Bigoted Organization "Chic-Fil-A" infiltrates facebook

[jay_a2j]

Unless you're going to say what jay just did, that "only MY religion is the true religion". In which case you better be prepared to back it up with some damn good arguments as to why only you and the people who go to your church and practice your denomination have access to the true word of God.

Jesus said, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. No one comes to the Father but through ME."

Your issue is not with me, it is with God.

[GreecePwns]

I don't understand what that was supposed to mean, but your previous statment is a contradiction that you haven't addressed.

A) "Separation of church and state" was to protect the practices of the different sects of Christianity.
B) Those different sects of Christianity are not preaching the true word of God, so they don't count as religions that should be protected under "seapration of church and state."

Until you address that contradiction which is obviously clear, your argument has no footing at all.

[jay_a2j]

I don't understand what that was supposed to mean, but your previous statment is a contradiction that you haven't addressed.

A) "Separation of church and state" was to protect the practices of the different sects of Christianity.
B) Those different sects of Christianity are not preaching the true word of God, so they don't count as religions that should be protected under "seapration of church and state."

Until you address that contradiction which is obviously clear, your argument has no footing at all.

The USA is a nation governed by men. A nation that has parted from the ways of God.

The meaning of "separation of church and state" was to protect religious freedom, not any specific faith, moreover it was to keep the government out of church affairs.


So, both A and B are false.

[crispybits]

Jesus said, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. No one comes to the Father but through ME."

Jesus also said "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

Careful there jay

[GreecePwns]

Clearly, the churches that would like to marry homosexual couples think they are not parting from the ways of God. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be free to practice their religion? Why should the government be in those churches affairs?

[jay_a2j]

Clearly, the churches that would like to marry homosexual couples think they are not parting from the ways of God. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be free to practice their religion? Why should the government be in those churches affairs?

They will do what the want to. Does that make it right? No. Those that oppose such things are simply reminding them that they are out of line with God's Word. If they believe that they are not, so be it. The government should stay out of it ALTOGETHER. (That includes re-defining marriage)

[jay_a2j]

Jesus said, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. No one comes to the Father but through ME."

Jesus also said "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

Careful there jay

I will be St. Crispybits

[GreecePwns]

So we're in agreement. Government should get out of marriage and allow religions to practice how they please, including allowing churches to marry homosexuals (but not forcing them to, because no one is suggesting that).

[crispybits]

Jesus said, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. No one comes to the Father but through ME."

Jesus also said "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

Careful there jay

I will be St. Crispybits

I'm not the one claiming to have a direct line to an ultimate power

[jonesthecurl]

jay: how many people agree with your exact interpretation of the scriptures?

inb4 "everybody that's right".

[BigBallinStalin]

Would you admit that there are other people like Bernie Maddoff who cheated others of their wealth yet still died without ever being caught, and in their last moments, they realized that the benefits of their wrongdoing still outweighed the costs?

I don't know. How could I know?

Certainly, there are people who cheat others and never get get caught by the State. But I'm not saying that only the State deals out the price.

How much is a good night's sleep worth to a person?
How much living in fear until it becomes akin to torture?
It's just not really quantifiable. Happiness and how much it's worth or even what it is.

There are negative consequences that you'll never see because you aren't that person.

Well, if you answer "yes," or if you admit that it is possible that my questions pose true scenarios, then the following is false for some people:

One does not need the State to punish adultery, divorce and all the other things, one reaps the "rewards" of such behavior in due time in the normal course of their life through failed relationships, depression, sickness and many other consequences of living life by making unwise choices.

We each pay the price for the way we live our lives.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175364&view=unread#p3852154

No matter what lifestyle one chooses, be it that of the supposed "straight and narrow" to the "realm of depravity" or anywhere between, there are consequences and prices to pay...
The universe has a way of kicking your teeth in when you least expect it when you make unwise choices in life...
If one wishes to call it karma, whatever, makes no difference to the reality that we all eventually reap what we sow. One way or another.....

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175364&start=420#p3851711


That's all I'm saying. Not everyone "reaps what he sows," and the "price one pays" for committing a wrong could be very profitable--monetarily and psychologically.

But aren't there some people who live and die without paying the full price of their wrongdoings?

Who knows what the "full price" is? IDK, maybe. I know that the price paid for one's choices is often enough taken out on someone else. That is to say, it's another who ends up screwed by the universe. As in-

If the costs of one's wrongdoing are paid by others, then it's definitely possible for people to not reap what they sow. (in economics, this is called "negative externalities," e.g. pollution).

(I broke our discussion into two parts).

[BigBallinStalin]

And, suppose a child is born addicted to heroin. Regrettably, the social safety net of society failed to prevent this child's addiction, so the child pursued a life of addiction and became a miserable drug addict, who eventually overdosed and died. Since the child was born addicted, the resources of society failed to cure him, and the lack of quality control is due to government prohibition on heroin, how is this end result due to the child's decisions alone?

The mother's decision to use heroin while pregnant exacts a heavy price. Does it not? Blaming the government's ban on heroin doesn't alter the price does it? If heroin was legal, the mother still addicts her child does she not?

Do you think a better quality heroin reduces addiction? Will a mother using high quality, pure heroin while pregnant still addict her unborn child?

My point is that the price changes if heroin was legalized because the risks of overdosing would be much lower. Since the addict would not have died from poor quality heroin, then the price paid would be much lower. Government intervention is responsible for the higher price (i.e. death).

A heroin addict uses heroin and in the beginning thinks the heroin makes them happy. Happiness is the key is it not? Is not that the reason for the pursuit of just about everything we human beings pursue? Is that not the underlying condition affecting almost every decision we make?

The smoker lights the cig because of the pleasure he feels with that first drag.
The user loves that rush.
The thief, the fraud loves that money and the things it gets them.
That young teenager gets high on lust thinking of his GF naked and spread before him as he bangs her without condom or protection.
It all comes down to happiness. At the moment, the person thinks they are doing what ultimately will bring them happiness only to find that what they thought they wanted brings about a ton of other baggage they didn't consider. The price of their choices, which not only affects them, but also others and society in ways that are often enough unpredictable and undesirable in the end to those involved. Unintended consequences but always in hindsight completely logical as to the end result.

I think we're talking past each other. If a child is born with a predisposition to heroin, it becomes more difficult to make the case that the child chose a life of heroin addiction, because he didn't--his mother chose that for him. So, the child is paying the price of his mother's actions. Therefore, the following can't be true:

But each choice has a price, one is a fool to think otherwise. Though the price may not be so apparent at first. Look at the depressed, the suicidal, the so called "degenerates". Some are quick to blame everything else under the sun but if one were able to go through bit by bit along every choice, one would start to see a pattern and realize that the end result is because of previous choices and actions.

The child is very much justified in "blaming [almost] everything else under the sun," and it's clear that the end result is not due to his previous choices and actions. So, what does this imply for the rest of your position?

For the addicted child, sure, previous choices and actions were committed by the mother, but the price the child pays for his mother's actions is unjust because this price was completely beyond his ability to affect. You're advocating for an unjust system, and if there's a god in charge of that, then there's a big problem here.

[Juan_Bottom]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

It was one phrase out of an entire letter, where the entire rest of the letter is completely ignored. Heck, pretty much every other single thing Jefferson stated about the federal government has been ignored by big-government promoters except for this one phrase. And nevertheless, it was clearly a letter, not the Constitution.

Matthew 19:1-12 (specifically 4-6).

Here it is guys, the part where Jesus says that Marriage is only allowed between a man and a women. And also that they cannot divorce:

19 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

[patches70]

For the addicted child, sure, previous choices and actions were committed by the mother, but the price the child pays for his mother's actions is unjust because this price was completely beyond his ability to affect. You're advocating for an unjust system, and if there's a god in charge of that, then there's a big problem here.

I never alluded to the position that all is fair in the way we each have to pay for the choices we make in life. It's not always fair obviously.

I'm not advocating anything, just telling it like it is. Don't blame the messenger, I didn't set up the universe. I just live in it.

it's clear that the end result is not due to his previous choices and actions. So, what does this imply for the rest of your position?

The child would not have had any choices in the very beginning, he got set back due to the decisions of his mother. But is that to say the child never makes his own choices later?

Do not addicts choose to give up the life of addiction and succeed?
Do not many children start life at a level less than others and yet still succeed and end up living happy lives?
Is every heroin addicted baby doomed to life a misery and unhappiness?
If not, then why is it so for one, but not another? What is the difference between the two if not the choices they make later in life despite the handicap they've been saddled with by no fault of their own?

The mother's poor decisions certainly have a negative effect on the child, but the child can grow up and still flourish. His fate is not set in stone. There won't be a magic pill that makes life any easier for him, true enough, but who has that anyway?

There are people born into wealth and opulence and still manage to muck up their lives until they've ruined for themselves everything they touch.

My point is that the price changes if heroin was legalized because the risks of overdosing would be much lower. Since the addict would not have died from poor quality heroin, then the price paid would be much lower. Government intervention is responsible for the higher price (i.e. death).

Legal, illegal, the State interfering doesn't matter much at all. Legalize heroin and there will still be overdoses. There will still be addicted babies born. Will there be more or less? I Don't know. Even now there are some who have managed to beat the odds, at least in the short term, as it stands now.

Even if heroin were legal, impurities virtually taken out of the product leaving a safer(?) <Ha!> product, would it be wise to engage in the use of heroin? Or would you counsel against using it, even if it were legal?

If you would counsel against it, why?
(Note, I use the term "counsel", not force. I believe in letting people do as they wish, even if such behavior is self destructive. One cannot protect another from themselves. The State especially, or the Church or any authority cannot protect a person from self destructive behavior without brutal and totalitarian methods which in itself is worse than letting people be free to be idiots)

Everyone pays a price for every decision they make, every action they partake. Sometimes people are willing to pay the price, other times that price is not what a person envisioned when setting upon a course. People who make poor decisions lead poor lives, which extends often enough to others around that person, like family and friends.
Enough people making poor choices in a society can certainly lead to a society suffering because of it.

We don't need the threat of Hell and Brimstone under us. Life has a way of kicking one in the nuts in this life for making a bad choice. What is a good and a bad choice? I suppose it all depends on whom you ask.

if there's a god in charge of that, then there's a big problem here.

But what is the problem? Choices in life have consequences? What's the problem with that? If there is a God and he made everything in our lives all hunky dory and we never knew misery or pain or ever had to confront the consequences of our actions, we certainly wouldn't be "free" in mind or body, would we?

In fact, if it weren't for that one thing, paying for our decisions in life, then not a single one of us would even know what "happiness" was. Such a thing would not exist. One might as well just be a rock on a mountain for all the good it would do them. Not to say that being a simple stone laying on the ground wouldn't have it's own rewards, I suppose.
I'm not a stone but I suppose that a stone never has to worry about being unhappy.

Is that not the purpose of life? To be happy? Is that not what each and every person alive strives for? Happiness?

I pity the poor fool who wakes up each morning and says to themselves- "I'm going to be a miserable bastard today!"
Don't get me wrong, there are people in the world who are exactly like that, even going so far as to decide that since they are miserable, they'll make as many other people miserable as they can. Now that's a person I'd love to be able to go piece by piece and see everything that has happened in their life to bring them to such a state.
I'd bet you a nickel to a doughnut that they made an overwhelmingly large number of poor decisions in life.

Now, BBS, take into account this thought. Let's use the heroin addict baby. There are people in this world who have decided that they will help these babies. I mean really help, not just offer lip service and sympathy like most people do, who never invest a single real iota of their lives.

But think of the nurse, or doctor who has of their own free will decided to help people like that heroin addicted baby. Imagine the price they must pay, in regards to just the aspect of caring for such a child. Some of the babies would be so bad off as to actually die. Could you imagine what that does to a person? (Not the baby, but the person trying to help and really save the baby).
It must be soul crushing. A price many of us other people would never pay in a million years. Or be able to.

Maybe that's one reason why so many doctors and medical type people have such high rates of alcoholism. They help people, and in some, maybe many cases, that help they provide is rewarded with truly amazing stories that bring a tear to the eye of even the most heartless cynic. But imagine those crushing defeats who that person ends up going step by step the whole way trying to prevent and end up failing.

It happens. Not just crack babies, but all kinds of terrible things that doctors and nurses have to deal with. I suppose that's why there are never enough doctors and nurses, cause it's not a job everyone could do. The price is too high.

Even good decisions, good actions have often enough a steep price to pay.

Maybe that's why the world is so screwed up. Because too many people want a free ride through life. The "pursuit of happiness" transformed into the "right of happiness".

All the money in the world couldn't buy many people happiness.
Though,
I must admit,
a jet ski would do the trick.
Have you ever seen an unhappy person on a jet ski?
I haven't.
So, money may not buy happiness, but it will buy you a jet ski, and I dare anyone to be unhappy on a jet ski.....

[crispybits]

So, money may not buy happiness, but it will buy you a jet ski, and I dare anyone to be unhappy on a jet ski.....

Best closing line for an argument about karma EVER!!

[AndyDufresne]

So, money may not buy happiness, but it will buy you a jet ski, and I dare anyone to be unhappy on a jet ski.....

Best closing line for an argument about karma EVER!!

Who is the line originally attributed to?


--Andy

[crispybits]

No idea, until you asked and I googled I thought it was patches just making something up on the spot as I'd never heard the phrase before

[Juan_Bottom]

Daniel Tosh, and the line is wrong.

"Money doesn't buy happiness." Uh, do you live in America? 'Cause it buys a WaveRunner. Have you ever seen a sad person on a WaveRunner? Have you? Seriously, have you? Try to frown on a WaveRunner. You can't! They're so awesome, it's just throttle. People smile as they hit the pier. Because you forget, you need gas to turn. It goes against your natural instincts. Some of you aren't laughing; we all miss your cousin, but not laughing's not gonna bring him back. He's dead for a reason. He was a show-off, and he tried to spray us. "I didn't wanna get wet!" I yelled at his mother at the funeral.

[BigBallinStalin]

For the addicted child, sure, previous choices and actions were committed by the mother, but the price the child pays for his mother's actions is unjust because this price was completely beyond his ability to affect. You're advocating for an unjust system, and if there's a god in charge of that, then there's a big problem here.

I never alluded to the position that all is fair in the way we each have to pay for the choices we make in life. It's not always fair obviously.

I'm not advocating anything, just telling it like it is. Don't blame the messenger, I didn't set up the universe. I just live in it.

it's clear that the end result is not due to his previous choices and actions. So, what does this imply for the rest of your position?

The child would not have had any choices in the very beginning, he got set back due to the decisions of his mother. But is that to say the child never makes his own choices later?

Do not addicts choose to give up the life of addiction and succeed?
Do not many children start life at a level less than others and yet still succeed and end up living happy lives?
Is every heroin addicted baby doomed to life a misery and unhappiness?
If not, then why is it so for one, but not another? What is the difference between the two if not the choices they make later in life despite the handicap they've been saddled with by no fault of their own?

The mother's poor decisions certainly have a negative effect on the child, but the child can grow up and still flourish. His fate is not set in stone. There won't be a magic pill that makes life any easier for him, true enough, but who has that anyway?

There are people born into wealth and opulence and still manage to muck up their lives until they've ruined for themselves everything they touch.

"The child would not have had any choices in the very beginning, he got set back due to the decisions of his mother. But is that to say the child never makes his own choices later?"

Of course, he is somewhat responsible for a range of his choices, but you must admit that his range of choices were already limited by the decisions of his mother. For example, who do you think will have a more difficult time dealing with a heroin addiction? A child born addicted to heroin, or a child born into a loving and very responsibly family? Clearly, there's a difference here.

Therefore, the following isn't true: The mother's poor decisions certainly have a negative effect on the child, but the child can grow up and still flourish. Why is this false? Because the addicted child's chances for leading a good life have been drastically reduced compared to relatively healthier children. This can't be denied.

So, one's chances and predetermined range of options do matter in this "reap what you sow" price system. Therefore, the following isn't true for everyone:

"But each choice has a price, one is a fool to think otherwise. Though the price may not be so apparent at first. Look at the depressed, the suicidal, the so called "degenerates". Some are quick to blame everything else under the sun but if one were able to go through bit by bit along every choice, one would start to see a pattern and realize that the end result is because of previous choices and actions.

In other words, some people do pay prices for actions which they did not sow. You have to admit this at this point.

My point is that the price changes if heroin was legalized because the risks of overdosing would be much lower. Since the addict would not have died from poor quality heroin, then the price paid would be much lower. Government intervention is responsible for the higher price (i.e. death).

Legal, illegal, the State interfering doesn't matter much at all. Legalize heroin and there will still be overdoses. There will still be addicted babies born. Will there be more or less? I Don't know. Even now there are some who have managed to beat the odds, at least in the short term, as it stands now.

Even if heroin were legal, impurities virtually taken out of the product leaving a safer(?) <Ha!> product, would it be wise to engage in the use of heroin? Or would you counsel against using it, even if it were legal?

If you would counsel against it, why?
(Note, I use the term "counsel", not force. I believe in letting people do as they wish, even if such behavior is self destructive. One cannot protect another from themselves. The State especially, or the Church or any authority cannot protect a person from self destructive behavior without brutal and totalitarian methods which in itself is worse than letting people be free to be idiots)

Everyone pays a price for every decision they make, every action they partake. Sometimes people are willing to pay the price, other times that price is not what a person envisioned when setting upon a course. People who make poor decisions lead poor lives, which extends often enough to others around that person, like family and friends.
Enough people making poor choices in a society can certainly lead to a society suffering because of it.

We don't need the threat of Hell and Brimstone under us. Life has a way of kicking one in the nuts in this life for making a bad choice. What is a good and a bad choice? I suppose it all depends on whom you ask.

Recall the prohibition of alcohol. When it was made illegal, legal redress for contract disputes could not go to court, so what happened? People got sick from a product and couldn't sue the producer. What then happened to the producer? Nothing. If his product killed people, it didn't matter.

Now, do you think that this missing legal component makes a difference on the quality of a product?

Compare to alcohol producers today. If their product kills someone, and their family sues the producer who pays a heavy fine, what do you think the producer's incentive will be? He'll have a tendency not to produce poisonous products (e.g. lacing alcohol with crap that's used in cocaine/crack/heroin, or committing fraud, as in selling 120% alcohol that's really 10%).

You have to argue that drugs and alcohol produced outside the court of law will have similar quality and means for (somehow) arbitration which would result in the outcomes similar to products produced within the realm inside of the court of law.

Otherwise, you're making an erroneous argument here.

So, the government prohibition on drugs like heroin is still responsible for the unintended consequences. Therefore, the following is incorrect: "State interfering doesn't matter much at all." State intervention matters a shit-ton---to use a technical term.

Of course, deaths from heroin would still occur, but I'd expect those deaths to be drastically reduced because of the market's tendency to improve quality given a robust legal system which addresses the concerns of both producers and consumers.



Again, the following has been shown to be false for some people:

We don't need the threat of Hell and Brimstone under us. Life has a way of kicking one in the nuts in this life for making a bad choice.

See: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175364&start=450#p3852500

If you keep repeating such false claims, then I'm afraid that there's not much point in me debating this with you.

if there's a god in charge of that, then there's a big problem here.

But what is the problem? Choices in life have consequences? What's the problem with that?
...

No, that isn't what I said. I'm saying that if the addict pays the price for his mother's, the government's, and the social safety's net's decisions, then the price he pays is not due to his own decisions--which you continue to state to the contrary for erroneous reasons.

In other words, this system which you have described presents prices which are not fully connected to one's decisions yet somehow punishes people regardless of some portion of their decision-making (e.g. the starving girl next to the vulture). In turn, this isn't a just system. So if god is in control of such a system, then god is acting unjustly. Wouldn't you agree?

[Night Strike]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

It was one phrase out of an entire letter, where the entire rest of the letter is completely ignored. Heck, pretty much every other single thing Jefferson stated about the federal government has been ignored by big-government promoters except for this one phrase. And nevertheless, it was clearly a letter, not the Constitution.

Matthew 19:1-12 (specifically 4-6).

Here it is guys, the part where Jesus says that Marriage is only allowed between a man and a women. And also that they cannot divorce:

19 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

I saw that poster on someone's facebook wall today, and the part about Jesus never saying anything about same-sex marriage is pretty much false. He didn't have to say anything specifically about it because he clearly affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman. You don't have to specifically state what is not allowed when you instead state the one case that IS allowed.

[AndyDufresne]

I saw that poster on someone's facebook wall today, and the part about Jesus never saying anything about same-sex marriage is pretty much false. He didn't have to say anything specifically about it because he clearly affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman. You don't have to specifically state what is not allowed when you instead state the one case that IS allowed.

You know, I always remembered the passages as clearer when I last looked at those passages, but rereading them some years later, they seem more vague than I remember.


--Andy

[crispybits]

If you go just a few sentences further that that in Matthew you find:

11: "Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given'."
12: "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Here, Jesus refers to three exceptions to the requirement for heterosexual matrimony, all “eunuchs.” What are “eunuchs?” Eunuchs were highly ranked, but socially “deviant” men in charge of protecting and caring for female royalty. To be best at being a eunuch, one could never slip into a relationship with one of the female heirs, for all in the kingdom’s lineage could be compromised. Biblical historians speak of how eunuchs had many feminine, emasculate qualities, which societies back then detested for these men had little to no interest in sexual relations with females. While this was a very different zeitgeist than now, one can see a correlation between how eunuchs were seen and how gay males are seen by society today.

In this passage, Jesus Christ list three exceptions to the command for Christians to engage in heterosexual matrimony:

Eunuchs born that way;
Eunuchs made that way by man; and
Eunuchs who promise their lives to God.

Castration was a common practice among eunuchs. While many people believed that all these non-virile men were castrated, various biblical dictionaries go into detail on how castration was not the only way to become a eunuch. Here, Jesus first says “eunuchs born that way” are exempt from heterosexual marriage. Since eunuchs are supposed not have “relations” with female heirs, and these eunuchs were born without attraction to woman, gays, bisexuals, and lesbians should use Jesus Christ’s exemption of “innate eunuchs” from heterosexual matrimony to speak for all gay people. In essence, here, Jesus Christ tells his disciples that people born without the innate attraction to the opposite sex should not marry people of the opposite sex.

That's not to say that Jesus condones a church sponsored same sex marriage system, but he recognises that homosexuality is there, and doesn't roundly condemn it, but instead just say "hey, yeah you guys should be exempt from having to marry someone you cannot love in that way.", and more than that he teaches everyone else that they should accept these people, "The one who can accept this should accept this".

(Mostly stolen from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ashford03.htm)

[Juan_Bottom]

I saw that poster on someone's facebook wall today, and the part about Jesus never saying anything about same-sex marriage is pretty much false. He didn't have to say anything specifically about it because he clearly affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman. You don't have to specifically state what is not allowed when you instead state the one case that IS allowed.

Well I posted that passage of the Bible that you referred and it does not say that Gay marriage is a sin. If Jesus cared a quarter as much about gay marriage as you do I'm sure he would have said more than "men and women who are married can't get divorced." Which is another passage Christians ignore. Twisting Jesus' words to suit an agenda is the height of common Christianity, but it's also why we look at them in revulsion.

I mean, it's just amazing all the stuff that Jesus did ask you to do, and you fixate on one thing that he didn't say; but that he didn't say it doesn't mean that he didn't mean it. WTF CHRISTIANS.

[jonesthecurl]

I saw that poster on someone's facebook wall today, and the part about Jesus never saying anything about same-sex marriage is pretty much false. He didn't have to say anything specifically about it because he clearly affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman. You don't have to specifically state what is not allowed when you instead state the one case that IS allowed.

Got it. Jesus is a mod.

[jay_a2j]

I saw that poster on someone's facebook wall today, and the part about Jesus never saying anything about same-sex marriage is pretty much false. He didn't have to say anything specifically about it because he clearly affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman. You don't have to specifically state what is not allowed when you instead state the one case that IS allowed.

Got it. Jesus is God.

Now we're getting someplace!