are you a christian?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

A Question to Jmfcst, A hypothetical situation: If God came out of the sky tomorrow and proclaimed that all previous incarnations of his morality are hereby defunct, would you go along with it?

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

A Question to Jmfcst, A hypothetical situation: If God came out of the sky tomorrow and proclaimed that all previous incarnations of his morality are hereby defunct, would you go along with it?

You question is relevant, and, in all seriousness, here is my response:

1) your hypothetical situation would not occur because when Jesus returns he is coming as the Judge and I will either be saved or condemned.  (He isn’t coming back to hand me a new set of rules to live by)

2) the bible instructs me to hold firm to the faith that was handed down by the apostles

3) Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Mat 24:35)…so Jesus isn’t about to change his instructions.

4) I would consider such an “situation” as the AntiChrist attempting to pass himself off as the real Jesus, which is exactly what the bible prophesies will happen.

So, I’ll put the question back to you:  Are YOU going to go along when the Imposter appears and gives miraculous signs that he is the Messiah?

[afleitch]

Matthew 19:11-12

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

Matthew 19:11-12

Matthew 19:1-12

 1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
 3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

 7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

 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."

[afleitch]

Okay, you didn't have to post everything before then (though at least I know you're good with your Google . But concentrate on 11 and 12 for a while. I might get back to you.

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

For those needing explanation of Afleitch mention of Mat 19:11-12, he is attempting to say that Mat 19:11-12 refers to homosexuals and therefore counters the three main points below:

1) God instituted marriage and defined it as a union between male and female.
2) God defined the proper context of sex to be within the context of a marriage.
3) Every single example of same-sex sex in the bible is placed in a condemnable light.

But anyone who reads the entire chapter of Matthew 19 understands that Jesus' reference to "eunuchs" is directed towards people who do not have sex at all because they were either 1) born with the inability to have sex, 2) were castrated by others and therefore can’t have sex, or 3) have chosen a life of chastity in order to avoid the problems associated with marriage so that they can totally dedicate themselves to God.

Paul taught the same thing:

1Cor 7
1 …It is good for a man not to marry.  2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband…6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion…28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this…32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
 
Jesus and Paul are saying the same thing:  It is better not to marry in order to avoid the pitfalls of marriage, so if you have been given the gift of chastity, then it is better for you, though not commanded of you, to exercise your gift and remain single.

[afleitch]

But anyone who reads the entire chapter of Matthew 19 understands that Jesus' reference to "eunuchs" is directed towards people who do not have sex at all because they were either 1) born with the inability to have sex, 2) were castrated by others and therefore can’t have sex, or 3) have chosen a life of chastity in order to avoid the problems associated with marriage so that they can totally dedicate themselves to God.

Not quite. I'll come back to this as I have to make myself something to eat. I might come back to marriage in general itself (where it is the desire for a 'blessed' divorce, or at least get out clause from Jews, pagans married to a converted Christian in the early church that leads to marriage discussion in the first place) We'll see.

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

I might come back to marriage in general itself (where it is the desire for a 'blessed' divorce, or at least get out clause from Jews, pagans married to a converted Christian in the early church that leads to marriage discussion in the first place) We'll see.

Well, I think Matthew 19 is pretty self-explanatory.  The Pharisees came to test Jesus with a question regarding the legitimate reasons for divorce (v3).  Jesus reminding them that God created them male and female (v4) and bound them together in a physical union (v5), and it is the need for this physical union that drives men to seek a wife (v5), and therefore the marriage union established by God should not be broken up (v6).  The Pharisees then asked why divorce was permitted by Moses (v7).  Jesus replied that Moses allowed them to divorce because their hearts had been hardened (v8) but that divorce wasn’t part of God's original design of marriage (v8).  Jesus then declares unfaithfulness to the physical union of marriage as the only legitimate excuse for divorce (v9).  The Pharisees responded that if Jesus’ interpretation was correct, then it is better not to marry at all (v10).  Jesus replied that not everyone can accept not marrying (v11).  He then explains that some are born eunuchs (v12), some were made eunuchs (v12), and some have chosen not to marry show that they can devote themselves to God (v12).  Jesus then concludes that those who can accept this should (v12).
 
So, there are 3 groups of people mentioned in verses 11 and 12:
1) Those who were born eunuchs, they did not choose but were born that way
2) Those who were made eunuchs by others, they did not choose but were made that way by others
3) Those who have chosen not to marry in order to be completely devoted to God

If Jesus were referring to homosexuals in his use of the term “eunuch”, then this is how verses 11 and 12 would read:
1) Those who were born homosexuals
2) Those who were made homosexuals by others
3) Those who have chosen homosexuality in order to be completely devoted to God in some strange way.

Now, according to your fellow homosexuals, gays can not have their sexual orientations altered by others (not even by God) or themselves (they did not choose to be gay).

So this whole argument is transparently and deeply flawed.

[afleitch]

If Jesus were referring to homosexuals in his use of the term “eunuch”, then this is how verses 11 and 12 would read:
1) Those who were born homosexuals
2) Those who were made homosexuals by others
3) Those who have chosen homosexuality in order to be completely devoted to God in some strange way.

Now, according to your fellow homosexuals, gays can not have their sexual orientations altered by others (not even by God) or themselves (they did not choose to be gay).

So this whole argument is transparently and deeply flawed.

Not at all. Just because it would not fit in with the 'born that way' mentality of some gay people (how someone is gay, is in my opinion an irrelevance anyway) It would still exclude homosexuals (eunouchos) no matter how they came to be, from marriage; they would be the legitimised exception to the rule.

Before I go any further I need to putt you up about something. In your hypothetical example, you are presuming that the word 'eunouchos' is best translated as 'homosexual' in those three kindly highlighted examples. Scholars do not generally argue this. While it would be helpful for myself in particular if each use of the word did mean 'homosexual', that would be as equally bad as the assumption that each use meant 'castrated male' that we are trying to put to rest. We know that it cannot possibly have a singular defining meaning. In the Book of Acts (Acts 8:26-27)we are informed of an Ethiopian eunuch/eunouchos under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, going into the Temple in Jerusalem to worship. But in Deuteronomy (23:1) it says that a castrated man is not to enter the congregation of the Lord. Therefore the 'eunouchos' in the Temple of Jerusalem must not have been castrated. Begs the question, who was he if he was not a castrated male?

Now you believe there are infact two categories who are excluded; the castrated and, in short, the 'priesthood' should they wish to be celibate. I'll hand it to you there; you have accepted that in this instance the term 'eunouchos' can mean two different propositions. If it can mean two, why not three, or four if the textual and cultural evidence is there to allow us to do so?

And yes i'll go into that if you want.

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

In the Book of Acts (Acts 8:26-27)we are informed of an Ethiopian eunuch/eunouchos under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, going into the Temple in Jerusalem to worship. But in Deuteronomy (23:1) it says that a castrated man is not to enter the congregation of the Lord. Therefore the 'eunouchos' in the Temple of Jerusalem must not have been castrated. Begs the question, who was he if he was not a castrated male?

1) Acts 8:26-27 simply says he had went to Jerusalem to worship, it does NOT says that he entered the Temple.  The eunuch could have simply been observing the Feast of Tabernacles.
2) Deut 23:1 says nothing about disqualifying eunuchs from traveling to Jerusalem, it simply says they can’t be numbered among the “assembly”, meaning he was not to be numbered as an inheritor.  Inheritance was based upon “seed”, since Christ is the “seed” to which the promise would come.  If a man had no "seed", could not reproduce, then he had no inheritance, hence eunuchs could not be counted among the assembled clans of Israel.

---

Now you believe there are infact two categories who are excluded; the castrated and, in short, the 'priesthood' should they wish to be celibate. I'll hand it to you there; you have accepted that in this instance the term 'eunouchos' can mean two different propositions. If it can mean two, why not three, or four if the textual and cultural evidence is there to allow us to do so?
 

In Rabbinical Literature, primarily the Talmud, the Rabbis distinguished two kinds of eunuchs: (1) "seris ḥamma," a eunuch made by the sun; that is to say, one born incapable of reproduction, so that the sun never shone on him as on a man; (2) "seris adam," a eunuch made by man.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=515&letter=E

---

In any case, I’ll let your own interpretation, that someone can be made a homosexual by others or can choose to be homosexual, speak for itself.

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

A historical post, in case anyone missed it:

If Jesus were referring to homosexuals in his use of the term “eunuch”, then this is how verses 11 and 12 would read:
1) Those who were born homosexuals
2) Those who were made homosexuals by others
3) Those who have chosen homosexuality in order to be completely devoted to God in some strange way.

Now, according to your fellow homosexuals, gays can not have their sexual orientations altered by others (not even by God) or themselves (they did not choose to be gay).

So this whole argument is transparently and deeply flawed.

Not at all. Just because it would not fit in with the 'born that way' mentality of some gay people (how someone is gay, is in my opinion an irrelevance anyway) It would still exclude homosexuals (eunouchos) no matter how they came to be, from marriage; they would be the legitimised exception to the rule.

[afleitch]

Umm..no it's not. I don't know what 'victory' you perceived yourself to be scoring. This isn't a contest jmfcst, it's a discussion so get to grips with that and we can continue. I am not here to debate the science of homosexuality, I do not believe that how someone is gay is relevant to the fact they exist and should be treated. I am here to discuss the scripture.

The fact you try so hard to exclude homosexuals from the kingdom of God, the fact you take joy in trying to work out a way to do so, and the fact you spent the best part of last week hounding Josh; a grown man hounding a teenager for Christ's sake is so pathetic it makes me think you have nothing else in your life to concern yourself with. Which makes me wonder what on earth you do fill your life with.

Until you can display some level of maturity in this, then I don't see the point in continuing.

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

Until you can display some level of maturity in this, then I don't see the point in continuing.

Actually, in light of the fact your own interpretation forced you to conclude that 1) sexual orientation can be engrained into someone by others, and 2) sexual orientation can be chosen, and 3) homosexuals are excluded from marriage...I don't think there is anything more I need to say.  So, I will close with your own words:

If Jesus were referring to homosexuals in his use of the term “eunuch”, then this is how verses 11 and 12 would read:
1) Those who were born homosexuals
2) Those who were made homosexuals by others
3) Those who have chosen homosexuality in order to be completely devoted to God in some strange way.

Now, according to your fellow homosexuals, gays can not have their sexual orientations altered by others (not even by God) or themselves (they did not choose to be gay).

So this whole argument is transparently and deeply flawed.

Not at all. Just because it would not fit in with the 'born that way' mentality of some gay people (how someone is gay, is in my opinion an irrelevance anyway) It would still exclude homosexuals (eunouchos) no matter how they came to be, from marriage; they would be the legitimised exception to the rule.

[afleitch]

Until you can display some level of maturity in this, then I don't see the point in continuing.

Actually, in light of the fact your own interpretation forced you to conclude that 1) sexual orientation can be engrained into someone by others, and 2) sexual orientation can be chosen, and 3) homosexuals are excluded from marriage...I don't think there is anything more I need to say.  So, I will close with your own words:

Cute

For the third time, since you seem to be slower today than usual.

I said I do not know what causes human sexuality; personally I leave that to those that are involved in that study. I believe, personally that I was born gay. I tend to believe that that is true for most gay people but I cannot claim to know that for certain. Regardless; for the THIRD time jmfcst;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not about the cause of homosexuality; it is about the scripture. If you can't return to that subject then we need to call it quits. Do you understand?

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

Oh, I understand completely.

You can't deny the fact that the bible defines marriage in a heterosexual context, so you twisted Mat 19:11-12 to cover homosexuals under the definition of “eunuch”.  But in doing so, you painted yourself into a corner and had to admit to interpreting Jesus’ statements as saying 1) gays are born gay, or 2) are made gay by others, or 3) choose to gay on their own, and therefore 4) are free to have sex outside of the context of marriage. 

That’s pretty twisted, even for you.

[afleitch]

But in doing so, you painted yourself into a corner and had to admit to interpreting Jesus’ statements as saying 1) gays are born gay, or 2) are made gay by others, or 3) choose to gay on their own, and therefore 4) are excluded from the limitation of having sex within the context of marriage.

Really? Is that what I said?

Because I seem to remember saying.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You said that I 'had to admit to interpreting Jesus’ statements as saying 1) gays are born gay, or 2) are made gay by others, or 3) choose to gay on their own,'

When I said: While it would be helpful for myself in particular if each use of the word did mean 'homosexual', that would be as equally bad as the assumption that each use meant 'castrated male' that we are trying to put to rest. We know that it cannot possibly have a singular defining meaning.

I'll say that again.

We know that it cannot possibly have a singular defining meaning.

You put forward the 'all or nothing' argument that each use of the word 'eunochos' had to mean the same thing; homosexual, in each of your examples while I said not only that it did not but put forward an example to refute it.

So in answer to your charge that ''had to admit to interpreting Jesus’ statements as saying 1) gays are born gay, or 2) are made gay by others, or 3) choose to gay on their own,'

The short answer to that is. No I did not.

EDIT: As for point 4 it excludes gay people among others from the biblical obligation to commit to a marriage with a partner of the opposite sex. I stated that on the Mary Cheney thread late last year and thought it was obvious as to nullify any need to explain.

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

oh, I get it, you are using a different definition for "eunuch" from phrase to phrase, therefore, it can mean homosexual when you perfer it to mean homosexual and it can mean someone who has been castrated when you want to mean castrated.

Let's see how that works, first the original text:

Mat 19 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 eunuchs by men; and others have become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Now, afleitch's interpretation:

Mat 19 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 gay because they were born that way; others were castrated by men; and others have become renounced sex and marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

And even after I accept your selective definitions, the text comes no where close to saying homosexuals are free to practice sex outside of marriage.

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

Doesn't it make much more sense if it is read:
 
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 incapable of having sex because they were born that way; others were made incapable of having sex by men; and others have renounced having sex because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

[afleitch]

oh, I get it, you are using a different definition for "eunuch" from phrase to phrase, therefore, it can mean homosexual when you perfer it to mean homosexual and it can mean someone who has been castrated when you want to mean castrated.

Nope. That was all explained in the Mary Cheney thread too. It takes some explaining. It would perhaps stop you making nonsensical posts about 'what eunochos could mean, maybe it's this or maybe THIS!' and let me lay down exactly what it can be judged to mean. If you want it, i'll post it all again.

Oh now, do I not get an apology for that deliberate misquote I pointed out in my last post?

EDIT: I removed a more general point. On second thoughts it was not relevant to the conversation..yet.

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

considering the fact Jesus reaffirmed sex to be in the context of marriage between a husband and a wife a couple of verses earlier, I'll stick with the conventional definition of eunuch meaning someone incapable of having sex

[jokerman]

considering the fact Jesus reaffirmed sex to be in the context of marriage between a husband and a wife a couple of verses earlier, I'll stick with the conventional definition of eunuch meaning someone incapable of having sex

Well, not quite.  I don't believe the last phrase is refering to someone castrating themselves but rather someone practicing celibacy.

[afleitch]

considering the fact Jesus reaffirmed sex to be in the context of marriage between a husband and a wife a couple of verses earlier, I'll stick with the conventional definition of eunuch meaning someone incapable of having sex

Well, not quite.  I don't believe the last phrase is refering to someone castrating themselves but rather someone practicing celibacy.

Preston, jmfcst doesn't know what he's defining from one post to the next.

I'll reply to this at a later date. I'm off to bed for now .

[Inmate Trump]

Why does sex always come up when we talk about faith?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Why does sex always come up when we talk about faith?

Sex is something very close to the core of our being.  So is religion.  Since Christianity is basically a man's religion, it is no surprise that control and allowing others to exert control over your own sexual being/desires is a core foundation of the religion.

If you're a woman, it's letting your husband have control, and if you're a man, it's letting God have control.  Either way, the authority comes from the top down in every sense of the term.  This could also be why many conservative Christians advocate the "Missionary position"... it is more Godly to have the man on top and in full control. 

But that's just my overly Freudian outlook on it.

[Gabu]

Why does sex always come up when we talk about faith?

Because Jesus was a sexy, sexy beast.