My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?
June 21st, 2011
10:10 AM ET

My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?

Editor's Note: Jonathan Dudley is the author of Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics.

By Jonathan Dudley, Special to CNN

Growing up in the evangelical community, I learned the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is clear-cut. God condemns it, I was taught, and those who disagree just haven’t read their Bibles closely enough.

Having recently graduated from Yale Divinity School, I can say that my childhood community’s approach to gay rights—though well intentioned—is riddled with self-serving double standards.

I don’t doubt that the one New Testament author who wrote on the subject of male-male intercourse thought it a sin. In Romans 1, the only passage in the Bible where a reason is explicitly given for opposing same-sex relations, the Apostle Paul calls them “unnatural.”

Problem is, Paul’s only other moral argument from nature is the following: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).

Few Christians would answer that question with a “yes.”

In short, Paul objects to two things as unnatural: one is male-male sex and the other is long hair on men and short hair on women. The community opposed to gay marriage takes one condemnation as timeless and universal and the other as culturally relative.

I also don’t doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition.

But the community opposed to gay marriage has itself revised the Christian tradition in a host of ways. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy. When a theologian named Jovinian challenged that hierarchy in 390 A.D. — merely by suggesting that marriage and celibacy might be equally worthwhile endeavors — he was deemed a heretic and excommunicated from the church.

How does that sit with “family values” activism today?

Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s "pro-family" activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.

The community opposed to gay marriage has also departed from the Christian tradition on another issue at the heart of its social agenda: abortion.

Unbeknownst to most lay Christians, the vast majority of Christian theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life begins at conception.

Although he admitted some uncertainty on the matter, the hugely influential 4th and 5th century Christian thinker Saint Augustine wrote, “it could not be said that there was a living soul in [a] body” if it is “not yet endowed with senses.”

Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic saint and a giant of mediaeval theology, argued: “before the body has organs in any way whatever, it cannot be receptive of the soul.”

American evangelicals, meanwhile, widely opposed the idea that life begins at conception until the 1970s, with some even advocating looser abortion laws based on their reading of the Bible before then.

It won’t do to oppose gay marriage because it’s not traditional while advocating other positions that are not traditional.

And then there’s the topic of divorce. Although there is only one uncontested reference to same-sex relations in the New Testament, divorce is condemned throughout, both by Jesus and Paul. To quote Jesus from the Gospel of Mark: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.”

A possible exception is made only for unfaithfulness.

The community most opposed to gay marriage usually reads these condemnations very leniently. A 2007 issue of Christianity Today, for example, featured a story on its cover about divorce that concluded that Christians should permit divorce for “adultery,” “emotional and physical neglect” and “abandonment and abuse.”

The author emphasizes how impractical it would be to apply a strict interpretation of Jesus on this matter: “It is difficult to believe the Bible can be as impractical as this interpretation implies.”

Indeed it is.

On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.

Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.

Since graduating from seminary, I no longer identify with the evangelical community of my youth. The community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jonathan Dudley.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Homosexuality • Opinion

soundoff (6,474 Responses)
  1. mark

    appeal to tradition, appeal to authority, appeal to popular opinion, false analogy, nonsequiter, straw man......

    some of the fallacious ways Dudley tries to argue his position.

    July 18, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • Jackson Polt

      How is appeal to tradition a nonsequiter in a debate about the Christian tradition? I suggest you look that term up in the dictionary because you obviously don't know what it means.

      July 18, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
  2. Jackson Polt

    Jonathan Dudley is the antichrist!!!!!!!!!!

    July 18, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
    • Dj

      nah the antichrist dont love women..but the spirit of gays are weak so thats a negative.

      July 19, 2011 at 3:32 am |
    • Seriously?

      ".but the spirit of gays are weak so thats a negative.'

      Your ignorance is showing.

      July 20, 2011 at 11:25 am |
  3. Whatever

    Ultimately, If you want answers, ask Jesus, if you believe he is alive. He said not a letter of the Law would pass away. We do not have the authority to instuct others to disregard the Law. Only Jesus has that authority.

    We have the option for compassion, but we do not get to say something is holy when the Law says it is not.

    My two cents.

    July 18, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • Observer

      You've missed the point here. This is all about HYPOCRISY. Christian h0m0phobes use the Bible to pick on gays while ignoring the far far greater number of Christians that sin by adultery. They just pick and choose.

      The discussion isn't about changing the definition of the "sin", but about the selective choice of sins to attack people for.

      July 18, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • Whatever


      I replied, but apparently was so objectionable, the moderators chose to censor my post. I went back over the Terms of Use and couldn't find where I erred. I was very disappointed.

      We have many sinners in church and there will always be room for more. Each of us will have to answer . . . regardless of whether we frequent church or not. I, for one, do not think there will be any free passes just because one doesn't frequent a church.

      This is not an open forum, so further commenting is pointless. The moderators obviously have a comfort level and I breached it. I have a hard time imagining this based on some of the stuff posted here . . . but if I am unwelcome, I am not one to stick around.

      July 18, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
    • LinCA


      If "Your comment is awaiting moderation." it won't ever be posted. There are no moderators, only automated censoring. Your post must have had a forbidden word in it.

      The following words or word fragments will get your post censored (list is incomplete):

      To fix that you can break up the word by putting an extra character in, like consti.tution (breaking the oh so naughty "tit").

      July 18, 2011 at 10:50 pm |
    • Whatever

      Thank you for the partial list, LinCA. Bizarre that you can't use the word s.ex when talking about s.exual sins?!

      Anyway, two main points . . .

      While others may not concur, most Christians believe ultimately Jesus is the judge, not fellow Christians. . .that one doesn't want to take on this judging business . . . however,

      the Law treats s.exual sins somewhat differently, in that we are expected to be aware of these behaviors even among non-believers . . . Lev 18:26 . . . so therein lies the struggle . . . does tolerance have a place here?

      Jesus modeled compassion +and+ faithfulness. Being sinners separated from God, He is our guide. It is the narrow way, it is complicated and, yet, I am confident He will get us there.

      Again, thank you for the heads-up on the autoscreen.

      July 18, 2011 at 11:55 pm |
    • Observer


      How can Christians have any credibility in quoting Leviticus, for instance, when it also contains such nonsense as "“If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death”?

      As long as Christians are just picking the sins from the Bible they agree with and ignor the others, why not choose the Golden Rule instead of fostering hatred?

      July 19, 2011 at 12:50 am |
    • Whatever

      I don't think there is nonsense in Leviticus. And, for reasons that I do not know, we have two run-downs of these s.exual sins in Leviticus.

      I am not ignoring all the other laws. I am not explaining them away. The Golden Rule is not found in the Bible. Something very close to it is found in Mark 12:29-31:

      "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God wilth all your heart and with all our soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

      Jesus puts God first. It is not the purpose of the Law to foster hate, but to turn us back towards God, to repent.

      Incidentally, the primary commandment from this passage, the most important one according to Jesus, comes from Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Jesus quotes the second part from Leviticus 19:18.

      I am trying to be faithful and compassionate. I am not sure where you got the hate part??

      July 19, 2011 at 4:55 am |
  4. Going In Circles

    Jesus did not need a roof, and a collection plate.
    He turned nobody away.
    Yet Christians feed the church with money,
    make it wealthy, and pass judgement on everybody else.

    The largest holder of real estate on this planet is....(Drum roll)
    The Vatican.

    There are 3 places on this planet that answer to NO other government.

    Washington DC (Military)
    Baker street London (Financial)
    The Vatican (Religion)

    How do you control the people on planet earth ?
    They all work together like hand in glove.
    Throw in Banking, Oil, and the world trade organization, and the media.
    they control the UN.
    It would be wonderful if these organizations are trying to make life better.
    They are not.
    Put the kids games..Monopoly and Risk together,
    these people are playing these games, but with real pieces, real money, and real armies.

    I wish people could take off the religious blinders and see the truth.
    Your bible was put together from so many different sources, and peoples, and time periods.

    Its like me going to a library and ripping pages out of car repair books...
    A chapter from 65 Chevy,
    a chapter from 69 mustang.....get the picture.
    Now i have the "CAR BIBLE"....except....it doesnt work.
    Please (and i hate asking people to do things like this)
    please look up "The Council Of Nicea"...Constantine "Put" the bible together.
    Nothing to do with God, or Jesus.
    So many different beliefes running around the world
    they tried to "Unify" all of the different sects.
    Still doesnt work.
    Why was the gospel of Mary Magdalene, And of Judas left out ?
    Mary Magdalene was supposed to be a harlot (she is not)
    and Judas was supposed to have betrayed Jesus
    If Judas did not turn Christ in to the authorities
    how would Jesus be crucified ?
    Dont you see the truth ?

    The bible you read today has been manipulated to destroy the truth.
    The Vatican doesnt want to lose its cash cow, does it ?

    July 18, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • Dj

      Sounds like you researched everywhere but the bible itself.. stick to KJV , its obvious u dont know what to believe. So dont try to teach.

      July 19, 2011 at 3:35 am |
    • Bill

      Implying the KJV is complete and without errors. Implying that any translation of the bible is without errors. Implying that the Bible isn't mostly fabrication and that the Synoptic gospels arent compendiums of earlier works.

      July 19, 2011 at 10:48 am |
  5. DOUG

    The problem with using the word "unnatural "is that it refers to something that does not occur in nature. Centaurs are unnatural, gay love isn't. It may be abnormal, ( as in departing from the norm and not from a psychological use of the term),but certainly not unnatural, since it occurs with some frequency in nature. and if it occurs with some frequency, then what is the issue?

    July 18, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • pillowbiter

      you took my pillow, you beyotch!

      July 18, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
  6. Andrew

    That is your take.

    July 18, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  7. jim

    “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

    July 18, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
  8. Joseph3law

    Pro-creation (in favor of the Creation) = Pro-Creator (In favor of the Creator) = Pro-God (In favor of God)

    July 18, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
  9. Kerri

    It is a sad thing to leave seminary filled not with the knowledge of Christ but with the spirit of this age. Jesus have mercy on our nation!

    July 18, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Randall Travis

      Yes, the same would have been said about the abolitionists in the 1800s. How sad it is indeed to see prejudice challenged within the church.

      July 18, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  10. Allen

    May I suggest you buy a Bible for a buck at the dollar store and read it again.... There is much love for the sinner a but not for the sin....

    July 18, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
    • Joxer the Mighty

      May I suggest you read Matthew 22:36-40 and Romans 13:8.

      July 18, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • Giulia

      That's right...Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Not love the sin. Allen is right.

      July 18, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Sean

      You joking right? He went to Yale Divinity School. He's read the bible plenty of times and I'm sure he's read numerous different translations of it too. He understands his faith and the issues way better than you ever will. Maybe you should be considering what he has to say.

      July 18, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • Dj

      Many ppl understand the law but not the principles. Jesus says even if you look at a female with desire you have already committed lust and adultery with your heart. And no man can enter heaven without being holy.

      Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand.

      July 18, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
  11. Amazing

    No wonder this country is in the shape that it's in – The mindless led by the clueless!

    July 18, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
    • Ricnaustin

      So who leads you?

      July 18, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
  12. Amy

    I believe that this whole debate is a waste of energy; no one side will finally give in to the other side and say "You were right, I was wrong", because we do not have the definitive answer.
    Christ came to live and die. The best we can do, as Christians (in true meaning of the word), is to believe him as the Savior and take up our cross. What else matters?
    And you who are reading this comment can reply & disparage Christianity and belief in God, it does not bother me, you have a right to believe in what you want, and so do I.

    July 18, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
    • just anotherthought

      I disagree that it is a waste of energy. For the older generations, perhaps. But the younger generations are so much more accepting and are finding the love (not hate) in the gospel. This affects how they treat LGBTs, which makes the world a better place.

      July 18, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • Joxer the Mighty

      Wow, two Christians who actually know what Jesus taught! I was beginning to think my wife and I were the only ones. It amazes me how many people claim to be Christian and yet they do nothing but condemn people and turn the Gospel into something that is strangely reminiscent of hardline Islam. Most Christians: "Accept Jesus or you will go to hell." Most Muslims: "Submit to Allah or you will go to hell." Matthew 22:36-40 is how we should strive to live morally and sharing with the world what great sacrifice Jesus made should be the central theme of Christianity.

      July 18, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
  13. Iosias of Washington DC

    The writer of this article seems actually to have only a partial understanding of the Church Fathers and Church history. For example, Jovinian might have been excommunicated from the Church, but not solely on the grounds of his views on marriage and monasticism/celibacy. What this article fails to mention, is that St. John Chrysostom also believed monasticism and marriage to be equal, and he is hailed as one of the greatest theologians of the Early Church (being called 'golden mouth' for the depth of theological understanding demonstrated in his writing and speech).

    Additionally, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nazianzos were all advocates of the traditional family and encouraged traditional marital and familial lifestyles.

    In short, I believe three things about the author here, at present: 1. He has been grossly misinformed about Church history and the teachings of the Saints and the Early Church(and perhaps it is not as much him to blame as it is his education), 2. That many of these misconceptions are due to problematic Roman Catholic dogmas and practices and are not necessarily rooted in a real scholarly investigation of what the ancient teachings actually were (for example, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox have a very different view than what I've been reading here that seems to have been influence by Catholic praxis and dogmatics, but these 2 ancient traditions were totally neglected by the author), and 3. The author points out that many believe that maybe he didn't read his Bible enough, and that the answer should be drawn purely by scholarly analysis of the Scriptures, where, rather, I'd hope most Christians would say no, really, you know your Scriptures, but you need to go to God and pray about it a great deal to really understand what God desires for mankind.

    That being said, regarding the article, I don't think either camp, the author or the evangelicals, have it right. Both camps are trying to derive all their theology from the Scriptures, but reality is that the Scriptures came from the Church Tradition that was already in place and was meant to the central part of the Tradition, but not the whole thing. This is why one could find so many arguments against the author's arguments here, and still find arguments just as good against the conservative Protestants. To get to the truth, one really needs to be immersed in prayer and in the spiritual praxis of the Church that have been handed down and preserved by the Church since the time of the Apostles. These praxis have been carried to us in this age along a line of Christians that lived the Christian life such as John Chrysostom, Anthony the Great, Isaac the Syrian, Gregory of Tours, Nectarios of Aegina, Seraphim of Sarov, Herman and Innocent of Alaska, John Maximovich of Shanghai and San Francisco, etc. and so on.

    Scholarly insight can lead us in circles for eternity, but to arrive at the proper conclusion, prayer and righteousness are what we need.

    July 18, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
    • Tom Nunnery

      I find the comments of Iosias in Washington D.C. hilarious. He attempts to anaylize the article using cuurch history,then cncludes with "Prayer and righteousness are what you need". That is no sane argument; that is opinion.

      July 18, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • Going In Circles


      Complete FAIL !!!!
      I wont even waste anybodys time to explain why,
      but short.....
      you tried to pick apart this story
      by making up your own.

      July 18, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
    • Ricnaustin

      At the the core of this whole thing is that men wrote the bible according to their beliefs, and as we all know beliefs and meanings of language change fairly quickly (prime example: the meaning of gay 50 years ago versus now). You all know that if we took everything literally from the bible, no christian would be alive today because all our predecessors would've been stoned at the town square for one reason or another.

      I believe in a higher power, power religion "can be" destructive, because churches, denominations, groups, members, or whatever you want to call it/them all have their own interpretations. Even Luther and King James rewrote the bible to a certain extent. Who are you suppoed to believe.

      It doesn't take a theologian, a professor or minister to tell you what is right or normal "for you" in your heart. The people constantly tell us they want government out of our lives, but yet the very people that say that want to tell you how to live your life. What gives?

      July 18, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
    • Randall Travis

      The author is not misinformed at all. The view that marriage and celibacy are equally worthwhile was defined as "heresy" in response to Jovinian, by Jerome, Augustine, and several Popes. It is unfortunate that Catholics try to deny their own history in order to support their current beliefs.

      July 18, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • Iosias of Washington DC

      In response to the replies to my comment:
      I'm somewhat disappointed that people were unable to see what I was really saying. I started out by pointing out that the author of this article has really NOT provided a sound scholarly argument for advocating gay marriage in Christianity, although I know that a such a scholarly argument exists. This is first and foremost to voice my disappointment with the author and to expose his ignorance so that perhaps someone here would be less likely to be taken in by him.

      Given this is only a quick comment, I cannot write a whole thesis here explaining why he is wrong about Church history and the teachings of the Early fathers, but I can give people a starting point to do further research if they are truly interested (John Chrysostom, Basil the Great).

      Now, after this, I was criticized for claiming that all we need is prayer to discern the will of God. This is not what I said, but what I did do was criticize the approach of trying to interpret the Scriptures without prayer using solely scholarly arguments and thinking that all Christian beliefs can be upheld and defended solely through scholarly analysis. Prayer is needed in addition to the scholarly research in order to reach the proper conclusions. The Christian Faith is not a scientific theory, but it is more like a Greek philosophy, which must not only be studied, but be practiced, also, to be understood.

      However, even if one uses scholarly scholarly research only, if he delves into the Church fathers as the author of this article did, one must see that the early Fathers used this approach of combined study, prayer, and practice to arrive at Truth of things about God. The author is not alone in missing this point, but it is glaring if you are really searching with an open mind (much of the West is so blinded by their excessively scholastic approach to everything when it comes to spiritual matters).

      By this, I mean to point out, that the emphasis on prayer to arrive at the correct dogma is not mutually exclusive from the scholarly research. If the author really knew the Church Fathers of the 1st millennium, his research would have lead him to a different approach than he is using to understand the mind of Christ.

      As such, the practices and dogmas of particular Christian sects and churches cannot be truly defended or criticized void of personal experiences that parallel those recorded by the early first millennial Saints of the Church. And this is the great dilemma for Western society – you cannot defend Christianity based on objective reasoning alone because it is a personal revelation to the heart of each member of the Church (the person of Christ in each man) that has preserved the Church's teachings and dogmas through the ages, not a scholarly textbook called "The Bible" or "The Lives of the Saints" as if they were manuals sent by God on how to please Him. You must test your experiences against the the Churches collective experience through history and go to God in prayer concerning your understanding of the Church's message and the Scriptures teachings to arrive at the Truth.

      This is not talking in circles, but I simply put too much faith in people's willingness to go back and look at the sources before assuming they understood my whole argument well enough to criticize it in a comment.

      July 21, 2011 at 11:16 am |
  14. BCW - NYC

    "I also don’t doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition."
    Not everyone is Christian in the world or follows Christian tradition.
    Advocate gay marriage are advocating eqaulity of rights and respect of love between two persons who happen to be the same gender.

    July 18, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
  15. Robaire

    Thank You Jonathan! I received my Bachelors' in Religion & Philosophy. Many (if not all) of the issues you addressed are the one's I addressed many years ago. I, too was in an arena of idiots! I am in total agreement with your take on the issues you addressed. In the words of Desirades: "Great Minds have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Stand tall! Be vigilante! The only thing we all owe one another is the truth how we see it. What that person does with the truth, have nothing to do with you. They will process it in their own way, in their own time. They thought Jesus to be crazy as well. Thanks for sharing your information. It has not fallen on deaf ears here.....

    July 18, 2011 at 1:08 pm |
  16. Randall Travis

    Great Op-Ed!!!!

    July 18, 2011 at 8:18 am |
  17. Paul

    Now how about the other sides rebuttal?

    July 18, 2011 at 1:02 am |
    • Randall Travis

      The other side has been given more than enough space and time over the past decade to make their case, while voices like Dudley's have not. And it's sad to think that every time someone such as Dudley speaks up, there should be an immediate "rebuttal." It's time for voices like Dudley's to dominate the national conversation. Those who disagree have plenty big microphones to respond if they see fit.

      July 18, 2011 at 8:18 am |
  18. Chelsea

    Anyone who comes into here and makes any comment against g-ay people or g-ay marriage is either a moron or just plain didn't read the article. They saw a picture of two men on the top of the wedding cake and came into make their knee-jerk biggotted reaction.


    The Article is talking about HYPOCRICY OF THE FAITHFUL! And the Tendency by Christians to just IGNORE HALF THE BIBLE and only ever crusade against "sins" that they have personally CHERRY PICKED!

    None of the people attacking Mr. Dudley have, not once, made any comments about the article's actual point. It's always "H0M0S IS BAD!, A DUR!"

    Someone who is a Christian, seriously, tell me this. Why do you people think Laws should be passed barring g-ays from getting married, while I never see any of you crusading to have any laws passed that would prohibit proven adulterers from ever re-marrying?
    Afterall, Thou shalt not commit Adultery is a COMMANDMENT! The Anti-g-ay comments in the bible are not.

    July 17, 2011 at 10:37 pm |
    • Randall Travis

      *Standing Ovation*

      July 17, 2011 at 10:48 pm |
    • AvdBerg

      Not everybody that says: Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
      The word Christianity does not exist in the Bible and those that claim to be so-called followers of Christ have transformed themselves (2 Cor. 11:13-15). Christianity is a deception as this whole world has been deceived as confirmed in Revelation 12:9. If you would like to know who by nature your father is please read John 8:43-45 and then start all over again. We also invite you to read the article Can Christianity or Any Other Religion Save You? on our website.
      Our website can be located by entering “a world deceived” on Google. It is easy to find as it has been the number one listing for the last five years. Today there are more than 10 million listings.

      July 18, 2011 at 6:42 am |
    • kckaaos

      Essentially, you are saying since SOME Christians choose to ignore parts of the Bible, Then everyone should ignore ALL of it...how progressive liberal of you.

      July 18, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
    • mike barry

      Your right it is hypocrisy but not of the faithful but of the religious (please read my post before responding) also he is the one who is leaving out part of the bible to justify himself and make gays look bad. (again see my post) also I agree they shouldn't pass laws against immoral behavior nor should they pass laws to okdoke it. yes respect the person not the religion also stands with accept the person not tolerate the forced acceptance of a belief, moral or religious

      July 18, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
    • Observer

      "Essentially, you are saying since SOME Christians choose to ignore parts of the Bible, Then everyone should ignore ALL of it...how progressive liberal of you."

      Wrong. ALL Christians choose to ignore parts of the Bible. Why not actually read it?

      July 18, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
    • redragon

      You do realize that moses was given three sets of ten commandments. The first list was never written down (that's the one you're refering to) the second was destroyed, and the third says a bunch of stuff about boiling animals and observing holidays.

      July 18, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
    • Massimo

      Can I just say what a reduction to seek out soomene who truly is aware of what theyre speaking about on the internet. You definitely know the best way to convey an issue to gentle and make it important. More folks must read this and understand this facet of the story. I cant believe youre no more fashionable since you definitely have the gift.

      April 4, 2012 at 12:48 am |
  19. Randy D

    For any man to have any desire to insert things into his rectum, or to insert things into another man, is against the laws of nature, no matter the religion. Man was made for woman, woman was made for man. If the pieces don't fit, keep them out of it. It isn't rocket science, it isn't illogical, it is common sense. For someone to have such thoughts, it is a mental problem. It should not be applauded, not celebrated.

    July 17, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
    • Randall Travis

      The pieces do fit. Trust me, I know from experience.

      July 17, 2011 at 10:05 pm |
    • Observer

      Sodomy is done by many, many heteros.

      So what is your point?

      July 17, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
    • NyteShayde

      Randy, I have some common sense and sound advice for you. If you don't like it, and don't want to do it, and don't agree with it (here's the tough part, but I have faith that you'll get it) DON'T DO IT!!

      It has nothing to do with you, it is not your business what others do behind closed doors, and your opinion matters exactly spit. So go about your business and stop worrying about what perfect strangers do in their own PERSONAL lives and you'll do just fine.

      July 17, 2011 at 11:29 pm |
    • saaly

      it's done with a woman not a man moron!!

      July 18, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
    • Observer

      "it's done with a woman not a man moron!!"

      Speaking of morons, have you got a dictionary?

      July 18, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
  20. Red Thunder

    You forgot or choose to ignore Leviticus 18:22

    July 17, 2011 at 9:44 pm |
    • Randall Travis

      That's too easy of a target, as neighboring passages also condemn eating shellfish.

      July 17, 2011 at 10:06 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
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.