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. T.Brown

    You know whats wrong here??? Nobody but nobody has injected the Holy Spirit....you have Father(God),Son(Jesus)and the Holy Spirit(a combination of both)...and why The Holy Spirit??? So we all can get wisdom,understanding,and direction.The Bible say get wisdom get understanding.Now do we know all truths?..NO,do we have a mouth to ask/pray?YES!! Even non-believers can understand this...now as far as the writer of this story I personally think she is void of any understanding and her opinion is a PACIFIER for an act that God himself said " If a man should lay with another man as he would with a woman...THAT IS AN OBOMINATION unto the LORD".Now you can twist words,ideas and the like and if you don't believe in something you'll fall for anything.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  2. Mark

    this woman is not bringing out "lost text" from the Bible. To even call this interpretation is blasphemous. She is bringing people back to the dark ages as if she's the only one able to have a proper "interpretation" of the Bible. Really who does she think she is? There was once a time when only the priests of "churches" were allowed to read the Bible. The Bible was maintained in its original language, not because it was unable to be translated, but because the catholic church leaders were corrupt and profited from the peoples' ignorance. They told the people whatever they want and said it came from the Bible. She's doing the same thing. She claims to be able to properly interpret the Bible because she has a Bible degree and unfortunately people believe her. For "knowing" so much of the Bible she understands none of it. I can only imagine the confusion of the people belonging to her church.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  3. David Bustamante

    I agree it's the worst interpretation of the bible I've read in quite some time. God meant what He said and said what He meant. the bible has been proven to be accurate, time tested and the truth. God loves you, He sent His son to die on the cross so that our sins could be forgiven and you could have eternal life. The alternative is to face wrath, being separated from Him for all of eternity. Don't criticize or reject before you've read it and allowed Him to reveal His truths to you.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  4. Sam Houston

    A Bible scholar and pastor? The Bible can be interpreted a number of different ways? Another typical example of making the truth what one wants it to be instead of accepting it as written.
    God does not hate people, He hates certain forms of conduct that they may practice (Romans 1:24-27). But, people can change (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). It is a personal choice as with many things. However, if we want to please our Creator, we will do HIS will instead of doing what our first human parents did–their own thing. Why do you think the world is in such a mess in the first place? (Romans 5:12) Glad to know that through God's undeserved kindness His original purpose will be carried out. (Romans 5:18,19)

    February 9, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  5. Chance

    Basically, the writer said since slavery was wrong, you can't trust what the Bible says. She claims to be a pastor while declaring the Bible to be corrupt. She needs a new profession. A person can disagree with the Bible, but if you do not follow the New Testament in it's entirety, you aren't a Christian. Jesus was the one that said many will say unto him "Lord, Lord," and will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, but only those who OBEY. Everyone has a choice to follow the Bible or not. I choose to follow Christ.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  6. Chris

    It's easy to pick the comments of the "good Christians" here. Most cite a single Biblical verse they can use to justify their hatred.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
    • Newbie

      Chris, Christians don't hate others. Being concerned about someone's mortal soul isn't hate. It's love for their fellow man.

      It's the same thing as saying ... if you drive that car at 60 mph straight at that brick wall, guess what? You will hit that brick wall at 60 mph. So, the person decides to drive 80 mph in the same direction. Same conclusion. They smash into the brick wall. All Christians are saying is to to take another route. And that story makes us the BAD GUYS? How do you figure? Oh, that's right, you want to live a sinful life, reckless, not caring, not knowing ... because after all ... God's just a fairy tale. Well, I suppose you believe in Evolution. There are still monkeys and apes today. Are they relatives of yours that didn't evolve?


      February 9, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
  7. PeterVN

    Given all the debate and commentary about different interpretations of the bible, it seems that the Christian god, a purportedly omnipotent being, has a communication and marketing weakness. It can't reliably get its message out.

    So, Christians, think about this a bit more. This is an all-powerful being that you are claiming, yet it apparently needs a clunky book to get its message across. and the messaging is subject to multiple interpretations. That's utterly ridiculous for a "god". An all-powerful being could easily just insert its message into its subjects minds, no book required and no room for interpretation.

    Therefore, the Christian god is not omnipotent and must be pure fiction.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • Sam Houston

      What you said sounds alot like Star Trek or other science fiction. However, what better way to preserve thoughts and at the same time give people the opportunity to meditate on them and the CHOICE to accept them or not than by having it written down? Also, if He programmed His word into people's minds then they would not be motivated by love to do them. They would be like robots.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Newbie

      PeterVN, you just MUTED your own point for the fact that we are on the Web blogging this.



      February 9, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  8. HaHaHa

    It shouldn't be surprising the religious zealots should come out in droves to respond to an article such as this. If anything threatens them more, its people's freedom to be themselves.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • Newbie

      Ha, Ha, Ha, far from it. Practicing Christians come out to nip this babble nonsense before it becomes a belief like the lie about Eve eating an apple.

      Talk about twisting scriptures. Most people don't know His truth because of rag sites like CNN's.

      February 9, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
  9. m

    so.... I don't think anyone will deny that Jesus walked the earth at some time in the past, or that he was very influential. I think the main argument is with the divinity part. Jesus existing is not proof of a devinity. We want evidence. Your beliefs are not evidence. Jesus left NO evidence of divinity. Notice how NO bible books are labeled "book of Jesus?" The dude didnt even write his own bible!! I mean common.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • mrdrew

      Doesn't the non-existance of a book of Jesus make complete sense within the divinity argument? God came to earth to SHOW us how to live. If he wanted to write a book for us on how to live he could have done that without the whole hassle of being born, living and dying.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • W247

      M- The majority of the New Testament are eye witness accounts of Jesus' actions while he was on earth. Humble, meek and mild, I don't think her would write an account of his own events.

      February 9, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  10. W247

    I think the author of this article and Dan Brown need to hang out together, think of the drivel they can come up with!

    February 9, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • Newbie

      I like that word. Drivel. The updated word for BABBLE.


      February 9, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
  11. Dr. B. Good...

    To all the stone-throwing gay-haters: Are you without sin?

    February 9, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • Newbie

      You are part of the crowd that spreads this lie Dr. B. Good, Christians do not hate gays. Christians love all people, especially gays who's very souls are in jeopardy if they don't wake up and listen to His truth.

      And you Dr. B. Good. What are you doing to save your fellow man from distinction? Oh, that's right. It's all about you, you, you and you care less what happens to anyone at any time.

      February 9, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
  12. Paul Martin

    While I can appreciate a person's willingness to wrestle with seeming ambiguity in an attempt to arrive at a deeper moral understanding, like every Christian I have ever encountered, and likely will ever encounter, the author does an excellent job of cherry-picking Scripture to arrive at a moral conclusion that likely conforms to her political slant, in the same way that Southern Christians found a way to make slavery somehow compatible with Christian teachings, repeating it often and loudly enough that they were clearly quite convinced this is what God wanted.

    I don't consider this sort of mental flexibility a sign of man's brave struggle to understand God's will, I consider it to be mankind's convenient use of an ambiguous text to justify the moral basis of whatever it happens to want most, but cannot get without coercion.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • Mojojuju

      I concur with you. This is the problem with trying to tie everything in life to a 2000-ish year old book.

      Ask any English major–literature can be interpreted any ol' way you please, the trick is SELLING it.

      Contortions like these, while interesting, make me glad I was raised in a secular household.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  13. Brooks

    I have not heard so much double talk since teh presidential elections, this is insane, if you follow the bible follow the bible, if not then don't mention it in your argument. Sodom and Gomorrah......after all these years and expxamples do we REALLY need more proof?

    February 9, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
  14. Socrates

    If we all agree that incest is immoral and wrong. Other than some sickos out there I think we can all agree on this premise.

    Then those that believe in the stroy of Genesis have some 'splaining to do.

    If Adam and Eve were the first 2 people on Earth and we all are their descendents. Then by necessity there had to be some incest going on to get the population going, right?????

    Why don't the theologians answer this question?

    February 9, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • chillyindy

      Adam and Eve were indeed the first two humans on earth. But most theologians believe that God obviously had the power to create other human beings at the same time, and incest did not occur.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
    • Mojojuju


      That seems terribly convenient to me. G-heh.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
    • Newbie

      Socrates, your question has been answered on other posts on this site.

      Adam and Eve are the lineage of Emmanuel (Jesus who walked in the flesh).

      They were created on the 8th day. The rest of humanity was created on the 6th day.

      The Bible is the story of God, sending His son Jesus to walk in the flesh, experience life, defeat death, and die for all our sins so if we love and follow Him we shall live for all eternity. Not perish, like Lucifer in the Lake of Fire.

      February 9, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
  15. AB

    This lady have the nerves to call herself a pastor, she needs to go back to school because she doesn't really know the Bible. Worst of all, you 've her confusing people even more than they already did. If you don't knoe the Lord, you will surely mis-interpret the Bible.

    The Bible made it clear that those consider themselves to be teachers of the Word will be judging more strickly then the student. This lady don't even have respect for the Lord. Who is she is a pastor for? Are pastors suppose to be teachers of the Word. Lady you're in serious trouble for blasphemy the Word in the Bible. You may be a star to humans but you're not a star in the Lord's eyes. It doesn't matter what you try to say about the Bible, at the end the truth will be reveal to the rest of the world.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • Umathedog

      AB – Do you know the bible? Can you read Ancient Hebrew or Greek which is the language that the majority of the book was written in? Or do you accept the Latin translation from the Catholic Church – we don't trust them with our kids, but we trust them with their translation of words that are supposed to guide our lives? You are basing your understanding on the words of man – if you truly believe in the divinely inspired ord of God, quit being so lazy – learn some ancient languages and come up with your own interpretation.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • Mojojuju

      It is amusing to me that so many of the people posting here in favor of hatred do so with absolutely terrible grammar. I wonder if they even managed to read all the way through the article; if so, I wonder if they understood a word.

      This woman is not making things up. She's reading from the same bible they are, and yet these people react as if she were reading a comic book instead.

      You DO have a choice as to how you interpret the Bible. You have always had a choice. As society grows, our reading of the text changes along with our cultural values.

      Thus the passages about slavery that we no longer follow. Or the parts about not eating bacon or shrimp.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
    • erik

      I find it funny you would take the word of paul over the teachings of jesus. http://WWW.jesuswordsonly.com Check it with an open mind. You might be surprised. It is all taken directly from the bible. No interpretation necessary.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • Newbie

      AB, she's just another hack like the rest of those rock star preachers that hawk their wares to make a dollar off the Lord's truth.

      She, like the rest of the false teachers are the first to go!

      February 9, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Mojojuju

      Newbie–what makes you so sure that you are right and she is wrong? I find her arguments as convincing as I might find yours. Mind you, I'm not a believer, and so the concept of "I was taught this and so it is right" is alien to me.

      I suppose my question is–how can you know? How can you know that you're right and she's wrong?

      You can't. Neither of you can be proved right or wrong. What remains is faith. You and she have faith in your own versions and beliefs.

      Faith is really just sticking to your guns, so to speak. And we need to respect each other's gun–I mean, beliefs, no?

      February 9, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
    • Newbie

      Mojojuju, many true Christians (meaning those Christians that read their Bible and have gotten to the level of spiritual thinking) have stated over and over on this site that any one can read the Bible. It's whether that person is still in the carnal mindset or not is what matters. Knust is obviously living in the ways of the world and hasn't reached a level of spiritual thinking, believing, living. If she did achieve spiritual awakening, she would assume to, never mind have the audacity (meaning her ego is well in tack) to write such an article.

      By the way do you know what ego means? Erase God Out.

      She's a hack teacher of His word to make a name for herself and money to boot. Pure and simple.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
    • Mojojuju

      Newbie– It has been my experience that nothing is pure and simple.

      I find it arrogant that some people label themselves "true" Christians or "true" Jews or "true" Muslims simply because others don't share their beliefs to a tee.

      Is it not prideful of such people to assume that they are always right? You yourself said that Ego erases God. Is it not ego that makes you unwilling to admit that some of her thoughts on the scriptures might have merit?

      Question: Do you believe that slavery is moral because it is supported in the bible? I think this is a good point that she raised. I'm guessing you don't–and yet, how do you justify its inclusion as acceptable in the bible?

      Am I correct in assuming that there are maybe one or two things, even in the New Testament, to which you do not adhere?

      February 9, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  16. Really?

    This is perhaps the worst interpretation of the Bible i have read to date.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • QS

      Because so many of the other interpretations in the past have been so much better.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
    • Newbie

      Really, maybe Knust should read His truth cover to cover instead of picking and chosen which scriptures she wants to massacre just to make a dollar.

      I hope she has some gray matter left to get on her knees and ask God for forgiveness in Jesus Christ's name.


      February 9, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  17. Robert

    Here's a though, drop the 2,000 year old myth entirely.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • Newbie

      Robert, 1st read His truth, then try to make this comment.

      You're too funny.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
    • Mojojuju

      Tried it. It was an interesting and at times long-winded historical collection of myths and histories. Some nice morals, some clever advice, some scary stuff that is rather loathesome. All rolled into one.

      I rather agree with the original poster. If you can use it as a guide to live your life, woohoo! But if you use it to condemn others, boo.

      I find I have a strong moral compass without the benefit of a religious upbringing.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  18. Mojonaamdi

    So what's next... maybe the Bible (and God) is also okay with beastiality/ is that's teh next thing that going to be okay with feel good Christians who would like to believe all is well and hunky dory/

    February 9, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • QS

      Ah yes, the completely irrational, but always amusing, slippery slope argument.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • Newbie

      Mojonaamdi, everyone knows the "FEEL GOOD" Christians never pick up their Bibles to read His truth. They're just as lost as non-believers sucking up anything the world has to throw at them.


      February 9, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  19. Crucified

    I would rather put my trust in the Disciples Killed for there belief after spending every moment of 3 1/2 years with Jesus. If they would of seen one sin in him. they surely would never of Died for the belief. If they did not see him resurect, they surely would not have died for their belief. Especially when I think of Batholemew who was skin alive and then burned at the stack.. as Roman procedure required they where always asked to recant. They never did! Amen and Amen!

    February 9, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
  20. NevadaFriend

    The writers of the Bible were many different people and their knowledge of biology(and most all science) was practically non existent. They had no idea of genes or germs even. They also thought the earth was the center of the universe and that the world was flat. They had no idea of the biological errors that occur in the womb. They didn't know what caused gay people, dwarfs, or harelips, webbed toes or fingers, or the millions of others errors that can occur. There is nothing "sinful" about gay people any more than there is about a person being a dwarf.

    February 9, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • cecelia

      um, NOT an error. thank you

      February 9, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • W247

      That is such a misconception! WHERE in the bible does it talk about a flat earth???
      Isaiah 40:
      22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
      and its people are like grasshoppers.
      He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
      and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • OneMan

      @NevadaFriend, the arrogance of people who think they kow what they are saying without even thinking what they are saying. This guy stated and probably meaning no harm the following: "They didn't know what caused gay people, dwarfs, or harelips, webbed toes or fingers, or the millions of others errors that can occur." Are you saying that dwarfs, gay people, etc are biological errors? You don't know that and no one knows that. Perhaps that's how God really wanted man to be and we are the error. Stop being so arrogant people. Soon we will find that there is probably life in other planets and better yet more intelligent that us and perhaps very diffenrent in appearance. What are you going to say that they are also a biological error because they are different. It's going to be a humbling experience for all.
      We are so ignorant that we think we know a lot when in fact we know nothing yet.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • Newbie

      NevadaFiend, God inspired the writings of these men to scroll his Truth for us to read, comprehend and abide. God knows all. He even created the science of biology. As for being born a dwarf, with or without site, limbs, hearing, etc. All are carnal. It has absolutely nothing to do with all learning and abiding in His spiritual teachings.

      Talk about going off track!

      February 9, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • Magic

      "That is such a misconception! WHERE in the bible does it talk about a flat earth???
      Isaiah 40:
      22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..."

      A circle is not a sphere. They had a word for 'sphere' and 'ball', but did not use it.

      There are other instances of alluding to a flat earth in the Bible, such as Satan taking Jesus to a high mountain where they could see the entire Earth (not possible on a sphere); and the one about the 4 corners of the Earth (also not possible on a sphere).

      I know, I know.... metaphorical, you say... as always when things don't gibe with reality in that book.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • Shannon

      Correction in my reply: It says the Bible DOES NOT condone it.****

      February 9, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
    • W247

      you mean when things don't jive with YOUR reality. My reality is fine.

      February 9, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
    • Magic


      "you mean when things don't jive with YOUR reality. My reality is fine."

      Oh, so you *do* think that the world is flat, eh?

      p.s. btw, the correct word is "gibe" ("jive" is jazz dancing or ebonics talk)

      February 10, 2011 at 12:20 am |
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
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.