Born that way.

Born That Way. More of the same in the debate of the are people born gay? I think it the answer is so obvious, and people are indeed born homosexual, but that is my bias.I often hear from people at church that God created "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and then they use the verse Matthew 19: 4-5 which states (NIV) Haven’t you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.I find it amazing that they use this tiny part of Matthew, from a passage where Christ speaks about divorce, yet if one was to read further on in the SAME passage I think it is plain to see that Jesus makes reference to the fact that some people are born gay, and this does not apply to them.Further along in the passage one can read Matthew 19: 11-12 which reads: 11 Jesus replied, Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by othersand there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.Here I get someone telling me what a eunuch is, the issue I have is that everyone understands that there were in that time people who were made eunuchs (technically today if you had a vasectomy i think you are a eunuch as well), and there is agreement that eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven are celibates, and priests who choose to devote themselves to God over women, but eunuchs that were born that way somehow means the 1% of the male population born with testicular issues. I think it is obvious that Jesus is talking about men who are not attracted to women sexually.I think reading of the whole passage is also important to grasp the context of the conversation. The whole conversation is Matthew 19 1-12.WWJD?Jesus would love and accept gay people, because they were born that way.Here is the main problem (I think): If god created us and the world, then god created gay people, if you denounce gay people then you are denouncing god and his creation. Therefore people who are into the god creation idea cannot under any circumstance even think it is possible for homosexuals to be born that way, or else they will realize it is not God who discriminates, but them who are the discriminators, and they are denying God's creation.

the low percentage of the population that would be considered a eunuch due to environmental factors. I do not think Jesus would have to mention really minute details and explain it to a T, in this short passage. he was giving the exceptions, but not going over every little one. This is not the only time in the New Testament that eunuchs (gay people) are mentioned.I know it takes a little thinking outside the box, but if that kind of thinking wasn't required then why send Christ in the 1st place?

You are missing the point. This is about gay people being born gay, and Jesus talking about it, and not condemning it. This is not using being born that way as a reason for acceptance and toleration. This is Christ talking about heterosexual marriage and divorce, and these people are the exception to the rules: Gay Men, Infertile Men, and Priests.
Not sure what you were insinuating I was like before, but that has nothing to do with this topic anyway.

The bible is full of contradictions. You bring up the old testament to counter the new. If the old was good enough, then the new would not be needed, and there would be no Christians, but alas that was/is not the case. Are you sure you don’t mean Leviticus? If Joseph was to obey God’s laws he should have stoned Mary as she became pregnant not by him (with Jesus), while they were married. I see this like most things: either you are a letter or the law who takes the bible literally, and uses it like a textbook on life, OR you are a spirit of the law who see’s the bible as a moral and mythological guide that you need to read and interpret for yourself. The old testament is very rule/law based, but filled with prophesy and impossible stories that we have almost no luck in backing up with evidence, and I am surprised you used it to challenge me here. To me not everything is cut and dry, black and white. Jesus was human as well, and understood the gray areas of life. Only he and his mother were perfect, yet it did not disqualify everyone else from his glory. The design of marriage in the bible is to join a man and a women together to raise a family and follow the God. The marriage of two adults who love each other who cannot produce offspring, is really not a marriage as far as the bible is concerned. As long as the 2nd couple remained faithful and loyal to The God, I do not think that Jesus would have a problem with them at all. What evidence do you have of this?I already posted how I think Jesus thought of homosexuals, you can read it above. He classified them as not being bound by having to get married and follow the same path as heterosexuals. The Romans had gay marriage, probably by the time of Jesus so I am sure if it was so abhorrent they would have stated something about it in the new testament.Jesus loved everyone, and he loves you.Here is more new testament on homosexuals IMO.In Matthew 8: 5-13 (a centurion has faith) Jesus blesses and heals a gay couple.
Here is the text from NIV 5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 Lord, he said, my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.
7 Jesus said to him, Shall I come and heal him?
8 The centurion replied, Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.
10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would. And his servant was healed at that moment.
NOTE: this is also recorded in Luke 7In English it reads servant in the original Greek the word is pais, which can mean boy, son, servant, or a particular kind of servant (a younger male lover). If you are familiar with the ancient Greek pederasty (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece) you will notice the greek word paiderastia (παιδεραστία) [love of boys] which is a compound of pais [child, boy] and erastes [lover].Of course this is interpretation and it is my own, but I am trying to show why I feel this way. You have to think outside the box a bit. You have to realize that in ancient times the culture was different. Wives were basically purchased, and were owned by the husband, if the husband wanted a male wife then he purchased a Pais, as the centurion in this passage did. It was part of the culture of the time, and was acceptable. I see no reason why if Jesus was against men taking a male-wife, that he did not speak out against it. Also if it was such a horrific thing, then why would he heal the Male-Wife of this centurion based upon his faith alone? To me it is pretty clear, and it says that Jesus was not against men marrying each other as long as they were faithful.Jesus isn't half as bad as you think he is, I just think that haters are the one that told you about Christ, you saw the hypocrisy of their hate and it turned you away from his love.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

doy!and in my posts I have stated that this is my personal interpretation, and here is the passages and reasons for it.the bible is all personal interpretation, period.I just wonder why we listen to the interpretation from the same folks who used to bible to justify slavery and non-interracial marriage (social conservatives), they have been consistently wrong for a long long time. let me see it? the same passages? you seem to think you can talk the talk, but all I see here is just talk, bring it or STFU.

Well it is is obvious to me, so from my POV, it is obvious.Because I think that people ARE BORN GAY. they are not made that way or created that way, or trained to be that way, nor do I think that they choose to be that way.If you have anyone in your life that is gay, that you care about, then you know the answer.

just as i suspected you have no evidence, typical posturing, typical taz, typical trollish behavior.

First of all if you are to lazy (or don't have the time) to type out Artemis Entreri, AE is a better abbreviation that AT, I wasn’t sure whom you were quoting for a minute. Though it is also odd to me that someone would abbreviate a screen name and then go on to type out a long post (what are you saving like a half a second?). Says who? That is one line about what the Godless Romans are like. This passage (and much of the entire book) is about Paul’s evangelical journey to Rome to speak to the Romans. This passage is about Godless people. To take one sentence out of context and twist it around to mean that the NT is anti-homosexual is quite a leap of faith indeed. After reading the whole passage you may argue that the bible is Anti-Pagan-Roman, but to say it is against homosexuals is inaccurate IMHO. Interesting that Rome and Corinth were spared, isn’t it? Especially interesting that instead of destroying Rome or Corinth for the practice of allowing homosexuality, that God instead sent Christian Missionaries there to spread the good word. So why the mixed method? Why destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but spare and evangelize to Rome and
Corinth? I find the bible to be too contradictory to be taken as a literal truth in almost any manner (as this example clearly illustrates).

like yeah whatever bullshit you say d00d.are you a droid?i guess that is what i get for answering your question. ridicule and you telling me that my opinions are bad and wrong.have a nice day, please go troll someone else's thread.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : mr jack can fuck off, what an asshole.

nope just not debating with you.you can respond and have the last word as i can see you are that type of "try hard" but this is my last response to you in this thread. I realize this will make you stay around, trolling and talking trash (like you just have your last two posts) trying to elicit a response, but this is a semi public forum and the admin allows that sort of behavior so there is nothing I can do to stop it.have a dice day.PS you need to work on your trolling because you are not very good at it.

I don't use Christianity to argue in a science thread, so why come here and do the opposite? If you are ignorant to this topic or have nothing to add, then why say anything at all unless your goal is to troll (which I believe is the true reason you are here). Are you telling me to use Argumentum ad populum as logical evidence? Is that even possible? Hmm I am not sure. Probably by Christians, but I cannot assume that they came from the right or the left. So to answer your question I have to say: No.For example here in Virginia in 1777 A committee works on a revised set of criminal law for Virginia. Thomas Jefferson and other liberals attempt to have the death penalty for sodomy replaced by castration for men and boring a hole through the nose of a woman. The committee rejects their suggestion and retains the death penalty.Source: VirginiaDo you consider Thomas Jefferson to be a Christian Right Winger? I think he was a right winger, though I am unsure as to his religion, I always considered him a Deist at best. Many on the left have told me that our 3rd President was on their side. I think you are referring to the 43rd president of the USA. If that is whom you were asking about, then to answer that question: Yes. All I asked was for the evidence of your assertions. You stated I was wrong because the Majority disagreed with me, and I said show me, and you have been unable or unwilling to do so. Thread-jacking (as you seem to always do) in the process. Evidence please? I never said that and for you to insinuate that I did is nothing more than a very weakly constructed STRAWMAN.