Eunuchs who were born that way

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

That's what the RCC advocates with their priests. Like you said, we see how that turned out.

No one said it was easy.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So what does he mean by someone being born a eunuch in the context of adultery? How do the two fit together? Someone "born that way", what way? To not marry? That is not a condition that someone is born as.

a reply to: ketsuko

Jesus said his yoke was easy and burden light. If celibacy is not easy, it cannot be of Jesus, including for someone who is born gay.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yet God tells us to be fruitful and multiply. Why would God make them asexual if he wants us to multiply? If he's ok with someone being asexual and even makes them that way then why would he not be ok with someone being born homosexual or not make them that way? Asexuality is natural but homosexuality isn't? Both come with the same consequence, no children.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

There are people who are born without sexual desire. Its rare, but it does happen.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

And some are born with sexual desire for the same gender. It's rare but it does happen.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yet God tells us to be fruitful and multiply. Why would God make them asexual if he wants us to multiply? If he's ok with someone being asexual and even makes them that way then why would he not be ok with someone being born homosexual or not make them that way? Asexuality is natural but homosexuality isn't? Both come with the same consequence, no children.

The two times God told humans to be fruitful and multipy were times that we were an endangered species.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Thats a different debate, and your argument is not biblically founded.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

Jesus said his yoke was easy and burden light. If celibacy is not easy, it cannot be of Jesus, including for someone who is born gay.

Jesus is talking about the Father being revealed in the son. He is talking about the burden of learning of God in that quote.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So why would he have a problem with no children now that we are destroying the planet through over consumption as the product of over population? If more people were born gay then the population would go down and thus less consumption. Less consumption means less demand, less demand means less destruction of the planet.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yet you say he taught homosexuals to be celibate. If that was an aspect of his teaching in order to come to know God (for gay people), he is putting a heavy burden on them, because as you say, celibacy isn't easy.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

No it's not, it's precisely on topic. Just as some are born asexual, there are those who are born homosexual. That's the exact topic we're on.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why does this have to be about homosexuality? Why can't you just accept the bible for what it is? You don't have to believe it, but dont fabricate nonsense to justify your opinion.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

Yet you say he taught homosexuals to be celibate. If that was an aspect of his teaching in order to come to know God (for gay people), he is putting a heavy burden on them, because as you say, celibacy isn't easy.

Why single out homosexuals?

Frankly, he taught that we should all be celibate unless we get married.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So you agree that people are born asexual but not homosexual? How is one any more natural than the other? Neither are viable to the continuation of the species.

And I do accept the bible for what it is, the only thing is I see it as something different than you. That's a common theme with a lot of people when talking about the bible.

a reply to: ketsuko

Celibacy is not just refraining from sex, it's also refraining from marrying in order to refrain from sex as well. You can't be celibate if you marry, if God encourages us to marry then he encourages us not to be celibate as well.

And didn't you just say that the RCC encouraging celibacy among its priests didn't work out so well? Why is it good in one instance but bad in another?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Oh, pardon. The result is the same. You are not having sex.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If you accepted the bible for what it said, you would not be trying to redefine eunuch with homosexual.

The BIBLE teaches that we are a fallen race, therefore based on what the BIBLE teaches, some humans are born with deformities and disfuntions.

Homosexuality is not a birth defect, it is a choice influenced by temptation. The more you feed temptation, the harder it is to resist it. That is the biblical perspective.

Now, do you agree that within the full context of Matt 19, that a eunuch is a person who is born sexually dead, not homosexual???

a reply to: ketsuko

So God encourages us to be celibate and it's ok, but when the RCC encourages it is is a bad thing. It turns out great when God advocates it but not when the RCC does. Gotcha.

If you are being celibate you are trying not to marry. You cannot be celibate when you are actively searching out a mate to have sex with. If you decide to search out someone to marry, you are no longer celibate.

Like I said, if God advocates us finding a partner, he is advocating non-celibacy.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Why is homosexuality a choice but asexuality not? Neither are viable to the continuation of the species. You're side-stepping the issue here.

And to answer your question, I believe it could be referring to both.