Last night I chose for my bedtime reading the latest issue of Free Inquiry (February/March 2008) with its exellent cover story “Science and the Islamic World: The Quest for Rapprochement” by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy (pp. 33–40). The story is reprinted from Physics Today and is an outstanding analysis of the changing place of scientific thinking in Islam over the centuries.

However, when I opened the issue, the first page I glanced at was the Letters page. The first letter, at the top of the page and with a large green title was

What Overpopulation Problem?

Tom Flynn’s op-ed “Beyond Ponzi Economics” (FI, December 2007/January 2008) describing his concerns about overpopulation is needlessly pessimistic. With so many Bible-believing Christians asserting the Bible to be the Word of God, all that needs to be done is to get Christians to act upon the wise, loving advice of their Lord and Savior.

Jesus said, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:34–36).

Jesus rebukes Christians of “this age” who marry and engage in the lustful act of sexual intercourse. These Christians are only concerned with earthy, short-term objectives. Only those Christians who abstain from such earthy, flesh-gratifying behavior are “worthy” of the age to come and the resurrection.

Lest anyone be tempted to backslide and change his mind, Jesus offered a more certain and permanent answer to the sex problem. He said, “There are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it” (Matthew 19:12).

The Center for Inquiry should assist America’s eighty million Bible-believing Christians desirous of proving their love of the kingdom of heaven and hoping to “attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead.” We can accomplish this heavenly task by providing “Eunuchs for Jesus” facilities throughout America. These facilities would provide counseling on male castration and female genital mutilation for Christians who truly love Jesus with all their hearts. Undoubtedly, these facilities will be overwhelmed with clients anxious to please God and assure their eternal destinies while at the same time helping to solve this pressing overpopulation problem. Praise the Lord!

–––Lee Salisbury

Stillwater, MN

Actually, I totally agree. It was for this very reason (at least at first) I contemplated castration in the first place. Heaven does place a high value on eunuchs and not the church's version of just abstaining from sex. It is just not the same thing as making this dramatic plunge into something non returnable of its former state of being able to reproduce and add to the overpopulation that will at some time down the road and do all of mankind in. The reference of the four horseman is exactly what happens when overpopulation takes place.

I just decided to take it a bit further than that even, and consider a little gender modification along with the genitals below the waist.

;)Praise God. Well said. I just looked that up, I have looked those up time to time and in perfect agreement. Blessings, Leona

No one really knows what Christ meant when he said what he did in Matthew 19:12, especially the last part about eunuchs who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. The most common theory is that he is talking about people who choose not to marry, probably because of the context these words were spoken in. So eunuch does not mean someone who literally cuts off his testicles, but instead is a symbol for someone who chooses not to marry.

I personally believe that just like almost everything else Christ said, there words probably have spiritual meaning rather than literal meaning. Given the context, marriage is probably the most likely meaning. But there could be additional meanings, and I don't know enough about any of this to be certain about anything.

I would imagine that much was lost in the translation...

...not to mention in the council of Nicea...

...but probably not as much as will be lost on the chopping blocks when the funDAMental manipulators start preaching this...this... stuff ...of course, the blessed ones will be there to comfort all of the women in the flock in their time of need and PRESTO! Immaculate (mis)-conceptions begin to occur as children are borne by born-again virgins. Without sex, or so the story goes... :-\

Jesus, what a sense of humor you have...

plix (imported) wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:48 pm No one really knows what Christ meant when he said what he did in Matthew 19:12, especially the last part about eunuchs who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. The most common theory is that he is talking about people who choose not to marry, probably because of the context these words were spoken in. So eunuch does not mean someone who literally cuts off his testicles, but instead is a symbol for someone who chooses not to marry.

Certainly many MODERN Christians wish to believe that Jesus’ words should be taken metaphorically and only “really” mean ‘chastity’ or ‘celibacy.’ However, theologians who struggle with the original languages and with the historical context within which the words were spoken may have different interpretations.

Here are a couple of long quotations from Dr. J. David Hester of the Interfakultäres Zentrum für Ethik in den Wissenschaften in Tübingen, Germany. They are from a manuscript titled Eunuchs and the Postgender Jesus: Matthew 19:12 and Transgressive Sexualities. I have a copy of it in typescript, prepublication. The page numbers refer to the manuscript which he sent to me, not to any published source.

+++++++

What must have been understood when the early Christians heard the call to become a “eunuch on account of the kingdom of heaven”?

The answer to this question is not nearly as difficult as one would imagine, because evidence is ready to hand in the writings of the church fathers of the second to fifth centuries. If Jesus’ logion sets “natural” and involuntary eunicism over against eunicism “on account of the kingdom”, the most “natural” reception of this text in the context of Mediterranean religious practices was that it was a reference to ritual castration.

As controversial as this interpretation may seem to modern interpreters and scholars of first-century Judaism, it was quite widespread among congregations of early Christianity in both the West and East. Indeed, contrary to what we have come to believe, Christian ritual castration was in fact performed for centuries. [emphasis added]

Practitioners were not limited to what we would now term “heterodox” or “gnostic” movements, but were also found within orthodoxy itself. Indeed, given the fluid and contested boundaries of the various Christian movements up to the 4th century, it should come as no surprise to learn that Christian ritual castration, though certainly understood as a special calling, found adherents in both orthodox and heterodox movements.

The great ascetic movements that blossomed in the 3rd century which practiced ritual castration laid the foundation for later monasticism and its advocacy of celibacy.

It was precisely due to its general presence that such great rhetorical lengths were eventually required to overcome the “natural” interpretation of this saying. Those who wished to condemn the practice it could not dismiss it, since it was the authenticity of the saying that secured its place: no one doubted Matthew’s authority, and no one doubted that Jesus called for his followers to become eunuchs. Instead, forced to confront it, those who would reject its call to castration had to contend with an extremely powerful, naturalized and self-evident reading that Jesus was calling his followers to perform ritual castration as a sign of religious devotion and commitment. [pp. 21–22]

+++++++

Advocates against Christian ritual castration had an uphill battle ahead of them. Against them stood not only a teaching whose authority and authenticity were considered unassailable, but also a widely practiced and ancient act of religious devotion.

Throughout Christian and European history there have been those who took and taught this statement literally: Valentinus (whose sect was centuries later declared heretical; mid-second century), Julius Cassianus (also declared heretical; also mid-second century), Basilides (also declared heretical; early-second century), Leontios of Antiochia (Bishop of Jerusalem; late-fourth century), Melito “the Eunuch” (ca. late-second century), Hilarion (mid-fourth century), Marcarius “the Egyptian (late 4th century) and Origen (also declared heretical; early-third century) are among the most famous of thousands that chose ritual castration. Several early Christian encratite and ascetic movements (centered mainly in Egypt) are known to have members among whom were numbered eunuchs.

The earliest report of the desire for castration among Christians comes from the second century writings of Justin. The cloisters of Egypt and Syria were centers of castration, and Coptic monasteries continued to perform castration well into the Islamic period. Indeed, the criminalization of eunuchs in the church at the Council of Nicea is testimony to the degree to which castration was practiced. While it is difficult to ascertain the role in which politics and the fear of the eunuch-dominated Roman bureaucracy played in this decision of the aristocratic bishops, it is nevertheless the case that eunuchs continued to maintain their influence over the court, playing an important role in the history of both the state and church (the most well known being the controversy over Arianism), maintaining a presence in both hierarchies for centuries. [pp. 24–25]

Personally, I'm all for it.

I can think of a few televangelists who could go first!

Thank you, Jesus (both of you)!

I read quite a bit of Origen's writings and thought that he had it right. This also explains the Skoptsy and other sects that practiced castration.

As for televangelists, I agree that they should be the first to practice this doctrine on themselves - live on the air, preferably.

I cannot remember the name of the cult, but there was at least one that existed at the time of Jesus Christ. It was in a relatively nearby city, like in Turkey or Greece. It's members practiced ritual castration. It was a goddess that these people worshiped. I believe the apostle Paul later traveled to this city. Since it was a practice in this cult at the time of Jesus it can be extrapolated that Jesus meant what we think. I do think we have to be careful in interpreting anything in the Bible literally, as the fundamentalist do. Because so much of it appears to be allegory (to me anyway,think Adam & Eve) Jesus repeatedly spoke in parables. Rather than take everything literally, change your thinking to what is the writer (God if you believe) hinting at, instead of what is meant literally. For me Suddenly there is a loving forgiving God instead of the God of Robinson, Falwell, et al. I would like to ask our Jesus if he can help me remember the name of the cult.

Phole (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:08 pm I cannot remember the name of the cult, but there was at least one that existed at the time of Jesus Christ. It was in a relatively nearby city, like in Turkey or Greece. It's members practiced ritual castration. It was a goddess that these people worshiped. I believe the apostle Paul later traveled to this city. Since it was a practice in this cult at the time of Jesus it can be extrapolated that Jesus meant what we think. I do think we have to be careful in interpreting anything in the Bible literally, as the fundamentalist do. Because so much of it appears to be allegory (to me anyway,think Adam & Eve) Jesus repeatedly spoke in parables. Rather than take everything literally, change your thinking to what is the writer (God if you believe) hinting at, instead of what is meant literally. For me Suddenly there is a loving forgiving God instead of the God of Robinson, Falwell, et al. I would like to ask our Jesus if he can help me remember the name of the cult.

The Cult of Cybele (I beleive) required members to amputate their genitals. At least those of the male members....

As for literal interpretation of a bad translation of an editted document containing multiple transcription errors... you get what you read into it.