>It's obviously not a good argument against pedophilia
You certainly have an interesting rhetorical strategy
>There is no direct mention of pedophilia in the Bible
THIS is the most important part of this post, this is THE concession of the whole argument. In modern times pedophilia is seen as the greatest sin, yet God never saw fit to even mention it. The silence itself speaks volumes, for as exhaustive as the bible's sexual ethics are never once do they make any distinction between adult and child. God knew that this was practiced amongst the Israelites and the surrounding nations, and amongst the Romans, yet even as He walked this earth He never attempted to correct their behavior.
>But, there are numerous biblical principles that definitely apply to this sin
I wonder if you were challenged about homosexuality, would you have any difficulty in finding scriptures to condemn it? Would you need to try and construct an indirect condemnation from "numerous biblical principles"? If pedophilia is a sin, it must be much less sinful than lying, stealing, or any other sin that is actually mentioned in scripture.
You can indeed twist scripture into a knot to make it prohibit pedophilia, but only if you also make it prohibit any kind of sexual contact whatsoever. Every legitimate objection that has been made in this thread has either been an objection to sex itself, or to sins which are not pedophilia, but we have yet to see an argument that both makes pedophilia itself prohibited, and permits normal sexuality.
>God created sexuality for Marriage. Only through procreation in Marriage can someone have sex without lust, without sin.
Amen. And He warned against those who would "forbid to marry".
>Having sex with Children psychologically harms the child
This continues to be an illegitimate argument for pedophilia being a sin in the Christian religion. Not one word of scripture, not one father of the church, no principle of the faith ever operated on concepts of 20th century psychology. But you are, you are relying on modern secular ideas rather than the word of God. Which brings us yet again back to my original question; why do you, who would reject modernism in favor of God's will for your sexual ethics concerning homosexuality, now prefer modernity's will for your sexual ethics concerning pedophilia?
>children can't really give birth to children (most of the time) so that is fornication
The word fornication refers to sex outside of wedlock. But it is true that with very few and rare exceptions prepubescent children cannot give birth. If this is proof that pedophilia is a sin, then we must say that marrying a sterile woman is a much graver sin, since the little girl will become fertile with time, but a barren woman short of a miracle never will.
>The word in Scripture refers to any illicit sexual activity, and this would have to include the abhorrent acts of a pedophile?
No sir, scripture defines what sexual activity is illicit not the modern world, and as we have seen here it does not define man-girl relationships as such.
>including the gathering and trading of obscene or indecent pictures of young children.
All pornography is sinful.
Since you passed by this without interpretation or argument so shall I.
>Matthew 18:6 denotes concern for children, while pedophilia harms children. The word offend in the Greek means “to cause one to stumble, to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall, to entice to sin, or to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey.” These definitions of the word offend can easily be applied to the actions of a pedophile. Of course, the principle of not harming a child can be applied to a wide range of child-abusive actions, and Matthew 18:10 makes the case against anyone who would bring any type of harm to a child.
This interpretation is strictly invalid, because it relies entirely on modern concepts completely foreign to the speaker the author and their respective audiences. It *can not* be the meaning of the verse, it is not how it would be interpreted by anyone at the time or for millennia after, including the men who spoke and wrote these words.