A-1,
A-1 (imported) wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:32 am
One thing that YOU must consider is that YOU are taking a bit of scripture out of context.
Actually, it really seems that you did wrench a few passages here and there out of their authentic meaning. Now, I would like to use the opportunity and state that I am not a Christian by faith - my reasons for my castration were largely based on a generally physical and spiritual pretext - however, I still strongly disagree with your quite baseless and biased attacks against (beliefs of) someone who clearly:
a) Stated that he is additionally interested in castration on personal, non-religious grounds, so is likely to proceed anyway, and;
b) Uses a set of scriptures that were interpreted the same way by numerous influential early and late Church fathers and Christian followers (and what I believe to be Jesus himself, if the scriptures indeed were based on his life), for personal comfort and reassurance.
I would like to quote an alternate observation, nicely put forth by GlendaJ elsewhere on this forum, wich I wholeheartedly agree with and would like to pose as a starting point:
Lets first of all look at Matt 19:12, the words of Jesus:
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made so by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven."
Some try and interpret this as taking "eunuch" as one who chooses an unmarried life. That is not what the verse says. If you read it in Greek, it says the same thing as in English. A eunuch is a man a) born without testicles, or b) a man who has had them removed or at least made non-functional. Back in those days you had to cut them off. Today you can achieve the same result chemically, but the idea is the same. Jesus then adds,
"Let anyone accept this who can."
In short, if it is your cup of tea, it is okay with Jesus. Plain and simple.
It is interesting to note that the same word "eunuch" is used for the first non-Hebrew Christian in the Acts. Besides, there were already many words that could perfectly have described "virginity" and "celibacy" without reffering to eunuchs: "For there are virgins..", "For there are those free of adultery..", "For there are celibates..", "For there are non-married.." etc. Instead, a word that is clearly associated with eunuchs is used, and is translated into many languages with this same association. For instance, in Scandinavian versions the word "gilding" is used, ie. a gelding - a word that is always associated with castration, German - "Verschnittene" (ie. the one who is cut), etc. There are many passages in the bible that particularly describes virgins and celibates, with no reference to eunuchs. So there can be no doubt that eunuchs are the ones we are talking about here. In fact, this makes perfect sense:
1. Born eunuchs. Some people are born with conditions that result in hereditary hypogonadism (Kallman's, Klinefelter's).
2. Made eunuchs of men. This may concern those eunuchs initially castrated for worldly purposes, such as harem guards and goverment officials, but who eventually turned their condition to an advantage, in front of Christ, by baptizing and or/ converting to the Christian faith. Ex.: The first Christian Ethiopean eunuch, who served materialistic purposes but was saved in the Holy Spirit by baptism. Unlike many other personages in the scriptures, the eunuch accepted the Christian faith without a single objection.
3. Made eunuchs themsevles. This applies to those who undergo castration (usually with help of a surgeon) exclusively for spiritual purposes, ie. those already baptized.
A-1 (imported) wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:32 am
Now, Brandon86, we see that the scripture that you base your need for castration upon was stated by Jesus Christ to as an alternative to marrying after divorce and committing adultery. If one leaves their wife and divorces her for a reason other than adultery, then they should remain celebate according to Christ's teaching.
It seems like a highly unlikely explanation. How about this: "You pharisees are debating and digressing into such worldly things as marriage and sex, but I tell you: faithful eunuchs and virgins are fully worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Because such materialistic and inferior pleasures of this world eventually passes; but the Kingdom of Heaven never passes, and this should ultimately be the most important thing for any man".
Especially in view of:
Luke 29: "For the time will come when you will say, `Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!"
Rev.14: "and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth. These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes."
A-1 (imported) wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:32 am
This need is not generated by the Holy Spirit or by the Holy Ghost.
A-1: Since when do you know wich needs are generated by the Holy Ghost, and wich are not??
A-1 (imported) wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:32 am
You need to find a nice girl, get married, raise rug rats and attempt to live as God and Jesus Christ intended you to live.
This is the exact opposite of what Jesus teached. It is clear from the 4 gospels that marriage, sex and kids no longer were considered important. It had no meaning for eternal salvation, in fact, it was too often seen as directly detrimental to it. It is obvious that the 4 gospels have a very ascetic tone. That's exactly why Jesus rejected even the man who wanted to bury his parents first. Because for those to "whom it is given", to those who truly recieved the call, they should no longer be concerned with things like marriage, procreation, and earthly wealth. Paul, who seemed attempting to soften the "virginity/eunuch message" a bit, giving his permission to marry (out of "human weakness"), nevertheless stated that it would be better, for any men, to be like him and like Jesus (ie. unmarried celibate, possibly a virgin, or even a eunuch), and "never touch a woman". Of course, with time, various Church leaders (out of worldly greed?) became concerned about this sort of asceticism in fear of severily declining births and thereby influence of Christian followers, and especially in view of the willingness of the pagan Roman emperors to adopt the Christian doctrine in case certain "neccessary adjustments" were made (esp. concerning the family institution an banning of the Castration/Abstinence sects), - eventually may have corrupted some parts of this original message, for a mere "Kingdom of this World".
Besides, there does not seem to be any logical purpose to further procreation when, in fact, our world is already suffering from horrible overpopulation* , the consequences of wich have no end in sight (seems like sex and procreation is the direct cause of about 90% of all major threats facing humanity today..)
* (these are only introductory and in no particular order of importance)
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ences.html
http://www.nocompromise.org/features/4overpop.html
BTW, Why are the people, and I mean those who seem serious and reasonable about their decisions, opting for castration only always appear to be assaulted around these parts by certain individuals? I mean, had he been a young transsexual seeking castration, all he would recieve would be worshipping praise and encouragement. "Are you sure you WANT to be a female?", "Listen chap - "I am a woman" etc, what nonsense. What you really need is.. etc etc.".A young homosexual - great. A fetishist? OK! But noooo, MtE's are not gonna get away that easily, right??
A-1 A-1
