Evangelical Church of the Lambs of Christ

[JesusA]

REPOST:

The original posting of this item went up in smoke when an earlier version of VBulletin crashed and burned. Since I brought it up in a current thread, Castrating Minors (http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=23998), Paolo has suggested that it be reposted for a new round of comments.

At the time of the original, I was posting a series of "ethical dilemmas" asking Archive members to think through some of the ideas that tend to get thrown off somewhat carelessly here. What is important is thought and logic as we grapple with a difficult ethical issue. The original post was in response to a question from A-1:

The Evangelical Church of the Lambs of Christ

In the long response that I wrote in answer to A-1's question "Is the castration of a ten or twelve year old boy EVER ethically justified?" I left the case of the Skoptsy castration of children as ethically ambiguous. Let me repeat my response as written there:

"The Skoptsy are another case of castration of children. This Christian faith took the admonitions of the New Testament literally and believed that castration of children was necessary to save their souls. Their souls were clearly more important than their sex. The few things I have read by Skoptsy adults reflect their pleasure that they were castrated as children. It was done FOR their Christian faith, WITHIN their religious system, BY their families, and they are happy as adults that it was done to them. As a non-Christian and as a member of a very different culture, I would disapprove. But, this is one that I am really reluctant to judge. What if their faith is true and all of us who were not castrated as children are doomed to suffer in Hell?"

I'd like to look at the Skoptsy as a true case study in ethics. I will lay out a scenario in somewhat sketchy format and would ask for response from the readers. Not only whether or not the actions are ethical, but WHY you are making the determination. WHAT do you think that the societal response ought to be? Try to build a logical case for your position(s), rather than an emotional one, though I know emotion will run high.

* * * * * * * * * *

In Los Angeles, we are in the middle of the largest carnival of faith in the world. There are more different religious faiths per square mile than anywhere else on earth. We have everything from Hari Krishnas to the Crystal Cathedral. Everyone from snake handlers to orthodox Jews. Mormon temples sit cheek by jowl with Buddhist ones. All are certain that they have found the true will of God or gods.

The radio waves (and TV channels) are filled with believers, each touting his or her one true path. There are preachers on street corners and churches in storefronts.

Down in south central, there is a small church housed in a failed strip mall. Its tiny congregation was founded by a recent immigrant from the hills of North Carolina, bringing his Pentacostal faith to the city. He, his wife, and their nine children made up most of the congregation as he began, but he is a gifted and charismatic preacher and he has drawn in a number of families from the area.

The Evangelical Church of the Lambs of Christ has successfully extended its outreach over the course of a few years to bring in some Black, formerly Baptist, members and, more recently, a few Mexican Pentacostals have joined. The new assistant minister is a Mexican immigrant and some services and outreach functions are now held in Spanish. God has demonstrated his power through the increasing success of this church in reaching out to all segments of the community and drawing them toward the True Faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ.

With increasing success, the church has recently made a down payment on a new facility, a failed Assembly of God church that had been repossessed by the bank. Their move to this new facility has spurred even more growth in the congregation. Sunday services are now attended by over 150 of the faithful.

The minister, assistant minister, youth director, and deacons are engaged in long periods of Bible study and discussion several nights each week. During these long study sessions, this small and devout group keeps returning to the emphases on devotion and on chastity, which are found in the New Testament. They also return, time after time, to study the book of Daniel and the three, who when thrown into the fiery furnace, are saved by their true devotion to the Lord.

After much prayer and devotional reading, this small groups decides that they have truly understood the word of God and that it is their Christian duty to take action to fulfill His wishes. They carefully lay out their plan of action to bring the true word of God to their congregation.

A series of Sunday sermons and Wednesday night prayer meetings are planned to shepard the entire flock toward the Truth, as laid out in the Bible, the inerrant Word of God.

Finally, after long weeks of planning, preparation, and appropriate sermons and services, the minister gave one of the most powerful sermons of his life. He brought to his congregation the power of God in the story of the creation and of the fall of man through the actions of Adam and Eve. He made clear the true meaning of Genesis 3:16 "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." The minister clearly explained to his flock that God's punishment for mankind was the creation of SEX. Adam and Eve had been without sex and without sexual lust before they had sinned. Until we renounce sex totally, we shall each carry the original sin within ourselves.

He announced that he, the assistant minister, and the director of youth services had all been castrated as a blood atonement for the actions of Adam and Eve. They had remade themselves more in the image of Adam, as he was before the Fall. He called on the men of the congregation to join them in this atonement for original sin. By prearrangement, two of the deacons immediately stood and asked that they, too, be castrated at the next Wednesday night prayer service. The minister was surprised and pleased that three other men stood to join them.

1) What is YOUR ethical response to this? They are adults, seeking to make this blood sacrifice out of true belief in the power of God. There is a long (though broken) tradition of similar actions among Christians. Their actions are supported by the members of their congregation. Since some shocked first-time visitor to the church will tell the police before the end of the afternoon, should the state intervene? Should the state remain neutral because of the separation of church and state? (We allow a great many actions under this rubric.) What do you see as the key ethical issues? Should there be any legal consequences or requirements?

At the end of the Wednesday night prayer service, the two deacons and two other men stepped forward, and after professing their devotion to Our Lord Jesus Christ and their decision of their own free will to make this blood sacrifice of atonement in His name, were castrated. The third Sunday volunteer, having decided in the meantime to join a different church. Two nurses and a veterinarian's assistant from the congregation performed the simple surgery using local anesthesia.

2) Again, what actions OUGHT the state to take? Nurses practicing surgery without a license. But, adults making the decision of their own free will out of their true religious faith. We permit Jewish Mohelim to perform genital surgery without a medical license.

Over the next several months, Wednesday night prayer services were frequently concluded with another castration. Stories of the devotion of the members of The Evangelical Church of the Lambs of Christ spread throughout the Los Angeles Basin and beyond. The curious, as well as the devout, flocked to attend the now burgeoning Sunday services. Most came only to gawk at these "true believers," but some were moved by their intense devotion to the true word of God and stayed to become members themselves. The congregation flourished.

One Wednesday night, a young high school student, only a week past his eighteenth birthday stepped forward to be castrated in the name of Jesus Christ. He was a very popular student and a star of the school basketball team, which had recently won the regional championship. He had persuaded several of his teammates to attend the service to witness his blood atonement for our original sin.

3) Here it's getting a little more difficult. Legally he's an adult at 18. What is your reaction to his "free will" and "faith-based" decision? What ought the legal response to be? How do we react to this ethically? What if he had been a week short of his 18th birthday?

Within only two years after the minister of The Evangelical Church of the Lambs of Christ had announced his own castration and that of a few other key members of the congregation, there were now close to 75 castrated adult men in the church. All were convinced that their sacrifice was crucial to their own salvation. Their sacrifice would aid their entry into Heaven. Nearly all were married and most had families of their own to support. The congregation was growing and the Sunday services and Sunday School classes were packed.

Finally, one Sunday, the minister announced that boys could make their free will decision to dedicate their lives to the Lord through a blood sacrifice in the name of Jesus Christ anytime after their twelfth birthday. His youngest son, who knew in advance of this announcement, immediately stood from his position in the choir and announced that his twelfth birthday was the coming Tuesday, and that he planned to make his sacrifice the following day. He was quickly joined by the thirteen-year-old son of the assistant minister and two other boys of thirteen and fifteen.

4) Here's where it really gets difficult! These boys (children) are deciding on an irrevocable action out of faith in God. Their decision is clearly a religious one. It is supported by their faith and by the adults in it. Do they have the right to make this decision? If not, why not? Do their parents have any right to decide FOR them, either for or against their castration? This is where ethics can become a combat sport as we slug it out! Try to stay logical, though it will be difficult.

The minister frequently reminded his congregation that the word of God does not give an easy way for women to fully atone for the sins of Eve. They are required to continually bring forth children. All of the married women of the flock were expected to bring forth new members of the congregation. Through artificial insemination if their husbands had been castrated.

5) Here we have some additional ethical questions. What about the clinic providing the artificial insemination? If they know that the infants are to be born into this congregation what should be their ethical position?

6) Finally, based on a true understanding of the combined meanings of Revelation 14:1-4 and Leviticus 12:3, the church determines that the Law of God requires infant castration. Henceforth, all baby boys born into the congregation are to be castrated on their eighth day. What about the ethics of this decision? Twelve-year-olds have SOME ability to think through the consequences of their actions. Infants do not. What is the right of parents (or the church) to decide what is best for their children? What about devout faith in the power of the Lord? What about the support of all the other members of the faith? Separation of church and state? The model of infant circumcision? Is one sort of genital surgery for religious purpose to be privileged over another?

Now that I've lobbed this grenade, I plan to sit back and enjoy the action,

Jesus

[Paolo]

Dearest Archive Users:

(yes, that means YOU!):-\

PLEASE keep in mind that this is FICTION. It is a hypothetical case scenario. The ECotLoC does NOT exist. This is a comment session proposed by Jesus and myself. We invite discussion, and friendly arguement.

As hard as it may be, you will be required to think. You know who you are...

NO, you cannot call someone a 'lop-eared goat f*cker' just because you don't agree with him. As Jesus asked, be rational and concise...IF you plan to participate.

Once again, it is NOT the Policy of the Eunuch Archive to condone or endorse the castration of minors. Discussion of this subject, whether historically or theoretically, is fine. If you do not wish to participate in this session, no one is making you. Click your BACK button now.

Thank you.

[Slammr (imported)]

I fail to see the dilemma. Society has already determined what its response should be: the welfare of the child comes first-out weighing the religious beliefs of the parents. For instance: if the parent's religion forbids medical treatment, the courts may order it for their child-if that child requires it. Laws take precedence over religion. If they didn't, then anything-even murder-could be acceptable-if decreed by someone's religion. Therefore, castrating any child below the age of consent would be-should be-illegal and not acceptable by our society. For me-if it's a matter of choosing either law or religion-I'll chose law every time.

[A-1 (imported)]

GAWD,

I wish this damned board would quit logging me off...

This 18-year-old gets an emergency detention from mom or dad or some other concerned party...and ends up on some pretty heavy psychotropic meds... maybe he meets a horney nurse that convinces him that he should be fruitful and replenish the Earth... with their progeny...

The minister is a crazy fucking idiot, (and, I DO mean fucking) and that is one hell of a logical assumption.

Another logical assumption is that he is screwing the wives of the faithful by direct commandment from GAWD, or at least that will probably be the story that comes out.

Artificial semination my big red ass,,,this horn puppy will make a religious ceremony out of placing the sperm in their vaginas personally, and since it will be in the dark or dimly lit by candles they will never know what he really sticks in them to deliver the sperm, will they? Or they will never know what he means by OH GAWD!< OH GAWD! >>> HERE IT COMES!!!!

AND finally, the HOLEY ROLLER MOINISTER gets his boys taken from him and he is cast into the JAIL with the SODOMITES and he becomes their bitch...better that he become their bitch, than his little boy become his bitch...

Ya see, there is no way that his could be a sincere religion. There is always a faction hanging here for the tittilation of the mass castrations and the artificially implied inseminations that are being done with the special "flesh" injector the "church" staff,...the Bishops PRICK, if you will....

As for ethics, the same scenerio is being done by HAMAS, only the little 12-year-old boys and the faithful have to get to paradise by blowing their little bodies up with bombs instead of just being castrated...

This was actually a lot better in my original post, but this will have to do for now. Now I must go take a big dump and then go to bed.... this is giving me the POOPS!



A-1

[sag111 (imported)]

Well if this were true i can assure you that the police would get involved and many attornies would be gitting rich.Now to say castrating minors is wrong i must agree that it would be.God never said that a man or child should be castrated to enter the kingdom of God far be it indeed. The lord looks out for his children and this is not what he had in mind when he gave them to us to rase.

Now for the older person like myself it has been a blessing to not have that posion in my system .So castration for the older person can be a good thing but never the little ones.

If any church ever taught this i would say it would probley be more on the lines of a cult and not a true religion. i would never tell any one to walk away from a religion like this i would say run instead.

[Paolo]

GAWD,

I wish this damned board would quit logging me off...

Like I said, you know who you are.

Perhaps after A-1 finishes his 'business' he'll have a more coherent reply.:-\

Tech tip - if you're having this problem, write your reply out in Word or Notepad or something then copy it in. Getting logged out repeatedly is indicative of your computer's SECURITY features being set too high.

[JesusA]

I'd like to respond here to the posts by Slammr, A-1 and sag111. Each has raised interesting aspects of the main question.

Slammr has responded with how he hopes society would respond. That "

the welfare of the child comes first - out weighing the religious beliefs of the parents

". Society does have the interests of the child in mind, but has demonstrated that it is very willing to defer to the judgment of parents unless there is clear evidence that significant harm is being done. Even then, it takes something extraordinary before the state will take action. A few years ago there was a major measles epidemic in Los Angeles. Parents, for religious or philosophical reasons, had refused to have their children inoculated against the disease. Measles has become so rare that we seem to have forgotten that it is fatal in a significant percentage of cases. A number of children died and many more were in intensive care for extended periods. The state did not step in and demand inoculations after the epidemic. Parents are still able to make the decision, even with the clear, recent evidence that they are putting their children's lives at risk.

I did not sufficiently follow the recent Utah case (nor save the newspaper articles so that I could check my memory), but as I recall, the state originally intervened in a case where parents of a 12 year-old boy with cancer had refused to allow chemotherapy and radiation treatment of his cancer for fear that it might cause sterility. After the court ordered treatment despite their faith-based refusal, they fled the state. A settlement was reached after the TWELVE YEAR-OLD, under pressure from his parents, convinced the state that he would rather take the risk of dying rather than the risk of being sterile. He and his family are back home and he will not receive treatment.

In all of the many cases of faith healing that failed to heal and where children have died, I have noted that the state is very reluctant to intervene after the death. They seem to assume that the parents have suffered enough through the death of their child. In the few cases that have gone to trial, juries have been reluctant to convict. Apparently for the same reason.

Slammr knows what he would like to have happen; that "laws take precedence over religion", but that doesn't always seem to be the case where children are concerned and parents (and their religion) want to do something that WE would not consider in the best interests of the child. Children have died, and will continue to die, when there is conflict between faith and law.

A-1 has again (as in the first round of this ethical dilemma) immediately provided a flip response. The first time around, he went on to produce a long, thoughtful, and very thought-provoking essay analyzing the ethics involved. He is the one who originally brought to the table the question of 'what is the proper age of consent' for such an irreversible act as voluntary castration. When he puts his mind to it, A-1 can produce some of the most closely reasoned responses on the Archive. This particular piece is not one of his best, though it certainly is on topic. If the thread does begin to bring some interesting responses, I would hope that A-1 would, again, bring his intellect to bear on the issues involved. I know that I always profit from his reasoning.

sag111 has demonstrated many times that he strives to live a proper "Christian" life. While I'm about to debate the "Christianity" of it, I will also state clearly that sag111 has amply shown that he is an ethical and estimable person. I'm attacking his view of Christian history, not him. I like and respect him and hope to meet him in person some time soon.

The history of the Christian faith is not a straight-line progression from Jesus of Nazareth to the contemporary U.S. There has been considerable diversity of belief and practice throughout its ENTIRE history. Even within the first few years, there was not only the dispute between the Jerusalem church and Paul and his followers, but there were a number of other disputes that have been mostly covered over in church history. Only by reading some of the earliest Christian theologians do you discover the incredible diversity of "Christian" belief that was rampant in the first few centuries of the church.

Origen was certainly NOT the only early Christian theologian who took Matthew 19:12 literally. From surviving records, we know that many early Christians castrated themselves and others in the name of Christ. Tertullian, a second century theologian, stated that Matthew himself was a eunuch. Mathew Kuefler, in his book The Manly Eunuch, discusses the large number of eunuchs in the early Roman Christian community. The main thesis of his book is how the early church fathers consciously changed theology to downplay castration in order to create a Christianity that would appeal to Roman men.

Castration continued far longer in the eastern branches of Christianity. Epiphanius, in his fourth century listing of Christian groups of the eastern Mediterranean, describes the Valensians as a sect believing that ALL true Christian males should be castrated. He described the sect as living in the region of Philadelphia on the east side of the Jordan River. I cannot remember the source, but somewhere I read that the Valensians castrated not only themselves, but were in the habit of kidnapping and castrating small boys in the name of Christ. Castrating them to save their souls.

During the entire history of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, there were parents who castrated their young sons to better fit them for a clerical life. [See Kathryn Ringrose's book The Perfect Servant for additional information. Her title refers to a perfect civil servant or a perfect servant of God - a eunuch.] A number of Eastern Orthodox saints were eunuchs (e.g., St. Ignatius), castrated by their parents, as were a number of the Patriarchs of the church. The practice continued up until the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, and the practice of child-castration was one of the features of Christianity that the Moslem conquerors detested most. [See my review of David Ayalon's book Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans on the Nonfiction Board.]

The practice continued in offshoots of the Eastern Church at least until the early years of the 20th century. The Skoptzi were a Russian Orthodox sect that took their belief in the importance of child castration primarily from Revelation 14:4 (as well as Matthew 19:12). They argued that those who had been castrated were the "lambs of Christ" and lambs figure throughout Skoptzi iconography.

Any Christian group that wanted to argue for the "Christian virtue" of castration has a long and distinguished history behind it. What WE might argue would be quite different.

The original question remains: how can we LOGICALLY argue the ethics of the positions taken by "

The Evangelical Church of the Lambs of Christ

"?

[sag111 (imported)]

I shouldent have even answered this for i am very bias towards the childern and will always take thair side when i feel thay are in harms way.It way be just a storey but when your own childern have been molested by an adult as mine were i will never see the fun of herting children or of making stories about thair harm.Now this is the way i feel and i dont expect others to feel this way and i wont judge you for your values.

[antonia (imported)]

(changed my mind )

Question two brought back my memory of A-1's beautifully written series "Last night for Briony" .

The only illogical issue if at all is if they translated the Hebrew word circumcision for castration, that this religion will stop to exist after 25550 days (approx. 70 years) as the last of the congregation member dies. Castrated and lonely, Sadly hehehe

Let me help this religion out here with the Hebrew translation of Leviticus 12:3 :

- On the eighth day the flesh (Basar,baw-sawr) of his forskin (orlah,or-law)shall be circumcised (muwl,mool)

Original word: lwm Transliterated word: muwl Phonetic spelling: mool

Muwl Definition:

1. to circumcise, let oneself be circumcised, cut, be cut off

(Qal) to circumcise (Niphal) to be circumcised, circumcise oneself (Hiphil) to cause to be circumcised (Hithpolel) to be cut off (Polel) cut down

Revelation

14:1 - Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.

14:2 - And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps.

14:3 - And 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.

14:4 - These 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.

Leviticus

12:3 - On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Hey this is hard work and the best I could come up with

[Paolo]

1) What is YOUR ethical response to this? They are adults, seeking to make this blood sacrifice out of true belief in the power of God. There is a long (though broken) tradition of similar actions among Christians. Their actions are supported by the members of their congregation. Since some shocked first-time visitor to the church will tell the police before the end of the afternoon, should the state intervene? Should the state remain neutral because of the separation of church and state? (We allow a great many actions under this rubric.) What do you see as the key ethical issues? Should there be any legal consequences or requirements?

As for the adults, my response is to let them have at it. If they wish to be castrated, get castrated, and are happy as eunuchs, so be it. In this fictional scenario, I assume informed consent takes place with the adult men. And isn't that what WE'RE all here for?

Should the State intervene? No. If they want to intervene, then they should just shut down all organized religion, plain and simple, and be done with it. Problem solved.

The shocked newcomer should leave them alone and mind his own damn business. Nose trouble sometimes proves fatal.

As for the separation of Church and State, until we reach the gloriously evolved state of mentality that shirks off Religion, et al., by all means, KEEP THEM SEPARATE. A Church-runState would have to be my idea of Hell on Earth.

Ethical issues? Could it be a cult? Who cares?! If it is, oh well. Let the lemmings jump off the cliff.

Consequences and requirements? Well, if they're members of the ECotLoC, let them do their own thing. Can't be any worse than some of the religions out there now that STILL BREED.

2) Again, what actions OUGHT the state to take? Nurses practicing surgery without a license. But, adults making the decision of their own free will out of their true religious faith. We permit Jewish Mohelim to perform genital surgery without a medical license.

This is a tricky legality. I would suggest they find a Doctor or a trained Physician's Assistant and keep the nurses out of trouble. They should nurse, if need be, after the fact. Or just keep quiet about it, which many Religions would do well to learn to do. As for the Mohels, this is yet another example of Religion run amok. Shoot 'em.

3) Here it's getting a little more difficult. Legally he's an adult at 18. What is your reaction to his "free will" and "faith-based" decision? What ought the legal response to be? How do we react to this ethically? What if he had been a week short of his 18th birthday?

Yes, he is legal at 18. By then, if he's not smart enough to realize what might be going on and speak up for himself, better that he be taken OUT of the gene pool before he dives in and hurts someone - namely himself. And make him wait a week to avoid the legal paperwork and suspicions. There's no magic thing about being 17 one day and 18 the next, but the world seems to think this. Best to simplify.

4) Here's where it really gets difficult! These boys (children) are deciding on an irrevocable action out of faith in God. Their decision is clearly a religious one. It is supported by their faith and by the adults in it. Do they have the right to make this decision? If not, why not? Do their parents have any right to decide FOR them, either for or against their castration?

Do the boys have the right to make this life-altering decision? No. No more than my boys have the right to refuse to have their tonsils out or have braces on their teeth. They don't like to eat vegetables either, or take baths, but they do. These decisions are MINE to make, not theirs. Children, as anyone who has been exposed to them (and survived it) can tell you, do not always know what is best for them. And any adult that thinks for one moment that they do is insane and a threat to said children. Children are not tiny adults. Their minds do not work the same way as adults' minds do, and they lack experience in Life. Some of our actions as parents may seem cruel to the boy, such as not letting him jump off of the roof with his cape and tights on. But I KNOW he can't fly, even if he thinks he can.

A similar example is the issue of large gauge earrings and tattoos. Even at 15.5, this is not the age for a boy to decide if he wants it. He has no comprehension of the long term effects of such body modifications. Castration is, logically, on an even higher plane.

As for their parents deciding for them - here comes the argument that I make for the boys NOT making these choices. Castration is NOT on the same plane with braces or tonsils, or anything that is NEEDED. A boy won't like the idea of having his appendix out either, or having a leg amputated due to bone cancer. (Example only) * He will have no comprehension of this. "My tummy hurts." OK, the appendix has to go, or you'll die. Does he get this? Doubtful. Therefore, I drag him kicking and screaming to the hospital to save his life. Castration or not is not going to save his Life, and certainly not his Soul. "But I don't wanna spend 6 months in a body cast!" OK, then we'll cut your leg off...fine by me. Cast it is. The broken leg will come back - be useful - again someday. Castration is forever.

The point I am making here is that the boy, no matter HOW WELL INFORMED by his parents, no matter how smart he is, no matter how faithful he is, is STILL A CHILD who lacks the cognitive skills to analyze his future if castrated. Even though he may be surrounded by adult eunuchs who are deliriously happy, there is still no guarantee that he will be also. Just as I would not force a tattoo on a boy, or a similar modification of his body, neither should these parents have this right based on something as ridiculous as Religion.

5) Here we have some additional ethical questions. What about the clinic providing the artificial insemination? If they know that the infants are to be born into this congregation what should be their ethical position?

Anyone who would introduce a child into such a crazy atmosphere is a danger to Society at large. They should refuse to do it, on the grounds of reckless child endangerment. These people have chosen to be eunuchs, to not breed. This is a choice that should not be reversed for them by an outside agency. It makes no sense to provide these people, who favor castration, to be allowed to have access to little boys to raise in their "faith". Of course, this solution would end the argument once and for all, and in time, probably end the Religion as well.

As for those in the faith who are not castrated and can breed, they should not be allowed to expose boys to this sort of thing. It only perpetuates the issue, and endangers more children in the long run. Jesus Christ himself said, "Better for a millstone to be hanged about his neck and him cast into the sea, rather than harm a child." I forget where that's at in the Bible, and frankly, I don't care. If castrating a brainwashed boy in the name of "faith" is not harming him, I don't know what the f*ck is!

6) Finally, based on a true understanding of the combined meanings of Revelation 14:1-4 and Leviticus 12:3, the church determines that the Law of God requires infant castration. Henceforth, all baby boys born into the congregation are to be castrated on their eighth day. What about the ethics of this decision? Twelve-year-olds have SOME ability to think through the consequences of their actions. Infants do not. What is the right of parents (or the church) to decide what is best for their children? What about devout faith in the power of the Lord? What about the support of all the other members of the faith? Separation of church and state? The model of infant circumcision? Is one sort of genital surgery for religious purpose to be privileged over another?

As Antonia said, they'll become extinct, if not for new members joining up. Hopefully adults if they do join. We can only hope that they would go the route of the former. If this cult is castrating their baby boys, and we'd think it was a first-generation thing only, since there would be NO more generations after the first round of baby-castrates, then they are - without a doubt - causing harm. They are abusers, mutilators, and no better than the likes of slave dealers, past and present. If not for money, then for faith. The pot calls the kettle black, you see. Peter is robbed to pay Paul. As for the decision making, as stated already, NO. There is not a 12 year old boy out there anywhere with this kind of cognition. Find me one that does his homework, eats his dinner, takes a bath, brushes his teeth, and goes to bed (and stays there!) without my help, and I'll run screaming, for he is obviously an alien from another galaxy. The adults are responsible for his upbringing, yes, and decision making on the major issues. But they are also responsible for his welfare, and any actions that will effect his later adult life.

On a personal note, I do have one boy who, in my opinion, does NOT need testosterone in his body at this point in time. Bad idea. He's not nearly ready for it. BUT, the only sane and rational thing that I can do is to coach him through this trying time. I am not going to slip Androcur or DepoProvera into his breakfast cereal. And even if I were guaranteed that I could get away with it, I would NOT castrate him. It is not my place to make that decision for him. The braces were hard enough, but it was either that or pull all of his teeth later in life.

The devout faith in the Power of the Lord? Let's find a good Necromancer to talk to all of the people who have been killed "in the name of the Lord", you pick which Lord, and ask their opinion of this. Religion has killed more innocents than all secular wars of history combined.

And don't even get me going on infant circumcision. It's right up there with infant castration/genital nullification in MY book - of either sex. It all goes back to the "no harm" issue. I wouldn't even have consented to the tonsils/adenoids thing, had I not seen the images and realized where it was going. Even now, with every single issue that comes up, I have to ask myself, "How much more can I put this kid through?" But castration is not stitches, or tonsils, or broken limbs. It's the denial of a sex life, the denial of his own children, and perhaps possible consignment to a solitary and lonely life that no one deserves. It is forcing him into an unbreakable mold for the future, and no one has the right to take those myriad choices away from him at 12 - or younger.

As for the support of the other members of the faith? Of course they'd be all for it. Modern Religion is the same way.

Dogma.

Dogs are fine, just keep them in your OWN yard...but if I see you beating your dog, look out!

See what I mean?

[A-1 (imported)]

Jesus says...

"

I did not sufficiently follow the recent Utah case (nor save the newspaper articles so that I could check my memory), but as I recall, the state originally intervened in a case where parents of a 12 year-old boy with cancer had refused to allow chemotherapy and radiation treatment of his cancer for fear that it might cause sterility. After the court ordered treatment despite their faith-based refusal, they fled the state. A settlement was reached after the TWELVE YEAR-OLD, under pressure from his parents, convinced the state that he would rather take the risk of dying rather than the risk of being sterile. He and his family are back home and he will not receive treatment.

"

Now we are getting somewhere.

Let us look at the medical aspect of this case.

First of all, cancer at such an early age, barring teterogens, has to be the result of a genetic predisposition. Therefore the defect that is causing the misery will be passed on genetically to this young lad's progeny provided that he lives long enough to reproduce.

In other word, what right does he have to condemn a child to his fate? In addition, hopefully the defective gene is recessive, because if it is dominant then one of the parents will also surely die of cancer before they reach middle age.

The genetic thread of such cancers run back in families for generations. Insurance companies do profiles such as... are your parents alive? If not, what did your parents die from? Did you have any siblings that died at an early age? If so, what did they die from?

Then they rate your death insurance as to risk...

Bottom line, God gave man intellignece to suppliment faith. The story as described is one of people projecting their lives on their children and demanding the "faith" that condemns them to certain death.

However, the boy is not likely to make puberty anyway, and perhaps it does no good to delay the enevitable. I say, let the child refuse medical treatment. Let the parents choose. What right do we have to interfere in this matter as a society?

Death is coming to all. It is a matter of time. Therefore, spend your time wisely.

A-1

[An Onymus (imported)]

I don't know Greek or Aramaic, but I read somewhere, that the New Testament passage referring to individuals being "made eunuchs to the glory of God," may actually refer simply to accidental castration, in a manner similar to the way that storm damage is referred to as an "act of God." --If it happened by accident, it must be what an omnipotent deity wants. The meanings of words and phrases could vary substantially in ancient times, from one community to another one only a few miles away, since printing and other means of mass communication which tend to standardize language, did not exist. So translation of ancient texts is not an exact science.

Of course, it's indisputable that castration as a sacrifice to a god, was common in the ancient world, and my impression is that castration of hijras today, is associated with worship of the Hindu goddess Kali.

There seems to be a powerful association in the human mind between religion and sex--I guess sex is viewed as the wellspring of everything.

[A-1 (imported)]

It is my opinion that the Biblical scripture about being made eunuchs to the glory of God refers to those who are celebate as a matter of faith. I do not believe that it has anything to do with the actual act of castration.

In Deuterotomy 23:1 it is stated...

"He who is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord"

As for those who are Eunuchs from the womb, that would be genetic defects that afected the sex chromosomes, as in Klinefelter's Syndrome or Turner's Syndrome.

Of course there were Eunuchs in Christ's time. ...And speaking of things genetic, I think that Christ was only half human. The other half was God. What if he could not reproduce with humans and was functionally sterile? That is not truly sterile, but not capable of causing conception in the normal manner because his genetic material could not cross the species barrier. In cruder terms, animals such as gorillas and chimpanzees cannot conceive with humans nor can the males conceive offspring in human females.

Onmipotent deities have better things to do thatn to manipulate the lives of trillions of people since time in the beginning. THey may interveine in things when requested, bet even that is few and far between. MIRACLES...

No, folks, we are on our own, and we have free will. If I know that you are, for example, going to have your next bowel movement in your bathroom that domes not mean that is the way that I have planned it. No, that just means that I have knowledge and understanding that your scat fetish is not going to get the best of you. It has nothing to do with free will, because you are free to ppo your pants if you should so desire. No, sex is fun but it is certainly not the only reason to live. It should not rule a life.

However, this is not about sex. It is about reproduction. Neither is as important as living. As I have mentioned, it may be best not to produce if you have certain genetic defects, such as Huntington's |Disease or some such disease that will cause a slow death.

Death is never pretty, it is never easy and it is certainly not going to get you a reward for experiencing it. Nevertheless, we must all do so at some time in the future, and so far for eac one who dies there will be children somewhere to carry on, hopefully where we left off, so that what we did in life mattered.

Those children who carry on the work of perpetuating humanity do not have to be ours.

I say that the boy will never reach reproductive age. Leave the family alone and let them experience life in the matter in which they choose to do so.

A-1

[JeffEunuch (imported)]

Jesus has challenged us to respond to the ethical dilemmas posed by the religious practices of a hypothetical church. While it seems I am never personally excited by religious practices, I have decided to address the ethical challenges presented. I will do so outside the context of the required separation of state and religion that seems to prevail over everything else in the US. I reside in a nation where the state and religion are largely separated and there is total freedom of religious practice, but where the state and religion also frequently intersect. Our monarch is also the head of a 'state' church (Anglican Church), although one whose 'believers' or members represent fewer than 5% of her subjects. The daily media is filled with questions about the ability of the current Crown prince to ever assume her duties as head of the state church, given his personal ethics. State support for religious education is supported in all but 1 province, the 1 in which I currently reside (BC). The ethical dilemmas posed can be addressed outside the 'separation' context.

Control over our own bodies is a personal ideal that's hardly ever realised. The health and well-being of the community usually takes precedence over that of the individual. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I just wish it prevailed on a more consistent and ethical basis. We should also note that practices are normative and differ substantially amongst cultures and nations. While suicide is now legal in Canada (at one time 1 could be prosecuted for trying and failing), it remains illegal to assist a fellow being in obtaining their death objective. As far as I know, only 2 European nations (The Netherlands & Switzerland) and 1 US state (Oregon) permit assistance for those seeking death by suicide - and then in the very narrow context of those in pain or extreme discomfort and terminally ill and then by licenced physicians. Coming to the subject at hand (voluntary castration), virtually every modern state grants us the right to be voluntarily castrated, the 1st ethical dilemma posed by Jesus. What they generally deny is assistance. Medical assistance for castration in many nations is denied by statute. In others, control over medical practices is granted by the state to medical authorities acting on behalf of the state. Assistance is thus available or not, depending on authorised practice or its enforcement. The assistance that seems to be available at the hands of a couple of physicians in Philadelphia is because the medical authorities choose not to intervene to curtail their apparent practise of 'castration on demand.' The same seems to be the case in Mexico and Thailand. Licencing authorities have also authorized medical practicioners to remove or alter the genitalia of M2F transgenered persons (as well as to remove the breasts of F2M transsexuals) following psychiatric evaluation. Other practicioners will likewise remove the genitalia - usually limited to testicle removal - of non-transsexual guys following psychiatric evaluation in accordance with accepted practise. The termination of male reproductive ability by vasectomy is more widely available, although of course only from licenced physicians.

Re. dilemma 2 - whom may supply genital modification services, many medical authorities just keep a watchful eye. However, services for castration and circumcision are almost always reserved for licenced medical practicioners even though many other practicioners may have the ability to undertake these relatively minor procedures. Piercing clinics are generally tolerated. Many undertake other genital modifications requiring some surgical knowledge(meatonomies, subincisions, scrotal splitting, etc.), and these seem to be tolerated by the medical authorities. Of course, most males obtaining the elective bilateral orchiectomy procedure, including myself, do so informally from 'cutters'.

The age of consent is perhaps the most challenging dilemma posed. As it happens, society frequently manages our free will by imposing age qualifications. We can drive a car or exercise our franchise at a certain age, but not one day before. And a man might be able to exercise a right to voluntary castration at a certain age, but not 1 day before. Age 18 is initially posed by Jesus. While I personally don't think many 18 year olds are capable of exercising good judgment in such matters, there's nothing ethically wrong with society nonetheless granting the right. Many 18 year olds are capable of making an informed decision. Alas, many younger guys are also capable of exercising good judgment. 17 y.o. guys in the US have the right to offer their lives in the service of their nation in Iraq. At what age minors gain control over their bodies is a matter left for societal or state discretion. The age of consent for sexual relations in Canada is 14 y.o. It's younger in many societies and older in others. Jesus refers to children being granted the right to determine their medical treatment at very young ages. There was a recent Canadian case in Saskatchewan where a 12 y.o. boy was granted the right to consume the questionable services of a Mexican clinic for treatment of his leukemia and not to undertake further chemo therapy. The provicial child welfare authorities had taken the matter to the courts and lost. He died a few months after he stopped the chemo treatments. I'm not capable of settling on the age at which we have control over our bodies. I'll only say that many guys not yet in their majority are quite capable of making an informed judgment to be voluntarily castrated.

As to non-voluntary castration by parents, I'd say never. Of course, I'm not a religious person.

[JesusA]

I don't know how I missed this one (http://www.bettybowers.com/newscastration.html), but it's certainly right on topic for this thread. Make certain that you click on the link to the sermon as well.

[Paolo]

Betty Bowers and Landover Baptist are spoofs. They are not serious sites, in case anyone was wondering.

[JesusA]

Sometimes it is better to allow people to retain their faith.... (At least for a while.)

I know that there are a few who would have decided to try to visit them. The first time around with

The Evangelical Church of the Lambs of Christ,

I got two personal messages asking for the address of the church. Archive members who were ready to join the flock.