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. phearis

    If you're crazy and you know it, Quote the Bible!
    *Clap*Clap*
    If you're crazy and you know it, Quote the Bible!
    *Clap*Clap*
    If you're crazy and you know it, and you're not afraid to show it!
    If you're crazy and you know it, Quote the Bible!
    *Clap*Clap*

    May 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prost itute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.
      (NIV 1984)

      May 17, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • Huebert

      Honey Badger is my new hero.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      I'm the poster formerly known as "jimtanker". Shhhh, dont tell anyone.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
  2. noel

    Good LORD! Apparently the author of this ridiculous article can read but can't process information. Typical cnn left-wing, fringe garbage!!!
    OBAMANOS!!!

    May 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      I know, can you believe that he actually beleives that the bible is true? What a dumb @zz.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • tnfreethinker

      Moon? well that explains your ignorance.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
  3. MennoKnight

    My biggest bone of contention with the original article was to say that David and Jonathan were ga y lovers, Ruth and Naomi were as well, and Daniel was a male conc ubine.
    These assertions are based purely on the wrong assumption that the word love (David loved Jonathan, Ruth loved Naomi, Daniel loved his king) are se xu al forms of love.

    These are half truths that are stretched and used to turn bible stories into something that they don't mean.

    May 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • noel

      If you look @ the original Greek translation they are referring to brotherly love, not physical. There is a disntinct distinction folks!
      OBAMANOS!!!

      May 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • sbp

      And I've read it in Hebrew, and your "fact" concerning the translation is just opinion as well. Let's say the original text said "Lo, and they were bestest of buddies, but not hot for each other, just because they shared a bed doesn't mean they were'est gay." That doesn't mean it is a fact. In context, David and Jonathan WERE much more close than any other biblical "friend" relationship. It is not ludicrous to think there could have been more to it.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • Kevin

      So when love is read it can have many different meanings, but when the passages you think condemn gays are read they have one crystal-clear message???

      May 17, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • HS

      I find the post from you considering you are a flacid citizen. lol

      May 17, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • HS

      Was directed at my flacid mennonite friend.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • MennoKnight

      sbp,
      First, thanks for not name calling. That happens all to much on this sight.
      S
      econd, David and Jonathan lived under Levitical Law (I do not, I live under New Testament Law) where hom ose xua lity was a capital offence. They would have been stoned for the type of relationship that you are talking about.

      My understanding of the story and the word used for love the word used here does refer to the love shown between two literal brothers.

      To me this is adding current modern day dynamics and the insinuation of what love means to a story that is not insinuating se xu al love.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • Cedar Rapids

      "They would have been stoned for the type of relationship that you are talking about."

      To this I would say.....its good to be the king.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • Momof3

      "They would have been stoned for the type of relationship that you are talking about."

      All the more reason to deny it was that type of relationship...to avoid death! This is 5 year-old 'who-broke-the-cookie-jar' logic...

      May 17, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Please excuse some us...we cannot take what a Mennonite says seriously. They don't live in current reality and are spineless.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • MennoKnight

      HeavenSent:
      My response to you comes from the great Theologian (WEIRD) AL YANKOVIC:

      A local boy kicked me in the butt last week
      I just smiled at him, and I turned the other cheek
      I really don't care, in fact I wish him well
      'Cause I'll be laughin' my head off when he's burnin' in hell

      And thanks, you made me laugh too.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
  4. MidwestBoy72

    Here's something I wonder about. All the argueing put aside, and this is a serious question to the anti-gay religious people. Let's say for arguement sake that the bible is right, and that gays will burn in hell. Why do you care? Why are you so worried about other people's souls? Maybe they want to spend eternity in hell. Who are you to "save" anyone who doesn't want to be saved? While you ponder that, let me ask another one. God doesn't exactly condone discrimination or be judgemental of others. Those are considered sins, right? If that's true, won't you also be spending eternity in hell? Seems to me, if I'm a religious person, I'm going to live and let live and let god decide who the real sinners are. Just curious.

    May 17, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • Bob

      Because saving people is a requirement.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • phearis

      @ Bob

      Yep, forcing what YOU believe down someone's throat and "saving" them whether they like it or not, is a requirement.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
    • Matt

      Complete misunderstanding of the Gospel...you too Bob.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • Chris Liveston

      Christians HAVE to save others, or kill them. It's part of the whole deal.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • Heimlick

      Requirement? For who? And what?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
  5. David

    Just because we are against gay marriage, it does not mean we hate gays.

    May 17, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • szerin

      No, but it does mean that you are more than willing to discriminate against them.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      Then why not let them marry? Is it because statisticly xtians have a higher rate of devorce than others? Is it becuase gay parents have been shown to provide a much safer environment to raise childeren? I can go on and on.

      Why are you against?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • Steve O

      Just because I think black people should use a separate faucet and entrance, does not mean I hate black people.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • sbp

      Except that you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't care at all, since it's a matter between the couple and the government issuing a marriage license. Which has no religious connotations at all. Just a contractual issue that confers certain rights and benefits (like joint health care, tax returns, etc..) to people who choose to consider themselves married. So it would be NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. What is there to be against that concerns you?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • David

      They have the same rights I have.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      Then why dont you want them to get married? "I dont hate gays, I just dont want them to have the same rights as me." LOL. Sorry, but thats hate.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • David

      You do have the same rights.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • David

      How far is this going to go? What is next? Marriage between man and dog?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • sbp

      So gays can get family health coverage? File a joint return?

      And the man marrying dog thing is such a dimwit response. Why doesn't hetero marriage inexorably lead to men marrying dogs? Where is THAT going to lead?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @David

      Such a stupid little non sequitor. Demonstrate how smae-se.x marriage would lead to beastial marriage. Or at the very least, say how you think it would lead to it so it can be refuted completely.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • David

      I am not saying it leads to that. I am just saying what if somebody wants to marry their dog? You going to deny them that right.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "They have the same rights I have."

      Gay couples do not have the same rights as straight married couples. The U S Su preme Court views marriage as a civ il right. These rights include:

      Tax Benefits
      -–Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
      -–Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

      Estate Planning Benefits
      -–Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
      -–Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
      -–Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
      -–Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

      Government Benefits
      -–Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
      -–Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
      -–Receiving public as-sistance benefits.
      -–Employment Benefits
      -–Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
      -–Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
      -–Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
      -–Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

      Medical Benefits
      -–Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
      -–Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

      Death Benefits
      -–Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
      -–Making burial or other final arrangements.

      Family Benefits
      -–Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
      -–Applying for joint foster care rights.
      -–Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
      -–Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

      Housing Benefits
      -–Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
      -–Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

      Consumer Benefits
      -–Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
      -–Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
      -–Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
      -–Other Legal Benefits and Protections
      -–Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
      -–Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
      -–Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
      -–Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
      -–Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
      -–Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @David

      Yes I would, and here is why. How would a dog give informed consent as an adult human can?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
    • David

      As an individual you have the same right. You chose your life style. You maybe didn't choose to have gay feelings but you chose to act on them.

      May 17, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @David

      Ok so all of a sudden, when informed consent comes into play, the whole "you choose to act" thing comes into play. So tell me then, what exactly makes hom.ose.xual acts bad? What justification (non-religious) is there to oppose same-se.x marriage?

      May 17, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
    • Cedar Rapids

      "You chose your life style. You maybe didn't choose to have gay feelings but you chose to act on them."

      so they need to deny how they feel and live their life alone because of it? really?

      May 17, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
    • sbp

      THAT was your scholarly response to your ludicrous statement that gays have the same rights? It makes no sense. "Well, they have the same right to eat a cookie, so therefore they have the same rights". The whole issue with gay marriage is to allow them the same rights enumerated by the other poster. What's the big deal about allowing them to file a joint return or have their estate treated like hetero spouses after they die? Why would you care about that?

      Dim.

      May 17, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  6. Bob

    "You can write your own sacred book, call it, for instance, 'Pirripipirripible,' and make it teach how awesome is 'pirripipirripi,'" this commenter continues. "

    That's totally a Dokuro-chan reference.

    May 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
  7. marsmotel

    Who care's!!!!

    May 17, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  8. The Phoenix

    interesting how you steered away from Leviticus 18:22-23...which states it VERY clearly.. the Sodom and Gomorrah reference is obscure....you are not stating ALL the passage, just picking the ones that suit you

    May 17, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • marsmotel

      Are phoenix real in your mind as well?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      How about Leviticus 20:13?

      New International Version (NIV)
      13 “‘If a man has se xual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

      Nope, no hate in that book.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • Steve

      EXACTLY! I noticed that as well. Leviticus is pretty plain in 18:22 and 20:13, where it says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." How much more clear do you need to be? And how can that be twisted into something else?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
    • Cedar Rapids

      it is interesting how people point to leviticus to condemn but when you point out other parts in leviticus they turn around and say 'that was for the jews only' or 'jesus wiped away the old laws'
      pick and choose, pick and choose.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
  9. christards

    C H R I S T A R D S

    god is fiction

    read a science book

    May 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • ME II

      I agree with your position, but stop being an @ss.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
  10. Ya!

    Politics wants you all to focus on something that has nothing to do with making this country better place:
    Jobs
    Health care
    People taking there lives b-cuz looseing there homes. Those are facts and Truth!

    May 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  11. HS

    Christian and Freedom go hand in hand about as much as Islam and Freedom go hand in hand.

    May 17, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • Nate

      There is a difference between freedom and license...and Christianity does offer the best chance of freedom. Many "freedoms" (really licesnse) that people have fought for have been, in the long run, self destructive. The boundaries in Christianity offer protection while maximizing freedom. Think of any other worldview that has preserved liberty better than Christianity.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • Bibletruth

      The truth shall make you free..................any guesses who said that? By the way, Jesus came to do some specific things as He said: magnify the law [sorry to those that would want the law (10 commandments)abolished or changed]; show the father; save his people from their sins; give his life a ransom for many; show what a life of faith and filled with the Holy Spirit is like. Jesus also basically said there is only one thing that will get a person lost: not having a love for the truth.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • Bibletruth

      The truth is found within Man.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
  12. n8263

    It is immoral to impose your religious superstition on others.

    You do not believe in religion because you honestly think it is true, you believe in it because you fear mortality or are seeking meaning in your life. It does not take a genius to figure out all religion is man made, so for humanity's sake, please stop lying to yourself.

    Deluding yourself in religion does not change reality. Lying to yourself is probably the worst possible way to try to find meaning.

    May 17, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • Bibletruth

      True religion (true bible religion) is the only reality there is.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
  13. joe

    The bible's a joke. It's not an authority on anything except the myths and cultural ideas of ancient Isreal.

    The bible says North, South, West and East. All the faithful do is decide which direction they want to go and then quote the same direction from the bible. It works every time.

    May 17, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      I suppose you believe that you knew every thing as soon as you were born. Your parents (caretakers), grandparents, relatives, teachers, neighbors etc. had nothing to do with how you learned (were educated) (in your case, obviously, a lack of education). Next, you'll arrogantly insult all those that had something to do with ensuring you survived because you obviously did it all on your own. Arrogant comes to mind.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • HS

      HeavenSent

      ........... Arrogant comes to mind.
      ----
      Now this is funny that you say this...I assume you were looking in the mirror when you did. lol

      May 17, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
  14. Donna B

    I would rather live by the bible teachings and when I die go to heaven, than to live like the bible and heaven don't exist and find out when I die that they do indeed exist and I'm left out.

    Many people want to interpret and make excuses so they don't have to worry about sin or heaven and hell. A religion of convenience is not the way it is for me. We change, God does not. (but then I believe with all my heart that the bible was written by God through men). For me Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light to eternal life. I worry about those who don't believe because I care about your eternal life instead of the earthly, material life.

    May 17, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • ME II

      That's Pascal's Wager and do really think God wants you to 'play the odds' on eternity?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • birch please

      How about you live how jesus preached and not how the demon lord of the old testament dictated.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • n8263

      What if it turns out Islam is true? You better hope you did not pick the wrong god!

      May 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • scott

      ...and I worry about YOU choosing a religion of convenience (Christianity) based on where you were born and raised. Clearly, the one true religion is Hinduism. Prove me wrong.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • The Phoenix

      well said... I will see you up there when we finally get called home

      May 17, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • chiz3914

      I got news for you. when you die you'll be dead just like the rest of us.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Cedar Rapids

      yeah, as someone said...better hope that the god you worship is the right one else you will be just as much out of luck, maybe you should worship them all to cover your bases

      May 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • heather

      Amen!

      May 17, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • sam stone

      Gee, Donna, you must think that god is pretty stupid for not seeing that you are playing the odds.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • Kevin

      It is an outrage for a fellow Christian to justify their faith by essentially saying it is a safety net ... either you believe or you don't ... you are only doing yourself and everyone else a disservice by saying that you believe just in case there is a heaven you want to make sure you get in.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Donna B, I loved what a Christian posted a year ago about when an atheist dies, they get all dressed up with no where to go.

      LOL.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • n8263

      This is all assuming the one true religion is even alive today. It might be the one true religion died out thousands of years ago, or maybe it has yet to be established. You might be living at the wrong moment in history.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • n8263

      What are the odds the one true religion is even around right now? Most of today's major religions including Christianity have been around for less than 1% of human history. History has seen thousands of gods come and go.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
    • sbp

      There are no theologians that subscribe to Pascal's Wager, because, as noted, it's so full of holes. Every religion could say the same thing – but they can't all be right. And really, why would you want to believe in a god who is going to award heaven to people whose "faith", if you could call it that, is based on just wanting to get the cookie at the end of the game? That's not belief.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
    • Wraith

      That's one of the lines that amuses me the most–"God never changes." Really? So, the difference between the God in the Old Testament versus the New is what, God saying, "Nah, I'm not like that, guys, I was just messin'?" Your god changed between the two books.

      May 17, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
  15. HamsterDancer

    I guess I'm not allowed on CNN anymore. None of my comments appear.

    May 17, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
    • HamsterDancer

      Well this one did!

      May 17, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • HamsterDancer

      Let's try again. This issue is a legal issue not a moral one. Leave your religious beliefs for yourself.

      OK, that was short. Will it appear?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • ME II

      Auto filter will kill comments containing certain strings, like t.it, c.um, ho.mo, s.ex, no matter where they fit in the word. e.g. docu.ment.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • ME II

      many other strings too.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Also,I noticed, your post won't go through when someone steals your handle and is using it at the same time (in the same or other articles) you want to post.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • HS

      HeavenSent

      Also,I noticed, your post won't go through when someone steals your handle and is using it at the same time (in the same or other articles) you want to post.

      -

      Well that sucks for you I guess

      May 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • Helpful Hints

      HamsterDancer,

      Here's a list of common offenders:

      Bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN automatic filter:
      Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
      You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
      ---
      ar-se.....as in ar-senic.
      co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, etc.
      co-on.....as in rac-oon, coc-oon, etc.
      cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
      cu-nt.....as in Scu-nthorpe, a city in the UK famous for having problems with filters...!
      ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
      ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, drift-wood, etc.
      ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, etc.
      ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
      hu-mp… as in th-ump, th-umper, th-umping
      jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
      ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
      koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
      nip-ple
      o-rgy….as in po-rgy, zo-rgy, etc.
      pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
      p-orn… as in p-ornography
      pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
      que-er
      ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
      se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
      sl-ut
      sn-atch
      sp-ank
      sp-ic.....as in desp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
      sp-oon
      sp-ook… as in sp-ooky, sp-ooked
      strip-per
      ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, ent-ities, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
      tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, etc.
      va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
      who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
      wt-f....also!!!!!!!

      There are more, some of them considered "racist", so do not assume that this list is complete.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • HamsterDancer

      Thanks very much, guys! I wasn't sure what I typed that was censoring me!

      May 17, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
  16. n8263

    People should care as much about what the Bible says regarding homosexuality as it does about stoning your disobedient children to death.

    May 17, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • Insanity

      Get a clue....

      May 17, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
    • birch please

      He has a clue, how about you get some objectivity.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • sleepytime

      Bingo n8263!

      May 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      n8263, yes, those disobedient children when grown, usually end up on death row today.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • Kevin

      Because they're all the black children, right HeavenSent. Didn't need to say it for us to know you were thinking it.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
  17. Insanity

    We should make a National Standard Atheists version of the Bible too.... It will start out, "In the beginning was ... Me..."

    May 17, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • HS

      Confused, what makes you think an Atheist would even need a book written by other men?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • rizzo

      And I'm pretty sure that most atheists know they had parents and weren't the first person.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Huebert

      We atheist already have a creation story. You can read it in a science text book.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • tina

      As A Christian it is my obligation to proclaim the truth of GOD. I cannot make you accept it but I do believe there will be consequences for those who want to sweep under the rug.
      Not all christians are judgemental one of my dearest friends was black gay man who died of aids and he became a family member to us all. Fortunately he accepted JESUS into his heart before he passed.
      When you play with fire you will burn! Do you want to take the chance?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • heather

      Well said, Tina!!

      May 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Tina
      And it is my obligation to proclaim the Truth of the God Odin.
      If you don't die gloriously in battle, you'll never reach Valhalla.
      Keep your sword handy at all times.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • Kevin

      Wow tina, so glad you like to cram all of that hate into one statement ... black, gay, AIDS, and death ... did he repent for all those years of gay activities and swear them off never to do again at his deathbed? My what a Christian example!

      May 17, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • ME II

      "As A Christian it is my obligation to proclaim the truth of GOD."
      That's fine, I support your freedom to do so. But remember that the same freedom allows me to fulfill my obligation to point out that your ideas are silly.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • sam stone

      tina: you take that same chance with the gods you dismiss

      May 17, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Insanity, Trinity College in Connecticut is supposedly writing said atheist bible as you post. LOL. I suspect they will steal Jesus' truth, change the wording, then claim it as their own.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Tina,

      And as a fellow Christian I have an obligation to tell you that you are a bad example and lacking in TRUE faith. It would be better if you would shut up.

      Amen.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • htc

      INSANITY your name says it all ,no further explanation needed.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
  18. Captain Moroni

    There are over a thousand different churches. They all teach something different because they do not have the true authority of God. They interpret the Bible in their own ways. The pastors and priests of these churches took upon the "honor" themselves to teach without the authority from Christ. It is His church – not man's. When Christ was on the earth, He set up His church by ordaining twelve (12) apostles. Prior to Christ living on the earth, God called "Prophets" to lead His people. Today, if I was looking for His true church, I would look for a church that is lead by a Prophet and twelve (12) apostles. If you believe that Christ is and was perfect, why would man create churches that do not resemble the way Christ setup His church when He was on the earth. The pastors and priests know more than Christ does?

    May 17, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • Insanity

      Well said.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Joey

      Or how about this, maybe the bible and Christianity is wrong. Maybe Islam is right. Maybe it's Hindus that have it right. Maybe they're all wrong. Herein lies the problem with trying to establish laws based on religion. Every religion touts that it's the right one and all the others are wrong. Until they're all uniform, you should get to use ANY of them as basis for making laws that govern everyone.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • HS

      "They all teach something different because they do not have the true authority of God."

      "I would look for a church that is lead by a Prophet and twelve (12) apostles"
      .
      And because God is a mute that cannot write...it will be a man or men to determine "the true authority of God"? It will be man that declares his own prophets. It will be man who creates the church. Whatever church you "pick" to be true...it comes down to your faith in a fellow man or men. Your faith is measured in the form of man, not a God.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      That is why Moroni, it is everyone's repsonsibility to read His truth (the Bible) on their own then debate said scriptures with what was preached during the sermon..

      May 17, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • David

      By all the different responses to this article, you can see that there is a lot of confusion. Why wouldn't God have a prophet in our day to help keep us on the right track.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Also when you can hear God talking to you, you are headed on the right path.

      Amen.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Get a life phony heavensent. You always steal my handle when you KNOW you non-believers debates don't hold water and are filled with baloney.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
    • Ty

      Captain Moroni? As in, the Book of Mormon figure? As in, the religious text used by Latter Day Saints? As in, a church that is "ran" by twelve apostles. Subtle, Moroni...subtle. ^_~

      May 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
  19. Insanity

    I got it, why don't y'all just create a National Standard Gay version of the bible? Then you can change it to say anything you want. Would that make you happy?

    May 17, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
    • sam stone

      I don't know. Apparently, changing the bible has been done for about as long as the bible has been around.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • Insanity

      No, not really. People have misquoted and misconstrued it for ages. But the original intent is intact...

      May 17, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • ME II

      "But the original intent is intact..."
      Really, how can you tell?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • HS

      Per your persepctive...lol

      May 17, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Insanity

      Because we can know the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. We know these languages and can look up the meaning of the words actually used. Scriptures found in the dead Sea Scrolls were pretty much an exact copy of the modern text we have today...

      May 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Richard

      It's so weird. No one wants to change the bible. I personally couldn't care less about the bible. What gay people want is legal marriage. Not marriage in a church nor to get married standing in front of a pastor reading the bible. The US government isn't a church and there is no reason why there should be any problems with gay marriage.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • HS

      Insanity

      Because we can know the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. We know these languages and can look up the meaning of the words actually used. Scriptures found in the dead Sea Scrolls were pretty much an exact copy of the modern text we have today...
      --
      The evidence shows your assumption to be quite false. You fail to recognize the subjectivity of the "Perfect Word of a God". In reality it is quite imperfect and flawed. lol

      May 17, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • ME II

      "Scriptures found in the dead Sea Scrolls were pretty much an exact copy of the modern text we have today..."
      So the Dead Sea scrolls contained all the same books that your Bible does today? no more, no less?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      HS, God's wisdom is perfect. If you have a problem with His truth, that means you have issues to resolve.

      By the by, you're using my secondary handle when the one I'm using is stolen by others.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      I like to say people are being fake while also doing as they do...case in point HS.

      Amen.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
  20. MidwestBoy72

    The bible was written by men, who included their own personal beliefs and expectations of others. Once a person comes to term with that, it's easy to move on. That said, if the good book helps you sleep at night and keeps you going, I say go for it. However, it should never be used as a tool in dictating people how to live their lives or influencing laws. Anyway, that's just me.

    May 17, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • Quentin

      Sir, I admire your clear-headedness, even though you may not agree with the Bible. However, was not our nation founded on Biblical principles such as the worth of all human beings and equality for all? I am inclined to believe that when the founding fathers stated that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," they were not afraid to state that their Creator influenced their actions.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • bill

      agreed, and well stated.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • David

      The Bible originally was written by prophets who communicated with God. It was translated by men.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      The Bible was scribed by Holy Men divinely inspired by God. Jesus is the author of the Bible.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
    • Doug

      God is the author of the bible. It was written with the hand of the Holy Spirit.

      May 17, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
    • Cedar Rapids

      "God is the author of the bible. It was written with the hand of the Holy Spirit."

      based on?

      May 17, 2012 at 5:07 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.