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. maggie

    To 9/11 MP

    The second expression at Hebrews 11:1, translated “evident demonstration,” carries the idea of producing evidence that contradicts that which only appears to be factual. For instance, the sun appears to revolve around the earth— rising in the east, moving through the sky, and setting in the west. However, evidence from astronomy and mathematics reveals that the earth is not the center of the solar system. Once you become familiar with that evidence and accept it as true, you have faith that the earth revolves around the sun— despite what your eyes tell you. Your faith is not blind. On the contrary, it gives you the ability to see things as they really are, not merely as they seem to be.

    February 10, 2011 at 11:08 am |
  2. Carlos

    There aren't 2 accounts of the creation of man in Genesis, there is 1. What happens in Genesis 2 is showing the details of how man was formed, whereas Genesis 1 was just the basics of how everything came to be. I grow weary of self-proclaimed Bible Scholars.

    February 10, 2011 at 11:05 am |
    • maggie

      Amen to that.

      February 10, 2011 at 11:15 am |
    • gogogopher

      Write to me about "sons of God" (thought there was only one) came to earth and had "let's get it on" with young girls and women. 9 months later, giant babies were being born at an alarming rate to become a race of giants.

      Angels gettin' it on with humans. Then God was like, "Dooh. Bring in the flood!"

      Talking snake. A TALKING snake.

      February 10, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
  3. Ganesha

    Drawing any kind of moral conclusion from the Bible is problematic for reasons more fundamental than the author states. For instance, many biblical scholars will argue that the two versions of the creation of humanity in Genesis are taken from two different texts (known as J and E), combined at a later date for politico-cultural reasons. Anyone claiming to know the mind of the Judeo-Christian god must first deal with the fact that all pre-modern interpretations of divine intent are based on an incomplete (and frankly erroneous) knowledge of how the texts came to exist in the first place.

    February 10, 2011 at 10:52 am |
  4. Sony- Explanation of GEN ch 1 and GEN ch 2 (DO NOT READ)

    Explanation of GEN ch 1 and GEN ch 2
    The writer of the above article says that there are two versions of creation in Gen 1 and 2. That is incorrect. There is only one and only one version. Chapters 1 and 2 are like a treasure box within another treasure box. You open the first treasure box in Gen 1 and you open the second in Gen 2:4 and onwards. God first creates the earth/heavens including plants, animals, birds, and human as stated in Gen 1 and Gen 2:1to3. Then he decides to create a garden (Eden of course) within the already created earth. Read on.

    Creation summary starts at Gen 1:1 and ends at Gen 2:3 describing the 7 days of creation. Now starting from verse 4 of chapter 2, God is referring back to the third day (the day that the Lord God made the earth or dry land) and the 2nd day (the day God made the heavens or firmament) and giving us the reason how the plants/herbs grew without rain or the presence of man to till the ground (two necessities in farming). God says that the plants/herbs grew because of the mist that watered the whole face of the ground. Read the verses below:

    KJV Verses Begin: {4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.} .....Verses End

    Now starting form verse 7 of chapter 2 God describes how he created man and then on verse 8 GOD plants a garden (Eden) in earth and THIS IS IMPORTANT – God puts man in the garden that he creates and not outside the garden (which is the remaining dry land). Outside the garden, there are plants/herbs already grown and animals/birds are present. So from verse 8 onwards EVERYTHING HAPPENS INSIDE the Garden of Eden until the Fall of MAN when GOD sends them outside the GARDEN because of SIN. So like a gardener, God makes trees grow in the garden (v9), God brings water to the trees by constructing rivers (V10-14), and God brings in animals/birds into the garden to have Man name them. See the verses below:

    Verses Begin: {19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.}...Verses End.

    I hope this helps clear any doubts. I have questioned bible a lot while learning, but GOD was able to answer all my questions. Bible is a living book and is indeed God’s word, but how would someone know that? Majority of the people in this world do not take the effort to even read it –but they are ready to critic it without reading it-because they are afraid that bible will expose their sins. Bible says that JESUS is the ONLY WAY, THE Truth and the Life and he came to this world to die for our sins so that mankind can once again have the opportunity to resume a relationship with this GREAT GOD. The question is will u BELIEVE? Will you give BIBLE a chance by reading it? His coming is near. Once again all those who believe in God will have the opportunity to experience God in the Garden of Eden.

    February 10, 2011 at 10:50 am |
  5. Deliverance

    Dear PATIAT,
    (In response)
    Exactly!!!! I can't give the author any points for "making an effort" to offer a carnal spin on something spiritual and i never said "It's not like that" God's word does that for her BUT she must read it with a spiritual mind and let go of her carnal one. Just like in the garden in Genesis some folk still want to find a loophole to do their own thing and that is where the enemy blinds them. The truth shall set you free but when the truth is spiritually discerned how will she ever find truth by reading carnality into it?

    February 10, 2011 at 10:36 am |
  6. Tyler

    Some of the remarks I have found on this page I have found to be absurb to be quite frank. Just gonna clear up a few things bear with me.

    For those of you that think being gay is ok in the first place and that God supports it, you are definitely wrong. Like this article, they are just trying to justify it by misinterpreting the Bible, twist verses to their likings, and manuplate others to try and believe that being gay is ok. You can read the Bible however you will but the one verse that stands out to me that regards gay as being an abomination is this...'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" Leviticus 18:22
    Found here http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm along with other Bible versions. Gays have no standing with God and never will...get over it.

    One remark I found as I was looking through the comments was that the Bible is fiction because Christ said that he would be back in the 21st century...really? People need to get their GEDs before making comments like these. For one, it is still the 21st century as the 21st century started at the year 2001 to the present year, 2011. You can look here if you want to see it for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century. And two, if Christ did infact say this and it is in the Bible then gimme the verse. Until then, go back to high school.

    And the last controversial topic I want to address is the point that people want 'proof' that God/Christ existed. Where to start with this one...For one those that believe Evolution and Big Bang Theory, you are really gonna believe that we once were simple one-celled or only a few celled organisms and through a series of mutations over millions of years that we are what we are today? And that there was all of a sudden explosion of matter that seemed to generate out of no where? Please, get a reality check; only a higher power could have done all this. Christ created us in His perfect image, how complex our bodies are only a higher power could have created. Our Earth is also the only real habitable planet in our solar system. Only He could have created such a planet. More proof you say? Ok how about the fact through Christianity, the Bible states that Christ is the only religious figure that throughout the history of any other religion that actually RESURRECTED through God. All other religious figures died and never came back. Thus proving Christianity is the right religion. Oh but we don't want what the Bible says but hard 'proof' that God/Christ is real. Ok. One comment I saw earlier is that there is historical evidence God/Christ is real outside of the Bible. Which is true and can be found here...http://delveintojesus.com/Articles/27/Evidence-for-Jesus-Outside-the-Bible.aspx...Even though a lot of it is controversial from certain stand points look at how many people have evidence. It is just not one or two people having a dispute over Him, it is several.

    Love it, Hate it, but the truth wil be the truth either way you look at it.

    February 10, 2011 at 10:31 am |
    • John

      Hahahahahahahaha – my god, you are so gullible and full of bull – hahahahahahahaha
      read your message again and realise how ridiculous it sounds !
      hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      February 10, 2011 at 10:59 am |
    • sumday

      @ john hahahaha just re-read your own post and see how childish it is hahahahahaha I know you are but what am I lol

      February 10, 2011 at 11:52 am |
  7. maggie

    Imagine the stage of morals as a ladder. However, the lader has many steps, the top of the ladder is God's moral standards and bottom step is the worl's moral standards. However, there are many people through out the world that are standing on different level on the ladder, but each step on the ladder is being eating away slowly by the acid poison that is being sprayed from the degrating moral valus of the world and over a period of time, the step on the ladder is falling one by one and each person on these steps will find themselves having the same moral values as the world. So your best bet is to align your values with God's and the world's morals will have very litle effect on you because God's standards will never change and it is beneficial to yourself and to the people around you.

    February 10, 2011 at 10:25 am |
    • Magic

      maggie,

      Wow, with an imagination like that, you could have been a Bible author!? And we would have similar dilemmas translating your use of the language...

      February 10, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
  8. Chuck

    The Bible has been used to justify:
    – The Crusades
    – The Spanish Inquisition
    – The Holocaust
    – Colonialism across the world and the slaughtering of natives
    – Witch hunts
    – Slavery
    – Segregation
    – Lack of women's rights

    In all of these cases, it was the "truth" of the Bible that the bigots pretended to defend. How is this case any different? Scripture is not the only source of theology. That would be idolatrous. Experience, reason and tradition form our interpretations of scripture. We're called to love the Lord our God with all of our minds–so I suggest every anti-gay soul here begin doing so. As someone who cares enough about Christianity to have engaged in its intensive study academically and professionally for the last six years, it bothers me that people employ what they profess to consider a "sacred text" as a weapon to oppress, when Jesus' life and ministry focused on those on the margins. With Jesus as a victim of social, religious and political persecution, one would think "Christians" would be more careful about who they persecute.

    February 10, 2011 at 10:25 am |
  9. CaptObvious

    So many words and so much time devoted to torturing meaning from a thousands year old collection of writings. Our ancestors were like us. They wanted to understand the world they lived in. But they hadn't yet developed the tools that we enjoy. They did the best they could with what they had. But using those writings (be they biblical or otherwise) as a means of understanding the world now seems a bit silly.

    February 10, 2011 at 10:23 am |
  10. popzeuss

    hey...god never existed, so get your panties out of a bunch already and believe in something that is real..Science!

    February 10, 2011 at 10:17 am |
    • Tom C

      Science can't prove that God never existed. Science is a means of testing the evidence given, but science can't prove the existence, or lack thereof, of God.

      February 10, 2011 at 10:29 am |
    • Chuck

      @Tom C

      Anyone who has the least background in science knows that the burden of proof rests on the person who is trying to prove something that *does* exist. Science can't prove that there isn't a magical purple elf from Jupiter with a furry green hat who appears in my apartment at night to sing Elvis Presley songs but who disappears whenever anyone else comes around. Have you ever heard of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? "You can't disprove it" was the thinking here as well."

      As someone who believes in God but requires logical arguments, I'm going to need you to inject more reason into your faith.

      February 10, 2011 at 10:53 am |
    • sumday

      If you found a computer then on examining the computer you found some simple lines of 1 & 0’s would you say no one created it? Dna is a language it holds, transmits, and receives information that cells can understand-not much un-like a computer being able to understand a bunch of lines of 1 & 0’s. You wouldn’t look at a string of 1 & 0’s and say no one wrote that program would you? We know DNA is made up of 4 “letters” that form words/sentences (those are called genes) and those words/sentences go on to form a “book” or complete strand of DNA- it is hard to believe this language and the hardware to decipher and understand this language just appeared by random chance. It would be like saying the ancient writings on clay tablets found were a random act of insects crawling and landing on wet clay and over time those impressions dried- but there was never a group of people that had a written language using clay tablets. The fact that DNA is a structured organized molecule capable of not only transferring data but also receiving data points strongly to a creator. Weather that is God of the bible or aliens- we were created, just looking at “evolution” records it appears pretty clear we were an experiment being worked out. At every stage an improvement is made but there is no reason or explanation for why this should be- no law or theory to suggest why organic life would go from lower order to complex higher order when everything else non living appears to be going from higher order to lower order.

      February 10, 2011 at 11:00 am |
    • Magic

      "Weather [sic] that is God of the bible or aliens- we were created, just looking at “evolution” records it appears pretty clear we were an experiment being worked out."

      No, it just shows that things change over time.

      An omniscient (all-knowing) being would not have to do 'experiments'. So, I guess I'll go with 'aliens' - or not.

      February 10, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
  11. flux

    Reading the comments make me sad on one hand, and excited on the other. Sad that people can't see past anything that they've been taught, obviously this article incorporates things that are outside the traditional western christian bubble, and for most, that's going to automatically make it untrustworthy. Very, very sad. On the other hand I'm excited because it further proves that America is sliding downhill fast, and I can't wait to see the end result. It's gonna be fun for those who understand why the purging has to happen.

    No one here who has disregarded the author as crazy, fake, or nonchristian, has offered counterpoints to the logic presented. Because there aren't any. The article was brilliantly executed. It's just too bad that even such elementary concepts (elementary in the grand scheme of things anyway) will go straight over the heads of those in the aforementioned bubble.

    February 10, 2011 at 10:14 am |
    • maggie

      Which part, she said many things.

      February 10, 2011 at 10:33 am |
  12. PeterVN

    Given all the debate and commentary about different interpretations of the bible, it seems that the Christian god, a purportedly omnipotent being, has major communication and marketing weaknesses. 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.

    Also, the message isn't even accepted by billions of potential flock members. So, in that sense, the communication is also flawed, and Christian "god" is again clearly not omnipotent, nor omnipresent.

    Therefore, the Christian god must be pure fiction. Case closed.

    February 10, 2011 at 10:07 am |
    • sumday

      if God put his message into the minds of all we would be robots without choice or freewill- God didn't want to create computers- the message in the bible appears that God wants a willing relationship with us- as some people are called friends of God. Also you mentioned an all powerful God- so then just bc your 3.5 lb brain can't understand what or why an all powerful God did or didn't do something doesn't mean case closed- just means your not smart enough to understand it. It would be like me saying the president didn't do something the way I think it should be done therefore he isn't president- sounds silly doesn't it, but that is basically what you are saying. If God did create everything then he understands things like quantum physics- do you? If not how do you not only question but condemn or dismiss "God" when you don't even understand the simple basic foundations of existence? As your logic seems to be if you can't understand it or agree with it, it must not exist- pure ignorance and arrogance- but to each their own.

      February 10, 2011 at 10:22 am |
    • flux

      sumday – I love how, when some people have no solid foundation to stand on, simply point condescendingly at "brains" and "smarts."

      Btw, it's "You're not smart enough" not "your not smart enough."

      February 10, 2011 at 10:28 am |
    • PeterVN

      sumday, your post merely reinforces my point. If you and I interpret the purported word of your "god" differently, then the message is flawed and your "god" is not omnipotent as claimed.

      It's quite funny, actually, that your supposedly omnipotent being has marketing and messaging problems. They go right along with your deity's apparent money problems (per the hilarious words of George Carlin on that subject, himself a messaging genius). Now, as for messaging problems, perhaps try some paragraph breaks in your next message to make it somewhat less painful to read. Care to try again?

      Finally, yes, actually, I do have professional qualifications in quantum physics, and work in that field. Are there any specific points in that subject area that you want to bring into consideration here, and if so, what are they? Methinks you will be quite out of your depth there.

      February 10, 2011 at 10:44 am |
    • :)

      There is only one main interpretation of the scriptures which is that all the scriptures being old or new testament point to Jesus as the Mesiah. Once we start putting our own western mindset and interpretations then that is how u come up with all kinds of things. God did give his message to us through his creation. But we as humanity are not that bright to perceive it so it was necessary to write it down

      February 10, 2011 at 1:16 pm |
    • PeterVN

      There is one reasonable interpretation of the scriptures, which is simply that they are complete and utter hogwash.

      There :), fixed that for you.

      February 10, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
  13. Tom C

    "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."

    Why is the woman adding her own scripture to the bible? Adam was not formed in the Garden of Eden. Adam was formed out side the Garden. He was then placed in the Garden to take care of it. Then God decided Adam needed a helper, so he formed Eve from Adam's rib. Eve was the only human formed by God in the Garden. Read Genesis 2.

    This article is bad theology, and therfore should be taken as such.

    February 10, 2011 at 10:06 am |
  14. Deliverance

    Of course the Bible has mixed messages because the Bible is written "by the spirit" as the "spirit" moved upon men's hearts and can only be understood by a spiritual mind not a carnal one. You can never explain a spiritual answer to a carnal minded persons question. When a carnal minded person tries to interpret God's "spiritual" words he or she gets mixed up. !st Corinthinans 2:14 "But the natural man recieveth not the things of God for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned." God is a spirit and he speaks his spiritual words to spiritual minded believers.
    Re-read this author's ramblings and see how many times she uses the word "imagining"....hmmmmm.
    The imagnination will certainly fool you and the devil is the author of confusion so perhaps when and if the author can get enlightened and stop looking for loopholes in God's word and reads it spiritually then she won't be confused anymore.

    February 10, 2011 at 10:03 am |
    • maggie

      Do not confuse the Mosaic law which was acomplished with the death of the messiah.

      February 10, 2011 at 11:12 am |
  15. 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 physical 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 must be pure fiction. Case closed.

    February 10, 2011 at 10:03 am |
  16. choco

    Soo is CNN removing posts? I commented at 530AM today (the 10th) and yet the earliest post they now have is from 9:49AM.....Not to mention the other posts that were deleted as well

    February 10, 2011 at 10:02 am |
    • Sounding

      Most likely 'your post is awaiting moderation'. Which CNN won't be able to 'moderate' until the artlicle is obsolete or until so much time is past that it is buried deep where no one will read it.

      February 10, 2011 at 11:23 am |
    • Magic

      Or your post has been flung onto some distant page out of order... the chronology system here often goes 'kablooie'. Infuriating.

      February 10, 2011 at 12:37 pm |
  17. David

    I have read the Bible. This is a poorly researched piece, using heavily tortured logic to "support" the author's personal wishes – to write an edgy article that will get her published. If she tries a bit harder next time, she will find that her position is NOT supported by anything in the Bible.

    February 10, 2011 at 10:00 am |
    • Patiat

      Now now, you're not going to get away with that!!! You THINK you've refuted something the author said, but you've really done nothing more than say, strongly, that she's just wrong. At least she makes an effort to support what she says, while you really say no more than "No it's not like that."

      February 10, 2011 at 10:11 am |
    • DeathStalker

      I agree she has no idea what she is talking about.

      February 10, 2011 at 10:31 am |
    • Sounding

      @Patiat

      The author has only stated opinion. Where are the scripture references (especially for an androginous being).

      I agree with a lot of what she is saying, but she has not pointed directly to any source (scripture reference). I'm actually surprised that she is a pastor believing that the bible is filled with contradictions and mixed messages.

      February 10, 2011 at 10:39 am |
    • Marcelo

      I don't think it can be any more clear the this:
      Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version)
      26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
      27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

      February 10, 2011 at 10:48 am |
    • maggie

      No you have not.

      February 10, 2011 at 11:02 am |
    • Magic

      Marcelo

      "Romans 1:26-27"

      More ravings and rantings from the old curmudgeon/zealot, Paul of Tarsus.

      February 10, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
    • Marcelo

      Magic

      Ravings or not... it's on the bible, not exactly a mixed massage.

      February 10, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
  18. OIFvet68P

    Here's a thought...

    If god is so powerful and almighty – why not let "him" deal with this issue?

    And while you're at it, go ahead and cancel your health insurance, take the locks off your doors, and stop wearing your seat belts... If you have faith, why not show it?

    Or, you could logically concede that there truly is no 'divine intervention', and we really are simply supposed to be responsible for ourselves.

    Arguing over the bible really is pretty pointless.

    February 10, 2011 at 9:49 am |
    • maggie

      Some equate it with blind belief. Influential American essayist and journalist H. L. Mencken once called faith “an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.”

      The Bible, in contrast, describes faith as being neither blind nor illogical. God’s Word says: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” — Hebrews 11:1. If you read the bible for yourself and understand you would not have said what you said.

      February 10, 2011 at 10:37 am |
    • 9/11 MP

      And obviously YOU haven't read the Bible either or you would see that everything you just said is covered and your position statement is completely taken care of in the Bible.

      February 10, 2011 at 10:40 am |
  19. gerald

    What a bunch of nonsense.

    February 10, 2011 at 9:43 am |
  20. LJR

    Suggested Reading: http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/3.1?lang=eng#primary

    February 10, 2011 at 9:35 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
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.