Christian BoyLove Forum #50558

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Re: pedastry and the New Testament

Posted by CliveStaplesLewis on 2007-04-27 11:24:59, Friday
In reply to pedastry and the New Testament posted by d on 2007-04-27 01:51:10, Friday

Actually, I've been reading a lot about this and other key passages related to homosexuality and in part boylove as well.

There are some arguments that the 'boy' in question was not his lover, but his son. The argument is that since the Centurion owned the boy that Jesus would then be affirming rape. If instaid the boy was the man's son, then there was no sex, and no rape.

However, this does not explain why in Luke one of the bystanders refers to the boy as the Centurion's "entimos duolos" or "honored slave". Though a son was under the absolute athority of his father, he was not a slave, even an honored slave. To call a Roman soldier's son a slave to his face could get you in a lot of trouble!

Instead, one should note the way that any marriage (and other long-term sexual relationships) was handled in those times: The bride or lover was bought from her (his) father or previous master. All of them. The Jews and Romans alike.

Jesus priased the faith of the centurion, and did not in either Matthew or Luke give him an admonition to stop having sex with the boy. If Jesus dissaproved of their relationship, one would have expected him to heal the boy (out of mercy) and instruct the centurion to stop sinning with the boy. He used the same formula many times with many other people, but not here. Not even so much as a "go and sin no more". Why? The first and simplest answer is that Jesus saw no great fault in the man, including his relationship with the boy.

This is in strong accordance with the translation in Romans and Corinthians of the word "arsenokoitai" as "rapists" rather than "homosexuals", in accordance with the sin of Sodom being attempted rape of angels rather than homosexuality, in accordance with the relevant Levitical laws refering to rape and not to mutually consentual loving gay relationships.

Which brings me to my continued conclusion that there is nothing inherently wrong with having sex with a boy or man. Sexual boylove is wrong for us only because of the culture we live in and tha damage and shame that culture can cause to a boy.

Love in Christ,


CliveStaplesLewis


Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?