Also the fact that even the original text in the Bible was about pedophiles when talking about sin, but the guys who wrote it later changed it to homosexuals.
Are you perhaps thinking of “buggary” which referred to any “unnatural” sex act. That included all anal sex, sex with animals. Really anything in theory but PIV sex between a man and woman. Not so much a biblical thing as something in western law derived from Christianity.
In different places it’s had different connotations and legal definitions though and in reforms of the western legal code its definition underwent various reforms, some progressive, others not so.
But that has nothing to do with biblical definitions or doctrine from over 5 centuries ago.
Considering the bible has instances of girls (underage) to be taken for the pleasure of conquering men in god’s chosen army and considering it has a payment system and mandatory marriage of rapists to their victims I’m fairly confident that any condemnations of abusing children is merely a way of condemning homosexual man/boy acts which the Romans did practice and not Man/girl for instance.
Christianity going back to verified pre-European (Dead Sea scrolls) sources is a mixture of teachings, many socially reactionary and some progressive. Trying to make it approve of modern understandings of human sexuality (sexuality was seen in terms of acts not of attractions or being born a given way) when it’s so old is not likely to yield success as reactionaries who can read Ancient Greek and Aramaic will have points to score against such attempts.
This only refers to the Leviticus verse, not the NT one that I provided. Also, going by the latin text seems like a methodological mistake to me, since the original old testament was in Hebrew and the first translation in Greek.
Also the fact that even the original text in the Bible was about pedophiles when talking about sin, but the guys who wrote it later changed it to homosexuals.
Which part are you referring to? There’s text banning it in both testaments.
Both of them, as a matter of fact I think it was changed just few centuries ago and before that it referred to pedophilia and zoophilia.
Are you perhaps thinking of “buggary” which referred to any “unnatural” sex act. That included all anal sex, sex with animals. Really anything in theory but PIV sex between a man and woman. Not so much a biblical thing as something in western law derived from Christianity.
In different places it’s had different connotations and legal definitions though and in reforms of the western legal code its definition underwent various reforms, some progressive, others not so.
But that has nothing to do with biblical definitions or doctrine from over 5 centuries ago.
Considering the bible has instances of girls (underage) to be taken for the pleasure of conquering men in god’s chosen army and considering it has a payment system and mandatory marriage of rapists to their victims I’m fairly confident that any condemnations of abusing children is merely a way of condemning homosexual man/boy acts which the Romans did practice and not Man/girl for instance.
Christianity going back to verified pre-European (Dead Sea scrolls) sources is a mixture of teachings, many socially reactionary and some progressive. Trying to make it approve of modern understandings of human sexuality (sexuality was seen in terms of acts not of attractions or being born a given way) when it’s so old is not likely to yield success as reactionaries who can read Ancient Greek and Aramaic will have points to score against such attempts.
Dunno about that. In the new testament, at least, it is said that (male) homosexuals will not inherit god’s kingdom.
https://www.greekbible.com/1-corinthians/6/9
Do you have any source that says that specific part was altered?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365428877_The_Bible_Never_Condemned_Homosexuality_it_Condemned_Pedophilia_The_Papal_Revision_and_Mandate_of_Translations_of_the_Bible_in_the_16th_Century_by_Pope_Clement_VIII_and_Pope_Paul_V
This only refers to the Leviticus verse, not the NT one that I provided. Also, going by the latin text seems like a methodological mistake to me, since the original old testament was in Hebrew and the first translation in Greek.