home
RSS
My Take: The Bible condemns a lot, but here's why we focus on homosexuality
The author writes that it's fine for Christians to take certain biblical condemnations seriously while ignoring others.
May 21st, 2012
10:00 AM ET

My Take: The Bible condemns a lot, but here's why we focus on homosexuality

Editor's Note: R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

By R. Albert Mohler Jr., Special to CNN

Are conservative Christians hypocritical and selective when it comes to the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality? With all that the Bible condemns, why the focus on gay sex and same-sex marriage?

Given the heated nature of our current debates, it’s a question conservative Christians have learned to expect. “Look,” we are told, “the Bible condemns eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics and any number of other things. Why do you ignore those things and insist that the Bible must be obeyed when it comes to sex?”

On its face, it’s a fair question. But it can be posed in two very different ways.

First, the question can be asked to suggest that the Bible’s clear condemnation of sexual sins can simply be set aside. The other way of posing the question represents a genuine attempt to understand how the Bible is to be rightly applied to life today.

In truth, those asking the question the first way really don’t want an answer.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

An honest consideration of the Bible reveals that most of the biblical laws people point to in asking this question, such as laws against eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics, are part of the holiness code assigned to Israel in the Old Testament. That code was to set Israel, God’s covenant people, apart from all other nations on everything from morality to diet.

As the Book of Acts makes clear, Christians are not obligated to follow this holiness code. This is made clear in Peter’s vision in Acts 10:15. Peter is told, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”

In other words, there is no kosher code for Christians. Christians are not concerned with eating kosher foods and avoiding all others. That part of the law is no longer binding, and Christians can enjoy shrimp and pork with no injury to conscience.

The Bible’s commands on sexual behavior, on the other hand, are continued in the New Testament. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible’s teaching is consistent, pervasive, uniform and set within a larger context of law and Gospel.

My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage

The Old Testament clearly condemns male homosexuality along with adultery, bestiality, incest and any sex outside the covenant of marriage. The New Testament does not lessen this concern but amplifies it.

The New Testament condemns both male and female homosexual behavior. The Apostle Paul, for example, points specifically to homosexuality as evidence of human sinfulness. His point is not merely that homosexuals are sinners but that all humanity has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The New Testament condemns a full range of sexual sins, and homosexuality is specified among these sins. In Romans, Paul refers to homosexuality in terms of “dishonorable passions,” “contrary to nature” and “shameless.” As New Testament scholar Robert Gagnon has stated, the Bible’s indictment “encompasses every and any form of homosexual behavior.”

Your Take: Rethinking the Bible on homosexuality?

Some people then ask, “What about slavery and polygamy?” In the first place, the New Testament never commands slavery, and it prizes freedom and human dignity. For this reason, the abolitionist movement was largely led by Christians, armed with Christian conviction.

The Old Testament did allow for polygamy, though it normalizes heterosexual monogamy. In the New Testament, Jesus made clear that marriage was always meant to be one man and one woman.

“Have you not read that He who created them made them male and female?” Jesus asked in Matthew. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” For this reason, Christians have opposed polygamy on biblical grounds.

Why are Christians so concerned with homosexuality? In the first place, that question is answered by the simple fact that it is the most pressing moral question of our times. Christians must be concerned about adultery, pornography, injustice, dishonesty and everything the Bible names as sin. But when my phone rings with a call from a reporter these days, the question I am asked is never adultery or pornography. It is about homosexuality.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Christians who are seriously committed to the authority of the Bible have no choice but to affirm all that the Bible teaches, including its condemnation of homosexuality. At the same time, our confidence is that God condemns those things that will bring his human creatures harm and commands those things that will lead to true human happiness and flourishing.

In other words, we understand that the Bible condemns all forms of sin because our Creator knows what is best for us. The Bible names sins specifically so that each of us will recognize our own sinfulness and look to Christ for salvation and the forgiveness of our sins.

Christian love requires that we believe and teach what the Bible teaches and that we do so with both strong conviction and humble hearts. The Church must repent of our failures in both of these tasks, but we must not be silent where the Bible speaks.

Are Christians hypocrites in insisting that homosexual behavior is sin? We, too, are sinners, and hypocrisy and inconsistency are perpetual dangers.

The church failed miserably in the face of the challenge of divorce. This requires an honest admission and strong corrective.

At the same time, this painful failure must remind us that we must not fail to answer rightly when asked what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. Love requires us to tell the truth.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of R. Albert Mohler Jr.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Gay marriage • Opinion

soundoff (7,995 Responses)
  1. Only Catholics are saved

    The real issue is that all religions, except for catholicism, are tools of Satan, and all those following them shall surely be cast into the firey pit. Mohler is a puppet of Satan. Join the one religion if you wish to go to heaven. Only Catholicism will keep you from the pools of fire. I only speaketh the one truth, the whole truth. Yea, we need to bring back our theocracy led countries prior to the heresies of Martin Luther and Henry VIII.

    May 22, 2012 at 2:05 am |
    • Mark From Middle River

      Only Catholics are saved...... I do not think so ... but all internet Trolls should be drowned.....

      Kidding ...sorta...

      May 22, 2012 at 2:08 am |
    • Ambient Malice

      A theocracy requires direct communication with God. And the Pope isn't Peter's descendant, sorry to say.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:10 am |
    • tallulah13

      Every true believer of every god ever worshiped by humans has felt the way you do. And every one of them had exactly the same proof as you that their belief was true and right. There is not a single shred of evidence to support the existence of any god, including yours. The only thing your religion saves you from is the effort of thinking for yourself.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:10 am |
    • I see through this

      http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/25/siu.01.html

      May 22, 2012 at 2:11 am |
    • yalesouth

      you mean the church that condoned slavery, the extirimination of the native americans, and most recently, the poking of young boys by priests(apparently is anathema for two adult men to be together but they seem to be ok when its man-boy).

      May 22, 2012 at 2:12 am |
    • CAPTAIN CONUNDRUM

      I SEE MARK ISN'T SO "MIDDLE OF THE RIVER" SO TO SPEAK. ALONG WITH MANY OF HIS OTHER HATEFUL POSTS ABOUT GAYS. MIGHT WANT TO CHANGE THE NAME, BIGOT.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:15 am |
    • Brampt

      Catholic- catholicism was formed by emperor Contantine, Catholicism persecuted and hated to death, and tortured the ones that had a bible or the ones that would try to talk the truth about God, catholic warship idols, catholic warship Virgen Mary,...etc. So now tell me who's the tool under Satan hand?

      May 22, 2012 at 2:17 am |
    • Mark From Middle River

      Captain, I only use one name and one name only. Over the weekend at 6am on Saturday morning someone used my login name along with others. If you think that I am a bigot against Gays and Lesbians then you have not read my post which would explain why someone would post anti-gay statements with my name.

      Tall', I have questioned in the past persons of Faith who use terms such as "True Believer". I am follower of Christ but I also believe in many paths to God or Gods and that we might be dealing with the same deity. Am I a true believer?

      May 22, 2012 at 2:23 am |
    • Conqui

      Your Pope and several of his predecessors (sp?) disagree with almost every single statement you make. You are close to being excommunicated.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:44 am |
    • Bet

      Especially those child loving priests, right? They get the VIP ticket to the pearly gates!

      May 22, 2012 at 3:16 am |
  2. vereiste

    Why would anyone care about this silly garbage?

    May 22, 2012 at 1:56 am |
  3. CRhone

    Jesus pointed to a few key signs that would prove True Christians from the rest. The most visible of these signs include having Love Among Yourself, and Preaching about Gods Kingdom. Most Christians are hypocrites. Its your job to seek out the 'real' Christians from the counterfeit. There is a group of people truly living by Gods standards in our day. And I bet you have met them ... at your door; preaching about the kingdom!

    May 22, 2012 at 1:51 am |
    • Mirosal

      No, what I have met "at my door preaching about the kingdom" are a bunch of cultists who are so easily deluded and gullible as to blindly follow without question something that can't be proven to exist in the first place. That's who I have met at my door.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:58 am |
    • CRhone

      If your truly interested in living in harmony with Gods standards then put Religion to the test. If it doesn't measure up to Jesus standards then its not legit. I know many people who intelligent critical people .. not gullible who on their own have come to understand what True Christianity is. The best way is personal Bible study.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:11 am |
    • Mirosal

      Anyone who follows a myth is gullible, no matter what denomination or sect you are. Your "god" is no more real than Zeus, and you'll readily dismiss that deity. Why is yours real, and the thousands of others throughout human history are not?

      May 22, 2012 at 2:17 am |
  4. michael

    Jesus met a gay man, via the Roman centurion trying to heal his younger male slave, his pais – a Greek term used to convey the younger male in a gay relationship, and said of him, "never have I seen faith greater than this". Jesus did not condemn him for being gay. Jesus also mentions gay men in Matthew as born eunuchs and again doesn't condemn.

    May 22, 2012 at 1:51 am |
    • Nii

      The Roman Centurion was a non-Hebrew Jewish proselyte and thats why he was recommended to Jesus as a good man. The born eunuchs Christ talked about are impotent men. Impotent beyond Viagra that is. Hebrew, Aramic and Koine Greek all have a word for gay.
      An evil man sees the evil in everything-Paul

      May 22, 2012 at 1:58 am |
    • michael

      Sorry Nike but you just totally made that up. Google the term pais and come back and let me know the definiton.

      As for impotent men.... So they do not ever marry women???? I never knew that. Bbtw, again google what the term born eunuch meant back then. It was a gay man. Kings used to use born eunuchs to care for his women because they see not interested in them that way.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:03 am |
    • michael

      Btw that is a bold face lie about there being terms for gay men in those languages.

      "Thou shall not lie."
      God, your creator.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:05 am |
    • michael

      Btw, I mention marriage because that's when Jesus refers to gay men as born eunuchs, why some men are made for marrying women. It's absurd you don't think impotent men ever marry.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:07 am |
    • Nii

      MICHEAL
      I don't see having gay thoughts as a problem. Thoughts can be changed. It is people like u struggling to justify yourself which proves the Bible true. IF U DON'T FEEL GUILTY DON'T JUSTIFY IT! Otherwise just change your thinking and experience joy.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:10 am |
    • michael

      Can you please stick to reality? I just gave you an abundance of verifiable factual information and all you can do is come back with lies. Funny how you can blow off one of the top ten commandments when you try to justify you bigotry. And you need to figure out facts from your fiction. I don't have a problem being gay. I have a problem with people trying to tell me or anyone else God $crewed up when he makes anyone gay.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:14 am |
    • Nii

      MICHAEL
      The premises that you talk about are wrong. Born eunuchs are different from made eunuchs. A proper Eunuch was castrated. Impotent men were laugh at as eunuchs. No King wud let them close to his harem in case their pp rose again. Lies? lol

      May 22, 2012 at 2:15 am |
    • michael

      Yes, you continue to lie which is absurd in the age of Google when any info can be verified. Kings used born eunuchs to faire their harems and this fact is easily googled. Born eunuchs were not impotent men, they were gay men. Again it is absurd you are lying when this is easily googled. What's even weirder is you know a bit about this but still lie which means you know the truth very well but ignore it since it makes you outfit be a bigot.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:21 am |
    • michael

      Jesus said there were three types of eunuchs that weren't meant to marry women, those which made themselves eunuchs, those which were made eunuchs by men and those that were born from their mothers womb that way. Again, it is an easily googled fact kings entrusted their harem to born eunuchs because those men had no interest in women.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:27 am |
    • Conqui

      @ both Nii and Michael - you both make incorrect statements. Pais was in fact used to refer to the younger male sX partner in common language, as well as younger male slaves, sons, and "boy" as formerly used about black adult slaves. In context of the Centurion story, though, even anti-gXy Christian writer Gagnon admits this particular pais was a young male lover. As for the different types of eunuchs Jesus speaks of, Jewish rabbinical writings both before and after Jesus, Roman law and commentary, and early Christian writings very clearly describe "eunuchs from birth" as physically intact and capable males with no physical attraction to women but primarily to men, and in other ways quite similar to what we now call "gXy".

      May 22, 2012 at 2:29 am |
    • michael

      Conqui, go back and read what I posted because you just restated everything I have been saying. Born eunuchs were gay men and the pais was the younger gay male lover. Thanks though for confirming it.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:34 am |
    • Conqui

      Michael - I was typing while you and Nii were having several exchanges, I was referring to your first couple of statements..

      May 22, 2012 at 2:41 am |
    • Cortney

      I think what's being forgotten in this conversation is that Jesus was a very forgiving person to those who humbled themselves and were repentent. Not only did he refuse to cast a stone at the woman who had been taken in adultery but he even defended her, then told her that her sins were forgiven and that she should go her way and sin no more. The fact that Jesus didn't condemn the eunich is more telling of Jesus' love and humility then it is a testiment to the acceptance of gay relationships in his teachings.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:45 am |
    • michael

      Courtney, you are so far off base. He told the adluterer to go and sin no more. It's obnoxious for you to say its still a sin even though Jesus met a sinner, praised them for having the greatest faith ever but you know didn't mention anything about a sin that people tell us today will send you downstairs forever.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:52 am |
    • michael

      And Conqui, where in my first couple of statements did I.mention something false????

      May 22, 2012 at 2:54 am |
    • Cortney

      What people say and what God says are two different things. If adultery can be forgiven so can intercourse between two individuals of the same gender.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:58 am |
    • michael

      Uhg!!!! That would be great if it was a sin but its not. The original text never condemned gay people. Sure your modern translation might tell you otherwise but this is the is the information age we live in and the original meaning of the text is easily found.

      May 22, 2012 at 3:02 am |
    • Cortney

      I've committed all kinds of sins. I'm not pretending to be any better than you or anyone else on this board in the eyes of God. I personally don't beleive that being attracted to an individual is sinful whether or not that individual is of the same gender. It's pretty clear though, when you study the prophets, that engaging in sectual acts with anyone beyond the bonds of marriage between a man and woman is sinful. (sorry for the crazy spelling, my last attempt was sensored).

      May 22, 2012 at 3:14 am |
    • michael

      I totally dig your open mindedness but the only s3x that is condemned is adultery. Research the original word translated to what's now fornication in the bible. It is not the fornication definition we have now. Jesus preached steadfast against adultery and if nonmaritial s3x was a sin He would have.mentioned it at least once as being so.

      May 22, 2012 at 3:23 am |
    • Conqui

      @michael - you advised Nii to do an internet search for pais to see that it means "gay lover". That is technically correct, but you also get all sorts of other things it means. If you try to put some Jesus context with it, you can run into also sorts of commentaries and dictionaries that don't mention pais as s3x mates, and some illogical discourses on why pais doesn't mean that at all. So it is incorrect that you will find pais predominantly or clearly defined as gXy. Your later statements make in more clear, I think. But Nii has difficulty reading and responds before thinking, so I don't know how useful responses are to him off in his own little imaginary world.

      May 22, 2012 at 4:53 am |
  5. Paul

    God told me that the bible is a bunch of crap, and that no one should read it.

    May 22, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • Paul

      I know that it was God, too, because he called me "thee" and "thou."

      May 22, 2012 at 1:52 am |
    • preacherman

      God told me that reading the Bible is an abomination, and if you do you will writhe and gnash your teeth in hell for eternity. Know what's cool? My claim is based on just as much evidence as every other claim about what god wants us to do.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:53 am |
  6. FC

    Great resources on this topic worth considering:
    http://www.wordonfire.org
    Theology of the Body for Beginners – Christopher West
    Man and Woman He Created Them – A Theology of the Body – John Paul II
    Catechism of the Catholic Church 1992 or 1994 – Compiled by Catholic Bishops Worldwide with John Paul II
    United States Catholic Catechism for Adults
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

    May 22, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • Conqui

      We don't all subscribe to Roman Catholic theology, so not necessarily worth reading. Perhaps I could refer you to writings of John Wesley?

      May 22, 2012 at 2:38 am |
  7. I see through this

    So...what's the verdict on shell fish? No lobster for us, I guess?

    May 22, 2012 at 1:47 am |
  8. uh-huh

    TRUTH

    May 22, 2012 at 1:46 am |
    • Bet

      word

      May 22, 2012 at 3:18 am |
  9. michael

    As for Leveticus, the term translated to "as with" means bed every other time its used in Leveticus. Paul referred to this passage when he wrote the clobber passage in Corinthians and he specifically stated "soft" and "male bed". What does that tell you if the word means bed every other time its found in leveticus and Paul wrote bed when referring to that word??? Cornthians, btw, was condemning ma$turbation instead less than one hundred years ago. The original text never condemned gay people.

    May 22, 2012 at 1:46 am |
  10. I see through this

    "In truth, those asking the question the first way really don’t want an answer."

    To R. Albert Mohler Jr.,

    Really? You're going to make the sweeping generalization that if people question the bible they don't want an answer? As someone who grew up in the Southern Baptist Church, I constantly ask questions. Jesus' M.O. was to ask questions. He questioned the law as it was outlined in the O.T. Shame on you for vilifying anyone who does likewise.

    May 22, 2012 at 1:45 am |
    • Ambient Malice

      Jesus never questioned the law.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:47 am |
    • I see through this

      Apologists want you to believe that Jesus never questioned the law, but he was obviously a revolutionary. What is his point if it isn't to be a revisionist?

      May 22, 2012 at 1:50 am |
    • I see through this

      Do you think he simply reiterated the law? Obviously his contribution was greater than that.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:52 am |
    • Cortney

      The problem with the question is that its being asked in a way that suggests preconceptions not the fact that the question is being asked. What the author is getting at is that a growing number of people who question the Bible's teachings concerning gay and lesbian relationships don't really care what the actual answer from the Bible is but are more looking for a loop hole somewhere in the text to justify their own ideas. The other way, the author points out, is to truly study the scripts and understand them as a whole to come to a real understanding of the teachings of Jesus and the prophets of God. There's nothing wrong with asking questions just do it with sincerity and not with seduction.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:07 am |
    • Ambient Malice

      Jesus is the messiah. The Old Testament promised him. So he was not a revolutionary, a rebel, or any such thing. That is a progressive re-invention of Jesus, ala the Screwtape Letters' scheme.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:07 am |
    • Bet

      Cortney – wow, your god must have given you some special mind reading super powers! Amazing.

      May 22, 2012 at 3:20 am |
    • Cortney

      He's pretty good to me that way.

      May 22, 2012 at 3:36 am |
  11. Nii

    De Law isnt de major part of de xtian message as Moses himself agreed it wud be superseded by de Gospel. De Law defines sin n spirituality. De Gospel teaches us 2 b spiritual n avoid sin. If u focus on de Law's judgement of 1 sin its not our fault. LGBTs esp xtian 1s know our stance clearly.

    May 22, 2012 at 1:43 am |
    • Kandric

      Wow. Is that English? I don't even know what you're saying to agree or disagree...

      May 22, 2012 at 1:45 am |
    • Nii

      Kandric
      Its in shorthand. Either u can read it or u cant. However basically I'm saying there's more to Christianity than Divine Justice which is overshadowed by Divine LOVE and MERCY!

      May 22, 2012 at 1:52 am |
    • CAPTAIN CONUNDRUM

      NII, S T F U.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:16 am |
  12. michael

    It really irks me when a bible expert wants to discuss Romans without admitting what that scripture is condemning. They always start off with the verse "for this reason" which is an incomplete paragraph, the effect without the cause. The effect is null and void if the cause isn't happening. Both male and female temple pro$+itution is condemned throughout the entire bible and its exactly what Romans is condemning when the cause is idolatry.

    May 22, 2012 at 1:41 am |
    • Ambient Malice

      That interpretation is a a somewhat liberal one.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:46 am |
    • michael

      It is NOT an interpretation. Romans specifically condemns idolatry as the cause.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:53 am |
    • michael

      Btw let me give you an example...

      "Don was driving drunk and for this reason he was taking to jail since he was driving his blue car."

      So called Christians NEVER EVER include anything but what comes after for this reason... It's like you guys are arguing Don went to jail because his car was blue. The reason you guys don't include the reason is because its obvious orientation has NOTHING to do with what's being condemned.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:56 am |
    • Cortney

      A better way of putting it is like this:

      "Don was driving drunk and for this reason he was taken to jail since he was driving his blue car. Upon further investigation It was also revealed that his blood contained cocaine and that he had earlier that night slaughtered his family and robbed three homes at gunpoint."

      The fact that he was taken to jail for driving drunk doesn't mean that all the other stuff that he did was without sin.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:26 am |
    • Conqui

      Michael is perhaps liberal, but that has nothing to do with what he said. He is correct. If one actually puts foregone conclusions out of one's mind and then reads Romans, Paul is explicitly saying he is addressing idolatry. I might add that Rom 1:26-27 in Greek talks about women and men "giving up" or "exchanging" something for same s3x behavior. He's clearly talking about h3t3ros3xuals giving up what is natural to them. If you start with the premise that he's talking about gXy people, what in the heck is Paul saying that they are giving up? Don't try to weasel out of this by talking about giving up human nature, etc, the Greek words used in this passage are very clearly talking about specific individuals the original readers probably knew, the context of the specific Greek words Paul uses indicates specific individuals. If he meant men or women in general, his Greek would have used different words.

      May 22, 2012 at 3:01 am |
    • michael

      That's the thing. Both male and female temple s3x acts used to practice idolatry, ie gay and straight acts, are condemned throughout the entire bible. The thing is this same Romans chapter clearly condemns straight s3x acts but we never ever hear this scripture being used against straight people. Paul is discussing idolatry. Of course he is going to discuss th rituals involved.too.

      May 22, 2012 at 3:07 am |
    • Conqui

      @Nii - perhaps you need a bit more tutoring in how to read plain English. "Born eunuchs" (or "eunuchs from birth" or whatever translation you are using calls this term) is ONE of THREE TYPES of eunuchs Jesus talks about. "Eunuchs from birth" are very clearly described in rabbinical writings, Roman law and commentary and early Christian writings, in a way that would remind any modern person of someone we now call gXy. Eunuchs for the Glory of God are the 3rd type of eunuch of which Jesus speaks, and this is a THIRD type, not the FIRST type he mentions. Please learn how to actually read before making accusatory statements.

      May 22, 2012 at 3:19 am |
  13. chechinis

    i challenge all those who called the holly bible "stupid" book to find a writer, a genius, somebody who can write a better book, and then dominate the world, for over 5,000 years. just try to do it. then we will see who is the real stupid!!!!!

    May 22, 2012 at 1:40 am |
    • Observer

      We didn't know that the Bible is 5,000 years old. Thanks for your "FACT".

      May 22, 2012 at 1:44 am |
    • Helena Hanbaskit

      As long as you think one corner of the middle east is the entire world, you might be right. It expanded out from there in the last 1,000 years, but still does not in any sense dominate the world. 33% of the world identifies as Christian, but this likely includes people you wouldn't count as Christians. 66% of the world is thus not Christian. Does the word "myopic" mean anything to you?

      May 22, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • Bet

      "the holly bible"

      Didn't Burl Ives sing about that one? It's a holly jolly bible!

      May 22, 2012 at 3:25 am |
  14. Paul

    The whole bible is a ridiculous bunch of sh it. Why would anyone care what any part of it says?

    May 22, 2012 at 1:40 am |
  15. Bill

    The bible is a tool that people use to justify hate and condemnation...the only part that those who wish to condem should take to heart is that all judgement s are gods alone. Any religion that proposes condemnation of others is just using the bible as a power play

    May 22, 2012 at 1:39 am |
    • Mark From Middle River

      Bill, the Bible has also be used to justify love, peace and forgiveness. If you mention one then should you not mention the others?

      May 22, 2012 at 1:57 am |
  16. Brampt

    Helena- who is that mortal man to judge the creator of all thing?

    May 22, 2012 at 1:37 am |
  17. preacherman

    “We can either have a twenty-first-century conversation about morality and the human well-being – a conversation in which we avail ourselves of all scientific insights and philosophical arguments that have accumulated in the last two thousand years of human discourse – or we can confine ourselves to a first-century conversation as it is preserved in the Bible.”
    ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

    May 22, 2012 at 1:36 am |
    • Ambient Malice

      A conversion in which God and absolute right and wrong don't get a look in, naturally – since Sam Harris is a staunch atheist.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:38 am |
    • preacherman

      very good, you got his point.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:41 am |
  18. Christians think Sharia Law is immoral but impose their own Sharia Law here in America.

    No matter what version, it's immoral to impose your religion by denying others civil rights.

    May 22, 2012 at 1:33 am |
    • Ambient Malice

      Sharia law is immoral on the grounds it KILLS people and overrides government. Christians are commanded to respect their leaders, and pray for them. We are to obey any law which does not contradict scripture.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:35 am |
    • Observer

      The problem with fanatical Muslims is that they are following most of the laws that God commanded when he set up the rules before Jesus got him to change his mind.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:41 am |
    • Ambient Malice

      Islam has completely different laws to Christianity.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:43 am |
    • Rotsap

      Muslim Sharia Law is immoral for many reasons all going back to denying civil rights based on religion.
      Muslim Sharia Law is imposed through the government just like Christian Sharia Law is in the US.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:46 am |
    • Observer

      Ambient Malice,

      They kill people for many of the reasons God commanded people to be killed.

      Try again.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:46 am |
    • Ambient Malice

      You're forgetting that OT was designed for Israel, a theocracy in the pure sense. Christians are commanded to obey the government, in a sense which Muslims are not.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:50 am |
    • Observer

      Ambient Malice,

      Just the usual excuses for the Old Testament. God saved all his mindless killing commands for them.

      Was it the SAME God? Is it true from the Bible that "God is unchanging"?

      May 22, 2012 at 1:53 am |
    • DebbieInTX

      I agree. Quran is basically Arabian customized old testmony. Both Bible and Quran were Anciant moral code with many wisdoms as long as some outdated moral guides. Religion fundalmentalsm, regardless of which religion, is always enemy of civil right. Based on Bible, which says wife shd obey husband, American women did not have voting right until 1920s passing of 19th Amendment. Last name change of women in English world is also footprint of old time when women were owned by man, did not have property right. ...... Religion is progressing as well, need a new new testmony. Lol

      May 22, 2012 at 2:02 am |
    • Nii

      Mirosal
      unfortunately you are right. Most Xtians are too afraid to knock on doors so the cults like JWs do it instead. I hope the message filters in somehow. Love your neighbor as yourself.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:03 am |
    • Ambient Malice

      No excuses. What the Israelites did was acceptable. Anyone who rebelled was an enemy of a theocratic state. If you didn't like it: exile yourself. The USA is not Israel.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:04 am |
    • Nii

      MICHAEL
      The Roman Centurion was not gay! Neither are born eunuchs gay! In the passage he refers to 3 types of eunuchs. The last is those made Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God. How can they be gay for the Kingdom of God. Paul was one of the Eunuchs of the Kingdom and he wasn't gay.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:52 am |
    • Conqui

      @Nii - perhaps you need a bit more tutoring in how to read plain English. "Born eunuchs" (or "eunuchs from birth" or whatever translation you are using calls this term) is ONE of THREE TYPES of eunuchs Jesus talks about. "Eunuchs from birth" are very clearly described in rabbinical writings, Roman law and commentary and early Christian writings, in a way that would remind any modern person of someone we now call gXy. Eunuchs for the Glory of God are the 3rd type of eunuch of which Jesus speaks, and this is a THIRD type, not the FIRST type he mentions. Please learn how to actually read before making accusatory statements. And check out the numerous books and sources on the internet that very clearly describe the Centurion as gXy, including some Christian anti-gXy writers such as Gagnon. Your fantasy about this has zero relationship to reality.

      May 22, 2012 at 3:23 am |
  19. gstlab3

    Really???

    I'm being F"'N censored.

    CNN is a Communist front group.

    Watch out people.

    May 22, 2012 at 1:32 am |
    • Ambient Malice

      What did you say to get censored?

      May 22, 2012 at 1:33 am |
    • Kandric

      There's a list of banned words, just try and avoid them.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:38 am |
    • preacherman

      Got a little paranoid / persecution streak do ya?

      May 22, 2012 at 1:42 am |
    • Montanajau

      If CNN is censoring you, it's doing a poor job of it. I now know that the network is a Communist front group, something I would never have considered without your insightful post.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:44 am |
    • Ambient Malice

      I used to think CNN was a left-wing propoganda factory: but I'm pleased to see they're almost as fair and balanced as Fox News. (Sarcasm? You decide.)

      May 22, 2012 at 1:44 am |
    • Observer

      gstlab3,

      Censoring? Look at all the thoughtless comments they've let you post already.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • LinCA

      @gstlab3

      You just gotta fucking figure out what shit you can and can't say on this board. Just keep out the homosexual references.

      May 22, 2012 at 2:01 am |
    • Mark From Middle River

      ...ok LinCa.... now your just showin' off 🙂

      May 22, 2012 at 2:10 am |
  20. michael

    Back up, that Leveticus scripture is also part of the holiness code and the Romans scripture is condemning idolatry and has nothing to do with orientation. Wow, this guy is so full of it. Read the entire Romans paragraph and you will see it is condemning rituals and idoltary.

    May 22, 2012 at 1:30 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.