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. 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, "perfect" 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 11, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
    • David Johnson


      Yes, exactly right! There are thousands of different Christian denominations. There are 19 other religions, each with at least hundreds of thousands of believers . A perfect, all powerful, all knowing, all good god could not come up with a book that was not subject to misinterpretation? Could not provide us with Tons of proof that He and Jesus actually existed and He is the one true god?

      Doesn't god want everyone to believe in Him?

      1. If God existed, His existence would be more obvious.
      2. God's existence is not as obvious as we would expect.
      3. Therefore, God does not exist.


      February 12, 2011 at 9:48 am |
  2. NL

    "David's love towards Jonathan was a type of covenantal love, not a contractual love."
    Can you offer some scholarly work that backs up this claim, or is it just your humble opinion?

    Gee, I'm hearing all kinds of folks stating that what the lady says just can't be so, but all they seem to offer as a reason is that her conclusions conflict with their beliefs, so she she must obviously be wrong. Aren't you lot the same folks who like to say that people's egos cloud their minds from seeing the truth? Oh, the irony!

    February 11, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
  3. Muneef

    Ya-Seen sura 36:
    And We have not taught him (Muhammad) poetry, nor is it meet for him. This is naught else than a Reminder and a Lecture making plain, (69) To warn whosoever liveth, and that the word may be fulfilled against the disbelievers. (70) Have they not seen how We have created for them of Our handiwork the cattle, so that they are their owners, (71) And have subdued them unto them, so that some of them they have for riding, some for food? (72) Benefits and (divers) drinks have they from them. Will they not then give thanks? (73) And they have taken (other) gods beside Allah, in order that they may be helped. (74) It is not in their power to help them; but they (the worshippers) are unto them a host in arms. (75) So let not their speech grieve thee (O Muhammad). Lo! We know what they conceal and what proclaim. (76) Hath not man seen that We have created him from a drop of seed? Yet lo! he is an open opponent. (77) And he hath coined for Us a similitude, and hath forgotten the fact of his creation, saying: Who will revive these bones when they have rotted away? (78) Say: He will revive them Who produced them at the first, for He is Knower of every creation, (79) Who hath appointed for you fire from the green tree, and behold! ye kindle from it. (80) Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the like of them? Aye, that He is! for He is the All-Wise Creator, (81) But His command, when He intendeth a thing, is only that he saith unto it: Be! and it is. (82) Therefor glory be to Him in Whose hand is the dominion over all things! Unto Him ye will be brought back. (83).

    February 11, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  4. Muneef

    Ya-Seen sura 36:
    In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
    Ya Sin. (1) By the wise Qur'an, (2) Lo! thou art of those sent (3) On a straight path, (4) A revelation of the Mighty, the Merciful, (5) That thou mayst warn a folk whose fathers were not warned, so they are heedless. (6) Already hath the word proved true of most of them, for they believe not. (7) Lo! We have put on their necks carcans reaching unto the chins, so that they are made stiff-necked. (8) And We have set a bar before them and a bar behind them, and (thus) have covered them so that they see not. (9) Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not, it is alike for them, for they believe not. (10) Thou warnest only him who followeth the Reminder and feareth the Beneficent in secret. To him bear tidings of forgiveness and a rich reward. (11) Lo! We it is Who bring the dead to life. We record that which they send before (them), and their footprints. And all things We have kept in a clear Register. (12).

    February 11, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
  5. NL

    "I was just thinking that. I noticed the author of this article referenced Leviticus but neglected to mention 18:22, which says: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

    And Leviticus 18:18 says “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have se.xual relations with her while your wife is living." Doesn't this pas.sage outline who to take as an additional wife in a polygamous marriage? Not that plural marriage was wrong in any way, just that you can't take sisters as wives. Yet Christians have little difficulty at all dropping plural marriage, but cling doggedly to keeping another of God's injunctions in the same list? Can anybody say 'Cherry Picking?'

    And verse 29 says “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people." Cut off, not kill, right?

    February 11, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
  6. NL

    "Ever tried translating something from English to, I don't know, lets say Greek, and back? It will sound a little weird and lose some of it's original meaning."

    That's just literal translation. You also have to factor in things like idiom. How would you translate sayings like 'in a pig's eye' or 'raining cats and dogs'? Outside of our culture these sayings lose their intended meaning and could be translated into something shockingly wrong. We are thousands of years and miles away from the original cultural context of the bible and only scholarly work like this lady's can help us better understand the original meaning of scripture.

    February 11, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      NL, the only teachings this woman is selling is to stroke man's/women's egos so you can continue on your way of sinning and she can make money off of Jesus Christ dying for all our sins. She cares absolutely nothing about your souls. She's selling you her babble for $16.46 plus shipping. Other than that, she proves by twisting His scriptures she does not want to teach you His truth because she does not know His truth. As most of the phony preachers out in the world today, they are making money off of folks too lazy to read their Bibles and learn Jesus' truth for themselves.

      Same ole, same ole, different hack-o.

      February 11, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
    • NL

      How much ego must you have to automatically discount the lady's work just because it differs from what you think? I see lots of name calling, but I don't see anybody here actually finding any fault in her thesis. If she's mistaken please explain how.

      February 11, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  7. Simka

    Dear Jesus, please come back for this rapture business and take all your crazy followers with you so the rest of us can live in peace. Thanks!

    February 11, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  8. JesusNinja13

    Wow. That is all I can say. Poor mixed up lady is causing other people to be mixed up.

    February 11, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    • NL

      Why is she mixed up?

      February 11, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
  9. Pam

    I too say, just as Jesus!!!! "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots." Luke 23:34...you nay sayers are no different and we must and still love you just as Jesus did to His death until the time when...."For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." Roman's 14:11...This is a promise people. With the love of Christ!

    February 11, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
    • HeavenSent



      February 11, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
  10. NL

    "Aside from the Apostles, Josephus, a Jewish historian during the first century, wrote about Jesus."
    Ah, but many scholars believe that at least parts of the Josephus account were later additions, perhaps those of a Christian tasked with copying the classics by hand, before the printing press. The major paragraph, the Testimonium Flavianum, clearly appears to be inserted between two paragraphs that flow together without it, and it appears rather odd for Josephus, who was unquestioningly a Jew, to be declaring anybody to be the Christ. There is more than enough to make anyone doubt Josephus as a source.

    February 11, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
  11. mark

    The thing about the Bible is you can interpret it however you want. You can twist it to make it say anything. The first thing you learn about studying theology is simple, yet overlooked: Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

    People are imperfect and we make wrong judges and calls all the time, so let the bible interpret itself. You'll find the answer.

    February 11, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
  12. Thomas


    February 11, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
  13. Thomas

    David's love towards Jonathan was a type of covenantal love, not a contractual love. It is however surprising that a minister misinterpreted the love between two biblical characters. She does not know what a "covenantal" love is. As any scriptural scholar knows covenantal love is different from contractual love. It is pathetic that the modern scholars interpret Scriptures as they live or their people live. Biblical interpretation, for them, is a justification of their own lives so that they can say “Bible says this, therefore, I can do this." We should live as Scriptures say. But interpretation is necessary.

    February 11, 2011 at 12:42 pm |
  14. Sreeram

    Let God be her judge. But to people who are reading this, I will tell them not to trust any scholars. Read the bible your self after praying God to explain you the verses. If you prayed seriously God will show you the meaning and will point out your sins. Jesus came to earth to save us from word because the word kills but the spirit gives life. These scholars analyse all words instead of going to spirit. But the spirit is a grace given by God to those who seek. Please seek the grace first and rest will follow. Bible is written by people motivated by Holy Spirit. Not even 1 word can enter it without God's will. The letters of paul are not part of Bible by mistake. If people are let to question every chapter in Bible then where is the truth or standard? If letters of Paul are wrong even Genesis can be wrong. So my point is, if you trust the Bible then trust it fully not just part of it.

    February 11, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
  15. xeretic

    Thanks CNN for publishing another poorly thought out attack on Christian Faith. Now would you dare publish one similar article on any other religious text so we can have a "healthy" discussion about it? And I pity too anyone who sits in a church to listen to this "Biblical scholar and pastor"

    February 11, 2011 at 11:04 am |
  16. 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.

    It's also noteworthy that many of the recent posters have no understanding of the implications of "omnipotent" in the current story context. It's not a valid excuse for such a being, to say that the flaw is in the interpretations by readers; such a purportedly divine being should be perfectly (yes, stress that word 'perfectly'!)) capable of getting its message through, yet this bible "god" is very obviously not so capable.

    February 11, 2011 at 11:01 am |
    • HeavenSent

      PeterVN, are we or are we not blogging about Jesus Christ's truth right now on this venue provided by the Internet?

      Truth is, yes, we are.

      Therefore, your theory has become mute.

      Christians will pray for your soul too, that you pick up the Bible and read His truth on your own and not listen to the ways of the world for someone that wants to make money. To fear the Lord is the beginning of learning His wisdom. The Bible is the most fascinating book ever written. His truth (the Bible) is His blueprint He left us explaiins how to live the best lives we can while living on this earth housed in human bodies ... why we are here and where our souls go after we leave this earth. Life is a test from God. If you read, comprehend and abide in His truth, you will get an A++ into eternity with Him.


      February 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
    • PeterVN

      "HeavenSent" (and what a joke of a moniker you have, vain too):

      I don't want your useless prayers. I want you to do some actual thinking instead. Start here and think this over hard:

      We are discussing the obvious, demonstrable flaws in the messaging of your idiotic book of fables known as the bible. That book clearly has multiple interpretations, which your post vs. mine clearly demonstrate. That was my point, which has totally gone over your head. The fact of the multiple interpretations, per my post and the original article, and the mere instance of your post, reinforces my point. My point is neither "mute", nor moot, but rather is demonstrated by your post.

      The bible isn't even self-consistent, so the messaging is both flawed and incompletely effective.

      Your religion is in decline worldwide. It will be a great thing when humanity finally shakes off your awful, evil religion.

      February 11, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
    • Tom C

      "That book clearly has multiple interpretations, which your post vs. mine clearly demonstrate."

      Or, it could have multiple misinterpretations... which is the theory I subscribe to.

      February 11, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      PeterVN, you non-believers are too funny. Your first line of attack is to believe the lie that those of us that follow Jesus' truth don't or can't think on our own. I guess I wasted my time going to college to get my MIS degree. When, in fact, we can think on your carnal level (proof ... we have to revert back down to carnal interacting when we write anything to a non-believer), but prefer to think, believe and live the way he trained us to do ...through His spiritual teachings. You don't or can't comprehend this truth because you haven't studied, then practiced His wisdom to do so. You won't shelf your ego.

      What you refer to as flaws in His truth is your own ego refusing His truth. It's too much for your ego to handle His truth, so, naturally, you rebuke His teachings due to thinking on a carnal level. There are no multiple interpretations to His truth. His truth stands for eternity. It's man/woman not wanting to relinquish their sinful ways (e.g. the way you think, believe and live on a carnal level) to comprehend His spiritual truth.

      Finally, I suggest you read Jeremiah 5:4 to save your soul after your body is through with this life.


      February 11, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
    • PeterVN

      HeavenSent, with a moniker such as yours, you are not well placed to be accusing me of being ego-driven.
      Actually, the bulk of your posts here are pretty much ad hominen and ignore or miss the point of the original post. In the present case, yet again, you've done nothing to rebut my original assertion in my post, which is related to the fact of the multiple interpretations of the bible.

      As for your quote cherry picking, you yourself would do well to read the Skeptics Annotated Bible. It shows how utterly absurd, and wholly man-made, your "Jeremiah" section is. See skepticsannotatedbible.com/jer/abs_list.html or just google it.

      February 13, 2011 at 11:07 am |
  17. Joe Zyzyx

    About Jesus statement concerning freedom for women in a new age. He was asked a question based on Jewish concept of women being chattel, not having a say in whom they married. It was a system in which women were taken in marriage by men through contracts that didn't necessarily involve her approval of becoming his wife, and of those who were giving these women, usually daughters or slave girls in marriage for the right price or agreements between the men.

    Jesus wasn't saying marriage in a new age didn't exist, but that angels had freedom of choice and that women would not be bound by the Jewish legal traditions concerning marriage arrangements, but they would be free to accept or reject someone for marriage, just like angels were.

    February 11, 2011 at 10:41 am |
    • ManzMan

      I don't like the idea of being a sinner, but I sure do like being with other men. What's a guy to do?

      February 11, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
  18. Waldo Bezerra

    When people are going to see that god does not exist. Look to the religious people, imans, rabins, pristers and popes, they are very goed exemplo of intolerant people, they do not like democratie and they prefer the people to be stupid, that way they can control the stupid people.

    February 11, 2011 at 10:30 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Where in the world is Waldo, first you praise a phony prophetess, now you are knocking millions who follow Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior's wisdom? Which is it Waldo? You'd rather read lies from a false prophetess to ensure your sinful nature flourishes? Or, read His truth so your spirit flourishes to the best that He wants you to be?

      I have a joke to tell you Waldo, Papa Tomato, Momma Tomato and Baby Tomato are walking along the path of life. Baby Tomato is lagging behind. Finally, Papa Tomato's tolerance is sorely lacking and he turns around to Baby Tomato and squashes him with his foot. Baby Tomato starts crying and says "why did you do that"? Papa Tomato says, ketchup.

      So, Waldo, Christians will pray for your soul that you read His truth on your own and not listen to the worldly ways of this false prophetess .. and KETCHUP and read Jesus Christ's truth for yourself.


      February 11, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
  19. Joe Zyzyx

    "Your comment is awaiting moderation."

    Is that forever? Two hours later and checking with another browser that doesn't have the cookie in it, the post doesn't appear, which means it is hidden. What's up?

    February 11, 2011 at 10:05 am |
    • Nanny Filter


      CNN posting tips for new visitors – GNU public license – feel free to copy for your very own
      bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN "awaiting moderation" filter:
      Many, if not most, are buried within other words, but I am not shooting for the perfect list, so use your imagination.
      You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
      ar-se.....as in Car-se, etc.
      co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, lubco-ck, etc.
      co-on.....as in rac-oon, coc-oon, etc.
      cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
      cu-nt.....as in Scu-ntthorpe, a city in the UK famous for having problems with filters...!
      ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
      ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, etc.
      ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, etc.
      ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
      jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
      ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
      koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
      pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
      pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
      ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
      se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
      sp-ic.....as in disp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
      ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, ent-ities, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
      tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, etc.
      va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
      who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
      There are more, some of them considered "racist", so do not assume that this list is complete.

      February 11, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • Joe Zyzyx

      To Nanny Filter;
      I guess I'll avoid CNN comment section in the future then. Must be some Bible scripture that got "filtered". Isn't it odd a news organization which insists on "free speech" protection for itself doesn't for others? Even 11 hours later I see the original post isl awaiting "moderation". Eventually it may show up, but I won't be checking back.

      February 11, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • Something


      If you read @Nanny Filter's advice you would see that it isn't Bible scripture per se which causes "awaiting moderation"; it is just certain words which are insanely flagged... and has nothing to do with the actual content.

      Never mind though, we have plenty of Bible quotes here.... they are not helpful.

      February 11, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  20. Lentenlands

    Jennifer, you are obviously no Bible scholar, instead you are a very confused and mixed up woman. How can you teach anyone anything but the muddled up errors of your own misunderstanding?

    Maybe you should find another line of work where you don’t mislead people to hell.

    February 11, 2011 at 9:49 am |
    • YAMO

      It is the nature of this realm, we think we know until we are shown that we dont and even then it only leads to more questions. A lot of tolerance and understading is required when speaking of God.

      February 11, 2011 at 10:48 am |
    • LoveLife

      I thought judgment belonged only to GOD. I believe in GOD and realize I am a sinner, but my beliefs are mine and not imposed on others. Judge not... you should know the rest.

      February 11, 2011 at 11:22 am |
    • seattle seeker

      @Lentenlands Actually, Dr. Knust IS a Bible scholar. http://www.bu.edu/religion/files/2010/12/Knust_CVOct2010.pdf

      February 11, 2011 at 12:37 pm |
    • Randy


      February 11, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • Gary Simmons

      She's got a PhD, so she is a scholar. However, she's a poor one, from what I see here. As the caveat at the end says: her opinions are solely her own.

      A summary of this article as well as responses can be found at my friend's blog, New Leaven.

      February 11, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • NL

      Gary Simmons-
      "She's got a PhD, so she is a scholar. However, she's a poor one, from what I see here."
      Why? Because she offers a different view than what you believe must be true? Talk about oversized egos!

      February 11, 2011 at 6:24 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
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.