Skip to main content

View Diary: Wrong: Jesus did speak about homosexuality (291 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I disagree that the "eunuch born such" (26+ / 0-)

    is necessarily homosexual. If by your definition, a eunuch is one who cannot produce offspring, then it's far more likely IMO that the "born eunuch" is a male who is infertile.

    I'm not sure I make the jump to homosexual.

    •  agreed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana

      It's tempting to interpret "born such" as "born that way" in the "we're here, we're queer" sense but i think it's more likely referring to intersexed people.

      All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

      by subtropolis on Sun May 13, 2012 at 10:56:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are you a student of Biblical languages? (9+ / 0-)

      If so, I would be interested in your competing analysis of the terms used in the NT and OT for "eunuch."

      I think the text of Matthew argues against "eunuch from birth" meaning biological infertility.

      http://mercytoall.net/...

      It is important to note and clarify that eunuchs and homosexuals are not synonymous terms.  However, in Matthew 19:11, Jesus indicates that whoever the eunuchs are, they are that way because of the gift of God given to them.  J. H. Thayer identifies them as being “(b) naturally incapacitated for marriage or begetting children.”  Sterility can certainly incapacitate a man from begetting children, but what can incapacitate one from marriage?

      See also http://www.facebook.com/...
      Jesus’ followers said to him, "If this is the issue between a husband and a wife, then it is better not to marry at all."
      With respect to the argument that "eunuch born such" means only congenital male infertility: "[B]etter not to marry at all" implies prior knowledge of a prospective husband's infertility. But unless the man had been previously married and sired no offspring, neither prospective spouse would have a clue that they should "not [] marry at all." Jesus' followers appear to me to be speaking of a condition(s) other than congenital infertility -- or asexuality, because a lack of interest in sex or the absence of sexual orientation would not in itself render a man incapable of reproducing OR successfully marrying. If I've done my subtraction correctly, that leaves homosexuality and transsexuality as "the issue between a husband and a wife."
      •  I would think asexuality would unfit someone for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rubyduby7

        marriage - how could they consummate it?

        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Sun May 13, 2012 at 11:57:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  could he have meant that if a man is infertile (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Satya1

        it's best just not to be married at all? Especially given the stigma attached to childless couples at  that time.

        Look, honestly, I just don't care what jesus or anybody else supposedly said about gay people. I think it's the height of arrogance for humans to try to discern what god wants when our only task (if you want to talk about what jesus said) is to love god and love each other.

        To me it smacks of the first sin: wanting to be like god. That is, know what he knows, control the world and sit in its judgement. That was Lucifer's problem and it got him kicked out of heaven. It was also adam and eve's problem: "you won;t die when you eat of the fruit...for He knows that your eyes will be opened and ye shall be like gods".

        Every fucking creature wants to be like god. We aren't. Our task is fucking simple: love. It doesn't matter what jesus said about gays or frankly anything else. we have no use to any of it. love is all we're supposed to do. the rest is up to the creator. it's time for those who consider themselves "people of faith" to actually exercise it.

        And I say this as someone who, frankly, doesn't even concretely know whether I even believe in god or not. And I have a ton of problems with microscopic examination of words and phrases in the bible. (and yes, I once studied this stuff pretty damned extensively. Do i have a degree in biblical languages? no. But i assure you that in an earlier time in my life, I did have many reference books and dictionaries to trace the original greek, hebrew and even aramaic words found in scripture and several other reference books to augment  those. I was at one time someone who could and often did get into the weeds studying a single bible verse. So yes, I think I qualify as a bit more than someone with just an opinion).

        But regardless, my task is the same. Love.

        I think that if you're trying to argue that jesus spoke of and accepted homosexuality, you really miss the boat and you will reach (or change) nobody with this message.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site