home
RSS
My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality
March 3rd, 2011
01:25 PM ET

My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality

By Robert A. J. Gagnon, Special to CNN

Editor’s Note: Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics and (with Dan Via) Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views.

In her recent CNN Belief Blog post “The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality,” Jennifer Wright Knust claims that Christians can’t appeal to the Bible to justify opposition to homosexual practice because the Bible provides no clear witness on the subject and is too flawed to serve as a moral guide.

As a scholar who has written books and articles on the Bible and homosexual practice, I can say that the reality is the opposite of her claim. It’s shocking that in her editorial and even her book, "Unprotected Texts," Knust ignores a mountain of evidence against her positions.

It raises a serious question: does the Left read significant works that disagree with pro-gay interpretations of Scripture and choose to simply ignore them?

Owing to space limitations I will focus on her two key arguments: the ideal of gender-neutral humanity and slavery arguments.

Knust's lead argument is that sexual differentiation in Genesis, Jesus and Paul is nothing more than an "afterthought" because "God's original intention for humanity was androgyny."

It’s true that Genesis presents the first human (Hebrew adam, from adamah, ground: “earthling”) as originally sexually undifferentiated. But what Knust misses is that once something is “taken from” the human to form a woman, the human, now differentiated as a man, finds his sexual other half in that missing element, a woman.

That’s why Genesis speaks of the woman as a “counterpart” or “complement,” using a Hebrew expression neged, which means both “corresponding to” and “opposite.” She is similar as regards humanity but different in terms of gender. If sexual relations are to be had, they are to be had with a sexual counterpart or complement.

Knust cites the apostle Paul’s remark about “no ‘male and female’” in Galatians. Yet Paul applies this dictum to establishing the equal worth of men and women before God, not to eliminating a male-female prerequisite for sex.

Applied to sexual relations, the phrase means “no sex,” not “acceptance of homosexual practice,” as is evident both from the consensus of the earliest interpreters of this phrase and from Jesus' own sayings about marriage in this age and the next.

All the earliest interpreters agreed that "no 'male and female,'" applied to sexual relations, meant "no sex."

That included Paul and the ascetic believers at Corinth in the mid-first century; and the church fathers and gnostics of the second to fourth centuries. Where they disagreed is over whether to postpone mandatory celibacy until the resurrection (the orthodox view) or to begin insisting on it now (the heretical view).

Jesus’ view

According to Jesus, “when (people) rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels” (Mark 12:25). Sexual relations and differentiation had only penultimate significance. The unmediated access to God that resurrection bodies bring would make sex look dull by comparison.

At the same time Jesus regarded the male-female paradigm as essential if sexual relations were to be had in this present age.

In rejecting a revolving door of divorce-and-remarriage and, implicitly, polygamy Jesus cited Genesis: “From the beginning of creation, ‘male and female he made them.’ ‘For this reason a man …will be joined to his woman and the two shall become one flesh’” (Mark 10:2-12; Matthew 19:3-12).

Jesus’ point was that God’s limiting of persons in a sexual union to two is evident in his creation of two (and only two) primary sexes: male and female, man and woman. The union of male and female completes the sexual spectrum, rendering a third partner both unnecessary and undesirable.

The sectarian Jewish group known as the Essenes similarly rejected polygamy on the grounds that God made us “male and female,” two sexual complements designed for a union consisting only of two.

Knust insinuates that Jesus wouldn’t have opposed homosexual relationships. Yet Jesus’ interpretation of Genesis demonstrates that he regarded a male-female prerequisite for marriage as the foundation on which other sexual standards could be predicated, including monogamy. Obviously the foundation is more important than anything predicated on it.

Jesus developed a principle of interpretation that Knust ignores: God’s “from the beginning” creation of “male and female” trumps some sexual behaviors permitted in the Old Testament. So there’s nothing unorthodox about recognizing change in Scripture’s sexual ethics. But note the direction of the change: toward less sexual license and greater conformity to the logic of the male-female requirement in Genesis. Knust is traveling in the opposite direction.

Knust’s slavery analogy and avoidance of closer analogies

Knust argues that an appeal to the Bible for opposing homosexual practice is as morally unjustifiable as pre-Civil War appeals to the Bible for supporting slavery. The analogy is a bad one.

The best analogy will be the comparison that shares the most points of substantive correspondence with the item being compared. How much does the Bible’s treatment of slavery resemble its treatment of homosexual practice? Very little.

Scripture shows no vested interest in preserving the institution of slavery but it does show a strong vested interest from Genesis to Revelation in preserving a male-female prerequisite. Unlike its treatment of the institution of slavery, Scripture treats a male-female prerequisite for sex as a pre-Fall structure.

The Bible accommodates to social systems where sometimes the only alternative to starvation is enslavement. But it clearly shows a critical edge by specifying mandatory release dates and the right of kinship buyback; requiring that Israelites not be treated as slaves; and reminding Israelites that God had redeemed them from slavery in Egypt.

Paul urged enslaved believers to use an opportunity for freedom to maximize service to God and encouraged a Christian master (Philemon) to free his slave (Onesimus).

How can changing up on the Bible’s male-female prerequisite for sex be analogous to the church’s revision of the slavery issue if the Bible encourages critique of slavery but discourages critique of a male-female paradigm for sex?

Much closer analogies to the Bible’s rejection of homosexual practice are the Bible’s rejection of incest and the New Testament’s rejection of polyamory (polygamy).

Homosexual practice, incest, and polyamory are all (1) forms of sexual behavior (2) able to be conducted as adult-committed relationships but (3) strongly proscribed because (4) they violate creation structures or natural law.

Like same-sex intercourse, incest is sex between persons too much structurally alike, here as regards kinship rather than gender. Polyamory is a violation of the foundational “twoness” of the sexes.

The fact that Knust chooses a distant analogue (slavery) over more proximate analogues (incest, polyamory) shows that her analogical reasoning is driven more by ideological biases than by fair use of analogies.

Knust’s other arguments are riddled with holes.

In claiming that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship she confuses kinship affection with erotic love. Her claim that “from the perspective of the New Testament” the Sodom story was about “the near rape of angels, not sex between men” makes an "either-or" out of Jude 7’s "both-and."

Her canard that only a few Bible texts reject homosexual practice overlooks other relevant texts and the fact that infrequent mention is often a sign of significance. It is disturbing to read what passes nowadays for expert “liberal” reflections on what the Bible says about homosexual practice.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Robert A. J. Gagnon.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Homosexuality

soundoff (4,272 Responses)
  1. Shut it already!

    Hate the Christian, not the Christ. 🙂

    March 3, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
    • Greg

      Hate them both.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
    • sockpuppet

      wow you sound like such good people

      March 3, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • Greg

      "sockpuppet- wow you sound like such good people"

      A lot nicer than the crusades and the years of oppression, yes.

      March 3, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
  2. EB

    Um... this is an OPINION column. For all the haters out there: take it easy. The framing of this article is in response to a previous OPINION. Let's not ruin civil discourse with vitriol. Neither of the authors did. They are not arguing as to whether the BIble's message is "true' or "good" or "valuable". Instead, they are debating what certain passages mean. Let's be adults and engage in a fruitful discussion.

    March 3, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
    • jdubbs

      You sound like a clown. Are you wearing your big shoes?

      March 3, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
    • JJ

      Opinion column? I suppose it is. But people follow the bible, and opinions of others on the bible. It becomes the dogma by which they make decisions in their life, infecting politics, business, and relationships.

      The bible is a false book. It is inconsistent. It is wrong about basic knowledge we now posess. The bible was written by goat herders, who had very little information about their world, and based on previous myths involving multiple gods (we don't believe those any more....).

      March 3, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
    • mb2010a

      It's a Republican rebuttal to an earlier Democratic tome...

      March 3, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
    • stejo

      EB you would have to change human nature for such a discourse to take place. People would rather be right than loved, they'd rather be right than happy, they just love being right. The only way to hear anything anyone has to say is to, at least temporarily, give up being right, but that rarely happens in life, and even more rarely on an anonymous forum about religion

      March 3, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  3. Jim

    bull S*IT

    March 3, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
  4. JJ

    Who cares about what the bible says. It's an ancient text written by uneducated goat herders, who had very little knowledge of the world in which they lived. Some parts of the bible have important meaning, as do many other ancient myths, as allegory to the human condition; yet, taken literally today, has no relevance. People at that time still believed in multiple gods, and that the sun was drawn around the earth by a man riding a chariot.

    For those that describe the bible as absolute truth or word of god, there are too many inconsistencies that show it to be false. If there were an all knowing, all seeing god, wouldn't the bible be more accurate and not contradict itself? Wouldn't there be a single, unalterable version of the bible? In Genesis, it says that god created two lights in the sky, the sun to rule the day, and the moon to rule the night. We all know that the sun reflects light off the moon, and is in fact not a light at all. A goat herder wouldn't have known that when they wrote it.....

    March 3, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • The Tomahawk

      Just for your info, the man who wrote about the two lights in the sky is Moses, an extremely educated egyptian prince. Very far from a goat herder.

      March 3, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
    • JJ

      Yes, yes, Moses was found in the reeds in a basket, and raised as royalty..... But he still got the two lights in the sky thing wrong. And apparently he had a poor sense of direction, getting lost in the desert all those years.

      But again, it's simply just a story. Achilles was probably historically involved in the sack of Troy, based on ancient texts. Do I believe he was made invulnerable to weapons, save his ankle, when his mother dipped him in the River Styx?

      March 3, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • Estevan

      Hey...JJ...don't you go knocking Achilles! All us believers KNOW his mom dipped him in the Styx and he became invulnerable to harm (save for that heel of his)...

      March 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
    • James Rayment

      We still use the term moon-light, the passage only says the moon makes light if you want to say that, I hope you don't insist on this kind of technical specificity in day to day conversations

      March 3, 2011 at 10:18 pm |
  5. Greg

    Opinion: The bible is a work of fiction just like the Harry Potter books. Use more common sense, less dogma.

    March 3, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
  6. Litmus Boogliner

    Only if you need to see it that way man... It also says you can sell your daughter into slavery. Any book that promotes hate and intolerance is a bad book. And who says the bible is right about everything or has to be obeyed? And what about the separation of church and state? And and and.....

    March 3, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
  7. PeterVN

    What's really shocking here is that anyone puts any stock at all in what the absurd collection of fables known as the bible (buy-bull) says. It's an obviously self-contradictory man-made work with myriad errors and contradictions throughout.

    Also, the mere fact that the bible has multiple interpretations is shown yet again in considering the present story vs. the one it is a response to. That is further proof that the "word of god" is actually totally man made. Christianr "god" clearly has a marketing problem; it can't get its message out consistently or universally. It's a pretty pathetic excuse for a "god" that the Christians have there, and it's rather incredible that so many fools still follow the cult known as Christianity.

    March 3, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • Steve, the real one

      No PeterVN, what is truly shocking is the amount of time and effort you spend trying to disprove something you don't even believe in! I don't believe in the boogy man and I spend ZERO time and effort trying to disprove him.

      March 3, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
    • PeterVN

      Steve, wow, what a great post you made. Lots of substance to it. Not. Now try to think about the points I made, and maybe about actually making a relevant comment.You haven't managed that so far.

      You're a real fake. Get a life, loser.

      March 3, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
  8. Ron

    Really doesn't matter one way or another. The bible has no place in our laws, period.

    March 3, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • jdubbs

      Could not agree more. It's completely irrelevant in modern society.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
    • Brian

      I couldn't agree more !!

      March 3, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
    • Surprised

      Couldn't disagree more. Right or wrong, The Bible is the framework for almost all of our Nation's laws.

      March 3, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
  9. Doc Vestibule

    I wonder what other holy books have to say on the issue?
    The Tanakh, Talmud, Midrash, Quran, Sunnah, Nahjul Balagha, Avesta, Vedas, Upanisahds, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, Tantras, Sutras, Vachanas, Adi Granth, Purvas, Samayasara, Niyamasara, Pravacanasara, and Pancastikaya; Anupreksa; Samadhishataka of Pujyapada; Tattvarthasutra of Umasvati, Tattvarthasutra, Pali Tripitaka, Jataka,, Visuddimagga, Tripitaka, Lotus Sutra, Garland Sutra, Analects; the Great Learning; the Doctrine of the Mean; the Mencius, Tao Te Ching, Chuang-tzu, Kojiki, Nihon Shoki, K-oki, Ofudesaki, Mikagura-uta, Michi-no-Shiori, Johrei, Goseigen, Netarean Shower of Holy Doctrines, Chun Boo Kyung, Kitab-i-Iqan, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, Book of Mormon, Dianetics, and Revelation X all have followers that live and die by their faith that those books are "The Truth".

    But of course, your book and your interpretation of it must be the Infallible Word of The Creator because.... why exactly is that again?

    March 3, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
    • PeterVN

      Doc V, that's a great list. Have to remember it.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
    • Jesusbejesus

      Because their delusional god got on a cross and killed himself.....and some men say it is so...therfore it is.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • CW

      @ Doc,

      Tell you what....since you don't believe and won't....unless your changing your mind.

      why don't you write your own book...on your own faith? You can even write that you created Adam and Steve instead....how bout that.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @CW
      The work of fiction that had the greatest impact on me in my youth was not the bible (though I do own a copy and have read it several times) but Stranger in a Strange Land. It is a book so powerful that it spawned its own religion, though the author tried to distrance himself from The Church of All Worlds.
      I challenge you to read it.

      March 3, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • CW

      @ Doc,

      Great idea....poi-'son ones mind with some Blu-'rb that man wrote with no Godly consent...Nah..I'll stick to the perfect word...The Bible which God USED man to write.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • QS

      "Great idea....poi-'son ones mind with some Blu-'rb that man wrote with no Godly consent...Nah..I'll stick to the perfect word...The Bible which God USED man to write."

      LMAO!! This is just too classic! Any other book is "poison" and written by a man without "godly consent"...yet, god created that man and god is perfect, so really he did have "godly consent", right?

      And yeah, I'd say man has been used alright...used by other men who realized they could control others using this conjured up fiction of a religion.

      You're pure comedy CW, thanks for the chuckle today! 😉

      March 3, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Estevan

      CW said: "Great idea....poi-'son ones mind with some Blu-'rb that man wrote with no Godly consent...Nah..I'll stick to the perfect word...The Bible which God USED man to write."

      The perfect word? You mean the "word" that contradicts itself literally hundreds of times in the bible? I mean god is so incompetent he couldn't even USE man and get it right? But of course you'll rationalize the contradictions so that evidence to the contrary does not interfere with your beliefs. Besides...why use man at all? Doesn't that go against free will? Wouldn't it have been easier (and more accurate!) to just materialize the bible written the exact way he supposedly wanted it to be written?

      It's all fairy tales and delusions anyways...

      March 3, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
    • jloome

      Good one Doc. I'm going to quote you in a book I"m writing on belief structures and how they relate to survival instinct.

      March 3, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  10. Jesus

    Hey author...
    you are wrong as usual. Thanks for playing.

    March 3, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
  11. PofO

    Jesus was gay and had a foot fetish. You cannot avoid the fact that he took off his towel and started cleaning the feet of his "disciples" while naked!
    There is no getting around this passage in the bible. He was naked and cleaning feet. Gay foot fetish, anyone? There is no other credible explanation for that passage in the bible. None. All the "disciples" were men. They all got naked together, bathed together, and here's Jesus with his junk flapping in the breeze while he cleans and massages the feet of other naked men.
    Jesus was gay and had a foot fetish. There is no other explanation. He also never married any woman or had anything to do with women as far as the bible goes. Sounds pretty gay, dontchano.

    March 3, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
    • Jesusbejesus

      Lets not forget he liked little children

      March 3, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
    • JR

      Finally! Someone got the correct meaning out of that story! (Hilarious, btw, almost made me laugh out loud here at work)

      March 3, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
    • sockpuppet

      is it really necessary to blaspheme something that other people hold sacred? Even if you don't believe it, why do that?

      March 3, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • Estevan

      Hahaha!

      Sockpuppet said: "is it really necessary to blaspheme something that other people hold sacred?"

      It's not sacred to us. We don't take it to be blasphemy. If Christians are going to cram their silly beliefs down everybody else's throats, like they've already been doing for over 1500 years, then they should expect some sort of backlash.

      March 3, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
    • LexCrow

      @sockpuppet

      It's not necessary

      But is it really necessary for those people who hold that ancient, contradictory, and oftentimes violent, text sacred to condemn a group of people based on their beliefs/non-beliefs? Or for them to try and shame others or shove their sacred beliefs down others' throats? No. And when they do, the people they condemn and foist their beliefs upon get a little upset and defensive. Hence the blaspheming.

      My personal thought? Religion (or any set of strong belief) is like a penis. Its fine by me if you have one, and also fine if you're proud of it, but I'd REALLY prefer that you didn't whip out in public, wave it in my face or try to shove it down my throat. Which is exactly what the Christian Right tends to do when it comes to their silly anti-gay agenda.

      March 3, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
    • hank

      you're what happens when an abortion goes wrong

      March 3, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
  12. GSA

    Why would anyone be happy about this. If this is truly what the bible states then it is not the writing of God but of hate filled humans.

    March 3, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
    • CW

      @ GSA,

      How do you know? Were you there when the Bible was written? How is it that someone points out what the Bible states and everyone pours on the h-'ate speech?

      Oh well Dear Lord I know you know that it isn't the first time that humans have foresaken your word. Help us all dear Lord.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
    • Frogist

      @CW: Clearly no "true believers" poured on any hate for Ms Kunst or her opinions when she told you that the Bible did not condemn gay people. Oh wait, yes they did. You only claim the Bible's word when it suits you. And you only revere it's teachings when it already agrees with what you want to think. Sorry, you have no moral high ground here.

      March 3, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  13. Q

    "...and is too flawed to serve as a moral guide." "...I can say that the reality is the opposite of her claim."

    Dear Professor Dumbledore, your preferred collection of mythology and magic is very much a flawed moral guide. Any book whose deity first commands "thou shall not commit murder" and then subsequently commands " ...and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." betrays a capricious and morally-relativistic authorship (schizophrenic, tyrannical, etc would also apply here). You've wasted your life developing "scholarly" rationalizations to pacify your crippling fear of mortality and these rationalizations are incredibly transparent in your piece here.

    March 3, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
    • CW

      @ Q,

      Oooooo....Love it...Truth....i.e...THE BIBLE....hurts don't it. Don't worry that book your talking about that doesn't hold water with you....here's a secret...People that were wrote about in the Bible also had their moments of unbelief too....see the story on Jesus Christ.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
    • Q

      @CW Anyone who condones the slaughter of children and infants has no room to discuss morality. Your confusion of belief with truth is to be expected from one who believes Adam rode a vegetarian T. rex in the garden of eden...

      March 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • Reveal nothing

      Crippling fear of mortality? Rationally speaking – believers have much less to fear.

      If a believer dies and they are right, they get the rewards, good on them. If they die and they were WRONG (i.e, life is just over, there is nothing more, no consciousness or existence), they will never even know they were wrong. It's win-win.

      However, if a non-believer dies, they ONLY find out if they were wrong. If they were right, they never even get the satisfaction of confirmation.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
    • QS

      "However, if a non-believer dies, they ONLY find out if they were wrong. If they were right, they never even get the satisfaction of confirmation."

      Pascal's Wager, always good for a laugh.

      And by trying to prove your point you actually highlighted just why non-believers have a better grasp on reality. We don't live our lives in the hopes that we will be "rewarded", and we don't live our lives on the off chance that we might be "punished".

      If you base your entire life on nothing but what you'll get when you die, then you're not truly living. I also believe this is what causes many religious people to become detached and apathetic to the realities of this world.

      March 3, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
    • Estevan

      @Reveal Nothing: Ha! You choose to invoke Pascal's Wager? One of the most refuted and debunked arguments out there?

      People much more intelligent than I have debunked it already.

      You said: "If a believer dies and they are right, they get the rewards, good on them. If they die and they were WRONG (i.e, life is just over, there is nothing more, no consciousness or existence), they will never even know they were wrong. It's win-win. However, if a non-believer dies, they ONLY find out if they were wrong. If they were right, they never even get the satisfaction of confirmation."

      What if both believers (I'm assuming you very egotistically assume Judeo-Christian believers) and non-believers are wrong? What is there is a god and his name is Thor, or Ganesha, or Zeus? Then you will get all manner of punishment for all eternity for believing in the WRONG god. You argument completely overlooks the fact YOU might have the wrong god....talk about conceit!

      March 3, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  14. Steve, the real one

    Now THIS is a scholarly response! Excellent article, Dr Gagnon! Now, let the hatred begin!!

    March 3, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
    • Jesusbejesus

      Hate? Your faith is in man not a mythical being. Your faith is in the man saying that god told me to write this. You choose to be governed by dead men.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
    • Steve, the real one

      Jesusbejesus
      Hate? Your faith is in man not a mythical being. Your faith is in the man saying that god told me to write this. You choose to be governed by dead men.
      ---–
      Yes HATE, as in a hate for anything Godly! I choose to be governed by the RISEN Lord! My faith is in The Lord!

      March 3, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • Estevan

      Yes HATE, as in a hate for anything Unicorny! I choose to be governed by the Invisible Pink Unicorn! My faith is in the Invisible Pink Unicorn!

      Prove to me the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist!!!

      March 3, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  15. CW

    Yeaaaaaaayyyy!!!!!,

    Someone speaking the truth.....Thank you....Can't wait to all the non-believers and Atheist's arrive. I know they'll downplay what the Bible states b/c they always do.

    Loved the story....Amen amen amen on all fronts......Thank you Dr. Gagnon

    March 3, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
    • Q

      "I know they'll downplay what the Bible states b/c they always do." On the contrary, it's because of what the Bible says that makes it so worthless and morally abhorrent. But don't worry, because you really, really believe, you'll certainly get to live forever because we all now, believing makes it real!

      March 3, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • richunix

      and just in the nick of time, I see
      Ok I have about had enough of the Christian pundits (both educated and un-educated) rhetoric with belief in a fantasy. For two thousand years (most of that time under the threat of death), the Christian had to re-invent a deity from a simple man to a GOD. So let’s place those facts in a modern area:

      1. Moses states he saw GOD in a burning bush and was handed two or three tablets (if you believe Mel Brooks). Of course NO one else witness this transaction and the tablets (if existed) are lost to antiquity. And the Christian have the gall to question John Smith about seeing the golden tablets in a top hat!

      2. No one in the intervening years has parted the (any) sea, created a pillar of fire, turn to salt; flooded the planet (maybe a basement or two) come back from the dead, or killed an entire generation of first born and walk on water BAR NONE.

      If you haven’t figure it out by now, you never will. These are stories. They were created and inspired by men of all major cultures and if you really look, you will see the same story told with a different GOD’s name and a different location. If anyone today tried to use any of the for mention events in court they would get laugh out town. But yet when you ask a Christian did these things really happen…The resounding reply would be… Sure they did, cuz the bible told us so.

      No one (yes not one) who has a wasted money and time for PhD degree in theology has ever proven that any deity has ever existed then or even now. There basic argument is “intelligent design” or in laymen’s terms “something has had to create this”. So when I ask the enduring question what was the argument prior to modern thinking….I think his dumb look was still free. So take a “rock” outside and drop it, in planet with positive gravity, it will fall, but before it makes ground contact; ask your deity to stop it. Simple test with a simple result. Or will they fail to argumentum ad verecundiam.

      With all its failing the world is still a wonderful place and I enjoy each day, for life is wonderful and does have meaning. I will die and with that, I do not fear death for is very much part of life. Man will continue and yes we will evolve, as change is the only consent in this universe. If you really want to see if you live forever…. Go outside (or in your house) and look into a child’s eyes….you will see the spark of mankind and then you will realize we are eternal. For those who wish to believe….please do so as it gives you whatever comfort as life is the pursuit of happiness.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • CW

      @ Q,

      Its your choice...you can turn away from the Truth....that's your choice.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
    • CW

      @ richinux,

      Same comment....you can turn from the truth. By the way....where is your proof that God doesn't exist? I'll hit you with the same claim....all non-believers can't prove with or without eductation that God doesn't exist.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • richunix

      @ CW, the poorest of auguremnts, but since you believe in fantasy, nothing will change your mind nor do you understand the real world that we live in. A child like mind...

      March 3, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
    • Q

      @CW – Your arrogance is not surprising, but fyi, just because you call it the "truth", doesn't make your completely irrational and unsupported faith-based belief "the truth". Again, not expecting rationality from someone who makes such simple errors in reason...

      March 3, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
    • silly

      As I see it, neither side can prove that god exists or doesn't.. so why are you fighting again?

      March 3, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
    • w

      The burden of proof is on the assertion of existence. It is a very simple logical fallacy to demand proof of non-existence. Can you prove that Medusa does not exist? No. But your inability to prove she does not exist lends no weight to, and is no proof for, an assertion that she does exist. If you assert a fairy tale is factually correct, it is upon you to support the assertion, not upon others to prove you wrong.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
    • Bill

      CW, you are abusing the word "truth".

      March 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
    • Toby

      "Where is your proof that god doesn't exist?" Oh CW... come on now. This is not only physically impossible, but theoretically as well. How can you prove that anything doesn't exist beyond proving it to be within our reality by supporting it with factual proof? Your concept of what makes something "exist" lives within a set of boundaries defined by science. Therefore, if you can not prove something to exist with science, you logically cannot do the same to prove it doesn't exist.

      I believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Prove to me that it does not exist:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

      March 3, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • Toby

      even better... prove to me that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. Can you?

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

      March 3, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • QS

      "As I see it, neither side can prove that god exists or doesn't.. so why are you fighting again?"

      Let's see – because the side that can't prove that god DOES exist seems to believe that their belief gives them carte blanche to go ahead and discriminate against an entire group of people by declaring them abominations and getting laws passed based upon those prejudices.

      The side that can't prove god DOESN'T exist simply wants the other side to stop thinking it's their responsibility and obligation to be the morality police and to keep their religious voodoo out of our laws.

      There is a more significant and relevant issue at hand with this subject other than simply who believes in god and who doesn't, or which interpretation of the bible is correct and which isn't. It's all about how religion vilifies gay people and is somehow praised and respected for doing so.

      Many religious people complain about the anti-religious crowd coming on these boards and posting anti-religious comments, and still have the audacity to feign ignorance as to why so many people don't like their religion in the first place.

      Religious affiliation aside, how socially inept does one have to be that they can't recognize why people find them contemptible for holding such discriminatory beliefs?

      March 3, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
    • derp

      I believe that Bigfoot rules atlantis from atop a unicorn. When you die, you must go to Atlantis and stand before bigfoot and be judged based on "The Sasquatch Code".

      You are all going to burn in hell because you do not follow bigfoots rules. It's the truth because I believe it and I know the truth and you heathens fail to see it.

      Ok then, prove bigfoot does not ride around Atlantis on a unicorn making up all the rules. I'll wait.

      March 3, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • Patrick

      @CW:
      I do have to agree with you on that point. Of all the thousands of Gods worshiped as part of the hundreds of faith systems that have come and gone in the history (and before) of this planet, I have yet to be able to disprove any of them.

      If only that meant something.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • D

      Depr – It's a scientific fact that unicorns cannot breath underwater. Pity. I like your religion.

      March 3, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • Estevan

      @CW: By the way....where is your proof that Leprechauns don't exist? I'll hit you with the same claim....all Christians can't prove with or without education (corrected that word for you – the irony) that Leprechauns don't exist.

      The burden of proof is on believers to prove that god exists – they are the ones making an extraordinary claim. If I were to claim that Leprechauns exist the burden of proof would be on me to prove that they do. Fact is that you cannot prove that nowhere in the universe at no point in time there wasn't a Leprechaun that lived....but the default position should be that unless there I can provide verifiable evidence to the contrary Leprechauns do not exist. Same standard should apply for god. No evidence therefore no reason to believe he exists....and no, a thousands of year old book of dubious origin is not credible or verifiable evidence.

      March 3, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
    • D

      Enough about the Bible. I wan't to hear more about "The Sasquatch Code". Does that explain why there was a Wookie in Star Wars? All this time they thought The Force was the religion but NO. Gives a whole new meaning to "God is my co-pilot."

      March 3, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
    • Dewy987

      it actually scares me when I see responses like CWs

      to think that someone could follow so blindly and be so close minded.

      i am a believer in that which can be proven. i am a follower of logic, science, and reason.

      what amazes me most, is when people like CW so vehemently deny logic. when someone cannot be persuaded by FACT, what else can be done to help these people?

      unforunately, religion is the product of ignorance. not stupidity, rather uncertainty. born centuries (in some case, millennia) before the existance of moddern science. i guess if you cant find an answer, you have to 'believe' instead

      March 3, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
    • Dewy987

      *modern

      March 3, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
    • derp

      "Does that explain why there was a Wookie in Star Wars?"

      Precisely. Bigfoot is always watching. Bigfoot works in mysterious ways that only bigfoot understands. Don't you dare question the "Sasquatch Code" or you are going straight to hell. No hanging out in Atlantis, no ride on water breathing Unicorns, straight to the freezing cold hell of the abominable snowman.

      (I had to add that unicorns can breathe under water to clarify for "D". Although it does not matter now, he is going to the frozen tundra of hell just because he questioned whether or not unicorns can breathe underwater. That is a violation of the sasquatch code)

      March 4, 2011 at 9:41 am |
    • derp

      Bigfoot bless you!

      Or as the muslims would say....

      Bigfoot akbar!

      March 4, 2011 at 9:44 am |
    • derp

      Bigfoot sent his only son, Largerthanaveragefoot, to earth to die for our sins. Because of Largerthanaveragefoot, son of Bigfoot, we are saved from an eternity of freezing our butts off in hell along with the master of all that is evil, the abominable snowman.

      The snowman used to be in Atlantis right alongside Bigfoot, but he was tempted by the forbidden twinkie. Unfortunately he could not resist the forbidden twinkie, once he scarfed it up, he was banished to the frozen tundra of hell for all eternity.

      Bummer for him, he should have had some carrots.

      March 4, 2011 at 9:50 am |
    • HeavenSent

      What every one needs to read ...

      John 14:6
      Psalm 119:105
      Ezekiel 18:4

      for if you continue to disbelieve ...

      Psalm 5:5-6
      Hosea 9:15
      Psalm 11:5
      Jeremiah 12:8

      Amen.

      March 9, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
    • Maybe

      HeavenSent,

      You persist in using Bible quotes to prove that the Bible is true.

      The Quran says it is the perfect word of a "God" too. Why don't you believe all the quotes from it?

      Maybe if you can understand why you reject that book, you will understand why many people reject yours.

      March 9, 2011 at 7:34 pm |
  16. Anglican

    I certainly agree the Bible is not pro-gay or lesbian. We all fall short, and we all rely on God's grace. Love one another.

    March 3, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
    • CW

      @ Anglican,

      Read Romans 1....Read 1 Corithians 6:9...then ask yourself....how is it not plain as en-'glish?

      March 3, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > We all fall short, and we all rely on God's grace.

      You fall short because God designed you to fall short. He then blames you for being what he created you.

      It's like blaming a dull knife for being dull.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • Steve, the real one

      I certainly agree the Bible is not pro-gay or lesbian. We all fall short, and we all rely on God's grace. Love one another.
      ---------
      All you said was true. Allow me another truth. Often afetr Jesus would heal someone, He would leave them with these words: "Go and sin no more". The chances are good that the person sinned after that but wallowing in sin and willfully living in it was what Jesus warned about. Yes we all sin and come short of His glory! No an excuse to stay in it! Especially when we know it is sin!

      March 3, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
    • Anglican

      Steve the real one. I agree, but no one on this earth can carry out that command "and sin no more." Have you sinned this week? What about yesterday? I have. This is why Christ died, to end all this banter. Salvation by grace through faith. (Period) Everyone loves to pick on G and L.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
    • Anglican

      CW. I am sure your primary goal is to bring people to Christ. (Tongue in Cheek). You spread so much love.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
    • CW

      @ Angelican,

      Let me ask...since your so Pro-'g-'ay and I'm not a christian since that is how you view things....let me ask. Do you have the same feelings towards someone who confesses to be a christian but keeps on mur-'dering? How bout if someone is cheating on their wife?...do you view them the same?

      You know since every sin is okay in your book....just want to know where you draw the line.

      March 4, 2011 at 8:27 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Jesus left us a letter He wrote to all of us (the Bible) explaining how to live in the human flesh (sin) while living on earth. The Bible is His blueprint how not to sin while in the carnal flesh. He didn't send us down here to go solo, that's why His teachings are spiritual, so you don't have to stay in the carnal trap of having the sin of the flesh torment you.

      Amen.

      March 9, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
  17. ScottK

    "God’s limiting of persons in a se xual union to two is evident in his creation of two (and only two) primary se xes: male and female" – So there are no hermaphrodites that occur in nature? That is the sound reasoning this nut has come up with to prove what God intended? Or does the word "primary" se xes preclude any so called anomalies such as people born with other chromosome combinations? Maybe if he researched human biology as much as he has the bible he would come to a different conclusion about what God intended.

    March 3, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
    • Ruby

      Rather, what the church says the Bible says God intended.

      March 3, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      ScottK, what part of sperm meets egg(s) to produce. Do you not understand? This is Jesus' truth as all the sciences agree.

      Amen.

      March 9, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
  18. ATX

    Well stated article. I read the previous article written by Knust and noticed a lot of the inconsistencies pointed out here. I'm definitely not anti-gay at all, but as a Christian I really just want to know the truth about what the Bible says about issues.

    March 3, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
    • captnavenger

      You may find out factually what the Bible says. But that doesn't mean what the Bible says is Truth. Or even The Truth.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
    • s2kMATTers

      What the Bible says is that all fall short. Not one is worthy, except through the perfect grace achieved through Christ on the cross.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
  19. Mark

    Thank you CNN for allowing capable scholars from both sides to speak to this issue. This is "fair and balanced" journalism that allows the reader/viewer to decide which arguments/perspectives make the most sense. Please continue to do this for every issue you cover. Again, kudos!

    March 3, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
    • ScottK

      Ah yes, fair and balanced...
      "Ho mose xual practice, inc est, and polyamory are all" "strongly proscribed because (4) they violate creation structures or natural law."
      Calling anyone who was born different through no fault of their own "violations of creation & natural law" seems so fair, and oh so balanced. Well I claim that a fair and balanced argument about Christians is that they are all delusional sycophants hoping and praying that everyone they don't agree with will die and suffer for an eternity at the hands of their masochistic diety.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
    • CW

      @ ScottK,

      You so mad....Truth hurts don't it.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > You so mad....Truth hurts don't it.

      What truth? The bible has been proven wrong time and time again. It's internally inconsistent, proven to have been altered to make things look "better" then they were and generally is wrong on core concepts of morality. Such as a person owning a child of a slave and his wife.

      To say any conclusion on the bible is factual in regards to reality is unfounded and just plain silly.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
    • Reggie

      Absolutely Mark!! I personally get sick and tired of the "anti-Christian" rhetoric I "CONSTANTLY" see on CNN and also in the media. It's unreal to see a fundamental view point for a change.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
    • Monson

      @The Bobinator

      "The bible has been proven wrong time and time again. It's internally inconsistent, proven to have been altered to make things look "better" then they were and generally is wrong on core concepts of morality."

      Could you show me where it's been proven wrong.

      Thanks!!

      Monson

      March 3, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Kevin

      @TheBobinator

      I too would sincerely like to know where the Bible has been proven wrong.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • tori

      I completely agree with you! Fair and balanced more so than other news corporations.

      March 3, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
    • ScottK

      "Could you show me where it's been proven wrong."

      The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C. = age of earth approximately 6000 years.

      The actual age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

      March 3, 2011 at 7:50 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I haul this example of the bible being wrong out fairly frequently and have yet to get any kind of response from a biblical literalist.

      "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field; which indeed is smaller than all seeds. But when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches."

      – Matthew 13:31–32

      Mustard seeds are not the smallest of all seeds, they do not grow into trees and birds do not nest in them.

      March 4, 2011 at 9:50 am |
    • HeavenSent

      The Bobinator, once and for all, understand this simple truth, the only folks who believe the Bible to be wrong is those that don't want to give up their sinful natures. Jesus' truth stands for eternity. The Bible describes Jesus' spiritual truth how to be the best that He wants us to be while housed in human form, that being what He wants for us, and from us.

      I suggest you read John 14:6, Psalm 119:105, and John 14:6, and Ezekiel 18:4. Four scriptures that will save your soul.

      Amen.

      March 9, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  20. Montana

    It is nice to see a response to what I thought was an extremely liberal take on scripture by Knust.

    March 3, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
    • Mi Ning

      Christianity is an extremely liberal religion. You know, that whole "love your neighbor as you love yourself", "treat others as you would like to be treated", "judge not lest you be judged" thing. Totally liberal. Don't even get me started on "turn the other cheek"! Also, remember when the crowd asked Jesus if it was OK to give the adulteress the death penalty, as religious law stated? Jesus said no. Spared her and told her not to sin any more. Liberal. That's what Christianity is all about. Liberalism.

      March 3, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
    • The Truth

      I thought I'd do a post regarding the issue of hom-ose-xuality, which if it enlightens just one person even a tiny bit, then it will be worth the time spent.

      Before I continue, I'll state upfront that I am not LGBT (not that it should even matter).

      I find it mind-numbing how many devout Christians are so uneducated concerning the gay issue.

      They come out with hilarious lines such as "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." That's about as original as "What's your sign baby?" lol

      So then I ask them: "Does God make mistakes?"

      99.9%+ of them answer a resounding "No."

      In that case, we have established that God does not make mistakes. Thus, the fact that it is scientifically proven that many different types of animals are gay, then logic dictates God MUST therefore be in favor of the gay ideal (since he doesn't make mistakes).

      In the Bible, one of the most commonly referenced passages involves Jesus being known as the Shepherd as us as his Sheep.

      So now let's look at the specific example set forth by Jesus himself. Jesus = Shepherd & We = Sheep. Male sheep have been proven to have s-ex in natural circu-mstances with other male sheep. So did God just "screw up?" Of course not... because we have already established that he doesn't make mistakes.

      In fact, it was so common in Australia that shepherds actually came up with a name for the gay sheep calling them "shy breeders." A study done by the Oregon Health & Science University's School of Medicine found that around 8% of sheep won't father offspring specifically due to the fact that they choose to mate with sheep of their same gender.

      So now, why did Jesus use that analogy? Sheep didn't just "turn" gay in the last 100 years and I hope no one tries to justify it by arguing that sheep have a "choice." There would have been gay sheep back in Jesus' day as well. Surely, shepherds would have noticed and surely as the Son of God, Jesus would have already been well aware of this fact. So did Jesus just not know what he was talking about? Of course not as we have already established otherwise. Thus, Jesus is factoring in the gay members of our human society into his flock. He doesn't say to specifically shun the gay sheep. He didn't pick a different reference that wouldn't have included gay members such as he is the "Mountain" & we are the "Pebbles." Instead, he intentionally chose that reference.

      There are only a tiny handful of animals that have been scientifically proven to have s-ex for pleasure purposes (not solely for reproduction). These tend to be animals with the largest brains (cetaceans, primates, etc). And in all of these cases, those animals have proven and docu-mented hom-ose-xual members in their groups. Thus, God was OK with that as well.

      How about some other random examples?

      In seahorses, it is the male that becomes pregnant and has a pouch to care for its young.

      Or perhaps polychaete worms, echinoderms, crustaceans, molluscs and many different types of fish all can change s-ex from male to female or female to male.

      Or what about say the plants known as "lilies-of-the-valley" who have both female and male reproducive s-ex organs simultaneously?

      And so on and so on and so on...

      Geez, God must "mess up" a lot then... but as we have already established, he doesn't make mistakes.

      As for claims that the "Bible" tells us that God is against hom-ose-xuality, I ask them if it was SO extremely important to God that hom-ose-xuality did not happen, then why wasn't it mentioned "specifically" time and time and time and time again in the Bible like other recurring themes are? After all, the ancient Greeks were having hom-ose-xual s-ex with children at least 500 years before Jesus ever walked on the earth. And surely God would have been aware of that little tidbit of information before sending Jesus to earth.

      And none of that is even taking into account that the ancient Romans did the same thing... and Jesus knew a thing or two about the Romans.

      So maybe it wasn't so important after all.

      None of that even accounts for other facts such as God obviously felt that it worse to bear false witness against your neighbor than it was to have hom-ose-xual s-ex as evidenced by the 10 Commandments.

      Never to mind from a non-religious perspective, hom-ose-xuality actually helps to keep the planet's population from exceeding its niche (as it does in the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom). Of course, today there are avenues around that for gay and lesbian couples via scientific means. Furthermore, many gay and lesbian couples adopt which means that children who would otherwise go unwanted are now given loving homes.

      If anyone takes the time to actually research the topic from non-biased sources, it is clearly obvious that hom-ose-xuality is indeed genetic. The real question is how big of a percentage is it? That has not been definitively answered yet. The mere fact that it is genetic in the first place therefore means that God is responsible for it. Moreover, God created us in his own image, so that should account for something as well.

      Looking at it from a common sense physical perspective, if God didn't want people to have hom-ose-xual s-ex and if you choose to deny the genetic aspect of it despite overwhelming evidence, then still all God needed to do was to make sure that the "parts" didn't fit. Human beings have s-ex in three main orifices because that is where the parts fit. If God didn't want it to happen like that, then he could have just changed the shapes/sizes. For instance, we don't have nostril s-ex because the parts don't fit.

      The concept of the Golden Rule is mentioned numerous times in both Testaments of the Bible. Jesus makes it clear that this is of the utmost importance. So I'm not sure how discriminating against hom-ose-xuals quite fits the blatantly overt message contained in the Golden Rule.

      People that are hom-ophobic (whether consciously or subconsciously) due to their upbringing and/or surroundings, go out of their way to find va-gue passages and interpretations to support their discrimination against God's children. These citations are few and far between and they are ambiguous at best. The number of "Shepherd" and "Golden Rule" references along with basic common sense and logic trump all of those desperate attempts many times over. Yet the discrimination sadly continues. Jesus was a man of love and peace who helped the most loathed of his society. So I find it ironic that people who call themselves followers of him feel they license to do the opposite.

      So as you can see, even if you choose to believe that that science is incorrect and it is indeed a "choice," then basic common sense dictates otherwise.

      In any event, hopefully you will read this with an open mind and perhaps it might resonate at some point in time. To those of you that don't discriminate against people that are simply different from you in the spirit of Christ, then I applaud you and encourage you to speak out more in an effort to educate the uneducated.

      Tiny Sampling of Genetic Evidence

      From just one single Seattle Times article from 2005, they discuss such items as:

      1) Dr. Mustanski (who studied extensively at the Kinsey Insti-tute and has received awards from the National Insti-tutes of Health, National Science Foundation, etc, etc, etc) stating: "It's pretty definitive that biological factors play a role in determining a person's se-xual orientation."

      2) Austrian scientists reported this month that switching a single gene was enough to make female fruit flies rebuff males and attempt to mate with other females.

      3) Swedish researchers recently found the se-xual center of gay men's brains lit up when they sniffed a pheromone-like chemical from men's sweat, but didn't respond to a chemical from women.

      4) The team from the University of Padua found that mothers and aunts of gay men had more offspring than female relatives of heterose-xuals, suggesting genes that influence hom-ose-xuality in men may increase fertility in females.

      5) Ranchers have long known that about 8 percent of Rams never father offspring because they only have eyes for other males.

      6) Roselli found that a brain region linked with se-xual behavior was twice as big in heterose-xual as hom-ose-xual rams. The difference seems to exist even before birth, he said. The gay rams also had lower brain levels of an enzyme that activates testosterone and promotes typical male se-xual behavior.

      7) Rats, hamsters, ferrets and other lab animals flip-flop their se-xual behavior when scientists manipulate the hormones they're exposed to before birth. Such experiments would be unethical in people, but some rare medical conditions offer human parallels.

      8) A high proportion of girls with a disorder that causes them to secrete male hormones before birth grow up to be lesbian.

      9) About 40 case studies have shown boys who are surgically altered and raised as girls because of genital deformities are overwhelmingly attracted to females once they reach puberty — indicating se-xual orientation is determined very early in life and is difficult to alter.

      10) Dr. Breedlove (what a classic name for his field) who has degrees from Yale and UCLA and has taught at Berkeley and now at Michigan State being an expert in neuroendocrinology states: "If you're going to say people choose a se-xual orientation when they reach puberty, you're going to have to find some people who remember making that choice, and there aren't any... The evidence is starting to look pretty good that hormones early in life influence the probability of who you will be attracted to 10 years later, when people start to get their first crushes."

      11) In heterose-xual women, the index and ring fingers are usually about the same length. In heterose-xual men, the index finger is shorter, on average, than the ring finger. It's one of several differences between the se-xes that seem to be set before birth, based on testosterone exposure.

      12) OK.... has everyone stopped looking at their finger length yet? LOL

      13) Breedlove found lesbians' finger lengths were, on average, more like men's. The same holds true for other traits, like eye-blink patterns and inner-ear function. (side note... eye blinking is subconsciously based and cannot be consciously controlled in the manner in which the test was conducted.)

      14) "Every time you find a body marker that gives an indication of prenatal testosterone exposure, lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women," Breedlove said. "This can't be a fluke."

      15) Hom-ose-xuality: It runs in families and the number of older brothers a man has can increase his chances of being gay.

      16) What scientists call slam-dunk proof that genes are part of the equation comes from twin studies. Genetically influenced traits are more likely to be shared among the closest relatives, and that pattern holds for hom-ose-xuality. For fraternal male twins, the gay-gay concordance rate is about 22 percent. For identical twins, it's 52 percent.

      17) Environmental factors could be exclusively biological, like chemical exposure or infection. One theory, backed by some evidence in rats, is that the chemical and hormonal milieu of the developing fetus can be disrupted when pregnant mothers are stressed.

      18) When he looked into scattered reports that many gay men have older brothers, he was astounded. The findings now have been confirmed by more than a dozen studies, including several of his own: Every older brother a man has increases his chances of being gay. A man with four older brothers is three times more likely to be gay than a man with none. Blanchard estimates one out of every seven gay men owes his orientation to this "fraternal birth order" effect.

      19) Gay males with older brothers weigh less at birth than heterose-xual males with older brothers, hinting that something different is happening to them in the womb.

      So as you can see, there is a LOT of evidence pointing in this direction and that was just from one link five full years ago. Current science has brought many more of those ideas to the forefront and produced new evidence to boot. I don't see how anyone can possibly say that genetics doesn't play at least a partial role in determining se-xual orientation. Thus, even if that partial number is 0.0001% (and that number is WAY higher in my opinion), then that must mean that God is OK with it, otherwise he would have made genetics play a 0.0000% role in it.

      Moreover, not from the article above, but the Y Chromosome is slowly disappearing and in another 5,000 generations, men might no longer exist at all. Nature is much more powerful than nurture no matter which way you want to slice it.

      But hey, if anyone thinks finger length is a choice, or subconscious eye-blinking patterns are a choice, or the number of older brothers increasing likelihood of hom-ose-xuality is a choice, or that brains light up differently when exposed to male vs female pheromones is a conscious choice, or that boys who were surgically altered due to ambiguous se-xual identification at birth (unbeknownst to them) who are raised as girls and then are attracted to girls is a choice, etc, etc, etc... then more power to you.

      So here's my challenge: If anyone can go and magically alter their finger length by "conscious choice" or if anyone can go into a lab and manipulate the se-xual arousal portion of their brain "by choice" and have it light up like Clark's house in Christmas Vacation by smelling pheromones of each s-ex at will, then I will recant everything I said. However, something tells me that I don't have much to worry about.

      Peace!

      March 3, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
    • CW

      @ The Truth,

      There is NO TRUTH...TO YOU. Being G-'ay is a choice just like choosing one drink over another. God can and will help all sinners one just has to ask for the guidance and make the choice to follow him.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
    • Chris

      CW – You wouldn't know the truth if it came up and kicked you in the tookus. Truth? Like the world is 6,000 years old truth? Truth? Like the "Great Flood" was global, and not just the formation of the Black Sea truth? or Truth, like mankind rode around on apatosauruses thanks to the complete lack of evolution truth? If there's one thing the bible is short on, it's truth. Love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, now there's some truth...the rest is just the powerful trying to control the masses by scaring them into believing that most anything they do will send their souls to hell for all of eternity.

      March 3, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
    • Jonathan

      It was an ignorant response....not very nice nor does he show any understanding of the issue.

      March 3, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • stejo

      @The Truth – nice essay but waste of time – if Jesus came down and verified everything you said, idiots like CW would stone him.

      March 3, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
    • The Truth

      ****@CW "There is NO TRUTH...TO YOU. Being G-'ay is a choice just like choosing one drink over another. God can and will help all sinners one just has to ask for the guidance and make the choice to follow him."****

      LOL... apparently you can't read or you can't comprehend or you aren't educated enough to understand or some combination of all of them. Being gay is clearly not a choice as described in detail above. It can be a choice for a heterose-xual man or woman to freely choose to engage in hom-ose-xual behavior. For instance, if you chose to be with a member of your same s-ex, that would be a "choice" because you were born heteros-exual. For a person born hom-ose-xual, it would be a "choice" for them to have s-ex with someone of the opposite gender. But that requires multi-dimensional thinking, so that's probably way over your head.

      Notice how you can't refute what I said and instead just throw in your two cents of saying, "You're wrong because I say you are wrong." Oooh... good retort!

      Of course you can't change your finger length by conscious choice nor can you change which subconscious areas of your brain light up when exposed to male or female pheromones.... so yes, it must be a choice.

      This is what you are: You are a xenophobe who is afraid of people who are not like you. You use the Bible to "justify" your xenophobia instead of just admitting that you are discriminatory. Just like Hitler used Christianity to throw millions of people into the furnace, you use Christianity to hate against others. Hitler brainwashed his followers into believing that his way was the correct way just like the Catholic and Christian churches have brainwashed their followers into believing that hom-ose-xuality is a sin for decade after decade and century after century. If you lived in Germany in the 1940's, you'd have followed the pack just like you do now. Pretty pathetic.

      When it comes time for you to answer St. Petey at the Pearly Gates and he asks why you discriminated against God's children, don't say that you weren't aware it was genetic because it's just been handed to you on a silver platter.

      Good luck with your hatred.

      Peace.

      March 3, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • The Truth

      ****@Chris: Love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, now there's some truth...the rest is just the powerful trying to control the masses by scaring them into believing that most anything they do will send their souls to hell for all of eternity.****

      Well said brother!
      🙂

      March 3, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
    • The Truth

      ****@stejo: The Truth – nice essay but waste of time – if Jesus came down and verified everything you said, idiots like CW would stone him.***

      LOL... you hit the nail right on the head with that one.

      Cheers!
      🙂

      March 3, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
    • The Truth

      It is pretty amazing how the "heathen" "despi-cable" "going to hell" agnostics and atheists have to teach the "blessed" "righteous" "going to Heaven" Christians how to not hate and discriminate against their fellow man.

      Ah... the irony....

      March 3, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
    • Jeremy

      @The Truth:

      Well said. I'm going to steal your post and put it on my blog. If you don't want it there, please leave me a comment and I'll remove it 🙂

      view it at jeremykaiser DOT blogspot DOT com

      Thanks!!!

      March 3, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
    • sassypants

      Jesus came to set the captives free from their sin and told them to go and sin no more. He was sinless which hardly sounds liberal. The gift of grace and the subsequent process of sanctification are freedom from sin not freedom to sin.

      March 3, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
    • The Truth

      @Jeremy Well said. I'm going to steal your post and put it on my blog. If you don't want it there, please leave me a comment and I'll remove it view it at jeremykaiser.blogspot.com Thanks!!!****

      Hi Jeremy... thanks for letting me know. And of course you may feel free to use it as the goal of my creating this post was to utilize logic and fact to hopefully open up the closed eyes of the large percentage of Christians who blatantly discriminate against gays.

      According to the Christians, I choose to stand up for the minority or the "little guy" because I am evil, have horns growing out of my head, have been destined to an eternity in hell, have no morals, etc, etc, etc. I mean after Jesus never stood up for the minority nor the little guy... he was always with the overwhelming majority. Oh wait... there was the Good Samaritan. Oh and the lepers. Oh and the prost-itute. Oh and... well, you get the picture.

      Notice that there have been more than 2,800 responses at this point and yet no one can refute the obvious. 😉

      Cheers bro!
      8)

      March 3, 2011 at 9:18 pm |
    • CW

      @ The Truth,

      You so pathetic. So let me ask since it isn't a choice do mu-'rderers have a choice? Could it be genetic also that its in someone's DNA to be a mur-'derer...how bout a serial k-'iller?

      Its a choice....period....just like doing good versus doing wrong...its all about choices. That is what God lets us all make that choice.

      March 4, 2011 at 8:31 am |
    • CatholicMom

      Gay persons are special and are born that way.

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc&w=640&h=390]

      March 4, 2011 at 10:57 am |
    • The Truth

      *********@CW: "The Truth, You so pathetic"******

      First off, what is pathetic is that you claim to be Christian and then run around calling other people "pathetic." You can't even get the basic tenets of the Bible down correctly.

      Secondly, yes, I am the pathetic one for wanting to treat all humans as equal. You're the one wanting to discriminate against a certain group of humans. Hmmmm.... I wonder which one of Jesus would side with. But yes, I am pathetic. If Jesus were here and if ("when" is more apropos) Jesus chose my team over yours, then that would mean that you'd be calling Jesus pathetic too. Classic.

      *****"So let me ask since it isn't a choice do mu-'rderers have a choice? Could it be genetic also that its in someone's DNA to be a mur-'derer...how bout a serial k-'iller?"****

      First off, from a religious philosophical standpoint, whether or not anyone has a choice is up for debate since the concepts of "free will" and "omnipotence/omniscience" conflict themselves. And yes, I realize that believers have tried to make "rationalizations" to themselves as to how these go hand in hand, but the reality is that they conflict themselves.

      Secondly, do you realize that you are now comparing hom-ose-xuality with MURDER and SERIAL KILLERS? That's like comparing a child born with Down Syndrome to murderers. This speaks volumes toward your xenophobia of hom-ose-xuals.

      Thirdly, for some murders, it is a choice. For others it isn't. As just one type of example, this is why people get off on temporary insanity defenses. The legal definition of this is "a defense by the accused that he/she was briefly insane at the time the crime was committed and therefore was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her alleged criminal act. Temporary insanity is claimed as a defense whether or not the accused is mentally stable at the time of trial." This is because if someone was temporarily insane, then they didn't have a "choice" because they were temporarily incapable of doing so.

      Fourthly, with regard to serial killers, no one knows for sure why they exist, though there are many theories as to why. One of those theories is that they were born that way. However, the most likely reason for this is that a combination of nature vs nurture. This meaning that they might be deficient in some aspects of their brains (such as people who have depression and get items like SSRI's and MAOI's to replace chemicals that their brains are naturally missing) along with their environment they were raised in contributing to their horrific behaviors later on in life. Many serial killers came from tragic homes where they were abused, beaten, ra-ped, etc. In fact more than half of serial killers still wet their beds going into their teen years. These are incredibly disturbed people. But keep in mind, many serial killers also say that they kill on behalf of the devil or on behalf of God/Jesus... which just puts this power of religious delusion on full display.

      ********"Its a choice....period"*********

      Seriously, what part of the above do you not understand?

      Can you or can you not adjust your finger length at will via conscious choice? I know I can't do it. So how can you say this is a choice?

      Can you or can you not adjust the number of brothers you have via conscious choice? I know I couldn't make my mom have children if she didn't want to. How is this a choice?

      Can you or can you not right now walk into a scientific laboratory and make the se-xual center of your brain light up when you smell male hormones versus female hormones at will via conscious choice? I know I can't. How is this a choice?

      Etc, etc, etc.

      And you are really so obtuse that you are incapable of recognizing facts such as "a high proportion of girls with a disorder that causes them to secrete male hormones before birth grow up to be lesbian." They are getting these hormones IN THE WOMB. Do they sit there and "choose" for their mother to secrete those?

      Or are you really so obtuse as to be incapable of recognizing that "boys who are surgically altered and raised as girls because of genital deformities are overwhelmingly attracted to females once they reach puberty?" Why do you think that is Einstein? These "girls" aren't told that they were born as "boys" but just "naturally" lean that way. Get a clue and stop letting your fear and hatred toward people that are different than yourself cloud reality.

      As Yoda says, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." The fear that Christians have leads to their anger and hatred toward the hom-ose-xuals which leads to the hom-ose-xual minority's suffering. It is shameful and pathetic.

      *****....just like doing good versus doing wrong...its all about choices.*****

      Yes, the chemical balance of your body that you are born with is "just like" choosing whether or not to give the homeless man on the street some food. Brilliant!

      *****That is what God lets us all make that choice.******

      Why do you think God created all sorts of gay animals (including all of those with the largest brains)?

      Why do you think Jesus used the Sheep analogy when he (and many others of the time period since farming and owning animals such as sheep would have been more common then) knew full well that a percentage of sheep (just like a percentage of humans) are indeed hom-ose-xual? Was Jesus an imbecile?

      Why do you think God didn't make this a commandment since it was apparently SO important?

      Etc, etc, etc.

      You are living in a world of complete fear and delusion. I actually feel sorry for you. But I still have immense hope because as your generations die off, the younger generations that are coming up are much better educated and therefore more tolerant. Gay marriage will be legal in the entire United States within this decade as it is a blatant violation of the Consti-tution and the Supreme Court is waiting for the "perfect" case to set precedent.

      The facts are that you simply don't want hom-ose-xuals to have all the same privileges that you do. If you were white and living in the South back in the 1960's, you'd still be fighting for white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains too like the majority of the population in the area were doing. Yet now, the majority look back at those people and laugh at how ignorant and discriminatory they were. Several decades from now, the majority will look back and laugh at the discriminatory people who were so scared of gay rights... and yes, you'll be one of the people they'll be laughing at. Something to be proud of for sure.

      Peace.

      March 4, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
    • The Truth

      @CatholicMom Gay persons are special and are born that way.

      Before I start, let me say that I'm going to attempt to be as easy as possible on you because I believe your intentions here were good. So I commend you for that.

      With that, here are my issues with the video:

      1) It starts off very good and "lures" you into to thinking that this is being kind and favorable toward the gays.

      2) It uses "big words" and "big phrases" (for the lack of better terminology) in an attempt to confuse the average Catholic. They are MASTERS of this.

      3) They keep talking about cross the gays bear and how they suffer. Their "solution" to this is that God gives them extra love due to this suffering.

      Number three is where I have a HUGE issue. The reason why these hom-ose-xuals have a "cross to bear" and are "suffering" in the first place is because the EXACT same Church is telling their heterose-xual believers that the hom-ose-xuals aren't as good as the heterose-xuals!!!!! The Church is CAUSING this suffering! And their answer to it isn't what a rational person would do which is to change their message and say to accept all of God's children as equal, but instead they try to trick the majority into believing that this suffering is doing the minority a FAVOR! It is insane!

      As I've said before, one of my higher education degrees is in the field of Communication. This message has CLASSIC examples of trying to brainwash people by presenting a facade of sending one message (gays are special) while really teaching another message (it is OK to continue to discriminate against them).

      Let me ask you... are you aware that between 33%-50% of all Catholic priests are hom-ose-xual?? This is coming from the priests themselves.

      This is what your Church has done:

      1) They have ra-ped children from decades.
      2) They have covered up that ra-pe.
      3) They intentionally sent ra-pists from one parish to another once they were caught and didn't report them to the police.
      4) They have paid off some the earlier victims with pocket change in exchange for contracts guaranteeing their silence.
      5) They had the audacity to declare bankruptcy to cheat today's victims out of their rightful compensation.
      6) They STILL won't release all of the names of the perpetrators.
      7) The Pope knew this was happening, didn't stop it and now is claiming diplomatic immunity so he doesn't have to testify.
      8) They actually promoted Cardinal Law to Rome to protect him from the US authorities.
      9) They discriminate against hom-ose-xuals.
      10) They KNOW a huge percentage of priests and current seminarians are indeed hom-ose-xuals.
      11) They told gay seminarians that they have only a handful of years to "switch" from being "gay" to being "straight" which just shows their complete delusion to this matter.
      12) They don't allow married priests because they don't want to have to pay for the extra housing costs, food costs, medical insurance, etc and when they get separated/divorced, they don't want to have to pay alimony and child support... thus, they have shrunk their pool of viable candidates for the priesthood and end up with ra-pists and hom-ose-xuals, both of which they preach against. Talk about hypocrisy.
      13) They have money seized by international authorities for money laundering for the mafia.

      Need I go on?

      Now keep in mind that the priests I knew for a huge portion of my life were almost all wonderful people and I never heard of them molesting anyone. In fact, one of them had a huge impact on my own life as one of my friends in grade school had his mom die very young from pneumonia (and he had no dad) and the priest basically adopted him (without the formal paperwork) so we hung out a lot in the rectory. In fact, I'd say I have a better "behind the scenes" view of their life than 99.9% of all Catholics due to the massive amount of time we spent there. He was a great man who cared more about doing the work of Jesus than the Pope. He'd have no problem grabbing money out of the collection basket and giving it to someone in need (after the St. Vincent money ran out) who came to the rectory door instead of sending it to the machine that is the Catholic Church (which was a big no-no for him to do according to Church rules). Moreover, I had dinner with the priest who is currently the basis for the Anthony Hopkins' movie out in theater's now called "The Rite." And this guy was exceptional as well. The pastor of our Church came out every week and played basketball with us for hours and soccer as well. So my experiences with priests were very good and positive. Yet I couldn't justify being part of something that is so blatantly corrupt that I know Jesus would be appalled over. And those great priests that I just mentioned are currently part of the problem because they should be publicly rebelling back against the Vatican and yet they are not (Jesus rebelled back against the Church in his day as well). Just like parishioners are part of the problem by continuing to support such blatant corruption instead of fighting back and refusing to fund the corrupt machine.

      So don't let this "double-speak" work on you. Stop and think about it for yourself. Look HONESTLY at what they are doing. Deep down inside I know you know better.

      Back to hom-ose-xuality, do you realize what you and the Church are depriving these people of? I'm assuming you are married or were married. That bliss of matrimony is being deprived from these people. They can love a mate just like you can... the only difference is the plumbing. How would you like to be deprived of that bliss? The Golden Rule says to do unto others as you would want them to do unto you. Do you see the hypocrisy?

      Moreover, having s-ex has countless health BENEFITS. The RCC is actually depriving these people of health! On top of that, the constant feeling of them being less of a human and discrimination preached by the RCC to its members causes depression, suicide, etc, etc, etc. More depriving these people of their health.

      Gay married couples can also adopt children. If you were a child and had the choice of living in a crappy foster home or a crappy orphanage or could go to a loving home with two wonderful people who happened to be gay, which option would you pick? I know which one I would select in a heartbeat. So the RCC is depriving children as well. (And no, these children are not going to turn out gay in massive numbers by any stretch of the imagination.)

      And what about the children I mentioned above that were born as boys, but were changed at birth to girls because of deformities who grow up raised as girls and then later have the innate desire to be with girls? Am I really to believe that is their fault, they can't have s-ex with who they are attracted to and that they are born with a cross to bear? That is just cruel and sadistic for a human being to even think that. Where's the love that Jesus preached? Where's the Golden Rule?

      Or what about those born as hermaphrodites? Do they get to have s-ex with both men and women? Only men or only women? Or do they get punished by not being able to have s-ex at all? Can you not see how ridiculously absurd all of this is? None of this even begins to talk about the group setting these "moral" guidelines is anything but moral.

      And no matter how much you might disagree with me, you CAN NOT say that I am on the side of discriminating against the minority no matter which way you slice it. You can certainly say that about the RCC though.

      In the end, ignore what I say and ignore what the RCC says. Then look deep into your heart, think about the Golden Rule and what is "right' should be as obvious to you as the sun rising in the east.

      Peace.

      March 4, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
    • The Truth

      ***@Myself: Notice that there have been more than 2,800 responses at this point and yet no one can refute the obvious.***

      Well, another 1,000 posts have rolled by and still no one can refute the obvious....

      March 4, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      The Truth,
      I can see you are passionate about your beliefs….so am I.

      My best friend died of HIV/AIDS; he was only 51 at the time. I believe much about ho-mo-s3xuals due to our closeness in many ways. He and I were barely a year apart in age for one thing. Even after I was married we remained close, plus he lived only 30 minutes away; we each had a passion for art and did collaborative works together and some of our best pieces were made and sold just before he died.

      He and I made our First Communion together as kids and always wanted the best for each other. I had to deal with the hatred he went through from people who should know better, but I never abandoned him; I was fortunate to be able to travel to Key West with him a couple of times before he got too sick.

      During the last five years of his life he fell in love with his Church in such a way that I had never seen him so happy. He went on a retreat because his priest said it might be a good thing for him. When he came back from the retreat he was a changed man in that he truly loved everyone and everything! Even the tiniest stone was picked up and looked at with wonder and he found joy in life beyond anything I have ever witnessed.

      All our brothers and sisters, all six of us, attended the Church funeral which was packed with his many friends. The one who was missing was the priest who infected him; he died two years earlier.

      My brother had a true understanding of the Church. He looked at it for what it is….perfect as Jesus Christ founded it so; he saw the people…as the ones who need the grace that God can bestow on them through the Sacraments when they repent and live their lives according to His Will. My brother knew that we all have our crosses to bear in all walks of life….ho-m0s3xuals aren’t the only ones with crosses.

      There is much more that I could say but there is no need. I see you have made up your mind….you have your idea of the Church regardless of any good experiences you had with it….that is your choice. What I know is ‘the cross’ becomes much lighter when you carry it knowing that you’re on the right Path…instead of stumbling along on a rocky road in the dark.

      That was the last lesson my brother taught me.

      March 4, 2011 at 9:44 pm |
    • The Truth

      ***@CatholicMom "The Truth, I can see you are passionate about your beliefs….so am I.****

      What I am passionate about is trying to fight for the little guy. I don't care if it is a Catholic, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, someone who believes in Frosty the Snowman, etc that discriminates, then I'll try to fight for the little guy. We are all human beings and in this country, we are all created equal.

      ****My best friend died of HIV/AIDS; he was only 51 at the time....****

      I'm very sorry to hear that.

      As an aside (in case you were unaware), there are FAR more heterose-xual people infected with HIV/AIDS than hom-ose-xuals.

      ****He and I made our First Communion together as kids and always wanted the best for each other....He went on a retreat because his priest said it might be a good thing for him.... attended the Church funeral which was packed with his many friends. The one who was missing was the priest who infected him; he died two years earlier.****

      So what you are saying is that the Church literally killed this man that you loved. Had there been no such thing as religion, he wouldn't have died in this fashion. Of course, this is not to say that your friend wouldn't have contracted the virus from someone else.

      *****My brother had a true understanding of the Church. He looked at it for what it is….perfect as Jesus Christ founded it****

      How can you possibly say this? Besides all the things I listed above about them ra-ping children and covering it up, this Church literally killed your friend from one of the hom-ose-xual priests I talked about earlier. How is that perfect? This is disturbing and appalling.

      As I said above, I had great experiences with priests and you had the opposite. How is it that I can recognize that it isn't perfect and is corrupt (along with the majority of the rest of the planet) and yet you cannot?

      Not saying this to be mean, but rather I'm saying this as a potential eye opener for you... what you are experiencing here is something similar to Stockholm Syndrome. It is not exactly Stockholm Syndrome, but something in the same general ballpark.

      If you are unaware, Stockholm Syndrome is "a psychological shift that occurs in captives when they are threatened gravely but are shown acts of kindness by their captors. Captives who exhibit the syndrome tend to sympathize with and think highly of their captors. When subjected to prolonged captivity, these captives can develop a strong bond with their captors." And so while Catholics/Christians are not being held at gunpoint, they are "threatened gravely" by the concept of eternal damnation. So they are captives in that sense. And after being indoctrinated for a long period of time, they flock toward the acts of kindness that the Church shows toward them personally.

      Thus, this is a big reason why it is so hard to break away from the Church.

      ****ho-m0s3xuals aren’t the only ones with crosses.*****

      I understand this concept. Having something horrible such as cancer is a cross to bear as well. The difference is that a person with cancer isn't discriminated against by the Church.

      *****There is much more that I could say but there is no need. I see you have made up your mind*******

      I watched your video with an open mind. In fact, after watching the first 30 seconds or so, I was surprised and thought I might only have good things to say regarding it.

      ****….you have your idea of the Church regardless of any good experiences you had with it….that is your choice.****

      I have my opinions on it based on basic logic. Actions speak louder than words. I wouldn't support a private sector company that ra-pes children, discriminates against certain groups of people, has mafia ties, etc (neither would you), so why would I ever support a religious organization that does the same? Moreover, at the time I left the RCC, I was still religious in the sense that I went from "Catholic" to "Christian" so to speak. Thus, at that time, I realized that the CC's actions and the actions of Jesus were polar opposites on many fronts. Thus, at the time I realized that when I die, I don't go before the Pope, but rather go before Jesus/God, so there was no reason to continue to follow an organization with appalling moral values. That would have been quite hypocritical of me.

      I'd challenge you to do this: Don't do anything with the CC for just one month. That's just 4 Sundays. Instead, spend that month volunteering with children who have been abused, or sick children in the hospital, or go out feeding the hungry, or give shelter to someone who is homeless... all of those things that you feel you need from the CC will come back 10 fold in the process.

      *******What I know is ‘the cross’ becomes much lighter when you carry it knowing that you’re on the right Path…instead of stumbling along on a rocky road in the dark.********

      How does a person who is BORN gay get to carry a lighter burden by not allowing themselves to share intimate love with others? That's not lightening their load, that is weighing them down. How does a person who is BORN gay get to carry a lighter burden by joining a group (CC) that deems him/her to be less of a human being than themselves? That's not lightening their load either, but rather weighing them down. Etc, etc, etc...

      Finally, I'd actually be very interested to hear your thoughts on hermaphrodites that I asked about earlier. Who do they get to have s-ex with? Men only? Women only? Men and women? Neither men nor women?

      Peace.

      March 5, 2011 at 1:10 am |
    • The Truth

      Adding on to the above, in 2000, the Kansas City Star (the city's main newspaper) did a report showing that Catholic Priests were dying from HIV/AIDS at a rate FOUR TIMES higher than the general population. Almost a full year later, the paper came back to update their earlier story because they uncovered hundreds of more deaths from HIV/AIDS and stated that their new findings "exceed earlier estimates."

      Here's the reality: The Catholic Church is littered with hom-ose-xual priests and child molesters. These priests (both gay and straight) are running around having s-ex. Some of them are even secretly married. None of this even talks about ordained priests ra-ping nuns and impregnating them in other parts of the world.

      And this is the place where people choose to get their morals from???? I mean, really? The Church is filled with hypocrisy that knows no bounds. People could learn far more about moral values from watching the Brady Bunch.

      On 20/20 tonight, they talk about Ramon Salcido... he killed his wife and children in a brutal fashion. One daughter "miraculously" survived and tried out for American Idol. While on death row, Ramon Salcido had a "religious enlightenment" and he became an actual minister who preached the good word to others. That's just peachy... others get to learn morals from a brutal murderer. Mindboggling.

      I try to learn my morals from people of strong moral character... not people who are so sick in the head that they allow the ra-pe of children, conspire with the mafia, preach against hom-ose-xuality yet know full well that their profession is littered with them, etc, etc, etc.

      Call me whacky, but I guess that's just me. 😉

      Peace.

      March 5, 2011 at 1:52 am |
    • HeavenSent

      The truth, you want so bad to believe this to be genetics, when Jesus specifically states it's passing down one's carnal beliefs to future generations of what the ancestors believe that their lifestyles are correct without benefit of reading the Bible which explains Jesus' spiritual truth how not to continue the lust of the flesh while housed in human form. Same as al-co-ho-li-sm, it's behavior passed down from generation to generation until someone in the family breaks the pattern of bad behavior of not hiding behind a bottle for every thing in life that is difficult, in their minds.

      Amen.

      March 9, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
    • Ryan

      @The Truth

      I also re-posted your original post. gave you credit and will link it to this page. Thanks for the enlightening read.

      Let me know if you would like me to take it down.

      March 13, 2011 at 11:54 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.