EA Forums

Is there any current, MAINSTREAM, religion that endorses castration?

I'm not necessarily talking about something from centuries ago, but from the here and now. (Allegedly, the Catholic church had its choir boys castrated. But that was hundreds of years ago. Yes?)

Do cults count? The only one I really know of is the infamous Heaven's Gate.

Where does *religion* play a part sin omebody's decision to be castrated?

Does God speak to someone and personally tell them to go get castrated? I was under the (unfair?) assumption that when someone makes it public that God "told" them to get castrated, they were/are eligible for the looney bin. (No offense.)

***ENLIGHTEN ME***

As the old saying goes, when you talk to God, it's called prayer. When God talks back to you, it's called mental illness.

I don't know of any current religions that endorse castration, although as Jesus' thread about it some months ago has to make one wonder if there are NOT churches out there - independently - endorsing castration. After all, a lot of them play with snakes.

Many religions don't like sex for many reasons. Some holy men of India, known as 'sah-juz' (phonetic, I can't spell it) make themselves impotent by stretching the penis, encasing the genitals, or tucking the genitals back into the body. Over time, they become impotent, as this practice is begun in boyhood. Their belief is that they can attain an altered state of higher consciousness if they do not orgasm but are still intact males.

One also has to wonder if the Russian backwoods don't still harbor some Skoptzy members as well.

I am a Christian member of the United Methodist Church which is a mainline denomination. I also call myself a evangelical and a "closet" charasmatic. therefore I reply.

You will always find groups which use religion to advocate one position or another. So the best source I know for an answer would be the textbook of Christianity, the Holy Bible. I found three places where eunuchs are mentioned. And in every place eunuchs are in a positive light. I found nothing negative said about eunuchs, for which I am very glad! I refer you to Isaiah 56: 4-5, Matthew 19:12, and Acts 8: 27-39.

My primary reason for desiring castration the constant battle I have with lust. And the Bible does say things about lust. I do not think God directly is telling anyone to be castrated. It would sure help me in my battle. I hope You don't send me to the looney bin. I hope what I said helps. e-mail me if you wish -Steve

Steve (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2002 3:35 am I refer you to Isaiah 56: 4-5, Matthew 19:12, and Acts 8: 27-39.

My primary reason for desiring castration the constant battle I have with lust. And the Bible does say things about lust. I do not think God directly is telling anyone to be castrated

Actually, translations of Matthew 19:12 that are faithful to the original Greek make it clear that Jesus would indeed like you to be castrated for the sake of the Kingdom Of Heaven if you are willing to accept "it". But Jesus also noted that this is not for everyone (obviously).

Steve (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2002 3:35 am My primary reason for desiring castration the constant battle I have with lust. And the Bible does say things about lust. I do not think God directly is telling anyone to be castrated. It would sure help me in my battle. I hope You don't send me to the looney bin. I hope what I said helps.

Well, would it help your battle? Maybe, but I don't think that you can justify it by the Bible, because of Deuteronomy Chapter 23 verses 1-2.

SO, fight the good fight, my friend. Remember what happened to David in II Samuel Chapter 11. After insuring that her husband, Uriah the Hittite, was killed in battle, King David comforted Bathsheba. After taking her as a wife their first son was taken from them. Their second son was Solomon.

By the way, Bathsheba was BLACK. Why do I say this? Because in Chapter 1 verse 5 of the Song of Solomon, Solomon tells us that HE is BLACK. Read it. Now, either Bathsheba was BLACK or all the Jews in Israel are Black, take your pick.

Steve, don't be too concerned with feelings of LUST. It is the human condition. In Matthew Chapter 5 Verses 27 - 32 Jesus Christ (not the archive Jesus) explains our world and condition very nicely. Does this mean that we should cut those parts off that offend us? That is not for me to say.

I take it to mean that it is intended for us to remove the thing that keeps putting us into temptation. Like quitting your Playboy subscription or maybe quitting coaching the High School girls cross-country team and getting away from supervising their shower room experiences via hidden web cams. Perhaps it is as simple as avoiding the the HOT little 19-year-old wench down the street.

If you should fall, there is ALWAYS forgiveness. BTW, that is from GOD, don't EXPECT MIRACLES FROM YOUR WIFE! Mark chapter 3 vs 28-29 and Luke Chapter 12 verse 10 explain this concept. If you want precise meaning to this look at Matthew Chapter 12 verses 31 - 32. It IS pretty specific as to what can be forgiven and what cannot.

Even if you fall constantly, just as long as you never ACT on your lusts, you are still keeping the commandment against Adultry, but remember that you are no BETTER than the one who commits adultry, except in the respect because you haven't yet. You really want to commit adultry, but instead just look and lust. Get it?

In my humble opinion if God would have wanted you without BALLS, you would have been born WITHOUT BALLS. However, since that is apparently NOT the case, you are as he intended YOU to be. Perhaps your balls are a BURDEN to you, like poor Saint Paul describes HIS burden in II Corinthians, Chapter 12 verses 7 - 9. BTW, there IS a reason why you are burdened with such things. One is that you are SUPPOSED to be human.

But, if you can no longer STAND them, then cut them off. If it is a sin you will be forgiven for the sin if you repent and ask. But for heaven's sake don't ASSUME that you MUST do it to stay out of Hell, because that just is NOT the case.

Life Is in many cases a trial. We are placed in situations for a purpose.

So, Steve,

Cut if you must to get rid of the LUST,

But as those parts decay into dust,

Remember that you will NEVER be JUST,

Except through Christ who died for us!

bye!

A-1

Steve,

Somewhere in the Bible, I cannot remember where, it says something like "IF thy hand offend thee, cut it off. If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out."

When I was considering castration this passage was one of my major considerations. Given my situation in lfe, I had come to the point where my balls did indeed "offend" me, that is to say the testosterone that I never seemed to be able control in an acceptable way was getting the better of me.

Now that they are gone I don't look for any special accolades from Heaven, but I don't feel any guilt either. And it is easier to obey some of the commandments in the Bible.

It is in

A-1 (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2002 9:39 am In Matthew Chapter 5 Verses 27 - 32.

It is part of the "Sermon on the Mount".

I say if it is what you must do then go for it. My point is that you cannot justify it through Jesus' teachings unless you feel that you MUST justify the doing of it. It is an OPTION, not a requirement.

It will not cause you to go to Hell or keep you from Hell. It may just give you some peace on earth, though.

A-1

A-1

I don't think any of us think that castration will keep us from hell as if it was a magic process to keep us from sinning. One of my reasons for wanting castration is to have peace of mind. Getting into heaven is not dependent on whether you have testes.

BTW do you know, all in heaven will be eunuchs! We will be neither male nor female.

We might not even think about sex. Heaven for some might be hell for others! LOL

Of Course!

Why do you think that I compared it to the infirmaries of St. Paul?

Turning the song "what's Love got to do with it?" by Tina Turner around we could ask "Love, what's SEX got to do with it?"

I hope that you see my point. Angels are sexless, also. (Except for possibly John Travolta )

See Matthew 22 : 30, or rather 23-33; Mark 12 : 25 or the whole story 18 - 27; or finally, Luke 20 : 35-36 or the whole story 27 - 37.

It is simple to understand the plan. For further enhancement please re-visit the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis Chapters 18 & 19. Pay close attention to the BLESSING of the Jews Chapter 19 vs 18 and also Chapter 22 vs 18.

Understand that the mob in the city of Sodom wanted to RAPE the angels! They turned down Lot's virgin daughters and opted instead to RAPE the angels!

Well, BAD idea. The Angels could have destroyed the place then and there but instead Lot intervened and the Angels only struck the would-be rapists blind. After that, Lot was told to take his wife and daughters and leave the place after which it was destroyed.

Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back. Then, Lot's daughters got Lot drunk and became pregnant by him. The boys that they bore him became the fathers of the tribes of the Moabites and the Ammonites who made lots of problems later on.

Point: Could RAPE be the sin that got Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? You are to answer this one for yourselves. BTW, keep in mind that this is the scripture among others that is used to condemn homosexuality.

In my estimation although one might argue the point of homosexuality being a sin from interpretation of certain Old Testament scripture, certainly it was the PROMISCUITY AND RAPE that caused Sodom and Gomorrah to be destroyed.

Homosexuality is no more of a problem than eating forbidden foods as described in Leviticus. Although it is NOT my lifestyle, I refuse to condemn those who live it and furthermore, Christ admonishes us not to be judgemental. As long as the participants are consenting adults, there is nothing wrong with LOVE. Sex is an expression of LOVE but it is NOT LOVE.

SEX, when misused, is the problem here.

SEX, without meaningful committment and trust is LUST.

Adultry is Sex with another when one is committed to someone else. Referred to in Proverbs as sex with STRANGE women. Strange women as in Proverbs Ch6 vs 3 and 20. Also, Prov 6:24, 7:5, 20:16, 21:8, 22:14, 23:27, 23:33 and 27:13.

Boys, avoid those Strange Women!

Well, interesting conversation. I hope that there can be many more like this in the future.

Always remember that at times SEX SUCKS!

The only time that SEX seems important is when you are NOT getting it!

Unless, of course, you are a Eunuch.

A-1

A-1,

Very good posts. I like your insight.

My two cents are that most popular religions advocate sexual "restraint" to the point that it is close to eunuch-hood. Christians, Muslims and Jews generally discourage masturbation and pornography, pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex, homosexual and bestiality relationships, etc.

Jewish boys are taught to never even touch their penis (they urinate without touching it). Some say circumcision is essentially meant as an anti-masturbation measure.

The Pope still is anti birth control, and the point is that sex is meant for procreation -- not recreation.

Muslims can't even stand the sight of a woman's face because they might be tempted.

Hindu ascetics renouce sex and some practice castration or other abstinence type practices.

Even Taoists, who take the most natural view toward living, say things like "no sex without love", and "only make love when the penis stirs on its own". These are obviously statements about moderation in sex.

From these points of view, I think that eunch-hood would make someone into a model Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. That does not mean that those religions advocate castration, but their ideals of morality almost require it to fully embody those ideals. As A-1 said, angels were considered asexual.

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your positive comments, and apoligize if I made any that were negative.

It seems to me that the more a religion represses sex the more perverted the practicioners of the religion become.

The Christian tradition did not repress sex. Mary Magdeline was a PROSTITUTE that Jesus saved from being stoned to death by the Jewish Clergy. She did not believe in him until that moment. She followed him until his crucifixion and believed in him until her death.

Tantra was a sect in India that held the sex act as a sacred rite. In certain far easter countries including Japan, sects still worship the penis in the form of a Phallic statue. There are a lot of religions that do not make a BIG ISSUE of sex.

Religion is peculiar and the BEST of them teach UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. It is sad that many people will not tolerate other cultures and other belief systems.

It is in places like this board where participants are interested in a non-mainstream subject where all seem to be the most tolerant. That is a sad connotation to the state of religion in the world today.

I hope that we all realize that the REAL lesson of September 11th is that the only thing that should be intolerable is intolerance itself.

A-1

...those who doubt the sensuousness of the Bible should read "The Songs of Solomon". Youth is the time for falling in love but it can happen at any time. I long to see a "love story" involving a Eunuch in the archive. My attempt was the last episode of "the last night for Briony" but I am not satisfied with it. Somehow it is not what I wanted it to be.

The Songs of Solomon are, perhaps, are the most beautiful love verses ever penned bar none! Keep in mind that Solomon had around 250 wives and 300 concubines. That is what would have happened if Elvis Presley were an ancient Jewish king.

Truly, we find some who have this type of sexual charisma today, but somehow the wisdom of Solomon has escaped them for the most part.

Well, I have "overposted" my welcome here, I think, so I will sign off for now.

A-1

Et Al,

This is an interesting bit of discourse, in my faith, all things are governed by a simple/complex rule;

"An Ye harm None, do as thou wilt."

It also can become Very interesting as the person who is learning interprets 'harm None'.

This Rede does Not give Licence. It also Demands the utmost in Personal responsibility.

i have always felt an attraction towards eunuchs, but i have never fet that this was a religious issue. personally, i would doubt that it would be, but that is my own humble opinion.

A-1, thank you for trying to keep the Jesuses properly separated on the Archive. It's easy to just remember that I'm Jesus A., and the other one is Jesus H. (O.K., O.K., I know that someone here will be offended by blasphemy, but I can't imagine accepting any diety who doesn't have a sense of humor.)

Anyway, to get back to the original question. The only current mainstream religious group that I am aware of practicing castration is the hijira of India, most of whom (85 to 90%) are Hindu. They are accepted AS Hindu by most, but not all, other Hindus. They worship the standard Hindu dieties and take part in Hindu ceremonies. The other 10+% begin life as Moslems, but are apparently not accepted as Moslem by other Moslems in India. Most of them also begin to practice Hindu ceremonies and to honor the Hindu dieties. I have read one Indian sociologist who claims that no hijira begin life in any of the other religious groups in India. I'm doubtful, and expect that there must be a handful of Christian, Buddhist and Jain hijira somewhere in India.

Paolo suggested that there might still be some Skoptsy around. This is a reasonable supposition. A group was reported on in the 1970s in the Ukraine. There have been at least a couple of independent reports of a small group of Skoptsy in Turkey (where they need to stay very much under cover in a mostly Moslem state).

The Skoptsy would claim to be the only TRUE Christians. Their theology included the idea that Adam and Eve were created without sex, in the true image of God - both of them. (As A-1 reminds us, all angels are sexless too. In Constantinople, court eunuchs were sometimes mistaken for angels when they traveled the city, and, according to some reports, vice versa as angels managed to travel in cognito as eunuchs.)

According to the Skoptsy, the addition of sex to humans was their punishment for disobedience of God's will. Theologians, of course, have a field day with an assertion like this, but hermeneutics is not an exact science and this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of Genesis! Read it yourself. Skoptsy argue(d) that castration returns men to their original state, as created in the image of God. (Women had their breasts and labia removed.) They interpret Revelation 14:4 as meaning that the Judgement will not come until there are 144,000 Christian eunuchs who were castrated before they experienced any sexual activity.

There are a great many mentions of eunuchs in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. It has been argued by historians that there are more mentions of castration and eunuchs per thousand words in the Bible than in any other long, connected text from the ancient world. They were clearly very much in people's minds. As I've mentioned in earlier posts, at least Daniel and Nehemiah, among the prophets, were eunuchs. Many other eunuchs figure prominently in the narrative.

Christians tend to split as to whether they prefer the Old Testament or the New. There are clearly differences between them in many areas. Some favor the thought that the birth of Jesus superceded the Old Testament. Some favor the primacy of the Law of the Torah. The Old Testament has an emphasis on reproduction, the New has an emphasis on chastity.

Whether or not there are other "Christian" groups that practice castration, I do not know. My piece on The Evangelical Church of the Lambs of Christ was a projection into contemporary Los Angeles of Skoptsy theology married to Fundamentalism. It COULD happen.

That there are groups outside the mainstream faiths is almost certain. Heaven's Gate can't possibly be the only such group. They just haven't come to our attention yet.

Jesus mentions :

JesusA wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2002 12:13 pm In Constantinople, court eunuchs were sometimes mistaken for angels when they traveled the city, and, according to some reports, vice versa as angels managed to travel in cognito as eunuchs.

Just as sort of an aside, but the Author John Julius Norwich writes in his series of books about Byzantium, that artwork of the time often depicted angels dressed as eunuchs (of that period, as far as dress).

Don't ask me what page it's on - there's 3 books, and they're all huge ... it's in there somewhere.

:p

While this thread is current I would like to describe (confess?) one of my most secret fantasies.

I have always (20 years or so, anyway) had a secret ambition to start a religious order that is ran by female priestesses and the men accepted into the inner circle as priests would have to become eunuchs. The eunuch priests would not be in Mistress/slave relationship like in a BDSM scene, but have a respected position within the monastic community. The head chamberlain (a eunuch) would rank just below the head matron or high priestess.

The order wouldn't advocate emasculation for the general population. Those who aspired to become eunuch priests would be answering a very special calling. They would have to be tested and deemed worthy by the order before they could receive the rite of castration and initiation. Becoming a eunuch would not guarantee that the former male would get to cuddle and snuggle with the priestesses. He would simply be assigned duties and living quarters within the monastery. Any relations that might transpire between the eunuchs and priestesses would be voluntary between the individuals; neither a right nor a rite.

The women would probably also have to make some kind of commitment to celibacy (but not necessarily to chastity) to become a priestess. This would not preclude nights on the town with virile men. But within the confines of the monastery there could only be women and eunuchs. (Kind of like the Forbidden City in China.) Both priestesses and eunuchs would be free to resign their posts and return to the mundane world. However, since the eunuch would have made a physical commitment by his alteration, it is unlikely the eunuchs would ever elect to return to a life in the world at large. The order wouldn't be a cult in the strictest terms. No one would be coerced to enter and no one would be coerced to remain.

For lack of a better term I have referred to the order as a monastic community. Such words as monastery, cloister, abbey, and convent carry a connotation I don't wish to convey. They conjure up images of gloomy medieval asceticism. Nothing could be farther from my own vision. Such religious complexes of the order would be seats of learning and research, where members could pursue the arts and science. They would actually become small universities in their own right. In fact, they would resemble the campus of a small college. The order would frequently host joyous festivals open for the general public.

I don't know if anything like this would appeal to anyone on this board. It would definitely require women to become interested as much as men (future eunuch priests). Otherwise, it will remain nothing more than a bizarre male fantasy. Also, it probably couldn't evolve to the level described above during the lifetime of most adults living today. We could see nothing more than the humble beginnings of the order. It would require a commitment to something that would not come to fruition until after we were long gone.

I just thought I would present the idea. Is this just a jerk-off fantasy or does it have potential? Comments?

Farrell

Most Christian churches teaches that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because God judged their homosexual lusts. I tend to disagree. Gay people were found in all the cities all around the known world at that time, not only in those cities. If God struck at gay people, He would have destroyed those other cities as well. I also don't believe that all the citizens were gay, so why destroy all the people? For me to accept that hundreds of men and boys wanted to have sex with two men out of love or lust is unthinkable. Where have this ever happened elsewhere in history? After an orgy of such proportions, any man would most probably die from internal injury.

The Bible states at many places what the "sin exceeding" of Sodom and Gomorrah is. Yes, A1 is correct. The angels was moved to destruction because of RAPE. Remember, in those days is was required that any person entering a city had to report to the authorities at the town square. There they had to inform the authorities regarding their business in that city. The Bible states that Sodom and Gomorrah (and three other surrounding cities) just survived a terrible war against king Kedorlaomer of Elam. (Genesis 14) The authorities of Sodom and Gomorrah were obviously very alert to covert activities from the defeated enemies. The men attacking Lot's house were angry because they most likely reckoned those men (angels) as spies. The angels wanted to go to the square when they entered the city, but Lot convinced them to join him in his house right away. Those years (and even today at places) men RAPE other men not out of lust, but rather to humiliate. The Romans also had this reputation. Lot gave his daughters to be RAPED and BEATEN ("Lot told those men to do to his daughter as they pleased) but the mob wanted to punish those spies (angels). Just think for yourself...it's not in gay people's nature to want sex with a woman. The gay men I know cannot even remotely consider sexual relations with a woman. Why would Lot then give woman to gay men? Lot gave his daughters to be tortured in the angel's stead. This same thing actually happened somewhere else in the OT where a girl was wrongfully killed. The prophet then cut her up into 12 pieces which was sent to the 12 tribes of Israel.

So, what was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me...". These "detestable things before me" could include sexual immorality, but those cities were destroyed for lots of reasons..."sin exceeding". The lack of hospitality was a big reason for their destruction as well. God takes this kind of sin quite seriously. Even Jesus said to his disciples that if the "lost sheep of Israel" did not welcome them in their homes..."Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city."

ALBEIT...their are two places in the Bible where I cannot get past the fact that the text condemns homosexual acts. It is right at this point that I recommend that my fellow Christian gay brothers go celibate and even consider castration. Up to them of course.

How did you manage to dig up a 12 year old thread? Ground penetrating radar?

hehe

A bit off topic, but...

One explanation I've read for God ordering the destruction of a civilization (Whether by His doing, or having the Israelites do it), is the presence of the Nephelim (Genesis 6, KJV). Those giants were in the land, before the flood, and then again after. The Nephelim, for those who believe, were the offspring of Fallen Angels and human women. They weren't nice people, and in each instance of one of these bloodbaths, you'll find that the civilization was made up of them and those who followed them.

I also once countered a person who thought that any castrated male couldn't go to Heaven, based on Deuteronomy about having been "wounded in the stones or having his privy member cut off...not entering the congregation of the Lord," with this - if God doesn't like eunuchs, then why'd He hang out with Daniel and the lot of them? Why that guarantee is Isaiah? Your god would send an innocent little boy, let's say, castrated in childhood, to Hell? Sounds like a god I want nothing to do with.

It's much like saying "Well, Jesus loves me, but He hates you!"

Back to the subject at hand. Other than a few cults, I think we're still out of luck on a modern, accepted religion that advocates castration.

Paolo wrote: Fri Dec 26, 2014 1:59 am How did you manage to dig up a 12 year old thread? Ground penetrating radar?...

Yeah! I just noticed myself. I was actually going through old posts out of boredom but did not realize I actually commented on one. Interesting topic though.

You know you talk about your CHRISTIAN brothers, but the reference you make comes from the OLD testament, it also talks about what kind of cloths you can and can't put together and how to keep your kitchen and what you can eat and what you can't and on and on and that ALL comes before the reference to being gay. Christians are happy to say OH Jesus changed all that, NO HE DID NOT. I think you are so off base reading what you want to make a point when if fact in the bible you can make any kind of point from any view because it changes from book to book and depending on when it was written.

Another words, STOP, you can't pick and chose which chapter and verse you want to make a point AND this is not a religious group, I do believe if I go back far enough I will find the post where you were told this.

I may get overruled on this and that's OK, but this thread is closed.