Christianity and Homosexuality

Yep, the conmen changed the names of all of the major characters to make them more relatable to the sheep they were fleecing.

 

Sex with boys WAS homosexuality back then.

You said, "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?"

 

Then why did the Bible specifically say “young boys” — why not just say homosexuality?

This isn’t a hard point to grasp yet you are failing spectacularly — almost in desperation.

Young boy does not, and has never, meant man.
Stop dancing around the question and answer it.

Words have meaning — molestation implies force or manipulation. Age of consent, to my knowledge, wasn’t a thing so a child could still ‘consent’ but molestation and rape still occurred in other instances. If someone doesn’t agree willingly it isn’t consent, it is molestation (or rape).

 

I don't know, but would it make a difference? Could it have simply said homosexuality? Sure!

It doesn't seen like you're coming at this from a liberal Christian perspective - that is, that the Bible/God doesn't disapprove of homosexuality between two adults. It doesn't seem like you are ANY sort of Christian. Am I correct?

Yeah, I never said that it did.

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, almost purely talking about the 'young boy' thing.

 

Would it make a difference between condemning child sex vs consensual adult relationships?… Is that a real question.

I believe in a creator
Do I believe in a book that was written by man, edited by scholars, approved by kings and is highly contradictory is the word of God, no — I do not.

Then you admit that young boy is not the same as man, making one of the edits be a perversion of the true meaning.

The sources for the claim are the original versions of the Bible. If you just want to focus on the ‘young boy’ part — that is still a substantial revision.

If all the verses in the modern bible that reference homosexuality were charged back to ‘young boy’ (condemning pedophilia) do you think evangelicals would have the issues with consensual adult same sex relationships that they do?

 

Well hang on a second, let's just recall what you ACTUALLY asked. You asked, "why did the Bible specifically say “young boys” — why not just say homosexuality?" Regardless of whether it is "young boys" or adults, surely you have to admit that either way it is homosexual sex.

If the Bible specifically condemned "consensual [male] adult relationships" after the change from "young boys", then that would be an extra change because it would be adding "consensual."

You just don't know anything about the creator? And what form do you think the creator takes?

Yes but how do we know that the proper translation of the original language is "molestation?"

Great question, but I think that the better question is, IF it was never changed in the first place, would evangelicals have the issues with consensual adult same sex relationships that they do? And the answer is yes, because the references to homosexual relations are not all about a certain age of male. Note also, that anyone who says that merely BEING a homosexual is sinful, is totally wrong and is not biblicaly supported.

 

It condemned what today is known as pedophilia not homosexuality. Homosexuality is a much larger item than abusing a child by a member of the same sex and it is dangerous and disingenuous to conflate the two as similar.

I am not arrogant enough to believe I could even begin to comprehend the form or desires of such a being.

I don’t, I just know that if the Bible was mistranslated once it is likely been mistranslated (or purposely edited) prior. We only have loose translations of tons of the words in the original texts but these loose translations are taken as absolute without question destroying peoples lives in the process.

Actually every passage related to homosexuality is in dispute as they imply either modern day pedophilia, rape or lust. The only area that I cannot find sources that negate current biblical teaching is with marriage between a man and a woman and even that wasn’t explicitly condemned for same sex couples — it simply wasn’t mentioned.

When you look at current religious issues in the US and what they are fighting against it is homosexuality and abortion, seems like a large amount of time by them attacking a group of people that were barely mentioned if they were mentioned at all.

 

The fact is homosexual fetishists always manifest more severe mental illnesses than merely neurotic sexual ones, which is why they're pretty much universally outliers in most tribes and nations throughout history. Now they have a lot of fake science and a media to cover up for them is the only thing different today.

And, despite the lyng here in this thread, Da EVul Xians hardly ever bring up homosexual fetishists most of their time; of course when they respond to the lies and propaganda put out by 'activists' they immediately snivel and act like that's all Da Evul Xians do. It's just more lying and dissembling, taken from Antonio Gramsci's 'culture war' tactics for commies.

Al of these tactics sound familiar?

.http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm

Why yes, they do, and most of them are used in this thread.

 

No they are not Christian.

 

Leviticus 18:21-26 NLT
“Do not permit any of your children to be offered as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not bring shame on the name of your God. I am the LORD.

[22] “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

[23] “A man must not defile himself by having sex with an animal. And a woman must not offer herself to a male animal to have intercourse with it. This is a perverse act.

[24] “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for the people I am driving out before you have defiled themselves in all these ways. [25] Because the entire land has become defiled, I am punishing the people who live there. I will cause the land to vomit them out. [26] You must obey all my decrees and regulations. You must not commit any of these detestable sins. This applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you.

Clear enough? Convincing another man or woman to go against their nature is not loving them.

 

There is no evidence of this

 

The two are not contradictory. Someone who is attracted to underage members of
the same sex is a homosexual pedophile. Someone who is attracted to underage members of the opposite sex is a heterosexual pedophile.

Well I never even suggested that the two WERE the same. I simply said that regardless of whether it is "young boys" or adult males, surely you have to admit that either way it is homosexual sex.

Why do you believe that there even IS such a being as a creator?

Okay, so you acknowledge that the sex acts with boys which the Bible condemns might be consensual.

What's your issue with the ones related to lust?

 

This is one of the reasons I prefer Young's Literal Translation. Often I find that that the other translations, ostencibly written to be easier to understand, are a bit 'quick and loose' with certain terms, like 'sin.'

Leviticus 18:22 (YLT) `And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is]'

'Abomination' is often considered synonymous with sin... however:

Deuteronomy 22:5 (YLT) `The habiliments *[clothing] of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God [is] any one doing these.' (*= added by me)

Dressing up to appear as the opposite sex to fool someone into treating you differently than they would otherwise is probably (most often) a sin (imo simply because it is a deliberate deception, aka: a lie). A woman just wearing pants out of preference probably isn't a sin. I think its therefore reasonable to conclude that abomination does not likely necessarily equate with sin. It certainly can some of the time, but it doesnt necessarily all of the time.

 

I am not going to get into the classification of pedophilia but it is no longer homosexual or heterosexual but rather a separate sexual identification. That said, if the bible had condemned men molesting young girls and a scholar latter changed it to mean all heterosexual behavior would you be able to comprehend the difference then?

That is false

Why not?
Likely stems from an internal narrative used to justify existence and suffering for some other reason than random chance.

Children cannot consent, even if they could have done so legally in the past they still lacked the capacity to do so.

I don’t have one

 

That's why I presented this in context. In the verse before, people are told not to murder their children. In the verse after, people are told not to have sex with animals. This is the level of severity the Bible has for homosexuality. In addition, note that these rules applied to foreigners as well.

Deuteronomy 22:4-7 NLT
“If you see that your neighbor’s donkey or ox has collapsed on the road, do not look the other way. Go and help your neighbor get it back on its feet!

[5] “A woman must not put on men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing. Anyone who does this is detestable in the sight of the LORD your God.

[6] “If you happen to find a bird’s nest in a tree or on the ground, and there are young ones or eggs in it with the mother sitting in the nest, do not take the mother with the young. [7] You may take the young, but let the mother go, so that you may prosper and enjoy a long life.

The verse before says that the neighbor should be helped when their animal has collapsed on the road.

The verse after says that the eggs of a nest can be taken but not the mother.

You should notice a pretty clear difference in severity.

But let's continue.

Deuteronomy 22:11-12 NLT
“You must not wear clothing made of wool and linen woven together.

[12] “You must put four tassels on the hem of the cloak with which you cover yourself—on the front, back, and sides.

These are obviously not pertaining to foreigners. These are rules for the Jews.

The Jews and other cultures would have different styles of clothing and this has nothing to do with fooling someone else. It is clearly pointing out such things as Bruce Jenner. This is likely why it is called an abomination. Even so, the severity of this sin is minor in comparison.

 

According to who/what? Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, not a "sexual identification."

As for what a homosexual is:

No, but I don't accept that the Bible specifically condemns the MOLESTING of young boys. You've already acknowledged that we don't know that the proper translation of the original language is "molestation."

So you're arguing that the Bible condemns sex with young boys because they lacked the capacity?

Okay, so you acknowledge that the references to homosexual relations are not all about pedophilia.

 

It has been discussed as a paraphilia after being labeled as an orientation in the DSM-5. Forensic psychology shows that “homosexual pedophilia” (male-boy) and “heterosexual pedophilia” (male-female) are not heterosexual or homosexual actions because offenders are not attracted to the gender of the child. Not to be confused with ****philia and or ephebophilia. The word “young” is subjective but everyone can agree it is not an attraction to adults meaning the verse has been substantially altered.

All the prior language versions spoke of ‘young boys’ — that is the only thing that proves the point that the Bible has been altered.

No clue, all I know is it wasn’t speaking of modern day consensual monogamous same sex relationships as my source illustrates.

No

 

Wrong:

"In response to misinterpretations that the American Psychiatric Association considers pedophilia a sexual orientation because of wording in its printed DSM-5 manual, which distinguishes between paraphilia and what it calls "paraphilic disorder", subsequently forming a division of "pedophilia" and "pedophilic disorder", the association commented: "'[.S]exual orientation' is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read 'sexual interest.'" They added, "In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a 'paraphilia,' not a 'sexual orientation.'" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

I really don't understand why you would promote this idea, which is shared by pedophiles in attempt to make sexual relations with children just as acceptable as sexual relations with the same sex, because hey, after all it's just another orientation so it shouldn't be treated any differently!

So offending pedophiles never limit their offending to one sex, male or female? Can you point to any such forensic psychology sources which speaks to this?

What's the "****?"

Which has nothing to do with the MOLESTING of young boys.

Well it MIGHT have been speaking of consensual monogamous same sex relationships, just not the "modern day" version.

Your list was "modern day pedophilia, rape or lust." What does rape or lust have to do with pedophilia?

 

It was labeled as such in the DSM but removed. It doesn’t matter what it is called it creates a victim and thus cannot be allowed.

I didn’t say they “never” do, the younger the victim the more likely they will molest based on access and not gender
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Age_and_Gender_Crossover_Among_Sex_Offenders

It is censored for some reason.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/****philia

I guess they were trying to modernize it since pedophilia is now illegal (further showing that the book has been edited)

How so?
Looks like if it was a major issue for God it would have been precisely spelled out…

Nothing, they compound with the verses that the religious right say condemn homosexuality.

 

So you disagree with the APA?

What creates a victim?

Well bisexual pedophile would be the other category.

That study begins with, "SOME child molesters abuse children of both genders." Doesn't that suggest to you that it's far from the majority of child molesters?

I don't see how this study back up this claim of yours:

"Forensic psychology shows that “homosexual pedophilia” (male-boy) and “heterosexual pedophilia” (male-female) are not
heterosexual or homosexual actions because offenders are not attracted to the gender of the child."

How extraordinary. Can't you simply type the four letters with a space in between each letter?

Okay, but you've already acknowledged that we don't know that the proper translation of the original language is "molestation."

What would have been precisely spelled out?

Such as homosexual lust.

 

I cannot see what you saw.
Could you quote it in a visible way?

 

No, but I don't accept that the Bible specifically condemns the MOLESTING of young boys. You've already acknowledged that we don't know that the proper translation of the original language is "molestation."
.[/QUOTE]

What is the definition of "is", is??? Sound familiar? We all know what molestation is. It's the same for adults and children.

 

In no part of your post did you answer anything related to this topic.

In fact, your comment on some pedophiles molesting victims of both genders is ridiculous, as very few of any population are looking for gratification regardless of gender.

And, your final comment is ridiculous. Sexual orientation is not a factor in degree of lust.

 

I'm finding it difficult to follow either one of you. What exactly is your position?

 

It has to be remembered that studies in this area are hampered by numerous serious difficulties. Typically, studies involve convicted pedophiles and those who have sought help. But, that totally omits those outside that description. Plus, the terminology is highly misleading. Pedophilia can be used for adults who get involved with young teens, for example.

One of the findings is that it is relatively common for pedophiles not to have a sexual orientation - they just don't have that development. So, labeling them as homosexual or heterosexual doesn't even make sense. Another point here is that males who pursue sexual contact with young boys don't consistently show interest in adult males. So, rather than maturing sexually they end up oriented to children of one sex or the other or both. As anther terminology problem, these labels are often chosen simply to identify the sex of the child.

Also, not all child sexual abuse is committed by pedophiles.

In the end, what we see of the ignorant public claims of pedophiles being homosexuals is highly misleading and quite probably false.

This is a serious problem, as pedophilia IS a problem, and how pedophilia should be addressed WILL get totally screwed up when first responders, juries, the general public, child care providers, and the rest are just ignorant of the issues.