For clarification!

[rsc2a]

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.

It doesn't include men who engage in homosexual practices. It could very well include men who are attracted to other men and choose not to pursue those types of relationships.

 

[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.

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.

And if I err (and I am pretty sure that in some areas, I do - this may or may not be one of them), I choose to err on the side of being gracious. I have never told someone to commit a homosexual act nor will I. Regardless, I am not gay so what two consenting adults do is not my battle to fight. I will extend grace as much as I am able (and will fail to do so at times, no doubt). Whether that be labeled "postmodern" or "unorthodox" or just plain "weird", I don't really care. Someone else may not see my actions as "extending grace" but that is not my circus and not my monkey.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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.

My male dog who was 'fixed' 10 years ago still goes after my female dog. Daily, in fact.

Never had farm animals so this is the only experience with animals I've witnessed.

Apart from the results of my prostate cancer surgery which left, shall we say, issues for which meds don't work and yes, I am still sexually active (as much as I am able to be) with my wife and still desire her.

Is this personal enough for you or do you want details?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Some of you might find this interesting....same sex marriage and moral dystopia.

http://www.brnow.org/News/February-2015/Same-sex-marriage-will-lead-to-moral-dystopia

 

[praise_yeshua]

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.

My male dog who was 'fixed' 10 years ago still goes after my female dog. Daily, in fact.

Never had farm animals so this is the only experience with animals I've witnessed.

Apart from the results of my prostate cancer surgery which left, shall we say, issues and yes, I am still sexually active (as much as I am able to be) with my wife and still desire her.

Is this personal enough for you or do you want details?

LOL....... maybe TMI.... but that's okay.

I've read its actually possible. Especially with Testosterone treatment....that basically replaces what got taken from an eunuch.

Your dog probably keeps trying to do it because he remembers something from past experience. Either way, he's not functional. Which is really part of the equation as well.

 

[praise_yeshua]

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.

Agreed.

Metaphorically speaking, that person could change his mind. Literally speaking, that's not an option for part of the equation.

 

[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.

And if I err (and I am pretty sure that in some areas, I do - this may or may not be one of them), I choose to err on the side of being gracious. I have never told someone to commit a homosexual act nor will I. Regardless, I am not gay so what two consenting adults do is not my battle to fight. I will extend grace as much as I am able (and will fail to do so at times, no doubt). Whether that be labeled "postmodern" or "unorthodox" or just plain "weird", I don't really care. Someone else may not see my actions as "extending grace" but that is not my circus and not my monkey.

They asked Jesus about divorce. He answers, "At creation..."

To claim that one can read this as an appeal to something other than creation isn't gracious...it's asinine.

 

[LongGone]

They asked Jesus about divorce. He answers, "At creation..."

To claim that one can read this as an appeal to something other than creation isn't gracious...it's asinine.

To claim that Jesus' answer to a question on divorce is a comprehensive answer dealing with all issues around human sexuality is asinine.  Jesus doesn't address the issue of single people in his answer so does that mean they aren't acceptable. Of course not...it is an answer on divorce.

 

[Ransom]

To claim that Jesus' answer to a question on divorce is a comprehensive answer dealing with all issues around human sexuality is asinine.  Jesus doesn't address the issue of single people in his answer so does that mean they aren't acceptable. Of course not...it is an answer on divorce.

It's not asinine at all. It's a factual observation that, asked about divorce, Jesus goes right back to Genesis 1-2 and points out that God's original intention for human sexuality was a man and a woman joined together for life, creating a new family unit and producing offspring. Jesus' affirmation of the creation account as the prototype for human sexuality excludes the possibility of a valid alternative.

Ask any other sexuality-related question - about homosexuality and same-sex unions, transgenderism, cohabitation, whatever - and the biblical answer is grounded in the same two presuppositions: "male and female he created them," and "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." God's intent does not include a man and his husband or a woman and her wife, a man and his domestic partner, or "genderqueer" or "two-spirited" or any of the 50-odd other "gender" designations available on Facebook.

As Jesus asked: Have you not read?

 

[T-Bone]

To claim that Jesus' answer to a question on divorce is a comprehensive answer dealing with all issues around human sexuality is asinine.  Jesus doesn't address the issue of single people in his answer so does that mean they aren't acceptable. Of course not...it is an answer on divorce.

It's not asinine at all. It's a factual observation that, asked about divorce, Jesus goes right back to Genesis 1-2 and points out that God's original intention for human sexuality was a man and a woman joined together for life, creating a new family unit and producing offspring. Jesus' affirmation of the creation account as the prototype for human sexuality excludes the possibility of a valid alternative.

Ask any other sexuality-related question - about homosexuality and same-sex unions, transgenderism, cohabitation, whatever - and the biblical answer is grounded in the same two presuppositions: "male and female he created them," and "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." God's intent does not include a man and his husband or a woman and her wife, a man and his domestic partner, or "genderqueer" or "two-spirited" or any of the 50-odd other "gender" designations available on Facebook.

As Jesus asked: Have you not read?

thank you.... that is exactly right... and says it very well......

Yup...spot on Ransom!

 

[subllibrm]

Jesus doesn't address the issue of single people in his answer so does that mean they aren't acceptable?

Speaking of asinine.

Jesus didn't mention bestiality in His answer either. His silence can only be interpreted as approval of sharing the marriage bed with the family pets.

Faulty thinking can bring you to some pretty silly conclusions.

As rsc2a said, Jesus is appealing to the Genesis account to establish the baseline design of marriage and by extension human sexuality. He doesn't mention single people because: 1. They can't get divorced and 2. They have no "two shall become one" aspect to their life.

 

[LongGone]

Jesus doesn't address the issue of single people in his answer so does that mean they aren't acceptable?

Speaking of asinine.

Jesus didn't mention bestiality in His answer either. His silence can only be interpreted as approval of sharing the marriage bed with the family pets.

Faulty thinking can bring you to some pretty silly conclusions.

As rsc2a said, Jesus is appealing to the Genesis account to establish the baseline design of marriage and by extension human sexuality. He doesn't mention single people because: 1. They can't get divorced and 2. They have no "two shall become one" aspect to their life.

Jesus was talking about divorce here and answering a specific question. You are right that bestiality was not mentioned.  The fact that it is wrong was not addressed in this answer nor were single people nor was homosexuality. When you apply scripture not addressing an specific issue to that issue is how we have people preaching on women not wearing pants from Duet 22.

I can't speak for others.  I can not make a case for homosexuality from scripture.  What I do see is in my opinion is the elevation of that sin above all other sins that does become perceived as gay bashing.  One poster talked about how Smellin's position hurt young people.  I am more inclined to think that the position that jumps to this sin is far worse that all others is the position that hurts young people dealing with this feelings.  We talk about hating the sin but not the sinner.  Homosexuality is one area where it appears to me that some conservative church going people have a hard time not separating the sin from the person. 

Statements that include there are no monogamous homosexual couples, ingesting feces, calling people Sods and declaring AIDS as God's judgement suggests that we have move from discussing what scripture has to say about homosexuality to gay bashing.  There was mention also of the gay agenda.  There are militant gays who may have a real agenda but the gay people I know do not have an agenda. Those that have an agenda can be pushed by those who have a Westboro type agenda of their own.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Jesus was talking about divorce here and answering a specific question. You are right that bestiality was not mentioned.  The fact that it is wrong was not addressed in this answer nor were single people nor was homosexuality. When you apply scripture not addressing an specific issue to that issue is how we have people preaching on women not wearing pants from Duet 22.

Typical. NO ONE in this ENTIRE conversation has tried to preach against women wearing pants from Deut 22. In fact, if you knew the people participating in this conversation better.... You wouldn't even make such a silly comparison. WE DON'T BELIEVE SUCH NONSENSE. To compare us to those numbnuts.... its entirely dishonest and self serving.

Jesus was speaking of God's intent in creating male and female. It is about sexual/family relationships among human beings.

I can't speak for others.  I can not make a case for homosexuality from scripture.  What I do see is in my opinion is the elevation of that sin above all other sins that does become perceived as gay bashing.  One poster talked about how Smellin's position hurt young people.  I am more inclined to think that the position that jumps to this sin is far worse that all others is the position that hurts young people dealing with this feelings.  We talk about hating the sin but not the sinner.  Homosexuality is one area where it appears to me that some conservative church going people have a hard time not separating the sin from the person. 

I haven't seen anyone "gay bashing". Can you point to some specific instances of "gay bashing" in this thread? NO. You CAN'T. Because you're living in a fantasy world where you have to make up stuff that doesn't exist so you can appear to have SOME defense of your position.

No one is elevating homosexuality above what it is. Its sin. Its wrong. Its not acceptable. Its not Godly. Its has no eternal value. On the other hand, I don't see anyone trying to say that "lying" is acceptable. I don't see anyone saying that "stealing" is acceptable. I don't see anyone saying that other sins have some type of "grey area" involved that might make use want to be a little more accepting of said circumstance. Smellin's being doing this for some time now. So has Izzy. I don't know you enough to make that call. Keep talking and we'll see....

Statements that include there are no monogamous homosexual couples, ingesting feces, calling people Sods and declaring AIDS as God's judgement suggests that we have move from discussing what scripture has to say about homosexuality to gay bashing.

Silly. No one is putting "no monogamous homosexual couples" in the same sentence with "ingesting feces". That's only in your head. It has no place in reality.

Is AIDS God's judgement? Yes. Is it God's judgement exclusively upon homosexuals, No. If it was, then a lot of heterosexuals and drugs users are getting caught up in the mix. I will say that there is absolutely NO DENYING that homosexual relationships are still the primary driver of AIDS infections. There is NO DENYING this. The stats are the stats. Many government and chartiable group..... spend lots of money trying to get gay men to have protected sex. The facts are the facts. Call it bashing if you like. I'm not saying its God's judgement upon homosexuals. I happen to believe it existed for a LONG time before its recent explosion.

There was mention also of the gay agenda.  There are militant gays who may have a real agenda but the gay people I know do not have an agenda. Those that have an agenda can be pushed by those who have a Westboro type agenda of their own.

The gay agenda isn't necessarily "gay". Many different groups are involved in trying to "main stream" acceptance of the lifestyle.... To them, Its as if God, Himself has taken up the practice. I don't have a "westboro" type agenda. In fact, it insults me to think you've compared me to such trash.

The very fact you refuse to recognize something "inbetween".... is more proof that you're living in extremes without any thought of a mid ground. You're lying to yourself if you think most of us, who have be a part of this thread, want to "bash gays". We don't. We just don't accept it as an "alternate lifestyle" or treat it as if its no different than a choice a person makes in picking a particular brand of toothbrush to use.

Keep throwing around "gay bashing" all you want. You have no credibility.

 

[rsc2a]

Actually people have been saying the very things Longgone listed,  and I also consider it needlessly hateful. Also,  the fastest growing cause of AIDS infection now (at least in the States) is underaged sex. In other countries (South Africa),  it is the rape of young children based on the misguided belief that the action will cure the rapist.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Actually people have been saying the very things Longgone listed,  and I also consider it needlessly hateful. Also,  the fastest growing cause of AIDS infection now (at least in the States) is underaged sex. In other countries (South Africa),  it is the rape of young children based on the misguided belief that the action will cure the rapist.

Where? I haven't read it. Granted. I haven't read every post but you, Ransom, siliburn, and aleshanee haven't been saying such things.

You're wrong about AIDS. Produce your stats from a reputable source. The last stats I looked at (a few months ago). It was still young homosexual men, especially African American men..... that had the highest rate increase of AIDS infection from unprotected sex.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Actually people have been saying the very things Longgone listed,  and I also consider it needlessly hateful. Also,  the fastest growing cause of AIDS infection now (at least in the States) is underaged sex. In other countries (South Africa),  it is the rape of young children based on the misguided belief that the action will cure the rapist.

People have also said that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe....but not on this thread. 

 

[rsc2a]

Actually people have been saying the very things Longgone listed,  and I also consider it needlessly hateful. Also,  the fastest growing cause of AIDS infection now (at least in the States) is underaged sex. In other countries (South Africa),  it is the rape of young children based on the misguided belief that the action will cure the rapist.

People have also said that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe....but not on this thread. 

But it is this forum...

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Actually people have been saying the very things Longgone listed,  and I also consider it needlessly hateful. Also,  the fastest growing cause of AIDS infection now (at least in the States) is underaged sex. In other countries (South Africa),  it is the rape of young children based on the misguided belief that the action will cure the rapist.

People have also said that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe....but not on this thread. 

But it is this forum...

I think the point is that, on this thread, that mentality is not a part of the discussion.
In fact, eschewing that mentality was my purpose in posting the OP.

IMO, gonner posting those arguments were his version of a Hail Mary pass.

 

[4everfsu]

Some people on here would be better off by following this one rule when dealing with scripture. Golden rule of Theology. Don't build your doctrine on silence in the bible, that includes homosexuality etc.

 

[Reformed Guy]

Some people on here would be better off by following this one rule when dealing with scripture. Golden rule of Theology. Don't build your doctrine on silence in the bible, that includes homosexuality etc.

And another equally important rule--  Don't silence what the Bible clearly says.

Homosexuality is sin.  Why other options are being discussed on a Christian forum befuddles the mind.