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. jungleboo

    This post may clarify the war of words involving "choice".

    Adopting a flamboyant "gay persona" certainly is a choice, usually a sign of an inability to come to terms with a state of being. Attraction to same s.ex is a biological drive that does not lead to procreation (and there are plenty of biological drives that do not lead to procreation, sleep being one of them, that may include s3x dreams).

    However, habitual behaviors are cultural. A young man may perceive that a mincing behavior is a valid choice, but his choices are limited to what he has observed in his surroundings. If he only knows vapid TV characters or is impressed by the superficial showiness of female caricatures, sure, his lack of education and philosophical leanings will land him in the court of pretenders. But that has nothing to do with the biological drive to experience same s3x activity.

    Western culture has very highly defined the expectations of women's behavior, from lipstick to push-up bras to high heeled stilettos. None of that has the slightest bearing on heteros3xual mating as intended by the Universe. Therefore, the obvious "choices" that are made by some gay men to imitate the cartoon aspects of women's fashionable ways, well, it has no meaning at all. It's nothing more than punk or hippie or new wave fashion statements about oneself. A more evolved person would not involve himself in such superficial pursuits.

    Just being a man and loving the male body is enough, and need not express itself in feminine attire or behavior. Hell, many women of a certain age have finally thrown a lot of that western cultural stuff in the trash, only to have it picked up by the next generation. NONE of it means anything.

    Same s3x desires are biological for some humans. It's beautiful, and can be enjoyed, just a sip, or an all-out Old Country Buffet. Life is meant to be lived, regardless of what the fundamentalists would have you believe.

    May 30, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • GALACTICA_CAG

      "To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar"

      John Leguizamo. He's a hoot-and-a-half.

      May 30, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
    • jungleboo

      Yes, and he was a grand slam in "Moulin Rouge". What a talent!

      May 30, 2012 at 8:39 pm |
    • sammy

      Didn't help at all Jungleboo. Just more gay rant that no one understands or cares about. Quite disgusting really

      May 30, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
    • Bet

      @sammy

      You seem to be finding the reply button just fine now.

      Now try posting a response that contains some substance.

      May 30, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • GALACTICA_CAG

      Leguizamo produced, wrote, directed, and starred in a one-man Broadway show ti.tled Spi.c-O-Rama. Very funny and very touching.

      May 30, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
  2. GALACTICA_CAG

    I can't believe this thread is still taking up bandwidth.
    Why
    So
    SERIOUS?

    May 30, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • echo

      probably cause CNN gave premium headline-space to the president of a religious sect that fits all the characteristics of a hate group, who are socially destructive, who are actively out there hurting people as we speak, and whose beliefs are somehow treated as if they are worthy of respect, nonetheless.

      And this riles those of us who have a conscience.

      May 30, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • GALACTICA_CAG

      Well, I already came clean about talking smack to rile PRIAPISM 1234 and Fidelcastroio, but still, the preaching going on here? Living your life 24/7 by the Scriptures TO THE LETTER to please God and buy a V.I.P. seat in Heaven's skybox? Good greif!

      May 30, 2012 at 8:04 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      Hey, GC leave me out of your stupid shallow ranting, you silly little court jester!
      Go and feed on some more crumbs from under the table of plastic make-believe stars of un-Hollywood.

      May 30, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
    • GALACTICA_CAG

      Okay, PRIZ, say I follow your dierctives. What kind of church should I attend?

      May 30, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
    • GALACTICA_CAG

      And, just for the record, I don't need their scraps because I make more than they do. I also get the delight of introducing myself, "Hi, I'm Alan Smithee, and I'm going to put words in your mouth!"

      May 30, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      Hey, just keep me out of your silly ranting! It matters not to me what position you have in your pretend world out there.
      And for the "church" question ... I don't PLAY GAMES engaging in answering questions!
      Go play your silly games with someone else!

      May 30, 2012 at 9:36 pm |
    • Bet

      @ Galactica

      Funny how PrissyPuss1234 is accusing you of living in a pretend world, but he believes in angels, devils and sky gods and is perfectly serious.

      May 30, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
    • GALACTICA_CAG

      I know, right? At least, we now know why he doesn't answer questions. Seems to have an aversion to it. Wonder if he's that petulant with people in real life. PRISM 1234, how am I supposed to know what the right thing to do is if I don't ask questions? How do I know whose counsel to seek out? I asked you because you seem to know the right path and the wrong path and I want to know where to go, what pastor to follow! Gimme a break, willya? :-/

      May 30, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
    • GALACTICA_CAG

      Alrighty, then, PRISM, let's agree to disagree, you hit the ignore button on me, I'll hit the ignore button on you. Deal?
      Despite his one-man's opinion, some of us are working on presenting stories meant to affirm Man's inherent goodness. People need entertainment and diversion. So, we give them stories of hope, courage, bravado, heroism, overcoming odds in the face of adversity. And, isn't that what's in the Bible? The situations may be different, but the stories are the same. I think God's pretty f*$kin' pleased that we carry on that tradition in new, fresh, fun, and exciting ways. Wait for Space 2099. You'll see the hand of God played out on the grand canvas of the Universe, inspiring people to reach for their own stars.

      May 31, 2012 at 1:01 am |
    • Bet

      I doubt that PrissyPants1234 has many people in his life. We can just go to another website, his family has to live with this.

      May 31, 2012 at 1:07 am |
    • GALACTICA_CAG

      Bet, it's funny that I see that this morning. I decided to wear my Cartman "Respect My Authority" t-shirt today. Heh heh. Funny!

      May 31, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • Bet

      Cartman is my hero.

      May 31, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
  3. echo

    OK, venting aside, this is something I have never understood from Christianity:

    This author's article is pretty much my summary of why "God" is not worth our worship. If this deity were real, he'd be a bad person, and following him faithfully would (and does) make you a bad person. God's rules, his morals, and his Bible would be an insult to our conscience and to the human spirit.

    I'm not concerned here with pointing out Christian hypoc-ri-sy or being gleeful at their self-contradictions - let's pretend that we're taking everything this so-called "scholar" wrote at face value and that his interpretation of the Bible is accurate, and that it makes sense from a Biblical perspective.

    With that in mind, my conscience still screams at the hate groups like the Southern Baptists that they are hurting people and that their supposed moral system generates hate and misery, and crushes the soul. I've seen far, far more families destroyed by religion than bolstered by it. Christian morality prioritizes values that are twisted and wrong, and it willfully, callously, deliberately ignores suffering.

    So my question is: At what point does "Because it's in the Bible" stop being a strong enough reason to ignore your conscience?

    This is the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy, where you don't have to justify your argument (or moral system) on it's own merit, as long as someone else asserts it, we just take the fact of their assertion as justification. You don't have to think about whether god is actually good, because he's god, so he's absolute. But "absolute" is not the same thing as "right."

    But if God were real, I'd still disagree with him, based on all the suffering he causes. Just cause god wrote something in the Bible doesn't make it right in my heart. What do you do with that, if you're asked to choose between the "absolute" word of god and the compassion that god supposedly gave you?

    May 30, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
    • Be

      I believe most religious people and non-religious people have compassion towards true hom-ose-xuals. However the absolutism will trump because no two men or two women will ever be able to create a child with out help from the opposite s-ex.

      May 30, 2012 at 7:56 pm |
    • echo

      Trumps in what way? Am I supposed to be less outraged by injustice against same-gendered people because children exist? How does that even work?

      Are you saying that the evidence of my conscience is wrong because some couples are infertile together?

      Or are you saying that other people will have less compassion than I do, because despite the suffering of people relegated to second-class status, children produce a bigger "aww" factor, and those people are in the majority?

      Or are you saying that the suffering of some people, when deliberately forced to the periphery of society and repeatedly told that they are less than their fellow citizens, is just not as important as the incidental fact of heterozygous reproduction in other, totally unrelated, people?

      Or, are you saying that if children exist somewhere, that means that any one who's not directly involved in child-related activities is less of a person? Diminishing those who are involved in child-related activities?

      May 30, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
    • sammy

      "ok all venting aside"....Pleeeaaassseee!!! This is clearly the rant of someone who knows nothing about the bible or the amazing lives we lead as christians. There are sects in Christianity that do not represent our faith, by terrible,awful behavior....same as the gay and lesbian world!!

      May 30, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • echowell

      ok, you've established that you don't like it when someone questions the methods of being christian - way to answer the question. Seriously, pretend you're talking to a christian who is having a crisis of faith: I really believe that the Bible has rules that I honestly disagree with. What do you tell that person? And don't cop out by saying "trust god" - the problem is that god appears to be unworthy. If you really think god is wrong, because your honest belief leads you to that conclusion, what do you do?

      In my opinion, Atheism is the sanest and most moral reaction - your conscience is really an important voice, and the only reason to believe in the Bible's truth is that someone else said so, when it comes right down to it. So ditch the Bible and follow your heart. I know Christians disagree, but I can't reconcile HOW they disagree while still retaining their moral compass in any meaningful way.

      Do they just replace their inner Jimminy Cricket with rote obedience? That's pretty godawful, really. I suspect it to be true. I also suspect all that christian "happiness" to be bred of desperation. If you keep saying it, maybe it'll fill the hole where your conscience and moral reasoning used to be, before you carved it out in the name of conformity and peer approval?

      So I ask again, what do you say to comfort a Biblical literalist who believes that the Bible is exact and true because they're told, but believes that it teaches the wrong moral lesson because they have a heart and a mind that rebels against cruelty?

      May 30, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • JimT

      @Echo what suffering has God caused? Are we not responsible for our own actions?

      May 30, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      Doesn't everything happen according to god's will or plan?

      May 30, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • echowell

      uh, none of this answers the question. "things happen for a reason" is a cop-out. If I'm having a crisis of conscience, then what reason is good enough to put me through that? Maybe God is trying to create more athe ists?

      What suffering has god caused? Well, when God commands his faithful to deny birth control and s-ex ed to teens, as he does in Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana, with great success (kids there are more ignorant of s-ex and reproductive health than anywhere else in the USA! Praise be!), this correlates directly to the highest rates of teen pregnancy, new STD infection, and AIDS in the entire developed world.

      So don't deny that God's interpreted will results directly in human misery. In this instance, disease, but also poverty, lost opportunity, and children growing up with un-prepared parents.

      The argument that "it happens for a reason" tries to JUSTIFY this suffering - it's punishment for not following orders.

      As a creature with a conscience, this situation appalls me. Disease, heartbreak, and neglected children could all have been prevented by the simple and inexpensive distribution of birth control. The only conclusion I can come to is that God prefers suffering to immorality.

      But I think suffering and disease are MORE IMMORAL than se-xual promiscuity. More families are broken up, more kids without real homes, more pain, more sickness happens when God gets his way than when he doesn't. The UK stemmed the tide of the AIDS epidemic with strong government-supported education campaigns and a de-shaming of se-x and birth control. The US is still experiencing increasing infections, but only, only ONLY in the Bible Belt.

      Don't quote fake statistics at me; often a dodging tactic is to deny that these effects actually exist. Just like I'm pretending that God really said all that and that he's both real and also steadfast in his moraity, you need to pretend that his morality has consequences. Those consequences happen to be real.

      So God's public policy is a total failure - greater morality from his perspective leads to an intolerable, heartbreaking, preventable, and completely shameful situation on the ground. HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THAT?

      May 30, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
    • Bet

      @ echowell

      The scenario you've proposed is exactly what I've experienced. I was raised in a religious home and taught to follow god and the bible without question. I've studied the bible in several of the original languages. I was a serious student and wanted to be a good christian. But when I asked my pastor about the contradictions, the cruelty and the petulance of the god I read about, I found that not only did he not know the bible, but he became angry and told me that I should stop reading it, that I wasn't educated enough, even though he had hired me to teach in his school.

      I switched to another denomination, with the same results. The minister couldn't answer my sincere questions about the bible and why it was so contradictory and why god seemed so mean. He simply regurgitated rote answers that he obviously learned in divinity school. When I wouldn't give up, I was told that women should just do what the men said and I should stop asking so many questions. Then he shut me out of the congregation.

      I won't even get into how hateful christians are to each other.

      Now that I don't believe in god or the bible anymore, christians just say, "well, you never really were a believer then." They dismiss over 50 years of genuine seeking with a trite comment as if they know my mind better than I do.

      In the end, I'm much happier and get along with people better (with the obvious exception of the bible thumpers). My friends and family have noticed that I'm much more at peace. I'm more productive in every area of my life, and have discovered abilities that I never knew I had. I actually get paid to write now, something that five years ago I would never have dreamed. It would not have happened if I hadn't gotten all the negativity of religion out of my life.

      So, to answer your question, a person who sincerely questions their faith usually ends up getting slapped down and told to shut up.

      May 30, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
    • echowell

      Bet -

      congratulations on your deconversion, and I'm sorry that people are what they are. Thank you for being a better and stronger member of the human race. People like you give me hope for the future.

      May 31, 2012 at 12:01 am |
  4. Be

    The LGBT group is not a simple group. While they join up to fight the their opposition, among themselves studies show that those that call themselves lesbian and gay often don't really want to be grouped with transgender self identified persons. They also don't appreciate "confused bi-se-xuals" who can't make up their mind. Which brings us to the fact that even people who identify themselves as gay or lesbian have sub groups. Some chose to be hom-ose-xual which upsets the 'true born' hom-ose-xuals.

    What does that mean to me as person who believes that hom-ose-xuality is a sin? I don't think LGTB persons should be bullied, I have friends who are hom-ose-xual, I try to live the let the non-sinner cast the first stone rule and the golden rule. Many 'sins' are punished by our government because the sin hurts others, lying, stealing, abuse, even a unfaithful spouse is often punished if married. Then there are those sins that supposedly don't hurt any one right so no need for the government to punish them, such as lying to oneself, taking what doesn't belong to you as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, por-n, drunkeness, drugs, jealousy/envy, anger, laziness, idolarty, pride, lust, obscenity, etc. As you know most relationships are hurt by these later and most of us are familiar with there consequences in our lives currently, rather you are religious/spiritual or not.

    So back to my statement which I started out with, why does that matter if only small percent of the few percent of all American hom-ose-xuals will have 'loving relationships that could benefit and raise a healthy child?' I am not sure it does matter to me, those people should be taxed federal/state and benefited equal to heterose-xuals. However then why not provide government sanctioned marriage to polygamists or polyandrists who can also provide the same benefits to a child and they don't even need science or a uncomfortable se-xual encounter to create the children. Why not demand heterose-xual and hom-ose-xual relationships to be certified every 5 years by the government as healthy or no benefits will be received? Growing up in the 80's I thought marriage only meant I might want to have kids with you or I want to steal your money. I completely understand why some hom-ose-xuals want a marriage certificate as a right.

    I apologize to all those who cannot, who choose not or have not yet raised a child, you are or can be of great value to our societies and children of the furture, it is just the fact that no children no future.

    May 30, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
  5. echo

    Chris tians are also disturbingly concerned with pr0-n, and I've been an At-heist ever since I was a kid and religious wei rdo es like the author above were up in arms trying to ban my music, comic books, movies, favorite tr ench coat, and literature. We KNOW that Chris tians are overly, nauseat ingly concerned with other people's life choices. The moral outrag e of non-chris tians is simply greater when the issue is a full 13% of the population and their right to be themselves.

    May 30, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
    • echo

      Once upon a time, a few of us with enough mor al development to understand the utter ev il of "mo ral" censorship of the arts were against Ch ristian fundame ntalism and all the deception, control and repression it stood for. Nowadays, even ordinary people are increasingly aware of the social injustice that religion perpetuates in society.
      Christi ans haven't been on the right side of a moral issue since the 1960's Civil Rights movement. Women's rights, health care, birt h con trol, ga y rights, social justice, economic equality, creative freedom, scientific literacy, education, and epistemology have all taken a backseat to vicious dogm a masquerading as faith.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • echo

      Oh, yeah, and PAY Y O U R T A X E S, Y O U DEAD BEATS. Getting your followers to tythe (spelling filters, you are dumb) 20% or more (tax-deductible!) while not paying taxes on y our filt hy lucre is robbing our schools, police, firefighters, and hospitals.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • JimT

      @Echo I have faith that the bible account of Adam an Even is true. Lets start there. So what was Aam an Eve's sole purpose? To obey. They had immortality as perfect creatures and a beautiful garden to live in. To remain forever they only had to obey. You sound as if that is too much to have asked. One angel and his friends thought that it was too much too. He became the devil. They became his demons.

      May 30, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
    • echowell

      If god made adam and eve without knowledge of good and evil, how could they know the difference between obedience and disobedience as anything morally meaningful? Maybe they understood that they were doing something they were asked not to do, but they weren't capable of understanding this as any kind of meaningful action.

      So yes, that was actually too much to ask of them. And if god was all-knowing, then he knew it was too much. A sophisticated theology would take this into account - not just why a god would place a forbidden tree right there in the first place, or allow a serpent to start agitating, or bother to create creatures without moral reasoning in the first place, or why he would actually CARE if humans were capable of moral reasoning, and if so, why he would be AGAINST humans gaining this ability (really?!?) instead of gung-ho for it. Not just those questions, but also the ethical and legal question of the grandfather clause and basic competence. If Adam and Eve literally did not know the difference between right and wrong when they committed a wrong, how is punishment justified on any level?

      In contrast, our own legal system says that they aren't culpable, because they did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time the offence was committed. We would show more compassion here than God did. Does it follow that we are better people?

      May 30, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
  6. Amen

    "The Old Testament clearly condemns ... and any s e x outside the covenant of marriage. "

    Interesting. How did Adam and Eve have children? There is no evidence that they were married.

    May 30, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • sammy

      Whoooaaaa Amen that was deep!!! Adam and Eve did not have a marriage ceremony everyone!! Thanks Amen.....we were so confused

      May 30, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
    • Bet

      What about Cain? After he kills Abel, he says: "Gen 4:...and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me."

      Who is this "everyone" who is going to slay him? The only people around besides him are Adam and Eve.

      "Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
      Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
      Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."

      Where did this wife come from?

      After that, Enoch has some kids, by who knows what woman, one of their sons somehow finds two more women, has more kids, then we get this:

      "Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, [said she], hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
      Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD."

      So according to Gen. 1, Adam and Eve have two males, one kills the other, so now there's one male. Somehow this guy finds a woman, has kids who somehow find more women and have kids, then later Adam and Eve have another son who "replaces" Abel.

      Where are all these women coming from? Either god created more women, or Eve had some girls that weren't important enough to mention and their brothers slept with them.

      Right.

      May 30, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
    • Bet

      @ Sammy

      If you are going to tell us that s3x outside of marriage is condemned, then it's reasonable to ask why there's no evidence that the first man and woman, god's supposed creations, weren't married by god.

      Adam and Eve have been used repeatedly as evidence of what the godly marriage looks like, but they were not married in any god-sanctioned way. They were created, meet a talking snake, eat some fruit, and have s3x. No marriage, not one word from god about it.

      Why won't you just answer the question?

      May 30, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
  7. andrew.peter

    Apparently I'm not allowed to reply.

    May 30, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • Amen

      @andrew.peter – Dont' jump to a conspiracy theory just yet. I doubt CNN has individuals reading every comment and picking ad choosing what gets through. Make sure you don't have any obvious words (dirty words) that an automated filter would kick out. That could be the culprit.

      Be thankful CNN allows for public comment, unlike other "news" sites.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • echo

      It got me on "t i t h e" which, yes, I do think should be a curse word, but censorship is for c h u m p s. If you "T I T H E," then you are probably a "T I T." A great, big, lumpy T I T.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
  8. andrew.peter

    I have submitted numerous comments but nothing has appeared on the screen. Thanks CNN for controlling the conversation and eliminating others' views.

    May 30, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • Helpful

      The moderators of this blog have set up a secret forbidden word filter which unfortunately not only will delete or put your comment in the dreaded "waiting for moderation" category but also will do the same to words having fragments of these words. For example, "t-it" is in the set but the filter will also pick up words like Hitt-ite, t-itle, beati-tude, practi-tioner and const-tution. Then there are words like "an-al" thereby flagging words like an-alysis and "c-um" flagging acc-umulate or doc-ument. And there is also "r-a-pe", “a-pe” and “gra-pe”, "s-ex", and "hom-ose-xual". You would think that the moderators would have corrected this by now considering the number of times this has been commented on but they have not. To be safe, I typically add hyphens in any word that said filter might judge "of-fensive".
      • More than one web address will also activate “waiting for moderation”. Make sure the web address does not have any forbidden word or fragment.
      Two of the most filtered words are those containing the fragments "t-it" and "c-um". To quickly check your comments for these fragments, click on "Edit" on the Tool Bar and then "Find" on the menu. Add a fragment (without hyphens) one at a time in the "Find" slot and the offending fragment will be highlighted in your comments before you hit the Post button. Hyphenate the fragment(s) and then hit Post. And remember more than one full web address will also gain a "Waiting for Moderation".
      And said moderators still have not solved the chronological placement of comments once the number of comments gets above about 100. They recently have taken to dividing the comments in batches of 50 or so, for some strange reason. Maybe they did this to solve the chronology problem only to make comment reviews beyond the tedious.
      “Raison's Filter Fiber© (joking about the copyright)
      1. Here's my latest list – this seems like a good spot to set this down, as nobody's posting much on this thread.....
      ––
      bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to post that wonderful argument:
      Many, if not most are buried within other words, but I am not shooting for the perfect list, so use your imagination and add any words I have missed as a comment (no one has done this yet)
      – I found some but forgot to write them down. (shrugs).
      s-ex
      c-um.........as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, etc.
      sp-ic........as in disp-icable (look out Sylvester the cat!)
      ho-mo...whether ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, etc.
      t-it.........const-itution, att-itude, ent-ities, etc.
      an-al......ban-al
      sh-it
      fu-ck...
      who-re
      tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, (an unexpected one)
      pr-ick
      sl-ut
      c-lit
      va-g....as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant
      hor-ny
      ar-se....yet "ass" is not filtered!
      nip-ple
      po-rn
      c-ock
      nig-ger
      cu-nt
      b-itch
      ra-pe
      jacka-ss...but ass is fine lol
      p-is.....as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, etc.
      o ficti-tious, repeti-tion, competi-tion.
      Sna-tch
      soft-ware
      Ja-panese
      Span-king
      hoo-ters
      There are more, so do not assume that this is complete.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
    • Bet

      It's an automated filter that flags certain words or combinations of letters. For example, you can't use the word "Consti.tution" without modifying it. because of the letters that spell "t.it". There's a more detailed discussion on the top of page 97.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • sammy

      Its been facinating watching comments go up where there was no reply button....all with a gay agenda of course, maybe iits Anderson

      May 30, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
    • Bet

      You have to go back to the original post to get the reply button. There is no reply button on comments to a post. Some posts generate a lot of comments, and you have to scroll up farther. It's there. Just look for it.

      Really, your conspiracy theories are just paranoid. All you have to do is scroll up.

      May 30, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
  9. Brian C. Natale

    I, personally, whether this be an opinion blog or no, can not believe CNN would willingly post this kind of biased, racism-masquerading-as-a-simple-defense-of-faith, kind of piece. You should be almost as ashamed of yourselves for promoting this kind of archaic, provincial line of thinking as the author should be for calling himself a Christian.

    May 30, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • J. Luis

      Right on Brian! Let's simply brand those who disagree with us as biased racists! How dare CNN present both sides of an argument! Thank you show supporting the notion that only those who agree with us should have a voice.

      That's the *new* tolerance.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
  10. andrew.peter

    Thank you Mr. Mohler for your well worded insight. May this reach the hearts of those in need of the truth. By God's grace does repentance and salvation come. We are all sinners and desperate for the redemptive work of the Holy Spirit.

    May 30, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • Terah

      But, of course, being gay cannot be a sin by definition.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • andrew.peter

      Will you post this if I make no controversial comments?

      May 30, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • andrew.peter

      Point proven.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
    • jungleboo

      No sir, I do not accept this blackwashing of human beings as sinners. The concept of sin by its very nature denigrates the beauty of being a human in the first place. Xtians are among the few religions in the world that have the dogma that we are created evil. Shame on you and the damage you do to children (child abuse) with your corrupt stories handed down through countless generations. "We are ALL sinners!" you say? You are bigots, that much is certain, and it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. You are addicted to self-hatred, and turn to foolishness to save you. The two go hand-in-hand, and the rest of the rational world pities your ignorance, and the waste of your life. You are certain this splendid life is ragged compared to a fantasy you have been brainwashed to "believe". You missed it.

      May 30, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
  11. frontrunner

    Rom 1:24-27
    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
    NKJV
    JESUS CHRIST PREACHED MORE ON HELL THAT HE DID HEAVEN! ETERNAL HELL FIRE IS REAL, DONT GO THERE, IT AWAITS ALL WHO WONT REPENT!!!

    May 30, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • Terah

      Why did you purposely leave out the previous verses, which define the sin as pagan idolatry? NO mention is made of anyone's orientation, or of marriage.

      And gay men are actually excluded–NO gay man "gives up" the use of women – such "use" is always unnatural to him.

      Try again.

      May 30, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Rom 1:24-27"

      Don't you just love it that they leave out verse 23 which shows they are worshiping a pagan god using sex. It has NOTHING to do with what we now know about the loving respectful long term relationships of gay couples. Duh!

      May 30, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
  12. FRONTRUNNER

    Rom 1:24-27
    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
    NKJV
    REPENT, FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS NEAR! HELL AWAITS ALL WHO WONT REPENT! ETERNAL HELL FIRE IS REAL! AFTER ONE SPENDS 100 YEARS OF TORMENT AND NO COMFORT THERE SENTENCE HAS NOT EVEN BEGUN! IT IS ETERNAL FOREVER! JESUS CHRIST PREACHED HELL MORE THAN HEAVEN!

    May 30, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • echo

      no, I refuse. I neither repent, nor respect your beliefs. You are wrong both in terms of faith, morals, and in point of fact. Your dogma makes you a bad person. And when you die, you're just going to die. No friends in heaven, no punishment in hell. you just stop, and your body gets recycled into its consti-tuent chemicals.

      you got any more all-caps for me?

      May 30, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      " And when you die, you're just going to die. No friends in heaven, no punishment in hell. you just stop, and your body gets recycled into its consti-tuent chemicals" – Satan
      (and the echo of his laughter goes on, and on, and on..... because you have done exactly what he wanted you to do, and have bitten the bait he put out for you – hook, line and sinker).

      May 30, 2012 at 8:36 pm |
    • sam stone

      geee, prism1234, still quoting imaginary beings? how wonderful for you. don't forget to take your pills, or it gets worse...

      May 30, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • Bet

      @ sam stone

      I think the laughter he hears is his own. Kind of like Anthony Perkins at the end of Psycho.

      May 30, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
  13. Terah

    The confusion comes from the lack of understanding of what orientation is.

    There is NO mention of g-ay people in the Bible. Being gay simply means that a person can ONLY be romantically, physically, and spiritually attracted to the same gender. People made this way are never singled out in the Bible.

    Never.

    Who someone might be having s-ex with is not the determining factor.

    A g-ay person can be a virgin for life, and still be g-ay. A straight perosn can try s-ex with the same gender, but not be g-ay. I have heard that happens in jail often. It's not OUR fault that whenever some of you hear about g-ay folks, your minds automatically turn to s-ex.

    If you disagree, please point out the verses of the Bible I might have missed.

    May 30, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
    • J. Luis

      Terah,

      So are you saying Paul knew about "gay orientation" and chose not to comment on it? Or did he have no clue about "gay orientation" and by chance just so happened to not address it at all?

      Or, did he not know about "gay orientation" (because he never met or heard about such people) and *falsely* condemn same s-x practice in general out of ignorance?

      If possible, can you support your answer with evidence from ancient judaism (Paul's forefathers) or 2nd temple judaism (the Judaism of Paul's day). You do know Paul was a Jew right? What did the Jews belief about this?

      Just curious.

      May 30, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
  14. tightrope

    I think myweightinwords works for CNN

    May 30, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      If I do, they aren't paying me enough. LOL.

      I'm just an average person with my own opinion and lots of years of study.

      May 31, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • no

      it wasn't a compliment – couldn't tell you studied

      June 1, 2012 at 3:09 am |
  15. Terah

    It's simple.

    G-ay people are, by God's design, attracted to the same gender. We don't choose it, and can't change it, and no amount of religious interpretation or wrangling can change that simple fact.

    Our only choice is how we live, and we were also created with the same need for love and family that everyone else is. So some of us choose the married lifestyle, for all the reasons and with all the commitment. It's as simple as that.

    Don't complain when we are willing to fight for our families in court, in the voting booth, and in front of the Pulpit, in the same ways YOU would fight for your families.

    We are no different than you are.

    May 30, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
  16. Maureen

    It is very misleading to quote the words of Peter in ACTS 10:15 to prolaim this absolved Christians of the need to follow Jewish dietary laws, but then fail to quote the section of ACTS 10:28 where Peter said, "...but God has shown me that I shall not call anyone profane or unclean." If Mr. Mohler's interpretation of the former passage is applied in parallel fashion to the latter section, we must understand it to mean that Christians are relieved of the need to condemn "anyone as profane or unclean" under biblical laws. Indeed, further in ACTS 10 at verse 34 Peter further explains, "I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." And further ACTS 11:16-17 "ANd I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptizied with water, but you will be baptized with the Hold SPirit.' If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?"

    The fuller reading of ACTS seems to argue against the position offered by Mr. Mohler who quotes one small passage out of context. The greater message of ACTS chapters 10 and 11 seem to echo Christ's words in Matthew 22:36-40 where Jesus said the 2 greatest commandments were to love God and Love your neighbor as yourself; "On these 2 commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

    May 30, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • tightrope

      Its a gay accent more than a british accent.....and its not a few that do this – it is alot!!

      May 30, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  17. Be

    Like a leading LGBT activist once told me, 'Hom-ose-xuals worst enemy is with in, but if we out them then we have no soldiers..."

    Most ga-y men who change the way they talk and walk choose to do so, they were NOT b-orn that way. I think am going to talk with a British accent from now on even though I am from Jersey. Please pretend like there is nothing wrong with me. Oh and kids when you grow up you can talk like Goofy if you want to. Don't worry you will never get fired from your job because you talk like cartoon character, it is your civil right. It makes me si-ck that a child who naturally has a more feminine voice may be bullied into thinking they are ga-y before they even have gone through pub-erty or even know what se-x is. Nothing gets me more up-set than proud pride ga-ys who's choices have ended up punishing children who then become confused rather than working it out in a natural way. Then society/media says it not those ga-y mens fault, it is your fault, because you don't truly accept hom-ose-xual love!!!

    The issue is they already have the right to love, society at large and religion at large doesn't physically abuse or deny the right to hom-ose-xual love even if they don't believe in it.

    May 30, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • NY

      Ummm... Most gay men walk and talk like all other men, Dear. A tiny minority are more feminine in action.

      May 30, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • J.W

      Why do think it would confuse anybody? I don't see anyone trying to teach children to be gay. By the way I have lived in the midwest most of my life and knew people would spoke with British accents. Should I have told them what freak shows they were?

      May 30, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • Be

      NY
      I apologize, I mean most gay men in media do and all but one of my gay friends do. So to me most do but I do hope you are more correct and they do not.

      May 30, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
    • Be

      J.W.
      You know people who fake British accents all the time and are not British? I'm not saying that makes them freak shows, I am saying it is choice, a choice that does not help people who are raising children, kids who bully other kids because of how they speak who have or don't have gay feelings, in fact does it benefit anyone?

      May 30, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • tightrope

      Be – good points....now there is some truth to meditate on....there was one guy on this page trying to tell everyone that alot of cartoon character are gay like.....there alot of people in their camp who sabotage the whole thing by such statements

      May 30, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • J.W

      So you are telling me that people that I talked to every day were just fake Brits? lol. I am not sure who you are to judge that. I am not saying that someone being gay helps straight people, but it doesnt hurt them.

      May 30, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "The issue is they already have the right to love, society at large and religion at large doesn't physically abuse or deny the right to hom-ose-xual love even if they don't believe in it."

      The experts have shown that being gay is not a choice, it's not a mental illness and it can't be voluntarily changed. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      Gays are being denied their civil right to marriage and the U S Supreme court ruled marriage is a civil right when the ruled on interracial marriage. Duh!

      May 30, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Be

      YeahRight
      Please let me clarify when I said, "they don't believe in it" I mean many reglions do not believe that hom-ose-xual se-x it is sactioned by thier beliefs. Suprisingly this does not mean hom-ose-xual feelings are by choice. No amount of anything will ever convince me that a gay accent and mannerisms is anything but a choice.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • Helpful

      "Please let me clarify when I said, "they don't believe in it" I mean many reglions do not believe that hom-ose-xual se-x it is sactioned by thier beliefs"

      Many of them felt the same way about biracial marriage and they were proven wrong because it's a civil right.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • jungleboo

      Adopting a "gay persona" certainly is a choice, usually a sign of an inability to come to terms with a state of being. Attraction to same s.ex is a biological drive that does not lead to procreation (and there are plenty of biological drives that do not lead to procreation, sleep being one of them, that may include s3x dreams).

      However, habitual behaviors are cultural. A young man may perceive that a mincing behavior is a valid choice, but his choices are limited to what he has observed in his surroundings. If he only knows vapid TV characters or is impressed by the superficial showiness of female caricatures, sure, his lack of education and philosophical leanings will land him in the court of pretenders. But that has nothing to do with the biological drive to experience same s3x activity.

      Western culture has very highly defined the expectations of women's behavior, from lipstick to push-up bras to high heeled stilettos. None of that has the slightest bearing on heteros3xual mating as intended by the Universe. Therefore, the obvious "choices" that are made by some gay men to imitate the cartoon aspects of women's fashionable ways, well, it has no meaning at all. It's nothing more than punk or hippie or new wave fashion statements about oneself. A more evolved person would not involve himself in such superficial pursuits.

      Just being a man and loving the male body is enough, and need not express itself in feminine attire or behavior. Hell, many women of a certain age have finally thrown a lot of that western cultural stuff in the trash, only to have it picked up by the next generation. NONE of it means anything.

      Same s3x desires are biological for some humans. It's beautiful, and can be enjoyed, just a sip, or an all-out Old Country Buffet. Life is meant to be lived, regardless of what the fundamentalists would have you believe.

      May 30, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
  18. sockpuppet1984

    what he fails to mention is that Jesus Himself never addressed hom ose x uality. What Jesus largely focused on was condemning the religious insti tution of the day for being so worried about laws that they forgot the love and compassion. He focused on loving God, and loving your neighbors. Christianity is supposed to be BASED on the words of CHRIST, but the church has put the words of Paul above those of Jesus. For this pastor to say that gay marriage is the most pressing moral issue of the day is VASTLY ignoring the rampant adultery , gossip, coveting, etc etc that goes on WITHIN the church

    Also, even if you believe 100% that being gay is an abomination and a sin, why do you feel it is YOUR duty to impose your will upon NON CHRISTIAN people? Why would you worry about WHICH PARTICULAR sins a heathen is com mitting if either way you believe they are going to go to hell? How about worrying about showing the love of Christ to those outside of the church , instead of cond emnation and judgement. Your relationship with God is between you and God and should be ABOUT YOU and God, not about what your neighbor is doing.

    And what exactly do they think it accomplishes by NOT allowing gay marriage? Do you think gays say "oh well, since I can't get married I will stop being gay and live a celi b ate lifestyle"??? You can't force someone to NOT be gay, let alone be a Christian, nor would Jesus want you to. If He didn't want us to have free will, He wouldn't have given it to us. Who is anyone to override God's gift to us of choosing Him of our own volition?

    I find that a lot of the anti-gay rhetoric seems to be coming out of the Baptist churches, at least according to the news stories these days. I wish that Christians weren't all lumped together as though we were all one species sharing the same ideology. Let Baptists be known as Baptists, not just the broad term of "Christian" or "evangelical". Those terms have been co-opted be the religious right, and they are certainly not representative of the vast range of Christianity.

    May 30, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
    • tightrope

      Sockpuppet – Jesus spoke about marriage very clearly and very truthfully.....He only mentioned a man and a woman – that is the only way He definded marriage. Yes He spoke of all those wonderful things as well.....but He was clear about meant. God loves every soul on this planet....and always will. But His intentions for the human race were clear and He does not have to reinvent the family for us

      May 30, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • Amen

      @tightrope – Being gay is not an act, but a feeling/emotion. Since you seem to have such a strong focus on the US government having stance on thought crimes, what about all of the other thought crimes Jesus was against? For example, In Matthew 5:28-29 Jesus says, "Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell."

      Should our government start plucking anyone's eyes out who look lustfully on a woman? There would certainly be a lot of blind individuals in this country!

      I'm glad our government is secular and that our laws DON'T come from the bible or any other book of fairly tales...

      May 30, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      once again... h-s-e-x-uality is a perversion of God's order a dn His design for human race. It is a great offence in th sight of God, because it mocks His the design of creation.
      There are two kind of sins: UNRIGHTEOUS sins – the kind that we all know are wrong, and are easy to define: stealing, lying, cheating..
      But there are sins that are UNGODLY. Those are the kind that are hard to define, because they are unlike God, and are against His nature and His character...
      Those are the kind that are being defended and justified by those who don't KNOW God.
      There are many in today's Christendom, especially in apostate "leodicean" western church, that name the Name of Jesus Christ, but reject the Spirit of Truth. But He, the Spirit of Truth is the One who testifies of true Christ, and He is the Holy Spirit of God, the third person of Trinity, without whom no man can know Christ.
      So, when you say things you said in your post above, you show that you are either a young Christian and ignorant because you haven't been taught, , or you willingly deny the real Christ of whom the Holy Spirit testifies.

      Jesus Christ is the Word of God who became flesh, and you can not separate Him, Christ the living Word from the Holy Spirit of God who is the Spirit of Truth.
      If you do, you have made up God in your own imagination, and do not know REAL Christ of the Scriptures. That's just the way it is, friend. I hope you understand how serious is your error!

      May 30, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      P.S. The above post was meant for Sockpuppet....

      May 30, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
  19. sockpuppet1984

    I can't possibly begin to fathom what my comment is being screened for

    May 30, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      The filter that keeps "unacceptable" words out also screens within words, so things like "consti.tution" and "accu.mulation" are screened.

      May 30, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
    • redcar

      Weightinwords....been reading this page and you are CUCKOO

      May 30, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • GALACTICA_CAG

      Nah, Weight's not cukoo. There are others...

      May 30, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      @redcar...perhaps you could be more specific? I haven't really said anything too crazy on this page. Granted, not all of my ideas are mainstream, but then again, neither am I.

      May 31, 2012 at 10:18 am |
  20. Sani

    Quite interesting how some people can reply on this wall – when there was no reply button to hit..? Can you respond CNN?? Are you screening comments? Sure looks like it

    May 30, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      The reply "button" is the word "reply" directly under the comment. If you can not see it, you might try updating your browser.

      May 30, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • lemon

      This has been mentioned several times now you idiot

      May 30, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • Be

      I have tried to reply to several posts but they never show up. If this does it is the first!

      May 30, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      @Be, there is a filter in place that keeps any comment with certain words from posting. This is true even if the word exists within another word, such at the t.i.t inside the word "const.i.tuion"...this is likely what is preventing your comment reply from posting.

      May 30, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • Bet

      Be,

      Sometimes I have to go over and over my posts trying to figure out what tiny part of a word has triggered the filter. It's an automated system, not a human moderator, so it just looks for certain combinations of letters.

      Swear words and se.xua.l words are obvious, but words like "as.sistant" will also be flagged because it contains the letters "as.s". Also, the autocorrect interferes sometimes, so you have to go back and rewrite the word.

      The easiest way is to write your post in another program and try to post it here. That way if it gets flagged and doesn't appear, you haven't lost your work. Sometimes using the "back" button to recapture it works, but not always.

      May 30, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 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.