For clarification!

[LongGone]

Why are you trying to change the definition of a "eunuch"? There is no capacity of an eunuch to receive any gratification from a sexual act. You're being entirely ridiculous with the comparison.
[/quote]



What are you basing your statement on that Smellin is trying to change the definition.  He provided sources for his thoughts.  How are you defining eunuch and why?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Why are you trying to change the definition of a "eunuch"? There is no capacity of an eunuch to receive any gratification from a sexual act. You're being entirely ridiculous with the comparison.

What are you basing your statement on that Smellin is trying to change the definition.  He provided sources for his thoughts.  How are you defining eunuch and why?
[/quote]

Because he is comparing homosexuals to those who have no sexual desire. Do you even know what a eunuch is?

 

[praise_yeshua]

born of God that way?.......... right ........blame God for whatever it is you cannot seem to understand or wrap your mind around........ God never intended people to be born with that inclination....... but ever since the fall of adam sin has had it;s way with the world..... and with mankind....... where do you see God telling people it;s ok to give in and live a lifestyle associated with any other sinful inclination?............

Again, in Matthew 19, Jesus clearly teaches about "eunuchs from birth".

Talmud Bavli, Tractate Yevumos (The Schottenstein Edition, Mesorah Publications Ltd., Brooklyn, NY, 1999), Chapter 8, 80b

This Talmud explains the Jewish view of the eunuch:  Signs of natural eunuchs are said to include lateness of pubic hair, urine that does not form an arch, absence of a beard, softness of hair, smoothness of skin, a high voice, and a body that does not steam when bathing in winter.

Inanna’s Descent into the Nether World, (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 4, # 4, 1950), page 200 mentions the reason duties to protect women were given to "natural born eunuchs" in Sumarian literature was because “do not satisfy the lap of women.” They were specifically created because "they can resist the wiles of women".

The book of Sirach, in the OT of the Catholic Bible, says that embracing a girl makes a eunuch sigh or groan. (Sirach 30:20)

The Kama Sutra (ancient text) Part II, Chapter 9 shows how eunuchs would try to seduce men.

Point of all of this is that in the ancient literature, "eunuchs" would include what we would consider homosexual men and Jesus said that some were born with that bent. And absent from the text is Jesus' preaching against their behaviors.

Why are you trying to change the definition of a "eunuch"? There is no capacity of an eunuch to receive any gratification from a sexual act. You're being entirely ridiculous with the comparison.

Jesus mentions 3 different kinds of eunuchs: one who was castrated by others, one who was self-castrated and one who was born a eunuch. Ancient literature from that area of time/culture confirms that homosexual men were also considered "eunuchs". I'm establishing definition, not redefining it.

Yes. Jesus did exactly that. How does that change anything I said? Are you saying a eunuch is capable of sexual desire?

Have you ever castrated an animal? Did you ever find them chasing a member of the opposite sex around when that animal was "in heat?"

Geesh.... is "eunuch" that hard for you to understand?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Geesh.... is "eunuch" that hard for you to understand?

Words have meanings and sometimes those meanings are multiple. I am showing that in that era and culture, "eunuch" had a couple different meanings and shows how it would have been understood in that culture.

When Jesus said that some men are "eunuchs from birth", are you assuming he was stating that males can be born castrated and that there were enough of a group of this eunuch group in that time of history/culture that the disciples would have understood it that way?

 

[Bruh]

Really it is a sin just like gluttony
yeah ok keep telling yourself that, until your daughter brings home a woman......no you will not treat it the same as when she use to over eat as a child.  Be real!!

 

[Bruh]

so... let me ask you guys a question.......... if a christian has a desire to steal or lie..... maybe even has fantasies about robbing banks and getting away with it....... wishes he or she could lie rather than tell the truth...... but turns those temptations and wrongful desires over to God.. like a christian should do with any sin........and continues to tell the truth and deal honestly...... is that person still considered a liar or a thief?.......

Considered by whom?

Again, being homosexual is not simply desiring homosexual sex. It is about desiring via an emotional need for an intimate connection with a member of the same sex as a heterosexual couple does. This is whether or not the physical activity takes place.

one of the biggest injustices the world has done to people... especially children.... who have problems with same sex attraction... for whatever reason...... is to teach them that those desires alone mean they are automatically homosexual.... or "gay".... and that nothing can be done about it........ the world teaches them they should just give in to it and take up the lifestyle........ and some within christianity are starting to tell people with those desires the same thing.......

Those within Christianity who tell people that, believe that since kids are born with this inclination, they are born of God that way because it is as much genetic as sin nature. I'm kinda torn between the two thoughts myself.

other christians look at the person who has those kinds of desires.... even if they are not the predominant drive they have and might be only a small percentage of it... and tells them there is something horribly wrong with them....... they tell them the desire alone means they are an abomination to God whether or not they ever act on it........... ... this is completely opposite of what christians teach about every other sinful desire or temptation.....and it does fellow christians... especially children... whose emotions and drives can be mixed up at various times in their lives anyway... an enormous injustice........... it leaves them feeling pigeon holed for the rest of their lives with no recourse .... or as if they were created as an abomination to God...... and in most case either tragedy or a lifetime of wrong choices result..........

why the differences in how these temptations to sin are addressed and treated?............ 

If I understand what you are saying, this is more geared to Tarheel's involvement in the argument.

For me, I believe homosexuality is a gray area in the Bible. One can take the OT Law as an absolute (oh, but lesbianism is allowed) but then must also hold to the absolute that rebellious children and non-virgin brides must be stoned. Rapists should be allowed to escape punishment by marrying their victims, etc. Sodom (and hence, sodomy) is about forcing rape upon strangers, not consensual sex between two members of the same sex. The prophets preached against the sins of Sodom but never mentioned homosexual sex. Jude mentions Sodom and their desire for "strange flesh" which corroborates the idea of "strangers' flesh" in being raped by the citizens of Sodom. Then we have Pauline teaching in which he came up with his own ideas (head coverings anyone?) and turned the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel about Jesus. Though he did have some good and important stuff to say, since there is nothing else in the teachings of the prophets or Jesus to run it through, how authentic is his teaching?

That being said, I believe that committing a homosexual act (among other things) would fit under the umbrella of immorality which is why I believe committing such would be sinful. There is no absolute that puts that under that umbrella, so I am willing to grant others to believe differently than I on that.

Using the main law of Jesus, "love God utmost and love your neighbor as yourself", if there is consensual homosexual activity, I cannot see how it violates that "legal grid" Jesus set forth as He mentioned the topic nowhere else. Again, my perspective. That being said, stealing and purposely trying to deceive another for selfish gain/power DOES violate the main law of Jesus, hence is different in my mind.

You say all this but I will not believe for one second, that if your daughter returns home with a woman and says, this is my girlfriend, and we are having premarital sex,  you would not react the same if she brought home a young man and said the same thing.

You would react differently behind closed doors with your wife discussing what your daughter brought home.

Deep down in your heart you know it is not the same and if this would happen you would rather it be a man and not a member of the same sex.  Why?

Do you think you know me and know how I would react?

No, I do not know you.  But, I do believe I am right.  LOL!!

You can believe what you want, but just because something is believed doesn't make it true.

I believe you were brought up in a very flawed system that taught overly strict rules that was way far on the "right" side in a ditch. 

Now you are trying desperately to get away from them that you are way far on the "left" side in a ditch.

I am not gay nor do I have any gay family members, so there is no agenda on my end to try to support it.

Using your analogy, the other side of the ditch is where I choose to extend grace.

That's my point, its not grace you are extending but trying your best to get away from what you were raised in. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Really it is a sin just like gluttony
yeah ok keep telling yourself that, until your daughter brings home a woman......no you will not treat it the same as when she use to over eat as a child.  Be real!!

And should that happen (and it won't), shame on me if I treat her or her partner any differently.

 

[Bruh]

Really it is a sin just like gluttony
yeah ok keep telling yourself that, until your daughter brings home a woman......no you will not treat it the same as when she use to over eat as a child.  Be real!!

And should that happen (and it won't), shame on me if I treat her or her partner any differently.

Yes, shame on you if you do treat her differently. 

That's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is that you would feel differently about that sin than the sin of gluttony.

Therefore, they are highly different. 

 

[Izdaari]

Really it is a sin just like gluttony
yeah ok keep telling yourself that, until your daughter brings home a woman......no you will not treat it the same as when she use to over eat as a child.  Be real!!

I really can relate to that situation, because I was that daughter. My parents took a while to get used to it, but they eventually did. And I married a man anyway, although it didn't last... but not for that reason, more that we were both too young and not really ready to be married to anyone.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

That's my point, its not grace you are extending but trying your best to get away from what you were raised in.

Since you know more about me than I know about me, maybe you need to explain things to my wife!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Really it is a sin just like gluttony
yeah ok keep telling yourself that, until your daughter brings home a woman......no you will not treat it the same as when she use to over eat as a child.  Be real!!

And should that happen (and it won't), shame on me if I treat her or her partner any differently.

Yes, shame on you if you do treat her differently. 

That's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is that you would feel differently about that sin than the sin of gluttony.

Therefore, they are highly different.

I think it's cute how you think you understand my feelings.

 

[Ransom]

Jesus' topic is about divorce, not about homosexuality. The disciples kicked back on His teaching.

Jesus' teaching on divorce is grounded in the creation of mankind as "male and female" in Genesis. Everything the Bible has to say about human sexuality comes back to Adam and Eve as the prototypes.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Jesus' topic is about divorce, not about homosexuality. The disciples kicked back on His teaching.

Jesus' teaching on divorce is grounded in the creation of mankind as "male and female" in Genesis. Everything the Bible has to say about human sexuality comes back to Adam and Eve as the prototypes.

That is how I perceive it as well but I understand that others don't and I am willing to allow them the freedom to disagree with me without judging them, simply because they may come to a different conclusion. I won't hold them to my standard of opinion.

 

[LongGone]

Why are you trying to change the definition of a "eunuch"? There is no capacity of an eunuch to receive any gratification from a sexual act. You're being entirely ridiculous with the comparison.

What are you basing your statement on that Smellin is trying to change the definition.  He provided sources for his thoughts.  How are you defining eunuch and why?

Because he is comparing homosexuals to those who have no sexual desire. Do you even know what a eunuch is?
[/quote]


What are you basing your definition on?  I think you do not know what a eunuch is as used in scripture.

 

[Ransom]

That is how I perceive it as well but I understand that others don't and I am willing to allow them the freedom to disagree with me without judging them, simply because they may come to a different conclusion. I won't hold them to my standard of opinion.

Who said it was an opinion? Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:24.

 

[rsc2a]

Jesus' topic is about divorce, not about homosexuality. The disciples kicked back on His teaching.

Jesus' teaching on divorce is grounded in the creation of mankind as "male and female" in Genesis. Everything the Bible has to say about human sexuality comes back to Adam and Eve as the prototypes.

That is how I perceive it as well but I understand that others don't and I am willing to allow them the freedom to disagree with me without judging them, simply because they may come to a different conclusion. I won't hold them to my standard of opinion.

It's not a perception. When asked, Jesus replies, "Have you not read...".

Personally, I'm all about having as wide an orthodoxy as possible within the confines of Scripture, but when one starts denying basic facts as just "another understanding", they have latched on to the worst extremes of postmodernism and should be ignored, not accepted as another legitimate voice.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Geesh.... is "eunuch" that hard for you to understand?

Words have meanings and sometimes those meanings are multiple. I am showing that in that era and culture, "eunuch" had a couple different meanings and shows how it would have been understood in that culture.

When Jesus said that some men are "eunuchs from birth", are you assuming he was stating that males can be born castrated and that there were enough of a group of this eunuch group in that time of history/culture that the disciples would have understood it that way?

I'm not assuming anything. I know what a "eunuch" means. Those that are made "eunuch" of men get CASTRATED. They can no longer practically function in an sexual act. To then try to change this definition to homosexuality is down right deceiving and self serving.

I asked a clear question. Do you see castrated animals chasing around other sexually active or whiling partners? Be honest and quit talking around the issue.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Jesus' topic is about divorce, not about homosexuality. The disciples kicked back on His teaching.

Jesus' teaching on divorce is grounded in the creation of mankind as "male and female" in Genesis. Everything the Bible has to say about human sexuality comes back to Adam and Eve as the prototypes.

I don't understand why he's ignoring this fact. He knows this is true.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Why are you trying to change the definition of a "eunuch"? There is no capacity of an eunuch to receive any gratification from a sexual act. You're being entirely ridiculous with the comparison.

What are you basing your statement on that Smellin is trying to change the definition.  He provided sources for his thoughts.  How are you defining eunuch and why?

Because he is comparing homosexuals to those who have no sexual desire. Do you even know what a eunuch is?

What are you basing your definition on?  I think you do not know what a eunuch is as used in scripture.
[/quote]

The word "eunuch" is an English word. It has nothing to do with anything else. Are you saying the English word "eunuch" doesn't match the sense of the Greek source?

 

[Ransom]

The word "eunuch" is an English word. It has nothing to do with anything else. Are you saying the English word "eunuch" doesn't match the sense of the Greek source?

In fact "eunuch" is a transliteration of the corresponding Greek term eunouchos, which has the same semantic range as its English cognate: an emasculated man. (And, metaphorically as Jesus also uses it, a man who voluntarily forgoes sexual relations or marriage.) Its definition doesn't include homosexual men.