Author Topic: A post on Jesus and homosexuality from a while back  (Read 961 times)

The Wizard Joseph

  • Tryna transcend duality or whatever
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 50406
  • Product of Wisconsin
    • View Profile
A post on Jesus and homosexuality from a while back
« on: February 26, 2018, 01:41:39 am »
So I got a hair up my butt after Nigel linked to this article on FB.
http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/05/26/dear-offended-christian-from-a-very-tired-christian/

There was a specific point made about there being NO teachings from Jesus in the Gospels, and this sort of hit a sore spot for me. My question centers around a small but possibly very significant use of language that may be a fairly huge thing. Here's the write up as I have it down for now.

As to sincere opinions please fire away. I'm not attached to the perspective quite so personally as I used to be. I DO want to construct this from within the Christian perspective ultimately, but that's on me.
_____

I sympathize with the author on pretty much every point, but one of them is very close to the heart of the matter in terms of factional strife.

"I’m tired of reminding you that the number of times Jesus spoke about gender identity and sexual orientation in the Gospels—is zero."

This is not strictly true. In Matthew ch19 from about verses 8-12 Jesus lays down some pretty severe teaching about the spiritual consequences of divorce and when folks be like "That sucks! Better to never marry" Jesus basically says "Yup!" and goes into a bit about eunuchs as an aside.

 As far as Jesus' actual teachings clearly went he says abstinence to focus on the spiritual exclusively is best, but, hey, clearly not for everyone. He uses that to approach the subject of the eunuch then delineates the three basic sorts, those so born, so made by others, and some very few who are able to give it up as a spiritual sacrifice, in that order. He makes a point of showing that the status can be inherent, placing it first in description, but spoke most of the willing sort, and barely mentioned the usual kind in the middle. This matters as it demonstrated unmistakably through his language that he was least concerned in his message with the most usual sort of the subject. Yet he only meant "eunuch" in its most common form here say the scholars of "Christianity"!
I do wonder about that.

There's longstanding, highly predictable, argument against this passage possibly applying to homosexuality. The fact is they're correct that Jesus wasn't talking about that... overtly. If he had they'd have stoned him then and there, and he knew that damn well. They try a few times in other places, most notably when he declares "Before Moses was I AM" speaking the forbidden name of God in reply to a Pharisee's challenge of his authority to interpret the law. Christian doctrine states this was him claiming to be God, but there we now differ. I think he was merely stating the simple, terribly dangerous truth. God's authority is greater and older than Moses' law, and so any use of the law that is counter to Love and Truth has none of God's authority, but I digress.

It's worth noting that the Greek word for eunuch is derived from the words for "bed" and "owner" implying all of the sleeping alone a eunuch does. That's in Strong's Concordance if any question that interpretation.  Given Jesus' sense of wordplay and the unapproachable nature of the subject, I'd say "one who's bed is their own" could well describe the person of (then) unorthodox  gender or sexual orientation in a sublime fashion. It follows that if a person can be so born then God must have made them so, and loves them as such. From there we can see that the division never existed. It is and always was a lie, and as such doomed eventually. How's that for an eschaton worth "emmanentizing"?
You can't get out backward.  You have to go forward to go back.. better press on! - Willie Wonka, PBUH

Life can be seen as a game with no reset button, no extra lives, and if the power goes out there is no restarting.  If that's all you see life as you are not long for this world, and never will get it.

"Ayn Rand never swung a hammer in her life and had serious dominance issues" - The Fountainhead

"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimisation."
 - Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality :lulz:

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 131767
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: A post on Jesus and homosexuality from a while back
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2018, 02:14:01 pm »
Thanks for that. I'm trying on new Jesus shades, so please permit me to ramble in my exploration of this passage.



I hadn't read that bit about eunuchs, and I was unaware of the etymology of it as Bed Owner, I guess meaning Celibate?

That bit about divorce --- my reading of it is this, please let me know if you think I've erred -- Jesus says that in marriage, two souls have joined and become one. Taken from the perspective of the Esoteric Jesus, the secret mystery jesus which represents the conscious evolution of the individual, this speaks to a self-unification. The unrefined raw self is full of different egos and impulses, automatic actions and involuntary processes. The spirit is somewhere in there, fighting for control of the self, but it is overwhelmed and drowned out by impulses and incidental material desires.

So in marriage, the number of these selves is reduced - one overcomes the ego through reconciliation with the Other. The Other becomes part of the self too. In the sense of "two becoming one", marriage doesn't merely represent a romantic bond between two people, it also represents that the self has become a component of a larger entity, a family, and that this is the new ego. (and as an aside, the family, of course, is a component of a larger body too) This new, greater self sometimes acts in a way that is good for itself, but not necessarily good from the perspective of an individual ego. Making sacrifices for the family--this is only possible if the small self recognizes the bigger self and how it is more real, more worthy, than the ego.

 
And in that sense, I agree with Jesus here --- "What God* has united, let man** not separate"

*God, in this sense, being the refined self, the greatest unity of human spirit, the conscious self which is more than a self. The self which is the congregation, the nation, the whole human race united and acting as a complete organism.

**Man, in this sense, is the small self, the ego, the body, the individual, the person who is anchored in the material world and knows no higher truth than his stomach and his dick.


Then Jesus says -- If they want to get divorced, after making that commitment, after becoming the better person, it would have been better if they were not married.

((doesn't that sound like Jesus is saying divorce is preferable to a marriage where there is no Unification of Self and Other?))

And then Jesus adds, as an aside, this bit about Eunuchs. Why? On the surface, it seems to be connected because we're talking about people who share beds. So he might as well mention people that don't have sex at all and how they become a part of God. But maybe, through the esoteric lens, we can see a different take here...

Maybe it's because Jesus is talking about Marriage, ie unification of self and Other, as a means of becoming a larger part of God. These "Bed Owners" are people who are not tempted by the material world, and thereby have less gravity keeping them anchored here in the world of flesh, the chambers of the small ego. The Eunuch is someone who is not hungry for the material world, so it's easier for them to be part of "God's family". These people are not forbidden from spiritual unity -- "let he who is able to receive it receive it."

Kinda like saying - the sex drive seduces the body. It keeps us doing body work instead of spirit work. And spirit work does involve body work; sex isn't bad, it's sacred! But proper use of sexuality doesn't fragment the self, it unifies self and other. Sexual energy is a powerful force, it is a part of holiness. But if you let it run unchecked, it can destroy you and your higher self. Marriage is like an oath that you're going to commit this powerful dynamo to a bigger engine.


It seems a stretch to me, to say that the Eunuch here is actually an indicator that sometimes people are born gay / genderfluid / whatever and that they're good to enter the kingdom of heaven too, despite not being able to get married. Cause in my progressive 2018 mystery cult reading of this thing, Jesus is kinda saying "Not all people overcome the small self God through family, some overcome the small self because they don't have the same sex drive we do - either through biology or self mastery." But your point about Jesus accepting The Queers is still in here, I think.

So, getting back to it -- Matthew 19:5-8 reads

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female*,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

*The creator made people into separe entities so that they could unify. Yes he names Male and Female specifically, but couldn't this be talking about opposites, essences? Two things that would regard each other as Other and then overcome it?

They are no longer two, but one flesh!

the word Flesh here is really interesting - namely because of how Christianity positions Flesh as the diminished form of Spirit. He could have said One Spirit, but he specifically says one Flesh. The two people have become one physical body. They have overcome their physical separation. This "single being of flesh", the "married person", what gender is it? It seems immaterial, doesn't it?

Marriage is about fusing two small spirits together to make one larger spirit. Another way of saying it is - marriage is about entering a union where you agree to sacrifice the small drives for the bigger picture. And by sacrificing the smaller needs, the smaller self, you've become a larger part of God.

That sacrifice of the small ego for the larger consciousness -- the mastery of ones impulses and sex drives in the service of something larger than the self -- the unification of Self and Other -- I don't think gender needs to be a part of that except in the sense that there must be something different in order for it to be united.



Sorry that rambled so far, Joe. Really didn't mean to make this a 40 page long rant hahahah

The Wizard Joseph

  • Tryna transcend duality or whatever
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 50406
  • Product of Wisconsin
    • View Profile
Re: A post on Jesus and homosexuality from a while back
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2018, 04:31:11 pm »
That's just fine with me Cramulus. No problem about the length. I'm working with a small phone so I'll try and keep my response brief. First I have to think of one.

In the short-term it would seem to me that you hit on a very important point about the unification of the Flesh as a symbol for the unification of the Spirit.

Give me some time to chew on it and I'll try and take it down a piece of the time.

As a nod aside I had a dream about my ex-wife last night I have some things I might say about divorce but again it will take me some time. Some things never really become separated they just become painful.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 04:34:23 pm by The Wizard Joseph »
You can't get out backward.  You have to go forward to go back.. better press on! - Willie Wonka, PBUH

Life can be seen as a game with no reset button, no extra lives, and if the power goes out there is no restarting.  If that's all you see life as you are not long for this world, and never will get it.

"Ayn Rand never swung a hammer in her life and had serious dominance issues" - The Fountainhead

"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimisation."
 - Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality :lulz:

The Wizard Joseph

  • Tryna transcend duality or whatever
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 50406
  • Product of Wisconsin
    • View Profile
Re: A post on Jesus and homosexuality from a while back
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2018, 08:13:54 pm »
Quote
It seems a stretch to me, to say that the Eunuch here is actually an indicator that sometimes people are born gay / genderfluid / whatever and that they're good to enter the kingdom of heaven too, despite not being able to get married. Cause in my progressive 2018 mystery cult reading of this thing, Jesus is kinda saying "Not all people overcome the small self God through family, some overcome the small self because they don't have the same sex drive we do - either through biology or self mastery." But your point about Jesus accepting The Queers is still in here, I think.     

It IS a stretch to say that he was talking about homosexuality or gender fluidity. I think that stretche is possible within the context using bed owner as a euphemism. Most of the kind that you describe are covered under His third definition of eunuch. There must be three separate types mentioned here not all of them involving spiritual attainment. Having your balls cut off does not necessarily point one in the direction of spiritual enlightenment for example..

Overall it's hard for me to properly reply to this because of the size of the screen I'm dealing with and the fact that I still don't fully comprehend some of what you wrote. I will however try to respond properly.

Quote
the word Flesh here is really interesting - namely because of how Christianity positions Flesh as the diminished form of Spirit. He could have said One Spirit, but he specifically says one Flesh. The two people have become one physical body. They have overcome their physical separation. This "single being of flesh", the "married person", what gender is it? It seems immaterial, doesn't it?
 

It is both genders and neither specifically. I do believe the mystical term for this is Rebis. It is the unification of two opposites into something greater than the single parts.

As for the spirit or soul that in and of itself does not have a gender. I don't know if you're mystical enough to believe in reincarnation but the part of you that reincarnates does not have a gender inherently.

Now that's not the flesh but they are mirrors of each other. To truly understand one is to understand the other. Just as you must understand the Other to understand the Self.
 
In many Traditions the Other is properly capitalized because it represents God. The only reason to capitalize self is if that part of you has become unified or married to God, to the greater Idea or ideal state of being. And divorce is a great and tragic wounding of this state of being. I'll talk more about divorce later. Is sad.





I'll chop that post of yours up more later and probably ask for some clarifications of your terms. This is what I've got for now. Good time chatting with you Cramulus! I look forward to getting this worked out.
You can't get out backward.  You have to go forward to go back.. better press on! - Willie Wonka, PBUH

Life can be seen as a game with no reset button, no extra lives, and if the power goes out there is no restarting.  If that's all you see life as you are not long for this world, and never will get it.

"Ayn Rand never swung a hammer in her life and had serious dominance issues" - The Fountainhead

"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimisation."
 - Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality :lulz:

Prelate Diogenes Shandor

  • Promotor Fidei
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 20979
  • Behold! The Yellow Sign of Dobbshead
    • View Profile
    • Yiffstar User Profile
Re: A post on Jesus and homosexuality from a while back
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2018, 01:54:37 am »
I think it's more a refrence to asexuals than gays
Praise NHGH! For the tribulation of all sentient beings.

a plague on both your houses -Mercutio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTGgpWmdZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVWd7nPjJH8

It is an unfortunate fact that every man who seeks to disseminate knowledge must contend not only against ignorance itself, but against false instruction as well. No sooner do we deem ourselves free from a particularly gross superstition, than we are confronted by some enemy to learning who would plunge us back into the darkness -H.P.Lovecraft

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster -Nietzsche

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

You are a fluke of the universe, and whether you can hear it of not the universe is laughing behind your back -Deteriorata

Don't use the email address in my profile, I lost the password years ago

StarDoG

  • Known
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • SPAG
    • View Profile
Re: A post on Jesus and homosexuality from a while back
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2018, 03:23:14 am »
Some time ago when nurdling through the scwriptures and the such like I remember coming upon a history of the various "Councils" that decided what and what not was finding its' way into the New Testicalmente. In the original story of Jesus and Lazarus , the two simply spent the night together in cave and that was that. My guess would be it was some sort of spiritual nuptials where two heads simply chilled in each other's company whilst shooting the breeze about various ontological questions and the price of fish. However, this was considered way too well, "gay" for the nascent church teachings. After all when you're that repressed you gotta have them all conform or else and therefore, the whole myth of the "raising the dead" was created to make Jesus well, look  a tad more oogly boogly and spiritual.
She's playing with fire, he''s not ready for nibbly pig...

Time traveller of the year 2168