• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Homosexuality and the Bible[W:223]

JC Callender

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
3,269
Location
Metro Detroit
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why do you believe the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin?
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
42,931
Reaction score
22,625
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Why do you believe the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin?

Simple logic with historical context.

Jesus said sexual immorality was a sin.
Homosexuality was considered sexually immoral among the Jews.
Therefore, Jesus taught that homosexuality (among other things) was sinful.
 

JC Callender

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
3,269
Location
Metro Detroit
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simple logic with historical context.

Jesus said sexual immorality was a sin.
Homosexuality was considered sexually immoral among the Jews.
Therefore, Jesus taught that homosexuality (among other things) was sinful.

Why do you believe the Jews found it immoral?
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
42,931
Reaction score
22,625
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Why do you believe the Jews found it immoral?

Because they believed it was unnatural for a man to have sex with a man and a woman to have sex with a woman.
 

JC Callender

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
3,269
Location
Metro Detroit
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because they believed it was unnatural for a man to have sex with a man and a woman to have sex with a woman.

I understand that, but why do you believe the Bible says that homosexuality is unnatural? What do you think the reasoning behind it is? For instance, the Bible states that we shouldn't steal. If someone asked me why I believe the Bible states that, I would say because stealing is totally inconsiderate and self serving and breeds distrust, which is terrible for society and relationships in general.
 

ajn678

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
3,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because the Old Testament was written by crazies just like most religious texts. That is where mostly all of the anti-homosexual parts are from.
 

RAMOSS

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
56,685
Reaction score
22,178
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simple logic with historical context.

Jesus said sexual immorality was a sin.
Homosexuality was considered sexually immoral among the Jews.
Therefore, Jesus taught that homosexuality (among other things) was sinful.

Actually, if you look at the passages in context, it's not talking about 'homosexuality' per say. For example.. in one of the passages, it is referring to specifically male prostitution that was practiced as a fertility right in some of the surrounding religions. The other one is taking about humiliation rape. It CAN be covered under the blanket umbrella of 'sexual imorality', but anything can be, actually. The ancient Jews didn't have the concept as we know it today

And, technically, that is just male to male contact. Nothing is explicitly said about lesbianism. That falls under the vague and easily redefined 'sexual immorality' clause.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Simple logic with historical context.

Jesus said sexual immorality was a sin.
Homosexuality was considered sexually immoral among the Jews.
Therefore, Jesus taught that homosexuality (among other things) was sinful.

Not really. Jesus seems ambivalent towards homosexuals, and perhaps even releases them from the requirement of holy matrimony out of respect for their nature (and yes, he does seem to acknowledge attraction as a quality of nature, not choice). Not all sex outside marriage is regarded as sin by Jesus; concubines were well accepted, after all.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...relief-5.html?highlight=eunuch#post1064019538

My further post goes on to site theologians and prominent Christians who share my interpretation. And before you tell me this is "the gay agenda" leaking into Christianity, please read it. One such Christian leader who shares me interpretation is STILL anti-gay, despite believing that Jesus pardoned them specifically (how that works in his mind, I don't know, but there it is).

There are many mandates of the Jews that Jesus does not follow, or openly rebukes (although even this was not universal to Jews even at the time). That is why Christianity is a different religion.

In reality, Jesus had almost nothing to say about gay people, and what little he might have said seems to be pretty neutral. He simply doesn't seem to have cared very much. Only Hellenistic Paul did. But how seriously one should take Paul as a Christian reader is pretty questionable, since he goes against Jesus' very clear and repeated pronouncements on how to achieve salvation. If you're a Christian, best to take Jesus' word over Paul's, isn't it?
 
Last edited:

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
42,931
Reaction score
22,625
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Not really. Jesus seems ambivalent towards homosexuals, and perhaps even releases them from the requirement of holy matrimony out of respect for their nature (and yes, he does seem to acknowledge attraction as a quality of nature, not choice). Not all sex outside marriage is regarded as sin by Jesus; concubines were well accepted, after all.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...relief-5.html?highlight=eunuch#post1064019538

My further post goes on to site theologians and prominent Christians who share my interpretation. And before you tell me this is "the gay agenda" leaking into Christianity, please read it. One such Christian leader who shares me interpretation is STILL anti-gay, despite believing that Jesus pardoned them specifically (how that works in his mind, I don't know, but there it is).

There are many mandates of the Jews that Jesus does not follow, or openly rebukes (although even this was not universal to Jews even at the time). That is why Christianity is a different religion.

In reality, Jesus had almost nothing to say about gay people, and what little he might have said seems to be pretty neutral. He simply doesn't seem to have cared very much. Only Hellenistic Paul did. But how seriously one should take Paul as a Christian reader is pretty questionable, since he goes against Jesus' very clear and repeated pronouncements on how to achieve salvation. If you're a Christian, best to take Jesus' word over Paul's, isn't it?

You're absolutely right. Jesus doesn't specifically speak about homosexuality itself. However, he DOES speak about romantic love and marriage. And anytime those two are discussed, the words are always "man and wife", "man and woman".

And concubines were OT.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
You're absolutely right. Jesus doesn't specifically speak about homosexuality itself. However, he DOES speak about romantic love and marriage. And anytime those two are discussed, the words are always "man and wife", "man and woman".

And concubines were OT.

Christian marriage, yes. But my point is that he actually did say something about homosexuals, and nothing he says is even slightly condemning the idea that two homosexuals could be in love, or be together sinlessly since they are potentially unable to receive the sacrament of marriage by way of their nature -- which Jesus does not blame them for, or condemn in any way.

But anyway, if you agree with me that Jesus says a group that includes homosexuals is excluded from the sacrament, and thus without sin for not following it, why is homosexuality a sin?

This is literally the only thing Jesus ever said that may pertain to homosexuals, and the only person in the NT who has anything seriously condemning to say about it also said the son of God was wrong about the method to salvation, so... frankly, what does it matter what he says? He clearly hasn't received Jesus' messages himself, and Jesus disagrees with him that it's a sin.

Their nature means the sacrament was not meant for them to begin with. This doesn't make them sinners, nor does it condemn them -- that particular message just isn't meant for them. I mean, they're included in the same group as people who choose celibacy as a sacrifice to the kingdom of heaven. Surely you don't think those folks are sinning too, for not receiving the sacrament of marriage.
 
Last edited:

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
42,931
Reaction score
22,625
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Christian marriage, yes. But nothing he says contradicts the idea that two homosexuals could be in love, or be together sinlessly since they are potentially unable to receive the sacrament of marriage by way of their nature -- which Jesus does not blame them for, or condemn in any way.

I disagree. When Jesus speaks of romantic love, it's always "man and woman".

But anyway, if you agree with me that Jesus says a group that includes homosexuals is excluded from the sacrament, and thus without sin for not following it, why is homosexuality a sin?

I don't believe that. Homosexuality was considered sexual immorality in Jesus' time. There's no indication that he approved of homosexual relationships at all.

This is literally the only thing Jesus ever said that may pertain to homosexuals, and the only person in the NT who has anything seriously condemning to say about it also disagrees with the son of God about the method to salvation, so... frankly, what does it matter what he says? He clearly hasn't received the word himself, and Jesus disagrees with him that it's a sin.



Their nature means the sacrament was not meant for them to begin with. This doesn't make them sinners, nor does it condemn them -- that particular message just isn't meant for them. I mean, they're included in the same group as people who choose celibacy as a sacrifice to the kingdom of heaven. Surely you don't think those folks are sinning too, for not receiving the sacrament of marriage.

I don't know what you're talking about here since you didn't reference anything.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,768
Reaction score
16,652
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why do you believe the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin?

Because the Old Testament where its mostly discussed was written by bronze age Hebrew tribes that would make ISIS look like liberals. If Moses were alive today he would be tried and almost certainly executed for crimes against humanity.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I disagree. When Jesus speaks of romantic love, it's always "man and woman".

I don't believe that. Homosexuality was considered sexual immorality in Jesus' time. There's no indication that he approved of homosexual relationships at all.

I don't know what you're talking about here since you didn't reference anything.

No. When he speaks of marriage it's always a man and a woman. Did you read my posts that I linked?

Well, Jesus doesn't seem to have considered it a sin. He seemed to think that some people are not meant to receive that specific teaching. Maybe not approval, but ambivalence at absolute worst -- nothing in the ancient definition of "eunuch" implies celibacy or sexual inability, so they may well have had relationships. Again, he puts religious celibates in the same category. Are they going to hell too?

Yes, I did. You just apparently didn't read it.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
42,931
Reaction score
22,625
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No. When he speaks of marriage it's always a man and a woman. Did you read my posts that I linked?

I clicked, but I didn't know what you wanted me to read.

Marriage is romantic love.

Well, Jesus doesn't seem to have considered it a sin.

Yes, He did. He spoke out about sexual immorality a few times.

He seemed to think that some people are not meant to receive that specific teaching. Maybe not approval, but ambivalence at absolute worst -- nothing in the ancient definition of "eunuch" implies celibacy or sexual inability, so they may well have had relationships. Again, he puts religious celibates in the same category. Are they going to hell too?

Can you please reference what you're talking about here?

Yes, I did. You just apparently didn't read it.

I read your post that I just quoted before this one -- there were no scriptures referenced.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I clicked, but I didn't know what you wanted me to read.

Marriage is romantic love.

The links are to the exact post. They're working as expected when I click them. If they are not for you, then search my username in the thread, and click my first 2 posts in that thread.

No, it isn't. Love is a feeling, and marriage is an institution. In fact, don't most people get married because they're already in love?

Yes, He did. He spoke out about sexual immorality a few times.

...Which evidently doesn't include homosexuals.

Can you please reference what you're talking about here?

I read your post that I just quoted before this one -- there were no scriptures referenced.

Come back to me when you've read my posts, please.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
42,931
Reaction score
22,625
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You don't have to.

Here, Goshin, is something I think is most interesting. Speaking of marriage:

"But He said to them, 'Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.'" (Matthew 19:11-12)

Before you head-desk yourself into oblivion, let me tell you the history of "eunuch."

The Greek eunouchos was translated into the English "eunuch," but as the passage itself eludes to, our understanding of "eunuch" is not what this passage refers to. In modern English, we take "eunuch" as an artificial physical state in which the testicles of a man are cut off -- castration.

But the Bible lists "natural" eunuchs, and if we are taking this to mean "male born without testicles," or testicular agenesis (and already, that would take us totally outside the modern understanding of the word), this so incredibly rare that there is unlikely to be even one out of tens of millions, and there is no good reason for them to be specifically listed. It also lists those made so at their own hand, but if this is referencing celibacy, what is the necessity of literally cutting of the testicles? Most ascetics didn't do this, and there is no ritual for doing so in Christianity. Also, the Bible uses different words in reference specifically to castration.

The context clue, it turns out, is in the original meaning of "eunuch," which could refer to castrated men, but also refers to a chamber servant who is trusted with women of harems, or a man with no desire to marry. Some were "eunuchs" by way of an aversion to sex with women.

A eunuch did not need to be missing their testicles. They may be fully intact, and even sexually capable. Their only universal characteristic is they were not married, and they were generally considered safe to be around women.

The meaning of the original eunouchos had even less to do with castration, translating simply to "trusted ones," and in some cases even seemed to imply homosexuality and asexuality. This word was usually used to refer to either a trusted official and/or men without sexual interest in women who could therefore be trusted around them. Actual castration was seldom implied.

The passage seems to be speaking of the lack of desire for relations with women -- union, or marriage -- and not necessarily physical castration. It lists many different reasons for this, including a side-effect of castration, a commitment to God, or even... natural inclination.

This cannot necessarily be taken as a permissiveness of gay marriage, but it can potentially be taken as a permissiveness of those who are either asexual or homosexual.

The permissiveness stated by Jesus in Matthew stands in line with the general tendency for Paul to be more severe and damning in its gender and sexual-based condemnations than Jesus himself ever was.

There is good reason to believe, for both linguistic reasons and his general stances compared to Paul, that Jesus was referring to a class of people that included homosexuals, when he referred to "eunuchs" who do not receive marriage.

Even if you don't take this as definite -- and admittedly it is slightly vague -- we do know Paul had a very different view of many types of sin, including sexual, than did Jesus, and that by itself warrants consideration of how seriously to take Paul. Paul was often not in line with the teachings of Jesus, throwing strict tenants of Hellenistic Judaism into the mix at will (as you stated, things you have no mandate to follow). Even Paul's idea of what brings salvation is completely divorced from Jesus' teachings....

I quoted it here so it would make more sense to SEE your post instead of having to click back and forth (I had to shorten it).

Even if the word "eunuch" could encompass homosexuality, there is still nothing in Scripture that deems it NOT sexual immorality. Matthew 19 is all about divorce -- Jesus was talking to his disciples about how divorce works and then said,

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Since eunuchs didn't get married and kept themselves pure (didn't have sex), the lesson about divorce didn't pertain to them. This passage has nothing to do with what the umbrella term "sexual immorality" means.

Now what do you mean by this?

Even Paul's idea of what brings salvation is completely divorced from Jesus' teachings.
 
Last edited:

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Actually, if you look at the passages in context, it's not talking about 'homosexuality' per say. For example.. in one of the passages, it is referring to specifically male prostitution that was practiced as a fertility right in some of the surrounding religions. The other one is taking about humiliation rape. It CAN be covered under the blanket umbrella of 'sexual imorality', but anything can be, actually. The ancient Jews didn't have the concept as we know it today

And, technically, that is just male to male contact. Nothing is explicitly said about lesbianism. That falls under the vague and easily redefined 'sexual immorality' clause.

...and in almost all the other references it's simply referring to the act of homosexuality. There's nothing about "humiliation rape" in the Bible... ... and lesbianism is covered under sexual immorality.

Sad effort....
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
42,931
Reaction score
22,625
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Actually, if you look at the passages in context, it's not talking about 'homosexuality' per say. For example.. in one of the passages, it is referring to specifically male prostitution that was practiced as a fertility right in some of the surrounding religions. The other one is taking about humiliation rape. It CAN be covered under the blanket umbrella of 'sexual imorality', but anything can be, actually. The ancient Jews didn't have the concept as we know it today

And, technically, that is just male to male contact. Nothing is explicitly said about lesbianism. That falls under the vague and easily redefined 'sexual immorality' clause.

It would be helpful if you're cite the passages that you're talking about.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I quoted it here so it would make more sense to SEE your post instead of having to click back and forth (I had to shorten it).

Even if the word "eunuch" could encompass homosexuality, there is still nothing in Scripture that deems it NOT sexual immorality. Matthew 19 is all about divorce -- Jesus was talking to his disciples about how divorce works and then said,

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Since eunuchs didn't get married and kept themselves pure (didn't have sex), the lesson about divorce didn't pertain to them. This passage has nothing to do with what the umbrella term "sexual immorality" means.

Now what do you mean by this?

Forgive me for not wanting to bog down the thread with a giant wall of text when I could just link to it.

Like I explained, nothing in the ancient use of "eunuch" meant they were necessarily celibate or "pure." Some were not. Many times, the term had absolutely nothing to do with sexual or martial practices at all, and was a term for a chamber servant. Their only universal trait is that they were trusted not to hit on women. I am not alone in thinking this includes homosexuals, as linked, and nowhere does it say they were celibate.

Try again. You still appear not to have fully read this.

In short, Paul preached that proclaiming your held faith alone was good enough to be saved. Jesus said works and keeping the Commandments are required.

Paul:
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. (Rom 10:9-10)

Jesus:
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:16-21)

Paul diverges from Jesus quite often, and nowhere does he do so more frequently than in matters of salvation and sexual immorality. Like I said, if you're reading as a Christian, clearly Jesus is the guy to go with on these matters.
 
Last edited:

Howler63

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
553
Location
Just this side of senility.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Forgive me for not wanting to bog down the thread with a giant wall of text when I could just link to it.

Like I explained, nothing in the ancient use of "eunuch" meant they were necessarily celibate or "pure." Some were not. Many times, the term had absolutely nothing to do with sexual or martial practices at all, and was a term for a chamber servant. Their only universal trait is that they were trusted not to hit on women. I am not alone in thinking this includes homosexuals, as linked, and nowhere does it say they were celibate.

Try again. You still appear not to have fully read this.

In short, Paul preached that proclaiming faith alone was good enough to be saved. Jesus said works and keeping the Commandments are required.

Paul:


Jesus:


Paul diverges from Jesus quite often, and nowhere does he do so more frequently than in matters of salvation and sexual immorality. Like I said, if you're reading as a Christian, clearly Jesus is the guy to go with on these matters.

Just so I have this straight, you think biblical eunuchs included homosexuals?
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Just so I have this straight, you think biblical eunuchs included homosexuals?

Yes. Read the post above which Josie reposted.

"Eunuch" did not mean only "man with his testicles removed" in Jesus' time. In fact, they usually had completely different terms applied to them. It referred to men who did not have relations with women for whatever reason, and/or were in official positions where they were trusted not to make moves on said women.

Several theologians and Christian figures agree with me that homosexuals were included in the category of "eunuch," as is in the second link I provided in my first post in this thread. Even some Christian figures who are anti-gay agree with me.
 

Howler63

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
553
Location
Just this side of senility.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes. Read the post above which Josie reposted.

"Eunuch" did not mean only "man with his testicles removed" in Jesus' time. In fact, they usually had completely different terms applied to them. It referred to men who did not have relations with women for whatever reason, and/or were in official positions where they were trusted not to make moves on said women.

Several theologians and Christian figures agree with me that homosexuals were included in the category of "eunuch," as is in the second link I provided in my first post in this thread. Even some Christian figures who are anti-gay agree with me.

Did Romans AND Jews use this distinction? Where are homosexuals EXPLICITLY mentioned? Are there any passages or texts that codify this apparent vernacular stretch?
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Did Romans AND Jews use this distinction? Where are homosexuals EXPLICITLY mentioned? Are there any passages or texts that codify this apparent vernacular stretch?

The translations are based on Hebrew and Greek. However, because Jesus is specific about several different types of eunuchs (including those who are so "by nature," and we can safely say he isn't talking about a one-in-ten-million birth defect), it is a reasonable interpretation that he was discussing men of homosexual and asexual orientation.

Homosexuals did not always have a specific word applied to them in that time, in the same way that their co-categorized populations (castrated males, religious celibates, etc) didn't either, despite that they were all of very differing practices and sexual functions. They were all under the term "eunuch," because "eunuch" was a description of a profession or status, not a physical or sexual state. Their only common trait is that they were trusted not to hit on women.

Why would there be? If this was the common use of the term at the time, why would the Bible explain its use? Jesus is being more specific by specifying that some eunuchs are such by nature. There are links provided with theologians explaining the linguistic use of this term at the time. Why won't people read my posts?
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Why do you believe the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin?

I think that during that period, people's prejudices led them to draw that conclusion. For a guy, that kind of interaction can be a little off-putting, more for some than others, so I think that it also the religious prudishness of the conservative bent that created that perception as well. Religious toleration is very very narrow in scope and "welfare of the soul" is a great driver.
 

Howler63

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
553
Location
Just this side of senility.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The translations are based on Hebrew and Greek. However, because Jesus is specific about several different types of eunuchs (including those who are so "by nature," and we can safely say he isn't talking about a one-in-ten-million birth defect), it is a reasonable interpretation that he was discussing men of homosexual and asexual orientation.

Homosexuals did not always have a specific word applied to them in that time, in the same way that their co-categorized populations (castrated males, religious celibates, etc) didn't either, despite that they were all of very differing practices and sexual functions. They were all under the term "eunuch," because "eunuch" was a description of a profession or status, not a physical or sexual state. Their only common trait is that they were trusted not to hit on women.

Why would there be? If this was the common use of the term at the time, why would the Bible explain its use? Jesus is being more specific by specifying that some eunuchs are such by nature. There are links provided with theologians explaining the linguistic use of this term at the time. Why won't people read my posts?

Couldn't 'by nature' mean impotent? Or sterile? I think you're reading FAR too much into it.
 
Top Bottom