home
RSS
Does Phil Robertson get the Bible wrong?
Phil Robertson of A&E's "Duck Dynasty" has been suspended for his comments on homosexuality.
December 20th, 2013
11:23 AM ET

Does Phil Robertson get the Bible wrong?

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN) - The Robertson family of "Duck Dynasty" fame has rallied around its patriarch, saying his controversial comments on homosexuality are "grounded in the teachings of the Bible." But Scripture is fiercely contested ground, and some experts say Phil Robertson misinterprets a key Bible verse.

A&E, the network that broadcasts the hugely popular "Duck Dynasty" show, suspended Robertson for a now infamous interview with GQ magazine. In the article, Robertson, who became a born-again Christian in the 1970s after a prodigal youth, is asked to define "sin."

Here's what Robertson says: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

Robertson, 67, then paraphrases a Bible passage from the New Testament: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers - they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.”

That's a pretty close citation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which is a letter from Paul, often called the father of Christianity theology, to a fledgling Christian community in Corinth, Greece.

Here's what Paul's passage says, as rendered in the New International Version, by far the most popular translation among evangelicals and conservative Christians such as Robertson:

"Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Evangelicals, who make up about a quarter of the U.S. population, tend to take that passage at face value. The Robertson family pastor, for instance, told CNN on Thursday that "the verse explains itself."

Robertson himself is no religious neophyte. He's an elder in the White's Ferry Road Church of Christ and offers spiritual counseling, charity and Bible studies to many in his hometown of West Monroe, Louisiana, the family pastor, Mike Kellett told CNN.

The "Duck Dynasty" star also preaches around the country to conservatives that flock to hear his blend of woodsy, plainspoken Christianity.

Many conservatives backed Robertson's views on Scripture and homosexuality this week, if not the "crude" way he argued his point to GQ.

My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality

But other Bible experts said the Scripture Robertson cited isn't quite clear about homosexuality.

"A lot of people misread this text because it's so complicated," said O. Wesley Allen Jr., an associate professor at Lexington Theological Seminary in Kentucky.

First, scholars say, we have to look at the context surrounding Paul's letter.

The Christian leader is trying to get the quarreling Corinthians to stop taking each other to civil courts and being judgmental. "The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already," Paul says.

Things were supposed to be different after they became Christian believers, Paul continues; they were supposed to stop their sinful ways.

Then Paul lists some of their sins of the past, including greed, drinking too much, worshipping idols and sexual immorality. "That is what some of you were," Paul says. "But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

The list of sins is likely based on rumors that Paul heard about Corinth, says Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania who has studied the Bible's teachings on homosexuality. Bible scholars call it a "vice list," and it appears several times in Scripture.

So what does Paul's "vice list" say about homosexuality? That's the tricky part.

The first word Paul uses is "malakoi," which means "soft" in Greek, according to Allen. By analogy, the word came to mean "effeminate," which is how the King James Version of the Bible translates it.

"In the ancient world, it would refer to a boy in a relationship with an older man," Allen said. "It was pederasty, not homosexuality as we think of it today."

The other relevant word on Paul's "vice list" is "arsenokotai," which means "male sex." It refers to the other half in the man-boy relationship, common in Greece at the time, Allen said, the older male having sex with the "soft one."

"It isn't anything to do with what we would see today in an intimate, mutual relationship between gay adults," said Allen, who is co-authoring an upcoming book on homosexuality and heterosexuality in the church.

My Take: The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality

Even so, scholars such as Allen acknowledge there are no Bible passages that support same-sex relationships, and at least seven that appear to condemn gay sex.

"There's no way around the fact that those passages take a negative view of homosexuality, and nowhere in the Bible is a positive view offered," Allen said. "So conservatives and liberals continue to debate."

Liberals say that some parts of the Bible offered particular truths for a specific times and places but those times and places, as well as human understanding of sexuality, have progressed dramatically.

"The Bible may be divinely inspired, but its authors were human and saw, as St. Paul puts it, through a glass darkly," said Jim Naughton, a Christian gay rights activist and communications consultant. "On the subject of homosexuality, the Bible doesn’t mean what Phil Robertson thinks it means."

Conservatives such as Robertson, on the other hand, argue that the Bible is the bedrock of their faith, unchanging and unalterable. "We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word," the Robertson family said Thursday.

For decades, the gulf between the two sides has divided denominations, churches and families. To paraphrase Lincoln, both sides read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and both invoke his aid to argue against each other. Which is why our contemporary debate over homosexuality is so fierce, and so seemingly unending.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Christianity • Church • Culture wars • Discrimination • Ethics • evangelicals • Faith • Gay marriage • Gay rights • gender issues • Prejudice • Same-sex marriage • Sexuality

soundoff (5,719 Responses)
  1. chris

    you cant force a gay person to like straights as you cant force a straight person to like gays

    December 20, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • JORGE WASHINSEN

      I do not know but one side who is pushing the issue.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
  2. Kathy

    This is a top-rated show. If A&E cancels Phil Robertson, the Robertson family will find a new home. A&E are a bunch of money grubbing hypocrites trying to appease the very people that don't watch the show to begin with.

    If I find a show offensive, I switch the channel. I adore Duck Dynasty as my weekly guilty pleasure because it makes me smile, relate to raising my own kids and a friendly reminder of my faith.

    Haters: Don't watch. Lovers: Call or write to A&E – at the present time, they are not even answering their main phone. It's going to voice mail and then disconnecting.

    December 20, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • littleM

      AMEN !!!

      December 20, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Actually, the network probably owns the rights to the show so odds are it won't pop up on a new network. If the show is cancelled, the Duck Dynasty crew can try to create a new show on a new network, but odds are that any new show would be a failure. You just don't catch lightning in a bottle twice and pop culture popularity is a fleeting thing anyway.

      The show will survive or not, the family will enjoy a few more years of fame, and eventually this will all be forgotten.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
      • lwagner1998

        YOu really think Duck Dynasty would fail if it went to another channel ? I highly doubt that.

        December 20, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
  3. racnem

    Christians are supposed to tolerate others in a spirit of love. As long as there is time, this is hope for erring ones. But Christians don't have to cave to popular opinion. A sin is a sin. But we live and let live. God will sort it all out.

    December 20, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • LivinginVA

      Do you also feel the same way about those who work on the Sabbath? Seems to me that Christians "caved" on that long ago – in spite of it being one of the big 10.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
      • ace

        If people would actually study what they said before they said it, they would have their own answer. To the sabbath it was a old covenant established for the nation of Israel only. It was a coven with God and for them to be set apart from the world. when you get to the new testament wich brings a end to the law(not the old testament) cause the old covenant (not old testament)was from the exodus to the crucifiction and ressurection. Christ says come unto me all you labor and our heavy laden. I wil give you rest. rest for your soul. Christ is our sabbath, Paul even goes further to say that now in Christ you find all the feasts the holy days the passovers etc. so now there is no more a specific day of rest set aside for observance. But a man can observe any day set aside for the Lord.

        December 20, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
  4. Larr Carrier

    Don't misquote the Bible as obviously you haven't read the real interpretatio. It means payment in court for abuse of animals or people. Hence an eye for an eye You shall not have pity. This same text also appears in Deut 19:21: וְלֹא תָחוֹס, עֵינֶךָ: נֶפֶשׁ בְּנֶפֶשׁ, עַיִן בְּעַיִן שֵׁן בְּשֵׁן, יָד בְּיָד, רֶגֶל בְּרָגֶל.
    And thine eye shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
    We therefore expect the phrase to have similar meanings in the two places. Rashi notes this reasoning on Deut 25:12.
    Rabbinic tradition understands the latter to call for not amputation but financial compensation. Rashi cites Sifrei and the Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kamma 87a. The latter, a few pages earlier (83b), explains how we know that "eye for eye" (etc) isn't literal and means payment instead: Why [pay compensation]? Does the Divine Law not say ‘Eye for eye’? Why not take this literally to mean [putting out] the eye [of the offender]? — Let not this enter your mind, since it has been taught: You might think that where he put out his eye, the offender's eye should be put out, or where he cut off his arm, the offender's arm should be cut off, or again where he broke his leg, the offender's leg should be broken. [Not so; for] it is laid down, ‘He that smiteth any man. . .’ ‘And he that smiteth a beast . . .’ (Lev 24 various) just as in the case of smiting a beast compensation is to be paid, so also in the case of smiting a man compensation is to be paid. And should this [reason] not satisfy you, note that it is stated, ‘Moreover ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death’ (Num 35:31), implying that it is only for the life of a murderer that you may not take ‘satisfaction’ (i.e. ransom), whereas you may take ‘satisfaction’ [even] for the principal limbs, though these cannot be restored.’ (Soncino translation)
    The talmud here goes on to bring further parallels between killing and animals and injuring people, further making the argument that if financial compensation applies to one (as stated in the torah) it also applies to the other.

    December 20, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • John Pacella

      Wow...

      December 20, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
  5. Bob Bobson

    Christian Friends

    I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2.

    Clearly states he should be put to death.

    Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

    December 20, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Esa

      Your talking about your Jewish friends homie. Christians follow Christ and their doctrine derives from the New Testament. Nice try though but you sound just as ignorant as the rest of these idiots who keep quoting from the Old Jewish Testaments.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
      • John Pacella

        Guess Ol' Phil is not a Christian since he was quoting the Old Testament?

        December 20, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
        • Esa

          Wow... Really... just do yourself a favor and stop writing you manifest whats wrong with all you idiots attacking Phil Robertson. You dont even know what your talking about... do yourself a favor read the 5th paragraph of this article again! Learn what your criticizing before you do it...

          *He was "paraphrasing the New Testament"

          *Guess that doesnt make him a Jew but it does make you look ignorant/stupid because you dont even know what your talking about... you didnt even read the article otherwise you wouldnt have made such a miss informed dumb remark.

          December 20, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
  6. truth

    The NIV version of the bible had a lesbian on the board. I wonder why its watered down?

    December 20, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
  7. Bob Bobson

    Friends

    When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Leviticus 1:9.

    The problem is, my neighbours.

    They claim the odor is not pleasing to them.

    Should I smite them?

    December 20, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • J

      Well, yes. Obviously. The Bible is very clear about this.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
  8. JORGE WASHINSEN

    It makes no difference as long as he believes it.We have seen politicians change and screw up every law ever made to suit their voters.

    December 20, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
  9. jerry hitsman

    Dont listen to them phil we got freedom of speach in this great country.You keep doing what you do we love ya bro.

    December 20, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • jerry hitsman

      And remember if all else fails your still a millionare lol

      December 20, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • aces2jokers

      freedom of speech does not apply to contractual issues. This is a civil matter between A&E and Phil Robertson. A&E has the right to pull anyone from their station who can potentially cause harm to their business. You don't quite understand the concept of freedom of speech.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
      • Ole Olay

        they can do that, but they cant change his opinion or my support.

        December 20, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
  10. Mark

    The Bible has hundreds of "offensive," confusing statements – think stoning for disobeying parents, women keeping silent in church, killing infidels, gouging out your eye if you lust, etc., etc. If you're going to espouse the Bible as the literal Word of God, then you'll have a lot of (convoluted) explaining to do – whether you're a preacher, layman, theologian, or famous redneck.

    December 20, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Invicta17

      Your use of the term "Redneck" is proof to me of your bigoted mind. Pot, meet kettle.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
      • John Pacella

        Yeah, that "redneck" comment was not politically correct. Try to be more factual, e.g. a former wife-beater, small time criminal and recovering alcoholic whom resides in his country estate.

        December 20, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
        • Esa

          ... who now does more positive, charitable, and good things in peoples lives than you ever will. Because he is a Chrstian

          December 20, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
  11. Bob Bobson

    Friends

    I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Leviticus.15: 19-24.

    The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    December 20, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I've got Leviticus 19:28 tattooed on my ass.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • John Pacella

      Obviously, just ask Phil for his opinion on the matter, just another of women's "quirks".

      December 20, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
  12. hannah1

    Who cares how this Redneck ignoramus interprets his bible?? If he chooses to be a public figure, he needs to keep his big mouth SHUT, and keep his ignorance and bigotry to himself. I hope they yank this piggy show off cable, right along with that "honey boo boo" thing.!

    December 20, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • JORGE WASHINSEN

      keep dreaming maybe it will happen.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
      • Esa

        Hanna1....

        I care how this Redneck ignoramus interprets his bible...! And he's right. Now go stuff your face.

        December 20, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
    • Invicta17

      "Redneck" is a racial slur. You appear to be racist and a bigot yourself.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • Ole Olay

      Im sure he could care less about your opinion as well

      December 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
    • Ole Olay

      So much for freedom of speech LOL, it only applies to gay agenda nowadays>?

      December 20, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
  13. Karen

    I think we should all be more concerned with the greedy part than any other......... greed is the greatest sin of all! Most all so-called Christians in this country are greedy and know nothing of the true meaning of Christ and His message. The Bible wasn't written by Jesus. It was compiled hundreds of years later by a council of men (not God) based on their interpretation of what should be shared with the general public. Then for a thousand years, only shared by priests and THEIR interpretation of the Word. Then Martin Luther said let the every man be able to read it and interprit himself. So, with that said, focus on the Love, Peace & Joy of Jesus. Why he was sent by the Father. Look and the mirror and if you can judge no Man, then you have truly found the Lord!

    December 20, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • hannah1

      Bah! Humbug! to your peace and joy. Look around you.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      "Greed is eternal"

      – 10th Rule of Acquisition

      December 20, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • Esa

      Your pretty ignorant Chick... the largest charities in the world are Christian charities mainly from America. When I went out to myself to volunteer serving food to the homeless during this past thanksgiving guess what the overwhelming majority of the people I was volunteering with were... they were Christians with their Church groups. I dare you to challenge that assertion woman and give me the names of any other group of faithful people who work harder to give back..!

      *Your ignorant and try masking your lack of sprituality by blaming Christians whose lives are much more fulfilling than yours

      December 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        The BIll and Melinda Gates Foundation is the biggest charity in the world.
        Some other expressly secular charities include:
        Doctors Without Borders, The Red Cross, Kiva, United Nation's Children's Fund, Amnesty International, Oxfam, The Mercy Corps, The Atheist Centre for India, EARTHWARD Inc, Fellowship of Freethought, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Atheists Helping the Homeless, American Humanist Association, Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort (SHARE), Humanist Insti/tute for Development Cooperation,Secular Center USA etc.

        December 20, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
        • Esa

          NEGATIVE... According to FORBES (not some amateur)... the 5 largest US charities are. 1. United Way (founded in 1887 by Church Leaders) 2. Salvation Army (a Christian denominational church) 3. Task Force for Global heath (founded by an former Lutheran missionary) 4. Feeding America (founded in St. Marys food bank Phoenix Az) 5. Catholic Charities USA ( self explanatory)

          *Now go run and tell that this is factual proof I wasnt making what i said up unlike you and the rest with your forked tongues.

          December 20, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
  14. Bob Bobson

    Friends

    I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.

    In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    December 20, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
  15. sm5574

    Consider these hairs sufficiently split.

    December 20, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
  16. Schtiggletz Nunyez

    "It seems like, to me, a (woman's love socket) - as a man - would be more desirable than a man's (poopchute). It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."
    ~ Phil Robertson

    Awesome and nicely stated. I dare you to challenge this guy's logic!

    December 20, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
    • John Pacella

      Exactly what our Lesbian sisters believe…oh, wait...

      December 20, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • John Patrick

      As a Liberal... I Couldn't Agree anymore with Phil.

      *CNN STOP GENERALIZING LIBERALS.... WE LOVE PHIL ROBERTSON TOO!!!!

      December 20, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • jerry hitsman

      lol dont people relize phil just dont care i live deep in the hills of kentucky we think the same way we realy just dont carebecouse when the day ends he still gonna be a millionare

      December 20, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • John

      Since when did logic play a role in who you love, and how you love? The brain is not the determinative part of the process.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • Kathleen

      Oh, please. Many men aren't content with her love bucket and want to shove it a women's poopchute too. What do you say about them.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
      • Esa

        We are talking about Religious beliefs values and norms not your opinion or anybody elses Karen. And according to Church doctrine shoving a male member in anything that is not a female member is wrong...! Doesnt matter what you think or do.

        December 20, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • Oh, stop

      You're not gay, neither is he; neither of you are qualified to speak of what gay people think.

      Why jerk wads like you forget that women are gay, also, is beyond me. I guess you men can't conceive that some women don't like your man handle.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
      • Esa

        whomp whomp whomp... good one

        December 20, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
  17. Bob Bobson

    Friends

    Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.

    Can you clarify?

    Why can't I own Canadians?

    December 20, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
    • Struve

      Bob, common tactic with Atheists to bring up slavery in order to discredit the bible. Exodus 22:21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.”

      December 20, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
      • John Pacella

        You ignored the Leviticus point and changed the topic. Typical bible thumper sleaze.

        December 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
        • Invicta17

          Christians do not follow the code of the Old Testament. I'm astounded at your lack of knowledge about Christianity. Do some actual research before you open that ignorant mouth of yours.

          December 20, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
        • Esa

          This is all part of the Old Testament and Jesus was sent as a living testament so all that was said before his arrival doesn't really matter its what comes after him through him and with him... buddy! its all about the New Testament not the Old thats why they are called Christians not Jews. Nice try though.

          December 20, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
        • John Pacella

          Don't follow the code of the Old Testament? Really, like Exodus and Deuteronomy? So, ol' Phil is not bound by the Ten Commandments? I learn so much about Amercian Christians in these threads!

          December 20, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
        • John Pacella

          BTW, the ex-wife beater was quoting the OLD TESTAMENT.

          December 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
      • PushingBack

        Well, that's kind of the point, the Bible contradicts just about everything it says in one form or another. Why? Because it's a collection of fictional tales written by thousands of people over thousands of years.

        And by the way, you did just change the topic instead of answering his post!

        December 20, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
        • Esa

          Read the 5th paragraph john moron

          December 20, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
    • Malcolm

      Either you're joking...or ignorant of the context in which the OT was written. Slavery was a reality throughout the world, not just among Jews. In no place does scripture advocate Slavery as a timeless ideal. It was teaching a specific people how to operate within a norm of their day. Also read the whole context in your Exodus passage. People often sold themselves into slavery, as a means of providing for themselves and their family. It was NOT like modern notions of slavery. But you can't understand that because you process the whole passage through your 21st century filter.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
      • John Pacella

        Which justifies Phil Robertson's ancient bible quotes in 2013…how?

        December 20, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
      • Mark

        Believers commonly argue that weird commands should be disregarded by manufacturing a context argument. Then they freely argue that plain statements should be taken at their face value, regardless if they don't fit the context. Don't expect to be taken seriously intellectually if you can't be intellectually honest.

        December 20, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
        • John Pacella

          Exactly…why should they let intellectual integrity get in the way of condemning "sinners"?

          December 20, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • Mark

      Well spoken sir! Do you have a complete list of these examples you can send me?

      December 20, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
  18. johnny

    Maybe if people weren,t so immoral we wouldn,t have aids, hiv, stds and other disease maybe GOD new better thats why he tried to warn us about sleeping around men with men, women with women and vice versa.

    December 20, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
  19. wendel

    duck dynasty really? are there really people out there that care what this guy says. Get a life.

    December 20, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
    • John Pacella

      Even the troglodytes in the Rethuglican party finally realized that Failin Pain was detriment; A&E just happens to be more nimble when faced with another backwoods bible thumper (and ex-wife beater).

      December 20, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Savannah Lorraine

      Yes, actually there are people who listen to him because some people still have a strong Christian faith and follow His word. Unfortunately, people forget what this country was built on Christian beliefs. In today's society, it seems that everyone wants to read into everything and give everything some deep rooted meaning that literally isn't said whatsoever. Or they are obsessed with all the violence, drama, and/or depressing news, shows, etc., that is displayed on our televisions 99% of the time. Duck Dynasty is ONE OF THE VERY FEW shows which have a wholesome meaning and ARE NOT ASHAMED TO SHOW THEIR CHRISTIAN FAITH TO ALL!

      December 20, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • Major Frost

      And I thought "Survivor" was about as low as television could go, but they keep digging deeper. Knowing that millions of people watch tripe like Honey Boo Whatever, Swamp People and now these Duck Morons is so depressing, They have the right to believe in invisible gods and the "teachings" of long dead idiots but the fact they actually have a national forum demeans us all.

      December 20, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
  20. Phil

    Romans 1:26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

    30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

    31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    The death spoken of here is a spirital death:...being seperated from God. There's no way to "mis-interpret" that.

    December 20, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • IrishinToronto

      It's 2000 year old fiction – who cares how you interpret it!

      December 20, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
      • PushingBack

        Exactly!!!

        December 20, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
Advertisement
About this blog

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