 |
If you do a literature search and check into legit studies, you will discover that pedophiles are not homosexuals, but are straight men or women -- to the tune of 98%. Pedophiles go after little kids of either gender.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And do you know how to correctly pronounce the word "pedophile"?
The topic of pedophilia was brought up by you earlier in this thread.
As for the OP, being gay is neither right nor wrong, but is who you are.
No one is arguing a connection, and in fact this seems to be distracting from the issue at hand. And believe it or not, there are legit studies which do not agree with you! (I did my research!! ). Pedophiles can be heterosexual; or homosexual, therefore saying that they are not homosexual is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Just as heterosexuals constitute 98% of the population - so what is your point? It seems that every time that we try to discuss issues of other orientations, you keep bringing up this topic (homosexual pedophiles) for some reason that escapes me.Quote:
But are straight men or women -- to the tune of 98%. Pedophiles go after little kids of either gender.
Again, who cares and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?Quote:
And do you know how to correctly pronounce the word "pedophile"?
And the topic of homosexual pedophilia was brought up and brought up and brought up by you earlier in this thread.Quote:
The topic of pedophilia was brought up by you earlier in this thread.
Since we are on the religious discussions site, we should be looking at what scripture has to say:Quote:
As for the OP, being gay is neither right nor wrong, but is who you are.
1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV
Pedophiles are straight. The Catholic priest thing is not a pedophile issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Homosexuals are at least 12-15% of the population, maybe more.Quote:
Just as heterosexuals constitute 98% of the population - so what is your point?
It started with your comment on an earlier page in this thread.Quote:
It seems that every time that we try to discuss issues of other orientations, you keep bringing up this topic (homosexual pedophiles) for some reason that escapes me.
Then why did you first mention it?Quote:
Again, who cares and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Page back. YOU brought it up.Quote:
And the topic of homosexual pedophilia was brought up and brought up and brought up by you earlier in this thread.
That's a mistranslation of the word.Quote:
1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV
Why do you deny the existence of homosexual pedophiles (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA ). They exist whether you like it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Credible studies give a much lower number. These figures inevitably are from homosexual SIGs.Quote:
Homosexuals are at least 12-15% of the population, maybe more.
Check out this site: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html
I mentioned pediophiles. You keep bringing up homosexual pediophiles. My only comment was about a group which promotes homosexual pedophile rights (NAMBLA) but at no point did I even suggest that there was an automatic connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, even though some studies do suggest that link. Regardless, if you read what I said, my point was that pedophilia is another sexual orientation (which it is), and if anyone wishes to promote equal rights for all sexual orientations, how far would they take it? NAMBLA and other groups have been fighting for the same rights as homosexuals, using the same arguments based upon their sexual orientation. They have been less successful simply because of the lack of public acceptance of their orientation.Quote:
It started with your comment on an earlier page in this thread.
Experts disagree with you again.Quote:
That's a mistranslation of the word.
You're using WIKIPEDIA as your infallible source??Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Think about it. What age are altar boys? Pedophiles don't go after young adolescent males.
Did you figure out how to pronounce the word correctly yet? I rarely hear it said correctly.
Once you allow them all to emerge from their closets, the number will be higher than we both think it is.Quote:
Credible studies give a much lower number. These figures inevitably are from homosexual SIGs.
Whatever.Quote:
Experts disagree with you again.
1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor pederastrists, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Not an infallible source, but one of many sources. Of course so far you have only made unvalidated claims. So you, so far, are you only source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You really need to do a bit more research into the topic. It is all well and good to defend what you believe, but to claim that there is no such thing as a homosexual pedophile stretches your credibility to the breaking point:Quote:
Think about it. What age are altar boys? Pedophiles don't go after young adolescent males.
Thai police: Three boys identify suspect - CNN.com
Pedophile gets 20 years
Freed pedophile defends boy sex - National - www.smh.com.au
LiveLeak.com - PEDOPHILE who abused 300-400 young boys CAUGHT in Norway after 30 year long Manhunt
N.J. pedophile helps authorities arrest man charged with running Thai boy brothel - Breaking News From New Jersey - NJ.com
Your opinion. Sop far that is all that you have given.Quote:
Once you allow them all to emerge from their closets, the number will be higher than we both think it is.
Interesting how folks who wish to prove a point by finding a translation that they think proves their point rarely give the verse that they use. The original word is malakos which is also translated as "effeminate" in the KJV. It means effectively an effeminate man or alternately a "catamite" which is defined as "a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man." (check your dictionary - that comes from the Random House Dictionary)Quote:
Whatever.
1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor pederastrists, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
The next word might also interest you - the one translated as sodomites, which means "someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male)" (from Wordnet Dictionary by Princeton University)
Hello again, T:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I looked it up too... But, I got to tell you, I never saw a word defined with that appendage. Really, the word "especially", doesn't define anything... It's an adverb used as an intensive, i.e. <an especially good essay> <nothing especially radical in the remarks>.
It would seem that somebody other than a lexicographer added that word. Maybe somebody like YOU.
I didn't know there were differing degrees of sodomy. Based upon your definition, I wouldn't know if some males who engage with females in the same manner, are ALMOST, but not quite sodomites? And, is the girl a sodomite too? If they're not "especially" sodomites, what are they?
And, if they practiced their sodomy, will they every make it to the top of the sodomite chain, according to YOUR definition?? Or, will they always be less than the especial sodomites, which you think are only homosexuals??
Just curious.
excon
It is used a lot - check out the dictionary more often!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, T:
So, I'm dismissed? Why don't you want to argue with me? Cause you got nothing? I think so.
excon
Ex,
I WILL agrue with you. Sodomy is wrong. I don't know why he used "especially"... it doesn't really matter.. it is wrong. PERIOD. What I find interesting is why you want to argue about it. IF you BELIEVE the Bible it really IS a no brainer.. right there in black and white. Course you don't believe the bible.. you are just here to argue.. now AREN't you... Bring it on sunshine... you are going DOWN.
Hello again, T:Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
I never said sodomy is right. I simply say that gay marriage is a right. What homosexuals do in their bedroom isn't my business any more than what YOU do is.
Now, I have opinions about the stuff YOU do in the bedroom. I may or may NOT think it's right. But, your right to get married should NOT be based upon my opinion of your sex life. What I think, doesn't matter.
In terms of RIGHTS, it's what the Constitution says that matters.
In terms of religious BELIEFS, and this being the religious discussion board, I'll submit that religions and religious people are free to believe whatever they want to about gay people. They can include them in their church or not as they choose. They can even carry signs saying that homosexuals will go to hell, and that gay marriage should NOT be allowed. That's FINE with me.
But, the government must obey the Constitution.
excon
For anyone who is interested, the term malakos was used for boy prostitutes. So the verse quoted above is speaking specifically about these, not about some more general phenomenon.
Ex,
You off topic... this is about whether homosexual acitivity is right or wrong according to christian belief. Incidentally most americans disagree with your views on the "rights" of gays to marry. I am one of them, although I feel pretty certain living in a Post christian nation things are beginning to change. You will see it as "progress", I see it as the beginning of the end. The Bible says People will do what is right in their OWN eyes (... ummm that AIN't progress.)
Hello again, T:
I couldn't speak intelligently about what a Christian believes. I can barely speak intelligently about what I believe.
excon
I do that every day! You should meet the great kids I have. And feel free to interview my co-workers or hockey teammates about what kind of guy I am. Doing what's right in our own eyes is not the beginning of the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Because I don't see that you provided anything which requires a response or changes anything which I posted.
Isn't that more pederasty than homosexuality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Exactly. As we've discussed on other occasions, one doesn't find talk about what we now think of as homosexuality in the NT. This probably doesn't settle things one way or the other, but it has to be part of the conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And it had a religious (as well as "social") aspect to it too, didn't it? I think of it as a wealthy man's preoccupation or prediliction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Right. The religious aspect meant being involved in pagan worship. And it was a common practice among the social elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Actually that verse covers both homosexuality and pedophilia nicely, leaving no out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Depending, of course, on one's interpretation...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Depending upon whether one wishes to accept the definitions of the words and the context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Wondergirl,
I thought you'd be interested to know that the word translated "sodomite" in 1Cor.6.9 is, in Greek, "arsenokoitai". We've had exchanges about this before, so I thought you'd be glad to know that it isn't in fact clearly talking about sodomy at all. "Koitai", as you probably remember, means "lewdness", which, in this context, could mean a lot of different things.
Oh, WG, one other thing...
Since in the same clause we are told that male prositution is prohibited, it seems reasonable that arsenokoitai is here referring to the men who go to male prostitutes. Neither the prostitutes nor their Johns will inherit the kingdom.
As a side note, during Martin Luther's time, arsenokoitai meant "masturbator." Lo and behold, by the time the 20th century rolled around, masturbation had become an accepted behavior, so Bible translators retranslated the word to the newest hot button term, "homosexuals."Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Good point. And you're exactly right. "Arsenokoitai" was used in reference to mastrubation in the ancient world with some regularity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Seems to me that if one really wants to be a biblical literalist, then one is obligated to undertake the difficult and time consuming task of mastering ancient languages and of studying, in great depth, the history of the Bible's composition, redaction, and transmission. The manuscript tradition is riddled with contrary readings. And in many cases, the earliest copies of the texts are not in Greek but in Coptic, Armenian, and Latin. Flipping to a concordance is no substitute for hard work. Neither is the frequent use of a search engine.
But, then, as you've no doubt heard me say before, I think it's kind of silly to read the Bible literally since it doesn't even read itself literally.
As interesting as your private opinion and speculation is, I find the views of recognized experts in Greek to be far more compelling. For example, here is what BGAD has to say regarding the meaning of this word in Greek, in this context - "A male who practices homosexuality". The same word is translated elsehwere in scripture as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
1 Tim 1:10
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
KJV
The same recognized source also defines malakos as - "soft, effeminate, especially of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually."
A catamite is defined as:
n. A boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.
(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. )
Not quite sure what "private opinion and speculation" means. But, then again, I don't much care. This stuff is common knowledge among classicists and NT scholars. But do as you see fit. Reminds me a bit of your reaction to asking: reject his expertise as a biologist, and along with it the chance to learn something, and instead cling to a source that fits your agenda (in that case it was the Discovery Institute, as I recall).
If anyone else is interested, you can just look up "arsen" and "koitai" in the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon. It's the standard lexicon used by people who actually know Greek and work on this stuff. The term "arsenkoitai" is rather unusual, and some people think Paul may have coined it. In the context of the passage Tom has been all excited about, it pretty clearly refers to the people who pay male prostitutes--a common practice at Corinth and for which Corinth was well-known throughout the ancient world. (It was also famous, or infamous depending on your point of view, for having the best female prostitutes.)
Wow, that was a pretty substantial edit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Boy prostitutes did have sex with men. That's why they were called "malakoi".
"Edit" ha ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Homosexual pedophilia. Something that one other person on here said doesn't exist.Quote:
Boy prostitutes did have sex with men. That's why they were called "malakoi".
Sure, homosexual = male with male; pedophilia = old guys with boys, often temple slaves kept for that purpose (and they cost a bundle to enjoy--ooops, worship with--too). That's how they worshipped their gods back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And most of those were straight guys having sex with each other or old straight guys doing a power and money thing.
Homosexuals are males having sex with males. When men do this they are not "straight". They may be "bi-sexual", and they may be "homosexual", but not straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I would also be interested in how you know whether these men 2,000 ago were straight or homosexual. Are you older than you let us believe?
There is no such thing as a "homosexual straight man".
This is not at all how people thought of it in ancient and Hellenistic Greece. You're being anachronistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
So you read the minds of 2,000 year old men?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
It does not matter whether they thought of it this way or not - it is reality.
Well, you posted and I responded. In the time it took me to post my response you had gone back and doubled the length of your post. That's a pretty substantial edit. In order to avoid confusion, why not just post again. When you go back to earlier posts and significantly alter them it can be quite confusing for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
When I edit them within a 30 second timeframe to add additional text to complete the message? Come on, let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. You might have a point if it was an hour later, but a matter of second or even a minute or so - no, that is getting way too picky. In any case, you saw the whole message as we can see, and you had full opportunity to deal with the content.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
There are no 2,000 year old men, Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner notwithstanding. But I do actually study the history and language of a period before holding forth about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
It sure does matter, if you're interesting in what Paul was saying. Understanding the meanings of words at the time at which they are written is indispensable for understanding any ancient text. And you can't make it "reality" by fiat. Words have meanings; words and meanings change over time. The NT was written nearly two thousand years ago, in a now dead language. You can't reasonbly expect to understand it without studying the languages in which it was written and the historical context in which those languages were used. This is why people study philology.Quote:
It does not matter whether they thought of it this way or not - it is reality.
As do I, but you are saying is effectively that what we read is not what they were thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Since neither you nor I nor anyone else can read the actual thoughts of 2,000 old men, we have to go by what the text says, in context. Claiming that they did not write what they were thinking is not a compelling argument.Quote:
It sure does matter, if you're interesting in what Paul was saying. Understanding the meanings of words at the time at which they are written is indispensable for understanding any ancient text.
It is YOUR reality, no one else's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:25 PM. |