are you a christian?

[bullmoose88]

Because Jesus was a sexy, sexy beast.

The role of Gabu will be played tonight by Mary Magdalene

[ilikeverin]

Yes, I'm a Methodist.  And I'm starting to get offended by those who stubbornly insist that all Christians believe that all non-Christians are going to Hell (Gabu, you are a repeat offender ) and/or believe that gay people are evil.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Aflietch, please allow me this one last comment on Mat 19:10-12:

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12a For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; 12b and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

You’re attempting to draw doctrinal conclusions based upon the two groups of eunuchs in verse 12a that are NOT bolded above.  But Jesus himself draws no conclusions about those in 12a.  In fact, they’re not even the subject of this (or any) part of his conversation.  He’s not even talking about them, he merely mentions them for the purpose of juxtaposition.

He brings up these two groups of eunuchs in verse 12a because they are excluded from marriage by circumstances beyond their control.  No Jewish father is going to give his daughter in marriage to a eunuch. 

On the other side of the juxtaposition are those in 12b who have been given a choice, the ones with the gift of celibacy.  It is this group in 12b that is the subject of this part of the conversation.  All the parts bolded are about celibacy.  The bolded conclusion of the last statement is about the celibacy of the group in 12b, NOT the two groups of eunuchs in 12a which I didn’t bold.

So, you are free to define “eunuchs” in 12a any way you wish.  You can even make their identities to be Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny, but you will not be able to form a doctrinal conclusion about them, for Jesus draws no conclusions about those in 12a, for they are not even the subject of the conversation.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I really hope this serves as a lesson to quit baiting jmfcst.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Jmfcst, may I ask you a question? Do you think a homosexual could go to heaven?

If our faith would send someone to hell for being theirself, then I don't think I want to be part of that faith.

[afleitch]

Jmfcst, may I ask you a question? Do you think a homosexual could go to heaven?

If our faith would send someone to hell for being theirself, then I don't think I want to be part of that faith.

I'm going to answer this, because jmfcst will not be kind to you about it.

Hopefully we can get back on topic again.

I am presuming, and he can correct me if I am wrong, that his answer will be 'no' unless you are celibate. His answer could be 'no' even if you are celibate. The main problem with this, and a problem that many fundamentalist Christians have is that, if scientific understanding confirms that people are homosexual from birth, then it means God created or allowed gay people, with active emotional and physical attraction to the same sex and who have no say in the matter and then somewhere along the line went 'whoops - my bad' and started, apparently, condeming it in the Bible. Which would mean that God made a mistake. Which means if God made a mistake, he could make other mistakes and he ceases to be infallible. Then everything falls apart. Yes, we're that much of an apparent threat

Which is why fundamentalist Christians try their hardest to condemn scientific advancement in that field of study.

But  they shouldn't see that as a problem, because as I've been outlining over the past few years, and again recently, the Bible has little to say on the matter and what it does say does not condemn loving monogamous homosexual relationships and excempts gay people from the conditions of a heterosexual man-wife marriage.

So you don't have to worry about your faith Josh. Hold onto it and don't let people try and shake you.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst, may I ask you a question? Do you think a homosexual could go to heaven?

If our faith would send someone to hell for being theirself, then I don't think I want to be part of that faith.

Josh,

I believe we all must repent in order to be saved.  The bible makes it very clear that the sexually immoral will not be saved.  Being “born” a certain way is no excuse either, for the bible already declares that we were all born with a sinful nature.  Being "ourselves" is what led us into sin in the first place, that is why we must be rebirthed by the Spirit.  Surely that point of the New Testament hasn’t escaped your attention.  But in case you did miss it, here is some suggested reading:

John ch 3
Romans ch 6
2Corinthians  ch 5
Galatians ch 6

As I have stated, the only context the bible allows for sex is within a heterosexual marriage.   That is why the bible casts every other sexual context in a negative light.  “No sex until marriage” is front and center to every reader of the bible.

As to Mat 19:11-12, it is quite obvious no theological conclusion can be made about “eunuchs” who were either born that way or were made that way, for Jesus was making no conclusions about them.  He was just stating the simple fact that they were unable to marry.  In fact, they weren’t even the subject of his conversation.  Jesus merely threw them in to use as juxtaposition.  If you read the passage yourself, you’ll see I am telling the truth.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Jmfcst, may I ask you a question? Do you think a homosexual could go to heaven?

If our faith would send someone to hell for being theirself, then I don't think I want to be part of that faith.

Josh,

I believe we all must repent in order to be saved.  The bible makes it very clear that the sexually immoral will not be saved.  Being “born” a certain way is no excuse either, for the bible already declares that we were all born with a sinful nature.  Being "ourselves" is what led us into sin in the first place, that is why we must be rebirthed by the Spirit.  Surely that point of the New Testament hasn’t escaped your attention.  But in case you did miss it, here is some suggested reading:

John ch 3
Romans ch 6
2Corinthians  ch 5
Galatians ch 6

As I have stated, the only context the bible allows for sex is within a heterosexual marriage.   That is why the bible casts every other sexual context in a negative light.  “No sex until marriage” is front and center to every reader of the bible.

As to Mat 19:11-12, it is quite obvious no theological conclusion can be made about “eunuchs” who were either born that way or were made that way, for Jesus was making no conclusions about them.  He was just stating the simple fact that they were unable to marry.  In fact, they weren’t even the subject of his conversation.  Jesus merely threw them in to use as juxtaposition.  If you read the passage yourself, you’ll see I am telling the truth.

So you are saying I should force myself to like women?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So you are saying I should force myself to like women?

Not at all, this is not about your personal effort but about God's mercy.  I am saying that you should do what we all must do in order to be saved:  take an honest look in the bible of how God structured the proper behavior for humans, accept the bible's verdict that everyone is born with a sinful nature, repent, and look toward God to recreate you in his image.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

aflietch, are you going to reply to this?

Aflietch, please allow me this one last comment on Mat 19:10-12:

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12a For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; 12b and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

You’re attempting to draw doctrinal conclusions based upon the two groups of eunuchs in verse 12a that are NOT bolded above.  But Jesus himself draws no conclusions about those in 12a.  In fact, they’re not even the subject of this (or any) part of his conversation.  He’s not even talking about them, he merely mentions them for the purpose of juxtaposition.

He brings up these two groups of eunuchs in verse 12a because they are excluded from marriage by circumstances beyond their control.  No Jewish father is going to give his daughter in marriage to a eunuch. 

On the other side of the juxtaposition are those in 12b who have been given a choice, the ones with the gift of celibacy.  It is this group in 12b that is the subject of this part of the conversation.  All the parts bolded are about celibacy.  The bolded conclusion of the last statement is about the celibacy of the group in 12b, NOT the two groups of eunuchs in 12a which I didn’t bold.

So, you are free to define “eunuchs” in 12a any way you wish.  You can even make their identities to be Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny, but you will not be able to form a doctrinal conclusion about them, for Jesus draws no conclusions about those in 12a, for they are not even the subject of the conversation.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Responding to BRTDs thread, I have to ask you this then:

Do you take the position of the Catholic church, which argues that sex is defined as being only a part of heterosexual marriage for the purpose of procreation?

The general belief of many Catholic priests and monks is that homosexuality itself is not sinful, but that homosexual sex, just like adultery, is sinful.  Homosexuals cannot have sex, therefore, because it is not possible to procreate, that being the main defining factor, not simply because they are homosexuals.

But with this positions comes a lot of other "baggage":

Condoms are seen as immoral, as is masturbation, any kind of birth control...

It could even be debated that coitus is immoral and sinful, as you are intentionally trying to reduce the chance that you conceive a child.

This position is much more consistent, but most "Christians" don't believe this.  Instead, they condemn the homosexuality from the beginning while not equally condemning other sinful acts like divorce and premarital sex.

Why aren't there campaigns to make constitutional amendments to ban divorce, adultery, and birth control?

If we are to live by the Bible.. why not LIVE BY THE BIBLE?

What I see is a gross perversion of the Bible because people are picking and choosing verses that conform to beliefs they already had...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Do you take the position of the Catholic church, which argues that sex is defined as being only a part of heterosexual marriage for the purpose of procreation?

Obviously, since I am not Catholic, I am not always going to agree with the Catholic church.  But here is my belief:

Prior to the coming of Christ, any Jew not having offspring lost possession of his land when he died, since the land of Israel was allotted according to clan.  That is why eunuchs were not allowed to counted among the assembly of the Jewish tribes, they had no offspring and hence no lasting inheritance.

Prior to Jesus, because of the promise of the coming Messiah, refusal to procreate was basically a refusal to give birth to the Messiah, hence Onan being condemned for refusing to a kinsmen redeemer.

I agree that God still intends children to be born in the context of a marriage, but since the Messiah has been born, I highly doubt there is a command to reproduce.  In fact, the New Testament’s statement that it is “better not to marry” proves that we are not under command to reproduce, heck, we’re not even under the command to marry.

---

The general belief of many Catholic priests and monks is that homosexuality itself is not sinful, but that homosexual sex, just like adultery, is sinful.  Homosexuals cannot have sex, therefore, because it is not possible to procreate, that being the main defining factor, not simply because they are homosexuals.

How they can argue that a certain act is a sin but the desire to commit the act is “OK” is beyond me.  Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount has focused on the attitude of the heart giving birth to sin.  And the stated purpose of the New Covenant is to write the laws of God on the hearts of man in order to change the attitude of his heart and therefore altering his actions.

---

Condoms are seen as immoral, as is masturbation, any kind of birth control...

For birth control, see above.

As for masturbation, the guilt and cheapened feeling that it brings is testimony that it is not the right avenue for fulfilling one’s sexual needs.  The first thing the bible mentions as “not good” was for Adam to be alone.  And had God left Adam alone, Adam would have had dogs licking his gentiles.  So God created the opposite sexes for the fulfilling of each other’s needs, including sexual needs.  And God placed the context of sex within a heterosexual marriage.

---

but most "Christians" don't believe this.  Instead, they condemn the homosexuality from the beginning while not equally condemning other sinful acts like divorce and premarital sex.

Actually, I believe premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality are all sinful and condemnable.

---

Why aren't there campaigns to make constitutional amendments to ban divorce, adultery, and birth control?

No one is attempting to force people to condone divorce and adultery, but there is a movement to force The People to condone homosexual marriage.  And I am against laws criminalizing homosexuality.

---

If we are to live by the Bible.. why not LIVE BY THE BIBLE?

There is a lot sin that does not innocents (sex, laziness, drunkenness, idolatry, etc), but I am not in favor of criminalizing sin that doesn’t harm others.

---

What I see is a gross perversion of the Bible because people are picking and choosing verses that conform to beliefs they already had...

You’re preaching to the choir, brother!

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why Bother creating Sex then? If this was such a big problem towards God you would think he would allow men to procreate by some other method. I have major issues with God's lack of imagination (why do most Animals reproduce the same - incl. Man?)

(Also Interesting that you see the first human as Adam; and then Eve came after to look after him, the pitiful creature. What that all means I think other people can figure out.)

[afleitch]

aflietch, are you going to reply to this?

Not originally no as I thought the thread had veered considerably off topic, but as you have asked then I may as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all I'd just like to say, the passage does not appear with sections in 'bold' to draw people attention to. It was meant to be looked at in it's entirety so that's what I will do. You are saying Jesus draws no conclusions. You are quite right. He is not there to discuss the ins and outs of single sex relationships. He is talking about marriage and, as an aside outlines those who are exempt from the traditional notion of a man-wife marriage. But you are wrong to suggest it is just 'juxtaposition' and you are wrong to suggest that '12a' is of no relevance because they are not the subject of the conversation.

Your interpretation is that;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now I'm not sure, why after you stated that Jesus was 'not even talking' about those 12a do you then seek to define who he is talking about. You say that 'no Jewish father is going to give his daughter in marriage to a eunuch.'

The correct translation would be that 'no Jewish father is going to give his daughter in marriage to a eunouchos.You cannot make a presumption that eunouchos is directly translatable as a sexually castrated male – a eunuch.

If all eunuchs are castrated males then what did Jesus mean when he said 'some were born that way?' You are not born a eunuch in any traditional sense, you do not have a childhood as eunuch, you are only made or inducted as one while pre-pubescent. Eunouchos is a broader term that is applied, particularly in non biblical literature of the time, to a man who has no desire or ability to have sexual relations with a woman. Indeed the stem word eunouchos can have diverse meanings such as 'impotence' or even a 'chamberlain' of the bed. I direct Greek translation without context is 'bed-keeper' or 'keeper of the bed.'

Phsyical castration is a social custom that died out in Europe centuries ago as a common practice (although it did continue in Italian church choirs in the practice of 'castrati' until the middle of the 1800's) Now notice I said 'social custom.' Jesus is responding to a social custom that existed at his time. Look at what Jesus said; 'for some are eunuchs because they were born that way.' You are not born a castrated eunuch, nor are you born impotent, nor are you born a fully fledged 'bed-keeper'. So what did Jesus mean?

Let's look back at those three types of eunuchs. The first; 'those born that way' though we have not yet identified who he means (though you could take a wild guess; people who don't have a sexual attraction to the opposite gender...) Secondly 'those made that way by men'- the castrated or those who are not capable of having a heterosexual relationship because of the ways and means of others, and thirdly, those who elect not to have a sexual relationship for the sake of the 'kingdom.' Which from a Catholic point of view is easy to identify; priests who give up the pursuit of a sexual relationship and marriage for the service of God. I don't think either of us are disputing this but no matter how you look at it, in 'bold' or not these are the people that Jesus identified as exempt from the concept of the bond, through marriage, between a man and a woman in response to the apostles rather probing questions on the concept of divorce.

Jesus states that not everyone will marry according to the custom as in male and female. He also said that not everyone can accept this. He says that those that can accept it should accept it. I think that is a fairly direct statement, not a juxtaposition.

Now eunuchs tended to be servants. It doesn't mean that's what the word means either; it's simply context. Some of these were prisoners of war, captives, and exiles (Isaiah 39:7). Now it was argued that these servants had to live a celibate life which historically, is spot on. Slaves were not afforded the privileges of forming open sexual relationships with other slaves or with their masters, though it did happen often discretely. So the word eunuch also became a word that meant a celibate person. Though in these cases, celibacy was forced.

Homosexuals were pretty nifty people to have about court or in hareem. They often mingled in the same private domestic circles as the castrated eunuch. As a result homosexual staff of the household held power over the eunuchs and over the women of the harem for example (for the same reasons gay men are often invited to walk women home safely at night who they may not know) While, what we call eunuchs; the castrated, often found themselves in this position within the harems of the upper classes (not to mention the 'public' harems provided to the citizens), to say that castrated eunuchs were incapable of desiring or acquiring sexual gratification was untrue (as we learned from the castrati generations later who were both amorous and highly desired by many women).

They the (eunouchos) were however forced into that position by the chamberlain (eunouchos) and homosexual house staff (eunouchos) and had very little choice in the matter. If that last line is slightly confusing it is supposed to be.

But even if we forget about 'eunuchos' completely, leave it out of our interpretation, the Greek  word 'gamesai' is translated in Matthew 19:10 as "to marry" is in fact a Greek vulgar word. It also means, bluntly 'to f-ck/screw' ;gamo. There is therefore a possibility that Jesus wasn't talking about marriage at all, but sex or perhaps both interchangably in quite a rude way. So in a broader sense, Jesus was talking about men, who for them, it wouldn't be good for to have sex with a woman, particular as some were 'born eunuchos' or 'born impotent' (to women) Finally when Jesus talks about the eunuchs, he says: "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." The Greek word choreo translated here as 'receive' is used metaphorically; "receiving"with the mind. The same word is found in 2 Cor, 7:2 (often translated as open your hearts for us, make room for us, receive us)

Eunouchos not sleeping with women not only 'receive' it, but they also accept it and that is the key. It is unlikely that Jesus' reference to a born eunuchos is referring to a straight man who is impotent, not only are you not born to become impotent when you reach sexual maturity, it is unlikely that a straight man who is impotent (which can usually be caused by psychological/stress factors and easily resolved ) would passively 'accept' his impotence if he is lusting after a woman or simply wanting to have sex with his wife.

It is said that there are only two ways in which one is not 'sexually immoral'; if they are a married man and wife or if you are celibate through choice. But Jesus, when pressurised by his own apostles, laid out two more; slaves and the castrated who are deprived of their freedom and right to marry and follow their natural sexual desire because of the acts of other men, men soceity would now call homosexual, who were 'naturally eunouchos' and 'impotent of women.' These two groups, alongside those who choose to be celibate need not be called to 'marry' within the strict definition of a man marrying a woman.

------

It is difficult to continue with this. You are unable to approach this issue from any other angle to the one you are used to.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

[Why Bother creating Sex then? If this was such a big problem towards God you would think he would allow men to procreate by some other method.

Name one human trait that can’t be used to do evil?  God simply provided the proper channel to fulfill the need.

---

I have major issues with God's lack of imagination (why do most Animals reproduce the same - incl. Man?)

Actually, all animals don’t reproduce the same way.  (so much for God’s lack of imagination)

---

(Also Interesting that you see the first human as Adam

Yeah…?

---

; and then Eve came after to look after him, the pitiful creature. What that all means I think other people can figure out.)

Of course Eve came after Adam.  Is that news?!

But not to look after him, rather to make him whole.  And it works both ways:  1Cor 11:11 “In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.”

But beyond the literal story of Adam and Eve is its allegory teaching about God’s longing to have a personal relationship with his church.

[Јas]

As for masturbation, the guilt and cheapened feeling that it brings is testimony that it is not the right avenue for fulfilling one’s sexual needs. 

1. Just because you suffer a 'guilt and cheapened feeling' doesn't mean everyone else does.
2. You're assertion could also be used to argue that if a sexual act provides one with gratification and a positive feeling, then it is the 'right avenue for fulfilling one’s sexual needs'. This obviously could apply to a whole variety of sexual acts which you have condemned as 'wrong'.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't but that's totally irrelevant. Actually I did not even mention "evil" in my original post and I certainly did not mean to imply that sex was evil; which is something you seem to be intrepreting. My mere point was that why did God decide to choose a certain way of doing things - why two arms, why two legs - why not four or none at all, why sexual reproduction and not some other method and the problem is here you can't claim the traditional arguement that arms and legs were created in order to make humans adapt to their enviorment. So that enviorment is god's creation - and assuming as you do, that god knows everything including all future events then god should surely have had more foresight no (Not to mention that he (interesting word that) know about the fall before the creation.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Key word: most

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No; but the assumption is that the male came first and the female later; in other words the male (Adam) is the roots of the species is the female (Eve) is what was created by god to help the original man.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So why did God invent masturbation? Or even (sexual) scarcity? Assuming that sexual feelings are ones everyone (or at least a vast majority) needs to express hammering them all into an instution known as marriage (which had almost nothing to do with love btw till the 18th Century) seems to be somewhat counterproductive?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As for masturbation, the guilt and cheapened feeling that it brings is testimony that it is not the right avenue for fulfilling one’s sexual needs. 

1. Just because you suffer a 'guilt and cheapened feeling' doesn't mean everyone else does.
2. You're assertion could also be used to argue that if a sexual act provides one with gratification and a positive feeling, then it is the 'right avenue for fulfilling one’s sexual needs'. This obviously could apply to a whole variety of sexual acts which you have condemned as 'wrong'.

No, my first and only basis is that God defined heterosexual marriage as the defining context for sex.  I was appealing to the conscience for collaboration, but, as the scripture says, some have had their consciences seared beyond response, so a call to conscience doesn’t always work.

[Hash]

jmfcst, you do know its because of people like you that I'm not a Christian anymore?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't but that's totally irrelevant. Actually I did not even mention "evil" in my original post and I certainly did not mean to imply that sex was evil; which is something you seem to be intrepreting.

No, I am not implying sex is evil, I am simply saying that anything can be used as an instrument for doing evil.

---

My mere point was that why did God decide to choose a certain way of doing things - why two arms, why two legs - why not four or none at all

I guess God was wise enough to know that you can’t please everyone, there’s always someone going to question whatever you decide to do.

---

god knows everything including all future events then god should surely have had more foresight no (Not to mention that he (interesting word that) know about the fall before the creation.)

You act as if God was caught off-guard by the fall of man.  To the contrary, the bible says that God chose Jesus from the beginning to be the path of salvation:

1 Peter 1:20 “He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.”

If you would give the bible a chance, you’d find that all of your complaints about God have already been answered.

[Јas]

As for masturbation, the guilt and cheapened feeling that it brings is testimony that it is not the right avenue for fulfilling one’s sexual needs. 

1. Just because you suffer a 'guilt and cheapened feeling' doesn't mean everyone else does.
2. You're assertion could also be used to argue that if a sexual act provides one with gratification and a positive feeling, then it is the 'right avenue for fulfilling one’s sexual needs'. This obviously could apply to a whole variety of sexual acts which you have condemned as 'wrong'.

No, my first and only basis is that God defined heterosexual marriage as the defining context for sex.  I was appealing to the conscience for collaboration, but, as the scripture says, some have had their consciences seared beyond response, so a call to conscience doesn’t always work.

I understand your view regarding your interpretation of the Bible, which it would obviously be pointless for me to debate you on.
I was merely pointing out that your argument for conscience as collaboration doesn't necessarily hold up on its own.

[Hash]

jmfcst, you do know its because of people like you that I'm not a Christian anymore?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

jmfcst, you do know its because of people like you that I'm not a Christian anymore?

That's a stupid reason that makes no sense by any type of logical standard, frankly.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, you do know its because of people like you that I'm not a Christian anymore?

Are you saying you don't like the form of Christianity that actually takes the word of God seriously?  Or is it you just don’t like talking about the biblical view of sex?  Would you feel more comfortable if we moved away from the topic of sex and discussed another biblical topic such as lying?

If the bible says we are all lost unless we repent and surrender to Christ, how does denying that fact in order to make you feel more comfortable help you in the long run?  Or don't you know the only path to freedom is to admit that you're a slave?

Certainly I am not all fire and brimstone.  I believe Christ’s ministry was one of encouraging and uplifting people.  To those who humbled themselves, he gave power to overcome all fear and to speak boldly about God’s goodness.

[ilikeverin]

Certainly I am not all fire and brimstone.  I believe Christ’s ministry was one of encouraging and uplifting people.  To those who humbled themselves, he gave power to overcome all fear and to speak boldly about God’s goodness.

God's goodness is fire and brimstone?