home
RSS
My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality
The author argues that the meaning of the Bible's passages on homosexuality have been lost in translation.
May 15th, 2012
05:39 PM ET

My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality

Editor's note: Daniel A. Helminiak, who was ordained a priest in Rome, is a theologian, psychotherapist and author of “What the Bible Really Says about homosexuality" and books on contemporary spirituality. He is a professor of psychology at the University of West Georgia.

By Daniel A. Helminiak, Special to CNN

President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage, like blood in the water, has conservative sharks circling for a kill. In a nation that touts separation of religion and government, religious-based arguments command this battle. Lurking beneath anti-gay forays, you inevitably find religion and, above all, the Bible.

We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality.

In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Hard evidence supports this commonsensical expectation. Taken on its own terms, read in the original languages, placed back into its historical context, the Bible is ho-hum on homosexuality, unless – as with heterosexuality – injustice and abuse are involved.

That, in fact, was the case among the Sodomites (Genesis 19), whose experience is frequently cited by modern anti-gay critics. The Sodomites wanted to rape the visitors whom Lot, the one just man in the city, welcomed in hospitality for the night.

The Bible itself is lucid on the sin of Sodom: pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49); hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests (Wisdom 19:13); arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:8); evildoing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17); adultery (in those days, the use of another man’s property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12).

But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence, Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31); and “By this will they know you are my disciples” (John 13:35).

How inverted these values have become! In the name of Jesus, evangelicals and Catholic bishops make sex the Christian litmus test and are willing to sacrifice the social safety net in return.

The longest biblical passage on male-male sex is Romans 1:26-27: "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another."

The Greek term para physin has been translated unnatural; it should read atypical or unusual. In the technical sense, yes, the Stoic philosophers did use para physin to mean unnatural, but this term also had a widespread popular meaning. It is this latter meaning that informs Paul's writing. It carries no ethical condemnation.

Compare the passage on male-male sex to Romans 11:24. There, Paul applies the term para physin to God. God grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish people, a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Not your standard practice! An unusual thing to do — atypical, nothing more. The anti-gay "unnatural" hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation.

Besides, Paul used two other words to describe male-male sex: dishonorable (1:24, 26) and unseemly (1:27). But for Paul, neither carried ethical weight. In 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul says that even he was held in dishonor — for preaching Christ. Clearly, these words merely indicate social disrepute, not truly unethical behavior.

In this passage Paul is referring to the ancient Jewish Law: Leviticus 18:22, the “abomination” of a man’s lying with another man. Paul sees male-male sex as an impurity, a taboo, uncleanness — in other words, “abomination.” Introducing this discussion in 1:24, he says so outright: "God gave them up … to impurity."

But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity — varied cultural traditions — do not matter before God. What matters is purity of heart.

“It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles,” reads Matthew 15. “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.”

Or again, Jesus taught, “Everyone who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law.

In calling it unclean, Paul was not condemning male-male sex. He had terms to express condemnation. Before and after his section on sex, he used truly condemnatory terms: godless, evil, wicked or unjust, not to be done. But he never used ethical terms around that issue of sex.

As for marriage, again, the Bible is more liberal than we hear today. The Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers.

The Bible’s Song of Songs is a paean to romantic love with no mention of children or a married couple. Jesus never mentioned same-sex behaviors, although he did heal the “servant” — pais, a Greek term for male lover — of the Roman Centurion.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Paul discouraged marriage because he believed the world would soon end. Still, he encouraged people with sexual needs to marry, and he never linked sex and procreation.

Were God-given reason to prevail, rather than knee-jerk religion, we would not be having a heated debate over gay marriage. “Liberty and justice for all,” marvel at the diversity of creation, welcome for one another: these, alas, are true biblical values.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Daniel A. Helminiak.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Gay marriage • Opinion

soundoff (8,831 Responses)
  1. Elaine

    In Genesis 18, the story about the angels coming to Lot's house, we learn that the reason they were coming to destroy Sodom was because of the wickedness that ALREADY existed in the city. The exact form of wickedness is not mentioned in that story!

    Let's just reinforce this CRITICAL piece of information. In the story of Sodom, in Genesis 18, God had ALREADY decided to destroy the city BEFORE the attempted rape of the angels – which incidentally was perpetrated mainly by heterosexuals since ALL the men of the city were involved, and we know that throughout history, gays have only represented about 10% of the population. Also, if they were homosexuals, why would Lot suggest that they take his daughters instead? That just doesn't make sense if the men were gay.

    So just to get this straight, the event that took place at Sodom was an act of violence and rape, mainly by heterosexuals. It had nothing to do with a loving relationship between two people of the same sex, and homosexuality was NOT the sin of Sodom in whatever form. The story of Sodom in Genesis 18 was about violence and domination, the same type of event that takes place in prisons and occupied countries, but it was NOT the reason for God's decision to destroy the city, and to use this story as a basis for prejudice against homosexuality in general is like comparing rape to marriage. There is NO similarity!

    The aftermath of Sodom aside, let's take a look at other passages of Scripture that mention the sin of Sodom. Here are 14 references to Sodom and not one of them mentions homosexuality!!!!! The overwhelming themes are idolatry, immorality and inhospitality! To me, this indicates people like Bob and HeavenSent have taken things out of context!

    Deuteronomy 29:17-26 – the sin – idolatry and images to false gods – "Why has the Lord done this to the land? . . . It is because this people abandoned the covenant of the Lord . . ."

    Deuteronomy 32:32-38 – the sin – idolatry – "He will say 'Now where are their gods?'"

    Isaiah 1:2-23 – the sin – idolatry, rebellion, injustice, murder, greed, theft, covetousness, mistreating the poor – "They have rebelled against Me."

    Isaiah 3:8-19 – the sin – idolatry, arrogance – "Their words and deeds are against the Lord, defying His glorious Presence"

    Jeremiah 23:10-14 – the sin – idolatry, adultery, lying by priests and prophets – "Both prophet and priest are godless. . . . They prophesied by Baal and led My people astray."

    Jeremiah 49:16-18 – the sin – idolatry, arrogance, oppression, pride of the heart – "The terror you inspire and the pride of your heart have deceived
    you. . ."

    Jeremiah 50:2-40 – the sin – idolatry, pride, false prophets – "Her images will be put to shame and her idols filled with terror. . . . . For she has defied the Lord, the Holy One of Israel. . . . . Their shepherds have led them astray."

    Lamentations 4:3-6 – the sin – cruelty and failure to care for the young and poor – "My people have become heartless."

    Ezekiel 16:49-50 – the sin – "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned: they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

    Amos 4:1-11 – the sin – idolatry, oppression, mistreating the poor – "I overthrew some of you as I overthrew Sodom . . . . yet you have not returned to Me."

    Zephaniah 2:8-11 – the sin – idolatry, pride, mocking – "This is what they will get in return for their pride, for insulting and mocking the people of the Lord Almighty. The Lord will be awesome to them when He destroys all the gods of the land."

    Luke 17:26-29 – Jesus speaking – No specific sins mentioned

    II Peter 2:1-22 – the sin – idolatry, living after ungodliness, lawlessness, arrogance, blaspheming, adultery, greed, corruption, depravity, boasting, lust – "But there were also false prophets among the people . . . . ."

    Jude 1:7-8 – the sin – sexual immorality and perversion, i.e fornication after strange flesh (angels, see Genesis 6:1) KJV

    The dictionary defines "perversion" as "a sexual practice regarded as abnormal". That means that a heterosexual practicing homosexual acts is perverted as in the case of ALL the men of Sodom wanting to engage with the angels (strange flesh). However, since sex with the same gender is normal for a gay person, there is no perversion associated merely by the sexual act.

    Note also that, while the word "abomination" has been used with reference to homosexuality, the biblical interpretation of the word "abomination" relates to any act of uncleanness as set out in the Holiness Code, such as eating shellfish, trimming your hair, touching the skin of a dead pig (should we stone the entire NFL?), wearing clothes of two kinds of material (polyester/cotton) – the list is long. How can we discuss one sin to the exclusion of all others?

    This is an enormous subject, which has been reduced to simplistic values. It is plain and simple prejudice to portray homosexuals as immoral just because of the gender to whom we are attracted. Of course there are immoral homosexuals, just as there are immoral heterosexuals, but simple orientation carries no implication of morality or immorality.

    Our sexuality is God-given. God made us the way we are. It follows naturally that He loves us exactly the way He made us. So long as we embrace marriage with the same standards as any monogamous, loving heterosexual relationship there should be no barrier against us.

    When gays are only asking to have their loving relationships acknowledged and respected, why is there so much fear and anger? To strengthen marriage, why not take a stand against divorce and separation, instead of opposing love and commitment? Jesus spoke of divorce, but he never mentioned homosexuality. I believe that was because homosexuality was not even an issue in His day. Love was love. Love IS Love!

    "Protect marriage? Puhlease. With a 50 percent divorce rate, rampant domestic violence, Las Vegas drive-through chapels, and I wanna-marry-a-really-rich-guy reality TV shows, there's no way gays could trash marriage the way straight people have."

    This letter only refers to the sin of Sodom. There are actually six "clobber verses" which are used against gays. Space does not permit an explanation of each one, but just as the sin of Sodom has been misrepresented, so have the other verses. There is an explanation for each one that clearly indicates that, just as slavery was condoned by Scripture for many years, ("Slaves obey your masters . . . . ." Eph. 6:5-8) and civil wars were fought to protect the ownership of people, we now know that Scripture was interpreted incorrectly, for God would not have people to be possessions.

    We now have a fuller understanding of Scripture with regard to slavery. It's time to accept a fuller understanding of homosexuality based on new research into language, concepts and customs when these words were written.

    So please choose acceptance and inclusiveness whether or not you understand fully. One of us is wrong. Many of you think it's me. I think it's you, based on solid research into Scripture from another perspective. Yes, God encourages us to question Scripture.
    "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, REPROOF and instruction in righteousness." II Tim. 3:16
    If there is even a chance that I could be right, do you want to take the eternal risk of rejecting some of God's children, and slamming the doors of your churches to those of us who wish to enter? That's what you're doing when you treat us as less than yourselves simply based on our orientation.

    If we have done the research, and it is our understanding that God loves us, including our orientation, then why not just let God be the judge? He will be in the end anyway. If one of us is to err, why not err on the side of love and acceptance? Now that was truly Jesus' example!

    July 12, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • Bob

      So in the first place I thought that if you were hetero then you liked women how is it that they were hetero and gay??? How do you explain the fact that they would not take lots daughters to mean that they were passing by women in favor of men that sure sounds gay to me.

      July 12, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • myweightinwords

      Bob,

      You do understand that hetero and gay are only two stops on a spectrum, right? That there are many, many people who fall somewhere in the middle and actually are attracted to BOTH genders.

      However, in this case, the situation was about power and control, not gender. The mob wished to force the strangers to submit. Two virgin girls who would willingly submit didn't serve their desires.

      July 12, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • Bob

      Next there are 47 verses that mention Sodom so you missed a few and what do you think Gods definition of immorality is?? As for the timing of the angels yes Sodom was already judged and the fact that the men didnt take Lots daughters signifies that they didnt want women. Also some of what Sodom was judged for was being gay and that it is a abomination to God.Although these paragraphs do not mention Sodom they do say what God thinks is a abomination and it followed the path that they and you laid down for Sodom. So it gives us a picture of how evil goes and it follows the descriptions of Sodom.
      Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
      Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
      Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
      Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
      Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
      Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
      Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
      Rom 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
      Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
      Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
      Rom 1:31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
      Rom 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

      July 12, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • Bob

      About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to punish them for their pride, and to overthrow their city, and to lay waste their country, until there should neither plant nor fruit grow out of it.
      This was from Josephus so you don't even have to interpret the Bible I have made it easy for you there is no guessing thank you for showing us how the twisting of the Bible is done. When Jesus was up on the mountain and the devil tempted Him with the three questions Im sure if you didn't know the word of God they would sound good too. But when you know the word you dont twist it and if you do you really have to question if that person is really a Christian and of their very Salvation. I will post on the rest thank you for this opertunity to explaiin the Bible to those that may have never heard these things before.

      July 12, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures."

      Wow keep showing your poor reading comprehension. They were worshiping a pagan god using sex, it has NOTHING to do with the long term respectful relationship of a gay couple as we know and understand it today. Duh!!

      July 12, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices."

      Yeah, hated strangers and abused themselves, again that has NOTHING to do with the loving respectful long term relationship of a gay couple as we know and understand it today. What an idiot, you're the one trying to twist the scriptures to justify your prejudice and bigotry. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      July 12, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • Bob

      My weight in words
      1Pe 3:3 Your adornment must not be merely external–braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;
      1Pe 3:4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.
      We sometimes dont look at ourselves as we should we are our own worst critics

      July 12, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
  2. John

    ". It has always been wrong and the gays are the ones that wanted to distort the Bible"

    I am not gay. Some argue that since homosexual behavior is "unnatural" it is contrary to the order of creation. Behind this pronouncement are stereotypical definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect rigid gender categories of patriarchal society. There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners to a fuller state of being. Contemporary research is uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural and affirming form of human sexuality for some people. Findings indicate that homosexuality is a given fact in the nature of a significant portion of people, and that it is unchangeable.

    Our prejudice rejects people or things outside our understanding. But the God of creation speaks and declares, "I have looked out on everything I have made and `behold it (is) very good'." . The word (Genesis 1:31) of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious no matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world.

    There are few biblical references to homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom was the unwillingness of the city's men to observe the laws of hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob. How many would say, "This is the word of the Lord"? When the Bible is quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety.

    Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, "abomination", the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman. Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality ( 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and Romans 1: 26-27). But homosexual activity was regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of their unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. That list included the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Sexual perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible that the juxtaposition of malakos, the soft, effeminate word, with arsenokoitus, or male prostitute, was meant to refer to the passive and active males in a homosexual liaison.

    Thus, it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behavior. But was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul's anti-Semitic attitude, his belief that the authority of the state was not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes Paul's thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church! Is Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?

    Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy, Jude and 2 Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of male sex slaves in the first instance, and to showing examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God's destruction of unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and 2 Peter respectively).

    That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist, these references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of ignorance, that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex.

    July 12, 2012 at 10:50 am |
  3. Bob

    Just in case you didn't know the definition of Sodomy was derived from Sodom and Gomorrah then I guess when the supposed 100 pastors from the churches see this and say that the sin of that city was chasing after angels that this doesn't come to mind. All those that would say this and that there is support for gay marriage may want to reconsider this argument. This also means that all history supports that this was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. It has always been wrong and the gays are the ones that wanted to distort the Bible and say that there is acceptance of gay marriage and that the Bible says gay copulation is ok. Gays like anyone else are ok but the S relations are not and not marriage either.

    July 12, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • Who invited me?

      The bible is not an authority about anything.
      Is is full of rediculous stories, and is at best bad fiction.
      To judge other people based on your interpretation of the book, is meaningless

      July 12, 2012 at 9:40 am |
    • YeahRight

      "he definition of Sodomy"

      Is defined as anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal. Oh and in case anyone is wondering the word homosexual was invented at the time the writers wrote the bible so it never applied to gays as we know and understand it today.

      July 12, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • myweightinwords

      Hi Bob,

      "Just in case you didn't know the definition of Sodomy was derived from Sodom and Gomorrah then I guess when the supposed 100 pastors from the churches see this and say that the sin of that city was chasing after angels that this doesn't come to mind."

      Actually, the word "sodomy" only dates back to around 1300 CE, and was originally used specifically to define a.na.l s.e.x, without regard for the genders of those involved. One might make an argument that the early church understood then that the sin of Sodom was non-procreative copulation, but certainly not specifically ho.mo.se.xuality, as "sodomy" is practiced by those who are straight as well.

      Now, the problem there lies in the fact that the world of 1300 CE is remarkably different than it was say 1300 BCE, and certainly vastly different than it is today. To expect a "scholar" of the time in which "sodomy" came into popular use to be fully cognizant of the culture wherein the city of Sodom existed, and to be able to extrapolate from that any full understanding of the story, without regarding the Jewish understanding of the story, which is ostensibly their myth in the first place, is ludicrous.

      July 12, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • myweightinwords

      "All those that would say this and that there is support for gay marriage may want to reconsider this argument."

      Perhaps, also, you might wish to contemplate that the bible is not the foundation of our society, that this story is merely a myth, and that all human beings deserve equal treatment under the law.

      July 12, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • myweightinwords

      "This also means that all history supports that this was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. It has always been wrong and the gays are the ones that wanted to distort the Bible and say that there is acceptance of gay marriage and that the Bible says gay copulation is ok. Gays like anyone else are ok but the S relations are not and not marriage either."

      Our understanding of history has been proven wrong before. "all history" does not in fact support that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was gay s.e.x. The fact that the name of one of those cities has come into use to label a specific act that is performed by both hetero and ho.mo.s.exual couples has little bearing on this. One need only look at the word "gay" itself to understand how the meaning of words can migrate over time.

      July 12, 2012 at 11:29 am |
  4. Bob

    About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to punish them for their pride, and to overthrow their city, and to lay waste their country, until there should neither plant nor fruit grow out of it.
    This was from Josephus so you don't even have to interpret the Bible I have made it easy for you. Keep the cut and paste coming I know people dont know this info and will want to learn it when they have to defend themselves against false teachers

    July 12, 2012 at 9:01 am |
    • Primewonk

      Why do you equate forced ràpe of non-humans (bestiality), with consensual sèx?

      July 12, 2012 at 9:11 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Because he has as much intelligence as a hamster.

      July 12, 2012 at 9:15 am |
  5. Douglas

    Release the power of celibacy for GLBTQ couples!

    July 12, 2012 at 6:14 am |
    • YeahRight

      There is no reason for gays to remain celibate only bias and prejudice people spew that nonsense. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      July 12, 2012 at 10:49 am |
  6. Shawn

    Let me start this off with a quote from a famous lesbian, Lynn Lavner:

    "There are 6 admonishments in the Bible concerning homosexual activity, and our enemies are always throwing them up to us – usually in a vicious way and very much out of context.

    What they don't want us to remember is that there are 362 admonishments in the Bible concerning heterosexual activity. I don't mean to imply by this that God doesn't love straight people, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision."

    I am going to attempt to keep this short and simple, so here we go.

    Some claim that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly say that homosexual sex is an abomination. In fact, it merits death. Isn't it obvious that God hates homosexuality?

    Yes, depending on which translation you are using, Leviticus does say, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it's an abomination." However, a few points must be made about this statement:

    a) It appears in Leviticus, which was given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion and culture of Israel. However, as stated in Galatians 3:22-55, Christians are no longer bound by these Jewish laws. Even if you, for some reason, argue that these "laws" are still important, then you surely follow all of them, right?

    It is interesting that people who use Leviticus against the gay community forget the part that talks about religious sacrifices, making women sleep in tents outside during their period, the dietary restrictions placed on them and how to cleanse a leper, all of which appear in Leviticus.

    The laws of Leviticus are completely obsolete for today's Christian; however, even if you do claim to live by the laws of Leviticus, it is not fair to pick and choose which laws you are going to live by, or condemn a people by, if you are not going to follow the others. You should not need any more convincing evidence than this; but if you do, be my guest.

    b) The word that was in the original work, "to'ebah," which was translated into Greek as "bdglygma" actually means "ritual impurity" rather than abomination (or enormous sin). These passages in Leviticus can be translated to not mean homosexual sex generally, but only limiting homosexual sex in Pagan temples.

    c) This passage does not denounce homosexual behavior as a whole, but just the specific act of anal sex. This was meant for the prevention of disease. It was ruled unclean because it was physically unclean; however, hygiene has made wonderful advances since that time.

    d) These passages in Leviticus can be interpreted in many ways. I have seen it interpreted by scholars and priests to mean: "don't have sex with another man in your wife's bed;" "don't have sex with another man in the temple;" and "don't have sex with another man and pretend he is a woman," just to name a few.

    I have never seen an interpretation in any Bible, or from any scholar, that specifically says to never have sex with a man.

    Some claim the Bible simply does not support gay marriage. Chapter two of Genesis defines marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman. And later, in Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus himself reiterates the traits of a traditional marriage. How can you argue that anything other than celibacy is honorable for gay and lesbian people?

    Yes, marriage is a holy union. However, in these passages, while Jesus reiterates (but does not require) the traditional marriage, he also provides an exception for eunuchs (castrated men – or otherwise impotent men, in today's terms), and allowed them to be married, saying that this law is given to those to whom it applies.

    Because these eunuchs were born sexless, God made an exception for them because it was natural. The same applies to the Gay community today. Science has proven homosexuality is completely natural, so it seems God would allow for homosexual marriages.

    In Matthew 19: 4-5, Jesus encourages a traditional path, but does not discourage alternatives, except in the case of divorce.

    Jesus did stress purity of marriage, but not in regard to the sexes of the people within it. It can be seen that the reason that churches are against homosexual marriage is not because it is explicitly said by God, but because of a lack of instruction to specifically allow it.

    In the time that the Bible was written it would have been impossible to foresee the future to be able to specifically allow or forbid homosexual marriage.

    Some claim, in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he lists homosexuals amongst the many sinners who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Doesn't that make God's position on this vice very clear?

    If we look at the other types of people listed in this passage, we can understand what it is actually talking about. Law breakers, thieves, adulterers and drunks are specifically mentioned. The word "homosexual" was not found until the 1890s, so it would have been impossible for it to be in the original version.

    What actually appears in the original is Paul condemning those who are "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind." In this context, the original Greek word, "malakos," is translated into effeminate, or soft, which, more than likely, refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control.

    In this passage, when Paul condemns "abusers of themselves with mankind," he is speaking of male prostitutes.

    Then there are the people who claim that, even though science has proven that people don't choose their sexual orientation, the fact remains that homosexuality is unnatural. Romans 1:26-27 tells us that humans have a sinful nature, and therefore commit sins against God. Certain people are predisposed to be alcoholics and pedophiles, but that doesn't make their actions any less immoral. God tells us to "tear out your eye" if it makes you stumble. Why can't you just accept homosexuality as the part of your nature you must deny?

    Because the Bible has gone through so many translations, and through the hands of many people (some being non-believers), it is not surprising that the meaning has become a little fuzzy in parts.

    Homosexuality is normal. The phrase "para physin" appears in the original text for this verse. This term is often translated to mean "unnatural" however, more accurate translation would be unconventional.

    Proof for this can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:14 where Paul uses this phrase to refer to men with long hair (unconventional, not unnatural) and in Romans 11:24 where Paul uses this phrase to refer to the positive action God made to bring together the Jews and Gentiles.

    All in all, homosexuality is obviously not a sin, unless you take passages from the Bible and add your own words or you just try really hard to interpret it that way. Let's just remember Galatians 5:14, where Paul stated, "the whole Law is fulfilled in one Statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'

    July 11, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • Bob

      Shawn, you state that "the laws of Leviticus are completely obsolete for today's Christian". That being the case, and given that one can apparently pick and choose which laws apply (there are even varying interpretations saying e.g. that Jesus demanded that those old laws are still in place), it is clear that Christian "god"'s laws are not universal, and nor were they created by a divine being.

      Better to toss the whole silly book than keep trying to us it as any kind of life guide. The whole thing is obsolete.

      July 12, 2012 at 9:25 am |
  7. Janet

    "Gay relations are never right in the Bible simple"

    The Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is based on human ignorance, suspicion of those who are different, and an overwhelming concern for ensuring the survival of the people. Since the Bible regards homosexuality as a capital crime, it clearly assumes that homosexuality is a matter of free choice, a deliberate rebellion against God. We have learned from modern science that people do not choose to be gay or straight; hence it is neither logical nor moral to condemn those whose nature it is to be gay or lesbian.

    July 11, 2012 at 10:45 am |
  8. Bob

    Another new gay marriage study out that the children of gay parents are significantly at a disadvantage especially not being able to socially understand the emotional nuances of hetero people.

    July 10, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      You talking about the completely discredited study of Mark Regnerus?

      July 10, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Another new gay marriage study out that the children of gay parents are significantly at a disadvantage especially not being able to socially understand the emotional nuances of hetero people."

      That's why hundred of thousands of experts have stated, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.

      July 11, 2012 at 10:44 am |
  9. Bob

    Gay relations are never right in the Bible simple

    July 10, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • YeahRight

      You are so wrong Bob churches are even starting to hold gay weddings now and bless their marriages. Duh!

      July 11, 2012 at 10:50 am |
  10. Bob

    Bigots to gays equate with speaking the truth that is against what they want to hear
    Posting studies that pass muster with everyone else except them

    July 10, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      And what "studies" have you posted that pass muster Bob?

      July 10, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Posting studies that pass muster with everyone else except them"

      Yo moron, those studies are widely accepted all over the world. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      July 11, 2012 at 11:45 am |
  11. JP

    Is homosexuality a sin?

    Self-indulgence is a sin. But the relationship of two people of the same sex may or may not be self-indulgent.

    Abusing the neighbor is a sin. But the exploration of relationships among homosexuals as they search for partners, evaluate their existing formative relationships, and relate to each other may or may not be abusive.

    Disobeying what God commands in the Bible is a sin. But, we have biblically-derived criteria for assessing and applying specific commands by reading them against larger themes.
    Turning your back on God is a sin. Homosexuals are often among those who have turned their back on the church, and may be sinning because they also rejected the God they found in church. The church needs to be in mission to homosexuals with the message of Jesus and who God really is.

    Yielding to your passions, even celebrating them is a sin. Homosexuals do include those who have done this. But it is not an inherent aspect of being gay.

    Since we see people who have dedicated themselves to God, and for whom their gay sexual life is integrated into that decision and we see that their sexuality does not draw them away from church we must conclude that being and living gay is not a behavior in and of itself that produces pain to the neighbor and leads one away from God.

    By the criteria the scripture sets for us for what is godly life, and by the reasoning scripture asks us to employ, homosexuality cannot be described as against God’s law.

    If this seems like a rather quiet sort of justification for homosexuality., then perhaps it is because the grand clichés of this debate have been shouted at us for too long. But look at the Bible: it's demands and vision cut across all categories, not staying on the surface but penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart, rejecting all forms of self-justification, all forms of attack on the "other" and all forms of escape from God's assessment of our behavior. How on earth could we have ever thought that a series of flat rules was all God wanted to tell us on morality?

    July 10, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • Bob

      you like most the ones that side with the gays are so biased that you believe all the bs the small minority of your group vomits out. This is a prime example, how the hell could all the scholars down through the ages be wrong about Sodom and Gomorrah? If any of the so called 100 pastors had even cracked the Bible with a ounce of understanding and not been so deluded that they couldn't see the facts as clear as the nose on their face then maybe we would know that they are liars or deceived or just trying to destroy a society that was at one time great. Truth for the gay agenda is not truth but lie upon lie upon lie and mixed with drama and more lies and the worst studies ever put out by so called science. Even to the point the APA doesn't have a clue, there is no agreement among the people who belong and those that did belong have quit because of all the bs that is happening it really reflects a agency in trouble big trouble. If they cannot consistently agree among themselves and establish cohesive policies that all can agree with then how are we going to believe them? There isn't enough money out there to do a real study when its done and shows problems with gays then they attack, so who in their right mind would want to do one.Even the bone head who writes this blog page how in creation did he ever get the idea that the Bible doesn't condone gay intercourse?? To be a member of clergy to say it out loud and to believe it he has to be so far out there that a tin hat wouldn't even be good enough. Especially with what the Bible says about those that teach. He is putting condemnation on his own head and teaching others to do the same. He is insane and should be judged mentally incompetent especially if you are actively condoning and teaching others to sin.

      July 11, 2012 at 7:53 am |
    • YeahRight

      you like most the ones that side with the gays are so biased that you believe all the bs the small minority of your group vomits out. -LIE

      This is a prime example, how the hell could all the scholars down through the ages be wrong about Sodom and Gomorrah? If any of the so called 100 pastors had even cracked the Bible with a ounce of understanding and not been so deluded that they couldn't see the facts as clear as the nose on their face then maybe we would know that they are liars or deceived or just trying to destroy a society that was at one time great. -LIE

      Truth for the gay agenda is not truth but lie upon lie upon lie and mixed with drama and more lies and the worst studies ever put out by so called science. -LIE

      Even to the point the APA doesn't have a clue, there is no agreement among the people who belong and those that did belong have quit because of all the bs that is happening it really reflects a agency in trouble big trouble. -LIE

      If they cannot consistently agree among themselves and establish cohesive policies that all can agree with then how are we going to believe them? There isn't enough money out there to do a real study when its done and shows problems with gays then they attack, so who in their right mind would want to do one. -LIE

      Even the bone head who writes this blog page how in creation did he ever get the idea that the Bible doesn't condone gay intercourse?? To be a member of clergy to say it out loud and to believe it he has to be so far out there that a tin hat wouldn't even be good enough. -LIE

      Especially with what the Bible says about those that teach. -LIE

      He is putting condemnation on his own head and teaching others to do the same. -LIE

      He is insane and should be judged mentally incompetent especially if you are actively condoning and teaching others to sin. -LIE

      July 11, 2012 at 10:47 am |
  12. Matthew

    Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Any educated Christian would know that. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality. That’s why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will. This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God's will.

    July 10, 2012 at 10:33 am |
  13. John

    "gays can distort the Bible"

    Some argue that since homosexual behavior is "unnatural" it is contrary to the order of creation. Behind this pronouncement are stereotypical definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect rigid gender categories of patriarchal society. There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners to a fuller state of being. Contemporary research is uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural and affirming form of human sexuality for some people. Findings indicate that homosexuality is a given fact in the nature of a significant portion of people, and that it is unchangeable.

    Our prejudice rejects people or things outside our understanding. But the God of creation speaks and declares, "I have looked out on everything I have made and `behold it (is) very good'." . The word (Genesis 1:31) of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious no matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world.

    There are few biblical references to homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom was the unwillingness of the city's men to observe the laws of hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob. How many would say, "This is the word of the Lord"? When the Bible is quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety.

    Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, "abomination", the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman. Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality ( 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and Romans 1: 26-27). But homosexual activity was regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of their unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. That list included the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Sexual perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible that the juxtaposition of malakos, the soft, effeminate word, with arsenokoitus, or male prostitute, was meant to refer to the passive and active males in a homosexual liaison.

    Thus, it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behavior. But was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul's anti-Semitic attitude, his belief that the authority of the state was not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes Paul's thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church! Is Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?

    Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy, Jude and 2 Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of male sex slaves in the first instance, and to showing examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God's destruction of unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and 2 Peter respectively).

    That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist, these references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of ignorance, that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex.

    July 10, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • phoodphite

      Who cares about Paul's writings. This is the problem with extremist Christianity from the beginning and today (Catholics, Southern Baptists, evangelicals, etc., etc.). Jesus had some nice ideas, but for me it ends with him and the self-proclaimed Paul did NOT spiritually complete Jesus's message to the world. There are a lot of contradictions there anyway with how the two dealt with judging others.

      July 10, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
  14. YeahRight

    "If the gays can distort the Bible "

    Bob is lying again since most people posting in support of gay righst are straight. This is why you have to ignore this extremely prejudice and bigoted person.

    July 10, 2012 at 10:26 am |
  15. YeahRight

    "Our leaders have delegated their decision making position to these that cannot make a impartial decision or have much in the way of science behind them."

    More lies from Bob! LOL!

    In 1993, the National Institute of Health’ Dean Hamer illustrated that homosexuality might be inherited from the mother by her sons through a specific region of the X chromosome (Xq28). Hamer demonstrated this by noting that 33 out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers whom he studied showed the same variation in the tip of the chromosome.

    – Hamer DH, Hu S, Magnuson VL, Hu N. and Pattatucci AML. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 1993; 261:320-326.

    A June 2006 Canadian study published in the journal, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” said that nature, instead of nurture, explains the origins of homosexuality. The study’ author, Prof. Anthony F. Bogaert, at Brock University in Ontario, explored the causes behind what is known as the fraternal birth order. The research showed a correlation between the number of biological older brothers a man has and his sexual orientation. Dividing his sample of more than 900 heterosexual and homosexual men into four groups, Bogaert examined the impact of all types of older brothers, including step and adopted siblings, and the amount of time brothers spent together while growing up.His research found that only the number of biological brothers had an impact on sexuality, regardless of whether the boys were raised together.

    – Bogaert, A.F. 2006. Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 July 11 2006.

    A study released in May 2006 by Swedish scientists demonstrates that biology plays a key role in determining a person’ sexuality. The research shows that the portion of the brain that helps regulate sexuality — the hypothalamus – reacted the exact same way in straight women and gay men when exposed to male pheromones, which are chemicals designed to provoke a behavior, such as sexual arousal. The same area of the brain only became stimulated in heterosexual men when introduced to female pheromones.

    – by Ivanka Savic article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (PNAS) “Brain Response To Putative Pheromones In Homosexual Men,” (Vol. 102 No. 19) May 10, 2005.

    In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a study in the esteemed biomedical journal Human Genetics, claiming he identified three chromosomal regions linked to sexual orientation in men: 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26.

    “A Genomewide Scan of Male Sexual Orientation”, Human Genetics, Vol. 116, No. 4, pp. 272-278, 2005.

    In 2003, University of Texas psychoacoustics specialist Dennis McFadden found that when measuring the way the brain reacts to sound, lesbians fell in between heterosexual men and straight women, meaning they are exposed to higher than normal levels of male hormone in utero.

    – Loehlin, John C.; McFadden, David. “Otoacoustic emissions, auditory evoked potentials, and traits related to sex and sexual orientation”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1 April 2003.

    In 2003, University of Liverpool biologist John T. Manning found that the lesbians whom he studied have a hand pattern that resembles a man’ more than a straight female’. Manning concluded from his study that this “tells us that female homosexuals have had higher levels of exposure to testosterone before birth.”

    – Neave, N., Laing, S., Fink, B., Manning, J.T (2003) Second to fourth digit ratio, testosterone, and perceived male dominance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (Lond), 270, 2167-2172.

    A 1991 study by Dr. Simon LeVay found that a specific region of the hypothalamus is twice as large in heterosexual men as it is in women or gay men. This shows the role of biology in sexual orientation.

    – Levay, Simon “A difference in hypothalamic structure between homosexual and heterosexual men” Science. 1991 Volume 253, Issue 5023, pp. 1034-1037.

    Another 1991 study by scientists Richard Pillard and John M. Baily studied homosexuality among brothers and found that 53 percent of identical twins were both gay. In adoptive brothers, 11 percent were both homosexual. Of non-twin biological siblings, 9 percent were gay. Again, this points to solid evidence that homosexuality is a matter of nature.

    – Bailey JM, Pillard RC (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089-1096.

    July 10, 2012 at 10:24 am |
  16. YeahRight

    "The APA has small study samples and if you get down to the definition that they use to classify gays as ok you begin to laugh. The logic used is worse than a child’s and the fact that no morals enter into the decision also is disconcerting"

    LMAO Poor Bob is trying to disqualify 480,000 experts by using his own prejudice and bigoted opinion, well Duh Bob it's not just these experts the courts are also ruling in their favor. . LOL! Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

    July 10, 2012 at 10:21 am |
  17. Bob

    Dont know how many more you need to improve your reading comprehension skills you take one line out of context I showed you the next line and I can find many more to support my good comprehension if you would like
    Jud 1:6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
    Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
    Jud 1:8 Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.
    Jud 1:9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
    Jud 1:10 But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.
    Jud 1:11 Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.
    Jud 1:12 These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted;
    Jud 1:13 wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.
    Jud 1:14 It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,
    Jud 1:15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."
    Jud 1:16 These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.

    July 10, 2012 at 10:06 am |
    • Primewonk

      ADVISORY: There is an Extremely Small but Nonzero Chance That, Through a Process Know as "Tunneling," This Post May Spontaneously Disappear from Its Present Location and Reappear at Any Random Place in the Universe, Including Your Neighbor's Domicile. God Will Not Be Responsible for Any Damages or Inconvenience That May Result.

      PUBLIC NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW: Any Use of This Post, in Any Manner Whatsoever, Will Increase the Amount of Disorder in the Universe. Although No Liability Is Implied Herein, the Believer Is Warned That This Process Will Ultimately Lead to the Heat Death of the Universe.

      Einstein 16:24 Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

      Gould 1:15-16 Human consciousness arose but a minute before midnight on the geological clock. Yet we mayflies try to bend an ancient world to our purposes, ignorant perhaps of the messages buried in its long history. Let us hope that we are still in the early morning of our April day.

      Bohr 2:11 Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.

      Szilard 88:16 I'm all in favor of the democratic principle that one idiot is as good as one genius, but I draw the line when someone takes the next step and concludes that two idiots are better than one genius.

      Sagan 22:1 For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reàssuring.

      Feynman 110:55 …it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are - if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

      Hawking 41:61 A machine that was powerful enough to accelerate particles to the grand unification energy would have to be as big as the Solar System-and would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.

      Hippocrates 14:5 Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance.

      Galileo 12:16 It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved

      Carlyle 2:2 It is a mathematical fact that the casting of this pebble from my hand alters the centre of gravity of the universe.

      Fermi 1:1 The weak nuclear force does not change over time.

      Oliver Heaviside 62:3 Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?

      C. P. Snow 5:3 Innocence about Science is the worst crime today.

      Paul Valéry 3:6 One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall.

      A.C. Doyle 14:8 It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.

      Clark 19:17 Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

      Roddenberry 68:12 We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.

      deGràsse Tyson 1:1 God is an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance.

      July 10, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • Who invited me?

      Bob
      You are a moron, and fortunatley your bigoted views are being replaced with reality
      There are gay people in the world Bob
      They don't wnat to convert you to being gay Bob
      They want the same rights as everyone else Bob
      If you keep quoting from your bible on the subject, you are only proving how wrong the bible is

      July 10, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • YeahRight

      Yo moron Bob it might help with your reading comprehension if you look up the definition of rape because that is what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah, it has NOTHING to do with a long term loving relationship of a gay couple as we know and understand it today. What an idiot.. Duh!

      July 10, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • William

      Bob, Jude does not define exactly what sexual "perversion" he is referred to here. It seems to be sexual in nature, because it is coupled with a condemnation of fornication. Jude was referring to:

      -The intent of the mob to rape the angels. Rape is a clear perversion of God-given sexuality.

      -The fact that the angels were non-human. This would have made their sin of rape even worse; bes tiality would have been involved.

      It has nothing to do with homosexual orientation as defined by the APA.

      July 10, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Bob

      About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to punish them for their pride, and to overthrow their city, and to lay waste their country, until there should neither plant nor fruit grow out of it.
      This was from Josephus so you don't even have to interpret the Bible I have made it easy for you.

      July 10, 2012 at 8:12 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices"

      You are even stating it right there Bob, abused themselves, it's talking about rape, not the loving respectful long term relationship of a gay couple. Duh!

      July 11, 2012 at 11:47 am |
  18. Bob

    So far every study the gays use to cite the argument against gay marriage when using those standards and applying them to the studies for gay marriage those studies would fail every time. The APA has small study samples and if you get down to the definition that they use to classify gays as ok you begin to laugh. The logic used is worse than a child’s and the fact that no morals enter into the decision also is disconcerting. It was much emotion went into one phyc making the decision and after that how to justify it. This is about it in the declassifying gays off the DSM. In fact when you start looking into the APA you have to know that this agency is in trouble. But this is the defining agency for many hence the gay argument that all these professionals say gays are ok. It’s like dominos when one falls they all fall. They have virtually no credibility and although there are some members with a good head on their shoulders there are real problems defining the motives and definitions that are put into the DSM. I really wonder how a organization that wields the power to tell us what is deviant or not deals with the internal struggles that even in a family would be classified as dysfunctional at best. These organizations should be cut off from defining public policy and the courts should be restricted in allowing their testimony, bias and words to define the courts decision. But these are the guys that determine public policy and that is really scary and wrong. Our leaders have delegated their decision making position to these that cannot make a impartial decision or have much in the way of science behind them. The gays are resorting to the same tactics that they did in the 70s to physically badger anyone against their position and to intimidate through verbal intimidation to get their way. It has worked so far but I see the tide turning against these tactics and the claims that they use to justify their position. The knowledge of the system they have built up is impressive and they use it much to their advantage. If you also look into the start of the gay agenda and how it was organized and the people that started it and what they said it paints the picture that the gays don’t want you to see. If the gays can distort the Bible and what it says and we take the same non questioning stand then you can fall for anything. That is what they are hoping for.

    July 10, 2012 at 9:29 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      More than one organization of medical professionals has stated that hom0s3xuality is not a mental illness.

      But keep on posting your drivel, Bob.

      July 10, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • Who invited me?

      I don't need a study to tell me common sense Bob

      If two people want to get married, why should it bother you Bob.
      same-s e x marriage has been happening throughout mans history Bob.
      Why do you think it should have any effect on you Bob.
      If you are opposed to same s e x mariage, don't have one, but you don't have the right to tell others what they can or can't do.

      July 10, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Who cares what the Bible says about it?

      July 10, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • YeahRight

      "The APA has small study samples and if you get down to the definition that they use to classify gays as ok you begin to laugh."

      Yet poor Bob doesn't have any proof what so ever to disqualify all the hundred of thousands of experts that have proven him WRONG! LMAO!

      July 10, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • YeahRight

      "The APA has small study samples and if you get down to the definition that they use to classify gays as ok you begin to laugh."

      More lies from Bob and this proves his poor reading comprehension skills. The APA states despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

      This is why Bob's opinion on gays is based on lies and extreme prejudice so just laugh at his ridiculous posts while recognizing he is no way near a true Christian with all the lies he continues spew on this thread. LMAO!

      July 10, 2012 at 11:11 am |
  19. Hendrikae Spiwakn

    I've been absent for some time, but now I remember why I used to love this website. Thank you, I’ll try and check back more frequently. How frequently you update your web site?

    July 10, 2012 at 6:13 am |
  20. Janet

    "This is the most severe form of abhorrence and it is used to describe gay relations"

    The Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is based on human ignorance, suspicion of those who are different, and an overwhelming concern for ensuring the survival of the people. Since the Bible regards homosexuality as a capital crime, it clearly assumes that homosexuality is a matter of free choice, a deliberate rebellion against God. We have learned from modern science that people do not choose to be gay or straight; hence it is neither logical nor moral to condemn those whose nature it is to be gay or lesbian.

    July 9, 2012 at 3:22 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 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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.