Pope Calls For Civil Unions For Same-Sex Couples, In Major Departure From Vatican Doctrine

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
21,091
Reaction score
1,354
Points
190
So now even the pope believes that homosexuals should be able to marry. He says in a civil union which means he still doesn't advocate that homosexuals should be able to get married in a church but this endorsement is a step in the right direction.

How many natural kids can both partners bring into the world, when they are both women, or both men? They can make believe they are married but they can rub and rub but never achieve what God intended. This is the fallacy of the progs, to push immorality upon US so we can move away from our traditions.

Gay people have children all the time. Now you know.
That must mean that such are not 100% homosexual. GOD didn't make anyone that way. Sin is the corruptive force that distorts and manipulates truth to suit evil behavior, so that even some pope can be confused. Two men behaving badly together do not spawn children. And two women with their plastic accouterments cannot either. That is not to say that GOD intended everyone to marry, have sexual relations and procreate. However, our society screams "SEX, SEX, SEX!" ---- and if you feel uncomfortable then well ----- one must be peculiar.... This is the way secular ideology manipulates and distorts. And this is just another reason the world is in such a mess.
God made everything in the universe including people who are born gay. Gay people have children through sperm donors and surrogates... Now you know.
So, in fact they "supposed homosexuals" are forced to drag in the opposite sex to fulfill their desire for a child. GOD made everything and the UNIVERSE. GOD created a Cherub - Light Bearer who would choose to become Satan/The Accuser. GOD obviously didn't make Satan what he became. I don't see why anyone imagines they have to do anything (unless one is being prompted to). A person doesn't become hooked on drugs without first being exposed to being high first. There are many people who have never taken drugs nor smoked cigarettes ---- and they are fortunately not so inclined or addicted (just as GOD designed them). I can imagine that once an individual has gone for the first ride, he might feel ashamed; however, the second time then leads to a third. And if someone finds an obliging partner ---- all one can say is, "Well, there is no worry about an unwanted pregnancy, now is there?"
It all seem sordid and self-servicing. And now YOU know...
It is a shame that all the rubbing and gyrating going on by queers and lesbos that there is a lot of heat, but no conception between the two, so while one donor may have a connection with the child, the other one wont. There will be resentment when the child gravitates towards the real parent....
Heteros adopt children all the time. Are you suggesting that they don't "have a connection with the child"? :cuckoo:
In an adoption, when the child finds out that parents arent part of the kin, that child later on looks for the biological parents and has questions for them. Why does that happen, because the connection isnt complete. But for what you have been saying, you are the mentally ill person, who believes that a man should put his dick in another mans ass, and you think that is normal....Oh, yeah, dogs do it also.....
God made everything in the universe, including gays. And in any case, god hasn't done anything to gays to make them stop ass fucking. So it must be ok.
If God wanted Gays, do you think he would put Adam and Eve in the garden or Adam and Bubba? By the way the cast out Angel, Lucifer is the one who put the gayness into people, strictly going against the will of God, but that is the choice that God allows them, and when revelations come, those who follow Lucifer will have to answer for it.
Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden for having hetero sex. It doesn't get any gayer than that. And to say that god couldn't do anything about ass fucking if he wanted to is absurd. God can do anything, no?
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,223
Reaction score
575
Points
85
Just read on the Daily Mail website that many people are very DISpleased with His Holiness's tolerant attitude. I think that the Pope who had resigned is among the opponents.

Opposition, the article says, is especially strong in Africa, where one African cardinal compares gay relations to the evils of Nazism.

And I read a headline elsewhere that at least one media outlet in Mexico refused to broadcast His Holiness's words on that topic.
.
Pope who had resigned is among the opponents.
.
the one that resigned did so by threat of indictment for their role to prevent public disclosure of the churches involvement in pedophilia -

and that's who christians support, uninterruptedly throughout history one crime after another just to maintain their grip on a corrupt religion strewn with untold innocent victims to preserve their political discourse.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,507
Reaction score
14,184
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
God does not approve
How arrogant of you to pretend that you know the mind of an omnipotent, unseen Supreme Being.
If you read the Bible you can. He lays it out in black and white. Unless you are a child of satan.
I don't think that the Supreme Being actually wrote the bible or any other sacred text in any religion. This "child of satan" stuff is just nutty.
The "Supreme Being" inspired particular humans (HE chose) to write what HE wished, as HE saw fit. A child of Satan is anyone who is not redeemed. In other words, everyone who intentionally rejects CHRIST/MESSIAH is not one with GOD and that one's name isn't found in the LAMB's BOOK OF LIFE. GOD does protect HIS holy word found in the Bible. And the Bible and not some pope is the Standard of CHRIST's CHURCH, and the rod by which everything else is measured.
As already correctly noted, you're at liberty to believe what you wish; you're not at liberty, however, to force your beliefs on others through secular law.
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
7,413
Reaction score
3,967
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
So now even the pope believes that homosexuals should be able to marry. He says in a civil union which means he still doesn't advocate that homosexuals should be able to get married in a church but this endorsement is a step in the right direction.

Gays are not the popes problem, the pope is now backing the chinese communist, so the bastard needs to lose the rest of his mind
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,544
Reaction score
14,034
Points
1,130
Location
Home
Jesus never gave an opinion about gay marriage. So good for the pope.
He did talk about marriage though. And in that discussion - although some will no doubt disagree with my interpretation - he did mention that some were born homosexual.
Can you cite the chapter / verse? (Not the passage about marriage, I know that one, but the second thing you said.)
It started with a smart alecky pharisee trying to test Jesus on the subject of divorce. That led into a conversation of marriage and a conversation of who shouldn't get married.

Matthew 19:1-12

Teaching About Divorce
1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Oh my goodness, two in a row who read my post too quickly. Re-read my post, ding. I specifically said I wasn't asking about the passage on marriage, I already know that and I was going to post that… I was asking you about the SECOND thing you said.
Read the underlined portion.

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Thanks. Eunuchs are not the same thing as homosexuals. (I'm just replying to that off the top of my head. But I do want to look into that passage more closely, when I have time.)
The phrase had multiple uses. Look at the third group who he said should not marry... the priests. They didn't castrate priests. Priests were not eunuchs. The phrase eunuch is referring to men who don't have sex with women. The first group that he said should not marry are eunuchs that were born that way - eunuchs who have been so from birth - there are no eunuchs from birth. He is referring to men who are obviously effeminate. The second group - eunuchs that were made that way by men - would encompass two groups; men who were castrated (which was a tiny percentage) and men who were not obviously gay but were turned gay through their environment or by men (which is a much larger percentage of the population).
I looked up the earliest definition I could find of eunuch and it had different meanings, bed servants, harem keepers and yes castration was done and they were seen as also trustworthy but disposable, those born eunuchs also might be hermaphrodites, or born with deformed genitals I don't know if they were transgendered (being born eunuch) but certainly there may have been sex with men or women. Do you eunuchs exist today who are born that way and are they actually sexual? :dunno: but also not sure why he would speak on it. I am not convinced the eunuchs are the same as gay. But I still have read why Jesus would say and who the first recorded eunuch was and how they evolved to the time era of Jesus.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,307
Reaction score
5,616
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Jesus never gave an opinion about gay marriage. So good for the pope.
He did talk about marriage though. And in that discussion - although some will no doubt disagree with my interpretation - he did mention that some were born homosexual.
Can you cite the chapter / verse? (Not the passage about marriage, I know that one, but the second thing you said.)
It started with a smart alecky pharisee trying to test Jesus on the subject of divorce. That led into a conversation of marriage and a conversation of who shouldn't get married.

Matthew 19:1-12

Teaching About Divorce
1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Oh my goodness, two in a row who read my post too quickly. Re-read my post, ding. I specifically said I wasn't asking about the passage on marriage, I already know that and I was going to post that… I was asking you about the SECOND thing you said.
Read the underlined portion.

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Thanks. Eunuchs are not the same thing as homosexuals. (I'm just replying to that off the top of my head. But I do want to look into that passage more closely, when I have time.)
The phrase had multiple uses. Look at the third group who he said should not marry... the priests. They didn't castrate priests. Priests were not eunuchs. The phrase eunuch is referring to men who don't have sex with women. The first group that he said should not marry are eunuchs that were born that way - eunuchs who have been so from birth - there are no eunuchs from birth. He is referring to men who are obviously effeminate. The second group - eunuchs that were made that way by men - would encompass two groups; men who were castrated (which was a tiny percentage) and men who were not obviously gay but were turned gay through their environment or by men (which is a much larger percentage of the population).
I looked up the earliest definition I could find of eunuch and it had different meanings, bed servants, harem keepers and yes castration was done and they were seen as also trustworthy but disposable, those born eunuchs also might be hermaphrodites, or born with deformed genitals I don't know if they were transgendered (being born eunuch) but certainly there may have been sex with men or women. Do you eunuchs exist today who are born that way and are they actually sexual? :dunno: but also not sure why he would speak on it. I am not convinced the eunuchs are the same as gay. But I still have read why Jesus would say and who the first recorded eunuch was and how they evolved to the time era of Jesus.
They did not have a word for being gay other than eunuch. And you know they had gays at approximately the same rate as we have gays today.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,307
Reaction score
5,616
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Basically Jesus outlined the distribution perfectly - which would have been expected since He is God - when asked if it were better to just never get married, he said that there are three groups that shouldn't marry; gays that were a product of their genetics, gays that were a product of their environment and men who committed their life to serving God. There are no gaps in his distribution.
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,544
Reaction score
14,034
Points
1,130
Location
Home
Jesus never gave an opinion about gay marriage. So good for the pope.
He did talk about marriage though. And in that discussion - although some will no doubt disagree with my interpretation - he did mention that some were born homosexual.
Can you cite the chapter / verse? (Not the passage about marriage, I know that one, but the second thing you said.)
It started with a smart alecky pharisee trying to test Jesus on the subject of divorce. That led into a conversation of marriage and a conversation of who shouldn't get married.

Matthew 19:1-12

Teaching About Divorce
1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Oh my goodness, two in a row who read my post too quickly. Re-read my post, ding. I specifically said I wasn't asking about the passage on marriage, I already know that and I was going to post that… I was asking you about the SECOND thing you said.
Read the underlined portion.

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Thanks. Eunuchs are not the same thing as homosexuals. (I'm just replying to that off the top of my head. But I do want to look into that passage more closely, when I have time.)
The phrase had multiple uses. Look at the third group who he said should not marry... the priests. They didn't castrate priests. Priests were not eunuchs. The phrase eunuch is referring to men who don't have sex with women. The first group that he said should not marry are eunuchs that were born that way - eunuchs who have been so from birth - there are no eunuchs from birth. He is referring to men who are obviously effeminate. The second group - eunuchs that were made that way by men - would encompass two groups; men who were castrated (which was a tiny percentage) and men who were not obviously gay but were turned gay through their environment or by men (which is a much larger percentage of the population).
I looked up the earliest definition I could find of eunuch and it had different meanings, bed servants, harem keepers and yes castration was done and they were seen as also trustworthy but disposable, those born eunuchs also might be hermaphrodites, or born with deformed genitals I don't know if they were transgendered (being born eunuch) but certainly there may have been sex with men or women. Do you eunuchs exist today who are born that way and are they actually sexual? :dunno: but also not sure why he would speak on it. I am not convinced the eunuchs are the same as gay. But I still have read why Jesus would say and who the first recorded eunuch was and how they evolved to the time era of Jesus.
They did not have a word for being gay other than eunuch. And you know they had gays at approximately the same rate as we have gays today.
but the old testament said men laying with men right? That's why I am still trying to understand why the word eunuch instead of just saying that? Anyway still looking stuff up. :)
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,544
Reaction score
14,034
Points
1,130
Location
Home
Basically Jesus outlined the distribution perfectly - which would have been expected since He is God - when asked if it were better to just never get married, he said that there are three groups that shouldn't marry; gays that were a product of their genetics, gays that were a product of their environment and men who committed their life to serving God. There are no gaps in his distribution.
but Eunuchs also had sex with women in harems right?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,307
Reaction score
5,616
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Now what the Pope is saying is that gays should be allowed to enter civil unions. He is not saying they should be considered married because marriage is the literal joining of 2 into 1 and that requires opposite genders.

I believe the real basis for marriage being between a man and a woman goes back to Adam and Eve and how Eve was split from Adam. Basically God split woman from man and only God can join them back.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,307
Reaction score
5,616
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Jesus never gave an opinion about gay marriage. So good for the pope.
He did talk about marriage though. And in that discussion - although some will no doubt disagree with my interpretation - he did mention that some were born homosexual.
Can you cite the chapter / verse? (Not the passage about marriage, I know that one, but the second thing you said.)
It started with a smart alecky pharisee trying to test Jesus on the subject of divorce. That led into a conversation of marriage and a conversation of who shouldn't get married.

Matthew 19:1-12

Teaching About Divorce
1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Oh my goodness, two in a row who read my post too quickly. Re-read my post, ding. I specifically said I wasn't asking about the passage on marriage, I already know that and I was going to post that… I was asking you about the SECOND thing you said.
Read the underlined portion.

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Thanks. Eunuchs are not the same thing as homosexuals. (I'm just replying to that off the top of my head. But I do want to look into that passage more closely, when I have time.)
The phrase had multiple uses. Look at the third group who he said should not marry... the priests. They didn't castrate priests. Priests were not eunuchs. The phrase eunuch is referring to men who don't have sex with women. The first group that he said should not marry are eunuchs that were born that way - eunuchs who have been so from birth - there are no eunuchs from birth. He is referring to men who are obviously effeminate. The second group - eunuchs that were made that way by men - would encompass two groups; men who were castrated (which was a tiny percentage) and men who were not obviously gay but were turned gay through their environment or by men (which is a much larger percentage of the population).
I looked up the earliest definition I could find of eunuch and it had different meanings, bed servants, harem keepers and yes castration was done and they were seen as also trustworthy but disposable, those born eunuchs also might be hermaphrodites, or born with deformed genitals I don't know if they were transgendered (being born eunuch) but certainly there may have been sex with men or women. Do you eunuchs exist today who are born that way and are they actually sexual? :dunno: but also not sure why he would speak on it. I am not convinced the eunuchs are the same as gay. But I still have read why Jesus would say and who the first recorded eunuch was and how they evolved to the time era of Jesus.
They did not have a word for being gay other than eunuch. And you know they had gays at approximately the same rate as we have gays today.
but the old testament said men laying with men right? That's why I am still trying to understand why the word eunuch instead of just saying that? Anyway still looking stuff up. :)
So you are saying that if I am right that Jesus was explaining who shouldn't get married and that he was referring to three classes of men, he would have said men that lay with men because they were made that way by God and men that lay with men because they were made that way by men and priests?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,307
Reaction score
5,616
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Basically Jesus outlined the distribution perfectly - which would have been expected since He is God - when asked if it were better to just never get married, he said that there are three groups that shouldn't marry; gays that were a product of their genetics, gays that were a product of their environment and men who committed their life to serving God. There are no gaps in his distribution.
but Eunuchs also had sex with women in harems right?
It's possible.

What I am saying is that even though you don't relate the word eunuch to homosexuals, they did 2000 years ago. The word had multiple uses 2000 years ago.
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,544
Reaction score
14,034
Points
1,130
Location
Home
Basically Jesus outlined the distribution perfectly - which would have been expected since He is God - when asked if it were better to just never get married, he said that there are three groups that shouldn't marry; gays that were a product of their genetics, gays that were a product of their environment and men who committed their life to serving God. There are no gaps in his distribution.
but Eunuchs also had sex with women in harems right?
It's possible.

What I am saying is that even though you don't relate the word eunuch to homosexuals, they did 2000 years ago. The word had multiple uses 2000 years ago.
How far back does the word go ?
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,544
Reaction score
14,034
Points
1,130
Location
Home
Jesus never gave an opinion about gay marriage. So good for the pope.
He did talk about marriage though. And in that discussion - although some will no doubt disagree with my interpretation - he did mention that some were born homosexual.
Can you cite the chapter / verse? (Not the passage about marriage, I know that one, but the second thing you said.)
It started with a smart alecky pharisee trying to test Jesus on the subject of divorce. That led into a conversation of marriage and a conversation of who shouldn't get married.

Matthew 19:1-12

Teaching About Divorce
1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Oh my goodness, two in a row who read my post too quickly. Re-read my post, ding. I specifically said I wasn't asking about the passage on marriage, I already know that and I was going to post that… I was asking you about the SECOND thing you said.
Read the underlined portion.

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Thanks. Eunuchs are not the same thing as homosexuals. (I'm just replying to that off the top of my head. But I do want to look into that passage more closely, when I have time.)
The phrase had multiple uses. Look at the third group who he said should not marry... the priests. They didn't castrate priests. Priests were not eunuchs. The phrase eunuch is referring to men who don't have sex with women. The first group that he said should not marry are eunuchs that were born that way - eunuchs who have been so from birth - there are no eunuchs from birth. He is referring to men who are obviously effeminate. The second group - eunuchs that were made that way by men - would encompass two groups; men who were castrated (which was a tiny percentage) and men who were not obviously gay but were turned gay through their environment or by men (which is a much larger percentage of the population).
I looked up the earliest definition I could find of eunuch and it had different meanings, bed servants, harem keepers and yes castration was done and they were seen as also trustworthy but disposable, those born eunuchs also might be hermaphrodites, or born with deformed genitals I don't know if they were transgendered (being born eunuch) but certainly there may have been sex with men or women. Do you eunuchs exist today who are born that way and are they actually sexual? :dunno: but also not sure why he would speak on it. I am not convinced the eunuchs are the same as gay. But I still have read why Jesus would say and who the first recorded eunuch was and how they evolved to the time era of Jesus.
They did not have a word for being gay other than eunuch. And you know they had gays at approximately the same rate as we have gays today.
but the old testament said men laying with men right? That's why I am still trying to understand why the word eunuch instead of just saying that? Anyway still looking stuff up. :)
So you are saying that if I am right that Jesus was explaining who shouldn't get married and that he was referring to three classes of men, he would have said men that lay with men because they were made that way by God and men that lay with men because they were made that way by men and priests?
I will have to look more into the culture and the oldest definition of eunuch and how the word happened to evolve.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,307
Reaction score
5,616
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Basically Jesus outlined the distribution perfectly - which would have been expected since He is God - when asked if it were better to just never get married, he said that there are three groups that shouldn't marry; gays that were a product of their genetics, gays that were a product of their environment and men who committed their life to serving God. There are no gaps in his distribution.
but Eunuchs also had sex with women in harems right?
It's possible.

What I am saying is that even though you don't relate the word eunuch to homosexuals, they did 2000 years ago. The word had multiple uses 2000 years ago.
How far back does the word go ?
I dunno. Way back.

Another way to look at this is that Jesus is saying that God made some people gay. Which is also why I believe I am interpreting it correctly because we know some people are born gay. I would think that Jesus acknowledging that some people were made by God to be gay would make some people happy and some people angry.
 

JusticeHammer

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
2,685
Reaction score
950
Points
210
God does not approve
How arrogant of you to pretend that you know the mind of an omnipotent, unseen Supreme Being.
If you read the Bible you can. He lays it out in black and white. Unless you are a child of satan.
I don't think that the Supreme Being actually wrote the bible or any other sacred text in any religion. This "child of satan" stuff is just nutty.
The "Supreme Being" inspired particular humans (HE chose) to write what HE wished, as HE saw fit. A child of Satan is anyone who is not redeemed. In other words, everyone who intentionally rejects CHRIST/MESSIAH is not one with GOD and that one's name isn't found in the LAMB's BOOK OF LIFE. GOD does protect HIS holy word found in the Bible. And the Bible and not some pope is the Standard of CHRIST's CHURCH, and the rod by which everything else is measured.
Another appeal to authority fallacy.

It's this sort of arrogant sophistry that perpetuates hatred against gay and transgender Americans.
The only fallacy is you thinking you are a real lawyer.
 

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
14,435
Reaction score
3,776
Points
290
Discussions, really arguments, over social issues like this one are useless. People forget that if they are members of some group that happens to be against something, they are free not to do what they are against. However, they have no right to interfere with anyone else's decisions. If you don't want to marry someone of your own sex, don't do it. Your choice.

But understand the difference between civil law and the rules of the various religions. Civil law has nothing to do with the choice of religion or the choice not to have one. Civil law applies to everyone.
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,544
Reaction score
14,034
Points
1,130
Location
Home
I don't think Jesus is implying that. It does not make sense that he would offer love and forgiveness to a prostitute but condemn Eunuchs.

: a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2: a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3: one that lacks virility or power-political eunuchs



Eunuch comes from the Ancient Greek word εὐνοῦχος (eunoukhos), first attested in a fragment of Hipponax,[6] the 6th century BC comic poet and prolific inventor of compound words.[7] The acerbic poet describes a particular lover of fine food having "consumed his estate dining lavishly and at leisure every day on tuna and garlic-honey cheese paté like a Lampsacene eunoukhos."[8]

The earliest surviving etymology of the word is from late antiquity. The 5th century (AD) Etymologicon by Orion of Thebes offers two alternative origins for the word eunuch: first, to tēn eunēn ekhein, "guarding the bed", a derivation inferred from eunuchs' established role at the time as "bedchamber attendants" in the imperial palace, and second, to eu tou nou ekhein, "being good with respect to the mind", which Orion explains based on their "being deprived of intercourse (esterēmenou tou misgesthai), the things that the ancients used to call irrational (anoēta, literally: 'mindless')"


Eunuch's that did have seuxal relations could have done that with men or women so I do not think this is about being gay. I think it's about something else maybe political but I still have to think it over. It just doesn't make sense to me, he protected the prosititue and said those without sin throw the first stone. I think Eunuch represented something else but still not sure what. Obviously, I do not know the bible like regular Christians do. But why would Jesus protect a hooker and condemn a eunuch?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,307
Reaction score
5,616
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
I don't think Jesus is implying that. It does not make sense that he would offer love and forgiveness to a prostitute but condemn Eunuchs.

: a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2: a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3: one that lacks virility or power-political eunuchs



Eunuch comes from the Ancient Greek word εὐνοῦχος (eunoukhos), first attested in a fragment of Hipponax,[6] the 6th century BC comic poet and prolific inventor of compound words.[7] The acerbic poet describes a particular lover of fine food having "consumed his estate dining lavishly and at leisure every day on tuna and garlic-honey cheese paté like a Lampsacene eunoukhos."[8]

The earliest surviving etymology of the word is from late antiquity. The 5th century (AD) Etymologicon by Orion of Thebes offers two alternative origins for the word eunuch: first, to tēn eunēn ekhein, "guarding the bed", a derivation inferred from eunuchs' established role at the time as "bedchamber attendants" in the imperial palace, and second, to eu tou nou ekhein, "being good with respect to the mind", which Orion explains based on their "being deprived of intercourse (esterēmenou tou misgesthai), the things that the ancients used to call irrational (anoēta, literally: 'mindless')"


Eunuch's that did have seuxal relations could have done that with men or women so I do not think this is about being gay. I think it's about something else maybe political but I still have to think it over. It just doesn't make sense to me, he protected the prosititue and said those without sin throw the first stone. I think Eunuch represented something else but still not sure what. Obviously, I do not know the bible like regular Christians do. But why would Jesus protect a hooker and condemn a eunuch?
I don't see how He is condemning eunuchs. But I am ok with you not agreeing with me. Convincing others is not high on my list of needs.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
21,091
Reaction score
1,354
Points
190
I don't think Jesus is implying that. It does not make sense that he would offer love and forgiveness to a prostitute but condemn Eunuchs.

: a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2: a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3: one that lacks virility or power-political eunuchs



Eunuch comes from the Ancient Greek word εὐνοῦχος (eunoukhos), first attested in a fragment of Hipponax,[6] the 6th century BC comic poet and prolific inventor of compound words.[7] The acerbic poet describes a particular lover of fine food having "consumed his estate dining lavishly and at leisure every day on tuna and garlic-honey cheese paté like a Lampsacene eunoukhos."[8]

The earliest surviving etymology of the word is from late antiquity. The 5th century (AD) Etymologicon by Orion of Thebes offers two alternative origins for the word eunuch: first, to tēn eunēn ekhein, "guarding the bed", a derivation inferred from eunuchs' established role at the time as "bedchamber attendants" in the imperial palace, and second, to eu tou nou ekhein, "being good with respect to the mind", which Orion explains based on their "being deprived of intercourse (esterēmenou tou misgesthai), the things that the ancients used to call irrational (anoēta, literally: 'mindless')"


Eunuch's that did have seuxal relations could have done that with men or women so I do not think this is about being gay. I think it's about something else maybe political but I still have to think it over. It just doesn't make sense to me, he protected the prosititue and said those without sin throw the first stone. I think Eunuch represented something else but still not sure what. Obviously, I do not know the bible like regular Christians do. But why would Jesus protect a hooker and condemn a eunuch?
I don't see how He is condemning eunuchs. But I am ok with you not agreeing with me. Convincing others is not high on my list of needs.
Don't you think the pope looks like he can pack fudge is maybe why he's saying this?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top