 |
|
|
|
March 3rd, 2011
01:25 PM ET
My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexualityBy Robert A. J. Gagnon, Special to CNN
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. |
  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.  |
|
|
|
Editor’s Note: 
The Bible also forbids eating bacon, but I don't see outraged morality police at my local Denny's.
Ha ha yeah and you can stone your wife if she commits adultery.
Well now I understand why the bible in the west was hidden in the Latin Vulgate so that no one but an Anointed Priest would be permitted to read it and interpret it. Shame on James Tyndale and John Wycliffe for translating Holy Scripture into English; look what this exposure has wrought.
I am reminded by my Anointed Priest that Adam and Eve were sent forth from the Garden of Eden for sampling the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It was never meant for congregants to be able to read the Sacred Scriptures; it is the sole purview of The Great God Jehovah's Anointed to read and explain the secret mysteries. All of you who have read these divisive and incomprehensible texts shall be cast out into the outer darkness without any hope of Christian heaven. You shall be cast down into the fiery pits of Satan's personal hell reserved for the prideful and the boastful according to my Anointed Priest.
Of course it is not clear what is meant by various different texts, you are not qualified to understand God's truth, no one is who has not been instructed and blessed by the High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem, not the Chief Rabbi , not the Pope, and certainly not any Protestant so called minister.
This whole discussion is a sad confession of the greatest of sins that you could ever conceive, burn those evil books, they are the tools of the Devil, unless you are schooled by God Almighty himself to be able to fathom their true meaning.
she does not represent the view of all liberals. I think what she has said and implied are both rediculous and totally misleading for the purpose of supporting her personal cause. Please don't lump all of us with her.
@William Brown. Your ignorance is appaling. The Jews were commanded to read through the Scriptures publically (yes, to the comman man and woman) and Paul reminded Christians that Jesus was cleansing us by the "washing of the word" (Eph 5:26)
There was a time when religion ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages.
It was the church that preserved the learning of the ancients during the period thatyou reference. Had it not been for the dedication of the monks the wisdom of the Greeks and Romans would have been lost forever. Every reasonably intelligent historian acknowledges this fact.
The bible is Man made. I do not trust any Man when it comes to God. "Thou shalt not worship false deities"...how about fake bibles?
Show me the "real" version and I'll put my "fake" version away.
so for all of you non-believers, why are you so angry? why do you sound so bitter. I believe in Christ, and all i gotta say is what He gives me is beyond words or what people can preach. It's a love and peace in my life and a undying determination to bring good into this world. He allows me to see how beautiful everyone is, without judgments, without saying "all so and so is stupid..." So let me ask you, who or what drives you to do good, today, tomorrow, how about everyday of your life. And who or what gives you peace?
Kate,
Well put! My sentiments exactly.. You get it
I'm curious, what does the bible say about priests screwing kids?
Well said 🙂
I think that it is pathetic how you pick and choose the things you see you your silly story book. Some you follow and some you don’t. You are referred to as a flock because you are a bunch of sheep. Get real!
we are called a flock because God is our shepard. We are blind as people to our shortcomings in life, we want to believe that we are mostly good, when we are not.
We are compared to sheep because a sheep listen to the shepherd's voice. The wicked are compared to goats, because goats caper (i.e. do whatever little whim enters their heart) and will not hearken to the voice of a herdsman.
Amen Dan!
I must note there is a HUGE difference between Catholics and Christians
Catholic or Christian. Either way – they're both crazy.
What do you mean? Of course you do realize the Catholic Church is the oldest Christian church right? Maybe this will explain more on that..
How Old Is Your Church?
If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.
If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.
If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.
If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.
If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.
If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
I am none of the above. I am simply a lamb being led by the Word of God, and the Pope has no bearing on my life, neither do any of the other extra books thrown in by the Catholics
Jim, what is your point?
The Bible bans bearing false witness, but that doesn't stop the Christian preacher from lying about the President of the USA.
God has been defiled by conservatives. They must burn in eternal hell.
This pretender is a heretic. He is a conservative who used the Holy Bible for his own ends. I have no doubt that if Jesus were to walk the earth again, this professor would be first in line to once again nail Our Lord to a cross.
Citation, please. Who lied about the president? Since you're so concerned, perhaps you should refrain from such behavior yourself.
Well, are Christians prepared to stone to death anyone who dares speak of his or her non-Christian religion? Because in Deuteronomy, that’s exactly what the bible instructs Christians to do—kill anyone who dares speak to them about worshiping another religion.
If one practices Christianity specifically as the bible states, then he or she will murder anyone who dares to promote a non-Christian religion.
Ancient men, whose cultures and customs conflict with our morals and ethics, wrote the bible. Our moral and ethical construct changed over the centuries; thus, Christians today outright reject many of the bibles teaching. Disturbing though how so many Christians cherry pick biblical verses to excuse some behaviors like hate against gays. They choose to hate, discriminate, and persecute gays under the guise of Christianity. Well, no free pass for them—hate is wrong and waving the bible to justify their behavior doesn’t get them off the hook.
Deuteronomy
“If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you.”
Sorry Catherine, that's where you are wrong. The Bible no where instructs Christians to stone to death anyone. You have to realize that the Old Testament was written by Jews for Jews. Maybe that was an oversight on your part. Christians are the ones that believe in Christ; Christ was not born to the virgin Mary yet.
I love how you people always cite the OT for your arguements fully knowing that Christians are called to grace. We use the Old Testamnet to remind ourselves of what Jesus Christ delivered us from.
I don't think you have a clear understanding of the Bible.
The Old Testament was written for Jewish people in a time of violence and complete lack of basic knowlegdge of how to survive. Much of the Old Testment were rules to ensure against disease, inbreeding, and other basic things that we take for granted. It was also specifically designed to keep them whole as a people, and to destroy anyone who tried to come between God's relationship with His people. Time and again, even after witnessing God save them with their own eyes, people began to stray and move toward false Gods (Baal). Even though these people turned from Him again and again, He loved them, and continued to keep them together as a people. He promised that if they followed him, he would deliver them from any evil.
Jesus Christ came to earth the establish a New Convenant with man, which was as stated above, completed God's promise to save man. He established and instructed that total amd complete Love of God, and Love of your neighbor were important above all else, and was what every law was based upon.
Jesus made it very clear that blindly following tradition without understanding purpose was in itself sinful.
So, if you did stone a woman for worshipping another religion you would be sinning against God in more ways than one...
You sound like you were a believer, who has lost faith. Seek and you will find. Seek truth, and you will find truth. Seek sadness, and sadness you will find...
A gross but common misunderstanding of the purpose of the Old Testament books such as deuteronomy. This law was written for a new nation of people that had just been rescued by God out of 400 years of slavery to a pagan nation. They had committed themselves by covenant to follow God, and God had in turn given them a law whose purpose was to sharply distinguish them as a people whose God was HOLY, something very, very different from all the other nations on earth, who worshipped one form of idol or the other, and practices all sorts of evils listed in the Book.
So the all moral laws, with all the prescribed punishments, were meant to mould Israel into a unique nation who would display to the pagan world one thing: That this is a people who are holy because they belong to the one and only true God whose chief attribute is holy. Of course Israel failed time and again to fulfill God's holy standards, and we likewise fail today.
But the standards remain today, because God never changes. So Jesus came, not to set aside these moral laws, but to fulfill them in our place, and to receive our due punishment for our failings. That is the good news Christians proclaim today. Not that there is no moral law in our "modern" society where God "tolerates" our sin, but that Jesus came to fullfill that law on our behalf, and paid the penalty for our failure to fulfill it, so that we who believe and receive him are no longer subject to the condemnation that is sure to come.
What you are failing to realize about God's law to the Israelites who came out of Egypt who had just received the Ten Commandments is that they knew what God demanded of them and knew the consequences that God demanded should they break His law. The Bible doesn't command Christians to murder anyone. It demands the opposite! "Go out in to all the world and make disciples of all the nations. Teaching and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This law that you say is for Christians was also not true because it was internal for Israel at the time. They were not to destroy those outside of Israel for that reason, it was a command of God as punishment to those within the nation, after all it was God in His Ten Commandments who says that He's a jealous God and will not share His glory with another. But it was not a command for all time.
This is the promise we have in Christ: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit...For you have not received a spirit of slaver leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!'" Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law, the took on the full punishment of the Law on our behalf because there is no way we would ever be able to pay the penalty since it requires a perfect sacrifice. Only God Himself could pay and He, being "full of grace and truth," did just that.
In short, in the manner of godly living, we are commanded in 1 Peter in the following way: "To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing...But even if you are to suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with GENTLENESS and REVERENCE; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than doing what is wrong. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit..."
It says a lot more bad things about divorce... I hope this guy tackles that next!
The main response to this article: So what? Our laws are not based on his bible.
This article IS a response to an article about the Bible. The author could have just said, "So what? Our laws are not based on her Bible," but instead he said something intelligent. That's why he get's published and you don't.
No other book in history has caused more destruction and murder than the Bible. So very sad for our species.
Bible is the number one bestseller in the world since printing began. Come out of your shell and read other religious books then compare. Voltaire said the similiar statements like you and declared that the Bible will be not exist within 20 years!!!.
Ironically the French Bible is being printed right now and since a long time from his own home!!!
Except, of course, for the writings of Marx, which inevitably lead to the tens of millions killed by Mao and Stalin...
It's not the Book that caused all that destruction...it's people who misinterpret it and use it as an excuse to kill others.
Yeah the bible says a lot of crazy things, thats why we have separation of Church and State. The way this country governs should not be determined by a 2000 year old book that has been changed many times over. We are not barbarians living in the freaking desert here!
haha, have you BEEN to las vegas?! 😉
Last I checked, CNN was not a part of the US government. Every citizen has the right to their opinion and to vote according to their conscience. If you don't like democracy, go find a place more suited to your tastes.
Mizz Moo Moo – you obviously do not know what you are talking about
Dr. Gagnon uses interesting logic here. He takes a positive statement of Jesus about a particular joining of a man and a women and uses it to imply that Jesus is speaking against all other unions. That's a pretty liberal interpretation. That's like saying that when Jesus told us remember him by eating bread and drinking wine, he was really saying that eating and drinking anything else would be a sin.
When the adulterous woman was brought to Jesus, the crowd told Him that according to the law, they could stone her. Actually, according to the law, they were supposed to stone her. Jesus didn't. Jesus was–perish the thought–tolerant. Did he break God's law? Was he placing more importance on tolerance than man's antiquated law that they attributed to God? Or should we just ignore this passage because it doesn't agree with your prejudice? The most dangerous man in the world is the man who is SURE he knows that God is against someone else.
Very nicely said - You've highlighted the flaw in Gagnon's otherwise well-stated argument.
The rest of the story is that Jesus did tell her to go and sin no more. Jesus was trying to convey that we are all sinners, it is just manifested in different ways.
Don't forget the second part of that very passage – he said to her "Go and sin no more".
"That's like saying that when Jesus told us remember him by eating bread and drinking wine, he was really saying that eating and drinking anything else would be a sin."
I think it's funny that you did exactly what he criticized Knust for, namely not keep your analogy in the apples-to-apples category. You cherry-pick the bread and wine part of scripture and then make an outlandish comparison that has nothing to do with the subject.
...and the rest of that story goes: "Go and sin no more." Nice job leaving that out.
"Sin no more." How has that worked for you? You sin. I sin. Gays sin. We all sin. What's your point? We should limit their rights?
An even worse reply...so now you appeal to the fact that we all sin to shut anyone up who points to a higher standard... whew!
Hence the reason most gay people are forced to set aside the Bible and pick up other religious forms of worship that aren't confined to a that BOOK. It's not about the book, it's about the soul and spirituality. At one time King James followers didn't think people of other color had souls. Imagine their surprise when they responded at those Bible meetings. Leave judgment to God. Your mission is to love one another, period.
Funny, you accept what the Bible says about love, but reject everything else. Go figure.
Well said.
The Foxification of CNN continues apace. Oh well, back to the BBC. Probably another few months before I return to this "news" site.
Why don't you MOVE to England and you can have your fill of the BBC. And their television tax...
You were not FORCED to open the article. It IS a topic of interest to many people.
You have no right to deny others items that they have an interest in, in particular, religion.
So, kindly sod off!
Then I suppose shopping on Sunday is wrong, eating shellfish and pork is wrong and the hundreds of other things that the Bible says are sins. That is the new christian way of doing things though, pick a verse and use it unless you benefit from it some how. So, while you so called chritians scarfe down you crab legs after shopping at Macys on the sabbath you too are commiting sins against God.
hey chuck. eating pork, shellfish and other things prohibited by the old testament were repealed in the new testament by both paul and jesus who said that the kingdom of heaven was not a matter of eating or drinking but of following Christ. I believe its in corinthians among other letters. Also, the sabbath doesn't necessarily have to be on a sunday just one day a week. I'm fine with people disagreeing, but I dislike the use of old testament verses when Christ ushered in a new covenant which makes a lot of those laws no longer laws that need to be followed. Christians also aren't perfect and so they're going to make mistakes. Because of this, the last thing a Christian should do is condemn someone for sin because it isn't a person's right to judge anyone. I just think the bible makes a little more sense than your post gives it credit for when you read it all the way through. i hope this reaches you well though.
Wow, you have clearly read but not understood the Bible. Just read Matthew, or Mark and you will see that God created a NEW CONVENANT with man. Particularly read MATTHEW 15:1-11. Also, read Matthew 22:35-40.
Jesus wants you to hold TWO laws above all else. So, clearly, that is a far cry from "hundreds". God knows we are all sinners, and cannot help ourselves. That is why Jesus came in the first place. Why don't people understand this? It's such a simple concept, especiallly when it is explicity written in words motivated by the Holy Spirit.
Wow you are a retard. Your talking about Jewish Faith, this discussion is about Christianity or, People of Christ, whereas the Jews only believe him to be a prophet and not the messiah... Your talking about rules that were created during the time of Moses, to maintain health among the Hebrews in their travels. Much like having an unclean person separated from the congregation for a week. Get your facts straight before spewing stupidity.
Not so. "Old Testament" legalities were replaced by "New Testament" redemption. It was not a change of standards on God's part, but rather a fulfillment of a promised new covenant between God and man (promised from the beginning of humanity). If you read Scripture in its entirety instead of picking and choosing verses (which I believe you just said was wrong), you would find the answers to those exact points that you just brought up, specifically: Jesus' rebuke of religious leaders' pathetic list of do's and don'ts concerning the Sabbath ("I am Lord of the Sabbath" – See Matthew 12:1-14), and God's command to Peter to allow previously unlawful foods into his diet ("Do not call anything impure that God has made clean" – See Acts 10:9 – 11:18).
Religious bigotry should not be the law of the land. Religious bigots should not influence legislation. It's bad enough that CNN has seen fit to give this bigot a forum.
This is ignorance. A man is not a bigot for giving an intellectually honest analysis about what the Bible clearly teaches. The only bigotry here is the intolerance of the Biblical view, given without explanation or justification.
Doc, a few key things that you obviously missed.
CNN is NOT the government, sponsored by the government or owned by the government. It is a company and may place religious articles on their website, whether you approve of them or not. If a blog on CNN offends you, you have two choices. Either not read the blog OR not patronize CNN.
We DO have some first amendment thingy that SAYS what you went on about. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
There is NO LAW AND WILL BE NO LAW that forbids a company from placing religious materiel on their websites. If you want such a law to be on the books, I highly recommend you move to China, where such IS the law.
So what? Who cares what your tired old myths say?
"Becasue it says so in The Book, I cannot do what is morally correct & treat other people with respect..."
Please go away forever...
Millions of people care what the Bible says. If you're so smart, how do you not know that?
As, the last time I checked, you are NOT the Emperor, the first amendment is still in place AND this is an article on religion on the religion blogs of CNN, you may, as the British say, SOD OFF.
ok so i looked at all the comments... weres the funny and racist and over all SHORTcomments? seriously alll u can do is argue argue argue. tell a joke, be a friend, just stop being boring!
Yes, crucify Jesus all over again, those scribes and Pharisees, as you condone bashing His teachings with your lies.
Jesus loves everyone, it's just that everyone doesn't love Him.
You folks have it all backwards for listen to evil men instead of reading His truth in the Bible.