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.
The writer who is gay and a xtian shows that even gays feel safer with xtians than atheists! Just as atheists prefer xtian friends to other atheists! Why? O xtians read and try to practise the Bible's teachings! Atheist China is more dangerous than Xtian America for gays!
It's hysterical when someone claiming to be Christian can't even follow one of the basic ten commandments. Lying is a sin. Duh!
China was always dangerous and brutal, or haven't you read any of the histories of the Emperors? Same for Russia under the Czars and Cuba under Batista. None of these places were anywhere near what we'd call desirable places to live (unless you were rich, and politically connected) before communism.
Hmmm, I don't see my comment anymore. To many replies and no hateful comments from me. I guess the moderator couldn't have that on this site.
I am not a scholar Im just an average man with an average education. I cant validate that this mans research is true. I cant tell you what the proper translation is of these biblical passages. But basic common sense tells me that every man or woman of any race color or religeon should have the right to love and marry whomever they they want. Provided they are both consenting adult. And although i struggle with the absolute definitions to right and wrong. I know in my heart that it is wrong to judge and force your religeous beliefs on others. If i am going to be judged by my maker in the end for loving another man than thats a risk i will take to be true to my soul and its nobodys buisness but mine.
This f-a-g's research is a lie straight from the pit of h*ll!
This is excatly what Jesus warned us about the last days when the wicked will try turning the truth of God into a lie.
"This f-a-g's research is a lie straight from the pit of h*ll!" So you're going to lie about him for the greater glory of your god? Last I heard, your god didn't like liars much. But you aren't worried about him being real, are you? Heck no.
"This f-a-g's research is a lie straight from the pit of h*ll!"
Try telling that to the hundred of thousands of experts that have proven you wrong.
All things being equal, why can't it be that the author's interpretation is the correct one and the traditional one that you were taught the lie? The "end times" that Jesus spoke about began just as he was dying, so why can't the "scoffers" that 2 Peter 3:3 refers to be elements like Paul who came in later with their own, personal agenda against gays which were not a part of Jesus' teaching? Jesus never said anything against gays, Paul did. Paul also admits to repeating his own personal opinions in his letters. Why can't this have been a mistake then, and the author right? You are interested in learning the truth, right?
Sugarmoma you are a Pedophile go find a real man to calm you ..... … down!
For all you debaters here...
Let's see a hundred years from now if you 'll still harp on the same thing you're harping on now!
If this debate follows the example of women's roles, slavery and civil rights within Christianity then the number of people claiming to be Christian speaking out against gays in a hundred years will be very small indeed. The tide is turning against this bigotry within the Church, and anyone not seeing that is only fooling themselves.
It won't take that long to be honest. Most churches now support gay marriage. A hundred years from now the life of Jesus will be better understood. Not many today think he was blond haired and blue eyed. Chances are 100 years from now people will understand why it hurt Jesus so much when he was betrayed. Some Coptic codics were found in Egypt they have tried to hide them from the public, but if you read them you will know why.
This is the biggest load of horse manure I have ever read! Is this writer really serious? Whoever believe one single word of this article is a fool.
Wow! My thoughts exactly...except I was thinking of those that read the bible.
I'm convinced by your clear, thorough, and well researched rebuttal to this article. We are now all more informed by the time and effort you put into researching and providing solid evidence for your position on this subject.
Why shouldn't they believe it? Detailed rebuttal citing your own scholarship in this matter, please?
Sugarmoma really you use money to get boys because you are scared of a man, but your body was made to react in a positive way when a real man enjoys you. Go find a real man and he will calm your b.... .ss down. Really that's nature as god wanted it!
Liberal christians only serve to confuse LGBT people. The bible is anti-gay, pro-slavery and a number of other ideas that are repugnant to anyone who is truly moral. LGBT people should not support any christian interpretation: one side believes the nonsense, the other side dilutes it to make it something it is not in order to keep educated people tied to their money making machine. The liberal interpretation only serves to keep the conservative faction alive by pretending to share their ideas to a degree.
Yes. This is an interesting argument, but at the end of the day, it's like watching a cricket match when you don't give a crap about cricket. It absolutely should not impact anything related to civil law in the US.
It would start to matter to you if the cricket fans grew, assumed power, and started closing down all the other sports facilities.
Have I started to scare you yet? :-)
Easily, one of the worst articles I have EVER encountered. How does the University of West Georgia even justify employing someone with such an agenda? Its bad enough that you warp the words of the bible into your own meaning (sadly, you are not the only one to have done this...), but the fact that you pose as a "Professor", a "learned individual" with "un-bias" critique...........DISGUSTS ME!!!!!!!! You are everything that is wrong with our Universities.
Oh no! Not the agenda of being educated, using common sense, doing research, and citing references!
Really though, what are you so worried about? With an argument as strong as "nuh uh, this article is wrong because I think it is" you should be fairly safe from those pesky academics.
And your biased, prejudiced agenda and point of view disgust me my dear
Thank you Coug9. You are so right! I can not believe that CNN would even post this mess.
You have the wrong idea about universities; they are allowed to tell you the truth. He's not being paid to cover up the truth with comforting lies. This is the same place that had to fire Newt Gingrich once; they take a dim view of biased teaching. His word is much more reliable than yours, since he clearly references chapter and verse.
Yet another armchair scholar whose only objection to the author's findings is that they don't match theirs. Can you enlighten us as to where he made his supposed mistake in translation, or not?
Really cougar??????? You are a pedo how do you justify going after an early 20 something boy and telling him he has to be what you want him to be even of it's unnatural for him????????? They are boys all the want is s-ex and the best way to keep them around is to give them a BJ. Truth be told the term cougar says it all you really do think the world should revolve around you. Go find a man your own age and shut up when he tries to do what come natural and he will tell you just how beautiful you are (yeah glowing women are beautiful, even though I don't want to touch one) Did you get the part about those living in glass houses not throwing stones yet?
We all know that a cougar and something that claims to be a sugarmoma are basically the same PEDOPHILES what moral high ground could anyone like them have? Just like all pedophiles they are scared to date someone their own age. Both of the need to leave the boys alone and get someone their own age. THEY HAVE NO MORAL GROUND WHAT SO EVER NO MATER WHAT THEY SAY GOD SAYS!
And you should know since that is were you go to find boys that leave you once they know for sure you won't give them a B-J what happened did your self centered the would revolves around you alone BS turn more than one boy gay on you?
I can't believe that everyone has to debate and call names and point fingers! NO ONE will know what is actual till we die and face GOD!!!! I believe what the Bible says...men with men is an abomination....women with women is an abomination..with that said, I don't judge. I don't condone it but if people chose to act upon those feelings then they have to be prepared to face God when they die. They can debate with Him. As for me and my house, we choose to honor the Lord. Amen.
well gee its nice that you dont judge and that you choose to belive that the interpretations of the biblical passages translate to abomination and that your familly chooses to honor the lord. And Im sure the way that your familly honors the lord is by living your lives to the letter of gods law. Im sure you are all free of sin and pure of heart.. But do me a favour.. read your bible again and again and tell me if you really are honoring the lord. You may be the one debating with god on your day of reckoning
So, you say that "NO ONE will know what is actual till we die and face GOD!!!!", but don't you ALREADY claim to know what the Bible says on this matter? You don't condone it and you think it's an "abomination." You also think that this opposition is honoring God. So, if this isn't "judging" then what is?
Leviticus 20:13.........especially the last part.
Nope, they can not, that's they became atheists.
You don't follow all the other primitive tripe in Leviticus... why just that?
Yes, how many youth pastors have you seen lately who aren't covered in tattoos?
Leviticus 19:28 (ESV)
28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.
Oh so you think the holiness code applies to today's Christians huh? Well then we will need to change the laws and women will have to marry their rapist. You won't be able to eat shellfish, wear clothes made of different fibers, etc...etc... Oh...that's right Christians don't follow Lev. LMAO!
People usually have a favorite-sin, one they can't or won't let go of. They will twist meanings of holy books in order to get the PC outcome they desire, an outcome that will justify their actions.
If you mean using scripture to justify being a bigot, then yes.
@Cq...if that's your "pet" sin. In reference to this article, ho-mo-se-xuality would be the one in question, but then you already knew that, didn't you?
People also like to point out things that they, personally, don't have any trouble with as all, but that others do. Since the vast majority of the anti-gay rhetoric seems to be coming from straight people who haven't the slightest attraction towards others of their gender, if this is their "pet" sin, then isn't that rather cowardly? They aren't being tempted and they don't know what it's like to be tempted, yet they judge negatively those who are. That's about as valid as men judging what it's like to be a woman, isn't it?
I hope you were wearing a veil when you posted that, bint.
I've been pretty open that I'm a man, so she must have missed the part in 1 Timothy 2:12 where Paul instructs:
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
According to your bible, you shouldn't be here commenting. Women aren't supposed to talk about matters of doctrine, you should just shut up and do what the men tell you to do. Above all, don't think for yourself.
"Josephus acknowledge Jesus Christ in his writings."
He also acknowledges Hercules, the son of Jupiter, in his writings and all he mentions is "Jesus, who was called Christ". Josephus was a pious Jew, so there was no way that he would be acknowledging Jesus as the son of God, right?
Here is a shorter link talking about how, among other things, nobody every thought the earth was flat.
[vimeo 39912829 w=500 h=281]
Ho-mose-xuality in the 21st century:
ONLY FOR THE NEWCOMERS–-–>>>>
"Abrahamics" believe that their god created all of us and of course that includes the g-ay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.
o The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:
“ Despite almost a century of psy-choanalytic and psy-chological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heteros-exual or hom-ose-xual orientation. It would appear that s-exual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice. "
"Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fe-tal brain develops during the intraut-erine period in the male direction through a direct action of tes-tosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and s-exual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8
See also the Philadelphia Inquirer review “Gay Gene, Deconstructed”, 12/12/2011. Said review addresses the following “How do genes associated with ho-mose-xuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”
Of course, those gays who belong to Abrahamic religions supposedly abide by the rules of no adu-ltery or for-nication allowed.
And because of basic biology differences said monogamous ventures should always be called same-se-x unions not same-se-x marriages.
From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, ga-y s-exual activity is still mutual mas-turbation caused by one or more complex s-exual differences. Some differences are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell.
Why does everyone always say people thought the earth was flat? Nobody ever thought that.
[vimeo 41224717 w=500 h=375]
true.. it only says that earth has four corners.. I mean, a sphere can be upheld by its four corners.. right? right?? eh?
Yup, balls do have all those sharp corners.
They used to burn people at the stake for saying it wasn't, so everyone believed the church thought it was flat. Turns out they knew, but enjoyed the burning too much to stop.
Its easy to point out you are very wrong. "Why does everyone ( really everyone?????? Everyone agrees on something?????? Really?)always say people thought the earth was flat? Nobody (nobody never in the history of the world?) ever thought that. Only one thing can be proven by your statement YOU ARE PRONE TO EXAGGERATION. Now for the kicker the biggest problem the world has is people prone to exaggeration in power. No worries chances are you will never be one of them, you are simply to shallow for that.
Let there be no doubt that if the Bible is wrong on ho-mo$exuality then I will toss mine out the window. What seems to be a driving issue is that you feel that you are being singled out. You are not being singled out. Gay orientation is not a sin in the Bible. It is the heart att-itude which goes against the creator and rejects God. Sin does not have a $exual orientation. Sin is an offense against a Holy God. Drunkeness is a sin in the Bible and Drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Those in AA should all stand up and say the Bible is wrong and give examples of Jesus even making wine. This is how crazy the hom-o$exual argument has become.
Christians sin just like everyone else. The Bible is the story of how God redeems sinful man. If you do not want Gods redemption it is never forced on anyone by God. Those who truly follow Christ are just as kind to gays, drunks etc, , Kindness does not make one a bigot. Understanding sin does not make one a bigot
Regardless if you think it is a sin or not doesn't give you the right to deny them their civil rights. If you are going to use sin as the argument then straights should be denied their civil rights on the same basis, especially since adultery is discussed far more in your book. You know Christians used the same argument of sin to deny biracial marriages and they were proven wrong on that too.
Fred – you stupid ignorant bigot – I'M NOT GAY. It must really bust you môrons chops to think that straight folks can stand and support our gay brothers and sisters. Since I supported civil rights many decades ago,, am I black? Since I marched for ERA am I a woman?
Your very own bible says that lusting in your heart is the same as doing it for real. You cannot be straight or gay without sèxual thoughts – so your whole point is moot.
Look – I don't know how much simpler we can make this – YOUR BIBLE IS WRONG. Being born gay is a natural normal varient of sèxual orientation.
And still, neither you, nor any of these other ignorant hômophobic bigots have had the balls to step up and post the science showing gays choose to be gay.
Why do you refuse to do this Fred?
"Let there be no doubt that if the Bible is wrong on ho-mo$exuality then I will toss mine out the window"
So, should we take that to mean that you're only holding onto yours because you think it gives you license to be a bigot?
I never said being gay is a choice I continue to say it is what you do with your orientation that is a choice. Why is that so hard to understand ? God can allow me to be born blind and it remains a choice as to what I do for or against the Glory of God with my blindness.
The Bible does not say being born gay is natural or unnatural it speaks of $exual depravity as evidence of rejection of God.
And what is the reason that hom.ose.xual acts are considered against god? What reason would there be for your god to oppose same-se.x marriage at all? And also, using your faith as a reason to not allow it is in direct violation of the first amendment.
“And what is the reason that hom.ose.xual acts are considered against god?”
=>In the Old Testament and some of the new a great deal of symbolic picture language of old nomadic tribes are carried forward. Just as the serpent had great symbolic value in its day hom-o$exual references embodied perversion of fleshy desire and lust. The old tribes also ran into $exual and satanic worship feasts that included acts they had never before seen. The Chosen Ones were to be pure and remain separate from Baal worshipers. One of the reasons the Amalekites and Moabites were destroyed was due to their $exual perversion and worship. In short way back anywhere from 4,000 to 12,000 years ago dating back to the generation of Cain purity was the way of the Chosen Ones in reverence to a Holy God. Consider the minds of the men in Sodom that they would desire Lots male visitor over Lots daughters (symbolism of perversion outside of male female relations in a godless society). It is against God because the acts envisioned as written were of a lustful desirous nature with nothing sacred.
“What reason would there be for your god to oppose same-se.x marriage at all?”
=>I am not aware of any reference to same-$ex marriage . Marriage between a man and women is all that is discussed. Marriage brings Glory to God and the husband is to love the wife as Christ loved the Church. Traditions of the old Jewish marriage feasts are of course man and women. Jesus said there will be no marriages in heaven and he was never married. In the beginning man and wife became one flesh united under God and put together by God. I would guess most marriages today are not put together by God (or by implication brought together by God). In short same s.ex marriage never came up nor would it in those days as the sin of hom-o$exuality was a given in the Jewish faith. Jesus commented on the churches allowing promiscuous behavior of its members as being in the wrong. Jesus also commented on lust of the eye and flesh but never singled out any particular form of lust. Marriage was not necessary until after sin came in Garden when what was natural was broken by desire for what God warned man not to touch. They realized they were naked and God covered their nakedness. The need to action towards purity was not necessary until impure thoughts apart from God entered our mind. Not defiling the marriage bed and the sanct-ity of marriage was in terms of male female husband wife and in no other way.
That said God is no more opposed to same $ex marriage as any other marriage that is put together according to man rather than the ways of the Lord.
“And also, using your faith as a reason to not allow it is in direct violation of the first amendment”
=>The Bible does not mention same $ex marriage. I use my faith to answer the question will same $ex marriage cause innocent people to stumble. The answer is yes. My faith will have me cast a vote against anything that would cause harm to anyone. The harm would be in anything that keeps someone from believing in Christ which has eternal consequences. If I can be convinced that this does not cause anyone to fall away from Christ the benefits from a secular view would push me to be ok with it.
I had posted a request(for the bajillionth+ 11th time) for one of the fundiots who claim gays choose to be gay, to post the citations to peer-reviewed scientific research that shows gays choose to be gay.
And "a person of the name wrote", "Alright here's the thing, I did a little digging and what I found didn't surprise me much. Many, many studies have been done and they all say its something else. Not one thing is proven but I did notice a trend that a person's envorment can lead to ppl being gay. If that's true then its a choice. Same as a person can choose to hurt someone or not, do to a abbusive father/mother. Look for yourselves its all there."
Normally the fundiots just refuse to answer, igore it, and then post the exact same cràp. This fundiot claimed he found many studies showing gays choose to be gay>
Numerous folks asked him to post the citations to these studies. And this fundiot had the freaking balls to reply, " I've done my digging I don't have time to set and debate. Look for yourselves."
This simply show the profound lies these cretins will tell. If this môron had found so much as one citation, he and the other fundiots would be screaming it from the roof-tops.
Let me quote myself again since you are not getting the message:
Orientation is not a choice. What you do with your orientation is a choice.
"Orientation is not a choice. What you do with your orientation is a choice."
It's still not a valid argument for denying them their civil rights.
so, fred, god wants people to not use the orientation "he" gave them? does "he" want them to live a life with physical intimacy?
Fred, that is as stupid as saying that folks are born left-handed, they just can't be allowed to use their left hands.
Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all else will be given onto you. It all falls together perfectly when we follow that principle. Few if any can lead the life that glorifies God and this is why we are thankful for the grace of mercy received through Jesus. The Bible also makes it clear that anything you give up in this life for the Glory of God will be repaid 100 fold. Our life span is say 120 years which relative to eternal life is all but non-existent. So, what did you really give up or gain when it comes to a saying no to adultery or anything else?
Now, the Bible goes further to say this is not possible with man but all things are possible with God who will bring you through. It always circles back to whom you really trust. The Bible constantly circles the same theme since the beginning: man rejects God, God prepares a way for man and man returns to unity with God. If you reject God and or the way you can never have unity with God.
Pleasure and desire is an obstacle not the solution to finding the way. This is why the Bible puts so much emphasis on it starting with Eve who looked at the fruit and desired it.
"The Bible also makes it clear that anything you give up in this life for the Glory of God will be repaid 100 fold."
Isn't that an argument for general celibacy and not just for gays? Are you suggesting that EVERYONE should abstain from $ex? If not, then why can't gays give up whatever it is that straight people do for the Glory of God? That would be fair, wouldn't it?
“If not, then why can't gays give up whatever it is that straight people do for the Glory of God? That would be fair, wouldn't it?”
=>We are to die to self and live as Christ. As I mentioned this is impossible for man. The rich man had to give up everything of value to him and follow Christ but, could not. We all have a cross to carry when we choose first the Kingdom of God.
I have no idea what separates specific individuals or groups from God but we do know sin is at the root. Yes, both straights and gays must give up that which separates them from God. In some cases it could be the same thing.
Where in life do get this notion of fair? Jesus even told Ananias Saul would learn how to suffer for Christ. Jesus was nailed to a cross following a trial that was illegal even by the Sanhedrin’s own rules. God stood by while Lazarus received nothing from the rich man and dogs licked his sores.
=>it is not always about $ex it relates to that which caused Eve to turn her head, the rich young ruler that missed out on walking with God or the most glorious of Angels to turn away from God. $ex and or pride of life is very close to the top of the list of distracters.
Wrong hand, if your right hand causes you to sin cut it off. The Bible does not tell us what to do with our left hand.............oops we need that to cut off the right hand
I read you post several times and I'm not sure you answered my question. Why is it that only gays are being asked to be celibate? The disciples were called away from their wives and families. Assuming that at least most of them were straight, why aren't you arguing for general celibacy like Paul did? Why do you assume that gay relationships are more "distracting" than straight ones? Are you suggesting that they love each other MORE than we love our partners? That their love is superior?
“Why is it that only gays are being asked to be celibate?”
=>Gays are asked to do exactly what everyone else is. Believe in Christ.
“why aren't you arguing for general celibacy like Paul did?”
=>Jesus said only some were made for celibacy by God and even Paul said few can do it.
“ Why do you assume that gay relationships are more "distracting" than straight ones?”
=>I don’t. Each of us have gifts and weakness which are taken into account by Christ
“ Are you suggesting that they love each other MORE than we love our partners?”
“ That their love is superior?”
Christ gave us the model of love that few can achieve. That is the only love that is superior.
But, to you, believing in Christ entails celibacy only for gays? Assuming that the Bible writers were all straight men this seems rather conveniently unfair, doesn't it?
The credibility of this wirter is highly suspect. He says simply that the bible cannot mean what it plainlly says because we cannot understand the language (Hebrew and Greek) It is obvious he does not and the words that are used leave little for debate. It is always the case if you dont like what it says, just say it says it but does not mean it. Come on guys, it is clear and apparent, dont show your foolishness and try believing what it says even if you dont agree with it. Don't make up bogus argument that are not supported by true translation and history.
None of it plainly says anything. Everybody's got their own way of interpreting it, to their own ends.
"Come on guys, it is clear and apparent, dont show your foolishness and try believing what it says even if you dont agree with it. Don't make up bogus argument that are not supported by true translation and history."
That's why there are now gay churches, gay clergy and pastors writing apology letters to gay community because it's so apparent. LOL!
Don't worry Sammy your prejudice is safe here. Now go and be a good little Christian and kill your son and sell your daughter as a se.x slave. That's also in your "good" book.
Yet another armchair scholar who dismisses the author's work out of hand without actually demonstrating where the supposed mistakes were made. Come on, show us where the author mistranslates the words in question. Show everyone HOW he got it wrong. You can do that, can't you?
"Don't make up bogus argument that are not supported by true translation and history."
Funny how the writer of the article actually used historical sources and translation references to backup his points whereas you did not...
Throwing aside reason and evidence in favor of what "feels" right is the very basis of Christian belief, isn't it?
The bible plainly says to kill your child if he disobeys you, to kill g.ays, to kill anyone who works on the sabbath, that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, and that David sent a man into the front lines of battle because he wanted to do the deed with the guy's wife (yet David was "beloved of God").
If it is all an opinion, then you tell me where the Bible does NOt talk about any of those statements that I mentioned.
Use the reply link.
If you want to gauge your average Catholic's ability to suspend reality to accomodate their beliefs, go to a Catholic mass. It's amazing. They actually have a ceremony where the priest supposedly turns grocery store bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus by doing some magic/sacred gestures and muttering special words over it.
Catholics actually believe this!! Even though there is no change in the bread and wine, they convince themselves it is somehow the flesh and blood of Jesus. Not just the little children either, but grown adults.
Then they eat it! How weird is that!
Sorry, but how is anything that the Catholics do any weirder than speaking in tongues, handling snakes, "Prosperity" Gospel, or waiting for the rapture?
If you want to make it to heaven, you have to become a cannibal. What's so strange about that?
The godless ones look at the purpose and meaning in the life of a dead rat and a dead human to be one in the same. They can look you in the eye and see nothing but organic matter and chemical reaction exhibiting responses to internal and external stimuli.
Then they swallow it hook line and sinker. How weird is that?
Your a sorry excuse for a humanbeing.
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.