Prove it fool. Tell us where.

It has to do with a mistranslation about 'Eunuchs'. Jesus speaks about the three types of Eunuch, one being the Eunuch who chooses to be so for God, ie Priests and such, the Eunuch forced to be, ie those castrated, and the Eunuch born. Many think it has to do with men born without testicles, but it avtually has to do with the fact that in ancient hebrew, Eunuch was used to describe effeminate and those less 'masculine' than others, ie gays.

Can you find the actual passage? Id be interested in reading it.

I can give you a link to the page where it's discussed?

Please do.

did you get it?

Uh... I dont think so? Can you just post it here?

You need to login to view this link



I tried to message you with it.

but that IS what it says, doesn't it?

It only says that some are born eunuchs though. I just dont like that vagueness... Leaves it open to different interpretations.

I don't see how that's vague. Some people are born straight, some are born gay.

Im not arguing that. But it doesnt say clearly if its a reference to homosexuality. Its an interesting possibility, I'll give you that.

I suppose, but if you look at the fact that this is translated from hebrew, I think you have to look at their use of the word to interpret it.

I agree, we'd need to read Hebrew.

a **** load of stuff in the bible makes more sense when read with the hebrew wording in mind.

It would be interesting to read it that way.

B... but, jesus said.

Or you could leave the ******* bible out of it all together. Why should a book written hundreds of years ago in a country worlds a part from your own dictate who a person can and cannot love. I thought America was ran by a secular government.

Obviously not.



“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
― Thomas Jefferson

By disliking this you are pissing all over your First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Is a British person really talking to an American on the importance of your constitutional rights?

I get your point, you're just coming off as a rude nob tho

In god we trust is on the money in your pocket.

That just shows how hypocritical our nation really is. One of the main principles it was founded on was religious freedom and separation of church and state.

The right of religious freedom does not mean it has any place telling the government what they can and cannot do.

That's what I said. It means that you have a right to practice any religion privately, but when it comes to political matters, Religion should be completely left out, because it leads to inequality for certain groups.

In fact I am wrong. It has every right to tell the government what they should do. However separation of church and state just means the government does not have to listen.

I'm sure back in the civil rights movement alot of people felt suffocated with the amount of coverage the issue got. It's what it takes to change something that so many people feel strongly about and the government controlling over it is extremely biased in one direction.

i agree equal treatment people dont suffocate others with straight **** just do whatever

I'm Catholic, and I recently found out that Jesus said some people are made gay.

Really, I don't think it matters to disprove these arguments. The people that come up with stuff like "it's a choice" and "It will lead to bestiality" are scared and pulling stuff out of their asses.

That's true, but I still think it gives a wrong view of Christians and Catholics because the ones who pull **** out their ass are always the most vocal about it.

Yeah, it always seems that the worst of a group gets the most publicity. Take bronies for example.