Changes

=== Eunuchs and exegesis ===

=== Eunuchs and exegesis ===

Faced with the foundation of marriage from the beginning of the Bible, in which only the women was distinctly created for the man, and which unique joining of opposite genders and it's foundation is affirmed and linked to under the New Testament, McNeill and others seek to create a back door for homosexual marriage. This is done by postulating or asserting that the eunuchs in the Bible, and which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals.  And as it is unthinkable to them that Jesus would have them abstain from sexual activity, and since such outside of marriage is fornication, then the provision of marriage for them would be implied. However, this polemic makes  unwarranted presumptions, while duplicitously employing a rule of interpretation which is the opposite of a faulty hermeneutic used to negate the unconditional injunction against homoerotic relations in Lv. 18:22. While it may be true that in other nations eunuch's were sometime homosexuals and who sometimes could procreate,<ref>Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young</ref><ref>Thesis: Eunuchs are Gay Men,  Faris Malik</ref> yet rather than being like other nations, homoerotic relations was one of the inherently evil sins which God declared Israel was not to do in contrast to pagans (Lv. 18:24,27).  In seeking to disallow that universal prohibition, the homosexual apologist almost always relegates that moral law to the category of ceremonial laws, using what might be called the “shellfish hermeneutic,” thereby abborgating the literal application of this and all such laws outside of formal idolatry. But as will be dealt with more under Leviticus 18, the Bible itself specifies which type of laws were typological (Col. 2:6; Heb. 9:10), while consistently affirming moral laws, the applicability of which are not dependent upon a specific culture, and under which category laws condemning illicit sex manifestly stand (Mk. 7:21; Eph. 5:3). However, in response to the need to find sanction for homoerotic relations, it is supposed that Israel was like the others nations. In addition, any idea that Jesus' reference to eunuchs may imply sanction for homosexual marriage is destroyed by the context of Mt. 19:12, in which eunuchs are established as a class of persons which do not get married. In the light of this, it is not surprising that the actual effect of the employment of specious homosexual hermeneutics is to negate the Bible as a moral authority, with the requirement of marriage for sexual relations being a specific causality.   

Faced with the foundation of marriage from the beginning of the Bible, in which only the women was distinctly created for the man, and which unique joining of opposite genders and it's foundation is only affirmed and linked to under the New Testament, McNeill and others seek to create a back door for homosexual marriage. This is done by postulating or asserting that the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals.  And as love is basically made to trump other restrictions, and as for many it is unthinkable that Jesus would have them abstain from sexual activity, and since such outside of marriage is fornication, then the provision of marriage for eunuchs, which are all made out to be homosexuals and vice versa, would be implied. However, this polemic makes  unwarranted presumptions, while duplicitously employing a rule of interpretation which is the opposite of a faulty hermeneutic used to negate the unconditional injunction against homoerotic relations in Lv. 18:22. While it may be true that in other nations eunuch's were sometime homosexuals and who sometimes could procreate,<ref>Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young</ref><ref>Thesis: Eunuchs are Gay Men,  Faris Malik</ref> yet rather than being like other nations, homoerotic relations was one of the inherently evil sins which God declared Israel was not to do, in contrast to pagans (Lv. 18:24,27).  In seeking to disallow that universal prohibition, the homosexual apologist almost always relegates that moral law to the category of ceremonial laws, using what might be called the “shellfish hermeneutic,” thereby abborgating the literal application of this and all such laws outside of formal idolatry. But as will be dealt with more under Leviticus 18, the Bible itself specifies which type of laws were typological (Col. 2:16; Heb. 9:10), while consistently affirming moral laws, the applicability of which are not dependent upon a specific culture, and under which category laws condemning illicit sex manifestly stand (Mk. 7:21; Eph. 5:3). However, in response to the need to find sanction for homoerotic relations, here the homosexual apologist supposes that Israel was like the others nations, while the opposite was to be the case. In addition, any idea that Jesus' reference to eunuchs may imply sanction for homosexual marriage is destroyed by the context of Mt. 19:12, in which eunuchs are established as a class of persons which do not get married. In the light of this, it is not surprising that the actual effect of the employment of specious homosexual hermeneutics is to negate the Bible as a moral authority, with the requirement of marriage for sexual relations being a specific causality.   

   

   

The above relates to the homosexual argument is that some men are born homosexual, and thus marriage must be allowed for them.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> The premise for this is both unproven,<ref>Homosexuality By Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse</ref> and it's logic is untenable. No sound evidence exists to prove that homosexuals were born that way, though this may be possible, and certainly one individual may be more prone to one type of sin that another. However, this is irrelevant as the Biblical fact is that all mankind is born with a proclivity to sin, but this in no way justifies acting it out. (Romans 6, 7; 1John 2:6). Every day men must resist sexual desire if it would be immoral as contrary the Creator's laws, which are good and necessary. (Rm. 7:12) The logical end of the homosexual argument is that all innate proclivity to sin justifies acting it out, but God told Cain that he could resist sin. (Gn. 4:7), and commands us to resist sin and overcome it, and shows us how. (Rm. 8; 12)

The reference to eunuchs includes both those who were born without the ability to reproduce, or who were castrated (Dt. 23:1; Isaiah 39:7; 56:4,5; Mt. 19:12), the latter of which could be spiritually under the New Covenant and it's spiritual kingdom. As seen in Acts 8:26-40, eunuchs could be saved through repentance and faith in LORD Jesus, but this does not sanction homoeroticism, rather it requires repentance from all forms of fornication. Under the Old Testament one who was castrated was an outcast, and being made a eunuch was demeaning (see above ref.), while under the New Covenant no physical deformity excludes one from being part of the kingdom. But practicing immoral behavior denies the faith, and thus the redeemed included those were '''formerly''' “effeminate” (1Cor. 6:9-11).

 

 

The prior homosexual argument relates to one that posits that some men are born homosexual, and thus marriage must be allowed for them.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> The premise for this is both unproven,<ref>Homosexuality By Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse</ref> and it's logic is untenable. No sound evidence exists to prove that homosexuals were born that way, though this may be possible, and certainly one individual may be more prone to one type of sin that another. However, this is irrelevant as the Biblical fact is that all mankind is born with a proclivity to sin, but this in no way justifies acting it out. (Romans 6, 7; 1John 2:6). Every day men must resist sexual desire if it would be immoral as contrary the Creator's laws, which are good and necessary. (Rm. 7:12) The logical end of the homosexual argument is that all innate proclivity to sin justifies acting it out, but God told Cain that he could resist sin. (Gn. 4:7), and commands us to resist sin and overcome it, and shows us how. (Rm. 8; 12)

In summary, all marriage in Scripture is based upon it's foundation in Genesis, in which God purposely created two different genders to be joined in a uniquely complementary and compatible sexual union, with distinctive positions patterned after the Divine order, for both procreational purposes as well as in sexual and non-sexual ways which transcend this.  In contrast to homosexual attempts at eisegesis (2Pet. 3:16) nowhere is same sex marriage evident or sanctioned, in principal or by precept, rather, to join Adam (man) with one of his own (or an animal), is manifestly contrary to what God has specifically and transcendently ordained, by both design and decree. What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder, let no man join together.

In summary, all marriage in Scripture is based upon it's foundation in Genesis, in which God purposely created two different genders to be joined in a uniquely complementary and compatible sexual union, with distinctive positions patterned after the Divine order, for both procreational purposes as well as in sexual and non-sexual ways which transcend this.  In contrast to homosexual attempts at eisegesis (2Pet. 3:16) nowhere is same sex marriage evident or sanctioned, in principal or by precept, rather, to join Adam (man) with one of his own (or an animal), is manifestly contrary to what God has specifically and transcendently ordained, by both design and decree. What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder, let no man join together.