home
RSS
Your Take: Rebuttals to rethinking the Bible on homosexuality
What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Readers responded to a professor's views on the issue.
May 17th, 2012
02:10 PM ET

Your Take: Rebuttals to rethinking the Bible on homosexuality

The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality - and, by extension, same-sex marriage - right?

A guest "My Take" post we ran this week from a college psychology professor who has a background in religion (he was ordained a Roman Catholic priest, for instance) challenged that conventional wisdom.

The professor, Daniel A. Helminiak, argues that foes of same-sex marriage have assigned modern, ethics-laden meanings to biblical passages on homosexuality to make it seem like the Bible unequivocally condemns it. In fact, Helminiak proposes, the original meanings of such passages about gays are at the very least ambiguous.

The piece has generated an avalanche of response: 10,000 Facebook shares, 6,000 comments, 200 tweets and a couple of blog posts.  Giving the other side its say, here's a rebuttal roundup of critical reactions from across the Internet:

Kevin DeYoung, a conservative Christian blogger, calls Helminiak's piece "amazing for including so many bad arguments in so little space." DeYoung, who leads a Reformed Church in Michigan, challenges Helminiak's argument that the biblical tale of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't condemn homosexuality per se.

"Jude 7 states that Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities 'indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,' " DeYoung writes.

"Even the NRSV, translation of choice for the mainline (and the version Helminiak seems to be using), says 'pursued unnatural lust,' ” he continues, referring to the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

"Clearly, the sins of Sodom lived in infamy not simply because of violent aggression or the lack of hospitality, but because men pursued sex with other men."

DeYoung also takes issue with our guest blogger's argument that the Greek term the New Testament writer Paul uses when describing homosexuality, para physin, has been misconstrued by modern translators to mean "unnatural." Helminiak says that the original term does not contain ethical judgment and should be translated instead as "atypical" or "unusual."

Absurd, says DeYoung. "We know Paul considered same-sex intercourse an ethical violation, and not simply something uncommon. ... (N)otice what Paul goes on to say: 'Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error' (NRSV)."

DeYoung writes, "When you read the whole verse, Helminiak’s 'nonethical' argument becomes implausible. Paul thought homosexuality not just unusual, but wrong, a sinful error deserving of a 'due penalty.' '"

On Facebook, Helminiak’s piece, "My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality," provoked a mix of positive and negative response. Some of the latter was very, very negative.

"The following article appeared on the front page of CNN. ... I was so grieved and troubled, I had to respond to the writer," Vince Smith wrote on his Facebook page Thursday. "This is what is most tragic and terrifying about beliefs on homosexuality in this nation.

"When you take Scripture and twist it to 'reinterpet' what it means, and then teach others, you are literally playing with fire ... eternal fire," Smith continued. "I pray that The Lord has mercy on Mr. Helminiak."

Readers' comments on the piece included much criticism, too (although there was plenty of support for Helminiak’s argument).

"Daniel's argument misses the glaringly obvious condemnation of gay sex in the Bible," writes a commenter named Mike Blackadder. "Catholics believe it is a mortal sin when it is premarital, masturbatory, and when we deny the possibility of conceiving children (i.e., through the use of contraceptives).

"Unfortunately, the faith suggests that gay sex falls under the same category as these others and if we interpret differently for gays, then we must accept a new interpretation of these other acts for the same reason," Blackadder writes. "The corollary is that if your faith accepts hetero impurities (such as contraceptives or [masturbation]) but condemns gays, then you may be rightfully accused of hypocrisy."

Many commenters avoided quibbling with Helminiak’s logic, instead taking aim at the piece's very existence.

"Why can't gays leave other people's sacred things alone?" asks a commenter named iqueue120. "Instead of redefining 'marriage,' just call your pervert juncture 'pirripipirripi.' We will grant you and your 'pirripipirripi-other' all the 'rights' that you want.

"You can write your own sacred book, call it, for instance, 'Pirripipirripible,' and make it teach how awesome is 'pirripipirripi,'" this commenter continues. "... All we ask in exchange is that you leave 'marriage' and 'Holy Bible' as they are."

On Twitter, most RTs, or retweets, endorsed the piece, but not all. "Another pastor,"  tweeted @BarbRoyal "trying to pretend the ugly parts out of the Xtian (Christian) bible. ..."

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Bible • Comments • Gay marriage

soundoff (3,580 Responses)
  1. Blaxshep

    Who care what the bible says it is a stupid fairy tale

    May 18, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Deborah Torres

      You argue about fairytales? HHHMMM LOL

      May 18, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • Lucy

      Gee, everything that's going on around us has been prophesied in the Bible. I've been studying it for 35 years. Ain't no fairytale.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • Deborah Torres

      Disneyworld is a fairytale check that out too. Its a fun place...

      May 18, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Magic

      Lucy,
      "Gee, everything that's going on around us has been prophesied in the Bible."

      Like what?

      Earthquakes? Duh.
      Famine? Duh.
      Floods? Duh.
      Wars between nations? Duh.

      p.s. Here's some stuff predicted/imagined ("prophesied") by science-fiction authors that have come true too:

      http://www.neatorama.com/2009/05/05/10-things-science-fiction-got-right/

      May 18, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
  2. Topher

    It is a 2,000 year old book written by men, edited by men, and translated by men, over and over. If someone wants to cherry pick their morals from it, go head. However, we should not make laws based on those morals in a civil arena where people of all faiths and logics are subject to them.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Shawn L

      Exactly

      May 18, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • Deborah Torres

      I agree Tell your president that.... And all these lawmakers who change laws and ammend all laws to get their way

      May 18, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Clear and succint. If you don't mind, I'm going to keep this...

      May 18, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      I'll credit you appropriately

      May 18, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
  3. Kiddo

    Why should we believe anything written by men in an archaic language thousands of years ago who believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe?

    May 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • serveJBR

      because they might have been correct, like sin hurts, love makes the world go around etc., just read it

      May 18, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Lucy

      Actually, in Job it says the world is round, along with many other true scientific facts. You should read it sometime and your eyes may be opened.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Deborah Torres

      Why should we believe men TODAY! thats a better question. The Bible stands and IS !

      May 18, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
  4. Lucy

    If God doesn't judge America, He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • Voxovreeson

      Max Von Sydow: "If Jesus were to return today he'd probably never stop throwing up."

      May 18, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • sam stone

      there is no judgment, lucy. that has been a stick hanging over man's head for millenia

      May 18, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Observer

      The sin of Sodom was GREED not gays. Read the Bible.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Deborah Torres

      Tell him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AMEN

      May 18, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • sam stone

      Vox: From HANNAH AND HER SISTERS?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • RG

      God has already judged America and found her guilty. The Bible is very plain that the acts of being gay are an abomination and they stink in nostrils of God. If he doesn't punish America than he will have to raise Sodom and Gomorrah up and apologize to them. It is in the Old Testament and the New testament that God is against men being with men, woman being with woman, and mankind being with beasts. You are not born gay but you have a devil on you that makes you act that way. We christians are not against the person but we are against principalities that are against God.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      LET's Religiosity Law #1 – If you use words and phrases like: "You are not born gay but you have a devil on you that makes you act that way." Then you are definitely mentally retarded.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • Voxovreeson

      Sam Stone-

      Yes.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • Frank

      What does God say about lying…George Bush told the biggest lie in American History and countless American lives have been lost and billions of American dollars… What does God say about having more than one wife…but many of you are willing to endorse a President that has a religion that condones the behavior… What does God say about feeding the poor and the disenfranchised…yet you all are giving tax breaks to the wealthy… What does God say about the racism in the world today…yet America is the biggest perpetrators…What does God say about stealing and taking from the poor…there is no bigger perpetrators than America…Therefore when America is judged {and she will be judged} this problem is just one of many that will be at the top of the list. So stop being a hypocrite when it is racism/discrimination that is your real issues!

      May 18, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • Becky

      Don't worry, He'll let you know first, so you don't have to turn around and turn in to salt!! You should be cool to let others live their lives as they see fit.

      May 18, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
  5. Jim456

    @Erik: Gay gene. I do not think there is one. But maybe it is an illness of some sort with no name yet. Nobody knows. Till then, let´s call it choice like it may be a choice to brush your teeth with jack every morning – if someone chooses to.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • DeeCee1000

      The sickness is in your head if you still believe in 2000 yr old myths. Do your country a huge favor and go get professional help. . .then go open a science book and learn something intelligent for a change.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Jim, there is more evidence to show that people are born gay than there is proof of any god. Religion is more unnatural than hom0se.xuaity.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Justin

      Fifty billion gay people could march to your house right now and tell you that they were born gay and you would not take that into consideration. You have CHOSEN your narrative and you are sticking with it – FINE, but few will believe you compared with fifty billion other testimonies.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Gay gene. I do not think there is one. But maybe it is an illness of some sort with no name yet. Nobody knows. Till then, let´s call it choice"

      The experts disagree with you. 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."

      May 18, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "@Erik: Gay gene. I do not think there is one"

      Don't you just love it when someone shows their poor reading comprehension skills, typical of Christians. LMAO!

      May 18, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • sam stone

      it is not a choice, jimbo

      May 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Jim456

      @ Justin: 50 Billion? Let´s have party. The ticket price is $1

      May 18, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Lucy

      DeeCee1000: There's more scientific facts in the Bible than in science books. It talks about the earth being a sphere (Isaiah 40:22), ocean currents (Psalm 8:8), embryonic development (Job 10:10), the jetstream (Eccl 1:6), plant processes (1 Cor 15:36-38, soil conservation (Leviticus 25:3-5), astronomy (Amos 5:8) and so on!

      May 18, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • closet atheist

      Jimbo, you have been completely owned on this thread... and all you can come back with is a snarky remark about an exaggerated number...?? What have you got to say in defense of your ignorance on the topic that you brought up (this so-called gay "illness")...??

      May 18, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
  6. Wisconsin

    Is this all the democrats can deliver, gay rights, so-called free birth control and an expensive HC social program that is 1/5 of GDP. We need jobs and a good economy. I guess it is true that the dems are usually the big spenders.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Kandric

      Georege Bush Jr and Ronald Reagan were the biggest spenders in US presidential history. Both Republican.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • Duly elected Gov. Walker

      Thank you Wisconsin for your support!!

      May 18, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • Voxovreeson

      Yeah, right. Instead of focusing on the debt, which is the difference between spending and tax receipts, go look up the actual spending by the government over the last 40 years. You'll see a somewhat different picture of who the 'big spenders' are. It's easy to cast around a slogan of 'Democrats are big spenders' if you have no interest in looking at the facts. It's a shame they don't have some sort of exam people have to pass before they can pull the damn lever in a voting booth.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • DeeCee1000

      Yeah, human rights aren't important. . . if you're an evil person.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Wisconsin

      wrong kan – Obama has added more to the debt in less then 4yrs then Bush did in 8. Plus I said "usually" which does not mean they are the only ones. The last batch of GOP where big debt adders and that is why most have been voted out. But how can you complain when your party has yet to pass a budget. I find it amazing how fast liberals will complain about gopo spending when their party is out of control on it. Plus the gop is finally practicing what they preach on debt and spending.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Eva

      Darling! Democrats would not have to focus on gay rights if the Republicans would come in from the 5th century.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Voxovreeson

      Apparently it bears repeating for Wisconsin– debt is a combination of spending and tax receipts to the government. The biggest contributor to the current budget deficits are reduced tax receipts due to the long-term recession and the Bush tax cuts, which were arguably the stupidest political gimmick in the last hundred years. Look at actual $$s spent and not just the budget deficit, and a different picture emerges. Government has cut 100k jobs in the last two years. Show me the last Republican president that pulled that off.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Wisconsin

      I totally agree vox about taking an exam prior to voting. I will bet the dems will loose out on that one. You have omnipotent flaming liberals that think they know more then they actually do and the rest of the party is comprised of welfare/border jumpers and union workers who remind me of horses with blinders on so they can only see what the union stewards want them to see. The later 2-3 groups are all voting themselves money, other peoples money.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Voxovreeson

      Wisconsin- yep. You've accurately described the Democratic Party. And me. Thanks. Didn't know that about myself. Now go take your medicine and strap on your aluminum helmet so you can get another set of instructions from wherever you're receiving this crap from.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Wisconsin

      Vox – it is about spending and income collection both of which are out of whack. And yes Obama & dems have continued Bush tax cuts but renamed them. When they had super majority they could have put taxes back to the levels under Clinton terms (I agree with doing) but instead focused entirely on another massive expensive social program. You flaming liberals talk out both cheeks. You complain about Bush spending but not Obama’s. You want more stimuli but fail to understand Bush tax cuts are the same thing. They have put trillions back into the pockets of every working citizen. And yes I will match my education and life’s experiences against yours any day.

      May 18, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • Voxovreeson

      Wisconsin- "And yes I will match my education and life’s experiences against yours any day."
      *****************************************************************
      OK...but this academic version of whipping the bad boys out is likely to make you look like you just climbed out of a northern Wisconsin farm pond–in January.

      May 18, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
  7. Peter E

    According to the Bible, disobedient children must be put to death. The same goes for people who work on Sundays. And yet we ignore those parts of the Bible.
    Even if you only take the New Testament, we ignore and cherrypick. According to the Bible, women should have not authority over men ever, shouldn't teach men, but remain silent and obedient around men.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Robert

      And you take it out of context. The OT laws were for Jews under the old covenant. And when Paul said that he does not put a woman in authority over a man or let women teach men, he meant within the church. He was writing the letter to Timothy, who was leading the church in Ephesus. Paul didn't write to him to talk about how we are to run businesses or set up governments.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Bob

      The writers of the bible had no understanding of the non-stoppable mouths of women.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Lucy

      You have it all wrong. For one thing, women are never told to stay silent around men. What about Esther, who spoke up to the king to save Israel, or Phoebe or Priscilla: "Give my greetings to Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in the ministry of Christ Jesus." Romans 16:3 BTW: Submission to a man isn't a bad thing, when the rest of that little story says that the man must love the woman as himself and lay down his life for her. It's a mutually good relationship.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Observer

      Robert,

      So God just saved his most mindless commands for the Jews?

      It's the SAME GOD. Get serious.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Voxovreeson

      Bob- Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. I'm pretty sure he had a very good notion of what you are describing.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
  8. Techsupport

    They're all going to he'll anyway, if it's real at all. All of those sins are just as grievous as any others, and its not like straight people don't sin. They say that gays just have to give up on being gay, but I don't see them giving up judgement of others. They're no better.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
  9. Richard Marks

    Who CARES what some stone age mythological book says about anything?

    May 18, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • Insanity Today

      Apparently a lot of people...

      May 18, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • If horses had Gods ... their Gods would be horses

      "Apparently a lot of people..." who can't, don't want to or are afraid to make their own decisions.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • Wisconsin

      Who cares is right, about gay marriage.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
  10. Insanity Today

    Why the battle with the bible anyways? Just curious. If you choose to be gay, go be gay, why do you care what the bible says? Or what "bible thumpers" think? It is all just a mythological book of fairy tales right?

    May 18, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • Ed

      Because this book has been used as a tool for generations to thwart the lives of gay people. It has been used to get them fired from teaching jobs, run out of town, jailed, thrown out of the military, beaten and tied to a fence in Wyoming and used to suppress their relationships, belittle their existence, thwart their progress and keep them in second class status. Next dumb question?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • Voxovreeson

      A lot of people care what religious people think because there are a lot of religious people who use the Bible as the basis for their opinion of what US law should be. Get religious concepts out of the legal process and there would be far fewer people who would care about whether someone was religious, or whether the Bible was factual.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • Erik

      "If you choose to be gay, go be gay"

      All major medical professional organizations concur that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. You can't choose to be gay. The American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European Psychological, Psychiatric, and Medical Associations all agree with this, as does the World Health Organization and the medical organizations of Japan, China, and most recently, Thailand. Furthermore, attempts to change one's sexual orientation can be psychologically damaging, and cause great inner turmoil and depression, especially for Christian gays and lesbians.

      The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.

      On the second point, that there is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"

      Many of these reparative "therapists" are basing this concept on a random Bible verse or two. When you hold those up against the mountain of scientific research that has been conducted, peer-reviewed, and then peer-reviewed again, it absolutely holds no water. A person's sexuality – whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual – is a very deep biological piece of who that person is as an individual.

      The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.

      Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).

      There are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.

      Whether or not something is a choice is not a suitable criterion for whether someone should have equal rights and protections. Religion is indisputably a choice, but that fact is a not a valid argument for discriminating against a particular religion.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Kandric

      I just wanted to say, Ed, wow. Well said, thank you.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Yeah to keep them oppressed. Not like there are and have been Gay and Lesbian Christians, ministers, pastors, Decons..... entirely open Gay and Lesbian churches.

      Might it just mean that you view the Bible in the same fashion and mindset as Pat Robertson and the 700 club folks?

      Just another interesting thing. Many Gay and Lesbians view the Bible and Faith and find the positive messages and lessons. Then we turn to Othodox Christians and Radical Atheist and they look at the Bible and agree on interpretations of the text.

      Amazing the folks you find on the same side. 🙂

      May 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • DeeCee1000

      Mark from the River. . . . good people have always existed, no religion has a claim on "goodness" although most will try to convince you that they do. The term Gay "Christians" is as silly as Gay "Republicans". The reason I don't follow the bible but choose instead to just do the best I can at being a decent human being, just as human beings have done since the beginning of our existence, is because the bible and religions in general are too evil for my own standard. They always rely on dividing human beings, causing discrimination, bigotry, hatred and wars. All of these wonderful things are in the "dna" of religions. They could not survive without those things.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>"The term Gay "Christians" is as silly as Gay "Republicans". "

      ... Well the Gay Republicans are the ones that sucessfully pushed for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell when Obama has done what for the Gay Repubicans?

      Just let you know, I a African American Republican ... and contrary to the Al Sharptons of the world we also exist.

      May 18, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
  11. Jim456

    The Bible was rewritten several times. People left stuff out, added stuff and twisted many parts. When in doubt, let´s rewrite it again.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • n8263

      It would be nice for CNN to do an article on the origins of the Bible.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Insanity Today

      Maybe there should be a National Gay Standard version of the Bible, where all those nasty anti-gay verses are taken out...

      May 18, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Insanity Today

      @n8263, nah that would require people to think... They would never do that.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • Colin

      n8263 Bart Ehman's tapes are great.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • Deborah Torres

      Read the last verse in the BIble

      May 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • calijim

      ave no fear it will be. the last time the bible was re-translated was during the reign of paul vi. a lot has changed since the '60's!

      May 18, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      n8243.... CNN Belief Blog has had articles on the orgins of the Bible .... and guess what, the responces do not change and we still end up with the same

      1. Each side already aware of the other sides arguments. Mostly because folks have heard the same rehashed arguments from others on both sides for all of their lives.

      2. Each side has some person to think themselves clever and post a comment or worst recomend a video that they think is the ultimate piece that will convert the other side.

      3. The trolls will come ...they always do... just to reduce any dialouge to name calling flame wars.

      The most we can get is a stalemate n8, and only for the extremes on both sides that it is unacceptable and the only thing they can agree on.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • Lucy

      All versions of the Bible have been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek. And if you don't think God is big enough to keep His book in order, then you're ignorant.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • Jacques Strappe, World Famous French Ball Juggler

      So Mark... it's like a debate or something? Good observations.

      You know, I'm glad atheists have said what they said in the past on places like this. It has planted the seed which helped me to start thinking for myself.

      May 18, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
  12. André

    One hint: god is imaginary.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • Lucy

      One fact: God is real.

      May 18, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
  13. Insanity Today

    As always, people will try to twist the Bible to condone what they are doing. But the Bible, old and new testament is clear on the gay lifestyle. Just like many other human foibles, It is wrong. We are not to condemn, as all have sinned. But to try to twist the bible into saying something that that is wrong is right is insane.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • BRC

      @Insanity,
      I agree, what is much easier and makes more sense is to just disregard the book as anything more than a long collection of parables and move on.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • If horses had Gods ... their Gods would be horses

      Why do you need to consult the Bible about what to believe is right and wrong? Don't you have any sense of your own that you need to look it up?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • Insanity Today

      So where does the "sense" of write and wrong come from? It is bred into our conscious over billions of years of evolution? How do we know what is right and wrong? Where does that knowledge come from?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Kandric

      We know what is wright and wrong based on a long history of kindness and various religions...one religion does not hold the key to morality. People do.

      Instinct provided a lot of what we now call morals. Before the human brain was as developed as it was today, before we were this educated, treating others with kindness and respect was innate. In order to survive in a dangerous world, we had to stick together. A pack mentality. As free will became more prevalent they became morals and rules, rather than innate actions. As humans learn and understand the world and themselves better, our morals and values have evolved with us. Religion often halts that moral evolution, at least until people realise how silly they were being.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • If horses had Gods ... their Gods would be horses

      Insanity today .. it comes from experience, life and social interaction. In other words living in reality, not from a book. Common sense is something every human gains as they grow and learn naturally.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Ed

      You are assuming that everyone gives the same weight to the bible. Christians always come at you from this context. Your argument falls moot when talking to nonbelievers or highly skeptical individuals. Your religion requires all gay people to exclude their true feelings of love. You can not change the heart no matter how hard you try.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • John

      "But the Bible, old and new testament is clear on the gay lifestyle"

      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.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Well said, John.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Russ

      @ John: read the linked Kevin DeYoung piece in the above article. He deals with most of your concerns. the Bible is abundantly clear here.
      [where the article says "calls Helminiak's piece" in blue]

      May 18, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
  14. Human being

    This whole issue is rather comically moot. Just because some book on mythology might or might not say one thing or another is absurd in the extreme. To place such credence in fanciful literature that it brings such strife is further cause to question the sense of those individuals' sanity.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • WellPutJack

      I couldn't have put it better myself. Mind boggling.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
  15. Josh

    It is funny however people choose to use the excuse the bible was written by men. The bible was written by man through the inspiration of god. You know, there are many books written out there by men and women. Are we not to believe anything they say because they were written by men? I was not at the civil war. But I believe it happened. When I read books about the civil war I believe it to be fact. I was not there nor was anyone else there that is alive today. We have faith that it happened. Yes we have physical proof that it occured but we were not there. But we also have physical proof that alot of the stuff in the bible also happened. They have found remains of Sodom and Gamorrah with burnt foundations just like the bible said.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • Chuck

      Civil War books are not offering eternal life for a small donation to the new west wing of the church. Get real!

      May 18, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • Madtown

      The bible was written by man through the inspiration of god.
      ----–
      How do you know? You're arrogant if you think you can know the thinking and doings of God. You believe the word was inspired by God, because that's what the human authors of the word tell you.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • Josh

      Chuck, it is the same concept. one is on religion and christianity, and the other was on a war. Tell me how I am worng Chuck?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • BRC

      @Josh,
      You can't seriously be making that comparison. We have PICTURES of the civil war. The can still see the buildings involved. You are providing the "burned" foundation of a builing that you believe was part of a city from thousands of years ago, that you know was burned by raining sulfer called down by "God", and not just a burned piece of wood. Sorry, that is NOT equivicol evidence.

      Also, when history books start pushing agendas, people DO take into account they were written by men, and they start comparing them to other sources to try and find the truth and verify facts. that verification doesn't exist for much of the bible, and not because there aren't other books that are as old. Isn't that a bit contradictory to teh bible's truth?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • SkepticOne

      There is a difference between a book on the civil war, backed by EVIDENCE and hundreds of independent testimony, and the bible, written over 2,000 years ago with no evidence (all the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah prove is that there actually was a place called Sodom and Gomorrah, that's like saying because London exists, everything in Harry Potter is true.) and no testimony, save from a few religious nut-job rebels. (Sounds kinda like Al Qaeda when you think about it...)

      May 18, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Josh

      Ok you are saying pictures...How the revolutionary war or anything before cameras were around. You are not going to say that paintings are ok, are you?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • Josh

      Again, now you are saying testimonies and such. NO ONE WAS THERE!!! You are believing what other people have past down through generations and stories. There is no difference between if it was 150 years ago, or if it was 2000 years ago.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • Colin

      Josh, one principal difference is that stories about the Civil War do NOT involve a 6,000 year old Universe, a talking snake, a man rising from the dead, a man living in a whal'e's belly, a virgin birth, a census that required everybody in the entire Roman Empire to return to their place of ancestry, the Red Sea splitting, water turning into wine, spirits, devils, a worldwide flodd that killed all life on Earth, ghosts, wandering stars and the other obviously mythological nonsense that is in the Bible.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • Colin

      By the way, you have misrepresented the "remains of sodom and Gamorrah". We do not "have them" and even if archeologists were able to identify ruins of ancient cities that could be identifiead as Sodom and/or Gamorrah, that says nothing about what transpired there. We have Roman ruins, but that doesn't mean we believe Zeus sacked the city.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • Chuck

      @josh I don't know how to be any clearer. Historical books don't offer everlasting life. They don't ask us to believe in the metaphysical and most are not 2,000 years old. Would you believe in any messiah who walked out of Palestine today? No.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • BRC

      @Josh,
      There is ENORMOUS difference between 2 hundred years and 2 thousand. We can dig up the bodies, we can find artifacts (that can be scienifically corolated to teh period), and we can compare all that to what is TRUE today, that they Brittish were here and in Control, and now they're not. It cannot fill in the finer points- Who said what to who, who had loved ones, what specific individuals did; that is all heresay and must be taken with a grain of salt. But in teh case of the revolutionary war the passed down description is plausible, in keeping with the laws of physics, and makes sense give the world we CAN observe today. NONE of that can be said about biblical tails.

      And as pointed out by another commenter, there are corroborating accounds for evens from hundreds, even thousands of years back. That is not the case with the bible. It is only tru in itself. Even if you provide eveidence that the places in the NT were real (I hope we can ll agree that everything about Genesis and Moses was fiction), it only shows they layed the story over a real map, not that there was any divinity involved; or that the events/conversations went as stated.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Russ

      @ madtown: as I said to you earlier today, the Bible addresses your concern here.
      "we thank God that when we came to you, you did not receive our words as merely the word of men, but as it really is – the word of God." (1 Thess.2:13)
      "all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting & training in righteousness..." (2 Tim.3:16)
      "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet.1:21)

      Now, I expect you to call this a circular argument – but look in the mirror. How can you preclude the possibility that the Infinite chose to use finite means to express Him/her/itself? it is equally a faith-based commitment on your part to come to the opposite conclusion.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • Josh

      You guys are not seeing my point. There is NO difference in believing something that was written 2000 years ago or believing something that was written 200 years ago. It all has to be faith no matter what the subject. You can not argue with that. Whether you believe the world was created by god or an atomic explosion, it takes faith. You can believe the bible written by man, or believe scientists that have nothing but theories about how the world came into existence. Either way, it is faith not fact. Unless you are a true bible believing christian, than you take it as fact. but you have to believe through faith. No different then with science. Creation by science can not be proven. They are all theories.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Madtown

      Russ
      @ madtown: as I said to you earlier today, the Bible addresses your concern here.
      --------
      I'm not sure any reasonable person can accept a line of scripture, as evidence that the scripture itself is the inspired word of God. Again....it was written by men, men who want you to think that way. Now, how can I preclude the "possibility" this has occurred? I don't, never have. I'm simply skeptical, and appeal to reason. I don't know! Nor do you. I do not trust the fallibility in human beings, especially when they claim to "know" details of an infallible God. At least I'm not the arrogant one asserting I have all the answers.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • sam stone

      "The bible was written by man through the inspiration of god."

      An awfully bold statement to make. Support it, if you can

      May 18, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • AverageJoe76

      Josh, I believe you started with a bad analogy, the Civil War is too recent to compare to the Bible in terms of what we can prove and what's taken on faith. One main difference; newspaper clippings of Civil War events can be retreived from that era.

      May 18, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • AverageJoe76

      Josh, the other issue is this statement, "Whether you believe the world was created by god or an atomic explosion, it takes faith. You can believe the bible written by man, or believe scientists that have nothing but theories about how the world came into existence. Either way, it is faith not fact" Here's the difference between religion & science; I can prove scientists wrong, I have no way of proving or disproving God. That alone moves science into a realm I can feasibly touch and connect with. I can make observations, conduct experiments, and form theories. Religion pretty much draws a line in the sand and dares you to cross it. You either have faith, or you don't. No inbetween, no rebuttal.

      May 18, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
  16. Neil

    I can take all those versus and mold them into whatever I please. The same as you have, and the same as everyone else has. One thing all of you seem to forget is that these supposed apostles were men, flesh, blood, bone...just as you and I. With minds that worked the same as ours, taking in information and processing it the same way (with limited worldly intelligence I may add). A bunch of authors and artists looking to spread their work, and it was accomplished, mostly because only a very very low percentage of the known world at that time could even read or write or comprehend basic knowledge that we take for granted today.

    And why all these Paul quotations?!?! He never walked with Jesus, never spoke of his miracles, never sat at the table with him, nothing.

    Fear breeds condemnation. Just ask the Natives and anyone of color.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
  17. One simple question

    Why believe the Bible?
    No circular logic please.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • Andy

      It is an insurance policy. Problem is, if there is a God, he will know if you really believe or if you are just trying to avoid hell.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • BRC

      @Andy,
      So fear? IS that really a good thing to base one's life on?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • Colin

      Can a Christian please help me? I am having trouble distinguishing the third example of circular reasoning from the first two. Perhaps you can explain the difference.

      “I believe Obama is a great man because his biography says so, and the reason I believe his biography is that it is about Obama, who is a great man.”

      “I believe David Koresh was a wise and great prophet because the Branch Davidians wrote a book saying he is. I believe that book because it was inspired by David Koresh, a wise and great prophet.”

      “I believe Godexists because it says so in the Bible. I believe the Bible because it is the inspired word of God.”

      May 18, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • AverageJoe76

      I attempted to believe the Bible with one purpose in mind; Peace of mind and to rest my worldly burdens on a higher power. That's what I wanted. True peace.

      May 18, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
  18. Deborah Torres

    Take notes all you smart people at CNN: The real answer is Adam and Eve a man and woman were in the garden not 2 women and 2 men... DUHHHHH! now thats natural and they reproduced, Had God put 2 men in the garden of Eden or 2 women... The garden would still have 2 people. I put that in small form for the wisest people who call us christians DUMB. God Bless....

    May 18, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • Lilith

      Sorry but I was there befoe Eve showed up!

      May 18, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • Neil

      You do realize that your logic is dumb. Keep holding on to that book, your life will not last forever. That's the only reason why any of you take that mess in is for your desire eternal life. Kinda of lustful huh?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • If horses had Gods ... their Gods would be horses

      So Deb, since Adam and Eve were the first people, where did their children find wives? Just curious since you claim Christians aren't dumb.
      btw, I don't think Christians are dumb .. only when it comes to this belief in deities thing.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • Chuck

      What did Eve look like? What did Adam look like? What did they say to you?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • Deborah Torres

      Yeah I know you were the serpent and I will hold on to my Bible it gives me sleep everynight and peace in my life and LIfe in my Life, so yes i will hold on to it! Thanks...

      May 18, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • Religious sects

      Doborah, I have a teddy bear that does the same thing for me.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Deborah Torres

      One was Male and the other was Female Thats what TRULY mattered to God and how you and I got here and you should be thanking God that a man and a woman got together and you were born had it been 2 men than you and i both know the answer, but all you people keep asking questions read The Bible , the B-asic I-nstructions B-efore L-eaving E-arth... =BIBLE

      May 18, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Madtown

      Deborah Torres
      I will hold on to my Bible it gives me sleep everynight and peace in my life
      -------
      That's fine. But, what about human beings who find peace reading Hindu scripture? Are they reading the "wrong truth"? According to you, your truth is the only correct truth.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • If horses had Gods ... their Gods would be horses

      So Deb .. Adam and Eve are the forebearers of all the gays that live and have ever lived. Why'd God(s) do that?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • Deborah Torres

      Every Question i am being asked I have read it in Gods word! read it for yourself. I see I am hitting nerves becasue I am starting to feel like i am in a room full of crazy people. I am going to go do something in my happy life while you miserable people who HATE CHRISTIANS and say the craziest things about Horses. My answer to the horse question is this. Even animals know better. Dogs mate Dogs , Cats mate Cats and Horses mate Horses while the smartest on earth mate the opposite. Might no be a bad thing becasue when the human population dissolves the dogs and horses can run this land. Might not be a bad thing to happen considering Humans have lost their minds

      May 18, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Dagger_32

      Deborah, so where did Adam and Eve come from? I mean was it just *POOF* and bam there was Adam? Then he was like "here take this rib" and then *POOF* there was Eve? How old were they when this happened? Were they adults? Hopefully she was not PMSing cause if she was BAM Adam would have to die and none of this would have happened.

      If that could happen then why not *POOF* there's Adam and *POOF* there's Steve. GASP, two males. Then *POOF* there's Bob. If God could create Adam and Eve why were Adam and Eve necessary. He could just continue *POOFing* people into existiance.

      Wait wait wait. Adam and Even had a baby which had a baby with it's brother or sister? Which had a baby with???

      Something is not right here.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Madtown

      I have read it in Gods word
      ---–
      Oh, I thought you were quoting from the bible?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • WASP

      @ms.torres: i can use your own book to prove god did make 2 males and 2 females. lmfao i love when this comes up.
      genesis 1
      " 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
      28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
      ok now i'm counting 2 unnamed humans that god just told to go and be fruitful.
      genesis 2
      " 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
      8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."
      now he just created adam, a human by name from the dirt. still with me on this?
      " 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
      22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
      23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
      ok now god has taken the rib from adam and made eve, the first named female.......question what were the first two humans doing during this time?
      now by my count god created two sets of humans, so if my math doesn't fail me two plus two equals.............4. lmfao now before the christians go and say well that is god making adam and eve, then telling us how he made them......bs because he made the first pair at the same time and set them both in the garden of eden, then he created adam and eve. ever wonder what happen to the first set?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • psychologist

      Deborah, you feel like you're in a room full of crazy people because you can't answer the questions and it shakes the foundation of your belief system and scares you. If your religion cannot stand up to the questions, you need to question your religion.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      Deborah Torres: We don't judge like you do, so we don't hate christians...we simply dislike the belief. There is no evidence outside of your buybull for Adam and Eve or God or Jesus or heaven or hell. In order to accept the concept of Adam and Eve, you have to in turn accept that the earth was then populated via incest...how else would you explain it if Adam and Eve were the only 2 people on earth? We believe in the physical evidence that science provides us proving evolution. If you only use that book as your line of defense in answering as to why you disagree with something then you have clearly stopped being able to think for yourself. When something comes up for us, we do not just accept it as being the truth...we listen to the evidence that is peer reviewed and tested....when those various tests come back with the same answer, we accept it...we are however willing to change our opinions based on the evidence-you can't say the same when all you have is that book. Every theological study, every christian book, every christian sermon are all based off of that book and the history of christianity, making it all circular.
      It is your ignorance and laziness that prevents you from joining the rest of us as we move towards a more peaceful loving society without the need for religion. This is the 21st century, feel free to catch up any time.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • Adam + Eve had two boys, Deborah

      Deborah, you fall flat on your face once again: God DID put two men: Cain & Abel. And Cain killed Abel, and then went off with his wife.

      Uh – where'd his wife come from? Was she magic? Did God pull another rib out of somebody? Maybe it was a toenail, instead?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • Deborah Torres

      UH DUH I KNEW THAT CLASS< i see i have to be more specific, GOD started with one man and one woman then cam cane and abel who by the way one brother Cain committed murder and killed his brother Able, But what i meant for those who didnt get it, was God started with male and female like the Bible says and then They created children ( the way God made that too) So i think the average person understood that not you LOW I Q!

      May 18, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • sam stone

      what makes you think that god is not putting gays here now?

      May 18, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • sam stone

      So, Deborah, there was one female and we descended from her? That means that Cain or Abel boinked mommy dearest? Are we from a long line of Mother Lovers?

      May 18, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
  19. Abby

    The problem I have with these rebuttals is that the logic is inherently flawed. They are not trusting in the Bible; they are trusting in their interpretation of specific translations of the Bible. You can have full reverence for God's Word, yet seek to understand these passages within the context of the society they were written in as well as the language that was used (which in and of itself is enormously complex!). I honestly don't know what these specific passages are meant to portray; but I am very sure that we are commanded to love each other, and that I personally sin against God in many other ways that are spoken of much more (greed, anger, lust) yet am forgiven for all of that. Sure, sin needs to be identified, but let's look for it within ourselves before we judge those who don't even follow the same God.

    May 18, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • Gus

      I am reminded of the rigid revolutionary theology in Iran every time a Christian opens his or her mouth. Is this what they really want? 12 unelected know-it-alls running the country with Pat Robertson as the leader?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
  20. Taylor Hudson

    is this dude serious!!!? it clearly says in the Bible that gay marriage is not right how bout take a look at Leviticus 20:13 this so called "preist" obviously doesnt read the Bible much does he?

    May 18, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • Deborah Torres

      I told them about , Romans chapter 2:18 to the end of that chapter and they dont believe me either. They laugh at me...

      May 18, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • Kandric

      Did you read the article referenced before you responded? The author cites probable mistranslation as well as misinterpretation. He backs his position with a decent amount of scripture and cultural evidence. It's not a brick wall of proof, but it's enough to not warrant a naive comment like yours.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • Deborah Torres

      Decent amount? HHHMMM

      May 18, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • Madtown

      this so called "preist" obviously doesnt read the Bible much does he?
      -------
      He's forgotten much more about religion than you'll ever know in your entire lifetime.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      It does not matter what the buybull says regardless of what testament you take it from. That book was written 2000 years ago when no studies were done to determine why people are gay. Science has since done a great many studies that prove the buybull wrong. They may never be able to pinpoint the exact gene, if there even is one but they do know that being gay is not a choice and is in fact purely natural.

      Deborah: If your child told you today that were were interested in dating someone of the same gender, how would you react? While you're answering that, please also elaborate on how a person being gay affects you on a personal level, set aside the book for a minute and try to think without it being your guide.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:53 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
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.