It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eunuchs who were born that way

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Homosexuality is a sin, and sins are committed by choice.

If you believe that Matt 19 is referring to both homosexuals and asexuals, then you're arguing against the text, because Jesus was saying that there are some who are born without the temptation to commit adultery, and the text is about adultery after marriage. Bothe homosexuals and heterosexuals can commit adultery, but not asexuals.

So, you have two options based on the text. Either you admit that you are wrong, that born eunuchs are not homosexuals, or you continue with your politically correct crusade in an attempt to fabricate your own personal truth.

Believe what you will about the veracity of Jesus' words, but He made Himself clear in Matt 19.




posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest




Homosexuality is a sin, and sins are committed by choice.


There it is! If homosexuality is a sin, because the Bible says so, and all sins are committed by choice, then, ipso fatso, homosexuality...i.e. sexual orientation... is a choice!

I know that there's a term for this kind of Aristotelian logic, but it escapes me at the moment.


edit on 20-6-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

If sin is a choice then Christians choose to sin every day. Good trees do not bear bad fruit, bad trees do not bear good fruit. Bad trees are uprooted and thrown into the fire. If sin is a choice and Christians sin every day then they are bad trees because they do not bear good fruit. Remember, good trees DO NOT bear bad fruit, only good fruit.

John tells us those that sin are children of the devil, so if sin is a choice then Christians choose to be children of the devil. If you are a slave to sin then you have no permanent place in the family, so if you choose to sin you never had a place in the family to begin with.

Gay people do not choose to be attracted to the same gender, that's just the way they are by their nature, just as asexuals are non-sexual by their nature, just as heteros are attracted to the opposite gender by their nature. You cannot say asexuals are born that way and homosexuals aren't, that just doesn't make any logical sense. If sexual preference is a choice then we were ALL born asexual until we made the choice to like who we like. That would mean Jesus' statement was false because EVERYONE is born without sexual desire (and that is true to an extent anyways), not just "some".
edit on 6/20/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

If sin is a choice then Christians choose to sin every day. Good trees do not bear bad fruit, bad trees do not bear good fruit. Bad trees are uprooted and thrown into the fire. If sin is a choice and Christians sin every day then they are bad trees because they do not bear good fruit. Remember, good trees DO NOT bear bad fruit, only good fruit.

John tells us those that sin are children of the devil, so if sin is a choice then Christians choose to be children of the devil. If you are a slave to sin then you have no permanent place in the family, so if you choose to sin you never had a place in the family to begin with.

Gay people do not choose to be attracted to the same gender, that's just the way they are by their nature, just as asexuals are non-sexual by their nature, just as heteros are attracted to the opposite gender by their nature. You cannot say asexuals are born that way and homosexuals aren't, that just doesn't make any logical sense. If sexual preference is a choice then we were ALL born asexual until we made the choice to like who we like. That would mean Jesus' statement was false because EVERYONE is born without sexual desire (and that is true to an extent anyways), not just "some".


See, all of what you just said was an attempt to justify and impose your personal opinion onto what Jesus said in Matt 19. Asexuals are impervious to sexual temptation. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are not. Matt 19 has nothing to do with being gay. That is a debate that you crafted to change Jesus' message.

All humans are bad trees who produce bad fruit. The difference between believers and non-believers is that we chose to accept the Blood of Christ as the covering for our sins. Through Jesus' I am a good tree with good fruit.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

No, you're not a good tree, you just said so yourself. If you produce bad fruit (sin) you are a bad tree, just as Jesus says. You're not disagreeing with Jesus are you? Your theology isn't supported by Jesus' words.

"Everyone is a bad tree.... I am a good tree..." Does. Not. Compute. *head explodes*

Like I said, if sexual preference is a choice then we were all born asexual, not just some as Jesus implies. If asexuals are born that way but homos/heteros are not then God didn't give asexuals a choice. Free-will? Not so much when it comes to those born asexual.

Your logic has some pretty big gaping holes in it.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You'd make a hell of a defense attorney. I'm sure you could defend the entire mafia if you tried.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I'm not lying, only pointing out the obvious flaws in your logic and theology. Defense attorneys are paid to lie, I'm not lying.

Like I said, if asexuals are born that way and heteros/homos aren't, God gave them the short end of the stick when it comes to choice.

Bad trees bear bad fruit, so how can you (who produces sin/bad fruit) be considered a good tree?
edit on 6/20/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Perhaps I can shed some light on our OP's theory here...

Consider, in a male dominated society... someone who is born a eunuch would never be able to get into heaven or go to temple to perform his religious duty...

one must be whole, and undamaged in that particular area in order to attain said position in the afterlife or to simply go to the temple... refer to Deut 23:1 for a reference...

Now the question is, would God allow someone to be born into his "chosen race" that has no way of entering heaven or the temple?

The simple answer is no of course...

In his discourse about eunuchs... I believe he was referring to people who will never be with a woman, and thus never procreate...

IF he was just referring to people who chose to be celebate, ask yourself if Paul considered himself a Eunuch

Of course he did not, Thus the only answer is a man that is not attracted to women

Gay people...




posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

We've already discussed atonement. Those who are born again are justified and spotless through faith in Christ.

God didn't give sexually active believers "the short end of the stick". All believers are tested in different ways. A eunuch may have the upper hand in some tests where sexual believers don't.

When is the last time you admitted to being wrong in an ATS discussion?



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I was saying asexuals were given the short end of the stick because they were never given a choice of what sex they were attracted to as homos/heteros were.

So according to you, you accepting the blood of Jesus means you are now a good tree, yet you still bear bad fruit which nullifies everything Jesus said about good trees and bad trees. In your case, you are a good tree who produces bad fruit (sin), whereas Jesus says good trees DO NOT bear bad fruit.

Sooner than you have I'm sure. Check my mass extinction thread, you'll find one in there. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, I just know you are wrong in this case.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




In his discourse about eunuchs... I believe he was referring to people who will never be with a woman, and thus never procreate...

IF he was just referring to people who chose to be celebate, ask yourself if Paul considered himself a Eunuch


And.....we must ask ourselves if Jesus considered himself to be a Eunuch.......


Revelation 14
…3And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. 4These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. 5And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.


I was always taught that these 144, 000 virgins are considered the same as Eunichs. Eunuchs/virgins...don't have sex, hetero or homo.


edit on 20-6-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Good point... I still have trouble believing Jesus had no wife or children, but that is another topic...

What's interesting in this passage is that Jesus says specifically this is a hard thing to take

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

and

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it

Now obviously everyone in the world knows that there are people born with deformities... even back then, so why would this saying be so hard to swallow?

It is because he is referring to a people who have been slaughtered for just being what they are... for what they were born as...

THAT is why it is a hard thing to swallow, even to this day




posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I've never seen you admit to being wrong in a theological thread, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. My first was in my first thread about the creation of the moon.

Jesus paid for sins, past, present, and future, so there are no sins that I can commit that have not been paid for. Anyways, my good fruit come from the Holy Spirit indwelling me, not from my own nature. The works of my own nature will be burned away at the bema seat judgement.

Like I said, eunuchs may excel where others will not. God didn't bless me with a good singing voice. Does that mean I got the short end?



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

It seems like those of the Abrahamic faiths are the only ones who find certain things about sexuality to be hard to accept. I have no problem believing people are born asexual/hetero/homo. The ONLY one of those three that some people have a hard time accepting is that people are born gay, and those people are usually believers in the Abrahamic God.

Homosexuality has to be what he's talking about, it's the only one that some find hard to accept.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yet the Holy Spirit cannot prevent you from sinning. Can the Holy Spirit be in the presence of sin? Anyways, the fact still stands that good trees cannot bear bad fruit, yet you (a good tree) bear bad fruit every single day by choice. What Jesus said about good trees not being able to bear bad fruit is not true and he was lying according to your theology.
edit on 6/20/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




He that is able to receive it, let him receive it

Now obviously everyone in the world knows that there are people born with deformities... even back then, so why would this saying be so hard to swallow?

It is because he is referring to a people who have been slaughtered for just being what they are... for what they were born as...

THAT is why it is a hard thing to swallow, even to this day


Ultimately, it's all about self denial. Culturally, one had to deny any homosexual urges to be a part of normal society in ancient Israel.

People who shunned their sexual desire, whether hetero or homo, were horrified by the idea of sex. Some of them, people who abhorred the idea of having sex, because they HAD TO procreate would have sex through a hole in the sheet so that didn't have to come into contact with any more flesh than was absolutely necessary!

Then there were those who even shunned their duty to procreate and joined brotherhoods, like the Essene, and later the monks. Christian Father Origen, although he fathered a son, was so disgusted by his urges that he had himself castrated!

It's all about self denial and quite frankly, self hatred.

Good old fashioned Pagan sex sounds so much healthier in comparison!



edit on 20-6-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

A good portion of Christianity is based around self hatred even now... Deep seeded guilt towards all things the bible deems sinful, once said person happens upon their "urges"

Even recently I've learned that Christianity turns people into Pharisee's... Do what I say, not what I do...

Not all of them of course... but the majority

I even tried to return to Christianity recently, and was met with the same crap that drove me away in the first place... with unfortunate dire consequences to my life and well being




posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Sin is in the flesh, the Holy Spirit permanently indwells the human spirit of the believer, but it is only when the believer confesses their sins to God (1 John 1:9) that the Holy Spirit can be allowed to work.

Christ is in union with the believer too, so through Him and because of His work, we are good trees too with the fruit of the spirit as proof.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm pointing out that the Catholic Church tried the Eunuch route with their priests. It didn't work.

And eunuchs are not homosexuals, never have been. And according to the current version of the homosexual lobby, you cannot be made gay by men. So that shoots a whole in your argument.

Eunuchs are castrates in one way or another.



I agree. I think those born eunuchs are men born with a birth defect.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




I even tried to return to Christianity recently, and was met with the same crap that drove me away in the first place... with unfortunate dire consequences to my life and well being



I'm sorry to hear that. I know how hard you to tried to pass the Olive Branch. Did that sweet thing of a young Christian girl break your heart and reject you as an "anti-Christ"?




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join