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

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
21,074
Reaction score
1,342
Points
190
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.
God split woman from man? That's sounds so gay. :pinkygirly:
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,540
Reaction score
14,023
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?
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?
I am ashamed to say I know nothing about the Pope, I probably know more about the prophet in Utah. But no I did not learn religion like a mainstream Christian.
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,540
Reaction score
14,023
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?
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.
I'm just wondering if the idea was more related to Jesus being a virgin and the status of the eunuchs was similar to prostitution as far as where they fit into society. Maybe he meant something much more spiritual. I mean I could be entirely wrong obviously.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,277
Reaction score
5,597
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.
Don't you think the pope looks like he can pack fudge is maybe why he's saying this?
I leave that to the people in your IQ range to discuss, Taz.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Taz

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,277
Reaction score
5,597
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.
God split woman from man? That's sounds so gay. :pinkygirly:
I am sure it does to you, Taz. :)
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,218
Reaction score
574
Points
85
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.
I'm just wondering if the idea was more related to Jesus being a virgin and the status of the eunuchs was similar to prostitution as far as where they fit into society. Maybe he meant something much more spiritual. I mean I could be entirely wrong obviously.
.
I'm just wondering if the idea was more related to Jesus being a virgin ...
and the status of the eunuchs was similar to prostitution as far as where they fit into society.
.
oh, how have you concluded the religious itinerant was a virgin and why that may have been so ... not to mention mary madeline. or that they ever refereed to her as a prostitute.
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,540
Reaction score
14,023
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?
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.
I'm just wondering if the idea was more related to Jesus being a virgin and the status of the eunuchs was similar to prostitution as far as where they fit into society. Maybe he meant something much more spiritual. I mean I could be entirely wrong obviously.
.
I'm just wondering if the idea was more related to Jesus being a virgin ...
and the status of the eunuchs was similar to prostitution as far as where they fit into society.
.
oh, how have you concluded the religious itinerant was a virgin and why that may have been so ... not to mention mary madeline. or that they ever referred to her as a prostitute.
I already said I didn't grow up in mainstream religion. I assumed she was a prostitute based on the storing story if that is incorrect show me. Thanks in advance. Are you saying Jesus was not a virgin? Maybe he was born a eunuch we don't know about his body parts you are correct. But even if metaphor the message about sex is at some point to not need it to not war with flesh. For all I know eunuchs were very spiritual and like Jesus we're not to marry because marriage and sex make people react to politics and life in a need to protect what is there's. But a person not married and celibate is not a slave to carnal desires. There could be different interpretations that don't have to mean gay and plus since some eunuchs slept with women it just seems to me there could be a different meaning.
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,540
Reaction score
14,023
Points
1,130
Location
Home
Stoning sorry I'm on my phone at the salon and it is being mean to me :lol:
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,540
Reaction score
14,023
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?
No I am saying Jesus didn't talk about sex. And as far as marriage goes he did. I have not read anything about him talking about it except to the hooker and he said sin more. But if he can make that statement, well eunuchs slept with both sexes so maybe it was more along those lines than sexual preference. I'm just trying to understand why one is forgiven and the other isn't.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,277
Reaction score
5,597
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?
No I am saying Jesus didn't talk about sex. And as far as marriage goes he did. I have not read anything about him talking about it except to the hooker and he said sin more. But if he can make that statement, well eunuchs slept with both sexes so maybe it was more along those lines than sexual preference. I'm just trying to understand why one is forgiven and the other isn't.
Ok, so who was Jesus saying shouldn't get married?
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
21,074
Reaction score
1,342
Points
190
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.
God split woman from man? That's sounds so gay. :pinkygirly:
I am sure it does to you, Taz. :)
God kicking Adam and Eve out of Eden for having hetero sex is also pretty gay. :gay:
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,277
Reaction score
5,597
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.
God split woman from man? That's sounds so gay. :pinkygirly:
I am sure it does to you, Taz. :)
God kicking Adam and Eve out of Eden for having hetero sex is also pretty gay. :gay:
So is your interpretation, Taz.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,277
Reaction score
5,597
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?
No I am saying Jesus didn't talk about sex. And as far as marriage goes he did. I have not read anything about him talking about it except to the hooker and he said sin more. But if he can make that statement, well eunuchs slept with both sexes so maybe it was more along those lines than sexual preference. I'm just trying to understand why one is forgiven and the other isn't.
Jesus only had sex once. Once means he didn't like it. So he was probably gay.
I'm glad you see it that way, Taz.
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,540
Reaction score
14,023
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?
No I am saying Jesus didn't talk about sex. And as far as marriage goes he did. I have not read anything about him talking about it except to the hooker and he said sin more. But if he can make that statement, well eunuchs slept with both sexes so maybe it was more along those lines than sexual preference. I'm just trying to understand why one is forgiven and the other isn't.
Jesus only had sex once. Once means he didn't like it. So he was probably gay.
How do you know? I trust ding on this because he has dedicated his life to it.
 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,540
Reaction score
14,023
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?
No I am saying Jesus didn't talk about sex. And as far as marriage goes he did. I have not read anything about him talking about it except to the hooker and he said sin more. But if he can make that statement, well eunuchs slept with both sexes so maybe it was more along those lines than sexual preference. I'm just trying to understand why one is forgiven and the other isn't.
Ok, so who was Jesus saying shouldn't get married?
Eunuchs. But he didn't say why really. He just said in marriage it should be a man and woman. I'm just saying there is no evidence that eunuch =gay since it is also thought some they slept with women. :dunno:
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,277
Reaction score
5,597
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?
No I am saying Jesus didn't talk about sex. And as far as marriage goes he did. I have not read anything about him talking about it except to the hooker and he said sin more. But if he can make that statement, well eunuchs slept with both sexes so maybe it was more along those lines than sexual preference. I'm just trying to understand why one is forgiven and the other isn't.
Ok, so who was Jesus saying shouldn't get married?
Eunuchs. But he didn't say why really. He just said in marriage it should be a man and woman. I'm just saying there is no evidence that eunuch =gay since it is also thought some they slept with women. :dunno:
This link is from a gay Christian website. They have the same opinion I do and reference the work of an anti-gay authority on tenured Professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis as their support.


============================================


This link discusses Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch; the biblical account of how a gay man was accepted into the early church and was referred to as a eunuch. The following is an excerpt from that discussion.

"...In contemporary usage a “eunuch” is a castrated man, but it had a broader definition in ancient times. Literally meaning “the keepers of the bed,” the eunuchs served and guarded the women in royal palaces and wealthy households. Their employers wanted to be certain that the eunuchs would not get sexually involved with the women they were supposed to protect, so many eunuchs were castrated men, homosexual men, and intersex folk. Many, but not all, were both castrated and homosexual. Eunuchs were trusted officials who often rose to senior posts in government..."

 

drifter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29,540
Reaction score
14,023
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?
No I am saying Jesus didn't talk about sex. And as far as marriage goes he did. I have not read anything about him talking about it except to the hooker and he said sin more. But if he can make that statement, well eunuchs slept with both sexes so maybe it was more along those lines than sexual preference. I'm just trying to understand why one is forgiven and the other isn't.
Ok, so who was Jesus saying shouldn't get married?
Eunuchs. But he didn't say why really. He just said in marriage it should be a man and woman. I'm just saying there is no evidence that eunuch =gay since it is also thought some they slept with women. :dunno:
This link is from a gay Christian website. They have the same opinion I do and reference the work of an anti-gay authority on tenured Professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis as their support.


============================================


This link discusses Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch; the biblical account of how a gay man was accepted into the early church and was referred to as a eunuch. The following is an excerpt from that discussion.

"...In contemporary usage a “eunuch” is a castrated man, but it had a broader definition in ancient times. Literally meaning “the keepers of the bed,” the eunuchs served and guarded the women in royal palaces and wealthy households. Their employers wanted to be certain that the eunuchs would not get sexually involved with the women they were supposed to protect, so many eunuchs were castrated men, homosexual men, and intersex folk. Many, but not all, were both castrated and homosexual. Eunuchs were trusted officials who often rose to senior posts in government..."

Thanks.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top