<p>Reading the previous verses, one sees that the passage is a discussion about marriage and divorce. Jesus stated that divorce was not God's intent. His disciples said it would be better that a man not marry, which prompted the eunuch verse.</p>
<p>Ok, fair enough, I dont think it is cut and dry enough like that, but that is based upon our definition of eunuch, regardless, I think this one is pretty cut and dry:</p>
<p>II samuel 1:26 (spoken by David at Jonathan's funeral)</p>
<p>"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women."</p>
<p>.... they were gay.</p>
<p>^^TBoone, What's your point? David was also a murderer and an adulterer. He was an awful father and husband.</p>
<p>Tboone,</p>
<p>You are totally misreading that passage. Jonathan's love for David was more wonderful than that of a woman. A woman's love is wavering, based on whether she is receiving what she wants and needs according to her preception. Make her angry, treat her inappropriately and the love will disappear. However, Jonathan never stopped loving David, despite his many misdeeds and even disobeyed his father when he was ordered to kill David. Jonathan's love was sincere, never faltering....when was the last time a woman loved a man that unconditionally? <As a woman, I can say that I have never loved a man that unconditionally.</p>
<p>I don't think that you can effectively use yourself as an example for several billion women (and that's just the women alive today, think about all of the ones in the past).</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are totally misreading that passage.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No Nikki, I am not misreading it, I am just interpreting it literally.</p>
<p>You are reading into the passage not interpreting it literally. A literal reading requires looking at the surrounding verses to find the context of the "conversation". Ignoring the context of the surrounding verses is what has led to the many misinterpretations found in modern-day churches.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ignoring the context of the surrounding verses is what has led to the many misinterpretations found in modern-day churches.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yea, like those churches that teach that science and religion are incompatible! right?</p>
<p>Half of all the regular schools on the other list are Christian. Most of those that are secular were started as religious schools. I think the neatest thing about some of the religious schools is that they don't push their religion in hiring. For instance, most USD law school deans have been Jewish although it's a Catholic University.</p>
<p>What do you bible thumpers think about Vermont and Iowa. I’m so happy they legalized gay marriage :D</p>
<p>Ah you know. We’re just thumpin’ away, confident that with the apocalyse, Iowa and Vermont’ll be available for whatever we want to do with 'em. 
:p</p>
<p>And as for me? I’m now preparing to ask for my Jack Russell’s paw in marriage? She’s far more loyal and monogamous than most of my gay pals, and even some who prefer women!:eek: Our sticking point? Who gets to be the groom. 
</p>
<p>Will Emory now become Emily? :eek:</p>
<p>This one’s like King Obama telling the Muslims “we’re not a Christian country …”</p>
<p>Me thinks this secular dude needs to review, or maybe read for the 1st time, his U.S. Constitution. Indeed, his kind are permissable because of our kind. 
</p>
<p>You do a good impression of a Christian Whistle Pig.</p>
<p>tbone …which churches are those? Do tell …</p>
<p>Like my dads presbyterian church where as a youth I had to take a class on how evolution is fake, and that if you believe in evolution you cannot be a Christian. Or my friends non-denominational church where they say the earth is 6000 years old. Or the commonly held belief by many of those in this forum that you are some kind of godless heathen if you dont believe the world is 6000 years old and that everything within the bible is the literal inspired word of god.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, the meme’s antidote to critical thought.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh . . . you ARE aware we’re not, right? . . .</p>
<p>Well, there’s no national religion, including Christianity. But the principles of the founding fathers fostering and allowing diversity are unquestionably based upon the freedom that the God of Christians (and everyone else) grants to those, even knowing there are those who will turn their back on His truth. As the Constitution says from its beginning, these are God-given rights. Be sure the notions didn’t come from the Muslim tenants not the minds of men. Just ask any woman to confirm that.</p>
<p>Current PCism loves to rewrite this and so-called “progressives” like to pretend the Christian foundation was some kind of mythology. Or another tactic of modern-day revisionists is to redefine our language. You know, silliness like, “well, it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is …” Problem is too many know too little of our history, don’t get the importance of guiding principles, or are simply to simple too care.</p>
<p>So what is the danger? I think we’re seeing that pretty clearly. :eek:</p>
<p>I believe yours might be deemed “mutant.” ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually it was John Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Parliamentarianism</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you really understand the Enlightenment. “God-given rights” was simply an appeal to natural rights. I’ve used the argument before in my Christian stage too. It’s convenient. Use God to fill in the gaps – a God of the gaps! But no natural rights must come from somewhere else. If you believe they are innate, and a priori fundamental (non-empirical), there is no reason the implication should be derived from the Christian God.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I dunno, the social contract?</p>