January 22nd, 2013
06:31 AM ET

King: Obama MLK Bible use 'heartwarming'

Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., on of President Obama using her father's Bible for his inauguration.

- A. Hawkins

Filed under: Bible • Obama • Politics

soundoff (290 Responses)
  1. Bootyfunk

    swear on a copy of the const.itution you are sworn to uphold, not a book written by people that thought the earth was flat and demands the slaughter of innocents - g.ays are to be put to death, for instance. it's sickening that the president is swearing on a book of fairy tales.

    January 22, 2013 at 9:03 pm |
  2. Piers M.

    "Heartwarming" is not a word that comes to mind. Repulsive, or mockery sounds about right...

    January 22, 2013 at 9:03 pm |
  3. Sam Yaza

    heart warming?? he just sworn under a god that says to kill people like me, how is this hart warming

    January 22, 2013 at 7:08 pm |
    • End Religion

      I know of only one way to make the bible heart-warming. Use it for kindling and lean over it.

      January 22, 2013 at 8:23 pm |
  4. Science

    Thank you to the National Centre For Science Education (NCSE) for providing this information.

    For years to come, the lessons from Dover will continue to have a profound impact on how science is viewed in our society and how it is taught in the classroom


    January 22, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
  5. truth be told

    The proper use of any Bible is heartwarming. Thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.

    January 22, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • Chad

      Well said!

      January 22, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
    • sam stone

      you're both morons.

      January 22, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
    • Chad

      @sam stone..

      Well said!

      January 22, 2013 at 7:42 pm |
    • Free nuts

      tbt and chad your pick

      Monkey see or monkey do.

      Nuts free

      January 22, 2013 at 8:00 pm |
    • Observer

      "Thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education."

      Sure sounds like what you might expect to hear from people without a college education.

      January 22, 2013 at 9:39 pm |
  6. Reality

    Putting the kibosh/” on all religions including that of MLK's family in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    Added details available upon written request.

    A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.

    e.g. Taoism

    "The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.

    Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "

    January 22, 2013 at 4:04 pm |

    hinduism crime of Evolution is foundation of hinduism racism, hinduism, innovation of hindus deniers of truth absolute GOD of hindu dark ages. Please visit limitisthetruth.come to learn hinduism criminality of hindus crooks against humanity and truth absolute GOD.

    January 22, 2013 at 3:30 pm |


      January 22, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
  8. Science

    NEW see date .

    Evolution at its best !

    Published on Jan 15, 2013
    Over 60,000 years ago, the first modern humans—people physically identical to us today—left their African homeland and entered Europe, then a bleak and inhospitable continent in the grip of the Ice Age. But when they arrived, they were not alone: the stocky, powerfully built Neanderthals had already been living there for hundred of thousands of years. So what happened when the first modern humans encountered the Neanderthals? Did we make love or war? That question has tantalized generations of scholars and seized the popular imagination. Then, in 2010, a team led by geneticist Svante Paabo announced stunning news. Not only had they reconstructed much of the Neanderthal genome—an extraordinary technical feat that would have seemed impossible only a decade ago—but their analysis showed that "we" modern humans had interbred with Neanderthals, leaving a small but consistent signature of Neanderthal genes behind in everyone outside Africa today. In "Decoding Neanderthals," NOVA explores the implications of this exciting discovery. In the traditional view, Neanderthals differed from "us" in behavior and capabilities as well as anatomy. But were they really mentally inferior, as inexpressive and clumsy as the cartoon caveman they inspired? NOVA explores a range of intriguing new evidence for Neanderthal self-expression and language, all pointing to the fact that we may have seriously underestimated our mysterious, long-vanished human cousins.

    Education works BEST !
    So does your DNA, take a blood test and figure it out !
    Simple to do OK !
    To many Adams and Eves in gene pool for the bible's creation story.
    Courts have ruled can't teach creation as fact in public shools in the US.
    Means evolution WINS hands dfown, it is time for god(s) religion to get tghe HELL out of the way OK

    January 22, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
    • .

      Not so fast with your man made lies about evolution because God's truth wasn't taught in many churches/synagogue because man wanted to teach the traditions of man.

      READ God's truth in these links:

      The 'eth haa Aadam of Genesis 1:27


      Mankind; The Two Separate Creation Events*


      January 22, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • Science

      Please see date it says Jan 21 2013
      Evolution wins hands down, it is time for god(s) religion to get the HELL out of the way OK

      A Relative from the Tianyuan Cave: Humans Living 40,000 Years Ago Likely Related to Many Present-Day Asians and Native Americans

      Jan. 21, 2013 — Ancient DNA has revealed that humans living some 40,000 years ago in the area near Beijing were likely related to many present-day Asians and Native Americans

      January 22, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
    • Science

      To many Adams and Eves in the gene pool sorry.

      Please see date it says Jan 21 2013
      Evolution wins hands down, it is time for god(s) religion to get the HELL out of the way OK

      A Relative from the Tianyuan Cave: Humans Living 40,000 Years Ago Likely Related to Many Present-Day Asians and Native Americans

      Jan. 21, 2013 — Ancient DNA has revealed that humans living some 40,000 years ago in the area near Beijing were likely related to many present-day Asians and Native Americans

      January 22, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • Sheryl

      Science, all you are doing is promoting "man patting man on the back".

      January 22, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
    • New Athiest

      I wonder if the same arguement happened when science proved the world wasn't flat.
      The church fought that one for a long time too.

      January 22, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • Origin of Life

      Hypothesis Traces First Protocells Back to Emergence of Cell Membrane Bioenergetics

      Dec. 20, 2012 — A coherent pathway - which starts from no more than rocks, water and carbon dioxide and leads to the emergence of the strange bio-energetic properties of living cells - has been traced for the first time in a major hypothesis paper in Cell this week.

      January 22, 2013 at 3:58 pm |
    • Deb

      new atheist, read scriptures that tells us the earth is round.

      Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH."  How did Isaiah know in 700 B.C. the earth is round?

      It wasn't Christians that thought the earth flat. Think again who did? Others didn't discover the earth is round until the early 1500s when Magellan sailed around the world. How did Isaiah know something over 2000 years ahead of nonbelievers?

      January 22, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care


      Just to show you how stupid you are I'm going to post the definition of a circle:

      A round plane figure whose boundary (the circu mference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed center.

      A plane is a two dimensional object. The Earth is NOT a circle. It is a spheroid. If they would have put the word spheroid on that book of multiple guess then you might have an argument but you don’t.

      January 22, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
    • New Athiest

      Deb, A circle is not a sphere. A circle is flat.
      Daniel 4:11
      11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
      Matthew 4:8
      8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

      Ever heard of Galileo? He had some differences with te church on this topic.

      January 22, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • Science

      Life Science = self
      New science standards created for 2013 by 26 states, a mojority. Called stem standards.

      January 22, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      In 270 BCE Eratosthenes determined the circu mference of the Earth to within 2%. I think that you need some remedial science.

      Check out this website: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/09/21/who-discovered-the-earth-is-ro/

      January 22, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
    • Science

      Deb it well tell you how it was formed

      Evolution is back fill for the earth !
      Published on Oct 13, 2012

      How the Universe works – Birth of the Earth
      How the earth formed? How the earth like planets formed?
      What are the odds to find earth like conditions elsewhere in the Universe?
      find the answers in the film

      Science & Technology


      January 22, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
    • Science

      Heaven is 'a fairy story,' scientist Stephen Hawking says – CNN ...
      May 17, 2011 – By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor The concept of heaven or any kind of afterlife is a "fairy story," famed British scientist Stephen ...

      January 22, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Science

      God(s) did not make the gold !!!

      Where Does All Earth's Gold Come From? Precious Metals the Result of Meteorite Bombardment, Rock Analysis Finds

      Sep. 9, 2011 — Ultra high precision analyses of some of the oldest rock samples on Earth by researchers at the University of Bristol provides clear evidence that the planet's accessible reserves of precious metals are the result of a bombardment of meteorites more than 200 million years after Earth was formed.

      Dr Willbold continued: "Our work shows that most of the precious metals on which our economies and many key industrial processes are based have been added to our planet by lucky coincidence when the Earth was hit by about 20 billion billion tonnes of asteroidal material."

      This research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

      January 22, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Deb

      Honey Badger Dont Care, semantics. Fool, moron, atheist, you. See how that works?

      January 22, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
    • Deb

      P.S. Honey Badger Dont Care, well ROUNDED you are not.

      January 22, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
    • End Religion

      "circle of the earth" explanation
      Note the web site is Christian Resource Institute, so not just "some atheist link". I haven't researched this but the site seemed to have a good grasp on it.

      January 22, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • Science

      Thank you to the National Centre For Science Education (NCSE) for providing this information.

      For years to come, the lessons from Dover will continue to have a profound impact on how science is viewed in our society and how it is taught in the classroom


      January 22, 2013 at 6:55 pm |

    Man CREATED god in his own his own image. Maybe evolution might be able sort out some "survival value" in this, but perpetual self-delusion in the face "apparent" rationality is a conflict of sorts...

    January 22, 2013 at 1:25 pm |

      Evolution is hinduism absurdity of hindus, denire of truth absolute of creation to hind fool humanity in to hinduism, racism. Evolution is nothing more than process of progres, without initiation or end of progress. One has to be a hindu uneducated to believe in hinduism, absurdity of hindu stupid evolution.

      January 22, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • wejie

      100% guaranteed the fake muslim post.

      January 22, 2013 at 2:17 pm |
    • .

      So many people on this site exchanging God's truth for Satan's lies.

      January 22, 2013 at 3:04 pm |

    One has to be a hindu ignorant to feel heart warmth for swearing in od a President of USA, book of hindu Mithra sim, racist savior ism negates truth of consti tution of USA, based on truth absolute GOD and human equality. Book of hindu Mithra ism, racist savior ism Bible of hind dark ages deserve to be expelled from America along with hindu Mithra ism, racist savior ism, labeled as Christianity for violating consti tution of USA.

    January 22, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • wejie

      100% guaranteed the fake muslim is Bob the Smart Butt.

      January 22, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
  11. Age of Reason

    ..."No one knows if this Jesus Christ existed, and if he did, NOTHING is known about him!"
    " Why I am not a christian " Bertrand Russell 1928

    January 22, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Age of Reason is committing an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Bertrand Russell..whoopy-doo!

      January 22, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • Age of Reason

      ...FYI Bertrand Russell was the foremost mathematician, philosopher and historian of the mid-20th century! In othe times, Sir Edward Gibbon was an authority on classic ancient Greek, vulgar Latin and antiquities! ...others,well...you know Napoleon, Sig Freud, Voltaire, Thomas' Jefferson and Paine et al., all doubted the existence of this Jesus Guy!
      I don't your credentials (Ciruculum Vitae) can remotely much the above said! LOL!

      January 22, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • NClaw441

      That's ok, I doubt the existence of Bertrand Russel.

      January 22, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
    • .

      Too many people on this site believe Satan's lies and don't seek God's truth. therefore, know not what they do or certainly don't know what they post.

      Satan won't save you in this life or after. Only Jesus saves.

      January 22, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
    • sam stone

      NCLaw: Do you seriously doubt the existence of Bertrand Russell?

      January 22, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
    • sam stone

      free people do not need to be saved.

      January 22, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Age of reason again commits a Appeal to Authority fallacy.

      "Bertrand Russell was the foremost mathematician, philosopher and historian of the mid-20th century!"

      So he's smart..so?

      "Napoleon, Sig Freud, Voltaire, Thomas' Jefferson and Paine et al., all doubted the existence of this Jesus Guy!"

      Famous ppl doubting the existence of the historical Jesus means no more than non-famous ppl doubting his existence. If their is not information to go on and test...there is no argument....just opinion.

      January 22, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • Jeff Thomas

      Hosea 4:6 –

      6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. KJV

      January 22, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      So an invisible and undetectable being is "forgetting" me? How can I verify that? lol

      January 22, 2013 at 6:26 pm |
    • OK

      I'll trust Martin Luther King, Jr.

      January 22, 2013 at 6:44 pm |
  12. Johnny Blammo

    Do unto others: God's law that Christians should oppress gays, as they would have gays oppress them.

    January 22, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • kill bill again

      ...and its just common sense. But thats going way too far in expectation of teeny tiny little people

      January 22, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Jeff Thomas

      Ignorance enslaves. Truth in his understanding sets you free.

      January 22, 2013 at 6:21 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Ignorance enslaves"

      That's why the slaves feel they need "salvation"

      January 23, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
  13. kill bill again

    we're born flawed/ imperfect....being flawed is the very nature of human/mortal existance, and your point is....

    January 22, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • New Athiest

      We are all born with 2 diseases:
      Life, which is 100% fatal
      And Faith, that keeps us looking for a cure to the first.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:53 pm |

      No, human are borne in beauty, perfection , hinduism denial of truth absolute is by choice of human, having nothing to do with creation of humanity. Just an hind, excuse for hindus, criminals to justify their hinduism denial of truth absolute.

      January 22, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • wejie

      100% guaranteed the fake muslim is Bob the Smart Butt.

      January 22, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
  14. Arnold

    I think the religious and atheists on this site should bury the hatchet.

    January 22, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • New Athiest

      Then who would we have to insult, and make ourselves feel superior?

      January 22, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
    • kill bill again

      ...i agree but they would just dig it up again out of boredom

      January 22, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • Akira

      Bury it where?

      January 22, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Oso

      Bury the hatchet? When the war is sanity vs insanity?
      You, Arnold, are one stupid clueless fuck. Just sayin'

      January 22, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
  15. Chad

    "King: Obama MLK Bible use 'heartwarming' Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., on of President Obama using her father's Bible for his inauguration."

    WONDERFUL!!!! Our entire nation should be proud of this event and day regardless of your personal opinions of Pres. Obama's personal policy views (we can start hammering on that tomorrow..)

    I'll take the liberty of posting the entire transcript of the single most powerful and inspiring speeches of ALL TIME.

    "I Have a Dream"

    I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
    Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Ne gro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
    But one hundred years later, the Ne gro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Neg ro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Ne gro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Ne gro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
    In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Consti tution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Ne gro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check - a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

    It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Ne gro's legitimate discontent will not pa ss until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Ne gro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Ne gro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
    But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
    We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Ne gro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
    As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Ne gro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Ne ro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are str ipped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Ne gro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Ne gro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
    I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
    Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
    I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
    I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
    I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
    I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
    I have a dream today.
    I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
    I have a dream today.
    I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
    This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
    This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
    And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
    Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
    Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
    But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
    Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
    Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
    And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Neg ro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

    Rev Dr. Martin Luther King
    August 28, 1963
    Washington D.C.

    January 22, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      Why are you posting that garbage?

      January 22, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • Really-O?

      The following quotes were posted by Chad on this blog in a single thread. Just thought the forum might be interested.

      Starting at January 21, 2013 at 10:17 am)

      "I sure am proud to have a Black Christian as the president of the United States of America."

      "I'm proud that the USA finally elected a Black President."

      "That's why I'm so proud of the nation that we were able to continue to move in the right direction and elect a black president."

      "The more you live and work in an environment that has people of all nationalities, races and genders...the less you tend to think about race or gender."
      -–Really? So if one didn't work in a mult-cultural environment, race and gender would be pressing issues? And what about sexual orientation, Chad? Still OK to discriminate against the LGBT, right?

      "I'm proud that the USA continues to elect Christians as President."

      "what atheist ever did anything of significance for the civil rights cause?"

      I'd wager Dr. King would be disgusted by Chad's discrimination against those who's sexual preference is different than his. Chad dishonors Dr. King's legacy when he trots his name out as support for his smarmy ploy

      The concept of race, as Chad sees it, has largely been discarded due to our recent understanding of the human genome. Any discrimination (sexual orientation included, Chad) is reprehensible. Seems clear to me we have a closet bigot on our hands and I'd be willing to bet Chad is in denial.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • Really-O?

      I'm rephrasing slightly so no one misconstrues –

      The concept of race (based on phenotype – such as the amount of melanin in the skin – this is what Chad means when he uses the word) has largely been discredited and discarded due to our recent understanding of the human genome. Any discrimination (sexual orientation included, Chad) is reprehensible. Seems clear to me we have a closet bigot on our hands and I'd be willing to bet Chad is in denial.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:29 am |
    • Chad

      Some 2,200 guests filled the Washington National Cathedral on Tuesday morning for the inaugural prayer service, a tradition as old as the country itself.

      The service is meant to provide a spiritual boost to the newly sworn-in president. Prominent national clergy — from the Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Sikh traditions — will offer prayers to Obama, who is accompanied by first lady Michelle Obama, Vice President Biden and Jill Biden.

      Christian in the White House!

      I hope these nuts that keep up with the "Obama is a muslim" nonsense pay attention..

      You appear to be suffering from "I must attack anything and everything Chad says because he is a Christian and therefore everything he says is WRONG!!!"

      If there was ever a day to set aside nonsense like that, it's today (ok, well yesterday, but still, the afterglow remains 🙂 )

      January 22, 2013 at 11:36 am |
    • Really-O?

      I call 'em like I see 'em, Chad. You're a bigot. I find your dishonesty and the silly arguments you offer as support for your beliefs humorous – although the dishonesty can be exasperating at times-, but prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination are an entirely different beast. Shameful and disgusting.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:39 am |
    • Alan

      Thank you. This is the firrst time I have read the entire text and it is awesome!!!
      Thanks again!

      January 22, 2013 at 11:41 am |
    • Really-O?

      Alan = another one of Chad's sockpuppets. Pathetic.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • shawn

      Yes, and with Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson below them there, it's comforting to know they will soon host gay marriage at WNC.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • NClaw441

      That last, beautiful sentence is omitted from the MLK memorial. Sad.

      January 22, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
    • End Religion

      It is a wonderful time, having a President who signaled in his inauguration speech that this term will be a fight for the rights of gays:

      From Obama's 2nd inauguration speech:
      "We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth."

      Learn about Stonewall:

      January 22, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
  16. truth be told

    All atheists are liars. Knowing this simple Truth puts all their filthy comments in proper perspective.

    January 22, 2013 at 9:13 am |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      It doesn't matter how much you want it to be true or how many times you capitalize the word, it's still just opinion. It's amazing how religious nuts will say Truth or fact but they really just mean opinion.

      January 22, 2013 at 9:35 am |
    • RickBangkok

      What "Christian" church do you attend? You sound so filled with the love of God.

      January 22, 2013 at 9:44 am |
    • Pete

      "All atheists are liars"

      more lies from the xtians – 129!

      January 22, 2013 at 9:50 am |
    • Akira

      Obviously tbt attends the "Church of the Poisoned Mind" with daily troll services.

      January 22, 2013 at 10:00 am |
    • nobody in particular

      Please! Don't be so judgemental. All atheists are not liers! In fact I think most atheist are very sincere. I agree that there are some who are just plain jerks not worth giving the time of the day; just ignore them. I have good friends who were once "honest" atheist, but by careful study of Bibical scriptures they were converted. There are ministers who were once atheist, they have terrific testamonies to tell how God has worked in their lives. I know of one who was the head of the science department od a university. He had an unusual conversion, but because he converted he lost his well paying teaching position at the university. He tells how hard the president of the university worked to convinse him to "give up these silly notions and return to reality." His reply was, "And to retun to the horrors of Satan in his life?–no way!" (He had, had a demon possessed son who had just about drove him and his wife to insanity, but now, by prayer and the grace of God, (there was no medical treatment because doctors could find nothing wrong with the boy) his son was normal.)
      Atheistism is a tool of Satan. The more people he can convince people that there is no God, the more he loves it.
      Sad to say, but the more Satan can get Christians to act unChristian like, the better tool he has. Arbitrarily naming people as liers is not very Chrisian.

      January 22, 2013 at 10:13 am |
    • The Colosseum is Full

      the truth be told all hypocrites are too.. at least athiets are honest.. 🙂 🙂

      January 22, 2013 at 10:19 am |
    • truth be told

      Thanks to all the pus suc.king atheist types who have gone out of their way to prove that they are liars.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      TubeTop, you're an ass waffle.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • truth be told

      Did not mean to leave you out tom tom you are one of the best pus suc.king liar on these blogs. Belated thanks for your lack of contribution to anything that could possibly help mankind.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:06 am |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care


      There is no god, no satan, and no demons. Just relax and enjoy life. You'll be happier.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • Seyedibar

      Christians are afraid of truth. Knowing this simple truth puts all their filthy comments in proper perspective.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • kill bill again

      everybody lies about something at sometime in their life tiny or huge...if hell does exist we're all going...so stop waisting time
      pointing fingers at each other and put this energy into a movement towards getting the American economy back on its feet and making sure no child is abused or goes hungry....

      January 22, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
    • NClaw441

      I am a Christian, and I don't believe atheists are liars. They don't (yet, but I hope that changes) believe in the existence of God. That you and I do believe in God is evidence not of anything we have done, but rather of God's grace toward us allowing us to have faith. Ephesians 2:8. "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." There but for the grace of God go I.... and you.

      If you wish salvation for those who do not believe, would it not be better to encourage rather than to insult them?

      January 22, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
    • Reasonably

      "Everybody lies" – House

      January 22, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
  17. Santi Clause

    We are honouring a man who claimed to saw the Promised Land and called it great? A genocide was ordered by God to clear the Promised Land for the Jews. I think those Cannanites would have preferred to be segregated and live than be wiped out.

    January 22, 2013 at 7:58 am |
    • The Colosseum is Full

      the land belong to Abraham's seed... the people iving on it were in clear vioaltion of God's code of livign.. they woudl be dead today anywayt as are all the people who lives then.....but we have the record of HIs Son, and his resurrection which I have already tasted enough to know that it is true... this beign the case your position had better changes or you will likewise perish..

      January 22, 2013 at 10:22 am |
    • Seyedibar

      Don't worry. The Exodus never happened. The only minority group ever kicked out of Egypt during that period was the Asians. The myth of the 12 tribes is a dramatization of how Pharoah Thutmoses united the warring tribes of the Sinai region into 12 peaceful provinces by giving them Egyptian religion. The Ten Commandments were stolen from the Admonitions of Ma'at, and a bloodline of local chieftains named Jehovah was re-established to power.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:20 am |
  18. Rational Libertarian

    I'm glad she could take time out of her 'hating gays' schedule to discuss this.

    January 22, 2013 at 7:54 am |
    • NClaw441

      Saying, based upon one's honestly held faith, that certain behaviors are wrong is NOT hatred. We can disagree on whether it is wrong, and even whether the Bible condemns certain behavior, but that doesn't mean we hate those who we believe are sinning. There are lots of sins. I am certainly guilty of my share and more. But I have no basis to hate or judge those who I believe are sinning. I do have the right to express my faith beliefs, though.

      January 22, 2013 at 8:50 am |
    • Primewonk

      Claw – passing laws and constîtutional amendments prohibiting a group od US citizens from having the same civil rights as you isn't hate? Really?

      Sounds a lot like, "Oh, I don't hate those "colored" folks, I just don't want them marrying white folks." And, " I don't hate those "colored kids", I just don't want them in the same schools as my white kids.

      January 22, 2013 at 9:03 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      "There are lots of sins."

      Baloney. There are NO sins. Sin is a fabrication of your mythology. We only have ethics, morality and laws. Human inventions entirely. You might "think" your god is responsible but that is merely opinion...one that people like me outside your religion, or any religion, don't acknowledge.

      January 22, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Second pretty much everything Primewonk said.

      January 22, 2013 at 10:41 am |
    • Topher


      Really? That's the arguement you guys want to make? The difference is pretty obvious. Those who are opposed to black people have no reason to hate other than preconceived notions. Those who oppose "gays" are really opposed to an action they think is wrong. Not the person. Action vs. thought.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:33 am |
    • sam stone

      "Those who are opposed to black people have no reason to hate other than preconceived notions.Those who oppose "gays" are really opposed to an action they think is wrong. Not the person. Action vs. thought."

      Rights are not dependent on whether this is an action vs a thought.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:57 am |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "Rights are not dependent on whether this is an action vs a thought."

      Why not? That's why we make laws ... to stop people from doing certain actions.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • midwest rail

      A law is going to stop them from being gay ?

      January 22, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
    • Topher

      No. I don't want that kind of law. What they do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
    • sam stone

      Topher: They are granted rights by citizenship. One is the right to marry. The Supreme Court stated that marriage was a civil right in Loving v. Virginia 1967. Whether you (or "god") find what they do distasteful has no bearing on their rights.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
    • sam stone

      "What they do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business."

      Yet, you want to deny them their CIVIL RIGHTS based on what is none of your business

      January 22, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      They are granted rights by citizenship. One is the right to marry."

      Fine. They already have all the exact same rights I have in regard to marriage.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • kill bill again


      January 22, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • sam stone

      Denying someone their civil rights is bigotry. Hiding behind a bible to do it is just pious bigotry.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • sam stone

      Nonsense. Hide your bigotry behind the bible if you want. The 14th amendment will defeat bigots like you just as it did regarding interracial marriage. If you don't like it, tough.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
    • sam stone

      You have the right to marry any consenting adult who wishes to marry you. Gays do not have that right. Don't equivocate, bigot.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "You have the right to marry any consenting adult who wishes to marry you. Gays do not have that right. Don't equivocate, bigot."

      That's kinda borderline dishonesty. You know this isn't true. There's plenty of restrictions on who I could marry.

      Oh, and "sticks and stones," dude.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • midwest rail

      " They already have all the exact same rights I have in regard to marriage. " Absolutely false. And you know it.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
    • sam stone

      "That's why we make laws ... to stop people from doing certain actions"

      Yes, to stop people from harming others

      Gays getting married does not harm in any tangible way.

      It just offends your pious sensibilities, bigot dude

      January 22, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • sam stone

      "There's plenty of restrictions on who I could marry. "

      Yes. One I can think of is if they are already married. What others are you thinking of?

      The prohibition on gays being married will fall under the 14th amendment. Choke on it, dude

      January 22, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • Akira

      "That’s kinda borderline dishonesty. You know this isn’t true. There’s plenty of restrictions on who I could marry."

      I know you are married, Topher. Did you marry the person you loved? Yes.
      Can a man who loves another man romantically or a woman who loves another woman romantically marry whom they love? No.
      What is dishonest about sam's statement, disregarding the bigot remark?

      January 22, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • sam stone

      In anyone should know about borderline dishonesty, it's Gopher.

      Running, snivelling coward

      January 22, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
  19. Douglas

    Dr. Martin Luther KIng would have rejected the notion of "gay marriage".

    This is because, as a Christian minister, Dr. King understood the BIble prohibitions against gay coitus and
    the sin of LGBTQ fornication.

    The idea of Dr. King supporting a "Pride Parade" where n@ked men and women cavort...where people are chained like slaves...and where acts of fornication are simulated..soils the memory of Dr. King and is an insult to the dignity of his legacy.

    "Gay marriage" is a sin in the Christian church...case closed.

    January 22, 2013 at 7:27 am |
    • jwhester

      In Dr. King's time, many used similar religious/biblical arguments against mixed-race marriages. Do not conflate what offends you at a Pride Parade with allowing everyone to marry the person they choose.

      January 22, 2013 at 7:56 am |

    • 261 Ministers Proclamation

      As Christian clergy we proclaim: the Good News concerning Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) persons and publicly apologize where we have been silent. As disciples of Jesus, who assures us that the truth sets us free, we recognize that the debate is over. The verdict is in. Homosexuality is not a sickness, not a choice, and not a sin. We find no rational biblical or theological basis to condemn or deny the rights of any person based on sexual orientation. Silence by many has allowed political and religious rhetoric to monopolize public perception, creating the impression that there is only one Christian perspective on this issue. Yet we recognize and celebrate that we are far from alone, as Christians, in affirming that LGBT persons are distinctive, holy, and precious gifts to all who struggle to become the family of God.

      In repentance and obedience to the Holy Spirit, we stand in solidarity as those who are committed to work and pray for full acceptance and inclusion of LGBT persons in our churches and in our world. We lament that LGBT persons are condemned and excluded by individuals and institutions, political and religious, who claim to be speaking the truth of Christian teaching. This leads directly and indirectly to intolerance, discrimination, suffering, and even death. The Holy Spirit compels us:

      -to affirm that the essence of Christian life is not focused on sexual orientation, but how one lives by grace in relationship with God, with compassion toward humanity;

      –to embrace the full inclusion of our LGBT brothers and sisters in all areas of church life, including leadership;

      –to declare that the violence must stop. Christ’s love moves us to work for the healing of wounded souls who are victims of abuse often propagated in the name of Christ;

      –to celebrate the prophetic witness of all people who have refused to let the voice of intolerance and violence speak for Christianity, especially LGBT persons, who have met hatred with love;

      Therefore we call for an end to all religious and civil discrimination against any person based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. All laws must include and protect the freedoms, rights, and equal legal standing of all persons, in and outside the church.


      Some argue that since homosexual behavior is "unnatural" it is contrary to the order of creation. Behind this pronouncement are stereotypical definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect rigid gender categories of patriarchal society. There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners to a fuller state of being. Contemporary research is uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural and affirming form of human sexuality for some people. Findings indicate that homosexuality is a given fact in the nature of a significant portion of people, and that it is unchangeable.

      Our prejudice rejects people or things outside our understanding. But the God of creation speaks and declares, "I have looked out on everything I have made and `behold it (is) very good'." . The word (Genesis 1:31) of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious no matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world.

      There are few biblical references to homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom was the unwillingness of the city's men to observe the laws of hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob. How many would say, "This is the word of the Lord"? When the Bible is quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety.

      Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, "abomination", the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman. Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality ( 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and Romans 1: 26-27). But homosexual activity was regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of their unfaithfulness. homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment.

      1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. That list included the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. sexual perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible that the juxtaposition of malakos, the soft, effeminate word, with arsenokoitus, or male prostitute, was meant to refer to the passive and active males in a homosexual liaison.

      Thus, it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behavior. But was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul's anti-Semitic attitude, his belief that the authority of the state was not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes Paul's thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church! Is Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?

      Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy, Jude and 2 Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of male sex slaves in the first instance, and to showing examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God's destruction of unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and 2 Peter respectively).

      That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist, these references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of ignorance, that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex.


      The most beautiful word in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "whosoever." All of God's promises are intended for every human being. This includes gay men and lesbians. How tragic it is that the Christian Church has excluded and persecuted people who are homosexual! We are all created with powerful needs for personal relationships. Our quality of life depends upon the love we share with others; whether family or friends, partners or peers. Yet, lesbians and gay men facing hostile attitudes in society often are denied access to healthy relationships. Jesus Christ calls us to find ultimate meaning in life through a personal relationship with our Creator. This important spiritual union can bring healing and strength to all of our human relationships

      Biblical Interpretation and Theology also change from time to time. Approximately 150 years ago in the United States, some Christian teaching held that there was a two-fold moral order: black and white. Whites were thought to be superior to blacks, therefore blacks were to be subservient and slavery was an institution ordained by God. Clergy who supported such an abhorrent idea claimed the authority of the Bible. The conflict over slavery led to divisions which gave birth to some major Christian denominations. These same denominations, of course, do not support slavery today. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation of the Bible did!

      Genesis 19:1-25

      Some "televangelists" carelessly proclaim that God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of "homosexuality." Although some theologians have equated the sin of Sodom with homosexuality, a careful look at Scripture corrects such ignorance. Announcing judgment on these cities in Genesis 18, God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew, Lot, persuades them to stay in his home. Genesis 19 records that "all the people from every quarter" surround Lot's house demanding the release of his visitors so "we might know them." The Hebrew word for "know" in this case, yadha, usually means "have thorough knowledge of." It could also express intent to examine the visitors' credentials, or on rare occasions the term implies sexual intercourse. If the latter was the author's intended meaning, it would have been a clear case of attempted gang rape. Several observations are important.

      First, the judgment on these cities for their wickedness had been announced prior to the alleged homosexual incident. Second, all of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual. Third, Lot's offer to release his daughters suggests he knew his neighbors to have heterosexual interests. Fourth, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot, who immediately commits incest with his daughters? Most importantly, why do all the other passages of Scripture referring to this account fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?

      Romans 1:24-27

      Most New Testament books, including the four Gospels, are silent on same-sex acts, and Paul is the only author who makes any reference to the subject. The most negative statement by Paul regarding same-sex acts occurs in Romans 1:24-27 where, in the context of a larger argument on the need of all people for the gospel of Jesus Christ, certain homosexual behavior is given as an example of the "uncleanness" of idolatrous Gentiles.

      This raises the question: Does this passage refer to all homosexual acts, or to certain homosexual behavior known to Paul's readers? The book of Romans was written to Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, who would have been familiar with the infamous sexual excesses of their contemporaries, especially Roman emperors. They would also have been aware of tensions in the early Church regarding Gentiles and observance of the Jewish laws, as noted in Acts 15 and Paul's letter to the Galatians. Jewish laws in Leviticus mentioned male same-sex acts in the context of idolatry.

      The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different from loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.

      What is "Natural"?

      Significant to Paul's discussion is the fact that these "unclean" Gentiles exchanged that which was "natural" for them, physin, in the Greek text, for something "unnatural," para physin. In Romans 11:24, God acts in an "unnatural" way, para physin, to accept the Gentiles. "Unnatural" in these passages does not refer to violation of so-called laws of nature, but rather implies action contradicting one's own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is "unnatural," para physin, for a person today with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual lifestyle.

      I Corinthians 6:9

      Any consideration of New Testament statements on same-sex acts must carefully view the social context of the Greco-Roman culture in which Paul ministered. Prostitution and pederasty (sexual relationships of adult men with boys) were the most commonly known male same-sex acts. In I Corinthians 6:9, Paul condemns those who are "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind," as translated in the King James version. Unfortunately, some new translations are worse, rendering these words "homosexuals." Recent scholarship unmasks the homophobia behind such mistranslations.

      The first word – malakos, in the Greek text-which has been translated "effeminate" or "soft," most likely refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control. The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but never with reference to sexuality.

      The second word, Arsenokoitai, occurs once each in I Corinthians and I Timothy (1:10), but nowhere else in other literature of the period. It is derived from two Greek words, one meaning, "males" and the other "beds", a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Other Greek words were commonly used to describe homosexual behavior but do not appear here. The larger context of I Corinthians 6 shows Paul extremely concerned with prostitution, so it is very possible he was referring to male prostitutes. But many experts now attempting to translate these words have reached a simple conclusion: their precise meaning is uncertain. Scripture Study Conclusion…No Law Against Love

      The rarity with which Paul discusses any form of same-sex behavior and the ambiguity in references attributed to him make it extremely unsound to conclude any sure position in the New Testament on homosexuality, especially in the context of loving, responsible relationships. Since any arguments must be made from silence, it is much more reliable to turn to great principles of the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do not judge others, lest you be judged. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love . . . . . against such there is no law. One thing is abundantly clear, as Paul stated in Galatians 5:14: "...the whole Law is fulfilled in one statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself".


      Let me make one thing clear: being gay is not wrong. It is not unnatural. It isn’t immoral or gross or something that should provoke disgust. What is wrong, what is unnatural, what is immoral and what is gross is intolerance and discrimination against fellow human beings for their sexual orientation and active pursuit of preventing loving and committed homosexual couples from legally being married.

      I believe in God, and I identify as a Christian, and this identity as a Christian has provided me with the insight to know that people who oppose gay marriage based on “religious reasons” are just making excuses for their homophobia. The idea that homosexuality is sinful is a farce. The Bible never actually condemns homosexuality. You know what the Bible does condemn?

      Winking. “He who winks is plotting perversity.” Proverbs 16:30

      Rounded haircuts. “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.” Leviticus 19:17

      Tattoos. “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you.” Leviticus 19:28

      It is unacceptable that some modern Americans think it’s alright to toss rules like these aside and yet still vehemently oppose marriage rights for homosexual couples.

      As a Christian, I’ve been taught to love my neighbor. Somehow, active public discrimination against homosexuals and barring fellow human beings from marriage rights does not seem very loving or neighborly to me.

      Homosexuality isn’t a disease: it’s an innate way of being.

      Nobody is going to “catch” gay.

      Nobody is going to be “cured” of their homosexuality.

      Sexual orientation is personal and affects nobody but the individual and is absolutely not the business of anybody but the individual.

      The fact that people continue to suggest otherwise and perpetuate this idea that homosexuality is wrong and attempting to make outcasts of people who identify as gay is unbelievably disgusting and frightening and old-fashioned.

      It’s 2012, and we should have come much further than this by now.

      This matters. This is an issue that, if left unfixed, tacitly permits discrimination and harassment.

      The prevalence of anti-gay messages encourages bullying and hate crimes, and there are literally confused, hurt, frightened young people who actually kill themselves over issues like this — and yet people still insist upon calling homosexuality a sin.

      The cruelty and hypocrisy is infuriating and unacceptable.

      It needs to stop.

      Until marriage equality is legal in all fifty states, I hope Americans will have the courage to end hatred and homophobia.


      Being gay is not a choice science, in fact, is actually not in dispute on this matter.
      All major medical professional organizations concur that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European Psychological, Psychiatric, and Medical Associations all agree with this, as does the World Health Organization and the medical organizations of Japan, China, and most recently, Thailand. Furthermore, attempts to change one's sexual orientation can be psychologically damaging, and cause great inner turmoil and depression, especially for Christian gays and lesbians.

      Reparative therapy, also called conversion therapy or reorientation therapy, "counsels" LGBT persons to pray fervently and study Bible verses, often utilizing 12-step techniques that are used to treat sexual addictions or trauma. Such Christian councilors are pathologizing homosexuality, which is not a pathology but is a sexual orientation. Psychologically, that's very dangerous territory to tread on. All of the above-mentioned medical professional organizations, in addition to the American and European Counseling Associations, stand strongly opposed to any form of reparative therapy.

      In my home country, Norway, reparative therapy is officially considered to be ethical malpractice. But there are many countries that do not regulate the practice, and many others that remain largely silent and even passively supportive of it (such as the Philippines). Groups that operate such "therapy" in the Philippines are the Evangelical Bagong Pag-asa, and the Catholic Courage Philippines.

      The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.

      On the second point, that there is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"

      Take this interesting paragraph I found on an Evangelical website: "The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" – meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are 'born that way.'"

      But that's not at all what it means, and it seems Evangelicals are plucking out stand-alone phrases from scientific reports and removing them from their context. This is known in academia as the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Interestingly, this is also what they have a habit of doing with verses from the Bible.

      This idea of sexuality being a choice is such a bizarre notion to me as a man of science. Many of these reparative "therapists" are basing this concept on a random Bible verse or two. When you hold those up against the mountain of scientific research that has been conducted, peer-reviewed, and then peer-reviewed again, it absolutely holds no water. A person's sexuality – whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual – is a very deep biological piece of who that person is as an individual.

      The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.

      Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).

      Furthermore, there are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.

      Having said that, in the realm of legal rights, partnership rights, and anti-discrimination protections, the gay gene vs. choice debate is actually quite irrelevant. Whether or not something is a choice is not a suitable criterion for whether someone should have equal rights and protections. Religion is indisputably a choice, but that fact is a not a valid argument for discriminating against a particular religion.


      As usual, Bob is wrong again. The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.


      "There is no Christian case for "gay marriage"

      Religion-based bigotry use religious teachings to justify discrimination against Native Americans, African Americans, minority religious groups, woman and interracial couples.

      Connecting the dots between historical bigotry against other groups and the atudes of some people today toward hosexuality is one of the most effective ways to educate people about the denial of equal rights to the LGBT community.

      Most people know that, historically, religion has been used to justify discrimination against women, religious minorities and people of color. Putting anti-gay religious beliefs in this historical context can be a powerful tool in connecting discrimination that most Americans today accept as morally wrong and the discrimination faced by LGBT people. By citing historical instances of religion-based bigotry and prejudice, you allow people to be more comfortable with atudinal change – they realize they are not stepping out alone against a commonly accepted viewpoint but rather following historical progress toward justice and equality.

      When talking about the misuse of religion to justify discrimination in the past, it is important not to say that the LGBT community’s struggle with discrimination is exactly the same as the Civil Rights Movement. Rather, the point is that religion-based bigotry has been a common denominator of injustice toward many groups in American society’s past. When given a chance, many people will see the underlying historical pattern of using religious teachings and beliefs to justify harmful discrimination.

      There is another benefit to citing other times in the past when religious teachings have been used to justify discrimination. Many times, when people of faith are challenged about their anti-gay views, they cite biblical verses or other religious texts as a safe haven when they are unable to articulate why they hold prejudiced atudes toward LGBT people. Instead of telling people that their interpretation is wrong, you can remind them that other religious texts have been used in the past to justify atudes and laws that are recognized today as morally wrong and unjust – such as discrimination against women, people of color and religious minorities.

      History provides the moral judgment, and we do not have to be theologians engaged in scriptural debates to point people to the judgment rendered by history.


      "Sodom and Gomorrah is still a good example. "

      In Genesis 18, the story about the angels coming to Lot's house, we learn that the reason they were coming to destroy Sodom was because of the wickedness that ALREADY existed in the city. The exact form of wickedness is not mentioned in that story!

      Let's just reinforce this CRITICAL piece of information. In the story of Sodom, in Genesis 18, God had ALREADY decided to destroy the city BEFORE the attempted ra pe of the angels – which incidentally was perpetrated mainly by heterose xuals since ALL the men of the city were involved, and we know that throughout history, gays have only represented about 10% of the population. Also, if they were ho mose xuals, why would Lot suggest that they take his daughters instead? That just doesn't make sense if the men were gay.

      So just to get this straight, the event that took place at Sodom was an act of violence and ra pe, mainly by heterose xuals. It had nothing to do with a loving relationship between two people of the same se x, and ho mose xuality was NOT the sin of Sodom in whatever form. The story of Sodom in Genesis 18 was about violence and domination, the same type of event that takes place in prisons and occupied countries, but it was NOT the reason for God's decision to destroy the city, and to use this story as a basis for prejudice against ho mose xuality in general is like comparing ra pe to marriage. There is NO similarity!

      The aftermath of Sodom aside, let's take a look at other passages of Scripture that mention the sin of Sodom. Here are 14 references to Sodom and not one of them mentions ho mose xuality!!!!! The overwhelming themes are idolatry, immorality and inhospitality! To me, this indicates people like Bob and HeavenSent have taken things out of context!

      Deuteronomy 29:17-26 – the sin – idolatry and images to false gods – "Why has the Lord done this to the land? . . . It is because this people abandoned the covenant of the Lord . . ."

      Deuteronomy 32:32-38 – the sin – idolatry – "He will say 'Now where are their gods?'"

      Isaiah 1:2-23 – the sin – idolatry, rebellion, injustice, murder, greed, theft, covetousness, mistreating the poor – "They have rebelled against Me."

      Isaiah 3:8-19 – the sin – idolatry, arrogance – "Their words and deeds are against the Lord, defying His glorious Presence"

      Jeremiah 23:10-14 – the sin – idolatry, adultery, lying by priests and prophets – "Both prophet and priest are godless. . . . They prophesied by Baal and led My people astray."

      Jeremiah 49:16-18 – the sin – idolatry, arrogance, oppression, pride of the heart – "The terror you inspire and the pride of your heart have deceived
      you. . ."

      Jeremiah 50:2-40 – the sin – idolatry, pride, false prophets – "Her images will be put to shame and her idols filled with terror. . . . . For she has defied the Lord, the Holy One of Israel. . . . . Their shepherds have led them astray."

      Lamentations 4:3-6 – the sin – cruelty and failure to care for the young and poor – "My people have become heartless."

      Ezekiel 16:49-50 – the sin – "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned: they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

      Amos 4:1-11 – the sin – idolatry, oppression, mistreating the poor – "I overthrew some of you as I overthrew Sodom . . . . yet you have not returned to Me."

      Zephaniah 2:8-11 – the sin – idolatry, pride, mocking – "This is what they will get in return for their pride, for insulting and mocking the people of the Lord Almighty. The Lord will be awesome to them when He destroys all the gods of the land."

      Luke 17:26-29 – Jesus speaking – No specific sins mentioned

      II Peter 2:1-22 – the sin – idolatry, living after ungodliness, lawlessness, arrogance, blaspheming, adultery, greed, corruption, depravity, boasting, lust – "But there were also false prophets among the people . . . . ."

      Jude 1:7-8 – the sin – se xual immorality and perversion, i.e fornication after strange flesh (angels, see Genesis 6:1) KJV

      The dictionary defines "perversion" as "a se xual practice regarded as abnormal". That means that a heterose xual practicing ho mose xual acts is perverted as in the case of ALL the men of Sodom wanting to engage with the angels (strange flesh). However, since se x with the same gender is normal for a gay person, there is no perversion associated merely by the se xual act.

      Note also that, while the word "abomination" has been used with reference to hom ose xuality, the biblical interpretation of the word "abomination" relates to any act of uncleanness as set out in the Holiness Code, such as eating shellfish, trimming your hair, touching the skin of a dead pig (should we stone the entire NFL?), wearing clothes of two kinds of material (polyester/cotton) – the list is long. How can we discuss one sin to the exclusion of all others?

      This is an enormous subject, which has been reduced to simplistic values. It is plain and simple prejudice to portray ho mose xuals as immoral just because of the gender to whom we are attracted. Of course there are immoral hom ose xuals, just as there are immoral heterose xuals, but simple orientation carries no implication of morality or immorality.

      Our se xuality is God-given. God made us the way we are. It follows naturally that He loves us exactly the way He made us. So long as we embrace marriage with the same standards as any monogamous, loving heterose xual relationship there should be no barrier against us.

      When gays are only asking to have their loving relationships acknowledged and respected, why is there so much fear and anger? To strengthen marriage, why not take a stand against divorce and separation, instead of opposing love and commitment? Jesus spoke of divorce, but he never mentioned hom ose xuality. I believe that was because ho mose xuality was not even an issue in His day. Love was love. Love IS Love!

      "Protect marriage? Puhlease. With a 50 percent divorce rate, rampant domestic violence, Las Vegas drive-through chapels, and I wanna-marry-a-really-rich-guy reality TV shows, there's no way gays could trash marriage the way straight people have."

      This letter only refers to the sin of Sodom. There are actually six "clobber verses" which are used against gays. Space does not permit an explanation of each one, but just as the sin of Sodom has been misrepresented, so have the other verses. There is an explanation for each one that clearly indicates that, just as slavery was condoned by Scripture for many years, ("Slaves obey your masters . . . . ." Eph. 6:5-8) and civil wars were fought to protect the ownership of people, we now know that Scripture was interpreted incorrectly, for God would not have people to be possessions.

      We now have a fuller understanding of Scripture with regard to slavery. It's time to accept a fuller understanding of ho mose xuality based on new research into language, concepts and customs when these words were written.

      So please choose acceptance and inclusiveness whether or not you understand fully. One of us is wrong. Many of you think it's me. I think it's you, based on solid research into Scripture from another perspective. Yes, God encourages us to question Scripture.

      "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, REPROOF and instruction in righteousness." II Tim. 3:16

      If there is even a chance that I could be right, do you want to take the eternal risk of rejecting some of God's children, and slamming the doors of your churches to those of us who wish to enter? That's what you're doing when you treat us as less than yourselves simply based on our orientation.

      If we have done the research, and it is our understanding that God loves us, including our orientation, then why not just let God be the judge? He will be in the end anyway. If one of us is to err, why not err on the side of love and acceptance? Now that was truly Jesus' example!


      Let me start this off with a quote from a famous lesbian, Lynn Lavner:

      "There are 6 admonishments in the Bible concerning ho mose xual activity, and our enemies are always throwing them up to us – usually in a vicious way and very much out of context.

      What they don't want us to remember is that there are 362 admonishments in the Bible concerning heterose xual activity. I don't mean to imply by this that God doesn't love straight people, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision."

      I am going to attempt to keep this short and simple, so here we go.

      Some claim that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly say that ho mose xual se x is an abomination. In fact, it merits death. Isn't it obvious that God hates hom ose xuality?

      Yes, depending on which translation you are using, Leviticus does say, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it's an abomination." However, a few points must be made about this statement:

      a) It appears in Leviticus, which was given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion and culture of Israel. However, as stated in Galatians 3:22-55, Christians are no longer bound by these Jewish laws. Even if you, for some reason, argue that these "laws" are still important, then you surely follow all of them, right?

      It is interesting that people who use Leviticus against the gay community forget the part that talks about religious sacrifices, making women sleep in tents outside during their period, the dietary restrictions placed on them and how to cleanse a leper, all of which appear in Leviticus.

      The laws of Leviticus are completely obsolete for today's Christian; however, even if you do claim to live by the laws of Leviticus, it is not fair to pick and choose which laws you are going to live by, or condemn a people by, if you are not going to follow the others. You should not need any more convincing evidence than this; but if you do, be my guest.

      b) The word that was in the original work, "to'ebah," which was translated into Greek as "bdglygma" actually means "ritual impurity" rather than abomination (or enormous sin). These passages in Leviticus can be translated to not mean hom ose xual se x generally, but only limiting hom ose xual se x in Pagan temples.

      c) This passage does not denounce hom ose xual behavior as a whole, but just the specific act of anal se x. This was meant for the prevention of disease. It was ruled unclean because it was physically unclean; however, hygiene has made wonderful advances since that time.

      d) These passages in Leviticus can be interpreted in many ways. I have seen it interpreted by scholars and priests to mean: "don't have se x with another man in your wife's bed;" "don't have se x with another man in the temple;" and "don't have se x with another man and pretend he is a woman," just to name a few.

      I have never seen an interpretation in any Bible, or from any scholar, that specifically says to never have se x with a man.

      Some claim the Bible simply does not support gay marriage. Chapter two of Genesis defines marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman. And later, in Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus himself reiterates the traits of a traditional marriage. How can you argue that anything other than celibacy is honorable for gay and lesbian people?

      Yes, marriage is a holy union. However, in these passages, while Jesus reiterates (but does not require) the traditional marriage, he also provides an exception for eunuchs (castrated men – or otherwise impotent men, in today's terms), and allowed them to be married, saying that this law is given to those to whom it applies.

      Because these eunuchs were born se xless, God made an exception for them because it was natural. The same applies to the Gay community today. Science has proven hom ose xuality is completely natural, so it seems God would allow for hom ose xual marriages.

      In Matthew 19: 4-5, Jesus encourages a traditional path, but does not discourage alternatives, except in the case of divorce.

      Jesus did stress purity of marriage, but not in regard to the se xes of the people within it. It can be seen that the reason that churches are against hom ose xual marriage is not because it is explicitly said by God, but because of a lack of instruction to specifically allow it.

      In the time that the Bible was written it would have been impossible to foresee the future to be able to specifically allow or forbid hom ose xual marriage.

      Some claim, in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he lists hom ose xuals amongst the many sinners who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Doesn't that make God's position on this vice very clear?

      If we look at the other types of people listed in this passage, we can understand what it is actually talking about. Law breakers, thieves, adulterers and drunks are specifically mentioned. The word "hom ose xual" was not found until the 1890s, so it would have been impossible for it to be in the original version.

      What actually appears in the original is Paul condemning those who are "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind." In this context, the original Greek word, "malakos," is translated into effeminate, or soft, which, more than likely, refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control.

      In this passage, when Paul condemns "abusers of themselves with mankind," he is speaking of male prost itutes.

      Then there are the people who claim that, even though science has proven that people don't choose their se xual orientation, the fact remains that hom ose xuality is unnatural. Romans 1:26-27 tells us that humans have a sinful nature, and therefore commit sins against God. Certain people are predisposed to be alcoholics and pedophiles, but that doesn't make their actions any less immoral. God tells us to "tear out your eye" if it makes you stumble. Why can't you just accept hom ose xuality as the part of your nature you must deny?

      Because the Bible has gone through so many translations, and through the hands of many people (some being non-believers), it is not surprising that the meaning has become a little fuzzy in parts.

      Hom ose xuality is normal. The phrase "para physin" appears in the original text for this verse. This term is often translated to mean "unnatural;" however, more accurate translation would be unconventional.

      Proof for this can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:14 where Paul uses this phrase to refer to men with long hair (unconventional, not unnatural) and in Romans 11:24 where Paul uses this phrase to refer to the positive action God made to bring together the Jews and Gentiles.

      All in all, hom ose xuality is obviously not a sin, unless you take passages from the Bible and add your own words or you just try really hard to interpret it that way. Let's just remember Galatians 5:14, where Paul stated, "the whole Law is fulfilled in one Statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'


      Bob – the biggest liar anywhere. We've pointed out over and over again you are using reports from well known hate groups that the experts in this country have proven are false. The experts in this country are stating that heterose xual behavior and hom ose xual behavior are normal aspects of human se xuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bise xual 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. 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 hom ose xuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      Like their heterose xual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships. Indeed, many of them do and that large proportions are currently involved in such a relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years.

      Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-se x partners closely resemble those of heterose xual partnerships. Like heterose xual couples, same-se x couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterose xual and same-se x couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Research examining the quality of intimate relationships also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterose xual couples.

      A large number of gay and lesbian couples raise children. Children and teenagers whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of secure home environments are more likely to flourish – and this is just as true for children of same-se x parents as it is for children of opposite-se x parents. Based on research findings, mental health professionals have also reached a consensus that the quality of relationships among significant adults in a child’s or adolescent’s life is associated with adjustment. When relationships between parents are characterized by love, warmth, cooperation, security, and mutual support, children and adolescents are more likely to show positive adjustment. In contrast, when relationships between parents are conflict-ridden and acrimonious, the adjustment of children and adolescents is likely to be less favorable. These correlations are just as true for children of same-se x parents as for children of opposite-se x parents.

      Assertions that heterose xual couples are inherently better parents than same se x couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterose xual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature. On the contrary, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterose xual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted as children reared by heterose xual parents.

      January 22, 2013 at 9:02 am |
    • RickBangkok

      Really then why was one of his most trusted team a Gay man named Bayard Rustin, who led planning for the march on Washington in 1963? Look it up in your library or even Wikipedia.

      January 22, 2013 at 9:46 am |
    • The Colosseum is Full

      HIs positionh would be probably the same as mines.. I accept the gay marriage issue as viable for gay people who wish to legitimize their relationship as far as the state is concerned... and the Church would not participate in it at all...
      ex communicate any church which did participate in it..
      Christianis do not own marriage .. it is a worldwide possession... however a Christians marriage should bfollow the guideliines of the bible ... 🙂 🙂 🙂

      January 22, 2013 at 10:25 am |
    • Akira

      You have no idea what MLK would do today.
      As I have seen you on other blogs trashing MLK, evoking him now to further your agenda seems opportunist and dishonest.
      If you do not believe in gay coitus/marriage, fine; don't engage in it or marry one.

      January 22, 2013 at 10:34 am |
    • sam stone

      Doogie: What the bible says does mean anything in our legal system

      January 22, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • sam stone

      "does NOT mean anything"

      January 22, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • New Athiest

      I have no respect for people who pick and choose what parts of the old testament to believe in.
      It is also an abomination before god to eat things from the sea that have no scales.
      Wearing clothing of mixed fabrics is sinfull too.
      I won't even start on all the people we should start stoning to death.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • What?

      New Athiest, so much for your comprehension of scriptures. Eating scavengers that clean the oceans floors is NOT a sin against God. It's God's warning to man that scavengers are/can be detrimental to your health.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • What?

      sam stone, our legal system was founded on God's truth.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • sam

      What – you're an idiot. Our legal system was not founded on 'god's truth'. Nice try. Run along.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:37 am |
    • What?

      261 Ministers Proclamation, judgement starts at the pulpit. With that said, here's a few more scriptures you can twist and turn in your carnal mindset.

      2 Peter 2:1
      1 Corinthians 6:9-10
      Romans 1:18-28
      Jeremiah 6:15-16

      As for the Apostle Paul, he was the designated Apostle for the gentiles. You'd know that if you had eyes to see and ears to hear God's spiritual truth. Since you don't know God and worship Satan. Enjoy this life of denying Jesus, for he will surely deny you and your sinful ways.

      January 22, 2013 at 11:58 am |
    • sam stone

      what?: really? how many of the 10 commandments are covered by the criminal law?

      January 22, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
    • Bob

      Hey "What?" those scriptures have been refuted in that same post, that just proves you can't comprehend what you read, including what's in the bible.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • Topher

      Hey, you were supposed to provide a list of these ministers months ago ... do you have it now?

      January 22, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
    • sam stone

      Topher: What does action vs thought have to do with legal rights?

      January 22, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, it isn't, Doogie, dear. Which is good because you're as gay as a day in May. Not a thing wrong with that at all. You can marry Blob at the National Cathedral if you wish. Be sure to wear white, honey.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
    • What?

      Bob, what part of "traditions of man denying Jesus' spiritual truth" do you not comprehend? These preachers can play man made church all they want, Jesus still rejects them for they are rejecting him.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • kill bill again

      you must of performed a seance, and spoke with The good Dr. yourself...shame on you for not inviting your fellow bloggers

      January 22, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • sam stone

      Doogie: Thinking a lot about gay coitus? Is that closet a bit too confining?

      January 22, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
    • End Religion

      From Obama's 2nd inauguration speech:
      "We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth."

      Learn about Stonewall and why Thuglass' assetion about MLK seems improbable.

      January 22, 2013 at 8:44 pm |
  20. Reality

    MLK, a great man with a flawed theology and history thereof.

    January 22, 2013 at 7:22 am |
    • The Colosseum is Full

      your ideas are made so clear what is not flawed ..

      January 22, 2013 at 10:26 am |
    • kill bill again

      we're all born flawed/ imperfect....being flawed is the very nature of human/mortal existance, and your point is.....
      another angle of this is that there is no such thing as "perfection", since everything that is exists is technically "flawed" even when created by machine, because man made machine.....so now we can say we are all perfect, and everything is perfect no matter what.......anyway this sounds more soothing to the ear.

      January 22, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • Reality

      Only for those who are not reading challenged:

      Saving Christians to include MLK's family from the Infamous Resurrection Con/

      From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15: 14, Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

      Even now Catholic/Christian professors of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.

      To wit;

      From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:

      "Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
      Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.

      Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

      Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.

      The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

      Only Luke records it. (Luke mentions it in his gospel and Acts, i.e. a single attestation and therefore historically untenable). The Ascension ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers.

      The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "

      "In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."

      The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.

      With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:

      An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,


      "Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

      p.168. by Ted Peters:

      Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "

      So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.

      January 22, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
1 2 3
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.