home
RSS
My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?
June 21st, 2011
10:10 AM ET

My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?

Editor's Note: Jonathan Dudley is the author of Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics.

By Jonathan Dudley, Special to CNN

Growing up in the evangelical community, I learned the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is clear-cut. God condemns it, I was taught, and those who disagree just haven’t read their Bibles closely enough.

Having recently graduated from Yale Divinity School, I can say that my childhood community’s approach to gay rights—though well intentioned—is riddled with self-serving double standards.

I don’t doubt that the one New Testament author who wrote on the subject of male-male intercourse thought it a sin. In Romans 1, the only passage in the Bible where a reason is explicitly given for opposing same-sex relations, the Apostle Paul calls them “unnatural.”

Problem is, Paul’s only other moral argument from nature is the following: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).

Few Christians would answer that question with a “yes.”

In short, Paul objects to two things as unnatural: one is male-male sex and the other is long hair on men and short hair on women. The community opposed to gay marriage takes one condemnation as timeless and universal and the other as culturally relative.

I also don’t doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition.

But the community opposed to gay marriage has itself revised the Christian tradition in a host of ways. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy. When a theologian named Jovinian challenged that hierarchy in 390 A.D. — merely by suggesting that marriage and celibacy might be equally worthwhile endeavors — he was deemed a heretic and excommunicated from the church.

How does that sit with “family values” activism today?

Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s "pro-family" activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.

The community opposed to gay marriage has also departed from the Christian tradition on another issue at the heart of its social agenda: abortion.

Unbeknownst to most lay Christians, the vast majority of Christian theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life begins at conception.

Although he admitted some uncertainty on the matter, the hugely influential 4th and 5th century Christian thinker Saint Augustine wrote, “it could not be said that there was a living soul in [a] body” if it is “not yet endowed with senses.”

Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic saint and a giant of mediaeval theology, argued: “before the body has organs in any way whatever, it cannot be receptive of the soul.”

American evangelicals, meanwhile, widely opposed the idea that life begins at conception until the 1970s, with some even advocating looser abortion laws based on their reading of the Bible before then.

It won’t do to oppose gay marriage because it’s not traditional while advocating other positions that are not traditional.

And then there’s the topic of divorce. Although there is only one uncontested reference to same-sex relations in the New Testament, divorce is condemned throughout, both by Jesus and Paul. To quote Jesus from the Gospel of Mark: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.”

A possible exception is made only for unfaithfulness.

The community most opposed to gay marriage usually reads these condemnations very leniently. A 2007 issue of Christianity Today, for example, featured a story on its cover about divorce that concluded that Christians should permit divorce for “adultery,” “emotional and physical neglect” and “abandonment and abuse.”

The author emphasizes how impractical it would be to apply a strict interpretation of Jesus on this matter: “It is difficult to believe the Bible can be as impractical as this interpretation implies.”

Indeed it is.

On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.

Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.

Since graduating from seminary, I no longer identify with the evangelical community of my youth. The community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jonathan Dudley.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Homosexuality • Opinion

soundoff (6,474 Responses)
  1. GvilleT

    Seraration of church and state. Give me one reason that doesn't come from The Bible that someone shouldn't have the right to marry whom they want? Given it is not against each other's will and in accordance with age laws. I'm talking about a right not a moral value.

    June 21, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Anti this

      So it's okay to marry your sister or brother?

      June 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
    • tommas

      How about having children with your daughters. You know like Lot did after being rewarded by your god after leaving sodom and gomorrah. (suggested) gay se x is bad but sleeping with your daughters is OK. do you people even read the book you base your whole life on... jeez

      June 21, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
  2. Davren

    I wonder when CNN will actually run an article from someone who has an understanding of what the Bible is talking about? Seems like all these people have great opinions, but no understanding of Biblical context.

    CNN shame on you..At least give people a chance to run an article with a intelligent Christian POV. This one sided stuff is rediculous

    June 21, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • 3lwood

      Haha, and who would that one person be? You're kidding yourself if you think there is someone who actually "has an understanding of what the Bible is talking about"

      June 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
    • mb2010a

      "At least give people a chance to run an article with a intelligent Christian". No such animal...that is funny.

      June 21, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
  3. Limbaugh is a liberal

    I love all the self-righteous comments on this board declaring that the author surely is misinterpreting the Bible or misunderstanding it.
    What makes YOU such a great authority in the Bible? Why is YOUR interpretation the ONLY right one? Don't we all have our own individual relationship with God?
    And if there is only ONE right interpretation of the Bible, whose is it? No two denominations, no two congregations, no two ministers interpret the Bible exactly the same. Will all Southern Baptists go to heaven and let all Methodists, Presbytarians, Episcopelians, and non-denominational evangelicals burn in hell?
    I love that everyone here is apparently a Biblical scholar... but almost without exception only as far as 'knowing' the 'correct' interpretation of the Bible. And that interpretation always comes back to 'My beliefs are right, and the I know they are right because they are supported by my interpretation of the Bible.' NONE of these self-righteous Biblical scholars know the history of the Bible, how it was written, edited, translated, and interpreted throughout the ages.
    But if this is how you want to feel superior compared to your fellow man, instead of actually doing something to be superior, go right ahead.
    BTW, I would like to see all these one-issue fanatics just ONCE put as much effort into also campaigning for Biblical passages such as the New Testament's emphasis on charity, care for your fellow man, for the sick, poor and downtrodden. Or even just 'turn the other cheek.'

    June 21, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
    • 3lwood

      Here, here. As Dan Barker says "The apostle Paul alleged that the biblical deity is "not the author of confusion," yet never has a single book caused more confusion or divisiveness than the Bible. "

      June 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
    • Davren

      Hey Limbaugh, the right interpretation is the one that takes into account historical context. Paul's comment on "long hair" was meant to be read within in the context of his society, not applied to today. Anyone who actually studied greek and the verb tenses used in the passage would know that.

      If you want a proper understanding of the Bible, you have to understand the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words used, the historical context behind them AND knowledge of jewish customs which spawned them. Just opening up a Bible and reading it at face value will always lead to misunderstandings.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
    • TheyNotHim

      @Davren ... and why praytell should we guide our lives with the teachings of some Jews 2000 years ago?

      June 21, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  4. Bruce

    "It is not good to marry." Matthew 19:10

    It's a good thing Jesus disagreed with THAT opinion right after it was uttered by his disciples! Oh, wait...

    June 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  5. Brian

    I love it when people who go to Church once a week (if that) tell a BIBLICAL SCHOLAR he has no idea what he's talking about. Hilarious.

    June 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
    • Richard

      I love it when people think people who are not biblical scholars are biblical scholars. Hilarious!

      June 21, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
    • Brian

      Hmmm, it would seem your ability to rationally explain yourself is nonexistent. How curious...and why should he not be considered a Biblical scholar? The definition of a Biblical scholar is one who has studied the Bible...

      June 21, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
    • dwordisclear

      "But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong" 1 Corinthians 1: 27 Simply because he went to a Biblical seminary doesn't mean he has more spiritual knowledge than someone who is, to say the least, spiritually alive.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
    • El Kababa

      In a survey of churchgoers in a small town, scientists asked people if they went to church on the previous Sunday. They asked which church the family attended. Then, when they checked the attendance records of the handful of churches in that small town, they discovered that half of them had been lying.

      June 21, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • Tom

      @dwordisclear What about this: And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. John 14:13-14

      I have a proposition. You ask in Jesus' name that I will be converted tomorrow. If it happens I will post a public apology and spend the rest of my life preaching God's glory. If it doesn't happen, you have to stop cherry picking verses out of the Bible to suit your own purposes while ignoring the rest. Deal?

      June 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  6. El Kababa

    Here's the way it works, according to psychologists. You pick what you want to believe first; then you find evidence to support your belief. Christians can find a verse to support any and every behavior and another verse to condemn any and ever behavior.

    June 21, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • SkyRocket

      Exactly! It's quite sad really. It's sad that people are knocking this man's expertise on the Bible only because it doesn't jive with what they WANT the Bible to be saying. Smh.

      June 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
  7. twiddly

    Well reasoned.
    But you neglect to point one thing out – the bible (and jesus) is a farce.
    Pretty much everything in the bible was borrowed from earlier tales, including virgin birth, following a star, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, etc. Very little, if anything, in that book is original and it is chock full of contradictions.

    Most people believe, simpy and without question, whatever their parents believed. Christianity, and the other world religions, survive only because children are brainwashed.

    It's time to stop believing in santa claus.

    June 21, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • Bruce

      @twiddly: It's time for you to acknowledge that figures from culture–including Santa Claus–play an important role in how we go about our day and how we treat each other.

      You need to read up on your Carl Jung.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Brian

      Well as an agnostic I think I'm going to have to defend the Christians here. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus. Therefore, I'm going to have to ask you to politely leave and not incessantly hate on the beliefs of other people, which they have the right to. The only thing they do not have the right to is discriminating against other people/groups. So they can leave too.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • Richard

      Believe it or not, I still have some braincake left. Oh all right, I'll let you have a piece.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
    • Mavent

      Why are Atheists such d0uchebags?

      June 21, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
    • Tom

      @Brian That is a logical fallacy. By that reasoning you have to accept that there is an intangible invisible pink unicorn in your bedroom every night because you can't disprove it. That's the whole point behind the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

      June 21, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • Brian

      It is a logical fallacy, I will admit, when applied only to this discussion. However, when the time comes for writing laws and inciting violence or discrimination, I believe it is much more productive to not treat people differently based on something you cannot prove. Yes?

      June 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • Rick

      I'm sick and tired of these inane posts! I have to get the proper Godly haircut! Which f$%#%^ Church do I need to attend to figure out the right way to cut my hair!

      June 21, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
    • Tom

      @Brian Why even have the qualifier of belief? All people should be treated the same based on their own merits. On that, I completely concur. However, I think some of the outrage directed at those of a religious mind is a result of the substance of their own beliefs. I tend to find those that are the most dogmatic are tremendously ill-informed or do not reflect upon their own beliefs. That type of belief style is annoying at best and dangerous fanaticism at worst.

      June 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
  8. Sara

    Christan Evangelical leaders that we grew up with, Christian theologians, Catholic Saints including Thomas Aquinas, Christianity Today magazine, and any other "Christian" authority should always be questioned if they don't stand in direct agreement with the truths of the Bible. The One true Word. When read in the correct context it provides truth for everything and should be the only thing that forms our convictions. Not what any leader or seminary says.

    June 21, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • Phil

      When read in the correct context – who's is correct? Only your beliefs?

      June 21, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • Roger

      "When read in the correct context". Ah, now there's the problem. How do you determine what the correct context is? Is it what YOU say it is, or what a Biblical scholar says it is, or what your minister says it is? Each person reads it and comes to a different conclusion. You really need to clarify precisely what the "correct context" is if you're expecting everyone to come to the same correct conclusions as to the meanings of the biblical stories.

      June 21, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
  9. Danette Laucks

    Ideas that diminish our understanding of God’s infinite capacity for grace must be erroneous. Such as: “Only Christians will go to heaven” and the exclusion of gays from full participation in life both in and out of church. If we do not accept God’s capacity for love and grace as infinite, then we are rejecting the very concept of grace itself. Our error is thinking that God will judge souls by human criteria.

    June 21, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • Richard

      Good try, but you missed; would you care to try again?

      June 21, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • Phil

      Right on the mark! Don't listen to Richard (his name says it all).

      June 21, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
    • TheyNotHim

      @Rich-tard ... how bout an intelligent statement for a change?

      June 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
  10. Liberal1168

    Thank you Jon Dudley!

    I cannot believe the number of knee-jerk comments on here. I have no problem with people having a different opinion, but the tone in which they are voicing themselves is unseemly, and most importantly, not productive if a broader discussion of ideas is the goal.

    You brought very interesting, and admittedly at least to me, unknown facts to the discussion. Other peoples' inability to reasonably respond to those facts that, without a proper response, would seem to strongly undermine their rigid beliefs, is both disappointing and discouraging.

    Keep up the good, fair, civil and hard fight. Wasn't it MLK who said the moral arch of history is long, but it bends towards justice?!

    June 21, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • Richard

      The target was not hit; you landed on the ground. I'll give you another chance, go ahead.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  11. LarryL

    Although there are several points in Jonathan Dudley's article that I would dispute, I'll limit myself to one. In talking about abortion, he conflates the presence of a soul with the beginning of human life. Modern science, which is not concerned with souls–either the timing of their presence or the question of their existence–would still seem to define the beginning of the life of a human organism as the moment of conception. That's when all the necessary parts are there for continued development, assuming proper nutrition and a the protective environment of the mother. It's also at that point that the organism is distinct from its parents, having its own unique DNA. Everything after that is simply development, just like everything after birth is just development to adulthood, too.
    Talking about the soul is merely a diversion from the real issue. Does Dudley suppose that people who do not believe in the existence of souls do not believe in the existence of human life? Do human rights–including the right to life–depend on having a soul. That would mean that people who do not believe in souls cannot believe in human rights. I don't think so.

    June 21, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • Phil

      Actually science says no such thing. There is potential for human life at the moment of conception but science can do conception is a petry dish – is the scientist then GOD? Millions of pre-zygote embryos are frozen and discarded every year – how do we account for those "people." Science has no concept or proof of the soul and very little idea of what consciousness even is (mostly formed in the brain). Since even primitave brain formation does not occur until day 33 I would venture that you could not justfy the embryo is human before day 33.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • Rick

      LarryL is another scientific illiterate who reads an article in Southern Baptist Weekly and thinks he knows about science.

      June 21, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • Thinker's Dam

      If the argument about abortion is not about when the soul is placed into the body, then it makes no sense to me. Try this analogy: When does a building become a building? Perhaps when the architect makes his preliminary sketches? When he completes the blueprints? When someone decides to build the building? At the groundbreaking ceremony? When the walls go up? When the electricity is turned on? When the people move in? The building becomes a "unique" building when the architect completes his preliminary sketches, but that doesn't mean it will even stand up let alone become inhabited. Must every preliminary sketch be preserved by the neighborhood historical society because it was "building" as soon as it became unique?

      But if you ask when does it become a living building? That is like asking when a house becomes a home. it is obvious that it is when people move in, and it ceases to be dead and empty. Or at least obvious to me.

      June 21, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
  12. Tom

    Yikes. People wonder why I'm an atheist. Just a quick look through these comments is enough to turn anyone off from religion. I have to wonder if the people who are using the Bible as the ultimate authority have actually read it and if they have, do they just turn off their critical thinking skills. If the Bible is literally true, how does one account for all of the contradictions? Taking a look at the New Testament I could probably list about 40 or so off the top of my head, but let's just examine a few:
    Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21

    Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

    Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

    Even whether scripture is divinely inspired is disputed within the Bible:

    All scripture is inspired (2 Tim 3:16)
    Some scripture is not inspired (1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17)

    I could go on ad nauseum. You want to know why I'm an atheist? I've read the Bible...twice.

    June 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • El Kababa

      A larger percentage of atheists have read the Bible than have Christians, I suspect.

      I've heard Christians quote from the Bible things like, "If you give a man a fish, you will feed him for a day; if you teach a man to fish, you will feed him for a lifetime." That is, of course, a Chinese proverb.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • dwordisclear

      "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being save it is the power of God" 1Corinthians 1:18

      June 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
    • Tom

      That's great, but it doesn't really answer the question about the contradictions. I guess that hiding behind that verse is an excuse to not use critical thinking skills; so, at least you answered that. Thanks.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • Rick

      And I'm still trying to get someone to tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday. Probably the most "witnessed" event in the Bible, yet the stories don't jive on chronology or even who (or what) was present.

      June 21, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  13. GvilleT

    @ Deb... you state "As for the argument of celibacy vs marriage, that is misguided thinking of the time." Who's to say your thinking isn't misguided for this time. I know several gay/lesbians. I've know them since I was a baby and they were different growing up. You could tell when they were children something was different. God created these children. So, this person is going to hell? So you're not supposed to drink according to The Bible. Why isn't drinking against the law? Divorce, adultery...shall I go on?

    June 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • Richard

      I still have some extra braincake; you're free to take a piece.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
  14. John

    "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

    No, really, let's all continue to condemn gays, the writer, and everyone. God wants that.

    June 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • Phil

      Absolutely
      Jesus would be on the side of love and acceptance
      The Pharasies would be on the side of judgement and condemnation

      June 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
  15. Richard

    I will not stand for this anymore. I will go and send this author to the moon. He can start his own colony. I can send him to the moon with my thoughts. I'm starting to think right now......

    June 21, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • Eric G

      I believe in you, Richard.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Liberal1168

      @Richard.

      Despite your ability to form coherent and grammatically correct sentences, you have yet to create one that offers a complete idea. Please share with us something other than the notion that "my thoughts will send this author to the moon." Not that everything has to be taken 100% seriously, but come on man, I've seen 6 year olds share more informed opinions.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  16. Kate

    This is a very well written article with a great argument. Thank you for using logic and evidence!

    June 21, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • Richard

      My braincake is free, you may have a piece.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  17. dwordisclear

    As a current seminary student from an evangelical school, I'm not surprise at all to read such of article considering the author's alma mater. Mr. Dudley states, " Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own." Isn't it ironic that he is doing, exactly, the very same thing he is accusing his oppositon of doing? The only difference is that He is actually using the Bible to defend his unbiblical position.

    June 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • Richard

      Excellent reply, noble sir.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • fnordian

      No, it's not what he's doing. He's pointing out that the opponents of gay marriage are not grounding their arguments clearly in the bible. That's quite different than what you're saying.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
    • Peter

      No, he is actually using the Bible to debunk the arguments of those who base their arguments on what the Bible allegedly says. Both sides are using the same source. It's just that one side is not using it properly and the other side is merely pointing that out.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
    • God

      I think it's funny that you are a seminary student and when referencing the author you used 'He' as if he was God.

      lol

      God

      June 21, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
    • Rick

      Finally! Someone on this forum who can tell me where to get the proper Godly haircut. Dwordisclear, please tell me how to cut my hair to please God? Also, do you have any advice on what to do about my damned oxen. He nearly gored someone the other day. It was hell stoning the last one for doing that (took FOREVEER). I'd prefer to not have a repeat. Thanks.

      June 21, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
  18. Richard

    All right, this means war.

    June 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  19. Bruce

    Interesting notion about the long/short hair btw. Wasn't Sampson degraded by CUTTING his hair?

    June 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • Henry Sure

      Samson was nor degraded for cutting his hair: he had a problem because he broke his vows. You need to check your Bible.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  20. jaime c f

    either God is for the GAY life or he is NOT... there is no middle ground. at the end of my life, when i stand before God, i will have zero care about what others did or didn't do. it will be 100% irrelevant to me.. and that goes for others as well. the Bible clearly states that many people will stand and only a few will enter... you reap what you sow. the Bible (old and new) is exceptionally clear about what is right and what is wrong.. everything else is opinion... and is worth less than a grain of salt... including this article and my post as well.

    June 21, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • El Kababa

      The Bible says everything and nothing. No two Christians can agree on the meaning of any verse in the Bible. If you put the Pope, an Elder from the Mormon Church, a Seventh Day Adventist, an Evangelical Christian, and an Episcopalian Bishop in a room and told them they could not come out until they agreed on something – anything – then one of them would simply have to kill the others. They would never agree on anything.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • Henry Sure

      But, if they talk what the Bible says about this life-style, they will not be able to disagree. According to the Bible, this life-style is a sin.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • jaime c f

      @ el kababa.. i quote you "No two Christians can agree on the meaning of any verse in the Bible." - you are confusing religion with the Bible and misunderstood me. The Bible is very clear, its just people's interpretation that skews the words... not the words themselves. because when we all stand before God, he'll judge you, me and billions as two the standards of his Word. You'll have no excuse and i dougt God is confused as to what is right and wrong... your problem is you listen to others intead of the Word... that is why there are hundreds of religions.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
    • Phil

      If you believe that whatever you do or don't do for others is irrelivant in your judgement you have not studied scriptures.

      Matthew 25:31-46

      "What ever you did NOT do for the least of my people – You did NOT do for me."

      June 21, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Eric G

      Soooooooo.......we should all follow YOUR interpretation of a 2000 year old book? Or, should we take it as it is written and accept that your god wants slavery and genocide?

      June 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
    • Peter

      @El Kababa The only thing all those men would agree on is how fun a couple altar boys can be.

      June 21, 2011 at 4:54 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
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.