What is a Woman?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You asked the question after replying to his later post where he literally said it was a pdf, you absolute cockwomble.

See my above reply.

[Gondwanaland]

See my above reply.

See the reply you just quoted.

[tabibito]

Yeah, that.

Fortunately they no longer bombard me with a dozen emails a day (maybe five or six a week now), but since they have my name I keep getting stuff like "Are you the 'rogue06' who wrote..." for various papers. My name is hardly common but there appear to be a significant number of academics that I share it with.

Ah - I had wondered about that. I get a similar bombardment.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

See the reply you just quoted.

Sorry Gond - you want a fight and I am not going to oblige you.

[Gondwanaland]

Sorry Gond - you want a fight and I am not going to oblige you.

The gaslighting is strong with this one

[Christianbookworm]

So now you are back to it is wrong no matter why someone is doing it? So a woman wearing pants would be a sin, then. I was just pointing out that it can be more complicated than that. Like I said, my mom's old church was very legalistic on such things and I think that is wrong.

So now you are back to it is wrong no matter why someone is doing it? So a woman wearing pants would be a sin, then. I was just pointing out that it can be more complicated than that. Like I said, my mom's old church was very legalistic on such things and I think that is wrong.

Don't think men wore pants back then. Men and women wore tunics.

[Starlight]

Thanks for the information. However, the context of Jesus answer is in the context of the disciples amazement at the severity of Christ's restrictions on divorce, having called any remarriage after a divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality, e.g. adultery, adultery itself. They say if that be the case, then better not to marry.

Given the jewish culture and religion, they are not suggesting a life with many sexual relationships outside marriage. They are saying it is better to never marry at all, i.e. it is better to never have sexual relations or children than to be forced to live with a woman you want to divorce the rest of your life.

So when Jesus then references eunuchs, he could not be expected to be referencing those that chose alternate forms of sexual relations or expression, but rather those that chose or are forced into circumstances with no sexual relations of any kind.

He is saying that although some people can, most people can't handle a life without any sort of sexual intimacy.

I agree that when he talks about those who become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God that he is talking about people who forgo raising a family to instead spend that time focusing on religion.

But earlier in the statement he talks about people born eunuchs and those made eunuchs by men, so the meanings of those words have to be looked at in their social context in the ancient world to understand what the hearers would have taken him to be talking about.

[oxmixmudd]

I agree that when he talks about those who become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God that he is talking about people who forgo raising a family to instead spend that time focusing on religion.

But earlier in the statement he talks about people born eunuchs and those made eunuchs by men, so the meanings of those words have to be looked at in their social context in the ancient world to understand what the hearers would have taken him to be talking about.

I agree. There is therefore a bit of a cultural/context conflict it seems. Maybe not of course, that could just be my western mind seeing it the way I've always seen it. But it does seem odd he would use that as an example, contextually, of celibacy if 'eunichs' were not understood contextually as celibate.

[tabibito]

I agree. There is therefore a bit of a cultural/context conflict it seems. Maybe not of course, that could just be my western mind seeing it the way I've always seen it. But it does seem odd he would use that as an example, contextually, of celibacy if 'eunichs' were not understood contextually as celibate.

It would seem that Jesus was referring to people whom we might term "asexual:" people who have no interest in sexual relationships - and quite possibly, by the contextual setting, might easily have included himself.

[Starlight]

It would seem that Jesus was referring to people whom we might term "asexual:" people who have no interest in sexual relationships - and quite possibly, by the contextual setting, might easily have included himself.

His statement seems to me to be about forgoing the time and energy spent in raising a family, to instead spend that time and energy in religious pursuit. I would say the point he's making is really around working to provide money to raise children and provide for a wife, rather than sexual status.

In the modern world, where wives commonly work and so don't need to be 'provided for' by the husband, this idea of forgoing family for religious doings doesn't translate perfectly - plenty of couples are able to do a lot more for the church working together than they would be alone. I would tend to say that in the context of this passage that a childless couple both doing church work are 'eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven'.

I don't think the passage is fundamentally about sex, because eunuchs in the ancient world weren't necessarily all asexual, nor were necessarily expected to be. Rather, the word is about people who don't have children. All across the ancient world it was common to restrict many government roles to eunuchs, for the purpose of reducing corruption - they couldn't pass their positions to their children, because they didn't/couldn't have any. Nobody cared if these government officials were having sex or not. But they sure did care that they didn't have children to inherit their positions.

[rogue06]

Ah - I had wondered about that. I get a similar bombardment.

I'm very hesitant to request stuff from them for fear of starting it anew.

The biggest problem is that they start sending stuff that isn't even remotely related to the work that was requested. For instance, I asked for some papers on the Roman slave trade and a month later my email was being jammed with stuff about the literature of the qur'an. Or the same work that I already got from them keeps getting offered in different formats.

[tabibito]

His statement seems to me to be about forgoing the time and energy spent in raising a family, to instead spend that time and energy in religious pursuit. I would say the point he's making is really around working to provide money to raise children and provide for a wife, rather than sexual status.

In the modern world, where wives commonly work and so don't need to be 'provided for' by the husband, this idea of forgoing family for religious doings doesn't translate perfectly - plenty of couples are able to do a lot more for the church working together than they would be alone. I would tend to say that in the context of this passage that a childless couple both doing church work are 'eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven'.

I don't think the passage is fundamentally about sex, because eunuchs in the ancient world weren't necessarily all asexual, nor were necessarily expected to be. Rather, the word is about people who don't have children. All across the ancient world it was common to restrict many government roles to eunuchs, for the purpose of reducing corruption - they couldn't pass their positions to their children, because they didn't/couldn't have any. Nobody cared if these government officials were having sex or not. But they sure did care that they didn't have children to inherit their positions.

I think it more likely that Jesus was responding to the topic at hand.

[rogue06]

I think it more likely that Jesus was responding to the topic at hand.

You mean he wasn't addressing 21st cent. social issues? What a novel approach.

[seer]

[rogue06]

3d997ec0-8599-4b58-98ae-2200875b4550.jpg278018191_3277781129168887_249973983162806854_n.jpg