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. royalty

    So sad, if i were you i would return the divinity degree and ask for a refund. Something tells me you were far more knowledgeable of truth before you entered this exercise in "higher education." Your reference to the new testament as it pertains to your subject topic is highly disingenious. With your degree did they not tell you without the foundation of the old testament there is no new testament? How do you reconcile the fact that God commanded the Israelites not to do these things? In your narrow thinking i presume your response would be this was for the israelites and no one else. Well for the record he also metioned aliens. I presume that would include everyone who is not an Israelite. Sad to say your professors have no personal relationship with Jesus because i certainly would not celebrate giving you a degree in divinity when you are clearly so lost and to think good money was paid for this result. Take some free advise, you don't come to God by explanation but by revelation. Here is a fact: We can both be looking at the same thing and come away with different conclusions. So, no matter how awesome you think your professors are they will never be able to see through another persons lens. Therefore the sovereign God will never be able to fit in your finite box. i am going to pray for you brother. Please don't be angry when you get revealed knowledge through the gift holy spirit (you do know of him don't you). You have to be real gentle with him he can light up a room yoyu would not believe. Stop eating from the tree of good and evil.

    July 6, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
    • Aimee

      Typical Christians passing out judgment like you have the right too, what a hypocrite. Your arrogance shows you are lost to the truth of Christ.

      July 6, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      Yeah, satan is passing plenty of divinity degrees now days!
      He's got one himself!

      July 6, 2011 at 7:59 pm |
    • Hatman

      A minor issue.
      The author's point is that the bible says a lot of things that anti-gay rights activists feel free to ignore, so it smacks of hypocrisy when they cling to it to support the stances they DO want. In that case it doesn't even matter how many times it says anything, the point is valid as long as they are ignoring statements in it.
      And if you really want to get into things in the Old Testament, among other things people generally ignore in there is some pro-slavery stuff.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:10 am |
  2. Mike from Maine

    Here's one of your gems, "Sodomites are the only group of people that define themselves based on a sin." I would argue that thats how you define them and not the other way around.

    July 6, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
  3. Jack Stacey

    What's up with all these butterfly videos? Why doesn't CNN filter this?

    July 6, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • .....

      Click the report abuse link to get rid of this troll.

      July 6, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
  4. Mike from Maine

    I have come to the conclusion that if I am forced to look at a book of fiction from the past that can exceed the Bible for powerful commentary on how to live, I shall look no further than to "Winnie the Pooh" Let us bow our heads to pray on the book of Pooh!

    “If you live to be 100, I hope I live to be 100 minus 1 day, so I never have to live without you.” ` Pooh

    July 6, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
  5. Mike from Maine

    Here's a thought I have a way we can test this question of who is right and who is wrong about God. For those who believe in God, If your faith is as strong as it you say it is, when you get sick you should go to church and pray to be healed. When those of use who are agnostic or atheists or just spiritual without the need of gods get sick We'll go to a doctor. Then we will see who lives longer.

    July 6, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • Buddy R

      Actually, I have been healed before of minor ailments. My sister was healed of scoliosis and a short leg.

      Atheists who flat out deny the supernatural have shut their minds to the truth can't expect to see a miracle while sitting in front of their computer bashing religion. You have to honestly seek God with your whole heart if you truly want to find him.

      July 6, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      Atheists also tend to forget that God gave us doctors and brains. Man didn't create brains by himself.

      July 6, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • Mike from Maine

      I'm not interested in finding illusions. Just wait for the first major ailment then we will see how it works out for you. Also, I have never said that there aren't things that go against logic and reason or as you romantically call it the "supernatural". What I said is Im not satisfied with you simple unverifiable conclusion based on nothing, that it must be a god and more specifically your god and not one of the hundreds proffered by people from all over the world..

      July 6, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
    • Mike from Maine

      Joe we don't "forget" we challenge the concept of the existence of god. If we look bake at the past we see that the church was on the wrong side of science and discovery time after time. Galileo, was nearly put to death for Heresy. His crime, He asserted that the earth rotated around the sun. This was in direct contradiction of what the church (ignorant even with the help of god) taught. The church believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. I know the week excuse that men are priests and popes and such and are therefore prone to making mistakes but these people have a claim to hear from god himself. Don't you think one of those times he might have said "Ah, go easy on the guy, he's actually right!" But no that never happens. The church believed the Earth was the center of the universe because they follow a book that was written by man, about men, who had so little information about themselves and none about anything else in the Universe. This is why they made and continue to make mistakes about the Universe and everything within it.

      July 6, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      You can call it a weak excuse, but according to you scientific progress is at odds with Christianity. No, the Church has long embraced scientific knowledge, and even has an office of the Vatican devoted to science. But the Church is full of fallible men. In fact, the Pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals, not with regard to scientific facts. Also, it needs to be pointed out the the Pope personally believed Galileo, but didn't want heretics like you using it against the Church.

      Your argument based on scientific facts really is meaningless since the Truth of God is found in morality. You are trying to box the church, made of men, into a corner. But God is God regardless of what men say. By your line of argument, I could point out that Newton's Laws are wrong in light of relativity and beat you over the head with it. People change and learn, but God is always God, and morality should never change. I say should because our secular society over the years has let biblical morality slide, and we need to get back to biblical morality. God's morality is absolute.

      July 6, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • Yeah Right

      "People change and learn, but God is always God, and morality should never change. I say should because our secular society over the years has let biblical morality slide, and we need to get back to biblical morality."

      That's why the interpretations have been proven wrong over and over again: slavery, women, burning witches, beating your children, etc.... LOL!

      July 6, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      @Mike

      Do I need your permission to leave now or are you going to say that I'm ignoring you?

      July 6, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
    • Mike from Maine

      Right, What is amazing to me is that Christian look at what Muslims do and call them Barbaric and here you are suggesting that you should act the same way. Thats wonderful. Lets turn back the clock! Also your conviction that god gives us morality is a joke. Morality and evolution go hand and hand. How else do you explain the thousands of years that went by before Moses delivered his sermon on the Mt. Let me help you here. People had survived for thousand of years because it was obvious that they shouldn't kill each other if they wanted to have more of them around for a while. They created tribes, and helped each other survive in order to propagate our species. Let me ask you this if animals have no moral compass why don't they kill each other more often then they do. Why do almost every species out there not eat their own but they eat other species?

      July 6, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  6. Buddy R

    Jesus stated God created male and female and the man is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife. Male + female = marriage according to Jesus. (Matthew 19)

    Anyone who says gay se_X is ok is calling Jesus a liar. How then could they possible be a Christian?

    July 6, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      They can't because they live in perpetual sin. We are called to repent and sin no more, but they are actually proud of their sin and want to make it socially acceptable. It's not gonna happen.

      July 6, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • Mike from Maine

      @Joe – I'm so glad you are ignoring me, you have proven my point with your silence. Thank You

      July 6, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      @Mike

      Ignoring you? What is that supposed to mean? I just came back to this site, if you could point me to the place you want me to respond, I'll gladly respond.

      July 6, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
    • Mike from Maine

      Ah, there are so many just look at your posts from the past two days.

      July 6, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      @Mike

      I come and go from this board, and I don't usually go over old posts from two days ago. If it's so important to you, simply restate it unless you are afraid of the response.

      July 6, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • Pastor Harold

      Acknowledging that the reality of prejudice in the church and society gives gay and lesbian persons reason for uncertainty as to their reception, we wish to make clear our real and genuine welcome of all persons. We affirm that gays and lesbians are part of God’s good creation and they, no less than heteros-exuals, are meant to enjoy God’s gifts of love, joy, and intimacy. All who seek and receive God’s love are welcomed as full participants in the life and worship of Christ’s church without having to deny or hide their s-exual orientation. Therefore, we are gratefully open to the service and leadership of gays and lesbians including those called to ordained positions in our congregation.

      Our loving welcome is unconditional. We further affirm our commitment to full civil rights and justice for all persons, regardless of s-exual orientation, in society and in the church. We will continue to seek more light on the ways in which we can offer our support and our love to all the children of God.

      How can anything be sin that isn’t chosen, and ho-mos-exuality is not chosen. It is something we are const-ituted with such as left-handedness. Fully const-ituted, it cannot be cured nor need be. Freud long ago attested that it is as difficult to change the orientation of a ho-mos-exual as it would be a heteros-exual. He has been proven right. The condition comes, as does being heteros-exual, by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and very early societal development. It is not a disease to be caught or a condition we are reduced to.

      The Christian gay and lesbian community today values committed and loving relationships in which there are mutuality and respect for one another. This makes the context very different from that of biblical times. Furthermore, in biblical times, current psychological understanding about s-exual orientation was unknown. Biblical writers presumed that everyone was heteros-exual; therefore, same-s-ex relationships by persons who were regarded as ho-mos-exuals were considered abnormal.

      The problem in our present struggle stems largely from the refusal of gays and lesbians to be the invisible and silent minority they once were. While they have been a vital part of the church since its inception, they now refuse to be oppressed and maligned by the church that professes the justice, freedom, and grace of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

      The time has come to embrace more fully the goodness of s-exuality, whether it be ho-mos-exual or heteros-exual. These are both God’s good gifts of s-exual being. What matters morally and ethically is how we live our lives as faithful people, regardless of our s-exual orientation. Gay men and lesbians, no less than heteros-exuals, are created for lives of joy and pas-sion and intimacy in s-exual relationship. Ethical standards that guide heteros-exuals in determining love and right-relatedness apply to gay and lesbians as well. Ho-mo-phobia is the last major obstacle of prejudice we need to overcome.

      Supporting ho-mo-se-xual relations is not a denial of our faith but a deepening of our commitment to God as revealed in Jesus’ life. Again, it is about the acceptance of persons which always goes beyond their s-exual orientation. Besides, our faith does not make se-x the controlling concern of our lives. We are called to first seek God’s grace in all of our relationships. This frees us from asking too much of se-x or anything else.

      July 6, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
    • Mike from Maine

      Ok, heres is one for you I love the Natural argument!!! Things that aren't Natural are an abomination, the Bible said so. Good call!

      So that must mean children born with a hair lip are unnatural? What about kids with down syndrome? Thay are born with obvious unnatural maladies are they too not unnatural and an abomination? What about Chimeras? (I'll wait while you look it up) They seem really, really, unnatural. Oh and let us not forget the hermaphrodite! Im sure you'll have some excuse about how those don't count though right? Hmm I sense you and others will ignore this question or offer up a feeble-minded rational.

      July 6, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      No, of course, someone, e.g., with Down Syndrome is born that way. It's natural. I am even open to the possibility that ho.mos3xuals are born with a hom.os3ual orientation. But it's the BEHAVIOR that is an abomination. Look, I'm a man and by nature I'm programmed to b*ng every women I can. But I'm in a committed relationship so I cannot do it. It is WRONG. The BEHAVIOR is WRONG. We don't not have to act on our base desires. In fact, we are called on to deny those base desires if acting on them is wrong.

      A lot of people believe that people are born with a predisposition towards sociopathy. How many serial murders didn't begin in childhood with animal abuse? Does that excuse the sociopath's murders? Should we just say, "well, he was born that way?"

      July 6, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Seriously?

      "A lot of people believe that people are born with a predisposition towards sociopathy. How many serial murders didn't begin in childhood with animal abuse? Does that excuse the sociopath's murders? Should we just say, "well, he was born that way?""

      ahhhh duh let's see....because the analogy you give is hurting someone else where as gays are two consenting adults building on a monogamous relationship just like straight people. h0m0phobic people like you are disgusting human beings.

      July 6, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • GodPot

      Here is the REAL reason Buddy R has an issue with gay marriage. In a word, it's "Empathy".

      "Empathy is the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another sentient or semi-sentient being." Wiki

      When someone see's a gay couple holding hands or kissing or being intimate or getting married they experience (often unknowingly) empathy. Thats what creates the "Ick" factor, the turn of the stomach or possibly guilt for enjoying the empathized intamacy (The Confused Christian doth protest too much, methinks). This is what Christian's are fighting. This is why they think the gay community is trying to recruit them, it's that they can't help their own empathy and end up experiencing things in their minds that they have been told all their lives is an abomination and they feel guilty for it. And the only weapon they have is a 2000 year old compilation of many authors where two short passages out of 66 books condemn the act (not the attraction). (already posted but thought you could use a reminder)

      July 6, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • human as you

      Let's make it very clear.... thats according to Mathew saying that Jesus said, and the guy who wrote what Mathew said died 400 years before the guy who then wrote the bible read it from a script of someone that wrote what the person who wrote what Mathew supposedly said... and so on an so forth. Besides, we DO know for sure that Jesus professed LOVE to all living things equally. Jesus is Love, Love is Jesus and love does not have boundaries and it is infinite.

      July 6, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • fred

      Godpot
      I think you know there are far more than 2 passages that condemn the act. It is not just the Christian religion it seems to be the equivalent of sin in many other religions. You are angry at God because you want something he did not give you. You know what, I sometimes want something I should not have or was never given. You have one life to define your core character. That will be a heart that longs for God or one that rejects. There is no in between. God is not the color gray. God is Holy and full of life and goodness. God has offered you the keys to the kingdom many times and you continue to choose your way. Jesus does not condemn you and true Christians should not either. The new testament says we are to let the chaff grow among the wheat for as men we might pull up the good with the bad. At the harvest it will be Jesus that knows all and in His perfect justice you and I will be dealt with according to what we have done.
      If I have time I will tell you about that ick factor as I don’t see it as you do.

      July 6, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • LOL

      “You are angry at God because you want something he did not give you.”

      WRONG God created gays so he did give it to them. That is what people in the past did not understand. People like you simply say that to continue justifying your brainwashed prejudices past down from generation to generation. It’s time to stop the cycle, which is why God gave us science to show us the truth and stop the persecution of innocent people.

      July 6, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
    • GodPot

      @Fred – "I think you know there are far more than 2 passages that condemn the act."

      If you want to split up Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 then along with 1st Corinthians 6:9 that makes 3. You have more? There are many against immorality and even sod omy but no others but the three above specify gay's. And the one in Corinthians lumps in along with the gays "thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." So I take it most Christians are as adamant about not overdrinking as they are about gays? Yes? Or not "swindling"? Yes, i think you might want to start putting up some bilboards that read "God Hates Swindlers". Of course that message might not do so well as you are passing the plate. I know i'd much rather be gay than a greedy, thieving, drunk, slandering swindler which is who most Republican Christians seem to keep putting in charge.

      July 6, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
    • fred

      Lol,
      God created gays? What bible do have? God created man in his likeness, man used that gift to break away from God because man wanted the one thing he could not have. After that Adam and eve had kids that were products of man not God. That is where we are today. Gay is not of God but of man in particular Adam. You are no different than I am, both cut from the same tree. Now you choose what you will do and I choose what I will do. Adam and Eve hid from God after they rejected him, and became aware of their se xual nature. They covered themselves up with fig leaf. That is the right response when we offend a holy God. Adam and Eve blamed God then each other then some snake in the grass. Their offspring from Cain were called the ungodly generation of Cain. My att itude is that I am a sinner I blew it I need forgiveness and through Jesus God has made a way for all who call upon the name of Jesus. The rest have a different Att itude there is no sin, no need for forgiveness and thus no need to be saved by grace through Jesus. God has prepared a way for this people also. In case you happen to have read the bible you should note that God most often gives people just what they really want. Reject God and good chance you will spend eternity in the absence of God. Your choice, no Christian can or should attempt to force you to believe.

      July 6, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
    • LOL

      “God created gays?”

      Your ignorance on this subject is showing or where you to lazy to do your research that has shown that gays are born gay. They are a creation of God. It happens in the womb. Gays are allowed in the kingdom of God as long as they are saved and married before him, they do not sin. Nowhere in the bible does God condemn the saved loving marriage of gays.

      July 6, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
    • GodPot

      @Fred – "After that Adam and eve had kids that were products of man not God." Oh I see!! So God didn't create gay's... or any of us for that matter according to your logic, since we were made by man. That just makes so much more sense than the whole "God made us, and science has proven that people are born gay, so the infallible God of yours must have made a mistake." And if you want to get into the whole "science has proven" comment thats fine, but you know as well as I do that it has, and any evidence to the contrary is a bunch of "Family Research Council" bought and paid for denial Christian bunk.

      July 6, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • fred

      Godpot,
      If I gave you an exhaustive list it would not matter to you. You are correct that hom $exuality is but one of many sins that separate us from God. All but the sin of rejecting God carry the same weight. We have laws against drunken, greedy, thieving, slandering Republican Christians and when they get busted they do the perp walk. Republican Christians are not in your bedroom. You on the other hand put your stuff in their living room, on their televisions, movies, every paper you pick up, every street corner in every large city…..in their face. You attack the word of God on this one point and if successful on this issue then the whole bible is wrong. The hate is in you, the attack comes from you and what you expect all Christians to sit quietly as you destroy Gods Holy Word. A few are going to get vocal. The bible says we are not to hate but love our neighbor . Just remember when you succeed in destroying the bible the other 98% that try to love their neighbor as themselves are no longer obligated to do so. What a great world this will be when the rest of us learn to hate.

      July 6, 2011 at 7:14 pm |
    • GodPot

      In some way's I envy Christians self a-ssurance. They are always so absolutely sure of themselves and their belief's. It would be nice to just throw away any need for verification or proof and just fall back on faith since it takes absolutly no effort. The only problem comes in the fact that people of faith are also by definition gullible since they require no proof for a basis of belief and the proof they are constantly told is on it's way won't arrive till just after they die. Convenient for people who make claims that are impossible to prove or disprove if the person they are trying to swindle won't find out they have been cheated until after they die.

      July 6, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • YaThink

      "What a great world this will be when the rest of us learn to hate."

      Too late the Christians are the ones fueling the hatred of gays and lesbians, it is what is bringing down all of you. There are some Christians that get the persecution and are trying to stop it but Fred you are NOT one of those people. Your ignorance and bigotry toward gays and lesbians is just part of the fraudulent melting pot of Christianity

      July 6, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
    • fred

      Lol
      You cannot use the bible for any godly pupose as you and Godpot say it is wrong on the gay issue. You need to create your own equivalent to the bible as other religions have done. There are many out there already so you do not need to create your own if you are to busy. What you cannot do is say Gods Word as spoken in the bible is wrong then turn around and hang your salvation it.

      July 6, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
    • GodPot

      @Fred – " Just remember when you succeed in destroying the bible the other 98% that try to love their neighbor as themselves are no longer obligated to do so."

      I will remember when we succeed at destroying the bible to be thankful that it was not the bible that "made" people good. It is not the bible that helped people in times of economic trouble. It was not the bible that reached out to the family's in their neighborhood who couldn't afford healthy meals for their children. It wasn't the bible that stopped people from shooting Doctors who perform needed and legal abortions helping thousands of mothers and family's. It wasn't the bible that helped a loving couple who happened to be born with the same genitalia find happiness. Yes I will remember that it wasn't the bible that pulled us out of this crazy religion dominated society, it will have been people, humans, mankind that will have suceeded in throwing off the burden of organized religion and all it's eliteism, segregation and hate. And I say good riddance.

      July 6, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
    • LOL

      "What you cannot do is say Gods Word as spoken in the bible is wrong then turn around and hang your salvation it."

      God word isn't wrong your interpretation of it is because you are to lazy to pickup a history book and put what was written in correct context that is part of reading comprehension 101.

      July 6, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
    • fred

      Ya Think,
      You are right it is one big melting pot. Perhaps there is a sin we could all agree upon and erase that from the bible. Ouch Jesus said a dull tree is a sin and 56% of married people today commit it. Now to say sorry Jesus I missed up again will try harder next time brings about the reply from Jesus I do not condemn you now go and sin no more. Off to heaven I go. Yet if I claim it is not sin God made me do it then I still get into heaven. This is the problem that can only be resolved by calling the bible wrong and tossing it out, period. Now let’s have a national discussion of right and wrong without that old bible holding us down.

      July 6, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
    • fred

      God pot
      You say :"hrowing off the burden of organized religion " This is the difference between a Christian and one still struggling with truth. The bible is not a burden. It is as simple as it gets. Jesus said simply love the lord your god and love your neighbor. Seek first the kingdom of heaven and all else will be given onto you. What is this burden I dont see it in the word of God. I help, feed, house and comfort the poor not because it is a burden. I do not even need to do that in order to get into the Kingdom. Yet, those things flow from me without effort. The burden was lifted by Jesus on the Cross

      July 6, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
    • GodPot

      @Fred – "If I gave you an exhaustive list it would not matter to you." I would be interested in the list seeing as how I have read the bible cover to cover more than three times in my life and have never seen anywhere else that specificly mentions "men with men" or "hom ose xuality". As I admitted there are many scriptures about adultery and immorality that Christian's use that one could infer a gay connection such as the ban's on so domy, but I think you know as well as I do that woman have butts too, so this cannot be strictly seen as a scripture against gays. And guess what, there are many people who consider themselves gay and are infact virgin's. And there are NO scriptures that condemn having feelings for someone of the same s e x.

      July 6, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
    • fred

      Lol,
      Sorry, go pick up any accepted version of the Bible and the gay issue is not a matter of interpretation. Why do you think Canada tried to ban the bible as hate speech, it was not the interpretation they banned it was the words, clear without doubt. Now, I do not refer to some inferances that have only limited meaning. I can actually build a case for acceptance without claiming gay is not sin in the bible. But, I cannot claim those specific verses were never written or meant something else to somebody else.

      July 6, 2011 at 8:03 pm |
    • fred

      Lol, Godpot, YaThink
      During his lifetime my best friend struggled with what to do about being gay. His final words were simply thankfulness that his struggle was over. I buried him and another who was loved deeply by his family and friends. The only hope they now have is the hope in Jesus when He said “neither do I condemn you, now go and sin no more” Yes, I take it personal when you want to throw the Bible in the trash. If the Bible is wrong then everything we went through was nonsense and we were all a bunch of fools hanging onto a fairy tale. We spent a lot of time searching for the truth in Gods’ Word and found it. I am simply struggling to hold on to what we found. This web site really tests ones resolve or better yet faith.

      July 6, 2011 at 8:40 pm |
    • LOL

      "“neither do I condemn you, now go and sin no more” "

      Gays as we know and understand it today was not the gays that were condemned in the bible. The people back then used s-ex to worship their gods and male prost-itution because they didn't understand what it meant to be gay. Now that we do they need to adhere to their relationships just like straights. They need to be saved, have a personal relationship with God and marry their partners before God. God knows what is in their hearts and as long as they love him and live their lives as God instructed in the ten commandments and as Jesus said love your neighbor the are not sinning. For you to pass that judgment on them is your downfall and shows you truly do not understand the love of Christ and the truth that has been revealed about gays.

      July 7, 2011 at 9:02 am |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      @LOL

      You made the statement: "The people back then used s-ex to worship their gods and male prost-itution because they didn't understand what it meant to be gay."

      I've seen similar statements floated around. Do you have any proof to back up this statement? Do you have any proof that Paul didn't know what it meant to be gay? All the time people ask Christians to provide proof, but then they make statements about Paul like this without proof just because, perhaps, some pagans worshipped in that manner.

      July 7, 2011 at 9:46 am |
    • LOL

      "I've seen similar statements floated around. Do you have any proof to back up this statement? Do you have any proof that Paul didn't know what it meant to be gay? All the time people ask Christians to provide proof, but then they make statements about Paul like this without proof just because, perhaps, some pagans worshipped in that manner."

      If you picked up a history book you would know what was happening in that time period. Plus archeologist have found the dolls and temples that were used when men dressed as women and women dressed as men to have se-x.

      July 7, 2011 at 1:35 pm |
    • GodPot

      @Fred – "I am simply struggling to hold on to what we found. This web site really tests ones resolve or better yet faith."

      I know the struggle, and that is the burden I speak of. And you are trying to hold onto what 'we" found? I'm pretty sure you made no new discovery's hidden within the bibles pages but like 99% of Christian's were "told" (aka infected) by other's that this was the way and the light, and you trusted those people and it made you feel good to be a part of something. You know the old saying "If you go looking for trouble, your going to find it or cause it." Well, if you go looking for something to belong to or some answer's to lifes mysteries, you'll find a million religions, groups and people with answers. The finding something isn't the real trick, finding truth about yourself is.

      July 7, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
  7. PRISM 1234

    Well, if the truth spoken to you brings out what you're really made out of in your reply to me, then what will you do on the day of your Appointment? There will be no crooked lawyer to defend you, no rights to claim, nor loopholes in cons-ti-t-ution to hide!! Just a fiery gaze of the One whose Name you dragged down to the level of perversity that 's in your own heart!
    With this I conclude... I won't throw the treasure of Truth of God's word, which those of pure hearts long for, into the pigpen, whose oc-cupants can't tell no difference of treasure or trash they feed on, being accustomed to it's stench to the point of choosing it and feasting on it , instead of choosing the treasure of truth !
    You go your way, buster, and see where it leads you, but don't cry for mercy then, when you refused it while you still had time, and when God offered it to you

    July 6, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      The above comment is for LOL

      July 6, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
    • LOL

      "You go your way, buster, and see where it leads you, but don't cry for mercy"

      That will be you for all the lies you have told about one of God's creation, the hatred you are inflicting on those you don't know and the continued promotion of bigotry and prejudice that is completely unfounded from the TRUTH. God created gays, it's been shown they are born this way and your consent condemnation of God's creation is your downfall to hell.

      July 6, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      @LOL

      They are not born "that way." They may be born with a hom.os3xual orientation, but they choose to act on it. They choose to sin. So quite spouting your lies that they are born that way.

      July 6, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • human as you

      A "fiery gaze" ? A fiery gaze is the one you have as you write your thoughts. Jesus spoke only of love, unequivocal unbounded and infinite for ALL living creatures. Anything else is a twisting of the Truth (as you call it) for manipulating your other fellow human beings. By the way... I LOVE YOU 😉

      July 6, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • LOL

      "They may be born with a hom.os3xual orientation, but they choose to act on it. They choose to sin. So quite spouting your lies that they are born that way."

      God created gays therefore when they are saved and married to their partners before God they do not sin.

      July 6, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      @LOL

      Ok, if you think that then that's your sin. I will not change your mind. But I want you and others to know that the majority of Christians view the vile and filthy lifestyle in which you unabashedly partake as sinful to the core. And you also will not change any minds.

      July 6, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • LOL

      "Ok, if you think that then that's your sin. I will not change your mind. But I want you and others to know that the majority of Christians view the vile and filthy lifestyle in which you unabashedly partake as sinful to the core. And you also will not change any minds."

      LOL! You think I am gay? LOL! I am a Christian married to a wonderful woman, I just happen to worship with my fellow gay and lesbians. Your prejudice is what will send you to hell and will not be welcomed by God.

      July 6, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      @ human-as-you
      Your Bible must be very thin, after all you've thrown out of it... Love without truth is road pointing to hell, and it looks like you're on it, singing your lullabies! Your Jesus, the one you've made up, fits right there with you. But that's not Jesus Christ I know, and the One that the Spirit of Truth testifies of.
      But suit yourself. God will not be robbed! Those who do, will NOT inherit part in His Kingdom !

      July 7, 2011 at 12:02 am |
    • Hatman

      Considering the entire point of the article is that just about everyone has thrown large chunks of the bible out and edited it to fit their fancies, including the anti-gay groups, I strongly suspect your version of Christ is just as fallacious as LOL's.
      It's like watching two people both argue over whether the sky is purple or orange at noon.
      Well, I suppose it's mildly possible that you actually stick to all the stuff in the bible. Do you avoid eating biblically unclean animals like pigs? How about supporting the pro-slavery parts?

      July 7, 2011 at 2:29 am |
  8. Jack Stacey

    Leviticus also condemns eating shellfish

    July 6, 2011 at 12:42 pm |
  9. lee sutter

    26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

    30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

    31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    July 6, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
  10. Not inerrant

    The bible is not inerrant. The bible says in 1 Samuel 21.1-6 That the high priest at the time of David eating the shewbread was Ahimelec however in Mark 2.26 Jesus clearly says it was Abiathar. Surely the Son of God would know who the high priest was at the time or maybe Mark made a mistake. Either way it isn't correct. I looked up Abiathar in the Greek translation to make sure it was translated properly and it was. It simply means Abiathar. There are also a number of other issues. Jesus says the grain of a mustard seed is the smallest grain when it isn't nor does it produce the greatest shrubb. Why does Mark say Jesus was cruicified the day after the Passover meal was eaten. Mark 14.12 15.25 but John says it was the day before the Passover meal was eaten? John 19.14 Why does Paul say in Galatains 1.16-17 that he did not go to Jerusalem to see those that were apostles before him but yet in Acts 9.26 it says that was the first thing he did after leaving Damascus. Just because Pope Leo the 13th decided to to decree it so doesn't actually make it so.

    July 6, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • TracyR

      1 Samuel 21 and 22 talk about Ahimelech's giving David and his men the showbread, then Saul executing him and his household, all except Abiathar (his son) who then became high priest. Jesus said "[26] How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?" It was during Abiathar's day (in his time). No contradiction.

      July 6, 2011 at 12:41 pm |
    • Not inerrant

      TracyR
      Ok, but you have only responded to one issue. If in fact I was to mention something that happened in the Clinton era, I would not say in the day of Chelsea (the name of his daughter I believe) that he gave legal rights to. I would say in the Clinton era. You still haven't debunk the rest. If God is God he will be honor bound to deal with people accordingly. So let's let God be God and honestly realize that there are errors in the bible.

      July 6, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
  11. Jack Stacey

    Jesus hung out with 12 guys day and night.

    JUST SAYIN'

    July 6, 2011 at 11:57 am |
  12. Howard

    The Bible Thumpers have refined the art of "cut and paste"! The do this with all the stuff they want and edit the rest!!!!

    July 6, 2011 at 11:16 am |
    • fred

      Not just the thumpers, we all seem to do it. Those who hate the bible take verses out of context just as well. Bottom line the bible is right as always. Peoples true hearts are revealed by what comes out of them.

      July 6, 2011 at 11:22 am |
  13. EDUBB

    The author is simply taking scriptures out of context to fit his argument. Everyone knows the bible states "and this is why a man leaves his home and cleaves to his wife and the two become 1 flesh" I am paraphrasing here to please dont get up tight. And second of all. I dont need someone to tell me that two men trying to live together as a man and a woman is not natural. They can't produce kids, so they want to adopt. It's all so fake. A man is suppossed to take a wife and make children. But if gay people want to get married that is their choice, but i don't think it is really marriage, they just have the rights married couples have and that is their civil right. Marriage is definately between a man and a woman and they produce their own children.

    July 6, 2011 at 10:45 am |
    • myweightinwords

      So marriage is only marriage if it produces children?

      Does that mean when a married couple is no longer able to produce children due to age, they should no longer be considered married?

      Does that mean that a man who is paralyzed from the shoulders down and can not have intercourse to produce children is not allowed to get married?

      Does that mean that two senior citizens who meet and fall in love can not marry?

      Does that mean that a woman who is barren is not able to marry?

      That argument does not fly.

      July 6, 2011 at 10:51 am |
    • EDUBB

      @weightinwords

      If that is the assumption you want to take, that is your choice. I made my statement and that is it is not natural for two men or two women to try to form a family. Period. But if a person chooses that life style that is their choice. You may be of a different opinion, I have the right to my own.

      July 6, 2011 at 11:00 am |
    • myweightinwords

      @EDUBB,

      I agree that you have a right to your own opinion. I am merely trying to understand that opinion. Do you believe that a man and a woman who are not capable of having children of their own should be allowed to be married and adopt children?

      Also, say two men are living together and wish to be married, and one of them already has children from a previous relationship...is that acceptable, seeing as the children were "natural"?

      And lastly, who would you have adopt all of those lonely, abandoned and orphaned children that all the straight people don't seem to want?

      July 6, 2011 at 11:05 am |
    • Mike from Maine

      @EDUBB – I love the Natural argument!!! Things that aren't Natural are an abomination, the Bible said so. Good call! So that must mean children born with a hair lip are unnatural? What about kids with down syndrome? Thay are born with obvious unnatural maladies are they too not unnatural and an abomination? What about Chimeras? (I'll wait while you look it up) They seem really, really, unnatural. Oh and let us not forget the hermaphrodite! Im sure you'll have some excuse about how those don't count though right? Hmm I sense you and others will ignore this question or offer up a feeble-minded rational.... Can't wait!

      July 6, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
  14. Hazel

    So Joe who blows comes here to give vent to his inner s-exual frustration and hom-ophobic sociopathic tendencies?
    Wow, Joe, you not only blow, you suck.

    July 6, 2011 at 8:32 am |
    • myweightinwords

      He appears to be a very angry man with a whole lot of hate filling him up. Maybe if he vents it all out here, love will find it's way inside?

      July 6, 2011 at 10:44 am |
  15. What Motivation

    Surely our world is above petty lies and corrupt dealings. Who is behind the grief and suffering and what are benefiting by doing so? These are the words. Follow the money. So often heard but seldom processed. Analysis of how Christian churches make a buck show that if you repress the people and take away the fun you can torment them and make them believe anything loco story behind locked doors. We need freedom from religion. What basis are we working on? Gold standard didn't work. Church standard isn't working unless you are a pedophile pope or priest. Or if you enjoy being a nun at an all girls high school germinating lesbians. Who cares how much the Vatican, the Catholic Church pays off the world. Their order is wrong for the world. Stop the feasting and beasting on old time religion. It isn't good enough for you or me. When you do the math the bible is not historical. Just attend the best Christian college in America called Princeton Theological Seminary. If you preach religion you need to go their to realize that you are a hypocrite and you are spreading the wrong message. Find motivation in logic and science not from fiction in the bible.

    July 6, 2011 at 8:07 am |
  16. Jack Stacey

    Was Jesus gay with God?

    July 6, 2011 at 7:16 am |
  17. Mike from Maine

    As an Atheist, I am often told that I can't prove that God doesn't exist. I suppose that is true. Using reason and observation I can conclude only that it is unlikely that he exists. So if I can't prove that and you accept the reason for which I can't prove it to be true ( a bit of a stretch for Christians to understand the scientific process ) Then I challenge you to PROVE to us that Jesus wasn't gay. Good Luck!

    July 6, 2011 at 7:07 am |
    • ilarraza

      So what you are saying is that affirming a negative in absolute terms is self defeating (ATHEIST study the Greek or Latin and discover). Agnostic is a polished term that basically equals its "faithful" to an ignoramus. If God does not exist, then tell my when is it okay to TORTURE babies? We will commit abortions because they are not "alive". So when does the torture of a child become okay? When does the murder and cover up of a toddler like Caylee Anthony become okay? You will say never, because there are absolutes in this world that can't be denied. You will also categorize that as EVIL or BAD. Those are moral , judgmental statements though! So who then decides with is good or bad (HINT GENIUS)? So if a moral law DOES exist, who is that moral law giver and who is responsible for accountability to that moral law? Does this not prove that GOD IS?

      July 6, 2011 at 10:00 am |
    • myweightinwords

      @ilarraza

      Morality does not necessitate deity. Morality is decided when people come together and form groups. Much is determined by what is good for the propagation of the species, thus hurting/killing children becomes an immoral act because to do so threatens the continuation of the group. Of course, most of this decision making is done at such a basic level within our brains that we don't have to think about it it to know it's wrong.

      However, when it comes to s-e-x ual things, morality has changed radically over the course of history, over and over to suit the society in which people lived. It is not a static, defend-the-species set of mores.

      July 6, 2011 at 10:30 am |
    • Mike from NC

      There is plenty of evidence for the existance of a creator... That anything exists, anything at all, indicates that something, somehow must "self-exist" because from nothing, nothing can come. (If ever there was a time when nothing existed, then where did anything come from? ...and if "something" has always existed, then where did that come from?) Matter had to have come from somewhere and if not "God" then where? Everything that exists, is located somewhere. Where would that be? Where exactly is the universe located? Anywhere you might come up with only leads to the same question, ie: where would that place be? There is only one conclusion, there must be an "Alpha" and "Omega", the begining and the end. If not a "creator" then what would you call it? Matter exists. We are here. How do you explain that?

      July 6, 2011 at 10:54 am |
    • myweightinwords

      @Mike form NC,

      Your comment is not directed at me, obviously, as I am not an atheist....however, the presumed existence of a creator is problematic, even within your concept...because it then leads a curious mind to wonder where said creator came from. It leads into an endless loop of questions that does little to prove the truth of any one god over any other.

      July 6, 2011 at 11:07 am |
    • Mike from NC

      @myweightinwords
      I think you make my point exactly... (To note, I didn't try to define one "god" over another although I happen to believe in Jesus Christ) An atheists has deemed there is no "god" and I would argue there is no other plausible conclusion. The endless loop you describe is the essence of our lost condition and our helplessness in the face of this demonstrates the enigma that we have only one name for... I call it "God". An atheist can either ignore it, make up some possibilities that will never satisify or come up with another name for it. I call it the "Alpha and Omega", ie: God.

      July 6, 2011 at 11:31 am |
    • Mike from Maine

      @Mike from NC – There is a vast difference between pure conjecture and scientific inquiry. Your assumption is that because the answer to your question isn't easily answered at this point and time that it indicates that the only answer is God. I am not able to explain how the universe came to be nor is anyone today. I can look at the recent past and learn from those who have sought to answer some of the mysteries of the universe. People like Galileo, Nicolaus Copernicus, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan and Stephan Hawking who have done more in their lifetime to help us understand how the universe works than was ever disclosed to us in the Bible and will ever be found through religion. Honestly a great deal of what they understood I can't wrap my head around but that doesn't make it any less true. The difference sir between you and I is that I am interested in the answer to the question and I am looking to the future to find the answer, not a book filled with inane stories from the past. Simply put, I may look at the past for information but I look to the future for answers. You on the other hand believe that you have the answer and you use those things today that fit that narrative to affirm it a proof and you ignore everything that elsa doesn't.

      July 6, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • Mike from Maine

      I would also like to point out that when confronted with a challenge that a Zealot can't argue, they ignore the question.

      July 6, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
    • Mike from NC

      I think, Mike from Main, that you miss the point... Anyone who would reasonably consider the origin of matter would have to include a creator (and all that might impliy) as a possiblity. (The current best science has done for the universe itself, is the Big Bang Theory and unfortunately, science still offers no explanation for the teeny, tiny particle that somehow exploded everything into existence. You see, there's that problem again... from nothing, nothing comes. Where will science go from there?)

      At this point, all of our science and understanding cannot exclude the probability of a creator... and it is a probablilty, yet somehow you have done just this. I think it's not reason that has brought you to your conclusions concerning God... more likely it's pride... or prejudice.

      I accept the facts as I see them. Even without the Bible to help me see the heart of God, I, like most people, would still have to conclude that he exists.

      You can ignore the facts, you can imagine and rest in some vain possibilites that will never satisfy or you can call God by some other name... You already did the first two in your response... you want to take another stab at it? Maybe if you dropped a few more scientists names or called me some nasty names... maybe some cuss words would help...

      July 6, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
    • Mike

      Mike from ND, I have no interest in calling you names or cursing. I may have used the word Zealot however this is not intended as an insult but a descriptor of your beliefs

      The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai (קנאי, frequently used in plural form, קנאים (kana'im)), means one who is zealous on behalf of God. The term derives from Greek ζηλωτής (zelotes), "emulator, zealous admirer or follower".[2][3]

      Getting back to my point, I could spend days listing scientists and philosiphers who have contributed more to humanity than all the men of the cloth combined. (though I will admit that there have been some who were friendly towards science.) But that is not necessary. Again I admit that I can not eliminate the possibility of a creator. However, when you say "from nothing, nothing comes." you are left with an even more massive problem. If complexity is your argument for a creator then how did this creator of yours come to be? If your answer is that God has always existed then that takes all credibility away from any argument that I might have. Maybe then the Universe has always existed. Maybe it is the Universe as a whole that is god. maybe the creator is of such an alien creature that we would not even recognize it. For thousands of years Religious leaders all over the world believed that the earth was the center of the universe. They were wrong, if if they were wrong about something so basic how can we trust them about anything. We have learned so much about our existence over the last 500 years that it has to make you question how men who claim to follow the word of god, who claim to speak to him and hear his responses missed this basic point.

      There may indeed be a "god" I can't definitively say there isn't. (nor can you say there is) But what I am sure of is that there isn't a single person, past or present, who has any idea what it is or what it would intend us to do. What I reject is the concept of religion, since they are all made up by man. I have absolutely no fear of meeting a maker if he does exist. If he did help to create me, I rest assured that he will thank me for using the grey matter between my ears in a learned, not faithful, way.

      Peace!

      July 7, 2011 at 8:20 am |
  18. Dave

    Jesus said it is written.. revealed to us Blessed are those who hear and obey them.Luke 11:28. But He said, "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" The Bible has and will stand the test of time its truth all who opposed it have meet God already and the rest will meet HIM SOON just wait your turn will come.

    July 6, 2011 at 1:13 am |
  19. Dave

    We are in all this mess today because we have rejected God and his word we have no compass or blueprint outside of
    God for social behavior the enemy of humanity is influencing the minds of human beings and we refuse to turn to God.
    How can we fight spritual forces with mere human thinking.....we all have a war going on inside us.
    Matt 4:3-4 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."
    4. But He answered and said, "It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' "
    Eph 6:12. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

    July 6, 2011 at 12:54 am |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      I firmly believe we are where we are because hom.os3xuals did not receive enough bible instruction in their formative years. Maybe their parents were two busy and did not take them to bible school, or their parents were atheists or whatever. If the notion of sin was ingrained in them early on maybe they would have turned out differently.

      July 6, 2011 at 1:10 am |
    • LOL

      "I firmly believe we are where we are because hom.os3xuals did not receive enough bible instruction in their formative years."

      This just show how much you don't understand this subject since 5 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that ho-m-os-exuality, in and itself, is not a-ssociated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Plus when you factor in recent evidence that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's se-xuality.

      July 6, 2011 at 8:26 am |
    • LOL

      Typo LOL!

      35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that ho-m-os-exuality, in and itself, is not a-ssociated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.

      July 6, 2011 at 8:57 am |
    • myweightinwords

      We need also consider that hom-os-exuality has been a part of humankind since the beginning of time. It is a part of nature, a part of who we are. Many cultures and tribes embraced those who were hom-os-exual in the past. Some accepted that it happened behind closed doors.

      Also, we must consider that if a child of 5 already knows that he is different, even if he has no words to describe the how and why, no amount of "instruction" will change that child. Rather than torment that poor child and drive him, as a teen or young adult to suicide, accept him for who he is and teach him to be a good and moral person within his differences.

      July 6, 2011 at 10:35 am |
    • Hatman

      "How can we fight spiritual forces with human thinking?"
      Good question. Clearly we need a book written down by humans, translated by humans, edited and revised repeatedly by humans, that contradicts both itself and several things that we can prove to be fact by simple observation, to do our thinking for us. Because thinking is the enemy.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:22 am |
  20. Joe Blow from Idaho

    Common debate techniques of hom.os3xuals:

    1. Call someone who opposes them a hater, ignorant, clueless, or stupid.
    2. Try to say that the bible is mistranslated or misinterpreted without providing ANY research to prove this other than opinion pieces
    3. Focus on technicalities such as word definitions to derail the opposing argument
    4. Try to claim that their filthy behavior is normal (as if we are all victim to our base impulses, they cite dubious animal studies as if we are no better than animals)
    5. Try to invoke the Civil Rights Movement when filthy immoral BEHAVIOR was never an issue in the Civil Rights Movement.
    6. Try to claim that they were born that way. Even if that is true, they choose to act on it, they CHOOSE the behavior. Again, they ignore the fact that we are not to give into our base nature. We are called to be holy.
    7. Play the victim

    July 6, 2011 at 12:35 am |
    • LinCA

      Common debate techniques of Joe who Blows in Idaho:

      1. Call someone who opposes them a hater, ignorant, clueless, or stupid.
      2. Try to say that the bible is inerrant without providing ANY research to prove this other than opinion pieces
      3. Focus on technicalities such as word definitions to derail the opposing argument
      4. Try to claim that their filthy behavior is normal
      5. Try to invoke Civil Rights when their filthy immoral BEHAVIOR was always the issue in the Civil Rights Movement.
      6. Try to claim that they were born that way. Even if that is true, they choose to act on it, they CHOOSE the behavior.
      7. Play the victim

      July 6, 2011 at 12:42 am |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      8. Parroting back an argument that makes them look foolish and desperate

      July 6, 2011 at 12:53 am |
    • LinCA

      @Joe

      Parroting back your post shows that you use the same "debating" techniques that you accuse your opponents of. It shows that you bring nothing but your hate. The hate that you justify with your religion.

      You seem to like nothing more than to turn the US into another Iran. You are no better than the Taliban. American soldiers are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, trying to rid that country of the cancer that is people like you.

      July 6, 2011 at 1:17 am |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      This is what you did, and I can't believe you didn't see it:
      1. Called me a hater
      2. Called me the Taliban
      3. Called me cancer

      Those three things fall under category 1 in my list above.

      July 6, 2011 at 1:28 am |
    • LinCA

      Just calling them as I see them. Here are a few of your choice quotes:

      Using your religion to justify your hate.
      On July 5, 2011 at 6:58 pm you said "Normally I only use the word "sodomite" which is how it is referred to in my church"

      Playing the victim.
      On July 5, 2011 at 7:18 pm you said "Yes, it's open season on Christianity here. We are not even allowed to voice our opposition to buggery or we are called haters or ignorant or stupid."

      Cancer accusation.
      On July 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm you said "Sodomites and their filthy lifestyle is a cancer on society."

      Proposing Taliban-like legislation.
      On July 4, 2011 at 11:59 pm you said "We need a const-itutional marriage amendment specifying that marriage is between one man and one woman and end this debate once and for all. As part of that amendment we should re-criminalize sodomy. Maybe then God will turn his favor on this America once again."

      July 6, 2011 at 1:53 am |
    • Joe Blow from Idaho

      Well, it's nice to know that I have fans. Thank you.

      July 6, 2011 at 1:58 am |
    • Linds&AliciaMI

      @LinCA My girlfriend and I just read your post and you made our night! Thanks for stickin it to Joe who Blows from Idaho! 🙂

      July 6, 2011 at 2:34 am |
    • d rufus onfyre

      You forgot the argument that the bible is irrelevant, God exists only in the minds of religious people, and Christian values have no place in determining laws.

      July 6, 2011 at 3:45 am |
    • Mike from Maine

      Joe, to claim that racial equality was not defended by the Christian Right as a Moral issue is the epitome of Ignorant.

      July 6, 2011 at 6:19 am |
    • Mike from Maine

      Common debate techniques of "Bible Thumpers"

      1. Ignore reason
      2. Ignore fact
      3. When confronted with questions you can't answer, ignore the question.

      July 6, 2011 at 7:12 am |
    • PRISM 1234

      Joe, what you said in this post it just about sums it up!
      It's astounding what twisted human nature will do to justify it's sins an rebellion! Those who have numbed their consciences because of the love of sin that's in their hearts will do anything to justify it. We see before our own eyes the very fulfilment of the words written in these scriptures:

      " And so, since they did not see fit to retain God in their consciences, approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a debased mind to do things not fit for human beings to do, until they were filled (permeated and saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, iniquity, covetous through greed, and malice. They were full of envy and jealousy, murder, strife, deceit and treachery, ill will and cruel ways. They were secret backbiters and gossipers, slanderers, haters of God, full of insolence, arrogance and boasting; inventors of new forms of evil, disobedient and disrespectful to parents.

      They were without understanding, conscienceless and faithless, heartless and loveless and merciless.

      THOUGH THEY ARE FULLY AWARE OF GOD'S RIGHTEOUS DECREE THAT THOSE WHO DO SUCH THINGS DESERVE TO DIE, THEY NOT ONLY DO THEM THEMSELVES BUT APPROVE AND APPLAUD OTHERS WHO PRACTICE THEM. (Romans ch.1)

      July 6, 2011 at 11:07 am |
    • LinCA

      You just don't fucking get it, do you? Quoting your fables to those that don't believe a word of it carries no weight. Zilch, nada, gar nichts, nothing, zero, niets, rien du tout, ei mitään, nic, niente di niente. Get it now?

      I accept that you believe that nonsense, but just because you do, doesn't mean that it means anything to a rational person.

      I don't hate your god. I hate the evil that is done in his/her name.

      July 6, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
    • LOL

      "It's astounding what twisted human nature will do to justify it's sins an rebellion! T"

      Yes you have proven that quite well since you have been shown the truth today that gays are born this way and yet you reject God's creation and twist the scriptures to justify your brainwashed prejudice and bigotry that the church has passed down for generations because they didn't understand the real truth. God has shown through science that the interpretations of the bible saying it's an abomination are wrong. History has shown that it was about pagan rituals and pagan se-x worshiping a pagan God, male prost-ituttion and ra-pe.

      July 6, 2011 at 12:22 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.