Jesus says...

"

JesusA (imported) wrote: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:59 pm I did not sufficiently follow the recent Utah case (nor save the newspaper articles so that I could check my memory), but as I recall, the state originally intervened in a case where parents of a 12 year-old boy with cancer had refused to allow chemotherapy and radiation treatment of his cancer for fear that it might cause sterility. After the court ordered treatment despite their faith-based refusal, they fled the state. A settlement was reached after the TWELVE YEAR-OLD, under pressure from his parents, convinced the state that he would rather take the risk of dying rather than the risk of being sterile. He and his family are back home and he will not receive treatment.

"

Now we are getting somewhere.

Let us look at the medical aspect of this case.

First of all, cancer at such an early age, barring teterogens, has to be the result of a genetic predisposition. Therefore the defect that is causing the misery will be passed on genetically to this young lad's progeny provided that he lives long enough to reproduce.

In other word, what right does he have to condemn a child to his fate? In addition, hopefully the defective gene is recessive, because if it is dominant then one of the parents will also surely die of cancer before they reach middle age.

The genetic thread of such cancers run back in families for generations. Insurance companies do profiles such as... are your parents alive? If not, what did your parents die from? Did you have any siblings that died at an early age? If so, what did they die from?

Then they rate your death insurance as to risk...

Bottom line, God gave man intellignece to suppliment faith. The story as described is one of people projecting their lives on their children and demanding the "faith" that condemns them to certain death.

However, the boy is not likely to make puberty anyway, and perhaps it does no good to delay the enevitable. I say, let the child refuse medical treatment. Let the parents choose. What right do we have to interfere in this matter as a society?

Death is coming to all. It is a matter of time. Therefore, spend your time wisely.

A-1

I don't know Greek or Aramaic, but I read somewhere, that the New Testament passage referring to individuals being "made eunuchs to the glory of God," may actually refer simply to accidental castration, in a manner similar to the way that storm damage is referred to as an "act of God." --If it happened by accident, it must be what an omnipotent deity wants. The meanings of words and phrases could vary substantially in ancient times, from one community to another one only a few miles away, since printing and other means of mass communication which tend to standardize language, did not exist. So translation of ancient texts is not an exact science.

Of course, it's indisputable that castration as a sacrifice to a god, was common in the ancient world, and my impression is that castration of hijras today, is associated with worship of the Hindu goddess Kali.

There seems to be a powerful association in the human mind between religion and sex--I guess sex is viewed as the wellspring of everything.

It is my opinion that the Biblical scripture about being made eunuchs to the glory of God refers to those who are celebate as a matter of faith. I do not believe that it has anything to do with the actual act of castration.

In Deuterotomy 23:1 it is stated...

"He who is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord"

As for those who are Eunuchs from the womb, that would be genetic defects that afected the sex chromosomes, as in Klinefelter's Syndrome or Turner's Syndrome.

Of course there were Eunuchs in Christ's time. ...And speaking of things genetic, I think that Christ was only half human. The other half was God. What if he could not reproduce with humans and was functionally sterile? That is not truly sterile, but not capable of causing conception in the normal manner because his genetic material could not cross the species barrier. In cruder terms, animals such as gorillas and chimpanzees cannot conceive with humans nor can the males conceive offspring in human females.

Onmipotent deities have better things to do thatn to manipulate the lives of trillions of people since time in the beginning. THey may interveine in things when requested, bet even that is few and far between. MIRACLES...

No, folks, we are on our own, and we have free will. If I know that you are, for example, going to have your next bowel movement in your bathroom that domes not mean that is the way that I have planned it. No, that just means that I have knowledge and understanding that your scat fetish is not going to get the best of you. It has nothing to do with free will, because you are free to ppo your pants if you should so desire. No, sex is fun but it is certainly not the only reason to live. It should not rule a life.

However, this is not about sex. It is about reproduction. Neither is as important as living. As I have mentioned, it may be best not to produce if you have certain genetic defects, such as Huntington's |Disease or some such disease that will cause a slow death.

Death is never pretty, it is never easy and it is certainly not going to get you a reward for experiencing it. Nevertheless, we must all do so at some time in the future, and so far for eac one who dies there will be children somewhere to carry on, hopefully where we left off, so that what we did in life mattered.

Those children who carry on the work of perpetuating humanity do not have to be ours.

I say that the boy will never reach reproductive age. Leave the family alone and let them experience life in the matter in which they choose to do so.

A-1

Jesus has challenged us to respond to the ethical dilemmas posed by the religious practices of a hypothetical church. While it seems I am never personally excited by religious practices, I have decided to address the ethical challenges presented. I will do so outside the context of the required separation of state and religion that seems to prevail over everything else in the US. I reside in a nation where the state and religion are largely separated and there is total freedom of religious practice, but where the state and religion also frequently intersect. Our monarch is also the head of a 'state' church (Anglican Church), although one whose 'believers' or members represent fewer than 5% of her subjects. The daily media is filled with questions about the ability of the current Crown prince to ever assume her duties as head of the state church, given his personal ethics. State support for religious education is supported in all but 1 province, the 1 in which I currently reside (BC). The ethical dilemmas posed can be addressed outside the 'separation' context.

Control over our own bodies is a personal ideal that's hardly ever realised. The health and well-being of the community usually takes precedence over that of the individual. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I just wish it prevailed on a more consistent and ethical basis. We should also note that practices are normative and differ substantially amongst cultures and nations. While suicide is now legal in Canada (at one time 1 could be prosecuted for trying and failing), it remains illegal to assist a fellow being in obtaining their death objective. As far as I know, only 2 European nations (The Netherlands & Switzerland) and 1 US state (Oregon) permit assistance for those seeking death by suicide - and then in the very narrow context of those in pain or extreme discomfort and terminally ill and then by licenced physicians. Coming to the subject at hand (voluntary castration), virtually every modern state grants us the right to be voluntarily castrated, the 1st ethical dilemma posed by Jesus. What they generally deny is assistance. Medical assistance for castration in many nations is denied by statute. In others, control over medical practices is granted by the state to medical authorities acting on behalf of the state. Assistance is thus available or not, depending on authorised practice or its enforcement. The assistance that seems to be available at the hands of a couple of physicians in Philadelphia is because the medical authorities choose not to intervene to curtail their apparent practise of 'castration on demand.' The same seems to be the case in Mexico and Thailand. Licencing authorities have also authorized medical practicioners to remove or alter the genitalia of M2F transgenered persons (as well as to remove the breasts of F2M transsexuals) following psychiatric evaluation. Other practicioners will likewise remove the genitalia - usually limited to testicle removal - of non-transsexual guys following psychiatric evaluation in accordance with accepted practise. The termination of male reproductive ability by vasectomy is more widely available, although of course only from licenced physicians.

Re. dilemma 2 - whom may supply genital modification services, many medical authorities just keep a watchful eye. However, services for castration and circumcision are almost always reserved for licenced medical practicioners even though many other practicioners may have the ability to undertake these relatively minor procedures. Piercing clinics are generally tolerated. Many undertake other genital modifications requiring some surgical knowledge(meatonomies, subincisions, scrotal splitting, etc.), and these seem to be tolerated by the medical authorities. Of course, most males obtaining the elective bilateral orchiectomy procedure, including myself, do so informally from 'cutters'.

The age of consent is perhaps the most challenging dilemma posed. As it happens, society frequently manages our free will by imposing age qualifications. We can drive a car or exercise our franchise at a certain age, but not one day before. And a man might be able to exercise a right to voluntary castration at a certain age, but not 1 day before. Age 18 is initially posed by Jesus. While I personally don't think many 18 year olds are capable of exercising good judgment in such matters, there's nothing ethically wrong with society nonetheless granting the right. Many 18 year olds are capable of making an informed decision. Alas, many younger guys are also capable of exercising good judgment. 17 y.o. guys in the US have the right to offer their lives in the service of their nation in Iraq. At what age minors gain control over their bodies is a matter left for societal or state discretion. The age of consent for sexual relations in Canada is 14 y.o. It's younger in many societies and older in others. Jesus refers to children being granted the right to determine their medical treatment at very young ages. There was a recent Canadian case in Saskatchewan where a 12 y.o. boy was granted the right to consume the questionable services of a Mexican clinic for treatment of his leukemia and not to undertake further chemo therapy. The provicial child welfare authorities had taken the matter to the courts and lost. He died a few months after he stopped the chemo treatments. I'm not capable of settling on the age at which we have control over our bodies. I'll only say that many guys not yet in their majority are quite capable of making an informed judgment to be voluntarily castrated.

As to non-voluntary castration by parents, I'd say never. Of course, I'm not a religious person.

I don’t know how I missed this one (http://www.bettybowers.com/newscastration.html), but it’s certainly right on topic for this thread. Make certain that you click on the link to the sermon as well.

Betty Bowers and Landover Baptist are spoofs. They are not serious sites, in case anyone was wondering.

Sometimes it is better to allow people to retain their faith…. (At least for a while.)

I know that there are a few who would have decided to try to visit them. The first time around with

JesusA (imported) wrote: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:06 pm The Evangelical Church of the Lambs of Christ,

I got two personal messages asking for the address of the church. Archive members who were ready to join the flock.