random postings and rants by a crazy opinionated family
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Matthew 19: 11-12
Eunuchs who are born eunuchs.
Some scholars agree that this refers to homosexual men (as the event of a man born without testicles is too rare for Jesus to have mentioned). Your thoughts?
But I think given the historic nature of homosexuality, and how it has always been guarded and hidden, with exceptions of certain cultures (i.e. Rome and Greece during certain periods of time) and then later through our cultural changes in the last century, it might just be Eunuchs that were in fact Eunuchs.
I think the Bible, again based in the historical context, especially of its translation, would not have references to homosexuality. Instead, such references or knowledge might be omitted rather than hidden in text.
thinking I'm with Nate on this. in those times, i think they kept it hidden. Eunuchs were eunuchs. and if they weren't born genderless, they were made to be that way.
unfortunately bryan the entire bible has ommitted the most basic teachings of Jesus, the gospel of thomas
look up the gospel of thomas and the teachings of the gnostics.
ommitted because of heresy! strikingly familiar to tenets of buddhism, these writings renewed my faith in Jesus as a teacher...
In the gnostic teachings the path to God is to find your true self. Therefore to not deny who you really are Bryan.
"to embrace the Gay lifestyle is not some unfortunate concession to irresistible sexual urges but an example of the pain and sacrifice that the seeker of the true self must be willing to endure. That natural, organic and conventional restraints must be set aside is time worn Gnostic nostrum. From the point of view of this contemporary Gnosticism, if the church does not validate such a noble quest for enlightenment then it invalidates itself and shows that is no help in the only spiritual struggle that counts, the struggle to be the “real me.”
6 comments:
maybe just maybe they were actually Eunuchs.
But the event of a man being born a eunuch is...1:5,345,88. Really?
I think the term "eunuch" was a loose term to identify homosexuals at the time, or men who just were not interested in women.
But I think given the historic nature of homosexuality, and how it has always been guarded and hidden, with exceptions of certain cultures (i.e. Rome and Greece during certain periods of time) and then later through our cultural changes in the last century, it might just be Eunuchs that were in fact Eunuchs.
I think the Bible, again based in the historical context, especially of its translation, would not have references to homosexuality. Instead, such references or knowledge might be omitted rather than hidden in text.
thinking I'm with Nate on this. in those times, i think they kept it hidden. Eunuchs were eunuchs. and if they weren't born genderless, they were made to be that way.
Actually, Nate just officially killed whatever faith I had in the Christian church.
To think that Christians may have altered the words of their christ....scary.
Wow. Mind warp.
unfortunately bryan the entire bible has ommitted the most basic teachings of Jesus, the gospel of thomas
look up the gospel of thomas and the teachings of the gnostics.
ommitted because of heresy! strikingly familiar to tenets of buddhism, these writings renewed my faith in Jesus as a teacher...
In the gnostic teachings the path to God is to find your true self. Therefore to not deny who you really are Bryan.
"to embrace the Gay lifestyle is not some unfortunate concession to irresistible sexual urges but an example of the pain and sacrifice that the seeker of the true self must be willing to endure. That natural, organic and conventional restraints must be set aside is time worn Gnostic nostrum. From the point of view of this contemporary Gnosticism, if the church does not validate such a noble quest for enlightenment then it invalidates itself and shows that is no help in the only spiritual struggle that counts, the struggle to be the “real me.”
Post a Comment