Editor's Note: Mark Osler is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
By Mark Osler, Special to CNN
I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.
What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.
A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the “rock” on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story. Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.
During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.
After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).
His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws. It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise.
My Take: Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality
It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage. The water will flow where it will.
Intriguingly, this rule will apply whether we see homosexuality as a sin or not. The water is for all of us. We see the same thing at the Last Supper, as Jesus gives the bread and wine to all who are there—even to Peter, who Jesus said would deny him, and to Judas, who would betray him.
The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.
Your Take: Rethinking the Bible on homosexuality
The answer is in the Bible. Peter and Jesus offer a strikingly inclusive form of love and engagement. They hold out the symbols of Gods’ love to all. How arrogant that we think it is ours to parse out stingily!
I worship at St. Stephens, an Episcopal church in Edina, Minnesota. There is a river that flows around the back and side of that church with a delightful name: Minnehaha Creek. That is where we do baptisms.
The Rector stands in the creek in his robes, the cool water coursing by his feet, and takes an infant into his arms and baptizes her with that same cool water. The congregation sits on the grassy bank and watches, a gentle army.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
At the bottom of the creek, in exactly that spot, is a floor of smooth pebbles. The water rushing by has rubbed off the rough edges, bit by bit, day by day. The pebbles have been transformed by that water into something new.
I suppose that, as Peter put it, someone could try to withhold the waters of baptism there. They could try to stop the river, to keep the water from some of the stones, like a child in the gutter building a barrier against the stream.
It won’t last, though. I would say this to those who would withhold the water of baptism, the joy of worship, or the bonds of marriage: You are less strong than the water, which will flow around you, find its path, and gently erode each wall you try to erect.
The redeeming power of that creek, and of the Holy Spirit, is relentless, making us all into something better and new.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mark Osler.
What business does light have with darkness gays want to further take out the morals of society to accommodate their life. Christan's want to keep the morals and make it more comfortable for themselves. The Bible stands as the basis of morals unchanged, So gays don't want those morals brought up in their face to constantly remind them what they do is immoral. Christians don't want gay marriage because its opens the door to any other sin and leads to the decline of society. Personally I don't want gay men kissing I like Moses find it disgusting. The fact that gay quote scientist doesn't mean anything scientists are not a moral authority and most themselves haven't got a clue as to life. So why would their opinion be any different? We all know politicians records and lawyers records so of course they are ok with or endorse gay lifestyle. Most lead lives of compromise choosing the worlds way rather than Gods. Wide is the road that leads to destruction narrow the one that leads to salvation.
"The Bible stands as the basis of morals unchanged,"
Why did the SBC form in the 1850's? Why did the SBC apologize in the 1990's?
Which bible, which interpretation, which religion, which god ? There are 100s more viewpoints thatn yours bob. Fortunately we don't live in a theocracy at all, let alone one under your personal view points.
I am a Pastor and while I am against gay marriage I do not wish to judge others. I can point out what the Bible says on the issue and what you do with it is up to you. Whether you believe in the Bible or not, I can assure you with adamant confidence and 100% accuracy that in no way does the Bible condone gay marriage. All of the sudden every gay person in America is an expert on the Bible. I urge you not to misquote Scripture regardless if you believe it or not. I respect gay people and I wish they would respect me.
You can point out what you think the bible says – other christians have different interpretations. There is nothing that says you are more right than they are.
Since you are respectful the next time a vote comes up for gay marriage you will be out there voting in favour of people getting their civil rights.
You are deservign of respect and get it until you start to deny others their rights or preach they are wrong when in fact it odoes not concern you in any possible way.
Now that the rabbinate has determined "gay" marriage to be acceptable with the Jewish faith, the religious argument against "gay" marriage is considerably weakened. Ultimately, would Jesus approve of "gay" marriage? I think not, but then why is the clergy so evenly divided?
". Whether you believe in the Bible or not, I can assure you with adamant confidence and 100% accuracy that in no way does the Bible condone gay marriage. "
There are thousands of gay churches, clergy, pastors and nuns that totally disagree with you. Plus over a 100 Pastors have written apology letters to the gay community for their immoral conduct towards them. It's also why Christianity is divided into so many denominations you guys DON'T know with 100% accuracy the real truth of your bible. Nowhere in your bible does your god condemn the saved loving gay couple as we know and understand sexual orientation today. Duh! They didn't have the word homosexual back then it was added later by a prejudice and bigoted scribe. Duh!
There is yet another problem with a Biblical defence of traditional marriage. The Jewish wedding is, in essence, the sale of the bride to the groom. And, what Christian father isn't proud to walk his daughter up the aisle and "give" her in marriage. In fact, the Pastor may even ask, "Who gives this woman in marriage." But, God's plan in the Bible was nearly the opposite - it was the groom who was to leave his family and cling to his wife. It seems that in God's plan, it was the man who was to take the woman's surname, not the other way round.
Although attempts have been made throughout history, no man has the power to change Gods law. its one thing to stand before the justice of the peace and "get married" its quite another to stand in a church before a minister to have a marriage ceremony.
on the day we stand before God to give an account of how we've lived.......
Not I. But for those that believe – which god and which laws – many churches support gay marriage. Their god won;t have a problem with it.
" no man has the power to change Gods law"
In your 1st commandment, your version of a god demands that everyone worship only him, under penalty of death and eternal torture.
My 1st amendment says I can worship any dàmn gods I want, or no gods.
Guess what? My 1st trumps your 1st. I win.
By the way, why is it that none of the fundiots understand that Pascal's Gambit was refuted long ago?
I am not trying to change god's laws. But then agaibn they never applied to me in the first place. Nor do they apply to society.
"Although attempts have been made throughout history, no man has the power to change Gods law. i"
The point is they are NOT changing the laws in your bible. DUH! What is condemned in your bible is male prostitution, idolatry, worshiping a pagan god using sex and rape. Nowhere in your bible does your god condemn the saved loving respectful loving relationship of a gay couple as we know and understand it today. Part of reading comprehension 101 is putting the scriptures into historical context to get the real meaning of what is written.
Guess she forgot Jesus words about how Christians might – will – be persecuted because they are not going with the flow.
How about People that love and make love to there goats, Pigs or cows??? Why Can't they get married....I love lamp... Why can't I marry lamp???.... Question for all the brilliant people on here where does marriage come from..no really not just what you think....think a scientific answer ? and why do you want it so bad if you are not religious?? And for that matter why do religious people need the Gov to tell them they are married?? Go to church get married and be done with it... Gov not needed......Morons all around..................
Marriage was originally a legal contract– not a religious one, bozo. And goats, cows, and lamps cannot consent.
MY personal testimony.
A thought to consider without an ego response
Accept Jesus christ as your lord and saviour. You never know how soon is too late. Transcend the worldly illusion of enslavement.
The world denounces truth....
Accepting Jesus Christ (for me) resulted in something like seeng a new colour. You will see it .....but will not be able to clearly explain it to anyone else..... Its meant to be that way to transend any selfism within you.
Also... much the world arranges "surrounding dark matter into something to be debated" in such a way that protects/inflates the ego.
The key is be present and transcend our own desire to physically see evidence. We don't know anyways by defending our own perception of dark matter.
Currently.... most of us are constructing our own path that suits our sin lifestyle. Were all sinners. Knowing that we are is often an issue. But both christians and non are sinners.
We don't like to Let go and let god. We want control to some degree. This is what Jesus asks us to do. "Follow me".
It's the hardest thing to do... but is done by letting the truth of scripture lead you (redemptive revelation)... as I said .
Try reading corinthians and see if it makes sense to you. Try it without a pre conceived notion of it being a fairy tale.
See the truth...
do we do what it says in todays society... is it relevant... so many have not recently read and only hinge their philosophy on what they have heard from som other person...which may have been full of arogance pride or vanity..
Look closely at the economy ponzi, look at how society idolizes Lust , greed , envy, sloth, pride of life, desire for knowledge, desire for power, desire for revencge,gluttony with food etc .
Trancsend the temporal world.
Just think if you can find any truth you can take with you ....in any of these things. When you die your riches go to someone who will spend away your life..... You will be forgotten.... history will repeat iteslf.... the greatest minds knowledge fade or are eventually plagerzed..... your good deeds will be forgotten and only give you a fleeting temporary reward . your learned teachings are forgotten or mutated..... your gold is transfered back to the rullers that rule you through deception. Your grave will grow over . This is truth .
Trancsend your egoism and free yourself from this dominion of satan. Understand you are a sinner and part of the collective problem of this worldly matrix... Repent.... Repent means knowing (to change) The Holy spirit (within) will convict you beyond what you think you can do by yourself. Grace is given to those who renounce the world. That are" in" the world but not "of " the world.
Evidence follows faith. Faith does not follow evidence..... Faith above reason in Jesus Christ.
Faith comes by Reading or Hearing the word of god from the bible . Ask Jesus in faith for dicernment and start reading the new testament... You will be shocked when you lay down your preconceived notions and ....see and hear truth ... see how christ sets an example ... feel the truth....
Read Ecclesiastes. Read corinthians.
You cant trancend your own egoism by adapting a world philosophy to suit your needs. Seek the truth in Christ.
Sell all your cleverness and purchase true bewilderment. You don't get what you want ....you get what you are in christ.
I promise this has been the truth for me. In Jesus christ .
Think of what you really have to lose. ...your ego?
Break the Matrix of illusion that holds your senses captive.
once you do . you too will have the wisdom of God that comes only through the Holy Spirit. Saved By grace through Faith. Just like seeing a new colour.... can't explain it to a transient caught in the matrix of worldly deception.
You will also see how the world suppresses this information and distorts it
You're all smart people . I tell the truth. Its hard to think out of the box when earthly thinking is the box.
I'ts a personal free experience you can do it free anytime . Don't wait till you are about to die.. START PUTTING YOUR TREASURES WHERE THEY REALLY MATTER >
Its awsome and It's just between you and Jesus
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
I confess with my mouth that your god is a fairy tale.
.....you are now free to waste your life away.............
.....only one life will soon be past, only what's done for - Christ! thiswill be a wasted life following an old myth.....
wake uuupppppppp..... :o)
Interesting that you find it necessary to confess. The Bible is true and you are proof. Every man must make a choice to accept God or reject God. If there is no God why such importance to your constant profession of godlessness? I don't see to many people marching and going to court in an effort to stomp out tooth faries.
I say it because of the number of rather dense people around that feel that because they believe in god then I must also whenther I do or not. It is a constant reminder to them that they are just plain wrong. Also so they don't speak into a vacuum and hearing only their own misguided words believe that they are true.
Or more simply put – speaking out against the darkness.
no one is marching or going to court to wipe out religion either.
So, what do you call the atheist suits to take down the cross when ever possible? How about the atheist rally and march on Washington etc?
Atheists took the Bible out of schools and paryer out of public. What do you call putting Christ in the closet?
A lot of the anti-religion is done by the religious – christianity is not a single religious voice.
I call a lot of it remioving the need of the religious to bombard us with their tripe constantly – brainswashing our kids in school etc. I would never swear on a bible, removing that need was a necessary one. A lot of the change is for the good of society – freedom from and for religion.
I call it keeping your christ out of my face. I call it a secular society not demanding that its citizens MUST follow any religious doctrine.
Exactly what is that you need the freedom to do that God has kept from you? Seems God has allowed you to do whatever you can get away with in this lifetime.
Force feeding kids the atheist lines from kindergarten on up through Grad school is the same thing. You are not advocating freedom you are advocating total government control. The government now sets the agenda on what will be said and how it will be taught. The communists did this in an effort to root the last of religion from the minds of the young.
You have never lived in a world that was free from the Judeo Christian standards that lay behind our laws in the U.S. and even in Canada. That is not freedom that is replacing Christ with common man that is proven corruptible by money and power.
So exactly what rules of existence before God that Christ laid out are so restricting that you would risk an unknown world governance for one that has been known ?
This is not a theocracy, this nation was founded on secular principles, and the "taking the bible out of schools" was done because people in authority (principles, teachers) were mandating prayers and other blantantly religious things, all in violation of the first amendment.
In my world there is no god and no need for one. It provides no benefit. It also does no general harm if people do believe. That being said people are free to believe or not as they will.
School is neutral – they o not teach that is a god and they do not teach that is no god. It's up to parents to teach their children as they will, schools are not the places to teach the children about which if the literally 1000s of possible religions the kids should believe.
The open free world can choose is own path – believeign that god gave this power is your belief. Have at it. This is a secular society. Despite the lack of perfection of a secular society I dread the utter hatred and disaster should the evangelicals as evidences by some I have reas about take power. A revolution and civil war would be better and necessary.
It's a big world and lots and lots of people with all having different ideas abotut religion – no one religion can take the prime spot without stepping on other people. Hence we end up with the secular. Secular and atheism are not the same thing. As an athiest I know there is no god. As a secular humanist i recognize that other people believe differently and the government and society needs to accomodate so many different beliefs. Not an easy task but one in which secularity will perform infinitely better than any religion.
What, exactly, is marriage? What are the reasons a hetero couple choose to be married?
Who has the last word in whether or not a couple are married?
Who, right now, today, in this country, is permitted to be married?
Given the answers to these questions, is it or is it not correct to say that this is not a religious issue? Can we not agree that for the sake of the law, it matters not at all whether the Christian faith, in any of its permutations, condones same gender marriage?
I have yet to see an agrument for ho-mos-exual marriage that couldn't also be an argument of polygamous marriage. Do we want to open that door?
It depends on the definition of polygamy, which has a slanted definition and indicates one man, many women.
Were the definition opened to be truly plural marriage, in which any group of loving adults who wish to commit their lives to one another and form a familial unit, then I have no issues with it.
So, we should deny a basic civil right to one group because of fear that a completely unrelated group might someday demand the same thing?
You've hit the nail squarely on the head. Once the politicians, or jurists, destroy the traditional meaning of marriage, they must replace it with something new. And what is that going to be? After all, if you give what is deemed a civil right to one lobby group, how can you deny that same civil right to other lobby groups?
The traditional meaning of marriage is not solely the christian one.
How about People that love and make love to there goats, Pigs or cows??? Why Can't they get married....I love lamp... Why can't I marry lamp???.... Question for all the brilliant people on here where does marriage come from..no really not just what you think....think a scientific answer ? and why do you want it so bad if you are not religious?? And for that matter why do religious people need the Gov to tell them they are married?? Go to church get married and be done with it... Gov not needed......Morons all around........
"Traditional morality holds that ho-mos-exuality is immoral. "
Your statement has been proven wrong by the experts. They have proven that what was written in the past about gays was done by bias and prejudice people, including the writers of your bible. They have now shown that heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."
It's hysterical how you keep skipping over the part that it's NORMA, therefore it's not immoral. Duh!
You are spamming the same crap once again. None of those organizations are experts in morality. I'm sorry, but I'll look to my church for moral guidance.
Is is not normal. It is a mistake of nature.
Morality is subjective. In my faith se.xual morality isn't dependent upon gender, but upon action and intent and comprehension and consent.
Why then should I be forced to concede my happiness to your morality? I would never attempt to force you to accept my morality as your own.
"I'm sorry, but I'll look to my church for moral guidance."
Which has been proven over time to be wrong over and over again as well as outdated. DUH!
@Evangelical I believe Yeahrigt is correct. Morality is the belief that we can become better people and live satisfied lives from the change that comes from inside of us rather than from the outside. We have to recognize the truths that are being told to us today about ho.mo.se.xuals. It's the same process people had to go through in order to understand blacks, interracial marriage and women working outside the home. Morality has never stayed fixed in time, if that was true than real Christians would be leading their lives more like the Amish or Islam, but we have all evolved in our thoughts and morality to bring about a fair equality for all.
Ho-mos-exuals think that they can blind us with science, but none of the science they present addresses the moral questions in ho-mos-exuality. At the most it does is explain ho-mos-exuality. But an explaination is not an excuse.
"Ho-mos-exuals think that they can blind us with science, but none of the science they present addresses the moral questions in ho-mos-exuality."
Based on your unfounded prejudice and bigoted posts towards this group while ignoring all the real facts on the subject shows you don't have a clue what real morality is about. Duh!
Other than for a few religious types – there is no moral problem with ho-mose-xuals. Since there is nothing wrong with it there is no excuse required. For the few that find it a problem don't do it – problem solved.
How typical. Call anyone who believes ho-mos-exual behavior is morally wrong a bigot. I'd rather be a bigot for God than meet the approval of ho-mos-exuals like yourself.
There are more than just a few religious evangelicals who feel like this. We will not sit by while our country is drug through the moral sewer.
When looking at a subject like same gender marriage and legality we must first and foremost recognize that no religion controls the laws of this country, contrary to what some may believe. Our laws are based on some very complex notions that include individual rights and individual responsibility as well as societal norms and expectations.
As such, it is inevitable that those laws will change as the society changes, which moves as the individuals within it do.
I am sure that there are many things which are legal which some find immoral. There are also many things that are illegal that some find morally acceptable. No one person's understanding of morality rules the rest of the country.
"There are more than just a few religious evangelicals who feel like this. We will not sit by while our country is drug through the moral sewer."
No, we use to be in a moral sewer when African Americans and women didn't have their equal civil rights. If anything our country has slowly become more moral and it will continue to become grown morally when gays have their civil rights too. Duh!
This is why Christians must get out and vote – to ensure that our laws reflect God's laws. Yes, it is a democratic republic and Christians have every right to exercise their rights. Since the majority of America is Christian or religious in some manner, we will have a huge say in what laws do or do not get passed. The courts are predominately conservative at this point in time (thank God) so I am confident that any attempt to force ho-mos-exual rights will not succeed.
I'm sorry, but you are re-defining right and wrong. Traditional morality holds that ho-mos-exuality is immoral. This is true no matter what you tell yourself to salve your conscience.
Your stance on hs is fine for you, not held by others, really most of the moderates need to get out and vote before the extremists drag the country into the sewer. The number of christians that are agianst ho-mos-exiuals is dropping year by year fortunately as people realize that there is no moral issue with it. This trend will continue as people keep thinking about relgious and stop accepting millenia old arguments that often are no longer applicable.
And Evan – that is tradional morality of some people – not of all people. It is not traaditional morality for the country or the world. Its not even all of christian church traditional morality.
If it is not traditional morality of the world then how do you explain that ho-mos-exual marriage is legal in just 10 countries out of the entire world?
And yet not even Christians can agree on the issue. Even if every single person in the country of voting age was made to vote, you could not guarantee that everyone who claims to be a Christian would vote against it.
That said, it will still, in the end, come to a test of const.itutionality. When it does, the cause of equality will win.
Simple – most countries records on human rights are pathetic, anything different must be immoral and destroyed – the herd mentality. At any rate I need neither tradition nor religion to know right from wrong. Giving the riight to marriage is right.
Morals change over time as well. At one time it was moral to kill your badly wounded friends and foes after battle, it was in fact for the time the absoulte right and just thing to do – especially with abdominal wounds. As we have learned more we changed that morality. We have changed the morality on left handed peoplem, black and so many other things.
All tradition means is – how we used to do it. It in no way means that it is still the right thing to do.
No, Dear, we are trying to blind you with common sense, logic, compassion, and empathy.
Sadly, since so few of you posess any of these traits, it's been a difficult road.
All I see is that you made an assertion about world morality and I showed you how ho-mos-exual marriage is legal in only 10 countries out of the entire world and now you switched the argument. By switching the argument you have shown that anytime anyone gets close to the truth you abandon the argument and seek new shelter somewhere else.
There is more than 1 truth here – there is your truth that it is a sin for you and hence for everyone else. Then there is my truth that it not a sin in any way whatsoever. Then there is societies overall truth that it is ok really.
Sociaety is composed of more than you and me. We try to make it work for everyone possible. Since there is no harm in gay marriage society's position overall is to allow it. In time this will be the overall position of our land.
You don't have to accpet gay marriage, you don't have to be gay, you don't have to marry a gay person. Gay marriage does nothing to hurt anyone on theplanet. Only pepole's personal predjudices are keeping it from being a universal reality.
So you think the countries where gay marriage is legal are immoral? You think Canada (legal) is immoral and Iran and North Korea are moral (illegal)?
You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? Yes, Canada is immoral. But that doesn't mean North Korea is moral because it has a whole host of immoralities of its own. Try to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.
Evangelical I'll put my masters degree against your high school education any day of the week (and there's no question given the way you spelled 'explanation' that you never made it past high school). No response to my post below? Sucks to completely lose a debate doesn't it?
So Canada is immoral? Can you explain why Canada has a far lower murder rate and abortion rate than that of the US (this despite Canadians being much less religious than Americans)? Or are you arguing that murder is moral?
Master's Degree my foot. You are probable nothing but a twenty-something ho-mos-exual who hasn't even lived life yet. And I repeat, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
As for Canada having lower murder/abortion rates than the US, I don't know that to be a fact. I do know that bleeding heart liberals have fought us every step of the way to make America more moral.
"Master's Degree my foot. You are probable nothing but a twenty-something ho-mos-exual who hasn't even lived life yet. And I repeat, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
As for Canada having lower murder/abortion rates than the US, I don't know that to be a fact. I do know that bleeding heart liberals have fought us every step of the way to make America more moral."
Here's a poster going on about what is morally right while sprewing lies. What a hypocrite.
Notice how Evangelical definitively says that Canada is immoral and then admits to knowing nothing about Canada in the next post. Interesting to make statements about things where you have zero knowledge.
And then insulting my intelligence. 'you are probable nothing'....ummm...didn't master first grade and insulting others! I'm actually a 36 year old in a heteros-xual marriage and expecting my third child. Evangelical is fabulous at reading people!
Read al archaeological books befor the 2nd world war.
The Bible and archaeologists do not tell the same story. The conquest of Canaan is a good example: The Bible says Joshua conquered the whole region leaving no survivors (Josh 10:42 cf. 11:16-23). Archaeologists say Israel "emerged" from among the Canaanite peoples without a conquest.  They say this because there is evidence of neither culture change nor comprehensive conquest. Archaeology has apparently proved the Bible wrong. Major differences between the Bible and archaeology are: There is no evidence of the destruction of Egypt by plagues at the Exodus. There is no evidence of a forty-year wilderness wandering, no evidence of a rapid and complete conquest by Joshua, and no evidence for a wealthy internationally trading kingdom of Israel under King Solomon, etc.
Properly interpreted archaeology should tell the same story as the Bible. The big details should match: plagues destroyed Egypt, Israel wandered forty years in the wilderness, Israel attacked and conquered Canaan, etc. Most recent archaeologists deny there is substantial evidence for these events. Archaeologists cannot necessarily tell whether a culture is Canaanite or Israelite. They can tell cities were destroyed, but not necessarily how they were destroyed. They can tell the inhabitants of an area were city dwellers or nomads. They can tell the difference between a poor local economy and rich international economy. Most reconcilers pick one event such as the Exodus or conquest of Canaan, not the big picture. The big details should match, but as currently interpreted, they do not.
"Read al archaeological books befor the 2nd world war."
The bible has been proven not to be an historical document.
Just where do you think all our knowledge about the Hebrew of old came from? What we know about the most influentual writter of the New Testiment Saul of Tarsus is in the Bible. Few scholars if any discredit the core 7 letters of the Apostle Paul. The book of Isaiah was confirmed when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. The major cities quoted in the Bible are still right where the Bible put them.
Bruce, I wonder if you've heard of the Ipuwer papyrus. It gives an Egyptian scribe's account of 10 great catastrophes that befell Egypt, and then describes how a pharaoh was drowned on dry land while chasing a groups of fleeing slaves, and then how a devastated and rulerless Egypt was invaded from the north-east (which may explain why the Israelites swung southward instead of heading straight to the Promised Land).
"Just where do you think all our knowledge about the Hebrew of old came from? What we know about the most influentual writter of the New Testiment Saul of Tarsus is in the Bible. Few scholars if any discredit the core 7 letters of the Apostle Paul. The book of Isaiah was confirmed when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. The major cities quoted in the Bible are still right where the Bible put them."
You can try to make these bogus claims but when the experts examined the bible their conclusion was that it was NOT an historical document but a religious one.
Wow, finally some information, I knew you could do it.
Information is easily found, Bob. They usually hide it in these things called " books ".
Thanks mid but most have known that for along time shame you think its current info of course with your posts I wouldn't have expected anything better. I know these studies they are small sample sizes and not conclusive and not long in duration. thanks for posting this I have seen some of these studies but wanted to know what you were quoting as a reference. I can quote studies that are older and longer and show a different picture. The real truth is science doesn't know what makes people gay. Many ideas little facts
Yeah right like I said business as usual keep it for someone who cares
"Yeah right like I said business as usual keep it for someone who cares"
The fact you keep responding proves you care and this is a lie that you have to tell yourself since your a coward to face your own unfounded prejudice and bigotry towards the gay community. The experts have proven you WRONG.
* In 1993, the National Institute of Health’ Dean Hamer illustrated that homosexuality might be inherited from the mother by her sons through a specific region of the X chromosome (Xq28). Hamer demonstrated this by noting that 33 out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers whom he studied showed the same variation in the tip of the chromosome.
– Hamer DH, Hu S, Magnuson VL, Hu N. and Pattatucci AML. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 1993; 261:320-326.
* A June 2006 Canadian study published in the journal, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” said that nature, instead of nurture, explains the origins of homosexuality. The study’ author, Prof. Anthony F. Bogaert, at Brock University in Ontario, explored the causes behind what is known as the fraternal birth order. The research showed a correlation between the number of biological older brothers a man has and his sexual orientation. Dividing his sample of more than 900 heterosexual and homosexual men into four groups, Bogaert examined the impact of all types of older brothers, including step and adopted siblings, and the amount of time brothers spent together while growing up.His research found that only the number of biological brothers had an impact on sexuality, regardless of whether the boys were raised together.
– Bogaert, A.F. 2006. Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 July 11 2006.
* A study released in May 2006 by Swedish scientists demonstrates that biology plays a key role in determining a person’ sexuality. The research shows that the portion of the brain that helps regulate sexuality — the hypothalamus – reacted the exact same way in straight women and gay men when exposed to male pheromones, which are chemicals designed to provoke a behavior, such as sexual arousal. The same area of the brain only became stimulated in heterosexual men when introduced to female pheromones.
– by Ivanka Savic article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (PNAS) “Brain Response To Putative Pheromones In Homosexual Men,” (Vol. 102 No. 19) May 10, 2005.
* In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a study in the esteemed biomedical journal Human Genetics, claiming he identified three chromosomal regions linked to sexual orientation in men: 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26.
– “A Genomewide Scan of Male Sexual Orientation”, Human Genetics, Vol. 116, No. 4, pp. 272-278, 2005.
* In 2003, University of Texas psychoacoustics specialist Dennis McFadden found that when measuring the way the brain reacts to sound, lesbians fell in between heterosexual men and straight women, suggesting they might be exposed to higher than normal levels of male hormone in utero.
– Loehlin, John C.; McFadden, David. “Otoacoustic emissions, auditory evoked potentials, and traits related to sex and sexual orientation”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1 April 2003.
* In 2003, University of Liverpool biologist John T. Manning found that the lesbians whom he studied have a hand pattern that resembles a man’ more than a straight female’. Manning concluded from his study that this “strongly tells us that female homosexuals have had higher levels of exposure to testosterone before birth.”
– Neave, N., Laing, S., Fink, B., Manning, J.T (2003) Second to fourth digit ratio, testosterone, and perceived male dominance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (Lond), 270, 2167-2172.
* A 1991 study by Dr. Simon LeVay found that a specific region of the hypothalamus is twice as large in heterosexual men as it is in women or gay men. This strongly points the role of biology in sexual orientation.
– Levay, Simon “A difference in hypothalamic structure between homosexual and heterosexual men” Science. 1991 Volume 253, Issue 5023, pp. 1034-1037.
* Another 1991 study by scientists Richard Pillard and John M. Baily studied homosexuality among brothers and found that 53 percent of identical twins were both gay. In adoptive brothers, 11 percent were both homosexual. Of non-twin biological siblings, 9 percent were gay. Again, this points to solid evidence that homosexuality is a matter of nature.
– Bailey JM, Pillard RC (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089-1096.
None of what you posted resolves the moral questions in ho-mos-exuality. Absolutely none.
It's only a moral question to you due to your religion, and that's irrelevant when it comes to what others do with their own lives. You're enti.tled to think it's immoral, and you're enti.tled to speak out against it in the context of your religious beliefs, but that's where it ends.
Ultimately this is going to be resolved at the ballot box and in the courts. I am confident that Christians will be victorious. You do not get to say where it ends.
The consti.tution does get to say where it ends. Unless you feel like getting rid of it, then it doesn't matter how many people vote for it, or what a specific lawmaker thinks.
The Supreme Court says what is const.itutional or unconst.itutional. Not you. And the conservatives on the Supreme Court will prevail on this issue.
Not even the justices can make a case where there is none. Legislating against something on religious grounds is unconsti.tutional period. Whether conservative or liberal doesn't matter for sh.it., and if the judges on the supreme court flout the first amendment then each of them should be taken off and replaced with actually sane people who know and respect the law that they are sworn to uphold.
You're only saying that this is fine because you think that they'll be on your side and that they, like you, only apply the first amendment when you want it to apply.
You don't even know the grounds that these law suits are brought on. They are brought uner the equal protection clause, not the First Amendment. So kindly keep your legal opinions to yourself or educate yourself.
Equal protection for who?
You are clueless.
You're wrong Evangelical. It was conservative judges that legalized abortion. They don't get the option to vote according to their personal morals.
Evangelical wrote, " None of what you posted resolves the moral questions in ho-mos-exuality."
Being born gay is no more immoral than being born left-handed. This is one more thing, in a long list of things, that your god totally screwed up. Plus, for the billionth time, we are not aa theocracy, so whatever your sick, twisted, psychotic, schizophrenic, putz of a god wants is irrelevant.
I will ignore your blasphemy and just repeat that the most you can say you are born with is a ho-mos-exual orientation. Ho-mos-exual behavior is always a choice. And it is always immoral.
No you are wrong. Conservative in the seventies is not conservative by today's standards. I am confident that the conservatives on the Court will prevail. But we shall see ....
You said, "the most you can say you are born with is a ho-mos-exual orientation. Ho-mos-exual behavior is always a choice."
Just as it is with heterosexual behavior.
It is even worse for religion. Everyone is born without a religion. Those that become religious do so because they are indoctrinated into it. It is a choice whether to stick with it, against all rationale. It is also a choice to use it to discriminate against your fellow man.
You said, "And it is always immoral."
Homosexuality is not, bigotry is.
There is little more despicable than to use your life style choices to harm others.
Again, that is merely your opinion based on your religious convictions, and as such only apply to you, not to anyone else.
@LinCA: I was born without religion, yet after 39 years the Lord showed me the truth. Jesus Christ is Lord...don't be deceived.
Are you saying that the conservative judges in the 1970s were so liberal that they were personally pro choice Evangelical???? You're not that dumb are you?
Just because they were Republican judges doesn't mean they were conservative. Just the other day Jeb Bush said that today Ronald Reagan would not be considered conservative enough. I am glad to see the shift to the right of the Republican party. But, as I have said, we will see how it pans out. I am confident that ho-mos-exuals will be stripped of rights as a group.
And Reagan/Bush appointed judges upheld Roe Vs. Wade in 1993. Let me guess – you think Reagan and Bush are pro choice liberals.....
Courts have already ruled in favor of gay marriage in several states. Just a matter of time before it is legal across the US.
If you want to live in a theocracy, then you are in the wrong country. Then again, I'm pretty sure saying anything that would be outside your little bubble you've constructed for your world view is a useless thing.
Evangelical – "I am confident that ho-mos-exuals will be stripped of rights as a group."
Omg.. You actually believe Ronald Reagan was pro choice???? Time to go back to school for you.....and Bush then??? Jeb is conservative but his daddy was a liberal was he?
I never said that Ronald Reagan was pro-abortion. But abortion is a different issue than ho-mos-exual rights. Don't tell me what lower courts have ruled. It's all meaningless. Once again I will repeat that I am confident that the Court under Roberts will do the right thing and rule against ho-mos-exual rights. But as I said twice before, we will see ....
And I will continue to say that if you want to live in a theocracy, then you're living in the wrong country.
But you're entire argument has been that the conservative Christian judges of the Supreme Court will disallow gay marriage because it is immoral. So are you now saying you are wrong, or are you saying that the conservative judges think abortion is moral and gay marriage is immoral? You can't have it both ways. Either your whole argument is wrong, or abortion is moral. Which one is it?
I am saying that the Court is more conservative now than at any time since FDR.
I am also saying that the Court is far less likely to overturn established precedent than it is not to extend rights where there previously were none. Look up the doctrine of Stare Decisis.
You said, "I was born without religion, yet after 39 years the Lord showed me the truth. Jesus Christ is Lord...don't be deceived."
You say you were without religion, but were you also without faith? Were you convinced there were no gods, or at least that their existence was highly unlikely? Or did you still believe the god that you were brought up with was out there, but you simply didn't go to church?
But do tell. What was it that convinced you that christianity was the way to go? Which one of the 38,000 different denominations, sects and cults is the correct one?
My guess is that you simply had a case of early onset midlife crisis and reverted back to the religion you grew up with.
"This blog or personal opinion is the dung heap of gays no one else would listen to this garbage so they have to get their distorted points of view out there and this is the way to do it. "
It's hysterical that you continue to lie over and over again breaking one of the fundamental scriptures in the bible. It just shows you are not truly a Christian but a troll who is here only to try to spread your unfounded prejudice and bigotry towards the gay community. The experts have stated that heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."
This fight is about civil rights for the gay community. Marriage was declared a civil right which is why there are at least 10 states that have some form of gay marriage or union rights for gays. As more and more real evidence is presenting showing the truth on this matter the more it's becoming obvious that the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional.
YeahRight there are around 20 states that offer some of the rights if not all of them.
States allows civil unions, providing state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples:
Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island (Note: In Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire, same-sex marriage has replaced civil unions.)
State grants nearly all state-level spousal rights to unmarried couples (domestic partnerships):
California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington
State provides some state-level spousal rights to unmarried couples (domestic partnerships):
Hawaii, Maine, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia
Sorry that's about 13 states.
Nothing new here all the same responses all the same BS
"Nothing new here all the same responses all the same BS"
Most of what you post is BS.
Well, Bob, when you ignorant fundamentalist idiots keep reposting the same lies and bullshît, what do expect us to do?
This blog or personal opinion is the dung heap of gays no one else would listen to this garbage so they have to get their distorted points of view out there and this is the way to do it. Don't take it as a legit article and don't get caught with the ones that have no life and hoover from board to board. Post the truth of Jesus and don't respond to them. If anyone has shown more hate disrespect and lack of caring that the gays say people do to them it has been these people this is a real reason to fight. Anyone can post a blog here its not by CNN only SPONSORED by CNN or WORLD MEDIA they are not paid and have to pay to put up a article. This is the same tactic that the gays used on the APA seem legit but no credentials at all. This is exactly what was posted in the Bible, the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking who he will devour.
Thor is the only true god bob – you need to learn that.
Point 1 – being born gay is no more wrong, immoral, or a sin, than being born left-handed or black. And it wasn't that long afo that you fundamentalist idiots said that being left-handed was a sign of the devil, and being black was the mark of Cain. This is simply one more thing, in a very long list of things, that your version of a god got completely wrong.
Point 2 – you still seem to think we are a theocracy. We aren't. You seem to suffer from a variant of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and thisn precludes you from understanding just how wrong you are.
More delusional nonsense. No one has deliberately posted more false information than you have, Bob. When you get called on your false-hoods, you wrap yourself in the mantle of victim-hood and claim harassment. If it weren't so childish and pathetic, it would be laughable.
The path of sin as told in the book of Romans...(1) filthy lusts of their hearts or "free love" (2) dishonorable passions or "gay life style" (3) vain mind or "just do it" Here is the USA history from 1960 to 2012.
Anyone interested in taking harassing Tom Tom
Well at least Asher acknowledged that there was a David, and a Solomon who existed, oh and there is no shock that it was not much going on in Jereusalem in those days. But, looks like you forgot about Cyrus the Great, who was also real. Hey, there was also a ship called The Good Ship jesus, it too is real.
A thought to consider without an ego response
All well and good for you and your god – but your god is not my god.
Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down.
The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land of Canaan in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom.
Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.
The tales of the patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others – were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).
The famous battle of Jericho, with which the Israelites supposedly launched this campaign of conquest after wandering for decades in the desert, has been likewise debunked: The city of Jericho didn't exist at that time and had no walls to come tumbling down. These assertions are all pretty much accepted by mainstream archaeologists.
Eventually as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded.
I am the spirit of the anti christ
The story Of Jericho- by one of the worlds most prominent archaeological Doctors
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.