So the bible says homosexuality is a sin? - Page 2

[Adaline'sMama]

Originally Posted by Alenushka 

First of all, what kind of  sexual act people performed does not make up their sexual orientations.

More straight than gay male couple engage in anal sex now.

A straight man and straight women who are having oral and dildo assisted anal sex only are not gay (but according to your MIL logic they would be

Secondly, who cares what Bible says? It has been mistranslated and misinterpreted by people for hundreds of years. If someone wants to follow it literally and do things like cutting off their left hand if they wiped their butt with it, or have 700 concubines or sell their children into slavery , it is between  them and the local jurisdiction. As long as they do not trample on my freedoms, I do not care what bible followers do.

Thirdly, I am so sorry that your MIL is bigot.

This is the religon forum. I think the OP actually specifically asked why Christians (most of whom do have faith in the written word) are against homosexuality and asked about a specific passage. Do you have anything positive to add, or are you just going around the boards arguing with everyone everywhere? For the record, I am neither Christian and I am pro gay marriage. But, I do understand that a lot of people put a lot of stock in the Bible and it is rude to say things like "Who cares what the Bible says?"



OP, My father is a Presbyterian minister who is pro gay marriage. He explained it to me in the same way that Genifer posted. I think there are a lot of people that believe that it isnt a sin to be homosexual, just to act upon it. I've never understood this, because it is a sin to commit adultery, but its also a sin to covet thy neighbor's wife. Therefore, how could it be a sin to engage in homosexuality, but not a sin to think about it? It just doesnt make any sense to me.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by Nazsmum 

[...] BUT many other "things" are wrong. WHY the christian single out GAYS is BEYOND me. It gives Jesus a bad name.

I think the obsession some denominations have with homosexuality muddies the issue a great deal. Traditional Christianity has always been strong on sexual restraint and chastity. That means it is generally opposed to all forms of fornication and sexual excess, including adultery, multiple partners, pornography, masturbation, orgies, bestiality, and anything else except relations within an opposite-sex, monogamous marriage. That would include same sex partners by definition. However, there is a world of difference between noting that my particular religion forbids me from having two husbands, sleeping with another woman, and looking at dirty pictures, on the one hand; and singling out homosexual acts while brushing aside other kinds of fornication.

It becomes even harder to defend when the issue is secular law (same sex marriage or civil unions) rather than religious principles. Churches may be right to maintain their traditional interpretation of sexual morality, but it should not apply to the public at large, most of whom do not share the same religious convictions. 

The passages from 1 Timothy and Romans which Genifer quotes are good examples of the Biblical view of this question, allowing for the fact that all forms of fornication would have been considered a serious sin. So yes, it is safe to say that homoerotic acts were included among the acts considered sinful by the early Church. How that relates to the law in a largely secular society is another matter, unless your MIL wants to place a legal ban on every sinful sex act (which has been tried before, by the way, and was not wildly successful).

[nicolelynn]

So basically, even among Christians the statement "homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so" is up for A LOT of interpretation and debate.

I grew up an evangelical because "the Bible tells me so" about many issues. I've learned so much of it was misinterpreted, based on human bias, culture, etc etc.

I highly recommend this documentary: http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/indexe.htm . I'll admit when I watched it a couple years ago I still wasn't completely convinced (though I long took a libertarian stance of being fine with gay marriage as a government thing, because that was separate from my religious beliefs), but over two years this issue is resolved in my mind. Not to brag, but I have studied the Bible several times over, was an evangelical missionary, most of my church, family and friends still believe this way, etc...so I know all the arguments and scriptures about homosexuality being a sin, and I just don't buy it any more.

As some PP have pointed out some of these points:

#1: Soddom and Gomorrah's sin was neglecting the poor (watch out USA haha)

#2: the only sexual sin mentioned was gang rape, had nothing to do with the sexual behavior of consenting adults

#3: interestingly, female homosexuality is never mentioned in the Old Testament (my Mom likes to point out she thinks that's because God understood those poor lonely women who dozens of them were forced to marry the same man, of course He would let them find some fulfillment in each other haha)

#4: All Old Testament laws concerning homosexuality are ceremonial and smack dab next to not eating shellfish, wearing clothing of mixed fabric, etc. Why dismiss the latter two but keep the former?

#5: Jesus NEVER talked about homosexuality, so I doubt it was of great importance to Him. Homosexual acts were very prevalent in that society as well.
(Side note: this is my biggest reason for leaving evangelicalism (though I still claim Christianity, albeit a Univeralist/mystic/gnostic interpretation): the church claims to follow Christ but actually has become a Paul cult. Everything Jesus said is filtered through or expounded upon by Paul in our opinion. I dunno, if I personally am going to claim Christ, I am going straight to the source)

#6: New Testament passages dealing with homosexuality are very sketchy about the word interpreted, etc

#7: Paul, bless him, though inspired was still human...contradicted himself an awful lot and we shouldn't take the things he said as infallible. We can draw from him that he was ok with slavery, not ok with homosexuality and ok with oppressing women. Oh, also for the evangelicals who think the Bible is all about family values so work to legislate such, he was not all about family. He highly discouraged marriage all together. But he didn't sound exactly against Old Testament style polygamy. See, where he said elders should be "the husband of one wife" it was an issue of having enough time to devote to church ministry, he never actually said that it was a sin to be polygamous, even in his infamous list of sins including "homosexuality" that keep you out of the kingdom of God. On that note, remember culturally that "homosexuality" included man-boy forced relationships...I could go on and on.....

So my personal conclusion is that if you believe that the Bible is the 100% inerrant, infallible word of God AND that church history/tradition is authoritative then yes, you MIGHT be able to reason that homosexuality is a "sin". Even then, your case is weak. When you look at the modern science that proves it is NOT a choice, realize what a weak "case" the Bible has against it, if you believe in any form of a loving God...then well, you end up doing a 180 on the matter like I did =). God bless my homosexual sisters and brothers!

[Koalamom]

Great post Nicole! Interesting points you made.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by nicolelynn 

So basically, even among Christians the statement "homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so" is up for A LOT of interpretation and debate.

What is pretty clear is that the Bible/Church has always maintained that fornication is a sin. It could be argued that same sex couples are exempt from this law for one reason or another, but otherwise what the Old or New Testaments say specifically on the subject of homosexual acts is more or less irrelevant. 
 

[nicolelynn]

Right, and under old testament law one would be stoned for fornication. And again, according to Paul, fornication=bad, slavery=ok, etc. According to church tradition for ages until maybe hopefully not so much now: ok to own a wife as a piece of property. Many contradictions, are these things "God's way"? Just because we've "always" interpreted certain things one way doesn't mean that's "the truth". Besides, "fornication" in the New Testament mostly had to do with (and is translated as) temple prostitution and incestuous relationships ("someone has their father's wife"!). Polygamy is never called a sin in the Bible (in fact, it says that God gave all things into David's hand and that if he asked for more, including wives, He would have given it to him), masturbation is never mentioned in the Bible, etc.

Again, if church tradition is authoritative to you I don't have much to argue there, I would be considered a heretic to orthodoxy (strong gnostic leanings). What the Bible actually says, a bit more of a discussion there if you take it out of church tradition and current Christian culture. 


 

[LynnS6]

Originally Posted by nicolelynn 

(Side note: this is my biggest reason for leaving evangelicalism (though I still claim Christianity, albeit a Univeralist/mystic/gnostic interpretation): the church claims to follow Christ but actually has become a Paul cult. Everything Jesus said is filtered through or expounded upon by Paul in our opinion. I dunno, if I personally am going to claim Christ, I am going straight to the source)

Side note to your side note: You might find the book: Saving Jesus from the Church interesting. It was written by a Methodist minister, and that's one of his major points. For me, this book has been very thought provoking and really helped me reconcile some of the things about religion that bother me with the things that I feel deep down are true. I grew up Catholic, which had a heavy reliance on tradition; when I met dh I switched to liberal Lutheran (same service, more or less). But the Lutherans are really big on Paul because of Martin Luther's experiences while reading Paul's letters. I've never been part of a religion that believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible (and indeed, can't fathom that), so if you're a strong evangelic Christian, this book will probably not sit well with you.

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by nicolelynn 
I would be considered a heretic to orthodoxy (strong gnostic leanings).

Orthodoxy not orthodoxy.

Pet peeve. Makes my teeth itch.

[LoriBelle]

I'm a devout Christian, and I do believe in the Bible.  I also think it's rude to call people bigots simply because their beliefs differ from your own.  It's my belief (and it's a complicated, nuanced belief) that homosexual acts are sinful.  They are sinful in the same way that premarital sex, lying, adultery, gossip, rudeness, name-calling, and hatefulness are sinful.  And guess what?  We are all sinful beings.

As for the law, personally, I would prefer it if the government kept its nose out of our bedrooms.  Basically, that means that the government shouldn't care who is having sex with whom.  Ideally, we would have a system that allowed people to declare unions whether they are sexual partners or not, with more than one person if they so desire.  For instance, my widowed grandmother lives with her widowed sister.  Why should these two widows not reap the same tax benefits as an opposite-sex married couple of their same ages?  No, nothing hinky is happening between Grandma and her sister, but why should the government care?  I also favor legalizing polygamy (and allowing the laws we currently have to guard against any supposed attendant problems, such as welfare fraud, child abuse, underage marriage, etc.).  Why is it the government's business?  It's just not!

Also, I think we should be very careful about legislating morality when a person's actions don't affect anyone other than him/herself and possibly a willing partner.  For instance, I think premarital sex is morally and Biblically wrong.  That doesn't mean I think that people should be prosecuted for premarital sex!  I think lying is wrong, but that doesn't mean I favor throwing liars in jail and tossing the key (unless they lie to a government official or something).  I don't understand the evangelical seeming hatred toward gay people (and mind you, I'm an evangelical).  It just seems like people tend to use Scripture to conveniently deride what they would already have disapproved of in the first place. 

There's also the problem that if we try to illegalize what we perceive to be immoral behavior, we would only be impacting outward behavior (if at all), and not the heart within.  God cares deeply about what goes on inside, and if we want people's behavior AND heart to change, that's a change that really only comes through Christ, and not through the secular government.

As far as marriage, I believe I've already made myself clear as to my feelings about the government delving into the sexual or asexual nature of a union.

You will find Christians on all sides of this issue.  It is possible to be a Christian, to believe in the Bible, to feel that the Bible says homosexual behavior is a sin, AND to be unbothered by the advent of same-sex marriage in our secular government.  If the government was supposed to be run according to the Bible, it failed from its inception.  And maybe it did, I don't know...but this is what we have.  Yes, there are some Biblical principles incorporated into our laws (bankruptcy/jubilee, for instance), but by and large the legal system has never been about codifying the Bible.  That's as it should be.  Christians who are so keen on making their religious beliefs law need to think long and hard about how they would feel if they were a religious minority.  For instance, wouldn't it rub them the wrong way to be legally required to wear Muslim headcoverings or even a burqa?  Or if the public school teacher led their children in saying a Muslim or Pagan prayer each morning?  I'm getting off topic here, but I really do appreciate the need for separation of church and state, both to keep God out of government, and to keep the government out of God.

[nicolelynn]

Oh, thank you I appreciate that, but I DO know the difference, and I did mean orthodoxy lower case not the Eastern Orthodox church. There is orthodox Orthodoxy, orthodox Catholicism and orthodox Protestantism. As many differences as Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants have they ALL consider gnostics and Universalists heretics. They all teach their interpretation of the gospel is the only way to salvation and path to Christ and God.
 

Originally Posted by Tradd 

Orthodoxy not orthodoxy.

Pet peeve. Makes my teeth itch.

[genifer]

Nicolyn I was curious what the gnostic interpretation of the gospel was? I was talking about this with some friends last night, the fact that most churches, among protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc believe the same core things about Jesus, I would say there are slight nuances and minor differences but the core beliefs are the same. What does gnostics believe that is different. It might be more appropriate to start another thread, so I might do that in order to keep this one from going in another direction...

[Smokering]

I think there are a lot of people that believe that it isnt a sin to be homosexual, just to act upon it. I've never understood this, because it is a sin to commit adultery, but its also a sin to covet thy neighbor's wife. Therefore, how could it be a sin to engage in homosexuality, but not a sin to think about it? It just doesnt make any sense to me.

Orientation isn't the same as lustful thinking. Desire isn't the same thing as wallowing in that desire. It's a sin to covet your neighbor's wife, or indeed your neighbor, not to feel an involuntary attraction towards that person (which is really outside anyone's control, short of castrating oneself... presumably... although I'm not really up on the psychological effects of castration). I doubt any conservative Christian teachers mean to imply that it's OK for people to deliberately fantasise about illicit partners (of either sex).

Having read this thread, I'll add a few thoughts of my own...

1. I'm honestly not sure what I think about gay marriage, because I'm not sure what I think about the state's role in marriage in general. I do think there should be protections in place to ensure kids get cared for, and partners don't end up financially taken advantage of, but it's possible those things could be legislated for in a way that was totally separate from marriage. I can also see a benefit to the government by cohabiting couples, simply due to it being more ecologically sound (like carpooling), but there need be no sexual component to the relationship for that... so! It's a knotty question.

2. I object to a belief I often see in this debate (which may have been implied in this thread, I'm not sure) that Christians should leave their Christian beliefs out of their voting habits. If a Christian feels homosexual sex is sin and the legalisation of gay marriage would mean his tax dollars were funding sin, which would presumably make him uncomfortable, then he should be able to vote against gay marriage. Separation of church and state does not mean that religious people should be bullied into adopting a fundamental disconnect within their worldviews and "vote like an atheist" (or more precisely a secular humanist, which seems to be the worldview du jour). The idea that the USA is a Christian nation is tendentious, but it's certainly not officially a secular humanist nation either; so it's absurd to imply that citizens ought to put aside their beliefs and vote according to someone else's. And yes, this does mean that some religiously-motivated policies might influence law. That's what happens in a democracy comprised largely of religious people.

On a related note, Christians - at least ones with a decent grasp of philosophy - don't just use their Christianity when it comes to voting on contentious issues like abortion and gay marriage. They use that same worldview to shape their views on the legality of murder, tax fraud, food adulterants... and because most non-religious people agree with them, that's not seen as a problem. It seems to me that that's inconsistent. If Christians should "leave the Bible out" of their politics on gay marriage, they should leave the Bible out of their opinion on the morality of rape as well. Which, for certain Christians, is philosophically problematic, to say the least.

3. I agree wholeheartedly with PPs that thinking something is a sin does not equate to hating or ill-treating those who perform that sin. I happen to think Christians should be the last people to sneer at gay people, use derogatory terms and so on. (Also, people who lambast Christians for being "bigots" for thinking homosexuality is a sin, and yet routinely use "You're gay" as an insult, mock gay people and make limp-wrist signs at people who annoy them in traffic... yeah, not cool. On many levels.)

4. I also agree with PPs that the gay issue is usually taken way out of context - by both sides of the debate - of the whole Biblical picture of sexuality. Let's face it, Biblically speaking, most sexual acts are sinful! Even sex between a husband and wife (even in a Protestant non-quiver-full rubric, in which contraception is generally permitted) runs the risk of being sinful if the parties are being selfish/manipulative/secretly fantasising about someone else, which probably happens a lot more than we'd like to admit. I don't think demonising homosexual sex and being more or less OK with, say, an engaged Christian couple living together, is reflective of Biblical morality so much as social mores. Most Christians know people who have gotten divorced on unbiblical grounds, slept around, withheld sex from a partner out of spite, etc, and we can generally wrap our minds around the concept that those people don't have horns and a tail - possibly because we've done those things ourselves. Just because we may not have been tempted to sleep with a woman doesn't mean the woman who has is any more sinister than the woman who's been tempted to sleep with her married handyman or Harrison Ford.

5. WRT a previous post... Paul did not say "slavery is OK". Also, lesbianism is mentioned in Romans 1 - I know there are those who say it refers to heterosexual women sleeping with women, but I don't think that's very good exegesis.

[kangamitroo]

I know the OP was back in June (and hopefully the conversation with your MIL has progressed beyond impasse).  but I found this article on homosexuality & the Bible to be helpful, clear, and non-confrontational.  maybe another poster will, also.

http://www.soulforce.org/resources/what-the-bible-says-and-doesnt-say-about-homosexuality/

(About the source website: "Soulforce is committed to relentless nonviolent resistance to bring freedom to lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, and queer people from religious & political oppression.")

[Smokering]

Um, I wouldn't recommend that article. His exegesis is at times appalling. For instance...

The list goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king’s having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one’s parents nude.

Say what? I can only assume the "seeing one's parents nude" thing comes from the story of Noah, in which one of his sons was punished for laughing at his father's nakedness. No prohibitions on seeing parents nude in general; it's not mentioned. Birth control? Well, a minority of Christians oppose it based on texts like "children are a blessing from the Lord", but I'd hardly call that a "strict prohibition" again, it's not mentioned. "Discussing or even naming a sexual organ"? OK, I have no idea where that comes from. The Bible mentions sexual organs. Polygamy is never condoned by God; it's mentioned as a historical fact, along with the negative consequences that almost invariably came from it. And to say "The Bible said Solomon was wise - the Bible says Solomon had many wives - therefore the Bible considers Solomon's many wives to be acceptable" is just illogical, especially when it's explicitly stated that Solomon's love for idol-worshipping women led him astray.

What else? Sex with prostitutes is condemned for both men and women, so that's just plain wrong. "Marriage of girls aged 11-13" - well, as far as I know the Bible doesn't actually name the ages of women married, but yes, it was a lot younger than people marry today. Back then, girls typically married at puberty - which would probably have been more like 13-15, surely? Isn't puberty at 11 a fairly recent phenomenon? It was a totally different cultural context, and not at all the same as marrying an 11-year-old would be today. So if he's trying to imply that the Bible is somehow pro-child molesting..? I don't know. It's an ignorant thing to say, anyway. "Treatment of women as property" is debatable, again; he doesn't back up his statements, so it's hard to know what he means. Same with "slavery and sex with slaves" - is he familiar with what slavery entailed in biblical times? On what are his objections based?

And so on. I don't have time to go through the whole article, unless anyone desperately wants me to; but this guy, despite his "I'm honestly approaching the Scriptures and everyone else is blinded by bias" line, is either NOT knowledgeable about the Bible, or not honest about it. He's being a polemicist, but not a Biblical scholar.

[FarmerBeth]

Originally Posted by 2xy 

....and so long as gays who join in civil unions are afforded the same rights under the law as married couples enjoy.

Why Not Civil Unions?

  yeah that!  This is where we are currently at in Canada, with gay marriage being legal and provided by justice of the peace, etc, and I hope this doesn't change.  Our own church (Anglican) currently allows for the church to bless the marriage of gays married in a civil service, which is a step in the right direction, in my opinion.  However, I think the most important thing is the civil, legal support of gay marriage.  Individual religions should feel free to respectfully practice their religion as they see fit, and should not have to provide gay marriages, as belonging to the religion and its tenets is the choice of the individual.  The onus is on the government to protect the civil liberties of gays and afford them the same rights as everyone else.

lilyka, in response to your post.  I don't know enough about American law to know what the differences in treatment to common law partners are.  In Canada, common law partners have very similar rights.  In fact, DH and I lived years common law before legal marriage, and before I had a legal divorce to my ex husband (I could have forced the issue earlier, but I allowed him time to be willing to have the divorce, himself), and still my husband and I had very similar rights to a married couple in terms of entitlement to property, what would happen if one of us died, pensions, benefits, etc.  That being said, what was a civil union at the time made a big difference to us.  It felt good to recognize and celebrate our union and commitment to each other.  I think with all the struggles of gay couples, it must feel very special for them to be legally married.  And while I wouldn't want to see "penalties" for single or child free couples, their needs may be different at times.  Recognizing a common law or civil union provides for things like bereavement leave if a partner dies, or allowing a division of worldly goods if there is a dissolution of the partnership.  If unions were left entirely to churches, those wanting to celebrate their union would both have to conform to the values of the church.  I am Christian but my husband is pretty much Agnostic, despite spending his formative years in a German Catholic school and currently working in a religious hospital, he is not a believer in a way that he could stand before people of faith and pronounce his dedication to it in good conscience.  He still felt that getting legally married was pretty special even thought he didn't have a religious requirement for it.

And as to Biblical interpretation of this issue:  It's important to realize that the translation affects reading, and some things don't even translate.  This year, I just figured out that in Greek there are three words for love and they tell you context, but in English we have the one.  Simple matters like that.  There are also historical and cultural contexts to take into consideration.  For example, child prostitution by young boys (or forced on young boys) was more overt.  Even correctly translated, some practices may have had connections to other issues we are not considering with a modern mind.  And, there was an ever evolving Jewish law at play, too, with early Christians being in a no-mans land where they were frequently both Jewish (by birth) and Christian by choice.  Very learned scholars in history and theology have trouble sorting this stuff out, so I think using a Bible reading as a blanket condemnation of a whole section of the population is a very dangerous thing.  How much kinder, more just, and safer to follow Jesus' commandment to love our neighbours as ourselves and leave out the judgement. 

[Psmythe]

I don't understand why the same people who have a huge issue with the government allowing gay marriage don't picket the courthouse when Justices of the Peace perform other types of secular marriage.  If marriage is "a sacred thing given by God that must be 'protected' from the sinful abuses of homosexuality," shouldn't they be just as mad that my husband and I are living together under pretense of marriage without the blessing of a clergyman?  Our JP asked if we wanted the God stuff or not, which is funny, because really she's not sanctioned by any church to put it in...

(Sorry to be a little off topic/sideways of topic from your original post Koalamom!)

I do think it's weird that your MIL chose that particular story as her proof that the bible is against homosexuality.  I think it's a common thing though.  It seems wild to me the number of people who are willing to base their opinions and life choices on a book they aren't actually that familiar with.  I'm well studied in the Bible, I thought of several of the previous posters' examples right away, it's not like it isn't in there, just not really where she's citing it.  I've also recently read somewhere that a number of sayings/proverbs that are secular in origin or lines from sermons or hymns are held up as biblical quotes in general.  I'm sure Benjamin Franklin would be mortified to know that he's constantly having his byline stolen by God...

[Psmythe]

I also agree with a pp--

The Bible says a lot of things.  People seem perfectly happy to pick on Gay Marriage without storming the garment district to demand an end to multi-fiber fabrics, staging boycotts to keep grocery stores from stocking unclean foods, or insisting that their neighbors be punished for having a field with more than one type of crop growing in it.  I for one am a firm believer in companion crops, AND gay marriage. 

[Smokering]

The Bible says a lot of things.  People seem perfectly happy to pick on Gay Marriage without storming the garment district to demand an end to multi-fiber fabrics, staging boycotts to keep grocery stores from stocking unclean foods, or insisting that their neighbors be punished for having a field with more than one type of crop growing in it.

That strawman has already been addressed in this thread.

[cappuccinosmom]

I don't understand why the same people who have a huge issue with the government allowing gay marriage don't picket the courthouse when Justices of the Peace perform other types of secular marriage.  If marriage is "a sacred thing given by God that must be 'protected' from the sinful abuses of homosexuality," shouldn't they be just as mad that my husband and I are living together under pretense of marriage without the blessing of a clergyman? 

Nope.  Because their issue is not who does the marrying or where it takes place.  Plenty of Christians go the JP route.  AFAIK, there are no Biblical instructions for Christians about the mode or methodology of a wedding, though there's plenty of instruction about behavior before and after marriage.  It is the participants in  the marriage that is an issue for those who oppose gay marriage.  And the issue of homosexuality itself.  Anything outside of male+female in marriage is a problem.

I will give you that the focus is inordinately on homosexuality, and that Christian churches often excuse or brush under the rug other expressions of sexuality that are technically illegitimate in their beliefs.  However, were that hypocrisy to be resolved, I doubt it would make the anti-gay marriage opinion any more acceptable to those who are pro.  It's existence just provides ammunition, and rightfully so, against those who are perceived as hypocritical and self-righteous.

[surism]

I was lead to believe, well at least through my own translations of reading the bible, that it was soddemy not homosexuality which is the sin. The reason being reproduction is unattainable through this method of intimacy. If Christians actually lived by the word of Jesus, I may like them little more lol, the dude had some not bad suggestions for living life. 

However, the bible may lead some to believe that gayness (no offence intended) is wrong, but that incest (no offence intended)  is right...so...it is a scary f*cki*ng book that should be well avoided by all...

My view...put what you want where you want as long as where you are putting it wants it there too :D lol