Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 01-14-2013, 12:38 PM

Spin has already seen this, but folks here might find it interesting!

Quote:

And the reason the new Simple Judaic Christians wanted to separate Jesus from the Nazarene Sect, is because of the lurid reports of Nazarene beliefs and practices.

These (Naasseni or Nazarene) ... magnify ... a man and a son of man.
And this man is a hermaphrodite, and is called among them Adam ... (he) has been emasculated
... he has passed over from the earthly parts of the nether world to the everlasting substance
above, where, he says, there is neither female or male, but a new creature, a new man, which is hermaphrodite. Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation of all Heresies, 5:1.

While the rest are playing flutes and performing the rites, frenzy comes upon many
... he throws off his clothes, rushes to the center with a great shout and
takes up a sword and immediately castrates himself. Then he rushes through
the city holding in his hands the parts he has cut off. He takes female clothing
and women’s adornment from whatever house he throws these (testicles) into.

Pseudo-Lucian, Erotes. See also Livy. xxix. 10, 14; xxxvi. 36; Juvinal. vi. 512; Ovid.
Fast. iv. 237; Pliny. H. N. v. 32; xi. 49; xxxv. 13

It was not in Christianity's interest to promote Jesus as a testicle tosser, especially as the Romans had made the practice illegal.

But we know that Jesus was a testicle tosser - and thus a Nazarene - because Jesus asked the disciples to become eunuchs.

[color=#4000BF]But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: & there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it Math 19:11

Clearly Jesus wanted his disciples to become eunuchs 'for the kingdom of heaven’s sake', because he was a leader of the Nazarene. And do note that the leader of the Nazarene Fourth Sect of Judaism in the 1st century was Jesus of Gamala and Galilee.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ch...219-32620.html

andrewcriddle · 01-14-2013, 01:12 PM

FWIW the quote from Lucian is from the Syrian Goddess not the Erotes.

(I'm not sure that the error in the OP makes any difference to its rather weird argument.)

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 01-14-2013, 01:58 PM

As strange as this particular formulation of the question might be, the question is still interesting. I have no particular personal interest in castration (though I must admit for complete transparency that my father did have prostrate cancer shortly before he passed away recently). Nevertheless the facts are that Christianity - especially the form developed in Alexandria - doesn't make much much sense without positing some radical innovation 'going beyond' traditional Judaism.

I have written about this many times before (and have only stopped because the topic is 'icky') but when Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ephrem and countless others who used the Diatessaron cite Jesus as saying in effect that the Law said 'do not lust after your neighbor's wife' but I say 'do not lust' and the Law said 'do not murder' but I see do not be angry' the suggestion is that Christianity will somehow 'pull out' the root of the problem of lust. This is what Clement and many others say over and over again and I don't see how a religion could completely transform an individuals behavior without some sort of radical 'surgery' (perhaps taken allegorical or literally).

It is true that there isn't a single smoking gun in the surviving New Testament which confirms its ritual use but it fits in with the general sense of what we know of Judaism in the period (i.e. greater asceticism). Our existing sources also do indicate a greater frequency of castrated Christians in the second century as opposed to the third and beyond. Yes, the practice was eventually banned within the Church (it was banned by Imperial decree as early as Domitian and again under Hadrian and Antoninus) but I can't help thinking that the blessed state of being 'chrestos' could only have been achieved through a lobotomy or castration. As I don't believe the ancient Romans had the technical capabilities to carry out the first option I am left with the second and frequent reports which affirm the widespread use of this practice in the second century.

Again the question is how did Christianity promise to make people better? There is nothing in the existing Catholic paradigm which helps explain this. The blood and the flesh of Christ are now something symbolic. It is hard to believe that people could have seriously believed that mere 'symbols' would help transform humanity. The fact that traditionally minded Christians of the Catholic, Orthodox and related traditions accept this only speaks to the power of superstition and convention. In the 1960s there was a slogan 'better living through chemistry.' In order to make sense of the appeal of Christianity I am left wondering if there might have been a similar slogan in the second century. To the effect that, better living - even aeonic life - might be achieved through surgery, through pulling out the root of lust and sin.

I am always left struggling how to make sense of Christianity. Perhaps a better understanding will emerge in the future. This is what makes most sense to me right now and - as I am not a Christian - I feel I have the necessary objectivity to see it through unprejudiced eyes.

Clivedurdle · 01-14-2013, 02:57 PM

Thank you. I think you are on to something.

To make things worse, I understand they were quite skilled at brain surgery!

Quote:

As I don't believe the ancient Romans had the technical capabilities to carry out the first option

The Muslim slave trade carried on the tradition of castration. I wonder if they imported the idea from somewhere.

Quote:

Trepanning, also known as trephination, trephining or making a burr hole, is a surgical intervention in which a hole is drilled or scraped into the human skull, exposing the dura mater to treat health problems related to intracranial diseases. It may also refer to any "burr" hole created through other body surfaces, including nail beds. It is often used to relieve pressure beneath a surface. A trephine is an instrument used for cutting out a round piece of skull bone.

Evidence of trepanation has been found in prehistoric human remains from Neolithic times onward. Cave paintings indicate that people believed the practice would cure epileptic seizures, migraines, and mental disorders.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning

(Oh and I see no reason why theraputae should not be highly skilled in both practices!)

Muslim practice might not have been as skilled - they had horrendous death rates - and might circumcision be a not quite as drastic version?

Clivedurdle · 01-14-2013, 03:04 PM

Of course, Judaism also has a very long history of achieving altered states of consciousness through surgery.

Quote:

To the totality of purposes of the perfect Law there belong the abandonment, depreciation, and restraint of desires in so far as possible. You know already that most of the lusts and licentiousness of the multitude consist in an appetite for eating, drinking and sexual intercourse.

To the totality of intentions of the Law there belong gentleness and docility; man should not be hard and rough, but responsive, obedient, acquiescent, and docile. You know already His commandment... "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. Be silent, and hearken, O Israel. If ye be willing and obedient."

Part III, Chapter 49

Page 609:

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

Pages 609-610:

According to me circumcision has another very important meaning, namely, that all people professing this opinion-that is, those who believe in the unity of God-should have a bodily sign uniting them so that one who does not belong to them should not be able to claim that he was one of them, while being a stranger. For he would do this in order to profit by them or to deceive the people who profess this religion. Now a man does not perform this act upon himself or upon a son of his unless it be in consequence of a genuine belief. For it is not like an incision in the leg or a burn in the arm, but is a very, very hard thing.

It is also well known what degree of mutual love and mutual help exists between people who all bear the same sign, which forms for them a sort of covenant and alliance. Circumcision is a covenant made by Abraham our Father with a view to the belief in the unity of God. Thus everyone who is circumcised joins Abraham's covenant. This covenant imposes the obligation to believe in the unity of God: To be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. This also is a strong reason, as strong as the first, which may be adduced to account for circumcision; perhaps it is even stronger than the first.

The perfection and perpetuation of this Law can only be achieved if circumcision is performed in childhood. For this there are three wise reasons. The first is that if the child were let alone until he grew up, he would sometimes not perform it. The second is that a child does not suffer as much pain as a grown-up man because his membrane is still soft and his imagination weak; for a grown-up man would regard the thing, which he would imagine before it occurred, as terrible and hard. The third is that the parents of a child that is just born take lightly matters concerning it, for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love it is not yet consolidated. For this imaginative form increases through habitual contact and grows with the growth of the child. Then it begins to decrease and to disappear, I refer to this imaginative form. For the love of the father and of the mother for the child when it has just been born is not like their love for it when it is one year old, and their love for it when it is one year old is not like their love when it is six years old. Consequently if it were left uncircumcised for two or three years, this would necessitate the abandonment of circumcision because of the father's love and affection for it. At the time of its birth, on the other hand, this imaginative form is very weak, especially as far as concerns the father upon whom this commandment is imposed.

Page 611:

The fact that circumcision is performed on the eighth day is due to the circumstance that all living beings are very weak and exceedingly tender when they are born, as if they were still in the womb. This is so until seven days are past. It is only then that they are counted among those who have contact with the air. Do you not see that this point is also taken into account with regard to beasts ?—Seven days shall it be with its dam, and so on. It is as if before that period it were an abortion. Similarly with regard to man; he is circumcised after seven days have passed. In this way the matter is fixed: You do not make out of it something that varies.

This class of commandments also includes the prohibition against mutilating the sexual organs of all the males of animals, which is based on the principle of righteous statutes and judgments, I mean the principle of keeping the mean in all matters; sexual intercourse should neither be excessively indulged, as we have mentioned, nor wholly abolished. Did He not command and say: Be fruitful and multiply? Accordingly this organ is weakened by means of circumcision, but not extirpated through excision. What is natural is left according to nature, but measures are taken against excess. He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off is forbidden to marry a woman of Israel, for such cohabitation would be perverted and aimless. Such a marriage would likewise be a stumbling block for the woman and for him who seeks her out. This is very clear.

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/

Sheshbazzar · 01-14-2013, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Trepanning, also known as trephination, trephining or making a burr hole, is a surgical intervention in which a hole is drilled or scraped into the human skull, exposing the dura mater to treat health problems related to intracranial diseases. It may also refer to any "burr" hole created through other body surfaces, including nail beds. It is often used to relieve pressure beneath a surface. A trephine is an instrument used for cutting out a round piece of skull bone.

Evidence of trepanation has been found in prehistoric human remains from Neolithic times onward. Cave paintings indicate that people believed the practice would cure epileptic seizures, migraines, and mental disorders.[1]

Christians have often made me wonder if portions of their brains had been sucked out.

Jaybees · 01-14-2013, 03:14 PM

Didn't Origen make himself a eunuch for god?

I'll let someone else do the research/

Sheshbazzar · 01-14-2013, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Of course, Judaism also has a very long history of achieving altered states of consciousness through surgery.

Quote:

To the totality of purposes of the perfect Law there belong the abandonment, depreciation, and restraint of desires in so far as possible. You know already that most of the lusts and licentiousness of the multitude consist in an appetite for eating, drinking and sexual intercourse.

To the totality of intentions of the Law there belong gentleness and docility; man should not be hard and rough, but responsive, obedient, acquiescent, and docile. You know already His commandment... "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. Be silent, and hearken, O Israel. If ye be willing and obedient."

Part III, Chapter 49

Page 609:

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

Pages 609-610:

According to me circumcision has another very important meaning, namely, that all people professing this opinion-that is, those who believe in the unity of God-should have a bodily sign uniting them so that one who does not belong to them should not be able to claim that he was one of them, while being a stranger. For he would do this in order to profit by them or to deceive the people who profess this religion. Now a man does not perform this act upon himself or upon a son of his unless it be in consequence of a genuine belief. For it is not like an incision in the leg or a burn in the arm, but is a very, very hard thing.

It is also well known what degree of mutual love and mutual help exists between people who all bear the same sign, which forms for them a sort of covenant and alliance. Circumcision is a covenant made by Abraham our Father with a view to the belief in the unity of God. Thus everyone who is circumcised joins Abraham's covenant. This covenant imposes the obligation to believe in the unity of God: To be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. This also is a strong reason, as strong as the first, which may be adduced to account for circumcision; perhaps it is even stronger than the first.

The perfection and perpetuation of this Law can only be achieved if circumcision is performed in childhood. For this there are three wise reasons. The first is that if the child were let alone until he grew up, he would sometimes not perform it. The second is that a child does not suffer as much pain as a grown-up man because his membrane is still soft and his imagination weak; for a grown-up man would regard the thing, which he would imagine before it occurred, as terrible and hard. The third is that the parents of a child that is just born take lightly matters concerning it, for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love it is not yet consolidated. For this imaginative form increases through habitual contact and grows with the growth of the child. Then it begins to decrease and to disappear, I refer to this imaginative form. For the love of the father and of the mother for the child when it has just been born is not like their love for it when it is one year old, and their love for it when it is one year old is not like their love when it is six years old. Consequently if it were left uncircumcised for two or three years, this would necessitate the abandonment of circumcision because of the father's love and affection for it. At the time of its birth, on the other hand, this imaginative form is very weak, especially as far as concerns the father upon whom this commandment is imposed.

Page 611:

The fact that circumcision is performed on the eighth day is due to the circumstance that all living beings are very weak and exceedingly tender when they are born, as if they were still in the womb. This is so until seven days are past. It is only then that they are counted among those who have contact with the air. Do you not see that this point is also taken into account with regard to beasts ?—Seven days shall it be with its dam, and so on. It is as if before that period it were an abortion. Similarly with regard to man; he is circumcised after seven days have passed. In this way the matter is fixed: You do not make out of it something that varies.

This class of commandments also includes the prohibition against mutilating the sexual organs of all the males of animals, which is based on the principle of righteous statutes and judgments, I mean the principle of keeping the mean in all matters; sexual intercourse should neither be excessively indulged, as we have mentioned, nor wholly abolished. Did He not command and say: Be fruitful and multiply? Accordingly this organ is weakened by means of circumcision, but not extirpated through excision. What is natural is left according to nature, but measures are taken against excess. He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off is forbidden to marry a woman of Israel, for such cohabitation would be perverted and aimless. Such a marriage would likewise be a stumbling block for the woman and for him who seeks her out. This is very clear.

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/

IMHO this is so dumb stupid and wrong in its claims it is simply ridiculous.

stephan huller · 01-14-2013, 03:18 PM

Yes he did and he wasn't the only one. Justin reports about a Christian who wanted to get permission to go to Alexandria to undergo the surgery because the Church there (presumably) were recognized experts. But alas the castrations were now banned by Imperial decree and he couldn't obtain an exemption! Clement also mentions a Julius Cassian who was an influential Christian from the same period who was castrated and seemed to have a gospel which reinforced this behavior.

stephan huller · 01-14-2013, 03:38 PM

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-14-2013, 01:12 PM	#2
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	FWIW the quote from Lucian is from the Syrian Goddess not the Erotes. (I'm not sure that the error in the OP makes any difference to its rather weird argument.) Andrew Criddle

01-14-2013, 01:58 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	As strange as this particular formulation of the question might be, the question is still interesting. I have no particular personal interest in castration (though I must admit for complete transparency that my father did have prostrate cancer shortly before he passed away recently). Nevertheless the facts are that Christianity - especially the form developed in Alexandria - doesn't make much much sense without positing some radical innovation 'going beyond' traditional Judaism. I have written about this many times before (and have only stopped because the topic is 'icky') but when Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ephrem and countless others who used the Diatessaron cite Jesus as saying in effect that the Law said 'do not lust after your neighbor's wife' but I say 'do not lust' and the Law said 'do not murder' but I see do not be angry' the suggestion is that Christianity will somehow 'pull out' the root of the problem of lust. This is what Clement and many others say over and over again and I don't see how a religion could completely transform an individuals behavior without some sort of radical 'surgery' (perhaps taken allegorical or literally). It is true that there isn't a single smoking gun in the surviving New Testament which confirms its ritual use but it fits in with the general sense of what we know of Judaism in the period (i.e. greater asceticism). Our existing sources also do indicate a greater frequency of castrated Christians in the second century as opposed to the third and beyond. Yes, the practice was eventually banned within the Church (it was banned by Imperial decree as early as Domitian and again under Hadrian and Antoninus) but I can't help thinking that the blessed state of being 'chrestos' could only have been achieved through a lobotomy or castration. As I don't believe the ancient Romans had the technical capabilities to carry out the first option I am left with the second and frequent reports which affirm the widespread use of this practice in the second century. Again the question is how did Christianity promise to make people better? There is nothing in the existing Catholic paradigm which helps explain this. The blood and the flesh of Christ are now something symbolic. It is hard to believe that people could have seriously believed that mere 'symbols' would help transform humanity. The fact that traditionally minded Christians of the Catholic, Orthodox and related traditions accept this only speaks to the power of superstition and convention. In the 1960s there was a slogan 'better living through chemistry.' In order to make sense of the appeal of Christianity I am left wondering if there might have been a similar slogan in the second century. To the effect that, better living - even aeonic life - might be achieved through surgery, through pulling out the root of lust and sin. I am always left struggling how to make sense of Christianity. Perhaps a better understanding will emerge in the future. This is what makes most sense to me right now and - as I am not a Christian - I feel I have the necessary objectivity to see it through unprejudiced eyes.

01-14-2013, 03:14 PM	#7
Jaybees Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Hawaii Posts: 9,233	Didn't Origen make himself a eunuch for god? I'll let someone else do the research/

01-14-2013, 03:18 PM	#9
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes he did and he wasn't the only one. Justin reports about a Christian who wanted to get permission to go to Alexandria to undergo the surgery because the Church there (presumably) were recognized experts. But alas the castrations were now banned by Imperial decree and he couldn't obtain an exemption! Clement also mentions a Julius Cassian who was an influential Christian from the same period who was castrated and seemed to have a gospel which reinforced this behavior.

01-14-2013, 03:38 PM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.