are you a christian?

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

Afleitch,

So, you’re disagreeing with me that the two groups of eunuchs in verse 12a are mentionde as a juxtaposition to those given the gift of celibacy. Very well, then, there is nothing more to be said.  I’ll simply quote the verse again along with my paraphrased interpretation for all to see and judge for themselves.  You can do likewise if you wish:

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. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

My interpretation:
10The disciples said to him, "If it is unlawful to divorce except in the case of unfaithfulness, then it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept the fact that it is better not to marry, but only those to whom the gift of celibacy has been given.  12a For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and [contrasting those in 12a who cannot marry with those in 12b who choose not to marry] 12b others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. Conclusion: The one who can accept celibacy should accept it."

[afleitch]

Afleitch,

So, you’re disagreeing with me that the two groups of eunuchs in verse 12a are mentionde as a juxtaposition to those given the gift of celibacy. Very well, then, there is nothing more to be said.  I’ll simply quote the verse again along with my paraphrased interpretation for all to see and judge for themselves.  You can do likewise if you wish:

That's absolutely fine by me.

Mat 19:10-12

10. The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11. Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.

12. For some are eunouchos (born impotent to women - asexual/homosexual) because they were born that way; others were made eunouchos (castrated) by men; and others are eunouchos (chose a life of celibacy) because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (alternate phraseology: "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.")

See below for reference:

"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.

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

11. Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.

12. For some are eunouchos (born impotent to women - asexual/homosexual) because they were born that way; others were made eunouchos (castrated) by men; and others are eunouchos (chose a life of celibacy) because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (alternate phraseology: "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.")

Are you saying that Jesus' statement in verse 11 and his conclusion at the end of verse 12 is in reference to all three groups (those born as eunuchs, those made eunuchs, and those given the gift of celibacy)?

[afleitch]

Are you saying that Jesus' statement in verse 11 and his conclusion at the end of verse 12 is in reference to all three groups (those born as eunuchs, those made eunuchs, and those given the gift of celibacy)?

Let's run through the whole 'conversation.' It is said to say to him, 'If this (marriage without divorce) is the way it is for a man and woman, then (surely) it is best not to marry (at all).' Jesus says to them 'Yes... but not all men can understand this teaching, only those who have been prepared [to receive it]. For there are 'eunouchos' who are that way from their mother's womb; and there are 'eunouchos' who are made this way because of men, and there are men who become 'eunouchos' by their own hand, for the (sake of the) kingdom of God.'' I can't really see how else I can put this across:


Pharisee (tapping Jesus on the shoulder) – Here's one for you. Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?

Jesus - Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator '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 they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.

Pharisee – Right...because, why then did Moses say that the man can give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss her?

Jesus - Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning that wasn't the case. I say this; whoever divorces his wife, unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

Disciples: Slightly alarmed – Really? If that is the case of a man with his wife (no divorce allowed), it is better not to marry?

Jesus – Well not all can accept this word (ie- marriage without divorce despite what Moses said),  but only those to whom that is granted. Of course, some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so, and some because they have renounced marriage (like yourselves, my disciples) for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can accept this (that those born incapable of marriage, those made due to castration and those who give themselves up to my service are excluded from the unbreakable marriage contract between a man and wife) ought to accept it.

The Pharisees were a little taken aback by the fact they couldn't divorce. The disciples too seem a little startled not only that the law of Moses had been overturned but, they as unmarried men were slightly confused as to where they fit within all this. So they voiced there concerns to Jesus. Jesus said, well yes there are exceptions and lists them and then further says pretty much that, 'if you're one of those, then you ought to accept that' In other words - don't think marriage has to apply to you and don't think you have to commit to it.

---

I can't really add anything further to this without repetition. If I cannot 'get through' to you then that is fine, that's not what I was here to do. I was here to have a debate.

[Josh/Devilman88]

jmfcst, I know for 100% I got saved last May. When I got saved my feelings toward guys didn't change at all. Therefore I believe that I am saved and going to heaven no matter what. Also I really don't think God cares to much about my who I marry or not.

[HardRCafé]

Examples please. I doubt the bible says "Same-sex marriage is immoral"

I love how you doubt it but don't just take a look yourself.

Josh22 isn't going to change his mind; he can't, because he's gay.

We all know Josh never changes his mind.  Ever.

[Eraserhead]

The Bible is largely immoral.

[Nym90]

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.

Divorce and adultery are already legal. So why would making homosexual marriage legal force people to condone it anymore than having divorce and adultery be legal forces people to condone them?

The debate about homosexual marriage should be focused on what the impact on society would be of the change. I am unable to see a single person who would be harmed by making it legal, and many who would be greatly helped--really everyone would be helped, even those who are not gay, because of the strengthening of the institution of marriage by encouraging more people to enter into lasting meaningful relationships, and the resulting benefits that would ensue for all, the same as the encouraging of heterosexual marriage is good for everyone as well.

The only coherent argument against it is a religious one, and I do not believe the law should be based on a book that cannot be proven to be true. Until and unless the Bible can be proven to be fact rather than simply something that one must accept on blind faith alone, it should have no basis in dictating social policy.

That's not to say that the Bible can't still have and in fact does have a very positive contribution to make as a general guide for how to live one's life and make the world a better place in a lot of ways. But it is at the end of the day a book written by men and thus shouldn't dictate social policy anymore than any other such book.

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

jmfcst, I know for 100% I got saved last May. When I got saved my feelings toward guys didn't change at all. Therefore I believe that I am saved and going to heaven no matter what. Also I really don't think God cares to much about my who I marry or not.

ok, then the simple question remains:  In your study of scripture since May, where have you found an example of condoned sexual activity that is not in the context of heterosexual marriage?  Why is every biblical example of sex outside of that context condemned?

Are you going to claim that the bible can be ignored?  Or, are you going to adopt afleich's argument that Mat 19:11-12 condones homosexuality?

From where I stand, I can’t claim that my experiences with Christ means that I’m saved, for there are many examples in the bible of those who had gracious encounters with Christ yet later refused to follow him. 

And I cannot rely on my personal concept of what I think God accepts, for then I would be thrown around by my imagination.  Therefore, my check for knowing that I am living correctly is based on the moral guidelines of the bible.

So thinking you’re approved of by God and therefore saved means nothing, what counts is being in agreement with the word of God:

2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The Bible is largely immoral.

There's non-immoral parts of the bible?

[John Dibble]

The Bible is largely immoral.

There's non-immoral parts of the bible?

Well, there is that bit about not killing, not stealing, not commiting perjury, not commiting adultery, and that kind of thing - you know, the parts where God isn't killing people and whatnot.

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

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.

Divorce and adultery are already legal. So why would making homosexual marriage legal force people to condone it anymore than having divorce and adultery be legal forces people to condone them?

homosexuality is also already legal, being legal doesn't mean condoning.  The state doesn't pass out certificates recognizing individual cases of adultery.

[Ebowed]

homosexuality is also already legal, being legal doesn't mean condoning.  The state doesn't pass out certificates recognizing individual cases of adultery.

Why are you comparing a sexual orientation to choosing to cheat on your spouse?

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

Let's run through the whole 'conversation.' It is said to say to him, 'If this (marriage without divorce) is the way it is for a man and woman, then (surely) it is best not to marry (at all).'

You left out the part about Jesus reaffirming the definition of marriage as a union between heterosexuals of the opposite sex and reaffirmed marriage as the result of the desire to have sex.

Jesus – Well not all can accept this word (ie- marriage without divorce despite what Moses said),  but only those to whom that is granted. Of course, some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so, and some because they have renounced marriage (like yourselves, my disciples) for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can accept this (that those born incapable of marriage, those made due to castration and those who give themselves up to my service are excluded from the unbreakable marriage contract between a man and wife) ought to accept it.

This is where we disagree. 

I view the statements “Well not all can accept this word (ie- marriage without divorce despite what Moses said),  but only those to whom that is granted… Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” is only directed at those who have been given the gift of celibacy.  The other “eunuchs”, who did not become eunuchs by choice, are simply thrown in to contrast to the religious choice being made by those given celibacy.

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

homosexuality is also already legal, being legal doesn't mean condoning.  The state doesn't pass out certificates recognizing individual cases of adultery.

Why are you comparing a sexual orientation to choosing to cheat on your spouse?

see Nym90's comments, he is the one attempting to compares the laws of adultery against the right to homosexual marriage.  I simply pointed out that homosexuality was legal, just like adultery, but neither is given certificates of recognition at the individual level.

News flash:  homosexual marriage is not against the law, only the state recognition of it.  Likewise adultery is not against the law, but the state doesn't pass out certificates recognizing it, because The People don't want it to be outlawed but neither do they want to condone it.

[© tweed]

adultery isn't an institution

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

adultery isn't an institution

gay marriage isn't either

bringing this back to a "Christian" viewpiont, the bible clearly defines and reaffirms "marriage" to be the union of heterosexuals of the opposite sex.  That fact is undeniable.

[© tweed]

adultery isn't an institution

gay marriage isn't either

but marriage itself is, which is why it physically can be recognized.  the point is your adultery parallel made no sense because you're drawing a line connecting an institution and a non-institution, while point out only the institution is recognized by the government.  the government doesn't hand out certificates certifying private acts.

[afleitch]

Let's run through the whole 'conversation.' It is said to say to him, 'If this (marriage without divorce) is the way it is for a man and woman, then (surely) it is best not to marry (at all).'

You left out the part about Jesus reaffirming the definition of marriage as a union between heterosexuals of the opposite sex.

It's mentioned further down when I do my 'stage version' :

'Jesus - Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator '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 they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.

Pharisee – Right...because, why then did Moses say that the man can give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss her? '

This is where we disagree. 

I view the statements “Well not all can accept this word (ie- marriage without divorce despite what Moses said),  but only those to whom that is granted… Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” is only directed at those who have been given the gift of celibacy.  The other “eunuchs”, who did not become eunuchs by choice, are simply thrown in to contrast to the religious choice being made by those given celibacy.

I can respect your right to disagree. However I can't really eleborate further as what I've said regarding it is pretty self explanatory. However I do find that you are making something that is direct, indirect in stating that the two other eunuchs were just 'thrown in there.' I believe they were directly adressed.

But if thats what your opposition to homosexuality hinges on now, after these few years (we worked through with St Paul, Leviticus, arsenokoiten, malakoi quite some time ago!) and worked it all down to this then it simply confirms in my mind that at the roots of it, you simply have a personal dislike that interpretation of the Bible could confirm or cast doubt upon, but you'd still hold it.

I can't change that and it was never my intention to do so but if I;ve got you thinking, then I'll be pleased with that.

[Eraserhead]

Does anyone else get the idea that jmfcst would like chatting about the lord with NOLIBS4USA and BushOklahoma (hopefully in PMs)?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Does anyone else get the idea that jmfcst would like chatting about the lord with NOLIBS4USA and BushOklahoma (hopefully in PMs)?

Don't forget Inks and Robert Stark too.

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

I can respect your right to disagree. However I can't really eleborate further as what I've said regarding it is pretty self explanatory. However I do find that you are making something that is direct, indirect in stating that the two other eunuchs were just 'thrown in there.' I believe they were directly adressed.

You say they are being addressed along with the celebates, I say they are used to contrast their lack of choice with celebates who make a choice for religious reasons.

But if you think Jesus is addressing the first two groups of "eunuchs", then why isn't their religion mentioned?  Why is only the religion of the celebates mentioned?

11 All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 (group1) For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: (group 2) and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: (group 3) and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

What exactly is the command you see Jesus giving the first two groups?

[afleitch]

I can respect your right to disagree. However I can't really eleborate further as what I've said regarding it is pretty self explanatory. However I do find that you are making something that is direct, indirect in stating that the two other eunuchs were just 'thrown in there.' I believe they were directly adressed.

You say they are being addressed along with the celebates, I say they are used to contrast their lack of choice with celebates who make a choice for religious reasons.

But if you think Jesus is addressing the first two groups of "eunuchs", then why isn't their religion mentioned?  Why is only the religion of the celebates mentioned?

11 All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 (group1) For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: (group 2) and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: (group 3) and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

What exactly is the command you see Jesus giving the first two groups?

First of all, I don't see what the religious adherence of the eunouchos has got anything to do with it. He was not talking about faith, but adressing marriage and those exempt from it. That's what you've been saying too up until now.

The command Jesus gives the first two groups I have already stated; but I will repeat myself

Jesus – Well not all can accept this word (ie- marriage without divorce despite what Moses said),  but only those to whom that is granted. Of course, some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so, and some because they have renounced marriage (like yourselves, my disciples) for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can accept this (that those born incapable of marriage, those made due to castration and those who give themselves up to my service are excluded from the unbreakable marriage contract between a man and wife) ought to accept it.

His command to his disciples directly, and of course to us is 'to accept' that is the way things are - that some are excempt from marriage, just as his disciples are - so don't hound them, and for those who are eunouchos, don't feel you are obliged or commanded to marry into a man-wife relationship because I exempt you from this.

[afleitch]

Just to re-iterate this is beginning to get a little trivial now. Theres not much else I can say about what, appears to me, to be pretty clear. I've already accepted that it's personal dislike and not biblical authority that is the force behind your argument, If that's the case, there is little I can do to counter that.

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

First of all, I don't see what the religious adherence of the eunouchos has got anything to do with it. He was not talking about faith, but addressing marriage and those exempt from it. That's what you've been saying too up until now.

No, I’ve been saying Jesus used the conclusion “it is better not to marry” as a opportunity to talk about the New Testament gift of celibacy and he is suggesting, though not commanding, that those who have been given the gift of celibacy accept it and not marry.  That is why he only mentions the religion of the celibates but not the religion of the first two groups of eunuchs who were only referred to for comparison and contrast.

---

What exactly is the command you see Jesus giving the first two groups?

The command Jesus gives the first two groups I have already stated; but I will repeat myself…

His command to his disciples directly, and of course to us is 'to accept' that is the way things are - that some are excempt from marriage, just as his disciples are - so don't hound them, and for those who are eunouchos, don't feel you are obliged or commanded to marry into a man-wife relationship because I exempt you from this.

What?! 
Let’s read it again:

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. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

So, you’re saying, instead of advising those to whom the gift of celibacy has been given,  Jesus’ advice to “accept” is directed at everyone else, telling them to accept the fact that some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs, and some are celibates?!

Why would Jesus need to instruct me to accept the fact that some men have been castrated by other men?! Is there anyone in the world who denies that?  And if there is no one denying it, why is there a need for Jesus to command us to accept something that no one denies?