are you a christian?

[afleitch]

Yes. But some Christians would say I'm not, or could not be. I'm a thinking Christian who doesn't find his faith tested by day to day home truths and societal/biological/scientific advancements.

[afleitch]

The ONLY context for sex which the bible places in an acceptable light is sex within the context of a man and woman in marriage.

Or a man and his several women in marriage.

He only says that now because I got him to concede on everything else and was half way to whooping his ass on that issue too before the thread was locked.

[afleitch]

Yes, you got so worked up to the extent you were failing to answer to direct questions put to you on that infamous thread. You were only bailed out because the thread was closed.

I hereby concede every inch of ground of all arguments relating to proper translation.

Since then you never use your old grand argument against homosexuals and instead are boxed into the 'marriage' issue. So don't pretend you are consistent. You changed your tack because you abandoned one direction. And thats why I threw everything I had at you. Don't belittle a Jesuit lad. We can be nippy.

[afleitch]

Matthew 19:11-12

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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 .

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.