Sign in to follow this  
Chavez

Being Tolerant Oppresses Christians

Recommended Posts

At one point in the first few centuries of the Church, the majority of Christian bishops did not believe Jesus was divine. They were Arian, and they were eventually outvoted and squeezed out as heretics. But there were quite a few divergent views of Jesus prior to orthodoxy.

 

tonormanondog, think about what Asz said when he said different people may interpret the christ differently.

Edited by skins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This eunuch...the one Philip preached with and baptized? I am diligently searching for this "born eunuch".

 

The best I have found is in Isaiah, 56:3-6.

 

II Kings 9:30 is a brilliant picture. :D

 

I want to make something clear. I am tolerant of homosexuals and I did not mean to offend anyone here. Through this discussion I made a comment that I don't see where it fits in with what I believe as "the right path" or what "God expects from us". If you met me you'd see that I don't honestly give a fek what you do or who or what you bang. I am kind to everyone and that is what I got out of Sunday school as the Golden rule. I attend weekly bible study with other men inwhich we are reading the book of James. I attend a catholic church but I am a Christian and I do not claim a denomination. I received the three sacrements at a Lutheran church. However...I am one that does read the Bible with a Strongs because I need to know.

 

Isaiah 56:3-6 goes as far as to explain that God will accept even the "weirdest" of people if you are a devout and obediant follower. I have learned something new. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This eunuch...the one Philip preached with and baptized? I am diligently searching for this "born eunuch".

 

The best I have found is in Isaiah, 56:3-6.

 

II Kings 9:30 is a brilliant picture.  :D

 

I want to make something clear. I am tolerant of homosexuals and I did not mean to offend anyone here. Through this discussion I made a comment that I don't see where it fits in with what I believe as "the right path" or what "God expects from us". If you met me you'd see that I don't honestly give a fek what you do or who or what you bang. I am kind to everyone and that is what I got out of Sunday school as the Golden rule. I attend weekly bible study with other men inwhich we are reading the book of James. I attend a catholic church but I am a Christian and I do not claim a denomination. I received the three sacrements at a Lutheran church. However...I am one that does read the Bible with a Strongs because I need to know.

 

Isaiah 56:3-6 goes as far as to explain that God will accept even the "weirdest" of people if you are a devout and obediant follower. I have learned something new.  :D

 

1417838[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Glad to see yer doing a heckuva job, Balla.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s like trying to make a point against a retarded brick wall.  I'm done with you, go back to the college football forums.

 

1415577[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You are done with me because any point you can make about how nature views human homosexuality, the same point can be made about how nature views voluntary celibacy. The point is that your belief system is such that you view homosexuality one way, and voluntary celibacy another way. You make absolute statements, and claim nature as your proof. Your absolute statements are based on your own believe system and not reality. You want to say that nature proves your view of homosexuality, and it does not. When it comes to homosexuality, for you everything has to be black and white, you can not deal with any gray. If we are going to let nature be the ultimate decision maker about what is right and wrong, then everything is wrong, except for males fighting each other in order to impregnate every female that they come across, because that is the only way to ensure that as much reproduction as possible takes place, and that the best reproduction takes place.

 

In my reality humans have moved beyond the whole survival of the species thing. We seem to have gotten making more humans down pretty good, and we do not seem about to run out of them. So in my reality what is right and wrong is based on something different. For me right and wrong is based on what I have done to make the lives of those around me better, what I have done to further man’s understanding of himself and those around him. For me right and wrong is based on what people will say about me at my funeral. Let me tell you one thing, there will be a great deal said about me at my funeral, some good, some bad, and some I do not know, but I am pretty darn sure that nobody will say anything about where I have or have not put my G*d D@mn C*ck.

 

I do not know if homosexuality is morally right or wrong, I have no idea what God does or does not think about homosexuality. However for me, if someone tells the truth, treats other with fairness and respect, values there family and friends, and helps other when they can, then I put them in front of 90% of the people in this world. As for where these people do or do not put there thingie or who they do or do not want to marry, frankly my dear, I do not give a d@mn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so this morning on my way into work, i was listening to the christian radio station and they were giving a little 'focus on the family' news update.  they were talking about how this generation of college students is the first in american history that attends church more than their parents, yada yada yada, and that more and more college kids are "letting their morals inform their political views, on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research".  and it got me to thinking...all this "moral" concern about issues that, almost without exception, concern only OTHER PEOPLE.  think about that. 

 

is that morality?  is that christianity?  is it something a christian should celebrate?  sounds more like sanctimonious pharisaism to me.  sounds exactly like the people jesus was talking about in matthew 23.

 

1416878[/snapback]

 

 

 

Very neatly summed up - this is why proselytization bugs me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glad to see yer doing a heckuva job, Balla.

 

:D

 

1417845[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

So...what does Matthew 19:12 have to do with homosexuality. It appears that Jesus is praising those that chose to abstain and not sin. He also says that those that were born an eunuch are elgible...I don't get yer point.

Edited by SuperBalla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, i think skins' statement is accurate is implied in my own statement (and to some extent in yours).  being a follower of jesus and being a christian are not necessarily the same thing.  it is certainly possible, for instance, to believe that jesus was one of the great moral teachers the world has known, and to ascribe the highest value to the wisdom laid down and attributed to him in the gospels (canonical and non-canonical)...and to try and live by that wisdom to one degree or another.  it's possible to hold those attitudes, but to also believe that jesus was not God, that he was, ultimately, just a man.  you certainly CAN separate the teachings from the supernatural claims made elsewhere in the new testament, if you are at all inclined to do so.

 

1417829[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

the man who gave you all those teachings also claimed to be the son of God. so either He was indeed the son of God, or He was insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the man who gave you all those teachings also claimed to be the son of God.  so either He was indeed the son of God, or He was insane.

 

1417924[/snapback]

 

 

 

that is a C.S. Lewis argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So...what does Matthew 19:12 have to do with homosexuality. It appears that Jesus is praising those that chose to abstain and not sin. He also says that those that were born an eunuch are elgible...I don't get yer point.

 

1417917[/snapback]

 

 

 

good question--I would also like to see some evidence that the early church interpreted the "born eunuchs" as being homosexuals.

 

(Skins seems to be playing the same interpretation game that many fundies use--i.e. picking a passage from the Bible and interpreting it in their own special way regardless of how it was meant to be interpreted)

 

(note: I am perfectly willing to admit that I am wrong if I am presented with clear evidence that the early church interpreted "born eunuchs" to mean "homosexuals who acted upon their sexual preferences".)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Skins seems to be playing the same interpretation game that many fundies use--i.e. picking a passage from the Bible and interpreting it in their own special way regardless of how it was meant to be interpreted)

 

1417943[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uh, if your logical interpretation about eunuchs is correct, why would "thousands and thousands" of early Christians have castrated themselves instead of just deciding not to enter into a traditional man-woman union?  The fact that they cut their balls off shows that they weren't interpreting what Jesus said in the way that you are saying it could be interpreted.  Do you have any contemporaneous evidence that anyone interpreted the use of the word eunuch in the way that you are suggesting it could be interpreted?

 

1414532[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Because they were reading it pretty dang literally, which is what the orthodox Church later said was a mistake.

 

1414536[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

This is an interesting essay on the passage.

 

Excerpt: Among the apologetic writers, Athenagoras calls the unmarried state eunouchía, and the unmarried man eunuoûchos (Suppl. 33-34) - a use of language that is not otherwise infrequent (Polycrates to Victor about Melito of Sardes in Eusebius, Church History 5.24.5; Julius Cassian in Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 3.13.91; Clement himself in Stromateis 3.1.4; Pseudo-Cyprian in De singularitate clericorum 31, 37 and much more frequently). However, whether he is inspired by Matthew 19:12 cannot be determined. On the other hand, Justin cited our saying, in Apol. 1.15. He does not go into its content. But by his assigning it to a group of similarly directed sayings that all call for soofrosúne,1 he shows clearly that in his view those "who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" are those who live chastely.

 

The heretic Basilides had occupied himself with Matthew 19:12 a bit earlier still. For what Clement of Alexandria relates about the Basilidians in Stromateis 3.1.1 is probably derived from [basilides'] Exegetica.2 According to his interpretation, only the first class of eunuchs are predetermined toward their behavior by their constitutional make-up: they are those who by nature have an aversion to the female. Those mentioned second in the gospel - Basilides calls them eunoûchoi ex anágkees for short - are the showy ascetics who practice abstention for the sake of vainglory. Finally, those who emasculate themselves for the sake of the eternal kingdom avoid marriage in order not to be distracted from higher things by worries about making a living. - While Basilides refrains from all unhealthy hyperbole, and in fact uses words of blame against them, other heretics of the 2nd century have used Matthew 19:12 as a basis of their demand for absolute sexual abstention.

 

So, many contemporaneous uses of the greek form of the word for "eunuch" actually meant just an unmarried man or bachelor. And some at the time interpreted it and this passage as including those who were born averse to women. That could mean asexual, or that could mean homosexual.

 

Here is the passage and a good nterpretation. See the footnote.

 

This is an interesting commentary.

 

1414639[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So...what does Matthew 19:12 have to do with homosexuality. It appears that Jesus is praising those that chose to abstain and not sin. He also says that those that were born an eunuch are elgible...I don't get yer point.

 

1417917[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

good question--I would also like to see some evidence that the early church interpreted the "born eunuchs" as being homosexuals.

 

(Skins seems to be playing the same interpretation game that many fundies use--i.e. picking a passage from the Bible and interpreting it in their own special way regardless of how it was meant to be interpreted)

 

(note:  I am perfectly willing to admit that I am wrong if I am presented with clear evidence that the early church interpreted "born eunuchs" to mean "homosexuals who acted upon their sexual preferences".)

 

1417943[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Jeebus, wiegie, I know yer getting interested in christian origens and stuff, but quit being so hyper literal and actually read what I graciously provided you earlier, in response to yer same question, and the whole thread, before you go accusing me of ridiculous things. Yer kind of annoying when you don't pay attention and dont understand.

 

And I know exactly how that passage was intended to be interpreted, and it may or may not have anything to do with homosexuality. Find one place in this thread where I said it definitely had to do with homosexuality. That passage was Jesus choosing the unmarried, celibate, castrates, widowers, and those "born eunuch" (which was interpreted differently by different people at the time) as an example that men who were not joined with women could still participate in God's plan. And that's all I ever said it meant.

 

The reason I quoted it was because it was an example of Jesus using the outcast and misfit and outsider other as an example of those who could still be one with God, and he specifically pointed out that those men were not married to women. That could include homosexuals, and some early Christian writers seemed to interpret the usage in that manner.

 

Another point should be made: in those times in Hellenestic society there was understood to be a third sexual grouping of people, commonly described as eunuch's, but probably better described as castrates, homosexuals, and others who were not strictly heterosexual. The rigid sexual mores of traditional Judaism and Platonism--man and woman only for procreation--had not been adopted yet by what became orthodox Christianity or in most of the Mediterranean world.

 

But Jews frowned on those people as sinners. So, when Jesus specifically listed them, he was telling his disciples that all are part of God's plan, not only the traditional married man.

 

If you dont bother to read what is front of you, and dont understand it when you do, why comment at all?

 

+1

 

1417990[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

+1

Edited by skins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea what God does or does not think about homosexuality.  However for me, if someone tells the truth, treats other with fairness and respect, values there family and friends, and helps other when they can, then I put them in front of 90% of the people in this world.  As for where these people do or do not put there thingie or who they do or do not want to marry, frankly my dear, I do not give a d@mn.

 

1417887[/snapback]

 

 

 

Amen. Probably the most cogent statement anyone has made in the last few pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason I quoted it was because it was an example of Jesus using the outcast and misfit and outsider other as an example of those who could still be one with God, and he specifically pointed out that those men were not married to women. That could include homosexuals, and some early Christian writers seemed to interpret the usage in that manner.

1418008[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

this really is not true. if you read matthew 19 in its entirety, leading up to 19:12, you will see that jesus is answering a question about divorce. in 19:9 he says "whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

 

(imagine that, jesus preaching against immorality ...)

 

then the disciples basically say, well, if that's true, then it's better not to get married.

 

to which jesus replies in 19:11, all cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given."

 

then, in 19:12, he presents the fact that there are eunuchs who were born from there mother's womb, who were made by other men, and then those that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. then the kicker, "He who is able to accept it (the advice on marriage), let him accept it."

 

you are inferring that the eunuch could potentially be a homosexual and thus, jesus is accepting of homosexuals. this couldn't be further from the truth ...

 

exerpt from here:

 

Jesus said that three kinds people would remain celibate:

 

Natural born eunuchs: Birth defects occurred even in these ancient days. Even today, 1.5% of the men in the United States are born with undescended testicles. Fortunately, modern surgery enables these men to live a normal life by moving the testicles to their proper position. But without such surgery in Jesus' day, these men would be eunuchs.

 

Made eunuchs by men : Accidents do happen and a crushed or amputated testicle is not repairable. Yet it remained a practice in these ancient days to castrate men either for job position or in punishment for some crimes.

 

Chose to be eunuchs: Here we are not referring to men physically castrating themselves, but those who chose to live like a eunuch (i.e. without marriage or celibate).

 

"Marriage was forbidden and not practical anyway for men in the first two categories, but Jesus said that some would chose the celibate life for the sake of the being in the church. Such would arise from people who have made a mess of their early marriages that leave them in a position where they cannot remarry without committing adultery. Such people would value Christianity more than living a life of sin for personal satisfaction. In addition, there are some so involved in the kingdom that marriage would interfere with their work, such as the Apostle Paul (I Corinthians 7:8).

 

No where is there even a hint homosexuality in Matthew 19. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate"" (Matthew 19:4-6). Sexual relations outside of marriage is condemned (fornication and adultery). The discussion about eunuchs is about foregoing marriage. Since sex is only allowed within marriage (Hebrews 13:4), Jesus is not saying that some people are natural born homosexuals, he is talking about men who are unable to have sex or chose to forego sexual relations by not marrying."

 

skins, you did bring up 19:12 in regard to homosexuality, which is just plain wrong. i'm sure jesus would forgive homosexuals for their sin, so in that sense, they are the same as all sinners. to quote this verse as an acknowledgment that homosexuals are born that way is incorrect.

Edited by tonorator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this really is not true.  if you read matthew 19 in its entirety, leading up to 19:12, you will see that jesus is answering a question about divorce.  in 19:9 he says "whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

 

(imagine that, jesus preaching against immorality ...)

 

then the disciples basically say, well, if that's true, then it's better not to get married.

 

to which jesus replies in 19:11, all cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given."

 

then, in 19:12, he presents the fact that there are eunuchs who were born from there mother's womb, who were made by other men, and then those that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.  then the kicker, "He who is able to accept it (the advice on marriage), let him accept it."

 

you are inferring that the eunuch could potentially be a homosexual and thus, jesus is accepting of homosexuals.  this couldn't be further from the truth ...

 

exerpt from here:

 

Jesus said that three kinds people would remain celibate:

 

Natural born eunuchs: Birth defects occurred even in these ancient days. Even today, 1.5% of the men in the United States are born with undescended testicles. Fortunately, modern surgery enables these men to live a normal life by moving the testicles to their proper position. But without such surgery in Jesus' day, these men would be eunuchs.

 

Made eunuchs by men : Accidents do happen and a crushed or amputated testicle is not repairable. Yet it remained a practice in these ancient days to castrate men either for job position or in punishment for some crimes.

 

Chose to be eunuchs: Here we are not referring to men physically castrating themselves, but those who chose to live like a eunuch (i.e. without marriage or celibate).

 

"Marriage was forbidden and not practical anyway for men in the first two categories, but Jesus said that some would chose the celibate life for the sake of the being in the church. Such would arise from people who have made a mess of their early marriages that leave them in a position where they cannot remarry without committing adultery. Such people would value Christianity more than living a life of sin for personal satisfaction. In addition, there are some so involved in the kingdom that marriage would interfere with their work, such as the Apostle Paul (I Corinthians 7:8).

 

No where is there even a hint homosexuality in Matthew 19. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate"" (Matthew 19:4-6). Sexual relations outside of marriage is condemned (fornication and adultery). The discussion about eunuchs is about foregoing marriage. Since sex is only allowed within marriage (Hebrews 13:4), Jesus is not saying that some people are natural born homosexuals, he is talking about men who are unable to have sex or chose to forego sexual relations by not marrying."

 

skins, you did bring up 19:12 in regard to homosexuality, which is just plain wrong.

 

1418015[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I know the context. And you left some of it out. Some of the disciples were unmarried, and later writers commenting note that it appears the divorce/marriage instruction is in response to comments critical of Jesus or his unmarried disciples. Note that he compared them--his disciples--to the lowest sexual outcasts possible in the Jewish world. That is my point.

 

You have much reading to do and once again have fallen into the same fallacies you evidence throughout this thread: a lack of knowledge, hyper literalism, and a tendency to impose yer own beliefs onto very old and different concepts.

 

And yer interpretation of category three is off. There were no Jewish celibate priests or teachers. Contemporary interpretations were that Jesus was speaking about Jewish widowers who didnt re-marry, not celibate monks or something devoting themselves to the Christian church. It did not exist, remember, and to be celibate in Judaism was a sin if you were a man (though there are accounts that some Essenes may have been ascetics).

 

Good luck. And go back and read what I actually wrote before you ascribe statements to me I never made. I said it may be that he was referring to homosexuals, I didnt say he was. Yer narrow birth defect interpretation of the phrase "born eunuch" shows a rigidity of thought that is troubling but not surprising based on what I have read from you here so far.

Edited by skins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yer interpretation of category three is off. There were no Jewish celibate priests or teachers. Contemporary interpretations were that Jesus was speaking about Jewish widowers who didnt re-marry, not celibate monks or something devoting themselves to the Christian church. It did not exist, remember, and to be celibate in Judaism was a sin if you were a man (though there are accounts that some Essenes may have been ascetics).

 

Good luck. And go back and read what I actually wrote before you ascribe statements to me I never made. I said it may be that he was referring to homosexuals, I didnt say he was. Yer narrow birth defect interpretation of the phrase "born eunuch" shows a rigidity of thought that is troubling but not surprising based on what I have read from you here so far.

 

1418022[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

dude, the biblical text says this about category 3: "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." does that sound like jewish widowers to you? have you read the bible? it can't be anymore obvious.

 

what i ascribed to you is just what you said above, that the eunuchs jesus was referring to COULD be homosexuals. that is not true, per my post above. there IS a time to take things literally, specifically when they are spelled out in front of your face.

 

the "birth defect" notion was a referenced quote, but it is accurate, and not narrow at all. you are being so obtuse that you actually are not saying anything at all ...

Edited by tonorator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dude, the biblical text says this about category 3:  "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake."  does that sound like jewish widowers to you?  have you read the bible?  it can't be anymore obvious.

 

what i ascribed to you is just what you said above, that the eunuchs jesus was referring to COULD be homosexuals.  that is not true, per my post above.  there IS a time to take things literally, specifically when they are spelled out in front of your face.

 

the "birth defect" notion was a referenced quote, but it is accurate, and not narrow at all.  you are being so obtuse that you actually are not saying anything at all ...

 

1418025[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

::D tonormanondog, yer not really that fun to argue with.

 

Go read what I posted and linked. An early follower of Jesus specifically wrote that category one of eunuchs were those born with an "aversion to women." That means a man who wont have sex with a woman because he doesnt want to, not because his balls dont drop (yer brilliant 20th century interpretation :D ).

 

What is truly amusing is that yer arguing a position that arises out of a fourth century political struggle during the formation of the orthodox church. At that time, the Platonic/Jewish sex for procreation model was adopted by Christianity and used as a bludgeon against political enemies in the Roman world: the eunuchs. Christianity adopted a narrower definition of eunuch and an increasing exclusionary practice based on sexual behavior.

 

You are the perfect descendant of those rigid exclusionary political patriarchal early orthodox church leaders. And you dont even realize it.

Edited by skins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else get a little weirded out by Skinflute and Tormenator talking about men's balls dropping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the man who gave you all those teachings also claimed to be the son of God.  so either He was indeed the son of God, or He was insane.

 

1417924[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Not true.

 

If Jesus was not divine, but rather just a very extraordinary man, then the New Testament writings are not the word of God, but rather the word of man. If the New Testament writings are the word of man, then it is impossible to verify what was actually in the original text.

 

Have you ever played telephone? Take 25 people, make up a complicated paragraph, tell it to the first, then they tell it to the second, and so on. When it gets to the end of the line, the paragraph will have virtually no similarity to the beginning. The New Testament writings were oral tradition for anywhere from 20 to 70 years. They were not widely distributed and held as authoritative for almost 200 years. During that time, they would have been distributed over a geographic region the size of the US, hand copied thousands of time in dozens of languages. Now we enter the 1800 year period of the organized church. Keep in mind that for the first 1400 years, we have no printing press. During this 1800 years the church is as much a political entity as anything else, struggling for power and control like every other political entity (keep in mind that in this world, the new testament is nothing more than the word of man). Would you not agree that if Jesus was not divine, that we have absolutely no idea what he said?

 

True story. “Pa” Ferguson, the Governor of Texas, was impeached and convicted in 1919. By law, he was unable to ever hold office in Texas again. In 1924, his wife (wink, wink, nod, nod), “Ma” Ferguson ran for Governor. “Ma” actually won, in part because the other candidate was heavily supported by the KKK. During her term in office, Ma was asked what she thought about bi-lingual education, her response was that if English was good enough for our lord Jesus Christ, then English was good enough for Texas school children.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are done with me because any point you can make about how nature views human homosexuality, the same point can be made about how nature views voluntary celibacy.  The point is that your belief system is such that you view homosexuality one way, and voluntary celibacy another way.  Again you couldn't be more wrong but thanks for THINKING you know how I view the world.  like stated before I could care less if you were ghey or not as long as you are a good person it doesn't matter to me.  You make absolute statements, and claim nature as your proof. Claim as proof?  Then please show me how mammals reproduce without both sexes?Your absolute statements are based on your own believe system and not reality.  So you are saying that it is my own belief system that mammals do not require two sexes to reproduce? and that is not reality...okay.You want to say that nature proves your view of homosexuality, and it does not.  Of course it doesn't because my view point on homosexuality is the same as my view point on olives, I could care if someone is ghey or not.When it comes to homosexuality, for you everything has to be black and white, you can not deal with any grayAgain thanks for informing me on what I think and see, it's good to know you are pushing your opinion on me and other. If we are going to let nature be the ultimate decision maker about what is right and wrong, then everything is wrong, except for males fighting each other in order to impregnate every female that they come across, because that is the only way to ensure that as much reproduction as possible takes place, and that the best reproduction takes place.  That has to be the lamest statement yet but please go ahead

 

 

In my reality humans have moved beyond the whole survival of the species thing.  We seem to have gotten making more humans down pretty good, and we do not seem about to run out of them.  So in my reality what is right and wrong is based on something different.  For me right and wrong is based on what I have done to make the lives of those around me better, what I have done to further man’s understanding of himself and those around him.  For me right and wrong is based on what people will say about me at my funeral.  Let me tell you one thing, there will be a great deal said about me at my funeral, some good, some bad, and some I do not know, but I am pretty darn sure that nobody will say anything about where I have or have not put my G*d D@mn C*ck.

 

Same with me buddy.  I hate to break it to you but you are focusing on the wrong part of my statement, you are seeing black and white ready to pick up the flag and defend homosexuals from what i said.  But I haven't said anything about homosexuals cept that mother nature had put in place a duel sex race that requires a male and a female to carry it on.  There for mother nature has no place for same sex relationship between mammals.  It's just not in the cards.

 

I do not know if homosexuality is morally right or wrong, I highly doubt that it is since G*d is more concerned with love and peace and good will towards each other and if two people from the same sex fall in love and that love is true, it doesn't matter.  I have no idea what God does or does not think about homosexuality.  However for me, if someone tells the truth, treats other with fairness and respect, values there family and friends, and helps other when they can, then I put them in front of 90% of the people in this world.  As for where these people do or do not put there thingie or who they do or do not want to marry, frankly my dear, I do not give a d@mn.

 

1417887[/snapback]

 

 

 

Again stop telling me what i'm thinking because you can't seem to understand what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(note:  I am perfectly willing to admit that I am wrong if I am presented with clear evidence that the early church interpreted "born eunuchs" to mean "homosexuals who acted upon their sexual preferences".)

 

1417943[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I also found where an eunuch could be interpreted as an officer, minister of state-chamberlain...obviously not in Matthew. I understand yer point skins as far as trying to show that Jesus cared for every person regardless of their "outcastness". After reading several chapters...it appears that Eunuchs were sort of common among the Religious. What about in Acts when Philip baptises one. Interesting. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read more than a couple words in this thread, but every time I see the title I think, "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't read more than a couple words in this thread, but every time I see the title I think, "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" :D

 

1418112[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Just remember cutlery being handed out by some watery tart is no basis for a form of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And wiegie, here's some more homework for you.

 

And a little more, since yer so interested.

 

Enjoy. And I expect yer paper to be six pages, single spaced, on my desk by Monday.

 

1418016[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

OK, but let me get back to the start and make sure we have clearly defined what the main question of debate is: Did Jesus condone homosexual practices?

 

You are arguing that the answer is yes, because Jesus had no problem with eunuchs and you are arguing that eunuch is another way of saying practicing homosexual.

 

To question the idea that this is how eunuch was meant to be interpreted I will give a few quotes from early church leaders

 

well, I will start with this from one of your own links:

 

In another context (Pedagogue 3.4.26), Clement himself warned Christian householders against entrusting their wives to eunuchs, because "even these are panders: they will neglect their duties and serve pleasure without suspicion, because of the common belief that they are not able to enjoy love. But the true eunuch is not the one not able, but the one not desiring to make love." Note that as a Christian who despised all manner of effeminacy in men, Clement was not even considering homosexual sex here. When Clement said true eunuchs did not desire to make love, he obviously had in mind sex with women.

 

another quote you put forth had this:

 

Among the apologetic writers, Athenagoras calls the unmarried state eunouchía, and the unmarried man eunuoûchos

 

Interestingly, Athenagoras also had this to say:

They do not abstain even from males, males with males, committing chocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways.

 

here are a few others:

The Christian man confines himself to the female sex.--Tertullian
The Greeks, O King, followed debased practices in intercourse with males, or with their mothers, sisters, and daughters.--Aristides

and of course there is what Paul wrote in Corinthians.

 

I just don't see any evidence to suggest that the earliest Christians agreed with your notion that homosexual practices had been sanctioned by Jesus.

 

The argument provided in the links you gave (from such an objective website as one "dedicated to born gays, lesbians, transgenders and other holy ones") do not give any real evidence that homosexual practices were condones other than to suggest that homosexuals weren't really men and therefore were free to have sex with one-another since the prohibitions of male on male sex didn't apply to these non-males. So basically your argument comes down to the suggestion that the only people who were prohibited from engaging in homosexual acts were the heterosexuals. This is an interesting argument to say the least and the links you give provide no evidence that the early Christian church held such views.

Edited by wiegie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.