old, except that he was sent primarily to the Gentiles. It is from Paul’s witness of life in the pagan world of 2,000 years ago that come the letters that we have today. If we miss the anti-pagan practice polemic point of the Apostle’s letters, we fail to understand the Apostle’s mission and message. He was just as anti-pagan as the OT prophets were. Paul was anti-pagan. To assume that he was also anti-homosexual is to put words in the Apostle’s mouth. That is not exegesis.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Alex,

        Where in the text does it say they turned from God to pagan gods? It says that they turned to icons in the image of man and animals. Everyone worships something. If it isn’t God, then it is something else, or one’s self. Either way, that person is engaging in adultery. You are the one putting words in Paul’s mouth. Not worshipping the one true God leads to “dishonorable” acts and homosexuality is one of those. Addressing homosexuality is not Paul’s main point, never said it was, however, he does address it clearly and being consumed with passion for someone of the same gender is a manifestation of one’s rejection of God.

        Travis

      • Travis,

        You ask: “Where in the text does it say they turned from God to pagan gods?”

        Paul specifically says in Romans 1, although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 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.

        Paul says they knew God but instead of turning to God, they turned instead to the pagan gods and the associated pagan rituals and practices of the pagan fertility cults. If you did some reading up on the pagan fertility cults of the day, you’d know that in addition to the grisly sexual rituals with the male and female shine prostitutes, they also performed sexual intercourse with animals, and a host of other gross and detestable practices in order to gain and increase fertility. In the New International Biblical Commentary: “Joshua, Judges, Ruth,” for 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 Baal to act likewise on the person’s behalf and thus to ensure fertility in all areas of life.”

        -Alex Haiken
        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Continued from above …

        Travis,

        Oops, meant to include the following quote regarding Romans 1 and their “exchanging the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

        Why did they have sex with animals? This too was believed to increase their fertility. In the New Bible Commentary, scholar Christopher Wright says the following:

        “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.”

        -Alex Haiken
        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • So Paul addresses dishonorable same-sex acts and man-animal sex acts? Talk about eisegesis. Paul doesn’t address animal/human sex. He specifically addresses same-sex acts.

        As I said before, it is up to you to back up the assertion that these same-sex acts are only in the context of pagan cults. But, you can’t. Yes, pagan cults did this, but Paul does not limit the dishonorable same-sex acts to pagan cults. He simply says that people exchanged natural sexual acts with the unnatural; just as they exchanged God’s glory for images of man or animals.

        Travis

      • Travis,

        So you think it’s up to me to back up the assertion that these same-sex acts are in the context of pagan cults:

        If what Harper’s and other Bible Dictionaries stated is correct — and we’ve already quoted from Harper’s above — i.e., that not only the word but the very concept of homosexuality itself was unknown to the biblical writers and the biblical world, then I’ve already backed up the assertion that these same-sex acts are in the context of pagan cults.

        But surely we’re not limited to one Bible dictionary. Classicists and theologians have been backing this up for a long time. I’ve quoted from several above, and repeatedly in my blog. Moreover, in the specific posts on this subject that I referenced above and provided links to (“Romans 1: What Was Paul Ranting About?” and “Romans 2: Paul’s Bait and Switch”), these were exclusively devoted to backing up the assertion that these same-sex acts are in the context of pagan cults.

        It may well take time to get used to seeing this in ancient writings, Travis — and none of us assimilates this notion on the first pass — but like it or not, this understanding operates in biblical interpretation and more and more Bible scholars working in good faith and out in the open find this reality necessary for grasping what the biblical writers were talking about when you think they’re talking about “homosexuality.”

        So you think it’s up to me to back up the assertion that these same-sex acts are in the context of pagan cults. Seems to me you the onus is on you (as it is on all of us) to demonstrate that our positions are in the final analysis exegetically supportable. If you can’t demonstrate that, you’re simply ripping passages out of their historical context and replacing them in another age for the sake of convenience. Something I’m certain we’d both agree is not exegesis by any stretch of the imagination.

        Can you demonstrate that your position is exegetically supportable? As previously stated, if you can’t, you need to let it go, no matter no treasured or long-held it might be.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

      • Alex,

        You say that the concept of homosexuality didn’t exist, yet Paul expresses clearly same-sex acts. That is homosexuality. Just because they didn’t have the Greek word for it, doesn’t mean the concept isn’t there.

        Also, when you say “more and more Bible scholars working in good faith and out in the open”, so those who do not agree with you, must not be doing so in good faith?

        Lastly, we have gone back and forth on this issue and we aren’t budging. However, it is clear that you cannot show the connection between Paul’s words and the pagan cults of the day. Again, did those cults practice same-sex acts? Yes. Does Paul’s words limit the realm of dishonorable acts to the pagan cults? No. Paul shows that forsaking the truth of God leads to destruction. It leads to dishonorable passions. Are you saying that same-sex acts inside pagan cults is wrong, but same-sex acts outside of the pagan cults is right? What does the Bible say about sexuality? Does not Jesus clearly state that God created male and female so they would be together and no man shall separate them (Mark 10)? So, where do you find a positive assertion for homosexuality in the Scriptures? Or do you not need to do so?

        I know those are a lot of questions, but I think they prove the point quite well.

      • No, Travis. More to the point: I didn’t say the concept of homosexuality didn’t exist. Harper’s Bible Dictionary said it didn’t exist. Classicists have said it didn’t exist. Bible scholars have said it didn’t exist. Noted experts on Ancient Canaanite, Greek and Roman culture have said it didn’t exist. Your argument is not with me; I didn’t make this stuff up.

        Furthermore, as to your argument above, if we wish to interpret the Bible responsibly, we have to bear in mind, that sometimes, as we know, the Bible condemns specific acts or behaviors, all expressions of it, for all time, regardless of situation. For example, sleeping with someone else’s wife is never acceptable under any circumstances at any time, i.e., all expressions of it, for all time, regardless of situation. Period. This can be easily exegetically supported and demonstrated.

        But sometimes, as we also know, the Bible condemns specific acts or behaviors, in specific situations, but not all situations, for all of time. For this reason, F.F. Bruce reminds us: “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.” For example, when the Bible speaks negatively of “tax collectors,” we realize that it’s not talking about modern IRS agents. Tax collectors in Jesus’ day were frequently corrupt and cheated people out of more money than they owed. So when the Bible talks about “tax collectors,” it’s not condemning all tax collectors for all time; it’s condemning the specific behaviors of the tax collectors AT THAT TIME FOR VERY SPECIFIC REASONS, EVEN THOUGH THESE SPECIFIC REASONS ARE NOT SPELLED OUT IN THE TEXT. Similarly, writing to people in his own time and culture, Paul’s letters presume a level of familiarity with situations and issues being addressed that are not always explicitly spelled out in the text.

        Nowhere in the Bible will you find one positive statement about tax collectors. They were the most hated group in the social system. Those NT tax collectors had sold out the Jewish people to the Empire, ratted out their own kind, extorting money for a bully just to pay their own bills. The Bible does not explain all of this. Again, this is where exegesis comes in. If you know nothing about the biblical world you’ll not only miss much, you’ll continue to rip passages from their context and replace it in another age for the sake of convenience. But that’s not responsible nor is it exegesis.

        Rather, you run right past all of this and insist that when the Bible condemns the only three known expressions of same sex activity in the Ancient world, specifically: (1) Pagan cult idolatry, (2) gang rape, or men and kings of conquered tribes often being raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. Male-to-male rape, as already mentioned, was a way for victors to accentuate the subjection of captive enemies and foes and a way of humiliating visitors and strangers, and (3) an exploitative form of pederasty that was popular in the Ancient world, you simply presume the Bible is addressing all same-sex behavior for all time, regardless of situation.

        How do you justifiably support such a presumption exegetically — especially when, as we already cited, Bible dictionaries, classicists, scholars, noted historians and other credible sources, have clearly and repeatedly indicated that the concept of homosexuality did not even exist in the Ancient world or in Bible times? How do you justifiably support this presumption exegetically?

        -Alex Haiken
        http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

      • This is what the Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology says this about Romans 1:26-27:

        “The remaining passage appears to be an unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality. While many modern revisionists simply disagree with Paul or discount his proscription as applying only to prostitution or pederasty, some have attempted to reinterpret the passage as tacit approval of homosexuality. The argument is that Paul portrays homosexual Acts as impure but carefully avoids the language of sin; he intends merely to distinguish a Gentile practice considered by Jews to be “unclean” in order to draw Jews (or “weaker brethren”) into his subsequent explanation of the gospel. Careful investigation of the passage, however, shows this explanation to be untenable.”

        Then says, “The substance of Paul’s proscription of homosexuality is significant in several respects. First, he mentions lesbian relations first and links lesbianism to male homosexuality. This is unusual if not unique in the ancient world, and it demonstrates that Paul’s concern is less with progeniture than with rebellion against sexual differentiation or full created personhood. Second, Paul speaks in terms of mutual consent (e.g., “inflamed with lust for one another, ” v. 27), effectively including Acts other than rape and pederasty in the prohibition. Third, the passage describes corporate as well as individual rebellion, a fact that may have implications for modern discussions of “orientation.” In other words, although Paul does not address the question here directly, it is reasonable to suppose that he would consign the orientation toward homosexual Acts to the same category as heterosexual orientation toward adultery or fornication. The “natural” or “fleshly” proclivity is a specific byproduct of the corporate human rebellion and in no way justifies itself or the activity following from that proclivity. On the basis of any of these three implications, it is legitimate to use the word “homosexuality” as it is conceived in the modern world when speaking of Romans 1 and, by cautious extension, when speaking of the related biblical passages.”

        Sounds to me like they agree with me. I could quote hundreds of scholars against you, but that gets us no where, because truth is not defined by the majority. However, you say that same-sex acts are only within three categories, and when your categories don’t work you squeeze Rom. 1 in to your unbiblical paradigm. Totally disregarding the flow and context of Paul’s actual words.

        Travis

      • Travis,

        First of all, I’m not making the arguments cited in the text you’re quoting:

        (1) Whereas the source you quote is addressing those who “attempted to reinterpret the passage as tacit approval of homosexuality.” Let me be clear: I said nothing of the sort. What I have repeatedly said is that Paul cannot neither approve nor disprove of something he was unfamiliar with.

        (2) Whereas the source you quote is addressing those who say “Paul carefully avoids the language of sin,” I maintained that what Paul is describing in Romans 1 is categorically and unequivocally sin. But it is sin for a specific reason. Though Israel’s disobedience and breaking of the covenant took many forms, the most frequently cited offense was worshipping the idols and false gods around them. That is sin! God’s covenant with his chosen 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 their worshipping 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.” (Jer 2:20) Over and over we see that the Israelites did not only borrow from the pagan ways of worshipping idols and false gods, but constantly relapsed into them.

        (3) The source you quote says that Paul “mentions lesbian relations first and links lesbianism to male homosexuality.” On what basis can the author make this presumption when the inference of the church fathers for 400 years was that Paul’s statement in Romans 1 that “women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,” was a reference to slave abuse or avaricious anal penetration of women to avoid pregnancy? Where is evidence to support he notion that “lesbians” existed in the Ancient world? Answer: There is none!!! He, like you, in this case is ripping a passage form its historical context and replacing it in another age for sake of convenience. As we’ve noted ad nauseam, that is NOT exegesis. Rather it is the very opposite of exegesis; it is eisegesis.

        I could go on, but this still takes us back to the same question you still have not answered: Do you simply copy words of people and texts who agree with you, or can you actually exegetically support your position? If you can, then I would gladly concede. But if you can’t, then my point stands: your position is exegetically unsupportable. And if the doctrines and theologies we hold prove in the final analysis to exegetically unsupportable, then we need to be willing to let them go, no matter how treasured or long-held they may be.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

      • I see, so when I quote a source that agrees with me, they must be ripping out passages. But, the one’s supporting your view aren’t. I see now. Thanks for the time Alex, but if you are not going to be fair or rational then I am not sure how we can continue. And as Tony has pointed out, if you aren’t willing to actually listen to the arguments Dr. White has put forth, then what is the use in debating? You refuse to actually listen to the other side, thus you will never be able to convince those who know what they believe and why they believe it.

        Travis

      • Tony San Nicolas

        Alex,
        Again, EVERY ONE of your arguments have been discussed and refuted by James White. I am guessing that you have not listened to all 5 hours of his rebuttal because the truth is so hard to hear. I would suggest you listen to it all.

      • Tony,

        One again you failed to read the thread before responding. James White’s tape has already been discussed here. After listening to the first 30 minutes of White’s audio presentation hoping to find a solid exegetical argument in defense of his position, it was sadly and primarily a voicing of his own personal aversion to homosexuality. That is fine, but it’s hardly an exegetical treatment of the Scriptures. Dr. White rightly says, “We need to be very equipped to give clear and compelling biblical response to [all of this].” Perhaps if you’ve listened to the entire 5 hours you can summarize for the benefit of our discussion some of his key arguments.

        What he did say in the first 30 minutes was, “If you think the biblical argument relating to homosexuality is solely or even primarily based on the negative texts (often referred to as the ‘clobber passages’) then you missed the boat.” He goes on to say, “the primary biblical argument can be found in Jesus’ teaching from Matthew 19 which is drawn from Genesis”.

        In saying this, he rests his entire case on the Creation story or stories from Genesis chapters 1 and 2. He does not exegetically elaborate on how. He simply makes his summary and expects his listeners to believe it without doing any exegesis on the text. If he has done some latter on in the 5 hours, perhaps you can summarize for us.

        But concerning the Creation story Dr. White cites, I would draw your attention to my post titled, “Genesis 1: Turning the Creation Story into an Anti-Gay Treatise,” which can be found at: http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/genesis-1-turning-the-creation-story-into-an-antigay-treatise.

        White also says within the first 30 minutes that Matthew Vines, whose presentation he was responding to, uses “the John Boswell text as his main source” and as “the scholarly rock on which he stands.” Though I do not know Mathew Vines, I can say with confidence that anyone who uses Boswell as his main source has no source at all. John Boswell was not and never claimed to be a Bible scholar or a theologian.
        White also infers in his first 30 minutes that those who believe your and his argument is exegetically unsupportable (such as me!) use the same arguments to defend their position as those who argue for and promote “intergeneration love”, which Dr. White rightly defines as pedophilia or adults engaging in sexual behavior with children. I don’t know where he gets his information from and I can’t speak for others. But I can tell you on my entire web site with almost 40 articles dealing with this topic you’ll not find one argument for pedophilia. Nor has such nonsense come out of my mouth. To suggest that those who are for same-sex marriage also support pedophilia is a deplorable and unsustainable association.

        White argues in his first 30 minutes against what he refers to as “mirror-image love.” He considers the love between two men or women as “mirror-image love” whereas he sees the love between man and woman as “a love that is different”.
        Though he fails to explain how this is nothing more than further elucidation of his own personal aversion, White also utterly fails to understand or acknowledge that homosexuality is nothing more than 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 Dr. White should know from his 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.

        “Complementarity” is what is in view here. Complementarity involves seeking someone matching you, someone “like-opposite” you, complementary and perceived as fascinatingly other than your own sense of self. It is not a question of genitalia. Even in the physicality of heterosexual relationship, so much more than the mechanics of genitalia is involved. The complexity of the “one-flesh” phenomenon is a union that has much more to do with two persons than with two body parts. In complementarity, one is looking for companionship in the fullest sense of intimacy, a fully matched person, utterly suitable in every way that actually fits the needs in question. Not simply for procreation, but a companion. Fact is procreation is not even mentioned as a reason why God was creating a companion for the man.

        White insists that those who disagree with you and him are “fundamentally [seeking in their support] an overthrow of scriptural authority”. Yet what those of us with respect for Bible interpretation and biblical authority seek is harder and infinitely more important to find than such easy outs or the desecration of God’s holy word. We search for the intention of the original writers. Who was the writer and to whom was he writing? What was the cultural and historical setting of the writer? What was the meaning of the words in the writer’s day? What was the intended meaning of the author and why was he saying it? What should this mean to me in my situation today? To an extent, careful study can open those meanings to us if we are humble enough not to presume we already know. We try hard to get past what we think we already know to find out what we are looking at.

        Perhaps you can provide a summary of Dr. White’s exegetical arguments. Surely, you can’t expect readers to listen to the full 5 hour audio presentation especially when his first 30 minutes were laughable. Your summery of his key points, Tony, will be indispensable.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Tony San Nicolas

        So, you admit to not listening to the first 30 minutes? This is absolutely ridiculous. We listen to your apologists drivel, yet you can’t stand to hear the truth of Dr. White’s rebuttal. Truth hurts, but you should still hear it. I hope that you do, Mr. Haiken.

      • Tony San Nicolas

        Mr. Haiken,
        I would like to create an outline of the issues refuted by Dr. White and will post it here when I am finished. But, I shouldn’t have to do that, when the material has been made and posted for the world to listen. Just take the time, because everything that you talk about was discussed by Dr. White – just because you don’t agree with the first 30 minutes of Dr. White’s rebuttal, doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t listen to his argument. It’s just plain lazy of you not to. We have listened to Mr. Vines presentation and it’s simply just polite and edifying to listen to the entirety of Dr. White’s rebuttal.

      • Tony,

        I also asked Travis back in May if he could provide us with a summary of White’s key exegetical arguments. Travis said he didn’t listen to the five fours either. He said he just posted it so “that if others want to listen they can.”

        If you’ve listened to the five hours and think it’s so wonderful, provide us with a summary of White’s key exegetical arguments. Frankly, I was looking forward to listen to it and hearing him make his case. What a waste of time! But if you think he had some worthwhile things to say, here’s your opportunity to quit with the pithy comments and accusations and provide us with a summary his key exegetical arguments.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

      • Tony San Nicolas

        Alex,
        Like I said, I don’t feel like I should do the work for you. The writing is on the wall, if you don’t want to read it, don’t try to guilt someone else to read it for you.

      • Tony San Nicolas

        Alex,
        Here are some resources pertaining to Dr. White’s response to Mr. Vines:
        http://moorematt.com/2012/03/28/god-condones-homosexuality-response-to-matthew-vines/

        Dr. White’s Book – that he wrote more than 11 years ago:
        http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Controversy-The-Homosexuality/dp/0764225243/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337846812&sr=8-1

      • Tony,

        If the writing was “on the wall” or anywhere else for that matter, I would have happily read it. But it’s five hours of audio. Even Travis who posted the link didn’t listen to it. If someone is unable to state their case and provide an overview of what they intend to present within the first 30 minutes of their talk, they’re not going to keep an audience. Instead we got assumptions, misconceptions and gross mischaracterization. If that’s your idea of exegesis, then I have bridge to sell you.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

      • Tony San Nicolas

        Alex,
        After listening to the first 30 minutes again, I realized that Dr. White barely got through 7 minutes of Mr. Vine’s presentation. If you listened to Dr. White’s commentary, you would see that you are an example of his observation that most homosexual apologists don’t bother to listen to or read the rebuttals.

        The reason why Dr. White did not give an outline for his rebuttal was because he was simply going through Mr. Vine’s presentation minute by minute to discuss it in its entirety. If you need an outline, look for one in Mr. Vine’s speech – if one exists. (it doesn’t)

        Your evaluation of Dr. White’s exegesis is faulty because during the first 30 minutes, Mr. Vine did not even get to that part of his presentation as Dr. White is only at around the 5 minute mark of Vine’s presentation… So, if you want Dr. White’s exegesis, you’re going to have to listen further than 30 minutes. It’s quite pathetic that you can have an opinion on his exegesis if you have only listened to less than 10% of his rebuttal.

      • Tony,

        Look, you’re one who keeps reiterating that he’s so fabulous and that “every one of [my] arguments have been discussed and refuted by” him.

        If you’re now saying that White “did not give an outline for his rebuttal because he was simply going through Mr. Vine’s presentation minute by minute to discuss it in its entirety,” then we now know that you’re a liar because (a) you also claimed that “every one of [my] arguments have been discussed and refuted by” him, and (b) I read Vines’ presentation (which to his credit has been transcribed so it can be read) and know for a fact that Vines did not make half of the arguments I made. Fact is I disagree with Vines on several points and I believe he missed the meat on others. So which is it, dude?

        Don’t make excuses for his poor presentation. If you can’t provide a specific example or two to illustrate why you think he’s so good or examples of arguments of mine that he exegetically refuted, then you have nothing of substance or consequence to say. When I tell people that an author or presenter is really good, I provide specific illustrations of what I believe makes them so good. If one can’t do that, one might beet save their breath to cool their porridge — lest one get caught in even more dishonesty.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

      • Tony San Nicolas

        Alex,
        The fact of the matter is – you’re too lazy or simply scared of listening to Dr. White’s refutations. We get it, your arguments are hollow and easily countered by Mr. Berry and Dr. White. Going back and forth is doing nothing to progress your arguments. Dr. White has discussed every point you’ve made not only in his response, but in the book that he wrote 11 years ago. Read it, educate yourself, repent and seek the truth. Don’t try to rationalize your rebellion against God by thinking that your eisegesis is actually exegesis of scripture.

      • Tony,

        You talk very big but cannot and/or will not defend your position at all. What has your “hero” James White said that you think is so laudable and solid? You can’t name one single point. Your defense rather is to call me “lazy,” “scared” and other insalubrious things. Since I’m taking the time and trouble to present a defense for my position while you can’t or won’t, it would appear the words you keep throwing out at me might much more accurately describe you than they do me.

        A little Goggle search on your “hero” James While reveals that his credentials have repeatedly been called into question. You’ll also learn that in 1998 James White received his Th.D. from an unaccredited correspondence school in Washington. As White anticipated, the source of his degree and the efforts expended to obtain it have come under much criticism and it got pretty ugly. So it turns out your “hero” is a fraud and a dishonest man. No wonder you can’t and won’t defend his or your own position.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

      • Alex,

        It’s quite ridiculous for you to ask someone else, to listen again to Dr. White’s presentation and make an outline. You know that is crazy and I know that is crazy. You can, but probably wont, find the time to listen. You just haven’t. Why? I don’t know your heart, but the way you try to defend your homosexuality, suggests it has something to do with that.

        Also Alex, when you say things like your “hero” James White, it only makes you look petty.

        Lastly, James White readily admits that he received his Th.D. from an unaccredited school. And that somehow makes him a fraud and a dishonest man? Maybe if you listened to White’s actual work you may learn a thing or two, instead, you make an ad hominem attack on him so that you wont be challenged with your sin.

        Simple as that.

      • Tony San Nicolas

        Alex,
        Dr. White has never hidden his education, we have all known about it from the beginning. The reason why I have not come up with a point by point argument is because Dr. White has already done so. I find it ironic that you think I am lazy when you’re the one who won’t listen to what Dr. White has presented. His education has little to do with the truth he has gleaned from scripture as well as the thousands of years of church orthodoxy. You are one out of a handful versus hundreds of theologians and scholars. I consider this case closed – I really pray that you just listen to all of Dr. White’s rebuttal, or read his book, or click on the link I provided. With the exception of the last few comments, I have appreciated your civility – and look forward to your comments after you’ve listened to Dr. Whites rebuttal in its entirety.

      • Travis,

        Correction: It was Tony and not me who wrote about the notion of White “making an outline”. To be clear: What I said was that White did not within the first 30 minutes of his 5-hour talk outline what he was going to say. Any credible speaker, especially one who intends to speak for 5 hours, begins by outlining to his audience what he intends to cover. White clearly did not do that. Instead he made assumptions, misconceptions and gross mischaracterizations such as out rightly suggesting to his audeince that those who are for same-sex marriage also support pedophilia. What a deplorable and unsustainable association. Who did he speak to? What kind of fringe people did White dig up?

        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.

        His “research” is not only careless, but deceptive. Is this a truthful and honest account of the day-to-day reality and theological beliefs of people who support same-sex marriage? Simple answer? No.

        White manipulates facts, focuses on the worst aspects of situations, seemingly travels to the fringes to find the extremes and interjects damaging oddball situations and thinking — or he just makes them up out of thin air — to horribly skew and demonize an entire class of people.

        White does not approach his subject so as to discover what Scripture has to say. Rather he appears to have already had a long standing position, and based on his own views, talks to substantiate it. This is the very definition of eisegesis, i.e., inserting one’s own views into the text.

        Additionally, according to Tony, White did not outline what was going to say, because his 5-hour talk is a “minute by minute” rebuttal to Matthew Vines’ widely published presentation who, says White, uses “the John Boswell text as his main source” and as “the scholarly rock on which he stands.” Since Boswell was not nor ever claimed to be a Bible scholar or a theologian, it seems that instead of spending his time reputing some of the more reputable Bible scholars and some of the theologians whose respected and revered exegetical works have been established and required reading in many of our reputable Evangelical seminaries, White instead spends 5 hours arguing against someone with no credentials at all. How many Evangelical seminaries do you think would recommend that as constructive and beneficial reading?

        -Alex Haiken
        http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

      • Alex,

        So you didn’t listen but assume what White is going to say. Yikes. Truly sad. Before disregarding White, maybe you should listen Alex. I cannot believe that you would write 6 paragraphs about a person that you refuse to actually listen to. You wanted exegesis, yet you refuse to listen long enough to hear it. I am not sure what else to say, Alex. I pray that God opens your eyes to see and ears to hear the error of your view.

        Travis

      • Travis,

        I wrote about what I heard. You can learn a lot about a speaker in what he says in the first 30 minutes. One can then make a decision as to whether it’s worth an investment of 4 and a half more hours listening to the rest. Do you listen to 5 hours of speaking from every Tom, Dick and Harry who has something to say? Simple answer: Of course not. That would be foolish. We’re called to be a discerning people and we’re called to make wise decisions about what and who we invest our time in.

        I think its also quite telling that White’s 5-hour talk, that you and Tony seem to think is so fabulous, has never even been transcribed so that one can actually read it –- which then would require 15 minutes instead of 5 hours.

        Add to that, the fact that neither of you can present a single exegetical argument he makes to cite how well you believe he presents his case is even more telling. Moreover, anyone who tries to convince his audience up front that those who are for same-sex marriage also support pedophilia has an agenda as big as the Grand Canyon. One can poke enough holes in such a gross mischaracterization to sink the Titanic all over again.

        All that said, the point of this extended discussion is whether gay Christians are real and whether your presumption that the Bible condemns any and all expressions of same-sex acts and relationships, for all time, regardless of situation is, in the final analysis, exegetically supportable.

        My question to you which you keep avoiding is: How do you justifiably support such that presumption exegetically — especially when, as we cited, Bible dictionaries, classicists, scholars, noted historians and other reputable sources, have clearly and repeatedly indicated that the concept of homosexuality did not even exist in the Ancient world or in Bible times?

        By exegetically, of course, we’re talking about drawing out from 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.

        I’ve never yet encountered anyone who could exegetically support this notion, which is precisely why fewer and fewer Evangelical Christians hold to it and why more and more scholars and theologians have come forward to say its not, in the final analysis, exegetically supportable.

        Clearly, one need not be a rocket scientist to discern that someone trying to convince his audience that those who are for same-sex marriage also support pedophilia, is going to be the one exception to the rule.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://jewishchristiangay.wordpress.com

      • Tony San Nicolas

        [Quote]I wrote about what I heard. You can learn a lot about a speaker in what he says in the first 30 minutes. One can then make a decision as to whether it’s worth an investment of 4 and a half more hours listening to the rest. Do you listen to 5 hours of speaking from every Tom, Dick and Harry who has something to say? Simple answer: Of course not. That would be foolish. We’re called to be a discerning people and we’re called to make wise decisions about what and who we invest our time in.[/QUOTE]

        Dr. White is not some “Tom, Dick and Harry” – he is a scholar, radio host, pastor and authority on homosexuality and the bible. He is DIRECTLY responding to Mr. Vine’s presentation. So, what you’re displaying is not an argument, but an excuse for laziness.

        [QUOTE]I think its also quite telling that White’s 5-hour talk, that you and Tony seem to think is so fabulous, has never even been transcribed so that one can actually read it –- which then would require 15 minutes instead of 5 hours.[/QUOTE]

        Again, you want us to do your work for you. Why should we transcribe Dr. White’s rebuttal when it’s already fully available for all to hear?

        [QUOTE]Add to that, the fact that neither of you can present a single exegetical argument he makes to cite how well you believe he presents his case is even more telling. Moreover, anyone who tries to convince his audience up front that those who are for same-sex marriage also support pedophilia has an agenda as big as the Grand Canyon. One can poke enough holes in such a gross mischaracterization to sink the Titanic all over again.[/QUOTE]

        Dr. White is making the correlation between those that wish to practice homosexuality to those that are pedophiles or practice bestiality. Mr. Vines and other homosexual apologists blame God for their “orientation” – Dr. White brings up the fact that pedophiles and those that practice bestiality have tried to use the argument that “God has made me this way, why won’t you allow me to practice my ‘love’ to little kids or my German Shepherd??”

        [QUOTE]All that said, the point of this extended discussion is whether gay Christians are real and whether your presumption that the Bible condemns any and all expressions of same-sex acts and relationships, for all time, regardless of situation is, in the final analysis, exegetically supportable.

        My question to you which you keep avoiding is: How do you justifiably support such that presumption exegetically — especially when, as we cited, Bible dictionaries, classicists, scholars, noted historians and other reputable sources, have clearly and repeatedly indicated that the concept of homosexuality did not even exist in the Ancient world or in Bible times?[/QUOTE]

        Mr. Vines has asserted that Paul, the apostles and early church fathers did not have a concept of homosexuality – this is of course completely false. You are failing to recognize the positive views on marriage and sexuality which explicitly state that God’s design is for a man and a woman to create life – it is a complementarian relationship. Jesus spoke of this design in Matthew 19 when asked about divorce. His exegesis of scripture is clear in Matt. 19:4-6 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

        Can you argue against Jesus’ own interpretation of scripture?

        [QUOTE] By exegetically, of course, we’re talking about drawing out from 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.

        I’ve never yet encountered anyone who could exegetically support this notion, which is precisely why fewer and fewer Evangelical Christians hold to it and why more and more scholars and theologians have come forward to say its not, in the final analysis, exegetically supportable.

        Clearly, one need not be a rocket scientist to discern that someone trying to convince his audience that those who are for same-sex marriage also support pedophilia, is going to be the one exception to the rule. [/QUOTE]

        See: Above, or you know, listen to Dr. White’s rebuttal, or read his book, or learn about historical theology.

      • Tony,

        Thanks for the reply. But as you can see from my post, the comments and questions were directed specifically to Travis, as in this instance they were in direct reply to his post to me and our previous exchanges.

        -Alex Haiken
        http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

      • Tony San Nicolas

        “Thanks for the reply. But as you can see from my post, the comments and questions were directed specifically to Travis, as in this instance they were in direct reply to his post to me and our previous exchanges. ”

        Gotcha.

  11. BREAKING NEWS: Exodus International Apologizes to Gay Community and Shuts their Door!

    “Exodus is an institution in the conservative Christian world, but we’ve ceased to be a living, breathing organism,” said Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus. “For quite some time, we’ve been imprisoned in a worldview that’s neither honoring toward our fellow human beings, nor biblical.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/us/exodus-international-shutdown/index.html

    -Alex Haiken
    http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

Share Your Thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: