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. Dave

    "the abolitionist movement was largely led by Christians, armed with Christian conviction." So I guess the south was Muslim back then? Of course the movement was led by Christians, but so were the slave owners. We did not have the cultural diversity then that we do now so nearly the entire population identified themselves as Christian.

    May 23, 2012 at 9:16 am |
  2. chipndale


    Here is where it all falls apart for you. You belie ve blindly that every word spoken in the Bible is the irefutable word of God. As if to say every individual is writing explicitly from divine inspiration right from the vocal chords of God. You dismiss any possibility of human error. You fail to see the contextual thinking and social limitiations and understandings of the day. To you if it is written, so be it. I am not against faith. I am simply asking you to consider the possibility that the Bible is not infallible. That whenever a human is inserted into Godly matters, there is room for error. But you will refuse. To your last breath, you will refuse. Where is the logic in that?

    May 23, 2012 at 9:10 am |
    • Skyrim

      All scripture was Divine inspired, and written by many authors hundreds of years apart. Meaning God writing through people. So if you want logic – take your pencil and write out a nice probability statistics of that many authors making same "error" on that specific subject over and over through hundreds...wait, no, thousands of years. Once you look at the odds, read your comment again – it will sound different in your head.

      May 23, 2012 at 9:39 am |
    • jungleboo

      It's only divinely inspired to you if you say so. I have a much higher opinion of the ultimate creative power. I would NEVER dream of putting it into mere words, and parade it around as if it is the ultimate thang. That which is indescribable must necessarily remain so. THAT'S the funny part about the pursuit and parsing of religious dogma.

      May 23, 2012 at 9:47 am |
    • Skyrim

      There is a difference between someONE having a "higher opinion" about their idea of creative power, and claiming that it is the ultimate truth, and the CREATIVE POWER itself claiming that it is absolute truth.

      To to condence your argument: There is this thing that does not have name, and I know nothing about, and I can't describe it that is the power of all creation. Is that all?

      On the other hand we have the Creator, going above and beyond to reveal himself as creator, over, and over and...

      No offence, but that "thing" that you "can't even describe – is dead, none existent, a figment of a wishful imagination. Yes, every being has a place in their sole that is empty, a splinter in their mind that wishes that there is more to life than taxes, concete driveways and rainy days. you can fill it with all sorts of stuff, though there is only one that will satisfy fully that emptiness.

      May 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  3. Theodore J. Schott

    'El-Bib'. I wrote it, Decades ago. So, it's near as Old as the other Book. Only One-Page, in The El Bib, "Unto Thine Ownself; Be True".

    May 23, 2012 at 9:07 am |
    • Jacques Strappe, World Famous French Ball Juggler

      And the Beach Boys said "Be true to your school".

      May 23, 2012 at 10:39 am |
  4. CADMAN1

    Speaking of being irritated by Christans imposing their view on you, Seems to me on 9/11 a certain religion murdered 3000 Americans to impose their beliefs on us. Where's the outrage there? OK Satan, your employees may reply now.

    May 23, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • jungleboo

      coo coo.

      We are interested in freeing any religious zealot of their addiction. Child abuse begins disguised as love, but eventually creates a person who is warped for life. It is wrong no matter where it takes place, in churches, in homes, in schools. In any country. It is not logical, rational or humanistic. But those raised in its ugly shadow deliver it to the next generation. Smiling all the way.

      May 23, 2012 at 9:29 am |
    • Jacques Strappe, World Famous French Ball Juggler

      Wowwww, you think nobody was outraged about 9/11? Are you kidding me?

      May 23, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • Bet

      Have you been asleep for the last ten years? I'm pretty sure people were more than a little peeved by 9/11.

      People do horrible things in the name of their god. And no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

      May 23, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
  5. lastofall

    Yes, this is a sin which perpetually seeks to be justified, not by the world, because that is already a foregone conclusion, seeing that the world always embraces sin; but these seek somehow from God that this sin does not have to be a sin anymore, and this is wherein they are under strong delusion, believing a lie.

    May 23, 2012 at 8:37 am |
    • jungleboo

      Your beliefs about what is real defy logic. That is the hallmark of your religion. You have been warped at an early age by your church. You do not realize it. You have built your entire reality on the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire, which was itself a diseased pursuit for power. That is why Christian religions are so fragmented, broken, shattered. The humanist from 2000 years ago who taught that we are all God within, certainly could be spiritually compared to the beauty of a crystal goblet. But the religions that were built up around his name have shattered that goblet. Now they are shards of what was once beautiful, and refuse to see that they only possess half truths. The result is their cutting bigotry toward anyone different from themselves.

      May 23, 2012 at 9:04 am |
    • YeahRight

      "Yes, this is a sin which perpetually seeks to be justified, not by the world, because that is already a foregone conclusion, seeing that the world always embraces sin; but these seek somehow from God that this sin does not have to be a sin anymore, and this is wherein they are under strong delusion, believing a lie."

      The point is the writers of the bible were straight people who did not understand human sexuality as we do today. They did not understand the science and psychology behind being gay. What your bible is condemning is male prostitution, idolatry and using sex to worship a pagan god, that has NOTHING to do with what we now know and understand about gays today. It's also why there are now gay churches, gay clergy and priests, clergy, rabbi's and nuns saying being gay is NOT a sin. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience.

      May 23, 2012 at 10:48 am |
  6. Real as it gets

    No Bet, I only wanted to show you how distorted the way you perceive things.

    May 23, 2012 at 8:31 am |
    • Bet

      Thanks for telling me what I think. Do you do other magic too?

      May 23, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • Real as it gets

      To identify a piece of crap doesn't need magic.

      May 24, 2012 at 6:22 am |
    • Bet

      Then you shouldn't have any problem classifying your bible as such.

      May 24, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • Real as it gets

      Actually, I identified some but most of it (bilble)has been giving me a hard time. That's why I turn towards atheism and there's no sweat. In fact it (atheism) can't handle any more crap because it's already full of it.

      May 25, 2012 at 4:02 am |
    • Bet

      Your post makes no sense, except for the last part about atheism, which you lifted from someone on the previous page.

      May 25, 2012 at 4:22 am |
    • INC

      But why you said that? Just because...it doesn't agree with yours so it doesn't make any sense? Ah, Okay..you win.

      May 26, 2012 at 4:30 am |
    • Bet the dweeb

      No, I said it because this part "Actually, I identified some but most of it (bilble)has been giving me a hard time. That's why I turn towards atheism and there's no sweat." doesn't make sense to me. I don't know what the poster has identified and what he means about turning towards atheism and there's no sweat. He supports the bible in other posts, but here says he's turning towards atheism and it's okay.

      And this poster has copied other people's posts and put his own name on them in other areas of the discussion. When a person does that, it makes all their words suspect.

      May 26, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
  7. anothermuse

    While I don 't agree with this pastor's views, it was one of the clearest and well thought out Christian objections to the gay issue. In this context, one can understand why they feel it is wrong. It does not justify however, the hatred and vehemence with which the far right frames the argument, and it fails to highlight that even in the Christian mythology, it is God's role to judge, not mans. There is nothing in the new testament demanding people ostrasize or preach hatred against those who haven't seen "the light".

    May 23, 2012 at 8:31 am |
    • joyce

      I agree this is the clearest and kindest response on the issue. Cudos to this president/leader for expressing, in love, why some of us believe the way we believe. And you and others still have your right to believe what you believe without being haters of different opinoins.

      May 23, 2012 at 8:45 am |
    • jungleboo

      @joyce...nobody cares about your opinion, nor need anyone care about mine. But the fundies are trying to create law for the USA that deny me my rights as an American citizen. This debate/fistfight would not be taking place if Mr. Mohler and his type could just say, "Hey, gay? that's not for me. I prefer hetero." Instead, they frame their views in terms of eternal damnation and rabble rousing to block our nature. Chocolate? Vanilla? Strawberry? Sardines? Not important! That's where you guys are dead wrong.

      May 23, 2012 at 9:12 am |
    • chefdugan

      Pretty good except it is not Gods role to do anything. He did what He did, sat back and observed. He might still be observing but does not plan on doing a damned thing. That's what one does when one creates, you do it, step back and see how well it worked. On this basis, God gets mixed reviews.

      May 23, 2012 at 9:21 am |
  8. David Ormes

    Wow, they make people that believe that believe in this crap? Wow. Crazytown.

    May 23, 2012 at 8:18 am |
  9. Todd R

    Reverend Mohler makes a mistake that many people do when they talk about concepts with such certainty, yet they have read things into God’s holy Word:

    He characterizes the New Testament as calling homosexuality as “dishonorable passions,” “contrary to nature” and “shameless.” Though Mohler doesn’t cite Scripture, he presumably refers to Romans 1:24-27. A careful look reveals that this passage is about lust (verse 24), idolatry (verse 25), and then in verse 26 the “dishonorable passions” whereby women exchanged natural for unnatural relations. Note that the Apostle Paul did not say what the natural relations were nor what the unnatural relations were. Mohler has assumed what they were.

    In verse 27, Paul elaborates that men “gave up natural relations with women” and engaged in passion with other men. Paul clearly describes heterosexual men who engaged in homosexual acts. Because Mohler and many others have no concept of homosexuality as natural, they assume that Paul condemns homosexuals. What Paul is condemning, however, is heterosexuals who engaged in those other practices out of lust.

    What lustful homosexual practices were involved in idolatry? The ritual sexual orgies of the followers of Baal on Mount Peor in Moab. The tight focus on verses 26-27 without considering the full passage that includes verses 24-25 results in reading an intention into the Scripture that simply is not there.

    This also happens when Reverend Mohler quotes Jesus. Jesus’s statement on man and woman was in response to a Pharisee question about Jewish divorce. Jesus was actually saying that when a man chooses to get into marriage he should not back out lightly (eg, when his wife burns his toast). He wanted the Pharisee to understand that marriage is an affair of the heart ordained by God, not a legal matter with a thousand legal ways out.

    Reverend Mohler and others need to read the Bible in whole passages, not single verses whose wording may allow misunderstanding and misinterpretation led by human bias. Reading full Bible stories with one’s heart and mind leads to a fuller understanding of God’s plan for us.

    The New Testament world knew nothing of loving monogamous homosexual relationships. Folks at that time knew about lustful homosexual practices, pagan religious orgies, and Greek pederasty. We know better now; we know that loving, monogamous, Christian, lifelong homosexual relationships are possible. We need to read our Bibles better.

    May 23, 2012 at 7:55 am |
  10. Reality

    Dear RM Jr.,

    ONLY FOR THE NEW MEMBERS:--------->>>

    Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie/horn-blowing thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).

    Current problems:
    Adulterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,

    From: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1855948_1861760_1862212,00.html#ixzz0jg0lEyZj

    “Facing calls to curb child se-x abuse within its churches, in June the Southern Baptist Convention — the largest U.S. religious body after the Catholic Church — urged local hiring committees to conduct federal background checks but rejected a proposal to create a central database of staff and clergy who have been either convicted of or indicted on charges of molesting minors. The SBC decided against such a database in part because its principle of local autonomy means it cannot compel individual churches to report any information. And while the headlines regarding churches and pedophilia remain largely focused on Catholic parishes, the lack of hierarchical structure and systematized record-keeping in most Protestant churches makes it harder not only for church leaders to impose standards, but for interested parties to track allegations of abuse."

    Bottom line Mr. Mohler, clean up your own theology and current Baptist issues with pedophilia before commenting on morals.

    May 23, 2012 at 7:09 am |
    • joyce

      So you without sin, cast the first stone.

      May 23, 2012 at 8:48 am |
    • Reality

      John 8:7

      When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

      Said passage, as per many contemporary NT scholars, was not said by the historical Jesus. One reason for this conclusion is that it appears no where else in the scriptures.

      Actually, all of John's Gospel is of questionable historic value.

      To wit:

      From Professor Bruce Chilton in his book, Rabbi Jesus,

      "Conventionally, scholarship has accorded priority to the first three gospels in historical work on Jesus, putting progressively less credence in works of late date. John's Gospel for example is routinely dismissed as a source......

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship

      "Since "the higher criticism" of the 19th century, some historians have largely rejected the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus.[3][4] "[M]ost commentators regard the work as anonymous,"[5] and date it to 90-100."

      "The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view that ascribes authorship to John the Apostle."

      And from Professor Gerd Ludemann, in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 416,

      "Anyone looking for the historical Jesus will not find him in the Gospel of John. "
      See also http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

      May 23, 2012 at 10:41 am |
  11. Michael Worley

    The right to express my beliefs in the context of an election is protected by both my freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I believe marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman– for both religious and secular reasons.

    May 23, 2012 at 7:03 am |
    • chipndale

      Before religion there was rule of law. The rule of law states that the definition of marriage is a legally binding contract between 2 individuals. A religious ceremony of confirmation has nothing to do with the legality of marriage. Both a minister and a JOP can perform a legal ceremony, therefore there is no requirement for religion in the process. So why it (religion)continually inserts itself into legal matters is beyond reason.

      May 23, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • Bet

      Believe what you want. The first amendment applies to everyone.

      May 24, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
  12. Patrick Lewis

    OK, Fine. Your church can condemn whatever it likes, just don't drag that OUT of the church into the civil society and we'll be fine. It's the continual encroachment of the church into things that are none of the church's business that gets people angry with you in the first place.

    May 23, 2012 at 6:57 am |
    • joyce

      I think the church would like to say what the bible says. It seems to me the liberals and haters of christians drag out into public what we say.

      May 23, 2012 at 8:50 am |
    • Jacques Strappe, World Famous French Ball Juggler

      joyce, did liberals and haters of christians just ban gay marriage in NC? Are liberals and haters of christians trying to get Biblical laws into state laws? Are liberals and haters of christians trying to get a completely unscientific idea in intelligent design taught in public schools?

      May 23, 2012 at 8:58 am |
  13. Al

    This problem occurs because the Church has allowed the world to determine what is sin. Slowly, over the last 60-years, we have chnge. What is accepted by the world, and this nation, has drastically changed. Where is the moral guidance of the Church? It is silent and has allowed this nation's criminal statutes to define sin.

    May 23, 2012 at 6:35 am |
    • Jacques Strappe, World Famous French Ball Juggler

      This is different from the church how? Different churches define sins differently. There are 1000's of denominations of Christianity all over the world. They all seem to have different ideas on what const-itutes sin.

      That doesn't even matter, sin is a made up concept to keep the masses in subjection.

      May 23, 2012 at 9:00 am |
    • Bet

      The really important question is, does your church allow dancing?

      May 23, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Sin lies only in harming others unnecessarily.
      All other sin is invented nonsense.

      May 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
  14. jon

    We focus in gays because if the state media focused on the economy Obama would lose...once the election is over women and gays will reside on the back burner again with Democrats

    May 23, 2012 at 6:27 am |
  15. Reader50

    Well put Dr Mohler. As Christians we struggle with the idea of condemning sin in general while knowing that we ourselves are also sinners saved only by the grace of God. Christ paid the penalty for our sin by dying on the cross. Our passion and love for God drives us to obey His kind and wise instruction but we also want to show the love that we must have for our fellow man. You summed it up nicely and hopefully will help dispel the idea that we are showing hatred and bigotry toward others. As sinners ourselves we hate the sin but love the sinner.

    May 23, 2012 at 5:46 am |
    • jungleboo

      A rose by any other name...

      Your bible advises you to judge – and not judge – at the same time. That's why reasonable people find you offensive. It is ludicrous for a teacher to correct her students' papers using bad spelling/grammar herself. Yet that is the irrational approach you use, loftily stating that you are a sinner, "...but do what I say anyway." As if that kind of double speak would lead the world in a right direction. Many of you have been irreperably damaged by the lack of logic that fills your sermons. You have found it useful (but illogical) to shun rationality, logic and reason as mere human traits, when they are defining attributes of human nature itself. That is a blasphemy in itself. Whoever convinced you of this approach to life should be exposed and charged as a child abuser.

      May 23, 2012 at 7:48 am |
    • Radelaide

      Jungleboo – Thanks for that simplistic analysis of what we believe. I mean this is the level of ignorance we constantly have to deal with as Christians.It's tedious. The word judge can mean different things in different contexts. The bible does say not to judge, but it also commands righteous rebuke. If you can't figure out the difference that is your problem. We don't say do as we say, we say do as God has revealed in his word.

      You can't actually believe that logic, rationality and reason are defining characteristics of humanity? Whilst that may be true for some people some of the time its not something you can just broadstroke like that. Also the idea that Christians shun logical, reason and rationality is a complete falsehood. Its nonsense.

      May 23, 2012 at 8:44 am |
    • joyce

      Well said.

      May 23, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • jungleboo

      Not well said. If you play that game, no discourse could ever have a productive outcome because any term used could be turned on its head because of a differing view of "context". If you can not make palin and simple sense out of your words, but continually provide meaning for them that is cryptic, hidden, or meant to mean something else, we might as well just talk to the trees. You hide behind a shield of, "No, you don't understand the true meaning." Three hundred years ago, men began to look without fear into the nature of the universe. Scientists and philosophers no longer need to be afraid of religious folks burning them at the stake. You are the last to catch up, clinging to your interpretations of interpretations. You would not be this way if you had not been abused at the hands of your church at an early (intellectual) age. If you discard reason and logic, you have discarded that which is most wonderful about being human. But that is your approach, like so many other fundamental religions throughout the world.

      May 23, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • Bet

      When you base your life on a book full of contradictions, you have to keep inventing new contexts and shades of meanings for words in order to justify it.

      May 23, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
  16. INC

    JOregon, you said and I quote,

    "However, since the United States is a SECULAR Nation what the bible says about marriage is irrelevant."

    That was very brave claim and you seemed so sure about it. But the million dollar question is....can you prove it?

    Let me tell you something, so please listen that you may be guided back to your senses. This is for your own good, PROMISE!

    This "nation is under God"; "In God we Trust" is printed in our currency; White House holds morning prayers; Elected officials and people in courts are made sworn on the bible and made to mention "So help me God" at the end. And last but not the least..."ATHEISTS" make up only 1-2% of the worlds poulace.

    May 23, 2012 at 5:03 am |
    • JWT

      It is still a secular nation whether you like it or not.

      May 23, 2012 at 6:34 am |
    • Chut Pata

      Our founding fathers were freemasonaries. They believed in an undefined god, but not in any religion. In case you have not noted, that god is Corporate America, and that is why god exists only on dollar bills.

      May 23, 2012 at 7:53 am |
    • JOregon

      I understand you know these declarations were added some time later.
      "In God We Trust" was derived from a line of the Star Spangled Banner – A PERSONAL poem about a battle of the war of 1812.
      The Treaty of Tripoli makes makes the point.
      Translated by Joel Barlow in 1796. It was sent to the floor of the Senate in 1797. It was read out loud, and UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. John Adams, signed it.
      The intent of our founding fathers is very clear.
      Under Article 11:
      “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ...”

      This is the basis of our Nation..
      Adams was the first Vice President of the US. He was the second President of the United States.
      He was one of the committee of 5 that drafted the Declaration of Independence.
      If he signs a doc*ument saying the United States was not founded on the Christian Religion you can believe it.

      May 23, 2012 at 8:44 am |
    • INC


      Rome was NOT founded as a Christian Nation either, see what I mean?

      May 23, 2012 at 9:08 am |
    • KXU


      I also thought it is but the fact, it's NOT!

      May 23, 2012 at 9:21 am |
    • Jacques Strappe, World Famous French Ball Juggler

      INC you are forgetting that Rome didn't have a thing we call the Consti-tution. Do you really want to have our country be like Rome was?

      May 23, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • JOregon

      Rome existed for over a thousand years (1200), once they became Christian they collapsed.
      Christian in the year 313, finished as a nation in 476.

      May 24, 2012 at 12:11 am |
    • INC


      How sure you are that it's religion and not politics that caused the debacle? And are you saying that Rome is no longer a nation till now?

      @Poster who's moniker a babble already

      Nope, I just want to let you know that things are not necessarily to remain as it was, there's a thing called change and it's limitless and inevitable.

      May 24, 2012 at 6:32 am |
  17. mmi16

    The books of the Bible were written by MAN, some of the books that were written have been excluded by MAN, the books composing the Bible were place into the Bible by MAN, the books have been edited by MAN. Religion is the power trip one group of men use to control a larger group of mankind. – Nothing more and nothing less.

    May 23, 2012 at 4:20 am |
    • Khaadim Richards

      These are my thoughts exactly. People need to realize that the bible is no more than an overblown history book that is best read when considering the sociocultural implications of what is being written. Christians take so much pride in a religion that knew know barely anything about and still find it necessary to tell everyone else how to live.

      May 23, 2012 at 8:16 am |
    • joyce

      k- have you read the Bible? Have you asked Jesus into your heart and asked him to show you a PEACE THAT PASSES ALL UNDERSTANDING. Have you experienced the Love of God?

      May 23, 2012 at 8:53 am |
    • Bet

      Joyce, why is it that christians always assume that the person challenging their bible haven't read it? I've read and studied it in several languages over four decades, yet when I raise a question, the first thing christians say is, "Well, you've never read the bible".

      May 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
  18. Real as it gets

    The bible is not a history book for *some*. It's a book about *some* talking animals, *some* people who live to be 500 years old, *some* plants that burn and talk, *some* walls that fall when a trumpet blows in a city that archeological evidence says is nowhere near where the bible claims, *some* dead people rising back to life, *some* rocks that spurt water when you hit them, unicorns, dragons, girls getting their father drunk and sleeping with him, water walking, killing babies and pregnant women, and a bet between an imaginary sky god and a horned "fallen angel" that results in an innocent man losing his family, his health, and his property.

    May 23, 2012 at 4:20 am |
    • Bet

      It doesn't sound any more believable just because you keep repeating it.

      May 23, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Real as it gets

      Thus, you don't sounds anymore believable.

      May 24, 2012 at 6:35 am |
    • Bet

      Pardon me? You're the one who copied my post, changed it to suit yourself, and posted it twice under your name.

      May 24, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
    • Real as it gets

      It's not my fault if the reply button didn't work and your comments not copyrighted.

      May 26, 2012 at 4:41 am |
    • Bet the dweeb

      No, they aren't copyrighted, but copying and pasting someone else's posts, adding the word "some" and putting your name on it shows that you can't come up with any opinions of your own. You have to steal other people's.

      May 26, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
  19. JW

    the gist of it is this: you have a choice to make where you will spend eternity. The Bible specifically says only those who repent, do not practice sinning as a way of life, and believe in Jesus, proving it by living holy, will inherit eternal life.

    May 23, 2012 at 3:42 am |
    • Peteyroo

      You will spend eternity exactly where you spent your time before you were conceived/born–nowhere!

      May 23, 2012 at 4:47 am |
    • joyce

      P- you sure about that?

      May 23, 2012 at 8:54 am |
    • Bet

      Joyce – Yes.

      May 23, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      You do have a choice of where to spend eternity.
      If you opt to die pitifully in bed with a priest adminstering last rites while you pray to Jesus, Odin will NOT allow you into Valhalla.
      It is better to keep your weapons at your side and die gloriously in battle.
      Or maybe the Mormons are right and to get a good afterlife you need to give them 10% of everything you earn so you can learn the secret masonic handshakes, new names and special sealings to pass Joe Smith's posthumous test.
      Or maybe the Egyptians were right and you'd best make sure your heart doesn't weigh more than a shu feather.

      May 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
  20. Moira

    Jesus is a dead pile of old bones buried in a midden heap somewhere.

    He no longer exists. He cannot come back from non-existence. He was a fraud.

    He even taught rudimentary communism to his followers.
    According to the words put in his mouth, he was a racist bigot who hated the ruling priests.
    ...and he knew how to hoax people as well.

    He is dead. Your god does not exist. Nothing about your religion is sane or reasonable.

    You are in a cult. Get out or die a fool..

    May 23, 2012 at 3:02 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
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.