Christianity and Homosexuality

The biblical verses were originally derived from the same word “arsenokoitai”. It previously spoke against young boys, pedistry and was changed in the mid-1900’s to speak against homosexuality. ‘Molest’ was also in the older translations and it was completely removed.

If we cannot agree that the words ‘young boy’ and the word ‘man’ have fundamental differences and change the entire context of the passages in question there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Are you really saying you believe the authors that originally wrote the phrase ‘young boy’ actually meant men? Because those two are not the same in other stories in the Bible. Or is that just a last ditch effort to ignore that parts of the Bible has been fundamentally altered to push an agenda of the church?

 

Those slutty women! But, not men. Oh, but not men. So, Polygamy is fine as long as it is the men only who have multiple wives and concubines.

 

What can I tell you - Your beliefs - not mine - Gotta love Leviticus

PS .. is that why you folks call it "The Good ol days" !?

 

Your problem is that you're cherry picking parts of the Bible. What about Romans 1:27?

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Is it your position that based on the original translation, the church should have permitted men to have sex with other men?

 

Direct quoting parts of the Bible that have been altered recently is not cherry-picking.

My position isn’t that the church would have allowed anything, it is that the language has been changed as recently as the last 100 years.

If the word of god can be edited by man then it is no longer the word of god.

 

So you agree that Romans 1:27 is talking about men sleeping with men?

Yes, because the WORLD has changed as recently as the last 100 years! Arguably some of the translation changes should have happened even earlier than 100 years ago. Today's MAN is yesterday's BOY. Today's WOMAN is yesterday's GIRL! Just as you acknowledged when you said that "young girls WERE frequently married to men."

 

No clue, I haven’t traced back that verse

Todays woman was not yesterdays girl, they were still girls — they just married men.

You keep omitting that these verses contained the word young, or are you asserting that word has changed meanings as well?

It is absurd to say by “young boys” the bible was actually talking about “men”.
Desperate even.

 

Yes, so the girl of yesterday, is DIFFERENT to the girl of today?

I admit that it says 'young.' But who married a NOT young girl?

I'm not. They were boys, but who lay with a NOT young boy?

 

Some cultures allow child marriage, they are still a child.

This is unintelligible

If the Bible originally said young boys and was changed to say homosexual men, do you admit that is a massive change in language that was not the original word of god? Or does man now speak for god?

 

Not Western culture, and you're talking about Western translations of the Bible.

No it's not. It's simple: men lay with boys, and men married girls. That's the way that it worked back then. Hence, some parts of the Bible specified that men shouldn't lay with boys, but at other times specified MEN!

It is a change in language, but not a change in meaning.

 

If you don’t believe there is a change in meaning between ‘a child’ and ‘an adult’ then there is zero reason to continue this back and forth.

 

Let me clarify - It is a change in language, but not a change in meaning in the context of sex. That's why "boy" remains as "boy" in other parts of the Bible which are not about sex.

 

Are you saying that sex with a child is the same context as sex with an adult? I don’t follow. If boy remained boy in other parts of the Bible, why did it change only in some areas of the Bible within the last 100 years?

 

Back then it clearly was.

Because only in the area of 'sex' was there such a significant shift from the context of back then and now. The question that you should be asking yourself is, would it make sense for it to have said that men should not lay with boys, considering that children were considered sexually mature back then?

 

There was still a difference. Just because young girls were allowed to marry older men doesn’t mean young and adults were the same.

Females were seen as inferior to males, so possibly.
The passages also spoke of molestation, has that had a shift in meaning also?

Your attempts to act like all these words mean something different and needed correcting is a desperate attempt to reconcile that what was written was not what was ‘really’ intended. Words do change, but you have zero evidence that child was interchangeable with adult and until you preset something besides your own opinion there is nothing more to say.

Boy does not equal man
Young does not simply disappear
Molestation cannot just be ignored as inconvenient

This is why people stop responding to you, they show facts and evidence and you just repeat your opinion over and over in new ways until they give up. I guess that is your idea of “destroying” them — your opinion

 

Of course not!

So because they were seen as inferior, this could have something to do with why sex with them was allowed? But boys who were seen as SUPERIOR, for some reason sex with them was NOT allowed?

Well "molestation" is what your source SAYS is the translation from the Greek, but I haven't been able to double source that. And your source doesn't even point to it as being relevant. Are you thinking that the passage doesn't merely speak of pederasty, but specifically non-consensual pederasty, in an act of 'molestation?'

I never said that what was written was not what was really intended. Let me clarify: it WAS intended to mean BOY in the original text.

Glad you agree.

I agree. I never said that it did.

I agree. I never said that it DISAPPEARS.

 

Then how does “young boy” become “man”
Either you are saying people can speak for god or you are saying the book is illegitimate

There is no in between

 

There was no guy named "Josephus" in 93 A.D.

The Babylonian Talmud was compiled about the year 500 A.D.

 

Flavius Josephus' existence is a matter of record.

 

Because in modern times, we think of 'young kids' in a very different way. Surely you realise that! For example, we don't see them as sexually mature anymore.

 

What was the Bible speaking of when it said “molesting young boys” and how does that turn into male adult relationships?

Do you believe the Bible remains accurate to its original purpose if the church uses it’s own interpretation to alter it?

 

Well "molestation" is what your source SAYS is the translation from the Greek, but I haven't been able to double source that. And your source doesn't even point to it as being relevant. Are you thinking that the passage doesn't merely speak of pederasty, but specifically non-consensual pederasty, in an act of 'molestation?'

If it alters it's meaning, then yes. If it only alters words, then no.

 

Are you asserting that “young boys” has the same meaning as “males”.

 

Well young boys ARE male, so the two terms are not exactly contradictory. However, I have a feeling that you intended to ask if I'm, asserting that “young boys” has the same meaning as “MEN.”

 

Correct.
Your opinion?]

Has the verse been substantially changed, you can stop beating around the bush.
This is why so many discontinue these conversations with you…