Christianity and Homosexuality

Your folk tales are that of a children’s story book. As to your environmental “survey” it in no way shows what you are asserting it does.

 

By this, do you mean they moved the word from BOY to MAN?

 

Mark Dice.. clips of Leftist stating the truth of their goals... to destroy and abolish marriage all together (truly newsworthy when the Left tells the actual truth!

 

This is the exact same question you asked pages ago, almost word for word — and was answered

Circular logic is circular

 

It's VERY simple: consensual sex with children back then was not pedophilia. Sex with boys was considered homosexuality.

 

Omitting that one of the verses explicitly says ‘young’, can you source your claim that sex with boy children was not pedophila but rather homosexuality?

Also, if the verse was referencing sex with boy children and not modern day homosexuality, how are the current passages correct? Or were they correct before they were recently “updated”?

 

Pedophilia didn't exist back then!

 

Provide a source that shows there was no such thing as pedophila (or something similar)

Please don’t edited down my posts because they are inconvenient for you.

Lets try again:
Also, if the verse was referencing sex with boy children and not modern day homosexuality, how are the current passages correct? Or were they correct before they were recently “updated”?

 

Didn't you pay attention in school? When was the letter J invented and when was it first used in writing? Google it.

 

All of those biblical characters were baby rapers.

 

The age of consent was 7 in America in 1895. During slavery times there was no minimum age. I wonder if there was a President who wasn't a pedophile before the 20th Century?

 

You do realise that his name is translated from Latin?

 

They always ask for citations but never accept them.

 

Oh and as to Latin, Hebrew and 'J'

https://english.stackexchange.com/a/148414

 

Babies or children?

 

What's your point?

 

"Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century. A significant amount of research in the area has taken place since the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

I was coming back to it. Sometimes I reply to one section of a post and then do the rest later.

"Correct" in terms of what?

They were correct before and they are correct after, because both were condemning homosexual sex, but each was addressing a particular time context.

 

Correct in terms of who they are identifying, if the passages were originally meant to condemn sex between a man and a “young” boy (modern day pedophilia) and it was changed to condemn relationships between a man and man — how are those both correct?

 

They were correct before and they are correct after, because both were condemning homosexual sex, but each was addressing a particular time context.

 

From what we know about pedophilia and h e b ephilia the rates in the general population in any culture always seem to be about the same even when the culture approves such behaviour with obviously certain exceptions. Its very complex.

To clarify pedophilia is about an adult desiring sex with pre-pubescent children. There is no propensity to favour one gender or the other precisely because these children have not formed any distinct sexual chacateristics and what we know is that the behaviour is compulsive-it can not be turned off. They have tried medication, castration, electro-shock therapy, even implanting electrodes in the brain so when a certain part of the brain lights up sends a zap. Nothing has worked.

Same comment as to ****philia but in ****philia the children now take on certain sexal characteristics because they are in the various stages of puberty but still very much adrogynous, i.e., mix of feminine and male traits.

Many homosexuals are wrongfully defined as h e b ephiles or pedophiles when they engage in pedophilia and h e b ephilia with someone of the same gender. They are no more homosexual in that sense then when pedophiles or ****philes are heterosexual when they engage in sex with pre pubescent or pubescent children of the opposite sex.

The very nature of these two sexual philias is that the adult can choses someone who is NOT a consenting adult and appears younger and less threatening to them. What we believe is the sexual object feels less threatening which is the lure for their desires. That is the key, that is to say the philia relationship enables the adult to remain in control.

Now what complicates things is yes its true religion and culture depending on the era and moral values of the day might encourage such behaviour. For example, there are still many societies where it is believed once women menstrate they are old enough to have children and be married and have sex with. In that sense it might encourage behaviour with underage children.

As well in many cultures virgins are highly valued as being less likely to miscarry or have diseases so older men pay a premium for them in dowery nd buy them for marriage underage. Whether they have sex with them and when they do remains often unreported.

We also know if you sexually segregate the genders, they will adapt a form of homosexuality that like in prisons is "temporary" for some until the genders are no longer segregated so in societies where religion segregates the sexes this phenomena occurs. In Afghanistan many soldiers reported the rape of young boys (and girls) by elder men in alleys, street corners, various places and they were told to stand down and look the other way.

As well many of the underage marriages you read about and we know about in history most certainly happened but may not have been sexually consumated until the older couple felt the younger couple sufficiently mature whatever that meant.

So whether the rates were higher and if so by how much we do not know. What we do know is that because when such behavioru is studied it usually is about the same percentage of the general population, it appears such behavioru is genetically predisposed but like any human behaviour how much is born with you and how much you learn we do not know.

As well in the case of all sexual relationships particularly those with non consensual sex, these non consensual acts are vastly under-reported are not reported at all.

I can tell you from working in the field, there are many variations of such behaviour. The key is the adult seeks opportunity and access to underage children. The other key is that they can feel in control at all times. It appears obsessive in that it can not be turned off. What we do now is put such people IF they are caught in over-crowded prisons and because of the over-crowding let them out prematurely as most are passive and non violent in prison so get out for good behaviour.

If their true nature is found out in prison, yes you hear stories they will be killed but more often then not, key characteristcis of such people is that they have learned to be masters at manipulation of adults to get access to authority positions or positions of trust to get access to children and so in prison they use their art of manipulation to survive usually by arranging payments from outside prison to protectors. The ones that have no money adapt bizarre behaviour to try frighten off people and if need be get them put in prison hospitals. They also are more monitored and often isolated today with other fellow philliacs.

The gay community like the hetero sexual community has always relished art that depicts people who are young because we don't glorify skin stretch, pouches, bags, vericose veins. That can be used against all gay people in a double standard not used with the heetrosexual community...however that propensity to glorify beauty as being attached to youth is why the modelling industry and our media use young children in ads to sell things and of course music. Take a look. Often the models are adrogynous. They often use young girls, 9, 10, 12, fully assembled as adults. That suggests are attitudes towards sex still mix youth with beauty. Whether that is technically h e b ephiliac or pedophiliac tendencies remains in question but its there.

I can tell you as well you can get such people who are "sadistic", i.e., they get off on hurting people, or they get these saviour complexes where they depict themselves as innocent and loving of children and its the people who question them who are sick, not they themselves. Michael Jackson was a classic example of the latter who also had what some people call a "Peter Pan" syndrome. Some pedophiliacs or h e b ephiliacs do not see themselves as harming anyone and still see themselves as young.

Now complicating things is a true sociopath, someone with zero feelings. They could engage in many behaviours that defy any simple explanation.

 

They cannot both be correct as they are different words.

One was condemning child sex between a man and a boy
It was changed to sex between two men

That you cannot comprehend the difference is either terrifying — but in line with the actions of the church — or simply to try and keep a semblance of an argument.

If they were speaking of sex between a man and a young boy (even ‘consensual’ at the time) how is that the same as sex between two adult men? Notice women are in none of these passages yet are as equally condemned by religious zealots.

 

"Correct" as in both were condemning homosexual sex, but each was addressing a particular time context.

What are you referring to exactly?

It's the same as in both were condemning homosexual sex, but each was addressing a particular time context.

"Equally condemned" as in what?

 

So you are asserting that God really meant to condemn male homosexuality but specified young boys by mistake? I really do not comprehend how you are saying this is a “time context”.

How does time turn ‘young boys’ and ‘molestation’ into consensual adult homosexuality?

 

Because that's who men had sex with.

Why are you going with ‘molestation’ when you have already acknowledged that there's no reason to believe that it wasn't consensual?

 

So was it condemning sex with boys or homosexuality in general? If it is the latter, why specify “young” and “boys” — if it is the former why was it changed to “men”.

I have acknowledged no such thing, molestation is sexual assault, it is never consensual — it always involves some level of force or manipulation.