home
RSS
My Take: The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality
February 9th, 2011
10:31 AM ET

My Take: The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality

Editor's Note: Jennifer Wright Knust is author of Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire.

By Jennifer Wright Knust, Special to CNN

We often hears that Christians have no choice but to regard homosexuality as a sin - that Scripture simply demands it.

As a Bible scholar and pastor myself, I say that Scripture does no such thing.

"I love gay people, but the Bible forces me to condemn them" is a poor excuse that attempts to avoid accountability by wrapping a very particular and narrow interpretation of a few biblical passages in a cloak of divinely inspired respectability.

Truth is, Scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways. And biblical writers held a much more complicated view of human sexuality than contemporary debates have acknowledged.

In Genesis, for example, it would seem that God’s original intention for humanity was androgyny, not sexual differentiation and heterosexuality.

Genesis includes two versions of the story of God’s creation of the human person. First, God creates humanity male and female and then God forms the human person again, this time in the Garden of Eden. The second human person is given the name Adam and the female is formed from his rib.

Ancient Christians and Jews explained this two-step creation by imagining that the first human person possessed the genitalia of both sexes. Then, when the androgynous, dually-sexed person was placed in the garden, s/he was divided in two.

According to this account, the man “clings to the woman” in an attempt to regain half his flesh, which God took from him once he was placed in Eden. As third century Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman explained, when God created the first man, God created him with two faces. “Then he split the androgyne and made two bodies, one on each side, and turned them about.”

When the apostle Paul envisioned the bodies that would be given to humanity at the end of time, he imagined that they would be androgynous, “not male and female.” The third-century non-canonical Gospel of Philip, meanwhile, lamented that sexual difference had been created at all: “If the female had not separated from the male, she and the male would not die. That being’s separation became the source of death.”

From these perspectives, God’s original plan was sexual unity in one body, not two. The Genesis creation stories can support the notion that sexual intercourse is designed to reunite male and female into one body, but they can also suggest that God’s blessing was first placed on an undifferentiated body that didn’t have sex at all.

Heterosexual sex was therefore an afterthought designed to give back the man what he had lost.

Despite common misperceptions, biblical writers could also imagine same-sex intimacy as a source of blessing. For example, the seemingly intimate relationship between the Old Testament's David and Jonathan, in which Jonathan loved David more than he loved women, may have been intended to justify David’s rise as king.

Jonathan, not David, was a king’s son. David was only a shepherd. Yet by becoming David’s “woman,” Jonathan voluntarily gave up his place for his beloved friend.

Thus, Jonathan “took great delight in David,” foiling King Saul’s attempts to arrange for David’s death (1 Samuel 19:1). Choosing David over his father, Jonathan makes a formal covenant with his friend, asking David to remain faithful to him and his descendants.

Sealing the covenant, David swears his devotion to Jonathan, “for he loved him as he loved his own life” (1 Samuel 20:17). When Jonathan is killed, King David composes a eulogy for him, praising his devotion: “greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26).

Confident claims about the forms of sex rejected by God are also called into question by early Christian interpretations of the story of Sodom. From the perspective of the New Testament, it was the near rape of angels - not sex between men - that led to the demise of the city.

Linking a strange story in Genesis about “sons of God” who lust after “daughters of men” to the story of the angels who visit Abraham’s nephew Lot, New Testament writers concluded that the mingling of human and divine flesh is an intolerable sin.

As the New Testament letter Jude puts it:

And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and went after strange flesh, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire (Jude 6-7).

The first time angels dared to mix with humans, God flooded the earth, saving only Noah, his family, and the animals. In the case of Sodom, as soon as men attempted to engage in sexual activity with angels, God obliterated the city with fire, delivering only Lot and his family. Sex with angels was regarded as the most dangerous and offensive sex of all.

It’s true that same-sex intimacy is condemned in a few biblical passages. But these passages, which I can count on one hand, are addressed to specific sex acts and specific persons, not to all humanity forever, and they can be interpreted in any number of ways.

The book of Leviticus, for example, is directed at Israelite men, offering instructions regarding legitimate sexual partners so long as they are living in Israel. Biblical patriarchs and kings violate nearly every one of these commandments.

Paul’s letters urge followers of Christ to remain celibate and blame all Gentiles in general for their poor sexual standards. Jesus, meanwhile, says nothing at all about same-sex pairing, and when he discusses marriage, he discourages it.

So why are we pretending that the Bible is dictating our sexual morals? It isn’t.

Moreover, as Americans we should have learned by now that such a simplistic approach to the Bible will lead us astray.

Only a little more than a century ago, many of the very same passages now being invoked to argue that the scriptures label homosexuality a sin or that God cannot countenance gay marriage were used to justify not “biblical marriage” but slavery.

Yes, the apostle Paul selected same-sex pairings as one among many possible examples of human sin, but he also assumed that slavery was acceptable and then did nothing to protect slaves from sexual use by their masters, a common practice at the time. Letters attributed to him go so far as to command slaves to obey their masters and women to obey their husbands as if they were obeying Christ.

These passages served as fundamental proof texts to those who were arguing that slavery was God’s will and accusing abolitionists of failing to obey biblical mandates.

It is therefore disturbing to hear some Christian leaders today claim that they have no choice but to regard homosexuality as a sin. They do have a choice and should be held accountable for the ones they are making.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jennifer Wright Knust.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Bible • Homosexuality • Opinion • Sex

soundoff (4,235 Responses)
  1. Jim Massey

    Before someone criticize her, please look at her qualification. She is more qualified to discuss the subject than any of your semi-gods, namely Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh etc.

    See her qualification at:
    http://www.bu.edu/sth/academics/faculty/jennifer-wright-knust/

    And for the rest of you, where did you learn about Christainity? From Rush Limbugh radio program, Benny Hinn, Ted Haggard or Eddie Long?

    February 9, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • lingisi

      She is definitely not qualified. On such matter the fact that she is a pastor precludes her from having a clear scholar judgement. Even so, being a pastor how can she find so confort in the fact that the so sacred Biblle has mixed messages in the subject?

      February 9, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • firebrand

      I could care less about her credentials after reading her article; her ignorance speaks for itself. If she were academically serious, she would cite her sources and perhaps try to explain 1) what the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually says about the issue, and 2) why it's wrong. Then we'd have an article worth considering.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • Thomas in Vancouver

      Don't forget Peter Popoff and Jack Van Impe.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
  2. WH

    Shouldn't a bible scholar know that every commonly-accepted translation of the Bible translates Genesis 1:27 as "male and female he created THEM", not "male and female he created it", or "male and female he created him".

    Her entire first arguement doesn't hold any water. It is purely conjecture, not Biblical.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • saresudog

      "Commonly accepted" would be correct. Commonly accepted by an ignorant flock who takes what their backwoods ignorant preacher feeds them and accept it as fact. Ironically, this BIBLICAL SCHOLAR gives you some reliable points about the bible because...I don't know...maybe she's studied some of the original texts? You, and everyone like you, are the same people that science will prove things over and over to, but you still choose to believe in something with NO facts to back it up. Purely emotional, faith based, hopeful thought over something that can be seen with your own eyes and ears. And in turn be hateful and discriminatory towards your fellow man.

      February 9, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • Newbie

      Sareusdog, For the Lord gives skillful and godly Wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.

      Proverbs 2:6

      February 9, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
    • saresudog

      Thanks for making my point for me Newbie

      February 9, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
  3. Maddie

    I find it sort of hilarious how some of these comments include the words, "faith" and "logic" together.
    There is no way to logically debate faith because faith itself is an irrational concept. Jennifer Wright Knust used a format commonly found in logic in order to make her assertions reasonable to those who believe in the Bible. I think she did a very good job at explaining her argument, she even had sufficient evidence to support her claims. However, it is all purely based on faith and therefore no conclusions may be drawn. I, for one, do not believe in a God... I also do not NOT believe in a God. I suppose if you want to classify someone like me with a word, you could say Agnostic.
    My beliefs are simply to live for the sake of living. Be happy and love because you want to. I do not care what form of love you take as long as it does not inflict pain or isn't consensual.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
  4. Jake

    Wow. This person considers herself a "biblical scholar"? This piece has so many logical flaws and failures in judgment that I don't even know where to start. No matter what the view is, I expect a higher standard from CNN. This is a big pile of worthless junk.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
    • saresudog

      Why, because it didn't come from your backwoods ignorant preacher?

      February 9, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • GoodGrief

      Amen Jake. I'm with you. I was going to rip her work apart ... but then I thought why should I do her work for her. She's obviously clueless, but believes she knows something because she got that sheep skin.

      Same with all these die hard non-believers. Always starting these debates so that we do the work for them. I'm sure they are putting their book together stealing Jesus' truth, calling Truth by a different name, and claiming it as their own.

      Same ole, same ole.

      February 9, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  5. Jim Massey

    Before someone criticize her, please look at her qualification. She is more qualified to discuss the subject than any of your semi-gods, namely Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh etc.

    See her qualification at:
    http://www.bu.edu/sth/academics/faculty/jennifer-wright-knust/

    And for the rest of you, where did you learn about Christainity? Rush Limbugh radio program, Benny Hinn, Ted Haggard or Eddie Long?

    February 9, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
    • GoodGrief

      Jim Massey, I did check her credentials and she is swimming in pollution for how the priesthood got polluted. See the Books of Ezrah and Nehemiah.

      I mentioned this to Umathedog if you care to scroll back up.

      February 9, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • Newbie

      Jim Massey, there are conservatives in the democratic party. It's just you yippies went zippy on us.

      February 9, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
  6. Umathedog

    The thing that bothers me most about both the article and especially the comments is the argument over the minutae of the specific words in the bible and how those words are being expounded upon. Commenters suggest that the author is inferring meaning and making a number of assumptions – which is true – although the fact (and this is actually a fact) is that all of the arguments on both sides are based upon the words as they have been translated into english – if it is so important that either side captures the "true meaning" why are you arguning over the English translation and not the original texts? If every word is the word of God – why this arrogance that the men that translated it for you got the context right? I've read the same book in both English and French and found that even the best translations tell a different story than was told in the original language.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • Timothy C

      You have a very good point–unless we know the original words and the cultural context in which they were written, it's almost impossible to infer the appropriate meaning.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • saresudog

      A perfect being with a perfect plan. An eternity in heaven and hell hang in the balance...and this perfect being leaves it up to failed humans to translate it, get it right, and spread the word. One thing among many that make no sense. Proof positive that religion is purely emotional thinking. Thanks, but I'd rather use the brain that I was given instead.

      February 9, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • GoodGrief

      Umathedog, did you happen to investigate where Knust got her credentials? I did. None of those folks know enough to read (or care) how the priesthood got polluted years before Jesus' birth because they drown in this pollution. You can read this truth gpt yourself in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Secondly, Knust doesn't even know the tools how to read the Bible. Without tools, she has no cross references to the scrolls (whether they be Hebrew, Greek, etc.).

      February 9, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
  7. Q-bert

    Ya'll should study some quantum mechanic along with your Bibles to see if anyone can really say what reality is anyway.
    If you think you can.....better think again.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • GoodGrief

      Q-bert, imagine what Stephen Hawking could have done if he applied his gray matter to reading Jesus' teachings than to stay a trekkie for the rest of his days.

      February 9, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  8. phoodphite

    so i will try again. my last post was lost evidently. my point was that much of the anti-h stuff in the bible came from Paul. The author, to strengthen her point should have emphasized how much Jesus told various apostles that they didn't get his point, especially about his prime directive. that is my problem with extremist Christianity – elevating mere humans such as Paul to god-like status.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • GoodGrief

      phoodphite, who's elevating who to a god like status? You're being lazy and buying into Knust's babble. What do you have then? Her carnal interpretations of Jesus' teachings, versus getting off your butt and reading His truth on your own. If you humble yourself and read His truth, you start learning how to think, believe, live spiritually. This is where Knust's misses the mark. Selling her book is so typically carnal.

      Amen.

      February 9, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
  9. leroy

    Man was created in god's image. Only god could create, no one else could create life.
    Therefore, who created gays, but god. Otherwise, maybe darwin was right!

    February 9, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • Timothy C

      He also created the devil, by that token.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
    • GoodGrief

      Leroy, God created everyone's souls, allowed them to come back to earth again (yes, this is the 2nd earth age after the destruction of the 1st earth age when Lucifer got 1/3 of the angels to follow him and deny God) by being born of woman. God erased everyone's memories. Why? Because he's testing us. Testing to see if we will love and follow him (then we go on after leaving this earth and dwell with him through eternity) or do as you want aka following the lies of satan (evil) and not follow God. It's God's world, God's decision, God's creation. So, like the 1/3 of the angels that rebelled against God and followed Satan ... God wants to see who's going to rebel again. Then comes the day of the Lord and when this transpires is judgment. Who was abiding in the instructions He gave us how to live while housed in human form and who rebelled.

      Amen.

      February 9, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  10. Matt

    I like the article, but then my take on the bible has always been the following.....How could someone like Jesus, who knew who he was, what he was here to do, and theoretically knew what his fate was going to be and how he would be regarded, NOT take the time to write SOMETHING down on papayrus??? I mean he had no less than 12 men at his beck and call, who all could obviously read, write, and take dictation. Hell, even his dad took the time to write the commandments on some stone tablets and give them to Mel Brooks...er Moses. Anyway, just my 0.02. Stay warm everybody, Phill was wrong this year.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
  11. Patrick

    Wow. It does not take much to shake a Christian's faith, apparently. I guess the Muslims and Buddhists are the stalwart ones.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
  12. Patrick

    I'm betting opinions on the other side of this article wouldn't get as much space as this lady. Just because you call yourself a Bible Scholar and a pastor - doesn't mean you're right. No wonder a lost world hates the church.....

    February 9, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
  13. Confuzzled

    Commentor suzq stated:
    "What a twist of the bible she has done. There is a reason why God created one male and one female. He did not create two males or two females."

    If the creation story is correct, whom did the murd-erous son of Adam and Eve have int-ercourse with to have children and populate the earth? His sister or the creations of some other God who deposited fully created humans next door to Eden? I know that in-cest is condoned in the Old Testament, so I guess the latter option (believing in more than one God being a sin) is out. Thus, in-cest is okay but ho-mo-se-xua-lity is not? Um, I think I'd rather belong to a belief system set in reality and also one that does not promote in-ce-stu-ous behavior.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
  14. dan

    I put a comment out there earlier, and now after reading through the other comments, I feel compelled to say a little more. After reading how many athiests and non believers are out there, it scares me to think about how many of us are headed for an eternity of misery. But I'm willing to say that I was raised a certain way, and became a believer, and many of you out there were either raised another way or life for whatever reason has turned you into a non believer. Now I don't want to argue about who's right and who's wrong. Many of you think that Christianity and religions are a farce. That's your choice. But have you ever thought just "WHAT IF" you're wrong? If I'm wrong, well I guess I lived my entire life trying to be a good person, moral, loving and caring, and then I died and went into nothingness. If I'm wrong, "oh well". But if I'm right and you're wrong, then what? Your eternity – E T E R N I T Y – for ever! ever and ever and ever and ever will be in hell bathing in a lake of fire. Sounds like fun, huh? Perhaps some of you should just take 5 minutes and contemplate. I'd even be happy if you opened your mind and looked at Christianity as an insurance policy. Something to cover the "what if's". Although Christianity isn't just an insurance policy, at least then, you'd open your mind to learning some more about it before you judge. Good luck to you all – I really mean that. And God bless.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • Melissa

      Very well written Dan- makes sense that we may want to gain a deeper understanding of God, especially when it's a question of eternity. Thank you for your post.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • darte

      so you believe, because you fear, lol, what a religion.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • Timothy C

      But on that token, why not look on Islam or Buddhism as an "insurance policy"? The main reason you became Christian, I'll bet, is that your family and friends are of a like mind. If I had the 'misfortune' to be born in Iran, I would have naturally been raised to believe in Islam. You may be right about that insurance policy – but you may be buying the wrong one. None of us will ever know until it's time to cash in - or not.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • nuitsilencieuse

      That's Pascal's wager, Dan. A person cannot force themself to believe something they believe in as false for the sake of insurance. What about the Muslim God, or the Hindus? Are you believing in all of them as insurance? What about the Greek gods. We are all atheists in regard to some gods, some just go one step further. And don't you think God would know if you were "hedging your bets" like that? That would not be true "faith", and would not pass.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
    • G. W. Green

      Show me the proof outside of a book that the Invisible Man who lives in the sky exists. You can't because he does NOT exist. We came from nothing, we return to nothing. NOTHING, get it? NOTHING! This is no hell, no heaven, no angels, no christ, no devil, NOTHING. It is all a big lie designed to enslave people. That is all religion is, enslavement. We are advanced people who are figuring out the Universe was formed from particles too small to see with the naked eye.

      Shake off your chains and really live. Question the authority of churches. Question religion. Question the Invisible Man who lives in the sky. Question jesus. Ask jesus why the Invisible Man allowed him to die if he was his only son. Ask. The answer might scare you.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
    • annie

      Interesting point. But what if you are wrong, too? What if you didn't pick the correct religion? What if the Mormons, the Muslims, the Jews, or the Buddists are the ones correct? Why does God make this so uncertain if He really loves us? Make it clear, make it convincing, make it certain. God should be able to do this easily. Since He is not, then it is all suspect.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • Adriana

      I would rather spend an eternity in Hell than be in Heaven with a God who punishes good people just for questioning him.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • Jack

      Dan, what you are describing is a well-known argument for belief in God called Pascal's Wager. While interesting, it has been proven wrong time and time again. You ignore the possibility that you believe in the wrong god and thus will be banished to an eternal life of misery as well. Now, seeing as there are 1000s of different gods to believe in, your chances of being correct become almost zero.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • Rob

      Wouldn't that require you to follow all religions as an insurance policy? What if you are wrong about Christianity? What if Buddhism or Islam or being a Pastafraian is the true way?

      February 9, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
    • Joe Allen

      So, what if you are wrong, but the Muslims were right? Then it is you *and* I in danger of the fires of Hell. You are referencing Pascal's Wager in your argument, and it only works if there is only ONE option to believe in. In fact, there are thousands. I really do appreciate your concern, but let's not assume that you believe in option A, and I "believe" in option B, and that's it. There is a whole alphabet of additional options. You may view those other options as more hell bound options, but they are as legitimately philosophically thought out as Christianity. Good luck to you as well.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • no fear

      @ dan...so your reason for being a Christian is based on threats and fear, and you expect that to convince me? No thanks.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • sososorry

      The problem is that you could say the same about every religion. And most are mutually exclusive.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • GoodGrief

      Good post Dan. May I add that it floors me how much time non-believers spend in disputing Jesus' truth instead of using that time to humble themselves in order to read, comprehend and then abide in His truth. Anyone can read the Bible. It's whether His scriptures are read with a carnal mindset or they flourish to the spiritual mindset is what counts when following Him.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
    • Non Believer

      Except that as a non-believer, I live my life as a good, moral person, do unto others and all that. If your god is loving, kind, and merciful, then I see no problem with him accepting me into his kingdom if it turns out I am wrong. However, most "Christians" are wrong. They hate and judge, two things they are specifically NOT supposed to do. They are the opposite of "Christ-like". I am more Christ-like than most Christians I've met (and trust me, being forced to go to church 3+ times a week + Bible study, retreats, etc, I've meet tens of thousands, if not 100's of thousands). I'd say the same is true for all of my non-believing friends. They are better people than most out there that call themselves "Christians".

      February 9, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
  15. Melissa

    You are misleading many people.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • GoodGrief

      Amen.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
  16. Alan

    OK then. I find it interesting (telling, perhaps) that she cites very little in the way of scripture as to where and from what translation(s) she is getting some of this. Like for example where she gets this “two versions of God’s creation story”; I’d like to know where she finds this so I can read it for myself, but she neglects to cite it, she simply seems to wrap herself in the cloak of “expertise” and refers to “ancient Christians and Jews”, but doesn’t cite a source for this or really even say how widespread this belief was. So how can I even know how she comes up with this? And I could continue…

    I don’t know anything about her, but when she points out she is a “bible scholar and pastor” I am reminded of a session I sat in on Saturday given by the new Senior Pastor at Elmbrook church… He said when he got married he had declared to his wife he did not believe in God, spent the first year of marriage picking away at his wife’s faith, and then when in graduate school at SMU the only job he could get was as a pastor for a church of a denomination that didn’t and doesn’t feel belief in Jesus is required…he said the first Easter service he preached was interesting, as he didn’t believe in Jesus or the resurrection at the time. Yet he was a “pastor”… So, where she might be a “pastor” or a “biblical scholar” what I’m reading doesn’t square with what I’ve read of scripture myself. She says things are not as black and white as Christians would have you believe but seems to rely on us being lazy and ignorant and simply trusting what she tells us (which seems contradictory to what she is trying to say, to not believe simply what we are told…).

    2 Timothy 4:3

    February 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • Conrad

      It is in the book of Genesis (as she states) but perhaps you haven't read that far.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
    • mi17mtp

      What?

      February 9, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
    • GoodGrief

      Alan, that's saying sure seems true ... first I learn how to spell PASTOR, now I are one.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • Alan

      Ha Ha. Genesis 1 covers general creation, then Genesis 2 focuses specifically on creation of humanity. I don't interpret this as two seperate creation events myself. So I am wondering if we are looking at the same thing but since she doesn't say that who knows...

      February 9, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
    • John

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

      According to theologians, it is specifically the first 2 chapters of Genesis. The first focuses on the creation of heaven and earth, with the creation of man as an afterthought. The second focuses on the creation of man alone.

      Computers allow you to search for information, you know.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
    • THX

      I think Alan's referring to the actual source of her supposed dual creation story, Conrad. There are *many* many versions of the bible, including gnostic and agnostic types. I've read many myself and have never come across this double Genesis tale personally. I have read a version that cited Lillith as the first woman (made from dust like Adam and not Adam's rib, like Eve later was) but never this woman's version of things. I, too, would like to know her exact sources for that very reason.

      February 10, 2011 at 10:51 am |
  17. Brandon

    Let's take bits and pieces of the bible and make another book out of it ... Why we are at it ... LOL ... Come on..

    February 9, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
  18. ShellyinTexas

    This article would be hilarious if it weren't so truly sad that this woman actually believes what she wrote!!! Wow.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • GoodGrief

      ShellyinTexas,

      Amen.

      Sad but true, her ego is taking her where no man has gone before ... maybe to that black hole in outter space.

      Beam her outta here Scottie.

      February 9, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
  19. phoodphite

    this sound-off thing is not working. maybe i included a bad word like the 'h' word that caused it to say it needed to be reviewed. plus why are not things generally in some time order?

    February 9, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
  20. bishop

    When this woman called herself a Pastor. I immediately knew that she did not know the Word of God.

    February 9, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
    • abacobeachbum

      Yeah, because God's intent is to keep the woman down, and a lower classed citizen than man right?

      February 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • GW

      what a stupid thing to say. seriously.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
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.