Castration Vs. Sins Of The Flesh

[Groo the Wanderer]

Here's something to debate, sparked by a question posed to me (OK, so I have weird friends...)

Would it be acceptable to have oneself castrated to if it seemed to be the only way to avoid temptations to sins of the flesh?

assumptions: the person is male (kinda obvious), has formed bad habits of lust, wishes to break free, but cannot seem to do so, thinks that removing the hormonal source driving this would stop the temptations

Ready? 3...2...1...DEBATE!!

[homeschoolmom]

[N/A Gone]

No...

In the process of sanctification we are to develop our souls in order to make our sinful nature submissive. This is why we fast. By cutting off your "self" you are not defeating sin, but rather showing the grave effect of the sin on yourself. I dont thinking cutting oneself off is damning (teaching it might be) but it is not what we are called to do. Perhaps it is also the major reason Origen is not respected more.

There is also the issue of preservation of human life, (*insert classic H.Vitae arguments here)

[Ragamuffin]

What about the passage where Jesus says it would be better to gouge out an eye or cut off a hand if it causes you to sin? Taken literally, it seems the castration option would be valid.

Not that I'd be game for it.

[kateri05]

definitely not. origen did this, hence why he did not become a saint. Jesus came to liberate us from our sins, to set us free for freedom, not to give us "coping mechanisms" for sin and temptations.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1288150' date='Jun 4 2007, 03:22 PM']definitely not. origen did this, hence why he did not become a saint. Jesus came to liberate us from our sins, to set us free for freedom, not to give us "coping mechanisms" for sin and temptations.[/quote]
Ditto.

We're redeemed by being transformed into more and more perfect images of Christ. We are not redeemed by mutilating ourselves.

Similarly, we're redeemed by putting our desires in the right order, rather than trying to eliminate passions and desires.

In a nutshell, we're called to the freedom of loving God, not the fear of hating Him.

[Ragamuffin]

So...Jesus didn't mean what He said?

[Didymus]

I thought that passage always referred to cutting off the things in our life that keep us from doing the right thing.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Ragamuffin' post='1288097' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:34 PM']What about the passage where Jesus says it would be better to gouge out an eye or cut off a hand if it causes you to sin? Taken literally, it seems the castration option would be valid.

Not that I'd be game for it.[/quote]

Nothing in heremeutics would suggest you should take it literal. I do not read greek, but I was decent at hermenutics. The verse itself is Matt 5:29...but notice the verse before you cites that when you look lustfully you commit adultery with your heart. We understand what he said, but it is obvious that my heart did not bust out of the pericardium for some foreplay. (but the image of my Vena Cava doin some nasty is kinda funny)

The point of the verse is that it is better to rid our lives of the things that cause us to sin, in order to avoid hell. In an extreme could that mean a body part? Perhaps if we were using only this verse, but the Pauline concept of the Body not belonging to us, and being bought would suggest it is not our own right to cut off our body in this situation.

Personally, if you feel you are at the point when you are tempted to cut off a part then there are 2 options. 1.) you are a guy between the age of 14 and 40. Its ok, we all have moments. There was ways to work past lust and if you wanna talk on PM I am more than willing to help a friend.

2.) I think it would be better to seek help from clergy, or an accountability buddy or even professional help rather than casteration. I continue to not see how a literal cutting off fits with the christian model of soteriology and sanctification.

[quote name='Didymus' post='1288155' date='Jun 4 2007, 04:33 PM']I thought that passage always referred to cutting off the things in our life that keep us from doing the right thing.[/quote]

yup...Internet is morally neutral, but if it causes us to stumble it is better to remove it from our lives.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Ragamuffin' post='1288154' date='Jun 4 2007, 03:31 PM']So...Jesus didn't mean what He said?[/quote]
Jesus was using hyperbole, a poetic form of exaggeration. The point wasn't to mutilate yourself, it was to avoid sin at extreme costs.

The fact that no saint has ever had to remove his eyes or limbs to become a saint is proof that it's not necessary.

Discipline is what's necessary.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1288159' date='Jun 4 2007, 04:03 PM']Jesus was using hyperbole, a poetic form of exaggeration. The point wasn't to mutilate yourself, it was to avoid sin at extreme costs.

The fact that no saint has ever had to remove his eyes or limbs to become a saint is proof that it's not necessary.

Discipline is what's necessary.[/quote]
There is such freedom in not having to take everything in the Bible absolutely literally ...

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1288096' date='Jun 4 2007, 12:28 PM']No...

In the process of sanctification we are to develop our souls in order to make our sinful nature submissive. This is why we fast. By cutting off your "self" you are not defeating sin, but rather showing the grave effect of the sin on yourself. I dont thinking cutting oneself off is damning (teaching it might be) but it is not what we are called to do. Perhaps it is also the major reason Origen is not respected more.[/quote]

I'm glad that someone mentioned Origen


[quote name='Ragamuffin' post='1288097' date='Jun 4 2007, 12:34 PM']What about the passage where Jesus says it would be better to gouge out an eye or cut off a hand if it causes you to sin? Taken literally, it seems the castration option would be valid.

Not that I'd be game for it.[/quote]

If you believe in the tradition of the Council of Nicea, then you can't believe in Castration, as it was direction addressed and condemned.


[quote name='kateri05' post='1288150' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:22 PM']definitely not. origen did this, hence why he did not become a saint. Jesus came to liberate us from our sins, to set us free for freedom, not to give us "coping mechanisms" for sin and temptations.[/quote]

This wasn't the reason that Origen didn't become a Saint, as Oregin is documented [if memory serves] as repenting for this sin, what kept him from his sainthood were other teachings that he held strong to, that were not teachings that Christendom agreed with...


[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1288156' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:52 PM']Nothing in heremeutics would suggest you should take it literal. I do not read greek, but I was decent at hermenutics. The verse itself is Matt 5:29...but notice the verse before you cites that when you look lustfully you commit adultery with your heart. We understand what he said, but it is obvious that my heart did not bust out of the pericardium for some foreplay. (but the image of my Vena Cava doin some nasty is kinda funny)[/quote]

Good point, if this was the case, most of humanity would be heartless.


[quote name='Raphael' post='1288159' date='Jun 4 2007, 03:03 PM']Jesus was using hyperbole, a poetic form of exaggeration. The point wasn't to mutilate yourself, it was to avoid sin at extreme costs.

The fact that no saint has ever had to remove his eyes or limbs to become a saint is proof that it's not necessary.

Discipline is what's necessary.[/quote]

Exactly, mutilation is condemned. What Origin did was mentioned directly and addressed at the Council of Nicea, and condemned.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1288165' date='Jun 4 2007, 05:09 PM']There is such freedom in not having to take everything in the Bible absolutely literally ...[/quote]

Yes, the Truth sets us free. But Protestants are choosy about which verses they take literally and which they will not. A definite "No" on Mt 5:29-30 and "No" again on 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 and John 6 on the Eucharist. "No" on "This is my body" in the Synoptics. A few "Yes" but many more "No" votes on Mark 16:17-18 and Luke 10:19 about snakes and poison. And so forth, depending upon personal interpretation and denomination.

Likos

Edited June 4, 2007 by Katholikos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1288200' date='Jun 4 2007, 04:39 PM']Yes, the Truth sets us free. But Protestants are choosy about which verses they take literally and which they will not.[/quote]

What are you talking about, Roman Catholics and Orthodox do the same thing... they just base it upon their tradition, while Protestants follow their own tradition. The Bible has deaconesses but Roman Catholics and Orthodox don't follow that tradition, based upon the traditions that they have held. Ultimately everyone in humanity does this, as we have to decide what is litural and figurative.

Origen wasn't an idiot, he was one of the greatest thinkers in Christendom [thou often being wrong] and helped to denounce some of the worst heresies that Christendom has ever faced, but he was still subject to being wrong at times.

Reza

Edited June 4, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1288239' date='Jun 4 2007, 06:47 PM']What are you talking about, Roman Catholics and Orthodox do the same thing... they just base it upon their tradition, while Protestants follow their own tradition. The Bible has deaconesses but Roman Catholics and Orthodox don't follow that tradition, based upon the traditions that they have held. Ultimately everyone in humanity does this, as we have to decide what is litural and figurative.[/quote]
There is a significant difference here.
The Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Churches to a large extent - though they have rejected the Pope's teaching authority) follow the Tradition handed down continuously from the Apostles.

The Protestants explicitly and deliberately rejected much of Catholic Tradition in the Protestant Revolt of the 16th Century, and started their own "traditions." Every protestant sect that followed has essentially had to start from scratch - lacking the continuity of Apostolic Tradition. It essentially comes down to every man for himself - the Tradition handed down from the Apostles being rejected.