Who took your pants, son?

skeptoid's picture

Biden Sides With Anti-LGBTQ Extremist Groups

I can't speak for other religions, and maybe those folks can muster an argument from their faith for the law. There's a lot of historic analysis showing us gays were often referred to as eunuchs in ancient times. In the Gospel of Matthew Yeshua is asked about eunuchs and from his response it becomes clear he's referring broadly to non-sexual (monks, etc.) and male homosexuality, and this is what he said, "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." The law isn't just anti-gay - it's anti-Christian.

2.333335
Average: 2.3 (6 votes)

Comments

boldfart's picture

Religion messes it all up again.

+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

What is "it", how was it "fixed" and how does religion "mess it all up again"?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

Heheh,..  One minute you're down.. the next you're right back up again. 'sniff.  We're talking about religious schools here.  This is the separation of church and state we all want, people. Pick your battles please.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
jdt73's picture

Please cite the 'lot' of analaysis where gays are refered to as eunichs.

Im pretty sure a eunich is one who has no penis/testicles because they have been removed.

This was common for slaves who were house sevants, so they would not be able to screw the wife while hubby was at work. But maybe you're right, maybe the gays also has thier penis/balls removed to prevent them from geting up to no good also.

Looking foward to reading your sources.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

In ancient times, in the place where Christ lived, given the prevalence of homosexuality in Greece and the Mediterranean region in general, people were less concerned with male homosexual acts (there was a lot of inter-generational stuff going on) than they were in why some men would never show sexual interest in women. The traditions and rules surrouding marriage, which was arranged, were very important in terms of politics, family advancement, etc. A man who refused to marry a woman and have children was therefore a question to be addressed. These were generally called Eunuchs, and the penis-chopped variety was just a subset. I'm not going to expend my time drawing up a list of refererences for you - go to Google and get to work. Note the mission and bearing of the source sites you read. 

 

Or, just tell me what the ancient word was in Christ's time for gay man? 

 

Or, you can just reread the quote from Yeshua - how many men have you heard of that were born without a cock and balls?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

I've always chuckled when people casually toss around the idea that there was a prevalence of homosexuality in Greece and the Mediterranean. Given that the cause of homosexuality is understood today to be genetic/biological, there would have been no additional incidence; it's just that they considered themselves to be progressive and accepting of the portion of society that practiced it.  If you want to know how much Greeks love pussy, just remember that they negotiated when Christianity came along that priests should be allowed to marry and have families (as jewish rabbis do). The Romans went the other route. Lastly, I'd also like to point out that unlike in Roman Catholocism, any sexual scandals in the Greek-Orthodox church today involve real, adult, women.  Rant over.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I'm not saying that the Greeks didn't like pussy. I'm saying that there was a completely different kind of gay, as it was understood then, as opposed to how it's popularly understood today. Just as there was a completely different kind of person, as it was understood then, as oppposed to how it's popularly understood today. This is central to both Peterson and Weinstein's hypothesese about how much humans have actualy evolved over the past 2000 years as compared to the previous 10,000. 

 

I'm also saying that in the Bible Yeshua teaches to hellenistic Jews, and that in both canon and apochryphal Gospels of the New Testament the question of sexuality is clearly a distant irrelevancy in relation to Yeshua's Kingdom Gospel, and this is consistent with the very clear statement by the Messiah that he was not here to address the laws (i.e., doctrines, dogmas, local laws, roman law, Jewish law) of men. Not interested - irrelevant to His purpose, which was to tell about how people behave in the place where He came from, a place that is going to exist here come hell or high water.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

And I'm just saying let's remember that history is often written (re-written) by the victors. There are many nations that refer to adversaries as 'boy-buggering'.  One wonders what archeogosits of the future might think of us when presented with our historical record. Geez, imagine they make the mistake of considering contemporary cinema americana (HBO or YouTube videos, God help us) as being truly representative. As for the religious aspect of what you refer to above, I'd also add Jesus's comment confirming his disinterest in such things; i.e. render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.  (& also remember that he knew scripture well, and instead of coming in as the warrior/liberator some wanted, Jesus consciously rode into jerusalem, modestly, as a rabbi, atop a donkey).

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
jdt73's picture

As I thought you give no credibe source for you nice little story on eunichs.

A cursory Google of eunichs bought up THIS.

Check out what was said regarding eunichs in bible and noncasterated eunichs.

Like I said before, put up your sources, I am always willing to learn.

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
lawngnome's picture

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down