Matthew 19:12 - "Eunuches from the womb"?

[handy]

Felix... from the site that you linked...

When used on men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal.

There is a big difference between can reduce and always eliminates...

Again from the website that you linked to:

In 1981, in an experiment by P. Gagne, 48 males with long standing histories of sexually deviant behaviour were given medroxyprogesterone acetate for as long as 12 months. Forty of those subjects were recorded as to have diminished desires for deviant sexual behaviour, less frequent sexual fantasies, and greater control over sexual urges. The research recorded a continuation of this more positive behaviour after the administration of the drug had ended, with no evidence of adverse side effects, and recommended medroxyprogesterone acetate along with counselling as a successful method of treatment for serial sex offenders.[11]

So out of 48 males, 8 males did not experience diminished desires, less frequent sexual fantasies and did not gain greater control over sexual urges.

Of the 40 who did experience a positive benefit, we must note that the desire was diminished, not eliminated... sexual fantasies were less frequent, not non-existent, they gained control over sexual urges, not have those urges completely disappear.

Thanks for sharing the link... it has proven my point that loss of testosterone does not eliminate all sexual urges making it impossible for a eunuch to have sexual desires. :nod

Most eunuchs simply had their testes either removed or damaged... pretty much the same thing we do with our steers... And, the process with a young bull, which involves either cutting the testes out or putting a rubber band around the testes until they simply stop growing and become nonfunctional, does NOT elimanate sexual behavior in the animal... I've seen many of our steers sniff the cows, become excited in the presence of a cow in heat, even mount the cow... They also show all the other "intimate" behaviors of cattle that don't involve procreation... nuzzling, licking, rubbing necks... Damaged testes does not remove all sexual urges, nor does it remove the even more basic urge of all social animals, man included to not "be alone"... Even with damaged or completely removed testes, the desire for sex and intimacy is still present...

Which is exactly the testimony of the women of the harem... Most were isolated to the harem for the rest of their lives, never to see any man except their husband and the eunuchs... With the large harems, many of the wives and concubines wouldn't even see their husband past their wedding night, except for one or two times... In that culture, wives were basically slaves, having 100's of wives wasn't for the sultan to be sexually involved with them... they were simply a show of his wealth and power. As with all humans, the sultan would have his "favorites"... and the mother of his first born generally held a special status... However, wife number 284 or 407 could figure once she entered the harem to experience sex once with her husband and possibly never see another man again for the rest of her life. Except the eunuchs. This led to rampant lesbianism within the harem and a lot of intimate contact between the eunuchs and the women... It makes perfect sense... the human need for companionship and intimacy is exactly why God created woman in the first place. No one, even a eunuch, finds it good to be alone. The eunuchs and women developed intimate relationships, some of them lasting years and years. Adulterous on the part of the wives and risky... death was the punishment if caught... but it did happen whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

You were on a far better track when you stated, "Because, sexual temptations CANNOT be overcome EXCEPT through the Holy Spirit."

This is where the Christian should look for the controlling of sexual urges, especially one called to life-long service for the Lord in a manner which would preclude a husband from being a real husband to his wife... A husband's duty is to provide for his wife and children, to be the leader in his home, and to fulfill his wife's physical desires... Something a man who spends his life traveling throughout the world, rarely if ever coming to his "home"... can do. Sometimes the family can accompany the evangelist or missionary... but not always... Especially back in the time when being an evangelist or an apostle was apt to get one thrown in prison, or killed out right.

So, it is very sensible that some men (and some women for that matter) will heed the call of God to never marry, to live the life of a eunuch, one whose entire existence, even the physical, is devoted to the Master. Such a one will have sexual temptations, and as you yourself stated,"sexual temptations CANNOT be overcome EXCEPT through the Holy Spirit."

Through the Holy Spirit, a eunuch for the Lord can certainly overcome not only sexual temptations... but also the overwhelming need for intimate companionship, for having a soul-mate, a person with whom one can be fully "one" with...

The Holy Spirit is present with any born-again Christian... so there is no need for any man to mutilate himself in such a manner. To do so would be to deny the Spirit's faithfulness to bring us through temptation and it really wouldn't have the effect that was hoped for... things might be diminished, but not eliminated.

Unless someone has specific questions to ask me that I haven't already addressed or brings forth a new point of view that hasn't already been discussed at length, this will be my last post on this thread as well. It's been an interesting discussion... but now it's simply getting repetitive and now that it's crystal clear that no one is open to changing their mind regarding this issue...myself included... there's really no point to keep going on about it.

 

[felix]

handy, you didn't read completely about the link I provided. When someone becomes a eunuch, the absence of sex organs will stop testosterone supply. However, their blood will have the already produced testosterone in it which will give sexual urges and will diminish completely over time. It is like a factory where the supplier has cut his supply. Just because the supplier had cut the supply doesn't mean the factory immediately closes but will continue until the stock exist. Likewise, the sexual urges will exist for a short period after the actual castration until their testosterone is completely removed. Also, Matthew 19:12 is not about chemical castration but just gave example of current usage.

 

[precepts]

Again I ask, how is something done unconsciously sin? Looking upon a woman is a conscious act, dreaming is not.

So you're saying you could have erotic dreams and serve the bread of God without any convictions?

Can you provide any Scripture texts whatsoever that backs up the idea that something done while completely unconscious is counted as sin and needs forgiveness....

You didn't answer the question, is it saintly to have wet dreams?

Which is also an answer right there... if anyone feels convicted after an erotic dream (women get them do, and do have physical reactions during sleep; there just isn't a lot of evidence left upon awakening)... ask for forgiveness...

You just said there was no sin committed, so why ask for forgiveness?

I don't see how this is really germaine to the issue... unless you are in agreement with Felix that anyone who cannot marry (not that Felix has specified who cannot marry) and desires to serve God should multilate themselves.

I know that some are thinking of Christ's word about "If your eye offends thee, pluck it out, if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off..." taking that literally as well and extrapolating that thought to this issue.

As our class clown asks... "How many one-eyed, left handed sopranos are on the church baseball team..."

Felix, precepts... has your eye ever caused you to stumble... ever? Did you pluck it out, or just ask forgiveness and repent?

That's a tall drink of water.

 

[felix]

If somebody has already brought this up forgive me (I've pretty much lost track of this long thread, lol), but how is Jesus' teaching according to how you teach it not a prohibition against marriage?

Because, it is not given to all but only to eunuchs. Only eunuchs can't marry but normal single men can.

If Jesus teaches men to be single and not marry for sake of Kingdom of heaven, then it contradicts 1Tim 4:1-3 and Gen 2:18. However, if Jesus teaches about people who made themselves eunuch for the sake of kingdom of heaven, then they "can't marry" and will not have any sexual desire. Since, they don't have any sexual desire, they can be alone without a partner which does not contradict Gen 2:18. Since eunuchs can't marry, it doesn't contract 1Tim 4:1-3 too.

Jesus was speaking about stopping temptations within heart by becoming a eunuch not burning with temptations as unmarried.

 

[felix]

Unless someone has specific questions to ask me that I haven't already addressed or brings forth a new point of view that hasn't already been discussed at length, this will be my last post on this thread as well. It's been an interesting discussion... but now it's simply getting repetitive and now that it's crystal clear that no one is open to changing their mind regarding this issue...myself included... there's really no point to keep going on about it.

I think it's time for me too to retire from this thread.

 

[handy]

Felix... you still seem to be ignoring the fact that castrated men still do have sex drives...diminished, and perhaps in some completely eliminated, but not in all by any means. At least you should be able to admit that a diminished sex drive is still a sex drive.

... this isn't just a matter of "time" either...

Here is a case for you:

Wayne DuMond was a man who had been charged with several previous sex offenses when he raped a 17 year old girl. After his arrest, but before his trial was either attacked by several men or self inflicted his wound, but wound up castrated. While there was a certain amount of doubt that the castration was due to an assault or self-inflicted, there is no doubt whatsoever of the totality of the castration... he won a suit against the county sheriff who publicly displayed his severed parts then flushed them down the toilet...

There was a lot of political wrangling regarding this man... the girl he raped was a relation of President Clinton and for some reason he became the darling of right-wing political activists who work hard to gain him clemency...

Which they eventually achieved. DuMond walked out of prison a free man in October of 1999, years after the rape of the young girl and after his castration...

On June 22, 2001, DuMond was arrested and charged with the September 20, 2000, rape and murder of Carol Sue Shields.DuMond was convicted in the summer of 2003.

He was castrated in 1985... he raped one woman in 2001 and was about to be charged with the rape and murder of yet another woman in 2001 when he was found dead in his jail cell.

1985 to 2001, 16 years... 16 years after the complete removal of his testicles...and still capable of rape.

Google Wayne DuMond for if you doubt me or desire more details. It was a fairly big case here in America... not only because hey, a castrated man went on to rape women, but also because noted American politicians like Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee were connected to the case.

Part of the reason why this is scientifically possible is because although most testosterone is formed in the testicles, some is formed in the adrenal glands and this small amount can be enough to enable an erection.

Slate Magazine cites one study from the 1960s of about 1,000 German sex offenders who had been castrated, 65 percent men immediately felt their libido plummet, but 18 percent were able to have sex 20 years later.

Felix, the oft repeated claim that it's impossible for castrated men to still have a sex drive is simply wrong.... I wish you could just admit it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Because, it is not given to all but only to eunuchs. Only eunuchs can't marry but normal single men can.

If Jesus teaches men to be single and not marry for sake of Kingdom of heaven, then it contradicts 1Tim 4:1-3 and Gen 2:18. However, if Jesus teaches about people who made themselves eunuch for the sake of kingdom of heaven...

Stop right there. What is the difference between a man choosing not to marry, and (supposedly) violating the principle to not prohibit marriage, and having your nuts cut off so that you can't marry? None. You've been caught in your own duplicity...saying it's unscriptural to not marry, but then turn right around and say Jesus is teaching us that we can bypass the scriptural teaching to not forbid marriage by mutilating ourselves sexually. That's absurd.

...then they "can't marry" and will not have any sexual desire. Since, they don't have any sexual desire, they can be alone without a partner which does not contradict Gen 2:18. Since eunuchs can't marry, it doesn't contract 1Tim 4:1-3 too.

Sorry, but that is an extremely unreasonable argument. You're saying that if you destroy your sex organs it is now not a sin to embrace a doctrine of demons that prohibits marriage. Why isn't getting castrated how one fulfills the doctrine of demons that prohibits marriage???? You're being completely unreasonable.

Jesus was speaking about stopping temptations within heart by becoming a eunuch not burning with temptations as unmarried.

He is talking about stopping DIVORCE by staying in a marriage instead of seeking fulfillment in another (adulterous) relationship. That is the spiritual message of the passage. The passage is about DIVORCE. And choosing to stay married for the sake of the kingdom instead of chasing fulfillment elsewhere. You have missed that message completely.

It's like Jesus' teaching about being born twice. Nicodemus had no spiritual capacity to understand it. He was only able to understand it literally and couldn't see the spiritual non-literal truth of what he was talking about.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Felix, it's very clear that castration doesn't do what you think it does, and castration, as you're arguing it, is tantamount to prohibiting marriage--a doctrine of demons (as you understand it). Your argument loses all the way around on this one.

 

[felix]

Felix... you still seem to be ignoring the fact that castrated men still do have sex drives...diminished, and perhaps in some completely eliminated, but not in all by any means. At least you should be able to admit that a diminished sex drive is still a sex drive.

... this isn't just a matter of "time" either...

Here is a case for you:

Wayne DuMond was a man who had been charged with several previous sex offenses when he raped a 17 year old girl. After his arrest, but before his trial was either attacked by several men or self inflicted his wound, but wound up castrated. While there was a certain amount of doubt that the castration was due to an assault or self-inflicted, there is no doubt whatsoever of the totality of the castration... he won a suit against the county sheriff who publicly displayed his severed parts then flushed them down the toilet...

There was a lot of political wrangling regarding this man... the girl he raped was a relation of President Clinton and for some reason he became the darling of right-wing political activists who work hard to gain him clemency...

Which they eventually achieved. DuMond walked out of prison a free man in October of 1999, years after the rape of the young girl and after his castration...

On June 22, 2001, DuMond was arrested and charged with the September 20, 2000, rape and murder of Carol Sue Shields.DuMond was convicted in the summer of 2003.

He was castrated in 1985... he raped one woman in 2001 and was about to be charged with the rape and murder of yet another woman in 2001 when he was found dead in his jail cell.

1985 to 2001, 16 years... 16 years after the complete removal of his testicles...and still capable of rape.

Google Wayne DuMond for if you doubt me or desire more details. It was a fairly big case here in America... not only because hey, a castrated man went on to rape women, but also because noted American politicians like Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee were connected to the case.

Part of the reason why this is scientifically possible is because although most testosterone is formed in the testicles, some is formed in the adrenal glands and this small amount can be enough to enable an erection.

Slate Magazine cites one study from the 1960s of about 1,000 German sex offenders who had been castrated, 65 percent men immediately felt their libido plummet, but 18 percent were able to have sex 20 years later.

Felix, the oft repeated claim that it's impossible for castrated men to still have a sex drive is simply wrong.... I wish you could just admit it.

You are speaking of modern day events. In the 20th century, we have tons of testosterone boosters and supplements which increases sex desires instantly, easily available through a pharmacy.

There is a scientific explanation for why eunuchs cannot have the sexual desire compared to normal males as they lack testosterone. The sexual desire drops very drastically and will never recover for their body does not produce the required hormones. Also, not all who rape do it for sexual pleasure as some do it for their mind is sadistic and murderous.

In men, the contribution of testosterone derived from the adrenal glands pales to insignificance in comparison to the normal output of testosterone from the testicles. Either over-secretion or under-secretion of adrenal androgens usually does not have any noticeable consequences in men.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/222621-adrenal-glands-testosterone/

 

[felix]

Felix, it's very clear that castration doesn't do what you think it does, and castration, as you're arguing it, is tantamount to prohibiting marriage--a doctrine of demons (as you understand it). Your argument loses all the way around on this one.

The statement Christ said is in response for what disciples told about "not marrying to avoid adultery". It is about losing the sexual and sinful lust that comes from within the heart for the sake of Kingdom of Heaven.

Christ is not forbidding marriage neither did the disciples lived an unmarried life nor became eunuchs. It is given only to those who are able to accept it. It is not even a teaching of Christ but if you look carefully, he was just mentioning about a few people who even go to extreme of becoming an eunuch themselves for the sake of kingdom of heaven.

 

[felix]

Stop right there. What is the difference between a man choosing not to marry, and (supposedly) violating the principle to not prohibit marriage, and having your nuts cut off so that you can't marry? None. You've been caught in your own duplicity...saying it's unscriptural to not marry, but then turn right around and say Jesus is teaching us that we can bypass the scriptural teaching to not forbid marriage by mutilating ourselves sexually. That's absurd.



Sorry, but that is an extremely unreasonable argument. You're saying that if you destroy your sex organs it is now not a sin to embrace a doctrine of demons that prohibits marriage. Why isn't getting castrated how one fulfills the doctrine of demons that prohibits marriage???? You're being completely unreasonable.




He is talking about stopping DIVORCE by staying in a marriage instead of seeking fulfillment in another (adulterous) relationship. That is the spiritual message of the passage. The passage is about DIVORCE. And choosing to stay married for the sake of the kingdom instead of chasing fulfillment elsewhere. You have missed that message completely.

It's like Jesus' teaching about being born twice. Nicodemus had no spiritual capacity to understand it. He was only able to understand it literally and couldn't see the spiritual non-literal truth of what he was talking about.

You should understand that Matthew 19:12 is not a teaching or advise or commandment but an information. Jesus was mentioning about a few people who will become eunuchs themselves for the sake of Kingdom of Heaven - and it is only to them the statement "it is better not to marry applies".

If Jesus wasn't speaking about eunuchs, then He is contradicting 1Tim 4:1-3 and Gen 2:18. However, Jesus was speaking about actual eunuchs and not normal unmarried men.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Deleted by me because there's no need for this post...the next one gets right to the point.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The statement Christ said is in response for what disciples told about "not marrying to avoid adultery". It is about losing the sexual and sinful lust that comes from within the heart for the sake of Kingdom of Heaven.

...by staying married.

Christ is not forbidding marriage neither did the disciples lived an unmarried life nor became eunuchs. It is given only to those who are able to accept it.

Read the passage carefully. What is given to those who are able to accept it is stay married.

It is not even a teaching of Christ but if you look carefully, he was just mentioning about a few people who even go to extreme of becoming an eunuch themselves for the sake of kingdom of heaven.

The eunuch puts his desire for marriage down by cutting his parts. We are to put our desire for marriage down (the marriage we don't have and want to divorce to get) by staying in the marriage we have. And we do it for the sake of the kingdom, just as the eunuch does what he does for kingdom's sake.