Christianity and Homosexuality

Cougarbear: Yes, they were married. The word "sure" means definitely.

 

My mistake - I thought you believed the whole bible was the literal word of God.

 

The literal word of God? So far as it is translated correctly and understood correctly. It's not for private interpretations either.

 

There is no "Translation Issues" - YHWH is depicted as a flip flopping xenophobic genocidal God - with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics.

This is the God you believe in .. Not I - so you were doing a bit of projecting with that previous post.

 

How did I run exactly? YOU ran! Here is where it stopped. My reply, which you never replied to: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-homosexuality.551905/page-14#post-1072612147

 

When the HELL did I say that gay marriages are approved by God? I made myself VERY clear in an earlier post:

You replied to that post, so you must have read this.

That's POLYgamy? No, that's what we call MONOgamy! You seem confused.

You seem to think that the marital UNION between one man and one woman only applies to SEX! It's a union between one man and one women IN EVERYTHING!

Where in the Bible does it say that Abraham was married to the handmaiden?

 

Not sure about marriage but, all the patriarchs had concubines - including Abraham - that is why they call it "The good old days"

 

LOL! You simply don't understand our purpose and position in life. You also don't understand the God and his purpose. What you think doesn't matter because God will have the last word in your eternal existence. It's your job in life to find out who he is and what is expected from you. So far, you have denied the truth and the faith. The entire plan of the Father doesn't start with you or me. It started back when he organized the universe and earth for our benefit as spirit children. In order to keep the plan going there were times he had to cleans the world or areas in the world so his children could have their free moral agency to choose. That's love, not hate. You will have to learn more in order to understand. But, I doubt that will happen. You seem closed minded and Ideologically driven.

 

In order for Abraham to be called as he was, he would have not had sex without being married. Yes, others had concubines but were sinning as well. Not Abraham. He would have been married first.

 

I get tired of the circles after a few pages, you still cannot explain where you ran from the discussion regarding the discrepancy in translations.

As someone so elegantly put it in the very thread you just referenced “You have totally failed to make ANY point and have refused to answer even the most direct of questions.”

Seems like everyone sees it but you

 

I did not claim to understand God -nor his purpose -as that would be usurping the position of the Logos - you are the one that makes such defacto claims.

What I stated was how the Bible depicts YHWH - God of Moses - in the OT . xenophobic genocidal flip flopping - irrational - with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics.

Regardless of what God's plan might be - this is not the depiction of God in which I believe - It is the picture the literalist must believe .. such as yourself - in order to not be in contradiction/hypocrisy ..

Not a fun choice.

 

Having a concubine is not a sin ? - Adultery is when a woman sleeps outside her husband .. the reverse is not true . least not by the commandment

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-homosexuality.551905/page-52#post-1072671898

 

What do you mean by "the passage?"

Depends. How do you define "boy" and how do you define "man?

Were there age of consent laws at the time of writing?

As long as she "resisted?" What if it was not forced?

 

This chain should help to refresh your memory:

That above question "at the time of writing" you didn't reply to, even though it was pretty damn relevant to the translation discussion.

Now, at this point the discussion diverges to girls/females. If I am correct then my above question, "why didn't it include men lying with girls" directly challenges your contention that the Bible only outlaws men lying with boys, but not men lying with men, which is directly related to the translation discussion.

I then didn't reply to these above questions.

That last post above you didn't respond to. Anyway, hopefully we can pick up the discussion here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-homosexuality.551905/page-52#post-1072675370

 

And you continue to run! Unless you simply haven't gotten to it yet.

 

Nope, I will

 

The passage changes, it moved from indicating pedophilia to indicating homosexuality. Which one is the correct translation or do you believe God changed his meaning?
If man did that how do we know man has not changed all parts of the Bibe?

Pedophilia vs consensual relationship.
Physically, puberty separates them.

Relevance? Does age of consent change what is a man and what is a boy?

I disagree

I am discussing the direct translation which is boy later changed to man. I have not researched Biblical references to girls but seeing that they were frequently married to much older men I doubt there was much of an issue. Women were typically seen as subordinate to the male.

 

If a man has sexual relations with a boy, isn't that homosexuality?

The one which means "boys" is the correct translation for when it was written, as it was normal for older men to "lay" with much younger males. The one which means "men" is the correct translation for today, because it's not acceptable for men to "lay" with boys and so it's obviously not as common as men 'laying' with other men.

You think that the Bible makes the distinction between 'pedophilia' and 'consensual relationship?'

Does this apply to when it was written? How do you think "boy" and "man" were defined in the Bible?

As long as she "resisted?" What if it was not forced?

 

Psychologically? It is classified as pedophilia, ****philia or ephebophilia depending on the age. Homosexuality on a sexual spectrum, like heterosexuality is an adult orientation. Some say homosexual pedophila (although they never say heterosexual pedophila) to bash gay people which is why research now defines it exactly as male-male, male-female, female-male, female-female.

It is no more homosexuality than a man raping a female infant is heterosexuality.
There is a massive difference between the two, wouldn't you agree?

Are you saying the word of God changed? Because if it was originally “boy” that was what he intended to mean, correct?

Or are you saying the Bible can be modernized to more accurately reflect how scholars apply it?

If the Bible can be amended — as it was very recently — then none of it has any relevance on anything as it is just made up as the church goes.

I am speaking of specific passages that have been amended

It doesn’t matter, I am speaking of specific passages that have been amended

I have not researched woman being raped, it’s punishment, or reasonings enough to make an informed argument. What is not debatable is that women were seen as inferior to men.

 

You think that all of these standards would have applied when the Bible was written? Do you seriously doubt that ANY sexual relations between two males of ANY age, would have been considered as a homosexual act? It's clear that 'pedophilia' wasn't acknowledged back then.

Certainly anyone who accepts the term 'homosexual pedophila' but does not also accept the term 'heterosexual pedophila' is anti-gay. And what is the difference between "male-female" and "female-male?"

It's all a question of translation and making it fit in with today's context. Do I think that it NEEDED to be changed? No. I think that if it remained as "boy",
it wouldn't have changed the church's position on homosexual relations.

 

Men were acknowledged back then. Boys were differentiated in the original texts.
It could be said that if the passage said men shall not lie with men it could potentially also mean boys, the inverse of that isn’t true however.
Why did the original translation specifically says ‘boys’.

Leviticus 20:13 specifically says “Young boys.”

1 Corinthians says “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

How can that possibly be translated to mean homosexual?

The sex of the abuser comes first

It was changed because of the church’s positions.
I 100% disagree that is is irrelevant, do you know how many people have been murdered or tortured — their families ripped apart because the church decided to change a word. Would you have been ok had they changed condemning thief's to condemning white people?

It is interesting that someone can just alter the word of god and it is met with a relative shrug though.
It looks like those words would be more sacred with someone showcasing a crucifix in their avatar. I wonder if the crucifix story has been changed also, or the death of Christ, or the apostles?

If every few generations they “make it fit in with today's context” do you really believe you are reading what was prophesied?
Or are you just referencing a piece of propaganda

 

According to which translation?

You're assuming that the only reason that these atrocities occurred was because of this translation. Do you have evidence that things would have been different if the word remained "boy?" It's not exactly a stretch to get from "boy" to "man." Again, if it was an 'age' thing, then why didn't the Bible also outlaw sex with girls?

No, but you're not comparing like with like. You can't POSSIBLY go from "thief" to "white people."

If the change made in order to fit in with today's context actually changed the meaning, then no.

 

All of them.
The German bible added homosexuality in 1983. The King James version said “abusers of themselves with mankind until 1946.

Are you serious?
I am going to pretend you are not because that question is an insult to both of our intelligence.

That is absurd

Because young girls were frequently married to men. Your god impregnated one. They are seen as subordinate. Maybe some scholars wanted to diddle little girls so they “modernized” those parts out? No clue, I am speaking of specific changes from arsenokoitai.

I disagree that a young boy is like a man. It is disturbing you are even trying to make this argument

If the word of God didn’t change then any change to those words change the meaning. People don’t modernize Shakespeare, I would say the word of God should be more sacred.

The Bible has become propaganda. Even if it was true it has been corrupted by man (not to be confused with young boys apparently)

 

So you're talking about 1 Corinthians, right? You think they all say the same?

And 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."

Very. Again, do you have evidence that things would have been different if the word remained "boy?" It's not exactly a stretch to get from "boy" to "man" in the context of yesteryear/'yestercentury.' You have to admit that today's MAN is yesterday's BOY. Do you seriously think that boys were seen back then as they are today? You know that they were working from a younger age I assume, given that there was no child labour laws back then

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

Exactly, something which doesn't happen today, right? Perhaps because today's WOMAN is yesterday's GIRL?

And this means that for some reason it was okay for fully grown men to sleep with them, even though for some reason it was inappropriate for fully grown men to sleep with young boys?

So do I. Because we live in TODAY!

I'm NOT making the argument that a young boy is like a man TODAY!

You're really equating the time period of Shakespeare and the original text of the Bible? Surely you can't be serious! Shakespeare was written in English!

What do you mean they were "acknowledged?"

Why can't the inverse of that be true?