Today's daily readings and castration

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maximilian75

Guest
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off.
It is better for you to enter into life maimed
than with two hands to go into Gehenna,
into the unquenchable fire.
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut if off.
It is better for you to enter into life crippled
than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna.
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.
Better for you to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye
than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna,

How could one disprove the assertion that this passage would support castration for someone who, say, struggles with pornography?
 
You could say it was a hyperbole or emphasis of sorts like don’t call anyone your father.
 
Last edited:
Well, in this case, it would mean that humanity would die out, since everyone who struggled w lust would have to be castrated…

And Protestants are really the ones you want to talk to this about… Look at the Bread of Life Discourse.
 
There is no reason in this text to believe he was speaking literally. Do you see some evidence for a literal translation?
 
There is no way to really determine what to take literally. We take literally that the bread is the literal body. Maybe that is hyperbole?
 
Well, Jesus says it multiple times, and even says it again, changing to a stronger wording after ‘many left Him’ because it was a hard teaching.

Jesus doubles down.
40.png
Literal or symbolic? Partaking of the flesh and blood Sacred Scripture
Jesus calls himself the Gate and the Shepherd in other parables. What makes him not those things is that he later explains himself to the disciples, saying ‘this parable means xyz’ In the Bread of Life discourse, he does not do this. In fact, he doubles down- Many of his followers leave him. If it was just a symbol, Jesus can say as such! He does not- He instead reiterates what he said to the disciples.
Click to expand...
 
That’s not the way exegesis works. You don’t just cherry pick scriptures and interpret based on a superficial understanding of the words. You have to place them in their proper context (culture, tradition and authority). There is lots of evidence to suggest that Christ was being quite literal in the bread of life discourse. Not so much for the section Max references.
 
Last edited:
I missed the mark on my first post, so I’m trying again:

Several Holy Fathers interpret “the hand,” “the foot,” and “the eye” as a friend dear to our heart with which we share our life, to whom we are bound by ties of affection, harmony and solidarity. There is a limit to this relationship. Christian friendship submits to the law of God. If my friend, my companion, a person dear to me is for me an occasion of sin, a stumbling block for me in journey, I have no other choice. According to the criterion of the Lord, this relationship must be cut. Who would deny the agony of such a choice? Is this a cruel amputation? Yet the Lord is clear: It is better for me to go alone in the Kingdom (without a hand, without a foot, without an eye), than to go with my friend “into hell, into unquenchable fire” (Mark 9:43; cf. Mark 9: 45,47).
Click to expand...
So I would say it’s not to be taken literally?
 
Context. If the Bread of Life discourse was hyperbolic or metaphorical, we wouldn’t expect everyone to walk away or to let be walked away without correction. Even the Apostles weren’t given an alternative explanation, which is something Jesus is shown to have done for them with parables they were confused by. Add to that consistent Church tradition back to its earliest days…

As for the “cut off your hands,” again, context. The literal words are calling for extreme maiming, yet we don’t read about people leaving Jesus at that teaching, questioning “how can he ask us to cut off our hands?”, or hear about faithful disciples cutting off their own hands or plucking out eyes, nor is there evidence this was ever a tradition (Origen’s actions were always viewed as extreme, and were based on a different verse, anyway). It is hyperbolic in the context of scripture and it’s obvious it was always seen that way.
 
Last edited:
Why not head first?.. bad joke. I think you should blind yourself rather than castrate (But during this times castration would be better with all the modern medicine and stuff)
 
The passage occurs only in Matthew and Mark’s gospels. For me, something stands out that shows it’s not meant to be understood literally as applying to our physical body parts — Jesus speaks in the singular!. In Matthew it’s the "right eye / right foot / right hand! Mark uses the word “it”, not “them”. I don’t think people close one eye when they look at something sinful; hop on one foot to go somewhere sinful, …

Secondly, Jesus is talking about what causes one to sin. (“If …cause you to sin, cut it off”) It’s not the physical body part that causes us to sin. Eg. The hand doesn’t physically start moving on it’s own to steal an object. The cause is in our disordered passions. (greed, lust, etc.) Those are what must be “cut off” - conquered.
 
Last edited:
How can I put this delicately?
Castration after puberty will not interfere significantly with sexual function.
There will be no more sperm, but sexual intercourse is still possible.
 
"If, by chance, your hand offend you,
Cut it off, lad, and be sound.
'Twill hurt, but here are salves to friend you,
And many a balsam grows on ground.

And if, by chance, your eye offend you,
Pluck it out lad, and be whole.
But be a man, stand up and end you
When your sickness is your soul."

Alfred Houseman wrote that. FWIW.
 
Last edited:
Jesus probably meant, If your hand causes you to sin, and all other possible remedies have failed, then, as the very last resort, cut it off…
 
The Church as never approve castration. It is considered as a body mutilation.

She had even strongly warn against asetes in the first centuries who sometimes used this process, that is seen as a dishonest versus true chastity that resist to carnal temptations.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top