are you a christian?

[afleitch]

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?!

WTF? Jmfcst where on earth are you getting that from?

I said: 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.

It is not directed at 'everyone else' it's directed at everyone. Again i'm repeating myself but I will break it down.

1. Jesus is telling those who are celibate eunouchos through choice that they are exempt from marriage and that themselves and others who are not eunouchos must 'accept' that is the way things are.

2. Jesus is telling those who are castrated eunouchos, made by men that they are exempt from marriage and that themselves and others who are not eunouchos must 'accept' that is the way things are.

3. Jesus is telling those who are born eunouchos that they are exempt from marriage and that themselves and others who are not eunouchos must 'accept' that is the way things are.

and finally

4. Earlier on, when talking to the pharisees Jesus says that marriage is an ever-lasting union, that Moses' law is obsolete and that they must 'accept' that is the way things (in marriage) are.

He is telling everyone to accept what he has said about their own positions and the positions 
of others.

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?

No. Jesus is instructing you, as he did the pharisees and disciples, to accept the fact that some eunochos are born that way, some are made that way and some choose to be that way. He instructs you to accept that and that as such that they are exempt from a man-wife marriage. He also instructs you that if you are not eunouchos and you choose not to become eunouchos by becoming celebate then a marriage is unbreakable without committing the sin of adultery.

Is there anyone in the world who denies that?

With regards to what I said above, then it appears you do not accept it completely.

----

Once again there is little I can say that is not a repetition of what I said before. The debate is saturated.

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

1. Jesus is telling those who are celibate eunouchos through choice that they are exempt from marriage and that themselves and others who are not eunouchos must  'accept' that is the way things are.

2. Jesus is telling those who are castrated eunouchos, made by men that they are exempt from marriage and that themselves and others who are not eunouchos must  'accept'  that is the way things are.

3. Jesus is telling those who are born eunouchos that they are exempt from marriage and that themselves and others who are not eunouchos must 'accept'  that is the way things are.
 

Ok, so you’re saying he is telling these eunochoes that the “must accept” reality.

First, Jesus didn’t tell them they“must accept”,  he gave no such command.  Rather we was giving advice: “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given…The one who can accept this should accept it."

Second, why on earth would Jesus tell a castrated individual that if they can accept the way they are that they should accept it…as if they had any other choice?!

[afleitch]

1. Jesus is telling those who are celibate eunouchos through choice that they are exempt from marriage and that themselves and others who are not eunouchos must  'accept' that is the way things are.

2. Jesus is telling those who are castrated eunouchos, made by men that they are exempt from marriage and that themselves and others who are not eunouchos must  'accept'  that is the way things are.

3. Jesus is telling those who are born eunouchos that they are exempt from marriage and that themselves and others who are not eunouchos must 'accept'  that is the way things are.
 

Ok, so you’re saying he is telling these eunochoes that the “must accept” reality.

First, Jesus didn’t tell them they“must accept”,  he gave no such command.  Rather we was giving advice: “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given…The one who can accept this should accept it."

Second, why on earth would Jesus tell a castrated individual that if they can accept the way they are that they should accept it…as if they had any other choice?!

I don't really think that dropping the 'can' for the sake of the examples changes the points I made one bit. Indeed I only used the word 'command' at all because you did:

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

Now you see it as advice and not a command? That's absolutely fine. It still doesn't change what i said.

Second, why on earth would Jesus tell a castrated individual that if they can accept the way they are that they should accept it…as if they had any other choice?!

Again..for the umpteeth time. Jesus was adressing everyone He was telling everyone to 'accept it' That also means that a heterosexual married man for example had to accept that a eunouchos didn't have to marry (so don't force a eunouchos to follow the convention of marriage) For the record castrated men didn't neccesarily lack sexual desire (if the castrati are anything to go by) and often did within the harem (with men and women). They were not seen as suitable grooms as while there was nothing to stop them having a sexual relationship of sorts they could not have children. So yes, Jesus did see the need to re-affirm that they were exempt from marriage.

You're beginning to be very pedantic with words and I am getting just a tad annoyed that I have to repeat myself ad nauseum before you can digest what I'm saying. I'm in half a mind as to whether or not it is deliberate.

Can you see how transparent it is that you are trying so damn hard to condemn homosexuals? As I've said before (and I will repeat myself this time) 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. There's no further need to debate the Bible with you.

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

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

10 “it is better not to marry”

Verses 11 and 12 that follow will refer to this statement in verse 10

11a Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word”

“this word” refers to the statement the disciples made in verse 10, “it is better not to marry”

“Not everyone can accept this word” refers to those who burn with lust who can NOT accept “it is better not to marry” because for them it is actually “better to marry than to burn with lust”, which dovetails with Paul’s teachings in 1Cor ch 7.

11b [acceptable] only to those to whom it has been given.

The statement in verse 10, “it is better not to marry”, is acceptable only to those who have the gift of celibacy.  They don’t burn with lust, therefore it is better for them to avoid the troubles of marriage.

12a For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; 12b others were made that way by men

Two example of those to whom marriage is NOT an option due to their inability to have sex, and therefore don’t have a choice in the matter

12c others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.

Christians who have been given the gift of celibacy and have chosen not to marry so they can dedicate themselves to God.

12d The one who can accept this should accept it.

Those who have been given the gift of celibacy are better off if they stay unmarried and should accept their gift and be content in being a celibate…which again dovetail with Paul’s teachings in 1Cor ch7.

---

Afleitch,

This is my final word to you regarding this passage...

Not only have you not convinced me of your interpretation of Mat 19:10-12, you can not convince me that you even believe your own interpretation. For, once it is understood Jesus is speaking of celibates metaphorically “making themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven”, the purpose for mentioning the other 2 groups of eunuchs who didn’t choose to be eunuchs is obvious:  some eunuchs didn’t choose to be, contrasted with others who are Christians having the gift of celibacy and who have chosen to become eunuchs metaphorically.

[afleitch]

Not only have you not convinced me of your interpretation of Mat 19:10-12, you can not convince me that you even believe your own interpretation. For, once it is understood Jesus is speaking of celibates metaphorically “making themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven”, the purpose for mentioning the other 2 groups of eunuchs who didn’t choose to be eunuchs is obvious:  some eunuchs didn’t choose to be, contrasted with others who are Christians having the gift of celibacy and who have chosen to become eunuchs metaphorically.

Well a 'thank you' is in order for allowing me to press ahead with my interpretation. And I do believe my interpretation; and it is not just my own either. It satisfied me to know that my 'being;' my long relationship with my partner is not sinful, that we do not need to be requested to change or resort to self supression through celibacy. It may make you grind your teeth, but that is what I believe and with the knowledge to uphold that belief.

As I said before, we have went from squabblings over Leviticus and St Paul to this. I have helped redefine your opposition to homosexuality from what you called a wide truth across the bible to a disputed interpretation of a single little verse and I'm pleased I've been able to do that. What I could not do was remove your personal opposition which is the underlying current.

And with that I say, night!

[Gustaf]

Did this entire thread turn into a discussion about homosexuality and the Bible between Jmfcst and Aflteich?

To the title question, I say yes.

[Platypus]

No, I'm Tenrikyo.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Jewish

[Gabu]

Did this entire thread turn into a discussion about homosexuality and the Bible between Jmfcst and Aflteich?

To the title question, I say yes.

Most topics on religion tend to go that way.

[nini2287]

Jewish

[opebo]

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. 

Haha, ok now we can talk.  I couldn't care less about your silly hate-manual, but I will object to your assumption that your own emotional reactions are universal.  'Guilt and cheapened feeling'?  No, I never get that.  When I was young I used to fear getting caught, but only because I suspected my parents were idiots like yourself, having internalized prudery.  I never feel guilty - my only feeling is that some people are stupid enough to 'disapprove' of me.

I will admit that masturbation, while nice, is so easily had that we tend to prefer or prioritize the Other (male, female, whatever).  We talk about seeking out some poonanny, while the ole right hand is always there. But it is silly to say that something is the 'wrong avenue' just because another avenue is a bit more enjoyable.  For example, once in a while one eats a hamburger.. is filet mignon the only 'right avenue'?

[afleitch]

Guilt and cheapened feeling'?  No, I never get that.  When I was young I used to fear getting caught, but only because I suspected my parents were idiots like yourself, having internalized prudery.  I never feel guilty - my only feeling is that some people are stupid enough to 'disapprove' of me.

That's actually a very sensible statement.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Guilt and cheapened feeling'?  No, I never get that.  When I was young I used to fear getting caught, but only because I suspected my parents were idiots like yourself, having internalized prudery.  I never feel guilty - my only feeling is that some people are stupid enough to 'disapprove' of me.

That's actually a very sensible statement.

[Eraserhead]

Guilt and cheapened feeling'?  No, I never get that.  When I was young I used to fear getting caught, but only because I suspected my parents were idiots like yourself, having internalized prudery.  I never feel guilty - my only feeling is that some people are stupid enough to 'disapprove' of me.

That's actually a very sensible statement.

[Ebowed]

The only people who feel guilt about masturbation are the ones who are convinced God is watching their every motion in the first place.

[Eraserhead]

Normal people feel relieved afterward. It can help you fall asleep.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Jewish

BTW: I've got to wonder about the people on this forum (or anywhere) who spend their free time trying to save the world from he monsterous tyranny of gay marriage. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Jewish

BTW: I've got to wonder about the people on this forum (or anywhere) who spend their free time trying to save the world from he monsterous tyranny of gay marriage. 

They hold a christian mindset. They see it as a holy duty.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Jewish

BTW: I've got to wonder about the people on this forum (or anywhere) who spend their free time trying to save the world from he monsterous tyranny of gay marriage. 

They hold a christian mindset. They see it as a holy duty.

Given all of the things going on in the world: Darfur, Iraq, Iran, Burma, health-care,China, torture, Pakistan, etc; how does one reach the conclusion that the number one priority should be blocking gay marriage?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Jewish

BTW: I've got to wonder about the people on this forum (or anywhere) who spend their free time trying to save the world from he monsterous tyranny of gay marriage. 

They hold a christian mindset. They see it as a holy duty.

Given all of the things going on in the world: Darfur, Iraq, Iran, Burma, health-care,China, torture, Pakistan, etc; how does one reach the conclusion that the number one priority should be blocking gay marriage?

I didn't say it was a logical mindset.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Jewish

BTW: I've got to wonder about the people on this forum (or anywhere) who spend their free time trying to save the world from he monsterous tyranny of gay marriage. 

They hold a christian mindset. They see it as a holy duty.

Given all of the things going on in the world: Darfur, Iraq, Iran, Burma, health-care,China, torture, Pakistan, etc; how does one reach the conclusion that the number one priority should be blocking gay marriage?

I didn't say it was a logical mindset.

I know, it just baffles me.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

It does to me too. You're not alone.

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

Not only have you not convinced me of your interpretation of Mat 19:10-12, you can not convince me that you even believe your own interpretation. For, once it is understood Jesus is speaking of celibates metaphorically “making themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven”, the purpose for mentioning the other 2 groups of eunuchs who didn’t choose to be eunuchs is obvious:  some eunuchs didn’t choose to be, contrasted with others who are Christians having the gift of celibacy and who have chosen to become eunuchs metaphorically.

Well a 'thank you' is in order for allowing me to press ahead with my interpretation. And I do believe my interpretation; and it is not just my own either. It satisfied me to know that my 'being;' my long relationship with my partner is not sinful, that we do not need to be requested to change or resort to self supression through celibacy. It may make you grind your teeth, but that is what I believe and with the knowledge to uphold that belief.

As I said before, we have went from squabblings over Leviticus and St Paul to this. I have helped redefine your opposition to homosexuality from what you called a wide truth across the bible to a disputed interpretation of a single little verse and I'm pleased I've been able to do that. What I could not do was remove your personal opposition which is the underlying current.

And with that I say, night!

My viewpoint is not dependent upon Mat19:11-12, rather my viewpoint is based upon:

1) God defined marriage as a heterosexual relationship in the beginning and upheld it throughout scripture
2) God set marriage as the proper context for sex and upheld it throughout scripture
3) All sexual examples outside of this context are viewed negatively throughout scripture

You’re the one trying to use Mat 19:11-12 to change that

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

Guilt and cheapened feeling'?  No, I never get that.  When I was young I used to fear getting caught, but only because I suspected my parents were idiots like yourself, having internalized prudery.  I never feel guilty - my only feeling is that some people are stupid enough to 'disapprove' of me.

That's actually a very sensible statement.

What ever happened to "It is better to marry than to burn with lust (1Cor 7:9)"?....oh, sorry, I mistook this for a Christian thread.

[afleitch]

Oh. Hello. I'd forgotten about you

The conversation in the thread has moved on somewhat. Maybe you could respond to some of the more recent posts made by other posters instead of ignoring them? I have no more to say on the matter we discussed and I thought from your last post that was the 'final word' from you too.