My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality
March 3rd, 2011
01:25 PM ET

My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality

By Robert A. J. Gagnon, Special to CNN

Editor’s Note: Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics and (with Dan Via) Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views.

In her recent CNN Belief Blog post “The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality,” Jennifer Wright Knust claims that Christians can’t appeal to the Bible to justify opposition to homosexual practice because the Bible provides no clear witness on the subject and is too flawed to serve as a moral guide.

As a scholar who has written books and articles on the Bible and homosexual practice, I can say that the reality is the opposite of her claim. It’s shocking that in her editorial and even her book, "Unprotected Texts," Knust ignores a mountain of evidence against her positions.

It raises a serious question: does the Left read significant works that disagree with pro-gay interpretations of Scripture and choose to simply ignore them?

Owing to space limitations I will focus on her two key arguments: the ideal of gender-neutral humanity and slavery arguments.

Knust's lead argument is that sexual differentiation in Genesis, Jesus and Paul is nothing more than an "afterthought" because "God's original intention for humanity was androgyny."

It’s true that Genesis presents the first human (Hebrew adam, from adamah, ground: “earthling”) as originally sexually undifferentiated. But what Knust misses is that once something is “taken from” the human to form a woman, the human, now differentiated as a man, finds his sexual other half in that missing element, a woman.

That’s why Genesis speaks of the woman as a “counterpart” or “complement,” using a Hebrew expression neged, which means both “corresponding to” and “opposite.” She is similar as regards humanity but different in terms of gender. If sexual relations are to be had, they are to be had with a sexual counterpart or complement.

Knust cites the apostle Paul’s remark about “no ‘male and female’” in Galatians. Yet Paul applies this dictum to establishing the equal worth of men and women before God, not to eliminating a male-female prerequisite for sex.

Applied to sexual relations, the phrase means “no sex,” not “acceptance of homosexual practice,” as is evident both from the consensus of the earliest interpreters of this phrase and from Jesus' own sayings about marriage in this age and the next.

All the earliest interpreters agreed that "no 'male and female,'" applied to sexual relations, meant "no sex."

That included Paul and the ascetic believers at Corinth in the mid-first century; and the church fathers and gnostics of the second to fourth centuries. Where they disagreed is over whether to postpone mandatory celibacy until the resurrection (the orthodox view) or to begin insisting on it now (the heretical view).

Jesus’ view

According to Jesus, “when (people) rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels” (Mark 12:25). Sexual relations and differentiation had only penultimate significance. The unmediated access to God that resurrection bodies bring would make sex look dull by comparison.

At the same time Jesus regarded the male-female paradigm as essential if sexual relations were to be had in this present age.

In rejecting a revolving door of divorce-and-remarriage and, implicitly, polygamy Jesus cited Genesis: “From the beginning of creation, ‘male and female he made them.’ ‘For this reason a man …will be joined to his woman and the two shall become one flesh’” (Mark 10:2-12; Matthew 19:3-12).

Jesus’ point was that God’s limiting of persons in a sexual union to two is evident in his creation of two (and only two) primary sexes: male and female, man and woman. The union of male and female completes the sexual spectrum, rendering a third partner both unnecessary and undesirable.

The sectarian Jewish group known as the Essenes similarly rejected polygamy on the grounds that God made us “male and female,” two sexual complements designed for a union consisting only of two.

Knust insinuates that Jesus wouldn’t have opposed homosexual relationships. Yet Jesus’ interpretation of Genesis demonstrates that he regarded a male-female prerequisite for marriage as the foundation on which other sexual standards could be predicated, including monogamy. Obviously the foundation is more important than anything predicated on it.

Jesus developed a principle of interpretation that Knust ignores: God’s “from the beginning” creation of “male and female” trumps some sexual behaviors permitted in the Old Testament. So there’s nothing unorthodox about recognizing change in Scripture’s sexual ethics. But note the direction of the change: toward less sexual license and greater conformity to the logic of the male-female requirement in Genesis. Knust is traveling in the opposite direction.

Knust’s slavery analogy and avoidance of closer analogies

Knust argues that an appeal to the Bible for opposing homosexual practice is as morally unjustifiable as pre-Civil War appeals to the Bible for supporting slavery. The analogy is a bad one.

The best analogy will be the comparison that shares the most points of substantive correspondence with the item being compared. How much does the Bible’s treatment of slavery resemble its treatment of homosexual practice? Very little.

Scripture shows no vested interest in preserving the institution of slavery but it does show a strong vested interest from Genesis to Revelation in preserving a male-female prerequisite. Unlike its treatment of the institution of slavery, Scripture treats a male-female prerequisite for sex as a pre-Fall structure.

The Bible accommodates to social systems where sometimes the only alternative to starvation is enslavement. But it clearly shows a critical edge by specifying mandatory release dates and the right of kinship buyback; requiring that Israelites not be treated as slaves; and reminding Israelites that God had redeemed them from slavery in Egypt.

Paul urged enslaved believers to use an opportunity for freedom to maximize service to God and encouraged a Christian master (Philemon) to free his slave (Onesimus).

How can changing up on the Bible’s male-female prerequisite for sex be analogous to the church’s revision of the slavery issue if the Bible encourages critique of slavery but discourages critique of a male-female paradigm for sex?

Much closer analogies to the Bible’s rejection of homosexual practice are the Bible’s rejection of incest and the New Testament’s rejection of polyamory (polygamy).

Homosexual practice, incest, and polyamory are all (1) forms of sexual behavior (2) able to be conducted as adult-committed relationships but (3) strongly proscribed because (4) they violate creation structures or natural law.

Like same-sex intercourse, incest is sex between persons too much structurally alike, here as regards kinship rather than gender. Polyamory is a violation of the foundational “twoness” of the sexes.

The fact that Knust chooses a distant analogue (slavery) over more proximate analogues (incest, polyamory) shows that her analogical reasoning is driven more by ideological biases than by fair use of analogies.

Knust’s other arguments are riddled with holes.

In claiming that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship she confuses kinship affection with erotic love. Her claim that “from the perspective of the New Testament” the Sodom story was about “the near rape of angels, not sex between men” makes an "either-or" out of Jude 7’s "both-and."

Her canard that only a few Bible texts reject homosexual practice overlooks other relevant texts and the fact that infrequent mention is often a sign of significance. It is disturbing to read what passes nowadays for expert “liberal” reflections on what the Bible says about homosexual practice.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Robert A. J. Gagnon.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Homosexuality

soundoff (4,272 Responses)
  1. Craig

    This is so frustrating. It's like me taking a Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale and pulling BS out of the air to explain to you what I think it means. Christians, modern Christians, pick and choose what the wish to follow from the bible and the most convenient interpretations to support their thoughts and arguments. Total crap.

    March 3, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
    • Mike

      "Christians, modern Christians, pick and choose what the wish to follow from the bible and the most convenient interpretations to support their thoughts and arguments."
      Craig, you hit the nail on the head, a very large and obvious head.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
  2. Chris

    Jesus on Cougars: Mark 10:11-12: "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
    Jesus on gays:

    Exactly. Jesus says that Cougars will burn in hell, but not one word about gays. Interesting.

    March 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  3. Peter

    Who cares?

    March 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  4. MarkA

    What I think is even more disturbing is that there is such a thing as an "Associate Professor of the New Testament" at a time when hard science education in our country is on the decline (which may be by choice for some of these fundies)

    March 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  5. RealisticHumanist_986487563

    Methodists. They make Lutherans look like a bunch of Presbyterians!

    March 3, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
    • Trenton

      Hi Caroline,Thanks for your interest! Your comnemt has been forwarded to our missionary recruitment team, so you should be hearing from them soon. Or, if you prefer, you can call 800-433-3954 and ask to speak with the recruitment team.Blessings,Elizabeth

      July 29, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
  6. Peggy

    Holy C R A P the bible belongs dusty on shelf somewhere. Wow this guy sure spent a lot time on this subject eh? Get over yourself dude....

    March 3, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  7. Maria

    Thank you for spelling it out and trying to educate the ignorant. God made woman for man AND man for woman. Period. They will be held accountable on judgement day for their beliefs and practices.

    March 3, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
    • Peggy

      wow Maria!! you actually know this for a fact? How can people like you be so s t u p i d to follow a book written by MEN haning out in the desert 2000 years ago with nothing better to do? Religion makes me laugh!!!

      March 3, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • Sirena

      Prove it.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • John

      Which genesis account should we read? There are two conflicting ones. And going along with the theory that the non-mentioned in the bible = bad, who are you to sinfully drive to work? It's obvious god made sandals for traveling and traveling for sandals.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
    • AC

      Maria, let me help you prove it. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10: What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR MEN KEPT FOR UNNATURAL PURPOSES, NOR MEN WHO LIE WITH MEN, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean....

      Some will argue, well this includes all of us! You would be right!! That's why the Bible says in Matthew 7:13-14: “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.

      Why only a few? Not because it was difficult. But, because most people lived a selfish existence. They spent more time fighting for their "rights" and "independence" instead of obeying the one who gave life!

      March 3, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
    • Sirena

      AC that is not proving it...
      just sayin

      March 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • AC

      Sirena, what do you want me to prove? That the Bible actually said it, or that the Bible is the Word of God? I think you want is for Maria to prove the Bible is truth. I invite you to visit some of the other comments for proof, look for AC or MV, you'll find it there.

      March 3, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  8. j

    To: 'rockoff@isjl.org' Stuart Rockoff
    Subject: Praising the Hypocrite

    I picked up a copy of the Jewish Georgian and I read your article. I was upset to read how you glorified a hypocrite by the name of raphael j. moses.

    Your people were enslaved in Egypt
    Your people were persecuted in the Holocaust
    Your people have been discriminated against all over the world

    Then they come to the new world and enslave others. They fight with the confederate army to persecute a people. They profit off the backs of the slaves and their free labor. You brag about the stores that they owned. When slaves provided the free labor to produce the goods.

    Then you have the nerve to note that he felt discriminated against when backing a political candidate. “I feel it an honor to be of a race whom persecution cannot crush, whom prejudice has in vain endeavored to subdue”. Isn’t that what he did to his SLAVES? When it was done to him it was a great injustice. But when he did it to African Americans it was justified.

    “I would have liked in a public position to confront and do my part towards breaking down the prejudice”. But you fight with and supply the confederate army to uphold the prejudice and enslavement of African Americans.

    This man was a hypocrite and a racist and you are too. How DARE you glorify him and print his hypocrisies for all to see.


    You need to pray. You have broken “Love your brother as you love yourself”

    SHAME on you

    I will pass this on along with your ugly article to every outlet that I can. You are a disgrace to the race of JESUS. He came to save, Not to enslave.

    March 3, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  9. GM

    I have always taken the position that the Bible was a set of rules written to govern man, along with a set of fairy tales to give meaning to some question that was asked and could not be explained....Why are there trees???

    No matter how many people read this book they will all interpret to match their beliefs.

    March 3, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  10. EB

    Just another interpretation. There are many ways to interpret the Bible. It was written as humans at the time saw the world.

    March 3, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • Jason

      Yes. There are 200,000 so variant translations of the New Testament and even more of the Old Testament. The original texts were written mostly in Hebrew and Aramaic and translated and re-translated dozens and dozens of times over the centuries. On top of this, over time translations were adjusted to suit the needs of the current powers that be. Your interpretations of a recent English version of a book that has seen so much change mean absolutely nothing other than you choose to be guided by words rather than your own sense of right and wrong.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
  11. Troy

    It is sad to see all the ignorant posts on here. Do you think there should be no rules and anything goes? How do you think we as humans got here? Let me guess...you think one day your furry ancestor dropped down from a tree and walked out of the jungle and started talking. God help you.

    March 3, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • John

      No, nobody thinks that. THAT is just your insanely childish understanding of evolution.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • Megan

      "God" help you and your horrible inability to understand the things you argue against.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
    • Craig

      Your puny brain obviously doesn't comprehend the millions of years evolution takes to make changes that vast.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
    • Steve

      ...and another one that didn't pay attention in biology class....

      March 3, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
    • Mike

      This seems like a narrow minded statement. choosing NOT to follow religion does NOT imply ignoring all rules. It means following secular rules and laws. Jesus or God does not hold a monopoly on morals, ethics, or living.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
    • Troy

      @JohnI If you feel we evolved then that is exactly what you believe. I think our customs and certain aspects of us evolve but I have never gone to the zoo to break out "cousin Bubbles the gorrilla"

      March 3, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
    • Steve

      Troy, you are showing yourmisunderstanding of evolution....READ A BOOK! OTHER THAN THE BIBLE!!!!!

      March 3, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
    • Slider33

      Our moral compass obviously didn't stop when the bible was printed out and handed to the masses. Our morality doesn't come from the bible.

      If it did, we'd still own slaves, women wouldn't be treated as equals. I'm only going to briefly mention the scientific advancements that we benefit from in modern times.

      Or would we be better off if we still had to sprinkle animal blood on ourselves to cure leprosy? Or go back to the Old Testament Laws where we stoned our sons and daughters for committing adultery?

      No, we don't. Society has evolved past the dark ages.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • ksm13

      Your understanding of evolution is flawed. You are clearly a fundamentalist who has no interest in expanding your knowledge of scientific theory. You claim that your god is the only explanation for how "we got here". Then please explain to me: Where did your god come from? How do you know it is your god and not Zeus that created the universe? Why is there no verifiable evidence that anything you believe in is true?
      Think about that. If you do it right, by the time you're done, you'll be an atheist. Congratulations in advance.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • John

      So we are questioning evolution now? Really? Do you really think that God just reached into Adam and pulled out some ribs and created women? I think its more reasonable to believe in evolution then to believe in some silly fair tales and stories. Oh and dont forget, there is cold hard scientific data to support the evolution theory. (aka Lucy)You should put down your bible and pick up a science text book. Welcome to 2011!

      March 3, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • Troy

      Yes let me get this straight. You dont believe in the Bbile which has been around for 2000+ years but you believe anything the TV networks tell you or put on thier shows... I guess I see the intelligence there as well. You all are right I must be wrong..rich TV people know everything and you thier followers are right. Lets see what else do I need to know to get me through life? Please let me know I will be waiting to read.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • ksm13

      Troy – So you would rather believe an ancient novel written by shepherds in the desert who thought that the common cold was caused by Satan than modern scientific studies that are proven and verifiable? I am genuinely disheartened at the depth of your brainwashing.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
  12. CH

    The bible says whtever pope damasus I decided it should say when he assembled it in 382 at the Cousil of Rome. He left out what he wanted and put in what he wanted. Whatever made him and his small band of greedy friends more powerful!

    March 3, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  13. H2

    The Bible was written by MAN...there is absolutely nothing enlightening or Holy about this book. Let this be the Gospel!

    Religion is harmful to Mankind! All Religions!!

    March 3, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • Buns Mccallister

      I think Religion means well. Its just interpretation of a man written text. Neither are accurate. And any moral law is always gray.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • Joe

      Love it or hate it, we wouldn't be where we are today without religion. And it ain't all that bad really.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
    • Peggy

      Right Joe...every war started by religion, child abuse, millions of people dead all because of, yep, religion......bogus c r a p, biggest scam in history!

      March 3, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
    • ksm13

      Joe- You're right, we wouldn't be where we are today. We'd be much better off. Imagine how far and how fast we could progress if it hadn't been for flawed religious dogma.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • AC

      You are, right false religion exists and they are to blame for many of the atrocities around the world. In the end, God himself will tell them what a farce they were! As recorded in Matthew 7:21-23: “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.

      But there is a true religion, one that actually LIVES BY what they preach! the key is to find that one religion!! Then, it is the God of that one true religion that will destroy the "harlot" the one that lived in "shameless luxury." Can you figure out what that religion is?

      March 3, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
    • Joe

      So mankind would be a peaceful lot, without religion to use as an excuse for violence? Think long and hard before you answer.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • ksm13

      AC – "Can you figure out which religion that is?"

      Well I can guarantee you it's not Christianity. That religion is a load of crap. As are Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.

      So I guess if you really want to live the most fulfilling life possible, just forget about religion and move on. Atheism is really quite rewarding.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • AC

      You are right – it is not Christendom! They are so blood guilty!! As recorded in Revelation: “Get out of her [false religion]... if you do not want to receive part of her plagues” “In her was found the blood . . . of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.” (Rev. 18:21, 24) Those who do not want to be found guilty by God must get out of all religious organizations that do not teach and practice the commandments set out in his Word the Bible.

      So what do you look for in a true religion:

      1. Do they recognize the Father, as Jehovah.
      2. Do they recognize the Son, as Jesus.
      3. Do they LIVE by Bible principle, i.e. put in practice what they preach!
      4. Is LOVE their brand? Are they a united group – worldwide. John 13:35
      5. Do they preach the word, as required in Matthew 28: 19, 20?
      6. Do they refuse to take up arms? Matthew 26:52
      ...the list goes on and on – when you find that group, you have found the truth!!

      March 3, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  14. RP

    Wow, could people be any more brainwashed. Religion is such a huge root for killing in the world.

    March 3, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • Joe

      Mankind is the root. We came first.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  15. Honest Trekker

    Captain Kirk was not opposed to marijuana. In fact, so much of the exploratory theme of the early Star Trek episodes was surely metaphorical to experimenting with marijuana. I mean, was there anything in the galaxy that, when presented to him, Kirk didn't try? Maybe in 2000 years "scholars" will be debating this too,

    March 3, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • Buns Mccallister

      Kirk even did the green B*chs. He was the man!

      March 3, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
    • Slider33

      Now THAT'S how you write a post ladies and gentlemen! Good one!

      March 3, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
    • Joe

      I got so high once that I thought I was juggling tribbles, no joke

      March 3, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  16. Richard


    Can you give me conclusive examples that the bible is non-fiction?

    March 3, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
    • Buns Mccallister

      Jesus walked on water. Moses parted the seas... MAkes for great movie material though,

      March 3, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • Peggy

      umm how about immaculate conception (althougth I have a theory on that: she was drunk), people rsing from the dead( or dead drunk...another theory of mine) people turning to salt etc......

      March 3, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
    • John

      Well, for starters, it strongly suggests that the earth is about 750 million times younger than legitimate estimates ... as well as suggesting the earth is flat. Plenty of stories (Noah and the ark, Johna and the wale, etc) exceed Greek mythologies in their pure insane unbelievability, and so on.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • MV

      Here are three points of evidence:

      1. 2,000+ years ago it foretold how people would act in the last days. See 2 Timothy 3: 1-5: But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty...
      2. The Bible contains numerous prophecies, many of which have already been fulfilled. Consider an example. Through the prophet Isaiah, who lived in the eighth century B.C.E., Jehovah foretold that the city of Babylon would be destroyed. (Isaiah 13:19; 14:22, 23) Details were given to show just how this would happen. Invading armies would dry up Babylon’s river and march into the city without a battle. That is not all. Isaiah’s prophecy even named the king who would conquer Babylon—Cyrus.—Isaiah 44:27–45:2. Bible history confirms it was Cyrus the Great.
      3. Regarding Babylon, it was foretold hundreds of years in advance: “She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation. And there the Arab will not pitch his tent, and no shepherds will let their flocks lie down there.” (Isaiah 13:20) This prophecy did more than predict a city’s fall. It showed that Babylon would be desolated permanently. You can see evidence of the fulfillment of these words. The uninhabited site of ancient Babylon—about 50 miles [80 km] south of Baghdad, Iraq—is proof that what Jehovah spoke through Isaiah has been fulfilled: “I will sweep her with the broom of annihilation.”—Isaiah 14:22, 23.

      Want more proof?

      March 3, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • Anglican

      Merneptah Stele, Assyrian invasion areas of north of the Jordon River in 721 BC. Babylonian invasion and occupation in area of Jerusalem mid 500 BC. Roman occupation Jerusalem late 100 bc well into the 200 to 300 AD. Prediction of fall of Jerusalm 30 AD which occured 72 AD

      March 3, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • jv

      MV – What proof do you have that this was all said in Bible before the actual thing had happened.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
    • MV

      JV – here's proof!

      1. The Bible well existed before the fall of Babylon. You need only prove that the scriptures cited existed before Cyrus became king and caused the fall of Babylon. You can prove that by going to your local library.

      2. The words recorded at 2 Timothy 3: 1-5, were written thousands of years ago, and we are SEEING THE FULFILLMENT OF THAT PROPHECY TODAY!!! Would you not agree that every single characterization found in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 is evident today. But it said that would be IN THE LAST DAYS. Ask you parents, or grandparents, if in their days, they saw all of these characterization. I am sure they would argue NO, especially, "disobedient to parents," the degree of disobedience to parents is unprecented today! What about "lovers of money," can you say Enron, Madoff, Worldcom, etc? Here too its unprecented, in fact, an entire nation is BANKRUPT because of their "love of money!"

      The evidence is overwhelming and that is why the Bible says at Romans 1:20: "For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that THEY ARE INEXCUSABLE; 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened..."

      March 3, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
  17. Ann

    The bible also promotes slavery, something we have outlawed due to being discriminating and wrong. The same should be said for gay marriage.

    March 3, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
    • Howard

      Ann, I don't think you meant we should outlaw gay marriage, but that's how your post reads.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • TheTruth72

      Your completely wrong. Read the Bible, grab the context and you'll see that the laws that talked about slavery were for the Israelites in the Old Testament. Also, people who were slaves chose to become slaves because they had a debt they owed. Stop taking other people's misguided thoughts and spouting nonsense please.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • Joe

      Ann, please re-read article re: slavery

      March 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
  18. Jessica

    Fine, what if you're right? Let it go, walk away with your opinions. If you feel the need or the arrogance to defend God, than you have a very small view of God, let him defend Himself when time. Use your education, privilege for the poor, or the fatherless, or those in actual want and need of your help. Learn compassion for those that actually are those that Christians should focus on. Jesus lived in a culture where he could walked around and been the Behavioral Police, but he didn't, he was with those that wanted him to help them. Do that and let the argument go, 100% of LGBT community knows what your side is thinking, there is no need to KEEP REPEATING it.

    March 3, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • Peggy

      Jessica because there is NO GOD?? lol that's why!! Religion opiate of the masses, mind control for the weak!! Geesh cannot wait for it to be ancient history!

      March 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
    • Joe

      Peggy, it could be a while before religion is ancient history. One recurring theme in the Old Testment are the Jews turning away from God when times are good, and going back to God when times are bad. Compared to much of history, modern times are pretty good, I must say. But who knows what the future holds? Bad times could be just around the corner, you never know. You never, never know.

      March 3, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
  19. Buns Mccallister

    The bible is 2000 years old. Lets follow something a little more recent. Like the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy!

    March 3, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • Sterling


      March 3, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • Napolean

      Hi, I have just found your website and I'm solooo excited. I hope to win the Almighty Bible-Genesis and Exodus. It would make an awesome addition to our devotions. Thank you for the chance and best of wishes to all.

      August 1, 2012 at 12:36 am |
  20. Noah

    The Bible condemns lots of things... good thing it's only a work of fiction and nobody would ever try to demand we run our country based on its allegory, metaphor, and flat-out fabrication...

    Oh wait, lots of people are trying to do that.

    March 3, 2011 at 4:21 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 81 82 83 84 85 86
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.